Slashdot Mirror

(I'm from Europe; here it's known as GMO (Genetically Modified Organism). I may call it GM / GMO interchangeably).

I'm pretty sure I have been eating mostly GM foods, probably for the past 20 years of my life.

I'm pretty sure you haven't. Luckily, there aren't that many GM foods being grown yet, and used for human consumption.

With plenty of preservatives, added sugar, caffeine, sodium and every other nasty chemical ever put in food. Never had any diet-related health problems. Healthy blood sugar, healthy immune system, body mass actually slightly under normal but not unhealthily so.

Almost like me, then. Until I became 32, I was fine too. Then I started feeling weird from drinking Coke, so I stopped drinking soda drinks entirely.
Since then, things have started tasting weird or made me uncomfortable, one at a time, so I've stopped drinking or eating them.
Butter, most dairy products, white bread, pork, tea (once I had had green tea, I couldn't drink ordinary tea anymore, it just tasted 'dead').

Also, I believe I have seen that movie. I am aware of the almost comically evil nature of Monsanto. They're third in line on my list of people to line against the wall when the revolution happens (after the professional lobbyists and the MAFIAA).

Good.

However, "evil corporation" does not imply "unsafe food".

No, but it damn well doesn't imply "safe food" either. The "evil corporation" doesn't care, one way or the other, as long as they can turn a profit, which is why such 'food' should be checked rigorously, for decades, under controlled conditions, before entering field testing, if ever. Once a GMO plant is out, the genome will spread in nature, there's no taking it back. Also, the modified genome can transfer to your gut bacteria, which is very bad.
Anyway, Monsanto's plan is to get their hands into each and every big and small farmer's pockets: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
They don't give a damn if they destroy the worlds food supply in the process, as long as they can retire with billions in their bank accounts.

Wrt. FDA, I consider them to be thoroughly corrupt, but we can discuss that elsewhere.

Point me at one instance of someone dying from GM food (specifically because the food was GM, mind you, not because it was spoiled or something) and I can point you at ten people who died from normal food, and a thousand more who died from the lack of any food.

Very good point. How would I or anyone else know, if someone who died from cancer or some infection due to a damaged immune system, got that way because he/she ate GM food?
Human trials with GM food are practically non-existent, because they would reveal all too clearly in what ways one's health would deteriorate once you start eating GM food in quantity on a daily basis.
Rats are good substitutes for human subjects, though.
You might also want to read a position paper from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

PS: Was marking me a foe really necessary?

No. The point I wanted to put across, was that you'll very easily make enemies when discussing GMO, because there's so much at stake; the world's food supply. If it gets irreversibly contaminated with harmful/deadly genes, we're all dead. Game over.
Anyway, I've read hundreds, if not thousands of pages about GM(O), and I made up my mind a couple of years ago; at the very least, it's harmful, and should be abolished.

DJRumpy: "If you don't want to eat that shit, don't buy it, or grow your own disease ridden organic food."

Disease-ridden? Really? What are you claiming? That if food is not genetically modified it is not safe to eat? When the fuck were you born? 1995? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have any clue as to how long food has been grown "organically" without the supposed benefit of genetic modification?

"Shut up, dumb ass. Allow Monsanto to imbue your crops with their own molecular-based pesticides and insecticides. Poison-drinking and poison-producing plants are GOOD for you, idiot! Shut up and drink your poison already; jeez."

I'm about sick of dipshits like you referring to studies from groups whose sole purpose is to prove what they were paid to prove. Fuck the bullshit already, please -- do a little research instead of just believing what you read. Real scientists tell the truth with absolute disregard to political, social, or neighborhood consequence. Those men and women are the true rebels that a "free" society needs; they don't just do what they're told like weak ass bitches obeying their scum-fuck pimps. Real scientists give a shit about the QUALITY of their conclusions, not just the pay-off they receive from obtaining those conclusions.

In 1999, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the world’s top GMO safety researcher at the prestigious Rowett Institute in Scotland was working on a UK government grant to design long-term testing protocols intended to become part of the official European GM food safety assessment process. When Pusztai fed supposedly harmless GMOs to rats, they developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and showed signs of a damaged immune system. Moreover, the results clearly indicated that the cause of the problem was due to the unpredictable side effects arising from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, his study suggested that the GM foods already on the market, which were created from the same process, might also create such effects. When Dr Pusztai expressed his concern he was fired from his job of 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. His 20-member research team was disbanded, all testing protocols were abandoned, and the pro-GM establishment embarked on an extensive disinformation campaign to discredit the study’s results to protect the reputation of GM foods already in the marketplace.

When an invitation to testify before Parliament allowed Pusztai to finally tell his alarming story, all hell broke loose. The outpouring of news coverage, said to one columnist, “divided society into two warring blocs” over the GM food issue. An industry wide rejection of GMOs was reached quickly thanks to the buying power of consumers who convinced manufacturers to keep GMOs out of the European Union, in spite of official approvals by the pro-GM European Commission.

In 1999, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the world’s top GMO safety researcher at the prestigious Rowett Institute in Scotland was working on a UK government grant to design long-term testing protocols intended to become part of the official European GM food safety assessment process. When Pusztai fed supposedly harmless GMOs to rats, they developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and showed signs of a damaged immune system. Moreover, the results clearly indicated that the cause of the problem was due to the unpredictable side effects arising from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, his study suggested that the GM foods already on the market, which were created from the same process, might also create such effects. When Dr Pusztai expressed his concern he was fired from his job of 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. His 20-member research team was disbanded, all testing protocols were abandoned, and the pro-GM establishment embarked on an extensive disinformation campaign to discredit the study’s results to protect the reputation of GM foods already in the marketplace.

Weeds have already been given pesticide resistance through regular polenation and natural selection. This is bad enough because it defeats the purpose and there are plenty of studies that GM crops are harmful to wildlife, including mysteriously disappearing honey bees.

Newer concerns are better written and documented here by a Monsanto whistle blower. We already know that the industry was sloppy because unapproved GM crops have contaminated the US rice supply. It may be that the people who worried about GM crops were right and evidence of genes crossing species is just one of the many things they feared. Genetic sequencing is new and bound to bring big surprises.

It's good practice to keep an open mind but be careful until you know things are safe. A couple of historical examples show how caution works and what industry does when it's not careful. People who hear about the use of lead and arsenic in paint and wallpaper often wonder how people could be so stupid as to have that kind of thing in their homes. The answer is that printers and painters overstepped their knowledge and embraced new toys that made them money. At the opposite end of the of caution is Rontgen, the discover of Xrays. He was very careful to shield all of his sources with lead bricks because he did not know what his newly created rays would do to him. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not die of cancer. People continued to expose themselves needlessly for half a century before sane practices were finally codified.

GE foods available for purchace (sic) are never harmful to humans.

Rubbish! There is a well documented case of an outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome resulting in several deaths and over 1500 people permanently disabled that was traced to genetically modified L-tryptophan.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptopha n/2BackgroundInformation/index.cfm

At least they're willing to say they they were wrong, unlike hundreds of years ago.

They are... as long as profits are not at stake.

While the scientific research community is willing to acknowledge the limits of their understanding, the corporations developing genetically engineered foodcrops maintain that their products are proven perfectly safe (implying that they have a perfect understanding of the effects of the changes they have made). This claim flies in the face of significant research. And they have no compunctions about applying political and economic pressure to independent university researchers who claim otherwise.

The grand irony in the whole mess is that, as far as Monsanto etc are concerned, it's really not about genetic engineering and whatever dubious advantages it might provide. It's really an intellectual property maneuver to establish ownership of the seed supply.

For a lengthy discussion of this subject, read this paper.

For a brief (albeit slanted, but not untrue) summary, check out this.

For a discussion of an exciting and viable alternative, one which really is just an extension of selective breeding, read about marker-assisted breeding.