It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Genetic Engineering

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Why do Americans seem to have a phobia about this?
I live on a farm so I can see some incredible improvements that could be made if we accepted genetics. Crops that are resistant to insects and disease would be cheaper to the consumer and better for the environment since we wouldn't need to use insectisides and fertilizers. Plants and animals could become healthier and of higher quality. All these improveme nts make the food cheaper and better for the average Americans yet they are the ones who seem to be holding it back.

Someone from another country answer this
What is the public opinion on genetic engineering (concerning plants and animals).

Are there entire stores devoted to selling expensive, "organicly grown" food?

Back to America. Many people here seem to think that altering genes in plants will make the plants and animals poisonious.


Altering human genes is an entirely different subject so avoid it, but what is ATS's opinion on altering food?




posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Hmm, for once i think people are aware that we may well mess things up somehow as usual, or that there will be unknown side effects to eating the food.
We've had this discussion a lot in the UK recently, and we've even had the Prince of Wales campaigning against GM crops, and protestors have stormed many open-air 'test fields.'
I think it's just a general fear that we're messing with God/nature/life in general. We've learned how to look after, treat and eat our food almost perfectly well, so if it ain't broke why fix it? I don't know what exactly they are trying to solve.
Another point to be aware of is of course the possible spread of these crops to undesirable areas and the possible contamination of the food chain.
To me, GM food brings up too many costs and possible dangers to be worth doing when things are fine as they are, though I can see the side the story that says output will be increased, no-one will go hungry etc.

Anyone else?



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
It would be cheaper, and eisier for crops to be grown indoors. You do not have to use chmicals.... so the food is not posiounus. See Bush goes of to fight a war, but not help citizens.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
It would be cheaper, and eisier for crops to be grown indoors. You do not have to use chmicals.... so the food is not posiounus. See Bush goes of to fight a war, but not help citizens.


Ha, yeh we have the same problem with Blair most of the time, or with any of our leaders for that matter.

I agree that not using chemicals means many foods are safer. However the main point I am aware of is that genetically engineering and modifying some foods my have a negative effect on us as human beings, and the possible side effects.
And yet although I'm skeptical-ish about God etc. I just can't help the feeling that we're selfishly affecting nature with possibly negative results, that's all.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I imagine most of our food is being engineered. I don't like it at all for one.
There is no telling what effects this may have on the consumer years down the road.

I have noticed in America that people in their mid 20s are developing stomach problems such as ulcers and GI problems. It could just be that Americans do not eat healthy. Or it may be that we just can't afford to eat healthy.

You can get a whopper for .99 cents now. But if I want a salad from the same joint, I have to pay 4 bucks.

Personally I think all food is bad. Engineered or chemicly enhanced to preserve freshness and color. If the average American were to start a health kick and start eating nothing but wild and organic food, it would probably kill him. We are evolving into mutants who need our MSGs and erthrobates and ascorbates and whatever else they put in the stuff.

There was a a big worm scandle in the weinder industry back in the 80s. People were saying that they put earthworms in hotdogs. Many morons went around stores showing people the ingrediants.

"Erthrobate, see right there it is. What? Erthrobate is a sodium that is used to preserve food. No it aint , it's code man, Erth and bate, Earth and worms. Earthworms. Surley you don't think they would make it that easy? Sure they would and just to fool us they spell bait, bate. "

Yeah I had many a hick try to sell me that one. Either way, I didn't eat hotdogs for awhile after this scandle broke out. They showed it on TV with big trashcans of worms. Yummy. The sad fact is, worms are the least of our worries. Worms are an organic form of protein. It's the other stuff they use to make the worms stay fresh and colorful. Red # 72 and annatto. We could be eating anything.

Give me a coke and a cigarette, I can survive on caffiene and nicotine.


Nutzo

[edit on 14-6-2004 by nutzobalzo]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I live on a farm too RogueX, and I can see no good reason to use GE.

I would suggest you read some scientific opinions on the potential problems: www.i-sis.org.uk...

Where you are (US), GE is acceptable practice I thought? Here (NZ) it is not. I believe consumer opinion here is that we remain GE free.

Organic food is widely available, and not expensive.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
X3 meow i wana be geneticly alterd and have cat ears and a tail
i really am serious i want them and i would beg the government to let me have them i have no fear of any needals injections or socalled "improvements" them put in me so X3 meow BRING IT ON



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
i might still be off topic but have you read the maxumim ride books genetic engenering at its worst and best but i have to say if they were a realty then i would say SIGN ME UP X3 meow



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
these GMO crops aren't new by any stretch, having been field tested for more than a decade now, so there IS a rich body of experience regarding the use of GMOs in crops already and it's no endorsement, mind you!


let me link a couple of threads:

On Genetically Modified Foods Propaganda and ''Conclusive Science''


Scientists call for GM review after surge in pests around cotton farms in China

following a couple of links you will understand why people remain skeptical about GMO crops and it's not just the quality control.

furthermore, there is a live example of what can (and did) go wrong with inadequate GMOs:

www.aquarianonline.com/Eco/UnnaturalHarvest.html


The company must have considered this a routine change. However, this seemingly minor tinkering apparently produced a toxic brew. Tests showed that Showa Denko’s L-tryptophan was 99.6 percent pure, well within approved standards. But the tiny proportion of the compound that was considered "impure" contained between thirty and forty different contaminants. One of them, EBT, attracted particular attention from scientists because it was shown to cause some of the symptoms of EMS in rats.

That was 1989, the early years of the biotechnology revolution. No one was eager to blacken the reputation of the new industry. Showa Denko insisted genetic engineering was not responsible for producing the unexpected and toxic contaminants. Rather, it blamed another change in its production system. The company said it had coincidentally reduced the amount of activated carbon used for purification at the same time as it introduced Strain V.


the company 'lost' all files and the FDA then formally banned an essential amino acid....



Argentina's Bitter Harvest - GM crops turned sour - Real world experiences, late 1990s.



note that i'm OK with GMOs within closed systems under the control of proper security measures, but the technology imho hasn't fulfilled its promises in crops (open land use) and needs to be heavily scrutinized. if it cannot produce decent results, there should be a worldwide moratorium of at least a decade.


[edit on 2010.7.14 by Long Lance]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
oh and before i forget it why did this old thread even show up in the first place?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I am for genetic engineering for other purposes than food and that's the cool factor. For example, we wouldn't have the naturally blue rose some Australian scientists were able to achieve some years ago after 20 years of research if genetic engineering was banned everywhere. With genetic engineering we can be able to reverse some of the extinctions caused by people, e.g. the passenger dove, the dodo, etc. That would be our way to repair our mistakes. On a funny note, cool and weird creatures like the Opabinia could be brought back if possible, so that people can use them as pets. If you ask anime fans for their opinion on genetic engineering, most probably they'll come up with suggestions about injecting people with blue/green/pink/lilac hair genes LOL.

edit on 14-12-2010 by imnessie because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2010 by imnessie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
In Australia, the issue hasn't been on the radar for a while now. To my knowledge we don't use GM crops like what's happened with Monsanto in America. I could just be naive though - should prob research that!

As others have said there are a lot of irrational fears about it which are based on lack of knowledge.

However the only practical applications of the technology have been motivated by greed (Monsanto) and so those actions have been equated with GM, which means people's opinion is against it.

I believe its a case of "blame the people using it, not the technology". The technology itself could potentially be used in a near infinite number of beneficial ways - we just have to get over this whole greed/power thing first.

The moral and ethical concerns that go along with it are another matter. On one hand we've been doing practically the same thing for thousands of years - on the other the eventual outcome is modifying the human genome, perhaps even completely changing our physical bodies. That raises a whole heap more ethical dilemas that we'll probably be chewing on for a while yet (had to fit a pun in somewhere
).



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I really don't care for genetic engineering on such trivial things such as plants. I think genetic engineering on humans has it's pros and cons. We can be more resilient to radiation, cancer, disease. We can also be more intelligent, insightful, articulate and so on. I think people are afraid of change but we're the only creature to change it's genetic makeup without evolving, procreate on so many different levels, and the only creature to have a conscience that is based on emotions and psychology. i think too many people live in outdated and barbaric times where we feel like imperfection is normal or all these unnecessary woes are necessary.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join