GModified food.

[Nutsack]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/

Debates spark all over at this relatively new technique in increasing the speed of which we can genetically modify other organisms. I happened to find this website (actually it was a school assignment, lol) which was very interesting, each time you answer "yes" or "no", an new argument will be thrown against you.

I, for one, did not change my view on GM products from this, but there was some very good arguments.

Did this website change your view on GM products? Will you quit / begin purchasing these products?

[mrme]

Interesting website, but it did not change my views. I have always supported GM foods. I grew up with divorced parents, my mom would just buy food without really worrying about it. However my fathers wife (I refuse to call her step mother) would make sure to buy only organic food, at the dinner table she would rave about how much better the organic food tasted, and that it was much healthier then GM foods.
I never tasted the difference, so I support the side that allows me to eat more while costing less. Although now everyone and their dog seems to be obsessed with organic food. I used to work as a cashier at a grocery store and some people would buy the dumbest things, like organic rice crispies or organic corn flakes, they would pay an extra buck because the words organic were printed across the box. They would happily spend $3/pound on "farm fresh" organic tomatoes and ignore the normal .60 cent/pound tomatoes.
Pfft they can keep their overpriced food, I'll be over here, enjoying massive amounts of nutrient enriched foods.

[Dr. Dwermer]

I think this sort of suspicion to Genetically Altered food products is pretty ridiculous and the debate is muddied in a lot of urban legend. For instance, the idea that irradiated food somehow has negative health effects is pretty ridiculous.

The nomenclature of the debate is also amusing. "Organic foods" are touted as being somehow "better" for you. Well the word Organic doesn't necessarily mean "natural" unless we alter the meaning of the word to fit a particular vernacular. Technically, I’d be eating something Organic if I swallowed coal, or feces, or gasoline (it’s just a word to describe the presence of Carbon).

Genetically modified foods could help relieve world hunger by providing abundant harvests in harsh climates. We could genetically alter foods so that they manufacture their own pesticides instead of having to spray fields and worry about the ecological fallout (although, we should bring back DDT, I mean… seriously guys… DDT kicks ass [I’m not joking]). We could also give plants the ability to synthesize nutritious chemicals such as vitamins not normally found in the native plant. For instance, vitamin D carrots (which are a pretty red-color, I think) and vitamin C apples. How about the growing rise of diabetes? Why not develop a vegetable that manufactures a specific concentration of insulin (this is quite a stretch, I know, but plausible) instead of having to subject people to excessive medical equipment bills and painful injections?

In either case… there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be excited about genetically modified food.

[Armatus]

I think this sort of suspicion to Genetically Altered food products is pretty ridiculous and the debate is muddied in a lot of urban legend. For instance, the idea that irradiated food somehow has negative health effects is pretty ridiculous.

Pretty rediculous? I'll tell you what's rediculous, this qoute:

We could genetically alter foods so that they manufacture their own pesticides instead of having to spray fields and worry about the ecological fallout (although, we should bring back DDT, I mean… seriously guys… DDT kicks ass [I’m not joking]).

I hope you're not a real medical doctor, but then again it would be typical of one. Doctors over all tend to be best at prescribing drugs to treat the symptoms rather than the person... I really can't take the rest of your post too serious after that statement, it almost looks as if you just simply took the title of an article or a news flash and pasted it here. Don't you realize this is the very reason we are moving to GM. Super bugs, micro evolution in bacteria. Both sides agree something needs to change here. Good God man...

Take a look at your care free attitude and than consider that you are trusting profit driven corporations with our health? I understand the benefits of Genetic modification, however we need to look at who's in charge of developing it, ethics behind it and who's pushing it forward.

There many valid reasons for concern over GM which is why a lot of good research and testing goes along side these new ideas. However Allergies are a HUGE concern for people, another is that we are changing the natural environment from what nature created to what scientists think is best for the greater good (and well of course their employers eagerly awaiting the money). Environmental changes to native species is nothing to take lightly we need to be cautious when we experiment on our earth.

Additionally the way of life of the family farmer will be continuously tested. I don't wish to see these good stewards pushed aside yet again on another front. They are the real people on the grass roots level supporting their own communities! Of course not all small and independent farmers are organic, however many that aren't are on the corporate ball and chain just to survive and keep their farms. Many of them end up going "factory farm" because it's a financially sensible and I do not think that's a good standard to set for farmers. I question the overal ethics of a factory farm. There are drastically differing opinions in our way of life here.

Back to GM, Take a look at when foreign species are introduced into eco-systems not native to their own kind. There have been some very detrimental effects on wild-life, that isn't repaired over night and in some cases never. You can really go on and on with cons.

The nomenclature of the debate is also amusing. "Organic foods" are touted as being somehow "better" for you. Well the word Organic doesn't necessarily mean "natural" unless we alter the meaning of the word to fit a particular vernacular. Technically, I’d be eating something Organic if I swallowed coal, or feces, or gasoline (it’s just a word to describe the presence of Carbon).

You are almost getting into semantics which have no barring on the real issues here. Certainly though you may have faith in the people involved in bringing GMs about, but that's like having faith in the government. Take a step back and look at what we are doing before we dive in because one bad or poorly tested decision is all it takes to cause drastic effects on our health and environment.

We could also give plants the ability to synthesize nutritious chemicals such as vitamins not normally found in the native plant. For instance, vitamin D carrots (which are a pretty red-color, I think) and vitamin C apples. How about the growing rise of diabetes?

Not a bad I idea, but I think it better to teach people how to eat and take care of their bodies. This idea while good in theory solves nothing for people and their ignorance of their health. Hey kids forget the food triangle have a good tasting twinky with vitamins! You know that is the ultimate exploit of all this. Responsibility is what we need here not substitutes for poor habits.

Why not develop a vegetable that manufactures a specific concentration of insulin (this is quite a stretch, I know, but plausible) instead of having to subject people to excessive medical equipment bills and painful injections?

This would be a pro I admit.

In either case… there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be excited about genetically modified food.

Oh there's plenty I've just highlighted a view, but you really aught to take your time and read up on pros and cons before you jump for joy. If you spent the time to read the information the person has posted here you'd understand that, sadly I don't think anyone on this thread did that aside from maybe the first two people.

If you really need some good insight on both points of academic view take a look the special edition of Scientific American Reports magazine on diet and health, article: The Risks on the table

[Simetrical]

No offense to the supporters of this, but genetically modified food seems disgusting

Indeed, that seems to be the primary objection. Not that I'm saying that there's something wrong with that, or that suppression of it on that grounds is illegitimate, but I do strongly disagree.

first of all, it isn't really natural

Neither is, say, the computer you're reading this on. That's a lot less natural than a slightly modified plant.

second, it might have an altered taste ( probably a bad one, or one that is of lower quality than the natural version ).

That's groundless. In fact, Americans eat substantial quantities of GM crops already as is, unlabelled. If it does taste worse, of course, you can always go for the (probably more expensive) unmodified version. Nobody's outlawing that.

Super bugs, micro evolution in bacteria. Both sides agree something needs to change here.

That's true.

Take a look at your care free attitude and than consider that you are trusting profit driven corporations with our health? I understand the benefits of Genetic modification, however we need to look at who's in charge of developing it, ethics behind it and who's pushing it forward.

Certainly it needs to be carefully regulated, but as always, market forces are the best way to progress.

However Allergies are a HUGE concern for people

That's why new crops undergo safety testing. If any one were a tenth as dangerous as, say, all-natural peanuts, which kills a few hundred a year in the US alone, it would be dropped instantly for fear of lawsuit. But that natural product is basically unregulated.

another is that we are changing the natural environment from what nature created to what scientists think is best for the greater good (and well of course their employers eagerly awaiting the money). Environmental changes to native species is nothing to take lightly we need to be cautious when we experiment on our earth.

But not too cautious. Otherwise we won't get anywhere. Besides, GM is a minuscule thing compared to the rest of what we do to the planet. Cities, massive-scale farming to begin with, etc.

Additionally the way of life of the family farmer will be continuously tested.

That's a matter of opinion too, but I think that if such farmers can't compete, they should go into another line of business. Big business is more efficient than small, as long as there's competition among multiple businesses.

Back to GM, Take a look at when foreign species are introduced into eco-systems not native to their own kind. There have been some very detrimental effects on wild-life, that isn't repaired over night and in some cases never. You can really go on and on with cons.

It's true, we have to be careful. I don't think anyone objects to that. But not so careful as to be stifling. It's likely, anyway, that most modifications won't be very good for the plants in the wild, so probably it won't cause a whole lot of damage. It may, but that's always the risk of progress.

Not a bad I idea, but I think it better to teach people how to eat and take care of their bodies.

You think governments haven't been trying? You can't change human nature. At least, not without something like genetic modification . . .

[Namm]

I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't huge potential in GMO's. There is. However, there's this goofy principle that if you're not sure what something perhaps dangerous might do, you continue the research to find out. That principle have when regarding GMO's been thrown in the trashcan. There's influential economic interests that doesn't care if a GMO is "good" (bigger yields, more vitamins etc.) or "bad" (spreads altered genes to wild plants, doesn't produce seeds (actually seen as feature) etc.) - the only aspect that have any kind of meaning is of course if it's profitable or not for the corporations that sell the GMO's, and it is.

In India famers were promised bigger yields and a reduction of pesticide usage if they started to grow the GM Bt cotton. In reality, what they got were a package deal in which they had to buy expensive pesticides and seeds by taking loans, and the crop turned out to give smaller harvests and they had to use a lot more (up to five times more) pesticides. Thousands of indebted peasants have committed suicide because of this in recent years.

That's one of the criticisms against GMO's. Not GMO's in itself, but how the whole thing is being handled.

[Denny Crane!]

Thread Moved to Political Mudpit - Seneca

[Sit down, fat dog]

I support GM foods strongly. Considering the growth of the human population, the reduction of the land and the contempory problems of feeding the world I cannot consider how it is moral to be against them.

Obviously there needs to be controls, but progress should not be barred, especially with something as vital as feeding the human race.

[Denny Crane!]

Some argue that scientists do not fully understand the way in which genes operate and therefore should not attempt to modify them. Critics argue that the use of DNA from plant viruses may trigger disease. They also fear that genes placed into specific crops may be transferred to other species with adverse reactions. In particular, genes that carry herbicide or insect resistance if transferred may lead to the creation of 'superweeds'.

An environmental argument put forward is that the British countryside has already been subjected to a variety of pesticide products that have affected the 'natural balance' of the countryside and G M crops would only add to this imbalance.

Anti G M protesters object to the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes used in the modifying process. They feel that the antibiotic resistant genes could be passed into organisms and we would not have the necessary drugs to combat this.

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Generat...=0&MENU_ID=260




I think that it would be well worth our while waiting, given our exponential learning curve on these matters it would be prudent for us to keep this in the labratory for a number of years. Instead the trials are open and are guarunteed to contaminate non GM foods. I don't disagree with the idea but I massively disagree with how it is progressing.

Peter

[Big War Bird]

Whenever I hear someone tout the virtues all natural foods, I remind them that hemlock is all natural too. BTW, virtually every crop grown everywhere in the world had been genetically modified by farmers over the past few thousand years.

[Denny Crane!]

Yeah thanks BWB but it is reasonable to say GM foods are a lot more complicated than that. Have farmers been introducing antibiotic resistant genes for thousands of years?

Peter

[Big War Bird]

Yeah thanks BWB but it is reasonable to say GM foods are a lot more complicated than that. Have farmers been introducing antibiotic resistant genes for thousands of years?

Peter

As a matter of fact yes. Selecting plants with genetic resistance to disease is one factor that allowed agriculture to suplant hunting and gathering as the primary food source. In fact out right genetic mutations have played and important role in agriculture. Did you know that eating wild apricots can kill you, but ancient farmers took advantage of of a rare mutation that turned off the poison in wild apricots?

[Tiwaz]

As a matter of fact yes. Selecting plants with genetic resistance to disease is one factor that allowed agriculture to suplant hunting and gathering as the primary food source. In fact out right genetic mutations have played and important role in agriculture. Did you know that eating wild apricots can kill you, but ancient farmers took advantage of of a rare mutation that turned off the poison in wild apricots?

However, in this case we are usually dealing with one rather natural change. GM can alter multiple parts of the plant and present genes from other species, possibly whole different branch of evolutionary tree, to a plant.

At one point athletes would smoke tobacco before going to high altitude to "improve performance". This was due to lack of knowledge on actual effects.

Or several bridges which have had manufacturing faults in them causing them to become unstable (one hangbridge in USA crashed due to high wind I think and one became dangerous for pedestrians in UK until changes were made).

And bridges and mathematics are something we have done for a long time. Direct genetic manipulation is very new and we know rather little about it. Better safe then sorry.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Feeding GM food to soldiers in a big bonus, IMO. I don't know if they already do that, but I've eaten rations on training that contain a few thou calories, dunno how they do that.

[Denny Crane!]

I understand but that is a basic level of eugenics not actually genetic modification.

Peter

[Sit down, fat dog]

Selective breeding has been happening for thousands of years, it's true. It is a form of genetic engineering, but obviously a step off from modern genetics.

[Big War Bird]

GM Crops are producing tangible benefits but have yet the fears about GM crops have consistantly failed to materialize. Seneca you ara fan of Boston Legal. Then you should be aware of this legal axiom. If the facts are with you argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the process.

[Denny Crane!]

I apologise, someone far wiser suggested a science forum as being more appropriate. Sorry folks moved again - Seneca

[turtle]

I would have to agree with Seneca on this one. I don't look down upon the idea of GM foods, because there are obvious advantages when it comes to mass production, nutrient supplimentation, parasitic immunity, capital gain etc. But I don't condone the introduction of these foods into our society, without knowing how they will effect us... without knowing the genetic repercussions of such foods. We cannot possible know how they will effect us and our children. I'm not saying there are or will be negative repercussions, but I do think them possible, which should not be looked at lightly.

Despite my views, I still eat them, I can't really afford to do otherwise.

[Kretchfoop]

I agree that the modified foods need to be rigurously tested before their introduction. However, I can't fathom how some people think they are so bad. "Frankenfoods" they call them. With the rapid growth of the human population it would be literally impossible to feed everyone without them. I think it is just plain irresponsible to not use them. In the United States (huge food exporter) some people already think that they have nearly reached max efficieny in their agricultural industry. With the only way to significantly boost output is by using modified crops. My uncle is a farmer and he told me when he changed from a 'regular' corn seed to a kind modified to resist a pest that destroys much of his crop he increased his harvest by 15% (I think the bug was called a core borer or something).

Of course no one has argued that position in this thread but I know there are people like that out there.