VeggieBoards banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, one of my buddies found this artical and I was dying to know what you all think.... <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/jellyfish_potato.cfm" target="_blank">Weird Food!</a><br><br><br><br>
For those of you not wanting to go and read... I'll explain. Basically they have taken a certain gene from jellyfish and bred it with potatoes so the farmers can hold a black light to the taters and if they glow it means they need water...<br><br><br><br>
What is this world coming to?!?!? This is just too dang weird for me to... stomach... <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"><br><br><br><br>
Edited to add... we wouldn't actually be EATING these mutant potatoes.. they are used as markers to tell them when to water. They remove the glowing spuds before they harvest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
603 Posts
There's so many fruit and veggies that are genetically modified now, I always make sure I buy organic. I don't want to be putting some wierd chemical or animal DNA into my body. GROSS!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,440 Posts
GMO is a very bad thing....<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/mad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":mad:"><br><br><br><br>
I think it's got to be banned until we know what the side effects are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
GM Food For Thought<br><br><br><br>
by Mickey Z; June 30, 2003<br><br><br><br>
Unless you've gone exclusively organic, the odds are you've eaten potatoes that are registered pesticides. Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potato is engineered to produce the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Bt kills the Colorado potato beetle but it is also in every one of the New Leaf Superior's cells. Thus, it is legally registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a pesticide, not a food...and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot regulate the New Leaf Superior potato because the FDA does not have the authority to regulate pesticides.<br><br><br><br>
This would be an interesting and important issue even if it began and ended with the New Leaf Superior but the concerns swirling around genetically modified (GM) food run far deeper than a baked bug killer. Among the countless GM projects in use or in development, we have trees engineered never to flower, potatoes mixed with jellyfish genes that glow in the dark when they need watering, and so-called "edible vaccines."<br><br><br><br>
Is any of this safe? Is it even understood? Corporate proponents and their flacks would like us to believe so and they often go to great lengths to discredit critics. For example, the most recent GM defense paints agro-giants as saviors: altruistic entities trying to feed the world. As part of his bullying effort to force GM food on the EU, President (sic) Bush declared, "European governments should join, not hinder, the great cause of ending hunger in Africa." But hunger isn't a result of insufficient resources...it's more about the inequitable distribution of abundant resources. In a recent study of food production and hunger, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization concluded, "Globally, there is enough land, soil and water, and enough potential for future growth in yields, to make the necessary production feasible."<br><br><br><br>
Hunger is a political problem that GM food will not and cannot solve. Roughly 150 million acres of farmland around the world are planted with GM crops...primarily soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. These four big moneymakers do little if anything to nourish hungry people in developing countries.<br><br><br><br>
"The field is dominated by five very large multinational corporations," says Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation. "For these corporations, there is no profit to investing in expensive research on new products that can only be purchased by subsistence African farmers with little money. So quite logically, these companies are not focused on improving the basic crops of the developing world such as millet, sorghum, cowpeas, yams or cassava."<br><br><br><br>
What these companies are focused on is ignoring public sentiment and rigorous science. Early in 2001, the Royal Society of Canada--the nation's foremost scientific body--said there was insufficient research into the potential allergic effects and toxicity of genetically engineered foods. GM foods could cause "serious risks to human health," the society said. "Genetic engineering of food has far outrun the science that must be its first governing discipline," adds Ralph Nader. "Many unknowns attend the insertion of genes across species, from ecological risks to food allergies. These unknowns beg for investigation."<br><br><br><br>
Long-term (and unbiased) research is needed to make anything approaching an accurate assessment. While such investigation does not appear forthcoming at this juncture, there is enough already known about GM food to put its safety in doubt:<br><br><br><br>
*Scientists have discovered that the aforementioned Bt may produce allergies in people. A July 1999 study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers shows that Bt "can provoke immunological changes indicative of a developing allergy. With long-term exposure, affected individuals may develop asthma or other serious allergic reactions."<br><br><br><br>
*Genetic engineers use antibiotic "markers" in almost every GM organism to indicate that the organism has been successfully engineered. These markers may play a role in the diminishing efficacy of antibiotics against diseases.<br><br><br><br>
*Scientists warn that once the GM organisms and their altered genes are released into nature, they may spread widely. Poisons, mutagens, and carcinogens might be created in harmful concentrations.<br><br><br><br>
*English Nature, Britain's chief conservation agency, believes GM farming will lead to a new generation of herbicide-resistant crops, which could devastate the countryside. Dr. Brian Johnson, a co-author of the English Nature report, said: "If you hit them with most of the conventional herbicides they just smile at you. They certainly don't die."<br><br><br><br>
*GM soy-based infant formula has raised levels of estrogen, and today more than 1 percent of three-year-old U.S. girls have pubic hair. Any links?<br><br><br><br>
*Scientists believe GM crops may be deadly to wildlife (i.e. the Monarch butterfly) and may result in increased pesticide pollution and soil damage, genetic contamination of the environment, and risks to biodiversity.<br><br><br><br>
*Tobacco plants were genetically engineered to produce the Gamma-linoleic acid. Instead the plant unexpectedly mainly produced the toxic octadecatetraenic acid. This substance does not exist in the natural tobacco plant. (Reddy SA, Thomas TL. Nature Biotechnology, vol 14, sid 639-642, May 1996).<br><br><br><br>
*When a yeast was manipulated for increased fermentation there was an unexpected production of a metabolite (methyl-glyoxal) in toxic and mutagenic concentrations. (Inose, T. Murata, K. Int. J. Food Science Tech. 30: 141-146, 1995).<br><br><br><br>
*When a gene from the Brazil Nut was inserted into a Soy bean it appeared that it unexpectedly caused strong allergic reactions in people allergic to nuts who never had any problems formerly in eating soy products.(Nordlee, J.A. et al. The New England Journal of Medicine 14: 688-728; 1996).<br><br><br><br>
GM advocates point to studies and statements from scientific bodies as support for their safety claims. However, technology like GM food is typically based upon research that is funded by corporations. In their book, "Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future," authors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber discuss the vast amount of time that "a modern researcher spends writing grant proposals; coddling department heads; corporate donors, and government bureaucrats; or engaging in any of the other activities that are necessary to obtain research funding." The influence of this money on research can result in the suppression of certain studies while corporations commission writers to pen favorable articles in peer-reviewed journals. In 1999, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Drummond Rennie, complained that the "influence of private funding on medical research has created 'a race to the ethical bottom.'"<br><br><br><br>
Government agencies have also become bottom dwellers. "Pharmaceutical companies are big campaign finance contributors having given $44 million over the last ten years," explains Dr. Ray Greek, president of Americans For Medical Advancement. "Food and Drug Administration scientists who approve drugs or decide upon regulations are also current, past or future employees of the drug industry. They are inextricably tied to the industry that they are supposed to be policing. What this means is that the FDA is effectively financed and staffed by the pharmaceutical industry. The agency 'works for' the industry, not for consumers, because consumers are not making campaign contributions; nor are they arbiters of job security."<br><br><br><br>
In such an environment, it comes as no surprise to hear Philip J. Regal, a biologist at the University of Minnesota equate the current lack of regulation with "playing Russian roulette with public health." Regal adds: "We've had years and years of scientific discussion about this, and the conclusion is very clear. If it continues along this path, some of these foods are eventually going to hurt somebody."<br><br><br><br>
"Recombinant DNA technology is an inherently risky method for producing new foods," warns Dr. Richard Lacey, professor of medical microbiology at the University of Leeds. "Its risks are in large part due to the complexity and interdependency of the parts of a living system, including its DNA. Wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner into an organism's genome necessarily causes some degree of disruption, and the disruption could be multifaceted. It is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism."<br><br><br><br>
As with any new technology, the onus is on the proponents to prove safety...not the critics to prove danger. If there is doubt, the technology should not be utilized (see: DDT and Agent Orange). If corporations want glow-in-the-dark potatoes, let's do away with the subterfuge and shine some light on the process. Our scientific/medical paradigm is overloaded with "institutions" like vaccinations, animal experimentation, nuclear power, and pharmaceuticals that were developed in the dark and force-fed to the public. Those who question these theologies are met with mockery and personal attacks...and often find themselves relegated to the fringe. Will the same happen to anyone challenging GM food?<br><br><br><br>
More than 450 scientists recently signed a statement calling for a complete moratorium on the release of GM crops. "It is time to re-establish priorities," Nader concludes. "Protection of human health and the environment must take precedence over corporate efforts to rush the latest product to market and please investors. The commodification of life must be stopped. Sci-fi-like proclamations about 'improving' the human species through germline modification must not be permitted to translate into public policy."<br><br><br><br>
No one can say with certainty that GM foods are safe or unsafe. Isn't that reason enough to mandate more research...under public scrutiny?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,440 Posts
"*Scientists warn that once the GM organisms and their altered genes are released into nature, they may spread widely. Poisons, mutagens, and carcinogens might be created in harmful concentrations. "<br><br><br><br>
inreversible........consider the consequenses.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
I think they should genetically modify some humans so they aren't such bloody brainless morons.<br><br><br><br>
Too bad money and greed runs the world instead of logic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
That's it: money. As long as the big guys make profit by playing god with nature, let someone else worry about the consequences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
"but scientists claim it could save agricultural costs and tackle dire water shortage problems in the future. "<br><br>
----------------------------<br><br><br><br><br><br>
OMG! The stupidity of our so-called civilized societies is clear there. And how much fresh water is wasted in the production of huge amounts of animal feed crops and also in drinkng water for these animals? So rather than think about that problem, they investigate frigging up nature even more .... why do people always want to make their own problems?<br><br><br><br>
I just shake my head at the stupidity of that one sentence above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Hunger is a political problem that GM food will not and cannot solve. Roughly 150 million acres of farmland around the world are planted with GM crops...primarily soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. These four big moneymakers do little if anything to nourish hungry people in developing countries.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Of course not!<br><br>
NOR does *NON-GM foods* solve the problem<br><br>
STUPID remark, when the article states earlier that:<br><br>
*distribution is the problem*<br><br>
It wouldn't matter *what* food was available if distribution is truly the obstacle.<br><br><br><br>
Since we don't know (at least long term) what effects GM foods produce, I guess it's just safer to condemn it anyway<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/huh.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":confused:"><br><br>
Also ignore that no one has died, either.<br><br><br><br>
Since the altered potatoes seem to be geared toward possible water conservation, let's ignore that aspect and condemn it only on the basis that *all GM food must be bad*<br><br><br><br>
LOL<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/grin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":D">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
Welll when in doubt , I say caution is best. If these scientists haven't proven that there won't be detrimental effects , then why should this be going on.<br><br><br><br>
---------------------<br><br>
"Since the altered potatoes seem to be geared toward possible water conservation, let's ignore that aspect and condemn it only on the basis that *all GM food must be bad*"<br><br>
-----------------<br><br><br><br>
I'd like to know the comparison between water usage for potato growing to that of all water used in meat production (crop growing and drinking water for animals ... hell, throw fresh water polluted by animal farming in there too while we're at it ;-) ) .... but of course these people would rather mess up normal potatoes than look into that issue ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I'd like to know the comparison between water usage for potato growing to that of all water used in meat production (crop growing and drinking water for animals ... hell, throw fresh water polluted by animal farming in there too while we're at it ;-) ) .... but of course these people would rather mess up normal potatoes than look into that issue ;-)<br></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Irrelevant to a potato farmer....or to other vegetable only, farmers.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Welll when in doubt , I say caution is best. If these scientists haven't proven that there won't be detrimental effects , then why should this be going on</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
The opposite of your statement, is equally true....<br><br>
It may take more time to establish what, IF ANY, detrimental effects, there are...<br><br>
SO far, allergies are the main concern..<br><br>
NOT death...<br><br><br><br>
Caution is not the same as condemnation, IMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
I saw these red bell peppers in the store a few weeks ago... no lie, they were the size of my HEAD! Maybe bigger. They were unlike any I'd ever seen. I kept holding them up and just staring. I couldn't get over it. I bought one so I could bring it home and show my husband, but I was afraid to eat it. I wish I had a picture. There's no way they were "natural".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
"Irrelevant to a potato farmer....or to other vegetable only, farmers."<br><br>
--------------------------<br><br><br><br>
Who cares about localized situations? The world is a unified interlaced entity. The water shortage effects everyone not just potato farmers. I thought the point was to help with the water shortage ....... ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">but scientists claim it could save agricultural costs and tackle dire water shortage problems in the future.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Who cares about localized situations? The world is a unified interlaced entity. The water shortage effects everyone not just potato farmers. I thought the point was to help with the water shortage ....... ???</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Obviously, scientists and the actual farmers DO care, whether it is LOCAL or GLOBAL...<br><br>
I CARE..<br><br><br><br>
Are you suggesting we should do NOTHING, unless it can be applied globally?<br><br><br><br>
Because so far, animal food is increasing, not decreasing.<br><br>
Whereas, beef has declined..in its place is a major increase in chicken and turkey production.<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/huh.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":confused:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
"Obviously, scientists and the actual farmers DO care, whether it is LOCAL or GLOBAL...<br><br>
I CARE.."<br><br>
----------------------------<br><br><br><br><br><br>
I was referring to your comment that my previous statement was irrelevant. The water shortage will effect a large area... not just potato farms. Therefore all the water and it's usage affects the potato and vegetable farmer. It only makes sense that the largest waster of fresh water in human food production should be looked at first (ie , animal production). I said "who cares" because I think worrying about potatoes as a usage of water is kindof "small potatoes" considering the huge wastage (and pollution) of fresh water in animal production.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
-------------------------<br><br>
"Are you suggesting we should do NOTHING, unless it can be applied globally?"<br><br>
----------------------<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Obviously my point of view is from a vegan's in which all animal products are irrelivant and wasteful. That's my point<br><br><br><br>
The things I said before meant that water shortage is a problem to everyone ... so altering potatoes wouldn't do much for potato farmers if there's not enough water anyway.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Anyway, if water shortage becomes bad enough, animal production will lessen. It's simple mathetmatics ...... if that 'rich western' trend of can't be sustained, it won't be ... regardless of what all the rich white steak eating people in the west (and other "civilized" places) want ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,374 Posts
I'm less concerned for humans than I am for the wholesale destruction of the Earth's native flora...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,691 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by dk_art</i><br><br><b>I think they should genetically modify some humans so they aren't such bloody brainless morons.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
lmao <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/grin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":D"><br><br>
i totally agree.<br><br><br><br>
personally i don't want to eat a strawberry that was spliced with fish dna or whatever, and i think all gmo foods should be labeled so we know what we're eating. i know not ALL non-organic foods are modified, so they should be labeled so we can decide for ourselves if we want to support it. i personally can't afford to buy all organic <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("> so i'd at least like to have the option of not buying something because i know it's genitically altered.<br><br><br><br>
in any case i think it's wrong wrong wrong. as wrong as cloning. so it may benefit a few people here and there, what kind of effect will it have on everyone as a whole, and on the environment? we just shouldn't mess with genetics, it's going to screw up the natural balance of things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I was referring to your comment that my previous statement was irrelevant. The water shortage will effect a large area... not just potato farms. Therefore all the water and it's usage affects the potato and vegetable farmer. It only makes sense that the largest waster of fresh water in human food production should be looked at first (ie , animal production). I said "who cares" because I think worrying about potatoes as a usage of water is kindof "small potatoes" considering the huge wastage (and pollution) of fresh water in animal production.<br></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I guess I was talking water conservation and GM altered potatoes that were designed to help with water conservation.<br><br>
YOU, are talking about some impending water shortage, and place the burden of responsibility on animal production.<br><br><br><br>
I doubt that the animal production is any more of a proliferator than vegetables, when you take into consideration that most all of the farm animals are utilized, even their waste. Even the wastes of vegetable farming are utilized to feed those same animals.<br><br><br><br>
I guess you have to start somewhere...the fact that you view the potato water conservation attempt, as *small* doesn't make it worthless, which IS MY point.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">The things I said before meant that water shortage is a problem to everyone ... so altering potatoes wouldn't do much for potato farmers if there's not enough water anyway.<br></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Ah, that is if you accept the *IF* part of your statment.<br><br>
This thread didn't start with that *IF* as its premise.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Anyway, if water shortage becomes bad enough, animal production will lessen. It's simple mathetmatics ...... if that 'rich western' trend of can't be sustained, it won't be ... regardless of what all the rich white steak eating people in the west (and other "civilized" places) want ;-)</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
ALL production will lessen, not just animal.<br><br>
The rich, white lacto/ovo veg*ns stand to lose too, not just the rich white, steak eaters. LOL<br><br>
Talk about stereotyping??<br><br>
Guess hydroponics will be deemed worthless as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,440 Posts
"SO far, allergies are the main concern..<br><br>
NOT death..."<br><br><br><br>
That must be because it's the only thing that GMO companies want to tell us/consider.<br><br><br><br>
The majority of food in the world is based on only 20 kinds of plants.<br><br><br><br>
The modification of the plants is pretty random; just wait and see what happens approach.<br><br><br><br>
GMO plants cross with non-gmo plants. Properities of the GMO plant can transfer into the "wild" varietty.<br><br><br><br>
When/if after let's say 10 years the GMO plant shows big defects, these defects are already in the wild variety plants incorporated.<br><br><br><br>
When/if these defects are "serious" then we could loose our basis we live on.<br><br><br><br>
Just imagine what would happen if corn/mais would stop to exist.<br><br>
Or plain wheat ?<br><br><br><br>
A lot of people would die of starvation and then we could say "deadth by GMO".
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top