a mini thread on GMO's

http://food.change.org/blog/view/is_monsantos_corn_destroying_your_internal_organs

My response to the above article:
Farming is a skilled position with very particular knowledge about the region, the time of year, and types of crops being grown. It saddens me that the capitalistic fundamental of efficiency and exploitation, not to mention the invasive technological sciences, have changed farming into a monkey's job; granted they are most closely related to human, but really? More on Monsanto though, I just cannot grasp why they expect to be successful with GMOs, or GEO (genetically engineered organism) when they are not natural and good for people. Furthermore, the fact that it destroys present systems and depletes the ecology of the area and creates a dependency system for the farmer would be very hard to accept on a ethical basis as an employee or supporter of Monsanto. How is that favorable? I just don't understand. However, I guess people still work for cigarette companies, and food is a necessity, even if it's not addictive. Frustrating.

Comments from Devon Pena:
"They expect to be successful because they have some very powerful technology, an incomparable R&D apparatus, a near-monopoly status is several sectors (hence the Justice Dept. investigation), and they have powerful White House and Congressional connections (biotechnology sector folks are spread well across Obama's administration in mid to high level deputy secretary positions). The dependency you speak about is crucial problem and could even be seen as an attack on the community and its autonomy. As to "they are not natural and good for people," well, the truth is that we actually don;t know for sure because we have never done systematic predictive ecology or epidemiological studies, and the empirical data from human populations is zilch. This is why the CRG opposed approval in the absence of biosafety studies of potential or probable impacts on the environment and people. The Precautionary Principle approach we all took, however, failed, to stop this from spreading and, frankly, we are now all unwitting participants in a grand experiment since the "genie" is literally out of the bottle."
"I should add a caveat to the previous post. While no direct empirical (and especially longitudinal) data exist on the health effects of transgenic foods on humans, there is evidence of at least a "correlation," especially in relation to food allergies. The scare a few years back involving Starlink GEO corn (approved for feedstock) demonstrated that, when this stuff gets into the human food supply, it can cause adverse reactions in some consumers. There are many other reasons - other than human health - to be concerned about transgenics."

My ending thoughts:
GMOs are frustrating, not to mention scary, particularly with unknown health risks. However, I do see how sceintists could be excited in developing a new "food." I think the whole debate is interesting to look at in a larger scale and think about stem cell research, its similarities and differences with GMO food. I find myself supportive of stem cell research due to the benefits for people, considering the shortage of organs for transplants. (Also influence by knowing an individual who has greatly benfitted from the technology). However, I am strongly against GMO food. Yet, I find this due to ethical beliefs rather than complete sensible comparison.

A classmate of mine stated: "This world of GMOs we live in has me completely intimidated." I wholeheartedly agree! It is hard to balance nutritional needs and intake with knowledge regarding our food system. One can make the effort to eat organic, buy local, however, sometimes it seems like so much work to avoid the system.

Devon's important and relevant point: "May I propose a simple idea: Feeling guilt about our complicity in food injustice is a luxury or privileged emotion."