Nowadays genetically modified organisms are widely being used if foodstuffs and feed-staffs. The GMO products have proponents and opponents. While proponents argue that because of increasing population and shortage of fertile agricultural fields we must go to the land products which are highly yielding and resistant to pest, opponents argue that using these products may have unknown effect on future generation of human and environment.
What do you think dear experts? Do you think GMO is something useful or harmful? Please describe your answers and support with reasons.
There is no scientific consensus over GMOs safety. Please have a look at the following RG links.
Article A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health
Article Impact of GMO'S on environment and human health
Article Transgenic Food, Benefits, Safety, And More
Article Safety Assessment of GMO-derived Foods
Article Genetically modified foods and public health debate: Designi...
Article Genetically modified crops and food: pros and cons
Article Genetically Modified Foods: Health and Safety Issues
Chapter GM food, nutrition, safety and health.
@ Mohammad Nazmabadi
Please take a look at the following RG discussion threads.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_I_avoid_genetically_engineered_food_Or_are_they_safe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_impacts_of_GMOs_on_health_problems_and_environment
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_Genetically_Modified_GM_Foods_good_for_our_body
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_most_of_the_peoples_are_against_GMOs_Is_it_really_harmful_or_its_all_myths_about_GM_Food_or_Gm_Crop_Is_there_any_positive_impacts_about_it
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_the_Genetically_Modified_GM_crops_safe_to_grow_and_eat
Thanks!
From their inception, there has been indications that genetically modified organisms may be related to increased issues and may not be completely healthy. The first and foremost gmo accepted in the marketplace was the for glyphosate resistance which increases the human exposure to glyphosate. Currently United Nations are suggesting glyphosate are a probable carcinogen.
While glyphosate is not directly toxic to mammalian cells it does cause issues with common digestive bacteria our digestion depends on. When nutrition is compromised the issues with nerves and endocrine systems can be accentuated. In fact the epidemiological information suggests as gmo has taken over the food system the health issues have increased correspondingly.
While the purveyors of the technology have taken this everything is okay and must be proven otherwise the health statistics animal results and discovery of underlining mechanism of the disruptions suggest that the gmo technology is not harmless; however promising is generating deleterious results which are significant and uncovered in long term experience and study.
There is no scientific consensus over GMOs safety. Please have a look at the following RG links.
Article A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health
Article Impact of GMO'S on environment and human health
Article Transgenic Food, Benefits, Safety, And More
Article Safety Assessment of GMO-derived Foods
Article Genetically modified foods and public health debate: Designi...
Article Genetically modified crops and food: pros and cons
Article Genetically Modified Foods: Health and Safety Issues
Chapter GM food, nutrition, safety and health.
While there is inadequate scientific work on this, it is best to be safe and avoid consumption.
To quote the New York Times, "90 percent of scientists believe G.M.O.s are safe — a view endorsed by the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization". https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
United Nations have found glyphosate herbicide a probable carcinogen and grounds keeper in California has won millions in a civil suit. The vast majority of original successful gmo were based on glysphosate herbicide which has been applied in billions of pounds and contaminates everything. Researchers are found that digestive and neurological issues have risen according to the rise in gmo's.
The hope of gmo's was the reduction and elimination of agrichemicals. Question beside that hype is there a real reduction and elimination of harmful agrichemicals? When the super weeds with round up resistance developed the first recourse was increasing rates now the new gmo soybean would allow dicamba a hormonal herbicide component of agent orange and the worse of the worse. What now the experience with agent orange was not that bad. Ask the Vietnam vets and people of Vietnam. No one is more blind than those who refuse to see.
The conflicts of interest between the regulatory agency and gmo industry is something legendary. The regulators have been a revolving door with gmo industry itself. In terms of the science in field it is widely funded through the industry itself. When independent voices appear the workers are sidelined by special interest retribution. Big issue if we can trust the system or if it rigged to get the right answer for the industry to prosper.
Between 2002 and 2012, 1783 research articles were published on the effects of transgenic plants on domestic animals. In one particular case, plants producing Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis toxin) no toxic effects were observed on domestic animals and no trace of DNA sequence of Bt gene were detected in their muscles or other organs.
Borup Pedersen is a Danish pig farmer who in 2011 started to feed his pigs with gmo soybean supplement. He tracked his results and watched and measured as the pig performance and health plummeted. In 2012 when he had enough he switched back to non gmo soybean and the performance and health returned along with profitability. Unfortunately most farmers have not done this tracking but the application of this and return to health with non gmo soybean was re incorporated is equivalent of a Koch Postulate proof. The idea that there is no cases of toxic effects related to gmo technology is hogwash. In addition this begs the point that it has lead to drastic applications of billions of pounds of glyphosate that scientific review shows is clearly a probable carcinogen.
In this study of over 130 pigs in gmo and non gmo diets the gmo pigs had enlarged uteri an indication of hormonal disruption and the gmo diet was associated with almost 3 times the inflammation of the stomach. The inflammation is noted as the red area in the stomach photos.
Arpad Pusztai helped identify stunted growth of laboratory animals which received genetically modified potatoes in their diets. Upon the divulging of results showing inhibition of the immunological and digestive systems Dr. Pusztai and some of his co workers were fired. This is one of methods industrial sources use to assure the results do not conflict from their claims. This is not an isolated result but have become a pattern. Money both talks and also suppresses debate and discussion.
Santadino, M. et al. 2014. Glyphosate sublethal effects on the populations dynamic of the earthworm. Water Air Soil. 2215:2205-2007.
At no application of glyphosate there was no inhibition of earthworm. At the gmo roundup rate commercially recommend or double the recommendation there was no reduction in the earthworm population for 10 days. However at 3 weeks or more all earthworm activity had ceased. with glyphosate treatments The short term analysis of effects for glyphosate are a way industrial sources can cherry pick data to give the appearance of safety in practices which are inherently unsafe and have long term negative side effects. When effects do not immediately outright kill they can give the false result that there is no issue.
When people eat their own or use certified organic they can avoid being part of an unplanned experiment with no controls.
Still there is no valid scientific consensus over GMOs safety. However, the consumption/application of GMOs are increasing worldwide.
While the promoters of GMO go on profiting they and their families go on eating organic. The former President Hugh Grant was asked why this was so and his response was that they could afford. Hugh made over $200 when separated from Monsanto supporting its acquisition by German chemical Bayer. Yes these entities talk a story about saving the world but they know that there is another story that is why they for themselves and their families make sure the eat organic. They can afford it.
Genetically engineered (GE) foods and their derivatives are prohibited in organic food production and there is currently a harsh debate about the safety of these for human consumption, with diverging points of view between those in support and those against GE foods. I think that there are major concerns regarding the use of GE crops for human nutrition because of the increasing use of herbicides and their possible carcinogenicity. Also, the reluctance of the USDA to label GE foods is not helping society to accept these foods willingly, and this skepticism has sparked even more interest in organically produced foods. It is speculated that food companies do not want consumers to learn how much genetic manipulation has been occurring already to foods available at supermarkets, since ingredients from GE crops can be found in a broad variety of foods derived from plants and/or animals. For example, many processed foods containing corn starch, corn meal, corn syrup, glucose, dextrose, canola oil, cotton seed, or soy oil, soy flour, or soy lecithin are probably derived from GE crops (including foods containing sugar from sugar beets), since the 95% of sugar beet grown in the USA is now Roundup Ready, genetically modified. Being a majority of livestock species fed with similar products, it is legitimate to infer that more foods like meat, dairy products, eggs, are/can be affected by GE technologies. Hopefully, the techniques to introduce genes from compatible species, or to modify target gene expression and the type of modification will improve to better mimic the natural variability and selection, thus opening different perspectives and possible safer solutions concerning this matter, but I continue to remain skeptical and very concerned.
Genetically modified foods poses various threats, ranging from human health safety and environmental impacts to ethical concerns like corporate control of the food supply and IPR.
Release of transgenic Bt Brinjal was Banned in India by - the then Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh back in 2010, because of the conflict between representatives from Mahyco ( Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.) and the scientific community,
although its commercial release was approved by government of Bangladesh in 2013.
I agree with Bruno ON THE FACT THAT GM IS PROHIBITED IN ORGANIC FARMING.
However, for a crop like cotton (only gm allowed in India), i dont see any harmful effect on humans, animals through consumption of seed etc.Howevr, for such issues long term trials and their interpretation over the space and time is must to study tyhe real effects
These are also articles worth reading to reflect on the safety of GE agriculture.
Article The Ecological Impacts of Transgenic Crops on Agroecosystem Health
Article The Myths of Agricultural Biotechnology: some ethical questions
Article Fatal harvest: Old and new dimensions of the ecological trag...
Article Genetic Engineering in Agriculture and Corporate Engineering...
Article Genetically Modified Crops for a Hungry World: How Useful ar...
Article Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Ensure Food Security,...
GMOs and GMO Foods. This is an interesting question.
Humans and animals already have been eating many food types for many years. Evolution has genetically modified their food for multiple millenia. I note some such foods are safe to eat, some not so much. I have noted the grocery store contains apples to zucchini's, these are genetically different.
Perhaps the answer is, most human made GMO foods will be safe. Keep in mind that some safe natural foods such as mushrooms have cousins who GMO by evolution are deadly.
A well meaning GMO scientist is more likely to try make a safe food than evolution which has to protect the plant or animal so it is not food.
GMO foods are produced by inserting genes across species that could never breed successfully in nature. The advantage of this technology has accelerated tremendously breeding programs for plants and animals that have economic interests in the agricultural and food sectors. However, this technology has been operating while remaining indifferent to the evolutionary and ecological consequences of the GMO agenda who is solely interested in making big profits through the sale of transgenic organisms. This industry wants to insure food availability for a growing population but this agenda wants to gain a monopoly of the food system, in addition to extirpating millions of family farmers around the world from the land. In my opinion this approach to food production is hegemonic and unacceptable!
The biggest problem when discussing about GMO is the predetermined positions. I think that not all of them are the same. There are scientific support to find out “what is wrong or not with GMO originated food”. However, looks like we do not want to contrast all the faces of the problem, because it is more political or socio-economic that scientific.
Some plant s have three or four different set of chromosomes from two different species; that combination happened naturally and we ate them every day. That is the case of bananas and plantain. Those examples directed geneticist to develop the idea for genetically engineering plants. It is reasonable to fight GMO when the sources of the genes or DNA pieces are not close genetically, but not all GMO are the same.
Not all GMO are the same but the roots of GMO technology as Bruno alludes are to ensure a centralized control of the food system. The control is to ensure that they have benefits of the inputs and they are the sole providers. With monopoly comes pricing power. The idea furthermore is that it is more than seed it is a package of practices which they will control. The original package was herbicide resistance seed as they where the glyphosate roundup provide also. The residues of glyphosate have been massive and the health issues arising are increasing. While the propaganda is feed the world the more tangible result is to feed the deep pockets of the multi national corporate interest at expense of the farming community.
The food habits of consumers have changed, with the changing society and high demand for food. This has led to the search for new production methods that are more profitable, such as genetically modified products, which last longer without being damaged like natural ones. Many countries have resorted to the prevention of genetically modified foods because of their harmful effects on public health and the environment. These substances can also cause cancer, most of which are colon, stomach, Brain cells, which result in Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and many diseases, which have become widespread recently, and that result from the consumption of a person ten years ago.
Then the fight is not against GMO, it is against monopoly and indiscriminate use of pesticides and chemicals. If this is the idea, why demonize GMO. In both sides, there are people with agendas and business. My intention was just to clarify the motive against GMO. Thanks, Paul for your clarification, I agreed with your terms. However, we have to be more creative if we feel responsible of feeding the world.
Our own example can be very important. Can we support farmers that use soil conservation and do not depend on synthetic input? Can we grow some of our food? Can we become well educated on the fundamental issues? Can we help our families and communities in relations to healthy food and diet?
It depends on what kind of genetic manipulation was used, to what extent, for what purpose? Was the goal, for example, to create a plant variety that differs from the original only because it is more resistant to viral, bacterial, fungal, insect, etc. diseases? Was it about creating a new variety of crops intended for fodder for farm animals, from which meat products are later produced as food for humans? Was it about creating a new variety of crops that are intended for direct human consumption as raw fruits and vegetables or after heat treatment in the preparation of human food?
Best wishes
Many studies show that the most effective organic farming involves cultivating a formula that refers to natural, complex, biologically multispecies ecosystems.
The formula of ecological agriculture consisting in cultivating many different plant species side by side, referring to the formation of a natural ecosystem, allows to eliminate chemical plant protection products and reduce biological fertilization.
Only the use of biologically neutral machines and technical devices for crops to correct the functioning of organic crops would allow the improvement of this formula and the pursuit of sustainable agriculture.
Only the question of the legitimacy of using or possibly resigning from the creation of new, more resistant to various diseases and pests of new varieties of cultivated plants through the application of genetics engineering would remain to be considered.
It is not about creating new species of plants or animals through genetic manipulation techniques, but about breeding more resistant to diseases and pests new crop varieties as a perfecting cultivation formula referring to the natural ecosystem.
Crops referring to the natural biological biological system should be improved by the creation and introduction into these complex crops of these new varieties of crop plants in order to restore biological balance, which was previously significantly reduced through the widespread use of monoculture crops grown under classical agriculture.
In connection with the warming up of the Earth's climate by the end of the 21st century, a significant part of the arable land will be either flooded by the seas and oceans or will be excluded from the production of crops due to intensifying drought. As part of the civilizational progress, including increasing the productivity of crop production per hectare, it will be necessary to continue research in this field. As part of the pro-ecological development of agriculture based on the assumptions of sustainable pro-ecological development, ie the concept of green economy, chemistry should be gradually reduced to reduce environmental pollution and reduce the impact of chemicals on human health and other life forms. In this way, the adverse impact of civilizational imbalances in natural ecosystems will be limited. In connection with the above, the aim of continuing increasing the production efficiency of agricultural crops per hectare in the future will be intensified by mechanization automation, robotization, improvement of weather forecasting and logistics systems for field works, and improvement of current crop varieties by increasing their resistance to viral and bacterial diseases , fungal, parasitic etc. An important field of research and scientific discipline, thanks to which it is possible to gradually improve current crop varieties by increasing their resistance to diseases is genetics. In addition, it is necessary to improve irrigation and greenhouse systems due to the progressive global warming and more and more often natural cataclysms. It is also important to improve the techniques of recycling and re-use of waste from intensified agricultural production, so that those wastes that are unsuitable for re-use were as few as possible. It is also important to limit the wastage of produced crops, reduce and develop the recycling of organic waste from the food production process in the agri-food processing sector. As part of the development of sustainable agriculture, it is also important to develop organic farming referring to natural ecosystems. This type of agriculture refers to natural ecosystems in which primary varieties of arable crops function or function. As part of this concept of ecological agriculture, different agricultural crops grow on one agricultural area, which also limits the potential scale of pest feeding and feeding, and ensures a better economy of savings in the use of plant protection products. Therefore, the use of genetics should be limited only to the successive improvement of current varieties of agricultural produce by increasing their resistance to viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitic diseases, and not to create completely new species of flora and fauna. In this way, through the process of improving, increasing resistance to diseases of agricultural crops, genetics would help to restore or at least significantly increase the natural balance in intensified agriculture. For this process to work it is necessary to develop also the above-mentioned other techniques of environmentally-friendly sustainable development of agriculture. All of the above-mentioned techniques must be applied in a purposefully, precisely planned integrated system of managing sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture. In this way, the developed agriculture will be adequate to increase the risk of unfavorable effects of the progressive global warming of the Earth's climate and will be one of the most important determinants of the globally developed sustainable economic development of the entire human civilization, ie deliberately oriented development according to the concept of green economy.
Best wishes
Dariusz Prokopowicz I have a significant respect for you Sir, but I reject this argument for a number of reasons. The key trouble is that ALL those claims are based upon computer models based upon selected data inputs. A computer will follow its programming. It can be manipulated by denying some data or by "tweaking" other data (like happened at NASA somewhat recently). You cannot get good data analysis from a computer that is not given good data.
First, we KNOW Earth was once much, much hotter and more humid with a more dense atmosphere than it is today. Second, we know water evaporates with increased temperature. It is never destroyed, but it does change in form. Therefore the idea that a planet 70% covered in water that increase in temperature will tend to produce more dew and more precipitation than before. This may fall differently upon the surface than before, but it WILL fall. We know forests cause rain and that more rain allows more forest. Therefore, it is an ecologically sound general principle that a global warming effect would in fact produce more vegetation, more forest lands & an ever increasing amount of rain. We also know that carbon is sequestered more by increased plant life (mostly carbon built). Therefore a built-in pressure gauge occurs in the cycle.
We know that at one point Antarctica was NOT covered in ice since we find vast evidence of prior life there, plants included. We also know this from the existence of ancient maps accurately depicting an area of Antarctica currently under a mile of ice. SOMEBODY was able to draw that coastline perfectly many hundreds (probably a couple thousand) years ago. Some of what we are told simply does not hold water (no pun intended) in light of facts we cannot dispute. Dinosaurs did not draw maps of coastlines (I am fairly certain) so it had to have been some intelligent creature capable of sea-based navigation, presumably a human.
The problems with increased mechanization of agriculture include matters of manufacturing pollution, fuel processing & harvesting, energy use, waste materials & the food waste from machine handling damage (far greater than human handling damage).
It is my opinion that our greatest worldwide pollution threat is actually synthetic petro-fertilizer manufacture & its associated agricultural runoff that causes pollution of ground water, rivers & streams, lakes & ponds as well as the ocean itself. It is better to build soil OM than to feed plants and hope we don't overfeed them so much that the nitrogen runoff kills our planet by first killing our seas. Our second largest planet problem is reduction of rubbish -in all forms. Air pollution is actually 3rd in my mind, but many would debate that with many graphs and large words. :)
Where I believe we would agree 100% is in the need for greater diversity in food crops and greater diversity in growing methods. Much of our vegetables and fruit should be grown INSIDE or VERY close to urban population centers. Many animal/insect-based proteins may also be produced in these environments but they are inappropriate for large field crops & large mammals. Fish, guinea pigs, rabbits, small amounts of fowl & many types of insect may be produced in cities without adverse effects on the neighbors. Growing food where it is needed reduces waste and transportation cost as well as bringing nature into the cities providing vast psychological & health benefits. It is even possible to keep a few goats in urban environments since they actually till soil & clear brush while producing little noxious odor or pathology.
Yes, new varieties of crops can be safe and suitable for consumption, for food, for the production of medicines, etc. if they are thoroughly tested. Certainly, new varieties of plants may be created that are safer and more advanced, using modern, controlled genetic techniques in comparison with chemical pesticides. Some of the chemical pesticides, when used on crop fields, were quickly detected in the bodies of penguins in Antarctica, so quickly the chemicals in the biological food chains spread. In addition, new varieties of cultivated plants cultivated using modern genetic techniques can be a perfect complement to the developed organic farming, in which no artificial chemical plant protection products are used.
Conventional and organic agriculture are not necessarily compatible in any real sense. A good example is the overall contamination of our environment which herbicides and pesticides which are part and parcel of the so called modernized industrialized agricultural system. This is very problematic as the purity which is trespassed by the drift issues related to the universe of chemical farmers makes the goals of organic producers less tenable. The GMO crops are designed around the chemicals and the genetics companies are not based on conventional breeding but non conventional efforts directed around the inputs which was first interest of the commercial interest. Expecting that a chemical company which has purchased genetics operations are going to champion non chemical agriculture is probably unrealistic. In the business sense the goal of input company is to make the customer dependent on them not to wean them off them. While the interest itself has proclaimed their products will reduce inputs there is precious little real information that this has actually happened after a generation of GMO farmers using the technology according to the recommendations of the input providers.
By and large GMO are safe with a few exceptions. I think that glyphosate resistant plants as such are not dangerous but after treatment with the herbicide they may contain trace of it that could affect human and animal health. On the other hand, the GMO expressing Bt or Cry genes are not dangerous and many tests have shown that animals (pig, sheep, chicken) fed with such plants showed no traces of the transgene in their meat or eggs. On the other hand, further tests have to be done on transgenic plants expressing avidin, lectins, inhibitors of proteases, and RNAi for example.
We eat GMOs all the time. An apple is not a puffer fish or poison ivy.
Nature is always modifying "foods". We too are part of nature so if we change a food, it is natural. Okay, okay. GMOs by "mad" scientists and "big bad evil" retailers, are not by slow natural processes. GMOs in our current culture are scary because we do not think that nature does this all the time. GMOs are the big bad wolf it seems. To be clear, there are lots of things we do not eat, some of which eat or kill us.
We do not eat most birds (chickens, ducks and geese to the side). They are all GMO from dinosaurs, and one celled organisms before that.
We do not eat live raw scorpions, polar bears, or rattlesnakes but we eat lots of other related species.
We do not each buckthorn fruit as a rule, but we do eat apples.
I know it is fun and feels safe to be scared. Instead,let us allow ourselves the latitude to try to make plants and animals healthier, to make them hardier so more people can live.
There will be mistakes along the way, but driving to work even without mistakes on our own part, is much more likely to kill you and I than a GMO, do kill you or I in a much more dramatic fashion. Except for the family and friends, such deaths are generally not even news worthy.
GMO - we should label them GMFO - Good meals for others.
I would suggest that GMOs that allow activating DNA to cross property lines, say for a pesticide resistance, do not confer on the patent holders the right to pollute surrounding unmodified DNA.
If we want to be afraid, be afraid GMOs are stopped: from giving us (collective humanity) better foods, from giving us new building materials, from giving us reanimated extinct species, from giving us new medical approaches and tools, from giving us new building materials, from giving us new computer technologies, from developing new fibres, from developing new environmental restoration technologies, from our very future.
Let us give up unwarranted rudderless fears. I know the future is uncertain, and that we are by evolution made to see danger so we can react (fight or flight). Being against GMOs feels right because we cannot flight from the product, so that fighting comes naturally. But our brains can allow us to neither fight nor flight, we can move prudently instead.
Does it sound natural if we take a fluorescent gene from a jelly fish and insert it into a mouse genome.
This of course has great utility if you want to find your mouse in the dark.
The idea that GMO has increased the value of food. Is very hard to demonstrate.
Where is the demonstration of that?
Actually where the GMO foods are most accepted is where the health statistics are worse.
The idea that birds are genetically modified from dinosaurs is quite interesting.
Who was the human who bred the birds using genes outside the species concept? Was that Fred Flintstone?
I am attaching some statistical graphs showing the increasing GMO food system is having some unhealthy consequences in terms of the increase of once rare diseases which are rising in tune with GMO.
Maybe the Moniker GMFO should be Great Myth For Obfuscating. Of maybe GMFA Good Method for Avoiding. The operations are just endless.
Paul - Understand your points. If one sees humans as natural, and evolutionary processes as natural, the genetic modification by evolution or humanity, is on some level "equivalent - or not. Be well.
So John is a wolf equivalent and the same as a dashund?
Something that occurs without human intervention is natural something that is human made is by definition artificial.
Natural vanilla comes for a vanilla bean the synthesis of vanillin by a synthetic chemical process is artificial.
The red color from beets is natural.
FC Red 40 that is artificial.
By the way natural beets are healthy food and FC Red 40 is another probable carcinogen.
Insertion of isolated genes from unrelated species cannot be considered natural except if you consider a fluroscent mouse as natural.
The increase of health wellness where are these advantages you allude to?
The real situation is not so pink as you seem to want to paint it.
How do you explain the increase of rare diseases and allergies in tune with increase in GMO technology?
The major GMO presently used is Glyphosate resistant the so called roundup ready technology.
Now this herbicide was applied at over 90 million pounds last year in the United States.
Question is this natural?
Do you know that World Health Organization has reviewed independent scientific deeming the herbicide as a probable cancinogen with a greatly increased probability of non Hodgekin Lymphoma?
The cancer might be considered natural by your evaluation but it has led to massive lawsuits for those affected by it.
The original justification of GMO was a concept substantial equivalence which has been proven erroneous.
Another was the reduction of agrichemical inputs from the technology again not proven out.
Another was higher yield and quality also false in fact the nutrient in our food have declined with the advances of modern agriculture.
So is the advantage of the modern is being filled with less quality food and the increase in medical expense?
Where are all these positive results being played out when chemical inputs continue to increase and yields and quality do not show the same tendency?
Be well.
Actually GMO crops are studied for their production performance and if it is good than it is release for cultivation and product is used for food or feed, While there should be a complete study on the effect of food /feed on human, animal and soil health and environment obtained from GMO crop before its release for cultivation.
There was no long term independent evaluation of present day GMO products before their release. The analysis was short term study using in house GMO data sources. The claim that glyphosate was benign from in house research has been disclaimed and the review of Who Health Organization has shown glyphosate is a probable carcinogen based on epidemiological data and numerous court cases now are awarding damages to victims of glyphosate exposure.
Thanks Paul and others.
I advocate a certain humility when considering findings. Lets consider internet use since 1945 and plot it. The data is taken from www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm and plotted in Excel (I attach the curve if one cares to not plot it oneself). A nice hockey stick perhaps.
While drawing correlations and causation based on any data may be useful, there may be other things going on. The plot of internet use versus time from 1945 to the present (noting the internet started in about 1993 or later...) could plot in some correlation with air pollution, sickness, heart disease, mental illness, storms, hot days, rainy days, etc. One might guess the internet caused this or that and the stats may find some high correlation. Even so, my point, is we should be humble in our ability to know causality.
Various commentators may be right or rightish or wrongish or wrong. It is worth our considering the question posed those many months ago and understand the limitations of our assertions, noting we might be entirely right. The point is to discuss and not destroy.
Be well all. Signing off.
Dear John
the benefits of gmo arguments thus far does not point to a good understanding of what a gmo is nor the real issues related to them.
The idea that we cannot pass judgment on issues rather they are merely rightish or wrongish is a shade of grey argument which can only lead to devaluing verifiable truth for everything is sort of true universe.
This erosion of the value of verifiable truth represents a very slippery treacherous downward slope to area of no truth.
In fact deniers like to cast the topics within a context that all technology is advancement and all questioning of it is evil.
If treating hats is great and mercury is used in its technology lets all celebrate a society of mad hatters. NOT!
We certainly can do much better than the naïve mad hatter society.
This represents a sad commentary on values and their modern erosion.
A good very real issue is the development of superweeds by the use gmo technologies have lead to or the development of super germs resistant to antibiotics.
These are real issues and anything but trivial related to gmo technologies and their employment.
Denial communities are notable for greatly exaggerating the benefits of their technologies and greatly minimizing the real issues related to them.
The idea that there is equivalency between the gmo agricultural system and the internet is also a red herring argument.
Since you suggest that there are large positives of gmo agricultural system I would like to see the information you base this assumption on.
John where is the greatly improved health economic and environmental outcomes you suggest?
To the contrary the issues of proliferation of rare diseases with the adoption of gmo agriculture is more than circumstantial and the mechanism of inference have been tested and proven.
Law suites are showing the disingenuous representation of glysphosate a major focus of the first wave of gmo plant products. At least in a legal sense there was a verifiable truth that was shown.
Just like the case of glyphosate the effects for producer are to rig the analysis to suggest real issues and toxicities do not exist and derail the track of addressing them.
Suggesting natural crossing and breeding is equivalent to gmo technology is another red herring false equivalency.
Finally the idea that gmo technology and the internet equivalency as you suggest in the opening discussion is another apparent diversionary tactic.
Red herring arguments have been favorite techniques used by denial communities interested in derailing the truth rather than exposing it. The red herring certainly seem to be migrating.
Finally. I understand the hock stick allusion constitutes another red herring.
As you suggest a serious discussion of real information would be helpful.
Waving a hockey stick seems to me another attempt to obfuscate the truth of the matter.
Apparently the red herring school is swarming diverting from truth and not revealing it.
The problem of GMO is that you can not know the exact effect on human or environmental balance until it is too late and the damages have been already done. Someone defends one genetic modified crop by saying that they did not introduce any genes but only changed the sequence of one gene in the plant. As simplifying that, they ignored the fact that changing the sequence of one gene creates a new protein (an enzyme) which we will not know its impact on health before some years pass. The proponent always say that these modification are approved by FDA or whatever authorities in somewhere, but we must remember that those authorities have approved many things that came out later to be harmful and they had to withdraw them from our life. In conclusion: modifying biological systems is not safe most of the time and we must be so careful....
A fare as possible, If you can avoid eating GMOs, do it !! because there is too much controversy on the side effects of GMOs
This question itself divides two groups,one is against one is for, but as far as I think slight modification in gene creates a new organism. With the time wild type will engulf the planet. Playing with nature will definitely leads towards ecological imbalance later, it is controversial topic to discuss about may be today creating stress tolerance breed is good economically but later biological activity is questionable.
Thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking