On MSG and Genetically Modified plants

_GlaDOS_

No... sorry. I disagree. I'm willing to concede that there might be some negatives to GMO, though I still think the positives likely outweigh those negatives, but gene transfer isn't going to happen. We are not plants. Our genetic material is not compatible with plants. And the viruses that act on plants will not act on us. Zoonotic diseases are relatively rare (those that pass from animals to us)... plant diseases? I've never heard of such a thing. Gene transfer will not happen. It's a scare-technique used to pointlessly worry people.

So yes... possible environmental concerns? Maybe. The occasional GMO recall because of unexpected protein production? Okay. Could happen. Gene transfer? Fiction.

Could you list for me the positives of GMOs? I'd like to know. I have only heard you state "higher yield", which just isn't true.

Are GMOs themselves better for us and more nutritious than conventional or organic crops? No. In fact, there is some evidence that they could be less nutritious, given that we continue to plant and harvest the same crops throughout the seasons. We don't know yet what happens to GM crops when , for example, they are processed down into HFCS or soy lecithin or maltodextrin, but I don't see the point in taking the chance.

Do they produce a higher yield than conventional crops? No.

Are they good business for farmers? No. GM crops keep farmers poor. Not only do they rely on a huge corporation to supply their seeds, the government subsidizes these GM crops a lot more than others. Even conventional farmers succumb to the pressures of big GM seed companies, especially when their neighbors are growing GM seeds and they just happen to cross-pollinate into their fields. The big seed companies seem to think they have a right to sue those farmers for "stealing those seeds". The big corporations usually win. It's even worse big seed companies do to farmers in other countries after they have forced their seeds on them.

Is it good for the environment? No. The amount and type of pesticides used isn't good for us. It's not good for the farmers who use them. It even gets into our water.

It's only good for the big seed companies.

M3CH4N1C

No... sorry. I disagree. I'm willing to concede that there might be some negatives to GMO, though I still think the positives likely outweigh those negatives, but gene transfer isn't going to happen. We are not plants. Our genetic material is not compatible with plants. And the viruses that act on plants will not act on us. Zoonotic diseases are relatively rare (those that pass from animals to us)... plant diseases? I've never heard of such a thing. Gene transfer will not happen. It's a scare-technique used to pointlessly worry people.

So yes... possible environmental concerns? Maybe. The occasional GMO recall because of unexpected protein production? Okay. Could happen. Gene transfer? Fiction.

Maybe you're right about direct gene transfer, but I believe that somehow it will indirectly effect genetics beyond scientific understanding. It's science not law. If you could explain simply how humans are safe to eat these GMO's then I would admit to being out of my league. But until then GMO=EVIL

LabRat529

No... sorry. I disagree. I'm willing to concede that there might be some negatives to GMO, though I still think the positives likely outweigh those negatives, but gene transfer isn't going to happen. We are not plants. Our genetic material is not compatible with plants. And the viruses that act on plants will not act on us. Zoonotic diseases are relatively rare (those that pass from animals to us)... plant diseases? I've never heard of such a thing. Gene transfer will not happen. It's a scare-technique used to pointlessly worry people.

So yes... possible environmental concerns? Maybe. The occasional GMO recall because of unexpected protein production? Okay. Could happen. Gene transfer? Fiction.

Could you list for me the positives of GMOs? I'd like to know. I have only heard you state "higher yield", which just isn't true.

Are GMOs themselves better for us and more nutritious than conventional or organic crops? No. In fact, there is some evidence that they could be less nutritious, given that we continue to plant and harvest the same crops throughout the seasons. We don't know yet what happens to GM crops when , for example, they are processed down into HFCS or soy lecithin or maltodextrin, but I don't see the point in taking the chance.

Do they produce a higher yield than conventional crops? No.

Are they good business for farmers? No. GM crops keep farmers poor. Not only do they rely on a huge corporation to supply their seeds, the government subsidizes these GM crops a lot more than others. Even conventional farmers succumb to the pressures of big GM seed companies, especially when their neighbors are growing GM seeds and they just happen to cross-pollinate into their fields. The big seed companies seem to think they have a right to sue those farmers for "stealing those seeds". The big corporations usually win. It's even worse big seed companies do to farmers in other countries after they have forced their seeds on them.

Is it good for the environment? No. The amount and type of pesticides used isn't good for us. It's not good for the farmers who use them. It even gets into our water.

It's only good for the big seed companies.

See... I disagree with a lot of this. I still think they give a healthier, heartier crop. You're using genetic engineering to make these plants more resistant to frost, to blight, to insects, so common sense dictates that your ARE going to increase yield. I have a very hard time believing any studies that show otherwise because they simply don't pass the common sense test... I therefor think of them as propaganda.

Same thing with the claim that the have no economic benefit. Farmers are businessmen and a lot of them are pretty good businessmen. They won't plant something just because. They plant because they like the results.

So while I think maybe I need to do more reading on GMOs... I'm just not buying all the anti-GMO propaganda out there. I will never buy the anti-GMO propaganda because I think it's anti-science.

Science isn't about perfection. It never has been and never will be. Science evolves. We build upon each other's observations, on each other's theories, we analyze each other's data and we go forward, always tweaking, correcting, re-evaluating. If GMOs have some down-sides, if their are negative consequences to planting them, then we look critically at those negative consequences, re-evaluate, and try again. There's too much potential there for good.

You ask what that potential is? I already mentioned one- in some countries, people eat the same foods over and over because it's all they can grow and it's all they can afford. Sometimes those foods are nutrient deficient. Imagine if we could engineer a complete food? Something easy to grow, cheap, with all the necessary amino acids and fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. We could make a serious dent in malnutrition.

And I actually like the idea of putting pharmacuticals in plants. What if we could engineer a cure for malaria and put it in food? That would be pretty darn cool, if you ask me.

I don't think technology should be shied away from. Should we be cautious? Yes. Should we be afraid? Not me.

_GlaDOS_

Being cautious does not make one anti-science. Monsanto owns the patent on their GM seeds, and therefore, they get to say who does the research on their seeds. There are hardly any independent research studies done on their GM crops. If you also looked into the conflicts of interest surrounding the approval of GM crops, you might have some more perspective on the research out there. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests GM crops are more nutritious for us. None. GM seeds were not created to feed the world, they were created to sell pesticides.

I wouldn't work in cancer research if I was anti-science. Just because we can do something, and because we have the technology to do so, doesn't mean we should. Just because science is good and science makes sense, doesn't mean it's always done properly. And we have had over a decade of GMOs, over a decade of negative consequences, and no one is doing anything except developing more pesticides. There is no way anyone can argue that pesticides aren't terrible for our health.

When it comes to health and medicine, there is no room to do science "just for the sake of science". If we wanted to study GMOs, we would have done so under more rigid conditions, created regulatory definitions and policies surrounding biotechnology that make sense, and we should most certainly not quickly approve food for human consumption with proper testing. We should still be testing GM crops for safety. They should not have been approved so easily.

I encourage you to watch the documentaries I listed, and then go on to do your research from there. This is not about science, health, or nutrition. This is about one or two huge companies making money. It's about politics.

M3CH4N1C

Being cautious does not make one anti-science. Monsanto owns the patent on their GM seeds, and therefore, they get to say who does the research on their seeds. There are hardly any independent research studies done on their GM crops. If you also looked into the conflicts of interest surrounding the approval of GM crops, you might have some more perspective on the research out there. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests GM crops are more nutritious for us. None. GM seeds were not created to feed the world, they were created to sell pesticides.

I wouldn't work in cancer research if I was anti-science. Just because we can do something, and because we have the technology to do so, doesn't mean we should. Just because science is good and science makes sense, doesn't mean it's always done properly. And we have had over a decade of GMOs, over a decade of negative consequences, and no one is doing anything except developing more pesticides. There is no way anyone can argue that pesticides aren't terrible for our health.

When it comes to health and medicine, there is no room to do science "just for the sake of science". If we wanted to study GMOs, we would have done so under more rigid conditions, created regulatory definitions and policies surrounding biotechnology that make sense, and we should most certainly not quickly approve food for human consumption with proper testing. We should still be testing GM crops for safety. They should not have been approved so easily.

I encourage you to watch the documentaries I listed, and then go on to do your research from there. This is not about science, health, or nutrition. This is about one or two huge companies making money. It's about politics.

I agree. Caution with logic and basic reasoning doesn't equate an anti-science outlook, rather promotes a healthy pro-science outlook. Having a system of control is what the overall agenda is with these 1%ers. Mansanto figured out a way to patent what was previously non-patentable. One cannot hold a patent on corn seeds, but if one genetically modifies a corn seed then he can obtain a patent. This is where corruption of power comes in. Even patenting a seed thats been modified is a loop hole in what was previously a solid and fair system. Now big companies can force farmers out of business, legally, when their organic crops cross pollinate with GMO strains. Naturally this cross pollination takes place beyond any farmers control. Then these patent holders come and say, hey, you cant grow those crops because they have our genetic strain that is patented. Completely blindsiding farmers who have been growing crops and such for generations. It's happening in Canada and all over the world. It's not just about money. It's not just about politics. It's about control and power. Where is this lust for control and power by the 1% going to stop. Nowhere and never. The only way to defend against this tyranny is by spreading the truth.

“I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend?”
- Robert Redford -

LabRat529

I think I will just agree to disagree at this point Where you see danger, I see hope. I fully support more GMO research.

I do need to do more digging. Absolutely. I am not as knowledgeable in this area as I'd like to be. But in the spirit of honesty- I won't start with the documentaries. In my experience, documentaries persuade with emotion and not logic or hard science. They are rarely unbiased and they can never substitute for quality, peer-reviewed science. Documentaries certainly have their place in the world. They're great for making people think about important issues, but when I start digging, I will start with pub-med and I will ask myself first if there is any evidence that GMOs cause harm to humans. I will then look at the environmental impact of GMOs and I will go from there.

Good luck in your endeavors.

tigersword

The problem with documentaries is that the people who make them go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find, and edit their films to make sure that idea comes through.

Obvious example taken to the extreme: Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theories show. They go out of their way to prove that whatever crazy conspiracy they are pushing is real, and anything that's on the show that doesn't agree with that take gets marginalized or bullied.

Similar Idea but slightly less biased: Brad Meltzer's Decoded. They tend to go into things with a certain theory about it, but allow themselves to be guided by evidence as to whether their theory holds up or not, but they still try to cling to their preconceived theory as long as possible.

Most documentaries I've watched follow the first formula to a T.

_GlaDOS_

I think I will just agree to disagree at this point Where you see danger, I see hope. I fully support more GMO research.

I do need to do more digging. Absolutely. I am not as knowledgeable in this area as I'd like to be. But in the spirit of honesty- I won't start with the documentaries. In my experience, documentaries persuade with emotion and not logic or hard science. They are rarely unbiased and they can never substitute for quality, peer-reviewed science. Documentaries certainly have their place in the world. They're great for making people think about important issues, but when I start digging, I will start with pub-med and I will ask myself first if there is any evidence that GMOs cause harm to humans. I will then look at the environmental impact of GMOs and I will go from there.

Good luck in your endeavors.

The point of suggesting the documentaries was to merely give some background on the history of GMOs, the company that produces most of the seeds, and the conflict of interest and regulatory practices that occurred during the review and approval of GMOs. It helps when you’re reading through those peer-reviewed articles later, when you then start to research the authors of those articles, and you realize they aren’t as, well, “peer-reviewed” as you expected them to be. You can read the research that is out there, but there is a lot that went on when those studies were going through the FDA, a lot of interesting people that were involved in the approval of GMOs, etc. “The World According to Monsanto” is simply a great introduction to this. It was made by a French group, actually, and I find it to be one of the less “fear-mongering” documentaries out there (in general, not just those about GMOs). I don’t think you can just read the perr-reviewed articles here, because there is so much more to the story of GMOs.

The other one, “The Future of Food”, is interesting because it explains what GMOs actually are from a very introductory, but scientific standpoint. From what I recall (it’s been quite a while since I’ve watched that one), they don’t actually give much of an argument that is “anti-GMO” (I could be wrong but I don’t remember thinking that it did).

Documentaries themselves are meant to be biased. They are meant to explain a single point of view from different angles. Some are more biased than others, but they are great place to start forming your own questions for later research on your own.

_GlaDOS_

The problem with documentaries is that the people who make them go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find, and edit their films to make sure that idea comes through.

Obvious example taken to the extreme: Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theories show. They go out of their way to prove that whatever crazy conspiracy they are pushing is real, and anything that's on the show that doesn't agree with that take gets marginalized or bullied.

Similar Idea but slightly less biased: Brad Meltzer's Decoded. They tend to go into things with a certain theory about it, but allow themselves to be guided by evidence as to whether their theory holds up or not, but they still try to cling to their preconceived theory as long as possible.

Most documentaries I've watched follow the first formula to a T.

That is likely true, but I don't see the harm in watching a documentary for the sole purpose of getting some background information and a good foundation for what you want to research later or what types of questions you really want to ask. The question, "Are GMOs harmful to humans?" is an incredibly loaded question, one that can't simply be answered by the little research that is actually out there by the groups that produce and sell the seeds. Like I just said, there is more to the story than a few select research articles.

M3CH4N1C

The problem with documentaries is that the people who make them go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find, and edit their films to make sure that idea comes through.

To be fair, the problem with documentaries would be the people who make them, and the people who watch them. "go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find." The door swings both ways. Logic and reasoning dictate that. Further more Jesse Ventura has covered topics that aren't conspiracy at all on that show. For instance, MK Ultra research was well documented and de-classified as mind control experiments conducted during the 50's involving drugs, especially methamphetamine. Wow. I wonder why meth is one of the biggest problems in the war on drugs in America and the world. The problem with debating and saying conspiracy is crazy, is that it limits and controls the debate. It helps create this sort of zombie optimism, when in fact there is tons of evidence that suggests conspiracy and cover ups. I mean look at the back of a one dollar bill. There is a star of david above the eagle, hidden. Just connect the dots. Or stars. Now what's the Jewish hexagram doing on the back of U.S. currency? How is the Federal Reserve, that prints those one dollar bills, organized much like private corporations—possibly leading to some confusion about ownership. I recommend looking up a video on youtube called Secret Societies and Biblical Prophesy. It's an amazing documentary that focuses on facts and not conspiracy. Absolutely amazing. At least watch 30 minutes of it.

Here's a conspiracy- The word S A N T A is really a subliminal message for S A T A N.

RonSwanson66

The problem with documentaries is that the people who make them go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find, and edit their films to make sure that idea comes through.

To be fair, the problem with documentaries would be the people who make them, and the people who watch them. "go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find." The door swings both ways. Logic and reasoning dictate that. Further more Jesse Ventura has covered topics that aren't conspiracy at all on that show. For instance, MK Ultra research was well documented and de-classified as mind control experiments conducted during the 50's involving drugs, especially methamphetamine. Wow. I wonder why meth is one of the biggest problems in the war on drugs in America and the world. The problem with debating and saying conspiracy is crazy, is that it limits and controls the debate. It helps create this sort of zombie optimism, when in fact there is tons of evidence that suggests conspiracy and cover ups. I mean look at the back of a one dollar bill. There is a star of david above the eagle, hidden. Just connect the dots. Or stars. Now what's the Jewish hexagram doing on the back of U.S. currency? How is the Federal Reserve, that prints those one dollar bills, organized much like private corporations—possibly leading to some confusion about ownership. I recommend looking up a video on youtube called Secret Societies and Biblical Prophesy. It's an amazing documentary that focuses on facts and not conspiracy. Absolutely amazing. At least watch 30 minutes of it.

Here's a conspiracy- The word S A N T A is really a subliminal message for S A T A N.

Pure Awesomeness.

M3CH4N1C

Thats kinda funny Ron. LOL.

Are you a sheople?
SHEOPLE DEFINED:

The definition of a sheople: NOUN (plural only) Hybrid of sheep and people. One who mindlessly follows others like a herd of sheep. (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Unable to think freely, kin to a Zombie, brain dead. Possibly make a good politician.

NGMama

I think we all need to be aware of how profit driven most things are in the world today. Monsanto holds the patent on Round Up Ready Tomatoes and also produces Round Up Ready. So, they make the tomatoes resistant to the pesticide and then use even more pesticide to grow the plant. That's part of what makes me try to avoid GMO's.

Someone had also pointed out how many vegetables contain nitrates. I totally agree but the difference is that when nitrates naturally occur in food, they are also accompanied by naturally occurring vitamin C. Vit C is what prevent the nitrates from converting into nitrosamines.

I love seeing a debate like this on here!

M3CH4N1C

I think we all need to be aware of how profit driven most things are in the world today. Monsanto holds the patent on Round Up Ready Tomatoes and also produces Round Up Ready. So, they make the tomatoes resistant to the pesticide and then use even more pesticide to grow the plant. That's part of what makes me try to avoid GMO's.

Someone had also pointed out how many vegetables contain nitrates. I totally agree but the difference is that when nitrates naturally occur in food, they are also accompanied by naturally occurring vitamin C. Vit C is what prevent the nitrates from converting into nitrosamines.

I love seeing a debate like this on here!

Yoga Mama. You rock. I love it when people get real and righteous

Murlin54

Let's not forget nitrates. Cured meat is the devil, but nitrates are found in much higher concentrations in vegetables.

Hot Dogs/Cured meat 10ppm

arugula 4,677 ppm

basil 2,292 ppm

butterhead lettuce 2,026 ppm



beets 1,279 ppm

celery 1,103 ppm

spinach 1,066 ppm

pumpkin 874 ppm

I knew there was a reason I didn't like arugula Damn nitrates.

It's been my understanding that it isn't nitrates that are the problem in cured meats but rather the nitrosamines that they form in your stomach when mixed with your stomach acids. the nitrosamines are the suspected cancer causing agents. Nitrosamines are neutralized by Vitamin C, so I imagine arugula and some of these other things mentioned above would not form nitrosamines due to the vit C content. If you have a BLT, the Tomato neutralizes the nitrosamine effect of the bacon. Orange juice with bacon will do the same thing.

as for GMO's, they need to label them. I am reading the book "Wheat Belly" and there are some very interesting things about today's wheat, which is a GMO product and does not resemble the wheat we grew and consumed just 50 yrs ago. My daughter has developed wheat/gluten allergy and it is becoming very common. Those gluten free isles in the regular grocery stores that are becoming all too common are not just the fad of the moment. (by regular grocery store, I mean not health food, whole foods etc, but Giant foods, Safeway, etc.)

tigersword

I think we all need to be aware of how profit driven most things are in the world today. Monsanto holds the patent on Round Up Ready Tomatoes and also produces Round Up Ready. So, they make the tomatoes resistant to the pesticide and then use even more pesticide to grow the plant. That's part of what makes me try to avoid GMO's.

Someone had also pointed out how many vegetables contain nitrates. I totally agree but the difference is that when nitrates naturally occur in food, they are also accompanied by naturally occurring vitamin C. Vit C is what prevent the nitrates from converting into nitrosamines.

I love seeing a debate like this on here!

Vitamin C or not, it still doesn't change the fact that vegetables have 100+ times the amount of nitrates as most cured meats, and you're ignoring the fact that most people get more than enough Vitamin C throughout the day that to make the entire argument moot anyway.

Murlin54

And I find it interesting that, especially in the United States, we would consume something anyway even when we don't know anything about it and we claim that it "hasn't been proven to be bad yet". And yet, with medication/drugs, there is no way we would approve something for an indication until it was proven safe, with rigorous research over several years and several studies. With food, it's "approve until someone complains or people get sick", and by then big business has enough money and power that it doesn't matter anymore. Forgive me if that sounds like fear-mongering, but it's essentially true. I have asked people if GM foods were labeled if they would still consume them. A lot of people say, "Yes, because I don't know anything about GMOs." It's sad to me that we would put things into our bodies without knowing what it is. Maybe that just comes from my knowledge of the regulatory practices in this country and how terrible they are, I don't know.

This.

Double triple this! It's all about $$$ and not about what is best for us. Big Pharma and Corporate giants own this country. How can you give a company, Monsanto, a patent on a seed, a biological product, when that product in itself can wipe natural and organic crops out of existence by cross contamination. Kudos to Hungary for burning those GMO fields to the ground.

LabRat529

Double triple this! It's all about $$$ and not about what is best for us. Big Pharma and Corporate giants own this country. How can you give a company, Monsanto, a patent on a seed, a biological product, when that product in itself can wipe natural and organic crops out of existence by cross contamination. Kudos to Hungary for burning those GMO fields to the ground.

Yes, Big Pharma is very evil.

Oh wait. Could it be? Do they really produce the drugs that save countless lives?

This is another example of the dangers of black-and-white thinking. I don't like the politics involved in pharmaceutical research (my field). I get really frustrated when they won't share proprietary information that I want. And I get pissed about the patent thing too. I've said some pretty negative things about "Big Pharma" in the past and I'm sure I will in the future. The games infuriate me. But when it comes right down to it... "Big Pharma" and Big Pharma's evil, evil money? It costs MILLIONS of dollars to get a drug from bench to market... they have those dollars. They have the man power. They have the expertise. They have the resources. The "system" saves lives- as corrupt and frustrating as it is. The alternative? Well, no one would be living through breast cancer, for starters.

_GlaDOS_

Double triple this! It's all about $$$ and not about what is best for us. Big Pharma and Corporate giants own this country. How can you give a company, Monsanto, a patent on a seed, a biological product, when that product in itself can wipe natural and organic crops out of existence by cross contamination. Kudos to Hungary for burning those GMO fields to the ground.

Yes, Big Pharma is very evil.

Oh wait. Could it be? Do they really produce the drugs that save countless lives?

This is another example of the dangers of black-and-white thinking. I don't like the politics involved in pharmaceutical research (my field). I get really frustrated when they won't share proprietary information that I want. And I get pissed about the patent thing too. I've said some pretty negative things about "Big Pharma" in the past and I'm sure I will in the future. The games infuriate me. But when it comes right down to it... "Big Pharma" and Big Pharma's evil, evil money? It costs MILLIONS of dollars to get a drug from bench to market... they have those dollars. They have the man power. They have the expertise. They have the resources. The "system" saves lives- as corrupt and frustrating as it is. The alternative? Well, no one would be living through breast cancer, for starters.

But we also have to ask ourselves (especially since Big Pharma has big investments in Big Food and Big Ag, as well as Monsanto), would we need to have all of these therapies to cure breast cancer if we had taken steps to prevent it in the first place? Not allowed our environment and our food to be contributing to disease? Who's spending money on that? Certainly not Big Pharma. We most definitely do not have a good system in place to properly treat and cure disease, and our efforts are focused far too much in one direction.

Also, someone mentioned there was GM wheat, which is not true (that I know of). No one has developed it (yet).

shazzannon

I support GM foods. They don't coddle pests and I respect that.