A lot of European countries have banned a series of American food products which are genetically-modified. In our country a lot of popular food products in the market are genetically-modified... Personally, I've eaten a lot of them and i still don't get any complications. Also, the rice variety/ies that has been widely used nowadays (which increased rice production dramatically) are genetically-modified... I want to know your views about this sensitive matter... should we eat/promote/further develop genetically-modified organisms/food


by the way, for those who are new to this matter, they are more popularly known as GMOs

I really don' know, but I love to eat. Maybe if you told me what kinds of foods are genetically modified then I would have an answer, since I don't really eat much rice, unless I'm getting Chinese food.

corn, a lot of canned goods like corned beef and beans and some coffee

half the time yes, half the time no. genentic modified food can save people, but it doesnt have all the nutrients in it. so more people die from eating the food instead of starving. most of the countries right now dont allow genetic modified food.

genetically modified food can overrun the native population like the salmon population. the salmon are seperated from each other so that there wont be any crazy breeding that will whipe out the native population.

i found out that KFC sold genetically modified food (which was the chicken only. good thing). i barely even went to there and eat, but a year ago i heard from a girl about this.

half the time yes, half the time no. genentic modified food can save people, but it doesnt have all the nutrients in it. so more people die from eating the food instead of starving. most of the countries right now dont allow genetic modified food.

genetically modified food can overrun the native population like the salmon population. the salmon are seperated from each other so that there wont be any crazy breeding that will whipe out the native population.

i found out that KFC sold genetically modified food (which was the chicken only. good thing). i barely even went to there and eat, but a year ago i heard from a girl about this.

There is actually nothing unsafe with genetically altered food. Genetically altered food must undergo tons of testing by the FDA to ensure that it is safe for humans and even further testing by the EPA to ensure that it will not harm the enviroment. Also genetically altered foods are often givven more nutrients than non modified food in addition to increaded growth rates. the truth is that with the current ammount of farms we have, if we didn't use genetically modified food we would not be able to generate anywhere near enough food to feed our population.

One thing you have to be careful of is where you get your information, there are many groups out there who will flat out lie about the safty of these foods.

There is actually nothing unsafe with genetically altered food. Genetically altered food must undergo tons of testing by the FDA to ensure that it is safe for humans and even further testing by the EPA to ensure that it will not harm the enviroment. Also genetically altered foods are often givven more nutrients than non modified food in addition to increaded growth rates. the truth is that with the current ammount of farms we have, if we didn't use genetically modified food we would not be able to generate anywhere near enough food to feed our population.

Granted, but the FDA also approved Vioxx for quite some time...

The point of the matter is that some genetically altered food contains certain hormones that have been known to effect a person's biology... It is rare and so on, but the FDA approves it anyway. (However, that is in VERY few genetically modified food products, for most have no real effect... They're just bigger and have more nutrients.) I guess Europe just doesn't want to take the chance.

i have nothin against it. as long as i can eat it and its not poisonous or carrying diseases i could care less. so yes

A lot of European countries have banned a series of American food products which are genetically-modified. In our country a lot of popular food products in the market are genetically-modified... Personally, I've eaten a lot of them and i still don't get any complications. Also, the rice variety/ies that has been widely used nowadays (which increased rice production dramatically) are genetically-modified... I want to know your views about this sensitive matter... should we eat/promote/further develop genetically-modified organisms/food


by the way, for those who are new to this matter, they are more popularly known as GMOsThey don't allow American products because they know that they (the country) are not good enough for that highly engineered product. I can't say I blame them. I mean why buy a well designed American product when you could buy an inflated P.O.S. that your own people make.

I mean wow........jk

I dunno. I am about to goto a school whose agriculture department develops the new plants. This allows for better growing seasons and tollerance to many conditions.

I vote "yes" on proposition "Genetically enhanced food."

GMO's - Geneticly Modified Organisms..

Products of these organisms contain extra proteins or substances that normally arrent in the original organism. People have no idea what the consequences are from these extra substances.

Different food organisations test these products on there safety. But there is no way to determen if a product is harmfull without longterm tests ON HUMANS (since when is a labrat a human? just because its DNA looks for 80% so on that of humans?)
And with long term i mean 20+ years.. Remember Jacob Creutzfeld Desease? Mad cow desease---> A Protein called a Prion.. travels to the brain and starts turning "healthy" prions in to the "Bad" form.. starting a chain reaction hurling towards your death... And this happens 20+ years after you ate that deseased cow...

So my point is: with out longterm test on humans, People could never ever be 100% certain if a GMO product is 100% safe.

You would rather eat something that issnt safe, could lead to sickniss or worse, JUST because some one told you it was safe? OR you start thinking for your own.

. . .

i say if its safe 4 us to eat it and there will be no side effects..........yup........hand me some...........ho ho ho

i say if its safe 4 us to eat it and there will be no side effects..........yup........hand me some...........ho ho ho

Yeah thats the whole point of this disscussion. Duh if GMO are safe than everyone would eat them.

The question we should ask ourselfs is: How do we know GMO's are safe?

reply to skaffa:

First of all most people are stupid, and no matter what there will be some people who believe some things are dangerous for you, so if they were safe not everyone would eat them.

second of all most people have no idea what they are eating, they just know that it is someone elses job to make sure that what they eat is safe.

We know GMO's are safe because the FDA does do that testing, also if for example we had corn, and lets say that we modified it to have vitamin C (assuming that it doesn't already have that). We do tests and see that it now does have vitamin C and nothing else extra. Then we know for sure that it will be safe, no questions, no doubt, no "we need 50 years of testing". It is the same as eating a calcium pill and corn. Although despite this alot of testing on animals (in extreamly high doses) and probably even on humans is done. Also mad cow disease has nothing to do with GMO's, and the threat is extreamly low.

Also why are you worring so much about it being 100% safe when stuff like driving is hundreds of times more dangerous. 43,000 people died in car accidents in the US in 2002, that sounds more dangerous to me.

Well...actually i will try to avoid eating them...I wouldn't buy them for sure if I know they are...but sometimes you just can't be too careful.

It's a bit stupid. As of now, they are more expensive than organic foods. Hardly anyone'd waste their dough on that, unless they're really rich, or really scared of death. Anyway, isn't eating modified food tantamount to eating... say... potato chips? They always tell you what goes in, but you can never know whether there's a reaction between certain ingredients during preparation that's harmful.

toma24135---> Uhm so you so because this organisation sayz " THis is safe" You would eat it even though you know they could be wrong.

Look nobody knows what extra genes organisms do. Scientist have a general idea. But they are baffeld every day by new findings... So you DONT know if you food is safe just because it has vit.C . May be vit c causes a chemical reaction with other substances in the GMO. There is no way people can check all the thousands of differtent substances in cells...

And for the car is also dagerous... mmm yeah what ever.. If you crash your car. You will have a positive or negative outcome instantly. If you eat GMO food there is a chance that you could end up with some F**ked up desease... in 20 years from now...

If someone would eat GMO food and just died.. nobody would eat it... Same for sigarettes.. If everyone who would smoke got sick with theire first cig. No body would be smoking... But no, you get sick in 20 years from now...

Get my point now.?

. . . PAX

Umm, scientists know more than you think. I don't know how much Biology you have taken but it isn't as complex as one migh believe. And they do check to make sure that other substances arn't created indirectly through chemical reactions by checking for all of the new chemicals made. You are from another country, so I can understand why you don't know much about hte FDA. Both my parrents are biologists, so I can tell you getting something approved by the FDA is no easy task. When creating a new drug for example, it usually takes ~10-15 years from the start of the project to get it to market. Well over half of that time is used in testing to make sure that the drug is effective and and not harmful. And if your data isn't up to snuff you won't get approved. So who should I trust, 15-20+ scientists who worked on creating the plant and the FDA (which was created with the soul goal of protecting me) who say it is safe, or you?

I study Life Science and Technologie @ Tu Delft in the Netherlands... In this course we look at the living cell with various tools like: Biochemistry, Biotechnologie, Gentics, Thermodynamics etc etc... So i've "some" knowledge about it.. (allmost finished my bachlore degree...)

Anywayz i did this case study on GMO's in my first year. And yes i've heard of the FDA. They check "everything"... You say they check on every chemical produced.. check out these websites...

www.biointegrity.org
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/1999/07/0285
Also Google this: "flavr savr" tomato.

FDA approved this GMO even after testing this GMO by there OWN scientists on rats, that the rats started having a pattern of stomach lesions... Mmm is that safe according to you? And remember they care about you. Not for the big fat checks GMO producing compagnies hand out like candy...

The European counterparts (every country in the EU has is own institiution and guided by Eu regulations http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l21119.htm ) of the FDA dissaproves the same foods that the FDA approves...

Doessnt that little fact make you think?

I mean common now.. Think for yourself... Dont let any one in this world tell you the "truth" ...

. . . PAX

First of all, the FDA is gov't regulated, and the people working for it are on gov't salaries, they don't get more money from approving certain food products, and if they did they did this (under the table) they would be fired.

you say
FDA approved this GMO even after testing this GMO by there OWN scientists on rats, that the rats started having a pattern of stomach lesions... Mmm is that safe according to you? And remember they care about you. Not for the big fat checks GMO producing compagnies hand out like candy...Although none of the pages you quote actually talk about this pattern of stomach lesions.
The first link is a very unprofessional page with a copyright ending in 2001 (it's an old page) It also says "
Many thanks to our corporate and individual sponsors (http://www.biointegrity.org/sponsors.htm) Your contributions welcome! (http://www.biointegrity.org/sponsors.htm)"
Not something that seems very trust worthy, I mean, talk about looking out for our own goods instead of what the "big fat checks" want.

Your second page mostly focuses on the economic side of this issue and in the end even seems to support GMO's.

And your last page talks about a eu is doing.

I also looked up that tomato you mentioned and found nothing about it being unsafe.

---
Look, Citing things is always good in an arguement, although these are barely on topic. I never heard of this GMO that causes lesions, although if you can show me proof that this event happened I will believe you. I find it very unlikely that they would approve this unless they knew specifically that this problem would only affect rats and not humans. (ie, Tylenol will kill dogs, although it is still safe for human consumption.)

Also there isn't enough time for us all to do the research on these plants, if we had to do all this research indivitually we would starve waiting for the test results. Just because your opinion is different that does not mean you are thinking for yourself while I am not. What research have you done on GMO's? Not don't misunderstand, I am not calling you ignorant for not doing years of research on GMO's, I doubt that you have the time to add another 8 hours of work to your day, but that is why we have people and orgainizations like the FDA, to tell is if things are safe so we don't have to do the work.

Ok your right about those links they suck. But the tomato is real. The scandal is real. ( to lazy to search the web for you ;))And yes your right about that nobody can do there own reasearch. But that is still no reason to trust the FDA or equivalents...

The only thing im trying to say here is that you can not trust no-one just because every one says GMO's are safe doesnt mean they are safe. People can, do and will lie if nessecery.

People are not sure about them. So why whould you eat them? When you eat GMO's you are just an ordenary lab rat.

FDA tests the GMOs for at about 10 years before they enter the market so that any long term effects would be noticed (they learned their lesson0.... I believe discouraging genetically-modified food is an insult to science...

If not to GMOs there would be no development in the food and agricultural industry

well the big thing is that the FDA is basically the only person doing these tests, They are the MOST trustworthy source on the safty of these drugs. So you may be right that they have made a few mistakes in the past, but your best bet is to listen to what they say. Note the millions of different life savving drugs/other things that they are correct about.

And, when you say by eating gmo's i am being a lab rat i think that is going abit far. Unless you can show evidence that all gmo's are dangerous, which is what you appear to be implying, that statement doesn't really make sense.

toma, are you aware that the FDA once said that asbestos was okay? They had no idea the potential harm it could have. Oh, I almost forgot... The approved OxyCotten. Not to mention LSD. And they recommend Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Wellbutron, Zyban, Remeron, Serzone, Effexor, Buspar, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroqual, Geodone, Depakote, Adderall, and Prozac... Despite how they all can cause suicidal ideation, mania, psychosis, and future drug dependence.

god's sake, that's why they are lengthening the test period so as to know the long term effects of a specific GMO, drug or any other chemical...

I think the only thing that we should worry about GMOs are the genes in the GMO that could (take note the word "could") go into an organisms genetic makeup thus, the organism that took in the GMO may develop new proteins in its body... which may have unwanted effects

but as i've said earlier, to compensate for such downside, the FDA performs long term lab tests

genetic material of the things you eat will not enter any of your cells. It is destroyed. Also an interesting thing, even if "good" genetic material (ie a part of your own genes) enters the blood stream it can cause problems for the cells that take it up. (biology teacher didn't go into great detail on the problems) This doesn't happen naturally though, this would be artificially done (ie injection). so you don't have to worry about the genetic material of what you eat.

Also DarkAztek, yes they used to think it was safe, that is why it was allowed. Now we know better and it isn't. If it wasn't for the FDA we would still be using it today, if not something far worse. You can't use an example where the FDA fixed a mistake they made to further your arguement, that just doesn't work. Also those drugs your listed are all perscription drugs, and have to be used properly to not have those sideeffects, and some of the ones listed were for curing some of hte symptoms you listed so I don't think you are correct. also you should note, that if the side effects of a drug are better than the problem it will probably be approved. Eg, if there was a drug that curred cancer but caused a rash, would you be mad at the FDA for approving a rash causing drug?

i eat modified food, but really it's not good to eat it all the time. whe i have time i cook food for myself with fresh ingredients. really, it's not good to eat modified food all the time although sometimes it's cheaper.

Yes. by genetically engeneering the food not only are we preserving the food and making their storage lives longer but we are also increasing are life spans.

Also DarkAztek, yes they used to think it was safe, that is why it was allowed. Now we know better and it isn't. If it wasn't for the FDA we would still be using it today, if not something far worse. You can't use an example where the FDA fixed a mistake they made to further your arguement, that just doesn't work. Also those drugs your listed are all perscription drugs, and have to be used properly to not have those sideeffects, and some of the ones listed were for curing some of hte symptoms you listed so I don't think you are correct. also you should note, that if the side effects of a drug are better than the problem it will probably be approved. Eg, if there was a drug that curred cancer but caused a rash, would you be mad at the FDA for approving a rash causing drug?

Actually, it wasn't the FDA that discovered those things were terrible for humans. It was scientists and government officials unaffiliated with the FDA. Afterwards, the FDA suddenly said, "Oh snap! Don't take LSD. It will make you schizophrenic." Look it up yourself.

I'd also like to note I'm having a terrible time reading what you write. Besides, LSD cannot be used properly or safely in any way, shape, or form. Same with asbestos. And for the other drugs, they ARE taken properly, yet they still DO cause all of those things. That's why they're so dangerous. Oh yeah, having psychosis is MUCH better than being depressed. There are many other methods to ridding depression, even in the most advanced forms, than taking those drugs. Easy ones too.

Yup, the FDA has lengthened their testing periods since the days of LSD. But wait, what about all those OTHER drugs I listed? What about the recent news articles about drugs being taken off the market suddenly, despite the fact they've been there for years? What about Duract, Selecryn, Oraflex, Rezulin, Arava, all which were approved for fighting liver toxicity, yet were suddenly snatched from the market?

Eating genetically modified food could be far worse than we know. If there was even a 1 in a trillion chance that I could develop a serious soma or psche problem from them, then they should not be on the market.

well i dunno bout u, but the food that i eat on a regular bases is genetically modified....yes and that food is......rice....
but siriously, it depends on wat food, i mean if its something like a cow or a chicken then no, but if its a crop that dopesn't spread tio wildly then i don relaly mind

1. the fda doesn't actually do the testing for drugs and stuff, they look at the research and testing that the scientists do and ensure that it is accruate and enough to show that the drug is safe.

I don't know alow about LSD, but I doubt that it is harmful in low doses. Also, again, don't use their past mistakes as arguements against their current methods.

When a drug lists sideeffects like psychosis as a side effect that does not mean that you will get psychosis. Someone in their test group got it. If for example, during the testing for Tylenol one of hte subjects got hit by a car, depending on hopw many test subjects there were they may have to list that as a potential side effect. Drug companies have to list everything. There are vaccienes that you have been givven by your doctor that have death listed as a potential side effect, although you still take them because only about 1:1000000 people die from it.

Eating genetically modified food could be far worse than we know. If there was even a 1 in a trillion chance that I could develop a serious soma or psche problem from them, then they should not be on the market.
that is the most rediculous statement ever. You have to realize that everything you do has risks in it. when you go out ot eat you are at a greater risk of dieing from food poisioning than that. what you have to realize that if the benifits outweigh the potential harm something is going to be approved. (ie, the vacciene to smallpox will kill a certain % of the people who take it, although it obviously saves alot more).
--
What about the recent news articles about drugs being taken off the market suddenly, despite the fact they've been there for years? What about Duract, Selecryn, Oraflex, Rezulin, Arava, all which were approved for fighting liver toxicity, yet were suddenly snatched from the market?
Well I would like to see these news articles. But either way you will never, not under any circumstances have a scientists tell you that there is a definate 0% chance of harm from a product. And if you don't want to use any product that goes through the FDA because you are worried that they could have been wrong then that means that you should never have any medicine, surgery or food of any kind. All of those products pass through the FDA which ensure that they ar safe, even non genetically modified foods, which if not prepaired properly can be quite harmful. So tell me this, which do you think is better for you, going with what scientists who spend years studying a drug say, or not taking antibiotics when you get a blood infection?
---
There are many other methods to ridding depression, even in the most advanced forms, than taking those drugs. Easy ones too. Show me, and how me the data to back up this claim.

1. the fda doesn't actually do the testing for drugs and stuff, they look at the research and testing that the scientists do and ensure that it is accruate and enough to show that the drug is safe.

The FDA has hired staff and scientists to investigate their findings. A very extensive group.

I don't know alow about LSD, but I doubt that it is harmful in low doses. Also, again, don't use their past mistakes as arguements against their current methods.


LSD is harmful in any doses because of the hallucinagetic properties which can cause a number of mental illnesses and soma problems.

When a drug lists sideeffects like psychosis as a side effect that does not mean that you will get psychosis. Someone in their test group got it. If for example, during the testing for Tylenol one of hte subjects got hit by a car, depending on hopw many test subjects there were they may have to list that as a potential side effect. Drug companies have to list everything. There are vaccienes that you have been givven by your doctor that have death listed as a potential side effect, although you still take them because only about 1:1000000 people die from it.

Psychosis (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=psychosis) isn't a specific disease. It is a term used for a number of mental problems. Being hit by a car and suddenly having schizophrenia due to taking a medicine is completely different. One is complete chance and the other is actually biologically caused by the drug. Sorry. Your point is completely moot. If 1 in a billion people can just drop dead from a certain drug and there is no way of knowing WHO it will effect or WHY, then that drug should NOT be on the market. If there is a chance of 1 in a billion that I might get some severe mental illness from it, AGAIN, it should not be on the market.

Yup, everything has risks. But look at the PROBLEMS being solved. The drugs I listed were for depression and for the liver. There are many drugs out there already and many other treatments that are powerful and can treat both, with very little side effects. However, if it can cause MANIA (a permanent personality disorder), then guess what? It's not friggen worth it. You aren't looking at the whole concept at once. The cons outweigh the pros.

You want examples? Riazon (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/22/diabetes.drug.01/). Vioxx (http://www.ccd2000.org/). Duract (http://static.highbeam.com/f/fdaconsumer/september011998/painrelievertakenoffmarketduetopossiblel iverdamage/). Prosicor (http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/calcium_channel_blockers.htm). Baycol (http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/18/baycol.htm). Then try looking up Lotronex, Pondimin, Hismanal, Raxar, Seldane, Propulsid, and Redux. (Of the last three, about 10% of the USA was exposed to them before they were recalled.) That's all just to name a FEW in recent times.

Risk management. Is it worth lowering my cholesterol if it gives me a cardiac arrest and possibly death?


Ridding depression? Psychotherapy. Electroconvulsive therapy (for the most extreme cases). Transcranial magnetic stimulation. (Those are the ones I can name off the top of my head... But there's a zillion of them (http://bluepages.anu.edu.au/whatworks.html).)

Dont serve that food until it is tested more by unbiased companies

i'll try to avoid those food if possible.. but overall i dont care as long as its edible...

GMO's are completely safe I think but I just think the things they modify it is pretty weird. I heard they use scorpions(cant remember the food with the scorpion) and they put blueberries in school hamburgers in untastable amounts. I think they are safe but the weird part is what goes in them.