Road to Hell: Genetically Modified Organisms

[Prince Cobra]

In another thread hell was discussed. My opinion it could exist without any problems on earth. My futuristic version of hell: a walking tomato with a spear pushing you into a couldron full with boiling water... Joking aside, I am really outraged by the fact some politicians are going to sell my dear country (Bulgaria) to these GMO organisations that are trying to sell their... ahem... products around the world :embarassed: . I hope the government will finally step back before the public pressure but I am not very optimistic. I am quite touchy about the environmental issues...

Anyway, here is the place to share your positive/negative opinion about the GMO to support/complain from the policy of your country, and to turn some GM soya beans into flight! :charge:

[Fragony]

Nothing wrong with fiddling around a bit with genetics, if a product can be improved why wouldn't you. The downside is that faster growth the taste takes a hit, the famous waterbomb (a Dutch tomatoe that is quite big and quite tasteless) comes to mind.

You should see this movie by the way, or maybe you shouldn't http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080391/

[CrossLOPER]

In the case to help solve hunger issues, I support it in the short term, though I would prefer to be able to grow my own stuff. Everything tastes very bland otherwise.

[Subotan]

It pains me to see people complaining about the "dangers" of GM Food when there are over a billion hungry in the world.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Although those billion hungry in the world would be better served by a slightly different distribution of... protectionism? Make no mistake: the earth already yields plenty to feed all. We do not distribute that yield very efficiently, though.

Anyway there is a very real enviromental danger in these genetically modified organisms, since their excessive growth is achieved by making the organism very weak against natural dangers. IOW those organisms are exceptionally vulnerable to disease and parasites; which in turn requires inordinate amounts of things such as pesticides to protect them. Furthermore the bigger (?) yields do appear by genetic mod magic, they are ultimately a more aggressive means of leveraging the same nutrients in the soil. Thus, the same soil will be more quickly exhausted by these mutated potatoes than by less large but more hardened varieties. So, ironically, dependance on the GMO type of organisms (especially in a mono culture) could very well be as disastrous in the long term as the Irish potatoes in the 19th century. (a) They exhaust the soil rather faster; (b) they are inherently weak, even when carefully nurtured.

Then this is apart from the issue that cross breeding does occur and the farmer who sees his crop mutate to GMO weaklings and now has to destroy his cropt won't like that one bit. That his GMO happy neighbour is harvesting a larger weight of crop of them is no comfort. (Pain and gain.) There are other, and better, techniques for improving yields on poorer soil; that do not require similarly high capital investments and knowledge too.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Anyway there is a very real enviromental danger in these genetically modified organisms, since their excessive growth is achieved by making the organism very weak against natural dangers. IOW those organisms are exceptionally vulnerable to disease and parasites; which in turn requires inordinate amounts of things such as pesticides to protect them.

Isn't most of the work they are doing on these geared at making them immune to disease and parasites? Regular crops require inordinate amounts of pesticides.

[Lemur]

Isn't most of the work they are doing on these geared at making them immune to disease and parasites? Regular crops require inordinate amounts of pesticides.
Tough question to answer. Take the potatoes that grow their own pesticide; is it healthier to have them sprayed on the outside once or twice in a growing season, or to have them secrete pesticide from the inside out? Which is better for the land? Which has less impact on people? What are the long-term benefits/downsides of both?

As with so many thorny issues, the simple answers only stay simple if you don't think very hard.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That purpose is somewhat defeated by simply using the wild varieties, though. But you are right that there are multiple ‘lines of research’ in the GMO business.

For the record, regular crops do not require inordinate amounts of pesticides. _That_ only becomes a problem with massive scale mono cultures; however pests & parasites can be avoided effectively by mixing regular crops (i.e. grow crops alonside each other) and using crop rotation. For instance, planting saliva around lettuce (so you have field of lettuce with a bordered by patches of saliva) keeps the slugs/snails away. This is less of an option in the USA, but it is very viable in small scale farmland.

[Beskar]

Selective Breeding is an evil practise. Are they so cynicial to deny the right for animals and plants to fall in love?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Tough question to answer. Take the potatoes that grow their own pesticide; is it healthier to have them sprayed on the outside once or twice in a growing season, or to have them secrete pesticide from the inside out? Which is better for the land? Which has less impact on people? What are the long-term benefits/downsides of both?

As with so many thorny issues, the simple answers only stay simple if you don't think very hard.


I think generally, the problem will not be with the genetically modified foods themselves. They are making minor changes to the plants, and they can test and plan for side effects.

Where you run into problems is with the possibility of plants that produce their own pesticide creating a strain of resistant pests, that then destroy the neigboring, non genetically modified field.

[The Wizard]

What exactly is wrong with letting science produce cheaper food with a smaller carbon footprint? :inquisitive:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Stems from the idea that humans are an unnatural component of the environment and somehow separate from it.

GM Foods = Humankind imposing its unnatural will on nature = Destruction of Mother Earth.

Never mind that ALL of paleontology, biology etc. demonstrate that many species constantly try to bend the environment to their needs; we need to go back to sweeping plagues and periodic starvation to thin out the excess of humanity that is destroying the world with its selfishness. If all of us rotten ******** were gone, the world would finally work correctly.

IMO, that whole attitude is meshuggah.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Stems from the idea that humans are an unnatural component of the environment and somehow separate from it.

GM Foods = Humankind imposing its unnatural will on nature = Destruction of Mother Earth.

Never mind that ALL of paleontology, biology etc. demonstrate that many species constantly try to bend the environment to their needs; we need to go back to sweeping plagues and periodic starvation to thin out the excess of humanity that is destroying the world with its selfishness. If all of us rotten ******** were gone, the world would finally work correctly.

IMO, that whole attitude is meshuggah.This.

From corn to cows, man has genetically modified his food beyond recognition.

The reverse holds true as well. Cows have genetically altered humans - I can stomach cow milk, my ancestors couldn't.
Grasses too have modified humans to suit their needs, they breed humans as their monoculture. No more pesky large trees for grasses to compete with, their human slaves will cut them for them.

Meanwhile, owing to all of this, we poor humans have become susceptible to many diseases, are no longer free roaming animals but are chained to our plots of land, and live in dreadful, drab bioindustrial circumstances because of grasses' monocultural cultivation of us.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Stems from the idea that humans are an unnatural component of the environment and somehow separate from it.

GM Foods = Humankind imposing its unnatural will on nature = Destruction of Mother Earth.

Never mind that ALL of paleontology, biology etc. demonstrate that many species constantly try to bend the environment to their needs; we need to go back to sweeping plagues and periodic starvation to thin out the excess of humanity that is destroying the world with its selfishness. If all of us rotten ******** were gone, the world would finally work correctly.

IMO, that whole attitude is meshuggah.

Maybe that is why some people oppose it, because it's "unnatural".

But introducing new species can have very negative effects:


Since their introduction from Europe in the 18th century, the effect of rabbits on the ecology of Australia has been devastating. Rabbits are suspected of being the most significant known factor in species loss in Australia. The loss of plant species is unknown at this time. Rabbits often kill young trees in orchards, forests and on properties by ringbarking them.[1]

Rabbits are also responsible for serious erosion problems as they eat native plants, leaving the topsoil exposed and vulnerable to sheet, gully and wind erosion. The removal of this topsoil is devastating to the land as it takes many hundreds of years to regenerate.

etc:

Kudzu was introduced from Japan into the United States in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, where it was promoted as a forage crop and an ornamental plant.

...

Kudzu has naturalized into about 20,000 to 30,000 square kilometers (7,700–12,000 sq mi) of land in the United States and costs around $500 million annually in lost cropland and control costs.[24]

etc:


Once an important hardwood timber tree, the American Chestnut is highly susceptible to chestnut blight, caused by an Asian bark fungus (Cryphonectria parasitica, formerly Endothia parasitica) accidentally introduced into North America on imported Asiatic chestnut trees. The disease was first noticed on American Chestnut trees in the Bronx Zoo in 1904. While Chinese Chestnuts evolved with the blight and developed a strong resistance, the airborne bark fungus spread 50 miles a year and in a few decades girdled and killed up to three billion American Chestnut trees.


That said, GM plants aren't anywhere near the level of these changes. Care must be taken however.

I think it's also been suggested that they will drive smaller farmers out of business, don't know how true that is though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This.

From corn to cows, man has genetically modified his food beyond recognition.

The reverse holds true as well. Cows have genetically altered humans - I can stomach cow milk, my ancestors couldn't.
Grasses too have modified humans to suit their needs, they breed humans as their monoculture. No more pesky large trees for grasses to compete with, their human slaves will cut them for them.

Meanwhile, owing to all of this, we poor humans have become susceptible to many diseases, are no longer free roaming animals but are chained to our plots of land, and live in dreadful, drab bioindustrial circumstances because of grasses' monocultural cultivation of us.

Perhaps true, but at no point did the grass or the cows insert insect genes to make us more compatable. I come down on the Jurasic Park argument here, we wield the power of genetics like a child with his father's gun and no concept of what we are actually doing. In any case, we don't need GM. There is enough arable land in Zimbabwae to feed all of Sub-Sarharan Africa with grain without GM and a propriety wheat engineered to be infertile and whose' seed the already poor farmers have to buy from an American conglomerate.

GM is just the latest example of man trying to solve his social problems with technology, and eploit others into the bargain.


I think it's also been suggested that they will drive smaller farmers out of business, don't know how true that is though.

Propriety crops owned by corperations, so that the only way to feed your self is by buying from technocrats. How the horror of that can escape anyone is beyond me.

[Subotan]

There are plenty of examples of "invasive species" which have been beneficial to the environment, such as the potato, and certain species of honeybee.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There are plenty of examples of "invasive species" which have been beneficial to the environment, such as the potato, and certain species of honeybee.

Yes. So what do you conclude? That GM foods may or may not be beneficial? That's not much of a conclusion.

[The Wizard]

GM is just the latest example of man trying to solve his social problems with technology, and eploit others into the bargain.

You mean that process which has basically motored modernity since day one?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You mean that process which has basically motored modernity since day one?

This makes it a good thing? Previous Agrarian reforms resulted in bloody Civil Wars when done badly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I realize that some people truly do hold the view I related in the previous post. I still think they're a bit meshuggah -- on that issue if nothing else. Is it appropriate to take great care in GM foods etc. because of the unintended consequences such as you exemplified, Sasaki? Absolutely. I'm just tired of the "mother nature good, humanity bad" crap that runs through so much of the eco-crowd. Clean water, clean air, regulations to encourage same -- of course, that's just good long term managment. Assuming that humanity is somehow "unnatural" defies logic.

[Megas Methuselah]

Yes. So what do you conclude? That GM foods may or may not be beneficial? That's not much of a conclusion.

Is he required to present his conclusion to the likes of you? Am I, for that matter? Certainly not. Learn some manners, immigrant.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Is he required to present his conclusion to the likes of you? Am I, for that matter? Certainly not. Learn some manners, immigrant.

I don't see why he would be. Who would require it?

[Megas Methuselah]

I don't see why he would be. Who would require it?

Know your place.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Know your place.

Kind of vague, but my place here would be "poster in thread discussing GM foods". What do you think about GM foods?

[The Wizard]

This makes it a good thing? Previous Agrarian reforms resulted in bloody Civil Wars when done badly.

Why yes, it does, since it gives us our current lifestyle.

Look here, I despise the protectionism of the West, but what you describe is what gave us the modern era.

[Beskar]

I will re-instate my more jokey answer into a more serious one.

We have been genetic doing experimentation for thousands of years, through man-made selective breeding of both animals and crops. The idea of just directly changing the structure of a DNA fragment is just a evolution of an earlier process of trying to achieve the same exact results.

Also, GM-foods produce far higher yields and can grow in areas where the plants are less-likely and struggle to grow. In this sense, GM foods would do a lot of good to Third-World countries in areas where farming is a difficult process. (Ie: Africa, etc)

Basically, it is green propaganda and this vague notion that unnatural things are evil stemming from pagan mother earth roots which is incorrect.

[Subotan]

Yes. So what do you conclude? That GM foods may or may not be beneficial? That's not much of a conclusion.
I was just giving some examples of where new species had positive effects, as you gave a list of examples where they had negative effects.

I realize that some people truly do hold the view I related in the previous post. I still think they're a bit meshuggah -- on that issue if nothing else. Is it appropriate to take great care in GM foods etc. because of the unintended consequences such as you exemplified, Sasaki? Absolutely. I'm just tired of the "mother nature good, humanity bad" crap that runs through so much of the eco-crowd. Clean water, clean air, regulations to encourage same -- of course, that's just good long term managment. Assuming that humanity is somehow "unnatural" defies logic.
I'd consider myself a member of the "eco-crowd", and I totally agree with you. Environmentalism has to move away from the hippie/tree hugging/love every ugly toad on the planet attitude that infests the whole movement. I'm an environmentalist for the sake of people, not because of polar bears.

[Prince Cobra]

The idea that the GMO give higher yields seems to be a myth. In long term it seems they produce less than the normal + the pesticides and etc. Worse, some surveys show that mouses that are fed with this food live shorter, chickens/cows (can't remember exactly) fed with GMO die mysteriously earlier. The bees are also severely hit by the GMO as bees in the zone of GMO are halved. The GMO are also spread byt the very same bees and "infect" other plans. This is what I've reab about it on newspapers and etc.

Playing with genetics is really a leap in the dark and I think it can lead to unpredictable changes to environment (say the insects and slugs will find their way to evolve after eating this genetically modified food; it is clear that if the food changes the species also change in an unpredictable way). In fact, there is enough food on the human globe, the problem is its distribution amongst the people and making the third world economies work. Sustainable development is also another quite underestimated aspect of this problem.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I realize that some people truly do hold the view I related in the previous post. I still think they're a bit meshuggah -- on that issue if nothing else. Is it appropriate to take great care in GM foods etc. because of the unintended consequences such as you exemplified, Sasaki? Absolutely. I'm just tired of the "mother nature good, humanity bad" crap that runs through so much of the eco-crowd. Clean water, clean air, regulations to encourage same -- of course, that's just good long term managment. Assuming that humanity is somehow "unnatural" defies logic.

Hummanity is not unnatural, but we are so technologically advanced now we can do things far beyond our "natural capabilities", please see below.


I will re-instate my more jokey answer into a more serious one.

We have been genetic doing experimentation for thousands of years, through man-made selective breeding of both animals and crops. The idea of just directly changing the structure of a DNA fragment is just a evolution of an earlier process of trying to achieve the same exact results.

Also, GM-foods produce far higher yields and can grow in areas where the plants are less-likely and struggle to grow. In this sense, GM foods would do a lot of good to Third-World countries in areas where farming is a difficult process. (Ie: Africa, etc)

Basically, it is green propaganda and this vague notion that unnatural things are evil stemming from pagan mother earth roots which is incorrect.

Absolutely true, but today we can violate the natural checks and balances, and restrictions, written into genetics. We cheat, and we do it without really understanding the potential long term effects.

All attempts at sellective breeding are limited; you can't breed pesticide into wheat.

[Lemur]

We've altered our system of growing food more in the last 20 years than in the previous 20,000. Among other things, we're allowing non-farmers to patent and license the majority of our seed stock. I'll admit that the average tree-sitting under-hygenic earth-shoe-wearing Gaia-hugger isn't a very sympathetic figure. However, it is the conservative response advocate caution when radically changing systems that have been in place for thousands of years. (This is reason #581 why I do not understand the use of the words "conservative" and "liberal" in my country. "Conservatives" often advocate rapid, radical, unchecked change.)

[Tellos Athenaios]

For some quick bonus points: I guess true conservatives have long since been GMO'ed beyond all recognition.

Anyway as I see it GMO is not bad _per se_. It is however poorly understood, and even laboratory experiments saw failure to ‘contain’ the subjects of laboratory research: there have been several instances of a field of GMO wheat suddenly going all natural & procreative on the laboratists in what can only be described as a "told you so" moment for environmentalists. The point is; GMO organisms change the ecosystem beyond what we have previously done because they do this at a pace not matched by anything else we have previously done.

Lest we end up with another Australia; we should take a loooooong time studying the effects; both socio-economic (it adds another layer of protectionism if you hadn't realised yet), as well as enviromental (it presents substantial risk to the ecosystems on which millions if not all of us do depend). For those of you who do not get what I refer to with Australia; just study how cows were introduced. Alternatively the story of the killerbee might be more to your liking.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I was just giving some examples of where new species had positive effects, as you gave a list of examples where they had negative effects.


Yes, but I was arguing for caution because new species can be unpredictable. So the implication isn't changed by positive effects, that would be expected.


Lest we end up with another Australia; we should take a loooooong time studying the effects; both socio-economic (it adds another layer of protectionism if you hadn't realised yet), as well as enviromental (it presents substantial risk to the ecosystems on which millions if not all of us do depend). For those of you who do not get what I refer to with Australia; just study how cows were introduced. Alternatively the story of the killerbee might be more to your liking.

The thing about australia is that it is a radically different ecosystem from the rest of the world. A huge proportion of the species there are only found in australia. It has been isolated for millions of years while the rest of the world was competing.

Corn on the other hand has been here for some time. It is hard to make modified corn radically different. Perhaps you could--but this points to the problem with being for or against "GM Foods" as a whole. There's a lot of variety.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We've altered our system of growing food more in the last 20 years than in the previous 20,000. Among other things, we're allowing non-farmers to patent and license the majority of our seed stock. I'll admit that the average tree-sitting under-hygenic earth-shoe-wearing Gaia-hugger isn't a very sympathetic figure. However, it is the conservative response advocate caution when radically changing systems that have been in place for thousands of years. (This is reason #581 why I do not understand the use of the words "conservative" and "liberal" in my country. "Conservatives" often advocate rapid, radical, unchecked change.)

The USA hasn't really been using "conservative" and "liberal" accurately (in the denotative sense at least) for years -- you know this. Much of the USA's "conservative" element is deriding the Obama administration for its "liberal/socialist" agenda whilst our European friends are looking at the Obama crew is though they're the most bland of centrists....and longing for Obama to take up a bit MORE of a true socialist agenda.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The thing about Australia is that it was done with a very poor understanding of how ecosystems work. See the paragraph above that one? ~;)

Anyway your general point about it not being such a big deal 'cause the ecosystems not being as unique and all as they used to/are made out to be is rendered a bit void when you look at what customs do. Just try and take, say, a bunch of dried leafs from Europe to the USA. You cannot do this without going through extensive export & quarantine regulations, and there are some organisms you will simply not be permitted to carry around with you. Because, you know, it might hurt the US ecosystem if you did. That kind of ‘fearful’ response is not unique to the USA by the way. It is these protections that are why containers in China are gassed first before shipping these off to the foreign markets.

Bottom line: GMO runs contrary to the few painful lessons we did learn from what happened after we had been a bit rash with creating our own ecosystems. It is not the best model for a long term sustainable way of feeding Earth's population; it adds yet another layer of covert protectionism on top of everything else.

[Fisherking]

Genetically modified plants are produced by chemical companies.

Everyone know how community oriented they are.

The plants are not modified to increase yields. They are modified to a) absorb poisons without effecting their health or b) produce pesticides which kill those who eat the plant.

While the chemical and seed companies advertise increased yields they have actually decreed yield and income for those using them.

I think if you actually looked at some of the independent data on GM products you would oppose them.

The GM cotton causes rashes and health problems and some of the data on the foods such as corn and soy beans are even worse.

Both those who favor them and those who oppose them may be guilty of deception but it is better to be safe than sorry.

They have been an unmitigated disaster in India...

I suggest that you have a look at what is actually going on before you make any decision on whether you support it or not.

[Husar]

I suggest that you have a look at what is actually going on before you make any decision on whether you support it or not.

Well, this thread is the perfect chance to provide a compact yet exhaustive overview. :wink3:

[Fisherking]

I try not to be over judgmental of industry and corporations. Business is essential to all of us, but I have been suspicious of Monsanto and their motives for quite some time.

Their Terminator seeds was a large part of it, I must say.

They are by and large the biggest supplier of GMOs as well as pesticides and herbicides.

For all of you that think it is a good idea to use GMOs, just know this. The restaurant that supplies their corporate offices uses no GMOs in the food supplied to the company.

The reason for that is that Monsanto’s own research staff are unwilling to expose themselves to their own creations.

So if the people who engineered and tested the stuff won’t eat it, what does that tell you?

[Tellos Athenaios]

GMO for food seems not the proper way to do things. Not yet, anyway. (Mainly because it requires out-of-laboratory environment == out-of-control.)

But GMO for things like medicine and similar (bio-) chemicals is a different matter. Plant & bacteria can make various medicine no problem in laboratory conditions.

[Husar]

So if the people who engineered and tested the stuff won’t eat it, what does that tell you?

A whole lot, more than most of the other arguments I've seen.
It's actually something I've wondered about before, in medicine, too.
For example what medicine do the bosses of pharmacy companies take when they're sick? Would be funny if they went to a witch doctor... :laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

While the chemical and seed companies advertise increased yields they have actually decreed yield and income for those using them.

No problem then, no one will use them after a while.


For all of you that think it is a good idea to use GMOs, just know this. The restaurant that supplies their corporate offices uses no GMOs in the food supplied to the company.

The reason for that is that Monsanto’s own research staff are unwilling to expose themselves to their own creations.

So if the people who engineered and tested the stuff won’t eat it, what does that tell you?

Whether or not the restaurant that supplies them actually doesn't use GMOs, it wouldn't be the same thing as the research staff being unwilling to expose themselves to it. This is conspiracy theory stuff.

[Fisherking]

No problem then, no one will use them after a while.



Whether or not the restaurant that supplies them actually doesn't use GMOs, it wouldn't be the same thing as the research staff being unwilling to expose themselves to it. This is conspiracy theory stuff.

The reason they make sure they don't serve it is because the employees of Monsanto didn't want it.

They asked not to be served it...is that a conspiracy theory?

If you were a restaurant serving a particular client base and they asked for something, or many can and expressed a concern about something, don’t you think you would listen and keep customers?