Genetically Modified Organisms [GMO]

[k33g]

I searched for similar topic and only found a 6 month old debate regarding Obama's stance on the issue so I thought I'd reintroduce it. I'll try to keep an objective viewpoint at least for my OP. For those of you who don't know what a GMO is, heres a few helpful links:

 

 

 

Monsanto website : http://www.monsanto.com/pages/default.aspx

^ These guys provide the genetically modified seeds to farmers to grow.

 

If you're really interested in understanding the dynamics of this, watch this movie: (Definitely biased)

http://geneticroulettemovie.com/

 

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

 

 

 

 

It's estimated that over 90% of the food consumed in the United States contains a genetically modified ingredient, a number that has been growing since they were first approved by the USDA in the 80's. A majority of those I talk to don't exactly know what a GMO really is, but have at least heard of the idea before. Pretty amazing if you ask me, no matter the effect on our bodies I feel we should at least be educated about how our food is grown.

 

I'm really curious to hear from those outside the US. I've heard all GMOs are labeled in stores in the EU, how does that effect consumer spending?

 

I will post some more of my personal opinions after I get some responses from the community.

[K^2]

It's a great thing. What people often don't realize is that a lot of the genetic modifications in our food are to increase pest resistance, which reduces amount of pesticides dumped on the fields. While it's something that should be treated carefully, in principle, GMO foods can be, and usually are, a lot healthier than their non-modified varieties.

 

Labeling would probably be a good idea, but unfortunately, there is too much irrational paranoia concerning GMO. For the moment, if giving GMO a better chance in our markets means allowing it to go unlabeled, that's an acceptable sacrifice. I hope we'll get over that eventually.

 

I'm all for strict control of allowed genetic modifications by the FDA or equivalent agency, though. The idea that GMO foods will somehow make you into a mutant are absurd. But there are some dangers. Genetic modification can result in new toxins being produced by otherwise edible foods. In principle, you can even produce some prions that can result in very long-term health effects. That last one is incredibly unlikely, but better safe, etc. Most of the risks are pretty minor, and we'd be able to detect the problems before there are any serious side effects in the population.

 

 

 

On a sillier note, few people know that in the States, you can go to your local Wal-Mart and buy genetically engineered aquarium fish. Available pretty much everywhere except Cali, where they have some laws against it.

[RoadRunner71]

I can only think about the monopolization of the genetically modified seeds by the multinationals.

[k33g]

It's a great thing. What people often don't realize is that a lot of the genetic modifications in our food are to increase pest resistance, which reduces amount of pesticides dumped on the fields. While it's something that should be treated carefully, in principle, GMO foods can be, and usually are, a lot healthier than their non-modified varieties.

 

Labeling would probably be a good idea, but unfortunately, there is too much irrational paranoia concerning GMO. For the moment, if giving GMO a better chance in our markets means allowing it to go unlabeled, that's an acceptable sacrifice. I hope we'll get over that eventually.

 

I'm all for strict control of allowed genetic modifications by the FDA or equivalent agency, though. The idea that GMO foods will somehow make you into a mutant are absurd. But there are some dangers. Genetic modification can result in new toxins being produced by otherwise edible foods. In principle, you can even produce some prions that can result in very long-term health effects. That last one is incredibly unlikely, but better safe, etc. Most of the risks are pretty minor, and we'd be able to detect the problems before there are any serious side effects in the population.

 

 

 

On a sillier note, few people know that in the States, you can go to your local Wal-Mart and buy genetically engineered aquarium fish. Available pretty much everywhere except Cali, where they have some laws against it.

In theory, I agree with just about everything you said. However, I respectfully disagree with a few points you made. I'll respond to them individually:

 

 

 

It's a great thing. What people often don't realize is that a lot of the genetic modifications in our food are to increase pest resistance, which reduces amount of pesticides dumped on the fields.

The majority of these seeds are actually pesticide resistant, not pest resistant (hence Round-up Ready crops), which means stronger pesticides can be sprayed on them. Many scientists believe there's a chance of these plants "mutating" (in the most scientific of terms) to resist these new pesticides over time, as they're now encoded into the genetics of the plant.

 

 

 

While it's something that should be treated carefully, in principle, GMO foods can be, and usually are, a lot healthier than their non-modified varieties.

I'm curious how you're measuring the difference in healthiness between GMO and non-GMO foods; nutrients?

 

 

 

The idea that GMO foods will somehow make you into a mutant are absurd.

Completely agree with what you're saying here. Having attended conferences on the subject where plenty of nut jobs (from both sides) show up, I've heard some straight up ridiculous claims about the effects GMOs will have on us. Ranging from mass extinction due to sterility, to GMOs being the first step to a NWO. Some crazies out there.

 

 

I'm all for strict control of allowed genetic modifications by the FDA or equivalent agency, though.

Yup, the problem here is both the FDA and USDA have so many corporate ties (talking senior officers, advisers to past presidents) that it's hard to believe they're not making decisions based on their companies profit. (similar to Cheney and Halliburton, but that's an entirely different discussion)

[GrandMaster Smith]

I personally think it's too high risk for us to dive into GMO's and sell them without labeling them for those who wish to avoid them.

 

We've only just began learning about DNA over the past some decades and there's still much for us to learn. Very recently we've only just discovered DNA is actually a dual code written into one, meaning if you genetically modify a gene for a specified purpose you're also tampering with the second code that controls that gene which could cause all sorts of issues. Not to mention 3 month timeframes to test if the food is safe on rats is nowhere near realistic or representative of what a lifetime of GMO's could do.

 

- http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/dual-use-codons-point-to-second-genetic-code/81249255/

 

We know too little imo to be tampering the genes of our food at this time, I believe people who buy food have every single right to know what it is they're actually buying and by all means should be able to avoid it if they don't want to be a guinea pig, not tricked into eating it by not labeling what it really is.

 

Not to mention every GMO food I've tasted in contrast to organic food taste like sh*t.

[K^2]

The majority of these seeds are actually pesticide resistant, not pest resistant (hence Round-up Ready crops), which means stronger pesticides can be sprayed on them. Many scientists believe there's a chance of these plants "mutating" (in the most scientific of terms) to resist these new pesticides over time, as they're now encoded into the genetics of the plant.

Pest resistance is always preferred over pesticide resistance. Pesticides cost money too. So is spraying them. But even pesticide resistance can be beneficial to consumer.

 

 

I'm curious how you're measuring the difference in healthiness between GMO and non-GMO foods; nutrients?

You can make them more nutritious, but I don't know how much is being done with that. Usually, it's just higher yield, which doesn't make any difference to end consumer. A kilo of rice is a kilo of rice.

 

But there are other things that add up. Pest resistance means fewer pesticides. Pesticide resistance, typically, means the plant is better at getting rid of the pesticide. Higher yields also mean that you get less pesticide and other pollution per the amount of food you are going to eat. All in all, you get more food, and less chemicals.

 

There are also some indirect benefits. We use a lot of machinery to grow our food. Growing more food from the same land means less CO2 has been emitted to produce that food.

 

 

Yup, the problem here is both the FDA and USDA have so many corporate ties (talking senior officers, advisers to past presidents) that it's hard to believe they're not making decisions based on their companies profit. (similar to Cheney and Halliburton, but that's an entirely different discussion)

If FDA becomes too corrupt, we'll have major problems with pharma long before we need to worry about GMO. One could make an argument that we're already there, but that still doesn't make it a problem with GMO.

 

 

Very recently we've only just discovered DNA is actually a dual code written into one, meaning if you genetically modify a gene for a specified purpose you're also tampering with the second code that controls that gene which could cause all sorts of issues.

This is completely wrong. I don't know where you're getting it from, but you've got confused on something. DNA is only transcribed in one direction. There are situations where a single section of DNA can be expressed in different ways, corresponding to multiple genes, but this is not something you are going to mess up with genetic modification.

[sivispacem]

People seem to forger that we've been engaging in genetic engineering for probably the best part of 5,000 years. The entire concept of basic agriculture and of raising livestock for sustenance is basically genetic engineering; its just it can be done with significantly more precision now. Selective and mutation breeding area, after all, simply less precise genetic engineering.

 

My biggest gripe with it is the business practice's of Monsanto and the patenting of genetic material. They've effectively developed a monopoly by crushing smaller bespoke providers with litigation and using underhand tactics to ensured that their product is practically the only one on the market.

 

Like K^2, I believe that in an ideal world labeling is beneficial for the purposes of enhancing consumers choice. However I also agree that unscientific fear-mongering ground the issue means that the informed choice cannot take place currently. The amount of utterly incomprehensible bilge spewed forth from various elements of anti-GM crowd sadly precludes any intelligent and widespread public discussion on the subject. The claims surrounding things like horizontal gene transfer- no more prevalent or empirically dangerous in GMO than other organisms- are particularly laughable. A lower rate of transfers than background, several scientific studies conducted that show absolutely no elevated risk and yet the anti-GMO community jump on it like it's news of the impending apocalypse.

[Killerdude]

Organic stuff tastes like Soil and Rot, This GMO Food tastes like food, and lasts a lot longer than Non-GMO stuff.

 

For Example, Growing up, I used to live next to an old Italian couple, They grew their own Cucumbers, They were pretty good, But they always tasted like they had gone bad and they were very small. Compared to the Store bought stuff, which tasted fresh and were quite large, It was strange.

 

So if GMO means more, Bigger, Tastier and Healthier food...

 

Let there be Genetically Modified everything!

[MarshalMoo]

K^2, please share your sources that state genetically engineered crop planting decreases pesticide use. The data on this has been mostly unavailable, from what I've seen. For example: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err162.aspx#.U5mPIY1dVhc

Please see page 13.

 

Eleven studies showed decreases, but there were about 30 studies listed. Most within a few years of when genetically engineered crops were first commercially available to growers (1994 for herbicide resistant soybeans, for example.)

 

The pests and plants that are also becoming resistant to the pesticides have encouraged growers to make what some call cocktails of pesticides, mixes to kill the unwanted species. That, or new pesticide resistant crops are developed that use stronger pesticides.

As a side note, biotechnology companies ditched the term genetic modification or genetically modified organisms for reasons illustrated by sivispacem. You're less scoffed at if you use "genetic engineering," Biosciences or you could be more specific and use terms like, transgenic, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation and recombinant DNA technology.

[k33g]

Organic stuff tastes like Soil and Rot, This GMO Food tastes like food, and lasts a lot longer than Non-GMO stuff.

 

For Example, Growing up, I used to live next to an old Italian couple, They grew their own Cucumbers, They were pretty good, But they always tasted like they had gone bad and they were very small. Compared to the Store bought stuff, which tasted fresh and were quite large, It was strange.

 

So if GMO means more, Bigger, Tastier and Healthier food...

 

Let there be Genetically Modified everything!

I don't think you should base that decision off your neighbors garden from when you were a kid. Yeah, home-grown gardens don't always produce the most efficient, best looking food, that doesn't necessarily mean better food. But I do agree, GMO grown foods often look bigger and more uniform than your organic counterpart.

My biggest gripe with it is the business practice's of Monsanto and the patenting of genetic material. They've effectively developed a monopoly by crushing smaller bespoke providers with litigation and using underhand tactics to ensured that their product is practically the only one on the market.

Yes, this is what it all boils down to for me. I was on the fence regarding this issue for the longest time, as there's scarce credible studies for both short-term and long-term effects. But just looking at the businesses practices of Monsanto, it's clear they're not the company we want controlling our food supply. After all, they're responsible for chemicals like Agent Orange. The worst damage they're doing IMO is essentially ruining organic farmers financially through cross-pollination, a very natural and fundamental part of agriculture. They can actually sue organic farmers for patent fraud if GMO seed from a neighboring field gets carried over to their crop by the wind or a bee. Gotta hand it to em, pretty smart. But completely unethical.

 

 

People seem to forger that we've been engaging in genetic engineering for probably the best part of 5,000 years. The entire concept of basic agriculture and of raising livestock for sustenance is basically genetic engineering; its just it can be done with significantly more precision now. Selective and mutation breeding area, after all, simply less precise genetic engineering.

Selective breeding, however, is a completely natural instinct: Keep the organism that performs better to maintain those results in the future. This can be done on a farm, by a farmer.

Genetic engineering, is done in a lab, literally taking genes from one organism and combining it with genes from a completely different organism. I'm not saying it's at all dangerous, but I can not seem to find a definitive study that says it's not.

 

What I'm really concerned about in regards to the effects on our body is not how GMOs effect us, but how these pesticides effect us. Someone else mentioned how these crops are becoming pesticide resistant, resulting in a greater quantity of stronger chemicals being dumped on them. If these crops really are becoming resistant to these poisons, the pesticide must be encoded in their DNA (hence their adaptation to it). That would mean these pesticides get passed on to us when we eat them. I'm not saying this IS happening, just some concerns I'm expressing.

 

Just woke up so I'm keeping it short

[sivispacem]

After all, they're responsible for chemicals like Agent Orange.

Well, yes and no. ICI in the UK developed the herbicide blend of 50:50 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and it was first used by the UK government during the Malayan Emergency. Monsanto licensed the process for production of this blend from ICI for use in Agency Orange and of 2,4,5-T more widely for use in some of the other Rainbow herbicides (people seem to forget that Agent Orange wasn't the only herbicide used by the US in Vietnam that contained large quantities of Tetradioxin) and it was used militarily because the precedent was already set for its legal use in warfare by the UK in Malaya. The TCDD contamination from the process was known by ICI by the late 1950s but it was the official line of the British government that the stuff was harmless.

 

 

Selective breeding, however, is a completely natural instinct: Keep the organism that performs better to maintain those results in the future. This can be done on a farm, by a farmer.

I think I get what you're trying to say here but the characteristics that might be seen as beneficial in selective breeding aren't necessarily seen as such from an evolutionary point of view. The underlying principle is the same.

[RedDagger]

The worst damage they're doing IMO is essentially ruining organic farmers financially through cross-pollination, a very natural and fundamental part of agriculture. They can actually sue organic farmers for patent fraud if GMO seed from a neighboring field gets carried over to their crop by the wind or a bee. Gotta hand it to em, pretty smart. But completely unethical.

 

I'm not too sure about this, and for a few reasons. Cross pollination isn't going to make a non-GMO field significantly affected by a GMO field nearby - sure, some cross-pollination may happen, but even then not to the scale where Monsanto would have to sue the farmer. For this, I haven't seen any cases where a farmer is sued because a few of their crops contain patented gene tech - only in cases where a large amount of the crop is affected. Also, if a stray plant or hundred do manage to get the genes, then a farmer can't accidentally over time get a large portion of their crops with the traits - they'd have to, say deliberately selectively breed for the GMO traits.

 

And personally, I'm fine with the patenting stuff.

[The Pizza Delivery Guy]

I think we need GMO foods for the better of humanity, and I will explain through my well-thought-out post of the month.

 

If food and other things for that matter can be genetically modified to be larger, tastier, and even healthier, there's no reason at all not to at least try it for a few years and see where it goes. Sure if there's a wicked deadly poison created by the modifications then I imagine the people behind the modifications would have discovered and neutralized that problem before public purchase. I say this because it would be a crime against humanity not to. And if it needs to be labeled I see no problem with labeling it.

[k33g]

 

The worst damage they're doing IMO is essentially ruining organic farmers financially through cross-pollination, a very natural and fundamental part of agriculture. They can actually sue organic farmers for patent fraud if GMO seed from a neighboring field gets carried over to their crop by the wind or a bee. Gotta hand it to em, pretty smart. But completely unethical.

 

I'm not too sure about this, and for a few reasons. Cross pollination isn't going to make a non-GMO field significantly affected by a GMO field nearby - sure, some cross-pollination may happen, but even then not to the scale where Monsanto would have to sue the farmer. For this, I haven't seen any cases where a farmer is sued because a few of their crops contain patented gene tech - only in cases where a large amount of the crop is affected. Also, if a stray plant or hundred do manage to get the genes, then a farmer can't accidentally over time get a large portion of their crops with the traits - they'd have to, say deliberately selectively breed for the GMO traits.

 

And personally, I'm fine with the patenting stuff.

 

Yeah, I can see now how my post was a little misleading. Sorry, I had just woken up haha. It's true, Monsanto usually won't take legal action if traces of GMO are found in the field. The damage is done when these organic farmers lose their organic certification due to the contamination.

 

But non-GMO fields can be affected more than you think, especially since GMO seeds are so widespread these days. I've talked to organic farmers who have GMO fields surrounding them in every direction and they sound pretty worried about it.

 

I'm not gonna pretend to know the science behind cross-pollination, however. It's really hard to gauge this issue with all the misinformation on the subject, coming from both sides.

[LibertyKing]

If I know what I'm eating has been approved by highly qualified and educated scientists and government officials, then I know what I'm eating is good for me. I'm OK with GMO and I don't really care if my food was genetically modified or not, if it's good for me of course. And if this makes me an ignorant person, then I guess I'm an ignorant person.

[theadmiral]

I remember the last time we did this, it was pretty good. Obama still hasn't followed through on his promise to label all GMO foods "Because Americans need to know what is in their food."

[k33g]

I remember the last time we did this, it was pretty good. Obama still hasn't followed through on his promise to label all GMO foods "Because Americans need to know what is in their food."

He's actually been subtly helping the biotech industry grow while everyone else has been debating about gun control and gay marriage lol. On mobile now, will post some links later when it get home.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

I remember the last time we did this, it was pretty good. Obama still hasn't followed through on his promise to label all GMO foods "Because Americans need to know what is in their food."

He's actually been subtly helping the biotech industry grow while everyone else has been debating about gun control and gay marriage lol. On mobile now, will post some links later when it get home.

 

 

Iirc Obama appointed the Vice President of Monsanto to senior adviser of the FDA. LOL What a joke..

[sivispacem]

He wasn't Vice President of Monsanto, but Vice President of public policy at Monsanto. Subtle but important difference. There's a clear conflict of interest in the former but not one in the latter given he has (had?) no vested interest in Monsanto. Hence the inquiry into the possible conflict of interest concluding there was none.

[El Dildo]

Subtle but important difference.

sh*t, I dunno man.

you're now assuming that Grand Master is actually capable of comprehending such nuance.

 

risky business.

[GrandMaster Smith]

He wasn't Vice President of Monsanto, but Vice President of public policy at Monsanto. Subtle but important difference. There's a clear conflict of interest in the former but not one in the latter given he has (had?) no vested interest in Monsanto. Hence the inquiry into the possible conflict of interest concluding there was none.

 

 

haha

 

[Tyler]

There are also some indirect benefits. We use a lot of machinery to grow our food. Growing more food from the same land means less CO2 has been emitted to produce that food.

 

This is among the best reasons to support GMOs. The agricultural sector puts a tremendous strain on water and air pollution. If there's any way we can lessen the amount of waste produced in making our food then we should figure out how best to proceed and do it. GMOs present a viable solution to waste in farming practices as well as yields high enough to support the current demand for food that the US deals with. If we were to say, categorically eliminate GMOs out of fear for their harmful effects, we would also be losing a tremendous possible stock to support our growing population.

 

The main issue I can see with the industry right now is who owns most of it: Monsanto. They're not a necessarily evil company but they've become a pretty apparent monopoly in the agricultural and genetic engineering sectors. Most farmers in the areas I've lived and worked with [mid-Kansas] are forced into long-term contracts with Monsanto for subsidized seed and the problem is that the company abuses seed patent laws to sue any farmer who doesn't opt into their payments. It's an easy thing to lose track of-- the wind can blow a handful of seeds over to a farmer's land and then they germinate in the soil and from that point on Monsanto, with full federal support, can sue the farmer. This is a problem that goes beyond the single company, though. And more importantly: this is a problem that is not related to GMOs. It's about bad business practices.

[sivispacem]

 

 

He wasn't Vice President of Monsanto, but Vice President of public policy at Monsanto. Subtle but important difference. There's a clear conflict of interest in the former but not one in the latter given he has (had?) no vested interest in Monsanto. Hence the inquiry into the possible conflict of interest concluding there was none.

 

haha

 

And the fact that a large number of direct and indirect employees of government agencies have historically worked for one of the largest companies in the US is proof of what, exactly? The only person it appears at all surprising to is you.

 

You could say pretty much exactly the sane about any Fortune 500 company.

[RedDagger]

the company abuses seed patent laws to sue any farmer who doesn't opt into their payments. It's an easy thing to lose track of-- the wind can blow a handful of seeds over to a farmer's land and then they germinate in the soil and from that point on Monsanto, with full federal support, can sue the farmer. This is a problem that goes beyond the single company, though. And more importantly: this is a problem that is not related to GMOs. It's about bad business practices.

 

 

Yeah, no. See my reply above.

 

One thing to consider is that a group of people attempted to sue Monsanto for doing just that.

The case got thrown out because there was no evidence at all of Monsanto actually doing this - Monsanto has sued when a farmer has deliberately used the seeds in one way or another in a way that affects a large amount of their crop, without permission, but I haven't seen a case like what you stated.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

 

He wasn't Vice President of Monsanto, but Vice President of public policy at Monsanto. Subtle but important difference. There's a clear conflict of interest in the former but not one in the latter given he has (had?) no vested interest in Monsanto. Hence the inquiry into the possible conflict of interest concluding there was none.

 

haha

 

And the fact that a large number of direct and indirect employees of government agencies have historically worked for one of the largest companies in the US is proof of what, exactly? The only person it appears at all surprising to is you.

 

You could say pretty much exactly the sane about any Fortune 500 company.

 

 

You really don't see what's wrong with this, do you?

[k33g]

 

 

He wasn't Vice President of Monsanto, but Vice President of public policy at Monsanto. Subtle but important difference. There's a clear conflict of interest in the former but not one in the latter given he has (had?) no vested interest in Monsanto. Hence the inquiry into the possible conflict of interest concluding there was none.

 

haha

 

 

And the fact that a large number of direct and indirect employees of government agencies have historically worked for one of the largest companies in the US is proof of what, exactly? The only person it appears at all surprising to is you.

 

You could say pretty much exactly the sane about any Fortune 500 company.

 

 

Well, it's no secret to most people that the government has plenty of corporate ties, hell you could argue our government is a corporation. But the reason this correlation is unsettling is because a company that has a monopoly on the seed industry shouldn't be "self-regulating", which is essentially what they're doing when the entire senior staff of the FDA owns stock in the company and are former employees...

 

Just my opinion though, maybe you see it differently.

[sivispacem]

 

 

 

 

He wasn't Vice President of Monsanto, but Vice President of public policy at Monsanto. Subtle but important difference. There's a clear conflict of interest in the former but not one in the latter given he has (had?) no vested interest in Monsanto. Hence the inquiry into the possible conflict of interest concluding there was none.

 

haha

 

And the fact that a large number of direct and indirect employees of government agencies have historically worked for one of the largest companies in the US is proof of what, exactly? The only person it appears at all surprising to is you.

 

You could say pretty much exactly the sane about any Fortune 500 company.

 

You really don't see what's wrong with this, do you?

I don't see what's so unique about Monsanto in this example, given you could say the same about General Dynamics or Lehman Bros or McKinsey. The fact that lobbyists and senior members of Fortune 500 companies often become politicians or advisers is hardly a secret.