Don’t Eat the Wheat!: GMO’s Down Under?

by Christopher Arnett

Native Foods Cafe

As many of you might have heard, Greenpeace activists broke into an Australian research facility last week to destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat. The modifications included a lower glycemic index and increased fiber. Well, that doesn’t sound so bad, at first. A lowered glycemic index is good news for people with diabetes as it allows the release of sugars into the bloodstream in a slower and more regulated manner. And everyone knows fiber is good for ya’. Nevertheless, Greenpeace claimed safety issues as their motivation for scaling the fence of the research facility in the early hours of the morning and razing the crop with weed trimmers. 

Jeesh!  What are those suits for?  And we're supposed to eat that?

So what is all the fuss about? Is genetically modified (GM) food really that bad? Acording to saynotogmos.org, this genetic engineering forces genetic information across the protective species barrier in an unnatural way. Most often this involves incorporating genetic material from viruses and bacteria into crops in an imprecise way.  Animal feeding tests have shown worrying side effects, and few studies have been done to document the effects on humans. Hmm. Doesn’t sound so good. 

Whatcha puttin' in that tomato?  NO GMOs at Native Food Cafe!

A campaigner against the wheat effort said that the Australian government stated it would be the first country in the world by 2015 to commercialize GM wheat, in spite of the fact that polling shows that Australians don’t want to eat it. Japanese flour mills are a big market for Australian wheat, and they had made it clear they would not want to buy GM products (good for them!), which would put Australia’s huge bulk export market at risk. I say, if it aint broke, why fix it? Or in this case, if it aint broke, why genetically modify it? 

Our wheat is sweet, organic and free of GMOs at Native Foods Cafe.

The agency running the trials is CSIRO, the national governmental body for scientific research. Their crop was intended for dough-baking trials to be fed to rats and pigs, with the intention of future trials involving humans. My contention is this: Should food really need extensive testing? And should it ever be perceived as hazardous such that it is not seen fit for initial human consumption? And this is beside the point that creatures with no say in their participation in these potentially dangerous trials are being forced to eat this Frankenstein faire. Yowsers! This issue is loaded with too much controversy for my tastes. Moreover, the fact that CSIRO had taken a number of precautions against possible contamination of the GMO organisms from the wheat crap is a bit frightening. They had enclosed the crop with a two-metre double reinforced fence, covered it with bird netting, and spread mouse traps throughout the site. And a two to four metre buffer zone and the ten metres beyond the fence were regularly treated with herbicide. Obviously, they perceive this “food” as potentially hazardous to health. Why would anyone ever eat this stuff? 

This is NOT a welcoming sign on a field of wheat!   Biohazard in my body?  Not at Native Foods Cafe!

 

 

Comments

[Dave]

Hey Christopher, thanks for the article. A few clarifications on your concerns about this issue.

Improved wheat through this type of agricultural innovation is indeed a good thing. You got that part right. Why then would GreenPeace would take such illegal dramatic measures? I think the answer there can be found by looking at the picture where you asked "What are those suits for?". They were used to illicit that type of response. It was a publicity stunt to instill fear.

The problem here is that the science of this technology can sound scary when applied to food. Instead of traditional breeding which crosses hundreds of thousands of genes, transgenic methods can change only a few. Using this technology we have the possibility to make foods more nutritious, with more yields using less inputs which would make it more environmentally friendly. I think anybody who really cares about the environment should remain very skeptical about this issue and not fall for anti-GM scare propaganda. I don't think we have a perfect agricultural system at all and improvements should always be welcomed and encouraged.

The reason why we test GM foods because of the public's uneasiness. It's the same reason CSIRO erected the buffer zone. Conventional hybrid foods aren't tested because we're familiar with that form of agriculture but it can still produce toxic forms especially in nightshade varieties, as an example.

As a vegan activist myself I think the issue of GM technology is important to stay open-minded about GM for these reasons:

1) Animal testing - The more we insist on unfounded safety testing the more animals are harmed to do so.

2) Animal alternatives - GM technology can help create animal alternatives like it did with insulin which used to be obtained from animals. It could also be possible to do the same with animal foods like cheese which has been difficult to mock.

3) Nutrition - Developing this technology can benefit vegans by creating plants that can offer nutrients vegans lack like B12 and DHA. This would make it easier for people to go and stay vegan. Recently CSIRO scientists have been enabling canola plants to produce DHA. People who are vegan need DHA and it can help save the lives of fish who are often used as a source of omega-2 fatty acids. It could help fortified food for essential nutrients for starving populations or even as a vaccine delivery. People are animals too and there are many in dire need of help.

4) Environment - Creating plants that use less pesticides and fertilizers will help strive for sustainable agriculture that's less detrimental for all life on this planet. Less insects are killed, less runoff that poisons fish…you know the drill.

Vegan Chicago recently hosted an expert to speak on the issue of "Frankenfoods" and recorded the event as a podcast. Try giving that a listen and get a glimpse behind the science of which many people like myself were unaware.

http://www.podcast.veganchicago.com/

Thanks for all you do!

[Jane Shevtsov]

While there are some legitimate concerns about GMOs, I don't think "it's unnatural" is a valid argument. After all, there's nothing natural about being vegan or vegetarian -- even chimps eat meat. We do it because we can and we think it's the right thing to do.

Second, people who are worried about genetic modification insisted on extensive testing. OK, that's probably a good thing. But you can't then say that you're worried about genetically modified food because it needs such testing!

[Amy Pearson]

American's are increasingly "going" organic. But the process of living organic isn't made easy by the system in place. In fact, much of the food labeled organic still contains non-organic by products. The majority of the plastics are made with GE crops, specifically corn.

[Native Foods]

Christopher has posted another blog in response to this comment... Let's keep the conversation going!
http://blog.nativefoods.com/nativefoods/2011/08/vegans-who-support-gmos-say-what.html

[Dave]

Thanks for keeping the conversation going! I love vegan geeking about this stuff!

[Christian Louboutin Outlet]

I know that I personally, with my car full of kids on a summer day, cannot get out of the Starbucks or McDonalds drive-thru without spending ten or fifteen bucks, and I don't think the two can even be measured against each other, what that small sum of money means to those affected by this drought.