[Milton]

Genetically manipulated food is food that has had its genes messed with by "scientists". They actually fiddle with the blue prints. They don't understand all the ramifications but they are willing for "you" to take a chance, they are so willing they don't even want you to know. They keep no records of side effects, in effect there motto is "if they see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil then their is no evil". Which is what you would expect from "scientists" of this calibre.

[Dr Caleb]

Did you read the article bud? It's about using the genetic map of different varities of to produce a new variety which has characteristics not found in ethier species. New, modern white rice cross bred with older wild rice produces a heartier, faster growing rice - that is PATENT FREE!! All natural!<p> Corn and wheat are simply grasses that over hundreds of generations have evolved to what they are today. Now that we have the genetic map of most species, we can cross pollinate them to bring out desired traits. A newer tomato can be cross bred with an older, wild tomatoe to produce a redder fruit that lasts longer during transport. These are not Genetically Modified, they are simply manipulated or cross-bred to enhance dormant traits that nature forgot about.<p> I don't like the thought of Genetically Manipulating canola or potatoes, not just because of what they might do, but because I don't believe a company can own DNA. When a cow and a bull make the bovine with two backs (wait, that isn't right . . . nevermind) there are no jellyfish involved. <p>

[Reverend Blair]

My grandfather was, among other things, an AI (artificial insemination) tech. He impregnated every cow in his area for decades. You don't see a lot of cows get pregnant the old fashioned way anymore.

AI isn't genetic manipulation as we think of it though, just selective breeding from a wider gene pool than would be available without it. This new technology seems like a bridge between the two to me. I'll reserve judgement for now, but the nonpatentability (I just made up a new word ) of the results is encouraging.

Getting back to the tomato thing for a second....I've always picked green tomatoes. You wrap them in newspaper, store them in a cool, dark place, then pull them out and put them on the windowsill to ripen. They taste just as good as the ones from the same plant that ripened on the vine.

[Kory Yamashita]

Just thought I'd point out... farmed salmon are selectively bred. That's why they mature in only 3 years (compared with an average of 5 for wild sockeye and 6 or 7 years for Chinook) and still reach such huge sizes (somewhere between sockeye and chinook sizes). The thing is that they've been "selectively bred" for many generations due to their relatively short lifespans. It started in Europe and then moved to BC, and it's the same companies using the same limited gene pool. </P> The real problem with genetic manipulation, whether through gene switching or selective breeding, is that it limits diversity. And diversity is nature's way of creating stronger and better species that can deal with hardship. Unfortunately, species that are "selectively bred" are doomed because their lack of diversity allows them to be wiped out by one single disease. Just look at those great bananas we so enjoy. The stocks are being wiped out as we speak because all these banana are clones of a single grandmother plant. </P> This should be obvious. There's a reason things grow as they do. With millions of years of evolution to back up those methods, maybe we shouldn't switch our dependence over to "selectively bred" stocks because to put it simply: they haven't stood the test of time. And poor agricultural practices in general have placed us in a very dependent situation. A few years ago, wheat farmers couldn't make it in the prairies. Now it's cow farmers and in BC, chicken farmers. It is this "selective breeding", forced upon farmers by the competetive nature of the marketplace, that creates stock-wide weaknesses that diseases can then exploit. (Note: feeding cows, an herbivore species, the ground-up brains and hooves of their comrades doesn't seem like such a bright idea either - their stomachs just aren't habituated to such harsh foods). </P> Sorry for the rant

[Reverend Blair]

Rant away Kory, you're not wrong.

[Dr Caleb]

Absolutely Kory, rant away! Rule #1 is: Mother Nature always wins. <p> I don't trust GM foods, but I do like some of the benefits that hybrids have givens us. I like fresh tomatoes in Winter, but they taste like the cardboard they come in. I like fresh salmon for sushi, but lets face it, farm salmon tastes bland. (go to your favorite stream and catch a fresh chinook or steelhead and you'll see what I mean.) I like sweet green grapes all year round.<p> Since we now hold the master keys to unlock what certain genetic traits, we don't have to mess with splicing bug genes into potatoes so they emit a pesticide. We can 'tune' our selective breeding of legacy crops over a couple generation of those crops, rather than hundreds of generations.<p> Personally, I'm having a hard time seeing the downside to this. Safer crops without the GM 'what ifs', fresher products and in harmony with nature, patent and royalty free. Am I missing something?<p>

[Kory Yamashita]

Actually I used to work on a fishing boat, so I know the difference. Farmed Atlantic salmon is fed red dye along with their food to turn the flesh a redder colour to compete with wild salmon.

[Reverend Blair]

What you are missing is the commercial farming factor, Dr. Caleb. It doesn't require advanced technology, just short-sightedness. If a product is perceived as superior, there is a risk of a monoculture developing. If that monculture has a weakness, it will eventually be wiped out. It's what caused the Irish potato famines to be so bad...only one kind of potato.

[Marcarc]

Before you celebrate too loudly, you should check your patent law. Patents in biology are given for products AND processes. If I create a 'super strawberry' by way of genetic modification OR hybridization I can patent it. Monsanto has been doing this all over the world, finding rural farmers seeds, then doing some basic hybridization and then charging the farmers for using their own seeds. <br /> As far as bananas go, we as consumers are the ones at fault, once seedless bananas were discovered, nobody would buy the seeded ones. <br /> One final point is that there is GM food and GM food. For example, one company makes plants tougher and last longer simply by removing a section of the gene and then reinserting it backwards. This is different from the 'transgenetically modified' foods. <br /> I saw a documentary on british GM tests where the people went to the crops and burned them down, quite a cry from canadians 'gee I dont like that' attitude.