Almost all the food you eat is "genetically modified" in some way

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
27,002
Reputation
4,808
Daps
124,118
Reppin
Detroit
All Our Food Is ‘Genetically Modified’ In Some Way – Where Do You Draw The Line?

April 4, 2016 | by James Borrell

6fj68pxk-1459425058.jpg


In the past week you’ve probably eaten crops that wouldn’t exist in nature, or that have evolved extra genes to reach freakish sizes. You’ve probably eaten “cloned” food and you may have even eaten plants whose ancestors were once deliberately blasted with radiation. And you could have bought all this without leaving the “organic” section of your local supermarket.

Anti-GM dogma is obscuring the real debate over what level of genetic manipulation society deems acceptable. Genetically-modified food is often regarded as something you’re either for or against, with no real middle ground.

Yet it is misleading to consider GM technology a binary decision, and blanket bans like those in many European countries are only likely to further stifle debate. After all, very little of our food is truly “natural” and even the most basic crops are the result of some form of human manipulation.

Between organic foods and tobacco engineered to glow in the dark lie a broad spectrum of “modifications” worthy of consideration. All of these different technologies are sometimes lumped together under “GM”. But where would you draw the line?

1. (Un)natural selection

Think of carrots, corn or watermelons – all foods you might eat without much consideration. Yet when compared to their wild ancestors, even the “organic” varieties are almost unrecognisable.

Domestication generally involves selecting for beneficial traits, such as high yield. Over time, many generations of selection can substantially alter a plant’s genetic makeup. Man-made selection is capable of generating forms that are extremely unlikely to occur in nature.



Modern watermelons (right) look very different to their 17th-century ancestors (left). Christies/Prathyush Thomas, CC BY

2. Genome duplications

Unknowing selection by our ancestors also involved a genetic process we only discovered relatively recently. Whereas humans have half a set of chromosomes (structures that package and organise your genetic information) from each parent, some organisms can have two or more complete duplicate sets of chromosomes. This “polyploidy” is widespread in plants and often results in exaggerated traits such as fruit size, thought to be the result of multiple gene copies.

Without realising, many crops have been unintentionally bred to a higher level of ploidy (entirely naturally) as things like large fruit or vigorous growth are often desirable. Ginger and apples are triploid for example, while potatoes and cabbage are tetraploid. Some strawberry varieties are even octoploid, meaning they have eight sets of chromosomes compared to just two in humans.

3. Plant cloning

It’s a word that tends to conjure up some discomfort – no one really wants to eat “cloned” food. Yet asexual reproduction is the core strategy for many plants in nature, and farmers have utilised it for centuries to perfect their crops.

Once a plant with desirable characteristics is found – a particularly tasty and durable banana, for instance – cloning allows us to grow identical replicates. This could be entirely natural with a cutting or runner, or artificially-induced with plant hormones. Domestic bananas have long since lost the seeds that allowed their wild ancestors to reproduce – if you eat a banana today, you’re eating a clone.

image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg


4. Induced mutations

Selection – both human and natural – operates on genetic variation within a species. If a trait or characteristic never occurs, then it cannot be selected for. In order to generate greater variation for conventional breeding, scientists in the 1920s began to expose seeds to chemicals or radiation.

Unlike more modern GM technologies, this “mutational breeding” is largely untargeted and generates mutations at random. Most will be useless, but some will be desirable. More than 1,800 cultivars of crop and ornamental plants including varieties of wheat, rice, cotton and peanuts have been developed and released in more than 50 countries. Mutational breeding is credited for spurring the “green revolution” in the 20th century.

Many common foods such as red grapefruits and varieties of pasta wheat are a result of this approach and, surprisingly, these can still be sold as certified “organic”.

image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg


‘Golden Promise’, a mutant barley made with radiation, is used in some premium whiskeys. Chetty Thomas/shutterstock

5. GM screening

GM technology doesn’t have to involve any direct manipulation of plants or species. It can be instead used to screen for traits such as disease susceptibility or to identify which “natural” cross is likely to produce the greatest yield or best outcome.

Genetic technology has allowed researchers to identify in advance which ash trees are likelyto be susceptible to ash dieback disease, for instance. Future forests could be grown from these resistant trees. We might call this “genomics-informed” human selection.

6. Cisgenic and transgenic

This is what most people mean when they refer to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – genes being artificially inserted into a different plant to improve yield, tolerance to heat or drought, to produce better drugs or even to add a vitamin. Under conventional breeding, such changes might take decades. Added genes provide a shortcut.

Cisgenic simply means the gene inserted (or moved, or duplicated) comes from the same or a very closely related species. Inserting genes from unrelated species (transgenic) is substantially more challenging – this is the only technique in our spectrum of GM technology that can produce an organism that could not occur naturally. Yet the case for it might still be compelling.



Campaigns like these are aimed at cis- and transgenic crops. But what about the other forms of GM food? Alexis Baden-Mayer, CC BY

Since the 1990s several crops have been engineered with a gene from the soil bacteriaBacillus thuringiensis. This bacteria gives “Bt corn” and other engineered crops resistance to certain pests, and acts as an appealing alternative to pesticide use.

This technology remains the most controversial as there are concerns that resistance genes could “escape” and jump to other species, or be unfit for human consumption. While unlikely – many fail safe approaches are designed to prevent this – it is of course possible.

Where do you stand?

All of these methods continue to be used. Even transgenic crops are now widely cultivated around the world, and have been for more than a decade. They are closely scrutinised and rightly so, but the promise of this technology means that it surely deserves improved scientific literacy among the public if it is to reach it’s full potential.

And let’s be clear, with global population set to hit nine billion by 2050 and the increasingly greater strain on the environment, GMOs have the potential to improve health, increase yields and reduce our impact. However uncomfortable they might make us, they deserve a sensible and informed debate.

All Our Food Is ‘Genetically Modified’ In Some Way – Where Do You Draw The Line?


Thought this was a good article. There's a lot of unwarranted dogma when it comes to "genetically modified" food.
 

NERO

All Star
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
1,867
Reputation
550
Daps
4,567
Reppin
Commiefornia
Well I guess that's settled now...

Next thread title idea:

War is peace

You can throw a slick little article in there where an expert explains why war is actually peace and to be in a state of perpetual war should be the aspiration of all good Americans. :russ:
 

Meta Reign

I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
3,224
Reputation
-3,611
Daps
6,601
Reppin
Franklin ave.
Article is stupid. The author knows what people are talking about when they rail against GM foods and even agrees that it's fairly scrutinized.

6. Cisgenic and transgenic

This is what most people mean when they refer to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – genes being artificially inserted into a different plant to improve yield, tolerance to heat or drought, to produce better drugs or even to add a vitamin. Under conventional breeding, such changes might take decades. Added genes provide a shortcut.

Cisgenic simply means the gene inserted (or moved, or duplicated) comes from the same or a very closely related species. Inserting genes from unrelated species (transgenic) is substantially more challenging – this is the only technique in our spectrum of GM technology that can produce an organism that could not occur naturally. Yet the case for it might still be compelling.



Campaigns like these are aimed at cis- and transgenic crops. But what about the other forms of GM food? Alexis Baden-Mayer, CC BY

Since the 1990s several crops have been engineered with a gene from the soil bacteriaBacillus thuringiensis. This bacteria gives “Bt corn” and other engineered crops resistance to certain pests, and acts as an appealing alternative to pesticide use.

This technology remains the most controversial as there are concerns that resistance genes could “escape” and jump to other species, or be unfit for human consumption. While unlikely – many fail safe approaches are designed to prevent this – it is of course possible.

Where do you stand?

All of these methods continue to be used. Even transgenic crops are now widely cultivated around the world, and have been for more than a decade. They are closely scrutinised and rightly so, but the promise of this technology means that it surely deserves improved scientific literacy among the public if it is to reach it’s full potential.

And let’s be clear, with global population set to hit nine billion by 2050 and the increasingly greater strain on the environment, GMOs have the potential to improve health, increase yields and reduce our impact. However uncomfortable they might make us, they deserve a sensible and informed debate.
Click to expand...​

He's being disingenuous. BT corn is banned in many countries because it indeed has horrible effects on the digestive track. That has been scientifically proven. He says transgenic and cisgenic methods for gm foods have been used globally for more than a decade. . . And oddly enough it has been almost the same amount that GM foods have been critisized globally.

So, the author is shilling big time here, and he knows it. That why he didn't mention studies showing BT corn hurts livestock, and helps pests build resistence so they come back much harder. He's a fraud.
 
Last edited:

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
75,334
Reputation
4,550
Daps
119,356
Reppin
Tha Land
He's being disingenuous. BT corn is banned in many countries because it indeed has horrible effects on the digestive track. That has been scientifically proven.
No it hasn't. That's part of the fear mongering BS the article is talking about :smh:

So, the author is shilling big time here, and he knows it. That why he didn't mention studies showing BT corn hurts livestock, and helps pests build resistence so they come back much harder. He's a fraud.
One flawed and already debunked study conducted by the organic food industry :stopitslime:
 
Last edited:

TLR Is Mental Poison

The Coli Is Not For You
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
46,172
Reputation
7,500
Daps
105,734
Reppin
The Opposite Of Elliott Wilson's Mohawk
Well I guess that's settled now...

Next thread title idea:

War is peace

You can throw a slick little article in there where an expert explains why war is actually peace and to be in a state of perpetual war should be the aspiration of all good Americans. :russ:
:comeon:

Did you even read the article breh

Produce has had to be "genetically modified" from the very beginning of agriculture just to survive. Any kind of plant selection that favors strong or desirable produce over weak/undesirable produce = genetic modification. Successful agriculture = genetic modification. There is no proof that genetically modified foods are any more harmful than "natural" foods... whatever the fukk "natural" is.
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
27,002
Reputation
4,808
Daps
124,118
Reppin
Detroit
:comeon:

Did you even read the article breh

Produce has had to be "genetically modified" from the very beginning of agriculture just to survive. Any kind of plant selection that favors strong or desirable produce over weak/undesirable produce = genetic modification. Successful agriculture = genetic modification. There is no proof that genetically modified foods are any more harmful than "natural" foods... whatever the fukk "natural" is.

That's the thing that really gets me. Most of these anti-GMO people don't even have a logically consistent definition of what a "natural" food is. :snoop:

Personally I feel like I'd be a hypocrite if I criticized anti-scientific attitudes when it comes to stuff like climate change or anti-vaxxers and then turned around and bought into that sort of thing when it comes to genetically modifying food.




:salute:
 
Last edited:

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
27,691
Reputation
4,190
Daps
33,089
Reppin
Auburn, AL
great thread

its a boogieman topic but if people spent sometime reading on it theyd realize its largely good

the real issues are pesticides and preservatives used which often have unwanted side effects
 
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
4,375
Reputation
1,915
Daps
15,242
Reppin
Oakland
GMO bullshyt.

It's NOT more resistant to pests when compared to proper organic gardening. Over time it's actually more susceptable to pests.
You must pay Monsanto a Royalty to use their seed.
The cancer studies.
Again... the CANCER studies!

I have avoided eating corn and soy. I haven't had a Dorito in years brehs :to:
 
Top