Europe Bans GM Food

And the WTO says tough shit.

Not the right link.

Heard something on the radio last night(BBC world service) in an interview with a spokesperson for an anti-GM group, and something he said got me thinking; one of the main arguments that I have heard so far for opponents of genetically modified is that the burden of proof is on the backs of the developers to show that their products are 100% safe. Okay, that makes sense. Its food after all.

Or does it?

It sounds like the European markets are at least willing to recognize that current GM food is certified 99% safe; but they hold on to their bans for that remaining unknown 1% possibility that it is unsafe.

But, their demands are just flat out impossible to satisfy. There is no way that you can PROVE that a food is safe. Hell, even the food that we eat now is not really PROVEN 100% safe for all peoples. Its just accepted that a vast majority of food is safe, since we've run into only a few problems over the millennia that we have been eating the stuff. I'm sure there are some people out there who have allergic reactions to corn, wheat (I even know someone who is suspected of having this), rice, beef, pork, etc. So, even the foods we eat now are not proven 100% safe for all people. So why does GM food have to be different?
I personally think 99% safety is an acceptable number. They release over-the-counter drugs for higher rates of incidence.

So, what are your thoughts? Are the European markets demands reasonable?
Those on the boards from Europe, I would really like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

That link says there was a vote about genetically modified CROPS, not foods. The concern here is that certain grains have been modified so that the seed cannot be used for replanting, creating the need for farmers to invest large amounts in these companies each year for new seed. This isn't about a health risk.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Oh my god, you're right. Shoot. This isn't the report I heard.

That aside, what I reported to you in the follow up commentary really was what was said in the news report I heard last night. I'll search for the proper link. ;_;

(I feel so stupid)

EDIT: Search abandoned because BBC World Service's search sucks hairy ass.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Wouldn't farmers prefer to use grains that are replantable with or without the GM ban? I mean, even presuming that they couldn't replant grains, there has to be some kind of incentive for them to plant the GM crops, or they wouldn't be planting them in the first place.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The thing is, absolutely no serious studies have shown the possible harm GM food could do... and that's scary. However, according to RDI (a french cnn in canada), ouver 75% of our crops have genetically modified.

But what exactly is defined as GM? Food with foreign gene or natural selection of the "fittest"?

I was speaking idiomatically.

As I understand it, the basic fear behind genetically modified foods (as opposed to the crops themselves) is that when we change the DNA, it's not so much a process of finesse as it is sticking the whole thing in a blender and seeing what pops out.

Okay, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration. But, when we've made genetic modifications to animals, they're not even close. And by not even close I mean they're extremely close to being perfect, but some tiny percentage off. That tiny percentage can be quite worrying, given that we're bound to create food that not only simply isn't edible, but food that could be far more dangerous than anything we can conceive of.

Don't ask me for any examples; apparently I can't conceive of them.

Apparently, there's also fear of how the DNA is altered in the first place. We change plant genes the nasty way: give them a virus that alters their DNA to what we want it to be. Now, when you ingest that food, the theory is that some of that virus is going to get by, and some of the DNA might as well.

Given, I don't know how valid any of these arguments to it are, exactly, but they're ones I've heard. I don't know if I personally give them much weight.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I don't want man-made genes escaping into the eco-system at large. I don't want farmers in third world countries having to buy new grain annually from corporations because they have been engineered to be sterile. They may grow better in worse conditions, but it isn't worth it. There's also the potential for super strains of fungus, bacteria and insects to evolve that can attack these disease-resistant crops and ravage normal ones. There are already modified crops that can resist weedkiller such as RoundUp, meaning that american farmers are able to dump tons more poison onto their fields without harming yields. I don't think that would benefit the environment in the long run.

It's highly unlikely that ingested modified DNA can enter into the cells of the human body, so i'm not worried about that. It's all the other problems associated with GM crops that concern me. Europe has made the right decision here.

FELIPE NO

I think they were talking about genetically modified foods, not crops.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

GM foods are any foods you can buy containing genetically modified material. Just about everything you eat contains something that has been grown in a field (a crop), with the exception of purely animal-derived ingredients.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

And yet there's a difference. Crops aren't always grown in the country in which they're consumed, for one.

Let's make an analogy. Underage consumption of alcohol, and purchasing alcohol for a minor. Would you agree that these are two (related, but) different topics?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Oh I see, so as long as it's not in "my back yard" I shouldn't care? Maybe you don't mind if someone else has to carry the can for the things done in another country, but I do. We all live on one planet with a single eco-system, and if we do somehow screw it up (in addition to the other ways we are already damaging it) we won't survive.

Your argument about underage drinking is spurious. I'm just surprised that it isn't as clear as crystal to you that food is made primarily from crops, and that the country of origin makes no difference to that fact, and to the potential of environmental contamination. The only way your statement would make sense would be if GM foods were created from wholly synthetic man-made products, in which case a distinction could be made. However, they aren't - all foods are made from either normal or genetically modified plants and animals. Since GM animals are much easier to contain, the main issue is with GM plants (crops) cross pollenating with natural ones and therefore contaminating them.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The largest argument I've heard is something like "Ooh, but what if the genes spread from one plant to another?"
I don't know much about biology, but I really don't think that's an issue. Is gene swapping a normal occurence in nature?
Anyway, I sorta don't care about GM foods. I'll probably eat it regardless. Even if it ave me wings. No, scratch that: Especially if it gave me wings!

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Kilroy

I don't know much about biology, but I really don't think that's an issue. Is gene swapping a normal occurence in nature?

I believe the biologically educated amongst us refer to it as "reproduction".

I was speaking idiomatically.

I'm actually curious, does Europe import much corn from the US? I know a pretty massive proportion of the corn grown here is considered GM (which is why in recent years it's been so pump, flavorful, and had a longer growing season), so they'd have to cut out a pretty decent chunk of that importation if it's true.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?