CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gentically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Are They a Threat to the Environment?
The Enviropig™: http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/
Greenpeace (HTML version of a PDF): http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:Jn6XuZ2ZqSwJ:www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/genetic-pollution-a-multiplyin.pdf+genetic+pollution+site:greenpeace.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us
Greenpeace (the PDF): http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/genetic-pollution-a-multiplyin.pdf
Check it out, it's worth your time. As of right now GMO are, I believe, a great threat to the environment and more specifically to humanity. The biotech movement is huge right now. And it's very exciting to think that what these people are saying is true or has the potential to become true. Guess what other movement is gaining momentum....biotech ethics. Huge, controversial issues of the promises of biotech company's that create GMOs. (For your info, when i say biotech I'm talking about GMOs as well.) Many of them are profit driven and make the science work towards their benefit with their foresight on the dollar bills. Truth is that the FDA is in trouble and many other agencies are starting to realize that these companies that control and use these GMO's are taking advantage of the system for profits. The end result is GMOs being fed into our food systems without enough consensus from the science community. And that should be scary to all of you because think about what you put into your body. Are they a threat to the Environment, absolutely. We've seen new "super weeds" coming about because of gmo's. Some are linking it's effects on honey bee's: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr;=&id;=D9OLw3zOkR4C&oi;=fnd&pg;=PR11&dq;=gmo+and+honey+bee's&ots;=pYv19wVmgU&sig;=xks4VuQtHN5DHAAT38zq0s4-f_A#PPR8,M1 . Here is a nice thing Greenpeace put together 4 years ago: http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/GE_animal_feed_2005.pdf ... Here is in relationship to just one simple, re-evaluation, of what a "Monsanto aka GMO corp" pushed to be marked safe and after this you can see it is not...it's all in the abstract. http://www.springerlink.com/content/02648wu132m07804/
great little article to check out. I truly hope that you look at the evidence and carefully evaluate it. I've been doing this research for about a month now and I've seen a lot on both sides of the table. The one that's more convincing though is the present danger that GMOs pose. Threat, yes. Do your homework.
Honest question here. If we take away greed, do you think GMOs are a bad idea?Hypothetically, if a GMO is safe, do you think they are a bad idea? I recently watched a short clip (sorry I cannot reference it because I don't remember where it came from, it's 4AM here!) that showed a strand of rice that is not as susceptible to drowning do to a flooded plain. This rice would live even after being submerged for up to three weeks. I have heard people argue that this is bad but I don't get why! Thanks in advance.
If I were to take agriculture as the platform for this debate then, definitely, there are a lot of negative effects caused by GMOs. The produce that the incorporation of these organisms to the plants causes greater quantity but an even greater depreciation of quality. There is also the question of what would be the resulting products of agri-crossbreeding between normal to modified ones.
Humans consume more, gain less and are at the risk of contracting diseases.
Support? A case similar to what I just explained happened to the Philippines not so many years ago. "BT corn" was the name if I remember correctly.
Thanks for posting! Your job won't be left unnoticed and unappreciated. It helps me understand much in this sphere. I like the intelligible way you present information so that it became comprehensible, transparent and accessible for ordinary people as I am. Well done!
are you kidding? they're fuckin' awesome. hell, we won't even need environmentalism anymore if we can just create our own organisms. like a fuckin' biosphere.
that's why i love humanity, we always find a way to kick a threat's ass.
plus, a fish with testicles for eyes twood be epic... what dick head would stop us from doing that?
the whole point genetic manipulation is that we are looking for ways to MAKE IT WORK. and hell, we have... not every experiment is complete, but that's why the research continues.
Can't disagree with you but you must agree that we need more reformation with the policies in place that govern GMOs....your thoughts? And As the title of this debate "are they a threat to the environment" why do you believe they are not?
Right now, our current population of over 6 billion people can only be sustained because of GMO's. if we were to get rid of them, then, very quickly, millions (if not billions) of people would starve to death.
As for the environment, natural mutations happen all the time...that's why evolution works. All we are doing is speeding up the natural course of things to help ourselves.
It may be true that people are only surviving because of GMOs...I don't really know. I don't mean to be callous, but is there some kind of concern that those people might also be contributing to global warming? Being that global warming is considered a threat to the environment, does that mean that those people are a threat to the environment?
Natural mutations may "happen all the time," but how often are those mutations actually helpful to the organism in survival? There are frequently "mistakes," right?
In "speeding up the natural course of things," are we getting too involved with things we don't know enough about, thereby creating a bigger mess than we know how to clean up?
Right now, because of the way we are living, global warming is exacerbated by large populations because more people means more cars, more energy, more everything that contributes to the problem. Knowing this, we have two options:
1) Reduce the world's population- This would involve either limiting the number of children per family, or simply allowing billions to die by not feeding them. As you can see, both are extreme and unrealistic solutions that would cause bigger problems if either were implemented.
2) Work so that each individuals carbon footprint is smaller- Things like alternative and renewable energy are a great example of how you can lower the overall harm that humans are doing to the environment. Not only is it good for the environment, but also a very much more realistic than option 1. In general, we have to accept the reality that we have a high population and then work to see what the best course of action is from there, not worry about hypothetical situations that would involve massive amounts of death. Getting rid of GMOs would mean we have to come up with an alternative way to feed these people.
You are right that mutations that occur naturally are blind, and natural selection chooses only those that are beneficial in order to help those organisms survive. Modifications made by scientists are not blind at all though. Usually, they know what they're doing and understand genetics enough to determine how the changes they make will affect the organism. They also do testing on modified plants in order to ensure that there are no harmful side effects.
I agree that we should use a measure of caution when dealing with GMO's because, as you said we don't know everything and unforeseen issues could arise. However, this does not mean we should stop using them altogether. Their usefulness far outweighs the minor risks involved.
I had to do a paper on this and didn't use all the references I read, so I didn't keep track of them, unfortunately....
The Greenpeace paper doesn't really explain the concern of dangers to organisms other than the original one, but one of the papers I read (some of them?) mentioned that there's concern that pests will become "superpests" through sexual reproduction and there will have to be more and more done to fight them. Similarly, there is fear that weeds will take up the genes from nearby plants (through sexual reproduction also) and become "superweeds," requiring more (rather than less) in the way of herbicides. That's really what I was going for in my original question, but I wasn't quite sure how to ask it like that....
I saw how long the Enviropig™ has been around and was surprised until I read all the papers and articles and such of people who are so afraid of them...Europe especially.
Who said that GMO's are the only way to sustain the over 6 billion population? Think about it. And if it's not healthy for people or causes negative mutations in our DNA, are you for that? Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? I mean really... "All we are doing is speeding up the natural course of things to help ourselves?" Natural mutations are different than man induced mutations my friend. Evolution is a natural occurrence. GMOs are man made. When you talk about DNA, we're just touching the iceberg and still don't have enough information to even be playing "god". You must accept the good with the bad and right now their isn't enough good evidence to say GMOs are #1 choice.
GMO's are currently necessary to sustain the world's population, because crops that have been modified to yield more food. Is this the only option? No. Is it currently the best option? I don't know of an alternative, and if you can think of one I'd be happy to hear it.
You claim that GMO's can cause negative mutations in your DNA. From this statement alone I can assume you don't know anything about genetics. Your DNA cannot be affected by what you eat (unless you're eating radioactive food).
As for genetics, it's not like the scientists randomly tweak some stuff and throw the plants out into the wild. They do tests, and we actually know a whole lot more about genetics then you imply. If your argument is that we need better regulation, then I see no harm in that. Make the scientists prove their is no harm before they release a certain GMO. You don't need to know everything about genes to conclude weather the plants will be safe or not. Instead you can observe the plants in tests in order to determine the potential risks.
As for your article, I was only able to read to abstract so I cannot comment fully, but from what I saw it seemed to be fairly unrelated. More importantly though, it was published in 1991. That means before the human genome project and all the other advances that have taken place in genetics. That means the article is obsolete, and irrelevant to the discussion.
You must know a lot about genetics yourself. Obviously my use of mutate wasn't a good choice. Let me replace that with the word change and or reprogram. Here is what you said :"Your DNA cannot be affected by what you eat" http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover go to the sixth paragraph...I'll dig up more if need be. I would also urge you to look up my first comment and the links posted there as well.
Now as for us knowing a whole lot more about genetics than I imply. I don't agree. If we look back 50 years ago then the answer is yes we do. Now in the totality of genetics we are touching the iceberg my friend. To follow up with your comment on making scientists prove their is no harm before they release certain GMO, it should be all GMO and guess what, they don't. Look into the FDA, and USDA and their guidelines: The USDA has many internal divisions that share responsibility for assessing GM foods. Among these divisions are APHIS, the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service which performs in-house GM food research, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA risk assessment program. The USDA is concerned with potential hazards of the plant itself. Does it harbor insect pests? Is it a noxious weed? Will it cause harm to indigenous species if it escapes from farmer's fields? The USDA has the power to impose quarantines on problem regions to prevent movement of suspected plants, restrict import or export of suspected plants, and can even destroy plants cultivated in violation of USDA regulations. Many GM plants do not require USDA permits from APHIS. A GM plant does not require a permit if it meets these 6 criteria: 1) the plant is not a noxious weed; 2) the genetic material introduced into the GM plant is stably integrated into the plant's own genome; 3) the function of the introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease; 4) the GM plant is not toxic to non-target organisms; 5) the introduced gene will not cause the creation of new plant viruses; and 6) the GM plant cannot contain genetic material from animal or human pathogens (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov:80/bbep/bp/7cfr340 ).
The current FDA policy was developed in 1992 (Federal Register Docket No. 92N-0139) and states that agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation. Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA's recommendations after the consultation. Consumer interest groups wish this process to be mandatory, so that all GM food products, whole foods or otherwise, must be approved by the FDA before being released for commercialization. The FDA counters that the agency currently does not have the time, money, or resources to carry out exhaustive health and safety studies of every proposed GM food product. Moreover, the FDA policy as it exists today does not allow for this type of intervention. (this is he source: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php) ) Do you feel good with that?
And finally, I don't know how much you are into this debate but here is a viewpoint I'm looking into: "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden agenda of Genetic Manipulation" just started the book so I can't give you an opinion yet.
p.s. It's nice to finally have a real debate going on. I look forward to your response. I'm going to bed now.
First let me say I am impressed by the amount of research you did. I have time constraints at the moment so I must be brief.
I oversimplified when I claimed that what a person eats has not effect on their DNA. It is however safe to assume that any affects are minimal, and usually benign. None of the evidences you posted refute this, and in fact many of them say something to the affect of usually there is effect, but in this particular case this small change occurs. The negative effects that many of the articles site are not actually genetic, but can still be passed down through a few generations (not positive about the mechanism in place here, I don't know enough about biology). These effects are unlikely to be triggered by tampering with the DNA of plants because most of these modifications are fairly minimal.
As for the article about India, that was a case of not knowing the environment. The crops were designed to withstand conditions in the U.S., but not prepared to handle the various hazards that exist in India. As a result they were wiped out. I will admit that a downside of GM crops is that their is a lack of genetic diversity, and therefore an entire strain will be wiped out by a single source (this is the same thing that happened during the potato famine in Ireland). Had these crops been better designed, though, and the environment better researched, this would not have happened.
You have convinced me that currently the government is lax in it's regulation of GMO's and I think that if more testing is put in place then this problem can be remedied. However, getting rid of GMO's altogether would cause more harm than good.
I know you have time constraints, so I'll ask you this. Did you actually read everything? I'm talking about my third post, I believe, that has just links...Because the information that I sent dealt with DNA and diet, this was something I actually consulted with a Dr. in the Health care field who specializes in nutrition. (35 years in the industry it might be more) And I'm also curious to your background in science. You don't have to answer here, send me an e-mail, but I'd just like to know. You say that the "effects are unlikely to be triggered by tampering with the DNA of plants because most modifications are fairly minimal." where did you get this information because I'd like to find the source or sources and read them myself. The GMO movement is in it's nature like that of the Pharmaceutical movement and look at us now. The sicknesses being discovered are raising exponentially. My grandmother is on 7 medications in her late 60's. And just so you know much research ties nutrition into life expectancy over dna. The thing is, she's eaten well her entire life. She is not the only person on countless medications. With the advancement of technology we should have a longer life expectancy. Instead it has pretty much capped off here in the US. Why? Good question. It doesn't take a genius to see the link. While all of this the pharmaceutical sector takes in huge profits. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/performers/industries/profits/
Let's just say I feel strongly about this debate beyond this website. It's really hard to say get rid of GMO's because the movement is at a "point of no return". Here is my beef. It's not at all with their potential because I'm really excited to see the benefits. It's with many of the companies that deal with biotechnology. More specifically the seed revolution. Many companies have started the "seed patent" movement. This concerns me. As I might have stated in the past, I started to do research on this and am looking into our food supply. (I'd rather be wrong than right) What I've found so far is that these companies: Monsanto, syngenta, aventis cropscience, and novartis seeds have been doing some things that I consider suspect. On the top of the list is Monsanto and syngenta. Syngenta, specifically in Brasil, planted one of their "patent seeds" illegally in Brasil and have many accusations of dirty business. Of course if you don't read or speak spanish you won't see these with english search engines. I'm talking about people getting killed and a lot of muscles flexing to push their product. I for one do not stand for this. Why are we creating a world seed vault? Look at the money trail and you'll find that many of these companies are tied into many "suspect" investments. For example, cropgen, is supposed to be a non biased company that researches just biotechnology, aka GMO, and they promote it. Guess what companies invested in it to be created? Monsanto, Syngenta, and Novartis. Conflict of interest? I think so. And they continue to get money from these giants. They say it's limited, I'm still waiting for them to give me a accounting spreadsheet. Can you see what i'm getting at? As a consumer, science enthusiast, and just person these companies and the GMOs that they create scare me. Someone needs to stand up and create very vigorous processes and laws that govern this movement, they've gotten away with murder.
Okay, now we've gotten to the part of the debate where I have to concede. Clearly your knowledge on the subject is far superior to my own. I was very unaware of the details about the companies dealing with GMOs. It sounds like some serious investigation and reformation of this area is necessary. I probably could stand to learn more (especially if I'm going to involve myself in a debate about it). I did read all of your articles, and I was giving my opinion based on my current education level (I'm in high school, see my profile on this site).
As for where I got my information, this was one site that I used.
You can never know enough! That's why I love sites like this were you can debate and my goal is to always learn more. Let me say this; for your current education level you are more intelligent than the majority. My best advice is to always diversify your sources. This is very time consuming but it will help you get a strong base. For example, if you use a gov site from the US, know that this is the perspective of the US and the chances that it's biased towards the US is greater. I'm not too keen on using .com's for sources unless they have a direct source to a book, scholar article, etc. And again, check it for your own sake. Just because it's quoted doesn't mean that it's right. Even scholars make mistakes. (that is why this information era is so fun to be a part of, you have an endless list of resources!) At your age, I would always quote teachers. (I looked up to most of them) As time went by, I realized that they can be very biased. Nothing wrong with this but it emphasis's, in cases such as science, that more than one view can give you a more clear and concise picture. When you encounter your first real great professor, in college, you'll see that they will always push you and they themselves are pushed by you. "Greatness is never achieved alone"--felipe...hahah figured I'd quote myself ;)
Very nice data, matter-wise you are a good debater.
However, try to flesh out your arguments in a more summarized version. I can see that you have good points in here. The narrative form just makes it hard to pinpoint.
genetically modified organisms are not dangerous, they are developped in a a safe environment and they are designed in such a way so that the nervous pulses do not reverse.
Lol. I just read this and I thought it said "Genetically Modified Orgasms"! Bahahaha! I was totally like "wtf?!" XD I don't even know how that is like possible unless you have like a penis enlargement surgery but i don't think that deals with orgasms at all.
No infact if a public threat arose in the eyes of said public..at least involving GMO...the government and albeit everything alive whould impact it as alien naturly...and if said GMO was manufactured by man...there will always be another level too alter...suroundings,air,food,water,habitat,...cognitive interation? All too well known by us and everythinng else in the present situation...i mean plants make you sick..stop doing it and lose a few people...giant mutant monster made from carbon monoxide and sulfur based genetics?....Drive me closer so i can hit it with my sword? nahhh put a bullet in it or mircowave it into a frozen jelly monster....theres too many ways of dealing with threats of biologicle existance...now an incorporeal blood sucking star gate...thatd be some fucked up...pretty shure id want too hit that with my sword.
Yesterday the topic is about the way money has historically been and can be a spiritual tool for communal and societal transformation. It changes my point of view about money. It's really great that this radio show has lots of great topic to discuss. http://www.mapleleafpromotions.com/Eco-Friendly-Promotional-Products.html
GMO foods have been scientifically proven to assist in the abolition of world hunger. GMO foods can be adapted to live in environments that no one could ever imagine them to be able to before. They are not harmful to the environment in any way; on the contrary, they illiminate the need for pesticides and other pollutants that do cause some serious harm to the environment.