Frankenstein Foods

[martind93]

Hi everyone,
I know GM crops doesn't always provide for the most stimulating conversation, but its topical, at least give me that!
I was just wondering what people thought about them, their pros, cons etc. My own opinion is that they have the potential , if properly used, to do a lot of good in the world, but if their growth is badly managed, or they are grown for purely commercial, profit-making reasons, they could be disastrous!

[relliott]

personally i'd rather eat my food the way God intended it to grow rather than play around with the genetics to make it "better". Of course they are grown for profit - if they didnt make money out of it then nobody would have done all that research into it - sad but true. And do you really think the day they can grow wheat in drought soil that it will be given/sold cheaply to those areas of the world that need it the most?

We already have GM foods and it wont be long before the spread of GM babies.... what next?

[Pike]

Given that I'm not religious the god part doesn't play any role in my desicion. There isn't really any point in arguing that they arn't grown for profit though, business doesn't care what they are used for as long as its profitable. It does open whole new doors that were otherwise closed though. Obviously the poor areas will still be poor because no one really gives a dam about them anyway since they don't have any money. But at least if the technology is there then there is more chance that some day it will reach the poorer countries. Also with global warming, its not likely that its only the poorer countries that are going to be needing them. Massive areas will become uninhabitable to many existing crops, and GM crops will be needed.

With GM babies there would also be plus points as long as its regulated. No one wants there child to have a decreased quality of life because of a genetic disease. Thats a whole riskier business though, but soon enough the technology will be their and there isn't much that can be done to prevent that.

[elliottsimpson]

personally i'd rather eat my food the way God intended it to growbut (s)he intended it to be shared - I remember in my youth trying to clean up naturally grown carrots which were riddles with little holes (from carrot fly - I think) and more than half of them had to be thrown out.

We tend to take disease free crops / veg etc as a given without realising the bucket loads of chemicals pour over them. Having said that, I think I'd rather have chemicals which are relatively pure than well rotted dung with the potential for E.coli 157 etc floating around.

[elliottsimpson]

I think Monsanto handled the whole thing badly - they started in the UK with maize, which isn't really a natural crop to the UK and the main reason it "needed" to be GM was to let the farmers use Monsanto's weed killer.

[relliott]

Pike... quality of life is not based on health condition. I know a few people with genetic conditions who are wonderfully happy people with a great quality of life. We run the risk of children with such conditions being subordinate in some way if we allow widespread tinkering with genetic codes to breed the super-race.

When Hitler did it we all didn't like it. Playing with human DNA to "clean out" those annoying little codons is not an idea i am comfortable with. Sure, if via genetics you can replace malformed proteins and create new treatments then i'm not going to argue that benefit.... but to pre-order your new little bundle of joy to your specifications? If you aint seen the film Gattaca then I reccommend it as it does show exactly where that kind of ideology is going to lead us. Failing that read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".

[Pike]

quality of life is not based on health condition
Its based on a number of things, but you can't argue that health condition isnt a major factor. Life and death being dependant on health condition after all..

know a few people with genetic conditions who are wonderfully happy people with a great quality of life.
I know a few people who would say the opposite, but that doesnt really tell anybody anything.

We run the risk of children with such conditions being subordinate in some way if we allow widespread tinkering with genetic codes to breed the super-race.

By trying to erradicate enormous life threatening genetic diseases is not in any way similar or relatable to trying to breed a super race... Subordinate is a word I don't like using, but under the context you used it, you have children that are "subordinate" now, because they have been unfortunate enough to be born with genes that completley hamper or end their life unnecesarily. Is it not right to try and prevent this? Just because there is the fear that under some extremist regime in an unlkely circumstance dreamed up in a book, that we should denounce the potential benefits completley. Its a bit like saying, lets ban AI because it may decide it doesnt like humans.. Its an extreme that we can do our best to control.

but to pre-order your new little bundle of joy to your specifications?
Is very different from doing your best to prevent the child is born only to die young..

Maybe this thread could be split for the two different arguments, GM babies and GM foods.

[carlarossini]

From an economics point of view, GM foods allows for less waste and higher yield (controlled growing conditions), more standardised food, and larger produce. Ultimately it reduces the costs of production by far and thus makes the cost of food cheaper (something of benefit for Britain to say the least.)
As economists, however, we don't dabble with the normative area - that's for other social scientists! As far as we're concerned, we are concerned with facts! (Carla slyly slips out the door, avoiding the question "ought we to be growing GM foods")
:evil
x

[martind93]

At the end of the day, its alright for us to get on our high horses and starting to talk about what WE'D rather eat. Its important though to remember that not everyone has the choice.

[elliottsimpson]

At the end of the day, its alright for us to get on our high horses and starting to talk about what WE'D rather eat. Its important though to remember that not everyone has the choice.
and equally important to remember that some of our choices effect theirs. Countries which grow cash crops (e.g. coffee, tobacco, etc) do so at the expense of growing food. So the food is expensive but the cash goes to the wealthy land owners and not the workers.

*cue Mirz et al for quick plug for Fair Trade*

[Hayley]

I know a few people who would say the opposite, but that doesnt really tell anybody anything.



Well yes, isn't that the point - two people with the same condition can been affected in different ways and to a different extent and even those affected to the same extent may have entirely different views on their 'quality of life'.

By eliminating foetuses with certain genetic differences eliminates their chance of life - who has the right to decide what level of quality of life is acceptable to someone else who isn't even born? Noone.


But anyway, food. Hm, I probably don't know enough about what they actually do with the GM food to give fair comment but personally I prefer the thought of it being untampered with, I don't need all my fruit to be the perfect shape and unnaturally large. But then I don't like the thought of processed foods either, or microwaving and I still do it cos it'd be rather inconvenient to buy and cook fresh every day.

I think I had a point when I started but I lost it somewhere back there.

Hayley :chute:

[relliott]

Elliott has a point about what you eat affecting other people. There are so many sources of food that buy supporting them you support all sorts of unfair working conditions right across the globe. Not easy to get around on a student budget however