# Tell me why I should support genetically modified crops



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I hear Europe and Japan are banning the import of genetically modified crops. I don't understand the pro and con of this subject. I can understand why people don't want to eat some crops with some types of pesticides, and I can see why they may have some concerns about radiated food. However, I don't know what the dangers are if any of radiated food or genetically modified crops.
Shaug if you would I would like an opinion from you about this. I would also like to hear from guys like Ron Gilmore, Dick Monson, g/o etc. Mostly I would like to hear from some we have never heard from before. Tell me about the advantages and any disadvantages if any. Actually the advantages are evident, but why do some countries and some people complain. From my point of view right now it looks like maybe they are just letting their imagination get the best of them.

I'm interested in this because even organizations like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has come out against GMO's. I don't know how religion gets it's nose in this type of thing.

Edit: maybe I should not have had this in hot topics since I'm not looking for a debate, but simply looking to learn something.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

You don't have to look far for some different kind of christian action or religion that sticks its nose in. They live here in North Dakota.

http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/let-20080426-c.htm


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Idiots like that weigh heavy on my heart. 

Shaug, currently this is kind of how I look at GMO's. I remember back in college in the mid 1960's the big deal about organic. Now, I have nothing against organic, just empty headed women that got all excited because something was ooooorganic. Someone should have said here have a big bowl of cherry seeds. They have cyanide, but they are ooooorganic. Anyway, like the organic bandwagon some want to jump on some also want to jump on everything that is different with no thought.

As an example many of my colleagues were all up in arms about the Alaskan pipeline. Hey, it's ugly, but it didn't kill of the Porcupine caribou heard like they told me it would. Now I doubt their global warming bs.

So Shaug has there ever been any scientific evidence that shows GMO's a problem. I think the subject is timely because there are people attacking it. Some say we need to feed a starving world, but if they would rather starve than eat I guess that's their problem.

The reason I brought up the ELCA is that they are a major church in North Dakoa. In some small towns people have no other choice. I have noticed that for about ten years the ELCA has been sliding into far left radical field. If your a farmer and give them a penny your making a big mistake.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Not too many responses so thought I would offer some of my opinions and concerns. The only genetically modified crop I have used is canola. Have done some research and have not been convinced it is detrimental as far as consumption is concerned. Environmental groups have called it "frankenstein" food and allot of other things, but as in most of the environmental debates(global warming, etc) I find their arguements selfserving.

My real concerns are as follows:

1. Monsanto and Bayer own the complete rights for the use of a large portion of our seed supply. If I seeded an open pollinated canola close to roundup ready canola and it cross pollinated Monsanto could claim the rights to the seed. Same with corn and soybeans.

2. Biodiversity. Genetically modified crops are putting all your eggs in one basket. What happens if there is a new strain of rust or other pathogen that threatens to wipe out a large portion of a certain crop. Do we have the seed stocks that haven't been contaminated to develope a resistent variety?

3. Demand destruction. Allot of countries may decide to ban it in order to get the product cheaper in a round about way. If a roundup ready wheat contaminated our conventional varieties say goodbye to Japan as an export destination.

4. Corn, soybean and canola acres are rapidly expanding due to several factors. One of which is they are pushed by large seed companies to make money, because they are genetically modified and they own the exclusive rights to their genetics. Also farmers see them as a no brainer for weed and insect control. What, are we supposed to eat just corn and soybeans? Lentils, flax, edible beans and allot of other specialty crops which offer tremendous benefits to our diets are sufforing at the other crops expense. 
Probably many other concerns, but will let others way in.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1, I find your points extremly interesting. Is it even possible for genetic material to be in extracted oil from canola?

I think we have to be very careful that large companies do not reach the capability of making farmers totally dependent upon them. I feel that way about government, but some companies are just getting hooks to large into our family farmers. My relatives who farm have been complaining about this for years.



> Biodiversity. Genetically modified crops are putting all your eggs in one basket.


That is one thing that I also have thought about. What the big problem is some of these companies may not want to see unmodified seed that they can't get as big a profit from available. I don't think these modified seeds should carry a patent for any longer than any other product.



> Also farmers see them as a no brainer for weed and insect control.


This is one reason the environmental groups should be all over this advancement as a positive thing. The reduction of chemicals is an extremely important benefit.

Thanks much north1 you brought up some benefits and concerns for me to think about. It's been a learning experience. My view at this point is, if there are no chemicals and it's just genetic it isn't going to survive my stomach acid anyway.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

EVERYTHING is genetically modified..............It's called evolution. Man is just able to modify things much faster. That said we won't know the dangers of such modifications for years down the line. I think the FDA idea of a long term study is 20 years. As an example take a look at all the drugs that were thought safe 20 years ago that are now showing up in lawsuites. health safety may be somewhat relative to time. Dispite all the medical technology we have it seems as many people are getting cancer, Alzhiemers and etc. as ever. My thinking is that it's not neccesarily because modern chemicals and other factors are causing it but that since we now live longer such illnesses and diseases have an extended period to develope. I think everyone on this planet would develop cancer IF they lived long enough. With some people that might be 55 years old with others it might be 155.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman wrote:



> I'm interested in this because even organizations like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has come out against GMO's. I don't know how religion gets it's nose in this type of thing.


It is evident that you still have a bone to pick with the ELCA over the same-sex union issue. It is also evident that you have not read the ELCA social policy resolution on genetically modified crops available here: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe...ly-Modified-Organisms-in-the-Food-Supply.aspx. Please read the statement and tell me where the ELCA "has come out against GMO's".

Quite the contrary, the ELCA simply states that this is a contentious issue the members need to think about and study. One line of the resolution states: "Evidence from the physical and social sciences does not settle the question of how harmful or beneficial GMOs are". The ELCA has a history of challenging its members to prayerfully think about a variety of contentious social issues, from abortion, to world hunger, to euthanasia, to welfare, and others.

Now, back to the topic of GMOs. Here is what I see has pros and cons:

Pros
1. Use of Roundup-Ready, Liberty-Link, and BT crop lines have eliminated the need for use of more harmful alternative pesticides. For example, use of Roundup-Ready corn lines has dramatically reduced reliance on atrazine for broadleaf weed control, and use of BT lines has dramatically reduced the need for Lorsban and other more dangerous insecticides.

2. Companies have also used genetic engineering to enhance agronomic traits such as drought tolerance, starch content, and yield improvement. This has dramatically increased yields and allowed crops to be grown in areas that they never could before. As the world population grows, we need increased food production, and GMOs provide that increased production.

3. Use of GMOs gives growers more free time than ever before. Growers are no longer slaves to their tractors to run sprayers, cultivate, or make other passes across the field.

4. GMOs frankly make farming easier. Growing Roundup-Ready soybeans is not rocket science. You can make a couple of passes with cheap glyphosate and get high levels of weed control. This was not the case in the "old days" when you had to worry about crop safety, plant back restrictions, and other factors.

Concerns
1. As mentioned above, there is less diversity in seed genetics and in competition from seed companies. Growers are largely unable to save seed from one year to the next, forcing them to buy seed each year. Also, seed is much more expensive now than in the past.

2. Introduction of genes into another species is still an imprecise science. It is still largely trial and error. There is concern that introduction of new genes could turn on or turn off certain genes in the plant. For example, introduction of a section of DNA into a crop line could theoretically cause a cell to produce a protein that could trigger a peanut allergy. This would be tragic if a person with a peanut allergy died from eating corn flakes.

3. Scientists need a way to screen for genetically modified cells. They normally do this by simulaneously introducing an antibiotic resistance trait along with the desirable trait. Then, they will grow the cells on media containing the antiobiotic, knowing that only the modified cells will survive. There are concerns that the antiobiotic resistance trait could have long-term effects on humans who consume GMOs for a period of years, maybe manifesting itself in increased levels of antibiotic resistance.

4. While some people see the increased acreage of corn in areas like ND as a benefit, other see it as a negative. Frankly, corn could not be grown in much of ND without genetic modification. It has provided short-term economic benefit, but it also comes with increased use of fertilizers, wear and tear on roads, increased demand for bin space, and use of pesticides that are known to leach into groundwater and surface water.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BigDaddy I enjoyed that. Everything you said made perfect sense to me. Thank you.

Your right I still have a bone to pick with the ELCA, but it's much more wide spectrum than the same sex union issue. I think their first statements about the GMO's were more anti than this current statement. Perhaps it's because of the reaction from farmers. I know my relatives are not happy. Anyway, as I understand the new pastor in my old church now prays for endangered species and global warming. Also at the Jesus, Jazz, and Justic youth festival Bishop Hanson didn't tell the youth to go home and save the lost, he told them to go home and fight for social justice. Is it a church or a social club?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Also at the Jesus, Jazz, and Justic youth festival Bishop Hanson didn't tell the youth to go home and save the lost, he told them to go home and fight for social justice. Is it a church or a social club?


Lutherans, especially ELCA Lutherans, believe that there are many ways to provide ministry to God's people. This could include direct forms of evangelism to the unchurched, but it can also include such things as providing care for a person's emotional and physical well-being. Jesus did this all time. Lutherans believe (as do most denominations) that you need to minister to the physical, emotional, and spriritual well-being of each person. And, we believe that you cannot address a person's spirtual well-being without also thinking of their physical and emotional well-being. This is why there is a focus on addressing major social issues like poverty.

Let us also not forget that the civil rights movement started in the Christian church. Why? Because Christians knew (and know) that God views us all as children of God. We all have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. We also all have the obligation to step in and act when we see injustice.

This is why the Bishop told people to go home and fight for social justice. It is completely consistent with Lutheran theology?

Want to go to a church where you can simply sit in a pew and be entertained? Good for you. Want to go to a church where you are forced to think hard about difficult issues and debate contentious issues? Want to go to a church where no final answers are given and all members are allowed and encouraged to challenge each other and find God's will in their everyday lives? Want to go to a church where you are expected to take ministry outside of the church walls and actually do something? If you do, shoot me a PM. I'll take you with me to church.

Now, that's enough evangelising.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Now, that's enough evangelising.


  Ya, it's a bit of subject isn't it. My fault.

I like to do all the things you mentioned too, but I want a church that follows the Bible as infallible and inerrant. By the way, I am still Lutheran. I was ELCA and the same church for 38 years. I am still Lutheran and very happy where I am. I will not bore people with my interest, but BigDaddy if your interested further PM me. I'll not debate but simply explain to you where I am at in this thing.

Again I enjoyed your explanation of GMO very much. It's exactly what we need in the midst of all this misunderstanding.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Again I enjoyed your explanation of GMO very much. It's exactly what we need in the midst of all this misunderstanding.


Perhaps if there were not so many "opinions" made without a factual basis to substantiate them in some of these threads, there would not be so much "misunderstanding"!!!! :wink:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman, interesting subject. I support all of BigDaddy's pro claims, but I would like to add some points to the cons that were listed:



> 1. As mentioned above, there is less diversity in seed genetics and in competition from seed companies. Growers are largely unable to save seed from one year to the next, forcing them to buy seed each year. Also, seed is much more expensive now than in the past.


Actually, most crop plants were largely a monoculture prior to the introduction of GMO. Lack of diversity is nothing new. For example, do a google search on the Southern Corn Leaf blight epidemic that happened in 1970. GM traits are being added to adapted germplasm every year, so I think diversity is largely unchanged after the introduction of GM (minimal diversity before, minimal diversity after).



> 2. Introduction of genes into another species is still an imprecise science. It is still largely trial and error.


 Hmmm... the science behind this is quite good... Before lines are released they are screened for where the insertion site is and what the down-stream effects are likely to be. With the cost of genome sequencing tanking every day, it's not hard to find where the insertion site is in many crops. Genomics has taught us that most plant genomes have vast amounts of repetive DNA that dont appear to be doing much (that we know of yet). These regions are typically good hosts for transgenes and the liklihood of a transgene landing in these areas are quite good. But you are right, it takes many, many insertion events before you actually find one that is what you want, so that is certainly trial and error.



> 3. Scientists need a way to screen for genetically modified cells. They normally do this by simulaneously introducing an antibiotic resistance trait along with the desirable trait. Then, they will grow the cells on media containing the antiobiotic, knowing that only the modified cells will survive. There are concerns that the antiobiotic resistance trait could have long-term effects on humans who consume GMOs for a period of years, maybe manifesting itself in increased levels of antibiotic resistance.


Antibiotic resistance genes can now be bred out of genically modified line. Moreover, new ways of identify transformants have been developed that don't rely on antibiotics. In other cases, the transgene can now be turned on in a tissue-specific manner. For example, you can have the transgene turn on in the leaves where the protein would do the most good, but not be expressed in the seeds or the harvested fruit where they aren't necessary anyway.

For me, the biggest cons only shows up in certain cases. GM corn should not be grown in central America because that is where corn originates from. By raising GM corn in that area, you drastically increase the chances that pollen from a GM plant will pollinate a wild corn relative. We don't need these transgenes in the wild. However, I did read an interesting study that purposefully pollinated wild sunflowers with GM pollen that had a a disease-resistasnce gene from Barley... In a crop setting, the barley gene provided important disease resistance against white mold. However, the gene was soon lost in the wild sunflowers nearby because it didn't provide a fitness benefit to those species (they were naturally resistant to white mold anyway). Still, it is important in each crop species that we aren't inadvertanly pollinating nearby relatives. One rememdy for this in some species like sugarbeet is when they put the transgene on the female plant, so pollen (male) won't have the GM gene anyway and therefore doesn't pose a threat in seed production areas. Pretty cool.

Plainsman, you need not worry about consuming any transgenes (or antibiotics produced from transgenes in those types of cases) when eating sugar from GM sugarbeet or oil from GM canola. The sugar and oil extracted from these crops have no protein (or DNA) in them.

Finally, sucsessful case in point is papaya... a crop that was genetically modified in the 80s for virus resistance. Without that genetic modification, that industry would have failed years ago I believe.


----------

