GMOs: Safe?

[Braixen]

In general, the opponents of GMOs is more against transgenic modifications, which is not covered by traditional means of "wholesale" genetic modifications. But in general most people who are against GMOs are against any genetic modification, which is derived from ignorance.

In terms of whether or not it's safe, the prospective cohort studies have yet to show any long term health issues.

That isn't to say GMOs have no use, because our current output, under what one would call "organic methods", would not be enough to feed everybody, and the price of foods would skyrocket from a lack of supply vs demand, mainly because we generally live above our carrying capacity.



No, Sarah speaks of this in terms of science in general. Scientists are notoriously bad at communicating with others. The problem isn't that scientists can't communicate with others, it's that the discipline of scientific journalism is underdeveloped. Scientists need more journalists who are literate in science and can communicate those ideas to the general public. Sci Show helps, but it's like Bill Nye you know, they're just one small group.

If you want to talk about how journals and what not aren't accessible, then ya I agree with you. Subscriptions to Nature, Science, JCB, NEJM, etc. cost a lot of money, and just aren't accessible unless you're affiliated with a large institution like a university or a large hospital.

A lot of GMO information isn't communicated to the public, and often the public doesn't have access from the issues I say above, and their paranoia of the unknown drives them to wacko websites that share their sentiment. That's what's dangerous about not communicating science well. In addition, science literacy is horrendous because of the lack of science education in schools, especially in the US...



It's not a geneticist's job to "look at things holistically". That's a job for ecologists. I'll use an analogy here: take construction of a building. It's not an electrician's job to figure out how the architecture of the building works. Their job is to make sure the electric lines work in absolute detail. The architect's job, in reverse, should not be to know the nitty gritty of an electrician's job, but to look at the "holistic" aspect of the building.

Now as for the comment on corporate GMOs. I agree. Industry tends to be secretive, which is why we need strong regulatory bodies like the FDA to keep them in check.



We're living above our carrying capacity as well, so that isn't just the only reason why something like organic farming only on a local level is impossible. However, I do agree that it is nice to have local produce mainly because it'll save us on other things such as decrease in the use of fossil fuels in the transport of such goods, which has a lot of environmental impact.



That only pertains of transgenic GMOs, cisgenic GMOs also exist, which is selectively changing genes from within the same/similar species. In addition, fish genes are...you know stuff we eat still, technically speaking. :P



So far the cohort studies haven't found any "long term" effects of GMOs, but it can change in the future. I do think that ecology will be an important discipline in the near future as well. I think it's tough to strike a good balance between paranoia and complete trust in the companies as well.

The good thing about science is that they are aware they aren't perfect, and are subject to change when evidence demands it. FDA approval is actually very strict, so often times only the rarest of the adverse effects are the ones that aren't picked up from the FDA approval.

I truly believe that the issue with scientific communication is not with the scientists still, it's that the general public doesn't have interest in science unless it's applicable to them. For example we know every intimate detail about celebrities lives (as much they their PR and branding teams tells us) but because there isn't as much interest in science then it's not sought out. In addition the general public cannot understand science. This isn't because of terminology but because of lack of knowledge. In order for my to explain my research I am required to explain the mechanics behind my science in the most simplistic way. The general population only has interest in what effects them, and what they have emotional ties to (excitement, stress, etc).

There are several document cases where health of people have deteriorated as a result of GMOs. GMOs and their effect on the population are not only what you buy and eat but also what happened to the farmers, the workers, the local populations, environment, etc. I have never said that it is a geneticists job to work as an ecology but it is a research teams job to investigate the entire picture. You don't have electricians building a house by themselves, you have many different people (carpenters, contractors, etc) contributing. GMOs is not genetics alone, you can at least appreciate that you need some agricultural specialists at least. It is true that genes from one species can be inserted into the same species, but these aren't the GMOs I am discussing. We may eat fish, and we may eat a tomato, but that doesn't mean we should put their genes together and assume it's safe? GMO work is tampering with evolution. We cannot predict what will come with doing that, and GMOs have already had devastating consequences.

I won't say I am against GMOs, but I will say that we shouldn't be messing with evolution without understanding the consequences and being rigorous. Sadly, even if a GMO is safe by your standards (edible without known consequences) it still could be having devastating consequences elsewhere in the world. Just like everything else, GMOs are not isolated "events".

Also local doesn't always mean better, or even organic. But our wants/consumerism drives things like GMOs and thereby drives this very messy science that we had witnessed from GMO research. The quest for money in GMOs has even resulted in ignoring basic evolution, it's actually pretty horrifying to witness. The FDA has no idea of the consequences of all current and future GMOs, that is impossible to predict. No one can say all or none of GMOs are safe. As with most things in science you need funding, and that means money. GMOs are being research for fun or even interest, they're being research for profit. When it comes to our food that means profit from bigger outputs, tastier foods, etc (think more "appealing" to a consumer), and reducing the need for workers, pesticides etc.

People seem to either romanticize GMOs or fear them. I think it's best if people see the realities of them, what they can do to help, and what they can do to hurt.