Celebrate Food! ..or, why support Genetically Engineered Food?

«Main :: What You Think:

http://wethepeoplethink.com/editorials/2007/08/57.php

Celebrate Food! ..or, why support Genetically Engineered Food?
by Thom Jefferson Aug 19, 2007

Think of the best culinary dishes you've ever had. Then eat some soylent green. Remember when it was good. Remember when you could grow a crop without the patents on food production, nor with the threat of cross pollination (contamination) of patented genetically modified seed invading indigenous crops? I dunno folks- should we give a damn? -----------------------------We The People Think . com-----------------------------------

The genetic engineering of plants and animals is looming as one of the greatest and most intractable environmental challenges of the 21st Century. Already, this novel technology has invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries by fundamentally altering some of our most important staple food crops.

By being able to take the genetic material from one organism and insert it into the permanent genetic code of another, biotechnologists have engineered numerous novel creations, such as potatoes with bacteria genes, "super" pigs with human growth genes, fish with cattle growth genes, tomatoes with flounder genes, and thousands of other plants, animals and insects. At an alarming rate, these creations are now being patented and released into the environment.

Currently, up to 45 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as is 85 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated that 70-75 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves--from soda to soup, crackers to condiments--contain genetically engineered ingredients.

A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture could lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material.

Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a single law intended to manage them responsibly. This despite the fact that our regulatory agencies have failed to adequately address the human health or environmental impacts of genetic engineering. On the federal level, eight agencies attempt to regulate biotechnology using 12 different statutes or laws that were written long before genetically engineered food, animals and insects became a reality. The result has been a regulatory tangle, where any regulation even exists, as existing laws are grossly manipulated to manage threats they were never intended to regulate. Among many bizarre examples of these regulatory anomalies is the current attempt by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate genetically engineered fish as "new animal drugs."

The haphazard and negligent agency regulation of biotechnology has had serious consequences for consumers and the environment. Unsuspecting consumers by the tens of millions are being allowed to purchase and consume unlabeled genetically engineered foods, despite a finding by FDA scientists that these foods could pose serious risks. And new genetically engineered crops are being approved by federal agencies despite admissions that they will contaminate native and conventional plants and pose other significant new environmental threats. In short, there has been a complete abdication of any responsible legislative or regulatory oversight of genetically engineered foods. Clearly, now is a critical time to challenge the government's negligence in managing the human health and environmental threats from biotechnology.

CFS seeks to prevent the approval, commercialization or release of any new genetically engineered crops until they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment. CFS maintains that any foods that already contain genetically engineered ingredients must be clearly labeled.

(taken from: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm )

Readers Rating:

[Log in to Rate this Editorial]

Average Score

Reader Feedback:
	(2007-08-19 04:23:14) Cr@P! F@#K- ArgHHHH. It's hard not to shout expletives. Why? The average Joe picks up this stuff without even knowing what they are eating. The impact that we'll see from genetically modified crops has not even matieralized yet. Monsanto sueing small farmers because their crop invaded the farmers crops- TAKING OVER THEIR SEED- (read; heritage). If you don't know about family farming, now is a good time to learn. ... a bit late albeit- but better late than never. SO- what do YOU think about having ONE variety of corn, ONE variety of apple, ONE variety.. ok- get it? Genetically modified crops can be patented and then overtake the crop next door, which= contaminated crop and lawsuits that the small farmer won't win. AND... because the seed is genetically modified, it can accept pesticides that will kill anything green. The worms die from eating it. ...'IT' goes into your food chain, water supply and more. IT is US. ...Take back our food now or eat Soylent Green! Should we take a poll on preference? What would we do with it? Sheeple around and eat it because "it's no big deal"? ...I'm thinking most likely we will. Challenge me.
	(2007-08-19 05:05:00) Is the past, present, future or what? where are we at? From what I understand, we know enough bad in the present- and have proof of future bad. Unless you want your Monsanto rice flakes with your Monsonto modified milk and your choice of Monsanto modfied fruit selections with your Monsanto coffee- I'd suggest thinking about this topic a bit more. Screw our family farmers and ship our jobs oversea while corporations feed us this? Isn't that patriotic? I LOVE America- if only it would love US!
	(2007-08-27 22:16:19) What's the big deal? It comes in- it goes out. So what if it adds a little bit of blood and pus to my milk? I can't taste it. More milk is better, and there are reports that Monsonto (rBGH) treated cattle produce more milk (and swollen bloody, pus filled udders). So what's the big deal- it works, right? That's a good thing- right? They'd be milking cats if they could. ...oh shit- I gave an idea.
	(2007-09-03 17:07:54) In regards to Milk from cows treated with rBGH/BGH.... * rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 veterinary health risks on its Posilac label including mastitis and udder inflammation. * rBGH milk is contaminated by pus from mastitis induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis. * rBGH milk is contaminated by the GE hormone which can be absorbed through the gut and induce immunological effects. * rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally very different from natural milk. * rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), excess levels of which have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. * rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms. Thus, rBGH enriches Monsanto while posing risks but no benefits to the entire U.S. population. BUT...does anyone care really? Honey- where's the channel changer?
	(2007-09-03 17:29:04) Starbucks has been a target as 3/4 of the 32 million gallons of milk it buys every year in the US are coming from dairies that allow cows to be injected with rBGH. Once Starbucks' 15 million customers learn that most of the latte or cappuccino drinks they're paying top dollar for (3/4 of the volume of these drinks are milk) contain an extra dose of pus, antibiotics, and growth hormones and that Fair Trade and organic coffee constitute less than one percent of company sales, they may decide to take their business elsewhere. Total annual sales for the company are approximately $2.5 billion. From: http://organicconsumers.org/
	(2007-10-15 22:02:59) It's interesting how we view food in general. Cultures and different foods- foods that some are not accustomed to such as belly and tripe, or black pudding/mordella/blood pudding and so much more. It's equally as interesting when someone doesn't care about what we DO eat and what is going into our food supply and becoming habit. Do we even question what we are eating here in the US? It's not the good old days of growing your food or buying from local farmers in most cases. I heard a comment today where someone felt that 'our food is messed up anyways- why should it matter if there is blood and pus in our milk from BGH'. That thought right there is the reason we have so many nutritionaly F'd up food products on the market. We accept whatever is being thrown at us without question in too many cases, believing the packaging vs. common sense. Sodium lactate Flavor Sodium phosphates Sodium diacetate Sodium erythorbate (made from sugar) Dextrose Sodium nitrite Soy lecithin Potassium phosphate Potassium chloride Monosodium glutamate Flavorings BHA BHT Crack Crank Tidy Bowl An echo from someone else's response... Does it matter anymore? ...It should!