Posts: 7,497
Threads: 326
Joined: Apr 2022
Pam wrote:
[quote=Onamuji]
[quote=C(-)ris]
Is this the Vaccines cause Autism thing all over again, except for food...
Yes and no. There are two parts to the anti-GMO movement.
The one where people allege that GMO foods are inherently dangerous solely because of the genetic-manipulation has no credibility. (And the logic defies nearly the entire history of agriculture.)
The one where people allege that Monsanto manipulates laws and abuses their patents to disrupt traditional farming practices in a manner that enhances their monopolies and destroys livelihoods while introducing potentially dangerous pesticides into our diets is probably still valid.
I'm in the second part camp. Genetic manipulation isn't the issue.
I am in favor of that labeling law, too - putting "Monsanto" logos on all products dependent upon their patents.
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
Yeah, there's nothing nutritionally wrong with milk from BST-treated cows, either...but we already produce way more milk than we need in this country, and having to pay Monsanto just to keep up with your local competition doesn't really help dairy farmers.
Not to mention what the cows go through. Bloody udders, antibiotics, etc...
Posts: 33,855
Threads: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
If the concerns were focused on the politics of Big Plant Companies, I'd be ok with all of the discussions.
There are legitimate other uses for GMOs - such as fungus-resistant bananas - that are not being brought to market because the regulatory path is not clear and the public are so focused on being anti-BPCs.
The complete fabrication of anti-GMO science data is bad for all of us that are in research, too.
Posts: 14,625
Threads: 994
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Sekker, sounds like you might work in the field. To a lot of us lay people, the dangers of genetic manipulation is not all too clear.
Traditionally, man used to manipulate things genetically through the sexual/cross-breeding/hybridization process. This required similar organisms as parents. Which (and I'm conjecturing here) placed limits on how 'dangerous' a particular gene manipulation could be (such as how it could propagate in the wild or affect the long term health of the organism or species...especially for humans).
The new genetic technology allows us to manipulate genes directly. It gives us the ability to mix genes from completely unrelated species all the way up to unrelated phylums. And from what I understand, our understanding of the complete (maybe this is a fantasy) effect of a gene is not understood. What do you think, are these valid concerns, have they been discussed in the industry?
Posts: 7,497
Threads: 326
Joined: Apr 2022
Carnos Jax wrote:
Traditionally, man used to manipulate things genetically through the sexual/cross-breeding/hybridization process.
That's a myth.
Highly alkaline chemicals have routinely been used to mutate plants for centuries. Cabbages were mutated into brussels sprouts, broccoli and cauliflower by exposing them to mutagens in bogs and fens, then selectively bred. Wheat and corn had favorable germs shot into them to try an make giant polyploid variations. Corn and barley were exposed to radiation in the 1920s to produce bigger varieties. Post WWII California white rice (one of the most popular strains in the world) comes from a variety created by exposure to gamma rays (looking for peaceful use of nuclear technology) and half the soybean crops in the world have been similarly mutated.
...And thanks to the methods used, every one of 'em can be certified organic.
