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
-
I am, I know a quite a bit but there's always something extra to learn, especially in an allied field that is not one's specific area of expertise.Aaron_K123 wrote: »@Aaron_K123 thank you for your explanation of this issue. I found it educational and helpful.
Sure. Although I was getting the sense you knew the subject matter yourself. Are you in the sciences?
0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
No, they are eating relatively low dosage for their side.
Milk chocolate contains less theobromine. Larger dogs would have to eat a very large amount of milk chocolate to reach toxic levels. But it is still toxic to them.
Dark chocolate and bakers chocolate is more of a concern.
The size of the dog matters as well.
Just because a large dog can eat a piece of milk chocolate without immediate negative effects does not make chocolate safe for dogs.
Wait a gosh darn minute... Are you saying what I think you're saying? That context and dosage matter???!!!!
Mind. Blown.
.
4 -
As some have mentioned, at least 90% of corn and soybeans grown in the USA are GMO. For wheat, it is 60-80% GMO. Putting aside the science of how they make GMOs for a moment, my big concern is the glyphosate residue in the grains, from being sprayed with RoundUp herbicide. Glyphosate residue entering your body causes hormone disruption, inflammation, and, from there, facilitates a variety of diseases. I wonder how many people would not be obese today if they had not had a steady diet of glyphosate residue in corn, soy, and wheat. It seems like any processed food has corn or soy products in it. Buy and eat organic, or non-GMO.0
-
As some have mentioned, at least 90% of corn and soybeans grown in the USA are GMO. For wheat, it is 60-80% GMO. Putting aside the science of how they make GMOs for a moment, my big concern is the glyphosate residue in the grains, from being sprayed with RoundUp herbicide. Glyphosate residue entering your body causes hormone disruption, inflammation, and, from there, facilitates a variety of diseases. I wonder how many people would not be obese today if they had not had a steady diet of glyphosate residue in corn, soy, and wheat. It seems like any processed food has corn or soy products in it. Buy and eat organic, or non-GMO.
Do you have any real solid, peer reviewed scientific evidence to back up your conjectures at significantly meaningful statistical levels?1 -
As some have mentioned, at least 90% of corn and soybeans grown in the USA are GMO. For wheat, it is 60-80% GMO. Putting aside the science of how they make GMOs for a moment, my big concern is the glyphosate residue in the grains, from being sprayed with RoundUp herbicide. Glyphosate residue entering your body causes hormone disruption, inflammation, and, from there, facilitates a variety of diseases. I wonder how many people would not be obese today if they had not had a steady diet of glyphosate residue in corn, soy, and wheat. It seems like any processed food has corn or soy products in it. Buy and eat organic, or non-GMO.
Do you have any real solid, peer reviewed scientific evidence to back up your conjectures at significantly meaningful statistical levels?
No, because there isn't any.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.
I would just like to point out that the FDA doesn't do the research but rather reviews studies in order to deem things safe or not. These studies they reviewed were all done by companies that have a monetary interest in the success of GMO's.
How about instead of forcing the entire country into eating GMO's whether they want to or not we grant them the ability to choose after educating themselves on the matter. That is all we are asking. Not that they ban GMOs but that we are allowed the freedom to make the decision of what goes into our bodies.
0 -
You can still chose. Choose to buy products that are labeled non-GMO.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.
I would just like to point out that the FDA doesn't do the research but rather reviews studies in order to deem things safe or not. These studies they reviewed were all done by companies that have a monetary interest in the success of GMO's.
How about instead of forcing the entire country into eating GMO's whether they want to or not we grant them the ability to choose after educating themselves on the matter. That is all we are asking. Not that they ban GMOs but that we are allowed the freedom to make the decision of what goes into our bodies.
It seems like the industry is handling the labeling thing by itself. If a producer wants to differentiate themselves from the rest they are free to label their products as non-GMO. Sometime in the near future you will probably just assume GMO unless labeled otherwise and go about your business. All of this done without a government mandate and additional costs.4 -
I am firmly in the "pro-GMO" camp. I hear many folks claiming we can feed the world organically, but the numbers do not hold up. We can't feed the current worlds population, how about when we hit 9 billion? Now throw in climate change. We need crops that can withstand heat, drought, cold snaps, less water, and will need immediate response when new diseases crop up. Shall we try conventional breeding and wait 50 generations to fix the problem, or should we add some genes that fix it in the first generation?
Not all GMO's are equal. The ones that could pose an issue like adding an allergen are tested and not approved for sale. The ones that are nutritionally equivalent and actually have a significant benefit are approved for sale. Disease resistant mangos, roundup resistant crops and bt corn are all good examples of nutritional equivalency with defined benefits. Golden rice is an example of greater nutritional value.
Fear born of ignorance is the only reason to dislike them. 2000 studies say they are safe. Zero have shown evidence of harm. I'll take those odds any day.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »samwiserabbit wrote: »I almost totally agree. Just because an organism has been genetically modified doesn't make it unsafe to eat.
Personally, the main reason I tend to avoid GMO foods is that I'm concerned about what plants are being genetically modified for, namely, Roundup resistance. I don't like the idea of participating in a food production system that puts lots of Roundup into the soil and water.
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. That last one does, albeit indirectly, affect our health.
Maybe the reason there's overlap between advertisements for healthy recipes and non-GMO products is that there's overlap between the populations of people who care about the healthfulness of what they're eating and the people who care about the health of the economy, biosphere, and non-crop organisms.
I'm kind of tempted to include links to research on the stuff I mentioned, but you can look it up yourself if you feel moved to. I don't want to come across as evangelical; I certainly don't feel that way. You do you
^^ All of this.
Plus, all GMOs are not the same. You can no more extrapolate from one GMO being safe to assuming that all GMOs are safe than you can extrapolate from one non-GMO being safe to assuming that all non-GMOs are safe. Non-GMO hemlock will kill me, and I think I should have the right to know whether the food I'm eating has hemlock genes spliced into it.
I'm not inclined to trust anyone who argues not only that I shouldn't have the right to know that there are GMO ingredients in the foods that I buy, but that food producers that don't use GMOs shouldn't even be allowed to tell me that, which is something that the GMO industry has argued.
Take the farm-raised salmon with the growth-hormone-regulating gene from another fish spliced into it, which was recently approved by the FDA. I was slightly concerned, but I read about it (because, wow, I could get information, even though the GMO industry clearly would rather I didn't!), and confirmed that the fish the gene was being borrowed from is also one that humans eat, which to me makes this particular GMO seem low-risk. If I were looking at farm-raised salmon in the grocery store, and one of them was labeled GMO and the other non-GMO, it would be a non-issue for me.
That doesn't mean that every possible combination of borrowed genes would raise zero concern for me. And any industry that seeks to deny me access to information I need to make decisions based on my own preferences, priorities, and level of risk aversion is just creating a trust barrier.
I'll save you some work:
All of your food is GMO'd food. Every. Last. One.2 -
Pro-GMO here and I generally think organic is a waste of money. There's plenty of evidence for the former and not much against the latter.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions