GMO: Harmful or Helpful

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

Many of our food products have been GMO for a very, very, very long time.

Personally, I think that overconsumption of specific ingredients is much more of a problem. I'm in the camp that believes GMO is not bad for you in and of itself, but that consuming the exact same strain of wheat or soy in EVERY SINGLE THING YOU EAT is bad for you.

My issues with GMO are that it supports lack of dietary diversity, is contributing to the extinction of heritage strain food plants, and generally messes with ecological factors.

And no, I have no sources for this today. I'm being lazy and opinionated. I might dig some up later.

This is exactly where I stand with this issue. I also think that although GMOs are not bad in themselves (we've been producing them since we figured out how to farm, after all), the current direction they're taking won't really solve our problems unless we take other actions as well. These include:
-Encouraging more biodiversity. Traditional crop rotation was pretty effective in preventing disease and pests without the need to use pesticides. It wasn't 100% effective, but pesticides have far reaching consequences such as killing helpful species like ladybugs and bees. Those consequences are worse than the pests themselves. Now, the thing about GMOs is that they have the potential to REDUCE pesticide use, and if we actually start going in that direction, I fully support it. However, I don't think monoculture is great for soil or land over the long term, no matter what we do to the plants. And then there is the issue that a lot of industrial scale farming uses GMO plants in combination with certain pesticides. A lot of GMOs involve creating plants that produce their own insecticides, which is terrible for bee populations.
-We waste far too much food. In our part of the world, there is not so much a food shortage as a food wastage issue. I know fixing this is easier said than done, but for the love of all that is holy, we have to try.
-There are a lot of regions of the world that experience food shortages due to things like drought. However, at least some of these are due to improper use of land over several generations. We should be pushing better land stewardship. A lot of shortages are also due to corruption and conflict, and sad as it is to say, I don't think there's -anything- we can really do about that. Until places like Somalia get some level of stability, people will starve. Until more stable places like South Africa sort out their inequality issues, people will starve. Heck, people in the UK are struggling to afford food, and there aren't any shortages on the supermarket shelves.

Basically, I'm not against GMOs, but I'm against how they are currently being produced and used on an industrial scale. Still, I don't think banning their creation will solve any problems and I think that would be a move against potentially huge progresses.

I think it IS a mistake to think that GMOs will end world hunger. Until we combat inequality, global political instability, sustainable land stewardship (even in our own corners of the world), and large scale wastage in the developed world, they will not fix anything.

All that being said, I feel like the polarization on the GMO issue does more harm than anything else. On one side, you have the supporters that insist that they will solve world hunger, as if you can just put a band-aid on all the many problems surrounding agriculture and food consumption. On the other side, you have the anti-GMO camp that ignores the fact that this is something we have been doing for ages and that GMOs have the potential to be very helpful. Can't we meet somewhere in the middle? Can't we pursue a direction of GMO research that facilitates organic farming and biodiversity while we work on combatting our wasteful consumption patterns and poor use of land?

[Gleb]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

This might blow your mind... but you are a GMO.

You are humanly genetically modified.

All of your ancestors chose sexual partners that they were sexually attracted to... meaning, just like dogs, you were humanly selectively bred for.

true... dogs were controlled by another species (humans)... but that changes noghing

Actually I thought that humans have passed evolution and changed over time. It's a long period, yes.
But you will possibly agree that humanity of today will significantly differ from humanity 5000 years ago or since this current time.

In my opinion, humanity changes because of its needs, thus adapting to its current condition(s).

- - - Updated - - -

Correct me if I am wrong.

[Bjorn]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

I'm loving all of this guys, don't mistake my silence for disinterest!

Corbin, could you help direct me to a source for this Bt tater stuff?

For those people who live in a country where they have GMO labeling, what are your thoughts? And does anyone have anything to contribute as far as sources are concerned? After all, I hear about all this data being suppressed and then get inundated with articles like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1673618 , http://m.rollingstone.com/politics/n...l-yet-20130425 , http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...crop-research/

Plenty of stuff on both sides it seems.

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

I think we're supposed to have labelling (I think it's an EU thing), but I'm not sure. I can't remember seeing any labels. Mind you, a lot of GMOs are blocked in the EU.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

Corbin, could you help direct me to a source for this Bt tater stuff?

I picked it up from a book I read 10 years ago, and I can't remember the title or author :='(:

Howsomeever, a quick trip to the evil Wiki turns up this:

Use of Bt genes in genetic engineering of plants for pest control

[Bjorn]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

I think we're supposed to have labelling (I think it's an EU thing), but I'm not sure. I can't remember seeing any labels. Mind you, a lot of GMOs are blocked in the EU.

I'd very much like to know about WHY the GMOs are blocked in the EU. Are there any studies you can share?

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

I'd very much like to know about WHY the GMOs are blocked in the EU. Are there any studies you can share?

I'll look into it

I'm not sure if it's all scientific. The EU can be populist at times. If most Europeans feel afraid of GMOs (and many do), that's something that has a lot of influence as to what gets passed in the EU parliament. It could also be a protectionist measure, which is a big reason that the EU parliament would get involved. Blocking a lot of GMOs means blocking a lot of American food products, which means that they won't compete with European food products. That's certainly what the critics say and the US has gone to the WTO about it on several occasions. It could also be a combination of factors including environmental issues, health concerns, trade protectionism, and popular opinion....this is the most likely reason.

I'll look into it for you though

[midgnostic]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

My instinct is that by both setting the terms of and expediting an evolutionary process (forcing crops to adapt to certain environments) we are taking great risks. To a large extent the features of the native ecosystem determine the characteristics of a species - this is bioregionalism. Lactose intolerance and Asian Flush syndrome attests to how crucial even relatively small evolutionary divergence can be. I certainly don't feel we know enough about the human genome for anyone to say with a high degree of confidence that flouting the ecological balance we have evolved to live in symbiosis with is without serious serious risk.

Without even thinking of the lives which could be lost, it would be an abuse of the sacrifices to disease, predation and bitter rivalries responsible for our species' progress if toxic GMOs were to become the standard against which natural selection is wrought on humanity in the future. Obviously as food shortages become more severe difficult decisions will have to be made, but the risk of GMOs should not be understated just because no-one can say exactly how they might affect us.

While with hindsight it is relatively easy to attribute certain actions to a certain effect, it is much harder to anticipate these effects in advance. Health disorders can be attributed to precipitating factors in retrospect with relative ease but prognostication may be impossible to determine when applying a traditional method to a whole new field.

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

Ok, so....EU policy on GMOs. Complicated stuff. I haven't read through all of this yet and there is still more to dredge up, but here's a start:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotec...y/index_en.htm (Developments and hearings about GMO policy in the past few years)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/l...al_feed_en.htm (rules and legislation)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/c...e/index_en.htm (issues of existence and co-existence with GM and non-GM crops)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/l...e_rules_en.htm (new rules that allow individual member countries to ban approved GMOs if they want to)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/gmo.htm (European Food Safety Authority on GMOs)

Anyway, from what I'm gathering by flipping through this, the EU and EFSA do not consider GMOs in themselves to be dangerous or bad. They do not (contrary to what people love to post around the web) ban all of these products. There are GM crops (mostly corn) in production in the EU. They have rigorous standards and GMO crops and foods must stack up to a number of environmental, economic, and social standards (along with any other food product that comes into the EU or gets introduced as a crop). So, I guess you'd have to look up each individual GMO crop in question and find out where the EU stands on it. If the EFSA reviewed it (and if it tried to get into the EU, this happened), there is probably some kind of documentation.

Our food policy over here isn't perfect, but overall, I prefer it. The US attacks us a lot for not allowing certain products into the EU (meat and dairy treated with hormones and antibiotics often come into question), but I think the standards aren't meant to block progress. The EU is so different from the US....we are much more densely populated, so environmental issues affect us much more (what natural landscape we have left is pretty important!), food traditions exist in each country that play a big cultural role and are already under threat from homogenization from within the EU (ITALIAN FOOD EVERYWHERE YOU GO!), and land use is an issue here (and a growing one that is already under threat from current farming practices). The EU wants to make sure that people stay healthy, farms stay sustainable, to preserve the environment. It's a really complicated issue, when it comes down to it. I do eat better knowing that even though we still have some crappy practices (factory farm animal products, monoculture, pesticides), at least what we have was put under some pretty intense scrutiny.

[midgnostic]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

The principle cause of world hunger is overpopulation and I believe recourse to genetically modified crops should be considered as an means to appease the effects of overpopulation only until overpopulation can be addressed humanely. Insects should be farmed wherever feasible both in order to preserve biodiversity and to provide an affordable source of protein, which would reduce requirements for genetically modified produce.

Once genetically modified crops become yet more prevalent, populations of insect species will diminish significantly and their level of the entire food chain will be further destabilised. The most direct implication for people may be that less diversity of insects and smaller insect populations will compromise future attempts to restore traditional agricultural practice, yet it may prove that reverting to traditional farming eventually becomes essential due to unforeseen health implications associated with the consumption of genetically modified produce over a long period of time.

[Bjorn]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

My instinct is that by both setting the terms of and expediting an evolutionary process (forcing crops to adapt to certain environments) we are taking great risks. To a large extent the features of the native ecosystem determine the characteristics of a species - this is bioregionalism. Lactose intolerance and Asian Flush syndrome attests to how crucial even relatively small evolutionary divergence can be. I certainly don't feel we know enough about the human genome for anyone to say with a high degree of confidence that flouting the ecological balance we have evolved to live in symbiosis with is without serious serious risk.

Without even thinking of the lives which could be lost, it would be an abuse of the sacrifices to disease, predation and bitter rivalries responsible for our species' progress if toxic GMOs were to become the standard against which natural selection is wrought on humanity in the future. Obviously as food shortages become more severe difficult decisions will have to be made, but the risk of GMOs should not be understated just because no-one can say exactly how they might affect us.

While with hindsight it is relatively easy to attribute certain actions to a certain effect, it is much harder to anticipate these effects in advance. Health disorders can be attributed to precipitating factors in retrospect with relative ease but prognostication may be impossible to determine when applying a traditional method to a whole new field.

The principle cause of world hunger is overpopulation and I believe recourse to genetically modified crops should be considered as an means to appease the effects of overpopulation only until overpopulation can be addressed humanely. Insects should be farmed wherever feasible both in order to preserve biodiversity and to provide an affordable source of protein, which would reduce requirements for genetically modified produce.

Once genetically modified crops become yet more prevalent, populations of insect species will diminish significantly and their level of the entire food chain will be further destabilised. The most direct implication for people may be that less diversity of insects and smaller insect populations will compromise future attempts to restore traditional agricultural practice, yet it may prove that reverting to traditional farming eventually becomes essential due to unforeseen health implications associated with the consumption of genetically modified produce over a long period of time.

You have a lot of opinion but I don't see any supporting evidence. Where did you learn about GMO? What texts shaped your opinion?

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

One of the greatest causes of hunger is war. Crops can't be sown, grown or gathered and livestock are murdered or stolen.

As an aside, I suspect some of the food I buy lately is GM modified. Never ripens, never goes off and tastes like candle-wax.

[DanieMarie]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

One of the greatest causes of hunger is war. Crops can't be sown, grown or gathered and livestock are murdered or stolen.

As an aside, I suspect some of the food I buy lately is GM modified. Never ripens, never goes off and tastes like candle-wax.

May be less GMO and more wax Using wax on produce is a common practice!

[midgnostic]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

You have a lot of opinion but I don't see any supporting evidence. Where did you learn about GMO? What texts shaped your opinion?

It is deductive reasoning based on scientific fact, but of course I don't know everything

[Bjorn]

Re: GMO: Harmful or Helpful

It is deductive reasoning based on scientific fact, but of course I don't know everything

So you have nothing. Deductive reasoning isn't strong enough. I could deduce that ice cream causes murder in the summertime because the sales of ice cream and murders rise in the summertime.

Opinions are nice and all but this is not intended to be a debate but rather a wealth of resources that can help curious minds point in the right direction.