GMO crops still making headlines.
GaleHawkins
Posts: 8,159 Member
Replies
-
I see an article about GMO at least once a week.0
-
I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.0
-
Poison. Monsanto pays congress off. Plenty of whistle blowers speaking out against the "studies" proving them safe. Why else would they pass laws forbidding gmo labeling0
-
This content has been removed.
-
catscats222 wrote: »true - companies donate millions a year to the federal government
you cannot trust anyone
coke (diet coke) is a good example
the studies on asparartame are funded by money from coke and pepsi industries themselves
private people do not pay for studies
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary#latest0 -
poor italy hope theyll be able to keep up with their food supply when we hit 10 billion with climate change. guess time will tell0
-
ldrosophila wrote: »poor italy hope theyll be able to keep up with their food supply when we hit 10 billion with climate change. guess time will tell
Depends if they're in Italy I guess. They have a declining birth rate I think.0 -
So government can't pay for research because it's biased, and industry can't pay for research because it's biased. Which one of you is going to pay for all this unbiased research?0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »I guess they were just off my radar until some recent reading on the subject. I expect it will take years before science will prove where they are bad, neutral or good for animal usage.
They've been in use for about 20 years, and by comparing health reports before and after their introduction they're seeing no change for about 1 trillion animals in the USA in that time. How many more animals and how much more time is needed?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
dstromley90 wrote: »Poison. Monsanto pays congress off. Plenty of whistle blowers speaking out against the "studies" proving them safe. Why else would they pass laws forbidding gmo labeling
Project Non-GMO Verified exists. GMOs can be labeled all they want. What won't pass is laws that mandate labeling.
The reason why is because GMO labeling gives consumers no useful information in making a purchase, and leads to increased costs to the consumer.
Essentially GMO labeling laws involve upper middle class to rich people expecting poor people to pay more for food to satisfy their curiosity about the genes inside what they're eating, rather than they themselves paying the cost via purchasing things labeled Organic or Project Non-GMO Verified. Those seem pretty good reasons to avoid forcing a label on something harmless.
To add to the issue, why can Monsanto, with ~10 Billion in revenue pay off scientists and congress, but the major oil companies with about ~100 Billion in revenue each can't pay off the same about climate change? I mean, Monsanto's revenue isn't much bigger than Whole Foods.0 -
I swallow a synthetic hormone every day...and I do it gleefully. That wondrous little pill has done me SO MUCH good and is primarily responsible for every pound I've lost.
I'm a huge supporter of GM stuff and honestly haven't heard anyone who says it's actually bad for us. If I do, I'll take it seriously! But I have yet to hear a single word from anyone about it. Someone posted a debate about it here and even the people who spoke out against it didn't say it's actually bad, just that they'd rather spend money funding something else.0 -
OP watch the documentary GMO OMG on Netflix. It's a really good one and it explains a LOT about Gmos.0
-
milocamolly wrote: »OP watch the documentary GMO OMG on Netflix. It's a really good one and it explains a LOT about Gmos.
I politely disagree. I saw the film and found it so one sided it was not even funny.
"As the editors wrote in the September issue of Scientific American: “The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/film-review-e2809cgmo-omge2809d-srsly-an-epicfail-in-exercising-our-right-to-know/
That article is a very good review on the film, and has some very nice points on the science behind GMOS.
Also, for anyone who is interested in some more information as to why GMO crops may not be evil, check out this video. She quotes some studies and throws out some interesting points about why GMO's aren't as bad as some people may think. Just so you know, this girl is a vegan, so one of her points is about how GMO crops help animal welfare, but she isn't a crazy sort of "kill all the meat eaters" vegans. Her entire channel is dedicated to shutting down broscience around fad diets, so it's interesting if you have some extra time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA4I-WRu_s0 0 -
-
0
-
0
-
The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Oh man, not another back and forth about GMO science. I have been happily eating GMO engineered foods for years I'm not dead yet. I'm here to lose weight. Not worry about politicians and internet quacks spitting their agenda.0
-
ldrosophila wrote: »poor italy hope theyll be able to keep up with their food supply when we hit 10 billion with climate change. guess time will tell
Depends if they're in Italy I guess. They have a declining birth rate I think.
It seems that Italy is not alone: 19 states out of 28 have submitted such request.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/eu-gmo-opt-out-idUKL6N0M01F6201510040 -
The whole labeling issue is pretty overzealous. Why not do it like others? If it's gluten free, it's marked "gluten free". Other than that, one HAS to assume there is gluten in the product. Same with peanut free products. So do the same with GMO. Only make the products "Non GMO" since there aren't as many products versus those that are GMO.
There are two issues - verification and presence. A gluten free product can be verified by testing for the relevant protein with tests that will detect very small amounts. If you cannot verify by analysis then you're left trusting in procedures. Good luck with that.
Presence - GMO sugar beet will produce sucrose crystals identical to non-GMO and equally devoid of genetic material. The product is GMO free. How to label this ?
GMO labeling is about food politics and environmental beliefs and not about food quality in the main.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »ldrosophila wrote: »poor italy hope theyll be able to keep up with their food supply when we hit 10 billion with climate change. guess time will tell
Depends if they're in Italy I guess. They have a declining birth rate I think.
It seems that Italy is not alone: 19 states out of 28 have submitted such request.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/eu-gmo-opt-out-idUKL6N0M01F620151004
States <> Nations
"The 19 requests are from Austria, Belgium for the Wallonia region, Britain for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany (except for research), Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia."
So I make that 15 nations and 4 bits of 2 nations. Not that maize would be grown much in Scotland, Wales or NI in the first place.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »ldrosophila wrote: »poor italy hope theyll be able to keep up with their food supply when we hit 10 billion with climate change. guess time will tell
Depends if they're in Italy I guess. They have a declining birth rate I think.
It seems that Italy is not alone: 19 states out of 28 have submitted such request.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/eu-gmo-opt-out-idUKL6N0M01F620151004
States <> Nations
"The 19 requests are from Austria, Belgium for the Wallonia region, Britain for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany (except for research), Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia."
So I make that 15 nations and 4 bits of 2 nations. Not that maize would be grown much in Scotland, Wales or NI in the first place.
aside from the law terminology (EU refers to "member states" http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm), I still count 17 "nations" and 4 bits of 2 nations
0 -
yep, I count 17 too. I incorrectly subtracted 4 from 19.0
-
Whenever someone tells me about GMO foods and their ills, I ask them when was the last time they saw a pink pig in the wild, or a cow anywhere but a farm. What are cows, anyway? The progenitor of the cow, the Auroch (bos primigenus) has been extinct for half a millenia. All the animals we eat, other than game, are GMO, just using breeding as the manipulation technique.0
-
The EU member states banning GMOs is just plain old protectionism hiding behind phony health concerns. It's certainly not based on any credible science.0
-
dstromley90 wrote: »Poison. Monsanto pays congress off. Plenty of whistle blowers speaking out against the "studies" proving them safe. Why else would they pass laws forbidding gmo labeling
Project Non-GMO Verified exists. GMOs can be labeled all they want. What won't pass is laws that mandate labeling.
The reason why is because GMO labeling gives consumers no useful information in making a purchase, and leads to increased costs to the consumer.
Essentially GMO labeling laws involve upper middle class to rich people expecting poor people to pay more for food to satisfy their curiosity about the genes inside what they're eating, rather than they themselves paying the cost via purchasing things labeled Organic or Project Non-GMO Verified. Those seem pretty good reasons to avoid forcing a label on something harmless.
To add to the issue, why can Monsanto, with ~10 Billion in revenue pay off scientists and congress, but the major oil companies with about ~100 Billion in revenue each can't pay off the same about climate change? I mean, Monsanto's revenue isn't much bigger than Whole Foods.
To top it off, GMO is much more precise than mutation breeding where you bombard the product in question with atomic radiation hoping you get something useful without something harmful (which we've been doing for much longer than genetic engineering). If you start labeling things GMO, then you have to label mutation breeding, which is responsible for many of today's crops, including organic products. No one wants to label the organic food as "A product of Mutation Breeding", because it would look bad.
Even then, I don't support labeling mutation breeding, as it has been shown that there is more change in gene expression due to year-to-year climate variation than there was in creating the crop in the first place.0 -
By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do stuff like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »By reading some of the comments above, its obvious some don't understand GMOs AT ALL. They have nothing to do with evolution, hybridizing or cross pollinating. 21 years is not long enough to know if there are any repercussions. Saying they have been thoroughly tested by the FDA or USDA is ludacris. Remember when transfat was so much better for you than that nasty real butter? How many drugs get recalled after killing or harming people that the FDA has approved as safe? Do you realize how many people in charge of the FDA or USDA are ex Monsanto, Syrgenta or DuPont executives? The claim they are feeding the world is none sense. The world already produces more than enough food and will continue to. We don't have a food shortage; we have a problem with availability by location. I'm not saying they are bad or good, I'm saying people should have a choice to know what they are putting in their bodies, especially since GMOs are relatively new to consumption. My biggest problem with genetic modification is when they do stuff like modifying corn to be immune to RoundUp so they can drowned the food we eat with it while harming the environment substantially. The thought of them wanting to create plants that produce seeds that will not germinate, forcing you to buy their labratory seed, is very scary and has the potential to create an honest to god real end of the world scenario. I personally don't want to ingest glyphosate or any other herbicide or pesticide.
When you say that GMOs are completely different than mutation breeding makes me think you don't understand GMOs.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions