Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Non-GMO foods aren't any safer or healthier
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »In my eyes that labelling would make as much sense as labelling whether a plant was grown outside or in a greenhouse.
10 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »In my eyes that labelling would make as much sense as labelling whether a plant was grown outside or in a greenhouse.
I would definitely buy potentially haunted crackers!4 -
Optional labeling sure, government mandated labeling no.10
-
samwiserabbit wrote: »
Plus, there's the social and economic ramifications of things like patented organisms, which sounds harmless at first, but there are deep and insidious impacts on farmers personally, the security of our food future, the balance of the economy, and the health of the biosphere.
I would advise you to hear opinions of real farmers and food producers. Many of them tried organic production and found it unsustainable.
Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides, having crops that are pest resistant and therefore eliminating the use of pesticides these are the things that can secure our future and feed the world.
Not to mention some organic practices are much worse than conventional farming, just to mention not using antibiotics in animals...
Roundup (glyphosate) IS a broad spectrum herbicide. Lots of people are concerned about its environmental impact. I agree about pest resistant GMOs --- that's what PP was saying about being concerned about what organisms are modified for.
Also, non-GMO is not the same as organic, so conflating them doesn't really add to the discussion.
About antibiotics: not fattening livestock in overly dense feed lots on corn means that you don't need constant low-dose antibiotics in feed. Grass fed cows and sheep don't need antibiotics because the are eating what they evolved to eat, not corn and they aren't constantly living in manure. Low cost producers like antibiotics because feedlots allow more animals crammed in less space, and they don't much care that the animals are sick and suffering the whole time.
Constant low-dose antibiotics in animal feed contribute to antibiotic resistance. Please read about the looming crisis of antibiotic resistance. However you feel about GMOs (and I too hate how so many people mindlessly hate GMOs), please learn about antibiotic resistance. It's a big deal.1 -
I don't trust organic food in the stores or GMO food. I only go to farmers that grow non-GMO produce. Organic doesn't mean what it used to. The definition has been altered to essentially be almost the same thing as normal produce just at a heftier price.
The studies in the US on GMO foods are scientist paid by GMO companies like Monsanto. They're paid to essentially lie about the data. There have been several scientists in Europe who are adamant that GMO food is horrible for your health and have increased cancer and tumors in their studies. The studies are all out there and aren't hard to find.
Also, the statement that GMO food can produce more have been found to be invalid and untrue. It doesn't. In fact, farmers in Iowa that had non-GMO seeds actually had theirs grow in the drought a few years back whereas the GMO farmers had little to no growth. Non-GMO seeds are stronger and more durable.
The idea that GMO foods can help feed the world is false. We have enough food the feed the world. The problem is that we throw away vast amounts of food and transporting it to areas that need it is a problem - besides once it gets there it's hard to ensure it gets into the right hands. GMO produce isn't going to solve transportation, lack of water, waste or governmental issues in these areas, which are the real problems.
And finally, studies have shown that insects that used to feed off these foods aren't feeding off the GMO foods. If you think about it, that's terrifying. If it isn't good for them and their bodies, why would it be okay for us? It's not. GMO foods I believe we're started by scientists who I think had the best intentions, but now is only used as a means to make corporations money.
Look up what farmers have to say about them. They're the experts when it comes to GMOs in the US. It isn't nice. I haven't seen one farmer in favor of GMOs over non-GMOs and I've lived in Iowa, Illinois and Ohio, so I feel like that's saying a TON.
Just my thoughts. Eat them all you'd like. I am just not comfortable putting food in my body that is sold as "healthy", but am really unsure what it does to my insides. Let's just say that "the jury is still on out GMOs" for good measure. Do you really want to put something in your body where "the jury is still out"? Not me.
0 -
Leesa_Michelle wrote: »I don't trust organic food in the stores or GMO food. I only go to farmers that grow non-GMO produce. Organic doesn't mean what it used to. The definition has been altered to essentially be almost the same thing as normal produce just at a heftier price.
The studies in the US on GMO foods are scientist paid by GMO companies like Monsanto.They're paid to essentially lie about the data.
There have been several scientists in Europe who are adamant that GMO food is horrible for your health and have increased cancer and tumors in their studies. The studies are all out there and aren't hard to find.
Citation neededAlso, the statement that GMO food can produce more have been found to be invalid and untrue. It doesn't. In fact, farmers in Iowa that had non-GMO seeds actually had theirs grow in the drought a few years back whereas the GMO farmers had little to no growth. Non-GMO seeds are stronger and more durable.
Citation neededThe idea that GMO foods can help feed the world is false. We have enough food the feed the world. The problem is that we throw away vast amounts of food and transporting it to areas that need it is a problem - besides once it gets there it's hard to ensure it gets into the right hands. GMO produce isn't going to solve transportation, lack of water, waste or governmental issues in these areas, which are the real problems.
No it will allow them to grow their own food, eliminating the need for transportation.And finally, studies have shown that insects that used to feed off these foods aren't feeding off the GMO foods. If you think about it, that's terrifying. If it isn't good for them and their bodies, why would it be okay for us?
I dunno, maybe because we're not insects?
Then why do they buy them?It's not. GMO foods I believe we're started by scientists who I think had the best intentions, but now is only used as a means to make corporations money.
Look up what farmers have to say about them. They're the experts when it comes to GMOs in the US. It isn't nice. I haven't seen one farmer in favor of GMOs over non-GMOs and I've lived in Iowa, Illinois and Ohio, so I feel like that's saying a TON.Just my thoughts. Eat them all you'd like. I am just not comfortable putting food in my body that is sold as "healthy", but am really unsure what it does to my insides. Let's just say that "the jury is still on out GMOs" for good measure. Do you really want to put something in your body where "the jury is still out"? Not me.
Except that the jury is not out. Every Gmo on the market has been extensively tested and shown to be safe.
8 -
I believe I said "like Monsanto" not "just Monsanto". There's quite a difference there.
By you saying citation needed, I'm guessing you haven't researched anything in your life? Like I said, they're all out there and easily accessible. If you are that interested, you'll research. If not, okay, I'm not hurt by it.
Sure, if the transportation is fixed that's great. However, how does anyone grow food without water, or with a poor government, or with groups around who are armed who steal food from other areas? Areas where transportation is bad and have lack of roadways and highway systems, these other problems are likelier to also be in the same areas. It's a question human rights athletics have been trying to solve for decades. GMOs can't fix those problems. If and when they can be fixed, GMOs won't be needed, our regular food supply can feed them adequately and then some.
If "we're not insects" is your only argument back to that, then enough said. If animals that primarily feed on those said food sources cannot feed on them any longer once they're genetically modified and you cannot see a direct correlation why that may be bad for us, then alrighty then. Have fun with that.
If you do not understand or have not heard of the nasty and sick ways corporations force farmers to buy GMO seeds, then I advise you look it up. Farmers who have been around for generations have been sued for millions of dollars because seeds from other farmer's crops gets blown into their farms and they get two choices 1.) get sued or 2.) buy the crops and start growing. Also, government subsidies. Come on. This isn't even hard to research.
Last point, no it has not. Everything I have seen says science is still questioning them. Multiple "scientists" from the US say they're fine. All these scientist I've seen have direct findings coming from corporations that produce GMOs, so they have enormous bias. Extensive amounts of scientists from the EU say it's absolutely unhealthy. Science is still out on GMOs whether you want to believe it or not. Like I said, you're welcome to eat it. Go for it! No ones stopping you! Some of us though, would like more access to non GMO produced food. I think as America, the "greatest freest country", we should be allowed to choose the food we eat. I think then "eat what you want, whatever that it is, as long as it is legal" is a pretty fair stance.
2 -
It's called burden of proof. You are the one making the ridiculous assertions, it's your responsibility to provide the evidence to back it up.
Saying "look it up" =/= providing evidence.
ETA Seralini study in 3,2,1,...6 -
Leesa_Michelle wrote: »I believe I said "like Monsanto" not "just Monsanto". There's quite a difference there.
By you saying citation needed, I'm guessing you haven't researched anything in your life? Like I said, they're all out there and easily accessible. If you are that interested, you'll research. If not, okay, I'm not hurt by it.
Sure, if the transportation is fixed that's great. However, how does anyone grow food without water, or with a poor government, or with groups around who are armed who steal food from other areas? Areas where transportation is bad and have lack of roadways and highway systems, these other problems are likelier to also be in the same areas. It's a question human rights athletics have been trying to solve for decades. GMOs can't fix those problems. If and when they can be fixed, GMOs won't be needed, our regular food supply can feed them adequately and then some.
If "we're not insects" is your only argument back to that, then enough said. If animals that primarily feed on those said food sources cannot feed on them any longer once they're genetically modified and you cannot see a direct correlation why that may be bad for us, then alrighty then. Have fun with that.
If you do not understand or have not heard of the nasty and sick ways corporations force farmers to buy GMO seeds, then I advise you look it up. Farmers who have been around for generations have been sued for millions of dollars because seeds from other farmer's crops gets blown into their farms and they get two choices 1.) get sued or 2.) buy the crops and start growing. Also, government subsidies. Come on. This isn't even hard to research.
Last point, no it has not. Everything I have seen says science is still questioning them. Multiple "scientists" from the US say they're fine. All these scientist I've seen have direct findings coming from corporations that produce GMOs, so they have enormous bias. Extensive amounts of scientists from the EU say it's absolutely unhealthy. Science is still out on GMOs whether you want to believe it or not. Like I said, you're welcome to eat it. Go for it! No ones stopping you! Some of us though, would like more access to non GMO produced food. I think as America, the "greatest freest country", we should be allowed to choose the food we eat. I think then "eat what you want, whatever that it is, as long as it is legal" is a pretty fair stance.
Saying "like monsanto" as if there's enough companies to get to the amount of available money that ONE oil company has and the whole oil industry not being able to hide the fact of climate change...1 -
Chocolate is poisonous to dogs, therefore it must be bad for humans too.
5 -
Since I'm a nice person, here you go. They all have links to their proper scientific study counterparts as well.
http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/
http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/whats-so-bad-about-gmos-top-ten-reasons-to-avoid-them
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/04/29/are-gmos-really-that-harmful-to-eat
http://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/may/6/former_pro_gmo_scientist_talks_dangers_of_gmos
I literally went down the list in Google. You could go dozens of pages in and keep finding new
studies.
Now, perhaps, if you are he type of person that doesn't like or agree with science, then you won't like or agree any of those. If you stil believe after looking at this research that the "jury is NOT out and GMOs are safeL, then eat it, but it doesn't mean that those us of that don't agree should HAVE to eat it. We deserve the choice to eat non-GMO food.0 -
I guess there's no consensus on global warming or vaccines either.
3 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Chocolate is poisonous to dogs, therefore it must be bad for humans too.
That's cute. How you twist words and science to fit your "argument". Chocolate in its purest form is okay for humans and bad for dogs.
However, taking a plant in its purest form where an insect ate off of it healthy and had a normal life span off of it, and then genetically changing it, and then now that same insect eats off it and dies or has issues IS NOT equatable to your example. I hope you see the difference. If not, I just conclude you score low on problem solving skills.1 -
A popular theme among anti-GMO activists is to make the claim that Europe has banned GMOs, as if to imply European scientists know something that American regulators do not. The EU does not actually ban GMOs and the EU scientific community is thoroughly behind the technology.
According to the EU register of authorised GMOs there are currently ten GM cottons, thirty GM maizes, four GM rapeseeds, twelve GM soybeans, one GM sugar beet, one GM bacterial biomass, and one GM yeast biomass authorized in the EU for importation and use in food and feed.
The European Commission (EC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) put together a major overview of EU research into GMOs. From “A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research:”
The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.5 -
Let sigh. BT is toxic to insect but not to mammals.
It is a chemical that is naturally produced in many plants and has been used as an insecticide for decades before the advent of GMO.
It has been extensively tested and shown to be safe.
It is the reason insects can't eat GMO corn.
3 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
I guess there's no consensus on global warming or vaccines either.
Using completely different types of science isn't going to prove your point to me. You're asking me to show links of credible studies on GMOs, yet you're showing me zero credible links on GMOs and decide to keep bringing up climate change when the two fields require completely different scientists with completely different scientific methods. As much as I LOVE Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Cross, I won't post an evolutionary biology study or a Cosmo study to prove my point on GMOs . Try again. This time with a multitude of scientific findings from all over the world where scientists aren't getting a salary from a bias party. Thanks!1 -
Almost 20 years and billions of subjects show no difference in GMO vs non-GMO feed
https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/articles/92/10/4255
(Not funded by Monsanto )3 -
Forget about "GM" for a moment. The big problem is the glyphosate residue in the grains because glyphosate products, such as RoundUp, were sprayed on the fields during plant growth. Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?1
-
Forget about "GM" for a moment. The big problem is the glyphosate residue in the grains because glyphosate products, such as RoundUp, were sprayed on the fields during plant growth. Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
Herbicide use has not changed significantly since the advent of GMO crops. Glyphosate use has increased but this has been met with a decrease in the use of other, more dangerous chemicals such as Alachlor and Cyanazine2 -
Herbicide resistance is not limited to GMO crops. Clearfield corn is resistant to imidazoline and was developed through non-GMO methods.
Guess how much safety testing it had to undergo.2 -
Forget about "GM" for a moment. The big problem is the glyphosate residue in the grains because glyphosate products, such as RoundUp, were sprayed on the fields during plant growth. Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1
" In view of the absence of
carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral
route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the
Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure
through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolites
of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland."1 -
Forget about "GM" for a moment. The big problem is the glyphosate residue in the grains because glyphosate products, such as RoundUp, were sprayed on the fields during plant growth. Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
Glyphosate is used on a lot more crops than GMOs.2 -
Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
Care to give us a citation or 2 to back this up. Because it's wrong:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/0 -
Leesa_Michelle wrote: »GMO foods I believe we're started by scientists who I think had the best intentions, but now is only used as a means to make corporations money.
Huge logic disconnect here. If the GMO's don't perform as claimed, are bad to eat, and the corporations have to fund studies and pay scientists to lie about the results... how exactly are they making money from them?
There simply is no profit incentive to push a known faulty product that costs more to produce than its proven conventional counterpart. Without profit incentive, the whole "evil Monsanto" conspiracy theory falls apart.
4 -
lithezebra wrote: »Forget about "GM" for a moment. The big problem is the glyphosate residue in the grains because glyphosate products, such as RoundUp, were sprayed on the fields during plant growth. Its the glyphosate residue that goes into your body and acts as an endocrine disruptor (and more), that is the problem with GMOs. OK?
Glyphosate is used on a lot more crops than GMOs.
For example, in wet years it is sprayed on (non-GMO) pulse crops to dry them out for harvest... I assume it's not sprayed on the organic crops, but in those years there would be high crop losses for the organic farmers so the price would go up...
**used to work in a laboratory that tested the crops to see if the glyphosate levels were low enough to be sold in Europe--I believe the plan was to switch to paraquat if glyphosate got outlawed (paraquat is far more toxic)**2 -
Caroline393 wrote: »I just hate all the misinformation and fear-mongering surrounding GMOs despite the FDA and numerous other organizations finding them completely harmless to consume. The reason patents exist is no different than for drugs- R&D costs are high, so for a certain amount of time after they are approved and available on the market, the company who developed them gets to be the only one selling and recoup their costs. That's what drives research and innovation, and I think it's fair..."
This is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to, but I do have a question: are you employed by "Big Food" in any way? Or, "Big Agriculture"? Your posts sound like talking points.
I have little knowledge on the topic, but I think I've heard that Europe doesn't allow GMO products. They also don't allow other things that the US Government deems safe (the latter maybe in part because of lobbyists' influence?)0 -
@Leesa_Micheele
What issue do you take with genetic engineering as a tool that would suggest that any product produced in part utilizing that tool would be dangerous?
Also what do you mean when you say "GMO science"? Do you mean the process of genetic engineer? That isn't really a science persay, that is a toolkit developed through the study of molecular biology and genetics not a scientific discipline itself really. So it is hard to know what you mean when you say "GMO science".1 -
I literally went down the list in Google.Now, perhaps, if you are he type of person that doesn't like or agree with science
Okay typing something into google and then copy pasting the top hits isn't doing research and it isn't an accurate representation of the scientific consensus and not agreeing with whatever article you happen to find on google states is not somehow evidence that someone does not "like or agree with science". Google runs a sorting algorithm called page-rank that basically determines what the searcher is most likely interested in by sorting pages on the basis of how many clicks they get and how many clicks what they link to or from get. It is a popularity contest based on the search term that you decided to search with, not a representation of the consensus of the scientific community. If people tend to click on sensationalistic stories written by bloggers about the dangers of GMOs then that will be at the top of the google search for "GMO dangers".
That certainly is not a way of conducting scientific research nor is it a way of determining what the scientific consensus is.
If you are actually curious as to what the scientific consensus is then you should go to a search page dedicated to the scientific literature such as pubmed. You should select to search reviews which are summaries of the scientific literature on given topics written by experts in the field and you should read those and then follow up on what they cite as the primary literature.
Making google searches is not conducting research, I am sorry.
Alternatively given your background in journalism you might just seek out a scientist with experience in molecular biology or genetics and ask them what they think about the topic given their experience and expertise. Or you could talk to farmers.
14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »And this is why semantic arguments bore me. You ignore the substance of what I said in favor of making a point to bring up something that everyone already understands as a way if being superior. Well congratulations I guess.
I don't think most people understand that but I am sorry for wasting your time with my comment. It really wasn't about superiority, it was about showing how food has been genetically modified longer than people think. In my own experiences, when people talk about GMO's, they usually speak as if all of it is done in a laboratory by "evil scientists" or something. I was just trying to dispel that myth.
EDIT: I goofed up in removing my previous quotation.
1 -
benjaminhk wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »And this is why semantic arguments bore me. You ignore the substance of what I said in favor of making a point to bring up something that everyone already understands as a way if being superior. Well congratulations I guess.
I don't think most people understand that but I am sorry for wasting your time with my comment. It really wasn't about superiority, it was about showing how food has been genetically modified longer than people think. In my own experiences, when people talk about GMO's, they usually speak as if all of it is done in a laboratory by "evil scientists" or something. I was just trying to dispel that myth.
EDIT: I goofed up in removing my previous quotation.
Fair enough Ben, apologies if I came off as being snarky. I get that there are those who feel like it is an actually conspiracy but to be honest I have no idea how to approach someone who literally believes that the scientific community is some sort of new-world order enacting a master plan.
I am talking to those who feel that there may be some legitimate concerns with genetically manipulating food crops and who use the term "genetically modified organism" to mean specifically food crops altered by companies for profit. I do understand the term is vague and misleading however in trying to talk with respect to those people I prefer to not lead off by mocking their terminology but rather by talking to them about what their actual concerns are. That is all.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions