GMOs Scary or not?

Yes people may not agree with my reason, but it is still a reason. I've managed to state my position without going to the point of stating that there is "no reason" to hold another opinion or that those who feel differently have "no sense".

You know that not all GMOs are for profit right? My own instiute we take a loss on our GM products. Honestly it sounds to me like your beef is with for profit corporate buisness practices abd patent law and not GMIs. I have no comment there because I don't disagree with you. But what does that have to do with GM itself?

Every opinion and reason is still an opinion and reason, yes...but if it doesnt address the concern, then how is it a reason that even partially addresses the concern I brought up under discussion? "Because I dont like it" and "because GMOs are bad" are also opinions and reasons, yet they also do not address what I said, nor do they support it, though they are on the same "side" of this larger debate of whether to label GMOs or not...but maybe for poor reasons. You addressed what I said with "because what I said before", which is not a reason against what *I* said, though it may be against "because GMOs are bad".

Not sure what you mean in the next part, no GMOs are "for profit", only what someone or a corporation does with it is for profit or not. I did not say they are "bad". I didn't even say profit is bad. Only that it makes no sense that a thinking person would not want the information freely available on what he or she is putting in their mouth.

Just to be on the safe side I will not buy anything unless it has every single one of the following labels:
non GMO
no MSG
no nitrates
no nightshades
no phytonutrients
no grains
no soy
no dairy
no red meat
no [insert every food allergen known to man]
no preservatives
organic
no gluten
halal
kosher
no sugar
no aspartame
no alcohol
vegan
low fat
and I'm sure I'm missing a few

Just to be on the safe side I will not buy anything unless it has every single one of the following labels:
non GMO
no MSG
no nitrates
no nightshades
no phytonutrients
no grains
no soy
no dairy
no red meat
no [insert every food allergen known to man]
no preservatives
organic
no gluten
halal
kosher
no sugar
no aspartame
no alcohol
vegan
low fat
and I'm sure I'm missing a few

:laugh: :laugh: So you're a breatharian.

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


You really should research the subject before spouting off a blatant untruth. Hybridization has been occurring since the dawn of agriculture. Genetic modification has NOT been occurring since the dawn of agriculture. The term as previously mentions refers to the forceful insertion of genetic material from one species into the genetic material of another species to create new combinations (proteins) that cannot occur in nature.

Mother nature has put in place safeguards to specifically prevent the blending of dog genes with say tiger genes. Most of the genetic modification today is patented by just a handful of biotech and pesticide corporations and blend the genes of bacteria with the genes of food crops in order to allow them to be dowsed in pesticides without dying. The pesticides by the way are owned by the same companies who own the patents for the gmo seeds. These are the same companies spending millions of dollars to convince you that you don't need to know whether your food contains them or not. So, if you trust the company that told us that DDT and Agent Orange were completely safe, go ahead and eat the GMO corn, soy, sugar beets, squash, canola, potato and more that are owned by that same company. You can go ahead and also believe that Roundup herbicide is also safe and poses no threat to your health, even if it has been repeatedly poured on those GMO crops. There are also GMO seeds in which the pesticide is now being genetically modified right into the seed so that it is grown within the plant and can no longer be washed off.

GMOs do not benefit you in any way, period. They make the biotech companies Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer and BASF very wealthy with rapidly increasing tons upon tons of chemical sales and the patented seeds that must be used with them.

The research is readily available both on the alarming new studies linking serious health problems with the ingesting of these "assumed safe" products as well as to the toxicity levels in the soil and fresh water we all depend upon. Find out, you can start here:

http://justlabelit.org/right-to-know/the-truth-behind-ge-foods/

A lot to consider here

If there was nothing to hide wouldn't it be labelled

Why mess with nature

Nature does not concern itself with our general well being. We decided a while ago it was a good idea to start planting things we liked to eat and building houses to survive the elements abot 10000 years ago because of that. Thats because humanity is who is going to look ouy for humanities best interests. Trees honestly don't give a *kitten*.

If there was nothing to hide wouldn't it be labelled

I was not aware that our society compulsively labeled everything with a description of what that thing is. I thought we typically only bothered with labels when it came to warning or lists of active ingredients.

If I am wrong then my "human" label seems to have fallen off because I can't find it anywhere. Perhaps I have something to hide.

The reason I don't support labrling foods with "GM" labels is the same reason I don't support labelling buildings with "built using a hammer" labels. Its information sure, but is it informative? No, no it isn't.

Hammers are tools, GM is a tool...whether or not a given tool was used during manufacturing tells you absolutely nothing, nothing at all, about safety of the product.

It gives the consumer the option to not purchase the item. I will opt to buy a product that specifically states they don't use artificial growth hormones vs. one that doesn't say whether or not they do. Same goes for GMO. If a product I was buying was labeled that it contained GM ingredients then I could make an informed decision as to whether or not I choose to purchase the item. Why shouldn't I know what's in my food?

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.

I am actually in a bioengineering PHD program at a prestigious university. While you might note I never said I think GMOs will for sure have bad effects, I am not pleased by the testing (or really lack thereof) that has been done considering most of the experiments were conducted by Monsanto themselves and the length of the study didn't cover a long enough period (humans live ~90 years and eat this stuff daily. We're not lab mice or butterflies they've used for testing.) It has definitely not been enough time to test the long term immune effects of the plant. I personally don't mind eating GMOs, but I definitely think it should be a choice a person can make (ie labeling), especially for individuals with complex immune problems. And yeah it's only a few genes being spliced but it's a shortcut through the natural process so it is NOT a natural mutation, they don't take only the specific nucleotides coding that specific trait, there's a few antigens and other such things that get transfered as well. In fact little has been done to study the immune affects of gene splicing until recently, and there have been both positive and negative conclusions on the subject suggesting yes GMOs can cause positive reactions in specific cases (1) but also there's been an attempt to use these findings in a constructive manner against alleries(2):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/386/1317.full.pdf+html

Tl/dr: I want our food to be labeled, and I'm interested in further immunology research of GMOs.

What do you suppose has more effect on the antigenic profile of a food. Adding a single gene in an exogenous plasmid or hybridizing two entire species (think pluot).

Where the regulatory requirements less for GMOs than for a pluot or the same?

How do you define what nature is capable of. Is GM a shortcut to a desired product? Yes. Is it doing something nature would be incapable of? No.

If we are giving credentials I got my Ph.D in cellular molecular biology from a top 10 graduate program 8 years ago where my focus was protein engineering. Did a 4 year postdoc in microbiology and infectious disease and have to date worked as a scientist in a nonprofit drug development Institute with a focus in developing therapies for diseases that effect the developing world. The vaccines we develop are GM as are the vast majority of vaccines especially those for tech transfer for point of care treatment in underdeveloped endemic regions. The quality control and safety requirements for GMP vaccine production are more rigorous than for any product out there. 90% of each batch is sacrificed to quality control testing alone.

I think people are way WAY to quick to take what buisness practices they don't like from for profit companies like Monsanto and apply it whole-cloth to GMs which concerns me greatly given what happened to stem cell research.

If there is an actual danger presented from GMs not just theoretical dangers and trust issues I haven't encountered it. Frankly I see little difference in tactics and approach between the anti-GMO groups and anti-vaxxer groups, both claim that more testing is needed and that we don't know the risks. Boyh talk in yheoretical possible threats rather than actually occuring threats, both rely on fear of the unknown as reasons to avoid something.

You *asked* if I had a background in a biological science, I didn't just give my credentials to back my opinion. I'm currently doing a lot of research in immunology and it's a field that has changed a lot in the past ten years, and one that is VERY tricky to predict the outcomes in. Hence my slight (notice I never said I'm anti-GMO, once again) concerns. I'm not arguing with you, I'm merely saying people need to be less black and white on the issue and consider the interesting effects of GMOs on the immune system.
(Read at least the abstract of the papers...they're actually quite interesting.)

Don't even bring pluots into the argument. They are sold as a hybrid plant. All I'm saying is I want labelling. I eat GMO food all the time and honestly I'm not too bothered. You might have a lot of qualifications but in the end whether food should be labeled is an opinion, and I have the opposite one. I question why people would *not* want them labeled.

I personally work with stem cells since you're bringing those up too, but you can't justifiably draw the parallel between fear mongering in these cases, it's not comparable. GMOs are in almost everything we eat. This is an entirely separate issue to the ethics and dangers previously thought about stem cells.

And for the sake of everything good don't even TRY to compare wanting GMOs labeled to the anti-vax nutcase crowd. :huh: This is a specific concern about allergens being spliced, not a "based on my completely unfounded opinion vaccines are bad and we should let our children die of measles rather than vaccinate" case. If an individual was allergic to plums they're not going to eat the pluot. If an individual is allergic to a brazil nut, they're not going to know to avoid soy because THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TELL ANYONE. Which is odd and has everything to do with lobbying.

I asked credentials only because you gave your opinion starting with "As a scientist...". To be clear I don't think a science background is somehow required to have an opinion but since you put emphasis on your science background I wanted you to elaborate to see the relevance and you did that so no worries.

Note I've never claimed there is no cause for concern or that people who want labels have no reason or no sense, I just disagree that is all. I feel that the concerns voiced have much more than to do with corporate law, patent law and FDA regulations than with GM and yet the question pos3d by the OP was about safety of ingesting a GM food.

How would you answer that question? Should we be concerned by GM as a tool? If so then yeah then anti-GM makes sense. If the problem is with corporate misuse and regulations and not GM itself then isn't that a separate issue to the point wherr the focus should be on that?

The reason I don't support labrling foods with "GM" labels is the same reason I don't support labelling buildings with "built using a hammer" labels. Its information sure, but is it informative? No, no it isn't.

Hammers are tools, GM is a tool...whether or not a given tool was used during manufacturing tells you absolutely nothing, nothing at all, about safety of the product.

Non sequitur

It definitely is a non sequitur. I think the GMO label *does* give information. I would honestly like my soy to say "mostly soy with a spliced gene from this other plant, may contain antigens for this other plant" in the allergy information. It's like saying "this food was processed in a facility that also processed nuts." Yeah they cleaned the equipment but there could be particulates of peanut left. Yeah GMO is pretty harmless to our knowledge, but it's been proven antigens are sometimes present from the other plants genes were taken from.
It's not useless information just because it's not necessarily safety information. None of the arguments against labeling are sound. At all. I'd be totally down if everything in the grocery store was labeled in a highly detailed way (apple: contains apple, and a ___ gene to resist apple eating bugs) , because of what I know about the immune system. This has nothing to do with hammers or humans being labeled. Can we all please not use tacky debate tactics? Oh wait this is a forum. Too much to ask.

The reason I don't support labrling foods with "GM" labels is the same reason I don't support labelling buildings with "built using a hammer" labels. Its information sure, but is it informative? No, no it isn't.

Hammers are tools, GM is a tool...whether or not a given tool was used during manufacturing tells you absolutely nothing, nothing at all, about safety of the product.

Non sequitur

How is that a non sequitur...we are discussing GM labelling right?

The reason I don't support labrling foods with "GM" labels is the same reason I don't support labelling buildings with "built using a hammer" labels. Its information sure, but is it informative? No, no it isn't.

Hammers are tools, GM is a tool...whether or not a given tool was used during manufacturing tells you absolutely nothing, nothing at all, about safety of the product.

Non sequitur

It definitely is a non sequitur. I think the GMO label *does* give information. I would honestly like my soy to say "mostly soy with a spliced gene from this other plant, may contain antigens for this other plant" in the allergy information. It's like saying "this food was processed in a facility that also processed nuts." Yeah they cleaned the equipment but there could be particulates of peanut left. Yeah GMO is pretty harmless to our knowledge, but it's been proven antigens are sometimes present from the other plants genes were taken from.
It's not useless information just because it's not necessarily safety information. None of the arguments against labeling are sound. At all. I'd be totally down if everything in the grocery store was labeled in a highly detailed way (apple: contains apple, and a ___ gene to resist apple eating bugs) , because of what I know about the immune system. This has nothing to do with hammers or humans being labeled. Can we all please not use tacky debate tactics? Oh wait this is a forum. Too much to ask.

That was an analogy to express my view of it not a tacky debate tactic whatever that is.

Saying "none of the arguments against labelling are sound" shows that you have zero interest in discussion so what is the point discussion here? What is it you are trying to gain?