*EDIT: I stand corrected about there never having been an allergic reaction. Wikipedia says that there was a type of GMO soybean used for animal feed that produced allergies in humans in 2005, but the researchers immediately ceased development when this was discovered. My overall point still stands. Like any other type of new food, there may be certain allergies in certain cases...but this just means that we need to monitor them and recall them if they pose major health risks. It's hardly a sound justification for banning all genetically-modified crops. It isn't right to deprive an impoverished farmer in Ethiopia from a bountiful harvest in a sustainable environment, because we're worried about a few Americans having allergic reactions to a food they chose to eat.
Last edited by Kandahar; 03-13-12 at 09:48 AM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
Introducing any organism into a new environment is tricky at best because it is often disastrous. (Think zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.) I think it's OK to modify the plants but the idea of them getting loose, especially if their modifications prove to be dominant traits, is a little discerning. If the modifications are recessive then they'll still come out when mixed in the wild but they'll be far less frequent and it'll take decades for them to spread.
Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg
They are, but the testing is to ensure that they do indeed do what they were designed to do. Secondary impacts are only cursorily examined. They test for allergies, because that affects the bottom line. Unintended environmental impacts (GMO corn affects milk thistle, which the monarch butterfly depends on), or potentials for disease (think mad cow) way down the line, aren't as much of a concern in our short term profits economic model.
I was mortified when I found out GMO crops were fertile. WTF!! Especially considering the big ag companies like Monsanto are pushing a model.where no seed produces a plant that makes seed.
There have actually been cases where GMO corn contaminated an adjacent field and the owner of the contaminated field was required to pay damages for patent infringement.
That and the GMO lobby preventing labeling of GMO products. They tried to ban designating products as NOT containing GMOs, like the dairy industry tried to prevent labeling products as BGH and antibiotic free.
Last I heard, most of Europe requires labeling and GMOs are not selling well.
And don't get me wrong. I'm all FOR it in principle. Just not in practise, as it stands today. What is the point of rice that produces twice as much but is half as nutritious? So your belly will be full and you wont KNOW you're still starving?
Here is actually a quite interesting video on the topic:
Edit: Here are some interesting articles as well (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28629) (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28434)
Last edited by Mr. Invisible; 03-13-12 at 10:41 AM.
"And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."
Fertility of GMO crops is a BIG deal. This technology is WAY too new to be releasing these little "monsters" into the wild. Its too soon to just be letting these genies out of their bottles. Unintended consequences could be catastrophic.
Here is another good video on the topic, too:
Conservatives believe the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will prove it
Ignorance is Bliss Bliss is the same as happiness US Christian conservatives are the happiest in the US according to studies Do you see a connection?