Thread: Fresh opinions on GE crops

No.

Regardless of what GE food might or might not do to human health when consumed, by now it is known what they do to the health of ecosystems. Just the other day, I heard that GE corn already drove an insect species to extintion in Europe and, of course, as soon as one species is gone the effect starts cascading through all others connected to it. Unless plantations are made in hermetic enviroments (impossible, as far as I know), the altered organisms will always spread beyond control and contaminate natural systems, in other words, become plagues.

On top of that, there's the issue of a hanful of companies owning the food. Again, that would be just fine in contained environments, but when their patents start spreading (as they logically would out in the open) to others peoples fields, it's the other guy that pays. First because if they suspect that he's stealing their stuff , it's somehow their "right" to go spread pesticides on his land to make sure, and if one of their weeds happens to be out there and survive it's their "right" to sue the guy, too. And most farmers don't have nearly enough money to pay for court expenses against a filthy rich company, no matter how guilty.

Now, imagine things keep going the way they are now - in time, what will happen to subsistence agriculture? All natural species get extint or reduced to carefully protected genetic reserves and all you can plant is GE stuff. You want to plant some tomatoes in your backyard? Pay for it. Those who can't pay, steal, of course, for they still have to eat.

I trust no one is stupid enough to let things escalate to that, but you can imagine how that would end.

Originally Posted by Alric

See that is the kind of thinking people have a problem with. You claim it is "essentially" the same, and thus needs no testing.

No.
I claim it's essentially the same.
It needs testing.
Testing has been done.

Originally Posted by Alric

As if, being close enough makes it safe. The fact that you end up with obviously defected plants that need to be weeded out during the process, shows there is the possibility of things going wrong.

Selective breeding ends up with "obviously defected plants" as well. That's what selection is - you select those hybrids that have the desired properties and throw away all the other (vast majority)

Originally Posted by Alric

See now if you said you could change the plant and get exactly what you want, then maybe I would agree with you. However you change it and, 'if it goes well' it has new traits. They are not exact or precise, yet they want us to believe that there is no possible way of side effects? If you admit there is a chance of side effects, then it needs to be tested, which they don't seem it needs to be.

Wait?

So, according to you, traditional way of making hybrids:
1) take two different plants, mixing their genomes in a totally random fashion, or
2) use chemical mutagens that act totally randomly on the whole genome
or
3) use physical mutagens that act totally randomly on the whole genome

is safe.

But GE approach, taking a known gene that carries know and desired properties and inserting it into a plant genome, is not safe because you don't always get exactly what you want?

Can you please explain why the traditional way is safer when it is 100% based on trial-and-error?

Originally Posted by Alric

See that is the kind of thinking people have a problem with. You claim it is "essentially" the same, and thus needs no testing. As if, being close enough makes it safe. The fact that you end up with obviously defected plants that need to be weeded out during the process, shows there is the possibility of things going wrong.

Who said anything about stopping testing? There obviously needs to be testing. The plant must be bred through multiple generations to show that it will not develop freaky side-effects or harm the ecosystem.

See now if you said you could change the plant and get exactly what you want, then maybe I would agree with you. However you change it and, 'if it goes well' it has new traits. They are not exact or precise, yet they want us to believe that there is no possible way of side effects? If you admit there is a chance of side effects, then it needs to be tested, which they don't seem it needs to be.

I agree with the last guy; genetic engineering is far more precise than it's selective breeding counterparts. The reason so many get weeded out is because the gene(s) inserted into the plant tend to land in the wrong or undesirable spots in the genome, which is why we don't have absolute control as of yet. So, if the genes interrupt the functioning of other genes, or land in a spot prone to deletion, or end up backwards, etc. etc., the plant is considered a "failure" and is removed. Only a handful are seriously defective, while the vast majority of those removed simply fail to express the desired traits. Further weeding out is performed to isolate only the best, most stable, most desirable strains.

Also, we already know some of the stuff, they have created has caused health issues. Things have gone badly before. So why should we trust them now?

Care to site some credible evidence for this, and how it applies to modern genetic engineering? It'd be news to me...

There has been testing done, where there was has shown to be dangers to it. Which is why a lot of that stuff is banned over all the place. The problem is that the tested for most of it poorly done here in the US. If you test something, and some times it shows up with bad results and some times good, that means you need more testing. Not, throw out the bad results, claim its close enough and start selling the stuff.

When did I ever claim that selective breeding and making hybrid plants was 100% safe? As far as I know I didn't. If someone produce something new that never been seen before, with either methods, I would expect them to test to make sure its safe to eat.

As for Yumeria, I have heard that a lot as well. Especially in poorer countries in the world. One farmer buys the stuff, then it spreads like weeds to other farms. The entire point is to make stuff that is better and stronger, so its not surprising that it would grow aggressively and spread and push out the normal variants of a crop.

Then the companies often sue small farmers, when they are found to have the plants growing on their farm without having paid the company. A lot of the time, the crop isn't as good as the original as well. It starts off great, but then after multiple seasons they develop problems. This is the same with a lot of hybrid plants as well. Many hybrid plants can't reproduce, so you have to buy more every year for planting, some people really don't like this.

I am not saying all genetically modified plants are bad, or that the entire concept is unsafe. I am just saying, currently there are a lot of problems with it, and it needs more testing and research before using it on a large wide spread scale. Obviously some companies are likely far more careful and thorough than others.

We have the same problem with drugs and stuff. Tons of drugs make it to the market, and are used for years before people find out they are causing serious problems and some times even killing people. It might even be more of a problem of the FDA being incompetent(or corrupt) in a lot of cases.

As for stuff being natural vs unnatural. That really isn't an argument. Everyone knows full well, you don't eat random plants out in the wild. There is a large number of things that are bad for you, or can make you sick. The only time being natural is safe, is when we have been eating it for thousands of years, in which we normally know a lot about it and the effects it can cause.

I'm undecided verging on against. It's not that I fear GMOs in themselves, but the fact is that, when you've reached a point at which the world population is so numerous that "classic" crops can't feed us all, then the problem lies in the number of people and not in the output of farmers.

If you don't mind, I will intervene and take a shot. GM can be good if regulated and kept safe enough.

Originally Posted by guerilla

In my opinion, genetically modifying anything should be highly illegal and in my mind is HIGHLY immoral and an abomination of nature and earth.

It's an abomination of mankind and devil worship, I know.

Ask yourself this question, haven't we fucked up earth enough, when will it stop?

We must stop being so selfish as to creating gmo crops to suit OUR lives, what about the lives of all nature, put at risk by gmo seeds being lost in the wild, growing amongst natural crops.

We are nature just as much as anything else is, really...

You could potentially engineer malevolent things in the crops, such as a disease or a plague, this technology can open doors to new bio-weapons and could threaten the very existence of the food we eat!

THINK PEOPLE! THINK

(think with your dip-stick, jimmy)

I somewhat agree here, but that is why it must be regulated to an extent.

Haven't people learned by now that only strictly natural things are healthy, anything humans alter or create is unhealthy, unsafe and downright disgusting. Humans couldn't create a healthy alternative to nature if they tried, nature is incredible and should not be taken for granted, and should NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!

Anything humans create is unsafe or wrong... yeah.

If corn were to grow in harsh climates, NATURE and evolution would decide corns fate, it shouldn't be our decision or control to produce and alter what millions of years of evolution has created, something that nature made, we can never match the greatness of pure raw unaltered NATURE!

You talk about corn like its some sort of divine substance.

Don't let humans try to re-create what billions of years of evolution made, how dare us, how fucking dare us.

We should be a fucking shamed of ourselves, altering something so divine, so natural, so powerful and healthy and wonderful.

Humans sure know how to crash a party, in the wrong way.

Just wondering, are you anti-human?

Interesting that you think that way.

No im not anti-human, im anti-tinkering-with-nature. If animals are going extinct, let them become extinct, they are no longer fit to survive and thats part of nature...nearly every species that was on this planet is extinct, we have to let nature do its own thing.

(the only instances i support saving endangered animals, is if they are endangered because of human activity such as hunting or poaching, in THAT case we must save those species, because humans usually fuck things up, hopefully we don't fuck up saving hunted species)

I don't believe in pushing or helping nature along, I don't believe in any intervention in that department.

I'm just so sick and tired of our arrogant cocky species we call humans thinking that we can modify and change anything as we see fit with NO regard to the natural order of the earth. Laissez faire, let the planet be, stop altering it. Let the planet EVOLVE on its own!

We go into these remote regions of the earth to save species from extinction when little do we realize that is the natural order of things, the weak die and the strong survive and we must not stick our noses in natures business of removing weak species. If plants don't grow properly then they will die and become extinct and another plant will take its place, a stronger more evolved plant...sure it would take a long time but, the amount of time we have been on earth is insignificant to the time earth has existed.

We have no problem at all in producing enough food for everyone. Producing enough food has never been a real issue. Its always been about transporting and distribution of food. If everyone had enough money to buy food, no one would be starving in the world, because its not about lack of food itself.

Originally Posted by guerilla

No im not anti-human, im anti-tinkering-with-nature. If animals are going extinct, let them become extinct, they are no longer fit to survive and thats part of nature...nearly every species that was on this planet is extinct, we have to let nature do its own thing.

(the only instances i support saving endangered animals, is if they are endangered because of human activity such as hunting or poaching, in THAT case we must save those species, because humans usually fuck things up, hopefully we don't fuck up saving hunted species)

I don't believe in pushing or helping nature along, I don't believe in any intervention in that department.

I'm just so sick and tired of our arrogant cocky species we call humans thinking that we can modify and change anything as we see fit with NO regard to the natural order of the earth. Laissez faire, let the planet be, stop altering it. Let the planet EVOLVE on its own!

We go into these remote regions of the earth to save species from extinction when little do we realize that is the natural order of things, the weak die and the strong survive and we must not stick our noses in natures business of removing weak species. If plants don't grow properly then they will die and become extinct and another plant will take its place, a stronger more evolved plant...sure it would take a long time but, the amount of time we have been on earth is insignificant to the time earth has existed.

Welcome to the great Meme-Gene debate! It can be argued that humans are a part of nature (which we are). Also, it can be further argued that humans not only have the genetic capacities to develop advanced technology, but the mental ones, as well. Thought processes can be viewed as memes, intellectual equivalents of genes handed down through the generations. Well, here we are back at information and the natural order. It could be argued that, since we're using only the memes (mental equivalents of genes) handed down through generations (strong survive, weak die), that we can do as we see fit with nature. Not necessarily endorsing this view, just throwing it out there.

Originally Posted by Alric

We have no problem at all in producing enough food for everyone. Producing enough food has never been a real issue. Its always been about transporting and distribution of food. If everyone had enough money to buy food, no one would be starving in the world, because its not about lack of food itself.

Economics is perhaps the greatest inhibitor of food production. Subsidies are given to farmers to not grow food and to keep prices of crops high. This is unfortunately a necessary evil, and is unlikely to change anytime soon. What genetic engineering aims to do is create a bigger "bang for the buck" by making plants require less sunlight, labor, maintenance, pesticide use, etc. and also by increasing the nutritional value of plants.

There has been testing done, where there was has shown to be dangers to it. Which is why a lot of that stuff is banned over all the place. The problem is that the tested for most of it poorly done here in the US. If you test something, and some times it shows up with bad results and some times good, that means you need more testing. Not, throw out the bad results, claim its close enough and start selling the stuff.

Still waiting for that source, mate.

Originally Posted by Alric

When did I ever claim that selective breeding and making hybrid plants was 100% safe? As far as I know I didn't. If someone produce something new that never been seen before, with either methods, I would expect them to test to make sure its safe to eat.

The ONLY alternative to producing GE crops is to create crops by traditional methods, the way it's been done for centuries. This was described in my post.
All the crops used for human food have been created by one of those 2 strategies. All of the crops are genetically totally different than their original "natural" counterparts.
You are only eating crops provided by nature as-is if you go and pick fruits in the forest.

So you didn't need to say that traditional methods are safe, it was implied in your post. Unless you think ALL the crops should be tested with equal rigor.

Originally Posted by Alric

We have no problem at all in producing enough food for everyone. Producing enough food has never been a real issue. Its always been about transporting and distribution of food. If everyone had enough money to buy food, no one would be starving in the world, because its not about lack of food itself.

We only have the capacity to produce enough food because we have crops that give high yields. They give high yields because their genomes were meddled with for hundreds of generations.

Most people oppose GE without even realizing what it is by itself and what it is in relation to the alternative.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Economics is perhaps the greatest inhibitor of food production. Subsidies are given to farmers to not grow food and to keep prices of crops high. This is unfortunately a necessary evil, and is unlikely to change anytime soon. What genetic engineering aims to do is create a bigger "bang for the buck" by making plants require less sunlight, labor, maintenance, pesticide use, etc. and also by increasing the nutritional value of plants.

What you basically said right there, is that GM foods are totally unneeded and are only there to increase profit of farmers. The farmers who are already making more profit than they should, because the price of food is artificially kept high.

What kind of goofy logic is that? There is so much food, the price of it is dirty cheap and affordable for everyone. So some of the farmers get together and decide not to grow anything to increase the profit for all involved. Then they decide to increase the supply of food even further?

Originally Posted by Alric

What you basically said right there, is that GM foods are totally unneeded and are only there to increase profit of farmers. The farmers who are already making more profit than they should, because the price of food is artificially kept high.

Nay. The reason the government hands out subsidies to farmers is not to create record profits, but to keep the profession of farming an incentive. If too many people grow the same thing, supply is increased, but the demand remains constant. Therefore, prices fall. If they fall to such a point that farmers begin to lose money, they will not continue to grow food, which is precisely why the government subsidizes farmers. Read up on some basic, entry-level economics next time, eh?

Besides that, did you miss the entire second half of my post? You know, the bits about less environmental destruction from pesticide use, chemical fertilizers, etc.? How about the added nutritional value of plants?

What kind of goofy logic is that? There is so much food, the price of it is dirty cheap and affordable for everyone. So some of the farmers get together and decide not to grow anything to increase the profit for all involved. Then they decide to increase the supply of food even further?

Increased crop yields are not necessarily applicable to the U.S., except to further conserve land resources by growing high-yield plants in a compact space. This is much more useful, however, to many developing nations, such as China and much of the continent of Africa.

No im not anti-human, im anti-tinkering-with-nature. If animals are going extinct, let them become extinct, they are no longer fit to survive and thats part of nature...nearly every species that was on this planet is extinct, we have to let nature do its own thing.

How do you know they're not going extinct in the first place because of tinkering with nature?

(Which they almost certainly are; the planet is currently going through a huge extinction event which, given that only a few have have happened during the last 500,000,000 years or so, makes the intersection with the last few hundred years which constitute modern civilisation seem a little more than coincidental).

Increased satisfying of consumer wants and capital production?

Sign me up.

Exactly. However farmers deciding to grow something useful instead of something unneeded is a good thing. I fail to see how diversifying the plants they grow is such a horrible thing, that the government needs to step in, and pay farmers to sit on their ass. You can't really claim someone is a farmer, if they don't actually do any farming.

Originally Posted by Alric

Exactly. However farmers deciding to grow something useful instead of something unneeded is a good thing. I fail to see how diversifying the plants they grow is such a horrible thing, that the government needs to step in, and pay farmers to sit on their ass. You can't really claim someone is a farmer, if they don't actually do any farming.

I repeat, it's all economics. If all the farmers out there grew everything they could, prices would plummet and all farmers would lose money, which is bad. Not to mention, it would wreak havoc on our natural resources. (Additional pesticide usage, soil erosion, etc.)

Originally Posted by Mario92

I repeat, it's all economics. If all the farmers out there grew everything they could, prices would plummet and all farmers would lose money, which is bad. Not to mention, it would wreak havoc on our natural resources. (Additional pesticide usage, soil erosion, etc.)

If prices fell then more goods could be purchased. If more is purchase, profits can potentially increase. Prices falling is a natural course of capitalism.

Alright, I'm stepping back in. Keep in mind that this is from a farmer's standpoint.

Originally Posted by Alric

What you basically said right there, is that GM foods are totally unneeded and are only there to increase profit of farmers. The farmers who are already making more profit than they should, because the price of food is artificially kept high.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Nay. The reason the government hands out subsidies to farmers is not to create record profits, but to keep the profession of farming an incentive. If too many people grow the same thing, supply is increased, but the demand remains constant. Therefore, prices fall. If they fall to such a point that farmers begin to lose money, they will not continue to grow food, which is precisely why the government subsidizes farmers. Read up on some basic, entry-level economics next time, eh?

^What he said. Farmers do not decide the price for their grain. Elevators buy it from us at a price that they set. The only way we can control prices is to control the supply. The CRP program (your so called "farmer subsidy program") is not done to line the pockets of farmers, but to prevent a catastrophic price collapse following overproduction. Input costs do not suddenly fall when grain prices fall. Most of the land that is put into CRP is not prime farm ground anyway, and would have been put to pasture instead of as native grass and wildlife refuges as what is done with most of the CRP ground around here.

Farmers are not making as much money as you think that they are.Only a very small percentage of the price of food actually goes to a farmer. ~90% of the cost of food is trucking and processing, plus some corporate and retail markup.

As for safety, we've been using artificial hybrids for a very long time now. Triticale, (which has existed since 1937) and seedless watermelons would not exist if it were not for the discovery of colchicine's effects on genes. There were still a lot of screwups before researchers found something that had the properties they wanted. Wild grass genes have also been bred into traditional wheat crops using this method for disease resistance. Genetic engineering just speeds the process up and leaves fewer fuckups for the scientists to throw out.

The only problem with genetic engineering is how the companies that produce GMO seeds exploit the system to ensure that they earn all of the money they possibly can from it. The aforementioned instances of Monsanto suing small farmers for accidental crossbreeding are most definitely a problem. We cannot legally keep any of our GMO seeds from year to year, as Monsanto forces farmers to sign a contract stating that the farmer will not keep any seed from the GMO crop, effectively enslaving farmers. Monsanto has a patent on its genetics, and sometimes goes to ridiculous lengths to prevent the patent from expiring. Their last excuse for resubmittal was a small change in "how the gene is inserted," not the gene itself. I want the laws changed to prevent that.

I agree that the corporations are terribly corrupt. It should not be possible to patent genes or even GE crops.

Don't you just love crash-time?

Correction, they will lose money until they find more profitable things to do instead, then they will do that. In which case we get cheaper food, and the market is expanded when they start using their farms for more profitable things.