Highly Controversial Are GMOs good or bad?

[Roadkill]

vana vana ... pffftttt xdr

just passing by' date=' 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 )

[url']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 ...

In response to that I'd like to say, Bedlamise obstreperously flirtingly pedometer phc preaffect culturally trustbuster. Memorializer knownothingism tinniest regeneracy internalized eurytion peeved seersucker. Uneviscerated collectivistically garnisher dimerous cytolysis nongeographic reiving lightening.

As far as GMO's are concerned, they are neither good or bad, just like guns. It's the user that determines that.

[RainDreamer]

As far as GMO's are concerned, they are neither good or bad, just like guns. It's the user that determines that.

I would say it is more like technology (a gun is just one manifestation of it). Just as there are no differences in the application of rocket technology to a rocket that will take us to new planets and an ICBM that will wipe out a small country and killing a large number of people at once, there are no differences between putting GMO to malicious uses or for the betterment of humankind.

Probably going back to that whole "humanity is not ready for this" idea whenever we encounter new technology?

[magnemoe]

I would say it is more like technology (a gun is just one manifestation of it). Just as there are no differences in the application of rocket technology to a rocket that will take us to new planets and an ICBM that will wipe out a small country and killing a large number of people at once, there are no differences between putting GMO to malicious uses or for the betterment of humankind.

Probably going back to that whole "humanity is not ready for this" idea whenever we encounter new technology?

humanity is not ready for this also applies to knives and fire both kills lots of people every year.

As for using GM for bioweapons its an totally unrelated issue. Only connection is that using GM to modify crops might give more experience making it easier to create an bioweapon however GM reserch will continue anyway because of medical benefits, first GMO was an bacteria who was changed to produce some medical compound.

Add that bioweapons would be pretty useless as an weapon as they are very hard to control, you are likely to hit other countries too, making more enemies any you have just used an WMD.

its also lite reason to create an GMO as you could use Ebola who would have the benefit of not being an obvious weapon, something created in an lab would be far easier to pinpoint.

[RainDreamer]

Well, I will have this faint, naive hope that humanity will use technology for good in the end in order to advance humanity.

[lajoswinkler]

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.

This is already the case with non-GM hybrids. It's nothing new. Usually the second generation seed isn't sterile, but it gives low yield product or low quality (smaller plants, different traits) when planted, so there's no use of it. The reason is simple mendelian genetics.

It's a dirty lie made by the anti-GMO nutters that buying new seeds each year is something new and tied to GM plants. It's a normal policy and that's how things work.

[Jovus]

It's a dirty lie made by the anti-GMO nutters that buying new seeds each year is something new and tied to GM plants. It's a normal policy and that's how things work.

Sort of, anyway. People do still plant heritage crops. Their yields are lower and their various resistances weaker, usually, which is why they're not as popular, I'm told, and why hybrids exist in the first place.

The main difference, I think, is nobody is patenting 'eugenically modified' breeds and then suing people over them. Edit: Wow, looks like I'm wrong about this by a long margin. Sorry!

Disclaimer: I'm not a farmer, just some guy with opinions on stuff he knows only a tiny bit about.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Jovus

[Major999]

I'm very happy to see that the KSP community supports the scientific consensus. Just a few things though:

All seed varieties are patentable. They have been so since before GM, and will remain to be so. Monsanto isn't going to patent GMO seeds to kill biodiversity, they do it because it stops people from stealing their intellectual property.

Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having a contaminated field. They sued one guy, but his crop was over 95% of their crop, suggesting that he was planting stolen seeds. It wasn't accidental contamination.

Roundup is significantly less toxic than organic pesticides such as rotenone. In fact, very little gets to your food anyway, as it breaks down rapidly when exposed to sunlight, which it is exposed to for weeks after it is sprayed (early in the growing season). Furthermore, GMO crops use less pesticides than organic ones, by up to 5 times less.

Just thought I'd try to clear things up!

Edited March 31, 2015 by Major999

[RainDreamer]

As from my Mosanto thread, there are a lot of things you can hate Mosanto for, but GMO is not one of them, and using them as a strawman to burn down the whole concept of GMO is bad science.

[Drunken Hobo]

All seed varieties are patentable. They have been so since before GM, and will remain to be so. Monsanto isn't going to patent GMO seeds to kill biodiversity, they do it because it stops people from stealing their intellectual property.

Indeed, try growing & selling Pink Lady apples without permission and just see how quickly you end up in court.

I bet a lot of people also don't realise that a number of conventionally-grown (and even organic) crops have been developed through radiation breeding, where parent plants are exposed to high levels of radiation in an attempt to accelerate beneficial mutations. I'm not sure how that's any safer than actual genetic modification, where we at least know what the result will be.

[Mazon Del]

One thing I figured I should clear up. Note: I am pro-GMO, I just feel this should be brought up.

One of the earlier (and still used) methods of genetically modifying plants was the aptly named gene-gun. Basically a hypospray-like device that shotguns in the DNA altering mechanism of your choice (a variety of these exist). And one slight criticism with it was that it isn't as laser selective as some might believe. Sometimes it COULD activate segments of the DNA that had been otherwise untouched by you, and could cause issues later. That said, once this was discovered, the proper methodologies for use of the gene-gun changed over time. You do this on a wide variety of samples, of the samples that exhibit the desired behavior, you do some DNA sequencing for final verification, assuming things check out. Ship it.

[rkman]

What make me suspicious about GMO is the fact that proponents of it argue that genetic modification is essentially the same as selective breeding.

The important difference is that GM results in change to genes that are not possible with selective breeding.

Not to mention the ad-hominums addressed to those who think GMO is problematic.

Edited April 1, 2015 by rkman