To GMO or Non-GMO

Meerataila

If someone pretends that they know everything about the way the large scale GMO ingestion affects human beings, they're completely full of baloney. No one does, because the research hasn't been performed. There is a lot of uncertainty.

There are some studies showing that the toxins from GMOs--herbicides & pesticides show up in maternal & fetal blood. That's concerning for me.

And of course there is the hotly contested paper from France that linked an increase in tumors to GMOs. The paper was ultimately retracted, but there is some concern--in my mind, legitimate--about a former Monsanto employee playing an instrumental role in that retraction.

There is also the huge response against the labeling of GMOs by big Ag. Vermont is currently being sued because they are the only state to require it. They're spending tens of millions to defeat legislation requiring labeling--arguing that...labeling would be expensive...? Go figure.

These kind of bad faith maneuvers make it very hard for me to look at the infusion of GMOs into our diet as something much different than a large scale experiment by moneyed interest that stand to profit.

I think you can probably guess which side of this issue I fall on. I honestly don't know about the weight loss angle. There could be destructive interactions between the toxins in GMOs and gut bacteria, but that research hasn't been performed yet. If you're good with all the unknowns, then go for it. I think from your own anecdotal experience, ingesting GMOs hasn't slowed down your weight loss process, so it's really just a personal choice.

EDIT: And to clarify here, I'm talking about the kind of direct genetic manipulation of specific foods that began in the mid 1990s, performed by big Ag and focused directly on cash crops.

What exactly are the toxins that are being engineered into plants?

It may actually be a matter of the plants being bred to tolerate more pesticides and then containing more pesticide residues. Since the companies keep what testing they actually perform secret, we have no way of knowing. Which is why we need an overhaul of regulatory agencies. Obviously it's a matter of confidence. There is no reason to have any in private corporations.


http://www.ijbs.com/v06p0590.htm

We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for the main commercialized edible GMOs. These GMOs are soy, maize and oilseed rape designed to contain new pesticide residues since they have been modified to be herbicide-tolerant (mostly to Roundup) or to produce mutated Bt toxins. The debated alimentary chronic risks may come from unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects, or from the new pesticide residues. The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies. Our previous analyses of regulatory raw data at these levels, taking the representative examples of three GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 led us to conclude that hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary. Our study was criticized by the company developing the GMOs in question and the regulatory bodies, mainly on the divergent biological interpretations of statistically significant biochemical and physiological effects. We present the scientific reasons for the crucially different biological interpretations and also highlight the shortcomings in the experimental protocols designed by the company. The debate implies an enormous responsibility towards public health and is essential due to nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries.

Aaron_K123

Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?

Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.

But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.

Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?

"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.

Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.

Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.

Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.

that's the nature of the thought experiment.

Two identical chemicals.

Produced by two different processes.

It's an intuition pump to see where the objection to the GM lies.

If the end product were identical to the original then, in the case of vegetables, they both would be resistant to Roundup, no?

In order to genetically engineer round-up resistant plants, the sequence had to exist somewhere first.

As long as we're all interested in being scientifically correct, no, it did not have necessarily have to exist somewhere first. We're perfectly capable of creating de novo sequences and using those to engineer organisms.

In the case of Roundup resistance, I believe I remember that it was discovered and not created, though.

What do you mean by "discovered"? Surely they didn't just discover a natural variety of plant that was resistant. This article says it was "developed".

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

The active ingredient of Roundup is glyophosate which works by inhibiting the metabolic pathway in plants for the creation of essential amino acids. Without the ability to synthesis those amino acids, the plant dies. Roundup-ready plants were engineered to include a copy of a bacterial gene that offers an alternative metabolic route to produce those same amino acids. Glyophosate still gets in, glyophosate still inhibits the plant metabolic pathway...but now the plants have an alternate means of creating those amino acids so they are fine.

The alternate pathway gene was discovered in bacteria. That is what was meant by "discovered".

Also this wasn't "kept secret", if there is ever a product it is going to be patented and the patent will be public and therefore it won't be secret.

sazm1219

I personally choose non GMO whenever possible simply for my own peace of mind. I've read that the nutrients in Non GMO is better than GMO products. It's a personal choice for me.

Aaron_K123

I've read that the nutrients in Non GMO is better than GMO products.

Not everything you read is true.

likitisplit

If someone pretends that they know everything about the way the large scale GMO ingestion affects human beings, they're completely full of baloney. No one does, because the research hasn't been performed. There is a lot of uncertainty.

There are some studies showing that the toxins from GMOs--herbicides & pesticides show up in maternal & fetal blood. That's concerning for me.

And of course there is the hotly contested paper from France that linked an increase in tumors to GMOs. The paper was ultimately retracted, but there is some concern--in my mind, legitimate--about a former Monsanto employee playing an instrumental role in that retraction.

There is also the huge response against the labeling of GMOs by big Ag. Vermont is currently being sued because they are the only state to require it. They're spending tens of millions to defeat legislation requiring labeling--arguing that...labeling would be expensive...? Go figure.

These kind of bad faith maneuvers make it very hard for me to look at the infusion of GMOs into our diet as something much different than a large scale experiment by moneyed interest that stand to profit.

I think you can probably guess which side of this issue I fall on. I honestly don't know about the weight loss angle. There could be destructive interactions between the toxins in GMOs and gut bacteria, but that research hasn't been performed yet. If you're good with all the unknowns, then go for it. I think from your own anecdotal experience, ingesting GMOs hasn't slowed down your weight loss process, so it's really just a personal choice.

EDIT: And to clarify here, I'm talking about the kind of direct genetic manipulation of specific foods that began in the mid 1990s, performed by big Ag and focused directly on cash crops.

What exactly are the toxins that are being engineered into plants?

It may actually be a matter of the plants being bred to tolerate more pesticides and then containing more pesticide residues. Since the companies keep what testing they actually perform secret, we have no way of knowing. Which is why we need an overhaul of regulatory agencies. Obviously it's a matter of confidence. There is no reason to have any in private corporations.


http://www.ijbs.com/v06p0590.htm

We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for the main commercialized edible GMOs. These GMOs are soy, maize and oilseed rape designed to contain new pesticide residues since they have been modified to be herbicide-tolerant (mostly to Roundup) or to produce mutated Bt toxins. The debated alimentary chronic risks may come from unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects, or from the new pesticide residues. The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies. Our previous analyses of regulatory raw data at these levels, taking the representative examples of three GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 led us to conclude that hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary. Our study was criticized by the company developing the GMOs in question and the regulatory bodies, mainly on the divergent biological interpretations of statistically significant biochemical and physiological effects. We present the scientific reasons for the crucially different biological interpretations and also highlight the shortcomings in the experimental protocols designed by the company. The debate implies an enormous responsibility towards public health and is essential due to nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries.

One of the concerns that Mother Earth News and Organic Gardening had with introducing those genes into a wide variety of plants was that it would tend to drive the evolution of insects to be able to tolerate the toxin - rendering Bt based pesticides useless for organic home gardeners and small farmers.

likitisplit

Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?

Cross breeding and genetic engineering are the not the same thing. Cross breeding has been practiced for centuries, GE is fairly new.

But what if the resulting modification to the genome of the organism is chemically identical from both processes...? Just a thought experiment: would one be evil and the other natural? If the resultant genetic changes are identical, mind you.

Would one be evil?? What are you writing a cheesy horror flick or something?

"natural" has nothing to do with how evil or good or identical something is.

Well, I am affecting the mock-horror overtones of the debate.

Clearly, I am personally neutral with regard to these processes. It is the resulting chemical structure of the genome that is key, rather than the process that produced it.

Only if the the resulting chemical structure and its effects on human health are fully understood and those who understand it are fully transparent with the rest of us.

that's the nature of the thought experiment.

Two identical chemicals.

Produced by two different processes.

It's an intuition pump to see where the objection to the GM lies.

If the end product were identical to the original then, in the case of vegetables, they both would be resistant to Roundup, no?

In order to genetically engineer round-up resistant plants, the sequence had to exist somewhere first.

As long as we're all interested in being scientifically correct, no, it did not have necessarily have to exist somewhere first. We're perfectly capable of creating de novo sequences and using those to engineer organisms.

In the case of Roundup resistance, I believe I remember that it was discovered and not created, though.

Name one instance where we've done that.