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.
Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »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?
But we aren't talking about testing the process, we're talking about testing the product. And yes, the new product needs to be tested because it may not do what it was designed to do.
Contrary to popular belief, one does not simply pick out a gene from one organism, insert it into another and voila - you are 100% guaranteed that it is properly regulated, transcribed, translated, the protein folds correctly and is post-translationally modified in the way one expected. Even with the precision of CRISPR-CAS, the resulting correctly modified organism may not perform as expected because we don't have perfect understanding of the target system as a whole*. Of course, the more thoroughly the source and target organisms are known, and the more simple and targeted the modification, the more likely a modification will be successful and have only the effect we intend.
Mind you, the usual result of a modification failing is simply that whatever you trait you wanted just doesn't get expressed, or it turns out that your modification interferes with another process in the target organism and you get sub-standard performance.
What you'd test for is the possibility that your modification might have had an unintended effect. For example, say you were modifying a potato and as an unintended consequence your modification increased solanine production to toxic levels across the board. Frankly, this is the kind of thing that happens occasionally even with standard breeding practices. It still warrants testing.
*If anyone is interested in an example, see: HuMouse development, history of. It's a whole series of modifications with unexpected consequences to the target organism. The current HuMouse immune system still does not function exactly like a human's - but it is a lot closer.
Agree with all of this. Are you in the biological sciences? You sound like you know your stuff.
Yes. I'm a computational biologist.
I started with the PhD in microbiology and molecular genetics and later got an MS in computer science. Been a long time since I worked in a lab*, but my thesis project included months of nothing but round after round of cloning and characterizing 'randomly' generated point mutations targeted to a particular region of a protein.
*To give you an idea, my 2nd rotation was working with anthrax when labs that did still had problems getting funding.
Very cool. The advent of high throughput sequencing and proteomics has really given bioinformations and computational biology a bit of a boom time. My PhD is in molecular biology with graduate work focused on protein engineering. Currently I work as a microbiologist in a non-profit focused on drug discovery and development. I am technically a lab scientist but as my career has progressed I've moved more and more away from the bench and into a more desk/management type of role. I get into the lab now and again but not as much as I used to.
My graduate work was a bit similar to what your lab work was from the sounds of it, I used a computational rational design approach to predict thermostabilizing mutations in proteins. My work was the first time such an approach was used to successfully thermostablize an enzyme without negatively affecting its function. After publishing the enzyme I created was picked up by a company and developed into a gene therapy for glioblastoma that is currently in clinical trials.
It really has.
When I was looking for a long term job I was fortunate enough to find a group that was really making strides with microarray and ready to believe that someone could bring that kind of data together with graph theory for their benefit.
I hear you on the changing work. I used to be so busy analyzing data I hardly had time to really think. Now I'm stuck with a bunch of IT and data management and the junior personnel run already developed analysis pipelines and packages.
ETA: forgot to add. Your thesis sounds much more interesting than mine was. Sometimes I wish I'd stuck to the 1st project I chose - studying transcription in H. salinarum. But there were a couple of labs that turned out to be way ahead of me so I chose a safer and much more boring project. Oh well.
I'm proud of my graduate work, but I also realize I got lucky. Science seems to be 5% skill and 95% choosing the right project in the right place at the right time.
Thermostabilizing an enzyme https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15879217 goes to suggesting it might be used in gene therapy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18291415 goes to development of it into a gene therapy for cancer
http://tocagen.com/our-science/
I'm not part of that company at all nor do I recieve any acknowledgement or royalty because we published our work openly without patents but "Toca 511" uses the protein I produced in my graduate work. They took it and developed it into a product though which is no small feat so I'm not trying to undermine or downplay their involvement. Kind of crazy to see that happen, that company is basically based on something I made. (Not there there is an "I" in science, its always a "we" I'm not trying to claim it was all me, it was my project and I drove it forward but couldn't have done it without support of my advisors and lab).
Reason I'm bringing this up at all in this thread is to point out that I have personal experience using genetic engineering in a way to help develop a therapeutic that got picked up and developed by a company that is now in clinical trials for glioblastoma and is currently being used to treat people that previously had no hope for survival. Yet somehow I don't work for Monsanto, imagine that. That is why this anti-GE stance pisses me off.
Excellent. I had a very good friend die from glioblastoma.
Most of the work done where I am now is vaccine and therapeutics development and research. I don't think people realize how large a role genetic engineering plays and how crippled medical research would be if we were no longer able to use it and its products.
The focus of the institute I work at is mainly vaccine and diagnostic development, I just happen to work in the one drug development group. I'd link to where I work but not sure that is the best idea in the word knowing what people on the internet can sometimes be like (not you personally, just putting it out there makes me a bit nervous). Probably said to much already on that front. my username on here used to have my last name in it and I learned quickly that wasn't a good idea.
It isn't just that - it's also that if you did so, any thing you post here could potentially come back to haunt you at work. All it takes is one joke, and a disgruntled co-worker ...
I don't ever bring up specifics on my workplace, either. Granted, I may be scarred from years of HR classes in how (not to) handle media outlets and the consequences for doing so.
Yeah I take a risk doing this and its possibly stupid on my part.1 -
And now any scientist could locate you.
I say too much but avoid mentioning my political positions. They're far more likely to get me into trouble with some people than my professional opinions.
Interesting aside, I am a chemist, and I worked in a commercial microbiology lab for awhile. It was most educational.2 -
And now any scientist could locate you.
I say too much but avoid mentioning my political positions. They're far more likely to get me into trouble with some people than my professional opinions.
Interesting aside, I am a chemist, and I worked in a commercial microbiology lab for awhile. It was most educational.
Yeah I want to share because I want to be open and friendly especially when it adds something to the conversation, but that can be a mistake for sure. I'm basically relying on people to be sane and respectful or at least for me to be not worth the time of some crazy. On the internet can't really count on that.2 -
tamms_1965 wrote: »My real problem with some GMOs is the fact that they're engineered to stand up to large amounts of pesticides. I don't want any extra Roundup on my plate.
Rather an uninformed statement, IMHO. You do realize, of course, that foods labeled as organic are also grown with pesticides? In addition, many of these "approved" pesticides are actually more toxic than Round Up and need to be used more often since they are usually not as effective.
I love a big dose of Pyrethrum in the morning (I think that's the trade name? I dunno, we analyzed for the individual isomers, so...)2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »And now any scientist could locate you.
I say too much but avoid mentioning my political positions. They're far more likely to get me into trouble with some people than my professional opinions.
Interesting aside, I am a chemist, and I worked in a commercial microbiology lab for awhile. It was most educational.
Yeah I want to share because I want to be open and friendly especially when it adds something to the conversation, but that can be a mistake for sure. I'm basically relying on people to be sane and respectful or at least for me to be not worth the time of some crazy. On the internet can't really count on that.
I fully support this stance. This is something my colleagues and I have been fighting for years - the anonymity and subsequent heated rhetoric that follows. I would prefer to let my biases and stances known - this leads to challenging and a review of my perception on matters. I have lost a few government contracts not toeing the line, but I would rather be out a few bucks than have my integrity compromised.
Also something I have noticed is that people rarely if ever get upset at something they know to be false, so if you get a rise out of someone it is because they know its true.2 -
For those of you out there who aren't scientists, but who want to be properly informed when it comes to nutrition and issues such as this (myself included), let me once again plug Alan Aragon. The below is a great article on the mess that has been made by the fitness industry and how the informed can help.
http://rippedbody.com/charlatans-fitness-industry/3 -
I saw a video a while ago, two sweet corn, one organic and one gmo. They put them out in the forest. By the end of the day. The organic corn got eaten. The gmo one was left with few bites only.
I don't need studies. I believe animals know better.2 -
I saw a video a while ago, two sweet corn, one organic and one gmo. They put them out in the forest. By the end of the day. The organic corn got eaten. The gmo one was left with few bites only.
I don't need studies. I believe animals know better.
Well, I saw a video that showed that squirrels cannot tell the difference. They ate both the same.1 -
I saw a video a while ago, two sweet corn, one organic and one gmo. They put them out in the forest. By the end of the day. The organic corn got eaten. The gmo one was left with few bites only.
I don't need studies. I believe animals know better.
Well, I saw a video that showed that squirrels cannot tell the difference. They ate both the same.
Well, I guess it's a personal reference then, I'll eat the organic and you eat the GMO.2 -
I saw a video a while ago, two sweet corn, one organic and one gmo. They put them out in the forest. By the end of the day. The organic corn got eaten. The gmo one was left with few bites only.
I don't need studies. I believe animals know better.
It's a good thing I'm a human, and I'm smarter than other animals.2 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I saw a video a while ago, two sweet corn, one organic and one gmo. They put them out in the forest. By the end of the day. The organic corn got eaten. The gmo one was left with few bites only.
I don't need studies. I believe animals know better.
It's a good thing I'm a human, and I'm smarter than other animals.
Some animals eat poop. I'm glad I'm smarter than an animal.9 -
Depending on the GMO, isn't "not getting eaten by rodents and other things" the whole purpose?0
-
Haha. No humans are NOT smarter than animals. If we were smarter we wouldn't be lining up for junk food.
1 -
Haha. No humans are NOT smarter than animals. If we were smarter we wouldn't be lining up for junk food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1MkBNoCnfc 7 -
Anvil_Head wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I saw a video a while ago, two sweet corn, one organic and one gmo. They put them out in the forest. By the end of the day. The organic corn got eaten. The gmo one was left with few bites only.
I don't need studies. I believe animals know better.
It's a good thing I'm a human, and I'm smarter than other animals.
Some animals eat poop. I'm glad I'm smarter than an animal.
As do some humans...
3 -
jillybeansalad wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I saw a video a while ago, two sweet corn, one organic and one gmo. They put them out in the forest. By the end of the day. The organic corn got eaten. The gmo one was left with few bites only.
I don't need studies. I believe animals know better.
It's a good thing I'm a human, and I'm smarter than other animals.
Some animals eat poop. I'm glad I'm smarter than an animal.
As do some humans...
Glad I'm smarter than some humans too.
As to animals being smarter than humans, proof positive they aren't is that they haven't learned to cook/eat bacon yet. Mmm, bacon.
7 -
jillybeansalad wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I saw a video a while ago, two sweet corn, one organic and one gmo. They put them out in the forest. By the end of the day. The organic corn got eaten. The gmo one was left with few bites only.
I don't need studies. I believe animals know better.
It's a good thing I'm a human, and I'm smarter than other animals.
Some animals eat poop. I'm glad I'm smarter than an animal.
As do some humans...
Those humans are usually institutionalized.1 -
tamms_1965 wrote: »My real problem with some GMOs is the fact that they're engineered to stand up to large amounts of pesticides. I don't want any extra Roundup on my plate.
Rather an uninformed statement, IMHO. You do realize, of course, that foods labeled as organic are also grown with pesticides? In addition, many of these "approved" pesticides are actually more toxic than Round Up and need to be used more often since they are usually not as effective.
Yes, I am aware of it. I'm not an expert but i do have two science degrees and worked in food safety for a large food processor. I will not eat ultraprocessed or anything with soy or corn syrup in it. It has just never set well with me....it's a personal choice. Nor do I go around preaching the evils of GMOs.....some are great (insulin-producing bacteria for one). People in my family live well into their 90s (my grandpa will be 99 at Christmas and is still in great health), so I'm having what he's having! I also live in a farming community. Some farmers admit to using more than needed pesticides because it won't kill the crops. My friend's entire garden was destroyed by her husband's over zealous spraying in a neighboring field. Luckily, the younger farmer next to me uses responsibly and has completely stopped crop dusting as well. Funny thing is growing up, my family nor my grandparents/great grandparents used any 'store bought' gardening helpers and always managed to have loads of food. An older farmer friend (2000 acres) has decided to semiretire this year. After paying for the special seeds, fertilizer, and roundup, there's not much left he says. He's going to continue his hybrid sweet corn and wheat production, but give up the field corn and soybean.
I'm not trying to sell my way of thinking or start a side debate......they're tiring and I really don't give enough of a kitten to do so. I've got hot sauce to can and a turkey to roast. But the older I get, the less I tend to put my faith in interpretations of "science." I still believe in science though! I just don't think it's the end all. It's arrogant to think that we as humans know it all. I try to keep an open mind, but I'd rather go with my own version eating healthy.
I avoid it all and grow my own. Have a great week!
Signed a practical, slim, 50ish, medfree, expat wife who is queen of her kingdom
1 -
I haven't read all posts yet so I don't know if this has been addressed. A lot of products have been altered so that certain weedkillers can be used without killing the plant. (Roundup) This means we can pour more chemicals into the environment. I can't believe this will ultimately prove beneficial.
I was raised on a farm. 50 years ago farmers routinely sprayed crops with DDT and the local agricultural groups saw nothing wrong with it. They even encouraged it. What we are doing now in agriculture may prove to be the 21st century DDT.2 -
I haven't read all posts yet so I don't know if this has been addressed. A lot of products have been altered so that certain weedkillers can be used without killing the plant. (Roundup) This means we can pour more chemicals into the environment. I can't believe this will ultimately prove beneficial.
They don't use more chemicals, they actually use fewer (but different) chemicals, and the new chemicals they use are safer to humans.
Chemical weed control has been the norm for almost sixty years now for large-scale farming operations. What Roundup-ready crops do is allow farmers to use a safer, easier chemical control (glyphosate) instead of the cocktails of chemicals needed to achieve broad-spectrum weed control without GMO crops. Glyphosate is also very safe for animals, including humans, as all animals entirely lack the metabolic pathway targeted by glyphosate.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions