GMO's - good or bad?

[Neonanocyborgasm]

You're probably right, the claimed threats to biodiversity are probably as crazy as the hypothetical climate changes paranoid people are raging over.

There is a difference. Climate change is not merely a hypothetical but has already happened, and has been demonstrated to happen.

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.

Crops, genetically modified or not, cannot "infect" other crops.

And there is no such thing as "pure" crops. We have been messing with crops for 8000 years since the invention of agriculture. The crops we harvest today usually bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors. This has not resulted in the destruction of Earth's ecosphere. We have done the same to animals. Goats, sheep, cows, chickens, and even dogs and cats bear only minimal resemblance to their wild ancestors. Gene modification is just another tool in the agriculture industry to produce better crops, no worse than selective breeding or planting, using mouldboard plows, or grafting tree branches. All of these practice are completely unnatural, yet somehow GMO gets special attention as being an environmental hazard.

Btw, I STILL have not heard of a safety risk to the use of genetically modified crops. What exactly is the risk? That corn may grow on mountaintops?

 

[G-Max]

I fully support GMOs. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I fully support GMOs. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Oh, you could cite a sci-fi movie as evidence of real world consequences? Perhaps I should cite an episode of "Law and Order" as evidence of real police procedure.

 

[classical_hero]

There is a difference. Climate change is not merely a hypothetical but has already happened, and has been demonstrated to happen.



Crops, genetically modified or not, cannot "infect" other crops.

And there is no such thing as "pure" crops. We have been messing with crops for 8000 years since the invention of agriculture. The crops we harvest today usually bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors. This has not resulted in the destruction of Earth's ecosphere. We have done the same to animals. Goats, sheep, cows, chickens, and even dogs and cats bear only minimal resemblance to their wild ancestors. Gene modification is just another tool in the agriculture industry to produce better crops, no worse than selective breeding or planting, using mouldboard plows, or grafting tree branches. All of these practice are completely unnatural, yet somehow GMO gets special attention as being an environmental hazard.

Btw, I STILL have not heard of a safety risk to the use of genetically modified crops. What exactly is the risk? That corn may grow on mountaintops?

There is a difference between breeding crops to sort out already existing genetic material than inserting foreign genetic material to make it produce things that it normally would not. In fact that ancient practices seem to be better at producing better crops than the modern practice.

Some of the problems with GM crops is that they often destroy the biodiversity of, since some are made to produce toxins that kill pests, but they also kill useful insects that are vital to the health of the biodiversity of the region, since they don't discriminate between friend and foe. Also since those crops are now producing toxins that were not once in the crops, and also the use of pesticides have increase and the method of removing weeds was once different, but now they just spray herbicides and now the weeds have grown tolerant to them, meaning they need more herbicide to kill off the weeds and some of the herbicide residue gets left behind. It is also the effect in children that we should be worried about, but the studies are only ever done on healthy adults and thus more tolerant to the effects of the problem.

 

[Ooovis]

GMO feeding studys <--this would be a good search term to use as there seem to be many results.

I avoid GMO food as much as is possable, but the fact that companys like Monsanto are aginst labeling of GMO food there must be something wrong with it or else thay would not be so paranoid of allowing the consumer to know.

 

[azzaman333]

GMO feeding studys <--this would be a good search term to use as there seem to be many results.

I avoid GMO food as much as is possable, but the fact that companys like Monsanto are aginst labeling of GMO food there must be something wrong with it or else thay would not be so paranoid of allowing the consumer to know.

People avoid GM food because they're irrationally fearful of it. That's why the companies don't want to have to specifically label their food as being GM.

 

[Ooovis]

So you find it acceptable that the right to know what you are buying is taken away?

Think of it this way for a moment.
GMO is like an alpha stage program and normally when someone wants help testing it thay tell you if it runs a risk of crashing or damageing your computer, but instead the ones makeing this program arnt telling you what side effects thay suspect may be attached to it so you must roll the dice.

GMO food is not like cross breeding, in that you cant cross breed a plant with an animal, there is also the risk when thay cross the genes of 2 diffrent animals that the diseases of the 2 said animals will find a way to bridge the gap so when thay put human DNA in with other animals or plants thay begin opening the door to new harmful elements to not just humans but also plants.

The plants that produce the toxins like the BT corn when consumed by humans or other animals part of the toxin produceing elements stay in the gut of the animal or human causeing other problems as the toxins now dont have to find a way past the normal protections.

GMO crops have also proven that the output of them is in fact lower then present framing methods.

 

[azzaman333]

Sorry, I didn't realise you were a conspiracy theorist when I first replied. Go on believing what you want, I don't have the time nor the motivation to debate with those types.

 

[Ooovis]

It is not my problem when others can not see past there own nose Good luck to you.

 

[Gigaz]

While I don't oppose GMO's in general, I strongly oppose the possibility of having a copyright on a species or a sequence of genes. When the genes spread to a nearby farm without the modification, the farmer would propably be forced to pay big fees. That would open several possibilities for massive fraud from corporations against smaller agriculture companies, especially in third world countries.

 

[Verbose]

While I don't oppose GMO's in general, I strongly oppose the possibility of having a copyright on a species or a sequence of genes. When the genes spread to a nearby farm without the modification, the farmer would propably be forced to pay big fees. That would open several possibilities for massive fraud from corporations against smaller agriculture companies, especially in third world countries.

Yeah. Genetics and property laws might not be all that compatible. Genes just might turn out to be a bit too promiscuous.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

There are three or four main ways, really.

The first is that a crop will be idealised as a monoculture, and growing monocultures is obviously bad for whole swaths of biodiversity. If a food crop gains a GMO modification that makes it 'better' than the normal alternative, it will spread. This would mean a reduction in the total number of crop-types in our fields, and this would reduce biodiversity further from the damage already done by monoculture.

The second is the use of poisons on our crops. If a 'poison-resistant' version of a crop is made, then aggressive use of poisons are then applied to the field. Not only does this reduce biodiversity in the fields, but also anything draining or downwind from the fields.

The third is toxins in the GMO plant. The toxins will prevent species from flourishing in the fields, but if those toxins are in (say) the pollen, then those toxins will then affect ecosystems downstream or downwind.

The fourth is a minor concern, and more to do with animals. Creating a 'super' version of a species that then escapes will allow that species to go on and dominate eco-systems that it's normally not in. This would obviously displace the previous species.

 

[G-Max]

Oh, you could cite a sci-fi movie as evidence of real world consequences? Perhaps I should cite an episode of "Law and Order" as evidence of real police procedure.

You apparently didn't get the sarcasm. I've always supported GMOs.

 

[Tee Kay]

So you find it acceptable that the right to know what you are buying is taken away?

In his defence, he didn't say that at all.

As a GMO-proponent (sort of), I support the labelling of all GM products. Yeah, it's actually possible to support GM technology without supporting Monsanto or their practices. Shocking, I know.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

There is a difference between breeding crops to sort out already existing genetic material than inserting foreign genetic material to make it produce things that it normally would not. In fact that ancient practices seem to be better at producing better crops than the modern practice.

Then you have nothing to worry about, as that means that Monsanto will be going out of business soon, since old ways are better than new.

Some of the problems with GM crops is that they often destroy the biodiversity

So does agriculture. It destroys a whole swath of land for tilling, killing every plant there and running off all the animals, just to grow a large amount of a single plant. I can argue that goats destroy biodiversity too, by eating all the shrubs and grass in a meadow and suffer no consequences even from predators. Somehow that has still failed to destroy the ecosphere of the earth, even though goats have been domesticated for thousands of years.

You seem to have this mystical belief that just because genes are artificially inserted into plants that they didn't formerly have, that it's a dangerous tampering with nature. I have news for you. DNA is DNA. We all have the same DNA, and despite how you like to think of yourself as special, you aren't. You are made of the same stuff as the very crops you eat, genetically modified or not.

It is also the effect in children that we should be worried about, but the studies are only ever done on healthy adults and thus more tolerant to the effects of the problem.

I'm amused how you mutter something about a threat to children and fail to explain what the threat is. Is there something about a child's gastointestinal tract that digests genetically modified crops differently? Perhaps they turn cellulose into nerve gas?

 

[Midgard Eagle]

There is a difference between breeding crops to sort out already existing genetic material than inserting foreign genetic material to make it produce things that it normally would not.

Yup, it's a different procedure, but what I care about is the end result. If a traditionally bred orange passes safety scrutiny, and a "GMO orange" passes scrutiny, what does it matter if one of them was created in a novel way?

A baby born naturally is exactly the same as a baby born through c-section.

In fact, all the concern voiced in this thread, from a new kind of plant spreading poisonous substances to a new pesticide-resistent plant allowing more pesticides to be used, apply just as well to traditional breeding. What if I cross-breed tomatoes until I arrive at a new kind of tomato that can survive far more pesticide, or which contains "toxins"? Is this more or less unethical than arriving at the same result through GMO technology?

 

[El_Machinae]

It does depend on what the toxins are, though. We can guess how increasing 'tomato-anti-bug protein X' would affect things, but not guess how increasing 'jellyfish-anti-mollusc protein Y' (which also kills bugs) would affect eco-systems. We also have a harder time figuring out which metrics are to be watched for human health

The concern is either novel protein products or novel metabolites. 'More' of a known metabolite doesn't raise the same concerns.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I'm surprised that it took all the way until page 4 for somebody to cite "Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!" as an argument.

For the record, I'm pro-GMO, anti-GMO Companies. The technology itself is great and has the potential to significantly help the world's population. The companies (Monsanto is the only one I'm familiar with, I can't imagine the others are much better) have proven that they will willingly abuse the system to screw people over if given the chance so they need to be regulated and copyright law needs to be amended to have different rules for genetics.

 

[Polycrates]

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

Nah, the point is that most of them would never have gotten there. They're from entirely different organisms, so evolved to interact with a whole different set of proteins in an entirely different microenvironment, so who knows what they'll actually do? Context is important for these things.

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".

The big difference is that those GMOs aren't let out to go nuts within the world's environments. Maybe they're safe, who knows? Nobody does, because we know hardly anything about the fine workings of biological systems. So what are we doing releasing these things, when we can never ever bring them back if something goes wrong? It's not like they're actually being used for anything useful either - the world's problem isn't food supply, it's food distribution - and none of these advances are actually helping the people who need them anyway.

 

[Polycrates]

So does agriculture. It destroys a whole swath of land for tilling, killing every plant there and running off all the animals, just to grow a large amount of a single plant. I can argue that goats destroy biodiversity too, by eating all the shrubs and grass in a meadow and suffer no consequences even from predators. Somehow that has still failed to destroy the ecosphere of the earth, even though goats have been domesticated for thousands of years.

It's a different problem than the one you're talking about, the lack of genetic diversity within a given species. The Irish potato famine was a classic example of the problem of lack of biodiversity. Much of Ireland relied on potato varieties only relatively recently sources from limited original stock - so their was hardly any genetic diversity within their potato crops. So when a blight came, there were no resistant varieties to pick up the slack and a hell of a lot of people starved to death.

A counterexample to what you're talking about though is rabbits in Australia. Some aristocrat decided bringing a few rabbits over for some hunting would be a laugh, and they ended up being possibly Australia's biggest pest, devastating entire areas. And we can't get rid of the bloody things. That's the sort of thing that happens when you introduce something into a biological system that's radically different from the one it's designed for when you don't know what you're doing. And Australian agricultural history is just a long litany of the same sorts of warnings.

I'm amused how you mutter something about a threat to children and fail to explain what the threat is. Is there something about a child's gastointestinal tract that digests genetically modified crops differently? Perhaps they turn cellulose into nerve gas?

I'm not one for the "think of the children" argument, but these transgenes could very conceivably be producing harmful byproducts that we haven't yet detected, and children are going to be the ones hardest hit if there are, especially if it's something that screws with developmental signalling. Hey, they're probably not, but who knows? It seems to me like madness to be releasing this stuff when we know so very little about the workings and can never ever bring them back.