Seriously... What's wrong with genetically modified food?

[redeye]

I'm trying to learn here, not to bash. Since I've never seen one DUer support genetically enhanced food, lemme ask you guys: what's exactly wrong with it, except that corporations do it?

[Lost4words]

1. who do you trust more, mother nature or monsanto?

GM foods are frankenfoods, we really cant know the effect of these for years to come. Our record on processed foods is not very good so far.

When you hear, "I am from the government, I am here to help" run like hell.

how you doin redeye? :hi: again

[Robb]

In theory, nothing. But...

I had a pretty interesting conversation last month at a party, where I met a fellow who's an advocate for the bioengineering groups here. Pretty sensible. Here's his run down:

The idea of engineered crops is fine. It's the practice that has folks concerned. There isn't enough data to really, really make any judgement about how bioengineered corn, for example, would hurt humans if we eat it. But people get, as he put it, "wigged" about it since it probably is harmful in some degree and we just don't know. And the bioengineering companies want to push the product to market pronto, probably way too fast.

So folks get scared and angry, and bioE gets bad press. THEN the farmers who are near bioengineered testing get scared because their crops drop in value because buyers perceive a problem that might be there because they're so close. So the farmers get anti-bioengineering in a BIG way, because it's threatening their livelihood.

Meanwhile, you'll recall that the basic problem is not enough testing, not enough data, and no real answers. But public outcry shuts down the testing facilities, so we still get no new data.

Ugly.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

don't belive mother nature can cross pollinate jellyfish genes in tomatos

or haven't you noticed the slime in your jersey tomatoes???
yummy!...those damn humming jellyfish flitting around my garden are soooo loud!

[ConLaw]

those aren't the slime genes that are put inside the tomatos

they are genes for proteins that do something else. They aren't grinding up the jellyfish, they are taking genes that encode proteins from it that are probably found in other, different organisms as well.

[Robb]

Here's the deal

As I've seen it.

1) Not enough data to understand how much damage bioengineered stuff does to people when they eat it. They know it's not good for you, but neither is enough chlorine, and there's a little in the water.

2) People get scared, because there's not enough information.

3) So bioE companies plant bioE crops to run the tests the government wants them to.

4) Next door, farmers get scared because their crop value decreases, because of the perception that their crops are damaged goods. So they get anti-bioE in a big way, because it threatens their livelihood.

5) Public outcry shuts down testing crops.

6) Repeat from step one.

[qb]

1. They grow the pesticides INSIDE the food

So now you can't even wash it off.
2. Nobody knows what the long-term effects of ingesting this stuff will be - especially on fetuses and children.
3. There is a risk of pollen from GM plants contaminating non-GM plants - this would destroy the organic industry. This would also be irreversible - the contamination is in the genetic code.
4. There is already evidence of resistance to the pesticides in GM crops, creating a whole new line of "superbugs" that attack our food sources.

[ConLaw]

they aren't pesitsides that are put in the organism

they are genes that encode proteins that either cataylze the formation of a small molecule that if found naturally in the organism the gene came from, or inhibits or activates other genes already in the host organism. As for destroying the organic industry, organic farming produces nearly no product. Allowing the billions of the third world to feed themselves by far outweighs any risk posed to the organic industry.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

don't belive mother nature can cross pollinate jellyfish genes in tomatos

or haven't you noticed the slime in your jersy tomatoes???
yummy!

[qb]

1. They grow the pesticides INSIDE the food

So now you can't even wash it off.
2. Nobody knows what the long-term effects of ingesting this stuff will be - especially on fetuses and children.
3. There is a risk of pollen from GM plants contaminating non-GM plants - this would destroy the organic industry. This would also be irreversible - the contamination is in the genetic code.
4. There is already evidence of resistance to the pesticides in GM crops, creating a whole new line of "superbugs" that attack our food sources.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

don't belive mother nature can cross pollinate jellyfish genes in tomatos

or haven't you noticed the slime in your jersy tomatoes???
yummy!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

don't belive mother nature can cross pollinate jellyfish genes in tomatos

or haven't you noticed the slime in your jersy tomatoes???
yummy!

[qb]

1. They grow the pesticides INSIDE the food

So now you can't even wash it off.
2. Nobody knows what the long-term effects of ingesting this stuff will be - especially on fetuses and children.
3. There is a risk of pollen from GM plants contaminating non-GM plants - this would destroy the organic industry. This would also be irreversible - the contamination is in the genetic code.
4. There is already evidence of resistance to the pesticides in GM crops, creating a whole new line of "superbugs" that attack our food sources.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

don't belive mother nature can cross pollinate jellyfish genes in tomatos

or haven't you noticed the slime in your jersy tomatoes???
yummy!

[wtmusic]

A question that needed to be asked

I think most people that don't eat GM food are concerned that it may not have been tested and there may be unhealthful ingredients or unhealthful amounts of normally innocuous ingredients.

One could make the argument that the human body has had hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to the natural "food pool" that exists and GM foods may upset a balance that exists in those foods.

However...

IMO they are probably very safe and could be safer because of their resistance to pests and contamination by bacteria.

[salmonhorse]

The only long term benefit is to the stock portfolios...

...of multi-national, Agri-conglomorates such as ADM and the people who are bank rolling their efforts i.e. Robber Barrons, Bill Gates, Bush family oligarchy pumping money into the wrong end of Research & Develpoment. And not everyone here @ DU is against it. Some guy, he had to have been a stock holder, jumped all over my ass and nearly called my grandmother a whore just for my having suggested that food is a God given miracle, in fact, and should not be tampered with whatsoever = Kosher. So there is. There is a discussion out there on this issue that should be looked at more closely...

http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/14/gm_foods.htm

[Robb]

Here's the deal

As I've seen it.

1) Not enough data to understand how much damage bioengineered stuff does to people when they eat it. They know it's not good for you, but neither is enough chlorine, and there's a little in the water.

2) People get scared, because there's not enough information.

3) So bioE companies plant bioE crops to run the tests the government wants them to.

4) Next door, farmers get scared because their crop value decreases, because of the perception that their crops are damaged goods. So they get anti-bioE in a big way, because it threatens their livelihood.

5) Public outcry shuts down testing crops.

6) Repeat from step one.

[Lost4words]

posting problems,.. sorry for re, re, re,

[Darius]

3. My opinion

Genetically altered foods could possibly pose the same threat that drugs fast tracked through the FDA could. I don't believe they are inherently bad for you, some could be very beneficial. However we don't fully understand what the long range problems could be and they could be many. Foods that don't properly metabolize in the human digestive system, foods so full of antibiotics that would produce more super virusses. genetics is still a rather uncertain science and I would rather not eat such foods unless they are thoroughly tested. We all eat genetically engineered food, if you like breakfast cereals, most store bought breads and many other products already use genetically altered grains. Hell standard yellow corn in no way resembles the corn it originated from several hundred years ago but this was done through natural breeding processes.

[qb]

I get disturbed when I hear "Americans have been eating GM for years"

In the Euro-GM debate. Does this refer to standard cross-breeding or have they been sneaking Frankenfoods into our diet without telling us?

[Darius]

21. Several years ago

when the genetically altered seed corn got mixed up with the standard seed corn I saw a documentary that stated that they have been using slightly altered grains adapted for insect repulsion and hardiness in cereal foods and grains for years. I doubt it is too the extreme but it has been genetically altered.

[ConLaw]

take your pick

eat foods with pesticides that kill other organisms or ones with natural genes from other organisms. what I don't know everyone gets is that these genes put into the organisms are not created by man, they come from other organisms.

[CafeToad]

26. If you're concerned about 'foods so full of antibiotics . . . "

Hopefully you haven't eaten any (non-GM) commercially supplied meat products lately (i.e., in the last 25 years at least).

[slutticus]

Ignorance....

....people are afraid of what they don't understand.

Or worse...what they THINK they understand.

[Maple]

I support

GM food, and always have.

People freak over every 'new' thing that comes along. Resistance to change produces what is called a 'yuck' factor. A few years later it has become routine, and no one even thinks about it.

Everything you take for granted every day was once firmly resisted on the grounds it meant the 'end of civilization as we know it'

Everyone here has eaten GM food since they were born.

[LWolf]

44. See reply # 24.

Regardless of "safety" for human consumption, there are other big issues.

1. Monsanto "owns" the patents. Farmers cannot save seed from their crops, they have to buy seed every year from monsanto. So, Monsanto "owns" our food supply.

2. Many of the patented products are "round-up ready" seeds, to generate plants that will live through repeated applications of herbicide. Is this what you want to eat or pour into the ecosystem?

3. The genetically altered plants cross pollinate with other plants in their area, contaminating open-pollinated varieties and compromising organic farms.

4. Like the over-use of any substance, from anti-biotics to livestock/pet wormers, pesticides, etc., the targeted weeds/pests adapt and become "super weeds/pests" that are resistant to the control; so more and more must be applied, until finally it doesn't work at all.

Here are a few sources for more info:

http://www.gefoodalert.org/pages/home.cfm

http://asuwlink.uwyo.edu/~shelsway/tech.htm

http://www.parabolicmirror.com/archives/week_2002_03_10.html

[Moochy]

Frankenfoods

There is a farmer in Canada who is being sued by Monsanto for stealing their crops, because his neighbor used round up ready,
and the wind blew the pollen onto his field.
Monsanto has a "snitch" program where they encourage farmers to inform the company who might be using round up ready crops without a subscription.

Here's a link from the union of concerned scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology_archive/page.cfm?pageID=361

The main reason to oppose it is that Monsanto and others really want to get into the gene servicing business where they can guarantee
a steady fee for new seeds. They want to turn the crops into mule varieties so that the farmer can not reserve seeds for the next years crop, and must acquire all of the seeds from Monsanto.
They claim that this is so that farmers can get the latest greatest improvements to the seeds, but it's really just a way to guarantee revenue stream.

Also Third world countries who decide to accept GM crops have found they cant sell them to europe or other markets who dont want the 'frankenfoods'

Another horrible aspect of GM foods, specifically BT corn, is that it's pollen is toxic to monarch butterflies. The way these crops work is to introduce insect toxins from across the phylum. In my opinion not very smart, in fact pretty damned evil.

And dont believe the people who try to say that genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years, in that selective planting etc. We have never been able to make the changes in plants and animals that we can now.

[SharonAnn]

32. And I read somewhere that the Aids assistance to Africa is

linked to their acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms for their agriculture needs.

[slutticus]

Ignorance....

....people are afraid of what they don't understand.

Or worse...what they THINK they understand.

[Not a robought]

The last I checked, mother nature didn't require me to pay a license fee

if I wanted to plant last year's crop seeds this year. However with GM foods, this would be illegal. I would be required to purchase new seeds each season from the company that holds the patent to that genetic modification. Third world solution? mmm, don't think so.

[redeye]

Well...

...that's not grounds for opposition to frankenfoods per se, only opposition to corporations having so strong a control of production.

[gottaB]

19. political opposition vs. personal opposition

I am not opposed to gm crops, but I want:

(1) full FDA testing, no shortcuts, no presumptions
(2) no "ip" (patent or copyright) protections for genetic material
(3) labeling--not necessarily mandatory if (1) is met, but no bullying trade partners who want labeling

Those positions put me at odds with the gmfoods lobby, so for political purposes I am an "opponent" of gm foods.

Right now there's not much of what I feel is a common sense voice for this issue in Washington. You have the lobbyists and their bribees, and you have environmentalists with guys like Kucinich speaking out for them, but not making much headway.

[ConLaw]

people who oppose GMO don't have a clue how they work

The process is simple. This process is done on bacteria, plants and animals all the time. A gene encoding ONE PROTEIN is put in a single cell that grows into the organism. The gene and protein comes from another natural organism, say, a plant that grows in a region where there are many, say, ladybugs, but this plant isn't eaten by ladybugs. This one protein can only do one thing, probably usually either inhibit or activate other genes, or cataylize a reaction, or something to that effect. In such a case, a new molecule would be made, a molecule that, say, a lady bug doesn't like so the ladybugs stay away from the plant. This whole process would, in the end, use a gene from a plant like corn to keep a plant like a pea plant from being eaten by bugs. This is done with natural proteins, and not unnatural pesiticides. Other things can be done, such as increasing the size of the plant, say, a tomato, or make it able to grow in dry condidtions or non ideal soil condiditions. The process is simple and harmless. You can't be an alarmist about this. Organic farming, or farming completely natural, no GMO, no pesticides, and nothing else, produces so little product that it could never sustain the world. And we can be idealists about this, but, in reality, most of the world has terrible farming condiditions. The farming condiditions in this country are pretty good, but they aren't in, say, Africa or South America, where you have tons of developing countries. These countries simply need GMO. They can't feed themselves without them. A plant that wont grow in dry soil wont grow in half of Africa. A plant that is vital to a population but grows small can be grown large if it is a GMO. These GMO are critical to the developing world, and necessary in the developed world.

[NashVegas]

Bullfeathers

1. The majority of yield studies (including what's found on the USDA webiste) on GM/GE crop show at best equivalent economic and crop count benefits compared to traditional methods. Several university studies (Georgia, Arkansas) showed most GM actually yielding lesser benefits, except in the case of BT corn which outperformed traditional - but even then, only in the years when the pest showed up.

Recent BT cotton studies have shown greater benefits than traditional, contradicting the Arkansas study, but ask yourself this: if you were a woman, would you want to use a tampon that carries its own pesticide? No thank you, sir.

Finally, there is the issue - the most critical issue of all: patents. GM/GE intellectual and other property rights threaten tens of thousands of years' worth of common knowledge that have served the world a-okay. Patented food is a further step in the direction of turning farmers and other food growers into serfs.

Organic farming, or farming completely natural, no GMO, no pesticides, and nothing else, produces so little product that it could never sustain the world.

Organic farming did just fine at sustaining the world up until the 1950s, when pesticide suddenly became a critical need. But hey, go ahead and grow all the GM you want. The earth will find one way or another to trim the population it cannot sustain.

[NashVegas]

Bullfeathers

The majority of yield studies (including what's found on the USDA webiste) on GM/GE crop show at best equivalent economic and crop count benefits compared to traditional methods. Several university studies (Georgia, Arkansas) showed most GM actually yielding lesser benefits, except in the case of BT corn which outperformed traditional - but even then, only in the years when the pest showed up.

Recent BT cotton studies have shown greater benefits than traditional, contradicting the Arkansas study, but ask yourself this: if you were a woman, would you want to use a tampon that carries its own pesticide? No thank you, sir.

Finally, there is the issue - the most critical issue of all: patents. GM/GE intellectual and other property rights threaten tens of thousands of years' worth of common knowledge that have served the world a-okay. Patented food is a further step in the direction of turning farmers and other food growers into serfs.

Organic farming, or farming completely natural, no GMO, no pesticides, and nothing else, produces so little product that it could never sustain the world.

Organic farming did just fine at sustaining the world up until the 1950s, when pesticide suddenly became a critical need. But hey, go ahead and grow all the GM you want. The earth will find one way or another to trim the population it cannot sustain.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. bullshit...i know a few botanists and microbioolgists and have discussed t

GM food is INSEDIOUS!

[buddhamama]

one major problem

is that FDA is ripe with former Monsanto,ADM execs or scientists. Can this be an unbias look at the dangers of GMOs? somehow i doubt it.

[Not a robought]

The last I checked, mother nature didn't require me to pay a license fee

if I wanted to plant last year's crop seeds this year. However with GM foods, this would be illegal. I would be required to purchase new seeds each season from the company that holds the patent to that genetic modification. Third world solution? mmm, don't think so.

[ConLaw]

people who oppose GMO don't have a clue how they work

The process is simple. This process is done on bacteria, plants and animals all the time. A gene encoding ONE PROTEIN is put in a single cell that grows into the organism. The gene and protein comes from another natural organism, say, a plant that grows in a region where there are many, say, ladybugs, but this plant isn't eaten by ladybugs. This one protein can only do one thing, probably usually either inhibit or activate other genes, or cataylize a reaction, or something to that effect. In such a case, a new molecule would be made, a molecule that, say, a lady bug doesn't like so the ladybugs stay away from the plant. This whole process would, in the end, use a gene from a plant like corn to keep a plant like a pea plant from being eaten by bugs. This is done with natural proteins, and not unnatural pesiticides. Other things can be done, such as increasing the size of the plant, say, a tomato, or make it able to grow in dry condidtions or non ideal soil condiditions. The process is simple and harmless. You can't be an alarmist about this. Organic farming, or farming completely natural, no GMO, no pesticides, and nothing else, produces so little product that it could never sustain the world. And we can be idealists about this, but, in reality, most of the world has terrible farming condiditions. The farming condiditions in this country are pretty good, but they aren't in, say, Africa or South America, where you have tons of developing countries. These countries simply need GMO. They can't feed themselves without them. A plant that wont grow in dry soil wont grow in half of Africa. A plant that is vital to a population but grows small can be grown large if it is a GMO. These GMO are critical to the developing world, and necessary in the developed world.

[buddhamama]

there's nothing simple or harmless

about change on a molecular level.

and you fail to address the cross pollination issue.
we have no idea how GMOs may interact with each other.

my former neighbor was a Genetic Engineer for Monsanto. She left the business and now runs a organic vegetable farm/stand. She would most certainly disagree with your assessment of the ease in which GMOs are created and their lack of potential harm.

[Moochy]

ConLaw put down the Monsanto pamphlet and pull your head out

The Reason the third world countries starve is mostly political. The aid that goes to these countries is siphoned off by the many corrupt leaders and the majority of it never reaches the most needy.

Noone is suggesting that the entire worlds food needs be produced by organic farms, but you are buying the huge lie that says that we cant feed the world with out GM foods. It's a strawman.

Local famines and droughts are not going to be fixed by GM foods... if there is no water or infrastructure. Also read my other point about third world countries not being able to sell their crops internationally if they decide to start up the seed subscription..
Also, how the hell are these impoverished countries supposed to pay? Oh that's right .. just like the aids drugs , our country will give them LOANS that put them further in debt without doing anything for their countries long term prospects.

[qb]

7. I have a clue, and so does the FDA

Why do you think everyone got so freaked out when GM corn showed up in corn chips? They don't know what the long-term consequences are. It requires years of clinical testing to make sure the modification won't trip some cancer gene or interfere with childhood development.

BTW, you used one of Rush's favorite tactics: "You don't nderstand... let me educate you".

[arendt]

22. You fail to distinguish GMO from corporate-ownership of GMO

The issue is one of who pays whom for the right to grow
food. Its all about lawyers and lawsuits, not science and
helping people.

Monsanto introduced "terminator genes" into some GMO crops.
These genes meant that no seeds would germinate and the farmers
would have to buy new seed every year. This idea died when
nobody could prove these genes could not escape and turn off
every plant on the planet. Really responsible of Monsanto.

There is an ongoing flap in India about some agribiz patenting
the gene sequence of some traditional Indian food crop and
suing traditional farmers sowing traditional seed. This is
nothing more than Intellectual Property enclosure of common
property. It is especially rapacious in that the marginal
cost of new seed is ZERO, just like the marginal cost of a
new copy of some MP3 song. Agribiz just wants to set up toll-
booths in the grocery store.

Then there is the ridiculous lawsuit against a farmer who
had weeds contaminated by Monsanto plant genes blown onto
his farm. Unbelievable - it is the farmer's responsibility
to keep Monsanto's genes out, not Monsanto's responsiblity
to keep them from contaminating everything.

This week, Monsanto sued Oakhurst dairy because Oakhurst
advertized its milk was "BGH Free". Monsanto said it was
a "slander on their BGH product", and that no one has the
right to label a product based on its production methods.
What a joke! Do milk vendors also have to remove the
"pasteurized" from their labels?

If this stuff is so harmless, why do these corps fight tooth
and nail to keep it off the labels?


It comes down to corporate domination. They want to own the
food supply, and they don't care if they hurt people or
animals or the biosphere to get what they want.

Skip the apologetics from the viewpoint of science or humanity.
The corporations aren't interested in them or they wouldn't
be suing everyone in sight.

arendt

[arendt]

23. You fail to distinguish GMO from corporate-ownership of GMO

The issue is one of who pays whom for the right to grow
food. Its all about lawyers and lawsuits, not science and
helping people.

Monsanto introduced "terminator genes" into some GMO crops.
These genes meant that no seeds would germinate and the farmers
would have to buy new seed every year. This idea died when
nobody could prove these genes could not escape and turn off
every plant on the planet. Really responsible of Monsanto.

There is an ongoing flap in India about some agribiz patenting
the gene sequence of some traditional Indian food crop and
suing traditional farmers sowing traditional seed. This is
nothing more than Intellectual Property enclosure of common
property. It is especially rapacious in that the marginal
cost of new seed is ZERO, just like the marginal cost of a
new copy of some MP3 song. Agribiz just wants to set up toll-
booths in the grocery store.

Then there is the ridiculous lawsuit against a farmer who
had weeds contaminated by Monsanto plant genes blown onto
his farm. Unbelievable - it is the farmer's responsibility
to keep Monsanto's genes out, not Monsanto's responsiblity
to keep them from contaminating everything.

This week, Monsanto sued Oakhurst dairy because Oakhurst
advertized its milk was "BGH Free". Monsanto said it was
a "slander on their BGH product", and that no one has the
right to label a product based on its production methods.
What a joke! Do milk vendors also have to remove the
"pasteurized" from their labels?

If this stuff is so harmless, why do these corps fight tooth
and nail to keep it off the labels?


It comes down to corporate domination. They want to own the
food supply, and they don't care if they hurt people or
animals or the biosphere to get what they want.

Skip the apologetics from the viewpoint of science or humanity.
The corporations aren't interested in them or they wouldn't
be suing everyone in sight.

arendt

[buddhamama]

4. one major problem

is that, the FDA is ripe with former Monsanto,ADM execs or scientists. Can this be an unbias look at the dangers of GMOs? somehow i doubt it.

[buddhamama]

5. one major problem

is that, the FDA is ripe with former Monsanto/ADM execs and/or scientists. Can we truly expect unbiased research analysis of the dangers of GMOs from this group? i don't think so.

[leesa]

6. I've already read reports that their are super-weeds being formed

from natural cross-pollination with these plants. They can't be eradicated by conventional means. You're messing with the food chain. Animals that consume them will have to make adaptations to get the nutrients they need or to deal with the DNA fusions and what not that are likely to occur. No one knows where any of this will lead.

[JHB]

8. Don't forget the very important patent/property issue...

With the law as it currently stands, companies can patent a specific genetic code: if they modify a plant, that particular modification is company property. This becomes important with seed issues:

Since agriculture began, farmers have saved part of their crop to plant in the next growing season. (Thus the saying "eating your seed corn" -- sacrificing the future for the present.) However, if farmers buy GM seeds (for whatever benefit of the mature plants) from a company, they only have permission to use those seeds once. If they save part of the crop for replanting, they're violating the intellectual property rights of the company, and face leagal and financial penalties for doing so. In some cases, the seeds are engineered to produce sterile offspring, so that replanting is impossible (or at least fruitless :evilgrin: ba-dump-bump).

This prevents farmers from economizing in the traditional manner and forces them into a highly unequal relationship with the seed companies (they simply can't balk at a price increase as they could with "public domain" crops).

[Capn Sunshine]

9. If we can do it, why shouldn't we?

Hey, I for one think that tomatoes that bark at insects would be really cool! Oh, and add that Jellyfish glow in the dark gene so we can pick em on the graveyard shift!

The problem with all of this is the profit motive is being given priority. GM foods are being done to increase corporate farming profits, without consideration to long term environmental damage.


We know exactly how harmful DDT is for example, yet it is in use anywhere that it isn't illegal.

[bicentennial_baby]

10. GM Cotton & Antibitoic Resistant Gonorrhea anyone?

"Strongly worded advice against the approval of Monsanto’s GM cotton was given by UK Government scientists warning of antibiotic resistance genes that would make gonorrhea untreatable.

The information is in the archives of the UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) which vats applications for commercial approval of novel foods and animal feed. The advice was given in February 1999 (but was only published last year by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food). At around the same time, the European Union rejected Monsanto’s application for the sale of the GM cottons in Europe. The reason? The gene aad, which confers resistance to the antibiotics streptomycin and spectinomycin, is present in both Bollgard (insect-protected) and Roundup Ready (herbicide tolerant) GM cottons."

The bacterium responsible for gonorrhoea, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, could acquire the aad gene from GM plant materials during infection of the mouth and small and large intestine as well as the respiratory tract. N. gonorrhoeae could also get the gene indirectly from other bacteria in the internal and external environments of animals and human beings, which have taken up the gene from GM plant materials. Those other bacteria can serve as a reservoir for antibiotic resistance genes.

"Cotton is used in women’s sanitary napkins and tampons, in babies’ nappies, in bandages and other wound dressings." Dr. Elizabeth Bravo, a biologist from Accion Ecologica, Ecuador, reminds us. No one has checked if such cotton contains DNA."

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/i-sisnews7-7.php

[On the Road]

I am MUCH More Concerned About..

antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, DDT on imported produce, and other known chemical dangers than I am about GM food.

I agree that GM food needs to be tested thoroughly. (For example, I understand that one strain of pest-resistance crops accidentally kills Monarch butterflies as well as the target insect.) But generally the genetic modifications stimulate the cell to produce new proteins or other substances. In some ways, it's like considering whether to eat any other new species. It's conceivable that some GM will be toxic, and the testing should screen those out.

A lot of the anti-GM arguments are just not well made. Putting a jellyfish gene in a tomato plant doesn't result in a jellyfish/tomato combination. It results in a tomato with a new characteristic such as frost resistance.

There may be some very important concerns about GM, but it's difficult for me to sort through the rhetoric.

[bicentennial_baby]

11. Dupe post

On edit: Deleted Dupe post

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

12. GM foods are obviously the future

People are naturally afraid of change and it will take time for many to overcome that.

I read a post or two expressing alarm that pesticides are "put in the food". This is true, in a way. All plants have natural pesticides, not just GM plants. Otherwise, the plants wouldn't be around.

And yes, natural pesticides have been shown to cause cancer in animals (at extremely high doses, of course).

[qb]

13. Enough with the condescending "fear of the unknown/fear of change" BS

The solution isn't overcoming fear... it is guaranteeing that we don't create a biological quagmire.

The EU's opposition to GM isn't drivin by fear - it is driven by a rational scientific approach to verifying the safety of new technology.

[Kellanved]

dupe

(n/t)

[Kellanved]

Dupe

Sorry - Du2.0 triple post.

[govegan]

GM foods obviously a step BACKWARD....away from true science

No scientist who understands nutrition and agriculture could ever claim that bio-engineered foods are a step forward.

The US government and industry positions on nutrition, diet, health, and agriculture are based upon mythologies that would take volumes to list.

If bio-engineered foods are "real science" one could never justify preventing the consumer from knowing whether or not a given product contains bio-engineered foods.

The patronizing attitude that the public is so blissfully stupid that they have no business deciding for themselves is contrary to the very foundation of democracy.

One indisputable scientific fact is that if the entire world consumed the massive resources just to feed themselves that the populace of the US does, petroleum reserves and water resources would disappear faster than you can say "happy meal", with slight hyperbole for effect.

The world needs GM foods just like it needs war in Iraq, to profit a very few at the expense and suffering of many, justified by unending lies and deception.

[Against ME]

28. How does creating more food cause suffering?

I woulda thought famine was caused by a lack of food, not a surplus of food, not to mention how much easier it is to produce the stuff.

There are no known side effects, we have all been eating it for a long time, and non of us are getting sick from it, so what is wrong with it?
The entire world doesn't have to consume resources to feed themselves, because we feed them.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

40. AgainstMe read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

edited for spelling

[Kellanved]

15. several things are wrong with GM at the moment

1. Nobody knows, if they're harmless. There are some respected scientists claiming (Arpad Pusztai for example), that they have found problems with GM food.

2. They are not as effective as they're believed to be (resistant weeds for example)

3. The copyright issue is not yet resolved: how can monsato et al. have a copyright on salmon genes?
What about the non-GM farmer next door? His plants will get cross-bred with the GM plants. Will he have to pay Monsato a fee for this?

4. Most major GM companies are European, yet the US behaves as if it were an American industry.

5. Choice: Why don't label them? They aren't cheaper and they aren't better, so why should people buy them?

...

[CafeToad]

20. Right - I read a study where scientists

compared what happened to plants that were under attack by insects (as compared to a similar group of plants that were shielded from insects by screens or nets or something like that).

The insect-attacked plants up-regulated their levels of natural insecticides by 10,000 to 100,000-fold over the levels found in non-attacked plants.

Furthermore, there was a wide variety of different types of insecticides naturally produced by the plants. Most of them were not tested for causing cancer, but the few that were were just as harmful and man-made pesticides.

This post is not meant to say that genetically-modified plants are harmless - just to point out that non-genetically-modified plants are not necessarily 'safe' - basically, it's a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.

[LWolf]

45. See # 24:

Regardless of "safety" for human consumption, there are other big issues.

1. Monsanto "owns" the patents. Farmers cannot save seed from their crops, they have to buy seed every year from monsanto. So, Monsanto "owns" our food supply.

2. Many of the patented products are "round-up ready" seeds, to generate plants that will live through repeated applications of herbicide. Is this what you want to eat or pour into the ecosystem?

3. The genetically altered plants cross pollinate with other plants in their area, contaminating open-pollinated varieties and compromising organic farms.

4. Like the over-use of any substance, from anti-biotics to livestock/pet wormers, pesticides, etc., the targeted weeds/pests adapt and become "super weeds/pests" that are resistant to the control; so more and more must be applied, until finally it doesn't work at all.

Here are a few sources for more info:

http://www.gefoodalert.org/pages/home.cfm

http://asuwlink.uwyo.edu/~shelsway/tech.htm

http://www.parabolicmirror.com/archives/week_2002_03_10.html

[scisyhp]

14. There may or maynot be anything "wrong" with GM food,

this question is purely scientific and researchers will eventually
answer it. GM could turn out to be perfectly safe. The real issue
imo is not the safety, but the ownership. If Monsanto people get
their way, we will end up with them owning the rights to all of
our food supply, and with us paying a license fee on every potato
and apple we bite into. They are already patenting the genes.
Next thing you know you couldn't chew on a pice of tree-bark without
oweing something to Monsanto.

[MisterP]

16. Try reading "Trust Us, We're Experts."

It addresses drawbacks and fishtailing on GM.

[soothsayer]

17. Seriously, alot is wrong with GM foods

What are the ramifications (lets even say allergy-wise) of putting fish genes in oranges (which they do to help protect oranges against frost)? What about other combos that folks (say those with peanut allergies) might not be aware of, cuz godnoze there's no labeling on GM foods to even identify them much less tell you whose genes are in them.

Cutting DNA literally cuts our connection with our ancestors. Evolution---and even deliberate evolution, like cross-breeding plants---at least protects the evolutionary chain. Is it good to sever that?

As others have pointed out, Monsanto makes farmers sign contracts to buy new seeds each year (they aren't allowed to keep the seeds produced by their plants for future plantings) AND what's worse, goes after innocent farmers whose fields have been CONTAMINATED by Monsanto's plants from neighboring farms. And doesn't Monsanto want to create the 'terminator' seed that simply will not produce viable seeds so folks HAVE to buy new seeds each year? Couple that with the fact that Monsanto is quietly buying up water rights around the world and you have a conglomerate that is about to own all the stuff we need to survive. Nice.

Plus, Monsanto produces all of these 'roundup ready' (that is, ready for monsanto's pesticide, 'roundup.') These plants can take 4 or 5 times the amount of pesticide---that means our food is being spayed 4 or 5 more times than before!

Monsanto is about the most evil corporation I can think of right now.

Wake up, people! Do not go blindly along with this corruption of nature.

M

[CafeToad]

27. This is what happens when

Creationism is taught in schools instead of biology!

I've said it before (and will probably say it again), the irony is delicious.

[ArkDem]

18. Soylent Green

Soylent Green

Soylent Green

Frankenfoods

Frankenfoods

Touchscreen voting machines

AAAAiiiiieeeeeee, We are being TAKEN OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LWolf]

24. The data isn't in on human health, one way or the other.

We shouldn't be injecting unknowns into the food supply, of course. Regardless of "safety" for human consumption, there are other big issues.

1. Monsanto "owns" the patents. Farmers cannot save seed from their crops, they have to buy seed every year from monsanto. So, Monsanto "owns" our food supply.

2. Many of the patented products are "round-up ready" seeds, to generate plants that will live through repeated applications of herbicide. Is this what you want to eat or pour into the ecosystem?

3. The genetically altered plants cross pollinate with other plants in their area, contaminating open-pollinated varieties and compromising organic farms.

4. Like the over-use of any substance, from anti-biotics to livestock/pet wormers, pesticides, etc., the targeted weeds/pests adapt and become "super weeds/pests" that are resistant to the control; so more and more must be applied, until finally it doesn't work at all.

Here are a few sources for more info:

http://www.gefoodalert.org/pages/home.cfm

http://asuwlink.uwyo.edu/~shelsway/tech.htm

http://www.parabolicmirror.com/archives/week_2002_03_10.html

[preciousdove]

25. Parrallel: New Infant Formula

Now anything they give to infants is tested by somebody isn't it? No, just the manufactuer. Dominic born Dec 8th got his head smushed during delivery and was intensive care for a week. Mom chose the "new" better formula from Similac. He refused to eat it but would wolf down the first two ounces and then refuse the rest. He then proceeded to projectile vomit. They fed him with a tube for two days. Grandma finally talked Mom into trying a low iron Similar regular and he was better and did eat but the projectile vomiting kept up, he choked regularly and he was put on Zantac. His little tummy healed after about 3 months and he is off the stuff at which time a local news station said that infants were showing up in emergency rooms and that the formula had only been tested by the manufacturer who claimed that it was not the formula causing the problem. Well we'll never know under this administration will we?

Grandma's advice to kids who are having this kind of trouble go to try "Carnation Good Start" before the soy. BTW Wic will not allow mother's to buy this formula becuse it contains less iron than the others. Now what you need when you are a poor mother who has to go right back to work, is formula that makes your baby sick. (Yes Breast Milk is best but I nursed my babies when I had undiagnosed Lyme Disease and in hindsight poisoned them and also kept reinfecting them. Broken medical system is another subject)

[SemperEadem]

29. if I had a genetically altered stomach

then maybe it would be no big deal for me to digest spider genes implanted in the tomatoes I eat...

[EAMcClure]

30. This is just my opinion (an excuse to wax prophetic)

My essential beef with GM foods is the effect on plant and animal life outside the farm boundaries. Genetic information is carried by wind, by insect, by animal, by rain, even by fire.

#1: So, we now have a corn that resists the litany of pests farmers have historically dealt with. Yay! Do you think that those pests are simply going to die out? Instead, the pests will modify themselves or be replaced by a pest that can handle what genetic modifications science has made. Now science has to step it up and devise a new means. This kind of ramping up will devastate surrounding plant life that also must deal with pests, both as enemy and symbiotically.

#2: The genetic information encoded in the GM foods will travel and infilitrate all plant and animal life it contacts, changing the world's biology in unforeseen ways, for good or ill. We could be dealing with something as far fetched as a new kind of worm that kills domestic dogs en masse (tapeworm is a creation of mass farming), or something as simple as new strains of influenza.

#3: Whoever justified genetic engineering as "it's just basic proteins," is committing a grievous scientific sin. Proteins, especially ATP, are by far the most important part of photo-synthesis, even more important than chlorophyl. It is by engineering what the plant produces from photosynthesis that plant life is modified. Changing even one particular affects the whole over thousands of generations. The changes made now to agriculture are mutable in that we will only see the full affects of the modifications over several more years. The plant must incorporate the "minor" throughout its organism. This is the way genetics works.

A human example: One part of a particular chromosome (shared by rodents and primates), holds a lot of responsibility for the development of the head. If that "insignigicant" protein is removed, the foetal animal does NOT grow a head. Other, more "imporant" molecules do not affect growth so severaly, but there you go.

The lesson is that science does not and can not know what it is doing as yet. Humanity will stumble forward, but be prepared for the consequences. The whole world is already irrevocably changed, and it may be likely that some things we hold dear will not be part of it... perhaps even ourselves. The unforeseen, the unanticipated is what nature is all about. God lurks in the gaps.

Eric

[CafeToad]

31. You make some very good points!

With a few bizarre ones thrown in for good measure.

First, you are absolutely correct about the dispersal of genetic information from species to species. I read a study not long ago where something like 53 instances of cross-kingdom gene transfer have been documented to have occurred naturally (and that's likely just the tip of the iceberg! (this research area is just getting underway and I suspect many more examples will be found).


OK, based on the abovementioned information, a pertinent question is "why haven't all possible genes from all possible organisms already contaminated each other?" For example, it was mentioned earlier that a fish gene was introduced into tomatoes to give them frost resistance. Based on your theories, why hadn't this gene already spread into tomatoes? After all, it was already out there (loose in the environment existing as genetic information) long before it was manipulated by genetic engineers - what prevented it from being carried by wind, by insect, by animal, by rain, even by fire to tomato plants, and every other form of life? Clearly, this wide-spread dispersal has not happened, and the fish gene remains safely ensconced within the fish. Once it is introduced into a tomato, it becomes indistinguishable from a tomato gene on a molecular level, and remains safely within the tomato, to the extent that any other tomato gene would.


The seeming dichotomy of wide-spread gene dispersal that has occurred in nature (entirely apart from artificial GM methods) vs. the genetic stability postulated in the previous paragraph can be resolved by considering that almost gene transfer events are not advantageous to the recipient organism. On a most basic level, if a gene is to be expressed, first RNA has to be made from the DNA template, then the RNA must be transcribed into a protein. This process requires energy and slows down the growth of a plant and after a few generations in the real world, the progeny of the plant in question could not compete with the unaltered plants and would go extinct (natural selection at work). An exception is a gene that confers pesticide resistance, in this case all non-genetically altered plants (the so-called weeds) will be killed by the application of pesticide. Thus, the genetically altered plant, in the farmer’s field, will be the only plant left and can grow unimpeded (albeit more slowly than if never modified in the first place). Outside the field (and beyond the reaches of residual pesticide), any plants expressing the pesticide-resistant gene will grow more slowly and be out-competed by their wild-type compatriots. A possible exception is that some of these ‘wild’ plants are smart enough to realize they don’t need the pesticide-resistant gene to survive in places where they aren’t exposed to the pesticide. Therefore they choose not to express the gene and subsequently don’t waste any energy doing so, and can therefore compete with the wild-type plants. Note that loss of expression of introduced genes is a real problem even back in the farmer’s field. A basic understanding of evolutionary principles shows that the fear of genes that have been introduced into GM crops spreading like wildfire throughout the biome is completely unfounded. After all, these genes already exist in nature (and most of them have for hundreds of millions of years) and they have remained carefully confined to organisms where they are needed to confer a selective advantage.

BTW, ATP is not a protein.

[EAMcClure]

35. No, ATP is a sugar source that can be changed into protein

Correction duly noted. That's what I get for putting on my rusted Biology cap.

I do disagree with your points. The first (tomato/fish) is a straw man. The "why hasn't it happened already, smart guy?" kind of tactic is indicative of someone who approaches discussions with the answers already in their coat pocket, regardless of what the opponent might say.

So you set up the straw man that tomatoes and fish genes have not combined already, so therefore gene dispersal is not widespread/universal, then knock it down like a champion prize fighter. Nice work. Your question was not pertinent, it was only pertinent to your preconceived argument.

The pertinent question is one of exposure. How often do fish come in contact with tomatoes? How much mutual exposure has been established for a direct genetic relationship to be conferred? How many steps away are they in the life web? Eventually, there is relationship, but it is right about as many degrees separate as I am from Kevin Bacon. This makes any genetic relationship distant, so distant that enough time has passed that any comparison wouldn't show that fish and tomatoes "learned" from each other on the genetic level. But, mark my words, there is a relationship, however distant, and the universal cross-contamination picture you distorted has already happened... otherwise there wouldn't be a common genetic language for fish and tomatoes to communicate whatsoever, which would exclude the GM.

My premise stands: Any changes we engineer into the food chain will be incorporated into the environment... it's a matter of how much and how long.

You have also used an inductive argument to reach a deductive conclusion, which is a BIG NO-NO. This is your final paragraph. Yes, most mutations and genetic transfers are unsuccessful because they harm more than they help... many would be considered "useless" at face value. What use does the dandelion receive from an anti-pesticide protein?

So, CafeToad what are the statistics. Exactly what percentage of organisms would actually benefit from or incorporate the genetic information we've grafted into our agriculture? Remember, you said most, not all, would simply not use the new stuff at all. Would your organism statistics include microbes?

Just because you can account for most changes not happening DOES NOT MEAN that no changes will occur or it will take too long for us to notice. The changes will happen, and nearly all of them will not be accounted for.

Next time, don't give me a left-handed compliment about my "good points," only to grandstand.

Eric

[CafeToad]

42. I'll freely admit that I know a bare minimum

about logical fallacies including the unfortunate non-avoidance of straw men and the ever-self-defeating use of inductive arguments to reach deductive conclusions. Since I don't, you were able to use a scathing onslaught of logic to tear apart my scientifically-sound, but linguistically challenged, arguments. I will try to present my thoughts more clearly in this post.

First, ATP is NOT a sugar source that can be changed into a protein. Instead, it is an energy source. Furthermore, proteins are constructed from amino acids, not nucleotide triphosphates.

Second, I will clearly state in this sentence (without giving potentially misleading examples) that basic evolutionary theory ensures that the genes from genetically modified organisms will not be widely spread through the environment.

Now to give an example, or more precisely the counter-example mentioned elsewhere in this thread of the super-weeds that have picked up the gene that confers pesticide resistance. The posts did not address the actual physical location of these 'super-weeds' - I am willing to bet that they're in close proximity to pesticide-treated fields (or actually right in the fields). Consequently, they are regularly exposed to pesticide. The above posters are correct, therefore, that the pesticide ineffective for growing the crop in question (because the weeds IN the field are no longer killed). However, I maintain that the pesticide-resistant gene will not spread throughout the entire biome due to the reasons listed in the above posts), but will instead be restrained to locations of pesticide use. Of course, if the very same pesticide (eg. Round-up) is used over millions of contiguous acres, the pesticide-resistant weeds could become quite wide-spread (but that's more a reflection on really stupid agricultural practices than on the underlying technology).

OK, what about the situation where the expression of the gene is shut down and no longer confers a selective dis-advantage on the host organism. You point out that the effects over thousands of generations are unknown. I hesitate to compliment you, but once again you are correct. The gene could act as a 'blank slate' and essentially mutate into anything, depending on the selective pressures the organism was subject to. Let's revisit the fish antifreeze protein mentioned above - a salient question is "how did the fish get this protein in the first place" considering the time frame for the "first place" was long before the Prestone Corporation was in existence. In my previous post, I mentioned a time frame of hundreds of millions of years, this length of time is wrong for fish antifreeze proteins - they actually emerged 'only' about 14 million years ago according to this paper:

Expansion of genome coding regions by acquisition of new genes.
Genetica. 2002 May;115(1):65-80. Review.
PMID: 12188049 .

The above-referenced paper also describes the origin of antifreeze protein in fish. I will quote the authors directly because I believe that they successfully avoid the use of any red herrings that I'd be likely to include in the discussion that may obscure the conclusions of the study:

"Figure 2 summarizes the mechanism in which these antifreeze protein genes originated. Given the common elements in the sequence, it seems that the AFGP gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish was born as a trypsinogen gene that underwent a big deletion and a series of tandem duplications of a nine nucleotide (Thr-Ala-Ala) motif. Thr is glycosylated and that allows the protein to bind ice. The spacers provide sites of postranscriptional proteolytic cleavage. A completely new function was born from pieces and an intron of the trypsinogen gene. This occurred under the appropriate selective pressure allowing a species to adapt to a new environment."




So what happened here is that the trypsinogen gene, which originally existed to digest proteins (a crucial metabolic process in each and every cell), has now taken on a very, very different role. So what's to say the same thing won't happen with the gene that was introduced by genetic engineering methods? Well, sure it could happen, as the example just cited shows, genes really are blank slates that can be dramatically altered under the appropriate selective pressure. However, it is very important to realize that the very same process could take place with any one of the naturally-occurring genes found within an organism (which is what happened in the development of the fish anti-freeze protein).

[EAMcClure]

37. Something else

Since you articulately pointed out that:

"After all, these genes already exist in nature (and most of them have for hundreds of millions of years) and they have remained carefully confined to organisms where they are needed to confer a selective advantage."

Why are we conferring these selective advantages without seeing how the rest of the biome reacts to the establishment of said advantage? Because there are too many factors. We look at the benefits and do not have the wherewithal to note any unintended consequences. We can not see how, say the fish code will be utilized by the microscopic community... these are the organisms that will react to any and all changes.

Really, I see you playing a very crafty game of "nothing to see here, move along." Just accept that there are factors that have not been taken into consideration by those who espouse genetic engineering. Genetic engineering on the actual genetic level is brand spanking new and already we're out fucking with it EN MASSE and patenting bits and pieces of what is quite possibly a UNIVERSAL language of life.

All discoveries end up being utilised. Science is progress, and the progress is inescapable. But the progress of genetic engineering in lieu of intensive research is appalling and, mark my words, will completely change life on earth. Damage has already been done.

Eric

[Nobody]

33. If I'm going to eat something, I want to know what it is first

Genetically altered food needs to be labeled and the companies pushing this have resisted all legislation requiring them to tell people what the food is.

I know several people who are allergic to a lot of things. Peanuts. Chocolate. Strawberries. Yeast. Chocolate. Alchohol. Coconuts. Pineapples. You name it, someone somewhere is allergic to it.

And the worst thing is, some people's allergies are severe enough to kill them.

Do you want to eat something that you've been able to eat for years and suddenly you become deathly ill because it was modified and not labeled?

I don't.

[CafeToad]

36. Yes, it seems self evident that GM food should be labeled

for reasons such as those you mention. Interestingly, I assume that the people you know are allergic to non-genetically modified versions of Peanuts. Chocolate. Strawberries. Yeast. Chocolate. Alchohol. Coconuts. Pineapples or whatever. Further, I suspect they spend their weekend out on the street corner picketing against the natural food that Mother Nature provides us. Why? well because the magic of genetic modification is supplying safe versions of these foods. For example, the highly revered SCOOP website from New Zealand (you may remember them for breaking the Diebold voting machine story that has caused a lot of excitement of late at DU) reports the development of Non-Allergenic GM Peanuts:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0303/S00052.htm

yummy with :beer:

[EAMcClure]

39. Great, we remove allergens before

finding out why allergens exist in the first place and what causes them within the organism itself. Great. That's just the kind of thinking this world needs. What a bunch of shit.

Peanuts are not oxygen in that they are not an inescapable component of living. WHY FUCK WITH THEM to make them edible? Money, that's why, and propoganda, that's why.

Eric

[MISSDem]

38. Nothing if

you don't mind someday finding an eye growing on the back of your head or elsewhere.

[buddhamama]

41. funny

in a tragic way.

Welcome to DU, MISSDem.

[musiclawyer]

43. High Fructose Corn Syrup.....

.....is poison... or at the very least not very good for you. That's why adult onset diabetes and obesity are at epidemic stages now after a couple of decades of people ingesting that stuff. (I dare you to go down the beverage aisle in your local supermarket and find any drink without HFCS). .....It's the same thing with GMF. It's just that we're smart enough to stop this train wreck before it leaves the station. ...The FDA ostensibly doesn't permit the release of drugs if there exist bona-fide scientific questions unanswered. Why should GMF be any different. Besides all the scientific gray areas that have been raised already here, there's the moral prerogative concerning the patenting of the seeds. Why should Joao farmer in Brazil be captive to buying all his seeds from Corporate America. That's the end result of the GMF food concept. Sure there's a place for it. But not on everyone table. In 20 years high fructose corn syrup will only be in labs, not in America's cupboards and refrigerators.

[Kimble]

46. MY TWO CENTS AND THE REAL RUB ON THIS SUBJECT! :)

If I don’t have an ethical beef with human genetics’ programs I cant really have one with a fruit and vegetable genetic programs. Not to mention the seedless watermelons are just cool. The pesticides in that people are talking about "in" the food by the way are natural ones that are in other harmless plants from what I gather. Just because I can’t digest, or for that mater chew some bark or a tree, doesn’t mean that I wont accept the bennies of its natural insecticides. Here’s the REAL rub folks...

When you buy GM foods you are basically buying into a crop that greatly reduces the amount of needed farmers. In Europe, the farmers - a little like here - are supported by the Gov. When the amount of farmers and over all needed acres of crops needed to feed a nation are reduced; the amount of subsides needed for price supports increase. In Europe, these supports are built in a little higher than the US, hence when farmers are not needed they become part of a larger welfare state that the Gov does not want to support. If a business like Fiat wants to lay people off, the Gov doesn’t presently allow it because the view of the Gov reads something like "That’s just placing their needs on the state when they cant find a job." That’s the overriding point of workers rights and the right to work. Anyway, GM foods in the END GAME are just like robots taking over factory jobs etc. They shift the needs of lower jobs to technology leaving higher profits for companies and less work for people.