GM Foods

So earlier today I was linked to this article about the danger of genetically modified foods. If you can't be bothered to read it: it's called "GM Foods: The Cause of Shocking Birth Defects". If you read it, though, you will find out that "the cause of shocking birth defects" is actually a pesticide used with the GM crop (which are admittedly designed specifically for use with the pesticide). But this is still one of the most disingenuous articles I've seen in a while; perhaps in this case the GM crop and the pesticide go hand in hand, but of course people are going to look at that title and assume it applies to all GM crops.

Which got me thinking. There are some valid concerns about GM crops, but for some reason opponents tend to go for absurd criticisms and demonise all GM crops in what I can only assume is some sort of knee-jerk reaction. (Example: there is absolutely no way GM crops could cause damage to the ecosystem, even if they were to escape into the wild). Furthermore, opponents of GM crops tend to call for more stringent tests while at the same time destroying attempts to trial GM crops. That really bothers me: as bad as the situation in Africa is, it would be far worse if GM crops didn't exist. One of the reasons India can (for now) feed its population is the use of GM crops. The opposition to them is not only one of the most scientifically-ignorant movements I'm aware of (which is saying something) but also one of the most potentially harmful.

So. What do you guys think?

One of the reasons people tend to be so vehemently opposed to GM crops is that humanity has a history of messing ecosystems up by tampering with nature without understanding the consequences (take DDT, for example). I'm not saying this is the case with GM crops; I'm saying it makes a lot of people cautious.

Having debated both sides of this topic competitively, I like to think I have a fairly balanced view of the whole situation, which is why I can say without reservation that I completely agree with you about the damaging effect of anti-GM activists. I could say so much but I think the thing that annoys me most is, by and large, the same people would have no problem with us spending decades breeding these traits into plants - it's when we save time and lives by doing it in a few years on the genome level that they, quite irrationally, have a problem with the situation.

Well, the theory here seems to be that the defects are caused by the pesticides, and not by the foods themselves. Shouldn't people be educated about that, then? Or am I not understanding?

I think they should just modify the pesticide so it's not dangerous. Or just remove it altogether.

This piece of news is ironic because I thought one of the bigger points of GM crops was to eliminate the need for pesticides by creating resistant crops?

I'm not against them. In the digestive system everything turns into glucose, lipids and amino acids. The genetic modification alone shouldn't cause anything harmful.

'I have the same problem with anti-GM'ers as I have with anti-climate change people, anti-abortionists, anti-nuclear people, etc.

I understand the need for caution - I should say that everyone does - but that's not a reason to be overly rigid and silly about it. Caution and prohibition are not the same thing. Also the concept of "playing God" which is so often brought up is such an utter falsehood it makes me want to slap people with newspapers everytime I see that non-argument being peddled.

GM, like everything, is technological progress. Like abortion. Like contraception. Like nuclear energy. Like solar energy. We've invented a way to make crops grow quicker, faster, more resistant to disease, and in more climates, so we can all eat! If that requires us to fix a basic few things in the DNA to get the process optimized, so be it, man.

It's like people saying they don't want a telephone because you can write a letter. I mean, sure, you're still communicating, but having a telephone which means you can CALL SOMEBODY instantly when it's needed is just so much more useful.

What's next, we're going to be against using plastics because 600 years ago we didn't know how to make plastics? The fuck???????

Almost every group of environmentalist/ecologist I've seen has this problem: they confuse caution with prohibition and rigidly adhere to their principles without understanding facts or consequences or practical solutions that work a whole lot better than saying no. Opposition and criticism is good if it helps you improve, it's bad if you're opposing for the sake of opposition and that's the target of nearly every environmentalist group ever.

That's why I don't support Greenpeace, WWF, etc. I want to keep the planet safe for all of us but rigidly becoming a vegan, saving the cows, and combatting Frankenstein foods is just not the way to go.

Rant over.

Tarvos said:

What's next, we're going to be against using plastics because 600 years ago we didn't know how to make plastics? The fuck???????

Click to expand...

stop living, humans hadn't discovered life five billion years ago.

I think that we should go with it for now. If people who are eating it daily aren't sick or dying, then I say it's safe.

Frostagin said:

I think that we should go with it for now. If people who are eating it daily aren't sick or dying, then I say it's safe.

Click to expand...

plenty of things cause no obvious immediate harm, but have generally negative effects on the consumers. if that had to be a thing, gm foods opponents wouldn't have much to complain about, would they?

The thing is, they don't have cause to complain about them, for the same reason they don't have cause to complain about the internet, mobile phones, or the fact we've been GMing for ages and they are probably eating broccoli (mutated cabbage) right now.

sreservoir said:

stop living, humans hadn't discovered life five billion years ago.

Click to expand...

God discovered life and He did it 6000 years ago

yeah the opposition to GM is basically madness imo. We have problems feeding ourselves already and we also have the tools available to ameliorate those problems and yet ... and yet.

also the whole "lol lets not give enhanced rice to African children even though it could solve child blindness in Africa!!" thing is absolutely ridiculous. <3 golden rice man

Hey Harlequin, do you know Graham Hughes? He's a seasoned traveller and backpacker who's also a committed atheist with some particularly good opinions on quasi-everything (and he's allowed to discuss it - he's been to 197 countries, including every mainland African country with the exception of South Sudan, every Asian country except Sri Lanka and the Maldives, etc.). He wrote a beautiful rant on GM materials here (and how Greenpeace is a failure) here:

Graham Hughes: A Greenpeace of My Mind

He's also done a fair few on religion, modernist architecture, downloading, why the new Star Wars trilogy sucks the big one, etc.

Oh, that's pretty cool! I definitely agree with him here! We need more Tim Minchins and like, no Storms :(

J. Squirtles Addams said:

I think they should just modify the pesticide so it's not dangerous. Or just remove it altogether.

Click to expand...

y'know I think if it was that simple then the issues of pesticides probably wouldn't be a problem? it's not as if some scientist is going to read this and go 'oh, I should have just made the pesticides not dangerous. oops'

As a matter of fact, if pesticides weren't dangerous, they wouldn't even be pesticides. Pesticides kill things. That's why they're called pesticides.

Can anybody confirm/deny any of these statements from The Non-GMO Project's website?

Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In nearly 50 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.

[...]

Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

Click to expand...

The stuff about Roundup is true. Practically the only variety of corn left in America is Monsanto's Roundup resistant corn. (Because the corn is copyrighted, Monsanto can sue any farmer that grows other types of corn near a field of their corn. Why? Because cross pollination is copyright infringement.) Roundup is also, as you know, used for lawns and is found to cause birth defects in laboratory animals, death of human embryos at low concentration, its toxic to human skin cells, is a suicide method, can create micronuclei in mice, and DNA changes in human livers. It also messes with the local environment.

That said, there is a great chance for good in GM food. It could end world hunger. But some types of GM seeds are made by really shitty companies.

This is an argument against Monsanto being dicks, not GMO being inherently bad

(Also, there being restrictions by the governments in no way justifies GMO being slagged)

sreservoir said:

plenty of things cause no obvious immediate harm, but have generally negative effects on the consumers. if that had to be a thing, gm foods opponents wouldn't have much to complain about, would they?

Click to expand...

see, self
this is why you don't post in serious business at midnight


I see what you're saying, but there are people out there who would currently be dead if it weren't for GM foods. I can understand wanting all-natural foods, but we shouldn't all-out ban GM foods completely.

Of course, that brings up another problem. If one farm wants to use GM foods but another farm next to it doesn't, how do you prevent the modification from spreading?

I had a class about this in science recently, and I also remember there being something in there about copyrights, but I only remember it vaguely, so I can't really give any information about it.
EDIT: Yep, i was thinking about the copyright on Roundup-resistant corn.