Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?

frammis4242

GMO bashers = people who don't know what GMOs are. The act of agriculture itself is genetic modification.

Source - Jewish Scientists

Alienique

Yes, and it's not surprising given that most people don't even know what genetic modification entails. If they did, they'd know it's not all sterilized lab settings, radiation-induced mutations, mutagen injections and freaky hybridization. People have been genetically selecting and breeding organisms since the beginning of agriculture.

Purplebunnysarah

tomteboda wrote: »

tamms_1965 wrote: »

My real problem with some GMOs is the fact that they're engineered to stand up to large amounts of pesticides. I don't want any extra Roundup on my plate.

They're actually designed to use LESS pesticide and herbicide, with fewer applicators necessary, than conventional farming. This is why they're so attractive to farmers.

Plus, a good portion of the Roundup is gone within one rainfall after application...

(Modern pesticides are designed to break down quickly in the environment. Sun & rain take care of most of it, and soil bacteria handle the rest...)

ConeheadAlpha

I believe lab modifications could potentially be hazardous, but not in the way it is currently being used. People hear "potentially hazardous" and then companies relying on smaller farms use those words as a scare tactic to retain their business.

Aaron_K123

ConeheadAlpha wrote: »

I believe lab modifications could potentially be hazardous, but not in the way it is currently being used. People hear "potentially hazardous" and then companies relying on smaller farms use those words as a scare tactic to retain their business.

Well yeah, genetic engineering is dangerous in the way a hammer is dangerous. Both are tools, both could cause potential harm if misused. That said I haven't yet seen the movement to have all products made in part utilizing hammers labeled hammer-made-objects (HMOs) by federal mandate. People have the right to know!

If Monsanto misused genetic engineering (GE) tech then go after Monsanto, not GE itself. If a serial killer bludgeon people to death with a hammer you prosecute the serial killer, you don't start labeling things made with hammers.

The whole GE-labeling push just seems so bizarre and misguided to me. GE is just a tool okay...it's not magic.

Sloth2016

What is all this ruckus about Genetically Modified Orgasms, anyway?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWB1wxxfZuA

rml_16

cee134 wrote: »

Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?

Yes or no? Please explain.

Yes.

seekingdaintiness

Yes, it's just part of the ridiculous hippie anti-modernism cult.

JDixon852019

I have never encountered an actual scientist that is afraid to eat GMO food.

alisonadame

How do you explain the astronomical rise in deadly food allergies? We are seeing numbers now that were unheard of before the proliferation of GMO foods. So the lunches that we were raised on (PB&J) are virtually outlawed in my children's schools.

Genetic modification is NOT the same as cross-breeding within species! A labradoodle is still a dog. Taking fish genes and splicing them with tomato genes is creating a new life form that Nature did not intend. To assume that that is a safe practice is incredibly careless. Why do you think so many countries have outlawed GMO foods? It's because is has not yet been proven to be safe. So why do Americans think they can take chances with their health?

Aaron_K123

brhollifield wrote: »

I am not here to stir the hornets nest and I probably won't come back after posting this because I really don't want to read all the hate and vile directed at me but the problem is MUCH larger than just " GMO's ... Watch the film GMO OMG and really LEARN about the whole litany of problems associated with GMO's, it really isn't JUST about Genetically Modified crops... it is the fact that these crops are proprietary and the farmers HAVE to buy them and can't replant the seeds and the poison that is put into these crops so that they can be sprayed with RoundUp that you then eat, or the cow or pig or chicken eats and then that goes into your body... not to mention the run off from these crops that are killing our oceans... I have read a lot about this, watched a lot of documentaries, listened to podcasts ( BOTH sides of the argument, unbiased ) and I keep coming back to the same conclusion that GMO's are BAD for the farmer, BAD for the environment and BAD for your body... I am NOT some liberal, tree hugging hippie but I sure wouldn't go out to the shed and start drinking RoundUp and that is basically what you are doing when you ingest these " Products "... think about it - should corn need a Patent?

This is the debate section of the forum...if you have no interest in debate, why are you even here? Not sure much point in responding if your just posting and leaving.

Do you honestly think the propoganda piece GMO OMG is unbiased?

Aaron_K123

jrulo16 wrote: »

I have never encountered an actual scientist that is afraid to eat GMO food.

Well...you still haven't.

Aaron_K123

Taking fish genes and splicing them with tomato genes is creating a new life form that Nature did not intend.

What? No...not at all.

All life shares the same genetic code and the genomes of organisms are a flowing continum. This is why one can expect that when they take a gene currently in a particular bacterium and insert it into a particular plant that it will transcribed, translated and the protein function in the same fashion as in the bacterium. If organism were truly unique little islands unto themselves why would that even work. It works because all life on this planet uses the same language. Hell the shikimate pathway glyphosate targets in plants is of bacterial origin in the first place. If you intentionally insert a gene from a bacterium into a tomato... it is still a tomato, at no point have I even heard someone suggest it would be the creation of new life...where did you even get that from?

Organisms aren't little islands eternally seperated, life is flow. Putting a bacterial gene into a tomato doesn't make it a new species because tomatoes already have genes from bacteria....the shikimate pathway itself is of bacterial origin. Our own genome is no different. Life borrows working concepts and pieces them together, our genome today is an amalgum...pieces all found elsewhere and not somehow unique.

Just as an example around 7% of the human genome is sourced from viral DNA. I'm not talking from billions of years ago via evolution either I mean current epoch endogenous retro viral DNA. Does that somehow make us a new species? Of course not...that isn't what defines speciation.

Genetic engineering isn't witchcraft okay...we aren't creating life, far from it. I think you are picturing this technique having far more power than it actually has.

ETA: I want to add something for emphasis. Note that I said a gene from bacteria or a gene from a tomato not a bacteria gene or a tomato gene. That is because there aren't "tomato genes" there are a specific collection of genes that comprise a tomato. Individual genes in a tomato (or functional homologues) can be found in thousands if different species many of which aren't even plants. There aren't "dog genes" there are only genes that are found in dogs in this particular slice of time. What would a "dog gene" even be? If you took a gene from dogs (a "dog gene") and put it into a cat it would still be transcribed and translated because it isn't a dog gene, it's a gene you just happened to source from a dog. That might seem semantic but it's actually a very meaningful distinction.

CSARdiver

Here's an article written toward the non-scientific community explaining the fallacies on media reporting of GMOs:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-consumers-be-worried-about-genetically-modified-food/the-pervasive-myth-that-gmos-pose-a-threat

Rage_Phish

love dumb people talking about things they have a poor understanding about