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?
Replies
-
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
Not everybody gets their information from yogurt ads. Instead of spending time listing all of the reasons why that article says nothing of substance related to the safety or lack thereof of conventional produce vs organic (no data to support either side), I looked into the so called non-profit organization and authors who wrote it. All that needs to be said is that the non-profit puppets who wrote that piece of propaganda had their funding arranged by Monsanto. Academics review existed solely for the purpose of writing that 'article' and they died in 2015 when this truth came out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html
Ahhh, Huffington Post and New York Times. Two well-known and highly respected scientific journals.
/sarcasm7 -
kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems10 -
I have never seen science so polarised and political. I'll read a scientific study supporting one side, then go read a critical review of the study by the other side. Just because I am trying to get a balanced view. Too often, and both sides do this, the review will be 60% character assassination of the researcher followed by some comments on the science itself. It's hard for me to take any scientist comments or even research as independent when they've spent a lot of text calling another scientist a "Monsanto paid shill" or "Anti-GMO activist-scientist". There is too much emotion in looking at GMOs. They're just a tool! And just because say one GMO variety isn't so good, doesn't mean they're all that way. I read an opinion piece that literally said the results of a scientific study of GMO Bt maize were contradicted by a study on a HT type of GMO soybean...what the hey? They're two different things? How can a study of one have any bearing on the study of the other? I think it's gotten to that both sides are in a winner takes all mentality...whoever wins proves all GMOs are good/bad when really each GMO should be assessed on its own merits or failings.
I'm 100% ok with this as I feel it reflects a more balanced approach to the gmo issue. I think your earlier statements sounded more like "all research scientists are in the back pocket of big ag", which I'm sure we've both heard about a million times and over which I tend to get defensive. My research mainly deals with ag chemical companies, so we constantly have to battle the perception that we're sitting in our offices cooking up biased data while drinking espressos from a machine sent to us by "big ag". It's also why my lab and others are really trying to avoid the smear campaign when writing papers, because while there are people with extreme biases (both ways) in my field, it's not worth it within the scientific community to constantly be at each other's throats.
Couldn't agree with you more, which is why I like the tool analogy. You can have a crappy nails that will give you tetanus, or you can have good nails that will hold for years and never rust. GMOs aren't inherently bad or good, just like pesticides, medicine, food, etc.when really each GMO should be assessed on its own merits or failings.2 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
Not everybody gets their information from yogurt ads. Instead of spending time listing all of the reasons why that article says nothing of substance related to the safety or lack thereof of conventional produce vs organic (no data to support either side), I looked into the so called non-profit organization and authors who wrote it. All that needs to be said is that the non-profit puppets who wrote that piece of propaganda had their funding arranged by Monsanto. Academics review existed solely for the purpose of writing that 'article' and they died in 2015 when this truth came out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html
Ahhh, Huffington Post and New York Times. Two well-known and highly respected scientific journals.
/sarcasm
Can you comment on the actual content of the post?
Should "Academics Review" be respected? And Why?0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
Not everybody gets their information from yogurt ads. Instead of spending time listing all of the reasons why that article says nothing of substance related to the safety or lack thereof of conventional produce vs organic (no data to support either side), I looked into the so called non-profit organization and authors who wrote it. All that needs to be said is that the non-profit puppets who wrote that piece of propaganda had their funding arranged by Monsanto. Academics review existed solely for the purpose of writing that 'article' and they died in 2015 when this truth came out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.htmlJust a couple of notes as someone with a little experience in the field:
1. Not all studies funded by industry (but conducted by a university or other outside organization) are inherently bad or biased, vice versa for independent studies. Research conducted BY industry can be tricky, but again not all of it is bad. The best thing to do would be to look at the journal it's published in and the history of the researchers involved. Is it a respectable, high-impact journal like Science, Nature, PLOS One, PNAS, etc? Are the researchers known for high-quality work? Then it's probably ok.
2. GMO is a tool. Saying all GMOs are bad is like saying all face creams are bad. Each GMO does something different. Some aim to reduce herbicide use, some make corn sweeter, some improve flavor and storage time, others provide protection from insect damage. Some even produce Bt, which is a commonly used organic pesticide with high selectivity for caterpillars.
3. Farmers aren't made of gold, and pesticides are expensive. Even using small amounts of the industrial versions (aka the stuff the farmers use not what you buy at stores) for research can get $$$ (although most companies will donate material for research if you ask). Farmers are probably not wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on herbicides/pesticides if they don't need to due to GMO crops (which are also not necessarily cheap).
4. Agricultural companies are not evil. Yes, they want to turn a profit, but they also want to maintain effectiveness of their products and not get hit with tons of litigation for literally poisoning the global population. Sure, sometimes the research comes late (ex. DDT), but the current system of pesticide registration usually takes 10+ years before a product actually reaches the market, including extensive research on safety. GMOs have been around for a long time, much longer than people realize. And yet the most valid arguments against GMOs are not for human safety, but for ecological reasons such as having roundup-resistant weeds.
1. Agree not all industry funded studies are bad...but they are all biased. There is no way they couldn't be. Agree not all independent studies are good..nor are they all unbiased...some are biased the other way. As well as reputation of publisher/researcher, I think conflicts of interest are important to consider. Publishers and/or researchers who have conflicts of interest are much more likely to skew results in favour of whoever is throwing money at them or they have loyalty towards.
2. Yes GMO is a tool. I don't think they are all bad, I personally think that none have been proven to be good for the environment or safe for consumption. The safety testing should be at same level as tests for new drugs....right now GMOs are being introduced with zero long term studies on health impact or environmental impact. With no labelling it is impossible to trace whether any of the anecdotal reports of health issues are due to GMOs or not. Some well respected animal studies have shown health problems linked to GMOs. Even if we have been astoundingly lucky so far, we have no way to quickly find a single "bad" GMO either before or after it hits the market and no process is perfect. For the environment, GMOs have not delivered on the higher crop yield, insect repelling, less pesticide using, drought resistant, etc etc promises. In fact, US farmers are beginning to move away from GMOs as much as they can because the GMOs have higher production costs (more expensive seed, need more fertiliser, no less pesticide in some cases more pesticide, more susceptible to extreme weather conditions, etc).
3. As addressed above, yep farmers are not made of $$$, which is one reason why some are now switching from a GMO to conventional or organic crops as a result of a purely economic business decision.
4. I do think Big Agra engages in unethical business practices. I wouldn't say they are "evil" but they are certainly very willing to talk up their products beyond what there is scientific evidence, fight against consumers even having a the freedom to choose whether or not to buy/eat their products, spend millions lobbying for no regulation and immunity from poisoning innocent consumers. It's not exactly ethical neighbourly behaviour and should not be condoned.
1. To say they're all biased is flat-out wrong. I personally know people who have conducted such industry-funded research, and they didn't care what our results were, as long as they were accurate. Few agricultural research programs can exist without at least some funding from industry. The funding goes through sometimes years before the research is finished, so it's out of the company's hands once they sign it over. Plus the company is interested, financially and ethically, if results counter-indicate current usage.
2. Yes, GMOs have delivered higher crop yield, inset repelling, less pesticide-using, drought resistant crops. Ask farmers who plant corn, soy, or cotton.
3. Organic is not more economical due to losses and expensive alternative management strategies. Certain conventional crops can be, but do realize there isn't gmo everything.
4. Won't argue on this as I think it's a problem with most businesses in a free market/capitalist system. But again, no more evil than literally every other company/industry.
1. We'll have to agree to disagree on the bias issue. History tells us that the scientific studies on tobacco funded by the tobacco industry were in fact biased. So it's not outlandish to say that GMO studies funded by the GMO industry are similarly biased. For the record, I also think organic studies funded by the organic industry are also biased.
2. Ahhh well you see GMO crops have not delivered...and I'm getting my info from farmers. They say the crops worked at first, but within five years the yields were down and they needed to ramp up pesticide use dramatically. A growing number are moving away from GMOs because the yields are no different, the same pesticides are needed, the cost of seeds are much higher than non GMO, and nonGMO can sell at a premium. They're doing it purely as a business decision.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/04/money-talks-some-farmers-go-non-gmo-because-of-price-premiums-not-rejection-of-biotech/
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/american-farmers-abandoning-genetically-modified-seeds-non-gmo-crops-productive-profitable/
3. Organic can be more profitable than GMO when you take into account all the costs of production vs. crop prices. Farmers look at maximising returns per acre...yes it may be higher cost to go organic, but the profits are higher. It is also a farming model better suited to small rural farmers..so organic supports small family businesses. I do know there isn't gmo everything since I did say farmers were moving towards organic and conventional non GMO crops.
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/january-2015/more-farmers-plant-non-gmo-this-year-some-considering-organic.php
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/30/usda-organic-corn-soy-profitable-conventional-crops-despite-higher-costs/
This isn't following a scientific method - you are biased in your analysis, constructing argumentum by strawman, and subscribing to conspiracy theorem rather than connecting the points of data.
1. ....and? It is outlandish until proven otherwise. This is pure biased conjecture.
2. Yield of corn has quadrupled. Bushels / acre have increased from ~50 bushel/acre observed in 1960 to ~200 bushel/acre in 2010.
3. The profits are only higher as this limited scale market serves a consumer base with disposable income. The market has reached capacity and has reached maximum expansion. This is a fad and will not survive an economic downturn.
1. No, bias exists both conscious and subconscious it is part of the human condition. It has been proven that it exists many times over. Funding source does drive a bias towards the vested interest of that funding source. Bias is the reason behind most ethics laws and regulations. Most corruption investigations "follow the money trail" as corruption is simply a type of bias that affects government operations.
2. Now who is biased. You disagreed that nonGMO yields were as good as GMO yields and said to me just go ask the farmers. So, I got sources with farmers saying they get an avg of 15-30 bushels an acre more with nonGMO vs GMO corn. But that didn't match your bias that GMOs are exactly as advertised. So now you're tossing out an (unsupported) historical statistic of 1960-2010 (even though for most of that time, the majority of crops were non GMO as for the first 30yrs of that 50yr span GMOs weren't even grown). If you look closer at the causes behind the historical trend, you'll find that the yield increase is due to farming methods not GMO vs nonGMO. Farming methods are a lot more high tech than they used to be, they have also incorporated organic principles like crop rotation and no till planting. Too a recent study comparing crop yield gains in US vs Europe showed that it was the advances in farming methods not GMOs because Europe had just as much a gain as the US and they don't grow GMOs.
3. GMOs used to be a niche market....so it doesn't matter that something is a niche market or not. What matters is that the farmers are responding to consumer demand (which is what is driving prices up). Organic foods already survived and thrived through the Great Recession...so yeah they'll be around after the next economic downturn.
1. Stay on topic please. Strawman construction serves no purpose.
2. There are a multitude of variables in agriculture that have resulted in a 200% increase yield in corn production of which GMO must be included. To further refute anti-GMO nonsense can you differentiate between hybrid seed, original line and "GMO"? Substantiate your claim with data.
3. Did you mean to state organic? Market capacity is a critical business parameter. A business is either expanding, stable, or downsizing - all based on market forces. Organic farming expanded based upon faulty logic and junk science. There is no demonstrable difference between the end products. Organic is nothing more than marketing woo playing on fears of the science illiterate.
I look at the organic industry in the same light as the diet industry - much emotion, no data, little logic, but outstanding marketing preying on the ignorance of the masses through a massive disinformation campaign.
Are you attempting to get closer to the truth or trying to be right?
1. Ok agree to disagree. Calling it a straw man repeatedly doesn't make you more credible. It just means you don't have a leg to stand on, so you cry "strawman!" so you don't have to actually discuss the issue of bias.
2. How about you provide some data to back up your assertion? I've provided plenty of data to back up mine in the form of farmers reports. So far all you've done is a "no you're wrong" statement without any data to back it up. While you're at it, explain to me why farmers are switching from GMO to nonGMO or organic since you refuse to accept the message from the farmers mouths that the GMO crops are not delivering the higher yields and pest protection as advertised.
3. Now your bias against organic farming reveals itself, and this from someone who has declared that bias doesn't exist! And that my contention that bias exists is just a strawman. Lol. I am almost peeing my pants with laughter here. You expect me to take you seriously when you write stuff like "Organic farming expanded based on faulty logic and junk science"..."organic marketing is nothing more than marketing woo playing on fears of the science illiterate" I haven't spoken out for or against organic on this thread. I have merely stated that more farmers are switching from GMO to nonGMO and organic for purely economic reasons and I backed it up with data. I'm not interested in debating the pros and cons of farming methods with a fanatic...fanatics tend to be overly biased.
Continue to use the strategy of constructing strawmen I will happily call you out. You could of course choose to stick to the points of the debate.
It is difficult to understand where you stand at this point - you continually deflect, spin, and shift position to appear to be right, despite leaving evidence in print of previous stances.
You are free to label me as you wish. I am fanatic when it comes to proof and repeatable data - it comes with the profession. You are free to provide reproduceable data supporting your claims...I'll wait patiently.
0 -
kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.0 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
"Better seeds" didn't just happen. They're the result of research and development, including GMOs.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
"Better seeds" didn't just happen. They're the result of research and development, including GMOs.
Agree, the better seeds are part of what the slide show said was modernizing of farming. So are all these better seeds GMO seeds? I look at the country productivity charts and they're almost identical...well except for some weirdos like Algeria. But the major countries all look the same. Is the increase due to GMOs? I know we here in the US are at the forefront of GMO technology, but I'm not seeing a difference...I kind of expected to see us way outperforming everyone else. So I'm still scratching my head...how have GMOs made a difference to World Hunger?
I know you're not the person that said this, but they haven't responded so can I ask you the follow up question I had about their comment? Kimny said something about GMOs being more affordable...are they cheaper? And that they are faster? I assume it must mean they grow faster because I don't think it matters whether a ship to Africa has gmo corn on it or not, it's going to sail at the same speed. I have never heard of GMOs growing faster than non GMOs...what's your thoughts on that?1 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
"Better seeds" didn't just happen. They're the result of research and development, including GMOs.
Agree, the better seeds are part of what the slide show said was modernizing of farming. So are all these better seeds GMO seeds? I look at the country productivity charts and they're almost identical...well except for some weirdos like Algeria. But the major countries all look the same. Is the increase due to GMOs? I know we here in the US are at the forefront of GMO technology, but I'm not seeing a difference...I kind of expected to see us way outperforming everyone else. So I'm still scratching my head...how have GMOs made a difference to World Hunger?
I know you're not the person that said this, but they haven't responded so can I ask you the follow up question I had about their comment? Kimny said something about GMOs being more affordable...are they cheaper? And that they are faster? I assume it must mean they grow faster because I don't think it matters whether a ship to Africa has gmo corn on it or not, it's going to sail at the same speed. I have never heard of GMOs growing faster than non GMOs...what's your thoughts on that?
I am not a GMO expert and I don't feel qualified to answer your questoins, but if you want to investigate what GMO advocates/experts have to say on some of these questions, I suggest this site: https://gmoanswers.com/
The cool thing about that site is that if your question isn't already answered, you can submit it for consideration.1 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
One example is Golden Rice, you can Google that to see a lot of info and opinions. I wasn't meaning to state a fact, rather to clarify what the James Fell quote was referring to, though I do agree with him.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
"Better seeds" didn't just happen. They're the result of research and development, including GMOs.
Agree, the better seeds are part of what the slide show said was modernizing of farming. So are all these better seeds GMO seeds? I look at the country productivity charts and they're almost identical...well except for some weirdos like Algeria. But the major countries all look the same. Is the increase due to GMOs? I know we here in the US are at the forefront of GMO technology, but I'm not seeing a difference...I kind of expected to see us way outperforming everyone else. So I'm still scratching my head...how have GMOs made a difference to World Hunger?
I know you're not the person that said this, but they haven't responded so can I ask you the follow up question I had about their comment? Kimny said something about GMOs being more affordable...are they cheaper? And that they are faster? I assume it must mean they grow faster because I don't think it matters whether a ship to Africa has gmo corn on it or not, it's going to sail at the same speed. I have never heard of GMOs growing faster than non GMOs...what's your thoughts on that?
I am not a GMO expert and I don't feel qualified to answer your questoins, but if you want to investigate what GMO advocates/experts have to say on some of these questions, I suggest this site: https://gmoanswers.com/
The cool thing about that site is that if your question isn't already answered, you can submit it for consideration.ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
One example is Golden Rice, you can Google that to see a lot of info and opinions. I wasn't meaning to state a fact, rather to clarify what the James Fell quote was referring to, though I do agree with him.
Thanks guys! I will check tonight from home. I'd never really thought about GMOs but with them being in the news and obamas label law this thread caught my eye as I'm not sure right now which label I want to go for. I mean, if they're equal as food, then what about ethics...if GMOs mean helping World Hunger then I want to support that. So I appreciate you taking the time to give me a couple pointers.1 -
kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The two issues actually are related. Golden rice.1 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
"Better seeds" didn't just happen. They're the result of research and development, including GMOs.
Agree, the better seeds are part of what the slide show said was modernizing of farming. So are all these better seeds GMO seeds? I look at the country productivity charts and they're almost identical...well except for some weirdos like Algeria. But the major countries all look the same. Is the increase due to GMOs? I know we here in the US are at the forefront of GMO technology, but I'm not seeing a difference...I kind of expected to see us way outperforming everyone else. So I'm still scratching my head...how have GMOs made a difference to World Hunger?
I know you're not the person that said this, but they haven't responded so can I ask you the follow up question I had about their comment? Kimny said something about GMOs being more affordable...are they cheaper? And that they are faster? I assume it must mean they grow faster because I don't think it matters whether a ship to Africa has gmo corn on it or not, it's going to sail at the same speed. I have never heard of GMOs growing faster than non GMOs...what's your thoughts on that?
I am not a GMO expert and I don't feel qualified to answer your questoins, but if you want to investigate what GMO advocates/experts have to say on some of these questions, I suggest this site: https://gmoanswers.com/
The cool thing about that site is that if your question isn't already answered, you can submit it for consideration.ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
One example is Golden Rice, you can Google that to see a lot of info and opinions. I wasn't meaning to state a fact, rather to clarify what the James Fell quote was referring to, though I do agree with him.
Thanks guys! I will check tonight from home. I'd never really thought about GMOs but with them being in the news and obamas label law this thread caught my eye as I'm not sure right now which label I want to go for. I mean, if they're equal as food, then what about ethics...if GMOs mean helping World Hunger then I want to support that. So I appreciate you taking the time to give me a couple pointers.
As I said, I'm not an expert but my evaluation leads me to believe that supporting GMOs is the more ethical choice because it results in more food being available around the world. Hunger is a huge issue and simply having more food isn't the whole solution . . . but we can't solve hunger *without* having enough food, so it's an important component.6 -
-
There is so much "stuff" about GMOs that I just go by how they make ME feel. As someone who has gone through several ulcerative colitis flares, I have become quite attuned to what I put in my body and how it makes me feel.
I have done taste tests as well as "experiments" to see how I feel after I eat corn - both the GMO and non-GMO variety. I live in farm country in SE Texas where the major crops are cotton, soybean and corn. I have personally visited several of the farms that were open to the public and two I visited admitted to using GMO corn. So, I purchased some corn from them as well as some corn from a local organic farmer that used natural methods of pesticide (no chemicals at all).
The result - done over several weeks to make sure I could do comparisons on myself - was that the GMO corn did not have the "richness" of flavor that the organic corn did. Also, the GMO corn made my intestines gurgle a LOT and in some cases (2 out of 3 times), I also got gut cramping and issues later with elimination. I did not experience any of that with the organic variety.
Yeah, this was totally informal, anecdotal testing but I was curious about how I alone reacted to GMO corn and was willing to experiment on myself, chancing that the GMO corn might throw me into another flare. The bottom line was that I am not willing to purchase GMO products of any variety now on the off-chance that I may experience similar reactions. My food bill is higher but my gut thanks me for it.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
rhtexasgal wrote: »There is so much "stuff" about GMOs that I just go by how they make ME feel. As someone who has gone through several ulcerative colitis flares, I have become quite attuned to what I put in my body and how it makes me feel.
I have done taste tests as well as "experiments" to see how I feel after I eat corn - both the GMO and non-GMO variety. I live in farm country in SE Texas where the major crops are cotton, soybean and corn. I have personally visited several of the farms that were open to the public and two I visited admitted to using GMO corn. So, I purchased some corn from them as well as some corn from a local organic farmer that used natural methods of pesticide (no chemicals at all).
The result - done over several weeks to make sure I could do comparisons on myself - was that the GMO corn did not have the "richness" of flavor that the organic corn did. Also, the GMO corn made my intestines gurgle a LOT and in some cases (2 out of 3 times), I also got gut cramping and issues later with elimination. I did not experience any of that with the organic variety.
Yeah, this was totally informal, anecdotal testing but I was curious about how I alone reacted to GMO corn and was willing to experiment on myself, chancing that the GMO corn might throw me into another flare. The bottom line was that I am not willing to purchase GMO products of any variety now on the off-chance that I may experience similar reactions. My food bill is higher but my gut thanks me for it.
It is highly unlikely this has anything to do with GMO. GMO corn in the US is used in processed foods, HFCS, and animal feed. The vast majority of sweet corn that is served fresh is not GMO. So my guess is that this would most likely have more to do with the actual type of corn, especially taste wise.3 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
606 pages! I didn't realize there was so much out there about GMOs...0 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »There is so much "stuff" about GMOs that I just go by how they make ME feel. As someone who has gone through several ulcerative colitis flares, I have become quite attuned to what I put in my body and how it makes me feel.
I have done taste tests as well as "experiments" to see how I feel after I eat corn - both the GMO and non-GMO variety. I live in farm country in SE Texas where the major crops are cotton, soybean and corn. I have personally visited several of the farms that were open to the public and two I visited admitted to using GMO corn. So, I purchased some corn from them as well as some corn from a local organic farmer that used natural methods of pesticide (no chemicals at all).
The result - done over several weeks to make sure I could do comparisons on myself - was that the GMO corn did not have the "richness" of flavor that the organic corn did. Also, the GMO corn made my intestines gurgle a LOT and in some cases (2 out of 3 times), I also got gut cramping and issues later with elimination. I did not experience any of that with the organic variety.
Yeah, this was totally informal, anecdotal testing but I was curious about how I alone reacted to GMO corn and was willing to experiment on myself, chancing that the GMO corn might throw me into another flare. The bottom line was that I am not willing to purchase GMO products of any variety now on the off-chance that I may experience similar reactions. My food bill is higher but my gut thanks me for it.
It is highly unlikely this has anything to do with GMO. GMO corn in the US is used in processed foods, HFCS, and animal feed. The vast majority of sweet corn that is served fresh is not GMO. So my guess is that this would most likely have more to do with the actual type of corn, especially taste wise.
It was the exactly same variety of corn in both cases. Since my diagnosis, I have not bought foods with corn in it, especially HFCS, cereal, etc. It would set my gut off. If I somehow slip, my gut tells me in quite a rude manner! Most everything I consume is fresh and the only thing in a box I eat is pasta made from quinoa and rice. It greatly limits eating out but my health now dictates it. I still eat corn but only from one organic farmer at my local farmers market that uses heirloom organic seed and uses no chemicals or herbicides.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »swagartm12 wrote: »Time is going to tell on this one. "Independent studies" tied to tell us cigarettes weren't harmful at one time. Fact of the matter is money drives everything. The money is on the side of the producers and distributors of GMO's. I eat them my family eats them, but do they concern me to some extent absolutely. We are going to find out in the future and hopefully the pro GMO crowd can point and laugh at the people that were concerned
Because corporations pushing for organic don't have any money?
In comparison to Monsanto pennies on the dollar....yet again I'm not here saying GMO's are bad I eat them everyday. Time will tell I hope they aren't, but to think lobbying and "independent" studies funded by big food doesn't exist is naive. Money makes the world go round
1 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »There is so much "stuff" about GMOs that I just go by how they make ME feel. As someone who has gone through several ulcerative colitis flares, I have become quite attuned to what I put in my body and how it makes me feel.
I have done taste tests as well as "experiments" to see how I feel after I eat corn - both the GMO and non-GMO variety. I live in farm country in SE Texas where the major crops are cotton, soybean and corn. I have personally visited several of the farms that were open to the public and two I visited admitted to using GMO corn. So, I purchased some corn from them as well as some corn from a local organic farmer that used natural methods of pesticide (no chemicals at all).
The result - done over several weeks to make sure I could do comparisons on myself - was that the GMO corn did not have the "richness" of flavor that the organic corn did. Also, the GMO corn made my intestines gurgle a LOT and in some cases (2 out of 3 times), I also got gut cramping and issues later with elimination. I did not experience any of that with the organic variety.
Yeah, this was totally informal, anecdotal testing but I was curious about how I alone reacted to GMO corn and was willing to experiment on myself, chancing that the GMO corn might throw me into another flare. The bottom line was that I am not willing to purchase GMO products of any variety now on the off-chance that I may experience similar reactions. My food bill is higher but my gut thanks me for it.
Corn is generally a trigger food for inflammatory bowel disease so I wouldn't use getting GI symptoms from it as a sign GMOs are not safe.0 -
swagartm12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »swagartm12 wrote: »Time is going to tell on this one. "Independent studies" tied to tell us cigarettes weren't harmful at one time. Fact of the matter is money drives everything. The money is on the side of the producers and distributors of GMO's. I eat them my family eats them, but do they concern me to some extent absolutely. We are going to find out in the future and hopefully the pro GMO crowd can point and laugh at the people that were concerned
Because corporations pushing for organic don't have any money?
In comparison to Monsanto pennies on the dollar....yet again I'm not here saying GMO's are bad I eat them everyday. Time will tell I hope they aren't, but to think lobbying and "independent" studies funded by big food doesn't exist is naive. Money makes the world go round
One of the largest suppliers of organic products in the US is General Mills. Many smaller organic lines are owned by multi-national corporations that know people are more likely to feel virtuous buying it if it says "Green Earth" on the label instead of "Kraft". My "all natural" friend nearly had a stroke the other day when I told her that Burt's Bees is a subsidiary of Clorox.3 -
swagartm12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »swagartm12 wrote: »Time is going to tell on this one. "Independent studies" tied to tell us cigarettes weren't harmful at one time. Fact of the matter is money drives everything. The money is on the side of the producers and distributors of GMO's. I eat them my family eats them, but do they concern me to some extent absolutely. We are going to find out in the future and hopefully the pro GMO crowd can point and laugh at the people that were concerned
Because corporations pushing for organic don't have any money?
In comparison to Monsanto pennies on the dollar....yet again I'm not here saying GMO's are bad I eat them everyday. Time will tell I hope they aren't, but to think lobbying and "independent" studies funded by big food doesn't exist is naive. Money makes the world go round
One of the largest suppliers of organic products in the US is General Mills. Many smaller organic lines are owned by multi-national corporations that know people are more likely to feel virtuous buying it if it says "Green Earth" on the label instead of "Kraft". My "all natural" friend nearly had a stroke the other day when I told her that Burt's Bees is a subsidiary of Clorox.
Perfect business be on both sides of the aisle it's a win win....I think I read 90 percent of grown food is GMO though so it's hardly in comparison with GMO vs non GMO
1 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
One example is Golden Rice, you can Google that to see a lot of info and opinions. I wasn't meaning to state a fact, rather to clarify what the James Fell quote was referring to, though I do agree with him.
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
[/quote]
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems [/quote]
So when you wrote the above and then said you didn't mean it as a fact, were you just thinking about future potential of GMOs to help World Hunger?1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
"Better seeds" didn't just happen. They're the result of research and development, including GMOs.
Agree, the better seeds are part of what the slide show said was modernizing of farming. So are all these better seeds GMO seeds? I look at the country productivity charts and they're almost identical...well except for some weirdos like Algeria. But the major countries all look the same. Is the increase due to GMOs? I know we here in the US are at the forefront of GMO technology, but I'm not seeing a difference...I kind of expected to see us way outperforming everyone else. So I'm still scratching my head...how have GMOs made a difference to World Hunger?
I know you're not the person that said this, but they haven't responded so can I ask you the follow up question I had about their comment? Kimny said something about GMOs being more affordable...are they cheaper? And that they are faster? I assume it must mean they grow faster because I don't think it matters whether a ship to Africa has gmo corn on it or not, it's going to sail at the same speed. I have never heard of GMOs growing faster than non GMOs...what's your thoughts on that?
I am not a GMO expert and I don't feel qualified to answer your questoins, but if you want to investigate what GMO advocates/experts have to say on some of these questions, I suggest this site: https://gmoanswers.com/
The cool thing about that site is that if your question isn't already answered, you can submit it for consideration.ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
One example is Golden Rice, you can Google that to see a lot of info and opinions. I wasn't meaning to state a fact, rather to clarify what the James Fell quote was referring to, though I do agree with him.
Thanks guys! I will check tonight from home. I'd never really thought about GMOs but with them being in the news and obamas label law this thread caught my eye as I'm not sure right now which label I want to go for. I mean, if they're equal as food, then what about ethics...if GMOs mean helping World Hunger then I want to support that. So I appreciate you taking the time to give me a couple pointers.
As I said, I'm not an expert but my evaluation leads me to believe that supporting GMOs is the more ethical choice because it results in more food being available around the world. Hunger is a huge issue and simply having more food isn't the whole solution . . . but we can't solve hunger *without* having enough food, so it's an important component.
I loved the gmo answers web site! Thanks again for the link. You know I couldn't find anything on there showing how GMOs have increased food production globally as a positive impact on world hunger. I found one answer that hinted at it. It said that global food production had increased due to "technology and techniques" so I've put in a question to ask them to drill down into that and tell me how much GMOs have done for World Hunger through more food being available. Would you be interested in their answer too if I get one?
1 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »rhtexasgal wrote: »There is so much "stuff" about GMOs that I just go by how they make ME feel. As someone who has gone through several ulcerative colitis flares, I have become quite attuned to what I put in my body and how it makes me feel.
I have done taste tests as well as "experiments" to see how I feel after I eat corn - both the GMO and non-GMO variety. I live in farm country in SE Texas where the major crops are cotton, soybean and corn. I have personally visited several of the farms that were open to the public and two I visited admitted to using GMO corn. So, I purchased some corn from them as well as some corn from a local organic farmer that used natural methods of pesticide (no chemicals at all).
The result - done over several weeks to make sure I could do comparisons on myself - was that the GMO corn did not have the "richness" of flavor that the organic corn did. Also, the GMO corn made my intestines gurgle a LOT and in some cases (2 out of 3 times), I also got gut cramping and issues later with elimination. I did not experience any of that with the organic variety.
Yeah, this was totally informal, anecdotal testing but I was curious about how I alone reacted to GMO corn and was willing to experiment on myself, chancing that the GMO corn might throw me into another flare. The bottom line was that I am not willing to purchase GMO products of any variety now on the off-chance that I may experience similar reactions. My food bill is higher but my gut thanks me for it.
It is highly unlikely this has anything to do with GMO. GMO corn in the US is used in processed foods, HFCS, and animal feed. The vast majority of sweet corn that is served fresh is not GMO. So my guess is that this would most likely have more to do with the actual type of corn, especially taste wise.
It was the exactly same variety of corn in both cases. Since my diagnosis, I have not bought foods with corn in it, especially HFCS, cereal, etc. It would set my gut off. If I somehow slip, my gut tells me in quite a rude manner! Most everything I consume is fresh and the only thing in a box I eat is pasta made from quinoa and rice. It greatly limits eating out but my health now dictates it. I still eat corn but only from one organic farmer at my local farmers market that uses heirloom organic seed and uses no chemicals or herbicides.
I was thinking about what you wrote last night, and I was wondering that maybe what you experienced could have been pesticide related? You said the organic farmer used different, natural pesticides from the GMO farmers. I know Roundup is a popular pesticide..and I saw recent article saying that the WHO and other scientists now think Roundup(glyphosate) is a carcinogen? Do you think maybe you were reacting to that instead?0 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »I was thinking about what you wrote last night, and I was wondering that maybe what you experienced could have been pesticide related? You said the organic farmer used different, natural pesticides from the GMO farmers. I know Roundup is a popular pesticide..and I saw recent article saying that the WHO and other scientists now think Roundup(glyphosate) is a carcinogen? Do you think maybe you were reacting to that instead?
Fried potatoes are carcinogens, too. So is wood smoke.
Glyphosphate is water-soluble and has a very short environmental persistence. That means it degrades quickly, and also washes off readily. That means plants treated with glyphosphate are not going to deliver any significant amount of the substance to your table. The WHO has studied this extensively and concluded that glyphosphate poses no risk to human health as typically used or in your food.
*Obviously you shouldn't drink the stuff, but I don't think you should drink Dawn dish detergent, and you probably use that or something like it on your plates and cookware daily.
4 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
"Better seeds" didn't just happen. They're the result of research and development, including GMOs.
Agree, the better seeds are part of what the slide show said was modernizing of farming. So are all these better seeds GMO seeds? I look at the country productivity charts and they're almost identical...well except for some weirdos like Algeria. But the major countries all look the same. Is the increase due to GMOs? I know we here in the US are at the forefront of GMO technology, but I'm not seeing a difference...I kind of expected to see us way outperforming everyone else. So I'm still scratching my head...how have GMOs made a difference to World Hunger?
I know you're not the person that said this, but they haven't responded so can I ask you the follow up question I had about their comment? Kimny said something about GMOs being more affordable...are they cheaper? And that they are faster? I assume it must mean they grow faster because I don't think it matters whether a ship to Africa has gmo corn on it or not, it's going to sail at the same speed. I have never heard of GMOs growing faster than non GMOs...what's your thoughts on that?
I am not a GMO expert and I don't feel qualified to answer your questoins, but if you want to investigate what GMO advocates/experts have to say on some of these questions, I suggest this site: https://gmoanswers.com/
The cool thing about that site is that if your question isn't already answered, you can submit it for consideration.ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
One example is Golden Rice, you can Google that to see a lot of info and opinions. I wasn't meaning to state a fact, rather to clarify what the James Fell quote was referring to, though I do agree with him.
Thanks guys! I will check tonight from home. I'd never really thought about GMOs but with them being in the news and obamas label law this thread caught my eye as I'm not sure right now which label I want to go for. I mean, if they're equal as food, then what about ethics...if GMOs mean helping World Hunger then I want to support that. So I appreciate you taking the time to give me a couple pointers.
As I said, I'm not an expert but my evaluation leads me to believe that supporting GMOs is the more ethical choice because it results in more food being available around the world. Hunger is a huge issue and simply having more food isn't the whole solution . . . but we can't solve hunger *without* having enough food, so it's an important component.
I loved the gmo answers web site! Thanks again for the link. You know I couldn't find anything on there showing how GMOs have increased food production globally as a positive impact on world hunger. I found one answer that hinted at it. It said that global food production had increased due to "technology and techniques" so I've put in a question to ask them to drill down into that and tell me how much GMOs have done for World Hunger through more food being available. Would you be interested in their answer too if I get one?
Yes, I would be interested in the answer. I'm glad you found the site interesting.0 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
One example is Golden Rice, you can Google that to see a lot of info and opinions. I wasn't meaning to state a fact, rather to clarify what the James Fell quote was referring to, though I do agree with him.
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems [/quote]
So when you wrote the above and then said you didn't mean it as a fact, were you just thinking about future potential of GMOs to help World Hunger? [/quote]
The GMO corn and soy that are currently being used in this country were developed to make these crops easier and cheaper to grow. That's why they are used in so many food products now. Whether this has affected world hunger or not, I have no idea. There are countless socioeconomic and geographic issues that affect people's access to food, it's not just about cost and supply. However, many cheap "processed" foods have GMO corn or soy in them, and I'd bet companies would be pushing more GMO crops which could further reduce food prices if the issue hadn't become so politicized.
I didn't say GMOs have reduced world hunger (I didn't even use the words "world hunger", that was another poster), just that it's easier to be picky about the way your food is grown when you live in abundance. Since GMOs are often developed to make crops hardier, faster growing, and easier to grow it seems logical to me that they could bring down food costs and increase supply. Unfortunately, many people around the world are hungry for far more complicated reasons than supply and poverty.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions