GMO's - good or bad?

[GoodGame]

The poll is as informative as asking is rain good or bad. Rain is good in moderate amounts, but can cause flooding and drown people in excessive amounts.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The poll is as informative as asking is rain good or bad. Rain is good in moderate amounts, but can cause flooding and drown people in excessive amounts.

So you're saying we should regulate rain the same way Europe regulates GMOs in contrast to how the US lets it pour freely?

I've got another one: Guns aren't good or evil, it's how they are used that determine their value. We should regulate so only the good guys get guns!

You're free to add some insightful thoughts on solutions, but since there's a pretty sharp division between how different parts of the world handle GMOs, it seems your rain analogy has some flaws.

Yeah, "except those related to environmental protection". A nice, PC and subjective way to be as protectionist as one wants to be.

Yea, it's just the sly, Swedish way of staying protectionist..

 

[Truronian]

I've no problem with GMOs. I have numerous problems with GMO companies. I think these companies need some pretty heavy regulation, and there need to be laws in place to ban utterly stupid, greedy behaviour (eg a law against banning seed saving).

 

[Tahuti]

We do know less about GMOs than non-GMOs. Does stating skepticism toward GMOs mean you're paranoid?

Knowing less about some types of food doesn't mean it is dangerous, since all fears on GMO's are based on hypotheticals, just as Nanocyborgasm stated.

And what about water fluoridating in NA - Do you do it?

I don't fluoridate my water on purpose, nor does the Dutch government does so. However, drinking water in the USA and Canada isn't unsafe, at least not because it mixed with a small dose of the same type of stuff that goes in every toothpaste.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Knowing less about some types of food doesn't mean it is dangerous, since all fears on GMO's are based on hypotheticals, just as Nanocyborgasm stated.

You're probably right, the claimed threats to biodiversity are probably as crazy as the hypothetical climate changes paranoid people are raging over. Furthermore, I don't see that Nancyborgasm has stated anything of weight here.

I don't fluoridate my water on purpose, nor does the Dutch government does so. However, drinking water in the USA and Canada isn't unsafe, at least not because it mixed with a small dose of the same type of stuff that goes in every toothpaste.

It's not unsafe to add a bit of fluoride to the water, but there's probably a good reason why most governments don't do it.

 

[squadbroken]

I think GMOs should be heavily scrutinized and regulated, but I also think there's a lot of potential in them for good.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The problem with GMO is that there is not really an option to turn back when it goes wrong. You can shut down an atomic reactor (as this popped up as a comparison), not GMO seeds spreading through the gene pool of nature. So it makes only sense to give this matter special consideration.
Also, hypotheticals about GMO's dangers are not "paranoid" -.- Of course people using them can be, but the idea is easily justifiable. Which is that the gene codes of mother nature and their natural way of evolving has been - over millenniums - been adapted to be a part of the food chain. What we do now is sort of a shot in the dark hoping it will work just as fine. Sure we screw around with our food since some time now. But you used to be able to tell so and decide against such food. And when you bought the pure stuff - rice, corn, and so forth - it was (supposed) to be just that. Not anymore. GMO will if used universally infect all corn, rice, etc. So again, the circumstances justify special caution.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's not unsafe to add a bit of fluoride to the water, but there's probably a good reason why most governments don't do it.

Cost?

Interesting related dilemma, by the way: there is an outbreak of Mad Sheep Disease in Fictionland. MSD is highly contagious, untreatable and fatal. Luckily, the only way that a human can catch it except from another human is to eat the meat of an infected sheep. So far there are no human cases, and with stringent controls in place, it is estimated that the chance of anyone catching it are miniscule. However, should anyone catch it, the only solution would be a quarantine of entire towns and there would be widespread loss of life.

A vaccine has been developed, which can be taken through drinking water. The vaccine makes those who take it immune to catching the disease from sheep meat - although they can still catch it by human-human transmission - but there are a very small number of people for whom the vaccine is fatal. There is no way to tell how a given person will react to taking it; but if the entire population of 100 million were to be given the vaccine there would be, say, 1000 deaths.

The government is presented with the option to put teh vaccine into the nation's tap water. Obviously for such a plan to work it would have to be carried out in total secrecy, so should the government carry on with no hope of democratic mandate, or stay inactive and risk another Black Death?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Cost?

questionable usefulness
If it is actually beneficial to give additional flour is still not clear, conflicting studies, studies where the message isn't clear, etc... Nations which have extra flour in the water also have higher rates of certain diseases related to flour and all the flour the body is estimated to need is usually provided by food alone, so flour in the water can just mean an overdoses. Remember flour is more toxic than lead.
So to undertake a forced mass medication on such grounds seems to me - well bold.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

questionable usefulness
If it is actually beneficial to give additional flour is still not clear, conflicting studies, studies where the message isn't clear, etc... Nations which have extra flour in the water also have higher rates of certain diseases related to flour and all the flour the body is estimated to need is usually provided by food alone, so flour in the water can just mean an overdoses. Remember flour is more toxic than lead.
So to undertake a forced mass medication on such grounds seems to me - well bold.

"mass medication".. I thought it might have been used as caries prevention. ..given some hypothetical benefit, but, as you say, with questionable usefulness. What other uses would added fluoride provide?

 

[Tahuti]

You're probably right, the claimed threats to biodiversity are probably as crazy as the hypothetical climate changes paranoid people are raging over. Furthermore, I don't see that Nancyborgasm has stated anything of weight here.

Look, I do believe in antropogenic climate change and all, but I can't see the dangers to biodiversity as claimed by GMO-opponents. GMO basically comes down to mutation: So what? Mutation is quite natural actually.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Mutations are natural. Supercrops aren't. I see the threat to biodiversity quite clearly and when impartial experts (not GMO opponents) state there are real threats, I tend to get more wary.

To this comes the already mentioned issues with companies and their patents on human food.

 

[innonimatu]

Interesting related dilemma, by the way: there is an outbreak of Mad Sheep Disease in Fictionland. MSD is highly contagious, untreatable and fatal. Luckily, the only way that a human can catch it except from another human is to eat the meat of an infected sheep. So far there are no human cases, and with stringent controls in place, it is estimated that the chance of anyone catching it are miniscule. However, should anyone catch it, the only solution would be a quarantine of entire towns and there would be widespread loss of life.

A vaccine has been developed, which can be taken through drinking water. The vaccine makes those who take it immune to catching the disease from sheep meat - although they can still catch it by human-human transmission - but there are a very small number of people for whom the vaccine is fatal. There is no way to tell how a given person will react to taking it; but if the entire population of 100 million were to be given the vaccine there would be, say, 1000 deaths.

The government is presented with the option to put teh vaccine into the nation's tap water. Obviously for such a plan to work it would have to be carried out in total secrecy, so should the government carry on with no hope of democratic mandate, or stay inactive and risk another Black Death?

Well, first, the usual complain that the scenario is unrealistic.

But I won't evade the question: no, it should not carry out such a secret plan, especially if it lacks the legal authority to do it.

Going back to GMOs: something requiring continuing study, and to use very carefully for the time being. My problem is with the notion of copyright or patents on living things.
(actually, I have an issue with any and all patents and copyright, but that's another story)

And please, please, could people stop conflation progress with new? Yes, I know that the pool only echoes the most popular ideas. But those are different words, and justifiably so, they represent different things. Just because some GMO is new does not make it a "progress". It's very irritation to see that confusion repeated over and over again.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"mass medication".. I thought it might have been used as caries prevention. ..given some hypothetical benefit, but, as you say, with questionable usefulness. What other uses would added fluoride provide?

I don't know other than less caries. Maybe back then when it was introduced flour was more scarce in our food and a flour deficiency was prevented, too.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

And please, please, could people stop conflation progress with new? Yes, I know that the pool only echoes the most popular ideas. But those are different words, and justifiably so, they represent different things. Just because some GMO is new does not make it a "progress". It's very irritation to see that confusion repeated over and over again.

But the use of GMOs could be seen as a step in history where all people are able to eat as much as they want and famine gets eradicated. Why wouldn't that be labeled progress?

 

[innonimatu]

But the use of GMOs could be seen as a step in history where all people are able to eat as much as they want and famine gets eradicated. Why wouldn't that be labeled progress?

I'm sure we can engineer a poisonous weed as a GMO. Would that also automatically be "progress", by your implied logic that any GMOs are progress?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I see it as a technical achievement, not progress. It doesn't mean that the use of GMOs can't be seen as progress, which is why I made it one of the reasons to vote for it. I meant "progress" and not "new", no conflation issues..

 

[Midgard Eagle]

Could we stay on topic, please? I find it a bit frustrating to discuss GMO and find people taking potshots at other topics (flouride, nuclear power, AGW and its implications, etc.) without us getting to contribute with our knowledge on the subject without derailing the thread? Thanks a lot.

Look, I do believe in antropogenic climate change and all, but I can't see the dangers to biodiversity as claimed by GMO-opponents. GMO basically comes down to mutation: So what? Mutation is quite natural actually.

I'm also having problems seeing how introducing more species of plants or animals into a system leads to less diversity. Of course cross-pollination does occur, but this also occurs with every kind of species, not just those that happened to have come about through modern genetic modification. Heck, I can introduce this factor just by putting seeds into a suitcase, hopping on a plane to another continent, and planting the seeds in some forest far from where they usually reside.

Cross-pollination is an issue, but it's not a new issue introduced with GMO technology. If I was to create, say, a new kind of cow through traditional cross-breeding, I'd run into exactly the same problem.

I'm sure we can engineer a poisonous weed as a GMO. Would that also automatically be "progress", by your implied logic that any GMOs are progress?

Yes, it would be progress in the field of poisonous weeds.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Most genetically engineered crops are specifically designed to endure powerful herbicides and pesticides. The crops themselves are not as much of a problem for biodiversity as the practices which they were designed to facilitate. Without GMOs, such extreme forms of monoculture would not be feasible.

 

[The_J]

Many times seeds aren't sterile which is why the sue people for seed saving

Their seed are fertile. In fact they send inspectors to make sure that people who buy their seeds don't save them. I believe that this is explained in documentaries like Food Inc.

Seems i'm not quite up-to-date in the area of evil supercorps -> thanks for the correction.

Mutations are natural. Supercrops aren't.

Sure they are natural. That stuff evolved natural, and we just put things together which else would have needed longer to get there.


And the people here have to go away from GMO = Evil monsanto seeds.
There are tons more GMOs.
Every biology student produces GMOs in the genetic classes.
Important drugs like penicillin or lovastatin are produced by GMOs (overproduction GMOs with additional transcription factors and what not else), important biological additives like citric acid are produced by the same type of GMOs, labs experiment with knockouts (technically also a GMO), and tons of other modifications...it's more, not only the equivalent to "Soilent Green".