Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic: You are what you eat. How do you feel about genetically modified organ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • toldailytopic: You are what you eat. How do you feel about genetically modified organ

    The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 17th, 2013 05:00 AM


    toldailytopic: You are what you eat. How do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops?






    Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
    If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  • #2
    I'm delicious, a little english muffin.
    One lavished upon in the Beloved
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Ideally, I'd prefer they not be used, but we don't live in an ideal world so I understand their use to help solve some problems. I personally try to avoid them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Crops have always been genetically modified. That's how we got new varieties. Only the process was nature produced the new information by mutation, and we picked the ones we liked.

        Now, we can actually do specific mutations by inserting genes. Same effects, just faster.

        What do you think the danger is?
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • #5
          I am not for the modification of grain and seed. There have been known defects that have caused severe crop loss/yields and concerns over other chemicals that were given to cows to make them produce more milk.

          Mad scientists in their labs changing things around. What will be the next "food allergy" that is lab created?

          Comment


          • #6
            Loathe and despise them. Monsanto can burn at the stake.




            Comment


            • #7
              Genetically produced seeds and chemical stimulants for animals brought to you by Monsanto, proud maker of Agent Orange and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

              Comment


              • #8
                The first danger I can think of is the pride and presumption involved in tinkering with something that even those on the "cutting edge" do not really understand. For years they label huge parts of dna as useless "junk", only to find out later that they were really blind to all of the functions this dna carries out. The second danger is that the "cutting out" and "splicing" of genes is not totally precise. From what I have read, there is often a little extra material on the ends. If you get two individuals of a species that have had the same area of dna modified in slightly different ways, there is no way to tell how these differences will compound if interbreeding takes place. Thirdly, there is no way to predict what will happen if and when modified species interbreed with naturally occurring ones. The following quotes were taken from here - ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/GMtopic5.pdf . The article focuses mainly on genetically modified fish, but the potential for problems arising by introducing foreign dna into naturally occurring species through interbreeding with modified ones is a real possibility for any organism.

                "The only way to ensure that transgenic animals can have no environmental impacts is to
                make their escape or intentional release into the wild a complete impossibility, something
                which can never be assured
                . Although it is hard to predict the possibility and nature of
                long-term environmental impacts of transgenic animals with any certainty, it is generally
                accepted that if such impacts arise they will be difficult – if not impossible – to reverse.
                The emphasis on phenotype in determining the possibility and nature of environmental
                impacts does not apply solely to transgenic animals: it is of relevance to any domesticated
                and/or exotic animals that escape or are intentionally released into the natural
                environment."


                "Based on what is currently known about the phenotype of GH-transgenic salmon, it is
                impossible to adequately predict the possible environmental outcomes should these fish
                escape or be released to the wild. Unlike traditional livestock species, farmed salmon are
                still very similar in both genotype and phenotype to their wild progenitors, making them
                well adapted to survival in the wild. The establishment of feral populations which can
                potentially drive out native species/stocks through displacement and/or predation is
                therefore a clear possibility, especially if fish escape in sufficient numbers to swamp local
                populations. Beyond these near-term ecological effects, the greatest concerns with
                transgenic fish relate to the genetic effects of interbreeding with wild populations. Even if
                not well adapted for survival in the wild, transgenic animals may have detrimental
                impacts on the genetic structure of wild populations by allowing the introgression of
                “exotic” genes into natural gene pools
                . Changes in the genetic make-up of well-adapted
                wild populations may ultimately affect their abilities to withstand environmental change.
                Of particular concern in this regard is the so-called “Trojan Gene” effect, whereby
                transgenic animals which are poorly adapted for survival in the wild but exhibit mating
                advantages – for instance through faster growth and/or larger size – drive populations to
                extinction by successfully breeding with wild individuals and thereby reducing the fitness
                of their progeny (Muir & Howard 1999, 2001 & 2002). There is some evidence that non-
                transgenic farmed salmon exhibit characteristics which predispose them to such “Trojan
                Gene” effects, such as reduced survival of progeny from matings between farmed and
                wild salmon (Fleming et al. 1996 & 2000, McGinnity et al. 1997). "


                There is a reason God designed things to reproduce "after their own kind". Man is arrogant to invade other creatures and tinker around with their very basis of physical existence. The description of the "locusts" in Revelation 9 does not have to be seen as a spiritual allegory in a world where tinkering with dna takes place. A literal fulfillment is possible.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Knight View Post
                  The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 17th, 2013 05:00 AM


                  toldailytopic: You are what you eat. How do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops?


                  .
                  I don't eat them. I am one of those unfortunates that have a sensitivity to them. They are altered from how God designed them rendering them indigestible for a lot of folks. When man tries to play God he never wins.

                  June is Gay Pride Month.Tolerance and diversity? ☞ More like tolerate perversity.☠

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Inzl Kett View Post
                    They are altered from how God designed them rendering them indigestible for a lot of folks. When man tries to play God he never wins.
                    What IK said ^

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BigBoof1959 View Post
                      The first danger I can think of is the pride and presumption involved in tinkering with something that even those on the "cutting edge" do not really understand. For years they label huge parts of dna as useless "junk", only to find out later that they were really blind to all of the functions this dna carries out.
                      When I was an undergraduate, in the 60s, they were discussing the functions of non-coding DNA ("junk DNA" is kind of a joking term for biologists).

                      So over half a century since they learned that "junk DNA" had some functions.

                      The second danger is that the "cutting out" and "splicing" of genes is not totally precise. From what I have read, there is often a little extra material on the ends. If you get two individuals of a species that have had the same area of dna modified in slightly different ways, there is no way to tell how these differences will compound if interbreeding takes place. Thirdly, there is no way to predict what will happen if and when modified species interbreed with naturally occurring ones. The following quotes were taken from here - ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/GMtopic5.pdf
                      It's not like X-Men. No magic. Same stuff as in nature.

                      The article focuses mainly on genetically modified fish, but the potential for problems arising by introducing foreign dna into naturally occurring species through interbreeding with modified ones is a real possibility for any organism.
                      Even that happens in nature. It's called "lateral gene transfer" and although it's not common, it sometimes it becomes a factor in evolution.
                      [I]"The only way to ensure that transgenic animals can have no environmental impacts is to make their escape or intentional release into the wild a complete impossibility, something
                      which can never be assured
                      . Although it is hard to predict the possibility and nature of long-term environmental impacts of transgenic animals with any certainty, it is generally accepted that if such impacts arise they will be difficult – if not impossible – to reverse.
                      It's always been true. For example chickens are now, in SE Asia interbreeding with jungle fowl, from which chickens evolved. The genetic line of jungle fowl may soon be gone, hybridized out of existence by the (low tech) genetic engineering of humans.

                      These are always concerns, but that's the case with organisms modified by traditional methods as well. The one case that concerns me is the possibility of lateral gene tranfer of the BT inclusion crystal gene from corn to milkweed. The material, found in Bacillus thurengensis, is toxic to moths and butterflies. It provides great protection against some common insect pests on corn, but if it should get established in milkweed, it would devastate the Monarch butterfly population.

                      There's been a great deal of hysteria, where rational concern would be more productive.
                      This message is hidden because ...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        toldailytopic: You are what you eat. How do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops?
                        You could see this coming way back when our insanely arrogant money-grubbing culture determined that corporations could purchase ownership of DNA sequences, as if they really are the gods that most conservatives these days make them out to be.

                        But of course they are not gods, and so the first and only priority of their owning DNA sequences has been to exploit them for profit, regardless of any other effects or consequences that may result. That is, after all, what capitalism is all about.

                        So far, they apparently have not opened up any biological Pandora's Boxes, but we can be sure that if such a possibility exists, they will open up that or any other box if they think there's any money to be gained from it, and they will give basically no consideration whatever to any possible negative effects to humanity (unless they think it may effect themselves, personally, or their profit margins).

                        Our well being will NOT be taken into account in any way, unless perhaps they are afraid we could sue more money out of them than they could make from harming us. Oh, wait, they've already eliminated that possibility.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Knight View Post
                          toldailytopic: You are what you eat. How do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops?
                          I suppose I don't know that much about them, but I also don't really care. If it's not poisonous to me, then how is there a problem?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Inzl Kett View Post
                            [COLOR=SeaGreen]I don't eat them. I am one of those unfortunates that have a sensitivity to them.
                            About as likely as being sensitive to anything with a name starting in "b." (I supervised an immunology clinic in the AF, and we actually had a patient make that claim) They are all different, and unlikely to all cause you sensitivity.

                            They are altered from how God designed them rendering them indigestible for a lot of folks.
                            So is corn. And chicken. And a lot of other things we've always eaten. The ancestors of maize and chickens are quite different organisms. C'mon. It's not magic. There's no essential difference between altering the genes of organisms by selective breeding, or inserting a gene into an organism.

                            When man tries to play God he never wins.
                            Corn seems to have come out rather well. It's not magic. BTW, you've been eating "genetically engineered corn" for decades, in all sorts of foods.
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here in Ohio, the weather's been really odd and presenting enormous challenges to the farmers. Ohio State University has one of the largest Farm Science departments in the country. They have worked tirelessly to sort and screen hybrids and genetics of Ohio's corn crop and other crops resulting in phenomenal yields despite the odd weather pattern changes. For Ohio's farmers, that's a good thing. For the livestock that's a good thing. For the residents of Ohio, that's a good thing. Like all things used and abused, genetic modification can be good or bad. I see no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
                              I AM the pie lady!!

                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X