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
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
While not altruistic (because they're paid workers), I do think that scientists researching doing GM foods are doing so in part because they have the best interests of humanity in mind. I liken them to vaccine researchers. The corporations who employ them may be profit-driven, but there are people behind that research who are compelled by more than just money.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?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.
Oh, this. A thousand times this!0 -
@Wetcoaster
Great link and scoop. I think it's just another attempt to market the product, as in the end the science isn't there to back the claims, and most of the population will see right through it. But I'll also say, it doesn't take a lot of product sales to make the money back for the anti GMO crowd, and raising a stink will likely increase their sales as well.
But in all fairness, I don't think that all the non GMO sales are driven by the fact that people don't know the science behind GMO's. I've worked in the food brokerage industry for years, and a lot of the people that buy some of the organic and/or GMO free stuff don't do it out of any fear of GMO's. They do it for new flavors, quality control, and choices that weren't around for years. Sure there are some against GMO's, but that is nothing more than their choice IMO. Some people buy brands I don't like, and they don't have to justify their reasons to me, nor do the people that buy non GMO. It's their money, and some of those lines sell big.
I've got some grass fed ribeyes, some Farro, and a few other organics and non GMO and/or gluten free products in the house right now. But it's simply because I like them, and for the price point I think there are better than some of my other choices. I think the one exception to that is the Farro, only because its' grown in a region of Europe where GMOs aren't allowed.
As for the whole labeling thing, personally I think they should just allow the non GMO foods to label as such, or even require it if they want to make a stink about things. It's a smaller, newer market in the US, and overall would save money. A great number of them are already labeling as non GMO and/or organic already, so much of the work is already done.0 -
The movie seeds of deception explains a little bit of a different thought regarding gmos. Monsanto, creator of the round up ready seeds sues small town farmers to put them out of business. Monsanto wants to control the food supply. GMO seeds cannot be saved and have to be bought yearly. There is alot of politics involved in the GMO world and alot more then meets the eye. Nearly everyone in the FDA is also involved in some way with Monsanto. Yes organic farmers are anti gmo and leading the movement. ..makes sense to me.
I dont always buy organic, I do try to support my local small farmers as much as possible. And I use to believe gmos should be labeled but really its just as easy to just buy organic label food.0 -
antennachick wrote: »The movie seeds of deception explains a little bit of a different thought regarding gmos. Monsanto, creator of the round up ready seeds sues small town farmers to put them out of business. Monsanto wants to control the food supply. GMO seeds cannot be saved and have to be bought yearly. There is alot of politics involved in the GMO world and alot more then meets the eye. Nearly everyone in the FDA is also involved in some way with Monsanto. Yes organic farmers are anti gmo and leading the movement. ..makes sense to me.
I dont always buy organic, I do try to support my local small farmers as much as possible. And I use to believe gmos should be labeled but really its just as easy to just buy organic label food.
You mean the guy that stole their product?
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.
The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee." Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?
Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser's canola contained Monsanto's Roundup resistance gene, and it's impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds. However, there's lots of confusion about these tests. Other samples, tested by other people, showed lower concentrations of Roundup resistance — but still over 50 percent of the crop.
Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.
This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's decision. Schmeiser's site contains other documents.)
So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.
Citation expected. Then I will consider you to not be misleading.
No you won't. Because, as usual, you won't even bother reading it.
But here you go anyway
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/
0 -
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.
Citation expected. Then I will consider you to not be misleading.
I've noticed from you across several threads where you want citations yet none of the citations you provide actually support your position ... and several of the sites you've claimed don't support anything logical at all. Perhaps you should demand the same from yourself that you demand of others.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page.
It's funny that it's usually wealthy and rather porcine people in Western nations who make this argument.
I guess if you ask hungry people in developing nations what the greatest threat to human life on the planet is they may say poverty and starvation.
Organic = privilege.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions