Comments on: Genetically Modified: how the EU embraces “frankenstein foods” http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275 for environmentalists who don't take themselves too seriously Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:42:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: GM Crops only way for India to feed itself, say government » http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275/comment-page-1#comment-1191 GM Crops only way for India to feed itself, say government » Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:11:39 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=275#comment-1191 [...] week we reported on the potentially negative effects of using genetically modified crops. However, it seems that a large scale cultivation of transgenic crops may be the only solution to [...] [...] week we reported on the potentially negative effects of using genetically modified crops. However, it seems that a large scale cultivation of transgenic crops may be the only solution to [...]

]]> By: bmuswell http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275/comment-page-1#comment-843 bmuswell Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:11:55 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=275#comment-843 I have three points stated below in relation to Mary King's excellent article on very serious issues relating to Genetically Modified (GM) foods. But first I must strongly disagree with the patronising points put forward by Chris who refers to "a good argument chaps" and Simmons who claims that there is no evidence to say GM food is unsafe. The GM issue is very serious as it raises issues about human health, the access to ordinary non-GMO foods which have proved beneficial to human health as well as the detrimental impact on the environment, wildlife and ecology. The three serious points are as follows: GM foods are not ordinary foods and are therefore inherently different to what we have been eating. They are created in laboratories using genes which are synthetic versions of the originals. GM foods are not safe and have been proven not to be so for by independent research scientists at the Institute of Science in Society. See url http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php These scientists are not in the pay of organisations who are interested in a profit sector which leaves the control of food, the ecology in the hands of lab technicians. GM companies are not being ensured for this experimentation on the environment, organic farming or on human health via their GM foods because no one is prepared to underwrite the risks. I for one do not want to experiment with human health and am also not prepared to underwrite the risks taken by companies with track records like that of Monsanto. The European Union must take action to protect the citizen from the harmful impacts of a technology sector that is ripe for abuse and monopolisation of our food chain. I have three points stated below in relation to Mary King’s excellent article on very serious issues relating to Genetically Modified (GM) foods. But first I must strongly disagree with the patronising points put forward by Chris who refers to “a good argument chaps” and Simmons who claims that there is no evidence to say GM food is unsafe. The GM issue is very serious as it raises issues about human health, the access to ordinary non-GMO foods which have proved beneficial to human health as well as the detrimental impact on the environment, wildlife and ecology.

The three serious points are as follows:

GM foods are not ordinary foods and are therefore inherently different to what we have been eating. They are created in laboratories using genes which are synthetic versions of the originals.
GM foods are not safe and have been proven not to be so for by independent research scientists at the Institute of Science in Society. See url http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php
These scientists are not in the pay of organisations who are interested in a profit sector which leaves the control of food, the ecology in the hands of lab technicians.
GM companies are not being ensured for this experimentation on the environment, organic farming or on human health via their GM foods because no one is prepared to underwrite the risks.

I for one do not want to experiment with human health and am also not prepared to underwrite the risks taken by companies with track records like that of Monsanto. The European Union must take action to protect the citizen from the harmful impacts of a technology sector that is ripe for abuse and monopolisation of our food chain.

]]> By: Chris http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275/comment-page-1#comment-583 Chris Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:50:45 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=275#comment-583 good arguments chaps! good arguments chaps!

]]> By: Maryking http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275/comment-page-1#comment-478 Maryking Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:22:43 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=275#comment-478 It's really nothing to do with the safety or otherwise of these crops. It's to do with the sacrifice of biodiversity and the amount of control their use gives to the very powerful companies that manufacture them (ie Monsanto). For instance, they can arrange that crops are resistant to pesticides, but only the pesticides THEY sell. Corn with a "terminator gene", that does not reproduce itself and has to be replanted from newly purchased seed every year, has been created and used in the US - clearly a ridiculous idea, and a way of forcing farmers to buy more seed from the company in question: potentially a disaster for poor countries. Additionally, as I mentioned in the article, it's impossible to control pollination once a crop has been planted. Breeds engineered to be stronger will eventually wipe out the naturally-occurring varieties, reducing diversity, which in turn makes crops vulnerable to being wiped out entirely by one disease or insect. It’s really nothing to do with the safety or otherwise of these crops. It’s to do with the sacrifice of biodiversity and the amount of control their use gives to the very powerful companies that manufacture them (ie Monsanto). For instance, they can arrange that crops are resistant to pesticides, but only the pesticides THEY sell. Corn with a “terminator gene”, that does not reproduce itself and has to be replanted from newly purchased seed every year, has been created and used in the US – clearly a ridiculous idea, and a way of forcing farmers to buy more seed from the company in question: potentially a disaster for poor countries.
Additionally, as I mentioned in the article, it’s impossible to control pollination once a crop has been planted. Breeds engineered to be stronger will eventually wipe out the naturally-occurring varieties, reducing diversity, which in turn makes crops vulnerable to being wiped out entirely by one disease or insect.

]]> By: Chris http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275/comment-page-1#comment-414 Chris Sat, 08 Sep 2007 19:02:20 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=275#comment-414 That's true - I would certainly not notice the difference. Very good point and interesting you think that way. I think the way to change the perception that GM is unnatural and tampering is to have to have extensive scientific research (which takes time), backing up the safety of eating and growing such crops. If the vast majority of scientists reach a consensus, then the attitudes of people would probably (very slowly)change. Mine definitely. That’s true – I would certainly not notice the difference. Very good point and interesting you think that way. I think the way to change the perception that GM is unnatural and tampering is to have to have extensive scientific research (which takes time), backing up the safety of eating and growing such crops. If the vast majority of scientists reach a consensus, then the attitudes of people would probably (very slowly)change. Mine definitely.

]]> By: Simmons http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275/comment-page-1#comment-413 Simmons Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:26:18 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=275#comment-413 I understand that people see it that way, but I don't understand why. If you ate a genetically modified food and then a non-GM food, you probably wouldn't even notice the difference. I understand that people see it that way, but I don’t understand why. If you ate a genetically modified food and then a non-GM food, you probably wouldn’t even notice the difference.

]]> By: Chris http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275/comment-page-1#comment-412 Chris Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:34:00 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=275#comment-412 I think the problem is that people see it as unnatural. They also tend to go by the saying that you are what you eat. I think that in princuple it's a good thing, however, I wouldn't touch a GM vegetable with a bargepole! Good to have healthy debate anyway! I think the problem is that people see it as unnatural. They also tend to go by the saying that you are what you eat. I think that in princuple it’s a good thing, however, I wouldn’t touch a GM vegetable with a bargepole! Good to have healthy debate anyway!

]]> By: Simmons http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/genetically-modified-how-the-eu-embraces-frankenstein-foods/275/comment-page-1#comment-410 Simmons Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:51:08 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=275#comment-410 I don't see the problem with GM food; it's not harmful, and I've never heard of one death caused by it. I don’t see the problem with GM food; it’s not harmful, and I’ve never heard of one death caused by it.

]]>