Thread: Genetically Modified Foods

Recently there was a huge ongoing debate about the introduction of Bt Brinjal (aubergines) for production in India. Few years ago Bt cotton was introduced and India went from a cotton importer to the world’s second largest producer and exporter of cotton. Banking on its success and the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, Monsanto (world’s largest seed producer and manufacturer of GM crops) and Mahyco (one of the largest seed companies in India) collaborated to bring the first GM food crop to India. It immediately stirred up a controversy, with 13 states banning it outright before the Central government came to a decision – which a few days ago, and India’s first GM food was rejected.

For those who are curious as to what Bt is – It’s a gene called ‘cry1Ac’ derived from the soil bacterium 'Bacillus thuringiensis' which is recombined with the food strain, hence ‘Bt’ crop name.



A few reasons given as to why bt brinjal was ‘unwelcome’ and rejected –

- Not satisfied with scientific research done
- Since it is genetically modified to contain a pesticide, this cannot be removed by washing and has to be eaten. Which isn’t exactly ‘healthy’
- GM crops threaten biodiversity and could kill local varieties
- There isn’t shortage of the crop
- You can’t use their seeds for reproduction/harvesting. The seeds have to be bought before harvesting each time from Monsanto/Mahyco at exuberant prices compared to regular seeds – which is too expensive for farmers (roughly 10$ for 100 grams)

GM crops grow faster and are resistant to insects/pests & diseases. They are consistent in quality and have higher yields. They can be engineered to be drought resistant and modified to not cause allergies (like peanuts and rice). In third world countries, their production could lower the high rates of starvation. They came into prominence in the 1990’s, finding a massive market in the Americas where GM crops have been flourishing ever since. Over 90% of the corn and soybean grown and consumed in the US is genetically modified. Though in the European Union the introduction of GM crops has been limited and under immense scrutiny. Germany has a GM potato stuck in the approval process for 14 years now.

Awhile back I watched Food, Inc. a documentary which enunciates the ‘Incorporation’ of food in the US. What is baffling is the revelation of how much corn and soybean is ‘incorporated’ into pretty much every damn food (and even non-food) item you see around and consume on a regular basis. Few items that have corn and/or soybean as ingredients –

Ketchup (eg. Heinz), cheese, twinkies, batteries, peanut butter (eg. Skippy’s), soft drinks - Coca Cola, jelly, maple syrup, juice (yes, even your pack of Tropicana!), diapers (Huggies!), fast food (McDonald’s, KFC, etc. etc.)…

Even cattle’s primary diet has been replaced from green grass/hay to GM corn. GM corn is sweet, golden and juicy and rich in starch content. So if you eat meat - you know where all that fat comes from!

Looking at this list I can safely say you and I and most of the people we know have consumed some form of GM food. If you’ve never eaten at a McDonald’s or ever had a sip of Coke in your life you may be the exemption. Kellogg’s cornflakes apparently use transgenic maize and genetically modified sugar (beets). A decade ago there was the whole Kellogg’s scandal where it was forced to shut down a plant because (quote) the company could not find corn guaranteed to be free of a genetically modified grain approved only for animal consumption (unquote).

It may be hard to believe, but genetically modified food is all around, and has crept up to us without our active knowledge. What is most worrying is that - as far as I know there isn’t any mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods for the consumer to know about it - so we tend not be aware of the food we are purchasing/eating.

What are your views on this?

A summation -
Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms --HGP Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues

GM Foods at a Glance - Institute for Responsible Technology

I am a big proponent of GM foods. I think they could be the key to solving world hunger. I think they have to be regulated though, to prevent corporations from just making money from rich countries and completely ignoring the poor countries. I think governments that ban GM foods are doing so prematurely, most likely to preserve the interests of their domestic industries.

I agree with the argument that there has not been enough scientific research done, and this definitely needs to be addressed. Even here in the US there are claims that the executives in the FDA were previously employed with companies like Monsanto and there may be conflicts of interest (e.g. they are conspiring with the corporations to pass their products without sufficient testing). That said though, I'm sure there already has been a substantial amount of testing done, there needs to be some agreed upon evidence scientists can provide that would prove if GM foods are ok to eat; we can't just constantly say over and over again that the testing is not sufficient. The fact that GM foods contain pesticide that cannot be removed by washing is not really a valid argument if the pesticide is proven harmful only to specific bugs and harmless to everything else.

I agree that GM crops do threaten biodiversity and kill local varieties, but I think the benefits of GM crops far outweigh this negative. If there's one thing I have faith in, it's science. If some disease or pest managed to become immune to the initial genetic modifications, I have full faith that scientists will be able to tweak their genetic formula to address the issue.

The argument that there isn't enough a shortage of crop is complete nonsense unless you're looking at only your country and ignoring the rest of the world. I can't even believe starvation is still a factor in this day and age. We've gotten rid of diseases like small pox and polio, but we haven't eliminated *starvation*?! WTF

It is true that collecting GM seeds for re-planting is illegal, but there are good reasons for this. First and foremost is because the seed is the intellectual property of the company that created it. Secondly is because 2nd generation seeds introduce mutations that may conflict with the genetic modifications that made the 1st gen effective. Thirdly, the claim that it is too expensive for farmers is also false because they just relay the cost on to consumers. GM crops are a fact of life in this day and age, and many more farmers make their living growing them than regular crops. Lastly, you're right in that there is no requirement to label GM foods, but really GM foods are the norm rather than the exception. It might be more effective (and better marketing) to label foods that are *not* GM. Companies like Whole Foods charge a premium for foods that are all organic, and I can easily see this being a niche market category.

Excellent post Jingleheimer, + repped.

I think they have to be regulated though, to prevent corporations from just making money from rich countries and completely ignoring the poor countries.

What would be worrisome isn't corporations ignoring poor countries, but looting them! Corporations also tend to use developing countries as 'guinea pigs' or dumping grounds for testing their seeds.

That said though, I'm sure there already has been a substantial amount of testing done, there needs to be some agreed upon evidence scientists can provide that would prove if GM foods are ok to eat; we can't just constantly say over and over again that the testing is not sufficient.

Unfortunately this has always been a gray area, and is probably the biggest hindrance when it comes to the propagation of GM foods - which is unfortunate because this is the biggest concern when it comes to consumption. There isn't a set of rules/laws or safety standards that have been set for GM foods. The fact that there are various varieties of strains that can be used to alter different foods also makes it impossible to set a minimum standard generally for GM foods - the standards set will be as tailor made as the genetic alteration. We have to rely on local bodies like the FDA (US) or GEAC here. WHO & FAO have both acknowledged the 'potential' of GM foods, nothing more.

Forget the second generation (like you said, 2nd generation mutations are unpredictable), the first generation products themselves should go through constant testing, even if it is approved. And most importantly monitoring long term effects should be mandatory before introduction. After three to four years of Bt cotton production there have been so called 'side effects' - most prominent of these being allergies to people in the area and the death of 12000 plus sheep after grazing in cotton fields...

The fact that GM foods contain pesticide that cannot be removed by washing is not really a valid argument if the pesticide is proven harmful only to specific bugs and harmless to everything else.

... post mortem reports saying it's due to the affects of bt toxin consumed.

Also the built in herbicide 'immunity' is said to have spread to fields and other crops and weeds nearby.

If there's one thing I have faith in, it's science.

Science is infallible :laugh: It's the regulating bodies and food approval committees we have to be concerned about!

The argument that there isn't enough a shortage of crop is complete nonsense unless you're looking at only your country

The only way to go about this is by looking at individual countries/governments. The reasons I've listed are the few of the official reasons given when bt brinjal was rejected by the government of India. It isn't possible to look at this from a world stage since each government has to individually approve the genetically modified crop for mass distribution. If the UN - World Health Organization & Food and Agricultural Organization/or a genetic engineering approval world committee is formed and gives their stamp of approval on these products instead of leaving it to local bodies alone then you could expect some progress.

Thirdly, the claim that it is too expensive for farmers is also false because they just relay the cost on to consumers.

The two most common ways a farmer sells his products are like this - 1) He either sells it to a trader/distributor at a low price who sells it to various markets, 2) He is under a contract with a company to produce said product.

The first is the case in majority of India. And distributors take huge advantage of this.

The second is the case in the US. Contract/corporate farming is abundant, and the farmers are at the mercy of their contracts.

The farmers of the world are probably the most exploited in the working class today, wherever you go. Their selling power is minimal.

I am a big proponent of GM foods. I think they could be the key to solving world hunger.

It is a great thought isn't it? And it just may be the future.

Originally Posted by Jingleheimer

I am a big proponent of GM foods. I think they could be the key to solving world hunger.

Really? While I in a way admire your optimistic view and belief in benevolence of food producing corporations, I must respectfully disagree. Big corporations have only one interest, and I'm afraid that it isn't solving problem of hunger, it is, and always will be - making money and that's probably not going to change anytime soon.

After all isn't it sufficient to take a look at news from few days ago about a pharmaceutical company hiding possible risks of taking their diabetes medicine which made hundreds of people suffer heart attacks and heart failures? Now in the ideal world shouldn't pharmaceutical companies take every precaution that their medicine will actually make people better not worse? Shouldn't their main job and meaning of their existence be healing people, and not making them worse and ripping them off in process? So can we say that they do care more about people then about money? I don't think so, do you? Do you really think that story with GMO is so much different?

I'm sorry for my slight digression but I just thought it should be said clearly that we have no reasons to believe in altruistic ideals of any big corporation.

Now back to GMO. Unfortunately I'm afraid it's unavoidable now, I can only hope that governments will make sure to pass laws which would make it obligatory for GMO products to be clearly labeled as such so the end consumer could make his own choice whether he wants or doesn't want to eat GMO food instead of it being literally shoved down our throats without our consent.

Concerning problem of worlds hunger, I believe there is more then enough food on this planet and no one should starve, and we don't need GMO to solve this problem, I'm even more inclined to believe that money seeking companies could make this problem even worse, as Eschaton said it's far more likely they would be looting poorer countries instead of trying to help them.

We don't have to rely on big corporation to do this. The more popular GM tech becomes, the more likely it is to be used by not-for-profit organizations. It will eventually come down to simple math: if you remove the factors that destroy food (pests, drought, etc) you will have more food to give out (or waste). In watching documentaries like Food, Inc. I get the impression that we are close to that already. Our (US) government subsidizes production of crops like corn to the point that farmers produce more than they actually can sell. This is also why I think participation in free trade like the WTO is essential, so some of our surplus can be easily traded to other countries.

Regarding labeling, but I think people should have reasons behind their decision to choose or not choose a GM product. Thus far I don't think there have been any tests or observations that prove one is any healthier than the other. For example, recent laws have passed that require things like MSG, calorie counts, saturated fat content, etc be clearly labeled because they have a proven impact on a person's health. If something like GMOs were labeled without any proven differences, people would judge them not on facts but on speculation and opinion. That said, I don't think there would be any great harm in labeling them, but I don't see any great benefit either. It would press the GM product manufacturers to put more into their marketing campaigns to convince the public that there is no health risk.

First of all there were quite a few testings concerning safety of GM food, interestingly most of the tests done, or sponsored by food producing companies found GMO perfectly safe, on the other hand most of the independent research gave completely opposite results, now who has more interest to fake research data? Independent scientists who can gain nothing (and potentially loose everything since big corporations could do all they can to discredit and destroy those scientist in attempt to protect their earnings) from it or big companies who's earnings from GM food could rise up to 500 billions US dollars per year!

Let's take a look at GM milk, which is only sold in USA. American farmers inject growth hormone to their cows to increase milk production. Such cows give same amount of milk they would normally give during their life time in half amount of that time (of course that means that those cows live twice shorter then "ordinary" cows). Now what is important about this that such milk has been proven to be hazardous for people and can increase risk of certain types of cancer. Such GM milk was banned in Europe and can be bought in USA thanks to Monsanto (as you already mentioned) since they, well "influenced" US laws to permit selling unlabeled GM milk, since if it was otherwise they would loose billions of dollars and they just can't let that happen, after all "money makes the world go around", doesn't it?

I think that US law system is to easily "influenced" by large corporations and interest groups in making laws that serve them well and not the "ordinary" people, and that's inherently wrong. Laws should be there to protect people not to use them for personal gain of the few. And at the same time mainstream media is, unfortunately, all but objective.

All in all yeah, I believe that every GM product should be labeled as such because I have every right to know what I'm buying!

EDIT:
Sorry, have to get back to this:

Originally Posted by Jingleheimer

We don't have to rely on big corporation to do this. The more popular GM tech becomes, the more likely it is to be used by not-for-profit organizations.

Do you really think that big corporations would willingly give up their money making machine to non-profit organizations? I don't think so, they will make sure that they squeeze every penny out of it.

I'm not an expert on this topic by any means, but everything I've read on the topic points to GM crops being a good thing. There are huge benefits associated with GM crops. Of course, we need the proper regulatory agencies to do their job, but getting a larger yield while using less land and energy is where need to go if we want to sustain the earth's population. I agree entirely with Jingleheimer in that the benefits of GM crops far outweigh the negatives.

Originally Posted by NamelessOne

Do you really think that big corporations would willingly give up their money making machine to non-profit organizations? I don't think so, they will make sure that they squeeze every penny out of it.

But this isn't an argument against GM crops. This is an argument against corporations.

Originally Posted by s2cuts

But this isn't an argument against GM crops. This is an argument against corporations.

True, it's not direct argument against GM food, but the two are interlinked and mutually inclusive. What I wanted to say is since first (and only, really) priority of corporations which produce GM seeds is making money they won't hesitate to try and sell insufficiently tested and potentially highly dangerous products (look in my last post for part about GM milk. After all there are many researches that proved how dangerous GMO can be.

And we (human kind as a whole) probably know far to little about genetic engineering to manipulate with genetic material without making end product potentially harmful for not only humankind but for this whole planet.

For example scientists tried to use genetic manipulation to make something what appeared pretty simple, they tried to make blue rose, now roses already come in various colors, why couldn't we make one that is blue? They couldn't do it. So give me one reason why should I trust them when they say that crops they make are good and people won't suffer consequences for eating GM food in future?

Yeah NamelessOne, I think you're unfairly maligning GM crops. Your argument seems mainly to be against not the technology itself but abuse by 'corporations'. Which, IMO, is a poor reason to shut the door on such a promising avenue of science.