Debate of the Day 2: Is Genetically Modified Food overall good or bad?

Oy that's a tough subject that I don't know much about.

 

It's tough because GM foods can be a benefit by making the crops more productive and thus feeding more people - essentially making farming more efficient.  Then again, your GM crops can cross-pollinate with similar non-GM crops, and from what I understand some people are concerned that we don't know all the effects that genetically modifying a crop will have.

 

I would say as long as it's done reasonably carefully and the modified crops are thorougly studied before being sent into production (as is probably the case), then I would say overall GM food is a net positive because of its increased efficiency (be it growing larger plants or disease or pest resistant, etc.).  You know me - I'm all about efficiency!

Edited by dana1981 - Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:02:35 UTC

I'll have to agree with Dana on this one. I don't bees knowin much about dis. But, I was just thinking, it sounds like a good idea for a movie, like The Sixth Day or something.

 

The religious naysayers is right and people start mutating into something...but what? ooooh.

 

John

 

That's always a good way to win a debate!

 

Yeah, I'm sticking to my story!

Dual purpose post - more use of the YouTube button and VERY educational content...it's 7 minutes long, so I put a quick summary below:

 

 

 

• Providing exclusively GM food to animals led to countless sick, sterile, and dead animals and other unpredicted side effects
• GM foods are bred to resist herbicides and also to produce their own pesticides
• Most pervasive in soy, corn, cotton, and canola - already infiltrated in 70% of our foods
• When GM soy was introduced in the UK, reports of soy allergies in the population shot up 50%
• As an example, if you look at tomato sauces and see soybean oil and high fructose corn syrup, chances are it's GM - olive oil is not GM
• Be aware- Seedsofdeception.com

 

I definitely learned some stuff.

Edited by deej - Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:53:54 GMT

 

Edited by stins - Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:49:07 GMT

Hey Wal-Mart - there's another good debate topic.

Whoops, we had a little issue where I accidentally posted over my other post.

 

The Wal-mart reference from Dana is referring to an earlier post where I stated that the GM food issue reminds me of my feelings for Walmart. By making lots of cheap stuff, they have improved quality of life for millions of people, but they have also decimated American companies and in order to create volume at low prices aren't exactly encouraging quality manufacturing and business practices.

 

Similarly with GM food, you can make WAY more of it, make it heartier so it travels better, etc., but there are also many consequences.

 

Still, if I have to choose, because there are millions starving around the world, I say we keep working to perfect GM food. That was the gist.

Haven't human beings been genetically modifying our food and animals since well, forever?

 

It doesn't have to be in a lab with electron microscopes and white lab coats...

 

Crops - we've learned how to cultivate and germinate plants, to increase crop yield.

 

Flowers  - how are new flowers created? splicing and cross breeding.

 

Livestock - horses and cows were smaller in the middle ages, selective breeding has changed that.

 

Dogs - every breed of dog was created for a purpose

 

So really the debate might be what level of genetic modification is good or bad?  I think cross breeding/pollination is alright because that kind of stuff happens in nature.  But injecting an embryo with some new protein or altering the DNA strands, well, that gets pretty scarey.

The man makes a good point!

This is an interesting debate. I think the issue has many different points of view, both with pros and cons on a local level and a global level.

 

My opinion about gen mod is that when you mess with Mother Nature, you get burned.

 

Another effect of gm foods/seeds/pesticides are Monsanto's gm seed ownership rights and Nestle Corp's profiting from it. I found this documentary (subtitled in english) that really put everything in this debate, as well as the animal rights, gmo, organic, etc. debates into a different point of view to consider. In my opinion, this documentary pulls back the curtain a bit more for us to see the larger picture of the debate.

 

The documentary can be found on google video under the title "We Feed The World" it's 95 minutes. Here's the address:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5354802923061496135&q=we+feed+the+world&ei=MRk4SJrQC47k4AL12sDRAw

 

 

Genetic engineering is the reason why the world ISN'T starving anymore.

 

Here's an anecdotal story from my own personal experience:

 

I love tomatoes. I eat them like fruit. It doesn't matter if they're organic or not; I'll wash them well and eat them. When I visited my brother in my home country last year, I noticed that he peeled the tomato skin before making a salad. I asked him why. He said the farmers there use so many pesticides (this is southern Europe and everything is organic) that it's not safe to eat the skin no matter how well you wash it.

 

I'll take my GM tomatoes, thank you very much.

Hulu currently has "The Future of Food" playing. It is a free site, I think everyone should watch!

It is a bit more one sided than some of the other documentaries I've seen on GM foods, but there are some very good points:
Gene patenting, the suicide gene, the fact that no American GM foods increase nutrition and some even lower it...

Thanks for the tip - I wanted to see The Future of Food - I always forget that Hulu has so much cool stuff.

 Thanks for the documentary recommendations.  I loved "The Future of Food" recommendation, I just finished and it's really worth watching. 

  This is a difficult topic to elaborate on in a few sentences.  To define a "Net Positive" or "Net Negative"  is per ones perspective in this subject because the research and information runs so deep and touches on a very sensitive subject for many sides of humanity.
  On one side, I don't believe any starving person would care either way, the food still brings them life (for the most part). How could that be bad?  On the other side, the entities responsible for 'GM' don't have the best interest of the starving (or even their 'customers' apparently heh) in mind.  The profitability of providing food to the human race raise many ethical questions and I believe the solution to using 'GM' properly for the benefit of humanity and not shareholders or capitalist entities or ventures lies in answering these ethical questions.  For me, there is not much of a question on the value of human life, it's priceless.  I think if GM could be used under non-profit entities only, it could be used and studied a lot more responsibly with all life held in highest regard.  Otherwise, right now the technology and research used seems to be not only hurting humans but killing them.  It needs to stop going in that direction or stop completely.  These are just some of my thoughts.  Interesting topic, thanks.

 

  

Edited by Russ - 2/3/10 at 10:57pm

And it looks like I get to follow Russ again. Not Intensional believe me.
Point one all therse modified crops have had very little testing.
Those anti- insect things added to seeds for instance.
It is a  known fact that insects adapt and become immune to any human chemicals that onnce controled them.

They may well be doing that again with these crops.

I just read mon santo is bringing out an entirely new seed line/

Why? Do we knows the4 rweal reason?
Possibly because those bugs are now becoming immuned to the old line.
By the way that old line way so stricked that farmers were never allowed to keep even one seed for themselves
And these foods that are produced We are not even able to read if the cereal we buy came from those modified seeds.
and what happens if say even oone of these  food sources becomes a human killer?
Will anyone say a Monsanto be held res[ponsible and spend timme behind bars? Or even fined? Doubtful.
We have a new old way of raising crops . without chemicalls of anykind.
There are many small farmers today raising clean healthier food crops.
Yes you pay a little more at the store, but you know that your food will not injure you.
Funny isn't it ? I find myself on the otherside of the debate  being against these new ideas of Monsantos.
I guess the reason is ,because we know so little about these seeds.
Everything is kept secret. Could there be dark secrets known by Monsanto that have never even been mention?
Much like those tabacco companies of 40 and \50 years ago.
I still rember that heeadline about butterflies killed by tghe hundreds of thousand right next tgo one of those experiment I believe corn fields.
Oh it was deniedtthey were the cause ,only by that company, and then it was buried.
Are these type of things going on right now? How can we know?
Those mkissing Bees ? oh they  finally came up wiith another expplanation but the bees are still missing evdery year.
And if it turned out that these  frankin crops are the culpret?
We should not let one or a few coorporatiuons contro;l our and the world's food supply
I do  agree with another poster about tryinng to fool Mother Nature. We will pay for our actions.
Got To  Go
  Mike
 

'We have a new old way of raising crops . without chemicalls of anykind.'   İs that right? Must be a state secret as no one except you has heard of it. Even organic farms use pesticides and then they are allowed special permission to use the not so safe stuff. 
 
There are many small farmers today raising clean healthier food crops.  Again, would be news to the world if it was correct but then it isn't so--- İf people want organic it is fine by me and İ am all for it. The false claims are another thing.

Yes you pay a little more at the store, but you know that your food will not injure you. You know that do you? Foolish fellow!

Not to worry Mike - you are never on the right side of anything so why change now.

İ still rember that heeadline about butterflies killed by tghe hundreds of thousand right next tgo one of those experiment I believe corn fields You are good at remembering ultra green BS aren't you. 

İn typical loony tune fashion the bee problem somehow gets thrown in here.

İ have to congratulate you though Mike - not many can spout so much illogical nonsense and stuff it in a short note with spelling and grammar that would get any first grader into the soup. Have a talk to Rham - he understands your type!

This documentary caught my ear because they did focus on Monsanto, and the fact that they started out in herbicide, then they bought up several seed companies, plus suddenly it was legal to patent life, and they went into the seed storage facilities and started running to the patent office making sure that they owned every right to all these seeds. This was scary because they own that seed and any plant in the future that ever produces a genetically similar seed! They mentioned the lawsuits against farmers all over North America because Monsanto, after conducting searches found that these farmers had some of their RoundUp seed growing in their fields. Even if it blew into their field, it belonged to Monsanto. The courts forced the farmers to comply with the patent law, were heavily fined in most cases, and now they are required to buy new seed every year instead of growing their own because of the chance that another RoundUp seed might get planted.

I think the argument was that if genetic modification hadn't occurred, then there wouldn't be all these patent issues forcing farmers to lose their right to replant their own seeds. (Even though it was a genetically modified bacteria that was originally the cause for this change in patent practice) They had a point that the ability to reuse seeds is one of the ways that foreign farmers survive without heavy gov't subsidies. So its economic too. The US lost $3million/year on exports to Japan because of GM crops. (Hence the sudden corn crisis a few years back and the popularity hike of ethanol)

The way America is going about GM foods is where I find the negative adding up. I wrote about another film (can't remember the name) in another thread, but the other film talked about another side of GM, and the hundreds of thousands in Africa who starved one year because the corn the US sent was GM and state officials heard that Europe was rejecting it, so they did too, during a famine...

Protesters burn the fields in the UK to prevent any research on GM foods, which I find a little extreme. I see the danger of growing GM in open fields, though. However, this other film also showed their work with making common fruits and vegetables more healthy by crossing DNA with other fruits and vegetables. Low income families who consume less variety of veggies would be capable of getting the needed nutrition. This makes more sense, but should be much more thoroughly tested. American GM crops do not increase nutrition value, they don't even have enough testing to see if they are safe (Remember the taco shell scare in 2001-GM corn not approved for humans got into the other corn). My conclusion is that at the present moment, it has a pretty big negative side. I think that there should be much more testing, and required labeling so that those of us who care what we put in our bodies can make choices (without buying everything 100% organic).

I do see the positives, but I don't see enough of them and the US is hiding the negatives...

I agree with srj0385 "the US is hiding the negatives." I'm not a GMO expert by any means and to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel in total about GMO foods because I can see the pros as well as cons (at least from all the debates I've heard/read) and also someone way above (spyboy I believe) said something about naturally modified plants which was a good point, because gardeners have been modifying their own small crops for years without major problems.

But back to srj0385's comment, the major issue I have with created anything (drugs, food, products) is that I don't trust the gov or companies to keep our best interests in mind, not when anything having to do with economics is on the line. Scientists and organizations are wrong all the time and change their minds often or a new study will come out and blow everything we thought away. It's sort of like birth control pills or the recent vaccine issues or nonstick cookware or antibacterial soap - stuff is safe, wait no it's not, wait yeah it is, hold up - maybe it's safe in limited amounts!

All the back and fourth on issues is very frustrating. I don't think we know enough yet to call it either way but eventually maybe someone will find out that it's no good for whatever reason, and since you can choose non GMO right now, why not? I don't think there's anything wrong with playing it safe if you don't have enough info yet.

Good point Jennifer.

I also forgot to mention the issue of reducing biodiversity. It will be a scary day when we only have one type of crop growing in the US because of all these patent issues and then that plant falls victim...

I so wish I didn't kill every plant I try to grow. I'd grow my own! New year, new spring, I'm trying again anyways!!!!

I kill all my houseplants but I'm a good outdoor gardener - except for tomatoes, which just don't go well for me. It's unexplainable. Maybe I'll post on how to get an organic garden started. That's the best way to get veggies if you've got the space IMO. Although, I don't agree that it's cheaper, like many people claim. At first organic gardening has some fairly large start up costs. Especially when you consider the time involved.

@srj0385 - İ don't know about the documentary and the lawsuits you mentioned - much if not all of that has been shown to be propaganda. As in any highly charged debate, both sides are rather free with their version. İn the case of GMO items the green side really freaks out İ believe. İ tend to go along with Jennifer's statement about not trusting the big boys too much. They tend to get what they think is good for them personally mixed up with what is good for all of us.

As with everything else/areas in life - science is moving ahead. Virtually all fruits you eat are cloned - the only way to get an exact reproduction of the apple, pear, peach you want - none of those crops are grown from seed. The heirloom tomatoes are far from nature. We really have to make progress on the food front as the population is growing and will keep growing - as survival rates in the 3rd world improve the population will continue to increase. Business as done the past few thousand years won't get it.

Seed crops such as grains - İ remember some 55 years back my father planting Elmer wheat for the first time - the seed was sterile so you could not replant your own harvest. Turned out to be no big deal as the production with the new seed was much better - everyone lost interest in saving seed.

For commercial farming, from small farmer on up, using your own seed is not attractive. The commercially provided seed is stronger, truer and produces better. Last time İ heard of doing that was 50 plus years back.

For subsistence farmers (3rd world) - they can still save the seed and their rights to do so are generally protected by law - regardless of scare tactics used on this point. 

İn İndia the politicians play with the words when elections come around and forget all about it a day after the election. Politicians often get the peasants to burn some fields (preferably with natives in them - makes better press), burn a McDonalds or two and whatever else they think they can tie to advanced agriculture. Advanced agriculture being using anything other than a sharp stick.

The EU types go bonkers anytime you have the three letters (GMO) in the same sentence. The past week the crisis was that some organic cotton from İndia was found to not be pure. Of course not - in İndia you can get you mother certified as dead when she is standing beside you for a couple of dollars - less if you are a repeat customer. One of my complaints about carbon trading in Asia is just that - certifications are meaningless.

Re UK demonstrations and field burning - İn Europe civil insurrection (İ am not talking about simple demonstrations) seems to be an acceptable form of social expression. İf your team loses a football match it is perfectly understandable to go burn down something and knife a few people. A different concept of acceptable behavior plus law and order altogether!
Edited by Russ - 2/7/10 at 9:15am

We have been genetically modifying our foods for thousands of years without too many bad side effects.  Anytime we cross pollinate foods that weren't doing so naturally we are modifying.  Now, that's not to say there haven't been bad consequences.  Remember what happened in Asia when we started processing their rice for them?  How many people died from lack of nutrition because we didn't anticipate the consequences.
My biggest fear is that the current food GM leaders are not interested in maintaining the genetic diversity.  Short term goals of increasing production may not be the best long term solutions.  Along comes a new variety of bug or plant disease and we could have a disastrous consequences.  We'll be chasing cures to food production the way we chase cures to the annual flu.  I for one do not like the idea that they cut it that close.

No İ don't remember that people died due to processed rice. İ expect it is one of the ghosts that the barber told the maid who told the driver about.



 
Edited by Russ - 2/26/10 at 11:20am

@Bamboo Jones - do you have a viable link (not a blog or op piece, but an actual reported piece) to something that states a bunch of people suffered in Asia due to the rice issue? I'm interested in seeing it. Thanks, and welcome to EcoHuddle :)

I remember reading something similar to that in my anthropology class a few years back. It was regarding the much lower nutrition value in our white rice than in their native rices. And when you have an entire population of people who pretty much only eat rice, it became a huge issue...or so I heard.

Interestingly, after a few minutes of searching, all I could find was that rice creates malnutrition because of a lack of thiamine and that this causes a disease (Beriberi) that kills. The only article I found under the search "American rice death malnutrition" was actually about deaths in a Haiti prison. It is customary to scrub rice apparently in Haiti, and this process washes off the thiamine and other vitamins that American rice has sprayed onto its surface.


Without the added enrichment, our rice has little nutrient, so washing it makes it basically a filler which fed the inmates but gave them no nutrition. (Another article including the same incident.)

I guess I can see where this is the same argument as destroying diversity. If nutritious, native plants are being lost and forgotten due to poverty, subsidies, and other issues like GM crops, we really aren't thinking logically about the future of our food sources.
Edited by srj0385 - 3/5/10 at 1:49pm

One thing that article praising the  'Haitians' own sustainable agriculture' fails to mention - the main reason for imports is the local rice production is too little to feed the population. They dance around that point.

Having half acre plots and doing all work by hand is neither productive nor sustainable. Cute to talk about at NGO meetings but not much else.

Actually, the person sitting in the States or Europe making that statement is far less concerned about Haitians dieing than the form in which they do it. They really should have the consideration to starve to death in a sustainable manner?