Say "NO" to GMO!
Options
Replies
-
The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.0 -
Spoken like the scientist you are, cheers.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.0 -
Nope. I'm good.0
-
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.
I'm not against patenting of new species, there is no reason that it is less of an intellectual property process than inventing something else. Where patenting of discovered species, I find, can be easily criticized, the planned invention does deserve some intellectual protection. In the absence of some protection manufacturers would be justified in making non-germination lines to protect their commercial interests.
Just like for medicines, there also needs to be fair use balances and goodwill based on need, and possibly shorter patent expiry dates. Thee is a balance that can be struck within need to drive inventiveness and availability of new species. Plus patent protection is actually a good barrier to monolithic culture development - not everyone has access to the latest so other crops are maintained...0 -
OP, there is no conclusive proof that GMO's are harmful or not. No reasonable long term studies have been completed.
If you are worried by it, best advice would be aim to eat food with you know does not contain it.
Personally I do not think there is a large risk and therefore do not avoid it, but I understand and respect other peoples decision to do so.0 -
JenniDaisy wrote: »Tell rice farmers in rural China to say '"No" to GMO', when it's the only way they can guarantee to see most of the crop through to harvest and therefore won't starve to death...
China doesn't feed its people with GMO rice.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
I agree with this , checks and balances. Dont want to be a fear munger but also dont want to get bit in the butt.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Exactly this. Either extreme is a mistake. I generally try to avoid them because no one can tell me definitely that they are safe, and they are causing issues in animals (yes, I get we are humans and not animals).
0 -
I agree to a certain extent, mostly just that genetically modified foods like soybeans put from companies like Monsanto are ruining the lives of small farmers that choose not to grow the genetically modified versions.KMCbluestar wrote: »It's just my opinion but the things I found out about GMO's aren't the greatest for you.
0 -
KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Bwahahahaha.
Do tell, why are they horrible? How precisely are they horrible and deleterious to health?
thanks.0 -
JenniDaisy wrote: »Tell rice farmers in rural China to say '"No" to GMO', when it's the only way they can guarantee to see most of the crop through to harvest and therefore won't starve to death...
China doesn't feed its people with GMO rice.
They grow and sell it though.0 -
JenniDaisy wrote: »JenniDaisy wrote: »Tell rice farmers in rural China to say '"No" to GMO', when it's the only way they can guarantee to see most of the crop through to harvest and therefore won't starve to death...
China doesn't feed its people with GMO rice.
They grow and sell it though.
No, they don't. They had a research project on GMO rice - it was never in production. And last year they even pulled the plug on the research project.
0 -
JenniDaisy wrote: »JenniDaisy wrote: »Tell rice farmers in rural China to say '"No" to GMO', when it's the only way they can guarantee to see most of the crop through to harvest and therefore won't starve to death...
China doesn't feed its people with GMO rice.
They grow and sell it though.
No, they don't. They had a research project on GMO rice - it was never in production. And last year they even pulled the plug on the research project.
This is only partially true. China imports GMO crops mostly for animal feed. But part of those imports also goes for humans.
Secondly, Chinese government is pro GMO but has had significant public backlash and it currently runnig a huge media campaign trying to create a positive atmosphere.0 -
china feeds their people mercury, lead and arsenic. GMO wouldn't be a big deal for them, even if it were dangerous.JenniDaisy wrote: »JenniDaisy wrote: »Tell rice farmers in rural China to say '"No" to GMO', when it's the only way they can guarantee to see most of the crop through to harvest and therefore won't starve to death...
China doesn't feed its people with GMO rice.
They grow and sell it though.
No, they don't. They had a research project on GMO rice - it was never in production. And last year they even pulled the plug on the research project.
0 -
I have a Zestar tree in the backyard at the house. The zestar apple was born at the University of Minnesota in a lab around 2000. Since they're GMO, good to eat or not?0
-
Undecided here. There aren't enough in depth studies either for or against. I'm reserving judgment until there are more facts. I do agree that there should be transparency though. Consumers have a right to know and make their own choices so labeling should be required for anything containing GMO's. No different than added sugars, sodium, etc. I want to know what I'm eating so I can make an informed decision about what I purchase.0
-
You can eat it, but it might grow a third ball.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions