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
Options
Replies
-
Forget about "GM" for a moment. The big problem is the glyphosate residue in the grains because glyphosate products, such as RoundUp, were sprayed on the fields during plant growth. Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1
" In view of the absence of
carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral
route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the
Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure
through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolites
of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland."1 -
Forget about "GM" for a moment. The big problem is the glyphosate residue in the grains because glyphosate products, such as RoundUp, were sprayed on the fields during plant growth. Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
Glyphosate is used on a lot more crops than GMOs.2 -
Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
Care to give us a citation or 2 to back this up. Because it's wrong:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/0 -
Leesa_Michelle wrote: »GMO foods I believe we're started by scientists who I think had the best intentions, but now is only used as a means to make corporations money.
Huge logic disconnect here. If the GMO's don't perform as claimed, are bad to eat, and the corporations have to fund studies and pay scientists to lie about the results... how exactly are they making money from them?
There simply is no profit incentive to push a known faulty product that costs more to produce than its proven conventional counterpart. Without profit incentive, the whole "evil Monsanto" conspiracy theory falls apart.
4 -
lithezebra wrote: »Forget about "GM" for a moment. The big problem is the glyphosate residue in the grains because glyphosate products, such as RoundUp, were sprayed on the fields during plant growth. Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
Glyphosate is used on a lot more crops than GMOs.
For example, in wet years it is sprayed on (non-GMO) pulse crops to dry them out for harvest... I assume it's not sprayed on the organic crops, but in those years there would be high crop losses for the organic farmers so the price would go up...
**used to work in a laboratory that tested the crops to see if the glyphosate levels were low enough to be sold in Europe--I believe the plan was to switch to paraquat if glyphosate got outlawed (paraquat is far more toxic)**2 -
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..."
This is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to, but I do have a question: are you employed by "Big Food" in any way? Or, "Big Agriculture"? Your posts sound like talking points.
I have little knowledge on the topic, but I think I've heard that Europe doesn't allow GMO products. They also don't allow other things that the US Government deems safe (the latter maybe in part because of lobbyists' influence?)0 -
@Leesa_Micheele
What issue do you take with genetic engineering as a tool that would suggest that any product produced in part utilizing that tool would be dangerous?
Also what do you mean when you say "GMO science"? Do you mean the process of genetic engineer? That isn't really a science persay, that is a toolkit developed through the study of molecular biology and genetics not a scientific discipline itself really. So it is hard to know what you mean when you say "GMO science".1 -
I literally went down the list in Google.Now, perhaps, if you are he type of person that doesn't like or agree with science
Okay typing something into google and then copy pasting the top hits isn't doing research and it isn't an accurate representation of the scientific consensus and not agreeing with whatever article you happen to find on google states is not somehow evidence that someone does not "like or agree with science". Google runs a sorting algorithm called page-rank that basically determines what the searcher is most likely interested in by sorting pages on the basis of how many clicks they get and how many clicks what they link to or from get. It is a popularity contest based on the search term that you decided to search with, not a representation of the consensus of the scientific community. If people tend to click on sensationalistic stories written by bloggers about the dangers of GMOs then that will be at the top of the google search for "GMO dangers".
That certainly is not a way of conducting scientific research nor is it a way of determining what the scientific consensus is.
If you are actually curious as to what the scientific consensus is then you should go to a search page dedicated to the scientific literature such as pubmed. You should select to search reviews which are summaries of the scientific literature on given topics written by experts in the field and you should read those and then follow up on what they cite as the primary literature.
Making google searches is not conducting research, I am sorry.
Alternatively given your background in journalism you might just seek out a scientist with experience in molecular biology or genetics and ask them what they think about the topic given their experience and expertise. Or you could talk to farmers.
14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »And this is why semantic arguments bore me. You ignore the substance of what I said in favor of making a point to bring up something that everyone already understands as a way if being superior. Well congratulations I guess.
I don't think most people understand that but I am sorry for wasting your time with my comment. It really wasn't about superiority, it was about showing how food has been genetically modified longer than people think. In my own experiences, when people talk about GMO's, they usually speak as if all of it is done in a laboratory by "evil scientists" or something. I was just trying to dispel that myth.
EDIT: I goofed up in removing my previous quotation.
1 -
benjaminhk wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »And this is why semantic arguments bore me. You ignore the substance of what I said in favor of making a point to bring up something that everyone already understands as a way if being superior. Well congratulations I guess.
I don't think most people understand that but I am sorry for wasting your time with my comment. It really wasn't about superiority, it was about showing how food has been genetically modified longer than people think. In my own experiences, when people talk about GMO's, they usually speak as if all of it is done in a laboratory by "evil scientists" or something. I was just trying to dispel that myth.
EDIT: I goofed up in removing my previous quotation.
Fair enough Ben, apologies if I came off as being snarky. I get that there are those who feel like it is an actually conspiracy but to be honest I have no idea how to approach someone who literally believes that the scientific community is some sort of new-world order enacting a master plan.
I am talking to those who feel that there may be some legitimate concerns with genetically manipulating food crops and who use the term "genetically modified organism" to mean specifically food crops altered by companies for profit. I do understand the term is vague and misleading however in trying to talk with respect to those people I prefer to not lead off by mocking their terminology but rather by talking to them about what their actual concerns are. That is all.2 -
Sorry if this is cross-posted elsewhere on the thread......Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides...
Maybe I'm mis-reading your words, but Roundup (glyphosphate) IS an herbicide. A powerful one. It doesn't kill pests (i.e. it is not a pesticide). It kills plants and grasses. Of all kinds.
The idea of Roundup-ready crops is that they are genetically modified so they can withstand the massive doses of the herbicide and not die. This allows farmers to kill the weeds and grasses while the crops survive. So no, it does not "save" fields in the sense of preventing/reducing the use of herbicides. The herbicides are still used, and in huge quantities.
I think farmers are a bit stuck. I am sure many would like to grow organic if they could, but it's not cost-effective for the average Joe. If they want to produce enough crops to make ends meet, they have to ensure the crops aren't overrun by weeds, grasses, and pests. Consumers don't like buying odd-shaped veggies or lettuce with worm holes. So, what's a farmer to do? Either buy the GMO seeds and use herbicides and pesticides, or potentially go out of business.2 -
sugaraddict4321 wrote: »
Sorry if this is cross-posted elsewhere on the thread......Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides...
Maybe I'm mis-reading your words, but Roundup (glyphosphate) IS an herbicide. A powerful one. It doesn't kill pests (i.e. it is not a pesticide). It kills plants and grasses. Of all kinds.
The idea of Roundup-ready crops is that they are genetically modified so they can withstand the massive doses of the herbicide and not die. This allows farmers to kill the weeds and grasses while the crops survive. So no, it does not "save" fields in the sense of preventing/reducing the use of herbicides. The herbicides are still used, and in huge quantities.
I think farmers are a bit stuck. I am sure many would like to grow organic if they could, but it's not cost-effective for the average Joe. If they want to produce enough crops to make ends meet, they have to ensure the crops aren't overrun by weeds, grasses, and pests. Consumers don't like buying odd-shaped veggies or lettuce with worm holes. So, what's a farmer to do? Either buy the GMO seeds and use herbicides and pesticides, or potentially go out of business.
Or they can buy the organic seeds and still use pesticides and herbicides, just ones that are organic, not as effective, require more applications and are more toxic.
1 -
Well I'm glad I've been busy with other things....2
-
sugaraddict4321 wrote: »
Sorry if this is cross-posted elsewhere on the thread......Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides...
Maybe I'm mis-reading your words, but Roundup (glyphosphate) IS an herbicide. A powerful one. It doesn't kill pests (i.e. it is not a pesticide). It kills plants and grasses. Of all kinds.
The idea of Roundup-ready crops is that they are genetically modified so they can withstand the massive doses of the herbicide and not die. This allows farmers to kill the weeds and grasses while the crops survive. So no, it does not "save" fields in the sense of preventing/reducing the use of herbicides. The herbicides are still used, and in huge quantities.
I think farmers are a bit stuck. I am sure many would like to grow organic if they could, but it's not cost-effective for the average Joe. If they want to produce enough crops to make ends meet, they have to ensure the crops aren't overrun by weeds, grasses, and pests. Consumers don't like buying odd-shaped veggies or lettuce with worm holes. So, what's a farmer to do? Either buy the GMO seeds and use herbicides and pesticides, or potentially go out of business.
I'm pretty sure that she meant that glyphosate saved fields from the use of other, more harmful herbicides
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/2 -
Glyphosphate application is pretty interesting because it takes very little compared to many conventional herbicides. It is also extremely quickly broken down in the environment, whereas many conventional herbicides are quite persistent.2
-
I can see points with both sides. I can see why some believe it's safe and I can also see where concerns are coming from.
I am wondering about a couple things.
First, is there anything saying the GMO foods are not only safe, but also healthier and better for humans than the all natural/original counterparts?
Second, and my biggest concern with GMO foods has to do with the recent scientific finding in the last year on the intestinal micro biome. Up until about a year ago scientists didn't think the micro in our intestines could get past the brain barrier, but within the last year they have found where these micro biome can get past that barrier through lymphatic transfer. This was quite a shocking find, since for decades they believed it could never happen. But one reason science is so great is because they're always testing themselves and their work and willing to be wrong. Now, science is looking into how the intestine micro biome can affect a slew of issues and/or change various make ups in our body (mental health issues, autoimmune conditions, body composition, and so forth). I don't believe they've started working on GMO foods and how their genetic makeup can affect our brain when it comes to these specific micro biomes, but it is a concern of mine. It concerns me for many reasons ranging from these genes getting to and perhaps affecting our brains to perhaps changing our genetic makeup. I hope science does get to it rather quickly, but they are rather busy I am sure with just the fact that this is a brand new scientific find. It makes scientific findings like this to humble me and remind me just how little we truly know about the human body.
I don't know if this is even anything you'd all be interested in, but I thought it was a decent concern to state as it's had me thinking about it a lot. I'm always open to see evidence on both sides. As far as I know, there is zero scientific studies though on GMOs and the intestinal micro biome, especially linking the two to the brain, but if there is, I'd love to see it!1 -
TheFair0ne wrote: »I can see points with both sides. I can see why some believe it's safe and I can also see where concerns are coming from.
I am wondering about a couple things.
First, is there anything saying the GMO foods are not only safe, but also healthier and better for humans than the all natural/original counterparts?
Second, and my biggest concern with GMO foods has to do with the recent scientific finding in the last year on the intestinal micro biome. Up until about a year ago scientists didn't think the micro in our intestines could get past the brain barrier, but within the last year they have found where these micro biome can get past that barrier through lymphatic transfer. This was quite a shocking find, since for decades they believed it could never happen. But one reason science is so great is because they're always testing themselves and their work and willing to be wrong. Now, science is looking into how the intestine micro biome can affect a slew of issues and/or change various make ups in our body (mental health issues, autoimmune conditions, body composition, and so forth). I don't believe they've started working on GMO foods and how their genetic makeup can affect our brain when it comes to these specific micro biomes, but it is a concern of mine. It concerns me for many reasons ranging from these genes getting to and perhaps affecting our brains to perhaps changing our genetic makeup. I hope science does get to it rather quickly, but they are rather busy I am sure with just the fact that this is a brand new scientific find. It makes scientific findings like this to humble me and remind me just how little we truly know about the human body.
I don't know if this is even anything you'd all be interested in, but I thought it was a decent concern to state as it's had me thinking about it a lot. I'm always open to see evidence on both sides. As far as I know, there is zero scientific studies though on GMOs and the intestinal micro biome, especially linking the two to the brain, but if there is, I'd love to see it!
GMO products are not somehow lumped into one category. "GMO"s are anything produced in part utilizing genetic engineering techniques. Each product has to be evaluated individually, you cannot make just broad sweeping statements about them all. This makes it impossible to answer questions like "are GMO foods healthier and better than natural/original counterparts?".
Think of it this way. If I bought a product that was made in part using a hammer and I was concerned because I heard that some products made with hammers might be dangerous so I then asked you "Are products made with hammers not only safe but preferable to products not made with hammers?" what would you say to that? I assume you would ask "well...which product specifically and what about it has you concerned or what do you want it to do?"
Questions like "are GMOs better for health" are far to vague to answer honestly.
As for your question regarding microbiomes I didn't quite follow it I'm sorry. Are you asking if your nutritional health can have an affect on your brain? Well...yeah. I mean if you are malnourished in someway then yes that can have an affect. There is absolutely no reason though to suspect that any product produced in any part with any level of genetic engineering is going to negatively affect your microbiome in a way that causes some sort of malnourishment. As far as "genes getting into and affecting our brains" that doesn't really make sense I'm sorry, that isn't really how genetics works.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "a study of GMOs on intestinal microbiomes linking to the brain". That is a bit random.
What is your background or what is it specifically that you haveread that causes you to think this is a concern?0 -
Hopefully, the below can clear up my concerns when it comes to GMOs and our intestinal micro biome. When I state GMOs, I'm talking about any and all that we consume.
The original study that found lymph vessels in the brain, hence the bypass of the blood-brain barrier:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7560/full/nature14432.html
A few selected papers from before the brain discovery, regarding the intestinal microbiome and various conditions (including those using the lymphatic system):
http://www.nature.com/nri/journal/v9/n5/full/nri2515.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23197411
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3337124/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056765/
Some papers around intestinal microbiota and mental health effects (from before there was even a causal mechanism known, such as the lymphatic system):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25415497
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413014736 (published in Cell)
http://neuroscienceresearch.wustl.edu/userfiles/file/Microbiota and nuerodevelopemental windows_implications for brain disord .pdf
So, in essence, we spent decades upon decades ignoring the microorganisms we host that outnumber our own cells by easily an order of magnitude, and then discounted any possible effects from them as having no causal mechanism, right up until we found those mechanisms. Now it's basically the next frontier of human biological and physiological study, and if GMOs affect the composition of the gut microbiome, we essentially have no idea what can cascade from that, but we're working on finding out.
I'm not talking about malnourishment. I'm talking about the actual composition of the entire intestinal micro biome. What affects do these foods have on the population of the various bacteria?
Maybe GMOs don't affect the intestinal microbiome. But if those GMOs do things like make plants generate their own insecticide, are we certain that has no noticeable effect on our single-cell gut bugs?
We know so very little about this, since it has only been studied for a couple of years at most. I'm just not comfortable, personally, saying all and every GMO we consume is safe when we don't know how said GMOs interact with our microbiome and how that in turn then affects our brain through lymphnotic transfer. No research has been finished on this precise concern that I can find yet, but they are working on it, which to me says we can't entirely say with certain that GMOs that we consume are actually safe for our bodies.
I'm not saying it'll change our genetic makeup, but we don't know what affect it has on microbiome. GMOs that are made to resist bugs, kill bugs, and resist certain chemicals may not have an affect on us humans because of how large we are, but our microbiome are small enough to be affected potentially, which we now know our microbiome has crucial impact on various things in our body including our brain and neurological health.
Listen, I'm not saying don't eat them or that they aren't safe. What I am saying though is that there is this very valid concern surrounding them, especially with these new findings on microbiome and the link to our brain and I'm willing to wait for science to figure out that answer before I call them either safe or unsafe.2 -
Couldn't you say what you just said about literally anything and everything we consume? You could say what you just said about almonds or brocolli and it would be true. It is overly vague...what specifically about genetic engineering as a tool warrants concern and suspicion about a negative affect on our gut flora?
Scientists don't just study any and all possible combinations and measure the effects on any and all biological processes....there has to be a reason.
What is the reason you have concerns about the effect of apparently any "GMO" on your microbiome yhat wouldnt be an equal concern for anything else you consume and why?5 -
Where does the myth that we've only been studying GMO safety for a couple of years come from? Because, as far as I'm aware, it's not new.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions