All I ever hear from everyone these days is how GMO food is bad and it will harm and kill you and all that but science has proven it for many years to be safe and if not better than non-GMO products. It is just a plant upgrade afterall, like upgrading a computer.
Whats your thoughts?
Comparing studies and marketing on GMO's and 1950's studies (Are there even any?) on Cigarettes is a false equivalency. The scientific process was not nearly as rigorous back then in terms of conflict of interests and study design. Studies in reputable journals these days regarding GMO's would be a lot more valid I think.
Coming from a medical background, the essence of GMO, which is essentially rapid assisted evolution, seems okay to me. I think the benefits in terms of drought resistant crops being a possible partial solution to famine, reduced land clearing, possible reduced damage to biodiversity outweighs any negative (if any) issues there are.
There are definitely reasonable concerns regarding GMO, but they are not health related. It has to do with ethics (for e.g. Monsanto's business practices, which is akin to Nestle and their water monopoly), farming practice tunnel vision where procedures are focused on a narrow range of ecological conditions (Meaning there may be issues adapting to environmental and economic changes), changing the biome and its intricate balance, and efficacy (GMO's drought resistant crops are still in early infancy with low adoption)
Mono cultures lead to less biodiversity, this risk that mono cultures lead to are that the entire strain we use to feed millions becomes targeted by a fungus or mite and will destroy the entire monocultured crop ecology.
As an example, this has been happening to bananas, in the not too distant future bananas will become extinct. Before the monoculture revolution there were 100s of strains of bananas, now there are maybe a dozen.
Have you noticed in the last 50 years the rise of kids having deathly allergens, ibs, gluten intolerance. These things didn't even exist 50 years ago. No-one is doing the research because no-one wants to know as it is not profitable to do so. Cancer rates are going through the roof also. All of this before pesticides and gmos.
These things are happening because humanity thinks it knows better than nature, eventually its going to bite us in the ass.
I definitely agree with the problems regarding monocultures. Farmer have refined crops to grow with maximum efficiency at a very narrow range of ecological conditions. Higher average temperatures, more volatile climate changes, increased crop disease could all prove catastrophic.
In terms of the rise of allergies, without more studies, it is hard to say what the cause is. Based purely on a chemical and cellular perspective, GMO's themselves are no different to cross breeding. Of bigger concern are the pesticides that are used on them. The rise could even be due to increased pollution due to chemicals such as formaldehyde among hundreds of others.
Member Since 8 hours 20 min and this is their first and only post/comment, I guess OP's agenda is pretty clear.
OzBargain needs to stop lettings new users do this crap, but they're too drunk on Google ratings and ads.
It is just a plant upgrade afterall, like upgrading a computer
You and other commenters seem to not understand the real GMO issue.
Yes, GMO crops have been selectively bred to be more productive. But many have also been bred to be glyphosate (Roundup) resistant. That way, the crop can be sprayed with glyphosate and only the weeds around the crop will die (it's much more efficient than say hand weeding for the farmer). However, there will be residues of glyphosate remaining on the crop, which are some people's concern.
So the issue is Roundup and not GMO.
Yes, the GMO you refer to is just speeding up evolution in an environment of people.
" but science has proven it to be safe for many years…."
I guess when you sack all the scientists who sound warnings, those that are left will say what you want them to say. There is definitely a crisis in science these days, most of which seems to be 'tobacco science'. There is also the faith of 'scientism' which you can look into yourself. And no, no matter how good a farmer is he can't selectively breed animal genes into his crops!
Short clip here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADNE1B2Rl5Y
Here is just one website dealing with the GMO scam particularly: https://www.scienceunderattack.com/
And just one (there are many) example of what happens when respected scientists speak out about the dangers: https://wakeup-world.com/2014/05/12/scientists-under-attack-…
"He [Pusztai] had been an enthusiastic supporter of genetic engineering, working on cutting edge safety research with genetically modified (GM) foods. But to his surprise, his experiments showed that GM foods were inherently dangerous. When he relayed his concerns during a short television interview in the UK, things got ugly. With support from the highest levels of government, biotech defenders quickly mobilized a coordinated attack campaign trying to distort and cover up the evidence…
“In the years since this controversy, Dr. Pusztai has given more than 200 lectures around the world on GMOs. He has been commissioned by the German government, academic publications, and others to do comprehensive analyses of GMO safety studies. In 2005, he received the Whistleblower Award from the Federation of German Scientists (VDW). And in 2009, he and his wife, Dr. Susan Bardocz – also an expert on GMO safety and formerly of the Rowett Institute – were presented with the Stuttgart Peace Prize for their tireless advocacy for independent risk research, as well as their courage, scientific integrity, and their undaunted insistence on the public’s right to know the truth”.
Oh, and for those saying they are 'safe and effective': https://www.rt.com/news/261673-india-gmo-cotton-suicides/
"Hundreds of thousands of farmers have died in India, after having been allegedly forced to grow GM cotton instead of traditional crops. The seeds are so expensive and demand so much more maintenance that farmers often go bankrupt and kill themselves. “Nationally, in the last 20 years 290,000 farmers have committed suicide – this as per national crimes bureau records,” agricultural scientist Dr. G. V. Ramanjaneyulu of the Center For Sustainable Agriculture told a team from RT’s documentary channel RTD, which traveled to India to learn about the issue. A number of the widows and family members of Indian farmers with whom the journalists have spoken have the same story to share: in order to cultivate the genetically modified cotton, known as Bt cotton, produced by American agricultural biotech giant Monsanto, farmers put themselves into huge debt. However, when the crops did not pay off, they turned to pesticides to solve the problem – by drinking the poison to kill themselves. Farming GM crops in rural India requires irrigation for success. However, since rich farmers often distribute the seeds directly to the poorer ones, many smaller, less educated farmers are not aware of the special conditions Bt cotton requires to be farmed successfully.
“Bt cotton has been promoted as something that actually solves problems of Indian farmers who are cultivating cotton. But something that has been promoted as a crisis solution, creates even more problems,” agricultural scientist Kirankumar Vissa said. “There are many places where it is not suitable for cultivation. On the seed packages, Bt cotton seed companies say that it is suitable for both irrigated and non-irrigated conditions – this is basically deception of the farmers,” the scientist said, adding that Monsanto also spends huge amounts of money on advertising in India, with paid for publications not always clearly marked as such. Saying that only Bt cotton is available in India, Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of Organic Consumers Association, says this crop requires many inputs. “It is incredibly expensive; it’s 8,000 percent more expensive than normal cotton seed. But normal cotton seed is largely unavailable to Indian farmers because of Monsanto’s control of the seed market,” she told RTD, adding that India is now the fourth largest producer of genetically modified crops. “Most countries have rejected GMOs, but India has accepted them for cotton only. And this has not worked out for the economy, and it has certainly not worked out for the farmers who are growing it,” Alexis says. “Because they have deprived the farmers of the choice of which cotton to grow, they are forcing farmers who cannot irrigate to grow a crop that requires irrigation for success,” she added.
The Monsanto company, addressing the issue of Indian farmer suicides on its website, says “significant research has documented the problem is complex and disproved the claim that GMO crops are the leading cause.” It adds “Research also demonstrates there is no link between Indian farmer suicides and the planting of GMO cotton,” arguing that the problem “started well before the first GM crop was introduced.”
Uhh are you pro GMO or anti GMO?
The website you linked is generally pro GMO and makes some good points that GMOs are safe.
Not sure why you copied an irrelevant article below it though. Farmers committing suicide due to their business failing has nothing to do with GMOs… although I'm getting a vibe you don't really read/properly analyse the information you post.
“GmO fOoDz aRe bAd…” while they sit around eating massive bananas, seedless watermelons, fairy floss flavoured grapes, cricket ball sized strawberries… etc etc…
Carrots used to be purple so…
not incorrect
however are you aware of the horticultural and natural processes involved in creating every single one of your examples?
none of them are very close to genetic engineeing in any way that i can think of
By definition, selective breeding is genetic modification. The majority of foods that we currently buy from the supermarket are by definition genetically modified in some way. Have a look at what corn originally used to look like.
What people are thinking of is recombinant genetic modification.
Like selective breeding, the aim of recombinant genetic modification is to increase yield, broaden growing conditions, have fewer problems with pests, etc. What the companies like Monsanto do is separate from the conversation.
FWIW, I studied biotechnology in university, including a bunch of study on recombinant GMO technology, and I have no problem with myself or my family. I personally find that like politics or religion, there is no use discussing it with randoms on the internet because 99.9% of people have already made up their minds one way or another, and on the internet everybody is an expert.
By definition, selective breeding is genetic modification.
What people are thinking of is recombinant genetic modification.
not really no.
sure you could choose to define the terms that way, and it would be somewhat logical and not like philosophically incorrect.
i mean selective breeding does change genes.
however the terms are just not officially defined that way; not in science, not in the dictionary, and not in general use.
the scientific, dictionary and general definitions are that gmo / genetically modified organism is reserved for creatures created with genetic engineering.
and genetic engineering is defined in science, the dictionary, and general use as recomninant dna technology.
as with all words and language it will inevitably evolve and change over time.
but at this point it just not ingenuous to describe plants created by selective breeding as genetically modified.
By definition, selective breeding is genetic modification. The majority of foods that we currently buy from the supermarket are by definition genetically modified in some way. Have a look at what corn originally used to look like.
sweet corn are not the result of selective breeding, nor genetic engineering (recombant dna technology if you like).
they were created via mutation breeding using radiation.
I don't have a problem with GMO foods as we have for millennia been selective/cross breeding crops for the same purpose as GMO (either for additional sales because of a greater nutritional value for a given amount of farmland and/or growing in different climates or soils).
What I have a problem with is companies/people having patents for GMO crops where they can force farmers to all buy a license for those crops (because farmers won't be able to compete with those who do buy licenses such as the large multinational farming conglomerates owned by the worlds wealthy elites). Not only that, but if a farmer is found 'pirating' the genes (either by planting seeds given to him by a friend without paying for a license, or if their own crops are pollinated by a neighbors GMO crop) then they face legal action by the GMO patent holders which is really, really wrong.
Bill Gates is the worst of the worst offenders when it comes to forcing poor farmers particularly in India and Africa to purchase his mates GMO crops at inflated prices by lobbying governments to take away government grants for farmers, particularly in the form of guaranteed crop prices. Bill Gates said 10 years ago said he would give away all his wealth yet today is worth twice as much, and directly responsible for many farmers suicides around the world with his pervasive lobbying of poor nations to make policy changes that force farmers buy his mates GMO seeds.
and if not better than non-GMO products
better how?
i have yet to see any evidence of even a single instance of a gmo plant being better for a human to eat - as in more nutritious or tastier or easier to digest.
(if i've missed some news of that kind please point me at it)
which is interesting because if you thought about it nievely it would be one of the highest priorities in creating these things
but that's not how this works
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/31/engineering-ri…
If you live in an area with salty soil and the choice is between no rice (or little rice with little nutritional value), and GMO rice that can grow in salty soils - it would greatly benefit the people in the area with salty soil to be able to grow a crop where previously nothing would grow.
The benefits do not have to be tied to the consumption of the GMO. They can be related to the growth and efficacy of the crop (Which would be a very high priority as higher efficiency/efficacy = lower costs). That being said, this also has some downsides.
See golden rice for example.
Hybroid makes a really good point above, in that we don’t know the long-term effects of GMO necessarily, and we need to before we start mass consumption. Tobacco is a good example, but another one would be something like Thalidamide.
But, if we can fairly reasonably predict it’s long term safety then yeah I think GMO is the future of the worlds overall food resources as it would help to be able to grow crops in extremely harsh environments. But yeah we need to know the effects long term.
Something popped up about agent orange on my YouTube feed this morning and to this day that toxic shit is still ruining lives for people so we need to learn from past (profanity) ups and look towards safe but effective means of ensuring global food security.
Edit- sorry about the language.
GMOs are only scary to people who don't know what they are.
Plants, like humans, share traits from their parents. When it comes to plants/crops, if we see desirable traits (e.g pest resistance, low water consumption, high heat tolerance etc) then you can choose to selectively breed those plants with others that have the same traits, in the hope it increases the likelihood that the next generation of crop more broadly shares these traits. However, this process is very rough and can take several generations of breeding before the desired effect has taken place.
What researchers do with GMO's, instead, is they look deeper into what gene(s), specifically, provide these desired traits. Then they attempt to isolate these genes and incorporate them into the genetics of a particular crop. In other words, rather than blindly closing their eyes and hoping the right genes get shared (as is the case with breeding crops), they get the desired results instantaneously and without any other potential genetic changes that might be deleterious (potentially even outweighing the benefits obtained from the desired gene-sharing in the first place).
GMO's are to "organic" crops what medicine is to "alternative medicine". Most pharmaceutical drugs started off as "natural remedies". However, simply grinding up plant matter is not an efficient way of manufacturing medicine, nor is it possible to be truly accurate in dosage due to natural variability. So, for example, instead of crushing up the bark of willow trees to find some unknown concentration of what we know as Aspirin, it is far more efficient (in terms of cost, time, and environmental impact) to simply synthesise it in the lab. Not only is it easier, but it's also a better result due to known concentration of the drug, much like how GMO's have known genetic sharing and not just hoping that the right genes get shared and the wrong ones don't.
It's healthy to have skepticism towards GMO's, given they're relatively new, but the fear directed towards them is on par with the believes held by the devoted followers of Pete Evans.
Seems an odd subject to sign-up to a bargain website to ask. What's your angle?
In the 1950s, cigarettes were seen as medicinal and suggested/marketed as healthy. Nowadays we know better. Same applies, we don't know the long-term effects of GMO food, if any, which is where the controversy comes from. Pretty sure there's plenty of it in our supermarkets without us knowing though.