GMO crops still making headlines.
Replies
-
Or economics.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do *kitten* like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.
Or why, for that matter, the world "already produces more than enough food."
0 -
Um, where exactly did I say that at @auddii ?0
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Um, where exactly did I say that at @auddii ?
Oh good, then we can all admit that GMOs have been around for over 85 years not 21.0 -
Oh they have? Which GMO products were consumers eating in 1930?? I'm pretty sure the very first GMO food was a tomato in the 1990s0
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Oh they have? Which GMO products were consumers eating in 1930?? I'm pretty sure the very first GMO food was a tomato in the 1990s
Scientists have been irradiating food to induce mutations and then cross breeding the results since the 30s. Targeted gene alteration has come into existence much later; both produce the same results.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or economics.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do *kitten* like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.
Or why, for that matter, the world "already produces more than enough food."
Feel free to explain yourself. No need to just make a snarky comment. Let me guess, you seen a Facebook post that said the world needs GMOs to make enough food right?0 -
Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.0
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do stuff like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
No farmer drowns anything and stays in business.
Also, if you intend to eat no pesticides, are you only eating highly processed foods? Plants make their own pesticides all the time. Spicy peppers are one version humans can actually detect, but all plants make pesticides to some extent.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.
And not eating them is yours. If you want mandatory labeling, you're demanding other people subsidize your choice, particularly the poor. Labeling isn't free. For a family of 4, mid estimates are around $500 more per year in food costs.0 -
Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.0
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do stuff like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
No farmer drowns anything and stays in business.
Also, if you intend to eat no pesticides, are you only eating highly processed foods? Plants make their own pesticides all the time. Spicy peppers are one version humans can actually detect, but all plants make pesticides to some extent.
You're kidding right? You're gonna sit there and compare a plants natural defense mechanism to a man made poison? Tell me you're kidding????
And farmers do drown their crops in roundup. They are using more and more every year to combat the fact the weeds are fighting back and building up an immunity to glyphosate. If I recall last year in Texas they petitioned the EPA to allow them to use an highly proven herbicide(which is banned) at twice the rate that was being used when it was banned because the roundup wasn't killing the so called weeds in the cotton fields. So yes, the farmers are drowning the crops in poison.0 -
My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.
And not eating them is yours. If you want mandatory labeling, you're demanding other people subsidize your choice, particularly the poor. Labeling isn't free. For a family of 4, mid estimates are around $500 more per year in food costs.
Explain to me where these costs come from please?0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yep. ^^^ Plants/animals mutate all the time. When we notice some are resistant to certain diseases (plants mostly) those are either crossbred or harvested specifically to see if the resistance is passed on to progeny. If it is, bada bing, new crop strain in circulation.
Non-germinating seeds have been around as long as I can remember, so the 70's. Grew up on a farm. Remember asking my dad why we didn't keep any of the wheat and barley seeds from the harvest for the next year. He answered that "they don't germinate".0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.
And not eating them is yours. If you want mandatory labeling, you're demanding other people subsidize your choice, particularly the poor. Labeling isn't free. For a family of 4, mid estimates are around $500 more per year in food costs.
Explain to me where these costs come from please?
Tracking food origins. Do you think keeping corn from GMO farm A and Non-GMO farm B separate and recording their origin is free?0 -
Like I said, "or economics."The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.
And not eating them is yours. If you want mandatory labeling, you're demanding other people subsidize your choice, particularly the poor. Labeling isn't free. For a family of 4, mid estimates are around $500 more per year in food costs.
Explain to me where these costs come from please?
Do you think labels, and the information on them, spring into existence without costs?
0 -
piperdown44 wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yep. ^^^ Plants/animals mutate all the time. When we notice some are resistant to certain diseases (plants mostly) those are either crossbred or harvested specifically to see if the resistance is passed on to progeny. If it is, bada bing, new crop strain in circulation.
Non-germinating seeds have been around as long as I can remember, so the 70's. Grew up on a farm. Remember asking my dad why we didn't keep any of the wheat and barley seeds from the harvest for the next year. He answered that "they don't germinate".
As I've already said above, crossbreeding or selecting the best of crops is not the same thing as GMO.
I'll have to look into the non-germinating seed thing since the 70s. I wasn't aware of any such thing.0 -
Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.0
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
And you think that makes it safe? Ebola and hemlock are natural. If nature could honestly be said to have an interest in humanity, it is to kill is, not do what is safe.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yep. ^^^ Plants/animals mutate all the time. When we notice some are resistant to certain diseases (plants mostly) those are either crossbred or harvested specifically to see if the resistance is passed on to progeny. If it is, bada bing, new crop strain in circulation.
Non-germinating seeds have been around as long as I can remember, so the 70's. Grew up on a farm. Remember asking my dad why we didn't keep any of the wheat and barley seeds from the harvest for the next year. He answered that "they don't germinate".
As I've already said above, crossbreeding or selecting the best of crops is not the same thing as GMO.
I'll have to look into the non-germinating seed thing since the 70s. I wasn't aware of any such thing.
Hybridized seeds won't breed true.
There are no commercially released terminator seeds despite what Netflix "documentaries" claim.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yep. ^^^ Plants/animals mutate all the time. When we notice some are resistant to certain diseases (plants mostly) those are either crossbred or harvested specifically to see if the resistance is passed on to progeny. If it is, bada bing, new crop strain in circulation.
Non-germinating seeds have been around as long as I can remember, so the 70's. Grew up on a farm. Remember asking my dad why we didn't keep any of the wheat and barley seeds from the harvest for the next year. He answered that "they don't germinate".
As I've already said above, crossbreeding or selecting the best of crops is not the same thing as GMO.
I'll have to look into the non-germinating seed thing since the 70s. I wasn't aware of any such thing.
Correct, they're not the same. GMO has a higher chance of actually turning out exactly the way you want it to.0 -
My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I get what you're saying, but they have to pay fees so they can label their products as gluten free, non-GMO etcetera. Why is it fair for companies to sell products with chemicals introduced into their products and not label them, but if they don't add chemicals they have to pay a fee to label it that way? I don't buy very many processed products, but on the occasion that I do I do look for non-GMO. The fruits and veggies I buy are mostly organic or produce that don't require much pesticide or herbicide if I can't find them organically.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »
My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I get what you're saying, but they have to pay fees so they can label their products as gluten free, non-GMO etcetera. Why is it fair for companies to sell products with chemicals introduced into their products and not label them, but if they don't add chemicals they have to pay a fee to label it that way? I don't buy very many processed products, but on the occasion that I do I do look for non-GMO. The fruits and veggies I buy are mostly organic or produce that don't require much pesticide or herbicide if I can't find them organically.
I find it odd that you're fighting his proposed scheme of labeling when you obviously support and buy the exact same labeling scheme for organic.
Granted, organic foods don't mean pesticide free, but I'm sure you're already aware of that as well.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Like I said, "or economics."The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Don't get me wrong. If you think they are safe and want to be a Guinea pig I have no problem with it. It's your choice.
And not eating them is yours. If you want mandatory labeling, you're demanding other people subsidize your choice, particularly the poor. Labeling isn't free. For a family of 4, mid estimates are around $500 more per year in food costs.
Explain to me where these costs come from please?
Do you think labels, and the information on them, spring into existence without costs?
Yeah, adding "May contain GMOs" to the label would be so expensive. I can only imagine how much it must cost cereal company's to change the box every month or two with the new toy, sweepstakes, incentives etcetera.0 -
Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.Other costs involve new labels, keeping compliance records, inspection, companies possibly sourcing higher cost ingredients to avoid carrying the label.
I'm not sure why a company would have compliance records or inspections to prove that they DID have GMO products?? That doesn't make much sense. If the company sourced a GMO free product so they didn't have to label then they would no longer fall under the argument. As far as scarring consumers off, it doesn't seem to scare off the artificial sweetener crowd with the whole cancer thing. All it boils down to is if your product contains GMOs then you would just have to add it to the little nutritional label already found on the box. A few extra words. No fees, no records and no inspection to label your product that you already produce with them now.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.
Yeah, I know. That's why I don't eat wild berries when I don't know what they are.
Those man made things are made for profit.0 -
Not a lot of profit in dead customers.The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Scrambling genes and seeing what happens is not the same thing as splicing plant DNA with another organism. So, GMOs have NOT been around since the 1930s. However, I'm not thrilled about mutagenesis either if that's what you're getting at. That's why I grow my own garden with organic heirloom seeds to reduce my chances of any of that crap.
Genes have been crossing species since the dawn of DNA. Nature does transgenics. You are transgenic.
Yeah, naturally in nature.
You know what nature makes naturally? Millions of things that would straight up kill you if you ate them.
Manmade things for the purpose of eating? Those don't kill you.
Yeah, I know. That's why I don't eat wild berries when I don't know what they are.
Those man made things are made for profit.
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K 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