GM Foods are a tool, not a moral issue. However, they cause enough controversy to make you think they are killing people. The only valuable argument ever raised was that GMOs might trigger allergies (since the foods we eat normally have been selected for their safety, this seems reasonable). Experiments where rats were fed GM potatoes were shown to be badly designed (specifically, the potatoes were modified to produce lectin which is poisonous anyway!).

On the other hand, there may be some recent evidence that bacteria in the guts of bees take up the modified genes from GM pollen. Although this does not mean they are expressed, it does make trials more complicated. A final point to counter claims that GM foods are essential for the Third World is that improvement in crop growth can also be brought about by proper understanding of how plants find nutrients.

The Aberdeen scientist (Arpad Pusztai) who performed the lectin (I misspelt this in a previous version, thus the soft link below) experiments published some results in The Lancet. Unfortunately, press conferences somewhat biased the scientific community against him and his work. His claims that GM food is poisonous are somewhat general and largely unsupported.

I voted amoebius's writeup below down, not because I disagree about the good points made; humanitarian arguments are clearly suspect - since better effects could be produced by improving farming techniques and/or better distribution. However the long term benefits are not the issue that is usually argued, it is the dangers. I must reiterate (see: genetic pollution) that if you don't understand something don't use it in your argument. There's no particular reason you should understand genetics, but it does help.

• Crops are not GM pathogens.
• Ideas of 'harmony' in nature are overrated
• 'Emergent' does not equal natural.
• Natural does not equal 'good', necessarily.

By all means, disagree with multinationals about their seed policies - but don't condemn GM technology through ignorance of it. Yes the world is now a big laboratory, but unless you are prepared to build a second earth (Biosphere 3?) to test crops, then tough. There are much more important environmental issues (reefs dying, decreasing biodiversity...) - concentrate on those.

Formerly, referred to food by the General Mills corporation, now refers to Genetically Modified food. As a point of semantics, it is important to note that almost all food we see has been genetically modified over centuries of domestication. The current debate over GM food is related to Genetic Engineering, where transgenic material may be used. Proponents of genetically engineered food cite the many potential benefits (such as Vitamin A enhanced rice or high yield canola). Detractors refer to GM food as Frankenfood and cite potential hazards to persons eating GM food, as well as the possibility of environmental damage. Dectractors also cite philosophical or moral arguments against GM food.

The general consensus is that capitalism has won and multinational corporations exercise undemocratic influence to manage international trade. For example Novartis, Monsanto, and other corporations have developed understory GM crop, such as coffee engineered to grow faster, which have indirectly contributed to the destruction of the rainforest.

One can argue that such products, say crop or fish, possess a high level of proteins capable -even when individually considered- of controlling the starvation problem. Any nutritionist, however, will tell us that the key to good nutrition is a balanced diet. Moreover, the so-called 'biopiracy' has caused, by means of shifting a few strands of DNA, a mutation of rice that has existed in India for thousands of years. And what is even more worrisome is that some countries, as occurred in Chiapas (Mexico), have sucily declared themselves biopiracy free zones.

These new high yield varieties are sold and marketed to developing countries, and the World Bank gives loans to buy these products. If one could establish some responsible limits and these corporations could be reformed, no complaints should arise. But the World Trade Organization behaves just as a puppet of multinationals because these countries have huge foreign debts they have to make interest payments on, without any possibility of generating currency. They turn their forests and fisheries into cash, what makes the third world even more dependant on the first.

Such humanitarian data could seem 'suspicious', but the above facts could advise that researches of the GM food impact on the environment should be performed at a lesser and -if possible- controlled scale. (By the way, Nature has been employing a very elapsed period of time to get a sustainable development.)

Genetically Modified Foods - A look into the lack of knowledge, and hence the need.

This node is U.S. centric. First it is important to point out that (Organic) does not mean (Not Genetically Modified). Organic means containing carbon. Any time a man sits down to eat a tomato, he doesn't want to have to think what is in his tomato. He doesn't want to wonder why it tastes good. He doesn't want to ponder what consequences it holds. If this tomato was homegrown by him, he'd get what he wanted, but it wasn't. Was this tomato genetically modified, instead of homegrown by a farmer? This man doesn't know, in fact no one does because genetically modified foods are not labeled, tested, sorted, or even regulated. Genetically Modified foods should be labeled, ought to be brought to the attention of the people by the government, and should have more explanation and testing. Genetically modified foods should have additional government regulation done by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for the protection of knowledge and health of the United States of America.

The Food and Drug Administration currently is the only governmental section in the United States to follow any information concerning genetically modified foods. They don't do much, in fact according to the FDA, they aren't even required to make any review or test on GM foods unless voluntarily requested by the company producing the GM product. This should change. The FDA is definitely the best organization to do more - they monitor our foods and drugs. Genetically modified foods are a result of drugs and foods together. People have a right to know what is in their favorite produce and foods, as little is known to the public now. This is why GM foods should be labeled, to help consumers know what is GM and what is not, as of now both are mixed together.

A genetically modified food is, essentially, a plant that has had a gene altered to a scientist's opinion or want. Ever since the latter part of the 19th century, when Gregor Mendel discovered that characteristics in pea plants could be inherited, scientists have been improving plants by changing their genetic makeup. Typically, this was done through hybridization in which two related plants were cross-fertilized and the resulting offspring had characteristics of both parent plants. Breeders then selected and reproduced the offspring that had the desired traits. This at first does not sound bad, but when taken into account what genes are being added or changed, it is.

The United States is one of the only major power countries in the world to not label their GM products. Almost all of Europe does, and as a result GM foods are minimally purchased or used. They like the homegrown idea. Nearly all the world's GM foods are distributed to the US. Today, to change a plant's traits, scientists are able to use the tools of modern biotechnology to insert a single gene, or, often, two or three genes--into the crop to give it new, "advantageous characteristics." Most genetic modifications make it easier to grow the crop. About half of the American soybean crop planted in 1999, for example, carries a gene that makes it resistant to an herbicide used to control weeds. About a quarter of U.S. corn planted in 1999 contains a gene that produces a protein toxic to certain caterpillars, eliminating the need for certain conventional pesticides. Who would want this in their food, pesticides and toxins and other chemicals? People should know not only if their food is genetically modified, but how it is modified for their health!

The FDA gives the following United States figures: Since 1997 25% of all American agricultural lands, (70-80 million acres), have been converted to raise GM crops, and 77% of the worlds GM foods are grown in the United States. The USA has a large percentage of its foods Genetically Modified. Consumers ought to know this. The FDA has put concerns out for our safety, and gives these figures to show how much of our food has been altered. There should be further testing on these products to see if they are even safe for our health. GM foods are relatively new, not even a decade old in mass production. It takes many years to prove a scientific theory, or prove something is safe for the public. Time is a factor that should be played out, and used by the government under the FDA to further test foods for safety. No out of hand production of GM foods would continue if the public was involved. It ought to stop here and now, and let the FDA control it for our safety.

Another take on GM foods:

   As I see it, the real root difficulty with GM foods, as with many other technologies such as computers, medicine, and even the automobile is not just that of trust and accountability on the surface, but also of relative ignorance relating to science in general on the part of the consuming public.

   We tend as a society, to specialize. Part of this has been a result of the sudden bloom of information brought by scientific and technological advancement. The expanding foundation of general knowledge required for the average person to have a fairly solid idea of how each technological process he or she uses on a daily basis really works has left many of us in specialized niches, but with vast holes in our understanding of the modern world. So we must trust. I program computers, and have a general interest in most everything, but that doesn't mean I can (for instance) repair an engine or prune a tree with any degree of competence or efficiency, so like many others, I count on the trusted advice and services of other individuals with different specializations.

   In an ideal world, as Heitah states above, if Genetically Modified foods were to be labeled, the only sensible way to go about it would be to explain directly what aspects of the source organism had been modified, and what non-standard chemicals are present, and in what concentration. At that point the intelligent and well informed consumers comprising the Market would evaluate the labels and make their decisions based on that information and any partiuclar needs or preferences they might have.

   In our less than ideal world, most consumers either don't know enough about nutrition or biology, or couldn't be bothered to put in the effort to find out, so the labels would be meaningless to the majority of people who might encounter them. While they may be meaningless, they may still trigger an aversion response among those who know that they do not understand the technology and are therefore uncomfortable with it, or maybe have been persuaded by somebody at some point or another that GM foods are inherantly harmful. So if you have labeling without accompanying education you have catered to the small minority who understand the technology, and you have also stirred the most base instinct of fear among those who do not understand the technology. Clearly that will get you nowhere in terms of progress, and if you are in the business of distributing GM foods, it would not help your pocketbook at all.

   This puts the makers of GM foods in an interresting bind. If they do not label their product, they are accused of deception, yet if they do label these products, their market share decreases drasticly as the majority of the public will never read past the first line in the label. Ultimately this is what many opponents of GM food are reaching for, an economic disinsentive, a force to dissuade people from attempting these experiments to begin with.

   I personaly have nothing against GM foods, and on the rare occasion where I find sufficient documentation to convince myself of their safety (I will note that this case is rare not because I have found any that are unsafe, just that the documentation (for reasons described above) is rare) I experience no hesitation when buying such foods. I feel that their widespread adoption will not come until a time when the public is generally well informed enough to evaluate their safety without having to trust the word of the designer or grower. This may come in stages (first, (at least in the United States) FDA or USDA regulation and some sort of safety approval process where GM foods that have been approved will bear some stamp or label asserting that they have been evaluated and found not to be a health risk), and then maybe if that utopia ever arrives where human beings will all be well versed in the sciences and have a healthy general knowledge of the functioning of the world around them, eventually labels will only need to bear the nature of the modification, and as we now take literacy for granted, the common grocery shopper would be quite able to understand.

   Not addressed here are the economic and philosophical questions. Those are seperate debates. My feelings are that the Intellectual Property laws in general will need to change once information (be it in the DNA of a plant seed, or stored on a computer, or printed in a book) becomes better understood as an economic commodity. This will effect much more than seeds. As for the philosophic arguements, I'd rather stand clear and not muddy the scientific questions with claims and conjectures which by definition cannot be proven.