Are GMOs bad for you?

sydney_bosque wrote: »

According to science, we really don't know.

"Science" has repeatedly declared GMOs safe. Here's a 606-page report comprehensively reviewing available evidence. https://www.nap.edu/download/23395

Here's a snippet from the introduction:
"There have been claims that GE crops have had adverse effects on human health. Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee re-examined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops."

However, the reason we don't know is because they haven't been around long enough for us to know if there are any long-term affects or not.

GMOs have been available to the public for 3 decades and have been tested for nearly half a century. How much more time do you need to find long term effects?

GMOs are responsible for higher gluten in grains, and the main goal is to increase shelf-life and yield, usually at the cost of flavor and nutrition profiles.

Seeing as how GMO wheat and rice are not available for human consumption, I'm not sure how GMOs are responsible for higher gluten in grains.

I would recommend organic because organic legally cannot be GMO.

But it can have more pesticides on it than a GMO crop. Choose what's important to you.

A genetically-modified organism is something that has genes inserted into it that could never happen in nature.

This isn't necessarily true. As mentioned before, each GMO is different and should be taken on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, genetic engineering is a shortcut. We could get there eventually by selective breeding or even evolution, but this way is more efficient and actually safer because no undesired, potentially poisonous traits are being bred in.

My guess is that no, in the long run, it's not good for you. Maybe not apocalypse bad, but definitely not as good as something natural.

Your guess doesn't align with the evidence we have available. My guess is we'll be fine.

Yes . Organic food is just food . GMO is the new kid on the block . If organic food is the choice of royalty and the wealthy it's going to be my choice . It's hard to avoid it all these days but abit of shopping effort goes a long way .

Humans have been selectively breeding traits what we found increased yield or resistance to certain disease or allowed for less water for hundreds of years.

GMO's are nothing more than selective breeding 2.0

finny11122 wrote: »

Yes . Organic food is just food . GMO is the new kid on the block . If organic food is the choice of royalty and the wealthy it's going to be my choice . It's hard to avoid it all these days but abit of shopping effort goes a long way .

So your argument for GMOs being bad is that rich people eat organic? That's a bit of a non-sequitur. I think it's more likely rich people eat organic because it's trendy, they hear it's good for you, and they have the money to spend. I hardly think rich people are eating organic purely to avoid GMOs:
-Almost every fruit and veg you buy in a grocery store is non-GMO because GMO versions aren't available or approved. Unless rich people are existing on squash, potatoes, papayas, and apples, they're buying organic for more reasons than GMO concerns.
-There are reasons to buy organic meat and dairy apart from if it's been fed GMO corn or soy. Environmental impact, not supporting factory farming, and flavor all come to mind.
-The main places you're going to encounter GMOs are in oils and highly processed foods. If you're concerned about nutrient density and an overall healthful diet, you're probably being selective about what and how much you consume already.

I think it's worth noting here that "GMO FREE!" labels are very misleading because a lot of the products boasting this label are only doing so because they think it will boost sales, not because there is a GMO version of that product.

It's also worth noting that "organic" encompasses a wide spectrum. "Certified Organic" still allows 5% of contents to be additives and preservatives. "Made with Organic" allows 30%. Crops can still use (organic) pesticides and be picked shortly after the pesticides are applied. Sometimes "organic" means grass-fed; other times it means a cow in a feedlot being fed organic grain. Because the yields are lower, certain organic crops require more land and can have a bigger environmental impact than their conventional counterparts. "Organic" is not an instant "good for you" stamp - if you really are concerned about the quality of your food, you should select your sources thoughtfully.

sydney_bosque wrote: »

According to science, we really don't know. However, the reason we don't know is because they haven't been around long enough for us to know if there are any long-term affects or not. GMOs are responsible for higher gluten in grains, and the main goal is to increase shelf-life and yield, usually at the cost of flavor and nutrition profiles. I would recommend organic because organic legally cannot be GMO. A genetically-modified organism is something that has genes inserted into it that could never happen in nature. My guess is that no, in the long run, it's not good for you. Maybe not apocalypse bad, but definitely not as good as something natural.

No. We know beyond all reasonable doubt that there is no difference other than productive yield.

Non-GMO, organic, whatever the next marketing woo is no more than that - a marketing pitch for the willfully misinformed. More power to those with disposable income to afford what amounts to a placebo.

Any gene can be transposed in nature and this requires no manipulation. The scientific community has been aware of this since 1974. Genetic engineering simply chooses the desired traits for a more favorable outcome.

dmelvin3737 wrote: »

Humans have been selectively breeding traits what we found increased yield or resistance to certain disease or allowed for less water for hundreds of years.

GMO's are nothing more than selective breeding 2.0

Selective breeding =/= gene splicing.

I avoid all GMO foods as best I can, because I don't trust that genetic modifications are being done for my benefit, they are being done with a profit motive and that can and has led to shortcuts being taken, negative results being covered up etc. I don't eat corn or soy or any of their derivatives to begin with and I rarely eat packaged or processed foods so I'm not likely to run across any GMO foods anyway.

JohnnyPenso wrote: »

dmelvin3737 wrote: »

Humans have been selectively breeding traits what we found increased yield or resistance to certain disease or allowed for less water for hundreds of years.

GMO's are nothing more than selective breeding 2.0

Selective breeding =/= gene splicing.

I avoid all GMO foods as best I can, because I don't trust that genetic modifications are being done for my benefit, they are being done with a profit motive and that can and has led to shortcuts being taken, negative results being covered up etc. I don't eat corn or soy or any of their derivatives to begin with and I rarely eat packaged or processed foods so I'm not likely to run across any GMO foods anyway.

And you think crops produced through selective breeding are somehow different in this regard?

And I'm not sure how trying to produce varieties of crops which are more productive, use less water, or can grow on more marginal lands are not to the benefit of us all, despite the profit motive. Not that there is anything wrong with making a profit. I'm not under the false impression that Whole Foods or producers growing organic crops are somehow a charity either.

We will all know for sure in 30 years

When the really smart people examining food find something to warn me about, they will. Until then, the people complaining are not complaining about something that is actually real. Enjoy your cheap food.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

sydney_bosque wrote: »

My guess comes from my degree in horticulture having studied plant genetics and heirloom vegetable breeding. You may guess that we will be fine. Science may tell us we should fall within respectable risk levels. But from what I have studied, GMOs are not safe. Many things have been thought safe, only to be proven very harmful later on. I don't think it's wise to put yourself in a position willingly to be a lab rat for unknown variables.

Is a degree in horticulture equivalent to a degree in biology, chemistry, physiology, nutrition, genetics, engineering, and epidemiology combined?

Because if not, I don't see how you can say definitively "GMOs are not safe." You are a plant expert, not a human body expert.

*ETA: I'd love to see the vehemently anti-GMO people tell a starving child in Africa "you know, that GMO corn is really not good for you - you should starting buying organic."

Considering it requires you to study biology, chemistry, genetics, and the actual GMO processes, I would say I have a more educated view on them than most who have replied here. My certification in commercial/agricultural pesticide application also helps me understand it better.

I didn't say, "GMOs are not safe". I said, "According to science, we really don't know if GMOs are safe."

And that is completely true. Most studies who say they are safe are conducted by the manufacturers of GMO corn. There are many harmful substances they insert into corn. And "safe" does not mean "without risk".

And there are many other problems with it beyond just safety. There's the creation of super-bugs and super-weeds. Genes that were meant to make corn round-up ready that breed with the weeds and create round-up ready weeds. Which warrants the production of new, harsher herbicides.

There's also the bioaccumulation factor. Organic growers generally can't spray anything that poses a threat to pollinators. Commercial, non-organic growers have no such limitations. This can spread insecticides and fungicides through other organisms that bioaccumulate in larger organisms, like birds and mice. And then that spreads and grows in toxicity.

I'm not saying organic growers are perfect, by any means. And the label has been used as a marketing scheme by many. There's also a lot of "non-GMO" labels that are very misleading. Of course your tuna is non-GMO, because we don't' have GMO tuna. It couldn't be GMO if it tried.

As far as the GMO crops in Africa, it's all profit-based. They aren't doing it from the kindness of their heart. They put a sterilization modification into them. They sign contracts saying they will only buy GMO crops from a certain manufacturer, (Monsanto), and then copyright laws prohibit them from saving seeds and continuing to grow the crops for themselves. They are legally bound to buy the crop each year from Monsanto. And if the crop happens to cross with any nearby crops that aren't Monsanto, the sterilization gene also crosses, sterilizing those nearby crops.

Farms can also be sued if their corn is polinated by GMO corn. As the term of copyright on GMO crops is 17 years, it's technically theft if your crop contains genetic material of a genetically modified crop. But, since corn pollen can travel 30-50 miles in farm country, which has no trees and lots of wind, that leaves them in the position to sue small farms for theft of copyrighted goods, or they can force them to pay royalties for a crop that wasn't even GMO to begin with.

Nothing about GMO is because people want to make the world a better place. It is all profit driven. And all the studies saying they are no different than organic methods are written by the people who have a direct interest in GMO profit. Organic growers, especially local organic growers, have been shown to be more nutrient dense.

And, washing the produce gets rid of any residue anyways. Besides the fact that organic produce is required to use pesticides that disintegrate within 45 days of harvest. Plus, they are usually made by natural, organic methods. Meaning even if you did ingest the pesticides, it's likely a natural pesticide that was never harmful to begin with.

Most local, organic growers use vinegar to kill weeds. So, yeah, you may have lettuce with vinegar residue. And studies will label it a "harsh chemical" because it does kill everything it comes in contact with. But would you rather eat vinegar residue, or residue from a pesticide they won't release the ingredients of?

But, what do I know? I only have a degree in this stuff.