Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If You Doubt The Organic Industry Leads The Anti-GMO Movement, This Settles It
Wetcoaster
Posts: 1,788 Member
in Debate Club
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/02/23/if-you-doubt-the-organic-industry-leads-the-anti-gmo-movement-this-settles-it/#21a391e06083
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
0
Replies
-
I personally LOVE organic products.
Organic fruits and veggies taste so much more flavorful and yummy in my opinion.0 -
LOL at a quack woo peddler like MercoLOLa lobbying for transparency and honesty. If that were the case, 99.9% of his pseudoscientific garbage would be illegal.0
-
NaturalNancy wrote: »I personally LOVE organic products.
Organic fruits and veggies taste so much more flavorful and yummy in my opinion.
Agree. I buy organic wherever possible. I also advocate for labeling and march every May.0 -
It makes me sad that stuff like this is gaining traction. We've come so far in the last several decades and made so many scientific advancements. Then here came the gullible morons who couldn't pass a high school chemistry class to come along on social media like a derpy superstorm to try and ruin everything.
Faith in humanity is waning.0 -
NaturalNancy wrote: »I personally LOVE organic products.
Organic fruits and veggies taste so much more flavorful and yummy in my opinion.
I can taste no difference.0 -
Yes I agree with @newmeadow Whole Foods can be a RIP OFF!
I wish I could afford to buy everything organic from there, but I can't.
I shop organic a lot at Trader Joes because I find their prices to be cheaper.
I even get my organic soy milk from a "dollar store" near my home.
I hope organic foods will become more affordable.
I don't live near a farm either but I really like the quality and taste of organic foods.
I think foods should absolutely have labels on them if they contain GMO's.1 -
but i love tangelos...but only organic ones.
0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »NaturalNancy wrote: »I personally LOVE organic products.
Organic fruits and veggies taste so much more flavorful and yummy in my opinion.
I can taste no difference.
Neither can I. We get fresh blueberries in the summer from my mom's bushes, but I just bought some on sale at the grocery store today. They tasted just as good as the ones from my mom's house.
Of course I prefer the ones from mom's because they're free...
1 -
I honestly don't understand why so many people are against labeling. If I don't want to eat GMOs, that's my decision. If you want to eat them, that's your decision. There's nothing wrong with either choice. But I should have enough information avaliable to me regarding the food I buy that I am able to make that choice.
To me, it's kind of like country-of-origin labeling for other consumer goods. If I want to buy a toy made in America, then that's fine. If I want to buy a toy made in China, that's also fine. But I should have enough information avaliable that I'm able to figure out where the toy that I'm considering buying came from.0 -
@Strawblackcat yes I totally agree.0
-
Strawblackcat wrote: »I honestly don't understand why so many people are against labeling. If I don't want to eat GMOs, that's my decision. If you want to eat them, that's your decision. There's nothing wrong with either choice. But I should have enough information avaliable to me regarding the food I buy that I am able to make that choice.
To me, it's kind of like country-of-origin labeling for other consumer goods. If I want to buy a toy made in America, then that's fine. If I want to buy a toy made in China, that's also fine. But I should have enough information avaliable that I'm able to figure out where the toy that I'm considering buying came from.
^Yesssss!0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »I honestly don't understand why so many people are against labeling. If I don't want to eat GMOs, that's my decision. If you want to eat them, that's your decision. There's nothing wrong with either choice. But I should have enough information avaliable to me regarding the food I buy that I am able to make that choice.
To me, it's kind of like country-of-origin labeling for other consumer goods. If I want to buy a toy made in America, then that's fine. If I want to buy a toy made in China, that's also fine. But I should have enough information avaliable that I'm able to figure out where the toy that I'm considering buying came from.
Because it will increase the cost of food simply because people don't understand science.
If you don't want GMO, buy organic.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I honestly don't understand why so many people are against labeling. If I don't want to eat GMOs, that's my decision. If you want to eat them, that's your decision. There's nothing wrong with either choice. But I should have enough information avaliable to me regarding the food I buy that I am able to make that choice.
To me, it's kind of like country-of-origin labeling for other consumer goods. If I want to buy a toy made in America, then that's fine. If I want to buy a toy made in China, that's also fine. But I should have enough information avaliable that I'm able to figure out where the toy that I'm considering buying came from.
Because it will increase the cost of food simply because people don't understand science.
If you don't want GMO, buy organic.
Yep.
Also, it will end up being used as yet another marketing tool, much like "Gluten-free" has become, herding the uninformed into buying their product. And it will mean absolutely nothing. Anything that contains any wheat, corn, or soy technically contains GMO. I mean, have y'all seen corn before it was selectively bred into the corn we eat today? It was pretty much grass.0 -
-
DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
What in the world does Celiac disease have to do with GMOs? Nothing like derailing a topic about fearmongering with random and completely unrelated fearmongering.0 -
Sigh. All of you anti-GMO people are so woefully misinformed.
Like lemons? Guess what? They were genetically modified through artificial selection. Lemons do not occur naturally in the world. Like bananas? See the previous. That's right - even "organic" lemons and the type of bananas you know and love do not occur naturally in the world and are the result of a form of genetic manipulation.
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
Not all GMOs are created equally. Some could potentially be harmful. Most are decidedly beneficial to human life. Denying this is akin to saying that all water is bad for you because someone once died drinking from a tainted lake. The fact is that mountains of scientific evidence exist to prove that GMOs are safe 99.9% of the time. You either accept this, or you don't understand the issue.
It's so crazy to me that here in the most developed and industrious section of the world, it's become fashionable to reject science and reason in favor of new-age bullsh*t with no scientific basis. You should be happy that you are in a position to even make the ridiculous anti-GMO claims that you do. None of you anti-GMO people are any better than the anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers, in my opinion.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
Did someone call my name 0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I honestly don't understand why so many people are against labeling. If I don't want to eat GMOs, that's my decision. If you want to eat them, that's your decision. There's nothing wrong with either choice. But I should have enough information avaliable to me regarding the food I buy that I am able to make that choice.
To me, it's kind of like country-of-origin labeling for other consumer goods. If I want to buy a toy made in America, then that's fine. If I want to buy a toy made in China, that's also fine. But I should have enough information avaliable that I'm able to figure out where the toy that I'm considering buying came from.
Because it will increase the cost of food simply because people don't understand science.
If you don't want GMO, buy organic.
+1
The label that pro-labelling people are looking for is really just one that says "non-GMO" and one of those already exists, as the Funkman has pointed out.0 -
And the flagging shows up here as well.
Coincidence? I think not.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »And the flagging shows up here as well.
Coincidence? I think not.
No kidding. Nothing in my post was incorrect, off topic, profane, or abusive. Yet I've already gotten a flag. I take it as a compliment; flagging instead of posting a counter argument is just evidence that they don't have one.0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
It's also because we have social supports put in place to help prevent people from starving, as well as better food distribution overall. Third-world countries don't have SNAP and WIC. Their road and rail systems aren't half as developed as ours are. Even if the food is grown, there's nothing to make sure that it gets to where the hungry people are like there is in developed countries.
Have GMOs boosted food production past previous levels and given us even more (excess) food? Sure. But they're not the only things that have prevented poor people from starving in America.
0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
It's also because we have social supports put in place to help prevent people from starving, as well as better food distribution overall. Third-world countries don't have SNAP and WIC. Their road and rail systems aren't half as developed as ours are. Even if the food is grown, there's nothing to make sure that it gets to where the hungry people are like there is in developed countries.
Have GMOs boosted food production past previous levels and given us even more (excess) food? Sure. But they're not the only things that have prevented poor people from starving in America.
Pretty sure she's referring to other areas of the world, where conventional crops wouldn't even grow without genetic modification.
0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
It's also because we have social supports put in place to help prevent people from starving, as well as better food distribution overall. Third-world countries don't have SNAP and WIC. Their road and rail systems aren't half as developed as ours are. Even if the food is grown, there's nothing to make sure that it gets to where the hungry people are like there is in developed countries.
Have GMOs boosted food production past previous levels and given us even more (excess) food? Sure. But they're not the only things that have prevented poor people from starving in America.
I dont think starving people in America is what it is about.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
It's also because we have social supports put in place to help prevent people from starving, as well as better food distribution overall. Third-world countries don't have SNAP and WIC. Their road and rail systems aren't half as developed as ours are. Even if the food is grown, there's nothing to make sure that it gets to where the hungry people are like there is in developed countries.
Have GMOs boosted food production past previous levels and given us even more (excess) food? Sure. But they're not the only things that have prevented poor people from starving in America.
I dont think starving people in America is what it is about.
It's not about public health either. It's about money. Which should come as no surprise to anybody.0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
It's also because we have social supports put in place to help prevent people from starving, as well as better food distribution overall. Third-world countries don't have SNAP and WIC. Their road and rail systems aren't half as developed as ours are. Even if the food is grown, there's nothing to make sure that it gets to where the hungry people are like there is in developed countries.
Have GMOs boosted food production past previous levels and given us even more (excess) food? Sure. But they're not the only things that have prevented poor people from starving in America.
SNAP and WIC are delivery mechanisms for the genetically modified foods I described above and wouldn't be anywhere near as effective without them. Rail roads in the USA (and other developed countries) are just arteries to support transportation of goods; they don't inherently keep people alive (i.e. without goods to transport, they'd be useless).
Food is the driving factor in all of the systems you described. It all starts with having enough food to go around; only then do you worry about distributing that food.
You're correct that food isn't the only factor, but it's the basis by which all other factors are made relevant.0 -
Honestly to me, most people who are anti-GMO have no credible scientific sources to back up their stance, just fear mongering and a lack of understanding of the biology and chemistry behind the process.
Just because something is genetically modified does not make it bad, goodness, as humans we've basically been genetically modifying things since we switched from hunter gatherers to farmers, we're just much more efficient at it now.0 -
Its about money on both sidesWetcoaster wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
It's also because we have social supports put in place to help prevent people from starving, as well as better food distribution overall. Third-world countries don't have SNAP and WIC. Their road and rail systems aren't half as developed as ours are. Even if the food is grown, there's nothing to make sure that it gets to where the hungry people are like there is in developed countries.
Have GMOs boosted food production past previous levels and given us even more (excess) food? Sure. But they're not the only things that have prevented poor people from starving in America.
I dont think starving people in America is what it is about.
It's not about public health either. It's about money. Which should come as no surprise to anybody.
0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »
Its about money on both sidesWetcoaster wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
It's also because we have social supports put in place to help prevent people from starving, as well as better food distribution overall. Third-world countries don't have SNAP and WIC. Their road and rail systems aren't half as developed as ours are. Even if the food is grown, there's nothing to make sure that it gets to where the hungry people are like there is in developed countries.
Have GMOs boosted food production past previous levels and given us even more (excess) food? Sure. But they're not the only things that have prevented poor people from starving in America.
I dont think starving people in America is what it is about.
It's not about public health either. It's about money. Which should come as no surprise to anybody.
Sure it is. I wouldn't allege that either side is being altruistic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions