UK Expert Panel Split on GM Food Risks

Factomatic writes "The U.K. government's chief scientist and chairman of a panel of experts charged with assessing the risks of genetically modified (GM) foods says he is concerned about the environmental and wildlife impact of GM foods. But in its first report, published on July 21, the government's divided GM Science Review Panel found the risk GM foods pose to humans is probably low. Former environment minister Michael Meacher said the report is a "public scandal" because "they say that they have found no evidence that eating GM food causes a health risk but... no-one has actually looked for the evidence; it is just assumed." Still, the report is "neither a green light nor a red light to GM crops," said Sir David King, chair of the panel. A press release about the report is also online, and the panel is seeking public comment on the report and on GM foods in general."

Comments

Don't confuse the two issues

[Yohahn]

There is the question of safety for consumption.

and

There is the question of safety for the environment.

Just because one is true or false dosen't really have any bearing on the other

Re:Don't confuse the two issues

[Factomatic]

No one said one has a bearing on the other. If you read the post and the articles, the committee is divided on BOTH issues, but the chair is mainly concerned about environmental impact. The former environment minister is mainly concerned with the effects on human health and is pointing out they have done no scientific investigation to declare GM foods are probably safe for humans to eat. I don't see any confusion.

Re:Don't confuse the two issues

[Anonymous Coward]

GM foods are probably safe for humans to eat

I've been eating GM foods for years without strangeness: Cheerios, Wheaties, and who could not like Chex party mix?

Re:Don't confuse the two issues

[Yohahn]

I was intending to clairify that there were two independant issues, as they were presented together in the post.

Re:Don't confuse the two issues

[ravenousbugblatter]

The question of the safety of GM foods for consumption varies depending on the GM plant. Many of these plants are modified genetically in such a way that the transgene is only expressed in the body of the plant - not the fruit. This would significantly lessen the intake of the protein generated by the transgene by humans. The safety also depends on what the transgene is. An insecticide, even a natural one, may be harmful to ingest. But many of the other types of transgenes are probably harmless to humans, since they often come from naturally resistant plants.

The question of safety for the environment is a much more complicated one. If too much of the plant population is GM, it is possible that the pests could develop resistance to the transgene. This is why, in the US, the FDA wants farmers to plant no more than 20% of their crop with GM food. It is critical to maintain diversity, because the emergence of a new pest could potentially wipe out an entire plant species if there is no variety,

Fact of the matter is, teh proper, long term experiments addressign these issues have just not been done yet. But at the same time, as long as the population on earth continues to increase, we will need to increase our ability to produce food. Getting more cropyield per the same amount of land is the best way that can be done, and GM'ing the crops may be the only way to give that result. Of course, if that doesn't work and we run out of food there will just be a major human die off, and the cycle will start over, just like in other animal populations.

Re:Don't confuse the two issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, since humans are part of the environment, the more people this stuff kills, the better the environment gets . . .

GM is a control issue, not an environmental issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe there is any credible evidence that shows GM foods will harm us or harm the environment. Before you Greenies blow your tops, by "credible" I mean there is more evidence that pot is good for cancer patients (which it isn't) than there is for GM plants being dangerous for me to consume or grow where my children play or spread in our national parks.

However, the reason to oppose them is that the patents associated with them are a new way for corporate control of private behaviour to be extended. For Monsato to sell a seed, and then claim you can't plant the seeds of that seed without paying again, is an affront to freedom.

When I planted my garden this spring I noticed several of the packets of seeds I bought at Walmart had printed on them "Unauthorized propagation is prohibited." What kind of bullshit is that ? Seed patents (yes they are allowed and are not a new thing) apply to sale of seeds not the replanting.

I don't want anyone telling me what I can and can't plant in my garden. This includes the Neighborhood NAZI Association (complained that my tomatoes were too high!), the Greens (would love to bring in government agents to rip up my GM plants and replace them with "native plants" and foreign hemp), and big companies (who don't give a shit about what I plant so long as I pay like a European peasant).

Fuck them all. That includes you morons muddying the scientific issues with your fraudulant studies.

Attention

[Molina the Bofh]

They say GM food is not dangerous. BULLSHIT. they don't recognize the need of keeping garden vegetables in their proper place!

Did they all forget about the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes ? Imagine what would happen if it was an Attack of Genetically Modified Tomatoes ? We would not stand a chance. Civilization as we know would be destroyed.

Just say NO to tomatoes

Re:GM is a control issue, not an environmental iss

[Yohahn]

I think the key question is one of control.

The biggest environmental problmes comes from the problems nobody saw, or accidents. So yes.. there is no study with the problem that WILL happen.

American Killer Bee's are a classic accident of biology.

There are many cases in the past where one organism was introduced to fight another, and nobody foresaw that they would become the pest organism as well.

Don't mistake me for somebody who is completely against GM food's. I just have a heealthy skepticisim.

There are good reasons for them, especially given population growth: More food per acre, More nutrients in regional foods (golden rice), Easier to take Medicines (vaccine in a banana).

I just think there is alot of economic insentive to move forward. So I bias against to try and stay balanced. Let's not rush in.

And THEN there is the patent issue. I am 100% with you there.

Basically a political issue

[ctr2sprt]

The problem here is, as always, politics. The US is a big backer of GM crops, and we use them already. The EU's (I use "EU" here basically to mean both the EU and the UK) policies on GM foods amount to a boycott of US food exports: all their FUD (I'm sorry, that's what it is when you say "We don't know what effect this might have, but it could be catastrophic," by definition) ensures that EU customers will never buy anything marked as GM or GM-derived. In other words, because you have to mark as GM anything that even could have come into contact with GM crops - this is 99.9% of American crops - nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US. (Obviously this is an oversimplification. Europeans will still buy Cheetos or whatever. Just not wheat.) So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive.

This is a serious issue, because the anti-GM types dominate most of the world organizations, like the UN. The regulations all restrict our ability to provide food not just to those who would have it anyway (e.g. Europeans), but also to those who desperately need it and can't get it via any other means (e.g. Africans). Is GM a cure for world hunger? Maybe some day, but not now. It is, however, an important step on the road to the solution, and burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help.

All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is more concerned about its own economic well-being and not about any potential consequences of widespread GM adoption. Even if the price is prolonging starvation all over the world.

Re:Basically a political issue

[unapersson]

"All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is more concerned about its own economic well-being and not about any potential consequences of widespread GM adoption. Even if the price is prolonging starvation all over the world."

There is a lot of concern here, mainly due to introducing a lot of genetically modified products *before* really understanding the effects.

They're not so necessarily they need to be rushed in, it's just a number of large multinational corps. trying to push them in. World starvation is just a propaganda issue, there's more than enough food to feed the world now, that's just an issue of distribution. GM crops won't solve that, especially when they're modified with terminator genes that mean they have to be repurchased every year (subscription model?). Or made immune to a certain fertiliser, which by sheer coincidence, they also sell. It's a lock in strategy applied to agriculture.

So these corps have bought and sold the US, that was the decision of the US, it doesn't mean the rest of the world just has to roll over. Once the research has been done, and the effects are known, then a better decision can be made. It's not something you can easily step back from one the crops are in the wild. I don't think the US should have accepted it so readily, putting the agriculture industry in the hands of big corps isn't a great idea, patent infringement for cross pollenisation of crops?

This issue hasn't been driven by the governments, but by activism and public opinion, something that democracy is meant to be all about. Once the research is done a proper debate can be had.

Re:Basically a political issue

[Yokaze]

> FUD (I'm sorry, that's what it is when you say "We don't know what effect this might have, but it could be catastrophic," by definition) [...]
> All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. [...]

So, it is not FUD. Fear, likely. Uncertainity, sure. Desinformation?
The EU has democratically decided on precautious measures, while there are still, as you wrote, legitimate concerns. AFAIK, it is not prohibited to import GM, or GM-derived food. They have just to be labelled as such. When the EU public doesn't buy them, it not only a democratic decision, but also one of the free market.

As you stated yourself:
> [...] nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US [...]

So, it is not a matter of oppression, not on the import side, and neither on the consumer side, who has the choice to buy GM food.

> So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive.

That is not a matter of GM or no GM. Or do you thing European farmers cannot afford buying the necessary crops, but developing countries can?

> Is GM a cure for world hunger? Maybe some day, but not now.

So, not even is a reason. Actually, quite the contrary might be the truth, considering that developing countries might be sued by patent owners, for seeding crops from the last year.
What reasons are left they have to buy GM food? It's not like they can't research without selling it to the public.

So, why is the (democratic and market-driven) decision in the EU as worse than the (democratic and market-driven) decision in the US?

> (I use "EU" here basically to mean both the EU and the UK)
Nothing wrong here, the UK is still part of the EU.

Re:Basically a political issue

[cpeterso]

maybe the US farmers should have determined what their CUSTOMERS wanted to buy before spending billions to grow the WRONG product?

Re:Basically a political issue

[jpop32]

So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive.

-1, Misinformed.

I find it funny you see it this way... You obviously lack some crucial insight.

Like, for example, that the US farmers stay in bussiness because, and _only_because_ of the _HUGE_ government subsidies awarded. US agriculture would perish if it was operating in a free market economy. Third world farmers would 0wn the US market if they were allowed to play on a level field with domestic farmers. But, instead the US farmers get to export corn, for example, for one quarter of it's production costs. The rest is subsidised (Europe is more or less the same way).

So don't for a second think that you live in a free market economy. Yes, it's allowed to be if that's beneficial to the US economy. If it's not, the government is there with tariffs, subsidies and strongarming at a drop of a hat.

And let's not even start with the GM foods, which is basically the equivalent of pushing M$ products on the world because it gives you (the US companies) complete control over the whole industry that uses them.

Get informed, people, that's the only way to really understand what's going on.

Re:Basically a political issue

[kraut]

Let's get a couple of things clear here: The EU consumer has a right to know what goes into their food, and I really can't see anyone seriously arguing against labelling.

As for GM foods helping against hunger: Hogwash. Let me clarify that: Complete and utter nonsense. The vast majority of hunger in the world is caused by political instability, internal conflicts, and distributions problems. Nothing to do with the amount of food produced - we already have more than enough food to feed the world.

Now if we could eliminate farm subsidies in all of the developed world (the U.S. is just a guilty here), then we might actually have a chance to help subsistence farmers. Oh, and of course military intervention for humanitarian reasons (Liberia, Congo, Ruanda) instead of geopolitical ones (Iraq, Iran, Syria) might also be helpful.

Re:Basically a political issue

[Sgt York]

As you described it, it's a market force

EU requires a food be labeled as having contact with GM crops, if that is the case. It is then up to the individual to decide if he wants to buy it or not. That is a market force; the consumer makes a decision based on information given. The only problem comes in if the information given is too vague.

I am uninformed on this, so those of you in Europe (or just in the know), please enlighten me...Do the labeling requirements differentiate between GM foods and foods that may have had contact with other GM foods? For instance, If you have "normal" wheat that happened to be grown a couple of miles from some GM wheat (or corn, or barley), would it be labeled the same way as GM wheat? Would they differentiate between "normal" wheat grown near GM wheat (same species), GM barley (related species), or GM corn (unrelated species)?

You can probably see the problem here; If the law is written so that normal wheat grown a few miles from GM corn is labeled in exactly the same way as GM wheat, that is FUD. In that case, the EU would be misleading the population, skewing them away from foodstuffs imported from nations that use any GM crops. But, like I said....I don't know if that is the case. It probably isn't, that would be kind of absurd.

Re:Basically a political issue

[mickwd]

"I use "EU" here basically to mean both the EU and the UK"

Well that's good, because the UK is part of the EU.

"all their FUD (I'm sorry, that's what it is when you say "We don't know what effect this might have, but it could be catastrophic," by definition)"

We in the UK didn't know what effect feeding cattle with the brains and spinal cords of other cattle (in an effort to save money) would have. But as a result, dozens of people have died of BSE (and it is, by all accounts, a truly horrible way to die). The disease has a long-term gestation period, and hundreds or thousands may end up dying from it. But hey, let's take that risk again, in an effort to make more money (errr, I mean, feed the starving millions in Africa) !

And after all, there's nothing to fear, because someone on Slashdot says that it's FUD when "we don't know what effect something might have, but it could be catastrophic". Come to think of it, why do we test drugs before approving them for use ? Maybe you should have a word with the FDA, telling them not to bother ensuring new drugs have been properly tested. After all, it's just FUD to say "we don't know what effect these new drugs might have, but it could be catastrophic". That Thalidomide business was all made up, right ?

"So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive."

Hmmmmm.......so GM food is more efficient, right ? So it's cheaper to produce, right ? So why not sell that GM food to everywhere in the world except the EU ? After all, it's more efficient and cheaper to produce, so the EU are only making their food more expensive, more difficult to sell, and pricing themselves out of the world food market. And if the EU won't buy your GM food, surely there's much, much more of it to sell to the starving millions in Africa.

Or is it all about money ?

"This is a serious issue, because the anti-GM types dominate most of the world organizations, like the UN."

So if most of the world believes one thing, then the few that believe something else (or who stand to make money from it) must be right ? Nice concept of democracy you've got there.

"The regulations all restrict our ability to provide food"

What UN regulations ? As if the USA is going to let the UN tell it what it can and can't sell to who. Just like the UN prevented the USA from invading Iraq, right ?

Re:Basically a political issue

[mark2003]

policies on GM foods amount to a boycott of US food exports:

Nice to see that you do not have sufficient intelligence to understand the diference between a boycott and informing the populace. We, in Europe, want labels because we want to excercise our right to know what we are eating. If the pro-GM farmers, corporations etc. prove to a sufficient degree that GM foods are not harmful, or they make them significantly cheaper or taste much better then we will buy them. A free market is about INFORMED CHOICE - if you cannot understand that then you are a f**king moron.

GM is a market issue not Re:GM is a control issue,

[samjam]

British customers do not want GM food, for variety of poor, good and debatable reasons.

But they do not want it, they want to avoid it.

Supermarkets know this and most (if not all) have declared their own brands of food will not contain GM food (apart from leaked genes no doubt).

Are any big brands going to risk using GM ingredients? I think not!

So in the UK who actually wants GM food? If anyone, it's mostly not the people eating it.

Mostly its the people who want to sell/control it.

I'm sure I don't know who they think their market is going to be whether or not they get a "green light".

And the USA can bandy around trade-threats all they like, if the UK is forced to take GM food from US based multi-nationals it will be tipped in the harbour. The fishing industry is already ruined so no danger of it entering the food chain.

I don't care so much whether or not permission be given, as long as clear labelling is a requirement.

I'm certain of this, if the food is clearly labelled with any GM ingredients, very little GM food will be grown for UK consumption whatever other endorsement may be given.

Any profit sneaky farmers may hope to get through mislabelled increased-yeild crops will be offset by burning and vandalism from anti-GM activists.

And the police are so busy these days with stretched resources, they'll all be around the inner cities when these incidents happen.

Its the state of the world!

Re:GM is a control issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

In your ranting I can't observe a distinct liberal or conservative bias. If you're to be an asshole, I commend you, in that you are at least an indepenendent asshole.

Now then. Let's review how you've undermined your credibility. Your words are italicized:

I don't believe there is any credible evidence that shows GM foods will harm us or harm the environment.

Very well, but:

...I mean there is more evidence that pot is good for cancer patients (which it isn't) than there is for GM plants being dangerous for me to consume...

Your beliefs seem to be built on accepting things that have not been disproven, and rejecting things that have been proven only to a certain extent.

And I don't really know anything about how pot affects cancer, but I would certainly wonder how you rejected the concept out of hand. Your disdainful sneer at hemp later on...

the Greens would love to bring in government agents to rip up my GM plants and replace them with "native plants" and foreign hemp

...makes it fairly clear that your opinion on one issue has tainted your thinking on everything else.

Go back to your garden.

The sky is falling.

[Unknown Kadath]

Biotech has replaced nuclear power as a bogeyman.

It is important to separate legitimate concerns, such as Monsanto engineering a 'terminator' into their seeds, from tinfoil hat ravings about 'Frankenfood' causing cancer. There are more worrisome things happening in agriculture than pest-resistant strawberries or drought-resistant wheat.

Are there risks associated with GM organisms? Yes. Will GM orgamisms destroy the world as we know it? No.

-Carolyn

Re:The sky is falling.

[samjam]

Are there risks associated with GM organisms? Yes. Will GM orgamisms destroy the world as we know it? No

And I suppose if you are wrong you'll have the good grace to blush.

Everything mankind does destroys the world as we know it.

Some people prefer the change and call it progress, some don't.

Is the sphinx better with or without the destroyed nose?

The real issue is whether or not people want them, the next issue is if their reasons are valid to them, and then if they are valid to you. But valid or not, I hope the majority vote wins and if food labelling of GM ingredients is followed the market can decide without legislation or even formal vote.

Re:The sky is falling.

[Unknown Kadath]

And I suppose if you are wrong you'll have the good grace to blush.

I don't blush. I'm shameless. ;)

Everything mankind does destroys the world as we know it.

My point, poorly phrased though it seems to be, is that, on the list of Stuff We Should Be Worried About, GM foods rank lower but get more press than a lot of other things.

The real issue is whether or not people want them, the next issue is if their reasons are valid to them, and then if they are valid to you. But valid or not, I hope the majority vote wins and if food labelling of GM ingredients is followed the market can decide without legislation or even formal vote.

As for labelling, it shouldn't be the province of the legislature or market forces, but of a regulatory body. I'm American, and I don't trust my elected representatives or the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens to find their asses with both hands and written directions. Maybe the UK Parliament and populace are better, but I doubt it. Scientific decision-making is best left to those who understand it, and a majority vote means nothing in science.

-Carolyn

Re:The sky is falling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there risks associated with GM organisms? Yes. Will GM orgamisms destroy the world as we know it? No.

'Safe' nuclear power gave us several major accidents. The difference between 'safe' nuclear power and 'safe' GM foods is one doesn't sprincal itself over the entire world for all eternity when it goes wrong. Mucking around with GM food is like screwing around with a hex editor and a trojan wrapper. Stupid arrogant humans.

Re:The sky is falling.

[samjam]

Who, thought, judges whether or not someone understands science enough to participate in scientific decision-making?

I'm saying because the UK populace don't want GM for a variety of reasons, the scientific debate is without effect, the decision has been made - perhaps on poor basis, but thats the right of the wise man and the wise guy.

Sam

Paranoia vs Dislike of Monsanto

[jensend]

The European paranoia concerning GM foods is entirely unjustified and irrational, much more so than even the American paranoia concerning nuclear power (for a funny satire of which see The Hazards of Solar Energy). The problem with GM foods, however, is the current control of and potential for abuse of GM crops by corporations. However, since it's a lot easier to do scare-mongering by saying that GM crops cause cancer, thyroid problems, premature aging, nearsightedness, tire sidewall blowout, and loss of balance to the Force than by explaining that GM food as currently controlled by Monsanto etc is a huge IP mess, Europeans are convinced of the former.

Re:Paranoia vs Dislike of Monsanto

[jensend]

Oh, and also, as somebody pointed out elsewhere, the European practice of using a ban on GM food as a way to boost the EU's already ludicrous agricultural subsidies is at least as large a factor in the debate as any concern for the environment or peoples' health.

Re:Paranoia vs Dislike of Monsanto

[kraut]

As opposed to the US's equally ludicrous subsidies? I don't want to defend the CAP, but I can't see how anyone (apart from Monsanto et.al.) would benefit from GM foods in the EU or US.

Higher yields? Err - we have too much of the stuff already, thanks too ludicrous subsidies.

Re:Paranoia vs Dislike of Monsanto

[jensend]

It's not like I'm a fan of the US subsidy system either. It's a menace. One firsthand example- I live in a mostly-desert state which has had 5+ years of drought, and yet you find huge green alfalfa fields in the middle of the sagebrush, sustained at the expense of the rest of the economy.

However, there are plenty of benefits of all sorts to be realized from GM foods (assuming that they don't bring in a Monsanto IP crop control as well). Lower water use, reduced or eliminated need for pesticides, increased nutritional value (surely you've heard of golden rice and its potential to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children suffering from vitamin deficency- as well as the general chagrin that such a lifesaving tool is generally under corporate control), easy delivery of vaccines, etc, etc.

The trouble is that until the scaremongered stop believing that GM foods will give them cancer, reduce their sexual performance, and sprout carnivorous quadruped descendants, politicians will respond to the imaginary threat, not the real one of corporate control and abuse.

Re:Paranoia vs Dislike of Monsanto

[mark2003]

However, there are plenty of benefits of all sorts to be realized from GM foods

There COULD be benefits to be realised, just as there could be dangers. Importing GM foods to the EU is not illegal - we just want labelling so we can choose whether we have the benefits/risks.

Re:GM is a control issue, not an environmental iss

[stevew]

What bugs me about the whole discussion is that we have been eating "Genetically engineered" Foods for hundreds of years! Ever since Mendel started "monk"eying around with plants, we've had genetically manipulated species!

What about that Navel Orange you just enjoyed, or "GrapeFruit?"

The only significant difference is HOW the mutations are caused - that's it!

Legitimate concerns

[riptalon]

In terms of food safety I think there is real issue in that non-GM plants have been extensively tested (in a trial and error sort of way) for the last 7,000 years or so, and as a result we have a very good idea about which plants are safe to eat or which are not. GM foods have not undergone this testing and so I think it is quite reasonable that anyone who wants to sell them should demonstrate on a case by case basis that they are safe to eat.

In terms of enviromental safety there is also an issue. There are many examples of humans introducing foreign organisms into a particular enviroment and causing absolute havoc. I do not see any difference between a plant from another continent and a genetically modified version of a native plant. They both have the potential to interact in unexpacted ways with enviroment and so should be treated with extreme care.

However the most important question that should be asked in my opinion is why these crops are needed in the first place. Most of the use of GM crops at the moment appears to be in developed countries but these are the places that need them the least. Certainly in the UK the government pays farmers not to use land and buys up surplus production to stop prices from falling, and this seems the norm for the developed world. Farming in developed countries is already too efficent for its own good.

There just doesn't appear to be any need for GM crops in the developed world, although in the developing world a case might be made. So why if they aren't needed are GM crops being introduced. I would guess because their developers are pushing them and individual farmers don't want to be left behind. For an individual farmer the extra efficiency will help him compete better in a tight market but overall it is bad for farmers since the extra efficiency will mean the need for fewer farmers and some will be driven out of business.

In an ideal world things should be going the other way. Without GM crops and with less use of fertiliser and pesticides efficiency would fall but since modern agriculture is crisis because it is too efficient this is a good thing. The enviroment will be cleaner, and food will purer and less harmful. However in reality it looks like a small number of biotech companies are going to hijack world agriculture and collect a tax on every plant grown despite the fact that GM crops are entirely unneeded.

labelling

[jmason]

'because you have to mark as GM anything that even could have come into contact with GM crops - this is 99.9% of American crops - nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US'.

Come on. Is this really a good argument? Why would you be against labelling a foodstuff as to its origin and provenance?

Sorry, I don't agree. IMO, the more info a consumer has on where their food comes from, how it was grown, what pesticides were used, whether it may contain GM pollen, how it was treated after picking, etc. -- the better.

It's simply called informing the consumer. Then the consumer can use their judgement instead of trusting some big, faceless organisation who Knows What's Good For You.

And then interested parties can persuade the consumers that GM is safe, and eating the tomatos with the GM sticker is fine. That's OK, that makes sense. But don't use this 'information is bad' line, it's crap.

PS: re GM patents, etc. IMO the GM industry at the moment is acting like the RIAA; there's lots of good ways to use GM, but they're focused on the short term gain -- make $$$$ fast.

On the ladder of health risks...

[shylock0]

My favorite comment on this subject comes from Thomas Friedman, the NYT Foreign Affairs columnist, who made an interesting observation the last time he was in Geneva:

The menu at a top restaurant he dined in was very explicit at the bottom to note that "no GM products" are used in any of the foods prepared. Meanwhile, everybody around Mr. Friedman was smoking like a chimney. For all the problems in the US, Europe outsmokes us by an, excuse the pun, (un)healthy margin.

Point being: let's be really, really concerned about something that has no known health risks, and instead blatantly ignore the known (and severe) health risks associated with something else.

I'm not saying GM crops are completely harmless. That is a blanket statement that doesn't consider the variety of genetic modification going on (for instance, intraspecies genetic insertion (cloning a bunch of different genes from a bunch of different corn species) is substantially different than interspecies modification (inserting bacterial/fungal genes into corn). Current GM debate rarely acknowledges this important difference: in the first process, humanity is merely speeding, aiding, augmenting what could potentially be a natural process (and one that we have been doing, simply by selective breeding, since we domesticated wheat). In the second process, we are doing something distinctly unnatural, which may or may not have positive or negative effects, and which should probably be studied more closely (and should be much more heavily regulated).

Re:On the ladder of health risks...

[mark2003]

The menu at a top restaurant he dined in was very explicit at the bottom to note that "no GM products" are used in any of the foods prepared. Meanwhile, everybody around Mr. Friedman was smoking like a chimney. For all the problems in the US, Europe outsmokes us by an, excuse the pun, (un)healthy margin.

Sh*te analogy - it's all about choice - people who smoke know the risks and choose to do so. If GM food was labelled as such then people who choose to eat it can do so. However, if the US government gets it's way on labelling then it would be anologous to people piping in the carcinogens from tobacco without your knowledge - i.e removing your choice.

Re:On the ladder of health risks...

[shylock0]

Well, if that's the argument, then it's already being done. Unless you buy "organic" food (which maybe you do, and that's almost always non-GM), then you're getting food with pesticides on them. Or beef with hormones (which also doesn't have to be labled). What's needed is a campaign which lables food as "NON GM" not a campaign which labels food as "GM" -- much like organic/hormone free food today. And it should cost a premium, because in a very short time it will be much more expensive (than GM food) to produce. Maybe the organic/pesticide/hormone analogy is much better. None of those things are proven to cause cancer -- but then again, they aren't proven not to. Just like GM.

Just say No...

[Anonymous Coward]

to green text on a red background.

I know they're talking about tomatoes, but it's just too much for my week eyes.

Re:GM is a control issue, not an environmental iss

[Yohahn]

Yes.. but therein lies the problem.

The changes we can make today are much larger than changes we could make in the past.

How often do you fit a protein from a fish in a strawberry, while not using enzymes on DNA?

Re:Don't confuse the issues: Focus on real issue!

[Anonymous Coward]

The real issue is who gets to make your decisions.

The FAA regulates air travel safety, but they don't authorize anyone to take you on a blindfolded flight.

The FDA regulates food and drug safety, but they have been giving agribusiness permission to takes us for a blindfolded ride when it comes to knowing whether there's GMO in our food at the grocery store.

Neither aircraft safety or GMO food safety is a decision for anyone else to make finally for you. They can decide what their best advice is, and regulate to limit risk. But the final decision to accept any risk when it comes to your own body, or that of your children (including unborn and infants especially) -- is yours to make.

It's about whose decision it is, not how scientific or stupid or suspertitious, or what the real risk really is. All those discussions amount to a barrel of red herrings. Focus on your right to decide!

You don't need a scientific reason to refuse to fly. Nor do you need a scientific reason to refuse to eat something you don't want to eat. You don't have to explain your reasons.

If you're a little kid, it's your parents or legal guardians who get to decide, not the FDA. If you're and adult, they'll have to get you declared incompetent and argue why they, not your kin, should take over your decisions rights.

But -- they have stolen those rights when it comes to GMO food! It is allowed in food without labeling to show it's presence. It's an outrage! Not because we may be being subjected to unacceptable risks, but because we are being denied the right to decide for ourselves whether to accept or not accept them, irrespective of what they amount to.

There are people working on making it legally mandatory to label GMO content. Tell your congress person to support it. Not because you are afraid of GMO food, but because you are afraid of losing your rights, and winding up totally in the dark about what your government is doing. We must start protesting against the crumbling of our individual rights (and before the FCC makes it so all we hear about anything is what won't offend any sponsors or the few giant media owners). Don't get distracted by safety issues. First you must have the decision power. Then information you can use to make your decisions. Both are currently compromised.

Re:GM is a market issue not Re:GM is a control iss

[FroMan]

Wow, so the brits are so worked up about this. They are willing to run folks out of town and tar and feather?

You really think that folks will tip/sink boats with shipments coming into the country? You really think activists will vandalize farms that grow GM food?

A couple points: One, if it were truly a market issue, people would decide to buy or not to buy. What you have described is actually anarchists forcing their view on others through threat of force. That is not a market issue anymore than cousin Vinnie with a baseball bat.

Second point is this, if the cops are too busy to prevent the vandalism, maybe they'd be too busy to check out missing persons reports around the farmers trying to raise GM foods.

Re:GM is a market issue not Re:GM is a control iss

[samjam]

My suggestion about tipping GM corn into the sea was not literal, it was to make the point that if the US make us buy it they can't make us eat it.

And yes, activists are vandalizing farms that trial GM food.

I've been on the bad side of too-few-police-resources so I allow myself to smile this time.

What I have described is not anarchy; supermarkets (as I said) have declared they WILL NOT use GM ingredients because the customers already feels that strongly against it.

There is also some of cousin vinnie with his baseball bat against USA and WTO trade restrictions, which as I hinted will likely force UK to take GM food even though no-one wants it.

And yes, cops are too busy.

Re:GM is a control issue, not an environmental iss

[samjam]

The only significant difference is HOW the mutations are caused - that's it!

Wrong!

The significant difference is WHO and WHY

We know the WHO (I dont mean the world health organisation), we all debate the WHY and its not for solving world hunger

Re:GM is a control issue, not an environmental iss

[Sgt York]

The only significant difference is HOW the mutations are caused - that's it!

No, there are two differences. One is speed. Making a navel orange, or a hybrid rose, or a tangelo is a matter of crossing two closely related species. This is the "how" you refer to. We are taking genes from unrelated species and slapping them in. As someone who does that on a fairly regular basis, I can tell you that you get some odd results, although I have never seen it affect anything other than the organism into which the gene is inserted. Nor can I think of a way that it would, aside from allergy or some problem with digestion/absorption. For example, if you're allergic to corn, you shouldn't even think about eating GM wheat that has a corn gene or two in it. It'll probably trigger an attack.

Two, grapefruit, navel oranges, etc aren't really mutations, they are hybrids. They are no more a mutation than a mule is. Now, seedless fruit is a mutation. Even these, however, are different kind of mutations from what you see in GM foods (chromosomal abnormality, as opposed to newly introduced genes).

Now, I'm not against GM foods. There is no evidence that they are harmful. However, there is also not enough evidence that they are harmless (there is some, just not enough to justify the current rate of adoption). We just need to be a bit careful.

Personally, I think we will see a demise of GM foods, as markets reject them out of fear. The scientific community doesn't know enough about GM foods to reach a consensus. The public is even worse off. Seeing that ignorance breeds fear, the market will fear them, right or wrong, and the crops will not sell. Subsequently, farmers won't grow them, because there is no market for them. Then, good luck to SeedCorp pushing GM crops to farmers in 20 years, after they have been proven harmless (which is probably the case).

We haven't looked for evidence...

[dunedan]

becuase nobody is letting us grow or eat the darn things :)

2 Types of GM Food

[JGski]

It's important to realize that there are two kinds of GM Food: transgenic and non-transgenic. This has to do with whether genes from a completely unrelated organism have been added to the food plant or animal, or not, respectively. Unfortunately, the biotechnology industry obfuscates (intentionally?) this difference. They typically talk about non-trangenics safety but push transgenics into their policies.

Non-transgenic GM food isn't significantly different from conventional crossbreeding and hybridization. There are several millenia of experience and natural evolutionary correction to suggest this type isn't a big deal.

Transgenic GM food involves inserting DNA of completely unrelated (evolutionarily speaking) species into a food plant or animal. The problem is that we know surprisingly little about metabolic pathways and their dynamics. The total experience with this type of modification is less than one human generation and only dozens of animal generations.

The standard defense is that any "badly selected" gene inserted will simply result in the quick death of the organism preventing any bad from resulting. Unfortunately 40 years ago they said something similar about the certainty and effacacy of antibiotics and bacteria. We all know now that those assurances of certainty were misplaced. The bigger system response was more complicated.

The whole reason biologist were surprised by the low human genome count that resulted from the Human Genome Project is because they didn't understand the complexity and extra degrees of freedom that metabolic pathways provide to biological systems. So now they want us to give them anonymous (no labeling), carte blanche (no regulations) to insert alien genes and create alien enzymes and proteins in systems no biologist yet understands well enough to predict behavior of under normal operating conditions. Don't get me started about how unprepared 99% of all biologists are in mathematics to even begin comprehend high-order, nonlinear system topologies, let alone what happens when you throw a monkey wrench into one!

There is a lot of research in this area; I'm still involved in some projects relating to metabolic pathway simulation so I know what the state of the art is right now. Moving ahead while the research is so undeveloped yet still doing transgenic GM food is like developing the atom bomb without understanding the dangers of radiation on the human body - oh yeah, that's is how we did that - but given that we are mucking with the "internals" of the system now rather than an external "application", you'd hope we'd be more careful and less arrogant.

A recent biotech employee

Re:2 Types of GM Food

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said my friend, well said.

Focus on real issue! Right of informed consent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Re:Basically propaganda.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is, as always, politics.
Don't try to imply that's all there is to it though!
The US is a big backer of GM crops, and we use them already.
You make it sound as though the US knows and agrees 100%. No -- "the US" is NOT
a big backer. Monsanto, and certain appointed government officials are. Some farmers have been sold on it, and are now dependent for their substance abuse on their favorite pusher. The public "we" don't use it. We are largely being fed it without our knowledge.
The EU's (I use "EU" here basically to mean both the EU and the UK) policies on GM foods amount to a boycott of US food exports: all their FUD (I'm sorry, that's what it is when you say "We don't know what effect this might have, but it could be catastrophic," by definition) ensures that EU customers will never buy anything marked as GM or GM-derived.
To try to tar all concerns as baseless FUD is not better than blatant partisan FUD-mongering. The grocery business community is starting to wise up to risks that might hit them, labeled or not. I am referring to the use of genetically modified food crops, starting with corn, to grow pharmacological substances like insulin or AIDS medicines. Cheap drugs sound great, right? Ahem, not you. Back on topic: If pharmacorn cross pollinates and spreads on the wind like an epidemic of blight to make ordinary food corn even faintly mdeicinal, and insulin or heart medicine starts showing up in breakfast flakes and the corn syrup in soda pop, that will be a problem, and contamination from some experimental corn crops have already happened. Didn't see that on Fox?
In other words, because you have to mark as GM anything that even could have come into contact with GM crops - this is 99.9% of American crops - nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US. (Obviously this is an oversimplification. Europeans will still buy Cheetos or whatever. Just not wheat.)
AFAIK, wheat is still virgin commercial territory. Monsanto wants it bad, but wheat is kind of sacred, (not just to Native Americans like with maize).
So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive.
A free market doesn't mean freedom for any kind of pushers to promote dependencies.
More on free market to follow ...

This is a serious issue, because the anti-GM types
"anti-GM types, eh? What about thoughtful protestants trying to counter mindless free-market true-believer "types?" Free markets are like free love. The window between the pill and AIDS is gone, and while a few had wonderful experiences, most wind up experiencing some downsides, not to say just getting screwed.
dominate most of the world organizations, like the UN. The regulations all restrict our ability to provide food not just to those who would have it anyway (e.g. Europeans), but also to those who desperately need it and can't get it via any other means (e.g. Africans).
False. They can get it by other means, and in many cases they could grow for EXPORT, if they were allowed to have real free market access. The starving are mostly starving because they don't have the money to buy food not because their country can't grow it. Even urban pea-patch garnening can feed a lot of people. But would mean the big guys couldn't use their ability to arrange financial deals -- or deny them -- to push dependency-inducing chemicals and now patented seeds etc. on "starving countries."
Is GM a cure for world hunger? Maybe some day, but not now. It is, however, an important step on the road to the solution, and burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help.
More propaganda. It may be that little boys are playing at throwing stuff in the camp fire to see what new ways to cook things they can find, and thinking the sparks are neat, and thinking a forest fire can't happen. They should not be play

Re:Basically propaganda. Dang. Hit submit too soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Hadn't quite finished editing. Oh well.
That last bit was (now with some added):

But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is more concerned about its own economic well-being and not about any potential consequences of widespread GM adoption.
Pot trying to call kettle black.
Even if the price is prolonging starvation all over the world.

Ask yourself who will put an extra 20% profit for a multibillion business ahead of really helping starving and/or sick people to get on their feet and be able to take care of themselves. That last bit requires transforming the business to a new model, not the old customer lock-in tactics of a drug pusher. "Burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help."

The EU/UK seem largely think nobody should be able to put anything in their collective mouths without them knowing about it, just on principle.

If you can't sell into that market without stealth inclusion of your product, maybe you shouldn't be selling there. Maybe that isn't acceptable ethics there. Marketing convenience is not a right that overrides personal decision rights, (though there seems to be special dangers in the US).

The combined EU/UK market rivals the US, so African countries that want to sell to it want to preserve their ability to grow a sellable product. It is really simple. If they produce traditional non-GMO food, they can sell anywhere there's a free market and viable distribution costs. If they go with GMO, their market it shrunk, and they become dependent on imports and will have great difficulty regaining their GMO virginity, if it's even possible. It should be a no-brainer, except that the power of decision is not often in the hands of the affected, except in some fortunate instance of real representation.

But notice that they're anticipating EXPORT of food, not continuing import to feed the starving. And they are anticipating selling exported non-GMO food.

How does that add up to them starving for lack of Monsanto GMO magic??
It doesn't. It's propaganda.

Re:GM is a market issue not Re:GM is a control iss

[mark2003]

One, if it were truly a market issue, people would decide to buy or not to buy.

Hence the requirement for labelling in the EU that US GM corps are trying to claim is an unfair trade barrier. We want labels so that WE can decide what we eat.