GMOs Scary or not?
Options
Replies
-
Can I just point out that I have YET to see one single person answer my question regarding burden of proof? If laws requiring companies that produce GM products to place labels stating "may contain GMOs" on the packaging were to ever get passed, and the company's fight those law in court, which they WILL (and in some cases already are), what EVIDENCE is there (not thoughts, not feelings, not well I saw an article on the internet), what EVIDENCE is there that placing such a warning label on their products is necessary information that the consumer NEEDS to have? What BENEFIT does the consumer gain from that information that will allow them to better manage aspects of their direct health? What does anyone GAIN from knowing that the product they're eating happens to contain DNA from a few different organisms?
And if it's Monsanto or any of the other super corps you're worried about, surprise! They already have products on the shelves with voluntary Contains no GMO labels, so if you're just trying to boycott the company, a GMO label isn't going to help you any.0 -
I'm going to assume you didn't know that insulin was a GM product. Does knowing it is a GM product honestly make you doubt its safety after it has been used for so long in so many people?
Fair assumption, I'm not Wilford, so I have no need to review it. Does it concern me? Nope. A person needing insulin is already compromised, so using a modified product that may be considered safe at this time is fine, if it's found that the process causes cancer, that's fine too. Without the insulin, that particular person would have ceased to be much earlier.
Now, the reason I think it should be labeled is a couple reasons.
1. There is currently no evidence that the GM process in and of itself is dangerous. That's fine, I care about manufacturing processes for other non-commodities I buy, so I'll opt for labeled over non-labeled products.
2. If products are labeled, manufacturers will enter into an arms race to create the best label. Much akin to "no-fat", "gluten free", "fair trade" marketing items. The neat side effect of that is that data will be made available to purchasers, for purchasers to ignore by choice, as opposed to ignore thanks to lack of transparency.
3. There is some evidence that the manufacturing process involved with GM food stuffs can be unhealthy to growers/processors and the environment.
4. I'm not a fan of manufacturers lying by omission.
5. It's more than a single step in a lab, there is a large factor of corporate vs. grower politics and practices that are involved with the production of GM items. Those are all behaviors that should be a part of a person's purchasing decision.
At the end of the day, labeling will give consumers information, so that they can then make informed purchasing decisions if they choose to. Whether or not they act in an intelligent manner isn't relevant, having the data available is all that matters, imo. Now personally, will knowing what process is involved in the manufacturing of a product affect my decision making? Sure. Will it change my purchasing behavior? Probably. My current expectation is that unless explicitly marked, all finished/processed foods utilize GMOs, and that is one of a multitude of factors involved with me choosing to not purchase them on the whole. It's also why I don't purchase much meat from the market, etc. etc.
And in your commentary about the specific antigens, I think that would be great too, that way, as research is done on impact of these antigens long term people can decide whether to eat items containing a specific one or not. As it is, we have no representation in the process, as we have no information related to what is and is not part of the GM process. I think a reasonable person would expect the ability to make their purchases representative of what they want and need, more information allows for that.0 -
I feel I am concerned by that and it would be a lot easier for me to be on the side of those who are against Monsanto's business practices if they weren't waving a big "Anti-GMO" flag around with them while they did it.
I think the notion of engineering in a terminator gene into food crops that requires farmers to continually repurchase the seeds from the same company in a contractual manner to be a highly questionable use of the technology. I think it opens up abuses where a company has control of the food supply which I think is the LAST thing any of us want, that would be horrible. I just view that as an issue with current patent law and its application...not an issue with GMOs.
In their defense though, GMO plants growing wild and screwing up the ecosystem in some unforeseen manner is one of the criticisms of GMO plants in the first place.
That is a legitimate concern as well. In fact I think that is the actual reason for terminator genes (genes that prevent the plant from producing seeds so that it cannot spread). That said I think it IS risky to release something alive into an ecosystem. Again though not because its GMO. It is risky to release any domesticated plant or animal or even wild plant or animal into an ecosystem for the same reason. There have to be safeguards in place.
My position though is a label does not address that problem at all or if it does I fail to see how it does.0 -
2. If products are labeled, manufacturers will enter into an arms race to create the best label. Much akin to "no-fat", "gluten free", "fair trade" marketing items. The neat side effect of that is that data will be made available to purchasers, for purchasers to ignore by choice, as opposed to ignore thanks to lack of transparency.
But that isn't what is being asked for here. Companies can already label their products "GMO-free" if they so choose, nothing wrong with that. What is being asked for though is that a company will be required by law to label their product "contains GMOs" whether they want to or not, they will be compelled. Those marking their products "no-fat", "gluten free" or "fair trade" CHOSE voluntarily to do so and that is fine. The real analogy would be if we required by law that manufacturers label things as "High-Fat", "full of gluten" or "unfair trade practices" right on the box. Big difference. One is a choice, one is forced by law. If you are going to force something with a law then you have to demonstrate why that product is harmful and why therefore a label is required.3. There is some evidence that the manufacturing process involved with GM food stuffs can be unhealthy to growers/processors and the environment.
Is there? Where? Cite it. Present it. I could present evidence that something made with a hammer was unsafe, but is that because of hammers? Is there evidence that these "unsafe" food stuffs are unsafe inherently due to GM? That if the same product was produced in a different manner it wouldn't have the same issue?4. I'm not a fan of manufacturers lying by omission.
No product has its entire manufacturing process just listed out verbatum on a label.
Isn't this true of just products in general including non-GM products?5. It's more than a single step in a lab, there is a large factor of corporate vs. grower politics and practices that are involved with the production of GM items. Those are all behaviors that should be a part of a person's purchasing decision.0 -
2. If products are labeled, manufacturers will enter into an arms race to create the best label. Much akin to "no-fat", "gluten free", "fair trade" marketing items. The neat side effect of that is that data will be made available to purchasers, for purchasers to ignore by choice, as opposed to ignore thanks to lack of transparency.
But that isn't what is being asked for here. Companies can already label their products "GMO-free" if they so choose, nothing wrong with that. What is being asked for though is that a company will be required by law to label their product "contains GMOs" whether they want to or not, they will be compelled. Those marking their products "no-fat", "gluten free" or "fair trade" CHOSE voluntarily to do so and that is fine. The real analogy would be if we required by law that manufacturers label things as "High-Fat", "full of gluten" or "unfair trade practices" right on the box. Big difference. One is a choice, one is forced by law. If you are going to force something with a law then you have to demonstrate why that product is harmful and why therefore a label is required.3. There is some evidence that the manufacturing process involved with GM food stuffs can be unhealthy to growers/processors and the environment.
Is there? Where? Cite it. Present it.4. I'm not a fan of manufacturers lying by omission.
No product has its entire manufacturing process just listed out verbatum on a label.
dammit, faster then me again, but yes, slapping a "Contains GMO" label on something tells you NOTHING about the morality, ethics, or environmental procedures of the company, it just tells you they used GMOs, what good is that? And the truth is, in the public eye, that label looks like this:
so they'll buy the GMO free product, probably the alternative produced by the EXACT SAME company because it will make them feel better knowing their food isn't going to poison them or cause their DNA to randomly mutate somehow, but absolutely NOTHING will be done about the behavior of the company, zero real impact.0 -
I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.
I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.
I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?
I do conceive of them as two different things, and I'm not against GMOs.
But I wish educated people in the sciences would conceive of the entwined corporate and political decision makers as different from rational, educated professionals when it comes to how decisions are made about food safety in America. I'd be far less concerned about the issue if policy were being set by independent researchers with no financial stake in the matter. But these are not the people deciding what testing we should do, what should and shouldn't be labeled, and what liability should be imposed for screw ups.
I feel I am concerned by that and it would be a lot easier for me to be on the side of those who are against Monsanto's business practices if they weren't waving a big "Anti-GMO" flag around with them while they did it.
I think the notion of engineering in a terminator gene into food crops that requires farmers to continually repurchase the seeds from the same company in a contractual manner to be a highly questionable use of the technology. I think it opens up abuses where a company has control of the food supply which I think is the LAST thing any of us want, that would be horrible. I just view that as an issue with current patent law and its application...not an issue with GMOs.
The technologically-phobic are a detriment to those of us who want sane, safe policies.
You already know I'm going to agree wholeheartedly about one company with a monopoly on vital resources.
Maybe we have been just talking past one another and actually agree then. To be clear what I am opposed to is just unfairly blaiming GMOs and fearmongering them in general over the abuses by a single company. I am not against regulations or enforcement that would prevent such abuses.0 -
2. If products are labeled, manufacturers will enter into an arms race to create the best label. Much akin to "no-fat", "gluten free", "fair trade" marketing items. The neat side effect of that is that data will be made available to purchasers, for purchasers to ignore by choice, as opposed to ignore thanks to lack of transparency.
But that isn't what is being asked for here. Companies can already label their products "GMO-free" if they so choose, nothing wrong with that. What is being asked for though is that a company will be required by law to label their product "contains GMOs" whether they want to or not, they will be compelled. Those marking their products "no-fat", "gluten free" or "fair trade" CHOSE voluntarily to do so and that is fine. The real analogy would be if we required by law that manufacturers label things as "High-Fat", "full of gluten" or "unfair trade practices" right on the box. Big difference. One is a choice, one is forced by law. If you are going to force something with a law then you have to demonstrate why that product is harmful and why therefore a label is required.3. There is some evidence that the manufacturing process involved with GM food stuffs can be unhealthy to growers/processors and the environment.
Is there? Where? Cite it. Present it.4. I'm not a fan of manufacturers lying by omission.
No product has its entire manufacturing process just listed out verbatum on a label.
dammit, faster then me again, but yes, slapping a "Contains GMO" label on something tells you NOTHING about the morality, ethics, or environmental procedures of the company, it just tells you they used GMOs, what good is that? And the truth is, in the public eye, that label looks like this:
so they'll buy the GMO free product, probably the alternative produced by the EXACT SAME company because it will make them feel better knowing their food isn't going to poison them or cause their DNA to randomly mutate somehow, but absolutely NOTHING will be done about the behavior of the company, zero real impact.
Well other than it would dissuade companies from further developing GM technology greatly reducing their R&D expenditures and as a result drastically slowing our advance in terms of biotechnological development. But hey, no biggie right.
Look, I'm in the infectious disease treatment field...I see GM as a huge boon to the development of affordable therapeutics for the developing world, something that will hopefully in the eventual future help bootstrap them up to a stable enough foundation that they can finally come out of abject poverty. I also see most of the development and research funding for GM coming from the United States and much of that interest and funding being driven by development by (gasp) big Agro and big Pharma. Then I see what amounts to fear-mongering of the unknown by a general populace and I look back at recent history to stem cell research or the recent anti-vax movement and think to myself "here we go again". Yeah, I'm worried...I'm worried that a potentially life-saving technology especially for the third-world is going to get stiffed and shelved because #firstworldproblems people want "organic" products. Perhaps that will be an unrealized fear but it has me definitely concerned when I see this sort of thing.0 -
I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.
I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.
I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?
I do conceive of them as two different things, and I'm not against GMOs.
But I wish educated people in the sciences would conceive of the entwined corporate and political decision makers as different from rational, educated professionals when it comes to how decisions are made about food safety in America. I'd be far less concerned about the issue if policy were being set by independent researchers with no financial stake in the matter. But these are not the people deciding what testing we should do, what should and shouldn't be labeled, and what liability should be imposed for screw ups.
I feel I am concerned by that and it would be a lot easier for me to be on the side of those who are against Monsanto's business practices if they weren't waving a big "Anti-GMO" flag around with them while they did it.
I think the notion of engineering in a terminator gene into food crops that requires farmers to continually repurchase the seeds from the same company in a contractual manner to be a highly questionable use of the technology. I think it opens up abuses where a company has control of the food supply which I think is the LAST thing any of us want, that would be horrible. I just view that as an issue with current patent law and its application...not an issue with GMOs.
The technologically-phobic are a detriment to those of us who want sane, safe policies.
You already know I'm going to agree wholeheartedly about one company with a monopoly on vital resources.
Maybe we have been just talking past one another and actually agree then. To be clear what I am opposed to is just unfairly blaiming GMOs and fearmongering them in general over the abuses by a single company. I am not against regulations or enforcement that would prevent such abuses.
^^Seconded.0 -
Well other than it would dissuade companies from further developing GM technology greatly reducing their R&D expenditures and as a result drastically slowing our advance in terms of biotechnological development. But hey, no biggie right.
Prices for GMO crops might drop while non-GMO rose as well. Might also shift what herbicides farmers used as they went away from roundup ready crops and chose something else that was more profitable. Might put more farmers growing cotton even when they need to be rotating something like soybeans. More corn may have to be thrown out or used as livestock feed due to aflatoxin contamination.0 -
Well other than it would dissuade companies from further developing GM technology greatly reducing their R&D expenditures and as a result drastically slowing our advance in terms of biotechnological development. But hey, no biggie right.
Prices for GMO crops might drop while non-GMO rose as well. Might also shift what herbicides farmers used as they went away from roundup ready crops and chose something else that was more profitable. Might put more farmers growing cotton even when they need to be rotating something like soybeans. More corn may have to be thrown out or used as livestock feed due to aflatoxin contamination.
Personal bias I recognize but I'm not worried about agriculture itself I'm worried about the public perception of GM and the effect that will have on funding development of the the technology and the future of therapeutics as a direct result.0 -
Earlier on people were talking about how starvation in the world isn't due to lack of the ability of the world to sustain sufficient food production it is more about logistics and getting food to people cheaply enough that it is viable. I agree with this.
The same is true of therapeutics really. In theory we could produce enough medicine for everyone but the difficulty is the logistics of getting it to the people who need it with a reasonable cost.
GM solves this and it solves it very well. I'm going to oversimplify for the point of illustration but picture this.
Drug A cures this disease. Drug A costs $10 per pill and requires a very large facility to produce complete with the latest in chemistry and refrigeration technology. To deliver the drug to a country that needs it and then to the people who need it is prohibitively expensive and said company could not recover its cost. The idea of trying to build a production facility everywhere it would be needed would be laughably expensive and impossible to do.
Enter GM. Bacteria and GM'd to produce Drug A and excrete it into the liquid in which they are grown. They are grown in a special media that is easy to produce but prevents their growth outside of that media. A sample of said bacteria can be transported easily. The instructions for making the media are easy, the ingredients are cheap and locally producible and can be prepared in a big pot sitting on firewood if need-be. Add the bacteria to the media and it grows and produces the drug. Syphon off the drug, dry it out in the sun to get a powder and there you go. Your immense costs get turned into something pretty much anyone can do in a village with a pot. Drug A now costs a fraction of a penny as all you needed was basically some sugar water and a special ingredient to grow the bacteria.
The development of said technology and the bacteria took a big R&D budget and development time and was funded in the United States but upon development and testing the tech transfer to a developing country and training is easily executed and the actual production cost is next to free.
This is something that really only GM can do. The idea that we are just going to build giant manufacturing plants all over the world to make vaccines and drugs for everyone who needs them is untenable...this approach is not untenable. We can actually solve this problem. This should be exciting and yet I think people are so focused on Monsanto that they haven't even viewed GM this way.0 -
I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.
I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.
I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?
I do conceive of them as two different things, and I'm not against GMOs.
But I wish educated people in the sciences would conceive of the entwined corporate and political decision makers as different from rational, educated professionals when it comes to how decisions are made about food safety in America. I'd be far less concerned about the issue if policy were being set by independent researchers with no financial stake in the matter. But these are not the people deciding what testing we should do, what should and shouldn't be labeled, and what liability should be imposed for screw ups.
I feel I am concerned by that and it would be a lot easier for me to be on the side of those who are against Monsanto's business practices if they weren't waving a big "Anti-GMO" flag around with them while they did it.
I think the notion of engineering in a terminator gene into food crops that requires farmers to continually repurchase the seeds from the same company in a contractual manner to be a highly questionable use of the technology. I think it opens up abuses where a company has control of the food supply which I think is the LAST thing any of us want, that would be horrible. I just view that as an issue with current patent law and its application...not an issue with GMOs.
The technologically-phobic are a detriment to those of us who want sane, safe policies.
You already know I'm going to agree wholeheartedly about one company with a monopoly on vital resources.
Maybe we have been just talking past one another and actually agree then. To be clear what I am opposed to is just unfairly blaiming GMOs and fearmongering them in general over the abuses by a single company. I am not against regulations or enforcement that would prevent such abuses.
:drinker: Sounds good to me!0 -
Personal bias I recognize but I'm not worried about agriculture itself I'm worried about the public perception of GM and the effect that will have on funding development of the the technology and the future of therapeutics as a direct result.
Several members of my family are large scale farmers (growing mainly soybeans, corn, and cotton), and I worked at an LSU ag experiment station in my hometown as a teenager. So I'm fairly in touch with what effect essentially banning GMO's in foods (which, lets get real, is pretty much what would happen if you forced a "contains GMO" label) consumed by humans would have on farmers.
FWIW, I brought up the question of "do you have to use more or less herbicides and insecticides since GMO" at thanksgiving last year, and it was unequivocally "less, and we hate using pesticides as it's just money going out".0 -
The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.
^^THIS
Two things:
1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.
2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.
Regarding #1----voter turnout is bad ( and I live in Italy where it is the same) because both sides turn off alot of voters. One can only choose between bad or worse. Politicians get so wrapped up in winning at all cost, that they lose contact with real voters. People don't believe pie in the sky anymore. If you can't choose, you stay home.0 -
Personal bias I recognize but I'm not worried about agriculture itself I'm worried about the public perception of GM and the effect that will have on funding development of the the technology and the future of therapeutics as a direct result.
Several members of my family are large scale farmers (growing mainly soybeans, corn, and cotton), and I worked at an LSU ag experiment station in my hometown as a teenager. So I'm fairly in touch with what effect essentially banning GMO's in foods (which, lets get real, is pretty much what would happen if you forced a "contains GMO" label) consumed by humans would have on farmers.
FWIW, I brought up the question of "do you have to use more or less herbicides and insecticides since GMO" at thanksgiving last year, and it was unequivocally "less, and we hate using pesticides as it's just money going out".
Oh I just didn't comment on the effect on farmers not because I don't think it matters but simply because I am not informed enough to comment. I'm focused on what I'm focused on because it is what I know and therefore what I can discuss in an informed way. Agriculture is something I only have a laymens understanding of.
My phrasing was poor, I didn't mean "I'm not worried" in terms of suggesting it wasn't something worth caring about, I just meant it wasn't my focus because my knowledge there was limited.0 -
Just lol. Should we don our tinfoil hats now or wait a page or two?
I'm in for the "GMOs give me palpitations/migraines" post.
They do give me migraines. Oh wait, that's just the Luddites that come out of the woodwork for these "discussions"0 -
Personal bias I recognize but I'm not worried about agriculture itself I'm worried about the public perception of GM and the effect that will have on funding development of the the technology and the future of therapeutics as a direct result.
Several members of my family are large scale farmers (growing mainly soybeans, corn, and cotton), and I worked at an LSU ag experiment station in my hometown as a teenager. So I'm fairly in touch with what effect essentially banning GMO's in foods (which, lets get real, is pretty much what would happen if you forced a "contains GMO" label) consumed by humans would have on farmers.
FWIW, I brought up the question of "do you have to use more or less herbicides and insecticides since GMO" at thanksgiving last year, and it was unequivocally "less, and we hate using pesticides as it's just money going out".
Which is where responsible management comes in, because GM crops have the potential to solve a lot of the environmental issues that are of concern when it comes to large scale agricultural process, less need for pesticide, less need for artificial fertilizers etc. but that does have to be balanced out with the monoculture issues and the potential for invasive species. So we're still back to GMOs can be good or bad, it all depends on whose using them and what they're doing with them.0 -
Personal bias I recognize but I'm not worried about agriculture itself I'm worried about the public perception of GM and the effect that will have on funding development of the the technology and the future of therapeutics as a direct result.
Several members of my family are large scale farmers (growing mainly soybeans, corn, and cotton), and I worked at an LSU ag experiment station in my hometown as a teenager. So I'm fairly in touch with what effect essentially banning GMO's in foods (which, lets get real, is pretty much what would happen if you forced a "contains GMO" label) consumed by humans would have on farmers.
FWIW, I brought up the question of "do you have to use more or less herbicides and insecticides since GMO" at thanksgiving last year, and it was unequivocally "less, and we hate using pesticides as it's just money going out".
Which is where responsible management comes in, because GM crops have the potential to solve a lot of the environmental issues that are of concern when it comes to large scale agricultural process, less need for pesticide, less need for artificial fertilizers etc. but that does have to be balanced out with the monoculture issues and the potential for invasive species. So we're still back to GMOs can be good or bad, it all depends on whose using them and what they're doing with them.
This. There are definitely risks here that we need regulation and monitoring especially when it comes to GMOs that are alive and viable being put out into the environment. Like with all technology its a balance between potential risk and potential reward.
Too many people I see weighing only the risks, coming up with all of these scenarios in which something bad happens but yet for whatever reason not comparing them to scenarios in which something good happens.
For every potential GMO that allows more herbicide to be sprayed and increases the amount of herbicide in the environment there is a GMO that eliminates the need for pesticide and drops the amount of pesticide in the environment. Its a tool. If you can imagine a bad thing keep in mind you can also imagine a good thing, now ask yourself why you choose to only envision bad things.0 -
I have been following the discussion, and find it fascinating. I wish to thank all you knowledgable people on both sides---great explanations. Remember, the criticisims are OK because it brings out more information from the other part. I admire many of you and the work you are doing----thanks.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions