Some Americans are uneasy about GE foods

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=873a3a002f945e06

Although more than two-thirds of food sold in the United States contains some genetically engineered crop, scientists say Americans are split on the issue.

Depending on whom you ask, the technology is either beneficial or has negative effects on health and environment, said James Shanahan, a Cornell University associate professor of communication and lead researcher of the study.

Generally, women and non-Caucasians perceived a higher risk in using biotechnology in food production and, politically, Republicans showed more overall support for GE foods than others, said Shanahan.
more...

MORE THAN TWO THIRDS!!! OMG!!! talk about taking over the food system...

[Quakerfriend]

1. As a scientist with degrees in biochem and nutrition,

it is my belief that GM foods are one of the greatest crimes against humanity, and we will see this borne out in the years to come.

[NYC]

5. And it will be too late.

[leftchick]

8. I agree with you

and when average folks have fgured it out it will be too late. It pobably already is. :(

[sendero]

12. As someone with no biology education whatsoever...

.. but with a modicum of common sense, I agree with you.

We are re-arranging foundation bricks in a building that towers into the sky beyond our view. We have no idea what the hell we are actually doing with this stuff.

And for what? We are taking this HUGE UNFATHOMABLE risk for what, a few percent in crop yields and the promise of dead seeds and a continuous market for GM seeds.

It's beyond sick.

[WhiteTara]

24. I had a dream that we ended corporations

because the earth needed our attention so much, we couldn't allow profits to be the motivating factor. THen I woke up had read that 2/3s TWO THIRDS OF ALL OUR FOOD IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED.

OMG.

[fed-up]

32. If you eat processed foods-yes-2/3 may have GE ingredient-see list below

[acmavm]

16. I heartily agree with you my friend. We will find this to have been a

mistake of major proportions. But very very financially beneficial to certain American corporations, like pretty much everything else now days.

[jarjarbinksisgod]

17. as a scientist...

i couldn't disagree more with your post. but i've decided it's just not the best thing to argue with the anti-GM folk. if it's not about ethical issues, then it's about the corporations that are driving the research. if it's not for the corporations driving the research.. and so on. they're almost as bad as the Bushbots. :)

[Odin2005]

20. Same here.

According to the logic the anti-GM crop people we should ban anything that can be abused for bad ends, and we would be back to the stone age. Breeding domesticated organisms is just as much "genetic modification" as old fasioned breeding, it's just faster. And the "putting the genes of one organism into another organism is bad" is a BS argument because lateral gene transfer hapens in the wild quite often. Also, to counter an argument I heard before, a geneticly engineered plant with a gene from, say, a peanut plant, would be completely safe to people with peanut allergies as long as the gene isn't the one the codes for the protein that causes the allergy.

[Solon]

22. My problem with GM food is about the law...

or lack of it in this case. Right now it is perfectly legal for Corporations to OWN patents on living organisms that reproduce on their own. This is giving them too much power, and before you go into the defense of cost for research, let me remind you that Corporations have been patenting DISCOVERIES by other organizations(the Human Genome Project), for the sole purpose of extorting money from Universities, Independent Scientists, and Farmers. This has effects such as impeding research into Cancer, all the way to preventing farmers from saving seeds for next season.

[fed-up]

34. So you're saying human/plant gene transfers happen often-I think NEVER nt

[bettyellen]

23. it's also about not giving people a choice by labeling the stuff.....

because a lot of people wouldn't buy it, it's about not being able to control pollen in the wild, it's about trying to patent basic foods so people are forced to change the way that they have fed themselves since ancient times....
lots of ethical issues involved. and they know it, that's why they won't label it.

[fed-up]

33. When you show me how to contain GE pollen and not contaminate organic

crops, then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then I suggest you start doing some research or better yet, since you are a scientist you may know better than I where to find the LONG TERM HUMAN health studies that show that GE foods are not harmful to humans.

[llmart]

41. Well, Jane Goodall is a scientist too.........

and I think she has more credibility than you. Read what she thinks about GM foods in her latest book "Harvest for Hope" and then say these foods are OK for human consumption.

Not for me. I'll continue to eat organic. I realize that cross-pollination is an issue, but I'll do everything I can to avoid Frankenfoods.

Don't forget to write your representatives in Congress to let them know that you want GM foods to be labeled! It's important!

[NashVegas]

46. I'm Sorry That Ethical Reasons Are Not Enough For You

Corporate farming/GE/GM methods threaten to make people who work land that they've owned into serfs and tenant farmers. I'm sorry that's not a good enough reason for you.

Corporate farming/GE/GM methods strip the ground of nutrients needed to produce healthful, flavorful foods, and I'm sorry that's not a good enough reason for you.

Corporate farming/GE/GM methods and their purveyors stand on the shoulders of those who compiled knowledge throughout milenniums through trial and error, threaten to erase that knowledge from the use of the descendents of those forebearers, and claim patents on technologies that are unavailable to the public domain. I'm sorry that's not enough of a reason for you to understand why Corporate farming/GE/GM methods are a threat to our population.

Lastly, there are multiple university studies out there showing that GE/GM methods have little to no superiority over traditional methods when it comes to increased yields. I'm sorry that's not reason enough for you to see GM/GE for the hoax that it is.

[jarjarbinksisgod]

48. so,

do you not want to the research to be done? to see whether or not it is a "hoax," as you claim? are you not the slightest bit interested it seeing if GE pays off?

[AnneD]

59. I think we should have a choice in the matter.

Sometimes just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. My fear is that these GM food get into the ecological system and God know what we have unleashed. Or worse yet, these GM seeds cannot reproduce, forcing any farmer to be nothing more than an indentured slave to Archer Daniels Midland (these folks are beyond the pale evil)or some other group.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

49. "One of the greatest crimes against humanity"

Can I ask why you say that?

I have to say I've never really understood any of the arguments against GE foods -- except that people don't want the corporations to make a profit.

[texastoast]

2. Time to get those patio gardens going

It's good for one and all to grow at least some of your own food. But watch out. The joy factor can cause it to be a very addictive habit.

[central scrutinizer]

3. until they get contaminated with a Terminator gene

then saving seeds will be useless and you will have to buy fresh seeds from Monsanto every year

[CatholicEdHead]

26. Terminator genes could take out entire plant species

if it mutates and spreads into the wild which it could easilly do. Then it is a even larger matter of life or death.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. Seeds that can't reproduce and intellectual "property"...

...that's where the REAL danger is.

One gets the impression they want to eliminate independent agriculture for good.

[fed-up]

6. What a bullsh*t propoganda piece with NO studies cited on health risks

from the "story".

"Overall, research shows GE foods are safe and effective, though some people still harbor reservations about it, said Shanahan. I suspect the more people are exposed to the news, the more aware they are of biotechnology and, therefore, more supportive of it."

There have been NO LONG TERM HUMAN health studies done, yet we have another "news story" claiming that GE foods are safe.

I also like the tidbit that :
"The researchers also found people who pay more attention to the news tend to support GE food more than those who don't."

Obviously those people don't go to organicconsumers.org for their news and rely on faux news for their misinformation.

[Solon]

9. I know, they love putting out BS like that...

For me, the health effects are only half of it, I worry about the IP side of it also. One thing I worry about is that the "terminator" genes don't work, this means cross-containamation of PATENTED products with more natural strains without human intervention. Given this, down the road, it will soon be illegal for anyone to possess seeds for any sort of food product, and that is a scary thought.

[sendero]

13. All I ask for ..

... is contents labeling. That would kill this misbegotten "industry" tout suite.

[midnight]

44. Remember when they said

Artificial sweeteners were basically safe. I would be very leary about consuming GE food until a long term study was conducted.

[FloridaPat]

7. There is suppose to be NO GM food sold in the US, Wonder where

they're getting that figure. The food industry has not had any advancement in the last 100 years that was for the good of the customers. It has always been for the good of the industry.

[fed-up]

15. GM food is allowed in the US, list of Foods that may contain GM products

from "an overview of the issue":

http://organicconsumers.org/ge/overview.cfm

Foods that may contain GM products
Vegetable oils: Canola, cotton, soy, corn oil or oil labelled as vegetable.

Soy: Processed foods, hydrolysed vegetable protein, textured vegetable protein, vegetable protein extract, soy protein, lecithin emulsifier, lecithin, emulsifier, tofu, tamari, shoyu, tempeh, soya sauce, soy fibre.

Maize: Corn or maize starch, glucose syrup, starch, modified starch, thickener, corn/maize flour, corn flakes, cereals, snack foods.

Canola: Oilseed (rape/rapeseed), canola, canola oil, margarine, butter/oil spreads.

Potatoes: Starch, potato starch, potato flour.

Cotton derivatives: Cottonseed oil (widely used to fry fast /convenience foods), cotton linters (often used to make sausage casings).

Locally produced dairy products: The use of the genetically engineered hormone rBGH to boost milk production, banned in many nations, is permitted. It is linked to negative health effects in humans and cattle.

[FloridaPat]

27. This is one of my many pet peeves. I have been following this since

it started. Last I heard they weren't allowed to use GM products, but it was getting snuck in the food chain. This is why it is so hard to stary current on everything. These clowns in Washington are so fast at changing things it's too hard to keep up. And I actually try, unlike most Americans that get all their news on TV. Now I am pissed royally. I see it may be in all the sneaky products that are in everything. Thanks for the update.

[fed-up]

31. That would be Europe where almost NO GMO crops are allowed, cept now WTO

just ruled they have to accept some or else they are violating Fair Trade laws.

GMO crops have been grown in the US since about 1996.

I was part of a small core group of 5 people that got an initiative on our ballot here in Butte County in 2004 to stop the growing of Genetically Engineered crops in Butte County, CA. We were novice politicians/activists, and were outspent 2X, but still got almost 40% of the vote.

Rice is one of the main crops grown here and Monsanto/Syngenta wanted to grow a variety engineered with human genes (a protein).
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/FrankenRice070805.cfm

Most of the rice farmers were in favor of our intiative as they would lose their Japan/European markets, but unfortunately it turned out the main RIce Experiment station for all of California is in our county and they claimed (falsely) that our initiative would shut down ALL experiments. They never did mention that they hadn't done a GE experiment in a few years, since they couldn't decide how to share the benefits (patent issues here) of what they learned.

If you are worried about eating GE foods (and I am since my food allergies that started late 1990's) don't eat processed foods containing any of the ingredients in the list above, and only buy milk that is labeled NO rBGH and organic corn, canola and soy.

[tecelote]

42. Yeah, Europe also does not allow many - many - of the pesticides

we use every day.

Since "Environmentalism" became a bad word, pesticide companies have been killing our lands and waters at an unprecedented rate. Not to mention farm workers.

Of course, we have more important things to worry about.

[ikojo]

10. Most Americans, when they are given information

about GE foods, are very concerned. I know many may poo-poo the source, but the Greens, via their magazine of Green social thought Synthesis/Regeneration, have been talking about GE foods for a long time. As a matter of fact there have been a couple of conferences and protests in St Louis (Monsanto's back yard) against GE foods.

http://www.greens.org/s-r/33toc.html

Many good articles on GE foods written by well respected scientists including Vandana Shiva, who has spoken in St Louis on this subject.

Where are the Democrats on this issue?

[roody]

35. Buy organic foods

and grow your own. Meanwhile the Bush admin works to weaken the USDA organic label.

[lovuian]

11. I can understand GM foods but it to make up 2/3 of our food

that literally scares the hell out of me...

and the way they hide it also scares me...

[VegasWolf]

14. I don't see the problem at all! So what? I would write more but I have

a surgeon's appointment to remove a few extra noses I have.

[AlamoDemoc]

18. Well, lets see...

I think I am more concerned about what is taking place in my local grocery store right now than future of what will take place overtime. I have learned recently that the meat we eat is sprayed on with Carbon-monoxide to show its freshness from WP.

I think the article said "FDA Is Urged to Ban Carbon-Monoxide-Treated Meat"


Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901101.html


My argument is not to overlook what is about to come, but what is here now on our grocery stores.

[SpiralHawk]

19. To ensure clean food for your family, join a CSA

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) has developed in America over the last 20 years, and is providing over 100,000 families with clean food at a good price (lower than both regular and natural food groceries). You know who is growing your food and raising your meat, and you know how they are doing it. The farmers, in turn, know who is eating their food. It works.

More: http://www.chiron-communications.com/farms.html

[lovuian]

50. Thank you Spiral hawk

I'm checking into this!!! I wonder if this increase in obesity has to do with GM foods...

[JohnyCanuck]

21. And some Philippinos are uneasy with Monsanto's GM corn.

GM Ban Long Overdue
Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Unexplained sicknesses and deaths

In July 2003, a farmer living in a small village in the south of Mindanao Island of The Philippines, found himself and his entire family suddenly falling ill with fever and respiratory, intestinal and skin ailments. They were not alone; at least fifty-one residents of Sitio Kalyong (Barangay Landan, Polomolok, South Cotabato Province) had similar complaints at around the same time. They all lived within 100 m of a field planted with GM maize, and their illnesses coincided with the GM maize flowering time.

Another resident of Sitio Kalyong, said <1> that the GM-maize pollen made him dizzy, gave him severe headaches, chest pains and caused him to vomit.

The field in Sitio Kalyong belonged to a local official who bought five bags of Monsanto's Bt maize seed (Dekalb818YG with Cry1Ab from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis ), enough to plant 5 hectares. He paid 4 500 pesos per bag, which was more than twice as much as the non-GM variety at 2 200 pesos per bag. The premium price included the promise of a small vehicle if the harvest turned out to be good, as it was supposed to. In the event, the promise was broken on both counts: the harvest of 93 sacks compared poorly with the usual 150 sacks per ha, and the small vehicle was never delivered. The local official stopped planting the Bt maize after 2003.

SNIP

Commenting on some of the evidence presented here, Dr. Michael Antoniou, Reader in Medical and Molecular Genetics at King's College London, had this to say <18>: “ If the kind of detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions. However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM food is that both governments and industry plough on ahead with the development, endorsement and marketing GM foods despite the warnings of potential ill health from animal feeding studies, as if nothing has happened. This is to the point where governments and industry even seem to ignore the results of their own research! There is clearly a need more than ever before for independent research into the potential ill effects of GM food including most importantly extensive animal and human feeding trials.”

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMBanLongOverdue.php

[humus]

25. GM Opposition Day

April 8th, Joint International GM Opposition Day
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1802198.php

*5 April : March for GMO-free regionsduring the GMO European Conference
held in Vienna, Austria.
*6 April :National Call-In Day to the US Congress, in support of the
"Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act,USA
*8 April : JIGMOD, Earth

8th of April 2006: Joint International GM Opposition Day (JIGMOD)

The World Trade Organization (WTO) -- whose Deputy Director General
previously served as the European general counsel for the agrochemical
and biotechnology giant Monsanto -- has ruled in favor of genetically
modified (GM) crop producers against the European Union (EU).
International critics of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are
confident that European citizens remain opposed, and that GMOs will not
significantly break into the European market. However, they are
concerned that it will open the way to the development of GM crops, as
well as the contamination of both GM-free fields and food chains.
Furthermore, the WTO is thus dictating a message to the world that it
is
useless to attempt to regulate GMOs.

In this context, 100 international organizations from more than 40
countries are now announcing April 8, 2006 as a Joint International
GM Opposition Day. The day will feature major public events in several
of these countries to demonstrate continuing global opposition to
genetically modified foods and crops.

“This international day follows the WTO decision to restrain European
governments from protecting their farmers and other citizens from the
threat of GMOs," explained one of the US promoters of the event. We
will
join with our allies around the world to condemn the WTO decision, and
to denounce the US administration's attempts to impose this hazardous
technology on us all.”

On the 8th of April, "Information Sites" distributed worldwide will
allow the general public to learn more about the social, scientific,
environmental and health dimensions of the GMO file. Some of these
sites
will be linked through a video-conference that will provide a forum for
GM opponents to dialog across the world, including the historical
figures of the movement. A letter, written by a team of scientists and
others, which emphasizes health risksand problems of genetically
engineered organisms, will notably be presented during this
conference.A
public demonstration will occur in Chicago, USA, where the
biotechnology
industry is holding its annual convention. A promotion of "peasant
seeds," as the pre-existing alternative to GM crops, will be launched
in
several countries. Among other joint initiatives, a NO-to-GMO Mosaic
composed of pieces originating from many regions of the world will be
exhibited in Turkey. Concerts, movies, discovery walks and peasant
markets will accompany exhibitions by sponsoring organizations.

"We are concerned about our quality of life, and want to prevent our
farms and our dinner plates from being touched by GMOs," said Dominique
BEroule, of the JIGMOD Coordinating Team in France. For ten years,
organizations worldwide have followed parallel and complementary tracks
toward this goal. Now, whereas the WTO intervenes to extend the GMO
market and suppress protective regulations, environmentalists, farmers,
and consumer organizations are joining in to inform the public of the
increasing evidence against genetically modified crops and food, on the
occasion of a worldwide appointment."

"The more people learn about the hazards of GMOs for our health, the
environment, and traditional agricultural communities, the more they
oppose this technology," explained Brian Tokar, of the US-based
Institute for Social Ecology. "And in many countries, this concern has
been translated into sound public policies to limit the importation and
growing of GM products. That is why corporations work to suppress
public
awareness in the US, and why our government has pressed theWTO to
overrule sound protective actions in other countries."

"The countries that have adopted GM are facing higher costs and market
rejection which is why they want to force the GM problem on other
competitive countries. Farmers want to market what consumers want, and
it is not GM. Contamination is not controllable and economic loss will
occur but it should be the GM companies, not the non-GM farmers, that
should be forced to accept the liability for the losses GM crops will
cause." said Julie Newman, of the Australian Network of Concerned
Farmers.

According to Ignacio Chapela, microbial ecologist and Professor at the
University of California (Berkeley), "We want to make sure that GMOs
are
not released into the environment without public transparency and
informed consent, but to recognize that some manipulations of organisms
might be useful, provided there is a high degree of public
responsibility and technical capacity to ensure that they do not come
out of a laboratory."

Dr Arpad Pusztai, who pioneered research on the nutritional and
developmental impacts of transgenic food, declares:"Will the biotech
company executives pushing GM crops on an unwilling public be able to
face their own children and grandchildren when the health damage and
environmental dangers of GM crops will come true?"

[roody]

36. Hello from Mendocino County, CA,

home of the voter passed prohibition on growing GMO seed in the county.

[humus]

43. back atcha

HEY roody
"humus" from Lancaster co.Pa.
home of some of the richest soil (a natural resource)
on the planet
trying to keep it that way.

[uppityperson]

28. Some Anericans are still able to think coherently.

argh

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

30. The line is the same as the OP's title.

If you have a problem with my beliefs, or rather your assumptions about my beliefs, it seems you could express yourself a little less nastily. I believe in science and also believe GE foods are a bad idea.

Edited to remove an unnecessary "this"

[roody]

37. If genetically modifed foods are okay,

why do the producers refuse to label it?

[uppityperson]

38. I agree.

And, just because stuff changes genetically in nature does not mean that it is ok to change things as much and as fast and in the combinations they have. I don't think it is controllable or safe either for eating or environmentally. Just because it is scientifically possible does not mean it is a good idea. I am glad that there is as much outcry about GE foods as there is when there is media coverage of it.

[evirus]

47. because

the bad stigma hollywood made out of cloning and geneetic engineering sticks in peoples mind, me i dont mind GE. back in the day my favorite snack food at the time, cheetos, was pulled off the market for a while because the GE corn they used caused a few people to have alergic reactions..... come on if your body dosnt like it.... dont consume it like it does

[Odin2005]

54. Exactly, the whole "frankenfood" scaremongering is rediculous.

[DrunkenMaster]

56. you need to educate yourself

Specifically about the differences between standard breeding and genetic modification. You are spreading dangerous falsehoods.

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/geneticallyengineered.html

Science now shows that GE crops have unanticipated ecological impacts:

* Research at Cornell and Iowa State Universities has confirmed that Bt corn pollen kills Monarch butterflies and other lepidoptera. This impact on non-target species was not predicted prior to the release of Bt corn. Every cell of the Bt corn carries the Bt toxin, and the plant itself is a registered pesticide.

* Research in Europe shows that GE crops damage beneficial insects, including lacewings and ladybugs. Beneficial insects that prey on aphids which have consumed Bt toxins have lower survival and reproduction rates than those which feed on healthy aphids. This impact was not researched or anticipated prior to release.

* Toxins from genetically engineered Bt crops accumulate in the soil, killing organisms and altering soil ecology, according to research at New York University. The GE Bt toxin was found to exude from the roots of living Bt corn plants. After 234 days, the toxin had not degraded. The research abstract concludes "there may be a risk that non-target insects and organisms in higher trophic levels could be affected by the toxin." This is a huge issue, and was previously unanticipated.

* Genetically engineered Bt toxin is significantly different from the topically applied Bt sprays which have been used by organic growers for 50 years. Topical Bt must be digested by an insect and react with enzymes and digestive acids in order to be toxic. Left on plants, it degrades under UV light in a matter of days. GE Bt is an active toxin found in every cell of the altered plant. It is not dependent on digestive enzymes and acids to become actively toxic, and it does not degrade in UV light.

* It is inevitable that the planting of insecticidal GE crops, such as Bt corn, cotton and potatoes, will result in pesticide resistant pests, because the GE toxins are present in every cell of every plant at all times. Any biologist or entomologist knows that this is a recipe for resistance. As insects develop resistance, conventional growers will need to apply more and stronger insecticides, and organic growers will likely lose access to a previously effective, selective, least-toxic, and natural pesticide.

* Research in Canada shows that herbicide resistant canola cross-pollinates with wild and domestic relatives, creating "superweeds" which are resistant to herbicides.

* The effects of altering one gene on the host genome, and on the ecosystem into which the organism is released, are unknown.

* And despite what the biotech industry would like us to believe, farmers are spending more on pesticides than ever before. Genetic engineering has not resulted in a decrease in pesticide use.

GE crops are bad for the U.S. economy:

* US corn exports to Europe dropped by 96% in 1999 because we cannot provide non-GE corn.

* US soybean sales to Europe dropped from $2.1 billion in 1996 to $1.1 billion in 1999.

* Genetic engineering is part of a failed farm policy which is driving farmers off the land. The USDA predicts corn prices below $2/bu through at least 2001 and soybean prices below $5/bu through 2004.

* Major buyers in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Mexico don't want GMO crops.

* Domestic buyers, including Frito-Lay, Gerber, Heinz, Seagrams, Whole Foods, Wild Oats, North America's largest potato processor, and the entire sugar industry want non-GE crops.

GE crops are having a negative impact on family farmers:

* GE seeds cost more, yet may yield less. 40 research plots in 1999 showed that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 4% less than non-GE varieties.

* The November 1, 1999, issue of Chemical and Engineering News reported that DuPont and Monsanto together own 73% of the seed corn companies in the U.S. Novartis, Dow, and Cargill own most of the rest. In the face of this concentration, farmers have few planting choices, and most of the best genetics are bundled with GE traits.

* For corn farmers, the share of a farmer's gross income spent on seed and chemicals has risen from 9.5% in 1975 to 16.9% in 1997. For soybean farmers, the share spent on seed and chemicals has risen from 10.8% to 16.3%. * Over 30 patents have already been issued for Terminator and Traitor technology, which is designed to produce crops which have sterile seed, making farmers chemically dependent and preventing them from saving their own seeds. This is the most transparently greedy and ecologically dangerous GE technology of all.

* Farmers who plant GE crops must sign licensing agreements allowing biotech companies unlimited access to their farms. The farmers don't buy the seed - they only lease the right to grow it.

* Farmers who save their own seeds are subject to investigation, harassment, and litigation by biotech companies. Farmers are encouraged to "turn in" their neighbors, if they suspect they are saving seeds.

* Farmers whose crops have been subjected to genetic drift have even been investigated and accused of saving GE seeds without having signed licensing agreements.

* Farmers are being exposed to unprecedented economic and environmental risks, with no protection from biotech companies. Farmers who plant GE crops may be liable for contamination of neighboring non-GE and organic crops due to genetic drift. Biotech companies carry no insurance to cover these damages. Insurance companies claim genetic engineering is an "unquantifiable risk."

* Genetic pollution is another unanticipated consequence of GE technology, especially for wind and insect pollinated crops such as corn, canola, potatoes, and squash. Genetic drift is a huge issue for organic growers, since genetic engineering is prohibited by all organic standards in the world, and consumers expect organic foods to be free of GE ingredients.

* The development of GE-free labels is not the answer to protect consumers. It places the burden on farmers and consumers who want to avoid genetic engineering, rather than on the corporations who profit from the technology. Corporations and producers who profit from GE technology must bear the burden of segregating and labeling GE products.

* Unless GE products are tracked and labeled, a moratorium must be imposed. A moratorium on the planting of GE crops would present a huge economic opportunity for farmers and processors in non-GE zones, since the world is demanding non-GE products.

Genetically engineered foods are being rejected by consumers:

* The British and Portuguese Medical Associations are calling for a global moratorium on the planting of GE crops.

* Research in Great Britain has shown that rats developed intestinal growths when fed GE potatoes.

* Research in Great Britain also shows that incidences of soy food allergies have increased corresponding with the sale of Roundup Ready soybeans.

* GE crops contain antibiotic resistance marker genes, bacteria genes, and virus genes. None of these genetically engineered substances have ever before been part of the ecosystem or the human diet.

* Germany has banned all planting, growing, and selling of GE corn produced by Novartis, based on research published in Freiburg, Germany, that showed the GE corn can cancel out the effect of antibiotic treatments for illnesses because the corn has been modified to resist certain antibiotics.

* GE crops have been rushed to market without proper testing, and with no labeling. The regulatory process has been shrouded in secrecy and conflict of interest. The Food and Drug Administration ruled in 1992 that GE crops are "substantially equivalent" to regular crops and foods, and do not have to be safety tested or labeled, even though they contain unique, altered genes, and can be patented.

* The FDA's own researchers found that genetic engineering could have unpredictable consequences, and urged caution, yet their objections were overruled. To this day, there is still no sound science which proves GE crops are safe for the environment or human health. · * 81% of respondents want genetically engineered foods to be labeled. A January 2000 MSNBC poll showed identical results.

[lovuian]

52. Ya why did they hide GM corn in the europe food and not tell

them and then EU found out.... its kinda like japan finding mad cow disease after they lifted the ban...

You really wonder is there an agenda???

[Kablooie]

39. Personally I don't think crunching light bulbs is a very good idea.

[cliss]

40. I don't care how safe it's perceived to be -

I will never accept Franken Foods.

Most convincing reason: as long as there is profit to be made, the end consumer is at risk.

If it was done by non-profit organization, it would be different. I've sat through many Board of Director meetings, and I know what will always be the driving factor.......

[anitar1]

57. Cliss, I'm with you. much info has been out there

for a few years but most are not interested, it seems. At least not in this country.

[evirus]

45. every crop is in a way GE

think about it for thousands of years we have picked breeds of crop and even cross breeded them for maximum possable yeild or quality, pretty much anything you eat now a days is in one way or another GE

[DrunkenMaster]

51. ummmm....no

Breeding plants is NOT the same as making alterations to their genetic code.

Sorry, but back to Biology101 for you.

[Odin2005]

53. Ummmm, actually, yes it is.

the only difference is where the genetic alterations come from. Genetic engineering just takes out the randomness and tedium of waitng for a helpful mutation to pop up. It's the same old "natural is good artificial is bad" nonsense.

[DrunkenMaster]

55. that is absolutely 100% false

And a dangerous myth. A farmer CANNOT breed fish genes into a freaking tomato the last time I checked.

http://www.nbbnet.gov.my/pintarbiotek/englishversion/Breeding.html

'Breeding' versus Genetic Engineering

'Breeding' process too involves gene transfer. Since thousands of years ago, human has chose plants or animals that have certain trait and breed them to produce generation that is beneficial to human. Even though 'Breeding' and genetic engineering have the same fundamental, both are different in many aspects. Breeding can only happens when the same organism breeds. Mean while, genetic engineering allows gene transfer to different type of organism, as long the gene transferred will not be a burden to the recipient and cause the recipient to die. In genetic engineering, only the genes that its function is known is selected and transferred to other organism. While Breeding, genes are transferred randomly without knowing which genes is involved.

http://www.truefoodnow.org/home_myths.html

MYTH #1: Genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional breeding.
REALITY: Genetic engineering is a new technology that has been developed to overcome the limitations of traditional breeding. Traditional breeders have never been capable of crossing fish genes with strawberries. But genetically engineered "fishberries" are already in the field. With genetic engineering, these types of new organisms can be created and released into the environment1. Food and Drug Administration scientists stated that genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, and so are the risks2. Despite this warning, the FDA continues to assert that GE foods and crops are not different and don't require special regulations.

MYTH #2: Genetic engineering can make foods better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better-tasting.
REALITY: The reason for the 70 million acres of GE crops grown in this country today has nothing to do with nutrition, flavor or any other consumer benefit. There is little benefit aside from the financial gains reaped by the firms producing GE crops. Nearly all of the GE corn, soy, potatoes and cotton grown in the United States has been genetically altered so that it can withstand more pesticides or produce its own.

MYTH #3: GE crops eliminate pesticides and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming.
REALITY: Farmers who grow GE crops actually use more herbicide, not less. For example, Monsanto created Roundup-Ready (RR) soy, corn and cotton specifically so that farmers would continue to buy Roundup, the company's best-selling chemical weed killer, which is sold with RR seeds3. Instead of reducing pesticide use, one study of more than 8,000 university-based field trials suggested that farmers who plant RR soy use two to five times more herbicide than non-GE farmers who use integrated weed-control methods. GE crops may be the greatest threat to sustainable agriculture on the planet. Many organic farmers rely on a natural bacterial spray to control certain crop pests. The advent of genetically engineered, insect-resistant crops is likely to lead to insects that are immune to this natural pesticide. When this biological pesticide is rendered ineffective, other farmers will turn to increasingly toxic chemicals to deal with the "superbugs" created by GE crops. Meanwhile, organic farmers will be out of options.

MYTH #4: The Government ensures that genetic engineering is safe for the environment and human health.
REALITY: Neither the FDA4, the Department of Agriculture (USDA)5, nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)6 has done any long-term human health or environmental impact studies of GE foods or crops, nor has any mandatory regulation specific to GE food been established. Biotech companies are on the honor system. They have virtually no requirements to show that this new technology is safe. FDA scientists and doctors warned that GE foods could have new and different risks such as hidden allergens, increased plant-toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease. The USDA has reviewed more than 5,000 applications for experimental GE crop field trials without denying a single one. USDA officials claimed they would conduct long-term studies of GE crops, but have no plans to require any pre-market or pre-release assessment. Studies conducted after our environment and food supply have been contaminated will be too late.

MYTH #5: There is no scientific evidence that GE foods harm people or the environment
REALITY: There is no long-term study showing that GE foods or crops are safe, yet the biotech industry and government have allowed our environment and our families to become guinea pigs in these experiments. Doctors around the world have warned that GE foods may cause unexpected health consequences that may take years to develop. Laboratory and field evidence shows that GE crops can harm beneficial insects, damage soils and transfer GE genes in the environment, thereby contaminating neighboring crops and potentially creating uncontrollable weeds.

[Odin2005]

60. More "it can be abused so it's bad" strawmen.

The problems are not for the technology itself, THE PROBLEM IS THE CORPORATIONS! Take self-intrest out of the picture and there is no more pesticide shinanigans and whatnot.

And who cares about moving genes from one organism from another? Genes don't cary some mystical essence of where they came from. It's just more "natural is good, artificial is bad" BS. "Hey, pure aluminum doesn't exist in nature, so using aluminum metal is BAD!" or "plasic is artificial so plastic is BAD!" would be extensions of that logic.

[Solon]

61. There is one big difference between traditional breeding, and GE plants...

One is patented and the other is a part of the commons. That, to me, is the biggest issue, do we really want to make it ILLEGAL for farmers to keep seed for next season? Do we really want to have our world food supply become the SOLE possession of ADM and Monsanto? That is where it is headed, at least in this country, and even more insidious is the patenting of DISCOVERIES, gee, I was always taught that INVENTIONS are the only things that can be patented, but I guess I was wrong. Hell, there is a biotech company in Australia whose sole purpose for existing is to sue anyone related to research or development of what is commonly called "Junk DNA". Cancer researchers, Governments, etc. as had to shell out millions of dollars to perform research into Junk DNA, just because this one company holds a patent on it. How fucking stupid is that?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/07/1057430139602.html

[DrunkenMaster]

58. a famer breeding a fish and a tomato...hmmmm

..yeah, I think you have been reading The Onion too often:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33600

I Think I'm Going About This Cat-Breeding Thing All Wrong
April 1, 1998 | Issue 33•12

Last October, my dear wife Lois passed on. The first few months after her death were extremely difficult for me, as I missed her very much. Then, one day, my pastor recommended I take up a hobby to help me get my mind off things.

Now, I've always been what you might call a lover of cats, so I decided to take up cat-breeding. And, while nothing will ever replace my Lois, I have found cat-breeding to be an extremely enjoyable pastime. Only problem is, after months of trying, I still haven't seen a single litter from those furry little gals. I'm beginning to think I'm going about this cat-breeding thing all wrong.

To be honest, I haven't the slightest idea what the problem is. As far as I can tell, I'm doing everything right. I wait until they're well in heat, rubbing up against me and yowling to be serviced. At that point, I bring them out back to the shed, where I've prepared a special breeding area.

It's cool and dark in the shed, just the way cats are supposed to like it. There are candles and nice music, too. (Actually, those are mostly for me. I know it sounds selfish, since I'm not the one giving birth to the kittens, but I like the experience to be special for me, too.) I've even laid down soft blankets where the actual breeding takes place, and put up chicken wire so my skittish lovelies can't run far if they get scared.

At that point, I'm ready to consummate the breeding process. Gently but firmly, I hold them down with one hand while I carefully and lovingly breed them with the other. You'd be surprised–the tail hardly gets in the way at all. Sometimes I'm afraid I'm hurting them, but all the books I've read say that cats tend to yowl and scratch when breeding, so I usually don't worry too much. (Heck, I yowl and scratch, too, sometimes.) The worst was the time Mrs. Purrs slashed my thigh. She couldn't help it, though—cats' instincts are so strong.

According to the books, the actual mechanical act of cat-breeding only takes a few seconds, but, just to be sure, I usually breed each cat for about 30 to 40 minutes.

[Clara T]

62. What is the main viral promoter used in gene splicing?

CaMV.

Why is that a problem?

What is horizontal gene transfer?

Your post is patently false.