This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
#27: Are genetically modified foods safe for individuals to consume?
How are we defining GM? I've got no fears about selectively bred products, for example.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Selective breeding is totally different from GM. Choosing breeding regimes using completely natural processes has stood humanity well for several thousands of years.
Selective breeding has resulted in cattle that
routinely require Caesarean births
because they're so abnormally large. Not quite 'completely natural', though I appreciate where you're coming from.
Post by
MyTie
A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects. Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population." The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
Worldwide, there are a range of perspectives within non-governmental organizations on the safety of GM foods. For example, the US pro-GM pressure group AgBioWorld has argued that GM foods have been proven safe, while other pressure groups and consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association, and Greenpeace claim the long term health risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been adequately investigated.
source
It makes the "anti" side sound really unreasonable, especially the note about Greenpeace, and the failure to study the "environmental impact". Everything always ties back to "the environment" with those people. Everything. If they had their way, there would be no humans.
Anyway, the health risk to humans has been
noted
as a concern, but no cases of actual harm have been noted, in
15 years
. My conclusion: not a risk, but people will whine about it being risky, and about "the environment", but that seems reflexive. What do you think of GM food? THE ENVIRONMENT! What do you think about drilling for oil? THE ENVIRONMENT! What do you think about abortion? THE ENVIRONMENT! What is 1+1? THE ENVIRONMENT! It isn't a shocker to me at all that the nonsensical opposition to this great human achievement is tied to such nonsensical groups. What we need is to find a GM corn that can grow in the Sahara, or a GM rice that produces twice as much. We could feed the world off of this invention.
Post by
gamerunknown
Lewontin wrote a good article on genetic modification and engineering
here
.
Post by
MyTie
Gamer - I found some info, linked it, but also quoted the most applicable nugget and gave my opinion. Post however you want, but it makes the conversation a lot more interesting when it doesn't require reading several pages of dry scientific journal, at least, in my opinion.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
#27: Are genetically modified foods safe for individuals to consume?
Yes; they'll just make us all stronger, more resilience and gigantic in the future.
Post by
asakawa
Some of the debate questions seem to be taking the wrong approach. In this case; 'are they safe for human consumption?' isn't a debate topic, it's something that can, will and should be studied and a clear answer given. Of course there is a topic for debate here but it isn't what's being asked.
I understand that the questions are just a starting point but I wonder if they ought not be better phrased to capture the real point of debate within the subject. Just a thought.
Personally, "GM" is often thought of in some pretty hyperbolic terms. Presumably news stories like the mouse with an ear growing on its back lead people to imagine some pretty crazy things.
What is it really all about? Normal Borlaug won a Nobel in 1970 for producing a type of wheat, genetically cross-bred from various strains, that produced more grain sustainably and using the same land. It would be conservative to say that he has single-handedly saved millions from starvation.
Post by
FatalHeaven
All but two of these debate topics have been copy/pasted from a site that hosts hundreds...thousands even, of debates. The people on that site didn't seem to have issues debating it. I had assumed the case would be the same here. Maybe I was wrong.
In fact, if a debate wasn't debateable or did not have anyone who had responded to it, I do not choose that topic.
Here
is the specific debate in which I pulled topic # 27 from.
Post by
MyTie
Maybe you could draw from some broader themes, and then build your own topics. Start with topics that are based in morality, legality, or politics. Watch the discussions to get a feel for the directions they move in, then make topics that specialize in those areas. For instance, you could ask about assisted suicide, eugenics, or abortion in the morality "category", watch the debate ensue. A debate about assisted suicide would probably end up talking about government intervention in protecting life. Then you could ask the question about how much lateral power over life government should have. This could open the door for a political question, such as "should gov go left or right". Keep topics broad enough to allow people to express a wide range of opinions, but narrow enough to give it some direction. I don't know what website you are using, but it might not be the same demographic/conversation style as off-topic. I don't think your debate topics are bad (except dogs vs cats one). I think that this is overall a very good thread and you've done a good job of it. Just, don't be afraid to experiment a little with format.
Post by
asakawa
I don't mean to criticise too much. I think it's a reasonable subject for discussion and successful discussion seems to be generated by all the questions you pose. There've just been a couple that made me think that the question raised isn't the debatable point at the heart of the topic, as here. Perhaps a quick rephrasing might help when you gather and post them?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Yes, that's an excellent theory, apart from the fact that it's not what happened, which is why I just told you the patents weren't expired. I generally don't care to play lecturer on topics I have no special knowledge about, but if you want to know what happened googling "Cipla" will start things
After some google work, I can't find any evidence of anything suggesting that Cipla was marketing in the US at the expense of the patent holders. I can see they did a lot outside the US in devloping nations, but within the UK and US, I don't see that any patents have been ignored. Considering that the developed nations (i.e. the ones with strong patent laws) are also the ones you expect to make your returns from, I still don't see what the issue is.
I think it would be helpful to focus on matters of morality or opinion. A question like "is GM food safe?" is essentially objective - it's the kind of question where the sensible layman decides which experts are worth trusting, rather than holding a subjective opinion to be tempered by reasoned debate.
I agree with this point. Moral or subjective matters are more conducive to debate, if for nothing else than there's a much wider variety of opinions.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
FatalHeaven
#28: Should schools be allowed to use/practice Corporal Punishment?
Corporal Punishment isn't at a peak now but it is still around. In the school district my daughter attends, when you enroll your children, the form states Corporal Punishment may be used; if you object it gives you a place to sign meaning no teacher/principal or school authority may lay a hand...ruler... whatever, on your child. In my opinion, Corporal Punishment is unjust and degrading. Schools should not have the authority regardless of a parent signing anything to punish your child to that degree.
Post by
MyTie
#28: Should schools be allowed to use/practice capital punishment?
Capital punishment isn't at a peak now but it is still around. In the school district my daughter attends, when you enroll your children, the form states capital punishment may be used; if you object it gives you a place to sign meaning no teacher/principal or school authority may lay a hand...ruler... whatever, on your child. In my opinion, Capital punishment is unjust and degrading. Schools should not have the authority regardless of a parent signing anything to punish your child to that degree.
No. I don't believe schools should be allowed to kill children.
Post by
Squishalot
To play devil's advocate, where do you draw the line? Should a school be allowed to physically pick up an unruly child and remove them from a situation?
Post by
345624
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.