Genetically Modified Crops?

Question

I just found out about GM crops a few days a go and I'm in my teens. I think it's good and bad at the same time, because I'm like that. I really want to know what others think of it.

What is your opinion on GM crops?

Why is this your opinion? (provide facts/evidence/arguments or what ever you want to call it.)

Answer 1

I'd say avoid GM food as long as there are enough organic food sources. The science is still not definitive about GM food, so why take a chance?

Answer 2

The main problem I have with them is that modified corn genes are contaminating wild strains of primitive corn and threaten those species.  The chance of extinction could become very real and this makes me sad :(

If it wasn't for that I really don't have a problem with GM crops.

Answer 3

genetically modified crops are those crops that have had novel genetics spliced into them, they are not crops that come from traditional sexual breeding. Though one could call traditional breeding genetic modification as that is what breeding is. but when talking about GMO's we are talking splicing genes of one organism (which does not need to even be in the same kingdom, much less the same genus of species) in the DNA strand of another using a crude "gene gun".

GMO has potential but because the corporations such as Monsanto rushed these novel genetics into commercial use too quickly we do not know if they are harmful or not because there have been zero long term controlled feeding studies with any animal, much less with humans. We do not know what kind of environmental damage is being done because of these crops.

And despite claims by the corporations who invented all this, there are not better yields, there is more, not less pesticides use, especially with glysophate herbicide (i.e. roundup) and only a couple of GMO's crops have been modified for better nutrition. Most have been modified so that a certain pesticide is used with them.

So In my opinion GMO's have potential but so far they have been developed to make Monsanto and other corporations money but have done little to nothing towards the betterment of mankind or the planet.

Answer 4

evil lies in the tree of life. beware

Answer 5

it is good.

but it might bring extinction to the other natural crops

i say use both

Answer 6

I understand that we can get more of the crops faster, but why can't people just leave it be?! Do they have to go and mess with everything?!

Answer 7

I cannot believe some of the answers here!!!

Roundup did not come from the Vietnam War!  What an idiot!  

Many of these comments are the lame uneducated BS that we in the agricultural community have come to expect from the Greenpeace crowd.  

People in France were protesting the introduction of hybrid corn in the 50’s.  I think hybrid corn has been pretty good.  There have been many studies that show how safe genetically modified crops are.  Heck, people were eating GMO tomatoes before anyone knew what GMOs were!

My advise for people is to get a life and actually try and learn something and stop believing the c**p that the green crowd force feeds you.  Saying that pregnant women who eat GMOs will cause birth defects is just dumb.  Flat out dumb.  Don’t answer a question unless you know what you are talking about.  The flat out ignorance and sheer stupidity on this subject is simply amazing!

Do a web search on Glyphosate.  That is the active ingredient of Roundup.  Learn the history about how and when it was discovered.

Answer 8

All agriculture depends on genetically modified crops, and this has been true since crops were domesticated. Selective breeding has been a long-time practice, and this is a method of genetic modification. I can think of nothing that humans have domesticated that have not been selected by breeding.

The current issue concerns the method of genetic modification, direct molecular engineering versus selective breeding. Neither is inherently good or bad. It depends on the outcome.

Answer 9

They've not taken this GM technology far enough.. What we need is food that plants itself, grows itself and then processes and packs itself and h**l.. eats itself.... it would save us so much.

We live in a world where things are mutating all the time.. There is nothing special about this.. It's hopelessly blown out of all proportion..

It is because of mutations that we are able to discuss this subject in the first place.. Then because of mutations we have people who go around killing other people.. so.. yes.. good and bad in the GM arguments.

If it tastes good... EAT IT.. That's what I say.

Answer 10

Advantages :

1) it allows biotechnologits to multiply copies useful genes or clones.

2) produce in a shorter time and larger numbers.

3) control the environment pollution.

Answer 11

At this point it is still early in the game to make a call other than to exercise extreme caution. There are proponents and opponents and they are the point of virtual warfare over the issue. I have to agree that one bad choice at this point in a world which has been battered with huge and rising populations of humans is not the best idea but we do have to address that. I look back at history and, without exception, every time we attempt to make a change in Nature, we always come out the loser irregardless of how gallant the concept. Look at the issue of the rabbit in Australia, of the imbalances of fish populations in American rivers and lakes with introductions of fish species and run away plants, and the movement of the dreaded killer bees. The list of faux pas with respect to nature is huge and the research into it has fueled many a post graduate research paper/ thesis and is more than can be addressed here. Now, given the tools of advanced biotechnology, what damage could we do? What great things will we do? One case, and it is something in the news today, is that of the GMO corn being fielded in Brazil. It is causing sizable protests, with those protesters destroying the research plots. This article (in the source list below) also cites death of a protester in a recent battle of people against GMO's. There is a lot of concern. Personally I feel it is a poor idea to field test GMO corn anywhere near where corn/ maize have evolved, the very region which is the natural genetic source of such an important crop to the world. Keep in mind, too, that if the whole purpose of the work is to be able to make a plant in which you can pour at random, liberal amounts of chemical herbicides, one can now justify harming the environment "because they can" in an effort to keep cost down and production up. Well h**l, we put so much nitrogen on the land that Gulf of Mexico has dead spots from oxygen depletion partly brought on by algae feeding on the run off, so a little herbicide will help that mess, aye? Not really and in jest, but for all that where are we at? We now have a corn that can tolerate glyphosphate (Roundup) herbicide so that production goes up with weed competition removed, no heavy labor involved and cost goes down as harvest goes up. But, we can't prove that a/ some/ all GMO plants are safe to eat because we don't know the total effect of our tampering with the genetics. We don't know if the chemicals used in growth and production (and the breakdown components) are safe to consume directly by us or indirectly as feed. We don't know if the actual genetics can or will "escape" into the local environment, even (in the case of corn) if we are diligent to de-tassel the corn (yes there are still enough bees left after Colony Collapse Disorder to wreak havoc). So what you have left is more corn and more land devoted to what, the production of ethanol in the case of corn. More fuel to burn to run more cars and all the associated issues there. In addition, you would be a fool to think that someone isn't going to divert some of that corn and it's byproducts to be fed to cattle even after (and despite HUGE warnings and threats of jail time) told it is not safe. Sure as s--t someone is going to sneak it into the food system given the lax control and to spite even the best control. And it's genetics will get into the surrounding land and into the gene pool for all those reasons. No one is fooled, even those who chose not to believe it and promote it. Bottom line, though, is that it needs a lot more work. It could very well be a great thing in it's time, but that may not be now.

Answer 12

genetically modified crops are those crops which are grown with the help of biotechnology and cross breeding.

i really feel that genetically modified crops are not good for health as we are not aware of what chemicals are added to the crops to preserve it.

Answer 13

i think it is a good idea,only they have to be careful so that they still keep genetic variability throughout the crops. if the genetic variability goes away, one disease could wipe out all of that type of crop (ie potato famine in Ireland).

Answer 14

GM Crops are a plague to the Earth.

That is may opinon because...

GM Crops cannot survive without the use of chemicals. If you feed GM plants/gain/feed to livestock, such as factory farms do, they will obsorbe the chemicals and in the end when you eat the meat or drink milk from these animals the chemicals travel into you.

Most groucery store items contain GM grain, soy bean, and meats that have came from factory farms, and fault to post information this. Places like McDonalds and other fast food places are %100 GM food. The meat is injected with flavouring, to make it "taste" like the real meat, us as Americans have learned to love and are addicted to.

Studies have found that pregnent woman who consume food that contains GM produce, can experience birth defects and hormonal problems.

The chemicals used commonly with GM crops, arrived from the Veitnam War in the 60's. Agent Orange and Agent Purple were used to clear giant wholes in the Jungle, in oder to see the enemy. Today we call it Round Up and farmers use it to clear the fields of last years GM crops. Apart from the chemicals being washed into the water table for everyone to drink,..It has been over 40 years since that Vietnam War and people over there are still experience birth defects & health problems. So the effects of these chemicals can travel through serveral generations.  

GM plants are designed in such a way, so that they cannot reproduce fertile seeds. This means if you try to plant the seeds for next year's crop, nothing will grow. So as more farmers start depending on this way to grow crops/food, more and more old breeds in which we once were dependent on for thousands of years become extinct and rare. Plus making the farmer soully dependent on Large Corparations that are contributing to Globalization. The small local farmer who grows GM crops, business wise, is shooting himself in his own foot, so to speak.

The list of how it is a plague is long,...It sings the song of Death.

Answer 15

When we take a strain of plants and modify the genetic structure, we do not do this with tens of thousands of individual plants to preserve some degree of genetic variability. We do the genetic modification on just a few plants... a few plants with each variant.

Now this is much the same as what happens with a controlled cross breed with selection, except that typically with the controlled cross (hybrid) and selective breeding we really do not get down to just a few plants per variant.

If we were so lucky as to find a perfect plant to start our GM modificatioon from, we would still have a major reduction in the number of ancestors a whole variety is able to trace back through those generations.

This does leave us with a susceptibility, If one plant in the variant is susceptible to a disease, then all plants that share most of its genetic history are susceptible, just like clones would be.

Well we have had clones forever... like potatoes cloned from selected ancestors. And yes, potatoes can be hit by a common enemy and most or all die.

Selective breeding does have this characteristic with GM, that genetic variability is reduced. Only difference is the very very narrow range of hisory among GM offerings. This is not a necessary characteristic, but for economic reasons it is an observed characteristic.

Most of the alleged risk factors for GM plants are not yet in evidence, other than for the lack of variability. China did have many hectares of cotton GM'd to protect it from an insect, lost when the insect mutated and the  crops were left unprotected. This can and does happen with your garden variety chemical protections too.

So many hectares of GM soybeans have been grown that we would reasonably expect to have seen a provable case of a problem by now.

What we can not assert with confidence is whether increasing occurrence of soy allergy may result from this GM plant. It is showing up with both GM and non GM soy. But it is not possible to  conclude that it did or did not start with a GM exposure. This question would bother soy growers.

Answer 16

GM crops are a faster form of cross breading. Take corn, for example. Todays hybrids are miles away from the original corn plant. Untill the '40's or 50's, corn was all open pollinated, then they started hybridizing. Years and years of cross breeding resulted in the base hybrids we now have. New GM corn plants are NOT contaminated with "ancient corn" strains. There are only 2 main forms of GM corn: Bt corn, and Roundup Ready corn. Bt corn is a basic corn hybrid, genetically modified with the Bacillus thuringenis(sp) bacteria. This bacteria has been used by "organic" farmers for years. It is applied as a spray to control corn borers. Roundup Ready corn, soybeans, canola etc, are basic varieties modified with a tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (a non-selective herbicide). Plants have been cross bred for years for herbicide tolerance. Genetic modifiction simply took years off the time it took to get the varieties to production.

For those who think it's been "too quick", GM crops have been on the market for at least 15 years, and how many adverse reactions have we had? Are they higher than any other allergens? Do we ban peanuts because 1 out of 500 people are deathly allergic to them?

I would much rather use GM crops than continue to have to use the toxins that we had to use in the past to control insects. Ever heard of Furidan?

Are there risks of creating "super weeds"? Yes, but no more so than by using any other chemical to control weeds.

If you don't want to consume GM crops, that's your right. Go and buy "organic" foods, I don't care one way or the other. I just get tired of all the lies and mis-information spread about GM crops by people who don't know what they're talking about.

Edit to Stony:

The first paragraph of your statement, after "may opinion" is ludacris. "GM Crops cannot survive without the use of chemicals." This statement only shows your complete lack of knowledge about GM crops. And as for your "Studies have found that pregnent woman who consume food that contains GM produce, can experience birth defects and hormonal problems." statement, how 'bout some proof. A link would be nice.

And this statement, "The chemicals used commonly with GM crops, arrived from the Veitnam War in the 60's. Agent Orange and Agent Purple were used to clear giant wholes in the Jungle, in oder to see the enemy. Today we call it Round Up and farmers use it to clear the fields of last years GM crops.". is about as ignorant as you can get. Agent Orange was 2,4,5-T, which was banned, erroniously as it turned out, back in the '70's. Never heard of "Agent Purple", but suspect it refers to Paraquat, which is a dissicant (It kills green foliage, but doesn't always kill the entire plant). NEITHER of the chemicals in any way even resembles Roundup.

GM plants are NOT designed in such a way as not to produce fertile seed, hence, the reason you CANNOT use Roundup to kill last years Roundup Ready crop.

Try doing a little research next time. As I said earlier, if you don't want to purchase GM crops, by all means don't, but don't spread lies and misinformation.

Answer 17

All agriculture depends on genetically modified crops, and this has been true since crops were domesticated.  Selective breeding has been a long-time practice, and this is a method of genetic modification.  I can think of nothing that humans have domesticated that have not been selected by breeding.  

The current issue concerns the method of genetic modification, direct molecular engineering versus selective breeding.  Neither is inherently good or bad.  It depends on the outcome.