StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
   
Posts: 5959/7105
EXP: 52408447
For next: 544667
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 749 days
Last activity: 749 days
|  #1 Posted on 18.6.13 1922.11
Reposted on: 18.6.20 1922.28 | Okay, I see a lot of Facebook posts and internet posts talking about GM foods, but I really don't understand what the issue is about. Anyone care to educate a guy on this? | Promote this thread! |             | samoflange
Lap cheong
Level: 87
Posts: 1725/1786
EXP: 6382822
For next: 9977
Since: 22.2.04
From: Cambridge, MA
Since last post: 3627 days
Last activity: 3619 days
| #2 Posted on 18.6.13 2022.57
Reposted on: 18.6.20 2023.27 | Nobody really knows what the effect of genetically modified organisms can be on the ecology as a whole. The argument is on going ahead with the technology because of the huge efficiency benefits or ceasing (or at least slowing down) until we know more about the short-term and long-term effects.
Here's a decent review of the subject from Scientific American. I'd be sure the read through the comments too because there a few good points raised there that were missed in the post itself. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/11/genetically-engineered-crops/
There are many pros and cons on both sides. In fact, a former anti-GMO activist recently had a change of opinion, and it was detailed pretty well on Slate, and quite intelligently discussed on Slashdot.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/01/04/2041208/anti-gmo-activist-recants | pieman
As young as
he feels
Level: 123
Posts: 3445/3809
EXP: 20965629
For next: 265697
Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine
Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 2 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #3 Posted on 19.6.13 0707.42
Reposted on: 19.6.20 0708.35 | | Okay, I clicked on this link after reading "Genetically Modified Cops." I was thinking Robocop and wondered where they were going to pop up! I see that's not what you are talking about... | samoflange
Lap cheong
Level: 87
Posts: 1726/1786
EXP: 6382822
For next: 9977
Since: 22.2.04
From: Cambridge, MA
Since last post: 3627 days
Last activity: 3619 days
| #4 Posted on 20.6.13 1011.18
Reposted on: 20.6.20 1017.29 | I was talking about this with a friend yesterday and realized that I did not mention labeling, though it was in the links I added.
In the US, the big argument now is about labeling. GM labels are not required by federal law.
The arguments against labeling are that GM crops have been used for many years now, no harmful effects to humans directly from eating GM food have been conclusively found, and labeling would essentially be a scare tactic because it would freak people out when they realize that pretty much any grain based foods and many vegetables are GM. Similar to labels with the word 'irradiated' which implies nuclear radiation to the layman when in reality it is a much more benign (though not necessarily worry-free) process.
The arguments for labeling are that more information is always a good thing, and that while GM foods may not have been shown to have a direct effect on human health, GMO in general can have an effect on the ecology at large and people should be able to know what products they are buying and thus what type of industrial processes they are supporting. Being in favor of labeling does not necessarily mean someone opposes GMO technology in general.
The consensus on the effects of GMO on ecology is leaning towards them being disruptive, but that's not necessarily a negative thing in every case. As much as we know about DNA at this point, it is still a black box in many respects, and the cascading effects of seemingly harmless genetic modifications is an even blacker box.
So, like most important arguments it comes down to where you prefer to place the risks. Risk potential ecological side effects but grow food more efficiently and feed more people, or risk higher costs and food shortages but be cautious about introducing 'unnatural' organisms into the world. And, like most important arguments, the logical answer is probably somewhere in the middle and most people (groups of people, not individual persons) will tend to gravitate towards one of the more illogical extremes.
Hope that helps put it in perspective. I've tried not to let personal biases into it, but honestly I don't even know what side I agree with more here. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 106
Posts: 2663/2743
EXP: 12264483
For next: 407501
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 2157 days
Last activity: 2059 days
| #5 Posted on 20.6.13 1309.01
Reposted on: 20.6.20 1310.06 | Are there risks with GMOs? Maybe and we need to proceed cautiously but as an agronomist for over 30 years, here are benefits:
1. Less use of pesticides, especially those more potentially hazardous.
2. Increased crop production. We aren't finding more arable land and in fact we have less for a variety of factors. We need to increase efficiency and decrease losses from pests (insects, diseases, and weeds)while figuring out how to feed another 2 billion people in the net 25 to 30 years.
3. We can and have produced crops with special traits that can do things like prevent blindness in the developing world and producing food with vaccines in them that don't require refrigeration.
4. The area of adaptation for certain crops can be expanded.
There are more benefits but that gives you an idea. I am all for labeling and wish we would just do it. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | |
