Public needs to be 'educated' into accepting GM

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 23 Sep 2009, 19:06

The Ecologist - 23/09/09

Companies should counter organic groups' criticisms of food technologies to convince consumers to accept biotechnology and irradiation, says US study.

Negative consumer attitudes to GM technology and irradiation could be improved by education, say academics.

Article continues ...

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 23 Sep 2009, 22:27

The public hasn't forgotten this:

http://www.newsplayer.com/agriculture-m ... isis-video

If the government makes a real effort to convince people something is safe, the natural reaction now is to believe it is dodgy as hell. The MMR jab is another example.

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 23 Sep 2009, 23:19

Are shoppers likely to get a choice? Unless items are clearly labelled "GM" most people won't know anyway. Would the average Joe avoid GM, especially if it's cheaper?

chubbygristle · Post by **chubbygristle** » 24 Sep 2009, 02:37

I saw something about this the other week on Country File on the BBC. It looks as if the mainstream media is now reversing it's 'GM is evil' stance on things with the 'looming food shortages'.

What really got my goat though was that the issue of GM seems to have been polarised into the two arguments, i.e. we need GM to feed everyone and we don't want dodgy GM food because we don't trust what it will do to our health etc... The point that seems to be missed every time this whole thing comes into discussion is that if we go down the route of GM crops we will most likely

a) end up with the vast majority of food becoming the "Intellectual Property" of a handful of rather large corporate bodies who's main interested is securing profits for themselves over anything else. (think Microsoft wanting to take everyone and anyone to court for software patent infringements and apply that to the food chain)

and

b) continue the large scale, intensive, fertiliser / pesticide based mono-cropping which has allowed the soil to become so degraded and infertile in the first place.

Also, there is a hell of a lot more money going into researching the GM options as opposed to the research of say deploying Permaculture techniques to combat such problems of pests etc which also makes the GM route appear to be more successful.

The GM approach appears to only address certain problems facing the food supply chain and takes things like the current availability of external oil / gas / chemical inputs as a given - so I fail to see how in 20 years from now when we've clung on to this ridiculous model of food production, we'll be any better off for it.

Anyway, feel free to pull this apart with some more coherent thoughts and arguments than I can put together in these small hours

I think I am trying to say that even if GM food is completely "safe", it is in fact very unsafe in the sense that it allows us to try to continue to sustain the unsustainable thus wasting the one most precious 'non-renewable' resource... time.

chubbygristle · Post by **chubbygristle** » 24 Sep 2009, 02:41

UndercoverElephant wrote:The public hasn't forgotten this:

http://www.newsplayer.com/agriculture-m ... isis-video

If the government makes a real effort to convince people something is safe, the natural reaction now is to believe it is dodgy as hell. The MMR jab is another example.

ha ha .. is it just me or has he allowed the actual burger to fall out of the bun somewhat to avoid actually eating the more dicey element of that snack

You can see it hanging out of the bottom of the bun!!!

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 24 Sep 2009, 09:54

chubbygristle wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:The public hasn't forgotten this:

http://www.newsplayer.com/agriculture-m ... isis-video

If the government makes a real effort to convince people something is safe, the natural reaction now is to believe it is dodgy as hell. The MMR jab is another example.
ha ha .. is it just me or has he allowed the actual burger to fall out of the bun somewhat to avoid actually eating the more dicey element of that snack You can see it hanging out of the bottom of the bun!!!

Yep....never noticed that before.

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 24 Sep 2009, 10:20

Sourced at:

http://www.laleva.cc/food/hazards_gerbis.html

The Basic Disadvantages of Food Irradiation:

It reduces the content of several key nutrients such as Vitamin E (~15-30 %); Thiamin (~10-25%); Vitamin C (5-15%); Riboflavin (~7-10%); Pyridoxine (~10-20%); Vitamin B12 (~15-20%). Other nutrients are also affected however the results are less consistent.

It creates radiolytic products with unknown short term or long term safety effects.

Some of the organoleptic properties are affected especially for herbs, spices, essential oils.

Formation of cholesterol oxides and fatty acid epoxidation and other oxidation products (aldehydes, esters, ketones etc.) posing safety concerns.

Aggregation of certain proteins has been found for high protein commodities.

The method is 90-95%% effective in killing microorganisms. The remaining 5-10% remain unaffected and may proliferate thus negating the irradiation steps. The methods can result in 95-100% effectiveness but will substantially affect the quality of the food item (taste, nutrient contents, radiolytic products,denaturing proteins, fatty acids etc.).

Is ineffective against viruses.

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 24 Sep 2009, 10:29

Interesting..

Few consumers would willingly eat irradiated food. This is why it seems very sinister to me that the US Congress has recently passed a "farm bill" into law that makes it okay for companies to call irradiated food "pasteurized." This provision was suggested by one senator with financial interests in agribusiness, and voted in by enough others to become law. They have decided to try to get around public concerns about irradiation by changing the labels.

Full blog (although I dont by any means agree with lots of it...but it is interesting)... :

http://www.margonaut.com/irradiation.htm

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Sep 2009, 10:45

Not long now lads. Those pesky Irish are being frightened into voting yes for the EU constitution, oops, Lisbon 'treaty'. Then we're fooked. What does it feel like, having a few hundred thousand decide your future?

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 24 Sep 2009, 14:21

emordnilap wrote:Not long now lads. Those pesky Irish are being frightened into voting yes for the EU constitution, oops, Lisbon 'treaty'. Then we're fooked. What does it feel like, having a few hundred thousand decide your future?

Probably worth its own thread...

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Sep 2009, 14:31

Probably. But it's most likely directly related, though not in a straightforward, obvious way.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 24 Sep 2009, 14:56

We have been practising genetic modification naturally for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is the process of selective breeding of animals and the process of cross-breeding of plants. Most farmers do it to the best of their ability with their livestock and crops.

I think we have to get clarity on GM and what is good and bad about it. I am by no means an expert, but have the following thoughts.

On the positive side, we can speed up the traditional process that has got us to where we are and get us to yet higher yields for the future, likely in a short time frame. We can create crops and livestock that are more immune to disease and pests. We can create food that is more nutritous.

On the negative side, I am very concerned about cross-species modification - we should not try to put fish DNA into cows or vice-versa. We should not try to cross carrots with peas or rice, etc. This is what I think most people are concerned about and rightly so. If we don't control what is allowed, then we WILL cross a fish with a human using DNA/gene modifcation and get a nightmare. So this is where we need to be very careful.

But probably controversially, I give support to controlled GM.

I know I am not even scratching the surface here, but hopefully people can see where I am coming from.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Sep 2009, 15:16

GMOs are simply about making money. Nothing else. Period.

They are totally unnecessary.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 24 Sep 2009, 15:41

GM as practised by the agribusiness multinationals has deservedly got a very bad press. It has been about locking in profits. The science came a very poor second.

However, as pointed out, farmers have been genetically manipulating crops and animals for millennia. They simply did it by cross breeding and inbreeding and artificial selection of traits that seemed useful at the time. This lead to productive (to humans) crops, but often at extreme loss of genetic diversity which has accelerated in the last century.

Scientific GM just broadens the the range of techniques and options, and brings better understanding of the process. It does introduce changes that could not happen via traditional methods, but it is extreme hubris to assume we could accidentally introduce superweeds or similar - sure - some 'weed' species might (do) become resistant to some weed killers, but most of the tinkering we do produces species that are less adaptable and able to survive in the real world.

It is of course monoculture farming, loss of diversity of (and within) species that makes modern agriculture hopelessly unsustainable. However, GM methods can be used to introduce traits which will give (short term) benefit to third world farmers without the agribusiness downside, but there is very little money put into it.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Sep 2009, 15:44

Good to see this type of organisation in the states.

A lightly longer version of the OP's article appears here.

in reply, TraceConsult™ wrote:The FoodNavigator editorial team is wise enough to reserve this article for its U.S. audience exclusively. European readers can only stare in disbelief at this review of a recent report published in the reputable magazine Food Quality and Preference, the official journal of the Sensometric Society (http://www.sensometric.org), an organization that "advances sensory and consumer science through better methodology".

However, the average European reader, arrogant as he is by cliché, would be wrong to assume that the authors are based in the U.S.; the Sensometric Society is a platform sponsored by Denmark's Technical University.

Another natural assumption would be incorrect: The report's authors do not arrive at the conclusion that with appropriate "education" (read: brainwashing) consumers would be more open to irradiation and GMOs in their food. No, their hypothesis is that early GMO labeling would have given biotechnology proponents a better chance to influence the public pro GM.

Since U.S. legislationÝ rendered that option impossible a long time ago, we wonder if, at last, that effect is likely to change with the advent of The Non-GMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org), a collaboration of farmers, manufacturers and retailers to allow for GM-free labeling. One way or another, American consumers may at last get their education in order to embrace GMOs!