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.
EquALLity wrote: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.
EquALLity wrote: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?
EquALLity wrote: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.