Turn on thread page Beta

GM food- Good/Bad? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/gmde...w=GM+Microsite

    excellent debate on it there.

    Anyway, my personal view is that if it can be used to help famines etc then use it -> Although there is a very low risk it could have adverse side effects, we have to look at the short term in such countries that are desperate to be fed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Biologically, GM food is safe to eat. It doesn't matter whether the DNA of a fish in a tomato. All gets digested. You won't turn into a monster or anything.


    Other moral aspects are of course ignored.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Good. As long as it is used responsibly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm definitely for it. Yea, I know it might considered as morally wrong but so is not taking the chance to save millions of starving people. If a lot of GM food can be produced to reduce hunger, then it would be a good thing right?

    Food is food.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    But why don't we just use the stroed grains in thr EU (grain mountains etc) to alleviate the problem first?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    But why don't we just use the stroed grains in thr EU (grain mountains etc) to alleviate the problem first?
    and the butter mountains and all extra food. Ridiculous situation
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    http://ngin.tripod.com/JM080.htm


    You do know most of your thing was copied mostly from this site?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    http://ngin.tripod.com/JM080.htm


    You do know most of your thing was copied mostly from this site?
    unlikey surely the other way round?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does it really make a difference?
    My digestive system hasn't noticed any differences....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zazy)
    Does it really make a difference?
    My digestive system hasn't noticed any differences....
    just wondered whether anyone thought it was bad at all. besides, i'm getting really bored with the abortion and religion debates.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    With all tehse things you need to think about what the costs / benefits are. To grow GM crops without any concerns about potential damage or side effects would be irresponsible. Even though much of the hysteria around GM technology is exhagurated, there are some problems ascociated with the technology and there you must also considder secondary side effects (e.g even though the altered DNA in itself is not neccessarily dangerous, the procedure through which the alterations are made could create problems. Since you use antibiotic resistance genes as markers when sorting out the samples where the genes has been successfully implanted, it could cause trouble with antibiotic resistant infections etc), Having said that, to dismiss the technology merely because there is a risk involved, or to dismiss it purely on religious / ethical grounds would be just as ignorant. The technology has a great potential for developing new techniques which will be very beneficial. Except for teh economical benefits the technology may open up windows of opportunities never seen before. The bottom line is that the technology could cause problems, but it could also solve some of those we already have. The wisest way to proceed is probably to gradually allow more and more GM to be used in the society, under carefull supervision so that we may interfere as early as possible if problems are discovered. Many anti-GM groups tend to mention the taliomid disaster (a medecin against morning sickness for pregnant wommen caused missgrowth among several children), however when compared to all the benefits and sucessful applications of chemical medicaments, the taliomid disaster merely tells us that we have to be carefull. The truth is that although technology has caused some problems in the past, the benefits often outweigh the risks by several magnitudes, and through teh use of legislation and regulations one can keep the risks at an acceptable level. It would be ignorant to expect to resolve todays problems without taking some risks, what is important is that we develop and take advantage of new technologies in a responsible manner, accepting that bad things may happen, but trying to keep them from happening.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    just wondered whether anyone thought it was bad at all. besides, i'm getting really bored with the abortion and religion debates.
    I find religion debates extremly tiring and pointless because people end up fighting over absolutely nothing and loads of hatred is caused amongst the forum members...
    Using GM crops does have disadvantages that until they don't happen on a large scale no one will really care.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    and the butter mountains and all extra food. Ridiculous situation
    Things are almost always more complicated than they appear. In this case the problem is transportation and economical consequences. Transporting all excess production from developed countries to LDCs is problematic in two ways. First of all the cost of transportation and teh ascoxciated polution must be dealt with. Even if you "give" our excess food to african countries, that alone doesnt bring it down there. It may be much cheaper to develop and agricultural industry on site rather than importing agricultuiral goods from the western world. This is however often impossible due to teh governmental structure or traditional way of life in many LDCs. Also, dumping large amounts of food in LDCs will be fatal to the local aggricultural production that does exist. In teh short run this may help the population, but in the long run it will turn teh country into an economical slave to the western world without any ability to controll their domestic afffairs by themselves. I am not as naive as to beleive that the GM companies have as their main goal to create a better world with less starving people. They are fo course mainly interested in making a profit. However, a positive side effect may be thatdecreased costs of production may lower the price of agricultural good and so make it more affordable for those who are poor. The counterargument may of course be that LDCs will nto be able to compete with GM companies in production of Agricultural goods and so they will lose their export incomes. However, this problem is more of an economical one than a problem with GM technology
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Things are almost always more complicated than they appear...
    True, but it would definitely be useful in the aftermath of a natural disaster or in response to widespread famine. Too many times has this occured with charities appealing for money to send food, which they have to buy then send.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zazy)
    I find religion debates extremly tiring and pointless because people end up fighting over absolutely nothing and loads of hatred is caused amongst the forum members...
    Using GM crops does have disadvantages that until they don't happen on a large scale no one will really care.
    EVERYTHING has disadvantages and problems. The question is if the benefits of GM technology outweigh the disadvantages. I think it does. Prohibiting teh use of GM technology on the basis that it has some problems is ignorant since you would have to prohobit virtually everything if you were to follow this policy consequentually. Todays agricultural production has problems ascociated with it as well. In the end you have to ask yourself how large risks you can considder acceptable for a given amount of benefits. All choices has what an economist would refer to as an opportunity cost. If you chose not to allow GM crops, then you have prevented the disadvantages, but you have at the same time lost the benefits. Also, remember that there is no such thing as a choice without risk. When you chose your degree at university you have effectiveley lost a large number of potential futures, but you have gainesd one which will hopefully be a good choice for you. The same applies to GM. If you dont take the risk of causing some damage to teh environment, you may lose a cure for Alzeimers. All choices have consequences.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    True, but it would definitely be useful in the aftermath of a natural disaster or in response to widespread famine. Too many times has this occured with charities appealing for money to send food, which they have to buy then send.
    As I said, there are obvious benefits. The real question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks ( I think they do).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    EVERYTHING has disadvantages and problems. The question is if the benefits of GM technology outweigh the disadvantages. I think it does. Prohibiting teh use of GM technology on the basis that it has some problems is ignorant since you would have to prohobit virtually everything if you were to follow this policy consequentually. Todays agricultural production has problems ascociated with it as well. In the end you have to ask yourself how large risks you can considder acceptable for a given amount of benefits. All choices has what an economist would refer to as an opportunity cost. If you chose not to allow GM crops, then you have prevented the disadvantages, but you have at the same time lost the benefits. Also, remember that there is no such thing as a choice without risk. When you chose your degree at university you have effectiveley lost a large number of potential futures, but you have gainesd one which will hopefully be a good choice for you. The same applies to GM. If you dont take the risk of causing some damage to teh environment, you may lose a cure for Alzeimers. All choices have consequences.
    That's what i was trying to point out...that such views are ignorant...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zazy)
    That's what i was trying to point out...that such views are ignorant...
    The worst thing I know is when people say stuff like "I am not going to trust the scientists because they are being paid by teh GM companies". By this logic we should put ignorant lunitics in charge of everything cus the experts are obviously biased because it is "their" field of knowledge. Of course everyone is biased to some degree , but that is not an argument to put more trust to Greenpeace than to the people who actually know how the stuff works. Much of the criticism against GM is there just because people has a problem with science being able to interfere with the process of life, and not because of any objective insight into teh problems. I mean, when peopel make posters showing wommen with four breasts connected to a milking machine they really show that they have no clue about what the potential risks of GM actually are.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.