Moderator Action
I am assuming that the OP posted this in GQ to get facts about the subject, not a confusing debate. Unfortunately, they ended up with the latter. I don’t think we can steer this back into GQ territory at this point, so I am reluctantly moving it to GD.
Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates.
http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/
It looks like they will weigh in this year. I suspect that any problems associated with GMO will be at the environmental level rather than the consumer level. i.e. there is no danger to consuming GMO products but GMO products will limit biodiversity in our food chain and one bad virus will knock out all our bananas or something.
You mean like when ringspot virus was close to wiping out the Hawaiian (non-GMO) papaya industry, but a transgenic resistant papaya variety saved the day for farmers?
Insufficient genetic diversity among crop plants has long been a problem in agriculture. Used wisely, GM crops are part of the solution.*
*Orange juice and coffee have been cited as commodities seriously threatened by disease, while varieties genetically modified to be resistant/immune could continue their availability to consumers as well as keeping farmers (many of them in poor countries) in business. Other crops (currently non-GMO) that are important commodities could also be rescued by GM varieties. Conventional plant breeding will also play a role, but it would be devastating to a lot of people if new GM varieties were rejected due to baseless fears.
So, reading through the thread I don’t see anyone actually citing examples of proven harm caused by GMO foods. I saw one exchange about harm being caused by lack of filtration that involved GMO foods, but so far nada on actual harm caused directly by GMO foods because they are GMO…and what looks like the same old wrangle about evil corporations and caution needed, blah blah blah. Does anyone have any actual scientific evidence showing proven harm caused by GMOs??
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
It looks like they will weigh in this year. I suspect that any problems associated with GMO will be at the environmental level rather than the consumer level. i.e. there is no danger to consuming GMO products but GMO products will limit biodiversity in our food chain and one bad virus will knock out all our bananas or something.
[/QUOTE]
Bananas are already endangered since, IIRC, most modern banana crops are based on the Cavendish banana strain…which is vulnerable to a single disease.
“Last spring, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization declared glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide on GMO crops, to be a probable carcinogen. And just last month, the FDA announced it would begin testing food products sold in the U.S. for glyphosate residue.”
From http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2016/03/31/business/948052.txt
It’s hard to believe testing for glyphosphate residue in foods began as late as last month. Does anyone have results yet?
There is considerable dispute among scientists about the IARC report on glyphosate. For instance, the European Food Safety Administration has determined that glyphosate (Roundup) is unlikely to be carcinogenic.
More on the controversy (including questions about the significance of the research the IARC relied on) here (note that the headline suggesting glyphosate might actually have health benefits is a stretch at best).
My concern about expanded glyphosate spraying has to do with speeding up development of weed resistance, leading to farmers once again relying on much more toxic herbicides that pose a risk both to human health and the environment. Many farmers have a tendency to jump on a bandwagon and ignore best crop rotation and pesticide use practices.
*I have never used any kind of weedkiller on my lawn, to the probable disgust of one or more neighbors seeing the dandelion explosion in spring. This was mostly due to concern about broadleaf herbicides possibly being linked to lymphoma in dogs. Ironically (:() my Labrador developed lymphoma last summer. She is now in remission after treatment but - damn.
I look forward to seeing it. The last comprehensive NAS report was from 2004 and the one from the Royal Society of Canada from a couple of years before that.
I honestly am not sure what editorial you’re on about that anyone is “hyping”, but the only one that was discussed in this thread AFAIK is the one I recently brought up from Nature Biotechnology clearly articulating the undeniable risks in biotechnology. If this is the editorial that you believe was “hyped” because it “doesn’t even mention GM foods”, then you have departed rational argumentation entirely and truly entered the Twilight Zone.
But perhaps I should pass on your chastisements and accusations to the Royal Society of Canada and to the panel of biotechnology experts who authored the report to the federal government entitled Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada who cited that quote as the headline item for the entire report.
Perhaps you’ll get an apology from the Royal Society of Canada for “hyping” an editorial that “doesn’t even mention GM foods” in a report that is entirely about GM foods. Or maybe not. Maybe this panel of biotech experts understands the meaning and context of the quote much better than you do.
For one, reduced biodiversity is a problem whether it’s GMO or not. If the conversation is about GMO vs. non-GMO, that’s not a factor. For another, GMO can save kinds of food that lack diversity and are susceptible to a single disease.
It sounds like you’re saying that if we use glyphosate, then eventually we won’t be able to use it, therefore we should drop it and use those much more toxic herbicides now. Huh?
Not at all.
A problem occurs whenever farmers are overly reliant on a particular pesticide and pesticide-resistant crop to the extent that they don’t rotate crops and/or pesticides*. There is going to be increasing weed resistance to glyphosate whatever they do, but using better crop management practices is likely to delay that resistance and extend the time of its usefulness before we have to turn back heavily to other, more toxic herbicides.
There’s a parallel with antibiotic use. By jumping on popular antibiotics and overusing them, we hasten resistance development and help make the antibiotic less useful or obsolete sooner than necessary.
I see your point though - in both situations there is a constant battle against pests and the need to develop new strategies and chemicals/drugs to combat them. In the case of agriculture, I wish people would realize that this battle has been ongoing since long before development of GM crops, and the issues of impact on the environment/health/biodiversity long predate GMOs.
*there’s some evidence that mixing herbicides works better than rotating them - but that comes with potential environmental or health costs.