The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Let's talk about GMOs

Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
So this is a thing that people have been talking about more and more in the past ten years or so. In public discourse, "GMO" (Genetically Modified Organism) means "agricultural product whose genes have been altered to produce a desired effect." There are about a million of these desired effects, but most of them have to do with making a given crop hardier and less vulnerable to failure. By and large, geneticists have succeeded at this goal. They've made crops that are resistant to frost or insects or fungal infection or drought, are more nutritious, need less fertilizer, yield higher amounts of usable grain, et cetera. This is widely regarded as a pretty good thing, because it increases the available supply of food. Norman Borlaug, a biologist who developed a very high-yield variety of wheat that was also resistant to drought and disease in the 60s and 70s, has saved more lives than probably any other single human being in history. His invention made it much easier for agriculturally-poor countries to reliably grow food; as a result, Mexico, Pakistan and India became secure in their ability to keep their people fed. Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold medal for his work.

So this is great, right? Lots of fed people, what is there to talk about?

Well, there are a lot of folks who are terrified at the idea of modifying the genes of things that we eat. They point to increasing rates of certain diseases as evidence that GM crops are poisoning those who eat them, and that we should go back to regular ol' wheat. This isn't a particularly useful statement of course, because what is regular ol' wheat? We've been genetically modifying our crops since we started planting crops, just by selecting for traits that we wanted and selecting against traits that we didn't. The maize that's grown and eaten nowadays is almost indistinguishable from the stuff that grew wild in the Americas a thousand years ago. We've selected for these traits and against those so aggressively that this maize can't even reproduce anymore without human intervention, because the kernels are attached too tightly to the cob. The health issues argument also seems spurious. I've done a fair amount of research on this and haven't been able to find any credible evidence that any given disease can be attributed to any given engineered crop. If there is evidence for it, I'd like to see it.

It also seems like the anti-GM people are displaying some pretty heavy first-world privilege when they talk about getting rid of all GM crops in the whole world, because in a lot of places, there's no choice. It's a choice between a variety of wheat designed to be grown there, or no wheat at all. The world unambiguously can't sustain the number of people currently alive growing exclusively non-GM crops. You'll never hear an anti-GM activist straight up say that they're okay with billions of people in agriculturally-precarious countries dying for lack of crops that grow there, but I can't help but think that's the obvious end result if they end up getting their way.

So we have two options here, because fuck nuance:
1. GM crops are the most important scientific advance of the last hundred years and have allowed billions of people to survive and have children who otherwise would've never been born, or
2. GM crops are an apocalypse waiting to happen. Eventually some Frankenstein wheat variety is going to get out into the wild and give everyone AIDS.

There's grey area here, of course. I guess it's possible for an engineered crop to have some flaw in its design that makes it toxic for humans, and a lot of the big companies that do the development of these crops have adopted some really sheisty business practices. But these downsides are far outweighed by the upsides, mainly the one where billions more people aren't starving to death right this very minute.

Clearly my mind is pretty much made up, but I'm interested to see what some other folks have to say about this, especially since there're at least a few biologists on this board. Did I miss any legitimate credible health risks while I was reading up on the subject?

from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
hitting hot metal with hammers
«1345

Posts

  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    you didn't miss anything as far as the health or science, its the business of GMOs that's particularly worrisome

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    Yeah the biggest problem with GMOs is the corporations that control them.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • breton-brawlerbreton-brawler Registered User regular
    I think one sticking point is that the idea of GMOs is just a succession of what we can do naturally through selective hybridization and re-planting crops with the desirable traits. Some of the most fervent opposition has come when GMOs go into cross species genetics, using genes from a whole separate species and injecting them into another one. I think Genetic modification of this kind deserves a much closer scrutiny, than just enhancing the normal selective process done by farmers.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    There are issus with genetic modifications not staying where they are put. Cross pollination, and slow vastly less-likely but potentially more worrisome interspecies bacterial processes, mean that there's a good chance these genes will end up in the wild. Which almost certainly isn't really that much of a problem, aside from some potential patent/copyright infringement.


    The companies that control GMO crop tend to do everything they can to force farmers to buy new seeds each year. This is not always going to be great for the long term sustainability of third world farmers. It requires a large capital outlay each year, and many of these crop pretty much require large amounts of fertilizer(not great for wallets or the environment or independence). Neither of these are intrinsic to GMO crops, but they quite frequently are the case.


    Open source GMO development would address a lot of these concerns. But, that's not really much of a thing at the moment.

    As a consumer, I would like to be able to vote with my dollars and think it would be great for people to be aware of what GMO crops they are consuming.


    Maybe it is worth noting that a lot of people are starving because we can't get them food, and that is a social problems genetic technology is unlikely to solve, but climate change is probably going to be putting a lot more pressure on areas that produce large amounts are agriculture.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Yea, aside from the fact that Monstano makes it your problem if the intellectual property they put into a system with millions of years of adaption to disseminate itself somehow ends up disseminated into your stuff I don't have much of an issue with the GMO thing.

    Though that's a pretty big issue.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Aside from corporate concerns, my only concern is that of biodiversity. I would worry about crop collapse should a strain of virus affect those crops. I think of Dutch Elm Disease, but in our food, and that's a bit of a worry.

    But health wise? GMOs are fine.

  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    I want to love GMO's because they are clearly completely awesome and a solution to the very real problem of needing enough food to feed everyone.

    However the bio-corps and governments make it really fucking hard to be supportive given the bullshit and lies they peddle.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I don't have a problem with GMOs, in general it's what we've been doing for thousands - and nature has been doing for hundreds of millions / billions of years, just accelerated and directed.

    My big issues, as was pointed out, are the business / legal, the monoculture, and the hybridization aspects. Companies like Monsanto can go eat a bag of dicks with their business practices...it's not like they wouldn't be making fuck you loads of money otherwise. The monoculture aspect is a double edged sword - higher yields cause people to stop growing locally adapted (often over hundreds or thousands of years) strains. As Shadowfire pointed out, this can cause a crop collapse if a particular virus or disease adapts to that monoculture...but at the same time, non-GMO crops are also vulnerable and GMO can help reduce the impact a lot faster than natural selection.

    And of course, there is the hybridization aspect that goes hand in hand with the business / legal part, where farmers are forced to purchase new seeds every year if they can afford it or not.

    Modern agriculture in general is pretty bad with water and fertilizer usage, but that's not limited to GMO crops. If anything, GMO crops alleviate some of those problems by improving drought resistance, using natural / excreted pesticides instead of nasty toxic chemicals...and getting away from modern agriculture in general is dooming hundreds of millions of people worldwide to famine.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2014
    zagdrob wrote: »
    And of course, there is the hybridization aspect that goes hand in hand with the business / legal part, where farmers are forced to purchase new seeds every year if they can afford it or not.

    Yeah. Health-wise, there are no reasonable problems, and most issues along the lines of biodiversity don't seem any more worrisome than what you got before GMO. What concerns me is that basically companies like Monsanto looked at the asinine way the RIAA handles copy protection issues and thought, "This DRM shit is awesome, how can we apply it to corn?"

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    One of the more hazardous issues with the cross-pollination is that a lot of GMO crops are not made for human consumption, and can contaminate crops which are (granted that this is also an issue with crops that are bred normally).

    As for the issues with health, I'm a little worried about how the modifications are going to affect the balance of nutrients in our diets and in our ecosystem. They may be beneficial to people who have low-nutrition diets, but there is such a thing as too many vitamins and minerals. Any of the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K, as I recall) can build up and damage your health, and minerals like Iron can make you quite ill, and some people have to actively avoid iron in their diets, and any food that is fortified with it suddenly becomes a problem. This is, again, possible with non-GM foods, but nature already has killer wild carrots, so we don't really need to be pushing that ever-faster.

    There is also an increased danger to our pets, most of which can't take as much toxin exposure as we can.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    As much as there is to malign about Monsanto. I like Monsanto about 1000 times more than the people I know who are against GMOs.

    New Age Bullshit pisses me off so much.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • centraldogmacentraldogma Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    There are issus with genetic modifications not staying where they are put. Cross pollination, and slow vastly less-likely but potentially more worrisome interspecies bacterial processes, mean that there's a good chance these genes will end up in the wild. Which almost certainly isn't really that much of a problem, aside from some potential patent/copyright infringement.

    I beg to differ.

    The environmental effects of these genes are never tested. They could easily have a detrimental effect on native species. Its equivalent to introducing a foreign species when they get out in the wild.

    When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
    Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    So this is a thing that people have been talking about more and more in the past ten years or so. In public discourse, "GMO" (Genetically Modified Organism) means "agricultural product whose genes have been altered to produce a desired effect." There are about a million of these desired effects, but most of them have to do with making a given crop hardier and less vulnerable to failure. By and large, geneticists have succeeded at this goal. They've made crops that are resistant to frost or insects or fungal infection or drought, are more nutritious, need less fertilizer, yield higher amounts of usable grain, et cetera. This is widely regarded as a pretty good thing, because it increases the available supply of food. Norman Borlaug, a biologist who developed a very high-yield variety of wheat that was also resistant to drought and disease in the 60s and 70s, has saved more lives than probably any other single human being in history. His invention made it much easier for agriculturally-poor countries to reliably grow food; as a result, Mexico, Pakistan and India became secure in their ability to keep their people fed. Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold medal for his work.

    Borlaug's wheat cultivars were not GMOs, unless you're using a dishonestly broad definition of GM. They were efficiently crossbred - but that's not what people generally mean when they talk about genetic modification.

    There is a valid argument that crossbreeding is simply a primitive form of GM, but conflating the two concepts does not really make for a good discussion.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    redx wrote: »
    There are issus with genetic modifications not staying where they are put. Cross pollination, and slow vastly less-likely but potentially more worrisome interspecies bacterial processes, mean that there's a good chance these genes will end up in the wild. Which almost certainly isn't really that much of a problem, aside from some potential patent/copyright infringement.

    I beg to differ.

    The environmental effects of these genes are never tested. They could easily have a detrimental effect on native species. Its equivalent to introducing a foreign species when they get out in the wild.

    In what meaningful way is introducing a new GM crop into the wild different from traditional aggressive crossbreeding, as far as detrimental effects on native species? Like, if I take a strain of corn, dick around with it in my greenhouse for several iterations, generate a new strain that does X, then start mass producing and harvesting it, does this not adversely affect the environment in a comparable way?

    (I'm honestly asking because I don't know.)

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    There are issus with genetic modifications not staying where they are put. Cross pollination, and slow vastly less-likely but potentially more worrisome interspecies bacterial processes, mean that there's a good chance these genes will end up in the wild. Which almost certainly isn't really that much of a problem, aside from some potential patent/copyright infringement.

    I beg to differ.

    The environmental effects of these genes are never tested. They could easily have a detrimental effect on native species. Its equivalent to introducing a foreign species when they get out in the wild.

    Hey, if the Wild wants to engage in IP theft then the Wild can just suffer the consequences.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So this is a thing that people have been talking about more and more in the past ten years or so. In public discourse, "GMO" (Genetically Modified Organism) means "agricultural product whose genes have been altered to produce a desired effect." There are about a million of these desired effects, but most of them have to do with making a given crop hardier and less vulnerable to failure. By and large, geneticists have succeeded at this goal. They've made crops that are resistant to frost or insects or fungal infection or drought, are more nutritious, need less fertilizer, yield higher amounts of usable grain, et cetera. This is widely regarded as a pretty good thing, because it increases the available supply of food. Norman Borlaug, a biologist who developed a very high-yield variety of wheat that was also resistant to drought and disease in the 60s and 70s, has saved more lives than probably any other single human being in history. His invention made it much easier for agriculturally-poor countries to reliably grow food; as a result, Mexico, Pakistan and India became secure in their ability to keep their people fed. Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold medal for his work.

    Borlaug's wheat cultivars were not GMOs, unless you're using a dishonestly broad definition of GM. They were efficiently crossbred - but that's not what people generally mean when they talk about genetic modification.

    There is a valid argument that crossbreeding is simply a primitive form of GM, but conflating the two concepts does not really make for a good discussion.

    There wasn't any intentional conflation on my part, I just didn't look to hard into what Borlaug actually did. Thanks for the correction

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    One of the more hazardous issues with the cross-pollination is that a lot of GMO crops are not made for human consumption, and can contaminate crops which are (granted that this is also an issue with crops that are bred normally).

    As for the issues with health, I'm a little worried about how the modifications are going to affect the balance of nutrients in our diets and in our ecosystem. They may be beneficial to people who have low-nutrition diets, but there is such a thing as too many vitamins and minerals. Any of the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K, as I recall) can build up and damage your health, and minerals like Iron can make you quite ill, and some people have to actively avoid iron in their diets, and any food that is fortified with it suddenly becomes a problem. This is, again, possible with non-GM foods, but nature already has killer wild carrots, so we don't really need to be pushing that ever-faster.
    I'm not sure I understand your example. Wild carrots are edible (though they get woody with age), and you cannot overdose on vitamin A from consuming carotenoids in any case. At really high doses you may start to turn orange.

    Overdosing on other types of vitamins could be a concern, but it seems far less of an issue than the vitamin/mineral deficiencies these crops are developed to treat.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    There are issus with genetic modifications not staying where they are put. Cross pollination, and slow vastly less-likely but potentially more worrisome interspecies bacterial processes, mean that there's a good chance these genes will end up in the wild. Which almost certainly isn't really that much of a problem, aside from some potential patent/copyright infringement.

    I beg to differ.

    The environmental effects of these genes are never tested. They could easily have a detrimental effect on native species. Its equivalent to introducing a foreign species when they get out in the wild.

    In what meaningful way is introducing a new GM crop into the wild different from traditional aggressive crossbreeding, as far as detrimental effects on native species? Like, if I take a strain of corn, dick around with it in my greenhouse for several iterations, generate a new strain that does X, then start mass producing and harvesting it, does this not adversely affect the environment in a comparable way?

    (I'm honestly asking because I don't know.)

    As far as i can tell no. With the quintessential example of the first method going awry being the Africanized honey bee.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So this is a thing that people have been talking about more and more in the past ten years or so. In public discourse, "GMO" (Genetically Modified Organism) means "agricultural product whose genes have been altered to produce a desired effect." There are about a million of these desired effects, but most of them have to do with making a given crop hardier and less vulnerable to failure. By and large, geneticists have succeeded at this goal. They've made crops that are resistant to frost or insects or fungal infection or drought, are more nutritious, need less fertilizer, yield higher amounts of usable grain, et cetera. This is widely regarded as a pretty good thing, because it increases the available supply of food. Norman Borlaug, a biologist who developed a very high-yield variety of wheat that was also resistant to drought and disease in the 60s and 70s, has saved more lives than probably any other single human being in history. His invention made it much easier for agriculturally-poor countries to reliably grow food; as a result, Mexico, Pakistan and India became secure in their ability to keep their people fed. Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold medal for his work.

    Borlaug's wheat cultivars were not GMOs, unless you're using a dishonestly broad definition of GM. They were efficiently crossbred - but that's not what people generally mean when they talk about genetic modification.

    There is a valid argument that crossbreeding is simply a primitive form of GM, but conflating the two concepts does not really make for a good discussion.

    There wasn't any intentional conflation on my part, I just didn't look to hard into what Borlaug actually did. Thanks for the correction

    Okay. I hope I didn't come across overly dickish.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2014
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I beg to differ.

    The environmental effects of these genes are never tested. They could easily have a detrimental effect on native species. Its equivalent to introducing a foreign species when they get out in the wild.

    In what meaningful way is introducing a new GM crop into the wild different from traditional aggressive crossbreeding, as far as detrimental effects on native species? Like, if I take a strain of corn, dick around with it in my greenhouse for several iterations, generate a new strain that does X, then start mass producing and harvesting it, does this not adversely affect the environment in a comparable way?

    (I'm honestly asking because I don't know.)

    Well, "meaningful" is one of those words that can trip us up.

    But the major difference? when you're crossbreeding, you're selecting for traits that have been grown in the wild and been consumed by humans, or, at the very least, animals. (Usually - it might not always be the case.) When using GM methods, you have the power to introduce traits that haven't necessarily been grown in the wild or consumed by humans. (Usually - again, there might be exceptions.)

    Biology is messy and if you go into anything in bio looking for bright white lines from which we can derive airtight principles, you won't find them.

    Example: Monsanto Roundup-ready crops express a variant of an enzyme (EPSPS) that comes from a plant-infecting bacterium.The most famous of these crops is NK603, which was the subject of a fraudulent study linking it to tumors. It's likely that even prior to NK603, some human beings have been eating some of that variant enzyme just from eating plants infected by that bacterium... but not in the kinds of quantities that you would be eating it if you relied on NK603 corn as a staple.

    Let me be clear: the studies linking NK603 to tumors were false, fabricated by a research team notorious for making shit up. There is no evidence that NK603 or any other Roundup-Ready crop is dangerous. I'm simply using NK603 as an example of the expression of a trait (Roundup-resistant EPSPS) that hadn't been previously expressed in a food crop.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    One of the more hazardous issues with the cross-pollination is that a lot of GMO crops are not made for human consumption, and can contaminate crops which are (granted that this is also an issue with crops that are bred normally).

    As for the issues with health, I'm a little worried about how the modifications are going to affect the balance of nutrients in our diets and in our ecosystem. They may be beneficial to people who have low-nutrition diets, but there is such a thing as too many vitamins and minerals. Any of the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K, as I recall) can build up and damage your health, and minerals like Iron can make you quite ill, and some people have to actively avoid iron in their diets, and any food that is fortified with it suddenly becomes a problem. This is, again, possible with non-GM foods, but nature already has killer wild carrots, so we don't really need to be pushing that ever-faster.
    I'm not sure I understand your example. Wild carrots are edible (though they get woody with age), and you cannot overdose on vitamin A from consuming carotenoids in any case. At really high doses you may start to turn orange.

    Overdosing on other types of vitamins could be a concern, but it seems far less of an issue than the vitamin/mineral deficiencies these crops are developed to treat.

    Hm. What I've heard may have been animal-related then. My mistake, though animals are an issue in general too.

    It's true that a lack of vitamins is the bigger deal, but solving hunger doesn't negate the toll of the obesity epidemic, so a vitamin boon one place causing an overabundance elsewhere is not a non-issue.

  • MvrckMvrck Dwarven MountainhomeRegistered User regular
    edited May 2014
    So, just for the record, those decrying Monsanto's terrible business practices, they have not actually taken a farmer to court over inadvertent cross contamination. The only civil cases to date have been when the farmers have knowingly isolated, cultivated and reproduced their seeds from cross contamination. Also, anyone who bitches about the Terminator Gene is full of shit, because no company has ever put it into a production seed. GMO crops are not specifically engineered to be sterile (some end up effectively sterile due to things discussed up thread, like kernals being ill suited for reproduction and the like).

    And in terms of these companies making farmers rebuy new seeds, instead of using old ones:
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260671/aib786g_1_.pdf

    This is something that has been going on for over half a century and well before any sort of raw genetic manipulation was happening.

    Edit: Sorry if I came off snippy, but it's a pretty big personal peeve of mine recently. With companies like DeBeers and basically any textile manufacturer, Monsanto and other GMO producers are ridiculously low on the "evil" scale. Hell with the recent price fixing bullshit, I'd probably rank most of the Silicon Valley tech companies over them.

    Mvrck on
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    I remember the horror story example of genetic tweaking going awry was using raoultella planticola to decompose dead plant life and turn it into useful alcohol. And it worked great! Except the stuff leftover from the fermentation process was to be used as fertilizer on the next crops, and said fermentation process did not kill off the bacteria. It would destroy the fresh crop, and being a common bacteria found everywhere in every kind of plant life, the modified version would have had no problem spreading worldwide and destroying all plant life ever.

    This particular example was Environmental Protection Agency approved, and had passed all necessary reviews to make it into the wild, and was only caught at the last possible second because some scientist took it upon herself to grump all over it.

    We came close to a theoretical apocalypse by tweaking a bacteria to make more useful plant decomposition. It's easy to see why people get a lil' apprehensive about modifying things for actual human consumption.

    Oh brilliant
  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited May 2014
    I remember the horror story example of genetic tweaking going awry was using raoultella planticola to decompose dead plant life and turn it into useful alcohol. And it worked great! Except the stuff leftover from the fermentation process was to be used as fertilizer on the next crops, and said fermentation process did not kill off the bacteria. It would destroy the fresh crop, and being a common bacteria found everywhere in every kind of plant life, the modified version would have had no problem spreading worldwide and destroying all plant life ever.

    This particular example was Environmental Protection Agency approved, and had passed all necessary reviews to make it into the wild, and was only caught at the last possible second because some scientist took it upon herself to grump all over it.

    We came close to a theoretical apocalypse by tweaking a bacteria to make more useful plant decomposition. It's easy to see why people get a lil' apprehensive about modifying things for actual human consumption.

    No...we did not. That's just another internet meme that's wildly spread incorrectly, from a flawed report. The scientist that reported on it apologized for incorrectly attributing papers, at least one nonexistent, and completely making up the fact it was approved for use already.

    Cabezone on
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    I said horror story example. I know that's not how it went down, it's a public perception thing. :P

    Oh brilliant
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    So, just for the record, those decrying Monsanto's terrible business practices, they have not actually taken a farmer to court over inadvertent cross contamination. The only civil cases to date have been when the farmers have knowingly isolated, cultivated and reproduced their seeds from cross contamination. Also, anyone who bitches about the Terminator Gene is full of shit, because no company has ever put it into a production seed. GMO crops are not specifically engineered to be sterile (some end up effectively sterile due to things discussed up thread, like kernals being ill suited for reproduction and the like).

    And in terms of these companies making farmers rebuy new seeds, instead of using old ones:
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260671/aib786g_1_.pdf

    This is something that has been going on for over half a century and well before any sort of raw genetic manipulation was happening.

    Edit: Sorry if I came off snippy, but it's a pretty big personal peeve of mine recently. With companies like DeBeers and basically any textile manufacturer, Monsanto and other GMO producers are ridiculously low on the "evil" scale. Hell with the recent price fixing bullshit, I'd probably rank most of the Silicon Valley tech companies over them.

    Ugh...

    Textile companies and DeBeers foster extremely dangerous borderline slave like working conditions.

    Could you perhaps describe this price fixing that is worse than hundreds of people burning to death, and hundreds of thousands being keep in what can charitably called poverty while working insane hours with no representation?

    Feel free to make a new thread if you think it would derail this one too much. Or just provide some linkage.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    The thing that worries me is that genetics is still a very immature field. There's still a lot that researchers do not understand about genetics.

    Take human genetics. We know a lot about the 20,000 genes that make up the human body. We even understand how a misfiring of specific genes can cause genetic diseases, including everyone's nightmare, cancer. We understand that, but we do not know enough to make cancer go away. When we turn off one gene's signals, cancer cells reroute to another signaling pathway. An entire pharmaceutical industry has sprung up around drugs made to silence one gene or another. Yet despite billions of dollars funding some of the brightest minds in existence, we can't figure out how to stop of the most common genetic illnesses.

    So, I have some concern that the guys in Monsanto's labs might not have a 100 percent foolproof understanding of the how, what and why behind their modified crops.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    So, just for the record, those decrying Monsanto's terrible business practices, they have not actually taken a farmer to court over inadvertent cross contamination. The only civil cases to date have been when the farmers have knowingly isolated, cultivated and reproduced their seeds from cross contamination. Also, anyone who bitches about the Terminator Gene is full of shit, because no company has ever put it into a production seed. GMO crops are not specifically engineered to be sterile (some end up effectively sterile due to things discussed up thread, like kernals being ill suited for reproduction and the like).

    And in terms of these companies making farmers rebuy new seeds, instead of using old ones:
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260671/aib786g_1_.pdf

    This is something that has been going on for over half a century and well before any sort of raw genetic manipulation was happening.

    Edit: Sorry if I came off snippy, but it's a pretty big personal peeve of mine recently. With companies like DeBeers and basically any textile manufacturer, Monsanto and other GMO producers are ridiculously low on the "evil" scale. Hell with the recent price fixing bullshit, I'd probably rank most of the Silicon Valley tech companies over them.

    Ugh...

    Textile companies and DeBeers foster extremely dangerous borderline slave like working conditions.

    Could you perhaps describe this price fixing that is worse than hundreds of people burning to death, and hundreds of thousands being keep in what can charitably called poverty while working insane hours with no representation?

    Feel free to make a new thread if you think it would derail this one too much. Or just provide some linkage.

    I think Mvrck was saying that DeBeers/Textiles are so evil that GMO companies don't even compare, and that the silicon valley price-fixing is arguably worse than anything Monsanto's done (but certainly not worse than Debeers/Textiles).

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    So, just for the record, those decrying Monsanto's terrible business practices, they have not actually taken a farmer to court over inadvertent cross contamination. The only civil cases to date have been when the farmers have knowingly isolated, cultivated and reproduced their seeds from cross contamination. Also, anyone who bitches about the Terminator Gene is full of shit, because no company has ever put it into a production seed. GMO crops are not specifically engineered to be sterile (some end up effectively sterile due to things discussed up thread, like kernals being ill suited for reproduction and the like).

    And in terms of these companies making farmers rebuy new seeds, instead of using old ones:
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260671/aib786g_1_.pdf

    This is something that has been going on for over half a century and well before any sort of raw genetic manipulation was happening.

    Edit: Sorry if I came off snippy, but it's a pretty big personal peeve of mine recently. With companies like DeBeers and basically any textile manufacturer, Monsanto and other GMO producers are ridiculously low on the "evil" scale. Hell with the recent price fixing bullshit, I'd probably rank most of the Silicon Valley tech companies over them.

    Ugh...

    Textile companies and DeBeers foster extremely dangerous borderline slave like working conditions.

    Could you perhaps describe this price fixing that is worse than hundreds of people burning to death, and hundreds of thousands being keep in what can charitably called poverty while working insane hours with no representation?

    Feel free to make a new thread if you think it would derail this one too much. Or just provide some linkage.

    I think Mvrck was saying that DeBeers/Textiles are so evil that GMO companies don't even compare, and that the silicon valley price-fixing is arguably worse than anything Monsanto's done (but certainly not worse than Debeers/Textiles).

    Ah, I fail at reading.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    So, just for the record, those decrying Monsanto's terrible business practices, they have not actually taken a farmer to court over inadvertent cross contamination. The only civil cases to date have been when the farmers have knowingly isolated, cultivated and reproduced their seeds from cross contamination. Also, anyone who bitches about the Terminator Gene is full of shit, because no company has ever put it into a production seed. GMO crops are not specifically engineered to be sterile (some end up effectively sterile due to things discussed up thread, like kernals being ill suited for reproduction and the like).

    And in terms of these companies making farmers rebuy new seeds, instead of using old ones:
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260671/aib786g_1_.pdf

    This is something that has been going on for over half a century and well before any sort of raw genetic manipulation was happening.

    Edit: Sorry if I came off snippy, but it's a pretty big personal peeve of mine recently. With companies like DeBeers and basically any textile manufacturer, Monsanto and other GMO producers are ridiculously low on the "evil" scale. Hell with the recent price fixing bullshit, I'd probably rank most of the Silicon Valley tech companies over them.

    Ugh...

    Textile companies and DeBeers foster extremely dangerous borderline slave like working conditions.

    Could you perhaps describe this price fixing that is worse than hundreds of people burning to death, and hundreds of thousands being keep in what can charitably called poverty while working insane hours with no representation?

    Feel free to make a new thread if you think it would derail this one too much. Or just provide some linkage.

    I think if I'm reading it right he's got things ranked, from most to least evil, DeBeers + Textile companies > Silicon Valley > Monsanto

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    The thing that worries me is that genetics is still a very immature field. There's still a lot that researchers do not understand about genetics.

    Take human genetics. We know a lot about the 20,000 genes that make up the human body. We even understand how a misfiring of specific genes can cause genetic diseases, including everyone's nightmare, cancer. We understand that, but we do not know enough to make cancer go away. When we turn off one gene's signals, cancer cells reroute to another signaling pathway. An entire pharmaceutical industry has sprung up around drugs made to silence one gene or another. Yet despite billions of dollars funding some of the brightest minds in existence, we can't figure out how to stop of the most common genetic illnesses.

    So, I have some concern that the guys in Monsanto's labs might not have a 100 percent foolproof understanding of the how, what and why behind their modified crops.

    That's a fair point as far as it goes, but we need to measure such concerns against the reality of what's plausible. We have a crappy understanding of what goes on at the very smallest scales inside of subatomic particles, but that doesn't mean people were right to be worried that the LHC was going to destroy the world with black holes, or whatever other crazy worries were flying about.

    We don't necessarily understand the full scope of what genetic modification entails, but that doesn't mean we should worry about cornzilla rising from the fields like some nightmarish Great Pumpkin and murdering us all. Not 100% understanding GMO doesn't mean much in itself. We don't 100% understand anything.

    Basically, I don't think we should really worry too much about a specific downside unless we have a plausible reason to believe that downside is at all likely; otherwise, you paralyze a whole lot of research based on well, you never know what might happen.

    Which isn't to say we shouldn't exercise caution. We absolutely should. But not because "we don't 100% know how this works."

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited May 2014
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The thing that worries me is that genetics is still a very immature field. There's still a lot that researchers do not understand about genetics.

    Take human genetics. We know a lot about the 20,000 genes that make up the human body. We even understand how a misfiring of specific genes can cause genetic diseases, including everyone's nightmare, cancer. We understand that, but we do not know enough to make cancer go away. When we turn off one gene's signals, cancer cells reroute to another signaling pathway. An entire pharmaceutical industry has sprung up around drugs made to silence one gene or another. Yet despite billions of dollars funding some of the brightest minds in existence, we can't figure out how to stop of the most common genetic illnesses.

    So, I have some concern that the guys in Monsanto's labs might not have a 100 percent foolproof understanding of the how, what and why behind their modified crops.

    That's a fair point as far as it goes, but we need to measure such concerns against the reality of what's plausible. We have a crappy understanding of what goes on at the very smallest scales inside of subatomic particles, but that doesn't mean people were right to be worried that the LHC was going to destroy the world with black holes, or whatever other crazy worries were flying about.

    We don't necessarily understand the full scope of what genetic modification entails, but that doesn't mean we should worry about cornzilla rising from the fields like some nightmarish Great Pumpkin and murdering us all. Not 100% understanding GMO doesn't mean much in itself. We don't 100% understand anything.

    Basically, I don't think we should really worry too much about a specific downside unless we have a plausible reason to believe that downside is at all likely; otherwise, you paralyze a whole lot of research based on well, you never know what might happen.

    Which isn't to say we shouldn't exercise caution. We absolutely should. But not because "we don't 100% know how this works."

    That ties into my agreement with others in this thread that I don't trust the company's involved to proceed with caution. I think there's a massive area for them to fuck up between 100 percent safe and Bio-Mold apocalypse, but I agree that we shouldn't push the panic button before there's evidence. But I do wish there was better funding for the academic and government labs testing this stuff, and I wish there was a much longer lag between discovery, initial testing and the bringing to market of these products.

    Phillishere on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I don't understand the science enough to necessarily wish there was a longer lag time, but I'm definitely comfortable with saying companies like Monsanto could probably stand to give more of a shit, seeing as how terrible they are about giving a shit about anything else.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Basically, it is possible for any of the stuff they are doing to end up in the food supply and in the wild. So, food that makes susceptible people sick(mostly, like allergens) and new invasive species are more or less possible.

    Very bad things are also conceivable. The sorts of things that make entertaining post apocalyptic science fiction, which is mostly what they are.

    I think genetic technologies are inevitable and likely to shape society in the coming centuries. I don't think this is a bad thing. But it is every bit as powerful a class of technologies as nuclear energy.

    Despite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the terror of the cold war I also support that.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • This content has been removed.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    Vox has a decent primer on the subject if anyone's looking for an overview of the basics: http://www.vox.com/cards/genetically-modified-foods/what-is-genetically-modified-food
    There's a subtle implied naturalistic fallacy in the way people talk about GMOs I've always felt, in the way that its implied as though nature has some filter that will prevent "unholy" crossbreeds from being created. Which is absurd - tons of things are toxic.

    I get that a lot. There's a lot of overt or implied concerns about purity in many of the objections I get over Facebook (which is my most frequent interaction I have with People Who Are Not Like Me). The other one is We Just Don't Know, And Isn't That Scary? My default is like what Jeffe pointed out: we just don't know so damn much, this is a normal thing. I'm concerned about the things we *do* have some knowledge of.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Given how bacteria swap genetic code, given how fast they evolve, and given the length of time the earth has existed without a super strain eating everything, I feel pretty confident that a super bacteria that will destroy all life would be next to impossible to create, even if we were deliberately trying to do so.

    There are things that keep me up at night. Fear of a world destroying GMO is not one of those things.

    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • MvrckMvrck Dwarven MountainhomeRegistered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    So, just for the record, those decrying Monsanto's terrible business practices, they have not actually taken a farmer to court over inadvertent cross contamination. The only civil cases to date have been when the farmers have knowingly isolated, cultivated and reproduced their seeds from cross contamination. Also, anyone who bitches about the Terminator Gene is full of shit, because no company has ever put it into a production seed. GMO crops are not specifically engineered to be sterile (some end up effectively sterile due to things discussed up thread, like kernals being ill suited for reproduction and the like).

    And in terms of these companies making farmers rebuy new seeds, instead of using old ones:
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260671/aib786g_1_.pdf

    This is something that has been going on for over half a century and well before any sort of raw genetic manipulation was happening.

    Edit: Sorry if I came off snippy, but it's a pretty big personal peeve of mine recently. With companies like DeBeers and basically any textile manufacturer, Monsanto and other GMO producers are ridiculously low on the "evil" scale. Hell with the recent price fixing bullshit, I'd probably rank most of the Silicon Valley tech companies over them.

    Ugh...

    Textile companies and DeBeers foster extremely dangerous borderline slave like working conditions.

    Could you perhaps describe this price fixing that is worse than hundreds of people burning to death, and hundreds of thousands being keep in what can charitably called poverty while working insane hours with no representation?

    Feel free to make a new thread if you think it would derail this one too much. Or just provide some linkage.

    I think if I'm reading it right he's got things ranked, from most to least evil, DeBeers + Textile companies > Silicon Valley > Monsanto

    This would be correct. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was posting from my phone earlier.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Given how bacteria swap genetic code, given how fast they evolve, and given the length of time the earth has existed without a super strain eating everything, I feel pretty confident that a super bacteria that will destroy all life would be next to impossible to create, even if we were deliberately trying to do so.

    There are things that keep me up at night. Fear of a world destroying GMO is not one of those things.

    My understanding is that if a pathogen is so super duper killy it has a very hard time not burning itself out. If a hypothetical organism killed you within a minute of exposure just how many people do you think it would kill total? Like, you're dead and at least the person to find you but I don't think the clown car of bodies keeps going much higher before people stop going near the pile of corpses.

    This happens even with slower scales, in part because most deadly pathogens disable your ability to travel and partly because most people just don't move around much.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Given how bacteria swap genetic code, given how fast they evolve, and given the length of time the earth has existed without a super strain eating everything, I feel pretty confident that a super bacteria that will destroy all life would be next to impossible to create, even if we were deliberately trying to do so.

    There are things that keep me up at night. Fear of a world destroying GMO is not one of those things.

    This is at least partially due to particularly virulent strains of things burning themselves out, though, rather than a hypothetical impossibility.

    (I mean yeah this isn't going to happen, but the (well, a) reason cholera doesn't kill so many people in first world nations is because it's in its best interest to cause low-level symptoms. When given the chance it will evolve straight back into a vicious murdermachine.)

Sign In or Register to comment.