|
|
|
|
Dik-Dik Van Dik
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
76 Posts |
 Posted - 05/20/2005 : 09:55:58
|
Whats the general opinion of this board on GM crops Vs organic. I did a search and it doesnt seem to have come up (not judgeing by topic titles anyway)
Also if you could back up your opinion that would be helpful.
|
DARWIN 3:16
"The simple believeth every word." - Proverbs 14:15
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 10:03:14 [Permalink]
|
I generally try to buy organic fruits and veggies when I can. The thing that worries me about GM stuff is the unforseen. Sure, it sounds good to tweak something's DNA so it's more resistant to X, or grows faster, or whatever. But what if such tweaking makes it more vulnerable to somethign else, or has some other consequence? Moreover, what happens when the GM foods are spread to non-GM stuff? I mean, a corn grower in Kansas can't control everything, and I think it's been well-documented that even in places where people want organic food, GM stuff gets through.
In addition, I'd much rather have more varieties of corn, potatoes, etc., rather then the current shift towards Frankenfoods that all grow the same way, have the same shape and color, etc.
But alas, DDVD, I don't have much data to back up my concerns... |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 10:09:29 [Permalink]
|
| I just Googled the CNN website with GM and got a number of relevant hits. One was a Q&A on the debate. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 10:30:23 [Permalink]
|
I tend to think that genetically modified crops are much safer and much healthier than crops coated with chemical insecticides. There's no reason to think there's anything wrong with it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 12:20:59 [Permalink]
|
GM crops...
Well, if you stop to think about it, every crop that we cultivate is a GM crop. We have been manipulating the genetic code of our crops for thousands of years.
100 years ago we just did it by selective breeding, now we can do it artificially in a lab. No big deal.
Well, actually, it is a HUGE deal. Because of our efforts at modifying crops we have increased the yields to amazing levels.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2005 : 00:39:54 [Permalink]
|
I agree with HH and Dude on the positives and trade offs but there are some things in the genetic engineering department that have the potential to do very serious harm. Mainly inserting genes to produce altogether different products like turning the cow into a pharmaceutical factory making chemicals in the milk.
Some of the proposed and/or actual experiments don't have great risk. Making insulin in milk doesn't worry me because you can't absorb the insulin if you accidentally drank the milk. But put an insulin producing gene into a yeast cell could in a worse case scenario end up being transferred to another organism. If that then led to an infection with insulin as the toxin we'd have created a new pathogen.
I'm not saying that particular scenario would happen. But one like it is certainly possible. And while care is taken, it is the corporate world we're talking about here. Profits trump risk to the environment in the corporate system by its nature. The monarch deaths from corn pollen that drifted away from GM corn should be a warning sign but we all know it'll take a worse disaster to really get significant attention.
and I guess it doesn't matter much
outside of a small circle of friends |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2005 : 02:21:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The monarch deaths from corn pollen that drifted away from GM corn should be a warning sign but we all know it'll take a worse disaster to really get significant attention.
Nothing we do is without risk. Eat, you risk choking to death. Walk, risk falling down or being run over. And so on and so on.
The question is, as you said, based on risk vs benefit. The "activist" thinking with regard to GM crops is a very bad slippery slope.
If we want to have the benefits, we have to accept some level of risk. The benefits of GM crops are potentially significant to many things, like the modified rice that has a vitamin dose engineered in, like crops that are resistant to pests and don't require harmfull pesticides, like crops that yeild 3 or 4 times the ammount their unmodified versions do, etc.
As long as reasonable precautions are taken, the benefits will far far outweigh risks, I think.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2005 : 08:06:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I tend to think that genetically modified crops are much safer and much healthier than crops coated with chemical insecticides.
There is a problem here though. This would be correct if GM crops weren't treated with chemical insecticides.
Unfortunately, some GM crops that have been developed have been made tolerent of higher concentrations of herbicides or insecticides. A good example of this is Monsanto's RoundUp Ready corn and soy beans. Such products can actually lead to increased use of pesticides, larger areas of monocultivated crops (is that correct English?) and higher environmental impact than their non-GM counterparts.
Personally, i think genetic engineering holds great potential for improving the quality and quantity of the worlds food-supply, but i also feel caution is advised. I don't consider the GM horror stories very likely, but environmental effects can be a serious consideration. |
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2005 : 00:52:40 [Permalink]
|
In the news today: Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food.
quote:
Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.
[...]
Dr Pusztai reported a "huge list of significant differences" between rats fed GM and conventional corn, saying the results strongly indicate that eating significant amounts of it can damage health.
[...]
...Monsanto last night dismissed the abnormalities in rats as meaningless and due to chance, reflecting normal variations between rats...
|
Miss Tick sniffed. 'You could say this piece of advice is pricesless', she said. 'Are you listening?'
'Yes' said Tiffany.
'Good now...If you trust in yourself.."
'Yes..?'
'..and believe in your dreams...'
'yes?'
'...and follow your star..' Miss Tick went on.
'Yes?'
'You'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy. Goodbye.' |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 08:50:34 [Permalink]
|
I read that rat report but I remain skeptical until further information is available. Initial reports such as these often turn out to be false or the connection is not confirmed.
I also totally agree with the risk benefit thing but keep in mind, corporations are not humanitarian organizations. They are beholden to the bottom line, not the health of the world. So they have natural incentives to ignore risk to health and only look at risk to profits. Their past record has not been to look at long term risk so making a quick buck and leaving the trash for the next person to pay for cleanup can be expected in the future since it has been seen in the past.
We need to keep the GMFs but work on regs that hold corporations accountable so they do have incentives to protect the environment. Letting them 'off the hook' for the sake of jobs or the economy is not the best approach. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/26/2005 08:57:08 |
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 13:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I read that rat report but I remain skeptical until further information is available. Initial reports such as these often turn out to be false or the connection is not confirmed.
[...]
We need to keep the GMFs but work on regs that hold corporations accountable so they do have incentives to protect the environment. Letting them 'off the hook' for the sake of jobs or the economy is not the best approach.
Absolutely true. I don't give much credence to these reports untill they are confirmed by an objective source.
Nevertheless, i do agree that we need to keep GM companies accountable until we can assess the risks. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
