Are GMOs good or bad? Genetic engineering and our food

boing
43

OK fair enough you aren’t making that argument, just talking about it. But to that point I’d say - we don’t really need that much data. A GMO stalk of corn is just going to be a stalk corn. It isn’t going to have cyanide or some unknown chemical. Yes in the example some might have a chemical harmful to pests, but that is a known thing. It won’t be like something else sneaks in we won’t know about.

And if the worry that some trace chemical in GMO corn turns out to be sorta harmful in 50 years, there are many more examples of known foods that will cause health issues if you eat too much of it. We don’t have warning labels on soda and Twinkies.

1 Like
44

Are screwdrivers good or bad?

GMOs are a tool. But they’re a tool that is mostly in the hands of capitalists with big anti-regulation lobbies, who are mostly using that tool to sell more stuff – and a lot of that stuff is pesticide.

I don’t know if I believe the hype that GMOs are the only cure for starvation. I think they can be beneficial, but probably not as beneficial as changing the economic system that is starving some people at the expense of others and making the Earth a less hospitable place to live and grow food.

13 Likes
45

I probably harp/repeat this too often but for chrissakes we waste enough food per year in the US to feed every person within our borders suffering from hunger/food insecurity.

3 Likes
46

In the US, that is true. It isn’t true around the world.

Plus if we see drastic climate changes, it could be a problem in the US as well.

47

I’m surprised no one has pointed out the fact we’ve been happily eating varieties created by irradiating or chemically treating seeds to produce mutations since the 1930’s. This has nothing at all to do with natural selection or traditional breeding and is way more likely to have random outcomes than gene editing, yet you don’t hear boo about it from the GMO warriors. It doesn’t need to be labeled at all.

From Wiki:

From 1930 to 2014 more than 3200 mutagenic plant varietals have been released[1][2] that have been derived either as direct mutants (70%) or from their progeny (30%).[3] Crop plants account for 75% of released mutagenic species with the remaining 25% ornamentals or decorative plants.[4] However, although the FAO/IAEA reported in 2014 that over 1,000 mutant varietals of major staple crops were being grown worldwide,[1] it is unclear how many of these varieties are currently used in agriculture or horticulture around the world, as these seeds are not always identified or labeled as being mutagenic or having a mutagenic provenance.

7 Likes
48

where is isolation, anyhow? Isn’t that over by hubris, on the path to hindsight?

2 Likes
49

The acceleration of otherwise random mutations is not at all the same sort of thing as gene editing or introduction of animal or synthetic genes. It’s like comparing apples (which when you plant them, grow a random apple tree with massive random mutations) to cows. It’s a disingenuous comparison, if you understand the science.

I think we should edit our own work, and not play creator.

GMO bad.

50

Well, that’s ironic.

1 Like
51

Well, we could start raising feed crops and livestock near each other instead of thousands of miles apart, which burns tons of fossil fuels in transport, and depletes the soil in one region while thousands of tonnes of natural fertilizer instead breed disease and contamination from rancid festering pools of literal shit.

Or possibly invest in vertical aquaponic farming, which would allow us to grow food closer to the point of use while reducing fuel costs, utilizing resources more efficiently, and producing crops at a much higher density.

Of course, if you don’t want to move things indoors, there’s always the idea of growing local crops locally instead of trying to grow wheat in Brazil and strawberries in New England. Encourage small scale localized production rather than concentrating everything to a handful of large scale, centralized corporate “farms”.

And there’s the radical idea of not encouraging a sugar laden, veggie-free, 3500 calorie diet for everybody in the US.

Of course, as long as it’s more profitable to sell patented seeds and destroy the ecosystem with chemical fertilizer runoff, prophylactic use of antibiotics and pesticides, and corporatized industrial scale agriculture, then we ain’t gonna do fuck all about it. Who cares if 11 billion people starve in the next decades when we can make money now?

I’m against GMOs for the same reason “I hate flying”- It’s not necessarily the flight itself, but it’s a hell of a lot easier to just say that than explain the tyrannical indignity of airport “security”, how the undersized seats leave me cramped and sore for days, the painful ear and sinus issues I usually have to deal with, risk of lost luggage or broken instruments… yada yada yada. Its easier to just say I hate flying.

Likewise, it’s easier to just say I’m against GMOs. They are an amazing technology with the potential for a lot of good- But everything we’re doing with them is a fucking travesty. They pretty much exist for the sole purpose of destroying ecosystems with large scale monoculture to sell toxic chemicals to generate profit for a couple corporations whose stated goal is the monopolization of the world’s food supply.

Our species will kill itself off by then, and we fucking deserve it.

8 Likes
52

I don’t think you understand the science of apples. Spitters aren’t mutations, they’re randomly expressed genes.

2 Likes
53

If you look at nations that can’t feed their people, the reason is usually policy – and more often than not it’s at least partially the fault of bigger, wealthier, imperialist nations.

I maintain there would be enough of everything for everyone if people weren’t assholes.

4 Likes
54

what is ironic, how so? I can only see the irony in this if you conflate selective breeding with GM, which you can totally do if you want to pound some sand.

55

I don’t think you understand analogies.

like =/= identical to

56

Or blasting them with radiation and chemicals until something useful drops out.

I believe what you are looking for is Biodynamics! Its better because we buried a severed cow head in the south end of the field while Jupiter was ascendant.

The point there is that its just as frightening sounding as GMOs. But with considerably more risk of negative traits that could cause problems piggy backing along. And the anti-GMO set doesn’t seem to notice or care. It plays directly to the risk of GMOs not being the risks with GMOs. But risks with crops/plant breeding in general. And highlights the fact that much of the oposition to GMOs is because they’re GMOs not because of any inherent risk or wrongness with GMOs.

6 Likes
57

Often true, but just look at Bangladesh, 160m people in a swampy land the size of Wisconsin. It’s a disaster waiting to happen, and does again and again. Yes, the country has had at least it’s share of colonial abuse, but its hard to argue the land is not over capacity.

If people weren’t assholes a whole lot would be different. I’m not holding my breath.

58

Breeding isn’t the same as GM, but it is dealing with the same thing on different scales with differnent levels of precision. So the opposition isn’t whether one should modify crops, but to what degree and/or method.

I should also have quoted this line to highlight the irony (I’ll edit that in):
"I think we should edit our own work, and not play creator. "

As one first appeals to science for reasons why it’s different, and then falls back to a moral or philosophical position that GMO is bad, vs the expected out come of a scientific reason.

In many cases the causes were at least partially due to man, and in many cases famines and the like are exacerbated by man. So I totally agree that the food issue is at partly (mostly?) due to distribution, vs capacity. Though there are many areas who would benefit from better crop yields.

That too, but I liked my sexy mashing example better. What can I say, I am a romantic.

3 Likes
59

No it isn’t. It’s what we’ve been doing for the 4,000+ years prior to the 1980s.

Like what? If its a problem then two or three examples should not be hard for you to show.

Might that be because of the hogwash?

What risks are associated with plant husbandry and increased mutation? I hope you can elucidate these. Not handwave at them, name them. Show some work.

There is inherent wrongness with GMOS both because of genetic drift as well as the unknown and nearly unresearched consequences of cross-genus gene transfers. And that’s before you consider that most GMOs lead to increased use of herbicides and pesticides, and the impacts of those on the environment are very much part of GMO tech.

You say I have to prove it’s not safe, I say you should prove it IS.

3 Likes
60

not all “modification of crops” is GM. To claim so is a rhetorical game which I am not going to play.

One is using nature to our advantage. The other is using our advantage to “nature”.

61

The problem isn’t science, it’s science plus unregulated capitalism.

4 Likes
62

Well aware, however the point is germane to the problems with distribution at large with a capitalist economy.

Maybe sometime in the second half of the century. There is actually a (somewhat perverse) clic that are betting on improved ag production in the US as temps rise over the next few decades.

The above is a great example of how profiteers lick their chops when confronted with crises. It is worth noting, IMO, that the banks have taken greatly to investing in ag land.

1 Like