Your views on GMO's

[rx7girlie]

I just want some feedback on this topic, see what people have tp say about it, perceptions etc:

Why are drugs that are genetically modified more acceptable to people than genetically modified foods?

[QuasarCav]

Most people like to think they have some control over what goes into their bodies.

Although GM food is probably just as good or better it takes some convincing to get people to alter their habits.

availability and cost are two big factors

[1badPT]

You can sum up almost any resistance to anything new to FUCD (pronounced fucked :tongue: )

F-ear, those opposed to it will warn fence-sitters of the dangers and negatives, and possibly falacies
U-ncertainty, most people have been forced to make their minds up even though there isn't much information available
C-onfusion, those who are opposed to the change will spread lies, or represent the truth in a way that makes change seem like a poor choice
D-oubt, new technologies, new vendors, new anything means no credibility. If you don't know, chances are you'll assume the worst.

[QuasarCav]

Originally posted by 1badPT
You can sum up almost any resistance to anything new to FUCD (pronounced fucked :tongue:)

F-ear, those opposed to it will warn fence-sitters of the dangers and negatives, and possibly falacies
U-ncertainty, most people have been forced to make their minds up even though there isn't much information available
C-onfusion, those who are opposed to the change will spread lies, or represent the truth in a way that makes change seem like a poor choice
D-oubt, new technologies, new vendors, new anything means no credibility. If you don't know, chances are you'll assume the worst.

So true, It's a wonder they can get anything new or different on to the market.

But then again look at the pontiac aztek

[lint]

Originally posted by rx7girlie
I just want some feedback on this topic, see what people have tp say about it, perceptions etc:

Why are drugs that are genetically modified more acceptable to people than genetically modified foods?

I'd say that GMF's is really selective breeding taken to the next step. Only it doesn't take 20 generations to get the trait you're looking for. (ie cows that produce more milk, plants that are more resistant to hash weather conditions)

I don't think the problem is really health related. I would attribute it more to the farmers who lobby against it. And the main driving force there is cost. When monsanto produces a genetically enhanced wheat, they sell the seeds to farmers at a premium cost AND they incorporate terminator genes so that the seeds produced by the next generation will be useless to the farmers for planting. Thus, making them reliant on the corporation to provide more crop seeds. This is a bigger concern than perceived health risks.

There was actually an interesting article in this months Discover talking about foods in general and who is telling you to eat what. Remember that food pyramid that we all know? Well, the people who put that together aren't members of the medical industry, they're in the agricultural industry. It's the people who are selling the foods who are also telling you which foods are good for you. IF you have a chance, I'd reccomend picking it up. The article is pretty interesting. Somethings that you thought you should stay away from are actually highly recommended. (ie plant oils they found should be incorporated into every meal. Nuts and legumes should be eaten more than fish, etc)

[QuasarCav]

Did anyone read this or last weeks Macleans with the big food article?

According to it I should be eating mostly organic food because normal farmed food will kill me.

Kind of scary if you ask me.

So I guess genetically engineered food would be the next step in making the food source "safe"

[1badPT]

Originally posted by lint
When monsanto produces a genetically enhanced wheat, they sell the seeds to farmers at a premium cost AND they incorporate terminator genes so that the seeds produced by the next generation will be useless to the farmers for planting. Thus, making them reliant on the corporation to provide more crop seeds. This is a bigger concern than perceived health risks.

That practice is possible without genetic engineering persay. You can create hybrid seeds (by crossing a purely dominant gene plant with a purely recessive gene plant) which the farmer would plant and grow, and it would yield a consistent crop (dominant genes expressed only). If the product of that field was planted the following year, the crop would be inconsistent as in addition to the dominant genes being expressed, so to would the recessive genes. Also, it will be possible to get pure dominant plants in the crop. yadda yadda.

The point is without genetic engineering, a seed company can already do the practice you mention. I don't know if that has been the practice in the past, but it would surprise me if seed companies sold pure plants so farmers could hybridize them themselves. How would you as a seed company get paid the following year?

[rx7girlie]

OK, my opinion now:

People view GM foods and drugs through different reference frames of naturalness. Namely, food is "natural" while drugs are "man-made", so human modifications to food are seen as unnatural whereas modifications to drugs are acceptable.

Second, when making decisions about new drugs versus genetically modified foods, an individual is on different playing fleid: for drugs, they are in the risk-seeking mode (wishing to restore thier health completely), whereas for GM foods, they are in the risk-averse mode (the benefits of GM foods do not outweigh the risks).

So, it seems that it is quite alright to take GM Drugs, but not GM Foods in public opinion.

[lint]

Originally posted by 1badPT


That practice is possible without genetic engineering persay. You can create hybrid seeds (by crossing a purely dominant gene plant with a purely recessive gene plant) which the farmer would plant and grow, and it would yield a consistent crop (dominant genes expressed only). If the product of that field was planted the following year, the crop would be inconsistent as in addition to the dominant genes being expressed, so to would the recessive genes. Also, it will be possible to get pure dominant plants in the crop. yadda yadda.

The point is without genetic engineering, a seed company can already do the practice you mention. I don't know if that has been the practice in the past, but it would surprise me if seed companies sold pure plants so farmers could hybridize them themselves. How would you as a seed company get paid the following year?

Ummm, what are you talking about? How would a seed company get paid? They incorporate the terminator gene so that the seeds from the harvested plants cannot be used to plant the next generation of crops. The only way for the farmers to continue growing these crops is to buy more seeds from the seed company.

[lint]

Originally posted by rx7girlie
OK, my opinion now:

People view GM foods and drugs through different reference frames of naturalness. Namely, food is "natural" while drugs are "man-made", so human modifications to food are seen as unnatural whereas modifications to drugs are acceptable.

Second, when making decisions about new drugs versus genetically modified foods, an individual is on different playing fleid: for drugs, they are in the risk-seeking mode (wishing to restore thier health completely), whereas for GM foods, they are in the risk-averse mode (the benefits of GM foods do not outweigh the risks).

So, it seems that it is quite alright to take GM Drugs, but not GM Foods in public opinion.

Some people still consider naturally extracted drugs to be better than synthetic. However, the chemical structures are identical, and so should the effects. The only plausible reason is that there is something else that is extracted from the natural plant that may have an added effect. (bad example but sea salt as opposed to other processed salts)

[1badPT]

You missed my point. I'm assuming that seed companies are already doing this without the use of gene splicing by selling hybrid seeds - the hybrid seeds will produce viable plants but the offspring will be an unusable mix of pure dominant, hybrid, and pure recessive plants.

I can't see farmers being opposed to GMO on that basis because I would think the seeds they are buying now are only good for 1 generation of planting anyways. They are already dependant on seed companies for successive years of crops.

[sputnik]

i would die of malnutrition if i ate just organic food... its DAMN expensive...

i cant imagine paying $80 for a Kobe steak

you will die eventually... so you might as well not spend your already short life worrying about living for an extra 2 days.

[lint]

Originally posted by 1badPT
You missed my point. I'm assuming that seed companies are already doing this without the use of gene splicing by selling hybrid seeds - the hybrid seeds will produce viable plants but the offspring will be an unusable mix of pure dominant, hybrid, and pure recessive plants.

I can't see farmers being opposed to GMO on that basis because I would think the seeds they are buying now are only good for 1 generation of planting anyways. They are already dependant on seed companies for successive years of crops.

Google it (http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105132.php)

You are making a big assumption that all crops that are planted are pure. That is definately not the case. Also, in general you need two recessive genes combined for the trait to show. Why would hybrid plants be more prone to and unusable mix? If the hybrid has beed bred so that the dominant gene is the one that expresses the desired trait, then it doesn't matter if it carries the recessive. Simple heredity indicates that only 1 in 16 offspring of two carries will actually exhibit the trait.

[lint]

Originally posted by sputnik
i would die of malnutrition if i ate just organic food... its DAMN expensive...

i cant imagine paying $80 for a Kobe steak

you will die eventually... so you might as well not spend your already short life worrying about living for an extra 2 days.

Hahaha, since when is feeding a cow beer and massaging it constantly considered organic food?

[1badPT]

Originally posted by lint


Google it (http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105132.php)

You are making a big assumption that all crops that are planted are pure. That is definately not the case. Also, in general you need two recessive genes combined for the trait to show. Why would hybrid plants be more prone to and unusable mix? If the hybrid has beed bred so that the dominant gene is the one that expresses the desired trait, then it doesn't matter if it carries the recessive. Simple heredity indicates that only 1 in 16 offspring of two carries will actually exhibit the trait.

lol what we have here is a failure to communicate. Most seeds that you buy will be hybrids since seed companies know that hybrids are only good for one generation of planting. The first generation (IE the first crop that grows from the seed) will express all of the dominant traits of the plant. The problem is if you plant that seeds from that crop, you'll get a mix of the different gene expressions.

The whole point in posting that is GMO does not give seed companies anything new to bargain with. Instead of selling hybrid seeds, they'd be selling seeds that are sterile after the first generation - which means farmers would need to buy seed each year. I'm having difficulty seeing farmers opposed to GMO on the basis of being forced to buy seed every year - since even before the advent of GMO seeds, they had to buy seed each year so they wouldn't get an unmarketable crop.

PS - your 1:16 ratio is only when you are dealing with a single recessive gene. Most plants have many genes and typically the dominant genes are what you are after in your crop. If you have a field that has a whole bunch of plants some tall, some not, some bearing crop, some not, some red, some green, etc etc you'll end up with a crop that isn't marketable.

[Gondi Stylez]

well most of us do eith genetically modified foods everyday, most of us without knowing it! eg. Bananas and corn!!

OK well anywayz, really who gives a shit?! sometimes the way nature intended the food to be insnt all that great for us, so we modify the genes to either make it gorwable in other conditions, taste better, greener color etc etc...

personally i dont care, if it kills or makes us sick then that is a differenent story...


Originally posted by 1badPT

PS - your 1:16 ratio is only when you are dealing with a single recessive gene. Most plants have many genes and typically the dominant genes are what you are after in your crop. If you have a field that has a whole bunch of plants some tall, some not, some bearing crop, some not, some red, some green, etc etc you'll end up with a crop that isn't marketable.

:werd:

[rx7girlie]

Originally posted by Gondi Stylez
OK well anywayz, really who gives a shit?! sometimes the way nature intended the food to be insnt all that great for us, so we modify the genes

The problem is when you introduce those herbicide resistence genes into wheat genome. Then you have GM wheat cross pollinating w/ wild type wheat, giving all crops resistence, then the herbicides build up resistence to the wheat, and nothing will work to kill off the resistant pests, and all crops are ruined etc. That is the primary reason many countries do not want to introduce GM wheat.