Healthy Living

Monday, October 6, 2008

The Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods ~ Organic Industry Fears GMO Contamination

Photo credit: Tracy Hebden

Photo credit: Tracy Hebden




THE RISKS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
by: Wolfson, Richard, Ph.D.

Richard Wolfson, is the national director of the Consumer Right to Know Campaign, Canada, whose mandate is to demand mandatory labeling and long-term testing of all genetically engineered foods. He is the biotech writer for Alive magazine and the health advisor for the Natural Law Party.

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED (GE) FOODS ON THE MARKET IN CANADA

The main genetically engineered foods (or genetically modified organisms, GMOs) already on the market in Canada are: white potatoes (russet potatoes grown in P.E.I.), tomatoes (including cherry but not roma tomatoes), soy beans, corn and canola. Corn, canola and soy beans are used in many other products. This means that 80% of any packaged foods on the market (even health food brands), whether they are cereals, baby food and formula, salad dressing, chips, cookies, or bread, probably have either some canola oil, soy oil, soy flour, soy lecithin, soy protein, corn oil, corn starch, or corn syrup ingredients that are genetically engineered. Even products predominantly organic like organic soy milk often have genetically engineered canola oil or soy lecithin etc. Problems associated with GE foods are allergies and other toxic effects.

Genetic engineering is used to increase shelf life (to delay ripening in tomatoes), to alter oil composition (soy and canola), to make food pesticide resistant (corn, potatoes, squash), to allow increased pesticide use (soy, corn, canola, cotton), and to increase fertility in farm animals (canola).

OTHER GE PRODUCTS Milk from the U.S. is genetically engineered (may contain rBST), so be careful about buying American cheese. Yellow crookneck squash from the US, cotton and cotton oil, papayas, radiccio, rennet in cheese, and Nutrasweet used in soft drinks and other diet products are also GE. Animal products fed on GE grains may also pose a problem.

POTATOES Russet potatoes are genetically engineered, and they are sold across Canada. The seed catalogues say: "New Leaf potatoes, more environmentally friendly, the latest development, you don't have to spray with pesticides". What they are actually saying is that pesticide is genetically engineered into the potato, which means you are eating them. You can buy red potatoes or organic potatoes.

SOY PRODUCTS Tofu, soy milk, baby formulas, soy protein shakes, protein bars, veggie burgers, etc. contain GE soy unless the label says it is organic soy. Most infant formulas have been tested, and have been found to contain genetically engineered soy. If you don't want to feed genetically engineered soy to your children, buy Eden's organic soy milk which is not genetically engineered.

CANOLA If the label says vegetable oil, it probably has some canola oil in it. About 35% of canola oil in Canada is genetically engineered and it is all mixed together with the regular. Companies that market soy beans, corn and canola normally mix the genetically engineered product with the normal product. Canola oil is just not safe, and unless consumers stop buying it, it's not going to change. Switch to an oil which is not genetically engineered at present like olive oil.

CORN Whole foods like corn on the cob are probably not genetically engineered; however, genetically engineered corn is used as an ingredient for making corn oil, cornstarch and corn syrup.

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS CURRENTLY BEING TESTED Currently more than 2,743 genetically engineered crops are being tested or awaiting approval by the US Department of Agriculture. That is an enormous number, so this is a major issue. Virtually every grain and every crop is being tested. This includes apples, barley, beets, cheese-making enzymes, chestnuts, cucumbers, lettuce, melons, pepper, papayas, raspberries, rice, squash, strawberries, sugarcane, sunflower, tobacco, walnuts, wheat, and watermelons. Genetically modified foods currently being tested in other countries include alfalfa, asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, chicory, fish (salmon, prawns, abalone), flaxseed, grapes, kiwifruit, sweet potatoes, yeast. Unless we act to prevent it, these foods will soon be on our supermarket shelves. Like Europe, we could reject them outright or at the very least, insist that they be labeled.

ORGANIC FOODS Certified organic food is not genetically engineered. The U.N. Codex Committee on Food Labeling sets international guidelines on which foods are permitted to be labeled organic. Last year in the U.S. there was a move to permit genetically engineered seeds to be used in organic production, but because there was so much consumer outcry it wasn't allowed. Similarly, regulations are being debated about using genetically engineered seeds as animal feed.

MANDATORY LABELING IN OTHER COUNTRIES In England and Europe, genetically engineered foods have to be labeled. This gives people a choice, but industry is fighting this. They are afraid if they are labeled no one will buy their genetically engineered products. In North America, genetically engineered food isn’t as newsworthy as in Europe for some reason, and not many people seem to realize what a major issue it is. In Europe, already retailers and major food chains like Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Safeways and Carrefour are labeling genetically engineered foods. Multinational companies like Nestle's, Cadbury, Kelloggs, Heinz, Kraft, Campbells, Frito-Lay, General Mills, etc. provide genetically engineered free foods to European countries, and we must insist that they provide these to Canada as well.

WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING? In genetic engineering, they take the gene from an animal, plant, bacteria, or virus, and implant that with a "gene gun" in a natural strand of soy DNA for example. It is like genetic surgery. For instance, the genetically engineered soybean that is on the market has a foreign gene from a bacterium, another foreign gene from a virus; and other foreign genes which are inserted. When they shoot a foreign gene into the DNA, they can’t predict where it is going to land. 1) The foreign gene may be implanted between two other genes and it doesn't interfere with the functioning of the gene. 2) When the foreign gene is implanted, it may break up a gene that is already present, and there is no way of predicting the side effects.

PATENTED FOODS NO LONGER BELONG TO US Genetically engineered foods are patented, and this is the real crime. We all believe that foods are the common heritage of us all. You can't tell me that you own the corn on the cob and every one who eats corn on the cob has to pay royalties to you, but that is what these companies are saying. If a company genetically engineers a potato like Monsanto's new insect resistant potato, that potato is owned by Monsanto. Every farmer who grows that potato has to pay royalties to Monsanto. Monsanto has a very checkered history with some of its other products. Dr. Hanson said Monsanto was at fault when it convinced the government 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange) was safe. Monsanto also developed and sold PCB's, a substance that went into electrical conductors for years until researchers showed serious environmental and health hazards despite U.S. government approval.

ALLERGIES CONNECTED WITH GE FOODS
In England, there has been a 50% increase in allergies to soy beans since genetically engineered soy beans came on the market. Pioneer Hybrid, one of the largest seed companies in the world, created a genetically engineered soy bean a few years ago, and that soy bean was so allergic, it could have killed people who were allergic to Brazil nuts. It looked exactly like every other soybean, but biochemically it was different. Luckily, they discovered it and kept it off the market. But there is no legal requirement for the testing of these hundreds of new genetically engineered foods before they are put on the market. We do not know the long-term effects and we need long-term testing.

TOXICITY OF GE FOODS In 1989, a genetically engineered tryptophan food supplement killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 others. Hundreds of scientific articles have been published in major medical journals about this occurrence, so it is not a secret, but industry tried to keep it secret. When we make a change in the DNA, and insert a foreign gene in one particular sequence, that gene could influence other genes, which in turn could influence other genes. People in the industry tell you that genetic engineering is very precise and very safe, but if you talk to the actual scientists, they will admit to you that there is no way to predict the long-term effects of genetic manipulation. The genetic code is so complex that it's beyond the understanding of man at this stage.

INSECTICIDES AND HERBICIDES IN GE FOODS Genetic engineers tell you that they are developing more nutritious foods, but 90% of all genetically engineered foods coming on the market now are either herbicide resistant, which means it allows them to use more of their chemicals to poison our environment, or they are insect resistant, like the potato. Every cell of these potatoes contain a toxin, an insecticide which is genetically engineered into these potatoes to kill bugs so that the bug that eats the potato will die. But it also kills useful insects. And what happens when we eat the potato? Nobody knows how these toxins will affect humans or affect allergies. It hasn't been tested. New research by the US Department of Agriculture across huge tracts of soy, corn and cotton in the US farming belt shows that biotech crops do not produce higher yields or result in reduced pesticide use. Farmers growing Roundup soybeans which can survive massive doses of herbicide used 2 to 5 times more herbicide per acre when compared to popular weed management systems with non-GE soybeans. A recent study in the Journal of the American Cancer Society (Mar.15.99) concludes that exposure to Roundup, the world's most widely used herbicide, increases the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

MIXING ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE GENES
Genetic engineering can combine the gene from any plant or animal and put it into any other. Although it is not actually marketed yet, there is a tomato that has been genetically engineered with fish genes. Anything is possible. Canola with a human gene is being grown in a Calgary lab by Dr. Maloney not for the purpose of food, but for producing pharmaceuticals. But if this canola gets out into the fields, which it is bound to do eventually, we will be eating canola that has human genes. They have rabbits and pigs now with human genes for medical transplant purposes. When those animal parts are transplanted into humans, everyone is very concerned that new diseases, new viruses will be carried from the animals over into the humans, just as mad cow disease has carried from cows over into humans. So we just don't know the long-term effects either on the environment, or on humans.

POLITICS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING We need more rigorous safety testing, meaning the foods should be tested before they are put on the market. At present, they are put on the market, and if they are later found to be unsafe, they can be taken off the market. In other words, they are being tested upon us. According to Dr. Marion Nestle, chairman of the Department of Food Science at New York University, this policy favours industry. Industry pays huge sums of money to the government to test their products and their government brings these foods out very quickly without adequate testing.

CROSS-POLLINATION Once a genetically engineered food gets out on the market and in the fields, it naturally cross-pollinates with other crops. So it just spreads and spreads. If we don't stop it now, everything is eventually going to get mixed up. If we wait too long we won't be able to stop it.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD These foods also create problems for the environment. They have made genetically engineered salmon in Vancouver that grow many times the size of normal fish. They are being kept in a holding tank, but what happens if these fish are released into the rivers? They are going to out-compete the wild species because they eat so much and cause ecological imbalance. The same thing occurs with the herbicide-resistant canola and soy. In theory, the herbicides will not hurt the soy or canola; they will just hurt the weeds, but soon we will have stronger weeds which are herbicide resistant, and at the same time increased dependence on these herbicides which are known to be carcinogenic or toxic. In the same way, potatoes which are insect resistant may cause 99% of the insects which eat those potatoes to die. The 1% which doesn’t die is stronger and we will have super insects which are resistant to pesticides.

FEEDING THE STARVING MASSES?
One of the standard arguments the biotech industry makes is that genetically engineered foods are going to be used to feed the masses of starving people. Dr. Ann Clark, professor of crop science at Guelph, discussed this at the National Agriculture Environment Committee conference in Ottawa. If you actually look at where that food is going, about 80% of all the foods grown in developed countries stay within the developed countries, and 70% of the foods grown in developing countries are grown solely to be sold to the developed countries. The poor and starving people can't even afford these crops which are more expensive because of all their licensing requirements. Furthermore, new research by the US Department of Agriculture shows that biotech crops do not produce higher yields.

ANOTHER SCHEME LIKE DDT In 1950, DDT was hailed as the technology that will solve the world's hunger. In 1946, their ads informed you: "Exhaustive scientific research has shown that when properly used, DDT kills a host of destructive insect pests and is a benefactor of all humanity. It's good for food, it's good for animals, and it's good for the home. DDT is harmless to humans." We now know that is not true, but this is exactly what they are saying about genetically engineered crops.

WHAT WE CAN DO TO PROTECT OURSELVES
1. Contact your local health store and grocery store, and tell them that you don't want to see genetically engineered items on the shelves. That is the first thing to do. 2. Send letters to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, your MP and the media, and tell them you want genetically engineered foods either labeled or banned altogether.. Everyone should be more politically motivated to write to the government. If the majority of people say, "We will not accept this", this is the pressure that is needed. 3. Sign and return the enclosed petitions to Richard Wolfson and Biotech Action Montreal and contribute to these advocacy groups with your expertise or a donation. The Natural Law Party has spearheaded this campaign around the world, and in Canada has already collected petitions with at least 30,000 signatures for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. 4. Contact large Health Food manufacturers who use genetically engineered soy, canola and corn ingredients in their salad dressings and other products. Here's a start (randomly chosen): - Barbara's (cereals & cookies), 3900 Cypress Dr., Petaluma, Ca 94954 (corn flour, canola oil, etc.) - Canoline Foods Int'l, Pickering Postal Station, PO Box 16, Pickering, Ont L1V 2R2 (canola oil) - Hain Consumer Affairs, 734 Franklin Ave., Ste. 444, Garden City, N.Y.; 1-800-434-HAIN (canola oil) - Health Valley Co., 16100 Foothill Blvd., Irwindale, Ca. 91706, 1-800-423-4846 (corn, canola oil, soy) - Lifestream Natural Foods, 7453 Progress Way, Delta, B.C. V4G 1E8, \\n life@lifestream.bc.ca This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it - Natur (Bioforce Canada Inc.), 4001 Blvd. Cote Vertu, Montreal; 514-335-9393 - Nutrimax Natural Foods, Pickering Postal Station Box 34, Pickering L1V 2R2 (canola oil) - Spectrum, 133 Copeland St., Petaluma, Ca. 94952 (canola) 5. Send your friends, family and other influential people a copy of these two newsletters.

GENETIC ENGINEERING WEBSITES

Biotech Action Montreal http://bam.tao.ca
Campaign to Ban Genetically Engineered Foods www.net_link_.de/gen
Community Actions Publications (good source of _link_s) www.monitor.net/~cap/ge.html
Greenpeace www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/
Mothers for Natural Law www.safe-food.org/-consumer/foods.html
Natural Law Party (Richard Wolfson) www.natural-law.ca/genetic
Union of Concerned Scientists (list of ge foods) www.ucsusa.org/Gene/w98.market.html

Source

************************

U.S. organic food industry fears GMO contamination

By Carey Gillam Wed Mar 12, 8:54 AM ET

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Widespread contamination of U.S. corn, soybeans and other crops by genetically engineered varieties is threatening the purity of organic and natural food products and driving purveyors of such specialty products to new efforts to protect their markets, industry leaders said this week.

A range of players, from dairy farmers to natural food retailers, are behind an effort to introduce testing requirements and standards for certification aimed at keeping contamination at bay. That goal is rapidly becoming harder, however, as planting of biotech corn, soybeans, and other crops expands across the United States.

"Now there is a real shortage of organic grain for animal husbandry and dairy operations," said Organic Consumers Association national director Ronnie Cummins. "People are having to be real careful."

Proponents of the plan are rolling it out this week at an industry meeting in Anaheim, California, seeking to get the entire organic and natural foods industry to agree on testing and standard certifications. Companies that get certified will be allowed to use a seal designating as much on their products.

"We think we can keep the contamination from getting worse by putting safeguards in place so people who want to choose to eat organic products free of genetic contamination can do so," said Michael Funk, CEO of United Natural Foods, which is backing the initiative. "The longer we delay ... the more challenging it is going to be."

Biotech crops, primarily corn, soybeans, cotton and canola, have genes that have been manipulated to express specific traits, most commonly a resistance to herbicide, which helps farmers. Biotech developers such as Monsanto Co patent the crop technology and tightly control use of the seed.

But mixing of biotech crops and conventional crops can occur during many phases of harvest, storage and shipment of grain, and drifting pollen and other natural forces can also contaminate crops while they are still in the fields.

Indeed, contamination of conventional crops by biotech crops has been reported around the world. There were 39 cases of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007, and more than 200 in 57 countries over the last 10 years, according to biotech critic Greenpeace International.

Contamination of corn is the biggest concern for those trying to sell biotech-free food. Corn is not only used in human food but is also used to feed livestock, meaning organic beef and dairy farmers must ensure their animals are fed corn that is free of contamination.

That has become more difficult as biotech corn acres have expanded in the United States. In 2007, an estimated 73 percent of the 92.9 million acres of U.S. corn planted were biotech, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The USDA has a set of national standards for foods labeled "organic" as part of its marketing service, but the industry players seeking independent testing said the USDA has not gone far enough to require organic and natural foods are free from biotech contamination.

Organic dairy farmer Albert Straus, who started testing corn fed to his 300-head dairy herd more than a year ago, and found about one-third had been contaminated, now tests every lot of grain he buys.

"I started to test our products to see if there was an issue or not. It turned out there was an issue," said Straus. He is now adding a label to his dairy products to alert consumers to the extra level of caution. "There is so much contamination," he said.

Source

***

73% of the corn produced in the USA is genetically engineered. Wow. Taking into account that pollen grains can travel as far as ½ mile with a 15 mph wind in a couple of minutes, it has been suggested that in order to decrease contamination of non-GMO corn to 1%, the field should be placed 660ft away from a GMO corn field. However, according to this study, cross-pollination couldn't be decreased to 0.1% even with 1640ft between fields.

Also, this article says nothing about how the GMO corn pollen can affect other crops, fruits and vegetables. Recent research has shown that transgenic DNA (DNA that has been genetically modified with genes from other plants, insects, bacteria and viruses) does jump species to bacteria, plants, and animals.

So just think at all the fields and crops surrounding those 68 or so million acres of GMO corn. That's only the GMO corn. Think about all the GMO soy, canola seeds, wheat, potatoes, etc. I bet by now pretty much everything we eat has some sort of GMO genes in it. It's not like we get all of our organic fruits & veggies from the moon.

I don't even know what to say anymore.... except keep all of your good seeds in a safe place and maybe start growing some in your basement.
Syndication:

From the Community…

Comments 1-10 of 18
  • argumentforge's Avatar
    Posted by argumentforge Fri May 23, 2008 4:18pm PDT

    The blanket statement that all GE foods are bad is not one that you are qualified to make. Nature is science, science can be controlled; given the time and research needed, we can do anything with anything living. I'd also like to question one of your statement's in particular, could you post your source you used when stating, "Furthermore, new research by the US Department of Agriculture shows that biotech crops do not produce higher yields."? It doesn't seem possible to prove something like that this early in what is such a young science.

    From the sounds of it, it seems you think we shouldn't even delve into the realm of genetic engineering, even though, already, even in this early stage, it has provided us with many advantages for the growth, production, shipping, and storage of what little we have been allowed to use genetic engineering on. I wish I knew more on this subject to present a better argument, but for now, I'll have to settle with pointing out things that don't seem accurate. Thanks, and have a good weekend.

    Report Abuse
  • n's Avatar
    Posted by n Fri May 23, 2008 5:22pm PDT

    ""New Leaf potatoes, more environmentally friendly, the latest development, you don't have to spray with pesticides". What they are actually saying is that pesticide is genetically engineered into the potato, which means you are eating them. You can buy red potatoes or organic potatoes."

    Actually the pesticide that has been engineered into the potato comes from a bacteria that organic farmers use as a biological control for pests. So when you eat organic potatoes, you end up also eating the same pesticide.

    This article sounds more like scare tactics, though it is understandable to be nervous because genetically modified organisms sound like something out of a scary science fiction movie. But if you think about it, most GMO's only have one or two genes modified. It's actually more likely that a harmful trait would be passed down through cross breeding (which is how we have arrived at most of the domesticated crops we grow today) where many genes are modified.

    Furthermore, what about the benefits of GMO's? For example, plants genetically engineered to grow with less water. This could be very useful for the freshwater crisis that the world is beginning to see on both a local and international level. The only reason that the majority of GMO's that are grown today are just modified with pesticides is because groups opposed to them have blocked further research and use. The fact is that this is a technology that can be used to solve many of the world's growing problems (even if it has some risks, but every technology carries some risk).

    It's good to see at least some articles in the mainstream media though, this is an important topic that needs to be discussed.

    I am no expert in the field by the way, but i did just finish taking a course in environmental science at UMass. That's where I got my information.

    Report Abuse
  • horo_horo27's Avatar
    Posted by horo_horo27 Fri May 23, 2008 9:21pm PDT

    I just took a course in DNA technology and I'm planning on going to college for Biotechnology so my opinion might be a little biased, however most of the data given here seems biased and almost a 'slippery slope' argument. I do believe that GM foods should be labeled and that the public should be informed about the effects of GM foods so that they can make the choice for themselves; however as i already stated there are several opinions here that i don't quite agree with.

    "Currently more than 2,743 genetically engineered crops are being tested or awaiting approval by the US Department of Agriculture"

    Because of the controversy of this issue almost all GM crops and products undergo severe testing to make sure that their are no unexpected results, such as drugs are-or are at least supposed to-undergo. The number of the tests does not mean that they in themselves are dangerous, but you testing must continue since you can't disprove the idea GM objects will have unforeseen consequences, you can just reduce the odds in your favor.

    "In 1950, DDT was hailed as the technology that will solve the world's hunger. In 1946, their ads informed you: "Exhaustive scientific research has shown that when properly used, DDT kills a host of destructive insect pests and is a benefactor of all humanity. It's good for food, it's good for animals, and it's good for the home. DDT is harmless to humans." We now know that is not true, but this is exactly what they are saying about genetically engineered crops."

    As you already mentioned one of the aspects of GM crops is to reduce the use of chemicals and pesticides that farmers must use to maintain a profitable harvest. In other words GM crops are actually reducing the amount of chemicals that destroy ecosystems, create algae blooms in the oceans-depleting the oxygen in that area and killing all life there, and the ones that prove to be dangerous to humans. However; I do agree with you that a careful eye needs to be kept on GM products and companies should never be allowed to get sloppy.

    "genetically engineered foods coming on the market now are either herbicide resistant, which means it allows them to use more of their chemicals to poison our environment"

    Umm no... it means that we can use less pesticides since the crops become resistant to predators or organisms that would try to destroy it. Organisms that the pesticides were used to kill.

    "In genetic engineering, they take the gene from an animal, plant, bacteria, or virus, and implant that with a "gene gun" in a natural strand of soy DNA for example. It is like genetic surgery. For instance, the genetically engineered soybean that is on the market has a foreign gene from a bacterium, another foreign gene from a virus; and other foreign genes which are inserted. When they shoot a foreign gene into the DNA, they can’t predict where it is going to land. 1) The foreign gene may be implanted between two other genes and it doesn't interfere with the functioning of the gene. 2) When the foreign gene is implanted, it may break up a gene that is already present, and there is no way of predicting the side effects."

    Ok the majority of this paragraph is B.S. or just scare tactics. Yes; its true that a virus, known as a vector, carries genetic material to a targeted cell. However what they neglect to tell you is that the virus has none of its viral DNA or RNA inside of it, its an empty protein shell. Its like taking a bad driver out of a car and giving it to a good driver, yeah the car is the same but what really matters is who's driving it. and the genetic material does not randomly get pulled out of bacteria, what they are referring to is a method of 'copying' DNA. Some bacteria have two places that contain genetic information, the normal chromosomes and a circular piece of DNA known as a plasmid, scientists remove the plasmid and replace it with the gene they want to 'copy' and let the bacteria multiply. Then they can destroy the bacteria and collect the desired genes. Doubt its safety? This how the insulin that helps diabetics live is created, and its worked for several decades. Lastly the two reasons that they give are faulty in themselves. A lot of work is put into making sure that the vector travels to the right area of the body and that the genetic material is inserted in the correct place. To do the second part a chemical naturally found in the body splits the DNA at a certain spot. The separator which could contain more than 30 sequential base pairs will find its complimentary base pairs and split the DNA in that location. The basic principle that sequential base pairs-a pattern of specific base pairs- are so rare is also the basic foundation for DNA testing in forensics. Basically this whole paragraph was full of scare tactic and I just want people to be properly informed before they make a desicion. I could go on but its past midnight, and anyways I doubt anyone will read it through this far (I mostly wrote it to vent I guess). Those that did, thank you and you have a far greater attention span than i do. ^.^

    Report Abuse
  • Diana B's Avatar
    Posted by Diana B Fri May 23, 2008 9:41pm PDT

    Let me explain a couple of things. First and foremost, I did not write that article. It says "Wolfson Richard, Ph.D right at the top. The second article was written by Carey Gillam. My comment on both the articles are found right under the 3 stars (***). So please, don't shoot the messenger, do your research first before you start talking about something you don't really understand.

    Second, this is how GMO's are made. Let's say for argument's sake we want to make some tomatoes that are resistant to frost. And let's say there's these trout that live up high in the mountains that have a certain gene making them resistant to cold.

    A scientist will take that small gene (section of DNA) from the trout, implant it into a virus or bacteria (due to viruses' ability to inject their DNA into the host cell DNA, basically turning it into a virus factory), then they implant that virus into a tomato cell.

    After that, they pray to God (literally) that the gene falls into the right place of the DNA code and will make that tomato more resistant to frost. Basically, the process is completely random and it has to be done thousands of times until they get it right.

    It does not stop there, however. Now you have a plant with fish and virus genes into it. Since it was not made naturally, the plant is highly unstable and is at risk for mutation. If you research Monsanto corn, you will find that it contains terminator genes. They are for 3 purposes. 1. Monsanto continues to make money off of it. 2. Farmers have to buy new seeds every year. 3. The corn plant is so unstable that if the new seeds were viable, after planting them for a few years in succession, you would get some mutant ninja turtle type of corn.

    It gets worse. If you would click on the third link in my comment up there you will find a neat little research article that says GMO pollen (since it still has those virus genes in it) is able to cross-pollinate other plants, i.e., corn can interbreed with beans, for example. The transgenic DNA can jump species and not just plants, but insects and bacteria, also.

    Theoretically speaking (I know they had a human trial, but I can't seem to find it online), if you eat some Monsanto corn that produces its own pesticide, there's a very good chance the bacteria in your intestines will get contaminated with those genes and start producing their very own pesticides right in your stomach.

    So please, do some research into this stuff. It is a very young science and like I've said before, it's very unpredictable and its long-term effects have not been studied. It could actually end up being something that could hurt us really, really badly.

    Report Abuse
  • Diana B's Avatar
    Posted by Diana B Fri May 23, 2008 9:57pm PDT

    Scott, please read http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FAQ.php and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php

    The latter is the research article that talks about how transgenic DNA can cross species.

    And unlike insulin, which is left all by pure self (sometimes), the vectors remain in the plant's DNA, and continue on into the pollen, so not only do you have a gene that can produce pesticides, but you have the car that can take it along to other plants.

    Report Abuse
  • jeangirl@att.net's Avatar
    Posted by jeangirl@att.net Sat May 24, 2008 8:46am PDT

    And let me guess Mr. "argumentforge" you wouldn't be involved in any way in the "science" or being paid by Monsanto somehow let say would you? No of course not you are just a regular consumer who chooses to eat Genetically Modified foods because it is beneficial to your health

    isn't that right Mr argumentforge? You just happen to stumble across this article you wouldn't be getting paid to post comments would you? You are just a very concerned citizen against organic & natural foods because after all who needs organic & natural when we have you, "science", you work so hard for our future and health, you will tell us what is good for us, and you would never mislead people just for financial benefit would you? Oh and of course "the growth, production,shipping and storage" is more important than lets say health.... Health... who needs health when we have big Pharma. Mr. argumentforge your employers should be proud of you.

    Report Abuse
  • n's Avatar
    Posted by n Sat May 24, 2008 11:27am PDT

    Actually terminator genes are put into place so that the plant can't reproduce and potentially crossbreed with other native species, creating hybrid plants that could screw around with the ecosystem much like invasive plant species do. Problems such as seed companies making more money or farmers not being able to retain seeds from their harvest are just symptoms of a solution to another problem. The fact that you portrayed it differently makes me seriously question the credibility of your research (though to be fair, there's no reason for you or anyone else to give me credibility either).

    Also, shouldn't you feel safe that certified professionals and scientists with high level degrees painstakingly work through thousands of different samples to create the perfect plant and that they have taken the steps to prevent these unstable organisms from causing harm?

    All I am saying is that for some of the risks that do not yet have a sound basis, there are countless real benefits and solutions that GMO's could provide.

    Just think about this fact for a while and how it relates to the subject; plant DNA and human DNA are 99.5% similar... So when we genetically engineer (which only changes one or two genes in a single sequence) any organism, we are literally only changing .0005, or whatever minute % you want to use, of its DNA. This means there is a very very small risk of a problem.

    And also, I have my facts strait. I've done my research and have been lectured by leading members of the field that are BOTH for and against GMO's. Maybe you should post two different articles that show both sides of the argument and let the public make an informed decision rather then just two that only give one side; what is this, fox news?

    Report Abuse
  • n's Avatar
    Posted by n Sat May 24, 2008 11:30am PDT

    I want to say again though I was glad to see articles about GMO's. It's a big issue that doesn't get nearly as much coverage as it deserves.

    Report Abuse
  • Diana B's Avatar
    Posted by Diana B Sat May 24, 2008 5:45pm PDT

    Virtually all of Monsanto's corn contains terminator genes and that does not stop the pollen from cross-contaminating other plants. It hasn't stopped Monsanto from checking other farmer's grains and then suing them because they contained Monsanto corn or canola genes.

    If 73% of the 93 million acres of corn planted last year was GMO, what percent of the organic, non-GMO corn do you think is already contaminated with the genes? Take into account that in order to reduce contamination to 1% you have to keep your non-GMO field 660ft away from a GMO-field.

    The fact that human and plant DNA is so similar and we are only making "minor" changes does not change the fact we are creating plant/insect/human chimeras that would have never been possible in nature. We don't know the long-term side effects of these cross-contaminations.

    Also, Faux News does the pro side of GMO's, I do the con. Sometimes I wear the pants, sometimes they cross-dress. It keeps things interesting. :)

    Report Abuse
  • horo_horo27's Avatar
    Posted by horo_horo27 Sun May 25, 2008 12:32am PDT

    Well Diana I do understand what your saying but new methods are being developed (although I'm pretty sure some are in use right now) that will guide the vectors. Since cells have different protein receptors-a proverbially keyhole- that requires a correlating protein combination on the vector a vector with a certain protein configuration will only be able to target ones with the same receptor they unlock for. I realize that that sentence is worded horribly but its 3:21 AM after prom and I'm going to bed soon ^.^

    I was not aware of the Monsanto's corn debacle, as I will readily admit I am very new and inexperienced when in this field-at the moment. I was aware of termination genes and i actually thought along the same lines as you but the reasoning 'n' shows makes more sense.

    Also I;d like to apologize for not fully reading the article, I just read the first part and the commented, since I actually knew about something that was going on . . That and I like to debate, and will often play devils advocate in my classes just to get some interesting debates started. My critique was in no way supposed to be an 'attack' at your or your opinion but more of a statement of a few facts. I really enjoy debating and recently I've been thinking about majoring in bioethics since the area of biotechnology holds a lot of potential for good and bad things.

    I find it interesting that fox news would be in support of GM products, I thought the ultra-conservatives were against messing with God's creatures. I myself am actual very liberal but when it comes to GM products I think that the potential benefits outweigh the potential bad things.

    Report Abuse
Comments 1-10 of 18

leave your comment

You must sign in to post a comment

Sign In for personalized information

New User? Sign Up

Updates Chatter on Shine...

Health Byte

Does the election have you all worked up? Take a break from the hype and instead, take some deep breaths.