GMOs Scary or not?

Aaron_K123

The reason I don't support labrling foods with "GM" labels is the same reason I don't support labelling buildings with "built using a hammer" labels. Its information sure, but is it informative? No, no it isn't.

Hammers are tools, GM is a tool...whether or not a given tool was used during manufacturing tells you absolutely nothing, nothing at all, about safety of the product.

Non sequitur

It definitely is a non sequitur. I think the GMO label *does* give information. I would honestly like my soy to say "mostly soy with a spliced gene from this other plant, may contain antigens for this other plant" in the allergy information. It's like saying "this food was processed in a facility that also processed nuts." Yeah they cleaned the equipment but there could be particulates of peanut left. Yeah GMO is pretty harmless to our knowledge, but it's been proven antigens are sometimes present from the other plants genes were taken from.
It's not useless information just because it's not necessarily safety information. None of the arguments against labeling are sound. At all. I'd be totally down if everything in the grocery store was labeled in a highly detailed way (apple: contains apple, and a ___ gene to resist apple eating bugs) , because of what I know about the immune system. This has nothing to do with hammers or humans being labeled. Can we all please not use tacky debate tactics? Oh wait this is a forum. Too much to ask.

If an antigen was engineered into soy from a nut and that antigen caused nut allergies then yes that product should be labelled as containing nut products. Why would it require it to be labelled as GM?

Is this a real product or a theoretical product that theoretically didn't get labelled?

Noogynoogs

What is the GMO product spliced with?

QuietBloom

Everyone wants to blame allergies on these instead of the fact that we're dunking our kids in sanitizer every time they touch something and killing their immune system. Not to mention genetic damage that could lead to allergies from exposures to chemicals and other crap. It's not like the food is going to cause a plague just because it's been tinkered with. This is the same fear mongering that's holding back cloning and other useful research.

Let your kids eat dirt! It's good for them. I wasn't convinced the kids were having fun until they were dirty.

Lilly_the_Hillbilly

"Crops and food have been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. Have you seen any problems yet?"


You really should research the subject before spouting off a blatant untruth. Hybridization has been occurring since the dawn of agriculture. Genetic modification has NOT been occurring since the dawn of agriculture. The term as previously mentions refers to the forceful insertion of genetic material from one species into the genetic material of another species to create new combinations (proteins) that cannot occur in nature.

Mother nature has put in place safeguards to specifically prevent the blending of dog genes with say tiger genes. Most of the genetic modification today is patented by just a handful of biotech and pesticide corporations and blend the genes of bacteria with the genes of food crops in order to allow them to be dowsed in pesticides without dying. The pesticides by the way are owned by the same companies who own the patents for the gmo seeds. These are the same companies spending millions of dollars to convince you that you don't need to know whether your food contains them or not. So, if you trust the company that told us that DDT and Agent Orange were completely safe, go ahead and eat the GMO corn, soy, sugar beets, squash, canola, potato and more that are owned by that same company. You can go ahead and also believe that Roundup herbicide is also safe and poses no threat to your health, even if it has been repeatedly poured on those GMO crops. There are also GMO seeds in which the pesticide is now being genetically modified right into the seed so that it is grown within the plant and can no longer be washed off.

GMOs do not benefit you in any way, period. They make the biotech companies Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer and BASF very wealthy with rapidly increasing tons upon tons of chemical sales and the patented seeds that must be used with them.

The research is readily available both on the alarming new studies linking serious health problems with the ingesting of these "assumed safe" products as well as to the toxicity levels in the soil and fresh water we all depend upon. Find out, you can start here:

http://justlabelit.org/right-to-know/the-truth-behind-ge-foods/

I don't think you really understand the subject matter. So- I'm not going to put much weight into what ever it is you think you're saying.

QueenBishOTUniverse

*gigglesnorts*

snikkins

You want to know why these arguments piss me off, the responses below were to a similar thread about organic produce. All the respondents are people I consider to be very intelligent and well informed consumers:

I can't afford organic. And honestly, I probably wouldn't seek it out if I could, because when things are labeled non-GMO or organic it just makes me think the company is encouraging fear-mongering and manipulating the public.

I buy produce at Walmart. Ain't nobody got time or money for organic produce (and by nobody I mean my husband and I. And even if we did have the time and money we'd spend it on other stuff. Like video games)

I have absolutely no interest in supporting the organic movement, the shaky science on which most of the pro-organic arguments are made, or the outright scaremongering. I buy regular fruits and vegetables.

^All of this. So much all of the above.

And all of this is why I wish I could strangle every single person that makes these ridiculous claims about organics and GMO's, seriously, damn hippies need to stay OFF my side.

My response is the one directly above. Now I posted this earlier in the thread, but since we're having some reading issues I'm going to repost:

I may need to switch my avatar for this one. Look, I work in marine ecology. There are some major concerns about ecosystem effects from large scale farming practices, and as someone has already mentioned, monoculture crops etc. are also an issue. But let me be clear on this.... NONE of the scientific concerns relating to organic farming practices or GMO's have ANYTHING to do with whether the foods are harmful for the consumer. These are large scale ecosystem effects, and ecologist's very real concerns are getting drowned out by a bunch of scare mongering propaganda and turning the entire issue in to a damn joke so that the real problems get swept under the rug and aren't being dealt with. /end rant.

So THANK YOU for proving my point. By making mountains out of molehills you are turning the entire field in to a joke and hurting very real research on global level concerns that will impact more than just whether you feel "safe" about the scary chemicals you're consuming. And you're damn right I lump this right along with the vaccine issue, because it's all the same stupidity. Now to switch my avatar AGAIN, because damn hippy's cant get the point.

*yes that entire response was unprofessional and over the top and I JDGAF*

I just want to throw out there that I'm probably a hippie, but I'm totally down for GMOs, vaccines, and just science in general. I also appreciate your choice of avatar when these things come up.

QueenBishOTUniverse

You want to know why these arguments piss me off, the responses below were to a similar thread about organic produce. All the respondents are people I consider to be very intelligent and well informed consumers:

I can't afford organic. And honestly, I probably wouldn't seek it out if I could, because when things are labeled non-GMO or organic it just makes me think the company is encouraging fear-mongering and manipulating the public.

I buy produce at Walmart. Ain't nobody got time or money for organic produce (and by nobody I mean my husband and I. And even if we did have the time and money we'd spend it on other stuff. Like video games)

I have absolutely no interest in supporting the organic movement, the shaky science on which most of the pro-organic arguments are made, or the outright scaremongering. I buy regular fruits and vegetables.

^All of this. So much all of the above.

And all of this is why I wish I could strangle every single person that makes these ridiculous claims about organics and GMO's, seriously, damn hippies need to stay OFF my side.

My response is the one directly above. Now I posted this earlier in the thread, but since we're having some reading issues I'm going to repost:

I may need to switch my avatar for this one. Look, I work in marine ecology. There are some major concerns about ecosystem effects from large scale farming practices, and as someone has already mentioned, monoculture crops etc. are also an issue. But let me be clear on this.... NONE of the scientific concerns relating to organic farming practices or GMO's have ANYTHING to do with whether the foods are harmful for the consumer. These are large scale ecosystem effects, and ecologist's very real concerns are getting drowned out by a bunch of scare mongering propaganda and turning the entire issue in to a damn joke so that the real problems get swept under the rug and aren't being dealt with. /end rant.

So THANK YOU for proving my point. By making mountains out of molehills you are turning the entire field in to a joke and hurting very real research on global level concerns that will impact more than just whether you feel "safe" about the scary chemicals you're consuming. And you're damn right I lump this right along with the vaccine issue, because it's all the same stupidity. Now to switch my avatar AGAIN, because damn hippy's cant get the point.

*yes that entire response was unprofessional and over the top and I JDGAF*

I just want to throw out there that I'm probably a hippie, but I'm totally down for GMOs, vaccines, and just science in general. I also appreciate your choice of avatar when these things come up.

LOL, I only use hippy for the sake of the avatar. Most people would probably also classify me as a hippy, but I'm always down for a good Abyss joke! :drinker:

dsalveson

This thread has been a great read.









Especially your posts Susanbaiton

Onderwoman

I encourage my students to read everything before responding. Sorry, I don't have much patience for people who clearly haven't.

So, because you say "OMG, I already answered that" when someone still has concerns and feels you haven't, you can act snarky and uppity and say they didn't read what you said because...because you are special? We aren't your students, and I'm sad for your students, you are not very good with logic or analysis, you are supposed to be as a science teacher. All you did is express your opinions to people freaking out about GMOs, those are not "answers" as to why it shouldn't be listed.

I have seen no negatives for listing GMO info, it should be there and included. If you don't want it there, so what? Its nothing to you really unless you are part of a corp. paying for it, it makes no sense to oppose it. Others do and people have a right for info.

Aaron_K123

I encourage my students to read everything before responding. Sorry, I don't have much patience for people who clearly haven't.

So, because you say "OMG, I already answered that" when someone still has concerns and feels you haven't, you can act snarky and uppity and say they didn't read what you said because...because you are special? We aren't your students, and I'm sad for your students, you are not very good with logic or analysis, you are supposed to be as a science teacher. All you did is express your opinions to people freaking out about GMOs, those are not "answers" as to why it shouldn't be listed.

I have seen no negatives for listing GMO info, it should be there and included. If you don't want it there, so what? Its nothing to you really unless you are part of a corp. paying for it, it makes no sense to oppose it. Others do and people have a right for info.

So according to you there is no reason to oppose costly unnecessary unfounded warning labels unless you yourself have to pay for them. You cannot fathom someone opposing something that the consider counterproductive unnecessary and a waste of money unless it directly impacts them financially? Really?

QueenBishOTUniverse

I encourage my students to read everything before responding. Sorry, I don't have much patience for people who clearly haven't.

So, because you say "OMG, I already answered that" when someone still has concerns and feels you haven't, you can act snarky and uppity and say they didn't read what you said because...because you are special? Nope, I can say that because it HAS already been answered and it IS clear that reading wasn't done

We aren't your students, trust me, that much is obvious and I'm sad for your students, you are not very good with logic or analysis, you are supposed to be as a science teacher. your second attempt at personal insult is duly noted, excellent debate strategy that.

All you did is express your opinions to people freaking out about GMOs, those are not "answers" as to why it shouldn't be listed. I and others have presented plenty of opinions, along with facts, evidence and very good reasons. Sorry you missed them.

I have seen no negatives for listing GMO then you weren't paying attention or are intentionally ignoring them info, it should be there and included Why? what possible good does it do other than making you *feel* better .

If you don't want it there, so what? Its nothing to you really unless you are part of a corp. paying for it, it makes no sense to oppose it. I and others have again explained why the labeling issue is distracting at best and down right fear mongering at worst, if you are so paranoid about GMOs then shell out the money for the products that are already voluntarily labeling themselves nonGMO.

Others do and people have a right for info. no one's stopping you from doing your own research if you're really that worried about it, the information is perfectly available. Labeling is for information that is directly needed (such as nutritional info) or if something is potentially harmful (such as allergens) there is zero zip zilch for evidence that GMO food products meet either of those requirements, therefor it is unnecessary and distracting from real issues to throw temper tantrums over completely inconsequential and unnecessary labels.

Meerataila

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Aaron_K123

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Constitutional republic here. Is there a nation that operates as a pure democracy?

snikkins

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Constitutional republic here. Is there a nation that operates as a pure democracy?

Yes! We've trailed into what I do! Score.

In the US, and most everywhere else on the national level, we elect people to make decisions for us. The US a representative democracy. So, basically, a national vote on anything isn't possible. Now, if you want to get into state politics, many states do direct democracy, such as California, and the threshold to get measures on a ballot are pretty low.

Just because we don't hold national votes on something doesn't mean we aren't a democracy. It just means that we decided that having a large, sprawling country vote on absolutely everything was a bad idea, which it is.

audrast

I don't trust the American public to make any decisions about science because they are informed in bite-sized, factoid, news nugget style. A nation that believes that evolution is a "theory," that vaccinations cause autism and that angels really do exist doesn't deserve to be given the option to ruin companies simply because they see a "GMO" label on the food in the produce section.

Most people don't know what GMOs are, certainly don't understand or even CARE to understand the science behind it. While I am not arguing for or against the use of GMOs, the technology is certainly interesting and can be used for good. While some people argue that they have a right to be informed, do they really know what they are being informed about?

"This tomato is labeled GMO!" Well, yes, but the alteration was to remove a gene responsible for the production of a gas that causes the fruit to rot prematurely. They aren't adding genes from dinosaurs to get Tomatosaurus Rexes.

Alluminati

I don't trust the American public to make any decisions about science because they are informed in bite-sized, factoid, news nugget style. A nation that believes that evolution is a "theory," that vaccinations cause autism and that angels really do exist doesn't deserve to be given the option to ruin companies simply because they see a "GMO" label on the food in the produce section.

Most people don't know what GMOs are, certainly don't understand or even CARE to understand the science behind it. While I am not arguing for or against the use of GMOs, the technology is certainly interesting and can be used for good. While some people argue that they have a right to be informed, do they really know what they are being informed about?

"This tomato is labeled GMO!" Well, yes, but the alteration was to remove a gene responsible for the production of a gas that causes the fruit to rot prematurely. They aren't adding genes from dinosaurs to get Tomatosaurus Rexes.

This^^^^

FunkyTobias

There are already independent agencies that independently verify non-GMO products.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

If it's that important to you, then put your money where your mouth is and only buy products from them. But don't expect me to pay for your irrational fears.

saracantthink

I think they are scary because in my Sociology textbook they showed a poor rat that had been fed nothing but GMOs. He was nothing but tumors all over his body. I think people should be able to make their own decisions on these things, and that's why companies should have to say if they use GMOs and other unnatural processes.

audrast

A sociology textbook picture of a rat fed GMOs ... and you think the GMOs caused the tumors rather than ingestion of the Monsanto chemical pesticide used on those Round-up Ready crops? The "article" in question actually states that rats in one of the groups not fed the treated corn but given Roundup in their water had tumors too. It's the chemical pesticide, not the corn.

paperpudding

Was it one of this Sprawly rats - someone please correct me on exact name - that spontaneously produce tumours anyway?

If so, that really doesn't prove anything - unless many rats were tested and those fed solely GM foods had significantly increased rates of tumours.

Aaron_K123

Was it one of this Sprawly rats - someone please correct me on exact name - that spontaneously produce tumours anyway?

If so, that really doesn't prove anything - unless many rats were tested and those fed solely GM foods had significantly increased rates of tumours.

Sprague-Dawley is the rat breed you are thinking of. I'm not sure what study she was referring to in her sociology textbook so I cannot comment but I am skeptical that there is a GM approved food that is known to cause tumors.

Meerataila

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Constitutional republic here. Is there a nation that operates as a pure democracy?

Not yet. Hopefully soon. A small group who thinks they're smarter than the rest of us shouldn't be making our decisions for us.

Aaron_K123

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Constitutional republic here. Is there a nation that operates as a pure democracy?

Not yet. Hopefully soon. A small group who thinks they're smarter than the rest of us shouldn't be making our decisions for us.

By small group of people making decisions for us do you mean the people we elected to make decisions for us?

Aaron_K123

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Constitutional republic here. Is there a nation that operates as a pure democracy?

Not yet. Hopefully soon. A small group who thinks they're smarter than the rest of us shouldn't be making our decisions for us.

By small group of people making decisions for us do you mean the people we elected to make decisions for us in our constitutional republic?

A pure democracy on a national scale wold be untenable: erratic and ineffective. That is why they don't exist.

As for science science isn't a democracy for different reasons, there are things that are true and there are things that are false and voting on which is which has no bearing on the reality.

Meerataila

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Constitutional republic here. Is there a nation that operates as a pure democracy?

Not yet. Hopefully soon. A small group who thinks they're smarter than the rest of us shouldn't be making our decisions for us.

By small group of people making decisions for us do you mean the people we elected to make decisions for us?

Yes, although our votes as individuals mean nothing compared to the campaign finance dollars wealthy interests woo them with. Otherwise, it would be a lot closer to a democratic republic than it actually is. But either way, direct democracy is the way to go, and if bright people like you don't like the decisions of the majority, advocate for better education, but don't advocate for creating more ignorance.

Aaron_K123

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Constitutional republic here. Is there a nation that operates as a pure democracy?

Not yet. Hopefully soon. A small group who thinks they're smarter than the rest of us shouldn't be making our decisions for us.

By small group of people making decisions for us do you mean the people we elected to make decisions for us?

Yes, although our votes as individuals mean nothing compared to the campaign finance dollars wealthy interests woo them with. Otherwise, it would be a lot closer to a democratic republic than it actually is. But either way, direct democracy is the way to go, and if bright people like you don't like the decisions of the majority, advocate for better education, but don't advocate for creating more ignorance.

There are things I know and there are things I don't know. I don't know much about global economics so I tend to bow out of discussions about that and tend to not make vocal stances or decisions on policy because I feel that I am to ignorant on the topic. I could choose to inform myself on the subject but there is only so much time in the day and my interests lie elsewhere. Science and GM however I have a good understanding of so yes I feel confident in voicing my opinion there. Sometimes I feel there are many who feel entitled to an opinion in terms of policy decisions whether it is informed or not. Personally I'd rather our policies be determined by only those who are informed about said policy and the factors surrounding it. I do not claim to be "bright" on all subjects and would, for example, not dare to say that my voice deserves to be heard on something like economic policy or decisions regarding engineering of infrastructure for example.

I do not believe that all opinions have the same merit. The merit of an opinion is weighed by its backing in terms of subject knowledge and time spent in the field. A "true democracy" weighs all opinions equally. That is not a great way of doing things outside of the scale of a small community.

I'm guessing this is going to brand me as an "elitist" to say something as clearly offensive as the belief that decisions should be made by the most informed and not just whomever decides to show up.

TenaciousTAZ

Picture shows it....sorry its a long link....If small animals want organic over GMO, I think I want the right to know what I'm eating....scroll to see the corn experiment.....I just wish I could have my own farm! :P


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=Qieo01Kefp_H9M&tbnid=svEX3GtL0KgfzM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/stop-gmos-russian-scientists-urge-10-year-ban-on-genetically-modified-products/&ei=q1rDU4vVMMOLiwKI2YGgDQ&bvm=bv.70810081,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNE2IehKohneB20L4s0rmO0HIgTELQ&ust=1405398024474175

Meerataila

We should put it to a national vote. Should GMO products be labeled, or should they not?

If we lived in democracies, this would happen and all would be well.

Constitutional republic here. Is there a nation that operates as a pure democracy?

Not yet. Hopefully soon. A small group who thinks they're smarter than the rest of us shouldn't be making our decisions for us.

By small group of people making decisions for us do you mean the people we elected to make decisions for us?

Yes, although our votes as individuals mean nothing compared to the campaign finance dollars wealthy interests woo them with. Otherwise, it would be a lot closer to a democratic republic than it actually is. But either way, direct democracy is the way to go, and if bright people like you don't like the decisions of the majority, advocate for better education, but don't advocate for creating more ignorance.

There are things I know and there are things I don't know. I don't know much about global economics so I tend to bow out of discussions about that and tend to not make vocal stances or decisions on policy because I feel that I am to ignorant on the topic. I could choose to inform myself on the subject but there is only so much time in the day and my interests lie elsewhere. Science and GM however I have a good understanding of so yes I feel confident in voicing my opinion there. Sometimes I feel there are many who feel entitled to an opinion in terms of policy decisions whether it is informed or not. Personally I'd rather our policies be determined by only those who are informed about said policy and the factors surrounding it. I do not claim to be "bright" on all subjects and would, for example, not dare to say that my voice deserves to be heard on something like economic policy or decisions regarding engineering of infrastructure for example.

I do not believe that all opinions have the same merit. The merit of an opinion is weighed by its backing in terms of subject knowledge and time spent in the field. A "true democracy" weighs all opinions equally. That is not a great way of doing things outside of the scale of a small community.

My area of study is politics, and the people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.

I'll take the many pitfalls of direct democracy over our current system any day, all day. Meanwhile, I'll thank you not to insist that I not know the details of the food I'm putting into my own body. I should at very least have that tiny amount of freedom and choice.

Aaron_K123

Picture shows it....sorry its a long link....If small animals want organic over GMO, I think I want the right to know what I'm eating....scroll to see the corn experiment.....I just wish I could have my own farm! :P


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=Qieo01Kefp_H9M&tbnid=svEX3GtL0KgfzM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/stop-gmos-russian-scientists-urge-10-year-ban-on-genetically-modified-products/&ei=q1rDU4vVMMOLiwKI2YGgDQ&bvm=bv.70810081,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNE2IehKohneB20L4s0rmO0HIgTELQ&ust=1405398024474175

So let me get this straight. A product that has been on the market for many years and billions of people have eaten for a considerable amount of time causes your entire body to be covered in tumors in 90 days. That is what you are telling me.

By the way that links to a webpage called "The Truth Seeker". Here is the article. It doesn't cite the study so I'd have to track it down to comment. This article doesn't cite the study as a source so much as it cites another news organization citing a news organization citing the study.

I know what this particular GMO is, its an incorporation of a bacterial gene that produces and enzyme that provides plants an alternate metabolic route to amino acid formation which circumvents the effect of glyophosphate which is the active ingredient in Roundup. Really not sure why such a thing would cause tumors, its a protein that when ingested would be metabolized in the stomach like any other protein.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=57689

FeraFilia

"This tomato is labeled GMO!" Well, yes, but the alteration was to remove a gene responsible for the production of a gas that causes the fruit to rot prematurely. They aren't adding genes from dinosaurs to get Tomatosaurus Rexes.

I would say that ^ this is the only reason to believe they are scary. Possible carnivorous produce is definitely scary.