genetically engineered food debate heats up

Posted: December 2, 2008 in environment, Food, foreign policy, Politics, Travel
Tags: , , , ,

Around the world, the debate over using genetically engineered food is heating up. This is an article from Yahoo and the AP.

“Influential voices around the world are calling for a re-examination of the GM debate,” says C.S. Prakash, a professor of plant molecular genetics at Alabama’s Tuskegee University. “Biotechnology provides such tools to help address food sustainability issues.”

Genetic manipulation to insert desirable genes or accelerate changes traditionally achieved through crossbreeding can help make crops resistant to insects and disease or enable them to tolerate herbicides. Livestock similarly can be altered by inserting a gene from one animal into the DNA of another.”genetically engineered food debate heats up

  1. drcorner says:

    It’s such a huge topic to have a black0n0white vote on (ala Cloning). There are SO MANY arguments either pro or con that an be made for either side. All the benefits of genetic engineering can easily outweighed by just one serious con (for example: re-activating dormant genes that are dangerous). I saw a documentary this weekend on the possibilities that genetic engineering might offer and the pitfall as well…I’ve been meaning for awhile now to write on topic (ever since your first genetic engineering post months ago), thanks for the reminder, I’ll make sure I get to it this time around. It’s definitely a topic to not take lightly at all, especially with the temporary bans expiring in areas of the World.

  2. alpinmack says:

    I agree. I took a hard and fast view partly to be provocative, and partly because I’m an optimist who reads a lot of science fiction and would like to see all these cool changes take place with none of the killer mutant viruses and nano-plagues.

  3. natureheads says:

    Too right, drcorner.
    There was a very poor documentary on the BBC about this recently. BBC2 Horizon: “Jimmy’s GM Food Fight”.

    The problem with the propaganda is that it’s full of exciting promises -(who would disagree with feeding all the world’s hungry?)- but nothing over the last 20 years has actually helped to feed anyone, or solve any of the environmental challenges facing us. Just like the GM marketing lines above “offer such tools to help address…” the Horizon programme said lots of “could be better for…” and “could, potentially, help to feed…” – but without evidence, which was its main failing.

    Jimmy Doherty, I think, meant well, but with the help of the BBC 2 Horizon team he did a fine job of casting doubt on the ecological, social, economic, environmental, food security, and food sovereignty arguments against GM technology. Whilst not exploring those issues, he still seemed to insist that we must forge ahead.

    My analysis of the programme at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s