|
SciFri |
|
|
The topic: Agricultural biotech. Here's what some of you had to say...
The answer to this question assumes that we can assess both the benefits and the risks with a reasonably equal degree of certainty. Therein lies the problem. The benefits to producers of this new technology are easy to calculate in terms of dollars and cents, and the exercise shows that US corporations manufacturing genetically engineered corn, soybeans, cotton and potatoes will make very large amounts of money. On the other hand, organic farmers have sued EPA over its registration of Bt corn, because they fear that its use will make the pesticide Bt obsolete. And many fear that their status as organic farmers will be lost if these crops pollinate organically grown corn. Benefits to consumers are not yet as easily seen, because so far the technology has been used to make foods easier for farmers to raise, or more convenient for shippers and retailers. Whether this will translate into even cheaper food for consumers is not yet known. The risks to human health and the environment are much harder to assess, andthey do not lend themselves to a decimal accounting. For example, many of these foods contain genes conferring resistance to antibiotics. Will this speed up the resistance to these critical drugs? The FDA thinks not, but the British Medical Association is sufficiently concerned to recommend that they not be used. If this effect were to occur, how much would it cost in terms of medicines lost to use? Could the increased illness or deaths from infection be expressed in dollars and cents? These questions show why risk benefit analysis of genetically engineered foods quickly becomes a difficult exercise. What is clear is that learning how to assessment of the unique risks of genetically engineered foods is very important. Suzanne Wuerthele, Ph.D. Why have the U.S. citizens been silent on the issue of the beef hormones? We simply did not realize that Bovine Growth Hormone has been in our beef for 30 years until the EU spoke out. The cattle are growing faster and more economically with the hormones. But do we really need this risk? Does it make tumors grow faster? Are we the guinea pigs in the long term study? In the early 90's the public was infuriated by the thought of BGH in milk. Was the public informed that Bovine Growth Hormone had already been in steers for years? We were also not aware that we have recently been eating genetically altered corn, soybeans and potatoes. If a genetically altered tomato were offered on the grocer's shelf, I bet the people would reject it. Is there a long term study on the influence of genetically-altered pollens being released to the world's trees and plants? When was the public informed about this tampering with food sources? We must thank the EU! Karen D. Paul I want to make the point that the plant life of the planet belongs to all of us--to humanity. I don't think it's right that private companies are allowed to tamper with the DNA of this essential resource. As a parent I try to feed my family pure foods and I feel it is my right and the right of millions of other citizens of this planet to have access to unadulterated, low tech foods if we so choose. Once these genetically modified plants are introduced into the environment it is impossible to stop their pollen from drifting into other fields and "infecting" other varieties of crops. The result is that we are all forced to become guinea pigs in this experiment. With regard to BT, as an organic gardener I use this product when it's needed to control infestations of pests when other, less intensive methods, don't work. It works amazingly well. However, I worry about it's overuse. When it is genetically engineered into all plantings of a crop it seems the pests are likely to develop resistance to this valuable organic control--just as they have developed resistance to chemical pesticides. Once companies, like Monsanto, make their profits on BT they can go on to other exploits while organic gardeners and farmers will be left with one less tool in their effort to provide pure, wholesome foods to those who choose a pure lifestyle. Can't we stop this bullying behavior by people who are primarily interested in the size of their own pocketbooks? Karen Allen What benefits? It hasn't been proven that benefits exist. Benefits for whom? The Corporate giants who are attempting to own and control the entire world's food supply? Do the corporate-financed scientists and "experts" honestly believe they can improve, in a relative moment, the life that has taken Nature millions or billions of years to create? We are just beginning to get a glimpse of the dangers of this infant technology that is being rushed to market and forced upon us through lack of labeling and lack of information to the general public. No one knows the extent, or the danger to the future of life on Earth that will result from genetic engineering. It is my opinion that we are crazy to allow it. It is immoral for the United States to attempt to force it on the rest of the world. Joan Taylor
It is obvious that genetically modified foods should be treated like drugs and thoroughly tested before they are let loose on the public andthe environment. Our children should not be used as lab rats. Dave Birdzell Agricultural Biotechnology has been developed for the benefit of corporations like Monsanto and Novartis (and others) ONLY. They are the only beneficiaries of these technologies, not the starving millions as these bio tech corporations are so fond of telling us. The main corporate concern is how to get us, the consumer, to pay for the development of the biotechnology that fills their pockets and paves their bathrooms with gold. Terminator Technology provides profit to the seed companies only, it in NO WAY insures, guarantees or improves the availability of food to the rest of us. Unfortunately, since NPR is in the corporate back-pocket, I'm guessing that you will continue to follow your current patterns of reporting and there will be no balanced views available on your programs. What a shame. Jean Thompson I feel the use of GE foods is a highly experimental proposition with many possible unforeseen damaging side effects, in the environment and for human health. There should be a moratorium on their commercial exploitation for at least 5 years while these potential risks are studied and evaluated very carefully. The current situation in America is a disaster waiting to happen! Victor Pardo Yes. Why wasn't all three Federal agencies EPA, FDA, and USDA allowed to tell the public how they review these products for safety to humans and the environment. Dr. James L. White As a farmer I hear everyone saying they want "naturally" produced foods. Unfortunately, as a whole, people don't want to pay the extra money it takes to produce food that way. Farmers are business people. If they could make more money without tinkering with nature, don't you think they would? Alan + Nancy Henrickson I am very excited about biotechnology in agriculture. Never before have we been able to achieve such tremendous crop yields by reducing the amount of herbicides and pesticides applied to the ground. Even if the biotech products affect a few more species than the target ones, common sense tells me that the pesticides were affecting many more on a much larger scale. If you think about the world in general... we need sustainable agriculture. There are only so many tillable acres in the world. We do not want to cut down forests to create more tillable land. At the same time, the world's population is increasing. So, the challenge is to figure out a way to feed an expanding human population by using no more farmland than is available today. At the same time we have to continue to reduce the amount of chemicals sprayed on to the ground. Organic farming methods, although commendable and sustainable, cannot produce the crop yields necessary for long term sustainability and support of the population. The best answer is to engineer crops to achieve this. Michael Wilson NO! The potential benefits do not outweighs the risks of biotechnologicaly engineered food. First, what benefits? Biotech companies keep promising exceptional benefits that the world will recieve from their products but they have shown us none. They have not cured world hunger or disease. Their main goal is clearly not these so called benefits but PROFIT and CONTROL.. They want to make a lot of money and they think that scinfce can control the entire cycle of life. How far behind the times can they possibly be. Didn't the rest of us realize that humans can not ever control the cycles of nature with our own hands without destroying our ecosystem and thus life on earth long ago? Second, What risks? There have been no acceptable scientific studies on biotechnology and thye risks it presents. This stuff should not be allowed to be produced before there have been such studies. LIZ BROWN | |
|
The Science Friday® Web site is a production of ScienCentral, Inc. Executive web producer: Ira Flatow Web producer: Charles Bergquist |