Say "NO" to GMO!
Replies
-
Our whole world isn't natural, I can't believe this is still even an argument. If you wanna live natural, go live out in the country and grow your own food, for example like the Amish do. Do you buy your organic food in a plastic bag? Well, that's not natural! Also, I question the validity of the documentary you watched, many of these are one sided or have an agenda.0
-
KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.
I'm not against patenting of new species, there is no reason that it is less of an intellectual property process than inventing something else. Where patenting of discovered species, I find, can be easily criticized, the planned invention does deserve some intellectual protection. In the absence of some protection manufacturers would be justified in making non-germination lines to protect their commercial interests.
Just like for medicines, there also needs to be fair use balances and goodwill based on need, and possibly shorter patent expiry dates. Thee is a balance that can be struck within need to drive inventiveness and availability of new species. Plus patent protection is actually a good barrier to monolithic culture development - not everyone has access to the latest so other crops are maintained...
I understand the intellectual property aspect, which is why I think it is a difficult topic. However, I find it very hard not to have a moral objection towards patenting a source of food… The comparison with medicine is very apt, and I find that to be a difficult topic as well. I recognise that most of my reasoning are idealistic rather than rational, though.
I don't know about whether patenting or not would be a good solution against monolithic cultures. However, I assume you know better than me on the matter and take your word for it.
Truly, I guess in the end it is not the patenting itself that bothers me, it is more the ways it could be potentially abused.0 -
-
Pretty much all apples are GMO....
I'm not sure you know what that term means.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.
I'm not against patenting of new species, there is no reason that it is less of an intellectual property process than inventing something else. Where patenting of discovered species, I find, can be easily criticized, the planned invention does deserve some intellectual protection. In the absence of some protection manufacturers would be justified in making non-germination lines to protect their commercial interests.
Just like for medicines, there also needs to be fair use balances and goodwill based on need, and possibly shorter patent expiry dates. Thee is a balance that can be struck within need to drive inventiveness and availability of new species. Plus patent protection is actually a good barrier to monolithic culture development - not everyone has access to the latest so other crops are maintained...
I understand the intellectual property aspect, which is why I think it is a difficult topic. However, I find it very hard not to have a moral objection towards patenting a source of food… The comparison with medicine is very apt, and I find that to be a difficult topic as well. I recognise that most of my reasoning are idealistic rather than rational, though.
I don't know about whether patenting or not would be a good solution against monolithic cultures. However, I assume you know better than me on the matter and take your word for it.
Truly, I guess in the end it is not the patenting itself that bothers me, it is more the ways it could be potentially abused.
It's a long area for discussion - and probably not for this site, includes social, political elements that are basically not allowed on here. Let's just say it's complex.0 -
GMOs don't bother me nearly as much as the company Monsanto does.0
-
KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
0 -
I was entertained when a US company patented Batsmati rice, which has been grown in India for thousands of years...GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.
I'm not against patenting of new species, there is no reason that it is less of an intellectual property process than inventing something else. Where patenting of discovered species, I find, can be easily criticized, the planned invention does deserve some intellectual protection. In the absence of some protection manufacturers would be justified in making non-germination lines to protect their commercial interests.
Just like for medicines, there also needs to be fair use balances and goodwill based on need, and possibly shorter patent expiry dates. Thee is a balance that can be struck within need to drive inventiveness and availability of new species. Plus patent protection is actually a good barrier to monolithic culture development - not everyone has access to the latest so other crops are maintained...
I understand the intellectual property aspect, which is why I think it is a difficult topic. However, I find it very hard not to have a moral objection towards patenting a source of food… The comparison with medicine is very apt, and I find that to be a difficult topic as well. I recognise that most of my reasoning are idealistic rather than rational, though.
I don't know about whether patenting or not would be a good solution against monolithic cultures. However, I assume you know better than me on the matter and take your word for it.
Truly, I guess in the end it is not the patenting itself that bothers me, it is more the ways it could be potentially abused.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.
I'm not against patenting of new species, there is no reason that it is less of an intellectual property process than inventing something else. Where patenting of discovered species, I find, can be easily criticized, the planned invention does deserve some intellectual protection. In the absence of some protection manufacturers would be justified in making non-germination lines to protect their commercial interests.
Just like for medicines, there also needs to be fair use balances and goodwill based on need, and possibly shorter patent expiry dates. Thee is a balance that can be struck within need to drive inventiveness and availability of new species. Plus patent protection is actually a good barrier to monolithic culture development - not everyone has access to the latest so other crops are maintained...
I understand the intellectual property aspect, which is why I think it is a difficult topic. However, I find it very hard not to have a moral objection towards patenting a source of food… The comparison with medicine is very apt, and I find that to be a difficult topic as well. I recognise that most of my reasoning are idealistic rather than rational, though.
I don't know about whether patenting or not would be a good solution against monolithic cultures. However, I assume you know better than me on the matter and take your word for it.
Truly, I guess in the end it is not the patenting itself that bothers me, it is more the ways it could be potentially abused.
It's a long area for discussion - and probably not for this site, includes social, political elements that are basically not allowed on here. Let's just say it's complex.
Completely agreed.0 -
I was entertained when a US company patented Batsmati rice, which has been grown in India for thousands of years...GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.
I'm not against patenting of new species, there is no reason that it is less of an intellectual property process than inventing something else. Where patenting of discovered species, I find, can be easily criticized, the planned invention does deserve some intellectual protection. In the absence of some protection manufacturers would be justified in making non-germination lines to protect their commercial interests.
Just like for medicines, there also needs to be fair use balances and goodwill based on need, and possibly shorter patent expiry dates. Thee is a balance that can be struck within need to drive inventiveness and availability of new species. Plus patent protection is actually a good barrier to monolithic culture development - not everyone has access to the latest so other crops are maintained...
I understand the intellectual property aspect, which is why I think it is a difficult topic. However, I find it very hard not to have a moral objection towards patenting a source of food… The comparison with medicine is very apt, and I find that to be a difficult topic as well. I recognise that most of my reasoning are idealistic rather than rational, though.
I don't know about whether patenting or not would be a good solution against monolithic cultures. However, I assume you know better than me on the matter and take your word for it.
Truly, I guess in the end it is not the patenting itself that bothers me, it is more the ways it could be potentially abused.
0 -
I say OK to GMO. It's not something that concerns me.
And really I would question how anything could be called non-GMO. Some things are GMO by humans, but everything is GMO by nature. I could be ignoring official definitions of GMO, but when the backbone of biology is millions of years of genetic mutations (yes, modifications), I see no difference.0 -
GMO and vaccines make the world a much better better place. Science, because it works.0
-
I was entertained when a US company patented Batsmati rice, which has been grown in India for thousands of years...GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.
I'm not against patenting of new species, there is no reason that it is less of an intellectual property process than inventing something else. Where patenting of discovered species, I find, can be easily criticized, the planned invention does deserve some intellectual protection. In the absence of some protection manufacturers would be justified in making non-germination lines to protect their commercial interests.
Just like for medicines, there also needs to be fair use balances and goodwill based on need, and possibly shorter patent expiry dates. Thee is a balance that can be struck within need to drive inventiveness and availability of new species. Plus patent protection is actually a good barrier to monolithic culture development - not everyone has access to the latest so other crops are maintained...
I understand the intellectual property aspect, which is why I think it is a difficult topic. However, I find it very hard not to have a moral objection towards patenting a source of food… The comparison with medicine is very apt, and I find that to be a difficult topic as well. I recognise that most of my reasoning are idealistic rather than rational, though.
I don't know about whether patenting or not would be a good solution against monolithic cultures. However, I assume you know better than me on the matter and take your word for it.
Truly, I guess in the end it is not the patenting itself that bothers me, it is more the ways it could be potentially abused.
Patent abuse and biopiracy exists - however overeaching that case was, it was resolved and the company lost the patent rights.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Wow. I'm pretty surprised at how many people think GMO and hybrid fruits/vegetables are the same thing.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Why is that not a genetic engineering technique? I mean, what's the defining difference as far as why one makes food better and the other makes it worse/cancerous/evil?
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Why is that not a genetic engineering technique? I mean, what's the defining difference as far as why one makes food better and the other makes it worse/cancerous/evil?
That's possibly the silliest question I've ever seen on here. You might as well ask does seasoning or baking make food worse/cancerous/evil? They are two completely separate processes, neither of which has a demonic relationship of which I'm aware.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Why is that not a genetic engineering technique? I mean, what's the defining difference as far as why one makes food better and the other makes it worse/cancerous/evil?
Hybridization occurs in a field by cross-breeding plants, and GMO's are made in a lab using gene-splicing. I can't argue if one is safer than the other but they are two separate things and one can occur naturally and the other cannot.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Why is that not a genetic engineering technique? I mean, what's the defining difference as far as why one makes food better and the other makes it worse/cancerous/evil?
Hybridization is taking two or more animals or plants and breeding them together or splicing a bit of macro tissue together. The modified result may have genetic material from both but it's not a major modification and frankly it's bern going on for thousands and thousands of years. Genetic engineering is the insertion of very small genetic material using a bacteria, or a gene gun, a plasmid, etc. It carries additonal risks that the added material will "skip" to other plants or animals or that it will have secondary unintended results.
For examples, research on an eggplant GMO resulted in a species of eggplant that was resistant to a borer. That's great, expect field results demonstrated that the elimination of that borer in that field test gave rise to another pest by leaving the field wide open without competition. Not so good.
We humans have created agricultural catastrophies. Introduction of cats and rabbits in places where they should not have been, destruction of grape varietals, etc. The introduction of non-local species has so many horror stories, now add the risk of antibiotic resistance gene possibly moving from one culture to other areas or becoming the breeding ground for new resistances in soil bacteria...
GMOs carry some risks beyond hybrid processes. It isn't that they are evil, they need more checks and evaluations.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Wow. I'm pretty surprised at how many people think GMO and hybrid fruits/vegetables are the same thing.
Why are you surprised it's a common mistake, after all the label isn't "Genetically Engineered Organism". A lot of people don't have a very good idea about food, biology or nutrition - GMOs go well beyond that.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Wow. I'm pretty surprised at how many people think GMO and hybrid fruits/vegetables are the same thing.
Why are you surprised it's a common mistake, after all the label isn't "Genetically Engineered Organism". A lot of people don't have a very good idea about food, biology or nutrition - GMOs go well beyond that.
I'm surprised because so many people are for/against it and it's such a hot topic.0 -
What's so horrible about GMO's exactly?
Hopefully you don't ever need to take insulin, a genetically modified bacteria is used to make it.
eta: I don't mean to come off as snarky, but having my BS in biology it often gets me riled up when people attack GMOs and generally have no solid evidence backing up their claims other than biased documentaries and websites with an agenda.
Without GMOs there would be an even larger gap in those who go hungry and don't have enough food to eat. Farmers are being driven to grow more food than ever on less land than ever, without GMOs that would be impossible. Oh yeah, those fruits and vegetables you (probably) love, wouldn't be half the size without genetic modification.
^^This. I'm all for GMOs. GE (genetic engineering) science improves availability, affordability, and accessibility to nutritious food. And yeah, life saving medicines that keep T1 and TD2 diabetics alive. I like all those things about GE.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Wow. I'm pretty surprised at how many people think GMO and hybrid fruits/vegetables are the same thing.
Why are you surprised it's a common mistake, after all the label isn't "Genetically Engineered Organism". A lot of people don't have a very good idea about food, biology or nutrition - GMOs go well beyond that.
I'm surprised because so many people are for/against it and it's such a hot topic.
Ah, yeah, shrug.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Why is that not a genetic engineering technique? I mean, what's the defining difference as far as why one makes food better and the other makes it worse/cancerous/evil?
Hybridization occurs in a field by cross-breeding plants, and GMO's are made in a lab using gene-splicing. I can't argue if one is safer than the other but they are two separate things and one can occur naturally and the other cannot.
A specific GMO organism might or might not be possible naturally.
OK, so this is a nitpick, but I've always thought that at a part of the anti-GMO outcry might be that people don't realize that genetic material jumps species with the aid of viruses and bacteria without any assistance from us, and not all that infrequently. That's the only reason for even mentioning this.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
i agree with every word of this, but i assign my skepticism to letting the goals of big business dictate the market as opposed to the actual science behind the thing. so am i suspicious of GMO products? not really, no. am i suspicious of the actions of corporations, GOOD LORD, YES.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Why is that not a genetic engineering technique? I mean, what's the defining difference as far as why one makes food better and the other makes it worse/cancerous/evil?
That's possibly the silliest question I've ever seen on here. You might as well ask does seasoning or baking make food worse/cancerous/evil? They are two completely separate processes, neither of which has a demonic relationship of which I'm aware.
i don't find that question silly at all0 -
Pretty much all apples are GMO....
Pretty much all apples are GMO....
Random definition of GMO.
Oh dam the Quotes are multipling
0 -
Hybridization occurs in a field by cross-breeding plants, and GMO's are made in a lab using gene-splicing. I can't argue if one is safer than the other but they are two separate things and one can occur naturally and the other cannot.
A specific GMO organism might or might not be possible naturally.
OK, so this is a nitpick, but I've always thought that at a part of the anti-GMO outcry might be that people don't realize that genetic material jumps species with the aid of viruses and bacteria without any assistance from us, and not all that infrequently. That's the only reason for even mentioning this.
^^^ This. It's not exactly true that "gene-splicing" does not occur in nature. There are types of viruses that have been doing this a long time, and I imagine in all plants and animals (virology, while interesting, wasn't my research area). So yah, it's not uncommon at all. Research suggests that up to 8% of the human genome was derived from viral DNA. So we're GMOs too I guess
0 -
KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions