Poll: Scientific consensus

[Kiyoat Husker]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Actually, they reduce this.

 

I'll keep an open mind on the subject.  Do you have a credible source that backs this up?  My reasoning is based on the fact that native milkweed has been in a major decline over the last two decades, and many studies have linked this decline to increased Round-Up (glyphosate) use associated with the expansion of GM crops.  Milkweed is needed by the Monarch Butterfly for reproduction, and they are in a steep decline as well.

 

https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/03/gmo-linked-herbicide-may-doom-monarch-butterflies#.WoWpeujwa71

Quote

The explosion in glyphosate use has killed off the milkweed plants where monarchs lay their eggs. The study said the dwindling monarch population is “predominantly attributed” to the loss of milkweed breeding habitat, especially in the U.S.

 

"Declines in milkweed abundance are well documented and highly correlated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified corn and soybeans, which now constitute 89 percent and 94 percent of these crops, respectively, in the U.S.,”

 

 

Here's an NPR article that contends that GM crops have led to less insecticide use, but have likely led to more herbicide use:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how-gmos-cut-the-use-of-pesticides-and-perhaps-boosted-them-again

[Kiyoat Husker]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Oddly enough, most of the food you buy at the supermarket is genetically modified, and has been for centuries.  Cattle are GMOs, having been bred for specific traits, as are most grains and most fruits.

This is what corn used to look like compared to now, after it was selectively bred

Here's what bananas used to look like, compared to now:

If you have a dog as a pet, it was genetically modified through breeding, as was your house cat.  GMOs are all around us, and they're not (necessarily) bad.

 

Yeah, none of those examples are GMOs.

 

With GMOs you are actually splicing genetic material together from different species, not selectively breeding them.

[RedDenver]

18 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Oddly enough, most of the food you buy at the supermarket is genetically modified, and has been for centuries.  Cattle are GMOs, having been bred for specific traits, as are most grains and most fruits.

 

This is what corn used to look like compared to now, after it was selectively bred:

 

 

Here's what bananas used to look like, compared to now:

 

 

If you have a dog as a pet, it was genetically modified through breeding, as was your house cat.  GMOs are all around us, and they're not (necessarily) bad.

No, no, no. GMO's are NOT the same as breeding. GMO's have been modified using genetic engineering.

Wikipedia:

Quote

 

The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism', defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

...

The first genetically modified mouse was created in 1974, and the first plant was produced in 1983.

 

GMO's are typically combinations of genes from different species.

Edited February 15, 2018 by RedDenver

[funhusker]

To bring the GMO topic back to the discussion: the question was "Are GMO's safe to eat".  Scientists have found no evidence over the last 20 years that found GMO's could be dangerous for humans to consume.

 

https://ag.purdue.edu/GMOs/Pages/GMOsandHealth.aspx

Edited February 15, 2018 by funhusker

[RedDenver]

Just now, funhusker said:

To bring the GMO topic back to the discussion: the question was "Are GMO's safe to eat".  Scientists have found no evidence over the last 20 years that found GMO's could be dangerous for humans to consume.

Correct. But there are others reasons to be cautious. In addition to the patent/legal issues, there's unintended consequences like potentially wiping out most plant life on earth:

The Deadly Genetically Engineered Bacteria that Almost Got Away: A Cautionary Tale

[funhusker]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Correct. But there are others reasons to be cautious. In addition to the patent/legal issues, there's unintended consequences like potentially wiping out most plant life on earth:

The Deadly Genetically Engineered Bacteria that Almost Got Away: A Cautionary Tale

So scientists are wrong about human contributions to climate change, because there might be evidence that volcanoes also contribute?  (being intentionally facetious here )  Of course there are multiple angles to each of these topics, and hopefully they are approached using sound science.

 

This thread was to discuss how people deny science even when there is consensus.  There is consensus GMO's are safe to eat, there is definitely NOT a consensus if GMO's make our world better.  

[knapplc]

26 minutes ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

 

Yeah, none of those examples are GMOs.

 

With GMOs you are actually splicing genetic material together from different species, not selectively breeding them.

 

24 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

No, no, no. GMO's are NOT the same as breeding. GMO's have been modified using genetic engineering.

Wikipedia:

GMO's are typically combinations of genes from different species.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I had the wrong link in the OP.  Sorry about that   I fixed it, but here is the Pew article again:

 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/

 

Here were their poll numbers:

MMR Vaccine:

55% Almost All

28% More than Half

15% Half or less

Climate Change:

27% Almost All

35% More than Half

35% Half or less

GMO Safety:

14% Almost All

28% More than Half

53% Half or less

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

No, no, no. GMO's are NOT the same as breeding. GMO's have been modified using genetic engineering.

Wikipedia:

GMO's are typically combinations of genes from different species.

 

 

So have dogs and bananas, just not via the same means of engineering.

[Kiyoat Husker]

41 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

So have dogs and bananas, just not via the same means of engineering.

 

GMO is a technical term with a very specific definition.  Why are we even debating this?  Weird.

[Landlord]

2 minutes ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

 

GMO is a technical term with a very specific definition.  Why are we even debating this?  Weird.

 

 

I'm not quoting wikipedia as gospel, but if you go to the page for GMO's it says, "A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques"

 

If you click on 'genetic engineering techniques', and go to the history section, it says, "Humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through selective breeding, or artificial selection[19]:1[20]:1 as contrasted with natural selection, and more recently through mutagenesis. Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by humans outside breeding and mutations has only existed since the 1970s."

 

All I'm saying is that the way we created dogs and changed fruits through selection pressures and artificially forced selection is a sort of genetic engineering. 

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

 

I'll keep an open mind on the subject.  Do you have a credible source that backs this up?  My reasoning is based on the fact that native milkweed has been in a major decline over the last two decades, and many studies have linked this decline to increased Round-Up (glyphosate) use associated with the expansion of GM crops.  Milkweed is needed by the Monarch Butterfly for reproduction, and they are in a steep decline as well.

 

https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/03/gmo-linked-herbicide-may-doom-monarch-butterflies#.WoWpeujwa71

 

Here's an NPR article that contends that GM crops have led to less insecticide use, but have likely led to more herbicide use:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how-gmos-cut-the-use-of-pesticides-and-perhaps-boosted-them-again

Your first example of the milk weed isn't an example of more pesticides being used.  It's an example of one being developed to kill a certain weed.  The argument is, do we want that weed killed at the rate it's being killed.

 

Round-up is one of the safest and less damaging chemicals farmers have used in decades.  It really is amazing how much safer it is to people and the environment compared to other herbicides.  But..it's used so often as a boogie man in this debate.

[Moiraine]

knapp/Landord/whoever, in modern times, when people (and more specifically, scientists) use "GMO" they are not talking about selective breeding.

 

GMO is synonymous with modifying the genetic makeup. No one who researches the benefits/safety/possible dangers of GMOs is looking into cross-pollination, or things like that. They're talking about gene modification, splicing, etc. That's what it is by definition. We're not talking about mixing peanuts with grapes by planting them next to each other or asking bees to have sex between a peanut seed and a grape seed in order to make the perfect sandwich.

 

I'm assuming you both know this and are posting these things for the fun of it.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Moiraine

[Moiraine]

An example: they can and have introduced animal DNA into plants. They can also turn specific genes off and on. There is a professor at UNL doing this. I believe they're looking into creating fuel from algae.

 

Basically, a GMO is something that cannot be created through breeding.

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

Why are we even debating this?  Weird.

 

Because some of us don't know the technical definition of GMO.

 

It's the fun part of having knowledge but dealing with lay people. We make wrongful assumptions/presumptions.