Why are poeple afraid of Genetically modified plants?
98875
I agree with kurdiatcha - IGNORANCE is the major factor causing people to be afraid of GMO. Many people with no scientific training (at least the ones I talked to) do not quite understand what GM really is and confuse it with pesticide usage, food preservatives and any other sorts of chemical treatments. Driven by fear they "educate" themselves from popular pseudo-scientific websites, which scare them with allegedly GMO-associated treats, such as cancer or Alzheimer's disease. Eventually these people would rather purchase a non-modified product, which, however, had been treated with all sorts of pesticides because of its lack of superior resistance introduced  by GM. \nI believe that proper education would take care of these sometimes irrational fears, and that is the way to go.
980913
Because people r afraid of what they don't understand.
297557
I tend not to think so because the benefits of many advances are not likely to reach all of humanity, and although I dont consider myself a dooms-dayer the lack of foresight by scientist could create bigger problems than they fix. One example that alarms me is the genetic modification of corn, a wind pollinated crop. Genetic polution from these crops has accidentally spread to ancient and wild varieties of the species, and could threaten the genetic diversity that we will likely need for the future. various projects involving modifications to bacteria and viruses also have me concerned because of potential unforseen consequences.
1156545
In general changes to the DNA of a species poses a risk of unexpected results.  Nature is generally in more or less of an equilibrium.  When sudden changes occur that balance can be upset.  Like when new predators are introduced into an area and their prey is wiped out.  Or when a plant is introduced to a new area and spreads uncontrollably.\n\nCreating "new" plants can have the same kind of impact as moving plants around from one part of the world to another.\n\nAdditionally there is some concern that taking DNA from one plant and embedding it in another plant's DNA (e.g. to improve resistance to insects, drought, etc.) could have adverse effects (e.g. producing allergic reactions where none had existed).\n\nThere's no right answer.  As with any technology we have to weigh the total impact (on humans, the environment, etc.).
534029
I was not aware that farmers were killing themselves over GM food.\nI shall have one of my angels look into that
682454
Fear of fear - Phobophobia
1148799
In this time of environmental crisis, genetic engineering and other new technologies should be examined for possible flaws that indicate they might be environmentally hazardous or disruptive. On an ecological balance sheet, genetic engineering should be credited with both assets and liabilities. Consider these hits and misses in biotechnology's history:\n\n* Toxic-waste cleanup -- a hit (potentially): Genetic engineering is now addressing the problem of toxic waste site cleanups by, for instance, modifying the genes of chemical-eating bacteria in order to improve their ability to detoxify waste. With many GM bacteria at work, a toxic site might be cleaned up less expensively than by using conventional treatments. Of course, field tests must be monitored carefully to detect unforeseen problems. The GM bacteria may be shown to be excellent performers, but it is also possible that natural bacteria may have the edge over their modified brethren.\n\n* Nitrogen fixing -- a miss: Finding a way to use nitrogen-fixing bacteria more extensively has been a dream shared by many biologists. The bacteria colonize near the roots of alfalfa and other legume plants, and they provide their hosts with nitrogen obtained from the air. Corn, wheat, and other crops that do not have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria require applications of nitrogen fertilizer. Using genetic engineering, scientists tried to develop nitrogen-fixing bacteria that would live contentedly with non-legume host plants. Some experimental trials in the laboratory were somewhat promising, but field trials failed. The research was discontinued.\n\n* Safer pest control -- hits and misses: Insecticides used to protect field crops are expensive and environmentally hazardous. Geneticists have succeeded in helping plants produce their own insect-killing toxin. From the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, they obtained a toxic gene, which they cloned and then transferred to plants. Cotton and corn genetically engineered with the Bt toxin genes are able to produce their own insecticide.
621796
Transgenesis is an efficient way to add target genes that provide specific traits to a plant that were not present in the original germline. the advantages are that you can create crops that are more drought resistant, require less use of pesticides, produce a higher yield, include more nutrients, etc. The disadvatange is that by creating a new "species" of plant, you don't know if that plant will interact poorly with the environment or with people or other animals that consume it. It is interesting to note, however, that intentional genetic manipultion of plant species by humans has been underway since the dawn of agriculture, albeit by the slower means of selective breeding. New technologies are frequently intimdating, but they are usually not much worse than what is going on before and sometimes are much better for all involved.
297180
The pros are being able to learn about the effects of different genetic patterning.  Perhaps solving some questions of nature vs. nurture.\n\nThe cons very from reducing genetic variety, which can lead to weakness of the cloned species because a certain stressor could knock out the whole bunch if they are genetically the same.  Every time something is copied usually something is lost.  Also cloned species can have unknown effect on other species. For example, some form of genetically engineered corn which is resistant to pests also kills off monarch butterflies that consume a portion of the plant.
104243
I think as Americans we are all scared. Scared to leave our homes unlocked in broad daylight, scared to go out at night, scared of terrible disseases, and much more. The media makes it sound like the BIG BAD BUGS will all get us. I think it's a propaganda of fear. Check out my recent quesions and you will see I have been asking similar questions of people and they concure. Its not just germs we're scared of...
302707
Genetic mutations are always a risk when manipulating genes.\nGross malformations can occur, thus making it necessary to imprison/destroy the life created.
560710
There have been a number of ecological problems cause when existing species are moved out of their natural habitat. The jackrabbits in Australia is one example.\n\nGenetically engineered species could have the same effect. If you accidentally introduce what is essentially a new species into an ecosystem, the results could be disastrous.\n\nNote: Genetic engineering efforts tend to be concentrated on domestic animals and plants.  You are unlikely to have to worry about dairy cattle escaping into the wilds.\n\nAnother problem is that bioengineered food may pose a problem for people with food allergies.  If, for example, peanut genes are spliced into some other food plant in an attempt to make it better, eating it could possibly affect people who are allergic to peanuts.  It could become hard to tell what foods would be safe for them to eat.
999018
some plants are beautiful, some are edible, so it is a good idea ot to be ignorant of what kind of vegetables/nuts, ets are what\n\nthen pls realize that virtually al organic matter (and all energy bound in it) in the world originated through photosynthesis. A cow cannot produce organic matter from nothing so the steak that gives u strenght and nutrients is here because the cow ate plants. your car runs on petrol from oil, your clothes are cotton or synthetic fibre from oil , oil comes from prehistoric organisms whose bodies were formed thanks to eating other creatures who ate other creatures who ate plants. etc etc.\n\nthat is what i say whenever asked this. i have studied it in college and for me the ood thing is that vegatation to me is not just green mass, but distinct plant species, so the difference is like when u walk through a crowd of unknown people or you are among people that u recognize. it is great when you can be outdoors and say - look i know that flower/tree, i know something about it\n\nif your botany lessons are very boring, pick up only the information that could be useful to your health - like poisonous or allergenous plants that can grow nearby. like how would u feel if u had a child and it chewed a flower in the garden or in a vase and got sick/died only because u were not aware thet it is poisonous. many ornamental plants are so they are often grown in gardens and u should know which are they in case children are around (not necessarily your children of course) babies can put things in mouth in no time!
538516
Advantages is that they produce more food, therefore feeding more people, especially for those countries in need.\n\nHowever, they are genetically modified and some people are afraid of gm foods.
824201
Transgenic plants are plants that possess a gene or genes that have been transfered from a different species. Such modification may be performed through ordinary hybridization through cross-pollination of plants, but the term today refers to plants produced in a laboratory using recombinant DNA technology in order to create plants with specific characteristics by artificial insertion of genes from other species, and sometimes entirely different kingdoms. See also Genetics, List of genetic engineering topics.\n\nPrior to the current era of molecular genetics starting around 1975, transgenic plants including cereal crops were (since the mid 1930s) part of conventional plant breeding.\n\nTransgenic varieties are frequently created by classical breeders who deliberately force hybridization between distinct plant species when carrying out interspecific or intergeneric wide crosses with the intention of developing disease resistant crop varieties. Classical plant breeder may use use of a number of in vitro techniques such as protoplast fusion, embryo rescue or mutagenisis to generate diversity and produce plants that would not exist in nature.\n\nSuch traditional techniques (used since about 1930 on) have never been controversial, or been given wide publicity except among professional biologists, and have allowed crop breeders to develop varieties of basic food crop, wheat in particular, which resist devastating plant diseases such as rusts. Hope is one such transgenic wheat variety bred by E. S. McFadden with a transgene from a wild grass. Hope saved American wheat growers from devastating stem rust outbreaks in the 1930s.
597102
They are not willing to accept evolution because if they do, all their other beliefs will also be called into question.      So maybe you are correct in your assessment- they are scared of the consequences.
1005705
It justifies the fear of sex.\nOur main purpose on the planet, like all life, is to reproduce and die.\nBut...we can have a good time on the way.\nTake 'myjamsandwich' below. Now this is someone pretty screwed up with life.