Highly Controversial Are GMOs good or bad?

[Mazon Del]

I thought I remember seeing some published studies a month or so ago talking about how an experiment has been going on for over 20 years where they had test animals being fed a diet of purely GMO foods and after 20 years (and in some cases, 20 generations) they have no evidence that these animals are statistically suffering from any health issues they shouldn't be in a similar grouping of control animals. Seems pretty solid to me.

In the end GMO won't be the thing that solves world hunger, but what it can do is help ensure that for those that can only eat small amounts of food due to a lack of growth, that they can get essential vitamins and nutrients so that they have less preventable issues. An example being the rice that they spliced to produce vitamin C to prevent scurvy.

And finally in the end, an obscene amount of the plants that end up following us into space are going to be GMOed all over the place. So, even though I've never cared, I especially don't care.

[Darnok]

20 generations in only 20 years that is interesting.

[GreenWolf]

20 generations in only 20 years that is interesting.

Not really. For all we know, the animals involved could have been hamsters.

[-Velocity-]

You are correct that natural has many meanings. Perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording. It doesn't change the fact that the word is abused all over the place, and it is still fair to ask exactly what they mean by natural. There is a good chance that they never completed the thought beyond it "isn't natural." In their head unnatural is synonymous with bad or unhealthy.

That's because the word "unnatural" actually does have a negative connotation in my experience when used in speech. Whether or not it's deserved or not is the wrong question to ask, because word choice is frequently based on both denotation (literal meaning) and connotation (emotional meaning). A word is both its literal meaning and its emotional baggage. And then of course, not all people use words the same way. So it could be considered correct to define that things that are "unnatural" are bad. The right question to ask is whether "unnatural" has a bad connotation or not, and whether that is really part of the definition of "unnatural". And in my experience, it is.

However, I agree on your wider point that many people are senselessly paranoid and fearful of technology (in particular to this conversation, genetic engineering). People have this "Frankenstein" complex that "we shouldn't play God". To some extent we do need to be careful with new technologies, but some people take it way too far, and are fearful instead. Usually, they are very ignorant too.

Personally, I am very afraid that these ignorant, fearful people will win out in the case of human genetic engineering, and that we will never take the step to improve our own biology. It is very critically important that we do so, there are many aspects where humans need improvements, or the planet and civilization will be in grave danger. In particular, we need bigger brains with a higher level of both intelligence and empathy. Because the brain is such an energy-hungry organ, every animal has the minimal amount of brain power it needs to fulfill its niche. We're apes adapted to throw sticks and stones, not ICBMs and RPGs, and maneuver in tribal social structures, not global social structures. We now have such an abundance of food that some people are horribly obese, so we have more than enough food energy now to supply the bigger brains that we need.

[Alchemist]

Chemical fertilizers, GMO, chemicals in food... that all boils down to the question of engineering versus "the natural way" of trial and error.

If we throw away the "natural is always good, unnatural always bad" argument (how many of those who use that would like to actually participate in natural selection?) then here are some objective considerations about the engineering way (in any area, including this food issue):

+ engineering allows deliberate design of necessary features, instead of searching for them amongst bunch of random traits

+ therefore, engineering allows faster and more efficient development

+ engineering often allows to take the best of both initial options instead of having to choose and/or balance

+ by better fine-tuning, engineering may allow reaching performance many times better than what the trial and error stops at

- engineering often includes bypassing some natural mechanisms, including some error protection mechanisms.Therefore, without properly engineered control procedures there is higher risk of making dangerous mistakes

- going for much higher performances not only vastly increases risks of mistakes, but also increases probable danger of such mistakes

- even worse, jumping to next generation of tech often means finding many new possible mistakes that aren't really predictable by the means from previous generation

- more complex systems make it more difficult to verify

- with all of this there appear more possibilities for deliberately made malevolent alterations...

- countering these risks requires creating new control and verification techniques, that usually lag behind and increase expenses

- attempts to copy high tech without the necessary knowledge (that's often not publicly available) often at best don't work at all or get thrown several generations back, at worst result in something containing incredible amount of unrecognized dangerous mistakes

- therefore, high tech encourages formation of monopolies (that often start suffering from the "natural" mechanisms of the free market. Paradox, but sadly true)

Result: scientific/engineering/high-tech way is always the high risk - high reward way. And this means the necessity for analyzing new risks and developing new countermeasures and control mechanisms (just look at the high-tech industries with even higher risk products, like pharmaceuticals or aircrafts - that's the amount of quality control that almost fully neutralizes almost all the risks before the product even gets to the consumers. Still not 100% though).

Who's right? Those that deny any advances are fools. Those who embrace any new tech aiming for short-term rewards and not considering risks and long-term effects are idiots. And the proper way is the least profitable in short-term, therefore needs some government-level engineering (subsidies and legal regulations) to work efficiently. There's no definitive answer, but all extremes lead nowhere, especially if fully left to the "natural" mechanisms of democracy and free market. (Yes, high tech always requires a bit of technocracy to be safe)

Would I eat any particular GMO? Please, specify what exactly has been altered and what tests have been carried out. But improperly balanced nourishment can probably do more harm than the fact that something there is GMO.

[Greenfire32]

In reality, 100% of all grown food is the result of genetic modifying either on the field or in the lab.

We've changed how resilient certain crops are by selectively "breeding" certain strains of them in the field. That's a GMO.

The negative connotation of GMO's come from a similar vain as the Anti-Vaccers. Untested and unproven bits of psuedo science found their way into the mainstream and people who were either uneducated in the subject or unwilling to educate themselves clung to the idea that anything discovered inside a lab (read: controlled environment) is inherently bad, because that's the tone that their "information" source took.

There is no substantial evidence that GMO are harmful in any way. And believe me, the people who do the actual research in this subject are looking for that evidence.

It just isn't there.

[vger]

Watch a Monsanto Lobbyist Claim a Weed Killer Is Safe to Drink but Then Refuse to Drink It

http://time.com/3761053/monsanto-weed-killer-drink-patrick-moore-lobbyist/

[GreenWolf]

http://time.com/3761053/monsanto-weed-killer-drink-patrick-moore-lobbyist/

Just because something is safe to drink doesn't mean that it's pleasant to drink. Urine is safe to drink, but you won't find me drinking it. I'm sure that weed killer tastes pretty awful.

[RainDreamer]

So yeah, I think we should move away from Mosanto when talking about these things. GMO is bigger than just one corporation.

[lajoswinkler]

Just because something is safe to drink doesn't mean that it's pleasant to drink. Urine is safe to drink, but you won't find me drinking it. I'm sure that weed killer tastes pretty awful.

Urine is not safe to drink. It is sterile (if you're healthy), but it is not safe to drink. It contains lots of toxic stuff kidneys have been carefully removing (while spending a buttload of chemical energy) from your blood.

[Wesreidau]

The big stink isn't specifically GMO's. It's GMO's that were altered to withstand mega-pesticides. When do we get our genes altered to resist Roundup?

Glyphosphate? You could take a bath in it*.

* Extreme hyperbole.

My father worked for 22 years for one of the big ag chemical companies, so every time Monsanto came up in the news it was evil. Not because Monsanto was doing anything his company didn't do, but because they held patents his didn't. Guess who funds Monsanto protesters?

Edited March 27, 2015 by Wesreidau

[Robotengineer]

The subject of whether GMO's are good or bad is to broad. If GMO technology is used to engineer crops that have better yields, it is a benefit. If it is used to modify a virus to create a supervirus, it's obviously bad. If you use it to inoculate crops against a chemical you sell, it's debatable. GMO's aren't a thing, they are a technology.

[Wesreidau]

What's bad about it? Soybeans are tremendously sensitive to herbicides, that's why they engineered them to resist Roundup. Its only natural they'd hold patents to their product. There are other chemical/hybrid combinations for soybeans, but none of them have the market share. You could grow 'heirloom' soybeans, but you'd never turn a profit at commodity rates because of their dramatically lower yield and the fact you'd practically have to remove weeds by hand. This is a serious problem to a low-growing crop, which unlike corn cannot outgrow and crowd out invading plant species.

[GreenWolf]

Urine is not safe to drink. It is sterile (if you're healthy), but it is not safe to drink. It contains lots of toxic stuff kidneys have been carefully removing (while spending a buttload of chemical energy) from your blood.

This really depends on your diet and how much water you drink. And I'm not suggesting you drink only urine. But a glass of it isn't going to kill you. Regardless, it was a (rather poor) example of something that is safe to drink that you might not want actually drink. I'm sure you can think of something that you wouldn't want to drink that is, technically, safe to drink.

[KerikBalm]

It also depends on the urine.

If you have someone chug 5 liters of water.... their urine will be very dilute, and safe (though unpleasant) to drink.

If its someone who is not properly hydrated, and its coming out a dark yellow, its much less safe.

Its a bit like drinking saltwater... the concentration of stuff in there is simply too high... but its fine if its dilute.

Long term, its not good to put extra strain on your kidneys, but the nitrogen waste isn't so bad. Early fish used the urea to equalize the osmolarity of their blood. Later fish that evolved in fresh water lost that ability and just directly excreted amonia waste into the water.

The tetrapod lineage divereged prior to that change, and retained the ability to produce urea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_tetrapods#Excretion_in_tetrapods

Some fish literally circulated this crap (well... not crap... ....) in their bloodstream. Its not so bad.

[vger]

What's bad about it? Soybeans are tremendously sensitive to herbicides, that's why they engineered them to resist Roundup. Its only natural they'd hold patents to their product.

Roundup is a product. A plant that resists Roundup isn't. They could have earned a killing on Roundup alone just by providing seeds for plants that can resist it. But no, they had to go and be jerks about it and monopolize the whole industry.

Anyone could've made a Roundup resistant plant, and that includes through traditional methods of cross-breeding. Just because it was done through gene-splicing instead shouldn't magically turn it into a product.

[Kryten]

Anyone could've made a Roundup resistant plant, and that includes through traditional methods of cross-breeding. Just because it was done through gene-splicing instead shouldn't magically turn it into a product.

This is true, but not in the sense you seem to mean. Plant and animal varieties are patentable whether they've been produced through GMO or through normal selective breeding, and this has been standard throughout the industry for decades. Blaming it on GMO or Monsanto is nonsense.

[vger]

This is true, but not in the sense you seem to mean. Plant and animal varieties are patentable whether they've been produced through GMO or through normal selective breeding, and this has been standard throughout the industry for decades. Blaming it on GMO or Monsanto is nonsense.

Likely true. Though some of this may technically be self-inflicted too. It's simply one of the side-effects of being that successful.

Nearly everyone refers to invisible tape as "Scotch Tape," even though Scotch is simply ONE brand that makes invisible tape. They were just so successful at it that the two phrases are now synonymous.

[lajoswinkler]

This really depends on your diet and how much water you drink. And I'm not suggesting you drink only urine. But a glass of it isn't going to kill you. Regardless, it was a (rather poor) example of something that is safe to drink that you might not want actually drink. I'm sure you can think of something that you wouldn't want to drink that is, technically, safe to drink.

Glass of seawater won't kill you, either. Doesn't mean it's a good thing to drink. Sublethal doses of poisonous things also bad and you don't need to die to do some damage to yourself.

This is true, but not in the sense you seem to mean. Plant and animal varieties are patentable whether they've been produced through GMO or through normal selective breeding, and this has been standard throughout the industry for decades. Blaming it on GMO or Monsanto is nonsense.

Indeed, hybrids were patented long before they were transgenic.

[miracmert]

GMOs are good if they are used for a good reason. They are terrible if it is used for selling same seeds every year because they are modified to not breed again thus giving the seed company a very good sales money.

[magnemoe]

I thought I remember seeing some published studies a month or so ago talking about how an experiment has been going on for over 20 years where they had test animals being fed a diet of purely GMO foods and after 20 years (and in some cases, 20 generations) they have no evidence that these animals are statistically suffering from any health issues they shouldn't be in a similar grouping of control animals. Seems pretty solid to me.

In the end GMO won't be the thing that solves world hunger, but what it can do is help ensure that for those that can only eat small amounts of food due to a lack of growth, that they can get essential vitamins and nutrients so that they have less preventable issues. An example being the rice that they spliced to produce vitamin C to prevent scurvy.

And finally in the end, an obscene amount of the plants that end up following us into space are going to be GMOed all over the place. So, even though I've never cared, I especially don't care.

Yes and as I know the only experiment showing that GMO was harmful was an scientist who on purpose added an gene who made potatoes poisonous. Probably an gene from an poisonous plant. I however don't see how that was relevant as it was on purpose.

[GreenWolf]

Potatoes are actually already poisonous, especially the stem and leaves. In fact, wild potatoes are more poisonous than domestic potatoes. Many strains of hybrid potatoes have had to be discarded when they ended up producing too much solanine for human consumption. It only takes a minor change in a potatoes genes to increase solanine levels.

[magnemoe]

Just because something is safe to drink doesn't mean that it's pleasant to drink. Urine is safe to drink, but you won't find me drinking it. I'm sure that weed killer tastes pretty awful.

Lots of stuff used in cooking like vinegar and chill tastes awful.

However, weed killers are not only designed to kill weed, the bottles farmers buy is also very concentrated. Drinking one glass of concentrated stuff might be like drinking an liter of 96% alcohol, the amount for each plant would be a couple drops. Herbicides is also designed to break down after some time.

As for cancer risk, do an animal experiment, here you would use pretty concentrated stuff as the first experiment would be if it can cause cancer in the worst case first, if not its safe, you then try an more sensible experiment like 10 times plausible worst case expositor for people and see if its an health risk.

- - - Updated - - -

Potatoes are actually already poisonous, especially the stem and leaves. In fact, wild potatoes are more poisonous than domestic potatoes. Many strains of hybrid potatoes have had to be discarded when they ended up producing too much solanine for human consumption. It only takes a minor change in a potatoes genes to increase solanine levels.

You are right, I have done potato farming as younger, if potatoes have green parts they are poisonous, it grew to close to surface. Our digging and covering of the ditch was not very accurate (25 years ago I was far lighter and my father drove to fast)

[Ethanadams]

I'm like the idea of gmo but Alex rider makes me kind of subsicios of charity and gmo

[WinkAllKerb'']

vana vana ... pffftttt xdr

just passing by, else i get a ban if i stay to long around this thread ... so let's make it short ... and as diplomatic as possible (oh yeah i usually totally sucks with that ... but nevermind )

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

Make it happen slow or fast not important at all but too much control kill control and not enough http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassage_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9tique (it miss left links but feel free to add some and/or translate) ... cc and disminushing return A G A I N ...

Edited March 28, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''