GMOs Scary or not?

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.

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.

Quackwatch 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]

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 from

Quackwatch 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.

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

This

Thirdly the reality is that the current testing regime for new gene introductions is laughably 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.

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?

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]

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?

The assumption is that a GMO is as safe as the plant from which it is derived regardless of the genes added

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.