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
Replies
-
FunkyTobias 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.0 -
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.
1 -
suzyjane1972 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.1 -
Disclaimer...I am a plant breeder in a company that does GMO and traditional breeding. I am really excited that this discussion doesn't seem to be fearmongering but really an interesting debate. I do have to say that GMO are the most studied phenomena in the history and in those studies there is not evidence of effect on humans or animals. I read in this thread that a GMO with hemlock would be bad and I completely agree, so it is important that we understand the ramifications of each GMO that we bring into the public realm. As with every technology we do everything we can to understand the ramifications before we but it in the public realm with large feeding studies and environmental studies. We spend millions to work through these issues and understand the possibilities. 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.
12 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »suzyjane1972 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.biggsterjackster wrote: »suzyjane1972 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.
More of a non tariff trade barrier. It's far more political than for saftey concernes. Scotland admitted as much.7 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »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.
6 -
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/0
-
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.)
1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »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!0 -
MarkusDarwath 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.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath 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?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »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.
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.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath 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*4 -
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.0
-
Corn is so weird. I know a number of people who had jobs detasseling corn as teenagers.1
-
FACT: Organic producers still use pesticides and herbicide.
FACT: When you get life insurance you are actually considered to be a higher risk if you eat all organic. Why you ask? Because organic produce and livestock is known to spread disease because of the bugs that are allowed to crawl on the produce.
I have an agricultural degree, work in the ag industry, and am the 4th generation in a family farm.
GMOs have been around for more than 40 years, but only recently has it been the "hot thing to demonize" for people who have no real idea what GMO actually is. People want to say GMO is dangerous, yet study after study after study has proven that there is nothing within GMO to cause harm to people...while eating organic can actually cause disease and illness.
What have GMOs done? Helped prevent starvation in villages all over the world with less than ideal growing conditions...drought resistant wheat. Created less variables and possibility that a crop will fail...created more food, fuel, and clothing for the constantly growing population.
Instead of demonizing a completely safe crop, try imagining what a world with unsustainable agriculture would be like...- Ration
- Hunger
- Jobs lost - agriculture contributes to more jobs that just those in the industry
16 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »suzyjane1972 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?4 -
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.4 -
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)0 -
getfit_fritch26 wrote: »FACT: Organic producers still use pesticides and herbicide.
FACT: When you get life insurance you are actually considered to be a higher risk if you eat all organic. Why you ask? Because organic produce and livestock is known to spread disease because of the bugs that are allowed to crawl on the produce.
I have an agricultural degree, work in the ag industry, and am the 4th generation in a family farm.
GMOs have been around for more than 40 years, but only recently has it been the "hot thing to demonize" for people who have no real idea what GMO actually is. People want to say GMO is dangerous, yet study after study after study has proven that there is nothing within GMO to cause harm to people...while eating organic can actually cause disease and illness.
What have GMOs done? Helped prevent starvation in villages all over the world with less than ideal growing conditions...drought resistant wheat. Created less variables and possibility that a crop will fail...created more food, fuel, and clothing for the constantly growing population.
Instead of demonizing a completely safe crop, try imagining what a world with unsustainable agriculture would be like...- Ration
- Hunger
- Jobs lost - agriculture contributes to more jobs that just those in the industry
So your nothing more than a big ag shill?
Jk - I am a strong proponent of gmo and think organic just translates to "more expensive in the store."5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »suzyjane1972 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.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath 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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
1 -
Lol, you must not have ever seen an epidemic of pink eye.you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.
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
1 -
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/#65824b4a2fbc1 -
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.3 -
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.2
-
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!1 -
In my eyes that labelling would make as much sense as labelling whether a plant was grown outside or in a greenhouse.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions