GMOs
 

Couldn't find a thread on the subject without an incredibly biased OP in either direction so I made a new one.

What's your position on GMOs? Good? Bad? Evil? Great? Super evil? Like really super evil? Really good?

Your thoughts, post em.

I'd rather talk about GTOs.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...a28f-4-web.jpg

Giant Tranny Orgies? Sounds awesome.

On topic: I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic, but from what little I do know I'm against it. With a quick google search I found this: Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

I can't speak for it's accuracy but if those are facts and not biased propaganda, I only need a couple things out of that list to make my decision pretty easy.

Edit: I don't have a problem with the concept of genetic modification, but those side effects on that list are just not worth it to me.

I'm thinking it's leaning towards propaganda. It's posted by an organization that is led by this man: Jeffrey Smith | Academics Review.

I'm not going to run through every point on the list, but for the first one, it suggests that health risks have increased with use of GMOs, when in reality that's confounded by new definitions of things like autism widening the umbrella for more things that it covers. So that number isn't actually increasing, the diagnoses are since they're being more inclusive. From what I've read, there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed study of GMOs showing that they have any negative health effects. Each GMO is studied intensively and has to pass through rigorous FDA regulations to even make it to the market. If there was any significant link between a GMO and cancer/autism/whatever, the FDA wouldn't approve it and it would be pretty stupid for the company to continue to distribute it.

Another one on there saying that mixing genes from different animals is a load of hooey too. Every living creature is made of the same DNA, and taking DNA from bacteria and putting it into corn isn't going to confuse the corn's genes in the same way that if you copy and paste the word "and" from Mein Kampf in an essay on religious tolerance in a word processor.

I'd really like to see their sources on their information, because some of them are outright lies like the government oversight being lax.

If you haven't noticed yet I'm pretty pro-GMO. I think the anti-GMO movement is really just based in fear-mongering and naturalist bias (i.e. chemicals and science=evil, so chow down on that hemlock, it's all natural). Because of things like strict regulations on the GMOs, it really only allows large corporations to be able to afford to put their products on the market, so there's the factor of disdain towards corporations in the anti-GMO field (Monsanto comes to mind). Really, we've been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years through artificial selection. Without genetic modification, that fruit you're eating would be bitter and full of seeds, your puppy wouldn't be so goddamned adorable, and you'd be chewing on grass when you eat corn with your steak. Science has just come up with ways to speed up the process without the arduous process of continuing to select for ideal traits in artificial selection (and natural selection to a degree, but that doesn't really apply to agriculture).

Here's a good article from an accredited source: Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked | Popular Science

Unfortunately I work too much these days to educate myself on political issues, so I guess it depends upon the credible evidence surrounding the health & legal consequences of GMO's and the corporations that produce them.

I assumed that there was a definite connection between GMO's and cancer? (ie the study that came out of France with mice that were fed genetically modified grain, and developed tumours as a result) Was this debunked?

If there is even a probable link, I think that products that have GMO's in them should be labeled in the supermarket here in North America as they are in Europe. I have a right to know what I am putting into my body. (So many foods have GMO ingrediants from Kit Kat & Diary Milk bars to Ruffles potato chips, ect ect)

On the other hand, if there is no direct link between cancer and GMO's than it is a great way to bring down food costs globally, which is great for us, our pocketbooks, and retirement savings.

Finally there is the issue of GMO seeds spreading to local farms & taking over or damaging their crops. If your corn seed pollinates on my soil I shouldn't be sued for harvesting them under intellectual property rights.

In the end, I believe that the science should determine the politics of GMO's, not corporate profit, or environmental ideologues, I know this is a lot to ask though.

That rat cancer paper has been retracted after it didn't stand up to peer review. As for the cross pollination, it doesn't really affect neighbouring farms. There hasn't been a single case where a farmer has been sued due to cross pollination. Any cross pollination that would occur would be so miniscule that it would be difficult to notice. The case of Schmeiser, the famous intellectual property rights case with Monsanto, was not the product of cross pollinating. 95 percent of his crops had the anti-herbicide gene, which makes cross pollination out of the question as it can affect up to 5% of crops and that's being generous.

This post is sponsored by Monsanto Company.

There are swaths of misinformation about GMOs out there. I live in California so I get to see the worst of the ignorance.

you have the whole wheat gluten debacle

I read recently that sucralose causes lymphonia in rats at extremely high doses.

The way they test GMO's does not adequately reflect the effects of long term consumption. GMO's may not produce any negative effects in clinical trials but I don't know if that necessarily translates to long-term.

We're the same nation that previously thought cigarette smoking, high alcohol consumption and fast food were okay.

^That last line is hardly an equivalent to the GMO field. Also

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsr...-food-studies/

That's hardly long term... Also, just wanted to point out that plenty of things have been deemed safe initially and then years later pulled because of effects that were not previously recognized.

We'll just have to wait and see the effects 10-20 years from now. I don't see GMOs going away any time soon.

They've been around for thirty years though.

I think with the world population growth, climate issues, and evolving pests, GMO's are going to be somewhat of a necessary evil. If we are careful about it they don't have to be an evil but greed usually wins out in these situations.

What we can do now and what we could do 30 years ago is different. It's one of those things that's constantly evolving. Based on what you've said we may have an understanding of the effects of long standing GMOs but there is no way to tell what the effects of present and future GMOs can have.

There haven't been any long term studies on the causal relationship between iPhones and glaucoma, and even though there are no signs of a relationship in the short term, I'm still skeptical. Boycott iPhones!

Fair enough, think of me as the uniformed layman whose too busy with his career to research GMO's, but I'm still concerned about their possible link to cancer.

I realize that many environmentalists take their ideology to an almost religious fervor, (Frakenfood ect) but are you stating in a round about way that there are absolutely no peer reviewed scientific tests that link GMO's to cancer?

I mean after all this is the primary argument against them, and if they have been debunked than their is no point in resisting them.

That is why I would like to have GMO products labeled in the supermarket. I think this is a reasonable thing to ask, although I imagine the lobbying power to prevent this is immense with all the investment and jobs tied to the GMO industry.

On the other hand, I don't think you can halt a multi million dollar industry that creates thousands of jobs & economic prosperity on a what if...scenario. There has to be concrete scientific evidence to support the claim that GMO's are harmful to our well being. Cell phone studies have at least produced that.

While I get the point your trying to make that's just a bad argument. Cellphones haven't changed that much. Every GMO is made of something different and as we know from chemistry even the slightest change in chemical composition can have drastically different interactions with the same thing.

@william_the_bloody

Yup, that's the only study showing any link. It's the MMR-Autism study equivalent of the anti-GMO movement that it's proponents hold to heart like the bible even though it's been thoroughly debunked. I see the resistance as an ideological one rather than one based on the actual research: many just won't be swayed no matter how many studies there are.

@DWV

It's not like they're coming up with new GMOs every day. Not to mention that this is a biological matter and DNA is consistent across species.

GM crops and the rat digestive tract: a critical review. - PubMed - NCBI
On risk and regulation: Bt crops in India. - PubMed - NCBI

You can still find studies to fulfill any viewpoint.

I dug around some more, and I agree the evidence is way more compelling than I thought previously though; you did open my mind up

Risk, regulation and biotechnology: The case of GM crops. - PubMed - NCBI
A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. - PubMed - NCBI

I eat genetically modified foods all the time, I have a vested interest in them being O.K.

1) Biology and Chemistry go hand-in-hand.

2) It's not a matter of DNA. DNA is just a small portion of what our bodies and other living things are made of. I'm not arguing against you that current GMOs are safe, but I think you are being as bullheaded as the people insisting they are dangerous by denying the potential negative effects they could produce.

3) Sure not everyday but I'm pretty sure not a day goes by when they aren't enhancing or mid-development of new GMOs. That's kind of how they make their money. They don't develop something and say "Well my work here is done, let's watch the bank account go up".

I was mainly referring to gene splicing, which is the most recent development in GMO production. I honestly don't know how often they're coming up with new methods of creating GMOs, but I think they're largely focusing on how to use gene splicing for other uses.

I'm open to new ideas, once there's any evidence of any negative effects of GMOs, I'll begin to be more weary of them. Until then, I see no reason to worry.

Well I can't comment on the risks of gene splicing. I know nothing about it. I'll take your word for it until I'm motivated enough to do my own research. Good discussion though, I hope some others join in :D

Hmmm, I'm not totally convinced yet, the French study was accepted by a peer reviewed magazine in Europe, though it appears political in nature (Sadly you could argue that specific branches of the science department have become politicized themselves) so in short...I think we need more scientific enquiries.

Environmental Sciences Europe | Full text | Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

I don't trust environmental socialist ideologues with utopia agendas, but I sure as hell don't trust the power of big capitalist corporations either, and Monsanto doesn't exactly have an angelic history.

So call me a technocrat, but I'll just sit this one out until science proves or disproves the safety of GMO's, until then I'll be crossing my fingers when I munch down on a Kit Kat bar, cheers.

I'm of the firm conviction that if someone doesn't have any up-to-date, authoritative scientific evidence for the negative effects of GMOs, then any discussion regarding such a thing is basically irrelevant and useless.

The truth is, GMOs are causing superweeds that require stronger and stronger herbicides to kill them. Currently, the amount of herbicide used is actually less than with ordinary farming but it is also only a matter of time before that changes because nothing can stop it once it is set in motion. Eventually, we will poison ourselves trying to keep ahead of the superweeds and the eventual superpests that are also inevitable.

The truth is--there are too many people and not enough land. There would have been global mass starvation long ago had it not been for fertilizers but we are reaching a point now where there are simply too many people and not enough land to produce the food necessary to sustain that population and GMOs only prolong the inevitable.

The bottom line is--there must a be mass die-off of humans. No other way around it. If you live in an area where, say, deer are overpopulating, what do they do to solve the problem? They cull the herds IOW, they go out and bag bunch of deer. It is the only solution to a severe food shortage. And with the possibility that we may lose our honeybees, there goes one-third of the foods we normally consume which will intensify the struggle for food.

Eventually "GMO" will mean the same thing as "Soylent Green."

A concise history of tl;dr.

i think it's a bunch of environmentalist paranoia. people don't like that we're ****ing with nature, it scares them. oh well. the future is scary. get over it. at the end of the day genetic engineering is too big a opportunity to miss out on just to play **** safe. it would be like if man never started using fire just in case the fire got out of control.

i do think there is probably a legitimate point to the idea that gmos demand stronger pesticides and **** like that. that is a kink they need to work on, not a reason to hault technology. tbh i think eventually the solution will be sanitized massive indoor grows. but first we need to work out renewable energy or we'll be ****ed regardless of who made the dna in the **** we eat.

I think it also stems from a distrust of other food that the media hype as toxic.
People may be less lenient towards the idea of gmos due to adverse effects of artificial sweeteners, processed meats and such.

As an uninformed consumer it can be hard to keep track of what is safe when it's all deemed ok by the fda.

This thread has made me re-evaluate my outlook. I took an entire class in college that fed me(pun not intended)the absolutely opposite of what a quick internet search tells me is empirical truth.

That's a piss-poor excuse for short term fixes that at best prolong the inevitable and at worst hasten our demise.

Much of Europe as well as wealthier Asian countries as Japan and South Korea have either banned GMOs outright or severely restrict their use. Plowing on full-speed ahead with a technology we can't possibly understand all the ramifications of is reckless and irresponsible. Already most of our cotton and corn is GMO. GMOs are a bandage on the problem that we are running out of space to live because there are too many of us. The UN estimates that there will be 9-10 billion people on earth by 2050 and may top 15 billion by 2100. That is simply unsustainable.

The more food we produce to support this ballooning population will only cause that population to continue ballooning. Populations expand as long as there is the food to sustain them. Far from helping, GMOs are ultimately hurting us by allowing us to keep breeding unchecked. We are running out of living space and that is causing other animals to run out of living space as we build over their habitats. We are producing ever increasing amounts of waste with nowhere to put it and that is polluting other creatures' habitats as well as our own:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...science-world/

We can't stop it because most people refuse to admit the true problem. It isn't poverty or disease or lack of food--it's over-population of the human race. This planet was not meant to support 7 billion of us and counting. You've heard of housing bubbles and credit bubbles? We are a population bubble--inevitably it will have to burst. The idea that GMOs will prevent this is laughable and tragic. GMOs are a catalyst to bring it about.

The problem is that we grow GMOs as single crop farms. The superweeds can be reduced by varying what we grow through crop rotation but the problem is that this only slows the process of decline and moreover many areas of the world have a soil that is conducive only to one crop. These areas will eventually be choked out. Then we have to grow food to send them and that is exactly the same old problem all over again. Monsanto does not tell farmers the truth because they want to make huge amounts of money. They pushed Roundup as this super savior which is what created the superweeds. Now that they are out there, they will never go away. That genie doesn't go back in the bottle.

Who cares if European countries banned them? That doesn't make the anti-GMO argument any more stronger. The Europeans are just as capable of being wrong as Americans. And Larehip, with the "technology we can't possibly understand" statement, I think you meant to say "I" instead of "we". The concern over super weeds is legitimate but tilling and combining herbicides have proved an effective defense against this.

As for the overpopulation schtick, I couldn't care less.

Oh, I see! So YOU understand it! Well, now, and, uh, where did you get your degree in the study of genetically modified seeds? How many years have you worked with this wonderful technology? What peer-reviewed reports have you submitted that we can consult? Pray, tell us, O Great One!!!

Yes, I admit, I don't really understand the technology or the science behind it. And I refuse to put my faith in it that it is harmless when a corporation is rushing headlong into something we may not be able to get out of because they want to make money. Certainly, Europe, Japan and Korea don't have your understanding of the situation but, like me, they don't trust some monolithic corporation on their bare word. For example, Monsanto's line to farmers was that cross-pollination and superweeds would not happen as long as they followed their directions very carefully. They did and it didn't matter. Hmmm...you know, that might be why Europe, Japan and Korea said no thanks.

But, of course, you understand on a level the rest of us don't. Maybe we should put our blind faith in your bare word.

Did I mention that I entirely understood it? The scientists who work within the field do and I put my faith in them, which is why I knocked your use of the word 'we' since it implies that nobody really understands them.

And show me your evidence of any cross pollination occurring. A group of farmers attempted to sue Monsanto for that very idea and their case was thrown out because they were unable to cite a single instance of cross-pollination of GMO crops.

I understand the dislike for corporations, but I don't think that should fuel a misplaced fear in the science behind a given corporation's technology. Be against the corporation, not the technology.

Evidence of GMO cross pollination with non-GMO plants:

(1) In 2000, Starlink GMO corn genes were found to have contaminated non-GMO corn through cross-pollination, leading to Kraft's recalling millions of taco shells.

''I didn't grow any StarLink corn, but I got contaminated by a neighbor,'' said Keith Weller, 50, who farms near Westside, Iowa. ''This issue of contamination is a real problem.''

Gene-Altered Corn Changes Dynamics Of Grain Industry - NYTimes.com

(2) In 2001 and 2004, corn transgenes were found in non-GMO corn varieties in Mexico. This was especially bad because GMOs weren't even supposed to be allowed in Mexico:

A. PIÑEYRO-NELSON et al. (2009) Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations, Molecular Ecology

Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations - PI[]EYRO-NELSON - 2008 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

(3) In 2011, after GMO rice was found to have modified non-GMO rice, Bayer paid the farmers $750 million in damages.

"Bayer and Louisiana State University had tested the rice, bred to be resistant to Bayer’s Liberty-brand herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, La. The genetically modified variety cross-bred with and 'contaminated' more than 30 percent of United States ricelands, Don Downing, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said at the start of the first farmers’ trial in November 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/bu...hrCBGsooWJU6PQ

The case was actually thrown out for a very different reason: Monsanto had already agreed that it would not sue farmers if their crops were only slightly contaminated with its GMO crops.

Reading from this article about the case, "The crops are widely used in the United States and Latin America. It has proven difficult to keep the genetic alteration from contaminating non-biotech crops, as recently occurred in a wheat field in the U.S. state of Oregon."

"In its ruling Monday, the court noted that records indicate a large majority of conventional seed samples have become contaminated by Monsanto's Roundup resistance trait."

Monsanto Wins Lawsuit Filed By U.S. Organic Farmers Worried About Seed Contamination

Creating GMOs is fundamentally different than traditional breeding because GMOs introduce DNA from one species into another using non-sexual methods (with uncertain outcomes when the foreign DNA integrates in the target organism's genome), while traditional breeding uses a single species' own sexual reproduction methods to shift different naturally occurring alleles of genes within that species.

The article you site that attempts to debunk common GMO claims actually substantiates one of them, which is one that concerns me: the impact of GMOs on insect species.

My opinion on GMOs:

I support the use of recombinant DNA technology in the creation of vaccines (such as the recombinant flu vaccine How Influenza (Flu) Vaccines Are Made | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC ), but I oppose the creation of GMO plants and animals for three reasons:

(1) Most GMOs are an attempted quick fix to problems that could, and I feel should, be addressed using less risky, conventional methods. For example, people desire higher grain yields and fewer pests, but this problem can be addressed by using more crop rotation and greater crop diversity, and by reducing the quantity of grain fed to animals to produce meat such that more land is available to grow crops to feed humans directly.

(2) GMOs can have unpredictable consequences, which creates the potential of harm to people and non-human animals. For example, there is the possibility of a person's being allergic to a protein introduced into the food species that normally wouldn't contain that GMO. Also, making GMO animals is using the animals as "guinea pigs" to fulfill the whims of humans, and I oppose that.

(3) As documented above, GMO plants and animals can cross-breed with natural plants and animals in the wild, which creates genetically modified organisms no longer under the control of people. This has possible unintended consequences for plants, animals, humans, and ecosystems.

Here's an article describing how GMO salmon (which are not 100% sterile) could potentially escape and interbreed with wild salmon and other fish species:

Genetically Modified Salmon Can Cross-breed and Pass on GM Material : Animals : Nature World News

Thanks for the info on cross pollination, but the farmers case was still affected by the farmers' lack of evidence.

I find your fears unwarranted, tbh. You keep talking about how risky it all is without mentioning those risks, it's a series of ifs ifs and more ifs. Could you give an example of those proteins someone could be allergic to? The bt corn case is said to have caused a rise in food allergies but it's a correlation, not a causation.

As for gmos going into the wild, I don't see (nor am I finding in my research) any risks in that accept the fear that some people have towards anything that isn't natural. Do you have any evidence?

Gotta weigh in on this. I have a M.S. in Botany and Plant Pathology and actually did research on GMOs with the aim of increasing biomass for ethanol production (biofuels, renewable energies...that kind of thing).

Bottom line: GMOs are NOT harmful and the fearmongering is so widespread that seemingly reputable scientists are trying to publish shoddy research to support their claims. I liken it to conservatives funding research to support their ridiculous claims that global warming isn't real. Anytime something that can present change that people are not familiar with (and are too lazy to educate themselves on), this kind of thing happens.

You guys have discussed quite a bit, so feel free to ask me specific questions.

One bad aspect I am willing to relent on: corporations. The crops Monsanto are growing are not harmful, but the policies they enact are.

Nail meet hammer. Thanks for that post.

Sorry if this is a dumb question..

Do you consider modern industrialized farming techniques to be inefficient and/or more harmful than beneficial? If so, do you think GMOs give further incentive to continue inefficient farming practices when considering top soil nutrition and preventing decline in top soil over all (and any other problems I'm unaware of)?

It depends where you are in the world, really. If you are referring specifically to agriculture within the US, then I would say no. The farmers in this country are some of the smartest out there. Modern day dust bowls and topsoil corrosion happen for a variety of factors, but poor farming practices are not one of them. Our big agricultural states have gotten crop rotation down pat (for example in Indiana crops are rotated between corn and soybeans, which happen to complement each other perfectly). Crop yields were down 2 years ago because of a record breaking drought (which was caused by...big surprise...global warming). If we move outside the US, then preventing these problems is as simple as educating the local farmers. Unfortunately, major corporations like to swoop in and get a monopoly on their agricultural economy with little thought about how it might effect the local ecology.

Now, before I go off on a tangent there, I'll bring it back to GMOs. You asked if GMOs would encourage lazy farming practices. Before I was exposed to this world, I may have said yes. However, I can tell you that the farmers in this country are just as skeptical as everyone else and will not plant something they don't trust. I can't tell you how many times I've been to a conference and it wasn't my fellow scientists asking the hard questions and stumping the presenters...it was the farmers. They know their ****. They educate themselves and do whatever they can to ensure they get the best out of what they do. Think about it - it's their livelihood and a poor crop yield or famine-riddled crops will mean they might not be able to eat this winter. They hate taking risks more than anyone.

Edit: And that was a really good question, btw.

Thanks Duga. I recently decided to change my degree to environmental science but I haven't decided on what aspect of the field I want to focus on so this is all very interesting. It's also the exact opposite of what I learned at a different college a few years back. I wish I had some of the links and material that I was taught to compare ideas.

This might be the right time to get in on environmental science. It was just recently I feel that global warming has finally gained general acceptance, so we are gonna need people to clean up the mess. What kinds of things were they teaching you at this college?

I was referring specifically to the farming practices. It's been over 3 years so my memory of the subject matter isn't fresh, but I definitely remember learning that industrialized farming in America is a huge contributor to top soil depletion.

My professor
Ph.D. - Ecology and Evolution, Rutgers University (2006)
B.A. - Biology, Rutgers University (1998),

but he was definitely a nature lover and didn't appreciate/agree with things like GMOs. He was a great teacher, but now that I think back he was probably biased and presented material that supported the way he felt the world should be instead of the real science behind everything. He showed us documentaries like Food, Inc, Gasland, and An Inconvenient Truth.

Ah, seems to be a fresh professor. Our farming practices do have an effect on the topsoil, but it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. I mean, ever since humans learned how to farm we've been messing up the Earth (just read Ishmael), but my main point is that farmers aren't just sitting around with their thumbs up their butts and planting whatever cool new seeds get thrown at them. You can make arguments either way, but the important thing is that we all get on the side of trying to help improve things and not just try to trip the "other guy" up. That doesn't help anyone.