Are GM foods really dangerous?

Question

My lecturer told us GM foods are not dangerous, that they take a gene from one plant and add it to another plant. Isn't this just speeding up evolution. Modifing a wheat plant that can feed millions in 3rd world countries can only be beneficial.

Answer 1

GM foods haven't been around long enough to to see if any side effects occur. Most of the objection is for philosophical reasons. BT cotton, corn, and other foods are modified to have a bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis (BT), present in them as an insecticide. BT is only harmful to insects, not humans. Some more freaky modifications is taking a gene from a fish that survives in very cold waters, and slapping that into tomatoes so they can survive a sudden frost. Neat, huh?

Answer 2

Dangerous how?

Dangerous to us, no, not directly — not unless the inserted gene(s) produce something toxic (and why would the agribusinesses want to poison us, the source of their revenue? Hmm...). All life-derived food contains DNA, which we can digest quite readily, (pretty much) regardless of what genetic sequences it contains.

Dangerous to the environment, almost certainly. You have to think about why (and how) the plant is being genetically modified. For example, if it's to produce resistance to a particular herb-/ pesticide, then you have two consequences:
(1) Farmers can then use far more of that chemical (than they otherwise would) on their crops to control "weeds" (a word which really just means, "plants we're not interested in") or "pests" ("an animal which eats something that we want to eat"), and that chemical will end up polluting the groundwater (even more than it does already)
(2) This genetic "improvement" is only useful so long as it stays in the GM plant, and doesn't spread to the weeds — which so far has not proved to be reliably the case, meaning that the GM tinkerers (i.e. the big agribusinesses, which BTW tend to be controlled or partnered with the industrial chemical suppliers) have to produce a new "improvement" (i.e. yet another product for which the consumers have to fund R&D).

As far as I know, most GM companies right now are still using plasmids (small circular DNA molecules, which are incredibly transmissible between organisms, and easily replicated once they've arrived) to get their genes into the target species. Very few (if any) are actually modifying the original germline (i.e. splicing the gene(s) directly into the target's own chromosomes), because this is incredibly difficult to do reliably (for many reasons). And therein lies the problem - if it's easy to get the gene into one organism, then it's very easy for the gene to be then transferred unintentionally to another organism. That's how inserted genes can cross the species barrier.

Yes, in a sense, this is just evolution (selection on the basis of survivability and reproductive advantage) speeding up, but THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. It's happening far faster than it "should" be happening, which doesn't give ecosystems sufficient time to keep up. Organisms "should" evolve in parallel for an ecosystem to remain balanced (note: not "static").

If one (or a group of) organism(s) acquire(s) a significant advantage too quickly, it will tend to dominate the ecosystem at the expense of everything else (including us, ultimately, as we are also part of the biosphere), and then, when the system becames inherently unstable enough, it collapses. But it takes a very long time time for the system to build itself up again. And the worry is, we might not be part of it next time.

Tell that to your lecturer...

Answer 3

No, its not safe for agriculture. That's the point.
GM foods have already been found in the wild and in domestic crops, where they are not supposed to be able to spread.
GM crops are not the same as crops that have been selectively bred. We cannot predict the effects of moving a gene. The 'testing' is done in the outdoors; where by the time the effects are known it is too late, this would be criminal negligence in any other area.
But the biggest threat is that this is the latest move by agribusiness to produce a product. We urgently need seed banks to save reasonable amounts of all current crop seeds.
Most of the worlds wheat seed is now produced by a handful of American companies; if they decide to sut off our supply we cannot be self sufficient in wheat. Our crops are the first generation F1 varieties, and cannot be used for seed. Most of the worlds soybean is controlled by 6 companies.
Its too much power to be held in one place. The point is that they are NOT and have never been interested in feeding the poor; the poor cannot pay the high price for genetically modified, patented seed. They are only interested in profit.
People have been raising money for Ethiopia since the early 1970's; so how come African children still go hungry? The Feed the Poor justification is bull.

Answer 4

I think the danger is in not knowing how those plants will interact with other plants through natural cross-pollination. We could loose the original (nonGM) varieties, then find out further down the line that the GM variety is suseptable to something (pest, climate change) and the entire crop the world-over dies (slight exageration, but you get the idea).
I'd be less concerned if the GM crops were all infertile.

Answer 5

No, GM foods are not dangerous at all. The only "dangers" about them is the potential loss of genetic diversity from using a single, small group of genetically modified plants to generate all the seeds for all the crops for that particular GM plant. This would be a negative thing, in that it would make the crops potentially less resistant to disease and such.

Answer 6

yeah your lecturer has the right idea, it doesnt seem to be dangerous in the short term. although it would be more balanced to examin the opposising arguements, consider cross polination with natural species it may be difficult to predict how normal and GM hybrids would effect their environment in terms of other animals/plant life, due to the reletively recent use of the technology. Also consider how the biotech companies will aim their research, like the big pharmaceutical companies they are likely to concentrate research on high value 1st world products and medicines, rather than designing some wheat for the 3rd world.

Answer 7

It doesn't seem dangerous in principle, I'm for it. It could solve all sorts of problems. The problem I think comes from the effect on other plant species because the GM are stronger. The knoc on effect to the insects, the birds...... and eventually, us.
We are very versatile and will cope but many species will be affected.

Answer 8

Depends on how they are modified. Humans have been selectively breeding plants for millenia, and that is a form of GM. However, adding genes from other plants or even from insects and animals can have unintended consequences, and most GM products do not undergo long-term safety testing. This is why they are not considered safe by most people.

Answer 9

Talking to a old timer farmer,he said what would you do if the system collapsed? I'd get to a farm get corn seed and start farming.He said Nope, all the corn now is Sterile.Now what are going to do?I was shocked,so you can stuff you GM foods.

Answer 10

they are not (i am a geneticist by the way) what is dangerous are the people that produce them. you may remember monsanto, they did not produce any dangerous gm food until they decided to shorten the trial period, doing so they could not see the adverse effects of their products until it was on the market and used by the public. all this to save money at the expenses of people (often the poor ones)