What's your stance on GMOs?

[Fuzzbucket]

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.

So do drugs, and then later they find out that whoops they missed something and loads of people get really really ill. There's a biggie right now about a BCP used for acne treatment - deaths... and let no-one forget thalidomide.And one of the main blood-pressure ones a couple of years ago.

 

Not saying GMO IS EVIL - just that tests are not conclusive - sadly.

[TCA]

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.

Yes this. If someone has a strong emotional response but states things clearly and backs it up with valid evidence, I will be more than willing to listen to what they have to say and consider their side of the argument.

[MinervaClay]

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.

They're doing WHAT with our food? I'm so allergic to fish I can actually hive from the scent of it in the air now.

 

As it is there's been some horrifying results with rats.

 

As it is, it we read our food labels it's actually pretty disgusting. And that's before even the inclusion of bizarre, cancer-inducing genes.

 

Add in that they're building pesticide resistant bugs out of this, which is effectively exponentially increasing the amount of chemicals we put OUTSIDE our food as well as the fact that it's from the inside too, and can't even be washed off.

 

"And here, we have a variety of 'food' that made insects stomachs explode. Totally okay for you, though."

 

Funny how the people growing both the GMOs and making the pesticides are making money from both parts.

Edited February 3, 2013 by MinervaClay

[AngelKitty]

As it is, it we read our food labels it's actually pretty disgusting. And that's before even the inclusion of bizarre, cancer-inducing genes.

 

The genes themselves are most likely NOT causing the cancer. The pesticide glyphosate is what probably causes all of these issues. The pesticide builds up in the corn/soybeans and causes reproductive problems and tumors.

[brairtrainer]

They're doing WHAT with our food? I'm so allergic to fish I can actually hive from the scent of it in the air now.

 

As it is there's been some horrifying results with rats.

 

As it is, it we read our food labels it's actually pretty disgusting. And that's before even the inclusion of bizarre, cancer-inducing genes.

 

Add in that they're building pesticide resistant bugs out of this, which is effectively exponentially increasing the amount of chemicals we put OUTSIDE our food as well as the fact that it's from the inside too, and can't even be washed off.

 

"And here, we have a variety of 'food' that made insects stomachs explode. Totally okay for you, though."

 

Funny how the people growing both the GMOs and making the pesticides are making money from both parts.

The reason they are making money on both parts is because they did the research to make the resistant crops to protect their profits so they could stay in buisness when their patent ran out.

 

Honestly I like the idea of GMOs but I think that right now there are too little on the market to judge and those that are as set to be pest restiant not drought, flood, or extra high in nutrition. Golden rice I see as the 'nicest' of GMO food, but what most people don't realize is that there are GMOs that aren't food like deer resistant plants (some of them) and the blue rose that has finally happened over in Japan after years.

[lightbird]

As it is there's been some horrifying results with rats.

You know that that study used faulty control groups and that the GMO corn was tested on rats that are prone to tumours anyway?

 

I had a link to some very comprehensive commentary on this article, but I'm on a work computer right now, but this should do as well.

Edited February 4, 2013 by lightbird

[ana3]

You know that that study used faulty control groups

They used groups of 20 Rats. The groups that were used by Monsanto have exactly the Same size. There is some hickup about the Interpretation of the Resultat, One of the Big Arguments is that the RAW Datas have Not been Published, but Again Thats also True about for the datas of Monsanto. The next Problem is that they used a Rat type Thats Likely to get cancer in generell, but honnestly statistically Thats Not a Problem. the question is wheater there is more cancer if the Rats are Fed with gmo or Pestizide gmo. Monsantos study was finished After 90 days, seralinis After two years. So seralinis study is Not compareable to Monsantos.

 

So the Results of Sterlis group Show that gmo Rats are more Likely to get cancer. There are Not statistically relevant differentes After 90 days. However 50-70 Percents of the gmo fed Rats died within the two years and only 30 percents of the Rats Fed with conventional corn. I found a Meta stud( a study Studiengang the study) remarking that gmo Rats habe been the Bigger survor Group. Thats contradicting the result above, but Would be interesting for medical reasons.

 

Maybe the Problem is that the studies are Not compareable because they use different Time factors. It seems a Bit as if each side Would complain about the Same Errors in the other side. Why should for example only One side release its RAW datas? There NÖ rules about how to make such a study in Detail, there seems to be nö how to study gmo Standards.

 

Most of the Information Here can be found on

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgener_Mais

its Quite interesting to read the hickup with the two groups Arguing that the other One is Not scientificly relevant.

Edited February 4, 2013 by ana3

[brairtrainer]

What they proved was that gmo corn may have a factor, but if the rats were predisposed then it was all luck unless the rats were chosen randomly and family history of cancer was taken into account, however like what I stated earlier it could have been the Round-Up that was sprayed on the corn instead of around it that caused the cancer. If thats the case then its the fact the corn has so much sprayed on it you can't get it all off in drying. However if you then added a gene to the corn that prevented cancer well then I think we'd all stock up on GMO corn.

[Anna Selka]

I am against GMOs, because most research is heavily biased, and there is way too little research done anyway. We put things on the market without proper testing and realize twenty years later that they give us cancer or mess up our immune system. I think until very extensive testing has been done, it is utterly irresponsible to start feeding this stuff to people (and letting it contaminate wild plants, or increase the amounts of chemicals we spread) when we have no idea what it could do to them or the environment.

 

No thanks. I'd rather stick to the biodiversity we used to have and that is being destroyed daily by multinationals in their race for more profits.

 

Edit : I'm not really debating on this one, as I most likely won't come back to this topic. I am just stating my opinion and offering support to other people with a similar opinion.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Anna Selka

[babybluefire]

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

This is how I feel. My spouse has celiac disease. The intolerance to all forms of gluten. All mass produced wheat and wheat contaminated products make him seriously ill. I have seen some research coming out where they are using ancient wheat and celiac individuals do not react to that in any way. So the long term hybridization and genetic modifications we have done are our own fault.

 

 

Now if wheat could be genetically modified that he could eat ''normal" food again I would be thrilled. Our grocery budget is bigger then it could be because I have prepare everything he eats at home by hand from scratch using quality non contaminated foods. I can not even buy cheap meat because so many are full of beef stock solutions to plump the meat and all contain wheat flour.

[Fightandspawn]

For me, as always, it's a grey area. I am not for or against it, but I would love to see peoples questions be answered.

[Ribombee]

Ah, a very hot-button topic for me because of the massive amount of misinformation out there. (Fair warning, references are not in order. I just put them in as I found them, but each number by the referenced portion of my post corresponds to the correct reference).

 

Let me tell you all a story about one of the 'villains' of GMO; Bt toxin. I am an entomologist, and while I do not personally work with Bt GMO plants, my close friend and colleague does. I have first-hand knowledge of the rigors of her testing and a good working knowledge of the field, in general. I'm happy to discuss my credentials and direct you to some of my own research publications (which deal heavily with genetics) via private message, if you so desire, but I would rather not do so in a public forum.

 

Bt toxin is a naturally produced toxin which occurs in a certain type of soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis. This toxin is a protein which starts out in an inert form. This inert protein can't do anything until it is cleaved in a certain way. All proteins, no matter the source, are completely digestible unless there is some specific structure within an organism which it can bind to and interfere with in some way. This is why we could literally drink venom and be perfectly safe, so long as we had no cuts or other wounds in our digestive tract which would allow it to get into the bloodstream. Venom can only work in our bloodstream.

 

Bt toxins are even more specific. They bind to a very specific receptor in the midgut of insects. These receptors do not exist in vertebrates. In fact, the Bt toxins are SO specific that you can't kill grasshoppers with the moth version of the Bt toxin (1). I can guarantee you that moths and grasshoppers are more closely related to one another than any vertebrate is to any insect.

 

Furthermore, Bt toxins have been in use since the 1920s; nearly 100 years (2). They have been widely used since the mid-1990s; 20 years of widespread usage (1). They are still approved for application to ORGANIC crops. Yes, the organic produce you buy very likely has Bt sprayed on it because it is a natural pesticide which works very well. In fact, you are probably getting a higher dose of it in your organic crops because, in order for it to be as effective as the GMO Bt (which is the exact same protein, same structure, same chemical makeup, same everything), much more has to be applied. This is because the delivery system is not as efficient. The protein itself is the same, but an insect eating a plant which natively produces the protein is going to get a higher direct dose with less damage to the plant. In order to replicate this effectiveness, organic growers simply spray more Bt onto the plant, so the dosage ends up being the same or higher in organic produce as it does in GMO produce.

 

Now, I know some people will decry the previous statement and try to argue that it's different when the plant is producing the protein rather than the bacteria. This is, however, simply not true. As I mentioned before, the protein is exactly the same. Bacteria have very simple systems. They do not have any of the protein-modification capabilities that eukaryotes (which include vertebrates) do. They produce a protein, and the protein stays just as it is. In eukaryotes like us, preoteins our genes produce often undergo complicated modification via enzymes. Amino acids, carbohydrates, and other things might be added onto it. Certain amino acids might be removed from it. Either way, the protein is not the same as what was directly produced from the translation of the gene. Now, if this was the only knowledge we had of the Bt toxin proteins, I would be very worried, too. I would think, "What if the plant (plants are eukaryotes) does some modification of the protein which makes it unsafe?" However, as I already mentioned, the protein that is produced in the plant is the exact same one that is produced in the natural bacteria. Now I won't argue that some people might not be allergic to the protein (people can be allergic to any protein), but trials have shown this is an exception rather than the rule (2). You're no more likely to have an allergic reaction to eating Bt toxin proteins than you are to trying any new food.

 

Some people will argue this and point to a study (widely used as a way to 'show' that Bt is bad for us). The study in question, however, used an exceptionally huge dosage and increased the stomach pH beyond normal levels so that the protein would NOT be digested/degraded. This is hardly a study performed in a natural setting, with a level of the proteins we would actually be eating, and in a normal stomach (2). Anyone with the same stomach pH is going to have a lot worse problems than worrying about Bt toxins.

 

So if naturally produced Bt toxins are effective, even if we have to use higher doses, why do we use GMO? Good question. Let's completely forget the extra cost that goes into using Bt toxins harvested from bacteria (because our poor farmers don't struggle enough, right?) and merely look at the environmental consequences. Since GMO Bt toxins are produced directly within the plant, they ONLY target pests of the crop. They also, as I mentioned earlier, only target specific pests of the crop. Do you have caterpillars destroying your corn? Use the lepidopteran (moth/butterfly) specific Bt toxin-producing strain of the plant. You won't harm the bees, any moths and butterflies which don't eat your crops, your dog, fish, whatever. Now, instead, let's say you want to raise organic crops. So you decide to spray the lepidopteran version of Bt toxin onto your crops. Well, you still aren't killing the bees, your dog, fish, etc. However, now you ARE killing the harmless butterflies which decided to rest on your crops and the caterpillars which eat only the weeds in the areas around your crops (because it's impossible to spray only on your crops with no flow to anywhere else). Furthermore, the proteins are soluble in water and can be carried all over the place when you spray it onto crops (the same way that traditional pesticides can be carried everywhere).

 

Despite the many positive benefits for farmers, consumers, AND the environment, people still get up in arms about Bt. They cite research published in very questionable publications (just because it sounds scientific doesn't mean it actually has a good review process), and the papers themselves are often riddled with problems that make them fall outside of the accepted scientific process; too few replicates, poor controls, etc.

 

Those are exactly the sort of problems that happened in the Seralini rat study being debated. The REASON that using rats predisposed toward cancer is an issue is because of the extremely small number of rats used. The smaller a group, the higher the likelihood that any given outcome is due completely to random chance rather than any sort of actual correlation (let alone causation, as the paper was trying to claim). 10 rats in a group is a ridiculously small number and is below the number approved for carcinogen testing. Since the rats were already predisposed to developing cancer, the likelihood that the test group developed cancer at a higher rate than the control group just by random chance is much higher. If the study had used an acceptable number of rats, it would still be questionable as to why they used a strain more likely to develop cancer (since it's very likely that anything which caused them to get cancer would not actually affect the normal population), the results would at least give me reason to pause and consider whether the corn was actually safe. It would certainly be reason to do follow up research.

 

On top of all of this, people who think that organic means safe have a real surprise coming to them. It was not until fairly recently that people starting looking at the safety of organic pesticides. Many people assumed natural meant safe. The problem is that many natural pesticides are MORE dangerous to the environment, MORE carcinogenic than some synthetic pesticides in use, and have to be applied in larger amounts. Oops... So much for safety. Natural does not necessarily mean safe. Arsenic, foxglove, cobra venom, and malaria are all natural. They are also all very deadly to us.

 

Finally, a note about causation versus correlation. Correlation means that two things are linked, but one does not necessarily cause the other. Causation is when one thing is shown to directly cause the other. It's very easy to assume causation when it does not exist, and a lack of good controls makes this even more likely. For example, if you only sampled a small population from a single area, you might conclude that dark skin causes dark hair and light skin causes light hair. However, if you broadened your sample, you would find that people with dark skin can have blue blonde hair (and are extremely gorgeous people, if you ask me!). The previously mentioned rat study also failed to use good controls, meaning that the researchers claiming causation did so erroneously. They have correlation, and very poor correlation, at that (see my above paragraph about the small sample size). It was a bad study overall, which was why the publication retracted it. The fact that it even got through the review process is a serious lapse in judgment on the part of the review committee, and the outrage of the scientific community shows just how badly a scientist's career can be affected by publishing bad data. Believe you me, it is in our best interest to make sure we have extremely good controls and scientific process.

 

To the people saying most research is biased... Have you ever actually done a scientific study, or do you get your opinion from truly biased sources who have a vested interest in saying most research is heavily biased? Do biases exist in science? Absolutely. That is why it is important to look at where something is published and who funded it. If you are looking at a publication by some no-name publishing journal or that was funded by the company that sells the product, of COURSE you have every right to question the validity (and believe me, actual scientists WILL question it, loudly and aggressively, likely ruining the career of the person who did the study). A reputable publication will not allow a study with likely biases to pass review without at least publishing a caveat that there is a likely bias (and most will not publish a likely biased paper). Getting a paper through the publication process is extremely rigorous. You send it to the publication, they do a read through and decide if they even like it enough to work through the editing process with you. If it isn't already pretty darn good, they'll flat out reject you. Even if they don't reject you, after your paper is reviewed, it will be sent back with quite a few suggestions for edits. These are often things like being more clear about some things, not making connections that don't actual exist, etc. It is a very intense process.

 

I am not saying that I automatically approve of all GMO, that no studies are biased, and that all studies are done correctly (large enough sample size, done over a long enough course of time, good controls, etc.). What I am saying is that not all GMO is bad, and much is actually very well tested and shown to be better for the environment and even our own health than non-GMO varieties (which have to rely heavily on pesticides).

 

1. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/135675/

2. http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31

 

More references available upon request. I really need to go work on my OWN data analysis and testing for true, rigorous statistical significance, lest I get myself in hot water trying to publish something without enough sound, scientific backing!

[elynne]

my stance on GMOs is simple: nearly EVERYTHING WE EAT is genetically modified. unless you go out and hunt and gather in the wilderness, and quite a few of those are GMOs as well. "genetically modified" is a ridiculously broad and nonspecific term, and can be applied to every single "domesticated" organism. and handwringing about the possible environmental damage that could possibly be done by GMOs is kind of silly, given that there's still pristine rainforest being bulldozed to grow strawberries, endangered species being massacred out of misplaced fears that they damage crops or livestock, and invasive species on every continent on the planet (most of them deliberately introduced by humans! go, us!) wreaking havoc on local ecologies and pushing multiple other species to extinction. the answer to all of these problems is the same: EDUCATION. oh, and eliminating poverty helps a lot, too.

 

it doesn't help that Monsanto's business practices are extremely American slimy as all hell, and they're currently pushing themselves as the big name in GMOs. but it's possible to be against Monsanto's terrible practices without climbing onto an invisible boogeyman bandwagon about GMOs.

[kitsune93]

my stance on GMOs is simple: nearly EVERYTHING WE EAT is genetically modified. unless you go out and hunt and gather in the wilderness, and quite a few of those are GMOs as well. "genetically modified" is a ridiculously broad and nonspecific term, and can be applied to every single "domesticated" organism. and handwringing about the possible environmental damage that could possibly be done by GMOs is kind of silly, given that there's still pristine rainforest being bulldozed to grow strawberries, endangered species being massacred out of misplaced fears that they damage crops or livestock, and invasive species on every continent on the planet (most of them deliberately introduced by humans! go, us!) wreaking havoc on local ecologies and pushing multiple other species to extinction. the answer to all of these problems is the same: EDUCATION. oh, and eliminating poverty helps a lot, too.

 

it doesn't help that Monsanto's business practices are extremely American slimy as all hell, and they're currently pushing themselves as the big name in GMOs. but it's possible to be against Monsanto's terrible practices without climbing onto an invisible boogeyman bandwagon about GMOs.

This is pretty much my stance exactly.

[Brotato]

my stance on GMOs is simple: nearly EVERYTHING WE EAT is genetically modified. unless you go out and hunt and gather in the wilderness, and quite a few of those are GMOs as well. "genetically modified" is a ridiculously broad and nonspecific term, and can be applied to every single "domesticated" organism. and handwringing about the possible environmental damage that could possibly be done by GMOs is kind of silly, given that there's still pristine rainforest being bulldozed to grow strawberries, endangered species being massacred out of misplaced fears that they damage crops or livestock, and invasive species on every continent on the planet (most of them deliberately introduced by humans! go, us!) wreaking havoc on local ecologies and pushing multiple other species to extinction. the answer to all of these problems is the same: EDUCATION. oh, and eliminating poverty helps a lot, too.

 

it doesn't help that Monsanto's business practices are extremely American slimy as all hell, and they're currently pushing themselves as the big name in GMOs. but it's possible to be against Monsanto's terrible practices without climbing onto an invisible boogeyman bandwagon about GMOs.

I was about to post something like this.

[StormBirdRising]

I am in favor of GMOs which increase, among other things, crop yields and produce a healthier more nutritious product. There is no other alternative to combating world hunger right now, today.

 

There may be long range dreams of turning the world into a paradise where everyone is happy and well fed, but they are only dreams from dreamers who have no means of implementing them.

 

Kudos to Monsanto for taking the lead in battling world hunger. In addition to their scientific breakthroughs with GMOs, Monsanto donated forty one million dollars ($41,000,000.00) to combat world hunger and make the world a better place.

 

http://www.monsantofund.org

 

 

[Obscure_Trash]

Well put, elynne. There's a huge scare over GMOs when pretty much everything we eat is a GMO because, like you said - broad definition. It kind of reminds me of that parody where people describe water by its dangerous qualities in order to make it seem scary even though it's necessary for life.

[grimace]

The vast majority of people who have a problem with gmos have literally no idea what a gmo is or what the term even stands for.

I've literally seen someone say "GMOS are a cancer causing ingredient put in everything".

[MessengerDragon]

my stance on GMOs is simple: nearly EVERYTHING WE EAT is genetically modified. unless you go out and hunt and gather in the wilderness, and quite a few of those are GMOs as well. "genetically modified" is a ridiculously broad and nonspecific term, and can be applied to every single "domesticated" organism. and handwringing about the possible environmental damage that could possibly be done by GMOs is kind of silly, given that there's still pristine rainforest being bulldozed to grow strawberries, endangered species being massacred out of misplaced fears that they damage crops or livestock, and invasive species on every continent on the planet (most of them deliberately introduced by humans! go, us!) wreaking havoc on local ecologies and pushing multiple other species to extinction. the answer to all of these problems is the same: EDUCATION. oh, and eliminating poverty helps a lot, too.

 

it doesn't help that Monsanto's business practices are extremely American slimy as all hell, and they're currently pushing themselves as the big name in GMOs. but it's possible to be against Monsanto's terrible practices without climbing onto an invisible boogeyman bandwagon about GMOs.

There are different levels of GMO. The type most people are protesting again is when the modification is completely unnatural. While hybrids could conceivably happen in the wild, however unlikely, a plant won't naturally end up with fish genes!

Personally I think not enough safety testing has been done, never mind unbiased testing.

Also, once plants like that appear, they will spread. So if the Monsanto plants do end up being dangerous, once they spread, it will be near impossible to eliminate them. Once they appear, there will be no way of being sure your crops aren't being contaminated too.

Fuzz made a nice post earlier too:

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.

 

Oh, and, people from both sides, please try to see things from the other side's perspective before replying to them!

 

 

~~~

 

 

((And I probably won't be showing up in this topic again, because I can't be bothered answering every single sentence I disagree with, when I get the feeling nobody actually tries to understand.))

[dragongrrl]

Hybrids, such as those created by Luther Burbank and other Master Horticulturists are not Genetically Modified Organisms. They set up conditions that allowed the plants to create the plant's own variations, and then selected the variation they preferred and worked with those plants to create the hybrids with the feature they wished to improve.

 

The creation of a GMO involves the use of gene-splicing, altering the DNA sequence by physically inserting the sequence from another plant or animal unrelated to the DNA of the manipulated organism, and impossible to recreate in nature or through hybridizing.

 

Lumping hybrids with GMOs is one of the ways that Monsanto and others with financial commitments to the fostering of GMOs use in their attempts to sway the public.

 

I do agree that more education is needed, but who is doing the educating, and what do they have to gain from their position on this issue?

[Brotato]

I've literally seen someone say "GMOS are a cancer causing ingredient put in everything".

Edited August 18, 2015 by Brotato