Genetically modified food

[Tiger Sora]

Send all complaints to the Monsanto Company. They control 90% of the GM seeds in the US and most of the world. They've done alot of good feeding people with higher yield crops. But all the pesticides they make are poisoning the land and water. They have a terrible track record of environmental damage. They use child labor in India.

It's against company policy to keep GM seed you bought and didn't use over to next year. They send inspectors and if they find out they'll never sell to you again.

Than theres that the crops don't make seeds, and aren't diverse. So if something happened. The crops could collapse.

So they do some good and alot of bad. But were stuck with them. What can ya do. *Shrugs*.

 

[SciMal]

What does the escapist think of genetically modified food? Can anyone come up with legitimate arguements against it?

I'm mostly fine with it. There are a few worrying findings I've read from various studies, but overall I'd say 90% of GM crops are safe.

Oh, and to be consistent here, officially "Genetically Modified" excludes purpose-bred variants that haven't had their DNA directly modified via some vector. This means that thing which took a few centuries to properly cultivate into the form we know today are excluded.

The thing is that none of the stuff that changes the DNA is present in the plant; one seed was changed and then cultivated. It can't pose any risk to your health that eating either of the two sources of DNA don't cause already.

This is pretty much it. Genetic modification is usually done via a viral vector that's endocytosed into the cells of the organism and comes pre-loaded with retroviral capabilities. Once the foreign code is inserted into the host DNA, only chance mutations are going to get it out.

While foreign DNA does enter human cells, proteosomes, mRNAs, APOBEC, and other mechanisms usually degrade it very, very quickly. The production of unpredicted proteins poses more of a threat (in my opinion, at least) than the incorporation of genetically modified DNA into human cells.

Typically they don't even use chemicals to create genetic diversity, they use radiation, which is arguably safer.

While the logic works for Mass Effect, biological diversity (again, at least in my experience) is never created via radiation.

It's done via viral vectors, host cells, and plating. Want something that's going to survive cold temperatures? Find something that already does, find what protein(s) causes the effect, manufacture the DNA to create that protein - complete with Primer, Enhancers, etc. - stick it in your viral vector, manipulate the cells of your seed to accept the vector, stick it in a very cold room, and see which ones grow best.

Radiation, while it would create diversity, is very unpredictable, and would result in impractical amounts of work. You're literally dealing with 1 in 1,000,000,000's worth of chances (if that high, depending on the organism).

Not worth it.

The thing that annoys me is that being anti GM seems to be generally lumped in with other concerns that could be described as "green issues", things like climate change, recycling, renewable energy etc.

I think it was initially because the vast majority of fertilizers a while back were petroleum-based, essentially byproducts of gasoline and diesel production. I don't know the particulars of the process, but I do agree that the correlation is unwarranted.

It just bothers me that people link organic food with being healthy, it's not, if anything it's more likely to be unhealthy as it has no protection against pests or diseases, yet people spend 50% extra to buy a product that's apparently healthy because it's not protected from pests. Also Organic food is not going to solve world hunger, there's too much waste when harvested. In my mind GM food, is the better option

No to your first bit, yes to your second.

Organic food is healthier. It cultivates a better soil environment, which translates into increased phytonutrient and vitamin content for most fruits and some vegetables. The rule of thumb I've been using is, "The more colorful it is, the more nutritious it is, and the more an organic version benefits over the standard." Blueberries, Strawberries, Tomatoes, etc. have all been studied and shown to provide better nutrition and higher soil sustainability than their conventional counterparts.

That said, Organic farming will not save the world or eliminate hunger. For most crops, it's simply more intensive to get to harvest, and when paired with non-GM strains, there simply isn't enough viable farmland in the world (even if you chop down all the trees) to feed everybody.

One good example is bananas. Organic bananas (the kind we eat, at least) have to be grown between certain altitudes and in a place with a certain amount of rainfall to be produced. They cost about $0.30/lb more because the areas where you can organically grow bananas are slim pickings compared to those where you can conventionally grow them.

So, yes, while it's healthier, it will never be able to feed seven billion people.

Then again, my personal view is that the human population has been too large for a while to be sustainable in any fashion (much less grow), and as Global Climate Change really starts to crank up over the next little while, we're going to see a massive clash over resources and subsequent drop in population.

Most species which suddenly outgrow their resources don't have a nice, soft bell-curve to sustainability. It's usually a pretty steep drop to populations well below sustainable, and then a slow curve back up again.

The real risk is in driving ecology toward homogeneity. Lets say you could make a "super rice" crop which had 3x yield and was resistant to all known rice diseases. The problem would be that one day, one disease would find a way to kill your crop. Then you have lost ALL of your rice. That would cause you issues.

and

Leaving aside the possible health issues. GM crops have very resitrictive legal terms.

...are the big reasons why I don't buy GM crops.

The first has (and is, if you've heard about the Roundup corn debacle going on) already happened. The big, big, big problem with GM crops is that they are the majority crops being produced on farms. Once the disease/pest has adapted (usually by an over-eager farmer planting too much of the crop, or over-eager company saying you can plant too much), not only are your old crops SOL, so's the GM one.

That, and the trademarking of GM crops - combined with the legal actions taken by corporations like Monsanto against something as completely uncontrollable as having a few rapeseeds get blown off a truck as it passes by another farm - is why I can't support GM crops.

As long as DNA sequences can become trademarked, I can't openly support it. It's ridiculous, and really opens up the doors to potential shitholes. Medicinal gene therapy is on the rise. Say some research lab creates a gene that maintains the poly-adenylation on our DNA better than our current version. Let's suppose (since there's correlation, but no proven causation) that this increases the lifespan of a healthy human by 30% and drastically improves collagen and skin maintenance, making you look 40 when you're 95.

It's a pharmaceutical company's wet dream as long as the US holds that DNA can be patented.

That's just a benign example. Say there's a chunk of DNA created which causes humans to pretty much never succumb to HIV or the flu... Something that actually saves lives.

Suddenly Gattaca seems pretty haunting and relevant.

3. Some plants have been modified to produce their own insecticide to repel predatory insects. However, there is a major concern that this insecticide isn't taken out of the food itself (and in actuality, it's not). The argument in favor of insecticide is based on two things: A. the insecticide is a protein which your body can break down, rendering it harmless. B. its found in such low quantities that you'd have to eat way more than you're able to be effected. However, some people have attributed an increase in birth defects and cancer to this practice.

4. Got Milk? If it's unorganic, what you're ACTUALLY drinking is a cocktail of pus, blood, antibiotics, hormones, bacteria, and milk. The hormones and unsanitary conditions most dairy cows are kept in make them prone to infectious diseases. To combat this, farmers pump cows full of antibiotics. However, it being an infection, the cows immune systems are still very active, and inflammation is a regularity. If you don't know, anything that goes into a mother finds its way to the mammary glands and thus the the milk. So all this lovely stuff is also in your drink. Proponents of the practice say that pasturization kills off/destroys all negative side effects. This is true. But it also destroy any of the original health from the milk. This is why Vitamin's A and D have to be ADDED to milk, even though they (and a host of other natural health supplements) are naturally found in milk (thus, again, you can see why the fact "it's not natural" is a valid argument).

The other numbers on your list I either agree with or don't know about. For these two, though...

#3 - Birth defects and cancers can be attributed to damn near everything under and including the sun.

I have yet to read a single, well-performed study that even correlates GM crops with either.

Most people who put up #3's argument usually don't have a thorough understanding of human Biology or BioChemistry.

Apple seeds have cyanide in them. Your body deals with it if you eat them. GM corn has a very specific insecticide in it, which is far less harmful than the cyanide due to the metabolic pathways involved.

#4 - Organic milk is still pasteurized, still contains trace amounts of other bodily fluids, and is still fortified with Vitmains A and D. "Organic" in this context refers to the minimal use of antibiotics (yes, they're still used, but in a different manner) and the lack of hormone therapies. The feed is also different, if I remember correctly.

There's actually very, very little benefit to organic milk over conventionally produced milk.

Also, I think you're confusing a lot of the Organic Milk arguments with Unpasteurized milk, which is illegal to sell in most states because it can easily harbor infections. Unpasteurized milk is more nutrient dense and not 'fortified' with A and D, but any infection that the cow gets which can enter the milk will be passed on to humans.





I'm a Science Major with degrees in Biology and Chemistry and an Emphasis in Organismal function. I've had hands on experience producing resistant strains of organisms, and my opinions are almost always based on well-performed studies. However, I'm not now, nor do I claim to be, omniscient. These are my opinions, and I don't being proven wrong.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Alas, I cant provide you with one. You know why? Because studies saying genetically modified food could be harmful are pretty much deleted in Europe.

Heres the thing: there is an agency that takes care of this in Europe. We have agencies for everything, after all. If you take a look at the list of present and past employees, one thing becomes quickly apparent: all of them either worked for a crop lab company beforehand, or moved there afterward. Enough said.

So no evidence exists because its all been "deleted" by a big brother secret cover up. I see. If they are deleted how do you know they exist? I feel this arguement isnt going to go anywhere. Ive WORKED AT SYNGENTA dammit. These people, fucking surprisingly, DONT WANT TO BLIND OR POISON YOU. And they wouldnt lie to get around the system just so they can. Ive worked with the scientists. If youd read my awesome biological explanation, the idea is to splice in genes that make the crop larger, or alter the protien structure so diseases cant infect it. None of this makes toxins. Not at all. Toxins are very very very specific protien chains that its pretty impossible to make by accident in gene splicing. The idea that "franken food" will poison or blind you is complete baseless falacy entertained by people who want to think, for some reason, that the government/agency is keeping everyone in the dark and only they have found the truth under the lies (as a random person) constructed by an apprently all powerfull censor.

GM food is the same food you eat, and have eaten, for a VERY long time. Its just the best bits of all the food have traded their best bits with eachother for the improvement of all. Do you REALLY think a company looking for money would make a product that KILLS OR DISABLES people that buy it? Unless its smoking or some shit? I mean cmon youre basically argueing people hate money.

GM is the way forward, and honestly mixing up some protien chains for favorable results doesnt do any harm. YOU my friend have protien mutations, every human does. Are you toxic now? Is ANYONE toxic? The plants have the same chance as you to be poisonous by having a gene splice as you are to be poisonous just by being born.

As long as DNA sequences can become trademarked, I can't openly support it. It's ridiculous, and really opens up the doors to potential shitholes. Medicinal gene therapy is on the rise. Say some research lab creates a gene that maintains the poly-adenylation on our DNA better than our current version. Let's suppose (since there's correlation, but no proven causation) that this increases the lifespan of a healthy human by 30% and drastically improves collagen and skin maintenance, making you look 40 when you're 95.

It's a pharmaceutical company's wet dream as long as the US holds that DNA can be patented.

That's just a benign example. Say there's a chunk of DNA created which causes humans to pretty much never succumb to HIV or the flu... Something that actually saves lives.

Suddenly Gattaca seems pretty haunting and relevant.

This is the real issue. This is a bit scary.

 

[MrScott]

I certainly have no problem with GM food. For example the genes of cows, sheep, pigs, ect changed by a far greater extent in the domestication of said animals than in all the changes made in recent decades added together by those pursuing GM foods. The same applies to crops despite the greater changes made in that field. (Pun not intended).

 

[spartan231490]

The problem is that no one really knows exactly what effects it has on the human body.

Countless studies have been dedicated to the subject. The ones stating it is harmless are usually financed by companies selling genetically modified food, while the ones stating it is harmful are typically financed by BIO companies. Go figure.

The ones not financed by either havent really come up with an answer yet. At least, thats what was going on the last time I really had a look at the subject...

^This.

There's just no conclusive proof what effect these things have, and I for one don't really want something in mass production when it's effects on the body are still unclear. For one thing, there's no way we can know the long term effects because it hasn't been around long enough for us to see what happens to a person who lives on the stuff for 30 years.
Also, you need to clarify what you mean by GM foods. GM can refer to selective breeding, or to manually altering the genes of the organism. I have no issue at all with the first, with the second, there just isn't enough data for me to support it yet. That said, I'm not really opposed, just cautious.

 

[Killertje]

There is always a chance that a gene that makes the food grow faster or bigger or makes it resistant to poisons gets absorbed by insects or bacteria which would screw up the entire ecosystem.\

But that's not how genes work....at all.
No, seriously. If you think that is any way viable I seriously urge you to stop studying whatever science field you're in.
DNA is actually very very fragile, and there really is no way any gene survives the digestive process, hell DNA can't exist alone inside a cell without being destroyed and you somehow think that not only will the DNA survive insanely harsh conditions in digestive systems but that gene will be somehow transported to the exact cells in which they could cause the feared effect. Once at the very specific site they would have to have some sort of mechanism to be uptaken into the cell. Once again the odds of the gene being digested in the cell is high. Then you would have to have some miracle where the DNA would be recognized and taken to the target's DNA...
You know what the process goes on, summary is...no.

I'm sorry, I meant viruses will steal the DNA of other organisms (like GM plants) and infect bacteria/insects/people with their (stolen) DNA. The chance of this is pretty small, but I doubt every GM farm makes sure they are completely sealed off from the outside world to prevent this from happening/spreading when it DOES happen. Also, where did you get the idea I said DNA is absorbed through the digestive tract?

 

[SciMal]

I'm sorry, I meant viruses will steal the DNA of other organisms (like GM plants) and infect bacteria/insects/people with their (stolen) DNA. The chance of this is pretty small, but I doubt every GM farm makes sure they are completely sealed off from the outside world to prevent this from happening/spreading when it DOES happen. Also, where did you get the idea I said DNA is absorbed through the digestive tract?

It doesn't work that way.

Co-opting the DNA of another cell is incredibly, incredibly rare. Most of the time there's simply a mutation which causes the virus to change its behavior. Viral DNA is usually very small because it has to fit inside the capsid, creating a length barrier - and lots of genes are thousands and thousands of nucleotides long, making them extremely difficult to "steal." Beyond that, viral DNA is rare - it's usually single-strand or double-strand RNA, meaning that somewhere along the line a malignant piece of DNA would have to get transcribed and then accosted.

Then there's the cellular defense mechanisms against virii. Most retroviruses either get eliminated by antibodies before they attach to cells, or enzymes inside the host cells chew up the foreign RNA/DNA/dsRNA before it has a chance to insert itself. If it does get to insert itself, then there are defense mechanisms that cause NK and B-cells to instigate phagocytosis.

Some notorious viruses - HIV, herpes, etc. - are able to avoid the immune system. However, the viruses used by researches are usually very, very fragile and specific. Most would simply die in the immune systems of animals (which plants practically lack).

The digestive tract is - by FAR - the most likely vector for infection. Particularly if you're talking about food products. It is the surface which is exposed to the most antigens with the potential for infection.

And finally, your initial point was just a case of misunderstanding. A chunk of DNA that makes salmon grow faster will rarely affect any other animal. The chances of inserted plant DNA finding its way into anything else besides a plant of the same species, while having any sort of effect, is so small it's not worth monitoring.

A bigger threat is adaptation by the target of the pesticides. That will happen millions of times faster and produce far more devastating results.

 

[BrassButtons]

The biggest problem with GM food is that the research done for a new "species" of crop isn't enough. The long term effects aren't studied at all because that would take 50 years or more.

Wouldn't this be equally true of non-GM foods?

There is always a chance that a gene that makes the food grow faster or bigger or makes it resistant to poisons gets absorbed by insects or bacteria which would screw up the entire ecosystem.

How likely is this to actually happen (assuming it's actually possible at all)? If the risk is extremely low, then should we bother worrying about it? Everything has risks, after all.

But hey, as long as we save more monies now, everything else is the problem of the next generation... right?

Over a billion lives have been saved with GM crops. There is a lot more at stake here than money.

 

[BrassButtons]

Double post.

 

[Rule Britannia]

I don't see a problem with it, if it says on the label that it's modified then fair's fair. If I pick it or someone picks it off the shelf without reading the clearly stating label then too bad.

On another note I applaud genetically modifed food, they have the capability to remove allergens from the food thus removing any possibility of a reaction in a person occurring to the food.

 

[RatRace123]

I'm all for it.

As long as the foodbomination isn't poisonous and tastes comparable the original thing, I say let's do it.

 

[Sethzard]

Given as our food has been genetically modified through selective breeding for centuries I don't get the problem. The things which change the genetic code aren't present in the food we eat so I don't get the problem.

 

[lunavixen]

Sure you can, there's these places they have called 'farms' where they constantly plant crops in the same area.

I'm a rural girl we used to own an orchard, so don't treat me like i'm three please, it only makes you look silly

If you're stupid enough to constantly plant the same crop repeatedly in the same area, yes. However crop rotation has a very important place in modern industrial agricultural, and unlike oldey timey crop rotation now they do it backed up with Science. Some of the farmers I know have 8 year crop plans based on the soil composition of their fields and what nutrients various crop types take and return to the soil. Soil science is serious business with farmers.

(Don't get me started on rice, it doesn't end well)

I know about crop rotation, i'm a farm girl, but most farmers have paddocks that they leave to regenerate over time by not planting anything, but still using fertilizer, it allows soil to recover quicker, especially if the soil was not great quality to start with (eg, sand based or clay based, they have poor nutrient capabilities). Intensely using the same areas of soil, regardless of how you rotate the crops, will still degrade the soil over time, rotating crops merely slows down the degredation, it doesn't stop it.

And yeah, i know how bad rice is to soil (all take no give)

Or we could genetically engineer people to have more efficient digestive systems! Or give people chlorophyl so they can photosynthesise! There's a real Green revolution for you.

you can't engineer people (physically you can but thats not what i mean), there are so many laws prohibiting the genetic modification of people (no i am not going to post the laws because it varies from country to country), that's why stuff like stem cell research is so controversial. Plants do not have status as sentient beings (capable of thought, feeling etc) which is why they can be experimented on and modified.

Right... so even though we have food surpluses today that aren't given to the starving masses except as aid,

yeah, because crops degrade after they are picked/harvested, some would likely not survive too well for being shipped halfway across the world, there is also politics involved with federal aid etc, not to mention shipped crops have to be screened for contaminants (insects, banned pesticides etc.) why do you think you can't take fruit cross state in Australia? Because that's how things like fruit flies and fire ants spread. The GM SEEDS could be shipped overseas for sustainable farming (i'm not saying it's likely, but it IS possible)

 

[Kittynugget]

The problem with GMO foods is less with the food itself and more with it's implementation. It was a huge mistake to allow private corporations to patent life. Before this was possible, most genetic modification was done by PUBLIC universities and research centers which meant farmers could just go by a local university and pick up desired GM seeds with little to no cost. Anyone could use anyone's seeds freely. We need to go back to the old system, but it will be difficult when Monsanto is so entrenched in the government.
Another thing I would like to see is labeling of GM food. Just a simple rectangle with the letters GM inscribed in it on the back of all GM food. I am a firm believer that consumers should have the right to know what they put in their body: good, bad, or neutral.

 

[natster43]

I see nothing wrong with it, but since I am bad at typing out my thoughts, watch this.

Genetically modified crops don't bother me at all. I think Moviebob did a show on "Franken Food." Instead of years of pollinating plants, letting them grow and pollinating them again, scientists just go in and change the genes themselves instead of waiting for nature to do it. Or something along those lines.

Also this.

 

[manic_depressive13]

yeah, because crops degrade after they are picked/harvested, some would likely not survive too well for being shipped halfway across the world, there is also politics involved with federal aid etc, not to mention shipped crops have to be screened for contaminants (insects, banned pesticides etc.) why do you think you can't take fruit cross state in Australia? Because that's how things like fruit flies and fire ants spread. The GM SEEDS could be shipped overseas for sustainable farming (i'm not saying it's likely, but it IS possible)

Crops are shipped halfway across the world all the damn time. You've mention several times that you're a farm girl. Then you'd know there are all sorts of fruits that we can buy all year long that don't actually grow in our part of the world all year long, and in fact may not grow in our part of the world at all. Just because you can't carry fruit at customs doesn't mean we don't import a huge amount of food, so I don't see what your point is.

World hunger isn't an issue of not being able to produce or effectively distribute enough food. It's an issue with capitalism. We have nothing to gain by feeding the masses in poor countries. Farmers destroy their own crops all the time, not because there's anything wrong with them, but because selling them just wouldn't be profitable. Let's examine things at a smaller scale, closer to home. Why do you think there are still poor and homeless people, even though we live in a wealthy country? Is it because there isn't enough to go around? I'll give you a clue: No, it fucking isn't. We haven't ended world hunger- not because we can't, but because we don't want to. People don't want to work for free, and they sure as fuck don't want to work for other people.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

I have said only this one thing when it comes to food-related discussions, and I think it could have some validity here...I don't care where the food came from or how its prepared, if it tastes good, I'm gonna eat it.