GMO Foods; What's the general scientific opinion?

[ThunderChunky]

I'm not an expert on GMO but from what I've read the issues in the main do not relate to GMO per se but in terms of what GMO allows humans to do like:

• Patenting organisms and then enforcing those patents against some poor farmer who accidentally grows some GMO crops (although there are other less poor farmers who are gaming the system too)
• Selling seed for sterile GMO plants which means that farmers need to buy seed each year
• Weedkiller resistance which allows for greater use of more poeten weedkillers resulting in a monoculture
• Overpromising/underdelivering on GMO benefits

None of these are unique to GMO but GMO makes it easier.

No one has ever been sued for accidentally growing GMO crop. Please show me a court case because I have looked. In every single one I found the farmer knew he was growing the GMO crop without paying for it.

No one is selling sterile GMOs. Monsanto never commercialized that technology.

Weedkiller resistance? Glyphosate is one of the safer herbicides for people. It is much less toxic than the herbicides that were used before the round up resistance strains were developed.

Overpromising? The farmers choose GMOs because of the benefits and they keep coming back because they are happy with the product.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Such over generalization is what makes people suspicious and with good reason.
GMO are safe, as long as the gene content are tested before putting on market for allergy (in case you put gene of species to which people are allergic to, fish, peanuts), and similar other case. GMO are safe, because they are tested. GMO are not safe "in general".

What over generalization? We are talking about the GMO foods on the market and the basic technology. These are proven to be safe. Yes, an unsafe GMO could be made, but that's not really the point is it? I can breed a toxic potato from two nontoxic parental strains without using any GMO technology. i could then sell this without any regulatory approval. Does this mean that farming is not safe "in general" or does it mean that potatoes are not safe "in general"? Think about it.

The GMO deniers hate the technology, they don't care what or how it is used. They want all GMOs "in general" to be gone.

 

[Old man]

Horizontal gene transfer. Just because we co opt the mechanism to make things go as we want doesn't mean it doesn't exist or happen.

Ah, but that's 'natural'!

 

[Old man]

...No natural crossing of tomatoes and cranberries is possible, either in the wild or in the greenhouse, in order to create purple tomatoes with plenty of <whatever it is that's supposed to be good about cranberries>.

Splicing cranberry genes into tomatoes, in a lab, then propagating from the resulting plant, is what we understand by 'GMO'.

By the way, Glenn, are you claiming that purple tomatoes are the the result of introducing 'cranberry' genes into tomatoes?

 

[Aepervius]

Horizontal gene transfer. Just because we co opt the mechanism to make things go as we want doesn't mean it doesn't exist or happen.

How many horizontal gene transfert are documented from fish to plant or from human to another plant or an animal species ? Realistically ? I know of a lot of them from plant to plant, bacteria/virus/amoebia/funghi gene dance (and sadly the antibiotic resistance spread), but that is not comparable except maybe by mechanism.

Also because a mechanism exists and is safe in nature, does not mean it is safe when we use it artificially.

I like the idea of GMO, msotly because it could help solve some problem relatively cheaply. But please stop comparing it to normal hybridisation, or to horizontal gene transfert. We are going far beyond that, and quite obviously taint the whole dialogue when you try to pass it off as "quite the same".

it would be like me saying to my colleague that nuclear is safe , because it is quite the same mechanism as background radiation. You can bet that the rest of my argument will be thrown out of the window if I try to pass them that one.

No it is safe because of other reason, because we test them before market, and it is quite an artificial mechanism we do, even if there is something similar in nature, but there are safeguard, and it allows us to reach advantage which do not exists naturally.

 

[The Don]

No one has ever been sued for accidentally growing GMO crop. Please show me a court case because I have looked. In every single one I found the farmer knew he was growing the GMO crop without paying for it.

I cannot, I was merely parroting what has been said and illustrating that even if this was happening it's not a function of GMO, it's a function of a company applying patent legislation.

No one is selling sterile GMOs. Monsanto never commercialized that technology.

I have been corrected on that.

Weedkiller resistance? Glyphosate is one of the safer herbicides for people. It is much less toxic than the herbicides there were used before the round up resistance strains were developed.

Yes and ?

One of the charges laid against GMO organisms is that they promote monoculture. Do you claim that having plants which are resistant to weedkiller (whether this resistance has been acquired through GMO or by other means) promotes biodiversity ?

Overpromising? The farmers choose GMOs because of the benefits and they keep coming back because they are happy with the product.

I've not claimed that farmers are not happy to use GMO seed but a number of claims have been made about GMO and the yield gains which are possible and in some cases these gains have not been achieved in full. I'm not claiming that there's anything underhand, it's just that real life doesn't match the marketing (just like with laundry detergent or car petrol consumption)

Look, I was just trying to demonstrate that the things that people actually bring up as GMO negatives are not to do with GMO, just with people.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with GMO unless someone can demonstrate an actual problem and even then it would relate to that one application of GMO technology and not the process as a whole.

 

[Aepervius]

What over generalization? We are talking about the GMO foods on the market and the basic technology. These are proven to be safe. Yes, an unsafe GMO could be made, but that's not really the point is it? I can breed a toxic potato from two nontoxic parental strains without using any GMO technology. i could then sell this without any regulatory approval. Does this mean that farming is not safe "in general" or does it mean that potatoes are not safe "in general"? Think about it.

The GMO deniers hate the technology, they don't care what or how it is used. They want all GMOs "in general" to be gone.

That is true only from what I call the hyppie-ludite. Whereas it is true they are the msot vocal on the net , when you speak to normal people, you can easily convince them that it is safe, as long as they don't feel you will bambalooze them. And yes using the "hybridisation" argument or the "horizontal gene transfert" argument, I have seen people blocks because it is quite obvious that such things does not happens as easily for the species we are using them for.

Look we can talk all the day that it is the same basic mechanism, but people aren't dumb and horizontal gene transfert between a squall with fluorescent and a cat, aren't going to happen that readily.

 

[Polaris]

Pretty much. Anti-GMO nuts tend to either fail to produce evidence for their claims or else present a handful of long debunked crap studies.

And likely they're funded by the (worth billions of dollars) organic food industry.

 

[Aepervius]

And likely they're funded by the (worth billions of dollars) organic food industry.

I dunno about that, reeks of the same as "doctor are funded by pharma" CT.

Most vocal actvist I encountered are the same luddite which likes PETA, are against nuclear even fusion, etc... They were also relatively good informed on that the "organic" in supermarket were a farce paradoxically.

 

[GlennB]

I've seen this question raised any number of times. Please explain the mechanism by which a genetically determined sterility can spread through a population.

Spread in the sense of 'increase'? No, for reasons you suggest -the seed is sterile. *

What it could do is lead to sterile seed in neighbouring conventional farms - seed that gets retained for re-planting - reducing germination rates in the next season.

Probably trivial if the GM crop is generally downwind of the conventional but quite possibly a significant nuisance if it's upwind.

*eta: by really stretching my imagination (too far, almost certainly) I can see a way the 'suicide gene' could increase in the wild. If it were recessive, but univerally present in the genome of the parent crop, it would produce 100% sterile seed. Passing one gene to 'normal' plants it might present as a rare phenome, but then if it were selected for by some unforeseen consequence it could grow in frequency (my studies of genetics date back some decades, so forgive any terminological inexactitudes - you get the picture, I hope. The scenario is a stretch)

 

[Polaris]

I dunno about that, reeks of the same as "doctor are funded by pharma" CT.

Most vocal actvist I encountered are the same luddite which likes PETA, are against nuclear even fusion, etc... They were also relatively good informed on that the "organic" in supermarket were a farce paradoxically.

There's a grain of truth to that doctor/pharma thing, as pharmaceuticals are pushed heavily by representatives to MDs. I don't even really have a problem with that, or think it's some kind of scheme cooked up by a bunch of CEOs in a room at some mansion somewhere.

I admit I have no evidence for it, but it would not surprise me in the least of the anti-GMO sources have some kind of organic foods industry backing the same way that the Tea Party has the Koch brothers pulling the purse strings.

 

[GlennB]

By the way, Glenn, are you claiming that purple tomatoes are the the result of introducing 'cranberry' genes into tomatoes?

No, I know perfectly well it was a common garden flower's genes that did the trick. You know, by actually reading the article some days back on the BBC website?

Please don't try for a cheap "gotcha" here while suspecting I'm an anti-GM nut. I'm not.

What I'm saying is that this could never be a natural cross and falls into the realm of GM rather than 'selective breeding'. That point was the gist of my entry to the thread - that claiming GM is somehow 'the same' as the selective breeding we've been doing for millennia is a distortion of the facts and detracts from the debate by removing an important distinction between the two processes.

 

[ThunderChunky]

That is true only from what I call the hyppie-ludite. Whereas it is true they are the msot vocal on the net , when you speak to normal people, you can easily convince them that it is safe, as long as they don't feel you will bambalooze them. And yes using the "hybridisation" argument or the "horizontal gene transfert" argument, I have seen people blocks because it is quite obvious that such things does not happens as easily for the species we are using them for.

Look we can talk all the day that it is the same basic mechanism, but people aren't dumb and horizontal gene transfert between a squall with fluorescent and a cat, aren't going to happen that readily.

Sure there are people that are simply uninformed. These people can be educated, but others even after being informed still harbor their unsupported beliefs about GMO safety and impact. These people are deniers. They don't like GMO technology, it doesn't matter what it is used for, they don't like it and they think it is bad.

I'm not arguing that conventional agricultural techniques are the same as GM techniques. I simply said GMOs are safe.. and they are. The possibility of constructing an unsafe GMO is irrelevant to my statement. The ones that are being sold are safe and the technique itself is safe. Just the same as saying potatoes are safe. The potatoes being sold in stores are safe. It doesn't matter that I can breed an unsafe potato using conventional techniques.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

That is true only from what I call the hyppie-ludite. Whereas it is true they are the msot vocal on the net , when you speak to normal people, you can easily convince them that it is safe, as long as they don't feel you will bambalooze them. And yes using the "hybridisation" argument or the "horizontal gene transfert" argument, I have seen people blocks because it is quite obvious that such things does not happens as easily for the species we are using them for.

Look we can talk all the day that it is the same basic mechanism, but people aren't dumb and horizontal gene transfert between a squall with fluorescent and a cat, aren't going to happen that readily.

No, but it CAN happen. Even if the chances are astronomically low. The only thing the evil GMO foods do is increase the chances.
As we've been doing since we started selectively breeding everything. Except hoping for the best and assuming nothing bad is transferred with the good, we now only transfer what is actually desired.

The thing is, this is considered 'bad', while hoping for the best is 'good'
What is also ignored is that once a gene is introduced in the lab it is designed to not leave its insertion site at all, lowering the already infetisimal chance of a gene from food inserting itself into the human genome.
Whereas the 'natural' insertions occur because of an active transposon which actually increases that chance. (while still keeping it effectively zero as no genes realistically survive the digestive tract)

 

[Old man]

Spread in the sense of 'increase'? No, for reasons you suggest -the seed is sterile.

What it could do is lead to sterile seed in neighbouring conventional farms - seed that gets retained for re-planting - reducing germination rates in the next season.

Probably trivial if the GM crop is generally downwind of the conventional but quite possibly a significant nuisance if it's upwind.

Ok, so by "cause sterility" you really meant "reduce germination rates temporarily", correct?

No, I know perfectly well it was a common garden flower's genes that did the trick. You know, by actually reading the article some days back on the BBC website?

Please don't try for a cheap "gotcha" here while suspecting I'm an anti-GM nut. I'm not.

What I'm saying is that this could never be a natural cross and falls into the realm of GM rather than 'selective breeding'. That point was the gist of my entry to the thread - that claiming GM is somehow 'the same' as the selective breeding we've been doing for millennia is a distortion of the facts and detracts from the debate by removing an important distinction between the two processes.

Why the defensiveness? Why did you use that particular hypothetical?

I've met several people who believed that grape tomatoes are crosses between tomatoes and grapes, and there are purple tomatoes that are high in anthocyanins and anthocyanins are found in high concentrations in cranberries.

http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/purple_tomato_faq

This is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of this project, and we will say it again: These tomatoes are NOT GMO.

How am I to know what your beliefs are if I don't ask?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

No, I know perfectly well it was a common garden flower's genes that did the trick. You know, by actually reading the article some days back on the BBC website?

Please don't try for a cheap "gotcha" here while suspecting I'm an anti-GM nut. I'm not.

What I'm saying is that this could never be a natural cross and falls into the realm of GM rather than 'selective breeding'. That point was the gist of my entry to the thread - that claiming GM is somehow 'the same' as the selective breeding we've been doing for millennia is a distortion of the facts and detracts from the debate by removing an important distinction between the two processes.

True, GM isn't the same as selective breeding. It's a far superior method in every respect.

The problem is that while those who work in genetics understand that the risks of eating/producing GMO crops are exactly the same as those associated with eating non-GMO crops the general public knows only syfy movies where a crop suddenly produces flying phirana's, two headed sharks etc.

 

[Old man]

*eta: by really stretching my imagination (too far, almost certainly) I can see a way the 'suicide gene' could increase in the wild. If it were recessive, but univerally present in the genome of the parent crop, it would produce 100% sterile seed. Passing one gene to 'normal' plants it might present as a rare phenome, but then if it were selected for by some unforeseen consequence it could grow in frequency (my studies of genetics date back some decades, so forgive any terminological inexactitudes - you get the picture, I hope. The scenario is a stretch)

Similar to hemophilia, then?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Since it's been virtually impossible to eat a non-GMO food since the advent of agriculture and we seem to be doing fine, the general consensus is that GMO foods as such are fine to eat.

False. You are using an equivocation. GMO specifically refers Genetic engineering technology. It is a modern development unrelated to standard breeding practices.

It's a far superior method in every respect.

ahem...BS

You are about as full of woo as the anti-GMO activists, maybe more, just in the opposite direction. There are many things GE technology as it stands now is less effective at than standard breeding, production, flavor, etc. Any trait that has a complicated interaction of many genes is a poor candidate for GE. But a trait that has a simple control from just a few genes could sometimes be a good candidate. Especially if the trait is not found in that species anywhere, so normal breeding couldn't succeed.

Most debate centers around the applicability of patents, monopolies, mono-culture problems and the effects of over using pesticides

Finally you said something correct...mostly. That is the main reason for the serious debate. Although the anti-GMO crowd seldom uses serious debate. Most the resistance to GMOs is from a philosophical POV. They just don't trust Mega corps messing around with their food in "unnatural" ways. They feel the corporations are not filling the customers demand, instead forcing them to eat something they never asked for, don't want, and don't trust.

 

[ThunderChunky]

What I'm saying is that this could never be a natural cross and falls into the realm of GM rather than 'selective breeding'. That point was the gist of my entry to the thread - that claiming GM is somehow 'the same' as the selective breeding we've been doing for millennia is a distortion of the facts and detracts from the debate by removing an important distinction between the two processes.

I don't disagree with your point, but purple tomatoes are a bad example. Here are some purple tomatoes that were produced without GM technology. Like the GM tomatoes, their pigment is also because of anthocyanins.

http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/purple_tomato_faq

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I know that there is no 100% agreement among legitimate scientists about GMO foods.

You're right. I think the actual number is closer to 99.985%.

However, what is the general consensus? Do the vast majority of scientists say that GMOs are safe?

Yes.

When a scientist says that he or she has evidence that GMOs are not safe, is that treated much the same way a climate-change denier or an intelligent-design proponent would be?

We don't know. All the evidence we've seen so far comes from Natural "News" and YouTube videos.