GMOs Scary or not?
Options
Replies
-
You would think reading this would be eye opening to people. Seeing that the very person who helped start the Anti-GMO movement regrets ever doing it. Seeing that when you look at the facts you realize not only should you not be scared, but a lot of great and important work is being done.
Nope. The next two comments are still, "I don't fully understand it, therefore bad."
Actually the next two comments (page 3) were about not trusting the manufacturers that produced and tested GMO foods.0 -
Whereas you did explain or defend your bald assertion?
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.
THIS I very much agree with. There is no shortage of food in the world, only a lack of ability or desire to get it to those who need it.
Wow. Just wow. This is why cluelessness kills.
Well, just making a snarky insult with no explanation or defense makes me respect your point of view immensely.0 -
Not scary.0
-
Crops and food have been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. Have you seen any problems yet?
Not in a lab they haven't. There is a big difference between GMO seeds and hybrid seeds.
Hybrid Seeds: What are they?
Farmers and gardeners have been cultivating new plant varieties for thousands of years through selective breeding. They did this by cross-pollinating two different, but related plants over 6 to 10 plant generations, eventually creating a new plant variety.
The process required patience, but was rewarding. By selectively cross-pollinating related plants in this way, farmers could create varieties that were healthier and stood up to the farmer’s micro-climate — their soil, their weather patterns, their predatory insects.
Yet in the mid-nineteenth century, Darwin and Mendel discovered a method of controlled crossing that can create these desired traits within just one generation. This method produces what’s known as F1 hybrid seeds.
These hybrid seeds are just as natural as their historic counterparts; they’re still cross-pollinating two different, but related plants.
GMO Seeds: What are they?
Unlike hybrid seeds, GMO seeds are not created using natural, low-tech methods. GMO seed varieties are created in a lab using high-tech and sophisticated techniques like gene-splicing.
Furthermore, GMO seeds seldom cross different, but related plants. Often the cross goes far beyond the bounds of nature so that instead of crossing two different, but related varieties of plant, they are crossing different biological kingdoms — like, say, a bacteria with a plant.
For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant. This means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant.
The resultant GMO plant, known as Bt Corn, is itself registered as a pesticide with the EPA, along with other GMO Bt crops. In other words, if you feed this corn to your cattle, your chickens, or yourself, you’ll be feeding them an actual pesticide — not just a smidgeon of pesticide residue.
While you can re-harvest the hybrid seeds, the next generation of plant is inconsistent. You can not, however, re-harvest the GMO seeds.0 -
You would think reading this would be eye opening to people. Seeing that the very person who helped start the Anti-GMO movement regrets ever doing it. Seeing that when you look at the facts you realize not only should you not be scared, but a lot of great and important work is being done.
Nope. The next two comments are still, "I don't fully understand it, therefore bad."
Actually the next two comments (page 3) were about not trusting the manufacturers that produced and tested GMO foods.
Thats fine. People may have legitimate reasons to not trust the business practices of specific companies. But how does that translate to distrust of GM itself? I get anti-Monsanto, I don't get anti-GM.
If you have a beef with Monsanto, their patents or their business practices then make it about that.0 -
"We grow tired of peas, Brother Mendel"0
-
GMOS are HEAVILY regulated in Europe and many ,MANY are banned. That should say something about them
And for example , the growth hormone used in North America on their meat is still 100% banned in Europe.
England tried to ban internet porn. I no longer have faith in Europe's ability to make logical decisions.0 -
Really ? This is where you take information regarding the food you put in your body.The author's bio...
"He has a high-school equivalency diploma and a 2-year technical degree in both computer repair and software development. During his technical training, he was offered the chance to take a critical thinking course. "
Yes, thats commonly the type of background of the people acting like they know something and writing opinions on an issue they have no experience in, probably paid to back opinions favorable to producing company $$
The point is, we have a right to know whats in our food, nothing has to be "horrible" going into it, we just have a right to know. "Everythings been fine so far, blindly trust the corporations" is idiocy.0 -
Really ? This is where you take information regarding the food you put in your body.The author's bio...
"He has a high-school equivalency diploma and a 2-year technical degree in both computer repair and software development. During his technical training, he was offered the chance to take a critical thinking course. "
Yes, thats commonly the type of background of the people acting like they know something and writing opinions on an issue they have no experience in, probably paid to back opinions favorable to producing company $$
The point is, we have a right to know whats in our food, nothing has to be "horrible" going into it, we just have a right to know. "Everythings been fine so far, blindly trust the corporations" is idiocy.
Thanks for joining us, I think you missed a few posts.
0 -
Another one who's been brainwashed by the fitness industry. lol0
-
Really ? This is where you take information regarding the food you put in your body.The author's bio...
"He has a high-school equivalency diploma and a 2-year technical degree in both computer repair and software development. During his technical training, he was offered the chance to take a critical thinking course. "
Yes, thats commonly the type of background of the people acting like they know something and writing opinions on an issue they have no experience in, probably paid to back opinions favorable to producing company $$
The point is, we have a right to know whats in our food, nothing has to be "horrible" going into it, we just have a right to know. "Everythings been fine so far, blindly trust the corporations" is idiocy.
Really? You want to play the opinion on this issue versus credentials with regard to agriculture, environmental and biological sciences because I'm willing to bet that isn't going to shake out in the way you seem to imply here.
I don't think you need an advanced science degree to weigh in on this topic but the idea that only the uneducated would be against GM labeling is easily shown to be wrong even within this thread. I don't believe myself to be an idiot.
Point being if we required credentials to listen to an opinion on this topic it would be heavily biased in favor of GM and against labeling. I don't know any scientists who consider GM to be a threat.0 -
Really ? This is where you take information regarding the food you put in your body.The author's bio...
"He has a high-school equivalency diploma and a 2-year technical degree in both computer repair and software development. During his technical training, he was offered the chance to take a critical thinking course. "
OMG, bwahahahaha! This made my week! :laugh:0 -
Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.
NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.
In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.0 -
Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.
NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.
In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.
You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.
Frankly your wording here makes me skeptical that you've had much training in biochemistry or genetics. Don't know many molecular biologists who would view an exogenous plasmid as having more information transfer than a hybridization event mainly because it doesn't, in fact the exact opposite is true.0 -
Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.
NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.
In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.
You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.
Preferably with some primary peer reviewed sources to back your claims so that we can make an informed decision.0 -
Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.
NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.
In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.
You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.
Frankly your wording here makes me skeptical that you've had much training in biochemistry or genetics. Don't know many molecular biologists who would view an exogenous plasmid as having more information transfer than a hybridization event mainly because it doesn't, in fact the exact opposite is true.
Right. Because the FDA has everyone's best interests at heart.
I personally am skeptical of food that is pumped with pesticides so that they resist certain diseases and pests (from my previous post: For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant. This means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant.
The resultant GMO plant, known as Bt Corn, is itself registered as a pesticide with the EPA, along with other GMO Bt crops. In other words, if you feed this corn to your cattle, your chickens, or yourself, you’ll be feeding them an actual pesticide — not just a smidgeon of pesticide residue.)
If the pesticide in the corn kills a bug how could that possibly be perfectly ok for me to ingest? How could I be sure that I won't get cancer or some new disease from eating this GM corn? Why should I believe that it's safe? Because I'm told it is?
Not to mention the fact that you can't harvest the seeds for future use.
The fact of the matter is we don't know what GM food is going to do to us in the long run. Sure "they" can say it's fine. Heck, look at the tobacco ads from the past. "More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette!" People believed this crap even though they knew smoking was bad for them. Why? Because a "doctor" said so. So what if the FDA or even the Government says that GM food is fine. I personally would much rather grow my own vegetables or buy them from a farm who I know doesn't use GM seeds.
We survived fine on heirloom and hybrid seeds for countless generations. If it ain't broke then why try to fix it?0 -
Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.
NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.
In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.
You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.
Preferably with some primary peer reviewed sources to back your claims so that we can make an informed decision.
I thought you had a science background? If you do, you would understand the difference between crossing plants the old way and genetic modification. Seems pretty inconsistent to want peer reviewed information that something is obviously different, but you don't want any information on what you are putting into your mouth? I want to know what I'm eating, if I have a new cross of a peanut and a watermelon, if it were possible the old hybridization way, we'd get some info on this, but if its done by manipulating genes I get no data? What sense does that make except to conceal for profit? It doesn't matter if its harmful or not now, its information we should be entitled to. In fact, if corporations were a little smarter, they'd jump on this and use it to convince people these foods were not only good but better, and market "better, improved" foods...so this leads me to believe either its because they think this requirement will decrease profits, or, though unlikely, maybe there are some other motives here. So, the true motives are only: decreased profits because people have information and choice. That is bad for us how?
Its also a very unscientific and undemocratic view to hold. To not have the right to know modifications to food we are eating is absurd and though it may not be a problem now, it opens the gateway to all sorts of things in the future. Corporations are all about profit, regardless of the individual. Anyone with common sense knows when dealing with someone who's ultimate goal is to obtain higher profits, as long as acceptable dangers are maintained and they cannot be shown to have broken laws (decreased profits to defend), they will go ahead with it. So it is wise to know all information you can when dealing with such an entity. Is it bad? Well that's your judgement, but even if not bad, you have to recognize the nature of the animal. Do you go to a used car salesman and trust him explicitly without getting information? Trust the salesman because he's after higher profits makes sense how? But you don't want information on what you are putting in your body? That is illogical and a very unscientific viewpoint to not want information on this.0 -
Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.
NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.
In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.
You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.
Frankly your wording here makes me skeptical that you've had much training in biochemistry or genetics. Don't know many molecular biologists who would view an exogenous plasmid as having more information transfer than a hybridization event mainly because it doesn't, in fact the exact opposite is true.
Right. Because the FDA has everyone's best interests at heart.
I personally am skeptical of food that is pumped with pesticides so that they resist certain diseases and pests (from my previous post: For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant. This means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant.
The resultant GMO plant, known as Bt Corn, is itself registered as a pesticide with the EPA, along with other GMO Bt crops. In other words, if you feed this corn to your cattle, your chickens, or yourself, you’ll be feeding them an actual pesticide — not just a smidgeon of pesticide residue.)
If the pesticide in the corn kills a bug how could that possibly be perfectly ok for me to ingest? How could I be sure that I won't get cancer or some new disease from eating this GM corn? Why should I believe that it's safe? Because I'm told it is?
Not to mention the fact that you can't harvest the seeds for future use.
The fact of the matter is we don't know what GM food is going to do to us in the long run. Sure "they" can say it's fine. Heck, look at the tobacco ads from the past. "More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette!" People believed this crap even though they knew smoking was bad for them. Why? Because a "doctor" said so. So what if the FDA or even the Government says that GM food is fine. I personally would much rather grow my own vegetables or buy them from a farm who I know doesn't use GM seeds.
We survived fine on heirloom and hybrid seeds for countless generations. If it ain't broke then why try to fix it?
So, we're going with the "I fear things because I don't fully understand them" argument then. Okie dokey.
0 -
Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.
NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.
In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.
You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.
Frankly your wording here makes me skeptical that you've had much training in biochemistry or genetics. Don't know many molecular biologists who would view an exogenous plasmid as having more information transfer than a hybridization event mainly because it doesn't, in fact the exact opposite is true.
Right. Because the FDA has everyone's best interests at heart.
I personally am skeptical of food that is pumped with pesticides so that they resist certain diseases and pests (from my previous post: For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant. This means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant.
The resultant GMO plant, known as Bt Corn, is itself registered as a pesticide with the EPA, along with other GMO Bt crops. In other words, if you feed this corn to your cattle, your chickens, or yourself, you’ll be feeding them an actual pesticide — not just a smidgeon of pesticide residue.)
If the pesticide in the corn kills a bug how could that possibly be perfectly ok for me to ingest? How could I be sure that I won't get cancer or some new disease from eating this GM corn? Why should I believe that it's safe? Because I'm told it is?
Not to mention the fact that you can't harvest the seeds for future use.
The fact of the matter is we don't know what GM food is going to do to us in the long run. Sure "they" can say it's fine. Heck, look at the tobacco ads from the past. "More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette!" People believed this crap even though they knew smoking was bad for them. Why? Because a "doctor" said so. So what if the FDA or even the Government says that GM food is fine. I personally would much rather grow my own vegetables or buy them from a farm who I know doesn't use GM seeds.
We survived fine on heirloom and hybrid seeds for countless generations. If it ain't broke then why try to fix it?
So, we're going with the "I fear things because I don't fully understand them" argument then. Okie dokey.
What do I apparently not understand? The fact that GMO food is made in a laboratory and is made to become pest resistant? The fact that the genetically modified corn that is out there is registered as a pesticide with the EPA? Or perhaps the fact that no one knows if GM food is in fact "good" for you?0 -
Another long thread full of people brainwashed by our country's lobbyists. As a scientist I'm FAR from content with the "testing" that has been done (NONE of the studies are long enough to 100% say there's no problem with these gene spliced foods.
NO this is NOT the same as hybridization and breeding which has been done for thousands of years. Gene insertion is NOT hybridization. Similar but there's crucial differences in where the DNA comes from and how much information is being changed.
In short: WE are the long term tests subjects, and I'm not comfortable being part of a study I cant' opt out of: all our food of some plants is effectively GMO now. If there weren't lobbying it should be rats instead of us. But america is fairly ignorant and doesn't see the extent of the problems lobbying is causing in our country.
You have a science degree in a biological science? If so you are the first I've met to hold this opinion so I'd be curious for you to elaborate why you consider GM to represent a threat that requires regulation above and beyond what the FDA would normally employ.
Preferably with some primary peer reviewed sources to back your claims so that we can make an informed decision.
I thought you had a science background? If you do, you would understand the difference between crossing plants the old way and genetic modification. Seems pretty inconsistent to want peer reviewed information that something is obviously different, but you don't want any information on what you are putting into your mouth? I want to know what I'm eating, if I have a new cross of a peanut and a watermelon, if it were possible the old hybridization way, we'd get some info on this, but if its done by manipulating genes I get no data? What sense does that make except to conceal for profit? It doesn't matter if its harmful or not now, its information we should be entitled to. In fact, if corporations were a little smarter, they'd jump on this and use it to convince people these foods were not only good but better, and market "better, improved" foods...so this leads me to believe either its because they think this requirement will decrease profits, or, though unlikely, maybe there are some other motives here. So, the true motives are only: decreased profits because people have information and choice. That is bad for us how?
Its also a very unscientific and undemocratic view to hold. To not have the right to know modifications to food we are eating is absurd and though it may not be a problem now, it opens the gateway to all sorts of things in the future. Corporations are all about profit, regardless of the individual. Anyone with common sense knows when dealing with someone who's ultimate goal is to obtain higher profits, as long as acceptable dangers are maintained and they cannot be shown to have broken laws (decreased profits to defend), they will go ahead with it. So it is wise to know all information you can when dealing with such an entity. Is it bad? Well that's your judgement, but even if not bad, you have to recognize the nature of the animal. Do you go to a used car salesman and trust him explicitly without getting information? Trust the salesman because he's after higher profits makes sense how? But you don't want information on what you are putting in your body? That is illogical and a very unscientific viewpoint to not want information on this.
All of your arguments have already been addressed in this thread. Sorry you haven't taken the time to read it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions