|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:39 pm
"Using a device known as a gene gun, biotechnicians in the 1980s learned how to inject the cells of a plant with genetic material the plant didn’t otherwise contain. Cells could be literally shot through with genes to give a plant such evolutionary advantages as making it more resistant to disease, less appealing to pests, or better suited to survive a drought. Today we can breed plants for color, uniformity of size, disease resistance or even yield-per-acre. We can engineer a tomato to prevent the formation of frost on its skin.
Genetically engineered foods (GE, or GMO for “genetically modified”) have been in circulation for more than 10 years now, but opponents believe we know too little about their inherent risks to give these products a universal stamp of approval. This month, Point/Counterpoint takes a look at some of the arguments surrounding consumer health and genetically engineered foods."
Source.
I found this an interesting read and wondered what you think.
What do you think generally of genetically engineered foods?
Do you think it should or shouldn't gain universal approval?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:42 pm
I personally am not to thrilled with the idea of genetically altered foods. I just don't see why we should mess with what we have already. Tomatoes with thicker skins to prevent bruising for example...OK they look nice, but how do they taste...I am betting on cardboard. Plus what about the health risks? I need to do some research on the potential health risks...*runs off*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:37 pm
I prefer food that is healthy and taste good, i'm only worried about "side effects".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:55 pm
Humans have been "genetically modifying" foods since we discovered artificial selection.
I wouldn't be too concerned about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:23 pm
This is something we went over in my E.S class last semester.
Genetically modified food has and is in the market today, especially the agriculture.
Most places or companies don't lable what foods are genetically modified - so the majority of people don't even know they are eating modified food, and the risks or long term effects are unknown.
Seedless anything is genetically modified. Tomatoes are genetically modified, especially corn.
A lot of food that we eat today contains genetically modified ingredients and usually without our knowledge.
A 1999 study in England found evidence that genetically engineered potatoes damaged the vital organs and immune systems of laboratory rats. ...[X]
From the same source listed above: A recent World Health Organization report warned that illnesses as common as strep throat and diarrhea could become untreatable within 10-15 years due to antibiotic resistance.
Many of the genes now being inserted into our food crops come from species not ordinarily included in the human diet. This means we have no way to predict whether people will have allergic reactions to these new “foods.”
Also in class our professor talked about another study Englad had done, feeding lab rats genetically enginered corn and the later results were that the rats gained alot of weight. Feeding them the same amounts...I don't know how legit that source is though, I have yet to find a record of such study...but then I haven't really looked. sweatdrop
I think there are long term potential hazzards in eating GE foods, and I think that companies should be forced to label their products if containing GE ingredients.
Of course there is also a whole economic and political issue behind GE foods.
It's a growing concern for many people, some think that's it's the solution to world hunger.
But this one site I came accross makes this point:
World hunger is extensive in spite of sufficient global food resources. Therefore increased food production is no solution. "The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food". Therefore measures solving the poverty problem is what is required to solve the world hunger probem according to this book. [X]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:22 pm
I've worked in the grocery section of stores before and have seen much on Genetic Engineered vs Organic.
This is a fun debate filled with paranoia and arrogance on both sides. I'm not really on any side. I enjoy going to the market and buying fruits and vegis that are plump rather than pale colored and small (not to say that all organic foods are pitiful, i have grown up with both organic and non-organic). The human race has done selective growing for centuries (i forget the scientist who started it all). Most genetic engineering is nothing more than selective growing. The word genetic engineering is attached to make it appear scary and a bit more scientific. True, we don't know all the side effects, but if no one takes the risk, then something great will be lost. Think off all the life saving drugs and procedures. Someone had to take the risk.
I don't see genetic engineering ending world hunger. There's no money to be made in it and that's why problems like homelessness, world hunger, and other simmilar things will never be solved. But it can help the cause. Being able to increase the output of food drops the price. If controlled well, both the farmers and the general populous will benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:16 am
World hunger is more of distribution problem than a food shortage problem.
In the US some farmers are paid not to grow crops because it would flood the market and keep prices down.
I also find it humorous that food is labeled organic. All food is organic, unless it's made of rocks...
Organic materials are things based on carbon. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:16 am
As someone else already said, I believe it is a problem in getting the food to the people who need it. Economics tells us that if you increase the supply and the demand stays the same the price goes down, so increase the supply enough and the price will go down enough even for poor people. Problem is that some people horde it when it enters their country so they can profit from it. Back on topic now. Here is the FDA's policy on what they call Biotechnology, or genetic engineering of plants and such. If there is a problem with the current state of things the FDA is the perfect place to file a complaint. On a similar note I believe they are adding more information to packaged products like chicken that tell you if the chicken has been injected with such and such chemical or not. One side effect of whatever they were doing to the chicken was about 3 or 4 times the normal amount of sodium per serving. I think the genetic engineering described in the FDA policy is ok. It seemed all they were doing was pinpointing the genes and moving the genes themselves instead of rolling the dice with the grafting or hybridization. I think it is only fair to offer labels so people can make an informed decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:31 pm
I'm not saying labels are a bad thing, I think that people should be informed.
I am only against the overdramatization of genetic engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:30 pm
Labels are good. We all have the right to be informed. It's the information that is given though. We all are not biochemists here and some of the stuff they might put on the labels will through the masses into a frenzy and stir up more paranoia.
*Bonus info on organic. Last i checked, organic foods only need to be 10% organic (or around there) to be classified as organic.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:11 pm
I've been literally brought up on GM stuff and am as healthy a specimen as you could want. When you're inserting a single specific gene into a plant, you know exactly what it's going to do. It's only splicing big chunks randomly around that will give unpredictable side effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:46 pm
I'm sure it's all right. I think people are probably just creeped out by it. By the way, I found another article: HERE. People have to stop and think-- seedless grapes, seedless watermelon, big gigantus strawberries. We've been modifying our edible plants for a long time. It's just that when it gets into the news, people start going, "OMG!" And I tracked down another article I remember reading a long time ago. It's not the exact same subject, but since we're talking about science and food, I thought this topic was also related: IS CLONED MEAT SAFE TO EAT?I gotta get me a cloned chicken sandwich! whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:31 pm
"Organic foods" aren't much different anyways. Most of what is "Organic" is just put there so that more health concerned individuals buy them, but it's hard to find real organic food anyways, unless you work in a farm, or buy products straight from a farm.
About Engineered foods, I wouldn't be too worried about them. There's this rice that has been modified to be more nutritional. I can't recall the name as of right now, but normal rice that's white is not nutritional to eat, in fact it's missing some kind of protein required for the proper functioning of the eyes. (Correct me if I'm wrong) but rice has been engineered to contain some "coat" that contains a protein required for eye functioning, and hence it was engineered to be more nutritional.
Though some engineered foods do not taste as well and rich as farm products, there aren't side effects to be REALLY worried about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:40 pm
well its good that they can alter our veggies since the way we live in is really taking a toll on our farms and the way we actually plant our green fellow foods.to me its a good idea since in case of a emergency we can actually have a upper hand on our survival. if we get sick in the process well thats why science is actually looking for side effects to neutralize them or give us a cure for any thing that might sicken us good idea good plan thats my opinion.
besides theres always normal people that do it the old fashion way so no need to be worried
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:53 pm
I think that genetically engineered foods are a good idea, think about how many people in africa would be able to have food. they could engineer foods that can grow in some of enviroments like deserts, and such...maybe even make foods that can grow on mount everest and other mountains people climb... mountain climbers might not have to bring food, they could eat things that are there... tomatoes with rougher skin bruise less easily while being shipped... so people would have better tomatoes when they get delivered. The allergies people are talking about don't really concern me... there are allergies that come along with any food, such as peanuts, dairy products, nuts, etc.... so it doesnt seem like such a big deal.... and (if they haven't already) they could probably alter the foods so they don't have as many "side-effects" and allergies...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
