GMO crops still making headlines.
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now?The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I'm confused now? Are you saying GMOs kill people now?
You wrote, "Those man made things are made for profit." I responded that there isn't a lot of profit in dead customers. I thought that would be clear but, extending it, the way to profit is to make things people want and that don't harm them.
So why not label them and let consumers make their own informed decision since you say they want it? Have you ever eatin an heirloom tomato? It tastes loads better than any GMO(extended for shelf life"profit") tomato. I guess you might find this hard to believe, but an heirloom tomato won't kill you! I guess people don't want a tasty tomato though, they'd rather have a bland tomato that has been modified to have a long shelf life so there's more profit. My bad. I better stop eating the veggies out of my garden and the organic fruits in veggies from the store. I didn't realize they would kill me!!!
You do know Flavr-Savr tomatoes aren't sold anymore, don't you?
Current common transgenic crops are Corn (Bt and RoundUp Ready, 2,4d resistant looking for approval), Soy (RoundUp Ready), Papaya (Ringspot resistant), Potato (Innate low amounts of protein that turns into acrylamide at high temps). Goldren Rice and Arctic Apples all are on the horizon. Probably some more if I was actually going to Google instead of do this list off my head.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
0 -
I'm the first t admit that I don't understand the intricacies of GMO foods. So not a food chemist. I took Organic Chem and the one thing I learned best was that the less Organic Chem there is in my world, the happier I am. I remember almost none and couldn't draw any of that crap today. I don't even want to consider relearning it. Shiver up my spine, just thinking about it.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.
Absolutely not the Queen of GMOs.
Smart people who truly understand a subject are able to talk about it in ways that other people who know zip about that subject will understand. Assuming they have the same first language, they can anticipate what others might not know and explain it without using jargon that people won't understand. People who spoke a different language often have much more trouble because they don't always know what words others may or may not know, but a person who speaks the same language, is bright and knows their subject well can discuss it with others without getting super-technical.
So, assuming English is your first language, you should be able to tell me why the GMO foods are harmful in a way I can easily understand without being a food chemist. You didn't do that in the paragraph I quoted. The only possible issue raised is who would have control of the food, but that's not really the same as saying that the food itself is somehow dangerous.
Why is the food itself dangerous?
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.0 -
Re-reading this, other fact you missed besides the fact that terminator seeds aren't on the market...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.
1. No one is forced to buy one single seed. Farmers have options in who they buy from. Always. The seed sales market is actually a lot more competitive than a lot of markets in America. You might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
2. Saving seeds against contract has nothing to do with GMOs. People have legally been allowed to patent seeds and prevent replanting since the 1930s.
3. Most farmers don't want to reuse their seeds. They want to farm, not hybridize plants. Buying seeds is more cost effective. Again, you might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
4. What's the actual end game of the monopoly here? Intellectual property only works so long as people honor the law - if Monsanto somehow owned all rights to all corn and wanted to charge $500,000 a seed, people would just ignore the law. Even allowing for terminator seed development, you seriously think one company is going to round up (ha, see what I did there) all non-terminator seeds and prevent people from growing other varieties?0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?0 -
I don't keep up on current news, but gaining control of the food supply has been an effective means of controlling and killing people you don't like (or who don't like you) since the dawn of time.
Re-reading this, other fact you missed besides the fact that terminator seeds aren't on the market...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.
1. No one is forced to buy one single seed. Farmers have options in who they buy from. Always. The seed sales market is actually a lot more competitive than a lot of markets in America. You might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
2. Saving seeds against contract has nothing to do with GMOs. People have legally been allowed to patent seeds and prevent replanting since the 1930s.
3. Most farmers don't want to reuse their seeds. They want to farm, not hybridize plants. Buying seeds is more cost effective. Again, you might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
4. What's the actual end game of the monopoly here? Intellectual property only works so long as people honor the law - if Monsanto somehow owned all rights to all corn and wanted to charge $500,000 a seed, people would just ignore the law. Even allowing for terminator seed development, you seriously think one company is going to round up (ha, see what I did there) all non-terminator seeds and prevent people from growing other varieties?
Personally, I don't have the heart to watch the news. It's just too upsetting. But last I heard, it was still going on.
The ones who control the food control everything. So, I can see people who have the heart for it paying attention to all that.
It just doesn't make the food itself bad.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?
Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?
Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.
I'm just curious what you think the biological process for uptake of a modified gene would be by either a chicken or a human.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?
Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.
That's the thing, though. The research is being done and it overwhelmingly supports the safety of GMOs in livestock, livestock feed, and produce. To say it's not being done is just wrong.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?
Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.
That's the thing, though. The research is being done and it overwhelmingly supports the safety of GMOs in livestock, livestock feed, and produce. To say it's not being done is just wrong.
It is GMO use for human food that I would like to see some research.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?
Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.
I'm just curious what you think the biological process for uptake of a modified gene would be by either a chicken or a human.
I know when I cut out all grains and most all sugars my pain level dropped from 7-8 to 2-3 in just 30 days a year ago. I do not think it was just cutting out sugar because I had sugar for one week last month and the world did not stop spinning. As a man with a science background and health issues I just have questions about many possible biological processes. About 20 EU countries have just come out not supporting GMO food stuff. Why they would do that raises a question in my mind.
0 -
I don't keep up on current news, but gaining control of the food supply has been an effective means of controlling and killing people you don't like (or who don't like you) since the dawn of time.
Re-reading this, other fact you missed besides the fact that terminator seeds aren't on the market...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.
1. No one is forced to buy one single seed. Farmers have options in who they buy from. Always. The seed sales market is actually a lot more competitive than a lot of markets in America. You might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
2. Saving seeds against contract has nothing to do with GMOs. People have legally been allowed to patent seeds and prevent replanting since the 1930s.
3. Most farmers don't want to reuse their seeds. They want to farm, not hybridize plants. Buying seeds is more cost effective. Again, you might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
4. What's the actual end game of the monopoly here? Intellectual property only works so long as people honor the law - if Monsanto somehow owned all rights to all corn and wanted to charge $500,000 a seed, people would just ignore the law. Even allowing for terminator seed development, you seriously think one company is going to round up (ha, see what I did there) all non-terminator seeds and prevent people from growing other varieties?
Personally, I don't have the heart to watch the news. It's just too upsetting. But last I heard, it was still going on.
The ones who control the food control everything. So, I can see people who have the heart for it paying attention to all that.
It just doesn't make the food itself bad.
This is my feeling on it, especially the bolded. It makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable that an "ingredient" food can be patented, no matter how long we've been doing it, but it doesn't make GMOs evil.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
A. What chicken eats grass?
B. What GMO grass? What GMO grain? Maybe if you're calling corn a grain (eh, I don't care to defend corn that badly)? There is no GMO wheat.
C. When animals eat food, it all gets broken down.0 -
I don't keep up on current news, but gaining control of the food supply has been an effective means of controlling and killing people you don't like (or who don't like you) since the dawn of time.
Re-reading this, other fact you missed besides the fact that terminator seeds aren't on the market...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.
1. No one is forced to buy one single seed. Farmers have options in who they buy from. Always. The seed sales market is actually a lot more competitive than a lot of markets in America. You might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
2. Saving seeds against contract has nothing to do with GMOs. People have legally been allowed to patent seeds and prevent replanting since the 1930s.
3. Most farmers don't want to reuse their seeds. They want to farm, not hybridize plants. Buying seeds is more cost effective. Again, you might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
4. What's the actual end game of the monopoly here? Intellectual property only works so long as people honor the law - if Monsanto somehow owned all rights to all corn and wanted to charge $500,000 a seed, people would just ignore the law. Even allowing for terminator seed development, you seriously think one company is going to round up (ha, see what I did there) all non-terminator seeds and prevent people from growing other varieties?
Personally, I don't have the heart to watch the news. It's just too upsetting. But last I heard, it was still going on.
The ones who control the food control everything. So, I can see people who have the heart for it paying attention to all that.
It just doesn't make the food itself bad.
Yeah, remember in the Great Depression when all the farmers evicted the Wall Street bankers off of Wall Street with their control on the food supply? All because the farmers grew and controlled the food?
Monsanto doesn't grow any food themselves. They do research and make seeds. The weirdest thing is people say they're trying to kill or make customers infertile. Well the most profitable thing would be for them to increase fertility. More mouths to feed means more people in need of even higher yield crops. I'd expect Monsanto to come out with birth control blocking corn before they come out with 4 generation sterilizing corn, but both are out there in tin foil hat land as far as I'm concerned.0 -
Grasses that produce food grain are like wheat, corn, milo, millet, oats, etc.
I do not know if GMO's have a positive, negative or no health impact on humans. I would like to see some research however.0 -
Corn is the only one of those that has GMO varieties in commercial production. There was some experiments into wheat, and it was a bit scandalous that some test samples were saved somewhere against protocol, but nothing anyone would have bought or eaten.GaleHawkins wrote: »Grasses that produce food grain are like wheat, corn, milo, millet, oats, etc.
I do not know if GMO's have a positive, negative or no health impact on humans. I would like to see some research however.
0 -
.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?
Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.
I'm just curious what you think the biological process for uptake of a modified gene would be by either a chicken or a human.
I know when I cut out all grains and most all sugars my pain level dropped from 7-8 to 2-3 in just 30 days a year ago. I do not think it was just cutting out sugar because I had sugar for one week last month and the world did not stop spinning. As a man with a science background and health issues I just have questions about many possible biological processes
Name one.About 20 EU countries have just come out not supporting GMO food stuff. Why they would do that raises a question in my mind.
Me too. I question why politicians pander to the irrational fears of their constituents rather than listening to the actual scientists
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?
Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.
That's the thing, though. The research is being done and it overwhelmingly supports the safety of GMOs in livestock, livestock feed, and produce. To say it's not being done is just wrong.
It is GMO use for human food that I would like to see some research.
There is a ton of research out there on the safety of GMOs for human food. If you haven't seen it, you're just not looking.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
You guess wrong
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/
I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.
I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.
Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.
Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.
You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?
Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.
I'm just curious what you think the biological process for uptake of a modified gene would be by either a chicken or a human.
I know when I cut out all grains and most all sugars my pain level dropped from 7-8 to 2-3 in just 30 days a year ago. I do not think it was just cutting out sugar because I had sugar for one week last month and the world did not stop spinning. As a man with a science background and health issues I just have questions about many possible biological processes. About 20 EU countries have just come out not supporting GMO food stuff. Why they would do that raises a question in my mind.
And Italy jailed a bunch of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. Should we now treat all seismologists with a skepticism?0 -
It seems here that the people who believe that GMO food is poison for the body are in the minority here. And guess what? That is ok! I firmly believe that in about 20 years, when more than half the US is drugged to the gills due to health conditions from the food they eat that it will come out that - gee whiz - GMOs were actually bad for you just as they are now saying that consuming healthy fats like real butter will not cause heart disease and your cholesterol to go up.
Just knowing that GMO stands for genetically modified organism should be enough to put you off those products. When the genetic material in my food is artificially manipulated in a lab through genetic engineering, totally outside the parameters of natural mutations in nature, I can't help but feel that it is obvious that this food should not be consumed. Can eating that GMO corn with the glysophate be healthy? I'm sorry but I don't trust that ANY amount can be safe to consume.
I can only offer up anecdotal evidence from at least 50 people in my own circle that has greatly improved their health by eating only organic, non-gmo foods, myself included. For every big scientific study that says GMOs are safe, they are an equal number that say they are not. In this country, big money has the biggest power and with that money, our elected officials are bought and paid for. Follow the money and in many instances, you have companies with ties to Monsanto pulling the puppet strings.0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »It seems here that the people who believe that GMO food is poison for the body are in the minority here. And guess what? That is ok! I firmly believe that in about 20 years, when more than half the US is drugged to the gills due to health conditions from the food they eat that it will come out that - gee whiz - GMOs were actually bad for you just as they are now saying that consuming healthy fats like real butter will not cause heart disease and your cholesterol to go up.
Just knowing that GMO stands for genetically modified organism should be enough to put you off those products. When the genetic material in my food is artificially manipulated in a lab through genetic engineering, totally outside the parameters of natural mutations in nature, I can't help but feel that it is obvious that this food should not be consumed. Can eating that GMO corn with the glysophate be healthy? I'm sorry but I don't trust that ANY amount can be safe to consume.
I can only offer up anecdotal evidence from at least 50 people in my own circle that has greatly improved their health by eating only organic, non-gmo foods, myself included. For every big scientific study that says GMOs are safe, they are an equal number that say they are not. In this country, big money has the biggest power and with that money, our elected officials are bought and paid for. Follow the money and in many instances, you have companies with ties to Monsanto pulling the puppet strings.
I really hope you don't take any medications. Those lab manipulated products will be the death of you.0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »It seems here that the people who believe that GMO food is poison for the body are in the minority here. And guess what? That is ok! I firmly believe that in about 20 years, when more than half the US is drugged to the gills due to health conditions from the food they eat that it will come out that - gee whiz - GMOs were actually bad for you just as they are now saying that consuming healthy fats like real butter will not cause heart disease and your cholesterol to go up.
Just knowing that GMO stands for genetically modified organism should be enough to put you off those products. When the genetic material in my food is artificially manipulated in a lab through genetic engineering, totally outside the parameters of natural mutations in nature, I can't help but feel that it is obvious that this food should not be consumed. Can eating that GMO corn with the glysophate be healthy? I'm sorry but I don't trust that ANY amount can be safe to consume.
I can only offer up anecdotal evidence from at least 50 people in my own circle that has greatly improved their health by eating only organic, non-gmo foods, myself included. For every big scientific study that says GMOs are safe, they are an equal number that say they are not. In this country, big money has the biggest power and with that money, our elected officials are bought and paid for. Follow the money and in many instances, you have companies with ties to Monsanto pulling the puppet strings.
This is absolutely not true.0 -
@GaleHawkins if you are trusting personal observation using your own body as the test tube, that will work as long as you don't encounter anything poisonous.
Are you taking for granted anything the FDA has declared unfit for human consumption to be adequately tested, or will you be checking all those claims personally?
I prefer to have a default stance that the FDA ratings are reliable, and Internet claims less so. And that I do not need to personally test all FDA claims to declare them fairly safe.0 -
None of it happens outside natural parameters. There is no supernatural GMOs, so no ghost GMOs for your Halloween decorations to go with the Frankenfood ones.rhtexasgal wrote: »It seems here that the people who believe that GMO food is poison for the body are in the minority here. And guess what? That is ok! I firmly believe that in about 20 years, when more than half the US is drugged to the gills due to health conditions from the food they eat that it will come out that - gee whiz - GMOs were actually bad for you just as they are now saying that consuming healthy fats like real butter will not cause heart disease and your cholesterol to go up.
Just knowing that GMO stands for genetically modified organism should be enough to put you off those products. When the genetic material in my food is artificially manipulated in a lab through genetic engineering, totally outside the parameters of natural mutations in nature, I can't help but feel that it is obvious that this food should not be consumed. Can eating that GMO corn with the glysophate be healthy? I'm sorry but I don't trust that ANY amount can be safe to consume.
I can only offer up anecdotal evidence from at least 50 people in my own circle that has greatly improved their health by eating only organic, non-gmo foods, myself included. For every big scientific study that says GMOs are safe, they are an equal number that say they are not. In this country, big money has the biggest power and with that money, our elected officials are bought and paid for. Follow the money and in many instances, you have companies with ties to Monsanto pulling the puppet strings.
Beyond that, as was already said nature does transgenics itself all the time. You, YOU, are a transgenic organism. You have snippets of DNA from fish, bacteria, and algae in your cells.
Your change in diet wasn't simply you started eating organic if you saw a health improvement.
There are not, absolutely not, any reputable studies saying GMOs are not safe. Every study that has claimed some harm in lab animals has been scientific fraud.
Following the money is wrong. It is attempting to use what is easy to humans - thinking about other people's possible motives - to avoid doing the hard work: actually understanding science. Also, as has been said. follow the money? Where's the money in killing your customers when you're a food company? This isn't like tobacco where there's no alternative product to sell that could be safe. Monsanto sells organic seeds too. The best thing they can do is create a bigger population, not smaller.0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »It seems here that the people who believe that GMO food is poison for the body are in the minority here. And guess what? That is ok! I firmly believe that in about 20 years, when more than half the US is drugged to the gills due to health conditions from the food they eat that it will come out that - gee whiz - GMOs were actually bad for you just as they are now saying that consuming healthy fats like real butter will not cause heart disease and your cholesterol to go up.
Just knowing that GMO stands for genetically modified organism should be enough to put you off those products. When the genetic material in my food is artificially manipulated in a lab through genetic engineering, totally outside the parameters of natural mutations in nature, I can't help but feel that it is obvious that this food should not be consumed. Can eating that GMO corn with the glysophate be healthy? I'm sorry but I don't trust that ANY amount can be safe to consume.
I can only offer up anecdotal evidence from at least 50 people in my own circle that has greatly improved their health by eating only organic, non-gmo foods, myself included. For every big scientific study that says GMOs are safe, they are an equal number that say they are not. In this country, big money has the biggest power and with that money, our elected officials are bought and paid for. Follow the money and in many instances, you have companies with ties to Monsanto pulling the puppet strings.
0 -
ecowatch.com/2015/10/05/european-union-ban-gmos/
@jgnactca it may just be in my gene pool that I do not to trust the FDA based on the article above.
Personal observation proves nothing. I would like to see some science about GMO's that is not from the makers of GMO's. I just hope what @rhtexasgal mentioned that could happen 20 years down the road does not happen as it has with corn syrup recently.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Personal observation proves nothing.
Then why is it always your default argument?
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Personal observation proves nothing.
Then why is it always your default argument?
Why do you ask that? All I would like to see is some scientific studies about GMO that was not produced by the food industry.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