For that matter, they’ve put spinach genes in pigs.
Popeye the Porker, anyone…? 
perspective wisely offers;
Yep.
That’s what it’s all about for me. Even if we don’t have the slightest idea what a BGH is, we still have the right to know it’s there. And to choose whether to buy it or to pass.
Peace,
mangeorge
Tars Tarkas quoted an article as saying:
Wait a minute … what do growth hormones have to do with genetically-modified organisms?!
Yes, ** mangeorge**, it’s all about the right to know and the right to vote with your hard-earned money.
Even if GMO foods are as safe as can be, people shouldn’t be forced to unwillingly (and unknowingly) eat them.
All it will take is a little time, and we’ll be able to see that genetically modifying food was one of the biggest mistakes humanity has ever made.
(Just like all of our grandchildren will think we are idiots for electing officials who allowed the leveling of the rainforests. But, that’s another thread waiting to happen . . .)
-TGD
How come? What’s so dangerous about GM food that our descendants will look upon it has one of the great mistakes humanity has ever made? Personally I think they’re more likely to look back and think of people against GM food in the same vein we think of people who were against printing the bible.
Marc
Maybe. We’re both just spewing out pure speculation. I don’t want to turn this honest, interesting thread into a fight. So, let’s just leave it at “it’s pointless to debate, as there’s no way for us to know.” As dramatic as it sounds, only time will tell.
-TGD
Um, no they aren’t.
Monsanto sold off its chemical division some years ago. Monsanto itself is now a subsidiary of the drug company Pharmacia.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms that can be made against genetic modification. Dragging up what Monsanto did or didn’t do a couple of decades ago is like criticisizing Volkswagen for being controlled by the Nazis.
I’m curious as to why you think GM foods will be looked upon as one of the great disasters of humanity. Don’t go thinking you can refer to GM foods as a “monstrosity” and expect to walk away without answering for it. Why do you hate or fear GM foods so much?
Why do I embrace GM foods? I think that the reasearch will eventually lead to better food for a cheaper price.
Marc
I was just too lazy to snip. That dude is probably one of those pure food guys.
C’mon there are some great points of debate from the OP article that are far more interesting than a run of the mill GMO thread.
This study generated quite a bit of controversy not only in the accurateness of the study, but also funding issues and political bias in science. Specifically the possible influence that corporations can have on science or the possible political motivations of scientists.
The criticism of the study largely came from scientists with jobs at stake.
Here’s a quote from this article. http://www.biotech-info.net/spurs_debate.html
And even more interesting from the OP article
So… lots of great specifics that are prime for and educational debate. People are probably inclined to assume either Nature published an article that was politically biased or it rescinded good research as a result of industry pressure.
perspective wrote:
One of my pet peeves is the use of the word “corporation” as a synonym for “large company.”
Not all large companies are corporations, and not all corporations are large companies. In some States, a corporation can consist of as little as one (1) individual who acts as incorporator, president, secretary, treasurer, chairman of the board, and sole stockholder.
Similarly, some of the large firms in the U.S. are not corportations at all but Limited Partnerships (LLPs). Reorganizing a large corporation as an LLP or an LLC or a Massachusetts Business Trust will not make its political influence disappear.
That much I agree with, it’s reasonable. People can choose to either spend money on product A or product B, or neither. That choice determines how the market develops. There is no requirement that the choice be rational. I have seen nothing to convince me that these products are dangerous to anything, but if people want to stop them being produced, just stop buying them. They should have the freedom, as we all should in every walk of life, to make irrational or overcautionary choices. Just don’t force those choices on the rest of us.
The problem with labelling has always been the expense. Somebody will have to bear the expense. If it’s the government, cost gets passed onto taxpayers, the cost perhaps even greater than the labelling itself if the economy suffers in some regions as a result. If the companies bear the cost, it’s passed onto consumers.
I’ve heard that arguement before, RexDart, about the cost of labeling (foods, not meds). Seem’s to me it would be insignificant, but I’ll be danged if I can find any specific figures.
I’m 57, and I’ve seen a few “miracles” turn and bite us in the ass. DDT is one. And that medication that caused so many birth defects, whose name escapes me. I’m just wary, is all.
I’ll have to admit that there is also a little “What’s in it for Me” element to my objections. Often what’s promised as cheaper turns out to be “Less expensive as it would have been”.
Sorry, I’m babbeling.
I, like perspective, would like to see more discussion on the science and politics of this issue.
I’ll be back. I gotta go re-read something. 
Peace,
mangeorge
[tangent]Oh, DDT bit us in the ass, all right, but not in the way you think. See, we in the First World banned the use of DDT worldwide, then congratulated ourselves for Saving The Environment[sup]TM[/sup]. Unfortunately, by doing so we ensured that upwards of 3 million people in the Third World continue to die from malaria. (Link) Something for the green-minded to be proud of, for sure.
Oh, and Thalidomide? Turns out to have lots of known and potential beneficial uses as long as it is not prescribed to pregnant women.
But, as with so many things, those who scream the loudest get to make the policy, and end up throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
[/tangent]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pldennison *
Oh, DDT bit us in the ass, all right, but not in the way you think. See, we in the First World banned the use of DDT worldwide, then congratulated ourselves for Saving The Environment[sup]TM[/sup]. Unfortunately, by doing so we ensured that upwards of 3 million people in the Third World continue to die from malaria.
[QUOTE]
Hey if you want to start a “let’s spray ddt” thread, be my guest. I’ll certainly go check it out.
Just so this doesn’t go unanswered though: According to your link, South Africa chose to spray DDT despite the fact that “the first world banned the use of DDT worldwide.” So apparently that “ban” hasn’t stopped those that need to make their own choice.
Even in South Africa which decided to use it, the environment minister called it a “horrible choice”. And across the border Mozambique chose not to use DDT despite the high casualties that they faced.
It wasn’t the DDT, nor was the Thalidomide, that bit our metaphorical asses. It was the “miracle” we rushed into.
I wasn’t argueing the pros or cons of either substance, but the lack of caution shown in the almost universal adoption of both. I’d hate to see a similar lack of caution in the rush to this new miracle.
At first ‘they’ said the stuff wouldn’t spread. It has. Now ‘they’ say of course it may spread, but it ain’t gonna hurt nuthin’.
Excuse me if I’m a little dubious. Bathing in sarcasm isn’t going to change that.
Peace,
mangeorge