Saladfork said:
What does the escapist think of genetically modified food? Can anyone come up with legitimate arguements against it?
I'm mostly fine with it. There are a few worrying findings I've read from various studies, but overall I'd say 90% of GM crops are safe.
Oh, and to be consistent here, officially "Genetically Modified" excludes purpose-bred variants that haven't had their DNA directly modified via some vector. This means that thing which took a few centuries to properly cultivate into the form we know today are excluded.
OriginalLadders said:
The thing is that none of the stuff that changes the DNA is present in the plant; one seed was changed and then cultivated. It can't pose any risk to your health that eating either of the two sources of DNA don't cause already.
This is pretty much it. Genetic modification is usually done via a viral vector that's endocytosed into the cells of the organism and comes pre-loaded with retroviral capabilities. Once the foreign code is inserted into the host DNA, only chance mutations are going to get it out.
While foreign DNA does enter human cells, proteosomes, mRNAs, APOBEC, and other mechanisms usually degrade it very, very quickly. The production of unpredicted proteins poses more of a threat (in my opinion, at least) than the incorporation of genetically modified DNA into human cells.
Typically they don't even use chemicals to create genetic diversity, they use radiation, which is arguably safer.
While the logic works for Mass Effect, biological diversity (again, at least in my experience) is never created via radiation.
It's done via viral vectors, host cells, and plating. Want something that's going to survive cold temperatures? Find something that already does, find what protein(s) causes the effect, manufacture the DNA to create that protein - complete with Primer, Enhancers, etc. - stick it in your viral vector, manipulate the cells of your seed to accept the vector, stick it in a very cold room, and see which ones grow best.
Radiation, while it would create diversity, is very unpredictable, and would result in impractical amounts of work. You're literally dealing with 1 in 1,000,000,000's worth of chances (if that high, depending on the organism).
Not worth it.
theartknife said:
The thing that annoys me is that being anti GM seems to be generally lumped in with other concerns that could be described as "green issues", things like climate change, recycling, renewable energy etc.
I think it was initially because the vast majority of fertilizers a while back were petroleum-based, essentially byproducts of gasoline and diesel production. I don't know the particulars of the process, but I do agree that the correlation is unwarranted.
Squirrel1328 said:
It just bothers me that people link organic food with being healthy, it's not, if anything it's more likely to be unhealthy as it has no protection against pests or diseases, yet people spend 50% extra to buy a product that's apparently healthy because it's not protected from pests. Also Organic food is not going to solve world hunger, there's too much waste when harvested. In my mind GM food, is the better option
No to your first bit, yes to your second.
Organic food is healthier. It cultivates a better soil environment, which translates into increased phytonutrient and vitamin content for most fruits and some vegetables. The rule of thumb I've been using is, "The more colorful it is, the more nutritious it is, and the more an organic version benefits over the standard." Blueberries, Strawberries, Tomatoes, etc. have all been studied and shown to provide better nutrition and higher soil sustainability than their conventional counterparts.
That said, Organic farming will not save the world or eliminate hunger. For most crops, it's simply more intensive to get to harvest, and when paired with non-GM strains, there simply isn't enough viable farmland in the world (even if you chop down all the trees) to feed everybody.
One good example is bananas. Organic bananas (the kind we eat, at least) have to be grown between certain altitudes and in a place with a certain amount of rainfall to be produced. They cost about $0.30/lb more because the areas where you can organically grow bananas are slim pickings compared to those where you can conventionally grow them.
So, yes, while it's healthier, it will never be able to feed seven billion people.
Then again, my personal view is that the human population has been too large for a while to be sustainable in any fashion (much less grow), and as Global Climate Change really starts to crank up over the next little while, we're going to see a massive clash over resources and subsequent drop in population.
Most species which suddenly outgrow their resources don't have a nice, soft bell-curve to sustainability. It's usually a pretty steep drop to populations well below sustainable, and then a slow curve back up again.
Asmosos said:
The real risk is in driving ecology toward homogeneity. Lets say you could make a "super rice" crop which had 3x yield and was resistant to all known rice diseases. The problem would be that one day, one disease would find a way to kill your crop. Then you have lost ALL of your rice. That would cause you issues.
and
Tanakh said:
Leaving aside the possible health issues. GM crops have very resitrictive legal terms.
...are the big reasons why I don't buy GM crops.
The first has (and is, if you've heard about the Roundup corn debacle going on) already happened. The big, big, big problem with GM crops is that they are the majority crops being produced on farms. Once the disease/pest has adapted (usually by an over-eager farmer planting too much of the crop, or over-eager company saying you can plant too much), not only are your old crops SOL, so's the GM one.
That, and the trademarking of GM crops - combined with the legal actions taken by corporations like Monsanto against something as completely uncontrollable as having a few rapeseeds get blown off a truck as it passes by another farm - is why I can't support GM crops.
As long as DNA sequences can become trademarked, I can't openly support it. It's ridiculous, and really opens up the doors to potential shitholes. Medicinal gene therapy is on the rise. Say some research lab creates a gene that maintains the poly-adenylation on our DNA better than our current version. Let's suppose (since there's correlation, but no proven causation) that this increases the lifespan of a healthy human by 30% and drastically improves collagen and skin maintenance, making you look 40 when you're 95.
It's a pharmaceutical company's wet dream as long as the US holds that DNA can be patented.
That's just a benign example. Say there's a chunk of DNA created which causes humans to pretty much never succumb to HIV or the flu... Something that actually saves lives.
Suddenly Gattaca seems pretty haunting and relevant.
Mimsofthedawg said:
3. Some plants have been modified to produce their own insecticide to repel predatory insects. However, there is a major concern that this insecticide isn't taken out of the food itself (and in actuality, it's not). The argument in favor of insecticide is based on two things: A. the insecticide is a protein which your body can break down, rendering it harmless. B. its found in such low quantities that you'd have to eat way more than you're able to be effected. However, some people have attributed an increase in birth defects and cancer to this practice.
4. Got Milk? If it's unorganic, what you're ACTUALLY drinking is a cocktail of pus, blood, antibiotics, hormones, bacteria, and milk. The hormones and unsanitary conditions most dairy cows are kept in make them prone to infectious diseases. To combat this, farmers pump cows full of antibiotics. However, it being an infection, the cows immune systems are still very active, and inflammation is a regularity. If you don't know, anything that goes into a mother finds its way to the mammary glands and thus the the milk. So all this lovely stuff is also in your drink. Proponents of the practice say that pasturization kills off/destroys all negative side effects. This is true. But it also destroy any of the original health from the milk. This is why Vitamin's A and D have to be ADDED to milk, even though they (and a host of other natural health supplements) are naturally found in milk (thus, again, you can see why the fact "it's not natural" is a valid argument).
The other numbers on your list I either agree with or don't know about. For these two, though...
#3 - Birth defects and cancers can be attributed to damn near everything under and including the sun.
I have yet to read a single, well-performed study that even correlates GM crops with either.
Most people who put up #3's argument usually don't have a thorough understanding of human Biology or BioChemistry.
Apple seeds have cyanide in them. Your body deals with it if you eat them. GM corn has a very specific insecticide in it, which is far less harmful than the cyanide due to the metabolic pathways involved.
#4 - Organic milk is still pasteurized, still contains trace amounts of other bodily fluids, and is still fortified with Vitmains A and D. "Organic" in this context refers to the minimal use of antibiotics (yes, they're still used, but in a different manner) and the lack of hormone therapies. The feed is also different, if I remember correctly.
There's actually very, very little benefit to organic milk over conventionally produced milk.
Also, I think you're confusing a lot of the Organic Milk arguments with Unpasteurized milk, which is illegal to sell in most states because it can easily harbor infections. Unpasteurized milk is more nutrient dense and not 'fortified' with A and D, but any infection that the cow gets which can enter the milk will be passed on to humans.
I'm a Science Major with degrees in Biology and Chemistry and an Emphasis in Organismal function. I've had hands on experience producing resistant strains of organisms, and my opinions are almost always based on well-performed studies. However, I'm not now, nor do I claim to be, omniscient. These are my opinions, and I don't being proven wrong.
