Serious Genetically Modified Food

[Cresselia~~]

I have a small module on GM food in college this semester, and I would like to see what people feel or believe about GM food. Because this can potentially end up to be my large project this year.

My stance in this debate will be neutral (which may or may not reflect my stance in real life),
and my purpose of leading this discussion is to ensure people are getting their scientific facts correctly, and learn new science facts from you.
In this discussion, I will respect opinions from both sides provided if they are well argued, and I may give likes to posts of both sides if they quote correct scientific facts.
That said, please refrain from being rude or talking down towards people with a different opinion from yours.

So, what is your stance on GM food:
Do you think production and planting of GM food should be allowed?
>include, crops genetically modified specifically to be poisonous to certain pests.
>include, patenting on GM seeds.
>Sterile seeds-- technology so that seeds that come from crops are sterile, so that farmers must purchase new seeds from Monsanto.

Do you think researches about GM food should be banned?
What do you think are the benefits and dangers of GM food?

Some of significant GM foods to discuss.
FlavrSavr (tomato) , Produced in 1994 in USA.
The first commercially available genetically modified food, modified for longer shelf life.

Bt corn , 1996. is a variant of maize that has been genetically altered to express one or more proteins from the bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis.[8]The protein is poisonous to certain insect pests and is widely used in organic gardening.[9] The European corn borer causes about a billion dollars in damage to corn crops each year.

Monsanto GM foods.
Monsanto is a USA company that produces many different types of GM food.
Probably the most controversial GM crops company.

 

[Plaessy]

I would make something constructive here but I am lazy. So I'm just gonna say one thing: Meat made from a single cell. When it becomes a thing, the prices go down and etc. it's probably one of the best things this world can get.

 

[sunny004]

GMO crops are merely accelerated selective breeding that allows crops to become more plentiful, resistint to pests/pesticides, and allows foods to provide more nutrients, even those that weren't previously possible in common foods. (For an example, look at Golden Rice, where vitamin A was placed in rice to address a deficiency). There are virtually no risks to GMO crops, and the increased crop yield of GMO foods help to address worldwide hunger and famine.

To address cresselia's questions, however:
-Yes, GMO crops should be allowed
-Yes, but only after testing has verified that the modifications would also not be toxic to humans
-Somewhat. Intellectual property, especially considering a specific advancement or combination of genes in a new plant, needs to be recognized. However, corporations shouldn't be able to patent a broad swath of GMO crops, like patenting "all pesticide-resistant corn plants" or something akin to that.
-No. This is a moneygrab by Monsanto. Either they should raise the price of the seeds for a one time payment, or make farmers pay a portion of the profits made by monsanto seeds to monsanto.

 

[Cresselia~~]

GMO crops are merely accelerated selective breeding that allows crops to become more plentiful, resistint to pests/pesticides, and allows foods to provide more nutrients, even those that weren't previously possible in common foods. (For an example, look at Golden Rice, where vitamin A was placed in rice to address a deficiency). There are virtually no risks to GMO crops, and the increased crop yield of GMO foods help to address worldwide hunger and famine.

How do you feel about GM crops that take a specific toxin producing gene from another organism, to become toxic towards specific pests, (which may also be toxic to mammals such as lab rats)?
I mean, a lot of them are toxic to lab rats, meaning that they could be harmful to humans too, but they are turned down before launched into market.
I mean, should scientists still continue to research and produce GM crops with toxins that are meant to be specific?

There seem to be a few types of these GM food crops that are turned down because the toxins, although effective against pests, is also found toxic to lab rats.

I also do not quite agree that GMO crops are merely accelerated selective breeding, because some GM crops have genes taken in from fish or bacteria for a certain purpose, and this cannot be achieved by selective breeding.
But if you mean "accelerated improvement" in general, then that is the case.

 

[sunny004]

How do you feel about GM crops that take a specific toxin producing gene from another organism, to become toxic towards specific pests, (which may also be toxic to mammals such as lab rats)?
I mean, a lot of them are toxic to lab rats, meaning that they could be harmful to humans too, but they are turned down before launched into market.
I mean, should scientists still continue to research and produce GM crops with toxins that are meant to be specific?

There seem to be a few types of these GM food crops that are turned down because the toxins, although effective against pests, is also found toxic to lab rats.

I also do not quite agree that GMO crops are merely accelerated selective breeding, because some GM crops have genes taken in from fish or bacteria for a certain purpose, and this cannot be achieved by selective breeding.
But if you mean "accelerated improvement" in general, then that is the case.

I can see potential benefits in increased toxic research, however if they are toxic to mammals such as lab rats they might pose a risk to humans, which I disagree with.
It would seem more prudent to research genes that resist pesticides, and use pesticides that can be washed off to prevent pest infection.

Also, regarding accelerated selective breeding - Regardless of whether or not plants would be able to exhibit certain traits of genes supplanted from fish/animals, the benefits that doing so would provide still greatly outweigh any potential risks, in my opinion.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

There is vast scientific consensus that GMOs are safe and pose no greater risk to human health than non-GMOs (I don't think it's quite at the same level as the scientific consensus on climate change, but it's still pretty big.) And yet this controversy stubbornly persists. All of the anti-GMO claims have been debunked frequently and yet they refuse to die.

With that in mind, it appears to me that the anti-GMO movement is the left's equivalent to climate change denial. In both cases, these people are spewing a bunch of crap totally unsubstantiated by any scientific research. So, with this in mind:

Yes, GMO foods should be allowed. Scientific evidence does not support a ban. However, research is still essential to ensure the new crops are still safe for human consumption (the scientific consensus referred to earlier regards crops already on the market, which have already undergone this testing.)

Yes to crops modified to be toxic to certain pests, but obviously this does require testing to ensure that the product is still safe for human consumption, in which case, I don't see what the issue is, seeing as we're already doing that testing anyway.

Yes to patents on GMO seeds. However, they shouldn't be overly broad. If it's too broad, like the "all pesticide-resistant corn crops" example brought up by sunny004, it will only enable corporations to function as patent trolls. My yes answer here only applies to specific modifications involving specific genes.

No to sterile seeds. This is nothing more than unethical consumer exploitation on the part of Monsanto.

I think my answers here already imply my answer to whether or not research should be permitted, so I shouldn't need to elaborate further on that. However, I would like to elaborate more on benefit vs. harm of GMO foods. Benefits would include increased crop yield, which makes GMOs a promising solution to world hunger. Increased shelf life can also help with this, and I think the implications of "more product + longer shelf life" is self-evident. The potential harms (and the reason I think the anti-GMO movement persists despite being totally unsupported by scientific evidence) would regard the safety of the products (especially hypothetical crops modified to be toxic to pests), but we already have rigorous testing to ensure GMO products are safe for human consumption for this reason.

 

[orch]

No to sterile seeds. This is nothing more than unethical consumer exploitation on the part of Monsanto.

I agreed with most of the points you brought up. I just wanted to offer a different perspective on this practice. Sterile seeds ensures that crop won't hybridize with wild plants and introduce the modified genetics into their germ line. This practice ensures that we don't get some super weed that can't be killed by herbicide, predator, drought, and etc. The super weed could potentially invade and alter the ecology in ways that we don't want it to.

It's just safer to have them sterile IMO.

 

[Cresselia~~]

I agreed with most of the points you brought up. I just wanted to offer a different perspective on this practice. Sterile seeds ensures that crop won't hybridize with wild plants and introduce the modified genetics into their germ line. This practice ensures that we don't get some super weed that can't be killed by herbicide, predator, drought, and etc. The super weed could potentially invade and alter the ecology in ways that we don't want it to.

It's just safer to have them sterile IMO.

Thanks. I think this is a very important point.
On the other hand, there could be some control on how much the new seeds are to be sold. Such as how a company cannot inflate more than a certain percentage of the price for the new seeds.

 

[JES]

Some of you probably know about my anti-GMO stance, but it is not as it seems. I just have firm beliefs they should be nourished and heavily regulated, something which many paid-for Republicans and Democrat frustratingly refuse to do. The fact of the matter is until they (the wealthy) wish to eat them, it's a very young science with a lot of promise, but I'm not going to be a lab rat.

Do you think production and planting of GM food should be allowed?
So long as they cannot become an invasive species, and the necessary precautions are made, then yes.

>include, crops genetically modified specifically to be poisonous to certain pests.
As long as they are not in any way poisonous to us, and no corners are cut on assessing their safety.

>include, patenting on GM seeds.
To a degree. But not to the point where farmers are forced to buy them, or get run out of business due to court costs by giants like Monsanto. As a result, there are less and less non-GMOs anywhere near farms going crops from the likes of Monsanto, which would raise the price on them. Okay for the filthy rich. For families like mine, it would be a burden.

>Sterile seeds-- technology so that seeds that come from crops are sterile, so that farmers must purchase new seeds from Monsanto.
Only if they can come to a deal where, again, they stop this ridiculous scam where they are forcing the farmers into Monsanto's debt. Otherwise, fuck it. It's a damned scam.

Do you think researches about GM food should be banned?
Absolutely not. I like I said, it has a lot of potential. While I think that American side dishes should be less fries, and more stir fried vegetables (love Chinese stir fries), if we can make corn and potatoes that have all of the same nutritious benefits of vegetables like broccoli or lettuces (I don't eat salads) without any of the downsides, that could benefit society immensely, assuming that they could be produced at costs cheap enough without any downsides. I even remember this one scene in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where Deanna Troi wanted an ice cream sundae (with real chocolate), and the onboard computer mentioned nutritional requirements. Sure, they turn energy into matter, but it could be the molecular arrangements are based off of ingredients genetically modified to yield better nutrition. So like I said, I see the potential benefits. Not altering the tastes too much (if at all, so that people aren't tempted to buy the unmodified version, even though it isn't as healthy) and getting nutritional benefits will be a balancing act.

What do you think are the benefits and dangers of GM food?
I've already states the benefits. Now for the downsides. It are still downsides. In addition to ridiculous attempts to strong-arm farmers into buying seeds, there are also at least early studies I know of that show that eating GMOs caused test rats to develop cancer. And while those might be early "prototypes" only, the fact that companies like Monsanto have refused to submit to in depth independent tests on their products, and the lack of oversight or mandatory labeling laws to give customers an automatic knowledge of what they are eating makes GMOs a frustrating affair, while the government that is supposed to protect us does nothing. There is this lack of transparency to GMOs, and that needs to be brought up in the next election. I'm sure if I did further research I could go into better depth.
Farmers who refuse to buy these seeds are being forced out of business, and those who do are in ever increasing debt.

 

[JALMONT]

I don't believe in eating organic food. I only eat genetically modified food.

there are also at least early studies I know of that show that eating GMOs caused test rats to develop cancer. .

1 out of 2 males get some sort of cancer over their lifetime. If you're worried about cancer, there's a lot of other things that you should be worried about that have actually been shown to increase your odds of getting cancer other than GMOs.

 

[Myzozoa]

"
As Ramessar et al describe, the corporate production of transgenic crops is a profoundly involved process: “The creation of transgenic plants is a very long, labor intensive, costly and inherently inefficient process. This is particularly the case when one moves away from model laboratory species to the more important agricultural crops” (2007). In a way, the neologism ‘transgenic’ or ‘genetically modified’ constitutes an erasure of the fact that, for most of human history, crops have been selectively modified by the farmers themselves through breeding over decades and centuries. Indeed, in discussing how to secure the preservation of Earth’s genetic material, José Esquinas Alcázar (2005) points out that:

“The genetic diversity that saved maize in the United States in the twentieth century, as well as most of the useful diversity that is referred to in the examples provided in Box 1, came from developing countries, where its existence was not accidental. It was the result of the work of generations of traditional smallholder and peasant farmers who — in a world in which they are often ignored or seen as a burden — are the true guardians of most of the world's remaining agricultural biodiversity in the field. These are the people who continue to develop and conserve the raw material that is needed to deal with changing environmental conditions and unpredictable human needs, and who make this material available to other farmers, professional breeders and biotechnologists.”

Thus, in only referring to the intellectual property holdings of corporations as ‘transgenic’, the historical involvement of small farmers in the cultivation of genetic material is disavowed or erased. Corporations are able to copyright or patent genetic material that would not be able to exist were it not for the unrecognized labor of subsistence farmers over centuries.
"
gmos are corporations patenting plant genetics undeservedly. also we produce enough food to feed the whole world we just choose not to.

so my opinion is that while there is no substantial risk of health or public safety consequence, there is still mad shade to be thrown at the idea of a gmo, as opposed to what? all those non-gmos? why should there be a patent on plant genetics in the hands of multinational corporations? what a capitulation to modernity, that only contributes to exploiting poor farmers. so yeah i think patenting 'gmo' seeds is pretty much 'cultural appropriation' par excellence and that, interestingly, the crops yielded from gmos tend to be practically inferior to the traditional stock in some aspects, but superior at driving farmers into share-cropper style debt cycles when crop failures occur.

also there is a threat to sustainability due to lack of biodiversity of seeds if people start only using the patented seeds.

like does it make sense to plant a whole field with one seed genetic? not from the perspective that centers sustainability. the whole discussion of gmos reveals so much of what is wrong with the global food system.

im glad you decided theyre safe to eat tho, it's not the gmo's that are poison, it's the other stuff implicated in a global food system that allows seeds to be patented and made safe from unauthorized use. i.e, farmers have to buy seeds from the corporations again the next season.

"
The Indian state of Punjab pioneered green revolution among the other states transforming India into a food-surplus country.[75] The state is witnessing serious consequences of intensive farming using chemicals and pesticide. A comprehensive study conducted by Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research(PGIMER) has underlined the direct relationship between indiscriminate use of these chemicals and increased incidence of cancer in this region.[76] An increase in the number of cancer cases has been reported in several villages including Jhariwala, Koharwala, Puckka, Bhimawali, and Khara.[76]

Environmental activist Vandana Shiva has written extensively about the social, political and economic impacts of the Green Revolution in Punjab. She claims that the Green Revolution's reliance on heavy use of chemical inputs and monocultures has resulted in water scarcity, vulnerability to pests, and incidents of violent conflict and social marginalization.[77]

In 2009, under a Greenpeace Research Laboratories investigation, Dr Reyes Tirado, from the University of Exeter, UK conducted the study in 50 villages in Muktsar, Bathinda and Ludhiana districts revealed chemical, radiation and biological toxicity rampant in Punjab. Twenty percent of the sampled wells showed nitrate levels above the safety limit of 50 mg/l, established by WHO, the study connected it with high use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.[78]"

A main criticism of the effects of the Green Revolution is the rising costs for many small farmers using HYV seeds, with their associated demands of increased irrigation systems and pesticides. A case study is found in India, where farmers are planting cotton seeds capable of producing Bt toxin.[44] A criticism regarding the Green Revolution are the effects regarding the widespread commercialization and market share of organisations, particularly of the phasing out of seed saving practices in favor of purchasing of seeds, and concerns regarding the financial affordability of the adoption of patented crops amongst farmers, particularly of those in the developing world.[45] This can allow larger farms, even foreign owned farming operations, to buy up local smallhold farms.[citation needed]

Vandana Shiva notes that this is the "second Green Revolution". The first Green Revolution, she notes, was mostly publicly-funded (by the Indian Government). This new Green Revolution, she says, is driven by private [and foreign] interest - notably MNCs like Monsanto. Ultimately, this is leading to foreign ownership over most of India's farmland.[46][47]


so yeah everything i eat is a gmo, all seeds are transgenic, but im gonna attempt to boycott destructive agribusiness systems left over from traditional colonialism/slavery.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

JES That study had a sample size of like 12 rats, and the author publishes anti-gmo papers like wildfire. It's not scientific

 

[JALMONT]

a discussion on GMOs should not even include discussion about "do GMOs cause cancer" or if they are "safe to eat" imo. it's like discussing if vaccines cause autism. at that point, you're talking about a debunked conspiracy theory with zero merit. it is not any singular person who has decided that GMOs are safe to eat, it is what has been proven by science. there are many other things the average consumer should be worried about if they are worried about getting cancer (e.g. not smoking, not being sedentary, drinking less, etc) beyond "GMOs" and i can't see what is gained by reiterating the same tired points again and again.

none of this is to say that there should be no discussion on the economics of GMOs and how they are (ab)used and so on. that is a different topic where there are no simple answers. it definitely requires thought and is relevant to society moving forward into the future. there are a lot of interesting facets to that conversation that warrant discussing for sure. i am not against discussing that at all

as an aside: supporting small farms/farmers is good, especially if you are in a financial position to do so. if it was financially feasible, i would probably prefer to buy all organic and just get everything from a farmer's market (and also because I find that they taste better regardless of the "morality" of not buying from a corporation or w/e). i would be interested in seeing whether or not demand for organic vegetables/fruits today has increased from the past...

 

[JES]

JES That study had a sample size of like 12 rats, and the author publishes anti-gmo papers like wildfire. It's not scientific

Okay, thanks! Maybe they are just rumors. Yeah, beware of biased publishers. Wise idea.

gmos are corporations patenting plant genetics undeservedly. also we produce enough food to feed the whole world we just choose not to.

True, and that has been true for some time. Infuriatingly, the extremely wealthy and major food production corporations who could make the ultimate difference lack the sympathy or motivation to act. If millions of children starve, so long as their families are happy, all is right with the world as far as their concerned. I've heard they actually throw away the surplus.

 

[TheRationalDove]

So, as a science major in college, I have discussed GMOs pretty frequently. As far as health risks for GMOs are concerned, there isn't really much reason to be worried about it, most of the science is pretty mixed, although you have to make sure you know who is saying what, as some studies are either performed by or funded by GMO distributors.

However, the biggest issue for me with GMOs are the ethical and business problems. The ability to patent certain strains of corn and then sue small farmers for possessing your corn, when those seeds could get mixed in through accidental means is just an example of the big problems that have arisen as a result of GMOs. I think the technology has a lot of promise, but if you are going to use that technology to exploit people and eliminate competition in unethical ways, I can't blame places like Europe refusing to promote GMOs, as American businesses could take away a lot of jobs from small farmers.

 

[Cresselia~~]

That study about Monsanto's roundup corn being toxic in rats though...

Monsanto's Roundup And Roundup-Resistant Corn Found To Be Toxic In Rats
The new research fed 10 groups of 10 rats a diet containing either NK603 Roundup-resistant GM corn or water containing Roundup at levels permitted in drinking water over a two-year period.

So it wasn't just 12 rats.


But not a lot of time later, that study was being dismissed by
Six French Science Academies Dismiss Study Finding GM Corn Harmed Rats"

Also, to be fair, the high metabolic rates of rats do mean that rats get cancer quite often anyway.