Genetically Engineered crops question.?

Question

im having a debate on how GE crops are bad and i need a response when they say " it stops world hunger since it increases food supply" i need a rebuttal. help.

Answer 1

GMO crops are not any more identical than non GMO hybrids. GMO crops are not cloned. There is a certain percentage of seeds in each bag that are not genetically modified.

For the person above me to say that GMO crops have "yet to be proven safe", is absurd. GM crops have been on the market for nearly 20 years, name a health problem caused by GM crops. The only thing some might come up with is allergies. Millions of people have food allergies that have nothing to do with genetic modification of grain crops.

Would you ban peanuts because a certain percentage of the population is deathly allergic to them?

Answer 2

It may temporarily increase the food supply, but when the food is patented, that means one company will control the food.  Imagine a company that has already demonstrated questionable ethics  having a monopoly on the world food supply.  Not only will the "third world" countries starve, but all countries will pay a price.   This is already happening with rice in India, once the biotech companies convinced a lot of farmers to go with hybrid, patented seed, first the yields increased, then the farmers found they weren't making enough money to buy more seed and they couldn't save the seed, so they went bankrupt, starved, comitted suicide, or moved to the cities.   Also be aware that some companies are trying to buy water rights to as much as possible all over the world.   Even in our rural neck of the woods in the Northeast US, Nestle is out trying to "buy" rights to some of the fresh water.  People here are sick of being ripped off by gas companies, so they are already wary, but if it is happening here and in India, it can happen anywhere....

There are just a few eye opening articles below.  Vandana Shiva has done a LOT of work trying to help the farmers of India.   She is a brilliant woman and a true hero of our times, you may find a lot of help for your argument in her writings.

As to the safety record....the "natural" pesticides that are used to improve production are endocrine disruptors.  they have been blamed for things as varied as CCD of bees to the diabetes epidemic, thyroid problems, adrenal disorders.  There is nothing safe about these products, in the UK, workers at Monsanto had the GMO foods banned from their own cafeteria (1997), as far as the GE of using BGH in cows... again, look at what has happened with ADHD, ADD, breast cancer, early puberty, etc.   Something is obviously drastically wrong in our food supply, but agribusiness does not want you to think this.  Read Michael Pollan's new book,  "In Defense of Food" to find out more!

Answer 3

All id dependent on which GE crop you are discussing. A crop that has been engineered by a company to withstand chemical herbicides (also manufactured by that same company) may increase a yield with less labor but it also encourages poor farming practices (long term), poor environmental practices with respect to our land and oceans/ water, and exposes both farm workers and consumers to unsafe chemicals. Don't believe the misinformation campaign about how safe a chemical is and how short it purportedly remains in the environment. It is a misinterpretation of statistics and glosses over other important information.  Some GE's though, have been designed with more than just the goal of pure personal wealth, that of actually providing for people without destroying out environment and ecosystem in the name of personal wealth. Each specific genetically altered crop needs to be weighed separately. There are 4 links below that will start you on the path of informed critic/ supporter. What side of the fence you are on depends on your interpretation of that material.

Answer 4

Genetic engineering in Agriculture has the potential to do alot of good. But like all technologies it has it's dangers and limitations.

**Advantages**

- Genetically engineered food can be modified to include essential nutrients.  

- Genetic engineering food also has the potential to increase crop yield and decrease losses. There for creating a economic advantage.

- Some crops have also been developed with pest resistant genes inherent in their genetic make up. This could reduce or eliminate the need for dangerous pesticide use.   - There is also the possibility of organ or tissue growth for organ transplant and injuries. This has the potential to save countless lives. though raises a number of moral issues.

.........................................

**Limitations/Concerns**

There are still many concerns including:

- Safety.  The technology is still developing and dangers are still not completely understood.

- Unknown side effects and affects. Genetic engineering is a vast and complex field of studies with possible unknown side effects.

- Moral issues. Do we have the right to "paly god" etc.

-  Legal issues especially regarding the patenting and ownership of genetic information and monopolization of the market by large labs like Monsanto.

- Genetically modified organisms also have the potential to outcompete and native species, and possibly dirve them to extinction.

-

Answer 5

You will have a tough sell on this issue.  In the early years of GE or GM crop production, a yield drag was evident.  But as the genes were placed in superior varieties, this yield drag (slightly lower yield) soon disappeared.  After that, the bigger issue, ease and efficiency of weed control soon became the primary issue.  In this particular issue, genectically modified crops really shine.  A "Round-up" ready soybean or corn can be sprayed with glyphosate anytime during it's growth.  This herbicide is truly effective in controlling a wide range of weedy plants.  So effective, some fields are loosing their seed banks and the rate of herbicide applied has actually decreased.

AS weed control is a universal issue in all cropping systems, this ability of GE crops to sustain growth while receiving a 'kills-all" herbicide application with no crop damage is almost a miracle and will (and has) truly increase crop yield while decreasing crop yield variance (which reduces profit risk, another major factor)

Basically, it is a point you will have to concede.

The disease issue mentioned before is rather mute as the use of GM to reduce disease in row crops (grain and oilseed crops) has been minor to date because of the issue mentioned (how rapid plant diseases change) and the tried and true plant breeding methods are still utilized.

Answer 6

GM can be used to add extraordinary nutritional value to a crop that produces so much more. It has not been done yet, but it could be used to provide a nutritional value of millet to a corn plant producing far larger yield.

OK, that is not what this technology is being used for. We have better things to do like making soy roundup ready so that demand for roundup  stays high.

But if we could consistently grow great crops of soy, we would win the war to feed the world?

Maybe. We do observe that roundup is failing to control some weeds (Roundups purpose) so that we drift back to pre-roundup production levels.

But now we have a GM plant that, is one plant is susceptible to disease or insect, the whole field, no the whole crop world wide can be susceptible.

India and China have observed this with Cotton crops already.

So, while on first introduction we have a flush of new crop yield, we appear to be at risk of major food security collapse.

While not GM, potato crops in Ireland demonstrated dramatically the disaster that can arise from growing a crop that is so closely related, plant to plant all over the country. Vegetative reproduction is perfect cloning, so we have a close analogy to the GM crop.

Much better to have large numbers of very little related plants, even different species, to maintain food security.

Answer 7

GMO crops are identical.  That means each seed is just like all the other being planted.  So WHEN a disease hits the crop, the disease has the potential to wipe out 100% of the crop.  The word is "when", not "if".  Diseases are constantly evolving....so at some point a disease IS going to hit a GMO crop, and the devistation is going to be extreme.  

So what would happen if 100% of the soy bean, corn, or wheat crop was wiped out in the United States?  I don't even want to THINK about the panic that would cause on Wall Street.

Take another GMO crop.  It's been years since I read the article, so I can no longer honestly remember if the crop was rice, or wheat (I'm leaning toward wheat).  

It was developed for farmers in India and given to them free of charge.  It was going to produce more grain, and the grains themselves would be healthier for humans.

Indeed the crop was everything it promised to be.  A bumper crop.  Plenty for the farmers in India to eat, and extra for them to sell at market.  Perfect, right?  Umm..no...horrible devistation for the farmers.

The native wheat they had grown grew on stalks about 4 feet high.  That left over straw was used to feet the farmers cattle, goats, and sheep over their winter season.  The new GMO crop only grew on stalks less than two feet tall.  

So cattle, goats, and sheep starved.  There was no more milk from the goats.  Come spring, the surviving cattle were too weak to pull the plows, so farmers were out there trying to plow and plant by hand.  The sheep had starved, or been sold off, so no more wool, and no more lamb.  Because of the lack of straw, the farmers suffered a serrious lack of protien of milk, yogurt, ghea (butter), and meat in their diet.  

So even though the grain was everything it promised to be, it left the farmers worse than before.

GMO's are not the answer.  It's also creepy in the EXTREME that some of these companies, like Monsanto, are putting terminator genes into their seeds.  That means even if the farmer saved the seeds to plant the next year, they will not grow.  What happens if these genes manage to cross polinate with wild plants, or heritage farm seed crops?  Spooky.

People believe it is who-ever controls the money, controls the world.  Not even close....it is who-ever conrols the FOOD, controls the world.  Do we the people actually want a few (about 6) for profit companies controling the worlds food supply?

By the way...GMO crops increase food yeilds for only a couple of years....then the insects adapt, and the yeild drop dramatically.

~Garnet

Permaculture homesteading/farming over 20 years

Answer 8

GE products are yet to be proved safe.

Apparently it appears to increase the product's yield, but its the world experince till date that it has a serious negative effect on the fertility of lands used for GE products. Besides, GE food consumption results genetical problems with the off-springs and the subject itself.

We all must agree that the technology has to go a long long way  to establish its safety and benifits which is still beyond the horizon ahead.  

So, its true that  it stops hunger today just  to kill you tomorrow.

Answer 9

Response:  SO!  Then poke them in the eye!  (no, don't do that).  

Real Response:  You remind them that making more food isn't as necessary if people would be better managers and stewards of the food which is already available.  GE crops have the potential to usurp "legacy" seed stocks as these crops are very much like the originals.  This is problematic, because of the amount of flaws in genetic technology at this time.  Legacy crops have survived for many years and have been proven through trials in time.  GM Crops don't have the track record to be called KNOWN to be safe.  Imagine if all the corn in America was cross pollenized into a GM variety of corn, then after 10 years an issue was found which presented an allergy or a new gateway for disease.  Much of the food supply would be contaminated and would be unusuable.  People would either starve or eat and risk injury or death.  

The main argument is that there is no certainty that control could be applied with a genetically engineered plant.  The process of injecting foreign genetic material into cells is haphazard at best and random at worst.  There is also a "Benign" virus which is attached to ensure that the gene has taken root into the DNA structure.  No one can account for what the sequence of DNA means, only that the gene and benign virus is present in some fashion.  Again this is dangerous when placing that in a global food supply context.  

GM foods also have intellectual property concerns.  Soon a farmer can be sued if he saves seeds from the previous plantings to replant for the next year.  This places these producers in a position to regulate the price of the seeds, thus the crops which they produce.  

Corporations are about one thing, making money.  Prices will rise if the companies feel that the market will sustain pricing in much the same way drugs are expensive and fuel is spiking.  This can also contribute to global starvation due to economic reasons.  Food supplies are very sensitive, people should be very cautious of allowing few people or companies to control or influence so much of food crops.

Answer 10

The "wheat" the first responder is talking about isn't a GE crop at all.  It (triticale) was a cross between wheat and rye and involved no gene splicing whatsoever.

GE crops have been out for over 20 years now and regardless of the plant species, have been proved to be safe for human and animal consumption.

The bad thing is that in the case of Roundup resistant crops, producers have relied on Roundup as their one and only herbicide year after year.  As a result of continued use, there have been species of weeds that have had individual plants become resistant to Roundup.  

oundup is an effective, safe product but as with anything, when misused, problems can occur.