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.
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
cee134
Posts: 33,711 Member
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Yes or no? Please explain.
Yes or no? Please explain.
0
Replies
-
Probably. I don't.1
-
Most definitely. The vast majority of studies show no evidence of GMOs being the scary devil's fruit that the rabid extremes of hipster and new age cultures have made it out to be. A very small minority of people are affected by the so-called harms and generally suffer from underlying conditions that would be present even without GMOs, and the special snowflakes are yet again taking advantage of and trivializing others' medical conditions because it's a convenient and trendy way to elevate their sense of superiority.57
-
^^^^ this!2
-
I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.14 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
This is actually what bugs me about the other end of the spectrum where GMOs are concerned. Companies pushing for it to not be required, as if it'll decimate their consumer base. The number of people who eat potato chips really ought to demonstrate that labeling isn't a threat to their business, plus the companies that voluntarily disclose this information are generally perceived better by the public, even when the product isn't GMO-free.5 -
I don't because I would miss bananas.22
-
Yes, I think GMOs are unfairly bashed, and I think it's rooted in a lack of scientific literacy and understanding about genetic engineering. Here's the previous debate thread, I love all of @Aaron_K123 's points. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10407825/non-gmo-foods-arent-any-safer-or-healthier/p1
To me, the labeling is asinine. Why force labeling for GMOs and not force it for products from selective breeding (something that has ACTUALLY GOTTEN PEOPLE SICK BEFORE), mutation breeding (OMG RADIATION), or hybridization? Also, if labeling is forced, it should only be allowed for products that have potential to contain GMOs - slapping "GMO Free!!" on a bag of quinoa is capitalizing on fearmongering around GMOs, not actually educating the consumer.15 -
Who is we? I don't bash them, unfairly or otherwise.2
-
If you really want to be technical about the GMO's, practically everything we eat or can purchase in a grocery store, farmer's market or anywhere for that matter has been modified from the form that it had in the past - think selective breeding, cross-breeding, etc. The only real difference with GMO's is that the process takes a lot less time than nature.15
-
chocolate_owl wrote: »Yes, I think GMOs are unfairly bashed, and I think it's rooted in a lack of scientific literacy and understanding about genetic engineering. Here's the previous debate thread, I love all of @Aaron_K123 's points. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10407825/non-gmo-foods-arent-any-safer-or-healthier/p1
To me, the labeling is asinine. Why force labeling for GMOs and not force it for products from selective breeding (something that has ACTUALLY GOTTEN PEOPLE SICK BEFORE), mutation breeding (OMG RADIATION), or hybridization? Also, if labeling is forced, it should only be allowed for products that have potential to contain GMOs - slapping "GMO Free!!" on a bag of quinoa is capitalizing on fearmongering around GMOs, not actually educating the consumer.
Thanks for the tag. Yes I think that genetic engineering is getting an unfair bad reputation over this spreading and unfounded public fear of so-called "GMOs". I've discussed this topic enough I decided to write an article about it which later got picked up by Forbes. I'll link to that:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/#2698f2432fbc13 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.
I'm not concerned so much that science will get its feelings hurt, I'm concerned that senators and congressmen will demand unreasonable levels of oversight and defund current studies on the basis of an unwarranted witch-hunt fear-driven public response to internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that they are dangerous. I think fear is a dangerous thing especially when acted upon.18 -
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Yes or no? Please explain.
Roger that. Farmers are in it for the money, they really are. The public is easily confused by the loudest screamers. That's why we kill more cows because the public screamed against "pink slime". It would be cheaper to kill fewer cows and mix pink slime into the ground beef, but no, the public irrationally fears words like "pink slime". In the same way, the public has been taught to fear Genetically Modified Organisms, especially those grown from seeds produced by Monsanto. Every academic scientific analysis of every proposed GMO food has concluded that the food is safe for human consumption. Until the public learn what an organism is, their dog is a genetically modified organism, by the way, the farmers will continue to try to serve the market with more costly and more profitable genetically modified organisms which were genetically modified the old-fashioned way, by selective breeding.2 -
All most people know is that they are supposed to have a negative reaction to the term GMO, so that's what they go with.10
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.
I'm not concerned so much that science will get its feelings hurt, I'm concerned that senators and congressmen will demand unreasonable levels of oversight and defund current studies on the basis of an unwarranted witch-hunt fear-driven public response to internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that they are dangerous. I think fear is a dangerous thing especially when acted upon.
How do you think that danger compares to the risk of blanket, unquestioning approval prompted by competing internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that there's no danger whatsoever to any type of GMO because they read online that one of them was safe?
While we're at it, do you think hypotheticals like this are a good basis for legislation?4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.
I'm not concerned so much that science will get its feelings hurt, I'm concerned that senators and congressmen will demand unreasonable levels of oversight and defund current studies on the basis of an unwarranted witch-hunt fear-driven public response to internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that they are dangerous. I think fear is a dangerous thing especially when acted upon.
How do you think that danger compares to the risk of blanket, unquestioning approval prompted by competing internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that there's no danger whatsoever to any type of GMO because they read online that one of them was safe?
While we're at it, do you think hypotheticals like this are a good basis for legislation?
Um...honestly not sure what you are asking. I think you know the answer to both of those so I'm assuming you are trying to make a point about what I said or how I said it but I don't follow you. I could just answer what you asked directly but I assume you are insinuating something and want me to answer that insinuation but I don't follow what you are getting at it.
Answering you straight up: no I don't think unquestioned approval is a good idea. No I don't think hypotheticals are a good basis for legislation.7 -
extra_medium wrote: »All most people know is that they are supposed to have a negative reaction to the term GMO, so that's what they go with.
I've seen some interesting polls. Such and such percent of people are absolutely for labeling of foods containing GMOs. A fairly close number of people also want to label all foods containing DNA. Obviously, the largest problem we have is that most people don't understand basic science. People like Big Organic use that ignorance and terms that sound scary to sway these people to their side.
The problem with labeling a food as containing a "GMO" is that it's vague and doesn't really mean anything. It also costs companies money. Vermont enacted their labeling law earlier in the year. One of the biggest actions to come out of it was that many food companies pulled all or some of their products from the shelves there. That limits competition, at the very least.
Corn.org estimated that all American families would have spent about $1,050 more per year on groceries due to Vermont's law. Of course, a federal law was enacted that essentially pulled the rug out from beneath Vermont, and other states that might have followed in their footsteps, but it's important to consider the possible impact of these types of laws before we go willy-nilly telling companies to stick a nearly meaningless label on their products.
http://corn.org/cost-impact-of-vermonts-gmo-labeling-law-on-consumers-nationwide/
Quote: "The impact of Vermont’s mandatory law requiring on package labels for foods produced with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would increase food costs for consumers across the country due to the cost of the new labeling systems and because consumers will likely view the GMO labels as warnings, leading food companies to switch from GMO ingredients to more expensive non-GMO ingredients. Such costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Costs incurred by American food manufacturers to comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling mandate could lead to an increase of nearly 2 percent (1.76 percent) in average food prices nationwide in the first year. These higher grocery costs will likely continue in the years ahead with a total cost of approximately $13,250 per household over 20 years."7 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Yes, I think GMOs are unfairly bashed, and I think it's rooted in a lack of scientific literacy and understanding about genetic engineering. Here's the previous debate thread, I love all of @Aaron_K123 's points. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10407825/non-gmo-foods-arent-any-safer-or-healthier/p1
To me, the labeling is asinine. Why force labeling for GMOs and not force it for products from selective breeding (something that has ACTUALLY GOTTEN PEOPLE SICK BEFORE), mutation breeding (OMG RADIATION), or hybridization? Also, if labeling is forced, it should only be allowed for products that have potential to contain GMOs - slapping "GMO Free!!" on a bag of quinoa is capitalizing on fearmongering around GMOs, not actually educating the consumer.
All of this.
0 -
Yes. Read actual scientific studies and opinion on the subject.2
-
This content has been removed.
-
Which tends to show how much it is not really about a right to know because a person that really wants to know about their food could already have learned, a molecule of sucrose doesn't change by coming from a GMO sugar beet or from an organic sugar cane plant.
Odd conundrum for anti-GMO vegans... sugar from cane is not vegan, but it is from beets.
There's been a huge boost to sustainable agriculture from GMO sugar beets, which require far less herbicide and yield much higher tonneage per acre than conventional beet seed. On top of that, hand-pulling has been eliminated by the GMO seed, meaning no longer do thousands of migrant workers toil in the sun for each summer (not are they exposed to high levels of pesticides and herbicides).
1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Yes or no? Please explain.
Roger that. Farmers are in it for the money, they really are. The public is easily confused by the loudest screamers. That's why we kill more cows because the public screamed against "pink slime". It would be cheaper to kill fewer cows and mix pink slime into the ground beef, but no, the public irrationally fears words like "pink slime". In the same way, the public has been taught to fear Genetically Modified Organisms, especially those grown from seeds produced by Monsanto. Every academic scientific analysis of every proposed GMO food has concluded that the food is safe for human consumption. Until the public learn what an organism is, their dog is a genetically modified organism, by the way, the farmers will continue to try to serve the market with more costly and more profitable genetically modified organisms which were genetically modified the old-fashioned way, by selective breeding.
Can you explain how my dog is a GMO? Or are you using a definition for the term other than the common useage?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Yes or no? Please explain.
Roger that. Farmers are in it for the money, they really are. The public is easily confused by the loudest screamers. That's why we kill more cows because the public screamed against "pink slime". It would be cheaper to kill fewer cows and mix pink slime into the ground beef, but no, the public irrationally fears words like "pink slime". In the same way, the public has been taught to fear Genetically Modified Organisms, especially those grown from seeds produced by Monsanto. Every academic scientific analysis of every proposed GMO food has concluded that the food is safe for human consumption. Until the public learn what an organism is, their dog is a genetically modified organism, by the way, the farmers will continue to try to serve the market with more costly and more profitable genetically modified organisms which were genetically modified the old-fashioned way, by selective breeding.
Can you explain how my dog is a GMO? Or are you using a definition for the term other than the common useage?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
Technically, by playing around with that definition, you could argue there is no GMO's - transgenic gene transfer happens in nature too. On the flip side, things that aren't usually required to be labeled GMO because they were done with forced adaptive mutagenesis could be argued as not occurring naturally, and thus should be GMO - so would include a number of "heirloom" organic seed stocks. In that sense, dogs are the result of mating a wolf-life ancestor repeatedly, but in a way that isn't natural either - it is humans selecting for desirable traits.
Usually it comes down to playing with GMO as a concept versus it as a set of words. In the literal sense, Genetically Modified Organisms are all organisms that aren't pure clones because all organisms have genes that are different than their parentage. Even if you take it one step further and say GMO means human intervention, again, dogs aren't the result of wolf like animals picking to mate only with members of their species that are more docile and affiliative with humans - it involves people picking them for traits, albeit by phenotype, rather than genotype.
Yeah, usually when people start talking about wide sweeping GMO they aren't talking about GMO as it's typically used.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Yes - there is no scientific basis behind anti-GMO.
"...but we just don't know the impact" is not a logically valid statement.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Um...honestly not sure what you are asking.
You told me you're worried that legislators will cave into pressure and keep GMOs off the market based on a public response that's driven by fear and ignorance.
I replied that there's the equal and opposite danger that legislators will cave into pressure and all unregulated, unlabeled GMOs into the market based on a public response that's driven by apathy and ignorance.
You're right that I'm making a point. I think your objection was "I can imagine a bad thing happening if we follow this route" and that's not a good enough argument because I can imagine a bad thing happening if we go the other way instead.
Also, I'm not just pulling this out of my butt. A lot of people learn that a specific GMO food is safe, and think that means all GMO is safe. That's the bad thing I'm talking about; we learn that some GMOs are safe and we let our guard down, fail to test new ones adequately.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.
I'm not concerned so much that science will get its feelings hurt, I'm concerned that senators and congressmen will demand unreasonable levels of oversight and defund current studies on the basis of an unwarranted witch-hunt fear-driven public response to internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that they are dangerous. I think fear is a dangerous thing especially when acted upon.
How do you think that danger compares to the risk of blanket, unquestioning approval prompted by competing internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that there's no danger whatsoever to any type of GMO because they read online that one of them was safe?
While we're at it, do you think hypotheticals like this are a good basis for legislation?
It's not about random unfounded blog posts. It's about the actual science being proven on the subject of GMO's. Not a valid comparison at all.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Um...honestly not sure what you are asking.
You told me you're worried that legislators will cave into pressure and keep GMOs off the market based on a public response that's driven by fear and ignorance.
I replied that there's the equal and opposite danger that legislators will cave into pressure and all unregulated, unlabeled GMOs into the market based on a public response that's driven by apathy and ignorance.
You're right that I'm making a point. I think your objection was "I can imagine a bad thing happening if we follow this route" and that's not a good enough argument because I can imagine a bad thing happening if we go the other way instead.
Also, I'm not just pulling this out of my butt. A lot of people learn that a specific GMO food is safe, and think that means all GMO is safe. That's the bad thing I'm talking about; we learn that some GMOs are safe and we let our guard down, fail to test new ones adequately.
Mine wasn't a hypothetical, that did happen. Congress passed a federal labeling law that was based off of public fear rather than a scientifically based concern for health. Every single other federally mandated labeling has scientific backing that it has a legitimate health risk to parts of the population (PKU, nuts etc) or that it has legitimate information pertaining to health (ie nutrition labels). This is neither of those, there is no backing to suggest that genetic engineering presents a health danger in and of itself nor is there any evidence that knowing something is GE gives you any information relevant to health in the sense of nutrition. This is unprecedented. That placed a stigma on genetic engineering that has a very real impact on funding. Not sure why you thought it was a hypothetical, it happened.
"Also, I'm not just pulling this out of my butt. A lot of people learn that a specific GMO food is safe, and think that means all GMO is safe"
Who said that? Can you point to an example of someone saying that? I don't think anyone believes that. If someone does believe that and you can point me to them I will tell them myself I think that is a foolish position to take. Otherwise its just a strawman. The thing you are apparently concerned by I don't think is an actual thing.
Is there anyone here who thinks that it would be impossible to produce a genetically engineered product that posed a health risk?
"That's the bad thing I'm talking about; we learn that some GMOs are safe and we let our guard down, fail to test new ones adequately."
Which ones have we failed to test adequately thusfar due to letting our guard down? You seem to be complaining that I produced a hypothetical despite what I said actually did happen...public concern about GMOs based on fears that were riled via internet blogging and not any sort of scientific backing led to legislation being passed. Now you are producing a hypothetical yourself, genetically engineered products not being tested for safety because they are just assumed to be safe by an ignorant overtrusting public....can you provide an example of that actually happening? Can you point to someone who thinks genetically engineered products shouldn't undergo the same safety requirements of any other food? Is there a current product on the market that didn't met those standards?
I can point to 5 different websites of people with hundreds of thousands of followers stating without question that GMO products are toxic and to be avoided. Threw in a couple more just because they kept coming, there are hundreds of these out there basically stiring the pot without actually backing their claims.
http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/
http://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/
http://foodbabe.com/tag/how-to-avoid-gmos/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx
https://www.organicconsumers.org/categories/genetic-engineering
http://www.wanttoknow.info/gmoinyourfood
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/home/
http://www.doctoroz.com/
Can you point to even one out there with any sort of popularity declaring all GMO products past present and future are safe and therefore no testing is necessary? Seriously, which one of these is a hypothetical here.
Public fear of GMOs based on unscientific rhetoric leading to actual laws being past is not a hypothetical, its already happened and it is a problem. The idea that if we accept some GMOs as safe that we will become complacent and then accept all GMOs as safe and then in the future one will end up causing harm IS a hypothetical and one you should justify past just claiming that it did not originate from your butt or the butt of a popular online blogger.19
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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