100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: GMO | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Genetically modified organism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "GMO" redirects here. For other uses, see GMO (disambiguation). GloFish, the first genetically modified animal to be sold as a pet A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms that have inserted DNA from a different species. GMOs are the constituents of genetically modified foods. Here is an objective article on this topic. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php I would love for the science and philosophy forum goers to weigh in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order for things to work the way they want they have to insert a virus in the seed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live in a big Ag. belt. If you are eating things like wheat or soy, it's probably GMO. One big problem with GMO things like tomatoes, etc. because they are made to grow faster, there is not the same nutrient wise as their slow growing counterparts. And to me not as tasty. Like I think non-GMO organic ketchup is a billion times better tasting. The one that scares me is the salmon they have created that grow really big really fast. They are actually white inside of pink. They seriously feed them the equivalent of pink paint chips to make them the right color. There is a concern about eating animal materials based on GMO vs. plants. We do not know if that's valid. It is believed that plant products are safe but that eating GMO animal tissues may cause reactions within the animal consuming it. What is interesting to note that several European countries have banned growing GMOs but the import and feed their animals cheap GMO crops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't trust GMO foods for one major reason: biology. Humans are adapted to eating the nutrients we currently eat. Not a single human live can digest the gluten proteins in wheat and we've been eating that for thousands of years, some of us are even strongly allergic to gluten. GMO may or may not be digestible by humans, until they are fully tested for actual (read digestible) nutritional content, I think I'll pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is helpful to read the article before responding, as it addresses some of these concerns, and illustrates others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read part of the article and I don't agree with everything they say. If anyone has Netflix they have some good documentary's on GMO's and are well worth your time to watch. Food Inc. and The future of food are a good start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnD-DiDRIJA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many parts to this conversation, but here is where I am most passionate and certain of wrongdoing:
... lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto.  WTF?! Monsanto filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers for (allegedly) farming with monsanto-owned seeds? This is wrong on so many levels. Maybe a patent would be valid for a gene sequence that is created by humans. I mean, you decide to invent an entirely new protein, you decide on the function and structure that you want, then you reverse engineer the RNA sequence that will create this, then you patent the gene sequence. But I hear that companies are patenting gene sequences they find in nature. WTF? Second, no matter where your gene sequences come from, if you allow anyone, anywhere, to plant your seed, I'd say you've placed your genes in the public domain. Any other worldview is contrary to the way that life works. This site talks about pollination - thats not even the point. Viruses also pick up genes from one plant and move them to another. From my POV, you just cannot let a gene sequence out of the laboratory, let it grow out in nature, and then still claim IP property rights to the gene sequence. Its like trying to charge people for looking at graffiti your drew on a public structure. The idea of patenting a gene sequencing then suing people for failing to pay royalties when they have crops containing that gene sequence is just so horribly anti-social, anti-humanity, presuming-to-own-nature, that it just boggles my mind. All democratic nations should reject this in their legislation. And to do this while making the argument that 'people should support GMO (and monsanto) because it could help bring people out of poverty, it could help feed the world' is sickening to me. Yes, GMO can help humanity with poverty and nutrition issues, but its a complex problem with many contributing factors that ought to have many contributing solutions. The likes of monsanto clearly don't want to actually reduce poverty, they want to make people dependant on them so they can make money off them for generations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't trust GMO foods for one major reason: biology. Humans are adapted to eating the nutrients we currently eat. Not a single human live can digest the gluten proteins in wheat and we've been eating that for thousands of years, some of us are even strongly allergic to gluten. GMO may or may not be digestible by humans, until they are fully tested for actual (read digestible) nutritional content, I think I'll pass. I would expect that increased development of new GMO foods will lead to more allergies, to entirely new allergies. The site mentions a decision not to introduce a known allergen into a food, but its also possible we may create new allergy situations that didn't even previous exist, which food scientists aren't on the lookout for. Some allergies take years to develop, and you know that the likes of monsanto will lobby against any cautious approaches that overly interfere with their profit-making. And if as the % of the population thats effected by a particular allergy gets smaller, the less anyone will care about protecting them. If a new strain of rice can save 10,000 people a year in the target country from starvation, who cares if 3 people a year die of allergy-induced asphyxiation? Though that same gene may eventually work its way into the genomes of rice variants that are serving hundreds of millions of people, leading to much larger numbers of people worrying about death from foods that have in any way come in contact with any kind of rice. ---- It may sound like I'm anit-GMO. I'm not. I'm pro-GMO. I'm just against having our entire species, our whole planet, rushed into something by greedy corporations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, I don't like it.
I read the pros, and thought, meh, doesn't sound to bad; however, then I glanced over the cons and  wth? Correct me if I read this wrong, after all, I hadn't much sleep but.. It says there is a possibility that it can create a new allergen in both children and adults alike? It could also create a disease of some sort, not sure what it said now but it was directly after that last paragraph; to which, we would obviously have no cure for. I do believe we already have enough diseases and conditions running rampant that there's no 'true' cure for. My stand can best be summarized by stating something along the lines of... I have mood swings. I am put on Prozac. Now I suffer from kidney malfunction and depression along with diarrhea and my urine is blue. Yeah, sorry, I'd much rather deal with mood swings, then feel like an 80 year old man heading for a ditch with a plaque reading his name on it. While sometimes I do believe that pros outweigh the cons; this one I can honestly and openly say I feel that way about. However, let me read it over again, after more sleep, before I make a full assessment. It was very informative though, so, thank you for that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is helpful to read the article before responding, as it addresses some of these concerns, and illustrates others. You asked for opinions, don't get your panties in a wad because I schooled you in your own thread about skepticism. On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that these ***-hat "scientists" will not voluntarily run nutritional tests on their new franken-foods. Have they done them sufficiently on any other franken-food before it hit the market? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read part of the article and I don't agree with everything they say. If anyone has Netflix they have some good documentary's on GMO's and are well worth your time to watch. Food Inc. and The future of food are a good start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnD-DiDRIJA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 01/10/12 09:37 AM
|
|
It is helpful to read the article before responding, as it addresses some of these concerns, and illustrates others. You asked for opinions, don't get your panties in a wad because I schooled you in your own thread about skepticism. You think that is me getting upset? I think your projecting from getting destroyed in that other thread, and why mention it unless your ego is some how wrapped up in it? This is a different thread on a totally different topic. Heck I didn't even quote you, how do you know I was responding to you. It seems to me you are hyper sensitive that I called out your nonsense. There are many parts to this conversation, but here is where I am most passionate and certain of wrongdoing: ... lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. WTF?! Monsanto filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers for (allegedly) farming with monsanto-owned seeds? This is wrong on so many levels. Maybe a patent would be valid for a gene sequence that is created by humans. I mean, you decide to invent an entirely new protein, you decide on the function and structure that you want, then you reverse engineer the RNA sequence that will create this, then you patent the gene sequence. But I hear that companies are patenting gene sequences they find in nature. WTF? Second, no matter where your gene sequences come from, if you allow anyone, anywhere, to plant your seed, I'd say you've placed your genes in the public domain. Any other worldview is contrary to the way that life works. This site talks about pollination - thats not even the point. Viruses also pick up genes from one plant and move them to another. From my POV, you just cannot let a gene sequence out of the laboratory, let it grow out in nature, and then still claim IP property rights to the gene sequence. Its like trying to charge people for looking at graffiti your drew on a public structure. The idea of patenting a gene sequencing then suing people for failing to pay royalties when they have crops containing that gene sequence is just so horribly anti-social, anti-humanity, presuming-to-own-nature, that it just boggles my mind. All democratic nations should reject this in their legislation. And to do this while making the argument that 'people should support GMO (and monsanto) because it could help bring people out of poverty, it could help feed the world' is sickening to me. Yes, GMO can help humanity with poverty and nutrition issues, but its a complex problem with many contributing factors that ought to have many contributing solutions. The likes of monsanto clearly don't want to actually reduce poverty, they want to make people dependant on them so they can make money off them for generations. Ultimately the human race has been tinkering with genes since we started farming and raising animals. However when one group tries to stake claim over nature itself I tend to take umbrage. I like your ideas about giving up any rights to the product once it is allowed to grow. At least they have gone back on the idea to create a sterilizing gene that would not allow the crops to reseed and be grown another season. I dont know, its a tough topic, one that our own technology is making more and more important to get a handle on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, I don't like it. I read the pros, and thought, meh, doesn't sound to bad; however, then I glanced over the cons and wth? SinAndSorrow, I'd like to submit that, when it comes to GMO, we don't need to 'approve' or 'disapprove' of 'the whole thing'. We can look at different kinds of GMO, different circumstances, different approaches. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the WHO:
Q2. Why are GM foods produced? GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers so have concentrated on innovations that farmers (and the food industry more generally) would appreciate. The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides. Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that permanently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields. Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used. The reality of modern food production is that to get large enough yields in some parts of the world means using larger and larger amounts of pesticides and fertilizers. In these cases it appears GMO crops can reduce the risks of using such large quantities of these other products. This is clearly a complex topic with many points for and against. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read part of the article and I don't agree with everything they say. If anyone has Netflix they have some good documentary's on GMO's and are well worth your time to watch. Food Inc. and The future of food are a good start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnD-DiDRIJA I saw on the news last month that GM salmon were found to be contaminated. http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/12/22/exposed-genetically-modified-salmon-found-to-be-contaminated-with-infectious-salmon-anemia/ Maybe I am just old school but they need to stop messing with mother nature. JMO |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 01/10/12 06:20 PM
|
|
If I were a scientist, I would be working on creating GMO humans.
Then we could travel to another planet and create our own race of beings and they could be our slaves. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I were a scientist, I would be working on creating GMO humans. Then we could travel to another planet and create our own race of beings and they could be our slaves. I'm with this idea. Hey Jeannie.. ..where do you go to become a 'scientist'? If I buy a lab coat and some research gear.. ..does that constitute a scientist? ..or do I really have to go back to school... again. :/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 01/10/12 08:00 PM
|
|
If I were a scientist, I would be working on creating GMO humans. Then we could travel to another planet and create our own race of beings and they could be our slaves. I'm with this idea. Hey Jeannie.. ..where do you go to become a 'scientist'? If I buy a lab coat and some research gear.. ..does that constitute a scientist? ..or do I really have to go back to school... again. :/ I think you need to either go to school or find a mad scientist who can take you on as his apprentice then he can teach you how to clone humans and mess with their DNA. Or google anything you want to know. How to clone humans. I'm sure there are lots of web sites about that.   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I am just old school but they need to stop messing with mother nature. JMO I agree with the rest of your post, we do need to make sure it is safe, and really we need to better understand all of our food sources saftety. However, we human beings, have been messing with mother nature since the beginning of tool-craft and the domestication of animals. If you have a dog, you have an animal that we have "messed" with endlessly to get what we want out of them. If you have ever eaten a banana then you are eating a GMO. We may not call all of the food we eat GMO becuase no one went in and used DNA recombination techniques to isolate a specific gene, but selective breeding is really the same thing just a whole lot messier and with far more random results. It really comes down to the tools and methods, not the actually goals. The goals of selective breeding are really the same. You see a trait you like, you try to assemble as many advantageous traits into a single organism. Saying we need to stop messing with mother nature is really a lot bigger than what we want to assume. If we really stopped messing with mother nature then all selective breeding would be out, all farmers finding a strain of plant they like and only planting that would be out. We would have to marry a random stranger to ensure no one was discriminating a given trait before mating. Really every human choice made that involves reproduction is messing with mother nature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
