BioBeing

You never had that pre-sliced cheese-like food product. I'm sure that stuff is synthesized in a lab, not fermented from milk.

Corwin

And to get back to the OP.... the problem is that as GM is currently practiced, there's a much greater ability to select for traits that weren't there to begin with, and the motivations for choosing which traits to insert is not what most people think it is. (IE to increase the bottom line and fuck anything else, not to improve the overall 'quality' of the product from the consumer's perspective.)

Mageth

(IE to increase the bottom line and fuck anything else, not to improve the overall 'quality' of the product from the consumer's perspective.)

Isn't it true that the overall quality of a product is what the consumer selects for? So it seems it might be in an enterprise's interest to develop products that have desirable overal quality from the consumer's perspective, and thus sell well? Isn't that a good way to increase the bottom line? If no one buys it, why develop it? Your competitor will put you out of business if it produces a more desirable product, after all.

Corwin

That assumes that the customer is entirely rational and completely informed.

How many foods are labelled as GM and how many labels explain exactly what modifications have been made?

And how long have the agricorps been fighting exactly that kind of labelling?

MadKally

Corwin,
Please go to the homeopathy thread post haste! We need you to tell us how good it works. (again)

I don't really give a damn what they might do to a tomato, I want a tomato that tastes like one picked from a garden. No more mushy, partially green tomatoes that taste like cardboard with a little bitter juice mixed in! Those little tiny grape tomatoes are pretty good.

Tell these people the truth about gravity, please? They don't know a thing compared to you. (Corwin's new laws of physics) Maybe a new topic?

Bio, I like your name. Notice that mine says "mad"? That's both angry and mad as a hatter.

MadKally formerly known as Mad Kally

NialScorva

The problem is that as selective breeding is currently practiced, there's a much greater ability to select for traits that weren't there to begin with, and the motivations for choosing which traits to select for are not what most people think it is. (IE to increas the bottom line and fuck anything else, not to improve the overall 'quality' of the product from the consumer's perspective.)


Do you think that corn that is selected (not GMed) to survive in a variety of environments, resist pests, or have different nutritional requirements improves the product from the consumer's perspective? Everything you're complaining about has been going on for centuries.

Mageth

That assumes that the customer is entirely rational and completely informed.

IMO, the rational and informed consumer would know that most, if not all, geneticically-modified products are as safe to eat as any other product (all of which are the result of natural genetic modification in the first place).

How many foods are labelled as GM and how many labels explain exactly what modifications have been made?

I have no idea, really. Actually, I agree that such labeling may be a good idea, if for nothing else to allay the often irrational paranoia surrounding the safety of GM food products over the long term (as more and more people eat GM products and don't mutate into freaks or keel over dead, perhaps the public will realize that their fears were uncalled for).

And how long have the agricorps been fighting exactly that kind of labelling?

I don't know; perhaps since Oola found the first genetically-modified big red tomato in her little garden a few thousand years ago. She kept it quiet because she didn't want it getting out that a demon had been messing around with her plants!

MadKally

I love salt. I dump it on everything. I learned in college "Nutrition for the Health Professional", if you are normal with no ankle edema or high blood pressure, it just excretes right out via the kidneys.

Von Evilstein,
Just so they don't start separating the Na from the Cl... Egads! Oh the horror.

Pyrrho

Many who have posted in this thread appear to have the belief that it is impossible to genetically modify a plant or animal such that it is harmful for humans. (Corwin is a notable exception to this.) After all, if it is not impossible, then, obviously, it is a possibility, and therefore there is something real to be concerned about when companies are genetically modifying plants and animals.

So, my question is this: Are all of you who say there is nothing to worry about saying that it is impossible that the genetic modifications will be harmful, perhaps causing some form of cancer after several years of consumption?

If you claim that, then I would like to see some kind of evidence to support your hypothesis. If you do not claim that, then why do you ridicule the idea that maybe some company is going to be feeding us something that will harm us?

By the way, one can be rationally opposed to practices that have unknown effects. The reason being, of course, that the effects, being unknown, might be harmful, and one may not wish to take any unnecessary risks.

Mageth

Many who have posted in this thread appear to have the belief that it is impossible to genetically modify a plant or animal such that it is harmful for humans.

Personally, I think you're wrong in your assessment. Of course it is possible to genetically modify a plant or animal so that it is harmful for humans. I think everyone who's posted here would agree with that statement.

So, my question is this: Are all of you who say there is nothing to worry about saying that it is impossible that the genetic modifications will be harmful, perhaps causing some form of cancer after several years of consumption?

No, I would not say there was nothing to worry about. But this holds true for "natural" foods as well; every once in a while, we discover something we've been eating for centuries might be carcinogenic (e.g. burnt fat/meat).

If you claim that, then I would like to see some kind of evidence to support your hypothesis.

No one's claimed that, to my knowledge.

If you do not claim that, then why do you ridicule the idea that maybe some company is going to be feeding us something that will harm us?

Because I think such "worry" is often carried to an undeserved level of hysteria/paranoia. It might be the case that something someone develops by GE might end up being harmful, but this damn sure doesn't mean that everything so developed is harmful, more harmful than "natural" products, or that such GE should be banned or seriously limited.

By the way, one can be rationally opposed to practices that have unknown effects. The reason being, of course, that the effects, being unknown, might be harmful, and one may not wish to take any unnecessary risks.

Well, the same would hold true for everything you eat, completely natural, modified using "classic" genetic techniques/selective breeding, or modified using modern GE techniques. So does this mean we should all starve ourselves lest the foods we enjoy are someday linked to cancer?

IMO, the risk from eating GE foods is no greater than the risk of eating non-GE foods, if you can find any (wild deer, rabbits, and blackberries, I guess).