Genetically
Modified
Organisms
Your friend or foe? Why?
I think they're an amazing technology that have saved many lives from starvation. The fear over adverse health effects appears to be largely unfounded. What I don't like is how Monsanto is creating incredible GMO's that resist disease, insects etc., and make them sterile, so that farmers need to buy new seeds every year.
Well, so far? No good. Meaning I have seen little value nor improvements. They have giant tomatoes and I'm sure mutated fish and animals that we do not need thanks to the Chinese and their Frankenstienian breeding programs for helpless animals.
I think we need to stay clear of anything human. I don't trust people to stay within the confines of decency, I guess. Too many labs with mutations of rats, cows, pigs, monkeys, etc., who must suffer needlessly so we can fix some disease we caused in the first place, probably by eating meat. Irony?
So, if they are not growing something "improved" naturally? I don't want it. I don't want something injected with a growth hormone to make it bigger, I don't want some strange concoction that the plant is not used to, introduced into it to make it sweeter, etc.
I am pro-food. Duh.
I know. What I don't get is why some folks embrace it. Do you have any idea? Thank you for your reply SG and Happy Tuesday to thee! :)
I am not against GMO per se. Humans have been "genetically modifying" (through selective breeding) plants and animals since the dawn of agriculture.
HOWEVER, I think a lot of contemporary GMO research/production is NOT aimed at the betterment of mankind and better food production. Instead, it's aimed at the betterment of the profits of Big Agribusiness within the current framework of MASSIVE (and ultimately unsustainable) inputs of energy/fertilizer/pesticides/herbicides/etc.
And I absolutely think GMO crops/animals should be labeled (as should any foods made with them). We require all sorts of disclosures on consumer products for other reasons, the resistance to GMO labeling is simply because Big Agra knows most consumers don't REALLY want GMO foods, and some will read labels/pay extra to avoid purchasing GMO products.
I can't figure out why folks are so against labeling GMO products. They say it will cost too much! Bullsh**! I am constantly amazed at the joyful embracing of "ignorance is good for you" that seems so prevalent among so many people today."Just let me stay dumb. I'm happy with dumb. I don't need no smarts. Dumb works so why fix it? " Go figger! Mahalo for your reply. Did I tell you about the splicing of fish DNA into tomatoes? Did you ever read OMNI Magazine? It no longer exists but I used to subscribe. There was an article about combining fish DNA with tomatoes many years ago to make the shelf life of tomatoes longer. Fish live in water which I guess that is a good thing? Anyway what you see in the markets today are totally tasteless hard-as-a-rock tomatoes that last a long time compared to garden tomatoes or what is now referred to as
"heirloom" tomatoes. Dumb tradeoff. Give up flavor so tomatoes last longer. AARRGGHH! :(
I disagree with your "as a general rule pro"
. Genetically modified organisms do not appeal to me. They are genetically modified generally to last longer. They are genetically modified generally to benefit the manufacturer/producer and not the consumer. I do not object to a Luther Burbank working in a lab and creating a new potato. I do object to a huge corporation seeking to manipulate the food we eat to increase their bottom line. So shoot me. Did I answer your question Step? Happy Wednesday.. The plastic tasteless tomatoes we get in the market were genetically modified years ago. I used to subscribe to a now-defunct magazine titled OMNI. In it many years ago I read an article about splicing the dna of fish into tomatoes. You read that right. They were trying get tomatoes to last longer and they figured for whatever reason that fish dna would do it. So they did it. I prefer tomatoes with taste. I don't know about you..
Hello Rosie:
I guess I'm pro.. Take corn, for example.. Corn would be GRASS if man didn't interfere. I don't know if the change is genetic or botanic, and I don't much care.
excon
Pro, with caveats.
If it's done by selective breeding (could happen in nature anyway given the opportunity), that genie long ago escaped the bottle.
If it has to be done in a laboratory, no way to begin to happen in nature, then still pro, but with very extensive testing before being allowed the chance to escape to nature, extensive testing which does not currently happen, apparently. (There is some testing, of course, but is it sufficient?)
And in the latter case once it is released from the lab for sale to the public it should be labeled as such so that the consumer has the option of making an informed decision.
I'm Uncle.
I give up. I don't know a thing.
Whatever Trump believes is what I believe.
Anti..
Human beings are not infallible and therefore sooner or later they will make a huge environmental disaster with their genetic tampering of nature.. It's just a matter of time..
So you don't mind ingesting genetically modified organisms then? I do excon. I'm not talking about Luther Burbank working on his own in a large laboratory here. I'm talking about huge corporations genetically modifying the food we eat because it will last longer and is cheaper for them to manufacture. Many years ago I subscribed to a great magazine called OMNI. In one issue there was an article about splicing fish DNA into tomatoes to give them a longer shelf life. I am not kidding you . Why fish? They said it was because they live in water and are sturdy because of it. They wanted to splice the "sturdy" into tomatoes so they would last longer. The result is the hard plastic tasteless tomatoes you see at the market. They bred all the taste out and replaced it with longevity. Not a good trade 
off to me. Thank you for your reply excon! :)
WE AGREE! Thank you for your reply Adam and Happy July 4th Monday to thee! :)
I disagree. Thank you for your answer Step and Happy July 4th Monday to thee! :)
Actually, while there was an initial decrease in the amount of herbicide required with GM HR crops, with the resulting increase of glyphosate-resistant weeds, herbicide use has dramatically increased over time.
Additionally, the residues of herbicides in the produce is alarming as we do not know exactly what long-term effects they will have on humans, or animals and the environment. Nutritional composition is also different in GM crops.
Herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops have led to an increase in herbicide usage while insecticide-producing GM crops have led to a decrease in insecticides.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/
Overall, since the introduction of GE crops, the six major GE technologies have increased pesticide use by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%. The spread of GR weeds is bound to trigger further increases, e.g., the volume of 2,4-D sprayed on corn could increase 2.2 kgs/ha by 2019 (1.9 pounds/acre) if the USDA approves unrestricted planting of 2,4-D HR corn.
http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24
This study demonstrated that Roundup Ready GM-soy may have high residue levels of glyphosate and AMPA, and also that different agricultural practices may result in a markedly different nutritional composition of soybeans. In the present study organic soybean samples had a more profitable nutritional profile than industrial conventional and GM soybeans. We argue that pesticide residues should have been a part of the compositional analyses of herbicide tolerant GM plants from the beginning. Lack of data on pesticide residues in major crop plants is a serious gap of knowledge with potential consequences for human and animal health.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201
