My homework brought me here 😁

@casi1361

2 жыл бұрын

Me too

It's heartening to see that gene editing is being used to serve the greater good of the human race, like producing food products that aim to tackle serious problems in today's world, such as food shortage and improve the quality of food consumed by people. My question is: how far can scientists and WHO then say that GMOs are significantly contributing to solving food-related problems in today's world? Are the existing GMOs, like Flavr Savr Tomato, Golden Rice and Atlantic Salmon, indeed effective in improving food quality especially for citizens in developing nations with little to eat and thereby, reducing global food shortage?

As someone who has to grow plants myself for a paper, I can see the importance of GMO, especially to ward off insects and to increase shelf life. With the ever increasing population, food shortage is a real fear and GMOs is truly needed to feed the masses. Because of its importance, I believe the fact that the herbicide resistant gene was transferred to a weed would be quite a deterrent to GMOs. It will be counterproductive if the GMO that is meant to help with food shortage, instead aggravates the situation if these superweeds proliferate and compete with our crops. I think it is very important to find a way to counteract this action so as to help GMO solve the world's problem against food shortage.

@charlesmrader

2 жыл бұрын

Kai Nlsa, you may be misinformed about a herbicide resistance gene transferring to a weed. It has never happened that a herbicide resistance gene transferred from a GMO plant to a weed, unless you count an agricultural crop that is growing naturally as a weed. An example of the latter is canola, which is grown for its oil, but which has close relatives growing wild. It is doubtful if this should be considered a weed - although I suppose you can decide to call anything a weed if it is growing where you don't want it. But what you have been hearing about, and which is true, is that some actual weeds, species that are not crops, have sometimes evolved to resist herbicides. It doesn't involve the transfer of any gene, just the natural evolution of the ability to either neutralize the herbicide, or to keep it from getting to the parts of the plant where it does its damage. There are many more cases of this happening for the herbicides used with non-GMO plants, than there are cases of resistance to glyphosate, which is the principal herbicide used on GMO crops. Be careful, because a lot of what you read about GMO crops and weeds is simply anti-GMO propaganda and just a little thought will help you see that. For example, should you call the natural weed Palmer amaranth a superweed? No farmer wants it in his field, so it is surely a weed. Nobody called it a superweed. You could get rid of it by uprooting it, charring it with a flame, crushing it, or spraying it with a herbicide that your crop, say maize, could tolerate naturally. But since most pre-GMO era crops would be killed by a glyphosate spray, nobody would have used glyphosate to kill the Palmer amaranth. So when a glyphosate tolerant Palmer amaranth weed evolved naturally, a farmer could kill it by all the old means. He would never call it a superweed. It is no more super that the original wild variety. To a farmer growing a GMO herbicide tolerant crop and expecting to control weeds with glyphosate, the glyphosate tolerant version is a problem because he needs to control it by one of the one of the other means, still available to the farmers who grow non-GMO cops.

It is not the matter of how good or bad to us and biosphere since we've been rude enough to both not to have mere right to talk about. What matters is our attitude to the law of nature. And as far as we have a choice, we have to ask ourselves if we really have to do this much just to justify that number not to survive? World food is no problem in amount. Distribution is the real problem. We have to have a revolution on this matter. I got my own pondering on this subject. @daIk

1. GMOs can be tested for not causing allergy (as they currently are). 2. The rat study was invalid. 3. The antibiotic resistance problem does not apply to all genetic engineering methods. Also if antibiotics are used for screening successful transformation etc, they can be selected so that the resistances does not apply to antibiotics used to treat humans. We really need GMOs to stop deforestation and to feed future generations.

@Tanander1996

5 жыл бұрын

Hi! I do acknowledge the need for GMOs to help resolve looming global food security problems. And yes, I do agree with points number 1 and 3 that you have raised. There are certainly allergen tests in place to determine if GMOs cause any allergies, just like any other food product. Moreover, the advancement of GMO technology can even help relieve food allergy, for example, there are reports stating that scientists are working on developing gluten-free wheat and non-allergenic peanuts. However, with that being said, it also important for suppliers or manufacturers to label the GMOs and indicate the ingredients used in making the products so that consumers can make a more informed choice. Moreover, I also agree that the antibiotic resistance problem may not apply to all GMOs, but that is certainly a cause of concern for some GMOs. In fact, the video indicates that the antibiotic resistance is a potential risk that may happen. This means the video doesn't suggest that this will and definitely happen to all GMOs. In response to the rat study mentioned in the video, although there are questions and some reservations about the methodology and results of the rat study, the study does show that GMO has an impact on the health and the organs of rats. Perhaps, the video can consider citing the study that was based upon to increase the credibility. Personally, I see the value of GMOs in our society such as the improvement of farmers' livelihood through the use of GM seeds, the enhanced nutritional value in genetically engineered food and the development of humanised organ for organ transplant. However, despite of its value, GMO is not all that rosy and ideal after all. Every technological development is bound to have some implications and risks involved. Therefore, like any other controversial issue, there are proponents and opponents. Their sentiments all boiled down to their own personal beliefs and preferences, which are influenced by a plethora of factors such as the media. With that being said, it is important for the general public to be adequately educated and informed about GMOs, and consider the GMO topic through multiple lens.

@user255

5 жыл бұрын

@@Tanander1996 The problem with GMO label is that it's not adding any information. It only tells about what tools have been used to create the product. It says absolutely nothing about the product itself. Genetic engineering is one of the many plant breeding tools/methods, not a product. Example see "Lenape potato" for nightmares of conventional breeding methods (= non-GMO). The used tool doesn't make anything safe or unsafe. The antibiotic resistance problem comes from meat industry and over use of antibiotics in medical context. Some GMOs (in future maybe not even one) pose the theoretical risk, which completely pales to the real world actual risks. It's really not fair argument. No, the rat study(ies) does not show anything to any direction, negative or positive. Neither of the Seralini studies. The study designs were completely flawed. You could have just rolled dice for equivalent results. Example: 1. They used p-hacking, which invalidates the statistics. If you take enough study parameters, then you will always find random significant correlations with p-haking. It's like throwing hundred dice, all at once, few times and then conclude two of them seems to always show the same side, so they must be magical. Other scientist who redone the stats, found no statistically significant harm (the effect was small enough to be random). Also the results could not be replicated in equivalent rat studies. 2. The supposed "negative effects" were not consistent among sexes in organs like liver and kidneys. Nor between the bt groups. This is classical symptom from the p-hacking. Also suggest that there isn't any real world mechanism for the "effect". Same thing but much worse with the later "cancer study". If you look up the actual the raw data of the study (which is in reality completely useless), you can see that GMO food actually prevented cancer in some groups. But they didn't pick that to the conclusion. However it doesn't matter what they would have picked, because the data was result of flawed design. Problems of the study are too numerous to mention here, but here is peer-reviewed evaluation of the study (please at least read the short abstract): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23430588

@Chamelionroses

4 жыл бұрын

@@user255 true that GMO all natural salt and water labels is not helpful. It is just another marketing ploy. Many anti gmo product labels can even actually have GMO products. The anti gmo and purely pro organic myths seem very common.

@richardmcdonald7565

2 жыл бұрын

Catch up, bubba... the "rat study" was re-done, and IS totally valid.

@user255

2 жыл бұрын

​@@richardmcdonald7565 The original study is now retracted, because of the invalid study methods and I don't see any updates. So, where is the supposed re-done study? Can you provide library index, DOI, PMID or something to find it?

glycan binding lectins = ?

Is genetically modified organisms successful in all aspects

Hopefully pigs are not needed in the future with GMOs and printers that help print body parts.

I've met a very old traditional farmer, we talk about farming, pest, and disease. He said "it's useless to use any chemical and all of technology, it just reform the problem not eliminated it". And i ask him, so how then and he wisely answer it "just tell to them (pest, rodent, and disease), hey.. rat you dont have ability to plant rice, i'm sorry to eliminates the forest you live, just eat my paddy but leave it for me to eat and sell". I can't say anything about it