Ogotay

I'm gonne be leading a discussion about this subject on tuesday, and I'm searching for pros, cons, arguments for and against the usage of biotechnology.


Starting a discussion about this here would be of great help for me, so that I can keep a better track of the arguments that will be used.

Here are some questions to get it started, sorry that they're not very complicated.. :P

- Should food from genetically altered plants and wildlife be forbidden?

- Should we use this technology as a solution for humanities huge hunger-problems?

- Is it fair / ok that large American food-companies own the patencies for the different genetically altered foodproducts?



I'd love to get some info on environmental-, humanitary-, political- and economic effects that the usage of food biotechnology might give.

Godot

the rational answers to your questions are no, yes, and no respectively. they actually are farily complicated questions when you consider the consequences of them.
first what constitutes a genetically modified organisms (GMO)? Do you mean any living thing (we'll limit the discussion at this point to plant life) whose genome is different than the 'original' parent stock, or do you mean an organism whose genome was altered by human intervention in a laboratory environment?
Realistically, there is no practical difference between these two. Very few plants out there bear any resemblance to their original parental stock prior to agricultural intervention. This is because earlier humans initiated the process of plant husbandry in an attempt to control and direct the expressed characteristics of plants so they would bear edible produce. Just look at the wide variety of roses in the world: they vary by fragrance, color, size, etc. and most of these characteristics came into being through human intervention. This is a crude example of genetic manipulation.
Plant husbandry differs from laboratory manipulation simply by the degree of technology available. We now possess the ability to measure with high accuracy whichever characteristic we are attempting to alter. As such, we can somewhat predict the likely result of our manipulation. This was not the case with plant husbandry.

GMO's have been demonstrated to be effective in treating (not so much hunger) nutritional-deficiency diseases. Just look at the golden rice example. Blindness due to insufficient beta-carotene intake is farily common is asian countries. A group of scientists were able to modify the genome of rice to express sufficient quantities of beta-carotene. This product was selected because it is the staple food item in asian cultures. The incidence and prevalence of blindness, macular degeneration, etc. decreased significantly in populations exposed to golden rice. Unfortunately, despite the benefits, it has not been placed into widespread use due to global political and economical pressures (mainly from the EU).

The only acceptable rationale for allowing patents on GMO's is to protect the intellectual property rights that went into the development of the product. Despite my altruistic outlook, patents are mainly used to enforce economic power over the distribution and use of the product (re: Monsanto and the RoundupReady (TM) Canola issue). Gaining a financial advantage from the exploitation of others while using a product that can benefit humanity is inexcusable and deplorable.

That's pretty much it from the top of my head, I might post some more if anything occurs to me. I've done some work on this subject in the past, so if anyone would like me to point them towards some of the (enormous!) literature on the subject, just let me know.

Ogotay

Thanks for the great reply, Godot.

But doesn't anyone have anything else to say? Arguments against the usage of genetically altered food?

doghouse

No.

As opposed to letting them starve? If the technology helps, we should use it.

Only if they are the ones that developed the product. If a small Tibetan company develops an innovative product then they should own the patent.

The purpose of patents is to reward innovation. If you don’t want patents for things that benefit humanity, then you won’t have patents/copyrights for drugs, vaccines, medical devices, music, literature, computer software, etc. Fine. But be prepared to have very little innovation in these products.

Joe6Pack

I have seen protests at Starbucks and against other food producers by people claiming all sorts of things about"Frankenfood"
There has been little study to provide negative effects of consuming this type of food.
There have been great strides in making certain types of corn and other vegatables resistant to insect blight and in turn saving the millions of pounds of insecticide being spread to fight these pests. Many people that protest the "Frankenfood" rarely take this into consideration. It also helps reduce the cost of farming in general

Sr. Zonules

I'm "pro-GMO," but, for the sake of arguement, I could be against it, because I am a cook. If making GM food leads to crappy "quality" (more specifically taste, texture, storage, nutrition, ...) (and I know many that "old" people I talk to are saying that food isn't like it used to be), as well as new markets for exploitation via patent and rights (kind of similar to the rediculousness of the technology acts under Clinton), then I say that a new APPROACH will have to me made before we go GMO.

Other than that, I want to do all I can to buy and support GMOs, and I think that the E.U. should not tell / decide what others can do. They should go shove their non-GM food somewhere where the sun don't shine.

BTW, In the USA over 2/3 the corn and 1/2 the soy (and their products) we eat is GM!! yay!