GM foods

[Anachronous Rex]

Well it doesn't help that the media has conspired to make it so that when people think of Genetic Modification the first thing that comes to mind is something like this:

 

[The Felonius Pope]

It turns out that my aunt actually works for Monsanto. I wasn't able to get any information out of her besides that...

 

[borrofburi]

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...

I imagine there are many with vastly more reasonable arguments, though I wonder what proportion of the population have such sentiments.

 

[KittenKoder]

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...

I imagine there are many with vastly more reasonable arguments, though I wonder what proportion of the population have such sentiments.

Sadly, there are no reasonable arguments against genetic modification of foods. The only people against it use nothing but hype and science fiction. That's where the problem is. There is literally no reason not to genetically modify food sources. Such products have not shown any real risks, unless allowed to grow unchecked in the wild (since they're modified to grow more aggressively).

 

[scalyblue]

[Sadly, there are no reasonable arguments against genetic modification of foods. The only people against it use nothing but hype and science fiction. That's where the problem is. There is literally no reason not to genetically modify food sources. Such products have not shown any real risks, unless allowed to grow unchecked in the wild (since they're modified to grow more aggressively).

That's a pretty big "unless."

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

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?

Harmful to the environment? Absolutely. Everything about organic growing practices is less efficient than modern practices in terms of cost, resources, and efficiency. You need to use more fertilizer, more irrigation, more everything to ultimately get poorer yields. Organic farming is less about "what's good for" anything, but more about out-of-hand rejection of technological advancements in the field of agriculture. The reality is that not only are the majority of synthetic chemical treatments and GMO seed varieties more effective in getting food to your table efficiently; They're also a lot safer, too. Organic-approved pesticides and fertilizers are often horrid cocktails of caustic stuff... whereas synthetic counterparts tend to contain isolated chemical components that have been tested and verified to be very specific in their effects and determined to be safe. Organics have no such compulsion because the primary rule is that they adhere to "old-timey" practices.

There are a few confirmedly positive practices in organic farming -- things like crop rotation and soil management -- but the misconception of the movement is that this is exclusively the practice organic farmers. These are all things pretty much EVERY farmer already does, regardless of their other practices.

There are arguments brought up about horrible wastes in modern agricultural practices, and the problem with their sources is that they bring up some of the issues that happen because the market demands certain produce year-round, and that often means having to grow some crops in areas which aren't really suited to growing them -- e.g. tomatoes in Florida... These are indeed horribly inefficient growing practices, but it's not because of some intrinsic quality of modern farming. It's because they're trying to grow tomatoes in f--ing Florida!!! It would be much worse if organic growers tried to do the same, but it's funny how you never hear an organic farming advocate say anything to that effect.

In terms of being harmful to the end consumer, aside from the cost... one thing worth noting is that organic fertilizer and pesticide compounds are not isolated chemical substances, but necessarily MUST be "naturally" sourced. So for instance, no one can use some mix of nutrients, but must instead use something like compost or manure which carries those nutrients. And since those sources can potentially be contaminated, there's a higher risk that the end product carries various pathogens. And yes, there are at least 4 semi-significant such outbreaks of food-borne illness that I'm aware of in the last 10 years that have been traced to raw vegetables -- and all of them have been organically-grown produce. That, I think, is a much smaller issue, though, because these sorts of issues are comparatively rare. And obviously, even a contaminated vegetable is not likely to pose a problem if it's consumed in cooked form. We rarely have any need to worry about that. As far as nutrient value and the quality of the food itself, that has no real connection to organic or not.

 

[KittenKoder]

[Sadly, there are no reasonable arguments against genetic modification of foods. The only people against it use nothing but hype and science fiction. That's where the problem is. There is literally no reason not to genetically modify food sources. Such products have not shown any real risks, unless allowed to grow unchecked in the wild (since they're modified to grow more aggressively).

That's a pretty big "unless."

About the only time such a situation would arise would be if humanity either stopped caring as a whole, or died off. So ... since it would actually help increase our chance of survival, it's a really tiny "unless" actually.

 

[scalyblue]

About the only time such a situation would arise would be if humanity either stopped caring as a whole, or died off. So ... since it would actually help increase our chance of survival, it's a really tiny "unless" actually.

You fail to actually address my point and instead deflect it. Do you honestly believe that there is no possible way, at all, that a genetic modification to a species can have unintended consequences that could be injurious to humans and/or the environment and escape to the wild in such a manner as to be outside control? I attached a photo of an africanized honeybee for a reason, you know.

Along the lines of the unintended consequences angle, we also have a social problem of modifications being patented, of "kill switches" being installed so that crops need to be reseeded each year, and of course the seeds can only come from one company. What if a mutation occurs that allows these plants to interbreed with native plants. We could get to the point where the only corn seeds capable of germinating come from one company? What if a disease breaks out that could wipe out the whole species, like what's happening with bananas right now?

There are drawbacks. They may be acceptable drawbacks, but don't fool yourself into thinking that there are none.

 

[KittenKoder]

About the only time such a situation would arise would be if humanity either stopped caring as a whole, or died off. So ... since it would actually help increase our chance of survival, it's a really tiny "unless" actually.

You fail to actually address my point and instead deflect it. Do you honestly believe that there is no possible way, at all, that a genetic modification to a species can have unintended consequences that could be injurious to humans and/or the environment and escape to the wild in such a manner as to be outside control? I attached a photo of an africanized honeybee for a reason, you know.

Along the lines of the unintended consequences angle, we also have a social problem of modifications being patented, of "kill switches" being installed so that crops need to be reseeded each year, and of course the seeds can only come from one company. What if a mutation occurs that allows these plants to interbreed with native plants. We could get to the point where the only corn seeds capable of germinating come from one company? What if a disease breaks out that could wipe out the whole species, like what's happening with bananas right now?

There are drawbacks. They may be acceptable drawbacks, but don't fool yourself into thinking that there are none.

I didn't read the entire thing, and here's why, the premise you start off with assumes that there is such a thing as a "pure" action in which there are no unintended consequences, and that is an impossibility. Every action has unintended consequences.

Take the genetically modified life form we call the cow, perfect example. They were bred to be perfect food sources, females producing milk more frequently is what I am focusing on. Now, we must continually milk the females, or they suffer pain. That is an unintended consequence. I am not against using them for food though, so don't go accusing me of being a PETA freak. Every action, everything, every event, has consequences. Life is a matter of weighing risks and benefits and choosing what will benefit more than risk, that's all it is, a poker hand.

 

[scalyblue]

I didn't read the entire thing, and here's why, the premise you start off with assumes that there is such a thing as a "pure" action in which there are no unintended consequences, and that is an impossibility. Every action has unintended consequences.

Take the genetically modified life form we call the cow, perfect example. They were bred to be perfect food sources, females producing milk more frequently is what I am focusing on. Now, we must continually milk the females, or they suffer pain. That is an unintended consequence. I am not against using them for food though, so don't go accusing me of being a PETA freak. Every action, everything, every event, has consequences. Life is a matter of weighing risks and benefits and choosing what will benefit more than risk, that's all it is, a poker hand.

Again, you fail to address my point. That's twice now in this thread.

I'm sure that Dr. Warwick Kerr weighed the risks and benefits and chose what would benefit more than risk; that didn't turn out too well now did it?

Your cow analogy fails; get back to me when the only way for farmers to get cows able to milk a profit is to buy embryos from conglomo corp.

I didn't accuse you of being a PETA freak, not even close, and the presumption is very telling.

Don't bother replying to a post of mine if you're not going to read it.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Calm down you two. No need to get upset.

 

[SirYeen]

I would like to see kittenkoder make a decent reply though. I think it would be interesting.

@Shootmymonkey where do you read all this stuff Every time I go to this forum I'm like I'm 19 and I know none of this. I'm wasting my life!

 

[Aught3]

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

I would separate the principle from the practice. In principle there aren't any valid arguments against GMOs as food products, at least none that I've heard. However, the practice of creating new GMOs can be problematic. Mostly this seems to be criticism of large corporations and legal issues (which do not apply exclusively to GMOs). So I suppose I agree with Ben Goldarce's position.

2. Are there any legitimate concerns about GM foods?

I think allergenicity is the biggest issue, at least it is the only concern that has ever actually occurred. The example I remember is a Brazil nut allergen being expressed in soybean. It never actually entered the food chain as the product was discontinued after the potential problem was realised. But it could be very difficult for people with certain allergies to be sure about what they are eating if genes are being moved around without much caution.

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

They have good aspects and bad aspects. In terms of health I would never eat organic flour. The reason is organic farmers are not allowed to use the effective fungicides that prevent fungal contamination. The more fungal contamination you have, the more aflatoxins you get. Fungicides are not good for you but aflatoxins are far worse and it has been demonstrated that organic flours have higher levels of this dangerous toxin. The biggest problem with organic farming is the central naturalistic fallacy which leads farmers to make decisions that actually have worse outcomes overall. Certainly there are some good ideas and I'm all for taking those and using them in scientifically-supported farming practice.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

2. Are there any legitimate concerns about GM foods?

I think allergenicity is the biggest issue, at least it is the only concern that has ever actually occurred. The example I remember is a Brazil nut allergen being expressed in soybean. It never actually entered the food chain as the product was discontinued after the potential problem was realised. But it could be very difficult for people with certain allergies to be sure about what they are eating if genes are being moved around without much caution..

Another example that I'm aware of that actually occurred on the market was the the Starlink corn incident where the engineered protein was supposedly linked to the allergic reaction in some people. In reality, it was only shown that the link was a definite *possibility*, but not a certainty, and that was enough to create a PR disaster. It was tested, and in trials, never showed even an isolated incidence, so it was deemed safe for consumption. Then this corn was used in a variety of cases, and ultimately in its widest direct consumption use, ended up in Taco Bell taco shells. This essentially opened up the rate of consumption to levels that had not been seen in trials and as it turns out, the allergic sensitivity was incredibly rare even if it was real. I think in the end, only 28 people nationwide even reported any sign of a reaction that *could* have been linked to the corn.

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

Ok so as a farmer, here are my issues with the current GMO thing. (can provide links to back up my opinions if requested)
One thing I want to clarify right off the hop, I've had a number of people I've spoken with on this subject confuse GMO with hybridization or selective breeding - these are not anywhere close to the same thing.
My opposition also has nothing to do with "playing god". I think humans are amazing animals and we will eventually figure everything out without subscribing it to the actions of a deity or witchcraft.

Now on to my GMO rant *rubbing hands with glee*

1. This type of technology should not be in the hands of big business out to make a buck. They can tout all they want that they're out to feed the planet or whatever but evidence to date, indicates that really they're just trying to own and patent all the seeds in the world and basically control (and charge the farmer heavily for it) the world's seed supply.
I know that sounds quite conspiracy theorist ...... but wait, it gets better.

One can't ascribe altruistic values to a company that's solely out for profit.

2. Because the GMO technology is controlled by big business I've seen no evidence that they are doing enough controlled testing before releasing their product into the environment. (again at huge cost to the farmer and in some cases the general population)

3. I've also found no evidence that they are also working to maintain the original species of the organisms they're altering. No fall back plan seems to be in place in the event something goes wrong and they need to go back to the beginning using the original, or to use the buzzword "heritage", DNA,
Actually I've noticed the opposite is true.
There have been numerous cases where farmers and seed banks have found modified organisms have polluted their original species due to cross pollination from neighbouring modified crops.

So, am I opposed to the idea of genetically enhancing certain species? Not necessarily , I believe this technology has great potential. What I'm opposed to is how it's being done at the moment and who's doing it.

This last bit is just my opinion from stuff I've seen happen here at my own farm and has no other data to back it up other than that.

Because the genome has been blasted open with a piece of completely foreign material (usually e-coli) the modified organism is quite often more pervasive during the pollination process and will "take over" the original.

 

[Unwardil]

Generally speaking, I think more Genetically modified is more better.

Think about it rationally. Species that evolve naturally are typically doing so in competition with each other. It is not in a food's best interest to be either nutritious or delicious to humans, unless it is one of those symbiotic relationships where we spread their seeds and they feed us, in which case the food is going to want to be somewhat delicious and somewhat nutritious, enough to motivate us to do their propagating for them.

But with GM foods, we have the ability to truly design the perfect food. The only reason to genetically modify living things for this reason is because living things already exist and they already do most of the work for us. Ideally, if we could create a 100% artificial food source that did the same thing, that would be the theoretically perfect thing.

Now that said, if we go introducing Frankenstein plants and animals into pre-established ecosystems, they're going to take over and become a real nuisance to everything that isn't human and then, by extension, humans as well. Ordinary farming is bad enough at this already. The answer is greenhouses and other highly controlled farming methods, where the GMOs do not interact with the natural ones or with each other by cross pollinating or what have you.

 

[Aught3]

Hi Nom_de_Plume and welcome to the boards.

I would like to see the links you have that back up the idea that there is a "huge cost to the farmer and in some cases the general population" from organisations not "doing enough controlled testing before releasing their product into the environment".

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

Hi Nom_de_Plume and welcome to the boards.

I would like to see the links you have that back up the idea that there is a "huge cost to the farmer and in some cases the general population" from organisations not "doing enough controlled testing before releasing their product into the environment".

Thanks for the Welcome,
here's a nice one to get you started, the rest of the links are saved on my laptop which is in the car
so read this http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...rmer-commits-suicide-biotech-is-not-to-blame/

The report singles out Monsanto, a biotechnology and life sciences company based in St. Louis, Mo., as an example of multinational misconduct. [Disclosure: my mother once worked for Monsanto].

Bt cotton seeds are genetically modified to produce an insecticide that kills Bollworm, a common cotton pest in India. In 2002, the government of India allowed Monsanto to start selling Bt cotton to farmers in India. In the years since, Bt cotton has pervaded cotton farming in India.

I'll be back in a few with the rest

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

I particularly like this one cuz I've met the man.
he spent everything he had fighting monsanto for suing him for having GMO in his field that he never put there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Schmeiser first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[2] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km,²) of canola.

At the time, Roundup Ready canola was in use by several farmers in the area. Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated. Possible routes of this gene flow include seed which escaped from passing trucks containing Roundup Ready harvests, or natural, accidental pollination. Monsanto initially claimed that Schmeiser planted Roundup Ready Canola in his fields intentionally, though they could offer no evidence for this. The company later admitted that it was possible for unintentional gene flow to have resulted in the initial presence of Roundup Ready Canola in Schmeiser's field. While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm remains unclear, the trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop.[3]

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

Sorry I guess I should have lumped them all into one post instead of posting each one on it's own.
Last one, unless you ask for more. ( I have lots) this subject is only one of the many windmills I tilt at.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however. ......