|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:44 am
Copy-pasted verbadum from an old ED thread of mine- but none the less, I'd like opinions. It seems the biggest problem is the potential lack of species diversity. Wishbone Redemption [Like all of my horrendously long-winded threads, this is indeed horrendously long-winded. Bear with me. On a side note, it's nice to see all of you again.] Firstly, what is the Germ Plasm system? It's basically a seed bank. The USA federal seed bank contains over 100,000 seeds, clippings, and slips of all sorts of different plants, as well as basic genetic material for many more. Why? Because some plants are naturally better at some things. For example, in the 1950's, the American wheat belt was afflicted with a fungal infection called wheat bunt. That didn't bode well for the farmers, the people, or the economy. But an SOS was sent to the federal seed bank, and a new strain of wheat was sent in, one with a genetic resistance to wheat bunt. The wheat crop was saved, hurray. So we can safely say that farmers have been using 'selective breeding', if you will, to yield ideal plants for their specific conditions. Seed banks merely take advantage of this as an economical safeguard for our agriculture, but farmers have been cultivating region-specific crops for a pretty long time. Go to any gardening website, and ask how to plant a blueberry bush. They'll give you a list of about nine different varieties of bush- some that yeild bigger berries, or small berries but with several crops a season, or small berries and moderate crops every season, or cold-resistant berries that can grow in a cold climate, etc. This is an example of species diversity. Seed banks are also in place for continued species variety, as they do interbreed. The strength of a particular strain can become inbred and weak if that's all a farmer grows for ages. The resistant genes in a plant are also kind of like antibiotics to a virus- not so much in a biological sense, but in a metaphorical sense. Just as a virus will mutate or change to get around a vaccine or antibiotic, a fungal or bacterial disorder for a plant can mutate to do the same. So every once in a while, the seed bank would have to breed a slightly different strain of wheat, or blueberry, or potato, or whatever. To me, it sounds as though the Germ Plasm system basically genetically modifies plants or genetically engineers seeds, in order to yield better crops. But it is different from GM (Genetically Modified) crops, because: The seed bank system generally only uses plant genes in plants, and uses artificial selection to chose what trait they want most. It's kind of like animal husbandry, only with plants. Plant husbandry. Conversely, GM food use non-plant genes. For example, the first GM food was the FlavrSavr tomato, produced by Celgene by adding an antisense gene not typically found in plants. In more odd occurances, fish genes have been added to plants. In one case, a jellyfish gene was added to potatoes, so that they glow when they're thirsty. (On a side note, live glowing pigs were produced in Korea with a gene from that same jellyfish, but the pigs weren't meant for food.) On the one hand, GM foods are prettier, easier to store, more bug-and-disease resistant, etc. And really, it's only a step up from plant husbandry- it's furthering science. Vegetarians and vegans don't need to worry, as a single gene is not a whole animal by a long shot. GM foods could improve the economy. But on the other hand, the jury is currently out on the safety of GM foods- in my internet search, I got some mixed results. Most say that the foods, thus far, have not been found to be harmful. Also, it's likely that corporations will copyright their particular strand of crop, something that has already been occuring, most notably in the Middle East, where contracted agribusiness corperations are phasing out traditional mixed-ancestry grains in order to introduce their own, patented varieties. On that note, GM foods could also tip the scales in favor of giant agribusinesses, who can afford to develop and patent GM plants. So is the plant bank enough, or should we expand on the implications of selective breeding? I'm undecided on this one, personally.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:57 pm
Mmm...I dunno. It seems like there isn't anything bad about GM foods, so what's the confusion? That plants should be as nature made them, without extra genes?
Personally I don't think a single gene really matters, especially since it's been proven not to be harmful, neither to the consumer nor to the plant/its ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:44 am
I'm a little undecided, personally. Something seems a little off to me about GM plants. I think the seed bank system is pretty cool- I'd like the experience of seeing one someday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:54 pm
We just started watching a movie on GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in biology today!
From what I've learned, there has been no proof that it's harmful to the ecosystem or us. However, they have never tracked human consumers to see if it will give us allergies and whatnot.
There's also this huge thing lead mainly by Greenpeace (who I personally don't like very much because of their extreme actions...) that was started in Europe...For some reason (the video didn't explain, and I didn't get a chance to ask my teacher, but I'll be sure to do that tomorrow!) the general public, as well as some environmental organizations, don't like GM foods. They say that it might harm us, as it has never been formally tested, and that they don't like things that we "tampered" with nature to obtain. They also emphasize that it's bad for the environment.
But how? I have no idea. The video didn't say anything about that...
So really, I don't think it's such a bad idea. We just have to actually formally carry out a test for each GM product to see if it's harmful or not, and if it isn't, great. The whole "tampering" with nature thing is stupid because we've been cross-breeding plants, dogs, and horses for FOREVER. The actual ORIGINAL potato is like...pea sized. The Earth and its organisms change over time, wether by natural or human selection. Even human selection isn't really that bad, as it has never negatively affected the environment or us (...yet?). And the GM foods are actually good for the environment, because then we could produce crops with FAR FAR FAR fewer pesticides as there would be a gene that creates its own natural pesticide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:24 am
I strongly oppose GM. It's Frankenstein science! We don't know if it is safe for the environment or for people so it's totally irresponsible to create these GMO's in the first place and even worse to allow them to contaminate other species in the environmnet. It's like genetic pollution of the biosphere on a massive scale. gonk
Plus, farming of GM crops usually entails massive of herbicide/weedkiller use.
ie. you create herbicide resistant crops and then you can blast the fields with weedkiller without the risk of killing any of your crops. It makes life easier and saves time for Mr. Farmer, not so good for the marine ecosystems poisoned by the run-off herbicides.
Plus there's the 'terminator genes' issue. Bio-tech companies like Monsanto love the idea of terminator genes because it means continued fat profits for them. First they force farmers in developing countries to by their GM seeds, crops grow and are harvested but the next generation seeds are sterile. So the farmers are then forced to buy more seeds off the multinational company. Neat money-making idea - just totally unethical.
Also, what happens if these terminator seed crops are cross-pollenated with a similar wild species? The whole ecosystem is messed up because the plants are unable to reproduce. The so-called buffer zones have been shown to fail at keeping the GM material contained.
Plus consumer surveys show people in Europe just don't want to eat the stuff. America can keep it's Frankenstien foods. talk2hand
Eco-friendly, organic farming is the way to go!
Once the genes are out there in ecosystems - we won't be able to get them back. The environment should not be treated like a playground laboratory for amoral scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:35 pm
Please excuse my butchering of your post. sweatdrop Badgerkin I strongly oppose GM. It's Frankenstein science! We don't know if it is safe for the environment or for people so it's totally irresponsible to create these GMO's in the first place and even worse to allow them to contaminate other species in the environmnet. It's like genetic pollution of the biosphere on a massive scale. gonk
While I agree that the scientists should have conducted tests and surveys first to see if the GM food affects humans, there doesn't seem to be anything drastically different (health-related) ever since GM foods came in (about 1997 I believe...) in the general population (correct me if I'm wrong smile ). Plus, I don't see how one gene specifically designed to perform a certain function can really have that big of a difference.
Badgerkin Plus, farming of GM crops usually entails massive of herbicide/weedkiller use. ie. you create herbicide resistant crops and then you can blast the fields with weedkiller without the risk of killing any of your crops. It makes life easier and saves time for Mr. Farmer, not so good for the marine ecosystems poisoned by the run-off herbicides.
I heard it differently. According to the video (it was supported by NOVA, by the way) that we watched in my honors biology class, the use of GM crops REDUCES herbicides/pesticides...etc. Scientists were able to take a certain gene that produces its own natural pesticide and put it in corn so that "Mr. Farmer" doesn't have to go out in all his equipment and protection suit and spray everything with a CO2-producing plane.
However, if the above really happens, may I see a source? smile
Badgerkin Plus there's the 'terminator genes' issue. Bio-tech companies like Monsanto love the idea of terminator genes because it means continued fat profits for them. First they force farmers in developing countries to by their GM seeds, crops grow and are harvested but the next generation seeds are sterile. So the farmers are then forced to buy more seeds off the multinational company. Neat money-making idea - just totally unethical.
Again, source?
Badgerkin Also, what happens if these terminator seed crops are cross-pollenated with a similar wild species? The whole ecosystem is messed up because the plants are unable to reproduce. The so-called buffer zones have been shown to fail at keeping the GM material contained.
I have never heard of this...How would one gene designed to, say, fight off harmful catipillars, affect reproduction?
Badgerkin Plus consumer surveys show people in Europe just don't want to eat the stuff. America can keep it's Frankenstien foods. talk2hand
Yeah - the whole "No Frankenstein food" thing was started in Europe. I know. But I don't see what's wrong with it.
Perhaps it was Greenpeace's fault. xd
Badgerkin The environment should not be treated like a playground laboratory for amoral scientists.
Well then what can? I do think that they should have made some tests and stuff to make sure it's not harmful before allowing it into the public, but even that needs to be done in the environment, as well as our cities.
And when have we established that the scientists are amoral?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:54 am
No worries on the post butchering - I'll just return the favour with your post! ^^ Sorry about the minor page stretching... rikuHEART
While I agree that the scientists should have conducted tests and surveys first to see if the GM food affects humans, there doesn't seem to be anything drastically different (health-related) ever since GM foods came in (about 1997 I believe...) in the general population (correct me if I'm wrong smile ). Plus, I don't see how one gene specifically designed to perform a certain function can really have that big of a difference.
GM crops and food are being grown and consumed by the public, even though: there is little scientific study about their health risks, safety test technology is inadequate to assess potential harm, they can carry unpredictable toxins and they may increase the risk of allergenic reactions. DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract. Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids and this opens up the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Luckily this was discovered in time... rikuHEART
I heard it differently. According to the video (it was supported by NOVA, by the way) that we watched in my honors biology class, the use of GM crops REDUCES herbicides/pesticides...etc. Scientists were able to take a certain gene that produces its own natural pesticide and put it in corn so that "Mr. Farmer" doesn't have to go out in all his equipment and protection suit and spray everything with a CO2-producing plane.
However, if the above really happens, may I see a source? smile
There are currently two main types of genetically modified crops, those engineered to be resistant to herbicides in order to kill weeds and those engineered to produce toxins to kill pests. It seems that your biology syllabus failed to mention the herbicide resistant variety... See the 'Seeds of Doubt' report by the Soil Association, one of the well-respected environmental groups opposed to GM technology. Some findings from their report: Fact: GM does not increase yields. Reports from farmers of substantially reduced harvests have been substantiated by scientific studies, and the US government now admits that GM crops do not increase yields. Fact: GM does not reduce herbicide use. GM 'volunteers' (plants that appear after harvest) with built-in resistance to herbicides have spread quickly. Farmers are spraying with more herbicides, sometimes reverting to older, more toxic chemicals. Fact: In one province of Canada, Saskatchewan. GM contamination has wiped out the whole organic oilseed rape sector. GM and organic cannot co-exist. Fact: The recall of GM StarLink maize cost an estimated $1 billion and only happened after many people reported allergic reactions. Fact: GM crops have destroyed trade. Within a couple of years the US and Canada lost almost $1 billion worth of agricultural exports due to GM crops making their farmers even more dependent on subsidies. http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/ed0930aa86103d8380256aa70054918d/a72f34ecca9b64e880256cd70037de0a!OpenDocument Terminator seed technology is well know about! I'm surprised that it was 'conveniently' left of your biology course... Actually it's more suspicious than suprising - perhaps US education system is biased since the US is the country (along with Canada) that has invested most in and is growing these crops on a massive scale. xd “Terminator is a direct assault on farmers and indigenous cultures and on food sovereignty. It threatens the well-being of all rural people, primarily the very poorest.” - Rafael Alegría of Via Campesina, an organization representing over 10 million peasant farmers worldwide. ^ they don't seem to happy about it... http://www.banterminator.org/the_issues/introduction You can read more about terminator here ^ "We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial..." Delegates from 20 African Countries to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN meeting on Plant Genetic Resources. They're not too happy about it either... >.< rikuHEART
I have never heard of this...How would one gene designed to, say, fight off harmful catipillars, affect reproduction?
The 'terminator gene' is an added extra. Also, genes are more complicated than we really understand; genes affect other genes and can switch on or switch off certain traits completely unrelated to the intended trait. Even the top scientists don't yet understand all of the masses of different interactions between genes. Our somewhat basic understanding of genetics means that playing around with genes is a very risky and unpredictable business. As they say: 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. rikuHEART
Yeah - the whole "No Frankenstein food" thing was started in Europe. I know. But I don't see what's wrong with it.
Perhaps it was Greenpeace's fault. xd
There are masses of groups and organisations opposing GM. In fact, I've never come across an environmental group in favour of GM. The people who speak out in favour of GM here are mostly industry lobbyists or scientists on the payroll of big buisness. http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/ http://www.gmfreeze.org/ http://www.econexus.info/ http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=1&page=1 http://www.non-gmoreport.com/ http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/ (GM Free Wales) http://www.gmfreescotland.net/ http://www.gmfreeireland.org/ ^ some more reading material... I didn't include Greenpeace because you don't seem to like them much confused rikuHEART
Well then what can? I do think that they should have made some tests and stuff to make sure it's not harmful before allowing it into the public, but even that needs to be done in the environment, as well as our cities.The trouble is, when you test these mutant crops in the environment there is no way of containing the GM material. The buffer zones have proved inadaquate. How do you stop the insects flying from GM fields to non-GM? How do you stop the wind blowing?? Even if these tests and field trials find GM to be hazourdous to human health and/or the environment it will be too late if the GM material is already out there spreading and contaminating. sad rikuHEART
And when have we established that the scientists are amoral?
I didn't say all scientists are amoral. biggrin Just the ones that take unjustifiable risks and 'play God' with the environment. Just the ones who are arrogant enough to think they have the right to continue research which could irreversibly mess up ecosystems... Just the ones I met at science lectures who were excited about the creation of glow-in-the-dark kittens using GM technology and jelly fish genes. mad There are some good ecologists out there too who work to protect the environment. 3nodding I live in a rural area; there are many farms around. The difference between conventional pesticide farming and organic farming is staggering. Organic farms have so much more wildlife (voles, mice, frogs, healthy hedgerows, barn owls, raptors, weasels, stoats etc.) Organic farming is so much better for waterways and water creatures. It is also much healthier for people to eat as it doesn't contain pesticide residues... Yet this healthy, eco-friendly, in harmony with nature farming is being threatened by GM contamination. sad It's the GM crops which produce their own pesticides to kill pests which you seem to be really in favour of, right? Have you thought how ecosystems will be affected as these pesticide producing traits are inevitably spread into wild plants? These 'pests' are insects, other animals rely on those insects for food and other animals rely on them. It's a food web which will be messed up if the insects starve and die off. Everything is interconnected and nature is in balance - when we upset that balance, things go very wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:09 am
 ^ Activists sabotaging GM crops and collecting the material to be destroyed. This is what happened to much of the GM crop trials in England. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:29 pm
Hooray for debate and post butchering! xd Badgerkin Potential Risks to Human Health.GM crops and food are being grown and consumed by the public, even though: there is little scientific study about their health risks, safety test technology is inadequate to assess potential harm, they can carry unpredictable toxins and they may increase the risk of allergenic reactions. DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract. Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids and this opens up the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Luckily this was discovered in time...
But I honestly just don't get that website. I really don't understand their terminology and thus I can't grasp their logic. Could you explain please? ^_^ Thankies!
Badgerkin There are currently two main types of genetically modified crops, those engineered to be resistant to herbicides in order to kill weeds and those engineered to produce toxins to kill pests. It seems that your biology syllabus failed to mention the herbicide resistant variety... See the 'Seeds of Doubt' report by the Soil Association, one of the well-respected environmental groups opposed to GM technology. Some findings from their report: Fact: GM does not increase yields. Reports from farmers of substantially reduced harvests have been substantiated by scientific studies, and the US government now admits that GM crops do not increase yields. Fact: GM does not reduce herbicide use. GM 'volunteers' (plants that appear after harvest) with built-in resistance to herbicides have spread quickly. Farmers are spraying with more herbicides, sometimes reverting to older, more toxic chemicals. Fact: In one province of Canada, Saskatchewan. GM contamination has wiped out the whole organic oilseed rape sector. GM and organic cannot co-exist. Fact: The recall of GM StarLink maize cost an estimated $1 billion and only happened after many people reported allergic reactions. Fact: GM crops have destroyed trade. Within a couple of years the US and Canada lost almost $1 billion worth of agricultural exports due to GM crops making their farmers even more dependent on subsidies. http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/ed0930aa86103d8380256aa70054918d/a72f34ecca9b64e880256cd70037de0a!OpenDocumen
And the video actually did explain a lot of reasons why there are people who are against GMOs. It was a PBS special or something, so it actually isn't very biased. In fact, I can't figure out what side the director is on. neutral
As for the second fact, I assume that you mean the GM-resistant weeds/pests etc.? Thing is, that happens during pesticide use too, so it doesn't make pesticide farming any better.
Third fact - how did it happen? Did the genes spread somehow? I am aware, though, that (at least for BT corn) GM foods tend to have very heavy pollen, so the GM pollen only gets, at most, a few yards away from the field. However, perhaps it's different for the crop that was in that province.
Fourth and fifth fact I accept. 3nodding Though, with the fifth one, is it because of Europe's movement to ban all GM foods?Badgerkin Terminator seed technology is well know about! I'm surprised that it was 'conveniently' left of your biology course... Actually it's more suspicious than suprising - perhaps US education system is biased since the US is the country (along with Canada) that has invested most in and is growing these crops on a massive scale. xd “Terminator is a direct assault on farmers and indigenous cultures and on food sovereignty. It threatens the well-being of all rural people, primarily the very poorest.” - Rafael Alegría of Via Campesina, an organization representing over 10 million peasant farmers worldwide. ^ they don't seem to happy about it... http://www.banterminator.org/the_issues/introduction You can read more about terminator here ^ Badgerkin The 'terminator gene' is an added extra. Also, genes are more complicated than we really understand; genes affect other genes and can switch on or switch off certain traits completely unrelated to the intended trait. Even the top scientists don't yet understand all of the masses of different interactions between genes. Our somewhat basic understanding of genetics means that playing around with genes is a very risky and unpredictable business. As they say: 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Badgerkin There are masses of groups and organisations opposing GM. In fact, I've never come across an environmental group in favour of GM. The people who speak out in favour of GM here are mostly industry lobbyists or scientists on the payroll of big buisness. http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/ http://www.gmfreeze.org/ http://www.econexus.info/ http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=1&page=1 http://www.non-gmoreport.com/ http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/ (GM Free Wales) http://www.gmfreescotland.net/ http://www.gmfreeireland.org/ ^ some more reading material... I didn't include Greenpeace because you don't seem to like them much confused
There was also this one organization which I do not find on your list, called Earth Liberation Front (ELF - haha xd ), that did a huge huge huge ARSON on the agriculture building in Michigan State University on New Year's Eve 2000 because they were studying GM technology.
THAT is something I do NOT support.
And Greenpeace has been known to be violent before as well, and there have been protesters who have been arrested...So that's why I don't support them. 3nodding Badgerkin The trouble is, when you test these mutant crops in the environment there is no way of containing the GM material. The buffer zones have proved inadaquate. How do you stop the insects flying from GM fields to non-GM? How do you stop the wind blowing?? Even if these tests and field trials find GM to be hazourdous to human health and/or the environment it will be too late if the GM material is already out there spreading and contaminating. sad Badgerkin I didn't say all scientists are amoral. biggrin Just the ones that take unjustifiable risks and 'play God' with the environment. Just the ones who are arrogant enough to think they have the right to continue research which could irreversibly mess up ecosystems... Just the ones I met at science lectures who were excited about the creation of glow-in-the-dark kittens using GM technology and jelly fish genes. mad There are some good ecologists out there too who work to protect the environment. 3nodding Badgerkin I live in a rural area; there are many farms around. The difference between conventional pesticide farming and organic farming is staggering. Organic farms have so much more wildlife (voles, mice, frogs, healthy hedgerows, barn owls, raptors, weasels, stoats etc.) Organic farming is so much better for waterways and water creatures. It is also much healthier for people to eat as it doesn't contain pesticide residues... Badgerkin It's the GM crops which produce their own pesticides to kill pests which you seem to be really in favour of, right? Have you thought how ecosystems will be affected as these pesticide producing traits are inevitably spread into wild plants? These 'pests' are insects, other animals rely on those insects for food and other animals rely on them. It's a food web which will be messed up if the insects starve and die off. Everything is interconnected and nature is in balance - when we upset that balance, things go very wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:31 pm
Badgerkin ^ Activists sabotaging GM crops and collecting the material to be destroyed. This is what happened to much of the GM crop trials in England. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:36 pm
Okay, so we finished all we were supposed to watch of the GM foods movie today.
I've composed a short list of factors to consider (feel free to add/change some!):
1. Consumers' health - How does it affect us? Allergies?
2. Environment's health - Gene "contamination?"
3. Environment's health - Reduction of pesticide/insecticide/herbicide use?
4. Third-World countries - GM and non-organic foods able to alleviate world hunger?
5. Farmers - What are they getting out of it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
