Becky C

This conversation is closed.

What's your opinion on genetically engineering food?

They can have harmful effects on the human body BUT it can grow faster than the traditional version which would then mean there's more food but also can grow at different seasons and climate's. If it was to become that the majority of food is genetically engineered then there should be a law that it says it on the packet as some religions believe against it and would not want to eat it. Genetically modified foods are said to be high in nutrients, and contain more minerals and vitamins than those found in traditionally grown foods. Other than this, these foods are known to taste better. Another reason for people opting for genetically engineered foods is that they have an increased shelf life and so there is less fear of foods getting rotten quickly. There are more pro's and is a good idea but we cannot out rule the cons.

  • thumb
    May 16 2012: I am all for it. I think it's one of those things which is safety tested to death so paradoxically becomes safer through public mistrust (like nuclear energy). I think the only good argument that could be made against GM is that they don't serve much of a purpose in the Western world where food is fairly abundant. As for labelling GM foods, ok, but not for religious reasons. First of all, no religion has had the precience to predict GM so any religion that would demand a dietary favor concerning should be ignored. Furthermore, all our current crops are crossbreeds. Everything we eat has been tempered with before, the only difference with GM is that you can cross the species barrier.
  • thumb
    May 29 2012: If there is nothing wrong with it, why don't they want to label it? It doesn't take a genetics scientist to figure that one out.
  • thumb
    May 21 2012: GMOs are another way for big corporations to control food which is a bad thing. But as far as long term effects are concerned we know GMOs are safe because we have all been eating them for fifty years or more. The science of mutagenics or mutation breeding involves exposing plant embryos to known mutagens such as radiation or chemicals and then growing out the mutated plants to see if any of the mutations are useful. This has been standard practice in agriculture since the end of WW2. To me this random mutation seems much more risky than modern methods but its too late to put the genie back now. Ever eaten calrose rice? It's mutagenic.
  • thumb
    May 21 2012: Becky I agree that the early results look like there are more pros than cons about the foods themselves. I am more concerned about the motivation of corporations when they patent "their" gene. Based on recent reports it seems to be more about developing powerful monopolies for maximal profit than about benefiting mankind. Was it Monsanto that sued a farmer for stealing their canola seed pollen in Canada when the wind blew it onto his land? I heard they lost and the Farmer counter sued that their pollen invaded his carefully developed crops and won. I am afraid that in America where Corps have "equal" rights he would have been put out of business.
  • thumb
    May 21 2012: GM is not the problem.

    There is no way that GM can be sufficiently tested for long term outcomes in an environment where we have no choice - it will just be.

    It is already done and we will live or die - and no one knows. This is a leap of faith.

    So much for faith.
  • thumb
    May 21 2012: My problem with the genetically engineered industry is how it effects farmers and agriculture in general. Corporations controlling seed patents and the genetically altered food like corn for example is moving naturally to other farms being spread by wind or birds. The ideas that people cant grow their own food on their own land. Deep down agriculture is built into our ancestry. I would embrace growing my own food, saving money and being healthy. I don't want a corporation that manufactures paraquat and agent orange influencing my food.
    P.S. I am proud of how Europe has took a stand against GMO's America has not been as vocal as the facts have not been totally revealed to the public.
    • thumb
      Jun 12 2012: Interesting that you reference Europe as a model since over the last several years they have began to relax their GM regulations- at the demand of the farmers. Farmers are realizing that they need GM crops just to be competitive.
      • thumb
        Jun 12 2012: Its all a matter of trust. Its the European people that are more vocal. I am sure government is more lax. Farmers are being forced into this with control of seed patents. So much for organic farming when someone else decides what you grow.
  • thumb
    May 15 2012: Please be careful not to over emphasize the 'harmful' effects on the human body. I am unaware of any human trials in GE feeding experiments. Also, in hogs (very similar in gastrointestinal system to humans) an extensive study of feeding GMO corn there was no recordable negative effect. Many of the perceived negative associations with GE foods have not been tested or substantiated with experimental evidence.

    Teagasc. "Global research consortium presents findings on safety of genetically modified food." ScienceDaily, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 15 May 2012.
  • thumb
    May 15 2012: I think the production of genetically engineered food should continue as long as there's a demand for it; But there should be a label on food packages that differentiate GE foods from naturally grown ones.
  • thumb
    May 15 2012: So far with the help of it we could resolve the problem of HUNGER to some extent........let's .just travel 100 years back
    what was the population than globally ?
    what was the available cultivateable land?
    what was the level of HUNGER ?
    and compare all those with present time.....
    Though problem of HUNGER / Nutrition can only partially be solved with it....but it played it part well I feel.