Genetically Engineered Foods Archives

More references about "Frankenfood". Archive.

Comments?
Misty L. Trepke,
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/searching-alternatives

Genetically Engineered Organisms Invade Our Planet - What's the Harm?
By Gary Feuerberg
Epoch Times Washington, D.C. Staff
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-3-13/52710.html
[Worth reading in full - Jagannath]Mar 13, 2007

A RISKY BUSINESS: Denise Caruso, innovation columnist for the New
York Times, has written a new book on the risks of using genetically
modified organisms. (Nathan Shedroff / Hybrid Vigor Institute)
For a long time now, Americans have been told by the scientists who
developed genetically modified (GM) crops and organisms that GM is
safe and wonderful.

This was done with the blessing of government regulators, such as
the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). It was alleged that GM crops, such
as Bt and Roundup Ready, to use the best known biotech products, are
good for biodiversity, increase yields, are resistant to pests,
reduce the need for pesticides, are more profitable for the
farmers, and less labor intensive.

But a close examination of the benefits of transgenic crops will
reveal that the benefits, if they occur, are way overstated, and the
costs are often ignored.

Denise Caruso devotes a chapter in her new book, Intervention:
Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a
Biotech Planet (2006), to assessing the evidence.

She cites a thorough study of Bt cotton in a state of India, funded
by the government, where the results were less than stellar: farmers
spent more than twice the money for Bt seeds than non-Bt seeds, and
the reduction in pesticide use was only 12%.

Meanwhile, the farmers' net profits for Bt were less than non-Bt
hybrids and yields were about the same. This transgenic cotton had
been hyped up and so the results would be disappointing to the
Indian farmers.

Potentially more disturbing than the economic side of the
technology, the transgenic cotton had some peculiar "side effects."
After two years, the primary cotton pests were developing resistance
to the Bt toxin, which could have a devastating effect on other
crops in the area.

Also, the Bt was somehow mysteriously infecting the soil so that no
other crops would grow in the same soil. Apparently too, the
advocates for Bt didn't consider that Indian farmers would make
their own illegal hybrids of Bt, using their own seeds. This means
that a substantial amount of Bt is being grown all over India with
unknown consequences.

From this single example, we can ask the general question, should the
scientists, the industry and the regulators have been more open to
the possible problems with GM, and considered these before embarking
on this course? With so much unknown about this new technique,
should there have been more caution before going pell-mell into the
production and marketing of biotech products?

Denise Caruso thinks so. "There is no such thing as risk-free
living, with or without genetic engineering. Progress has never been
risk-free," says Caruso in Intervention. The book is written for the
lay person, the non-scientist, who wants to understand better the
nature and implications of genetic engineering.

Caruso is a veteran technology journalist, who from 1995 wrote the
popular Digital Commerce column for the New York Times, and after
leaving that position in 2000, co-founded the Hybrid Vigor
Institute, a research and consulting practice. Beginning in January,
she resumed writing for the New York Times.

It is short-sighted to place all the focus on the presumed benefits
of Biotechnology, argues Caruso. On the surface, it sounds good to
save human lives by a genetic alteration so that a pig organ could
work in a human being, or a mosquito that doesn't transmit malaria,
or to save human labor and expense by transgenic corn and soybeans
that need less herbicide to grow.

But the problem, according to Caruso, is that important questions
about the possible negative consequences of biogenetic engineering-
the real risks-are not typically investigated or even asked by the
scientists creating the technology or by the industry that is
profiting from them. Furthermore, they greatly resent
having their assumptions and approach to science questioned.

Biotechnology is far reaching and mind boggling in its implications.
Scientists can now isolate genetic material of a cell and insert
the "synthetic" genetic material into the natural genetic material
of the cells of a different organism or even a different species,
thereby creating genetically modified organisms-living hybrids with
new "desirable" traits that could not be created by traditional
breeding techniques.

An example of this technique, called "recombinant DNA," mentioned in
the book is transgenic pig organs that scientist want to develop for
human transplants. This transgenic pig would be one whose organs
presumably are best suited for human use.

This technique should not be confused with the pig and cow heart
valves, used frequently nowadays in human patients, as these are no
longer living tissue. If this new technology succeeds, living pig
cells would be exchanging proteins and genetic material with human
cells.

The most immediate concern posed by transgenic pig organs inside a
living human being is the very real possibility that some "dormant
retrovirus from the pig's cells would somehow reactivate inside the
human body" and risk of this happening are "incalculable," says
Caruso.

The rewiring of genetic material of living organisms is a monumental
act-changing a species in the most fundamental way. This is
man "intervening," to use Caruso's word in the title of her book, in
a natural process at a very deep level of the organism.

To a religious or spiritual person it would seem to have tremendous
moral and ethical meanings. Caruso doesn't dwell on this side much,
but is content to point out the potential biological nightmare that
such alterations could have for humans and the environment.

"It is not especially difficult to come up with scenarios whereby
mucking around in the genes of living organisms leads to serious
biological, social, and/or economic disruption," says Caruso.

When the transgenic technique of recombining DNA from different
species was first discovered in the 1970s, geneticists worried that
the powerful new technology might create new viruses and bacteria
that cause diseases, and enhance antibiotic resistance to make
infections untreatable, says the Organic Consumers Association.

As a result, at the Asilomar conference in Monterey, Ca. in 1975,
scientists imposed on themselves a moratorium on these experiments
until safety protocols in the laboratory could be designed. When
nothing visible regarding these dangers appeared, the technique came
to be regarded as safe.

The focus of Caruso's book is not the risks in the laboratory, whose
outcomes are inert, but the products of transgenesis that create new
kinds of living organisms.

"Billions of transgenics have already been released into the market
place and thus into our food, water and the air that we breathe,
breeding and exchanging their genetic material with each other and
with us." Caruso says these organisms are alive and numerous and
much less predictable than what is acknowledged.

Responsible Decision Making
In the pig organ example mentioned above, Caruso and Baruch
Fischoff, a risk expert and professor at Carnegie Mellon University,
convened a "diverse" group of six experts for a meeting, lasting
less than a day to consider the risks. They developed various
possible scenarios that scientists working directly on the problem
might not even think about.

For example, how to dispose of the carcasses of which there would
have to be in the thousands-all contaminated. And what about the
manure that leaves the pig, entering the environment, where pig
transgenic contamination is available to insect and rodent carriers?
If you could manage to somehow "sanitize" the pig, what happens when
the organ resides in the "dirty" human body and its viruses, which
could kill the pig organ?

This kind of open discussion of the potential problems, "a weighing
of the real risks against the real benefits," is the only way a
responsible public policy decision can be made on the risks of this
controversial medical process.

There is no precedent, no way to ascertain an exact answer, a
probability based on past experience with this biotech product. Yet,
the regulators from the FDA and the USDA, and the genetic scientists
are disinclined to convene such a panel and have such expanded
conversations about risk.

Caruso is not saying that human intervention into biological
functions is wrong, a view that she believes is too extreme. But
Caruso believes no one-not the scientists or the regulators-knows
the safety or danger of biotech products,
because of the flawed methods that are used to assess their risks.

"Yet neither knowledge of history nor dark-side scenarios has
tempered the zeal or the speed with which the products of genetic
engineering are being dispatched into the global marketplace,"
Caruso writes.

It may already be too late to prevent untoward effects of
biotechnology. Caruso cites USDA figures for 2006 that show that 68%
of all soybeans planted in the U.S. were transgenic, as were 69% of
the cotton planted, and 26% of corn acreage.

Now there are countless transgenic organisms out there, reproducing
and evolving, without control or monitoring. The planet earth has
become a giant genetics experiment, according to Caruso. It is
troubling that this all happened without the risks of the products
and processes of genetic engineering being rationally discussed and
investigated.

Population reduction, a globalist goal, allows monopoly ownership of
the earth's resources - less population means more for them! War,
famine, suppressed cures for catastrophic diseases, abortion
acceptance, and health-destroying, cancer-producing Monsanto
monopolized genetically modified foods all reduce world population
and produce big profits. - Deanna Spingola, Political Researcher.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/OnSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/searching-alternatives
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/searching-alternatives/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/searching-alternatives/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:searching-alternatives-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:searching-alternatives-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
searching-alternatives-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/