Why GM foods are bad...

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Only 1 proper study of its safety and that was just a short term one that found disturbing things...

This is fascinating - I found an oblique reference to a contentious GM paper being published by the Lancet some years ago which lead me here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affair

What the team found (which is published in the paper - Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine) is that the stomach wall of the rats was thickened - usually this is associated with chronic diseases or nasty allergies in humans (like coeliac disease) which often leads to cancer.

What is disturbing is that the potatoes had been engineered to contain a gene from another plant so that it would produce a particular protein. What they found is that just giving the protein mixed in with normal potatoes produced no reaction but when GM'd to produce that Protein suddenly there's this inflammation/thickening.

So basically it was the modification process itself that was causing the damage.

This opens a whole can of worms - there's no such thing as a safe GM crop - even when you add an innocuous gene you could be creating a killer.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Oh and everyone associated with this finding had basically signed the end to their career as scientists thanks to Monsanto and its very powerful backers.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
Know one knows what effects the changes in genetic structure anything has on those that consume it. But we have very little power on if it's in our food or not.. And to be honest I have bigger things to worry about
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
OMG Rynnor wuotes the Mail at his convenience

EVERYTHING we eat has been gemetically mofified and Im hard pushed to call the difference between physically moving genes or simply crossbreeding as we have done for thousands of years
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,151
Im hard pushed to call the difference between physically moving genes or simply crossbreeding

You can combine genes from species that could never be crosbred. Like the lettuce and the scorpion fish.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Genes crossbred themselves before man interfered...the only bad outcome for eating them would be if the organism developed a poison to protect itself..we are obsessed with the idea that our food is secretly damaging us when it has never been so ' healthy' in human history.
 

kirennia

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
3,857
There is no such thing as a non-GM crop. Even organic labelled crops are likely to be shipped in from other countries whereby the standards for labelling it as non-GM are vastly different from what we understand it to be. This is kind of beside the point though. If you wipe out GM crops, we have the ability to feed what, 4 billion people around the globe? Costs go up dramatically for all involved meaning third world countries whom can't necessarily grow their own crops due to their climate would suffer the most, seeing a massively higher mortality rate than they currently have through hunger and everything else that brings with it.

Personally I'd much rather a few more people died at home, even if it raised to 1 in 10,000 if we were simultaneously able to grow more food which can be managed as surplus to our requirements and shipped to help those who can't grow their own. GM is a massive boost to humanity, there is only positives in the taste of the food, we can produce much more and they are MUCH less prone to disease. There will be mistakes along the way but to even consider organic foods these days is just through misinformation. Thank you Norman Borlaug...
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Actually the world has surplus food allready..we could feed the world with a third to spare..its distribution thats the problem...we need better logistics not more food.
Modifying crop to survive in unsuitable terrain is a short term method that will turn to a holy shit pile and the companies will put up the prices to fix the problem..the scam.is ad old as the hills..its not conspiracy theory..its how it works..just like printer manufacturers
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
There is no such thing as a non-GM crop. Even organic labelled crops are likely to be shipped in from other countries whereby the standards for labelling it as non-GM are vastly different from what we understand it to be. This is kind of beside the point though. If you wipe out GM crops, we have the ability to feed what, 4 billion people around the globe? Costs go up dramatically for all involved meaning third world countries whom can't necessarily grow their own crops due to their climate would suffer the most, seeing a massively higher mortality rate than they currently have through hunger and everything else that brings with it.

Personally I'd much rather a few more people died at home, even if it raised to 1 in 10,000 if we were simultaneously able to grow more food which can be managed as surplus to our requirements and shipped to help those who can't grow their own. GM is a massive boost to humanity, there is only positives in the taste of the food, we can produce much more and they are MUCH less prone to disease. There will be mistakes along the way but to even consider organic foods these days is just through misinformation. Thank you Norman Borlaug...

No GM crop has actually shown an increased yield in the real world yet - its a common misconception based on marketing hype.

There are plenty of non GM crops?

We can feed everyone quite happily if we chose - we have excess already so its not really a case for GM.

GM crops are bankrupting farmers in Africa and elsewhere due to reliance on expensive bought in seed - if a crop fails they are screwed.

You really have sucked down a lot of Monsanto propaganda sadly :(
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
You can combine genes from species that could never be crosbred. Like the lettuce and the scorpion fish.

Yes and its more complicated than that - you can't just transfer 1 gene - the techniques rely on using other genes in the mix so you end up with 3 or more plants combined to transfer 1 gene.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,251
Somebody's swallowed the anti-GM book of bollocks whole and passed a bowlful of shite.

You need to stop reading the anti-Monsanto conspiracy sites.

I'll get round to correcting if I can be arsed. Just remember that most of what those sites publish is outright lies and the rest is just misleading.
 

Raven

Fuck the Tories!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,678
I am not sure I like the idea of fucking about with viruses or making bugs resistant to this that and the other but I think a lot can be done with GM regarding nutrition, famine resistance, speed of growth etc. It's not a massive leap from what we have been doing for millennia. If it wasn't for fucking about with selective breeding and whatnot we would still be grubbing about for scraggy tubers and eating what is essentially grass.

As for the likes of Monsanto, this stuff isn't cheap to research. It can only be done by a large corp and a large corp won't do it for free.

Until this magical utopia where everything is free and dogs shit rainbows, springs into existence I can't really see any other choice.
 
Last edited:

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Somebody's swallowed the anti-GM book of bollocks whole and passed a bowlful of shite.

You need to stop reading the anti-Monsanto conspiracy sites.

I didn't read any of them unless you count Wikipedia.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
First off,

Only 1 proper study? Disturbing results?

There have been hundreds of studies. Like this one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513007102

In 1999 when that one I referred to was posted it was apparently the first study of the effects of a gm crop on health of its consumer even in animals.

Also no subsequent criticism has actually denied the facts of what was found and confirmed in followup experiments (they had to follow up because the company involved seized all the data and legally blocked them from referring to the initial experiments).
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
One of the studies that anti-GMO campaigners hype debunked. Will they stop citing it? Of course they won't:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...nion-of-concerned-scientists-consumers-union/

Again - interesting but the GN protein case shows a real danger of public interest and shows exactly what lengths the GM producers were willing to go to, to crush any dissent from the party line that all GM is perfectly safe - do you really think there is no possible case where GM crops could harm anyone even after evidence to the contrary?
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
The obvious problem with GM foods is that evolution has been playing this game for 3 billion years and we seem to think we can cheat the system by making rather obvious and simplistic adjustments to the playing field..resistance to this and that lasts one generation and a bug generation is a matter of weeks...as soon as the new supet crop is released evolution will begin its unstoppable destruction of it.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353

This is pure and simple a loss leader to get their foot in the door and counter the anti GM lobby - its certainly not charity - its a PR campaign.

I imagine they will test this one rigorously because it will be under the spotlight but it should not blind people to the many problems both economic and health related of GM crops.

There's also a big discussion of exactly how much vitamin A will remain after cooking and suggestions that simple supplementation may well be cheaper and more effective.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom