The W
Views: 181357545
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.5.17 1729
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Generically Modified Crops Register and log in to post!
(46 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Post (5 total)
Level: 161

Posts: 5959/7105
EXP: 53230480
For next: 882753

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 991 days
Last activity: 991 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!
Lap cheong
Level: 88

Posts: 1725/1786
EXP: 6489972
For next: 160718

Since: 22.2.04
From: Cambridge, MA

Since last post: 3869 days
Last activity: 3861 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.

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.
As young as
he feels
Level: 124

Posts: 3445/3811
EXP: 21299093
For next: 537569

Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 174 days
Last activity: 12 days
#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...
Lap cheong
Level: 88

Posts: 1726/1786
EXP: 6489972
For next: 160718

Since: 22.2.04
From: Cambridge, MA

Since last post: 3869 days
Last activity: 3861 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.
Level: 106

Posts: 2663/2743
EXP: 12466532
For next: 205452

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2399 days
Last activity: 2301 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.
Thread ahead: Requesting info about yourself from FBI and NSA files
Next thread: Mall Of America doubling in size.
Previous thread: so, the NSA sucks
(46 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Generically Modified CropsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.059 seconds.