Genetically Modified Food

[Captain Jack Harkness]

So I was wondering about this.  Whenever I hear people talking about genetically modified food, it always seems to be about how "dangerous" or "bad."  So can someone explain to me why exactly this is?  What the hell do people have their panties in a knot about?  I mean, as you may already know, the standard desert banana is only the result of man-made cultivation, and as far as I know, nobody bitches about that.

Am I missing something here?

[Distind]

Because science is evil and some of the most rigorous testing in the world clearly isn't enough to make improvements on the bounty of nature. Or some shit like that.

The real dickish stuff is how the companies are maintaining control over some of these improved crops. Requiring special fertilizer, resulting in infertile crops, other happy horse shit. There is some cross breeding concerns,  but the process itself isn't terribly evil.

[SimSim]

The arguments tend to fall back on Monsanto is evil, therefore GMO bad. One study that was poorly designed found a supposed linkage between cancer and GMO food in lab rats. The study used a species of lab rat that is highly prone to cancer. The natutalistic fallacy is also a common arugement. The idea that natural is good and artificial is bad.

There's probably more arguments, but these are the ones I'm familiar with.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

The arguments tend to fall back on Monsanto is evil, therefore GMO bad. One study that was poorly designed found a supposed linkage between cancer and GMO food in lab rats. The study used a species of lab rat that is highly prone to cancer. The natutalistic fallacy is also a common arugement. The idea that natural is good and artificial is bad.

There's probably more arguments, but these are the ones I'm familiar with.

I'll admit I had to look up "Monsanto."  Okay, so they're a company?  What's so "evil" about them.  I checked their site (I'm sure people decrying GMO would say that I can't trust them or some shit.), and producing more food with fewer resources seems like a GOOD thing.

Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with specialized fertilizer, unless it's like under such strict control that it can't be accessed easily or like, if a company has some kind of monopoly on the soil.

[Katsuro]

How much do you want to bet half the people who say GM foods are or could be dangerous for your health will go to KFC for lunch and then get so drunk later that night that they can't remember where they live, who they are or how they got there.

[Witchyjoshy]

*groan*

This ended up being the topic of the worst school project I was almost associated with.  Getting kicked off of that team was the best thing that ever happened to me.

So, this topic makes me a bit, um... grimacey.

I will say that while there is potential for some concern (as with anything in life), the reality is that a lot of stuff about GMOs is nothing more than fearmongering nonsense designed to drive gullible people into a fearful frenzy about how everything around them is out to get them.

[Katsuro]

And we've been genetically modifying crops and livestock for thousands of years (just in a much longer way), nobody complains about that.

[Hades]

The arguments tend to fall back on Monsanto is evil, therefore GMO bad. One study that was poorly designed found a supposed linkage between cancer and GMO food in lab rats. The study used a species of lab rat that is highly prone to cancer. The natutalistic fallacy is also a common arugement. The idea that natural is good and artificial is bad.

There's probably more arguments, but these are the ones I'm familiar with.

I'll admit I had to look up "Monsanto."  Okay, so they're a company?  What's so "evil" about them.  I checked their site (I'm sure people decrying GMO would say that I can't trust them or some shit.), and producing more food with fewer resources seems like a GOOD thing.

Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with specialized fertilizer, unless it's like under such strict control that it can't be accessed easily or like, if a company has some kind of monopoly on the soil.

The problem with Monsanto is it's ethics and business tactics. For example, it has patents on some of its seeds. If you buy patented seeds, you may only plant them once. You can't use the next generation of seeds, and god help you if your Monsanto plants cross-pollinate. If any of those things happen, you will be sued for violating the patent.

[Material Defender]

As a food scientist in training, we deal heavily with GMOs, genetically modified organisms, in our classes. At this point, most of it is modifying what occurs in nature and speeding up the evolutionary process via man made pressures of selective breeding. THere is a potential of radically introducing new genes into things that never had it before as well, which is beyond what selective breeding can do, but that's not anymore dangerous since the genes for this still come from nature.

There's no proven link between GMOs and any issues in health. You can have to deal with copyrights and the like trying to prevent it from being cheap, but ultimately. GMOs allow for more people to be fed more cheaply, while taking up less space. It also increases the potential for polyculture which reduces the need for insecticide and pesticide, so you'd think these people would be FOR these things. Less environmental impact and decreased global hunger.

I can understand Monsanto being an issue, but that's purely economic and how they are presenting the issue. It has no bearing on the potential for freakin' GMOs.

[SimSim]

And we've been genetically modifying crops and livestock for thousands of years (just in a much longer way), nobody complains about that.

Pointing this out often results in the naturalistic fallacy argument. They argue that using breeding to put selective pressure on certain genes, so that a trait is expressed is fine. But somehow because the modern GM food uses gene splicing and introducing the desired gene in to an organism by using a virus is bad. Even though the results are the same, the second method is bad because it's not natural. Rather infuriating.

I'll admit I had to look up "Monsanto."  Okay, so they're a company?  What's so "evil" about them.  I checked their site (I'm sure people decrying GMO would say that I can't trust them or some shit.), and producing more food with fewer resources seems like a GOOD thing.

Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with specialized fertilizer, unless it's like under such strict control that it can't be accessed easily or like, if a company has some kind of monopoly on the soil.

In reality Monsanto isn't more evil than any large corporation, but it's a boogeyman for many people. They sell GM seeds that have been altered to allow the plants to be treated with Roundup(an herbicide manufactured by Monsanto)without worrying about the Roundup damaging the plant. The argument against this is that the use of Roundup Ready seeds will lead to more use of Roundup, and not use methods that are less environmentally damaging, but more time consuming methods of dealing with weeds. I do think this is a legitimate concern, and why I'm not a supporter of this type of GMO.

The boogeyman side of Monsanto is that they'll sue farmers whose crops have RR genes in them if they didn't buy seeds from Monsanto. People argue that crossbreeding between the RR crops and regular crops could end up with farmers being sued. Supporters of this argument point to a case in which Monsanto successfully sued a farmer who had hybrid crops. What they leave out is that it appeared the farmer purposely let his crops get hybridized. In other cases where the hybridization happened non-intentionally Monsanto hasn't won.

There's some legitimate concern to that arugment, but that has more to do with the broken patent and copyright law the US has than with Monsanto being evil. Of course a major corporation is going to defend it's patents and copyrights.

Edit:While I was writing all this Hades made a post with a point that should be addressed.

He is correct that many people raise the issue of needing to buy seeds every year. However that's really a non-issue. For the most part, commercial farmers tend to buy seeds every year regardless if they bought Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds or regular seeds.

[Old Viking]

I'm voting with Distind here.  I seldom encounter a picture of scientists in which they aren't surrounded by mysterious, bubbling, steaming retorts.  And more often than not the scientists have truly evil grins.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

And we've been genetically modifying crops and livestock for thousands of years (just in a much longer way), nobody complains about that.

Pointing this out often results in the naturalistic fallacy argument. They argue that using breeding to put selective pressure on certain genes, so that a trait is expressed is fine. But somehow because the modern GM food uses gene splicing and introducing the desired gene in to an organism by using a virus is bad. Even though the results are the same, the second method is bad because it's not natural. Rather infuriating.

I'll admit I had to look up "Monsanto."  Okay, so they're a company?  What's so "evil" about them.  I checked their site (I'm sure people decrying GMO would say that I can't trust them or some shit.), and producing more food with fewer resources seems like a GOOD thing.

Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with specialized fertilizer, unless it's like under such strict control that it can't be accessed easily or like, if a company has some kind of monopoly on the soil.

In reality Monsanto isn't more evil than any large corporation, but it's a boogeyman for many people. They sell GM seeds that have been altered to allow the plants to be treated with Roundup(an herbicide manufactured by Monsanto)without worrying about the Roundup damaging the plant. The argument against this is that the use of Roundup Ready seeds will lead to more use of Roundup, and not use methods that are less environmentally damaging, but more time consuming methods of dealing with weeds. I do think this is a legitimate concern, and why I'm not a supporter of this type of GMO.

The boogeyman side of Monsanto is that they'll sue farmers whose crops have RR genes in them if they didn't buy seeds from Monsanto. People argue that crossbreeding between the RR crops and regular crops could end up with farmers being sued. Supporters of this argument point to a case in which Monsanto successfully sued a farmer who had hybrid crops. What they leave out is that it appeared the farmer purposely let his crops get hybridized. In other cases where the hybridization happened non-intentionally Monsanto hasn't won.

There's some legitimate concern to that arugment, but that has more to do with the broken patent and copyright law the US has than with Monsanto being evil. Of course a major corporation is going to defend it's patents and copyrights.

Edit:While I was writing all this Hades made a post with a point that should be addressed.

He is correct that many people raise the issue of needing to buy seeds every year. However that's really a non-issue. For the most part, commercial farmers tend to buy seeds every year regardless if they bought Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds or regular seeds.

Ah, okay.  This has explained a lot.  Thank you for your clear, concise, and coherent response!

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

A suit concerning Monsanto and cross-pollination is discussed here, along with the mention of some other Monsanto ethics issues.

As for genetically-modified food, as Katsuro said, humans have modified food (both plant and animal-based) for thousands of years. The techniques have changed but the goal is generally the same: to create food products that survive and flourish in environments where they normally would not, in order to create a larger food supply. Just because someone labels something as "Frankenfood" does not mean that it's being created by stereotypically evil scientists. It's nothing but scare tactics.

[Dan]

THere is a potential of radically introducing new genes into things that never had it before as well, which is beyond what selective breeding can do, but that's not anymore dangerous since the genes for this still come from nature.

Did someone mention the naturalistic fallacy?

[Material Defender]

Well to them I'd be like "Not any more dangerous because it comes from nature." To not dumb people "Not any more dangerous because scientists know what they are doing and aren't rushing headlong into it."