Genetically Modified Foods/Organisms

Genetically modified foods/organisms, better known as GMO's or GMF's are organisms in which their DNA have been altered in a artifically way.

An example of GMO's we see nowadays are Green Giant corn (canned corn with muscular green corn man on the label,) pomatoes (tomatoes on top, potatoes in roots) and also, golden rice just to name a few. (rice engineered to contain carotene, Vitamin A to be more clear to fight off vitamin-a deficiency.)

I am against GMO's.

The first reason why is because of the monopoly.
Companies who create them, such as Monsanto engineer them to:
1. Be compatible with only official fertilizers and pesticides also made by Monsanto. In other words, you can not use the ones made by other companies, as you can not play xbox 360 games on a ps3.
2. They have the terminator gene, which technically chemically castrates the plants, unallowing to reproduce more seeds. Thus, farmers who buy them must by the seeds over and over again

The second, and even bigger reason why is because of their potential harms.
I'm not trying to bore you, so I'll just tell you the "who's" the "what's" and the results.
1.
Who: European GMO company.
What: Tried to engineer a bacteria wheat so that its residues would decompose and automatically make alcohol, leaving a phosphorus, magnesium, sulfur +alpha good materials fit to be used as fertilizers, so that there would be no wheat waste at all.
Result: The bacteria had levels of alcohols too toxic for the wheat, got it drunk and killed it. Turns out that if we ate that wheat, the modified bacteria in it would make alcohol out of what we are digesting in our stomachs. It would reproduce, so ta-daa, you never have to be drunk to eat again
^ This is only from vague memory, I'll try to find an article and post it to those who want more specific information

2.
Who: Monsanto
What: Rats were fed a type of Monsanto corn for 90 days
Results: developed reactions, which commonly relate to responses to allergies, diseases like cancer, infections and blood pressure related problems + alpha

3.
Who: I forgot, calgene or sometohing
What: Rats were fed GM tomatoes engineered to be fresh for weeks for 28 days
Results: Got internal bleeding problems in the stomach.

When GMO's are made, the scientists just randomly poke around with their DNA propertys, because we don't fully understand it yet.
Let's say that there's a string of DNA, A-G-B-G-A (sorry I don't even know what a DNA string consists of)
Try removing A, and what do you know; it makes the plant grow bigger.
Replace B with G, it grows a penis.

That's how it is. DNA strings are randomly modified, and the results are tested on rats. If no harms are visible, they are released for production.

The scary thing is, we are never sure if the GMO's in production are actually harm-free or not. Like stated before, these harms didn't surface immediately; they surfaced after weeks of testing.

We've only eaten GMO's for 10 years now.
The beverages we drink, the corn syrups used to make them are probably the Green Giant corns, which are GMO's. They haven't shown us any harm yet.
But do you know?
In the early 1900's, smoking and nicotine was actually promoted. We vageuly knew about cancer then, and both did not show any immediate harms, and were believed to be good for your body. But what do you know; smoke for about 15 years and you get a disease which will kill you soon.

Well, that's about it.

Are there anybody arguing in proposition of GMO's?
I would love to hear your arguments

 

Just to clarify:

What's done with GM foods is that a particular gene is isolated from the DNA of a donor organism, parsed from the strand, multiplied using PCR or some other technique, cultured in E. Coli, and then inserted into the receiving organism.

Also, DNA strands are not simply randomly cut. It is known approximately which strands code for which gene, and hence one has to plan which restriction enzyme one will use to remove a particular gene from the strands.
Hence, after being transferred / modified and re-inserted into the organism, the plant is cultured and tested to see what changes it has undergone.

As the companies producing the foods do want to avoid expensive lawsuits and withdrawals of products, I believe they will attempt to produce food which is both cheaper to produce and more nutritious or useful in its applications.

 

I believe there will come a time when the vast majority of food are genetically modified even moreso than they currently are. Monsanto currently owns an immense share in the corn industry for the United States. And believe it or not whoever controls the corn supply has the upper hand on agricultural profits. Not only will more and more food become genetically modified in the future due to over population, and more and more consumption, with less and less supply to provide the demand. I also am confident that there will come a time when cattle used for the meat industry as well as various fish for the fish industries in the US will be gained from those of cloned animals. Cows and salmon I am almost definite will be common clones in the future.

 

I am not asking you what you think will happen to GMO's in the future, but what you think of them.

 

I think very, very lowly of them. Especially upon considering the inevitable amount of toxicity within them. I also dislike the usage of spraying herbicide as well. I believe this alters the surrounding ecosystems already in place. It also has the chance to kill butterfly and bee populations, as well as the livelihood of insects and smaller mammals as well. However as I previously posted, I do think this is and will continue to be how large scale agriculture continues to act. And I don't know about you, but I certainly do not want chemicals induced into my food. The only step up from there would come a day when vaccines and the like are injected into fruit and vegetables as well.
Not to mention, that these same altered crops will then be used to run various other industries. Such as the cattle industry. I am vegan as it is, however I certainly would not want the meat industry tainted with genetically modified feed be it from corn or some other grain.

Organic farming, and buying only organic produce is the way to go.

 

GMO's take too much of a hit than they really deserve. It's "hip" or "cool" to hate GMOs and artificial ingredients; likewise, it's now "cool" or "hip" to be "vegan," "natural," "organic." I don't need data to support this unless you really insist that I find it. Just look at the media, television ads. It's just as cool to be organic as it is to be green.

Every industry that involves chemical manipulation has adverse effects. Think of all the pharmaceuticals out there. These companies test chemicals--both naturally and arteficially prepared--for their effects on specific health problems. Do you really think we should halt all cancer drug research because the effects of a released drug could be harmful? Should we mob a drug research company that is developing easier ways to treat multiple sclerosis?

Obviously, those answers are no. We are protected by the law by these companies; if they ever released a drug that shows adverse effects, the lawsuits that will come will cripple--or even end--the drug company.

The same story applies to GMOs. They are producing food that is cheaper, easier to produce, and more economical. Obviously, they're interested in the bottom line (money, in case you've never taken economics, is the bottom line), so yeah they'll slip in some "terminator genes" or make them exclusive with their own soil. In the end, however, the seed+soil combination is cheaper than any other seed+soil combination because they produce more crops. That's really what matters here. In the end, we "rape" less of Mother Earth's land, use less evil petroleum in the tractors to plant less seed, and we eat more food. Or do you want more of Earth to be ravaged, more evil CO2 to be pumped into the atmosphere by tractors, and more people to starve? I thought you were green--since, like I said, it's as cool to be green as it is to hate GMOs.

 

One can argue with conspiracy theories.

I think that GMOs are things not to be taken lightly.
Who's to say that these genetically altered foods aren't detrimental to our health in the span of 60 years or so?

Are there any studies out there to prove this?
I do not know, but I seriously doubt there are.

Who knows, they could be completely safe.
but the question is posed,

Who knows?

 

We need GM crops. We are going to need GM crops even more so in the near future to feed the growing population. Whatever you say about them being wrong or unnatural - it doesnt matter. The human race is going to need them to survive.

If you think they're so wrong, you can be the one to decide who gets food and who doesn't.

 

Is there even an argument in this? WHO KNOWS?

Get it?


But, seriously, your argument is horrible. You're arguing a wild theory based on no proof, and you even said there is no proof for it? What are you even trying to say?...

 

I agree. the argument was terrible, my excuse is that it was like 3am for me.

but what i'm trying to get at, is what if the GMO's actually are terrible for us?
if you're interested in where i'm posing these questions from, check this out: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

 

Yes, maybe they are not simply randomly cut.
What you have said above is not wrong, but you forgot the fact that we don't understand DNA much yet, or the dangers of modifying them.
And also,

The problem is that these companies are not charities. They are not profit-driven companies, and like I have just said, their sole purposes are earning money, not saving people.
If they actually cared about the safety of their products, they would have spent more than just a few months on testing for their safety.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but in the early 1900's, nicotine was thought to be safe for your body. It was even promoted
But what do you know, people are dropping dead 15~20 years after smoking and we find out that nicotine is bad for the body.

Same applies for GMO's,
if these companies actually cared for the safety of their products, they would have spent 15~20 years on testing to be sure that they weren't just more cigarettes.

Sadly, no we do not. (liked your guide though)

I'll bring new arguments which strictly are against GMO's.
First of all, we DO NOT LACK FOOD AT ALL.
You can see that in the United States; they are producing surplus food.
So much that the amount of obese people rival the amount of the underweight population; the underweight population has decreased to approx 1.1billion while the overweight population has increased to 1.1 billion people.
By international standards, 55% of the US population is overweight.
It's because of all the food they are eating. But even so, there's still enough food to go around.
Also, in South Korea, we have warehouses overfilling with literally tons of sacks of rice, just waiting to be sold, but they just aren't.
What is my assertion in this point?
It is that GMO's will do nothing but produce more food than we have now.

My next argument is about the fact that these underdeveloped countries don't need the special attributes of these GM foods. These are the abilities to grow in harsh enviroments, ones to produce fruits/vegetables/whatever which are larger in size and produce more, just to name a few.
Why?
It is because most of these countries are located near the equator.
Ironically, these areas are the best, most perfect areas for agriculture.
The fact that 3rd world countries are having trouble growing crops is NOT a geographical issue, the problem is that the existance of constant wars and corrupt governments.

Yes, I'm saying that GMO's will not solve world poverty.

 

These posts are severely lacking insight of economics. Your first post is intimating that, by definition, a profit-driven organization is not interested in the safety of its customers. It's very crude to assert this. Profit-incentive does not necessitate exploitation; the majority of companies in any free market earn their profits by honest business rather than exploitation. Citing a potential outcome in the past is also ridiculous. Arthur Gary Bishop murdered five children in 1988, but does that give me any reason to suspect you of murdering anybody? This example--and yours--is a "Hasty Generalization". See http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/.

Your second post mentioned the non-scarcity of foods in this world. This is also economically ignorant. In fact, economics is often described as the study of scarcity. It says that there is always a finite amount of resource. To look at the United States only is a very gross simplification. We only have about 5% of the world's population.

Your second post also mentioned the hoarding of rice in warehouses in South Korea. Whoever gave you this information was a pretty shoddy investigator. We're hoarding rice, wheat, etc everywhere in the world, not just in Korea. It's been going on for nearly a century. Why do we do it? ECONOMICS. The value of most major currencies in the world is dropping (especially the US dollar), so people are investing in a different "currency"--FOOD (called speculating in commodities--see this non-wikipedia citation.) This drives up the price of food, increasing their investment value.

You also mentioned how the third-world "starving" countries cannot grow crops, yet they are located near the equator. I can agree that lacking governments, civil sytems, economies, etc. are the cause of this, though I disagree on your conclusion that "Well, that's that." If something's going wrong and the easy solution isn't really so easy, should we just give up? Why can't we indirectly help by producing more-efficient crops that have little-to-no evidence against them?

Do you really think we're in a good enough economic state right now that we can just "leave well enough alone"?

 

All fantastic points Kero. However, I do take umbrage with your last statement. I'll split it into two.

Do you think we're in a good economic state right now?

Knowing that you're from the U.S. , and I am as well i'm guessing you're referring to the United States. Are we in a good economic state? Compared to our past: No. However, our economy fluxes regularly, so it will peak again after this dip, I have confidence, and history supports me.

...we can just "leave well alone"?

Give me some reasons why I should care about the less fortunate countries. Knowing about the origins of the world, these "less fortunate" areas used to be on top of the world, and due to many factors they fell behind. Over the next two thousand years perhaps they will triumph over us. Point is, I see no reason to slow down the US's progression to stop and help out these less fortunate countries, i'm not sure what else you propose anyways, we do quite a bit for these countries.