Slashdot Mirror
What You Eat Affects Your Genes
purkinje writes "Tiny bits of genetic material, called microRNAs, can make their way from the food you eat into your blood stream, and change how your genes are expressed, according to a new study. A team of Chinese scientists found tiny bits of white rice microRNA floating around in people's blood after a meal. When they looked at what was happening on a cellular level, they found that the microRNAs were changing gene expression, decreasing levels of a receptor that filters out LDL (bad) cholesterol. When the scientists gave mice both rice and a chemical to block the microRNAs, their levels of that receptor returned to normal — showing that the microRNAs weren't just swimming through the blood stream, but acting on genes in the animals' cells."
... Jeans
...they probably would have used a different pairing of test subjects besides "mice" and "rice"
I eat lot of junk food, so only my junk dna is affected. And my sweatpants don't fit anymore. But that's ok; my virtual girlfriend still says I look good.
Broken clock is right blah blah blah. As much crazy bullshit that that idiot spews, he is bound to get something right eventually. (Contrast this with MSM, who never get anything right, so I draw the conclusion that they are not incompetent, but malicious).
What you didn't read is the chance that that hazard will actually manifest, and the comparison between that chance and the chance of getting whatever the disease is preventing. Then there's the severity of side effects to consider... The worst likely side effect of most vaccines is discomfort for up to a few days. The worst likely side effect of many vaccine-preventable diseases is death.
Alex Jones is just as bad as Fox News. He presents only facts that support his particular crazy theory, and ignores every bit of information that doesn't. That one of his bits of almost-credible information has some superficial similarity to actual science doesn't change anything.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Who knew the old phrase "You are what you eat" could actually be true!
This is amazing and one more nail in the coffin of our long-held dogma of genes being passed down from two parents, expressed but otherwise unaltered, then passed down to our children, all with just a little bit of mixing and mutation. From epigenetic modifications, to massive variances of stomach flora even between relatives, now to food's ability to affect our very gene expression... we've got some serious reconsidering to do about what makes us who we are.
Very cool.
Hey mate, spare a sig?
Food is essentially a chemical. DNA is a chemical. Should we be surprised that one chemical would have an effect on other chemicals?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This is why we have the phrase 'You are what you eat," after all.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If I eat lots of chicken............ i'm going to turn into a chicken?
In ten years we could have scientifically proven "homeopathic" remedies.
Gene-doping through diet manipulation. Lose weight, increase brain function, increase blood flow while reducing blood pressure, even creating or discovering new gene functions. Perhaps a mutation that gives blood plasma a lubricating effect that prevents arterial plaque.
Or, for the vain men (and women) in the audience, truly reversing hair loss.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Just a side note, a common preservative Sodium(Natrium) Benzoate (NaC6H5CO2) used in most foodstuff is long known to cause alterations in human DNA. For example, almost all brands of ketchups use this preservative.
Wikipedia: Sodium Benzoate: Safety & Health
Diet Coke to drop additive in DNA damage fear
How long do these changes last?
If this were a permanent change, one would wonder why all those Southeast Asian people who consume white rice regularly don't end up with high LDL counts counts and subsequently a high per-capita rate of heart attacks.
Is this a short-lived change, like until the affected cells undergo Mitosis again (~30 mins.), or is there another food in tyhese people's diets that counteracts this genetic change?
[citation needed]
So we're to believe that eating sterile food means we'll become sterile after only three generations of inbreeding? Well, gee... good thing we haven't had seedless fruits for very long, and thank goodness we haven't been breeding food to be grotesquely large, or anything like that!
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I only eat all natural, organic foods. It says right on the label that it does not contain any chemicals!
Who are "they" and what did "they" study and how did "they" study it? Not to be crude, but links or gtfo. Seriously, nobody cares what you think "they" said or did unless you can prove it.
GMO means a lot of different things to different people. It could mean chemically modified DNA sequences or clever breeding techniques or even simply hybridizing plants using low tech means.
Language exists to express ideas. If you don't provide clarity and context, you're wasting everyone's time.
I'm pretty sure I saw that one too. When I was 8, I had a subscription to both PS and Ranger Rick.
do() || do_not();
Until GMOs consumption of infertile organisms was a small amount of the human diet. What isn't now?
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
I've never bought into the GMO hysteria, but this article does make me think twice about eating it. If, say, corn, is just digested, I couldn't care less. But if the GMO's DNA will be interacting with my cells, the level of safety concern is different.
I still think most GMO's get a bad rap - people are starving and going blind because of the fear (both worse than any GMO side-effects), but those are 3rd world problems, and I have 1st world problems to worry about.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Can't tell if trolling or just very ignorant. I could have modded, but I'd rather educate. First off, treating all GMOs as if they have the same traits is just stupid. There are bunches of different genes that have been inserted and potentially any gene could be used, so acting as if one trait should matter for every other one is beyond senseless. Second, the traits you're talking about were not designed for that purpose (although that was a side effect the companies no doubt considered), but rather was to prevent the flow of the genes to other people's crops (the very thing people are trying to sue Monsanto over now...they're evil bastards if they do, and evil bastards if they don't. Third, those traits are not in use anyway. Because most seed sold nowadays is hybrid seed (hybrid and GMO are different and commonly confused but not mutually exclusive things) farmers typically want to buy new seed anyway, as they have been doing long before GMOs came on the scene. Before you complain about something, might want to do some basic fact checking first. Fourth, I highly doubt the study you mention was done all that well in light of the hundreds showing no harm from GM food and the fact that the best causative mechanism for why GMO food would be inherently dangerous is...oh wait, no one has ever proposed any coherent way that could happen. Fifth, this new paper (assuming it is accurate) says nothing about GMO safety. There are thousands of genes for all sorts of stuff in every single thing you eat. I highly doubt transgenes are going to behave differently, especially considering that the only three traits currently in use (the Bt gene, an EPSP synthase gene, and viral coat protein genes) can very easily be found in non-GM food too. So basically, no, this has no relevance on genetic engineering whatsoever, but I have no doubt someone out there will cite it as such.
such a trite, annoying phrase... yet, even more annoyingly, it damn well turns out to be true! i remember seeing this mural, done by some ayurvedic indian guru thousands of years ago. it depicted a tiger mauling its prey violently, and eating it. underneath was an obese man, mouth open and wide-eyed in the same expression as the tiger. i thought at the time, "yes very interesting" and really didn't give it much more thought. yet here we are, in 2011, and "modern science" now backs up "ancient wisdom" yet again. how annoying.
Yes, because up until recently we thought that cell membranes kept all the environmental chemicals out except only the ones that are allowed in. Every year we're learning that cell membranes are much more permeable than we thought and that chemicals we used to think never entered cells are in fact binding to stuff inside cell nuclei (even more membranes to go through) and affecting genes directly. We used to think that anything that happened in the nucleus was strictly controlled by a cells own internal messaging mechanisms. Now we're not sure. Much more environmental interaction is allowed than what was previously believed.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Not in dead tissue. In living organisms, enzymatic Q is a big deal. Achieving a high Q is pretty much the mandate of evolution toward complexity. See Freeman Dyson's little monograph "Origins of Life" from 1985. Interfering effects would tend to lower system Q, but now that we can examine the Swiss cheese in nanoscopic detail, I'm not surprising to find a few little green men hammocking in the bubbles.
Broadly, however, there would be considerable surprise if this was pervasive on the same scale as innate genetic expression mechanisms. If not, the co-evolutionary factor is far greater than anyone has yet surmised (zen spewing potheads excluded).
so tell me... why is Genetic Modification of food allowed? what's a direct consequence of introducing or removing genes from food that we eat? (answer: RTA). so how are we to know that Genetic Modified food will not have unintended consequences, as a direct result of the removal or insertion of genes that would otherwise never have gotten there?
it's been shown years ago that gut bacteria adopt the genetically-modified soya bean genes into their own RNA. what happens when someone decides to "leverage" food crops to produce drugs, and those accidentally cross-pollinate with the world's food supply? that would be an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do, right? oh wait - i see it's already been implemented. complete insanity, and this research goes to show how much is being put at risk: our lives.
Glagnar's Human Rinds. Now with flavor.
Sig this!
Their precious constitution was written over 300 years ago
And which constitution is that? The US Constitution is only 224 years old.
Also, what if you can't impose social jistice by fiat?
I wonder if this will have relevant effects on research into addiction to nicotine and other drugs? Such as the addiction to those drugs possibly being written into our genes?
[End Of Line]
Alexander Hamilton
But, Alexander Hamilton was a federalist!
Nope, mice are relatively cheap, easy to handle, and have physiology somewhat similar to humans' in English-speaking countries too.
A Fat Man's Prayer:
Lord, my soul is ripped with riot,
Incited by my wicked diet.
"We are what we eat!" said a wise old man;
And Lord, if that's true, I'm a garbage can.
I want to rise on Judgment Day, that's plain;
But at my present weight, I'll need a crane.
So grant me strength, that I may not fall,
Into the clutches of cholesterol.
May my flesh with carrot-curls be sated,
That my soul may be poly-unsaturated.
And show me the light, that I may bear witness,
To the President's Council on Physical Fitness.
And at oleomargarine I'll never mutter,
For the road to Hell is spread with butter.
And cream is cursed; and cake is awful;
And Satan is hiding in every waffle.
Mephistopheles lurks in provolone;
The Devil is in each slice of baloney;
Beelzebub is a chocolate drop;
And Lucifer is a lollipop.
Give me this day my daily slice,
But cut it thin and toast it twice.
I beg upon my dimpled knees;
Deliver me from jujubes.
And when my days of trial are done,
And my war with malted milks is won,
Let me stand with the heavenly throng
In a shining robe - size 44 long.
I can do it, Lord, if you'll show to me
The virtues of lettuce and celery;
If you'll teach me the evils of mayonnaise,
The sinfulness of Hollandaise.
Of Pasta a la Milannaise,
Potatoes a la Lyonnaise.
And crisp-fried chicken from the South,
Lord, if you love me, shut my mouth.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
That's a pretty vacuous statement. You could say that about pretty much every material thing. ....nothing happens."
"Cars are made of chemicals, trees are made of chemicals. Should we be surprised when a car crashes into a tree it sometimes knocks it over?"
How about "Gold is a chemical, helium is a chemical. Put them together and
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
They're not trying to make a *case* for anything, I'd guess. They studied some phenomena and found some interesting heretofore unknown behavior and reported it.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
The reason to buy into GMO hysteria is that if something goes wrong, it can't be undone. I'm sure there are plenty of upsides, but the research needs to be done under laboratory conditions to ensure that nothing escapes into the environment where it can combine with random other genes in ways that haven't been fully considered.
Genes are made out of what you eat!
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Heh, that gave me a good chuckle.
Jones is classic dis-information - some controversial nuggets of truth mixed in with batshit-crazy to make sure the truths are dismissed as well.
"Oh, that's one of those Alex Jones theories - you know he's batshit crazy, right?"
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm going to have a hard time believing this, until we get a couple more labs to replicate the findings.
Just about every animal on earth, including us, produces copious amounts of RNAse, an enzyme that shreds RNA molecules. And while most enzymes are rather fragile, RNAse is unusally robust -- you can boil some RNAses for hours, and they will retain their activity. They're everywhere, on your skin, in your body -- and it's a pain in the butt when you're working with RNA (you put RNAse inhibitors in everything to keep them from chewing up your material).
It's almost as if it were being produced as some kind of defense mechanism against... hmm....
Jeans? Who needs jeans? A kilt gives more room "down there" and can improve circulation around the equipment that a man uses to pass on his genes. So does an ankle-length shirt.
so tell me... why is Genetic Modification of food allowed?
Selective breeding over generations is genetic modification, and it's been going on for the past four millennia. Did you mean " recombinant genetic modification"?
what happens when someone decides to "leverage" food crops to produce drugs, and those accidentally cross-pollinate with the world's food supply?
Patent lawsuits like Monsanto v. Schmeiser.
I guess it's good to see it mainstreamed. I just wonder what people with complete faith in genes believed activated genes.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Say I go to Chick-fil-A to eat more chikin, and I order a #1 (chicken breast sandwich, waffle fries, Coke Zero). Now a chicken breast is the pectoralis muscle of a chicken, so if I eat chicken pecs, will that help me build my own pecs?
2. If not, are those populations less sensitive to the effects?
And just to mention here, why call it "white" rice in the summary? Same genes, whole grain or not. TDA doesn't suggest that white rice puts more microRNA into the bloodstream. It doesn't make a distinction anywhere.
I know this is supposed to be humour, but it's surprising how many people don't realise that basically all matter is a 'chemical' compound of some variety.
The great unwashed masses seem to be blissfully unaware that there is no such thing as 'chemical free chicken' or what ever marketing spiel the ad men decide to pitch to you.
What we are really poor at is distinguishing between harmful chemical compounds and comparitively harmless compounds. Even water (H2O) is harmful in sufficently high concentrations, either due to drowning or water poinsoning.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Er, TFA..
You'll have to contact Hugo Boss. Ask for the Schutzstaffel catalog.
Language exists to express ideas. If you don't provide clarity and context, you're wasting everyone's time.
Hrm... I need to make that into a sig file. Or an auto responder on twitter.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
GMO's are harmless and good for you.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Don't forget the profound physiological effects of excessive exposure to solid h2o, getting crushed under ice in an avalanche is pretty unhealthy as well.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
DNA is transcripted into RNA which is translated into proteins, which are the main structural components of life. MicroRNA binds to the RNA transcripts, preventing them from being translated into proteins. The article title is misleading because we usually consider DNA to be our genes, and MicroRNA affects gene expression rather than genes themselves. RNA interference, including interference by MicroRNA was discovered decades ago but no one has studied interference by foreign RNA in food. It's mostly been studied in the context of viruses or transgenic cells.
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Boss
Evidently, the eponymous founder of Hugo Boss was indeed heavily involved with the Nazis, including as a uniform manufacturer.
However, the stuff-made-of-human-skin myth seems ironic considering the actual horrors of Nazi Germany.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
You think it would have been better to use cats and rats?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Some of those problems of starvation and reduced revenue are actually a direct result of GMO interference. Take cotton. There is a plant that yield three times the normal amount of cotton. Which is great. But it also requires a lot more herbicide because it's also more fragile. Which is, in the end, bad for the cotton farmer. In the end, he gets as much money for his cotton as he did before, because the increase in sales are eaten up by the herbicides (plus he gets a not-so-healthy dose of it with his hand pumped backpack herbicide spray). He can't switch back to the old cotton plants, though. The cotton price plummeted when everyone switched to the "superior" cotton plant, meaning he's stuck now, dependent on a plant that forces him to ruin his health by standing in the middle of the herbicide cloud.
The real gain is ours. We got dirt cheap sheets and t-shirts. Ever wondered how those 3 bucks a piece t-shirts are possible? That's your reason.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And here's your problem: How? How do you want to make sure that "pure" plants do not get "contaminated" by "altered" plants? You'd have to keep them separated by a few miles to make sure that no pollen gets spread. Well, good luck with that!
We also don't really have a choice anymore. Yes, you and me, we can most likely switch to "healthy", unaltered food. How many people can? How many are dependent on that cheap meat from the pig with six additional ribs and the cents-per-pound rice with the genes from god knows what creature?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And if it wasn't for gene manipulation, we'd still have no cheap insulin for the diabetic, I know, I know.
It has no bad side effects. That's what science says. And while I usually trust science, I doubt that we know enough about toying with genes to make such a bold statement. The whole thing isn't even a generation old, and, well, since we're talking about genes here, the real outcome will probably be visible in a generation or two, probably later. The question is whether it's too late by then if we missed something because of our limited understanding of genetics. We're still at a fairly early stage of the genetic development.
It reminds me a bit of the radiation craze of the middle 20th century. Everything was radiated, from toothpaste with radium to shoe fitting x-ray machines to water radiators (a bit like those water "purifier" snakeoil boxes you can buy today). It was supposed to be beneficial for the organism. Well, I guess we know more about it today and know that it's generally unhealthy to bombard the human body with the decay products and radiation.
Now, I'm not saying we'll have to expect the same crap from gene enhanced food, I just think we do not know enough yet to know for sure.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I told you, it's a glandular problem and I have heavy bones.
Yes! That's it! It's not that I eat too much fat and sit around my lazy butt all day! It's just those genes in my food that make my glands do some weird shit and that somehow cling to my bones.
Get those genes out of my food!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And it does provide a new and more terrifying insight into exactly how a carcinogen might work. If the cell membranes aren't the bulwarks we thought they were it certainly explains how a cancer causing agent might get in to do its dirty work.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You're arguing semantics. Whether people misuse the term "chemical" or not, the thing they are describing is still real.
Realistically, no one in the world is dependent upon non-organic, GMO foods. We just use them because they are more convenient and they enable greater economies of scale. A lot of modern agriculture revolves around producing foods out of season or in monoculture or without insect damage or foods that are trendy rather than nourishing. No one is dependent upon cents-per-pound rice who wouldn't still have been dependent before it. The much larger issue is the energy used to transport food long distances. No one would die without GMO crops. Their diets would just be less varied and they would have to live closer to where food is produced and more of them would have to be farmers.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I'm reading lately that the same is true of tap water. Chlorine was great, we used chlorine on everything, washing dishes, cleaning, in swimming pools, in the tap water. Unfortunately we find out decades later that chlorine in water combines to form organic carcinogens. What's the solution? Oh now we're starting to use chloramine instead, which is similarly unproven and untested and probably also produces god-knows-what kind of harmful reactions.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
This is fucked up if true.
Antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility are used in the creation of GMO food
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may282011/gmo-not-food-cs.php
I seem to remember reading about traces of certain plastic showing up in people's blood after many years of use. Anyone got more details on this?
Imagine if plastic flatware, cups, etc. is the "lead mugs" of the next few generations? In 2250 they'll look back on us and wonder what the hell we were thinking...
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I seem to remember reading about traces of certain plastic showing up in people's blood after many years of use. Anyone got more details on this?
Imagine if plastic flatware, cups, etc. is the "lead mugs" of the next few generations? In 2250 they'll look back on us and wonder what the hell we were thinking...
You probably remember reading about BPA. BPA is used in the plastic lining inside of cans, poly-carbonate water bottles, thermal printers used for the receipts you get at a typical store. Although BPA both accumulates and is eliminated from the body pretty quickly, some people are worried about long term exposure as it is pretty much in everything these days so we never really get rid of all of it from our bodies because of constant re-exposure...
You're assuming the article is true. Chinese scientists have a reputation for making stuff up.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Given the amount of fraud in Chinese science it makes a lot of sense to wait for confirmation from a more credible source.
And even if Chinese science were whiter than white, your blind-acceptance is decidedly un-scientific.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
No, I think a fox and lox. But I would not eat it in a box.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
How you even know you got methylation islands, kid?
You suck cox.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If they can't guarantee that the genes won't spread, then they shouldn't be doing the research. End of story full stop.
It is incredibly irresponsible and arrogant of them to put the entire world at risk, because they're too cheap to do their studies under controlled and monitored conditions. If the CDC can work like that, I don't see any good reason why these researchers can't.
The argument that we don't really have a choice anymore has more to do with incompetent regulation than it does any particular reality. Corporations do it like this because it's cheaper, the fact is that GMO products aren't necessary, most of the things they're trying to do are directly related to incompetent agriculture in the first place. We wouldn't need golden rice if the farmers would be growing a traditional mix of greens along with the rice.
is the true reason in the exponential increase in obesity; industrialized foods that not only alter our metabolism, but our very genes. Perhaps we need to look for microRNA snippets that are generated by BPA and other steroid-like chemicals.
The great unwashed masses seem to be blissfully unaware that there is no such thing as 'chemical free chicken' or what ever marketing spiel the ad men decide to pitch to you.
This may come as a surprise to you, but not all words have a single canonical definition, nor are the multiple definitions they do have necessarily clear cut. Allow me to demonstrate, using the Google-Dictionary definition of chemical:
A compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, esp. artificially
As you can see, the term chemical implies, at least according to this one source, artificiality, without requiring it. Therefore, the obvious implication of saying that organic foods don't contain chemicals is that they don't contain artificial, unnatural, or extra chemicals (the credibility of such a claim is another matter, of course). This is the kind of mistake a computer would make; ignoring context in favour of some obscure interpretation that leads to a ridiculous conclusion. Or a troll, now that I think about it
I apologise for all those times I rebuked my friends and made them feel foolish for ranting on while stoned or drunk about "evolving" in their own lifetimes, by ingesting chemicals or meditating or whatever. I take back all those times when I said, "no, at best you'll be able to manipulate such changes across numerous generations of carefully selected offspring, but it's not likely to be something you can see to fruition before you die, let alone something you can perform in one generation, let alone something we'll ever see made possible to begin with in our own lifetimes, let alone something you can cause to happen inside of yourself in this lifetime."
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
"the research needs to be done under laboratory conditions to ensure that nothing escapes into the environment"
Glad to see you approve of their techniques. Already being done.
Give a link, I do believe that's a load of crap.
I look at the quality and information contained within his response and then at the same attributes of yours.
Then I weigh as to which I consider the response of an intelligent person.
"Every year we're learning that cell membranes are much more permeable than we thought and that chemicals we used to think never entered cells are in fact binding to stuff inside cell nuclei"
Had we paid attention to basic plant biology or horticulture classes 30 years ago this news would not have been news at all to us.
I've known about cell permeability forever - learn how OSMOTIC PRESSURE will overcome selective permeability and that alone gives you reason to not trust the effectiveness of your own cell membranes to consistently do the job.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Gold is a chemical, helium is a chemical. Put them together and ....nothing happens."
Only at earth pressures, but I doubt your education ever went that deep.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
There's some awesome logic. You know that everything you've ever come in contact with is a chemical, right?
Most people consider reducing LDL cholesterol a GOOD thing.
Yes, I admire your vast knowledge of nuclear physics. Do you feel better now?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
If they can't guarantee that the genes won't spread, then they shouldn't be doing the research. End of story full stop.
Genes have always spread. It's what they do. If you prevent that (terminator technology) everyone freaks out. What if I don't want the sd-1 gene in my rice, should people doing rice breeding stop? Singling out genetic engineering is nonsensical in light of all the other genetic change humans have caused in food crops (and don't give the 'oh but that's natural' baloney). If you have an issue with the product, fine, but the process is not the issue (unless you know very little about it and view it with magical thinking).
the fact is that GMO products aren't necessary, most of the things they're trying to do are directly related to incompetent agriculture in the first place.
Do you have any idea the types of precautions that must be taken before a field trial can be approved? Obviously not, so don't you think it is a bit arrogant to assume they don't?
the fact is that GMO products aren't necessary,
Are they necessary? Well, not at the moment (unless you're a papaya farmer in Hawaii or anyone else who loses whole crops to pathogens that can't otherwise be controlled), although the whole spraying less pesticides and reduced soil damage is pretty nice.
most of the things they're trying to do are directly related to incompetent agriculture in the first place
You mean the agricultural practices that feed you? The ones that have improved so much in the past century that we'd have to log just about every forest on the planet if we used the practices we did just a century ago?
We wouldn't need golden rice if the farmers would be growing a traditional mix of greens along with the rice.
And if they had the means to transport and store fresh produce, and if the people who needed Golden Rice could actually afford it. Do you honestly think that simply eating a more diverse diet never occurred to anyone developing Golden Rice? You're right of course, it would be better than Golden Rice, and wouldn't it be great it it were so simple, but your solution is basically 'let them eat cake.'