Greenpeace Warns Over Gmo Cookies

[george]

Greenpeace warns over GMO cookies

BANGKOK: -- Greenpeace yesterday warned consumers that a popular brand of cookies, Chips Ahoy, being sold in Thailand contains genetically modified ingredients.

The environmental group also called on the local division of US-based Kraft Foods, which owns the brand, to adopt a no-GMO policy and stop importing products containing genetically modified organisms into the country.

Greenpeace said it collected samples of Chips Ahoy sold in Bangkok in September and sent them to Germany for testing by GeneScan, a renowned independent laboratory. The tests found GMO genes in the sample.

“This is a classic case of double standards. Kraft has a no-GMO policy in Europe, but it sells a product with GMOs in Thailand. Kraft must treat Thai consumers equally with its European consumers,” said Patwajee Srisuwan of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

Kraft is one of the world’s largest food companies, known for its cheese, biscuits, confectionery and dairy products. The company, however, is blacklisted on Greenpeace’s True Food Shopper’s Guide because of a lack of policy to avoid the use GMOs.

“Kraft must adopt a no-GMO policy in Thailand to show that it does not treat the Thai people as second-class citizens,” Patwajee reiterated.

Consumers who would like to avoid GMOs in their food can refer to the Greenpeace True Food Shopper’s Guide, which is available free of charge at Nai-in bookstores, Se-Ed bookstores and B2S outlets and can be downloaded from www.truefood.org. Consumers can also write to PO Box 9, Sanampao Post Office, Bangkok 10406, or call the GMO hotline on (02) 616 8170.

--The Nation 2005-10-08

[richard10365]

Are GMO's harmful?

[joe beets]

Won't know for a generation or so, really.

But these experiments take sooo long.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could cut a few corners?

Hmm..

Why don't we try it out on those little brown people over there?

No harm done, is there?

And they can't say we forced them to eat the stuff.

You can buy cookies or not buy them.

Up to you.

Actually the stuff's been on US shelves for a long time.

Have you noticed any aberrant behavior from those folks over there?

Aaaaiiieee!

Holy sh1t!!!

Do something!!!!!

jb

Edited October 8, 2005 by joe beets

[Tywais]

Are GMO's harmful?

In a way it is a different form of inbreeding which has been done for centuries to improve on the characteristics of various plants. In this case the gene is artificially modified to effectively speed up this process. Since it is a new technology there is insufficient data yet but the research and ultimate application is important for the future considering the population expansion. We do some GMO research at the university here to improve the life cycle and stalk characteristics of rice with good results. For those with an academic interest you can browse here.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/gm-food

[cdnvic]

Genetic modification has been around since farming started, its just gotten much more efficient with gene splicing, etc.

Without genetic modifications done over the past centuries wheat would fall off the stock, and all the fruit you buy would be full of seeds. That's just two examples.

Yeah it's creepy to splice frog genes into tomatos, but probably not harmful to eat. Funny enough, alot of the greenies that decry GMOs or non organic foods seem perfectly happy to put other harmful substances into their bodies.

If you make it illegal to patent a living thing (plant or animal) then the majority of the GMO industry would grind to a halt.

cv

[Smokin Joe]

Are GMO's harmful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.

Greenpeace supports a lot of good causes, but sometimes their decisions on why they do so is probably based more or tarot cards and Ouija boards than science.

Their out front people have a lot of guts but are short on common sense. I love whales too, but if a guy with a harpoon was gonna shoot me or Willy I guess the Japanese would have some more whale sashimi.

[Johpa]

On the list of environmental pollution issues endemic to Thailand you would think that Chips Ahoy cookies would not even fall upon the radar scope of a major international environmental organization.

[aughie]

Greenpeace needs to raise new and sometimes frightening issues to increase the blood pressure of people and to induce fresh donations of cash. It's how they maintain themselves on the field.

[Diablo Bob]

Isn't is interesting how the story changes depending on who from the environmental side is speaking.......

The complaint about GMO's in Europe is the POTENTIAL health issues.

The complaint about GMO's in Africa isn't health, but the fact that you must purchase new seed every year!

Now the complaint in Thailand is they want to be treated like Europeans not like the Americans, who have had GMO food for a couple of decades......

When is Greenpeace going to say something about the raw sewage being dumped into the Chao Paya? How about the ocean of plastic bags and trash in the Gulf of Siam?

Where is the French Navy when you need them? Oh, that's right I need a glass bottom boat to find them!

Greenpeace, another organization that started out with the best of intentions, that has now become a worthless bureaucracy mired down in their own propaganda.

[ZZZ]

Are GMO's harmful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a way it is a different form of inbreeding which has been done for centuries to improve on the characteristics of various plants. In this case the gene is artificially modified to effectively speed up this process. Since it is a new technology there is insufficient data yet but the research and ultimate application is important for the future considering the population expansion.

GMO is trying to do something that takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years in nature in just a year or two. The problem with this is that nature, and the human body, can not adjust fast enough to adapt to the changes.

Just look at all the similar cases when humans tried to be clever and adjust nature by moving rabbits and cane toads to Australia or African bees to South America. GM is just another disaster waiting to happen for no good reason at all.

To claim that we need GMO due to the population expansion is &lt;deleted&gt; as we don’t need a population expansion and should put all resources to tackle this problem, not feed it.

[Tywais]

Are GMO's harmful?

In a way it is a different form of inbreeding which has been done for centuries to improve on the characteristics of various plants. In this case the gene is artificially modified to effectively speed up this process. Since it is a new technology there is insufficient data yet but the research and ultimate application is important for the future considering the population expansion.

GMO is trying to do something that takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years in nature in just a year or two. The problem with this is that nature, and the human body, can not adjust fast enough to adapt to the changes.

Just look at all the similar cases when humans tried to be clever and adjust nature by moving rabbits and cane toads to Australia or African bees to South America. GM is just another disaster waiting to happen for no good reason at all.

To claim that we need GMO due to the population expansion is &lt;deleted&gt; as we don’t need a population expansion and should put all resources to tackle this problem, not feed it.

A true Green Peace advocate I see. You are talking apples and oranges (or rather rabbits and toads), no comparison at all. Population is going to expand, food resources are going to erode regardless of "don't need a population expansion". Do some research before spouting off drival.

[ZZZ]

Are GMO's harmful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a way it is a different form of inbreeding which has been done for centuries to improve on the characteristics of various plants. In this case the gene is artificially modified to effectively speed up this process. Since it is a new technology there is insufficient data yet but the research and ultimate application is important for the future considering the population expansion.

GMO is trying to do something that takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years in nature in just a year or two. The problem with this is that nature, and the human body, can not adjust fast enough to adapt to the changes.

Just look at all the similar cases when humans tried to be clever and adjust nature by moving rabbits and cane toads to Australia or African bees to South America. GM is just another disaster waiting to happen for no good reason at all.

To claim that we need GMO due to the population expansion is &lt;deleted&gt; as we don’t need a population expansion and should put all resources to tackle this problem, not feed it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A true Green Peace advocate I see. You are talking apples and oranges (or rather rabbits and toads), no comparison at all. Population is going to expand, food resources are going to erode regardless of "don't need a population expansion". Do some research before spouting off drival.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A true servant of the GMO multinationals I can see.

If you can not see the similarity with humans previous messing with nature and GMO I must say I very much doubt you will be able or willing to try and understand that GMO can be dangerous. Very scary, as it seems like you are involved in this business.

Most western countries, except for America, have extremely strict laws regulation GMO. This business is mainly carried out in third world countries where the big Multinationals have bribed their way in to use the local nature and population as guinea pigs.

You are right that the population is going to expand but only because nothing, or to little, is done to stop this. Most European countries are now very close to zero growth.

I’m not a great fan of Green Peace and their tactics but when it comes to possible irreversible disasters that GMO could cause I must say I favor caution and not the quick buck Monsanto and the rest are looking for.

As for research I wish it could be done in the Multinationals own backyard and under some sort of secure conditions. It’s a joke the way it’s done now and I can not understand how so called scientists can live with that, they if anyone should have more sense.

[plachon]

Are GMO's harmful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a way it is a different form of inbreeding which has been done for centuries to improve on the characteristics of various plants. In this case the gene is artificially modified to effectively speed up this process. Since it is a new technology there is insufficient data yet but the research and ultimate application is important for the future considering the population expansion.

GMO is trying to do something that takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years in nature in just a year or two. The problem with this is that nature, and the human body, can not adjust fast enough to adapt to the changes.

Just look at all the similar cases when humans tried to be clever and adjust nature by moving rabbits and cane toads to Australia or African bees to South America. GM is just another disaster waiting to happen for no good reason at all.

To claim that we need GMO due to the population expansion is &lt;deleted&gt; as we don’t need a population expansion and should put all resources to tackle this problem, not feed it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A true Green Peace advocate I see. You are talking apples and oranges (or rather rabbits and toads), no comparison at all. Population is going to expand, food resources are going to erode regardless of "don't need a population expansion". Do some research before spouting off drival.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A true servant of the GMO multinationals I can see.

If you can not see the similarity with humans previous messing with nature and GMO I must say I very much doubt you will be able or willing to try and understand that GMO can be dangerous. Very scary, as it seems like you are involved in this business.

Most western countries, except for America, have extremely strict laws regulation GMO. This business is mainly carried out in third world countries where the big Multinationals have bribed their way in to use the local nature and population as guinea pigs.

You are right that the population is going to expand but only because nothing, or to little, is done to stop this. Most European countries are now very close to zero growth.

I’m not a great fan of Green Peace and their tactics but when it comes to possible irreversible disasters that GMO could cause I must say I favor caution and not the quick buck Monsanto and the rest are looking for.

As for research I wish it could be done in the Multinationals own backyard and under some sort of secure conditions. It’s a joke the way it’s done now and I can not understand how so called scientists can live with that, they if anyone should have more sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's called "prudent application of the precautionary principle", I think you're searching for ZZZ. Neither, the US govt., politicians nor the transnationals (esp. oil and agri-business companies) refuse to apply it, in their greed and desire to dominate the world; which just leaves the likes of Greenpeace, FoE, WWF, a handful of other concerned NGOs, and of course, you and me - the consumer - to make sure our individual and collective interests and that of the biosphere are put before profit. It's exactly the same with climate change and a host of other pressing issues, which the UN, US and certain other high-consumption countries, are allowing to be relegated to minor issues, while the transnationals turn the unsuspecting into guinea pigs.

Enjoy your Chips Ahoy, but just be aware that they are the thin end of the wedge when it comes to where GMOs are cropping up these days with no effective checks and balances to control them, outside of Europe and a handful of other concerned countries.

[Tywais]

A true servant of the GMO multinationals I can see.

Touche

I apologize for my unprofessional outburst before.

If you can not see the similarity with humans previous messing with nature and GMO I must say I very much doubt you will be able or willing to try and understand that GMO can be dangerous. Very scary, as it seems like you are involved in this business.

Humans have always "messed with nature" and not always had good results, but they have also had very postitive outcomes from such. Yes, I am a research scientist but at an academic level not a business one. As such my focus is not financial but attempts at benefits that can be obtained from such research. As with any research work, a full understanding and balance of the results must be taken into account before application. Balance being the key word.

You are right that the population is going to expand but only because nothing, or to little, is done to stop this. Most European countries are now very close to zero growth.

This is true but unfortunately they are only a very small percentage of where the population growth is taken place and it will be many decades before these countries will get to that point (if ever). As such the need for improvements in food production will continue.

As for research I wish it could be done in the Multinationals own backyard and under some sort of secure conditions. It’s a joke the way it’s done now and I can not understand how so called scientists can live with that, they if anyone should have more sense.

The problem is that each country/region has specific needs that may not be addressed by another "agency's" work. So the research needs to be done in their own "backyard" and by their own institutions, such as we do (university).

[ZZZ]

Humans have always "messed with nature" and not always had good results, but they have also had very postitive outcomes from such.  Yes, I am a research scientist but at an academic level not a business one.  As such my focus is not financial but attempts at benefits that can be obtained from such research. As with any research work, a full understanding and balance of the results must be taken into account before application.  Balance being the key word.

I realize that most scientists are working at the academic level and have the benefits of their research at the top of their mind. The problem is that with the scientists in the back room and the CEO’s, with a stock plan, free to pick the most profitable applications there is not much stopping them. Add corruptible governments, or government organizations like the FDA, there is not much control of what will happen.

The only balance is scientists in opposing/complementing fields like agro/bio/nature. The problem with this is that they do not have the big money backing needed to make much of a difference. This is where organizations like Green Peace play in to add the advantage of getting the public involved.

You posted a link to newscientist.com, this is an example of what I’m talking about. The newscientist.com is published by the biggest publisher of business to business publications (RBI). All their revenues come from business interests, much from the agro/pharma sector. It’s highly unlikely they would publish anything annoying their clients; therefore just about all the articles were positive to GM.

Have a look at this link for some interesting thoughts:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ispr-summary.php

(probably biased in the opposite direction but much more independent than the newscientist)

This is true but unfortunately they are only a very small percentage of where the population growth is taken place and it will be many decades before these countries will get to that point (if ever).  As such the need for improvements in food production will continue.

I think the population growth could be dramatically slowed down, very fast, if the US stepped of their moral horse and allowed contraceptive methods to be part of the aid to the third world. Also, there are other safer and more sustainable ways to increase the food production

GM will not go away and I’m sure there are tremendous benefits to be had from this research but to unsuspectingly put the stuff in Chips Ahoy cookies is exactly what we don’t need.

It would be a different story if it was just a matter of choice that could be solved with labeling but GM will affect everyone there will be no choice and there will be no turning back once this is out off the box, and the escape from the box have started……… .

[Tywais]

Interesting link and definitely at the other end of the spectrum. I won't go down the list to try and defend each item, many are certainly valid but mostly due to the specific area of genetic modification which has significant dangers (that is the more complex DNA structures).

I think the population growth could be dramatically slowed down, very fast, if the US stepped of their moral horse and allowed contraceptive methods to be part of the aid to the third world. Also, there are other safer and more sustainable ways to increase the food production

I have to disagree here. It is not a matter of access to contraceptives (many US NGOs assist in distribution) but lack of education and cultural/religious beliefs. Many countries, including (even especially) Thailand has improved on the education but focus is on AIDs and not so much birth control.

GM will not go away and I’m sure there are tremendous benefits to be had from this research but to unsuspectingly put the stuff in Chips Ahoy cookies is exactly what we don’t need.

Agreed. I don't fully understand how they could get away without appropriate labeling. I also do research in food irradiation and it has similar ramifications. After the uproar in the US by the public and concerned scientists, labels were made mandatory on fruits/vegtables that were subjected to this technology.

It would be a different story if it was just a matter of choice that could be solved with labeling but GM will affect everyone there will be no choice and there will be no turning back once this is out off the box, and the escape from the box have started………     .

[ZZZ]

I think the population growth could be dramatically slowed down, very fast, if the US stepped of their moral horse and allowed contraceptive methods to be part of the aid to the third world. Also, there are other safer and more sustainable ways to increase the food production

I have to disagree here. It is not a matter of access to contraceptives (many US NGOs assist in distribution) but lack of education and cultural/religious beliefs. Many countries, including (even especially) Thailand has improved on the education but focus is on AIDs and not so much birth control.

I agree that education will play a major part in slowing down the population growth. The point is that the looming food shortage is a myth created by the GMO industry to have a moral reason justifying what they are doing.

Thailand has not focused on birth control as this is not much of a problem here. Thailand is one of the world’s largest exporters of rice, chicken, prawns, fruit and other foods. Still, the population growth here is slowing down dramatically as it is in the rest of Asia due to better education and urbanization.

The fact is that the only food problem we have is the vast oversupply created in the west. The only real shortage is in half a dozen sub Saharan African countries and this is mainly caused by war displacing people to places not suitable for agriculture. Give peace and some outside help to these countries and they will be perfectly able to feed themselves without GMO.

The main sustenance problem is the shortage of safe drinking water; this is the real problem not lack of food.

To me GM research is a bit like research in biological warfare, there will be some discoveries that could be very useful outside warfare but overall it must be kept extremely secure and never be used in the open.

As GM involves changing the basic structures of the source of life for all living creatures on this planet it must be 100% guaranteed that it is safe. With the knowledge we have today of how we and the rest of the inhabitants of this planet work it’s impossible to give this guarantee. A small change in a major staple crop could trigger a domino effect in the most unsuspected way.

Be safe in your research.

[Ijustwannateach]

No way there is enough information out there for anyone intelligent to say with any certainty that GMO is "safe." It's far too early, and there have already been some horror stories (for example, the crop whose pollen was modified to be a natural insecticide- which went awry when the pollen blew to other areas and killed beneficial insects there).

"Steven"

[tripperj]

Are GMO's harmful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a way it is a different form of inbreeding which has been done for centuries to improve on the characteristics of various plants. In this case the gene is artificially modified to effectively speed up this process. Since it is a new technology there is insufficient data yet but the research and ultimate application is important for the future considering the population expansion.

GMO is trying to do something that takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years in nature in just a year or two. The problem with this is that nature, and the human body, can not adjust fast enough to adapt to the changes.

Just look at all the similar cases when humans tried to be clever and adjust nature by moving rabbits and cane toads to Australia or African bees to South America. GM is just another disaster waiting to happen for no good reason at all.

To claim that we need GMO due to the population expansion is &lt;deleted&gt; as we don’t need a population expansion and should put all resources to tackle this problem, not feed it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A true Green Peace advocate I see. You are talking apples and oranges (or rather rabbits and toads), no comparison at all. Population is going to expand, food resources are going to erode regardless of "don't need a population expansion". Do some research before spouting off drival.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A true servant of the GMO multinationals I can see.

If you can not see the similarity with humans previous messing with nature and GMO I must say I very much doubt you will be able or willing to try and understand that GMO can be dangerous. Very scary, as it seems like you are involved in this business.

Most western countries, except for America, have extremely strict laws regulation GMO. This business is mainly carried out in third world countries where the big Multinationals have bribed their way in to use the local nature and population as guinea pigs.

You are right that the population is going to expand but only because nothing, or to little, is done to stop this. Most European countries are now very close to zero growth.

I’m not a great fan of Green Peace and their tactics but when it comes to possible irreversible disasters that GMO could cause I must say I favor caution and not the quick buck Monsanto and the rest are looking for.

As for research I wish it could be done in the Multinationals own backyard and under some sort of secure conditions. It’s a joke the way it’s done now and I can not understand how so called scientists can live with that, they if anyone should have more sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We should kill off 99% of the world population, knock down all the cities, and go back to hunter gather life style. IMHO leaving the trees was a bad move, but no one would listen now here we are 100's of 1000's years later talking about GM!!!! F**ck it i'm off to find a cave to live in.

[Fast Eddie]

No way there is enough information out there for anyone intelligent to say with any certainty that GMO is "safe."  It's far too early, and there have already been some horror stories (for example, the crop whose pollen was modified to be a natural insecticide- which went awry when the pollen blew to other areas and killed beneficial insects there).

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely that depends on that what the genetic modification is. There are certainly genetically modified plants that are safe. For example, tomatoes in which the gene which expresses the enzyme polygalturonase has been suppressed. The enzyme usually causes the break down of the cell walls of the fruit, causing it to soften. The suppression results in a longer shelf life. There is nothing there that is going to harm you or the environment.

I do agree that there needs to be adherence to strict regulations and scientists need to proceed with caution with controlled assessments made of potential impacts on the environment, but the majority of peoples objections to the process seem to be have been caused by scare mongering, rather than based on an understanding of the facts.

[plachon]

No way there is enough information out there for anyone intelligent to say with any certainty that GMO is "safe."  It's far too early, and there have already been some horror stories (for example, the crop whose pollen was modified to be a natural insecticide- which went awry when the pollen blew to other areas and killed beneficial insects there).

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely that depends on that what the genetic modification is. There are certainly genetically modified plants that are safe. For example, tomatoes in which the gene which expresses the enzyme polygalturonase has been suppressed. The enzyme usually causes the break down of the cell walls of the fruit, causing it to soften. The suppression results in a longer shelf life. There is nothing there that is going to harm you or the environment.

I do agree that there needs to be adherence to strict regulations and scientists need to proceed with caution with controlled assessments made of potential impacts on the environment, but the majority of peoples objections to the process seem to be have been caused by scare mongering, rather than based on an understanding of the facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet strangely enough, when GMO tomatoes were released in Sainsburys a few years ago, the majority of the public were firmly against them, which led to the furore over labeling of GMO products and eventually a firm stance by European govts against allowing imports of GM food from the US and other producing countries where standards are laxer (and the consumer is unaware of which food products are GMO or not).

This doesn't mean to say that GM tomatoes would necessarily be bad for your health, but it does point to the desire of consumers in Europe to be informed about what they are eating and the general distrust about the motives of the companies that promote GM food. In the long run, I think Thai consumers will also demand the rights to know what they are being fed, but it'll take a few more years yet. However, ten years ago there was hardly any demand for organic food, but now I note a fair number of middle class people are actively seeking it out and are prepared to pay a premium for it.

I would argue that it is not the GM tomato, so much that is bad for you or the environment, but the intensively farmed tomato, with all it's attendant pesticides and chemical fertiliser which are so liberally applied to get it to your supermarket. It just so happens that the companies that promote GM, also promote intensive farming and are quite keen for you not to know what chemicals are applied to your food or what genetic changes have taken place. Maybe coincidence, but I doubt it..........

[solo siam]

Surely that depends on that what the genetic modification is. There are certainly genetically modified plants that are safe. For example, tomatoes in which the gene which expresses the enzyme polygalturonase has been suppressed. The enzyme usually causes the break down of the cell walls of the fruit, causing it to soften. The suppression results in a longer shelf life. There is nothing there that is going to harm you or the environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you know? I remember being told that margarine was good for you and much healthier than butter, now hydrogenated oils are being touted as strong carcinogens.

How do we know that altering this single gene doesnt cause a knock on effect with other genes or properties of a tomatoe. You have to ask yourself why that gene did what it did in the first place - how can we with decades of science argue with what nature has evolved for millenia.

[ZZZ]

Surely that depends on that what the genetic modification is. There are certainly genetically modified plants that are safe. For example, tomatoes in which the gene which expresses the enzyme polygalturonase has been suppressed. The enzyme usually causes the break down of the cell walls of the fruit, causing it to soften. The suppression results in a longer shelf life. There is nothing there that is going to harm you or the environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you know? I remember being told that margarine was good for you and much healthier than butter, now hydrogenated oils are being touted as strong carcinogens.

How do we know that altering this single gene doesnt cause a knock on effect with other genes or properties of a tomatoe. You have to ask yourself why that gene did what it did in the first place - how can we with decades of science argue with what nature has evolved for millenia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spot on Ben,

Without 100% knowledge of how nature works there is no way to 100% guarantee safety. Just look at all the pharmaceuticals that are being researched and tested for hundreds of millions of dollars just to be banned a few years later because they are dangerous. In the case of GM it may not be as simple as banning it when it’s out in the open.

Everything out there is GM but this GM has been done by nature, very slowly in a state of equilibrium. What is happening now with artificial GM are radical changes in a very short time possibly throwing this balance out of whack and there is no way telling what the repercussions will be.

[Fast Eddie]

Surely that depends on that what the genetic modification is. There are certainly genetically modified plants that are safe. For example, tomatoes in which the gene which expresses the enzyme polygalturonase has been suppressed. The enzyme usually causes the break down of the cell walls of the fruit, causing it to soften. The suppression results in a longer shelf life. There is nothing there that is going to harm you or the environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you know? I remember being told that margarine was good for you and much healthier than butter, now hydrogenated oils are being touted as strong carcinogens.

How do we know that altering this single gene doesnt cause a knock on effect with other genes or properties of a tomatoe. You have to ask yourself why that gene did what it did in the first place - how can we with decades of science argue with what nature has evolved for millenia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the example i gave, the gene responsible for the production pf polygalacturonase is known. The function of this enzyme is also known. It breaks down pectin in the cell walls of the tomatoes. Therefore removing it from the equation results in a longer shelf life for the tomatoe. Removing that particular enzyme is not going to have any effect on the expression of other genes, because that is not the function of this protein. The scientists responsible for this modification will have observed and taken note of the changes to the properties of the tomatoe, which in this case has changed in the way they expected and desired. Exactly what do you imagine is suddenly going to become dangerous about this? There is nothing there to harm you.

[ZZZ]

In the example i gave, the gene responsible for the production pf polygalacturonase is known. The function of this enzyme is also known. It breaks down pectin in the cell walls of the tomatoes. Therefore removing it from the equation results in a longer shelf life for the tomatoe. Removing that particular enzyme is not going to have any effect on the expression of other genes, because that is not the function of this protein. The scientists responsible for this modification will have observed and taken note of the changes to the properties of the tomatoe, which in this case has changed in the way they expected and desired. Exactly what do you imagine is suddenly going to become dangerous about this? There is nothing there to harm you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what you are saying is that any gene have one function only?

As far as I know a gene can have several functions, direct and indirect.

The same thing goes for the enzyme, it's more than likely that this enzyme has several functions. Many enzumes in food are nessecary for proper digestion of this food and are also used in the human body for other processes.

The same thing goes for the pectin that will be missing.

Also you are only talking about the properties of the tomatoes, not what happens to the insects, animals or people eating it or birds eating insects that have eaten the tomato or other vegetation growing where the tomato have fallen to the ground or to honey from bees collecting pollen from the tomato flowers. The chain of events are endless.

[Fast Eddie]

So what you are saying is that any gene have one function only?

A gene provides the template for the production of a protein

As far as I know a gene can have several functions, direct and indirect. The protein that is produced could, but not neccessarily, have a part to play in a variety of biochemical systems

The same thing goes for the enzyme, it's more than likely that this enzyme has several functions. Many enzumes in food are nessecary for proper digestion of this food and are also used in the human body for other processes.

Enzymes are biological catalysts, they are usually quite specific for the substrates on which they act. There are many different enzymes. In the example i gave polygalacturonase is an enzyme which catalyses the degradation of large sugar molecules derived from galactose.This is it's specific purpose.

The same thing goes for the pectin that will be missing.

In the example, the pectin will retain it's integrity for longer

Also you are only talking about the properties of the tomatoes, not what happens to the insects, animals or people eating it or birds eating insects that have eaten the tomato or other vegetation growing where the tomato have fallen to the ground or to honey from bees collecting pollen from the tomato flowers. The chain of events are endless.

Pectin is not harmful to you, otherwise we wouldn't be able to eat tomatoes in the first place, the fact that it retains it's integrity longer in the tomatoe makes no difference to you or any other animal eating it. Your sentence seems to suggest that some toxic substance is now going to be miraculously produced out of thin air because of this modification, but that is quite simply not the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Believe it or not, scientists who have studied biochemistry and molecular genetics for years, do have a very advanced understanding of what they are doing. It seems to be the common opinion of people on the street that they are altering things that they have little understanding of, but that is not the case.

Of course, careful regulation of this industry needs to occur, because the technology if misused could have harmful effects, but people need to come to terms with the fact that it also has very beneficial uses if used correctly, and it can be 100% safe.

Having said that, i think it's good that the public are willing to demonstrate a concern, that means that the industry is under intense scrutiny which is in all of our best interests. However, it can be irritating to see people in outrage about a product that is perfectly safe, just because they have no understanding of what's involved.

[plachon]

Believe it or not, scientists who have studied biochemistry and molecular genetics for years, do have a very advanced understanding of what they are doing. It seems to be the common opinion of people on the street that they are altering things that they have little understanding of, but that is not the case.

Of course, careful regulation of this industry needs to occur, because the technology if misused could have harmful effects, but people need to come to terms with the fact that it also has very beneficial uses if used correctly, and it can be 100% safe.

Having said that, i think it's good that the public are willing to demonstrate a concern, that means that the industry is under intense scrutiny which is in all of our best interests. However, it can be irritating to see people in outrage about a product that is perfectly safe, just because they have no understanding of what's involved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The biotechnology and life sciences companies do themselves no favours by silencing or in some cases sacking, their own staff who discover research findings contrary to their own predetermined outcomes (there was the well-publicised case of the Scottish scientist with the Polish sounding name) who found suspect results in mice/rats fed GM potatoes, and published results against his bosses orders and ended up on the street. The public good is frequently not being served by this kind of attitude by life science employers. GM research should be carried out transparently and findings should be published in peer-reviewed journals, even if they don't look promising for a particular product or GM trait.

The reality is that scientists working in these companies are serving the shareholders profits first and foremost, and the public interest comes a poor second, or in some cases, doesn't figure at all. I remember going round Astra-Zeneca's premises a few years ago and being told the wonders of GM technology by the flash PR man. He told our party about the wonders of GM "Golden Rice" and it's rich Vitamin A that was going to save the Third World kids from blindness and proved how benevolent A-Z were. Trouble was, he hadn't reckoned on anyone having read research done by Greenpeace scientists, which estimated that to get the recommended daily dose of Vit A from patented Golden Rice, the person would have to eat something like 9kgs of the rice a day! (I can't actually remember the exact amount off the top of my head, but it was some phenomenal amount which no sane person would ever be able to consume, let alone want to, especially some poor farmer who is rice deficient anyway. This was 5 years ago, and now you never hear anything about Golden Rice, so I must assume it has died a quiet death and the clever scientists are thinking up some new patented strain of genetically engineered crop to "Save the World" from starvation.

The joke used to be on so-called "Greenies" about being unrealistic and scare-mongering the world with tales of global warming (Lovelock and his Gaia theory in the early 70s) and fossil-fuel dependency crises, but now the joke is firmly on life science companies and intransigent govts (guess who tops the list?), who on the one hand co-opt environmentalist doom and gloom language as their own, yet on the other hand, twist it to make it look like the only way out is to go hi-tech and adopt GM crops as the saviour of the planet.

[Fast Eddie]

The biotechnology and life sciences companies do themselves no favours by silencing or in some cases sacking, their own staff who discover research findings contrary to their own predetermined outcomes (there was the well-publicised case of the Scottish scientist with the Polish sounding name) who found suspect results in mice/rats fed GM potatoes, and published results against his bosses orders and ended up on the street. The public good is frequently not being served by this kind of attitude by life science employers. GM research should be carried out transparently and findings should be published in peer-reviewed journals, even if they don't look promising for a particular product or GM trait. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I completely agree

[solo siam]

Believe it or not, scientists who have studied biochemistry and molecular genetics for years, do have a very advanced understanding of what they are doing. It seems to be the common opinion of people on the street that they are altering things that they have little understanding of, but that is not the case.

Of course, careful regulation of this industry needs to occur, because the technology if misused could have harmful effects, but people need to come to terms with the fact that it also has very beneficial uses if used correctly, and it can be 100% safe.

Having said that, i think it's good that the public are willing to demonstrate a concern, that means that the industry is under intense scrutiny which is in all of our best interests. However, it can be irritating to see people in outrage about a product that is perfectly safe, just because they have no understanding of what's involved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Regardless of whether you believe it to be perfectly safe or not I would still want the option of not eating it, Besides how do you know its 100% safe, because some scientists who work for the company that 'invented' it said so. As I said before, margarine was also 100% safe for nearly 20 years until the long-term effects where known. Not only was it promoted as safe but a healthier alternative to butter, which proved the complete opposite.

Hydrogenising oils looked like it was perfectly safe until it proved otherwise.

Food scientists generally arent there for our health, they are doing their work to promote profits for their company - thats why we have things like high fructose corn syrup.

Humans dont understand genetics properly yet else there would be no inherited disease, I'd be surprised if we understood even 1%.

In regards to the human population growing, Recent statistics point to a slowdown in human population because of AIDS, Global awareness of contraceptives and women generally bearing less children. Some studies project that by 2050 the population will start to decrease.

[ZZZ]

So what you are saying is that any gene has one function only?

A gene provides the template for the production of a protein

As far as I know a gene can have several functions, direct and indirect. The protein that is produced could, but not necessarily, have a part to play in a variety of biochemical systems

Exactly, the lack of knowledge in what part this protein is playing in various biochemical systems may cause various problems.

The same thing goes for the enzyme, it's more than likely that this enzyme has several functions. Many enzymes in food are necessary for proper digestion of this food and are also used in the human body for other processes.

Enzymes are biological catalysts, they are usually quite specific for the substrates on which they act. There are many different enzymes. In the example i gave polygalacturonase is an enzyme which catalyses the degradation of large sugar molecules derived from galactose. This is it's specific purpose.

"usually quite specific" but not always, and this is as far science know today, tomorrow could be a different story when other purposes are discovered.

Also you are only talking about the properties of the tomatoes, not what happens to the insects, animals or people eating it or birds eating insects that have eaten the tomato or other vegetation growing where the tomato have fallen to the ground or to honey from bees collecting pollen from the tomato flowers. The chain of events is endless.

Pectin is not harmful to you, otherwise we wouldn't be able to eat tomatoes in the first place, the fact that it retains its integrity longer in the tomato makes no difference to you or any other animal eating it. Your sentence seems to suggest that some toxic substance is now going to be miraculously produced out of thin air because of this modification, but that is quite simply not the case.

What I'm talking about is that nature is a delicate system and a small change could have dramatic effects, often very hard to predict. In the example above the protein could have other important functions along the chain of events.

Also, in the tomato example it seems to me that this will produce tomatoes where the cell walls stay intact longer giving the appearance of a fresh tomato. I'm not sure how these works but guess that even if the cell walls stay intact longer other parts of the tomato will start to go bad.

Personally I would like a rotten tomato to look rotten.

Believe it or not, scientists who have studied biochemistry and molecular genetics for years, do have a very advanced understanding of what they are doing. It seems to be the common opinion of people on the street that they are altering things that they have little understanding of, but that is not the case.

I'm sure the scientists working with this have a very good understanding of what they are doing. Problem is that most scientists I know fit in the old definition of scientists: Someone who knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything. What happens in nature with all the diverse biosystems is usually completely outside the GM scientists frame of knowledge. Same as a brick layer don’t know everything about plumbing and electrical wiring even if he works in the same industry.

Of course, careful regulation of this industry needs to occur, because the technology if misused could have harmful effects, but people need to come to terms with the fact that it also has very beneficial uses if used correctly, and it can be 100% safe.

Like others have said, NOTHING is 100% safe, everyone knows that.

Everyone is saying that careful regulation of the GM industry needs to occur, but where is it? It is completely irresponsible to carry out these modifications with the current lack of regulation, especially in the US. The US FDA have a long history of corruption, just the other month the latest boss quit as they were going to check his holdings in a pharmaceutical company. . There are several previously high ranking officials in the FDA now holding well paying positions in pharma companies they helped, the NutraSweet scandal was just one of these incidents.

Having said that, i think it's good that the public are willing to demonstrate a concern, that means that the industry is under intense scrutiny which is in all of our best interests. However, it can be irritating to see people in outrage about a product that is perfectly safe, just because they have no understanding of what's involved.

What is irritating, to put it mildly, is the industries arrogant behavior. There are millions spent in lobbying governments to release GMO. The industry have done everything they can to minimize any kind of regulation and safety procedures. The industry have been against all safety measures so far including very basic things like labeling.

The big question is why do they oppose safety and regulation if it’s so safe????

The lack of choice is the big problem, once it’s out there is no stopping it. You can read in the papers about GMO popping up everywhere, one day in papayas next day in cookies what’s next??