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: »kshama2001 wrote: »Who are the companies fighting for our right to know?
There are over 400 companies that actively support GMO labeling and increased transparency in the food system. They believe that consumers have a right to know about what’s in their food and are fighting for both state and national GMO labeling initiatives.
Full list of supporters:
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-supporters/
Another ad populum argument. If you don't have any real evidence, you should probably sit this one out. Fallacious arguments just make your position weaker.
Yep, it's pretty and all but it's a terrible way to make decisions.0 -
Hershey dumps sugar for… sugar. For food companies in GMO crosshairs, perception trumps science
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/02/22/hershey-dumps-sugar-for-sugar-for-food-companies-in-gmo-crosshairs-perception-trumps-science/0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
It's a good article but also a bit slanted into our pro GMO camp. For example, it skims over certain concerns by saying "research is being carried out" without truly addressing why these might be real concerns.
Granted. It's certainly not comprehensive or unbiased, but there are some good links to actual science in it, which conversations re GMOs often lack, and it's written in such a way as to be approachable and understood by anyone.0 -
Why we won’t be able to feed the world without GM
https://theconversation.com/why-we-wont-be-able-to-feed-the-world-without-gm-54442?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for February 11 2016 - 4280&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for February 11 2016 - 4280+CID_36e2ded400cb7ccea3fa6e6d9f757d17&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=Why we wont be able to feed the world without GM
One thing I remember vividly from my childhood is The Day of the Triffids. In John Wyndham’s apocalyptic novel, the triffids were carnivorous plants that didn’t need roots and had developed three legs to allow them to find prey (whose nitrogen they fed on instead). They were originally bred by humans to provide high-quality vegetable oil, since the growing population’s demand for food was outstripping supply. Initially contained on farms, the triffids escaped following an “extreme celestial event” and began to terrorise the human population.
Replace “breeding” with “genetic modification” and you have the contemporary cautionary tale about the threat of “Frankenfoods” to human health and the environment. But this raises another question – if we ignore their potential, what does it mean for human food requirements in the future?
The Day of the Triffids was first published in 1951, right at the start of the “green revolution”. The latest thing was breeding new varieties of cereal which were high-yielding. Together with other newly developed technologies including machinery – tractors and irrigation pumps – and synthetic inputs like pesticides and fertilisers, this helped double major commodity crop production between 1960 and 2000 to 2 billion tonnes worldwide, rebutting Malthusian fears about the world failing to feed its growing population.
In the last decade, the rosy glow has worn off a little. Growth in world crop yields has declined and is even stagnating, perhaps due to climate change – especially stress from heat and drought. Yields are no longer increasing fast enough to keep pace with projected demand. If current trends continue, we’ll need to expand our crop land by 42% by 2050. As a consequence, forests will be lost. Along with associated costs from requiring more water, plus the effects on biodiversity, this will increase agriculture’s greenhouse-gas emissions significantly. In total, agri-food is set to emit enough greenhouse gases to surpass the entirety of the 1.5℃ temperature-rise target called for in Paris for 2050.
There are basically two options: we can increase yields to meet demand without expanding area, and/or we can reduce demand enough to allow supply to catch up. Increasing supply in a sustainable way is perfectly possible. Some of this is about increasing efficiency through better farming, such as using precision agriculture to target the right amounts of fertilisers and pesticides to the right places.
Some of it is about changing land management to get the most out of agricultural land while maintaining ecosystem services, for example by managing the edges of fields as buffer strips to prevent chemicals being washed away by heavy rains; and as places with lots of wild flowers where bees can thrive to improve crop pollination. And some of it is about developing new animal and plant varieties that are more efficient, more productive or better able to cope with the changing environment.
New varieties can come about from various means. Conventional breeding continues to be important. But modern laboratories have given us more strings to our bow. Not all biotechnological approaches are genetic modification in the legal sense. Using chemicals or X-rays to create genetic variation has long been a mainstay of “conventional breeding”, for example. Other techniques – such as CRISPR – are arguably post-GM, in that they can involve the clinical editing of single genes without leaving a signature of foreign DNA. CRISPR can produce identical plants to those produced conventionally, but much faster. Yet for some people, biotechnological crop or livestock modification conjures up “triffidophobia”.
Just how wary should we be about new technologies? Conventional breeding has served us well, but can’t keep up with demand or the speed with which the weather is changing. Any change in farming practice has associated risks that need to be assessed and managed, but these also need to be weighed against the risks of doing nothing. To increase food supply to meet projected demand, farming in the same way as we do now, the emissions from deforestation and other changes will lock us into a world of 4-5℃ of climate change. Together with other significant costs to the environment and human health and well-being, that’s probably a greater risk than the alternative.
It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though. We still need to develop precision agriculture and smarter land use. And even if the gaps between current and required yields are halved – a big ask across the world – we’ll still need more land to meet demand. This would still impact on the likes of our water supply and create enough warming to challenge the Paris targets.
… or demand?
This is where the second option comes in – decreasing demand. Globally, we feed livestock about a third of all the calories we grow – enough to feed all the people in Asia. About a third of the food we grow is also lost or wasted. And across the world, many people overeat enough to make themselves ill through obesity, diabetes and so on. If we made wiser purchasing and consumption decisions, potentially we could halve current global demand for food. That would create space for sustainably feeding the growing population as well as growing biofuels and carbon storage in new forests.
For me, the message is clear. We are unsustainably using the planet’s resources to produce the food we demand, and there will be very negative results if we continue on the same trajectory. New technology can help, but needs assessed as it is developed. Old technology still has a role; as does reducing waste, over-consumption and meat-heavy diets. There is no simple answer but there is a toolbox, and we’ll need every tool at our disposal to address the challenge we created. Our technology won’t produce The Day of the Triffids, but without it, we may create a future Apocalypse Now.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
It's a good article but also a bit slanted into our pro GMO camp. For example, it skims over certain concerns by saying "research is being carried out" without truly addressing why these might be real concerns.
Granted. It's certainly not comprehensive or unbiased, but there are some good links to actual science in it, which conversations re GMOs often lack, and it's written in such a way as to be approachable and understood by anyone.
Yes it is. Thanks for posting it.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Please to explain how you can selectively breed plants that carry the plankton bioluminescent protein sequence.
Considering that it already happened once in plankton, evolution (whether driven by natural selection or artificial selection) could conceivably cause bio-luminescence again. Selective breeding works by the same mechanism that evolution does. Again - my point was never that it's reasonable or more effective to use selective breeding in place of laboratory GMOs, just that the end result is the same - an organism with genes that have been modified from the original. You're effectively strawmanning me here - my point was just that people already eat modified organisms everyday anyway. That's factual, and I doubt you'd dispute that.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Super large red-herring. Please to point out who in this thread says this. Again, since you like to stick to facts lets not try to paint the position of the those against GMOs in this thread as "tinfoil hat wearers" or carrying arguments that they don't voice.
You didn't say that no one in the thread was arguing that point, you said that no one was arguing that point. I quoted you. The red herring is on your end, I'm afraid.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »(For background I have a minor in biology and did cell culture research for over 8 years including cell line vat work, but my core is biomedical engineering.)
Well, you're certainly more educated in this subject than I am, so knowing that does give more weight to your points. I agree though that people should be able to debate these subjects based on information gained through non-traditional educational methods, or else I wouldn't be here arguing with you (since I do not have a degree in biology).
It's strange to me that the point I was making - that selectively bred organisms have been genetically modified in some way - is causing any type of debate. That's factually correct. I never argued that selective breeding is the same as laboratory manipulation; just that both result in a modified organism. I'm not sure what there is to argue with there; it's pretty obviously true.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »OneHundredToLose 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.
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).
Please to explain how you can selectively breed plants that carry the plankton bioluminescent protein sequence.
No, clearly GE is a step change in technology and capacity. When that time frame becomes impossible long then the statistical probability that it can be done reduces to insignificant. The fact that statistics and quantum mechanics says I can pass through the wall if I jump against it enough times doesn't mean that in real life terms it is possible. Or in the terms of economic reality even feasible.
Super large red-herring. Please to point out who in this thread says this. Again, since you like to stick to facts lets not try to paint the position of the those against GMOs in this thread as "tinfoil hat wearers" or carrying arguments that they don't voice.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.
Fair statement - but alas talking about pedestals ... "rampant ignorance" certainly positions your as being on your own pedestal. A lot of anti-GMOs people are quite far from that. I've spent serious hours having to educate myself on specific plasmid technology to argue with some of them. And as to my degrees or education - I try to never justify my position based on my education - I expect people to be able to dig deep into information independent of degrees. (For background I have a minor in biology and did cell culture research for over 8 years including cell line vat work, but my core is biomedical engineering.)
If you want to correct "rampant ignorance" a less bellicose method might go further than calling posters nonsense.
The experience she writes about - the increased use of certain pesticides with GMOs (since those crops are resistant) seems relevant.
Is it ironic that the poster right below you made pretty much the argument you called a red herring?0 -
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.0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Please to explain how you can selectively breed plants that carry the plankton bioluminescent protein sequence.
Considering that it already happened once in plankton, evolution (whether driven by natural selection or artificial selection) could conceivably cause bio-luminescence again. Selective breeding works by the same mechanism that evolution does. Again - my point was never that it's reasonable or more effective to use selective breeding in place of laboratory GMOs, just that the end result is the same - an organism with genes that have been modified from the original. You're effectively strawmanning me here - my point was just that people already eat modified organisms everyday anyway. That's factual, and I doubt you'd dispute that.
Since it has never happened in a plant via evolution (plankton being tiny animals) - I'm going to with "thousand monkeys for a thousand years won't type that Shakespeare's work".
Not sure what people eat has to do with your statement "the end result is the same. That is a fact." Clearly not - as shown by one example. The fact is that GE allows us to do things we cannot do otherwise, not in a thousand years.
People do eat organisms with genetic codes that have evolved or been purposefully modified. True. It doesn't mean that all those modifications in nature or in the lab are safe or a good idea. In fact, it would be a strong argument to not eat modified organisms because the selective pressure of natural selection has been one of creating natural defences. (but that's a silly aside.)
The fact is that there is no intrinsic argument that is valid to state that GMOs are safe or not safe. They aren't dangerous because they are "man made abominations" and they aren't miraculously safe because "man eats modified food already". It is and will remain a case by case evaluations. Any global argument (natural allegory like yours above) is bound to fail.
Obviously here - we aren't taking responsibility for the pointy headed ufo theorists living in a bomb shelter in Seattle. Although given the last few posts, I may be in rough water on that one.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Super large red-herring. Please to point out who in this thread says this. Again, since you like to stick to facts lets not try to paint the position of the those against GMOs in this thread as "tinfoil hat wearers" or carrying arguments that they don't voice.
You didn't say that no one in the thread was arguing that point, you said that no one was arguing that point. I quoted you. The red herring is on your end, I'm afraid.
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »(For background I have a minor in biology and did cell culture research for over 8 years including cell line vat work, but my core is biomedical engineering.)
Well, you're certainly more educated in this subject than I am, so knowing that does give more weight to your points. I agree though that people should be able to debate these subjects based on information gained through non-traditional educational methods, or else I wouldn't be here arguing with you (since I do not have a degree in biology).
It's strange to me that the point I was making - that selectively bred organisms have been genetically modified in some way - is causing any type of debate. That's factually correct. I never argued that selective breeding is the same as laboratory manipulation; just that both result in a modified organism. I'm not sure what there is to argue with there; it's pretty obviously true.
It might be semantics. I took you to mean "same end result" as specifically the change examples and I think you meant the end result of "modified stuff". In the sense you seem to have meant it - I agree - GE modifies food and we already eat modified food.
(As to the degree stuff - I always ignore arguments based on a person's degree or affiliation - We'd be listening to the kooks from Harvard all day long. Does the content make sense?)
The real questions are going to be how do those new modifications flourish in the field - do they impact other crops in ways we don't know can some of those changes create significant changes in their environment. Here is a realistic example. A few modifications have transferred to other species (this is natural - it occurs in nature for non-GMO crops).... what do you think would happen if the round-up resistant gene got "picked up" by kudzu or a pesticide resistant gene got picked up by the potato bug?
Or as was mentioned up stream - when farmers use a round-up resistant crop and later try to convert the same land to another crop, it can be catastrophic because they've overused the pesticide.
Or the reduction in heirloom and varietals (that might be resistant to certain pests) because the focus is on efficiency and productivity.
It's complex. I'm pro GE and GMOs but find that research and pressure to use is such - for now - with over 600 new uses published last year that it is only a matter of time before we go "oops".
We have a history of f.cking up. Cats in Australia, kudzu, asian clams in the great lakes....there are literally 100s of examples of biosphere mistakes we've made. How are we not going to make them with GMO's? By being extremely suspect and requiring high standards.
(The whole labelling debate is silly - it wastes energy from where real effort and oversight should be placed. Can anyone name a member of a national bioethics committee member of their country? Without Googling?)
0 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions