• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gmo

Are you for or agains GMO?


  • Total voters
    20
Taking risk is what we do to advance. There are ways to reduce risk and we usually do that. The trick is to take a step, test your footing to make sure it's solid, then take another step.
Yeah, like Fukushima NPP! It's the 1 year anniversary today. This GMO business is too dangerous to be played with. We have enough knowledge and land to feed ourselves with traditional crops. We just have to organize the whole thing a lot better, not pay farmers to NOT produce or transport lettuce from California to New York.
 
I do believe GMO technology needs to be watched closely. Too often corporations overlook or ignore safety measures.

Fukushima! Just goes to show there is never enough oversight.

BUT at almost 10,000 operational years (maybe more) and there have only been three major incidents. I'm not saying it's good, and the fact is there are much safer nuclear designs available, but a 15% reduction in electricity doesn't seem like a good idea, either - at least not yet. Would you have preferred coal or oil power plants all those years?
We just have to organize the whole thing a lot better, not pay farmers to NOT produce or transport lettuce from California to New York.
Don't get me started on the whole "not pay farmers to NOT produce" thing. That's it's own long and winding thread. You should do some research before making that comment.
 
Last edited:
Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?

:peace

Everything we eat has already been genetically modified.

That's why bananas no longer have any seeds.
 
I think we already do that and have been doing it for some time, though it's rather crude at this point. We're not building DNA from scratch or anything. As far as I know we're just pushing around some already existing sequences and controlling which genes cross over to the next generation.

But I'll yield to Helix for details, I'm an amateur at best.

my direct experience with gene modification at this point : i add modified genes into plasmid expression vectors (circular bits of DNA). the genes are generally mammalian, and they contain small mutations in specific areas. we then grow the bacteria, harvest the plasmid, and transfect it into mammalian cells (in a transient transfection, meaning that the DNA is not incorporated into the genome of the target cells.) then, to put it in simple terms, we see what the small mutations do to protein expression in the mammalian tissue culture model. in this way, it's possible to narrow down exactly how specific expression is taking place. basically, if the point mutation is in an especially important area, one might see a reduction in expression.

though i have not yet worked directly with GM plants, it's basically a matter of inserting a microbial gene into the plant's genome, giving it a new trait, such as resistance to viral infection / insects, or to make the plant more hearty in less than ideal conditions. these crops are tested; the standard method is to test an introduced protein in animal models at high doses. in this way, toxicity / allergenicity can be determined.

food safety is a field that i'm fascinated with; i have been lucky enough to work one multi-year food safety R&D job, and i hope to continue my career in this direction in years to come.
 
these crops are tested; the standard method is to test an introduced protein in animal models at high doses. in this way, toxicity / allergenicity can be determined.
Basically, that's they way they test drugs on humans, too. The don't use mega-doses (that's done during animal testing) but they often use much higher doses than what's being predicted for public use to see what it does to healthy humans.

So you're in the early stages of testing animal DNA modification, testing the affect on the cells themselves before it's tested on whole animal? That must be interesting work, though it must be boring at times, too. Thanks for the info! :)
 
Basically, that's they way they test drugs on humans, too. The don't use mega-doses (that's done during animal testing) but they often use much higher doses than what's being predicted for public use to see what it does to healthy humans.

So you're in the early stages of testing animal DNA modification, testing the affect on the cells themselves before it's tested on whole animal? That must be interesting work, though it must be boring at times, too. Thanks for the info! :)

my current job is fundamental research; not performed for a direct commercial application. however, all fundamental research is a piece of the whole puzzle. those who develop specific treatments depend on fundamental research to develop treatments.

the best analogy i can think of is this : if an effective treatment for a range of debilitating genetic muscle disorders is a road trip from New York to LA, i'm currently mapping streets and highways in Kearney, Nebraska. those who are innovating the treatment will most likely be driving through there, and they'll need to know what that segment of the trip looks like in specific detail.
 
I think we already do that and have been doing it for some time, though it's rather crude at this point. We're not building DNA from scratch or anything. As far as I know we're just pushing around some already existing sequences and controlling which genes cross over to the next generation.

But I'll yield to Helix for details, I'm an amateur at best.

While this is not a field where I have a lot of expertise either, they are actually doing things like adding fish genes to plants (tomatos or strawberries) and other sequences that would never occur in nature.

And while I support the science in CONCEPT, as I do nuclear power, my reservations arise when the profit motive gets involved. There were concerns about the Monarch butterfly and GMO corn at one point. And pretty much all the corn is "infected" with GMO mods.

So my take is a) keep moving forward on it. b) label products so that consumers can choose. And c) make sure GMO crops are sterile so the modifications remain contained should a problem arise.

In a world where short term profits are king, anything with potential for long-term consequences should be watched closely lest todays profits turn into tomorrows catastrophes.
 
While this is not a field where I have a lot of expertise either, they are actually doing things like adding fish genes to plants (tomatos or strawberries) and other sequences that would never occur in nature.

And while I support the science in CONCEPT, as I do nuclear power, my reservations arise when the profit motive gets involved. There were concerns about the Monarch butterfly and GMO corn at one point. And pretty much all the corn is "infected" with GMO mods.

So my take is a) keep moving forward on it. b) label products so that consumers can choose. And c) make sure GMO crops are sterile so the modifications remain contained should a problem arise.

In a world where short term profits are king, anything with potential for long-term consequences should be watched closely lest todays profits turn into tomorrows catastrophes.
I agree keeping them sterile does lessen the risks and it also keeps the treatment effective. If these plants could even reproduce in the wild (and I don't think they can because the gene won't match up) they might not pass along the modifications we've made anyway.
 
Everything we eat has already been genetically modified.

That's why bananas no longer have any seeds.



True to an extent

GM foods in the past did not have genes from fish transplanted into tomatoes to help prevent frost damage. Nor did GM corn have built in insecticide producing genes. Among two of the more serious types of GM foods


Imagine if a gene from fish produces an allergic reaction in people is added to a different food, suddenly peoples healths are at risk without their knowledge. Or in the case of Bt Corn, what are the long term effects of injesting insecticides? Ones that can not be washed off the food you are going to eat
 
I agree keeping them sterile does lessen the risks and it also keeps the treatment effective. If these plants could even reproduce in the wild (and I don't think they can because the gene won't match up) they might not pass along the modifications we've made anyway.

They can and do reproduce in the wild

Roundup Ready wheat, canola are easily bred and reproduced by farmers if they so choose. One of the issues with GM crops is the potential to contaminae "organic" crops. The genes dont have to match up exactly, which is one reason cross breeding has occured so much in the past
 
They can and do reproduce in the wild

Roundup Ready wheat, canola are easily bred and reproduced by farmers if they so choose. One of the issues with GM crops is the potential to contaminae "organic" crops. The genes dont have to match up exactly, which is one reason cross breeding has occured so much in the past

You two last post describe one of the big problem with GMO. Say for example a person is allergic to fish, she can't even be safe even if he knows that GMO tomatoes with fish
can cause an allergic reaction. Because even if she only buys organic tomatoes, those tomatoes can accidently been crossbreed with GMO tomatoes from a nearby field.
 
Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?

:peace

It'd help if you stated in your OP what GMOs are.
 
Assuming you mean genetically modified organisms, it really depends.

Nations from 1st to 3rd class benefit greatly from more productive food.

I wonder how many lives are saved in poor nations from the bounty of GMOs.
 
I think it should be illegal.

Before we worry about "Needing" genetically modified things. Why don't we worry about clearing out what causes the problems in the first place? World is starving, let's end food subsidies in the USA and clear transport for all excess foodstuffs to be sent around the world instead of trying to make it into a half assed fuel to promote a "Green Energy" agenda; instead of pushing up food prices globally?

I love clean energy, but as it was placed in a Washington post article. Wind farms are being shut down because they produce energy when it isn't needed. Why not increase storage capacity? This is the crisis that has created the "NEED" for genetically modified goods. Because politicians say we can make corn or something into fuel. We've gotten in the way of ourselves to keep us from solving a problem instead of solving it.
 
I think it should be illegal.
Before we worry about "Needing" genetically modified things. Why don't we worry about clearing out what causes the problems in the first place? World is starving, let's end food subsidies in the USA and clear transport for all excess foodstuffs to be sent around the world instead of trying to make it into a half assed fuel to promote a "Green Energy" agenda; instead of pushing up food prices globally?
I love clean energy, but as it was placed in a Washington post article. Wind farms are being shut down because they produce energy when it isn't needed. Why not increase storage capacity? This is the crisis that has created the "NEED" for genetically modified goods. Because politicians say we can make corn or something into fuel. We've gotten in the way of ourselves to keep us from solving a problem instead of solving it.
Personally, I think wind farms leave something to be desired - they take up space that could be used for other purposes. Also, they produce noise and damage wildlife (flying).

Of course, similar things can be said for most other energy production sources...

But corn-based ethanol fuel is really a bad idea, IMO.

If any biomass is used to create fuel, it should be one that isn't edible...
 
Would you have preferred coal or oil power plants all those years?

In a way, yes. :)

Don't get me started on the whole "not pay farmers to NOT produce" thing. That's it's own long and winding thread. You should do some research before making that comment.

OK, I'll do that and will get back to you. ;)

Nations from 1st to 3rd class benefit greatly from more productive food.

In what way, quantity or quality? These are two different things.

Personally, I think wind farms leave something to be desired - they take up space that could be used for other purposes. Also, they produce noise and damage wildlife (flying).

Come on now, how much space does a post take? 100 sq. m., may be. A wind turbine doesn't hurt the wheat or corn underneath. About the noise thing I agree.
 
True to an extent

GM foods in the past did not have genes from fish transplanted into tomatoes to help prevent frost damage. Nor did GM corn have built in insecticide producing genes. Among two of the more serious types of GM foods


Imagine if a gene from fish produces an allergic reaction in people is added to a different food, suddenly peoples healths are at risk without their knowledge. Or in the case of Bt Corn, what are the long term effects of injesting insecticides? Ones that can not be washed off the food you are going to eat

As far as I know, there has never been a single documented case of an allergic reaction* or adverse health effect caused by GMO foods. So this is a more theoretical concern as far as I'm concerned...one which pales in comparison to actual concerns which can be solved by GMO: Healthier foods, more environmentally-friendly foods, foods that can grow in new parts of the world or at new times of the year, etc.

*EDIT: I stand corrected about there never having been an allergic reaction. Wikipedia says that there was a type of GMO soybean used for animal feed that produced allergies in humans in 2005, but the researchers immediately ceased development when this was discovered. My overall point still stands. Like any other type of new food, there may be certain allergies in certain cases...but this just means that we need to monitor them and recall them if they pose major health risks. It's hardly a sound justification for banning all genetically-modified crops. It isn't right to deprive an impoverished farmer in Ethiopia from a bountiful harvest in a sustainable environment, because we're worried about a few Americans having allergic reactions to a food they chose to eat.
 
Last edited:
They can and do reproduce in the wild

Roundup Ready wheat, canola are easily bred and reproduced by farmers if they so choose. One of the issues with GM crops is the potential to contaminae "organic" crops. The genes dont have to match up exactly, which is one reason cross breeding has occured so much in the past
True to an extent

GM foods in the past did not have genes from fish transplanted into tomatoes to help prevent frost damage. Nor did GM corn have built in insecticide producing genes. Among two of the more serious types of GM foods


Imagine if a gene from fish produces an allergic reaction in people is added to a different food, suddenly peoples healths are at risk without their knowledge. Or in the case of Bt Corn, what are the long term effects of injesting insecticides? Ones that can not be washed off the food you are going to eat
I was unaware that they were doing this on a common basis and I certainly wouldn't want these highly modified foods to get into the wild. Limited use of these types I think is fine. If it's easier/better to grow tomatoes with (for example) the polio vaccine inside them then I'm good with that - again with the stipulation it can't get into the wild.


Introducing any organism into a new environment is tricky at best because it is often disastrous. (Think zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.) I think it's OK to modify the plants but the idea of them getting loose, especially if their modifications prove to be dominant traits, is a little discerning. If the modifications are recessive then they'll still come out when mixed in the wild but they'll be far less frequent and it'll take decades for them to spread.
 
I was unaware that they were doing this on a common basis and I certainly wouldn't want these highly modified foods to get into the wild. Limited use of these types I think is fine. If it's easier/better to grow tomatoes with (for example) the polio vaccine inside them then I'm good with that - again with the stipulation it can't get into the wild.


Introducing any organism into a new environment is tricky at best because it is often disastrous. (Think zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.) I think it's OK to modify the plants but the idea of them getting loose, especially if their modifications prove to be dominant traits, is a little discerning. If the modifications are recessive then they'll still come out when mixed in the wild but they'll be far less frequent and it'll take decades for them to spread.

Another little tidbit concerns the claims that GMOs are stringently tested.

They are, but the testing is to ensure that they do indeed do what they were designed to do. Secondary impacts are only cursorily examined. They test for allergies, because that affects the bottom line. Unintended environmental impacts (GMO corn affects milk thistle, which the monarch butterfly depends on), or potentials for disease (think mad cow) way down the line, aren't as much of a concern in our short term profits economic model.

I was mortified when I found out GMO crops were fertile. WTF!! Especially considering the big ag companies like Monsanto are pushing a model.where no seed produces a plant that makes seed.

There have actually been cases where GMO corn contaminated an adjacent field and the owner of the contaminated field was required to pay damages for patent infringement.

That and the GMO lobby preventing labeling of GMO products. They tried to ban designating products as NOT containing GMOs, like the dairy industry tried to prevent labeling products as BGH and antibiotic free.

Last I heard, most of Europe requires labeling and GMOs are not selling well.

And don't get me wrong. I'm all FOR it in principle. Just not in practise, as it stands today. What is the point of rice that produces twice as much but is half as nutritious? So your belly will be full and you wont KNOW you're still starving?
 
As far as I know, there has never been a single documented case of an allergic reaction* or adverse health effect caused by GMO foods. So this is a more theoretical concern as far as I'm concerned...one which pales in comparison to actual concerns which can be solved by GMO: Healthier foods, more environmentally-friendly foods, foods that can grow in new parts of the world or at new times of the year, etc.

*EDIT: I stand corrected about there never having been an allergic reaction. Wikipedia says that there was a type of GMO soybean used for animal feed that produced allergies in humans in 2005, but the researchers immediately ceased development when this was discovered. My overall point still stands. Like any other type of new food, there may be certain allergies in certain cases...but this just means that we need to monitor them and recall them if they pose major health risks. It's hardly a sound justification for banning all genetically-modified crops. It isn't right to deprive an impoverished farmer in Ethiopia from a bountiful harvest in a sustainable environment, because we're worried about a few Americans having allergic reactions to a food they chose to eat.

Not dismissing your point, but the allergen point is relevant. People with severe food allergies are VERY careful about what they eat. If the peanut allegen (for instance) makes it into tomatoes (for instance) that's a problem. They do test for these things, so it shouldn't be an issue.

Fertility of GMO crops is a BIG deal. This technology is WAY too new to be releasing these little "monsters" into the wild. Its too soon to just be letting these genies out of their bottles. Unintended consequences could be catastrophic.
 
Yeah!
Here is another good video on the topic, too:



:doh
 
As far as I know, there has never been a single documented case of an allergic reaction* or adverse health effect caused by GMO foods. So this is a more theoretical concern as far as I'm concerned...one which pales in comparison to actual concerns which can be solved by GMO: Healthier foods, more environmentally-friendly foods, foods that can grow in new parts of the world or at new times of the year, etc.

*EDIT: I stand corrected about there never having been an allergic reaction. Wikipedia says that there was a type of GMO soybean used for animal feed that produced allergies in humans in 2005, but the researchers immediately ceased development when this was discovered. My overall point still stands. Like any other type of new food, there may be certain allergies in certain cases...but this just means that we need to monitor them and recall them if they pose major health risks. It's hardly a sound justification for banning all genetically-modified crops. It isn't right to deprive an impoverished farmer in Ethiopia from a bountiful harvest in a sustainable environment, because we're worried about a few Americans having allergic reactions to a food they chose to eat.

I never said they should be banned,

Heavily tested, and advertised as being GMO foods should be mandatory. Along with restrictions on where and when they can be used to prevent cross contamination with non GMO foods
 
Back
Top Bottom