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'll take Organic foods over non organic foods Every. Single. Time.0
-
NaturalNancy wrote: »I'll take Organic foods over non organic foods Every. Single. Time.
This is the debate forum and the debate is about GMO.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
As I've now stated 3 times. With GMOs the gene modification is much simpler and controlled. Yet apparently "not nature" seems to be the best attempt at refuting this point.1 -
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.
*sigh* A trained mushroom gatherer would know what to avoid.
I think the point that need2exerc1se is trying to make is that, over millennia mankind has learned which foods are safe for us to eat and there have been generations of humans eating those foods with no mass ill effects (notice we're talking about human food here, not poisonous mushrooms). Those foods have all come about naturally or by people selectively breeding already existing varieties to emphasize desirable traits over the course of time.
Whatever you think about GMOs that have been modified by scientists, they have not been around as long the ones I described above and I think that's a concern for some.
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.0 -
Carlos_421 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.
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.
I can't believe in a debate forum the naturalistic fallacy is still used so often.7 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
As I've now stated 3 times. With GMOs the gene modification is much simpler and controlled. Yet apparently "not nature" seems to be the best attempt at refuting this point.
much simpler and controlled =/=same, correct?1 -
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.
But who told you any of them was safe?2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
As I've now stated 3 times. With GMOs the gene modification is much simpler and controlled. Yet apparently "not nature" seems to be the best attempt at refuting this point.
much simpler and controlled =/=same, correct?
I'm not playing this silly game.1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Carlos_421 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.
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.
I can't believe in a debate forum the naturalistic fallacy is still used so often.
My thoughts exactly!
1 -
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.
"She" doesn't exist. What does exist is competition. Competition between species, competition within species. We are part of nature and as such we have to compete with other species (and each other) for resources (sometimes fighting to the death). Technology (from discovering how to harness fire, to the invention of the wheel, to domestication of animals, to advancements in agriculture, including gmo technology) has allowed us to be quite successful competitors. GMO foods have been far more extensively tested than any other food products on the market. Are humans infallible? Of course not. But GMOs have been around some 30 years. With no adverse effects. If they were so dangerous (and which ones, exactly are dangerous? There are many ways you could modify an organism - increasing the amount of vitamin A in rice, not dangerous; if yu increased the amount of arsenic? Yeah, that'd be a dangerous GMO, not because it is GMO, but because of what the modification does exactly) why haven't we seen wide spread issues after three decades?
4 -
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.
*sigh* A trained mushroom gatherer would know what to avoid.
I think the point that need2exerc1se is trying to make is that, over millennia mankind has learned which foods are safe for us to eat and there have been generations of humans eating those foods with no mass ill effects (notice we're talking about human food here, not poisonous mushrooms). Those foods have all come about naturally or by people selectively breeding already existing varieties to emphasize desirable traits over the course of time.
Whatever you think about GMOs that have been modified by scientists, they have not been around as long the ones I described above and I think that's a concern for some.
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.
My point was simply to counter the argument that nature is automatically more trustworthy than the application of human knowledge, ie. "natural" food is automatically safer than gmo food. The fact is that without the application of long gathered human knowledge seeking food in nature would be quite deadly for most people. The knowledge which is used to produce gmo's was not simply made up in the last couple decades. It is the culmination of millennia of studying the world in which we live, much like our knowledge of good and safe foods in general
7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But who told you any of them was safe?
In a sense, nature did, when people ate them and didn't die.4 -
MarkusDarwath 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.
*sigh* A trained mushroom gatherer would know what to avoid.
I think the point that need2exerc1se is trying to make is that, over millennia mankind has learned which foods are safe for us to eat and there have been generations of humans eating those foods with no mass ill effects (notice we're talking about human food here, not poisonous mushrooms). Those foods have all come about naturally or by people selectively breeding already existing varieties to emphasize desirable traits over the course of time.
Whatever you think about GMOs that have been modified by scientists, they have not been around as long the ones I described above and I think that's a concern for some.
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.
My point was simply to counter the argument that nature is automatically more trustworthy than the application of human knowledge, ie. "natural" food is automatically safer than gmo food. The fact is that without the application of long gathered human knowledge seeking food in nature would be quite deadly for most people. The knowledge which is used to produce gmo's was not simply made up in the last couple decades. It is the culmination of millennia of studying the world in which we live, much like our knowledge of good and safe foods in general
Yup, I know all about naturalistic fallacy. I wrote what I did because what had been an interesting debate had devolved into something unproductive. I'd like to know more about both pro and con viewpoints.
You raise some good points here. Thank you for adding to the dialog.0 -
Agree with the OP. The anti-GMO movement concerned me enough to submit an opinion piece on the topic, specifically this idea that foods that contain ingredients that have been genetically engineered need to be labeled as being "GMO".
Take a look if you are interested:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/#65824b4a2fbc
7 -
Genetic engineering is a tool. Like any tool it can be used to make a variety of products. Those products can be good, they can be bad, they can be neutral in nature. Each product has to be evaluated on its own, trying to lump everything made with genetic engineering as being somehow the same and equal in merit (either all good or all bad) makes about as much sense as lumping together anything made with a hammer and claiming that such "hammer-made-objects" (HMOs) are all good or all bad.
Its a tool, that is all. This sort of overgeneralization mixed with oversimplification and a pinch of scientific illiteracy doesn't do anyone any favors and demanding labels for "GMOs" makes about as much sense as demanding labels for "HMOs". Saying something overgeneralized like "GMO's taste bad" or "GMOs are poisoning the enviorment" is like saying "objects made using hammers have sharp edges". Its a weirdly narrow overgeneralized statement that doesn't actually have any substantive meaning.
If you take issue with a specific genetically engineered product then fine, but which one and what is your concern with that one specifically? Talking about "GMOs" as a whole is far to general to be meaningful.
16 -
@Aaron_K123 Great article!2
-
NaturalNancy wrote: »I'll take Organic foods over non organic foods Every. Single. Time.
But you also sell snake oil, so your opinion is relevant.3 -
Shawshankcan wrote: »NaturalNancy wrote: »I'll take Organic foods over non organic foods Every. Single. Time.
But you also sell snake oil, so your opinion is irrelevant.
FIFY3 -
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.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Genetic engineering is a tool. Like any tool it can be used to make a variety of products. Those products can be good, they can be bad, they can be neutral in nature. Each product has to be evaluated on its own, trying to lump everything made with genetic engineering as being somehow the same and equal in merit (either all good or all bad) makes about as much sense as lumping together anything made with a hammer and claiming that such "hammer-made-objects" (HMOs) are all good or all bad.
Its a tool, that is all. This sort of overgeneralization mixed with oversimplification and a pinch of scientific illiteracy doesn't do anyone any favors and demanding labels for "GMOs" makes about as much sense as demanding labels for "HMOs". Saying something overgeneralized like "GMO's taste bad" or "GMOs are poisoning the enviorment" is like saying "objects made using hammers have sharp edges". Its a weirdly narrow overgeneralized statement that doesn't actually have any substantive meaning.
If you take issue with a specific genetically engineered product then fine, but which one and what is your concern with that one specifically? Talking about "GMOs" as a whole is far to general to be meaningful.
I completely agree with this. It's the same reason that someone saying "GMOs are fine" makes me cringe.2
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