Thursday, March 15, 2012
Electronic Debate: Genetic Engineering of Food
Please use this space to respectfully and intellectually debate the issues surrounding the genetic engineering of food. Express your opinion in a productive, focused and open-minded way. If any of your posts have to be removed, you will lose classwork credit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The genetic engineering of food is actually beneficial for everyone. It helps foods be more resistant to weather, pesticides, and any other things that may affect food. It also helps the economy. With more foods surviving harsh weather, and other things that may cause the foods to die, more people can buy healthy and attractive plants.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it may help, it could also become harmful if no one knows what they are doing. With the USDA watching, it will most likely not happen. However the environment needs its natural, and original plants. If we keep creating genetically engineered plants, and making less non-genetically engineered plants, one day we won't have natures original plants.
All we have to do is keep a balance, and everything will be fine :)
DeleteGenetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have had their genome directly altered with genetic engineering technology. They can provide numerous benefits over traditional crops, such as increased yield and resistance to pesticides. The use of GMOs in the food and agricultural industries, however, has created a significant controversy in the environmental circle. There is currently a strong contention, backed by organizations such as WWF, that the use of GMOs can have unknown ecological impacts. It is possible, opponents argue, that GMOs could disrupt the delicate balance between organisms and cause some ecosystems to collapse. These opponents support moratoria on GM crops.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the ecological concerns presented by opponents of GMOs can outweigh the benefits currently being provided by GM crops. GMOs are currently being used in developing countries to greatly increase the efficiency of farming and reduce pesticide use. In these areas, hunger is a significant concern; a ban on the use of GMOs would reduce an already shrinking food supply. I do concede that there are unknowns involved with the use of GM crops. However, until clear evidence is presented that GMOs have contributed to negative ecological effects, I see no reason to limit or restrict their use.
For more information on GMOs, see http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=2c44b320-6a10-461a-8341-b51b74091fc8%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12441302
DeleteFor information on WWF's stance on GMOs, see http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/forests/news/?uNewsID=156602
Genetically modified plants is great. I am all for it because it saves a lot of lives because so much more food comes from GMO's. It might lose some flavor, but it has so much more that this actually evens out.
ReplyDeleteDevan..I think you meant to say "are great" XD
DeleteThe intention is good, but it is still messing with something's DNA to create something that is similar. it isnt really right.
DeleteCall me crazy, but I am perfectly fine with genetically altered food as long as it does not harm me. I will be perfectly fine if scientist can make food healthier and taste better. However, if the food makes me grow an arm out of my head, then that is where I draw the line.
Delete@Duncan:
DeleteOn what basis do you argue that genetic engineering is wrong?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Devan: You do realize that the organism could be altered to taste in a way more preferable than the unaltered organism.
DeleteGenetic engineering is the term applied to techniques that alter the genes (hereditary material) or combination of genes in an organism. By changing an organism's genes, scientists can give the organism and its descendants different traits.Some examples include: dairy cows that produce more milk,beef cattle that have leaner meat, hogs that grow faster and have decreased fat content as well as corn with increased nutritional value. However,genetic engineering has caused concern among some people. Some oppose genetic engineering because they fear that harmful, uncontrollable bacteria might be produced accidentally. Others worry about possible environmental damage by the deliberate introduction of organisms whose heredity has been altered. Some people also question the morality of manipulating the genetic material of living creatures
ReplyDeleteWhat is your stance on genetic engineering of foods?
DeleteI havnt looked at this until now but if you still want the answer, i think they are needed, because there is not enough food to satisfy everyone as is, and the geneticly engineered foods grow faster, and in different conditions
DeleteGenetic Engineering I feel is a bad thing because it is not a natural thing. I believe that the things we grow and produce should be natural. If we change what little things that are natural then we won't have anything that is a natural and good. People can disagree but I feel like we should NOT have anything to do with Genetic Engineering when it comes to our food....just saying.
ReplyDeleteThis is an example of the appeal to nature fallacy. In other words, you can't say that genetic engineering is bad simply because it's not natural. Modern medicine, for example, is artificial but nearly universally viewed as beneficial.
Deletei agree that we need to maintain a source of natural foods. in my research i stumbled across multiple websites that stated genetically modified crops could be harmful to humans and negative effects on other organims. i myself am against genetically engineered crops; however i can see the points in which others would be for it such as the resistant plants are easier to grow in larger quanities--essentially creating more food. though this is benificial, i would take remaining healthy by eating natural foods rather than possible side effects from these altered plant any day.
DeletePlease provide evidence substantiating your claim that GM crops have negative health effects on humans and other organisms.
DeleteI completely agree with Whitney
Delete@Leann:
DeleteYou still have not substantiated your claim with any evidence. Please provide evidence substantiating your claim that GM crops have negative health effects on humans and other organisms.
I believe if used correctly, it can be beneficial; however, I personally am not for it. I realize that it's currently the basis of our food source, but I think if we all decided to grow our own food, we wouldn't have this issue.
ReplyDeleteI have the same opinion as Caitlin about this topic.
DeleteI agree with Caitlin
DeleteWhat do you mean by "grow your own food"? With what evidence do you substantiate the claim you are making?
DeleteI agree....I mean like people can make it all they want but its not something that I would be the first to use...I perfer my things to be ALL natural...you can't really trust people these days with stuff like this because people sneak stuff into whatever they can. Just saying!
Delete@Leann:
DeletePlease provide evidence substantiating your claim that natural things are superior to genetically altered ones.
I do not have an opinion on this subject because it helps us grow more crops that are resistant to disease and they could possibly be healthier, but with naturally grown plants, the cost is less because money is not spent on the technology used to alter the hybrid plants.
ReplyDeleteGenetically modified foods have many benefits such as easier transport, longer shelf life, and resistance to certain factors in nature such as insects. This causes more food to be produced and ,with the factors mentioned earlier, the hungry are easier to feed. However, there are negative factors such as health issues. While there is no evidence that there are negative affects from human consumption of Genetically modified organisms, also known as GMOs, there is also no evidence that GMOs do not produce health issues, as such issues would not appear until years after consumption. There are also issues as to the GMOs having a negative affect on natural plants and animals that eat the GMOs.
ReplyDeleteDespite this, I believe that the production of GMOs as a secondary food source in countries that have a high amount of hungry people is necessary, and if the production of GMOs in this enviroment is not allowed, there would be a large amount of negative effects. GMOs should most likely not serve as a primary source of food in 1st world countries that have alternative sources of foods. This is because in countries that need the food, the risk of starvation is higher than the chance of contacting health issues from the consumption of GMOs. I do not believe that this is so in 1st world countries, and more research is necessary about the effects of GMOs before there is a large amount of the population is consuming them.
Genetically modified food is actually quite beneficial to the human population. When we genetically modify food, we can implement what we would like and what we need in our food. The world as we all know, is facing hunger either due to poverty, unavailability of food, or other reasons. With us genetically modifying different foods, we can create different plants and foods that produce more, healthy fruits or vegetables to further help the human population survive. It may not be "natural" in your opinions, but in the long-run it will help humans beyond what we think.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it will produce something more healthy by altering its DNA.
Delete@Taylorcw:
DeleteWith what evidence do you substantiate this claim? There is currently a significant body of evidence supporting the idea that GMOs can provide significant benefits to humanity.
For more information on the benefits of GMOs, see http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=2c44b320-6a10-461a-8341-b51b74091fc8%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12441302
DeleteGenetically modified food sounds like it would be okay, but at the same time you eat it. I don't like it because it isn't very natural and might not be necessarily safe for your health. If we make our own food why would we want to alter it if it's just fine? Changing something that we don't need to isn't a good idea.
ReplyDeleteGenetically modified foods provide significant benefits such as pest resistance and increased yield. They are currently used in third world countries to make farming more efficient and combat hunger. There is a significant demand for GM crops that only increases as our planet becomes more populous.
DeleteWith what evidence do you substantiate the idea that "Changing something that we don't need to isn't a good idea"?
For more information on the benefits of GMOs, see http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=2c44b320-6a10-461a-8341-b51b74091fc8%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12441302
DeleteI agree with Taeja's post but, if i have to take a side, i would say that genetically engineered food is quite negative in this matter. yes it has numerous benefits and less negative things about this, but thoughs negatives can be so strong that alot of the benefits are pointless. the bell it about to ring so i shall continue this at home.
ReplyDeleteWell, so far, I have not seen many "negative" things that are caused by GMOs. Could you explain it further or give me an example? (I personally think that GMOs are fine, as long as it doesn't harm me, like Alex said above)
DeleteI think that Genetically modified food is beneficial. As mentioned earlier, we would have food that can resist pretty much anything. Then we could produced plenty of food so that we could feed everyone in the world.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is actually quite beneficial more than it is of a concern. But I do have to say that animals used for produce are never in great conditions. But as humans we do what he have to do to live and keep our population thriving. ˙llɐ sı ʇɐɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ I
ReplyDeleteI think that as long as you have a good mix of the two, you are good. Personally, I would eat more naturally grown foods, but as long as you don't survive off of GMOs, you are good.
ReplyDeleteWith what evidence do you substantiate the claim that is it a bad idea to survive off of GMOs? What would you say to a third world family that would starve without GMOs?
DeleteI say that because not a lot is known about GMOs (http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html). Besides, as bad as this sounds, wouldn't a third world family survive more off food they have grown themselves, or have purchased from a local market? It's not like they could go to Wal-mart or a huge conglomerate and by GMOs.
DeleteWhat do you mean by "food they have grown themselves"?
DeleteI have never said that traditional crops should not be used. The point I am arguing is that in these countries, GMOs can SUPPLEMENT traditional crops.
Additionally, the source you cite stands in direct contradiction to this article from the Points of View database.
Deletehttp://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=2c44b320-6a10-461a-8341-b51b74091fc8%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12441302
I'm nogt exactly for people changing our food... GROSS! ;)
ReplyDeleteIt could be useful, but I don't know if didn't know what it was it wouldn't sound pleasing.
Claiming that genetic engineering is "GROSS" does not constitute a valid argument. Please provide some rationale for your viewpoint.
Deletewell just think genetically engineered food is just like hybrid foods you get from grocery stores
Deletei am pro because with this genetically engineered food we can make a bigger better food quality and could possible feed more people which in return can help with hunger.
ReplyDeleteI believe that genetic engineering of foodis beneficial. It makes better quality food that is more resistent and it can in turn provide more people with food. The overall benefits seem to outway the downsides.
ReplyDeleteWhile I feel that people should produce their own fruits and vegetables, I realize that it will not ever happen because it takes more effort than driving to a store and buying it. GMOs are more popular than fresh produce because it is more abundant and more readily available. I do not like the fact that we have to sacrifice flavor and nutrition for quantity, but it is what has to be done to save the world's populations.
ReplyDeletePlease present evidence to substantiate your claim that ""we have to sacrifice flavor and nutrition for quantity".
DeleteI do not understand the reasoning behind assertion that non-GM crops have better taste or nutrition.
Excuse the typo; I meant to say "I do not understand the reasoning behind your assertion that non-GM crops have better taste or nutrition."
DeleteWell, in most cases, the modified plants will not be composed of the same juices as an original plant. Since taste is of opinion, it is possible that one could taste the unnatural juices. Also, most GMOs are not always as nutritious as plants in their natural state. Not to say that all GMOs are less healthy, but depending on the species, it may lose its nutrients.
DeletePlease present evidence to substantiate your claims that "the modified plants will not be composed of the same juices as an original plant" and that "most GMOs are not always as nutritious as plants in their natural state."
Deletehttp://www.epa.gov/biotech_rule/pubs/ria/ria064.htm
Deletehttp://epa.gov/biotech_rule/pubs/pdf/ria029.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/testimony/ucm115032.htm
That list of websites published by the EPA and FDA explain the processes in which foods are genetically modified. By modifying the genes and subsequently the protein synthesis, certain proteins and fatty acids are produced that affect the juices of the foods. These websites also discuss that in some experiments conducted, the juices and pulp of the GMOs would have been toxic to humans. Not to say that all GMOs are unhealthy, but that some are, leading me to become skeptical of GMOs as a whole. I have based my opinion on a majority of negative outcomes.
I took a cursory glance through your articles, and they appear to be regulatory documents concerning the use of GMOs. I didn't see any experimental data, but I did not read fully through each one.
DeleteI would appreciate it if you could identify for me quotes in each article that make specific, clear statements that GMOs have produced, as you say, "a majority of negative outcomes."
Well, by reading the articles, primarily the first link, you will find the information I'm talking about. Also, I didn't base my statement on the article, I just took the information that was negative and formed my opinion on that. The articles themselves did not state that the negative outcomes outweighed the positive outcomes. I worded that oddly. That was my bad.
DeleteI can only find regulatory information. Please give me a direct quote from any of the sources you cited that clearly demonstrates a negative quality of GMOs.
Delete"...negative impacts on
Deleteinnovation at home could also affect the U.S. international position."
"...substances intentionally introduced into food that would be reviewed as food additives include those that have unusual chemical functions."
"Examples of such issues may include the potential for significantly increased levels of plant toxicants or anti-nutrients, reduction of important nutrients, new allergens, or the presence in the food of an unapproved food additive."
The first quote does not appear to relate to GMOs at all.
DeleteThe second quote is, again, regulatory information. It says that if substances are introduced into foods, they need to be reviewed.
The third quote states potential issues. It does not state that these issues actually exist.
What I am looking for is solid experimental evidence that clearly demonstrates a negative quality of GMOs. You have not provided any.
http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/negative.htm
DeleteThe website that you cite is a project created by college students from UCSC. Because it has been created by students and contains numerous grammatical errors, I would say that the information it contains is somewhat suspect. However, that doesn't rule it out entirely.
DeleteIs there a bibliography or list of works cited for the information on that website?
i dont think genetically modified food is a good thing. it is not natural and if the engineers screw up, than the food is not safe to eat and they just wasted even more food. their goal is to finds ways to make more food so it can feed more people and to also make it more healthy, but does some people really want to take such a huge risk knowing that it is not healthy, they can waste even more food if they mess up, and it is not even safe sometimes? i dont think i would. but like i said, i am neutral on this situation.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand your position on GM crops. You state that you "dont think genetically modified food is a good thing" but then say that "i am neutral on this situation." These two statements are logically incompatible. Please clearly state your position on GM crops.
DeleteAdditionally, please present evidence substantiating your claim that the consumption of GM crops is less healthy than that of traditionally bred crops.
A 2000 AMA report found that "the risks associated with such crops are not substantially different than those produced by traditional breeding methods."
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=68012fe6-07d7-414f-9344-9b034bd025f0%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12441302
I see what you mean, but I still think that this is more of an benefit. I am pretty sure that when it comes to genetics there is strict supervision on the subject, allowing no room for screw ups. The risk would be worth it if it made our population a lot healthier.
DeleteGenetically modified food can be helpful, but can also be harmful. Since food is such a broad topic because it consist of meat, vegetables, fruit, dairy, grains, and sweats. If your talking about genetically modified fruits and vegetables. i can see a lot of benefits that can help, like being resistant to bugs and having a long shelf life, but the product would do damaged to the soil because of pesticides. Then meat on the other hand can have hormones that cause the young animal to grow faster. In all it could feed the poor and hungry and keep them from starving.
ReplyDeletePlease present evidence substantiating your claim that "the product would do damaged to the soil because of pesticides." To my understanding, GM crops can actually help reduce pesticide use because they have pest resistance engineered into them.
Deletehttp://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=2c44b320-6a10-461a-8341-b51b74091fc8%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12441302
This report states that "The use of GM crops has already had a substantial positive impact on the environment in the US. A National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy study estimates a total reduction in pesticide use of 46 million pounds in 2001, thanks to GM crops."
I believe that genetically engineering food is very beneficial. It reduces pesticide use which allows more organisms to live without being affected by pesticides. The GM crops can be changed to fit the needs of humans. World Hunger is a big problem and GMOs are one way to fight World Hunger.
ReplyDeleteAs David stated above, genetically altered crops would reduce the use of pesticide, and this would help protect our soils. GM crops are made for shipping, and can be more durable, flavorful, and come in larger quantities. Overall, i believe the benefits outweigh the negative effects.
ReplyDeleteI believe that GMOs are without a doubt useful and could most definitely be more efficacious in the area desired than an unaltered food. If you are having food shortages, a crop that has been altered to produce more of the crop could be used. If there are pest issues where the crops are being grown, a crop that has been altered to be resistant to the pest could be formed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that GMO is completely wrong. Organic food is the best because that way you know that you are getting the right nutritions. GMOs are not the best, I mean if food was suppose to be that way they would have grown like that from the get go.
ReplyDeletePlease provide evidence substantiating your claim that "Organic food is the best because that way you know that you are getting the right nutritions."
DeleteOn what basis do you claim that "GMOs are not the best, I mean if food was suppose to be that way they would have grown like that from the get go"?
Okay well then check this site, and you tell me why I say and stand where I stand http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html.
DeleteI do not need to tell you anything. In an intellectual debate, you should be prepared to defend your own arguments.
DeleteYour article is clearly biased and has no scientific evidence behind it.
Please present evidence with scientific credibility.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOkay, nut what YOU FAIL TO REALIZE is that I AM FIGHTING for my claims, so DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I NEED TO DO. If you do not like what I have to state that is in my mind's eye of this subject then just stop because regardless of what you, any website, book, database. or even a scientist I will always be against GMOs. Is that understood?
Delete*but*
DeleteI debate with the goal of having an intelligent discussion comparing the pros and cons of the issue at hand.
DeleteI understand that you are fighting for your claims. In this discussion, I have never even addressed your claims. All I have asked you to do is to present evidence substantiating them.
I have also asked that you present evidence with scientific credibility. The source you currently cite does not appear to hold scientific authority and does not have scientific papers in its works cited.
As this discussion currently stands, you have failed to present evidence that provides a credible basis for your beliefs.
You have stated yourself that "regardless of what you, any website, book, database. or even a scientist I will always be against GMOs." This demonstrates to me that you are extremely closed-minded. If this is indeed a true representation of your character, then I see no point in further discussion. You have made up your mind before I have even made my case.
If, however, you would like to continue this discussion, all that I ask is that you provide credible evidence substantiating your beliefs against GMOs.
Let me remind you that what you believe is irrelevant in justification. If you cannot provide valid, credible evidence clearly stating that GMOs are inferior to traditionally bred crops, then you have no valid basis for holding your beliefs. Again, in a critical debate, you represent and are therefore responsible for defending your own views.
DeleteI would also like to ask that you be a bit more respectful and professional in making your statements. Remember that the discussion that we have here should uphold the standards of the STEM Academy.
The packet that we read in class a while back was extremely bias. Through my own research, knowledge, and the views of others on this blog, I am all for GMO's. GMO's can save lives and space for farming, as they could alter a plant enough for it to produce more fruit. GMO's could also allow for more jobs as more research would have to be done to get more seeds and test subjects. To stop world hunger, gmo's could be used.
ReplyDelete