| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Amos:
You worded your concern rather clumsily, in particular when you conflated GM and selective breeding.
The whole point of GM is NOT to alter the proteome of the host plant. If that is achieved, then neither taste nor nutritional profile are affected. Of
course if the host organism has already had some taste/nutrition bred out of it to begin with, the transgenic version isn’t going to improve that.
That is where GM and other selective breeding techniques substantially differ: GM is required to extensively test the proteome of their creations,
conventional breeders develop today and take to market tomorrow.
I think you look at the ‘greed’ aspect of selective breeding/GM rather selectively: most people WANT low cost foods. Have you ever had a
<i>poulet de Bresse</i>? These chickens really are out of this world but they do on average cost about twice as much as their more common
counterparts. Not to mention that production capacity is far too small to meet larger demand (if their price was lower).
Similarly, farmers mostly need volume to scratch a living together.
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Amos  | | Wow, guys, way to jump to conclusions here and label me as anti-GMO when I clearly said nothing of the sort. |
Asking for sources for your disputed claims, which you now failed to originally provide, is labeling you anti-GMO? Interesting reading comprehension.
| Quote: | | Chemosynthesis says that if todays mass-produced, brightly-colored produce actually didn't taste as good as that from old strains
grown on small farms, it wouldn't sell. |
No, this is not what I said. Use the quote function if you have trouble with quoting people. I said if GMO food doesn't taste as good, it probably
won't monopolize a market. Then I pointed out the fact that all food is genetically modified... through meiosis and genetic drift with horticultural
selective breeding. Why you would think companies wouldn't try and alter flavoring for consumer taste and preference is ridiculous.
Even if we ignore the common sense of that, there are sources of data that support this:
http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2013/market-view-tast...
http://www.hur.nu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2012-The-import...
And actually, the USDA has the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, so I doubt you know what you're talking about when you say they have no research
role. I cited newer research by UC Davis, a public research university, and the FDA and somehow they aren't good enough for you.
| Quote: | As for whether or not agricultural products today are less nutritious than they were decades ago, I was mainly quoting a National Geographic article
that I had read a little while ago. I can hear all the scoffs and jeering already. But as it turns out, they aren't the only ones that say this:
http://news.utexas.edu/2004/12/01/nr_chemistry
That article references this study, which follows the decline of nutrients in vegetables and some fruits since 1950, using findings by the USDA(a third party that has no
direct role in this research and would have no reason to fudge the facts). |
No, it doesn't follow the decline of nutrients. It associates hugely assumed range values (look at all the assumptions) between two years. It follows
nothing, correlates nothing (which is still extremely dubious for study methodology purposes), and you're putting way too much stock in it because you
are either not familiar enough with how science works (as an engineering student who is not even yet an engineer), and thus how to even be skeptical
in an educated sense, or aren't reading well enough to be skeptical for whatever reason... if not both.
Did you notice that the previous study they published was flawed, according to the USDA (unable to draw conclusions about valididity, etc.) ? The
authors didn't account for moisture content or an unspecified 12 other changes in their previous study... and now they just conveniently use a
different endpoint year for comparison? Maybe 1950 is an uncommonly high measure, and the adjustments for accuracy invalidated the 1984 data...
otherwise why not show a greater actual correlation rather than between-2-year association? Seems like cherry picking to me, particularly when the
USDA had to point out unmentioned increases in nutrients from the last study.
| Quote: | | My third point, which stated that practices like genetic modification give vastly wealthy corporations even more ability to crush competition from
smaller farms and businesses, was not said as a way of attacking the practice of genetic engineering. It was more my way of saying "this is great
technology, but it's not being put to good use for the betterment of mankind". |
Yes, let's just say 'more ability' with absolutely zero factual basis because golden rice is about money.... Let's just ignore all the government
research into every aspect of science. Do you even know the largest single sources of science funding in the US? Federal government agencies. We're
talking DoD, HHS/NIH, DoE, and NSF, in that order last I checked. Private industry may spend more as a total sum, but they are competing with one
another, have some private charitable organizations in research, and don't have the budgets that the federal government has. Of course, you've never
had to fill out a grant, an IRB, IACUC, or anything have you?
It appears you don't want to believe that commerce betters human life. You don't like private enterprise. That's fine, no one is making you. That
doesn't deal with the science behind GMO's, and it doesn't give you an excuse to get sloppy with quotes, facts, ignore points you seem to dislike, and
argue a priori. That's no science. Science is coming up with quantifiable mechanistic physical issues through observation and testing hypotheses. This
kind of demonization is exactly why I don't like telling people my concerns about GMO food policies (which are much less than my fears on CAFOs,
actually); I want to get factual results and not fear monger.
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
An interesting article on GM research funding (including types of sources):
http://fafdl.org/gmobb/about-those-industry-funded-gmo-studi...
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
It looks as though I screwed myself over by trying to discuss multiple facets of the agricultural industry I have problems with instead of just
genetic engineering. That, and it looks like I need to do a lot more research before I try to argue what I will admit is largely a gut feeling rather
than a high level of education on the subject. What I've largely come to realize from this thread is that genetic modification may not be perfect in
the way it is carried out, but that agricultural practices in general seem to cut a lot of corners concerning how they may impact the environment or
food supply. So I'm not going to reply to all of the comments that have essentially trashed my arguments; that would take too long. I need to learn
more before I can choose whether or not to agree with your points.
On a separate note: In industralized nations like the United States or those in Western Europe, which often produce more food than they need to, but
simply don't spread it equally enough for everyone to be fed, is there a reason that we should be pushing for genetically modified crops within our
own borders? It stands to reason that with the increasing amounts of pesticides and herbicides we're using, which have at least in part been made
either possible or necessary by GMOs, nature will eventually adapt and become resistant to these tools. What improvements to mainstream farming in
developed countries are we currently making with genetic engineering, other than increased yields or chemical tolerance?
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Amos |
On a separate note: In industralized nations like the United States or those in Western Europe, which often produce more food than they need to, but
simply don't spread it equally enough for everyone to be fed, is there a reason that we should be pushing for genetically modified crops within our
own borders? It stands to reason that with the increasing amounts of pesticides and herbicides we're using, which have at least in part been made
either possible or necessary by GMOs, nature will eventually adapt and become resistant to these tools. What improvements to mainstream farming in
developed countries are we currently making with genetic engineering, other than increased yields or chemical tolerance?
|
I think that's an excellent question. I have heard reduced fertilizer usage cited as a potential reason to push for engineering food in the US.
Fertilizer runoff can have negative environmental effects. I am sure economic arguments could be made as well (since farm subsidies are so prevalent,
and price fixing occurs ostensibly to stabilize markets). If food yield were capable of being made more consistent, this would theoretically cost the
taxpayer less in subsidies and help farmers stabilize their financial expectations. Whether that is realistic at all is questionable.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Amos | | What I've largely come to realize from this thread is that genetic modification may not be perfect in the way it is carried out, but that agricultural
practices in general seem to cut a lot of corners concerning how they may impact the environment or food supply. |
W/o claiming you're either right or wrong, I simply don't see how you draw your two main conclusions from the content of this thread.
As regards 'how they may impact the environment or food supply', you need to be far more specific for anyone here to be able support or counter your
argument. Do you have examples of what you consider 'cutting corners' for instance?
For what that's worth, it seems to me that 1st World agriculture and food supply are highly regulated. The GM industry is a point in case.
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by Amos | | What I've largely come to realize from this thread is that genetic modification may not be perfect in the way it is carried out, but that agricultural
practices in general seem to cut a lot of corners concerning how they may impact the environment or food supply. |
W/o claiming you're either right or wrong, I simply don't see how you draw your two main conclusions from the content of this thread.
As regards 'how they may impact the environment or food supply', you need to be far more specific for anyone here to be able support or counter your
argument. Do you have examples of what you consider 'cutting corners' for instance?
For what that's worth, it seems to me that 1st World agriculture and food supply are highly regulated. The GM industry is a point in case.
|
Well I will agree with you that at least in the US, I feel that the food crops I consume are very safe. When I say "cutting corners" I don't mean that
farmers are necessarily violating laws, but that their practices aren't environmentally friendly. Examples in the United States include aggressive use
of groundwater resources (second link here)in the American southwest despite an increasing frequency of droughts, and fertilizer runoff that produces oceanic dead zones. And then we have other parts of the world, where
deforestation to further commercial agricultural interests, often illegally done, is a major concern, and the use of pesticides like DDT that have
been banned in developed nations, which persists in many countries.
What I was saying is that I've realized that, even if I personally believe for the time being that GMOs have environmental consequences, I can also
see problems produced by current agricultural practices that could potentially be largely solved through the use of genetic modification.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Re. the OP’s “The science just hasn’t been done”.
Errrm… 2,000+ global studies beg to differ:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-g...
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Soooo ...
Seeing as GM is so perfectly understood, researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of Releasing human-modified
gene sequences into the Wild, could somebody grow me a new liver please.
I guess it's just Not That Simple is it ?
Fact is that the accumulated knowledge of a mere few decades simply isn't enough to even understand the effects of human-altered plant genes in
the wild let alone predict the outcome(s).
At this point in time, we cannot even stop ourselves dying or getting diseases.
THAT is where we are at in our Superb Scientific Understanding of All and Everything.
I'd vote for decades of extensive/expensive/expansive testing to learn much more before taking the stance of 'We Know Best How Our Food Needs To Be
Constructed'.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
Soooo...
Seeing as the effects of breathing oxygen are so perfectly understood, well-researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the
effects of surfacing after being held underwater, could somebody upload my brain to the internet please.
[Edited on 4-23-2015 by Etaoin Shrdlu]
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Life Biochem is very poorly understood as it is a Dynamic, making it much harder to get a handle on.
While you read that, your brain was scanned in a picosecond and uploaded to the Cloud.
Nobody knows exactly which cloud, so keep checking the sky for clues.
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by aga]
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | Soooo ...
Seeing as GM is so perfectly understood, researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of Releasing human-modified
gene sequences into the Wild, could somebody grow me a new liver please.
I guess it's just Not That Simple is it ?
|
These are entirely different issues, but we have genetically modified human genes and then inserted them back into real human patients who are out and
interacting with the world. I cited examples in this thread. Lots of us are trying to grow people new livers, pancreases, retinas, etc. That
is much more difficult than modifying a gene here or there, or inserting a new one, but it is happening slowly.
Of course there is risk, but there is also risk of someone developing cancer in their daily life, or becoming a disease vector/reservoir, or a crop
catching a blight, or leaching lead/cadmium, etc. into itself. Nothing that takes place in genetic engineering is unnatural because we are using
natural processes to produce these changes... we just harness them on a vastly different timescale than one would expect them to take place.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga |
Soooo ...
Seeing as GM is so perfectly understood, researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of Releasing human-modified
gene sequences into the Wild, could somebody grow me a new liver please.
I guess it's just Not That Simple is it ? |
Funny that you should bring up ‘simple’, because you really are reasoning like a simpleton here. I suspect you’re reasoning in bad faith and are
out mainly to deliberately annoy people here.  You also start off with a massive
straw man. In fact I think you're deliberately trolling.
NO technology gets tested the way you see it (and for other technologies you’re more than happy with that). Assessing safety is
about assessing risk to benefit ratios, not about establishing some 1000 % level of confidence.
| Quote: | | Fact is that the accumulated knowledge of a mere few decades simply isn't enough to even understand the effects of human-altered plant genes in the
wild let alone predict the outcome(s). |
FACT???, aga?
That whole sentence shows how little you know or are willing to learn. The transgenic genes, for one, aren’t “human-altered”. They are
specifically chosen genes, inserted into the genome of the host to impart specific properties to the latter. See e.g. Golden Rice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
[Edited on 24-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | Soooo ...
Seeing as GM is so perfectly understood, researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of Releasing human-modified
gene sequences into the Wild, could somebody grow me a new liver please.
I guess it's just Not That Simple is it ?
|
Sure thing, just get all the other zealots to quit lobbying against stem cell research while it's in the oven yeah?
(This is meant to be tongue in cheek, I'm not calling you a zealot.)
[Edited on 24-4-2015 by Mesa]
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis | | Quote: Originally posted by aga |
Of course there is risk, but there is also risk of someone developing cancer in their daily life, or becoming a disease vector/reservoir, or a crop
catching a blight, or leaching lead/cadmium, etc. into itself. Nothing that takes place in genetic engineering is unnatural because we are using
natural processes to produce these changes... we just harness them on a vastly different timescale than one would expect them to take place.
|
Sooo I'm standing in the produce section, and an ear of corn says to me... Psssst! Buddy. Check out those melons!
I thought of you guys right away.  |
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
crazyboy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 436
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Marginally insane
|
|
I am very interested in GMOs and am a bit surprised that by the opposition to GMOs considering the nature of this forum. A few things I want to point
out:
blogfast25 said:
| Quote: |
We’ve been producing ‘GMOs’ since the dawn of organised agriculture
|
This is something I hear from those in favor of GMOs but it's wrong. GMOs are produced with biotechnology, by direct genomic alterations. I realize
GMO is in quotations but this is misleading.
I think Bt corn is a good example of a GMO. The soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis produces a protein known as a delta endotoxin which is
toxic to many crop pests. This protein has been known for decades and Bacillus thuringiensis and their extracts have been used for decades as
a pesticide, they are not harmful to mammals and are currently approved and used in organic agriculture. The gene for this protein was expressed in
chloroplasts so only the leaves and stalk carry the pesticide protein. Less pesticide is required, no labor is needed and the corn is virtually free
of endotoxin which would not be the case when the Bt is sprayed as in organic agriculture.
I also don't buy this "nature is so complicated we can never understand it" type argument from aga. Virtually every food crop has been extensively
bred by humans and released into the wild, the same goes for dogs, cats, horses etc. In GMOs only a few genes are generally added or modified and
often the genes originate in other edible plants or animals, or harmless bacteria.
GMOs are undoubtedly the future of agriculture, unless the uninformed mob has it's way and forces more government restriction.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Crazyboy, I certainly understand your position, but the use of different vectors and specificity of modification is kind of secondary to the overall
effect. Direct genomic modification obviously occurs in meiosis, in viral infection, and through proofreading errors. Selection is very much still a
part of any genetic manipulation, from transfecting a human cancer cell line to growing blue roses. I'm not really sure if I can see a distinction in
the difference.
While argument could certainly be made about the purposeful causes of mutation in organized agriculture on the part of humans, it has been occurring
since the 1920s (30s era ex. PMID 16588111). Here is an excellent timelime of MSU's work with selective breeding and radiation mutagenesis, which the
USDA ARS oversaw: http://agbioresearch.msu.edu/uploads/files/Research_Center/S...
It seems to me that the most conservative estimates, we are rapidly nearing 100 years of publicly released for uses including food. The whole debate
really reminds me of what I've read in Renaissance literature about the uneasiness of horticulture and 'artifice.'
Side note:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2006/061231.htm
USDA ARS evaluated some GMO cows that prevent BSE prion disease incidences as far back as 2006/7.
Edit typo. second link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070101103354.ht...
[Edited on 24-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I get the impression that Crazyboy's post is intended to point out how disconnected the debate is due to how inherently flawed the term "Genetically
modified organism" is by definition.
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | Amos:
Of course if the host organism has already had some taste/nutrition bred out of it to begin with, the transgenic version isn’t going to improve
that.
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25] |
I forgot to mention this earlier, but this is one of the things I was worried about regarding the culinary quality of produce. The most likely
candidates for the kinds of genetic engineering meant to increase hardiness or yields are the ones that are already the favorites of large intensive
farming operations. So while it won't necessarily give a direct effect to the flavor profile of produce, genetic engineering will give more commercial
advantages to cultivars that aren't as tasty.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by crazyboy |
I think Bt corn is a good example of a GMO. The soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis produces a protein [which] has been used for decades as
a pesticide |
Excellent explanation of how GMO usually work. At the moment we're not talking about engineered genes or proteins but known, natural genes that is
found in nature.
Now genes are not dangerous (except for viral genes), as far as I know no natural food is screened for specific genes. If something is harmful to
animals it's tied to specific proteins or chemicals, not the underlying genes. And these chemicals and proteins can easily be studied.
Has GMO hanged this? I can't see any evidence for it or any strong arguments for why it should. One can be skeptical to introducing new organisms to
existing ecosystems, but that's nothing new. Or one can dislike the politics surrounding it, but that should be addressed by changing the politics
rather than smear GMOs with false claims.
And considering how the opposition misrepresents the scientific facts, are you really sure that these evil cooperations are as vile as they're
portrayed? I don't like these huge cooperations, nor do I blindly trust the politicians to do the right thing when they have to choose between public
health and campaign funds. But these are problems that apply to most things in life, I don't think GMOs are any worse than other foods in this
respect.
As for things like taste and nutritional value I suspect that farming practices are more important than genetics. Why do my own tomatoes taste better
than the store bought? Are they using other plants or do they simply grow them too fast for flavors to develop properly? Or is it that they must be
picked early to survive the transport while mine are picked when ripe?
And why does locally grown strawberries taste better than the imported ones? They all come from commercial farmers, so again it's unlikely that
genetics are the explanation. But differences in soils, farming practices and growth conditions probably mean that the local ones grow slower, giving
them more time to develop flavor.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Crazyboy: I used quote marks because organisms that have been genetically modified by cross breeding or chemical or radiative mutagenic techniques
are... genetically modified organisms. No getting around that.
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen |
And considering how the opposition misrepresents the scientific facts, are you really sure that these evil cooperations are as vile as they're
portrayed? I don't like these huge cooperations, nor do I blindly trust the politicians to do the right thing when they have to choose between public
health and campaign funds. |
That much of the technology originated from the 'MonSatan' partly explains the feverish attacks on the GMO industry. This is
after all, the company one 'loves to hate'.
But I don't care about Monsanto<sup>*</sup>, Bayer et al as long as the science is sound. Going by what I've read, mainly literature
reviews and some of the crap the anti-GMO missionaries put out, the science is sound as a pound. And the industry has a proven track record in terms
of food safety.
Merely the tone much of the anti-GMO material tells you right away where the bias really lies. That much of the anti-GMO crowd is incapable of seeing
that says much about their own biases, IMO.
I'm not a GMO advocate and in many ways couldn't care less about implementing it, although in specific cases it's hard not to see the huge potential.
But when solid science comes under attack the way GMO has, that appals me. Age of Unreason, Part Umpteen...
<sup>*</sup> Having said that, I worked 'with' (as a customer) and 'against' (as a competitor) Monsanto for about 5 years in a completely
unrelated technology field. I can't in all honestly say that Monsanto was any more or any less 'ethical' or 'moral' than any other players in that
field at that time.
[Edited on 24-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
My brother graduated with first class honours and went on to get his doctorate in biotechnology/microbiology almost a decade ago. He works as a
laborer or security guard now, I got first hand commentary on exactly how many projects had funding pulled or never got off the ground from time to
time so I'm somewhat unapologetic in my attitude.
[Edited on 24-4-2015 by Mesa]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here's an example of an anti-GMO group ('New Age') playing seriously dirty games with regards to Bangladeshi genetically modified pest-resistant Bt
brinjal (eggplant), from the blog of former anti-GMO Mark Lynas:
http://www.marklynas.org/2014/05/bt-brinjal-in-bangladesh-th...
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
This is my sentiment as well. It's not so much about GMO as it is about the irrational fear that some propagate. I have no doubt that if
there are any dangers with GMO they will be the last to know of them yet the ones crying "we told you so" the loudest.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"Scientists behind 'golden rice' GM crop to receive humanitarian award from the White House"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-behind-...
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
