[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods



Lawrence Hall wrote:
> 
> joshua@cimatron.co.il wrote:
> >
> > Gene splicing canNOT be compared to natural
> > mutation in terms of stability or safety.
> >
> >
> > Joshua
> 
> I don't where you got that idea from because natural mutation IS a form
> of gene manipulation! As far as stability goes, natural mutation can also
> be very unstable.  If foreign genes are spliced into a plant and this
> config is not stable it won't be passed on to the F1 generation therefore
> it will not be cultivated as a genetically engineered food. With your
> comment about the saftey of genetically engineered foods--hogwash!  These
> foods are PERFECTLY SAFE!!! The genes that are spliced into the natural
> genome of a plant are from other plants or animals where the gene has a
> desirable effect.  

Again - there is NO parallel in natural mutation for the splicing of totally foreign 
genes from one order of life into another.

The genes that are spliced have a desirable effect in their home environment - but 
that is no guarantee that their effect will be beneficial (or at least harmless) in 
the totally new environment into which it has been spliced. GUESS WHAT? plants 
produce all sorts of compounds that animals don't, and vice versa. There is NO way to 
be certain that the chemical created by the newly spliced gene isn't interacting 
within this alien environment in an unpredicted way. Add another layer of complexity 
by trying to take into account how our bodies will treat the mix, and you have a 
technology that is far from proven safe.

> Scientists do not transfer detrimental genes into the
> plants in which they are trying to improve.

Well......most genetically modified foods I have heard of are not focused on 
increasing yields or nutritional value. They are focused on a proprietary goal - like 
(for example) the Monsanto tomato bred to resist (surprise) Monsanto herbicides. 

What new chemical compounds bestow this resistance? What happens when they are 
introduced into our food chain? I think that Monsanto knows about as much about the 
effects these chemicals have on humans as they did about pesticide residues when they 
began releasing pesticides..........which is none too encouraging. We're only now 
aware of the true depth of cost/loss balance in pesticide use. I have every reason to 
be suspicious of Monsanto's silence the second time around -

 - and as a consumer, I want to be able to avoid these foods if I wish. Why shouldn't 
people responsible for our foodstuffs be held to an ethical standard of 
safety testing, just like drug companies? If the product is so safe, why are Monsanto 
and its sisters trying to stop labelling of these strains in consumer markets? If 
everything is so safe, they should be spending their money on advertising, not 
lobbying to make me a guinea pig against my will.

Joshua


Follow-Ups: References: