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
Options
Replies
-
I think I'd rather worry about the conditions in which the laborers who harvest our crops live and work, than about some inexpressible idea that there might be something bad about rigorously tested modified crops. One is a concrete thing impacting real people in their daily lives (not just workers but other people far away when foods get contaminated with things like hepatitis A because the workers aren't given sanitary facilities). The other is an intangible fear that *maybe in the future* there will be a problem despite steps being taken to ensure safety.
2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »TheFair0ne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Couldn't you say what you just said about literally anything and everything we consume? You could say what you just said about almonds or brocolli and it would be true. It is overly vague...what specifically about genetic engineering as a tool warrants concern and suspicion about a negative affect on our gut flora?
Scientists don't just study any and all possible combinations and measure the effects on any and all biological processes....there has to be a reason.
What is the reason you have concerns about the effect of apparently any "GMO" on your microbiome yhat wouldnt be an equal concern for anything else you consume and why?
Largely the introduction of genetic trades from wildly different species such as taking the BT toxin production of certain species of bacteria and adding that to plans, so that hey generate their own pesticide.
So genetically modifying plant to produce its own BT toxin is scary, but spraying a plant with BT is somehow ok.
Because we've been doing the latter on organic farms for 50 years.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html
I can't speak for anyone else, but it is scary to me. I can choose whether to eat the plant sprayed with it. If the plant genetically modified to produce it is in no way distinguished from plants not genetically modified to produce it then I cannot choose. And not being able to choose is scary to me.
How would you be able to tell whether a plant was sprayed with BT? Unless you grew it yourself.3 -
I've never understood what the concern is with BT toxin. I can only assume it is because it has the word "toxin" in it and people cannot fathom the notion that just because something is toxic to one species does not mean it is toxic to others. To our eukaryotic cells, the prokaryotes in our gut and our macrobiological processes BT toxin is just another protein. It has nothing to bind to, nothing to affect.
BT toxin is produced by the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (hence the name BT). It has one very distinct purpose which is to bind to a very specific proteins (typically cadherins) on the surface of midgut epithelial cells in only certain species of insects and in the alkaline enviornment of that gut insert into the membrane and form a pore large enough for the bacteria to pass through the endothilial layer and into the insects body. Enough of the bacteria poke enough holes in the insects gut as to be fatal (but that is not what the bacterial is "trying" to do, it is just trying to escape the gut into the insects body.
Our body does not have a midgut, it does not have the binding protein that BT toxin associates with to integrate into the membrane and our gut is not alkaline, which is the environment needed to convert the protoxin to the active toxin. I'm not even going to touch on the thousands of reasons it doesn't make sense to think that BT toxin would affect prokaryotic cells which don't even share the same membrane structure as eukaryotes.
If you are curious as to how BT toxin actually works I'd recommend this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857359/
relevant figure if you don't want to read the whole thing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857359/figure/F4/
It operates like most enterotoxins.
If you want an example of an enterotoxin that DOES negatively affect humans then Cholera toxin is something to check out. Another example is the distinction between pathogenic and non-pathogenic E.coli is also based on whether or not the bacteria produced a specific enterotoxin those that do are refereed to as enterotoxigenic E.coli and cause what has become known as "travelers diarrhea"
These bacteria would of course have no affect on insects.
Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.7 -
It's named after my home state, people need to stop dissing it.0
-
.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »It's named after my home state, people need to stop dissing it.
Thuringia?0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »TheFair0ne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Couldn't you say what you just said about literally anything and everything we consume? You could say what you just said about almonds or brocolli and it would be true. It is overly vague...what specifically about genetic engineering as a tool warrants concern and suspicion about a negative affect on our gut flora?
Scientists don't just study any and all possible combinations and measure the effects on any and all biological processes....there has to be a reason.
What is the reason you have concerns about the effect of apparently any "GMO" on your microbiome yhat wouldnt be an equal concern for anything else you consume and why?
Largely the introduction of genetic trades from wildly different species such as taking the BT toxin production of certain species of bacteria and adding that to plans, so that hey generate their own pesticide.
So genetically modifying plant to produce its own BT toxin is scary, but spraying a plant with BT is somehow ok.
Because we've been doing the latter on organic farms for 50 years.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html
I can't speak for anyone else, but it is scary to me. I can choose whether to eat the plant sprayed with it. If the plant genetically modified to produce it is in no way distinguished from plants not genetically modified to produce it then I cannot choose. And not being able to choose is scary to me.
How would you be able to tell whether a plant was sprayed with BT? Unless you grew it yourself.
I don't know that I could. That's why I grow my own.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »TheFair0ne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Couldn't you say what you just said about literally anything and everything we consume? You could say what you just said about almonds or brocolli and it would be true. It is overly vague...what specifically about genetic engineering as a tool warrants concern and suspicion about a negative affect on our gut flora?
Scientists don't just study any and all possible combinations and measure the effects on any and all biological processes....there has to be a reason.
What is the reason you have concerns about the effect of apparently any "GMO" on your microbiome yhat wouldnt be an equal concern for anything else you consume and why?
Largely the introduction of genetic trades from wildly different species such as taking the BT toxin production of certain species of bacteria and adding that to plans, so that hey generate their own pesticide.
So genetically modifying plant to produce its own BT toxin is scary, but spraying a plant with BT is somehow ok.
Because we've been doing the latter on organic farms for 50 years.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html
I can't speak for anyone else, but it is scary to me. I can choose whether to eat the plant sprayed with it. If the plant genetically modified to produce it is in no way distinguished from plants not genetically modified to produce it then I cannot choose. And not being able to choose is scary to me.
How would you be able to tell whether a plant was sprayed with BT? Unless you grew it yourself.
I don't know that I could. That's why I grow my own.
I have a veggie garden too...doesn't mean I'm worried about BT. What concerns you about BT exactly?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »TheFair0ne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Couldn't you say what you just said about literally anything and everything we consume? You could say what you just said about almonds or brocolli and it would be true. It is overly vague...what specifically about genetic engineering as a tool warrants concern and suspicion about a negative affect on our gut flora?
Scientists don't just study any and all possible combinations and measure the effects on any and all biological processes....there has to be a reason.
What is the reason you have concerns about the effect of apparently any "GMO" on your microbiome yhat wouldnt be an equal concern for anything else you consume and why?
Largely the introduction of genetic trades from wildly different species such as taking the BT toxin production of certain species of bacteria and adding that to plans, so that hey generate their own pesticide.
So genetically modifying plant to produce its own BT toxin is scary, but spraying a plant with BT is somehow ok.
Because we've been doing the latter on organic farms for 50 years.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html
I can't speak for anyone else, but it is scary to me. I can choose whether to eat the plant sprayed with it. If the plant genetically modified to produce it is in no way distinguished from plants not genetically modified to produce it then I cannot choose. And not being able to choose is scary to me.
How would you be able to tell whether a plant was sprayed with BT? Unless you grew it yourself.
I don't know that I could. That's why I grow my own.
I have a veggie garden too...doesn't mean I'm worried about BT. What concerns you about BT exactly?
Nothing. I don't use it.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »It's named after my home state, people need to stop dissing it.
Thuringia?
Yep.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?5 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »TheFair0ne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Couldn't you say what you just said about literally anything and everything we consume? You could say what you just said about almonds or brocolli and it would be true. It is overly vague...what specifically about genetic engineering as a tool warrants concern and suspicion about a negative affect on our gut flora?
Scientists don't just study any and all possible combinations and measure the effects on any and all biological processes....there has to be a reason.
What is the reason you have concerns about the effect of apparently any "GMO" on your microbiome yhat wouldnt be an equal concern for anything else you consume and why?
Largely the introduction of genetic trades from wildly different species such as taking the BT toxin production of certain species of bacteria and adding that to plans, so that hey generate their own pesticide.
So genetically modifying plant to produce its own BT toxin is scary, but spraying a plant with BT is somehow ok.
Because we've been doing the latter on organic farms for 50 years.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html
I can't speak for anyone else, but it is scary to me. I can choose whether to eat the plant sprayed with it. If the plant genetically modified to produce it is in no way distinguished from plants not genetically modified to produce it then I cannot choose. And not being able to choose is scary to me.
I don't understand. The kinds of pesticides used on produce (or in processed foods made from plants) in a regular grocery store aren't labeled either, or the quantities used, or the date of the last spray before harvesting. So unless you're getting all of your produce from a farm you know, how can you choose?
And on top of all of your points, there's a certain amount of privilege about being able to grow all of your own food without being a farmer. You have to live in a place that is conducive to doing so and have the time to put into it.
Trying to fearmonger everything in existence is a waste of energy, IMO. And I'm glad that people who are afraid of these things, despite the evidence to the contrary, get to live such a privileged life that they get to worry about these things.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Chocolate is poisons to dogs. The theobromine is a toxin2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.
Theobromine is not poisonous to dogs?
And you can't see the relation between BT killing specific insects but not our intestinal flora, and theobromine being toxic to some animals but not to humans?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.
Theobromine is not poisonous to dogs?
And you can't see the relation between BT killing specific insects but not our intestinal flora, and theobromine being toxic to some animals but not to humans?
I don't see the relation between your list and my comment about a silly post comparing 2 completely different things. I also don't see the relation to the OP (GMO being safe/unsafe).1 -
suzyjane1972 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Chocolate is poisons to dogs. The theobromine is a toxin
Someone should tell that to all the dogs out there safely eating chocolate.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions