To GMO or Non-GMO
Replies
-
Ideally, I'd love to go non-GMO, but it's pretty expensive to go that route if you don't grow it yourself. That being said, I don't think it matters much as far as weightloss goes, but over all health and hormone function would drastically improve with a non-GMO diet.0
-
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.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.
Bacteria ball up little pieces of DNA and share it across species lines (plasmids). Viruses can do similar things as well in animal DNA (Diabetes is actually an endogenous retrovirus - a piece of DNA from outside our genome that inserted itself into our reproductive cells).
Scientists learned how to do genetic modification by studying these natural processes.
Um, okay?
The processes behind Genetic Engineering are millennia old. It is not new at all. It is no newer than sexual reproduction. The only difference is that we've learned how to harness and direct it.
The parallel between breeding and genetic engineering is exact.
Relatively new to humans. Geez, did that really need specified?
Breeding programs based on DNA sequencing are relatively new to humans as well. Perhaps we should label the products of those?
Sure, why not?
Let's just put a sticker on everything!0 -
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?
If I selectively breed for that quality in one process and then selectively engineered for it in the other.
Which part of identical are you having a problem with? Both resultant organisms would be genetically identical to each other, not the organism they were bred/engineered from....
I'm having difficulty with the oxymoron. Then "identical" but "different" part.0 -
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.
What if they have said that it is identical in structure and effect (which they have)?
I think it would greatly depend on who "they" are. Is it the same "they" that told us BPA in plastic was safe?
Also the same "they" that questioned the BPA in plastic.
Eventually. Isn't THAT the worry? Approval without enough testing to really know dangers.
I know. We should probably take another look at aspirin again too.0 -
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.
Bacteria have been sharing plasmids forever. Just how do you think that SOME e.coli become toxic?
Not sure what your point is.
Bacteria ball up little pieces of DNA and share it across species lines (plasmids). Viruses can do similar things as well in animal DNA (Diabetes is actually an endogenous retrovirus - a piece of DNA from outside our genome that inserted itself into our reproductive cells).
Scientists learned how to do genetic modification by studying these natural processes.
Um, okay?
The processes behind Genetic Engineering are millennia old. It is not new at all. It is no newer than sexual reproduction. The only difference is that we've learned how to harness and direct it.
The parallel between breeding and genetic engineering is exact.
Relatively new to humans. Geez, did that really need specified?
Breeding programs based on DNA sequencing are relatively new to humans as well. Perhaps we should label the products of those?
Sure, why not?
Let's just put a sticker on everything!
Why not?0 -
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.
What if they have said that it is identical in structure and effect (which they have)?
I think it would greatly depend on who "they" are. Is it the same "they" that told us BPA in plastic was safe?
Also the same "they" that questioned the BPA in plastic.
Eventually. Isn't THAT the worry? Approval without enough testing to really know dangers.
I know. We should probably take another look at aspirin again too.
Some people might have liked to know about the bleeding dangers earlier.
0 -
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.
What if they have said that it is identical in structure and effect (which they have)?
I think it would greatly depend on who "they" are. Is it the same "they" that told us BPA in plastic was safe?
Yes. There is an issue of justified mistrust. Which is why I propose this issue really should begin with a complete overhaul of our political structure and a new one wiped clean of private money. A regulatory agency that does independent research, has teeth, and doesn't assume the best.
And I know it seems off topic, but it's not. As I said last night, the worst thing that can happen to genetic research is for something to get put into the food supply that ends up killing a lot of people. When people find out, the backlash will be incredible. Immunity from civil suits won't save Monsanto then. In fact, if anything, it will make people even angrier and more determined.0 -
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?
If I selectively breed for that quality in one process and then selectively engineered for it in the other.
Which part of identical are you having a problem with? Both resultant organisms would be genetically identical to each other, not the organism they were bred/engineered from....
I'm having difficulty with the oxymoron. Then "identical" but "different" part.
No the original organism is changed by two different processes: a) selective breeding and b) genetic engineering. We end up with two end products that have identical chemical composition with each other but are now quite different to the original organism. We have been clever about our breeding and engineering to ensure this is the case.
This is the thought experiment. It's really not that hard...0 -
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?
If I selectively breed for that quality in one process and then selectively engineered for it in the other.
Which part of identical are you having a problem with? Both resultant organisms would be genetically identical to each other, not the organism they were bred/engineered from....
I'm having difficulty with the oxymoron. Then "identical" but "different" part.
No the original organism is changed by two different processes: a) selective breeding and b) genetic engineering. We end up with two end products that have identical chemical composition with each other but are now quite different to the original organism. We have been clever about our breeding and engineering to ensure this is the case.
This is the thought experiment. It's really not that hard...
IF, in your hypthetical situation, the end result were truly identical then they would be identical. Whether they were evil would require more information than just that they were identical.0 -
"We grow tired of peas, Brother Mendel"0
-
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?
If I selectively breed for that quality in one process and then selectively engineered for it in the other.
Which part of identical are you having a problem with? Both resultant organisms would be genetically identical to each other, not the organism they were bred/engineered from....
I'm having difficulty with the oxymoron. Then "identical" but "different" part.
No the original organism is changed by two different processes: a) selective breeding and b) genetic engineering. We end up with two end products that have identical chemical composition with each other but are now quite different to the original organism. We have been clever about our breeding and engineering to ensure this is the case.
This is the thought experiment. It's really not that hard...
IF, in your hypthetical situation, the end result were truly identical then they would be identical. Whether they were evil would require more information than just that they were identical.
Well, let's say we've cross bred/engineered a turnip with a higher protein yield/kg.
Would you be happy to eat only the "natural" one or would you happily munch on either....
ETA: you can forget the melodramatic "evil". The criteria is being happy to eat the result.0 -
<<wall of text removed>>
Well, let's say we've cross bred/engineered a turnip with a higher protein yield/kg.
Would you be happy to eat only the "natural" one or would you happily munch on either....
ETA: you can forget the melodramatic "evil". The criteria is being happy to eat the result.
I'd prefer the natural one. I trust nature more than man. If only the GE/CB were avialable, I'd eat and not worry much about it. No use adding stress to the mix.
0 -
"We grow tired of peas, Brother Mendel"
:laugh:0 -
<<wall of text removed>>
Well, let's say we've cross bred/engineered a turnip with a higher protein yield/kg.
Would you be happy to eat only the "natural" one or would you happily munch on either....
ETA: you can forget the melodramatic "evil". The criteria is being happy to eat the result.
I'd prefer the natural one. I trust nature more than man. If only the GE/CB were avialable, I'd eat and not worry much about it. No use adding stress to the mix.
Even if they are chemically identical?
So you think their worth lies outside of their chemical structure somehow? Interesting....0 -
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.0 -
<<wall of text removed>>
Well, let's say we've cross bred/engineered a turnip with a higher protein yield/kg.
Would you be happy to eat only the "natural" one or would you happily munch on either....
ETA: you can forget the melodramatic "evil". The criteria is being happy to eat the result.
I'd prefer the natural one. I trust nature more than man. If only the GE/CB were avialable, I'd eat and not worry much about it. No use adding stress to the mix.
Even if they are chemically identical?
So you think their worth lies outside of their chemical structure somehow? Interesting....
Honestly? I'd be leery of whoever told me they were chemically identical. Especially since one consistently gives a higher yield. How? Why? If they are identical why aren't the yields the same? Does whatever difference that causes the high yields affect anything else? Do the high yields come at the expense of another creature like, say, the honeybee?0 -
Then go after THEM, not GMOs. That is all I am saying. Anyways, I keep trying to bow out and fail to do so, maybe I will just look away for a bit. Cheers.
One more thing from me, too, then I'm done. By the way, I do suggest we go after them and sweep every politician who takes corporate money and every lobbyist out.
But do you know what will really strike the death blow to this research? If failure to regulate ever results in deaths and people figure out GMOs caused the deaths. I certainly wouldn't advocate covering up the cause of those deaths, I hope you wouldn't either. Regardless, if it ever happens, it will make what happened to stem cell research look like a minor setback.
I think you are confusing food regulations with nutritional/dietary supplement regulations.
The FDA regulates current GMO foods in the same way as non-GMO foods because the GMO products have already been tested for potential allergenic and teratogenic properties and none have been found. (New products would have to hold up to the same rigorous testing.) Food safety is tightly regulated by the FDA.
Nutritional supplements have largely been deregulated due to lobbying. The FDA can only regulate supplements retroactively because the onus is on them to prove that supplements are hazardous rather than on the supplement manufacturer to prove they are safe. This is due to voters in the 90's writing congress to prevent regulation following numerous ephedra-related deaths.
It's sort of funny...20 years ago, people were writing Congress to stay out of their medicine cabinets despite a wealth of data that many nutritional supplements are harmful, ineffective, and/or contain none of the ingredients on the label. Today we have a biotechnology that is literally saving lives and has shown to produce crops identical to non-GMO products, and people want it labeled.
American voters will stop at nothing to get their way so they can regret it a couple decades later.
Exactly my point. Suppose its a big assumption to make but I'm going to guess you work in the sciences as well?
Yes, just finished my doctorate in Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise. My dissertation was on probiotics and metabolism...I know about what the FDA can and cannot do.
Very cool topic. Think there is a future market for customized microbiomes for nutrition or dietary supplementation?
RePOOPulant (I kid you not)--an oral supplement of bacteria extracted from human fecal matter--has been effective in treating C. diff, which you may know is an extremely virulent pathogenic bacteria common in hospital infections. You can crap yourself to death with C. diff. Family members usually donate their feces and a pharmacy prepares it, then the patient ingests it. I believe it's been used effectively in treating (not curing) some symptoms of ulcerative colitis. However, family members tend to have very similar microbiome profiles which makes enrichment (adding specific strains) easier, and the RePOOPulant contains a known dosage.
Dietary supplement probiotics are a different story entirely. Because the FDA doesn't regulate the safety, efficacy, or accuracy of labeling, you really have no idea what you're getting. Most probiotics interventions in human clinical trials show little to no effect on metabolic markers, though some do reduce body weight. But the dosing is all over the place, and the bacterial genome is FAR greater than our own, so how do you even decide what strain to pick? You just do what the guy before you did...hence all the focus on Lacto and Acido.
If you happen to be a mouse or a rat, probiotics are incredibly effective. Why is there a difference? Who knows. Mice eat their own poop regularly and the probiotics are not native to the mouse gut, so there are huge confounding factors. You could eat your own poop and see what happens (seriously, it probably won't make you sick).
I ended my dissertation presentation by basically saying there is just a paucity of evidence that a limited number of probiotic strains have any benefit to humans, and that is after my project was funded by a probiotics company. Of course everyone hoped there would be incredible effects, but...data is what it is.
Usually, you do research and testing on the strains. You might transfect or transform those strains with genes from other species or strains you believe might be useful. And then you test those as well. That was the postdoctoral work of a colleague of mine nearly 20 yrs. ago. An Australian company was interested in improving the health benefits of live culture yogurt. The research didn't pan out, but it continued after my colleague moved on to other things.0 -
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.0 -
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.html0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
I've read that the nutrients in Non GMO is better than GMO products.
Not everything you read is true.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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