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.
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Options
cee134
Posts: 33,711 Member
in Debate Club
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Yes or no? Please explain.
Yes or no? Please explain.
0
Replies
-
Probably. I don't.1
-
Most definitely. The vast majority of studies show no evidence of GMOs being the scary devil's fruit that the rabid extremes of hipster and new age cultures have made it out to be. A very small minority of people are affected by the so-called harms and generally suffer from underlying conditions that would be present even without GMOs, and the special snowflakes are yet again taking advantage of and trivializing others' medical conditions because it's a convenient and trendy way to elevate their sense of superiority.57
-
^^^^ this!2
-
I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.14 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
This is actually what bugs me about the other end of the spectrum where GMOs are concerned. Companies pushing for it to not be required, as if it'll decimate their consumer base. The number of people who eat potato chips really ought to demonstrate that labeling isn't a threat to their business, plus the companies that voluntarily disclose this information are generally perceived better by the public, even when the product isn't GMO-free.5 -
I don't because I would miss bananas.22
-
Yes, I think GMOs are unfairly bashed, and I think it's rooted in a lack of scientific literacy and understanding about genetic engineering. Here's the previous debate thread, I love all of @Aaron_K123 's points. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10407825/non-gmo-foods-arent-any-safer-or-healthier/p1
To me, the labeling is asinine. Why force labeling for GMOs and not force it for products from selective breeding (something that has ACTUALLY GOTTEN PEOPLE SICK BEFORE), mutation breeding (OMG RADIATION), or hybridization? Also, if labeling is forced, it should only be allowed for products that have potential to contain GMOs - slapping "GMO Free!!" on a bag of quinoa is capitalizing on fearmongering around GMOs, not actually educating the consumer.15 -
Who is we? I don't bash them, unfairly or otherwise.2
-
If you really want to be technical about the GMO's, practically everything we eat or can purchase in a grocery store, farmer's market or anywhere for that matter has been modified from the form that it had in the past - think selective breeding, cross-breeding, etc. The only real difference with GMO's is that the process takes a lot less time than nature.15
-
chocolate_owl wrote: »Yes, I think GMOs are unfairly bashed, and I think it's rooted in a lack of scientific literacy and understanding about genetic engineering. Here's the previous debate thread, I love all of @Aaron_K123 's points. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10407825/non-gmo-foods-arent-any-safer-or-healthier/p1
To me, the labeling is asinine. Why force labeling for GMOs and not force it for products from selective breeding (something that has ACTUALLY GOTTEN PEOPLE SICK BEFORE), mutation breeding (OMG RADIATION), or hybridization? Also, if labeling is forced, it should only be allowed for products that have potential to contain GMOs - slapping "GMO Free!!" on a bag of quinoa is capitalizing on fearmongering around GMOs, not actually educating the consumer.
Thanks for the tag. Yes I think that genetic engineering is getting an unfair bad reputation over this spreading and unfounded public fear of so-called "GMOs". I've discussed this topic enough I decided to write an article about it which later got picked up by Forbes. I'll link to that:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/#2698f2432fbc13 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.
I'm not concerned so much that science will get its feelings hurt, I'm concerned that senators and congressmen will demand unreasonable levels of oversight and defund current studies on the basis of an unwarranted witch-hunt fear-driven public response to internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that they are dangerous. I think fear is a dangerous thing especially when acted upon.18 -
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Yes or no? Please explain.
Roger that. Farmers are in it for the money, they really are. The public is easily confused by the loudest screamers. That's why we kill more cows because the public screamed against "pink slime". It would be cheaper to kill fewer cows and mix pink slime into the ground beef, but no, the public irrationally fears words like "pink slime". In the same way, the public has been taught to fear Genetically Modified Organisms, especially those grown from seeds produced by Monsanto. Every academic scientific analysis of every proposed GMO food has concluded that the food is safe for human consumption. Until the public learn what an organism is, their dog is a genetically modified organism, by the way, the farmers will continue to try to serve the market with more costly and more profitable genetically modified organisms which were genetically modified the old-fashioned way, by selective breeding.2 -
All most people know is that they are supposed to have a negative reaction to the term GMO, so that's what they go with.10
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.
I'm not concerned so much that science will get its feelings hurt, I'm concerned that senators and congressmen will demand unreasonable levels of oversight and defund current studies on the basis of an unwarranted witch-hunt fear-driven public response to internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that they are dangerous. I think fear is a dangerous thing especially when acted upon.
How do you think that danger compares to the risk of blanket, unquestioning approval prompted by competing internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that there's no danger whatsoever to any type of GMO because they read online that one of them was safe?
While we're at it, do you think hypotheticals like this are a good basis for legislation?4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.
I'm not concerned so much that science will get its feelings hurt, I'm concerned that senators and congressmen will demand unreasonable levels of oversight and defund current studies on the basis of an unwarranted witch-hunt fear-driven public response to internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that they are dangerous. I think fear is a dangerous thing especially when acted upon.
How do you think that danger compares to the risk of blanket, unquestioning approval prompted by competing internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that there's no danger whatsoever to any type of GMO because they read online that one of them was safe?
While we're at it, do you think hypotheticals like this are a good basis for legislation?
Um...honestly not sure what you are asking. I think you know the answer to both of those so I'm assuming you are trying to make a point about what I said or how I said it but I don't follow you. I could just answer what you asked directly but I assume you are insinuating something and want me to answer that insinuation but I don't follow what you are getting at it.
Answering you straight up: no I don't think unquestioned approval is a good idea. No I don't think hypotheticals are a good basis for legislation.7 -
extra_medium wrote: »All most people know is that they are supposed to have a negative reaction to the term GMO, so that's what they go with.
I've seen some interesting polls. Such and such percent of people are absolutely for labeling of foods containing GMOs. A fairly close number of people also want to label all foods containing DNA. Obviously, the largest problem we have is that most people don't understand basic science. People like Big Organic use that ignorance and terms that sound scary to sway these people to their side.
The problem with labeling a food as containing a "GMO" is that it's vague and doesn't really mean anything. It also costs companies money. Vermont enacted their labeling law earlier in the year. One of the biggest actions to come out of it was that many food companies pulled all or some of their products from the shelves there. That limits competition, at the very least.
Corn.org estimated that all American families would have spent about $1,050 more per year on groceries due to Vermont's law. Of course, a federal law was enacted that essentially pulled the rug out from beneath Vermont, and other states that might have followed in their footsteps, but it's important to consider the possible impact of these types of laws before we go willy-nilly telling companies to stick a nearly meaningless label on their products.
http://corn.org/cost-impact-of-vermonts-gmo-labeling-law-on-consumers-nationwide/
Quote: "The impact of Vermont’s mandatory law requiring on package labels for foods produced with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would increase food costs for consumers across the country due to the cost of the new labeling systems and because consumers will likely view the GMO labels as warnings, leading food companies to switch from GMO ingredients to more expensive non-GMO ingredients. Such costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Costs incurred by American food manufacturers to comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling mandate could lead to an increase of nearly 2 percent (1.76 percent) in average food prices nationwide in the first year. These higher grocery costs will likely continue in the years ahead with a total cost of approximately $13,250 per household over 20 years."7 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Yes, I think GMOs are unfairly bashed, and I think it's rooted in a lack of scientific literacy and understanding about genetic engineering. Here's the previous debate thread, I love all of @Aaron_K123 's points. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10407825/non-gmo-foods-arent-any-safer-or-healthier/p1
To me, the labeling is asinine. Why force labeling for GMOs and not force it for products from selective breeding (something that has ACTUALLY GOTTEN PEOPLE SICK BEFORE), mutation breeding (OMG RADIATION), or hybridization? Also, if labeling is forced, it should only be allowed for products that have potential to contain GMOs - slapping "GMO Free!!" on a bag of quinoa is capitalizing on fearmongering around GMOs, not actually educating the consumer.
All of this.
0 -
Yes. Read actual scientific studies and opinion on the subject.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions