GMO tech

[Selastan]

Why the hell would I be against it? It is mankind's duty as a sentient species to improve upon the world, lest we waste our gift.

[Rukh]

90% of all food grown today is already GMO... This isnt a new thing...

Either by selective breeding or done in a lab, its the same thing.
GMO "fear" is mostly an american thing too btw. Mostly due to its terrible education system.

I think that you're conflating the definitions here. When people talk about GMO foods, they're not talking about food that has been selectively bred. I don't think that's a good argument because people aren't against selective breeding of food (In general, there have been arguments against the monoculture of food such as corn through selective breeding). So you're making an argument based on something people aren't really against. I just don't think that's a sturdy tactic.

Instead we should talk about genetic manipulation in the way people are actually arguing against, i.e. the actual editing of genes, not the selection of traits that also happens to end in selection of genes. Because if you can convince people about that, you have made a good argument.

[Gheld]

Living in agg country and thus bearing direct witness to the effects of the whole "roundup ready" craze I can assure you that it might be fine now but it's a nuclear bomb of shortsightedness waiting to go off.

Conditioning fields so that the only thing that will grow there is seeds supplied by a gigantic agricultural monopoly that will sue your ass into oblivion if you don't burn the seeds leftover from the harvest....

It's not worth the short term increase in yields because it's absolute madness.

The technology itself is fine. But the manner in which it has been applied is reckless and short sighted.

And agriculture is extremely damaging to the environment. We should be looking for ways to shrink our existing agricultural footprint not expand it.

[Thetruth1400]

Yes, but not because I think they're unsafe to eat. I'm more concerned about the fitness of crops, as GMOs tend to have extremely little genetic diversity. I just see it as setting the world up for crop disease/pest based disasters.

Agreed, but also easily preventable. Right now, 95% of American bananas are the Cavendish. Before that we had the Gros Michel, but that fell victim to Panama disease. There's a new strain that's now effecting the Cavendish, which means we might be in for another banana change in our lifetimes. Humans are good at adapting though, and considering there are estimated to be 1,000 different banana varieties, chances are we'll easily switch to a new one just like we did before.

In the end, we'll grow what's most profitable, not really what's going to feed the most people. If wheat A feeds 10 billion people, but costs $1,000 per pound to grow, it doesn't stand a chance against wheat B that might only feed 5 billion, but costs $10 per pound to grow.

All that aside, there's nothing wrong with GMOs as long as there aren't any extreme health risks associated with it. I'm not talking, "Oh, this strand of wheat has a 0.2% higher chance of giving you cancer in 30 years", but more of a "If you eat this wheat more than twice a year you'll get cancer for sure." Likewise, if they want to insert genes into the wheat that make it yield higher production, but the side effect is the wheat is purple and glows with no health side effects, then I look forward to eating my purple bread in the dark.

[GodlyBob]

I think that you're conflating the definitions here. When people talk about GMO foods, they're not talking about food that has been selectively bred. I don't think that's a good argument because people aren't against selective breeding of food (In general, there have been arguments against the monoculture of food such as corn through selective breeding). So you're making an argument based on something people aren't really against. I just don't think that's a sturdy tactic.

Instead we should talk about genetic manipulation in the way people are actually arguing against, i.e. the actual editing of genes, not the selection of traits that also happens to end in selection of genes. Because if you can convince people about that, you have made a good argument.

The argument is that selective breeding and specific gene manipulation are pretty much mechanically identical at the genetic level. The genes which are isolated and inserted are going to be from a similar organism if the end result is meant for consumption. If you're looking to water proof your rice plants, you grab the gene from another species of rice, not from a dolphin. So for all intents and purposes, the two plants may as well have interbred.

[Verzen]

Living in agg country and thus bearing direct witness to the effects of the whole "roundup ready" craze I can assure you that it might be fine now but it's a nuclear bomb of shortsightedness waiting to go off.

Conditioning fields so that the only thing that will grow there is seeds supplied by a gigantic agricultural monopoly that will sue your ass into oblivion if you don't burn the seeds leftover from the harvest....

It's not worth the short term increase in yields because it's absolute madness.

The technology itself is fine. But the manner in which it has been applied is reckless and short sighted.

And agriculture is extremely damaging to the environment. We should be looking for ways to shrink our existing agricultural footprint not expand it.

1) MOST farmers do not save their seed.

2) Replanting seed is like buying a dvd and burning that DVD. Just because you bought the rights to that dvd doesn't mean you can burn it and sell the copies.

3) Monsanto is actually quite small of a company.

4) The yield is MUCH greater than organic.

5) If agriculture is damaging to the environment, then GMO tech, which produces more yield on less land by using less pesticides, would protect the environment more than the alternative.

[Gheld]

1) MOST farmers do not save their seed.

2) Replanting seed is like buying a dvd and burning that DVD. Just because you bought the rights to that dvd doesn't mean you can burn it and sell the copies.

3) Monsanto is actually quite small of a company.

4) The yield is MUCH greater than organic.

5) If agriculture is damaging to the environment, then GMO tech, which produces more yield on less land by using less pesticides, would protect the environment more than the alternative.

Great talking points. A true capitalist that has benefitted from the competition of ideas to bring me original thoughts that I have never heard before.

[GodlyBob]

Living in agg country and thus bearing direct witness to the effects of the whole "roundup ready" craze I can assure you that it might be fine now but it's a nuclear bomb of shortsightedness waiting to go off.

Conditioning fields so that the only thing that will grow there is seeds supplied by a gigantic agricultural monopoly that will sue your ass into oblivion if you don't burn the seeds leftover from the harvest....

It's not worth the short term increase in yields because it's absolute madness.

The technology itself is fine. But the manner in which it has been applied is reckless and short sighted.

And agriculture is extremely damaging to the environment. We should be looking for ways to shrink our existing agricultural footprint not expand it.

Yeah...GMO crops combine monoculture and corporate monopolies. Two great things that taste great together. It's like making a Reces with cancer and unflattering photos of Celine Dion.

[Verzen]

The argument is that selective breeding and specific gene manipulation are pretty much mechanically identical at the genetic level. The genes which are isolated and inserted are going to be from a similar organism if the end result is meant for consumption. If you're looking to water proof your rice plants, you grab the gene from another species of rice, not from a dolphin. So for all intents and purposes, the two plants may as well have interbred.

Furthermore, to expand on this, you CAN take genes from a different species. But these genes are still, you know, genes. We share 50% of our genes with bananas. Genes are ubiquitous. They flow from place to place and can even insert themselves randomly through horizontal gene transfer from other organisms.

If we take a gene from fish for example (cold shock) and inject it into tomatoes, the tomatoes may be protected from frost. That doesn't mean that it isn't safe to eat. It is. It's just protected. And even if you're allergic to fish, that doesn't mean you'd be allergic to this chaperone protein.

- - - Updated - - -

Great talking points. A true capitalist that has benefitted from the competition of ideas to bring me original thoughts that I have never heard before.

I sense sarcasm. I'm not really a capitalist. I'm a molecular biologist and analyze things through biological consequences. I don't much consider the economic advantages.

[Gheld]

Furthermore, to expand on this, you CAN take genes from a different species. But these genes are still, you know, genes. We share 50% of our genes with bananas. Genes are ubiquitous. They flow from place to place and can even insert themselves randomly through horizontal gene transfer from other organisms.

If we take a gene from fish for example (cold shock) and inject it into tomatoes, the tomatoes may be protected from frost. That doesn't mean that it isn't safe to eat. It is. It's just protected. And even if you're allergic to fish, that doesn't mean you'd be allergic to this chaperone protein.

- - - Updated - - -



I sense sarcasm. I'm not really a capitalist. I'm a molecular biologist.

Except that's not how the technology is being used. It's being used to make crops resistant to powerful herbicides that will kill the fuck out of plants that don't have the gene.

[Rukh]

The argument is that selective breeding and specific gene manipulation are pretty much mechanically identical at the genetic level. The genes which are isolated and inserted are going to be from a similar organism if the end result is meant for consumption. If you're looking to water proof your rice plants, you grab the gene from another species of rice, not from a dolphin. So for all intents and purposes, the two plants may as well have interbred.

They're not identical for some pretty specific reasons though. On overarching is just the extreme levels of control that actual genetic modification gives. i.e. the power to make objectively superior crops. That's why I think it's important but also worry about corporate ownership.

[Gheld]

They've literally plucked the lowest hanging fruit as far as applying the technology. But between plantings as intended after soaking the ground in roundup literally fucking nothing can grow there. The earth is for all intents and purposes scorched.

It's not sustainable.

[Rukh]

I'm confused. How does it kill the other plants? First time hearing this argument I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. It does this by inhibiting the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which catalyzes the reaction of shikimate-3-phosphate (S3P) and phosphoenolpyruvate to form 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP).[25] Inhibiting the enzyme causes shikimate to accumulate in plant tissues and diverts energy and resources away from other processes. While growth stops within hours of application it takes several days for the leaves to start to turn yellow.[26]

[Gheld]

It's killing weeds though, not necessarily other plants...?

EDIT: The herbicide doesn't just spread to forests miles away and destroy ecosystems.

Weed is an artifical distinction. The discretion is provided through gene isolation that makes the crop able to resist glyphosate. No gene. No crop once the field is treated.

[Rukh]

It's killing weeds though, not necessarily other plants...?

EDIT: The herbicide doesn't just spread to forests miles away and destroy ecosystems.

Any plant that absorbs it and doesn't have the added resistance gets dead.

[Gheld]

Maybe I'm missing the point the other person was trying to make (that now you are trying to make). What is wrong with that?

If we are to talk about some moral stance of which this could be applied to humans, then sure, something is wrong (in that situation). But doing so to crops for consumption which doesn't cause negative effects isn't a problem?

- - - Updated - - -



And no "plants" other than weeds/contaminants in the area will be killed. It's like a chemical version of picking the weeds off your lawn, but without the labor. Not a bad thing as long as it doesn't damage the ecosystem of wildlife areas (which it doesn't).

Because if an unexpected crop plague scourge the commonly used crop varieties everybody will starve until our almighty corporate overlords are done isolating the roundup ready gene in a new variety. Because most of the agricultural land is useless without it.

[Rukh]

Maybe I'm missing the point the other person was trying to make (that now you are trying to make). What is wrong with that?

If we are to talk about some moral stance of which this could be applied to humans, then sure, something is wrong (in that situation). But doing so to crops for consumption which doesn't cause negative effects isn't a problem?

- - - Updated - - -



And no "plants" other than weeds/contaminants in the area will be killed. It's like a chemical version of picking the weeds off your lawn, but without the labor. Not a bad thing as long as it doesn't damage the ecosystem of wildlife areas (which it doesn't).

No, it kills anything without the genetic modification. Your question was how does it kill plants, and this is what it does. I.e. if you sprayed it on your neighbors tulips, and they weren't purchased GMO from Monsanto, the tulips die.

- - - Updated - - -

Because if an unexpected crop plague scourge the commonly used crop varieties everybody will starve until our almighty corporate overlords are done isolating the roundup ready gene in a new variety. Because most of the agricultural land is useless without it.

And in this (hopefully) extreme scenario, a corporation then has the monopoly rights for who does and does not grow food. Do you want a corporation to have a monopoly on food? What's the worst that could happen... right?

[Gheld]

All of the frost resistant fish tomato stuff... I'm all for that. But it's just bs trade show theatrics. The ONLY manner in which gmo tech is actually on the market is roundup ready. Fish tomatoes... no.

[Verzen]

Except that's not how the technology is being used. It's being used to make crops resistant to powerful herbicides that will kill the fuck out of plants that don't have the gene.

No. That's just one application of the technology. Have you heard of golden rice? How about rice that provides zinc and iron? Or how about the potatoes that remove a carcinogenic agent? I spent some time in a lab genetically engineering zebrafish with a heat shock transcription factor protein in an attempt to create structural units to protect the integrity of neural cells in alzheimer patients.

How about the alterations to papayas that prevent ring spot virus?

Or the bananas that contain a vaccine?

You're looking at one, very very narrow, application and applying it to the broad spectrum of modifications. This is wrong.

[Osmeric]

I'm against the way GMO patenting works. I think GMO tech itself is important.

I hope you realize how contradictory these two sentiments are.