GMO foods a good thing or bad?

[river]

Genetically modified organisms. , GMO

Thoughts

Myself. , it looks like a bad thing

 

[river]

GMO's, cause sterility, tumors, and organ damage

 

[Read-Only]

GMO's, cause sterility, tumors, and organ damage

That's an EXTREMELY bold statement! Got anything to back it up with? I certainly doubt it.

And by the way, don't even bother providing links to obvious crank sites - try and find at least ONE that has some degree of integrity.

 

[billvon]

GMO's, cause sterility, tumors, and organ damage

So does "regular" food.

We all eat genetically modified food crops. Not a single vegetable you eat, for example, is the "natural" form of the vegetable. Their genomes are all modified. For a long time the only tools we had were selective breeding, radiation induced mutation and hybridization; nowadays we can use more specific genetic engineering mechanisms to modify the organism's genomes in specific ways.

Any food so modified must be tested (goes for hybridized food as well.) Years ago this testing consisted of "grow a new crop, sell it and see if they get sick." Broccolini is an example; no genetic engineering tricks, just hybridization. Other examples are grapefruit, boysenberries, lemons, oranges, pineapples and cantaloupes. This hybridization doesn't always work out so well; a while back a hybrid form of Bermuda grass started killing cattle when it started producing cyanide.

Nowadays we are a lot more careful about testing our food, especially GMO's. So I wouldn't worry too much about it, provided the testing is done.

 

[kwhilborn]

I myself would shy away from anything engineered to grow faster. I would try items that are simply different, such as seedless watermelons.

I am not even going to guess about medical possibilities.

I do wish they would put as much work into saving dna from vanishing species as they do into creating new species, just in case we eventually stop the trend of killing off our surroundings.

 

[river]

So does "regular" food.

We all eat genetically modified food crops. Not a single vegetable you eat, for example, is the "natural" form of the vegetable. Their genomes are all modified. For a long time the only tools we had were selective breeding, radiation induced mutation and hybridization; nowadays we can use more specific genetic engineering mechanisms to modify the organism's genomes in specific ways.

Any food so modified must be tested (goes for hybridized food as well.) Years ago this testing consisted of "grow a new crop, sell it and see if they get sick." Broccolini is an example; no genetic engineering tricks, just hybridization. Other examples are grapefruit, boysenberries, lemons, oranges, pineapples and cantaloupes. This hybridization doesn't always work out so well; a while back a hybrid form of Bermuda grass started killing cattle when it started producing cyanide.

Nowadays we are a lot more careful about testing our food, especially GMO's. So I wouldn't worry too much about it, provided the testing is done.

"provided the testing is done "

who though is providing " the testing " ?

 

[iceaura]

GMO foods a good thing or bad?

Depends on the food, the modification, and the marketing.

Nowadays we are a lot more careful about testing our food, especially GMO's. So I wouldn't worry too much about it, provided the testing is done.

The testing is not being done, and the GMOs currently marketed have not been carefully tested - we know this because 1) in such a complex situation there hasn't been enough time (consider the economic structures alone - generations to work out) 2) the situation is pioneering, scientifically, full of unknowns we don't even know how to test 3) we keep getting surprised by stuff that testing would have had to have checked to be "careful", and didn't.

Not a single vegetable you eat, for example, is the "natural" form of the vegetable. Their genomes are all modified. For a long time the only tools we had were selective breeding, radiation induced mutation and hybridization; nowadays we can use more specific genetic engineering mechanisms to modify the organism's genomes in specific ways

This Fox News claim is deceptive enough to be called dishonest. Genetically engineered modifications - which include wholesale insertions of large tracts of code brand new to the organism, the phylum, even the planet, and tricked out to abet horizontal mobility - have no track record of experience, no parallel in normal breeding procedures or results, no well-understood parallels in evolutionary history. This is brand new stuff, and not to be dressed up in the costumes of familiar events and procedures.

 

[Read-Only]

"provided the testing is done "

who though is providing " the testing " ?

You're not off the hook. Where is your proof I asked for of the outrageous claims you made???

 

[KilljoyKlown]

This Fox News claim is deceptive enough to be called dishonest. Genetically engineered modifications - which include wholesale insertions of large tracts of code brand new to the organism, the phylum, even the planet, and tricked out to abet horizontal mobility - have no track record of experience, no parallel in normal breeding procedures or results, no well-understood parallels in evolutionary history. This is brand new stuff, and not to be dressed up in the costumes of familiar events and procedures.

I could care less what FOX news claims, but I do know that all wheat and corn have been genetically modified and I eat that stuff every day. Also, it's not that brand new, because it's very big money to produce crops that are disease resistant and more nutritious and can grow in more areas of the world in a broader climate range. It's the way of the world, we need to support ever larger populations and we won't be able to do it with the ordinary crops we started with. If some problems crop up, they can be fixed the same as when problems with original food stuffs happen.

 

[iceaura]

I could care less what FOX news claims, but I do know that all wheat and corn have been genetically modified and I eat that stuff every day. Also, it's not that brand new, because it's very big money to produce crops that are disease resistant and more nutritious and can grow in more areas of the world in a broader climate range.

It's brand new - no one posting here has been eating GMOs for even their whole life, let alone the two or three generations it would take to merely vet the stuff for human consumption, let alone check it out for various ecological and economic effects.

The Irish potato famine was 20 or 30 years after the vulnerable crop had taken over Irish food acreage and become the staple of the diet of the poor. It very often takes generations for an agricultural shoe to drop. That's why after thousands of years farming, and farmers, have come to be by heritage conservative and cautious.

Meanwhile: The GMOs you have been eating were not developed to be more nutritious, more disease resistant, or able to grow in more areas of the world, or able to handle a broader climate range - those benefits are still in the future. (Higher yields, which you did not mention, are also prospective only. The current common GMOs are somewhat lower yielding per acre). You have been eating GMOs designed to resist even heavy applications of herbicides, produce their own insecticides within the plant, handle mechanical picking and industrial harvest circumstances, adapt well to heavy applications of fertilizer and irrigation water, be securely patentable and create dependency on agribusiness supply, etc. These are factors which affect corporate profits, and they have come first. The wonders and benefits will come later, some day, maybe.

As the recent drought in the US showed, for example, the GMOs actually in the fields and farms are less rather than more capable of handling wide variation in climate, growing in a wider variety of circumstances, etc.

 

[scheherazade]

There is some testing and data that demonstrates that GMO drought resistant corn is not superior to the new hybrids that have been developed by conventional agriculture.

UCS used data generated by Monsanto, the developer of biotech "DroughtGard" corn approved by regulators in December and an analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It said Monsanto's corn "does not appear to be superior to several recent classically bred varieties of drought-tolerant corn."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/05/corn-monsanto-idUSL1E8H4JMW20120605

Enough reading about the unfulfilled promises of genetically modified crops at this link to keep one busy for a while, a long while...

http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/gmagric.htm

New report challenges GM industry myths

Tuesday 19 June 2012

The report GMO Myths and Truths is a detailed study covering everything from the genetic engineering technique through to an analysis of the benefits of GM foods and crops. The report is heavily referenced, allowing the reader to determine the validity of the authors’ conclusions. The section on GM crops’ impact on the farm and environment seriously questions the benefits of growing these crops, citing examples of increased pesticide use, pest resistance, inconclusive yield benefits and their value in feeding the worlds increasing population.

It’s a bit of a beast to get through weighing in at over 120 pages, although it’s not the weight that makes for uncomfortable reading but the detailed critique of many of the supposed benefits of GM technology and the fact that these have all been brought together in one report. What makes it even more difficult to ignore is the credentials of the authors concerned, these are not your light-weight anti-everything tree huggers but acclaimed scientists.

http://www.farming.co.uk/news/article/6711

 

[scheherazade]

"provided the testing is done "

who though is providing " the testing " ?

You're not off the hook. Where is your proof I asked for of the outrageous claims you made???

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company's intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects. Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

 

[river]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

It's about time a prominent and respected science journal shouted out loud about GMOs

Scientific American just did, we'll done!!!!!

And no less important was schehefazade making us aware of this article, thank you !!!!

 

[river]

Further

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

 

[river]

The thing is as well the gut of cattle aren't made to digest corn and/or meal products, hence sickness, hence antibiotics to keep them well because of the ramifications of eating grain

Their gut is made to digest grass

 

[Read-Only]

The thing is as well the gut of cattle aren't made to digest corn and/or meal products, hence sickness, hence antibiotics to keep them well because of the ramifications of eating grain

Their gut is made to digest grass

Once again your lack of a good education allows you to shoot yourself in the foot.

In the process of eating grass, cattle often ingest fairly large amounts of grass seed. And guess what? Grass seed is GRAIN!

And it's not only in the fall because practically all grasses produce seed frequently during their growing season.

Perhaps you have another of your favorite WOO-WOO sites (the only kind you will believe) that disputes these facts???

 

[river]

Once again your lack of a good education allows you to shoot yourself in the foot.

In the process of eating grass, cattle often ingest fairly large amounts of grass seed. And guess what? Grass seed is GRAIN!

And it's not only in the fall because practically all grasses produce seed frequently during their growing season.

Perhaps you have another of your favorite WOO-WOO sites (the only kind you will believe) that disputes these facts???

Oh... What a powerful argument against feeding cattle corn, which they can't digest naturally and hence have to be injected with antibiotics because

So are so uninformed about the subject its shameful

And what's worse you believe what you think upon the subject

 

[Read-Only]

Oh... What a powerful argument against feeding cattle corn, which they can't digest naturally and hence have to be injected with antibiotics because

So are so uninformed about the subject its shameful

And what's worse you believe what you think upon the subject

Nope, it's just that your logic is SO flawed that it's actually STUPID!

I ran a cow/calf operation as a sideline to my main career for many years. Not ONCE was my heard "injected with antibiotics" and they ate hay AND corn every single winter.

All you done here is parrot more stupid information that you found on one of your favorite wacky websites.

What I meant in the prior post is that if YOU were BETTER educated you would would not fall for so much of this garbage and misinformation.

 

[river]

Nope, it's just that your logic is SO flawed that it's actually STUPID!

I ran a cow/calf operation as a sideline to my main career for many years. Not ONCE was my heard "injected with antibiotics" and they ate hay AND corn every single winter.

All you done here is parrot more stupid information that you found on one of your favorite wacky websites.

What I meant in the prior post is that if YOU were BETTER educated you would would not fall for so much of this garbage and misinformation.

So are you saying that corn is a natural feed for cattle to digest? Corn is a crop, and a veg. not a grain

 

[Read-Only]

So are you saying that corn is a natural feed for cattle to digest? Corn is a crop, and a veg. not a grain

WOW! Just how dense can an individual be???????????? Corn is not a grain!!!!!!!! Sheesh!!! No wonder you fall for all the nonsense you've read!!