It tastes like the inside of an Erlenmeyer flask?

J

Jeff Grossman

Jeff Grossman
"Arctic" apples, genetically modified so that they don't brown so fast when you cut them, have been approved by the Department of Agriculture. 20,000 trees are going into the ground right away.

The fruit will be available in "Granny Smith" and "Golden Delicious" packages. Of course, the GMO-ness of them will not be on the label -- that would demonize them, says the president of the company that makes them.

(The jokes just write themselves.)

So, what is the terroir of a GMO apple?
 
I've never understood the hysteria that surrounds genetic engineering. I think it's a great tool and the GE products currently on the market are perfectly safe and are tested much more than any other products we consume. Considering that over 80% of people want warning labels on foods that contain DNA what hope is there that people will actually understand what a GMO label means?

Cutting down food wasteage should be a priority if we want to feed the world population. If this helps do that in its small way, then it can only be a good thing.
 
It's not so much hysteria as it is caution. Apples evolved to what they are over a long stretch of time, and people have eaten them for a long of stretch of time (as they reckon it). Do you believe that we know enough to reliably make changes to the DNA without unintended effects?

Look at GMO medicines, one might say. I'm a fan, believe me. But I think the existence of off-label uses indicates that the makers didn't think of everything.

Another concern with GMO foods, especially the ones that are specifically pest or pesticide resistant, is that they will obtain supremacy over the other cultivars. World food at the tender mercies of Monsanto? Perhaps, but I am more concerned with the attendant mono-culture: one good sturdy blight and starvation ensues.

We're already there with some foods (carrots and bananas).
 
wait, now Jeff you are suggesting that my "OMG People Want Labels if their Food contains DNA" post -- the same meme that otto is dispairing - is actually about a problem after all? or are you merely elevating it: people everywhere are horribly ignorant of basic science, but how can they accept GMO apples?
 
Have you heard of mutation breeding? That's where you blast seeds with radiation or chemicals in the hopes that some of those huge genetic changes will make a desired trait. Did you know that mutation breeding is eligible to be grown organically and doesn't need to be tested at all before being put on the market? Contrast this to GMOs where one to four genes are changed in a precise way and the product is tested extensively for e.g. allergens before being allowed on the market. Why does no one protest about mutation breeding or find it scary or demand labeling?

The answer is that it is still so safe that it's hardly necessary. But even conventional breeding can cause problems. A conventional celery was bred that contained such high doses of psoralen that one couldn't handle them without gloves. Why are such carcinogenic products allowed on the market without any testing at all, but GMOs have to go through massive testing?

So yes, I think the current system is overly cautious with GMOs. There is no evidence that any products would cause any adverse health effects in humans or other animals. In fact everything points to GMOs being far safer simply because of the extensive testing done to them.

All other problems you mentioned were problems relating to agriculture in general and not specific to GMOs. You will have the same problems with conventional products. As to such things as weed resistance, evolution simply won't stop so it will always be an issue. One way to slow resistance is to plant so that some non-resistant refuges are left on the field so resistance will be slow. Unfortunately farmers won't always plant so. But you can't blame the technology if farmers are misusing seeds.

Why do you pick out Monsanto? They're not a monopoly nor even the biggest biotech company in agriculture.
 
Oswaldo, last Halloween I dressed up as a bottle of Monsanto Chianti because Monsanto seems to be the scariest thing people can think of here! (Europe is even more anti-GMO than USA.)
 
To Kirk: I did not post this to make fun of widespread ignorance.

To Otto: Several things...

I chose Monsanto because of the famous kerfuffle over Roundup-resistant seeds.

I have never heard of mutation breeding and I suspect many others have not, too. Now that I know roughly what it is I believe it should also be pursued with caution.

While I appreciate that Man can breed nasty celery, intentionally or unintentionally, that does not bear on the question at all. Those breeders used the time-tested methods and harnessed natural processes.
 
To Jeff: ok. But I wasn't making fun either. I was genuinely in dispair. ( I've recently been schooled that "dispairing" may not be a legitimate verb form.")
 
Jeff, I will remind you that Belladonna is quite natural, too, and will kill you quite reliably. Genetic change by breeding isn't iIpso facto any safer than by gene splicing. However, I do retain concern about wholesale gene swap between wildly different organisms (e.g, BT corn). Things like golden rice, OTOH....

Mark Lipton
 
The link you gave is simply wrong. The so called "terminator" technology was certainly patented by Monsanto but was never developed into an actual product. RoundUp Ready does not equal terminator technology. That is just wrong.

The history of why Monsanto started research into a "terminator" seed, i.e. one that wouldn't propagate, was because anti-GMO groups were worried about GMOs spreading into the wild. When Monsanto listened to these worries (which aren't really a problem - how often do you see conventional crops spread into the wild?) they started development on a strile seed. The same groups that pressured Monsanto to create such a seed then started going on and on about how evil such a terminator seed is because farmers need to purchase seed every year instead of saving it! Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

Well, the problem here is that saving seeds is very rare in any case. Most farmers won't want to do so any way because it's cheaper to buy seed and, for hybrids, by buying seeds you will ensure that you'll have the desired traits year to year.

But why do you want to trust old methods of producing foods when it is those old methods that have caused every single problem? Why not instead trust a science that actually tests the products before releasing them on the market? One that has a superb safety record?

I'm personally a big fan of meta-analyses because they look at a huge number of studies on a single issue. If a good meta-analysis (i.e. published in a well-rated journal with good life post-publication) can't win you over, then I guess nothing can.

1) Nicolia & al's meta-analysis apparently can't be viewed for free on-line any more, but here's a good take on it with a link if you have access to the journal: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...10-years-gmo-research-no-significant-dangers/

2) van Eenennaam's feed study on 100 billion animals is discussed here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

Instead of looking at anti-GMO propaganda, look at this kind of sources instead.
 
Oh, one more thing, Bt is actually used in organic farming as well. Why is it perfectly fine when used on organic farms as sprays but a terrible, scary thing when the plant itself has the trait in a GMO form? Humans don't have alkaline stomachs afaik, so there's nothing to fear.
 
What exactly is so evil about them? There are so many urban legends about their supposed evilness that I think every specific point should be researched. Instead of a Gish gallop, please give just a point or two to go through initially.
 
Let's start with two:

Producing the Agent Orange that was dropped on the people of Vietnam.

Producing (and encouraging the use of) massive amounts of pesticides that have poisoned our farmlands, our drinking water, and the Gulf.
 
The US government commissioned several chemical companies to make agent orange. Monsanto was at least honest enough to say that the formula given to them had a problem with it. If anyone is to blame for AO it's the US government.

Loading…

rationalwiki.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top