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
Replies
-
ronjsteele1 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.
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.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round up, has a less lethal LD50 than table salt.
The idea that Glyphosate damages gut bacteria is bad science. The idea is that some bacteria in the gut have the same pathway as for aromatic amino acid production that plants do, which is blocked by Glyphosate in plants that do not have Round Up ready or similar changes to the a certain receptor site. The problem with this hypothesis is that your gut bacteria do not need to create their own amino acids, they live in your gut with access to all the same amino acids you have access to.0 -
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?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.
If you think transgenics don't happen in nature, you're just, if not more, ignorant. Human beings themselves contain multiple genes that show evidence of transgenic origins.
Breeding and hybridization won't produce the exact same results as transgenics, but given every single crop grown does so under the mutagentic effects of the radiation ball in the sun with no testing and oversight, the general result is that any naturally breed or hybridized crop, by virtue of the life cycle, can contain much bigger changes than any transgenic simple 1 to 10 point gene changes.
It would be hard to say what the current impact of GMO is in terms of life saving. If Golden Rice were in circulation instead of under attack by Green Peace zealots, it would have prevented some of the children dead from vitamin A deficiency. In the last decade or so, I believe that number is in the millions, not billions.
Transgenic occurrences in nature that breed true are slow processes (on evo timescales)to occur and spread compared to what we see in the lab. Nor does nature have a "gene drive" - the ability to reinforce a transformation rapidly intra-generationally.
The majority of natural hybridisations are also of smaller environmental significance than human manipulations given our capacity to spread what we make quickly (look at feed stock corn). Hybridisation can contain larger changes in code volume (introns) but certainly neither the effectiveness or accuracy of GE. If hybridisation was more effective, produced larger changes, was more precise or viable we would have never developed GE.
I thought Dr Moore from Greenpeace was spearheading the support for Golden Rice - I haven't kept up. Certainly an example of a very beneficial use of GMOs. I'd even eat it (I hope it has a different taste).0 -
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
It sort of creates more fear in the masses (not that there isn't enough already).
"If it needs to be labelled it must be bad for you!"0 -
Here's another part of my issue with GMO foods. Ok, so the research says it's safe. Can we confirm that eating a diet full of GMO foods from birth and continuing for the next 35+ years is just as safe as eating those same foods but non-GMO? (And by GMO, I mean the modern version). I think the answer to my question is "no". There are a lot of things that may be safe for a period of time, but that doesn't mean that they're safe if done for a very long time.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
It sort of creates more fear in the masses (not that there isn't enough already).
"If it needs to be labelled it must be bad for you!"
^^^ This is what makes me wary of mandatory labeling in the US. We have a tendency to only require labels if something has been proven to be harmful. It would not be a huge leap for the average person to make that a mandatory label means the product is harmful.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
It sort of creates more fear in the masses (not that there isn't enough already).
"If it needs to be labelled it must be bad for you!"
^^^ This is what makes me wary of mandatory labeling in the US. We have a tendency to only require labels if something has been proven to be harmful. It would not be a huge leap for the average person to make that a mandatory label means the product is harmful.
...and when you consider how uneducated and vulnerable to pseudoscientific fearmongering the average person is about health and nutrition (as evidenced by threads such as this), it's easy to see that many would indeed make that leap.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
If you think transgenics don't happen in nature, you're just, if not more, ignorant. Human beings themselves contain multiple genes that show evidence of transgenic origins.
Breeding and hybridization won't produce the exact same results as transgenics, but given every single crop grown does so under the mutagentic effects of the radiation ball in the sun with no testing and oversight, the general result is that any naturally breed or hybridized crop, by virtue of the life cycle, can contain much bigger changes than any transgenic simple 1 to 10 point gene changes.
It would be hard to say what the current impact of GMO is in terms of life saving. If Golden Rice were in circulation instead of under attack by Green Peace zealots, it would have prevented some of the children dead from vitamin A deficiency. In the last decade or so, I believe that number is in the millions, not billions.
Transgenic occurrences in nature that breed true are slow processes (on evo timescales)to occur and spread compared to what we see in the lab. Nor does nature have a "gene drive" - the ability to reinforce a transformation rapidly intra-generationally.
The majority of natural hybridisations are also of smaller environmental significance than human manipulations given our capacity to spread what we make quickly (look at feed stock corn). Hybridisation can contain larger changes in code volume (introns) but certainly neither the effectiveness or accuracy of GE. If hybridisation was more effective, produced larger changes, was more precise or viable we would have never developed GE.
I thought Dr Moore from Greenpeace was spearheading the support for Golden Rice - I haven't kept up. Certainly an example of a very beneficial use of GMOs. I'd even eat it (I hope it has a different taste).
Dr. Moore is ex-Greenpeace. Golden Rice is a part of why he split from them. He also seems to advocate some fringe ideas about other things like climate change denial which seems to stem from a need to renounce everything from his time at Greenpeace.
The current Greenpeace has burned down test fields at various times, but done so with enough plausible deniability that it is dubbed incidence of locals doing it.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Here's another part of my issue with GMO foods. Ok, so the research says it's safe. Can we confirm that eating a diet full of GMO foods from birth and continuing for the next 35+ years is just as safe as eating those same foods but non-GMO? (And by GMO, I mean the modern version). I think the answer to my question is "no". There are a lot of things that may be safe for a period of time, but that doesn't mean that they're safe if done for a very long time.
Nobody can guarantee you 35 years of anything. That's life.
As for safety testing for long term results, there's a decent way to model it - you take animals that have a short life span life mice, use a fair number of them, and look at how eating a diet containing the GMO variety compares to a regular one in terms of occurrence of incidence.
We also have roughly a trillion animals fed GMOs in their diet since the development of GMO's, with no increased incidence of any disease since the development.
Finally, we have a lack of plausible mechanism. What is GMO going to do, and how?
Comparatively, how do you know in the next 35 years that a food you eat doesn't have a random mutation that makes you ill? You do know that all life on this planet experiences genes changing over a lifetime, unknown unless specifically looked at very carefully by a geneticist? We live underneath the gaze of one giant ball that shoots carcinogenic, mutagenic rays at us continuously. Why is a random, unsurpervised, undirected, uncontrolled process running across trillions of labs (every single plant grown) somehow assumed safe but single changes studied in test animals over their lifetime are big unknowns.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
It sort of creates more fear in the masses (not that there isn't enough already).
"If it needs to be labelled it must be bad for you!"
^^^ This is what makes me wary of mandatory labeling in the US. We have a tendency to only require labels if something has been proven to be harmful. It would not be a huge leap for the average person to make that a mandatory label means the product is harmful.
I don't actually think most people care that much about labels, which is why I'm both pro GMO and neutral to pro label. I think some people would care, some companies would make a little extra money from claiming no GMO (likely those who aren't GMO anyway), there'd be a tiny bit of pressure to have non GMO options, and most people wouldn't care any more than they care about calorie labels, or likely less.
I also think the reason the US public is pro label is that there's no voice against them and it sounds good. If the issue gets politicized (which it probably will), that consensus dies and it gets split on party lines. (Not so long ago global warming was less politicized than it is now: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8470491/global-warming-obama-everglades. I think a big reason is that it's linked to party politics and lots of voters go with what the party they identify with supports these days.)0 -
stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
It sort of creates more fear in the masses (not that there isn't enough already).
"If it needs to be labelled it must be bad for you!"
^^^ This is what makes me wary of mandatory labeling in the US. We have a tendency to only require labels if something has been proven to be harmful. It would not be a huge leap for the average person to make that a mandatory label means the product is harmful.
Food labelling is mandatory. Is food harmful?
I think the truth is somewhere in between - labelling will create a fear-driven selectivity for some yet for most it just becomes background noise.
There is an interesting counter argument. The amount of prepared meat with plant fibers, etc. has risen over the years. Now plant fibres aren't bad for you - but should you be allowed to you know that the steak you eat has them?
In France, there is a total traceability program for meat - you should be able to identify the region and herd at the butcher. Does it make sense? There is a reasonable argument that knowing the end to end supply chain allows for reverse traceability when issues arise.0 -
That is something I always wonder about when someone brings a naturalistic fallacy. Why would something that was made specifically for human consumption, with so many hoops to jump through to get approved for commercial use that can get withdrawn in a heartbeat if something turns out to be wrong, be bad for you? Do they think manufacturers are some sort of comic book villains who purposely make it unhealthy, twirling their mustaches while cackling how they'll make us all sick?ForecasterJason wrote: »Here's another part of my issue with GMO foods. Ok, so the research says it's safe. Can we confirm that eating a diet full of GMO foods from birth and continuing for the next 35+ years is just as safe as eating those same foods but non-GMO? (And by GMO, I mean the modern version). I think the answer to my question is "no". There are a lot of things that may be safe for a period of time, but that doesn't mean that they're safe if done for a very long time.
Nobody can guarantee you 35 years of anything. That's life.
As for safety testing for long term results, there's a decent way to model it - you take animals that have a short life span life mice, use a fair number of them, and look at how eating a diet containing the GMO variety compares to a regular one in terms of occurrence of incidence.
We also have roughly a trillion animals fed GMOs in their diet since the development of GMO's, with no increased incidence of any disease since the development.
Finally, we have a lack of plausible mechanism. What is GMO going to do, and how?
Comparatively, how do you know in the next 35 years that a food you eat doesn't have a random mutation that makes you ill? You do know that all life on this planet experiences genes changing over a lifetime, unknown unless specifically looked at very carefully by a geneticist? We live underneath the gaze of one giant ball that shoots carcinogenic, mutagenic rays at us continuously. Why is a random, unsurpervised, undirected, uncontrolled process running across trillions of labs (every single plant grown) somehow assumed safe but single changes studied in test animals over their lifetime are big unknowns.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
It sort of creates more fear in the masses (not that there isn't enough already).
"If it needs to be labelled it must be bad for you!"
Yep.
The only labels required other than the contents and ingredients are those that have been shown to have a clear danger to a significant portion of the population (ie common allergens).
Never have GMOS been shown to be dangerous. The variety of corn that was pulled from the market was never approved for human consumption, and there wasn't a single confirmed case of an adverse reaction.
Side note: I found it humorous that it reached the food supply through Taco Bell taco shells
If you eat at Taco Bell, and get sick, it's probably not the GMO'S.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
It sort of creates more fear in the masses (not that there isn't enough already).
"If it needs to be labelled it must be bad for you!"
^^^ This is what makes me wary of mandatory labeling in the US. We have a tendency to only require labels if something has been proven to be harmful. It would not be a huge leap for the average person to make that a mandatory label means the product is harmful.
Food labelling is mandatory. Is food harmful?
I think the truth is somewhere in between - labelling will create a fear-driven selectivity for some yet for most it just becomes background noise.
There is an interesting counter argument. The amount of prepared meat with plant fibers, etc. has risen over the years. Now plant fibres aren't bad for you - but should you be allowed to you know that the steak you eat has them?
In France, there is a total traceability program for meat - you should be able to identify the region and herd at the butcher. Does it make sense? There is a reasonable argument that knowing the end to end supply chain allows for reverse traceability when issues arise.
I think we may be using different meanings of the word "labeling." What do you mean by food labeling?
I'm not explicitly against GMO-labeling, but I am wary of it because of, as mentioned above, the US is sorely lacking in scientific understanding in the general population. Currently, the pro-labeling side is absolutely using fear to try to push the issue. Screaming that we all have the right to know what is in our food comes with the suggestion that there's something nefarious in there wrapped in a package that sounds innocuous.
I do agree that it'll eventually become background noise, either way.0 -
Personally, I don't see the point in enforcing labeling GMO. Any product that doesn't have it can label 'GMO-free' 'til the cows come home and reap whatever monetary gains that gets them. No one is stopping them. Why add another meaningless regulation to the bucket load of other meaningless* regulations we already have.
If an item made with a GMO product now contains a protein, etc, that is dangerous to a subset of the population (peanut allergens, etc) then that should be labeled. But that should happen regardless of whether it contains GMO products or not.
*Meaningless because they accomplish nothing, or meaningless because they are unenforceable.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
No, it assumes that it is a target we can't make without GMOs as one of the methods at our disposal to do it. My right leg alone isn't necessary for me to cross a finish line, but binding it to a concrete block with steel almost guarantees I won't.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
Nice story and all (I love the SciFi) but a) I doubt the numbers posted (42% increase in land needs by 2050) b) It assumes GMOs will magically solve the issue but states nothing to suggest that it will c) fails to even mention that we already produce enough food - that our issues are related to transportation and spoilage d)if the real concerns of people are long term "feed the world" everyone sporting that argument should really begin shifting to a plant based diet which has significantly less land and resource usage.
By the way, CRISPR and gene drive technology is exactly the thing that might have unknown consequences - genetic modifications that are driven to extremely high efficiency could end up actively decimating wild populations. Think of it this way - expression of a gene can be pushed so that it spreads to a population in a generation. That's great - it means we can possible eliminate certain pests like the mosquito that carries zika but there is a small risk that this might skip over to, say, bees. Sterile bees are not such a good idea. There is a lot of debate going on with field testing of some of these.
Do you think that people like me - old scientists now working in the biopharma industry - should get to make these environmentally impactful decisions by themselves?
Ok, that is fair. "It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though."
I'm not sure how labelling would be the equivalent of that concrete block.
(Not that I'm pro-label.)
It sort of creates more fear in the masses (not that there isn't enough already).
"If it needs to be labelled it must be bad for you!"
Yep.
The only labels required other than the contents and ingredients are those that have been shown to have a clear danger to a significant portion of the population (ie common allergens).
Never have GMOS been shown to be dangerous. The variety of corn that was pulled from the market was never approved for human consumption, and there wasn't a single confirmed case of an adverse reaction.
Side note: I found it humorous that it reached the food supply through Taco Bell taco shells
If you eat at Taco Bell, and get sick, it's probably not the GMO'S.
Semantics - never have commercialised GMOs been shown to be dangerous. Several GMO's have been dangerous and the decision was made to not commercialise them. I'd suggest that this is more about trust in the process. It also hold for non-GMO crops (we've hybridised some nasty stuff in the past).
The whole Starlink controversy is a good argument for labelling - it clearly suggests that the industry needs tighter control to assure that what is not approved for human consumption shouldn't be stored with food stuff for human consumption. This is an end to end food supply chain issue and not specific to GMOs - but labelling of "approved for human consumption" and related traceability. (I still against GMO specific labelling but see some value in traceability in general.)0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Here's another part of my issue with GMO foods. Ok, so the research says it's safe. Can we confirm that eating a diet full of GMO foods from birth and continuing for the next 35+ years is just as safe as eating those same foods but non-GMO? (And by GMO, I mean the modern version). I think the answer to my question is "no". There are a lot of things that may be safe for a period of time, but that doesn't mean that they're safe if done for a very long time.
Nobody can guarantee you 35 years of anything. That's life.
As for safety testing for long term results, there's a decent way to model it - you take animals that have a short life span life mice, use a fair number of them, and look at how eating a diet containing the GMO variety compares to a regular one in terms of occurrence of incidence.
We also have roughly a trillion animals fed GMOs in their diet since the development of GMO's, with no increased incidence of any disease since the development.
Finally, we have a lack of plausible mechanism. What is GMO going to do, and how?
Comparatively, how do you know in the next 35 years that a food you eat doesn't have a random mutation that makes you ill? You do know that all life on this planet experiences genes changing over a lifetime, unknown unless specifically looked at very carefully by a geneticist? We live underneath the gaze of one giant ball that shoots carcinogenic, mutagenic rays at us continuously. Why is a random, unsurpervised, undirected, uncontrolled process running across trillions of labs (every single plant grown) somehow assumed safe but single changes studied in test animals over their lifetime are big unknowns.
That is something I always wonder about when someone brings a naturalistic fallacy. Why would something that was made specifically for human consumption, with so many hoops to jump through to get approved for commercial use that can get withdrawn in a heartbeat if something turns out to be wrong, be bad for you? Do they think manufacturers are some sort of comic book villains who purposely make it unhealthy, twirling their mustaches while cackling how they'll make us all sick?
I'd guess that this is often about philosophy of conscious decision and responsibility. Nature is seen as an uncontrolled force to which we abdicate individual responsibility versus human actions with which we have some perception control and responsibility, which is then extended to the larger social structure.0 -
I tend to think it's more about burying our heads in the sand plus a general lack of understanding of the natural world. There's clearly a pervasive idea that nature and natural is safe while man-made is not.
Early education about Nazi scientific experiments and similar blunders in the name of science seems to stick more than volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, earthquakes, various poisonous species, drought, etc.0 -
0
-
0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Protip: don't listen to an antivaxxer about anything regarding science.
Care to share any scientific literature that would back up your opinion? Sorry, I just had to
0 -
As someone who is soaking up as much real information as one can; I cant even pretend to know as much as some of you good people, and this thread has been a fantastic read!! ...just saying.
This is what I think will happen:
Labels wont educate and that's what everyone really needs.
They will simply, identify.
"What will they identify?"
----Well, GMOs.
"Ok, what does that mean?"
..........blank stare.
EDIT: ....So I see no point.
0 -
TrailRunn3rMN wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Protip: don't listen to an antivaxxer about anything regarding science.
Care to share any scientific literature that would back up your opinion? Sorry, I just had to
To be fair, I think a couple of these threads are approaching the "Spot the Anti-Vaxxer" game.
In all honesty, this doesn't really surprise me. I didn't know, though, that organic meant non-GMO. So, I learned something today.0 -
TrailRunn3rMN wrote: »
9 out of 10 want it labeled is a number thrown out without any real evidence to it. The few times I've seen any evidence, it comes from straw polls among people that are anti-GMO.
Beyond that, most of it is argument ad monsatum. Which is funny because I'm rather anti-corporate, and so while I don't care for Monsanto as a corporation, in the yardstick of corporations, they're pretty mild. They donate every one of their legal case winnings to local charities. They donate crops and research towards projects to feed the poor. They honestly have a profit motive (which I normally don't like using as reasoning) to increase the world population (more customers) rather than all these weird giving cancer and sterilizing people conspiracy ideas.0 -
-
TrailRunn3rMN wrote: »
9 out of 10 want it labeled is a number thrown out without any real evidence to it. The few times I've seen any evidence, it comes from straw polls among people that are anti-GMO.
Beyond that, most of it is argument ad monsatum. Which is funny because I'm rather anti-corporate, and so while I don't care for Monsanto as a corporation, in the yardstick of corporations, they're pretty mild. They donate every one of their legal case winnings to local charities. They donate crops and research towards projects to feed the poor. They honestly have a profit motive (which I normally don't like using as reasoning) to increase the world population (more customers) rather than all these weird giving cancer and sterilizing people conspiracy ideas.
I hate that the anti-GMO crowd's argument often boils down to, "But MONSANTO!!!11!!one"
I get it. It looks like they do some shady things and I get that they're responsible for Agent Orange, but come on. There has to be a better argument against it than that.
(I understand that there is, but I'm referring to the people in the first sentence.)0 -
TrailRunn3rMN wrote: »
9 out of 10 want it labeled is a number thrown out without any real evidence to it. The few times I've seen any evidence, it comes from straw polls among people that are anti-GMO.
Beyond that, most of it is argument ad monsatum. Which is funny because I'm rather anti-corporate, and so while I don't care for Monsanto as a corporation, in the yardstick of corporations, they're pretty mild. They donate every one of their legal case winnings to local charities. They donate crops and research towards projects to feed the poor. They honestly have a profit motive (which I normally don't like using as reasoning) to increase the world population (more customers) rather than all these weird giving cancer and sterilizing people conspiracy ideas.
I hate that the anti-GMO crowd's argument often boils down to, "But MONSANTO!!!11!!one"
I get it. It looks like they do some shady things and I get that they're responsible for Agent Orange, but come on. There has to be a better argument against it than that.
(I understand that there is, but I'm referring to the people in the first sentence.)
US government is responsible for Agent Orange - they contracted Monsanto Chemical (which isn't exactly the same company as modern Monsanto Agro Science), Dow, and some others to produce it, with those companies actually advising the US government the requested formulation may not be safe.
Meanwhile Kroger has more influence on American agriculture and diet but no one claims they're trying to own the world food supply.
Much of the arguments against Monsanto stem from Greenpeace and their campaign to luddite the world as more important than using technology to actually improve the environment.0 -
TrailRunn3rMN wrote: »
9 out of 10 want it labeled is a number thrown out without any real evidence to it. The few times I've seen any evidence, it comes from straw polls among people that are anti-GMO.
Beyond that, most of it is argument ad monsatum. Which is funny because I'm rather anti-corporate, and so while I don't care for Monsanto as a corporation, in the yardstick of corporations, they're pretty mild. They donate every one of their legal case winnings to local charities. They donate crops and research towards projects to feed the poor. They honestly have a profit motive (which I normally don't like using as reasoning) to increase the world population (more customers) rather than all these weird giving cancer and sterilizing people conspiracy ideas.
I hate that the anti-GMO crowd's argument often boils down to, "But MONSANTO!!!11!!one"
I get it. It looks like they do some shady things and I get that they're responsible for Agent Orange, but come on. There has to be a better argument against it than that.
(I understand that there is, but I'm referring to the people in the first sentence.)
US government is responsible for Agent Orange - they contracted Monsanto Chemical (which isn't exactly the same company as modern Monsanto Agro Science), Dow, and some others to produce it, with those companies actually advising the US government the requested formulation may not be safe.
Meanwhile Kroger has more influence on American agriculture and diet but no one claims they're trying to own the world food supply.
Much of the arguments against Monsanto stem from Greenpeace and their campaign to luddite the world as more important than using technology to actually improve the environment.
Yup. It's a shame pesky reality gets in the way.0 -
TrailRunn3rMN wrote: »
9 out of 10 want it labeled is a number thrown out without any real evidence to it. The few times I've seen any evidence, it comes from straw polls among people that are anti-GMO.
Beyond that, most of it is argument ad monsatum. Which is funny because I'm rather anti-corporate, and so while I don't care for Monsanto as a corporation, in the yardstick of corporations, they're pretty mild. They donate every one of their legal case winnings to local charities. They donate crops and research towards projects to feed the poor. They honestly have a profit motive (which I normally don't like using as reasoning) to increase the world population (more customers) rather than all these weird giving cancer and sterilizing people conspiracy ideas.
I hate that the anti-GMO crowd's argument often boils down to, "But MONSANTO!!!11!!one"
I get it. It looks like they do some shady things and I get that they're responsible for Agent Orange, but come on. There has to be a better argument against it than that.
(I understand that there is, but I'm referring to the people in the first sentence.)
US government is responsible for Agent Orange - they contracted Monsanto Chemical (which isn't exactly the same company as modern Monsanto Agro Science), Dow, and some others to produce it, with those companies actually advising the US government the requested formulation may not be safe.
Meanwhile Kroger has more influence on American agriculture and diet but no one claims they're trying to own the world food supply.
Much of the arguments against Monsanto stem from Greenpeace and their campaign to luddite the world as more important than using technology to actually improve the environment.
Yup. It's a shame pesky reality gets in the way.
Yup, having been in O'Hare recently and seeing the touchy-feely Siemens ads (clean, right!) apparently history does not matter. Weird Monsanto is the demon. I shop pretty equally at TJs, WFs, Jewel (our mainstream grocer), and the meat and fish markets (more at the green market when in season and I currently get eggs and meat from a farm), and don't find Monsanto relevant.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csSw3fYnICc
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions