From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 11:52:27 MDT
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 09:50 am, John K Clark wrote:
> 1) In most cases finding a test to determine for example if flower came
> from genetically modified wheat would be like finding a test to
> determine the astrological sign of the man who drove the combine when
> the wheat was harvested, so the only way to certify that the flower did
> not from gene engineered wheat is to ban the technology entirely.
Actually, this is not true. Many people seem to be assuming that there
is no difference between GM foods and non-GM foods. If this were true,
we wouldn't be wasting the money on GM research. GM foods are bred to
have a specific effect. Such plants have tougher skins for shipping, or
higher insecticide content for pest control, or a higher resistance to a
pesticide, or larger portions produced, etc. They have clear
differences that are specifically designed.
Golden rice is a different color than white rice, and has a different
nutrient content and a different taste. It looks so different that if
it were not labeled, people would assume that it had spoiled. GM soya
grown in india was discovered to form split pea-pods in hot climates
where the non-GM version did not. Thus, these were no longer acceptable
for pea-pod dishes, because the pods were all split. The Flavr-Savr
Tomato was deliberately engineered so that it was tougher and could be
picked ripe and shipped, instead of green. This produced a tomato that
is dramatically different and superior to green-picked tomatoes.
Customers trying to buy to Flavr-Savr and getting green-picked tomatoes
would complain that they are not the same thing at all. The swedish
potatoe was engineered to be pest resistant. It turned out sweeter than
white potatoes, and actually attracts more pests due to the flavor. It
tastes different than a non-GM potato. Celery and carrots have been
developed that are crisper and remain crisper than regular ones. A
sweeter version of chicory has been developed. Coffee has been GM
enhanced for better flavor. Truly seedless grapes have been developed
by GM. New potatoes that absorb less fat during cooking (for potato
chips) have been developed. Soybeans with enhanced protein content have
been developed. All of these examples are obviously different than
their non-GM versions in ways that can be seen or tasted by consumers.
As a compromise, can we at least agree that products that look or taste
different than their non-GM counterparts should be labeled so customers
don't get a surprise when they open the product?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:14 MST