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
-
OneHundredToLose wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »ronjsteele1 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.
This.^^^^^ I have every right to know what I put into mine and my family's bodies. And for those that don't believe GMO's are damaging, wait until you almost lose a child and discover that GMO's are damaging their gut. You'll change your mind. Anything GMO makes my son very ill. But that fight will rage on. Labeling is a no brainer and is no different or expensive then when a company changes their label for any product. It's one change and run the labels. My husband use to work in that industry, the cost they scream about is a crock. What they don't want is people choosing non-GMO foods over GMO foods because GMO foods are their cash cow.
Do some research into long term GMO farming. I live in a farming community and there are many farmers now 5-8 years into farming GMO's finding their land ruined and their use of pesticides INCREASED because of mutations. Some are now trying to go back and reclaim their land and fix it to be farmable again but it's very difficult after so much damage.
You should know, though, that virtually everything you're eating at this point has been genetically modified. Unless you're growing 100% of the food you eat in your own backyard (and have sourced the seeds from a third-world country) there was almost certainly genetic modification at some point. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, because genetically modifying an organism doesn't just somehow automatically make it "toxic" or "poisonous".
GMOs are not boogeymen - food that has been modified to be more robust and versatile saves literally millions of lives every year. If you deny this, you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
The more you know.
GMO is different from selective breeding or hybrid seeds.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
Colloquially it is, but effectively any manipulation of an organism generationally in order to reach a certain goal counts as genetic modification, since the genes are different at the end than at the beginning. I know it's a semantics thing, but that's the point I am trying to make. These people scream and cry about how much better "natural" and "organic" foods are, but they don't realize that those things hardly exist anywhere in the world at this point, even when they're labelled as such.
No, I think they understand that just fine. They just also understand the difference between the two.
So I'm assuming you're implying that I don't understand the difference? As I mentioned above, I understand it just fine, but it makes no difference in the end since both types of modification result in differing sets of genes than the original organisms had. They are both types of genetic modification.
If you think there is no difference then you don't understand the difference.
I said it makes no difference, not that there is no difference. If you need to put words in my mouth to make your argument, you don't have one.OneHundredToLose wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »ronjsteele1 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.
This.^^^^^ I have every right to know what I put into mine and my family's bodies. And for those that don't believe GMO's are damaging, wait until you almost lose a child and discover that GMO's are damaging their gut. You'll change your mind. Anything GMO makes my son very ill. But that fight will rage on. Labeling is a no brainer and is no different or expensive then when a company changes their label for any product. It's one change and run the labels. My husband use to work in that industry, the cost they scream about is a crock. What they don't want is people choosing non-GMO foods over GMO foods because GMO foods are their cash cow.
Do some research into long term GMO farming. I live in a farming community and there are many farmers now 5-8 years into farming GMO's finding their land ruined and their use of pesticides INCREASED because of mutations. Some are now trying to go back and reclaim their land and fix it to be farmable again but it's very difficult after so much damage.
You should know, though, that virtually everything you're eating at this point has been genetically modified. Unless you're growing 100% of the food you eat in your own backyard (and have sourced the seeds from a third-world country) there was almost certainly genetic modification at some point. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, because genetically modifying an organism doesn't just somehow automatically make it "toxic" or "poisonous".
GMOs are not boogeymen - food that has been modified to be more robust and versatile saves literally millions of lives every year. If you deny this, you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
The more you know.
GMO is different from selective breeding or hybrid seeds.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
Colloquially it is, but effectively any manipulation of an organism generationally in order to reach a certain goal counts as genetic modification, since the genes are different at the end than at the beginning. I know it's a semantics thing, but that's the point I am trying to make. These people scream and cry about how much better "natural" and "organic" foods are, but they don't realize that those things hardly exist anywhere in the world at this point, even when they're labelled as such.
I do not think you fully understand the differences between gmo, natural (I am guessing this is supposed to be non-gmo?) and organic. You seem to believe that anyone cautious about gmo is not informed, yet it comes out as you having decided this view is wrong, without understanding what it is about.
I do not think you fully read what I wrote (I'm guessing you were so eager to respond that you decided to skim it?). You seem to believe that I implied they are the same thing, whereas what I actually said is that they are different, but functionally equivalent. This causes your point to be moot, considering you don't actually understand the point I am making.
You are making an assumption: that two very different processes have the same result. This is a personal opinion, based on your understanding that is it all about semantics and that in practice manipulation of an organism through generations equals gmo. I am saying your basic understanding is wrong, this is a case where process makes a difference.0 -
I don't know about GMOs but I buy 90% local organic (occasionally i will buy oreos and regular ice cream or eat out etc) I mainly buy organic because 1. in San Diego Whole Foods buys from local farms so I support that there and at farmers markets. 2. Because I can afford it and its my money and my body.0
-
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
You are approaching this from an "all GMO food is safe, so it is a luxury or personal quirk to avoid it" point of view. In this context, mandatory labelling makes indeed no sense.
If you see the other side of "we are missing still proper health and environment safety validation processes for GMOs", then it makes sense that the consumer's choice be made as easy as possible, by checking a label that should exist in all products.0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »ronjsteele1 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.
This.^^^^^ I have every right to know what I put into mine and my family's bodies. And for those that don't believe GMO's are damaging, wait until you almost lose a child and discover that GMO's are damaging their gut. You'll change your mind. Anything GMO makes my son very ill. But that fight will rage on. Labeling is a no brainer and is no different or expensive then when a company changes their label for any product. It's one change and run the labels. My husband use to work in that industry, the cost they scream about is a crock. What they don't want is people choosing non-GMO foods over GMO foods because GMO foods are their cash cow.
Do some research into long term GMO farming. I live in a farming community and there are many farmers now 5-8 years into farming GMO's finding their land ruined and their use of pesticides INCREASED because of mutations. Some are now trying to go back and reclaim their land and fix it to be farmable again but it's very difficult after so much damage.
You should know, though, that virtually everything you're eating at this point has been genetically modified. Unless you're growing 100% of the food you eat in your own backyard (and have sourced the seeds from a third-world country) there was almost certainly genetic modification at some point. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, because genetically modifying an organism doesn't just somehow automatically make it "toxic" or "poisonous".
GMOs are not boogeymen - food that has been modified to be more robust and versatile saves literally millions of lives every year. If you deny this, you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
The more you know.
If you are confounding that the changes in genetic code via breeding or hybridisation versus genetic engineering are significantly different you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
I'm pro-GE but sheez some of the arrogant arguments presented to support it are nonsense.
No one denies the the purpose of GMs are to have more robust, efficient and versatile crops. Do they actually save millions of lives? Borlaugh (Nobel prize winner) actually DID save billions (that's a B ) with traditional crop methods.
The real issues are complex and it is unlikely that someone arguing from an appeal to accomplishments and such weak ad hominem would propose. Up your game. There are real arguments to support GE, these aren't it.0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
I was agreeing with you about not labelling GMO food. My "unfounded fear" comment was directed toward those who think GMOs are the devil and therefore GMO foodal products should be labelled so they don't unknowingly poison themselves with the evil food.0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
You are approaching this from an "all GMO food is safe, so it is a luxury or personal quirk to avoid it" point of view. In this context, mandatory labelling makes indeed no sense.
If you see the other side of "we are missing still proper health and environment safety validation processes for GMOs", then it makes sense that the consumer's choice be made as easy as possible, by checking a label that should exist in all products.
Thank you for answering.
So then, there is an issue with the USDA Organic certification label? It's not strict enough?
Edited to add: What are the specific parts of the certification process that are lacking?0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
You are approaching this from an "all GMO food is safe, so it is a luxury or personal quirk to avoid it" point of view. In this context, mandatory labelling makes indeed no sense.
If you see the other side of "we are missing still proper health and environment safety validation processes for GMOs", then it makes sense that the consumer's choice be made as easy as possible, by checking a label that should exist in all products.
I somewhat see your point, but your mistrust has the potential to cost me money. I would prefer not, especially when you have a viable option for avoiding GMO food.0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
You are approaching this from an "all GMO food is safe, so it is a luxury or personal quirk to avoid it" point of view. In this context, mandatory labelling makes indeed no sense.
If you see the other side of "we are missing still proper health and environment safety validation processes for GMOs", then it makes sense that the consumer's choice be made as easy as possible, by checking a label that should exist in all products.
Thank you for answering.
So then, there is an issue with the USDA Organic certification label? It's not strict enough?
Edited to add: What are the specific parts of the certification process that are lacking?
Organic is not the opposite of GMO0 -
browneyes1520 wrote: »My issue with gmo crops are the round up ready ones. There is nothing natural or OK about that. Having a crop (corn for example) have herbicide/pesticide built into their genetic make up? Come on. How can anyone believe that that is safe. Pesticides are designed to kill pests, so what do u think they'll do to us in the long run? I realize conventionally grown fruit and veg are sprayed with pesticides but at least u can wash a good percentage of that off, unlike the gmo crops that have it built into their genetic code, there is no washing that off. Would you sit down to a nice plate of veggies and top it off with a tsp of pesticide? I'm guessing not. So why would u eat a gmo crop filled with it? But who cares, to each their own. People have a right to their own opinions without being *kitten* all over for them.
http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
You are approaching this from an "all GMO food is safe, so it is a luxury or personal quirk to avoid it" point of view. In this context, mandatory labelling makes indeed no sense.
If you see the other side of "we are missing still proper health and environment safety validation processes for GMOs", then it makes sense that the consumer's choice be made as easy as possible, by checking a label that should exist in all products.
Thank you for answering.
So then, there is an issue with the USDA Organic certification label? It's not strict enough?
Edited to add: What are the specific parts of the certification process that are lacking?
Organic is not the opposite of GMO
Yes, you're right!
That must mean that people see flaws with the Non-GMO Project's process of validating foods then, yes?
Or there is a desire to see a government organization tasked with GMO research (since Non-GMO Project is independent)?0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
You are approaching this from an "all GMO food is safe, so it is a luxury or personal quirk to avoid it" point of view. In this context, mandatory labelling makes indeed no sense.
If you see the other side of "we are missing still proper health and environment safety validation processes for GMOs", then it makes sense that the consumer's choice be made as easy as possible, by checking a label that should exist in all products.
Thank you for answering.
So then, there is an issue with the USDA Organic certification label? It's not strict enough?
Edited to add: What are the specific parts of the certification process that are lacking?
Organic is not the opposite of GMO
You can't be certified organic if your product contains GMOS.
If your livestock eats gmo feed at any time -> not organic.
0 -
Well, I guess after 4 pages we can say the thread title is wrong.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »^^^^^Because unfounded fear.
But people already have the USDA Organic certification label, which even Mercola agrees is "your best assurance of organic quality." The Food Babe also promotes the Non-GMO Project label because "they have a process for verifying whether products are non-GMO, and [she] feels that their label can be trusted."
So, I don't get why we need to legally require labeling from all food companies. Someone who is anti-GMO, please help me understand why the current labeling systems in place are not good/informative/thorough enough.
You are approaching this from an "all GMO food is safe, so it is a luxury or personal quirk to avoid it" point of view. In this context, mandatory labelling makes indeed no sense.
If you see the other side of "we are missing still proper health and environment safety validation processes for GMOs", then it makes sense that the consumer's choice be made as easy as possible, by checking a label that should exist in all products.
Thank you for answering.
So then, there is an issue with the USDA Organic certification label? It's not strict enough?
Edited to add: What are the specific parts of the certification process that are lacking?
Organic is not the opposite of GMO
You can't be certified organic if your product contains GMOS.
If your livestock eats gmo feed at any time -> not organic.
Absolutely. However, you can be not certified organic and not use GMO at any stage of the production. At least where I live, where GMO labelling is not optional, this is actually where the majority of food items fall: non organic, non GMO.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »GMO's have been around for a very long time, it is not a new concept, man has been doing this for thousands of years.
I can't say that I believe any food is truly in its' original state, and to me, organically grown is somewhat a gimmick, that some people are willing to pay more for.
I support the local farmers, and buy at farmers markets, as I know that the food is fresh at least.
Big business truly runs the world.
No they have not, only since 1987.
If you are claiming thousands of years then you don't know what GMOs are.
I would consider mutation breeding after irradiation genetic engineering; same process, just not targeted. And that's definitely a lot older.
That's an interesting point. (Lets drop in other chemical mutagens used to increase mutation rates into the group,)
It certainly accelerates rate of change and possibility of induced mutations and had some wild outputs but I'm going to continue to hold that in many ways the GE techniques are truly starting with vectorised sequence insertions. Whether via a gene gun, a plasmid or viral vector or other method - the start of these, in commercial use is around '87.
The reason I differentiate (and as do governing bodies) is that the change we see with irradiation or chemical mutagens are point changes in code. We don't see new splicing or a method that might easily cross to other species. Viral vector can insert thousands of changes in code. They are relatively easy to create - but still quite difficult to be strongly predictive on specificity to a species and functional success without consequence. Hence the the relatively cautious position of some researchers.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »ronjsteele1 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.
This.^^^^^ I have every right to know what I put into mine and my family's bodies. And for those that don't believe GMO's are damaging, wait until you almost lose a child and discover that GMO's are damaging their gut. You'll change your mind. Anything GMO makes my son very ill. But that fight will rage on. Labeling is a no brainer and is no different or expensive then when a company changes their label for any product. It's one change and run the labels. My husband use to work in that industry, the cost they scream about is a crock. What they don't want is people choosing non-GMO foods over GMO foods because GMO foods are their cash cow.
Do some research into long term GMO farming. I live in a farming community and there are many farmers now 5-8 years into farming GMO's finding their land ruined and their use of pesticides INCREASED because of mutations. Some are now trying to go back and reclaim their land and fix it to be farmable again but it's very difficult after so much damage.
You should know, though, that virtually everything you're eating at this point has been genetically modified. Unless you're growing 100% of the food you eat in your own backyard (and have sourced the seeds from a third-world country) there was almost certainly genetic modification at some point. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, because genetically modifying an organism doesn't just somehow automatically make it "toxic" or "poisonous".
GMOs are not boogeymen - food that has been modified to be more robust and versatile saves literally millions of lives every year. If you deny this, you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
The more you know.
If you are confounding that the changes in genetic code via breeding or hybridisation versus genetic engineering are significantly different you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
I'm pro-GE but sheez some of the arrogant arguments presented to support it are nonsense.
No one denies the the purpose of GMs are to have more robust, efficient and versatile crops. Do they actually save millions of lives? Borlaugh (Nobel prize winner) actually DID save billions (that's a B ) with traditional crop methods.
The real issues are complex and it is unlikely that someone arguing from an appeal to accomplishments and such weak ad hominem would propose. Up your game. There are real arguments to support GE, these aren't it.
Modifying foods through selective breeding is a form of genetic manipulation. I never - at any point - said that the processes of selective breeding and laboratory genetic manipulation were the same. I just said that the end result is the same. That is fact. You can accomplish virtually all of the things that laboratory manipulation accomplish via selective breeding, albeit over a much larger time frame (see: the bananas you buy in stores today).
No one denies that the purpose of GMs are to have more robust crops? You obviously aren't familiar with the tinfoil hat wearers of the anti-GMO movement, considering their main arguments are that GMOs are poisonous and pushed by an industry that exists to control people through food.
When you have a moment, come down from that pedestal and refrain from telling me to "up my game", and maybe we can have a real conversation about this. I'm not striving to impress you, or anyone else. I'm merely trying to correct the rampant ignorance that exists in the anti-GMO movement. Unless you have a degree in this stuff, you are in no more of a position than I am to assert your position as fact, so you accusing me of doing the same fails to move me.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »ronjsteele1 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.
This.^^^^^ I have every right to know what I put into mine and my family's bodies. And for those that don't believe GMO's are damaging, wait until you almost lose a child and discover that GMO's are damaging their gut. You'll change your mind. Anything GMO makes my son very ill. But that fight will rage on. Labeling is a no brainer and is no different or expensive then when a company changes their label for any product. It's one change and run the labels. My husband use to work in that industry, the cost they scream about is a crock. What they don't want is people choosing non-GMO foods over GMO foods because GMO foods are their cash cow.
Do some research into long term GMO farming. I live in a farming community and there are many farmers now 5-8 years into farming GMO's finding their land ruined and their use of pesticides INCREASED because of mutations. Some are now trying to go back and reclaim their land and fix it to be farmable again but it's very difficult after so much damage.
You should know, though, that virtually everything you're eating at this point has been genetically modified. Unless you're growing 100% of the food you eat in your own backyard (and have sourced the seeds from a third-world country) there was almost certainly genetic modification at some point. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, because genetically modifying an organism doesn't just somehow automatically make it "toxic" or "poisonous".
GMOs are not boogeymen - food that has been modified to be more robust and versatile saves literally millions of lives every year. If you deny this, you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
The more you know.
If you are confounding that the changes in genetic code via breeding or hybridisation versus genetic engineering are significantly different you're simply ignorant of the facts. That's ok, but continuing to spout nonsense and refusing to learn is causing major problems in our society.
I'm pro-GE but sheez some of the arrogant arguments presented to support it are nonsense.
No one denies the the purpose of GMs are to have more robust, efficient and versatile crops. Do they actually save millions of lives? Borlaugh (Nobel prize winner) actually DID save billions (that's a B ) with traditional crop methods.
The real issues are complex and it is unlikely that someone arguing from an appeal to accomplishments and such weak ad hominem would propose. Up your game. There are real arguments to support GE, these aren't it.
I agree that new products should be extensively tested, but it should not be unique to gmo. There can (and have ) been crops developed through conventional methods that are exempt from testing (ie Liberty Link Corn). The end result carries the same benefits and risk that a GE product would, yet the Luddites fail to see the difference (present company excepted, of course )
There are far too many false dichotomies going on here (ie the last article I linked). Is there a difference between selective breeding and gmo? Sure. But it's still part of the continuum, not some completely different animal.
0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »ronjsteele1 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.
This.^^^^^ I have every right to know what I put into mine and my family's bodies. And for those that don't believe GMO's are damaging, wait until you almost lose a child and discover that GMO's are damaging their gut. You'll change your mind. Anything GMO makes my son very ill. But that fight will rage on. Labeling is a no brainer and is no different or expensive then when a company changes their label for any product. It's one change and run the labels. My husband use to work in that industry, the cost they scream about is a crock. What they don't want is people choosing non-GMO foods over GMO foods because GMO foods are their cash cow.
Do some research into long term GMO farming. I live in a farming community and there are many farmers now 5-8 years into farming GMO's finding their land ruined and their use of pesticides INCREASED because of mutations. Some are now trying to go back and reclaim their land and fix it to be farmable again but it's very difficult after so much damage.
Sorry to hear about your son's health problems, but how did you come to the conclusion that GMOs were responsible for his illness?
My guess? Assuming correlation equals causation.
No. Because we tested the theory out over and over and over and over again. Even the MD's we eventually fired finally had to admit to it begrudgingly. Example : GMO corn. There have been a number of studies that have shown when someone eats corn genetically modified to accept large doses of round up to kill weeds but not the corn, that the corn eaten by someone then produces round up in that person's gut. Last time I checked, drinking a dose of round up was akin to drinking poison. No, it was not correlation = causation and until you've walked a mile in a parent's shoes that has been through this, you have zero room for comment. You can test the theory out by giving two of the exact same food. One GMO'd, and one not. All other ingredients being the same. One makes a person sick as a dog, the other does not. No food allergy there. The only difference is the genetic modification. Do that test over with hundreds of foods and you'll eventually figure it out. In the case of the corn, ultimately, it is the round up produced in the gut that is causing the damage but it wouldn't be there if it weren't for the GMO corn made to accept all of the round up without killing the corn.
Someone already point out, which pro-GMO people don't like to accept, genetic modification for the purpose of being able to use higher amounts of pesticides, etc. is a long way from hybridization. The latter has been done for seemingly ever, the former not. They are two very different animals.
Until the end of time there will be discussions like this that take place. Those that accuse some of us of not believing "science" and those that have travelled roads some never will and have learned differently. My comment regarding the right to know if something is GMO or not is still stands. As someone else pointed out, we like to know where our dog food came from, toys, etc. Our food is no different. It's information that allows people to make informed decisions. It is not an endorsement by a company of a specific issue. I find it interesting that industry is so concerned about people making informed choices. The same goes for the vaccine issue and any other issue that people want to deem "alternative." And it will be an argument until the end of time.
As for the rest of the discussion, life is too busy and short taking care of ones that are affected by this GMO garbage so I will move on from this discussion. Neither side will ever convince the other side.0 -
Ok, let's go through this point by point.ronjsteele1 wrote: »No. Because we tested the theory out over and over and over and over again.
So you performed scientific, blind experiments that controlled for other variables? Or did you just give your kid GMO food and then, when he got sick, assume the food is what caused it? I'm leaning toward the latter.ronjsteele1 wrote: »Even the MD's we eventually fired finally had to admit to it begrudgingly.
If they agreed with you, why'd you fire them? My guess, you decided to go to someone who would tell you what you wanted to hear, and your previous doctors said something along the lines of "Ok then, if that's what you want to do."ronjsteele1 wrote: »Last time I checked, drinking a dose of round up was akin to drinking poison.
I agree, that's definitely akin to drinking poison. So you can provide evidence that your kid ingested a "dose of Roundup" from eating a GMO food, right?ronjsteele1 wrote: »and until you've walked a mile in a parent's shoes that has been through this, you have zero room for comment.
Being a parent or not being a parent has absolutely nothing to do with the science behind why GMOs are not bad for you. Do you know what you being a parent in this situation does cause though? Emotional bias. You're far more likely to think irrationally when your kid's health is at stake.ronjsteele1 wrote: »Someone already point out, which pro-GMO people don't like to accept, genetic modification for the purpose of being able to use higher amounts of pesticides, etc. is a long way from hybridization. The latter has been done for seemingly ever, the former not. They are two very different animals.
I'm pro GMO. I admit that the two processes are different. What's your point? The anti-GMO argument is that all GMOs are inherently bad. This is false, as evidenced by the fact that humans have been genetically manipulating organisms in one way or another for thousands of years. If you've got evidence that a laboratory modified food caused your kid to get sick, you should see a lawyer. If you're right, you stand to make a lot of money. I'm guessing your "evidence" won't hold up to scrutiny, though, since you're apparently reluctant to present it.ronjsteele1 wrote: »Those that accuse some of us of not believing "science" and those that have travelled roads some never will and have learned differently.
Unfortunately personal experience rarely counts as conclusive evidence, especially when variables are unaccounted for. That's the point of science - to prove hypotheses in controlled environments. That's also why we know that the vast majority of GMOs are perfectly safe for consumption.ronjsteele1 wrote: »As for the rest of the discussion, life is too busy and short taking care of ones that are affected by this GMO garbage so I will move on from this discussion. Neither side will ever convince the other side.
Good for you for bowing out while you're still ahead (kind of). This is an argument you can't win; the mountains of evidence are against your position.
0 -
I'm just going to drop this here: http://www.insufferableintolerance.com/genetically-modified-foods-the-rise-of-the-planet-of-the-franken-banana
Worth a read if you are at all open to hearing why GMOs are safe. FWIW, I'm pro-GMO, but unlike the author I'm not pro-labeling. The hysteria surrounding GMOs is completely unfounded in science.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions