I didn't think that eating weird DNA is going to do much. . . after all, genetically modified organisms are just normal animals combined with other normal animals.
Good. I hope they genetically engineer their foods. If they need testers, sign me up. Whoever made that needs a life like no other. Quit being afraid of things that will not hurt you!
Edit: I'm not very bright and I spelled some stuff wrong.
I didn't think that eating weird DNA is going to do much. . . after all, genetically modified organisms are just normal animals combined with other normal animals.
Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property
Domination of world food production by a few companies
Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
Biopiracy?foreign exploitation of natural resources
Ethics
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Stress for animal
Labeling
Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
Society
New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries
How can eating genetically altered foods hurt you? It's not like you get your DNA from food, it just gives you nutrition. Now if that food happened to be poisonous...
I'm sure kraft just figures they have to do that to be able to keep the title of cheesiest!
How can eating genetically altered foods hurt you? It's not like you get your DNA from food, it just gives you nutrition. Now if that food happened to be poisonous...
I'm sure kraft just figures they have to do that to be able to keep the title of cheesiest!
look at my post above.
edit: The process by which food is genetically modified is recombinant dna. If you remember from HS biology there enviromental factors that can cause an organism to absorb DNA segments, this is often how mutations are formed, most mutations formed this way lead to health problems
One of the other problems related to genetically altering organisms is the imbalance you create in the habitat/environment of those organisms. The problem is that they hardly ever know what other consequences (side effects) changing some or other part of the DNA will have beyond the foreseen and intended.
It's not hard to imagine badness: fixing tomatoes to be bigger and redder, but without knowing it, you'd make them loose their poisonousness to beetles and locusts. And then they'd start booming, and before long, you have a veritable Egyptian plague of these insects. (this is a completely fictional example, but you get my gist).
Another case: Monsanto develops a new kind of corn that is massively resistant to a certain type of kill-all toxin used to deter other organisms from feeding on the corn. However, the corn cannot withstand any other herbicides and such. The kicker: Monsanto owns the patents on the one type of toxin you can use in conjunction with that corn, and vice versa. Monsanto bullies large and littler famers into using their suite of agricultural products. To those who want only corn, they get to sell insecticide and herbicides. To those who want only insecticide and herbicide, they get to sell corn. That's unethical business.
One of the other problems related to genetically altering organisms is the imbalance you create in the habitat/environment of those organisms. The problem is that they hardly ever know what other consequences (side effects) changing some or other part of the DNA will have beyond the foreseen and intended.
It's not hard to imagine badness: fixing tomatoes to be bigger and redder, but without knowing it, you'd make them loose their poisonousness to beetles and locusts. And then they'd start booming, and before long, you have a veritable Egyptian plague of these insects. (this is a completely fictional example, but you get my gist).
Another case: Monsanto develops a new kind of corn that is massively resistant to a certain type of kill-all toxin used to deter other organisms from feeding on the corn. However, the corn cannot withstand any other herbicides and such. The kicker: Monsanto owns the patents on the one type of toxin you can use in conjunction with that corn, and vice versa. Monsanto bullies large and littler famers into using their suite of agricultural products. To those who want only corn, they get to sell insecticide and herbicides. To those who want only insecticide and herbicide, they get to sell corn. That's unethical business.
Thanks head-guy. Good post. In respect of unforeseen effects on environment, there are now indications that GM crops can make certain crops poisonous to beneficial insects that rely on them. Massive use of the crops could wipe out large populations of these insects (an issue specifically has been raised with butterflies). Also, despite the assurance of the pro GM-science community, there are now indications that that some GM crops are replicating on their own and transferring their genes through cross-breeding. The consequences of this are unknown. GM crops are a terrible idea.
There are certainly valid concerns on the side of the anti-genetic-engineering crowd, but as usual, the ones voicing their opinions the loudest are radicals, and they are going to be received as such.
I see this as no different than the cross-breeding of plants and animals that humans have undertaken for centuries. If you think a single organic product you buy in the store or grow in your garden got to be what it is naturally without human intervention, you are sorely mistaken. You don't think your toy poodle evolved that way naturally,do you? Mixing genes to get what we want has always been a cornerstone of civilization. We've just found a faster, more efficient way to do it now.
Will there be undesirable consequences? Quite possibly. Just as there might be if we kept on doing things the old way. Humans are shapers, and often destroyers, of the environment. We should definitely think and act more responsibly, but we should not be narrow-minded and xenophobic. It's just a shame that moderates (in pretty much all issues, not just this one) are too busy actually getting on with their lives to voice a more sensible opinion.
especially because WE DON"T KNOW!!! We don't know about the 1st order causal consequences mush less second and third etc etc
and simply thinking about the myriad directions that can be effected you would be intellectually and morally irresponcible if you didn't question the possible ill effects . . . .
we may regret these 'experiments' more than thalidomide and animal-cattle-feed . . . .
especially because WE DON"T KNOW!!! We don't know about the 1st order causal consequences mush less second and third etc etc
and simply thinking about the myriad directions that can be effected you would be intellectually and morally irresponcible if you didn't question the possible ill effects . . . .
we may regret these 'experiments' more than thalidomide and animal-cattle-feed . . . .
I'll even listen to radicals if they'll take the time to use proper SPELLING AND GRAMMAR.
The consequences of stepping out your front door in the morning are unknown. The consequences of having a child are unknown -- look how bad many of them turn out to be. Should we stop having children until we've found a way to ensure that they all grow up to be kind, thoughtful, law-abiding citizens?
It's not enough to say the consequences are unknown. You have to have some way of evaluating the possible risks vs. the possible benefits. While perhaps some people aren't being cautious enough with genetic engineering, there seems to be an attitude on the opposing side that says "If I can dream up a bad scenario, then you shouldn't do anything until you can absolutely prove to my (perhaps completely technically unqualified) satisfaction that you've eliminated all possible imaginable danger."
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR (quote of a quote):
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Call me insensitive, but I can't get all worked up about "violating" a tomato or an ear of corn. Nor does it generate enormous concern for me that some hardcore vegan might be upset about his broccoli containing a protein that came from lobster.
anyone can make a flash like that, hell why not make one that says Apple's LCD's have devices that shoot gamma radiation into customers, turning them into hulks and killing PC users when the time is right?
Comments
Then again, maybe that's just a reaction to something I ate.
Edit: I'm not very bright and I spelled some stuff wrong.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I hope they genitally engineer their foods. If they need testers, sign me up.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I didn't think that eating weird DNA is going to do much. . . after all, genetically modified organisms are just normal animals combined with other normal animals.
Called Hot Dogs
Controversies
Safety
Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property
Domination of world food production by a few companies
Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
Biopiracy?foreign exploitation of natural resources
Ethics
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Stress for animal
Labeling
Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
Society
New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries
From this site.
I'm sure kraft just figures they have to do that to be able to keep the title of cheesiest!
Originally posted by ast3r3x
How can eating genetically altered foods hurt you? It's not like you get your DNA from food, it just gives you nutrition. Now if that food happened to be poisonous...
I'm sure kraft just figures they have to do that to be able to keep the title of cheesiest!
look at my post above.
edit: The process by which food is genetically modified is recombinant dna. If you remember from HS biology there enviromental factors that can cause an organism to absorb DNA segments, this is often how mutations are formed, most mutations formed this way lead to health problems
It's not hard to imagine badness: fixing tomatoes to be bigger and redder, but without knowing it, you'd make them loose their poisonousness to beetles and locusts. And then they'd start booming, and before long, you have a veritable Egyptian plague of these insects. (this is a completely fictional example, but you get my gist).
Another case: Monsanto develops a new kind of corn that is massively resistant to a certain type of kill-all toxin used to deter other organisms from feeding on the corn. However, the corn cannot withstand any other herbicides and such. The kicker: Monsanto owns the patents on the one type of toxin you can use in conjunction with that corn, and vice versa. Monsanto bullies large and littler famers into using their suite of agricultural products. To those who want only corn, they get to sell insecticide and herbicides. To those who want only insecticide and herbicide, they get to sell corn. That's unethical business.
Originally posted by der Kopf
One of the other problems related to genetically altering organisms is the imbalance you create in the habitat/environment of those organisms. The problem is that they hardly ever know what other consequences (side effects) changing some or other part of the DNA will have beyond the foreseen and intended.
It's not hard to imagine badness: fixing tomatoes to be bigger and redder, but without knowing it, you'd make them loose their poisonousness to beetles and locusts. And then they'd start booming, and before long, you have a veritable Egyptian plague of these insects. (this is a completely fictional example, but you get my gist).
Another case: Monsanto develops a new kind of corn that is massively resistant to a certain type of kill-all toxin used to deter other organisms from feeding on the corn. However, the corn cannot withstand any other herbicides and such. The kicker: Monsanto owns the patents on the one type of toxin you can use in conjunction with that corn, and vice versa. Monsanto bullies large and littler famers into using their suite of agricultural products. To those who want only corn, they get to sell insecticide and herbicides. To those who want only insecticide and herbicide, they get to sell corn. That's unethical business.
Thanks head-guy. Good post. In respect of unforeseen effects on environment, there are now indications that GM crops can make certain crops poisonous to beneficial insects that rely on them. Massive use of the crops could wipe out large populations of these insects (an issue specifically has been raised with butterflies). Also, despite the assurance of the pro GM-science community, there are now indications that that some GM crops are replicating on their own and transferring their genes through cross-breeding. The consequences of this are unknown. GM crops are a terrible idea.
I see this as no different than the cross-breeding of plants and animals that humans have undertaken for centuries. If you think a single organic product you buy in the store or grow in your garden got to be what it is naturally without human intervention, you are sorely mistaken. You don't think your toy poodle evolved that way naturally,do you? Mixing genes to get what we want has always been a cornerstone of civilization. We've just found a faster, more efficient way to do it now.
Will there be undesirable consequences? Quite possibly. Just as there might be if we kept on doing things the old way. Humans are shapers, and often destroyers, of the environment. We should definitely think and act more responsibly, but we should not be narrow-minded and xenophobic. It's just a shame that moderates (in pretty much all issues, not just this one) are too busy actually getting on with their lives to voice a more sensible opinion.
the effects can be huge
especially because WE DON"T KNOW!!! We don't know about the 1st order causal consequences mush less second and third etc etc
and simply thinking about the myriad directions that can be effected you would be intellectually and morally irresponcible if you didn't question the possible ill effects . . . .
we may regret these 'experiments' more than thalidomide and animal-cattle-feed . . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
your wrong
the effects can be huge
especially because WE DON"T KNOW!!! We don't know about the 1st order causal consequences mush less second and third etc etc
and simply thinking about the myriad directions that can be effected you would be intellectually and morally irresponcible if you didn't question the possible ill effects . . . .
we may regret these 'experiments' more than thalidomide and animal-cattle-feed . . . .
I'll even listen to radicals if they'll take the time to use proper SPELLING AND GRAMMAR.
GM - No good for:
Crops. We grow more than we can eat and eat more than we need.
GM - Good for:
Puppies that remain small cute and cuddly throughout their lives. The Monsanto Labrador would sell sh*t-loads.
Originally posted by Chinney:
The consequences of this are unknown.
The consequences of stepping out your front door in the morning are unknown. The consequences of having a child are unknown -- look how bad many of them turn out to be. Should we stop having children until we've found a way to ensure that they all grow up to be kind, thoughtful, law-abiding citizens?
It's not enough to say the consequences are unknown. You have to have some way of evaluating the possible risks vs. the possible benefits. While perhaps some people aren't being cautious enough with genetic engineering, there seems to be an attitude on the opposing side that says "If I can dream up a bad scenario, then you shouldn't do anything until you can absolutely prove to my (perhaps completely technically unqualified) satisfaction that you've eliminated all possible imaginable danger."
Originally posted by LiquidR (quote of a quote):
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Call me insensitive, but I can't get all worked up about "violating" a tomato or an ear of corn. Nor does it generate enormous concern for me that some hardcore vegan might be upset about his broccoli containing a protein that came from lobster.
[Edit: fixed odd line breaks]
anyone can make a flash like that, hell why not make one that says Apple's LCD's have devices that shoot gamma radiation into customers, turning them into hulks and killing PC users when the time is right?