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
Replies
-
Which tends to show how much it is not really about a right to know because a person that really wants to know about their food could already have learned, a molecule of sucrose doesn't change by coming from a GMO sugar beet or from an organic sugar cane plant.
Odd conundrum for anti-GMO vegans... sugar from cane is not vegan, but it is from beets.
There's been a huge boost to sustainable agriculture from GMO sugar beets, which require far less herbicide and yield much higher tonneage per acre than conventional beet seed. On top of that, hand-pulling has been eliminated by the GMO seed, meaning no longer do thousands of migrant workers toil in the sun for each summer (not are they exposed to high levels of pesticides and herbicides).
1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »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.
Can you explain how my dog is a GMO? Or are you using a definition for the term other than the common useage?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »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.
Can you explain how my dog is a GMO? Or are you using a definition for the term other than the common useage?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
Technically, by playing around with that definition, you could argue there is no GMO's - transgenic gene transfer happens in nature too. On the flip side, things that aren't usually required to be labeled GMO because they were done with forced adaptive mutagenesis could be argued as not occurring naturally, and thus should be GMO - so would include a number of "heirloom" organic seed stocks. In that sense, dogs are the result of mating a wolf-life ancestor repeatedly, but in a way that isn't natural either - it is humans selecting for desirable traits.
Usually it comes down to playing with GMO as a concept versus it as a set of words. In the literal sense, Genetically Modified Organisms are all organisms that aren't pure clones because all organisms have genes that are different than their parentage. Even if you take it one step further and say GMO means human intervention, again, dogs aren't the result of wolf like animals picking to mate only with members of their species that are more docile and affiliative with humans - it involves people picking them for traits, albeit by phenotype, rather than genotype.
Yeah, usually when people start talking about wide sweeping GMO they aren't talking about GMO as it's typically used.2 -
Yes - there is no scientific basis behind anti-GMO.
"...but we just don't know the impact" is not a logically valid statement.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Um...honestly not sure what you are asking.
You told me you're worried that legislators will cave into pressure and keep GMOs off the market based on a public response that's driven by fear and ignorance.
I replied that there's the equal and opposite danger that legislators will cave into pressure and all unregulated, unlabeled GMOs into the market based on a public response that's driven by apathy and ignorance.
You're right that I'm making a point. I think your objection was "I can imagine a bad thing happening if we follow this route" and that's not a good enough argument because I can imagine a bad thing happening if we go the other way instead.
Also, I'm not just pulling this out of my butt. A lot of people learn that a specific GMO food is safe, and think that means all GMO is safe. That's the bad thing I'm talking about; we learn that some GMOs are safe and we let our guard down, fail to test new ones adequately.1 -
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?
It's not about random unfounded blog posts. It's about the actual science being proven on the subject of GMO's. Not a valid comparison at all.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Um...honestly not sure what you are asking.
You told me you're worried that legislators will cave into pressure and keep GMOs off the market based on a public response that's driven by fear and ignorance.
I replied that there's the equal and opposite danger that legislators will cave into pressure and all unregulated, unlabeled GMOs into the market based on a public response that's driven by apathy and ignorance.
You're right that I'm making a point. I think your objection was "I can imagine a bad thing happening if we follow this route" and that's not a good enough argument because I can imagine a bad thing happening if we go the other way instead.
Also, I'm not just pulling this out of my butt. A lot of people learn that a specific GMO food is safe, and think that means all GMO is safe. That's the bad thing I'm talking about; we learn that some GMOs are safe and we let our guard down, fail to test new ones adequately.
Mine wasn't a hypothetical, that did happen. Congress passed a federal labeling law that was based off of public fear rather than a scientifically based concern for health. Every single other federally mandated labeling has scientific backing that it has a legitimate health risk to parts of the population (PKU, nuts etc) or that it has legitimate information pertaining to health (ie nutrition labels). This is neither of those, there is no backing to suggest that genetic engineering presents a health danger in and of itself nor is there any evidence that knowing something is GE gives you any information relevant to health in the sense of nutrition. This is unprecedented. That placed a stigma on genetic engineering that has a very real impact on funding. Not sure why you thought it was a hypothetical, it happened.
"Also, I'm not just pulling this out of my butt. A lot of people learn that a specific GMO food is safe, and think that means all GMO is safe"
Who said that? Can you point to an example of someone saying that? I don't think anyone believes that. If someone does believe that and you can point me to them I will tell them myself I think that is a foolish position to take. Otherwise its just a strawman. The thing you are apparently concerned by I don't think is an actual thing.
Is there anyone here who thinks that it would be impossible to produce a genetically engineered product that posed a health risk?
"That's the bad thing I'm talking about; we learn that some GMOs are safe and we let our guard down, fail to test new ones adequately."
Which ones have we failed to test adequately thusfar due to letting our guard down? You seem to be complaining that I produced a hypothetical despite what I said actually did happen...public concern about GMOs based on fears that were riled via internet blogging and not any sort of scientific backing led to legislation being passed. Now you are producing a hypothetical yourself, genetically engineered products not being tested for safety because they are just assumed to be safe by an ignorant overtrusting public....can you provide an example of that actually happening? Can you point to someone who thinks genetically engineered products shouldn't undergo the same safety requirements of any other food? Is there a current product on the market that didn't met those standards?
I can point to 5 different websites of people with hundreds of thousands of followers stating without question that GMO products are toxic and to be avoided. Threw in a couple more just because they kept coming, there are hundreds of these out there basically stiring the pot without actually backing their claims.
http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/
http://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/
http://foodbabe.com/tag/how-to-avoid-gmos/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx
https://www.organicconsumers.org/categories/genetic-engineering
http://www.wanttoknow.info/gmoinyourfood
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/home/
http://www.doctoroz.com/
Can you point to even one out there with any sort of popularity declaring all GMO products past present and future are safe and therefore no testing is necessary? Seriously, which one of these is a hypothetical here.
Public fear of GMOs based on unscientific rhetoric leading to actual laws being past is not a hypothetical, its already happened and it is a problem. The idea that if we accept some GMOs as safe that we will become complacent and then accept all GMOs as safe and then in the future one will end up causing harm IS a hypothetical and one you should justify past just claiming that it did not originate from your butt or the butt of a popular online blogger.19 -
My suggestion isn't to label what is GMO. Assume that it is GMO. Label what's NON GMO. Saves money on the labeling and the people who want to eat NON GMO can pay the extra cost.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
14 -
Almost every food we eat is a GMO - from apples to bananas; broccoli to carrots; grains to meat; legumes to pop tarts. Cross-pollination - intentional or unintentional has changed our food supply over the years. There are few foods available that aren't a GMO....I can't think of any, but I'm sure there has to be one or two with all the fuss.0
-
The Jewish community through their faith has strong beliefs about foods and apply those beliefs through labeling things as being Kosher. To get those labels they appeal to food producers to market to them by producing Kosher foods with a Kosher label. This is the way to go about that, you can have your beliefs supported in this way. If you and a large number of other people believe that foods that are in part produced using genetic engineering are something to avoid you can appeal to food producers to market to you by producing Non-GMO foods with a Non-GMO label. In fact this already happens, there is the Non-GMO Project which makes "Non-GMO verified" labels for foods. That is perfectly fine.
What is NOT fine is trying to federally mandate that any food that contains any product produced in part using genetic engineering is REQUIRED to have a label declaring it to be GMO. That would be like if the Jewish community demanded that the federal government require ALL foods be labeled as non-Kosher if they did not meet the standards of the Jewish community. It is, quite frankly, a ridiculous, over-entitled position to take and an abuse of government power to satisfy a segment of the populations personal beliefs. Doesn't even matter if that segment of the population is the majority, its still wrong to require labels as a mandate on the basis of feelings and beliefs.
If something is legitimately a hazard then it shouldn't even be on the shelf. This label requirement on the basis of people believing there is a hazard there is just odd. If they believe that shouldn't the call be to have them pulled off the shelf? Do they at some level recognize that there would have to be some sort of proof that they are hazardous so instead they are requesting labels?
Honestly the whole thing just kind of pisses me off and the fact that it has gotten the amount of traction that it has is appalling to me.21 -
Almost every food we eat is a GMO - from apples to bananas; broccoli to carrots; grains to meat; legumes to pop tarts. Cross-pollination - intentional or unintentional has changed our food supply over the years. There are few foods available that aren't a GMO....I can't think of any, but I'm sure there has to be one or two with all the fuss.
I work in the Ag industry.
GMO is not the same thing as cross-pollination
GMO is not the same thing as hybridization
GMO is created in a lab using high-tech techniques like GENE splicing. (Try doing that at your kitchen table! )
Example of GMO: genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather, thereby yielding a larger crop when the weather is less than favorable.
Example of Hybridization: The fertilization of the flower of one species by the pollen of another species-or artificial cross pollination.
If you're interested learning more about the difference, here's a link
http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos
3 -
Example of a plant that's been genetically-modified & now contains an animal gene:
Venomous cabbage
Genes from a scorpion tail are gene-spliced into a cabbage.
Why? So if a caterpillar bites into the cabbage, it is killed by the scorpion component.
"The toxin is fatal to the caterpillar, but the toxin is modified so it isn't harmful to humans."
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/venomous-cabbage#top-desktop
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v12/n2/full/7290120a.html
.1 -
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »Almost every food we eat is a GMO - from apples to bananas; broccoli to carrots; grains to meat; legumes to pop tarts. Cross-pollination - intentional or unintentional has changed our food supply over the years. There are few foods available that aren't a GMO....I can't think of any, but I'm sure there has to be one or two with all the fuss.
I work in the Ag industry.
GMO is not the same thing as cross-pollination
GMO is not the same thing as hybridization
GMO is created in a lab using high-tech techniques like GENE splicing. (Try doing that at your kitchen table! )
Example of GMO: genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather, thereby yielding a larger crop when the weather is less than favorable.
Example of Hybridization: The fertilization of the flower of one species by the pollen of another species-or artificial cross pollination.
If you're interested learning more about the difference, here's a link
http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos
I'm one of those people who took "genetically modified organism" and applied it to foods like bananas. I didn't realize seedless bananas in grocery stores were due to cross-pollination.2 -
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »Almost every food we eat is a GMO - from apples to bananas; broccoli to carrots; grains to meat; legumes to pop tarts. Cross-pollination - intentional or unintentional has changed our food supply over the years. There are few foods available that aren't a GMO....I can't think of any, but I'm sure there has to be one or two with all the fuss.
I work in the Ag industry.
GMO is not the same thing as cross-pollination
GMO is not the same thing as hybridization
GMO is created in a lab using high-tech techniques like GENE splicing. (Try doing that at your kitchen table! )
Example of GMO: genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather, thereby yielding a larger crop when the weather is less than favorable.
Example of Hybridization: The fertilization of the flower of one species by the pollen of another species-or artificial cross pollination.
If you're interested learning more about the difference, here's a link
http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos
Mutation breeding is considered non-GMO too, but I'd like to see you do that on your kitchen table too.
Or rather don't, because handling radioactive materials or mutagenic chemicals might actually cause you harm.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Also, I'm not just pulling this out of my butt. A lot of people learn that a specific GMO food is safe, and think that means all GMO is safe. That's the bad thing I'm talking about; we learn that some GMOs are safe and we let our guard down, fail to test new ones adequately.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Um...honestly not sure what you are asking.
Couldn't you say the same for any other process, though? We learn that some pasteurized products are safe and fail to test the new ones.
How much research should it take on a process before we stop requiring testing? Or should all new products have required testing anyway?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions