GMOs Don't Hurt Anyone, But Opposing Them Does

Phage
reply to post by crankyoldman
If it wasn't a good product, it wouldn't be in such widespread use.

So this means you agree that high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame, and fluoride are all "good products"?

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

Do GMO companies produce plants whose seeds do not germinate, forcing farmers to buy new seeds from said companies?

No, no "terminator" seeds are currently sold. But the seeds they buy are licensed. Legally farmers cannot save seeds in order to plant crops for sale. This practice began before there were any GM crops.

Also, is there any danger of plants with non-germinating seeds taking over an ecosystem and forcing the non-GMO plants into extinction?

Since there are no "terminator" seeds in use the question is moot. But think about that idea for a moment.

You have a field of corn. How does that corn get pollinated in order to produce ears? It gets pollinated by other corn plants. Now lets say someone else in your area is somehow growing "terminator" corn (even though the seeds are not sold). Which plants are more likely to pollinate your corn? The plants in your field, or the plants in your neighbors field? Can the GM plants pollinate yours? Sure, it's possible. So you might get a few kernels of "terminator" corn in some of your ears.

So, assuming that you are one of those farmers who doesn't buy patented hybrids you save some of your crop to plant next season. The vast majority of your seeds were pollinated by your own plants. Most of them will germinate (some won't for various reasons). But some of your seed is the result of pollination by the "terminator" plants. So, assuming that the terminator gene is a dominant gene, those seeds don't germinate. But most of your seed will germinate. The "terminators" are by definition, incapable of multiplying and taking over an ecosystem.


But risk of cross pollination is not high. There is no more than there is of any other plant doing so. Hybrid plants have been used in agriculture for a long time. There doesn't seem to be major problem with cross pollination.

This is an old article, but as far as I know it's all still relevant. If not, please point out specifically what's been proven otherwise.

Malnutrition is said to be high in rice-eating populations. But these nutritional problems are not caused directly by the consumption of rice. They reflect an overall impact of multiple causative factors similar to those of other developing countries where rice is not a major staple.8 Various deficiencies including zinc, vitamin C and D, folate, riboflavin, selenium and calcium occur in the context of poverty, environmental degradation, lack of public health systems and sanitation, lack of proper education and social disparity. Poverty and lack of purchasing power is identified as a major cause of malnutrition.9 These underlying issues that can never be addressed by golden rice.

Although animal sources are expensive, inexpensive plant food sources are widely available. It only takes two tablespoonfuls of yellow sweet potatoes, half a cup of dark green leafy vegetables or two-thirds of a medium-sized mango in a day to meet the vitamin A requirement of a pre-school child.11 This way, not only is the vitamin A requirement being addressed, but a whole range of other micronutrients as well.

With what has been shown so far, 300 grams of golden rice can only provide at most 20% of an adult’s daily vitamin A requirement (see graph). A child would have a lower requirement of 450 µg retinol as against 500-600 µg retinol for adults.12 But 300 g of rice a day is way too much for a child. In the Philippines, pre-school children consume less than 150 grams of rice a day. In principle then, golden rice will only supply a little over 10% of the daily vitamin A needed by pre-school children. And children are the target population in this case.

Some reports claim that the conversion rate is less than one-quarter of what has been assumed up to now. Should this be the case, the amount of vitamin A made available from golden rice would be almost negligible.

According to Dr. Mae Wan Ho, vitamin A poisoning has been known to result from excessive beta-carotene intake in food. Allergenicity has also been raised as a possible issue. Daffodil, which is the source of the genes for the beta-carotene rice, is responsible for an allergic reaction which manifests as "daffodil picker’s rash" in some people.

While many doubt the ability of golden rice to eliminate vitamin A deficiency, the machinery is being set in motion to promote a GE strategy at the expense of more relevant approaches. The best chance of success in fighting vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition is to better use the inexpensive and nutritious foods already available, and in diversifying food production systems in the fields and in the household.

SOURCE

reply to post by AlliumIslelily


So, in the same article: It says that the amount of vitamin A in golden rice is insufficent to be of much use, and that golden rice is dangerous because it may cause vitamin A poisoning?

It seems the figures used in that rather old article are somewhat...off. Here's a fairly recent study.

These results show the potential for a much more advantageous bioconversion rate than achieved from any other known crop-based source of -carotene. Furthermore, they imply that Golden Rice could probably supply 50% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of vitamin A from a very modest amount—perhaps a cup—of rice, if consumed daily. This amount is well within the consumption habits of most young children and their mothers.

asn-cdn-remembers.s3.amazonaws.com...

reply to post by Phage


Yeah, your source seems more reliable. My source says the Vitamin-A poisoning comes from too much beta-carotene. I researched a bit more and found that this claim is silly, because beta-carotene is preferred to straight Vitamin-A because it is extremely difficult to overdose on beta-carotene as your body only converts what it needs.

+1 to you!

GMO supporters like to ignore research that doesn't support their claims. I like this short Youtube vidio because it pokes holes in so many of the GMO proponents claims. I tried to get the vid to post but it errorred out in the preview, so sorry if it doesn't work here, but I did leave the URL to copy and paste.

www.youtube.com...

(on the edit: I deleted the non-working vid window)

reply to post by Orygun

"Busted" Myth #5. Note the use of the term "intrinsic yield". That means that an individual GM plant (in the case of their study, corn) does not produce more kernals than a non-GM plant. True. But that is a very narrow definition. The actual yield is the amount of crop produced for a given cost and acerage. GM crops can, and do show higher crop yields than non-GM crops. That is why farmers use them. And it is, after all, the farmers who buy the GM seeds. Right? Why would they choose to grow GM crops if they didn't get higher yields? magicvalley.com...

"Busted" Myth #4. It's sort of silly to claim that, since plants develop resistance to glyphosate, it means that more glyphosate must be used. If plants (crops or weeds) are resistant, it doesn't matter how much glyphosate you apply. But the fact is, weeds have been developing resistance to herbicides since herbicides were first used. Since before there were GM crops. And, in comparison the other herbicides, glyphosate is a pussycat.

"Busted" Myth #3. GM crops are not tested for safety. Here is an interesting article (pointed out in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... ). A review of more than 1,700 studies.

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

www.geneticliteracyproject.org...

"Busted" Myth #3. Please provide an example of anyone saying that genetic engineering is the same as traditional hybridization. It's a strawman argument.


"Busted" Myth #1. I don't have any problem with labeling. If a majority of people want it, they should have it. But I understand that labeling will create the impression that there is something inherently wrong with GM products, an impression that lacks supporting evidence. I also don't think that mandatory labeling will accomplish what its proponents claim it will. The result will be a multitude of products which say "may contain GM materials". How does that inform the consumer? Don't you think a voluntary, "non-GM" label would be more helpful? Could it be that the anti-GM crowd isn't really interested in informing the consumer? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Busted Myth #5 is supported by comparisons of yields from the same acreages over time. GMOs often have an initial higher yield on their acreage but that yield dwindles over time as the glysophate in the soil begins locking up more and more of the micronutrients the plants need until at last the yields are not as good. When compared to organic or traditional crops, the increase in yields has been less with GMO crops. That raises the question of why use GMOs at all considering all the possible problems they create.

Busted Myth #4 is one of your worst arguments. Glysophate resistant super weeds are appearing that wouldn't have appeared if no glysophate were used. Glysophate is no pussycat. It binds the immune system of plants so they can't resist typical soil bacteria and fungi. Those then kill the plant. Just like they cause inflammation in humans that appears to accumulate over time. Studies show pesticide use rises with GMOs.

Busted Myth #3 is where you ignore research done outside of the United States. Deformed rats, deformed uteruses in pigs, depression of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in the human body that lead to all sorts of diseases over time, but not usually in 90 days which is the time frame of all the tests your quote is referencing. The seed companies don't want anyone doing tests that they don't control or this negative information will come out. They go so far as to hire shills to argue that GMOs are safe, and then reference all the tests they did, and controlled, and reported, that show they are safe. They are not safe according to the few long time studies.

Busted Myth #2 is repeated in almost every conversation I hear from GMO proponents whether it is on the web or on tv. If you haven't heard it, then you aren't paying attention. There is a big difference in sexual reproduction versus gene shotgunning. We also don't hear that they have to turn on the gene that creates the bt bacteria toxin in corn but they don't have a mechanism to turn it off. This gene is picked up by your body and incorporated into your alimentary fauna so long after you stop eating bt corn, your body is still producing the bt toxin. That's where the diseases in #3 start.

Busted Myth #1 is obvious. If it's a good thing, people will buy it, if it isn't, they won't. Let the market speak. I have to watch my salt intake. If you don't label how much salt is in your product, I won't buy it. Some people want the salt. Give us a choice. If you are so afraid people won't like your product then something must be wrong with the product.

I used to think GMOs were great until I really looked into them. As a biology major at a university that did a lot of gene splicing I found the concept amazing. The problem is, it isn't gene splicing even, it is shotgunning and the unintended results are ugly. Only long term testing by independent researchers will take the stink off of GMOs.

reply to post by Orygun

GMOs often have an initial higher yield on their acreage but that yield dwindles over time as the glysophate in the soil begins locking up more and more of the micronutrients the plants need until at last the yields are not as good.

Can you provide statistics which support this claim?

When compared to organic or traditional crops, the increase in yields has been less with GMO crops.

Are you sure?
Organic crops are produced on a much smaller scale and are more labor intensive. They cost more to produce. Try growing 300 acres of corn organically. It can be done and the higher cost is reflected by their higher price in the marketplace.

If GM crops were not more productive than "traditional" crops, farmers would not choose to plant them. So maybe you want to blame the farmers instead of Monsanto.

Glysophate is no pussycat. It binds the immune system of plants so they can't resist typical soil bacteria and fungi. Those then kill the plant.

No. That is not how glyphosate functions. It inhibits the activity of an enzyme in the plant and prevents the plant from producing certain amino acids. The plant "starves".
www.casparcommons.org...

Just like they cause inflammation in humans that appears to accumulate over time

Just like what causes inflammation in humans?

Studies show pesticide use rises with GMOs.

I'm sure you are referring to the "study" by Benbrook. His own figures actually show that per acre usage of pesticides has decreased with the use of GM crops.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Busted Myth #3 is where you ignore research done outside of the United States. Deformed rats, deformed uteruses in pigs, depression of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in the human body

Not ignored. Discounted because the "studies" were poorly designed with inadequate controls and poor statistical analysis.

but not usually in 90 days which is the time frame of all the tests your quote is referencing.

Really? Are you sure? Have you reviewed all 1,700+ of those studies?

In any case...

The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations).

Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Busted Myth #2 is repeated in almost every conversation I hear from GMO proponents whether it is on the web or on tv. If you haven't heard it, then you aren't paying attention.

Oh, I pay attention. I haven't heard it claimed that GM is no different from hybridization. What I have heard is that when the "GM isn't natural" argument is used by the anti-GM crowd, the response that hybridization is not natural either. Which is true. GM would not exist without the intervention of people, neither would corn and other hybrids. Busted Myth #2 is a strawman.

Busted Myth #1 is obvious. If it's a good thing, people will buy it, if it isn't, they won't. Let the market speak.

How does a label that says "may contain GM material" help? It doesn't tell you if it has GM material or not.

How is such a system superior to a voluntary system of "non GM" labeling? You don't want GM? Look for the "non-GM" label instead of searching for a box that doesn't say "may contain GM material". A box that's going to be very hard to find.

If you are so afraid people won't like your product then something must be wrong with the product.

No. The concern is that such labeling will create the impression that there is something inherently wrong with GM products. "If they have to label it, there must be something dangerous about it."

The problem is, it isn't gene splicing even, it is shotgunning and the unintended results are ugly.

By repeating that bit of disinformation (and your lack of understanding of how glyphosate functions) you cast into doubt your statement that you had anything to do with any gene splicing experiments. It sounds like you are just repeating the disinfo you've heard about GM crops.

reply to post by Grimpachi


If peeps want to eat GM food then so be it.. I just request we have the choice. They should be labelled...

purplemer
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

If peeps want to eat GM food then so be it.. I just request we have the choice. They should be labelled...

Or better yet, non-GM food can be labeled as such. More effective than "may contain GM".

reply to post by Phage

Or better yet, non-GM food can be labeled as such. More effective than "may contain GM".

Would it would be more effective to label the minority of products as opposed to the majority.

reply to post by purplemer

Since a label saying "may contain GM material" along with the rest of the ingredients listed on a majority of products doesn't actually tell the consumer whether the product actually does contain GM material, yes.

Prominent labeling of "non GM" products would provide better (and easier to find) information for those who are looking for non-GM products. "Buy Me! Non-GM!" Similar to "dolphin safe" tuna.

14 days later and how many more countries, counties and states have banned GMO's..
yet the "local apologist's" pretend to know so much more than the countries, counties and states doing it..

hahahhaaa your losing this fight no matter how hard you try... GMO's suck

reply to post by Grimpachi

Okay. Your source link leads to a reactionary article that doesn't cover much more than, "Those mean old activists are ruining everything."

Some of us try to employ critical thinking on these kinds of issues. Science in the 21st century has almost completely been co-opted by corporate interest. This is especially obvious in the area of agriculture. And while you seem to have convinced yourself that corporations are funding the research behind GMO for the express purpose of ending world hunger, the reality seen by the rest of us is different.

Biodiversity is one of the biggest problems in this issue. And if we assume that these funded scientists made full and conclusive studies on effects, including environmental impact, then we have to admit they foresaw the evisceration of biodiversity that is happening now.

Anyway, I won't do your research for you, but here's an article on loss of biodiversity.

Little mind GMO's use viruses to modify the food. HPV, hand foot and mouth and measles are now in our food supply. Monsanto is evil. Humans were around way before copyright laws and our food was just fine then.

reply to post by Grimpachi


If you think that GMO will stop world hunger and nutrient deficiency you are wrong. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone already. The problems we have are related to food distribution and economic wealth. So if that is the bases for your defence of GMOs you may as well walk away now.
GMOs are known to alter our DNA when digested. If you want to eat them that is fine it is your choice but they should be labelled so we have the choice. Not force fed to us and not listed on the ingredients..

reply to post by Phage

Since a label saying "may contain GM material" along with the rest of the ingredients listed on a majority of products doesn't actually tell the consumer whether the product actually does contain GM material, yes.

There are many countries that require mandatory labeling of GM foods. It is both plausible to do this and evidently possible..

purplemer
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

If you think that GMO will stop world hunger and nutrient deficiency you are wrong. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone already. The problems we have are related to food distribution and economic wealth. So if that is the bases for your defence of GMOs you may as well walk away now.
GMOs are known to alter our DNA when digested. If you want to eat them that is fine it is your choice but they should be labelled so we have the choice. Not force fed to us and not listed on the ingredients..

OK you are half on topic. This thread is about a real problem that has a real solution. Golden rice can save lives. This isn't about developed nations with supermarkets. There are places in the world that are cut off during rainy seasons. Your socialist idea about distributing the food around the world can not work. Do you really want people to be dependent on food shipments than be able to provide for themselves? Simply planting a different grain of rice would save millions.

As far as you saying GMOs alter human DNA that is pure pseudo science BS there is no evidence for you claim.

Your statement about labeling is off topic here but my opinion on it is I don't care. If people vote for it they should have it but for me it isn't a issue because there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to persuade me to think there is anything inherently wrong with GMO foods. The day there is I will change my opinion but not before.

reply to post by Grimpachi



I am not sure that the rice saves life. A child would need to eat about seven killograms of the stuff a day to get there requirment does. Children only eat a few hundred grams a day.

www.slate.com... html

As far as you saying GMOs alter human DNA that is pure pseudo science BS there is no evidence for you claim

There is evidence...

Foreign genes disrupt the DNA at the insertion site
1. When genes are inserted at random in the DNA, their location can influence their function, as well as the function of natural genes.

2. "Insertion mutations" can scramble, delete or relocate the genetic code near the insertion site.

3. Evaluation of insertion sites have shown relocations of up to 40,000 DNA base pairs, mixing together of foreign and host DNA, large scale deletions of more than a dozen genes and multiple random insertions of foreign DNA fragments.

responsibletechnology.org...

My ideas about distribution are nothing to do with Socialism. It is a fallacy to say this will save lives. Peeps that need it will not be able to afford it. Just like there are methods to provide clean water yet they are not used due to information and economic barriers. What makes you think this will be any different.