Are genetically modified foods beneficial?

[Kalipsan 494]

 

Since I don't know much about genetically modified food, here is a short passage from Wikipedia:

 

Genetically modified foods controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food (GMO food) are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population.

 

[swamp 1,017]

We've been genetically modifying food in a process similar to natural selection for thousands of years. I don't see why doing it in a lab by a professional is any more dangerous.

[Kavawuvi 7,026]

As long as the genetically modified food is safe to eat, doesn't cause global warming, doesn't attack humans, and doesn't create a zombie apocalypse, then I'm fine with it. I've never understood why GMOs have such a bad reputation.

[Takka 13,376]

As long as it's well regulated, there shouldn't a problem. It's hard to test for long-term effects, so it's the safety threshold that's debatable. There's so many factors to be considered for anything absorbed by your body, and it's nearly impossible to assure its safety. But the same exact thing goes for anything natural. It's just that with most natural products, we've been able to see the very long-term effects.

[Floofies 2,470]

We've been genetically modifying food in a process similar to natural selection for thousands of years. I don't see why doing it in a lab by a professional is any more dangerous.

I'll leave you all with this:

<3 Neil

[swamp 1,017]

I'll leave you all with this:

<3 Neil

Glad to see he showed his stance on this. Sadly, most of the nuts complaining about evil scientific food causing cancer won't see it.

[Krazychic 3,311]

Glad to see he showed his stance on this. Sadly, most of the nuts complaining about evil scientific food causing cancer won't see it.

 

Not all genetically modified food has the ability to cause cancer it is more the individual make up and dna that contributes to a reaction from food making every individual different.

 

"Everyone has cells that have mutant proteins from DNA damage, but to say that that's cancer would be alarmist," says Jennifer Loros, Ph.D, a professor of biochemistry and genetics at Dartmouth medical school. A cell's natural cycle has checkpoints when it determines whether it's in a healthy state and should divide, or is damaged and should repair or kill itself. "Cancer can occur when the normal checkpoints in the cell cycle are misregulated somehow and the [unhealthy] cell starts dividing," Loros says. Usually, a powerful protein called P-53 will trigger tumor suppression if damage is detected at the checkpoint, causing a potential cancer to stop dead in its tracks.

Recently, Loros's research team found that cell damage can trigger the body's biological clock to reset itself. She suspects that protective proteins might fool these cells into thinking they're at the time in their cycle when cell division doesn't occur, thus averting cancer in the making.

Source: http://www.menshealth.com/health/it-true-we-all-have-cancer-cells

 

We would not have the variety of resources to consume today if it weren't for genetics.  As long as they don't go all 'mad scientist' on us I think GMF is acceptable in today's society.

[WaeV 5,049]

I suggested this topic because I had to contribute to "online discussion" for a biology class I'm taking this summer. Here was one of the more memorable posts:
 

In my opinion, there should be a concern about genetically modified food more than other natural and organic food. when we look at this modern world, we will find many diseases that are also “modern” such as cancers, bacterial Illness and the increasing of food allergies and other kinds of diseases.

Why those disease are modern? People in the past might don’t even know what are those diseases. Moreover, they where more healthier than us. Because of that, we should be concern about what we are actually doing in our modern lives. There must be a reason or more for this problem.

 

I hoped there would be more reasonable discussion here, and it seems we all generally agree that GMOs aren't intrinsically bad, and "natural" foods aren't intrinsically good. For example, apple seeds are slightly poisonous, containing a cyanide and sugar compound called amygdalin. In theory, an apple genetically modified to lack this compound could be considered more healthy.

 

As Tucker pointed out, we can't dismiss GMOs on a knee-jerk "science is bad" basis. However, the long-term effects are not as well understood as strains of crops we've been growing for hundreds of years. If a genetically modified version is overall better we should obviously use it, but there's an open question of how much testing is enough.

 

Personally, I think we should save the old strains (as I imagine we already do) so that we can revert back if the new strains become problematic. By taking tentative steps forward, we can change course if necessary.

[Floofies 2,470]

I hoped there would be more reasonable discussion here

Ok, I'll speak up more then... This is just my opinion, not so much a response:

I am really tired about the extremely vague and unfounded descriptions people come up with to justify their rampant paranoia. What health effects are you fearful about, cancer? Let me be clear: Modifying the DNA of a plant or animal does NOT cause cancer unless you are inserting a gene that specifically instructs the plant/animal cells to create a cancer-causing compound (IE: a compound which damages DNA). Furthermore, when we genetically modify plants/animals (whether it be through artificial selection or genetic engineering), we are changing the organism's instructions on basic processes that are very easy to understand.

The DNA of an organism does not say "build an eye", or "make stomata", but rather instructs individual cells to do very basic operations that happen to make these constructs. We're not just implanting random things with who-knows-what, but it's rather like taking snippets of useful computer code from one program and using them in another. It is very, very clear cut on what you are telling a cell to do when you insert a gene, and the effects are studied. The effects are studied because that's how we know what the gene does in the first place.

For example, the Flavr Savr tomato was genetically modified by a company called Calgene, to suppress the production of polygalacturonase enzymes. Polygalacturonase helps plant cells rot by messing up their cell walls. So, all Calgene had to do was introduce a specific antisense gene to block expression of the gene that made polygalacturonase, basically switching off the gene they didn't want. That's not anywhere NEAR being able to cause cancer, or any health effects on an organism eating the Flavr Savr (unless you count it not being spoiled). My point is that 99% of the genetic modifications done are local to the organism being modified. Sure, we might enjoy a healthier tomato, or a sweeter apple, but in the end most of what the modifications did were affect the plant for it's own sake.

On the other side of that example is Flavonoid Glycosides in tomatoes. Flavonoids have been proven to positively effect antioxidative activity, cleaning up free-radicals, preventing coronary heart disease, and actually preventing/killing cancer. Tomatoes naturally contain Flavonoids, but only small amounts, so of course we want to genetically modify a tomato to contain more. For the tomato, this may do very little, but for Humans it is a health benefit. There is already a ton of support for this, and as I write this it is being developed.

My sources: 10 minutes of using Google. I honestly think that, unless you're in the lab doing this sort of research, you should trust the people who are. The scientific (and plant chemistry) community is made of of wonderful people, and I highly doubt anyone there would knowingly poison other people.

[DeeblowAce 41]

I know this discussion has been untouched for a little while, but I thought I would drop by to share something. While this doesn't necessarily directly relate to GMOs themselves being harmful it does speak about them. Mainly about how the claims that these companies give that it is no different from plant hybridization is erroneous. I think it is some what relevant information that if you haven't seen already I think you'll find interesting regarding glyphosate: 

 

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/JOS_Volume-9_Number-2_Nov_2014-Swanson-et-al.pdf

and

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X14000493

Edited November 15, 2014 by DeeblowAce