Daniel Unplugged Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 I often hear people hear people saying that GM foods are not safe to consume. Is there any evidence for that assertion? FYI, here is where I'm currently at: Say a farmer grows some corn that is genetically modified to increase yield or resist pests. I can't see how eating it would hurt me. My digestive system would extract the nutrients and expel the rest as per usual. There is no possibility of my cells being contaminated with GM dna from the corn. What is the theory behind the assertion that GM foods are not safe?
Wuzzums Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 None. "Genetically modified" is one of those terms that don't mean anything. We as humans have been genetically modifying plants to be more nutritious ever since we came into existence. Farmers have always and will always select to plant the best seeds from the best crop. No fruit or vegetable that we eat is in its original "natural" state. For instance, both are bananas, one is 100% natural, one is "genetically modified": I have never seen a natural banana sold in groceries and I have never heard anyone complain about it.
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 14, 2014 Author Posted May 14, 2014 None. "Genetically modified" is one of those terms that don't mean anything. We as humans have been genetically modifying plants to be more nutritious ever since we came into existence.Yes, I know.When I say GM, I am referring specifically to altering the genes/modifying the dna in a lab, by technological means. I am not referring to natural selection or 'human selection' as has occurred in the past.Seriously, is that what a natural banana looks like? What are the blueberry looking things? Are you saying that there is no underlying theory behind it? Even a bad/untested one? No fruit or vegetable that we eat is in its original "natural" state.I pick and eat wild blackberries. (I assume) they are in their natural state. Just nitpicking, sorry, I just thought that statement was a bit strong....a minute or two later: The blackberries I pick are now resistant to certain herbicides, so I withdraw that point...trying to come up a better example.
ribuck Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 In the photo of the banana, the "blueberry-looking things" are seeds. Bananas have been selectively bred to minimise the seeds (occasionally you can see very tiny dots which are seeds). In the process, the modern seedless banana has become infertile and as a result is dependent on humans to propogate it by making cuttings. Anyway, to address your original question: Some natural foods are healthy and nutritious. Some natural foods are poisonous or non-nutritious. Some GMO foods are healthy and nutritious. Some GM foods are poisonous or non-nutritious. Having said that, there are a couple of potential differences. The changes in a GM organism are often much greater than those in a selectively-bred organism, so it may require more extensive testing to establish safety, and there is more potential for effects on the surrounding ecosystem. For example, when GM beans are made resistant to weedkiller (so that weedkillers can be freely used on the bean crop), those beans become weeds themselves if the seeds drift onto farms where other crops are grown. Regardless, there's nothing to fear "in principle" about GMOs. Like any new technology, we can research it, understand it, and review it so that we can exploit the best aspects while avoiding the undesirable aspects. Hhowever, there's one aspect of genetically-modified food that is bad. The plants are patented, and everyone other than the patent licensees is forbidden from cultivating the seeds.
dsayers Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 For humans to genetically modify their food supply to amplify yield and reduce the amount of time and effort we invest in hunting/gathering is no different than a bird building a nest. That is to say that it is manipulating one's environment to improve quality of life; Indeed to sustain life. Norman Borlaug made great strides in developing and disseminating the technology that's led to 1/3 of the world's population not having to starve. In my opinion, he and Stefan Molyneux are historically humanity's best friends. To demonize GM food flies in the face of both of them. It saddens me deeply to see so many people distracted by this demonization when the underlying issues State corruption and childhood abuse are what they're actually upset about. To answer your question, GM is simply not enough information. It can be very safe or it can be very dangerous. Most of the people boycotting it don't even understand what it is that they're talking about. "Organic" foods for example are more dangerous, not to mention developed in ways that have reduced yield, adding to world starvation. It's arrogant and pretentious to be well fed, yet damning the technology that could feed others. To be clear, my bias and frustration is with the people who demonize GM on principle, not with you. I understand your thread is curiosity and not a conclusion. I urge anybody interested on the topic to look up Norman Borlaug. My thanks to the Penn & Teller episode of Bullshit that helped me to see through the propaganda on this subject.
tjt Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Where to begin... - It's not true that your body only absorbs the nutrients that it needs and eliminates the rest. Your digestive tract must be top notch and your bowels must be moving regularly (which if you live on an "American" diet, it probably isn't) to be able to eliminate toxins before they can effect your other bodily systems. Otherwise, the toxins sit in your intestines (in your poop) too long and are reabsorbed into the blood and carried throughout the body (getting into breast milk if you're concerned about that). This happens with internally developed waste (like used hormones) and consumed toxins (like pesticides). Also, if you're not pooping regularly (once a day or more than once a day... eliminating 1 foot worth (the length of your descending colon) of formed poop--not runny, not rock-hard) your liver is forced to hold on to more toxins. Which is not good, because rather than functioning properly and keeping your digestion moving, it 'focuses' on trapping the toxins, and they continue to accumulate - You have to realize that the government and the major seed companies that are in bed with the government are running the show. It doesn't make any sense that an anarchist or libertarian would be in support of GMOs. I can't imagine a free society where we pay millions maybe billions to splice jellyfish genes with corn to make it glow when it's dehydrated. Here are three horrible results of the government interfering in this market: (1) Some GMO corn has been modified so that a pesticide exists in the seed, and as the seed germinates, sprouts and grows into a full plant that bares fruit, that pesticide is found in every element of the plant including the fruit and the pollen. So it's pretty well linked to the bee collapse. (2) They've created suicide seeds - seeds that produce only one crop, of which those new seeds are sterile... just to prevent anyone from collecting seeds and replanting from those, farmers must purchase another round of suicide seeds and consumers must continue buying the veggie. (3) It allows the inventors (the major seed companies like Monsanto) to patent their seeds... it's happened where these seeds have made their way to smaller farmers' crops (by way of wind or bird) and that plot begins to grow a patented seed. Although the little farmer couldn't control the situation and might not have even known what was happening, he could very easily be sued (and most likely lose against the giant seed company). - Finally, the way agriculture operates today, including the introduction of GMOs, threatens biodiversity. I'm not wanting to make this post any longer so you can look it up. There are plenty of books and documentaries on the subject, Wheat Belly, Food Inc., Farmageddon People like Joel Salatin and others are also good resource. If you're really interested in the topic, I suggest doing more research before you believe that GMOs are of equal quality to non-GMOs, Farmageddon and Food Inc. are pretty good starts... they're documentaries so easy to consume. For humans to genetically modify their food supply to amplify yield and reduce the amount of time and effort we invest in hunting/gathering is no different than a bird building a nest. That is to say that it is manipulating one's environment to improve quality of life; Indeed to sustain life. To answer your question, GM is simply not enough information. It can be very safe or it can be very dangerous. Most of the people boycotting it don't even understand what it is that they're talking about. "Organic" foods for example are more dangerous, not to mention developed in ways that have reduced yield, adding to world starvation. It's arrogant and pretentious to be well fed, yet damning the technology that could feed others. If you wash your produce, organic foods are not more dangerous than non-organic... could you please provide support for your argument? GMOs do not ensure higher crop yields. Anyways, a majority of the GMO crops produced in the U.S. (corn, soy beans, etc.) DO NOT go to feed humans. Again, please provide support for your argument. Organic foods do not add to world starvation, that's rhetoric. And if you have time, watch this video
Carl Green Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Is it that the genetic modification to the food isn't necessarily harmful itself, but that the chemicals used on the GM plants is the harmful part? In other words, you can genetically modify corn to be able to handle glyphosate, but the food isn't harmful unless the chemical is used? Disclaimer: I've not done much research on the subject, and haven't even fully read the arguments put forth in this thread.
BlackHeron Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 I don't think that saying, "Is GM food safe?" has enough information in it to be meaningful. It's like saying, "are chemicals safe? Like others have said, humanity has been genetically modifying their food since before written history. We need to define the terms. I'll leave that to others. I'm not a chemist or a botanist. Can genetically-modified food be unsafe? -absolutely. Food can be easily altered so that it can be actually poison which can kill almost instantly. It can be altered to be less healthy, and it can also be altered to be more healthy/nutritious, and much more productive than those organisms that existed before mankind began to systematically grow them for our food rather than hunting & gathering. The GMO scare is just more Gia disaster-pr0n bait of statists who want yet another reason to give the state more power to regulate and control every aspect our lives. Like Global-Warming Gia disaster-pr0n it is just fear-mongering aimed at stampeding simple people into supporting their regulatory "solutions" which always tend to create a need for more and more state power to fix them. Funny that... I'm not happy about Monsantos and their policies. I'm not a fan of corporate/state monopolies who try and use their power to mandate and control our food supply. I'm also not a fan of those who would wish to turn back the clock on technology and return humanity to the starvation and privation caused by "sustainable" agriculture either. Can there be some middle ground? Technology is neither good nor evil, it's in how it is used. Should these GMO foods be studied and tested -absolutely. Should they be a choice that everyone can eat or not eat as they see fit? -absolutely. What mechanism can be used to help us chose what is best? Is this even a question in a voluntaryist community? We call it the market and price is the mechanism that is ALWAYS best to determine in what direction society should go. I have issues with the corporate entities that are pushing GMO's and regulations. I look at scary statist power grabs like the Codex Alimentarious and a cold shiver goes down my back. That's some scary shit, pardon my Eurotalk. But I don't automatically look at GMO as evil. It's just a technology and it might be a very necessary one if we don't want to see large portions of the world's population starving to death.
st434u Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 GMO is NOT the same as selective breeding. GMO involves blasting genes from one species onto another in a lab, then what you end up with is a chimera monster that has nothing to do with any lifeform that evolved properly and in healthy steps along the way. There's no way to tell what that can do to us when we eat them. They haven't "earned" their right to exist in the same way all other lifeforms have, through a slow process of selection whereby mutations that are harmful to the organism (or the grower) can be weeded out. However, there are cases where the answer is easy to come up with. If a crop is genetically modified to grow it's own pesticides, and we eat the plants, then we get all the pesticides too. We know pesticides in large amounts are not good for our bodies. With regular pesticides used in food growing, you can at least wash or peel some of them away before ingesting the foods. When the crops are growing their own pesticides, you can't do that, because it's not just on the outside, but in all parts of the plant, and in high concentrations. What's more, there are several people in powerful places who openly admit they have long wanted to design GMO crops to grow their own supply of drugs used to make the general population more docile and less able to reproduce. Some people believe they've already began doing this. Take, for instance, studies such as this: http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-soy-linked-to-sterility-and-infant-mortality/ In any case, the question should really be about property rights. If I grow non-GMO, and your GMO crops contaminate mine through crossbreeding, shouldn't you be liable for damages? If you want to experiment with GMOs, knock yourself out, but it's your responsibility to keep your GMO crops from genetically contaminating mine. The reason why the GMO growers can't claim the same also applies to them in reverse, is because farmers have been growing non-GMO for thousands of years, and thus they've homesteaded the right of crossbreeding and the reasonable expectation has always been that by growing crops on the open, they wouldn't be contaminated by GMO crossbreeding, because those did not exist. And when GMO crops first appeared, they were able to crossbreed with non-GMO. I think the situation is similar to someone who programs a virus for Windows 7, and then claims that they had no intention to make the virus infect W7 computers, but that through everyday exchange of information with other people, the virus just happened to get out (which was inevitable since he did not take the precautions in shielding the information on his computer from everybody else using W7).
Aaron727 Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Some great info http://youtu.be/Jk7EpAWQiF4?t=11m42s
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 I think the acronym you were looking for is GEO - genetically engineered organism. As far as I understand, selective breeding falls under GMO. However, GEO is where you do things like slingshot bacteria DNA into corn DNA. Unfortunately, I thought I had it bookmarked, but I can't seem to find it, now. I watched a video of a genetic engineer describing just how GEO's are toxic. Here's a regurgitation of that plus what I know of biochemistry and other personal research. Quick biochemistry lesson for those not in the know: DNA --> RNA --> protein RNA gets transcripted from DNA which gets transcripted into proteins. Proteins are the things that do stuff in the body. DNA just provides the blueprints how to make them. The basis is that there's nothing toxic about the DNA which gets engineered, however the proteins can VERY well be toxic. This is evident, as the entire reason of genetically engineering, say, corn with bacteria DNA is because that bacteria naturally creates a protein which binds up the guts of specific insects. This will cause the insects to starve to death regardless of how much they eat. GE companies claim that the GEO's are harmless because they know the code of the DNA they're sling-shotting into the plants. If you know the DNA code, you can calculate out the amino acid formation of the proteins it will develop. If these proteins are proven safe for human consumption, that would imply that the GEO's are also safe for human consumption. However! This is only true if one DNA code "unit" corresponds to one transcripted protein. As was explained in the video (which I can't find or remember the name of the guy talking :/ ), prior to the Human Genome Project it was assumed that one DNA "unit" corresponded to one protein. There are roughly 100,000 known proteins in the human body, and the HGP turned up a measly 25,000 "units". That means that one gene corresponds to MORE than one protein. As I learned in my biochemistry class (which was awhile ago and I sadly only took one), proteins are transcribed from a series of adjacent "units". That means that any sling-shotted bacteria DNA is going to provide protein blueprints in conjunction with the adjacent plant DNA it's combined with. GE companies are thus touting old and incorrect science when they say that 1 DNA "unit" = 1 protein. The reason I use the word "sling-shotted" is because there is no way to predict where this bacteria DNA will end up in the plant DNA. This means there is absolutely no way to predict any "rogue proteins" that may form, which means any guarantee of safety is bullshit. Hope that helps! Also, I just want to add, that the "GMO is just selective breeding" is a wonderful strawman argument that picks on people who think they're saying GEO when they say GMO. Yes, humans have been selectively breeding various plants for thousands of years (GMO), however they have not been slingshotting bacteria DNA into plant DNA for any sort of similar length of time. In addition, what I just posted says nothing about the disastrous effects of "Round-Up Ready" plants.
tjt Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 That is a beautiful contribution, Dylan. Bravo and thanks! Hope you can remember the name of the vid.
J-William Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 I would like to see some actual scientific evidence that there is some danger, or solid reasoning to think that they are dangerous. If your reasoning boils down to "Monsanto is bad! EVIL EVIL EVIL"... well I'm sorry but that's just not enough. However, there's one aspect of genetically-modified food that is bad. The plants are patented, and everyone other than the patent licensees is forbidden from cultivating the seeds. That's about the only valid problem I've seen, and additionally when other farmers crops are pollinated and produce seeds that include the modified genes they are supposed to pay license fees to the companies for using their own seeds with genetic modification they didn't want... Now that is crap, pure statist crap.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 I would like to see some actual scientific evidence that there is some danger, or solid reasoning to think that they are dangerous. Didn't read my post, huh?
J-William Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 Didn't read my post, huh? Read your post, it's not terribly convincing. I mean rogue proteins could possibly maybe do something bad... How is it that the people doing this can get the desired effect, but don't know if they're producing poison? Are they stupid and lucky? You have failed to bring up instances of this happening in the lab, or in seeds being sold for consumption. These popular boogieman stories seem to develop and then come along with scientific sounding reasoning after the fact. I don't recall reading in my history books about the boogieman stories told about germs before scientists developed the germ theory of disease. Because there weren't any!
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 15, 2014 Author Posted May 15, 2014 Thanks for the info people. For now I will continue not to worry about eating GM foods. Look at it this way: Ethanol is poisonous, if you consume a sufficient quantity, your heart will stop beating. Yet, I sometimes (not too often) consume 2 litres of 5% ethanol solution in a day, so yeah, GMO doesn't really bother me much.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 Read your post, it's not terribly convincing. I mean rogue proteins could possibly maybe do something bad... How is it that the people doing this can get the desired effect, but don't know if they're producing poison? Are they stupid and lucky? Thanks for moving the goalposts. "Okay you're right, but I'm going to use words like 'could', 'possibly', and 'maybe' to downplay it." I explained this. Read my post again. Proteins get transcribed from a string of DNA, which includes the slingshotted DNA plus what is adjacent to it. So you can know that the DNA your shooting in is going to produce the insect gut-binding proteins by itself, but you don't know what is going to be made with the combination of the new DNA and the original adjacent DNA. Thus there is no way of knowing what rogue proteins you're creating (nor is there really a practical way to identifying without making specific efforts to do so), which could very well be toxic in the same way that the gut-binding proteins are toxic for the insects. And because, as I said, one DNA "unit" does not equal one protein, which is the science the GE companies base their announcements off of. You have failed to bring up instances of this happening in the lab, or in seeds being sold for consumption. I did post a video of a genetic engineer explaining it. Sorry that doesn't meet your standards. These popular boogieman stories seem to develop and then come along with scientific sounding reasoning after the fact. I don't recall reading in my history books about the boogieman stories told about germs before scientists developed the germ theory of disease. Because there weren't any! Thanks for the strawman. Not sure which popular boogieman I brought up, or what that second sentence has to do with anything. Actually, I kind of thought I was providing information that wasn't commonly known, especially as I've done some study into biochemistry.
tjt Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 I would like to see some actual scientific evidence that there is some danger, or solid reasoning to think that they are dangerous. If your reasoning boils down to "Monsanto is bad! EVIL EVIL EVIL"... well I'm sorry but that's just not enough. How do you know which side of the argument to default to and which side carries the burden of proof? Meaning, why do you default to "GEOs are safe until proven guilty"? With all of the risks associated with protein formation that Dylan informed us about, why not default to "potentially dangerous until proven safe"? These are my real questions, I'm not leading or trying to be presumptuous or judgmental.
BlackHeron Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 Here is the above-mentioned Penn & Teller episode of BS referenced by dsayers.
WorBlux Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 Not in any immediate sense. Where to begin...- You have to realize that the government and the major seed companies that are in bed with the government are running the show. It doesn't make any sense that an anarchist or libertarian would be in support of GMOs. I can't imagine a free society where we pay millions maybe billions to splice jellyfish genes with corn to make it glow when it's dehydrated. Here are three horrible results of the government interfering in this market: (1) Some GMO corn has been modified so that a pesticide exists in the seed, and as the seed germinates, sprouts and grows into a full plant that bares fruit, that pesticide is found in every element of the plant including the fruit and the pollen. So it's pretty well linked to the bee collapse. (2) They've created suicide seeds - seeds that produce only one crop, of which those new seeds are sterile... just to prevent anyone from collecting seeds and replanting from those, farmers must purchase another round of suicide seeds and consumers must continue buying the veggie. (3) It allows the inventors (the major seed companies like Monsanto) to patent their seeds... it's happened where these seeds have made their way to smaller farmers' crops (by way of wind or bird) and that plot begins to grow a patented seed. Although the little farmer couldn't control the situation and might not have even known what was happening, he could very easily be sued (and most likely lose against the giant seed company).Hawaii would have almost no papaya industry if it were not for GMO. GMO is a very powerful tool and can be used to good effect.1. Selective promoters have been developed that reduce protein expression in the seed specifically. Additionally this pesticide reduces insect damage to the grain that provides incursion pathways to the corn, decreasing the mycotoxin content of harvested seed.2. Wasn't approved, and abuse isn't argument against proper use.3. Breeders and seed companies already have PVP, which is a 25 year worldwide grant of exclusive propagation rights on a specific cultivator of plant. There is also the plant patent which only lasts 20 years, but also covers breeding rights (though also requires the provision of parent or plant material to the patent office).Neither is that problematic for the small farmer. What is problematic is the patent on expressing the particular GMO trait in a plant. Really to me this issue gives me more reason to doubt the wisdom of giving patents on single genes than about GMO per se.- Finally, the way agriculture operates today, including the introduction of GMOs, threatens biodiversity... If you're really interested in the topic, I suggest doing more research before you believe that GMOs are of equal quality to non-GMOs, Farmageddon and Food Inc. are pretty good starts... they're documentaries so easy to consume.Re: Biodiversity,Yes but the issue is more in the philosophy inherent in the system, and is not the result of any particular technology.GMOs do not ensure higher crop yields. Anyways, a majority of the GMO crops produced in the U.S. (corn, soy beans, etc.) DO NOT go to feed humans. Again, please provide support for your argument.GMO's actually decrease the maximum potential yield. What they typically do is make the crop resistant to pest damage or make management of weeds more effective. New strategies for weed control really make low and no till management much more feasible options. Under perfect conditions it doesn't help, but under typical conditions it can be a big help. Even being equal Farmer Joe would rather go watch his son's baseball game than go spray thousands of acres to control insects or to cultivate out weeds between the crop rows.Organic foods do not add to world starvation, that's rhetoric.It really depends on your assumptions. There is a certain sort of extremely intensive bio-aware sort of management that can achieve yields greater than conventional, but it requires very educated and trained farmers and a very intensive level of crop management and ecosystem manipulation.Just assuming your typical USDA organic production there is often a significant decline in productivity.For humans to genetically modify their food supply to amplify yield and reduce the amount of time and effort we invest in hunting/gathering is no different than a bird building a nest. That is to say that it is manipulating one's environment to improve quality of life; Indeed to sustain life.We unlike the bird are aware of the changes we make, and we unlike the bird can create changes of scales so large there is no undoing them. Ever. I don't think we should be so arrogant as to assume we can safely alter or discard parts of the biotic community on which we are member and depend upon for survival.GMO is a really powerful thing and it raise entirely new sorts of challenges, issues and concerns that we really never had to think about before.Norman Borlaug made great strides in developing and disseminating the technology that's led to 1/3 of the world's population not having to starve. In my opinion, he and Stefan Molyneux are historically humanity's best friends. To demonize GM food flies in the face of both of them. It saddens me deeply to see so many people distracted by this demonization when the underlying issues State corruption and childhood abuse are what they're actually upset about.But the green revolution came at a price. The loss of biodiversity and locally adopted crop cultivators, the increased use of fossil fuels, and a depression of food price level to the point of increasing the hardships of those stuck in a cycle of sustenance farming. New irrigation leads to problems with the development of newly saline and sodic soils. How many deaths are we setting up in the future, how much of the natural bounty did we spend? Will the people of the next several centuries share the judgements of those of the past several decades?There really are tough and important issues within this... None. "Genetically modified" is one of those terms that don't mean anything....It refers either to trans-species genetic transferrer into somatic cells, or the introduction of an engineered genetic component to any species. Traditional breeding rarely comes across something entirely new. I think the acronym you were looking for is GEO ...The basis is that there's nothing toxic about the DNA which gets engineered, however the proteins can VERY well be toxic. This is evident, as the entire reason of genetically engineering, say, corn with bacteria DNA is because that bacteria naturally creates a protein which binds up the guts of specific insects. This will cause the insects to starve to death regardless of how much they eat.GE companies claim that the GEO's are harmless because they know the code of the DNA they're sling-shotting into the plants. If you know the DNA code, you can calculate out the amino acid formation of the proteins it will develop. If these proteins are proven safe for human consumption, that would imply that the GEO's are also safe for human consumption.However! This is only true if one DNA code "unit" corresponds to one transcripted protein. As was explained in the video (which I can't find or remember the name of the guy talking :/ ), prior to the Human Genome Project it was assumed that one DNA "unit" corresponded to one protein. There are roughly 100,000 known proteins in the human body, and the HGP turned up a measly 25,000 "units". That means that one gene corresponds to MORE than one protein. As I learned in my biochemistry class (which was awhile ago and I sadly only took one), proteins are transcribed from a series of adjacent "units". That means that any sling-shotted bacteria DNA is going to provide protein blueprints in conjunction with the adjacent plant DNA it's combined with.GE companies are thus touting old and incorrect science when they say that 1 DNA "unit" = 1 protein.The reason I use the word "sling-shotted" is because there is no way to predict where this bacteria DNA will end up in the plant DNA. This means there is absolutely no way to predict any "rogue proteins" that may form, which means any guarantee of safety is bullshit.1. You can sequence DNA, and it's fairly cheap (so long as you have and existing template for the species) so you can know where it lands2. Instertion targets tend to be regions where non coding is likely.3. Most traits in commercial cultivars are backcrossed from plants where location in the genome is known rather than a new introduction in each cultivar.4. Artificial chromosomes are a potential way to manage with the issue.5. Proteins can also be extracted and sequences.6. Conventional breeding can also yield new toxic proteins. (The shift of wheat cultivation to semi-dwarf varieties.)So it's an issue, but not an insurmountable one. ...In addition, what I just posted says nothing about the disastrous effects of "Round-Up Ready" plants.Compared to what? I'd rather my local farmers be spraying glyphospate instead of atrizine.
Jer Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I don't think that saying, "Is GM food safe?" has enough information in it to be meaningful. It's like saying, "are chemicals safe? Like others have said, humanity has been genetically modifying their food since before written history. We need to define the terms. I'll leave that to others. I'm not a chemist or a botanist. One of my concerns is the "Roundup Ready" crops that are grown in herbicide so the farmers don't have to pull weeds. I'd like as little roundup in my diet as possible... GMO is NOT the same as selective breeding. GMO involves blasting genes from one species onto another in a lab, then what you end up with is a chimera monster that has nothing to do with any lifeform that evolved properly and in healthy steps along the way. There's no way to tell what that can do to us when we eat them. They haven't "earned" their right to exist in the same way all other lifeforms have, through a slow process of selection whereby mutations that are harmful to the organism (or the grower) can be weeded out. I've heard the argument "I like bananas as they are today, therefore GMO=good" many times from libertarian types and it's complete rubbish. You're never going to get frog dna into a salmon through selective breeding but that's what is happening with the recently approved genetically engineered fish.
AustinJames Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 "GMO foods" is not enough information to draw a conclusion. The controversy that I've heard most often involves the modification of corn to produce a certain protein that is poisonous to some insects. It seems the anti-GMO crowd relies heavily on a study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini, which concluded that there is a strong positive correlation between cancerous tumors in rats and GMO corn with this insecticide protein. This study has been roundly criticized in the scientific world, but the anti-GMO people I've spoken to cite the corruption and intimidation of the agricultural lobby. From what I can tell, the criticisms of the study (mostly to do with sample size) are valid. The main body of scientific evidence indicates there are no harmful effects associated with GMO foods, though it is not conclusive. I have not been able to find a good study that provides evidence to the contrary, but I have not researched it very thoroughly. I would be open to the idea that some GMO's are dangerous, but there is not evidence enough to conclude that any (much less all) GMO's are harmful.
WizWom Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Being worried about GMOs comes from ignorance and a lot of propaganda.To express a gene properly in a tissue, you need to be precise about where you insert the genetic sequence, it is not scattershot, it is completely planned.
Jer Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Being worried about GMOs comes from ignorance and a lot of propaganda.To express a gene properly in a tissue, you need to be precise about where you insert the genetic sequence, it is not scattershot, it is completely planned. What about herbicides? The food is modified to tolerate poison so doesn't that mean we're going to get poison in our food? The fact that the FDA is run by people who are closely affiliated with the companies that sell this food leaves me hesitant to trust them when they say "Hey, this food that we would lose billions from if it was deemed not safe for humans. It's totally safe for humans." edit: It infuriates me when people say "we've been modifying food for thousands of years" as if breeding the banana to be sweeter has something to do with putting bacteria dna into wheat. Until very recently scientists said 95% of the human genome was essentially meaningless. But yeah, I trust these psychopaths to know exactly what will happen when they cross frog and salmon DNA.
WorBlux Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 What about herbicides? The food is modified to tolerate poison so doesn't that mean we're going to get poison in our food? The fact that the FDA is run by people who are closely affiliated with the companies that sell this food leaves me hesitant to trust them when they say "Hey, this food that we would lose billions from if it was deemed not safe for humans. It's totally safe for humans." edit: It infuriates me when people say "we've been modifying food for thousands of years" as if breeding the banana to be sweeter has something to do with putting bacteria dna into wheat. Until very recently scientists said 95% of the human genome was essentially meaningless. But yeah, I trust these psychopaths to know exactly what will happen when they cross frog and salmon DNA.Herbicides - compared to what? Conventional practices still use herbicides. just different ones that are often more toxic.
Jer Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Herbicides - compared to what? Conventional practices still use herbicides. just different ones that are often more toxic. compared to my conventional garden. I don't need the FDA to tell me how much poison is permissible in my food. I'd like zero, thanks.
Sal9000 Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 GMO is NOT the same as selective breeding. GMO involves blasting genes from one species onto another in a lab, then what you end up with is a chimera monster that has nothing to do with any lifeform that evolved properly and in healthy steps along the way. Most lifeforms on our earth are GMO by this definition. Prokaryotic lifeforms exchange DNA via transduction which is nothing else than what GMO does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria#DNA_transfer). And since bacteria constant most of the biomass on the Earth (iirc 70%) this method of procreation or exchange of DNA is more 'natural' than dimorphic sexual DNA transfer.
hannahbanana Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 However, there are cases where the answer is easy to come up with. If a crop is genetically modified to grow it's own pesticides, and we eat the plants, then we get all the pesticides too. We know pesticides in large amounts are not good for our bodies. With regular pesticides used in food growing, you can at least wash or peel some of them away before ingesting the foods. When the crops are growing their own pesticides, you can't do that, because it's not just on the outside, but in all parts of the plant, and in high concentrations. This is a big reason why I'm always cautious around the GMO issue, because most of the time the real science behind it is not understood, nor is it explained as the information is spread around. Genetically modified crops have "built in pesticides" which are actually proteins that disrupt the gut of insects that eat the plant. An insect's digestive system is much, MUCH more basic than the human stomach, which immediately and permanently destroys the protein, thus eliminating any capability of affecting humans. However, @tjt makes an interesting point about that potentially harming bees. But again, many GMOs have been made to either not produce pollen or to not open their flowers because people worry about cross-pollination and "superweeds." I'm not sure how many GMOs are like that, but that would prevent bees from eating pesticidal nectar. Anyway, I don't think that all objections of GMOs should just be thrown out the window, but it's important to know what the real dangers are. There is a LOT of fearmongering out there. But I think that it is good that there are at least people out there watching the effects of GMO, because if there was actually a GMO that managed to go through several stages of laboratory trial and still have a horribly negative effect, it would probably be exposed pretty quickly.
prolix Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 A quick agricultural history. I think the real danger is embedding Oil into the food supply...
Nathan H. Hoffner Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 The question isn't GMO corn vs regular corn. It's all bad for you. Should humans be eating grains at all? http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/#axzz369ie6OmE http://wellnessmama.com/575/how-grains-are-killing-you-slowly/
James Dean Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 The question isn't GMO corn vs regular corn. It's all bad for you. Should humans be eating grains at all? http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/#axzz369ie6OmE http://wellnessmama.com/575/how-grains-are-killing-you-slowly/ I'm sorry, those articles were so poorly researched and made laughable claims with nary a source to be cited. I get quite annoyed at the "your body is not designed to X" argument. Protip, your body is not 'designed' to do anything. The Human body adapts. Life adapts! Now I know the food pyramid is bullshit and it's basically a map of who sucks the government tit the hardest, but the people who so boldly and errantly claim that "grains are killing you" with pretty much no research to back it up just make me laugh. Especially where the author of one article claimed that gluten is a self defense mechanism of grains. Plants that have developed that defense strategy produce toxins that present negative symptoms immediately so that the creature that ate it has a negative reinforcement reaction and can connect it with that plant. LOL. It's like you have hemlock in one corner, which will totally disrupt the functioning of your central nervous system and gluten in the other corner can... well.... it makes you kinda tired sometimes.... and something about intestinal mucous.
TheAuger Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 "GMOs" are a terribly inaccurate term. Anything with two parents is "genetically modified" -- rDNA modifies and sequences random genes from both parents. DylanLawrenceMoore asserts another term, "GEO", which I'm okay with. However, the technical term that has been used in interviews I've conducted with plant scientists and agronomists at Iowa State University (probably the world's leading institution doing this type of research) used to discuss plants that have had genes of bacteria, animals, and other plants spliced into their genetic structure is "transgenic". I think its a more accurate term than GMO. As far as the safety of actually eating transgentic organisms, I'm still forming my opinions. Is this just the next step in agricultural technology like the steel tipped plow or crop rotation? Or are they being created to rewrite and patent and monetize the entire biosphere. Personally, my farm is all organic (what vegetable isn't), which means no herbicides and some naturally derived pesticide (pyganic) -- we use no "transgentic" seeds. Transgenetics are used mostly in corn, soy and cotton to keep them safe from glyphosate (RoundUp) applications. Here are a few interesting articles, especially the first one. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/ http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx
Nathan H. Hoffner Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 I'm sorry, those articles were so poorly researched and made laughable claims with nary a source to be cited. I get quite annoyed at the "your body is not designed to X" argument. Protip, your body is not 'designed' to do anything. The Human body adapts. Life adapts! Now I know the food pyramid is bullshit and it's basically a map of who sucks the government tit the hardest, but the people who so boldly and errantly claim that "grains are killing you" with pretty much no research to back it up just make me laugh. Especially where the author of one article claimed that gluten is a self defense mechanism of grains. Plants that have developed that defense strategy produce toxins that present negative symptoms immediately so that the creature that ate it has a negative reinforcement reaction and can connect it with that plant. LOL. It's like you have hemlock in one corner, which will totally disrupt the functioning of your central nervous system and gluten in the other corner can... well.... it makes you kinda tired sometimes.... and something about intestinal mucous. What claimes were "laughable"? These books have tons of information.. http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609614798/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404759619&sr=8-1&keywords=wheat+belly http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Body-Mind-Beyond-Health/dp/1594774137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404759699&sr=8-1&keywords=primal+body+primal+mind
James Dean Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 What claimes were "laughable"? These books have tons of information.. http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609614798/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404759619&sr=8-1&keywords=wheat+belly http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Body-Mind-Beyond-Health/dp/1594774137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404759699&sr=8-1&keywords=primal+body+primal+mind I'm not arguing that those books have tons of information, just that the information is all false.
Recommended Posts