Non-GMO foods aren't any safer or healthier

sugaraddict4321 wrote: »

megann120 wrote: »

...Knowing how round up works and how it saves fields from use of herbicides...

Sorry if this is cross-posted elsewhere on the thread...

Maybe I'm mis-reading your words, but Roundup (glyphosphate) IS an herbicide. A powerful one. It doesn't kill pests (i.e. it is not a pesticide). It kills plants and grasses. Of all kinds.

The idea of Roundup-ready crops is that they are genetically modified so they can withstand the massive doses of the herbicide and not die. This allows farmers to kill the weeds and grasses while the crops survive. So no, it does not "save" fields in the sense of preventing/reducing the use of herbicides. The herbicides are still used, and in huge quantities.

I think farmers are a bit stuck. I am sure many would like to grow organic if they could, but it's not cost-effective for the average Joe. If they want to produce enough crops to make ends meet, they have to ensure the crops aren't overrun by weeds, grasses, and pests. Consumers don't like buying odd-shaped veggies or lettuce with worm holes. So, what's a farmer to do? Either buy the GMO seeds and use herbicides and pesticides, or potentially go out of business.

Or they can buy the organic seeds and still use pesticides and herbicides, just ones that are organic, not as effective, require more applications and are more toxic.

I can see points with both sides. I can see why some believe it's safe and I can also see where concerns are coming from.

I am wondering about a couple things.

First, is there anything saying the GMO foods are not only safe, but also healthier and better for humans than the all natural/original counterparts?

Second, and my biggest concern with GMO foods has to do with the recent scientific finding in the last year on the intestinal micro biome. Up until about a year ago scientists didn't think the micro in our intestines could get past the brain barrier, but within the last year they have found where these micro biome can get past that barrier through lymphatic transfer. This was quite a shocking find, since for decades they believed it could never happen. But one reason science is so great is because they're always testing themselves and their work and willing to be wrong. Now, science is looking into how the intestine micro biome can affect a slew of issues and/or change various make ups in our body (mental health issues, autoimmune conditions, body composition, and so forth). I don't believe they've started working on GMO foods and how their genetic makeup can affect our brain when it comes to these specific micro biomes, but it is a concern of mine. It concerns me for many reasons ranging from these genes getting to and perhaps affecting our brains to perhaps changing our genetic makeup. I hope science does get to it rather quickly, but they are rather busy I am sure with just the fact that this is a brand new scientific find. It makes scientific findings like this to humble me and remind me just how little we truly know about the human body.

I don't know if this is even anything you'd all be interested in, but I thought it was a decent concern to state as it's had me thinking about it a lot. I'm always open to see evidence on both sides. As far as I know, there is zero scientific studies though on GMOs and the intestinal micro biome, especially linking the two to the brain, but if there is, I'd love to see it!

Hopefully, the below can clear up my concerns when it comes to GMOs and our intestinal micro biome. When I state GMOs, I'm talking about any and all that we consume.

The original study that found lymph vessels in the brain, hence the bypass of the blood-brain barrier:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7560/full/nature14432.html

A few selected papers from before the brain discovery, regarding the intestinal microbiome and various conditions (including those using the lymphatic system):

http://www.nature.com/nri/journal/v9/n5/full/nri2515.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23197411
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3337124/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056765/

Some papers around intestinal microbiota and mental health effects (from before there was even a causal mechanism known, such as the lymphatic system):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25415497
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413014736 (published in Cell)
http://neuroscienceresearch.wustl.edu/userfiles/file/Microbiota and nuerodevelopemental windows_implications for brain disord .pdf

So, in essence, we spent decades upon decades ignoring the microorganisms we host that outnumber our own cells by easily an order of magnitude, and then discounted any possible effects from them as having no causal mechanism, right up until we found those mechanisms. Now it's basically the next frontier of human biological and physiological study, and if GMOs affect the composition of the gut microbiome, we essentially have no idea what can cascade from that, but we're working on finding out.

I'm not talking about malnourishment. I'm talking about the actual composition of the entire intestinal micro biome. What affects do these foods have on the population of the various bacteria?

Maybe GMOs don't affect the intestinal microbiome. But if those GMOs do things like make plants generate their own insecticide, are we certain that has no noticeable effect on our single-cell gut bugs?

We know so very little about this, since it has only been studied for a couple of years at most. I'm just not comfortable, personally, saying all and every GMO we consume is safe when we don't know how said GMOs interact with our microbiome and how that in turn then affects our brain through lymphnotic transfer. No research has been finished on this precise concern that I can find yet, but they are working on it, which to me says we can't entirely say with certain that GMOs that we consume are actually safe for our bodies.
I'm not saying it'll change our genetic makeup, but we don't know what affect it has on microbiome. GMOs that are made to resist bugs, kill bugs, and resist certain chemicals may not have an affect on us humans because of how large we are, but our microbiome are small enough to be affected potentially, which we now know our microbiome has crucial impact on various things in our body including our brain and neurological health.

Listen, I'm not saying don't eat them or that they aren't safe. What I am saying though is that there is this very valid concern surrounding them, especially with these new findings on microbiome and the link to our brain and I'm willing to wait for science to figure out that answer before I call them either safe or unsafe.

Where does the myth that we've only been studying GMO safety for a couple of years come from? Because, as far as I'm aware, it's not new.

So, you basically in essence agree the entities producing GMOs are only doing large scale uncontrolled human trials. So, they haven't tested everything they could to ensure their safety.

No I don't agree with that because I think the definition of "testing" you are using "ie all possible combinations while measuring all possible outcomes" is impossible and not performed on anything.

You claim that we don't know the exact effects of "GMOs" on our gut flora so because of that we should be concerned. But we also don't know the exact effects of brocolli on our gut flora and yet you say there is no reason to be concerned by that. You are not applying your standard in an unbiased manner which means that it isn't ACTUALLY the standard you are using.

Your expectations are unreasonable and aren't met by any standard. No food qualifies as "safe" or "sure" by the standards you put forth.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about genetic engineering. It is merely a tool.

Science "changes its mind multiple times therefore you should worry" is not a legitimate reason to fear something.

TheFair0ne wrote: »

snikkins wrote: »

Where does the myth that we've only been studying GMO safety for a couple of years come from? Because, as far as I'm aware, it's not new.

I never said that.

I said that up until last June it was completely "settled science" that there were no lymph vessels that reached the brain. Out of all of the observations of the human that we have done, all the dissections, all the looking at it through microscopes, all our imaging technologies and literally just last June we found new physical structures in the brain. Structures that tie directly to the immune system and bypass the blood brain barrier. That is what I said has only been studied for a very short span of time. It has been known for a while now that the intestinal micro organisms have a rather significant affect on the lymphatic system. This concerns me when it comes to GMOs that we consume, which rapidly introduce entirely new traits to our food. Just to reemphasize up until 1 year ago it was "settled science" that the lymphatic system did not effect the brain ergo prior to 1 year ago why would any GMO study have looked at this? As he just said above, scientists do not study/test everything. They need a reason to look. This concern hasn't been addressed yet by science and for me, how my brain may be affected by GMOs I consume is a legitimate and valid concern.

So your argument is science doesn't know everything so its possible that my concern is valid and because it is possible my concern is valid I am going to act on my concern.

Couldn't that exact same line of thinking be used to justify absolutely any action whatsoever?

People say "I don't know what that object is up in the sky....it must be an alien spacecraft"

No...if you don't know what it is, you don't know anything about it...you cannot then follow up a statement about not knowing something with positive claims and actions we should undertake.

Saying "We don't know enough about the interactions of our microbiome with this particular genetic combination therefore it is something to be concerned about" is no different.

No sir, if we or you "don't know" then we shouldn't be drawing conclusions from which to take actions should we.

If there is something we do know that implies that genetic engineering puts our microbiome at risk in a way that negatively effects are health I am not aware of it...are you?

I'm not trying to be a pain but honestly I'm not convinced you know what you are talking about. You use terms but in ways that don't really make sense in a way that reminded me of people talking about the quantum realm and how our lack of understanding (or their lack of understanding) justified their belief in XYZ or their concern about ABC.

I'll admit though I am still curious as to why you think an enterotoxin is the "most likely" threat to prokaryotic life in our gut.

TheFair0ne wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

TheFair0ne wrote: »

snikkins wrote: »

Where does the myth that we've only been studying GMO safety for a couple of years come from? Because, as far as I'm aware, it's not new.

I never said that.

I said that up until last June it was completely "settled science" that there were no lymph vessels that reached the brain. Out of all of the observations of the human that we have done, all the dissections, all the looking at it through microscopes, all our imaging technologies and literally just last June we found new physical structures in the brain. Structures that tie directly to the immune system and bypass the blood brain barrier. That is what I said has only been studied for a very short span of time. It has been known for a while now that the intestinal micro organisms have a rather significant affect on the lymphatic system. This concerns me when it comes to GMOs that we consume, which rapidly introduce entirely new traits to our food. Just to reemphasize up until 1 year ago it was "settled science" that the lymphatic system did not effect the brain ergo prior to 1 year ago why would any GMO study have looked at this? As he just said above, scientists do not study/test everything. They need a reason to look. This concern hasn't been addressed yet by science and for me, how my brain may be affected by GMOs I consume is a legitimate and valid concern.

So your argument is science doesn't know everything so its possible that my concern is valid and because it is possible my concern is valid I am going to act on my concern.

Couldn't that exact same line of thinking be used to justify absolutely any action whatsoever?

People say "I don't know what that object is up in the sky....it must be an alien spacecraft"

No...if you don't know what it is, you don't know anything about it...you cannot then follow up a statement about not knowing something with positive claims and actions we should undertake.

Saying "We don't know enough about the interactions of our microbiome with this particular genetic combination therefore it is something to be concerned about" is no different.

No sir, if we or you "don't know" then we shouldn't be drawing conclusions from which to take actions should we.

If there is something we do know that implies that genetic engineering puts our microbiome at risk in a way that negatively effects are health I am not aware of it...are you?

Action is putting it out there in the food supply and releasing it into the wild. We are currently taking action without complete information. You're just fine with the current action being taken without complete information. I'd prefer to have another action where we study this cause and affect on our microbiome and brain and in the mean time see labeling, so I can choose whether or not I can go with the action that is currently taken. I'm okay, as a lover of science, saying "we don't know how GMO foods affect our microbiome and in turn our brain through the lymphatic system and so I will not act as if there is a settled answer on the safety of GMO foods. I will hold off on making a settled decision on their safety when these important concerns are tested and answered by biologists." I think that's fair. If you do not, then okay. The discussion seems to be at a point that may not be productive anymore as I've stated what my concerns are, specifically with the new biological studies in the last year, and where you seem to not agree that it's a concern. I'm happy to say "fair enough" and leave it at that.

But you are asking for an "action to be taken" that has not been taken for anything ever. None of our foods have had this "study". Therefore the lack of this study is not the actual reason for your concern because if it was you would argue against any food or any product since none of them have had this "study" you want done.

I'm frustrated because you aren't giving your actual reason for being concerned about genetic engineering. You were clearly concerned before you even considered this possible microbiome interaction and this is just the reason-de-jour you are giving. If microbiome interactions were your ACTUAL concern you would be calling for these studies you want done for all foods.

You also still haven't explained why you think enterotoxins are concerning when it comes to our microbiome.

TheFair0ne wrote: »

I said that up until last June it was completely "settled science" that there were no lymph vessels that reached the brain. Out of all of the observations of the human that we have done, all the dissections, all the looking at it through microscopes, all our imaging technologies and literally just last June we found new physical structures in the brain. Structures that tie directly to the immune system and bypass the blood brain barrier

I seem to recall that lymph vessels are unidirectional due to the presence of valves, and they pump based on smooth muscle contractions. I would be very interested in understanding more about how these particular lymph vessels work, but I seriously doubt they are a free-for-all highway of molecules into the brain. I would be greatly surprised, in fact, if some sort of gating structure is not identified. I would not be surprised if the gating structure allows flow only out, not in. There would be some significant survival benefit to a route for removal of interstitial fluid and waste products. Looking at other work from the lab doing this research, and their discussions of their work, it looks like they're viewing this as a clearance system at this time. They're rather prolific in their publications, and honestly I need sleep more than my curiosity (and believe my it's piqued) would prefer.

This is very wonderful and exciting science of course. But I'm not sure jumping to conclusions about the safety of particular foods is warranted. Even if the conclusion is "I should just not eat it until everything's 100% settled". As @Aaron_K123 pointed out, the burden of proof being demanded for GMO and GMO-produced foods is absurdly high as to be insurmountable and certainly not required of other foods.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

I'm frustrated because you aren't giving your actual reason for being concerned about genetic engineering. You were clearly concerned before you even considered this possible microbiome interaction and this is just the reason-de-jour you are giving. If microbiome interactions were your ACTUAL concern you would be calling for these studies you want done for all foods.

You also still haven't explained why you think enterotoxins are concerning when it comes to our microbiome.

I have to echo this analysis.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

I remember when the public became enamored by quantum physics and things like non-locality, quantum entanglement and heizernburgs uncertainly principle. They applied it in the most outlandish ways to explain and justify their beliefs about chakra's or negative vibrations or whatever else they subscribed to. They used the confusing nature of it and the lack of conventional understanding as a way of hiding their ideas in that thicket and surrounding them with "science".

I'm not sure when it happened but more and more I hear people referencing our microbiome in a similar way. Using the words of the field but in combinations and ways that don't really make sense. I'm not sure how this got started but it seems to be happening more and more and I hope it doesn't last.

"What the #$*! Do We Know!?" was one of the most painful things I've ever watched. Even worse than Godzilla 2000.