Genetically modified food - are you afraid?

[CycloWizard]

It seems quite possible to me that genetically engineered foods can be done safely; I want strong independent regulation and study, though.

My larger concern is that the genetically modified crops are about establishing business monopoly over our food supply - seeds that require annual 'licenses' to be paid.

This adds large cost, reduces competition, and basically hurts consumers and farmers to help the big seed suppliers, with more harm than good.

I'm not saying don't do genetically modified food (carefully), I'm saying do it with rules that maintain the consumer interests with real competition, regulation etc.

Ensure that a back door to monopoly isn't opened with their maneuvers.

Ah, so you want Monsanto to do their jobs for next to nothing? That will provide a strong motivation for them to continue feeding the world through innovation. I think you're overpaid and exhibit too much control over your current position. Will you keep performing your job on a volunteer basis for the next ten years of your life? Of course not, but you have no problem asking someone else to do it. Now that they have already dumped in hundreds of millions of dollars of research and taken huge risks to bring these things to market, you have no problem telling them to jump in a lake. Will you collect all of their products' seeds and return them so they will no longer be used? Nope, you want a free lunch. Pathetic.

 

[nageov3t]

I am in favor of ending starvation in third world countries.

I do not see how that will effectively be accomplished without GM crops to survive in conditions that are not inherently favorable to sustained agriculture.

 

[Schadenfroh]

GMOs can be perfectly safe. GMOs offer the chance to reduce the use of pesticides / herbicides and greatly increase crop yields.

The Anti-GMO crowd tends to be (although not always) the same crowd that wants to convert all of our land to grow organic food and consume locally grown produce. Both of which are inefficient and sometimes dangerous. Inefficient organic and locally grown food makes fruits and veggies further out of the reach of the poor (far more expensive) due to inefficiency.

The Anti-Science (anti-GMO / anti-modern agriculture) crowd that wishes to return us to local-level subsistence agriculture and/or organic farming must not realize how much the poor will suffer if we adopt their techniques.

A more logical argument against GMOs would be protectionism, if your country lacks the technology to compete, which is what I suspect are Europe's true motives, at least it is the only one based on logic and reason.

To see how dangerous Organic foods can be:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019

To see how locally grown produce is inefficient and increases carbon in the atmosphere:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162

Finally, how GMOs have revolutionized agriculture:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112

 

[William Gaatjes]

Now hormones are a separate issue. I'd be more worried about those persisting in the food supply than other stuff, just because many animal hormones are similar enough to human hormones to cause a reaction. The developing early thing - probably more to do with body fat and the larger amount of available calories. I took an endocrinology class during my time in school and it did bring up the issue, but stated that the exact signals for the start of puberty in the body were not understood, but if you look at the supply of food in the last 150 years, it has only increased and correlates with a lower start to puberty.

But I'm specifically referring to crops. Things like rice with a Vitamin A gene (which is useful in parts of the world relying on rice and few natural sources of Vitamin A), pesticide resistant plants - so you can grow more and use less pesticides in the same area, etc...

Despite COW's insistence on blaming Europe for everything all the time, what Europe is pushing on Africa in regards to genetic engineering of crops is ridiculous. The book Denialism mentioned that places like Zambia rejected a large shipment of wheat just because it was genetically modified instead of being grown "naturally." Ridiculous when you consider how many people are on the brink of or actually starving.

Is the patent process behind GE food kind of ridiculous? Yes. But am I against the process of making farming better? Absolutely not.

But GE food does offer hope to places in Africa to become self-sufficient. If you can create crops that don't need as much water or can grow in harsher soil, it would be perfect as the arable land in Africa is not that large. Increasing crop yields in the limited amount of space is a good thing. But for some reason, some group (cough Europe cough) likes to keep pushing the idea on a starving continent that GE food is evil and shouldn't be grown.

In my post you see my statement. As such we agree on a few things.
But where is this claim that the EU is responsible for the starvation of people in Africa. I find that a rather bold claim. Can you link some news and other sites (preferred prominent such as bbc or cnn international) ?

It is very possible that some EU politicians are being rather difficult with respect to GE engineered crops delivered to some countries in Africa. But you can say a lot about politicians , they never do something without a reason. If that may be theirs or others interest is trivial. And there is always more then 1 side to every story. As i think is to yours if you can provide me with some information.

:
Forgot to mention, i know about the EU sponsored government grants in the past to Italian farmers to grow tobacco plants and sell the tobacco to cigarette companies who only sell in Africa because of the high amount of carcinogens in the cigarettes.
Yes, banned cigarettes from the EU.

I should also mention that for all awful things connected to monsanto, monsanto also has many good practices resulting in progress. It is as with all big companies. Everybody has a skeleton in their closet.

 

[Brainonska511]

But where is this claim that the EU is responsible for the starvation of people in Africa. I find that a rather bold claim. Can you link some news and other sites (preferred prominent such as bbc or cnn international) ?

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/737.cfm

Southern African leaders have concerns beyond the safety of GM foods. Roughly half the region's agricultural exports are sold to the European Union, where there is loud opposition to GM foods, and where they must be labelled as such. African farmers fear that if they are no longer able to certify that their foods are GM-free, they will lose their share in the European market.

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/GM_Crops_short_version_FINAL.pdf

The impact of European and international trade policy.
International controversies and European scepticism may deter those in developing countries from adopting GM crops. Additionally, EU policy is of
considerable significance for developing countries that grow crops for export. It would be extremely difficult for most developing countries to comply with strict EU requirements for traceability and labelling. Regulations propose that a GM crop must be traced throughout the entire
production and distribution process. The threshold for labelling proposed is also very low: any food with more than 0.9% of an approved GM material,
or 0.5% of an unapproved GM material, must be labelled. Many developing countries do not have the necessary infrastructure to meet these
regulations. There is also concern that even planting GM crops purely for domestic use might jeopardise an export market for non-GM crops.

There are more links via google, but I got the main point mostly from reading Denialism. Europe, despite not having colonies in Africa anymore still exerts a lot of influence, either through aid money or via markets such as the above quote. I'll dig up the book and see if I can pull more sources.

So it may not necessarily be Europe wants Africa to starve, but its own policies spill over to poor policies for Africa, where people are starving because of the lack of food, lack of arable land, natural pests that reduce crop yields...

edit---
Robert Paarlberg's 2008 book Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa
-European countries provide a lot of assistance via technology, financial aid, NGOs to Africa, but it all has strings attached. And Europe is afraid of GE crops and that spills over through all those attached strings.

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/737.cfm


http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/GM_Crops_short_version_FINAL.pdf


There are more links via google, but I got the main point mostly from reading Denialism. Europe, despite not having colonies in Africa anymore still exerts a lot of influence, either through aid money or via markets such as the above quote. I'll dig up the book and see if I can pull more sources.

So it may not necessarily be Europe wants Africa to starve, but its own policies spill over to poor policies for Africa, where people are starving because of the lack of food, lack of arable land, natural pests that reduce crop yields...

I will read them, thank you.

But i agree politics can be dirty. Sustaining local markets while killing people abroad in the process. Every "civilized" country has these skeletons, a lot of people see the US as the evil, while in reality all countries are to blame all over the earth. With that said, afcourse countries in Europe will have skeletons too. Look at Greece. Agriculture very badly setup. Have in the recent past been found using large amounts of pesticides on their vegetables and fruits they export. And now look at the financial situation. Look at how it is going in the southern europe. Afcourse the politicians of these countries want to make money, as such bad politics is being performed. I have no doubt that what i will read well just confirm what i already know and find obvious. To much people everywhere want everything while doing nothing to deserve anything. Also in the EU.

 

[IGBT]

I worry more about dopers and drunks on cell phones who drive.

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/737.cfm

I have read this report and it does to me not reflect what you write in your post. On the lower part of the page for example Zimbabwe exports pea's to the EU. But the EU wants the pea's to be labeled as GM pea's if these pea's are GM material. As such because Zimbabwe officials know this will cause a loss of market share in the EU they do not want to use GM pea's. Yet it is written that Zimbabwe does not have enough food and needs aid but refused GM seeds from the US because of fear of losing the EU market. Now forgetting the GM talk, Zimbabwe can export material but does not have enough food to feed the people ? That sounds like a political problem in Zimbabwe and has nothing to do with the EU. As such i find your claim non existing. If the US want to help, why not buy some of those pea's ? Right because the US GM market wants to sell to Africa, while protecting the local US market. First it is given away, then it is sold. This is politics and greedy business practices and has nothing to do with the EU forcing countries. The EU law requires GM labels on GM foods, nothing more. And as such the EU customer can decide to eat the GM food or not. In affect, giving the free market principle a chance : Letting the people decide by their own free will.
What you forget is that in the EU, you actually have a choice as a customer. And when customers radically decide to move away from GM foods, there is nothing you can do about it but accept it. Lobbying is a lot more difficult here although not impossible, as the EU countries have scandals as well with food production companies.


Further on the page , i quote :

African agricultural experts also fear that, in order to protect their markets, biotech companies could introduce a “terminator” gene in their seeds, which would prevent small farmers from replanting them after harvest. This would make farmers dependent on big companies that control the price of seeds.

It is the fear of African experts to become dependent on US based companies who will baffle with patent rights and will treaten with court to sue. Again nothing to do with the EU.

I quote again :

For countries like Zimbabwe, accepting the U.S. food aid means breaking a four year-long, almost continent-wide ban on GM foods and crops. Back in 1998, at a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, all African nations except South Africa rejected GM crop offers by U.S. biotech corporations like Monsanto, saying "We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us."

Nothing about the EU here too.


It seems that African countries have a rather negative view when looking at free offers from US based companies. It is known all over the world that often in the US morally conducting business is not a priority for US based companies. Abusing the customers or using them as guinea pigs.

Writing in the Aug. 8 edition of Johannesburg’s liberal Mail & Guardian, Salim Fakir opined that Africa was merely “a pawn in a global chess game [over GM foods].... The United States is taking advantage of [the famine], and is forcing governments in the region to make a drastic policy decision: mass starvation versus breaking their policy on genetically modified food.... There is a larger strategy behind this. It has to do with the United States' attempt to break the European Union's position on GM foods.... Biotechnology is regarded as the United States' strategic industry for the 21st century. The United States is interested in the EU market because this is where money is to be made, not in Africa.”

Again nothing about the EU.

To create a neutral view i will post the other texts as well :

In a Sept. 18 article for Nairobi's independent Nation newspaper, Anthony J. Covington took the contrary position. Covington wrote that “GM crops are potentially wonderful” and accused anti-GM activists for “dazzling the ignorant with pseudoscience and false fears.” He went on: “Africa needs all the food advances it can get—and fast. Not so for a loose association of anti-GM activists from Europe.... There are those who feel ill, but not at the idea of a GM meal. It is rather the sight of overfed white people lecturing starving black peasants about the need for 'proper' farming.”

In July 31 opinion piece for The Post, an independent Lusaka newspaper, Dr. Luke Mumba said that Africans cannot think like Europeans, because “Unlike Europe, Africa cannot afford the luxury of engaging into debate and delay. Europeans see no need to increase their food output, whereas Africans can see every reason to do so. In the light of the need for increased farming productivity, Africa must make up its own mind and speak for itself.”

Zambia's Mwanawasa was hard pressed to explain his initial rejection of the food aid. “The rejection is not intended to demean those who had donated it, rather it was done to protect the long-term interest of the Zambian people and the environment,” he told delegates at the Earth Summit 2002, held from Aug. 26 to Sept. 4 in Johannesburg, South Africa. “Just because people are hungry in Zambia, it does not mean we have to feed them with potentially dangerous food.”

He found some support. The Aug. 21 Post contained an article by Charles Chabala applauding his country’s government for making a safe decision by rejecting GM foods. “It must be re-emphasized that any artificial food, or food that is altered from its natural origin has an effect on the human body.... Europe and America know this, that is why they are willing to pay twice or more to buy organically... produced fruits and vegetables.”

Jason Lott, in an Aug. 8 article for the Daily Mail and Guardian, expressed little patience with the bickering over GM foods while so many are starving. Lott argued that the growing fear of GM food is resulting in needless deaths of “Africans who simply wish to eat, not to debate the morality of altering the plant genome.”

Critics of GM food may be able to debate the issue over dinner, Lott wrote, “but now these same critics must confront the monster they've created, a swarm of southern African despots ready to sacrifice the innocent in the name of the ‘safe’—‘safe’ seeds, ‘safe’ crops, and a ‘safe’ environment.”

Whereas Lott saw Africa's enemies as the “monstruous African despots,” The Post's Owen Sichoneb saw U.S. biotech companies. “GM foods are not peasant crops, they are designed to make the companies that own the patents for particular genes super-rich,” he wrote. “They will not solve the hunger problem, which has always been about access, and not availability.”

“Nobody knows how the grandchildren of the people who eat GM soya or GM maize will be affected,” Sichoneb continued. “Nobody knows how the genes will be carried with the pollen in the wind and affect other varieties. Why take the risk?”

EDIT:

An article in nature :

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n1/full/nbt0103-6a.html

European Union (EU) countries are to require all food and animal feed products linked in any way to transgenic crops to be clearly labeled as "genetically modified" (GM). Currently, only foods containing measurable amounts of genetically engineered DNA or resulting protein have to be given the GM label. But the new regime—agreed to in late November 2002 after lengthy negotiations between ministers of individual member states—extends labeling to end-products such as sugars and oils even when GM ingredients cannot be detected in them because they are physically and chemically identical to products derived from non-GM crops. Even meat suppliers who feed their animals with transgenic grain will have to GM-label their products.

Food items will be exempted only if they were derived from crop material of which less than 0.9% was genetically modified. Comprehensive tracing of GM corn shipments will be essential to verify this. The effect will be that North American manufacturers will soon find their corn- or soy-based foodstuffs—virtually all of which are GM-derived—tagged with what the National Grain and Feed Association (Washington, DC) has likened to a "skull and crossbones on the packet."

US farming interests are now expected to press the White House to launch an immediate protest to the World Trade Organization (WTO), with the aim of smashing European barriers to GM food imports. Europe's GM food moratorium is said to be costing US corn producers $250 million a year in lost sales.

The US industry is particularly worried by the effect of European policy on its customers in the developing world. In October, Zambia refused 63,000 tons of GM corn from the United States intended to help relieve the current famine in southern Africa. Its agriculture minister claimed that the corn could contaminate Zambia's agriculture, risking the loss of its cash-crop export markets in Europe. European politicians say Zambia's action is misguided. But it has alarmed US industry. In November, US farming corporations wrote to US trade representative Robert Zoellick demanding immediate WTO action against Europe because European policy "may be negatively affecting the attitudes and actions of other countries."

Europe has offered one concession to the US food industry: food containing GM ingredients that are believed to be safe but are not yet officially EU-approved will be allowed on the European market, provided the GM content is less than 0.5%.

But a spokesperson for the US Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO; Washington, DC) says the new labeling policy "represents an unacceptable technical trade barrier." BIO is urging European acceptance of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA; Rockville, MD) proposal that GM labeling is needed only where the genetic modification produces a "nutritional or compositional change" in the food.

EuropaBio, representing Europe's biotechnology industry, criticized the 0.9% threshold as "tough, perhaps impossible" for most crop producers. "In setting such a low level, ministers have simply ignored current labeling practices and other country threshold levels ranging from 1% to 5%", says EuropaBio spokesperson Simon Barber. "This places onerous burdens on the European Agro-Food industries and on national authorities who will have to enforce the law."

The EU Confederation of Food and Drink Industries (Brussels, Belgium) "strongly regretted" the decision and warned that the absence of reliable testing methods for GM ingredients "would lead to unfair competition and fraud."

The proposals now go back to the European Parliament for reconsideration. Meanwhile, the European Commission's research commissioner Philippe Busquin has announced that a new network of 45 GM laboratories is to be set up across Europe to help trace GM organisms in the food chain and enforce the new regulations.

The EU legislation in question :
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/nature_and_biodiversity/l21170_en.htm

SUMMARY

The Regulation concerning the traceability and labelling of GMOs and products produced from GMOs stipulates that traceability will be required throughout the food chain. This measure has two main objectives:
to inform consumers through the compulsory labelling of this type of products,
to create a "safety net" based on the traceability of these products at all stages of production and placing on the market.

This "safety net" will facilitate the monitoring and checking of the nutritional claims made on labels, the surveillance of the potential effects on human health or the environment and the withdrawal of products if an unforeseen risk to human health or the environment is identified.

The Regulation concerns the traceability of GMOs as products or product components, including seeds, and of food or feed products produced from GMOs. It does not preclude the application of existing stricter legislation concerning the traceability and labelling of products.

The traceability rules apply to all GMOs; consequently, applications for GMOs for use in food or feed (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003) must comply with them, as must applications for GMOs for crops (Directive 2001/18/EC, part C).

Labelling

The Regulation covers all foodstuffs produced from GMOs.

It also covers all genetically modified feedingstuffs, with the same protection as for foodstuffs.

All products approved in accordance with this Regulation are subject to compulsory labelling; consumers will therefore be better informed about GM products, whether for human or animal consumption. The consumer's safety is guaranteed as a result of the traceability of products consisting of or containing GMOs.

Food or feed produced from or containing GMOs must also meet the specific labelling requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. In addition, genetically modified foods and feedingstuffs are subject to the general legislation on this subject, Directive 2000/13/EC on labelling and Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation of feed materials.

Products consisting of or containing GMOs

In order to facilitate the traceability of GMOs and also to protect the environment, the Regulation requires operators to transmit the following information in writing:
an indication that the products consist of or contain GMOs;
the unique alphanumerical identifiers assigned to the GMOs contained in the products.

Through this system of unique identifiers of GMOs, it is possible to know these products' features and characteristics for the purposes of surveillance of traceability.

In the case of products which are or contain mixtures of GMOs, the industrial operator may submit a declaration of use of these products, together with a list of the unique identifiers assigned to all the GMOs used to constitute the mixture.

Moreover, the Regulation stipulates that operators who place on the market a pre-packaged product consisting of or containing GMOs must, at all stages of the production and distribution chain, ensure that the words "This product contains genetically modified organisms" or "Product produced from GM (name of organism)" appear on a label affixed to the product. In the case of products, including in large quantities, which are not packaged and if the use of a label is impossible, the operator must ensure that this information is transmitted with the product. It may take the form of accompanying documents, for example.

Food products produced from GMOs

When placing a product on the market, the industrial operator must transmit the following information in writing to the operator receiving the product:
an indication of each food ingredient produced from GMOs;
an indication of each raw material or additive for feedingstuffs produced from GMOs;
if there is no list of ingredients, the product must nevertheless bear an indication that it is produced from GMOs.

GMO adventitious presence threshold

For food or feed products, including those intended directly for processing, traces of GMOs will continue to be exempt from the labelling obligation if they do not exceed the threshold of 0.9% and if their presence is adventitious and technically unavoidable.

The adventitious presence of GMOs is an important point of the Regulation.

The Member States carry out measures for the inspection and monitoring of products, including sampling and quantitative and qualitative analyses of food and feed. These measures entail the Member States being able to detain a product that does not meet the conditions laid down in this Regulation.

Background

On 25 July 2001 the European Commission put forward a package of integrated measures in two proposals for regulations to monitor the presence of genetically modified organisms in food and feed, with the aim of protecting human and animal health.
The first Regulation concerns the traceability and labelling of products containing or produced from GMOs, while the other one relates to foodstuffs and animal feed. The traceability of GMOs will thus be required throughout the food chain.

This Regulation harmonises the traceability measures laid down in the legislation, particularly Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC.

It also harmonises the disparate legislation on the labelling of GMOs by amending Regulation (EC) No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. Lastly, it repeals Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 (concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified maize and soya) and Regulation (EC) No 50/2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings that have been genetically modified.

1 more extra edit :

This corrupt asshole : Jose Manuel Barroso has done his best to deny the EU citizen the right to know what he or she eats. But Jose Manuel Barroso is in favour of many laws and regulations enforcing the eu commision with a lot more power while the people lose their democratic right. Jose Manuel Barroso is in fact in my opinion a facist who would love to take the rights and liberties away from people.

Since a while , the labeling is not needed for GM food used to feed cattle , chickens, pigs and other animals used for the meat industry in the EU. Now Brussels is doing debating about giving countries individual power to ban and refuse or allow GM crops on their soil. So much for the European Union. The EU wants to give countries individual rights to deny or allow GM material. The EU has to do this because the US companies have filed an complained at the WTO that they cannot sell their products in the EU without labeling what the product is comprised off. The US companies do not want the EU customer to know that a product is GM material. Because the US based companies fear that the EU customer will not buy these products. As such the US based companies want to keep the EU customer in the dark.
And then you wonder why countries in Africa do not trust the US based companies....:thumbsdown:

Eu Commissioner John Dalli will allow all GM crops from the US. He has not done it yet. But i do know politics. Luckily he is against eu grants for the introduction of GM crops...

 

[blackangst1]

It seems quite possible to me that genetically engineered foods can be done safely; I want strong independent regulation and study, though.

My larger concern is that the genetically modified crops are about establishing business monopoly over our food supply - seeds that require annual 'licenses' to be paid.

This adds large cost, reduces competition, and basically hurts consumers and farmers to help the big seed suppliers, with more harm than good.

I'm not saying don't do genetically modified food (carefully), I'm saying do it with rules that maintain the consumer interests with real competition, regulation etc.

Ensure that a back door to monopoly isn't opened with their maneuvers.

Couldnt have said it better. Agree 100%.

 

[CanOWorms]

Nothing about the EU here too.

It's implied in the text. It doesn't have to be explicit.

1 more extra edit :

This corrupt asshole : Jose Manuel Barroso has done his best to deny the EU citizen the right to know what he or she eats. But Jose Manuel Barroso is in favour of many laws and regulations enforcing the eu commision with a lot more power while the people lose their democratic right. Jose Manuel Barroso is in fact in my opinion a facist who would love to take the rights and liberties away from people.

Since a while , the labeling is not needed for GM food used to feed cattle , chickens, pigs and other animals used for the meat industry in the EU. Now Brussels is doing debating about giving countries individual power to ban and refuse or allow GM crops on their soil. So much for the European Union. The EU wants to give countries individual rights to deny or allow GM material. The EU has to do this because the US companies have filed an complained at the WTO that they cannot sell their products in the EU without labeling what the product is comprised off. The US companies do not want the EU customer to know that a product is GM material. Because the US based companies fear that the EU customer will not buy these products. As such the US based companies want to keep the EU customer in the dark.

The EU customer must be kept in the dark. Such a little inconvenience would be a huge convenience for the rest of the world. You are holding the development of BILLIONS back and contributing to the deaths of MILLIONS. The EU people must be forced to accept the situation. They must be forced to comply. Their irrationality is destroying the world.

And then you wonder why countries in Africa do not trust the US based companies....:thumbsdown:

Some GM food is developed by humanitarian groups and universities. But European governmental racism, hatred, and fear prevents their use.

Eu Commissioner John Dalli will allow all GM crops from the US. He has not done it yet. But i do know politics. Luckily he is against eu grants for the introduction of GM crops...

Hopefully he will be arrested by international forces for terrorism.

 

[Hacp]

Couldnt have said it better. Agree 100%.

How do you agree? If genetically modified crops will be more expensive to grow than regular crops, people will just switch to regular crops.

 

[CanOWorms]

Save your breath, WG, CanOWorms is a raving lunatic and inchoate psycho-Euro-basher.

I bash them when they deserve it, such as their contribution to this unacknowledged genocide. I'm not surprised you support the genocide, given your bigoted monocultural viewpoints.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

The only thing I'm worried about is patenting and such business practices. Of course, companies that develop crops have a right to some profit, but monopolizing the world's crops is not a good thing.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm infinitely more worried about chemically altered/grown food than I am genetically modified foods.

 

[Brainonska511]

The only thing I'm worried about is patenting and such business practices. Of course, companies that develop crops have a right to some profit, but monopolizing the world's crops is not a good thing.

That is a concern I share to some degree, but it isn't just Monsanto and the like developing these crops. And because of the patents, they can only control it for so long. It's a give and take between the cost of development and their time to earn a profit and what is good for society as a whole. Plenty of development is going on through Universities and other nonprofit groups.

I'm infinitely more worried about chemically altered/grown food than I am genetically modified foods.

Chemically altered? In what way?

 

[PrinceofWands]

That is a concern I share to some degree, but it isn't just Monsanto and the like developing these crops. And because of the patents, they can only control it for so long. It's a give and take between the cost of development and their time to earn a profit and what is good for society as a whole. Plenty of development is going on through Universities and other nonprofit groups.

Chemically altered? In what way?

Growth hormones, pesticides, fertilizers, preservatives, etc. Any chemical that could possible leave traces or alter the natural chemical balance of the food.

I'm an all natural kind of guy wherever possible.

 

[BoberFett]

Ah, so you want Monsanto to do their jobs for next to nothing? That will provide a strong motivation for them to continue feeding the world through innovation. I think you're overpaid and exhibit too much control over your current position. Will you keep performing your job on a volunteer basis for the next ten years of your life? Of course not, but you have no problem asking someone else to do it. Now that they have already dumped in hundreds of millions of dollars of research and taken huge risks to bring these things to market, you have no problem telling them to jump in a lake. Will you collect all of their products' seeds and return them so they will no longer be used? Nope, you want a free lunch. Pathetic.

There is an area in between A) Develop new strains of crops for free and B) Sue the farmers two counties over who due to cross pollination through no fault of their own are using their "intellectual property."

 

[BoberFett]

How do you agree? If genetically modified crops will be more expensive to grow than regular crops, people will just switch to regular crops.

Great plan. If you can still get the seeds.

 

[Hacp]

Growth hormones, pesticides, fertilizers, preservatives, etc. Any chemical that could possible leave traces or alter the natural chemical balance of the food.

I'm an all natural kind of guy wherever possible.

Natural chemical balance of food? WTF are you smoking? If the food evolved the same qualities on its own, you'd call it natural but if we speed up the genetic process by engineering it, it is suddenly not natural? Food is food.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Natural chemical balance of food? WTF are you smoking? If the food evolved the same qualities on its own, you'd call it natural but if we speed up the genetic process by engineering it, it is suddenly not natural? Food is food.

Lack of reading comprehension FTL!

Read my posts again: I have no issue with genetic modification, only chemical addition...chemicals which leave traces or alter the natural chemical compositions (which nearly all chemical treatments do, at least to some degree).

 

[CycloWizard]

There is an area in between A) Develop new strains of crops for free and B) Sue the farmers two counties over who due to cross pollination through no fault of their own are using their "intellectual property."

Craig was only addressing A. My response was a reply to his post. This isn't a great place to discuss the merits of genetic sequences as intellectual property.

 

[blackangst1]

How do you agree? If genetically modified crops will be more expensive to grow than regular crops, people will just switch to regular crops.

Of course. but they arent. I dont think Craig was implying they were. Or at least I didnt read that into it. Added expense doesnt mean more expensive to consumer.

 

[waggy]

I am for GM crops. but there has to be safeguards on it. such as not allowing one company to have a monopoly on it all.

All one has to do is look at Monsanto and the bullshit they do for a reason to be careful.

 

[Pulsar]

Lack of reading comprehension FTL!

Read my posts again: I have no issue with genetic modification, only chemical addition...chemicals which leave traces or alter the natural chemical compositions (which nearly all chemical treatments do, at least to some degree).

And growing crops in different locations, with different types of soil, differently acidities and different nitrogen content result in a crop that is differently "chemically balanced". As does cross-pollination with different species of crops that have developed differently around the world.

Stop talking. You make no sense.

Did anyone else mention that's it's been normal for centuries to spread dung on fields, thus chemically altering their natural state?

 

[PrinceofWands]

And growing crops in different locations, with different types of soil, differently acidities and different nitrogen content result in a crop that is differently "chemically balanced". As does cross-pollination with different species of crops that have developed differently around the world.

Stop talking. You make no sense.

Did anyone else mention that's it's been normal for centuries to spread dung on fields, thus chemically altering their natural state?

There's a HUGE difference between spreading pure manure, or creating hybrid navel/blood oranges through cross-pollination, and injecting beef with growth hormones or spraying crops with pesticides. You're the one who makes no sense.