Debate of the Day 2: Is Genetically Modified Food overall good or bad?

"This DOTD idea is frickin awesome."  --John

I just thought we should start with that nugget of feedback from yesterday - thanks for that NavyJohn!

Now onto a new topic: Is genetically modified (GM) food a net positive or a net negative?

Discuss.....

Oy that's a tough subject that I don't know much about.

It's tough because GM foods can be a benefit by making the crops more productive and thus feeding more people - essentially making farming more efficient.  Then again, your GM crops can cross-pollinate with similar non-GM crops, and from what I understand some people are concerned that we don't know all the effects that genetically modifying a crop will have.

I would say as long as it's done reasonably carefully and the modified crops are thorougly studied before being sent into production (as is probably the case), then I would say overall GM food is a net positive because of its increased efficiency (be it growing larger plants or disease or pest resistant, etc.).  You know me - I'm all about efficiency!

I'll have to agree with Dana on this one. I don't bees knowin much about dis. But, I was just thinking, it sounds like a good idea for a movie, like The Sixth Day or something.

The religious naysayers is right and people start mutating into something...but what? ooooh.

John

That's always a good way to win a debate!

Okay, folks.  I'm going to help you out a little here.

This is a list summarizing some of the pros and cons (generated by the Human Genome Project).  Head on over to them if you want some links out to other resources.

GM Products: Benefits and Controversies

Benefits

• Crops
  • Enhanced taste and quality
  • Reduced maturation time
  • Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
  • Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
  • New products and growing techniques
• Animals
  • Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
  • Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
  • Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
• Environment
  • "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
  • Conservation of soil, water, and energy
  • Bioprocessing for forestry products
  • Better natural waste management
  • More efficient processing
• Society
  • Increased food security for growing populations

Controversies

• Safety
  • Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
• Access and Intellectual Property
  • Domination of world food production by a few companies
  • Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
  • Biopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources
• Ethics
  • Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
  • Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
  • Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
  • Stress for animal
• Labeling
  • Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
  • Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
• Society
  • New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

So with all that in mind....is it worth it?

Yeah, I'm sticking to my story!

Dual purpose post - more use of the YouTube button and VERY educational content...it's 7 minutes long, so I put a quick summary below:

• Providing exclusively GM food to animals led to countless sick, sterile, and dead animals and other unpredicted side effects
• GM foods are bred to resist herbicides and also to produce their own pesticides
• Most pervasive in soy, corn, cotton, and canola - already infiltrated in 70% of our foods
• When GM soy was introduced in the UK, reports of soy allergies in the population shot up 50%
• As an example, if you look at tomato sauces and see soybean oil and high fructose corn syrup, chances are it's GM - olive oil is not GM
• Be aware- Seedsofdeception.com

I definitely learned some stuff.

Edited by deej - Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:53:54 GMT

Hey Wal-Mart - there's another good debate topic.

Whoops, we had a little issue where I accidentally posted over my other post.

The Wal-mart reference from Dana is referring to an earlier post where I stated that the GM food issue reminds me of my feelings for Walmart. By making lots of cheap stuff, they have improved quality of life for millions of people, but they have also decimated American companies and in order to create volume at low prices aren't exactly encouraging quality manufacturing and business practices.

Similarly with GM food, you can make WAY more of it, make it heartier so it travels better, etc., but there are also many consequences.

Still, if I have to choose, because there are millions starving around the world, I say we keep working to perfect GM food. That was the gist.

Haven't human beings been genetically modifying our food and animals since well, forever?

It doesn't have to be in a lab with electron microscopes and white lab coats...

Crops - we've learned how to cultivate and germinate plants, to increase crop yield.

Flowers  - how are new flowers created? splicing and cross breeding.

Livestock - horses and cows were smaller in the middle ages, selective breeding has changed that.

Dogs - every breed of dog was created for a purpose

So really the debate might be what level of genetic modification is good or bad?  I think cross breeding/pollination is alright because that kind of stuff happens in nature.  But injecting an embryo with some new protein or altering the DNA strands, well, that gets pretty scarey.

The man makes a good point!

You're right, spyboy.  It all comes down to how you define GMOs.  I'm certainly pleased to eat pluots but I'm not so sure about salmon whose genetic code has been messed with to have pinker flesh...

This is an interesting debate. I think the issue has many different points of view, both with pros and cons on a local level and a global level.

My opinion about gen mod is that when you mess with Mother Nature, you get burned.

Another effect of gm foods/seeds/pesticides are Monsanto's gm seed ownership rights and Nestle Corp's profiting from it. I found this documentary (subtitled in english) that really put everything in this debate, as well as the animal rights, gmo, organic, etc. debates into a different point of view to consider. In my opinion, this documentary pulls back the curtain a bit more for us to see the larger picture of the debate.

The documentary can be found on google video under the title "We Feed The World" it's 95 minutes. Here's the address:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5354802923061496135&q=we+feed+the+world&ei=MRk4SJrQC47k4AL12sDRAw

Genetic engineering is the reason why the world ISN'T starving anymore.

Here's an anecdotal story from my own personal experience:

I love tomatoes. I eat them like fruit. It doesn't matter if they're organic or not; I'll wash them well and eat them. When I visited my brother in my home country last year, I noticed that he peeled the tomato skin before making a salad. I asked him why. He said the farmers there use so many pesticides (this is southern Europe and everything is organic) that it's not safe to eat the skin no matter how well you wash it.

I'll take my GM tomatoes, thank you very much.