What do you think about genetically modified crops?

WGAS

I'd rather there weren't any; their potential contamination of other crops is a real problem. But if the farmers insist on growing them, they should be clearly labelled and syacked in a separate part of the supermarket where I can choose not to buy them. That goes for the stuff snuck into processed foods, too.

Ahem. stacked

Triffids

Due to the recent climate changes affecting the globe, modifications into the way crops are handled both systematically and genetically is essential. People think that by changing a gene or two on the gene scale of vegetables or fruit will occur changes into our genes or even our molecular structures but that is false. It only affects the crop in question. It also affects the way we as humans breakdown food internally and the amount of nutrients in the food(s). In most cases (over 90% of studied cases) the outcomes have been positive and promising. The reminder have been discontinued from research due to molecular breakdown in the laboratories or little to no change in positive outcome. Therefore, it is to our best interest to pursue best ways to grow crops in this ever changing world.

It only affects the crop in question.

It has the potential to affect any plant variety of the same species, through cross-pollination. The unintended creation of herbicide-resistant super-weeds is one potential effect.

The use of herbicides to remove all weeds from herbicide-resistant GM crops also has an impact on the insects for whom those weeds provide food and a habitat, and from there on all wildlife that depends on those insects for food.

I have never heard anyone mention 'the amount of nutrients in the food' as a reason to oppose GMO. There are plenty of other reasons.

Obviously there are risks and benefits and the risks should be taken somewhat cautiously. But we already do. And we already have tons of GM foods. Most foods that you eat are already likely GM. We have found that for the most part there are virtually no ill side effects.

Unfortunately it's not like we have much of a choice. We need to feed 7 billion people and 9-10 billion by 2050. At current rate we are running out of land area needed to grow crops. We can only solve that problem by technologically increasing agricultural production.

Everything we eat is genetically modified. Before gene splicing, it was done by way of selective breeding.

@ Cleo. You are better off assuming that everything in the store is already made that way, and continue to hunt for items that are labelled non GMO. By the way, you would do well to stay away from farmers markets too, unless they can guarantee/verify to your satisfaction that they are selling non GMO products. Many smaller, garden variety packets of seed are already compromised by selective breeding which has been going on forever. Good Luck!

What do I think about genetically modified crops? I think we've been eating genetically modified crops for centuries, so it's a non-issue.

I love 'em. It represents a big milestone in human achievement, and it doesn't end at plants! Soon, our livestock will be genetically modified, and perhaps one day even humans! Imagine that - perfect genetics! Enough with this pointless moral posturing, we should welcome the future with open arms!

GMO's are the best thing to happen to agriculture since the green revolution. It's a really exciting new world where we can significantly improve agricultural yields and have less of a damaging effect on the environment.

Many smaller, garden variety packets of seed are already compromised by selective breeding which has been going on forever.

we've been eating genetically modified crops for centuries

So now selective breeding - breeding two plants or animals of the same species - is the same as genetic modification - splicing in bits of totally unrelated insects, bacteria and god only knows what else -? Gimme a break, and be serious.

Soon, our livestock will be genetically modified

Already been done. Glow-in-the-dark cats, goats that produce spider silk, super-size salmon, fartless cows, glowing aquarium fish. None of which was or could have been achieved (if that's the word) through selective breeding.

Enough with this pointless moral posturing

I don't see any moral posturing, pointless or otherwise. The way the genetic manipulators rush to cover up and claim 'it's just the same as selective breeding, nothing to see here, move along' is enough to make anyone with a brain want to see what it is they're trying to cover up. If GMOs were so good for the consumer, they would be sold at a premium with bells and whistles and high-end marketing, not hidden away under lax labelling regulations. When the scientists have something they don't want you to see, we can be pretty sure they have something that needs careful scrutiny.

Mostly Americans still wrongly believe that GM foods are the same as selective breeding etc, they are not.

I avoid GM products whenever possible though that is not so easy in Japan than in Europe.I have nothing against GM products for medicinal purposes but not in my daily food.

Another reason to be against GM foods is how Monsanto and other large companies are in total control of farmers and use their financial power to influence political decisions on GM foods.

Cleo

When the scientists have something they don't want you to see, we can be pretty sure they have something that needs careful scrutiny.

I don't think the GMO manufacturers are trying to hide what they do. They fully see what they do is of great benefit to the world and are proud about that. However, in some countries like Britain, there are loud and largely uninformed voices out there that preach that all this is wrong. I blame the way the government there handled the BSE crisis. It has made the public unwilling to believe scientists.

The problem with labeling is that people who know no better are likely to avoid GMO foods even though they are not harmful at all. I myself have no real issue with labeling however.

I avoid GM products whenever possible though that is not so easy in Japan than in Europe.

Why? They are not harmful.

I don't think the GMO manufacturers are trying to hide what they do. They fully see what they do is of great benefit to the world and are proud about that.

Then why fight so hard to prevent labelling?

The problem with labeling is that people who know no better are likely to avoid GMO foods even though they are not harmful at all.

If GMOs were so good there would be a massive marketing campaign informing people of all their benefits, so that 'people who know no better' would be motivated to actively seek out and buy GMOs on account of all their wonderful benefits. Ask yourself why that hasn't happened. Why do the big agrobusinesses spend huge amounts on R&D to produce these GMOs, only then to claim that they're no different from non-GMO and should be mixed in with them and sold at the same price?

They are not harmful.

That's both debatable and beside the point. Natto is apparently not only not harmful but actually quite good for you, but I don't want it secretly mixed into everything I eat. (At least with natto you'd tell by the smell, while the GMOs can be hidden.) If something has to be hidden in the food, I don't want to eat it until I know why. And the reason why it's hidden will probably be the reason why I don't want it.

Can any of the pro-Monsanto crowd tell us exactly what benefits GMOs offer? Why should I want to buy them in preference to natural foods, or even mixed in with natural foods?

Fields growing GMOs can be zapped with chemicals to eliminate all weeds, making life easy for the farmer. But I don't want to eat chemical-laced food. Those chemicals also affect wildlife and the environment in ways we are not yet fully aware of. Killing off all insect life is Not a Good Thing. Neither is allowing all those chemicals to drain into the groundwater, or encouraging the growth of increasingly chemical-resistant weeds.

Why do the big agrobusinesses spend huge amounts on R&D to produce these GMOs, only then to claim that they're no different from non-GMO and should be mixed in with them and sold at the same price?

Because they aren't selling to the consumer. They are selling to the farmer. And there they have great marketing budgets.

If something has to be hidden in the food, I don't want to eat it until I know why. And the reason why it's hidden will probably be the reason why I don't want it.

That brings us back to the labeling debate. GMO advocates object to having to label something that isn't dangerous. Because a great many consumers will falsely assume that fact that you have labled something as GMO probably means it's harmful and avoid it.

Can any of the pro-Monsanto crowd tell us exactly what benefits GMOs offer? Why should I want to buy them in preference to natural foods, or even mixed in with natural foods?

Fields growing GMOs can be zapped with chemicals to eliminate all weeds, making life easy for the farmer. But I don't want to eat chemical-laced food. Those chemicals also affect wildlife and the environment in ways we are not yet fully aware of. Killing off all insect life is Not a Good Thing. Neither is allowing all those chemicals to drain into the groundwater, or encouraging the growth of increasingly chemical-resistant weeds.

That's one type of GMO. But a better one is where the plant is resistant to certain types of bugs (and not to others). The advantage is that you don't kill all bugs (as you would with organic farming) but just the ones that harm the crop. That way you kill less insects and have no chemical herbicides spayed over the food.

As long as they don't develop legs or brains and go on the rampage I suppose I can live with them.

If I am to believe what is reported on this site on the performance of cops, I would say that they could probably benefit from some genetic modifications.

Hahaha, these will be the only types once we grow crops in the moon or Mars!

they aren't selling to the consumer. They are selling to the farmer.

Ultimately they need to sell to the consumer, since that's the person buying (or not) the end product. Why should I have to buy something that makes the farmer's life easier, if it doesn't at least result in a cheaper product/better taste/some kind of plus for the consumer?

GMO advocates object to having to label something that isn't dangerous. Because a great many consumers will falsely assume that fact that you have labled something as GMO probably means it's harmful and avoid it.

If it's dangerous, it shouldn't be on the supermarket shelf in the first place. As for what a great many consumers will assume, that's where the marketing comes in. Consumers don't assume that every ingredient printed on the label is dangerous.

That's one type of GMO. But a better one is ....

But without the info being there on the label and readily available, the consumer has no way of knowing what type of GMO he's being asked to buy. It all comes back again to choice and transparency.

If I want to buy a blue pen and the label on the packet says 'black ink', I'm not buying it because I want blue, not black. It's my choice. The fact that black ink writes just as well as blue ink and isn't dangerous has nothing to do with it.

you don't kill all bugs (as you would with organic farming)

What?? My allotment is 100% organic, and I can assure you no way are all the bugs killed. Sometimes I wish If only...

Companies like Monsanto also have their hand in the chemical companies that make herbicides. Basically farmers have to buy the herbicides and seeds resistant to these herbicides from the same people. As weeds get more resistant, the herbicides get stronger and crops have to be modified again. All the while Monsanto gets richer.

Why should I want to buy them in preference to natural foods, or even mixed in with natural foods?

You're saving the environment.

Why should I have to buy something that makes the farmer's life easier, if it doesn't at least result in a cheaper product/better taste/some kind of plus for the consumer?

True, but it does make it cheaper and taste better.

If it's dangerous, it shouldn't be on the supermarket shelf in the first place.

There are many dangerous things in supermarkets if consumed in large quantities. There are many things they don't tell you about what you are buying. I have no problems with labeling GMOs, but I can see that some people will think they shouldn't buy it because it's labeled.

What?? My allotment is 100% organic, and I can assure you no way are all the bugs killed. Sometimes I wish If only...

I guess you don't use pesticides then. Many organic farms do...

Thumbs down? Even if it's completely safe, you have to wonder how necessary it really is when the people making the claims are making money on both ends and trying to hide it.

You're saving the environment.

How come, with herbicide-resistant weeds needing ever-stronger doses of chemicals, as MrBum notes? Or with falling populations of insects and contamination of the water system?

it does make it cheaper and taste better.

But they tell us it's 'no different' from the natural stuff, and want to mix it in and sell it at the same price. So it is not cheaper and does not taste better. If it did, they would be falling over themselves to point out the cheaper prices and better taste. They aren't.

I guess you don't use pesticides then. Many organic farms do...

Organic pesticides, yes. They don't work very well.

MrBum, you forgot to mention that when your neighbour's GMOs cross-pollinate and contaminate your crop, Monsanto will send its lawyers into make you pay for 'using' their seed.

So now selective breeding - breeding two plants or animals of the same species - is the same as genetic modification - splicing in bits of totally unrelated insects, bacteria and god only knows what else -? Gimme a break, and be serious.

I was 100% serious. "Selective breeding" is just a smoke screen for bringing together two different living things with the hope that a "desirable" GENETIC TRAIT from one will get passed on to the progeny. The progeny have therefore been genetically modified from their parents. This has happened with domesticated crops and with domesticated animals. It has been going on for centuries regardless of how badly it punches all sorts of holes in your argument.

From Wiki under their Holstein Cattle entry:

The Dutch breeders bred and oversaw the development of the breed with the goal of obtaining animals that could best use grass, the area's most abundant resource. Over the centuries, the result was a high-producing, black-and-white dairy cow. It is black and white due to artificial selection by the breeders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holstein_cattle

But they tell us it's 'no different' from the natural stuff,

Going around in circles on this one. Yes, not different to you the consumer. Different for the farmer and environment (cheaper and better). So now you have better yields (so cheaper) in crops that have used less herbicides (so may taste better - not arguing strongly on that).

How come, with herbicide-resistant weeds needing ever-stronger doses of chemicals...

Still stuck on that one type of GMO?

Can't you see that there are 100's of types of GMO that have been developed with very much better characteristics that are good for the environment (better than conventional crops) and are better for the crops that they produce. For example Bt corn. Bt corn allows the farmer to avoid spraying pesticides on his corn crops because it is resistant to borer type insects (while being friendly on other insects). They are also found to have significantly lower levels of mycotoxins (chemicals produced by fungus that can be harmful). So you have cheaper and better corn.

Organic pesticides, yes. They don't work very well.

Another strike against organic. But tell me this, why use 'organic' pesticides which aren't effective and hence you have to use way more than synthetic pesticides or GMOs? Organic farming clearly then is worse for the environment and produces a worse product (either covered in pesticide or half eaten by bugs).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622175510.htm

now you have better yields (so cheaper)

If they're mixed in unlabelled with other stuff and thus sold at the same price as non-GMO, they are NOT cheaper to the consumer.

crops that have used less herbicides

Still stuck on that one type of GMO?

The farmers are. And again, without labelling, the consumer has no idea which type of GMO is included in any particular product.

Can't you see that there are 100's of types of GMO that have been developed with very much better characteristics

No, I can't. Because they're not advertised, not labelled, not marketed to me. All I the consumer get told is that they are just the same.

For example Bt corn.

Rootworm develops resistance to Bt corn http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/12/superinsects-monsanto-corn-epa

They are also found to have significantly lower levels of mycotoxins

That's a wonderful selling point. So why don't they use it? People like healthy food. Why not point out the advantages of this new wonder food? Why insist on hiding it by mixing it in with the old type and pretending it isn't there?

(Two reasons - Bt corn has not been clinically proven to have ANY health benefits to either humans or animals and if people knew extent of food contamination by molds, a significant public perception problem could arise

http://www.bigmap.iastate.edu/symposium/Wu.pdf)

why use 'organic' pesticides which aren't effective and hence you have to use way more than synthetic pesticides or GMOs?

Because it means my allotment has fewer pests than it would otherwise have, without the need for harmful chemicals that would also kill off all the good bugs busy eating the bad bugs. I don't use more; any bugs that get missed, I pick off by hand. And I can eat the veggies I pick secure in the knowledge that they aren't covered in toxic chemical cocktail.

GMOs are no more harmful than traditional breeding techniques.

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621

a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977#toc

It doesn't mean that GMOs are never harmful, and yes there are some problems like big corporations patenting and monopolizing GMOs, genetic resistances to herbicide being passed on to weeds, etc, but I don't think that the risk is very huge. The benefits outweigh the risk. If we don't increase the yields from agricultural production then it does not become sustainable and billions of people will starve to death. Before the green revolution we've only had 1/10th of yields that we have now.

Can't you see that there are 100's of types of GMO that have been developed with very much better characteristics

No, I can't. Because they're not advertised, not labelled, not marketed to me. All I the consumer get told is that they are just the same.

You seem like an intelligent woman - do some research. You can know if you really want to.

Because it means my allotment has fewer pests than it would otherwise have, without the need for harmful chemicals that would also kill off all the good bugs busy eating the bad bugs. I don't use more; any bugs that get missed, I pick off by hand. And I can eat the veggies I pick secure in the knowledge that they aren't covered in toxic chemical cocktail.

Your allotment is a hobby. Organic farming is a business. And it's not as environmentally friendly as it makes out.

You seem like an intelligent woman - do some research. You can know if you really want to.

Sorry, but I have better things to do with my time than run around 'researching' stuff I have no real interest in buying in the first place. If the people trying to sell the stuff want me to buy, then it's their job to convince me.

And seriously - standing in the aisle at the supermarket, label gives no info - you expect me to go off to do an hour's 'research', then come back and continue shopping? In the real world, if I'm not satisfied in the shop that the product is what I want, then I won't buy.