 |
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
The great Danger of genetically altered Food is, that there any Alergenes will be ransferred from a Food to which some People have allergic reactions to another Food, which isnīt known to be a carrier of the allergene.
As People could die of allergic shock because of Food Allergies they tend to avoid those Foods to which they show allergic reactions.
One example is DuPonts attempt to introduce a Peanut - Gene into a Soybean. Luckily they detected just in time, that People who have Peanut Allergy also show allergic Reactions to those Genetically altered Soybeans and wisely DuPont decided to cease any further development of the Soybeans.
See here:
http://www.dupont.com/biotech/scien...gy/faq.htm#nine
But, despite the Food Companies testing their Food for possible allergenicity, they could miss a thing as theremight be unknown allergenes, or there could be some growth conditions, which increase the number of Allergenes in the Plant (for example having the number of Allergenes in the Plant increase with exposition to sun, but testing a plant which was grown underovercast sky [and of course getting no allergenicity as a result] and then having a charge of Plants which got a lot of sunlight during growth being sold to the customer, which could be hazarduous for any allergenic).
Even DuPont admits, that they canīt be totally sure to have their Plants absolutely free from allergenes.
Therefore I think that it was a step into the right direction, that the EU forced the USA to mark any genetically altered ingredients within food, sold in the EU.
After all it could safe lifes if a person with a certain Food Allergy exhibits Signs of this allergy after eating Food, which normally shouldnīt be dangerous.
It could save the life of this person or at least the lifes of future consumers of this food, as, if you know that the food is genetically altered, you could send a notice to the Food Company and let them know that its food seems to cause allergic reactions.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Most of the problem is that ppl are chosing to be ignorant"
Who defines that? If bungee-jump companies say the risk is minimal, no one may point out the risk or label chess-playing to be safer, is that also for "policy" to decide and ram down people's throat?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Therefore I think that it was a step into the right direction, to force the USA to mark any genetically altered food in the List of ingredients.
|
Proteus you make good points and will agree...
Thinking on the cigs product and it's testing that was needed;
Much of the US was built on Tobacco, as with other countries. Much of the US was built on strip minning, as with other countries. Much of the US was built through child labor, as with other countries. Much of the US was grown with DDT, as with other countries...
Point is that there comes times in the world, not just one society, where the good does out weigh the bad. Economies grow so that large productions of Tobacco, strip minning, child labor, DDT, and the likes are either replace or no longer needed. This does not mean that it shouldn't of been done. It may not have been the best, there may have been unforseen problems with the system, or even problems that were seen and ignored, yet that does not mean that they should not be used.
Drugs are released everyday that have side effects that may shorten, not extended, your life.
Foods are grown everyday that will kill you in the future.
The reason, we are hungry now and we need to be cured now. The longer you wait for the definitive answer the more people there are who starve or go without drugs to extended their quality of life.
Yes we should attempt to limit the bad effects, yet eliminating them will take ages... I for one would rather be feed to day and risk allergies then to die from hunger. AS well, I do not want to feed someone who is starving only to have them die from what I fed them.
Therefore; label away. If it is the only thing to eat it will be eaten.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
Last I heard the ban was still on; I could have missed them lifting it though. |
You have missed it.
"The fact remains that the ban lasted far longer then any reseasonable "safety" concern would dictate."
The French played a bit with the rules. The US would never do that when there is a problem in, say, Canada.
Also. the economic gain for french farmers was miniscule though - british beef is an extremely tough sale in the rest of the EU, not because of regulations, but because of consumer sentiment. And consumer sentiment and the votes it carries played a much larger role than protectionism in this.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Monsanto are a bunch of braindead chicken****ers. The more they try to play hardball, the more resistance and hysteria to their products they create.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:30
|
|
sorry, the gist of my post had already been posted here twice.
Last edited by Geronimo on 15-08-2003 at 06:49
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't understand this labeling of GM foods. Like pointed out earlier, every food has been GMed, they are just doing it faster now. Sure, if you want label your food as 'Organic', which basically means less GM than the regular food, but to assume that there can be any food that hasn't been GMed in the past is just silly. |
Not only faster.
They also have a greater Liberty of altering the genetic Layout of certain Plants and therefore also have a greater Chance to cause harm.
As in the Example with the genetic manipulated Soybeans, where DuPont tried to introduce Genes of Nuts and by doing it also introduced the Genes which caused the Allergenes to which Peanut Allergics showed increased Sensitivity to be produced by the Soybeans.
Afterwards they also tried to introduce the Genes of Sunflowers into the Soybeans, but again they triggered the Production of certain Allergenes and so they had to abandon the Project to increaser the Productivity of Soybeans.
So I think that this new Stage of Gene manipulating bears much greater Dangers for the consumer than the traditional way of genetic Manipulation through systematic Breeding.
At least if you donīt thoroughly test the Plants which are produced by this newer Form of genetic Manipulation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
it just seems like a good deal for the EU. they pay their farmers enuff. they hardly want more competition.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity did they ever pay the fines the EU slapped on them? |
1996: European Commission imposes a worldwide ban on British beef exports
1999: Commission declares worldwide markets open again
2000: Germany agrees to take UK imports
2001: European Court of Justice rules French refusal to take British beef illegal
June 2002: Commission asks European Court to impose daily fines of Ģ100,000 against France
Sept 2002: French food agency advises lifting the ban and the French government complies
Fines cannot be imposed retrospectively, so no.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|