At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
A lot of Genetically Modified Crops are increasing day by day. Most of the vegetables that we eat daily are Genetically Modified. Researchers modify or manipulate the genes of these plants in order to boost their productivity and/or make them resistant to pests, cold, drought etc. But there is a saying, “Every coin has two sides” which could mean that these GM crops may also have some bad impact on the human race. Let’s find out how we will be able to complete this discussion…:)
I never understood why people are against GMOs. They allow us to make more productive plants and thus allow us to feed more people. Who could possibly be against that?
Ok feeding people is a good point. But how do we conclude without even knowing how safe it is? Has modifying genes proven to be a success all the time? And the health risks associated with it is also unknown, or it may also become disastrous one day.
I would like to understand the affects of GM crops on the environment and the people. There are unanswered questions regarding regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs
Are GMOs not made by implanting genes from one organism into the other? if the protein that these genes code for are not detrimental to humans in one organism, why should they be in another? Is there really any case today of a GMO which turned out to be harmfull to people?
This is really an interesting discussion.
A study which took place in 2010 has found out a toxin which is Cry 1Ab which is a Bt protein in the foetal and maternal blood. The Bt toxin is commonly used as pesticides in organic farming. There are also studies which have shown that the DNA from the GM crops were transferred into human beings. whole genes from our food were detected in our plasma. There are also many more studies which have proven to make GM crops harmful to humans.
Some gluten disorders/allergies have also been linked to GMO's
First of all, I believe the study that you meant is this one: https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf This study is known to be flawed as this post on biofortified explains: http://www.biofortified.org/2011/04/nonsense/ In order to get the levels of CRY1ab that the researchers reported the pregnant women should have eaten multiple kilos of corn. Also, even if CRY1ab could get into maternal and fetal blood, this substance is toxic only to insects and has no harmfull effect whatsoever on humans. As for the DNA transferring, I do not know of a study that claims that DNA can be transferred from GM crops to humans. There are, however, those that say that DNA can be transfered into the blood plasma, but that is normal for digested DNA and not in any way harmfull to us. GMO DNA is not known to behave different from other DNA and has no reason to. Additionally, I would like to know where you got the information that GMOs can cause gluten allergies for i cannot find it anywhere. Finally, we as humans have been manipulating the genes of our crops for thousands of years by the procces of artificial selection. There is no reason to believe that GMOs as a whole should be considered dangerous just because they are made in a lab.
Also, we must not forget that GMOs allow for a lower amount of pesticides to be used, allow us to manipulate foods in order to increase nutrients such as vitamins that are essential to humans and will increase our production of food which can be used to feed thirth world countries
Also, you have to see when Genetically modified, not engineered, foods started becoming a prominent source of industry, particularly in California. Up till now there has not been a significant effect on the human population due to genetically modified foods, atleast not to my knowledge.
As far as what you've said, we humans used to manipulate genes in the ancient times but Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by humans outside breeding and mutations has only existed since the 1970s. And Why mess with mother nature? Have our ancestors used genetically modified crops for food? More than half of the world's population are suffering from diseases which were not at all reported earlier ? And yeah,if you think the lack of food is what leads to povery, its a huge NO, Its because of the financially harsh economy that had lead to such a condition
Think about the cost it takes to produce "organic" when half the time things are not even organic.
But where is solid proof that the world's population that is suffering from these so called diseases is generated solely by genetically modified foods?
And @Jhannybean , why take a risk. Japan had succeed in making a lot of Power using the nuclear power reactors. And then what had happened later after a Tsunami ? The entire city had to be vacated. humans are very good at manipulating nature, and it had shown very well with Disasters..
What i meant to say is Mother nature is not someone whom we should play with, it could lead to serious consequences.
We humans have "messed with mother nature" since we got into existance. Even the invention of fire is messing with mother nature. And as for the diseases maybe that is because we have a completely different lifestyle now and have many more humans now than earlier.
@Jhannybean , and do you have a proof to say that its NOT caused by GMO's?
Theres plenty of natural incidents that happen, you can even blame mother nature for creating The Dust Bowl in the mid 1930s.
Nope,I don't have proof, therefore I can't legitimately claim that GMOs are a probably cause to that kind of situation.
do you have any proof that it is NOT caused by watching TV or using cellphones?
Im just debating :) No hard feelings alright? Just making sure :P
yeah everybody is still friends hihi
A debate is supposed to be like this
But as for manipulating mother nature, that is what we humans do and have always done since the invention of fire.
the thing is, those opposed to genetically modified foods have such a small case study done on the harmful effects caused by genetically modified foods. The GreenPeace campaign uses more propaganda rather than facts to promote how awful GMOs are, even though they sound like theyre pro environment and such.
Rats tested in a private lab in 2008 and fed GMO foods showed heart blockage, cancer and died at an earlier age than those who were fed organic foods
oh I that study has been severely discredited, they used rats that were very prone to cancer already and multiple mistakes where made in the experiment
ignore the oh I please
an overview of the critisism on that study can be found here: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/republished-retracted-seralini-corn-rat-study-faces-harsh-criticism-from-scientists/
If GM crops are so good for humans, Then why has the The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) Technology) recommended doctors not to use prescribe GMO diets?
These three GMOs (MON810, MON863 and NK603) "are approved for human and animal consumption in the EU and especially the United States," notes Professor Séralini. "MON810 is the only one of the three grown in certain EU countries (especially Spain); the others are imported - Coming from The EU, whom have broken off trade with The United States over genetically modified foods in mass production due to the GMO controversy claim that there are some exceptions
Look through this, :) https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/socioeconomics_impacts_of_bt_eggplant/download/Socioeconomics%20Impacts%20of%20Bt%20Eggplant.pdf
So only 3 GMOs to be consumed ? What about the others? So in other words they are not approved as yet. This shows that our researchers are very good at manipulating genes, but very bad at showing the public about its health issues
A lot of organisations don't think GMOs are a problem like for example the World Health Organisation who says "current varieties of GM foods are not likely to present risks for human health, in addition no effects on human health have been observed as a result of a consumption of such foods by the general population"
Perfection was made by nature, not by humans.
so you say that we should all go back and live like we did back in 100.000 BC?
But a lot of organisations also think that GMO's are bad , as i had mentioned earlier
Why not leave nature alone, why play with it. Thank god we humans were not there at the Jurassic Era, or we would have made it into a jurassic Park..:p
"perfection is not made by humans" is an argument that can be used against science in general and we both know that science has been beneficial to humans raising both our quality of living and the avarage life expectancy.
So we should say that humans are perfect?
No we shouldn't it is just because humans are not perfect that we should keep on trying to find ways to make our lifes better.
If we were so perfect, the would have been no poverty, discrimination and other social evils taking place now
Instead we are making our lives worse
So what you are saying now is that science is not beneficial but harmfull to humans?
modern medicine saves millions of lives all over the globe how could that not be beneficial?
Science has its both pros and cons. We humans are supposed to use it wisely. and yeah, the are many pros but equal number of cons too..the list is endless
Think about it, if we used Science for only good purpose, we would not have any evils taknig place now right?
The evil aspects of GM crops mmay not be visible now, but it will surely affect our future generation
im not saying science is all good im saying science overall has had a positive influence on our lifes and even if some GM crops would be bad, which is not true, then its effects would be tested and it would not be allowed on the market. There is no reason whatsoever to think that GM crops as a whole are bad. In fact thinking that GM crops are bad and banning them is the true danger for future generations as they will then not be able to have its benefits.
Testing mechanisms are a waste, large Multinational Companies bribe the specific officers responsible for the approval and sell them to make millions, while billions like us suffer. And one fine day when we get some incurable diseases like cancer, they ban them citing some issues
I'll be back soon. I'll keep this Question Open for more suggestions
If the people are afraid that a specific GM crop might be bad an independant study will follow which will show whether the GM crop is detrimental to humans Also, i will stop debating futher as i think that all issues have been discussed and futher chat will have no usefullness. I think that i have shown that any study you brought forth that says GM crops are bad is easily refuted. Also I think that i have shown that there are no ethical problems with GM crops whatsoever. Finally I think that I have shown that GM crops will have an immense positive effect on future generations. I think that the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that GM crops are safe and even beneficial for humans and the use of GM crops should be futher supported by govornments.
no problem it was great debating with you!! good luck with futher debates and/or other posts!!
If I am allowed to state my two cents, that Genetically Modified Food may be harmful to some of your body cells. GMO I would say is actually bad and has really no good advantages. Unless they give you super powers. As you have said before, though they feed more people but there not safe, this means the more people who eat it, the more that will become in danger of the GMO.
Thanx @GeniousCreation for ur suggestion. Good to see that there are atleast some people opposing GM crops here..:)
Instead of GM crops, why dont we stick to Organic Farming? The very natural growth of vegetables without the use of dangerous pesticides. Its Atleast very safe right?
It's informative to note that more than 3,000 grains, fruits and vegetables have been “created” in a laboratory by subjecting them with gamma rays and/or highly toxic chemicals to artificially scramble their DNA–and have since been marketed as organic.
I am strictly opposing the idea of making GMOs . I know there are safety precautions and biosafety protocol. But there are potential risks to human as well. Like for an example there are tomatoes which are genetically modified to delay ripening process right? The vectors used in forming that contains antibiotic resistance gene. So imagine us eating those ! Those genes may pass from tomatoes to the Ecoli bacteria in the gut making it antibiotic resistant . Since bacteria leave the gut in faeces the gene may spread to other bacteria in the environment and if they infect humans they would be antibiotic resistant too right?
not only that right? So imagine transgenic plants passing their new genes to close relatives in nearby wild areas through pollen transfer. If crop plants carrying genes resistant to herbicide diseases or insect pests pollinate the wild ones, the offspring might become "super weeds" that are very difficult to control.Therefore there is a danger of unintended transfer of genes through cross pollionation to produce herbicide resistant weeds
There are certain social issues as well right? Like domination of world food production by a few companies of developed countries and bio piracy. Description : Companies that produce GM Pants attempt to patent them right? So basically the farmers have to pay royalties to sow the crop. Old method of preserving some seeds of one harvest to be used for the next season can not be practiced with this system. Farmers have to buy new seeds every year. This will badly affect the poor farmers in under developed countries
There are issues regarding ethics also. one aim of genetic engineering is to increase the growth rate and yields of animals like cattle pigs and sheep right? There are many harmful effects of unregulated production of GM on the health of those animals. They are affected by heart and kidney diseases. So I personally think it is very stressful for the animals concerned. And have you all heard about the oncomouse? It is a transgenic mouse . They are containing a oncogene ( cancer causing gene). They develop tumours easily and are used in cancer research. I hate how these people think of themselves as being superior to other animals and thinking that they have the right to exploit other organisms for their own benefit. So basically we are violating intrinsic values of organisms. But what right have we got to change another animal's unique genetic constitution ? We are tampering with nature by mixing genes among species! Do we have the right to change the genetic constitution of an organism that has been evolving for billions of years? Give it some thoughts!
I'm sorry I went out of the topic GM food! Sorry about that. I'm a little controversial
since it was about food there can be objections by vegetarians to consume animal genes in plants right?
Some can produce new toxic substances and that might lead to allergic reactions.!
Sorry for being controversy!
@GeniousCreation that all GMOs damage your body cells is just downright not true. There are many GMOs like golden rice that have been approved and are completely safe for consumption. In countries in south East Asia millions of people per year go blind because of vitamin A deficiency. In the example of golden rice normal rice was engineered to make more vitamin A and safe people from going blind. How could this be bad? It was known that golden rice was safe to eat and it would be beneficial to the people. Is it not truly evil to deprive the people of this food they need so much? @rushwr First of all, as far as I can google, those tomatoes had only one antibiotic resistance gene in them. There exist well over 150 kinds of antibiotics so I think even if this process where to happen, the damage would be very minor. Also, is there any proof that this transfer of genes from food to bacteria to other bacteria happens? And if it does happen it might take ages for it to complete. And if all that doesn’t work, then we might just have to stop these tomatoes from entering the market (these tomatoes are not being sold). No reason to give up on GMOs only because some tomato that is not even sold had something in it that might eventually have some bad consequences if you were to eat it. Second of all, yes super weed creation is a problem but not one that cannot be overcome, we can stop insects or wind from pollinating nearby plants (by for example only making GM crops in greenhouses) or we could kill the plants that could potentially get pollinated by these plants. Even though there is this one problem, we shouldn’t completely give up on GM crops. Also, plants made by artificial selection might get genes that protect them against insects and those could be spread by pollination. If you are against GM crops for this reason, shouldn’t you also be against artificial selection? Third of all, yes some GM companies do bad stuff and this is a big problem and I am against these companies. But you shouldn’t confuse being against companies like Monsanto and being against GM crops. Obviously there is more regulation needed from governments to keep these companies from doing bad things but that doesn’t mean GM crops are a bad thing. Furthermore I think that whether and how companies should be kept from doing evil things is not completely relevant to this discussion. Additionally, I think that the discussion of GMOs outside of plants is indeed irrelevant. The GM crops could be labeled so vegitarians would know if there are animal genes in them although I do think that if you don’t even want to eat something that has ever been in an animal at all you might be overdoing the vegetarian thing. I don’t think that there are GM crops that do produce toxic substances and can pass through regulation but if you know an example I would be pleased to hear of it. Finally I think that opposition to GM crops is mainly based on fear. Fear for technology, fear for process, fear for science and fear for anything that is made in a lab. All inspired by the ever-exaggerating modern media. GMOs can do a lot of good in the world and thus are the future of biological research and although we should be cautious of things that can go wrong like the creation of superweeds we should altogether embrace them.
And there is a potential risk of BT gene containing plants affecting beneficial insects. And I'm not sure how practical it is to stop cross pollination.
And it also have lots of unknown effects on biodiversity
eg; Genetically modified fish such as giant salmon. If by any chance they escape in to the sea they may affect the balance of the wild salmon population. ( A gene from the fish called OCEAN POUT has been added to salmon to activate its GH gene . Then the salmon grows to 30 times its normal weight.)
@niels5x9 I realized that I was out of the topic so I mentioned my apologies earlier itself. :) Sorry if u had to go thru all !
First of all, the Bt genes might affect beneficial insects, but because we use Bt genes we can use much less insecticides which would actually harm insects more. Biodiversity of the crops might decrease but that is an effect that could only negatively impact the crop producers so they will be stimulated to find a way to keep up the biodiversity. Salmon is not a GM crop but extra regulation make sure that salmon couldn’t escape into the sea would do it, otherwise these giant salmon would probably not survive in the wild as they are actually less adapted to the environment than the wild type salmon
DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchersemphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2) In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.
It's not GM crops are useless they are useful up to a certain point but the thing is it has more risks than benifits
Whatever it may be, some more news that Dr. Thierry Vein, a former Pro-GMO, who used to say that GMO's are a boon to Earth, has now started opposing this entire fact. He had retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. He had assured that GMO's were very safe. There was, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats. You may be able to find some unscientific ways to tell that was wrong too, but this has come from the very words from an Ex-GMO scientist itself.
that study was used and refuted earlier in the discussion: "There are, however, studies that say that DNA can be transfered into the blood plasma, but that is normal for digested DNA and not in any way harmfull to us. GMO DNA is not known to behave different from other DNA and has no reason to." The study you quoted was not done specifically on GM DNA btw but on any kind of DNA I still havent seen a single good reason to give up on GM crops while they have so much benefits for our society!!
Its in his own words. Here it goes.."In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food. I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat. There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat. Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others. We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies. The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S. There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely."
Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong. The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.
GM stuff were actually presented 20 years ago I guess or some what like that. I am pretty sure we will have some sort of a bad effect on our future generations due to all these.
@shreehari499 Saying my ways of refuting your arguments that GM crops are bad are "unscientific" is just namecalling. Personally i have the feeling that the reason you say this is because you have no scientific way to disprove my arguments.
We don't see it as it is a little new. 20 years is not something big right? So yep that's my view on this. So I said it .
I showed my reasons above
Isnt it scientific proof to hear it from the Scientist's words itself? @niels5x9 ?
And may i please know the scientific ways to prove that GM corps are good for health?
Okey this is a lot for me to read through so give me some time please
The main reason GM food are used is because, they are economical, pest resistant and you can modify it however you want to adapt to the market. For example, seedless grapes, seedless banana.
now they have GM durian that can grow regardless of seasons too
I would suggest you guys to have a glance at a book named 'Seeds of Deception' by a well known author called Jeffrey Smith, a researcher of GMO's on the Risks and Dangers of GMOs.
this is kinda stuff generally depends on whether you debate from the view of health reasons or money reasons
Actually there is a risk of new toxic substances to be produced. And aso allergic conditions.
First of all I still think it was bad to call my ways unscientific and I ask for you to withdraw that. Second of all, this one researcher that is against GMOs is heavily sponsored by anti-GMO groups. He has spoken out against GMOs many times and all of those times the researches he quoted have been discredited for a variety of reasons related to multiple breaches of the scientific method. Also, it is no wonder that there are scientists out there who think GMOs are bad but there are also scientists out there who think climate change isn’t real. The truth is that the huge majority of the scientists think that GMOs are not bad. Additionally I think it is wrong in this argument to make some kind of claim to authority like that. If GMOs are bad shouldn’t you be able to show it yourself instead of hiding behind somebody else? Furthermore regarding shreehari499 comment on the “naïve science involved in GM crop making” I think that companies are under enough pressure to improve their science for that is how they make a living. Also if GMOs make toxic substances than why don’t you give examples? You can keep quoting pseudo-scientific discredited researches and I can keep showing why these researches were flawed all day but I have not heard you arguing against any of my points so far. The things that can be achieved using this technique are immense and the public is scared into believing this new technology s bad by the modern media.
They are scientifically proven ! Even if I didn't attach those. That is a fact. So withdrawing is the thing I won't do.
There is a misunderstanding here i was talking about a statement by shreehari499: `You may be able to find some unscientific ways to tell that was wrong too, but this has come from the very words from an Ex-GMO scientist itself. ` see he calls me unscientific Also I think that you have not mentioned a single research or argument that i have not shown to be wrong. If not than please tell me which one(s).
Instead of just finding wrong doings in our arguments, why dont you give your experimental proofs to show how healthy GM foods are?
although i think that the burdon of proof is on you guys here as you make the claim that there is something wrong with the food but just to get home my point, there are over 2000: of them http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/ clicking 1783 studies will give you an excell document with a lot of studies showing no harm in GMOs. But why you don't hear of these studies is that the modern media isn't interested in them because they are not dramatic enough.
First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Heath Organization (WHO) defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural way. GM plants are usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide tolerant. With these changes come some potentially problematic environmental challenges. Firstly, toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used commonly with GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants. GMOs may be toxic to non-target organisms, bees and butterflies being the most talked-about examples currently. Bees are hugely important in the pollination of many food crops, but are unfortunately extremely endangered by modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops. Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and butterflies, birds are also at risk from pesticides, and work as biological control agents and pollinators, again, like bees. Furthermore, the longterm effects of GMOs are not certain. Pests that are targeted by these agricultural methods can adapt to pesticides and herbicides, in addition to the DNA changes in GM plants to make them ¨resistant.¨ This means that they will not always be effective, but their toxic legacies will remain. Cumulative effects of products such as GMOs are important to take into consideration. Evidence also suggests that small genetic changes in plants may produce even larger ecological shifts, meaning that there is potential for GMO´s to become persistent and weedy in agricultural conditions, since they are modified to be resistant to some modern agricultural techniques. This can also mean being invasive in natural settings, where GMOs, of course, do not occur naturally. It is not impossible for new, human modified, plants to become invasive species in delicate, natural ecosystems. Finally, biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put at risk by GMOs. When GM crops are planted, generally in a monocrop fashion, many heritage seeds are no longer used. The nature of GMOs means fewer weed flowers and, therefore, less nectar for pollinators. Toxins released into the soil through the plants´ routes mean fewer soil bacteria, which are integral to healthy soil for plants to grow without the use of chemical fertilizers. Toxic residues are left in the soil of GM crops. Nutrients are not returned to the soil in mono crops and from GMO foods, meaning that soil is becoming dry and void of all nutrients, generally integral to the growing process. A cycle of dependence on GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is then created in order to grow a single crop. In addition to soil issues, the irrigation used to grow GM foods naturally carries all of these problems into water sources and into the air. This exposes different bacteria, insects, and animals to the same problems. All of these impacts must be taken into consideration in the larger picture; GMO´s DNA may end up in soil, compost, animal feed and byproducts, and other living organisms from insects to larger pests. Bees can transport pesticides, herbicides, and DNA through the air into the environment. Once a plant is introduced in an agricultural environment, it is reasonable to assume it will become part of a larger ecosystem, meaning the problem of environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than simply potentially harming our health. Aside from environmental issues, GMOs are the topic of social and ethical debates as well. It goes without saying that we live in an inter-connected world, where the way we interact with nature can cause a complex array of consequences. Being informed on the food we are consuming, and the way modern agricultural techniques are affecting the environment, is one effective way of consciously interacting with the natural world.
@niels5x9 And if u didn't realize my making GMOs we are tampering with nature. Do we have the right to tamper with other organism's unique genes?
Most recently, the EPA approved a toxic herbicide wingspantail known as Enlist Duo, a blend of glyphosate and 2,4-D, to be used on genetically engineered corn and soybean crops in six Midwest states with consideration for adding ten more states. The use of glyphosate-based herbicides, especially Monsanto’s Roundup formulation, has increased dramatically since the introduction of genetically modified (GM) glyphosate-tolerant crops, resulting in the contamination of our food, environment and water supplies. Glyphosate-based herbicides are now the most commonly used herbicides in the world. It is still promoted as ‘safe’, despite damning evidence of serious harm to health and the environment.
Widespread use of glyphosate has led to the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds covering an estimated 120 million hectares globally in 2010. So far, 23 species of weeds have been recorded, forcing Monsanto to acknowledge the problem and protect their profits by declaring that their warranty does not cover yield losses. Glyphosate-resistant weeds are threatening the utility of glyphosate and glyphosate-tolerant crops. Resistant weeds are likely responsible for increased herbicide use. Argentinian use went from 2 to 20 litres per hectare between 1996 and 2010. Glyphosate-tolerant crops, as well as other crops grown subsequently in the same fields are affected by glyphosate’s metal chelating properties. Chelation and immobilisation of metal micronutrients such as manganese damages physiological processes in the plant including disease resistance and photosynthesis. Numerous diseases including Goss’ wilt, Fusarium wilt, and Take All are now widespread in the US. More than 40 diseases have been linked to glyphosate use. Reduced lignin content in glyphosate-tolerant crops leads to reduced water retention, requiring more water, and severely compromising yields during drought years. Soil biology is strongly disrupted by glyphosate, which is toxic to many beneficial micro- and macro-organisms including earthworms. It harms a wide range of microbes, those producing indole-acetic acid (a growth-promoting auxin), responsible for mycorrhizae associations, phosphorus & zinc uptake; microbes such as Pseudomonads and Bacillus that convert insoluble soil oxides to plant-available forms of manganese and iron; nitrogen-fixing bacteria Bradyrhizobium, Rhizobium; and other organisms involved in the biological control of soil-borne diseases. Glyphosate may be retained and transported in soils, with long-lasting cumulative effects on soil ecology and fertility, especially in northern ecosystems with long biologically inactive winters. Glyphosate’s high water solubility makes aquatic wild-life very vulnerable. Lab studies showed extreme toxicity, killing many frog species. Roundup decreased the survival of algae and increased toxic bloom-forming cyanobacteria, hence accelerating the deterioration of water quality especially in small water systems. Indirect effects through habitat disruption are also a concern, as highlighted by the major decline of Monarch butterfly populations whose larvae feed on milkweed that are largely destroyed by glyphosate applications in the US. Livestock illnesses are linked to GM diets, and include reproductive problems, diarrhoea, bloating, spontaneous abortions, reduced live births, inflamed digestive systems, and nutrient deficiency. This has translated into much reduced profit for farmers. Contamination of ground water supplies as well as rain and air has been documented in Spain and the US, threatening our drinking water, leaving people vulnerable to exposure. Berlin city residents were recently shown to carry glyphosate levels above permitted EU drinking water levels.
Monsanto and the European Commission (EC) have known about birth defects since the 1980s. Industry studies found statistically significant skeletal and/or visceral abnormalities as well as reduced viability and increase in spontaneous abortions in rats and rabbits exposed to high doses of glyphosate. Lower doses were later shown to cause dilated hearts. The EC dismissed all the findings. Independent studies have since found caudal vertebrae loss in rats treated with sub-lethal doses of the herbicide; as well as craniofacial abnormalities, increased embryonic mortality and endocrine disruption, abnormal onset of puberty, and abnormal sexual behaviour and sperm count in male offspring of mothers exposed during gestation. GM soybean-fed female rats gave birth to excessive numbers of severely stunted pups, with over half of the litter dead by three weeks, and the surviving pups were sterile. Non-mammalian animals exposed to glyphosate resulted in increased gonad size, increased mortality, craniofacial abnormalities correlating with abnormal retinoic acid signalling, and reduced egg viability. In vitro exposure to glyphosate resulted in endocrine disruption and death of cells of the testis, placenta, and umbilical cord. A long term in vivo study on rats found females exposed to Roundup and/or Roundup Ready GM maize were two to three times as likely to die as controls and much more likely to develop large mammary tumours, while males presented large tumours four times controls and up to 600 days earlier. Clinical data from Argentina are consistent with lab findings of increases in birth defects and cancers in regions with large areas cultivating glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Endocrine disruption has been observed in both in vivo and in vitro studies in the laboratory, including abnormal levels of testosterone, aromatase enzyme, testosterone and oestrogen receptors, leutinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone. Endocrine disruption can lead to cancers and reproductive problems. Epidemiological studies have found links to cancer including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and increased plasma cell proliferation. Cancer rates have risen in in glyphosate-use zones in Argentina. Lab studies found significant increases in interstitial cell tumour incidence in rats as well as skin tumour-promoting activity. Numerous lab studies including those performed by industry showed glyphosate damages DNA of cells in culture as well as in humans living in glyphosate-sprayed regions of Argentina. Non-mammalian studies found defects in cell cycle checkpoints and DNA damage repair machinery. DNA damage is a major prelude to cancers. AMPA, the glyphosate metabolite, also has genotoxic effects. Neurotoxicity effects include Parkinsonism have emerged following acute exposure. Exposure to glyphosate resulted in oxidative stress in lab animals and death of neuronal cells, correlating with Parkinsonian pathology. Acute exposure in fish resulted in acetylcholine esterase (AChE) inhibition. An epidemiological study linked glyphosate -exposure to Attention-Deficit-Hyperactive disorder in children, a disorder associated with AChE inhibition. The original neurotoxicity studies carried out by industry were ruled invalid by the US Environment Protection Agency and urgently need re-examining by independent scientists. Internal organ toxicity has been documented in animal feeding studies with glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Rats suffered kidney abnormalities including renal leakage and ionic disturbances, and liver pathology including irregular hepatocyte nuclei, and increased metabolic rates. Acute toxicity of glyphosate is officially declared low by government agencies; however agricultural workers have reported many symptoms including skin irritation, skin lesions, eye irritation, allergies, respiratory problems and vomiting. Ingestion of large volumes causes systemic toxicity and death.
@niels5x9 I hope I gave u enough evidences to prove that they are bad
Those are the bad effects from Glyphosate only.
oh my, this is just unbelievable!! Could you summarise some of those articles you copied otherwise reading all that is just not worthy of my time. Do you mean glyphosate inducing breast cancer? Because that has been disproven
read it a little bit cuz I too went thru all that just to convince you !
Endocrine disruption can lead to cancers and reproductive problems.
I will respond to the first article: First of all, yes pesticides are bad, but GM crops allow us to use less pesticides preserving beneficial insects. As stated earlier. So anything you said having to do with pesticides does not apply. In response to the fourth paragraph: The GMOs might have effects out of their grounds where they are produced. Regulation is needed on that which will force the companies to kill any of their plants growing outside of their farms. This is a problem but not one that cannot be solved. In response t fifth paragraph: The companies will benefit from preserving biodiversity in their plants as they will be more pest resistant that way. GMOs are not linked to monocrop farming at all. And it is in the farmers interest to preserve soil quality. In response t sixth paragraph: GMO DNA doesn’t behave different from other DNA it doesn’t magically travel from one species to another. As for ethical issues we already had that discussion. Please read the whole debate before you use arguments that already have been disproven. To give you a hint: humans have been “messing with modern nature” since we invented the fire This discussion seems to get repetitive, you guys quote some bad research, I prove its bad and say GMOs have all kinds of benefits and the cycle starts all over again
I m gonna conclude this one now. I request you guys to stop or this will go on throughout the day!
Well.. as it seems to me the opposition has failed to show that GMOs have any substantial risk and the merits have remained uncontested.
Dude I already did show the evidences.Read them ! Carefully Please.I had to find all these in detail !
okey okey i will deal with glyphosate give me some time
also while I do this, you guys haven't been trying to make any counterargument against my counterarguments at all (have you even been reading them?) so it would be nice if you either admitted I have been right uptill now or give me a counterargument
I have read the glyphosate thing and what strikes me here is that this is clearly a pesticide and not a GM crop. It may have been used on GM crop but it is not a reason to hate on GM crops. I think pesticides are bad too but that is a totally different disussion.
Eventhough it is a different discussion, glyphosate doesn't do any harm at all anyway: Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors: This claim relates to glyphosate, an herbicide used in tandem with herbicide resistant genetically modified crops. The cited paper examines the impact of glyphosate on breast cancer cell growth. In approximately 80 percent of instances of breast cancer, the diseased cells are hormone sensitive, meaning they need estrogen in order to proliferate and spread. These researchers took two breast cancer cell lines: one was estrogen sensitive and one was not, and they examined the impact of increasing amounts of glyphosate on cell growth. They found that glyphosate has similar impact on breast cancer growth as estrogen, although the relationship was not as strong, and it did not have an impact on the proliferation of the non-hormone sensitive breast cancer cell line. The paper had numerous technical problems, including the absence of data on controls, a potentially critical omission. Additionally, there actually seems to be a protective effect at higher concentrations of glyphosate: instead of reaching a saturation point where the addition of glyphosate no longer has an effect on cell growth, there is no significant difference in cellular growth between the cells that received the highest doses of glyphosate and the controls (which is why the data from the controls is an important factor). This experiment was done with cells in a petri dish—what’s called an in vitro tissue-culture experiment. Such research is of limited real-world value. The cells are often finicky and need plenty of TLC in order to grow well; different cell lines can also behave very differently. The authors of the paper note some of these issues, along with the fact that their data doesn’t mesh with previous studies that have examined the impact of glyphosate on cellular proliferation (this previous paper suggests that glyphosate actually protects against cell proliferation in vitro in eight different cancer cell lines and that glyphosate might be developed into an anti-cancer drug!). Additionally, the paper does several experiments with a compound in soybean whose impact on breast cancer cell growth is very similar to that of glyphosate’s—meaning that there are “natural” compounds in our food that seem to have the same impact on breast-cancer proliferation that this paper’s findings suggest for glyphosate. There does not seem to be a scientific consensus on the topic of soy intake in breast cancer patients, although several publications have examined this issue without finding a positive correlation (examples here, here, and here). Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects: No peer reviewed, published scientific study makes such claims. The source of this health concern is a publication by Earth Open Source, an anti-GMO NGO co-founded by an individual who also owns a GMO-testing and certification company, and whose business would clearly benefit through the promotion of anti-GMO sentiments. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s: The paper that led to this health claim does not constitute research. It’s a hypothesis and no research was done to support the hypothesis. The paper was reviewed by science journalist Keith Kloor at Discover Magazine who aptly compared it to a Glenn Beck chalkboard drawing. The claims were printed in a pay-for-play journal (also known as predatory journal), meaning that for a fee, one can get nearly anything published. There have been several exposés on pay-for-play journals, and many scientists believe that the phenomenon is eroding the quality of science Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans: This claim is based on a paper published in the Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, owned by the Omics publishing group- a notorious predatory publishing company. The authors examined glyphosate levels in humans and different animals. There’s no indication of what the animals were fed, how much, how they were kept or myriad other variables. Any of these could invalidate the study. The researchers do not say anything about the age, sex, weight, height, or genetic background of the humans, or how much they ate, if they washed their food, how long they had been eating organic/conventional diets and, most mind-blowing of all, there’s absolutely no definition for what constitutes being “chronically ill”. Any single issue that I’ve listed here would be considered a fatal flaw that would exclude the paper from publication in a more prestigious journal.
Now without bringing up any new things, can you tell me one thing that you have in this debate show to be wrong with GMOs? I think not. I also think that I have shown how GMOs benefit us. So i think we should conclude that nothing is wrong with GMOs and get on with our lifes unless you guys have another serious argument (and please check if the research is bad before posting it)
Ok guys I think I'll conclude this now! Biology Section of OS has been less active since quite a few weeks now. I wanted some activity here!! So, there was an Intelligence Square Debate where four very famous scientists took part in it. The same topic was given to them during the debate. It was a very hot debate (Just like this one!) The team that swayed the most people to its side by the end was the winner. So after a long, heated argument between both the groups it was left to the audience the decide the winners. The audience at the Kaufman Music Center in New York voted 32 percent in favor of the motion, with 30 percent against and 38 percent undecided. Afterward, 60 percent agreed with the motion, and 31 percent disagreed — making the side arguing in favor of the motion the winners of that debate. So looking at this debate, I think currently the Positive aspects of GM crops are more than the negative ones and most of the discoveries regarding the cons of GM crops are futile ones or have not had any impact on us as yet. So I think I should conclude this one with a YES, GM crops have proven to be a game changer in Food Security throughout the globe. With the introduction of GM crops, they have become disease free and pest protective and also has helped in the fight for hunger. At last, before the members here begin to use Unpaliamentary (lol :D ) words here, I have concluded it. It was an exciting debate and all have tried their best in arguing for/against the topic. Thanks Guys !
Thanks everybody for the debate, it was great argueing with you!
according to me :) we shuld genetically modify food :) by doing so ppl will be able to eat pizzas, burgers, soft drinks, etc things which r considered to be less healthy :)
The debate is over but indeed that would be great :)
Thats quite a good conclusion @imqwerty ..he he ..:p
I'm sorry I was offline for sometimes. Since you'll have come to a conclusion I don't intend on reading all the written stuff. Happy ending it is then !
there have been articles proposing that there is a possibly of it leading to cancer and that GMOs can cause new allergies and hurt the effects of antibiotics. But as of now, no studies confirm this. At least no proper medical journal. The benefits outweigh the consequences for genetically modified foods. Although, I think we should label the foods like they do in AU, China, and Europe so we know which have been tampered with or not.
Hmm..yeah @abb0t thats why we had to conclude it. It's useless to continue the debate with unwanted arguments.
@niels5x9: You are correct. Not all GMO are bad. However, some food may be approved, but generally natural organism are better than GMO.
@shreehari499 Can you start another debate/discussion with a different question?
I would be glad to, but maybe after a few days... @heretohelpalways
okay, thank you:)
@GeniousCreation I think I have showb in the debate that this is an unfounded statement and to assume that without argument is not very scientific
@niel5x9: As you see, GMO is altered above gene level food. Natural organisms are technically better. Talk about a banana. Why would someone want to make a banana bigger risking the danger of GMO? Why not just eat a normal sized banana? Sure some GMO is good, but as I have said, not all is good. And what happens to all the nutrients and the organisms?