[Epona]

Genetically modified crops are mostly about patenting of plants. It is not possible to patent a naturally reproduced plant, but insert one small piece if DNA into it and it is legally possible for someone to 'own' the patent on that plant. Even if you've taken out a piece of DNA and inserted it back into the same plant.

Now there's a lot of money to be made out of this. If a big multinational 'owns' a plant, it becomes illegal for a farmer to use seeds from last years crop to grow the next years (because it breaches the patent laws of ownership), which is how most farming in the world, especially developing countries, works. The farmer must buy seeds every year from the company. Most genetic modification is also about sales of pesticides and fertilisers. If a company has a patented seed that they have modified so it will 'work' with certain pesticides and fertilisers, and be damaged by others, they can force farmers to buy their products as well! This is good for very few people - the people who own the patents on seeds.

Another issue is the environmental one. In areas where GM crops have been tested in Britain, insect and bird populations have been quite badly impacted upon already. There are a lot of regulations about the distance required between GM crops and non-modified crops, but it has been discovered that cross-pollination between crops occurs even at some distance. We are in danger of severely damaging insect (including pollinator) populations. Anyone who thinks that this doesn't matter is obviously ignorant of the importance of pollinating and other types of insect on the whole ecology. For anyone who still thinks this is unimportant - well imagine living in a wasteland. It is important.

And about eating the stuff - surely the point here is that consumers should have the freedom to chose what they eat. Here in the UK we have quite good regulations about labelling of food products, but this is not the case everywhere. If contamination of non-modified crops is occurring (and it has been proven to be the case over wide areas) then no amount of labelling in the world will allow a consumer to make an informed choice. I do not want to eat GM products.

As far as health concerns go, we don't yet know the impact on long-term health. Feeding certain GM foods to rats under lab conditions has shown to induce bowel and intestine damage including haemorraging. For those who say that genetic modification has always taken place in the form of selective breeding and hybridisation, yes they are right up to a point. But there is a vast difference between cross-pollinating two varieties of wheat to try to get a bigger crop, and taking genes from a fish to put them in a tomato. Even mixing different varieties to improve crops and selective breeding of animals is not without problems, even though it is more 'natural'. For example, wheat as we know it is not 'natural' - it is the product of thousands of years of selective production and cross-pollination. This results in high yields - but also has a high gluten content, which many people have an intolerance to. Natural spelt, einkorn, or emmer wheat causes health problems for very few people, yet large numbers of people are intolerant to modern wheat (if you feel bloated after eating a slice of bread you could have a slight intolerance to modern wheats - in some people it can be more serious).

I do not have a problem with science, and I do not have a problem with science being used to improve our world. I do however have a problem with being used as a guinea pig without my agreement for a largely untested scheme that is primarily about making huge profits for multinational corporations.

[ 03-18-2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Epona ]