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

13468911

Replies

  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    @aaron_k123

    Would you mind answering a question?

    How much potential is there for "GMOs" to act as invasive species, crowd out native species, or otherwise interfere with delicate ecosystems? Is any of that even a legitimate concern?

    It is a legitimate concern. But the same goes for any other species

    I suppose so--it's distressing how invasive species can move in and wipe out native flora and fauna. But at least now I know that there are people overseeing the process that are working to prevent such a thing from happening with modified crops.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    100df wrote: »
    I do worry about food that has been modified. I don't know how scientists can know the long-term effects. By long-term I mean several generations after us.
    May not be harmful to us but what about the kids we produce? What about their kids and their kids and their kids? We will all be gone by then so won't know.

    Food you eat is not going to affect your kids and grandkids unless there is something in it that changes your dna. Yes, there are chemical compounds that can do that, for instance, LSD usage has been known to create "flashbacks" in a person's future children. But I would imagine that is one of the things they look for when studying new GM food adaptations. Insect resistant corn wouldn't be of much use if it also mutates the genes of whatever eats it. That's why studies also start with testing on animals like rats. Their short lifespan and susceptibility to genetic damage makes it easier to spot such potential problems within a useful time period.

  • biggsterjackster
    biggsterjackster Posts: 419 Member
    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.

    Yeah, lots if EU Countries banned it. They always had stricter food and pharmacy regulations than the US.
  • Caroline393
    Caroline393 Posts: 71 Member
    Since there's been a good bit of mention of organic farming and its superiority or lack thereof, I thought it leave this here for any who are interested: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/think-organic-food-is-better-for-you-animals-and-the-planet-thin/
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    emshields1 wrote: »
    But what is interesting to me is as a traditional breeder if that each time I make a cross I am changing the genetic code and creating new proteins. When I release new conventional variety with no GMO that potentially has new proteins does not require any testing.....it seems we talk out of both sides of our mouth.


    This is a good point. Crossing two cultivars of pepper, for example, isn't likely to result in the new plant containing some sort of poison, per se, but there is actually a possibility that it could have a new protein that proves to be an allergen to more people than not. (and since I randomly picked peppers as an example, it is interesting to note that they are one of several edible members of the nightshade family.)
  • biggsterjackster
    biggsterjackster Posts: 419 Member
    edited June 2016
    Yeah, lots if EU Countries banned it. They always had stricter food and pharmacy regulations than the US.

    More strict does not mean more rational. Many people have this bizarre mindset that the way things are done in Europe (food safety, government, economics, taxation, weapons policies, etc. etc.) is always automatically better than the U.S. IMO, the opposite is usually true.

    Some of the stuff like diet pills are better regulated. It took the FDA a while that for example Xenadrine caused serious health issues and even death. Than they took it off the market, Never been legal overseas. In other things the US is very strict. Tried to donate blood in the US but they told me since I lived in Europe I might have Mad Cow disease. I guess both sides have good or less rational regulations. Sorry, a bit off topic!
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    emshields1 wrote: »
    But what is interesting to me is as a traditional breeder if that each time I make a cross I am changing the genetic code and creating new proteins. When I release new conventional variety with no GMO that potentially has new proteins does not require any testing.....it seems we talk out of both sides of our mouth.


    This is a good point. Crossing two cultivars of pepper, for example, isn't likely to result in the new plant containing some sort of poison, per se, but there is actually a possibility that it could have a new protein that proves to be an allergen to more people than not. (and since I randomly picked peppers as an example, it is interesting to note that they are one of several edible members of the nightshade family.)

    I do think I remember a story about a non-gmo potato breed that was on the market until it turned out some compound in it that is normally found in potatoes was far above the acceptable maximum amount, and they didn't check beforehand because they didn't expect the outcome.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    emshields1 wrote: »
    But what is interesting to me is as a traditional breeder if that each time I make a cross I am changing the genetic code and creating new proteins. When I release new conventional variety with no GMO that potentially has new proteins does not require any testing.....it seems we talk out of both sides of our mouth.


    This is a good point. Crossing two cultivars of pepper, for example, isn't likely to result in the new plant containing some sort of poison, per se, but there is actually a possibility that it could have a new protein that proves to be an allergen to more people than not. (and since I randomly picked peppers as an example, it is interesting to note that they are one of several edible members of the nightshade family.)

    I do think I remember a story about a non-gmo potato breed that was on the market until it turned out some compound in it that is normally found in potatoes was far above the acceptable maximum amount, and they didn't check beforehand because they didn't expect the outcome.

    Solanine, maybe?
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe 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.


    I don't really care either way. If you disagree that people are wrong to be concerned about that, fine. But let's stop pretending that poisonous frogs and mushrooms and earthquakes have anything to do with GMO crops.

    I never said they have anything to do with GMO. However, they do have to do with the fallacial claim made that we can trust mother nature because she never tries to trick or harm us.
    In other words, it's an illustration of how natural =/= safe or better for you.

    ETA and actually, that DOES have something to do with GMO.

    I'm curious. How is the poisonous frog tricking you?

    Mushrooms. We've moved on.

    At least poisonous frogs have bright warning colors. Many mushrooms are virtually indistinguishable from edible ones.

    Going way off topic but as a keeper of poisonous frogs I can say some are very plain looking. There are poisonous toads and newts too, you couldn't tell by their colours.
  • Ruatine
    Ruatine Posts: 3,424 Member
    edited June 2016
    stealthq wrote: »
    emshields1 wrote: »
    But what is interesting to me is as a traditional breeder if that each time I make a cross I am changing the genetic code and creating new proteins. When I release new conventional variety with no GMO that potentially has new proteins does not require any testing.....it seems we talk out of both sides of our mouth.


    This is a good point. Crossing two cultivars of pepper, for example, isn't likely to result in the new plant containing some sort of poison, per se, but there is actually a possibility that it could have a new protein that proves to be an allergen to more people than not. (and since I randomly picked peppers as an example, it is interesting to note that they are one of several edible members of the nightshade family.)

    I do think I remember a story about a non-gmo potato breed that was on the market until it turned out some compound in it that is normally found in potatoes was far above the acceptable maximum amount, and they didn't check beforehand because they didn't expect the outcome.

    Solanine, maybe?

    The Lenape potato?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape_(potato) *goes back to lurking*
  • benjaminhk
    benjaminhk Posts: 353 Member
    I feel bad for non-GMO people because they can't eat corn. And don't try to tell me there is such a thing as "non-GMO corn" because there isn't. Not of the kind we eat in the states, anyway.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Corn is so weird. I know a number of people who had jobs detasseling corn as teenagers.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    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.

    Yeah, lots if EU Countries banned it. They always had stricter food and pharmacy regulations than the US.

    To my knowledge no country has "banned GMOs". There are certainly countries that have banned the import of specific products made in part utilizing genetic engineering but that is a far different statement than to claim there is a country that has banned the use and import of any product made using genetic engineering.

    Which country has banned insulin for example?
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited June 2016
    benjaminhk wrote: »
    I feel bad for non-GMO people because they can't eat corn. And don't try to tell me there is such a thing as "non-GMO corn" because there isn't. Not of the kind we eat in the states, anyway.

    There is such a thing as non-GMO corn. In fact the vast majority of corn in your grocery store if not all of it is non-GMO. There are two main crop varieties of corn: Sweet corn, which we eat on the cob or buy in cans as corn itself, and field corn, which is a different breed and a commodity crop used to feed animals, produce biofuels and corn syrups.

    Field corn is 90%+ GMO at this point in the United States but the vast majority of sweet corn is not GMO, the corn you would actually buy to eat.

    So this is wrong. The vast majority of sweet corn, the variety you eat, is not GMO.

    An article about that: http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2014/04/corn

    "Some 90 percent of the American field corn crop is genetically engineered to resist herbicides or to produce a protein derived from bacillus thringiensis bacteria that can kill certain insect pests such as the southwestern corn borer (USDA 2013). Consequently, corn-based sweeteners, starches and oils in processed foods are almost certainly manufactured from genetically engineered corn. In contrast only a small amount of GE sweet corn can be found on the U.S. market. Most sweet corn has not been genetically engineered. "

    The reason this confuses people is that the vast VAST amount of corn produced in the United States is produced as a commodity crop not to directly eat and is field corn (like 99%), so when someone says almost all of the corn produced in the United States is GMO they are right because ~90% of the 99% of the corn produced is GMO if you talk about all corn. The thing is the corn you buy in a grocery store isn't field corn it is sweet corn and most sweet corn, almost all, is not GMO.

    As an example of this fact, something I found just quickly from the Nebraska Corn Board
    http://www.nebraskacorn.org/issues-initiatives/your-food/field-corn-vs-food-corn/

    So bottom line if you point to a corn on the cob in the grocery store and say "That is GMO" chances are really really high if not 100% that you are dead wrong.
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    edited June 2016
    It's easy not to eat GMOs if you don't want to. I don't eat alfalfa, canola oil, foods containing corn syrup, cottonseed oil, or sugar, but I will happily eat papayas, non-organic-certified soy, and squashes. These are the crops that are likely to be GM in the U.S.

    Alfalfa
    Canola
    Corn (the corn syrup kind, not sweet corn in the produce aisles)
    Cotton
    Papaya (necessary for disease resistance)
    Soy (unless it's certified organic)
    Sugar Beets
    Zucchini and Yellow Summer Squash (some contain genes to protect against viruses)
  • Shawshankcan
    Shawshankcan Posts: 900 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    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.

    Yeah, lots if EU Countries banned it. They always had stricter food and pharmacy regulations than the US.

    To my knowledge no country has "banned GMOs". There are certainly countries that have banned the import of specific products made in part utilizing genetic engineering but that is a far different statement than to claim there is a country that has banned the use and import of any product made using genetic engineering.

    Which country has banned insulin for example?

    http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/04/but-rest-of-world-bans-gmos-right.html

    Cliff notes - the may not be allowed to cultivate because they haven't been approved, but they can import products containing gmos.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    emshields1 wrote: »
    But what is interesting to me is as a traditional breeder if that each time I make a cross I am changing the genetic code and creating new proteins. When I release new conventional variety with no GMO that potentially has new proteins does not require any testing.....it seems we talk out of both sides of our mouth.


    This is a good point. Crossing two cultivars of pepper, for example, isn't likely to result in the new plant containing some sort of poison, per se, but there is actually a possibility that it could have a new protein that proves to be an allergen to more people than not. (and since I randomly picked peppers as an example, it is interesting to note that they are one of several edible members of the nightshade family.)

    I do think I remember a story about a non-gmo potato breed that was on the market until it turned out some compound in it that is normally found in potatoes was far above the acceptable maximum amount, and they didn't check beforehand because they didn't expect the outcome.

    Solanine, maybe?

    Likely. Solanine is the toxin that is present in all nightshades. In most tomatoes, peppers and potatoes it is at a low enough level that our liver can deal with it easily. It also tends to have different concentrations in different parts of the plant. Eating tomato leaves, for example, is not recommended.
  • benjaminhk
    benjaminhk Posts: 353 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    benjaminhk wrote: »
    I feel bad for non-GMO people because they can't eat corn. And don't try to tell me there is such a thing as "non-GMO corn" because there isn't. Not of the kind we eat in the states, anyway.

    There is such a thing as non-GMO corn. In fact the vast majority of corn in your grocery store if not all of it is non-GMO. There are two main crop varieties of corn: Sweet corn, which we eat on the cob or buy in cans as corn itself, and field corn, which is a different breed and a commodity crop used to feed animals, produce biofuels and corn syrups.

    Field corn is 90%+ GMO at this point in the United States but the vast majority of sweet corn is not GMO, the corn you would actually buy to eat.

    So this is wrong. The vast majority of sweet corn, the variety you eat, is not GMO.

    An article about that: http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2014/04/corn

    "Some 90 percent of the American field corn crop is genetically engineered to resist herbicides or to produce a protein derived from bacillus thringiensis bacteria that can kill certain insect pests such as the southwestern corn borer (USDA 2013). Consequently, corn-based sweeteners, starches and oils in processed foods are almost certainly manufactured from genetically engineered corn. In contrast only a small amount of GE sweet corn can be found on the U.S. market. Most sweet corn has not been genetically engineered. "

    The reason this confuses people is that the vast VAST amount of corn produced in the United States is produced as a commodity crop not to directly eat and is field corn (like 99%), so when someone says almost all of the corn produced in the United States is GMO they are right because ~90% of the 99% of the corn produced is GMO if you talk about all corn. The thing is the corn you buy in a grocery store isn't field corn it is sweet corn and most sweet corn, almost all, is not GMO.

    As an example of this fact, something I found just quickly from the Nebraska Corn Board
    http://www.nebraskacorn.org/issues-initiatives/your-food/field-corn-vs-food-corn/

    So bottom line if you point to a corn on the cob in the grocery store and say "That is GMO" chances are really really high if not 100% that you are dead wrong.

    Oh man, you took the bait. Corn, as we know it, was genetically modified by native Americans over a thousand years to grow to the size that it does today. That makes it a genetically modified organism.
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    edited June 2016
    benjaminhk wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    benjaminhk wrote: »
    I feel bad for non-GMO people because they can't eat corn. And don't try to tell me there is such a thing as "non-GMO corn" because there isn't. Not of the kind we eat in the states, anyway.

    There is such a thing as non-GMO corn. In fact the vast majority of corn in your grocery store if not all of it is non-GMO. There are two main crop varieties of corn: Sweet corn, which we eat on the cob or buy in cans as corn itself, and field corn, which is a different breed and a commodity crop used to feed animals, produce biofuels and corn syrups.

    Field corn is 90%+ GMO at this point in the United States but the vast majority of sweet corn is not GMO, the corn you would actually buy to eat.

    So this is wrong. The vast majority of sweet corn, the variety you eat, is not GMO.

    An article about that: http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2014/04/corn

    "Some 90 percent of the American field corn crop is genetically engineered to resist herbicides or to produce a protein derived from bacillus thringiensis bacteria that can kill certain insect pests such as the southwestern corn borer (USDA 2013). Consequently, corn-based sweeteners, starches and oils in processed foods are almost certainly manufactured from genetically engineered corn. In contrast only a small amount of GE sweet corn can be found on the U.S. market. Most sweet corn has not been genetically engineered. "

    The reason this confuses people is that the vast VAST amount of corn produced in the United States is produced as a commodity crop not to directly eat and is field corn (like 99%), so when someone says almost all of the corn produced in the United States is GMO they are right because ~90% of the 99% of the corn produced is GMO if you talk about all corn. The thing is the corn you buy in a grocery store isn't field corn it is sweet corn and most sweet corn, almost all, is not GMO.

    As an example of this fact, something I found just quickly from the Nebraska Corn Board
    http://www.nebraskacorn.org/issues-initiatives/your-food/field-corn-vs-food-corn/

    So bottom line if you point to a corn on the cob in the grocery store and say "That is GMO" chances are really really high if not 100% that you are dead wrong.

    Oh man, you took the bait. Corn, as we know it, was genetically modified by native Americans over a thousand years to grow to the size that it does today. That makes it a genetically modified organism.

    There's no need to lump them all together. GMO is the commonly recognized term for crops that have been genetically modified through molecular biology techniques. If you want to refer to the genetic modifications made by selective breeding, you can call it selective breeding, or conventional breeding. Then you can have meaningful discussions about the differences, and similarities, between different methods of altering genomes.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,989 Member
    teamgiff4 wrote: »
    you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.
    Lol, you must not have ever seen an epidemic of pink eye.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    edited June 2016
    benjaminhk wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    benjaminhk wrote: »
    I feel bad for non-GMO people because they can't eat corn. And don't try to tell me there is such a thing as "non-GMO corn" because there isn't. Not of the kind we eat in the states, anyway.

    There is such a thing as non-GMO corn. In fact the vast majority of corn in your grocery store if not all of it is non-GMO. There are two main crop varieties of corn: Sweet corn, which we eat on the cob or buy in cans as corn itself, and field corn, which is a different breed and a commodity crop used to feed animals, produce biofuels and corn syrups.

    Field corn is 90%+ GMO at this point in the United States but the vast majority of sweet corn is not GMO, the corn you would actually buy to eat.

    So this is wrong. The vast majority of sweet corn, the variety you eat, is not GMO.

    An article about that: http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2014/04/corn

    "Some 90 percent of the American field corn crop is genetically engineered to resist herbicides or to produce a protein derived from bacillus thringiensis bacteria that can kill certain insect pests such as the southwestern corn borer (USDA 2013). Consequently, corn-based sweeteners, starches and oils in processed foods are almost certainly manufactured from genetically engineered corn. In contrast only a small amount of GE sweet corn can be found on the U.S. market. Most sweet corn has not been genetically engineered. "

    The reason this confuses people is that the vast VAST amount of corn produced in the United States is produced as a commodity crop not to directly eat and is field corn (like 99%), so when someone says almost all of the corn produced in the United States is GMO they are right because ~90% of the 99% of the corn produced is GMO if you talk about all corn. The thing is the corn you buy in a grocery store isn't field corn it is sweet corn and most sweet corn, almost all, is not GMO.

    As an example of this fact, something I found just quickly from the Nebraska Corn Board
    http://www.nebraskacorn.org/issues-initiatives/your-food/field-corn-vs-food-corn/

    So bottom line if you point to a corn on the cob in the grocery store and say "That is GMO" chances are really really high if not 100% that you are dead wrong.

    Oh man, you took the bait. Corn, as we know it, was genetically modified by native Americans over a thousand years to grow to the size that it does today. That makes it a genetically modified organism.

    He has something to say about this in one of his previous posts. You might want to read all of his posts in this thread to see where he's coming from.

    ETA: Read this that he posted:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/#65824b4a2fbc
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited June 2016
    benjaminhk wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    benjaminhk wrote: »
    I feel bad for non-GMO people because they can't eat corn. And don't try to tell me there is such a thing as "non-GMO corn" because there isn't. Not of the kind we eat in the states, anyway.

    There is such a thing as non-GMO corn. In fact the vast majority of corn in your grocery store if not all of it is non-GMO. There are two main crop varieties of corn: Sweet corn, which we eat on the cob or buy in cans as corn itself, and field corn, which is a different breed and a commodity crop used to feed animals, produce biofuels and corn syrups.

    Field corn is 90%+ GMO at this point in the United States but the vast majority of sweet corn is not GMO, the corn you would actually buy to eat.

    So this is wrong. The vast majority of sweet corn, the variety you eat, is not GMO.

    An article about that: http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2014/04/corn

    "Some 90 percent of the American field corn crop is genetically engineered to resist herbicides or to produce a protein derived from bacillus thringiensis bacteria that can kill certain insect pests such as the southwestern corn borer (USDA 2013). Consequently, corn-based sweeteners, starches and oils in processed foods are almost certainly manufactured from genetically engineered corn. In contrast only a small amount of GE sweet corn can be found on the U.S. market. Most sweet corn has not been genetically engineered. "

    The reason this confuses people is that the vast VAST amount of corn produced in the United States is produced as a commodity crop not to directly eat and is field corn (like 99%), so when someone says almost all of the corn produced in the United States is GMO they are right because ~90% of the 99% of the corn produced is GMO if you talk about all corn. The thing is the corn you buy in a grocery store isn't field corn it is sweet corn and most sweet corn, almost all, is not GMO.

    As an example of this fact, something I found just quickly from the Nebraska Corn Board
    http://www.nebraskacorn.org/issues-initiatives/your-food/field-corn-vs-food-corn/

    So bottom line if you point to a corn on the cob in the grocery store and say "That is GMO" chances are really really high if not 100% that you are dead wrong.

    Oh man, you took the bait. Corn, as we know it, was genetically modified by native Americans over a thousand years to grow to the size that it does today. That makes it a genetically modified organism.

    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.
  • joeneely71
    joeneely71 Posts: 49 Member
    edited June 2016
    How about this: just tell me if a food has been genetically-modified, or contains genetically-modified ingredients, and I'll make my own decision as to whether I choose to consume that food. Seems real simple and eliminates the "preaching" on both sides.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    joeneely71 wrote: »
    How about this: just tell me if a food has been genetically-modified, or contains genetically-modified ingredients, and I'll make my own decision as to whether I choose to consume that food. Seems real simple and eliminates the "preaching" on both sides.

    Perfect!
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    In my eyes that labelling would make as much sense as labelling whether a plant was grown outside or in a greenhouse.