ETA: I've switched this thread to a general discussion on genetically-modifying foods for health reasons. The first post of mine is the original post.
I took a class at the University of Minnesota a whole back on food politics. It was very intersting--it was taught by a pro-GMO professor and there was a wide-ranging group of students in the class. Some were ag students, some were poli sci students, I was working for the U and could take free classes and this one caught my interest.
I wouldnt say I'm pro-GMO but I sometimes think that a few could be a good thing. I get VERY worried about cross-contamination and for that reason alone, I stay skeptical. But if some of these foods help severly impoverished people stay a little healthier, is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. I struggle with it everytime I read about it.
I'm interested to see what kind of discussion ensues here. Daytona, thanks for posting those other links--I'll check them out.
-------------
What’s “medicine rice?” The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave preliminary backing to genetically modified rice that would include human genes involved in producing breast milk. Those plants could then be developed into medicines for diarrhoea and dehydration in infants. But is it safe?
Haven't digested all the info yet. So far, sounds like this has unsuccessfully been proposed in CA and MO. The risk of cross contamination of other midwestern rice crops is high. It does not yet seem clear that the claimed benefits of the proteins produced have been proven to be effective or safe. I am cynically skeptical of any claim that these proteins obtained from engineered rice represent the "holy grail" of pediatric medications.
Posts: 42 | Location: Camp Hill, PA | Registered: February 07, 2007
This looks like fascinating technology, but I am extremely hesitant to support it. I could be ok of the primary benefit of its implementation far outweighs the potential risk. Like growing the cure for aids at the possible expense of the Midwestern rice crop. The uses so far don’t look that significant.
First, at the risk of tarnishing my credibility, I believe the primary premise of Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park is not only valid but applicable to this issue: we humans cannot control Mother Nature. We can influence her and use her creations to our benefit. But if she wishes to have her way with us, to humble us, she only need unleash the next band of Midwestern tornados, conjure the next Katrina, or produce a new Indonesian tsunami. Or consider our neighborhood squirrels. Despite my best efforts, some of which involve Caddy Shack-ian potential for death and mayhem (think blow gun), our grey fuzzy friends have made swiss cheese of all our trash cans to gain free access to the treats within. They also find creative entry ways into our attic each fall so we have the opportunity to lie awake winter nights listening to them loudly chew on unseen pieces of our abode. And leave a door ajar for canine passage and the varmints will venture indoors for fresher fare. For me there is little doubt, natural disasters will occur, squirrels will continue to spread our refuse around our neighborhood, the velociraptors will escape captivity and learn to breed, and GMO production will ultimately taint standard crops.
I am uncertain of the legitimacy of my second theory. I’d classify it more as a worry; a definitive issue relative to chemical enhancement of our foods, but less clearly a problem with genetically enhanced materials. As we continue to experiment with food on a microscopic level, new ingredients are constantly introduced into the food stream. Human beings do not have a long term track record for digesting these ingredients. Nor do we have experience ingesting the sheer variety of these substances continually becoming available. I do not feel as if the medical community can adequately assess the cumulative long term effects likely to be produced by consuming these products.
So for the time being, unless GMO’s can cure cancer or aids, or produce a commercial tomato that actually tastes like a tomato, I think GMO’s are not worth the risk.
Posts: 42 | Location: Camp Hill, PA | Registered: February 07, 2007
