Your thoughts on Genetically Modified Organisms [GMOs]...?

Question

Im doing a paper on genetically modified crops in developing countries, as to whether it is beneficial or not for that of the farmer.

any thoughts on this

share them :]]

Answer 1

GMO'S are both constructive and destructive. Crops which can affect other crops can be produced by modifying it genetically. On the other hand, GMO'S can be benificially used to produce disease resistant crops.

Answer 2

short & sweet:  GMOs really dont risk the populations health.  ex.  were not talking about pink corn that tastes like cheese.  most GMOs are drought-resistant or multi-flowering.  meaning more food for the masses.

that said, GMOs are the product of corporate america(world).  GMOs arent made for the betterment of the masses, but rather the betterment of the classes(rich multi-nationals).  better farming techniques combined w/ the use of selective GMOs is the solution.

Answer 3

I'm a small farmer, in Idaho.  I live in the very heart of potato country, and am surrounded by mega agra business farms.

You ask SPECIFICALLY about the GMO's in developing countries.  First I'll give you the short and sweet on GMO's here in the U.S. A.

I'm 100% against them.  Yes, they do increase yeilds the farmer has, are offer resistance to whatever they were bred to have resistance too (drought, salt, cold, hot, ect).

So why do I think they are bad?  Because each plant (or animal!) is EXATLY, and I do mean EXATLY like the other one.  They have ZERO genetic diversity.  So when a disease hits these GMO crops, it will kill 100% of the crop.  "When" is also the correct word.  It is not "if" a disease will hit these crops, but "when."  It will happen without question.

People do not realize just how serrious this could be.  We could actually have people here in the United States starving to death...not just hungry, but actual death.  Of course all the above goes for developing nations even more, since they have zero back-up food reserves, and lack the power and money to buy more food should the crops fail.

Now for another reason the GMO crops are so very bad in developing countries.  Most GMO's are being developed here in the U.S., and a few other developed countries.  People in these countries fail to look at the "big picture" and that is deadly serrious to people in developing countries.

What do I mean by the "big picture?"  Well people in India were given free of charge a GMO crop by big agra business companies.  It's been a number of years since I read about this, so I'm honestly unable to remember if it was wheat or rice, but I believe it was wheat.

The GMO seeds were supose to increase their yeild, and have beter grains.  Indeed it WAS a much better yeild for these extremely poor farmers.  They had grain for their families, and some to sell.  Plus the grain itself was better for them.  Totally a win-win situation, right?

Well...no, it wasn't.  See the grain the farmers had grown for hundreds, maybe thousands of years grew on stalks 3-4 feet tall.  The new GMO crop grew a very uniform 12 inches tall.  So what's so big about not having that extra stalk after the grain harvest?

The stalks were what they fed their livestock.  The goats they milked and ate, the sheep they ate and got fiber from, and most importantly the cattle they used to pull the plows to plant the grains the next year.  So during their winter months, they had their livestock starving to death.  This left them with no milk, a terribly important source of fats in India.  It also left them the next year with dead oxen, or oxen so weak they couldn't pull the plows.

In just one growing season, this GMO crop managed to leave the people MUCH worse off...and there wasn't even a crop failure.  They had a bumper crop!

So now you have some reasons why GMO crops are simply put deadly.  GMO's are not allowed on my farm...ever!

~Garnet

Homesteading/Farming over 20 years

Answer 4

POTATOES HAVE BEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED TO RESIST FROST AND INSECTS AND IN MY OPINION HAVE BEEN WORSENED RATHER THAN BETTERED JUST LOOK AT THE SHAPE.

Answer 5

You are going to get two really strong opinions on this question. Those for GM crops and those against them.  I'm one who thinks that GM crops are a great scientific breakthrough. I've seen what they can do for our farmers and increased food production. Just driving and seeing field after field of weed free soybeans is a beautiful thing.  Also I don't approve of institutions like Greenpeace spreading misinformation and using fear tactics to block the use of GM crops.  But my views on GM crops aside.  If you are writing a paper on GM crops for developing countries, research both sides of the GM question.  Write your paper on what the facts  reveal to you, Don't let other peoples opinions (including mine) decide the paper for you. A good place to start is with reading about the Golden Rice controversy. Best of luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Answer 6

The FDA approved the first GMO's with out peer review back in the late 1970's saying they were substantially equivalent  (meaning no real differences between GMO's and conventional crops). Of course we know they are very different from other crops. because there was a push to commercialise these novel crops no testing was done on humans and scant testing done on other animals (there was a 6 week feeding test done on chickens back in the mid 1980's) so there is no way to tell from this if there are problems with feeding GMO proteins to humans. In the past 7 years or so there have been many independent tests that are showing major problems with GMO's. Jeffery Smith has written a lot about this (See Seeds of Deception).

Despite claims by Monsanto and other gene jockeys there has been no increase in yields and since GMO's have yet to be designed for things like drought resistance we do not see any advantage there either. Thus far GMO's have been designed to with stand certain herbicides such as glysophate or engineered to have their own insecticide (Bt).

There are the Pharma crops as well that are engineered to express either pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals. these crops are not edible and can be deadly if mixed with food grade crops (which has already happened on a small scale with pharm crops that were no approved for use yet).

It was claimed in the beginning that GMO's would not spread their genetics to other species and yet Canola (brassica rapa) has done this with wild weedy relatives (brassicas are a large family and most species can interbreed). GMO corn pollen has not out crossed with other grass's but GMO corn has pretty much contaminated all the corn in the world because of pollen that is carried for miles by the wind and some insects. So now even cert. organic corn is likely to have GMO contamination.

Another biggie against GMO's is the understanding of genetics has changed radically since the 1970's. back than DNA was thought to control everything. Now we know it is the proteins that do most of the controlling. Why is this important? Because when you mess with DNA/RNA you change the proteins and doing this can turn an edible into a poison without changing taste or appearance so we humans are not aware we are eating bad things.

GMO's have great potential but when corporations take an untested and unproven technology and put it on the commercial market before it is ready all the potential is wasted

Answer 7

The article at this link is an explanation of how GMO policy has been made.  It is long and involved and shows the complete lack of concern over potential health problems.

Answer 8

Man and woman have been genetically modifying organisms since the beginning of agriculture.  When the farmer chooses the seed of one plant over another the farmer is practicing genetic modification.

Modern equipment and techniques have allowed science to accelerate the process.

With a world population of more than 6 billion, the farming techniques that some condemn are necessary in order to feed the masses.

While probably anything is possible, refusing to use what science makes available because of what might happen is not in the best interest of the world.

Crops that have been modified to improve yield should be a positive benefit to the farmer who is trying to feed his family and make a living providing food for others.  Getting hysterical about what might or might not happen when the product is consumed serves no real purpose.

Thus far, I've seen no sound science to show that GMOs are a danger to mankind.  Many of the possible side effects brought up by the opponents of GMOs have not been studied well enough to positively say the GMO is the problem.  We've seen an increase in the number of food allergies, but we haven't been able to say with any degree of certainty what is the root cause in the perceived increase.