Genetically Modified Foods

[bob]

So guys, Genetically Modified Foods eh?

 

I very much Pro them, since my father is a Crop research scientist (not working with GM, but he knows what he is talking about).

 

He just sent me this link, which is a lecture given in Oxford by a former Greenpeace protester turned GM foods enthusiast. It's interesting reading, and outlines (heavily biased i supposed) the debate.

 

Anywho, what are other peoples views on GM foods?

Edited January 11, 2013 by Mr_Odwin

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Well, I hate arguments from nature with a passion, so naturally (heh) I don't buy into the scaremongering tactics regarding GMFs. That's not to say we shouldn't be aware of what we're doing, of course.

[Cube]

I'm pretty sure that it's healthier than the natural crap they use for "organic" (such a terrible term, as the GM stuff is still organic) food.

 

It can grow in more places, it can create more bountiful yields, and generally better in every way.

[Jonnas]

I don't see much of a problem with them, as I rarely hear about cases of GMF gone wrong (like the Irish meat thing from a few years back. Very rare, that sort of thing happening), so the pros end up outweighing the cons.

 

Also: I thanked that post for an entirely different reason! Damn you, admins, Bob's quick thinking and the original bot for making me feel like a fool!

[jayseven]

Just a note; the scroll bar on that page does not reflect the length of the actual article itself, which can be read in about 7 minutes.

 

I'm all for GM foods. The argument about damage to local climate/ecosystems/that sort of sustainability runs deeper than just "it messes it up" (which that article states is not the case, and is better attributed to organic foods) unfairly overlooks a simple matter of a poor understanding of the farmers having less-than-perfect knowledge of what they are doing scientifically to the soil and other fauna/flora using the land prior to agriculturalisation (if that's even a word). For sure, GM would allow a smaller area for an equal yield if we compare production to 'organic' (or otherwise) crop production, but it doesn't reduce the fact that, especially in the developing world, farmers will still rape the soil to shit and make it unusable after 4 seasons (for another 9, or whatever).

 

Of course this isn't my specialty area, it's anecdotal stuff from when I sat in on my ex's lectures and via her essays/etc, but that was always a factor that wasn't recognised (and perhaps isn't in a quantifiable way) when estimating sustainablity in the 3rd world, which I thought was worth mentioning!

[Sheikah]

Pro GM all the way.

 

- GM foods have no higher chance of transferring DNA to humans than normal plants

- IIRC no evidence of plants having transferred DNA to humans via the gut.

- People have been selecting for certain genes in plants via selective breeding (ie. countering nature) for centuries/millennia. Mostly defeats ethical argument.

- Better yields (theoretically), better nutrition. Can make crops more resilient to pesticides thus reduce their use, which is good for animals and the environment.

 

Most people anti-GM are ignorant of the scientific facts.

[Cube]

- People have been selecting for certain genes in plants via selective breeding (ie. countering nature) for centuries/millennia. Mostly defeats ethical argument.

 

We've even done it for trivial reasons. Carrots were purple, but there were some mutant carrots that were white and yellow. These white and yellow carrots were then selectively bred to create the orange carrot, which is now the most common kind.

 

So, all carrots have technically been genetically modified by humans.

[MoogleViper]

So, all carrots have technically been genetically modified by humans.

 

No, they technically haven't.

[Diageo]

I think genetic modification of food is great, especially when resilience to insects means the reduced used of pesticides and less damage to the local environment.

[The fish]

If any of you remember the Rothamsted Research protests last summer, they were in my town, and I walked over to watch. The level of ignorance of basic science and the sheer militant-nature of a surprisingly large proportion of the people I spoke to was frankly worrying.

[arab_freak]

I'm just gonna leave this right here:

 

 

Also, does anyone remember this?

 

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011-10-26/UK-scientists-grow-super-broccoli/50929840/1

 

The new broccoli was specially grown to contain two to three times the normal amount of glucoraphanin, a nutrient believed to help ward off heart disease.

 

To create the vegetable, sold as "super broccoli," Mithen and colleagues cross-bred a traditional British broccoli with a wild, bitter Sicilian variety that has no flowery head, and a big dose of glucoraphanin. After 14 years, the enhanced hybrid was produced, which has been granted a patent by European authorities. No genetic modification was used.

 

I wish we had that kind of stuff here. I'd love to try it, even if the difference in taste is almost undetectable.

[Rummy]

I think we mess with far worse in most of our health and in addition to the amount of crap we put on food already, I don't really care/see any problem with GM. I'm rather uneducated on the finer points of it, but I don't know why it's really supposed to be such a big deal.

[bob]

I think we mess with far worse in most of our health and in addition to the amount of crap we put on food already, I don't really care/see any problem with GM. I'm rather uneducated on the finer points of it, but I don't know why it's really supposed to be such a big deal.

 

Well that's the problem, there isn't really any big deal about it. There's just a load of made up crap that activists threw at the government, who then got worried and banned it, despite there being no evidence that GM foods were a threat to anything other than bountiful amounts of glorious food.

[Fused King]

I'll just say that I've always been a bit wary of people trying to tamper with nature.

I think that once you start altering nature, you end up with unforeseen consequences, which, again, you need to control and perhaps alter.

 

Food is a very difficult subject, I think, partly because there are so many ways to become and stay healthy.

 

I do think that one's attitude towards that which one eats is of great importance in how it will influence your body and state of mind to a certain extent, and I don't believe that's been fully investigated yet.

 

I'm just not sure if it's a good idea to be controlling and recreating nature.

[Sheikah]

I'll just say that I've always been a bit wary of people trying to tamper with nature.

I think that once you start altering nature, you end up with unforeseen consequences, which, again, you need to control and perhaps alter.

 

Food is a very difficult subject, I think, partly because there are so many ways to become and stay healthy.

 

I do think that one's attitude towards that which one eats is of great importance in how it will influence your body and state of mind to a certain extent, and I don't believe that's been fully investigated yet.

 

I'm just not sure if it's a good idea to be controlling and recreating nature.

 

But we've already been tampering with nature for ages by selectively breeding plants. This was done AGES ago when any possible consequences of our actions couldn't easily be picked up, unlike genetic modification now.

 

No evidence to suggest that plants can transfer DNA to humans, current crops or GM.

 

No reason to be cautious at all. Honestly, it's that kind of belief combined with an extremist attitude (not that you have the latter) that leads to the ridiculous opposition.

[Diageo]

Why do people think nature is so perfect? Nature is far from balanced, optimal or rational. Nature just happens.

[Sheikah]

Yeah. In terms of nature we have thoroughly smashed it in almost every way we live our lives.

 

Want to ingest your own body weight in alcohol? Smoke 50 cigarettes a day? Sure!

 

Nutrionally boosted foods? Hang on a minute, is that NATURAL sire?

[bob]

Not that this has much to do with GM food, but of you lived totally naturally, you'd have a life expectancy of about 44, like in the olden times.

 

I think the main point of the article I posted, is that it's not a debate as to whether GM is ok or not. The scientific trials have been carried out and peer reviewed, it's just people aren't listening to it. The food is safe and would save so many more lives than if would damage, even if it did mess up your health routine (which it wouldn't).

[Ville]

We're basically tampering with everything all the time anyway. The question is whether we can do it to our advantage while minimizing the risks.

[MoogleViper]

GM foods make you impotent, and they shrivel your ballsack.

 

Happened to a mate of mine. Small balls Paul we call him.

[EEVILMURRAY]

We've even done it for trivial reasons. Carrots were purple, but there were some mutant carrots that were white and yellow. These white and yellow carrots were then selectively bred to create the orange carrot, which is now the most common kind.

 

So, all carrots have technically been genetically modified by humans.

How did we create this mutant breed and when?!

[Cube]

How did we create this mutant breed and when?!

 

What I mean is: because of selective breeding, carrots generally have a different genetic code to what they would have if they were left to change naturally.

[Debug Mode]

All for GM here. My only problem with it is parasites like Monsanto.

 

The idea that genes can be patented is absolutely ridiculous. GM can be very helpful, but companies like Monsanto are deliberately making them unnaturally intrusive so if your own crops get taken over by them, you're facing a law suit. Decide you want to go with Monsanto any way, but decide to save some seed like what has been done for eons? Law suit.

 

The world hunger problem can easily come to an end with GM and I am incredibly sceptical whether the these so called "health dangers" actually exist, but I wish some companies would fuck off trying to ruin a good thing. It's not exactly helping the cause.

[Serebii]

Genetically modified food can aid to the ending of world hunger, which may be a bad thing in the long run (wait for the population to hit 10 billion), it's a very good thing for humans around the world.

 

People saying no to it typically are the same as those against stem cell research. They're just following religious views and ignoring facts brought towards them.

[Dcubed]

Gonna have to go with the prevailing viewpoint on here. There's nothing really wrong with GM foods and that the people who campaign against them largely do so for a lack of understanding about how they work.

 

Nature has been tampered with for so long that it barely resembles what it was originally anyway.