Are GMOs bad for you?

jgnatca

My point is, not too long ago prepackaged meat was "disgusting" because of the fears of contamination. Modern technologies have put those fears to rest, so packaged meat is now "normal".

Engineered meat is very new, and comes with a built in "ew" factor. I can see a day however, where people will consider a little gristle or skin on their meat to be disgusting, and prefer "grown" meat over slaughtered. Never mind the ethical considerations.

Aaron_K123

sydney_bosque wrote: »

Considering it requires you to study biology, chemistry, genetics, and the actual GMO processes, I would say I have a more educated view on them than most who have replied here. My certification in commercial/agricultural pesticide application also helps me understand it better.

But, what do I know? I only have a degree in this stuff.

If credentials are important to you then I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology, I have genetically engineered products myself which have gone into human clinical trials. I am familiar with the tecniques and have at least read up on the ones that the public happens to hate on (ie Monsanto ones such as the introduction of a bacterial shikimate pathway shunt to crops (ie round-up ready) and the one that induced production of an delta-endotoxin in crop plants (BT) neither of which are actually dangerous to humans although one might argue from an enviornmentalist or coroporate power perspective I suppose.

The important point here though is that genetic engineering is just a tool, you cannot evaluate the safety profile of a product solely based on what tools were used in its production. It would be like deciding that you were really concerned about the safety of a specific product that was built using a hammer and therefore cautioned everyone about the potential dangers of hammer-made products. There is nothing inherently dangerous about genetic engineering or products that are made in part utilizing genetically engineering...I think that is the most salient point. The anti-GMO movement is classic fear mongering relying on the old trope of "well we can't know for sure if it is safe" which is a empty statement given it could be said about literally anything and still arguably be true.

Now if we can stop waving our degree-dicks around and just back up what we are saying with information or statements that the general readership can understand I think that'd be appreciated by everyone else. Pardon my language but it is just gross to just throw up your education and point to it like that is your argument and then act all smug about it.

snickerscharlie

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Now if we can stop waving our degree-dicks around and just back up what we are saying with information or statements that the general readership can understand I think that'd be appreciated by everyone else. Pardon my language but it is just gross to just throw up your education and point to it like that is your argument and then act all smug about it.

This. ^^^

And thank you.

AnvilHead

snickerscharlie wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Now if we can stop waving our degree-dicks around and just back up what we are saying with information or statements that the general readership can understand I think that'd be appreciated by everyone else. Pardon my language but it is just gross to just throw up your education and point to it like that is your argument and then act all smug about it.

This. ^^^

And thank you.

^^ Seconded.

Well said, Aaron. As always, you provide valuable insight and knowledge. Thank you.

nvmomketo

jgnatca wrote: »

My point is, not too long ago prepackaged meat was "disgusting" because of the fears of contamination. Modern technologies have put those fears to rest, so packaged meat is now "normal".

Engineered meat is very new, and comes with a built in "ew" factor. I can see a day however, where people will consider a little gristle or skin on their meat to be disgusting, and prefer "grown" meat over slaughtered. Never mind the ethical considerations.

You might be right. Time will tell.

tbright1965

Logic and reason, now cut that out. It's not allowed at MFP.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

If credentials are important to you then I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology, I have genetically engineered products myself which have gone into human clinical trials. I am familiar with the tecniques and have at least read up on the ones that the public happens to hate on (ie Monsanto ones such as the introduction of a bacterial shikimate pathway shunt to crops (ie round-up ready) and the one that induced production of an delta-endotoxin in crop plants (BT) neither of which are actually dangerous to humans although one might argue from an enviornmentalist or coroporate power perspective I suppose.

The important point here though is that genetic engineering is just a tool, you cannot evaluate the safety profile of a product solely based on what tools were used in its production. It would be like deciding that you were really concerned about the safety of a specific product that was built using a hammer and therefore cautioned everyone about the potential dangers of hammer-made products. There is nothing inherently dangerous about genetic engineering or products that are made in part utilizing genetically engineering...I think that is the most salient point. The anti-GMO movement is classic fear mongering relying on the old trope of "well we can't know for sure if it is safe" which is a empty statement given it could be said about literally anything and still arguably be true.

Now if we can stop waving our degree-dicks around and just back up what we are saying with information or statements that the general readership can understand I think that'd be appreciated by everyone else. Pardon my language but it is just gross to just throw up your education and point to it like that is your argument and then act all smug about it.

shaf238

I read this as "GNOs" as in girls night out and was thinking, no they're great!

Aaron_K123

"GMOs" in the common parlance is basically any product be it alive or not that was made in part using the modern molecular biological techniques of genetic engineering. The product is still considered "GMO" even if the product itself is not engineered at all but rather just came from a source that was engineered (ie fructose from a round-up ready corn crop).

So those who are concerned by GMOs are presumably concerned about the use of genetic engineering as a tool. To those who consider "GMOs" to just be dangerous in general lets do a hypothetical because I'm curious as to what you would think about this.

Lets say there was a human disease out there that was caused by the lack of production of a particular protein that circulates in the blood. Humans that didn't produce this protein had to do severe dietary restrictions or face debilitating conditions or even death. Even with the dietary restrictions life was likely to be shortened and come with some debilitating issues.

Clearly if we could just provide these people with the protein they were missing as an injectable they could just inject it regularly and lead a fairly normal life. But how do you get enough of the protein to do that...you can't exactly practically harvest it from humans themselves? Perhaps a closely related species like a farm animal like pigs you could harvest a related protein from their blood and try that. It might work but in a lot of cases it might cause an antibody response as it is a foreign protein and even if it works it would require a lot of animal product which would be quite expensive to produce.

What if, instead, we could take the genetic code for the human protein and put it into bacteria so that the bacteria produced the protein. We could then grow the bacteria very cheaply in huge vats and then harvest and purify the human protein from that. Then we could produce the actual human protein rather than an animal surrogate and we could mass produce it cheaply to be able to supply everyone who suffered from the disease. Of course there would be high standards for purity of the purified protein product and formulation of the injectable and of course there would be the standard clinical tests for safety and efficacy. Would that type of thing be worth trying? Would that sort of product be okay or would that also be too dangerous to even attempt?

What if I told you what I just described wasn't a hypothetical...I was describing the production of insulin for the treatment of diabetes.

So, if you are concerned about the potential safety or environmental issues associated with a specific product I can appreciate that and it make sense to talk about those specific concerns...but don't just create overly generalized terms like "GMO" and talk about how dangerous "GMOs" are when really what you mean is the one or two Monsanto products you've heard of.

mangrothian

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Lets say there was a human disease out there that was caused by the lack of production of a particular protein that circulates in the blood. Humans that didn't produce this protein had to do severe dietary restrictions or face debilitating conditions or even death. Even with the dietary restrictions life was likely to be shortened and come with some debilitating issues.

Clearly if we could just provide these people with the protein they were missing as an injectable they could just inject it regularly and lead a fairly normal life. But how do you get enough of the protein to do that...you can't exactly practically harvest it from humans themselves? Perhaps a closely related species like a farm animal like pigs you could harvest a related protein from their blood and try that. It might work but in a lot of cases it might cause an antibody response as it is a foreign protein and even if it works it would require a lot of animal product which would be quite expensive to produce.

What if, instead, we could take the genetic code for the human protein and put it into bacteria so that the bacteria produced the protein. We could then grow the bacteria very cheaply in huge vats and then harvest and purify the human protein from that. Then we could produce the actual human protein rather than an animal surrogate and we could mass produce it cheaply to be able to supply everyone who suffered from the disease. Of course there would be high standards for purity of the purified protein product and formulation of the injectable and of course there would be the standard clinical tests for safety and efficacy. Would that type of thing be worth trying? Would that sort of product be okay or would that also be too dangerous to even attempt?

What if I told you what I just described wasn't a hypothetical...I was describing the production of insulin for the treatment of diabetes.

But harvesting tonnes of pig pancreas' is so much more natural and must be better for me then the ebil GMOs! But if you go to my website, I have an all vegan, raw, organic juicing diet plan that will reverse your diabetes in 6 weeks! Sooner if you buy my supplements!

It peeves me to no end that most of the fear of GE products is created just so people can sell a product. Whether that product is a diet plan, an organic potato or a political agenda doesn't matter.

In the end, the only way I see a GMO being bad for you is if Jurassic world came to life. I don't want an Indominus Rex rolling around my neighbourhood.