Poll: GM food.... wait.... what?

[Uszi]

Yeah, look at what we did to the banana:

This is a wild banana:

This is what we have selectively bred it to be:

There's obviously other examples, but I just love how different the banana has become when compared to its "wild" counterpart.

Or corn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teosinte

Corn is actually a great example of how harmless to human health[footnote]Objections to GMOs as doing significant ecological damage are bit better founded.[/footnote] GMOs are. 85% of the corn grown in the US is Genetically Modified. And, in the average American, 69% of the carbon in your body came from corn[footnote]http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-22/health/kd.gupta.column_1_high-fructose-corn-syrup-corn-refiners-association-soybean-oil?_s=PM:HEALTH[/footnote]. The burgers you eat are made from cows that are fed genetically modified corn. The sweetening agent in your soda is made from genetically modified corn.

Fact of the matter is that most GMOs are modified for increased vitamin or mineral content, drought or temperature tolerance, etc. To think that getting more vitamins or eating corn that grew in slightly more arid conditions is going to some how give you cancer or some nonsense is pretty silly.

Though I haven't necessarily seen a study on the issue, my guess is that there is significant overlap in the demographics of people who are strongly opposed to GMOs and people who are also opposed to vaccinations, or people who are on all raw diets or who support homeopathic medicine.

Let me go ahead and mention that there is a valid criticism of GMOs, in that they can increase the damage we do to our environment. For instance, our corn based diet is widely criticized for being completely unsustainable, requiring us to destroy the environment to water, fertilize and spray the corn with pesticides. Genetically modifying corn without making it more sustainable ecologically is certainly bad. But you aren't less healthy as person eating GM corn than eating "natural" corn. Whatever natural corn is.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Snip

I'm actually on your side. I'm of the opinion that organic food is a scam to get idiots who'll blindly follow the advice of celebrates over scientists so that they'll pay more for an inferior product.

You know what I saw once? Organic water. How the hell does that work? It's WATER! H2O! How the hell can you get more organic than two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? Chances are that "organic" water has more crap in it if they're not using chemicals to purify it.

I honestly laughed when I saw that, I can't be the only one who thinks it's silly to have organic water. It's not too dissimilar to having organic air and I bet there's a huge market out for that if you can get Oprah or someone to appear on the commercials.

 

[Esotera]

Snip

Oh, awesome. I didn't know it's also possible to add in genes as well as alter/subtract them. This pretty much makes GM food a hell of a lot more useful in the long term.

Yeah, it makes it far more useful as a technique, although you can definitely alter/subtract as well. It's all a bit hit & miss though. Especially when I'm running the experiment.

Following on from your pretty good explanation of how a banana is selectively bred, here is how you would genetically modify an organism:

Normal mouse

Glow in the dark mouse!

I've used mice as it's by far the coolest example available. This mouse has had a gene from a fluorescent jellyfish added, so it glows in the dark, a trait which would be very unlikely to appear if you used selective breeding. These mice have all sorts of applications in research, and they're much harder to misplace than regular mice.

If you wanted to make a GM crop you'd just find a plant that was resistant to pesticides, isolate the gene, then splice it into your plant. Vitamin A in rice is a good example.

 

[Uszi]

You know what I saw once? Organic water. How the hell does that work? It's WATER! H2O! How the hell can you get more organic than two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? Chances are that "organic" water has more crap in it if they're not using chemicals to purify it.

I honestly laughed when I saw that, I can't be the only one who thinks it's silly to have organic water. It's not too dissimilar to having organic air and I bet there's a huge market out for that if you can get Oprah or someone to appear on the commercials.

Actually, it's impossible for H2O to be "organic" because it doesn't have any carbon in it. Unless their "organic" water is C2H6O, in which case get me some shot glasses.



/chemistry joke



Re-reading the thread, why did I even bother to post here when my sentiments were already perfectly expressed by someone else:

What the hell kind of idiots would do that? Goddamn hippy luddites, they need to use their brains ocasionally.

 

[SamBargeron]

People get freaked out by GM foods not realising that we;ve been doing it for generations...


Next time someone gets up in your face about GM food ask them if they eat carrots, then ask if they're purple. If they eat orange carrots they're GM foods.

GM foods doesn't mean pumped full of chemicals and terrible doom and gloom, it just means that they are grown in a controlled way.

Source [http://www.nextnature.net/2009/08/why-are-carrots-orange-it-is-political/]

THANK YOU!!! I was just about to make that point, but you beat me to it. Genetic modification is one of the first things we humans learned. Evidence suggests we were genetically engineering animals and crops through controlled breeding before we developed stone tools.

 

[Gitty101]

I cry for Humanity because people like this exist. I'm also amazed that what are essentially bored College/Uni Students managed to break into a research facility and access the projects. Surely a revamp of the security in place is needed?

 

[Ghengis John]

True point, but you don't destroy the screw and say it is evil because it isn't a nail.

When did I ever advise we do that? In fact:

I have nothing against genetically modified crops, but they need to be observed and carefully controlled to make sure there are no adverse side effects to the natural gene pool or to their environments before being deployed. The purpose of this lab was just that.

Does that sound like I advocate this destruction? Does it sound like I view genetically modified crops as evil? Perhaps that confuses you because I'm addressing the notion that genetic modification and selective breeding are the same thing? Maybe that makes you quick to assume I'm a torch wielding villager? I'm not. So if I'm not for destroying GM crops what am I for? What I'm for is intelligence and reason. I'm really disappointed with the number of people who don't know what they're talking about. Especially when they decry others as ignorant.

Actually you're supposed to hammer in a screw with a hammer and remove it with a screwdriver, it's a common practice among carpenters.

Two things. First of all: Supposed to? No. Not at all. I don't know how much carpentry you do but it has a tip and threads for a reason. My brother is a carpenter and has dragged me along on several jobs to help and I have never seen anyone do it. Ever. Of course that's around here. I've actually had other people point this out and they were all also British. So I assume this is a British thing. "Birmingham screwdriver" correct? The only problem for you is, the origin of this phrase was to mock the people of Birmingham for being dim and backwards. While these aren't my views, they hardly make for a convincing argument.

its a slang for hammer, somewhere along the line people from birmingham were considered...shall we say luddite-ish. Instead of screwing in a screw they'd say, "Sod it, get me a hammer"

A quick Google search will define the phrase as being indicative of or synonymous with stupidity. Of course I'm all for people learning things on their own so you're free to remove the screws from your favorite game controller and then, place them back in new spots with a hammer. Come back to me and let me know what you learn. Seriously though, it's a bad idea. You'll strip the threads and ruin whatever you're driving them into. Friendly word of advice: Don't do it.

Your analogy with screws and nails is a bit too simplistic to adequately represent the whole controversy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies]

It's not supposed to nor is it intended to be an indictment against GM crops (which I support). It's simply meant to highlight the fact that selective breeding and genetic modification are not one in the same.

And I'm not even sure it makes sense---is a screw really more "advanced" than a nail? And what does it matter that you use different tools for different hardware? You also don't use a screw driver to type on a keyboard or drive a golf ball. I don't follow your argument at all.

Medieval blacksmiths could make nails. I doubt they could machine screws.
Screws are the result of precision manufacturing and the advent of standardization and replaceable parts.
Yes a screw is more advanced than a nail.
As for the rest you are unbelievably dim.
I'm sorry. But trying to make you understand looks like it would take too long. If you want I'll try to explain the analogy in a series of PM's. But what I don't want is to derail the thread any further.

If anything your argument seems to appeal to some notion that living organisms can be divided into discreet categories based on intrinsic properties. Which doesn't really apply to living things,

No. Not what I was saying at all. But:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

Then what the fuck have biologists been doing all this time?!?

For instance, did you realize that broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and collard greens are all the same species of plant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea]?

Yes and despite how fantastically different they may look they have not incorporated genes from other plants or animals that could not be cross-bred. The ability to do so is the key difference between selective breeding and genetic modification. In addition any changes brought about through selective breeding, no matter how extreme they may appear can be undone by reversing the selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

Second thing:

Fundamentally speaking it is possible to say that genetic engineering as no different than selective breeding; at the most basic level this is fairly accurate, although both techniques are very different in how they achieve their results. With selective breeding, what you're doing is making sure that whatever species you're changing has the traits that you want them to have, genetic modification is just a more efficient and accurate method to achieve the same results.

No it's not. They are not the same thing nor is one simply a more "efficient" and accurate version of the other. This would assume that it was possible to inter-breed a potato and a bacterium or a tomato and a starfish in the first place. Which it is not. You are welcome to try of course. But no amount of mood music will provide you a tomato-starfish progeny.

THANK YOU! As a geneticist I HATE the purple carrot argument! Most GM crops are what's know as transgenic plants where we put the genes from one plant or animal into another, for example the pig you mentioned. I'm so frustrated at MovieBob for popularising the purple carrots thing, but I'm glad some other people on the Escapist understand

No problem. It is a delight to see someone else who understands the difference. Believe me. They seem to be very few in number and the number of people parroting the carrot thing is frustrating. Bob has helped to spread ignorance and I was really disappointed with him for never issuing a retraction.

Glow in the dark mouse!

That is incredibly bad-ass. I need one of those! Now!

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

It was not theirs to destroy. They were in the wrong completely. Friggin' Greenpeace...

 

[the_green_dragon]

Think of it this way: A nail and a screw are both fasteners. Yes? A screw is more advanced than a nail. Yes? Do you dive a nail with a screwdriver or a screw with a hammer? No. A nail is not a screw. A screw is not a nail. Anyone who tells you so is woefully misinformed.

Ever hear for a nylon wall anchor? You bash it in with a hammer then screw it in to make sure it's secure.

GM is kind of like that. Why light a fire with flint when they've invented the lighter.

 

[the_green_dragon]

Also, you seem a bit touchy about this whole subject, what with the massive wall of text above.

 

[KILGAZOR]

Since when the fuck does "GM" stand for "Genetically Modified"? And on a gaming forum, of all things. Please explain your obscure acronyms, especially when you're writing an OP.

 

[Superior Mind]

I remember covering this news story a week or so ago.

In my opinion I think concerns about GE food being unhealthy is bollocks. Humans have been genetically engineering food for centuries. Did you know the dominant colour of carrots used to be purple? The thing is now we're that much more efficient at it, what used to take generations of crops now takes only one generation. The fear is that this speed means safety checks haven't been done properly. Really though there's no reasons not to trust the CSIRO's judgement and I don't see how GM food is any more or less risky than any other food.

However a point raised by a Greenpeace rep in an interview caught my interest. She said that the funding for the CSIRO project could be linked back to Monsanto. This interested me due to the huge power Monsanto has over soybean crops. Monsanto engineered a soybean that was resistant to their pesticide product RoundUp. The crop became very popular but due to the patent they had on it, farmers were unable to save their seeds, a regular process in agriculture, and had to buy new seeds from Monsanto all the time so the company could keep making a profit. Any farmer found to be or even suspected of saving their seeds was sued and, due to the financial and legal power of Monsanto, lost every time. This is made worse due to the fact that because of cross-contamination, modified Monsanto soybeans were growing on farms that didn't opt to use them, meaning Monsanto could sue people for 'stealing' their product even if the farmer had no idea about it. This whole mess is outlined far more thoroughly in the documentary Food Inc. which is a good watch.

It would be awful if Monsanto got this same power with wheat crops. I don't think it's right for a corporation to have such control over such a staple food while financially crippling those who produce it. So yeah, if that's Greenpeace's angle then to a certain degree I support them.

But this isn't Greenpeace's angle. With them it's all about man vs. mother nature and fear campaigns about how GM food is unsafe. Sigh.

 

[Ghengis John]

Also, you seem a bit touchy about this whole subject, what with the massive wall of text above.

Eh I'm responding to multiple people. It's not one big rant but a series of small ones. I try to dignify everyone with a response who responds to me and (for the most part) nobody has annoyed me. Still trying to be reasonable, but I'm gonna be perfectly honest, I don't expect it will go over well. I have people telling me you're supposed to hammer in screws. That doesn't inspire confidence that tomorrow I'm not going to find an inbox full of face palms. But I'd like to say thanks for being reasonable yourself Green Dragon, and Alphonse all the way.

Though honestly, on the point of being touchy this purple carrot thing makes me want to cry. Honestly. I just read the post of the guy above me, it's like the 900th time I've seen it. People... sigh. Shame is he's perfectly right about Monsanto.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Fundamentally speaking it is possible to say that genetic engineering as no different than selective breeding; at the most basic level this is fairly accurate, although both techniques are very different in how they achieve their results. With selective breeding, what you're doing is making sure that whatever species you're changing has the traits that you want them to have, genetic modification is just a more efficient and accurate method to achieve the same results.

No it's not. They are not the same thing nor is one simply a more "efficient" and accurate version of the other. This would assume that it was possible to inter-breed a potato and a bacterium or a tomato and a starfish in the first place. Which it is not. You are welcome to try of course. But no amount of mood music will provide you a tomato-starfish progeny.

Forget the screwdriver thing, it's just something I heard on T.V. last night, I don't actually know if it's true or not.

As for it being more efficient, you'll notice I said "fundamentally speaking" in the beginning there, by this I mean "in the broadest sense possible" and in this sense there are parallels you can draw. I know they're not the same process, but they achieve the same goals; refinement of a species to suit a particular need. When I said that it more efficient I meant that as it is, it requires less "steps" to achieve the goal you're after and a lot less time, meaning you get less waste. Hence it is a more efficient process.

 

[Ghengis John]

Forget the screwdriver thing, it's just something I heard on T.V. last night, I don't actually know if it's true or not.

As for it being more efficient, you'll notice I said "fundamentally speaking" in the beginning there, by this I mean "in the broadest sense possible" and in this sense there are parallels you can draw. I know they're not the same process, but they achieve the same goals; refinement of a species to suit a particular need. When I said that it more efficient I meant that as it is, it requires less "steps" to achieve the goal you're after and a lot less time, meaning you get less waste. Hence it is a more efficient process.

As long as you're not going to tell me they're the same thing, we're cool. Same goal though, that I can agree with. That was in fact the whole point of the screw/nail analogy. Seems we're square now.

 

[Nouw]

Moviebob did an excellent video on this. A good amount of food we eat everyday are genetically modified.[sub]According to him anyway.[/sub]The orange carrot for example. That's a modification/mutation.

That aside, they had no right whatsoever to intrude and destroy the property of the facility. Just because they have different viewpoints, ideals and beliefs doesn't mean they're obligated to do something against the opposing people.

They were wrong since they destroyed something that doesn't belong to them.

At the very basics of this situation, this statement sums up why they were in the wrong.

 

[Zenkem]

This is about as smart as people opposing clean coal plants because they'd justify the use of coal. Wait, what was your agenda again?

 

[Ghengis John]

Moviebob did an excellent video on this. A good amount of food we eat everyday are genetically modified.[sub]According to him anyway.[/sub]The orange carrot for example. That's a modification/mutation

Movie bob didn't know Jack about what he was talking about. He characterized anyone with an opposing viewpoint as a medieval peasant, made several outright false statements and allegories and displayed a blind faith in science without considering the very real pitfalls involved with trans genic modification. It's a shame the escapist does not feature a counterpoint article. It's not like I disagree with him on the benefits of GM crops, but some of the arguments he used to defend them should be torn down to promote a proper and balanced understanding.

His video was tantamount to someone stating "global warming gives you Parkinson's disease". To promote an end to global warming. Good message, bad argument, massive ignorance.

 

[Nouw]

Snip

Thanks for clearing that up. So how good/bad is GM then?

 

[kasperbbs]

Greenpeace has nothing to do with peace apparently, they deserve some penis in their holes once they go to jail.