DwnWthVwls

Thanks for the info. I don't want to derail the thread talking about myself, but if you wouldn't mind answering a couple questions for me I'll pm ya later. I'm omw out.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

John Wilkes Booth

@ duga can i get you to respond to this:

Pesticide Use Proliferating With GMO Crops, Study Warns

for the record i'm fine with GMOs i'm just curious about this cause i've heard this **** before.

duga

Yes, that's true and it's a major problem. However, it's not due to the use of GMO crops. It's due to the overuse of pesticides. Sure, we've introduced a pesticide resistance gene into certain crops so that we could use said pesticide to kill weeds more effectively, but weed resistance is inevitable. Natural selection and all that. The whole reason we had to expand to using pesticides that require the introduction of a transgene was because weeds were becoming resistant to pesticides we used in the past that DIDN'T require them. It's an endless cycle. Same thing with bacterial resistance to antibiotics...does that mean you will stop using antibiotics? No, it means you find stronger ones. In the end, the effort is futile and we will need an entirely new strategy but for now it's all we got.

So no, pesticide resistance is not more common because of GMOs.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

VEGANGELICA

While I haven't read of any released GMO being the known cause of an allergic response, a Brazil nut protein introduced through genetic engineering into soybeans to improve the amino acid ratios was found to cause a skin prick reaction in people with allergies to Brazil nuts in 1996:

"Our findings demonstrate the transfer of a major food allergen during the development of improved crop varieties through genetic engineering." (Nordlee et al. (1996) Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans, The New England Journal of Medicine, 334:688-692)

Avoiding the introduction of known human allergens in GMOs should be easy and is probably common practice now, after some of the first goof-ups, like with Brazil nut soybeans.

My concern is that transferring DNA from one species to another may alter the genetically modified organism's genome in ways not fully understood, sometimes creating unintended proteins with uncertain effects and modifying gene expression in ways that could be harmful. (However, normal sexual reproduction also results in chromosome changes, such that conventional breeding can lead to unexpected human-harmful traits in the plant, so this isn't unique to GMOs.)

I'm also concerned about low level toxicity of some of the GMOs like Bt toxin-containing GMOs that may show negative effects on human health only after many years and particularly when exposure occurred during fetal development.

Some fear of GMO technology is probably because it is "unnatural," but also there is fear because GMO crops do genetically contaminate non-GMO crops, and the health impacts of GMOs are not fully known:

(1) U.S. farmers report widespread GMO crop contamination (which means that organic non-GMO grain often contains some GMO contamination):

"Based on information from 268 farmers from 17 U.S. states, the report said more than 30 percent of farmers seeking to grow organic crops reported that unintended GMO presence has been found or suspected on their farms."

Organic farm supporters say GMO contamination needs USDA controls | Reuters

(2) Bt toxin and pesticide residues combined to alter the growth of embryonic kidney cell line:

"In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants."

Mesnage et al. (2013) Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide, Journal of Applied Toxicology, Volume 33, Issue 7, pages 695–699.

Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide - Mesnage - 2012 - Journal of Applied Toxicology - Wiley Online Library

(3) In a landmark 2011 study in Canada, it was found that ninety-three per cent of samples from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of BT toxins:

"It is thought the toxin is getting into the human body as a result of eating meat, milk and eggs from farm livestock fed GM corn."

GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies | Daily Mail Online

The Canadian researchers (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec) concluded, "Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the foetus, more studies are needed.’"

^ I agree with the Canadian researchers that the health consequences of GMOs including long-term effects of BT toxins on children/fetuses are not fully known, and so it was and is unwise to unleash these toxins into human foods.

* * *

I feel it is unwise to alter the chromosomes of crops with DNA from distantly related organisms, then release the crops into the environment where they cannot be controlled or kept out of the human food chain, and do so without knowing fully how the alterations in the GMOs impact human health, especially in combination with the other human-created toxins we already have in our bodies.

__________________

Lord Larehip

Vegangelica, please don't confuse the issue with facts.

Frownland

Wow that's some scary stuff, I'm glad they test for that kind of thing vigorously before it hits the market. Wait, what was your concern again?

Wow, toxins. That's a terrifying word. Toxins have to be horrible right? It's way too close to the word toxic for them not to be. Wait. Emotive Language and Its Danger to Science


I'll concede this point to you, but be weary of the vagueness of the word toxins (and using The Daily Mail as a source, they're not exactly the most objective news source). Those toxins are present but are they present in any amount that it could actually be toxic? In most cases, evil and scary toxins need to be consumed in high doses for it to reach toxicity. Take aspirin, for example. If you take it in small doses, you're fine. But if you take a whole bottle of aspirin, you're going to have some problems.

So...ban aspirin?

This isn't about feelings, it's about science. Science doesn't give two ****s about your beliefs, whether they align with the facts or not.

I wouldn't expect you to do anything of the sort.

Honestly, there is a potential for GMO's to pose a threat. But until we see that threat, there's no need for concern. Not to mention that not all GMO's are created equal, so applying the allergy study to GMO's as a whole is unrealistic. It's terrifying to be in a world of new technologies, I'm aware of this and I'm scared ****less myself. But it's a good thing that I have the facts behind me so I won't have to keep dirtying my pants.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Josef K

I think the way to go about attacking GMOs is not safety. There have been thousands upon thousands of studies of GMOs - all reputable ones conclude that they're entirely safe, and in fact many would argue that the regulatory structure surrounding GMFs, while not perfect, is better than for traditionally-bred foods. Additionally, GMOs do have the potential to help millions of people, and already are in America, where they massively drive down food prices. They also probably do help the environment through saving land (along with reducing tillage costs and fuel emissions).

The real issue comes down to usage. GMOs reduce biodiversity because they're planted in monoculture (because otherwise farmers in developing countries can't afford to import them) and because there are basically only four or five GM crops grown (half of Argentina's arable land, I believe, is now used to grow GM soy, which makes it extremely susceptible to disaster), and although they do increase the income of farmers who grow them, they also send many others out of business. There's also the issue of what crops they grow - as small-scale subsistence models in developing countries become large-scale industrial models, a change spurred on by adoption of GM crops, farms start growing cash crops to feed American consumers. Staple crop production actually decreases, which actively hurts access to food in the developing world. Finally (and of course all these issues are related), the GM industry is more concentrated than traditional agriculture, so increased reliance on GM crops puts more of our food supply in the hands of a couple corporations.

tl;dr: GMOs are safe and have the potential to help millions, but they're used to hurt the poor in developing countries. For me this is primarily an economic issues, and although GMOs could be great, they need people who are less evil designing and distributing them.

grindy

I've been reading this thread with lots of interest. I am not really knowledgeable about this issue and have learned a lot here. I do generally tend to agree with Frownland and your post is the first criticism that seems rational to me.
I basically just wanted to say, that it's well written and seems well thought out.
Really curious whether there will be rebuttals and what they will be.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

Frownland

@Josef K those are all valid points, I'd like to add a couple of things though. Since there are GMOs for hundreds of crops, crop rotation is still possible and can eliminate the danger of soil depletion that places like Argentina potentially face. Since most farmers don't reuse seeds and buy them each season (which is one reason why the Monsanto contract worries are pointless), they could buy other crops to continue this practice. I honestly have no idea how knowledgeable the farmers are about things like soil depletion down there, but I think that if they are progressing as dangerously as you say they are, there should definitely be some measures to educate them on the subject. So basically it's not so much GMOs that are the harm, but the practices of the farmers or the corporations (who should be informing their clients of these risks).

Anyway, I came into this thread to share this with you guys: Biological Safety Lock To Prevent GMOs From Spreading Outside Controlled Environments.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Josef K

For the most part, I don't know that we disagree - I tend to care a lot about implementation, and so if farmers and corporations (I'd say it's mostly the fault of corporations) do bad things with GM crops that they don't do with "conventional" crops, that is a harm of GMOs to me. That article is interesting but I'd still need to look at usage - how much will it cost, how widely will it be adopted, which farmers and where will use it, and so on - before being sold on how awesome the technology is.