| Pages:
1
2
3
..
6 |
ISCGora
Harmless
Posts: 47
Registered: 10-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Genetically modified organism
I was thinking about this and I decided to post it since it looks like many people have no clue what this is.
Genetically modified organism(GMO)
-it is basically organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.
Now the main thing about this topic is that many people say it is very bad for many different reasons like following:
-GMOs are unhealthy.
-GMOs contaminate―forever(crops,seeds).
-GMOs increase herbicide use.
-Government oversight is dangerously lax.
-Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Those are just some of the points.
Monsanto as a leading company producing GMO basically denied every of the points stated.Gmo production is located in USA,Canada and India.
Specially in Us where the government gave permission for not labeling the product as GMO(because they say it is basically all natural)instead just
labeling as Natural/Organic which means you don't have your basic rights to know what you are eating.
Also there have been some researches done on this theme but the people working on it were mostly discredited and fired from their jobs.
Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times
since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with
ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and
sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel
organisms cannot be recalled.
Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the
companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift
from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are
grown, including the United States.
Now point of this post is what are your thoughts.Personally I would avoid GMO food for every cost.I think it is better to pay a bit more for real
organic food then get many of possible diseases that come with DNA changes in GMO products.In some countries like EU they have to label the products
as GMO,Russia doesn't allow GMO products.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
I do not believe that it is possible to get diseases by consuming GMOs that have been carefully engineered and tested to ensure their safety. Before
long, there will be too many people to feed without the use of GMOs. Conventional farming is not efficient enough to sustain such a large population.
I do however agree that the ability to patent a genome is a farce that needs to end. The problem with companies like Monsanto suing farmers for
"stealing" their seeds when they end up finding them in their fields is real, and has actually happened. Letting such large corporations have full
control over the world's food supply is irresponsible, and will definitely lead to major problems in the long run if changes aren't made soon. It is
no reason to go against the actual idea of GMOs though. In the right hands, they can do no harm.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
All for GMOs. They undergo testing and scrutiny like the "natural" product never did and never will.
doi:10.2527/jas2014-8124
|
|
|
ISCGora
Harmless
Posts: 47
Registered: 10-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Okay,but how can you explain that nothing can grow after maybe 5-8 years on dirt where GMOs were farmed.Is that positive.
EDIT:
Oh and by the way don't take this offensively I just want to have some kind of debate.
[Edited on 21-4-2015 by ISCGora]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Source for claim please? Otherwise it's far too broad and weighty a claim to make.
|
|
|
ISCGora
Harmless
Posts: 47
Registered: 10-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
http://www.gmeducation.org/environment/p207351-suffocating-t...
http://www.psrast.org/soilecolart.htm
Also:
http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-ou...
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_or...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modifie...
http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse....
http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-...
[Edited on 21-4-2015 by ISCGora]
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4278
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
That looks like a source that I would take with a grain of salt.
I'd take anti-GMO activists a lot more seriously if they didn't conveniently ignore the practices of organic farming that aren't as nature-friendly as
they would like to appear. They do use pesticides, only a more limited number of them. They do genetically modify their crops, just not using
precise gene splicing, but "shot-gun" style applications of mutagens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
ISCGora
Harmless
Posts: 47
Registered: 10-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well they use less pesticides that means the food is healthier also to grow organic food you don't need pesticides also by cross breeding plant with
similar plant doesn't do much but when you take a gean from a bacteria and insert it in a plant ....it is a big change because DNA from bacterias are
not found in plants.
also by eating GMO you change your geans which is by it's own not a good thing.
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4278
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  | | Well they use less pesticides that means the food is healthier also to grow organic food you don't need pesticides also by cross breeding plant with
similar plant doesn't do much but when you take a gean from a bacteria and insert it in a plant ....it is a big change because DNA from bacterias are
not found in plants. |
Bullshit. Do you have any idea how much genetic material is shared between plants, us, and bacteria? And how much of it got there by bacteria?
| Quote: | | also by eating GMO you change your geans which is by it's own not a good thing. |
Again, bullshit. You do not change your own DNA by eating food that contains DNA. If it did, your digestive tract would not be able to tell the
difference between modified DNA and "natural" DNA, and your genes would be much more affected by the kind of organism you were eating than whether or
not it was GMO. Do people turn into minotaurs by eating too much beef?
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
I only have one thought on this.
Try genetic modifications on humans. Why not work on fixing people? Is it because the result(s) could be catastrophic?
I mean in real life who cares if one, ten, 50, 1000, 1,000,000 people die. We kill at that rate annually anyway.
So why is it alright to modify plants, animals, insects? Will that catastrophe be any less?
I don't know enough about it but in my humble opinion... It's opening a door that we may want to keep locked.
It of course will eventually lead to genetically modifying people. Perhaps cure diseases... Perhaps finish Hitlers vision of an Aryan "master race.?
I'd like to see the women at least.
Ignorance is bliss. I'm happy the way we are.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | I only have one thought on this.
Try genetic modifications on humans. Why not work on fixing people? |
Because people are terrified for no good reason. It's the kind of idea that has to be introduced gradually.
Anyway, it is being tried. Look up gene therapy.
Did you know after five years houses owned by GMO humans become uninhabitable?
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
ISCGora:
We’ve been producing ‘GMOs’ since the dawn of organised agriculture. The cross breeding of plant and animal varieties to improve all kinds of
characteristics ultimately resulted in what you and I consider food (whether branded as ‘organic’, ‘macrobiotic’ or ‘GMO’). Or do you
think that staple foods and cash crops like corn, grain and most modern vegetables were created by G-d? Seedless grapes, anyone?
The difference between traditional crossbreeding and Monsanto’s GMO techniques is that with the former HUGE chunks of DNA get exchanged whereas with
the latter only tiny, highly targeted pieces get inserted into the target DNA. GMOs get tested very thoroughly for any undesired proteins they might
produce, historically new cross bred varieties…not so much!
I do have concerns about GMOs with regards to potential monopolisations of food supplies by a few very large corporations. But instead of
investigating these potentially important effects, people like you prefer to buy into pseudo-scientific (if not downright anti-scientific) baloney.
The ‘it’s organic!’ crowd would rather spend extra money to buy a bottle of ‘organic wine’ (LOL) but feel queasy at the thought of consuming
GMO corn that hasn’t just been tested to destruction but also has been consumed by now by millions of people without any side effects.
If you’re looking for real scammers, look no further than the ‘organics’ brigade, who’ll brand just about anything with that label so that
well-meaning but credulous consumers part more readily with their money.
[Edited on 21-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid | | Again, bullshit. You do not change your own DNA by eating food that contains DNA. If it did, your digestive tract would not be able to tell the
difference between modified DNA and "natural" DNA, and your genes would be much more affected by the kind of organism you were eating than whether or
not it was GMO. Do people turn into minotaurs by eating too much beef? |
There are people who like to tell me GMO tomatoes have fish genetics, which is unnatural and my body is going to absorb the fishtomato genes. They are
strangely unconcerned with the idea of eating fish and tomatoes at the same time.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu | | There are people who like to tell me GMO tomatoes have fish genetics, which is unnatural and my body is going to absorb the fishtomato genes. They are
strangely unconcerned with the idea of eating fish and tomatoes at the same time. |
What will happen if you eat some fish and then have the inside of your mouth swabbed for DNA? Identity crisis! 
|
|
|
Pasrules
Hazard to Self
Posts: 78
Registered: 4-1-2015
Location: Yellow Cake Deposit
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lacking an S orbital
|
|
I've covered this topic in cell biology and understand it is safe I'm not an activist and couldn't really care what humanity does for money so from a
scientific standard GMOs unbalance the environment purely because if more food is available the animals (us in this case) become prolific until they
outweigh what is available and then consume the plant down to the roots.
The natural counter to this is the old pathogens evolving to become pathogenic to resistant modified plants. Oh and of course the population reaching
a tipping point seeing as now we've increased our population density higher than that of any sustainability without the new farming methods.
To activists who come across this firstly learn what GMO stands for before you think your saving the environment and as stated above go learn how
poisoness organic farming can be due to old style pesticides. Lastly to the idiot who invented the brand organic water I hope you drown in it.
As you can see I'm quite the cynical conservative.
Atropine, Bicarb, Calcium.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1376
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
There will be a day in the distant future when we image how wonderful it must once have been to walk in a natural world, where every organism and
every human is the incredible result of eons of natural evolution rather than the clever design of a bioengineer.
Yet, I wish that future was already here. Just imagine the endless possibilities.
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | I don't know enough about it but in my humble opinion... It's opening a door that we may want to keep locked.
Ignorance is bliss. I'm happy the way we are. |
Why that specific door, Zombie?
Ignorance is Mankind's worst enemy, BTW...
|
|
|
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 blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | I don't know enough about it but in my humble opinion... It's opening a door that we may want to keep locked.
Ignorance is bliss. I'm happy the way we are. |
Why that specific door, Zombie?
Ignorance is Mankind's worst enemy, BTW... |
I think Etaoin said (in response to my asking "why not fix people") "It's the kind of idea that has to be introduced gradually".
This is my concern. Just like civil rights in America are being stripped away "gradually" my concern is all the genetic experimentation (while leading
in a positive direction) will eventually lead to a sociological approval of genetically modifying humans.
While this MAY be the real answer to curing or preventing many if not all of the "ailments" we suffer from, I'm not sure I am comfortable with
companies doing all this for profit.
IF profit were not the motive, there would be no applying for patents, or corporate secrets or proprietary methods / compounds, ect.
IF this research should continue I believe it should all be done in an "open source" mode. Don't you believe that progress would happen exponentially
faster?
Maybe I just have no faith in where this could be leading.
[Edited on 4-21-2015 by Zombie]
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
So much fake science in the anti-GMO claims, it's mind-boggling.
What crops do to soil will depend on what genes they are given. Saying GMO crops do anything specific, without specifying the crop and giving actual
data, is just worthless.
Unless live, zoonotic viruses are present in the crop, you will not transfer genes to humans. Using viral vectors for transformation or transfection
is NOT the same thing.
On soil, see:
GM Crops 1:3, 1-5; May/June 2010
Riv Biol. 2005 Sep-Dec;98(3):393-417.
J Environ Qual. 2004 May-Jun;33(3):816-24.
Are there concerns using any genetic modification? Yes. Do I have them? Sure. Are there problems? Potentially. Does that excuse websites from lying to
the public or being too incompetently staffed to discern fake science? No. That said, did you know that corn is now incapable of surviving without
human intervention due to how it drops seed? It has been selectively groomed through agriculture to be reliant on humans now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1048800...
Anyone in the biological sciences likely uses genetic engineering on a daily basis. We do it to bacteria, viruses, human cells.... I do it all the
time, and I am concerned about organisms escaping the lab when pathogenic or using antibiotic resistance screening methods... but that is
technique-specific, and not the same thing as modifying a food source.
| Quote: Originally posted by zts16 |
The problem with companies like Monsanto suing farmers for "stealing" their seeds when they end up finding them in their fields is real, and has
actually happened. |
Highly questionable statements.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | | Try genetic modifications on humans. Why not work on fixing people? Is it because the result(s) could be catastrophic? |
We have and do. Gene therapy was set back by Jesse Gelsinger's death, but gene therapy has been used to treat SCID, Wiskott-Aldrich, and other
patients.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029413.200-bubble-ki...
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32333161
Gene therapy is kind of difficult to get past regulators sometimes because of the permanency of treatment. Say I give you a toxic drug. Often I can
discontinue treatment and have little to no longterm effect. Much more often than a genetic modification, which you are stuck with. We can't reach in
and pluck out all of a 'bad' gene from your body yet.
The argument by GMO proponents is that world hunger likely affects more people than any one disease, and because it is easier for us understand some
plant genomes than humans (harder for others).
As for profit, don't you own a business? Want me to tell you how to run it and why? You guys do realize that previous profits are where the money came
from to perform today's private industry experiments, right? To hire new scientists? To pay for private scholarships, post-doctoral training,
prototypes, etc.? Who cares if someone works for profit, narcissistic ego-touting, philanthropy? Just let 'good' be accomplished. By the way, there is
a push for more and more open-access data from federal funding sources. Journals are indicating being more stringent on data publishing as well. If
someone doesn't like it, they can use their own money and publish in a shrinking number of journals, or not work in the field. Open-access genomic
alterations will eventually lead to problems too. Did you know the smallpox genome is public? Companies and nation states are now in the synthetic
genome manufacturing era.
How about that old genomic data is capable of being deanonymized?
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509901/study-highlights...
I'm not arguing against morality or laws, but when people who don't understand the science start trying to push their own pet moral agendas on people
doing the work, it's one reason we get laws we dislike.
[Edited on 21-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I wanted to use that story but couldn't find it right away. Thanks for digging it up.
|
|
|
ISCGora
Harmless
Posts: 47
Registered: 10-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Okay how do you all explain results from research of Dr. Arpad Pusztai in Great Britain?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfoo...
There are probably some other sources just search it.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It's not our job to do your research for you. Please provide some peer-reviewed literature with attached methodologies such as the history of the
animals used for animal studies, instead of some random website if you want any kind of semi-educated discussion on the matter, which will probably
just go over the heads of lay public anyway, and waste everyone's time. Thanks.
Also, see
1. http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette...
2. J R Soc Med. 2008 Jun;101(6):290-8. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372.
[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Opposition to practical applications of genetic engineering seems to be motivated by either religious/philosophical moral objections, or
industrial/commercial entities that stand to lose the most profit to introduced GMO products.
I find a fairly amusing correlation in the communities/people opposed to GMO being those with the worst understanding/education of the relevant
science. It's a 21st century version of the anti-evolution arguments that have a reputation of ignorance and stupidity in online forums.
|
|
|
ISCGora
Harmless
Posts: 47
Registered: 10-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Please read my post.I said "There are probably some other sources just search it."
I didn't say you need to research for me so your statement is not true also:
http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-ou...
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_or...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modifie...
http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse....
http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-...
Also two things you gave are nothing more then as you said "semi-educated discussion on the matter".
|
|
|
Loptr
International Hazard
Posts: 1347
Registered: 20-5-2014
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Grateful
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis |
It's not our job to do your research for you. Please provide some peer-reviewed literature with attached methodologies such as the history of the
animals used for animal studies, instead of some random website if you want any kind of semi-educated discussion on the matter, which will probably
just go over the heads of lay public anyway, and waste everyone's time. Thanks.
Also, see
1. http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette...
2. J R Soc Med. 2008 Jun;101(6):290-8. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372.
[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis] |
Chemosynthesis,
You mentioned above that you participate in genetic engineering. Could you speak towards the process that takes place in order to introduce genes and
how precise these changes are? Is there a high occurrence of unintended changes being introduced into the genome? What quality assurance protocols
exist to ensure the genetic engineering has occurred as intended? I know that with pharmaceuticals there exist thresholds for side-products, etc., so
are there thresholds in genetic engineering as well?
Please excuse my ignorance in this matter.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
..
6 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
