But that’s not a problem limited to GMO crops. Virtually all commercial crops are grown from hybrids, and when you plant the same hybrid across a field, you run the risk of all of the crop being vulnerable to the same disease or insect. That’s what happened with the corn blight of 1968-1970, which spread rapidly when the corn seed companies tried a new cytoplasm and virtually disappeared when they switched back. GMO didn’t even exist back then.
So can you link to any peer-reviewed journal article that convincingly shows that the contaminants in this company’s products were caused by genetic modification?
Those who make the claims are required to furnish the evidence. It’s all over the Straight Dope. 
From one of the most recent papers in the Pub Med database dealing with the eosinophilia-myalgia outbreak associated with consumption of a Japanese tryptophan supplement:
“The pathobiological basis of EMS remains unknown. Epidemiologic studies…implicated L-TRP to a single manufacturer, and quantitative analyses of EBT (contaminant and suspected causative agent) suffered from methodological limitations. EBT was just one of more than 60 minor impurities detected in implicated L-TRP, six of which were associated with EMS. One of these, 3-(phenylamino)alanine (PAA), shares chemical properties with 3-(N-phenylamino)-1,2-propanediol (PAP) that was implicated in the 1981 Spanish toxic oil syndrome (TOS) epidemic linked to consumption of aniline-denatured rapeseed oil…Although the 1989 EMS epidemic was linked to ingestion of L-TRP originating from a single Japanese manufacturer, the precise identity of the causative agent of EMS remains unknown.”
The article cites a new case of EMS thought to be caused by a tryptophan supplement made by another manufacturer, and notes that there are non-tryptophan causes of the syndrome. There’s nothing there blaming genetic modification technology. I have gone back 15 years through the Pub Med database without finding any articles that have 1) proven that a particular contaminant compound was the cause of EMS, or 2) demonstrated that the appearance of such a contaminant was due to genetic engineering technology.
Such claims do seem to be made by multiple Internet sources. Curiously enough, what they have in common is fervent opposition to GMOs but not much in the way of evidence-based arguments.
Do you have a cite for that? I seem to remember someone pointing out in the last thread that the opposite is actually true.
Another reason why GMOs are bad is political and economic.
There are big Pharma companies out there who would like every farmer in every country to pay a subscription to use their their patented brand of infertile GMO seed.
Funnily enough, many farmers are none too keen on this and many governments are not happy about having the producers of their food supply dependent on the likes of Monsanto. :eek:
However…the argument that has traction in the public media is the one about public health and the environment. The international economic poker game between countries over intellectual property and strategic national interest…not so newsworthy, I think.
Looks like those are directions for handling the concentrated herbicide. Does this translate into making the harvested food unsafe?
The LD50 of Roundup in humans is measured in gallons. Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt.
First, you’re confusing “big Pharma” with Big Ag (i.e. Monsanto). Secondly, GMO seed is not infertile (how would there be controversy about farmers illegally saving GMO seed from crops if it was sterile?).
…which is why GMO seeds have sold so well. Huh? If farmers are keen on staying with conventionally bred crops, they’re free to do so.
“Public health” isn’t really an issue (given the lack of demonstrable health problems associated with GMOs since their use in agriculture began about two decades ago). Unless you’re talking about golden rice, which has potential to be extremely valuable for public health (providing enough vitamin A to prevent millions of children from going blind and dying). There are environmental questions regarding GMOs, though the same ones apply to agriculture in general.
We’d be a lot better off if GMO seeds were sterile, since then there would be no risk of the traits spreading to weeds and so forth. (There’s not a big risk now, but there would be none if the seeds were sterile). Unfortunately, while the idea of making GM seeds sterile was floated back in the 1990s, and the technology certainly exists, some people raised a big hue and cry over the idea, so it was dropped. For reasons that are entirely unclear to me.
That is one point on which we can all agree.
Virtually all our food we eat has been genetically modified over the last 10,000 years, mostly in a hit and miss way and never tested. Why are peanut allergies so common and so deadly?
I wanted to make some points though in favor of GMOs. First things like putting a fish gene into a tomato sound weird, but aren’t. A fish gene is not a fish. It is just a gene for making a certain protein. If that particular protein should happen to trigger an allergy, it is an allergy to that protein and it is unlikely–though certainly possible–that people allergic to fish will be allergic to that particular protein. Second, most GMOs will be less able to compete with wild organisms. Nearly all of our genetically modified crops cannot even propogate in the wild. Have you ever seen a wild broccoli in the woods? Thirdly, it is entirely possible for a wild tomato precursor to get a gene from a fish. Viruses move genes around unrelated organisms all the time. Finally, if you compare our “human” genes with those of, say, a broccoli or a truffle, you will that we share a lot of genes. Because we share a lot of proteins. We all use the same genetic code, use the same amino acids, etc.
The hue and cry over infertile Terminator seed was because it would give Big Ag companies a monopoly over the supply of their patented seed sensitive to their patented herbicide. That control would allow them to apply control over supply far beyond the remit of international agreements on intellectual property.
The nightmare was of major US corporations holding the food producing parts of the world to ransom. Monsanto spooked the global market for seeds from the start and it became a serious political issue for many countries. I guess you could regard it as an ‘anti trust’ issue.
Big Ag companies in the US managed to ensure they got the best hearing in the debate over GMO. They did not do so well in the rest of the world. There has been a propaganda war going on both sides for a couple of decades now.
Like any technology GMO is neither good nor bad. It depends on how wisely it is applied and the intentions.
People argue over the science and health, but really the issue is money and politics and patents.
The planet has 7 billion humans, and the population is still growing. The number of people is already unsustainably large. Overpopulation has adverse consequences for humans, for other lifeforms, and even for the long-term health of the earth’s biosphere.
Let me repeat that: Overpopulation is a very major problem.
Many pooh-pooh the idea. “I was there when they prattled about overpopulation fifty years ago. Got the T-shirt! Wrong then, wrong now. Ha ha ha.”
But “they” aren’t wrong. Overpopulation is a major problem; refusal to accept that leads to vicious cycles of ignorance:
“Feeding so many humans is difficult.”
– Balderdash! Advanced technologies, e.g. Frankenstein foods, help us feed people!
“But Frankenstein foods pose their own risks.”
- Oh? So you want billions to starve, hunh?
Let me go on record as not supporting starvation. But the idea that we should pursue any technology that helps us increase an already over-bloated population is misconceived. If we’re “painting ourselves into a corner” by overzealous exploitation of technology, maybe we should consider resting our paintbrushes and focusing on a bigger picture.
Thank you. The usual answer to complaints about manipulating nature is that man has been doing it for thousands of years; “In for a dime in for a dollar.” Or how about “Bite off a fingernail, might as well chop off a leg.”
And BTW, fighting ignorance about the G.M. 8,000 years ago, studies have shown that the ancient hunter-gatherer diet was healthier than the mixed-farming diet, past or present.
Well, there’s good news and bad news about that. The good news is that the rapid increase in the world population of humans seems to have been caused by the industrial revolution but once we’ve gotten past the transition, population is finally beginning to stabilize. The total number of human babies being born each year leveled out a quarter century ago. It’s highly likely that we’ll peak at 11 billion and won’t go any higher than that. The bad news is that you’re probably right that 11 is way too high. Even if each of those people have a very small ecological footprint, it’s just too damned big when you multiply it by 11 billion.
I agree. Even IF it turns out that GMOs are 100% beneficial and harmless, with no unintended consequences, the mere fact that it promotes population growth should be enough of a reason to dislike it. Add in the fact that GMOs promote monoculture and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. And that’s even assuming that they DON’T have dangerous side effects which we haven’t had time to identify yet.
Imagine you have ten mice in a cage. Every day you put in enough food for ten mice. Come back in a year, how many mice will there be? Ten. Keep putting in enough food for ten mice and the actual population will hover around ten mice. But suppose you are a malicious, cruel, sadistic bastard who actually wants to see lots of starvation. What strategy would maximize your cruelty? Gradually increase the food in the cage to feed 20 mice, then 40, then 80, then 160, then 320, until the mice are so overcrowded that they are wallowing in their own filth, and then abruptly go back to only giving them enough food for 10 mice. Watch 310 mice die of starvation almost overnight.
Mechanized agriculture doesn’t cure starvation. It helps to create the conditions which make starvation more deadly, when the system fails.
Well said.
If you take a close look at the herbicides that have largely been supplanted by glyphosate, you’d get down on your knees and pray for thanks.
Atrazine persists in the soilfar longer than glyphosate, long enough to get into the water table, and can disrupt aquatic ecosystems.
Alachlor was found to cause tumors in lab animalsand also got into the water table.
2,4-D can cause acute symptoms in people who handle it, potential liver damage, and cancer in lab animals.
Sulfonylurea herbicides, in addition to being tricky to formulate and handle, tend to lose their effectiveness after only a few years, limiting their usefulness.
All things considered, glyphosate is relatively benign.
You do realize what’s been happening to global fertility rates, right?
Outside Africa and certain parts of northern India and some Muslim countries (not all), overpopulation is an issue that’s essentially been solved. Much of Africa still has severe population issues, as do a few of the most backwards Indian states, but I think the chances are fairly good they’ll get their fertility rates under control too. There are serious environmental problems in the world today, but controlling our birth rates is actually a problem that we’ve mostly solved. In many countries, particularly in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, we’ve solved it too well, and countries are now trying to raise their birth rates to a more sustainable level.
As for hunter gatherer lifestyles: well, yes, when you have very few people and a lot of wildlife running around, you can afford to have everyone eat a relatively high protein diet. Hunter gatherer lifestyles could not support very many people, though, which is why hunter-gatherer population densities are usually pretty low. While primitive hunter-gatherers might have been better nourished than most premodern farmers, I strongly doubt they were better nourished than the average citizen of an industrialized country today.
You’re calling for people to starve to death as a proper response to overpopulation?
Let’s work on the overpopulation problem in humane ways, while at the same time trying to feed the people we have.
Whoever said this should spend a few days in an African village and see how people feed themselves without access to fertilizers, pesticides, tractors or modern improved varieties.
Africa (outside a few highly productive areas like the great lakes) is an especially tough place to do preindustrial agriculture because of nutrient-poor soils, difficulties with maintaining draft animals, the tropical climate, and other issues, but one of the great advantages of mechanized agriculture is it allows you to grow food in areas which might not, otherwise, be ideally suited for highly productive agriculture.
Exactly. But…
Depends on the variety of the base for the original hybrid - if a few fields of crops were crossed to produce this new variety, that’s better that “all of these seeds are descendants of a single plant from a single GMO modification of a single seed.”
Plus, even if a crop is a regular hybrid, the two source plants have come from real-world organisms, that have existed and adapted to the world around them for centuries or millennia. Human intervention may have selected for traits, but the plant has adapted to the types of diseases and parasites an other adversities that are part of a normal life cycle. Take a GMO, which has had additional or substitute genes inserted - there’s no telling what critical pieces this new gene turns off or alters in the normal lifecycle of the plant.
The problem is, we’re not discussing a few fields or a part of a state. GMO’s allegedly have a significant advantage (or else, why bother?) and could end up being the default crop for the entire continent or the globe. The Irish Potato Famine was a warning - rely to heavily on a limited variety of a plant, and disaster may follow.
So the problem isn’t GMO or not, it’s putting all your eggs in one basket.
You also have to look at mortality.
Having only one child and that you can assume he/she will live to be an adult and carry-on is a fairly recent development in human history, mainly within the western/modernized parts of our world. Sadly, for countries like Africa and India and that region, there is a high incidence of mortality due to disease/famine/war. I would not be surprised if they have no expectation of their one and only child making it to adult-hood.
I also seem to recall that “we” have been on the brink of wide-spread famine before. Hence, the rice we now know is not the non-GMO rice we think it is. They altered the strain for the Indo-China area decades ago with a strain that had a higher yield in terms of kernel and nutrition. Same with corn, might not be the “super seed” or high-tech GMO we have today, but the corn we think is non-GMO was also engineered for yield and nutritional value. I think the real difference is that when the rice and corn were “made” it was given away for free. I will look this up to make sure I am not full of shit, but I’m pretty sure I’m mostly correct.