[FreeBirdfood]

I'll preface by saying, I'm new to this, I was going to post it in the "Ask an INTJ a Question" thread, but it seemed too long, and I think this would make for an interesting topic of discussion. Am I allowed to post this here? Thanks!

GMO foods. Genetically modified organisms.

All over Facebook, there's been loads of people that I have generally categorized as extremely misinformed in the past under the codename "Republican" posting things about how GMOs are horrible and they'll cause cancer, burn holes in your stomach, make antibiotics useless and how it's way better to eat organic.

Am I missing something here or is this all a load of ego-stroking to make themselves feel better about "doing something" for the world? I cannot find any solid information describing the actual dangers, and I cannot understand it myself, knowing how genetics works, as well as understanding how society usually works.

So far the only "risk" factor I've found is in people with allergies to certain vegetables, and crossing genetics of plants such as corn, with, say, a peanut plant. Suddenly now people are allergic to "peanut corn" (completely hypothetical).

Buuuuuuut then you have common-freaking-sense that tells you that any smart business man does not want to kill off a large group of their customers, because it would ruin them. It seems to me logically that they would do extensive testing on all newly created GMOs before actually allowing them to reach the public.

Does ANYONE have any reason why I should not continue to think of these people as incredibly ignorant? Sources are much appreciated, I just know that you guys are the best people I can go to for a solid and unbiased answer on this. Anyone done any research in this field lately?

 

[Mathfreak1337]

Honestly the sad truth is that most of the INTJs here don't know diddly squat about anything. They're just experts at google. I mean I'll read up on some stuff and get back to you but for now don't expect a lot of feed back on this one.

 

[detgfrsh]

My best friend is a researcher in the field. So I've gotten numerous lectures on the subject. roud:

What people seem to miss is that genetic modification is a technique, so any comment on the ethical implications should focus on what is actually being done. Genetically modified crops can be divided into two categories:

Cisgenesis
This is a gene transfer between two different varieties of the same plant. There is no reason at all for it to be controversial, because the same result could be achieved by selective breeding. The GM technique is just a more expedient way to achieve the same result. You might think of two varieties of tomato: a commercial variety (which tastes good and ships well), and a disease-resistant variety (which might not taste good or survive transportation). You want to maintain the good characteristics of the commercial variety and make it disease-resistant. That would probably take several generations of breeding.

Transgenesis
Gene transfer from a completely unrelated species (not possible through breeding). At least I understand the ethical concerns for this one (creating glow in the dark rabbits by transferring jellyfish genes, for example). But, back to food, modifications that increase yield (leading to more food per land area), increase drought resistance (less irrigation), or give resistance to diseases and pests (less antibiotic and pesticide use) have undeniable social and environmental benefits. I think that outweighs the value of "letting nature run its course" or "not playing god". It doesn't hurt to test new products, but in fact GMOs should have less risk of causing cancer and contributing to drug resistance because the modifications allow farmers to reduce the use of pesticides and antibiotics (some of which have caused these kinds of problems).

 

[luemb]

I agree with the above poster, but want to add a third class.

Some genetically modified plants have been modified to contain pesticides within the plants themselves, meaning the farmers do not have to apply as much pesticides. I think they may also do genetic modification to allow the plants to withstand stronger pesticides or herbicides, which also changes the chemicals the plant produces while growing. Yes, plants do have natural pesticides within them, for example a class of chemicals called salicylates, which I and many other people are sensitive to. (A majority of people are not, and Salicylic acid is the chemical in aspirin that many people use for pain relief without many side effects in the correct dose.) However, these 'unnatural' pesticides that the plant now produces in the stocks, leaves, flowers, and edible parts are thought to be a major factor in the widespread bee die-offs and can cause cancer in rats and probably humans. Not only this, these pesticides get into the surrounding environment and can damage wetlands and ecosystems where these chemicals may build up.

All in all, there's a sensitive balance between plants not wanting the bad insects to eat them, and wanting to ensure the good insects will be around to pollinate them. We're playing with that by doing genetic modifications, and if bad mistakes are made it could destroy the bee population, and, in turn, our whole food supply.

Link #1: Research in France showing a connection between this kind of GMOs in corn and cancer: https://plus.google.com/u/0/118292867302583509179/posts/YWHcJU9Q78Y
This caused a major stir and I think they banned at least some GMO products in the EU because of this.

Link #2: And this is a sign of how science is going down the drain in this case, which is scary on it's own. http://www.corbettreport.com/genetic-fallacy-how-monsanto-silences-scientific-dissent/


Link #3: Entirely hypothesised connection with GMOs and pesticides, but, in my opinion, possible, as someone who currently experiences mood-altering, anti-social swings and horrible headaches simply from eating 'natural' pesticides (salicylates) in plants. http://healthland.time.com/2014/02/...ore-brain-harming-chemicals-than-ever-before/

 

[beth x]

I agree with David Suzuki (geneticist) that it's a mass experiment and a dangerous one. He says that it is unethical in the fact that no-one really knows which food has been tampered with and that's it's all really about the buck not making food more readily available.

Aside from that for those who suffer from food intolerance it could mean they are the canaries in the coalmine. The way vegetables are eradiated means that there is an upshoot in salicylates in food already causing people who are sensitive to change the way they eat. Imagine people who don't even know they are intolerant to salicylates but have been getting by because they already eat a bland diet. They are sick all the time and can't even put a finger on the cause. Vegies are supposed to be safe.

 

[sehvral]

Buuuuuuut then you have common-freaking-sense that tells you that any smart business man does not want to kill off a large group of their customers, because it would ruin them. It seems to me logically that they would do extensive testing on all newly created GMOs before actually allowing them to reach the public.

This is the same industry that released Olestra, even though the FDA knew that it caused GI issues and blocked absorption of important vitamins well in advance of their approval. If you get cancer thirty years from now because of a food, the company doesn't give a flying fuck. They've already made their profits off of you. If common sense applied, Marlboro wouldn't be selling cigarettes...

Does ANYONE have any reason why I should not continue to think of these people as incredibly ignorant? Sources are much appreciated, I just know that you guys are the best people I can go to for a solid and unbiased answer on this. Anyone done any research in this field lately?

Here's the thing for these people: they have a history of being fucked. Miracles of modern science are released, hyped up to the public, then a few years later it is revealed that the New Shiny Thing is actually bad for them and the product is pulled. When dealing with your health, where problems can take decades to show up, it isn't unreasonable for them to not trust new products in the short term given that this industry has a history of deception.

 

[beth x]

This is the same industry that released Olestra, even though the FDA knew that it caused GI issues and blocked absorption of important vitamins well in advance of their approval. If you get cancer thirty years from now because of a food, the company doesn't give a flying fuck. They've already made their profits off of you. If common sense applied, Marlboro wouldn't be selling cigarettes...



Here's the thing for these people: they have a history of being fucked. Miracles of modern science are released, hyped up to the public, then a few years later it is revealed that the New Shiny Thing is actually bad for them and the product is pulled. When dealing with your health, where problems can take decades to show up, it isn't unreasonable for them to not trust new products in the short term given that this industry has a history of deception.

This made me think of the anti-nausea (for morning sickness in pregnancy) drug Thalidomide and Asbestos in our buildings and lead based paints. Yeah, a mighty history of being fucked.

 

[Neatolzy]

It's a complicated matter, I for one do research in genetic engineering to make microbes that can produce interesting things or produce more of things we are interested in. I think the biggest step that needs to be taken is to provide transparency, to allow people to know what is a GMO and what has been done to the organism to create the need for that label. Unfortunately the general public is woefully ignorant of the science and from what I can tell many buy into the hysteria the media propagates about anything to do with GMOs. For example there is this example:

Sustainable Premium Farmed Salmon | Sustainable Salmon Farming | Verlasso

Due to my work I know what happens here. Basically what they are working to do is to provide a sustainable salmon farm that can be used to provide a source of omega 3 fatty acids (think fish oil W-3). The problem is that the old way of doing this relied on feeding a large amount of smaller "feeder fish" to the salmon to get them to have enough W-3s which isn't good. Their solution was to engineer a yeast organism, which has been engineered to produce "large" amounts of these W-3s and then feed these to the feeder fish. As a result they were able to reduce the amount of feeder fish needed by 4-fold. Take my word for it or not but that organism is generally regarded as safe by the US FDA and cannot even survive at the temperature of the human body. I work with this organism and understand what they did (there's actually a publication on it) well they did harmless engineering of a harmless organism that people aren't even eating directly.

Oh and here's how people react to hearing the non-GMO fish were fed a GMO organism, after being told EXACTLY what was done (they obviously know because they state it in the article):

There

Should people be informed? Probably. Should said people at least try to understand how the organism was genetically modified before deciding "OMG GMO EVIL DIEEE"? Probably. Will they bother? Doubt it. Most people are willfully ignorant and couldn't be bothered to actually try to learn about something before forming a vehement opinion on it.

To be fair though I'm not saying all GMOs are necessarily good. I just advocate that people denouncing GMOs should be bothered to at least try to understand what's been done first but I probably expect too much.

 

[FreeBirdfood]

Wow! I have learned so much today! Thank you all so much for your answers, I read the research reports that Luemb posted, it seems like it's along the lines of what I had assumed before, but not quite.

Neotolzy points out a very important point, even if we had the option of reviewing what exactly happens to each organism, most people wouldn't care, which is why it's up to us! Every time something incredibly bad happens, it's usually before much damage can be caused that many scientists take it under themselves to do studies, and the larger (equal) quantities of subject groups used, the better the result of the tests.

Which is where I reach my conclusion on this, for the test done on the rats, I don't think that they used enough rats for the test, it gives us a general between x% and y% amount, but we can't say what the exact percentages are, it's close, but it's close enough to where it matters, and since it matters, we need to review.

Rats have a significantly shorter lifespan than us, and these ones were prone to dying of cancer more-so than other rats, as a result, we cannot say exactly what impact this will have on the standard person, who has a multitude of factors involved in the death process, not primarily cancer.

We can say that both Round-Up and GMOs modified to create organic pesticides involving this particular chemical, do contribute to the development of cancer. But on what scale we cannot really say, and the results point to it being a later on effect. The point being, if it contributes to cancer in patients in their early 50's due to long term damage, we've got a problem, but if it's above the average lifespan of our given countries, then we've got bigger fish to fry.

Finally, we need a simulation program based on our bodies and the interaction these chemicals have on them to truly give us an early number. Unfortunately the only way to do that is to test lots of chemicals on lots of rats in proportionately equal doses to that a human would ingest to find the lethal acceptable quantities. Poor things.

Again, thank you all for your responses, I feel much more informed on the matter and would very much appreciate any updates on the situation as they happen.

 

[Kaganovich]

I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I've noticed that most people who are anti-GMO also have a plethora of neo-Luddite views, such as anti-vaccinations, anti-technology because "the government can use it to track us" (although that's certainly a cause for concern, a blanket condemnation of technology is nonsense). Meanwhile, I've read many prestigious biology journals that praised GMOs, so I'm leaning toward them being fine as long as they're used correctly.

 

[sanari]

In what dream world will they be used correctly? They will be used profitably.

 

[detgfrsh]

In what dream world will they be used correctly? They will be used profitably.

In a dream where food safety and environmental regulations are used appropriately as a check to the profit motive.

 

[luemb]

I think this sounds like a good article that should at least be considered in the discussion.

New GMO Studies Demonstrate 'Substantial Non-Equivalence'

 

[Taneka Hinton]

GMO seeds are sold wholesale to large industrial farming operations which in turn end up as feed for beef and milk cows, and in products like corn flakes. GMO seeds are not readily available to the general public and they are also different from hybrid seeds. Hybrid seeds are crosses between two cultivars like crossing a habenaro with a jalepeno by cross pollination. Hybrids do not readily pollinate and so it is difficult to grow hybrid plants from their own fruits. However it can happen, just not as high of a germination rate. Hybrid seeds do not pose a threat to the human genome as some studies concerning GMO crops have shown to do. I think that anyone who wants to start a garden or get into agriculture has to make informed decisions.

 

[Orion]

Hybrid seeds are crosses between two cultivars like crossing a habenaro with a jalepeno by cross pollination. Hybrids do not readily pollinate and so it is difficult to grow hybrid plants from their own fruits. However it can happen, just not as high of a germination rate. Hybrid seeds do not pose a threat to the human genome as some studies concerning GMO crops have shown to do.

You are confusing the two uses of the word 'hybrid' in plant science.

1) Two inbred lines are crossed to produce an F1 seed, hybrid seed. It is a hybrid between two inbred parents. F1 seed is planted in many crops, most famously with corn. This type of hybrid does readily pollinate, there would be no seed/grain set if they did not pollinate
2) More distant plants can be crossed making hybrid offspring that are sterile. This is seen almost exclusively in ornamentals. Pollination is not important as these 'hybrids' are clonally reproduced and distributed.

 

[Orion]

Buuuuuuut then you have common-freaking-sense that tells you that any smart business man does not want to kill off a large group of their customers, because it would ruin them. It seems to me logically that they would do extensive testing on all newly created GMOs before actually allowing them to reach the public.

Does ANYONE have any reason why I should not continue to think of these people as incredibly ignorant? Sources are much appreciated, I just know that you guys are the best people I can go to for a solid and unbiased answer on this. Anyone done any research in this field lately?

Don't worry about it, GMOs are highly regulated and studied. I have worked with them in both the public and private sector, plus I understand the science behind them, which is more than anyone else that posted can say.

Did you know, before you do an experiment with rats you order them from a company to ensure the same genetic background to control for variance. The rat lines in Europe are fed grain containing (more or less) no GMOs, and in the US they have been fed GMOs for about 15 years. So we have two populations of genetically identical lab rats, one population with GMOs and the other without, both populations grown in almost identical environments by the same companies. So of course the rats in US fed GMOs for 15 years were sickly right....but alas no.

Pretty darn sure bees do not pollinate any commercially released GMO crops, so not sure how GMOs get the blame for that. Cry proteins are very specific in their target and do not kill bees nor does glyphosate. Bees, like us, lack the shikimate pathway so roundup does no harm. Salesmen used to take shots of roundup to show it was harmless to farmers, true story.

 

[DW9274]

I have to agree. A lot of people overreact to this topic. To the people who say GM foods are not organic, I say this; the fact that they have DNA means that they're organic. Whether grown in the wild or a lab, a fish is still a fish. GM foods actually have a lot of benefits. One is that they contain selected genes I order to make them the most nutritious they can be. One of the concerns that you mentioned, the whole "they will make our antibiotics useless" thing is not a result of Genetic Modification. That's actually a natural evolutionary process that has been accelerated by the excessive use of antibiotics. It has nothing to do with Genetic Modification.

The only real danger of GMOs is that they can escape into the ecosystem, which can disrupt the food web, either minutely or completely change the ecological ball game.

Source: I've studied Medical Science, which includes genetic engineering.

 

[Taneka Hinton]

You are confusing the two uses of the word 'hybrid' in plant science.

1) Two inbred lines are crossed to produce an F1 seed, hybrid seed. It is a hybrid between two inbred parents. F1 seed is planted in many crops, most famously with corn. This type of hybrid does readily pollinate, there would be no seed/grain set if they did not pollinate
2) More distant plants can be crossed making hybrid offspring that are sterile. This is seen almost exclusively in ornamentals. Pollination is not important as these 'hybrids' are clonally reproduced and distributed.

Thank you for the clarification.