GMOs Scary or not?
Replies
-
And honestly, it’s these lawsuits that create much of the fear. Why not label it? Too expensive? No. Most GMO are used in processed foods and they are all labelled. And those labels are regularly updated without passing the cost along to consumers. So the question becomes, why spend millions of dollars to prevent the labels? What are they hiding?
I think this thread is a clear example of why it would be a bad idea in unnecessarily label as most people don't even know which foods are GMO and just assume from the great marketing tool "organic" is that anything without "organic" is GMO.
That's because the organic or "non-GMO" label is the only way to know. The only reason not to label is to keep the consumer from making their own decision. If people want to know they should be allowed to know.
Call the manufacturer and ask then!0 -
Meh.
What is the objective difference in the end result between non-GMO and GMO? What does a GMO apple have in it that a non-GMO apple does not? And if there is no difference to my body, why do I really care which specific method we used to come up with it?
My official stance is: Don't care. If good evidence comes up showing that it's harmful, then I'll stand corrected. Until then, it's not worth hiding under my bed with my hands over my eyes.0 -
Glad to see such hearty discussion!
I myself eat GMO foods and I couldn't tell the difference...but I have family members who are vehemently opposed to them and want them labeled.
It actually sounds like very few foods AREN'T genetically modified, therefore, maybe labels would make people realize just how much they would have to give up if they didn't eat GMO foods? Might be a good thing, as an eye-opener for some that you really can't avoid them without sacrificing a lot.0 -
when you modify the genome of corn, it is not corn anymore
so many people commenting here with no background in chemistry or biology.
GMO corn is a mutation of corn. It is not a natural evolution (read Darwin if you want to educate yourself about about the difference between evolution, mutation, selection and modification)
We have no way today to say if it is bad of not because we have no data spanning over multiple generations0 -
when you modify the genome of corn, it is not corn anymore
so many people commenting here with no background in chemistry or biology.
GMO corn is a mutation of corn. It is not a natural evolution (read Darwin if you want to educate yourself about about the difference between evolution, mutation, selection and modification)
We have no way today to say if it is bad of not because we have no data spanning over multiple generations
By that logic, does that mean that someone whose genes have been altered by a genetic mutation isn't human anymore?0 -
when you modify the genome of corn, it is not corn anymore
so many people commenting here with no background in chemistry or biology.
GMO corn is a mutation of corn. It is not a natural evolution (read Darwin if you want to educate yourself about about the difference between evolution, mutation, selection and modification)
We have no way today to say if it is bad of not because we have no data spanning over multiple generations
<<< Graduate degree from the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. I believe I have heard of this Darwin person you speak of. You do realize that genetic mutation is THE mechanism for evolution, so yea, GMO corn is artificially mutated and selected, but still qualifies as corn since that's a rather large genus with a whole lot of different species in it.... In order to no longer be classified as corn, it would have to no longer have the basic traits common to all corn species...
ETA: and I still want to know how the DNA in the corn is going to some how affect human populations over multiple generations, what's the mechanism for that?0 -
that type of testing is a joke because it does not allow to determine long term effects
So yes you can eat them and you dont die; PASSED
What will happen in 150 years to human body: speculation
Which is why we wait 150 years before using any newly developed product. Oh wait, no...we don't...that would be ridiculous.0 -
LOL.when you modify the genome of corn, it is not corn anymore
so many people commenting here with no background in chemistry or biology.
GMO corn is a mutation of corn. It is not a natural evolution (read Darwin if you want to educate yourself about about the difference between evolution, mutation, selection and modification)
We have no way today to say if it is bad of not because we have no data spanning over multiple generations
It looks like the only thing you got right is that it isn't "natural evolution."0 -
when you modify the genome of corn, it is not corn anymore
What? Explain that to me.so many people commenting here with no background in chemistry or biology.
<<< has a significant background in chemistry and biology and biochemistry and genetics and molecular biology and has worked as a research scientist for many years. Ph.D in molecular biology and a focus in biochemistry and microbiology. Is that relevant? Not really, but hey if you are going to claim people who are commenting don't have a background in particular fields it well then I'm going to bring it up.GMO corn is a mutation of corn. It is not a natural evolution (read Darwin if you want to educate yourself about about the difference between evolution, mutation, selection and modification)
I must have missed the part of Origin of Species that talks about DNA as it relates to heredity and the effects of GMOs. Reading Darwin is good for a history lesson, if you want to learn about genetics pick up a modern textbook.We have no way today to say if it is bad of not because we have no data spanning over multiple generations
When has that EVER been a criteria for the safety of a product?0 -
Robert Fraley PhD Monsanto's chief technology officer on state labeling laws"It would create unnecessary cost and confusion...We are absolutely supportive of voluntary labeling". Source: Bloomberg article 7/7 to 7/13/14. Also, from the article, GM varieties make up 90 percent of all corn grown in the US. A very good article which brings a brighter light on the benefits of efficient growth of many crops, corn is just the largest.0
-
I can't help but feel that this is just your standard fear from lack of familiarity response that is really present in all of us when confronted with things outside our common experience.
I work in genetics and biochemistry, genetic modification is something I just do on a regular basis...it is familiar to me, much like a hammer. I have personally genetically modified a yeast protein with mutations that I chose that then went on to be packaged into a virus and injected into peoples brains for cancer treatment. When people talk about why we should be so concerned by it it honestly sounds as strange to me as someone going on and on about the dangers of hammers. You want to accomplish something you need the right tool for the job and GM is the right tool for many many jobs in the modern world that really could not be accomplished otherwise.
Am I going to sit here and tell you you cannot do damage with genetic modification? No I'm not, no more than I would claim you can't do damage with a hammer. But so what? Statements stop being meaningful when they apply to everything. We can fear the possibilities of any product or any manufacture process or any technique or any technology or any natural process but what PURPOSE does that have?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Here's some information as to what GMOs are and why they are unhealthy/scary. I don't care to get into a rant with those of you who are just here to argue (how do you have time for that!?) but I thought I'd at least pass on a little actual information. If you're unsure of GMOs, start doing some research and decide, for yourself, if you're comfortable with eating the products. That is all! Happy Friday! :flowerforyou:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.
GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/04/whats-gmo-and-why-should-we-care
What exactly is a GMO?
GMO stands for "genetically modified organism" and can refer to plants or animals created by way of gene-splicing techniques. Splicing merges DNA from different species to create combinations that would not occur naturally in nature. Genetic engineering is not to be confused with cross-breeding (the practice of combining, for example, dog breeds).
Biotechnology companies are largely engineering GMO crops to resist direct application of herbicide. This allows the crop plants to live while surrounding weeds die. (ADDING MY OWN BIT HERE...MEANING MORE HERBICIDES CAN BE USED WHICH WE END UP CONSUMING....MMMM....CHEMICALS!!!)
Why have other countries banned GMO crops?
More than 40 countries—including all of Europe, as well as Japan and India—have at least some requirements governing the labeling of genetically modified foods. In Europe, labeling laws are strict, and many genetically engineered crops are banned outright.
So what do 40 countries acknowledge that the U.S. doesn't? One of the most compelling arguments driving labeling laws is that we just don't know what GMOs are capable of. They're a relatively recent development in agriculture, and we've yet to see their long-term effects. However, animal testing has linked GMOs with cancer, miscarriage, organ damage, and other health problems, which some countries have determined is enough evidence to put on the brakes.
Beyond health effects, genetically modified seeds restrict biodiversity and create hairy situations between organic farmers and those using genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified pollen or even the seeds themselves can drift into organic fields; with patenting laws making it possible for companies to sue farmers who use their seeds without permission, the act of planting crops can become a legal nightmare.0 -
Yes, you succeeded in passing along very little actual information.0
-
so many people commenting here with no background in chemistry or biology.
<<<<<<<Just another poster with a significant background in microbiology and genetics. B.A. in mathematics, and have provided dynamic and statistical support for research in both plant and animal genetics for my school's Microbio dept. Oh, and next year, I begin my doctoral studies in Applied Mathematics, with a concentration in Economics.
So...we could also discuss the economic reasons why compulsory labeling will accomplish none of what its proponents suggest, and how such a government regulation could lead to further structural breakdown and add unnecessary roadblocks to global food availability. But, I don't care--it's my summer break---Imma gonna eat my McDonald's with my kids.0 -
Here's some information as to what GMOs are and why they are unhealthy/scary. I don't care to get into a rant with those of you who are just here to argue (how do you have time for that!?) but I thought I'd at least pass on a little actual information. If you're unsure of GMOs, start doing some research and decide, for yourself, if you're comfortable with eating the products. That is all! Happy Friday! :flowerforyou:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.
GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/04/whats-gmo-and-why-should-we-care
What exactly is a GMO?
GMO stands for "genetically modified organism" and can refer to plants or animals created by way of gene-splicing techniques. Splicing merges DNA from different species to create combinations that would not occur naturally in nature. Genetic engineering is not to be confused with cross-breeding (the practice of combining, for example, dog breeds).
Biotechnology companies are largely engineering GMO crops to resist direct application of herbicide. This allows the crop plants to live while surrounding weeds die. (ADDING MY OWN BIT HERE...MEANING MORE HERBICIDES CAN BE USED WHICH WE END UP CONSUMING....MMMM....CHEMICALS!!!)
Why have other countries banned GMO crops?
More than 40 countries—including all of Europe, as well as Japan and India—have at least some requirements governing the labeling of genetically modified foods. In Europe, labeling laws are strict, and many genetically engineered crops are banned outright.
So what do 40 countries acknowledge that the U.S. doesn't? One of the most compelling arguments driving labeling laws is that we just don't know what GMOs are capable of. They're a relatively recent development in agriculture, and we've yet to see their long-term effects. However, animal testing has linked GMOs with cancer, miscarriage, organ damage, and other health problems, which some countries have determined is enough evidence to put on the brakes.
Beyond health effects, genetically modified seeds restrict biodiversity and create hairy situations between organic farmers and those using genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified pollen or even the seeds themselves can drift into organic fields; with patenting laws making it possible for companies to sue farmers who use their seeds without permission, the act of planting crops can become a legal nightmare.
Your "research" appears to be a copy paste of an entire page from an internet blog. Not only an internet blog but one specifically established to stand against GMOs. Not exactly an unbiased approach to researching a topic.0 -
Okay lets slog through this.The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Anecdotal hearsay. Zero references or citations provided to back up this claim. Mentions studies, doesn't bother to cite a single one.Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
Bad stuff happened, so lets choose this thing to blame without any evidence that it is the cause.The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.
Do they condemn it because it is GM or because of the effects of growth hormone? Are you saying their problem with it is that it is GM and if they simply got "natural" growth hormone by slaugheting cows for it and injecting that into other cows suddenly that would be okay? I sincerely doubt it. The issue there is with use of hormones, not with the production method for the hormones.GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not GM foods are safe for consumption. Do you know what else increases herbicide use? Herbicide.Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
Again, absolutely nothing to do with whether or not GM foods are dangerous for consumption.GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
Again, absolutely nothing to do with whether or not GM foods are dangerous for consumption. Also no citation for this provided so again we have to take the websites word for it.The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
Again, nothing to do with whether or not GM foods are dangerous for consumption. Mentions a report, doesn't cite it. No way to find this study to confirm the author of this blogs claims.On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/04/whats-gmo-and-why-should-we-care
Nothing to do with GM safety. Oh and utter and total bullsh*t I might add.What exactly is a GMO?
GMO stands for "genetically modified organism" and can refer to plants or animals created by way of gene-splicing techniques. Splicing merges DNA from different species to create combinations that would not occur naturally in nature. Genetic engineering is not to be confused with cross-breeding (the practice of combining, for example, dog breeds).
Well sort of. There is no way to claim something "would not occur naturally in nature" after all the two organisms that the genes were spliced from "occurred naturally from nature" so what exactly is stopping nature from combing genes given enough time? Answer? Nothing. Cross-breeding is a form of genetic engineering.Biotechnology companies are largely engineering GMO crops to resist direct application of herbicide. This allows the crop plants to live while surrounding weeds die. (ADDING MY OWN BIT HERE...MEANING MORE HERBICIDES CAN BE USED WHICH WE END UP CONSUMING....MMMM....CHEMICALS!!!)
Yay fear mongering. Ignore the fact that vaccines and insulin are GM products. Pick one thing you don't like and pretend thats all GM is good for.Why have other countries banned GMO crops?
More than 40 countries—including all of Europe, as well as Japan and India—have at least some requirements governing the labeling of genetically modified foods. In Europe, labeling laws are strict, and many genetically engineered crops are banned outright.
Okay....and? This is a bandwagon argument.
So what do 40 countries acknowledge that the U.S. doesn't? One of the most compelling arguments driving labeling laws is that we just don't know what GMOs are capable of.
If you don't know then why are you so sure it is bad? Entire article was about how bad they are and now suddenly we don't know?They're a relatively recent development in agriculture, and we've yet to see their long-term effects. However, animal testing has linked GMOs with cancer, miscarriage, organ damage, and other health problems, which some countries have determined is enough evidence to put on the brakes.
Yeah, no. Once again, citations mysteriously missing.Beyond health effects, genetically modified seeds restrict biodiversity and create hairy situations between organic farmers and those using genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified pollen or even the seeds themselves can drift into organic fields; with patenting laws making it possible for companies to sue farmers who use their seeds without permission, the act of planting crops can become a legal nightmare.
Explain to me how altering an organism in and of itself changes biodiversity? Hairy situations between farmers and corps is a legal issue not a problem with GM itself.
What all of this has in common is it is anecdotal (this group of people think this) or it has nothing to with GM itself. If someone uses a hammer to build a weapon and then uses that weapon to kill someone you don't get outraged at hammers. Why then, if someone uses GM to make a herbicidal resistant plant and you have a problem with herbicide usage do you then choose to blame GM for that. How is that any different from blaming hammers?
What concrete information is anywhere in this post that links GM foods to actual harm from the ingestion of those foods?0 -
Here's some information as to what GMOs are and why they are unhealthy/scary. I don't care to get into a rant with those of you who are just here to argue (how do you have time for that!?) but I thought I'd at least pass on a little actual information. If you're unsure of GMOs, start doing some research and decide, for yourself, if you're comfortable with eating the products. That is all! Happy Friday! :flowerforyou:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.
GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/04/whats-gmo-and-why-should-we-care
What exactly is a GMO?
GMO stands for "genetically modified organism" and can refer to plants or animals created by way of gene-splicing techniques. Splicing merges DNA from different species to create combinations that would not occur naturally in nature. Genetic engineering is not to be confused with cross-breeding (the practice of combining, for example, dog breeds).
Biotechnology companies are largely engineering GMO crops to resist direct application of herbicide. This allows the crop plants to live while surrounding weeds die. (ADDING MY OWN BIT HERE...MEANING MORE HERBICIDES CAN BE USED WHICH WE END UP CONSUMING....MMMM....CHEMICALS!!!)
Why have other countries banned GMO crops?
More than 40 countries—including all of Europe, as well as Japan and India—have at least some requirements governing the labeling of genetically modified foods. In Europe, labeling laws are strict, and many genetically engineered crops are banned outright.
So what do 40 countries acknowledge that the U.S. doesn't? One of the most compelling arguments driving labeling laws is that we just don't know what GMOs are capable of. They're a relatively recent development in agriculture, and we've yet to see their long-term effects. However, animal testing has linked GMOs with cancer, miscarriage, organ damage, and other health problems, which some countries have determined is enough evidence to put on the brakes.
Beyond health effects, genetically modified seeds restrict biodiversity and create hairy situations between organic farmers and those using genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified pollen or even the seeds themselves can drift into organic fields; with patenting laws making it possible for companies to sue farmers who use their seeds without permission, the act of planting crops can become a legal nightmare.
Your "research" appears to be a copy paste of an entire page from an internet blog. Not only an internet blog but one specifically established to stand against GMOs. Not exactly an unbiased approach to researching a topic.
Just throwing this out there, I read one line and try to remember where I had heard of AAEM fromQuackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) as a questionable organization, and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine as a dubious certifying board.[4] They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.[8]0 -
Here's some information as to what GMOs are and why they are unhealthy/scary. I don't care to get into a rant with those of you who are just here to argue (how do you have time for that!?) but I thought I'd at least pass on a little actual information. If you're unsure of GMOs, start doing some research and decide, for yourself, if you're comfortable with eating the products. That is all! Happy Friday! :flowerforyou:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.
GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/04/whats-gmo-and-why-should-we-care
What exactly is a GMO?
GMO stands for "genetically modified organism" and can refer to plants or animals created by way of gene-splicing techniques. Splicing merges DNA from different species to create combinations that would not occur naturally in nature. Genetic engineering is not to be confused with cross-breeding (the practice of combining, for example, dog breeds).
Biotechnology companies are largely engineering GMO crops to resist direct application of herbicide. This allows the crop plants to live while surrounding weeds die. (ADDING MY OWN BIT HERE...MEANING MORE HERBICIDES CAN BE USED WHICH WE END UP CONSUMING....MMMM....CHEMICALS!!!)
Why have other countries banned GMO crops?
More than 40 countries—including all of Europe, as well as Japan and India—have at least some requirements governing the labeling of genetically modified foods. In Europe, labeling laws are strict, and many genetically engineered crops are banned outright.
So what do 40 countries acknowledge that the U.S. doesn't? One of the most compelling arguments driving labeling laws is that we just don't know what GMOs are capable of. They're a relatively recent development in agriculture, and we've yet to see their long-term effects. However, animal testing has linked GMOs with cancer, miscarriage, organ damage, and other health problems, which some countries have determined is enough evidence to put on the brakes.
Beyond health effects, genetically modified seeds restrict biodiversity and create hairy situations between organic farmers and those using genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified pollen or even the seeds themselves can drift into organic fields; with patenting laws making it possible for companies to sue farmers who use their seeds without permission, the act of planting crops can become a legal nightmare.
Your "research" appears to be a copy paste of an entire page from an internet blog. Not only an internet blog but one specifically established to stand against GMOs. Not exactly an unbiased approach to researching a topic.
Just throwing this out there, I read one line and try to remember where I had heard of AAEM fromQuackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) as a questionable organization, and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine as a dubious certifying board.[4] They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.[8]
But ... but ... they're against GMOs so they don't need intellectual integrity or scientific rigor backing their claims. That's how this works and why the anti-GMO crowd fails in every fact based discussion on the topic.0 -
Here's some information as to what GMOs are and why they are unhealthy/scary. I don't care to get into a rant with those of you who are just here to argue (how do you have time for that!?) but I thought I'd at least pass on a little actual information. If you're unsure of GMOs, start doing some research and decide, for yourself, if you're comfortable with eating the products. That is all! Happy Friday! :flowerforyou:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.
GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/04/whats-gmo-and-why-should-we-care
What exactly is a GMO?
GMO stands for "genetically modified organism" and can refer to plants or animals created by way of gene-splicing techniques. Splicing merges DNA from different species to create combinations that would not occur naturally in nature. Genetic engineering is not to be confused with cross-breeding (the practice of combining, for example, dog breeds).
Biotechnology companies are largely engineering GMO crops to resist direct application of herbicide. This allows the crop plants to live while surrounding weeds die. (ADDING MY OWN BIT HERE...MEANING MORE HERBICIDES CAN BE USED WHICH WE END UP CONSUMING....MMMM....CHEMICALS!!!)
Why have other countries banned GMO crops?
More than 40 countries—including all of Europe, as well as Japan and India—have at least some requirements governing the labeling of genetically modified foods. In Europe, labeling laws are strict, and many genetically engineered crops are banned outright.
So what do 40 countries acknowledge that the U.S. doesn't? One of the most compelling arguments driving labeling laws is that we just don't know what GMOs are capable of. They're a relatively recent development in agriculture, and we've yet to see their long-term effects. However, animal testing has linked GMOs with cancer, miscarriage, organ damage, and other health problems, which some countries have determined is enough evidence to put on the brakes.
Beyond health effects, genetically modified seeds restrict biodiversity and create hairy situations between organic farmers and those using genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified pollen or even the seeds themselves can drift into organic fields; with patenting laws making it possible for companies to sue farmers who use their seeds without permission, the act of planting crops can become a legal nightmare.
Your "research" appears to be a copy paste of an entire page from an internet blog. Not only an internet blog but one specifically established to stand against GMOs. Not exactly an unbiased approach to researching a topic.
Just throwing this out there, I read one line and try to remember where I had heard of AAEM fromQuackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) as a questionable organization, and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine as a dubious certifying board.[4] They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.[8]
But ... but ... they're against GMOs so they don't need intellectual integrity or scientific rigor backing their claims. That's how this works and why the anti-GMO crowd fails in every fact based discussion on the topic.
Plus, they have correlation and causation on their side so it must be true.
0 -
Here's some information as to what GMOs are and why they are unhealthy/scary. I don't care to get into a rant with those of you who are just here to argue (how do you have time for that!?) but I thought I'd at least pass on a little actual information. If you're unsure of GMOs, start doing some research and decide, for yourself, if you're comfortable with eating the products. That is all! Happy Friday! :flowerforyou:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.
GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/04/whats-gmo-and-why-should-we-care
What exactly is a GMO?
GMO stands for "genetically modified organism" and can refer to plants or animals created by way of gene-splicing techniques. Splicing merges DNA from different species to create combinations that would not occur naturally in nature. Genetic engineering is not to be confused with cross-breeding (the practice of combining, for example, dog breeds).
Biotechnology companies are largely engineering GMO crops to resist direct application of herbicide. This allows the crop plants to live while surrounding weeds die. (ADDING MY OWN BIT HERE...MEANING MORE HERBICIDES CAN BE USED WHICH WE END UP CONSUMING....MMMM....CHEMICALS!!!)
Why have other countries banned GMO crops?
More than 40 countries—including all of Europe, as well as Japan and India—have at least some requirements governing the labeling of genetically modified foods. In Europe, labeling laws are strict, and many genetically engineered crops are banned outright.
So what do 40 countries acknowledge that the U.S. doesn't? One of the most compelling arguments driving labeling laws is that we just don't know what GMOs are capable of. They're a relatively recent development in agriculture, and we've yet to see their long-term effects. However, animal testing has linked GMOs with cancer, miscarriage, organ damage, and other health problems, which some countries have determined is enough evidence to put on the brakes.
Beyond health effects, genetically modified seeds restrict biodiversity and create hairy situations between organic farmers and those using genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified pollen or even the seeds themselves can drift into organic fields; with patenting laws making it possible for companies to sue farmers who use their seeds without permission, the act of planting crops can become a legal nightmare.
Your "research" appears to be a copy paste of an entire page from an internet blog. Not only an internet blog but one specifically established to stand against GMOs. Not exactly an unbiased approach to researching a topic.
Just throwing this out there, I read one line and try to remember where I had heard of AAEM fromQuackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) as a questionable organization, and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine as a dubious certifying board.[4] They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.[8]
But ... but ... they're against GMOs so they don't need intellectual integrity or scientific rigor backing their claims. That's how this works and why the anti-GMO crowd fails in every fact based discussion on the topic.
Plus, they have correlation and causation on their side so it must be true.
On a similar note, BAN ORGANIC FOOD! 0 -
Crops and food have been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. Have you seen any problems yet?
This
Can't hurt to quote it again.0 -
I'd much rather eat GMO than one with pesticides, if that were an option.
GMO doesn't bother me. I don't see a reason that it should.0 -
I don't have blanket opposition to GMO's but it bothers me when people compare cross pollination, hybridisation etc with taking genes from totally different organisms and introducing them into another.
I am also weary of the "world hunger" argument. There is no lack of food leading to hunger at the moment, there are poor distribution channels to particular parts of the world because the people there lack the income to support such channels. GMOs won't increase those people's incomes.
Thirdly the reality is that the current testing regime for new gene introductions is laughably lax.
Forth I am much more worried about the economic implications of GMOs, the ability to patent parts of the genetic code, the further narrowing of the food industry to only a few companies and their direct dependants. Those issues are serious but lobbyists love to highlight the most silly sounding arguments in order to recruit cheerleaders for their profits from those who like to think of themselves as "scientific" but generally have neither the time or inclination to seriously investigate the topics they cheerlead for.
It's really not a simple black and white issue.0 -
the only difference would be that the GMO one produces the pesticide itself...I'd much rather eat GMO than one with pesticides, if that were an option.
GMO doesn't bother me. I don't see a reason that it should.0 -
Thirdly the reality is that the current testing regime for new gene introductions is laughably lax.
Are they? Could you describe the current regulatory requirements and why you consider them to be lax?Fo(u)rth I am much more worried about the economic implications of GMOs, the ability to patent parts of the genetic code, the further narrowing of the food industry to only a few companies and their direct dependants. Those issues are serious but lobbyists love to highlight the most silly sounding arguments in order to recruit cheerleaders for their profits from those who like to think of themselves as "scientific" but generally have neither the time or inclination to seriously investigate the topics they cheerlead for.
These are legitimate concerns but honestly they are not concerns that are unique to GMOs. Any new tech will have ethical issues surrounding corporate law and patent law.
As with any other tech its a reason to care about patent law application not a reason to fear or abstain from the tech itself.
The question was are GM foods dangerous to consume. The answers provided here and elsewhere habe been completely tangential.
The answer to the actual question in my opinion is that being GM does not make a food any more or less potentially dangerous than any other new consumable and they should be subject to the same standards of saftey and regulations as any other food product....which they are.0 -
Out of curiosity does anyone have issues with vaccines and insulin given that those are GM products?0
-
The assumption is that a GMO is as safe as the plant from which it is derived regardless of the genes addedThirdly the reality is that the current testing regime for new gene introductions is laughably lax.
Are they? Could you describe the current regulatory requirements and why you consider them to be lax?The FDA similarly paved the way for a simplified procedure for approving bioengineered foods in May 1994, when it determined that Calgene, Inc.'s FLAVR SAVRTM tomato was "as safe as tomatoes bred by conventional means." [20] This determination meant that subsequent applications for genetically-engineered foods did not have to undergo a comprehensive scientific review simply because they are produced through the process of genetic engineering. This decision also affected food labeling requirements: the FDA determined that labeling was not required on the basis of the method of food production (i.e. genetic engineering), but only if the new food itself posed safety problems for consumers. To date, the FDA has imposed no labeling requirements for any genetically modified foods. While EPA did propose relatively strict regulations for the introduction of plants genetically engineered to resist pests, thanks to protests from agricultural scientists and their supporters in Congress these proposed rules were never formally adopted.[21]
Obviously that is US specific but since the biggest market for GMOs is probably the US it's probably the most significant regime.0 -
the only difference would be that the GMO one produces the pesticide itself...I'd much rather eat GMO than one with pesticides, if that were an option.
GMO doesn't bother me. I don't see a reason that it should.
Is a plant that produces pesticide an actual existing product on the market because I've never heard of it.0 -
The assumption is that a GMO is as safe as the plant from which it is derived regardless of the genes addedThirdly the reality is that the current testing regime for new gene introductions is laughably lax.
Are they? Could you describe the current regulatory requirements and why you consider them to be lax?The FDA similarly paved the way for a simplified procedure for approving bioengineered foods in May 1994, when it determined that Calgene, Inc.'s FLAVR SAVRTM tomato was "as safe as tomatoes bred by conventional means." [20] This determination meant that subsequent applications for genetically-engineered foods did not have to undergo a comprehensive scientific review simply because they are produced through the process of genetic engineering. This decision also affected food labeling requirements: the FDA determined that labeling was not required on the basis of the method of food production (i.e. genetic engineering), but only if the new food itself posed safety problems for consumers. To date, the FDA has imposed no labeling requirements for any genetically modified foods. While EPA did propose relatively strict regulations for the introduction of plants genetically engineered to resist pests, thanks to protests from agricultural scientists and their supporters in Congress these proposed rules were never formally adopted.[21]
Obviously that is US specific but since the biggest market for GMOs is probably the US it's probably the most significant regime.
Could you cite the source of thay copy paste. Want to go check it out and follow up on the footnotes. Hard for me to believe the FDA would give such a blanket pass like that.
Are you saying if I took the gene for cyanide production from almonds, put it in front of a constituiative expressed tomato promoter (like a ribosomal promoter) and stuck that in a tomato that the FDA would let that go to market because almonds and tomatoes are safe? I call BS on that, that doesn't sound right at all and when things don't sound right its usually because they aren't right.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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