The Big Picture: Feeding Edge

[guntotingtomcat]

At last.
Thanks bob.
I am more concerned about pesticides harming the ecosystem, but that's different.
Congrats on a great segment!

 

[Espsychologist]

The problem with every word that came out of Bobbo's mouth today is twofold: reliability and validity. Unlike laboratory experimentation, which occurs (ideally) under controlled conditions that will have a negligible effect upon any outside environment, the genetically modified foods (and their new, arguably "superior" genes) are being introduced to unknown populations. While there have been several extensive studies performed on overall impact, it is infeasible to obtain data on every single interaction that every genetic alteration could possibly have. This is from where the so-called "unreasonable" and "ignorant" fear of many people stems: the very real possibility of an unforseen interaction of heretofore unrelated genes creating a very real threat in the form of a virus or a new bacterium or even an entirely formed brand-spanking-new multicellular organism. It only has to happen once to be a disaster. Contemplate that, I'll wait...

Sarcasm aside, when reliability (the ability of a process to deliver the same results with statistical consistency) and validity (the ability of a process to produce what it is attempting to produce) are both missing from studies that were supposed to be gauging the long-term effects of new genetic coding and altered organisms being introduced to the environment at-large, we have a problem in the making.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

the people at the escpaist don't seem to be crazy people. Glad to see Moviebob doing what I like most about the escapist, grabs controversy by the collar and beats it in a way that even Gene Hunt would cringe

 

[Dangerious P. Cats]

I'm going to put this out there but there is pretty seismic difference between selective breeding and direct generic engineering. Saying that one is the same as the other is kind of like saying that an assault rifle is the same in magnitude as a sword. They?re both killing devices, but one is a shit load more efficient than the other. In fact by exactly the same logic the use of DDT is fine because humans have employed methods of killing pets that eat their crops pretty much since farming began. The objection to GMO foods is based on scientific observation of both eco systems and trends in human activity. The problem is essentially that the sorts of traits that humans look for in a food crop are often those that are disastrous to eco systems. The ideal human food crop would be one that grows really quickly in poor soil and can only be eaten by humans (i.e kills/prevents eating by bacteria, insects and even bigger animals if possible) which sounds good but also means that introducing it into an eco-system would result in it spreading quickly and either out competing or killing all the native species. There is of course a solution to this, namely the terminator gene, but that has its own problems. When GMOs first became commercially available they were marketed as being able to solve third world hunger through increased food crops and were sold poor farmers, particularly in India. The issue is that with most farming the majority of seeds used in a harvest are taken from the previous year's harvest rather than paid for. Forcing farmers to buy seeds each year caused the costs of farming to sky rocket, removing any benefits you got from GMOs and in most cases making things worse. In fact if it wasn't for the tremendous profits that agri-business companies made off the sale of GMO crops they never would have survived as an option.

The other thing to keep in mind with selective breeding is that it's a lot slower than outright genetic engineering meaning that eco-systems typically have time to adapt, likewise the creatures it produces are vastly more dependent on humans to survive unlike GMOs. Selective breeding is comparably limited, but that's also what prevents it from being destructive.

I find it disingenuous, and to quite be frank insulting, that concern over GMOs is straw-manned as fear of science. Much of my concern like that of many people is drawn from scientific understanding of how specie?s behaviours affect eco-systems and a likewise precise understanding of how humans have interacted with eco-systems thus far.

 

[gravestake]

he has some strong points but he makes the whole concept sound flawless. I Know most of my food was enginered to be a certain way but the people who engienered it might not have know what was best. case in point, the pork industry. you remeber the slogan "the other white meat"? that was about pigs. pigs did not always produce mostly white meat, they were breed to have extreamly high muscle content. and yes this was all done through selective breeding, so a guy in a lab dosent even come into play. most pigs develope this high muscle content but never move outside a pen thats just a little bigger than there bodies. the most exercise they get is the 20 foot walk to the truck that ships them off to the slaughterhouse. they can actually strain there heart so much by using these muscles for the first time that the die of heart attacks on that little walk. there are tons of other thigs i dont want to dive into like there imune systems are shot because there imunity has been breed away, and that the pork industry decided that the pink meat (the way pigs used to be) actually tastes better. If anyone is interested, look up the last episode of the first season of "this american life" its where i got most this information.

there are tons of potential problems with turning traits on and off in a lab as well. the thing i would be most worried about is mutation. not really a problem when you alter plants, but there could be a huge problem when done to live stock. i honestly didnt understand enough of the information to relay it faithfully so i will summerize the part i know. if the genetic code is altered there is and increased chance that the DNA will mutate much quicker and in unknown ways from what happens normally in the corse of the organisms life. your cells replicate billions of times within your life but the body has ways to regulate mutation. it isnt perfect either, diseases like cancer and lukemia result from mutation. if we say genetically enginered all our cows in the next generation with the same gene manipulation, and that manipulation caused most of the cows to die. there might be an extreamly small percentage that didnt die but still mutated and can harm other things. like what if cows suddenly didnt show signs of mad cow (to be honest though im not entierly sure what eating beff that had mad cow would do to you, i just know they wipe out entire farms to get rid of it so people dont eat tainted beef.) that is all extreamly dummed down of course and it is a worse case scenario. but you have to plan for the worst when you are doing something that way you can be perpared.

i however am hopefull for a future of enginered food. it be great if they could make tomatoes taste like choclate but be two times as healty the the current produce. and i know there is no way to stop this trend (since, like bob said, it was like the first thing we learned how to do). im just cautious of people's tendancy to over do it.

 

[Exort]

I thought the problem was how they engineer the food. They switch on and off the trait by using modfiered virus. In other word, they are basicly blindly injecting the gene into the foods DNA, and hope it goes in the right place, and what people are afraid is the gene go in the wrong place and cause something crazy.

 

[Little Duck]

Also, without this, there would currently be no such thing as a tomato. Wait crap, TOMATO ROBOTS!?

What has science done?!

I'm curious, what's your view on America's healthcare?

 

[Little Duck]

I thought the problem was how they engineer the food. They switch on and off the trait by using modfiered virus. In other word, they are basicly blindly injecting the gene into the foods DNA, and hope it goes in the right place, and what people are afraid is the gene go in the wrong place and cause something crazy.

They know more or less what the gene is and what it does and when it is injected it replaces the other gene. Unless they say, got a genome from a completely different species i.e. got antlers from a moose and stuck it in a lion, they're not doing what you think they're doing. Although, that would be awesome.

 

[vulkman]

I,m not worried as long as my potatoes dont gnaw my face off

You should be worried about your potatoes causing cancer or containing allergenes because no one bothered to test them, cause they're just potatoes, right? Right?? I mean, c'mon, it's just like breeding, except we're doing something that NO ONE IN 150.000 YEARS OF HUMAN HISTORY HAS DONE BEFORE. No big deal. Right? And no, it's NOT the same as breeding, I have no idea who the FUCK told you that...

People mocked the anti-nuclear movement. Until Chernobyl.
People thought pharmaceuticals were safe. Until Thalidomide.
People thought, smoking was safe. Until the 1980s. Or until they got lung cancer.
People think GMO's are safe. Until...?

There are so many examples in history where the risks of certain practices first became evident after a relatively long period of time.

I'm not saying that it should under no circumstances be done, but to claim that any criticism is just paranoia and that it is no different from breeding, is not only wrong but dangerous.

 

[GeorgW]

Yeah, the only problem is companies like Monsanto... Watch the documentary about it (I forget the name, but it's all on youtube) and then say GE is all good. I love the idea of GE, it's just the damn companies doing it I don't like. But yeah, if it isn't filled with bugs and crap, it's heavily modified. If it is, it's just a little old school GE. Everything is. I could talk about this for hours, but let's just summarize by saying that too much GE only for the purpose of profit is really, REALLY, bad.
But now I want a purple carrot

 

[Mikael Sanfors]

What a load of bull. Selective breeding is NOT genetic engineering.

Turning genes on or off may have far broader impact than just changing the colour or any other aspect of just one vegetable. It may make it more resistance to disease, it may allow the crop to grow in a colder or hotter environment, it may do all kinds of things. The point is, turning on or off genes doesn?t change just one thing. It can have far reaching implications and effects on the environment in which the modified crop grows. Say, making a certain crop able to grow somewhere it wasn't able to grow may have implications on plants that DO grow there in the first place. It can affect the insects that feeds on its nectar, it may affect plants on which its pollen are transmitted (cross breeding of engineered crops to natural ones). And do you really think all those side effects are screened before they were allowed to be grown? Do you think introducing new species in a strange environment is a good idea?

I think you should stick to movies, Bob. You?re good at that.

 

[Adventurer2626]

/stamp of approval We science folk do good stuff every once in a while

 

[malestrithe]

The REAL problem is that this testing is not done, and the FDA does not even require biotech firms to tell them if their food is genetically modified.

That's because the Food and Drug administration is only concern with restaurants, grocery stores, and pharmaceutical companies.

The FDA does not monitor food out in the field or in the slaughterhouse. The organization that covers all of that is the United States Department of Agriculture.

 

[Urh]

Oh, and another axe I have to grind. Those who think that GM crops are going to solve food supply problems all on their own commonly fail to take one important thing into consideration - our actual methods of agriculture. We're still (in my opinion) overly dependent upon the old-school method of growing things out of the ground. It's served us great for thousands of years, but unfortunately arable land is a limited (and dwindling) resource. Soon we're going to have to bite the bullet and move on to things such as industrial-scale hydroponic farming and in-vitro meat. In my opinion these are going to do a hell of a lot more to put food in mouths than genetic engineering.

 

[lukeator]

Yeah, totally agree with Bob here. I can't see why so many people are opposed to GM foods. It's really just an extension to what farmers have been doing for thousands of years. I can understand their caution in regards to it being a fairly new technology, but not to the extent that they actually hold it back.

 

[C_Topher]

Too many of you are claiming the real concern about GM foods are the "hybrid" foods, saying that because these couldn't have occured naturally the human body may react to it. Really? You all do realize that all genes do is code for proteins, right? Transgenic organisms (the proper term for these hybrids) just make proteins from both species, proteins that DO occur in nature. Eating transgenic food is no different from eating both parent species at the same time and shouldn't cause a reaction unless you're already prone to react to one of the parent species.
Also, this technically isn't a new technology. Since the 1960's, most of the world's insulin is produced by incorperating the human insulin gene into E. coli bacteria using similar techniques to those used to make GM foods. We've been doing this for 50 years, people. The only difference is now we're using it outside the medical field. While there are a few remaining kinks to be worked out (as with all science), the there is little to no reason to be worried about ANY GM food. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to eat my lunch.

 

[Tharwen]

Defibrillation is designed to stop people's hearts to give them a chance to start in regular rhythm. It doesn't bring anything to life.

Otherwise, you make fantastic points that I wish more people would understand.

 

[k-ossuburb]

This is pretty much what I've been saying for years, ever since the first scare came around and the whole "organic food" movement came in to overcharge us for stuff that's actually worse quality than it's genetically engineered counterpart. It falls right in with my tired old argument (for me at least) that bottled water is a scam, much like organic food. You know what I saw once? Organic water.

Yeah, let me repeat that again: ORGANIC WATER.

What the hell is the difference between regular water and so-called "organic water"? Maybe it's got more minerals (read: impurities) in it or a lower amount of chlorine (used to keep it from growing fur when it comes in contact with sunlight). Water is one of the most abundant compounds on the planet and it has a very simple makeup: 1 part hydrogen to 2 parts oxygen, that's it, how can you get any more "organic" than that?

The bottom line is that this is an obvious attempt to combine two scams into one, by using the word "organic" so that idiotic sheeple who'll believe anything people tell them will think it has some kind of magical properties that will stave off cancer or make them instantly drop fifteen pounds.

It's water, dude, if you want "organic" water, just stick a glass outside the next time it rains.

Don't let them scare you into paying more for something that has absolutely [a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23725592-organic-food-no-healthier-blow.do"]no healthy advantage over the GM stuff, they're pretty much exactly the same in terms of how "good" they are for you.[/a] (random website from Google, the research isn't that hard to track down, but there are other sources on the bottom of that article if you need further convincing).

Organic food is a scam brought on by the first GM food scare, it's only purpose is to make you pay more for an inferior product that has a higher chance of having defects, parasites and feces either inside it or on its outer surface. It will also decompose faster and waste more of your money when you're forced to throw it away. Don't be fooled, it really is a scam.

 

[drisky]

I've actually written several papers on this issue and honestly Bob is vastly over oversimplifying it. As other commenters have said the concern isn't taste, its speed and quantity. The people doing the engineering in labs is mostly Monsanto, the friendly bunch that brought you agent orange. There already in a lot of trouble in the agricultural business for the malevolent defects in bovine growth hormones, which was widely untested before being released to the public. The biggest engineered product right now is canola, and its getting close to all of it being artificially created, all without being tested. On top of the fact that there crushing all competitors in the agricultural business, a misstep with some kind negative effect attached to the desired one is already integrated into the wild life by the time we find out. Considering Monsanto's track record, a little worry isn't unjustified.

 

[Diligent]

Thank you!
Though you might be preaching to the choir a bit here. I fear a good chunk of your target audience for this one is probably too busy shunning all technology, and therefore don't have a computer, and are busy living in a hippie commune spending their time not bathing because of the chemicals in soap and shampoo and hypocritically smoking pot loaded with chemicals by the growers.

Can you tell I've had my fill of hippies in my lifetime? I've had this argument with them on a 1 of me vs. 10 of them level and it also branched off into the idea (scam) that "organic foods" are better for you too. Reading this makes me feel like the world is not totally insane, so again: THANK YOU!