2000 reasons why GMO foods are safe
Replies
-
I think a lot of anti-GMO comes from two places: 1) ignorance on the matter and/or 2) disliking Monsanto. It almost feels as though no one is for GMO but not Monsanto, like me, but I'm sure you're out there.
I also think Monsanto should be left out of GMO discussion because it is always used as a reason against GMO. Is Monsanto a super shady company? I think so. Does it make me uncomfortable that they can patent food? Hell yes it does. But does that mean all GMO is going to kill the human population? Nope.0 -
Oh I agree. I'm certainly not "for" Monsanto! But GMO does not automatically mean bad.0
-
Bt (the pesticide in Roundup ready crops) doesn't occur naturally?In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a protein that kills Lepidoptera larvae, in particular, European corn borer. This protein is called the Bt delta endotoxin. Growers use Bt corn as an alternative to spraying insecticides for control of European and southwestern corn borer.
Bt Delta Endotoxin
The Bt delta endotoxin was selected because it is highly effective at controlling Lepidoptera larvae, caterpillars. It is during the larval stage when most of the damage by European corn borer occurs. The protein is very selective, generally not harming insects in other orders (such as beetles, flies, bees and wasps). For this reason, GMOs that have the Bt gene are compatible with biological control programs because they harm insect predators and parasitoids much less than broad-spectrum insecticides. The Bt endotoxin is considered safe for humans, other mammals, fish, birds, and the environment because of its selectivity. Bt has been available as a commercial microbial insecticide since the 1960s and is sold under many trade names. These products have an excellent safety record and can be used on many crops until the day of harvest.
To kill a susceptible insect, a part of the plant that contains the Bt protein (not all parts of the plant necessarily contain the protein in equal concentrations) must be ingested. Within minutes, the protein binds to the gut wall and the insect stops feeding. Within hours, the gut wall breaks down and normal gut bacteria invade the body cavity. The insect dies of septicaemia as bacteria multiply in the blood. Even among Lepidoptera larvae, species differ in sensitivity to the Bt protein.
Source: http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp
It may, in GMO crops, be considered "artificial" or "non-natural", but the protein itself is completely natural. It has been used agriculturally as microbial biopesticide since the 60's.
Please note once again---BT is an naturally occuring bacterial organism. By itself as it occurs naturally in soil? Not registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? It biodegrades (washes off), and is highly selective in how it effects living organisms (bugs).
BT Corn? Is an entirely new species(GMO) not found in nature. It is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? When the BT gene is inserted into the corn ( called insertion event)~they do not know how to control selectivity of the dose of BT created--the technology isn't there to do so. This makes the resulting level of BT produced by the corn unpredictable and unstable. Hence, grounds for the EPA to say it is enough to register BT Corn as a pesticide. It doesn't wash off because it is in the very DNA of the entire plant.0 -
No they're not labeled out here in the United States. And Monsanto has been spending millions of dollars making sure that labeling is not enforced. I'm thinking of moving to Europe for that reason.
Adios0 -
Please note once again---BT is an naturally occuring bacterial organism. By itself as it occurs naturally in soil? Not registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? It biodegrades (washes off), and is highly selective in how it effects living organisms (bugs).
BT Corn? Is an entirely new species(GMO) not found in nature. It is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? When the BT gene is inserted into the corn ( called insertion event)~they do not know how to control selectivity of the dose of BT created--the technology isn't there to do so. This makes the resulting level of BT produced by the corn unpredictable and unstable. Hence, grounds for the EPA to say it is enough to register BT Corn as a pesticide. It doesn't wash off because it is in the very DNA of the entire plant.
I think I see where our disconnect is.
You seem to think that because it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide, it is therefore a harmful pesticide by the time we get to eat it. That we could grind up some corn and use it to bug proof our houses.
I see the fact that it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide a way for an agency - given that this corn is, as you say, pretty new - to actually oversee the levels of this protein in food.
In fact, you assume the Bt sprayed on your organic veggies gets washed off. The FDA measures the amount of Bt in roundup ready corn. See a difference there?0 -
BT Corn? Is an entirely new species(GMO) not found in nature.
It's the same species of corn (Zea mays), just a different variant :drinker:0 -
Oh I agree. I'm certainly not "for" Monsanto! But GMO does not automatically mean bad.
:flowerforyou: I knew you guys were out there! :drinker:0 -
You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!
Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay
How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.
Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.
LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!
Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.0 -
I trust that you realize that this is a hoax?0 -
You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!
Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay
How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.
Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.
LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!
Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.
Uhhh....correlation does not imply causation
Uh-huh. Define "imply" in a way that's not inconsistent with how you'd use that word in any other context, and we'll see.0 -
You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!
Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay
How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.
Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.
LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!
Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.
Uhhh....correlation does not imply causation
Uh-huh. Define "imply" in a way that's not inconsistent with how you'd use that word in any other context, and we'll see.
As ice cream sales increase, shark attacks increase. Therefore, shark attacks are caused by higher ice cream sales.
Oh wait.
Dude, if you don't want to talk about this, we don't have to. But if you do, then please offer your definition of "imply."
If you think your previous post fits the definition of "imply," then you use that word differently than the rest of us do every day.0 -
Imply: "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence"
Exactly. Correlation does suggest causation. No, it doesn't prove it, and your shark example shows that. But it does suggest/imply it, and then we look deeper into the data (often in the form of our experiences) to infer actual causes.
I mean, from what do we infer causation, if not correlation?
But I'm home from work now, so I'm less grumpy. And as this is off-topic and probably not fun for anyone but me, I'll just leave us with this: http://xkcd.com/552/0 -
The pedantism that comes from the usage of language on these forums is maddening.
Two variables occurring at the same time does not prove cause and effect, though if you wish to you can extrapolate cause and effect from their correlation.
It doesn't imply causation, it allows you to infer it if you want to.0 -
Imply: "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence"
Exactly. Correlation does suggest causation. No, it doesn't prove it, and your shark example shows that. But it does suggest/imply it, and then we look deeper into the data (often in the form of our experiences) to infer actual causes.
I mean, from what do we infer causation, if not correlation?
But I'm home from work now, so I'm less grumpy. And as this is off-topic and probably not fun for anyone but me, I'll just leave us with this: http://xkcd.com/552/
So are you just going to ignore this, then and rather pick and choose my points?
"In the context of one variable implying another variable, "imply" means "causes". Correlation does not imply causation because there could be other variables that play a role."
Except the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't have variables. It has two concepts, or two phenomena. You're conflating example with definition.
Also, if you're going to post contradictory things, then I'm sort of forced to pick and choose, right?0 -
I think I see where our disconnect is.
You seem to think that because it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide, it is therefore a harmful pesticide by the time we get to eat it. That we could grind up some corn and use it to bug proof our houses.
What do you mean "by the time we eat it"? The BT doesn't degrade in the corn, it's part of the plants DNA. And BT Corn became available straight from the farm to the table via. sweet corn. I think that it is unprecedented to have a Food item that is grown listed with the EPA (not FDA btw....) as a pesticide. We have never seen this happen in the history of food--for good reason: Food is Food---pesticides are pesticides. It would be logical to think that studies showing the BT Toxin in the blood pregnant women a fetuses would be cause for concern, as the earlier "safety studies" proved the BT Toxin was broken down in the stomach during the course of normal digestion--which is, apparently, not the case.I see the fact that it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide a way for an agency - given that this corn is, as you say, pretty new - to actually oversee the levels of this protein in food.
You would be wrong. 1) Registered with the EPA...not FDA ( I am sure that was just a typo on your part....darn acronyms!) 2) FDA doesn't monitor protein levels in food ( btw it is the toxin portion of the bacteria--not a protein per se.). It monitors safety. GMO's have passed into our food system based on one thing only: Substantial equivalence: essentially the same as their conventional counterpart, therefore no safety testing is required. This is a quote taken from the FAQ page of monsanto:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx#q2
"As long as the introduced gene protein is determined safe (note from me* determined NOT proven*) (an initial step in the safety assessment) and the GM and non-GM crops are alike in all respects, the GM crop is said to be substantially equivalent, or “equal to,” their conventional counterparts and are not expected to pose any health risks. Experts in the field of food safety are satisfied that this approach is sufficient and reliable to assure the GM crops are as safe their conventional counterparts. This expert community does not see a need and thus does not recommend long-term tests in humans in order to establish food safety."
So....experts in the field say they are safe, it must be true? Without establishing food safety studies? Yet--different enough to be approved for patents.....very interesting, right? This is the fact that really got me to sit up and take notice.In fact, you assume the Bt sprayed on your organic veggies gets washed off. The FDA measures the amount of Bt in roundup ready corn. See a difference there?
I don't assume anything. BT sprays used in organic gardening are biodegradable. When water is applied--it degrades back into the soil.
The EPA can't measure the amount of BT Toxin found in corn--because the amount produced is an unknown factor. Based on this unpredictable trait...and the possibility of higher than acceptable amounts produced....is why it is registered with the EPA.
And let me say one last thing, if you please! I remember when I first read about Biotech Ag in the late 80's/early 90's. I was so excited about the prospect of technology being able to end hunger in the world. I am absolutely for technology creating a better world. I am absolutely opposed with profit margins to board members being prioritized over safety studies. When technology is trumped and manipulated by politics? Disaster will probably ensue. But that is just my personal opinion. Thanks for reading!0 -
Imply: "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence"
Exactly. Correlation does suggest causation. No, it doesn't prove it, and your shark example shows that. But it does suggest/imply it, and then we look deeper into the data (often in the form of our experiences) to infer actual causes.
I mean, from what do we infer causation, if not correlation?
But I'm home from work now, so I'm less grumpy. And as this is off-topic and probably not fun for anyone but me, I'll just leave us with this: http://xkcd.com/552/
So are you just going to ignore this, then and rather pick and choose my points?
"In the context of one variable implying another variable, "imply" means "causes". Correlation does not imply causation because there could be other variables that play a role."
Except the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't have variables. It has two concepts, or two phenomena. You're conflating example with definition.
Also, if you're going to post contradictory things, then I'm sort of forced to pick and choose, right?
Correlation does not imply causation is saying exactly that - that there are other variables in play
No, "correlation does not PROVE causation" would say exactly that.
"If there is causation, there is correlation. If there is no causation, there might be aberrant correlation. If there is observed correlation, there might be causation. If there is no correlation, there is no causation. Correlation implies, but does not prove, causation." --http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=63190 -
Right!?!? I think mother nature knows best and we should leave it up to her!!!0
-
Right!?!? I think mother nature knows best and we should leave it up to her!!!
Good idea.
*throws computer out window*
*throws pants in garbage*
*goes to live in woods*
*is mauled by bear*
*sues Mother Nature for child endangerment*0 -
Some studies suggest a correlation between deodorant use and breast cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/AP-Deo
Certain birth control companies now have class action lawsuits against them because they are suspected to have been a key factor in several women's deaths. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/yaz-yasmin-birth-control-pills-linked-23-deaths-canada-article-1.1370853
I am sure that GMO foods are just as bit as "safe" as the products mentioned above. I don't know about the rest of the people on this thread, but I have no interest in having my body being used as part of a large scale science experiment.
With GMO I think it really depends on how the food was modified. Some GMO foods are probably completely safe. Others probably are not. I think it depends on the type of modification. Labeling about *whether* something was modified and *how* it was modified would really help. But even though companies like Monsanto and General Mills are so convinced their products are safe, and in fact good for human health, they refuse to label whether they are GMO and have spent millions if not billions to defeat labeling initiatives in various US states. Weird huh? These products are so safe! Hell no we won't label them! I don't think we need to prove that GMO = harm to get labels, in the same way we should not have to prove that calories = harm to get labels. Again it all depends on the type of modification. Something modified to be "Roundup ready" so it can be sprayed with 5 times as much Roundup might be a little bit more harmful than something modified to provide the same antioxidant health benefits as blueberries. The two are not at all the same and labeling needs to happen.
I do know that USDA organic means it's not GMO. It's expensive but my husband and I are trying to buy as many foods organic as we can afford. I have also observed that the numbers of people shopping in that organic section has increased exponentially in the last few years... so other people are "hungry for change" too.0 -
Imply: "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence"
Exactly. Correlation does suggest causation. No, it doesn't prove it, and your shark example shows that. But it does suggest/imply it, and then we look deeper into the data (often in the form of our experiences) to infer actual causes.
I mean, from what do we infer causation, if not correlation?
But I'm home from work now, so I'm less grumpy. And as this is off-topic and probably not fun for anyone but me, I'll just leave us with this: http://xkcd.com/552/
So are you just going to ignore this, then and rather pick and choose my points?
"In the context of one variable implying another variable, "imply" means "causes". Correlation does not imply causation because there could be other variables that play a role."
Except the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't have variables. It has two concepts, or two phenomena. You're conflating example with definition.
Also, if you're going to post contradictory things, then I'm sort of forced to pick and choose, right?
Correlation does not imply causation is saying exactly that - that there are other variables in play
No, "correlation does not PROVE causation" would say exactly that.
"If there is causation, there is correlation. If there is no causation, there might be aberrant correlation. If there is observed correlation, there might be causation. If there is no correlation, there is no causation. Correlation implies, but does not prove, causation." --http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6319
If you won't listen to me why don't you take a look at this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Read the second and third paragraphs under "Usage." Now we can all be friends again, yes?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions