Genetically Modified Food - Your Opinions Please?

[Sir Comradical]

Is the problem GM technology? Or the capitalist application of GM technology?

In Section 1, Chapter 15 of Capital, there's a section where Marx criticises John Stuart Mill's disillusionment with technology. Mill thinks that the point of technological innovation was to 'lighten the day's toil', that is to make life easier for the workers. Marx basically says that the purpose of technological innovation under capitalism is not to lighten the load but to produce greater surplus-value. It seems that Marx believes the problem lies in the capitalist application of technology, not the technology itself which is presumably neutral.

So, are you prepared to make this argument for GM foods? That is to argue that the problem isn't genetically modifying food per se, but rather the capitalist application of GM technology?

I want to know what the Anarchists think about this, actually.

[pdcrofts]

Perhaps GM foods have their uses, if they are controlled properly. By that I mean rigorous trials and testing before use, and proper safeguards during production. This is a bit like nuclear power, which can arguably be beneficial to society if stringent safeguards are adhered to - but of course the capitalist warmongers turn it to other uses. Just like the greedy corporations use GM foods for their own advantage.

[scarletghoul]

GM food is an amazing opportunity and we would be stupid to miss it. Think of all the great scientific/humanitarian advances that could be made. We could make food that grows better and faster in poorer conditions, food that resists diseases, that reproduces easier, that tastes nicer, has more nutrition, etc etc. It could make food easier to grow in areas where it's currently scarce, and it could also improve quality of food.

The technophobia that many on the Left exhibit in this case expresses a liberal/conservative fear of 'interfering with nature/god' and so on. This is utterly wrong. As long as we know what we're doing (ie, understand the genes that are being changed and so on) then what is the problem ? The Left should be strongly supporting the development of genetically modified food.

[Quail]

The technophobia that many on the Left exhibit in this case expresses a liberal/conservative fear of 'interfering with nature/god' and so on. This is utterly wrong. As long as we know what we're doing (ie, understand the genes that are being changed and so on) then what is the problem ? The Left should be strongly supporting the development of genetically modified food.

There can be problems with 'interfering with nature' in that messing with the natural ecosystems can cause problems, eg. if all the bees die out, who pollinates the plants? However, as long as you're using the technology responsibly, with a good knowledge and understanding of it, I don't think that would be a problem. The major problem I can see with GM crops is that there would be less diversity between plants (because it is more efficient to clone the modified plants) which is more of a risk if new diseases appear.

[graymouser]

There can be problems with 'interfering with nature' in that messing with the natural ecosystems can cause problems, eg. if all the bees die out, who pollinates the plants? However, as long as you're using the technology responsibly, with a good knowledge and understanding of it, I don't think that would be a problem. The major problem I can see with GM crops is that there would be less diversity between plants (because it is more efficient to clone the modified plants) which is more of a risk if new diseases appear.
This is pretty good - I don't think the problem is GMO as a principle but in its application in capitalist society. Capitalism is essentially creating these giant monocultures without first figuring out what the ramifications of doing this will be, because this is the most efficient way to profit from crops. An ecosocialist approach that has as its priority balancing human need with long-term environmental sustainability would look at making regional and local crops more sustainable rather than the disastrous one-size-fits-all approach of the modern food industry.

I wouldn't say the technology is "neutral" but that its application is being done completely wrong.

[Widerstand]

This is pretty good - I don't think the problem is GMO as a principle but in its application in capitalist society. Capitalism is essentially creating these giant monocultures without first figuring out what the ramifications of doing this will be, because this is the most efficient way to profit from crops. An ecosocialist approach that has as its priority balancing human need with long-term environmental sustainability would look at making regional and local crops more sustainable rather than the disastrous one-size-fits-all approach of the modern food industry.

I wouldn't say the technology is "neutral" but that its application is being done completely wrong.

This is pretty much spot on. I definitely agree with research on GMOs, but I dare say we do not have enough knowledge yet to justify largescale application, and as such I'm in full support of anti-GMO direct action, such as destroying fields with GM crops.

Part of the technology scare in regards to GMOs is certainly unjustified, but a big part of it also strikes me as misguided anti-corporatism. Because corporations (oh hi Monsanto) use GMOs to exploit and de-facto enslave farmers all around the globe, a lot of people hate on the GMOs, when a more effective means would be attacking the laws and power structures that enable the corporations to do it, seeing as how even if GMOs were to vanish all of a sudden, they'd most likely just find a new way.

[Ovi]

The technophobia that many on the Left exhibit in this case expresses a liberal/conservative fear of 'interfering with nature/god' and so on.
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You've been telling us for some time now. I for one see no need for GMOs and look forward towards its complete abolition from agricultural use.

[Widerstand]

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You've been telling us for some time now. I for one see no need for GMOs and look forward towards its complete abolition from agricultural use.

Why?

[Jolly Red Giant]

GMO's should be banned - end of.

[revolution inaction]

GMO's should be banned - end of.

why? they are not inherently harmful.

[Tablo]

GMO's are fine as long as they have been tested and we have a clear understanding of the positive and negative aspects of ingesting it.

I'm an anarchist and I love technology. Technophobes can gtfo and die in the jungle from a mosquito bite.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

GMOs are hazardous and should be destroyed. (And not because I am a "technophobe" or am against "interfering with nature" but because GMOs were designed by the bourgeoisie as instruments of capital valorization at the expense of human health and ecological bio-diversity)

[Tablo]

GMOs are hazardous and should be destroyed. (And not because I am a "technophobe" or am against "interfering with nature" but because GMOs were designed by the bourgeoisie as instruments of capital valorization at the expense of human health and ecological bio-diversity)
Would you have an issue with GMOs if they were made by proletarians?

[LeftistLord]

What the heck? GM foods are evil, there are scientific studies by non establishment doctors that GM is plain evil and bad for the body. And you have to realize that a socialist economic system should provide goods and services not based on a profit-motive. I think that organic foods, low-carb diets, exercising, fitness, and things that are better for the health of people should be part of a socialist health system, but not GM modified foods. they are plain evil for health

.


GM food is an amazing opportunity and we would be stupid to miss it. Think of all the great scientific/humanitarian advances that could be made. We could make food that grows better and faster in poorer conditions, food that resists diseases, that reproduces easier, that tastes nicer, has more nutrition, etc etc. It could make food easier to grow in areas where it's currently scarce, and it could also improve quality of food.

The technophobia that many on the Left exhibit in this case expresses a liberal/conservative fear of 'interfering with nature/god' and so on. This is utterly wrong. As long as we know what we're doing (ie, understand the genes that are being changed and so on) then what is the problem ? The Left should be strongly supporting the development of genetically modified food.

[LeftistLord]

Hello, indeed, i love 100% anarchist-freedom of ideas and anarchist-freedom of expressions. and i hate the statinist, maoist fascism of forcing socialism and things on people. And i respect the point of view and arguments of people who say that GM is good. But i believe that GM is bad for the health. According to Dr. Mercola and some other anti-establishment doctors

.

GMOs are hazardous and should be destroyed. (And not because I am a "technophobe" or am against "interfering with nature" but because GMOs were designed by the bourgeoisie as instruments of capital valorization at the expense of human health and ecological bio-diversity)

[Tablo]

Hello, indeed, i love 100% anarchist-freedom of ideas and anarchist-freedom of expressions. and i hate the statinist, maoist fascism of forcing socialism and things on people. And i respect the point of view and arguments of people who say that GM is good. But i believe that GM is bad for the health. According to Dr. Mercola and some other anti-establishment doctors

.
But I think the point is that genetically modifying foods doesn't have to be bad. In a communist society they could be modified to the benefit of humanity, as opposed to the way they are modified for profit in our societies today.

[revolution inaction]

What the heck? GM foods are evil, there are scientific studies by non establishment doctors that GM is plain evil and bad for the body.

...

not GM modified foods. they are plain evil for health



provide scientific evidence that gm foods are inherently evil and bad for you health or stfu

[graymouser]

GMOs are hazardous and should be destroyed. (And not because I am a "technophobe" or am against "interfering with nature" but because GMOs were designed by the bourgeoisie as instruments of capital valorization at the expense of human health and ecological bio-diversity)
Within the context of capitalism, I agree, as I outlined above. What's that have to do with the prospect of careful and conscious integration of genetic modification into an ecosocialist system based on local and regional biodiversity?If you are modifying for criteria other than sheer scale you could have some real benefits, like removing harmful chemicals from food plants, enhancing others, etc. Modifying plants has always been part of human society, it just should not be done in terms of these monocultures that really wreck the local ecosystem.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

But I think the point is that genetically modifying foods doesn't have to be bad. In a communist society they could be modified to the benefit of humanity, as opposed to the way they are modified for profit in our societies today.

I've heard this argument before, but I haven't heard a scientific rationale for how this could be done exactly.

You could just as easily say "In a communist society [nuclear bombs] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

Or "In a communist society [fingerprint databases] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

Or "In a communist society [food additives] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

Which distracts from the reality, these devices are instruments of exploitation developed by capitalist society. To quote Marx:


M. Proudhon the economist understands very well that men make cloth, linen, or silk materials in definite relations of production. But what he has not understood is that these definite social relations are just as much produced by men as linen, flax, etc. Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist.

[black magick hustla]

I've heard this argument before, but I haven't heard a scientific rationale for how this could be done exactly.


shit man, i dont think it is that crazy to think that we could implant genes to make crops grow easier, or to make them more nutritious. its not that amazing. humanity has been cross pollinating crops for thousands of years. for example, maize is essentially a creation by man. in a sense, we have been doing genetic engineering for ages, and tampering with nature. GM crops is just a step above that.

[graymouser]

I've heard this argument before, but I haven't heard a scientific rationale for how this could be done exactly.
But humans have always modified plants (and animals) that we interact with for food. That was the whole agricultural revolution. Just as an example, ancient humans took the wild banana, which was a small inedible fruit the size of your pinky, and turned it into a rich food source by crossing two breeds. They probably created the dozens of varieties of wheat back in time immemorial by careful breeding. Depending on how it's cultivated and what group it is from, plants of the species Brassica oleracea can be what we would call kale, collard greens, cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage, kohlrabi or brussels sprouts. If we could continue to do this not by breeding but by deliberate planning, and carefully work the genetically modified cultivars into their environment, it would be crazy not to engage in some GM food in a socialist society.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

shit man, i dont think it is that crazy to think that we could implant genes to make crops grow easier, or to make them more nutritious.

Until there is a method of doing this that does not endanger human health or biological diversity, we should not rely on the capitalist methods to grow food.


humanity has been cross pollinating crops for thousands of years. for example, maize is essentially a creation by man. in a sense, we have been doing genetic engineering for ages, and tampering with nature. GM crops is just a step above that.Humanity has been building weapons for thousands of years, by that same logic there's nothing wrong with dumping Agent Orange on Vietnamese jungles.

As I said before, I've heard the arguments many times, have never been presented with the specific methods of replicating capitalist GMOs in a safe and harmless manner.

[black magick hustla]

Until there is a method of doing this that does not endanger human health or biological diversity, we should not rely on the capitalist methods to grow food.
it does not endanger human health at all, in the same sense growing maize does not endanger us. as for biological diversity, tbh, i dont know what you actually mean. maybe you could elabrotate?


As I said before, I've heard the arguments many times, have never been presented with the specific methods of replicating capitalist GMOs in a safe and harmless manner.
until now, there has not been scientific proof that gm food is bad for us, except the screechings of luddites.

as comparing gm food to weapons. well there is probably a ton of logical fallacies in that example. i dont think indians growing maize in order to get a nutritious crop amounts to murder but whatever man

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

it does not endanger human health at all

Incorrect.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMOSandHumanHealth.php


as for biological diversity, tbh, i dont know what you actually mean. maybe you could elabrotate? http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=676


there has not been scientific proof that gm food is bad for usYes there has, you're simply choosing to ignore the available scientific proof.


except the screechings of luddites.The "Luddites" were an early example of proletarian resistance to capitalist valorization and are undeserving of such contempt from communists.


i dont think indians growing maize in order to get a nutritious crop amounts to murderAs I have said before I am opposed to specific harmful GMO technologies engineered by the capitalist class. I am well aware that all animal and plant breeding fits under the broad and vague semantic umbrella-term of "genetic engineering", and I am not opposed to these other forms of "genetic engineering".

[Widerstand]

GMO's should be banned - end of.

I heard that one before: "Gay sex should be banned - end of".


GMOs are hazardous and should be destroyed. (And not because I am a "technophobe" or am against "interfering with nature" but because GMOs were designed by the bourgeoisie as instruments of capital valorization at the expense of human health and ecological bio-diversity)

What they were designed for, or what you claim they were designed for, rather, aside: What is it that makes you unable to understand that, despite GMO research and knowledge being severely lacking, there is actually a lot of potential in GMOs?


What the heck? GM foods are evil, there are scientific studies by non establishment doctors that GM is plain evil and bad for the body. And you have to realize that a socialist economic system should provide goods and services not based on a profit-motive. I think that organic foods, low-carb diets, exercising, fitness, and things that are better for the health of people should be part of a socialist health system, but not GM modified foods. they are plain evil for health


Hello, indeed, i love 100% anarchist-freedom of ideas and anarchist-freedom of expressions. and i hate the statinist, maoist fascism of forcing socialism and things on people. And i respect the point of view and arguments of people who say that GM is good. But i believe that GM is bad for the health. According to Dr. Mercola and some other anti-establishment doctors.

"Evil" is a moral judgement. How exactly do GM foods and your morals and values conflict?

What sets GM food apart from other technology that was invented and/or is distributed/applied for profit, but which could prove useful for a future communist society? Such as: Automobiles, refrigerators, cellphones, computers, etc.

As you keep speaking of those "anti-establishment" doctors: What exactly are "anti-establishment" doctors? And why should I trust their findings to be less biased than pro-establishment doctors? Links to those studies would of course be appreciated.

By the way, I can't recall anyone contesting that GM foods, in their current realization, bear certain health risks. Why do you think this is a permanent quality of GMOs which can't be fixed in the future?


I've heard this argument before, but I haven't heard a scientific rationale for how this could be done exactly.

? What scientific rationale do you need to believe that crops growing in more hostile conditions giving more nutrition is a good thing? Can you tell me a scientific rationale for why GMOs are by default bad then?



You could just as easily say "In a communist society [nuclear bombs] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

No. A bomb is a weapon. A GMO is not a weapon, though I won't say they can't be. But the underlying mechanics of nuclear bombs could certainly be modified to the benefit of humanity: Nuclear power plants come to mind.



Or "In a communist society [fingerprint databases] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

Well, it is primarily a surveillance tool. Are GMOs a surveillance tool?



Or "In a communist society [food additives] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

It depends entirely on what kind of food additives. Nutrition supplements could be food additives. Existing food additives with upsides and downsides could be modified so as to reduce or completely negate the negative aspects. It's mostly a matter of time and research.

Here, let me give you more example sentences to have fun with:

"In a communist society [computers] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

"In a communist society [cars] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

"In a communist society [the internet] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

See where I'm getting?



Which distracts from the reality, these devices are instruments of exploitation developed by capitalist society.

So, according to you, we should do away with everything that was developed by capitalist, or any other exploitative, society and start from scratch? Enjoy your primitivism.

How are GMOs inherently an instrument of exploitation? Surely they are used as such, but then again, so are a lot of things which aren't inherently "exploitative": Books come to mind, anyone remember the Bible?


To quote Marx:

I fail to see the relevance of that quote to our discussion. You could interpret certain parts in certain ways that support your argument, but no. That's no good enough. In fact that's no better than Christians quoting obscure stuff from the Bible to support homophobia.

[graymouser]

I think folks are not hitting on the crucial differentiation here. Genetically modified food in a capitalist system is radically different, for obvious and non-obvious reasons, than GM food in a socialist system would be. GM is not inherently evil, but on the other hand it should not generally be trusted in capitalist society. This isn't Luddism, it's just common sense. Companies like Monsanto really do not have human health as their main concern, it's pure bottom line for them. If creating food that is unsafe or even totally unknown in terms of its effects improves the bottom line, they will do so until stopped. They are being used to create monocultures that disrupt local ecosystems in ways that previous cultivation never did. So I don't think there is a case for using them in the context of capitalism.

What anti-GMO folks don't seem to embrace is that this does not reflect on their actual potential if used correctly. This should be seen as an amplified extension of traditional breeding methods - if those are acceptable in socialism, then GMO should be as well. It's not fundamentally different. What changes is who is doing the modification, and why. And that makes 100% of the difference.

[Widerstand]

I think folks are not hitting on the crucial differentiation here. Genetically modified food in a capitalist system is radically different, for obvious and non-obvious reasons, than GM food in a socialist system would be. GM is not inherently evil, but on the other hand it should not generally be trusted in capitalist society. This isn't Luddism, it's just common sense. Companies like Monsanto really do not have human health as their main concern, it's pure bottom line for them. If creating food that is unsafe or even totally unknown in terms of its effects improves the bottom line, they will do so until stopped. They are being used to create monocultures that disrupt local ecosystems in ways that previous cultivation never did. So I don't think there is a case for using them in the context of capitalism.

What anti-GMO folks don't seem to embrace is that this does not reflect on their actual potential if used correctly. This should be seen as an amplified extension of traditional breeding methods - if those are acceptable in socialism, then GMO should be as well. It's not fundamentally different. What changes is who is doing the modification, and why. And that makes 100% of the difference.

Well as I said earlier, people are confusing cause and effect. People here seem to think that because GMOs are inherently unsafe and exploitative (cause), capitalist companies use them (effect). This is wrong.
The cause is that companies want profit, the effect is that those companies utilize GMOs in a way that is both unsafe and exploitative. This is however not a characteristic of the GMOs, but a characteristic of the companies, and can be observed throughout history as a such. Abuse of innovate science for profit is hardly limited to GMOs.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

I heard that one before: "Gay sex should be banned - end of".

I don't see the correlation between GMOs and gay sex. (Unless you're Evo Morales. ;))


there is actually a lot of potential in GMOs?There is "a lot of potential" for ecological catastrophe and human illness.


Automobiles, refrigerators, cellphones, computers, etc.According to the NHTSA, in 2009, automobile crashes killed over 33 thousand people in the US alone. Automobiles account for about half the carbon emissions responsible for global warming. They also emit heavy metals, formaldehyde, etc. The real estate currently used for the the automobile infrastructure (roads as well as parking space) could instead be used to feed the starving, and asphalt-paved roads are also a concern for the ecology.

Refrigerators are also an unnecessary waste of energy in terms of both production and operation.

Cellphones allow capitalist law-enforcement to spy on the masses. There is also a growing body of evidence, that has gotten the attention of mainstream press as of late, that cellphones cause cancer.

Computers require heavy metals to produce, they're also a waste of energy, etc.

None of these technologies are "evil", (in fact the use of cars, cellphones, and computers is necessary in the long-term strategy of overthrowing the bourgeoisie) but in my opinion it would be a positive impact on both the ecology and human society to scale them back.


crops growing in more hostile conditions giving more nutrition is a good thing?This is not an accurate description of GMO technologies


Can you tell me a scientific rationale for why GMOs are by default bad then?Weaving synthetic chemical toxins into the microscopic make-up of organisms to increase short-term crop outputs and therefore increase capital accumulation is harmful and unethical.


A bomb is a weapon. A GMO is not a weaponYou're misunderstanding my analogy.


the underlying mechanics of nuclear bombs could certainly be modified to the benefit of humanity: Nuclear power plants come to mind.Nuclear power plants produce nuclear waste which has a radioactive half-life of eighty million years. There's also the issue of nuclear melt-downs. Communists should not support nuclear power as a realistic means of generating energy.


Well, it is primarily a surveillance tool. Are GMOs a surveillance tool?Again, you're misreading the point I was trying to infer.


Existing food additives with upsides and downsides could be modified so as to reduce or completely negate the negative aspects.Again, they could. How would you do this, exactly?


It's mostly a matter of time and research.Perhaps. In the meantime I support all efforts to remove the capitalist instruments of exploitation from our daily lives.



So, according to you, we should do away with everything that was developed by capitalist, or any other exploitative, society and start from scratch? Enjoy your primitivism.No, I'm not a primitivist. I support the production of latex condoms, penicillin vaccinations, eyeglasses, antibiotics, insulin injectors, and dozens if not hundreds of other modern technologies necessary for human health.


That's no good enough. In fact that's no better than Christians quoting obscure stuff from the Bible to support homophobia.Deuteronomy specifically calls for the execution of homosexuals, Marx specifically calls for the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. Nothing "obscure" about it.

[Theory&Action]

I definitely agree with research on GMOs, but I dare say we do not have enough knowledge yet to justify largescale application, and as such I'm in full support of anti-GMO direct action, such as destroying fields with GM crops.

Wow. You're in favor of destroying perfectly good food in a world where roughly a billion people are malnourished. Unbelievable. Even if it only drives up the price of food by a bit, that still means certain death for people as a result.

What people don't realize is that we've been genetically engineering food for as long as humans have discovered agriculture. Selecting the biggest corn/cabbage/potato and replanting those the next year is the same process genetic modification uses. The difference is that we can now more accurately identify what genes to change. This can result in less pesticide use, larger crops, and the ability to grow in harsher climate.

The problem comes when capitalism takes hold of the process. Like cutting costs by only producing one strain of a crop - leading to increases susceptibility to disease. Or even patenting a crop (how, I don't know) and forcing small farmers to buy their product. As with all technology, it can be used for good or bad.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Wow. You're in favor of destroying perfectly good food in a world where roughly a billion people are malnourished.

Actually GMOs are a detrimental impact on long-term food output. Don't let that stop you from parroting Monsanto's lies, though...


What people don't realize is that we've been genetically engineering food for as long as humans have discovered agriculture.

We've been building shelter even longer. Can I build a concrete parking lot over-top your house?


The problem comes when capitalism takes hold of the process.

In this specific context the "process" was engineered by capitalists in the first place.

[Widerstand]

I don't see the correlation between GMOs and gay sex. (Unless you're Evo Morales. ;))

The statement is constructed in a similar manner: Claim -> (lack of argument) -> demand.



There is "a lot of potential" for ecological catastrophe and human illness.

By researching them in a laboratory? Really?



None of these technologies are "evil", (in fact the use of cars, cellphones, and computers is necessary in the long-term strategy of overthrowing the bourgeoisie) but in my opinion it would be a positive impact on both the ecology and human society to scale them back.

No one was arguing against an ecologically sustainable approach to technologies...



This is not an accurate description of GMO technologies

Then what, according to you, is an accurate description?



Weaving synthetic chemical toxins into the microscopic make-up of organisms

What exactly are you talking about? I am aware of no method of creating transgenic organisms that does what you just said. Most specifically, what exactly are these "chemicals toxins" you are talking about? Sources please, especially on actual GMOs created with those toxins.


to increase short-term crop outputs and therefore increase capital accumulation is harmful and unethical.

It is. I'm saying that GMOs are not solely a way of increasing capital accumulation. Can you outline why you think they are?


Again, they could. How would you do this, exactly?

Research. I'm no scientist though. I'm neither an expert on biotechnology nor on nutrition, nor on environmental sciences.


Perhaps. In the meantime I support all efforts to remove the capitalist instruments of exploitation from our daily lives.

Again, how are they inherently an instrument of exploitation? I know that they are used as such. In fact I stated in my first post in this topic that I support crop destruction. But why should we stop research?


Deuteronomy specifically calls for the execution of homosexuals, Marx specifically calls for the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. Nothing "obscure" about it.

It's pretty obscure how "the abolition of the capitalist mode of production" is somehow the same as the abolition of GMOs.

[Widerstand]

Wow. You're in favor of destroying perfectly good food in a world where roughly a billion people are malnourished. Unbelievable. Even if it only drives up the price of food by a bit, that still means certain death for people as a result.

That those people are malnourished is not because there is a food shortage. In fact there is an abundance of food. That it doesn't reach the malnourished people has a variety of reasons, which all can be summed up as: Capitalism. A lot of it is thrown away, because people don't/can't pay for it, or fed to animals, which bring greater profit.


What people don't realize is that we've been genetically engineering food for as long as humans have discovered agriculture. Selecting the biggest corn/cabbage/potato and replanting those the next year is the same process genetic modification uses. The difference is that we can now more accurately identify what genes to change. This can result in less pesticide use, larger crops, and the ability to grow in harsher climate.

Well I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear: When I'm talking about GMOs, I'm talking about transgenic organisms almost exclusively.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've heard this argument before, but I haven't heard a scientific rationale for how this could be done exactly.

You could just as easily say "In a communist society [nuclear bombs] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

They could be used in nuclear pulse drives (http://orbitalvector.com/Deep%20Space%20Propulsion/Nuclear%20Pulse%20Drives/Nuclear%20Pulse%20Drives.htm) for interplanetary spacecraft. Their very high specific impulse would make them very good at hauling large loads quickly between planetary bodies. This would make it massively easier to establish extraterrestrial colonies.


Or "In a communist society [fingerprint databases] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

Pattern recognition software can be used to recognise & catalogue inanimate objects.


Or "In a communist society [food additives] could be modified to the benefit of humanity".

Emergency rations.


Which distracts from the reality, these devices are instruments of exploitation developed by capitalist society. To quote Marx:

They can be put to better use; we just need to be clever and persevere.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You've been telling us for some time now. I for one see no need for GMOs and look forward towards its complete abolition from agricultural use.

See what I'm saying is this. Under capitalism, GM technology produces seeds with suicide genes, plant DNA is modified so that more pesticides can be sprayed. This happens because under capitalism, the point isn't to make the food more nutritious, but to generate more profits. Maybe a socialist system would be able to reinvent GM technology in its own image?

Similarly, under socialism, labor-saving technology would mean that everyone does less work. Under capitalism however, the same technology throws workers out of work and forces the existing workforce to work harder.

Maybe the technology is neutral?

[Sir Comradical]

I think folks are not hitting on the crucial differentiation here. Genetically modified food in a capitalist system is radically different, for obvious and non-obvious reasons, than GM food in a socialist system would be. GM is not inherently evil, but on the other hand it should not generally be trusted in capitalist society. This isn't Luddism, it's just common sense. Companies like Monsanto really do not have human health as their main concern, it's pure bottom line for them. If creating food that is unsafe or even totally unknown in terms of its effects improves the bottom line, they will do so until stopped. They are being used to create monocultures that disrupt local ecosystems in ways that previous cultivation never did. So I don't think there is a case for using them in the context of capitalism.

What anti-GMO folks don't seem to embrace is that this does not reflect on their actual potential if used correctly. This should be seen as an amplified extension of traditional breeding methods - if those are acceptable in socialism, then GMO should be as well. It's not fundamentally different. What changes is who is doing the modification, and why. And that makes 100% of the difference.

Bingo! I didn't want to focus too heavily on the science (because I don't study biology), this was essentially the kind of conclusion I was looking for.

I'll be honest, I'm not against GM technology per se. I'm against the capitalist application of GM technology.

[Ele'ill]

Here we go again

[Ele'ill]

Actually I agree with much of what has been said in this thread so far.

Competent GMO :thumbup1:

GMO as a back up :thumbup1:

Thorough GMO research :thumbup1:

GMO labeling :thumbup1:

[The Red Next Door]

we are dying slowly because everything is GM.

[Sir Comradical]

we are dying slowly because everything is GM.

?????

[Ovi]

See what I'm saying is this. Under capitalism, GM technology produces seeds with suicide genes, plant DNA is modified so that more pesticides can be sprayed. This happens because under capitalism, the point isn't to make the food more nutritious, but to generate more profits.

That's the whole point of GMO's. While many have delusions of GMO plants 10 times more productive and 100 times better, real life is somewhat different. I once read an article about GMO's and the conclusion was that most transgenic plants were actually less productive by 3-10%; Something like this one (http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/%7Echristos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html) or this one (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ge-fails-to-increase-yields-0219.html)

Despite claims from the biotech industry and academic researches, there is no indication that biotechnology will solve the shortcomings of industrial agriculture. Compared to the novel and untested crop systems that biotech corporations are pushing as the only solution to food security problems, organic farming has many advantages. The majority of genetically engineered crops currently in cultivation do not appear to show higher yields. For example, contrary to claims by Monsanto, a recent study by Dr. Charles Bendrook, the former director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans do not increase yields (Bendrook, 1999). The report reviewed over 8,200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 7-10% less than similar natural varieties. In addition, the same study found that farmers used 5-10 times more herbicide (Roundup) on Roundup Ready soybeans than on conventional ones. There are largely 3 types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food) of genetically modified plants: Bt type (basically they create their own pesticide) , plants engineered to resist glyphosate and other pesticides which would otherwise would be too toxic for plants and plants resistant to certain viruses. The problem with this approach, other than safety issues, is one of sustainability. Pests have already started to acquire resistance (http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops) to the Bt varieties and current pesticides. Like monocultures don't already have plenty of problems due to lack of plant diversity, extreme lack of diversity in a single crop as mandated by GMO's is even worse. Increasing the diversity through polyculture increased yields 32 to 85% in this study (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008049) . It will require a change in agriculture, but sustainable approaches like these not only have higher yields compared to modern agriculture, but they also dramatically reduce the negative effects on our health and the environment.

[Widerstand]

Actually I agree with much of what has been said in this thread so far.

Competent GMO :thumbup1:

GMO as a back up :thumbup1:

Thorough GMO research :thumbup1:

GMO labeling :thumbup1:

Agreed.


That's the whole point of GMO's. While many have delusions of GMO plants 10 times more productive and 100 times better, real life is somewhat different. I once read an article about GMO's and the conclusion was that most transgenic plants were actually less productive by 3-10%; Something like this one (http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/%7Echristos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html) or this one (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ge-fails-to-increase-yields-0219.html)


Nobody said that transgenic crops are perfect yet. Nobody denied that the industries using these technologies are highly irresponsible and profit-oriented and don't give two cents about whether or not their product actually has benefits as long as the prices go down.

But to use this an argument against biotechnology in general, and the creation of transgenic organisms specifically - especially when demanding ALL research should be stopped (as IIRC happened in this thread more than once) - is very shortsighted. Transgenic organisms are, so far, hardly more but regular organisms plus "alien" genetic information. This technology bears an extreme potential to do all sorts of beneficial modifications, despite it not being used that way yet.


There are largely 3 types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food) of genetically modified plants: Bt type (basically they create their own pesticide) , plants engineered to resist glyphosate and other pesticides which would otherwise would be too toxic for plants and plants resistant to certain viruses. The problem with this approach, other than safety issues, is one of sustainability. Pests have already started to acquire resistance (http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops) to the Bt varieties and current pesticides. Like monocultures don't already have plenty of problems due to lack of plant diversity, extreme lack of diversity in a single crop as mandated by GMO's is even worse. Increasing the diversity through polyculture increased yields 32 to 85% in this study (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008049) . It will require a change in agriculture, but sustainable approaches like these not only have higher yields compared to modern agriculture, but they also dramatically reduce the negative effects on our health and the environment.

This is a strawman. You are not arguing against GMOs but against modern food production standards (and I absolutely agree with your argument in the latter context):

Monoculture: Monocultural raise is not an inherent flaw of GMOs. You can have non-GMO monocultures - of course they fail rather fast. But there is absolutely nothing that prevents GM crop from being used in polycultures.

Pesticides: Again, the heavy use of pesticides is directly related to monocultures, not to GMOs. Transgenic crops are developed to be pesticide resistant because monoculture already is the modus operandi. Neither monocultures nor pesticide use are characteristics of transgenic crops.

Danger of antibiotic resistant bacteria: Again, this is not a danger restricted to transgenic plants, or GMOs in general. In fact, this danger is more prevalent in meat production (http://ipsnews.net/columns.asp?idnews=48285).

[Ovi]

This is a strawman. You are not arguing against GMOs but against modern food production standards (and I absolutely agree with your argument in the latter context):

Monoculture: Monocultural raise is not an inherent flaw of GMOs. You can have non-GMO monocultures - of course they fail rather fast.

But that's exactly the point of using GMO's. That's why there are GMO's in the first place: to strengthen monoculture and enable the use of otherwise toxic (for plants at least) pesticides. There's no point in engineering glyphosate resistant plants if you're not going to use glyphosate based pesticides.


But there is absolutely nothing that prevents GM crop from being used in polycultures.

What I'm saying is that diversity within a single crop is highly beneficial. GMO's by nature lack diversity due to the fact that they all stem from a few engineered organisms. The advantages of using GMO's within polyculture are probably null compared to conventional crops anyway. Studies such as this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-3W2598B-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10/31/1996&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=25c478ebe0d06666d4a32ab492bdfdd0&searchtype=a)show that the severity of viral diseases in plants are much lower in polyculture than monoculture. There would be no point in using plants engineered to resist mosaic viruses, if these viruses are not an issue.


Pesticides: Again, the heavy use of pesticides is directly related to monocultures, not to GMOs. Transgenic crops are developed to be pesticide resistant because monoculture already is the modus operandi. Neither monocultures nor pesticide use are characteristics of transgenic crops.

But the need of transgenic crops is directly related to monoculture and pesticides. You don't need pesticide resistant varieties if you don't use pesticides and you don't need plants engineered to resist mosaic viruses if these viruses don't create substantial loses.


Danger of antibiotic resistant bacteria: Again, this is not a danger restricted to transgenic plants, or GMOs in general. In fact, this danger is more prevalent in meat production (http://ipsnews.net/columns.asp?idnews=48285).
Of course not. It' not only GMO's that I'm arguing against, but the factors that create the need of GMO's. You can't criticize GMO's without criticizing these factors as well. Antibiotic and pesticide usage all stem from a single problem, that of intensive agriculture and factory farming. Crowding millions of animals together means that a single disease can spread among all in a matter of days. As the article you link to suggests:

In order to place pigs and poultry in such close quarters, farmers have turned to routinely feeding antibiotics to their animals not just to treat infections but to prevent bacterial disease outbreaks and promote weight gain.You can contrast factory farming with subsistence farmers. They rarely use any antibiotics at all, unpasteurized milk is actually safe to drink (since you don't have millions of liters of milk mixed together, where a single contaminated batch would contaminate all of it) and outbreaks such as the mad cow disease are impossible (though this one in particular wasn't caused only by overcrowding of cattle but also due to the fact that herbivores were being fed the remains of other animals). There are agricultural practices that allow such advantages to scale, such as organic agriculture. Organic agriculture doesn't make use of antibiotics and neither pesticides, yet it exists and is doing well.

[Widerstand]

But that's exactly the point of using GMO's. That's why there are GMO's in the first place: to strengthen monoculture and enable the use of otherwise toxic (for plants at least) pesticides. There's no point in engineering glyphosate resistant plants if you're not going to use glyphosate based pesticides.

No, that's not why there are GMOs in the first place. Of course there is no point in creating pesticide-resistant plants if you're not going to use pesticides, but to say that nothing else can be done with transgenic technology is stupid and I grow tired of explaining this. Analogy:

If everyone in the world used pens to write checks and nothing else, would that mean you can't draw pictures with them?

Transgenic organisms are organisms which have their DNA modified, usually by inserting parts of another organisms genome. There is absolutely no reason why pesticide resistance should be the only thing inserted that way. For example, there exist transgenic bacteria producing masses of lactose (the lactose producing gene was inserted), which is where pretty much all lactose in nutrition supplements comes from. The possible applications are limitless.


What I'm saying is that diversity within a single crop is highly beneficial.

Agree.



GMO's by nature lack diversity due to the fact that they all stem from a few engineered organisms.

Ah. Yes, that's an argument finally. I tend to agree. I don't see this as a reason to stop GMO research though. Further research mind find a way to increase diversity or to negate the negative effects, possibly by creating benefits that outweigh the negative aspects. I repeat myself: Transgenic crops, in their current manifestation, are far from perfect and do not deserve the level of application they currently have.


There would be no point in using plants engineered to resist mosaic viruses, if these viruses are not an issue.

But again, you seem to infer that GMOs are only crops, and that the only modifications that can be done to GMOs are resistances to virus/bacteria.


But the need of transgenic crops is directly related to monoculture and pesticides. You don't need pesticide resistant varieties if you don't use pesticides and you don't need plants engineered to resist mosaic viruses if these viruses don't create substantial loses.

I agree. Currently there is not much need for transgenic crops. But what if population continues to rise as rapidly as it does? What if a transgenic crop can be developed that actually is drastically superior in terms of nutrition? Are you saying we should stop research in such a promising field just because currently people grossly misuse it? No. It's capitalist interests that lead to bad application of this technology. It's not that the technology is inherently bad. Technology is neutral.

[Ovi]

Transgenic organisms are organisms which have their DNA modified, usually by inserting parts of another organisms genome. There is absolutely no reason why pesticide resistance should be the only thing inserted that way. For example, there exist transgenic bacteria producing masses of lactose (the lactose producing gene was inserted), which is where pretty much all lactose in nutrition supplements comes from. The possible applications are limitless.

Not sure about the lactose thing, but as I said in my first post, I only talked about using GMO's in agriculture. I see no need to produce our food using GMO's.


But again, you seem to infer that GMOs are only crops, and that the only modifications that can be done to GMOs are resistances to virus/bacteria.

Well, GMO's 10 times more productive, as I said, is a myth. Virtually the only use GMO's have today is pest management.


I agree. Currently there is not much need for transgenic crops. But what if population continues to rise as rapidly as it does? What if a transgenic crop can be developed that actually is drastically superior in terms of nutrition? Are you saying we should stop research in such a promising field just because currently people grossly misuse it?
First of all, you're talking about hypothetical situations. I was talking about the practical achievements of such technologies to this day, which are anything but impressive. There are various other uses for GMO's other than agriculture and I haven't talked about any of that. But for agriculture, I see no need for GMO's today and I seriously doubt we ever will. There's plenty of land to feed all the people in this world and we have the knowledge to do so without having to trade our well being in the process.