Genetically modified Organisms

[????]

It is no secret anymore that Genetically modified food (Hereby known as GMF) is permanently part of our diet.  They make up approximately 70% of the average person's diet.  The simple fact is that  GMF's allow the human population to be sustained.  They can also increase nutrient content, and produce more yield compared to traditional means.  However, they are expensive, and they produce some ethical concerns and questions on what is actually in the food we are consuming. 

Humans cannot naturally eat a large variety; we are limited by what we can produce around us.  This includes a limit on how much can be grown as well.  Globalization has allowed for that limit to be dropped, and for the introduction of GMF's as a market produced good, for sale to the highest bidder.  Although there are no good solutions to the food problem, the complications must be taken into account; humans rely on GMF's to survive in our vast numbers.  Traditional means cannot solely be used to provide food for all the people in the world anymore

What is your opinion? 

[Rosti LFC]

I personally think that all the criticism of them is bullshit, and that the people who campaign against them and cite them as ever are either religious fanatics or don't totally know what they're talking about.

I don't see how there's an ethical problem. Religious people might make one up about how it's not God's will, but I really don't see how breeding special new species of plants in a laboratory is in any way an ethical issue.

The only real issue with them is that genes may get transferred. You create a plant immune to weedkillers, so you can blast the fields with the stuff and it won't die. Unfortunately, somehow this gene gets transferred to weeds, and you get MRSA-style weeds in your fields, killing your crops.
See, this might sound plausible and reasonably scary, but in reality it's not. Cross-pollination is pretty damn rare when you're talking about different species, and the likelihood of any actual genes being passed down, let alone the modified one in question is negligible.
And even if they do get passed down, it doesn't put us in a situation much worse than if we didn't have the GM crops to begin with. It's a bit like banning the use of all antibiotics so that they don't all become completely useless. The cure is self-defeating.

[Cesium]

I don't see any problem. Humans have been modifying plants for thousands of years. Now we have a couple of main staple crops that are completely adapted to being grown by us. Anything that can increase the production, or avert diseases that would otherwise decimate a monoculture, as long as it's tested to be reasonably sure it's safe, can only be a good thing.

[Lardarse]

Humans have been modifying plants for thousands of years.

The only difference now is that the methods have changed...

[Cesium]

The only difference now is that the methods have changed...

Yeah, I mean, now it's just we can do it deliberately and quickly. But we've never wanted a crop that grows slowly and gets eaten by bugs. Those strains have been filtered out by evolution and agriculture.

[Nines~Tempest]

I don't see any problem. Humans have been modifying plants for thousands of years. Now we have a couple of main staple crops that are completely adapted to being grown by us. Anything that can increase the production, or avert diseases that would otherwise decimate a monoculture, as long as it's tested to be reasonably sure it's safe, can only be a good thing.

That.

I'm very pissed off at groups like green peace or those eco-terrorists.  Their arguements is bullshit as it is.

"Oh, we don't know the effect on humans yet."
THERE IS NONE <_> random bacteria proteins that inert and unused will not harm humans.

"There is no evidence for them being safe."
None for hurting either.  Both statements are equal and inarguable...

"If we want to solve some world hunger crisis, we should just give them money and food, not GMF them."
The world isn't running on fucking charity.

"Iz BAAAAD."
excuse us.

I got all of these arguement from a documentary we watched in class.  I think if any group is against solving the hunger crisis in Kenya because GMF is "bad," you are a disgusting person in my book.

[Alex]

"Oh, we don't know the effect on humans yet."

Can you really blame them for worrying? Look at what's happened with lead, mercury, and possibly plastic bottles. We always seem to discover later that we're fucking ourselves over.

[Snoggums]

I think that's my main problem with it Alex, we think we have control over something only to have thousands of people suffer years after.   

I really don't care about genetically modified foods, it's not as much modification as it is select breeding, and it does save quite a bit of money in the end.  More food can go out like that.  I'm actually all for testing organisms out, and such.  It's not like scientists will purposely be making deadly viruses or uncontrollable, rabid, immortal, blood sucking humanoids.  We do need to expand in the field of medics, biology, and genetics because that's what people naturally do and it does contribute to society.

[Rosti LFC]

Can you really blame them for worrying? Look at what's happened with lead, mercury, and possibly plastic bottles. We always seem to discover later that we're fucking ourselves over.

Except there's no actual difference in the plant. It's a minute change in the genes and DNA. Not some sort of crazy new chemical we're adding in that might be lethal to us. I really don't see how it could make something perfectly edible to become toxic.

[Fluffy Cocaine]

"Oh, we don't know the effect on humans yet."

That's actually a fantastic reason to at least have some apprehension towards the technology.

Rosti, we, as an entire human race, cannot see how anything would go from being perfectly edible to being toxic if it's beyond our understanding. How do we know what the effect really is on our body? No one would expect the plastic bottle thing. It's not like millions have just dropped dead from using plastic bottles. It's a slow snowball effect.

There is always something we can do to screw ourselves up. There are millions of ways, and al of them are pretty easy to accomplish.

That being said, I only said that it was a justification for having a small amount of apprehension when approaching the issue. I didn't say that it's a justification for not doing it at all, because it's really not. It's just a reason why we should perhaps watch where we step a little more.

[Rosti LFC]

But we understand the process behind genetics pretty well.

All you're doing is growing a gene inside a bacteria and transplanting it into a plant nucleus.
Not only are these things tiny, and in rediculously small amounts in terms of concentration relative to your body, but they're just genes. Genes like are in your body. Genes like are in every single damn organic compound that you eat. You eat meat from an animal, or fish, or any sort of plant or vegetable, and you're eating tons of genes. Pretty much all of which will be different to each other. There's no reason why these GM ones will be harmful when the thousands of others are not. They're just amino acid chains like any other DNA strand.

This is what I meant in the first post when I said that the people arguing against these things seem to have no idea when it comes to the science behind it. There's no way this can be toxic or harmful to the body.

[Cesium]

Is it better to die from hunger or GM food poisoning? Who's to say?

But then, every technology has risks that we don't discover. How did we get to here agriculturally? We tried out crop strains, and if people died, we stopped using them.

Although we might understand basic genetics, the actual interactions of biomolecules are still murky. We can't follow all the consequences.

[????]

[Cesium]

Human genes are being patented too, I think. It could end up that companies own more of your genome than you do. And gene patents make it very difficult to conduct research or mass-produce GM seeds.

[Rosti LFC]

GM foods aren't harmful to us. They can't be. We're not introducing anything new into our systems.

Lead, Mercury, plastic, etc are not naturally found inside the human body. If they are, they're trace elements and shouldn't actually be there. That's why they're toxic. They shouldn't be there in the first place, our body isn't able to handle and process them, and things begin to fuck up.
Genes don't have that problem. We're made of them ourselves. They're as naturally occurring as the rest of the plant that houses them, it's just that we've artificially injected them into the plant. They're not foreign chemicals to our body. They're just amino acids rearranged into a slightly different order than what we would otherwise be eating.
If genes could be toxic, then that'd mean that eating some kinds of animal or plant would be lethal to us because their genes are bad for us. That isn't the case. If eating animals or plants causes us to be ill then it's because there's some sort of actual poison or bacteria/virus being contained in what we're eating, not because their genes are harmful.

[Cesium]

It's not the genes themselves but the products of the genes. I'm sure you agree that genes can produce harmful substances in organisms. So when crops are modified, the modifications could have unforeseen effects, or allergies could kick in. Plus there could be environmental ramifications. It's not just the genes that could be dangerous.

[????]

Human genes are being patented too, I think. It could end up that companies own more of your genome than you do. And gene patents make it very difficult to conduct research or mass-produce GM seeds.

That's a whole different can of worms known as stem cell research, which can be patented.  That is going off topic, and should be started in another thread once this one dries up..  (I was thinking of starting it later..)

GM foods aren't harmful, as Chris says, but they may cause reactions in the stomach of the new host..  Who's to say they can't pass on antibiotic resistance?  It hasn't not been proven.

[Rosti LFC]

So when crops are modified, the modifications could have unforeseen effects, or allergies could kick in. Plus there could be environmental ramifications. It's not just the genes that could be dangerous.

Indeed, but they can almost certainly be put through the exact same testing that new chemical pesticides have to undergo, and will have the same validity.

[Nines~Tempest]

Rosti is killing me; AMINO ACIDS =/= INSIDE DNA, you've said that twice.  Amino acids come from the three-base codons found on RNA (from DNA), and make proteins.  There are only twenty.  Proteins... innumberable (sp? lol).  Near infinite possibilities considering possible shapes and orders.

Now... these GM foods will not harm us, and if they did, they'd hurt us with proteins made.  Quite frankly, if they even do thatm considering they are allergic reactions, they'd be so uncommon that maybe one in a couple hundred million people would get cold-like symptoms :x.  Too rare really; we don't ban peanuts do we?

Heck, some brands of GM foods HAVE been recalled for the "chance" of an allergic reaction.  We arw cautious with this, but the ability to help people with poor growing soil (mexico & kenya) is immense.

[Rosti LFC]

First time I was being sidetracked by someone bugging me with chemistry homework so terms got confused in my mind. I meant to say nucleotides.
The second time I wasn't referring to the genes themselves, more the effect that the genes have inside the plant, seeing as they're basically just the instructions to how the amino acids are rearranged. Change a gene, you just change the way amino acids are arranged, you're not vastly changing the physical makeup of the plant too much, so it'd be hard to alter something from being non-toxic to toxic.

However, I accept that in the past drugs have had disastrous side effects merely down to optical isomerism, which is possibly the smallest chemical alteration you can get.