Bush wants EU to eat gen-modified food

[zamboe]

ALL FRANKEN-FOODS MUST BE BANNED.

end of story. the very idea is sick.

Gob had a good idea too. ban all cigarettes, alcohol, and illegal drugs. as well as toxic-fume producing cars. all these things need be BANNED from the Universe.

If you don't like it just don't buy it.

I will buy GM food for myself.

[nemafakei]

Nav, are you ever going to explain your views, rationalise them in some sort of scientific basis? Or are you just going to sling mud at the idea of genetic modification?

After all, there are far worse processes more common... mistreatment of animals in some 'farms', for example.

[Egeides]

zamboe:

You CAN'T decide to not buy GMOs!!!! We have them in Canada, and they refused to say what has and hasn't GMOs.

[Terror]

well than that sorry ass bush can lick my salty balls and kiss my butt as he won't get anywhere with that. He has nothing to say in Europe if you ask me. Stupid European leaders always make compromises. I say, till here and no further. USA should mind their own bussiness. Like as if their country is so great, stupid mother fuckers!!! >:( >:( >:(

[SurlyPIG]

The paranoia over GMOs spans from religious propaganda that it is an unclean abomonation. GMOs are *NOT* harmful. When you GM a plant, it's still the same plant. The same glucose composition, same proteins, amino acids, the same carbohydrates it had before. We've been eating genetic material all along. They're tiny. They're miniscule. I don't even think they're digestible they're so microscopic. Now all of a sudden because the genes have been modified to make the plant require less water and grow a little larger the plant is suddenly harmful? Please.

At this point in science, it is not possible to genetically modify any edible organism enough to make it harmful to humans using the techniques for GM that are in practice now.

Europeans have the right to choose to eat GMOs or not to eat GMOs ad individuals, not to have the decision shoved down their throats by some board or committe or panel in a far-away office.

I have a friend who's completely vegan. Not just because of her ethics but because of how farm animals are treated and what she deems unsanitary procedures on farms. Even she likes the idea of GMOs. GM has brought more resistant grains to africa, more nutritious grains of rice to Asia, and has helped to create crop surplus in countries all over the world that can be sent to areas of shortage.

Don't like GMOs? Don't eat them. Expect to pay more for lesser quality. And be aware that farming practices and packaging techniques are exponentially more dangerous than GMOs. I'm sorry but whenever I hear someone say that they don't eat GMOs because they've got to be bad for you I automatically think of the Ahmish...

[Egeides]

"GMOs are *NOT* harmful."

Which INDEPENDANT study exactly brings such evidences? Until now, the scientific community says "non conclusions", except for some groups of researchers (many paid by companies: what brings companies' researchers to always have the advantageous results, btw?). Basically, the problem is there's no proof of its inofensiveness. We know some companies are asking yearly paiment though... we also know they did "Gene Terminator", which renders plants unfertile (so they can enforce their yearly plan).

A country who's agriculture is controled by the exterior has an economic problem. The same economic problem Africa got when it started planting peanuts instead of sorgho...

So there's 3 problems ACE:

1- It would be nice to have evidences that it's not harmful (when it was thrown unto the market, they had basically NOTHING.)

2- Playing with genes makes so that some humans have control over what others are gonna eat, thus possibility to bring some stuff (Terminator = ONE example)

3- A country who's producing GMOs has control on some other countries... Like colonial countrie over countries that let go survival plants for what was said to bring more money by colonialists (peanuts, bananas...)

[zamboe]

zamboe:

You CAN'T decide to not buy GMOs!!!! We have them in Canada, and they refused to say what has and hasn't GMOs.

That's really bad, but let's focus on the problem, the problem is not the GM food the problem is the rules under the GM food is being sold. I strongly support that all GM food must be labeled to make sure that all people know what he is buying or not.

[SurlyPIG]

Egeides, basic biology and scientific common sense is all the evidence we need. Our bodies break down what we eat into small, basic parts (amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins etc) for digestion and no matter how much we genetically modify the organic material these parts come from, the parts will always stay the same. Others can attest to this as well...I believe Nema mentioned this in the GM thread and Acriku would know this with all his bio.

Has there ever been anything, any study, any experiment, any test group that said otherwise? There has been a big huff over GMOs but it doesn't stem from any science or any study it's routed from organized religion condemning GM as an abomonation. Find me a single reason to believe that GM crops are harmful that isn't a religiously motivated media circus attempt at driving paranoia.

[Egeides]

About the religious part, no idea... Do you found some religious funds financing researches? If so, I'm pretty interested......

About having evidence from basic science, well I was reading about 3 to 5 scientific magazines per month a few years ago for at least a year (slowed down a bit after), some coming from France, some from Canada and some from USA, and they were playing yoyo with GMOs, sometimes having positive results (it was ok on an aspect, or seemed so), sometimes having negative results (wasn't ok on an aspect, or seemed so). And results were contradicting once in a while, like any healthy science does when researches aren't extremely advanced (look at researches on nutriments for exemple).

An exemple I remember that was negative was about biodiversity: they let a few fishes that were genetically changed into a pond of normal fish. Result? These fishes being more performant on certain aspects, the DNA diversity went drastically down. From what I know, low DNA diversity brings problems with sickness, evolution of the species and probably other stuff I'm not awared of. This is ONE research I remember, and there were tons like this, all trying to evaluate a new point or perspective. To make matters worst, medias sometimes oversimplify by saying "scientific has concluded that..." while it's simply ONE research or there is still serious debates.

[Acriku]

I found a great overview of Genetically Modified Foods, overviewing the issues discussed in the FDA meeting in 1999.

It's here: http://www.csa.com/hottopics/gmfood/overview.html

I suggest everyone who posted in this thread to read it. It's very informative and you will all get something out of it. It discusses the many benefits for GM foods, and also discusses the criticisms of GM foods and possible ways to fix these criticisms.

[SurlyPIG]

and they were playing yoyo with GMOs, sometimes having positive results (it was ok on an aspect, or seemed so), sometimes having negative results (wasn't ok on an aspect, or seemed so). And results were contradicting once in a while

Doesn't that sound like it's more likely to be the test subject pool than anything else? Remember, most GM is not to make food more nutritious, per se, but to make it grow better under non-deal conditions. Given that, if the results of these studies is self-contradicting, does that not suggest that the aspects of these GM crops as food is safe?

And who cares about biodiversity? We're not talking about GM being used to enchance life forms for any purpose but out consumption of them! In fact, genetic scientists modifying some of the more fertile, spreadable crops often make them less able to spread as well. We're talking about making wheat more adaptable or rice more nutritious, not modifying flounders and releasing them into the wild...

[Egeides]

ACE:

Results that are so different means it's still nto a secure field. Look at researches on nutriments if you want an exemple. Or at chemistry when it started.

WHO CARES BIODIVERSITY??? Do you know the effect of having only one specie?? An illness passes and its a catastrophy. Biodiversity, in biology, is one of the key aspects of a healthy environment!

The don't need you to release them in the wild. It was showned extensively, over and over. Are you awared of scientific studies on the subject? If not, find a source before you conclude :P

I'm not getting conclusions... but I do see something: on advantages they say "it HAS this and that", "we KNOW that...". On the disadvantages they say "there is some criticism, but there's some doubts", they say "it's a challenge", etc.

And they are only pointing out a little part of disadvantages. Curious, since the other disadvantages are pretty well known too!

Good article to see the good part of the arguments, but they seem to have forgotten only negative points, and to have presented the negative points exactly as pro-GMO are generally presenting them: as uncertitude and challenge.

And I still don't understand why they forgot some of the main arguments... Personally, I'm eager to see positive studies, and would be very happy if human was able to deal with GMOs responsibly. But the doubt is on both sides: there's some doubts on positive studies, and on negative studies.

PS: And I'm still wondering why my government didn't decided to label the GMO stuff. Was there subsidies behind or anything? Didn't checked.

[Acriku]

If you have real criticisms, not based on flawed data, by all means step up.

And I disagree, there isn't a lot of doubt on the positive side because technology is a lot better now, and they are able to isolate the gene itself accurately - not the "area" where the gene should be (in which you would get unwanted genes that might have unwanted effects).

And a lot of the criticism isn't well-founded. The overview suggests some criticisms to be based on flawed data, or misapplied data. This is a new thing, so it's no surprise that many people are afraid of this "unknown". But people need to expose themselves to the knowledge of this "unknown" and learn that there isn't much "unknown" about it, minus possible allergens or human and environmental effects, which may be nonexistant if we take the proper precautions.

[Egeides]

Based on flawed data? Don't just say this, say me exactly where am I based on flawed data...

I don't need a 140 IQ to see that they didn't even MENTION the dependance of a country once its crops are dependant on a foreign company, like as peanuts' culture. I don't need either an incredible intelligence to look at adjectives used in the case of pro-GMO and anti-GMO. I'm just looking at easily seen stuff...

They didn't even mentioned Terminator gene, the worst scandal the GMO industry suffered since its beginning.

I'm still waiting studies showing it's ok to eat GMO, exactly the same I am asking from new medications getting on the market.

[Egeides]

I easily got an article in English, that's coming directly from a scientific magazine that's in English. No idea if it's really unbiased or anything (didn't checked alot) but anyway if GMOs are so accepted in scientific communities, Scientific American poses the problem by puting both sides like this (already more than Acriku's article that forgets a thrird of the anti-GMO argumentation and puts negative adjective only on one side): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B617C-3ED6-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=2

It doesn't seem Scientific American's scientists are all on one side. And from what I had seen quite some time ago, the situation seems to be pretty much the same as it was in term of certitudes. French and Canadian magazines said pretty much the same a few years ago.

[SurlyPIG]

WHO CARES BIODIVERSITY??? Do you know the effect of having only one specie?? An illness passes and its a catastrophy. Biodiversity, in biology, is one of the key aspects of a healthy environment!

Oh please. You completely and deliberately pulled a New York Times and took three words out of context. We are talking about CROPS here Egeides. Not fish, not wild animals, not wild plants, CROPS! You know exactly what I meant. I'm not talking about modifying cows or fish or whatever I've been talking about crops and grains all along. But here you go and take three words out of my post in an attempt to make me look stupid. Grow up and be civil if you want to debate. Unless of course you don't understand me, but that's your problem not mine.

You know why vulnerability to disease is not important in a crop Egeides? Because they're crops. They test the crops for disease anyway. If a farmer wants to risk disease in his crops in exchange for a better crop thats his decision. Even if a non-GMO crop fails a test for common crop diseases, they destroy the WHOLE CROP. Whether it was GMO or not won't make a flip of a difference, the end result is still the same as always.

You know what the first thing they did when they found that one cow with BSE in northern Alberta was? Slaughter the entire herd that it came from. They do the same thing to crops. I remember something about one corner of one potato farm in PEI infected with some sort of bacteria. What did they do with that farmers other potatoes? Destroyed them all.

As for the comments on Ac's article, did it ever occur to you that they worded those things because it's the scientific truth?

[Acriku]

I easily got an article in English, that's coming directly from a scientific magazine that's in English. No idea if it's really unbiased or anything (didn't checked alot) but anyway if GMOs are so accepted in scientific communities, Scientific American poses the problem by puting both sides like this (already more than Acriku's article that forgets a thrird of the anti-GMO argumentation and puts negative adjective only on one side): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B617C-3ED6-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=2

It doesn't seem Scientific American's scientists are all on one side. And from what I had seen quite some time ago, the situation seems to be pretty much the same as it was in term of certitudes. French and Canadian magazines said pretty much the same a few years ago.

Really Egeides? Perhaps you should read the article once more. It says that no harm of GM foods has ever been demonstrated, and environmental groups and newspapers denounce it "Frankenfoods" which doesn't give us anything on GM foods except a common fear of the unknown. It also says

Activists charge that altered crops could wreak ecological havoc and cause new allergies.

Now, they haven't backed up these claims and are wildly throwing out claims and allegations to steer us from not using GM foods. Now, with the proper care and caution, we can prevent any ecological havoc and new allergies with proper labelling and intense researching on the effects of the gene in the ecosystems. Also, the article seems to focus on the policies between nations concerning the GM food, than the benefits/criticisms of it.

[GhostHunter]

I ask you this, what's so bad about eating the same food that was made geneticly and tastes identical? I'm willing to do it, food is food and as long as I don't turn green.

I have to defend Bush, he SHOULD be pushing for the un-banning of it, just more quanities of foods for countries, espically ones in dier need, a.k.a Africa.

[SurlyPIG]

I agree, but I do think there should be much higher labeling standards so consumers can tell exactly what is GM and what isn't. This is one time when segregation is desired. :)

[Acriku]

I had a genetically modified (atleast I'm pretty sure it was) orange, it was a little bigger than my fist! It was so juicy... And no seeds! And easy to peel! I was in orange heaven *gurgle*...

[Egeides]

Aciku:

The point is that anti-activists didn't demonstrated the inoffensiveness more than activists themselves. It is BLANK. No certitude. Do they put medication without serious tests on the market? Not supposed to.

ACE:

Crops. What about crops? Biodiversity within crops or cows stil works the same way, no? In what is it different?

[Acriku]

You keep referring to medicine, as if that is the same as food? GM foods aren't souped up with chemicals and "strange things", they are modified at the genetic level very accurately. These guys know what they are doing. For some reason I get the "It...is...alllliiiivvveeee!!!" vibe from your stance towards GM food. It brings more to the term "Frankenfood" I guess ;D

[SurlyPIG]

Yes but the crops are in a controlled environment with little to nill wildlife depending on them so it doesn't matter. Yes they might be more susceptable to disease, but its a policy if anything on a farm is infected to destroy everything there so it's not like that would make a difference anyway. And besides, it's not like plant disease is a huge problem these days. You can't exactly spread foot and mouth or mad cow to wheat and rice.

[Egeides]

ACE: Ok I see... Well about not getting in the wild, the opposite seemed as the norm. And they have trouble showing that genes do not "hop" from a GMO specie to natural specie. This is an exemple of how it can get in nature, but there are some others, some of them may still be unknown. And did you read on the subject? Because through these "controlled environments", it passed through... Some studies showed that what was found in nature have been affected (genetically) and that the GMO species had made its path out of where it was supposed to be: in supposedly non-GMO food, other crops, nature... So much that Monsanto tried to sue farmers not using GMOs to make them pay for the GMOs because their fields were affected by GMOs...

Acriku:

About controlling what is done, no it is not the case. The only thing that can be controlled is the part that is already studied. It's a young sector of science. Quite a few times, they did things that were not expected at first. Like killing some creatures around. If some other error was done, no idea what it could secundarily do.

Oh, here's a problem I remember, which may answer to Acriku: Genes are multi-functional sometimes. So changing one gene will change many functions. You may have found that these gene gives more resistance, it may also have some other effects. Exactly like the problem we have cloning cattle: what is done also modifies some secundary elements that have effects unknown at first. Perhaps in 30 years we'll be able to clone conveniently, but for now, studies are required.

PS: Hey, did you two read serious stuff about GMO? It's all in contradiction with what I saw in scientific magazines! "Controlled environments" while many studies showed its limits, "they control what they do" when some studies showed that not everything had been controled (and its it controllable?), "it's basic science" when it's an evidence it's not when you look at the consequence of changing a gene, etc. :D

[Ice_Cube]

I have no problem with GM crops pre s