Scientist Claims Link Between GMO Crops and Livestock Infertility
Alice ElliotBrown April 2, 2011
http://technorati.com/lifestyle/green/article/scientist-claims-link-between-gmo-crops/Don M. Huber, claims to have found a link between genetically modified crops and infertility in livestock. Basically, it's saying that this disease in soy beans, mixed with genetic modification, has created a new organism, which causes infertility in the animals that eat the plants that have the organism. Also in the article it states the alfalfa problem. By planting genetically modified alfalfa, regular alfalfa will be contaminated. Nature will make the GM alfalfa take the place of all regular alfalfa, and by the time that comes we'll just be starting to find out if it harms us or not. So if we lose this video game, too bad there's no reset button.
In my opinion, I think that GMOs are ok. However, we do still need to keep an eye on them. I believe stronger restriction laws should be made that would prevent contamination. This way, if it turns out they are dangerous, we can switch back to the regular. Just getting rid of GMOs isn't going to be good for the economy at all. Food will be too expensive, and with our already bad economy, it will just make things even worse. Within twenty years, our economy could be better, and so people will be able to afford organic food. I believe that would be a safer time to get rid of GMOs, but who knows, we might actually be able to keep them.
1. Do you think that GMOs are dangerous?
2. Do you think that the soybean organism is really responsible for infertility?
3. How large of a role do you think the economy plays in all of this?
I think GMO's are perfectly acceptable, but we do have to keep an eye on them. Regulators treat them as childrens toys in a way beleiveing that all you have to do is put Gene A into Product 1 and that it will do exactly and only what you want it to with NO unintended side effects or consequences.
ReplyDelete1) They can very easily be dangerous if they are produced and distributed into the ecosystem with no research done on the potential side effects or consequnces into what will happen when they release this Genetically Modified plant or animal. An example of this is when we did the GMO packet, the BT-Corn talked about how the scientists and companies producing it did not start researching the effects of the BT on Monarch Butterflies until AFTER they planted Millions upon Millions of acres of the BT-Corn. But with proper research and precautions this product can easily become not only safe but an industry standard.
2) I do not totally beleive this article because while I have learned in class that alot of this goes by without much research, I do not believe that this sort of problem that could actually just flat out destroy the livestock population by causing infertility could just get past the scientists without them even noticing.
3) Very much because alot of what we have learned and read about in class is that these GMO's get pushed out without much research and this is probably due to the fact that the faster a company gets their product approved and put out in the market the better it is for sales. I also believe that I have basically read this exact statement in one of out class assignments.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteI personally think that Don M. Huber’s discovery is pretty interesting. The connection he came up with between GMOs and infertility in livestock is extremely logical, and I have a feeling that it might turn out he’s right. In the future, I believe it will be discovered that GMOs can cause infertility in live stock. However, it would be really bad if that happened because as of right now, people are starting to rely on genetically modified crops more than ever before. Like Ryan said, in years to come, organic food companies may be put out of business because of cross-pollination from GM crops. That’s definitely not fair to organic farmers, especially since they work just as hard, if not harder, than GMO farmers to make a living, and for the GMO farmers to take that all away from them, it’s just cruel.
In class, we have been talking about GMOs for a while now, and some of the content in the article seems fairly familiar to me. The main article we read in school involving GMOs talked about how it was being considered that GM crops should be given restrictions when they are approved. Of course, GMO farmers weren’t happy with this, especially since they haven’t really had any restrictions to abide by before. So they protested it, and unfortunately for the organic farmers, a few more GM crops were recently approved without restrictions. The USDA claims that they can’t set limits on a GE plant unless it harms other plants. Honestly, though, I think they were being unfair, and at least somewhat of a compromise could’ve been made. In fact, a compromise still can be made, especially since this is an ongoing battle.
Finally, I like the way Ryan described how once we get rid of organic crops forever, there’s no going back. It’s true though, especially since organic farmers are struggling now as it is, and if they were run completely out of business, there’s no chance in the world that they could ever come back.
Answer the Questions:
1) Yes, I honestly think GMO’s are dangerous. GMOs should’ve been studied a lot more before they came out, so that people would know the risks involved with having them around before they became so widely used. Because things didn’t work out that way, people today have no way of knowing whether GE crops are safe or not. That’s extremely bad because by the time we find out the truth, it will be too late and humans will already be suffering from health effects and other consequences. One more thing I feel necessary to point out is that if discoveries (like Don’s) are being made, why aren’t GMO crops being more closely examined?
2) Yes, I think that the soybean organism is responsible for infertility. While it may also take a few other factors for livestock to become infertile, I definitely feel that the soybean organism plays a pretty big role in the whole thing.
3) I think the economy plays a decent role in all of this, because if it wasn’t for the terrible state our economy is currently in, the option of completely getting rid of GM crops, at least until they’re studied more, would be somewhat reasonable. While currently it may be impossible to even think about doing something like that, because after all no one can afford to eat only expensive organic food, I feel that in the future it may be a possibility.
Ask more questions:
1. Do you think GMOs should’ve been studied more before they were allowed to be grown?
2. If an organic crop is cross-pollinated with a genetically modified crop, is it still organic (in your opinion)?
3. Who approved the first GMO crop to be grown? What was it?
4. How long do you think it will be before humans start experiencing side effects from eating GM crops? Or do you think GM crops are completely safe?
5. How did Don M. Huber make his discovery?
Add a Graphic
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/health/2010/05/alfalfa_sprout_recall_salmonel.html
This picture shows what genetically modified alfalfa looks like.
Reflection
ReplyDeleteI agree that GMOs will likely have a good economic effect for us, but this strange correlation with the soybeans should definitely be looked into. Infertile livestock will probably cancel out any positive effect created by GMOs.
Responses
1) I think that GMOs have a huge positive potential, but we as a country must exercise restraint. If you build a house of cards too high and too carelessly, pretty soon the whole thing comes tumbling down.
2) I think that the organism is the most likely cause. It popped up and then the farmers stopped getting calves and piglets and whatnot. May I present my two friends in science, Mr. Cause and Mrs. E. F. Fect?
3) The economy obviously didn't cause this, as you seem to be implying, Ryan, but it will definitely suffer if we have to import livestock. Hmm...I guess OPEC should get into the cow-herding business!
4) Oh, wait, there is no number 4! Ok, cool.
This is why GMOs need far more extensive, long-term testing before they can be used. It's only a matter of time until something big happens and wreaks havoc with the farming system. And because organisms have a mind of their own, if something disastrous happens it could have a long-term, even permanent effect that spreads across the spectrum to other plants, other animals, even humans. This isn't right, there should be more regulations in place to safeguard the environment and ourselves from possible GMO disasters.
ReplyDeleteWe learned in class that the FDA requires a good deal of testing before new drugs are released, so why not require the same of GMOs? They are both manmade substances that we put into our bodies. We should have the right to know what harmful effects we are possibly putting ourselves at risk for. The only difference is that GMOs are more dangerous because they are directly introduced to the outside world, under conditions in which they can adapt and modify both themselves and the other organisms around them.
http://www.streaming-madness.net/wp-content/thumbnails/5902.png
The above link shows an example of the theory Six Degrees of Seperations. While the subject it was formulated about was humans, I think it is reasonable that the same can be true, or nearly true, for any organism. Imagine how rapidly something, such as an infertility-causing organism, can spread throughout the population of a species. By using insufficiently-tested GMOs, we are putting our food supply in serious danger.