GMOs- Vegan or Not

[EquALLity]

When most vegans talk about GMOs, they are usually talking about health-related issues. But veganism has nothing to do with health, so this post is not going to discuss that (with the exception of right now). In fact, the main reason for GMO health concerns is due to animal exploitation, which no vegans whom I talk to seem to be aware of.

GMO safety testing is done though animal "research".

This alone makes me think that GMOs are non-vegan.
Thoughts?

This link discusses AR based GMO opinions: http://animalrights.about.com/od/animal ... isms_2.htm

It DOES say that GMOs can "make agriculture more efficient, thereby reducing our impact on wildlife and wild habitats."
Thoughts on that?

[Twizelby]

No, I don't think GMO's are vegan. I eat them which I have no ethical defense for.

[bobo0100]

I must also admit to my consumption of GMO's. The following is my not particularly good defence of them, and a rubuttle of this defence.

PRICE: it may surprise you to know this, (large amount of sarcasm) but organic food is more expensive, on average. Thins is a quickly changing fact as organic food giants "whole food markets" is going through a proses of re branding itself for cheaper demographics. This comes after corporations like wall mart made contract deals with other organic brands (with less memorable names). This is why whole foods markets stocks took a drop recently. This hurts me a little as I had punched a few of there stocks just to see the price fall, this and the fact that all my stocks seem to have bubbled over, latterly over night. This has left me down $2000 on my investments. My last hope is rested on a "safe" stock that's gone through a rough patch. Leavening me buy 1500 of there stocks and watch them lose value as they continue through the seasons rough, I should have waited before buying that stock for sure. But I have rambled on enormously, anyway.

[brimstoneSalad]

GMO plants are vegan, GMO animals are not vegan, because they're animals.

Organic food is not very vegan - it is grown with manure as a fertilizer, which is a huge supplementary income for animal agriculture, making meat cheaper and more available for the rest of the population. Organic farms also make more heavy use of bone char, and other products of rendered animal corpses. As mentioned elsewhere, Organic food also has a much lower yield, which means destruction of more natural ecosystems, and potentially famine (as well as requiring more pesticides, which could have more dire consequences with regards to run-off).

If you're looking for a dragon to slay, there it is.

When most vegans talk about GMOs, they are usually talking about health-related issues

When most vegans talk about GMOs, they're fear mongering and spreading misinformation. There's no good evidence to suggest that GMOs on the market are unhealthy, and that's not for lack of trying.

GMO safety testing is done though animal "research".

GMOs are barely safety tested at all, because they don't really need to be. A simple assay should be more than adequate. They're putting very well known genes into very well known parts of plant genomes. There aren't a whole lot of potential surprises there.

The reason they are tested even as much as they are is because of fear mongering and consumer lobbying. Ironically, much of that by vegans.

They shouldn't be tested on animals at all. For that, we need to lobby the government, and achieve tort reform.
And we need to end this fear mongering that makes people call for more and more animal testing.

You not eating GMO isn't going to affect how many animals the GMOs are tested on, because the number is set (by government and liability after their development)- these things are not lot tested like pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.

Make sense?

It DOES say that GMOs can "make agriculture more efficient, thereby reducing our impact on wildlife and wild habitats."

This is a reason why Organic food is bad.

The difference between conventional agriculture (not organic), using GMO and non-GMO crops is not always as pronounced (although potentially could be).
Some crops benefit from it more than others.

Now the difference in run-off can be huge.

Many GMO crops are engineered to contain natural pesticides (from other plants) IN their leaves, so that they don't need to be sprayed with pesticide. Think about that for a moment, and its implications on the environment with regards to run-off.

Most others are made to be resistant to herbicides (like roundup), which means more herbicides may be used.

Plants COULD potentially be genetically engineered to produce their own herbicides and kill weeds that were growing at their roots (as some plants do)... but then who's going to buy all of that herbicide?

There are good and bad ways (as far as business practices) to engineer plants. Making them more self sufficient is generally good.

In the case of some fruits (like tomatoes) engineering them to resist frost can be an enormous advantage to yield to prevent waste.
Some can even improve the soil by capturing excess salt.

There is good to come from Genetic engineering, but in order to see more good and less bad, we need to increase public money for research, and get rid of GE patents that encourage companies to behave badly.
We need to see more GE innovations come from Universities, and less from agrobiz giants.

As to that link:

Studies have already shown that GMOs are dangerous to rats. A review of 19 studies in...

That's a meta-study. Meta-studies are more bad journalism than science, because they're subject to a number of biases.

If you want to know if something is true, you need to do an actual study, and control for the correct variables.

GMOs have not been tested thoroughly.

Yes, because they don't need to be. Like cosmetics, when you mix known components, you don't need to do multi-generational tests to find out if a new formulation, with slightly different ratios of things that were in the old formulation, will cause your grandchildren to be born without eyes.

Some things really need to be tested, and some things don't need to be tested much. Experts, not uneducated activists, are needed to determine which is which.

A good assay is all that is needed- which for GMO crops, is VERY thorough.

GMOs are transferring genes in a much more unpredicatble way compared to natural breeding.

No they aren't. GMO gene transfer is exactly predictable. You choose the gene you want, and only that gene, and then you add it, and you look at where it got added, and you test for the expression you want. This is just a complete misunderstanding of how things work.

Genetically modified products contain novel proteins that could trigger allergic reactions in people who are either allergice to one of the components of the GMO or in people who are allergic only to the new substance.

This is actually true. And so? People can be allergic to things. The same thing is true for any new food you haven't tried before.

This isn't an argument against making new foods. This is actually an argument FOR genetic engineering, because those triggering proteins can also be removed (although the motivation to do that is low, like the funding).

Genetically modified plants or animals could interbreed with wild populations

That's not how DNA works, and it's not how evolution works. Earlier in the article the writer even admitted an understanding of species, but seems to forget it here.

They can interbreed with neighboring farms' crops. But if that farmer doesn't, for example, use roundup, the genes will disappear or go dormant over time.

Genetic engineering makes plants MORE fit for the environment of the farm, and LESS fit for the wild environment. It doesn't produce super plants that take over the world.

Food additives that are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) do not have to undergo rigorous toxicity testing to prove their safety. Instead, their safety is generally based on published past toxicity studies. The FDA has awarded GRAS status to 95% of the GMOs that have been submitted.

That's the FDA doing its job, and providing reasonable oversight. And that's also reducing useless and unnecessary animal experimentation. Win-win.

How is this an argument against GMO?

Even if some GMOs are safe for human consumption, this does not mean that all GMOs are safe. Each new GMO has its own benefits and risks.

That's more true of conventional breeding than of GMOs.

It would only be dangerous if they're inserting dangerous genes into something. That's why that's not done. We don't randomly throw the genes for producing botox into corn. We ISOLATE the genes we want.

GMO opponents don't understand how Genetic Engineering works.

A perfect example of that ignorance is found earlier in the article: If you cross two apples through conventional breeding, the result is more likely than not to be inedible.

GMOs have led to more herbicides (weed killer) being used. Herbicide-resistant GMO crops were developed so that the desired crop plants could survive higher amounts of herbicides to kill weeds.

That is correct. And?

Herbicides are not pesticides. They target plants.
In case the author didn't know, we're not plants.

Herbicides ARE extensively tested.

Glyphosates, for example: They do not bioaccumulate in animals, as they are quickly excreted in feces and urine.
There has been no evidence that they're harmful to animals.

Some of the surfactant and other additives, on the other hand, may be toxic in runoff to marine life (where the herbicide itself isn't).
The EPA keeps a close watch on those, and as one of the most competent government organizations on the planet, it's pretty safe to trust them on that point.

Spraying crops is not ideal, and we should support alternative solutions -- alternative GE solutions being the most likely.

The animal can be the source of the genetic material, or the recipient of genetic material.

Taking some genes from animals doesn't make a plant non-vegan (and doesn't even need to kill the animal- it's just an isolated segment of DNA), most GMO plants do not use animal genes anyway.

Of course, as I said at the start, GMO animals aren't vegan... but why would we expect them to be? Animal agriculture isn't vegan, period.

[EquALLity]

Organic food is not very vegan - it is grown with manure as a fertilizer, which is a huge supplementary income for animal agriculture, making meat cheaper and more available for the rest of the population. Organic farms also make more heavy use of bone char, and other products of rendered animal corpses. As mentioned elsewhere, Organic food also has a much lower yield, which means destruction of more natural ecosystems, and potentially famine (as well as requiring more pesticides, which could have more dire consequences with regards to run-off).

Isn't organic (if USDA certified) sugar not allowed to be processed through bone char?
It's not the same with other organic foods?
I understand the other stuff you are saying. So now I'll be GMO free and not buy organic, I guess.

If you're looking for a dragon to slay, there it is.

I don't understand. Are you saying that I am going out of my way to find non-vegan things?

You not eating GMO isn't going to affect how many animals the GMOs are tested on, because the number is set (by government and liability after their development)- these things are not lot tested like pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.

If companies see demand for non-GMO products, then they will feel more inclined to make them. So there wouldn't be testing (unless the company tests anyway).

This is a reason why Organic food is bad.

Yep! I'll avoid it now.

Many GMO crops are engineered to contain natural pesticides (from other plants) IN their leaves, so that they don't need to be sprayed with pesticide. Think about that for a moment, and its implications on the environment with regards to run-off.

This is true. Damnit, now I'm torn.

I'm only going to address your points regarding this link that have to do with animal rights, since that's the only reason why I put it there.
I never said I thought that GMOs were unhealthy, just that they contribute to animal suffering.

Taking some genes from animals doesn't make a plant non-vegan (and doesn't even need to kill the animal- it's just an isolated segment of DNA), most GMO plants do not use animal genes anyway.

How do they get the genes from animals?
Though, that one animal would help many future generations of animals to not have their environments destroyed.
But then there's the animal testing (Which would only last until GMOs are considered safe. But that shouldn't give animal testing a bypass. Idk)

[brimstoneSalad]

Isn't organic (if USDA certified) sugar not allowed to be processed through bone char?

Sugar that hasn't been filtered hasn't been through bone char, I don't know about the specific requirements of the USDA. But bone char and manure were probably used to grow the sugar, so does it matter where they were used?

Don't worry about little things like the possibility of bone char used to refine sugar- it's not used in all sugar (even all conventional white sugar), it's almost impossible to figure out if it was or not, it's not in the final product, and that kind of thing kind of makes veganism look loony and impossibly extreme.

http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/

As far as you know, ALL sugar is vegan, and being OCD about it does more harm than good.

So now I'll be GMO free and not buy organic, I guess.

If there are two options: organic and not, then buy the not organic. If there's just organic, then don't worry about it. Also, don't worry about GMO.
Worry about living a practical and sustainable example for others to follow.

I don't understand. Are you saying that I am going out of my way to find non-vegan things?

Yes. There's no need to do that, and it isn't productive.

99.99% of animal exploitation occurs due to animal agriculture.

You couldn't possibly demand enough GMO food to be personally responsible for even one mouse's death in your entire life.

Stop stressing about the most trivial examples of systematic animal cruelty- which are a biproduct of our society- and focus on the primary causes. Devote your energy where it matters most.

If companies see demand for non-GMO products, then they will feel more inclined to make them. So there wouldn't be testing (unless the company tests anyway).

They'll be making them and testing them anyway. It's not like animal agriculture, which is highly elastic. If you eat less meat, fewer animals will be killed, fewer raised, and fewer born into the system. If you eat less GMO, exactly the same number of animals will die as would have otherwise to test that strain of GMO- not until ALL GMO was eliminated would that change, and that's just not going to happen (and would probably result in worldwide famine, war, and more animal death if it did).

If you want to stop animal testing on GMOs, you need to study GM, understand it, and then explain to people why testing these things on animals is unnecessary and wasteful when we can just assay them (which we already do) to find out what's in them, and compare that against the known toxicity or nutritional qualities of those components.
Voice your opinion over the extremists who want to have more tests on animals.
Support the GM industry that doesn't want to test on animals anyway (more that it's expensive than that it's immoral, but still).

Yep! I'll avoid it now.

Just don't be obsessive about it. If you see it, don't buy it over the alternative.

If there's nothing else, go ahead and buy it, and don't worry too much.
You don't need to make sure your food isn't organic at restaurants, etc. or avoid products because they might contain an organic ingredient or two.

How do they get the genes from animals?

I'm sure it depends on the lab. Some of them probably just order the genes, which have already been isolated.
Others maybe fabricate them from a computer file? But if they're long sequences, that's too time consuming and expensive.

Some might isolate and sequence the genes themselves. They'd need a small blood or tissue sample to do that.
Once you have a little bit, you can copy it.

To get the original blood or tissue sample, it would really just depend on the cheapest way of obtaining it. If we're talking about a small animal, it probably comes from a dead specimen. A larger animal would just be a biopsy.

Though, that one animal would help many future generations of animals to not have their environments destroyed.

Potentially, yes. But also, you can't stop it.

But then there's the animal testing (Which would only last until GMOs are considered safe. But that shouldn't give animal testing a bypass. Idk)

The reason they test is legislative, not because it's necessary.
Again, this requires legal reform, not an ill-conceived boycott. Companies have little control over that kind of thing.

[EquALLity]

Sugar that hasn't been filtered hasn't been through bone char, I don't know about the specific requirements of the USDA. But bone char and manure were probably used to grow the sugar, so does it matter where they were used?

Nope.

Don't worry about little things like the possibility of bone char used to refine sugar- it's not used in all sugar (even all conventional white sugar

I know all sugar isn't, but I was previously using organic sugar as a way to be sure that there was no bone char.

Yes. There's no need to do that, and it isn't productive.

I wasn't.

They'll be making them and testing them anyway.

What? There I was saying that companies will see demand for non-GM products, so they will make more of them, and therefore not contribute to animal testing.

But I'm seeing the other side to this- that if testing is done because people are afraid of GMOs, that they will keep testing until the people are satisfied.
So by buying non-GM foods, I would really be contributing to further testing.
Hm.

If you want to stop animal testing on GMOs, you need to study GM, understand it, and then explain to people why testing these things on animals is unnecessary and wasteful when we can just assay them (which we already do) to find out what's in them, and compare that against the known toxicity or nutritional qualities of those components.
Voice your opinion over the extremists who want to have more tests on animals.
Support the GM industry that doesn't want to test on animals anyway (more that it's expensive than that it's immoral, but still).

Got!

To get the original blood or tissue sample, it would really just depend on the cheapest way of obtaining it. If we're talking about a small animal, it probably comes from a dead specimen. A larger animal would just be a biopsy.

A biopsy? That is exploitation. But it would help future generations, so whatever.

[PrincessPeach]

I eat my foods for nutrition content, when something is genetically modified all of it's cells are altered. Nutrition cells are something that I do want to alter, also when I eat I expect my fruit and vegetablesto be made from other fruits and vegetables not genetically engineered by man, man made nutrients are not optimal. I seek optimal nutrition.

[PrincessPeach]

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/

All the info you could want on gmo's....

[brimstoneSalad]

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/
All the info you could want on gmo's....

Monsanto is an 'evil' corporation, like any big company; they only care about profits, and they have questionable business practices.

Should we criticize shoes in general for the unethical business practices of some unnamed giant shoe companies?
Let's all go barefoot because some companies that make shoes are evil!

Most of these arguments have nothing to do with genetic engineering, and everything to do with monopolistic companies pushing the little guy around.

Genetic engineering is a tool; it can be used for good or evil.

When it is in the hands of patent wielding mega-corporations, more often evil than good.

I would support labeling laws ONLY to indicate if a product contains open sourced (natural, public domain, or copyleft) genomes or patented organisms.
This would destroy Monsanto without adversely affecting the benevolent uses of genetic engineering- which can also be used to INCREASE the nutritional value of plants.

I eat my foods for nutrition content, when something is genetically modified all of it's cells are altered. Nutrition cells are something that I do want to alter, also when I eat I expect my fruit and vegetablesto be made from other fruits and vegetables not genetically engineered by man, man made nutrients are not optimal. I seek optimal nutrition.

This is a complete misunderstanding of genetic engineering and nutrition.

Genetically modified plants may have the same nutrients, different nutrients, fewer nutrients, or more nutrients than their close relatives.
All widely cultivated plants are genetically modified by humans from their wild relatives- this is done by breeding, which just takes longer, but is just as powerful in changing a plant's nutritional qualities. Breeding is genetic modification.

If you want unmodified (or less modified) food, you need to eat wild food- e.g. wild rice, wild picked berries, foraged greens, nuts, and seeds, etc.

But just because a food was changed by man from it's wild state, doesn't mean it's worse (that would be an appeal to nature fallacy). Sometimes wild plants are better, sometimes they're worse or poisonous.

You have to consider these things on a case-by-case basis.