• 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!

Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

Are GMO foods good or bad?

  • Total voters
    35
GottaGo said:
Grainger county tomatoes aren't gassed. And they disappear from local stores and farmer's markets at an astounding rate because they aren't picked green, gassed, given a coating for shine, sprayed with wax. Unfortunately, they do use round up for weed control, but the tomatos themselves are washed before going to the store. Try them some time, and you'll realize the difference immediately. ;)

I have some of the information already, there are sites that list natural and GMO information for produce, but they aren't easy to find, and why should it be necessary to hunt for information, especially when prepared foods don't list 'Red Beauty' tomatoes, just tomato.... and you don't know what kind.
Click to expand...

Why would I? Up until a few weeks ago I could walk into my back yard and pick my own.

ttwtt78640 said:
Not so. You can neither "mate" (crossbreed?) a plant with an animal in nature nor can you mate a rabbit and a fox.
Click to expand...

Then you would have to admit that GMO's pose no danger as the plant could not affect you when you ate it and therefore be the cause of your cancer, diabetes, or anything else that is being claimed about them.
 
Are GMOs good or bad

cpgrad08 said:
Since this is an issue in my state right now. I would like to see what the good people of the forums think about this. Do you think GMO foods are good or bad for the human population?

Genetically modified organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Let's first distinguish between the potentials of GMO foods and the actuality of GMO foods.

The promise of GMO foods was, for example, a potato that would grow twice as large in half the time in near desert conditions. This could be a boon to humanity, and could ensure that there is food for all.

However, in practice GMO foods are primarily for profit protection and cornering the market on food.

- terminator seeds are the main modification; the plants created by the seeds are themselves sterile meaning you gotta buy seeds each year. Genetic sterility, hopefully it doesn't interfere with the sterility of the consumer.

- "roundup ready" drinks pesticides and herbicides, in theory allows for less needed chemicals... In practice, farmers are more liberal with chemical usage because it won't damage the desired plants.

- BT; mainly corn... BT is a fungus that is a safe natural pesticide... However, when the pesticide is produced b the plant that raises a potential concern.

Are they safe??

Well, Monsanto (the primary GMO food producer) has a policy for the past 10 years banning GMO foods from the cafeterias. In other words, the scientists making this product refuse to consume said product... That's all the statement I need.
 
Fisher said:
So you know of every plant that does exist or will ever exist as a result of natural processes?

GMO's have been studied and approved. That people cannot differentiate between temporal correlation and actual causation is no reason to disrupt the food supply. This isn't a war for health--it is a war against corporate farming. Here is a clue--the insulin used by diabetics is **gasp** genetically modified. Those people clearly would be better off if there were no GMO's :slapme:
Click to expand...

Well to be honest about the comparison the artificial cross pollinating we do to make the hybrid corn our food chain relies on doesn't use a virus to do the heavy lifting. Roughly 10% of the artificial cross pollinated seed corn for dispersal to farmers doesn't 'take'. You see the rogue plants among the other plants.

The process of inserting DNA into the host plant uses a specially modified virus- usually a particularly nasty one as they have a high penetration coefficient than 'nicer' viruses. The process is not like human fertilization, no one egg getting the DNA added by hand but a batch process- which has a failure rate just like our artificial cross pollinating.

What some fear is we will have Ebola in /whole corn/veggies/eggs like we now have salmonella or Ecoli. Inside not on.

As an aside- cigarettes nicotine and cancer was studied with two very opposing camps thinking they were correct.

And as a rancher I'd say this isn't a war against corporate farming but a battle to try and keep major corporations like Monsanto from controlling farming through the holding of patents.

Oh and that whole Ebola thing.... :peace
 
Fisher said:
yes--he was as fictional as this GMO crop nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was. He was a warning about human arrogance.
Kind of "keep the gun away from your child".
 
Guy Incognito said:
I can't add much to the wise words of the posts above, except to underscore how important it is that people who oppose GMOs be publicly shamed and ridiculed. GMOs are perfectly safe and very important. People who oppose them are dangerous, just like vaccine deniers. Anybody who opposes GMOs is a public health menace.
Click to expand...

... but spicy jalapenos are disappearing as genetically altered mild strains run amok among crops.
 
notquiteright said:
Well to be honest about the comparison the artificial cross pollinating we do to make the hybrid corn our food chain relies on doesn't use a virus to do the heavy lifting. Roughly 10% of the artificial cross pollinated seed corn for dispersal to farmers doesn't 'take'. You see the rogue plants among the other plants.

The process of inserting DNA into the host plant uses a specially modified virus- usually a particularly nasty one as they have a high penetration coefficient than 'nicer' viruses. The process is not like human fertilization, no one egg getting the DNA added by hand but a batch process- which has a failure rate just like our artificial cross pollinating.

What some fear is we will have Ebola in /whole corn/veggies/eggs like we now have salmonella or Ecoli. Inside not on.

As an aside- cigarettes nicotine and cancer was studied with two very opposing camps thinking they were correct.

And as a rancher I'd say this isn't a war against corporate farming but a battle to try and keep major corporations like Monsanto from controlling farming through the holding of patents.

Oh and that whole Ebola thing.... :peace
Click to expand...

Six of one/half a dozen of the other. If they take down Monsanto they will take down the likes of ADM (though I think they aren't called ADM anymore maybe). It is a political agenda wrapped up in other clothes.

As for the contamination thing, it already has happened. I understand that the Nestle Tollhouse recall may have been linked to salmonella in the flour from their suppliers and the company has or is moving to using flour pre-baked to sterilize it.
 
My personal thoughts are that GMO is not a good thing, and I try to avoid them whenever possible. Although this is not an unbiased source, or scientific, and it merely anecdotal evidence, I have experienced the same observations myself. About a year ago, I bought a dried corn product to feed squirrels here, and the squirrels would not touch it, and this is the first time I had ever had that experience. Usually, I can't keep the squirrels out of the birdfeeders, so I often buy corn for them, and put it in a separate location from the feeders.

Animals Avoid GM Soy And Corn
 
Fisher said:
Why would I? Up until a few weeks ago I could walk into my back yard and pick my own.



Then you would have to admit that GMO's pose no danger as the plant could not affect you when you ate it and therefore be the cause of your cancer, diabetes, or anything else that is being claimed about them.
Click to expand...

Most human adverse reactions (so far) to GMOs are not diseases, pre se, they are more likely to be allergies which result from proteins/enzymes added to a plant/animal via genetic modification. You may know that you are allergic to X but not know that the allergen contained in X is now also produced by a GMO variety of Y.

Here is an admittedly biased link on this topic:

Institute for Responsible Technology - Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies—Genetically Engineered Soybeans
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Most human adverse reactions (so far) to GMOs are not diseases, pre se, they are more likely to be allergies which result from proteins/enzymes added to a plant/animal via genetic modification. You may know that you are allergic to X but not know that the allergen contained in X is now also produced by a GMO variety of Y.

Here is an admittedly biased link on this topic:

Institute for Responsible Technology - Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies—Genetically Engineered Soybeans
Click to expand...

Risk-finding studies are usually addressed in a very polarized way and are spoon fed to the media that sensationalizes it for the readers in a very unbalanced fashion. a lot of the GM-phobia stuff originates from the Seralini study which has been heavily criticized in its methodology for being conducted on a variety of rats pre-disposed to tumors when given an uncontrolled diet regardless of what those diets are. There are certainly potential risks for great harm, but those dangers have not materialized. I don't think people can conceive of a world that truly had no GM foods.

What I find most ironic is that largely it is the side that is all about promoting stem-cell research that wants to ban GMO's.
 
Fisher said:
Six of one/half a dozen of the other. If they take down Monsanto they will take down the likes of ADM (though I think they aren't called ADM anymore maybe). It is a political agenda wrapped up in other clothes. As for the contamination thing, it already has happened. I understand that the Nestle Tollhouse recall may have been linked to salmonella in the flour from their suppliers and the company has or is moving to using flour pre-baked to sterilize it.
Click to expand...

It isn't that A certain corporation can control the seed grain supply of this country- it is that ANY corporation can.

I'd say it is a monopoly agenda squeezed into a 'patent protection' thong.

Oh salmonella contamination is unfortunately quite common IN eggs and fruits, so is e-Coli. How ever those pale compared to Ebola. Bacteria/protozoa are far easier to treat than a virus.
 
GMOs are not intrinsically good or bad. What is bad is our patent law relating to GMOs, which allows certain life forms, or certain sequences of DNA, to be patented and monopolized.
 
lizzie said:
My personal thoughts are that GMO is not a good thing, and I try to avoid them whenever possible. Although this is not an unbiased source, or scientific, and it merely anecdotal evidence, I have experienced the same observations myself. About a year ago, I bought a dried corn product to feed squirrels here, and the squirrels would not touch it, and this is the first time I had ever had that experience. Usually, I can't keep the squirrels out of the birdfeeders, so I often buy corn for them, and put it in a separate location from the feeders.

Animals Avoid GM Soy And Corn
Click to expand...

A few random anecdotes based on the personal observations of a handful of people?

Completely worthless. People are so inclined to confirmation bias it's not even funny.
 
Dapper Andy said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to have non-GMO producers to label their food if they choose to?
Click to expand...

I'm sure most of them are proud to. That's a good point, if I cared enough to shop for non-GMO food I could probably look for that on the packaging.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Labeled how? If a cow ate 2% GMO feed, say corn that was .0005% altered in its geneitic make-up, is the beef then labeled as "GMO beef", "2% GMO Beef" or "0.00001% GMO beef"?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I read that as MOOOOO1% GMO Beef :lol:
 
aberrant85 said:
I'm sure most of them are proud to. That's a good point, if I cared enough to shop for non-GMO food I could probably look for that on the packaging.
Click to expand...

It makes a lot of sense from a business stand point but it would also be far easier for the government to enforce and monitor.
 
Ari said:
People like you make GMO's look bad. Just label it and move on.
Click to expand...

Anybody who oppose GMOs in even the slightest way does so based on irrational fears and ignorance. But as I said earlier, the pro-labelling crowd is not merely ignorant, but dangerous. It is a disgusting thing to allow irrational prejudices and fears take hold to the extent that they actively do harm to an emerging scientific field that can do so much good for so many people who are in need.

It is far beyond mere ignorance, it is despicable, monstrous, horrible to support a labeling requirement.
 
Dapper Andy said:
It makes a lot of sense from a business stand point but it would also be far easier for the government to enforce and monitor.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If there's a market for irrational fools who want to eat non-GMO food, so be it. Let them pay extra for a special label to assuage their ignorant fears. This way, the honest producers of safe GMOs can go about their life-saving business without being hindered pointless regulation, and the stupid hippies can continue to live in la la land. Everybody wins.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Anybody who oppose GMOs in even the slightest way does so based on irrational fears and ignorance. But as I said earlier, the pro-labelling crowd is not merely ignorant, but dangerous. It is a disgusting thing to allow irrational prejudices and fears take hold to the extent that they actively do harm to an emerging scientific field that can do so much good for so many people who are in need.

It is far beyond mere ignorance, it is despicable, monstrous, horrible to support a labeling requirement.
Click to expand...

The anti labeling crowd is making GMO's look awful. They don't even realize labeling do nothing except increase consumer knowledge.
 
25creatures-1-articleInline.jpg

Yeah. This notion of GMO isn't new. We've been doing it for thousands of years.

The Evolution of Corn

Heck, look at dogs.

That said, we should control and regulate the usage of genes that may be potentially dangerous, aka from bacteria and viruses known to cause disease.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Anybody who oppose GMOs in even the slightest way does so based on irrational fears and ignorance.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

We're never quite sure just how genes will interact with a new set of genes. We avoided the worst of this via artificial selection by rejecting the outcomes we didn't like. And it was a much slower process. GMO in the lab has the capacity to test far more things much faster. There's always a risk that the introduction of a gene along with mutations could produce very bad outcomes. It's not irrational fear or ignorance. It's merely understanding of how the process works.
 
obvious Child said:
Why do you say that?

We're never quite sure just how genes will interact with a new set of genes. We avoided the worst of this via artificial selection by rejecting the outcomes we didn't like. And it was a much slower process. GMO in the lab has the capacity to test far more things much faster. There's always a risk that the introduction of a gene along with mutations could produce very bad outcomes. It's not irrational fear or ignorance. It's merely understanding of how the process works.
Click to expand...

It's entirely irrational to fear the GM process. There's nothing about genetic modified per se that is dangerous, whether in a lab or in nature.

Genetic modification so much potential to do good, and no more potential to do harm than conventional foods. Hence, it is irrational and dangerous to treat it any differently. Opposing GMOs is harmful to society.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's entirely irrational to fear the GM process. There's nothing about genetic modified per se that is dangerous, whether in a lab or in nature.
Click to expand...

Per se, no, but there are clear potentials for danger. To say that GMO is entirely safe is flat out wrong.

Genetic modification so much potential to do good, and no more potential to do harm than conventional foods.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Do you have a PHd in Genetics and know what will happen in every single instance of gene interaction of every gene that could possibly be introduced to any existing set of genes?

We don't know the true danger potential. I don't disagree that it can do much good, it can. And it has. But, the argument that there isn't potentially a huge threat is wrong. There might be, there might be not, We don't know.
 
obvious Child said:
Per se, no, but there are clear potentials for danger. To say that GMO is entirely safe is flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

No. You are wrong. The results of genetic modification may be safe or unsafe in the same way as conventional food may be safe or unsafe. There is no difference, hence when you say "per se, no," then you are actually agreeing with me. GMOs being safe per se is all that matters.

How do you know this? Do you have a PHd in Genetics and know what will happen in every single instance of gene interaction of every gene that could possibly be introduced to any existing set of genes?

We don't know the true danger potential. I don't disagree that it can do much good, it can. And it has. But, the argument that there isn't potentially a huge threat is wrong. There might be, there might be not, We don't know.
Click to expand...

Common sense is all you need. The scientific issues are well-settled. This is merely a matter of using common sense to cut through the bull****. There is no more potential for harm from GMOs than from conventional foods, they shouldn't be treated any different. You even admitted this yourself, yet you are too burdened by the bull**** to understand the logical conclusion. You need to separate out the emotional reaction and just look at this logically.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No. You are wrong. The results of genetic modification may be safe or unsafe in the same way as conventional food may be safe or unsafe. There is no difference, hence when you say "per se, no," then you are actually agreeing with me. GMOs being safe per se is all that matters.

Common sense is all you need. The scientific issues are well-settled. This is merely a matter of using common sense to cut through the bull****. There is no more potential for harm from GMOs than from conventional foods, they shouldn't be treated any different. You even admitted this yourself, yet you are too burdened by the bull**** to understand the logical conclusion. You need to separate out the emotional reaction and just look at this logically.
Click to expand...

Haha. I get it. You're trolling. Any reason you're being abnormally obtuse and combative?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom