Genetically Modified Food

[n2ize]

Of late I am hearing a lot of people talking about "genetically modified food" and how "unhealthy/bad" it is for you. Even my Mom is convinced that buying certain products that contain genetically modified ingredients must be avoided at all costs.

Doing some initial research I get two conflicting stories. On one hand the biotech industry or groups connected with biotech claiming it is all 100% safe and there is absolutely no need to be concerned. On the other hand I find environmental, nature, and health food groups that claim ALL genetically modified food is deadly and must be avoided like the plague.. Uhhh ?? doesn't nature "genetically modify" food as well ? Another problem that I have with most of these anti-genetically modified groups is that while they argue that it is all unhealthy or deadly they don;t explain why or show any conclusive proof to support their claim.

What I would like to see is a comprehensive site or resource that uses actual science (as opposed to profit motives or hysteria/ FUD) as the rational for the safety (or dangers) of genetically modified foods. Questions I would have are 1) Are all genetically modified foods safe ? 2) Are some safe and some not safe ? 3) If any/all are not safe then why are they not ? By what biological/medical explainations are there to support claims of health risks or dangers ?

Perhaps there are scholarly papers dealing with these questions but, I wish there were some readily available (as in online) resource that provides a rational scientific explanations instead of the FUD that seems to be everywhere these days.

[ab1ga]

I too would like to find such a site, but the Holy Grail seems an easier project just now.

I can give some input to one of your questions, though. While breeding is used to generate strains with improved characteristics, it has three limitations. The first is time, since you have to go through a generation to figure out how a cross worked. The second is cost, which is related to the first because breeding generally involves whole plants, whereas genetic modification can be done on lots of different plant cells at once. Finally, conventional breeding does not easily allow for cross-species breeding.

The ability to transfer genes across species lines is where the greatest potential, but also the capability for harm comes in. Plants don't like to be eaten by bugs, so some species have developed the ability to synthesize natural insecticides to discourage pests. Through breeding one can increase the amount of pesticide produced, but at what point is it too much? There was an incident involving celery many moons ago. In most plants the pesticide is concentrated just below the skin, where it does the most good; in celery it is more uniformly dispersed throughout the entire plant. If you peel or thoroughly wash your food, you can reduce the toxin load, but not so with celery. It seems someone bred a super-resistant celery which had been amped up enough to actually make people sick, and the strain was pulled from the market.

I believe that celery was a product of natural breeding, but things can get trickier when you go cross-species, because you can't necessarily tell how active a specific gene will be in a totally different host. Even if things look good in lab testing, you can't reproduce all of the different growing conditions the plant will see (although companies do a hell of a job designing the experiments, with good results), and the activity of a gene may be dependent on soil or temperature conditions.

And remember, if the purpose of the modification is to increase resistance to disease or insects, that means the plant is producing poisons. If you wanted to try out a new drug on people, extensive EPA testing is long and arduous, but a chemical with toxic effects not generally administered to humans can be introduced into foods with much less safety testing. That is, I believe, the main source of rational objections to the blanket acceptance of GM foods. This doesn't even address the impact such organisms could have on other plants growing in the area.

73,

[K7SGJ]

Of late I am hearing a lot of people talking about "genetically modified food" and how "unhealthy/bad" it is for you. Even my Mom is convinced that buying certain products that contain genetically modified ingredients must be avoided at all costs.

Doing some initial research I get two conflicting stories. On one hand the biotech industry or groups connected with biotech claiming it is all 100% safe and there is absolutely no need to be concerned. On the other hand I find environmental, nature, and health food groups that claim ALL genetically modified food is deadly and must be avoided like the plague.. Uhhh ?? doesn't nature "genetically modify" food as well ? Another problem that I have with most of these anti-genetically modified groups is that while they argue that it is all unhealthy or deadly they don;t explain why or show any conclusive proof to support their claim.

What I would like to see is a comprehensive site or resource that uses actual science (as opposed to profit motives or hysteria/ FUD) as the rational for the safety (or dangers) of genetically modified foods. Questions I would have are 1) Are all genetically modified foods safe ? 2) Are some safe and some not safe ? 3) If any/all are not safe then why are they not ? By what biological/medical explainations are there to support claims of health risks or dangers ?

Perhaps there are scholarly papers dealing with these questions but, I wish there were some readily available (as in online) resource that provides a rational scientific explanations instead of the FUD that seems to be everywhere these days.

Sorry. The guys writing the scholarly papers all died from eating genetically modified foods before they could get them published.

[W4GPL]

The question really is.. can we feed everyone on earth WITHOUT GM food? I think India would tell you..no fscking way.

[KG4CGC]

In Japan, they make meat from turds. GM foods are the least of my worries when we have turd meat. We're just one pink slime incident away from turd meat in the US.

In actuality, it has been said that GMO crops kill pollinator species.

[W3WN]

In Japan, they make meat from turds. GM foods are the least of my worries when we have turd meat. We're just one pink slime incident away from turd meat in the US.
< snip >

Have you seen The Help? There's a scene near the end...

[KG4CGC]

Have you seen The Help? There's a scene near the end...

Currently one of the XYL's favorite movies. The bitch character in the movie really liked the taste of that pie.

[KC2UGV]

The question really is.. can we feed everyone on earth WITHOUT GM food? I think India would tell you..no fscking way.

We could. It would take a giant leap in how American (And many other developed nations) act, however.

[W4GPL]

We could. It would take a giant leap in how American (And many other developed nations) act, however.

Yeah, like I said..

[n2ize]

I too would like to find such a site, but the Holy Grail seems an easier project just now.

I can give some input to one of your questions, though. While breeding is used to generate strains with improved characteristics, it has three limitations. The first is time, since you have to go through a generation to figure out how a cross worked. The second is cost, which is related to the first because breeding generally involves whole plants, whereas genetic modification can be done on lots of different plant cells at once. Finally, conventional breeding does not easily allow for cross-species breeding.

The ability to transfer genes across species lines is where the greatest potential, but also the capability for harm comes in. Plants don't like to be eaten by bugs, so some species have developed the ability to synthesize natural insecticides to discourage pests. Through breeding one can increase the amount of pesticide produced, but at what point is it too much? There was an incident involving celery many moons ago. In most plants the pesticide is concentrated just below the skin, where it does the most good; in celery it is more uniformly dispersed throughout the entire plant. If you peel or thoroughly wash your food, you can reduce the toxin load, but not so with celery. It seems someone bred a super-resistant celery which had been amped up enough to actually make people sick, and the strain was pulled from the market.

I believe that celery was a product of natural breeding, but things can get trickier when you go cross-species, because you can't necessarily tell how active a specific gene will be in a totally different host. Even if things look good in lab testing, you can't reproduce all of the different growing conditions the plant will see (although companies do a hell of a job designing the experiments, with good results), and the activity of a gene may be dependent on soil or temperature conditions.

And remember, if the purpose of the modification is to increase resistance to disease or insects, that means the plant is producing poisons. If you wanted to try out a new drug on people, extensive EPA testing is long and arduous, but a chemical with toxic effects not generally administered to humans can be introduced into foods with much less safety testing. That is, I believe, the main source of rational objections to the blanket acceptance of GM foods. This doesn't even address the impact such organisms could have on other plants growing in the area.

73,

Great explanation. Very helpful. So basically speaking there are valid concerns and it is not necessarily all FUD. It seems there are two forces at work. On one hand the biotech industry which seems to want to downplay many of the concerns people have and on the other hand some anti groups claiming that "its all bad". In reality there are valid concerns and real problems that can arise.

Seems to me that at some point more stringent and extended testing is going to have to be required before a given bioengineered product is put on the market and touted as perfectly safe. Of course the biotech moguls aren't going to like that idea as it means more expense and slower time to reach the open market.