> my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense.
A viable option actually.
A viable option actually.
We've come up with a definition for "GMO" which is about as arbitrary as "plants grown on the north side of a mountain."
Look at a wild carrot [1]. There is no good reason for plants to stuff their roots with beta carotene. But nutrient-rich roots are tastier and healthier, so we bred them. It blows my mind that someone might consider a mutation bred [2] vegetable healthier or safer than one where the desired gene is precisely injected.
The economics of GMO produce are compelling. They will be produced. All anti-GMO consumers guarantee is having their views, tastes and concerns ignored as agriculture develops. That lack of consumer input is, in my opinion, unhealthy for us all.
So, "north side of the mountain" is non-GMO right off the bat.
Plants have been patentable since 1930 [1]. In 1970, the Congress gave breeders "up to 25 years of exclusive control over new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties" [2]. IP concerns and GMO are orthogonal issues, as non-GMO varieties have been patented.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
That's that gathering of political representatives from all corners of the planet, to make decisions for humanity.
You may think the only issue the ethical problem of enforcing genetic IPR, but casual consumers do not give a shit about IPR ethics. They assume "genetically modified" is in approximately the same category as "contains toxic herbicides".
Ironically, the most commercially viable way to produce non-GMO crops are toxic herbicides.
What would be the point of it? In both cases we're seeking genetic modifications. In one case, it is targeted and precise, in another - random and probabilistic, i.e. we don't know whether the modification we want (sweeter apple, nicer carrot, etc.) didn't also bring along something we don't. Or at least we don't without analyzing the genome and selecting only those with genome we want - in which case it's just a very convoluted way of producing GMO.
It's like typing code by throwing rock at the keyboard until they hit necessary character and calling it "natural Organic coding" - surely, you could do that, but what exactly is the point?
If you say "but those genetic modifications have been tested by centuries of time" - also not really, many cultivars we're eating today are relatively recent, late 19th to 20th century. E.g. Fuji apples one sees everywhere were introduced to US marked in 1980s. And for many cultivars, there was no serious studies about their safety. Of course, if people start dropping dead in place from eating certain kind of apple, it would be noticed. But otherwise - we have little data, and nobody is too worried about it.
Simply to try to define "GMO"; do you have a better idea?
Since everything is "modified", the definition is meaningless if M refers to all modification. To be useful, the definition probably has to carve some subset in the M space.
> It's like typing code by throwing rock at the keyboard until they hit necessary character and calling it "natural Organic coding"
That may be so, but I like being a human rather than some organic molecules on the surface of a rock from which I evolved by this ineffective, dangerous process.
Yes. "GMO" is a scare term, devoid of any real content, used by tiny number of overly cautions ecologists and vast number of charlatans to trick gullible people into fearing modern technology.
> Since everything is "modified", the definition is meaningless if M refers to all modification
That's where you realize "GMO" is meaningless, and stop using that term.
> I like being a human rather than some organic molecules on the surface of a rock from which I evolved by this ineffective, dangerous process.
You are both. One does not contradict the other, and being made of organic molecules in no way diminishes your humanity. And being made of other organic molecules, some of which were purposedly put there to make it better (for varying definitions of "better") does not diminish the quality of your food. Which is not just declared by me, some guy on the internet typing some bullshit into the browser, but was actually verified by scientists.
It's not meaningless at all. GMO could be used maliciously. A tomato could be produced which deliberately make a protein such that a fraction of a milligram can kills. That is not likely to happen with random evolution.
"GMO" is just as meaningful as "infected executable".
> You are both.
Completely besides the point; which wasn't about human versus molecules, but rather that random evolution did a pretty good job there.
That's a strange claim to make about a member of the nightshade family.
Anything can be used maliciously.
> That is not likely to happen with random evolution.
That is happening all the time with evolution. Hundreds of types of plants produce poisons. In fact, producing various poisons is the plant's main weapon in the struggle for survivial - it has no claws and can not run, so it's either making itself completely indigestible (like trees) or making itself unfit or at least hard for eating. Like tomatoes, which were, like all nightshades (potatoes, tomatoes, etc.) originally highly toxic. Only we humans convinced tomatoes and potatoes not to kill us, by genetically modifying them since at least 500BC. Of course, we could develop ones that kill too. Or we could worry about grocers to just shooting you - if they'd be willing to kill you with tomatoes, why not with rifles? Of course, in reality nobody tries to kill anyone, so worrying about weaponized GMO is pointless - if you wanted to kill people, nobody would bother with GMO, there are much cheaper ways.
It seems likely (intuitively, which is why this is a question) that a naturally-occurring mutation which is artificially selected-for by a grower actually is very different from a transgenic insertion. The former arises within the complex regulatory/inhibitory genetic environment of the natural plant, so it sort of feels less risky, less likely to be disruptive or to renovate the biochemistry. Transgenically-inserted genes are mitochondrial, activated by default, and not part of a regulatory chain, and may produce arbitrary metabolites -- this is where they get their power. An ecosystem analogy comes to mind, natural mutations are like species evolving in an ecosystem, and transgenic insertions are like invasive species, potentially throwing the ecosystem seriously out of whack.
Is this just a sort of romantic fallacy, supported by a bad analogy?
I think it's tangential to the safety question -- actually-existing commercial GMO crops have been tested and demonstrated to be safe, that seems to be clear. But I think the space for unsafe combinations is much larger than it is for natural mutations, and the analogy to selective breeding understates the danger (and the power)?
Actually plant breeders use radioactive radiation, and certain mutagenic poisons, to increase to mutation rate way above normal, in order to get more mutated offspring to work with.
What you write about "transgenically-inserted genes are mitochondrial" and "not part of a regulatory chain, and may produce arbitrary metabolites" is total bollocks and I have no idea where you got that particular misinformation from.
Note that for instance the heavily-selection-bred Cavendish banana is currently facing possible extinction due to its susceptibility to a fungus. So on the one hand here you have exactly the problem you're worried about with gene-edited crops, and meanwhile gene editing is a possible solution to the problem.
I regret that I'm not well-enough versed in the science of this subject to communicate it better.
In particular:
> The acute oral lethal dose of cyanide for adult humans is reported to be 0.5–3.5 mg/kg (0.2–1.6 mg/lb) of body weight (approximately 50 bitter almonds), whereas for children, consuming 5–10 bitter almonds may be fatal.
The mutation that makes the bitter almonds produce cyanide is very old, totally natural and dangerous. It was mutated at least 300 million yeas ago, before the almond became a different plant than peach and cherry and other similar plants. Probably to make the animals avoid the plant and kernels.
I don't know, the whole group of flowering plants is about 300 million years old (says Wikipedia). Perhaps you mean 30 million years.
Apparently is a very very old feature (even older than what I though).
The idea I have (again, perhaps wrongly) is approximately that harmful-to-humans mutations make up a smaller fraction of the space of viable (i.e. allows the organism to survive at all) natural mutations, and a larger fraction of the space of viable transgenic mutations. A secondary point is that this is because the space of viable transgenic mutations is not constrained by the prior state of the genome, the same thing that makes transgenic mutations powerful also makes them risky.
So, I am (or I was, anyways) positing _fewer_ dangerous natural mutations, not necessarily zero.
I'm certainly less convinced that there's an important difference than I was yesterday, though, but mostly because the _accessible_ space of transgenic behaviors is evidently limited by investigator effort, which does not scale, so even if the _theoretical_ space is larger, it doesn't matter, we're not going to sample it.
Actually, it's not that clear. They have been proven to not be unsafe, which arguably is a lot easier. But a lot of countries still ban them specifically because the "safe" part wasn't proven. Obviously this depends on the crop, as GMO means a lot of different things.
> Currently, up to 92% of U.S. corn is genetically engineered (GE), as are 94% of soybeans and 94% of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). It has been estimated that upwards of 75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves – from soda to soup, crackers to condiments – contain genetically engineered ingredients. [1]
[1] https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/abou...
I suppose there is some overlap, but I would think that as a first step people with dietary health concerns would cut out things like white flour and high fructose corn syrup.
Cottonseed oil is not food, it is a waste product of the cotton industry that should only be used for biodiesel.
Guess what? GMO food saves millions of people from malnutrition in the 3rd world. But yet it's just not good enough for the cocky American consumers, despite that scientists agree it's perfectly safe and despite that GMO food is everywhere (without you realizing). I happily by GMO food, I proudly support GMOs because it saves lives, and I can't believe ignorant people would rather these people starve.
Kindly provide evidence for such assertions.
The article points to an open letter signed by a number of scientists (are they all food/agricultural/health-related scientists?) who evidence Golden Rice, which in my opinion is thin evidence. But I am definitely not a food/agricultural/health-related scientist, so my opinion counts for a hill of non-GMO beans.
Also, a lot of the signatories are those who received the Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Economics, and Peace awards.[4] I'm not sure which Nobel award would be given for agricultural scientists, so many of those receiving the award could indeed be specialists in that field. But I could only find one agricultural scientist who received an award for anything, and he is dead now, so he couldn't have signed this, and indeed he did not.[5]
Best I can tell, this open letter was signed by people who aren't specialists in this field, who gave as their evidence for support a crop whose value (or even safety?) has not yet been proven. A lot of smart people to be sure, but not experts on this topic. I welcome evidence to the contrary.
[1] http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-le...
[2] https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden...
[3] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_91496...
[4] http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.h...
[5] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970...
But if you ask from the scientists from those fields, you are going to get the same answer.
"the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops."
Ask them what, about the many lives that are saved from malnutrition as the commenter asserted? You answered about safety. Neither of us are discussing safety. (Well, I did as an aside. It was not the main point.) That is a separate subject.
Are millions of lives really saved from malnutrition? Kindly provide evidence for such assertions. I’m interested.
As another aside, while looking for evidence that GMOs saved lives through nutrition I was reminded that the economic engine seed producers profit from has brought poverty to farmers in India. 200,000 have committed suicide over increased farming debts. Seeds are far more expensive now, and cannot be saved.[1]
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
Where is the _actual_ evidence of GMO’s salvation of millions?
So unless you somehow solve the problem of mass producing food in pesticide free agriculture, please do not ask for impossible studies.
But the control group — wouldn’t it be non-GMO crops of any kind, organic or non? The assertion, yet to be provided evidence for, is that with gene editing many more millions are no longer suffering malnutrition. That seems to me to be easy evidence to provide if it’s true. If it’s true, evidence should be able to be shown that nutrition content has increased by X percent leading to X thousand lives not perishing. “Since the introduction of high vitamin C rice in Zambezia, the rates of scurvy have dropped by 32%. Vitamin C is difficult to obtain in Zambezia by any other means.” I don’t see how a discussion of pesticides enters into it.
By the way, Nobel laureates can be wrong. The prize was awarded in 1948 for the invention of DDT.[1]
[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1...
Better to investigate, report, regulate, so all society can benefit from the benefits of targeted engineering without fear.
It seems unnatural to eat a big sweet apple. Nature provided small bitter apples.