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 GMOs bad for you?
Options
Replies
-
@Aaron_K123 are you against labeling per se, or are they just something you don't feel the need for?0
-
Labels I've found offensive include "Fat-Free" on Jell-O packages. It's a marketing ploy with no useful information for the consumer.2
-
I just started on the last season of The Americans, and it just so happens its about the Americans starting to develop GMO grains. Of course the Russians think that they are creating something to destroy the world and how the GMOs are horrible for the world. Very good and interesting watch.
Loved that thread in the series. Very timely and highlights how damaging a skewed perspective can be.0 -
-
Aaargh! That just drives me nuts, @stanmann5710
-
certified non-GMO labels don't bother me anymore than other marketing puffery like "handmade" or "artisan." It's just marketing.2
-
@Aaron_K123 are you against labeling per se, or are they just something you don't feel the need for?
I am against them. I believe that the only legitimate reason for the government to require a label on something is for scientifically established legitimate safety concerns or scientifically established nutritional information relevant to public health. I don't think it is a democratic choice whether or not something is safe or nutritious, it's an objective thing to be evaluated in a controlled unbiased way divorced from personal bias and emotion. So therefore I don't think what the government labels should be voted on on the basis of people's feelings, even if those people represent a majority. Science isn't a democracy.
That said I am fine with "Non GMO" labels voluntarily applied by companies if they want as a form of marketing.
By way of analogy I am fine with the Jewish community producing Kosher foods or validating foods as being Kosher and voluntarily applying whatever label they see fit. I would not be fine with them demanding that the government mandate that any non-Kosher foods be labeled as such so that they can be better informed as consumers. If you can see the distinction there I'd hope you can see how it applies with GMO labeling as well. Food labels shouldn't be a matter of politics and popular opinion.
It riles both my scientific and libertarian values and when the issue of mandated GMO labeling came up in the state of Washington I voted against it.10 -
Certified organic beef caused a big stir here in Alberta.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/earls-alberta-beef-q-a-certified-humane-1.35592290 -
I'm just going to have fun with an analogy.
Imagine two cereals, Trix and Crunchberry, going at eachother in the competitive marketplace. Trix uses a specialized "ingredient" that they spent money developing and that they patented that allows them to drive the cost of their product way down and as such Crunchberry is starting to lose out in the market. As a means of retaliating Crunchberry comes up with a rather ingenious marketing tactic. They start to label their cereal as specifically NOT including that special ingredient Trix uses coupled with a campaign implying that that ingredient poses potential environmental and health risks (without outright saying it themselves of course). They encourage their subsidiaries to label their products as well as not containing that ingredient. That call gets picked up by the general public who go onto social media and DO make the outright claim that the ingredient damages the environment and hurts health and it escalates and escalates. Soon thousands of unrelated companies are labeling their products as not containing the ingredient to calm concerns of potential customers.
After years of this the general public has an overall sense of disquiet and doubt about this ingredient and the majority of people think it is dangerous. The company that produces Trix has become utterly demonized and is considered a den of evil by most people. A petition is put forth that this ingredient should be labeled and that the government should mandate a label to applied to ANY product that contains it. This petition has overwhelming majority support as most of the public is either convinced of the danger of this ingredient or is not sure and feels there is no harm in having the label there as it is merely informative and not a warning label per say. At no point is actual evidence of harm brought forth and if scientific evidence is shown that actually it appears that the ingredient does not appear at all harmful this evidence is rebuked by simply repeating the mantra "more studies are needed".
The measure passes. The government does what the people demand and requires that businesses label their products if they contain this ingredient. Of course at this point most vaccines, a good percentage of medicines, and almost all reagents in the biological sciences require a label as well. This is because although all this time everyone was using words and language suggestive that this was an "ingredient" actually it was more of a process, a process that was used and applied in many ways far exceeding the scope of Trix cereal. In fact if you were to actually scientifically examine the contents of Trix cereal you would not be able to distinguish an "ingredient" within that was as any different objectively speaking than the ingredients in CrunchBerry. The fear of this "ingredient" was well established however and not only companies but the government itself began to shrink from its use. Funding going to research and development using this process was cut or sharply decreased, certain types of products could no longer be produces as no other process was possible. Research that was completed after 12 years and successful went unused because the "ingredient" was involved so no money was deployed to implement it. Many of these products and programs and research were actually humanitarian in nature and often non-profit and thus could not survive the cut in public funding.
But hey, at least Crunchberry got their marketshare back right?14 -
Sorry for another post but just want to make clear I have no issue with the concept of organic farming nor certainly any issue with organic farmers. My issue is with marketing taking the form of fear mongering and misinformation that is long term damaging to the public and culture. The armies of people with some misconstrued ideas who glorify organic into something it isnt and demonized "conventional" into something it isnt. People who have then taken to blogs and social media who amplify this message to the point of utter conspiratorial absurdity. That is where I have the problem.
If someone wants a buisness running a farm that grows and produces food using certain techniques that appeal to a certain market or demographic that can afford it then cool. Especially if it's within a community where it inspires an informative and truthful dialogue and leads to a feeling of connection between workers and food. All for that.
I just wish people turned to actual farmers when it comes to information pertaining to farming and to actual scientists when it comes to information about genetic engineering rather than to the sensationalized lunacy this organic/conventional/GMO thing has become online. Personally I try not to speak on farming because I'm not a farmer, I'd be making a lot of asumptuous and although some might be informed asumptions most would probably end up being wrong in some way simply because that isn't my life. If I want to learn about it I'd probably try to seek out some farmers to talk to if they were willing.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Please tell me the manufacturer is trying to be ironic...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Opinion piece on DDT and malaria and Rachel Carson: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-rachel-carson-cost-millions-of-people-their-lives
I haven't researched it enough to have an opinion, but I do know some who have and agree with the author, so it's a view I give some credibility (with the understanding that I would need to look into it more).
I would argue the opposite, though. By restricting DDT use in agriculture, DDT remains effective against mosquitoes for longer periods of time, because it slows the acquisition of DDT resistance in mosquito populations. Overuse of pesticides greatly shortens the time to acquire for the pest population to acquire immunity, in exactly the same way that overuse of antibiotics shortens the time for the emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
DDT is still used for malaria control in the malaria-heavy regions of the world, but now it's being used by organizations that are weighing the pros of killing mosquitoes today against the cons of accelerating DDT resistance among tomorrow's mosquito population and attempting to find the overall optimal strategy, versus using DDT commercially and trying to improve their bottom line regardless of the long-term health impacts.1 -
I think it's only a very small % of people who actually have problems with gluten.
The rest are caught up in a mass-hypnosis.6 -
No. GMO is such a loosely defined term that by definition, all nectarines, avocados, bananas, and watermelons are GMO via human interference. Everything living is a GMO, unless it's a clone.1
-
JohnnyPenso wrote: »
Selective breeding =/= gene splicing.dmelvin3737 wrote: »Humans have been selectively breeding traits what we found increased yield or resistance to certain disease or allowed for less water for hundreds of years.
GMO's are nothing more than selective breeding 2.0
I avoid all GMO foods as best I can, because I don't trust that genetic modifications are being done for my benefit, they are being done with a profit motive and that can and has led to shortcuts being taken, negative results being covered up etc. I don't eat corn or soy or any of their derivatives to begin with and I rarely eat packaged or processed foods so I'm not likely to run across any GMO foods anyway.
So no avocados, bananas or nectarines for you... They are so delicious.1 -
Humans have been modifying food for thousands of years. GE is just another tool to do what we've been doing all.that time.
In general, GE is more targeted and more accurate than conventional breeding. It's also more tightly regulated than conventional breeding. The end result is that gmo is at least as safe, if not safer than conventional breeding3 -
BigNorthernBear wrote: »The "organic" labelled ruby red grapefruit is a GMO food, the technique used was blasting a tonne of grapefruit seeds with radiation forcing mutation, planting them and seeing what grew, and if it tasted good and added a new twist sell it.
No stringent safety testing was ever demanded or done.
On the other hand, foods currently called GMO are only a subset of foods modified using 3 out of the 5 methods and are the MOST TESTED CONSUMER PRODUCTS EVER.
For someone to convince me GM makes food less safe, they would have to explain to me how transplanting on to five genes is somehow more dangerous then say hybridization which essentially mixes 30+ million genes from two separate subspecies.
In the first case, we can pinpoint only the feature we want, in the latter we just hope for the best. In the first case the end product is rigorously tested, in the later its a total free for all.
Not to mention some GM foods do not actually add genes, they simply turn off a gene, such as the new arctic apple, which prevents it from rotting so soon like regular apples.
The only arguments I have ever seen against GMO are the typical antigovernment, anti agri, anti pharma conspiracy theories and selected examples numbering in the single digits pulled from the millions of safe useful products we all enjoy.
Or conflation with other conspiracy theories about Monsanta etc... Meanwhile there are metastudy reviews compiling research from 10s of thousands of studies that show with perfect consistently GM technology is safe.
What really gets under my skin about all this GMO fear mongering and LIES out of either ignorance or malice is that GM technology is our VERY BEST hope to cure many diseases including cancer, and our very best hope to create transplant-able human organs, directly saving lives.
Yes "science" sometimes, occasionally, gets things wrong, but conspiracy theories are wrong a good 99.5% of the time, and the .05% of the time they are right is pretty much equal to a broken clock being right twice a day.
Louder for the people in the back. Bolded for emphasis.3 -
Mmmmmmmm. Roundup ready.11
-
Science I trust (WHO, CDC, pretty much every major health organization) says GMOs are fine. Monsanto's business practices suck and that's the source of a lot of the hate.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 912 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions