In Britain and Europe the controversy over genetically modified (GM) crops has become huge. Protesters from environmental group Greenpeace International have been arrested for illegally destroying GM crops and a broad based movement has evolved supporting organically grown food.
The argument hinges on whether genetically modified crops are an environmental disaster in the making or just a sensible exploitation of scientific techniques to produce food better tailored to consumer markets. There are also matters of health and consumer rights at issue.
Opponents of GM crops paint a nightmare scenario of uncontrolled genetic engineering opening a Pandora's box of unforeseen consequences. They warn of the possible destruction of whole species of plant life and irreversible environmental damage.
Others say this is just alarmist nonsense and that the agricultural scientists know exactly what they are doing.
I think GE food is the stupidest thing ever. I thing messing with DNA in general at all is the stupidest thing ever. It took millions and millions of years for nature/God (whoever you believe in) to make DNA the best way it possibly could be. Then retarded humans come along and think we know better then millions of years of evolution/ID. It is only a matter of time until something goes accidently wrong or terrorists get someone on the inside and make something go wrong. This world is the way it is for a reason, when we start playing God, and f*ck with the way it is supposed to be things are bound to go wrong. Thats what I think on the issue.
Sounds like more dooms day style predictions that people use to scare people into doing something with out thinking about it.
Theres nothing wrong with it, humans have been manipulating plants and animals since before civilisation started, we've just found a new way to to do it. There allot of shit that we can do to destroy the world but taking a gene from something else and sticking in wheat, no thats not going to cause a catastrophe.
| coolclay wrote: |
| I think GE food is the stupidest thing ever. I thing messing with DNA in general at all is the stupidest thing ever. It took millions and millions of years for nature/God (whoever you believe in) to make DNA the best way it possibly could be. Then retarded humans come along and think we know better then millions of years of evolution/ID. It is only a matter of time until something goes accidently wrong or terrorists get someone on the inside and make something go wrong. This world is the way it is for a reason, when we start playing God, and f*ck with the way it is supposed to be things are bound to go wrong. Thats what I think on the issue. |
What makes you think DNA is best it can be? Or that things are perfect the way they are? All food that we grow has been altered by humans. When humans selected for the traits they liked in their grains, fruits, and vegetables, we changed the plants' DNA through selective breeding. If we do it clumsily through trait selection or through direct genetic manipulation isn't really an important distinction. Evolution didn't stop with us.Genetically modified organisms are a wonderful thing. With GMOs, we're able to feed people in developing countries by letting them grow foods in the unfavorable environmental conditions that they may have to live in. We've helped prevent nutrient deficiencies with GMOs in parts of the world with limited diets (see: golden rice and beta-carotene). We've also limited the use of pesticides, which aren't healthy themselves and often kill benefical or neutral creatures that live nearby (DDT killed many species of birds that fed on the bugs that lived on crops covered with DDT. This pesticide made bird shells thinner so that when the parent bird sat on the egg, the egg cracked and the chick inside died). Millions of people benefit from GMOs. People who would otherwise die. How can you say that GMOs are such a horrible thing?
What we need to do is be more careful, allow more thorough testing of GMOs. Do more research. Genetic engineering introduces foreign DNA into plants. In nature, this rarely happens between species in eukaryotes. By doing so, you can introduce new resistances in nearby organisms. The genes that we introduced to ward off these pests may one day be resisted by them, because evolution will select for organisms with resistance to the plant. We also limit the gene pool of the organism we modify (this has been happening since the beginning of civilization). GMOs may also introduce new allergies into old foods. For instance, if a gene from a peanut were introduced to celery, those allergic to peanuts may now also be allergic to celery.
To those against GMOs: how do you expect us to feed the 6 billion people on the world today? Would you prefer that they all starve and die instead?
On the one hand, genetic modification is the best next step for food growing across the globe, it makes for massive increases in crop yeilds and creates enough food to care for the world's needy.
However, there is a more sinister side to these seemingly benevolent crops.
The fact of the matter is that humans are overpopulating the planet. We feel that we and we alone have the right to exploit the plant in order to live beyond our means. By that I simply mean that the planet can only support a certain amount of life, and anything beyond that usually dies off, maintaining a balance. Too many squirrels eating nuts off the ground will mean less nuts and a few will starve.
Humans, however, have found ways to fudge the system, mainly by engineering crops and transporting the food across the globe. This does indeed solve many human problems, but it creates many more environmental ones. GE crops use vast amounts of fertilizer, which then promotes algae blooms in the water table, which kills of fish and other aquatic plants. The food that is grown strips away the topsoil at a rate that is amazing, requiring vast amounts of new material yearly. Also, all of the GE systems require tons of oil to function, for transport, harvesting, and the myraid procedures needed to craft the plants in the first place.
Organic food simply means food that has been grown in a sustainable way, not requireing lots of outside help, and not damaging the soil or surroundings in any meaningful way. Sadly, organic food does not grow as fast or fully as GE food.
Call me cold, but once the species outstrips it's reigon's carrying capacity, it either has to move or starve. Tricks like GE food will only last for a limited time by their very nature, whereas Organically grown food is meant to be practiced for the forseeable future.
no they are not. Alot of what is used are hormones that are already produced by the plant.
i think that something is wrong with those plants but they're describing an apokolips and i think thats just stupid, nothing that big will ever go wrong,...i think 
The thing about GE that bugs me is that the more you make something adapt to fend off diseases and pests, the more the diseases and pests adapt to kill you even more.
But if they can find a way around that... it'd be great to grow healthier, larger and longer lasting foods.
Technology and the science behind is, forgive the expression, 'a double bladed sword'. All though there are advantages, there are always disadvantages.
Lets take TNT, a revolution to the mining industry saving much manual labour and increasing efficiency and productivity. But its an explosive, and us humans being as we are, it didn't take long for the development of better explosives to us against each other. Same thing does for gun powder, used for the flight of fireworks by the Chinese. A harmless endeavour which eventually developed in guns.
Another classic the whole development of our understanding of how diseases, viruses, bacteria and so forth, affect our body. From these we were able to save countless lives and ease the pain of countless others. But now we face threats from biological weapons. Without the development of the vaccines and cures this understanding would be delayed.
What i'm getting at is when it comes down it, people will always find alternative uses for new technologies, sometimes destructive to life. But in the end of the day human curiousity will mean new technologies will be developed regardless. Now the question comes, would you rather try to ban something that someone will eventually discover, or would to choose to keep a keen eye and police these things?
Leviticus:
Good points, but there were a few things I wanted to comment on.
| Quote: |
| We feel that we and we alone have the right to exploit the plant in order to live beyond our means. By that I simply mean that the planet can only support a certain amount of life, and anything beyond that usually dies off, maintaining a balance. Too many squirrels eating nuts off the ground will mean less nuts and a few will starve. |
It's not that we feel that we and we alone have the right it's that we have the intelligence and the technology to make things better. If squirrels began to genetically engineer trees to produce more nuts each year, and we stopped them, perhaps then we could introduce rights into the matter.
| Quote: |
| Call me cold, but once the species outstrips it's reigon's carrying capacity, it either has to move or starve. Tricks like GE food will only last for a limited time by their very nature, whereas Organically grown food is meant to be practiced for the forseeable future. |
It's not a matter of being cold, it's a matter of being removed. When you can save thousands of dying infants in Africa by developing ways to produce greater yields, it doesn't seem worth tipping the balance a bit? If your own infant daughter, or family member was starving to death before your very eyes, and you simply did not have the means to pick up and move, you may have a different take on the matter.
If it's balance you seek, nature has ways of dealing with that, think plagues. In fact, thinking specifically of war we have our own ways of dealing with overpopulation. Of course a comet or asteroid could destroy everything but bacteria rendering it all a moot point.
It's not a perfect science, and it's a young science. The environmental reprocussions will be lessened as we learn more efficient ways to utilize the process. Genetically modified crops or such are causing such a hype because of the distinction between it and "organic" crops as such. I agree with the posts here that we humans have already been altering many things from their natural state. So why should these be stopped? It also has its benefits. Try to live in areas where food is not that abundant, then try to look upon the situation again.
If they really think that way, just look at what we do that are commonplace. We enjoy our big cities yet these are very far from the "natural". So do we want to go back to living in small huts or treehouses and forage in the forest for living? We ignore many things yet focus on some that have lesser danger but with promising benefits. We are to affected by the SEP (someone else's problem) field that we are blind to others and are too focused on some.
Yes these innovations pose both threat and benefits. But we possess significant intelligence so that we may be a stewards. So rather than stopping this, we must just keep a keen eye on the dangers yet support them in developing better GMO's. For GMO's are not just a trick, they are for our survival. Think about crops that could withstand subsquent flooding or etc in some places where food are hard to come by...
Yes, I agree that GM crops are a menace. I also believe that nature was well designed and can take a huge beating then fix itself up. So I don't have a clear opinion on whether there's a GM-caused apocalyptic catastrophe coming. Mind you, we humans seem to be getting better all the time at giving nature a huge beating, especially with the scale of operations we are now capable of with current technology. So I tend to think irrepairable damage is a likely outcome, especially given that GM crops can spread their weirdness to neighbouring farms (so I've heard).
What I do have a clear opinion on, however, is whether the world needs GM crops at all. I don't believe they are the answer to feeding starving people in the 3rd world. On the contrary, I believe, in general, that it makes the 3rd world starvation problem worse.
It's controversial, sure. Take a look at this thread on another forum site:
http://forum.wordreference.com/archive/index.php/t-255966.html
Hopefully this will help some readers think more broadly on the GM topic. Menace ? No, I think not. In reality there is little functional difference between genetically engineered crops and crops which have been slowly engineered using the old technology for generations (cross breeding, largely at random, and hoping for a useful product). There is a lot of nonsense talked about GM by many who should know better.
There is a problem, however, with the political and commercial response to this largely ill-informed resistance. Politicians have either buried their heads or played both camps against each other. Multinationals have introduced product by stealth and deception. Regulators have ignored or misreported trials and usage and scope of currently licensed crops. Retailers have been desperate to avoid identifying existing GM in their products. The whole thing stinks to high heaven as far as I'm concerned.
Whilst I disagree with the view that GM is a hugely dangerous development, I despair at the casual disregard for public opinion that has resulted from the commercial concerns affected and the complete dishonesty of the political and regulatory bodies in carrying out their function as representative and agency of the democratically expressed will of the people.
I don't think GM crops will kill us, but, given this example, IU am not at all sanguine about the possibility of future commercial pressure forcing really dangerous goods on the public, despite their wishes.
Personally, I think we are playing with fire before we really know what we are doing. I don't think that enough research has been done into the effects of such crops.
Religion and financial/personal agendas aside, the effects of developing GM crops should be investigated IN ALL AREAS before continuing.
Such crops may become disease resistant, but the bugs that feed on them may develop too. After all, if you believe in evolution, some bug somewhere must learn to feed on the new crops. If that's the case, we'll then have to deal with those bugs in ways we aren't currently prepared for!
What effects will the new crops have on the human body over a period of 50-60 years? Our bodies are used to feed with a certain composition, what happens when that composition changes?
For example, let's say I like eating pasta. The pasta is made from wheat. The wheat in my country is different to the wheat in Italy which is far healthier. While I am able to process the pasta normally, I derive less benefit from it than someone in Italy. In such a scenario, someone in Italy would have a better developed immune system, be more resistant to disease, etc.
GM food is not necessarily healthier or more beneficial. It's guaranteed to be different for sure. More resistant to pests, perhaps. But how does it affect those who eat it? What are the long term effects not only on "natural crops", but the entire International eco-system?
There has not been enough study, so until then I am opposed to the idea of GM crops.
This is just fear of the unknown. Its new and strange and people fear it.
Genetically modified crops are no danger to the environment, they can and have been made healthier, with better taste and resistance to pests thus better for the environment. Its not dangerous. They are not just randomly putting genes together and making new species, all they are doing is taking a gene (and they know what it dose) from one thing and sticking it in another. There not creating super plants, there the same plants just with 1 or 2 new genes.
Humans have been genetically altering then since the beginning of civilisation. Corm use to be more like grass but people breaded and hybridised it into what it is today. Corm and many other crops can't even survive on there own cause of what humans have breaded them into.
Its the same with GM crops, they are not going to make a super plant that takes over the earth.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Genetically modified crops are no danger to the environment |
I'll take that with a grain of salt, thanks. This here seems to me to be a more balanced set of statements on GM crops' potential effect on the environment.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| There not creating super plants, there the same plants just with 1 or 2 new genes. |
What about this? GM crops created superweed, say scientists
(The full final report of the research referred to is available here: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/epg-1-5-151.htm)
Cheers,
EldonAn artical from a place called green facts and a 3 (short) paragraph artical.
Humans have been manipulating plants since the beginning of civilisation, many of the species of plants we cultivate today were invented by humans.
Genetically modifying crops will lead to faster growing, more nutritious and pest resident crops. But its new, so people fear it.
When I was still an undergrad in molecular biology taking bio-ethics, there was a survey done which indicated that over 80% of those polled stated that they would never consume food that contained DNA. The demographic was college educated adults.
Many organically grown crops, especially insect resistant tomatoes, have been shown to be carcinogenic and can cause contact dermititis. The veggiess contain multple copies of insect toxin genes leadding to a rather dangerous salad.
Breeding is essentially gene manipulation by influencing selective pressure on an organism to the breeders own end. Doing this in a genetics lab where we know exactly the nature of the manipulation of well characterized genes seems safe to me. Interestingly, there has only been one death attributed to recombinant DNA technology, a terminally ill boy treated by gene therapy for a rare and virtually always lethal immune condition.
Until those GE crops grows eyes, brains, learn to use their vines as arms and legs, and learn how to use our weapons they're not a menace. It's just food... geez...
Actually here is something to think about from my Organic Chem teacher:
He says that GE crops are actually safer because what farmers do/did is get a bunch of plants, put them under an x-ray, breed them, and see which grow best. The x-rays are actually GEing the plants randomly so we do not know what genes are being changed. If we do this ourselves in a lab we do know and this can be healther. GE plants just have a bad rep.
There are loads of natural plants that are lethally toxic, as well as other natural plants which have lesser negative effects, in the short-term or long-term. How have people determined which ones are safe to eat? By seeing which ones caused problems. Indeed, techniques of doing this were more limited in the past than modern scientific testing, without the ability to have studies with thousands of people. For example, there are beans that are toxic before being cooked, yet that people eat in huge quantities because the evidence is that cooking sufficiently eliminates the toxins.
When a type of genetically modified food goes through the testing including animal tests that is done today before being sold for human consumption, it is very well tested. Actually, the bulk of food really is already genetically modified, just by the slower process of past breeding. Wheat, corn, strawberries, etc. are plants that didn't just naturally exist in their modern forms with such a high amount of tasty edible content. Modern genetic modification of crops allows benefits like greater productivity (lower cost to those with limited income), more vitamins, better taste, or other goals to be obtained.
