Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Retracted green light on GM crops feeds suspicions
amazus.org — Lately the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has had a remarkable action when it retracted the green light for a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize to be grown. Though it was a good step in denying the previous given green light to the new GM crops of potato and maize how do we know that EFSA didn’t made the same mistake before...
x123bv- 503 diggs
- digg it
- x123bv, on 05/14/2008, -12/+37The shops should write in the packages which foods are GM and which aren’t so that I can avoid GM food.
- stonebear, on 05/14/2008, -7/+34Well, here's the scary part: GM crops interbreed with natural varieties, and pretty soon the entire stock becomes contaminated. This is what has happened with maize and rapeseed. To add insult to injury, corporations such as monsanto have corrupted patent law to the extent that they can sue farmers for illegally using their patented genes after their natural crops become contaminated through cross-pollination.
- kinerry, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2they already cross breed natural varieties with each other and get the same thing
- CryRightardCry, on 05/14/2008, -5/+21Yeah, well the makers of GM foods such as Monsanto lobby HARD to avoid that.
They give a LOT of money to the GOP, who has effectively hamstrung the FDA.
There have been a LOT of proposals to label food, but the food industry fights it because they make more money when we don't know WHAT is going into our food. - coffee200am, on 05/14/2008, -7/+24What's eating GM foods going to do to you?
- searcade, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4Superpowers!
- Slices, on 05/14/2008, -4/+1They'll make you take over neighboring crops. Sooner than you know it, you'll be polinizing the neighbours wife! :-|
- skidme, on 05/14/2008, -8/+17Absolutely....nothing. When you digest something you break it down into the monomers it's composed of and then recompose those monomers into polymers that you can use. As the monomers making up a genetically modified crop are no different from those of a non-GM crop, there is no risk to your body.
- lettruthout, on 05/14/2008, -10/+11So how is a person with an allergy to seafood going to react to tomatoes with fish genes in them? How is someone even going to know what they're reacting to - nothing is labeled. Care to site any documentation to back up those claims?
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -6/+10Nothing, unless he's allergic to the specific fish genes, which seems terribly unlikely. You're not allergic to every component of the fish (if you are indeed allergic to fish), but a specific set of chemicals inside the fish.
Do you have any documentation to back up your claims of gene specific allergies? - Adenosine, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8I have some specific documentation (well, take my word for it). A while back a researcher tried to make grain more nutritious by inserting a Brazil nut protein. Great idea, worked well - except people were allergic to that specific protein, ***** eh? Fortunately the checks and balances in place caught this long, long before it posed a risk to anyone.
Moral of the story, nothing allergic will ever get past FDA regulation - lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4@Rndm_Tngnt
No I don't have any documentation but I'm not the one threatening all life on the planet in the name of corporate profit. I believe that responsibility should be on the shoulders of those trying to sell the idea. Oh, wait... They gave up on that and are now trying to slip it past us. Kinda says a lot for their confidence that it is a good thing for the world, doesn't it? - lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4@Adenosine
Is that the same FDA that's been approving drugs lately that turned out to be very harmful? The same one that allows GM crops to be planted in open fields? That has allowed GM crops to be sold without labels?
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -6/+10Nothing, unless he's allergic to the specific fish genes, which seems terribly unlikely. You're not allergic to every component of the fish (if you are indeed allergic to fish), but a specific set of chemicals inside the fish.
- skidme, on 05/14/2008, -2/+5One question....what kind of a douche bag would modify a tomato with fish genes?
"Mommy, my tomato swam away."
"Shut up and eat your tomaco."- burk3, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6tomackral
- lettruthout, on 05/14/2008, -10/+11So how is a person with an allergy to seafood going to react to tomatoes with fish genes in them? How is someone even going to know what they're reacting to - nothing is labeled. Care to site any documentation to back up those claims?
- dOOBiEx213, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4Nothing! It's like smoking cigarettes.
- nocash23, on 05/15/2008, -7/+11"What's eating GM foods going to do to you?"
that's the whole point... no one knows.- kinerry, on 05/15/2008, -7/+7actually we do know, it does NOTHING!
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Really, how can you be so sure? We have some serious health problems that somehow don't seem to have a cause (autism is the first that comes to mind). With all that's being done with our environment why take any more risks? Why rush into something potentially devastating? Just for corporate profits this quarter? Remember that we have huge environmental issues left behind by corporations that disappeared and left us with superfund sites. Now supporters of GM are asking us to trust them? Why?
- kinerry, on 05/15/2008, -7/+7actually we do know, it does NOTHING!
- aidave, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8What's the point of knowing what's in your food?
The point is honesty in food labeling. America completely fails to grasp this basic concept. - anachronaut, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9What's it going to do to me? I don't know -- and that's really quite cause enough for concern for me already -- however the more important questions are:
What's it going to do to the environment? How is it going to affect the staple food crops here or in other countries? How is it going to affect the non-human food chain, which indirectly does affect us? I can think of a dozen others, but those are the important ones to start with.
Diversity is a good, even necessary component in nature. The monolithic dominance of a GMO "super" strain could [and, if history is any guide, likely would] prove to be unimaginably devastating in the long run at some point.
Those are just a few of the concerns that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the FDA has long been compromised, and the recent spate of GOP-appointed industry lobbyists to positions of power there means that they're that much less trustworthy to act in the best interests of the American public than they were before (and they haven't exactly been worthy of our blind trust in the first place for many, many years).
It's a really ugly situation and it's not getting any better: industry goons from both outside and inside our government are cramming this crap down our throats and the usual GOP-apologist suspects are spewing all their usual sickening ***** mockery and obfuscation. It's going to be a very tough fight to win, because a lot of pockets are being greased with lots of cash.- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Well put! These are some of the reasons so many of us are looking for alternatives - locally grown, organic and urban homesteading. Rumor has it the slow food movement is also gaining popularity because of these issues.
- searcade, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4Superpowers!
- fasda, on 05/14/2008, -9/+12OK do you know how they genetically modify plants and animals? You may be under the impression that they "write" a completely original sequence of there own insert it into cells without knowing what it does. What scientists actually do is isolate genes they want from plants or animals and insert those into the cell of the plant or animal they want to modify. This is a safe process because if you could eat the original plant and you could eat the plant or animal that had the added gene came from where could the danger come from? and just to be safe they conduct trials if the GM food is dangerous anyways. So please please for the the love of Toaster(Cylon) God what is the problem.
- lettruthout, on 05/14/2008, -4/+13Actually testing is not being done (unless you count us and our environment as the test subjects). The makers claim that the end product is essentially the same but turn around and patent the results as being different. So which is it? How about people with food allergies? How are they to know what will give them (potentially life-threatening) reactions when our food is so mixed up? How about destruction of biodiversity? As our plant stocks are becoming polluted with GM genes, what do we do if something goes wrong? We won't have another breed to fall back on. Don't think this can happen? Look back in history to learn about how Ireland at one time relied too heavily on one breed of potato. When that failed the "potato famine" occurred.
So why even bother with GM crops? Corporate profits. There's no other real reason.- skidme, on 05/14/2008, -5/+5Actually there are seed banks that store thousands of plant species. However, that is not the point. When people genetically modify something, they are actually increasing biodiversity, because now you have two types of crops instead of one. Don't assume that the original plant is eliminated.The Irish potato famine actually occurred because of a lack of biodiversity. Please get your facts straight before you post.
- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2No they do have testing procedures which involve feeding animals (mostly rats) the GM product for an interval of time.
- brightlight4, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0The trials are being carried out in our supermarkets every day on those who buy these GM products!!!
- lettruthout, on 05/14/2008, -4/+13Actually testing is not being done (unless you count us and our environment as the test subjects). The makers claim that the end product is essentially the same but turn around and patent the results as being different. So which is it? How about people with food allergies? How are they to know what will give them (potentially life-threatening) reactions when our food is so mixed up? How about destruction of biodiversity? As our plant stocks are becoming polluted with GM genes, what do we do if something goes wrong? We won't have another breed to fall back on. Don't think this can happen? Look back in history to learn about how Ireland at one time relied too heavily on one breed of potato. When that failed the "potato famine" occurred.
- searcade, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2Here in england they already do that.
- searcade, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1But...but why bury me?
- slothlovechunk, on 05/15/2008, -6/+6I can't stand irrational fears. You sound like a little whiner.
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Fearing for the safety of our food based upon past immoral/illegal/short-sighted actions of the current players seems very rational to me.
- Adenosine, on 05/15/2008, -7/+6What value would such a notice have? Would you understand the difference between BT Corn and Round-up Ready Corn, which is worse for you, and which my pose a threat to the environment. The FDA is a ridiculously tough council to get past. If wheat was invented yesterday - it would not be approved for human consumption due to gluten; neither would mustard, nuts, nutmeg, fish, or milk.
Any GMO in the stores is safer than Wonderbread.- aidave, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4"What value would such a notice have?"
Knowing what you are eating. Seems pretty obvious and simple to me.- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5all right do you know what the differences between sucrose and fructose are? to really know what you are eating and what it does to you your going to need a few degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and medicine so if you have all of these then you could be qualified to say what you are eating and if its good for you also.
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Sorry, what are you saying here - that there's no hope for consumers so we're doomed to have to eat whatever they want to sell us?
I personally do know the difference between sucrose and fructose and I don't have any of the degrees you mentioned. Plus I know that eating one versus the other makes me feel different so I'm very concerned about this. Why not have more detailed labeling? It would help us make informed purchasing decisions. I'm already doing what I can to avoid GM foods but having this more consistently on labels would be helpful. I've run into a lot of people who feel the same way. - aidave, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1So ignorance is bliss then, hey fasda? If someone doesn't know what "the differences between sucrose and fructose are", they can look it up. They CANT look it up if you don't tell them what is there.
Why are you resistant to open information and knowledge? What blows my mind are all these "scientific-types" blindly defending GM politics, while they hypocritically shrug off the spirit of science in order to do so.
I don't care about GM food. I only want to know what I am eating. Why is that too much to ask?
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Sorry, what are you saying here - that there's no hope for consumers so we're doomed to have to eat whatever they want to sell us?
- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5all right do you know what the differences between sucrose and fructose are? to really know what you are eating and what it does to you your going to need a few degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and medicine so if you have all of these then you could be qualified to say what you are eating and if its good for you also.
- aidave, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4"What value would such a notice have?"
- brightlight4, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0I want a choice when I eat and I want to KNOW what I am eating, same as the milk that stated that it did not contain a Monsanto product and Monsanto forced the producers to remove that statement!!! HOW DARE THEY PLAY WITH OUR HEALTH AND OUR OPTIONS TO CHOOSE WHAT WE EAT!!! How GULLIBLE can people be believing that GM food which has not been investigated over years, believe that such food is harmless and as for feeding the hungry!!! They why are there riots in the poor countries?!!!!!!!!!!!
- stonebear, on 05/14/2008, -7/+34Well, here's the scary part: GM crops interbreed with natural varieties, and pretty soon the entire stock becomes contaminated. This is what has happened with maize and rapeseed. To add insult to injury, corporations such as monsanto have corrupted patent law to the extent that they can sue farmers for illegally using their patented genes after their natural crops become contaminated through cross-pollination.
- Pottypotsworth, on 05/14/2008, -3/+9I saw a shop selling non GM Toast the other day :o)
- pyderi2, on 05/14/2008, -6/+19Remmember that the food comes from farmers and the small ones and the ones that don't believe in GM food are beig driven out of business because of the GM crops
- neognostic, on 05/14/2008, -2/+9I buy all of my seed for my garden from www.seedsofchange.com, support growers like this, remember to climb a mountain, you have to make a first step. Granted, large scale farmers at this point in time can't compete with organic seed, however Monsanto and companies like them should not have an unfair advantage in the courts, laws or patents. We also need to completely redo the Farm Bill, paying multinational corporations $100,000,000s to not grow crops is ridiculous.
- neognostic, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4Source for my Farm Bill diatribe - http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/557531.html
- skidme, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2Well they're either going to be driven out of business by farmers using GM crops, or by animals preying on their non-GM crops ;)
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Scary though that last one: the animals will not be able to metabolize GM crops so they can only eat organic ones.
- slothlovechunk, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4I'm down for whatever is more efficient.
We don't need to do things inefficiently just for a few jobs here and there.
The more efficiently we grow food, produce energy, and do work, the less we have to work to feed ourselves and maintain a minimum standard of living for everyone in the world.- aidave, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3There's other things to consider beyond efficiency.
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3OK, I'll agree with you but only when we look at the big picture: Fewer people per acre work industrial farms. The most dramatic example of this these days may be in India where GM seed has been advertised heavily. This has been a disaster for that farming economy - many small farmers learn too late that the seeds do not work as well, require more water/pesticide and cannot be saved. Heritage farmland is being lost and farmer suicides are up.
Plus: there's no direct connection between GM crops and efficiency - RoundUp Ready crops have been shown to require MORE applications of pesticides not less.
In the long term is seems that locally produced food using non-GM crops is really more efficient.
- Spuy767, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3GM crops have been all but proven to not increase crop yields.
- neognostic, on 05/14/2008, -2/+9I buy all of my seed for my garden from www.seedsofchange.com, support growers like this, remember to climb a mountain, you have to make a first step. Granted, large scale farmers at this point in time can't compete with organic seed, however Monsanto and companies like them should not have an unfair advantage in the courts, laws or patents. We also need to completely redo the Farm Bill, paying multinational corporations $100,000,000s to not grow crops is ridiculous.
- Slices, on 05/14/2008, -12/+9Resistance is futile. Whether we like it or not... one day, all food will likely be GM. In fact - one day, all of us will get GM'd... can you imagine a full-fledged GM DIGG? :-| This is scary beyond words!
- smotpoker, on 05/14/2008, -0/+16I think many of us really don't give a care (I know I don't) if *food* is genetically modified. My main concern is with big business patenting food (both GM and natural) and suing the ***** out of anyone who "infringes" (which puts small businesses/farmers out of business and makes it harder/more expensive to feed the impoverished).
Also, improper consideration of ecological impact concerns me but I feel it is less of a threat to most people- Slices, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2thoughtful comment, ingenious username... wanna be friends?
- EnvEngineer, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4Actually all food is already GM, and has been for millennia. The corn you eat has been selectively bred for thousands of years and has no resemblance at all to 'natural' corn. Same with every single other crop out there. GM is just more a more efficient method...
- smotpoker, on 05/14/2008, -0/+16I think many of us really don't give a care (I know I don't) if *food* is genetically modified. My main concern is with big business patenting food (both GM and natural) and suing the ***** out of anyone who "infringes" (which puts small businesses/farmers out of business and makes it harder/more expensive to feed the impoverished).
- Leadingshare, on 05/14/2008, -9/+2dugg
- LUCCHINA, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5Important info, yes !
- atrais, on 05/14/2008, -3/+8Nice post, I can't believe how rude people can be on comments. Keep up the good work!
- LonesomeFighter, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3the comments on the site were more entertaining than the actual article
- Braddeharder, on 05/14/2008, -10/+18GM crops help feed a lot of people. If farmers planted all non-GM crops, there would less food than there is now. Then everyone on the left would say, "Look at the evil corporations who do not make enough food for people".
- fasda, on 05/14/2008, -5/+12Don't point out that the people's fears are irrational it might force them to think and conduct research
- x123bv, on 05/14/2008, -7/+10do you think that the big companies care about feeding the people in need?
you dream my friend- EnvEngineer, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4Maybe they don't, but Monsanto et al won't make any money if people starve, they only profit if their crop is actually good enough to purchase, which only makes sense if it produces more food than the farmer coulda gotten originally.
THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - fasda, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3And if you think without drastic measures that the planet can feed it's self you are dreaming
- EnvEngineer, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4Maybe they don't, but Monsanto et al won't make any money if people starve, they only profit if their crop is actually good enough to purchase, which only makes sense if it produces more food than the farmer coulda gotten originally.
- x123bv, on 05/14/2008, -7/+10do you think that the big companies care about feeding the people in need?
- akirabs10, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0REally, becuase its seems to be generally considered the GM crops have a smaller yeild, especially soya beans.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-liv ...
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-04/ ...
could you link in your proof for much higher yields please
- fasda, on 05/14/2008, -5/+12Don't point out that the people's fears are irrational it might force them to think and conduct research
- Evolutuon, on 05/14/2008, -9/+22Not trusting genetically modified food is like being religiously superstitious of light bulbs and electronics.
- coffee200am, on 05/14/2008, -5/+5lol
- lettruthout, on 05/14/2008, -8/+11Why exactly should we trust GM food? Just because it's modern? So you're not aware of genetic pollution, threats to biodiversity, food allergy concerns, the social upheaval in India after GM seed was poor people bought into it? If GM foods are so good, why aren't we given the option of not buying them by labelling them? Please do some research before posting again.
- skidme, on 05/14/2008, -5/+4I replied to you in your previous post, please educate yourself.
- UnterDenLinden, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3You aren't doing a very good job letting the truth out.
- Adenosine, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6I ask you how aware of those topics are you??
Genetic pollution? - The genes inserted in to GMOs are common genes found in any handful dirt.
Biodiversity? - I don't see how GMOs are a greater threat to biodiversity than traditional farming techniques
Food allergies? - Every new food product is put through more rigorous allergy testings than historical foods, we should ban peanuts before GMOs.
Your last point might be of greatest concern, the commercialization of our crops can be a serious issue, but India complains because they can't afford the the newest engineered crops, no one is stopping anyone from using they're classic seeds/crops
- aidave, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Not trusting George Bush is like being religiously superstitious of light bulbs and electronics.
- macweirdo42, on 05/14/2008, -7/+31Aren't all crops genetically modified? We've been selectively breeding crops for thousands of years, so strictly speaking, we've already genetically modified every crop we eat.
- coffee200am, on 05/14/2008, -4/+7Touché
- fasda, on 05/14/2008, -5/+26yes but this is done by scary scientists in LAB COATS and everybody knows you can't trust anyone with an education and evidence.
- lettruthout, on 05/14/2008, -7/+5Selective breeding has been done for centuries. This allows farmers the chance to develop crops that work well in their particular region. They require less pesticides than GM products. (Actually the reason for "Roundup Ready" crops is to sell MORE pesticide.) GM products have been slipped into our food stream after the makers failed to sell us on the idea. This is called the "scorched earth" strategy - spread GM pollution so broadly that it won't matter in a few years. We already produce enough food to make most of the US fat so we don't need GM crops. GM crops are all about corporate greed.
- AlanLivingston, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5Roundup isn't a pesticide. It's an herbicide.
- earlycj5, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Pesticide kills pests, what do you think weeds are?
Pesticide encompasses fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and the like.
- earlycj5, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Pesticide kills pests, what do you think weeds are?
- AlanLivingston, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5Roundup isn't a pesticide. It's an herbicide.
- drmobutu, on 05/14/2008, -0/+8Well, you're half-right...virtually all of our major food crops are the product of selective breeding, and most of them are extremely well adapted to their purpose, by virtue of that process. There is a big difference between selective breeding, and genetic modification...genetic modification is employed to achieve traits in plants that are unachievable by selective breeding, like making soybeans resistant to Round Up, for example. This enables the farmers to spray more Round Up to kill the weeds around the soybeans, and get a higher yield. Another example, would be where they took genes from fish, and spliced them into tomatoes, to give them alonger shelf life......mmm....http://jivdaya.org/genetic_engineering.htm
The nice thing about Round Up-Ready Soybeans? Both the seed stock, and the herbicide, are products of Monsanto...- macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4I get that - I just see modifying the genes directly as the next logical step in the process. Granted, I realize we've entered an era where the "next big thing" could end up killing us all, but I don't think we should just simply hide from change.
- drmobutu, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Moldifying the genes for specific traits is fine - in the lab. But the corporations doing this are trying to fix something that isn't broken, and are risking polluting the natural genetic makeup of foodstuff crops, which could be catastrophic.
- drmobutu, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Moldifying the genes for specific traits is fine - in the lab. But the corporations doing this are trying to fix something that isn't broken, and are risking polluting the natural genetic makeup of foodstuff crops, which could be catastrophic.
- macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4I get that - I just see modifying the genes directly as the next logical step in the process. Granted, I realize we've entered an era where the "next big thing" could end up killing us all, but I don't think we should just simply hide from change.
- bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Hey great. Once you can "selectively breed" jellyfish genes into that tomato plant, you can put them there and call it "natural".
Until then, it's hardly comparable to "selective breeding".- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6You just have to get the jellyfish _really_ drunk.
- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3why does my pig look like mister Garrison?
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6You just have to get the jellyfish _really_ drunk.
- coffee200am, on 05/14/2008, -8/+22GM crops are modified to resist crop disease and certain insects. It does nothing to your own genetic structure when you eat them.
- Slices, on 05/14/2008, -4/+9yeah that's what they told Peter Parker, when he started getting kicks of eating radioactive spiders. That's what they told the Hulk when he started eating gamma-infused breakfast cereals. And don't even get me started on the X-men. They were all bread with GM baby milk - obviously... now you just dare tell me their genetic structures remain unscathed?
Gee, catch up with your references, will you? The nerve with some people.- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2If it worked like that I would be scarfing done GM food so fast.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3"...with the proportional strength and speed of a potato!"
- Slices, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1...a couch potato. That's quite the future past comment you just made, I'll say.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3"...with the proportional strength and speed of a potato!"
- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2If it worked like that I would be scarfing done GM food so fast.
- lettruthout, on 05/14/2008, -11/+5Care to site some studies? The truth is we just don't know what will happen. There was a study that showed damage to butterflies a few years back but the industry consistently argued against the need for serious studies.
By the way, which GM food company do you work for?- kinerry, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5lol, you're a ***** moron, plain and simple
do you have any idea how much time and testing it takes to get a GM crop through government testing???!!! - JointVenture, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Do you have the same attitude towards stem cell research and genetic engineering in humans?
- kinerry, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5lol, you're a ***** moron, plain and simple
- x123bv, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3antibiotics are still antibiotics if you take too much of them you gain resistance :S
they want to produce plants that produce antibiotics- quiggibub, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1That's not at all what they're doing. If they did that, we'd all be dead within 10 years from antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacterial resistance and producing anti-biotics are different things.
- Slices, on 05/14/2008, -4/+9yeah that's what they told Peter Parker, when he started getting kicks of eating radioactive spiders. That's what they told the Hulk when he started eating gamma-infused breakfast cereals. And don't even get me started on the X-men. They were all bread with GM baby milk - obviously... now you just dare tell me their genetic structures remain unscathed?
- x123bv, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4do you think that big companies profit to feed the world?
- OffPiste, on 05/14/2008, -9/+8It's all coming together.
GM crops approved
Contrails
A muslim about to be elected to the White-house
Britney Spears is letting her bush grow to ginormous proportions....
End of the world is a near my brotha.- forgiste, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Like a jigsaw falling into place.
- dcshiderly, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1disregard for the article content, random tinfoil mutterings, utter bilge, and pop-culture asshattery.
1/10, no points.- Slices, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2are you calling the guy a hippie? What's with these bloody republicans, anyway?
The article is nice, but what's even better is the ensuing discussion.
Like this: You sir, have a huge deformed rethorical cane up your ass... and you talk like you'd rather no more than %0.5 of the population would catch your meaning, so I'll carve it out plain and simple, you elitist schmuk:
This world is going to ***** derail, unless we learn how to get along for a change.
- Slices, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2are you calling the guy a hippie? What's with these bloody republicans, anyway?
- Lazydriver, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2LMFAO!!!
World starvation has been happening for how long, again? Africa, my brother.
Contrails are exhaust. Nothing more.
Obama's not a Muslim, you ***** retard!!! Christ, his father HATED Islam, and became an Atheist from Islam. Obama became a Christian from Atheism.
Britney Spears? Who gives a damn anyway besides the shallow retarded gay men and heterosexual women? - GlassAgate, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I'm getting sick of people who think that Obama is
a Muslim. He isn't. Period.
- skidme, on 05/14/2008, -6/+7I am reposting this, but here is my reasoning why GM foods are harmless:
When you digest something you break it down into the monomers it's composed of and then recompose those monomers into polymers that you can use. As the monomers making up a genetically modified crop are no different from those of a non-GM crop, there is no risk to your body.- drmobutu, on 05/14/2008, -9/+4It's not about you, and your digestion...it's about the kind environmental havoc that could be unleashed due to accidental mutations spreading, in the wild.
- EnvEngineer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8Yawn.
Food crops are completely incapable of growing in the wild. The genetic difference between a regular tomato in a farmers field and a GM tomato in a farmers field is enormously less than what happens all the time when a species is introduced to a new continent. If you are really concerned with the spread of genetically distinct material, you should call for the banning of all international travel and trade, because that is where the environmental havoc is happening.
- EnvEngineer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8Yawn.
- drmobutu, on 05/14/2008, -9/+4It's not about you, and your digestion...it's about the kind environmental havoc that could be unleashed due to accidental mutations spreading, in the wild.
- elcapitanp, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4GM should stick to what they know, CARS. Am I right?
- bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Have you driven one lately? They suck.
- atbnet, on 05/15/2008, -3/+16Why is everyone so afraid of the GM boogey man? I've attended lectures of professors who lead lots of research with GM crops and it is fairly remarkable stuff, but nothing to be afraid of. It's safer than crossbreeding thousands of different genes and hoping for a good outcome when you can select one or a group of genes and known the outcome. The only thing that sucks about GM foods is that once you can isolate gene groups corporations and universities tend to patent them. This is a huge problem with golden rice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Golden_ri ...
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1You provided one answer to you own question. If GM food is exactly similar to natural food, how can it be patented?
- x123bv, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4antibiotics are still antibiotics if you take too much of them you gain resistance :S
they want to produce plants that produce antibiotics- Adenosine, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4well no. Insecticides, not antibiotics. We spray so many insecticides already, if we can reduce spraying, great!
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Actually yes, some GM foods are designed with anitbiotic resistant genes...
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/antibiotic ...
And actually no, potatoes that supposedly require less spraying produce their own pesticides. And RoundUp ready crops actually use more pesticide...
"Indeed as predicted a recent report shows that, contrary to industry claims of reduced herbicide use, herbicide usage has actually increased in the United States on GM HT crops..."
From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsant ...
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Actually yes, some GM foods are designed with anitbiotic resistant genes...
- Adenosine, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4well no. Insecticides, not antibiotics. We spray so many insecticides already, if we can reduce spraying, great!
- forgiste, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Isn't corn already GM? I heard it wouldn't grow the way we want it too without some form of genetic intervention. Aren't apples the same way?
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Um no. Try looking for organic produce or go to a farmer's market and check out heirloom crops. Oftentimes these taste much better. If you can, try growing some yourself. It's fun.
- kinerry, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10GM crops are why more of the world isn't starving. It takes up to 4 times as much land and resources to grow non GM crops.
Don't bitch about starvation and then bitch about GM right after.- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Care to substantiate that claim. I'm regularly hearing just the opposite - that GM crops do nothing from crop yields. Here's one quote:
""GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failures" says Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director."
From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsant ...
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Care to substantiate that claim. I'm regularly hearing just the opposite - that GM crops do nothing from crop yields. Here's one quote:
- MLisa, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2Sorry, I couldn't get past the first sentence with the grammatical errors.
Buried. - dcshiderly, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5The vast bulk of GM work in crops is to improve herbicidal resistance so that Roundup sprays can kill the inevitable weed infestations in fields. As it stands, you lose some 5-15% of the available potential of farmland to plants you don't want, like grasses and some broad-leaf weeds like dandelion, and that's in a managed, GM-planted field. In all-organic fields, like what the Amish tend, the rate is over 30%. That's food that doesn't get grown for the more input effort due to the lack of fertilization. Industrial farming techniques have been a godsend for food production, and to suggest that they're bad is the height of insanity. Compare organic carrots to industrially-farmed carrots sometime, and the improvement is obvious. They're larger, heartier, and have more nutrition by volume than their organic cousins.
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3So it's good to use GM crops that pollute the surrounding fields with GM pollen? To use pesticides that induce other plants to mutate and become superweeds? For what now?
Let's see some references please. The reality seems to be just the opposite - that smaller farms are actually more efficient. Here are some links...
http://www.alternet.org/story/13905/
http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth3.html
Where do you get your organic produce? Ours is great, much better then industrial food! And no sprayed on or grown-in chemicals. And most of it hasn't traveled as far.- TheCatsPants, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Ok, so even if a weed gains the Roundup gene somehow (?) - Roundup isn't the only weedkiller out there.
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3So it's good to use GM crops that pollute the surrounding fields with GM pollen? To use pesticides that induce other plants to mutate and become superweeds? For what now?
- digitallysick, on 05/15/2008, -7/+6i am an all natural person, i try not to ingest anything un natural. I think the best way to stay healthy is to eat locally, go to fruit stands to buy food, and try to cook all natural. Drink purified water, and use natural products when possible.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6You really like the word natural, huh?
Isn't purified water unnatural, though?- digitallysick, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4Yes and no, sadly we have fluoride in the water (not by choice) so unless you have a water well at your home, then its the best i can do is to try to use a water filter
- UnterDenLinden, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5But fluoride is good for you. It protects your teeth.
- digitallysick, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1its a chemical and its bad for you
http://www.wholywater.com/fluoride.html - blast_flame, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Who cares if it's a chemical, that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. Another chemical in tap water is dihydrogen monoxide and I doubt that your filters remove that.
- digitallysick, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1its a chemical and its bad for you
- UnterDenLinden, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5But fluoride is good for you. It protects your teeth.
- digitallysick, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4Yes and no, sadly we have fluoride in the water (not by choice) so unless you have a water well at your home, then its the best i can do is to try to use a water filter
- Envark, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4well i guess it really depends on how you define un-natural isn't it since all the compounds synthesized in a lab could be formed in nature since both play by the same rules and any GM product could have evolved from the original plants and animals.
oh if you only eat locally it must be a pain to not have coffee, tea, citrus fruits rice or generally most of the food everyone loves- digitallysick, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Not all food i get is 100% pure but i make the effort
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6You really like the word natural, huh?
- Psionx0, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5Buried for multiple reasons. Not reading the sources and BULL SH*T being two of them.
- JointVenture, on 05/15/2008, -3/+6I find it interesting that the same people you find embracing and supporting HUMAN genetic engineering to fight disease and cure genetic defects are the ones who boo hooo hoooo about GM crops to fight disease and defects.
- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3well obviously they care about corn more then other human beings.
- Ceeman, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5Every crop you have ever ate has been altered in some way.
- empirefalling, on 05/15/2008, -6/+5Genetically Modified foods are an unknown danger to all. Produced not to fight hunger but to yield more grain to produce more profits for the US food conglomerates who could care less about consumer safety.
Reports on GM foods have indicated that consuming such foods could produce a wide range illnesses not only in humans but to animals and to other plants. Illnesses which maybe difficult to fight.- fasda, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2[citation needed]
- quiggibub, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5If you're against GM foods, stop eating any and all bananas you can buy in the market.
- dhowbad, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1As far as GM is concerned, I prefer Ford products. They produce more CO, CO2, and a whole bunch more green house gases, that will make crops grow faster when the earth warms. Unless you ride a bike or walk everywhere, you are a responsible party for this world changing, and thus, you should eat GM products to have more energy so you can ride your bicycle everywhere, and do your part to not change anything.
- HeyArnold, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2WTF, at least say Genetically Modified Food (GM Food), so people know what the hell the article's about!
- dhowbad, on 05/15/2008, -3/+0The article is not about cars? Dam, I missed something.
- joepacific, on 05/15/2008, -3/+7Before a GM crop is approved for use, it must pass extensive safety testing, testing that is not required for many crops that have been selectively bred for desirable traits.
If you think that non-GM food is somehow safer, you might want to double check. A cup of organic coffee has a thousand different chemicals floating around in it. How many of these compounds have been tested? Just 22. How many of those 22 that were tested turned out to be carcinogens? 17.
I really don't get the hysteria over this issue.- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -4/+1What tests? The GM industry has consistently fought any testing. Look into the topic some more please.
- HappyScrappy, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3There's nothing remarkable about this. The EU has been using various excuses to keep American food imports out for years. This is just another chapter.
- lettruthout, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1Yes, they seem to be taking the threats more seriously.
- Triticum, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Interesting discussion here, but that's a horribly written article. I'm sure there are more digg-worthy articles on the same subject.
- SirFoxx, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Where is Michael Clayton when you need him?
- thesixthdesign, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3We all knew this was coming. The human population is going to die because of GM crops. Now, why can't our ***** government just do anything about it?
- dadioflex, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2It won't affect the potatoes. Plants only use the red and blue components of light anyway, that's why their leaves are green - they reflect green light.
What do you mean I'm mising the point? - iiiears, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1dadioflex : digg X2 - lol
The linked article isn't very good.
As i understand it genetic material is shot into and plants are almost blinding selected for wanted traits with no real assurance that other compunds/traits are there. - arid, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4"Also, GM crops can result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases."
People and animals don't develop resistance to antibiotics. ***** grammar. Buried. - x123bv, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1The plants are engineered to produce insecticide, the insecticide will subside in animal bodies making the bacteria and virus resistant to our common antibiotics then making us resistant to the known antibiotics.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by