Sr. Zonules

I never really thought about this, but my new biology 101 teacher pointed this out to me: "All natural, contains no chemicals" seems to be the slogan of many anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) pro-organic yayhoos. There is just one big problem with this; food IS chemicals, that's the point! Also, it is silly to say that organic foods cannot have pesticides or whatnot, because many pesticides ARE organic (at least they were before we synthesized things from them). Anyway, I just thought this was a rather silly thing, and I wanted to know what you yokels have to say about it.

Happy huntin',

-Z

Jinto

Sue 'em for false advertising and become a millionare

Craig

Not to mention many foods we eat today were "domesticated" thousands of years ago in what was essentially the first cases of genetic engineering.

I can't remember the exact foods offhand other than corn, but nearly every fruit and grain we see in the grocery store is a descendant from these experiments.

So the next time someone claims they have a more genetically "natural" form of something they probably don't.

MadKally

My chemistry professor told me that there are 150 chemicals in a potato. A potato without pesticides. That's just what the potato consists of...

Kally

ps418

But who are you to play God?

Seriously though. . . Every living thing is extensively genetically modified -- via descent with modification. And all the plants and animals humans consume have undergone a further type of genetic modification -- selective breeding, which definitely modifies gene frequencies in a crop, or even irradiation, which causes new genetic mutations in a crop. Opponents of GM seem to think that there is some archetypcal genotype that shouldnt be "tampered with."

Of course, a GM opponent could say the analogy is misleading because GM companies want to mix genes from different species. However, even this happens naturally as well, though horizontal gene transfer, e.g. through viral vectors.

Patrick

MadKally

I would love to be able to buy GM fruit here. I crave fruit all the time. The stuff at the grocery store has been picked when it is so green, it doesn't seem to have any fructose at all. Could they do something?

Kally

Corwin

The problem, (for most of us) isn't some quasi-mystical disgust at genetic engineering. It's enlightened self-interest. The fact that the food is genetically modified isn't the problem, the problem is WHO is doing the modification, HOW they're doing it, and WHY they're doing it.

The modifications are on the cellular level, which lets them make more substantial changes to the nature of the organism. This brings us to the who and why. The who is various agricorps. The why varies, but are rarely in the interest of the consumer... and those agricorps have been fighting tooth and nail to slip these products in with no informed consent. (Several states have had attempts to force GM foods to be labelled as such crushed by massive propaganda campaigns.)

To put it simply, I avoid consuming pesticides. This is my right and choice. I'm a bit leery of intentionally eating toxic substances. That being the case, I don't WANT to buy tomatoes that have been modified to secrete their own pesticides. (Even worse in my opinion. At least tomatoes that have had pesticides used them have them just on the surface, and they can at least partially be washed off.) However, in the current market I have no way of knowing if the fruit I'm buying has been modified in this way until I end up on chemotherapy from consuming large amounts of carcinogenic materials in the food that I eat. (No way to tell if tomatoes are modified. They aren't labelled.) I'm also concerned at the implementation. The agricorps' collective record at keeping such genetic modifications contained is hardly stellar to say the least. What's to stop these changes from migrating into the natrual population?

Genetic engineering can be a wonderful thing. Genetic engineering controlled by wealthy, powerful corporations with a long and well established history of caring ONLY about their bottom line, and fuck anything else, is not.

BioBeing

The most readily GM food, IIRC, are tomatoes. They have been modified to hold up better in shipping. Not for a pleasing flavour, taste or texture, but shipping. Other GM food have been engineered to be more resistant to pests, or pesticides. Again: not for flavor. So don't hold your brath waiting for MORE flavorful fruits and veg by GM means. You want flavour, you gotta go "heirloom".

[EDIT - do you like the schizo. flavor/flavour spelling? BioBeing - a misplaced Englishman]

Mageth

The modifications are on the cellular level, which lets them make more substantial changes to the nature of the organism.

Well, so was all the selective breeding done over the last several thousand years; people just didn't realize it. What other level would changes be made at?

What's to stop these changes from migrating into the natrual population?

Actually, that is a problem, and it's not just to the "natural" population. Genetic modifications done on "test" farms have the potential to migrate to "natural" crops (such as corn, e.g. by pollen blowing in the wind from a test crop, or by GE seeds getting mixed in with seeds of other strains for planting), threatening the survival of "pure" strains. I believe evidence of genetically-engineered mods (in the "test" phase) have shown up in crops of some unique "pure" strains of corn in Mexico, for example, threatening survival of those strains in their pure form.

This brings up another problem that has existed for some time, but which genetic engineering may make worse. The problem is that we have a tendency to replace multiple "natural" strains of a crop such as corn with new, homogenous, higher-yielding strains. This raises the potential for a new disease or pest to arise that will decimate a large percentage of a crop such as corn, rather than focusing on a few of the strains as such things typically did in the past.

ps418

Yes, and natural mutations and artificial selection create modifications at the cellular level as well. Its just that we dont have any idea what it is we're changing since we're selecting phenotypes.

Not if you eat plants. You may avoid eating artificial pesticides, of course, but since all plants produce endogenous pesticides, and could not survive without them.

I prefer not to eat toxic substances myself, at least not in amounts that are likely to affect my health. I support some sort of safety tests for GM crops.

Again, since tomatoes like all plants contain their own endogenous pesticides, its impossible to avoid all pesticides.

I have no problem with labelling foods that contain GM products.

The "natural" poulation is itself extensively genetically modified. The only difference is that it was modified by blind mutation and selection that could give a damn about effects on humans, rather than by Dow chemicals or Monsanto.

Patrick