Are GMOs the climategate of the left?

[troutman]

An old friend of mine recently wrote this novel, Dark Seed. I have not told him I don't have GMO paranoia.

http://www.lawrenceverigin.com/

Lawrence Verigin's Dark Seed is topical and pertinent in today's world. It's focus is on a controversy that affects us all – how genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are altering the food we eat.

Dark Seed is the story of two people who want to save the legacy of a pioneer in genetic food engineering. While doing so they uncover an immoral and destructive plot for the complete control of human existence. Dark Seed is an exciting high concept thriller that tackles one of the big issues of our time.

[Geeoff]

I really hate the GMO label because it doesn't mean anything. (Other than philosophically) There must be literally thousands or tens of thousands of completely different GMO crops that are modified in a multitude of different ways, so how can they all be the same thing? In theory, it is possible to create carrots++ in a lab that are better than organic carrots in every way. So really the only binding tie is the belief that man shouldn't "play god."

Also, from what I understand, Monsanto is a huge player in the organic farming market too.

[Nage Waza]

The GMO debate is much like the climate change debate - both sidelined with people focusing on the wrong things. Climate change is real, and does not necessarily matter that humans are the cause. We are certainly damaging the planet with all of our pollutants - is that not enough reason to do something about it? Why focus on climate? Pretty much most of the planet is in trouble.

The real problem with GMOs is the fact that something may happen that causes global failure of some crops, since GMOs lack diversification. Natural species often vary enough that global disasters are rare. With the replacement of regular carrots a 'super carrot', the global carrot population could potentially fall to some super pathogen or environmental condition.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The GMO debate is much like the climate change debate - both sidelined with people focusing on the wrong things....

Was expecting something insightful with the way your post started out.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The real problem with GMOs is the fact that something may happen that causes global failure of some crops, since GMOs lack diversification. Natural species often vary enough that global disasters are rare. With the replacement of regular carrots a 'super carrot', the global carrot population could potentially fall to some super pathogen or environmental condition.

Can you elaborate on the bolded. Not sure what exactly you're trying to get at there.

As for GMOs lacking diversification. Can you also elaborate on that. I don't think you know what GMOs are...

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Was expecting something insightful with the way your post started out.

Can you elaborate on the bolded. Not sure what exactly you're trying to get at there.

As for GMOs lacking diversification. Can you also elaborate on that. I don't think you know what GMOs are...

I am certain you do not understand...the arguments most often made against GMOs are often baseless or misunderstood, yet the most scary of all considerations is rarely mentioned. By producing a single crop, fish or whatever, and selling that around the world at the expense of the natural crop, fish or whatever, the species that used to exist in an area no longer exists. By virtue of replacement, the assorted strains and species that used to exist in the world no longer exist, except for in a lab somewhere. If a natural predator, disaster or other event harms/impacts the GMO species/variant, there could be massive devastation. Impacting biodiversity is not good...The scientists behind GMOs try to manage this (or so they say), but I am not sure how successful they are.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am certain you do not understand...the arguments most often made against GMOs are often baseless or misunderstood, yet the most scary of all considerations is rarely mentioned. By producing a single crop, fish or whatever, and selling that around the world at the expense of the natural crop, fish or whatever, the species that used to exist in an area no longer exists. By virtue of replacement, the assorted strains and species that used to exist in the world no longer exist, except for in a lab somewhere. If a natural predator, disaster or other event harms/impacts the GMO species/variant, there could be massive devastation. Impacting biodiversity is not good...The scientists behind GMOs try to manage this (or so they say), but I am not sure how successful they are.

Do you not realize that crops are genetically modified to become tolerant to a whole world of natural predators and disasters? And I don't mean 1 ultimate variety, tolerant to that whole world of natural predators and disasters. I mean THOUSANDS of different varieties (...you could almost say... very "diverse" varieties), each one tolerant to different pests, be it insects, disease, weather conditions, soil type, etc, etc. And once you dial in to those categories I just listed, you have dozens and dozens of different varieties within them, each one of them tolerant to a different insect (flea beetle? wheat midge? wireworm? etc?), disease (blackleg? schlerotinia? fusarium head blight? etc?), weather condition (hot? cool? wet? dry? etc?), soil type (brown soil zone? grey soil zone? alkali? saline? etc?), etc, etc.

That's a lot of "etc". Because there are a lot of different varieties developed, for a lot of different regions, and for a lot of different pests. If bio-diversity is what you crave, you better start waving the GMO pom-poms. They are not limiting bio-diversity, they are CREATING it.

[Nage Waza]

So as you put it, GMOs are the preferred method of evolution? Why bother letting one strain evolve a resistance?

Look Fonz, your poor communication skills aside, if you want to defend GMOs, your attacks do the opposite, you sound like a douchy fanboy.

I am pro GMO yet worry about how the superior modified organisms replace organisms that would have naturally evolved. If you don't think tampering with existing species carries risk, I don't know what to say.

Again, band aids and science will not cure the potency of humans on the planet. Minimizing our footprint will be a good start.

[Knut]

Who here wants to set up a blind taste test for AcGold ?

Have 10 CP members participate in the Taste test. Have a few people (including someone on the anti GMO side to make it fair) grab 10 different fruit and vegetable varieties that are Organic, non Organic and GMO. They will label them so that the testers do not know which is which (double blind).

Blindfold all 10 members and conduct a taste test.

AcGOLd you in ?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am pro GMO yet worry about how the superior modified organisms replace organisms that would have naturally evolved. If you don't think tampering with existing species carries risk, I don't know what to say.

If we didn't tamper and use artificial selection, aka breeding for plants our grocery store would be pretty bare and with little selection when it comes to veggies and fruits to a degree.

All we have done is gone from old fashioned breeding of plants that was less specific to a much more exact and precise way, GM. This is the logical extension of these 1000's of years of us manipulating plants to our benefit.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

So as you put it, GMOs are the preferred method of evolution? Why bother letting one strain evolve a resistance?

I am pro GMO yet worry about how the superior modified organisms replace organisms that would have naturally evolved. If you don't think tampering with existing species carries risk, I don't know what to say.

You just moved the goal posts.

Your initial argument was that GMOs lacked diversification. Are you now arguing that while GMO species are actually very diverse, the means in which they got there are dangerous?

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

...you sound like a douchy fanboy

I'm a douchy fanboy because I'm irritated by all of the people that hold such a strong opinion, on something they really do not understand. These people are not educated in field, do not work in the field, and did not grow up in the field. Yet they hold such strong opinions on the subject.

I'd be open for civil discussion if these people preceded their opinions with something like "...I'm no expert on the subject, but I feel like [anti-gmo opinion]".

You didn't open that way at all. You opened in saying that "everyone is focusing on the wrong things", and that "the real problem is that GMOs lack diversification". You're diversification claim was clearly wrong... and now you've changed your argument to that while GMO crops are diversified, the means in which they reached that diversification are wrong?

[troutman]

Heard this show the other day. Seems to fit here:

Yes, We Have No Bananas: Meet the fungus that could wipe out the banana industry
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode...nana-industry/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by troutman

Heard this show the other day. Seems to fit here:

Yes, We Have No Bananas: Meet the fungus that could wipe out the banana industry
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode...nana-industry/

Whats interesting about that is that this fungus last struck the previous mono-culture in the 1950's (pre-gmo) and they had to switch to a whole new banana.

I think the fair thing to say is that the mono-culture farming that we practice in certain crops is dangerous. This is completely independant whether that mono culture is from a GMO or from conventional plant breeding.

Seed banks are important to perserve the variety so when these types of diseases strike plants you have a full range of genetic material to fight it with.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GGG

Seed banks are important to perserve the variety so when these types of diseases strike plants you have a full range of genetic material to fight it with.

From what I understood in the show, bananas are extra tricky. They are sterile - the Cavendish bananas are clones.

http://conservationmagazine.org/2008...terile-banana/

Pity the banana. Despite its unmistakably phallic appearance, it hasn’t had sex for thousands of years. The world’s most erotic fruit is a sterile, seedless mutant—and therein lies a problem. The banana is genetically old and decrepit. It has been at an evolutionary standstill ever since humans first propagated it in the jungles of Southeast Asia at the end of the last ice age. And that is why some scientists believe that the banana could be doomed. It lacks the genes to fight off the pests and diseases that are invading the banana plantations of Central America and the small holdings of Africa and Asia.

Normally, cultivated plants develop genetic variety through random mutations during sexual reproduction, just as humans do. This process means that different varieties develop resistance to various pests and diseases, and adaptability to stresses like droughts. Plant breeders tap into this genetic variety all the time. But without sexual reproduction to throw the genetic dice every generation, each variety of modern banana—yellow, red, and green, from big starchy ones to small sweet ones—has come down almost unchanged from a separate sterile forest mutant. Each is a virtual clone, almost devoid of genetic diversity. And that uniformity makes the banana ripe for disease like almost no other crop on Earth.

[The Fonz]

Sounds to me like they need to genetically modify the Cavendish banana to be resistant to Tropical Race 4.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Thor

If we didn't tamper and use artificial selection, aka breeding for plants our grocery store would be pretty bare and with little selection when it comes to veggies and fruits to a degree.

All we have done is gone from old fashioned breeding of plants that was less specific to a much more exact and precise way, GM. This is the logical extension of these 1000's of years of us manipulating plants to our benefit.

Thanks Thor, but the concerns with human tampering pre GMO were and still are diversification. GMOs make that even more extreme, as the GMO species will outlive and outlast at a very fast rate the existing species.

I am actually surprised that there are posters acting like my thoughts are mine alone - this is a major issue amongst those in the industry.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Thanks Thor, but the concerns with human tampering pre GMO were and still are diversification. GMOs make that even more extreme, as the GMO species will outlive and outlast at a very fast rate the existing species.

I am actually surprised that there are posters acting like my thoughts are mine alone - this is a major issue amongst those in the industry.

I think people are arguing against the wrong aspect of your opinion, but I don't think it's just a matter of them misunderstanding you.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Thanks Thor, but the concerns with human tampering pre GMO were and still are diversification. GMOs make that even more extreme, as the GMO species will outlive and outlast at a very fast rate the existing species.

I am actually surprised that there are posters acting like my thoughts are mine alone - this is a major issue amongst those in the industry.

But as long as you bank the seeds to keep the viable genetic material available for future use you don't have to worry. I agree that the mono-culture is a concern.

This however is not a Pro GMO / anti GMO issue. It is a farming practive issue that goes back 4000 years where the best perfroming seeds were kept for the next season and 500 or so years from when specific traits were sought out and bred for and 100 or so years where different simillar spieces were cross polinated to try to get the beneficial traits of both.

At least now we have the capability of preserving diversity.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by GGG

But as long as you bank the seeds to keep the viable genetic material available for future use you don't have to worry. I agree that the mono-culture is a concern.

This however is not a Pro GMO / anti GMO issue. It is a farming practive issue that goes back 4000 years where the best perfroming seeds were kept for the next season and 500 or so years from when specific traits were sought out and bred for and 100 or so years where different simillar spieces were cross polinated to try to get the beneficial traits of both.

At least now we have the capability of preserving diversity.

All true, but there is very little supporting GMO as being a solution, only makes it worse. As soon as a superior version of a species is out there, the others suffer, and decline in numbers. We certainly do it to our forests, and pretty much everything else. GMOs can speed up the process.

As others have posted, can genetically modifying the banana make it immune to the fungus? Perhaps, but the point was that limiting the genetic diversity of a species makes massive global extinction a more likely possibility, like the banana case.

I certainly am on the non GMO side, but it is fair to point out where the risk lies.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by GGG

Seed banks are important to perserve the variety so when these types of diseases strike plants you have a full range of genetic material to fight it with.

The risk with seed banks is similar to the risk the Aztec had when the Europeans arrived - they do not have exposure to what exists in the wild.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Thor

Thank you Thor, you have successfully changed my mind.

Brussels Sprouts and Broccoli are products of genetic modification of food.

WE MUST STOP THESE GMOs NOW!!!! THEY ARE EVIL!!!!