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.
Non-GMO foods aren't any safer or healthier
Caroline393
Posts: 71 Member
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm tired of hearing about how a food is so much healthier because it's "organic" or not genetically modified. And when I search for healthy recipes, all this stuff comes up about "GMO-free!" GMOs are safe, people!
27
Replies
-
I almost totally agree. Just because an organism has been genetically modified doesn't make it unsafe to eat.
Personally, the main reason I tend to avoid GMO foods is that I'm concerned about what plants are being genetically modified for, namely, Roundup resistance. I don't like the idea of participating in a food production system that puts lots of Roundup into the soil and water.
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere. That last one does, albeit indirectly, affect our health.
Maybe the reason there's overlap between advertisements for healthy recipes and non-GMO products is that there's overlap between the populations of people who care about the healthfulness of what they're eating and the people who care about the health of the economy, biosphere, and non-crop organisms.
I'm kind of tempted to include links to research on the stuff I mentioned, but you can look it up yourself if you feel moved to. I don't want to come across as evangelical; I certainly don't feel that way. You do you
26 -
samwiserabbit wrote: »
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere.
I would advise you to hear opinions of real farmers and food producers. Many of them tried organic production and found it unsustainable.
Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides, having crops that are pest resistant and therefore eliminating the use of pesticides these are the things that can secure our future and feed the world.
Not to mention some organic practices are much worse than conventional farming, just to mention not using antibiotics in animals...16 -
I tend to opt for organic items more out of an ethical standpoint than anything else. The patenting and without bar approach to GMOs via corporations, especially Monsanto, is something that in the long run I don't see as bringing any good. Immediate side effects for GMOs are mostly nill, but long-term is still unknown.16
-
Fearmongering is how some products are sold, like appeal to authority or emotion.19
-
samwiserabbit wrote: »I almost totally agree. Just because an organism has been genetically modified doesn't make it unsafe to eat.
Personally, the main reason I tend to avoid GMO foods is that I'm concerned about what plants are being genetically modified for, namely, Roundup resistance. I don't like the idea of participating in a food production system that puts lots of Roundup into the soil and water.
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere. That last one does, albeit indirectly, affect our health.
Maybe the reason there's overlap between advertisements for healthy recipes and non-GMO products is that there's overlap between the populations of people who care about the healthfulness of what they're eating and the people who care about the health of the economy, biosphere, and non-crop organisms.
I'm kind of tempted to include links to research on the stuff I mentioned, but you can look it up yourself if you feel moved to. I don't want to come across as evangelical; I certainly don't feel that way. You do you
^^ All of this.
Plus, all GMOs are not the same. You can no more extrapolate from one GMO being safe to assuming that all GMOs are safe than you can extrapolate from one non-GMO being safe to assuming that all non-GMOs are safe. Non-GMO hemlock will kill me, and I think I should have the right to know whether the food I'm eating has hemlock genes spliced into it.
I'm not inclined to trust anyone who argues not only that I shouldn't have the right to know that there are GMO ingredients in the foods that I buy, but that food producers that don't use GMOs shouldn't even be allowed to tell me that, which is something that the GMO industry has argued.
Take the farm-raised salmon with the growth-hormone-regulating gene from another fish spliced into it, which was recently approved by the FDA. I was slightly concerned, but I read about it (because, wow, I could get information, even though the GMO industry clearly would rather I didn't!), and confirmed that the fish the gene was being borrowed from is also one that humans eat, which to me makes this particular GMO seem low-risk. If I were looking at farm-raised salmon in the grocery store, and one of them was labeled GMO and the other non-GMO, it would be a non-issue for me.
That doesn't mean that every possible combination of borrowed genes would raise zero concern for me. And any industry that seeks to deny me access to information I need to make decisions based on my own preferences, priorities, and level of risk aversion is just creating a trust barrier.
17 -
samwiserabbit wrote: »
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere.
I would advise you to hear opinions of real farmers and food producers. Many of them tried organic production and found it unsustainable.
Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides, having crops that are pest resistant and therefore eliminating the use of pesticides these are the things that can secure our future and feed the world.
Not to mention some organic practices are much worse than conventional farming, just to mention not using antibiotics in animals...
And these comments might be relevant if the thread were about organic foods rather than GMO v. non-GMO.5 -
I'm tired of hearing about how GMO's are completely safe.
But I guess it does make sense, I mean why would the people making a huge profit off of them lie to us?
Why should they have to prove they are safe, I mean it's only FOOD and the environment.
you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.17 -
I just hate all the misinformation and fear-mongering surrounding GMOs despite the FDA and numerous other organizations finding them completely harmless to consume. The reason patents exist is no different than for drugs- R&D costs are high, so for a certain amount of time after they are approved and available on the market, the company who developed them gets to be the only one selling and recoup their costs. That's what drives research and innovation, and I think it's fair. Eventually it will expire and other companies will be able to market their own versions. Secondly, scientists aren't just randomly splicing some genes together and hoping they'll achieve a result they like. They know exactly what genes they are removing and inserting and have a very good idea of what its effects will be. Thirdly, like someone said above, organic farming isn't nearly as sustainable as industrial farming is. It uses far more land and produces less food. They also still use pesticides- they just fall under different requirements, and some may not be any better for us or the environment. Genetic modification is also hugely beneficial to some third-world countries. Just look at Golden Rice. It was genetically engineered to bio-synthesize beta-carotene to help combat vitamin A deficiencies which kill about 670,000 children under the age of 5 annually. And the "evil" Monsanto (as I've heard it described so many times) gives it to subsistence farmers for free and allows them to keep the seed for replanting, free of royalties.
So I think there's huge opportunity for GMOs to fight malnutrition and starvation around the world, if people would stop being so afraid and uninformed. By all means, know what's in your food, but get good information from reliable sources. I have no issues with GMO products being labeled except for the fact that it's likely to hurt sales for those products in this current climate of fear.15 -
Any food you eat is GMO by some method. In fact, "Non-GMO" translates directly to "More Expensive".9
-
Also true. Humans have been genetically modifying our food and animals since we quit becoming hunter-gatherers. Just look at corn, watermelon, and peaches as they are now and what they looked like wild and before domestication. The only difference now is that we can do what took hundreds of years now in a single generation. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-foods-looked-like-before-genetic-modification-2016-19
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »samwiserabbit wrote: »
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere.
I would advise you to hear opinions of real farmers and food producers. Many of them tried organic production and found it unsustainable.
Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides, having crops that are pest resistant and therefore eliminating the use of pesticides these are the things that can secure our future and feed the world.
Not to mention some organic practices are much worse than conventional farming, just to mention not using antibiotics in animals...
And these comments might be relevant if the thread were about organic foods rather than GMO v. non-GMO.
Non GMO is one of the principles of organic farming and although they are not the same I think there is a huge overlap. The point was raised about personal impact on farmers and economy and this is one of the biggest misconception about gmo crops, they are actually better, easier and safer in terms of profit than non gmo. And the only reason a farmer cannot grow gmo crops is if he goes organic.6 -
Just here to point out that exposing plants to mutagens like radiation is one of the methods of conventional, non-GMO breeding.2
-
Caroline393 wrote: »Also true. Humans have been genetically modifying our food and animals since we quit becoming hunter-gatherers. Just look at corn, watermelon, and peaches as they are now and what they looked like wild and before domestication. The only difference now is that we can do what took hundreds of years now in a single generation. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-foods-looked-like-before-genetic-modification-2016-1
Yes, @Caroline393. We picked AGRICULTURE! How could we pick AGRICULTURE?! We now have even LESS time for scoodlypooping!
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yocja_N5s1I?list=PLBDA2E52FB1EF80C90 -
samwiserabbit wrote: »
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere.
I would advise you to hear opinions of real farmers and food producers. Many of them tried organic production and found it unsustainable.
Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides, having crops that are pest resistant and therefore eliminating the use of pesticides these are the things that can secure our future and feed the world.
Not to mention some organic practices are much worse than conventional farming, just to mention not using antibiotics in animals...
There is more than enough food produced today to feed the world's starving but so much is wasted that it doesn't get to the weakest people in the world (http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/). This waste also negatively affects the environment (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45816#.V109kPmLSUk).
I also think we should think about some other ethical issues at play here. If you really want to help the world's starving you don't sell poor farmers GMOs and then force them to buy pesticides at exorbitant prices with no chance of price control. This is cynical capitalism and takes away a desperate farmer's ability to grow food and be independent (http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/bitter-seeds-documentary-reveals-tragic-toll-of-gmos-in-india/). Companies like Monsanto are holding farmers hostage.
In any case, GMOs will not solve the world's food distribution problem which is really keeping food from the mouths of the world's starving.9 -
gogoyubarino wrote: »samwiserabbit wrote: »
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere.
I would advise you to hear opinions of real farmers and food producers. Many of them tried organic production and found it unsustainable.
Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides, having crops that are pest resistant and therefore eliminating the use of pesticides these are the things that can secure our future and feed the world.
Not to mention some organic practices are much worse than conventional farming, just to mention not using antibiotics in animals...
There is more than enough food produced today to feed the world's starving but so much is wasted that it doesn't get to the weakest people in the world (http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/). This waste also negatively affects the environment (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45816#.V109kPmLSUk).
I also think we should think about some other ethical issues at play here. If you really want to help the world's starving you don't sell poor farmers GMOs and then force them to buy pesticides at exorbitant prices with no chance of price control. This is cynical capitalism and takes away a desperate farmer's ability to grow food and be independent (http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/bitter-seeds-documentary-reveals-tragic-toll-of-gmos-in-india/). Companies like Monsanto are holding farmers hostage.
In any case, GMOs will not solve the world's food distribution problem which is really keeping food from the mouths of the world's starving.
The problem with getting food to the weakest people is one of transportation mostly. Being able to grow foods on site instead of having to transport them there is favorable and breeds that are resistant to suboptimal growing conditions are part of that. As is, mostly non-perishables can be sent to the needy.6 -
Caroline393 wrote: »I just hate all the misinformation and fear-mongering surrounding GMOs despite the FDA and numerous other organizations finding them completely harmless to consume. The reason patents exist is no different than for drugs- R&D costs are high, so for a certain amount of time after they are approved and available on the market, the company who developed them gets to be the only one selling and recoup their costs. That's what drives research and innovation, and I think it's fair. Eventually it will expire and other companies will be able to market their own versions. Secondly, scientists aren't just randomly splicing some genes together and hoping they'll achieve a result they like. They know exactly what genes they are removing and inserting and have a very good idea of what its effects will be. Thirdly, like someone said above, organic farming isn't nearly as sustainable as industrial farming is. It uses far more land and produces less food. They also still use pesticides- they just fall under different requirements, and some may not be any better for us or the environment. Genetic modification is also hugely beneficial to some third-world countries. Just look at Golden Rice. It was genetically engineered to bio-synthesize beta-carotene to help combat vitamin A deficiencies which kill about 670,000 children under the age of 5 annually. And the "evil" Monsanto (as I've heard it described so many times) gives it to subsistence farmers for free and allows them to keep the seed for replanting, free of royalties.
So I think there's huge opportunity for GMOs to fight malnutrition and starvation around the world, if people would stop being so afraid and uninformed. By all means, know what's in your food, but get good information from reliable sources. I have no issues with GMO products being labeled except for the fact that it's likely to hurt sales for those products in this current climate of fear.
Yes, because the FDA is never wrong, that's why several years down the road a drug that was passed by the FDA is recalled because it causes severe health issues. Just sayin'....10 -
I miss watermelon with seeds...they tasted better. And those baby ones!!! The worst tasting thing on the planet. Corn, however, is better. My thornless raspberries are to die for.
Seedless watermelons and thornless raspberries are good examples of traditional breeding rather than being GMOs.
Tangentially, what I can't stand is seeing big "GMO-free!" food labels on things that obviously wouldn't have GMOs in it. Producing a commercial GMO is a hugely expensive and time-consuming process. When I see that label on something like coconut oil, its like they want a gold star for not using commercial GMO coconuts. Which don't exist. Its just silly marketing, fear-mongering, and perpetuating a distorted impression of all GMOs.
12 -
Caroline393 wrote: »I just hate all the misinformation and fear-mongering surrounding GMOs despite the FDA and numerous other organizations finding them completely harmless to consume. The reason patents exist is no different than for drugs- R&D costs are high, so for a certain amount of time after they are approved and available on the market, the company who developed them gets to be the only one selling and recoup their costs. That's what drives research and innovation, and I think it's fair. Eventually it will expire and other companies will be able to market their own versions. Secondly, scientists aren't just randomly splicing some genes together and hoping they'll achieve a result they like. They know exactly what genes they are removing and inserting and have a very good idea of what its effects will be. Thirdly, like someone said above, organic farming isn't nearly as sustainable as industrial farming is. It uses far more land and produces less food. They also still use pesticides- they just fall under different requirements, and some may not be any better for us or the environment. Genetic modification is also hugely beneficial to some third-world countries. Just look at Golden Rice. It was genetically engineered to bio-synthesize beta-carotene to help combat vitamin A deficiencies which kill about 670,000 children under the age of 5 annually. And the "evil" Monsanto (as I've heard it described so many times) gives it to subsistence farmers for free and allows them to keep the seed for replanting, free of royalties.
So I think there's huge opportunity for GMOs to fight malnutrition and starvation around the world, if people would stop being so afraid and uninformed. By all means, know what's in your food, but get good information from reliable sources. I have no issues with GMO products being labeled except for the fact that it's likely to hurt sales for those products in this current climate of fear.
Yes, because the FDA is never wrong, that's why several years down the road a drug that was passed by the FDA is recalled because it causes severe health issues. Just sayin'....
If you live by that, you can't eat anything because it might turn out years down the road that it's not healthy. Even fruits and veggies. Too much fiber might increase risk of colon cancer for example. Just sayin'...11 -
stevencloser wrote: »Caroline393 wrote: »I just hate all the misinformation and fear-mongering surrounding GMOs despite the FDA and numerous other organizations finding them completely harmless to consume. The reason patents exist is no different than for drugs- R&D costs are high, so for a certain amount of time after they are approved and available on the market, the company who developed them gets to be the only one selling and recoup their costs. That's what drives research and innovation, and I think it's fair. Eventually it will expire and other companies will be able to market their own versions. Secondly, scientists aren't just randomly splicing some genes together and hoping they'll achieve a result they like. They know exactly what genes they are removing and inserting and have a very good idea of what its effects will be. Thirdly, like someone said above, organic farming isn't nearly as sustainable as industrial farming is. It uses far more land and produces less food. They also still use pesticides- they just fall under different requirements, and some may not be any better for us or the environment. Genetic modification is also hugely beneficial to some third-world countries. Just look at Golden Rice. It was genetically engineered to bio-synthesize beta-carotene to help combat vitamin A deficiencies which kill about 670,000 children under the age of 5 annually. And the "evil" Monsanto (as I've heard it described so many times) gives it to subsistence farmers for free and allows them to keep the seed for replanting, free of royalties.
So I think there's huge opportunity for GMOs to fight malnutrition and starvation around the world, if people would stop being so afraid and uninformed. By all means, know what's in your food, but get good information from reliable sources. I have no issues with GMO products being labeled except for the fact that it's likely to hurt sales for those products in this current climate of fear.
Yes, because the FDA is never wrong, that's why several years down the road a drug that was passed by the FDA is recalled because it causes severe health issues. Just sayin'....
If you live by that, you can't eat anything because it might turn out years down the road that it's not healthy. Even fruits and veggies. Too much fiber might increase risk of colon cancer for example. Just sayin'...
I don't go by any of it, I was just saying that the FDA can be wrong...mainly because the companies that want the product to go through have lied through their teeth, but the FDA does not do any testing of their own so the statement above saying that they have found GMO's to be completely safe is not something that gives me great comfort.4 -
Luckily gmo are banned for sale in the uk but many here get gmo and selective "breeding" mixed up and get all militant about something natural.5
-
@gogoyubarino Right, much of the issue is a distribution problem. And a lot of the waste stems from the result of heavy regulations on when food must be sold by. Grocery stores have to throw out tons of perfectly edible food all the time because of that. I think somewhere in Europe they've either relaxed regulations or passed new legislation saying stores must donate unsold, unspoiled food to food banks or something like that, which I think is a good step to take.
However, the world's population is expected to reach 9.5 billion people by 2050 (according to the UN), and that means somehow we're going to have pretty much double food output while using about the same amount of land that we do now. How are we going to do that? Well, Monsanto is developing drought-resistant strains of corn and wheat, which make up the large portion of people's diets around the world and account for half the calories they consume. They are donating these genetic markers and breeding resources to several drought-prone African countries who sometimes suffer from total crop failures due to drought.
GM crops and other biotech advances will undoubtedly play a huge part in being able to increase global food output. And if that technology can be shared with the people who need it the most, then that will help alleviate the distribution problem as well.4 -
samwiserabbit wrote: »
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere.
I would advise you to hear opinions of real farmers and food producers. Many of them tried organic production and found it unsustainable.
Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides, having crops that are pest resistant and therefore eliminating the use of pesticides these are the things that can secure our future and feed the world.
Not to mention some organic practices are much worse than conventional farming, just to mention not using antibiotics in animals...
This is going to sound like a line, but it's true: Some of my best friends are farmers and food producers, mostly organic, but not totally. It sounds like yours are, too. Cool. And cool that they tried organic.
Also, Round Up (by Monsanto) is an herbicide, that's why crops are bred or genetically modified (by Monsanto) to be resistant to it, so farmers can use a lot of it on their fields to kill the undesired vegetation without affecting the crop. Sorry to pick on one little word, though, maybe I misunderstood.5 -
I'm tired of hearing about how GMO's are completely safe.
But I guess it does make sense, I mean why would the people making a huge profit off of them lie to us?
Why should they have to prove they are safe, I mean it's only FOOD and the environment.
you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.
Actually, profit margins on food production are pretty narrow, which is one of the big reasons that so much of it has been consolidated into high volume operations. If you can only make a small profit on a product, the only way to increase income is to sell more product.
But no one ever seems to ask, "why would anyone who makes money by producing and selling food go out of their way to deliberately sell products that sicken and kill their customers?" If your business relies on volume to make money, shrinking your customer base is a poor business move. They have a lot more to lose than to gain by pushing unsafe food onto the market.
There's a huge logic disconnect with those who claim conspiracies to profit by selling poison as food. That disconnect seems to stem from a failure to grasp fundamental economics.15 -
Caroline393 wrote: »... it's "organic" or not genetically modified.
You do appreciate that organic <> not genetrically modified, they are different things.
Whilst I acknowledge that artificially modified foods are as safe to consume as breeding modified foods, I do have some open questions about the wider impact on the environment and the business practices exhibited by suppliers. That said I'd note a significant difference between the agriculture industries in the UK and the US, both requiring significant state aid, but somewhat less monoculture in the UK.
0 -
Does the anti-gmo crowd realize that many organic seeds are patented as well? And that organic uses pesticides as well, such as copper sulfate?10
-
There is a difference between selectively breeding/developing/hybridizing and genetically modifying. Not all gmo's are bad, but I prefer to avoid them when possible.5
-
And this is funny (copied from a post above): you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.4
-
joeneely71 wrote: »There is a difference between selectively breeding/developing/hybridizing and genetically modifying. Not all gmo's are bad, but I prefer to avoid them when possible.
17 -
I'm a GMO. You're a GMO. All your foods are GMOs. Some were modified faster but what does that matter? The only reason you fear GMOs is scientific illiteracy.12
-
I'm tired of hearing about how GMO's are completely safe.
But I guess it does make sense, I mean why would the people making a huge profit off of them lie to us?
Why should they have to prove they are safe, I mean it's only FOOD and the environment.
you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.
Why do they need to prove something safe when there's no logical or scientific evidence to suggest they aren't?9
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