What's your stance on GMOs?

[lightbird]

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.

Then again, it might not be the particular transferred genes that cause the allergy. Just because a bit of DNA comes from peanut genome, doesn't mean that it's necessarily "peanutty", so to say. c:

 

As a molecular biologist (but I'm not a gene engineer myself, although I've learned about GMOs in my curriculum), I've nothing against GMOs and see a lot of potential for them for increasing crop yields where otherwise native forms of the crop don't produce suffitiently/delivering ready-made medicine through food etc. Human kind has been dealing with selective breeding for a very long time, gene engineering is just a way how to speed up the road to desirable traits. I am also for marking GMO-including food as such, *however* I think it's also important to educate the non-scientist society about exactly what GMOs are and how they are made to diminish the ignorant bawwing about how OMG GAIZ GMOS ARE EVUL FRANKENSHTEIN STUFF.

Edited January 29, 2013 by lightbird

[TCA]

Lol okay

 

-science-

 

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 )

SO COOL

 

I want to do this kind of thing someday o3o

[ana3]

@ angelkitty

 

I enjoyed Reading your sources. Do you read German? I dont Want to hide but this is Not my Field so Most of my sources are German. Its Would be interesting but a pain in the Ass to compare sources if Not.

 

I think its sad that People think its cooler to eat gmo than to provide a Good nutrition. Thats a General Observation and in my opinions a step in the wrong Direktion. In General you are right gmo can provide all Kind of Nitriten stuff in plants that usualy do Not Contain it. I am Not Promoting a General Ban of gmo, but a Choice. The Majority of your Population doesnt mind or think its Good? Fine. Wie decided otherwise, Not to Respect that means to question our souvereignity as a Staate.

 

I have Data for drough resistent corn, its Output is 6 to 10 percent higher than that of normal corn in the Same circumstances. Another Observation steems from screening the rare Row Data given to These Kind of statistic. They tested gmo corn Against Standard corn and Not Against already existent Corn types that are known for being drough resistent. Nobody wants to test cars or materials that Way.

 

The Messure the Output of a Field in unfittimg Environments, instand of Looking for Existing plants that like this Environment. I am Not Shure which Output Would be better. I live in a Place Thats cold and humid, still my gardens Output is higher than These of People in better places near by. The Secret is I know the Type of Earth, the Climate and the requirierend of the plants I use, a Lot of Old plant types by the Way. I cant grow everything, but I do have winter tomatoes, that survived the first frost nights. All of these plants have been genetically Modifikation over tousands of years if you Want to See it that Way.

 

[AngelKitty]

I don't read German, unfortunately. I can put it through a translator, but if it's in PDF format it might be harder.

 

It's not about what's cool, it's about what's practical for people in impoverished nations. Using the rice as an example, in parts of India, rice may be easier to grow and less expensive than carrots and other crops high in vitamin A. if people choose not to eat them, that's fine, but why shouldn't the poor of India be properly educated about the rice and actually given that choice instead of being denied it altogether by Western world powers terrified of "Frankenfoods?" Or worse, being given skewed information by organizations terrified of "Frankenfoods?"

 

I am Not Promoting a General Ban of gmo, but a Choice.

 

Likewise, I'm not promoting feeding people GMOs unknowingly, but a choice.

 

I have Data for drough resistent corn, its Output is 6 to 10 percent higher than that of normal corn in the Same circumstances. Another Observation steems from screening the rare Row Data given to These Kind of statistic. They tested gmo corn Against Standard corn and Not Against already existent Corn types that are known for being drough resistent.

 

From what I see, naturally-bred drought-resistant corn does currently outperform the GM variety. But again, the effects of the modifications have been shown in principle. As research continues, future GM corn may vastly outperform the naturally-bred corn, just like car engines nowadays are more efficient than car engines in the 50's.

 

I want to do this kind of thing someday o3o

 

You probably would have loved the plant molecular biology course I took. We talked about all kinds of current biotechnology, and even had a representative from Syngenta in to discuss what it's like to actually work on making GM crops. It's an interesting field, but I don't know if I want to work with crops. I like Arabidopsis.

Edited January 30, 2013 by AngelKitty

[Vhale]

I think some of the concern about GMOs isn't that it's been scientifically tinkered with. But rather, that there is a colorful history of people bringing plants and animals around and wrecking the environment. Kudzu is one here in the US that I see every time I drive north. Say they succeed in making a super corn that is environment resistant. What's to stop it from taking over? As people have gotten hybrids out of gmo plants, I don't think they are very capable of controlling them. I went to Hawaii last year, one thing people asked was why there were so many cactuses around. The answer was, at once time, the cactus were all in nurseries or home gardens. Then a hurricane happened. And, ever seen what happens when a hurricane wind hits a cactus at 160mph? Each piece that fell, spawned a new one.

[esnym]

The problem with GMOs is not the fact that they are engineered. Whether that is inherently wrong or not is up to debate. The problem is both the lack of extensive knowledge we have about the long term effects of GMOs, as well as the environmental problems. Factory farmers that use massive amounts of GMOs put many local farmers out of business. When the GMO plants potentially breed with other plants you can end up with weird invasive species, pesticide resistant pests that destroy crops....

[SnowSherry]

GMOs are pure evil. Period.

[brairtrainer]

I approve of GMO's, but mostly as an answer to increase access to vitamins people normally wouldn't have in an area unless they traded for foods they can't really purchase, and in cases to try and bring back genetic diversity. An example I'll put here are potatos, there are a lot of varietys that aren't being grown in big numbers because they don't taste as good ore are mealy (purple and blue varieties) that are found in nature, and because breeding hasn't been successful without getting rid of the nutritional benefit I would eat GMO potatos if they were given the genes that produced the extra vitamins.

 

I also support it to get rid of some diseases if breeding the gene into organisms that suffer would take too long (like comming up with an ash tree that could breed with native ashes to add in a resistance to the ash borer)

[esnym]

Technically, humans genetically modify everything they touch/grow just by interacting with it - for instance, corn is almost always "genetically modified" and never in its natural state, just by the virtue of having been farmed for generations.

 

The problem with fast-fix GMOs, however, is that people think they will solve all of our problems in terms of food distribution, when in fact they frequently create more problems than they solve. Yes, a plant my grow better for two harvests when it was bred to excrete pesticides all on its own, but several generations down the road pests will grow resistant to it anyway, and as a result potentially destroy native crops as well as GMOd ones. Or, the new plant could spread uncontrollably and practically destroy an ecosystem.

 

That in itself should be enough to make people think twice. If it isn't enough, people should also consider that most GMOs are not in fact being used to help small, undernourished areas in 3rd world countries, but rather serve as an effective tool/excuse to exploit such areas.

 

Furthermore, we have no idea the kinds of adverse effects GMOs could have on our health as humans. They haven't been around long enough to be properly tested, and they could potentially be harmful to humans in the long run. GMO foods can also be considered organic, so unless the package is specifically labeled you have no way of knowing what you are eating.

[ana3]

@esnym

Good Points!

Hmm althought Id like to add that my Blue and yellow potatoes are very Tasty!

 

Wow your Country permits Food to be Sold as organic if its gmo? Here you are Not Even Allouwed to sell something as organic that was Feed with gmo! Wie also have a Lot of normal Producer food Labels that garantee to be gmo free...

 

Glg ana

[TCA]

GMOs are pure evil. Period.

That's a very strong statement and you ought to explain it, otherwise I'll be forced to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.

[kiffren]

That's a very strong statement and you ought to explain it, otherwise I'll be forced to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.

No need to be rude.

 

I have no problems with anything that has been genetically modified, in fact I would not be remotely surprised if there are huge (as in penicillin huge) scientific breakthroughs thanks to genetically modifying plants and animals.

 

Then again, it might not be the particular transferred genes that cause the allergy. Just because a bit of DNA comes from peanut genome, doesn't mean that it's necessarily "peanutty", so to say. c:

 

This is what has been bothering me quite a bit about a bunch of the responses in this thread. Everyone seems to assume that just because a plant has some genes from a peanut plant (or a fish) that those allergens will be transferred over.

 

As a matter of fact, I just went to check the wikipedia page for peanut allergies. Lower down the page it mentions something extremely interesting, peanuts that are allergen free. A quick google search for that source has me skeptical, however there are other sources talking about genetic engineering peanuts to eliminate the allergen link.

 

As for fish genes being put into plants...how is that any different than plant genes being put into plants? It's a single gene that very well /could/ occur naturally, it's not like we're giving plants scales (though that could theoretically occur naturally as well).

[TheDarkCynder]

I am not against GMOs, as long as they are done in a responsible manner. With a growing population there are scarce things that can really be done, so this could be necessary in the future.

[Fuzzbucket]

This is what has been bothering me quite a bit about a bunch of the responses in this thread. Everyone seems to assume that just because a plant has some genes from a peanut plant (or a fish) that those allergens will be transferred over.

 

As a matter of fact, I just went to check the wikipedia page for peanut allergies. Lower down the page it mentions something extremely interesting, peanuts that are allergen free. A quick google search for that source has me skeptical, however there are other sources talking about genetic engineering peanuts to eliminate the allergen link.

 

As for fish genes being put into plants...how is that any different than plant genes being put into plants? It's a single gene that very well /could/ occur naturally, it's not like we're giving plants scales (though that could theoretically occur naturally as well).

Not ASSUMING - just concerned. I do not want to be finding out that those ARE the genes involved as my fish-allergic friend keels over dead in front of me. Because how EXACTLY can one tell which gene which individual person is allergic to ? I am allergic to ASA. IN THEORY (according to all my doctors) this should also mean I can't take ibuprofen. But - yes I can....

 

And I was actually aware of the allergen free peanut. Very good. But there has also been a massive study showing that the peanut allergy problem was caused mainly by the day peanut butter became affordable. When I was a kid, we couldn't afford the stuff. Now it is a cheap staple. As a result little little kids, who would never be given a peanut because of the choking risk are given peanut butter on their rusks, as a treat. But it is far too early for their tiny innards to cope - and you get instant allergy.

 

A plant gene getting into another plant naturally is a whole lot more likely than a fish gene leaping out of a pond to join in, IMHO !

 

I still think we could do SO much more by working on food waste. It is criminal, whether or not GMO goes ahead, that so much food is just thrown away. GMO things tend to cost developing countries more anyway... and Monsanto's terminator seeds are just evil.

[Fsaber]

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.

 

1. It's not a GMO. It's globalisation and corporate power - that's who attacks your's country democracy. GMOs are just getting involved in a process.

If it really have such big meaning to your's country - Fight Monsanto etc. I'll support you.

2&3 are really just the same thing. Yes, GMO is a 'leap' kind of change. And all products should be marked by labels. Now wait. Get our time rolled back to a 'steam engine' era. Daimler, Otto, Porsche with early diesel and gasoline engines... everything went fine. And then comes Henry Ford with his T model (first really mass-produced car). All consumers rights to choose between steam or internal combustion engines was taken away. GMOs are just the same...

I'll add another 2c about labels. I'll be really happy with labels tyhat contain pesticide levels in my green products, about antibiotics in meat, sugar substitutes, orthophosphoric and any other 'strange' acids... But there should be a rational limitation or we can end up with 5" label like that IMG Link.

4. There is no "overall" harmlessness in GMO. Each GMO should be observed and researched.

5. If it concerns bigger fields yield - yes, at least they are supposed to be better than conventional plants.

 

 

[lightbird]

GMOs are pure evil. Period.

Do you know anyone with diabetes?

 

Nowadays, the insulin treatment you can get mainly stems from human insulin synthesised in genetically modified bacteria and yeasts, which have considerably higher productivity than the previously common insulin from pig or cow pancreas, which has limitations set by pancreas size and waiting time for animal maturation.

 

Also, nowadays the milk coagulant enzyme chymosin used for cheese production is also mainly produced in bacteria, with a sequence identical to the enzyme which is naturally found in calves.

 

So, I don't exactly see how those are evil.

[DarkEternity]

I am not against GMO if an extensive amount of research into side effects has been invested in the product before it is released.

[Obscure_Trash]

I am completely for GMO, though we really need to treat it with science instead of business (IE let's not cut corners in a mad stampede to get profit!1!11! from it).

[chienkaiba]

I suppose that at this point, we don't have enough data to judge GMOs. Right now, I'm on the fence about it.

[Obscure_Trash]

...And supposedly, (I haven't checked on this) GMO is banned in almost all 'major' countries except the USA.

Carbon sequestration is/was banned in some major countries (Germany, off the top of my head). This was due to public panic over induced seismicity even though most induced seismicity is microseismicity we don't even feel on the surface and induced seismicity that has produced notable earthquakes is mostly all from hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) and most of that was caused from lack of knowledge or proper site characterization.

 

Point being, just because something is banned doesn't make it evil and it doesn't mean we have all the knowledge. This is why it's so important to have good funding for research and to conduct good research.

 

~

 

I'm going to contact my teacher for the documents because I am interested in this stuff, but today in class we talked about how if women (who make up the majority of farm owners/workers and produce most of the world's agriculture but own less agricultural land and earn less for their job than men) and men had the same access to agricultural production, world hunger could be decreased by 2-4%, feeding an additional couple million people.

 

As I said, I'm all for GMOs and continuing research on them. I am for doing what we can to make food more available (like above) and reducing waste (as fuzz posted about early in the thread, I believe), but that doesn't mean I want to discount GMO technology. ^^

 

I saw the rat picture a few days ago. I'd like to find the scientific journal about it so I can judge for myself. /didn't read any of the links recently posted yet

[ana3]

The dangers of Carbon Sequestration.

 

I realiced that a Lot of People Here put Down the Arguments Against gmo by calling People and Populations that think so uneducated, emotional. Thats if at all an Observation and no argument. think its a Strategy to disvaluate the Opponts Arguments without Adressing this arguments themselves. Its a Bad discussion Stile.

 

Of course Carbon Sequestration was Not bannend for uneducated emotional reasons, but because of the risks People value to be more Important in Germany then in the USA.

 

So Carbon that has been stored can be soluted in ground whater. That dös already Happen in Germany, the Eifel area being the best known example. Whater that dös solute Carbon is Likely to solute Heavy metals, which Would polute the ground water. How Likely this is Depends on the geological make up of your Country. That means something Thats unthinkable to do in One Place is ok in Another.

 

The earthquakes that are Acording to Stanford University Likely to be Caused by this Storage are Not the Problem! Such an earthquakes can Damage the Storage so that the Carbon can be Set Free, which could Cause the Problems mentioned Before. Nobody can Build an undestructable Storage.

 

Its the Values of a Population that define the Importlance of auch Pointe, Germans put a High value on nature and on their water. Did you know that the whater and Land Polution of Montana serves as Bad example Here? Its something to be prevened Here althought i got the Impression that us People dont put a High value on it.

 

You Crossed over to Another Field Ill so the Same. I guess by now everybody Here knows what blood diamonds are. I am Against blood Diamons and Slave-Minining the Same Way as I opose gmo. I am Not Against Mining, I enjoy the Science behind it. I just dont suport Compagnien that earn Money by that means Thats why I ASK for certificated diamonds Produced by Compagnien that are ok. I ASK for the Same Labels on Food, because I dont like the Way gmo Compagnies

 

undermine the Freedom of Choice, Demogracy, selfsuistanability, the Variety of Organisms, the existente of gmo Free Organisms, scientific discussion.

 

Nobody from the pro Fraktion Adressed ever the possibility gmo and non gmo that interfered and Produce something entierly New, or in the Case of resistency the Problem Thats called Co Development Here. Then there is Research that Shows that there are negative effects on gmo. So someone days oh but that study Shows that this gmo is Bad for Fertility/increases the possibility of cancer and People Argue that gmo is Important in medicine or that the research in that field is important? Sorry Thats Not the Point that are two different Things.

Edited February 1, 2013 by ana3

[brairtrainer]

Apparently GMO can cause sterilization, or at least increased infertility;

http://natural-fertility-info.com/gmo-infertility.html

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles...w-april-24.aspx

 

...And supposedly, (I haven't checked on this) GMO is banned in almost all 'major' countries except the USA.

 

Also, someone did a GMO food test with lab rats, and the the that had eaten GMO had a higher infant fatality rate than those that did not. GMO is also generally toxic to all animals.

 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

 

Frankly, I think converting unused development space (Like housing or neighbourhood projects that went broke) into farmland or gardens would help a lot with any world hunger problems. Also aquaponics. Google it. It's the most amazing thing ever.

 

I also seriously suggest checking out the Youtube channel 'Growingyourgreens' by John Kohler. He teaches organic gardening and simple easy to do projects to grow large amounts of vegetables and fruits no matter where you live.

 

http://growingyourgreens.youngcoconuts.com/

 

...All that said, yeah, I'm pretty much against GMO.

I have to call some of these into question because I've seen the same facts touted by watch dog groups. And if GMO foods cause it it may not be the food themselves but that the gene that was inserted into the food would naturally cause a substance that would cause infertility.

 

Meaning if there was a peanut gene that made a varity fungus resistant, but the same chemical protection would lower human fertility was introduced into corn then that corn may also reduce fertility. But this could also go the other way!

 

Vitamin B12 not only helps a fetus to grow but is also thought to help fertilty in women. If you put a gene that produced vitamin B12 into lets say a potato, then suddenly this GMO food is not only a way to get vitamin B12 it may also heighten fertility.

 

The thing is we don't know, we have to study and as we study we come up with products to show our research is viable producing more people to invest into trying to make crops better.

[SilverX7Studios]

I have to call some of these into question because I've seen the same facts touted by watch dog groups. And if GMO foods cause it it may not be the food themselves but that the gene that was inserted into the food would naturally cause a substance that would cause infertility.

 

Meaning if there was a peanut gene that made a varity fungus resistant, but the same chemical protection would lower human fertility was introduced into corn then that corn may also reduce fertility. But this could also go the other way!

 

Vitamin B12 not only helps a fetus to grow but is also thought to help fertilty in women. If you put a gene that produced vitamin B12 into lets say a potato, then suddenly this GMO food is not only a way to get vitamin B12 it may also heighten fertility.

 

The thing is we don't know, we have to study and as we study we come up with products to show our research is viable producing more people to invest into trying to make crops better.

I do believe it's in the genes they're inserting into the food. I don't think the idea of GMO is bad, I just think what they're doing with it currently and the lack of tests is bad.

 

Also, just for the record, Vitamin B12 can only be produced by certain bacteria and archaea.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12 - (But someone might discover a way to make potatoes engineer their own vitamin B12 - which would be a scientific breakthrough of awesomeness)

 

Like I said, I think there are better and safer ways to produce more food in limited space, but if they manage to make GMO just as safe as normal organically grown food, then I don't see any problem with it.

Edited February 1, 2013 by SilverX7Studios

[brairtrainer]

I do believe it's in the genes they're inserting into the food. I don't think the idea of GMO is bad, I just think what they're doing with it currently and the lack of tests is bad.

 

Also, just for the record, Vitamin B12 can only be produced by certain bacteria and archaea.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12 - (But someone might discover a way to make potatoes engineer their own vitamin B12 - which would be a scientific breakthrough of awesomeness)

 

Like I said, I think there are better and safer ways to produce more food in limited space, but if they manage to make GMO just as safe as normal organically grown food, then I don't see any problem with it.

From a project I'm doing apparently gmo food goes through several tests before being served to the public including: feeding to rats and mice in labs, animals who are allergic to peanuts being kept under observation and fed GMOs with peanut genes in them to make sure they won't cause allergic reactions or if they do its reduced/only in those who have higher allergic reactions. I herd they were doing the same thing with the allergen-less peanut.

[AngelKitty]

See, the trouble with these anti-GM sites is that they leave out important information. For example, the infertility article doesn't state that the rats were fed Roundup-Ready soy, which is the variety that is sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup pesticide) constantly. The problems are most likely caused by the glyphosate used, and NOT the genetic alteration itself. Even the original paper about the study says that the glyphosate could be the cause of the fertility issues. So yeah, you're better off eating non-GM soy, but that's only because the non-GM stuff isn't sprayed constantly with glyphosate.

 

They also state other possibilities in the discussion, but those possibilities make no sense or less sense than the issue being related to the glyphosate. Firstly, feeding a rat raw bacterial/viral DNA is completely different than feeding it GM soy. Secondly, even if the mutation were "unstable," that doesn't mean the DNA is going to jump into a mammalian system.

 

I realiced that a Lot of People Here put Down the Arguments Against gmo by calling People and Populations that think so uneducated, emotional. Thats if at all an Observation and no argument. think its a Strategy to disvaluate the Opponts Arguments without Adressing this arguments themselves. Its a Bad discussion Stile.

 

It's an observation that's true, and arguments from uneducated and emotional people tend to not have all the facts, because they rely on news from watchdog groups. As I just showed above, such anti-GM groups (as with most groups with an agenda to push) tend to leave out important facts that would counter their stance of "GM is DANGEROUS because it's GM."

 

(Also, pardon me if the post is disorganized and lacks clarity, it's the ungodly hour of 8:30am here. )