What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
49 Comments
- DOCNM, on 10/21/2009, -8/+55In a nutshell why they are controversial (which is different from saying that they are bad)
They contain exotoxins that can have several effects, and every effect has to be measured:
-cross pollination
-detrimental to non-target insects
-allergen
An alternative method is to induce resistance to herbicide which means that higher herbicide doses can be used. Here the main risk (besides increased herbicide usage) is that in case of cross pollination, resistance can spread to other weeds.
Naturally, many cultivars have a hard time competing with wild relatives and native species (because they were selected to increase yield, e.g. by increasing fruit size, rather than spreading), and therefore are unlikely to spread uncontrolled. By adding genes that confer general advantages such as insect resistance, there is a nontrivial risk that the modified species (or species that have acquired the trait) becomes invasive, thus radically altering the local ecosystem. The solution to that would be to link the activity of the introduced gene or the viability of the plant to an external factor, such a chemical applied to the plant. This technique is in controversial, as it would not allow farmer's independence (see below).
The issue of farmers ability to use a portion of the harvest to be used as seed the next season, i.e. gaining independence (notable, this is the rationale against the adoption of GM food in Africa, rather than the ecological one). Agrotech companies are fiercely against this practice, and go as far as going to court to sue farmers who grow their seeds without a proper authorization. And this is possibly the most controversial aspect of GM crops (which somehow got skipped).
Finally, the moral imperative to do so is bogus. The problem of lack of food on the African continent is not a problem of low yields. Nor is there a world food shortage. The food problem in the developing world is crucially a problem of farming practices (see for instance Zimbabwe) and access to them and cloaking it in a simple technical problem is disingenuous at best and surely irresponsible.
Plus this guy's presentation style sucks. - moo113, on 10/22/2009, -4/+39If GM crops weren't patented, I'd be somewhat less concerned. Companies like Monsanto are working to control the worlds food supply.
- RealmDown, on 10/21/2009, -1/+32Cross pollination is a good thing, but every time I point out a potential cross pollination target, my girlfriend hits me.
- raymondmarble, on 10/21/2009, -2/+20That's strange... your girlfriend seems pretty receptive to it when I suggest it.
- Taiyoryu, on 10/22/2009, -2/+19The biggest problem with GM foods is not necessarily the environmental or health impacts, but the loss of control of societies' food production to a few multinational corporations.
- MrFunStuff, on 10/22/2009, -5/+21If you don't know why, I suggest you watch this because it's a lot more complicated than it seems.
The World According to Monsanto is an in-depth Documentary that looks at the domination of the agricultural industry from one of the world’s most insidious and powerful companies. Monsanto, which started out as one of the planets largest chemical companies is also reposonsible for such chemical compounds as Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, PCBs and genetically-engineered crops.
The World According to Monsanto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_OJcPKEYDE - HotterDigg, on 10/21/2009, -2/+16Forgive me.. I did not said that.....
- Taiyoryu, on 10/22/2009, -0/+9When the commercial product displaces a free (libre) item through the patent system or other enforcement, then it's a problem. Such displacement reduces competition, not increases it. Furthermore, it threatens survivability and limits choice by homogenizing the food supply. If the commercial product also requires certain other products (e.g., you can only use pesticide A instead of pesticide B, or fertilizer A instead of fertilizer B) as part of a vertical market in order to put the product to use, again competition is reduced.
FSM forbid a person from planting their own crops. - willanthony, on 10/22/2009, -1/+7if its not natural.. wouldn't that make it unnatural?
- Syric, on 10/22/2009, -1/+7Um, no. Your opinion is not well-formed.
Protip: loaded terms like "frankenfood" make great propaganda. They don't make great intelligent discussion. - ghounds07, on 10/22/2009, -0/+6However, in some cases GMO's have less nutrients than their natural counterpart, which is one of the main arguments against them. They may be able to produce a larger crop yield however the nutritional value of the modified crops are not as good (nutrition wise) as the natural crops.
- absolutelytrue, on 10/21/2009, -1/+6Well, someone did. Come on.. if not you, who said it? We need answers here.
- NeutrixX, on 10/22/2009, -1/+5Wrong... we have never before in the history of mankind had the ability to combine DNA on a genetic level with pesticide molecules until about 15 years ago. Now Monsanto has gotten their hands on a good portion of North America's corn, canola, soy, rape seed... tried for potatoes and tomatoes but those thankfully haven't panned out so well. They are infusing the genetic material with poison. It's called RoundUp Ready for a reason. Think about it. No long term studies on human consumption. That's why I don't give a dime to cancer awareness. Not when people are to stupid and or lazy to stop companies like Monsanto from taking ahold of our food supply chain. Not all food technologies are used for humanity's good. Sometimes it's just used for corporate greed.
- Sithload, on 10/22/2009, -0/+4I'm pretty surprised to see the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, the Long Now Foundation and The Well offering support for GM foods. I'll have to watch the video to see what his argument is (gotta put a kid to bed first), but this isn't a pro-business corporate shill. This is a guy who's though a lot about the future. Thinking don't always make ya smart, though. Can't wait to see what his angle is, and why he thinks GM is ok.
Link to Brand's Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Brand - superrandomguy, on 10/22/2009, -0/+3**resists urge to comment using info obtained from CSI: Miami**
- ebfalls, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4
(NaturalNews) A 43-page study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reveals that since the inception of genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops, no significant increases in crop yields can be attributed to them. This is directly contrary to what Monsanto and other seed-makers have often pointed out in their own research and the UCS study answers why that is. The study, titled Failure to Yield, is available online. - had3l, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4I don't think the presentation style sucked, but I agree with you that GM crops are controversial. However, there is also a lot of good that can come from GM crops, and what some people do is dismiss this outright and present it in an angle that reinforces their world view (natural - good, artificial - bad) instead of offering an unbiased argument.
For a good program about the issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7745726. ...
If you are into pirating, here is the full version: http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/53709688/ - alanic, on 10/22/2009, -0/+3What a tool.
- NeutrixX, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4I'll just add that add all of you should watch the documentary "The World According to Monsanto". They are the most vile corporation on the planet. They do not care about feeding the world, they only care about profit. These are product infused genetically with the poisonous DNA of RoundUp. We should be calling all these crops exactly what they are... "Round Up Ready" crops. These GMO companies sell the idea that the world is starving. I call *****. The world is starving because of distribution of food problems, not crop yield problems. There are no long term studies of GMO food consumption for humans that exist, and the longest running study on rats showed renal bleeding and intestinal cancers.
- UrineEngineer, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2Your "well formed" opinions were links to websites.
- babyphatman, on 10/25/2009, -0/+2One of the biggest problems I have with GM food is that there is currently no law requiring that their modification be documented on the label or package. Is it too much to ask that I know what has been done to my food before I eat it?
- ghounds07, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2True, in some situations it is worth it, but for countries not trying to combat starvation more attention should be paid to the nutritional value. I remember reading something recently that stated the nutritional value for some modified tomatoes had almost no nutritional value for the consumer, which seemed striking.
- UrineEngineer, on 10/22/2009, -2/+4Lies. No Digger has a girlfriend.
- mwilhelm, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2as has been mentioned. GMO's are controversial for 2 reasons - intellectual property and the illusion of choice.
Why can't we get labels on these food items?
Ask your congress person. - fattony89, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1this is a problem with patent law, if ya just cut patents down to a few years and then it's a free market ya wouldn't have to worry. While patents are required to encourage R&D, current laws give too much protection to companies which in the end develop into monopolies. Strong competition is always vital.
- Taiyoryu, on 10/22/2009, -3/+4I've wondered, rather than making crops resistant to pesticides/hebicides to increase pesticide/herbicide use, why not genetically engineer (through selective breeding or direct modification) plants that act as honeypots for pests? Give the pests a sweeter target. Either that or move to controlled environments for food production, e.g. vertical farming.
- ebfalls, on 10/25/2009, -0/+1It is the patenting of genetically altered crops that is the problem.
- DirtPile, on 10/22/2009, -2/+3I'll stick with my naturally produced, unmodified car-sized pumpkins, cube tomatoes and vegetables that look like dicks.
- nextekcarl, on 10/22/2009, -2/+2Well at least no one has to go and make a website called whywonthotterdiggdenyhesaidgeneticallymodifiedfoodsareunnaturalin2009.com now.
- roddack, on 10/22/2009, -1/+1The larger yield is worth the nutrition loss. GMOs and increased research and development of them is what allowed Norman Borlaug to help prevent one billion people from starving
- lamiaconfitor, on 10/22/2009, -3/+3Sorry, you lost your right to be an emotional hippie when this was posted, for further reading, see the dissenting opinions above which were well formed.
- fingerrockets4, on 10/22/2009, -2/+2LOL you must be ridding the trollacoaster
by that logic we should not be flying or doing anything science and research has discovered.
why are you using your computer?
it's an unnatural electromagnetic device.
and that first link was full of so much bull ***** i think i'm done browsing the internet for the night that really hurt my head.
I hope you get the swine flu dummy.
- roddack, on 10/22/2009, -1/+1How can something that exist in the universe be unnatural
- roddack, on 10/22/2009, -1/+1You know Norman Borlaug used GMOs to help save a billion people from starvation
- fingerrockets4, on 10/22/2009, -0/+0well it is!
- nebraskan1, on 10/22/2009, -2/+2Before I throw my two cents in, I think I should probably take a second and lay my professional bias on the table. I work in a small genetics lab here on campus and my undergraduate research project directly deals with transgenic plants (albeit Arabidopsis thaliana, a small weed that won't be eaten by any organisms larger than the occasional fruit fly).
In my experience with talking to people from non-science backgrounds, it seems that a sizable portion of the public doesn't really understand the basic premise of what exactly genetic engineering is. One of the biggest misconceptions that I've run into is the idea that geneticists are "creating genes" and that then transforming them into organisms without any idea of what unexpected consequences might be. This isn't what's being done at all. Geneticists are simply taking genes from one species (such as E. coli or even just an alternative ecotype of the same species) and transforming it into their target species. The genes still code the same protein that they would in the other species, and that protein still catalyzes the same reaction that it did before. Therefore, the risk of eating a plant/animal/fungi containing a transgenic version of the protein should theoretically be equivalent to consuming the exact same protein produced in the original host. All genetic engineering allows for over traditional plant breeding is access to useful genes outside of the gene-pool of the target species and more targeted introduction of genes from within the same species.
In my opinion, we should also consider all of the good things that genetic engineering has already given us before dismissing it out of hand. For instance, all of the synthetic insulin taken by diabetics is produced in genetically modified E. coli. To me this seems like a much better alternative to the expensive pig insulin that was previously used (it was extracted from the pancreases of slaughtered pigs). Since the insulin produced in GM E. coli is identical to the insulin produced naturally by humans, there isn't the risk of rejection like there was from pig insulin. Also, since E. coli is the host organism, it can be produced at high purity relatively cheaply, lowering the cost and expanding the access of insulin to more diabetics. - ericthesalmon, on 10/22/2009, -4/+3Natural vs. Artificial is a fallacy.
We've been changing plants' genes to serve our needs for millennia.
Dirt magic will not save you from infirmity and death. - nikki4digg, on 10/22/2009, -2/+1In my opinion, we should also consider all of the good things that genetic engineering has already given us before dismissing it out of hand. For instance, all of the synthetic insulin taken by diabetics is produced in genetically modified E. coli.I think ds is geneticist as well as depend on our diet.
- ZhiZaki, on 10/22/2009, -4/+3I didn't read the article, but I did read the comments.
This crop independence thing that DOCNM spoke of seems pretty *****. There's a huge problem when people cannot manage their food stores on their own. Without farming, there's only the nomadic lifestyle to keep things moving. And that's a step backwards man....
Africa doesn't need money, (see the vast plethora of natural resources most conflict areas sit on top of) they need education and information. They don't need to do things the "Western" way, but they do need to be armed with the tools necessary to improve upon current methods....
Just my random thoughts.... - Syric, on 10/22/2009, -8/+7I've always been a strong supporter of the development of GM foods. Sure they're "unnatural"--they'd damn well better be. All the best things are unnatural--controlled fires, the wheel, sharpened sticks, you name it. If we'd stuck with what's natural we'd be nowhere.
- kestrel9, on 10/22/2009, -2/+1My concern is that they keep touting insect resistance. If you use DNA techniques to insert insecticide directly into the crop, isn’t that just as bad as spraying insecticide on the crop? If you use DNA techniques to alter the chemistry of the crop, the effects are unknown.
Altering trees may be OK, because we don’t eat those and they are big enough that if something goes wrong, we can physically track down all bad trees. - nebraskan1, on 10/22/2009, -2/+0I think that current patent structure has some serious long term ethical problems. That being said, research is expensive and companies aren't going to devote resources into it unless they can see of profits from this investment. Perhaps a model similar to that of pharmaceutical companies would be most appropriate. A few years of sole ownership over the rights to recuperate expenses and make profit, followed by an opening up of the patent to public domain.
- dromni, on 10/22/2009, -5/+2Answer: Luddite fear-mongerers with communist tendencies.
- isewise, on 10/22/2009, -7/+3Penn and Teller's ***** on Organic foods:
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=TDVHZWWR - fingerrockets4, on 10/22/2009, -6/+2my seed is pure!
- Ymeg, on 10/22/2009, -8/+3And my opinion (facts) is not well formed? Why don't you read a little before you take another sip of your GM Kool-aid. You will be suprised what you will leard.
- DirtPile, on 10/22/2009, -9/+1She's borne my seed many a time.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is