Why are people so opposed to genetic engineering?

Question

This was spurred by 'EducatedWoman's question. G.E has a lot of potential to do good if it is done right. It can reduce the use of pesticides, use of animal products, and it can improve nutritional quality. If we truly care about the environment, and about animals, how does it make sense to completely shoot down G.E instead of analyzing it on a case by case basis?

Besides, every grain, fruit and vegetable we eat today is palatable because of G.E. Early farmers were all genetic engineers. They changed the genetic stocks of plants and animals by selecting for superior quality. That means they tampered with nature, using nature's own methods. The only difference is that artificial methods can be used today, but it doesn't mean it's automatically bad.

G.E has been much maligned by the media. 99% of the time, G.E food is better for you than something treated with a gazillion pesticides. As for organic food, that's treated with fish meal, blood and bone. Who wants that?

We are tampering with nature just by living on this planet. Sometimes, G.E can *minimize* our interference with nature. I would definitely choose GM food if it was safe and had environmental or other benefits.

Just to let you know, I'm thumbing up all reasonable answers

Answer 1

Cross-breeding and hybridization, the methods previously used to manipulate farmed products, are VASTLY different than the methods used for GE. Breeding two types of corn is very different than breeding a plant and a jellyfish, which is of course impossible. Yet GE enables the genes from a jellyfish to be put into a plant. This has actually happened, to try to make fruit glow when ripe.

We have just started mapping DNA - as a science, it is in it's infancy. And the ability to pull out and plug in individual genes is even newer. We should not be doing this on a mass scale before we understand the ramifications of GE.

There have been many times when technology surged ahead of knowledge. Heroine was once used by doctors to treat alcoholism, because they didn't understand all the properties of heroine. Thalidomide was declared safe for all, and then the deformed babies started showing up.

The changes made by GE are much more fundamental than the use of any drug. We are using the building blocks of life as Tinker Toys, without really knowing what the profound and long-lasting effects will be. This is a time for caution, and testing, and more caution, not the time to enter these products into the mass food chain.

How would you feel if your child was born deformed because of a GE food, and they just said "oops" and pulled it off the market? What are the long term effects of these products. The answer is - we don't know! And until we do, we need to slow down.

At the very least, GE products should be labelled as such. The GE companies are fighting this, because they know people don't want GE food. We should at least have the right to know what we are buying. The tobacco companies knew and denied for years the effects of tobacco use, and its addictive properties. The drug companies knew and denied about the side effects of Thalidomide. I don't trust ConAgra, Monsanto, or any other huge GE company to police whether or not my food is safe. Corporations choose money over poeple, every time.

Answer 2

Well, I don't entirely agree with all of your points, but I do appreciate a well-thought out question. I agree that there are very few things that should be dismissed off-hand without thinking it through. However, not everyone who doesn't like GE hasn't thought about it.

A lot of what turns me off about GE is the way the corporations do business. The fact that they have lobbied so hard (and won) to not only not have their food labeled "genetically modified", but to go so far as to try make it illegal for non-GMO foods to say they aren't. There seems to exist an overall shadiness to the industry that worries some people. If these companies are doing this work for any kind of social benefits (such as the ones you mentioned), they have terrible PR people, because I've never heard of any motivation for GE crops except for more yeild and less bugs, both of which equal more profits.

As far as earlier farmers being genetic engineers, obviously it's not the same thing. There are still people who practice that kind of natural farming today and they certainly aren't multi-billion dollar corporations.

So, to answer your question, why am I opposed to genetic engineering? While there is little evidence either way, I have seen absolutely no social, ecological, or economic benefit to this practice, but I do see just another way for huge corporations to squeeze every dollar they can out of every inch of land, regardless of the intended or unintended consequences. That is just my personal opinion.

Answer 3

I am not totally against it, but I am against the government allowing genetically engineered food into the marketplace without giving people a choice whether they want to buy it or not.

It's kept secret in the USA: people generally don't have any idea what is or is not genetically engineered.

At the same time; our governments claims all food products must list all ingredients. However, Monsanto has free rein to do whatever they wish--this is a double standard.

I don't like it when someone else decides what is good for me; I am an educated adult and I think I should have the right to make my own decision.

Answer 4

So far, people have proven that they cannot make the right choices to keep corporations from gaining too much power.

I'd rather stick with natural foods instead of one day realizing that the cost of food has gone through the roof because we let Monsanto and their buddies license our right to survival and good health.

Even democracy doesn't exist anymore. We've been fooled into settling for a "democratic" republic. Corporations control technology such as GE, not the people, just like everything else.

Answer 5

its a great question

sadly they dont do long enough testing before releasing it & then is messes with the whole eco system around it

if we look a fruit & veg form 50 years ago & measure that against the stuff today - todays stuff has less than 10% of the nutritional value - great example

we dont need to mess about with it - simply grow is naturally with pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones etc

its a bit like the cancer argument
billions of $ has been pumped into cancer research over the last few years but more people are dying from it than ever before - ok they have changed the way they record survival rates - as if you get it & live 5 years you survive

we only get these nasty diseases because of the foods we eat.
There are about 20 cultures in the world that dont get cancers etc as they eat natural fruit n veg, no drugs, no gm foods & they live to 100
check out this site on it
http://www.credence.org/

Answer 6

Most issues with genetic engineering have to do with faith. The more religious one is, the less likely they are like to idea of "playing God." At the very least, there are those that question us tampering with things that we still (in the big picture) do not completely understand. Also, all the things you have mentioned involve plants and animals. Once the method is applied to our food, our clothes, etc, the next logical step will be to apply it to actual genetics of our bodies, which can be someone's long term concern in not wanting genetic engineering now.

There are also questions about the side effects of genetic engineering. What are the long term effects on the body and how desirable are they?

Answer 7

I guess because a lot of people see it as messing with nature, even though we've messed with nature in other ways like you've said.

When people hear about tomatos being crossed with fish genes, that seems more out there to them than cross breeding cattle.

Answer 8

As someone with extreme allergies to most glutens (rye, barley, wheat, etc), I need to know that my tomato is just a tomato, and not cross bred or genetically altered with something that could seriously harm me.

Answer 9

Because they are uneducated about it.

alternate-----do you have a link directly to the info. on those 20 cultures so I don't have to search all through your spam?