ForumsWEPRGM crops arn't dangerous

21 3671
Gobbles
offline
Gobbles
18 posts
Nomad

point me to the study that says otherwise

  • 21 Replies
Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

What is a GM crop?

Seriously...

GM corp?

And...why would General Motors be dangerous? xD

I don't understand this thread at all =P

Gobbles
offline
Gobbles
18 posts
Nomad

GM crops = genetically modified crops

Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

GM crops = genetically modified crops


Well...it's not exactly the most common abbreviation in the world...

But..I would agree.

Unless they are cloned, in which case there is no genetic diversity in the field, so if one stalk of corn gets a disease it will quickly destroy the entire crop because there will be no corn that is genetically different and immune or resistant.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

Unless they are cloned, in which case there is no genetic diversity in the field, so if one stalk of corn gets a disease it will quickly destroy the entire crop because there will be no corn that is genetically different and immune or resistant.


Even then, a percentage of the population will survive and develop an immunity. Think about how bacterial colonies have developed a resistance to anti-biotics; it's because after being exposed to what is usually fatal, some of them can survive and develop an immunity to it, passing that immunity on to further generations.

The big fuss over GE food is pretty silly. In the U.S.A. the crops are submitted to review from the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA. Not that those agencies, or the government that controls them are perfect, but it has more agencies monitoring it then any other food crop - certainly more then anything that's grown organically. Besides, we've been selectively breeding plants for better crop yield for hundreds of years - we're just much better at it today, and have better tools to work with.

I think most of the complaint about it is from 'green' organizations that are more interested in an un-scientific panic based agenda with the ultimate goal of anti-globalization and anti-government then they are about food health issues.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

Ah, but what about using seeds with the suicide gene? It keeps farmers from reusing seeds as those that come from those genetic freaks of nature will not grow, as they intended it not to. So every year farmers have to buy more seeds instead of having the ones that grew the best being the ones planted again. Thus the seed crop is stagnant and does not improve.

balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

Also our NEW and IMPROVED methods have used pesticides that have poisoned us all to the point that cancer has become an epidemic.

German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

Also our NEW and IMPROVED methods have used pesticides that have poisoned us all to the point that cancer has become an epidemic.

WOW.

pesticides have nothing to do with genetically modified crops.

there is not enough evidence yet to prove that eating plants sprayed with pesticides will undeniably give you cancer (poisoned us all? really?)

cancer cannot be an epidemic, because an epidemic is something that is a virus or disease which can be transfered, and i don't see people lining up for their cancer vaccines.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

Also our NEW and IMPROVED methods have used pesticides that have poisoned us all to the point that cancer has become an epidemic.


I'd love to see some science to support this statement.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

Epidemic: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time.

Pesticides and Cancer

It deals with crops, which are the subject of the discussion.

Pau11Wa11
offline
Pau11Wa11
527 posts
Nomad

i dont see how GM crops would be dangerous

HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

Flag
Epidemic: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time.
Pesticides and Cancer
It deals with crops, which are the subject of the discussion.


The article you linked to does not deal in evidence of pesticide use being a primary cause for the rise of cancer in the human population, only rhetoric; it also does not cite any sources of real scientific study from peer reviewed journals.
ComradeGamer
offline
ComradeGamer
383 posts
Nomad

I dont care if it is dangerous, I still think it taste bad. So i'm still buying organic food.

Zootsuit_riot
offline
Zootsuit_riot
1,523 posts
Nomad

Besides, we've been selectively breeding plants for better crop yield for hundreds of years - we're just much better at it today, and have better tools to work with.


The selective breeding that has been going on for decades has been using tens of thousands of genes; genetic modification that is currently going on involves inserting genes from other organisms that would otherwise never enter the human body. They've been working on Strawberries that would survive extreme cold by inserting genes from an Arctic Flounder into it; it's completely different than selective breeding between different types of corn

pesticides have nothing to do with genetically modified crops.


I've got two words for you:
Bacilus Thuringensis aka BT is a bacteria.

BT corn is corn that has been modified with a gene from Bacilus Thuringensis that allows it to produce it's own pesticide; however, because it produces it's own pesticide, the amount released cannot be controlled. Thus it kills all of the pests around, introducing new species of pests which fill the void.

BT is actually very specific in the pest it kills, though: caterpillars. However, as with all pesticides, the toxin that the BT corn emits only kills the weakest and middle portions of the pest population, leaving the strongest to survive and repopulate. This cycle repeats until you've got ultra-strong pests and ultra-deadly pesticides.

The biggest problem with GM food is that it is not labeled when it is in a product, as are other ingredients in foods, nor is it possible for it to be labeled due to how interspersed it already is in the food system of the world. Combine that with the fact that 76% of people who were interviewed said they had no idea they were being fed genetically modified crops, and you've got an angry public.

Monsanto, formerly a pesticide company and now a company whose main vice is genetic engineering for crops, created a type of corn that produced a toxin known as Cry9C. Cry9C was shown as a very probable allergen for humans, and thus, was only approved for animal use. However, 1/20 products in the supermarket that were tested had the corn that produced Cry9C in it. Countries around the world tested their products, and the Cry9C was found as far as South Korea and Great Britain.

There are many other cases such as this, but when groups such as Greenpeace threatened to present their findings, big brand-name companies pulled their products from the shelves.

Another problem with GM crops is pollen drift; pollen from the GM crops moves and, because of the superior genes, replaces the population of unmodified corn or other foods.
Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

Even then, a percentage of the population will survive and develop an immunity. Think about how bacterial colonies have developed a resistance to anti-biotics; it's because after being exposed to what is usually fatal, some of them can survive and develop an immunity to it, passing that immunity on to further generations.


No, that is false. The fact that some of the corn will survive and live on is a result of the slight genetic differences between each stalk. These slight genetic differences are not present in cloned crops.

i dont see how GM crops would be dangerous


Not necessarily dangerous in there consumption. But I believe the fact that an entire field could be destroyed by disease is dangerous. As well as helping our supply of food they are also a threat to it.

Besides, we've been selectively breeding plants for better crop yield for hundreds of years


The key word being breeding. Indicating that the plants have reproduced to create a new plant that is not genetically identical. Not cloning.

Keep in mind I only really know about the cloning side of GM crops...

Sounds like Zoot knows this stuff...
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

The selective breeding that has been going on for decades has been using tens of thousands of genes; genetic modification that is currently going on involves inserting genes from other organisms that would otherwise never enter the human body. They've been working on Strawberries that would survive extreme cold by inserting genes from an Arctic Flounder into it; it's completely different than selective breeding between different types of corn


Genetics is a very powerful tool for experiments in a laboratory, but splicing fish genes into fruit is not something that reaches the human population; that kind of work is purely for study.

BT corn is corn that has been modified with a gene from Bacilus Thuringensis that allows it to produce it's own pesticide; however, because it produces it's own pesticide, the amount released cannot be controlled. Thus it kills all of the pests around, introducing new species of pests which fill the void.


BT is actually very specific in the pest it kills, though: caterpillars. However, as with all pesticides, the toxin that the BT corn emits only kills the weakest and middle portions of the pest population, leaving the strongest to survive and repopulate. This cycle repeats until you've got ultra-strong pests and ultra-deadly pesticides.


These two statements are entirely contradictory. You're saying that the amount cannot be controlled, and therefore kills all types of pests, then say that it is very controlled and specifically targets only a single kind of pests.

There are many other cases such as this, but when groups such as Greenpeace threatened to present their findings, big brand-name companies pulled their products from the shelves.


This doesn't sound entirely truthful. Why would Greenpeace 'threaten' to release the information? Wouldn't they just release it? Have they released it, or was it just a hollow threat? Who did the study, an independent research firm or Greenpeace?

No, that is false. The fact that some of the corn will survive and live on is a result of the slight genetic differences between each stalk. These slight genetic differences are not present in cloned crops.


Not quite - there's the inherited genetic information that you receive from both of your parents, but as you live as an organism, depending on your lifestyle, there is information that gets appended to it; though your DNA doesn't actually change. Those genetics get passed onto future generations (I believe it's called epigenetics?). In this case, genetic clones (and twins) can give way to passing on differing genetic traits depending on what they've been exposed to and their living environment.

Beyond that -

Keep in mind I only really know about the cloning side of GM crops...


Then you would know that they don't actually clone crop for human consumption right? The whole purpose of GE crops is to take existing plant populations and introduce valuable genetic traits with some donor genetic material to help it stick - it's not about replacing them with cloned agriculture.

You guys seem to be arguing about GE crops quite a bit, but there's been no establishment in this thread that they are bad for human consumption. Again, they are the most highly regulated food items available - more highly regulated then organic food for certain.

Additionally, GE crops actually give us some tools to try and provide more, cheaper food for the entire planet of which the population continues to grow. Purely organic farming would be incapable of feeding the Billions of people that currently reside on the Earth, much less the more that are potentially to come.
Showing 1-15 of 21