What irks me is when people go on about genetically modified foods. Realistically, what is wrong with them? If someone can create a crop that takes up half as much space to produce the same yield, uses less water, is naturally pest resistant… etc etc surely it is better?? World hunger could be better addressed, there would be less land clearing in the world, and the foods produced would be Better for people, rather than harmful. I find it incredibly ignorant when people go on about ‘playing god’ by ‘genetic engineering’ - as if we haven’t been doing it for Thousands of Years!!! Selectively breeding has created hundreds of types of dogs, cattle, cats… its just the method that has changed.
Sure, it’s better… as long as they find that there are no other risks involved. Remember Olestra? Nutrasweet? Supposedly, they can increase the risk of developing cancer. It’s a little bit of give-and-take… sometimes, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I agree that the objectives Harlequin lays out are good ones, though the press would have us believe that making food crops more resistant to pests means that rice is about to take over the world and enslave us.
BUT… I think that GM companies’ attempts to make crops that are sterile (meaning that the farmers will have to continue buying ssed from these companies) is wrong. Scientifically, I would be worried about what effects these will have on surrounding plants. But, more importantly, it seems to me to be morally wrong for a drug company to be able to dictate to a thrid world farmer exactly what seed he will buy, and at what price.
However, that the principle of GM is fine, and certainly no different from the slower process we have been following since man first set up a farm. It just needs controls, that’s all.
That is the argument the press uses against GM foods. The thing is, Olestra and Nutrasweet may increase the chances of cancer, but many other man-made things don’t.
[list=1]
[li]genetic modification is not the same as selective breeding, in that it allows you to do things that would be completely impossible by ordinary breeding methods[/li][li]We discussed this in great depth here: Frankenfood[sup][/li](and incidentally in that thread, you can see me make a classic arse of myself by wading in without sufficient facts to back up my opinion)[/sup]
[li]Does Opal like GM? who knows?[/li][/list=1]
Cheers Mangetout - this has been done to death before, so I’ll keep my 1.4 pence worth to myself. Besides, I am unsure what I think about this topic, so I’ll only end up hopping from one side of the fence to the other.
It is lucky there are old timers like you to keep an eye out.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sirjamesp *
BUT… I think that GM companies’ attempts to make crops that are sterile (meaning that the farmers will have to continue buying ssed from these companies) is wrong. Scientifically, I would be worried about what effects these will have on surrounding plants. But, more importantly, it seems to me to be morally wrong for a drug company to be able to dictate to a thrid world farmer exactly what seed he will buy, and at what price.
QUOTE]
Making GM plants sterile is a good thing. The reason is so that the genetically superior plants can’t reproduce and displace the natural plants.
Do drug companies manufacture seed?
{This is the part that pisses me off) Seed companies can charge whatever price they want as long as its profitable. Third world farmers can buy whatever seed they can afford. If they can’t afford it, that’s too bad. Its called a free market.
yeah, we did the free market thing in the GM thread too; personally, I’m still not ready to start chanting the ‘free market is always good for everyone’ mantra.
You also have a problem with the new beneficial genes being transferred to non-beneficial plants (weeds). Having a pest resistant super-weed would not be good.
Huh? Genes don’t spread like bacteria, viruses, and parasites do. Did you mean that, say, dandelions could “catch” a gene from nearby GM corn plants? How did you mean for a gene to spread from a GM plant to a non-beneficial plant of a different species?
Also, what the heck does Olestra and Nurasweet have to do with genetically modified (GM) food? Why bring them up in an arguments about GM food? Olestra and Nutrasweet aren’t GM foods grown in a field – they are synthetic laboratory creations. GM food is no more synthetic than a Chihuahua is a synthetic wolf-like creature.
Personally, I think that agribusiness should swing for the fences in developing GM foods. Other than economic issues, I can see no reason not to do so. I tend to believe that the beginning and end of any fear-of-Frankenfood opinions is lack of knowledge about the science behind GM food.
All too true. Another thing to keep in mind is that genetic alteration is still in a relative infancy… of course they’re going to have a few flops before they hit big.
Works for me. I’ll quote a little here in case you still have trouble:
See if you can get the link to work. It lists further references and what not. The point is this danger does exist, and any discussion about GM foods must take it into consideration. I actually am a fan of GM foods, but I think the protocalls need to be real tough and more safeguards need to be put in place. Unintended consequenses can be a real bitch.
The thing is, many plants already have resistance to various diseases or insects. Sure, GM plants could transfer their genes to non-GM plants. But if this happens frequently, then it would happen with non-GM plants. We don’t typically see a great deal of trans-species gene transfer. And even if you do, it doesn’t create monster plants.
Well that depends on how you define monster. If you mean to say genetic-mystery-science-theater type of freak, then no, it aint gonna happen. But the possibility of a super-weed that would choke the valuable crops does exist. It must be considered. To take such a potentiality lightly is to invite disaster. Any attempts to grow GM foods outside the lab should have strict precautions to make sure such an event does not occur.
Fair enough, if you’re starving to death RIGHT NOW. For most folks, it’s not a choice beween GM and immediate starvation.
I’m all for the stuff myself, mind you, as long as everyone keeps a sense of perspective. I’m not afraid of apocolyptic cancer of super-weed scenarios, but I also realize that good old evolution will keep the bugs from getting too far behind the scientists, as far as pest resistence goes.
This is really a hard subject for me. I was afraid to open this topic, just because of my past history of (real-life) arguments on this very subject. BUT – A ray of light!
At least y’all are keeping to the actual facts. Everyone I’ve argued with so far has thought the food would actually be harmful to humans. Bah.
We humans are DNA-destroying, eatin’ machines. We’ll do just fine. If our digestive system can successfully deconstruct wheat…we can successfully deconstruct modified wheat (with proper allergen warnings).
Now the cross pollination issue does have me worried. Especially in the saffola / mustard family. There are a huge number of weeds in that family, and some agricultural crops.
There is also the issue of transference through pollen. If you give pollen insecticidal properties, that insecticidal property can be transferred to those plants that are later covered in pollen. If widespread pollen causes a decrease in the numbers of certain kinds of insects, that could cause widespread ecological changes.
