NationStates Jolt Archive

I probably eat genetically modified food every day, because there are no labeling laws in the US. However, the UK and rest of Europe seems to be more nervous about its introduction in stores, and I'm not really sure why. Can anyone explain what is wrong with eating a dead organism whose genes were artificially manipulated?

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/425015.stm)(Yes, I know it's almost ten years old. Deal with it.)

Other Link (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml)

Because the companies in charge of providing GM seeds etc. are extremely dodgy people, and we don't really know the long-term effects of GM crops?

Can anyone explain what is wrong with eating a dead organism whose genes were artificially manipulated?

I think the main concern is with the environment. Basically, people fear that GM crops will be so strong that take over natural habitats of 'normal' species, which will cause them to go extinct. Then there's also the fact that people generally are afraid of new stuff, especially if it has anything to do with genetics.

Personally I don't have much against it if it's made sure that they "won't escape to the wild". There are other minor problems I have with them, but overall I'm ok with it. Most people don't realize we've been GM our crops for thousands of years using selection, and breeding and other less sciency ways. It's basically just the next step.

I dont like them because a GM tomato ate my dog.

I think the main concern is with the environment. Basically, people fear that GM crops will be so strong that take over natural habitats of 'normal' species, which will cause them to go extinct. Then there's also the fact that people generally are afraid of new stuff, especially if it has anything to do with genetics.

Personally I don't have much against it if it's made sure that they "won't escape to the wild". There are other minor problems I have with them, but overall I'm ok with it. Most people don't realize we've been GM our crops for thousands of years using selection, and breeding and other less sciency ways. It's basically just the next step.

Corn isn't a viable crop if not cultivated by humans anyway, so that's a silly concern. Other crops it might be an issue, but I haven't seen any evidence of it in the US and we've been using GM crops for ages.

Because actual genetic modification with known strands of DNA is unnatural - let us return to the days when we simply irradiate seeds in an attempt to produce random wild mutation and see what grows. That was so much better.

The variety of peach with the best flavor is too fragile to be harvested by machine - so instead of doing the 'unnatural' thing by swapping a genetic sequence with a variety of peach with a thick skin to make it robust enough to have both great flavor and be harvestable, we will just stick with the less flavorful kind.

Oh, and why we are at it, spraying loads of insecticides, fungicides, and fertilizers all over the place is such a better idea than directly tinkering with a plants genetic code to make them naturally resistant.

This is another one of those DDT issues. I have no problem with labelling and giving consumers a choice, but outright opposition to it just neglects the fact that GM food is one of the best technologies available to avoid mass famines in the third world, especially if climate change affects crop yields there.

Corn isn't a viable crop if not cultivated by humans anyway, so that's a silly concern. Other crops it might be an issue, but I haven't seen any evidence of it in the US and we've been using GM crops for ages.
Keep in mind that whilst US farms can be incredibly huge, European farms could often better be described as small-holdings, and are really there for historic value.

GM seeds etc. floating on the wind into, say, a nature reserve, could cause serious problems - there are worries in Germany about BT-modded corn seeds floating into delicate areas.

This is another one of those DDT issues. I have no problem with labelling and giving consumers a choice, but outright opposition to it just neglects the fact that GM food is one of the best technologies available to avoid mass famines in the third world, especially if climate change affects crop yields there.
Having the third world a) even more overpopulated, and b) Monsanto's bitch is nothing great to hope for.

Corn isn't a viable crop if not cultivated by humans anyway, so that's a silly concern. Other crops it might be an issue, but I haven't seen any evidence of it in the US and we've been using GM crops for ages.

I think there's also the concern that they will cross with wild or non GM crops, 'infecting' those with their GM-genes.

I think there's also the concern that they will cross with wild or non GM crops, 'infecting' those with their GM-genes.

But if the gene is really that bad, won't those crops die out? I suppose on a farm they will continue, but natural selection should weed out (ha ha) wild plants with the gene. And if it doesn't, well, that gene apparently is beneficial.

Africanized corn , run away!

However, the UK and rest of Europe seems to be more nervous about its introduction in stores, and I'm not really sure why. Can anyone explain what is wrong with eating a dead organism whose genes were artificially manipulated?


I don't hate genetically modified foods. I'm simply frightened by the sort of society that would give free reign to people to do whatever they want to the mass food supply, with little or no public accountability, simply because they wear white lab coats.

This is another one of those DDT issues.

Again, there wasn't anything wrong with DDT that not running around coating everything in sight with a 3 inch think layer of the damn stuff wouldn't have prevented.

Technology isn't the enemy. Acting rashly without thought as to consequences is. I wouldn't want to destroy the local population of an entire species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle), but that isn't what really frightens me about this issue. The apparent human propensity for gray-tunnel vision in pursuit of some goal, without adequate consideration of potential consequences frightens me. Before it was "just" Bald Eagles, but if we're going to be genetically manipulating our own food supply, I feel like we need to be going to way greater effort to make sure that tomorrow it isn't us.

Especially if this is going to be a for-profit and government regulated enterprise. Shareholders and politicians have every reason in the world to cut corners and make me absorb the consequences.

But if the gene is really that bad, won't those crops die out? I suppose on a farm they will continue, but natural selection should weed out (ha ha) wild plants with the gene. And if it doesn't, well, that gene apparently is beneficial.

No no, the problem is that GM could cause indigenous plants to die out if the GM gene is really stronger. It isn't about 'better' genes, but about conservation of local biodiversity.

So long as we are careful, I have no problem with it. We've been using GM food in the US for years. I can understand some of the concerns, but not the total opposition some people have. Especially when they oppose even importing GM food from other countries.

Humanity has been altering and eating GM food for thousands of years. I will give most of our grains as an example. They have been nurtured to their current forms through human manipulation. Even our livestock has been altered through selective breeding for thousands of years. Why is this different if we alter the genes in a laboratory?

Because if a farmer does it wrong and things go to shit, then his farm is ruined and that's about it.

When we get the entire crop of the third world failing, all at once, then we have a huge problem on our hands.

Just set up a stringent testing program for new
GM crops like they do with drugs in the states. That should weed out the vast majority of problems. As for crop failures they are nothing new.

I don't. Obviously there are risks associated with genetic modification, but that's why the people developing these foods use things like science and rigorous testing to ensure that they are safe before releasing them to market. The thing is, humans have been modifying foods for a very, very long time and we're just taking that knowledge to a whole new level.

GM foods offer a way to bring about an end to hunger, malnutrition, and even the environmental effects of intensive farming. That's not to say we shouldn't work to preserve non-modified species as a precaution against disaster, but we shouldn't be leery about using them either; like anything, you should always have contingencies and backup plans, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't go through with a potential breakthrough. It's easy for us in the developed world, where food is abundant and cheap, to discuss these things with little more than abstract interest, but for the hundreds of millions, even billions of people facing food insecurity, malnutrition, or even outright starvation due to agricultural problems, it's a whole other issue. It really is life-or-death.

Humanity has been altering and eating GM food for thousands of years. I will give most of our grains as an example. They have been nurtured to their current forms through human manipulation. Even our livestock has been altered through selective breeding for thousands of years. Why is this different if we alter the genes in a laboratory?
Because if a farmer does it wrong and things go to shit, then his farm is ruined and that's about it.

When we get the entire crop of the third world failing, all at once, then we have a huge problem on our hands.

But if the gene is really that bad, won't those crops die out?


"Bad" doesn't necessarily mean "bad for the crop in question."


I suppose on a farm they will continue, but natural selection should weed out (ha ha) wild plants with the gene.


We're talking about artificial genetic manipulation. Natural selection is rapidly becoming irrelevant.


And if it doesn't, well, that gene apparently is beneficial.


Remember that "beneficial" within the context of evolution/natural selection simply means "more prone to promoting survival of the organism." In this specific case, "more prone to promoting the survival of this crop." It does not mean "more prone to promoting the survival of anything else."

Remember that "beneficial" within the context of evolution/natural selection simply means "more prone to promoting survival of the organism." In this specific case, "more prone to promoting the survival of this crop." It does not mean "more prone to promoting the survival of anything else."
So the spread of GM genes is like introducing a foreign species? That makes sense. Still, I think the benefits of GM crops exceeds the costs. A crop that is immune to a certain disease means less pesticide, the lack of which would have a very positive effect on the surrounding environment.

Remember that "beneficial" within the context of evolution/natural selection simply means "more prone to promoting survival of the organism." In this specific case, "more prone to promoting the survival of this crop." It does not mean "more prone to promoting the survival of anything else."

Isn't it true, then, that natural selection will result in those GM crops being selected out due to their inability to compete with natural organisms? That seems like a good basis for a built-in containment measure restricting the ability of GM crops to ever realistically establish themselves outside of their designated farms.

Just set up a stringent testing program for new
GM crops like they do with drugs in the states. That should weed out the vast majority of problems. As for crop failures they are nothing new.
Aye, they did that in Germany.

It seems that farmers who prep their fields properly did better off, and caused less damage, than lazy ones using GM.

Makes eight years old start puberty.:rolleyes:

Another good place to start would be the elimination of agricultural subsidies in the developed world which largely exist to squash competition from the undeveloped world. Ah, but at least the developed world is ready to swoop in and save the day with its genetic wonder food. It's almost like it was planned that way.Let us never do that as Black Angus makes the best steak.:p

Obviously there are risks associated with genetic modification, but that's why the people developing these foods use things like science and rigorous testing to ensure that they are safe before releasing them to market.


I'd collect a listing of unsafe products that private and public authorities have sworn were safe before being released to market or cleared through the regulatory process, but I'd be here all day.


The thing is, humans have been modifying foods for a very, very long time and we're just taking that knowledge to a whole new level.


An increasingly centralized and non-publically-accountable level. Neither am I opposed to applications of science and technology, but I am opposed to an InGen owning the exclusive patent on the human food supply.


That's not to say we shouldn't work to preserve non-modified species as a precaution against disaster, but we shouldn't be leery about using them either; like anything, you should always have contingencies and backup plans, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't go through with a potential breakthrough.


I always love when the free market asserts the need for centralized planning "just in case." ;)


It's easy for us in the developed world, where food is abundant and cheap, to discuss these things with little more than abstract interest, but for the hundreds of millions, even billions of people facing food insecurity, malnutrition, or even outright starvation due to agricultural problems, it's a whole other issue. It really is life-or-death.

Another good place to start would be the elimination of agricultural subsidies in the developed world which largely exist to squash competition from the undeveloped world. Ah, but at least the developed world is ready to swoop in and save the day with its genetic wonder food. It's almost like it was planned that way.

Isn't it true, then, that natural selection will result in those GM crops being selected out due to their inability to compete with natural organisms? That seems like a good basis for a built-in containment measure restricting the ability of GM crops to ever realistically establish themselves outside of their designated farms.

We're engaging in bioengineering in order to create organisms that perform better than their natural counterparts. If anything, I would expect GM crops to quickly lay natural organisms to waste. Given a sufficient genetically engineered "oopsie," I can see this being a very, very bad thing.

EDIT: Your second sentence refers to the so-called "Terminator" technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_technology). Yes, such genes may effective for preventing unwanted spread of modified crops. They would also be good for making third world farmers entirely dependent on Montsanto for their seed and other products.

So the spread of GM genes is like introducing a foreign species? That makes sense. Still, I think the benefits of GM crops exceeds the costs. A crop that is immune to a certain disease means less pesticide, the lack of which would have a very positive effect on the surrounding environment.

There is no doubt that all kinds of positive benefits are made possible by GM. But, unfortunately, lots of abuses and costs also exist, which I think people are entirely too prone to dismissing entirely without consideration.

thing is, humans have been modifying foods for a very, very long time and we're just taking that knowledge to a whole new level.

So basically, we have been testing small incremental changes over the course of centuries and millenia, so we should now do faster progress in only a few years? Reason to oppose the mindless spreading of genetically manipulated stuff right there, if only I could put my finger on it :rolleyes:

~~
Meh, Firefox has just deleted one hell of a post. Too pissed to rewrite it all :/

I think it's okay, but I also think that we are going about it in the wrong way:
1. We don't know the long term affects, which is a big deal.
2. Lack of labeling (here at least). Unknown allergians could be in certain foods, this must be addressed.
3. Unfair policies. GM crops from a neighbouring farm crossed into a famer's feild who was harvesting Non-GM crops. Some how a company selling such crops got a sample and found that it was their crop. This farmer was than sued because the farm that the company sold their crops to failed to take measures to prevent this. First they should not be able to sue as he did nothing wrong. Second, measures must be taken to prevent this sort of thing.

We're engaging in bioengineering in order to create organisms that perform better than their natural counterparts. If anything, I would expect GM crops to quickly lay natural organisms to waste. Given a sufficient genetically engineered "oopsie," I can see this being a very, very bad thing.


Actually, this is not usually a problem at all.

The difference is the definition of better. We aren't making GM foods with better survival characteristics - we're making GM crops that farm better. Often the very charcteristics we are selecting for are the ones that make a GM crop LESS survivable in the wild.

There are exceptions, of course; in far northern and southern climes, for instance, frost-resistant plants clearly do have advantages. But by and large we aren't selecting for superior competitiveness.

I probably eat genetically modified food every day, because there are no labeling laws in the US. However, the UK and rest of Europe seems to be more nervous about its introduction in stores, and I'm not really sure why. Can anyone explain what is wrong with eating a dead organism whose genes were artificially manipulated?
The reason that some people hate GE crops and other GM foods is that they are ignorant and therefor fearful. In the United States GE crops are regulated by the EPA, FDA, and USDA for environmental impact and food safety. So far what's on the shelf here has gotten the go ahead from not only the extensive in-house studies but the federal government. When people don't understand something they have an instinctive reaction to fear or even hate it.

It'd actually be kind of funny if this baseless opposition didn't have such tragic consequences but I'll get to that in a minute. You see, just about everything that we eat has been genetically modified over thousands of years of selective breeding, cross-breeding, and grafting. Modern genetic modification of food is just a faster and safer way of doing that because it is more direct. Older methods of genetic manipulation are slow and not as safe because the new mutation is always something random, there is no way to predict what you will get so you have to have a very large number of specimens and go through many more iterations than with modern practices to get the desired results. Corn is probably one of the best examples of a genetically engineered crop. When corn started out it was considerably shorter and only had one cob per plant with 8-12 kernels per cob. It looked kind of like wheat but with some hit and a lot of miss it was changed into the grown gold we know and kids hate (along with broccoli) today.

Now here's where things get way unfunny, in 2002 Greenpeace and other environmentalist groups opposed to GE food attended a gathering of Africa's leaders and were able to convince several nations to ban GE food and turn away the life-saving supplies of grain they had received as donations. Thousands of tons of corn was stored in warehouses under guard so that none of the starving people who would line up at these storage facilities every day to beg for food could access the grain within. The decision in Zambia was overturned but not until after tens of thousands had died needlessly of starvation.

I don't hate them because I think they're dangerous to eat, I do it because they're all patented and many are designed to not be able to reproduce and to only work well with the same company's pesticide product.

The companies behind genetically modified crops are trying to convert a product into a service (much like what's happening in the computer software world) and make farmers more dependent on them, and of course spend more money for little extra benefit (again like in the computer software world). That's not a good idea anywhere, but especially not in the developing world, where the farmer might not be able to afford new seeds every year, or might need to use a cheaper brand of pesticide.

I don't hate them because I think they're dangerous to eat, I do it because they're all patented and many are designed to not be able to reproduce and to only work well with the same company's pesticide product.

The companies behind genetically modified crops are trying to convert a product into a service (much like what's happening in the computer software world) and make farmers more dependent on them, and of course spend more money for little extra benefit (again like in the computer software world). That's not a good idea anywhere, but especially not in the developing world, where the farmer might not be able to afford new seeds every year, or might need to use a cheaper brand of pesticide.
Monsanto isn't using terminator genes in their commerical seeds. The gene was developed because of concerns that the GE plants might spread beyond farms, to prevent that from happening.

Having the third world a) even more overpopulated, and b) Monsanto's bitch is nothing great to hope for.
So a better option is to let lots of people starve to death? Natural rebalancing of the population, and all that?

Again, there wasn't anything wrong with DDT that not running around coating everything in sight with a 3 inch think layer of the damn stuff wouldn't have prevented.
And I would agree. There is probably some scope for safety regulations and disclosure of the technology involved. The market may self-correct, but it most often does so after something has gone wrong. GM Foods is, like for example nuclear energy, an issue where I would make an argument for a level of preventative measures.

I'd collect a listing of unsafe products that private and public authorities have sworn were safe before being released to market or cleared through the regulatory process, but I'd be here all day.

That's why you have to be all the stricter with high-risk technologies. Accidents will happen, but there's a difference between an easily containable mistake that has limited effects on the world and the "Yuk!" scenario from Exit Mundi. However, advances in technology also make it easier to test for problems that might not have been possible a few years ago; for example, using a supercomputer to simulate the probability of various genetic changes and the ability of a given GMO to enter the wild.

An increasingly centralized and non-publically-accountable level. Neither am I opposed to applications of science and technology, but I am opposed to an InGen owning the exclusive patent on the human food supply.

Then a comprehensive framework needs to be developed to address both the need to ensure open access to agricultural crops as well as the return on investment that companies will need to ensure their continued research in to improving the crops available for human consumption.

For example, requiring that companies share a certain amount of their research data in these fields with public research organizations in exchange for allowing them to patent their products and protect against competitors' infringement on their technology. From there, any breakthroughs made by public research firms could be then used to supply the world with advanced, open-access genetically modified organisms and crops. Private firms would then be pressed to stay one step ahead of public research, to ensure that their profits are not eroded by public competition.

I always love when the free market asserts the need for centralized planning "just in case." ;)

I may like the free market, but I'm sure as hell not going to risk getting killed because of it. It's no good to us if we're all dead.

Another good place to start would be the elimination of agricultural subsidies in the developed world which largely exist to squash competition from the undeveloped world. Ah, but at least the developed world is ready to swoop in and save the day with its genetic wonder food. It's almost like it was planned that way.

Oh, absolutely. Subsidies are a colossal economic mistake that should have been killed decades ago.. However, even if we get rid of them it will still take a lot of work for the agricultural productivity of the developing world to approach the levels of the developed world, and we have to take in to account the environmental costs that modern intensive farming inflicts on the soil and natural ecosystem.

GMOs offer a lot of opportunities to reduce the need for pesticides, water, fertilizers, and everything other environmental stressor that results from intensive farming. There's no reason not to pursue them if it means cutting down on the cost and negative effects of food production.

Monsanto isn't using terminator genes in their commerical seeds. The gene was developed because of concerns that the GE plants might spread beyond farms, to prevent that from happening.

You're saying it was created to prevent GE plants from spreading, but that it isn't in use? You may be right that it isn't in use right now, but it would seem like you contradict yourself if you claim that they will never be in use.

It's pretty much guaranteed that they will, as long as governments don't put a stop to it. It makes good business sense to sell seeds to a customer every year instead of once and never again.

And again, look at computer software, where the software companies are working on tying everything to the Internet and making it a service, to ensure that no one actually owns the software and is only renting it. It's more profitable that way.

the problem with gm'd varieties and the patenting of them, isn't with the product itself, but with the loss of the diversity of source stock, which is being seriously threatened by the politics of their production.

and i hope its not too dificult to see the risks in that, the risks of a reduced gene pool essentially. not to mention economic impact on non-corporate blessed and ripped off eco-friendly subsistence.

it's another one of those things, to make us ever more dependent on the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper, like when ancient rome outlawed possession of the means of grinding your own grain. (not to mention today's privitization of water supplies and other insanity)

(i'm not to thrilled about worshipping the automobile as the primary means of transportation either, but general motors does also, its electromotive devision, produce around half of the railway locomotives in the western hemisphere)

=^^=
.../\...

I don't hate the idea of GM foods at all. They represent, after all, the next logical step along from the types of selection that humanity have been using since agriculture began.

Use of the so-called 'terminator' genes must take place, however. It would be all too easy for the new bioengineered species to displace other, more 'natural' species in the wild if they escape from whatever controlled areas that are being grown in. These sorts of escape have already happened (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=937) in other arenas, with effects far beyond what even the pessimists had feared.

In other words, we should continue the research and use the results, but take a little care, dammit.

Just label the stuff clearly and let the public decide.

I'm not too keen on it, to be honest, mostly because as was pointed out before, long-term effects are unknown, and I have massive objections to the patenting of plants. That's just wrong on to many levels in my view.

Yes, there is a lot of misinformation going around, and yes, there is a lot of ignorance on the subject, especially when it comes to details such as what exactly has been changed, how does that affect the food and how might it affect the habitat it's thrown in? And since we've messed up a good few habitats quite seriously with the old technique of breeding and then introducing the plants/animal to new habitats, I'll remain sceptic about the amount of damage we might inflict with an even more effective way of creating new breeds/races. I doubt we'll see the full impact of it in my lifetime, but I happen to believe that our responsibility should exceed that amount of time.