Genetically Modified Food

[Mumbles]

What are the views of the left on genetically modified foods? I'm pretty sure I know what primativists would say, but I was wondering.

I think it is good because it can make plants resistant to plant diseases quicker so that food production becomes more steadily reliable instead of having to worry about a plant bacteria destroying an entire crop. Also because of the fact that it can make foods more productive in less time. That fact, if looked at historically, also stands because, as the common example goes, farmers knew to plant seeds from bountiful plants and discard the bad plants seeds.

While I've heard all the stuff about "chemicals causing cancer" I usually take that with a pound of salt because...we're made of chemicals and just about anything can give us cancer including having our cells reproduce themselves.

[La Comédie Noire]

I read about them trying to develop drought resistant crops, I think it's awesome.

[piet11111]

If its safe who would want to stop it ?

[x371322]

What about eating cloned meats? I think it's pretty badass myself. :lol:

[Mumbles]

If its safe who would want to stop it ?

That's what I was thinking. But I hear people complaining that it's not "natural" and all that hippie nonsense so I was wondering if anyone took that stuff seriously or if it was just a fringe group getting coverage.

[Sir Comradical]

At present GM foods are produced to resist chemicals, this allows growers to spray more and more pesticides. GM foods at present will not increase the size of the food being grown.

[Salyut]

The corporations that own the patents (Monsanto) are fucking evil. Other then that, uh... Nothing I can think of.

[GX.]

They present a number of ecological problems. They require a large monoculture and lots of petroleum based herbicides pesticides and soil, so like modern agriculture as a whole they're unsustainable. And if farmers overapply herbicides this can lead to the development of super resistent weeds.

[Invincible Summer]

The main problem I see is monoculture. Also, these agriculture business corporations (mainly Monsanto) aren't really doing things to improve food quality or whatever, but rather make sure they have a growing hold on the market. So while GM could be really beneficial, the way it's done under capitalism - as with most things - makes it only a money-making venture, not for any sort of good.

[bobroberts]

It's more efficient to grow local varieties of crops, than to rely on patented genetically modified monocultures. So far GM foods are more about control, since companies can patent them and sue anybody who grows them or has their fields contaminated with them, rather than any benefit they have to ordinary people or farmers.

I would be interested to see if any existing GM crop has actually increased production, and what external costs are associated with them. It's easy to say something is more efficient when the costs get externalized. Currently I suspect that the fees most farmers have to pay to access GM crops will outweigh any actual advertised benefits. To get GM seeds often the farmer will have to sign a contract that disallows independent agencies to study the crops, which prevents us from figuring out if they are worth the cost.

And, hell, we have enough land and resources to feed everybody on earth already, but we don't. Making our crops more efficient won't change that, it will just flood the market with whatever crop gets a boost, driving down prices, and encouraging farmers to farm something else. If a country is dependent on an export crop (like many African nations have been encouraged to do by the World Bank and IMF) then a worldwide boost in the production of that crop will cause prices to fall and people in that country to become dependent on foreign aid.

[bobroberts]

After some searching I found this:


In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, Failure to Yield considers the technology’s potential role in increasing food production over the next few decades. The report does not discount the possibility of genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop yields. It does, however, suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

[Invincible Summer]

It's more efficient to grow local varieties of crops, than to rely on patented genetically modified monocultures. So far GM foods are more about control, since companies can patent them and sue anybody who grows them or has their fields contaminated with them, rather than any benefit they have to ordinary people or farmers.

I would be interested to see if any existing GM crop has actually increased production, and what external costs are associated with them. It's easy to say something is more efficient when the costs get externalized. Currently I suspect that the fees most farmers have to pay to access GM crops will outweigh any actual advertised benefits. To get GM seeds often the farmer will have to sign a contract that disallows independent agencies to study the crops, which prevents us from figuring out if they are worth the cost.

And, hell, we have enough land and resources to feed everybody on earth already, but we don't. Making our crops more efficient won't change that, it will just flood the market with whatever crop gets a boost, driving down prices, and encouraging farmers to farm something else. If a country is dependent on an export crop (like many African nations have been encouraged to do by the World Bank and IMF) then a worldwide boost in the production of that crop will cause prices to fall and people in that country to become dependent on foreign aid.

Like I said, GM foods + capitalism = shitty.

If GM foods were grown with added nutritional value/hardiness/whatever and without all these corporate-legal hoops to jump through then I'm sure more people would be in favor of them.

[TheSultan]

I think most of the resentment toward genetically modified food comes not from potential health/safety risks (I don't really think there are any) but rather from avoiding of "playing God". I personally think GMO's are great and can really allow us to maximize on our resources.

[x371322]

Like I said, GM foods + capitalism = shitty.

Indeed. Although I think that goes without saying. It should be Anything + Capitalism = Shitty

[anticap]

In any case, the testbed ought not be impoverished farmers who go into debt to buy the seeds and then commit suicide by the thousands (by drinking the pesticides that they were told they'd no longer need) when the crop fails.

[Lord Testicles]

It's more efficient to grow local varieties of crops, than to rely on patented genetically modified monocultures.


The main problem I see is monoculture.

GM crops can lead to more bio-diversity because they can be made resistant to pests meaning that less pesticide and herbicide needs to be sprayed on the crops.

To answer the original question I think that GM crops will be benificial to humanity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Like I said, GM foods + capitalism = shitty.Right, I think this is the main thing for us to remember in regards to any scientific advance. I'm not against technology if it was applied to the democratic interests of people in general, but this is not the form that GM foods have take or will take under capitalism where the goal is increased profit, not increased ability to meet needs.

[Mumbles]

Thank you all for your responses.

Indeed financial interests mixed in with human interests never works out well. I'll still enjoy knowing we can do them and do them well, and we'll probably be able to fix the monoculture problem with more research, I just make sure my imagination has the future in mind. And my view of the future doesn't have a trace of capitalism :cool:

[bcbm]

ignoring the massive abuses that have and are taking place because of the capitalist context in which gmo development has occurred, i think more research is also needed on their long term effects.

[Foldered]

That's what I was thinking. But I hear people complaining that it's not "natural" and all that hippie nonsense so I was wondering if anyone took that stuff seriously or if it was just a fringe group getting coverage.
I would avoid rejecting being against GM foods based on the fact that it's "hippie nonsense." More often than not, that "nonsense" is grounded in the fact that it is damaging to the environment/ecosystem and is unsustainable. I'm against GM foods because it isn't necessary and does more harm than good.

But hey, I'm vegan, so I must just be spouting "hipping nonsense." ;)

[Mumbles]

I would avoid rejecting being against GM foods based on the fact that it's "hippie nonsense." More often than not, that "nonsense" is grounded in the fact that it is damaging to the environment/ecosystem and is unsustainable. I'm against GM foods because it isn't necessary and does more harm than good.

But hey, I'm vegan, so I must just be spouting "hipping nonsense." ;)

Haha, don't worry I wasn't rejecting all hippie nonsense, just the nonsensical nonsense :D

While it isn't necessary I still think it's beneficial because if we could have more available crops more people could be freed up to develop technologies and just have time off and everything. This is probably flawed somewhere, but look at the feudal ages, technological advances were slow compared to say the Greco-Roman periods and even slower compared to the Industrial Revolution, and the major thing I see, which is what I think might be flawed so forgive me if I'm wrong, the major thing I see is that people had more free time in which to develop technologically, especially quickly as in the Industrial/Scientific Revolution.

Edit: I don't mean that as the catch-all reasoning for the advances I just mean I saw it as a benefit of not relying on subsistent farming or whatever it's considered.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

When a corporation owns the patent to the GM crop and thereby owns the right to any produce of the agressive new breed, I have a huge issue. (I believe the Monsanto corp (the people who brought you Agent Orange...and its little cousin, Round Up) is doing this, and do think it's an issue in the upper midwest here in the states).

However I have no real issue with GM altered crops or livestock in theory. I would go so far as to say most food you eat today have been genetically modified over generations of selective breeding. Farmers are smart, they planted the seeds of the best of the crop the next season, or only bred the better animals while the others were slaughtered.

[Lord Testicles]

More often than not, that "nonsense" is grounded in the fact that it is damaging to the environment/ecosystem and is unsustainable. I'm against GM foods because it isn't necessary and does more harm than good.


[citation needed]

[bobroberts]

However I have no real issue with GM altered crops or livestock in theory. I would go so far as to say most food you eat today have been genetically modified over generations of selective breeding. Farmers are smart, they planted the seeds of the best of the crop the next season, or only bred the better animals while the others were slaughtered.

Selective breeding is not the same as genetic modification.

[Lord Testicles]

Selective breeding is not the same as genetic modification.

The only difference I can think of is the amount of time it takes to see the results.

[La Comédie Noire]

It sucks because corporations can't think outside the box or take risks on their profit. "We need to develop better energy technology so we can.... exploit petroleum better!" "We need to genetically modify crops so they'll survive pesticides better!"

Perhaps they could develop some sort of sound system that only bugs can hear that drives them absolutely crazy and then we could plant a reserve sound system free crop for them to nibble on?

Or decentralize the entire industry, no reason to have an entire region of a country be "the bread basket".

[here for the revolution]

There's a fantastic novel, The Grapes of Wrath, which paints a story of a family moving from the South to California to escape the droughts and problems in the 1930s (I think).
Anyway, it's a great novel because it continuously criticises the way in which the land owners have slowly seized all the land and used their monopolies to exploit workers, at the same time it describes how the `fallow land is a crime`, as people are starving yet they can't seize a patch and grow crops to feed themselves and others due to property laws.
In essences, I guess what I'm saying is that we need to prioritise now, concentrate on utilising as much of the fallow land as feasible to ensure there's plenty to go around. Once that's done, I believe then is the time to concentrate on GM crops. Genetic Modifications could undoubtedly improve the quality and yield of crops, however we can easily increase yields now through the more conventional methods.

[cska]

Humans so far have been unable to alter lifeforms properly. So, GMOs might have certain amazing strengths, but they tend to have drawbacks that make them bad quality.

It is the same type of problem as what would happen if people decided to inject steroids in their kids to make them stronger. Sure, they will get stronger, but they will have other major health issues.

[bobroberts]

The only difference I can think of is the amount of time it takes to see the results.

Yes, it would take a long, long time for farmers to selectively breed genetic traits from animals or bacteria into their crops.

[bobroberts]

[citation needed]

Round-up resistant weeds! Thank you Monsanto!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?src=busln

I don't think anybody except a few weirdos have objections to GM crops in theory, but object to the motivations of companies who control those crops due to contracts and patents, as well as the lack of safeguards in place to prevent any ill effects from harming humans and wildlife. The risk might be low, but the potential for catastrophic failure is real and we are not currently protected from it.

[x371322]

Don't mean to jump in here, but strictly speaking, selective breeding kind of IS a form of genetic engineering. Like TheCultofAbeLincoln said, farmers have always been manipulating plant genes. I mean selective breeding allows farmers to customize their crops on a genetic level by crossbreeding the best plants. That IS genetic modification, and it's been used for literally thousands of years. The only difference is, as Skinz pointed out, we can do this much faster today, and with greater flexibility, using modern technology.

[bobroberts]

Don't mean to jump in here, but strictly speaking, selective breeding kind of IS a form of genetic engineering. Like TheCultofAbeLincoln said, farmers have always been manipulating plant genes. I mean selective breeding allows farmers to customize their crops on a genetic level by crossbreeding the best plants. That IS genetic modification, and it's been used for literally thousands of years. The only difference is, as Skinz pointed out, we can do this much faster today, and with greater flexibility, using modern technology.

If genetic modification was limited to plant life in the same species or genus, maybe. But we are splicing favored genes from bacteria and fish into crops. That could never happen with selective breeding.

[son of man]

Agrees with bobroberts. I'd like to see someone try and get a frog to breed with some corn and only pass on a tiny amount of his genetic information to their offspring.

Genetic engineering is the manipulation of genes. Selective breeding is the manipulation of animals. Two quite different things.

[x371322]

But we are splicing favored genes from bacteria and fish into crops. That could never happen with selective breeding.

:confused: Why are you even arguing that point? No one is saying it could. I certainly didn't. That's not my point anyway. My point is that selective breeding IS still a form of genetic modification. By selectively crossbreeding plants, we're able to take the best genes from multiple different plants, and make an even better one. That IS genetic manipulation. But nowhere did I say that we could cross fish genes into plants by using the same method.



Genetic engineering is the manipulation of genes. Selective breeding is the manipulation of animals. Two quite different things.

Wrong. Selective breeding is done on plants too. Remember Gregor Mendel and his famous peas? We can cross breed different plants to produce better crops and such. See below.


Selective breeding is the process of breeding plants and animals for particular genetic traits.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If genetic modification was limited to plant life in the same species or genus, maybe. But we are splicing favored genes from bacteria and fish into crops. That could never happen with selective breeding.

Which is why genetic engineering is that much more powerful and potentially useful.

[bobroberts]

Which is why genetic engineering is that much more powerful and potentially useful.

And potentially devastating, like introducing foreign plants or animals into a region that is not suited to keeping them in check.

[anticap]

And potentially devastating, like introducing foreign plants or animals into a region that is not suited to keeping them in check.

There was an unintentionally hilarious piece on public TV here about Hawaii's foreign frog invasion. The looks of exasperation on the faces of the retirees, who haven't slept a wink since they moved to paradise to spend their golden years, were priceless.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And potentially devastating, like introducing foreign plants or animals into a region that is not suited to keeping them in check.

That's already happened thanks to trans-oceanic travel, and the world hasn't ended in an apocalypse, nor has Mother Gaia wakened from her slumber to vent her wrath on techno-sinful humanity.

Of course we must take precautions, but to reject a technology wholesale is just stupid. If we'd had people like you around when we were in the process of discovering how to make fire, we'd still be shivering in our caves.

[bcbm]

That's already happened thanks to trans-oceanic travel, and the world hasn't ended in an apocalypse, nor has Mother Gaia wakened from her slumber to vent her wrath on techno-sinful humanity.

Of course we must take precautions, but to reject a technology wholesale is just stupid. If we'd had people like you around when we were in the process of discovering how to make fire, we'd still be shivering in our caves.

if you read a few posts up the page, bobroberts says that they have no objection to gm crops but are concerned about how they will be implemented under capitalism. i don't think pointing out that there are risks in gm technology makes you a raving primitivist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

if you read a few posts up the page, bobroberts says that they have no objection to gm crops but are concerned about how they will be implemented under capitalism. i don't think pointing out that there are risks in gm technology makes you a raving primitivist.

Of course there are risks in every venture, but I don't think the vast majority of the anti-GM lobby has responded appropriately to them.

[Quail]

I don't disagree with GM crops necessarily, but I think that there are risks, and that obviously mixed with capitalism there are problems because the companies that produce them are motivated by profit.
Off the top of my head, the crops having less diverse genes is a problem (although I guess this could also be a problem with selective breeding). If all the plants have basically the same genetic material then if a new disease comes, there are less likely to be plants that can resist it. I don't think that spraying excessive amounts of pesticides is a particularly good thing either, as they can kill insects that aren't 'pests' and interfere with the ecosystem. Does anybody know how pesticides are evaluated/regulated for safety? If we are exposed to increasingly high doses, there could also possibly be risks to our health.

[bobroberts]

I don't think that spraying excessive amounts of pesticides is a particularly good thing either, as they can kill insects that aren't 'pests' and interfere with the ecosystem. Does anybody know how pesticides are evaluated/regulated for safety? If we are exposed to increasingly high doses, there could also possibly be risks to our health.

People who are most at risk from pesticide are those who are directly exposed to it, like farm workers. It increases the risk for certain types of ailments and cancers. The amount that ends up in our food is quite small and probably not all that dangerous.

[bcbm]

Of course there are risks in every venture, but I don't think the vast majority of the anti-GM lobby has responded appropriately to them.

i'm not talking about "the anti-gm lobby," i am talking about your uncalled for personal attacks on bobroberts.

[Mumbles]

People who are most at risk from pesticide are those who are directly exposed to it, like farm workers. It increases the risk for certain types of ailments and cancers. The amount that ends up in our food is quite small and probably not all that dangerous.

Is it possible to make "bug resistent" plants without the use of pesticides? Like make them unappealing to the bugs without changing their nutritional value for us?

[Foldered]

[citation needed]
I don't think I need to provide a citation for the fact that we don't need genetically modified food to survive. ;)

[Jazzratt]

I don't think I need to provide a citation for the fact that we don't need genetically modified food to survive. ;)

Not on a personal scale, of course you don't. However if you want to sustain the vast populations of humans that currently exist it might be wise to look into ways of increasing crop yeild as well as the nutritiousness of each unit of crop. I think GM has an important role to play in that.

[earth fuck]

i think that what others have siad about capitalism is true. capitalism does nothing good, and that includes gm. before we have gm we should get rid of capitalism. then we can have proper testing in place.

[Lord Testicles]

I don't think I need to provide a citation for the fact that we don't need genetically modified food to survive. ;)

No, but that's not what I was asking a citation for. I was asking for proof that GM crops are "damaging to the environment/ecosystem and unsustainable" and that they do "more harm than good." Care to back up any of these points?

[Foldered]

No, but that's not what I was asking a citation for. I was asking for proof that GM crops are "damaging to the environment/ecosystem and unsustainable" and that they do "more harm than good." Care to back up any of these points?
I see; it wasn't very clear in your pithy, witty response what you needed a citation for.
Well, I'll take something from my most recent readings, since it's convenient for me: Zapatista! Reinventing Revolution in Mexico, specifically the introduction under the subtitle "Opening the World,"
"Their [the indigenous of Chiapas] land was wanted by cattle ranchers, by oil companies, by paper producers eager to replant the jungle with fast-growing eucalyptus trees, and by capitalist planners eager to exploit the unique biodiversity of the jungle as a resource for future developments in genetic engineering" (my own emphasis) (Holloway and Palaez 1).
The words "exploit" and "unique biodiversity" coupled together in a phrase point towards the damage to the ecosystem, and of course, the "capitalist planners" points towards doing more harm than good (for workers, for the environment).
It depends where you stand, I guess, and it must be questioned as to whether the lack of respect for "the unique biodiversity" is a result of capitalism or if it is a result of the GM mindset/philosophies (personally I think the GM mindset is a by-product of capitalism, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me). I'd also like to point out that I'm hardly going out on a limb to suggest that the case of Chiapas is not a solitary one.

Is that a citation?

[JazzRemington]

That seems more like capitalist exploitation of environment, than GM foods.

[Foldered]

That seems more like capitalist exploitation of environment, then GM foods.
But in that, it recognizes the harm that GM foods place on the environment.

[JazzRemington]

But in that, it recognizes the harm that GM foods place on the environment.

Yes, because of capitalism. The aforementioned question related to whether GM foods themselves are harmful to the environment - does the roots of the plants that produce the food affect the soil in such a way that it causes damage to other plants, to they crowd-out the roots of other plants, etc. I'm not sure if there ever was a study produced that shows GM foods themselves cause damage to the environment. In fact, there was one study recently (published last month, I think) that showed GM foods had positive effects on the environment. The only downside was the overuse of a particular pesticide had lead to weeds that became resistant to it, thus necessitating more use of the pesticide (though the pesticide itself is not as harmful as others that were used).

[Foldered]

Yes, because of capitalism. The aforementioned question related to whether GM foods themselves are harmful to the environment - does the roots of the plants that produce the food affect the soil in such a way that it causes damage to other plants, to they crowd-out the roots of other plants, etc. I'm not sure if there ever was a study produced that shows GM foods themselves cause damage to the environment. In fact, there was one study recently (published last month, I think) that showed GM foods had positive effects on the environment. The only downside was the overuse of a particular pesticide had lead to weeds that became resistant to it, thus necessitating more use of the pesticide (though the pesticide itself is not as harmful as others that were used).
Of course there are counter-arguments, but I am not pulling this stuff out of thin air. Yes, people have said that GM foods have a positive effect on crops due to biodiversity, or something.
If there were no problems cause by GM foods, and it was simply attributed to capitalism (as you've argued the quote I pulled is suggesting), then I doubt there would have been such an emphasis on the fact that lands are being exploited for GM crops.

Taken from a review of Claire Hope Cummings' Uncertain Peril: Genetic engineering and the future of seeds:
"according to Cummings,the process of genetic engineering is still "haphazard," relying on "luck" and "some fairly primitive techniques." Cassettes containing gene traits from other organisms, viral promoters, genetic switches, and bacterial markers are inserted into the cells of thousands of target plants. The "happy accidents," or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), that survive insertion and appear normal are then cloned. "
"In 2000 Ignacio Chapela and David Quist from the University of California accidentally discovered GMO contamination of local corn crops near Oaxaca, Mexico—the birthplace of corn and, thus, its locus of supreme genetic diversity Chapela and Quist published their findings in Nature, cautioning that transgenics might not be as stable and predictable as previously thought."

[Mumbles]

I just watched this TED talk and thought it was fitting for our discussion. Even though he doesn't go into the economics of genetically modified food he basically helps assert the fact that it isn't "immoral" or dumb to do.

The talk on Genetically modified foods starts around 12 minutes, but the whole thing is pretty awesome. http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html