[Alex Heartnet]

So apparently General Mills made a facebook app.  And, well, it didn't go so well.   

Sadly this no longer seem to be live.  But still... 

[MP-Ryan]

Oh, look at all the anti-GMO wackjobs coming out the the woodwork.  $10 says that fully 90% of the people commenting on the Facebook Wall and commenting against GMOs on that cheeseslave site couldn't actually tell you what GMO actually means, what it is, or how they negatively affect health.

The Internet has done a lot of good things for a lot of people, but if there are two areas of science where false information online has hurt society in general, it's vaccinations and genetics in general.

Literally EVERY SINGLE MASS-GROWN FOODSTUFF human beings have consumed for about the last 4000 years are technically genetically-modified foods.

[Luis Dias]

Yep, MP, fkin right on.

[Klaustrophobia]

damn hippies

[Mongoose]

I for one welcome glow-in-the-dark Cheerios.

[MP-Ryan]

I for one welcome glow-in-the-dark Cheerios.

Lux+ Cheerios for the win!

Actually, it's already been done with aquarium fish, several species of bacteria, etc.  Not hard at all, though chances are the baking process would destroy their ability to glow.  Have to coat them in some harmless Lux+ bacterium after baking...

...what you're really after is Cheerios coated in yogurt containing a lux+ probiotic.

Damn, I should totally market this.  It's even better than my idea for blue hedgehogs (LacZ+, feed them X-gal, own a real, live Sonic).

[Lorric]

Oh, look at all the anti-GMO wackjobs coming out the the woodwork.  $10 says that fully 90% of the people commenting on the Facebook Wall and commenting against GMOs on that cheeseslave site couldn't actually tell you what GMO actually means, what it is, or how they negatively affect health.

The Internet has done a lot of good things for a lot of people, but if there are two areas of science where false information online has hurt society in general, it's vaccinations and genetics in general.

Literally EVERY SINGLE MASS-GROWN FOODSTUFF human beings have consumed for about the last 4000 years are technically genetically-modified foods.

None of those things involved the kind of tinkering with the natural order that GM does though.

I do believe it has the potential to in the future be a massive boon to the whole of humanity if this is done properly, but humanity has a terrible record when it comes to changing the natural order...

http://guides.wikinut.com/Invasive-Species/12is94fj/

I'm sure there are many more. I'm less worried about what eating the stuff will do than what potential disasters could arise that no one forsees like what is listed in that. You make your crop highly resistant and fast growing, and next thing it's out there spreading like wildfire, strangling out everything else and destroying ecosystems.

[yuezhi]

Occupy Food

[MP-Ryan]

Just what exactly do you think genetically-modified organisms are and are used for?

Invasive species are a secondary issue that occurs regardless of genetic-modification.  In fact, introducing selective genetic markers into a GMO crop can prevent it from becoming invasive due to nutrient requirements.  Every one of the invasive species on that list became invasive without any pre-existing modification, and virtually none of them were intentionally introduced either (as crops are).

Most GMO applications are relatively benign and are used only in plants - encouraging disease resistance, overall hardiness, longer growth season, larger growth, higher productivity.  In fact, while all crops today can be considered genetically-modified, very few are actually subject to true molecular genetic manipulation.  Most are simply cross-breeds of artificially selected individuals which produce strains.

[NGTM-1R]

I'm not-so-secretly-anymore amused.

(It's Cheerios).

[Lorric]

Just what exactly do you think genetically-modified organisms are and are used for?

Invasive species are a secondary issue that occurs regardless of genetic-modification.  In fact, introducing selective genetic markers into a GMO crop can prevent it from becoming invasive due to nutrient requirements.  Every one of the invasive species on that list became invasive without any pre-existing modification, and virtually none of them were intentionally introduced either (as crops are).

Most GMO applications are relatively benign and are used only in plants - encouraging disease resistance, overall hardiness, longer growth season, larger growth, higher productivity.  In fact, while all crops today can be considered genetically-modified, very few are actually subject to true molecular genetic manipulation.  Most are simply cross-breeds of artificially selected individuals which produce strains.

Well, you've listed what I thought they're used for. It's about maximising production and minimising cost. However, I never thought/knew of the possibility of invasiveness prevention.

I'm not overly worried about invasiveness however, I would trust these scientists more than the people making the decisions on these animal introductions to get such a thing right, but the focus always is on what eating it might do, not on something like that, and I've never seen anything to concern me about actually eating the stuff. However, given a choice I would probably avoid GM simply for knowing one is safe and one is unproven. I do however remember when I first learned of the concept many years ago I thought it was greatly exciting. Either way it's not something I have to contemplate right now, GM food is banned here in the UK. SO I was greatly surprised to learn not only do you eat it in the US, you don't even need to label whether it's in the product.

If there was anything better than a tiny saving to be made buying GM though, I'd probably go for it come to think of it.

EDIT: I just checked up on the GM situation in the UK, and it looks like it actually is starting to trickle in a little now:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/

[Ghostavo]

Tiny savings? Unproven? You're a troll right?

There are countless studies regarding GMO crops and how they compare to what one might call normal crops. The fact that people say that it's unproven, as if no one would be interested in making studies about an issue that has as much visibility as this, says a lot about that argument...

[Lorric]

Tiny savings? Unproven? You're a troll right?

No. I actually have no idea on what savings could be made to the pocket of the consumer. Remember I have nothing to compare in the UK. It's got to be at least a couple of years probably more since I seriously looked into this subject, so I'm open to the possibility of being ignorant of certain facts. There's already been one such fact in my last post. Actually two since I didn't know GM was being freely sold in America like that.

This financial crisis could be a huge boon to GM actually if it gets in the stores. People who might have avoided it before might not have a choice. Both manufacturers and consumers.

[Ravenholme]

Right on MP.

Seriously, this gives me as much of a headache as the arguments against meat from cloned animals (A newstory about how a slaughterhouse was fined because meat from a cloned cow made it into a consignment a while back), and people were going "OH GOD CLONED MEAT IT'S HORRIFYING IT'LL RAPE OUR CHILDREN AND KILL US ALLLL!"

No, it won't. The whole ****ing point of it is that it's identical to a normal cow genetically, and everything else is environmental. It's A-OK, because a cow is OK. Twats.

[MP-Ryan]

The UK bans (banned?  I haven't checked the landscape there recently) GM foods modified using molecular techniques.  You've still been happily eating artificially-selected, cross-bred, and reproductively isolated GM foods since you were born.

Even if we confine the GMO definition to organisms modified through molecular genetics (as opposed to Mendelian genetics; breeding and such), the vast majority of risks are still trivial.  Most modification involves introducing plant genes from one related species or genus to another.  Only rarely do you end up with plant genes crossing larger genetic gaps within a Phylum.  Genetic modification from one Domain to another is still less common (though it does occur, mostly commonly with bacterial genes being inserted into some plant species).

Anyway, the GMO bogeyman is way overblown.  Absolutely I agree with forcing companies to label GM foods; it just means everything gets a GM label and then you need to sort out what technique was used.  Molecular manipulation of foodstuffs is definitely riskier than selection.

[Luis Dias]

The thing that is eluding you Lorric, is the statement that we have been doing "genetically modified crops" ever since we started agriculture. The only difference is that the big corporations have now a bigger commercial advantage because they own the genetic technology that makes these amazingly better crops, and they "own" the genes themselves, meaning that if you have a field and you are caught up with some crops with these genes (and you haven't licenced the crops) you will be prosecuted (and so on). It's a very big potential problem (copyrighting genes), but that's a very different "beast" than saying that GMOs are different.

Leftist hippies of the likes of Bill Maher always saying they are on the "side of science" but then they rail against GMOs. Nothing new under the sun.

[Lorric]

The UK bans (banned?  I haven't checked the landscape there recently) GM foods modified using molecular techniques.  You've still been happily eating artificially-selected, cross-bred, and reproductively isolated GM foods since you were born.

Even if we confine the GMO definition to organisms modified through molecular genetics (as opposed to Mendelian genetics; breeding and such), the vast majority of risks are still trivial.  Most modification involves introducing plant genes from one related species or genus to another.  Only rarely do you end up with plant genes crossing larger genetic gaps within a Phylum.  Genetic modification from one Domain to another is still less common (though it does occur, mostly commonly with bacterial genes being inserted into some plant species).

Anyway, the GMO bogeyman is way overblown.  Absolutely I agree with forcing companies to label GM foods; it just means everything gets a GM label and then you need to sort out what technique was used.  Molecular manipulation of foodstuffs is definitely riskier than selection.

Check the link I put in at the bottom of the post. Possibly you didn't see it since it's an edit. It should tell you all you want to know.

I do think there's a difference between previous methods and now, that was selective breeding/growing. Natural progression though unnatural selection. More gradual. GM is outright change that wouldn't occur naturally without human intervention.

Like I said though, I'm not that concerned about actually eating the stuff. I probably wouldn't be concerned at all honestly if it wasn't for the fact so many people are. I'll do the research if the food started appearing on shelves though and not just listen to the "mob". But I guess it's in the back of mind all these people, they must have a reason to be worried.... I can't remember the last time before today I heard anything about GM. It's just a nonentity here, it isn't in people's lives.

Is there a lot of GM food being sold in the states?

[NGTM-1R]

I do think there's a difference between previous methods and now, that was selective breeding/growing. Natural progression though unnatural selection. More gradual. GM is outright change that wouldn't occur naturally without human intervention.

Do you even read this stuff before you post it? You literally contradicted yourself.

EDIT: For the love god, you actually managed to do so twice using the same addition.

[swashmebuckle]

Is there a lot of GM food being sold in the states?

I think a large percentage of soy and corn grown in the US is Roundup Ready (modified to resist Monsanto's Roundup herbicide). I have no concerns about eating GM crops, but the intellectual property side of it is pretty screwed up IMO.

[Aardwolf]

Eh... he's using "GM" to refer exclusively to the modern kind. Stubborn, but not self-contradictory.