All the negativity on genetically engineered foods is more hysterical and emotional than factual and real. This is a similar effect to the terms "Natural" and "Organic" being falsely perceived by a large portion of the public as "Good", while the terms "Man-made" and "Synthetic" perceived as "Bad". The facts are there are good and bad natural, organic, synthetic, man-made, genetically modified and conventionally bred organisms and products. The label has no bearing to the goodness or safety of the item in question. The negative connotations on genetically modified or engineered, synthetic or man-made products serve only an emotional need. A need to sway the vulnerable public against facts and safety of better commodities which may be more economical to produce.
Conventional plant breeding is every bit as risky as the genetically modified. Consider the herbicide resistant canola which was developed by traditional methods. IT LOOKS JUST LIKE an ordinary oilseed rape plant, but farmers in Canada know it as "Smart Canola". Because it carries genes for resistance to two families of herbicides, the farmers can kill off every weed in sight, without fear of damaging their harvest.
The prospect of plants that could in effect conspire with farmers to produce chemically sterilised fields has sent Europe's conservationists into a flat spin. They have issued dire warnings about the perils of agricultural biotechnology and call for moratoriums on GM plantings.
But Smart Canola is not quite what it seems. While European officials agonise over the pros and cons of growing GM crops, they could do little to stop farmers planting this oilseed rape. The reason: Smart Canola is not genetically engineered.
The problems with Traditionally Modified Organisms, those developed by hybridization and random mutations, are the same as those seen with Genetically Modified Organisms. Why then, should they be treated differently? Again, it is an emotional issue. The naysayers appear to have a streak of paranoia in their make-up. Their concerns should be equally with the traditionally developed organisms. Perhaps they should stop eating/using these also! Get Real!
MASS HYSTERIA!!
... The transfer of genetic material between unrelated species will not turn them into each other, such as a fish into a tomato or vice versa. It may simply allow a beneficial trait to be expressed in the organism to which a targeted gene is transferred. As each plant and animal are made up of tens or hundreds of thousands of genes, one or two transferred genes could not alter the identity of an organism.
According to the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1991), "Biotechnology has a long history of use in food production and processing. It represents a continuum embracing both traditional breeding techniques and the latest techniques based on molecular biology. The newer biotechnological techniques, in particular, open up very great possibilities of rapidly improving the quantity and quality of food available. The use of these techniques does not result in food which is inherently less safe [to humans or the environment] than that produced by conventional ones.""
"Despite scientists' image problem, most don't glibly dismiss possible risks of GM crops. Taylor cites several: the instability of DNA; the degree to which laboratory and field tests mimic reality; whether pollinators spread altered genomes to weeds; and the impact of GM crops on plummeting biodiversity. But many of these concerns also apply to traditional agriculture. Conventional breeding can induce production of natural toxins or move disease resistance genes from wild relatives into crop plants."
"A big problem in public acceptance of GM foods is that evidence for safety is negative evidence, not easily explained or published, either in the scientific literature or tabloids. There is always the possibility, no matter how slim, that something could go wrong. So advocates are quick to invoke the "what if" argument: "We don't know for sure, we can't prove that there's no danger." Science deals in probabilities, but the public has little appreciation for P values, so the few studies purporting specific risks have received disproportionate media play."