• 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!

So What's the concern about GMP foods anyway?

joG said:
Sure. If you label it so, I might believe you. But I would expect the FDA to take regular samples.
Click to expand...

WTH are you talking about? Samples? Samples of what?

Plenty of crops are reproduced asexually. Potatoes, for example, are not grown from seed. You put a cut up potato in the ground and new plants grow out of the "eyes". The new plant is genetically identical
 
eohrnberger said:
So what's the worry?
Click to expand...

1. Anti-vaxxer style misinformation. Some people wrongly believe that GMO food are harmful as compared to other foods. I consider this ridiculous.

2. Stance against pesticides. Apparently, GMO crops still need pesticides even if they've been engineered to be resistant to certain pests. I consider this misguided. Normal crops need pesticides too. If you really care, you should buy "organic" foods (which, one should know, also may use certain pesticides and still retain the "organic" label).

3. Concern about engineered genes jumping to other plants near the crops. Potentially legitimate, but it really turns on how well it's done.

3a. Engineered genes jumping to an "organic" farmer's crops.
 
sangha said:
The concern is that the growing of GE crops is harmful to the environment. The methods used to grow them cause soil erosion, water pollution, reduced genetic diversity, etc
Click to expand...

During our last exchange, you pointed to pesticide use instead.


Are you saying that GMO crops cause more of the types of environmental harm you cite as compared to ordinary crops?

Because if they aren't causing more harm than regular crops, it isn't a reason to avoid GMOs specifically.
 
Mr Person said:
During our last exchange, you pointed to pesticide use instead.
Click to expand...

IIRC, I think I referred to increased use of herbicides, not insecticides (I prefer the term insecticide over pesticide because they kill all sorts of insects and not just pests) but yes, there is more than one environmental problem relating to use of GE's

Are you saying that GMO crops cause more of the types of environmental harm you cite as compared to ordinary crops?

Because if they aren't causing more harm than regular crops, it isn't a reason to avoid GMOs specifically.
Click to expand...

Yes they cause more harm than non-GE crops.
 
Mr Person said:
1. Anti-vaxxer style misinformation. Some people wrongly believe that GMO food are harmful as compared to other foods. I consider this ridiculous.

2. Stance against pesticides. Apparently, GMO crops still need pesticides even if they've been engineered to be resistant to certain pests. I consider this misguided. Normal crops need pesticides too. If you really care, you should buy "organic" foods (which, one should know, also may use certain pesticides and still retain the "organic" label).

3. Concern about engineered genes jumping to other plants near the crops. Potentially legitimate, but it really turns on how well it's done.

3a. Engineered genes jumping to an "organic" farmer's crops.
Click to expand...

There are concerns with the "alien" genes making their way into bacteria, fungi etc. Facilitated by the genetic equivalents of lube and fertility drugs used to GET the alien gene into the original GMO plant.

For example, if the pesticide gene gets into soils bacteria the toxins could accumulate in soil, permanently, killing necessary insects and rendering the soil less fertile or impossible to grow on at all.

If it got into one of our gut bacteria, it could mean the end of US.
 
What if...? said:
There are concerns with the "alien" genes making their way into bacteria, fungi etc. Facilitated by the genetic equivalents of lube and fertility drugs used to GET the alien gene into the original GMO plant.

For example, if the pesticide gene gets into soils bacteria the toxins could accumulate in soil, permanently, killing necessary insects and rendering the soil less fertile or impossible to grow on at all.

If it got into one of our gut bacteria, it could mean the end of US.
Click to expand...

Actually, the protein produced by inserting the Bt gene in crops degrades relatively quickly. Toxin buildup isn't really the issue with that genetic mod.
 
sangha said:
Actually, the protein produced by inserting the Bt gene in crops degrades relatively quickly. Toxin buildup isn't really the issue with that genetic mod.
Click to expand...

Right. But the trait itself can be picked up by other organisms.

Read a soil science paper on the subject.

The genetic tools used to implant alien genes themselves can horizontally transfer. Allowing genes that couldn't migrate horizontally before to do so.

Up to and including Introducing the BT producing gene itself into soil bacteria. Happens in the lab and may actually be more likely in nature.

So its not the protein but the gene that produces it that could be a problem.
 
What if...? said:
Right. But the trait itself can be picked up by other organisms.
Click to expand...

That is true which is why I didn't dispute that

Read a soil science paper on the subject.
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote.

If you knew as much about soil science as you seem to think you do, you wouldn't have claimed "the toxins could accumulate in soil, permanently"

I know it's hard to have someone point out your error. Deal with it.
 
sangha said:
That is true which is why I didn't dispute that



Read what I wrote.

If you knew as much about soil science as you seem to think you do, you wouldn't have claimed "the toxins could accumulate in soil, permanently"

I know it's hard to have someone point out your error. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

It was a technical, scholarly article. A bit of the language was beyond me.

But it did clearly posit the possibility of enough bacteria picking up the BT producing gene that necessary insects could be killed.

So maybe not a buildup of the toxin but of the bacteria producing it, as your point was durability of the protein.

And maybe the research has been superceded.

The article is here:

Genetically Engineered Crops - A Threat to Soil Fertility?
 
What if...? said:
It was a technical, scholarly article. A bit of the language was beyond me.

But it did clearly posit the possibility of enough bacteria picking up the BT producing gene that necessary insects could be killed.

So maybe not a buildup of the toxin but of the bacteria producing it, as your point was durability of the protein.

And maybe the research has been superceded.
Click to expand...

How can I be any clearer? I did not and do not dispute the notion that Bt crops can kill beneficial insects. I merely pointed out that your claim about how it could permanently accumulate in the soil was wrong.

The article is here:

Genetically Engineered Crops - A Threat to Soil Fertility?
Click to expand...

Interesting article, but it saying something slightly different. It's not saying that the Bt proteins can accumulate in the soil. It's saying that the genes which product the Bt protein (along with genes that help enable gene transfer) can accumulate in the soil making "accidental" gene transfer more likely to occur and that it could lead to a decrease in soil fertility.

The closest it came to saying something about the Bt protein accumulating was when it spoke of the possibility of the gene to transfer into soil bacteria where it would remain until the bacteria died, at which time the Bt protein would be "released" into the soil where it could harm insects. Since bacteria die constantly, if a bacteria were to incorporate the Bt gene, it could result in a steady stream of the Bt protein being constantly released into the soil. However, this protein does degrade relatively quickly, so it would not accumulate.
 
sangha said:
How can I be any clearer? I did not and do not dispute the notion that Bt crops can kill beneficial insects. I merely pointed out that your claim about how it could permanently accumulate in the soil was wrong.



Interesting article, but it saying something slightly different. It's not saying that the Bt proteins can accumulate in the soil. It's saying that the genes which product the Bt protein (along with genes that help enable gene transfer) can accumulate in the soil making "accidental" gene transfer more likely to occur and that it could lead to a decrease in soil fertility.

The closest it came to saying something about the Bt protein accumulating was when it spoke of the possibility of the gene to transfer into soil bacteria where it would remain until the bacteria died, at which time the Bt protein would be "released" into the soil where it could harm insects. Since bacteria die constantly, if a bacteria were to incorporate the Bt gene, it could result in a steady stream of the Bt protein being constantly released into the soil. However, this protein does degrade relatively quickly, so it would not accumulate.
Click to expand...

So your post was niggling over semantics irrelevant to the overall point.

With the snide tone and everything.

You remind me of my wife.
 
sangha said:
Yes they cause more harm than non-GE crops.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I'll have to look into it more. You don't happen to have any sources bookmarked or something like that?

I had not read that any actually require more herbicide or pesticide than a non-"organic" normal crop.
 
Mr Person said:
Perhaps I'll have to look into it more. You don't happen to have any sources bookmarked or something like that?

I had not read that any actually require more herbicide or pesticide than a non-"organic" normal crop.
Click to expand...

Actually, Bt crops require *less* insecticide than their non-GE counterparts. However, there are other harms associated with them. However, when it comes to herbicides, it doesnt take long to figure out why GE has resulted in increased use.

Crops have been engineered to be resistant to herbicides, specifically glyphosates (more commonly known as Roundup). That's so farmers can spray herbicides directly on their crops without having to worry about killing their crops - just the weeds. IOW, "Roundup Ready" crops were developed in order to use herbicides in places where they couldn't be used before so of course they've led to increased usage of herbicides.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom