Hazards of Genetic Engineering

pos writes "Genetic Engineering can have effects that the companies that research them do not check. These effects can also be used to gain agucultural dependance on genetic engineering. Seeds of Destruction smells like a fishy way of gaining market share in the agriculture industry. Here's a quote: 'For decades, Monsanto and other agrichemical companies have relentlessly promoted farming systems aimed at making farmers dependent on synthetic chemicals. With the enthusiastic support and complicity of USDA, the plan worked beautifully.' The problem is, I can't even boycott because the US labeling system is so bad. "

Comments

Genetically Modified Crops

[whig]

The problem with GM crops is the possibility of cross-contamination of similar, but non-GM crops. If this should occur, then two outcomes are likely:

1) The GM crop becomes dominant, and supplants the natural variant. Given its enhanced resistance to pests, blight and other "natural predators," the crop grows like a weed, and it becomes a problem to kill off the crop where it is unwanted.

2) A GM crop which has been modified to produce no fertile seeds causes the natural variant to become sterile as well. The crop dies out, apart from GM seeds created in the laboratory, and with patent protection ensuring that no one can create even a modified crop with the defect removed in order to restore fertility, the corp. effectively owns that entire crop.

I have no problem with the science of GM crops, and I think that outcome #1, while perhaps having unfortunate short-term effects, is nevertheless subject to the forces of natural evolution. Outcome #2 is far more concerning, and ought to be considered more carefully. In particular, we need to seriously reconsider patents in general, and on such things as genes in particular. Since genes are not an "invention" but a natural discovery, they should not be the subject of patent whatsoever.

a few things about GM

[arp]

1. If you prefer open-source to closed-source coding, you will love what biotech companies want to patent... 2. The US is amazingly obvlivious compared to how much Europeans are up in arms over this issue; OR: The Europeans are far more reactionary about such things than the US is. 3. Do recall that we are talking about our food supply. Yes, I know that perhaps some of these scary stories about cross-polination and terminator genes seem rather alarmist, but we are talking about our food supply, one of those things that founds Maslow's little triangle. 4. Evolution is one thing. GM is evolution on crack, without the natural selection that tends to keep things in check. This is what really scares me about GM -- the fact that we accelerate things to where Ma Nature can't keep up with her natural antidotes to human stupidity, the balance is upset, and life starts to suck a lot more than usual. okay, that would be 4 cents, so I'm $0.02 over budget. nathan

There's a difference between progress & blackmail

[mouthbeef]

While it's true that "progress brings dependence on technology," Monsanto's strategy is all about making farmers dependent on Monsanto.

The strategy of requiring Monsanto-patented adjuncts (fertilizers, pesticides) for use with Monsanto-patented seeds is the worst kind of dirty pool. It's like Microsoft's (aborted) strategy of making it nearly impossible to install another company's browser as well as MSIE.

Regardless of how good, bad or dangerous the tech is, the fact remains that Monsanto's business practices represent a real threat to farmers and those economic interests that depend on agribusiness.

OTOH, Monsanto sure knows how to build a nice oversized wheel of gouda.

Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic

[SnakeEyes]

Oh brother. Here we go again. Seems to me that, historically, whenever brand-spanking-new technology is introduced, it is viewed incredibly negatively and is usually predicted to surely signify the "beginning of the end" for us (collectively speaking).

Think about it. In the mid-1800's the advent of the steam engine, or "loco"-motive would certainly (and eventually did) spell doom for the frontier...and without the existence of the frontier, the American economy would flounder into oblivion, thus signalling the end of the "American Way of Life."

...or not.

Then it was the introduction of barbed wire ("devil's wire") that would spell certain doom for cattle ranchers. If there were no cattle ranchers, nobody would raise dairy products and urban areas would be without a significant source of food.
...or not.

Let's not forget the advent of the American Industrial Revolution...which allegedly made tasks so simple (and laborers so replaceable) that learned trades would become obsolete and the entire American society would be at the evil whims of greedy corporations.
Ok, so maybe that one did come true. ; )

Other technological advancements that would supposedly spell doom: automated-computer assembly lines (e.g. auto manufacturers), atomic energy, laser technology, and the internet (remember THAT one?).

But it seems that we've always been especially susceptible to claims when technology is suspected of tainting OUR food.
Perhaps we forget that techniques, which are now standard to nearly every farmer (such as selective breeding and hybridization, which was originally labelled as "genetic manipulation", or "playing God") were originally considered taboo.

Bottom line: We as a societal whole have backed ourselves into this corner. If farmers don't begin looking to technological advancements in crop production, our food supply is going to be incredibly short in the next few years, if the world population keeps growing at its current rate. In fact, if it weren't for existing technological advancements, we would right now be in the middle of a global famine!
The US has taken upon itself the task of feeding the entire world. In fact, entire countries are at our mercy for grain supply (Japan, for instance), so if our crop production doesn't continue to improve (with, if I may add, less farm land each year due to increased urbanization) not only will we experience a food shortage, but so will many other countries who are not agriculturally dependent!!

Something else to consider: according to this article, the EPA had approved of many of the so called Genetic Engineering prodedures. Anybody who has dealt with the EPA knows that if there ever was a paranoid and anal-retentive Government agency, it was the EPA.
They yearn to shut down industries who don't meet acceptible norms in the realm of "environmental protection". I'm willing to trust their judgement on this one.

I do agree, however, that people should still be given a choice, and should at least have a choice of "organic" or "synthetic".
I just think that the evils of this new technology have been greatly over reported and exaggerated.

Are Genetically-Modified foods kosher?

[B.D.Mills]

For those who are Jewish, there may be religious and ethical problems with eating GM foods. GM "foods" are frequently created by snipping a section of DNA out of one organism and inserting into the genome of another.

Given:

• The chapter Leviticus in the the Old Testamant in the Christian Bible contains a prohibition against mating different kinds of animals, and
• The rules in Leviticus are often similar to Jewish law

then it is possible that GM foods may not be clean to eat because they're created by a means which may be illegal under Jewish law.

I hope someone who's Jewish and knowledgeable about such things can comment on this.