Genetically modified foods: a good thing

[Doctor Evo]

meaning they can cross breed without any help from genetic modification from within the cells themselves. It's still just allowing nature to make the connection.

Why is this better?

 

[TheBat812]

I don't know too much about the difference, but I know there is one:

The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like.

Source

I do know that one of the huge issues with this industry though is that they're also engineered to make sure farmers have to continue buying their seeds from them, many times for extremely unfair prices. Instead of getting seeds from their crop to use the next year, many times they're engineered to die off so they MUST come back to buy them. There are advantages and disadvantages, but it's another example of big business cornering the market. Either way I'm not against GMOs, I just think they should be appropriately labeled so the consumer can decide, which is why i voted yes on 37 in CA. I really think the main thing we need to get a handle on is processed and artificial foods because they are the primary reason for obesity in the US and the rise in cancer rates.

 

[Doctor Evo]

honestly im not sure if it is, it just feels more natural. I do know that one of the huge issues with this industry though is that they're also engineered to make sure farmers have to continue buying their seeds from them, many times for extremely unfair prices. Instead of getting seeds from their crop to use the next year, many times they're engineered to die off so they MUST come back to buy them. There are advantages and disadvantages, but it's another example of big business cornering the market. Either way I'm not against GMOs, I just think they should be appropriately labeled so the consumer can decide, which is why i voted yes on 37 in CA. I really think the main thing we need to get a handle on is processed and artificial foods because they are the primary reason for obesity in the US and the rise in cancer rates.

Oh sure, and again, I find all of this to be reasonable (labeling, etc.). I also question the practices of corporations like Monsanto. Much of what they've done is simply wrong, in my opinion. I'm just disappointed that people continuously conflate these practices with the technology itself, and appear to be unable to distinguish between the two. They're wholly separate issues.

EDIT: Just read the source you've provided in your edit. There is some merit to their reasoning, but this again comes back to the issue of prior implementation vs. the technology itself. I'm all for more thorough testing and stricter standards, and Monsanto has been known to rush its products. So you won't get any argument from me there.

 

[TheBat812]

Sorry, reread my edited post.

 

[Doctor Evo]

To clarify: the idea that genes from non-related organisms are inherently dangerous when spliced into these genomes is rather flawed. Again, this depends entirely upon the context: the function of that gene in relation to the function of the organism itself, as well as to human health.

So I think you may have focused on the wrong part of that article. What is more of a cause for concern is when that context becomes complicated by multiple modifications to the same organism. This is why I support strict standards for physiological testing. A modification consisting of one or two genes is relatively uncomplicated and can be highly targeted. When you're dealing with sets of genes, however, there can be complex and unintended interactions, so rigorous testing becomes quite necessary.

That was the most important point in the source you provided. With selective breeding, it may (emphasis on may) be better that these steps are incremental, but this does NOT preclude the possibility of dangerous and cryptic phenotypes (traits). So while I see the point you're trying to make, I'm not entirely convinced by it.

 

[TheBat812]

Well, neither am I, which is why I said I am still for GMOs, just that we're allowed to know what is a GMO or not so the consumer can decide. I was just providing evidence that there is a difference that is not to be ignored.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Well, neither am I, which is why I said I am still for GMOs, just that we're allowed to know what is a GMO or not so the consumer can decide.

There needs to be better education with regard to what genetic modification actually is and what it does, I think. Most seem to have a foggy idea at best.

 

[TheBat812]

There needs to be better education with regard to what genetic modification actually is and what it does, I think. Most seem to have a foggy idea at best.

Ha, well there needs to be more education on pretty much all fronts if we're going to go that route. But yes, I agree.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Not really the same at all. Breeding will never lead to tomatoes with scorpion genes. Breeding will never produce crops with a "terminator" gene.

True, but it's taking a few proteins. There isn't any tomatoes turning into scorpions. Some of your own genes were made from viruses that might have started on some lizard or a tick.