Before I get into things, I'd like to preface this by mentioning that there is already a thread for the discussion of GMO's; however it's 3-4 years old, got pretty convoluted, and seemed to end on a sour note. I'd like to re-introduce the topic of GMO's while emphasizing the importance for objectivity and accountability. Be open-minded and participate in the conversation, but be accountable for what you say. If you state something as fact, provide primary sources. Anecdotal evidence and blogs do not count. I know this can be kind of a touchy subject for some, but I think right now is a critical time to discuss these kinds of things. Agriculture, bio/geoengineering, and food distribution are central to many pillar issues of our time and I think it's paramount to be educated and informed in an age where so many people wear their opinions on their sleeves.

The nexus is a fantastic community of critical thinkers who embrace the infinite unknown and are not afraid of challenging the status-quot, but with a healthy amount of skepticism. There's a lot of qualified people here with lots of knowledge and experience who I'm sure have much to say about the subject!

Okay so anyways let's get this ball rolling...


So my state was just the 1st state in the US to pass laws requiring GMO's to be labelled. Naturally, I was pretty happy about it. I, like many other people, have grown up with the presupposition that non-organic genetically-modified food must be bad for human health and was responsible for all sorts of the world's woes. I have a friend who is fairly well educated, and he works as a chemist at a lab synthesizing proteins. He is adamant that GMO's are extremely mis-represented in the popular media and there is overwhelming evidence to support the notion that GMO's are no worse for human health or the environment than organic agricultural practices, and that GMO crops actually provide a plethora of benefits that you cannot achieve via traditional organic methods.

Now this of course challenged me, but I like to think of myself as an open-minded fellow and my friend clearly had more data to support his opinion than I did. Never wanting to take anyone's word for absolute truth, I decided to do my own research; and lo and behold I realized he might actually be right (about some things).

GMO's are harmful to human health
There is broad scientific consensus that foods derived from GMO crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers


A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010)

Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security"

One thing I wondered was that if GMO's aren't harmful to human health, than why would companies fight so hard to make sure their products aren't labeled? Well, considering the public opinion of GMO's, imagine how much harder it will be to sell your product if his has a giant label on it that says "GMO".

I still wonder though, why would GMO's be banned in so many other countries if there really was such wide consensus?

I have to wonder who finances these studies and what relationships do they have with parties that may benefit? It is well known than many monsanto and other execs are figureheads of regulatory agencies like the FDA and EPA. One of the arguments against the supposed safety of GMO's is that the objectivity of the studies being done (eg corporate/industry influence) is questionable. This said, there is also widespread scientific consensus regarding the negative implications of climate change despite the political interest of corporations and the 'powers that be' wanting to dismiss climate change as a liberal invention...so why should widespread scientific consensus regarding GMO's suddenly be called into question because it doesn't fit into a neat little neo-liberal green box?

Then again, here's evidence that supports the notion that GMO's do indeed have adverse health effects.

(I'm feeling lazy here so I'm not citing sources directly...but I'd say points 3 through 9 are valid, and the corresponding primary sources are provided at the bottom of the page.)

So I'm not sure what to think about the health risks associated with GMO's--it's not as clear cut as I originally thought. Proponents of GMO's generally hold to the argument that bio-engineering is not in of itself dangerous, and that we've technically been genetically modifying crops throughout the history of agriculture (eg eugenics). Is it more dangerous to eat the meat of a dog who's genes have been selectively bred for hunting than it is to eat a wolf? Probably not. Is it more dangerous to eat an orange that has been selectively bred to withstand frost? Probably not. The problem with this approach is that the process in which genetic mutation(?) takes place via selective breeding is not the same as the process involved in modifying the genetics of seeds via direct chemical processes/genetic intervention (? im kind of making up terminology here). This is where I am ignorant and I think where a lot of the debate gets muddled.

What exactly is the process by which GMO's become 'GMO's'? How does it differ from traditional eugenics, selective breeding, etc...because obviously there are no health risks associated with traditional methods of gene manipulation, else most everything would be toxic.

Granted, regardless of how similar the process may or may not be, it is impossible to predict the long-term effects of gene manipulation. Taking an example from the last thread, if you have organically grown oranges which have been selectively bred through the generations so that they are more resistant to frost, or maybe bigger and jucier, or whatever, you cannot predict every effect gene manipulation may have over time or in response to unpredictable environmental change. Perhaps your big juicy oranges taste great and are hardier than most other oranges, but by manipulating a certain gene to make it big and juicy and bright orange, perhaps the orange no longer has as much vitamin C. This is applicable to modern bio-engineering and the long-term problems are more apparent, but this isn't necessarily a valid argument against GMO's as it applies to any form of selective agriculture.

This is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.

GMO's are bad for the environment
The other common argument used against the utilization of GMO's is that they have a detrimental effect on the natural environment. This argument generally points to unintentional breeding of a domestic crop with a related plant, creating resistant new weeds requiring increasing application of more potent herbicides; as well as unintentional effects on non-target organisms (eg negative effects on Monarch larvae, etc...) and having a negative influence on bio-diversity.

Proponents of GMO's argue that GMO's lead to the use of much less pesticides, and actually contribute to more biodiversity, citing that GMO cotton has been documented to increase diversity of benificial insects in the Southern US and in Australia and that adoption of Bt corn in the Phillipines did not show an indication that Bt corn had a negative impact on insect abundance and diversity.

Source
Additional info

My own 2 cents here is that the issue is not necessarily the process of bio-engineering, but the industrial-agricultural context in which these technologies are being employed. I think that it's quite obvious that our current agricultural model is a major contributor to climate change and other environmental issues. Monoculture for example, is known to reduce soil fertility significantly and often leads to the quicker spread of pests and diseases. Studies have shown that introducing crop diversity to a diseased monoculture greatly improve yields.

Sources:
Environmental impacts of banana growing
http://www.nature.com/na.../n6797/abs/406718a0.html

Patents
I'm unfortunately running out of time and yet there's a few more things I want to cover. Here, I just want to take a minute to make it clear beforehand that I am by no means supportive of Monsanto. In fact, I have to side with most people and take the popular stance--I think Monstanto is a terrible corporation doing a lot of harm. But anyways...

Monsanto is pretty reputed for patenting their seeds and then supposedly suing farmers for mistakenly sewing said seeds. There is one famous case in particular (Monstanto vs Schmeiser) in which Monstanto...



To summarize, this farmer found patented canola that had accidently made it's way into his crop in 1997. He harvested his crop, and saved the patented seeds of the monsanto crop seperately from the rest of his seeds, and then knowingly replanted the patented seeds the next year. The court case was not about trying to sue this farmer because they found monstanto's crops mixed with his; the court only considered the genetically modified canola (monstanto's) in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which he had intentionally concentrated and planted AFTER his 1997 harvest.

This is not what I was led to believe in Food Inc and other anti-GMO documentaries.

The fact of the matter is that bio-engineering is an incredibly expensive process and patents are necessary to protect such a large financial investment. If any farmer could just replant monstanto-seeds because they accidently ended up in their fields, monstanto would immedietely go out of business. Now on the other hand, cross contamination with genetically modified crops makes it harder to continue to farm independently, as soil quality and pesticide/herbicide tolerance changes with exposure. I have heard it argued that small farmers have no choice but to buy GM seeds from monstanto once their fields are cross contaminated simply because they can no longer grow anything but monstanto GM crops.

GMO's can solve the hunger crisis
This is an entirely different can of worms so I only want to skim the surface of this.

But no, I disagree. The current crisis with food is not because there is not enough of it, but because of the systems in place that do not allow for the equal distribution of resources/wealth. It's as simple as that. I have heard the argument that companies like Monsanto will go into impoverished nations and offer their patented seeds for free, which is arguably a great thing as it can feed millions and millions of people. Now, I don't have a source for this (Ill look for one later, but please feel free to look for yourself), but what I have observed is that these technologies are not being used to help people, simply to fuel Western overconsumption. It might look nice for Monstanto to go into a country and offer them free food, but once you start growing GM Monstanto crops your soil dies and you can't go back--so once these impoverished nations have no choice but to grow GM crops, Monstanto can come in and be like, "Oh okay you liked our free trial? Well now you have to pay us if you want to keep using our seeds, and we're going to charge you a bunch of interest for letting you test out our patents"

Corporations and private entities (usually funded by the gov't) do this all the time in nations that have access to resources or are in a geo-politically valuable position. If you don't believe me do a google search for economic sabotage.

TLDR
The issue of GMO's is very complex and not as black and white as it is often presented to us in popular media. While I still personally have some concerns about GMO's, there is substantial evidence that points to them being safe for consumption. This said, none of the evidence is absolute and there are contradictory studies. While I can't say much on GM crops and plants, I can say from first hand experience that the crap they put into milk, dairy, and meat is not only inhumane and cruel; but utterly disgusting and I think you have to be a special kind of person to not see the blatant adverse health effects these practices have on the animals in our food system.

My take on the issue is that more clarification is needed on the actual process of genetic modification that takes place. It is clear to me that the current model of industrial-agricultural practices are detrimental to the environment, human health, and to impoverished and under-represented communities worldwide. Where GMO's fall into this messy infrastructure is a sticky issue; whilst I do think that there may be inherent dangers with genetically modified foods, further clarification is needed and more independent studies conducted. I personally think it is the structure that needs to change, and perhaps if used reponsibly and within a functional and sustainable agricultural and economic model, GMO's could serve to really benefit our food production. But as of right now, I think we need to do more research and better understand the implications of GMO's before implimenting them on as massive a scale as we already have.

There's much more I wish I could throw in, but time is not on my side unfortunately. I'm looking forward to see what y'all think about this! This is an issue that is important to me and my lifestyle, and I would like to make an informed decision as to what I put into my body and the opinions I choose to have.

Much love!

It was my understanding that GMO crops do not repopulate on their own, that you HAVE to replant no matter what. If someone can enlighten me on the truth I would be grateful. The understanding I had was that GMO plants would cause organics to go extinct or something like that. I apologize for my ignorance on the topic but I'm interested and I might join in and provide some info after I do some research.

I also had read that GMO plants did not support the needs of bees or that somehow there was a link between the dying bee populations and GMOs.

Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to produce only infertile seeds; the goal being to eliminate seed saving by potential "intellectual property thieves" and ensure that farmers who use GMO's have to continue to buy their seeds from Monsanto. The technology was developed in the 1990s, but is not yet commercially available. (Source attached) Right now world gov'ts and corporations like Monsanto are really pushing for this technology. So to answer your question, I think it depends on the crop and specific technology used. Genetically modified can mean many things.

As far as the GMO-bee connection, I think it is substantial. Here is a great article about the connection which is not a scientific journal or academic source, but is a great analysis and provides credible sources you can check for yourself.

When talking about GMOs, it's incredibly important to separate the science of GMOs from the politics and actions of GMO corporations like Monsanto.

Monsanto is evil. Period. The things they do (esp. the terminator seeds) are awful, and there are people who work for that corporations that are taking on some really bad karma.

That doesn't mean that GMOs, in theory, or in the right hands, are evil. I have never seen a paper that presents any evidence that a GMO organism is any more dangerous than a 'normal' one, and it's worth remember that all the food we eat has already been GM'd to the point of unrecognizability already.

Blessings
~ND

"and it's worth remember that all the food we eat has already been GM'd to the point of unrecognizability already."

You have totally confused hybridization with genetic modification. They are not the same thing at all, and most of the food we eat at this point has certainly not been genetically modified yet.

I heard Geoff Lawton talk about how many strawberries in California are genetically modified so that they don't produce condensation on their skin. This, according to him, has had a detrimental impact on the water-cycle in California.

If this is true then there absolutely will be a food crisis caused at least in part by GMO, due to food prices going up.


Please correct me if this is scientifically unknown or invalid.

I think the most truthful thing anyone can say, if they are being honest, is that we just don't know. For the most part, there is no real reason to assume it is bad, or unhealthy - but well, no one can justifiably say so with a hundred percent certainty. Don't listen to either end of the spectrum - they are both employing unfounded and prejudicial sensationalism to sway your opinion.

Not very practical advice, but true nonetheless...

Cheers,

JBArk

a simple google search can bring you to papers like this published in peer reviewed scientific journals..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835

People continue to say there is nothing published to support any negative claims etc. Google is your friend.

Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of our Lives.

The World According to Monsanto.

I don't see the real need for GMO foods.
The Earth can provide abundance if we learn to work with Mother Nature instead of against her.
It's just a human solution to a human generated problem.

But I'm going off topic...
I suspect they are more harmful than good, just like artificial fertilizers creating imbalances in soils and basically ruining them in the long term for all organic life. Nature knows what its doing...there I go again.

Ok, so that is an unsubstantiated abstract. To read the article I need to pay $46 US. Do you have a copy or are you basing your perspective solely on this abstract? If you have bought it, post it - I'd love to read it!

Until then, I still maintain they are probably safe, though would not say so with any degree of certainty. We just don't know.

Cheers,

JBArk

Even if we disregard for now the evidence of the risks (which exists IMO if you do some digging), it's still utterly insane that people are unknowingly being coerced into consuming them because this insidious company does everything in its power to avoid having to (god forbid) LABEL what it's food actually IS or contains... That is an incredibly disgusting and deceitful practice and speaks volumes about where their intentions lie. We have every right to know just what we are consuming, even/especially when the potential health/environmental risks are not fully understood, or detrimental. And the idea of using the entire world as a giant guniea pig/petri dish without comprehensively understanding the potential long-term environmental and health consequences is utterly insane as well.

So regardless of the evidence, these points alone I think are enough to support the notion that the way GMO is being currently used in agriculture is far from desirable.

Genetic Roulette is an absolutely outstanding documentary.


Why put something, anything, in your body that was not here on this earth to begin with exactly the way nature intended? We are a part of nature. We do not need genetically modified anything to maintain nutrition, supply, or quality of life.

Yes, yes and yes. But none of this is "bad" for your health, physiologically, which is what I assume the OP meant.

What about cooking. Or pickling. Or Curing. Etc. How do we presume to know what "NATURE" intends? A little anthropocentric as argument, no?

"What exactly is the process by which GMO's become 'GMO's'? How does it differ from traditional eugenics, selective breeding, etc...because obviously there are no health risks associated with traditional methods of gene manipulation, else most everything would be toxic."

Eugenics and selective breeding, hybridization etc, as they have been practiced through history are entirley different from what we are calling "genetic modification". Selecting certain traits we like in say, carrots, and then growing otu successive generations of seeds produced from those specimens is selective breeding. Crossing a cannabis indica strain with a cannabis sativa strain to creat a new indica/sativa hybrid is hybridization. These things occur, becasue it is entirely within the genetics of the species for such things to occur. You are not loosing any context, there is no cutting and pasting the the genetic code. It's SEX. These things are able to occur due to SEX..procreation..which is what has happened in nature for millions of years on earth. GM does not happen without human biotech. Hybridization happens all the time without human invovlement.

For the context of this thread, GMO should be referred to as the alteration of the genome that happens nby means outside of breeding.

In this sense, there is nothing "natural" about genetic modification/engineering. Genetic engineering is the manipulation of the genome directly through biotechnology..inserting genes from one species into the genome of another etc..something that cannot happen as a result of natural breeding.

We cant say much about what might be lost in terms of context richness of the DNA. If the individual genes are making up larger genetic regions etc..how can we know that this sort of "cutting and pasting" is not resulting in a loss of context? If the DNA is like a library, filled full of volumes of books, made up by individual books, made up of chapters, made up of paragraphs, made up of sentences, made up of words, made up of letters..than what happens when you remove a letter, or a sentence, a paragraph or a chapter? How does that effect the context overall?

Can anyone answer this for me? Im serious if someone here knows I would like to know..because I certainly dont know enough about this to know and have never heard anyone else explain it either.

it is easy enough for me to just not eat genetically modified organisms. I dont care if the verdict is up in the air..it is easier to avoid them now than to wish I had later.

I agree. That was my point. We don't actually know. Better safe than sorry. I agree again. I just don't buy the dogma about it being de facto "unhealthy". Or "bad", in the OP's term.

JBArk

Talking about this in the context of what is "natural" as an absolute is pointless. One can argue that anything from trees to atom bombs and google vision are natural.

GMO is not something that has been happening within the biological system that evolved on earth over many millions of years though. So, just becasue something techically can be deemed "natural" does not mean it is congruent, or exhibits any sort of place of coherance within the rest of the system.

All we can say is GMO is an entirely novel thing, never before seen as far as we know on earth, or within the biological system that birthed us. The biological conditions that evolved life into what it is now have veen very specific, and did not invovle biotechnological genetic modification via gene insertion.

That much we can say.

Personally, I feel like many people seem to be just falling apart with all kinds of chronic diseases and illness. I look at the work of people like Weston Price, Tony Wright and the ideas of Arthur Haines...and the theory that we are suffering from epigenetic changes that are causing a degredation in our species due to lifestyle, diet and other factors and I feel there is some truth to what these people have been saying. So, for me I think there is something to be said for keeping in line(more like going back at this point) with what has always been "natural" for us as a species throughout our evolution.

I assume you've read all the studies linked on sites like this then? http://www.gmoevidence.com/

Well said! That elaborates my point in that post quite nicely!