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.