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
-
I improved my health eating non organic GMOs, I just started eating more raw fruits and vegetables.4
-
samwiserabbit 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...
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.
I frazed that poorly, I meant it saves fields from using other, not so effective herbicides. You end up with a field where only your crop grows, all the weeds are selectively killed. As for using a lot of round up... show me a farmer who will throw away money buying more than necessary.5 -
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.
Mainly drugs get through because they're tested on a relatively small sample of people for a relatively short amount of time. That catches the ones that cause quickly-manifesting problems in that particular test sampling.
Once they're released to market, the drugs are performing on 1) a lot more people and 2) a wider genetic and environmental range of people, including 3) people who are less likely to follow proper protocols since they're not monitored as part of a clinical trial. No surprise that more issues crop up when testing is expanded in such a way. It's a bigger surprise to me that as many drugs survive 10 years of widespread public use as have.
Some companies do try to get past the FDA in shady ways, but those cases are the vast minority of recalls. They are just about all you hear about on TV though, with the various law firms advertising their class action lawsuits.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.
... and what that actually means is that corn has been through 1,500 years of human trials, and proven itself to be pretty safe.
"GMO" is a pretty big blanket, like "dog." Some are safe, some are not. It's not like you prove one engineered plant is safe and that means all GMOs are safe. You have to look at this stuff individually.3 -
The guy in this video is the co-founder of Greenpeace (not exactly a Monsanto spokesperson):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSten18rI9A[yt] 3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
... and what that actually means is that corn has been through 1,500 years of human trials, and proven itself to be pretty safe.
"GMO" is a pretty big blanket, like "dog." Some are safe, some are not. It's not like you prove one engineered plant is safe and that means all GMOs are safe. You have to look at this stuff individually.
Can we at least have a hypothetical scenario of a problem? What exactly can a gene do to cause harm when it's placed into a food which also has other genes? You said some are unsafe, which?2 -
Everything I hear gmo this pops.into my head. .. (yes.i know they were alien)2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »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.
... and what that actually means is that corn has been through 1,500 years of human trials, and proven itself to be pretty safe.
"GMO" is a pretty big blanket, like "dog." Some are safe, some are not. It's not like you prove one engineered plant is safe and that means all GMOs are safe. You have to look at this stuff individually.
Can we at least have a hypothetical scenario of a problem? What exactly can a gene do to cause harm when it's placed into a food which also has other genes? You said some are unsafe, which?
Adding a gene that produces an allergen protein normally not in that organism. That'd be the most likely. There are lots of unknown antigens out there. I'm presuming we can be smart enough to not splice in known antigens - or at least label that particular organism if we choose to do so.
Obviously (or maybe not?), it's easy enough to splice in various toxin-producing genes. Lots of toxins are peptides/protein and are viable if eaten. But, I'm presuming we're bright enough to not do that, either. I suppose someone could be dumb enough to splice in a toxin precursor without realizing the GMO (or the consumer) would digest it in such as a way to produce the actual toxin, but that'd be caught pretty damn quickly in a safety trial, as would splicing in any toxin produced at a harmful level. Unless Homer Simpson's equivalent is running the show, of course.3 -
Shawshankcan wrote: »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?
Some organic food is grown with pesticides. Not all. It is possible to grow food without any added pesticides.1 -
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'...
That's really different than blind trust in the FDA.3 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Can we at least have a hypothetical scenario of a problem? What exactly can a gene do to cause harm when it's placed into a food which also has other genes? You said some are unsafe, which?
I didn't say some are unsafe (or if I did I misspoke), I said that you can't say "this one is safe, so they're all safe." A lot of people say "GMOs are safe" which is a broad brush thing.
Genes can do all kinds of beneficial and harmful things depending on the other genes they interact with.
Hypothetical scenario = something bad might happen. They used to tell people cigarettes were harmless, too. And there was an over the counter drug for morning sickness that caused birth defects; before anybody knew that, they said thalidomide was safe, too. Like I said, foods like apples and corn and wheat have been through thousands of years of human trials, we're talking about foods that have only existed for years or decades, and you're asking me to believe that we already know everything there is to know about them.2 -
Caroline393 wrote: »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!
What is the long term proof that they are safe?
So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/
https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/articles/92/10/4255
3 -
13
-
NorthCascades wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Can we at least have a hypothetical scenario of a problem? What exactly can a gene do to cause harm when it's placed into a food which also has other genes? You said some are unsafe, which?
I didn't say some are unsafe (or if I did I misspoke), I said that you can't say "this one is safe, so they're all safe." A lot of people say "GMOs are safe" which is a broad brush thing.
Genes can do all kinds of beneficial and harmful things depending on the other genes they interact with.
Hypothetical scenario = something bad might happen. They used to tell people cigarettes were harmless, too. And there was an over the counter drug for morning sickness that caused birth defects; before anybody knew that, they said thalidomide was safe, too. Like I said, foods like apples and corn and wheat have been through thousands of years of human trials, we're talking about foods that have only existed for years or decades, and you're asking me to believe that we already know everything there is to know about them.
I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm asking for a reason to fear foods just because they've had a gene added. Fallacious appeals to past medical mistakes don't convince me much either. The soy, Apple, wheat point is also unconvincing, they have been changing for thousands of years, each time their genes and allele frequency being modified, every time a new variety is created. Would you not eat a new variety of Apple because "genes"?3 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Caroline393 wrote: »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!
What is the long term proof that they are safe?
So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/
https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/articles/92/10/4255
"Just give it another 15....."0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »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?
Some organic food is grown with pesticides. Not all. It is possible to grow food without any added pesticides.
Of course. I do it. It's just a lot easier when I'm growing just for me.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »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?
Some organic food is grown with pesticides. Not all. It is possible to grow food without any added pesticides.
Without having any sources, I'd say most organic food is grown with pesticides. Because if you can use something to get more yield and can still slap your organic label for making it more expensive on it, why wouldn't you?4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »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?
Some organic food is grown with pesticides. Not all. It is possible to grow food without any added pesticides.
Without having any sources, I'd say most organic food is grown with pesticides. Because if you can use something to get more yield and can still slap your organic label for making it more expensive on it, why wouldn't you?
Because I'm not slapping a label on it. But yes, most of it is grown with added pesticides.0 -
I don't know anything about the subject, but I am curious about if genetic material survives the digestive process.1
-
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.
Right because Big Organic isn't making any money from telling people that GMOs are dangerous.14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions