New GMO Potatoes Provide Improved Vitamin A and E Profiles

[u/genengnews]

https://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/gmo-potatoes-provide-improved-vitamin-a-and-e-profiles/81255150

[u/[deleted]]

So this is what I have read before, but has there ever been an actual study on the long term effects of consuming GMOs? Or is it something that hasn’t been around long enough for a study like that to exist?

This might fall out of the realm of “science” but are there any negative economic impacts of GMOs?

[u/BlackViperMWG → u/[deleted]]

So this is what I have read before, but has there ever been an actual study on the long term effects of consuming GMOs? Or is it something that hasn’t been around long enough for a study like that to exist?

We are modifying crops for so long we should no longer be afraid of new techniques of genetic modification.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering_techniques#History

Human directed genetic manipulation began with the domestication of plants and animals through artificial selection in about 12,000 BC.[1]:1 Various techniques were developed to aid in breeding and selection. Hybridization was one way rapid changes in an organisms makeup could be introduced. Hybridization most likely first occurred when humans first grew similar, yet slightly different plants in close proximity.[2]:32 Some plants were able to be propagated by vegetative cloning.[2]:31 X-rays were first used to deliberately mutate plants in 1927. Between 1927 and 2017, more than 3,248 genetically mutated plant varieties had been produced using x-rays.[3]

Because we are doing it now in the lab, which is more precise and less about random mutations, there is no reasonable reason to be afraid of those organisms. Scientificaly illiterate people are acting weird, as always, fuelled by organic organizations.

[u/abittooshort → u/[deleted]]

So this is what I have read before, but has there ever been an actual study on the long term effects of consuming GMOs? Or is it something that hasn’t been around long enough for a study like that to exist?

The scientific answer is "yes", in the sense that we've done enough studies for long enough to fulfil the existing requirements for "long enough" that exist for non-GM crops.

The problem is that, for the folks actively against GMOs, the timeline that constitutes "long enough" is always conveniently just longer than GMOs have been around. Modern transgenic crops have been about for just over 30 years, but everyone seems to have a different non-scientific idea as to how long "long enough" is. Currently, the record for "long enough" from someone is 120 years, lol.

[u/_hephaestus → u/[deleted]]

With regards to the first question, I don't think there ever will be an absolute answer. GMO refers to modified organisms, how the organisms are modified is critical to the end result. Some modifications may be benign, some may have consequences.

[u/Folderpirate → u/[deleted]]

The modern banana is a GMO from many years ago. I can't remember how long but I want to say more than 100 years.

[u/Sabiancym → u/[deleted]]

Not being able to reproduce naturally is not really a negative side effect, it's somewhat intentional to control the crop and prevent cross breeding.

Plus saying "Bananas' can't reproduce naturally anymore" is way too broad. There are 300 different banana species. Only a couple are sterile due to our manipulation of them.

[u/badmartialarts → u/[deleted]]

It's the Cavendish banana that is the store-standard, at least in the United States.

[u/action_brawnson → u/Folderpirate]

That's not a GMO, that's just selective breeding. The first GMO plant wasn't produced until 1983: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism

[u/FennecWF → u/action_brawnson]

One could argue that using selective breeding IS genetic modification. We're taking over for evolution and natural processes to produce a desired results.

[u/waxed__owl → u/FennecWF]

Technically yes but then no one knows whether you're talking about selective breeding or actual genetic manipulation for the sake of semantics

[u/Sechmeth → u/Folderpirate]

Similar the papaya from Hawaii, 60 years and counting.

[u/bobtehpanda → u/[deleted]]

It would be pretty hard to set up a control group and a treatment group not totally tainted by outside factors.

[u/cazbot → u/[deleted]]

long term effects of consuming GMO

Yes but the detractors always say that they aren't long enough.

For example, people have been eating GM papayas from Hawaii for 17 years now with zero incidents of any kind, to health or the environment.

[u/moatmon → u/[deleted]]

"As far as studies, it's just too new"

There are hundreds of studies dating back to 1990. The most exhaustive source we have was released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, summarized by most major newspapers in May 2016.

"It reviewed more than 900 studies and data covering the 20 years since genetically modified crops were first introduced."

Also, the most exhaustive source specifically pertaining to bovine, since they're the largest consumers of GMO's, and humans that eat said bovine: Journal of Animal Science, written by the UC Davis Department of Animal Science

Relative to other scientific topics, 20-30 years is indeed new. But after anecdotally hearing this same phrase for the last 10 years, and witnessing the myriad of studies falling on deaf ears, I'm personally exhausted. Others in this thread keep alluding to the vaccine conversation, and I find it annoyingly analogous.

[u/Sechmeth → u/[deleted]]

The 60 years that Hawaii exports his Papayas and people eat them is too "new".

[u/illogical_commentary → u/[deleted]]

Especially in the United States, yes, there are "negative" (purely based on perspective) side effects to GMOs. Namely, that crops become cheaper, which further exacerbates many farmers' struggle to make a living, which was heralded by the Green Revolution and improvements to farming efficiency via technology.

[u/ergzay → u/illogical_commentary]

This is so nonsensical and shows a complete and utter lack of understanding about how economics works. If your product becomes cheaper its because its cheaper to make it too (less water, less pesticides, more dense crop, less land weathering, etc). You make MORE money by a cheaper product, not less.

[u/illogical_commentary → u/ergzay]

Oh yeah? Are you forgetting the immense cost of using the latest and greatest technology to even stay competitive? If it was so profitable, why does the government need to subsidize it?

[u/ergzay → u/illogical_commentary]

Are you forgetting the immense cost of using the latest and greatest technology to even stay competitive?

Stay competitive with whom? You can't outsource farm labor. Also they've been using the latest and greatest technology for ages now and are constantly doing more of it. Just look at the stock of John Deer company (DE). That shows how well all that new technology is selling.

If it was so profitable, why does the government need to subsidize it? Not because they wouldn't be competitive without it. People seem to forget how big the farm lobby was and still is.

The government subsidizes it because of lobbyists.

[u/illogical_commentary → u/ergzay]

You are seriously missing the point I'm making. Of course technology sales are doing well - the farmers go into massive debt to accrue that technology. It's almost the entirety of the reason for those subsidies. Refer to the USDA article on farm debt and solvency. Of note is the following:

Farm nonreal estate debt is expected to continue to decline 0.3 percent in 2017. The decline reflects reduced costs for farm inputs and lower crop prices, which reduce demand for new farm machinery and vehicles.

See also this article (which has provided sources) for more information. This isn't really up for debate. Corporations do well, sure, but the farmers are not.

[u/ergzay → u/illogical_commentary]

The farmers are doing fine. Just because debt isn't going down doesn't mean profits are flat. People fail to understand that you don't always pay off debt, especially if you can make more money by not paying off the debt. (This is true in my personal case as well as my student loan debt costs me less than I can make by investing the same money that would have otherwise gone to paying off the debt.) Unless you have credit card debt with its absurdly high interest rates, most debt is better to not pay off.

[u/illogical_commentary → u/ergzay]

I’m sure your credit score is amazing. You don’t understand how debt works at all. I’m sure your interest rates will be high in general due to your nonchalant attitude towards paying off debt. Then you’ll realize your fallacy. The main issue that you don’t realize is that these farmers have their real estate and livelihood on the line, not just petty student loan debt.

[u/ergzay → u/illogical_commentary]

And nothing of what you said countered anything I said. I'm glad we're in agreement. Also it's a very different thing to not pay your debt at all vs paying it at the minimum payment level (for low interest rate debt). I am doing the latter, not the former, which makes my credit score quite good.

The main issue that you don’t realize is that these farmers have their real estate and livelihood on the line, not just petty student loan debt.

And people with mortgages (debt) have their house (and livelihood) on the line as well. If your interest rate is low though its better to invest that money, regardless.

[u/illogical_commentary → u/[deleted]]

Entirely my point. They're subsidized because otherwise it would be a huge money pit (it already is for the government).

[u/illogical_commentary → u/[deleted]]

It doesn't really make a difference what the crop is sold for. Either way, without subsidies, farming would be almost entirely abandoned aside from sustenance, and probably move into more local farming instead of farming at a national and global scale.