GM foods

[Laurens]

I have a couple of questions to ask you guys, as I'm interested in learning more on the topic:

1. Are anti-GMO protesters misguided in their views, if so why?

2. Are there any legitimate concerns about GM foods?

I've not really heard much of the arguments of either side, I've heard several in favour of GM food, and I've heard that protesters against it have largely got the wrong end of the stick (although I'm not sure about the details). I've also heard that there are at least a few legitimate and more scientifically based concerns about genetically modified crops, and the companies that produce them, although I am not exactly sure as to the details of these.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

This is not a subject I am knowledgeable on, however one of my aunts works at a company that produces GM plants. If I can contact her she might be able to provide some information on your inquiry.

 

[Prolescum]

I have a couple of questions to ask you guys, as I'm interested in learning more on the topic:

1. Are anti-GMO protesters misguided in their views, if so why?

Some of the companies that produce GM seeds/crops have quite disturbing histories, such as Monsanto. It's difficult to entrust our food supply to such organisations.

GMO protesters, like most groups, have their fringe, but generally speaking, concerns about farming practices, cross-pollination, and in particular patenting, are genuine, as far as I am aware.

2. Are there any legitimate concerns about GM foods?

Americans have been eating GM food for many years.

Make what you will of that

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I agree with Prolescum. Monsanto scares me. :?

 

[Laurens]

Thanks for the responses

I had heard about Monsanto previously and I agree they do seem quite sinister (they manufactured Agent Orange did they not?)

I guess the people I have come across belong to the fringe. The kinds of people who think 'natural' is indefinitely better than everything else, so they refuse to use modern pesticides and hate GM food because we're 'playing God' etc etc.

Ben Goldacre briefly mentions the legitimate concerns over GM food in his book (he also mentions Monsanto), and they seem pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Dean]

Laurens

I have a couple of questions to ask you guys, as I'm interested in learning more on the topic:

1. Are anti-GMO protesters misguided in their views, if so why?

2. Are there any legitimate concerns about GM foods?

I've not really heard much of the arguments of either side, I've heard several in favour of GM food, and I've heard that protesters against it have largely got the wrong end of the stick (although I'm not sure about the details). I've also heard that there are at least a few legitimate and more scientifically based concerns about genetically modified crops, and the companies that produce them, although I am not exactly sure as to the details of these.

Well quite frankly, in response to the first question -yes- it seems plainly obvious. And when you consider some of the objections that have been raised against GM-trials in the past, e.g. moronic statements such "we don't wanna eat food with genes in it", you start to wonder if there is actually any (in your terms) "legitimate concern".

It's often amused me, and other research biologists, that what so many people seem to think of as "natural" ... is often anything but. And there's a naturalistic fallacy, right there. The assumption that good things, are default: natural, and vice versa. "Playing god" and the other sweeping slogans you here are equally absurd, since we've been genetically engineering fruit and so forth for thousands of years, and cattle too, to a lesser extent. This isn't new.

The only thing different in the new Genetic Modification "movement" as some call it, is the fact that we have learned means by which to pinpoint which alleles correlate to specific-traits of the phenotype of organisms, and then manipulate in just one or two generations, rather than over centuries, or even millennia, e.g. artificial selection, breeding, etc. And I like to keep an open-mind, sure. But still, it strikes me that the overwhelming majority of concerns about GM-foods and so on emerge from a fundamental misunderstanding of the science, and not of legitimate concern.

 

[Prolescum]

Feel free to lay to rest the concerns posted by me, Dean.

 

[Dean]

Feel free to lay to rest the concerns posted by me, Dean.

I'm not really certain what that sentence was intended to convey ... remember, I said most of the concerns are unfounded.

Of course there are concerns about cross-pollination and so forth, and that's up for debate. The discussion then; seems to be more on whether or not the companies that produce these things can be trusted to control them, rather than whether or not there are inherent dangers. I suppose the organizations involved in the keeping of these GM organisms, e.g. crops and so on may have "Dark Pasts", and I acknowledge that. Sorry if I came across as arrogant the first time around.

I don't have objections to the points you raised at all. Except, I'm talking about the question of whether there is inherent danger in creating genetically engineered creatures, i.e. meaning the actual creatures themselves.

On cross-pollination, it's easy to see why people are worried. Some genes from GM-organisms have escaped into the wild. Whether or not they will cause damage to other life-forms, etc. is the real question. What some of the 'fringe' of anti-GM-activists often complain about is what they call "Frankenfood", often referring to the supposed "danger" of -for example- GM crops. What I think they fail to appreciate is that even when Genetic Modification could really help save lives, scientists are often NOT allowed to release it, because of supposed dangers that don't exist.

I take it you will have heard of the Golden Rice? It was an attempt to create a form of rice that contains Vitamin A, by bio-synthesizing the genes needed to produce beta-carotine from other plants. And it worked, to a degree. But in the initial phases of development , I haven't looked into this for some time , when all was finally said and done, tested, etc., it was not allowed to be released because of potential dangers, which I'm sure had already been tested for.

When you consider that a large percentage of the world , perhaps 30-50% , rely on rice as the primary constituent of their diet, and how many people die every year as a result of Vitamin A deficiency, it was at least an idea worthy of note, and has only been introduced in a few remote circumstances today.

Now, as with all vast corporate firms, the companies that claim to hold 'ownership' over the genetically modified organisms, as I've said; need to be carefully regulated, to prevent abuse of that power. But this is a risk with any large organizations. And of course there is a rather pressing concern surrounding the ethics of patenting life-forms. And that is worthy of debate. But I haven't seen significant evidence to suggest that genetically modifying crops, animals, and what have you -- is harmful in and of itself.

And like I said, this point is made obvious by the fact that humanity has been genetically fiddling the alleles of ancestral animal and plant populations for hundreds, if not thousands of years, the only difference here is that we've finally learned means by which we can transfer and mute the effects of certain genes on the phenotypic traits of the organisms in question,.directly. With selective-breeding and artificial selection, we've gone from "conventional" cattle (*grin*), to things, such as this. And from original lupines to these nifty buggers in 30,000 years or so.

Objectively speaking, it seems that "playing god" is a defining trademark of the human race, and is unlikely to stop soon. So I haven't seen significant and compelling reasons to believe that genetically modifying foods is harmful, per se. It's something that's always been done, to varying degrees of precision. But whether or not we can trust the companies who maintain these organisms to be responsible with them is a more pressing concern as you pointed out in your earlier post. Perhaps there ought to be restrictions set in place to prevent this from happening, as well as , obviously , careful regulation of corporate entities that may be in possession of such things. If this is all you're talking about then I agree.

 

[Prolescum]

Feel free to lay to rest the concerns posted by me, Dean.

I'm not really certain what that sentence was intended to convey ... remember, I said most of the concerns are unfounded.

It was meant to convey an interest in your views. You didn't address the patent issue.

 

[Dean]

Fair nuff.

 

[Inferno]

I have a couple of questions to ask you guys, as I'm interested in learning more on the topic:

1. Are anti-GMO protesters misguided in their views, if so why?

2. Are there any legitimate concerns about GM foods?

I've not really heard much of the arguments of either side, I've heard several in favour of GM food, and I've heard that protesters against it have largely got the wrong end of the stick (although I'm not sure about the details). I've also heard that there are at least a few legitimate and more scientifically based concerns about genetically modified crops, and the companies that produce them, although I am not exactly sure as to the details of these.

Short answer: 1) Yes-ish and 2) No.
Long-ish answer, before I go to bed:
Anti-GMO protesters are right in their fight against, as Prole mentions, patenting, dominating companies, etc. However, and this ties in with the second question, there are no actual dangers associated with GM foods as far as I'm aware.

Ben Goldacre briefly mentions the legitimate concerns over GM food in his book (he also mentions Monsanto), and they seem pretty reasonable to me.

What concerns, exactly? I've read the book and cite it quite frequently and I can't for the life of me remember that he mentioned problems with the actual food itself. I might have to read that bit again...

 

[Laurens]

What concerns, exactly? I've read the book and cite it quite frequently and I can't for the life of me remember that he mentioned problems with the actual food itself. I might have to read that bit again...

He states that

- It's created a 'tremendous power shift in agriculture'
- He raises concern over 'terminator seeds' which are used to increase dependency in developing countries and across the world
- And also raises concern over companies like Monsanto, which he describes as being a very nasty company responsible for manufacturing agent orange.

In my copy its on page 309-310, however my version has an extra chapter included, so if you don't have that version it will probably be a different page (its in the index under GM foods).

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

On cross-pollination, it's easy to see why people are worried. Some genes from GM-organisms have escaped into the wild. Whether or not they will cause damage to other life-forms, etc. is the real question. What some of the 'fringe' of anti-GM-activists often complain about is what they call "Frankenfood", often referring to the supposed "danger" of -for example- GM crops.

A lot of the "Frankenfood" worries are also a confusion between the study of genetics and some of the gene-splicing that takes place there, and the food that is actually created for consumption.

You hear people talk about splicing "cuttlefish genes into tomatoes", and they think that Monsanto is out to create glow-in-the-dark fruits. There are indeed things like that happening, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with food -- it's the sort of work that lies in the realm of basic research in the field of genetics. Occasionally, the experiments involve splicing genes across species in order to study how different genes express in different genepools... but all of this is purely academic in the interest of learning more about the science.

The type of gene modification that goes into food is mostly to make it disease-resistant, drought-resistant, pest-resistant, as well as to make it capable of producing certain nutrients (and the latter of these is mostly applied in crops that are used as livestock feed).

It's a fear of the unknown. They really don't understand what the companies are actually trying to do, nor do they understand what scientists are trying to do when they study how animal genes express in plant genomes. Either way, they just connect them on the basis of nothing more than gene modification and because they have no comprehension of anything going on, it's automatically an object of fear. Dark histories like that of Monsanto are nothing more than vehicles on which to justify their fear and implicit distrust... but every time they try to get explicit about why they have a problem with GMO crops, everything they have to say is just wrong.

 

[Inferno]

What concerns, exactly? I've read the book and cite it quite frequently and I can't for the life of me remember that he mentioned problems with the actual food itself. I might have to read that bit again...

He states that

- It's created a 'tremendous power shift in agriculture'
- He raises concern over 'terminator seeds' which are used to increase dependency in developing countries and across the world
- And also raises concern over companies like Monsanto, which he describes as being a very nasty company responsible for manufacturing agent orange.

In my copy its on page 309-310, however my version has an extra chapter included, so if you don't have that version it will probably be a different page (its in the index under GM foods).

Ah OK, then we were simply talking about different things. As I recall, he never stated that there were scientific problems with GM food, it's "only" a political/power problem.

 

[KittenKoder]

Crass answer:
Bananas
Cows
Wheat
Corn
.. ... ... ... .... ...

Less crass answer:
There is nothing wrong with them. For one thing, what you eat does not effect you as much as the paranoia surrounding genetically modified foods would make you think. The digestive tract will absorb some chemicals, but you need them in pretty high doses for the tract to absorb them fast enough before the bacteria in it eats it all. The only exception would be some chemicals that are absorbed prior to the intestinal portion of digestion.

There are some chemicals that can irritate the tract, usually because the bacteria cannot consume it, but these are also not absorbed by the walls themselves, that's why they're an irritation. However, and this is the strongest point here, scientific minds working on these foods have a pretty advanced understanding of how the human body works and what chemicals pose threats to us, and their goal is to save people not kill us all off so it's safe to say they are not mad scientists working to end humanity.

Note: Not a medical doctor, but it's amazing how much you are willing to learn about your own body when you have to go in for digestive surgery and it's your first surgery ever.

 

[Laurens]

I guess in summary we can say that:

The health concerns over GM foods are unsubstantiated, however there are some quite reasonable political/economic concerns about the industry.

 

[devilsadvocate]

I've wanted to ask this question since I first saw this thread, but didn't want to hijack it. Now that Laurens seems satisfied enough how the thread has went, I'll pop this one out:

Are organic foods bad for you and/or the environment?

I ask because I overheard a finnish biologist specializing in plant breeding talk about the dangers of organic foods on the radio, but I didn't have time to listen to it since I was at work. Was he bonkers or are organic foods really harmful?

 

[scalyblue]

I've wanted to ask this question since I first saw this thread, but didn't want to hijack it. Now that Laurens seems satisfied enough how the thread has went, I'll pop this one out:

Are organic foods bad for you and/or the environment?

I ask because I overheard a finnish biologist specializing in plant breeding talk about the dangers of organic foods on the radio, but I didn't have time to listen to it since I was at work. Was he bonkers or are organic foods really harmful?

If by organic you mean organically grown, there are a few major drawbacks I'm aware of.

Organically grown foods use more space and are less efficient. Plants produce less yield per acre, animals less meat per pound of grain. This is because artifical pesticides, hormones, and fertilizers are not used, and in the case of plants it's very common to use legacy plants from prior to artificial GM.

As far as healthfulness, it should be the same. I mean, a tomato is a tomato whether or not you grow it in artificial fertilizer or cow dung, but it's going to be a smaller tomato and if it's not processed right (a mere factor of many organic foods being produced by smaller, less capable companies) there may be some of that cow dung still on it that you need to be doubly careful washing off before you eat it.

The main danger in my opinion is that it instills a sense of "It's okay to waste land and resources so that I can feel morally superior about the food I eat, don't worry starving kids in africa we're making organic groceries here."

 

[borrofburi]

1. Are anti-GMO protesters misguided in their views, if so why?

I don't know, what are "their views"?

 

[Laurens]

1. Are anti-GMO protesters misguided in their views, if so why?

I don't know, what are "their views"?

Generally it seems to be things like 'scientists shouldn't play God', 'it might not be good for you to eat frankenfoods' and so on...