GMO foods debate.
Replies
-
ZZzzzzzzzz... Waaaaay too long and boring to watch.0
-
They have created round ready crops so they can put 10 times more round up on the crops and the crops wont die. That means your eating 10 times more round up on your food, and the drinking water is full of this chemical. Have your urine tested, you probably have round up in it too. What about the environment? Who does the the testing? The companies that make millions selling chemicals. Do you want chemical companies owning the seeds....the worlds food supply....
this is what i was getting at. yes, organic farmers use pesticides, they have a limited number of choices when it comes to that. my parents have used roundup to kill poison ivy on their property. i have no problem with that whatsoever. but they sure as hell would never put it in their food garden.0 -
GM is being rushed into place without sufficient checks so that as much money can be made as possible before the world becomes aware of any negatives. When the claims start, the companies making the money will deny them forever. Only the lawyers win.
If we are going to use GM, we must be 1,000% certain that bio-safety, bio-security and legalities are rock solid. And, if we look to history, that will be a long time coming.
GM crops are tested more than organic. They still need to pass FDA standards , but they also need to pass EPA standards. Health concerns, environmental concerns, both accounted for.0 -
The sad thing is the FDA has people who work for the GMO companies. Do the research. Gmo companies are heavy into politics and the FDA. Chemical companies are responsible for doing their own testing, which they don't release, but have laws that protect them if and when it is proven that GMO foods are toxic. Rice was once a staple food all over the world. The new warning is to only consume 1 to 2 serving a week because of the high levels of arsenic. Guess where arsenic comes from.TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »
GM is being rushed into place without sufficient checks so that as much money can be made as possible before the world becomes aware of any negatives. When the claims start, the companies making the money will deny them forever. Only the lawyers win.
If we are going to use GM, we must be 1,000% certain that bio-safety, bio-security and legalities are rock solid. And, if we look to history, that will be a long time coming.
GM crops are tested more than organic. They still need to pass FDA standards , but they also need to pass EPA standards. Health concerns, environmental concerns, both accounted for.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Let's not forget "terminator seeds"
Those are produced by Cyberdine, though, and we all know they are the future.
0 -
TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »
GM is being rushed into place without sufficient checks so that as much money can be made as possible before the world becomes aware of any negatives. When the claims start, the companies making the money will deny them forever. Only the lawyers win.
If we are going to use GM, we must be 1,000% certain that bio-safety, bio-security and legalities are rock solid. And, if we look to history, that will be a long time coming.
GM crops are tested more than organic. They still need to pass FDA standards , but they also need to pass EPA standards. Health concerns, environmental concerns, both accounted for.
Because the FDA always has our best interests at heart. Based on the amount of drugs that pass the FDA's "rigorous inspection and testing", land on the shelves and then are yanked later or there are lawsuits being filed because lo and behold they're not as safe as the FDA claimed I trust them as far as I can throw them. How can a company who does "rigorous inspection and testing" allow drugs on the market that causes TB, blood clots, uncontrollable muscle movement (that may become permanent!), cancer or my favorite, a "fatal event". Also how is it right that the farmers who are forced into using the GMO products can't save the seeds? If they do they get smacked with a hefty fine.
The FDA has everyone in their back pocket so of course it's easy for them to say things are safe.0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »
GM is being rushed into place without sufficient checks so that as much money can be made as possible before the world becomes aware of any negatives. When the claims start, the companies making the money will deny them forever. Only the lawyers win.
If we are going to use GM, we must be 1,000% certain that bio-safety, bio-security and legalities are rock solid. And, if we look to history, that will be a long time coming.
GM crops are tested more than organic. They still need to pass FDA standards , but they also need to pass EPA standards. Health concerns, environmental concerns, both accounted for.
Because the FDA always has our best interests at heart. Based on the amount of drugs that pass the FDA's "rigorous inspection and testing", land on the shelves and then are yanked later or there are lawsuits being filed because lo and behold they're not as safe as the FDA claimed I trust them as far as I can throw them. How can a company who does "rigorous inspection and testing" allow drugs on the market that causes TB, blood clots, uncontrollable muscle movement (that may become permanent!), cancer or my favorite, a "fatal event". Also how is it right that the farmers who are forced into using the GMO products can't save the seeds? If they do they get smacked with a hefty fine.
The FDA has everyone in their back pocket so of course it's easy for them to say things are safe.
I'm not saying that the FDA is above corruption that is ever so prevalent in large corporations. No, we should not blindly trust their word as law, but where else do we turn to for setting standards and regulations that do keep our best interests in mind?
It is completely naive (and a bit crazy conspiracy theorist thinking) to think that the FDA is allowing harmful drugs through just to make someone rich.
Too often is the FDA distrusted because they are a large administration and too often are GMO put down or "natural" methods praised just because "natural must be better," which is not true.0 -
TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »
GM is being rushed into place without sufficient checks so that as much money can be made as possible before the world becomes aware of any negatives. When the claims start, the companies making the money will deny them forever. Only the lawyers win.
If we are going to use GM, we must be 1,000% certain that bio-safety, bio-security and legalities are rock solid. And, if we look to history, that will be a long time coming.
GM crops are tested more than organic. They still need to pass FDA standards , but they also need to pass EPA standards. Health concerns, environmental concerns, both accounted for.
Because the FDA always has our best interests at heart. Based on the amount of drugs that pass the FDA's "rigorous inspection and testing", land on the shelves and then are yanked later or there are lawsuits being filed because lo and behold they're not as safe as the FDA claimed I trust them as far as I can throw them. How can a company who does "rigorous inspection and testing" allow drugs on the market that causes TB, blood clots, uncontrollable muscle movement (that may become permanent!), cancer or my favorite, a "fatal event". Also how is it right that the farmers who are forced into using the GMO products can't save the seeds? If they do they get smacked with a hefty fine.
The FDA has everyone in their back pocket so of course it's easy for them to say things are safe.
I'm not saying that the FDA is above corruption that is ever so prevalent in large corporations. No, we should not blindly trust their word as law, but where else do we turn to for setting standards and regulations that do keep our best interests in mind?
It is completely naive (and a bit crazy conspiracy theorist thinking) to think that the FDA is allowing harmful drugs through just to make someone rich.
Too often is the FDA distrusted because they are a large administration and too often are GMO put down or "natural" methods praised just because "natural must be better," which is not true.
They aren't. They aren't even conducting the safety trials. They set the standards for how the drug trials must be run, they review the conduct of the trial, they review the results and they determine whether the drug is safe enough to be approved (relative to the benefit of the drug) based on those results.
Most of the problem is that testing is over a relatively short amount of time, and in a limited population. Testing a drug in a patient population of a couple hundred, maybe a couple of thousand is not going to reveal the side effects that are possible to appear in a population of hundreds of thousands to millions of people. Testing a drug for a couple of years does not tell you what it might do ten years down the road. Now take that in combination, and you should realize that it is not possible to determine drug safety and all possible side effects until it's been widely used for a long time.0 -
TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »
GM is being rushed into place without sufficient checks so that as much money can be made as possible before the world becomes aware of any negatives. When the claims start, the companies making the money will deny them forever. Only the lawyers win.
If we are going to use GM, we must be 1,000% certain that bio-safety, bio-security and legalities are rock solid. And, if we look to history, that will be a long time coming.
GM crops are tested more than organic. They still need to pass FDA standards , but they also need to pass EPA standards. Health concerns, environmental concerns, both accounted for.
Because the FDA always has our best interests at heart. Based on the amount of drugs that pass the FDA's "rigorous inspection and testing", land on the shelves and then are yanked later or there are lawsuits being filed because lo and behold they're not as safe as the FDA claimed I trust them as far as I can throw them. How can a company who does "rigorous inspection and testing" allow drugs on the market that causes TB, blood clots, uncontrollable muscle movement (that may become permanent!), cancer or my favorite, a "fatal event". Also how is it right that the farmers who are forced into using the GMO products can't save the seeds? If they do they get smacked with a hefty fine.
The FDA has everyone in their back pocket so of course it's easy for them to say things are safe.
I'm not saying that the FDA is above corruption that is ever so prevalent in large corporations. No, we should not blindly trust their word as law, but where else do we turn to for setting standards and regulations that do keep our best interests in mind?
It is completely naive (and a bit crazy conspiracy theorist thinking) to think that the FDA is allowing harmful drugs through just to make someone rich.
Too often is the FDA distrusted because they are a large administration and too often are GMO put down or "natural" methods praised just because "natural must be better," which is not true.
They aren't. They aren't even conducting the safety trials. They set the standards for how the drug trials must be run, they review the conduct of the trial, they review the results and they determine whether the drug is safe enough to be approved (relative to the benefit of the drug) based on those results.
Most of the problem is that testing is over a relatively short amount of time, and in a limited population. Testing a drug in a patient population of a couple hundred, maybe a couple of thousand is not going to reveal the side effects that are possible to appear in a population of hundreds of thousands to millions of people. Testing a drug for a couple of years does not tell you what it might do ten years down the road. Now take that in combination, and you should realize that it is not possible to determine drug safety and all possible side effects until it's been widely used for a long time.
How about 19 years and billions of subjects.
Van Eenennaam and Young then approach the question of GMO feeding from a different angle. Since 1996 90-95% of animal feed in the US has been GMO. Prior to 1996 0% was GMO. This offers the opportunity for a large observational study to see if the rapid and thorough introduction of GMO feed in the US resulted in any adverse health effects for the animals.
This data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.
In this case the data is particularly useful for a couple of reasons. First, the number of animals for which there is data is massive – in the billions per year. Second, the industry actually carefully tracks certain outcomes, as it is necessary or critical to their business.
For example, cattle are examined both premortem and postmortem for any abnormalities, such as tumors or signs of infection or other illness. Any sign of illness and that cow is not approved for meat. The percentage of cattle that are found to have such abnormalities is called the condemnation rate, and annual condemnation rates are kept in public databases.
The authors pooled data from various such databases for various animal industries before and after the introduction of GMO into animal feed:
Livestock production statistics for the US before and after the introduction of GE feed crops in 1986 are summarized in Table 4. In all industries, there were no obvious perturbations in production parameters over time. The available health parameters, somatic cell count (SCC; an indicator of mastitis and inflammation in the udder) in the dairy data set (Figure 1), postmortem condemnation rates in cattle (Figure 1), and postmortem condemnation rates and mortality in the poultry industry (Figure 2), all decreased (i.e., improved) over time.
So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.
The reason for the background improvement in health parameters is likely due to improved genetics and handling. This slow improvement over time continued without change through the introduction of GMO.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »This offers the opportunity for a large observational study to see if the rapid and thorough introduction of GMO feed in the US resulted in any adverse health effects for the animals.
That's not where the risk lies.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions