|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 3, 2010 22:44:09 GMT -5
I don't know how many people know about GMOs but for those that do I'd like to hear your opinions.
For those that don't, GMOs are organisms that have had the DNA of another organism put into their DNA to give the organism a desired trait that it doesn't have naturally. For instance, some plants have been genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides.
The intention of GMOs is to increase yields, reduce the use of chemical pesticides, increase nutritional content and of course to make a lot of money for these corporations.
However, things aren't so perfect. As of now our knowledge of the genome is too limited to genetically engineer an organism without unintended side effects. However, the pro-biotech governments downplay the health risks of GMOs dramatically that, particularly in the US, the testing of the safety of these foods is limited.
Personally, I think it's foolish to play around with the genes of organisms without seriously taking into account the possible, and likely, ramifications of these actions. But since when does man care about the long-term consequences of their actions, especially when it won't affect them personally?
So, what's your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Dec 3, 2010 22:58:00 GMT -5
I remember writing an essay on this a while ago, when I was a lot more into the issue, but I can't remember much about this anymore.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 4, 2010 11:16:01 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm not that concerned. I live in Canada, which has one of the largest, and most advanced biotech industries in the world (and a government that doesn't want to fund anything). I used to be more concerned, then I went and talked to people who worked at the Central Experimental Farm - and have actually seen most of it. I think, as long as we don't move too fast - and excise extreme caution - we'll be fine.Of course - having said that. It's unlikely that it will happen any time soon - but to stop the practice would set back years of genetic research.And what do you mean by our knowledge of the genome is limited? I don't know if you were paying attention in biology class but we've MAPPED the human genome all 25,000 genes of it. The Human Genome Project produced a varied enough map to help us understand, not only human DNA, but the DNA of other species (including plants) as well.We've come a long way in a short space of time. It's likely dangerous - but science often is. Rosalind Franklin died of cancer, likely caused by her research - "what did she research" you ask? Why, she used x-rays to produce images of DNA - without her images, Watson & Crick would have never come up with the double helix structure.The message to take home from this is - unless they start releasing things to the general public without substantial proof that it's safe, don't worry too much about. If you're that concerned by it, then buy organic - or move to Canada where breaking the food safety laws is a federal offence that can put entire companies out of business.
|
|
|
Post by Sean on Dec 4, 2010 13:43:45 GMT -5
I think its great... it allows us to be much more efficient with plants.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 4, 2010 17:33:33 GMT -5
And what do you mean by our knowledge of the genome is limited? What I mean is even though we've learned how the genome works we aren't able to put one together. We've essentially learned how it works but when we try to make our own, which is what genetic modification is, we end up with a mutation with a lot of problems. Until those kinks can be ironed out, genetically modified foods won't be safe for human consumption. Despite this, they're found in most non-organic foods today in North America. I think Europe has labels for GM foods. I don't really know about Asia, Africa or South America, but I know that many countries in these continents are growing GM crops.
|
|
|
Post by low on Dec 5, 2010 12:41:07 GMT -5
People who are against it make me feel like Rush Limbaugh and shout "These idiotic liberals," as opposed to most events of daily life, which tend to make me shout about idiotic conservatives. GM Cassava is going to save more lives in Africa than...well, just about anything. Furthermore, look at the pesticide for organic corn: Bt toxin. Look at what GM corn is modified to do: produce Bt toxin. Furthermore: "Constant exposure to a toxin creates evolutionary pressure for pests resistant to that toxin. Already, a Diamondback moth population is known to have acquired resistance to Bt in spray form (i.e., not engineered) when used in organic agriculture."
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 5, 2010 15:05:27 GMT -5
Alternative, more people starving.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 5, 2010 15:51:55 GMT -5
Low, you do realize that the feeding trials showed that GMOs cause a few different illnesses, like organ damage, allergic reactions and even cancer. The fact of the matter is these scientists are inserting genes into another genome without even having a sufficient understanding of what is going to happen. Until they can actually produce what they expected and have what they produced shown to be safe they shouldn't be selling GM crops all over the world and governments most certainly shouldn't allow them.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 5, 2010 16:14:43 GMT -5
Low, you do realize that the feeding trials showed that GMOs cause a few different illnesses, like organ damage, allergic reactions and even cancer. The fact of the matter is these scientists are inserting genes into another genome without even having a sufficient understanding of what is going to happen. Until they can actually produce what they expected and have what they produced shown to be safe they shouldn't be selling GM crops all over the world and governments most certainly shouldn't allow them. I'm sure there is more to it then you make it sound. bunch of random kids on random forum=/= specialists.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 5, 2010 16:22:06 GMT -5
Low, you do realize that the feeding trials showed that GMOs cause a few different illnesses, like organ damage, allergic reactions and even cancer. The fact of the matter is these scientists are inserting genes into another genome without even having a sufficient understanding of what is going to happen. Until they can actually produce what they expected and have what they produced shown to be safe they shouldn't be selling GM crops all over the world and governments most certainly shouldn't allow them. I'm sure there is more to it then you make it sound. bunch of random kids on random forum=/= specialists. You're right, we aren't specialists, but some of us know more than others about certain subjects. And clearly low hasn't looked at any of the information. You can watch The World According to Monsanto to understand how unethical this company is -- and they control most of the GM crops worldwide, somewhere around 75%... You can look around on the internet, you'll find a whole load on the health risks of GM foods. In particular is Jeffrey Smith's stuff. He's written a few books and he interviewed a scientist named Arpad Pusztai. Just listening to this man's story would change your opinions on GMOs.
|
|
TsukikoSuoh
Meteor
Slytherin. And proud of it.
Posts: 50
|
Post by TsukikoSuoh on Dec 5, 2010 17:35:35 GMT -5
GMO's are the only way that we can keep food production at a level that will be able to keep the population alive. The number of people versus the amount of land available for food production has a huge gap, and the use of biotechnology to lessen that gap is necessary for the survival of our expanding world.
We already, on a day to day basis, eat Genetically modified or cloned foods (whether they're animals or plants) because of the way we live; this is most common in America because of our lifestyle. This is just another mystery in life, and without taking steps into the dark we wouldn't be living the way we are.
GMO's are comparative to technology and such, and to things like woman's rights, because they are progress. In order to progress we need to take chances and change things to help ourselves, and with the ever declining amount of land available for food production, GMO's and the like are the only way we will survive.
(sorry if this seems like a rant, I did a lot of Biotechnology in school)
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 5, 2010 18:08:27 GMT -5
GMO's are the only way that we can keep food production at a level that will be able to keep the population alive. The number of people versus the amount of land available for food production has a huge gap, and the use of biotechnology to lessen that gap is necessary for the survival of our expanding world. We already, on a day to day basis, eat Genetically modified or cloned foods (whether they're animals or plants) because of the way we live; this is most common in America because of our lifestyle. This is just another mystery in life, and without taking steps into the dark we wouldn't be living the way we are. GMO's are comparative to technology and such, and to things like woman's rights, because they are progress. In order to progress we need to take chances and change things to help ourselves, and with the ever declining amount of land available for food production, GMO's and the like are the only way we will survive. (sorry if this seems like a rant, I did a lot of Biotechnology in school) cloned foods?
|
|
TsukikoSuoh
Meteor
Slytherin. And proud of it.
Posts: 50
|
Post by TsukikoSuoh on Dec 5, 2010 18:22:30 GMT -5
Yes, the use of cloning that scientists do for burn victims to get a new layer of skin can also be used with certain meats (though not very widely). And it is extremely easy to clone plants by taking a bit of the tissue and growing it in a nutrient gel. Many plants are grown this way, many plants you buy to decorate your lawns, and things like ginger and lettuce and any of another million types of plants are easily cloned by either taking a bit of the plant tissue or taking a piece of the plant itself and planting it separately and waiting for it to grow- those are all types of cloning.
|
|
|
Post by low on Dec 5, 2010 18:30:12 GMT -5
I'm sure there is more to it then you make it sound. bunch of random kids on random forum=/= specialists. You're right, we aren't specialists, but some of us know more than others about certain subjects. And clearly low hasn't looked at any of the information. You can watch The World According to Monsanto to understand how unethical this company is -- and they control most of the GM crops worldwide, somewhere around 75%... You can look around on the internet, you'll find a whole load on the health risks of GM foods. In particular is Jeffrey Smith's stuff. He's written a few books and he interviewed a scientist named Arpad Pusztai. Just listening to this man's story would change your opinions on GMOs. Questions to consider: What are the sources of your information? Are they university verified? Are they published peer reviewed scientific journals? Is there actual scientific consensus? Who funded the documentary "The World According to Monsanto"? Are there other possible reasons to dislike Monsanto? Another reason to dislike Monsanto is their agriculture policy regarding smaller landowners, which contributes to world hunger. Monsanto pays off landowners to use their land and over farms it using one crop rather than alternating. It's cheaper, that way. The soil is so depleted that is prevents it from being used for the next few years. But to the initial question, I don't know if you considered this, but most of what we eat is genetically modified. Bananas as we know them, for instance, did not exist before being tampered with by humans many years ago. This is nothing new. Selective breeding IS genetic engineering. More importantly, though, it's essential to certain populations that we have GM foods just to feed them enough.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 5, 2010 18:43:03 GMT -5
No, there is a difference between what GMOs are and the hybridization and artificial selection of plants, if you don't know this then you know nothing about genetic modification.
Can you even back this up? This is what the corporations and the pro-biotech gov'ts say, but they independents, the ones without the strings attached don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by low on Dec 5, 2010 21:36:38 GMT -5
No, there is a difference between what GMOs are and the hybridization and artificial selection of plants, if you don't know this then you know nothing about genetic modification. Genetic modification--as in modifying genes? That's exactly what artificial selection has done. It produces the same risk of monoculture whether or not it's done in a lab, and, as I already stated, traditional agriculture, including organic agriculture, runs more risk with pesticides than genetic engineering. Now, it seems that you're talking about genetic engineering exclusively as done entirely in a laboratory and only involving inserting genes of one organism into another. This isn't solely the case. For example, 20% of cocoa plants on any cocoa plantation produce 80% of the crop. The genome is going to be sequenced to figure out why, altering the genes to make all of the plants mirror the 20% rather than the 80%, which will save a lot of land. So I think it's recklessly irresponsible for organizations such as Greenpeace to spread myths like "GMOs are untested and unregulated by the federal government" (blatantly false) and attempt and hinder scientific progress. Can you even back this up? This is what the corporations and the pro-biotech gov'ts say, but they independents, the ones without the strings attached don't buy it. At this point, probably not, depending on how loose of a definition you use for genetically modified. We obviously can't persist on wild plants. We can't persist on the yields of organic agriculture as is, either (though I do support vertical farming, which often uses organic crops), since they tend to be over 40% less. The expert opinion I'm relying on is the late Norman Bourlag, who advocated for "high yield agriculture," which doesn't necessarily use insertion of genes from other organisms into seeds, but is far from organic, in that it tends to rely on chemical fertilizers.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Dec 5, 2010 21:49:49 GMT -5
Yeah, there's a difference between GMOs and artificial selection. I had to write an entire essay assignment in Geographical Issues class last year. I just can't remember what the main differences are off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 5, 2010 22:05:15 GMT -5
Let's just follow Wikipedia's definition to avoid further confusion I think it's recklessly irresponsible for organizations such as Greenpeace to spread myths like "GMOs are untested and unregulated by the federal government" (blatantly false) and attempt and hinder scientific progress. They have scientific proof! You're not even mentioning feeding trials. If you look at them they all show (when done independently of biotech industry) that there are inherent problems with the results of genetic engineering/modification. It is, therefore, reckless for these multinational corporations, anyone for that matter, to suddenly send these completely unnatural foods into the food system before they have been shown to be unsafe. It seems though that the problem here is really overpopulation. If we need to play Mother Nature and create our own plants then something must be wrong. We're encroaching on the ecosystems of the rest of the species on this planet. If we keep growing in number we will be destroying these habitats and drive many species to endangered numbers or even extinction. If we cap the population and attempt to reduce our numbers we can, like every organism did since life began billions of years ago, live on sustainably-grown and unpolluting foods -- organic food.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 6, 2010 3:06:42 GMT -5
Proof? No, what they have is results that show what THEY want. You'll notice how Greenpeace will never show the results that show that GMOs have been just as helpful as harmful, if not more helpful. Sorta like how they'll never show the positive aspects of nuclear energy, or how hydro generator dams are more harmful to aquatic ecosystems then isolated heavy metal spills. I am seriously disinclined to believe a citation from an organization that's almost as biased as Fox.
Also, I wish you the best of luck (sarcasm is so very lost in text) in trying to cap our population growth. Really, I hope you do very well. I'll let every developing country on the planet know you're coming. *sarcasm mode de-activated* It'll never happen. Our population won't decrease for anything short of a massive global war, something say, of a nuclear holocaust variety. Unless we develop world peace (won't happen for a very long time, if at all), disarm everybody (Unless the US was annexed, that won't happen until humanity dies out), and abandoned currency, and had global communism (pffthahahahaha! oh, that's rich); developing countries will continue to have mass population growth - it makes sure that the future generations survive - meanwhile, in countries like China and India, with massive populations, they'll continue to reproduce, and not even the one-child policy will prevent population overflow if half a billion couples make one.
It's not that I don't agree with you, because, to a certain extent, I do - I'm just being realistic about it.
|
|
Linus
Star
Life is complex; it has both real and imaginary components
Posts: 614
|
Post by Linus on Dec 6, 2010 3:30:09 GMT -5
One problem about GMO is that chemistry corporations (think Monsanto) may try to capitalize (which they have, think of the Roundup soy bean) on genes by basically trademarking them so that only they can sell i.e. seeds with that particular gene.
|
|