PrintGMOs Slipping Through the Cracks
In August of 2006, then Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns announced that the U.S. commercial rice supply had been tainted with an experimental, genetically modified variety unapproved for human consumption. The experimental rice supposedly posed no threat to human health, according to both the USDA and Bayer CropScience, the company that created it. However, the European Union subsequently banned imports of American rice, a move that drastically affected the domestic market. Now, 14 months later, in absence of any evidence one way or another as to how this contamination occurred, Bayer CropScience has been cleared from any governmental enforcement action, and the investigation has officially been closed.
Anti-GMO folks are predictably up in arms. From yesterday's Washington Post:
Critics assailed the report as yet more evidence that the nation's regulatory system for gene-altered crops is broken.
"This underlines the anxiety people have about more such incidents occurring," said Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science-based advocacy group that has called for a more rigorous approval process for biotech crops. "After all this investigation, there is no reason to think there are not more of these genes out there just waiting to be discovered."
The main problem here isn't necessarily the dangers of GMOs themselves, but the lack of governmental regulation of the industry. Some GMOs are probably perfectly safe, while others are likely not. But without a system of testing and labeling in place, dangerous outcomes like the one above are sure to continue. A few years ago the documentary The Future of Food detailed many of the issues involved (from a decidedly anti-GMO angle). Earlier this year the FDA ruled that meat from cloned animals is fit for human consumption.
Where do you stand on genetically modified foods? Evil act of corporate hubris, or revolutionary scientific breakthrough with the potential to help feed untold numbers of hungry people?
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
4 Comments:
(I think the comments of anyone without a background in biology - myself included - should be taken with a grain of salt, because it is all second-hand information.)
I am not particularly worried about the effects of genetically modified plants on my body, especially when the added genetic material is from another food plant (and potentially from another consumed animal - I question how much actual risk there is, vs. an "ick" factor). Of course, just like some of the hybrid vegetables that those with home gardens can buy, the taste, texture, etc may suffer. How do we weigh the desire for a tasty, pleasurable crop with the need for a crop that may be bland, but can withstand disease and drought and bring food to thousands in need?
What is worrying to me (although, see my first comment) is what effect these plants might have on the ecosystem - will they be susceptible to new diseases, insects, etc? Will they cross pollinate with another plant and cause an unintentional effect on that plant's population?
dmorriso at 11:21AM on 10/08/07
I wonder if this doesn't double the omnivore's dilemma, as it were; I don't think a very strong case can be made against the apparent fact that cloned animals are raised solely for the point of being killed and eaten. Personally, I wouldn't eat any cloned animal product unless we were living post-Apocalypse. And GMO crops also seem suspect-- as dmorriso pointed out, their quality may suffer, and it's impossible to be sure, even at this point, what benefits we receive from eating crops that are forced to weather inclement environs and draw their nutrients from the environment around them with only their natural attributes. (Like the article posted here on SE awhile ago-- the rats went for the organic product, not the processed one, possibly because of the beneficial chemicals contained in the former.)
Sorry for the convoluted and unclear sentences. I'm signing off before I tie my fingers into knots.
Christina at 3:38PM on 10/08/07
The Chemical/Drug companies LOVE to couch their research and developement in terms of "feeding the world" but it's really all about product to sell ($$profits$$) to the farmer.
These genetically modified cereals are not just "high production" but are also genetically modified to resist herbicides. This means the farmer can plant their GMO seeds and STILL use herbicides to control non-target plant species (aka "weeds") while not affecting the target crop. They can save big money/time in not manually cultivating the crop to remove weeds. Just spray over the cereal crop and bingo the weeds are gone.
The problem for the farmers is they must continue to buy the more expensive GMO seeds because if they are caught with ANY amount of the patented GMO crop on property that has not been sown with it (say they decided to go back to conventional seed and cultivation) they are liable for HUGE fines levied by seed supplier (Chem/Drug Co.) Canadian farmers have been sued for thousands because their non-GMO fields have become tainted with stray patented GMO seeds from a neighbor's adjascent field.
It's about control, folks. To put this in perspective, over 90% of the world's soybean production is now Roundup-Ready, which is sold by Monsanto, which conveniently sells both the GMOseed and the Roundup weedkiller. They can legally sue any producer caught with GMO seed or finished crop who has not purchased seed from them.
teejay at 4:37PM on 10/08/07
I'm curious what the point of the FDA is anyway if their stance is, "well, it doesn't seem like it's an issue, so we'll just forget about it." I mean, aren't they CHARGED with keeping our food supply safe? Isn't that why there are so many ridiculous rules and regulations in place in the first place?
My personal thought is that the biggest issue with GMO and cloned livestock is that we have no idea what the impact will be 10, 15, 20 years down the line--not to mention centuries from now.
Every species--plant, animal and otherwise--is constantly evolving as the environment around them evolves. So if we halt the evolutionary process through cloning, or take control of the evolutionary process through genetic modification, what little tweak in genetic code that should have happened will get passed over and have a catastrophic impact in the future?
I'm not happy that the people who SHOULD be asking these questions--the FDA and USDA among them--don't seem to be interested in doing so at all.
swirlingnotions at 7:33PM on 10/08/07