What do you think about GMO's?

Options
2»

Replies

  • annette_15
    annette_15 Posts: 1,657 Member
    Options
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    foursirius wrote: »
    Don't really care.

    This.^^^

    Jeez, first world problems up in here.

    This
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    From a safety perspective - no issue with them

    From an environmental perspective - I have not looked into it enough to firmly come down on one side or the other, however, based on what I do (or think I) know - it depends on context and the actual GMO food/substance....so I doubt I ever would come down on 'one side or the other'.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    MamaBirdBoss wrote: »
    I won't fully embrace GMOs until I have a unicorn delivered to my door. That is all.

    More resistant crops is one thing. So's saving millions from starving. I want my unicorn.

    (Okay, on the flip side, I'm not actually fully comfortable with crops becoming dominated by a single genetic variety of anything with similar disease weaknesses. :) More different varieties, GMO or not, pls?)
    Actually, GM technology is a way to avoid this problem. Normally, to get a trait the traditional way, you have to keep crossing the variety you have with the variety that has the trait you want to transfer, but in doing so, you've diluted the amount of the original's originalness by half, and you have to keep breeding it back with other unaltered ones to get the trait into the variety, while still staying the variety you want. With GM technology, you take the variety you want, give it just the trait you want, and away you go.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    I think GMOs should be labeled and the consumers can decide if they want them. I personally avoid them when possible.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    MKEgal wrote: »
    Anything that's been guided in its development by humans is a GMO.
    Anything that uses sexual reproduction is a GMO.

    That's not what "GMO" means.

  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    MKEgal wrote: »
    Wheat is a GMO.
    Cows are GMO's.
    Anything that's been guided in its development by humans is a GMO.
    Anything that uses sexual reproduction is a GMO.

    I think it's a bit creepy to have bits of bacterial DNA inserted into plants intended for food. That's not a natural cross.
    And I don't like that they breed food just to be resistant to the chemicals put on the crops.
    But there hasn't been a problem (yet?).

    There are no GMO wheat products on the market. And cows are not GMO. Neither fit the definition of GMO.

    I'm not against GMO. But this is not correct info.

  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    From a safety perspective - no issue with them

    From an environmental perspective - I have not looked into it enough to firmly come down on one side or the other, however, based on what I do (or think I) know - it depends on context and the actual GMO food/substance....so I doubt I ever would come down on 'one side or the other'.

    This is where I stand as well. I do not fear them from a safety point of view. But I don't know if we truly realize the environmental impact yet. I also need to do more research.

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    From a safety perspective - no issue with them

    From an environmental perspective - I have not looked into it enough to firmly come down on one side or the other, however, based on what I do (or think I) know - it depends on context and the actual GMO food/substance....so I doubt I ever would come down on 'one side or the other'.

    This is where I stand as well. I do not fear them from a safety point of view. But I don't know if we truly realize the environmental impact yet. I also need to do more research.

    The challenge is we can't prove its safe, and may not know for a long time about any hidden problems. It's a classic fat tail risk....
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    From a safety perspective - no issue with them

    From an environmental perspective - I have not looked into it enough to firmly come down on one side or the other, however, based on what I do (or think I) know - it depends on context and the actual GMO food/substance....so I doubt I ever would come down on 'one side or the other'.

    This is where I stand as well. I do not fear them from a safety point of view. But I don't know if we truly realize the environmental impact yet. I also need to do more research.

    Same. The idea of losing biodiversity because GMO stuff just dominates when it blows around, or of losing traditional species because GMO corporations price farmers out of the seeds, isn't cool. I think it's pretty arrogant of these corporations to 1) assume they can absolutely contain the growth of things designed to be unkillable and control how things play out or 2) not care about the implications at all.

    OTOH of course it is better if more people who need food and don't have access to it get it. OTOH, it's often said that we actually do have enough food, the issue is it just doesn't get distributed to the people who need it.

    I'm not really cool with skirting a political problem by using a technological solution (which makes people who benefit from existing distribution patterns, such as the heads of the corporations making these foods, even wealthier) that will lead to unanticipated environmental consequences. Guarantee some unanticipated changes result; how problematic they will be in the long run is unknown.

    OTOH, the odds of the current distribution pattern changing in time for people to get food they need are low, so then you've got to weigh the clear needs of living people now vs the possible needs of people (who will be affected by unknown environmental issues) in the future. And living people > non-living people.

    edit

    OTOH, believing the odds of making political changes are low ensures they don't happen, in a self-fulfulling prophecy.

    OTOH, I am on a message board about weight loss instead of writing letters or participating in campaigns. So there's that.

Categories