GMOs

And yeah, I voted for labeling. I have no issue with it, I was more curious about the lack of actual information about why it was bad in the first place. I definitely support people knowing what they're eating. I just wish there was more information so they could use that labeling to educate themselves.

I bet you are from WA. I am also voting for labeling because I want to know as much as possible about what I eat. Most of what I know about GMO's is from Mercola since I read his newsletters but I do understand how biased he is, and I don't always take the time to read his references.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/what-science-tells-us-about-the-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/

There are no peer reviewed papers supporting GMOs actually being dangerous. It's all fear mongering at it's finest.

http://www.nationofchange.org/dr-oz-defends-monsanto-eat-gmo-foods-they-re-same-non-gmo-organic-1354555215

Now I'm SCARED!!!!

I do try to stay away from GMO's with the "better safe than sorry".

If Dr. Oz says it's good, shouldn't that be enough? Grab your keytones and GMO's!

When everyone is growing the same GMO variety of a crop and a blight or fungus adapts to that one variety, or some invasive insect species comes along with no natural predators and happens to consider that GMO crop the tastiest thing it's ever come across, where will be then? In the same boat as Ireland during the Great Famine when the potato crops were struck by blight.

this is one of the specific reason why GMO crops exist, so they don't all have the same genetic makeup. the potato famine was caused by late blight, which they have found a way against using GMO.

The mere fact that food producers and manufacturers don't want to let consumers know whether their products contain GMOs is for me a pretty good reason to want to avoid those products if I can (it's an arrogant, anti-consumer attitude that I see no reason to reward).

Organic companies are donating money to protect themselves too...why? http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/24/some-organic-brands-oppose-washington-state-gmo-labeling-law/#.UmppNRClrFw

And of course GMO companies are protesting labeling. There's so much unwarranted fear of GMOs...it's like being in the dark ages again.

On top of that there are concerns about the damage to biodiversity that results from seed companies' business practices, which include suing farmers who aren't their customers for patent infringement if their fields get invaded by seeds or cross-pollinated from a neighboring GMO-using farmer.

This has NEVER happened. Monsanto has never sued a farmer for GMO seeds spreading to other crops. In fact, if they find that their seeds have spread, they will pay to have that farmers crop cleaned up.

Farmers who don't want to use the GMO products are forced to choose between being driven out of business or shifting to the GMO seed, which has to be purchased anew every year. It eliminates the ability of farmers to practice traditional techniques, including replanting seed from their harvests and selecting for the best performing plants, because their fields have been invaded by the patented GMO crops.

Most seed companies have a do not reuse clause in their contract. Not just GMO...it's pretty a pretty standard business practice.

When everyone is growing the same GMO variety of a crop and a blight or fungus adapts to that one variety, or some invasive insect species comes along with no natural predators and happens to consider that GMO crop the tastiest thing it's ever come across, where will be then? In the same boat as Ireland during the Great Famine when the potato crops were struck by blight.

There is more diversity in GMO crops than non-GMO....the potato famine you're citing happened long before GMOs came into existence.

Plus the idea of the European Union banning them sounds just as much 'our farmers need revenue, let's make sure we can't buy from America' as concern over how healthy the food is.

Bingo.

Protecting their own economic interests in the guise of public health isn't beneath any country. It doesn't prove that the EU truly thinks GMOs are unhealthy, they just want to keep food prices higher.

You do appreciate that the EU isn't a country don't you? The various constituent countries all have very different incentives for their positions.

I'd also note that "the EU" is broadly meaningless when talking about regulation, as each member state enacts regulations individually. More complex again if one is discussing the European Commission or the Secretariat.

But to the point, there is a dearth of reliable data on GMO, in part because its too broad a term to be useful. There are a number of principles that do give rise to concern, with respect to propagation and cross boundary effects, but the research hasn't gone on long enough to be useful. Essentially there is some effect,but the persistence isn't known.

Anybody know where there's any real evidence that GMOs are bad or is it just another 'this food is bad' paranoia?

First - let's look at what GMOs actually are.

GMO = Genetically Modified Organism. One organism has been manipulated to include some amount of genetic material from another organism. The new genetic elements are established into the organism such that they can "breed true", or you'd have to do it every generation. The new DNA is generally going to be inserted via a random approach, and then organisms which contain the desired traits will be selected and the best of these (by whatever criteria you define "best") will be taken for further use.

In practice, what does this actually mean?

GMO soy - one of the main "culprits" here - has been altered genetically to make it "Roundup Ready" (RR). Roundup is a glyphosate herbicide that kills broad leaf plants by way of inhibiting an enzyme the plants absolutely need to make certain amino acids. This is useful in killing most weeds, but can also kill the crop plants themselves, which isn't good.

So what scientists did was take a version of the same enzyme from a common bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which is not inhibited by Roundup, and put this gene (along with expression elements) into the genome of soy. The soy express the bacterial protein as well as their own protein. When treated with Roundup, the normal plant protein stops working but the bacterial can keep on trucking, making amino acids, so the RR plants live.

So what does this mean for our health?

If you consume soy oil, very little. The bacterial protein, being a protein, is unlikely to be found in significant quantities in the oil. Basically, in making oil, you are going to be purifying it away from contaminating stuff like proteins.

If you eat the soy beans, there will be some bacterial protein present. So what you are looking at is ONE added protein to the several thousand the soy already actually make. The rest of the proteins are going to be essentially identical (it is possible there could be small perturbations in the levels of a few of the soy proteins, but these would be small and highly unlikely to be significant) And, basically, a protein is a protein and will be treated as such by your body: i.e. you will digest it and use it as you would any other protein. There is a very small chance (as with any specific protein) that one could develop an allergy to it.

Other crops - corn, alfa and some others, have also been made RR in the same way.

So, bottom line, as far as health concerns go, I think that RR crops are going to be virtually indistinguishable from non-RR varieties. Scares over the safety of GMO crops from this point of view are, I think, baseless.

Other GM crops include rice. Rice has been made RR (but I don't think it is marketed?) and has also been modified so that it provides more nutrition, which could be a definite advantage in poor countries where rice is a staple.


Note - I'm not addressing environmental, labeling, or other concerns. Just health. And my conclusion is that there is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about GMO crops. My personal opinion is that (a) people should understand the science behind them so they can make an informed choice and (b) they should be labeled, so people can carry that informed choice into the store.

Monsanto is the worst, with over 30 of their executives in the United states parliament system, they have so many strings to pull they dont have enough puppets.

Their "single yield" crops allow for one season of growth and do not produce any seeds due to genetic manipulation. This has caused 600,000+ Farmers in India (and in some cases their families) to commit suicide to prevent lose of their homes due to insane debt due to Monsanto.
Think about that. 600,000+ suicides...... And rising every day.

Can I have a source for 30 Monstanto executives in the US "parliament" (I assume you mean Congress)?

And I REALLY need a source for 600k+ suicides in India because of actions taken by Monsanto. You would think that would make the news. Some legitimate news station.

So, I really need a source before you make any more claims. Otherwise I will start making claims like "I know GMOs are safe because Jesus came down and turned my natural, organic, chemical free, fluoride free water into GMO wine and he said 'GMOs are totes cool, yo.' and then rode off on his Harley."

There is a summit of GMO's broadcast going on now.. check it out!

http://gmosummit.org/broadcasts/

No the actual spread of pesticides has INCREASED by genetically being sequenced into GMO products! Better listen to these broadcast that aren't backed by MILLIONS of dollars from those corporations who only care about making money off of what they sell... http://gmosummit.org/broadcasts/