Topic: dangers of genetically modified crops and farm animals...

[neurotraveller]

I've been more involved in this debate than I'd like for awhile now. There's not solid scientific data that shows any harmful effects of GMOs. The only things you find are anecdotes all over the net and "studies" only published on websites that sell organic foods. Out of 42 studies done on GMOs, 2 shows negative results, published in 1998 and 1999 respectively, and neither have been able to be replicated, both small studies and poorly conducted. Basically, it's a conspiracy theory at best. Any studies of long term effects can't be done yet. It's too early, too new. So anyone making claims that they KNOW there are harmful effects are simply lying or are very misinformed.

You can see the rest of the write up here
http://mbireality.blogspot.com/2012/01/gmo-genetically-modified-foods-and.html

[arthwollipot]

I find the GM "frankenfood" issue to be incredibly irritating. There is no evidence at all that GM food is harmful, but at the same time there is no evidence that it is and always will be perfectly safe, either - arguably there can't be. So while there is no good reason not to use GM, we still have to be open to the possibility that ten, fifty or a hundred years down the track we will discover some previously-unforseen consequence of GM. And it annoys me to have to admit that.

[lonely moa]

I think farmers all need to evaluate what they get from investing in GE crops.  Really, Ge crops can give you crop resistance to glyphosate herbicide and systemic (BT) insecticide.  Neither of those "advantages" have persuaded farmers in NZ to push for adoption.  The advantages from abstaining outweigh any advantages from committing to the technology.  We don't have any subsidisation of crops to help pay the extra costs of investing in that sort of technology and most arable farmers know how to apply the appropriate herbicides in the most economical fashion.  We don't have a problem with insects in maize that would make anyone think of pushing for BT maize.

Being able to market agricultural and horticultural procucts from a GE free country is a distinct advantage.

The public should understand that there is no overall yield increase, drought resistance or product quality increase from GE.  It's an economic balance that individual farmers must weigh when investing in the technology. 

And I can only laugh at "Golden Rice".  What the fuck is the point of putting beta carotene in rice when if the consumer actually had enough saturated fat in their diets to convert it to vitamin A, they would already have ingested sufficient vitamin A for health.  Bad joke.

[Jolimont]

GMOs are probably harmless, but I don't want them anyway. Why not?

1. Because I live in France. We have enough food production to meet our needs and export plenty. If I lived in a country unable to feed itself I'd have a different opinion on the matter I'm sure.

2. The real solution to sustainable world-wide food production is not to give Monsanto complete control but rather to place the control into the hands of small producers everywhere. They each need to find something that works for them. I don't trust miracle cures.

3. All Monsanto has to do to convince people (like all of us on this forum) is introduce doubt. They have all the cash in the world to confuse the issue. Like many things in high-tech there are probably only a few PhDs in the world able to truly grasp the nitty gritty of their well protected patents. So, I don't think they should be trusted.

[Zytheran]

There is one issue that needs to be addressed and that is of genetic diversity. We know from experience that successful species have a range of genetic stock which makes the plant or animal more adaptable at adjusting to environmental and climatic change.
If we end up with a small range of genetic material I would think we are very susceptible to diseases that also evolve to take advantage of such a lack of genetic range?

Another is the technology used. When this process was first used I assumed they were using gene shears for putting the genetic material into a suitable place along a gene. However I then found out the actual mechanism places the material randomly into the genetic sequence and they rely on viability of the resultant crops for determining success. However I have always wondered about any long term issues of potentially damaging in a subtle manner some of the adjacent genes? I sort of guess they do pretty complete testing of the final grains for composition but I honestly don't know the chance of something slipping through which has a subtle long term effect.

[David E.]

Our corn, realizing that it has been genetically engineered to be vastly superior to produce simply produced by natural selection, adopts a hyper darwinian fascist ideology and launches a campaign to conquer Europe.

You have said too much Andrew.  You must be popped.

[Guillermo]

From what I can tell, there are a lot of safety procedures put in place before a GM food is out in the market. There is a real danger that someone might create something that could be harmful in some ways. But everything that is out there already is safe.

[Shibboleth]

Genetic engineering of food has failed. Where is the carrot the size of my house? How come I can't grow a beanstalk to the clouds? We should be using produce to put satellites in orbit by this point.

[Ah.hell]

Farmers in India unable to deal with the technical and financial issues associated with GE cotton have committed suicide in alarmingly large numbers.

(click to show/hide)

Wikipedia

"A report released by the International Food Policy Research Institute in October 2008 provided evidence that the introduction of Bt cotton was not a major factor in farmer suicides in India.[30] It argues that the suicides predate the introduction of the cotton in 2002 and has been fairly consistent since 1997.[30][31] Other studies also suggest the increase in farmer suicides is due to a combination of various socio-economic factors.[32] These include debt, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural income, absence of alternative income opportunities, the downturn in the urban economy forcing non-farmers into farming, and the absence of suitable counseling services.[32][33]"

The first google search yuielded this slightly more damning research. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/bt-cotton-and-farmer-suicides-india

You could read Vandana Shiva and and get an Indian scientist's point of view.  I'm sure her arithmetic would be rather scathing.

Research by various investigators like Raj Patel,[2] Nagraj,[18][19] Meeta and Rajivlochan,[21] identified a variety of causes. India was transforming rapidly into a primarily urban, industrial society with industry as its main source of income; the government and society had begun to be unconcerned about the condition of the countryside; moreover, a downturn in the urban economy was pushing a large number of distressed non-farmers to try their hand at cultivation; the farmer was also caught in a Scissors Crisis; in the absence of any responsible counselling either from the government or society there were many farmers who did not know how to survive in the changing economy. Such stresses pushed many into a corner where suicide became an option for them [22]

Research has also pointed to a certain types of technological change as having played an instrumental role in the problem. One study from the Punjab showed dramatic misuse of agricultural chemicals in farmer households in the absence of any guidance on how to correctly use these deadly chemicals and linked it to the rise in farm suicides wherever farm chemicals were in widespread use.[23] Important research in Andhra Pradesh showed the very rapid change in seed and pesticide products to have caused "deskilling" in the cotton sector.[24]
[edit] GM crops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India[/spoiler]Wow, you mean the real cause of these suicides is more complex than, "GM bad"?

Any rate there are real dangers from specific crops and those should be evaluated on an individual basis.  There is an economic issues related to farmers dependence on Big Ag and as mentioned before, the decreased biodiversity of our food supply.  Both  issues that predate GMO's.

Incidentally, starting in the 30s gmo's were created by exposing plant seeds to mutengenic chemicals and radiation, resulting in thousands of modern cultivars.  A far more unpredictable process than modern Gene Manipulation.  I've never heard of anyone protesting those.

[lonely moa]

There is one issue that needs to be addressed and that is of genetic diversity. We know from experience that successful species have a range of genetic stock which makes the plant or animal more adaptable at adjusting to environmental and climatic change.
If we end up with a small range of genetic material I would think we are very susceptible to diseases that also evolve to take advantage of such a lack of genetic range?

Another is the technology used. When this process was first used I assumed they were using gene shears for putting the genetic material into a suitable place along a gene. However I then found out the actual mechanism places the material randomly into the genetic sequence and they rely on viability of the resultant crops for determining success. However I have always wondered about any long term issues of potentially damaging in a subtle manner some of the adjacent genes? I sort of guess they do pretty complete testing of the final grains for composition but I honestly don't know the chance of something slipping through which has a subtle long term effect.

The long term testing is going on as we speak. 

The only GE grain on the market now is maize, actually. But consider wheat and testing for safety of conventional breeding.  No one has really looked carefully at the effects of changing the number of chromaosomes in wheat from 14 to 42 in modern wheat.

[David "Stubb" Oswald]

No one has really looked carefully at the effects of changing the number of chromaosomes in wheat from 14 to 42 in modern wheat.

Can you imagine the health risks we may be unaware of? The worst part is that hexaploid wheat has only been in our diet for 8,600–7,800 years. That isn't enough time to really understand the effects.

(click to show/hide)

Yoshihiro Matsuoka. 2011. Evolution of Polyploid Triticum Wheats under Cultivation: The Role of Domestication, Natural Hybridization and Allopolyploid Speciation in their Diversification. Plant Cell Physio. 52 (5): 750-764.

[lonely moa]

No one has really looked carefully at the effects of changing the number of chromaosomes in wheat from 14 to 42 in modern wheat.

Can you imagine the health risks we may be unaware of?

There must be a few... or at leat, if aware of, discount them.  There will be coin op dialysis machines in Wal Mart beforee you know it.

[David "Stubb" Oswald]

No one has really looked carefully at the effects of changing the number of chromaosomes in wheat from 14 to 42 in modern wheat.

Can you imagine the health risks we may be unaware of?

There must be a few... or at leat, if aware of, discount them.  There will be coin op dialysis machines in Wal Mart beforee you know it.

Are you just going to ignore the fact we have been growing and eating this stuff for around 8,000 years? You have been critical of hexaploid wheat for a while but you also refer to it as modern wheat, and talk of a need to get back to older wheat varieties. With the exception of pasta wheat, wheat is hexaploid. What are you basing your suspicions on, another nutrition book where the author is an expert because he wrote a book? Cite some damn studies once in a while don't just make accusations blindly. It would not hurt for you to become a scientifically literate person.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

GMOs are probably harmless, but I don't want them anyway. Why not?

1. Because I live in France. We have enough food production to meet our needs and export plenty. If I lived in a country unable to feed itself I'd have a different opinion on the matter I'm sure.

Maybe if they used GMO crops they wouldn't need so many EU farm subsidies?

[quokka]

GMOs are probably harmless, but I don't want them anyway. Why not?

1. Because I live in France. We have enough food production to meet our needs and export plenty. If I lived in a country unable to feed itself I'd have a different opinion on the matter I'm sure.

2. The real solution to sustainable world-wide food production is not to give Monsanto complete control but rather to place the control into the hands of small producers everywhere. They each need to find something that works for them. I don't trust miracle cures.

3. All Monsanto has to do to convince people (like all of us on this forum) is introduce doubt. They have all the cash in the world to confuse the issue. Like many things in high-tech there are probably only a few PhDs in the world able to truly grasp the nitty gritty of their well protected patents. So, I don't think they should be trusted.

1. This attitude completely rejects the value in advancing technology to produce more efficient, environmentally friendly and sustainable methods. It is ridiculous to adopt a stagnated industry system and expect it to be 'better' than one that is continually developing and adapting.
2. GE crops are not a miracle - they are science and have limited targeted improvements that need to be appropriately managed (like any other new variety). You seem to have a belief that Monsanto has some sort of noose on what farmers do; if so, you have fallen for green-washing propaganda. Also, what has Monsanto got to do with the safety of GE food which is being discussed here? You're also suggesting that small communal  farms are more efficient than larger farms, this is almost certainly not true in most cases.
3. Now you're moving into the conspiracy zone. I've explained to you before how their patents work, it is not conspiratorial and you choose to ignore this.