2000 reasons why GMO foods are safe

1235

Replies

  • QuilterInVA
    QuilterInVA Posts: 672 Member
    Nothing better than a GMO tomato which is made with fish genes - yum! I buy organic for foods labeled organic cannot contain GMOs.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    GM foods are safe and predictable. The alternative breeding method is to wait for random mutations to improve food, and then you have no idea what you are getting. With GM you know exactly what you have added and what, if any, safety concerns might be present.

    So you're saying science trumps mother nature..

    Do you have a pet? Bred by humans to be domesticated. Defying Mother Nature.

    Organic food? Bred by humans to be as plump and tasty as possible. Defying Mother Nature.

    This argument is centuries old. I don't know why people think it's something new...

    A lot different than splicing something like fish dna into food to deter pests.

    And yet still very much the same.

    Also I like fish. As far as I know eating fish doesn't hurt me any. Why do I care if my produce is part fish?

    I am going to throw my two cents in, whatever it's worth. I am a microbiologist/bio technologist. I understand these concepts very well. Yes, humans have been altering plants and animals for centuries. But to tell people that GMOs are similar is not accurate. One change we make is to introduce a bacterial gene into plants to make them resistant to certain insects. No matter how many years we bred these plants, this change would not happen in a normal evolutionary setting, at least not using this gene.

    Am I afraid of eating GMOs....no. We've been eating them for quite a while now. I am not afraid of any human safety aspect, although with some of them I do worry about an environmental impact (round up resistance). But when we lie, it looks like we are hiding something.

    Biotechnology has the capacity to accomplish really great things. Insulin production is a great example. We can use bacteria to produce human insulin, rather than relying on swine or bovine insulin like we did in the past. Everyone should educate themselves to know how these changes truly affect us, and which ones are useful and which ones are not.

    The more you know....

    What are your concerns on the enviro with roundup?
    Do you have concerns on the ingestion of roundup (AKA does the plant absorb it and do we eat it?) Does this residue of roundup in food have an affect on human gut bacteria?

    I have seen a few articles/studies in this area but don't know if they hold water.

    My concern with the environment is round up resistant weeds. We are the going the same way we did with antibiotic resistance. If you put severe pressure on a species, it will try to get around it.
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Nothing better than a GMO tomato which is made with fish genes - yum! I buy organic for foods labeled organic cannot contain GMOs.

    Do you even know the reason why they spliced fish genes into the tomatoes? Frost protection.

    I'm afraid of the bones . . .
  • uconnwinsnc
    uconnwinsnc Posts: 1,054 Member
    Nothing better than a GMO tomato which is made with fish genes - yum! I buy organic for foods labeled organic cannot contain GMOs.

    Do you even know the reason why they spliced fish genes into the tomatoes? Frost protection.

    I'm afraid of the bones . . .

    Got to be careful, don't want to choke!
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member


    Am I afraid of eating GMOs....no. We've been eating them for quite a while now. I am not afraid of any human safety aspect,
    Like you, my only concern is the potential environmental impact. From a health perspective, I don't really see a problem.

    You should be concerned about eating any "plant" that is registered with the EPA as an insecticide.

    Except that I am not worried about it.
  • fxg20
    fxg20 Posts: 61 Member
    "My concern with the environment is round up resistant weeds. We are the going the same way we did with antibiotic resistance. If you put severe pressure on a species, it will try to get around it."

    So...don't use round up to kill weeds because then we won't be able to use round up to kill weeds anymore?
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Nothing better than a GMO tomato which is made with fish genes - yum! I buy organic for foods labeled organic cannot contain GMOs.

    Do you even know the reason why they spliced fish genes into the tomatoes? Frost protection.

    I'm afraid of the bones . . .

    Got to be careful, don't want to choke!

    I'm pretty sure this is going to lead to "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" type scenario
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    "My concern with the environment is round up resistant weeds. We are the going the same way we did with antibiotic resistance. If you put severe pressure on a species, it will try to get around it."

    So...don't use round up to kill weeds because then we won't be able to use round up to kill weeds anymore?

    No, I didn't say not to use round up. But we have created round up resistant crops, and we can spray the heck out of them for weed control. There are already round up resistant weeds now. So now what do you do? You have to spray more, and eventually we will get species that we can't control. We have already been down this path with antibiotic resistance, and we don't seem to learn. I really don't think this is the best use of GMOs. I am not against GMOs. But I do worry about environmental impact. This is just one example.
  • HappyStack
    HappyStack Posts: 802 Member
    Weeds have been resistant to glyphosate for almost 20 years now, and according to studies we've seen a continued reduction in herbicides used to control weeds. BT crops also reduce the need for insecticides.

    https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/24459/

    "The adoption of the technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 474 million kg (-8.9%) and, as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops [as measured by the indicator the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)] by 18.1%. The technology has also facilitated a significant reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from this cropping area, which, in 2011, was equivalent to removing 10.22 million cars from the roads."
  • abrahamsitososa
    abrahamsitososa Posts: 716 Member
    I don't care who thinks GMO's are safe. Bottom line they should be labeled. I like to know what I'm eating. We're not rats.
  • haha thank you for posting I will enjoy a good read!
  • bio_fit
    bio_fit Posts: 307 Member
    I don't care who thinks GMO's are safe. Bottom line they should be labeled. I like to know what I'm eating. We're not rats.

    GMOs aren't labeled in the US?! Whaaaat? I'm assuming you're in the US? Ok, I can see why people get annoyed now, if you aren't given the choice. All foods containing GMOs are labeled in the EU, so I didn't realise they weren't labeled over there.
  • abrahamsitososa
    abrahamsitososa Posts: 716 Member
    No they're not labeled out here in the United States. And Monsanto has been spending millions of dollars making sure that labeling is not enforced. I'm thinking of moving to Europe for that reason.
  • explosivedonut
    explosivedonut Posts: 419 Member
    No they're not labeled out here in the United States. And Monsanto has been spending millions of dollars making sure that labeling is not enforced. I'm thinking of moving to Europe for that reason.

    To an extent, I can understand why they don't want GMOs labeled. Most people who are lobbying for labeling don't want to eat GMO food and want to scare people into not eating it. They don't care about understanding GMOs, or what could make them safe or dangerous. They want to drive people to buy more of their food. Monsanto is just protecting their interests. I would like them labeled and what they did to the plant, simply because it is interesting to me. I think it would be cool to know that the food I am buying is made to lower the use of pesticides, or made to be more nutritious (like golden rice). It wouldn't change my buying habits much, if at all. I would still pick up a regular apple over an organic apple because organic apples aren't worth the cost to me. I would also venture to guess I am in the minority.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    I was really hoping that someone would explain to me why genetically modified foods aren't safe, but insulin produced by genetically modified bacteria is.

    I posted something about it several pages ago and no one touched it.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member


    Am I afraid of eating GMOs....no. We've been eating them for quite a while now. I am not afraid of any human safety aspect,
    Like you, my only concern is the potential environmental impact. From a health perspective, I don't really see a problem.

    You should be concerned about eating any "plant" that is registered with the EPA as an insecticide.



    Many plants have natural insecticides, will you not eat those either?

    Again....emphasis on registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Pesticide=formulated in a lab to kill living organisms. Naturally occurring bacteria in healthy plants? Absolutely non-comparable.

    I would be VERY surprised if pyrethrin wasn't registered.

    Pyrethrins aren't sold as a food item. BT corn is. So I am not sure as to what point you are trying to make?

    Pyrethrins~as they occur naturally aren't found in foods--just certain flowers. As derived for being used as an insecticide, they require a synergist ( additional chemicals). Used alone it is biodegradable, hence it's use in organic farming.

    You suggested that pesticides registered with the EPA are all formulated in the lab - I was offering an example of a pesticide that occurs naturally. That was the point I was trying to make.

    BT Corn...which is GMO corn....which is in most food processed in the USA ( if it contains corn or corn by-products) is registered with the EPA as a pesticide.

    Pyrethrins are NOT registered with the EPA, but rather Pyrethrins with additives ( synergistic chemicals which increase their effect). And btw....all pesticides registered as pesticides with the EPA? None occur naturally.

    Bt (the pesticide in Roundup ready crops) doesn't occur naturally?
    In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a protein that kills Lepidoptera larvae, in particular, European corn borer. This protein is called the Bt delta endotoxin. Growers use Bt corn as an alternative to spraying insecticides for control of European and southwestern corn borer.

    Bt Delta Endotoxin
    The Bt delta endotoxin was selected because it is highly effective at controlling Lepidoptera larvae, caterpillars. It is during the larval stage when most of the damage by European corn borer occurs. The protein is very selective, generally not harming insects in other orders (such as beetles, flies, bees and wasps). For this reason, GMOs that have the Bt gene are compatible with biological control programs because they harm insect predators and parasitoids much less than broad-spectrum insecticides. The Bt endotoxin is considered safe for humans, other mammals, fish, birds, and the environment because of its selectivity. Bt has been available as a commercial microbial insecticide since the 1960s and is sold under many trade names. These products have an excellent safety record and can be used on many crops until the day of harvest.

    To kill a susceptible insect, a part of the plant that contains the Bt protein (not all parts of the plant necessarily contain the protein in equal concentrations) must be ingested. Within minutes, the protein binds to the gut wall and the insect stops feeding. Within hours, the gut wall breaks down and normal gut bacteria invade the body cavity. The insect dies of septicaemia as bacteria multiply in the blood. Even among Lepidoptera larvae, species differ in sensitivity to the Bt protein.

    Source: http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp

    It may, in GMO crops, be considered "artificial" or "non-natural", but the protein itself is completely natural. It has been used agriculturally as microbial biopesticide since the 60's.
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    I think a lot of anti-GMO comes from two places: 1) ignorance on the matter and/or 2) disliking Monsanto. It almost feels as though no one is for GMO but not Monsanto, like me, but I'm sure you're out there.

    I also think Monsanto should be left out of GMO discussion because it is always used as a reason against GMO. Is Monsanto a super shady company? I think so. Does it make me uncomfortable that they can patent food? Hell yes it does. But does that mean all GMO is going to kill the human population? Nope.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    Oh I agree. I'm certainly not "for" Monsanto! But GMO does not automatically mean bad.
  • conniedj
    conniedj Posts: 470 Member


    Bt (the pesticide in Roundup ready crops) doesn't occur naturally?
    In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a protein that kills Lepidoptera larvae, in particular, European corn borer. This protein is called the Bt delta endotoxin. Growers use Bt corn as an alternative to spraying insecticides for control of European and southwestern corn borer.

    Bt Delta Endotoxin
    The Bt delta endotoxin was selected because it is highly effective at controlling Lepidoptera larvae, caterpillars. It is during the larval stage when most of the damage by European corn borer occurs. The protein is very selective, generally not harming insects in other orders (such as beetles, flies, bees and wasps). For this reason, GMOs that have the Bt gene are compatible with biological control programs because they harm insect predators and parasitoids much less than broad-spectrum insecticides. The Bt endotoxin is considered safe for humans, other mammals, fish, birds, and the environment because of its selectivity. Bt has been available as a commercial microbial insecticide since the 1960s and is sold under many trade names. These products have an excellent safety record and can be used on many crops until the day of harvest.

    To kill a susceptible insect, a part of the plant that contains the Bt protein (not all parts of the plant necessarily contain the protein in equal concentrations) must be ingested. Within minutes, the protein binds to the gut wall and the insect stops feeding. Within hours, the gut wall breaks down and normal gut bacteria invade the body cavity. The insect dies of septicaemia as bacteria multiply in the blood. Even among Lepidoptera larvae, species differ in sensitivity to the Bt protein.

    Source: http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp

    It may, in GMO crops, be considered "artificial" or "non-natural", but the protein itself is completely natural. It has been used agriculturally as microbial biopesticide since the 60's.

    Please note once again---BT is an naturally occuring bacterial organism. By itself as it occurs naturally in soil? Not registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? It biodegrades (washes off), and is highly selective in how it effects living organisms (bugs).

    BT Corn? Is an entirely new species(GMO) not found in nature. It is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? When the BT gene is inserted into the corn ( called insertion event)~they do not know how to control selectivity of the dose of BT created--the technology isn't there to do so. This makes the resulting level of BT produced by the corn unpredictable and unstable. Hence, grounds for the EPA to say it is enough to register BT Corn as a pesticide. It doesn't wash off because it is in the very DNA of the entire plant.
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    No they're not labeled out here in the United States. And Monsanto has been spending millions of dollars making sure that labeling is not enforced. I'm thinking of moving to Europe for that reason.

    Adios
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    Please note once again---BT is an naturally occuring bacterial organism. By itself as it occurs naturally in soil? Not registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? It biodegrades (washes off), and is highly selective in how it effects living organisms (bugs).

    BT Corn? Is an entirely new species(GMO) not found in nature. It is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? When the BT gene is inserted into the corn ( called insertion event)~they do not know how to control selectivity of the dose of BT created--the technology isn't there to do so. This makes the resulting level of BT produced by the corn unpredictable and unstable. Hence, grounds for the EPA to say it is enough to register BT Corn as a pesticide. It doesn't wash off because it is in the very DNA of the entire plant.

    I think I see where our disconnect is.

    You seem to think that because it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide, it is therefore a harmful pesticide by the time we get to eat it. That we could grind up some corn and use it to bug proof our houses.

    I see the fact that it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide a way for an agency - given that this corn is, as you say, pretty new - to actually oversee the levels of this protein in food.

    In fact, you assume the Bt sprayed on your organic veggies gets washed off. The FDA measures the amount of Bt in roundup ready corn. See a difference there?
  • bio_fit
    bio_fit Posts: 307 Member
    BT Corn? Is an entirely new species(GMO) not found in nature.

    It's the same species of corn (Zea mays), just a different variant :drinker:
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    Oh I agree. I'm certainly not "for" Monsanto! But GMO does not automatically mean bad.

    :flowerforyou: I knew you guys were out there! :drinker:
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!

    Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay ;)

    How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.

    Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.

    LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!

    Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.
  • This content has been removed.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    p2245Cm.jpg

    I trust that you realize that this is a hoax?
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!

    Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay ;)

    How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.

    Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.

    LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!

    Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.

    Uhhh....correlation does not imply causation

    Uh-huh. Define "imply" in a way that's not inconsistent with how you'd use that word in any other context, and we'll see.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!

    Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay ;)

    How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.

    Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.

    LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!

    Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.

    Uhhh....correlation does not imply causation

    Uh-huh. Define "imply" in a way that's not inconsistent with how you'd use that word in any other context, and we'll see.

    As ice cream sales increase, shark attacks increase. Therefore, shark attacks are caused by higher ice cream sales.

    Oh wait.

    Dude, if you don't want to talk about this, we don't have to. But if you do, then please offer your definition of "imply."

    If you think your previous post fits the definition of "imply," then you use that word differently than the rest of us do every day.