 |
|
BANG FOR THE BITE
GMOs can be hard to avoid, but giving preferential treatment to products marked "No GMOs" is a safer bet for your body and the planet.
COCKTAIL FACT
The first commercially grown GM food was the Flavr Savr tomato, which is more resistant to rotting than non-GM tomatoes.
| SAVE TO MY BITES |  |
FORWARD TO A FRIEND:
RATE THIS TIP:
How useful is this tip to you?
(5 is the highest)
home › tip library › GMOs
Hungry for something cooked up in a science lab?
The Bite
Neither are we. But believe it or not, a lot of the foods we eat are genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Since it's a hard to stomach not knowing what the health and planetary repercussions of so-called Frankenfood will be, open wide for non-GM eats.The Benefits
- Playing it safe for your body. GM foods have been available commercially in the United States only since the 1990s, so we don't know the long-term health risks.
- Playing it safe for the planet. Scientists are concerned about maintaining biodiversity and believe pests will actually evolve into stronger predators to combat the pest-resistant GMOs.
- More diverse flavors. Gourmets everywhere agree: The range of possible flavors is greater when we don't engineer the seeds and just let Mother Nature work her magic.
Personally Speaking
Our rule of thumb for avoiding GMOs is to buy organic, since in the United States, food can't be certified organic if it's grown with GM seeds.Wanna Try?
- True Food Now - resources for finding more info on GMOs and a shopper's guide to non-GMO foods.
Aug 09,2007
Sponsor
All editorial suggestions in this tip are the result of testing and a preference for the tip topic. No advertiser has paid to have its company referenced in the tip. For more information, please read our Editorial Policy.
GMOs Sound Like an Awesome Idea
They do, don't they? Get more, bigger, better food out of the same little old, tired, overworked patch of land? Sign me up!
Or, well... no. Don't. 'Cuz nature's kind of fine-tuned this whole gorgeously balanced gene thing, no? It's had millennia of trial and error to get that one right. Not quite sure I trust something that's only gone through seven years of testing by a government body quite as much as I trust natural selection. God only knows what one misplaced spliced gene will do to us, the oceans, the world.
-Heather...off to read more of The Moral Animal...
Or, well... no. Don't. 'Cuz nature's kind of fine-tuned this whole gorgeously balanced gene thing, no? It's had millennia of trial and error to get that one right. Not quite sure I trust something that's only gone through seven years of testing by a government body quite as much as I trust natural selection. God only knows what one misplaced spliced gene will do to us, the oceans, the world.
-Heather...off to read more of The Moral Animal...
Biter Comments...
I am known by my friends as a tree-hugger and I do all I can to promote green behaviors in my job, my life, and my friends. I have to disagree this daily tip.
GMOs have a place in this world so long as they are managed appropriately. They have the potential to feed millions of people who are starving and/or mal-nourished. Take the golden rice for example. They were able to inject vitamins into the rice which helped people in developing countries who were severely lacking. I believe it was vitamin A, which is a severe deficiency that affects 200 million people who rely on rice as a staple in their diet. I realize that we live in a first world country where we have the luxury to make choices on what we consume, but perhaps people shouldn't discount the potential good that can come from GMOs and really Biotechnology Agriculture (which is what it really is).
You might think that I'm not truly green if I don't agree with this tip, but we have way too many people on this planet now to not look at how to produce more food for everyone - bugs aside. Today, an estimated 800 million people do not have access to sufficient supplies of food. By 2030, the global population is expected to reach, if not exceed, 8 billion people, putting a further strain on food supplies and only 10 percent of the earth is arable and over-farming and erosion are becoming significant problems.
So those are my two cents. I am sure that it goes against what a lot of you believe, and that’s completely understandable, but I felt it was necessary to also bring a different perspective to the table that is not solely focused on the 1st world which we all live in.
Regarding Lindsay's post of the non-reproducing seeds... Monsanto corporation made these, a line of seeds called Terminator. I think they were corn seeds but I could be wrong (It's covered in a fantastic book called Lords of the Harvest, but that's sitting in my office and I'm writing from home). The idea was to force farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving seed from one year to the next. The hugely negative publicity caused Monsanto to drop the Terminator line in the US, but I don't know if they're selling them elsewhere.
The odd thing is that a lot of the hybrid crops (that have been created by years of selective breeding, not by genetic modification) don't reproduce themselves reliably or well (this is especially true of corn, but other crops too), so many farmers buy new seed every year anyway so that their crops will be consistent for the market.
As a biologist who genetically modifies bacteria to do my scientific bidding (and is very careful not to let the genes escape), I have two major concerns with GMOs. First, genes that escape can create a variety of problems - for example, herbicide resistance could be passed onto "weed" crops, particularly the rather invasive ones; in the same way Bt toxin production could spread to plants that are hosts to beneficial insects (and, for that matter, the Bt can affect some beneficial insects). Second, we still don't know exactly what components of certain foods, especially peanuts, trigger allergic responses. Moving genes from allergy-causing plants into other plants could introduce allergens into foods that people with allergies always thought were safe.
I'll agree that the "golden rice" (with vitamin A) was a good idea, but it wasn't culturally acceptable to the target audience, who place a high regard on white rice as it symbolizes purity and hospitality. It would probably go over really well in the US (particularly with people who don't read labels).
For most of the food-challenged regions, the problem is not that there isn't enough food in the world, but that the infrastructure is insufficient to get the food to the people who need it most. That coupled with lack of access to safe drinking/cooking water is the basis for most of the famine in the world.
Check out Lords of the Harvest - it's quite the thought-provoking read.
hear, hear, brandi... as a molecular biologist and someone who worked with and created GMOs personally (for genetic research in fruitflies), i am completely opposed to eating GMOs.
and i also agree that food shortages are caused by economic factors (e.g. inequality in land distribution) rather than problems with the animals, plants and seeds themselves. it's the humans' system that needs fixing, not nature's.
Food shortages are also political. Thousands of American farmers are no longer growing corn for food. They are growing it for ethanol production. This is also occuring among soybean farmers. They get paid more to grow for biofuels instead of food. We are seeing the effects of this in our own country as food prices continue to rise because corn products are in less supply and therefore more costly. The government also pays farmers subsidies not to grow certain crops to keep their prices artificially high. One crop is sugar where it costs 4 times as much in the United States than anywhere else in the world. Which is what food producers use corn syrup... round and round we go.
I have read that it would take $19 billion a year to feed the world's starving populations. Doesn't seem like a lot. However we get them to try and grow wheat which is then processed down to be almost devoid of nutrients. Instead the world needs to be growning more Rice (where suitable in the climate), Amaranth, and Quinoa. These are better quality grains and base foods than either the corn or wheat that we have built our food system on.
Thanks for the great posts people- I learned more in the posts than I did in the tip! :)
There's lots of good information in this blog. I've always felt uncomfortable about people assuming you are against GMOs if you lead an environmentally consious lifestyle. Yes, there are potential environmental impacts that we need to be aware of and be careful about. However, there are also a lot of political issues associated with GMOs. So beware when trying to force your beliefs on this issue because you might be met with all kinds of responses!
Ann, That's because the tips provided in the Ideal Bite aren't always factual and never backed up with support. There are pros and cons with GMO's but the fact remains that people in third world countries are healthier due to the food support from nations. We have less people starving due to better harvests, we are using less pesticides globally, and childen in Asia are not going blind because they are eating genetically modified rice.
To stay competitive in the global market, companies have to progress with science and technology, and the supposedly "bad guys" of the last hundred years are now becoming more environmentally directed to provide better products, including food.
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp
As a scientist who worked for a major seed company engaged in biotechnology, I find all of these comments about GMOs or GEOs (genetically enhanced organisms) very interesting and educational. When I say educational, I am referring to learning about the public's perception of GMOs and organic farming.
I would like to see the discussion of these two areas of farming to be handled separately. The main reason is because GMOs can be farmed organically. Just because they have a DNA sequence introduced into their genome which helps the plant to resist disease or insect infestation, does not mean that it cannot be grown "organically". Organic farming, to my understanding, means essentially that crops are grown with no pesticides. They may be grown with "natural" fertilizer such as manure or compost, but not chemical spraying of any kind.
GMOs are NOT dangerous for human consumption. As for allergens being introduced into plants, that is also highly unlikely. Yes, there was a single incident where a gene was introduced into soybeans, but when it was discovered that it could be an allergen, it was IMMEDIATELY removed from any further development and ALL plants were destroyed. Genes are carefully identified and their products are extensively tested for potentially dangerous attributes, such as allergenicity.
Crops are genetically engineered for a number of reasons, some of which have been sited above, herbicide resistance and insect resistance, nutritional enhancement (golden rice or modified starch for digestibility and end product improvement) or disease resistance to name a few. The process that is done to achieve this now is faster than it was a few decades ago when farmers were doing "genetic" modification by hybridizing plants in their fields. You should see the original corn plant (from Mexico) before man started changing the characteristics of the plant to increase yield for food! So, the process is just quicker now because of advances in science.
Now, the advantage with a faster process is not only quicker to market, but genetic identification prior to introduction into the plant. This takes a very long time to do even before government testing for market approval.
There are essentially two types of customers for seed, the farmer who is growing corn for the corn seed company and the farmer who is growing seed for commercial use, i.e. ethanol, corn syrup or animal feed. Both of these customers want high yields for obvious reasons. The farmer, however, who is growing seed for commercial purposes, may want enhanced characteristics that will give him an edge in a specific market.
As for high yields, both farmers are interested in insect and disease resistance, drought tolerance and weather resistance (i.e. wind). So the genetic engineering for these traits is desirable to all farmers. Traits that may enhance the ability to produce increased quantities of ethanol from a seed would be stacked on top of genes for the specific market of interest.
As for "genetic drifting" or these genes hopping into a weed's genome, it is highly unlikely that a corn pollen grain will jump onto a plant of a completely different species and integrate into the weeds' genome. Not only unlikely, but impossible. Also, the farmers are not permitted to grow their plants without large protective borders. These regulations are dictated by the gov't and ANYONE who wants to stay in business and grow GMOs will follow the regulations!
Now, as far as family farming in America is concerned, I strongly believe that corporate farms are driving the family farms to ruin. They simply cannot compete. It is extremely difficult to be a farmer today and perhaps even more difficult to make a living as an organic farmer and resist selling out to developers for millions of dollars. I find this heart breaking. This is where support for the smaller farms is critical to their well being and our food supply being delicious, but maybe not as "beautiful" as food coming from corporate farms where the workers are not paid fairly or are hiding from head hunters who want to send them "back" or are so poor that they will do anything to make a few dollars a month.....a world-wide issue that can’t be addressed adequately here.
I also agree with the comments made about moving grain around the world. The developed countries of the world need to step up and make sure that starvation is eradicated, but, I am also aware of areas in Africa that refused free grain shipments because the grain was genetically engineered and the genes were NOT harmful for humans or animals! The issue of enough nutrition for the world goes WAY beyond the topics of GMOs and organic farming and is very complex culturally and politically.
So, I ask that people think about what genetically modifying a plant is really all about and what organic farming is really all about. I support and buy organically grown food whenever I can AND I buy eggs from free ranging chickens ONLY, AND I buy chicken from places where the chickens are grown and handled humanely, AND, I buy my milk from what I like to call "happy cow farms"...farms where the cows roam the meadows and eat fresh grass whenever possible AND are not fed hormones of any kind. To me, THAT is far more important than getting all excited about genetically enhanced seeds getting into the human food chain!!
Cheers and thank you, Ellen
I can understand the concern about new strains of food untested by time. But I think that we need to look at the history of farming realistically. Before foods were being modified in the lab, the farming industry was irradiating seeds to mutate them. They then selected the mutations that fit their needs. Currently, there is almost nothing in your produce section that hasn't been genetically modified by, at the minimum, selective breeding. This includes organic produce. (Selective breeding is genetic modification; those plants would not exist without human intervention.)
We should be very careful not to vilify the creators of GMOs, who I believe are trying to be responsible. We should engage them and encourage responsibility and accountability. This group and others like it are perfect for the job because we are conscious consumers.
A FYI for Lindsay, if you are interested in what is going on with GMO's in India read Vandana Shiva. Another fabulous book about food in the US is Michael Pollan's, The Omnivore's Dilemma.
In response to Helen's comment, selective breeding is far different than genetic modification. GMO's take genes from one specimen and zap it into the gene of another--salmon gene into tomato genes. With selective breeding you would not be able to mix the gene of a pig with the gene of a mouse. Yes they have done it at Guelph University. I am not a huge proponent of selective breeding as I believe that natural diversity is the way to go. GMO's are just another technology trying to fix the problems of the last technology that didn't work--intensive agriculture.
Audrey states as facts that we have more food produced and fewer people starving in third world countries, children with better eyesight because of GM rice, and less pesticide use because of GM crops. None of these are facts.
There is no consensus that GM crops have increased food production, but if we have it is mainly corn and soybeans in the U.S. and South America, which end up as livestock feed. The crops that farmers grow and the poor depend on in third world countries are not genetically modified.
Similarly, herbicide and pesticide use is actually going UP because of GM crops, because widespread use of BT and Roundup are leading to BT-resistant pests and Roundup-resistant weeds -- so more, and more toxic chemicals must be used to control weeds, not less.
The much-hyped "golden rice" Audrey alludes to has never made it to large scale use and production, for a variety of practical and cultural reasons.
Food choices are not just about facts, they are about preferences. But when we are talking about the facts, we should stick to them.
No matter what we think we have control over, people are not the center of the universe. Regardless of how much control we think we have over our environment including producing mass quantities of food, controlling dis-ease, providing the means for every human to live until their 100+, and enabling human reproduction at exponential rates, there is a reason why people are still starving in this world, why we have little control over illnesses, why we’re dying in mass numbers, and why some people can't ever reproduce. We will not solve these problems and have no control at all over any of them. Read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It’s the most logical take on these problems that I’ve ever read.
I also work in a marker lab for a large seed company. I am one of those researchers finding genetic varients. But I am also aware that since the Green Revolution happened in Mexico, India, Us, and everywhere in the world, the population has skyrocketed. We are trying to feed everyone- but that seems to inadvertantly increase the problem. And at the same time, our soil structure is destroyed, water tables lowered, amazon deforested, etc. GMO's are good and bad I guess...
PHOTO ALBUMS
Posted by: Lindsay | August 09, 2007 at 06:38 AM