Personality Cafe banner

Yes, No, or Neutral

  • NT: Yes

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • NT:No

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • NF:Yes

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • NF:No

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • SP:Yes

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • SP:No

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • SJ:yes

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • SJ:No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NT:neutral

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • NF:neutral

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • SP:neutral

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • SJ:neutral

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GMO-Give me the Oreos(I have randomly put this option in for not reason :/)

    Votes: 1 4.3%
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Are you for or against them?Why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
We've been genetically modifying organisms ever since we invented agriculture. "GMO"s are nothing new, and I don't understand why people are so convinced that they're somehow bad for you or the environment? I'm about to graduate with a degree in biology and the 'issue' of GMOs is honestly a joke in most of the classes I've taken.

I think it's silly to spend more on non-GMO or 'organic' foods, but that's just me I guess. People are free to do as they please.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
800 Posts
Just as long as we don't try to kill the world again. Easy booze or not.
Klebsiella planticola--The Gene-Altered Monster That Almost Got Away

This big problem is how legal systems enforce genetic copyright/patent/whatever by destroying crossbred farms that happened to be nearby. Seriously. A GMO farm nearby "infects" your crop. They can have your entire crop destroy to "protect" their patented material. The trespass on their part isn't a factor at all. They owe you nothing for the whole ordeal. Imagine if this crossbreeding spread... Then there's GMO that dies every year, so you always have to rebuy. Imagine THAT spreading.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,465 Posts
we also have this thread http://personalitycafe.com/health-fitness/1188970-gmo.html

I'm not against genetically modifying organisms in principle, I'm sure there are many benefits to being able to have more nutritious food, for example. But things are not always so positive, like I said in the other thread, pesticide use is a major issue and companies like Monsanto are after profit, creating GM crops to handle pesticide use better when eventually, weeds grow resistant to them anyway. So while in theory they try to sell them like they will reduce pesticide use, in reality the path leads to where it always were to lead. We need to change our farming practices as much as possible, not rely on exhausting temporary solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
As we add a few billion people to global population over the next 30 years, I believe that genetic engineering technologies will become more and more vital.

There are already some promising results, rice that contains beta-Carotene to help address Vitamin A deficiency that causes hundreds of thousands of children to go blind and die every year. Increasing crop's ability to survive in harsh and arid environments, adapt to climate change, survive extended flooding, survive diseases, become immune or resistant to pests, reduce need for pesticides, etc.

Already the Papaya Industry was saved by the GM sciences, and we are looking down the barrel of a very dire situation for many species of bananas and plantains, including the popular Cavendish, GM may be the only hope in this instance.

However, the science still needs improvement, better computer modeling to assay genes to avoid deleterious environmental and ecological effects is of huge significance. There are also issues of pest and weed resistances that develop over time via adaptation/evolution that result in deminishing returns to crop yields.

As the capabilities of gene sequencing and macroscopic ecological analysis improve, I have a curiousity as to whether we will be able to develop more sustainable ecosystem-wide approaches to genetic engineering.

For instance, if you had a predatory pest that fed on a crop, perhaps it would be possible to introduce a program that would simultaneously decimate the pest population and introduce a genetically engineered substitute for that pest within an ecosystem that would compete for territory. The introduced pest would be nearly identical genetically, but would have perhaps different dietary habits so instead of eating the crop, it would eat other weeds or pests (thus the need for territorial competition as they would have different diets). As the introduced species would have a better survival outcome in the modified ecosystem, Darwinism would take over and it would emerge as the dominant version of the species. The result would be replacing a pest that is negative for crop yields with a genetically similar but substitute species that outcompetes the negative species for territory and would instead have a positive impact on crop yields. This could be a method of creating a perpetually sustainable ecosystem favorable to crop yields by tailoring the ecosystem on a broader spectrum.

This is a rough example, many different and more clever variations could be thought up and obviously some very robust computer modeling and analysis would need to be done, but as the technology improves, there's no reason why strategies in this category would remain out of reach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Heaven forbid that I eat a delicious cookie that was genetically modified by hard working flour processors to make the flour just right for cooking and baking until you smell the wonderfulness out of the oven.
 

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
More people are getting sick from GMO's. What are common disorders today did not exist before GMO's.
Myth 1: GMOs are inherently harmful. According to a new report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, there’s no evidence that genetically modified foods pose a risk to human health. In fact, GMOs are among the most thoroughly tested foods on the market. On average, it takes 13 years and $136 million before each genetically modified seed is approved. So it’s no wonder only 10 crops are currently approved for genetic engineering.
6 Myths About GMOs | BIOtechNow

While the genes inserted into organisms occur naturally in other species, there are concerns that altering the natural genome may have unknown consequences. For example, modifications may change the organism’s metabolism or growth rate. There are also concerns that GM foods may expose new allergens to humans or transfer antibiotic-resistant genes to the bacteria naturally found in our gut.

A lot of fear was sparked about the safety of GM foods after a scientist named Gilles-Eric Séralini published a study that found rats fed with Monsanto’s glyphosphate-resistant corn developed more tumors and died earlier than controls. After these results, many demanded tighter regulations whereas others called for an outright ban on the corn. However, numerous problems with the study came to light which led to its retraction from the journal.

First off, Séralini is an outspoken anti-GMO activist. At the time of initial publication he had conflicting interests- he was releasing a book and a documentary on the research. For the experiments, Séralini used Sprague-Dawley rats that are prone to developing spontaneous tumors. He also only used 10 rats for each group, for a period of two years which is almost a rat’s lifespan. The study was described as a "statistical fishing trip" by reviewers - if you test enough variables for long enough, you'll get a result from something. This is not good science. The recommendation for carcinogenicity studies is that 65 or more of each sex should be used. There is a high probability that the results were due to chance.

Furthermore, there have been mounds of better designed studies that have found no health issues, further suggesting that poor study design is the likely reason for the results, not the GM maize.
What You Need To Know About Genetically Modified Organisms | IFLScience


This new publication aims to contribute to the debate on GMOs by disseminating the outcomes of research projects to scientists, regulatory bodies and to the public. It follows up previous publications on EU-funded research on GMO safety. Over the last 25 years, more than 500 independent research groups have been involved in such research.

According to the projects' results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.
European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Commission publishes compendium of results of EU-funded research on genetically modified crops

Yeah, I've never understood this argument. Sure, I can understand if some individuals are against GMO's due to them being unsure about the long term risks or because of the new birth of super weeds, for example, but this argument itself doesn't make sense.

Most science articles and data have shown that GMO's are relatively safe so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrNRG

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
Discussion Starter #14

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I can’t wait until “ organic water” becomes a thing.
It already is...


Which is why I plan on selling organic air instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nephandus

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
It already is...


Which is why I plan on selling organic air instead.
Oh Lord. I'm sure you know so I say this not for your sake but it is physically impossible for water to be "Organic".

Fucking yuppies. read a Goddamned book. Or just google for shit sake.

Sparkling/seltzer/soda. Perrier, if you want to get really strict on "natural". There seems to be push for more home carbonized recently, or I've seen more commericals/ads, at least.
because water is not natural enough without adding a man-made product to it? Sure. Why the fuck not.

Hell, while we're at it, let's start genetically modifying organic human embryos They are better than those awful "Non-organic" people. :1892:
 

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Oh Lord. I'm sure you know so I say this not for your sake but it is physically impossible for water to be "Organic".

Fucking yuppies. read a Goddamned book. Or just google for shit sake.
Lol, I already know that! It's called a joke dude!

Edit:I misread your comment...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
800 Posts
Oh Lord. I'm sure you know so I say this not for your sake but it is physically impossible for water to be "Organic".
Well, organic refers to containing carbon, technically, so I was joking a bit. Few bother with proper chemistry terminology, natch. Spring water's already long been an issue when they mean "natural", especially as it can be naturally poisonous. Tap's often safer, even when avoidably toxic. Perrier is ironically both carbonated and naturally so, and, bonus, I don't think it happens to be poisonous. Random generic "sparkling" is still probably safer. Nitrates, IIRC.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top