They are the focus of a lot of hysteria today. The name alone makes a chill run down most people’s spine. But my question is simply, are GMO’s necessarily a bad thing?
I know there is golden rice. I think that’s what it’s called. I don’t have a cite. But as I understand it, golden rice is preventing blindness in millions of poor people.
Then there is the argument that we have been fiddling with the genetic structure of plants and animals for thousands of years. We just went about it a different way, thru selective breeding and all that.
Finally, there is the argument that, like golden rice, genetically modified foods can save millions of lives. It can allow food to grow in harsh climates, where it never could before. And, like golden rice, it can increase the food value of many staple crops.
In short, what is wrong with GMO’s? I think they might be a good thing.
The major criticism of GMO’s is when the modification comes from a different organism. Golden rice uses a gene from the daffodil, and another one from a soil bacteria. There probably aren’t that many people allergic to daffodils, but at one point researchers tried to modify soybeans with a gene from the Brazil nut, and the result triggered a reaction from people allergic to Brazil nuts.
Supporters argue that GMO crops are tested before introduction to discover effects like that, but opponents are concerned that even if humans are safe, GMO’s could trigger unexpected reactions in wildlife or nearby plants, and also that GMO’s can can escape while still in the testing phase.
Well, among the many addressed issues,theres the fear that it will have adverse side effects , in either the human body or in nature. There was worry that gmos are genetically superior and can cause natural wildlife to be endangered if seeds blew along the wind. Another argument is that god’s creature are perfect and playing god is both wrong and unnatural. A third reason is because its plain weird. The arctic apple is spliced with a fish gene to prevent rotting. That is off putting to most people. I would provide sources but i am on mobile and am incapable at the moment.
Edit: Ninja’d again: (
In case people are too lazy to read that link, I want to make sure they know that it actually debunks the notion that GMOs are more likely than conventional foods to cause an allergic reaction.
I myself happen to be pro-GMO and I’ve stated so in some other threads on the subject, but I was trying to give the OP as unbiased answer to the question “What is wrong with GMOs,” as I could.
Another problem with modern agriculture is monoculture. Many modern crops are hybrids not unlike their animal counterparts - inbred and selected over and over for a few traits, until the genetic diversity of the crop is quite low. This makes them more susceptible to disease - if one plant / animal gets sick because it cannot effectively defend itself from a disease or parasite, then likely every other instance of that organism will also become infected. The effect is multiplied with GMO’s, where the selected trait is applied in the lab to an even smaller population, and then grown out to commercial quantities. A billion clones monopolizing our fields all highly susceptible to the same diseases or pests. What could possibly go wrong?
It doesn’t help that major agricultural companies (Monsanto?) are pushing these new crops as the ones to have, that they are designed to maximize profit so they also force out alternate genetic varieties by economic means as well as monopoly of supply… It doesn’t help that the genes are patented, and the supply contracts deny farmers the right to use these GMO crops as seed, but must rebuy the seed every year from the supplier.
Take a lesson from the Irish potato famine, where a very selected crop - imported form Peru to Ireland, so a very genetically similar crop - suddenly all the potato plants in Ireland turned to mush one year. Now imagine that was North America’s wheat or corn crop.
Most organisms have spent millennia fine-tuning their fit in the ecology that surrounds them. GMO’s are an experiment. We should proceed with caution.
To what extent to farmers save seed when they aren’t bound by a contract? I’m given to understand that it’s customary to buy new seed every year from suppliers, even for non-GMO crops.
Genetic modification is a tool. Like all tools, it can be used to do good things or bad things, or, more commonly, things that have both good and bad consequences. It’s ridiculous to condemn the tool for the things people choose to do with it.
As far as health goes, it may perhaps be worth pointing out that, to my knowledge, there has not been one single case of any human being anywhere ever being harmed by eating any GMO of any sort.
There are some legitimate concerns with some applications of the technology that need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but the fearmongery that’s going on over the concept as a whole is mostly just silly, in my opinion.
Most anti-GMO people are stupid. They’re railing against the results, which aren’t the problem. You could argue that the process has inherent risks, but then, not using genetic modification increases the risk of food shortages, which are no fun either.
I would say most of them aren’t even arguing against the results, so much as latching on to the fact that some of the big players like Monsanto are hard to defend even if you’re pro-GMO.
I just picked a handy link, having looked in the past, I’m sure there are better ones out there.
GM food products/supplements are not necessarily safe. Neither are they necessarily unsafe.
The types of safety problems that arise from GM products are not necessarily restricted to the same problems that arise from the application of more traditional breeding techniques. The Tryptophan disaster blindsided industry because it came from an unexpected side effect of GM on metabolism. That sort thing is likely to happen again, but a cautious approach to release into the human food supply can minimize any danger.
The difference between selective breeding of plants over hundreds of years and GMO is the timescale. Genetic modification is taking a plant on an evolutionary path which may never happen in the natural world.
Or the path could happen but take a million years. We can reduce that to five years but we cannot know the biosphere consequences. Or the human consequences.
Bear in mind that drugs are exhaustively tested then released to market and yet occasionally, later found to have unpleasant side-effects and are withdrawn.
Withdrawing a plant which has already been released into the environment isn’t so easy.
Funny, I made a thread about that and came up with nothing that could really be held against them.
As for GMOs, there’s extremely extensive safety testing, and virtually no research that indicates any harm, neither for particular crops currently on the market nor the process in general.
I don’t see where they have demonstrated that “genetic engineering” (of bacteria used to produce that particular tryptophan product) was responsible for the illness and deaths, as opposed to the demonstrated impurities caused by a flawed manufacturing process (including poor quality control/filtration). Note also that the site is feverishly anti-GMO and wants all GMO products recalled. This would presumably also include all insulin products made by genetically modified organisms.
I’m not so much worried about us poisoning/allergy-ing/whatever-ing ourselves with GMOs.
The only bit that worries me is the fact that they DO escape into the environment. There have been studies, and they do.
Here’s one article: it’s easy to find others. http://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517
So a GMO Rice (for example) will affect wild rices growing in the same area. Given that the GMO rice probably is more resistant to disease, more insect proof, etc. it could (not would, but could) take over the gene pool of the wild varieties, reducing their genetic variability and possibly making the wild rice tough enough to crowd out other competing wild species.
Look it up then. It’s all over the scientific journals. As I said, I just grabbed the first semi-decent link that popped up this morning. 37 dead isn’t chopped liver no matter how many hands you wave at it.
My problem with GMO corn and soybeans, for example, is that they are modified specifically to resist Roundup, an herbicide. This results in more Roundup being used.
There is also a little known practice of farmers spraying their crops with massive amounts of Roundup to promote “uniform dessication” right before harvest. When you’re growing GMO corn, it takes an even higher dose to get this result, so the FDA is quietly raising the amounts of residual glyphosphate allowed in our food.
I’m not against GMO corn, I’m against chowing down on herbicides with known health risks, just so Monsanto can sell more Roundup.
Most of the opposition to GMOs is based on argument from ignorance: If we don’t know precisely how much harm they’ll do, the argument goes, then we shouldn’t take the risk. But this is a flawed argument, since in focusing on what we don’t know, it ignores what we do know.
Let’s say, for example, that we have a new food crop. It’s tested for allergies and other potential negative side effects, and it’s found from the tests that statistically, between 100 and 1000 Bangladeshis would be expected to suffer negative side effects of one sort or another from it. That sounds bad, right? We don’t even know how many people it’ll hurt, and the error range on our estimate covers a whole order of magnitude! If you just focus on these numbers, this new crop looks terrible.
But suppose that we also know that this new crop, if grown in Bangladesh, would save a million people from death by starvation. This casts our uncertainty in a new light: The net number of people saved will be somewhere between 999,000 and 999,900, a much smaller range of error. And the range of error doesn’t even really matter: The important point is that, even in the worst-case assumptions, this new crop will definitely save more people than it costs. Put the numbers into context, and it becomes clear that this new crop is actually wonderful.
