Genetically engineered food

[roosterjuicer]

Can someone please explain to me what all the hatred of genetically modified food in general is about? Secondly, explain all the hatred for Monsanto as well.

I am relatively ignorant of the topic but there has been a lot of noise about it lately.

Here's the extent of my knowledge:

(1) Companies, like monsanto, breed plants like corn to do things like need less water, be resistent to herbicides, etc...
(2) to do so, they breed plants like people breed dogs ie. find two dogs that are really good at swimming/retrieving and, after a long period of careful breeding, you eventually get a Labrador retriever.
(3) I prefer seedless grapes to grapes with seeds. The same goes for oranges and watermelons.

[RacingManiac]

Beats me.....I thought progress is good. Making food that can grow in more diversed climate, using less water or produce higher yield seems like a win. I don't see it in the same light as using growth hormone or pesticide or something of that nature.

Even then, the want for the current organic food craze is silly, especially in the light of the e-coli outbreak in Germany a while ago....where organically grown bean sprouts was contaminated by "natural" ground water....

[NSXType-R]

I'm not against genetically modified foods, I'm fully for it. I just have a problem with GMO (genetically modified organisms) if they get out into the ecosystem. It can seriously mess with the natural food chain.

Think about this- genetically modified wheat, resistant to herbicides, got out of a farm somehow. What happens if that wheat spreads across the entire Great Plains? It's a problem because that's not what makes up the entire Great Plains.

And it wasn't supposed to be found outside of testing facilities anyway.

GMO Wheat Found In Oregon Field. How Did It Get There? : The Salt : NPR

Again- I'm all for GMOs. The world could not exist if we subsisted on organic farming.

I just feel as if there needs to be tighter controls on the usage of GMOs.

There's a lot of hatred towards Monsanto because they're pretty much the largest chemical company and the largest GMO company there is.

Partly the reason why people hate Monsanto is because the farmers want to use their genetically modified soy bean seed beyond 1 year. There's actually a signed contract between the farmers and Monsanto that you can't use their seed beyond one year. Besides, there's also a suicide gene programmed into the soy bean. They probably won't survive beyond one year but that doesn't mean they won't germinate. So people plant them and then Monsanto finds out and sues the crap out of you.

So Monsanto manages to piss off the Green Peace people and traditional farmers. And that's just two parties out of many more that aren't happy with them. And I'm sure Monsanto wasn't very environmentally friendly in the past. And plus they make Roundup, which can leach into water systems and cause early puberty in children.

Here's the link.

Supreme Court Rules For Monsanto In Case Against Farmer : The Two-Way : NPR

[Cyco]

Partly the reason why people hate Monsanto is because the farmers want to use their genetically modified soy bean seed beyond 1 year. There's actually a signed contract between the farmers and Monsanto that you can't use their seed beyond one year. Besides, there's also a suicide gene programmed into the soy bean. They probably won't survive beyond one year but that doesn't mean they won't germinate. So people plant them and then Monsanto finds out and sues the crap out of you.

The suicide gene idea was never implemented. Mainly because it wasn't necessary. Like many hybrids (Liger, Mule, etc) a lot of the GMO food crops are incapable of bearing viable seed.

[092326001]

Monsanto developed agent orange too, iirc

[crisis]

My daughter is doing a degree in Animal Science and we have numerous discussions about related things. Her view is that there is nothing wrong with it and I agree. Basically because the reality everything has been “genetically modified” through evolution. Cross breeding of animals is “genetic modification”. What I think frightens people is.
1. The general untrustworthiness of huge corporations like Monsanto to be ethical
2. The influence science fiction has had on us all with regard to science gone wild i.e. horror movie brain sucking mutations.
I find it funny when people stress about “natural” food. It’s a great way for unethical companies to exploit consumers.

[Cobrafan427]

I think the whole problem with genetically modified foods is solely on animals and their meat. People worry about eating things loaded up with steroids and stuff like that and then you get PETA who doesn't like how the animal was raised and slaughtered

[NSXType-R]

Monsanto developed agent orange too, iirc

That sounds right.

My daughter is doing a degree in Animal Science and we have numerous discussions about related things. Her view is that there is nothing wrong with it and I agree. Basically because the reality everything has been “genetically modified” through evolution. Cross breeding of animals is “genetic modification”. What I think frightens people is.
1. The general untrustworthiness of huge corporations like Monsanto to be ethical
2. The influence science fiction has had on us all with regard to science gone wild i.e. horror movie brain sucking mutations.
I find it funny when people stress about “natural” food. It’s a great way for unethical companies to exploit consumers.

I agree. If you were to switch every farmer in the world to organic gardening techniques- no conventional fertilizers (not the manure type, the chemical type), the world would literally starve. Norman Borlaug invented fertilizers as we know it today and is single handedly the one to thank for today's world population. Without him the whole world would be starving.

The suicide gene idea was never implemented. Mainly because it wasn't necessary. Like many hybrids (Liger, Mule, etc) a lot of the GMO food crops are incapable of bearing viable seed.

That's true. I don't know if the suicide gene exists or not, my cousin did his masters in Iowa State University on agricultural science or something related to it. We had discussed Monsanto the other day and he talked about the suicide gene being implemented by Monsanto.

He's not worried about GMOs either, and neither am I.

I think the whole problem with genetically modified foods is solely on animals and their meat. People worry about eating things loaded up with steroids and stuff like that and then you get PETA who doesn't like how the animal was raised and slaughtered

No, I think people are worried about equally worried about meat and agricultural products. People think it's an unnatural way to do things.

If people wanted corn to look the way it looked before human intervention, it would practically be inedible. Corn is the way it is because of human crossbreeding and domestication. That would have been modifying its genes before we got to their genes at a molecular level.

Again, I'm not worried about it as a food source, I'm more worried about the problems it would cause if it were to get out into the ecosystem. Which it already has.

[Matra et Alpine]

THe biggest concern with GM is that it is manipulating gene combinations in a way that are "unnatural" and are NOT understood.

So there MAY be consequences and side effects especially if a GM crop manages to interact with a natural one.

Whilst the fear may be irrational the issue is the extent of damage IF it goes wrong is extensive.

We do NOT "understand" genes, we have "mapped" them and by research mainly consisting of trial and error identified some gene traits we can take advantage of. BUT we have no real idea of how it may change or interact in the future ... because we do NOT understand genes fully enough to do so.

Thus many people believe we should not have GM until such time as we can provide a higher level of confidence or proof.

[CdocZ]

THe biggest concern with GM is that it is manipulating gene combinations in a way that are "unnatural" and are NOT understood.

So there MAY be consequences and side effects especially if a GM crop manages to interact with a natural one.

Whilst the fear may be irrational the issue is the extent of damage IF it goes wrong is extensive.

We do NOT "understand" genes, we have "mapped" them and by research mainly consisting of trial and error identified some gene traits we can take advantage of. BUT we have no real idea of how it may change or interact in the future ... because we do NOT understand genes fully enough to do so.

Thus many people believe we should not have GM until such time as we can provide a higher level of confidence or proof.

Not that Matra is the only one who posted that this is a lot of people's concerns, but as with anything "scary", the fear of the unknown when it comes to GM foods has been turned into quite a fear-mongering fest. I regularly see crap on facebook and some news sites (not reputable ones, thankfully), and elsewhere about fake studies done showing GM foods causing cancer, mental illness, and a whole host of other falsities.

Sci-fi definitely seems to have played a role int his, since some people apparently think that genetic modification comes with the mistakes seen in the Jurassic Park movies.

However, let's remember that Monsanto is far from perfect - due to costs for specialized products and fertilizers and ridiculous contracts with farmers, the rate of suicide among farmers in India is alarmingly high. But a nearly 1/3rd decrease in world hunger/malnutrition in the last 2-3 decades is probably worth it. Yay food!

[NSXType-R]

Not that Matra is the only one who posted that this is a lot of people's concerns, but as with anything "scary", the fear of the unknown when it comes to GM foods has been turned into quite a fear-mongering fest. I regularly see crap on facebook and some news sites (not reputable ones, thankfully), and elsewhere about fake studies done showing GM foods causing cancer, mental illness, and a whole host of other falsities.

Sci-fi definitely seems to have played a role int his, since some people apparently think that genetic modification comes with the mistakes seen in the Jurassic Park movies.

However, let's remember that Monsanto is far from perfect - due to costs for specialized products and fertilizers and ridiculous contracts with farmers, the rate of suicide among farmers in India is alarmingly high. But a nearly 1/3rd decrease in world hunger/malnutrition in the last 2-3 decades is probably worth it. Yay food!

Matra's concerns echos my concerns. It's one thing to fear everything about GMOs, it's another to err on the side of caution. There's a term called the precautionary principle, where everything that has the potential of harm is banned. If that were the case, atomic technology would not have been pursued because it had the potential of creating bombs. That being the case, we wouldn't have nuclear power either.

Obviously you can have safe nuclear power, but you have to regulate it carefully- look at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The same thing could occur with GMOs- it could very easily spiral out of control but it could also benefit humanity incredibly. Monsanto's track record is not great, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

[crisis]

THe biggest concern with GM is that it is manipulating gene combinations in a way that are "unnatural"

Define “natural”?

and are NOT understood.

Do/did breeders understand what they were really doing when mutating animals by cross breeding cows or sheep or dogs, or grain etc?

So there MAY be consequences and side effects especially if a GM crop manages to interact with a natural one.

How can it interact?

Whilst the fear may be irrational the issue is the extent of damage IF it goes wrong is extensive.

Like?

We do NOT "understand" genes, we have "mapped" them and by research mainly consisting of trial and error identified some gene traits we can take advantage of. BUT we have no real idea of how it may change or interact in the future ... because we do NOT understand genes fully enough to do so.

Many scientific breakthroughs have occurred as such.

Thus many people believe we should not have GM until such time as we can provide a higher level of confidence or proof.

Unfortunately that will be a ethical or special interest football kicked around forever. The scientific pro group wishing to forge ahead while the conservative “what if” group providing endless argument of the fear of the unknown.
For example -

ie Debate rages over merits of GM food | News | Sci-tech | Mail Guardian

BUT, the risk of cross-breed and it's impact is for me the real reason we should limit GM food. We seriously risk taking food and animals down the same path anti-biotics are and reacing a point were we can't stop it.

The problem with anti biotics is that viruses have mutated to be able to be immune. It is a different thing. The anti biotic are not risky in themselves, merely useless.

NOBODY can ensure that there can be no cross breeding or fertilization and at that point it introduces a massive unknown from the gene poll of the other party. Thus GM can be "known safe", but as we do not fully understand the genome and the role of all it's parts there is no way of knowing whether the next or a subsequent cross would be.

How exactly would this unknown manifest itself?

I mean we cant even control invasive plants never mind invasive genomes from plants

?

Profit today is more important than some future safety ( because it's not measureable yet because we don't actually understand the full gene of ANY cell )

That much I agree with.

Monsanto's track record is not great, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

I agree and as with Matras point about profitability there should be controls on how the research is undertaken. I am still not exactly sure what kind of mutations could really pose a catastrophic threat to humanity though.
I look forward to this discussion. It is controversial without being political or religious (yet )

[clutch-monkey]

How can it interact?

the fear is naturally occuring relatives of GM food crops, or other plants, if they can pick up attributes from the modified crop may suddenly find themselves resistant to pesticides or other favourable phenotypes.
i can't remember how this was going to be possible (this exact topic was covered in a previous degree about 7 years ago..).. i'd bet it would be the smaller and simpler ground flora picking it up from processed crops as the field is turned over for the next season.
the result would be the plant equivalent of the introduction of cane toads i guess.

there is already selection pressure on weed plants regardless through the use of chemicals, though it happens far slower than it does on micro-organisms and insects.
it's not just specific for antibiotics, a lot of our insecticides are seeing reduced effectiveness through the industry... OP's like Diazinon are near useless at controlling flystrike now.

I am still not exactly sure what kind of mutations could really pose a catastrophic threat to humanity though.

anything that gives an organism resistance to natural or artificial controls, or a survival advantage over the rest of the population.
simpler examples, we'd be thinking in terms of harmful algal blooms, could rapidly devastate whole ecosystems.
this is why antigenic drift and antigenic shift in influenza viruses are a worry.

[Matra et Alpine]

Define “natural”?

Allowing normal natural selection which DNA has used and tried for billions of years. So MUC more "testing" than the "unnatural" method of gene-splicing. IF we actually understood the genome fully then the risk would clearly be low. BUT we have no clue what most of it does, or how it may interact and attach or mutate !!

Do/did breeders understand what they were really doing when mutating animals by cross breeding cows or sheep or dogs, or grain etc?

They were only taking steps to test and direct the natural steps the DNA had performed for billions of years. Gene splicing isn't. AND as I keep saying we don't understand the functions and so are unaware of the risks we MAY create in a seventh or eighth generation even if we test it in millions of cases of a few geneartions.

How can it interact?

Once released in the normal way birds, bees and plants have for billions of years. JUST now there is a rogue unknown put in the mix. NOW don't get me wrong there may have been MANY such rogues in the past that caused devastation to the eco system. BUT we don't have recorded history AND as we don't fully understand the genome then we have no way of which parts may be the key that blocks such rogues --- which would have occurred via natural selection.

Like?

Well now you are open to imagination. BUT what if a GM seed variant that was drought resistant also picked up that it trapped Salts in it's roots along with nitrates ? THEN you kill the soil over time.
It IS THE UNKNOWN but imaginable and the real nay-sayers on GM have identified some of these already, google finds them

Many scientific breakthroughs have occurred as such.

yes, but few with such potential impact.
I give you one example and try to imagine it wider and uncontrolled.
After Curie 'discovered' radioactivity and they could see short term impact of irradiation there was a MASSIVE surge in the selling of radioactive potions, poultices and equipment. THEN they realised everyone who were "cured" of an ailment died of radiation poisoning. So it was stopped. NOW imagine something similar which was NOT under control of man, ie a plant/animal in the wild. HOW do you do the equivalent of stopping radium being sold ?

Unfortunately that will be a ethical or special interest football kicked around forever. The scientific pro group wishing to forge ahead while the conservative “what if” group providing endless argument of the fear of the unknown.

As alreadu noted, POTENTIAL IMPACT is the real thing to be scared of and why it needs to be OUT of the control of financially motivated "scientific pro group" who are only putting short term benefit in hand. OTHERS promote it's use BUT with much higher controls than the Monsanto group for example run !! It is the MONEY that is driving the real push. Already posted a graphic pointing out ways to feed the impoverished if we reduced the excess of the other 10% of the planet
[quote]The problem with anti biotics is that viruses have mutated to be able to be immune. It is a different thing. The anti biotic are not risky in themselves, merely useless. [quote]
NO , trying too hard to miss the point I think
Come at it from the other side .... it's NOT the antibiotic , it's the belief that nature is under control. So as we see mutation so antibiotics become useless how can we feek confident that mutations of unnatural genetic structure will not reach the same path of run out of options ?

How exactly would this unknown manifest itself?

Think already covered, but worth repeating.
Replication takes two DNA strands and through recombination generates a "new" DNA with parts of each genome. SO we understand TINY parts of this string and of the value specific strings in order in specific sections. We do NOT understand how a slightly different string in once place alters other sections fully. They try it, test it but there is NO WAY to determine other than testing in isolation how future recombinations will act with the slightly different string sequence in once place and it's neighbours.

I repeat, We know so little we should NOT be messing with it.
Analogy would be knowing how a battery in a car works and using that knowledge modify parts of the ECU

I am still not exactly sure what kind of mutations could really pose a catastrophic threat to humanity though.

"According to the National Human Genome Institute, most all disease have some sort of genetic factor. These disorders can be caused by a mutation in a single gene, multiple gene mutations, combined gene mutation and environmental factors, or by chromosome mutation or damage. "
So do you want to risk adding diseases we may not be able to control ?
Pick the disease, it came from a "Mutation" .... eg bird-flu.
NOW imagine a plant mutation that led to a designed protection from say one pest to also then kill/dissuade insects that pollinated it.
What are the chances ??? NOBODY KNOWS WITH CERTAINTY

I look forward to this discussion. It is controversial without being political or religious (yet )

For many (sadly) GM has become "religious" ... mainly because those promoting it are doing so based on a FAITH that there little understanding of the genetic structure and functioning is enough. NOBODY can prove GM is truly safe and is akin to the Ford petrol tank analysis

[Matra et Alpine]

Obviously you can have safe nuclear power, but you have to regulate it carefully- look at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

and lets not forget 3-mile Island in the US or Windscale in the UK ( which the gov changed the name to Sellafield to reduce the scare-factor and then gave up trying to be "smart" about PR after Sellafield had another release )