Genetic Modification Thoughts

Discussion in 'Science & Nature' started by Frank Sanoica, Jun 6, 2018.

  1. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    9,297
    Likes Received:
    10,619
    Been giving this subject serious thought lately, as I'm seeing it on more and more food labels, as well as "contains partially modified GMO ingredients" or something to that effect, or "contains no GMO material, on many products lately. If my thinking here is bass-ackwards, I'm hoping someone more knowing or understanding about the subject will straighten out my thinking!

    One's position, whether acceptance, concern, or outright displeasure over this, will not change the situation: it's here. Trust labels denying it? How long before some of it creeps into those products also? It will be economically impossible to keep them out completely, IMO, so long as one buys retail product not raised himself, and even then, eventually,.........

    Everyone knows Monsanto has introduced some genetic variants, including genes from E Coli bacteria, into a large proportion of the corn available for human consumption. So, are we essentially eating shit ? I don't think so, in fact far from it, IMO, but, I still don't like it. Benefits do result from this process, but also drawbacks, again IMO.

    What I'm proposing I have heard nothing about before. Our bodies are composed of living cells, containing genes, whose similarity is passed on to the next generation. All those cells need nutrition, and receive it in the form of chemical compounds, not living organisms. ONLY living organisms contain genes; chemical compounds, like Calcium + some other element, or elements, perhaps carbon and oxygen, which is calcium carbonate (CaCO3) are used to support bone cells. There are NO GENES in CaCO3! Or in any of the great number of nutrients which are needed and used by our bodies' cells. I can think of no animal or plant structures, containing genes of course, which are utilized by our bodies in their as-ingested unchanged chemical forms; they all must be broken down or broken up, into chemical compounds usable by the body.

    Am I wrong? I'm saying nothing containing genes gets utilized in keeping our bodies going. Where the genes contained in the animal and plant products we consume go during the process of metabolization, I have no foggy idea! Destroyed possibly. If that, what's the concern? If not that, since genes consist also of chemical compounds, which they must, as chemical compounds comprise EVERYTHING, then the genes must also be metabolized as compounds, and likely (maybe) disposed of as waste.

    Pro and con: The plant seed stock of Monsanto's genius is sterile, meaning that ALL the seed stock to be planted must be supplied by them for a one-time planting and harvest. That harvest produces seed stock which is useless for re-planting. Not good. OTOH, those modified seeds produce plants amazingly able to withstand insect attack; this means less cost and less POISONING by pesticide use. They also produce significantly increased yields. So what does eating corn which contains modified genes affect regarding our systems, if what I proposed above is true? A plus might be less pesticide remaining in the plant materials we eat, corn included.

    Con: Monsanto has "locked" the producer, the farmer, into a position of buy seed stock from them, or don't plant. If the farmer has saved previous non-GMO seed and plants it, he stands to be sued by Monsanto, which claims his planting will "taint" neighboring plantings containing only GMO seed stock. Eventually, there will be NO non-GMO seed stock available anywhere, UNLESS some very large regions of the Earth, like Europe, forbid entirely the dispersion of GMO seed stock.

    Help! Frank
     
    #1
    Neville Telen and Ken Anderson like this.
  2. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Senior Staff
    Staff Member Senior Staff Greeter Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    24,327
    Likes Received:
    42,631
    Monsanto has successfully sued farmers whose non-GMO crops were infected with its GMO stuff for gaining the benefits of Monsanto GMO without having paid for it. Of course, the farmer whose crops are infected by Monsanto should be the ones winning the judgments, but few can afford to sue Monsanto.
     
    #2
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  3. Don Alaska

    Don Alaska Supreme Member
    Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    11,069
    Likes Received:
    20,467
    Gene modification is a slippery slope. You both are correct. As to where the genes go in the food we eat, for the most part, they get digested with everything else. There are reports, however, that modified genes have been found in the intestinal flora of both livestock and humans who have ingested modified organisms. Many of the bacteria in our gut have the ability to "conjugate", i.e., they can transfer genetic material from one to another. That is one of the reasons penicillin can be used against Streptococcus spp. but almost nothing else. Strep cannot conjugate. Anyway, the genetic material found in E. coli and other "Gram Negative" bacteria may be getting included in this conjugation process, but, as far as I know, the mechanism of transfer is not known as there is no funding for anti-Monsanto research. Some people believe that the modification of intestinal flora is, in part, responsible for the upswing in digestive maladies in recent years. No one knows if these genes can be transferred into the cells of the intestinal wall, as biopsy and subsequent DNA analysis is very expensive in living organisms. I guess it could be done in dead animals, but as far as I know, it hasn't been done.
     
    #3
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  4. Shirley Martin

    Shirley Martin Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    55,669
    Likes Received:
    23,301
    I don't know all the technicalities of genetic modification but as I see it; the population is increasing, land available for growing food is decreasing. It's going to be necessary to increase production on the available land. It seems logical to modify plants to increase to increase productivity. What other choice do we have?
     
    #4
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  5. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    9,297
    Likes Received:
    10,619
    @Don Alaska
    I did the OP hoping that with your knowledge, you might provide enlightenment. Appreciate that. Some of your references are beyond my level of understanding. I tend to view everything very pragmatically, I guess.

    When you say the modified genes contained in eaten food "get digested", what specifically does that process entail? I see it as chemical activity which destroys the fundamental animal/plant make-up of the genes, thereby they become chemical compounds of one kind or another, to be used or disposed of like any other metabolites. If "used", then we might have a problem. Something like Strontium 90, if present in the diet, gets mistaken for Calcium by the body's metabolic process, and it winds up situated in the bones, like Calcium would. Sr 90 is radioactive, that being the problem. Sr 88 is the commonest isotope, and for all I know, it gets to take part in the bone-building process similarly to Calcium.
    Frank
     
    #5
  6. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    9,297
    Likes Received:
    10,619
    @Shirley Martin
    You mean then, you are not completely opposed to the concept of doing gene modification? As I see it, the process, if it causes big trouble in future generations rather than in the present one, we might be placing "self imposed limits" on future population. Just thinkin'..........
    Frank
     
    #6
  7. Shirley Martin

    Shirley Martin Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    55,669
    Likes Received:
    23,301
    Hey! Beats starving. ;)
     
    #7
    Don Alaska and Frank Sanoica like this.
  8. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    9,297
    Likes Received:
    10,619
    @Shirley Martin
    I still like the way you think!
    Frank
     
    #8
    Don Alaska and Shirley Martin like this.
  9. Don Alaska

    Don Alaska Supreme Member
    Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    11,069
    Likes Received:
    20,467
    Frank, the genes break down into nucleic acids. It is possible that they could survive the digestive process, but I think that may depend on the "package" that contains them. some bacteria obviously survive some digestive processes, so it is possible that genes could survive intact. I don't know the likelihood, though.
     
    #9
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  10. Neville Telen

    Neville Telen Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    402
    I am quite opposed to GMOs, but realistically, I don't have much to worry about, as I'm pretty sure any ill effects will take ten to twenty years to manifest, way past my expected 'expiration date'. That said, I do treat GMO-infested foods like junk foods or McDonald's hamburgers...I limit my exposure. Here's some links:
    https://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/65-health-risks-of-gm-foods/
    http://livingnongmo.org/learn/gmo-f...MI58aX16OH3AIVjXt-Ch00EgTtEAAYASAAEgKui_D_BwE
    http://naturalsociety.com/take-food...national-companies-fighting-keep-eating-gmos/
    http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/06/comprehensive-list-of-gmo-products-and-companies.html
    http://www.theboycottlist.org/
    http://www.covvha.net/2014/10/08/gmo-brands-and-foods-printable-shopping-list/
     
    #10
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  11. Hedi Mitchell

    Hedi Mitchell Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    8,797
    Likes Received:
    15,381
    First of all GMOs we have been fed for the last 25 years. But it was just a few years ago that they got around to letting us know what we've been eating all along.
    The way I figured of course it'll kill us along with a lot of other things I mean after all they have to have somebody have insurance and hospitals open:)
     
    #11
    Don Alaska likes this.
  12. Yvonne Smith

    Yvonne Smith Senior Staff
    Staff Member Senior Staff Greeter Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    14,881
    Likes Received:
    27,873
    From someof the information that I have read, it would appear that most of the grain and corn crops that we grow are used to feed animals like cows, pigs and chickens, and then we eat the cows, pigs, and chickens.
    If we stopped consuming as much meat as we now consume, then more of the grain and corn could go to feed people instead of livestock.
    Not only are we wasting good food that humans could eat, but all of the waste from the livestock being grown in the feedlots and chicken farms, is then dumped out into the land nearby, and pollutes the nearby rivers with the rain runoff from the dumped livestock waste.


     
    #12
  13. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Senior Staff
    Staff Member Senior Staff Greeter Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    24,327
    Likes Received:
    42,631
    I'm having a hard time buying that because feed crops are not the same thing as those grown for human consumption. When my dad grew corn as a cash crop, he grew cow corn. The corn he grew was a different variety of corn than what most people ate. Although he could have probably earned more money growing a variety of sweet corn, the investment was larger and the risks were more than he wanted to take. Growing cow corn, he didn't have to irrigate, for one thing. A whole lot of the land in this country that was once agricultural has grown up into woodlands, and other fields lie dormant. A hundred years ago, we had less forest and woodland than we have today because more of our land was farmed. Most of our farmland has been regulated out of business.
     
    #13
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  14. Yvonne Smith

    Yvonne Smith Senior Staff
    Staff Member Senior Staff Greeter Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    14,881
    Likes Received:
    27,873
    That is exactly what I was trying to point out, @Ken Anderson . While it is true that cow corn is different from the sweet corn we grow for people to eat, and the oats and barley are different than the wheat we grow for our bread, what is still the same, is that the farm land is being used far more to grow food crops for livestock than it is for food crops that could be eaten by people instead.
    I think that if people would eat more non-meat food, and eat more plants,legumes, and grains, then we could feed more people better and still be utilizing the same amount of farmland.
    You have often said that you enjoyed eating the cow corn that your dad raised, and it was probably about the same kind of corn that was always raised and eaten by people.
    We now eat more sweet foods than ever before, and so sweeter varieties of corn are what people have come to expect now days; but there is no reason that the corn grown for cows would not be just as healthy for people to eat.
     
    #14
  15. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Senior Staff
    Staff Member Senior Staff Greeter Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    24,327
    Likes Received:
    42,631
    My point, though, is that there is plenty of agricultural lands available for food crops. Most of our food used to be grown on family farms, and that's what we're missing. The land is still there, but we've regulated the family farms out of business and the factory farms aren't going to grow so much that it affects the prices they get.
     
    #15
    Frank Sanoica and Yvonne Smith like this.

Share This Page