GMO crops still making headlines.

The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

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.

My point was that people want labeling, want products to be identified if they are GMO. It's backwards. It should be viewed as GMO and if they want Non GMO , then look for those products to be labeled.
As for if they are or not, that's an issue that the producer of the product has to deal with and that cost can be beared by consumer wishing to purchase non GMO products. Again, like gluten free products, the only people that are concerned are those with gluten intolerance. Others who don't, don't buy it.

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

I get what you're saying, but they have to pay fees so they can label their products as gluten free, non-GMO etcetera. Why is it fair for companies to sell products with chemicals introduced into their products and not label them, but if they don't add chemicals they have to pay a fee to label it that way? I don't buy very many processed products, but on the occasion that I do I do look for non-GMO. The fruits and veggies I buy are mostly organic or produce that don't require much pesticide or herbicide if I can't find them organically.

tincanonastring wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

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.

You guess wrong


Van Eenennaam and Young then approach the question of GMO feeding from a different angle. Since 1996 90-95% of animal feed in the US has been GMO. Prior to 1996 0% was GMO. This offers the opportunity for a large observational study to see if the rapid and thorough introduction of GMO feed in the US resulted in any adverse health effects for the animals.

This data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.

In this case the data is particularly useful for a couple of reasons. First, the number of animals for which there is data is massive – in the billions per year. Second, the industry actually carefully tracks certain outcomes, as it is necessary or critical to their business.

For example, cattle are examined both premortem and postmortem for any abnormalities, such as tumors or signs of infection or other illness. Any sign of illness and that cow is not approved for meat. The percentage of cattle that are found to have such abnormalities is called the condemnation rate, and annual condemnation rates are kept in public databases.

The authors pooled data from various such databases for various animal industries before and after the introduction of GMO into animal feed:

Livestock production statistics for the US before and after the introduction of GE feed crops in 1986 are summarized in Table 4. In all industries, there were no obvious perturbations in production parameters over time. The available health parameters, somatic cell count (SCC; an indicator of mastitis and inflammation in the udder) in the dairy data set (Figure 1), postmortem condemnation rates in cattle (Figure 1), and postmortem condemnation rates and mortality in the poultry industry (Figure 2), all decreased (i.e., improved) over time.

So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.

The reason for the background improvement in health parameters is likely due to improved genetics and handling. This slow improvement over time continued without change through the introduction of GMO.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/

I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.

I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.

Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.

Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.

You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?

Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.

That's the thing, though. The research is being done and it overwhelmingly supports the safety of GMOs in livestock, livestock feed, and produce. To say it's not being done is just wrong.

It is GMO use for human food that I would like to see some research.

There is a ton of research out there on the safety of GMOs for human food. If you haven't seen it, you're just not looking.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

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.

You guess wrong


Van Eenennaam and Young then approach the question of GMO feeding from a different angle. Since 1996 90-95% of animal feed in the US has been GMO. Prior to 1996 0% was GMO. This offers the opportunity for a large observational study to see if the rapid and thorough introduction of GMO feed in the US resulted in any adverse health effects for the animals.

This data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.

In this case the data is particularly useful for a couple of reasons. First, the number of animals for which there is data is massive – in the billions per year. Second, the industry actually carefully tracks certain outcomes, as it is necessary or critical to their business.

For example, cattle are examined both premortem and postmortem for any abnormalities, such as tumors or signs of infection or other illness. Any sign of illness and that cow is not approved for meat. The percentage of cattle that are found to have such abnormalities is called the condemnation rate, and annual condemnation rates are kept in public databases.

The authors pooled data from various such databases for various animal industries before and after the introduction of GMO into animal feed:

Livestock production statistics for the US before and after the introduction of GE feed crops in 1986 are summarized in Table 4. In all industries, there were no obvious perturbations in production parameters over time. The available health parameters, somatic cell count (SCC; an indicator of mastitis and inflammation in the udder) in the dairy data set (Figure 1), postmortem condemnation rates in cattle (Figure 1), and postmortem condemnation rates and mortality in the poultry industry (Figure 2), all decreased (i.e., improved) over time.

So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.

The reason for the background improvement in health parameters is likely due to improved genetics and handling. This slow improvement over time continued without change through the introduction of GMO.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/

I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.

I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.

Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.

Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.

You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?

Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.

I'm just curious what you think the biological process for uptake of a modified gene would be by either a chicken or a human.

I know when I cut out all grains and most all sugars my pain level dropped from 7-8 to 2-3 in just 30 days a year ago. I do not think it was just cutting out sugar because I had sugar for one week last month and the world did not stop spinning. As a man with a science background and health issues I just have questions about many possible biological processes. About 20 EU countries have just come out not supporting GMO food stuff. Why they would do that raises a question in my mind.

And Italy jailed a bunch of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. Should we now treat all seismologists with a skepticism?

tincanonastring wrote: »

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

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.

You guess wrong


Van Eenennaam and Young then approach the question of GMO feeding from a different angle. Since 1996 90-95% of animal feed in the US has been GMO. Prior to 1996 0% was GMO. This offers the opportunity for a large observational study to see if the rapid and thorough introduction of GMO feed in the US resulted in any adverse health effects for the animals.

This data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.

In this case the data is particularly useful for a couple of reasons. First, the number of animals for which there is data is massive – in the billions per year. Second, the industry actually carefully tracks certain outcomes, as it is necessary or critical to their business.

For example, cattle are examined both premortem and postmortem for any abnormalities, such as tumors or signs of infection or other illness. Any sign of illness and that cow is not approved for meat. The percentage of cattle that are found to have such abnormalities is called the condemnation rate, and annual condemnation rates are kept in public databases.

The authors pooled data from various such databases for various animal industries before and after the introduction of GMO into animal feed:

Livestock production statistics for the US before and after the introduction of GE feed crops in 1986 are summarized in Table 4. In all industries, there were no obvious perturbations in production parameters over time. The available health parameters, somatic cell count (SCC; an indicator of mastitis and inflammation in the udder) in the dairy data set (Figure 1), postmortem condemnation rates in cattle (Figure 1), and postmortem condemnation rates and mortality in the poultry industry (Figure 2), all decreased (i.e., improved) over time.

So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.

The reason for the background improvement in health parameters is likely due to improved genetics and handling. This slow improvement over time continued without change through the introduction of GMO.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/

I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.

I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.

Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.

Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.

You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?

Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.

That's the thing, though. The research is being done and it overwhelmingly supports the safety of GMOs in livestock, livestock feed, and produce. To say it's not being done is just wrong.

It is GMO use for human food that I would like to see some research.

There is a ton of research out there on the safety of GMOs for human food. If you haven't seen it, you're just not looking.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

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.

You guess wrong


Van Eenennaam and Young then approach the question of GMO feeding from a different angle. Since 1996 90-95% of animal feed in the US has been GMO. Prior to 1996 0% was GMO. This offers the opportunity for a large observational study to see if the rapid and thorough introduction of GMO feed in the US resulted in any adverse health effects for the animals.

This data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.

In this case the data is particularly useful for a couple of reasons. First, the number of animals for which there is data is massive – in the billions per year. Second, the industry actually carefully tracks certain outcomes, as it is necessary or critical to their business.

For example, cattle are examined both premortem and postmortem for any abnormalities, such as tumors or signs of infection or other illness. Any sign of illness and that cow is not approved for meat. The percentage of cattle that are found to have such abnormalities is called the condemnation rate, and annual condemnation rates are kept in public databases.

The authors pooled data from various such databases for various animal industries before and after the introduction of GMO into animal feed:

Livestock production statistics for the US before and after the introduction of GE feed crops in 1986 are summarized in Table 4. In all industries, there were no obvious perturbations in production parameters over time. The available health parameters, somatic cell count (SCC; an indicator of mastitis and inflammation in the udder) in the dairy data set (Figure 1), postmortem condemnation rates in cattle (Figure 1), and postmortem condemnation rates and mortality in the poultry industry (Figure 2), all decreased (i.e., improved) over time.

So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.

The reason for the background improvement in health parameters is likely due to improved genetics and handling. This slow improvement over time continued without change through the introduction of GMO.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/

I am glad GMO's do not hurt the animals that we eat. My concern is the results of humans eating products from GMO fed animals.

I expect it will be years before the science can speak to GMO's impact one way or another on human life/health.

Why would animals fed GMOs have any different effect on human diets. Can you even begin to hypothesize a causative mechanism where slight amounts of DNA or proteins expressed from that DNA, both of which take a stomach acid bath, cause the animal itself to have different characteristics? That is like thinking of GMO as some kind of impurity, something that can be transferred. That isn't how it works. That isn't science.

Xactly. When one adds new chemicals to animal feed as GMO's may do it can be a game changer. I am not so concerned about cows with a four compartment stomach but more so about eating chickens fed GMO grass grains.

You agreed with him, but you are saying the exact opposite. Can you please explain how you think a chicken would be affected by GMO grains?

Changing the feed stock, adding hormones, etc is just a variable. Without research the impact of changing any variable is unknown without scientific research. To say GMO's are safe without research is just a wild guess. They may or may not be safe for human consumption. Humans directly eating modified grains is more of a concern personally.

I'm just curious what you think the biological process for uptake of a modified gene would be by either a chicken or a human.

I know when I cut out all grains and most all sugars my pain level dropped from 7-8 to 2-3 in just 30 days a year ago. I do not think it was just cutting out sugar because I had sugar for one week last month and the world did not stop spinning. As a man with a science background and health issues I just have questions about many possible biological processes. About 20 EU countries have just come out not supporting GMO food stuff. Why they would do that raises a question in my mind.

And Italy jailed a bunch of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. Should we now treat all seismologists with a skepticism?

nobody was jailed, they were sentenced by the court of first instance, but have been absolved by the appellate court. And they were charged not because they didn't predict the earthquake, but because they told the people there was no risk, despite the premonitory signs.
Talking about GMO, and about trust towards scientists, you gave chosen a very bad example...

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! I read they had been convicted and just assumed that they were jailed as a result of it. I did know the conviction was overturned and, again, just assumed they were released upon the successful appeal. In the United States, appeals are normally conducted while the convicted serves the sentence. I should have known better than to just assume Italy's justice system worked the same. Thanks for clarifying that.

As for the reason they were convicted, it wasn't that they told people there was no risk. We can get into semantics, but incorrectly interpreting data and being wrong is a lot different than saying there is no risk. In low risk scenarios, seismologists are very hesitant to issue safety warnings. Issuing a warning and being wrong can be disastrous.

This is actually a quote from the committee chair when asked if there was reason to be alarmed.

"The seismic sequence doesn’t foretell anything, but it surely refocuses attention on the seismogenic zone where, sooner or later, a large earthquake will occur.”

https://medium.com/matter/the-aftershocks-7966d0cdec66

senecarr wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

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.

Re-reading this, other fact you missed besides the fact that terminator seeds aren't on the market...
1. No one is forced to buy one single seed. Farmers have options in who they buy from. Always. The seed sales market is actually a lot more competitive than a lot of markets in America. You might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
2. Saving seeds against contract has nothing to do with GMOs. People have legally been allowed to patent seeds and prevent replanting since the 1930s.
3. Most farmers don't want to reuse their seeds. They want to farm, not hybridize plants. Buying seeds is more cost effective. Again, you might want to talk to a farmer sometime.
4. What's the actual end game of the monopoly here? Intellectual property only works so long as people honor the law - if Monsanto somehow owned all rights to all corn and wanted to charge $500,000 a seed, people would just ignore the law. Even allowing for terminator seed development, you seriously think one company is going to round up (ha, see what I did there) all non-terminator seeds and prevent people from growing other varieties?

I don't keep up on current news, but gaining control of the food supply has been an effective means of controlling and killing people you don't like (or who don't like you) since the dawn of time.

Personally, I don't have the heart to watch the news. It's just too upsetting. But last I heard, it was still going on.

The ones who control the food control everything. So, I can see people who have the heart for it paying attention to all that.

It just doesn't make the food itself bad.

Yeah, remember in the Great Depression when all the farmers evicted the Wall Street bankers off of Wall Street with their control on the food supply? All because the farmers grew and controlled the food?
Monsanto doesn't grow any food themselves. They do research and make seeds. The weirdest thing is people say they're trying to kill or make customers infertile. Well the most profitable thing would be for them to increase fertility. More mouths to feed means more people in need of even higher yield crops. I'd expect Monsanto to come out with birth control blocking corn before they come out with 4 generation sterilizing corn, but both are out there in tin foil hat land as far as I'm concerned.