Genetically Modified Organisms

This is one GMO case out of many, I dont believe all GMO foods are dangerous or negative to the human populace however when we are splicing genes that may not have been compatible naturally we need to take a cautious approach. There need's to be strict and rigorous testing to ensure the safety of said product especially over the long term.

As it is Golden Rice has still been going through testing and said testing has been limited, Feeding a person a GMO product for a limited time is not going to give you a solid understanding of possible future implications, Using 68 children aged 6 - 8 for a study to show it's safety wont win you any positive points from people.

In fact the people tested with Golden rice were largely healthy people, The target community is largely unhealthy and as such usually lacking the stuff needed to absorb Vitamin A, So even if put out there for third world nations there is no guarantee it would make a difference.

Also should be noted the original Golden rice was created using Japanese rice variants which fare poorly in asian fields so until it can be transferred into other rice variates it is useless to put it out there for commercial use if most crops will fail.

 

You're making stuff up. If you lack vitamins, the cure is to take vitamins.

It should be noted that Golden Rice has been hybridized to grow in every part of Asia, and yet millions are still dying because the anti-GMO movement thinks they should eat organic carrot instead.

 

More then welcome to disagree but when you call me a liar directly or indirectly I start losing respect for the person especially if they can't back it up but rather just assume the person is lying all because they have a different view point.

Vitamin A along with other vitamins need's to be absorbed into the system, TO do so the body needs certain types and amounts of nutrients. Is a regular occurrence that those from third world nations where your targeted group resides lack not just Vitamin A but also very common to lack the nutrients needed to absorb Vitamin A into their system.

Should also point out too much Vitamin A can black the absorption of vitamin K so testing to find out of it is safe to eat is only half the solution, Need to test to ensure it doesnt effect your bodies ability to take in other vitamins.

No, It is being attempted to be hybridized at the moment with results thus far showing it performing poorly.


In any case Golden Rice that you hail as the answer to all the worlds problems would be a poor choice, Producing only 35 micrograms of vitamin A per every 100mg of rice is a poor return when there are other just as easy to grow alternatives with higher returns. Add on to that that vitamin A deficiency is only part of the problem, Concentrating solely on that and ignoring the rest will still leave the third would suffering for decades, Need's to be a mixed diet, Not just cram some vitamin A into them and think the world will magically become all healthy..

 

No, it isn't just as easy to grow alternative foods. Look at the population density of some of these countries. Look at the return of calories per acre for various foods. They'd starve if they drained their rice fields to plant vegetables. Then look at the basic fact that these are rice eating people. They aren't going to change their culture to please some westerner. They are going to continue to eat rice and if they can't have fortified rice they'll continue with the white rice. And the children will continue to die and go blind.

 

And they keep dying...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/11/greenpeace-hysteria-campaign-scares-chinese-into-retreat-on-nutrition-enhancing-gmo-golden-rice/

 

I see you guys have a new (Genetically modified) bone to chew on. As long as you keep it gentle it will be there, but I'd rather go the WW2 topics.

 

Ok lets look at the average amount produced per an acre, Depending on world location rice per an acre is currently coming in at around 2.5 - 3.5 ton, Carrot on the other hand is being produced with about 10 ton per an acre.. So in the purely numbers game golden rice is coming in last. There would be no starvation as you like to think.

Saying they wont change their eating habit's doesn't carry much weight considering how highly western food is sought after, If they had been unwilling to change their eating habit's then Australia would not be exporting billions upon billions in agriculture to Asia annually with demand still growing.

 

But your definition is completely arbitrary and we don't really know the impact of "natural" genetic maniulation yet either. Indeed I seem to recall reading that wheat is a rather wierd hybrid of a couple of different grains that probably was fostered by humanity.

It's only a better solution if it is practicle. Some places it likely is some it probably isn't.

So you wish to preclude one solution because you think that there are others? How widely applicable are your solutions?

Actually it wasn't. His point was that there are nutritional problems that Golden Rice might solve. If you can't propose a solution that works for those whom the Golden Rice solution likely will then you are effectivly writing off a solution to that problem.

Again we see opinion instead of fact. GM's are and have been used ti improve the situation in areas of poor nutrition. They also are being used to improve the financial situation of farmers (which isn't that great at least in most places in the US) and even more so the big commercial company(s) manufacturing them. There are many different programs and the some of them will benefit more than one group. Indeed to be fully successful they should benefit more than one group.

Except the ideal growing conditions for Carrots and Golden Rice are not necessarily the same are they? Will carrots even do well in areas where rice does?

Actually it does. Eating habits can be changed but they are often a matter of whim and it isn't always easy to do. For instance "brown" rice is know to be more nutritious than "white" rice and since it doesn't involve extra processing actually cheaper to produce. It's not the preferred or generally consumed form though. Governement or foreign sponsored changes in eating habits tend to be looked on with some suspicion. That doesn't mean that they are impossible but it doesn't mean that they are easy either.

 

Considering what genetic engineering that occurs through the natural process that have can be traced back thousands of years I'd say we have a handle on if they are dangerous or not. Thousands of years of natural manipulation vs a couple decades of forced manipulation in a lab with lax testing, Ill take the natural manipulation thanks.

Practical locations, Fair point however since carrot farming is already taking place in South East Asia, China, India etc I'd say carrot's are a practical solution as they already add it to their dishes. Turns out they also grow spinach, cabbage which both have a higher vitamin A amount and larger crop size per acre then rice/golden rice.

GM's being used to improve area's of poor nutrition? I have yet to see actual proof of that but rather that human nutrition has gone down hill compared to earlier years when everything was all natural, But if you can prove me wrong please do so.

Improve financial situations of farmers? Perhaps in the US but then this just has a negative knock down effect on the rest of the world. Trying to hold the 'moral' high ground that it is helping farmers when said work is directly keeping third world farmers from being able to compete doesn't hold any weight in my book. Farmer's should be able to adapt and create efficiency, We have down here in Australia and New Zealand getting little to no support and though struggling due to drought are no worse off then US farmers yet US farmers apparently need massive amount of government funding and GM crops to survive.

Well as I pointed out Carrots are already being grown in nations with rice production, Specifically they are being grown in Vietnam which is the worlds 2nd biggest rice producer so I'm leaning towards they will do fine, At the very least they are doing better there then what golden rice has done so should warrant further testing on where can grow.

So they wont eat carrots (which they already do) because they are different just as we/they dont eat brown rice because its different yet they will magically take up eating golden rice?

Im not against GM food's however since the late 20th century and up until now we have been told time and time again that certain things are safe to eat, that they are good for you etc etc only to learn years later that they are far from good for you and actually harming you. Add onto that that much of the GM food's have lax testing and commonly fail to show results of said testing just puts GM foods into the no go section for me. If GM wants to make head way then they should take the lead and propose strict testing to show it's safety and release full results of said tests to the public.

 

I dunno, but would rather err on the side of caution.
Why the push-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-hatfield/new-analysis-of-wikileaks_b_3306842.html

 

Way i see it any company that need's to get their government to lobby and apply pressure for their own benefit rather then relying on their own merit should receive a straight out life ban from operating in said country.

 

Would 29 years of study and 100 billion test subjects satisfy you?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

 

Board ate my first attempt at responding to this hopefully this response will be abit better. Have to look on the bright side of things ....

We have "a handle" on the "natural process" but we have one on the lab processes as well all be it not as firm of one. The lab manipulations are designed to produce a genome that is beneficial to humanity in at least some sense. Natural processes have no such goal.

Saying you can grow crop x in a country is by no means adequate to say with confidence that you can replace crop y with crop x in general or indeed for a particular purpose. A friend of mine grew an archaic wheat crop in Michigan for a while. He stopped because his yield was not always sufficient to plant next years crop much less allow for any significant consumption. I strongly suspect for instance that carrots wouldn't do well in rice paddys. That's not to say there aren't benefits to having significant variation in crops and that those benefits are not restricted to neutrition. Simplistic analysis such as presented above however is not really all that useful.

Well since proof has already been presented in this thread I don't know what more one can do. Simply put if GM crops supply nutriants that are needed or in demand then they can improve nutrition in that area. I'm not sure what you mean by "earlier years" if you mean before comercial fertilizers, herbecides, and insectisides you are wrong. The incidence of the varius malnutritional diseases and for that matter famine have decreased considerably with the advance of modern farming. Todays netiritonal problems are not so much a matter of "natural" foods as bad life styles (lack of exercise and too much high calorie food). Again subsisting on "organic" foods probably is healtier but it's not a life style that all can follow.

Yes indeed improve the finaincial situation of farmers and not just in the US. Indeed probably more farmers in other countries have their icmoes improved than farmers in the US. First of all some of these crops are developed by univerisities primarily for 3rd world farmers. Even the ones by the large agricultural firms are in many cases for farmers in other countries. Going off on a diatribe vs US agricultural policies is not only off topic it's not even clear it's valid. For instance some of the largest subsidies are things that take produce out of the market or don't allow it in in the first place. Lacking an in depth analysis it's certainly premature to decry the US agricultural policy in that respect.

I really don't think the point I was trying to make was that unclear. There are definite social biases toward or against certain foods. Not acknowledgeing that and saying that you can just substitute one food for another is being naive. Now if "Golden Rice" looks like white rice there shouldn't be any problem if it looks like brown rice then you likely have a problem. Trying to get them to eat say maize instead of rice may or may not be a problem or it may depend on how it's presented. For instance there is the, perhaps apocraphal tale of how the King of Poland got his people to eat potatoes. My impression was that you and at lesat some of the others that argue against GM foods were just waiving away this issue.

It dates to earlier than that. Having a balanced well varried diet seams to be the best in the long run (nothing I've ever seen indicates that is unhealthy). GM's can be of some utility in that regard as they can allow foods to be grown in areas they couldn't be previously indeed they can allow crops that were previously uneconomical to grow to be grown economicly. Not to say that there probably won't be problems but the knee jerk reaction against GM crops is hardly warrented IMO.

What do you consider "lax testing"? Given the liabilities involved I certaily would call that to question. How many people do you think would really understand the tests or the results? Who should collect this data, store it, and indeed make it available? Why should more be required of them than other parts of the food industry? I personally would rather eat GM food than foods containng corn syrup as I view the latter a much more significant health risk. yet even that in moderation is probably not a huge risk.

 

See the end of my post #19.

Not specifically. AFAIK Syngenta is not the sole operator in this field.

Interesting link you provided. Do you agree with the other views of that link...?

"

• Delay on dealing with climate change exposes us all to much greater risk. We should hold responsible those whose ideology-driven denial of climate change is responsible for some of that risk.
• Resistance to anything to make it harder for bad guys to get guns puts us all at risk. Society should hold responsible the paranoid arch-conservatism that has created resistance to any prudent gun control and contributed to that risk.
• Parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids put others in their communities at risk. They certainly should be held accountable for this, and in some places, that’s beginning. Several states are trying to pass laws making it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their kids."

Von_Noobie has already done better work than I could have done myself in answering your replies.

 

There is a guy who thinks wheat has been modified a bit too much. ..Makes sense that corp's would want us to consume more of their product. Doing a fine job of it. There are a lot of fat folks around.
Wheat Belly. ..My Dr was not a lot of help. Feel so much better after trying to eliminate wheat (it's in everything almost)...Would encourage anyone who has a bloated gut, large (beer) belly-even though not consuming a lot.
I lost 30 pounds in the first 3 months. No more rashes, the ladies were interested again, felt/looked way better. Very difficult to weed the wheat out.
Wheat has changed drastically, even from the 60's. Did some work for a retired scientist who was employed at our research facility here in town. Buddy was adamant that there are deep issues with seeds. He was in his 80's, been around the block.
Wheat Belly. Read the book. I'm interested.
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/

 

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may2014/farmers-report-better-animal-health-non-gmo-feed.php

You say GMO feed all safe, Then why are farmers reporting better health and improved herds when switching from GMO feed to non GMO feed?

 

There could be a number of reasons. Looking at your source it's an "organic" proponent web page. That suggest a pretty high likelyhood of bias. Then the article is completely anecdotal. All of the following are possible:
1) There is no difference in the feeds and the results are due to:
a ) biases of some sort (selection bias, suggestion bias, outright fabrication, etc.
b ) random events
c ) Other events (such as eliminating ceratin adatives)
d ) some combination of the above
2) There is a difference in the feeds but it isn't necessarily related to the GMO aspect of the feed. I.e. if they replaced a low grade (are there high grade) GMO food with a high grade non GMO food then the above is hardly surprising.
3) There really is something wrong with the GMO feeds that is directly attributable to thier GMO nature.
4) Again some combination of the above.
Given the site I would bet on 1 although I wouldn't be surprised at either 2 or 4 and 3 is certainly possible just not very likely IMO.

 

The question was; would 29 years of study and 100 billion test subjects satisfy you? And apparently the answer is "No." If that is not enough then there is no threshold high enough to satisfy you.

 

Simple matter is while some GM products may work not all do, Are you honestly advocating giving GMO's a free ride for all products just because a few work? As it is though they may not work as well as advertised, If the end users (farmers) are starting to turn away from them then perhaps they are not as good as you think them to be.

I would be satisfied with a working product that has been fully tested that has no adverse health effects with all results full public knowledge, We may not understand all the chemicals involved but I'm pretty sure we all understand statistics.

So no I'm not satisfied yet, But yes I can be satisfied. No I will not follow GMO blindly because a few may work.

 

Very true it could be one of the above but when you say due to the nature of the site that it is likely not a GMO issue I could just as easily state due to the nature of the site (Big business) posted by KB that they too are spinning it.

I'm not saying that they may not be fudging it to make GMO look bad but could be just as easy other way around, Big business has a history of spinning stuff to line their own pockets at the expense of the consumer.