Why we need GMO

jknops2

It is distressing how much fear mongering and conspiracy driven speculation is being posted about GMO crops. Here is my take.

GMO organisms have a genetic code inserted that expresses as a protein. Different GMO organisms are very different and lumping them all together is useless. All current insulin is GMO, and it has great benefits over traditionally produced insulin. No one is arguing that for GMO insulin the benefits clearly outweigh any risk, and that having GMO insulin for diabetics is a good thing. Let’s apply the same standard to agricultural crops. Thus, let’s not reject the GMO technique and focus on one organism at a time.

Secondly there is nothing unnatural about GMO, viruses have been doing this for billions of years. Even our human genome includes many virus genes. However, using GMO techniques we can target what genes to transfer and speed the process up much faster.

There are 3 potential risks that I see.
1 Inducing potential allergens into crops. For instance putting a lot of peanut genes in crops can cause this. But this can be easily tested for and is being tested for in all GMO’s
2 Having genes spread to wild plants. This is a potential problem. Bt sunflower has been developed and has large native weedy populations in the US. Bt sunflower has not been released because of this problems. However, for most crops spreading to wild populations for various reasons is not a problem.
3 Creating superweeds. Most crops make lousy weeds, so again for various reasons this is not a problem for crops. However putting certain genes in lawn grasses is not a good idea. These are weeds in many natural ecosystems, and making them more competitive is not a good idea.
4 Any other potential risks that I am missing?


So let’s look at 4 common GMO crops. Bring up some other specific GMO crops, if you want to discuss them.
1. Bt corn. Bt is a bacterial gene that kills insects that eat the corn. Note there are different bt’s which have different specific insect target, none of the bt’s kills all insects. Bt is widely used in organic agriculture as an insecticide, and there are no safety risks here. Benefits, much lower insecticide use, higher yields. Downsides, none that I can see.
2. Roundup ready soybeans. Here the gene codes for roundup resistance, allowing the use of roundup to kill weeds. Weeding is needing, organic agriculture tills the soil, requiring a lot of work, fossil fuel and cause soil erosion. Alternative herbicides used have a much larger environmental impact. So benefit, higher yield, use of less toxic herbicide and less soil erosion. Downsides none that I can see.
3. Virus resistant squash. Here a gene is inserted that causing resistance against virus infections. This has been the longest available, I think more than 30 years, no problem has been found so far. Increases yield, does not require killing all aphids, the virus vector, thus lowering insecticide use. Downside, none that I can see.
4. Golden rice. This has a gene that codes for vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is a major health problem in many areas of the world. This clearly improves nutrition and denying other people this is like denying GMO insulin to a diabetic, in my mind.


Why do I argue for GMO?
At this stage, after 20 years of GMO, the benefits are obvious and the downsides nothing more than conspiracy driven speculation. Agricultural production has increased at lot in the last 50 years, because of increased agricultural land use, conventional crop breeding, fertilizer, water, and pesticide applications. We need similar increases in the next 50 years to feed all of us and improve the diet of many people worldwide. We are at the end of using conventional crop breeding and do not have more land available. Way too much fertilizer is used which has large environmental impacts, water use is unsustainable in many areas, and lowering pesticide use is good idea. GMO’s can increase crop yields, while lowering the environmental impacts of agriculture. GMO can be used to lower fertilizer requirement, lower water use and increase the nutrition. Organic is not an option, it has lower production per area, requiring more land, more labor, and results in much more soil erosion. And here too there is no benefit in nutrition; no study has shown any evidence of any quality difference in organic crops.

The bottom line is we need progress in agriculture to feed 10-11 billion people, the number predicted that we have in 50 years. And more people worldwide want to same food quantity and quality as we have in the Western world. Not dealing with this now is unethical and not an option. GMO is the best tool that we have. Let’s use the GMO technique to developed specific crops and evaluate the benefits and risk for each one separate, just like we do for drugs.

tigersword

Finally. A voice of reason.

_Zardoz_

Wow that was an advert from the GMO marketing board.

Lyadeia

In to read interesting discussion...

redraidergirl2009

Thanks for the hogwash monsanto

Lyadeia

Thanks for the hogwash monsanto

See, I was actually hoping for interesting discussion rather than the monsanto haters just to reitierate that they hate monsanto without discussing anything. Oh well. Maybe I will just check back tomorrow.

jknops2

Thanks for the hogwash monsanto

See, I was actually hoping for interesting discussion rather than the monsanto haters just to reitierate that they hate monsanto without discussing anything. Oh well. Maybe I will just check back tomorrow.

Yes, me too. I was hoping we could move beyond “fear mongering and conspiracy driven speculation”

FunkyTobias

Thanks for the hogwash monsanto

See, I was actually hoping for interesting discussion rather than the monsanto haters just to reitierate that they hate monsanto without discussing anything. Oh well. Maybe I will just check back tomorrow.

Good luck with that.

The Luddites will ignore the evidence, and simply goose-step to the "GMO is de debil" mantra, without actually reading the OP.

Charlottesometimes23

OP, I like your thinking.:drinker:

girlinahat

the concept of GMO is fine, although it's worth noting that different populations have different needs (for example, those in 'Western' or certainly the US societies) do not suffer from deficiencies in Vitamin A

We have been carrying out a form of GMO for thousands of years, by selective breeding - read Michael Pollan's 'The Botany of Desire' for an interesting take on it.

What I, and many others have an issue with is not the idea of GMO but the WAY in which it is practiced. GMO seeds are for the most part non-heritage seeds, which means that farmers cannot lay a stock of seeds for planting next season, and have to purchase more, giving profit to the organisation that created them. Granted, this allows the seeds to remain pure (and not-crossbreed as I am sure the plants themselves will attempt to do given the way evolution works....), and it also allows the GMO organisation to remain in business -after all, a business model that simply gives away its inventions isn't much of a business model (aside from people like Trevor Bayliss that is...)

GMO is NOT a cure for World Hunger. It is a way of creating more resistant crops, fighting diseases and generally attempting to mount a defence against what could be argued the natural order of things. It is necessarily a profit-making industry, but it is some of the bullish tactics that many people find offensive.

In order to feed the world's population we need to adjust our farming practices. Whether GMO is the way to do this I am not convinced, however money will only be invested in solutions where there is a real chance of a financial return.

TheYoungys

Absolutely spot on with this comment. Lets be clear as well, there is NOT a lack of food in the world, what there IS is a great deal of profiteering involved in the distribution and pricing of food.

the concept of GMO is fine, although it's worth noting that different populations have different needs (for example, those in 'Western' or certainly the US societies) do not suffer from deficiencies in Vitamin A

We have been carrying out a form of GMO for thousands of years, by selective breeding - read Michael Pollan's 'The Botany of Desire' for an interesting take on it.

What I, and many others have an issue with is not the idea of GMO but the WAY in which it is practiced. GMO seeds are for the most part non-heritage seeds, which means that farmers cannot lay a stock of seeds for planting next season, and have to purchase more, giving profit to the organisation that created them. Granted, this allows the seeds to remain pure (and not-crossbreed as I am sure the plants themselves will attempt to do given the way evolution works....), and it also allows the GMO organisation to remain in business -after all, a business model that simply gives away its inventions isn't much of a business model (aside from people like Trevor Bayliss that is...)

GMO is NOT a cure for World Hunger. It is a way of creating more resistant crops, fighting diseases and generally attempting to mount a defence against what could be argued the natural order of things. It is necessarily a profit-making industry, but it is some of the bullish tactics that many people find offensive.

In order to feed the world's population we need to adjust our farming practices. Whether GMO is the way to do this I am not convinced, however money will only be invested in solutions where there is a real chance of a financial return.

neanderthin

Is it too much to ask for full disclosure and label foods that contain GMO, apparently it is, at least in NA where 90% of GMO takes place. Just label the frikken food and let people make their own decisions on what they want to eat.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Is it too much to ask for full disclosure and label foods that contain GMO, apparently it is, at least in NA where 90% of GMO takes place. Just label the frikken food and let people make their own decisions on what they want to eat.

Agree!!!! :flowerforyou:

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Thanks for the hogwash monsanto

See, I was actually hoping for interesting discussion rather than the monsanto haters just to reitierate that they hate monsanto without discussing anything. Oh well. Maybe I will just check back tomorrow.

Good luck with that.

The Luddites will ignore the evidence, and simply goose-step to the "GMO is de debil" mantra, without actually reading the OP.

What evidence???

There is no evidence that GMO's are safe and they aren't willing to label them, so what are they hiding?????

And, why are farmers banding together for a class action lawsuit against the likes of Monsanto, Dupont and other seed companies if there isn't more to it?

Americans are the only country that is duped by this nonsense. Many other countries have and are banning GMO's from being grown in their countries.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2284/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-monsanto

pcastagner

Hmmm, what's that, you have an unprecedented and powerful new technology with potential for great benefit or great harm?

Yes, I see, the clever thing to do, is either be completely against it, or to rush ahead and use it as if there are no potential downsides we have yet to imagine.


This debate makes me want to **** myself.

Joehenny

Thanks for the hogwash monsanto

See, I was actually hoping for interesting discussion rather than the monsanto haters just to reitierate that they hate monsanto without discussing anything. Oh well. Maybe I will just check back tomorrow.

Good luck with that.

The Luddites will ignore the evidence, and simply goose-step to the "GMO is de debil" mantra, without actually reading the OP.

What evidence???

There is no evidence that GMO's are safe and they aren't willing to label them, so what are they hiding?????

And, why are farmers banding together for a class action lawsuit against the likes of Monsanto, Dupont and other seed companies if there isn't more to it?

Americans are the only country that is duped by this nonsense. Many other countries have and are banning GMO's from being grown in their countries.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2284/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-monsanto

You guys are the ones making the claim so you have to provide evidence. The burden of proofs on you.

jivitasa

This goes beyond GMO. Monsanto is killing off our farmers and dominating an industry that can't survive under these conditions. Watch Food Inc.

VorJoshigan

You forgot why we REALLY need GMOs. CUZ THEY'RE TASTY!

I want my GMO salmon! Only I want them further modified so they come with omega 3s.

Ophidion

‘Monsanto Protection Act’ grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government... sounds totally legit to me, you know the power to have full immunity because your crops are so safe. I am no scientist but does this not seem slightly nefarious.

neanderthin

You forgot why we REALLY need GMOs. CUZ THEY'RE TASTY!

I want my GMO salmon! Only I want them further modified so they come with omega 3s.

What that, no omega 3zzzz in salmon.......................what's mother nature doing to us. Warning Will Robinson, warning!

VorJoshigan

This goes beyond GMO. Monsanto is killing off our farmers and dominating an industry that can't survive under these conditions. Watch Food Inc.

I COULD watch food inc. OR I could do my own independent research and utilize my critical thinking skills. GMO aren't a perfect technology, but they don't deserve the demonization being heaped their way.

Nobody is "killing off our farmers". Farming as career sucks a lot, which is why people have been leaving that profession for over a century, including most of my family.

By the way, don't shed too many tears for farmers. It IS hard, unpredictable work, but the median income of farmers who do it for a living is over $75K which is WAY over the median non-farm income. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-household-well-being/farm-household-income.aspx#.UcBWe_nVBRY