What Is Better For You: Organic, Conventional, Or Genetically Modified Food?

Please find below a representative sampling of submissions since this discussion was launched in early February 2000. Some submissions have been edited for length. Submissions which were not accompanied by a name, location, and valid e-mail address and those that did not pertain to the topic or used profanity were omitted.

I strongly disagree with the opinion that food should be Genetically altered. I find it too soon to talk about the benefits and risks, because there has not been enough research yet. The possible side effects are going to appear in the long run. However, people should have the right of choice. That is why food labelling of ALL altered (in any way) ingredients should be mandatory! Thank you.

Eva Kotsi
Greece
evaki@europe.com

The whole concept of organic food seems appealing to various people on the gounds that they are grown naturally, without any fertilizers and pesticides. Persumably, this is a much better as well as healthier option.

From a personal point of view, organic food is becoming too expensive and and has joined the realms of "designer products" ie..if you eat/consume organic food, you're obviously more health concious than the average person on the street.

GM food has always been associateed with unnatural fears, somewhat unfounded. I don't see why they are any different from organic food. In fact, in the near future, GM food will play a greater role in society, seeing that there is a great possibility for scientists to engineer food to suit our individual needs.

Renita Das
Australia
rdas1@student.monash.edu.au

I think, that biotechnology is a very good thing. It is perhaps the only thing in the world that can save the enormous amounts of people in the socalled LDC's from starvation.

What else is left to us? The only hope we can have is to increase the prosperity of everyone there and hope that they will get less children out of their own will.

I do think the ideas of the EU is good too: why wouldn't everyone have the choice whether or not to eat genetically modified food? Although this does cause problems with free trade, I do think that everyone has that right.

My main opinion is still, that genetically altered rice that produces extra vitamin A should be distributed for free.

Wijnand Vink
Almere, The Netherlands
cimrod@dds.nl

Better for me? Organic, organic, organic, organic.

Luigi Ceccaroni
Spain
technopapa@hotbot.com

To forward any argument on comparisons between organic production and chemically enhanced methods is pointless unless a very basic principle is applied. That is that the sustainable development and survival of humans on this planet over many milleniums has taken place without the need to modify or trick nature. We have a proven history of organic sustainability. We, as a species, possess the ability to work with nature on all levels, interacting and balancing resources. Organic agriculture DOES work!

David Sanders
Hong Kong
bl-d-sanders@ctimail.com

I think that genetic modification of food is useful in providing a larger quantitiy of crops and food providing that the changes are not too drastic. However I am doing a reaserch project at Tamworth college to see how much the general public actually know about the genetic modification of food. In my opinion the people that criticise the most often know very little about the subject. Any info that could support my case would be apreciated.

Joy Howdle
Tamworth
joy.howdle@virgin.net

Now we are concerning about the presence of genetically modified organism in foods and crops. For me, I raise the problem about the sampling techniques used in testing of the presence of GMO in Foods and crops. Please help me think about this. Thanks.

Trang Si Trung
Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
btd007321@ait.ac.th

It cannot be argued that today - children in particular, have more allergic conditions such as asthma, hyperactivity and lest robust constitutions than even 20 years ago. This has to be due in part to the diminishing role that physical exercise takes in schools, plus the advent of more sedentary pursuits like TV, computer games etc.

Food however has a major part to play and with the constant manipulation of basic foods, irrdiation of fruits to prolong freshness and GM engineered foods to improve crop yields, logic tells us it must have its risks. It wasn't too long ago that the public were assured that feeding cattle meat products was safe, which was followed by the most terrible consequences. Whilst I support whole heartedly the advances of science and medicine, I feel we mustn't become too arrogant and alwas to bear in mind, life is very complex and will always hold an element of surprise for us.

Carolyn Stubbs
Portishead
Carolyn.Stubbs@btinternet.com

Organic food is grown to standards that exclude chemical inputs, except for copper and sulphur compounds, both of which are toxic. This is not necessarily the same as growing foods to standards that ensure safety and health.

99.9% of chemicals taken in the diet occur naturally. Many are carcinogenic. About 30 naturally occurring carcinogens have been identified in plants. Hundreds more remain to be identified and characterised.

These chemicals protect plants against pest attack, and the plant makes them in response to insect and fungal infestations. This is a serious risk factor for organic food.

Animal manure is a reservoir of pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella and E.coli 0157. Carrier animals are disease free. E.coli 0157 outbreaks resulting in deaths and permanent kidney damage to children in the USA, have been linked to consumption of organic lettuces and natural apple juice, by the Centre for Disease Control. What QA procedures do organic farmers use to eradicate this risk? Are they as rigorous as those required for GM food?

Thousands of people in developing countries die annually from mycotoxin poisoning. This is caused by infestations of crops by fungi which synthesise chemicals known to cause liver and other cancers. They are amongst the most toxic compounds known to man. Inadequate control of fungal and insect infestations facilitates the growth of these fungi, and is another serious risk associated with organic food.

There are some real health risks associated with organic foods. They are not theoretical and speculative, but linked to real toxins and diseases.

Geraldine Rodgers
Cambridge
geraldine.rodgers@dial.pipex.com

In response to allegations made by Martin Mehta I would like to say this:

Firstly there also exists NO evidence to suggest that all GM foods are inherently safe beacause this is an impossibility. No-one can predict the effects on ourselves and the world in general for the years to come. People's blind assumption that because official reports say so it must be true is naive to say the least. How many more near-misses does the world need before it will learn?

Secondly, it is not that converts to all things grown in animal muck (no offence and yes I know it's a simplification!) are the only people against GM foods. It is simply that they are representative of the more vocal part of the community and employ the more shocking tactics to get attention.

Basically the general public knows the dangers of both GM and organic food. (By the way, how many people HAVE died from consuming organic food?) What is needed is for companies selling the stuff to be more honest about what they are doing. GM food is here to stay, any idiot can see that. Surely if you beat around the bush and give the punters some legal loophole of a reason for not labelling the foods, they are going to get suspicious and think that there must be some sort of catch involved. After all, it is a cynical world we live in.

I do agree that science should not be blamed for mankind's efforts to destroy themselves. It is just what we use to do it with. However, it is pompous, uninformed and a generalisation for you to hint that fear of the unknown and technophobia are somehow clouding otherwise rational judgement and are the reason genetic modification is being shunned. What about religious beliefs and plain old-fashioned personal choice? Do they also have to bow in the face of "a viable alternative"?

Lucy Haynes
England
lo2@hotmail.com

There exists NO evidence to suggest that all GM foods are inherently dangerous. However, it has been known for some time, and supported by thousands of years of knowledge, that organic foods ARE dangerous. As soon as a viable alternative is found, we should make the switch. So why are the general public so blindly enthusiastic about all things organic?

It is surely worth remembering that nature is one of only two forces capable of destroying mankind (the other, of course, being mankind. Anyone who suggests that science should be on that list has no place in this debate). So why is the public so in love with the natural way? Simple. The huge majority of the public are latently technophobic. Fear of the unknown ties them to the past - and puts everyone in danger of prophylaxis.

Martin Mehta
Scotland
M.Mehta@sms.ed.ac.uk