To GMO or Non-GMO

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?

If they go back to doing it the old fashioned way, I'll quit worrying. But new methods have the potential to create new problems.

And even if they strictly follow the old fashioned way, breeding plants that tolerate higher levels of pesticides still has the potential to cause the humans that eat those plants more problems, since it might mean our food contains previously lethal to plants levels of pesticides that might then be lethal to us.

Also, any company that uses its influence to buy its way out of our legal system is not to be trusted in any case. For that reason alone, I will do everything I can to avoid Monsanto products.

So because we're better at it, it suddenly has become a concern. The old fashioned way as better because it was slower and we were worse at it?

We're better at traveling now too - should we go back to the multi-month journeys across America by horse and carriage? Or should we go back even farther to before the wheel?

It's not just a matter of it taking longer, it's a matter of new possibilities, therefore new potential dangers. For example, I don't care how long you load up the mood music and try to breed a goat with a spider the old fashioned way, you will never get a goat you can milk for spider thread protein.

Don't disagree. But that is neutral, not bad. All it says is we can now do things we previously could not do. That isn't inherently good or bad.

Getting flustered by GMOs for that reason is like getting flustered by a hammer because it allows you to make swords.

Aaron_K123

Any type I diabetics in the house?

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?

If they go back to doing it the old fashioned way, I'll quit worrying. But new methods have the potential to create new problems.

And even if they strictly follow the old fashioned way, breeding plants that tolerate higher levels of pesticides still has the potential to cause the humans that eat those plants more problems, since it might mean our food contains previously lethal to plants levels of pesticides that might then be lethal to us.

Also, any company that uses its influence to buy its way out of our legal system is not to be trusted in any case. For that reason alone, I will do everything I can to avoid Monsanto products.

So because we're better at it, it suddenly has become a concern. The old fashioned way as better because it was slower and we were worse at it?

We're better at traveling now too - should we go back to the multi-month journeys across America by horse and carriage? Or should we go back even farther to before the wheel?

It's not just a matter of it taking longer, it's a matter of new possibilities, therefore new potential dangers. For example, I don't care how long you load up the mood music and try to breed a goat with a spider the old fashioned way, you will never get a goat you can milk for spider thread protein.

We have pigs that can produce human insulin. The Georgia Eliava Institute is still researching exciting new directions.

And you could argue that air travel poses a far greater risk for a fatal pandemic than salmon genes in a strawberry.

Meerataila

Don't disagree. But that is neutral, not bad. All it says is we can now do things we previously could not do. That isn't inheriently good or bad.

True, but we as a species aren't always as cautious as we need to be when we learn how to do new things. And publicly traded corporations are profit chasing sociopaths by law, so we certainly can't trust them to police themselves with anything, new or not.

Meerataila

We have pigs that can produce human insulin. The Georgia Eliava Institute is still researching exciting new directions.

And you could argue that air travel poses a far greater risk for a fatal pandemic than salmon genes in a strawberry.

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not. The GMO companies don't even want me to be able to look at a label and make the choice about whether to eat their food or not. This also pisses me off. If nothing else, surely we can agree that we have the right to know?

defauIt

It's not just a matter of it taking longer, it's a matter of new possibilities, therefore new potential dangers. For example, I don't care how long you load up the mood music and try to breed a goat with a spider the old fashioned way, you will never get a goat you can milk for spider thread protein.

Which is *awesome*. Spider silk is a truly amazing material in nature, and we're finding a way to produce larger quantities of it.

I'm not saying we should just randomly play with genes and eat the first thing we create, but there's nothing inherently wrong with genetic modification. Caution is advised, sure, but not outright fear mongering of anything and everything that's genetically engineered. Because that's almost everything around us today.

Not that I am arguing the anti-GMO side, definately not, but to be fair GMO tech has opened up possibilities of combinations that would never practically occur in nature. This strikes people who think everything natural is good as a clear indication of its evilness. Thing is I don't feel that way, I don't see any indication that nature is our buddy or has our best interest at heart....if anything quite the opposite.

Do we need to be cautious with any new technology? Absolutely. Should we shun and fear anything new? Absolutely not, not without reason and so far I haven't heard a lot of reason on the anti-GMO side. The one valid point I have heard is against specific company practices (such as Monsanto) using GMO tech as a way of patenting and almost copywrite protecting living things that are then released into a non-controlled enviornment. I agree that is ethically questionable and not necessarily a brilliant idea. What I dislike though are people taking that rational concern and running with it into total crazy town decrying GMOs for nothing other than being GMO.

I never stated that all genetic engineering was great and would produce things we want to eat, I just said that we've been doing genetic engineering for a long time, we've gotten quite a bit better at it recently, and it's nothing to fear automatically. That doesn't mean eat every random new strain of wheat we decide to create or that every modification produces a superior or even safe product.

I just really hate the idea that genetic engineering is a new thing and it's even possible to eat non-genetically engineered food.

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?

If they go back to doing it the old fashioned way, I'll quit worrying. But new methods have the potential to create new problems.

And even if they strictly follow the old fashioned way, breeding plants that tolerate higher levels of pesticides still has the potential to cause the humans that eat those plants more problems, since it might mean our food contains previously lethal to plants levels of pesticides that might then be lethal to us.

Also, any company that uses its influence to buy its way out of our legal system is not to be trusted in any case. For that reason alone, I will do everything I can to avoid Monsanto products.

So because we're better at it, it suddenly has become a concern. The old fashioned way as better because it was slower and we were worse at it?

We're better at traveling now too - should we go back to the multi-month journeys across America by horse and carriage? Or should we go back even farther to before the wheel?

It's not just a matter of it taking longer, it's a matter of new possibilities, therefore new potential dangers. For example, I don't care how long you load up the mood music and try to breed a goat with a spider the old fashioned way, you will never get a goat you can milk for spider thread protein.

We have pigs that can produce human insulin. The Georgia Eliava Institute is still researching exciting new directions.

And you could argue that air travel poses a far greater risk for a fatal pandemic than salmon genes in a strawberry.

Why would we use pigs to produce human insulin when we can just use e.coli? E.coli much more cost effective and easy to harvest.

Aaron_K123

I just really hate the idea that genetic engineering is a new thing and it's even possible to eat non-genetically engineered food.

Well I agree with you there that such a viewpoint is shortsighted and ignoring most of our agricultural history.

Aaron_K123

We have pigs that can produce human insulin. The Georgia Eliava Institute is still researching exciting new directions.

And you could argue that air travel poses a far greater risk for a fatal pandemic than salmon genes in a strawberry.

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not. The GMO companies don't even want me to be able to look at a label and make the choice about whether to eat their food or not. This also pisses me off. If nothing else, surely we can agree that we have the right to know?

Um no actually, I think labeling is pointless much in the way I think labeling a cup of coffee as being "hot" is pointless. I don't see how "contains genes" helps anyone make a rational decision.

Lets say you were confronted with something labeled as being a GMO. Would you avoid it? If so why? Do you know what this specific GMO is? Why it was created? What it does? What the benefits or drawbacks are? Do we even fully know that about natural foods? I mean should we label everything that has protein as "contains leucine" just in case anyone is worried about leucine for some reason?

We label things with an ingredient when there is a legitimate concern about that ingredient. We label things as containing phenylalanine because there are people who are legitimately effected by phenylalanine. We don't just label things to label them, where would that stop?

Meerataila

We have pigs that can produce human insulin. The Georgia Eliava Institute is still researching exciting new directions.

And you could argue that air travel poses a far greater risk for a fatal pandemic than salmon genes in a strawberry.

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not. The GMO companies don't even want me to be able to look at a label and make the choice about whether to eat their food or not. This also pisses me off. If nothing else, surely we can agree that we have the right to know?

Um no actually, I think labeling is pointless much in the way I think labeling a cup of coffee as being "hot" is pointless.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, then. I want to know everything that is in my food and everything about my food, down to the last accidental cricket leg.

Aaron_K123

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not.

Do you have a choice? News to me. Not sure how else I am supposed to get half way across the world in a 24 hour period if not by airplane. If airplanes are a choice then so are GMOs because you can go forage for mushrooms.

GMOs are regulated. You may not trust or like the regulation, but they are regulated.

songbyrdsweet

We have pigs that can produce human insulin. The Georgia Eliava Institute is still researching exciting new directions.

And you could argue that air travel poses a far greater risk for a fatal pandemic than salmon genes in a strawberry.

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not. The GMO companies don't even want me to be able to look at a label and make the choice about whether to eat their food or not. This also pisses me off. If nothing else, surely we can agree that we have the right to know?

Um no actually, I think labeling is pointless much in the way I think labeling a cup of coffee as being "hot" is pointless.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, then. I want to know everything that is in my food and everything about my food, down to the last accidental cricket leg.

Um. I really don't think you actually want to know that. I mean, unless you have a very strong stomach. Just the amount of noxious stuff you put into your body by touching your face after touching a doorknob is bad enough. The things you ingest...oh man. Hope you're washing all of your produce with soap and water!

Hint: Poop.

Meerataila

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not.

Do you have a choice? News to me. Not sure how else I am supposed to get half way across the world in a 24 hour period if not by airplane. If airplanes are a choice then so are GMOs because you can go forage for mushrooms.

GMOs are regulated. You may not trust or like the regulation, but they are regulated.

I don't trust or like the regulation, that is precisely why I want to avoid GMOs, and in particular anything Monsanto profited from, since, as I already said, I have serious issues with their actions, particularly buying our regulators.

Also, cars and boats! Not that I'm likely to turn down a plane ride, but I can. The lobbyists for the food companies don't want me to have the knowledge to make that choice about GMOs.

Meerataila

We have pigs that can produce human insulin. The Georgia Eliava Institute is still researching exciting new directions.

And you could argue that air travel poses a far greater risk for a fatal pandemic than salmon genes in a strawberry.

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not. The GMO companies don't even want me to be able to look at a label and make the choice about whether to eat their food or not. This also pisses me off. If nothing else, surely we can agree that we have the right to know?

Um no actually, I think labeling is pointless much in the way I think labeling a cup of coffee as being "hot" is pointless.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, then. I want to know everything that is in my food and everything about my food, down to the last accidental cricket leg.

Um. I really don't think you actually want to know that. I mean, unless you have a very strong stomach. Just the amount of noxious stuff you put into your body by touching your face after touching a doorknob is bad enough. The things you ingest...oh man. Hope you're washing all of your produce with soap and water!

Hint: Poop.

Oh yes, I do want to know. I'm aware that when it gets down to a certain level, absolutely everything is filthy, though. Especially this keyboard I'm typing on. I can handle it.

likitisplit

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not.

Do you have a choice? News to me. Not sure how else I am supposed to get half way across the world in a 24 hour period if not by airplane. If airplanes are a choice then so are GMOs because you can go forage for mushrooms.

GMOs are regulated. You may not trust or like the regulation, but they are regulated.

Dying in a pandemic spread by air travel is not a choice. Take a look at the spread of the H1N1 virus in 2009 if you want a snapshot of how travel interacts with disease.

likitisplit

We have pigs that can produce human insulin. The Georgia Eliava Institute is still researching exciting new directions.

And you could argue that air travel poses a far greater risk for a fatal pandemic than salmon genes in a strawberry.

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not. The GMO companies don't even want me to be able to look at a label and make the choice about whether to eat their food or not. This also pisses me off. If nothing else, surely we can agree that we have the right to know?

Um no actually, I think labeling is pointless much in the way I think labeling a cup of coffee as being "hot" is pointless.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, then. I want to know everything that is in my food and everything about my food, down to the last accidental cricket leg.

I think that transparency is good. However, it's hard to sort out actionable information if there's too much data.

Alluminati

Air travel is regulated and I have a choice about stepping onto an airplane or not.

Do you have a choice? News to me. Not sure how else I am supposed to get half way across the world in a 24 hour period if not by airplane. If airplanes are a choice then so are GMOs because you can go forage for mushrooms.

GMOs are regulated. You may not trust or like the regulation, but they are regulated.

I don't trust or like the regulation, that is precisely why I want to avoid GMOs, and in particular anything Monsanto profited from, since, as I already said, I have serious issues with their actions, particularly buying our regulators.

Also, cars and boats! Not that I'm likely to turn down a plane ride, but I can. The lobbyists for the food companies don't want me to have the knowledge to make that choice about GMOs.

So grow your own food and harvest it yourself. You have time to take boats/cars all over the world so you must have time to grow your own produce.

Aaron_K123

Here is the problem with labels. If you label somethings but not other things you suggest that there is some issue with the labeled thing.

By analogy I assume you don't rape children however would likely object to having a label applied to you and only you affixed your forhead saying "Doesn't rape children" while no one else had to have such a label. Why is because the label itself is accurate and doesn't say anything bad itself its mere existance suggests to everyone who sees it that there must be something wrong with you, something to be concerned by and as a result people would avoid you but for no legitimate reason.

The reason GMOs shouldn't be labeled is it singles them out and suggests a problem or fault where none has been established.

Meerataila

Here is the problem with labels. If you label somethings but not other things you suggest that there is some issue with the labeled thing.

By analogy I assume you don't rape children however would likely object to having a label applied to you and only you affixed your forhead saying "Doesn't rape children" while no one else had to have such a label. Why is because the label itself is accurate and doesn't say anything bad itself its mere existance suggests to everyone who sees it that there must be something wrong with you, something to be concerned by and as a result people would avoid you but for no legitimate reason.

The reason GMOs shouldn't be labeled is it singles them out and suggests a problem or fault where none has been established.

I doubt most people will bother to read the label, much less refuse to buy something if it contains any GMO ingredient. But for those of us who do care, too bad if the food industry loses some money, the big players all have lobbyists. I want labels.

ParkerH47

GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.

But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"

The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.

GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.

Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...

Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.

Alluminati

GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.

But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"

The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.

GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.

Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...

Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.

Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.

Alluminati

It must suck being so scared of food.

Aaron_K123

Here is the problem with labels. If you label somethings but not other things you suggest that there is some issue with the labeled thing.

By analogy I assume you don't rape children however would likely object to having a label applied to you and only you affixed your forhead saying "Doesn't rape children" while no one else had to have such a label. Why is because the label itself is accurate and doesn't say anything bad itself its mere existance suggests to everyone who sees it that there must be something wrong with you, something to be concerned by and as a result people would avoid you but for no legitimate reason.

The reason GMOs shouldn't be labeled is it singles them out and suggests a problem or fault where none has been established.

I doubt most people will bother to read the label, much less refuse to buy something if it contains any GMO ingredient. But for those of us who do care, too bad if the food industry loses some money, the big players all have lobbyists. I want labels.

Do you honestly believe that would only affect the food industry and not GMOs in general. Vaccines, insulin, therapeutics, diagnostics...all interelated, all dependent on GMO RND.

ParkerH47

Not to mention GMOs are under patent laws, so now these plant varieties are under patents and have thus been "privatized", thus making monsanto a billion dollar herbicide company one of the first to own a species of plant and can defend that by law.

ParkerH47

GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.

But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"

The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.

GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.

Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...

Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.

Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.

haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....

Meerataila

Here is the problem with labels. If you label somethings but not other things you suggest that there is some issue with the labeled thing.

By analogy I assume you don't rape children however would likely object to having a label applied to you and only you affixed your forhead saying "Doesn't rape children" while no one else had to have such a label. Why is because the label itself is accurate and doesn't say anything bad itself its mere existance suggests to everyone who sees it that there must be something wrong with you, something to be concerned by and as a result people would avoid you but for no legitimate reason.

The reason GMOs shouldn't be labeled is it singles them out and suggests a problem or fault where none has been established.

I doubt most people will bother to read the label, much less refuse to buy something if it contains any GMO ingredient. But for those of us who do care, too bad if the food industry loses some money, the big players all have lobbyists. I want labels.

Do you honestly believe that would only affect the food industry and not GMOs in general. Vaccines, insulin, therapeutics, diagnostics...all interelated, all dependent on GMO RND.

No one is going to turn down life saving, life expanding, or health enhancing medication lightly, so I'm definitely not worried about that aspect.

And have you heard some of the commercials listing lethal side effects in cheery voices, even for drugs that arguably treat trivial conditions? And people still go ask the doctor for them.

Aaron_K123

Can you name one thing that is mandated to be labeled soley for the purpose of satisfying public curiosity and not because it is an active ingredient with dose dependent effects on the body? Some precedent for this.

Meerataila

Can you name one thing that is mandated to be labeled soley for the purpose of satisfying public curiosity and not because it is an active ingredient with dose dependent effects on the body? Some precedent for this.

Like we need precedent in our legal system? It's all about two things. Money, or fear of unrest. They have the money, time for us to get to the unrest.

tracydr

I'm actually pretty careful about what we eat. We don't eat anything with corn syrup, try to avoid corn products ( except popcorn, which I'm not sure is GMO). I buy wheat and rye that is organic and grind it in my own grinder. I also grind popcorn for fresh cornmeal because it just tastes better.
It's never been real intentional and I do still by some non-organic veggies due to lack of good,fresh organic choices. I do have our own garden which is able to provide a lot of our veggies and when we move to NC, I hope to expand the garden and to also grow fruits,like peaches, apples, grapes,plums and berries.
Mine has not really been an intentional avoidance of GMOs. We just eat very little processed foods, besides protein powder and the occasional pizza. I'm sure it has nothing to do with weight loss, besides the obvious benefits of avoiding cornbread, grits, polenta and sodas.
Our food supply has become very corn and soy dominated,which I'm not sure is a great thing. Any time kids are exposed to a large amount of a single food source it increases the chance of food allergies.We don't eat a lot of corn in our house, although I grow some for fresh,corn on the cob, which we love.
The other thing I dislike about GMOs is environmental. There is evidence that large, monoculture, round-up ready farms have impacted species such as the monarch butterfly and bees. There are simply less weeds of varieties that insects rely upon.
My backyard is a safe-haven for the good insects as well as bad. ( need a few aphids and whiteflies to attract the good bugs!). I'm extremely careful about using even organic insecticides or round-up. We have a yard teeming with butterflies, bees and interesting bugs like praying mantis, plus all the birds that come with this type of environment. Not completely weed and pest free, but that's okay.

Aaron_K123

GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.

But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"

The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.

GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.

Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...

Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.

Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.

haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....

YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.