Comments for Foodie Freak: Considering genetically modified foods at http://lakeconews.com , comment 1 to 13 out of 13 comments http://lakeconews.com Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:31:14 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9169 I supose you both shop at the health food store as well. That stuff is really tested. You both have the same way of thinking and there is an old saying \"You cannot fashion a wit out of two half-wits. Neil Kinnock - angisangels Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:25:58 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9161 I do believe you may be right. Angisangels... \"I figure you are in favor of stopping the GE food because it may make the 2% to 8% of the world population more limited on their diets it could also change the cause of their allergy. Who knows but they can always go organic.\" Actually, if you had been reading my articles and my posts more thoroughly on this subject all along, you would know that I am against GE for a number of reasons. And, I would most likely change my position on GE if it were thoroughly and mandatorilly tested for both environmental and biological impact and labeled as such as to avoid any confusion as to where the responsibility lies if injury to the environment or biology of humans were impacted, as I am not against \"progress\" but am against \"irresponsibility\" towards both people and the environment. - purplegirl Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:26:34 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9155 believe you have been the recipient of a genetically modified post from Angie. See, it really isn\'t nice to fool with Mother Nature :wink: - Donna Christopher Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:06:27 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9154 than how do you eat, even organic food are deceiving. You can make it up as you go along but more people would die without progress than if we just stick a heads in the ground and hope that what we have today will provide for us in the future. It is better it try and fail than not to try at all. So twist it they way you want but this world already alters food and many other things that we use. I guess if Thomas Edison didn\'t try to create a light bulb we would all be in the dark. I figure you are in favor of stopping the GE food because it may make the 2% to 8% of the world population more limited on their diets it could also change the cause of their allergy. Who knows but they can always go organic. If science can gene splice to alter the DNA of plant life and cross the strains to make strongest genes that creates better crops than it would than be possible to isolate the gene that causes common food allergies and than save people instead of causing harm genetics works both ways - angisangels Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:26:44 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9153 I know an old lady, she swallowed a fly - Tim Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:08:43 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9151 \"For those worried about creating herbicide resisted or super pest that happens already HIV, STAFF there is new species of critters out there with or with out scientist. If we stopped medicine and food progress every time someone created urban legends we would have thousands of other diseases and medical problems in the world. this country is a free enterprise if the FDA doesn\'t say it is against the law we do not have the right to pick and choose what is.\" The reasoning that because \"there is new species of critters out there with or with out scientist\" we shouldn\'t have a problem with potentially creating more is absurd. That is like saying, \"Well, there are tons of flu strains out there, nobody should have a problem with me creating and releasing another one. After all, this country was based on free enterprise. Maybe, I should create a super resistant strain and sell it to the highest bidder.\" Yeah, I know, that sounds pretty absurd. But, then, so does your statement. Oh, and, by the way, the FDA approved Vioxx as a medicine but hasn\'t approved Stevia as a sweetener... so, forgive me if I don\'t have a heck of a whole lot of confidence in the FDA. - purplegirl Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:06:40 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9147 The problem isn\'t so much in the allergen as it is in the identification of the allergen. As I noted, with GE, you can add a single gene of something and possibly create an allergic reaction in an entirely different food. Since there is no mandatory labeling of GE it would be extremely difficult to track down the source of an allergen. So, the person with the allergic reaction to the allergen has no way to protect themselves against it. Food allergens are not \"fun\". In \"fact\", they can induce anaphylactic shock and death. They are such a huge concern that even foods which are processed in the same plant as common allergens (such as peanuts) have to be labeled as such. If you put the peanut gene that is directly or indirectly responsible for the allergens into a tomato and the tomato isn\'t labeled properly a person could potentially die. Not really a \"fun\" situation. Even if that person has a mild reaction or survives the anaphylactic shock, tracing that allergen to the source would be so difficult that you may not know to avoid that particular food source containing potentially deadly allergens in the future. - purplegirl Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:55:28 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9142 GIVES A SHlT? - tom Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:39:43 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9140 first off people are so concerned about food allergies here is some fun facts most people are allergic to milk eggs shellfish wheat sesame and soy. in the US 4% of the total population has food allergies, Canada 2%, Germany 3% and Italy 8%. Italy has the least amount of GE foods. For those worried about creating herbicide resisted or super pest that happens already HIV, STAFF there is new species of critters out there with or with out scientist. If we stopped medicine and food progress every time someone created urban legends we would have thousands of other diseases and medical problems in the world. this country is a free enterprise if the FDA doesn\'t say it is against the law we do not have the right to pick and choose what is. On a side not why doesn\'t the BOS pass a no Pot growing ordinance so that I don\'t have to smell it all the time. The FDA does say that it harmful and they have studies from all of the world to prove it.thank you foodie freak for giving a neutral position on this matter there is not enough research for layman to just condemn what could be a benefit in the future - angisangels Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:42:57 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9148 very thoughtful and with much-appreciated research. there\'s some good old advice that seems to apply here: when in doubt, don\'t. the good doctor needs to keep his work in the lab for now. from the column: \"herbicide-resistant “super pests,” and possibly creating new allergens that nobody has come across before. There’s also the potential for the genetic eradication of natural species, trees that release poisons that indiscriminately kill pests and animal life, corporations controlling farmers\' rights by dominating the seed market, and making weeds poison-proof. And possibly the most serious risk is that they could be creating something that we haven’t even thought of yet.\" plenty of reason right there to go more slowly. - Grace OMalley Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:56:13 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9134 First off, I do appreciate the writer trying to stay balanced. However, I do feel the need to say a few things. Just remember, it isn\'t personal, because I tend to agree (for the most part) with your ultimate conclusion. \"However, we the villagers most likely don’t understand what is really going on in that dark castle/corporation on the hill.\" However, the average \"villager\" has resources available to them where they can look at the past history of \"that dark castle/corporation on the hill\" who is creating/promoting these GMOs and see what kind of reputation they have when it comes to moral/ethical issues and how they have conducted themselves in the past regarding their products (products such as agent orange and PCB) and they can make a pretty educated guess as to what is going on. They can make an even more educated guess, if they simply do a bit of reading written by people who do not have an invested interest in these companies. \"Although the end results could very well be accomplished through selective breeding, the process could also very well take hundreds of years.\" Actually, I am pretty shocked that anyone could compare GMO to selective breeding, as selective breeding comes from taking life from the same kingdom and breeding them through a process that may not be likely but it IS possible naturally. GMOs, on the other hand, are created VERY unnaturally, often by genetically engineering two different forms of life from two different kingdoms who would not because they cannot naturally breed. \"The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimated that up to 80 percent of the processed foods currently on our grocery store shelves contain GMO. Breads, cereals, corn syrup, crackers, cottonseed oils, hot dogs, frozen pizzas, milk, snack foods, sodas and soybean/vegetable oils all have been found to contain GMO. Farm animals that are fed GE feeds show no difference to animals fed non-GE feeds. So without a doubt most of us have eaten GMO many times and never even known it.\" And this is supposed to make it safe? Because we already have ingested it? The effects of DDT weren\'t known for YEARS after crops were sprayed by it. Did it make them any safer because they were used by a large amount of farmers (many of which are dead or dying now because of it)? I think not. \"One problem with genetically engineering foods is that in order to make the highest profit off of a new product it must make it to the market as soon as possible. This usually happens with a minimum amount of safety testing; after all, testing costs money. And we all have seen in recent years items that get pushed onto the market only to be recalled later after further testing exposes problems.\" Profit before people is not exactly going to get a vote of confidence for these biotech corporations from me. So, testing costs money? Boohoo. If the drug companies can do it the biotech companies can do it. In fact, if they were actually tested, I might actually change my position based on the research. However, I would like to see this research be independent of the biotech companies as to be assured it was fair and accurate testing. As we saw what happened with the Aspartame and the Cigarette research presented by the companies who had an invested interest in promoting them. \"The FDA does currently have scientists testing ways to make sure that a gene introduced into a GMO won’t become an allergen.\" So, in other words, as in the case of the soybean/brazil nut GMO, there is no current testing to ensure that people who have particular allergies don\'t go into anaphylactic shock when eating a GE food or ingredient that isn\'t labeled. As well, due to the lack of labelling, a patient/doctor will not be able to easily trace where the allergic reaction may have originated from so the patient can\'t be advised to avoid that particular food. \"In my research for this column I spoke to some doctors who specialize in allergies (look how much I research for you) and asked them, “Can a person be allergic to a gene?” I explained that I was talking in the context of GMO and splicing genes between “critters” They all agreed a person can’t be allergic to a gene but they can be allergic to what a gene can produce. If a GE food produces a certain protein from the introduced genes that your body doesn’t like then it is possible for an allergic reaction to happen, but most likely your body would digest the matter without incident.\" \"Pleiotropic genes are ones that control both one primary genetic function and an unknown secondary function, and the different functions may be completely unrelated. For instance, the gene that gives you blue eyes may also give you a tolerance for lactose. The potential effects of pleiotropy can be demonstrated by saying that DNA is like a schoolroom – if you add or remove one student the other students, although not necessarily related to that student, will be affected by the new dynamic. Possibly the new dynamic is barely noticeable, but if the student added or removed is a disruptive influence, the change can be quite dramatic one way or another. If you were to liken pleiotropy to a chemical experiment, imagine adding two chemicals together that appear safe to combine, but you didn’t know that one of the chemicals also had an unknown additive in it. In the case of GE/GMO, it’s possible that this pleiotropic “sleeper gene” won’t affect the plant or animal that has it, but when that plant or animal breeds, the genes from the other parent plant or animal awakens the gene to create .\" PLEASE let us not confuse the word \"doctor\" with \"scientist\". The two are VERY different. And, as you mentioned, with your pleiotrophic points, most ethical genetic scientists will tell you that you have no real way of knowing what you will get from genetic engineering as one gene could have a multitude of characteristics and functions that have even yet to be realized. The scientific debate is based on pleiotrophy. \"But how shocking a difference that amount that can make is vividly demonstrated in the fact that there is only a genetic difference of 1 percent between humans and apes.\" That should tell you alone that we have yet to realize the enormous intensity and importance of the issue we are dealing with. \"Contact your senators, members of Congress and the president and tell them you understand that GMOs are here to stay and that although you don’t like it, all you want is a law requiring that every food product in the country that contains a GMO is labeled with an easy-to-see GMO logo. That way, whether you are for or against GMO products, you can purchase as an informed consumer. If your dollars are spent on products that are GMO-free, that sends a message louder than any protest with picket signs can muster.\" I absolutely agree this is the direction we should be moving towards. - purplegirl Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:05:17 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9130 There might be a collective gasp at reading this comment too, because I agree with much of what Ross has said. He clarifies a number of issues, but there\'s an important distinction that has to be made in discussing local regulations on genetic engineering: we\'re not talking about GE [i]food[/i], but GE [i]crops[/i] -- nothing in the ordinance now under consideration or any ordinance ever likely to be under consideration here will affect food sold in stores at all. Those individuals looking for protection against consuming products that may be harmful to their health and well-being will have to find another means of defense. Another very important point: these products offer no immediate benefits to Lake County farmers, because no GE variants of the crops primarily grown here -- pears, walnuts, wine grapes -- have been developed, and none are likely to be developed in the foreseeable future. As Broc Zoller very correctly stated at the November 4 BOS meeting, these \"minor\" crops can\'t repay the immense research investment required to create GE varieties. So there\'s no downside to keeping them out, and there are two potential benefits that could be of immense benefit: protecting this largely self-contained ecosystem from possible genetic contamination according to the Precautionary Principle, and providing a bullet point in a comprehensive marketing plan to create a niche for Lake County agricultural products as clean, green, and of the highest quality. We need these tools. On Tuesday the Supervisors are expected to create a citizens advisory committee on biotechnology with representation from both sides of this debate: let\'s hope that by coming together with open minds and good will this diverse group can devise sensible, practical regulations that meet the needs of all concerned. - vbrandon Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:49:29 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6379/919/#comment-9127 Great article. You hit the nail on the head. Finally some common sense on this issue. People fear what they don\'t understand. My gramma still thinks that microwaving food may cause cancer. Genetic engineering has the potential to do wonders, although you can keep those \'vine ripened\' flavor saver tomatoes that look pretty but taste like garbage. Hopefully with more research we may eventually be able to buy a supermarket tomato that tastes like the one out of my garden. Meanwhile, please try not to take the movie \"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes\" too seriously. - jmadison Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:11:40 +0100