GM foods and the EU.

[Japher]

The Templar: Good replies.

[Japher]

It's one thing to be ignorant because you don't care, and another thing to care and not be able to get the information because Monsanto doesn't want you to have an informed choice because "they know better".

I agree, but should be starve because the leaders of countries are ignorant? Should ppl starve because the public is ignorant? Most of the problem is that ppl are chosing to be ignorant and rant about something they know nothing about only that it contains the word Genetic and since there are a lot of other ignorant people ranting about things with that word then this stuff must be bad too... right? wrong.

People either ignore or fear what they don't understand, and political policy should not be made out of ignorance. If that is what is going on here then that is wrong. Yet, I agree with Oerdin that it is market protection, which is good if you have a market and people aren't starving because of it.

[Proteus_MST]

The great Danger of genetically altered Food is, that there any Alergenes will be ransferred from a Food to which some People have allergic reactions to another Food, which isn´t known to be a carrier of the allergene.

As People could die of allergic shock because of Food Allergies they tend to avoid those Foods to which they show allergic reactions.

One example is DuPonts attempt to introduce a Peanut - Gene into a Soybean. Luckily they detected just in time, that People who have Peanut Allergy also show allergic Reactions to those Genetically altered Soybeans and wisely DuPont decided to cease any further development of the Soybeans.

See here:
http://www.dupont.com/biotech/scienc...y/faq.htm#nine

But, despite the Food Companies testing their Food for possible allergenicity, they could miss a thing as theremight be unknown allergenes, or there could be some growth conditions, which increase the number of Allergenes in the Plant (for example having the number of Allergenes in the Plant increase with exposition to sun, but testing a plant which was grown underovercast sky [and of course getting no allergenicity as a result] and then having a charge of Plants which got a lot of sunlight during growth being sold to the customer, which could be hazarduous for any allergenic).

Even DuPont admits, that they can´t be totally sure to have their Plants absolutely free from allergenes.

Therefore I think that it was a step into the right direction, that the EU forced the USA to mark any genetically altered ingredients within food, sold in the EU.

After all it could safe lifes if a person with a certain Food Allergy exhibits Signs of this allergy after eating Food, which normally shouldn´t be dangerous.
It could save the life of this person or at least the lifes of future consumers of this food, as, if you know that the food is genetically altered, you could send a notice to the Food Company and let them know that its food seems to cause allergic reactions.

[HershOstropoler]

"Most of the problem is that ppl are chosing to be ignorant"

Who defines that? If bungee-jump companies say the risk is minimal, no one may point out the risk or label chess-playing to be safer, is that also for "policy" to decide and ram down people's throat?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


The ban is still on? Funny, I used to think it was lifted in October 2002.

Last I heard the ban was still on; I could have missed them lifting it though. The fact remains that the ban lasted far longer then any reseasonable "safety" concern would dictate. It was instead used as a means to remove one of the French farmers' largest competetors from the market for as long as politically possible.

[Japher]

Therefore I think that it was a step into the right direction, to force the USA to mark any genetically altered food in the List of ingredients.

Proteus you make good points and will agree...

Thinking on the cigs product and it's testing that was needed;

Much of the US was built on Tobacco, as with other countries. Much of the US was built on strip minning, as with other countries. Much of the US was built through child labor, as with other countries. Much of the US was grown with DDT, as with other countries...

Point is that there comes times in the world, not just one society, where the good does out weigh the bad. Economies grow so that large productions of Tobacco, strip minning, child labor, DDT, and the likes are either replace or no longer needed. This does not mean that it shouldn't of been done. It may not have been the best, there may have been unforseen problems with the system, or even problems that were seen and ignored, yet that does not mean that they should not be used.

Drugs are released everyday that have side effects that may shorten, not extended, your life.

Foods are grown everyday that will kill you in the future.

The reason, we are hungry now and we need to be cured now. The longer you wait for the definitive answer the more people there are who starve or go without drugs to extended their quality of life.

Yes we should attempt to limit the bad effects, yet eliminating them will take ages... I for one would rather be feed to day and risk allergies then to die from hunger. AS well, I do not want to feed someone who is starving only to have them die from what I fed them.

Therefore; label away. If it is the only thing to eat it will be eaten.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Last I heard the ban was still on; I could have missed them lifting it though.

You have missed it.

"The fact remains that the ban lasted far longer then any reseasonable "safety" concern would dictate."

The French played a bit with the rules. The US would never do that when there is a problem in, say, Canada.

Also. the economic gain for french farmers was miniscule though - british beef is an extremely tough sale in the rest of the EU, not because of regulations, but because of consumer sentiment. And consumer sentiment and the votes it carries played a much larger role than protectionism in this.

[Oerdin]

Proteus: I agree that allergic reactions is the primary, though exeedingly small, danger. "Trans-species" GM foods make up a very small percentage of total GM as of today due to the increased cost associated with first finding the which species has a compatable gene and then figuring out where to put it in the host species so that it will work properly without killing the plant. Most GM foods work like traditional cross breeding of different strains of the same species.

The classic example is one sub species of rice (sub species A) is immune to a certain fungus but tastes bad and has low yields per hecter, subspecies B tastes great but also has low yields and dies from the fungus, subspecies C has high yields but is effected by the fungus and and tastes only so-so. If one uses classical mandelian methodes of cross breeding then it could take twenty years plus before botonists common up with the perfect hybreed which tastes great, is immune to the fungus, and has high yields. However, using gene splicing techniques they can quickly select just the combination of traits they want and automatically produce the ideal hybreed.

All of the genetic information comes from the same species so there isn't really anything new. All they've done is found a way to more efficiently produce hybreeds which farmers have already been producing using older techniques over the last 5,000 years.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Japher


I agree, but should be starve because the leaders of countries are ignorant? Should ppl starve because the public is ignorant? Most of the problem is that ppl are chosing to be ignorant and rant about something they know nothing about only that it contains the word Genetic and since there are a lot of other ignorant people ranting about things with that word then this stuff must be bad too... right? wrong.

I was going to say essentially what proteus said abot allergens - so it's not just ignorance. There is also the precautionary principle - "I ain't putting that in my body until I know for sure that it's safe."

But people aren't starving over other people's ignorance. If indeed GM-foods would cure the famine problems in Africa (and I know of no evidence for this) then the African farmer is in a bind. The farmers must crops to sell to the Euros or raise crops to feed the nation. We might ask who is more wrong - the Euros in adhereing to their values and thus creating the market tension or the African Farmer for placing the value of the Euro over the lives of his or her fellow citizens.

If indeed you have an intractable conflict between the preferences expressed in the market, the profit motives of farmers, and the lives of starving people, then you have a classic market failure. This could be remedied by:

(1) An agricultural policy that requires the farmers to produce sufficient foodstuffs to feed the nation before exporting. This would cause a rise in Euro food prices as cheaper African imports are eshewed due to GM techniques. The Euros at that point might decide that their preferences cost to much. Or the Euros might find another source.

(2) An agricultural policy that sets a tax to capture the externailty of starvation imposed by the farmers' profit seeking activity and use that money to by food from other sources.

But I fail to see why the Euros should be the one to forgo their values in order to prevent starvation in Africa if indeed this is contributing to said starvation.

People either ignore or fear what they don't understand, and political policy should not be made out of ignorance. If that is what is going on here then that is wrong. Yet, I agree with Oerdin that it is market protection, which is good if you have a market and people aren't starving because of it.

Agreed on the ignorance part - please tell that to the sanctity of cytoplasm crowd that is holding up stem-cell research. But allowing GM foods on the market with the information of what foods are GM (either by labeling GM foods directly or non-GM foods labeling themselves as such) should be perfectly acceptable. Even if it is ignorance driving the opposition to GM foods, it would not be government policy blocking GM food, but the freedom of choice of the consumer. And that is just how the market works (or fails to).

[The Templar]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
If bungee-jump companies say the risk is minimal, no one may point out the risk or label chess-playing to be safer, is that also for "policy" to decide and ram down people's throat?

It's certainly the policy of Monsanto.

[HershOstropoler]

Monsanto are a bunch of braindead chicken****ers. The more they try to play hardball, the more resistance and hysteria to their products they create.

[gunkulator]

I propose a label be placed on all food grown in France because when it's harvested, French people touch it and get their cooties on it. Oh sure, French cooties haven't been proven to be dangerous but, hey, it's better to let the consumer decide.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by gunkulator
I propose a label be placed on all food grown in France because when it's harvested, French people touch it and get their cooties on it. Oh sure, French cooties haven't been proven to be dangerous but, hey, it's better to let the consumer decide.

That about sums up the level of scientific thought going into most of the banning and labeling effort.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by gunkulator
I propose a label be placed on all food grown in France because when it's harvested, French people touch it and get their cooties on it. Oh sure, French cooties haven't been proven to be dangerous but, hey, it's better to let the consumer decide.

There already is. If you buy food made in france it'll have "made in france" stamped on the package...

[Gibsie]

They can get around it by having it packaged in another country though, then that counts as the countrt it was made in

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Gibsie
They can get around it by having it packaged in another country though, then that counts as the countrt it was made in

That's true... the packaging of the product determines the 'Made in'.

I don't understand this labeling of GM foods. Like pointed out earlier, every food has been GMed, they are just doing it faster now. Sure, if you want label your food as 'Organic', which basically means less GM than the regular food, but to assume that there can be any food that hasn't been GMed in the past is just silly.

[Geronimo]

sorry, the gist of my post had already been posted here twice.

[Odin]

I am not against GMOs, I am against greedy jackasses like Monsanto who try to patent a living thing. Living things should not be patented.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The ban is still on? Funny, I used to think it was lifted in October 2002.

Out of curiosity did they ever pay the fines the EU slapped on them?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't understand this labeling of GM foods. Like pointed out earlier, every food has been GMed, they are just doing it faster now. Sure, if you want label your food as 'Organic', which basically means less GM than the regular food, but to assume that there can be any food that hasn't been GMed in the past is just silly.

Not only faster.
They also have a greater Liberty of altering the genetic Layout of certain Plants and therefore also have a greater Chance to cause harm.
As in the Example with the genetic manipulated Soybeans, where DuPont tried to introduce Genes of Nuts and by doing it also introduced the Genes which caused the Allergenes to which Peanut Allergics showed increased Sensitivity to be produced by the Soybeans.
Afterwards they also tried to introduce the Genes of Sunflowers into the Soybeans, but again they triggered the Production of certain Allergenes and so they had to abandon the Project to increaser the Productivity of Soybeans.

So I think that this new Stage of Gene manipulating bears much greater Dangers for the consumer than the traditional way of genetic Manipulation through systematic Breeding.
At least if you don´t thoroughly test the Plants which are produced by this newer Form of genetic Manipulation.

[yavoon]

it just seems like a good deal for the EU. they pay their farmers enuff. they hardly want more competition.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity did they ever pay the fines the EU slapped on them?

1996: European Commission imposes a worldwide ban on British beef exports
1999: Commission declares worldwide markets open again
2000: Germany agrees to take UK imports
2001: European Court of Justice rules French refusal to take British beef illegal
June 2002: Commission asks European Court to impose daily fines of £100,000 against France
Sept 2002: French food agency advises lifting the ban and the French government complies



Fines cannot be imposed retrospectively, so no.

[Odin]

If greedy corporations don't get in the way, GMOs can do a lot of good. Grasses grown in 3rd world counties (rice, sourgum, millet, etc.) are poor in protein. The plants can be modified so that more protein goes to the seed, thus helping the health of the people.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Odin
If greedy corporations don't get in the way,

I think you mean irrational European hysteria and stupidity.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think you mean irrational European hysteria and stupidity.

No, I mean greedy jackasses like Monsanto.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, without 'greedy' corporations you don't get GM food at all .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, without 'greedy' corporations you don't get GM food at all .

Libertarians are too naive to take part in this discussion because they think corporations are good.

LIVING THINGS SHOULDN'T BE PATENTED, IT IS UNETHICAL!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Communists are too dumb to take part in this discussion because they think corporations are bad .

Corporations ARE good. Much better than the government. I'll trust Dell to build me a better computer than the US government anyday .

And, IIRC, a vast majority of genetic modification of foods to make them 'better' have been done by corporations, not the government.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Corporations ARE good. Much better than the government. I'll trust Dell to build me a better computer than the US government anyday .

Only if you´vegot the money.
If you don´t have the money, the Salespeople at Dell probably won´t even look at you

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only if you´vegot the money.
If you don´t have the money, the Salespeople at Dell probably won´t even look at you

Neither will the government .