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
-
@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?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Can we all join hands and agree to get over the semantic argument about how everything is genetically modified please?
The anti "GMO" movement picked a poor way of describing what they meant, they decided to call it genetically modified which is far too vague and is a term that scientifically used basically covers all life on the planet. That said even understanding that we KNOW what they mean, they mean products that utilize the genetic engineering tecnhiques developed by biotechnology over the last 50 years. That is what they are referring to. Focusing on this semantic argument is not going to change any minds and its a waste of time.
We know what they mean, pointing out that their chosen terminology is overly vague is not really worth while.
I just put "GMO" in quote marks so I am at least acknowledging that I am referring to what they mean by the term not what the term actually means.
We shouldn't give up the point about foods that are genetically modified by conventional means, like mutation breeding, which uses chemicals or radiation to induce changes in a target crop; selective breeding, which could produce a product that is toxic; and hybridization, which can <gasp> combine different species in one product.0 -
@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?
That's why the EPA is involved in the approval process. Generally speaking, the plants grown in agriculture need a lot of special treatment, and aren't that likely to thrive on their own. Except blackberries, which are not GMO, which grow all over where I live. You'd have to look at each plant individually. There's a hypothetical possibility of GMOs cross-pollinating with outside plants, in which case you might get Roundup resistant weeds, or non-crop plants that are toxic to corn borers. And, of course, weeds and corn borers evolve to be resistant to Roundup and to the BT toxin.2 -
I'm tired of hearing about how GMO's are completely safe.
But I guess it does make sense, I mean why would the people making a huge profit off of them lie to us?
Why should they have to prove they are safe, I mean it's only FOOD and the environment.
you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.
Literally every food you put in your mouth is genetically modified, either intentionally or naturally. I don't care if you're growing vegetables in your garden and that is all you eat. The seeds you use to grow them have been genetically modified for generations to be what they are today. Fast-forwarding the GM process from one harvest to the next doesn't make them any more or less unhealthy than they already are.
You know what I'm sick of? People using GMO like it's some disease or chemical because it's an acronym. Call them what they are - genetically modified organisms - and understand what that means before you start acting like the human race is out to slowly poison you to death.
Yup. I love corn, live in a corn-producing state, get lots of corn during the season from my (organic) CSA. Obviously that corn is absolutely nothing like pre human intervention corn -- we have messed with corn to an extreme extent. So what?
0 -
@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?
The same amount as any other natural product. Giving a plant say resistance to a specific herbicide such as roundup is not going to provide it with a meaningful selective advantage. Meanwhile there are plenty of crops that are grown in massive quantities in countries where that crop is not a native species and can end up being invasively spread throughout that ecosystem.
Could you use genetic engineering to generate a crop that would have a selective advantage within a given ecosystem and potentially take over to some degree? Yeah I suppose you could. It wouldn't stay dominant because other things would adapt to it over time but yeah in theory you could give something a temporary advantage if that is what you were designing it to do for some reason. We are utilizing what nature utilizes to make changes to adapt. So sure you could introduce a temporary advantage but for the most part that advantage wouldn't last for all that long as other things adapted to retake that temporary niche you created. You could also go around spraying roundup everywhere to kill all the plants. But why would you?
I'm not saying that genetic engineering couldn't possibly do a bad thing...it could, just like any tool could if used in a way that was dangerous. What I'm saying is we need to evaluate each product not just assume that because there is a potential danger that an entire technology needs to be avoided. I think it IS a legitimate concern for each new product as part of its evaluation but I don't think it is somehow a legitimate concern for anything that was made using genetic engineering.
To carry on with my hammer analogy it would be like asking if you could make something sharp using a hammer that could potentially injure people. The answer would be that well yes, I suppose you could, but you probably wouldn't unless you were intending on doing that in the first place. If you did then that product should be evaluated for safety and if it is deemed unsafe then sure it shouldn't be used...but that doesn't somehow invalidate or cast concern about the use of hammers in general somehow.
2 -
@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 species4 -
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.3 -
I am too lazy to grow all my own food and raise animals to eat. If I weren't too lazy, ineptitude comes in. I do have a small garden and go to local farmer stands in the summer. The seeds or plants I use have probably been modified.
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.
I do eat and serve GMO foods to my family and hope for the best. However, there is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. Keeps people honest. Money makes people do things that may not be best or right.3 -
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.4 -
Aaron_K123 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?
The same amount as any other natural product. Giving a plant say resistance to a specific herbicide such as roundup is not going to provide it with a meaningful selective advantage. Meanwhile there are plenty of crops that are grown in massive quantities in countries where that crop is not a native species and can end up being invasively spread throughout that ecosystem.
Could you use genetic engineering to generate a crop that would have a selective advantage within a given ecosystem and potentially take over to some degree? Yeah I suppose you could. It wouldn't stay dominant because other things would adapt to it over time but yeah in theory you could give something a temporary advantage if that is what you were designing it to do for some reason. We are utilizing what nature utilizes to make changes to adapt. So sure you could introduce a temporary advantage but for the most part that advantage wouldn't last for all that long as other things adapted to retake that temporary niche you created. You could also go around spraying roundup everywhere to kill all the plants. But why would you?
I'm not saying that genetic engineering couldn't possibly do a bad thing...it could, just like any tool could if used in a way that was dangerous. What I'm saying is we need to evaluate each product not just assume that because there is a potential danger that an entire technology needs to be avoided. I think it IS a legitimate concern for each new product as part of its evaluation but I don't think it is somehow a legitimate concern for anything that was made using genetic engineering.
To carry on with my hammer analogy it would be like asking if you could make something sharp using a hammer that could potentially injure people. The answer would be that well yes, I suppose you could, but you probably wouldn't unless you were intending on doing that in the first place. If you did then that product should be evaluated for safety and if it is deemed unsafe then sure it shouldn't be used...but that doesn't somehow invalidate or cast concern about the use of hammers in general somehow.lithezebra 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?
That's why the EPA is involved in the approval process. Generally speaking, the plants grown in agriculture need a lot of special treatment, and aren't that likely to thrive on their own. Except blackberries, which are not GMO, which grow all over where I live. You'd have to look at each plant individually. There's a hypothetical possibility of GMOs cross-pollinating with outside plants, in which case you might get Roundup resistant weeds, or non-crop plants that are toxic to corn borers. And, of course, weeds and corn borers evolve to be resistant to Roundup and to the BT toxin.
Thank you both!1 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions