Genetically Modified Foods

[Olthar]

That's what testing is for. Science has a sort of method, you see, and isn't just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks. Genetically modified foods are put through rigorous testing, and if something slips through, then that's the fault of the testing involved, not the process of genetically modifying food.

Basically, science is 'throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.' It's just done in a less vulgar and more organized fashion. Scientists input hundreds of different genes and see which ones work. The ones that do, they test. But just because something slips through doesn't mean its a fault in the testing. Take the bT corn, for example. Scientists shook flower parts onto leaves to see the effect on insects; when the insects died, they thought it was because of the flower parts. It was not until it was released into commercial use (modified to have no flower parts) that they realized that it was not the flower parts, it was the pollen, that was poisonous.

Yeah, that sounds like the testing was faulty.

[The Cosmos]

Basically, science is 'throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.' It's just done in a less vulgar and more organized fashion. Scientists input hundreds of different genes and see which ones work. The ones that do, they test. But just because something slips through doesn't mean its a fault in the testing. Take the bT corn, for example. Scientists shook flower parts onto leaves to see the effect on insects; when the insects died, they thought it was because of the flower parts. It was not until it was released into commercial use (modified to have no flower parts) that they realized that it was not the flower parts, it was the pollen, that was poisonous.

Yeah, that sounds like the testing was faulty.

It seems like the testing was faulty. But have you ever done something like that? You are thinking of every single possible scenario that might occur, and testing for it. There is a point where you think you have covered everything. Would you have thought to differentiate the pollen and the, say, anther?

[Libertarian California]

Why?

Because if one wants to eat naturally, then they should be able to. This artificial attack on natural food makes it difficult to tell what's truly natural and what's been artificially toyed with...

If you want to eat naturally, either grow your own food, and find someone that sells natural food.

The organic people love to emblazon their packages with "100% Organic", so they shouldn't be hard to find.

[Sixxar Isles]

GM foods are short-term, can not effectively assess the risk of human eating GM food for decades.

[The Cosmos]

Basically, science is 'throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.'

no it really isn't! stop sounding so certain about this when you don't actually know what you're talking about!

if science were just random bullshit it wouldn't have a specific name like that and we wouldn't be making the vast majority of technological advances on its back. research operates by producing theory which reflects reality, then applying this theory to produce new and interesting things or ideas. the whole point is that you avoid having to brute force it.

Yes, of course you start with a theory. But, especially in genetics, thousands of possible genes are input, because a gene that might seem to be useless in a particular case might turn out to be a perfect fit. It is much more random than you think so. And I do know a considerable amount about what I'm talking about.

[The Merchant Republics]

My whole views can be summed up in this response I made some year or so ago to a similar thread.

We will rue the day when we allow GM foods to be widely available. The consequences look very dire.

http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

Indeed I do rue the day, April 18th, 14,000 BC. Growing crops by planting the best seeds in the ground! Damn you neolithic farmers, do you not understand you are playing god, god I tell you!

Genetically modifying food is just doing what we were already doing with food, but smarter and more precisely.

Naturally, it's kind of odd to put fish DNA in carrots and what not, but the majority of GMO concerns seems to be more or less paranoia at anything scientists (especially privately-funded scientists) do.

[Olthar]

Yeah, that sounds like the testing was faulty.

It seems like the testing was faulty. But have you ever done something like that? You are thinking of every single possible scenario that might occur, and testing for it. There is a point where you think you have covered everything. Would you have thought to differentiate the pollen and the, say, anther?

Assumptions are a terrible thing to make, even more so in science. If the scientists made an assumption, that was entirely their fault, and it clearly compromised the testing.

[Broccoli]

Argument, argument. Let me offer my skills in moderation. FREE BROCCOLI! GENETICALLY MODIFIED AND NON-GENETICALLY MODIFIED!

[The Cosmos]

It seems like the testing was faulty. But have you ever done something like that? You are thinking of every single possible scenario that might occur, and testing for it. There is a point where you think you have covered everything. Would you have thought to differentiate the pollen and the, say, anther?

Assumptions are a terrible thing to make, even more so in science. If the scientists made an assumption, that was entirely their fault, and it clearly compromised the testing.

Yes, true. I'm not defending the scientists, don't get me wrong, just saying that the lab testing experience is intense, and its hard to get everything perfect.

[Farnhamia]

Because if one wants to eat naturally, then they should be able to. This artificial attack on natural food makes it difficult to tell what's truly natural and what's been artificially toyed with...

If you want to eat naturally, either grow your own food, and find someone that sells natural food.

The organic people love to emblazon their packages with "100% Organic", so they shouldn't be hard to find.

Not to mention the PLU code:

• A five-digit number that starts with a 9 means the item is organic.

• A four-digit code beginning with a 3 or a 4 means the produce is probably conventionally grown. For example, regular small lemons sold in the U.S. are labeled 4033, large are 4053; small organic lemons are coded 94033, large are 94053.

• A five-digit code that starts with an 8 means the item is genetically modified (it has genes from other organisms). You won’t see many of those because only genetically modified versions of corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, and squash are now widely sold. And because PLU codes aren’t mandatory, companies can label those items as conventional. The problem is that although an estimated 60 to 70 percent of food items sold, including packaged goods, have genetically modified ingredients, little is known about the long-term effects of consuming them, and concerns have been raised about an increase in allergies and other health issues. For more info, visit the Non-GMO Shopping Guide website.

[Olthar]

Assumptions are a terrible thing to make, even more so in science. If the scientists made an assumption, that was entirely their fault, and it clearly compromised the testing.

Yes, true. I'm not defending the scientists, don't get me wrong, just saying that the lab testing experience is intense, and its hard to get everything perfect.

Then you do more testing to fix your mistakes.

[Broccoli]

Assumptions are a terrible thing to make, even more so in science. If the scientists made an assumption, that was entirely their fault, and it clearly compromised the testing.

Yes, true. I'm not defending the scientists, don't get me wrong, just saying that the lab testing experience is intense, and its hard to get everything perfect.

AHA! Are you saying that broccoli isn't perfect?

[Kugai]

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity...These substances [GMO foods] have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

From research paper, "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health"

Pictures of rats from another study, who were fed a lifetime diet of GMOs and developed tumors:

Of course, the real experiment right now is going on in fields of GMO crops all across the planet...and the test subjects include the human beings who are consuming GMO produce.

[The Cosmos]

Yes, true. I'm not defending the scientists, don't get me wrong, just saying that the lab testing experience is intense, and its hard to get everything perfect.

Then you do more testing to fix your mistakes.

They did. After they realized their mistake, they did testing, identified the culprit gene, removed it, removed the old faulty corn line from the market, and replaced it with the new one.

[The Merchant Republics]

GM foods are short-term, can not effectively assess the risk of human eating GM food for decades.

Long-term affects usually have short-term markers. Very few things are harmful only in the long-term. In the short-term GM food is safe for consumption and will benefit the quality of human life, the economy and the planet massively in the meantime.

Moreover, there's a very ridiculous mindset that GM food is something that if one case is bad, all of it is bad. We are discussing thousands of different organisms modified in thousands of different ways. In the long-term some GMOs may turn out to be unhealthy, even dangerous, but they should not be treated as one anomalous group. It would only mean that GMO was dangerous. Meanwhile the vast majority are likely to be safe and considering the benefits we've already seen it would be foolish of us not to pursue them.

[The Cosmos]

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity...These substances [GMO foods] have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

From research paper, "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health"

Pictures of rats from the study, who were fed a lifetime diet of GMOs:

(Image)

Of course, the real experiment right now is going on in fields of GMO crops all across the planet...and the test subjects include the human beings who are consuming GMO produce.

Yes, of course if all you eat is untested GMOS, then you will get sick. But our GMOS are tested, and, we aren't eating a lifetime diet of GMOS. we also eat other things.

[The Serbian Empire]

I support GM foods myself, but there are some drawbacks. For instance, the insertion of another protein, while contributing to hardiness, could also, for instance, form a chemical that is toxic to the plant's main pollinators. If you have studied much advanced biology, you would know that genetic modification nearly always has unplanned effects.

um it's pretty clear you haven't had much education in biology at all, so I'm not sure why you're pretending to be super-knowledgable.

fyi that is not how genetic modification works.

It involves injecting DNA from other species into a plant.

[Broccoli]

GM foods are short-term, can not effectively assess the risk of human eating GM food for decades.

Long-term affects usually have short-term markers. Very few things are harmful only in the long-term. In the short-term GM food is safe for consumption and will benefit the quality of human life, the economy and the planet massively in the meantime.

Moreover, there's a very ridiculous mindset that GM food is something that if one case is bad, all of it is bad. We are discussing thousands of different organisms modified in thousands of different ways. In the long-term some GMOs may turn out to be unhealthy, even dangerous, but they should not be treated as one anomalous group. It would only mean that GMO was dangerous. Meanwhile the vast majority are likely to be safe and considering the benefits we've already seen it would be foolish of us not to pursue them.

Excellent, excellent...

[Kugai]

Yes, of course if all you eat is untested GMOS, then you will get sick. But our GMOS are tested, and, we aren't eating a lifetime diet of GMOS. we also eat other things.

Actually all of these GMO varieties were tested - by Monsanto, the company that manufactures them - and were and still are touted as 'safe' by the company that makes them. The problem is, the tests are often short 90 day trials that do not tell you anything about the long term effects of consuming GM produce. The studies I linked to provide testing over the lifetime of an organism eating a GMO diet. What they found was severe organ damage and increased risk of cancer.

How do you know what you are eating if it is not labeled?

[The Cosmos]

um it's pretty clear you haven't had much education in biology at all, so I'm not sure why you're pretending to be super-knowledgable.

fyi that is not how genetic modification works.

It involves injecting DNA from other species into a plant.

That is rarely how it works. Cells don't just absorb random pieces of DNA. Usually, what happens is you culture bacterial cells, of a bacterial species that is in symbiotic relationship with the target species. You get the cells, make them competent, and insert the DNA in the form of plasmids. If the bacterial cells accept the plasmids, then you culture the new cells and inject them into the target.

[Alekera]

Why does man constantly try to play God?

Ban GMOs, or at the very least label them.

[Broccoli]

Why does man constantly try to play God?

Ban GMOs, or at the very least label them.

It's not playing with God's creation. He created this world, then set us free to learn about it for ourselves. I don't think that genetic modification will offend Him.

[The Cosmos]

Yes, of course if all you eat is untested GMOS, then you will get sick. But our GMOS are tested, and, we aren't eating a lifetime diet of GMOS. we also eat other things.

Actually all of these GMO varieties were tested - by Monsanto, the company that manufactures them - and were and still are touted as 'safe' by the company that makes them. The problem is, the tests are often short 90 day trials that do not tell you anything about the long term effects of consuming GM produce. The studies I linked to provide testing over the lifetime of an organism eating a GMO diet. What they found was severe organ damage and increased risk of cancer.

How do you know what you are eating if it is not labeled?

Hm, I didn't know that they were tested. still, 90 days is not sufficient testing. Sometimes scientists spend years testing new genomes.

[Broccoli]

Yes, of course if all you eat is untested GMOS, then you will get sick. But our GMOS are tested, and, we aren't eating a lifetime diet of GMOS. we also eat other things.

How do you know what you are eating if it is not labeled?

Well, the last time I saw an apple labeled 'apple,' i thought it was pretty stupid. I mean, I would know it was an apple if it wasnt labeled.

[Alekera]

Why does man constantly try to play God?

Ban GMOs, or at the very least label them.

It's not playing with God's creation. He created this world, then set us free to learn about it for ourselves. I don't think that genetic modification will offend Him.

He didn't set us free, we became free by eating the fruit of knowledge.... but thats a debate for another time.

Anytime you introduce a nonnative organism into a foreign ecosystem, the after effects are always detrimental to the equilibrium of the ecosystem. When one alters the genes of any organism, they are, in terms, creating a new species. So, if we were to introduce this species into a foreign ecosystem, it will most likely disrupt the equilibrium of said ecosystem.