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
-
suzyjane1972 wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »Yes, GMOs are safe but they taste like ****, which is why I eat mostly organic now anyways. My neighbor is currently growing organic tomatoes. She let me try one of her ripe ones. I was hooked.
More than likely hot housed. ...forced to grow quickly so usually no taste
I find hot house tomatoes, typically sold on the vine, to be absolutely delicious, and far tastier than those that are not grown that way.0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »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.
This! I recently discovered (last Christmas to be exact) that there is a genetic mutation that renders some fortunate souls less susceptible to norovirus. Norovirus came through my household, starting with my 9 year old, then my six year old, then my (at the time) 6 month old, then my husband. Despite being the primary caregiver of four violently ill people (and all the exposure that entails - trust me, I should have gotten a wicked bad case... ick), I only puked once, felt crappy for a day, and that was that. Our three year old didn't get sick at all (and I don't have to tell those who have children that three year olds aren't exactly known for good personal hygiene - by all rights she should have gotten sick too). I always thought people who couched stomach bugs in terms of "spending the night on the bathroom floor" were exaggerating a bit - I've never gotten very ill from a stomach bug (usually it's just like it was for me last Christmas - one or two episodes of vomiting or diarrhea, and it's over). But watching what it did to four of the six members of my household prompted me to read up on why some people get hit so hard. Turns out that most people get hit like that, but some of us are mutants, lol, and don't secrete the ABO alleles in our saliva, making it difficult for norovirus to take hold. I really am a GMO. And it would seem my third child is as well. I'm sure my husband and other three children wish they could be genetically modified to be non-secreters too. It would be nice to be able to choose mutations rather than leave them to random chance, and that's exactly what genetic modification of crops does.1 -
Need2Exerc1se 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!
Agreed. Besides, Mother Nature has been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of time...
Some people trust her more than the mad scientists and even madder government agencies.
Not sure why that would be. "Mother Nature" is a bloodthirsty *kitten*. She doesn't "care" whether any given species thrives or gets wiped out entirely. Ask the dinosaurs how compassionate Mother Nature is.
7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
Which has changed more in my life time? Apples, or some randomly chosen GMO? By how many orders of magnitude? Your reason for being unconvinced is ... not very well thought out, in my opinion.
I would hazard a guess that the degree of genetic change required to produce a Honey Crisp apple is not too dissimilar to that which results in "roundup ready" corn. In both cases we're talking about maybe a couple chromosomes that have been altered.
Roundup ready corn was produced by introducing a single gene, a controlling promoter, and some neighboring bits of plasmid that may have came along for the ride. The insertion may have disrupted a couple of non-essential genes already present. Or not, can't find details on the insertion site for the varieties that were propagated. It's also possible that this same gene/promoter combination was inserted in more than one location in the same corn plant, though the experimental protocol would have been designed to favor single insertion events.
Honeycrisp is a hybrid of Keepsake and an unknown apple variety, meaning it was produced via homologous recombination. That affects every chromosome, and a varying number of genes. Which are most likely affected is sequence-dependent. But, definitely more than a handful. There are > 300 loci used as markers for homologous combination and variety identification in apples*. So, there are at least that many where recombination occurs and that have enough variation to assist in the identification process.
*hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/40/1/15.full.pdf3 -
Need2Exerc1se 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!
Agreed. Besides, Mother Nature has been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of time...
Some people trust her more than the mad scientists and even madder government agencies.
Mother Nature is constantly doing her best to kill you and me, and has been since the the beginning of humanity. Most of the food you eat every day would hardly be edible if it were still in the form Mother Nature intended. Smallpox and polio and the plague would still be killing a large portion of humanity if it weren't for humans interfering with Mother Nature.
Those "mad scientists" are people just like you and me who eat the same food we do. There is no conspiracy here. And if you actually researched genetic modification you'd see that what they're doing is not mad science or just wild guesswork. Ignorance is not bliss, it fosters fear and misunderstanding.11 -
There are nutritional variations in different varieties of the same food and the conditions it's grown in. They may not be extreme, but don't kid yourself in believing different varieties or origins of any given food are exactly the same regardless.
It isn't that GMO practices can't produce higher nutritional foods. They can and do in some cases, but the main purpose of GMO is and always has been for the benefit and profitability of agri-business. They want foods that are pest and disease resistant, with higher and faster yields, consistent size and appearance characteristics, and hardier slower or delayed ripening foods that store and ship better. Taste and nutritional benefits are not anywhere near the top of the list, especially if they conflict with the economic bottom line.
The produce I get from the Farmers Market simply tastes so much better and I know where it comes from and who produced it. It may not look as consitent and nice and would get bruised and over-ripe if it had to be shipped thousands of miles over a week or so to get to market, but it's real food. Most if not all of it is organic, but small farms struggle as it is and can't afford the costs to be certified as organic just to be able to put that on a label.1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Also I want to add that every time you eat meat that's a GMO. The genes coming from both parents. Genes that haven't been together or eaten before. Brand new GMO.
That's not what is meant when people talk GMO food.
I know. I'm trying to draw attention to how common gene modification is in our diet already. Probably not as well as I'd like perhaps.....
Because you are mixing subjects0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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!
Agreed. Besides, Mother Nature has been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of time...
Some people trust her more than the mad scientists and even madder government agencies.
Not sure why that would be. "Mother Nature" is a bloodthirsty *kitten*. She doesn't "care" whether any given species thrives or gets wiped out entirely. Ask the dinosaurs how compassionate Mother Nature is.
She also has no political or monetary agenda. No reason to hide or fudge facts. No reason to care = no reason to lie.2 -
Caroline393 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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!
Agreed. Besides, Mother Nature has been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of time...
Some people trust her more than the mad scientists and even madder government agencies.
Mother Nature is constantly doing her best to kill you and me, and has been since the the beginning of humanity. Most of the food you eat every day would hardly be edible if it were still in the form Mother Nature intended. Smallpox and polio and the plague would still be killing a large portion of humanity if it weren't for humans interfering with Mother Nature.
Those "mad scientists" are people just like you and me who eat the same food we do. There is no conspiracy here. And if you actually researched genetic modification you'd see that what they're doing is not mad science or just wild guesswork. Ignorance is not bliss, it fosters fear and misunderstanding.
Mother Nature is not trying to kill us. She isn't real, ya know.2 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »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.
No prob here. But I will say organic oranges tastes so much better and I don't like the idea of eating cloned meat. Otherwise, sign me up. The food is cheaper and you have to die from something. Might as well die with a little bit more money in my pocket and a vacation or two a year instead of paying triple for your food at stores like Whole Foods.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Caroline393 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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!
Agreed. Besides, Mother Nature has been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of time...
Some people trust her more than the mad scientists and even madder government agencies.
Mother Nature is constantly doing her best to kill you and me, and has been since the the beginning of humanity. Most of the food you eat every day would hardly be edible if it were still in the form Mother Nature intended. Smallpox and polio and the plague would still be killing a large portion of humanity if it weren't for humans interfering with Mother Nature.
Those "mad scientists" are people just like you and me who eat the same food we do. There is no conspiracy here. And if you actually researched genetic modification you'd see that what they're doing is not mad science or just wild guesswork. Ignorance is not bliss, it fosters fear and misunderstanding.
Mother Nature is not trying to kill us. She isn't real, ya know.
Nature itself is.
Poison dart frogs are such because they want you to die rather than them. Plants have thorns and poisons because they want to harm you as a means of protection for themselves. Large predators (wolves, bears, lions, sharks...) attack humans because they would rather you die than for them to go hungry or have their territory invaded.
For every creature on earth, ourselves included, it's us against the rest.
Nature isn't rooting for humanity. It's rooting for itself.
The only way we survive is if we have access to resources. The only way we have access to resources is if we overcome the defenses those resources use to preserve themselves against us. Thus, it is vital to the survival of mankind that we take control over nature, culture it, manipulate it and force it to meet our needs. That is not to say that it should not be done responsibly (indeed, to not do so responsibly would mean a loss of said resources).
And of course, don't forget the existance of chaos in nature (fires, earthquakes, storms...) which further complicates the matter by working against us without even any cause or motivation.
ETA: Why would you trust someone who doesn't exist more than you trust a member of your own species who's developing a means of making life more sustainable for humans?9 -
There are nutritional variations in different varieties of the same food and the conditions it's grown in. They may not be extreme, but don't kid yourself in believing different varieties or origins of any given food are exactly the same regardless.
It isn't that GMO practices can't produce higher nutritional foods. They can and do in some cases, but the main purpose of GMO is and always has been for the benefit and profitability of agri-business. They want foods that are pest and disease resistant, with higher and faster yields, consistent size and appearance characteristics, and hardier slower or delayed ripening foods that store and ship better. Taste and nutritional benefits are not anywhere near the top of the list, especially if they conflict with the economic bottom line.
The produce I get from the Farmers Market simply tastes so much better and I know where it comes from and who produced it. It may not look as consitent and nice and would get bruised and over-ripe if it had to be shipped thousands of miles over a week or so to get to market, but it's real food. Most if not all of it is organic, but small farms struggle as it is and can't afford the costs to be certified as organic just to be able to put that on a label.
I agree that produce from the farmer's market usually tastes better and contains more nutrients than what I can get at my mega-chain grocery store. However, this is irrelevant to GMOs.
GM corn and soybeans are predominantly used for highly processed end products like HFCS and vegetable oil. GM corn is also used for livestock feed. The corn on the cob in the grocery store is very rarely GMO. Other produce you might buy, such as squash and apples, are currently produced in such low yields and are so new that you probably haven't encountered it in stores yet. The exception might be papaya, but nothing about how papaya was genetically modified alters is nutrients or taste compared to a non-GM papaya grown under identical conditions. You can't say that your farmer's market produce tastes better than grocery store produce because the grocery store produce is GMO; that's just not true.
Produce grown on a large scale is often bland because it's picked before it's fully ripe. Monoculture growing methods and depletion of soil nutrients impact nutrient deficiency and taste. I agree that monoculture farming in general is a problem, and GMOs are feeling the impact because weeds are becoming more herbicide-resistant as more herbicide is used. Hopefully this creates change in farming practices. But making a GMO version of a fruit or vegetable doesn't change the taste or nutrient concentration of it. They don't have to leave the flavor gene out to splice the pesticide gene in.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Caroline393 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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!
Agreed. Besides, Mother Nature has been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of time...
Some people trust her more than the mad scientists and even madder government agencies.
Mother Nature is constantly doing her best to kill you and me, and has been since the the beginning of humanity. Most of the food you eat every day would hardly be edible if it were still in the form Mother Nature intended. Smallpox and polio and the plague would still be killing a large portion of humanity if it weren't for humans interfering with Mother Nature.
Those "mad scientists" are people just like you and me who eat the same food we do. There is no conspiracy here. And if you actually researched genetic modification you'd see that what they're doing is not mad science or just wild guesswork. Ignorance is not bliss, it fosters fear and misunderstanding.
Mother Nature is not trying to kill us. She isn't real, ya know.
Nature itself is.
Poison dart frogs are such because they want you to die rather than them. Plants have thorns and poisons because they want to harm you as a means of protection for themselves. Large predators (wolves, bears, lions, sharks...) attack humans because they would rather you die than for them to go hungry or have their territory invaded.
For every creature on earth, ourselves included, it's us against the rest.
Nature isn't rooting for humanity. It's rooting for itself.
The only way we survive is if we have access to resources. The only way we have access to resources is if we overcome the defenses those resources use to preserve themselves against us. Thus, it is vital to the survival of mankind that we take control over nature, culture it, manipulate it and force it to meet our needs. That is not to say that it should not be done responsibly (indeed, to not do so responsibly would mean a loss of said resources).
And of course, don't forget the existance of chaos in nature (fires, earthquakes, storms...) which further complicates the matter by working against us without even any cause or motivation.
ETA: Why would you trust someone who doesn't exist more than you trust a member of your own species who's developing a means of making life more sustainable for humans?
Trying to protect itself isn't the same as trying to kill us. Poison dart frogs don't hunt us down to harm us. I imagine they prefer they never had to harm us because that would mean that we left them alone.
I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Also I want to add that every time you eat meat that's a GMO. The genes coming from both parents. Genes that haven't been together or eaten before. Brand new GMO.
That's not what is meant when people talk GMO food.
I know. I'm trying to draw attention to how common gene modification is in our diet already. Probably not as well as I'd like perhaps.....
Because you are mixing subjects
What? How on earth is the fact that we eat modified genes all the time a separate subject to eating genes that have been modified in a much simpler fashion? It couldn't be more relevant.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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!
Agreed. Besides, Mother Nature has been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of time...
Some people trust her more than the mad scientists and even madder government agencies.
Not sure why that would be. "Mother Nature" is a bloodthirsty *kitten*. She doesn't "care" whether any given species thrives or gets wiped out entirely. Ask the dinosaurs how compassionate Mother Nature is.
She also has no political or monetary agenda. No reason to hide or fudge facts. No reason to care = no reason to lie.
Word salad.4 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Also I want to add that every time you eat meat that's a GMO. The genes coming from both parents. Genes that haven't been together or eaten before. Brand new GMO.
That's not what is meant when people talk GMO food.
I know. I'm trying to draw attention to how common gene modification is in our diet already. Probably not as well as I'd like perhaps.....
Because you are mixing subjects
What? How on earth is the fact that we eat modified genes all the time a separate subject to eating genes that have been modified in a much simpler fashion? It couldn't be more relevant.
Because the fashion isn't at all similar.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
3 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
Who told you they were safe?
2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
Who told you they were safe?
Thought I covered that. Mother Nature makes certain poisonous mushrooms almost identical in appearance to other mushrooms that are safe to eat. She also neglects to put any taste cues into the bad ones.
In other words, nature indeed does sometimes lie about food safety.
4 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
That was my first thought too.
That and all the different things in nature that deliberately trick others into a false sense of security so that they can kill them and eat them (I'm looking at you Alligator Snapping Turtle).
And just because we're at the top of the food chain doesn't mean there are no predators who would try a bite if given the chance.4
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