• 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

Hypnotoad said:
I think you're missing my point. I'm agreeing with you that GMOs are not harmful in of themselves. If you splice "X" gene from "Y" edible plant into "Z" edible plant...there's no harm since you can eat both Y and Z plants. The only difference is that now you have a plant that is a rapidly developed hybrid. That GMo is a shortcut to the years of hybridization trials to get the same result.

You can cross-breed over generations and have to wait for each generation to mature for testing...or you can just cut and paste the bits you need and have a higher chance of getting the result you want at a vastly accelerated rate.

The harm that I mentioned was merely an example of how one can take a GMO to an unsafe point. Forgive me if I'm misreading this...but it seems as if you're feeling argumentative and are using an example of how the safe process of genetic modification can be used less safely and are trying to get me into an argument about it...even though I'm in agreement with your main point of...



That may or may not be what you're shooting for, but that's how it appears to me.

I believe in GMO since it's a shortcut in an otherwise very lengthy process. I believe that GMO (like anything else on this planet) can be used in unhealthy and unsafe ways. It's neither good or evil...It's all in how it's used.

Cut! Print! Check the gate! Moving on.
Click to expand...

I just don't know that first if a GMO meant to be resistant to herbicides will then pick up the herbicides from the soil or if herbicides are toxic to humans.
 
Winchester said:
You're conflating selective breeding with genetic alteration (the introduction of foreign DNA). IMO the problem is we have no way of knowing what the unintended consequences will be as the altered DNA works itself into the environment.
Click to expand...

My problem is the assumption that there are consequences. It's kind of like being worried about the sky falling.
 
CLAX1911 said:
My problem is the assumption that there are consequences. It's kind of like being worried about the sky falling.
Click to expand...

There are always consequences, problem is we don't what they are nor the severity (could be benign) and once the cat is out of the bag there is no getting it back in, these are living organisms.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I agree with your post as far as man has been selectively breeding plants an animals for hundreds of years. That much is certainly true.

That said, it does appear that the GMO effort has perhaps gone too far. The death in Madrid shows that.
Click to expand...

One alleged death, as reported by a tabloid, actually caused by an allergic reaction, shows GMO effort has gone too far?
 
CLAX1911 said:
I just don't know that first if a GMO meant to be resistant to herbicides will then pick up the herbicides from the soil or if herbicides are toxic to humans.
Click to expand...

Ok...let me put it to you this way.

Same scenario, an invasive and persistent weed is crowding out the rye crop. This species...is resistant to the current types and recommended amounts of herbicides.

You know that there's a species of Barley that is more robust and even more resistant to the herbicides than the weed is. So you cross-pollinate, grow, test, try again and again for as many generations as it takes to get the Rye/Barley hybrid you want/need.

Then dump more herbicides on our rye crop.

Or you can GenMod the sucker to do the same thing in a fraction of the time, splicing the bits you need from the Barley into the Rye to get the Rye/Barley hybrid that you want/need.

Then dump more herbicides on our rye crop.

And that's my point. That whether or not you do it the natural way of hybridization or GenMod...there's no difference between them. Either way you're eating something that is a hybrid of two edible plants. And either way...in the example above you're now consuming more herbicides which is a higher risk to those who eat it.

And finally that the risk comes not from the hybrid or the GMO...but what we do AFTER we create the hybrid/GMO.
 
Winchester said:
You're conflating selective breeding with genetic alteration (the introduction of foreign DNA). IMO the problem is we have no way of knowing what the unintended consequences will be as the altered DNA works itself into the environment.
Click to expand...

One problem we have found out is that gmo companies patent their genetic alteration. And of course to be viable the alteration is created as a dominate gene. Meaning that it will pass on to the next generation.
The problem it has caused is that pollen from the gmo plant spreads out and pollutes non gmo plants. So that a farmer who plants seeds that are infected now finds that his plants which last year were not gmo are now gmo. And the law as it stands now gives the right of ownership to the gmo companies. Given enough time gmo companies will own the right of ownership to all commercial plants grown. Our major food sources will belong to a few powerful companies. There is a recipe for a disaster.
 
Winchester said:
There are always consequences, problem is we don't what they are nor the severity (could be benign) and once the cat is out of the bag there is no getting it back in, these are living organisms.
Click to expand...
Well, the general idea that there are some mysterious consequences that may or may not exist isn't enough to worry me.

Again it's like thinking the sky is going to fall.
 
Hypnotoad said:
Ok...let me put it to you this way.

Same scenario, an invasive and persistent weed is crowding out the rye crop. This species...is resistant to the current types and recommended amounts of herbicides.

You know that there's a species of Barley that is more robust and even more resistant to the herbicides than the weed is. So you cross-pollinate, grow, test, try again and again for as many generations as it takes to get the Rye/Barley hybrid you want/need.

Then dump more herbicides on our rye crop.

Or you can GenMod the sucker to do the same thing in a fraction of the time, splicing the bits you need from the Barley into the Rye to get the Rye/Barley hybrid that you want/need.

Then dump more herbicides on our rye crop.

And that's my point. That whether or not you do it the natural way of hybridization or GenMod...there's no difference between them. Either way you're eating something that is a hybrid of two edible plants. And either way...in the example above you're now consuming more herbicides which is a higher risk to those who eat it.

And finally that the risk comes not from the hybrid or the GMO...but what we do AFTER we create the hybrid/GMO.
Click to expand...

First I understand your position. GMOs aren't bad in and of themselves.

I still don't understand how you would consume any herbicides let alone more.
 
soylentgreen said:
One problem we have found out is that gmo companies patent their genetic alteration. And of course to be viable the alteration is created as a dominate gene. Meaning that it will pass on to the next generation.
The problem it has caused is that pollen from the gmo plant spreads out and pollutes non gmo plants. So that a farmer who plants seeds that are infected now finds that his plants which last year were not gmo are now gmo. And the law as it stands now gives the right of ownership to the gmo companies. Given enough time gmo companies will own the right of ownership to all commercial plants grown. Our major food sources will belong to a few powerful companies. There is a recipe for a disaster.
Click to expand...

Of course that was the plan from the get go and for all practical purposes our major food sources do belong to a few powerful corporations. GMOs were not introduced to "feed the world", they were introduced to control the food crops and sell the chemicals that go on them.

I do not think (but don't know) that GMOs are inherently harmful as a food. I am concerned about **** than go wrong as this stuff spreads and crossbreeds. I'm also pissed that so far that Big Ag has been successful in stopping mandatory labeling. They don't want it because it will hurt their business model and **** giving customers a choice.
 
Winchester said:
Of course that was the plan from the get go and for all practical purposes our major food sources do belong to a few powerful corporations. GMOs were not introduced to "feed the world", they were introduced to control the food crops and sell the chemicals that go on them.

I do not think (but don't know) that GMOs are inherently harmful as a food. I am concerned about **** than go wrong as this stuff spreads and crossbreeds. I'm also pissed that so far that Big Ag has been successful in stopping mandatory labeling. They don't want it because it will hurt their business model and **** giving customers a choice.
Click to expand...

We do not need gmo to feed the world. The world produces more food now without gmo than it has ever before. The only reason there is famine in the world today is because there is no profit to be made from feeding the starving poor. It is a myth that we need gmo to feed the world.

Typically there is strong evidence for companies using misleading information in tests done on gmo safety.
GE Free NZ
“In Australia GMO’s containing combinations of these genes…..have been field tested with no reports of adverse effects on human health or the environment resulting from these releases”. Unable to Process Request

The link points to The Australian Gene Technology Regulator’s (OGTR) decision to issue a licence for a rice field test to run over three summers starting in 2005 and ending in 2008.
The quote infers that the field tests have been completed and mentions release. This is misleading and the erroneous reference to “no adverse effects from these releases” calls into question the rigor and expertise with which the applicant has verified the accuracy of the information provided. The reference to a release is misleading and is made without any provision of published data.

The numerous field trials on the OGTR site relating to reporter and marker genes are difficult to evaluate. It appears that the field trials on the web site are still under “post harvest monitoring” (PHM) or “current” and there are no scientific references to any published environmental or human tests.

The inaccurate and misleading information requires ERMA to apply greater objectivity and expertise in its scientific verification processes.
Click to expand...
 
GMOs are yummy. ;)

Seriously though, I am almost to the point I go out of my way to NOT buy organic or non-GMO labeled items due to how ridiculous the anti-GMO zealots can be.
 
Deuce said:
One alleged death, as reported by a tabloid, actually caused by an allergic reaction, shows GMO effort has gone too far?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right Deuce. If the story had been reported by NBC or CBS or Fox, we could rest easy knowing it would be true and accurate. :lol:
 
Skeptic Bob said:
GMOs are yummy. ;)

Seriously though, I am almost to the point I go out of my way to NOT buy organic or non-GMO labeled items due to how ridiculous the anti-GMO zealots can be.
Click to expand...

Well, the items with the "organic" label are often over priced. And I'm starting to think it's just a clever marketing tactics.

But there are some strange words being used to describe food these days.
 
CLAX1911 said:
First I understand your position. GMOs aren't bad in and of themselves.

I still don't understand how you would consume any herbicides let alone more.
Click to expand...

Ok...First of all, any number I use I freely admit that I'm pulling out of my ass. I'm using these numbers to explain.

Say that the current strains of weeds are killed off at herbicide mixtures that are 3oz per gallon. We can use this ratio because it's safe(ish) for human consumption and it's not strong enough to kill the rye (which needs a concentration of 6oz per gallon to kill).

Now along comes the newer, stronger weed. It needs 9oz per gallon to kill. Since that's stronger than the tolerance of the current strain of Rye...we now have a problem.

So we either GMO or naturally hybridize the Rye/Barley until we get a strain that has a resistance of 12oz per gallon.

So now we can dump enough Herbicide to kill off the invading weed. Now we're dumping three times as much of a toxic substance onto our food. It seeps in to the soil and is absorbed by the plants.

Now hopefully this is still less than harmful levels...but I think you would at least agree that finding other ways of pest and weed control would be preferable.
 
Depends entirely on the GMO, and what it was made for. Potato's modified to hold more nutrients and be larger are perfectly fine. Corn modified to survive insecticides are iffy in my book and should be labeled as to which insecticides they were modified for.

GMOs will be how we feed a 12 billion population when the time comes. So freaking out about them is counterproductive. But neither should we let any GMO hit the shelves without making sure they are safe individually.
 
CLAX1911 said:
so is the harm that herbicides are toxic to humans?

So in what concentration do they become toxic and are the levels in foods at least detectable?
Click to expand...

That depends.. even low level amounts of herbicides can be detremental over time.

There are also the GMO's where they splice some insecticide into the plant ,,, such as the Bt-corn. They found that this has caused many people to have chemicals in their guts, which also has an effect on the 'good' bacteria in someone's system. This seems to have a very deterious effect on, for example, monarch butterflies, and test shows there are some issues when feeding it to rats Morphological and Biochemical Changes in Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn (Ajeeb YG) | Adel shatta - Academia.edu

This could have an effect on humans too.. further testing would need to be done.

So, some GMO's can potentially have a bad effect. Others will help crops survive bad conditions. Of course, so does moving back from monocrop farms back to the more traditional agriculture methods too.
 
Hypnotoad said:
Ok...First of all, any number I use I freely admit that I'm pulling out of my ass. I'm using these numbers to explain.

Say that the current strains of weeds are killed off at herbicide mixtures that are 3oz per gallon. We can use this ratio because it's safe(ish) for human consumption and it's not strong enough to kill the rye (which needs a concentration of 6oz per gallon to kill).

Now along comes the newer, stronger weed. It needs 9oz per gallon to kill. Since that's stronger than the tolerance of the current strain of Rye...we now have a problem.

So we either GMO or naturally hybridize the Rye/Barley until we get a strain that has a resistance of 12oz per gallon.

So now we can dump enough Herbicide to kill off the invading weed. Now we're dumping three times as much of a toxic substance onto our food. It seeps in to the soil and is absorbed by the plants.

Now hopefully this is still less than harmful levels...but I think you would at least agree that finding other ways of pest and weed control would be preferable.
Click to expand...

This really doesn't address my question.

Is herbicide toxic can it be absorbed by crops?
 
Hypnotoad said:
There is and there isn't harm. It's all in the usage.

Let me explain. Say there's a grain blight that's ravaging the Rye crop. Before genetic engineering what we had to do was to try and hybrid Rye with another grain that it resistant to the blight. Let's for the sake of example...we'll use Barley.

So they cross-pollinate the Rye and the Barley. They get several strains of the hybrid that they now have to test. Some will not be resistant, some will. Of the ones that are...some of those strains (perhaps all) will no longer have the qualities that make Rye...Rye.

So it's back to the drawing board and they try again. Test, grow, test, grow...until they find the right species that resists the blight, but has all the characteristics that are Rye. Then they have to check to see if the new strain can be bread with itself and continue the resistance across future generations.

All of this takes time. They have to plant the seeds and wait for them to germinate and to mature. For every generation they try. That's a lot of time.

Genetic Engineering means that they can cut the time down drastically since they can pull the genes they want and splice it in. This gives them a higher rate of success right from the start.
Click to expand...

FYI - Genetic engineering has a much higher failure rate than selective breeding and GE techniques have never produced a plant that is resistant to disease
 
Hypnotoad said:
Ok...let me put it to you this way.

Same scenario, an invasive and persistent weed is crowding out the rye crop. This species...is resistant to the current types and recommended amounts of herbicides.

You know that there's a species of Barley that is more robust and even more resistant to the herbicides than the weed is. So you cross-pollinate, grow, test, try again and again for as many generations as it takes to get the Rye/Barley hybrid you want/need.

Then dump more herbicides on our rye crop.

Or you can GenMod the sucker to do the same thing in a fraction of the time, splicing the bits you need from the Barley into the Rye to get the Rye/Barley hybrid that you want/need.

Then dump more herbicides on our rye crop.

And that's my point. That whether or not you do it the natural way of hybridization or GenMod...there's no difference between them. Either way you're eating something that is a hybrid of two edible plants. And either way...in the example above you're now consuming more herbicides which is a higher risk to those who eat it.

And finally that the risk comes not from the hybrid or the GMO...but what we do AFTER we create the hybrid/GMO.
Click to expand...

Genetic engineering is *not* a quicker version of selective breeding. With selective breeding, you cross pollinate two plants of the same species. With genetic engineering, you take the genes from one species and insert it into the genome of a completely different species.

IOW, GE produces results that selective breeding cannot, such as crops that produce a protein that is toxic to insects - the result of having genes taken from a bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis) inserted into crops like corn.
 
RAMOSS said:
That depends.. even low level amounts of herbicides can be detremental over time.
Click to expand...
Can be or is? Who is to say there are any herbicides in crops?

There are also the GMO's where they splice some insecticide into the plant ,,, such as the Bt-corn.
Click to expand...
Okay, so I read up on Bt-corn because I had no idea what it was. What they did was take a bacteria that lives in the soil and splice a bit of its genetic code into the corn. So because this is only the implanting of amino acids in a certain sequence, I can't see how it's harmful.

They found that this has caused many people to have chemicals in their guts, which also has an effect on the 'good' bacteria in someone's system. This seems to have a very deterious effect on, for example, monarch butterflies, and test shows there are some issues when feeding it to rats Morphological and Biochemical Changes in Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn (Ajeeb YG) | Adel shatta - Academia.edu

This could have an effect on humans too.. further testing would need to be done.
Click to expand...
Well absolutely should test further. I'd be interested to know if it does have an effect on humans.

So, some GMO's can potentially have a bad effect.
Click to expand...
Isn't that true of every technological development?
Others will help crops survive bad conditions. Of course, so does moving back from monocrop farms back to the more traditional agriculture methods too.
Click to expand...
I figure if traditional methods were still pheasable we would still use them.
 
sangha said:
No, the harm is that herbicides are toxic to all organisms. They kill insects (such as bees) and wildlife as well as the microbial life in the soil
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be very skeptical if I didn't ask for evidence of this.

So show me the evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom