What's your stance on GMOs?

[Kirbyburn]

Well? I wanna hear it!

Good or bad? Solving world hunger, or just another business scam... Optimizing crop yield or ruining genetic diversity...What's it gonna be?

[Fuzzbucket]

Since those developing them have primarily commercial interests at heart, and have already been shown to lie in some areas, I am deeply suspicious. And the development of those terminator seeds that cannot breed on, so that poor farmers are forced to buy new seed every year instead of being able to sow the next years fields from seeds from their own crops is plain criminal.

 

But the solution to world hunger is to end waste. Between one third and half of all the food in the world is wasted one way or another (one source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_waste) and another:

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/study...s-wasted.html.)

 

Incompetent distribution, the fact that perfectly edible crops we in the west apparently think too ugly to buy (misshapen carrots and the like) are left to rot in fields because supermarkets won't buy them; statistics have shown that we throw away almost a third of what we buy - and so on.

 

I worry about diversity, contamination, insect populations (we need insects even if they are a pain) and so on. But I worry more about waste. There is, right NOW, more than enough food for everyone in the world.

 

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do...end-food-waste/

 

http://www.thestar.com/living/food/article...ing-27b-problem

Edited January 27, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[TheGrox]

I'm all for optimising crop yields. There's nothing wrong with GM, and it's certainly not as scary as it's made out to be...

 

But yes, as Fuzz said, there are other (probably better) ways of 'solving world hunger'. The problem is, 'ending waste' is hard, if not impossible. It's hard to change people's attitudes to food and wasting food.

Edited January 27, 2013 by TheGrox

[TCA]

Considering that producing GMOs that can safely be allowed to breed on is my dream career, you can guess how I feel ;D

[Serrekiel]

I am absolutely for genetically modified organisms, and I've known ever since I was a little kid that I wanted to become a genetic engineer. There are so many things that genetic modification can do for human society. With genetic modification, we can create stronger, healthier crops, livestock that grow bigger, pets without normal allergens, and much much more. And this is only the beginning; the field could be advanced so much further.

 

And for those who say that genetically modified organisms are dangerous to eat, there is a fatal flaw in that mentality. Everything you have ever eaten has been genetically modified. Maybe it hasn't been modified in the way you think it has been, but it has been modified. We, the human race, have been selectively breeding crops and animals to make them suit our needs for thousands of years, and this selective breeding over time is the most simple form of genetic modification. All that is different now is that instead of having to wait for evolution to modify things for us, we can speed up the process by modifying them in scientific laboratories.

[KageSora]

I honestly don't care, so long as they're safe.

 

As long as they're not going to cause problems with their environment and/or if consumed by humans and/or animals, then I really don't care one way or another.

[Total Reverse]

I'm for it as it will most likely lead to studies of other GMOs. I've read stories about GMOs in the future (fiction) and while may not happen or even be close, it shows there are hundreds of possibilities.

[DarkLadyNyara]

I'm all for GMOs, although I think there should be solid standards for safety, environmental impact, and other issues. But with good standards in place, I don't see where GMOs are a problem.

 

Of course, I trust some of the corporations involved *cough*Monsanto*cough* about as far as I can throw a Buick. And I do not like the way intellectual property laws have been applied to genetically modified crops. But corporate lack of ethics and misuse of IP and other laws are not issues that are confined to GMOs.

[Fuzzbucket]

I am absolutely for genetically modified organisms, and I've known ever since I was a little kid that I wanted to become a genetic engineer.  There are so many things that genetic modification can do for human society.  With genetic modification, we can create stronger, healthier crops, livestock that grow bigger, pets without normal allergens, and much much more.  And this is only the beginning; the field could be advanced so much further. 

 

And for those who say that genetically modified organisms are dangerous to eat, there is a fatal flaw in that mentality.  Everything you have ever eaten has been genetically modified.  Maybe it hasn't been modified in the way you think it has been, but it has been modified.  We, the human race, have been selectively breeding crops and animals to make them suit our needs for thousands of years, and this selective breeding over time is the most simple form of genetic modification.  All that is different now is that instead of having to wait for evolution to modify things for us, we can speed up the process by modifying them in scientific laboratories.

GMO to produce bigger animals has already produced some who died because there was something wrong with them that hadn't been foreseen. I'm not sure I would have been happy eating them.

 

As to what happened in the past - sure we have hybridised wheat and so on - and a huge study has shown that even natural hybridisation has resulted in changes which mean that wheat is no longer that good for us, as it leads to obesity in a way that the original grain did not - it alters the way we lay down fat. (The study was published in Macleans magazine last year, but I am on capped internet. I will source it in 10 days or so...)

 

Another thing - they are trying to put fish genes into plants to up our vitamin D intake, which is hardly the same as natural hybridisation or even breeding. And - I have a friend with a potentially fatal allergy to fish. There have already been a few issues with peanut genes in non-peanut plants.... This is far more complex than OOOOOH GOOD IDEA YAY.

 

And the thing is - we don't NEED it to "solve the food problem". Even we here on this forum could make a start. Demand weirdly shaped fruit and veg so they aren't left to rot. DON'T buy heaps more food than you need and then bin it. Use leftovers. Every little helps.

 

Use all that scientific genius on cures for cancer, and the money it costs on getting anti-malarials out to Africa, and drilling wells so that people in poorer countries don't have to drink from open drains.

Edited January 28, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[ana3]

I habe had that discussion Before. My Country has been sued by WTO, EU, and Compagnies like monsanto because a Lot of gmo are forbidden Here. The fast Majority of the Population prevers it that Way. They say ist Would be Against the Free market to forbide something thought to be harmless by Most of the World. But this is still something Against the Expressed will of the fast Majority of my country so isnt that Against Demogracy?

 

Gmo Food Needs to be märkend Here, they put a Little sign GMO on Food in store. That means you know what you buy. Idont know anybody that Would buy Gmo. This is also a Case for a judge, because its limiting the Prospekts of Concerns that sell gmos. Whats about my Free Choice as a Customer? If Not marked i cant decide for or against it. Whats about the customers right of Information? I mean they already steal a populations right to decide about Whats Not grown on its soil...the. They Take our Ability to decide wheater we buy it or not. Of course all in Defence of the Free market.

 

Its Not True that Gmo necesarry Leads to better/higher Results than conservative farming or Even organic farming. Then its true We already Produce enaugh, Thats Not the Problem. Productions Even more will Not help us to decide wider about what we Produce.

 

Gmo Farms Polute other Farms. The owner of such farms have been Sued for Unsing Gmo illegaly. If gmo Polute other seeds a Choice is taken from us, we are Not Abel any more to Choose gmo Free Produkts if gmo is legal.

 

There are studies that Show how harmless Gmos are. Is ist True that in the us the One that has to Proof that they are harmless is the Producer? I mean come One Companies Controlling the Validität of their Own Claims?

 

Gmo concerns undermine Demogracy.

Gmo Fields undermine our Future ability to Chose.

While Not Marking Food that Contains Gmos Takes our power as customers away.

The Claims of harmlessness are questionable.

Gmo do Not necesarrily Provider a better outcome.

 

So that doesnt mean i Would use gmo medicine or that i am Against genetics i just realy like my ability to choose.

 

Glg ana

[Thuban]

I personally find GloFish to be awesome (first openly genetically modified pet on the market). They were bred for a purpose, with a side effect of looking cool in fish tanks. They are NOT sterile like the company would like you to believe though. I had accidental babies all the time.

 

 

Now, in terms of food: People already dont know what they are eating, and dont care to research the additives in their foods. I personally prefer to stick to heirloom plants for my own gardening needs because i like the funky looking tomatoes i get from them. Do i object to learning better methods to handle food production needs better? No, absolutely not. Learning how to get more food from the same plot of land is pretty awesome. Will genetically modifying the foods make the flavors change? probably.

 

The issue i have with it has already been mentioned. Putting genes from an animal.. into PLANTS is kinda wrong. Theres no way it would happen naturally, so introducing fish genes into plants.. eew. Does that make the plants not cool for vegans? Mixing genes from foods that a HIGH number of our population is severely allergic to into foods you wouldnt expect to see them in... sounds really dangerous to me.

 

Adding fish genes to plants makes sense for those locations that get to deal with the joys of 6 months of darkness, but the rest of us can easily go outside to get vitimin d. 30 minutes of sun a day.. gets you the levels you need and is helpful for managing depression as well.

[ana3]

Now, in terms of food: People already dont know what they are eating, and dont care to research the additives in their foods.

Is that meant to be an Argument? Maybe its too Compilated Where you are from. Wie have Little Banners that describe what you buy., One signals that you are buying organisch stuff, fair Trade stuff Another One that you are Buying a product Produced in the area. To put a gm-Free Button on stuff is neither difficult to do nor difficult to handle by the Customer. I guess Most People dont read the incrediency List Here either its simple Not necesarry if there is a Button that says:

No chemicals that are supposed to so this or that, nö artifiziell Colours or Favorit or simple organic.

[Fuzzbucket]

Now, in terms of food: People already dont know what they are eating, and dont care to research the additives in their foods. I personally prefer to stick to heirloom plants for my own gardening needs because i like the funky looking tomatoes i get from them. Do i object to learning better methods to handle food production needs better? No, absolutely not. Learning how to get more food from the same plot of land is pretty awesome. Will genetically modifying the foods make the flavors change? probably.

 

The issue i have with it has already been mentioned. Putting genes from an animal.. into PLANTS is kinda wrong. Theres no way it would happen naturally, so introducing fish genes into plants.. eew. Does that make the plants not cool for vegans? Mixing genes from foods that a HIGH number of our population is severely allergic to into foods you wouldnt expect to see them in... sounds really dangerous to me.

 

Adding fish genes to plants makes sense for those locations that get to deal with the joys of 6 months of darkness, but the rest of us can easily go outside to get vitimin d. 30 minutes of sun a day.. gets you the levels you need and is helpful for managing depression as well.

Yes - that too. My SO is vegetarian and the idea of having to avoid buying ALL GMO foods (and they BETTER be labelled !) is a nightmare. Bad enough all the things gelatin gets into...

 

OH - he just said that just because people share a load of DNA with carrots doesn't mean he is eating human beings, and while he would not want to eat some GMO foods, that is not the REASON he wouldn't want to.

 

He's thinking about it now...! He knows his science. And he just said there is in his mind (and now in mine !) an essential difference between modifying the genes within an existing organism and adding genes from a totally different organism.

[Severus_S]

Absolutely against this.

Long term effects are not known and its not necessary, the world hunger problem could easily be solved if people ate less meat.

90% of the worlds soy production is grown for feeding animals. Use that 90 % for people instead for animals and nobody would go hungry and there would be much less co2 output as about half of the worlds co2 output stems from mass breeding animals.

Genetically manipulated seed makes farmes dependent on companies like monsanto, who as a result can ask whatever prices they want for their stuff, as its patented or sterile hybrids.

So genetic manipulations aren't necessary at all....even if monsanto and their ilk want to make You believe.

 

 

[Thuban]

Is that meant to be an Argument? Maybe its too Compilated Where you are from. Wie have Little Banners that describe what you buy., One signals that you are buying organisch stuff, fair Trade stuff Another One that you are Buying a product Produced in the area. To put a gm-Free Button on stuff is neither difficult to do nor difficult to handle by the Customer. I guess Most People dont read the incrediency List Here either its simple Not necesarry if there is a Button that says:

No chemicals that are supposed to so this or that, nö artifiziell Colours or Favorit or simple organic.

No, its not an arguement so much as a general observation. Our food gets to hide stuff under the handly little "natural flavors" label. They currently are not required to inform you of what those NATURAL flavors are, or where they come from. Raspberry flavored stuff, for example. Unless you go looking up the "natural" flavor.. you would /never/ think to connect what is being used to enhance the flavor.. to the flavor being imitated.

 

Somethings dont bother me. I still like skittles.. cause i have no problem with eating bugs in general.

I dont eat beavers.. especially not the part of the beaver that raspberry flavoring comes from. I dont care for raspberries anyhow, so its not a big deal for me to avoid it.

 

The food is labled as organic if its organic.. but in all honesty, the non organic food /tastes/ better to me. I find organic food to be bland compared to its "poisoned" counterparts.

[AngelKitty]

It depends on the type of GMO. I have no qualms about eating GMOs, though I do have problems with the type of modifications that are sometimes done. Like, transforming plants to be resistant to pesticides so you can safely spray a whole field with toxic substances, instead of transforming the plant to produce a natural, human-safe pesticide. Aside from that, as long as they are properly labeled (especially for people with allergies) and shown to be safe for consumption, I'm all for them and in fact I think they're the future of the food industry. Genetically modified foods with enhanced nutritional value can help solve a lot of problems with malnutrition.

 

As a plant molecular biologist who knows exactly how GMOs are made (and has, in fact, made GMO non-crop plants), I tend to shake my head at people who are like "beware the scaaary GMOs our food is a produce of MAD SCIENCE." In some cases I can see where they're coming from, but there's a lot of overreaction to the idea of genetic modifications and not every corporation is Monsanto.

[Shienvien]

As long as sufficient amount of testing is done, and people are made aware of what they consume or use (for the sake of allergies and otherwise), I'm completely for genetic modification. GMOs are no worse than naturally mutated organisms; saying the opposite is mostly driven by emotional responses.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Shienvien

[hazeh]

Somethings dont bother me. I still like skittles.. cause i have no problem with eating bugs in general.

I dont eat beavers.. especially not the part of the beaver that raspberry flavoring comes from. I dont care for raspberries anyhow, so its not a big deal for me to avoid it.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa, WHAT?

[ana3]

No, its not an arguement so much as a general observation. Our food gets to hide stuff under the handly little "natural flavors" label. They currently are not required to inform you of what those NATURAL flavors are, or where they come from. Raspberry flavored stuff, for example. Unless you go looking up the "natural" flavor.. you would /never/ think to connect what is being used to enhance the flavor.. to the flavor being imitated.

 

 

The food is labled as organic if its organic.

I See. Its sad that in this Kind of discussion People misstake Arguments, opinions and Observationen. I know perfectly welltest they use These mushrooms as flavour and that the inci lists are deciving. Thats why I like Banners. I trust the Labels and Banners I know, I wouldnt Trust a Banner from lets Day the USA or argentina that Claims to be organic. First of all i dont Trust their Controlling System, then their Laws of what is or is Not organic are very different from ours.

 

My Main Point is still that i like to choose, for me thats the biggest argument of all. Of course the gmo Debatte is often very emotional, but so are a Lot of other debates and elections. I apreciate your Argumentation style.

[ana3]

 

As a plant molecular biologist who knows exactly how GMOs are made (and has, in fact, made GMO non-crop plants), I tend to shake my head at people who are like "beware the scaaary GMOs our food is a produce of MAD SCIENCE." In some cases I can see where they're coming from, but there's a lot of overreaction to the idea of genetic modifications and not every corporation is Monsanto.

I have Never Seen Trostworth Data about the Benefizs of gmo Food. Even if you you were right about the Mad Science Thing, whats about the peoples right to Chose? Would you deny a population that right in favour of People that know better? Why do they try to Force gmo on an unwillig market, on People that Expressed their will to be gmo Free? Nobody ever tried to Force nuclear Energy on us( we Voten Against in Another Referendum Long ago) Nobody ever Said wie Need to Pay a Fine for Not allouwing nuclear plants on our ground. That Debatte is similar emotional.

[Fuzzbucket]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa, WHAT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum

 

I did not want to know that - so NO THANKS to Thuban....

[Serrekiel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum

 

I did not want to know that - so NO THANKS to Thuban....

........ Um. Ew?

[TCA]

As a plant molecular biologist who knows exactly how GMOs are made (and has, in fact, made GMO non-crop plants)

I love you teach me your secrets

[AngelKitty]

I have Never Seen Trostworth Data about the Benefizs of gmo Food.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/6/1776.full About the nutritional benefits golden rice.

 

http://europepmc.org/abstract/CBA/303533/ About the "fish tomato's" ability to grow at colder temperatures than non-GMO tomatoes. Unfortunately you might not be able to access the article, but you can see the abstract.

 

Most of the possibilities of genetic modification have been shown in non-crop plants such as Arabidopsis. Plants have been generated that are drought-resistant, salt-resistant, cold-resistant, etc. So, yes, these things have been shown in principle and they do work. Produced properly, GMO foods could have a real, tangible benefit in areas where food is difficult to grow. The key is making such crops fit for human consumption and, of course, education about the realities of GMO foods.

 

Even if you you were right about the Mad Science Thing, whats about the peoples right to Chose? Would you deny a population that right in favour of People that know better? Why do they try to Force gmo on an unwillig market, on People that Expressed their will to be gmo Free?

 

Um, don't put words in my mouth. I clearly said:

 

Aside from that, as long as they are properly labeled (especially for people with allergies)

 

I think they should be labeled so people can make that choice, especially because of allergen concerns. I also think that proper regulations should be in place to prevent transgenic plants from escaping into the environment.

 

I love you teach me your secrets

 

Lol okay

 

So I've only ever used agrobacterium-mediated transformation, which is very popular because of how easy it is. Basically, you take an agrobacterium which has had the disease-causing genes removed, insert a binary construct (which can be read by plants) containing a selection marker (usually an antibiotic-resistance gene) and your gene of interest into the agrobacterium, then expose the flowers of your plant to the transformed agrobacterium and it'll inject the DNA into the pollen. Self-fertilize the plant, and you'll have plants that are heterozygous for your construct. Self-fertilize the heterozygotes, plant the seeds on a selection media (which contains an antibiotic that only your transgenic plants will be resistant to), and you'll produce homozygous transgenic plants. Voila, you now have a GMO. :3

 

For chloroplast transformation, there's also particle bombardment, which involves coating microscopic particles of gold with your gene of interest in a chloroplast-specific vector and shooting it into the plant tissue using a gene gun, which we unfortunately don't have. Then you cut out the transformed tissue and grow it in selection media that contains the right hormones to regenerate a whole plant. Chloroplast transformation is used in cases where you want to be sure the gene doesn't escape into the environment (since chloroplasts are not found in pollen, chloroplast-encoded genes can't be distributed as easily).

 

There are other methods, but AFAIK those are most widely used (and hopefully all of that up there made sense, if not I'll try to make it clearer )

Edited January 29, 2013 by AngelKitty

[chienkaiba]

Yeah…that allergy thing is worrisome. If they don't use proper labeling, people with peanut allergy might end up eating something with peanut genes inside of it. Food allergy is not fun.