Your opinion on genmanipulated food?

Agreed, there is no "yes" or "no" answer to GMO food. I believe it should be used to our benefit, but must be very strictly regulated to avoid not only harmful effects from the food, but for the company managing it to unfairly take advantage of people with engineered traits like seed infertility.

 

In theory, it sounds great.

But in reality, not so much. I don't trust anybody that produces a product for profit, to do so out of the kindness of their heart -- there is a catch, a goal if you will. They want that money, and they will cut corners and walk a legal tightrope to keep it.

 

GMOs are like any other great scientific progress, they have the potential for great good but also great evil. Take for example the woman who calculated the huge amounts of energy released from splitting the atom, Lise Meitner. She knew that it could be used to make a weapon of mass destruction, but she also knew it could be used to generate usable energy, so she contemplated not revealing her discovery. She did in the end, and both things happened.

As long as GMOs are regulated they could be used to easily solve world hunger and malnutrition. But, if the GMO plants cross breed with wild plants the results would be unpredictable. Despite this risk I think we have a moral obligation to pursue GMOs.

I think it's important to remember that humans have been genetically changing plants for thousands of years via selective breeding. Much of the plants from the Brassica family we eat today are human creations.

 

I have studied and meet enough PR and marketing people to see both sides of the debate, at least on how they lobby things. No one is really innocent here.

Have some companies does unethical things with GMO food and pesticides and sweep it under the rug to make a profit? Well, yes there is no denying it.

Have some "green" companies ignore and bury scientific studies that point out benefits and practical need of GMO and take advantage of the organic craze to sell their product much, much higher than what it is worth? You won't find a lack of them either.

Just try to make the most informed opinion possible by yourself.

 

I think it would work well under the right circumstances such as in sterile labs not grown outside were they can cross pollinate with other species,and kept away from the insect/animal population so the don't naturally start to adapt to genetically altered plants

 

Hello,

I am by no means a botanist, or an agricultural engineer, or a plant geneticist, but this thing has been bugging me.
From my simple understanding, basically some plants have been genetically manipulated to produce more crops, to withstand conditions in greenhouses, and to fight diseases.
Now, how does that effect anyone who is eating them, or how that is a bad thing is a mystery to me. I think it's just a case of speeding up evolution and natural selection, and providing us with better crops. do you think we would have cucumbers and tomatoes in the winter without genetically modified crops?
People seem suspicious, and just talk out of their ass - including myself in this very moment.
My own common sense sees nothing wrong with it, and i think people will complain even more when their favourite foods are not available or prices shoot up.
Organic shmorganic. this really echoes the BS of that idiot Donald trump saying they should stop using vaccines.

 

I'm just doing to let Neil deGrasse Tyson answer this question, as I have nothing to add.

[YOUTUBE]1ecT2CaL7NA[/YOUTUBE]

 

So, now I can't even cook a flavorful cuisine without it being controversial? You wish that bland, discount mush that you had for dinner last night was manipulated by me. Screw you.

 

We've been genetically manipulating animals and plants for thousands of years (aka, breeding). If you really think about it, your poodle is a GMO wolf. Corn is basically something we, as a species, coaxed out of a freak mutation (specifically, enlarged reproductive organs).

I'm not opposed. Genetically modifying our food products could be the key to tackling starvation in all corners of the globe. Now, people could probably use extensive genetic modifications to do some really, really stupid stuff and Monsanto is a horrible company but for the most part, no opposition from me.

 

Organic foods should be outlawed.

Genetically enhanced foods should be compulsory.

 

My main issue with GMOs is genetic diversity. When you plant a monolithic crop (even if it's designed to be resistant to certain blights), you basically are putting all your eggs in one basket and reduce the inherent protection that genetic biodiversity affords. I would like for there to be more farms that grow heirloom crops and heritage species.

Also, while I don't have issues with selective breeding and picking out traits in crops, I do hate when companies use genetics to put a "lock" on crop. Monsanto is a big culprit. For instance, their crops are designed to specifically survive the application of RoundUp(glyphosate) (another product they create) and so you kill the weeds but not the soybeans/cotton. But then when weeds grow resistance to the roundup, will they have to reengineer those crops? In fact, the monoculture of glyphosate-resistant soybean and cotton crops has lead to the selective breeding of super weeds that now require new and improved GMOs. It's an arms race akin to the antibiotics

 

Nope, f*** that :/

 

Heirloom plants are often less resistant to fungi, which actually can kill you.

 

Because science is good for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak

Organic Hepatitis A Outbreak | Food Safety News

Nature is defective and broken, and it requires improvement.

If I could go back in time to assassinate one single individual, it would be Mary Shelley. She has singlehandedly done more to contribute to anti-science hysteria than any single individual in history. She and her present-day followers are ridiculous hooligans who would have us suffering from preventable diseases based on their ridiculous and stupid magical thinking.

---------- Post added 21st Jul 2015 at 12:50 PM ----------

Anti-GMO hysteria is the fetish of ignorant conservative women who don't know half what they're talking about.

 

I know heirloom tomatoes are susceptible to fungi (I don't eat tomatoes so I don't care about them :lol but is that true for all other species of crops?

 

I actually grow heirloom tomatoes at home as well as heirloom strains of "cat grass" indoors, namely wheat and oat, and I think that it is a respectable hobby. If you fertilize the tomatoes correctly, they taste like candy, especially those low-acid orange-colored cherry tomatoes. Mmm, mmm.

All crops can be susceptible to fungi, but the majority of deaths related to diseases carried by produce are related to salmonella and E. coli. These are diseases that people actually die of.

I was really sort of joking about banning organic products. Organic farmers actually follow very strict guidelines to get their certification, and although it elevates the cost for the consumer, the guidelines actually have been a success:

RealClearScience - Blame Organic Industry For E. coli Outbreak

However, the crops are otherwise more susceptible, ceteris paribus, according to the same study. The absence of pesticides and the seeds not being GMO really don't do anything to make you safer. The belief that something being "natural" automatically makes it more wholesome is a very misguided way of thinking.

A rightly guided way of thinking is appropriate regulation and adequate field-testing of genetically enhanced products, which is the reason your "certified organic" foods are usually safe. Approaching the science from a sober, enlightened perspective is the way to go.

 

You beat me to everything I was going to say.

I would like to add a little something to "we've done it since time began" argument: selecting plants and grafting them together or pollinating by design is slightly different than taking genetic material that isn't normally in a plant and putting it there. It's the difference between breeding cats to come out with long silky hair and creating one by injecting genetic material so that it glows in the dark. For noble ends maybe but does it justify the means?

My biggest problem is the "end world hunger" argument: the amount of food produced and thrown away by "first world countries" (for lack of a better term) is absolutely staggering. If we helped those countries in need by not needlessly diverting food so that we can throw away most of it, that might be better in the long run. And also: how about shoring up the food storing infrastructure of those countries that need food? They might be able to grow more food from gm seeds (questionable) but if they can't keep what they grow from rotting quickly then what's the point?