Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: Genetically engineered food

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gods Country, USA
    Posts
    1,546

    Genetically engineered food

    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.
    A woman goes to the doctor to figure out why she is having breathing problems...The doctor tells her she is overweight. She says she wants a second opinion...the doctor says, "your ugly".

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,456
    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....
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994
    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
    Last edited by NSXType-R; 05-31-2013 at 02:49 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Calgary AB
    Posts
    1,580
    Monsanto developed agent orange too, iirc

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    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.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by NSXType-R View Post
    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.
    Chief of Secret Police and CFO - Brotherhood of Jelly
    No Mr. Craig, I expect you to die! On the inside. Of heartbreak. You emo bitch

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    954
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994
    Quote Originally Posted by 092326001 View Post
    Monsanto developed agent orange too, iirc
    That sounds right.

    Quote Originally Posted by crisis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyco View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cobrafan427 View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    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.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Coldenflat
    Posts
    4,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    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!
    "I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring" - Richard Feynman, last recorded words.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    articles like this are for me the issue.
    The chances of a GM food doing something once ingested is real scare-mongering for sure.
    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. 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.

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

    So, when the COST is so high then the risk must be very small.
    SOME researchers suggest we could produce a "killer" cross genome thus the cost is the eradicaton of species .

    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 )

    Controlling food "waste" isn't profitable for anyone
    GOOD.is | Infographic: Infographic: How Much Food Nearly 7 Billion People Waste
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994
    Quote Originally Posted by CdocZ View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    THe biggest concern with GM is that it is manipulating gene combinations in a way that are "unnatural"
    Define “natural”?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    So there MAY be consequences and side effects especially if a GM crop manages to interact with a natural one.
    How can it interact?
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Whilst the fear may be irrational the issue is the extent of damage IF it goes wrong is extensive.
    Like?
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    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 -

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    I mean we cant even control invasive plants never mind invasive genomes from plants
    ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by NSXType-R View Post
    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 )
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    brisbane - sub-tropical land of mangoes
    Posts
    16,251
    Quote Originally Posted by crisis View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by crisis View Post
    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.
    Last edited by clutch-monkey; 06-04-2013 at 06:07 AM.
    Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch-monkey View Post
    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.
    Exactly- it would be the plant version of cane toads except you were able to create it in a lab instead of importing a foreign animal.

    No one knew that cane toads would be a terrible problem. In fact, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Men genetically engineered to like fast
    By Ferrer in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-14-2009, 09:21 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-18-2005, 02:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •