Science; it can even redeem an environmental extremist

[IQS.RLOW]

Neither hexane nor melamine have anything to do with genetic modification of foods. Mel's argument seems to be "people do bad things, therefore gm is bad".

Isn't that the mantra of the whole environmental/panic merchant/stupid person movement?
"people do bad things, therefore [insert current technology] is bad"

[insert current technology]= GM foods, nuclear energy, mobile phones, guns, vaccines, birth control, pro-choice, anti-choice etc etc

[mellie]

Dont worry, when like Thiomersal, Hexane is banned ... you might get the message.

What I mean is that it appears Hexane is used in the process to manufacture the powered milk. It is not a part fo the GM equation.

Maybe those that develop GM free food stuffs are more careful in the design of processes and not include chemicals where trace amounts are a problem for the consumer.

The point is, industry funded studies are not always in the public's best interest, as was the case with Thiomersal and Hexane...(and a number of other harmful substances) thus what makes you so sure exclusively industry-funded studies re-GMO's safety should be any different?

Bottom line, more government funded and independent research is required to ensure we aren't making yet another mistake.

Better to be safe than sorry.

We are talking about our worlds food supply, the genetic modification of our ecosystem for Christs sake, isn't it worth the investment to be absolutely sure?



Again, I'm not saying GMO's are good or bad, I just think we need to be sure.

[IQS.RLOW]

Do you have any studies to show that hexanes are included in other baby formula and that hexane in those formulas are responsible for any problems?

Why are those products still on the shelves?

[Super Nova]

We are talking about our worlds food supply, the genetic modification of our ecosystem for Christs sake, isn't it worth the investment to be absolutely sure?

Genetic modification of the eccosystem occurs everyday. It's called evolutuon.

Private companies do the R&D. They have to go through very stricted approvals processes in the west. The food standard agebncy or what ever it is called in the US is stricter than some others in the west. China historically had little controls over the quality of the food it produces. They appears to be on the improve.

I'm more worried about the impact of nanotechnology on the future environment than a little tinkering with the existing mechanism for life on this planet.

[Super Nova]

Have a look at this. It is an interview with a research scientists but it is in a respectable rag so don't discount it.

I don't think it serves anybody's interest--including Monsanto's--to discount the potential risks of biotechnology. But for where we are today, and for what I see in the pipeline for the next few years, I really don't see a measurable risk from the GM products we are selling or developing. There have been numerous national and international scientific organizations that have reached this same conclusion, including the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization and many others.

link: Does the World Need GM Foods? Yes.

[mellie]

Genetic modification of the eccosystem occurs everyday. It's called evolutuon.

-Super Nova

Are you familiar with a thing called natural selection?

None of the biotech GMOs are created through a process of 'natural' selection, in order for it to called evolution.

Do you understand the difference between the two?

Natural selection is a big part of evolution and there's nothing 'natural' about interfering with this process (GMO's), sorry, but I maintain my original stance.

An allergy scare in 2000 centered around StarLink, a variety of genetically engineered corn approved by the U.S. government only for animal use because it showed some suspicious qualities, among them a tendency to break down slowly during digestion, a known characteristic of allergens. When StarLink found its way into taco shells, corn chips, and other foods, massive and costly recalls were launched to try to remove the corn from the food supply.

What do you think of the following article, do you believe it to be balanced or biased?

http://environment.nationalgeographic.c ... w-altered/

I agree, the concept of playing Dr Frankenstein with our food supply is quite exciting..... though I still think we should be exercising a degree of optimistic caution, this and believe more unbiased research is required in order to ascertain GMO's long term benefits/consequences.

Is this too much to ask?



I think a degree of 'extremism' is evident on both sides of the argument, be it those vehemently in favour of GMO's or those against.

[Super Nova]

Genetic modification of the eccosystem occurs everyday. It's called evolutuon.

-Super Nova

Are you familiar with a thing called natural selection?

None of the biotech GMOs are created through a process of 'natural' selection, in order for it to called evolution.

Do you understand the difference between the two?

Natural selection is a big part of evolution and there's nothing 'natural' about interfering with this process (GMO's), sorry, but I maintain my original stance.

Natural selction is only one of the processes in evolution.

Generic mutatiions occur all the time in this world and they are not due to natural selection. The determination if this mutation gets to survive in the long term by reproduction is controled primarily by natural selection and the environment.

An allergy scare in 2000 centered around StarLink, a variety of genetically engineered corn approved by the U.S. government only for animal use because it showed some suspicious qualities, among them a tendency to break down slowly during digestion, a known characteristic of allergens. When StarLink found its way into taco shells, corn chips, and other foods, massive and costly recalls were launched to try to remove the corn from the food supply.

What do you think of the following article, do you believe it to be balanced or biased?

http://environment.nationalgeographic.c ... w-altered/

Yes I think the article is balanced. The closing paragraph below sums up my view pretty well. It's all about risk management. There are risks but at the moment they are low. This article also talks about fear. Those that have fear I think are those that are not really informed of the real risks and how they are managed.

Whether biotech foods will deliver on their promise of eliminating world hunger and bettering the lives of all remains to be seen. Their potential is enormous, yet they carry risks—and we may pay for accidents or errors in judgment in ways we cannot yet imagine. But the biggest mistake of all would be to blindly reject or endorse this new technology. If we analyze carefully how, where, and why we introduce genetically altered products, and if we test them thoroughly and judge them wisely, we can weigh their risks against their benefits to those who need them most.

I agree, the concept of playing Dr Frankenstein with our food supply is quite exciting..... though I still think we should be exercising a degree of optimistic caution, this and believe more unbiased research is required in order to ascertain GMO's long term benefits/consequences.

Is this too much to ask?

I think there is no silver bullet and no such thing as truely universal unbiased research. When you are researching you are trying to create, invent, discover something. The researcher will normally be a litttle biased at times. The process is for independant scientific peer review plus agencies that setup high hurdles for new products to enter the food chain.

I don't have a problem with "more" unbiased research. I have a problem that all research should be unbiased. How big the more is that you would want would be interesting. Can you define "more" in the context you have used it?

I think a degree of 'extremism' is evident on both sides of the argument, be it those vehemently in favour of GMO's or those against.

I don't see extremism on the scientists side at the moment.

Also, DNA changes occur in our world.

For example, viruses change our DNA all the time. hopefully the body detects them an kills the cells containing the mutation. Sometimes it doesn't.

Viruses are considered as one of the smallest and most lethal microorganisms that exist in our world, viruses do not metabolize by themselves and so alters the host cell’s genetic code to enable to reproduce.

[mellie]

Whether biotech foods will deliver on their promise of eliminating world hunger and bettering the lives of all remains to be seen. Their potential is enormous, yet they carry risks—and we may pay for accidents or errors in judgment in ways we cannot yet imagine. But the biggest mistake of all would be to blindly reject or endorse this new technology. If we analyze carefully how, where, and why we introduce genetically altered products, and if we test them thoroughly and judge them wisely, we can weigh their risks against their benefits to those who need them most.

Are you sure you read the last paragraph SN?

What do you think it's saying?



SN, the final paragraph pretty much sums up my closing sentiments, feel free to look back.
However, I think you're a little on the extreme side, are more in favour of having GMO's introduced despite an apparent lack of research, whereas I veer more on the side of caution, and think exclusively industry funded research is not not enough of what we need to confidently embark on introducing GMO's.

And in the absence of unbiased research, we will just have to agree to disagree, it comes down to a matter of opinion I guess.



You don't feel you require more convincing that GMO's are safe before introducing them, whereas I think I need more convincing.

This is what it comes down to.

[Super Nova]

You don't feel you require more convincing that GMO's are safe before introducing them, whereas I think I need more convincing.

This is what it comes down to.

Life is not without risks. The scientific community concludes that what is currently on the table is of low risk.

I don't need more convincing. There is so much going on that could have a greater impact on our future and we don't think abou tthem or are even aware of them most times.

Greater safeguards are always good. Just not being convinced when the experts say there is no real risk at the moment is a fear based response.

Government backed research is not independant either. I don't think the are ever really independant.

[mellie]

The scientific community concludes that what is currently on the table is of low risk

Got a reference to support this consensus?



Naturally, our industry-funded scientists approve of GMO's.

But that's about it.