Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

» Home » Contact CSI » Search:

You can help by making a tax-deductible donation!

Skeptical Inquirer

Skeptical Briefs

  • Join CSI as an associate member to receive the newsletter

CSI

Special Features

Web Columns

Center for Inquiry

Resources


 Home : News : Skeptic's Debate 1999

Genetically Modified Foods

How should we weigh the potential risks and benefits of the emerging technology of genetically modified food? How do we account for the mostly negative reaction by the media and the public in Europe, Australia, and Asia, and the growing attention in the U.S.? What position does a skeptic take?

Opinions

Genetic modification of food plants (and possibly animals) is done in many different ways, and for many different reasons. Each may have its own risks. Personally I don't think that GM food is bad for one's health. Personally I distrust the intentions of large corporations. They are always trying to cut corners safety wise, if given the opportunity. I realize that this is a political generalization. No serious accidents have happened yet with GM plants and foods. The only remedy is more scientific research; moreover each case should be decided on its own merit. This research should be as public as possible, and if necessary the government should check the scientific quality of the research. In health issues there's public health inspection of the food business, and very tight scientific checks on the merits of new medicines. Summarizing, my view is: more science!

J.W. Nienhuys
Netherlands
J.W.Nienhuys@tue.nl

We've been genetically altering food products for thousands of years. Cattle, hogs, corn, wheat, apples, chickens, the list is endless. The only difference is that now we're doing it in laboratories instead of barns and fields. Dangerous? Could be, I guess, but I doubt it and it won't stop me from eating.

Charlie Stone
Florida
canam@mpinet.net

The skeptic position should be to take no position. The debate over GM food is not a scientific, religious, or paranormal issue. It is largely composed of intelligent and well informed people who disagree over the long-term effects GM will have on agriculture, and particularly the business strategy behind Monsanto corporations ``Laso-Ready''and Bt products. If the original question is not a science question, how can science answer it or offer an official position? If the issue is not one of the paranormal, why should SI or skeptics promote a position? Reasonable people using the rational methods and the best data available will come to different conclusions when evaluating social problems because reasonable people hold different values.

Mike Sofka
New York
sofkam@rpi.edu

There is nothing special about genetically modified foodstuffs (GM) as such. Lobbying groups exaggerate the dangers of it and the public gets fooled easily, often because we like to be fooled. We want to hear how dangerous new technologies are, and how the "establishment" keeps silent about the dangers. Skeptics should reveal exaggerations and educate the public that food isn't dangerous simply by being genetically modified. But depending on the gene in question GM can afflict damage, not directly on the consumers, but on the environment. Genes for antibiotic resistance are used when genes are transferred from one species to another, and some of the GM genes contain resistance to pesticides and antibiotics. What will happen if these genes are spread in the environment?

A true skeptic should not only be skeptical of alarmist reports, but also to the claims that GM is completely safe. We should avoid any exaggerations and admit that there is not enough documentation to make a scientific evaluation.

Fredrik Bendz, Pharmacist
Sweden
humanist@home.se

As one who believes that skepticism is based on informed opinion and an objective analysis, the role of the skeptic should be to counter the hysteria and vested interests that surrounds the debate over Genetically Modified (GM) foods. The fears being spread concerning GM foods are based more on principle and ignorance rather then evidence. In Australia, the debate over the introduction of GM foods is in full swing. In Australia, while those in opposition to GM foods have not gone to the extremes evidenced in Britain, deep concern over "Frankenfoods" exists. The debate has even spread to advertising, with a company that produces soy milk making special mention that no genetically modified foods are used in its product.

Both the radical environmentalists in opposition to and government/business interests for GM foods have played loose with the facts. If a skeptic is to take a position on the issue it should be to separate the wheat from the genetically modified chaff. Rather than establishing an "official" stance on the issue, we should demand only salient and scientific facts, and wait until they are forthcoming before determining the efficacy or dangers of GM foods, just as we would, according to skeptical principle, for any other scientific/medical issue.

Shaun and Dave,
The Skeptical Skoundrels
Australia

Humanity has been "genetically modifying" food through selective breeding for millenia. Disease and drought resistant corn, wheat, rice, and others are available worldwide. Race horses, beefalo, dairy and beef cattle have all been modified for specific human purposes.

The question is not whether GM foods should be developed, but what will be the ecological effects of widespread deployment of plants and animals whose DNA has been directly "tweaked." Could honey bees become extinct because they can no longer utilize the nectar? What might be the effect of cross-pollination between GM plants and native plants? Will indigenous species be able to take advantage of GM/native hybridizations?

One theory is that the development of flowering and woody plants contributed to the extinction of dinosaurs. The idea is that their digestive systems couldn't get sufficient nutritional value from cellulose. They constipated themselves to death. Only careful, long-term research will yield the information required to keep our planet a livable place where everyone has access to adequate sustenance.

Brandon C Nuttall
b_nuttall@hotmail.com

Skeptics should favor genetically modified food for the benefits to be gained from them. Already, we have more frost resistant tomatoes due to their getting arctic flounder genes. No innovation can be entirely risk free. Electrical technology fatally shocks many people each year, but no responsible people favors eliminating electrical technology. The life saving benefits far outweigh any risks to people. The same should apply to genetically modified foods. The improved foods will save and improve many more lives than are taken by, say, allergic reaction to the genetic modifications. I hope that most skeptics will not take part in activities against the introduction or consumption of genetically modified foods.

Andrew O. Lutes
Ohio
KHHL59@aol.com
Content copyright by CSI or the respective copyright holders. Do not redistribute without obtaining permission.

Feedback | Reverse links for this page | Translate this page