NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, it's back to school season. That means, for me, I'm involved in Forensics (the public speaking type, not criminology) and specifically, student congress. I wanted to write a bill on GMOs. Before I do, however, I wanted to hear your opinions. Let 'em rip!

Ah, it's back to school season. That means, for me, I'm involved in Forensics (the public speaking type, not criminology) and specifically, student congress. I wanted to write a bill on GMOs. Before I do, however, I wanted to hear your opinions. Let 'em rip!

Not really genetic... more like cybernetically modified organism...but I'd been interested in finding some way of mounting shotguns onto deer. I just think it would make hunting a little more fair. And exciting.

Sorry, posters. I meant like bioengineered crops.

Sorry, posters. I meant like bioengineered crops.
Well, I heard that the largest concern with genetically enhanced crops is the possibility of allergic reactions in some people to certain 'new' foods. See, there are certain foods that nobody(or almost nobody) is allergic to. The problem with intermixing genetically modified ingredients is the concern of increasing the number of people allergic to that food.

Personally, I think you need to strike a balance between safety and progress. I should probably lean toward safety. I also think that genetically modifying a life form is inherently risky. Because life has a bad habit of spreading despite all safeguards. LIke Britney Spears albums. *nod*

I trust nature over corporations, myself. I really don't want to eat Patrick Zala corn if I can avoid it. If there's one thing that Gundam SEED taught me, it's that GM is a bad idea that leads to wars.

GM crops are excellent, it means more people can be supported from less land. There are considerations of cross-polination, which is why GM crops should be throroughly controlled. Perhaps bacteria with a very short life span could be used to attack specifically GM crops that could be introduced if they leave designated zones.

GM organisms should be limited to bacteria and viruses used in medical applications, like curing disease, elimination of hereditary disease etc. Using genetic engineering on organisms for other uses will cause problems because they will become 'super' organisms and drive out native animals that are better suited for their environment.

bump

Sorry, posters. I meant like bioengineered crops.

D*MN!!! If you were talking about people, I would have recommened you watch the anime Mobile Suit Gundam SEED - the plot involves genetically modified humans (Coordinators) and non-modified humans (Naturals) both fighting for their existance.

But I'll give my say on genetically altered crops: I am for them as they can produce their yield w/o using dangerous growth chemicals. The problem w/crops lies in the over-pesticiding of them.

I trust nature over corporations, myself. I really don't want to eat Patrick Zala corn if I can avoid it. If there's one thing that Gundam SEED taught me, it's that GM is a bad idea that leads to wars.

Too bad that's one thing an anime can't teach you. There are enough weird doomsday scenarios in anime to conceivably outlaw anything.

D*MN!!! If you were talking about people, I would have recommened you watch the anime Mobile Suit Gundam SEED - the plot involves genetically modified humans (Coordinators) and non-modified humans (Naturals) both fighting for their existance.

I know. It taught me a lot.

I really don't want to eat Patrick Zala corn if I can avoid it.

LOL

people have been modifying food forever, planting the healthiest species, with the greatest yields. so i guess GM crops are on the way in. but how bout those fish tomatoes you're eating? genes were genetically spliced into tomato plants from fish so they could last longer in cold weather. GM crops just complicate things way too much.

If GMOs lived up to their hype--feeding millions, hardier plants and such--then I'd be more inclined to give them a shot, but thus far, all most companies like Monsanto have done is modify seeds so that 1) they won't reproduce and 2) they won't grow without the company's special genetically modified fertilizer. They've made a lot of promises, but so far, very little has come of it.

Show me some real results and I'll reconsider--I'm not opposed to the research. So far, the best results I've seen have come from groups that don't use transgenic modifications, but instead, have figured out how to "turn on" dormant genes inside the plant's existing genetic structure in order to make changes. There was a great article on the subject in Wired a couple of months ago.

If GMOs lived up to their hype--feeding millions, hardier plants and such--then I'd be more inclined to give them a shot, but thus far, all most companies like Monsanto have done is modify seeds so that 1) they won't reproduce and 2) they won't grow without the company's special genetically modified fertilizer. They've made a lot of promises, but so far, very little has come of it.

Show me some real results and I'll reconsider--I'm not opposed to the research. So far, the best results I've seen have come from groups that don't use transgenic modifications, but instead, have figured out how to "turn on" dormant genes inside the plant's existing genetic structure in order to make changes. There was a great article on the subject in Wired a couple of months ago.

That was them protecting their interests. They only did those modifications to crops in which they had already inserted beneficial mutations.

e.g. tougher tomatoes, roundup ready cotton (herbicide proof to make weeding easier), various Bt (natural insecticide) crops and golden rice (rice with extra nutritional content for the third world)

The Bt crops cause a bit of concern about allergies, but they legally have to ensure there is no toxin in the fruit/cotton/crop (atleast in Australia, US I don't know).

Also the "can't make seeds" thing was banned by governments, on the grounds that the third world should be allowed access to sustainable GM crops.

My point is that for all the claims about the beneficial mutations, not much has actually come of it. Yields are about the same for GMO crops as they are for non-GMO crops, and there's been no proof that the plants are any hardier. But the GMO plants work perfectly when it comes to the fertilizer and the non-seed production.

Like I said, if there was any independent verification of the claims that Monsanto and other GMO companies have made as far as the production numbers and hardiness of their plants, I'd be willing to reconsider, but as of yet, the company numbers and the independent numbers don't match up, and if I have to choose between believing a company with a financial interest and an independent group, well, guess who I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt?

Not really genetic... more like cybernetically modified organism...but I'd been interested in finding some way of mounting shotguns onto deer. I just think it would make hunting a little more fair. And exciting.

How would they reload? And how many wolves would they kill? :D Sorry, couldn't resist.

My point is that for all the claims about the beneficial mutations, not much has actually come of it. Yields are about the same for GMO crops as they are for non-GMO crops, and there's been no proof that the plants are any hardier. But the GMO plants work perfectly when it comes to the fertilizer and the non-seed production.

The thing, however, is that right now, no one needs to modify crops to increase yeilds. All the world's farmers grow 1.5 times the food humans need, and supply growth should continue to outpace population growth for at least another decade.
Right now, GM crops are in their baby steps. They are researching mostly basic things, like transplanting genes from artic fish to tomatoes so that they keep in the freezer, or transplanting vitamins. The so called "Golden Rice" is a huge nutritional sucess. In fact, the only reason more people aren't eating it is because some third world governments have refused to recieve it.
The next stop is animals. Some of the more bizarre plans are featherless chickens, or self-shearing sheep. However, innovations like these can save ranchers a bundle of money.

I'm not opposed to the research, and I'm not even opposed to the selling of GMOs for human consumption, although I would like it if the USDA and the FDA required that they be labeled as GMO products. (On a side note, I generally assume all food contains GMO products, especially processed foods, unless it's marked otherwise--and I pay more for the non-GMO food.)

I just wish that the food companies that are making money hand over fist by selling farmers "roundup-ready" plants or other modified organisms would stop talking like these organisms are anything other than marketing strategies that force farmers to continue to buy seed from the same manufacturer every year, because at this point, that's all they are.

Bioegineered crops already exist and marketed.

I'm not opposed to the research, and I'm not even opposed to the selling of GMOs for human consumption, although I would like it if the USDA and the FDA required that they be labeled as GMO products. (On a side note, I generally assume all food contains GMO products, especially processed foods, unless it's marked otherwise--and I pay more for the non-GMO food.)

I just wish that the food companies that are making money hand over fist by selling farmers "roundup-ready" plants or other modified organisms would stop talking like these organisms are anything other than marketing strategies that force farmers to continue to buy seed from the same manufacturer every year, because at this point, that's all they are.
It may be unethical, but it's there perogative. But hey, once enough farmers/agribusiness execs find out about this, the seed's sellers will adapt to the customers' desires. Those desires will probably be for cheaper products, and therefore, higher yeild seeds.