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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Replies
-
Anvil_Head wrote: »
Some animals eat poop. I'm glad I'm smarter than an animal.
As do some humans...
3 -
jillybeansalad wrote: »
Glad I'm smarter than some humans too.
As to animals being smarter than humans, proof positive they aren't is that they haven't learned to cook/eat bacon yet. Mmm, bacon.
7 -
jillybeansalad wrote: »
Those humans are usually institutionalized.1 -
Rather an uninformed statement, IMHO. You do realize, of course, that foods labeled as organic are also grown with pesticides? In addition, many of these "approved" pesticides are actually more toxic than Round Up and need to be used more often since they are usually not as effective.
Yes, I am aware of it. I'm not an expert but i do have two science degrees and worked in food safety for a large food processor. I will not eat ultraprocessed or anything with soy or corn syrup in it. It has just never set well with me....it's a personal choice. Nor do I go around preaching the evils of GMOs.....some are great (insulin-producing bacteria for one). People in my family live well into their 90s (my grandpa will be 99 at Christmas and is still in great health), so I'm having what he's having! I also live in a farming community. Some farmers admit to using more than needed pesticides because it won't kill the crops. My friend's entire garden was destroyed by her husband's over zealous spraying in a neighboring field. Luckily, the younger farmer next to me uses responsibly and has completely stopped crop dusting as well. Funny thing is growing up, my family nor my grandparents/great grandparents used any 'store bought' gardening helpers and always managed to have loads of food. An older farmer friend (2000 acres) has decided to semiretire this year. After paying for the special seeds, fertilizer, and roundup, there's not much left he says. He's going to continue his hybrid sweet corn and wheat production, but give up the field corn and soybean.
I'm not trying to sell my way of thinking or start a side debate......they're tiring and I really don't give enough of a kitten to do so. I've got hot sauce to can and a turkey to roast. But the older I get, the less I tend to put my faith in interpretations of "science." I still believe in science though! I just don't think it's the end all. It's arrogant to think that we as humans know it all. I try to keep an open mind, but I'd rather go with my own version eating healthy.
I avoid it all and grow my own. Have a great week!
Signed a practical, slim, 50ish, medfree, expat wife who is queen of her kingdom
1 -
I haven't read all posts yet so I don't know if this has been addressed. A lot of products have been altered so that certain weedkillers can be used without killing the plant. (Roundup) This means we can pour more chemicals into the environment. I can't believe this will ultimately prove beneficial.
I was raised on a farm. 50 years ago farmers routinely sprayed crops with DDT and the local agricultural groups saw nothing wrong with it. They even encouraged it. What we are doing now in agriculture may prove to be the 21st century DDT.2 -
I haven't read all posts yet so I don't know if this has been addressed. A lot of products have been altered so that certain weedkillers can be used without killing the plant. (Roundup) This means we can pour more chemicals into the environment. I can't believe this will ultimately prove beneficial.
They don't use more chemicals, they actually use fewer (but different) chemicals, and the new chemicals they use are safer to humans.
Chemical weed control has been the norm for almost sixty years now for large-scale farming operations. What Roundup-ready crops do is allow farmers to use a safer, easier chemical control (glyphosate) instead of the cocktails of chemicals needed to achieve broad-spectrum weed control without GMO crops. Glyphosate is also very safe for animals, including humans, as all animals entirely lack the metabolic pathway targeted by glyphosate.7 -
We've been looking at the wrong culprit all along!
http://welovegv.com/how-organic-food-makes-us-fatter/8 -
thehadster wrote: »I think it depends on what type of GMO you are talking about. We have been eating GMO foods since the beginning of the human race. Bees fly from flower to flower and cross pollinate. That is their job. The flowers and trees depend on it. Once we began farming, we chose which seeds we liked and planted them. People figured out if you mixed this apple with that apple you got an apple different from both parents and that sometimes it was a really great apple! And bees have been doing that for us for millions of years.
@thehadster, I think you're referring to cross-pollination and/or hybridization, not GMO
Let's all use the same definition of GMO foods, before we start debating...
According to the World Health Organization, "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.0 -
I have never encountered an actual scientist that is afraid to eat GMO food.
2 TRUE FACTs:
1) I have never encountered an actual scientist that is afraid to eat GMO food.
AND
2 ) I have never encountered an actual scientist that eats GMO food.
How could both of my facts be true ??
well, you see, I have never encountered an actual scientist ! lol2 -
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »
And I have never encountered an actual scientist that eats GMO food.
Paging @Aaron_K123
haha never mind, I got in before the edit.1 -
...slighty ripe zombie thread has arisen?Debbie_Ferr wrote: »
@thehadster, I think you're referring to cross-pollination and/or hybridization, not GMO
Let's all use the same definition of GMO foods, before we start debating...
According to the World Health Organization, "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.
I just wished governments used this definition. There's an issue at the moment with scientists who have genetically engineered some hornless hereford bulls to create hornless dairy cattle, so the cows are less likely to injure each other when they're coming in at milking times, and it means as calves they don't have to go through having their horns seared off, which is a painful process with the potential for infection.
The alteration they made is identical to naturally occuring mutation in black angus beef cattle causing them to be hornless. Technically it can occur naturally (since it already has) and could also be done via mating , yet it's being classified as a GMO and may need to go through a registration process similar to any drug. It's an alteration that doesn't effect any part of the cattle that we eat (or drink), and it's wasn't created by an artificial recombinant process (no foreign DNA at all), yet certain advocacy groups are freaking out about the little bulls.
and don't worry @Alatariel75, I can step up even if it isn't needed anymore; I may not work in a lab these days (plant biotechnologist by trade), but this scientist certainly eats GMO foods and is proud of it.4 -
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »
2 TRUE FACTs:
1) I have never encountered an actual scientist that is afraid to eat GMO food.
AND
2 ) I have never encountered an actual scientist that eats GMO food.
How could both of my facts be true ??
well, you see, I have never encountered an actual scientist ! lol
I am an actual scientist. I have no problem eating food from plants or animals that have undergone genetic recombination.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
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/#2698f2432fbc
Excellent article!!1 -
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, ecosystem.
@sunnybeaches105 FTFY
I realize that this post is several months old but please tell me that you did not just propose that banning fertility treatments is the proper solution to the food shortage that would result from a reversion to pre-modern farming techniques.2 -
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »
@thehadster, I think you're referring to cross-pollination and/or hybridization, not GMO
Let's all use the same definition of GMO foods, before we start debating...
According to the World Health Organization, "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.
Okay.
The question is if this is a meaningful difference IF (and I think this is clearly true) the particular "natural" changes would not have happened but for human intervention. There is no way corn or bananas would look like it does or most breeds of dogs exist, for that matter, if not for human involvement.2 -
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »
2 TRUE FACTs:
1) I have never encountered an actual scientist that is afraid to eat GMO food.
AND
2 ) I have never encountered an actual scientist that eats GMO food.
How could both of my facts be true ??
well, you see, I have never encountered an actual scientist ! lol
Then I'm guessing you have never encountered an actual scientist.
There is no evidence suggesting GMO food is harmful in any way.1 -
we have been genetically fiddling with food long before our ability to pluck and add specific genes. Back then it was a real crap shoot and took much much longer to do.
Some results:
- Longhorn cattle
- Current beef stock is much taller and leaner than 60 years ago
- Nectarines
- tangelos
- Seedless Grapes
- Brahmin Cattle. These animals are much more tolerant of heat and disease. So often ranchers will bread them with the often coveted Herford or Angus in effort to get the meat quality while retaining the natural disease resistance. I don't know about you but I like my meat disease free. ( They are decedents of Chianina who are decendents of Watusi angoli)
Think about the fact that some of the food is more disease resistant. That means more abundance.
Did you know that much of the Rice eaten in Asia was cultivated by an American. Since rice was the main source of nutrition for many very poor people, he developed rice that provided far more "bang" per bite for calories and micros.
While that's not so hot NOW, when you are talking about starving people it's a pretty awesome thing. With the growing population we need to find a way to feed everyone in expensively but nutritiously.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I'm proud of my graduate work, but I also realize I got lucky. Science seems to be 5% skill and 95% choosing the right project in the right place at the right time.
Thermostabilizing an enzyme https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15879217 goes to suggesting it might be used in gene therapy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18291415 goes to development of it into a gene therapy for cancer
http://tocagen.com/our-science/
I'm not part of that company at all nor do I recieve any acknowledgement or royalty because we published our work openly without patents but "Toca 511" uses the protein I produced in my graduate work. They took it and developed it into a product though which is no small feat so I'm not trying to undermine or downplay their involvement. Kind of crazy to see that happen, that company is basically based on something I made. (Not there there is an "I" in science, its always a "we" I'm not trying to claim it was all me, it was my project and I drove it forward but couldn't have done it without support of my advisors and lab).
Reason I'm bringing this up at all in this thread is to point out that I have personal experience using genetic engineering in a way to help develop a therapeutic that got picked up and developed by a company that is now in clinical trials for glioblastoma and is currently being used to treat people that previously had no hope for survival. Yet somehow I don't work for Monsanto, imagine that. That is why this anti-GE stance pisses me off.
The glioblastoma really grabbed my interest as my Mother's best friend of over 50 years was diagnosed just this past year. Is there any way to find out more information on that trial?0 -
hornless hereford bulls
The correct and genetic term is "Polled"
I'm a little curious about which dairy cattle. Because Holsteins (the main ones used for most dairy production) are generally polled as being polled is a dominant genetic feature. So I'm not sure why this is necessary.
A problem seen in the past is that when a breed has been created to combine meat cattle and dairy cattle the off spring yield both crappy meat and crappy milk. Dairy cattle in years past needed to be dairy cattle.
My guess is that it's a Jersey cattle who have higher levels of milk fat. These girls are so chill and so sweet though...
Makes me think I want a Jersey! Awesome cows! Hate to see anyone f* with them. They really are the perfect breed in my book.0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »
The correct and genetic term is "Polled"
I'm a little curious about which dairy cattle. Because Holsteins (the main ones used for most dairy production) are generally polled as being polled is a dominant genetic feature. So I'm not sure why this is necessary.
A problem seen in the past is that when a breed has been created to combine meat cattle and dairy cattle the off spring yield both crappy meat and crappy milk. Dairy cattle in years past needed to be dairy cattle.
My guess is that it's a Jersey cattle who have higher levels of milk fat. These girls are so chill and so sweet though...
Makes me think I want a Jersey! Awesome cows! Hate to see anyone f* with them. They really are the perfect breed in my book.
Thanks - I knew there was a proper term, but brain wasn't co-operating. I also wrote Hereford instead of Holstein in my haste to type a response on my break.
As far as I was aware, no dairy cattle are naturally polled, and the polled versions we do have of Holsteins are through cross breeding with beef cattle, and some dairy farmers aren't happy with their milk production of the successive generations compared to their horned counterparts yet (dairy farmers or ag scientists, please feel free to correct me there!).
I can't find the original article I read (different computer), but here's a related one, and here is a link for the original letter in Nature (it's only viewable with a subscription or institutional access though
)
Either way, I don't see a GMO dairy cow like this to be any type of Frankenfood. It's all marketing scare tactics so someone else is able to sell a competing product.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 930 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions