Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on April 15, 2009, 12:00:30 am
-
Based on this and other studies (http://www.physorg.com/news158950784.html), is it good?
If anyone has links to studies that refute this please post.
Discuss.
-
I'll give my thoughts as a farmer, IE I live with my folks and they are farmers.
GE crops are more uniform in they're output from field to field in my experience. The resistance to insect damage and disease is the big deal. Everyone is so afraid of GE crops...it doesn't make any sense, it's an irrational fear.
-
mutant killer tomatoes: better than eating soilent green
-
G.E. crops are without doubt an absolute necessity for human survival on the current scale. That's not to say that the current level of human population growth is sustainable, in fact I think most inteligent people would argue the exact opposite, but I doubt it's an issue that's going to be resolved before we exceed crop production using current techniques, so unless we want to see mass starvation and death worldwide within the next 50 to 100 years then genetically engineered crops are the only way to go. Case in point, Phosphorous, which makes maybe 50% of currently used farmland actually workable, is a mineral resource thats going to run out soon. So we'll need plants that are capable of growing properly in phosphorus poor soil. That's not going to happen naturally, at least not fast enough to do us any good.
Which brings me to the next point. Genetic engineering is just us trying what mother nature would probably get around to at some stage. Ok, not direct splicing of pig into plant or whatever, but essentially the results are the same.
And I think what Liberator said is the right way to look at it. GM crops don't have dramatically bigger yields but they do achieve the same levels with less pesticides and fertiliser, and less chance of the crop being wipped out by disease.
<edit>Not the best reference but it'll do
http://whyfiles.org/286shortages/index.php?g=2.txt
</edit>
-
I'll give my thoughts as a farmer, IE I live with my folks and they are farmers.
GE crops are more uniform in they're output from field to field in my experience. The resistance to insect damage and disease is the big deal. Everyone is so afraid of GE crops...it doesn't make any sense, it's an irrational fear.
I'm not a farmer, but it seems that way to me
(hell has frozen over, we agree on something)
Just wondering what everyone else thinks.
-
Everyone is so afraid of GE crops...it doesn't make any sense, it's an irrational fear.
Y-e-e-e-eah. I mean, using e-coli around food couldn't possibly go wrong. And that whole 'death-gene' thing? Nothing to worry about in the slightest! Not even with rampant outcrossing! :rolleyes:
And let's not forget that a University of Washington study found that “preschool-aged children who had been fed a diet of conventionally produced food had six times more pesticides in their urine than children who had been fed an organic diet.”
G.E. crops are without doubt an absolute necessity for human survival on the current scale.
:doubt:
Which brings me to the next point. Genetic engineering is just us trying what mother nature would probably get around to at some stage. Ok, not direct splicing of pig into plant or whatever, but essentially the results are the same.
Seriously, :wtf:
And I think what Liberator said is the right way to look at it. GM crops don't have dramatically bigger yields but they do achieve the same levels with less pesticides and fertiliser, and less chance of the crop being wipped out by disease.
:lol:
Oh... wait. You were serious? Let me laugh harder.
:wakka:
Funny story, the more you spray pesticides on crops (GM or otherwise), the more you have to spray. Which then runs off into rivers and lakes. Good times.
-------------------------
[/threadjack]
-
As long as the GE crops are prevented from spreading away from the fields and mixing with naturally evolved variants of the plant, I don't really have any problems with genetic engineering.
The problem is that this might be easier said than done. In many cases it's possible to make the GE plants "sterile" but yield-rich; on some cases not so much. And by sterile I mean stuff like seedless grapes, or other seedless fruits. Sugarcane as well. Dunno how feasible that would be with grains or soy where the yield is seeds.
The reason I'm a bit weary about GE species taking over the naturally evolved variants is that historically nothing good has come from that kind of things. Soy beans evolving into something like killer kudzu wouldn't be an immediate threat, but as far as the science has come, genetics is still somewhat unpredictable - so a combination of a genetically manipulated and naturally evolved plant could potentially become commercially useless, fast-spreading, resistant weed that could at worst case scenario start taking over ground from other plants, including both the natural variant and the GE crop variant. Sort of like the plant life analogy of European/African honeybee hybrid.
As far as consumer perspective goes, I don't have any problem eating GE manipulated veggies/fruits/flour. Meat is a bit different because protein chemistry is a bit different than with plants, but as long as it doesn't have something comparable to prions it's the same stuff; things like what they feed to the animals and how much antibiotics and hormones they pump into them are in fact a bigger concern to me and I still don't bother myself with it.
Summa summarum, I don't think health risks are the biggest potential problem in GE products.
BloodEagle: The low amount of pesticides in people who are fed an organic diet is because organic diet means it's produced without pesticides (or depending on regulations, with very limited amounts of it). That has hardly anything to do with genetically engineered food.
It would undoubtedly be possible to apply the principles of organic food production to GE-products. Whether or not it is being done is a different matter.
-
I get nervous when I see articles about GMOs that aren't published in Nature, Science, or their ilk, but I'll bite.
Genetic modification (engineering implies a precise science, it isn't) is useful for several reasons in crops:
1. We can increase hardiness of plant to resist frost and disease more readily,
2. We have the potential (which isn't always realized) to increase the yield and nutritive value by increasing the ploidy,
3. We can control where and in what conditions the crop is capable of growing, preventing spread to undesired locales and taking over natural plant life.
People hear genetic engineering and immediately think science fiction, but the truth of the matter is that genetic manipulation of plants only really involves three things:
1. Adding resistance genes already present in other organisms. This includes fish genes that resist frost, and other plant genes that resist diseases.
2. Increasing the chromosome set count to make the plant larger (which is common even in nature; humans have 2 sets of chromosomes, but plants can have pretty much any number they please, depending on species. Some counts run up as high as 12).
3. Adding or removing growth-medium dependency genes, to ensure the plant is only capable of growing in particular environments. It is possible to make the plant depend on a particular form of fertilizer or additive, and thus prevent it's spread.
All of these techniques have been in existence for several decades and the technology of performing these manipulations is quite well proven.
Plant and crop genetics is a useful field, but they really aren't doing anything revolutionary. They're worth using just for their disease resistance as it increases the consistency of the harvest, preventing the really bad famines where crops could be wiped out by a disease outbreak, but the idea of improving yield beyond the natural limits hasn't had much success.
Y-e-e-e-eah. I mean, using e-coli around food couldn't possibly go wrong. And that whole 'death-gene' thing? Nothing to worry about in the slightest! Not even with rampant outcrossing!
Uh, what? First off, they're taking genes from a non-pathogenic strain of E. coli. Second, they use a genetic screen of both positive and negative growth tests combined with PCR sequencing to ensure that the only genes transferred are the targets. Third, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by outcrossing as it's a term I've never stumbled on in 6 years of genetics education, but if it refers to cross-pollination between GMO and non-GMO variants, GMO crops are typically crippled from doing that. It's an incredibly regulated and safe science.
And let's not forget that a University of Washington study found that “preschool-aged children who had been fed a diet of conventionally produced food had six times more pesticides in their urine than children who had been fed an organic diet.”
Yeah... organic != non-GMO. GMO crops can be "organic" too. All that term refers to is food grown without the use of pesticides, so the study results are rather of the "No sh**?" variety. Furthermore, "organic" food supplies are far more dangerous on the whole because they have a much higher attrition rate (without pesticides, they are subject to all the natural diseases of the 19th century that ravaged crops and decimated yields annually) AND they're capable of carrying bacterial and fungal spores along with other potentially pathogenic pests.
Seriously
Actually, he's quite serious about artificial selection mirroring evolution. Disease resistance is a rapidly-evolving mechanism that can appear in new generations with regularity. As the vast majority of genetic modification to crops is centered around disease and pesticide resistance, it's really not that much of a leap. Especially because it's not like we're "making" genes - any modification done has to come from another type of organism. All these genes exist in nature in the first place.
-
Funny story, the more you spray pesticides on crops (GM or otherwise), the more you have to spray.
The entire point of pest resistance was to make it so you DON'T have to spay, period.
The problem is that this might be easier said than done. In many cases it's possible to make the GE plants "sterile" but yield-rich; on some cases not so much. And by sterile I mean stuff like seedless grapes, or other seedless fruits. Sugarcane as well. Dunno how feasible that would be with grains or soy where the yield is seeds.
That's why terminator genes are put into them (at least some of them anyway).
Y-e-e-e-eah. I mean, using e-coli around food couldn't possibly go wrong
You do realize that not all strains of e-coli are harmful, right? You could have a million of them in your gut right now and not even realize it.
And that whole 'death-gene' thing? Nothing to worry about in the slightest!
:wtf:
-
BloodEagle: The low amount of pesticides in people who are fed an organic diet is because organic diet means it's produced without pesticides (or depending on regulations, with very limited amounts of it). That has hardly anything to do with genetically engineered food.
Sorry, Herra, wrong there. The only different chemicals. difference between organic and standard-produced food is that organic food used organic pesticides. They still use comparable amounts, just different chemicals.
-
Yeah, on the pesticide thing, my dad doesn't spray pesticides on the corn, the beans I'm not so sure about. About the only thing he does spray is a low grade herbicide to knock back the weeds so they don't choke out the crop.
Also, organic agriculture fine for a small scale personal garden. But on a large scale the costs involve make it fairly impractical or at best a niche market. You just can't convince the average grocery shopper that Corn A, grown organically with no extraneous pesticides and natural fertilizer(cow crap), and Corn B, grown on a large scale farm with(or without) pesticides/herbicides and direct chemical fertilization, are any different from one another.
Practically speaking, there is very little difference, other than the fact that organically grown crops are typically much more expensive than "traditional" crops. My understanding is that they are kinda fragile during the actual growth cycle, in so much as they are more sensitive to fertilization or lack there of.
My opinion is thus, "The Bread Basket" of the USA could feed the world if the crops didn't sit on a dock somewhere and rot because some damn politicians couldn't get they're ducks in a row and get it shipped to where it will do the most good.
-
With organic crops, we'd only be able to feed 4 billion people with the current atmospheric conditions (PopSci)
-
Sorry, Herra, wrong there. The only different chemicals. difference between organic and standard-produced food is that organic food used organic pesticides. They still use comparable amounts, just different chemicals.
It's a complete fabrication to claim that organic food is always grown without pesticides. The difference is that they only use pesticides that are themselves from an organic source. Or are inorganic chemicals like sulphur and copper.
-
Sorry, Herra, wrong there. The only different chemicals. difference between organic and standard-produced food is that organic food used organic pesticides. They still use comparable amounts, just different chemicals.
It's a complete fabrication to claim that organic food is always grown without pesticides. The difference is that they only use pesticides that are themselves from an organic source. Or are inorganic chemicals like sulphur and copper.
I have a question, aren't organic pesticides just as bad for the environment as synthetics?
-
Depends on what they are. In general organic farmers use less pesticides than conventional farmers. I have heard claims that the increased use of manure and sulphur can cause problems beyond that caused by nitrate run off but I've never seen any actual evidence of that.
However the question remains over whether the stuff they do use is any better for you. Rotenone for instance was banned in 2005 following a scare over links to Parkinson's disease and I know another one was banned for causing cancer in lab animals.
-
sounds like BloodEagle's got a good case of the irrational fears.
Of course, my whole problem with current genetic modifications of food plants is that it's done by large, shady corporations who have enough money to buy off any potential oversight.
If we can work past those guys being above the law, then my problems are pretty much over.
-
As long as the GE crops are prevented from spreading away from the fields and mixing with naturally evolved variants of the plant, I don't really have any problems with genetic engineering.
The problem is that this might be easier said than done. In many cases it's possible to make the GE plants "sterile" but yield-rich; on some cases not so much. And by sterile I mean stuff like seedless grapes, or other seedless fruits. Sugarcane as well. Dunno how feasible that would be with grains or soy where the yield is seeds.
Just destroy the growth factors that make the seed grow. Or disrupt the formation of the embryo itself (actually usually the crop is not the embryo, but the surroungin proteins and carbohydrates). You could apply some antisense technique, or maybe simply mute the genes... This is actually a pretty big field of research and most GM crops are artificially made sterile, often by selecting several methods.
The reason I'm a bit weary about GE species taking over the naturally evolved variants is that historically nothing good has come from that kind of things. Soy beans evolving into something like killer kudzu wouldn't be an immediate threat, but as far as the science has come, genetics is still somewhat unpredictable - so a combination of a genetically manipulated and naturally evolved plant could potentially become commercially useless, fast-spreading, resistant weed that could at worst case scenario start taking over ground from other plants, including both the natural variant and the GE crop variant. Sort of like the plant life analogy of European/African honeybee hybrid.
Indeed, and that's why the fertility issue is such a big thing. Usually GM in these plants is really mundane: more resistant to a certain yeast, perhaps faster growth or so. In nature, though, such a mutation will be extremely positive.
As far as consumer perspective goes, I don't have any problem eating GE manipulated veggies/fruits/flour. Meat is a bit different because protein chemistry is a bit different than with plants
Form and funtion of genes and proteins pretty much the same all over the place - I mean, we're taking genes from prokaryotes and putting them into eukaryotes for ****'s sake. They're the same stuff! We actually Granted, plants often have proteins or protein complexes which are different from normal animal meat, and the amino acids differ, but overall there's no clear line, except maybe an ethical one, between GM in plants and animals.
The uniformity of the genetic code is a magnificent thing indeed (at least for a biology student like me; I don't have to learn 51 different protein synthesises, I only have to learn one)!
but as long as it doesn't have something comparable to prions it's the same stuff; things like what they feed to the animals and how much antibiotics and hormones they pump into them are in fact a bigger concern to me and I still don't bother myself with it.
One of the goals of GM is actually trying to use less of "artificial stuff" and have the animals themselves be more resistant and productive.
Summa summarum, I don't think health risks are the biggest potential problem in GE products.
BloodEagle: The low amount of pesticides in people who are fed an organic diet is because organic diet means it's produced without pesticides (or depending on regulations, with very limited amounts of it). That has hardly anything to do with genetically engineered food.
It would undoubtedly be possible to apply the principles of organic food production to GE-products. Whether or not it is being done is a different matter.
[/quote]
-
The uniformity of the genetic code is a magnificent thing indeed (at least for a biology student like me; I don't have to learn 51 different protein synthesises, I only have to learn one)!
Ha! That's what you think =)
Wait until you hit in vivo gene splicing. Or RNA splicing. Or, just when you think you have a handle on all of that in eukaryotes, they turn around and throw prokaryotic ribozymes coupled with self-editing DNA at you. :D
In the end, coding regions all undergo the same basic methods of RNA translation into protein... it's just all the non-coding regions of DNA that like to act like they're proteins that rapidly get annoying.
Not to hijack the topic or anything, but the genetic code is ANYTHING but uniform =) Small parts of it behave according to discernible rules, which are the parts used in genetic modification of living organisms, but the rest of it is kind of like the Wild West.
-
I think people think it's bad because they confuse it with putting in chemicals, like fertilizer and dye.
-
The uniformity of the genetic code is a magnificent thing indeed (at least for a biology student like me; I don't have to learn 51 different protein synthesises, I only have to learn one)!
Ha! That's what you think =)
Wait until you hit in vivo gene splicing. Or RNA splicing. Or, just when you think you have a handle on all of that in eukaryotes, they turn around and throw prokaryotic ribozymes coupled with self-editing DNA at you. :D
In the end, coding regions all undergo the same basic methods of RNA translation into protein... it's just all the non-coding regions of DNA that like to act like they're proteins that rapidly get annoying.
Not to hijack the topic or anything, but the genetic code is ANYTHING but uniform =) Small parts of it behave according to discernible rules, which are the parts used in genetic modification of living organisms, but the rest of it is kind of like the Wild West.
fuuuuuuuuuuck
well all the more reason to stay away from genetics :D
-
BloodEagle: The low amount of pesticides in people who are fed an organic diet is because organic diet means it's produced without pesticides (or depending on regulations, with very limited amounts of it). That has hardly anything to do with genetically engineered food.
Sorry, Herra Janos, wrong there. The only different chemicals. difference between organic and standard-produced food is that organic food used organic pesticides. They still use comparable amounts, just different chemicals.
-
Sorry, Herra Janos, wrong there. The only different chemicals. difference between organic and standard-produced food is that organic food used organic pesticides. They still use comparable amounts, just different chemicals.
wait what has this to do with me what
-
BloodEagle: The low amount of pesticides in people who are fed an organic diet is because organic diet means it's produced without pesticides (or depending on regulations, with very limited amounts of it). That has hardly anything to do with genetically engineered food.
-
BloodEagle: The low amount of pesticides in people who are fed an organic diet is because organic diet means it's produced without pesticides (or depending on regulations, with very limited amounts of it). That has hardly anything to do with genetically engineered food.
that wasn't me though as simple "look at the username" reveals
-
Stupid question:
Speaking of the terms used here, what kind of food is not organic?
Mika
-
Stupid question:
Speaking of the terms used here, what kind of food is not organic?
Mika
If it is grown using any chemicals that are synthetic, it's not organic.
-
According to the people selling it, any foodstuffs made or produced without evil pesticides or scary genetics.
According to biologists and chemists.....Well, that's a different story.
Oh, and Mika? If you insist on signing each of your posts, why not use your signature for it?
-
Stupid question:
Speaking of the terms used here, what kind of food is not organic?
Mika
Plant food obviously. :P
-
If it is grown using any chemicals that are synthetic, it's not organic.
ok, then what do you mean by 'synthetic'.
-
He probably means purified in a chemical plant.
-
Stupid question:
Speaking of the terms used here, what kind of food is not organic?
Mika
:sigh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Legal_definition
-
well the only thing I can think of that would make something 'synthetic' by most greenies perspective is if it used some sort of distillation process, it seems that holding a vat at a given temperature so some chemicals evaporate while others do not is the source of all evil in the world, other than that nothing differentiates what happens in nature from what happens in a chemical plant.
-
I see my attempt to humor has failed.
Yeah, the only definition of organic that I knew is the definition by chemists meaning some goofy compound has coal in it. I found the mental picture of people eating heated rock with some slices of copper on it relatively hilarious.
Seems they have changed the definitions of words yet again. In my language, the term is 'naturally grown'.
Do I really need edit my signature to add my name there? It is supposed to make quoting of long posts easier, while signatures tend to be ignored.
Mika
-
Yeah, the only definition of organic that I knew is the definition by chemists meaning some goofy compound has coal in it.
I think you mean carbon.
-
Along the lines of Savoean policy (Savo is a county in the Eastern Finland that has a peculiar dialect of Finnish)
"It could be that I did, or it could be that I didn't"
Imagine the international possiblities of this being the official political language.
Mika
-
"Organic" is a euphemism for expensive, resource-intensive, and politically-motivated means of cultivation that has little actual scientifically established difference in nutrition or composition from ordinary cultivation practices.
In short, it's crap designed to bleed extra money from the pocketbooks of suckers who fall for it.
While there are a few VERY LIMITED circumstances under which "organic" produce or meats may make a difference to the health of an individual, for the most part it's complete and utter bull****, as evidenced by the prices in your local supermarket.
-
Speaking of the terms used here, what kind of food is not organic?
Salt.
-
NOOOOOOO!
-
Salt.
Water, too, if you want to pick nits. :lol:
But then again it doesn't really have much nutritional (energy) value except being vital.
Now that I think of it, dietary minerals in general are not organic as such... calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium...