GMOs

[Pikonic]

Genetically Modified Organisms in MY foods!

So as y'all may know by now I'm from CT, and we have become the first state to pass a law requiring food companies to label the existence of GMOs.

You can read about this here

http://stamford.itsrelevant.com/content ... -label-law

Personally I think it's crap despite what my Facebook feed thinks. GMOs aren't a bad thing, without them 1/3 of our population would starve. My boyfriend actually compares it to people who want va.ccines banned (ok, it's not that bad), and that people are "afraid of science".
The labeling law won't stop GMOs from being produced and food companies will keep chugging along just fine.

I need to know where the line of what is and isn't a GMO lies, since we've been basically genetically modifying our food for centuries.
"I'm going to sow the seed from my biggest tomatoes to have bigger tomatoes next year" Genetic Modification!
"I'm going to breed my biggest chickens" Genetic Modification!
"I like my carrots to have a bright orange hue" Genetic Modification!
GMOs aren't scary, you've been eating them for years!

Rant over. Thoughts?

 

[Watcher]

GMO's are necessary

The fact of the matter is you would be shocked how much you eat has been genetically modified. With more research it's potentially the cure to world hunger.

I remember reading that they are researching splicing the gene from a fish that glows to see underwater, with a farmer's plants. So when the plant gets thirsty it starts glowing and he knows when to water it.

All of this is really good for humanity as a whole. We can solve so many problems with it.

 

[Foulmouth]

All wheat (except some wild strains) is heavily modified. Without it India would have had mad starvation in the 60/70s.
Pretty much none of what we eat is "natural" , its all been selectively bred and modified.
If it tastes good, eat it.I personally think its just the latest thing for left wing nutbags to whinge about.

 

[fuzzypickles]

Personally, I think GMOs are good and necessary for society. The insertion of certain traits into crops such as disease resistance and higher yields means more money going into farmer's pockets and more food on people's tables. Thus, everyone wins!

(Message not sponsored by the Monsanto Corporation)

 

[hellbound]

I am in general quite for GMOs. There are two caveats that I hold.

First, I think there are enough people who want to know if GMOs are in their food for whatever reason that it's reasonable to require labeling.

Second, I am very concerned about intellectual property enforcement with GMOs. While I am not opposed in principle to a company holding the patent for a modification they actually performed, things get really tricky when you get into living organisms. For one, cross-pollination is a very real concern. For another, some biotech companies have been taking naturally occurring or traditionally modified genes and patenting or attempting to patent them. I've heard some controversy where Monsanto attempted to patent a variety of wheat which was developed by indigenous cultivation methods in India. Then, of course there is the case of Myriad Genetics patenting genes associated with breast cancer, essentially making them the sole provider of diagnostic technologies until the patent ran out (it was invalidated by the Supreme Court however). I think that when you start granting patents on living things at all you start getting into some very dangerous territory, and when you allow patenting of naturally-existing things that is far beyond the scope of any rational intellectual property protection.

 

[Zim]

I grew up in a very small farm community and honestly GMO's are the only reason small farmers can make a living anymore. Take field corn for example. Without GMO corn most of the small farmers would go out of business due to crop failure. GMO corn is there to provide resistance to bugs, herbicides, fungicides, low lying winds, and to increase crop yield. Most farms plant some sort of "stacked" corn which is a combination of resistances. Most run at least "roundup ready" corn if not some double stacked (usually a combination of antiworm/antiherbicide). This same stuff applies to every other agriculture out there and it's a double edged sword since we need GMO's to resist all the stuff that causes crop failure like invasive bugs/worms and resistance to herbicides and fungicides but at the same time the more gets modified the more the bugs become a immune.

If for some reason governments got together and banned GMO's everything would get really expensive. There are a ton of products that get made with ag related items not to mention the obvious, there being less food since there would be a lot less production.

 

[Holdek]

GMOs are different than selective breeding. Still, though, I support their use and adoption, so I don't want to get into that here.

The benefits are simply too great to not embrace agricultural technology. It's like the one issue the left wants to be anti-science about, I guess because of the granola hippie subculture. In the end, all foods are chemicals, natural or not. And really, would they rather have GMO pest-resistant crops, or pesticide runoff going into rivers?

I find it hypocritical that first world bleeding hearts are the most resistant to GMOs, which means developing world farmers often can't export their GMO drought resistant crops due to bans. The third world is also where blindness can be prevented through GMO golden rice.

Labeling will only cause panic. If you have to have them, labels should be required to say something like, "There are no differences in safety between GMO and non-GMO products." Just like they have on products labeled, "No rBGH." If you can't fit all that on a tomato, well, too bad.

 

[The Dude]

I like me some steroid burgers, but there's nothing like stalking and killing your own food. Some of my favorite meals were from game I killed myself. I wish I still had some moose steaks.

 

[PvtRichardCranium]

I remember one time I was a guest on a local politics radio show and we were talking about GMO's and this guy called in and started going on about people taking over the food supply or some shit.

I hate Idaho.

 

[Holdek]

I remember one time I was a guest on a local politics radio show and we were talking about GMO's and this guy called in and started going on about people taking over the food supply or some shit.

I hate Idaho.

Well, I don't have anything positive to say about Idaho (or anything negative for that matter, except that I don't like the people it sends to Congress), but you're just as, if not more, likely to hear that on a local politics radio show in San Francisco.

 

[Picklepower]

There seems to be a lot of exaggeration and misinformation about GMOs going around, THE GOVERNMENT IS KILLING US WITH FRANKENCORN!!!! 1776!!! YEEAW!
That's why I avoid all the documentaries about this subject, because I don't know how accurate they are, or what kind of biases they will have.

 

[Pikimon]

I have a weird position about GMOs as an environmentalist. My stance is that to qualm people's fears about GMOs we should test for their safety (as we must for any consumer product) and provide labelling so that people can make their own dietary decisions while also coupling with more innovative environmentally friendly farming (companion planting, food "stacking", diversifying our farm fields, etc.)

Truth be told in terms of the environment and agriculture Im more concerned about glyphosphate resistant weeds (of which there are now thousands of strains) and invasive species than GMOs.

 

[Marvin]

I have a weird position about GMOs as an environmentalist. My stance is that to qualm people's fears about GMOs we should test for their safety (as we must for any consumer product) and provide labelling so that people can make their own dietary decisions while also coupling with more innovative environmentally friendly farming (companion planting, food "stacking", diversifying our farm fields, etc.)

Truth be told in terms of the environment and agriculture Im more concerned about glyphosphate resistant weeds (of which there are now thousands of strains) and invasive species than GMOs.

Well, I'm OK with labeling when I can say that a person's choice might be reasonable. But it's kinda like fluoride in tap water. I'm pretty glad, actually, that tap water isn't terribly notably labeled as having fluoride in it. Like, you can find it out, but you have to go out of your way to find it. Or talk to someone who already knows it, I guess. I mean, I guess there isn't a negative economic outcome from less people using public water, but just, in general, sometimes people will see some labeling and panic and abandon some chunk of our economy. I mean, I guess that's the nature of capitalism, but even so, you can't fire a woman in your store because you hate women, I also think we shouldn't go out of our way to encourage a bunch of dipshits to drop a product because of a meme picture they got sent on facebook.

Basically, if the FDA has decided something is safe, but you (as an individual) disagrees, you're going to need to go out of your way and do your own investigation to dump it.

 

[Holdek]

I have a weird position about GMOs as an environmentalist. My stance is that to qualm people's fears about GMOs we should test for their safety (as we must for any consumer product) and provide labelling so that people can make their own dietary decisions while also coupling with more innovative environmentally friendly farming (companion planting, food "stacking", diversifying our farm fields, etc.)

Truth be told in terms of the environment and agriculture Im more concerned about glyphosphate resistant weeds (of which there are now thousands of strains) and invasive species than GMOs.

Well, I'm OK with labeling when I can say that a person's choice might be reasonable. But it's kinda like fluoride in tap water. I'm pretty glad, actually, that tap water isn't terribly notably labeled as having fluoride in it. Like, you can find it out, but you have to go out of your way to find it. Or talk to someone who already knows it, I guess. I mean, I guess there isn't a negative economic outcome from less people using public water, but just, in general, sometimes people will see some labeling and panic and abandon some chunk of our economy. I mean, I guess that's the nature of capitalism, but even so, you can't fire a woman in your store because you hate women, I also think we shouldn't go out of our way to encourage a bunch of dipshits to drop a product because of a meme picture they got sent on facebook.

Basically, if the FDA has decided something is safe, but you (as an individual) disagrees, you're going to need to go out of your way and do your own investigation to dump it.

Yeah. My concern is that a big GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM label on a pear going to freak people out necessarily. As in, it doesn't actually provide the consumer with information that they need, but it still looks like a warning.

 

[Picklepower]

Of course conspiracy theorists will just say the FDA is NWO, also conspiracy theorists wont accept any scientists assurance that gmos are safe, because they think scientists are in on a conspiracy to reduce the worlds population. So you really cant reason with conspiracy theorists on this issue, or many issues really. In popular culture, it is just accepted that Gmos are bad, so much so, that I was almost surprised to read info that GMOs may perhaps not be as EVIL AS HITLER.

 

[AnimuGinger]

Basic Background - One of the big things people don't seem to understand about GMOs is that they are, at their basic, only as dangerous as they're engineered to be. While it's very common to have a gene you don't want added to your new transgenic organism, having that gene be included in the end product you're shipping out is unlikely, if you're smart enough to catch it. A lot of the people who are all "OH MAH GERD ALLERGIES CAUSE GENES" don't really have a grasp as to how you introduce foreign genes into an organism. With genome mapping, we're able to select for genes fairly easily with targeted cleavage and PCR sites.
tl:dr - You have to pick what you want in it 99% of the time.

Harmful Effects - People often reference a paper by a man named Séralini. That paper is bullshit, and anyone with a statistics or experimental science background can tell you how bullshit. Man didn't even follow appropriate testing standards for carcinogens. Other than that, studies don't conclusively link GMOs to cancer, diabetes, autism, all that stuff. More studies needed, obviously, but a basic epidemiological correlation will only tell so much. Which is why someone doing the Séralini experiment correctly would help.
tl:dr - Shit ain't proven harmful at the moment.

Labeling - EU/UK/All Them Europe Places require it. Most of the US doesn't. The EU hasn't established harm, but the labeling is there for whatever reason if you're above 0.9% GMO content, or it's there on purpose. Granted, this also runs into the problem of people reading labels incorrectly. Given that certain food colorings in the UK are required to have a "Linked to ADHD" warning, people not familiar with UK standards (Americans) will see it and assume the GMOs do it. Adding the labels for content also may make people think the GMOs are something to be afraid of. Unlike the incidental bug parts and rat hairs that don't need to be labeled.
tl:dr - Food labeling standards suck.

TLR THE WHOLE THING - Shit complicated. I'm just trying to supply background.
DISCLAIMER - I may be biased because I took bioengineering taught by a professor who helped genetically engineer cotton back in like the 70s and 80s. He did make us research this shit for a paper, though.

 

[Holdek]

Basic Background - One of the big things people don't seem to understand about GMOs is that they are, at their basic, only as dangerous as they're engineered to be. While it's very common to have a gene you don't want added to your new transgenic organism, having that gene be included in the end product you're shipping out is unlikely, if you're smart enough to catch it. A lot of the people who are all "OH MAH GERD ALLERGIES CAUSE GENES" don't really have a grasp as to how you introduce foreign genes into an organism. With genome mapping, we're able to select for genes fairly easily with targeted cleavage and PCR sites.
tl:dr - You have to pick what you want in it 99% of the time.

Harmful Effects - People often reference a paper by a man named Séralini. That paper is bullshit, and anyone with a statistics or experimental science background can tell you how bullshit. Man didn't even follow appropriate testing standards for carcinogens. Other than that, studies don't conclusively link GMOs to cancer, diabetes, autism, all that stuff. More studies needed, obviously, but a basic epidemiological correlation will only tell so much. Which is why someone doing the Séralini experiment correctly would help.
tl:dr - Shit ain't proven harmful at the moment.

Good point, and I think the risks of starvation, malnutrition, crop failure, pesticide runoff, etc. outweigh the risks of bad GMOs.

 

[AnimuGinger]

Good point, and I think the risks of starvation, malnutrition, crop failure, pesticide runoff, etc. outweigh the risks of bad GMOs.

Golden Rice is one of the prime examples.The backlash against it has been horrible, despite the fact it can pretty much prevent blindness in undeveloped nations. That alone converted one of the stronger anti-GMO persons into a pro-GMO activist.

 

[Holdek]

Good point, and I think the risks of starvation, malnutrition, crop failure, pesticide runoff, etc. outweigh the risks of bad GMOs.

Golden Rice is one of the prime examples.The backlash against it has been horrible, despite the fact it can pretty much prevent blindness in undeveloped nations. That alone converted one of the stronger anti-GMO persons into a pro-GMO activist.

Was that the former head of Greenpeace?

 

[AnimuGinger]

Good point, and I think the risks of starvation, malnutrition, crop failure, pesticide runoff, etc. outweigh the risks of bad GMOs.

Golden Rice is one of the prime examples.The backlash against it has been horrible, despite the fact it can pretty much prevent blindness in undeveloped nations. That alone converted one of the stronger anti-GMO persons into a pro-GMO activist.

Was that the former head of Greenpeace?

Fourat Janabi. Apparently he was one of the originals, not exactly one of the strongers. We were asked to watch the following for class -

[youtube]pJzAdUUqGMU[/youtube]