To Read: Why Aren't GMO Foods Labeled?

[lacylu42]

Excellent blog from Mark Bittman about GMOs and the recent GM crops that have been approved by the FDA:

It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be

Comments

[mrjl_writer]

That was a good read. I hate so much that companies rule the gov'ts. Canada just shot down a bill that would protect farmers from GMOs, and now they're looking into approving the 'enviropig'. Sometimes moving to Europe seems attractive.

[aki_the_wingly]

suddenly being lactose Intolerant isn't so bad anymore.

[small_chicken]

Stirring the pot, but the argument against GMOs has always rankled me the wrong way

[lacylu42]

Don't apologize. Stirring the pot is good! It makes us all think.

In that vein, I'd like to add that I believe there is a huge difference between naturally cross breeding plants or even animals and laboratory genetic modification-which is, I believe generally what is meant when people use the term GMO.

With cross breeding, you're using natural selection to improve on a plant or animal's natural resources-the key word here being natural. Nothing about a Braeburn apple makes it anything other than an apple, because the only genes it had to choose from were apple genes.

But when organisms are modified in a lab, anything can be added. In the case of GMOs, it's frequently things like disease or bacterial resistance in addition to improvements in size or resiliency

[small_chicken]

"Natural" is a terrible word, meaning-wise. The genes that convey resistance to disease/pesticides came from something else--another plant, usually, and bacteria, occasionally. What's so unnatural about it? A gene is basically a collection of nucleotides, strung together with a phosphate backbone. Just because you've excised it from one organism doesn't somehow magically change it into a malevolent force for evil. And how does one organism acquiring a gene become "unnatural"? If a tomato plant randomly acquires a gene for salt resistance, how is that any different from a researcher inserting the gene into the tomato?

And consider: in breeding D. melanogaster, scientists have created all manners of grotesque mutants without using the techniques typically associated with genetic engineering. Dogs are another case in point--how isn't a bulldog a grotesque insult to the species? We have such things as turkeys that are too fat to fly, flowers that can't reproduce without a gardener, and chili peppers that contain a gazillion

[femmephilosophe]

What about the moral implications of the "terminator" gene? It makes farmers (who are under IMMENSE pressure to buy GM) unable to replant their crop from seeds saved from the previous harvest. This makes them entirely dependent on the GM company and completely at its whims. And what does THAT mean for global food production and food prices?

[lovebri]

He's wrong about one thing. People have had allergic reactions--I have met/heard of several people, generally researchers, who have had severe anaphylactic shock allergy responses to breathing in GM pollen.

I also have issues with the negativity toward GM crops. I'm not a huge fan personally but instead of open discussion, anti-GM groups use downright scare tactics without a true understanding of the science because even the scientists themselves don't know because they are blocked from doing/publishing research. That's what I find most upsetting. A journalist whose articles I have found very interesting and helpful is Emily Waltz: http://www.emilywaltz.com/ GM products could have enormous value, but there needs to be more research and more openness about them.

Some good websites: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ ; http://www.non-gmoreport.com/ ;

Reply

[small_chicken]

I would hesitate to ascribe the development of allergies to GM pollen to the GM itself. It's well-known for people working in labs to develop allergies to rats, mice, and latex--so common, in fact, that where I work, in order to go into the animal facilities, you have to: change shoes, change lab coats twice, wear a one-way mask, and a hairnet. Apparently continuous exposure to potential antigens leads to allergies.

That being said, I agree--that people could have allergy issues with GM foods. So far, though, I haven't heard of any, and it's unlikely to be an insurmountable obstacle for the widespread adoption of GM foods.

[lovebri]

Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean that all allergies are caused by GM material but they can be. I have met one researcher who had an anaphylactic shock response to GM corn pollen, and she said there are others, but these stories are kept quiet. http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/apr0
/breeding_to_save_nongmo_organic_corn_seed.php

[lincolnparadox]

If you work with something long enough,l you'll become allergic to it. However, pollen is much more allergenic than a food product because of the differences between nasal versus oral introduction.

Oral tolerance reduces your reaction to allergens.

I'm not saying that these researchers can't be allergic to Cry proteins, or whatever they work with. Heck, I've worked with hypoallergenic silk proteins and now I pick up a rash whenever I'm in contact with the material.

It's about contact, not GMO.