Why we should AT LEAST be skeptical of GMO foods!

1. 67

   A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years ago

   To people who claim to "know" the implications of GMO foods(I'm mainly speaking to the ones who think people are crazy for being against them), I have some legitimate reasons why we should at least be skeptical of them.
   
   1. If you understand how nature works, you can't have one "strain" of a plant monopolize the food source. If all soy were to become the same "disease-resistant" and weed killer-resistant strain, then that would be fine and maybe feed people for a while. But the very nature OF nature makes this dangerous! Weeds can weasel around that (And have. Vice has coverage of Monsanto's soy crops with resistant weeds that have begun to grow!) Diseases EVOLVE, regardless of your religious ideologies. If a disease that can take that strain out came into play before they could fight it, it could take down an entire crop! That's no small thing! There are variations in nature for a reason! The most fit plants will survive even if diseases take the other plants out!
   
   2.There has not been enough unbiased empirical research for a long enough period of time to know what the effects could be. For those of you who don't what GMO actually is, they take a crop (Mostly corn and soy for now). They use a strain of bacteria to genetically alter the crop so that it will be resistant to Round Up. A disgusting weed killer that aids in the ruining of soil (and is full of nasty chemicals...) When you alter even the slightest thing in an organism, we don't know what the effects could be long term. This isn't the usual agricultural breeding we've been doing for thousands of years (which has also caused its own issues). I'm all for scientific progression, but at what cost? America is one of the most backwards countries. We'll do minimum research and put something on the market without LONG-TERM UNBIASED RESEARCH BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE A BUCK.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think you do a great disservice when you define GMO as only those plants modified to resist a single item in the environment, Round Up. 
      
      In truth nearly everything we put in our mouths has been genetically modified, albeit using different methods than directly inserting gene sequences.  It took much longer than the approach you mention, but it is just as definitely modifying the genetic structure of the plants we eat.  Even the wild meat we kill and consume is not the same as it was 10,000 years ago and agriculture plants have had millenia of changes carried out and encouraged by man, from intentional hybridization to simply choosing the "best" seed to re-plant for the next year.  Without knowing what the "best" will do over decades or centuries.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         That was exactly why I said:
         "This isn't the usual agricultural breeding we've been doing for thousands of years (which has also caused its own issues)"
         
         I also believe we should only be eating pasture raised animals, not industrially "grown." We can only get so close to the way our ancestors ate.
         
         But I'm slightly confused. Are you saying we shouldn't be skeptical? Or do you believe I should be including crops that were modified through selective breeding? Or both? LoL. It may be my comprehension, sorry.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Both.  I have a hard time distinguishing a plant that has been developed through hybridization/selective breeding from one that has been developed through gene splicing.  Don't you? 
            
            If we're to be skeptical of "changing nature" (and we most definitely should be), then what does it matter what the method used was?

            replyreport
            1. 67

               A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Wilderness, read this article and tell me what you think.
               
               http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic … ealth.aspx

               replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 7 years ago

   "Long term unbiased research" is missing for all consumer goods other than medicines, because--well--who would be paying for it?

   replyreport