Testing for genetically modified foods

[Exy]

I've heard sort of conflicting things about this. On the one hand, Penn and Teller and other folks like them (who are skeptical of environmental movements) say that genetically modified plants are thoroughly tested prior to release. On the other hand, the typical claim I've heard from lefty groups is that since the pesticides (and the like) produced internally by genetically modified plants are not "additives" they are not subjected to meaningful safety testing. What's the truth?

I've never really made any effort to avoid eating genetically modified foods and I think things like "golden rice" or other crops modified to increase nutritional value are potentially really valuable, though I'm also nervous about the economic effects of increasing farmers' dependency on buying expensive seeds from the likes of Monsanto.

But are things like that missing the point? Am I slowly poisoning myself by exposing myself to untested, potentially dangerous chemicals that can't even be washed off the plants that contain them?

[Nrblex]

I was aware of the economic/ethical problems with causing dependency on genetically modified crops and felt that was the most important issue surrounding this. I'd never given much thought to them beyond that entirely valid concern (and occasionally laughing at people who freak out about GMOs as eeeeeeevil).

The internal pesticides thing interests me, though. I hope somebody has an answer to this.

[Hatshepsut]

]My views and questions are a lot like Exy's. An excellent book on the subject is Mendel's Kitchen. My review is the second one there so I guess you can read that for more of my comments on the book. (One-sentence summary: the book is hardly unbiased, but it seems very reasonable in support of GMF.)

I guess I am equally suspicious of the "there, there, it can't possibly harm you, silly layperson who doesn't understand science" and the "OMIGOD EVIL CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!" crowd.

If only I had time to get a Ph.D. in botany or genetics...

[Rube E. Tewesday]

No good answer to the OP, but I found this interesting article about a GM product that was apparently tested by the FDA.

[OtakuLoki]

I don't know about the testing question that you mention, Exy. A lot of the people I've seen complaining about it, however, seem to be starting from the position that the only reason adverse effects have not been seen is because they haven't been studied enough.

The fact that I believe that there's not going to be any amount of testing that will be sufficient to prove the safety of these strains in the eyes of some of their critics doesn't mean I'm comfortable with the idea of releasing said strains without any testing.

...I'm also nervous about the economic effects of increasing farmers' dependency on buying expensive seeds from the likes of Monsanto.

The problem I have with this is that it seems to ignore that for all intents and purposes current farming with hybrid strains already leaves the farmer with no choice but to go back to the seed company, because the seed from their high yield, high value crop last year will not grow to be the same strain as the parent crop.

Similar things can be said about the biodiversity issue, too.

The complaints about replacing staples with what I'd call hot house strains, strains or cultivars that require more support than the previous strain had to bring a profitable crop to market, is a lot more thorny to me. Often enough I see people focusing on water use when they criticize golden rice. If there's a real difference in the water budget between golden rice and the strains currently being used, that's a legitimate complaint. But I've seen nothing to support it, other than unfocused analogies with high yield hybrid strains used in the US, of strains of wheat or maize. My understanding is that rice is already a very water-intensive species - usually grown in regions where there are huge seasonal surpluses of water available. If there's no water deficit between the two strains, I don't see a problem. For that matter, if the water deficit can be dealt with by the one-time cost¹ of engineering a reservoir to collect the seasonal rainfall, I don't see that as an insurmountable hurdle, either.

But that's a specific look at one specific strain. There are plenty of industrialized strains that do require a huge investment above what a subsistence farmer could afford, to bring a profitable crop in. One size fits all is not the case with GM foods.






1, yes, I know water works will require constant maintenance, but the costs of maintaining such works are often negligible compared to the capital costs of building it in the first place. Work with me, here.

[Hatshepsut]

My understanding is that rice is already a very water-intensive species - usually grown in regions where there are huge seasonal surpluses of water available.

How true this is depends on the type of rice. There are different kinds of rice that can be grown in different conditions - some tolerate far dryer conditions than the classic "paddy" rice that requires a swamp. Where golden rice falls on the spectrum, I don't know.

[vison]

Growing rice has always been a co-operative effort, a village effort. No single farmer could make the paddies by himself, or maintain them. An excellent essay on this is contained in Margaret Visser's terrific book: Much Depends Upon Dinner.