GMO crops still making headlines.
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
The trillion animal study referenced above should be one such. Numerous independent ones exist.0 -
He asks that because your favorite refrain is about how cutting sugar and grain made your pain go away. It's your default argument. But now you say it proves nothing. Which is it?GaleHawkins wrote: »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 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
He asks that because your favorite refrain is about how cutting sugar and grain made your pain go away. It's your default argument. But now you say it proves nothing. Which is it?GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
One true statement is not scientific proof of anything. My pain dropping to 2-3 in just 30 days after leaving all grains and most all sugars after years of being at 7-8 is just a personal observation in my life that happened last year. It is not scientific proof of anything. I do know eliminating them or some other force cut my pain, cured my IBS, and other long term issues. That is all I know and all I claim. Others may do the same and see the same, something different or nothing.0 -
dstromley90 wrote: »Poison. Monsanto pays congress off. Plenty of whistle blowers speaking out against the "studies" proving them safe. Why else would they pass laws forbidding gmo labeling
Dead on. They are making it next to impossible to eat healthy if you buy any of your food.0 -
And out comes the tinfoil hat crowd.
0 -
0
-
Because the ones that claim to be free of whatever have to be verified and tested and regulated differently than those that aren't.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.
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 -
I cannot argue with that logic. And I don't want to, anyway.
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 -
tincanonastring wrote: »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?
nobody was jailed, they were sentenced by the court of first instance, but have been absolved by the appellate court. And they were charged not because they didn't predict the earthquake, but because they told the people there was no risk, despite the premonitory signs.
Talking about GMO, and about trust towards scientists, you gave chosen a very bad example...0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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?
nobody was jailed, they were sentenced by the court of first instance, but have been absolved by the appellate court. And they were charged not because they didn't predict the earthquake, but because they told the people there was no risk, despite the premonitory signs.
Talking about GMO, and about trust towards scientists, you gave chosen a very bad example...
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! I read they had been convicted and just assumed that they were jailed as a result of it. I did know the conviction was overturned and, again, just assumed they were released upon the successful appeal. In the United States, appeals are normally conducted while the convicted serves the sentence. I should have known better than to just assume Italy's justice system worked the same. Thanks for clarifying that.
As for the reason they were convicted, it wasn't that they told people there was no risk. We can get into semantics, but incorrectly interpreting data and being wrong is a lot different than saying there is no risk. In low risk scenarios, seismologists are very hesitant to issue safety warnings. Issuing a warning and being wrong can be disastrous.
This is actually a quote from the committee chair when asked if there was reason to be alarmed.
"The seismic sequence doesn’t foretell anything, but it surely refocuses attention on the seismogenic zone where, sooner or later, a large earthquake will occur.”
https://medium.com/matter/the-aftershocks-7966d0cdec660 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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?
nobody was jailed, they were sentenced by the court of first instance, but have been absolved by the appellate court. And they were charged not because they didn't predict the earthquake, but because they told the people there was no risk, despite the premonitory signs.
Talking about GMO, and about trust towards scientists, you gave chosen a very bad example...
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! I read they had been convicted and just assumed that they were jailed as a result of it. I did know the conviction was overturned and, again, just assumed they were released upon the successful appeal. In the United States, appeals are normally conducted while the convicted serves the sentence. I should have known better than to just assume Italy's justice system worked the same. Thanks for clarifying that.
As for the reason they were convicted, it wasn't that they told people there was no risk. We can get into semantics, but incorrectly interpreting data and being wrong is a lot different than saying there is no risk. In low risk scenarios, seismologists are very hesitant to issue safety warnings. Issuing a warning and being wrong can be disastrous.
This is actually a quote from the committee chair when asked if there was reason to be alarmed.
"The seismic sequence doesn’t foretell anything, but it surely refocuses attention on the seismogenic zone where, sooner or later, a large earthquake will occur.”
https://medium.com/matter/the-aftershocks-7966d0cdec66
yeah, actually the only member of the committee (not a scientist) whose sentence was confirmed in appeal stated in an interview, even before the meeting, that the magnitude won't increase, while seismologists were more prudent, luckily for them.
In short, the government used scientists' face to reassure people, and they plaid the game.
This case really tells a lot about what happens when science meets politics...0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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?
nobody was jailed, they were sentenced by the court of first instance, but have been absolved by the appellate court. And they were charged not because they didn't predict the earthquake, but because they told the people there was no risk, despite the premonitory signs.
Talking about GMO, and about trust towards scientists, you gave chosen a very bad example...
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! I read they had been convicted and just assumed that they were jailed as a result of it. I did know the conviction was overturned and, again, just assumed they were released upon the successful appeal. In the United States, appeals are normally conducted while the convicted serves the sentence. I should have known better than to just assume Italy's justice system worked the same. Thanks for clarifying that.
As for the reason they were convicted, it wasn't that they told people there was no risk. We can get into semantics, but incorrectly interpreting data and being wrong is a lot different than saying there is no risk. In low risk scenarios, seismologists are very hesitant to issue safety warnings. Issuing a warning and being wrong can be disastrous.
This is actually a quote from the committee chair when asked if there was reason to be alarmed.
"The seismic sequence doesn’t foretell anything, but it surely refocuses attention on the seismogenic zone where, sooner or later, a large earthquake will occur.”
https://medium.com/matter/the-aftershocks-7966d0cdec66
yeah, actually the only member of the committee (not a scientist) whose sentence was confirmed in appeal stated in an interview, even before the meeting, that the magnitude won't increase, while seismologists were more prudent, luckily for them.
In short, the government used scientists' face to reassure people, and they plaid the game.
This case really tells a lot about what happens when science meets politics...
Which is why I think it's a really good example to trot out when someone plays the "they ban it in Europe" card.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.
The farmers weren't working together, much less as a single entity. Nor were they capable of buying governments like Monsanto and other companies can and do. Monopolies are bad news. Monopolies on essential goods and services are worse. Monopolies by companies providing essential goods and services when these companies are deeply entrenched within a power structure such as the United States government are the most dangerous of all.0 -
Are they doing this on purpose? If so, why?kevinindelaware wrote: »dstromley90 wrote: »Poison. Monsanto pays congress off. Plenty of whistle blowers speaking out against the "studies" proving them safe. Why else would they pass laws forbidding gmo labeling
Dead on. They are making it next to impossible to eat healthy if you buy any of your food.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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?
nobody was jailed, they were sentenced by the court of first instance, but have been absolved by the appellate court. And they were charged not because they didn't predict the earthquake, but because they told the people there was no risk, despite the premonitory signs.
Talking about GMO, and about trust towards scientists, you gave chosen a very bad example...
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! I read they had been convicted and just assumed that they were jailed as a result of it. I did know the conviction was overturned and, again, just assumed they were released upon the successful appeal. In the United States, appeals are normally conducted while the convicted serves the sentence. I should have known better than to just assume Italy's justice system worked the same. Thanks for clarifying that.
As for the reason they were convicted, it wasn't that they told people there was no risk. We can get into semantics, but incorrectly interpreting data and being wrong is a lot different than saying there is no risk. In low risk scenarios, seismologists are very hesitant to issue safety warnings. Issuing a warning and being wrong can be disastrous.
This is actually a quote from the committee chair when asked if there was reason to be alarmed.
"The seismic sequence doesn’t foretell anything, but it surely refocuses attention on the seismogenic zone where, sooner or later, a large earthquake will occur.”
https://medium.com/matter/the-aftershocks-7966d0cdec66
yeah, actually the only member of the committee (not a scientist) whose sentence was confirmed in appeal stated in an interview, even before the meeting, that the magnitude won't increase, while seismologists were more prudent, luckily for them.
In short, the government used scientists' face to reassure people, and they plaid the game.
This case really tells a lot about what happens when science meets politics...
He was a scientist (I believe a hydrologist) but not a seismologist, and the way I read the timeline was that the media used his quote in a manner that made it seem like it was the summary of the board's findings, not a preliminary statement made by a non-specialist.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.
The farmers weren't working together, much less as a single entity. Nor were they capable of buying governments like Monsanto and other companies can and do. Monopolies are bad news. Monopolies on essential goods and services are worse. Monopolies by companies providing essential goods and services when these companies are deeply entrenched within a power structure such as the United States government are the most dangerous of all.
Monsanto isn't a monopoly. If you talked to a farmer, you'd be aware they're very much not.
You want evil companies to use monopoly laws on, get Comcast. Monsanto has nothing on them.0 -
FYI, if someone wants to bring out one of the false memes with the number of Monsanto related politicians, I can Google the lies in those pretty quickly. They often pad numbers our outright invent people.
And yes, most European scientists, particularly biotech ones, agree that GMOs are safe and are opposed to their own countries' failure to approve their use.
Why exactly can Monsanto be a government lobbying liar but the organic industry can't? The organic industry actually has more inventive because they don't actually bother with enough research to develop a better product.0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »
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 have only been lurking in this thread, but the bolded part makes no sense to me. Why is a random genetic mutation better or healthier than a lab-directed mutation? I will admit, the idea of poking around in DNA in theory is scary to me, probably because I've seen that movie. But whether a plant's or animal 's DNA has been changed by a scientist in a lab, or a freak misfire in nature, the end result is the same.
I do think our food supply would be healthier for our population if it wasn't so dominated by giant food companies and so intertwined with pork-barrel politics. But I can't logically wrap my brain around the idea that any food company would purposefully flood the market with something that will kill everyone. Even if it kills us slowly, that just a crappy business model.
Unless the Freemasons are directing the conspiracy. Then it all would make perfect sense.0 -
All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener. 0
-
rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
So, just curious, why organic? I get that people who don't understand/trust the science behind GMOs, but I feel like most people who eat organic are doing so based on general misunderstandings. Do you go organic just to make sure you don't eat GMOs? Do you avoid anything created through genetic manipulation such as medications?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
Uh, wasn't corn syrup proven to have almost the exact same chemical makeup as honey? But damn, honey is 'natural', it must be good!
Considering that corn syrup isn't being removed from things... then no, we're not all 'drugged up because of health conditions caused by' corn syrup. And you call yourself a man of 'science', sigh.0 -
I'm perfectly willing and able to move, once I'm given some evidence beyond "I can't help but feel that it's bad" and "Monsanto is a bunch of meanies." Does such evidence exist?rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
Agreed. I learned to stay out of these discussions because it seems like folks just aren't willing/able to move once their perspective is entrenched. I've had some excellent discussions with people who aren't sure what they think yet, but that isn't representative of these boards.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm perfectly willing and able to move, once I'm given some evidence beyond "I can't help but feel that it's bad" and "Monsanto is a bunch of meanies." Does such evidence exist?rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
Agreed. I learned to stay out of these discussions because it seems like folks just aren't willing/able to move once their perspective is entrenched. I've had some excellent discussions with people who aren't sure what they think yet, but that isn't representative of these boards.
Larry Monsanto once kicked me in the shins0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
So, just curious, why organic? I get that people who don't understand/trust the science behind GMOs, but I feel like most people who eat organic are doing so based on general misunderstandings. Do you go organic just to make sure you don't eat GMOs? Do you avoid anything created through genetic manipulation such as medications?
I started eating organic for health reasons. In the beginning, I was just jumping on the organic bandwagon because that is what you "do" to get healthy. However, once I discovered that many of the organic veggies and fruit I was eating tasted better - more flavorful - I added more organic foods to my plate. Plus, I also wanted to avoid the chemical pesticides as much as possible. I currently buy most of my organic produce at my local farmers market so I know the growers. And yes, I have actually visited some of the organic farms to witness first hand the growing practices of what I am eating.
I firmly believe I put my ulcerative colitis and proctitis into remission by eating whole, organic foods and avoiding processed things and GMOs. I went from one step away from losing my colon to my doctor shaking his head wondering how I achieved remission without all the biologic pharmaceuticals he wanted to put me on. For a while, I was strict with what I ate but after healing, I will be the first to admit that I do indulge in crap foods on occasion.
0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
So, just curious, why organic? I get that people who don't understand/trust the science behind GMOs, but I feel like most people who eat organic are doing so based on general misunderstandings. Do you go organic just to make sure you don't eat GMOs? Do you avoid anything created through genetic manipulation such as medications?
I started eating organic for health reasons. In the beginning, I was just jumping on the organic bandwagon because that is what you "do" to get healthy. However, once I discovered that many of the organic veggies and fruit I was eating tasted better - more flavorful - I added more organic foods to my plate. Plus, I also wanted to avoid the chemical pesticides as much as possible. I currently buy most of my organic produce at my local farmers market so I know the growers. And yes, I have actually visited some of the organic farms to witness first hand the growing practices of what I am eating.
I firmly believe I put my ulcerative colitis and proctitis into remission by eating whole, organic foods and avoiding processed things and GMOs. I went from one step away from losing my colon to my doctor shaking his head wondering how I achieved remission without all the biologic pharmaceuticals he wanted to put me on. For a while, I was strict with what I ate but after healing, I will be the first to admit that I do indulge in crap foods on occasion.
Oh boy...............................0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
So, just curious, why organic? I get that people who don't understand/trust the science behind GMOs, but I feel like most people who eat organic are doing so based on general misunderstandings. Do you go organic just to make sure you don't eat GMOs? Do you avoid anything created through genetic manipulation such as medications?
I started eating organic for health reasons. In the beginning, I was just jumping on the organic bandwagon because that is what you "do" to get healthy. However, once I discovered that many of the organic veggies and fruit I was eating tasted better - more flavorful - I added more organic foods to my plate. Plus, I also wanted to avoid the chemical pesticides as much as possible. I currently buy most of my organic produce at my local farmers market so I know the growers. And yes, I have actually visited some of the organic farms to witness first hand the growing practices of what I am eating.
I firmly believe I put my ulcerative colitis and proctitis into remission by eating whole, organic foods and avoiding processed things and GMOs. I went from one step away from losing my colon to my doctor shaking his head wondering how I achieved remission without all the biologic pharmaceuticals he wanted to put me on. For a while, I was strict with what I ate but after healing, I will be the first to admit that I do indulge in crap foods on occasion.
Oh boy...............................
*sigh* I had two different responses typed up and decided to delete them ... you can believe what you want. I became my own health care advocate and found the solution to MY problem. I shared MY life experience. You don't have to agree but you also don't have to mock others for it either.0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
So, just curious, why organic? I get that people who don't understand/trust the science behind GMOs, but I feel like most people who eat organic are doing so based on general misunderstandings. Do you go organic just to make sure you don't eat GMOs? Do you avoid anything created through genetic manipulation such as medications?
I started eating organic for health reasons. In the beginning, I was just jumping on the organic bandwagon because that is what you "do" to get healthy. However, once I discovered that many of the organic veggies and fruit I was eating tasted better - more flavorful - I added more organic foods to my plate. Plus, I also wanted to avoid the chemical pesticides as much as possible. I currently buy most of my organic produce at my local farmers market so I know the growers. And yes, I have actually visited some of the organic farms to witness first hand the growing practices of what I am eating.
I firmly believe I put my ulcerative colitis and proctitis into remission by eating whole, organic foods and avoiding processed things and GMOs. I went from one step away from losing my colon to my doctor shaking his head wondering how I achieved remission without all the biologic pharmaceuticals he wanted to put me on. For a while, I was strict with what I ate but after healing, I will be the first to admit that I do indulge in crap foods on occasion.
Do you think people who eat the way you do don't get that sickness?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »rhtexasgal wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »rhtexasgal wrote: »All of you that believe that GMOs are safe, that is fine. I will just keep my tin foil hat on, eating fresh, organic whole foods This is one topic that we should all agree to disagree about. We can each stay on our own side of the GMO fence and feel that our grass is greener.
So, just curious, why organic? I get that people who don't understand/trust the science behind GMOs, but I feel like most people who eat organic are doing so based on general misunderstandings. Do you go organic just to make sure you don't eat GMOs? Do you avoid anything created through genetic manipulation such as medications?
I started eating organic for health reasons. In the beginning, I was just jumping on the organic bandwagon because that is what you "do" to get healthy. However, once I discovered that many of the organic veggies and fruit I was eating tasted better - more flavorful - I added more organic foods to my plate. Plus, I also wanted to avoid the chemical pesticides as much as possible. I currently buy most of my organic produce at my local farmers market so I know the growers. And yes, I have actually visited some of the organic farms to witness first hand the growing practices of what I am eating.
I firmly believe I put my ulcerative colitis and proctitis into remission by eating whole, organic foods and avoiding processed things and GMOs. I went from one step away from losing my colon to my doctor shaking his head wondering how I achieved remission without all the biologic pharmaceuticals he wanted to put me on. For a while, I was strict with what I ate but after healing, I will be the first to admit that I do indulge in crap foods on occasion.
Do you think people who eat the way you do don't get that sickness?
No .. see my above post. I shared what worked for ME. I never said that everyone should do it or claim that it is the only thing to do as "treatment". I am but one perspective; however, I am far from alone in feeling better health-wise after cleaning up my eating habits and switching to organic, whole foods.0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »
I started eating organic for health reasons. In the beginning, I was just jumping on the organic bandwagon because that is what you "do" to get healthy. However, once I discovered that many of the organic veggies and fruit I was eating tasted better - more flavorful - I added more organic foods to my plate. Plus, I also wanted to avoid the chemical pesticides as much as possible. I currently buy most of my organic produce at my local farmers market so I know the growers. And yes, I have actually visited some of the organic farms to witness first hand the growing practices of what I am eating.
I firmly believe I put my ulcerative colitis and proctitis into remission by eating whole, organic foods and avoiding processed things and GMOs. I went from one step away from losing my colon to my doctor shaking his head wondering how I achieved remission without all the biologic pharmaceuticals he wanted to put me on. For a while, I was strict with what I ate but after healing, I will be the first to admit that I do indulge in crap foods on occasion
So, then is your stance that processed things and GMO's caused your ulcerative colitis? So, therefore, you now choose to avoid them? I'm just confused as to how removing those two items magically made things better.....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