Do you support genetically modifying food? (Survey)?

Question

Consider the facts: crop yield can be increased, and flavor would be increased. But, in some cases, they can be allergic or mutagenic (can cause mutations).

Answer 1

Yes, as long as they are xcarefully monitored and don't get out of control.

Answer 2

In a word, yes.

I am a PhD candidate studying plant/pathogen interactions. I have assisted in designing several plant lines that are considered GMO's and have participated in debates about their safety. In an amlost universal constant, the driving force behind the public perception of GMO's is ignorance. I have tried to speak with members of the Sierra club about the technology that goes into these products, but it is not possible simply because they have no idea what it is that we do. To many anti-GMO factions their only argument is that nature knows best. Well we have been altering nature since the dawn of agriculture, it is only now that we can affect these changes in a targeted manner.

An earlier post mentioned the use of the 35S CaMV promoter, how many here actually know what this is? How many are assuming that because it comes from a virus it must be bad? The 35S promoter does not encode for any proteins, it helps to regulate the rate of expression of the downstream gene. It is a constitutive promoter, meaning that it is constantly in an "on" state, and as such any protein that is associated with it will also be expressed to a high level.

Another earlier post mentioned that GMO's have lower vitamin levels, this is not true. In fact several GMO's have been engineered to produce higher levels of vitamins. For the most part the decreased micronutrient levels seen in cultivated produce can be traced to the growth conditions of the plants. For the most part food is harvested before it has a chance to mature, and it "ripens" after harvest. This has enabled us to have strawberries in the winter (among other things), but it also reduced the overall quality of the produce.

Before youtake sides in a depate, ask yourself, "Do I actually understand the issues at hand?". If you can't answer yes, than it's time to educate yourself. On this note it is imporant to gather facts from both sides of the debate. Trusting Greenpeace to give you the whole truth about an issue is just like trusting Monsanto. You need to compare both sides of an agrument. I can honestly say that I understand genetic modifications better than 99.9% of the population, and even I need to check my sources on occasion.

Answer 3

Of course...we have been "genetically modifying" food for years. Animal breeding and crossbreeding plants IS genetically modifying our food supply. Using radiation or radiomemetic chemicals only speeds up the natural mutagenic process, and the researcher can select the desired best resulting progeny. Will the "frankenfoods" harm us?....not if studied by double blind testing. A mutated plant or animal cannot pass on the mutation to a consumer of the plant or animal. I think people confuse mutated viruses or bacteria to more virulent strains of disease causers with genetically modified (mutated) foods.

Answer 4

In general, I support the idea of genetically modified foods. Most objections to genetically modified foods are broad objections which may not apply in individual cases. For instance, there has been the objection that genetically modified foods involve the incorporation of DNA sequences from other organisms, such as the CaMV 35S promoter from the cauliflower mosaic virus. While it's very easy to say that viral DNA can lead to dangerous consequences, the CaMV 35S promoter is hardly a danger introduced by humans because it is already found in a variety of plants due to the action of the mosaic virus itself. That is, so-called foreign DNA is already naturally finding its way into other organisms' genomes. Furthermore, we've been eating it for centuries.

I believe that, in general, the advantages of genetically modified foods outway the risks. I also believe that each case should be addressed in specific rather than using a blanket statement of approval or disapproval.

Answer 5

Yes, I support it. What many people don't realize is that society has been genetically modifying food for centuries, even though they didn't always understand the true genetics behind their agricultural methods. If nothing else, genetically modifying foods is safer now than it has ever been since now we know (and plan for) the genetic consequences of our actions.

Of course, there are other, more complicated issues here (like labeling, government regulation, etc) too...

Here's a link for an article talking about the pros and cons of genetically modifying crops:

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume11/issue1/features/parsley.html

Answer 6

We probably eat more GM crops than we think we do. It doesn't cause mutation while allergic reaction's possible. That's like saying since you eat apple and apple has DNA your face will turn into big apple. That doesn't happen.

Whether people like it or not there are lot of GM crops out there now and there will be more to come.

I think it's good long as people don't abuse it to rip off consumers and farmers. Need good regulations and watchdogs.

Answer 7

confident. all of us do already. that's not something new. Making hybrids is a sort of genetic substitute. lots of the different varieties of produce we consume are hybrids from centuries in the past. If absolutely everyone says they does not consume GMOs, they'd desire to study the origins of the nutrition they do consume. that they had be shocked. "in case you're no longer eating organic and organic, then you are already eating GMO frankenfoods."---faulty. What would being organic and organic would desire to do with it? organic and organic means only organic fertilizers and insecticides are used on it. only because of fact one among those produce hasn't been changed these days, does not recommend that's no longer a GMO. Many have been changed earlier. Hybrids.

Answer 8

YES and i wish all plant/animals species and classic-bred crops that are known FOR SURE to cause adverse effects or allergies, to contain toxic compounds or to do serious damage to wildlife, were subject to A FRACTION of attention and awareness as GMOs that POSSIBLY CAN cause some of these.

i think that the idea of GMO being substantially more unnatural than the rest of our food is a matter of business competition...
like any food can cause allergies, but when somebody says gmo cause allergies... he "forgets" to say ...like any new food. i would like any gmo-opponent to explain why you object to something (like this) to which you dont object in case of non-gmo.

it is cleaner and neater way of breeding (especially for long life span plants). To those who were told otherwise by biased groups - wild plants routinely incorporate DNA of totally unrelated species in their genome.
---------------------
allergies and unintended consequences are the case of other crops, too, they are not somehow linked to GM. Therefore GM breeders themselves said that it should be tested and that 10% safety cant be reached - but again this is not the case of only GM. And what do you mean that they can cause mutations? that sounds kinda unscientific to me. a lot of people think that GM is a kind of mutation but notging ca b further from reality, please look up the definition of mutation. Both mutation and breeding (any breeding method) is a change in genome - that is the only link between GM and mutation. Mutagenesis means causing mutation (=random alteration of genome) in something. Please pay no respect to "surveys" of some campaingnists like Greenpeace - the reaults are grossly flawed and their websites are full of gibberish that only take advantage of the fact that majority of population has no special knowledge in genetics and therefore can believe in anything that is formulated to sound plausible. Indeed it is quite horrible that they are taken as source of valid information. If their surveys were valid, thay would have been able to publish them in scientific journals. Please tell me what you have in mind by saying that GM food can cause mutations, it indeed sounds as misunderstanding - please what is the source of this info.

Answer 9

yes i do support genetically modified food. see there are places on earth where you dont get enough food which may be due to infertile soil, now if we incorporate the genes in the plant which can make it to synthesise its own nutrients wont it be a boon for them? but i must admit that the final product is checked.

Answer 10

genetically modified food lacks vitamines and minerals and the reason behind modifying food mainly serves some greedy economical purposes