Are GMOs bad for you?

sydney_bosque wrote: »

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.

There are plenty of professions that require you to study these subjects, except maybe the GMO processes. That doesn't make every doctor, nurse, dentist, or lab tech is qualified to give advice on whether GMOs are safe. But you are not the only scientist on these boards, and most of the ones here, from what I can see, agree with the general scientific consensus that GMOs are fine.

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

Your direct quote was:

But from what I have studied, GMOs are not safe.

This implies that you have studied them in depth and that you have developed a definitive opinion based on your research that GMOs are not 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".

This a conspiracy theory. You shouldn't use statements like this this to support your argument, because they only serve to discredit you.

And there is literally nothing "without risk". Everything we do has some level of risk attached. My Honda is deemed a "safe" vehicle, but I know if I get hit by a drunk driver and go careening off of the Golden Gate Bridge, that safety rating isn't going to mean very much.

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 can't say much about this, but perhaps some of the other more qualified posters in this forum can respond.

I can say that I've heard enough from reliable sources to not be too worried about it. So yay.

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.

Okay? This is why many feel like requiring a label on GMO products is a bad idea. Consumers don't understand what it really means, and marketers will just find loopholes to the labels. And the hysteria around GMOs is unwarranted in the first place. It should be a non-issue.

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.

It is my understanding that Monsanto created many of these crops in the first place, so I mean, it makes sense to me that they'd want to protect what they created. Monsanto may have some shady business practices, but that is another topic of discussion and in no way speaks to the safety of consuming GMO crops.

Either way, my point stands that a starving child is not going to care AT ALL what Monsanto's business practices are. They don't have that luxury, like we in the first world do.

Farms can also be sued if their corn is pollinated 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.

This was addressed above.

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.

The goal of a business is to make money. It doesn't matter if it's a small-time farmer who is trying to keep his family fed or a Fortune 500 company.

And what you say may be true for the corporation as a whole, but the scientists who spent years in college, who are up to their eyeballs in debt, who work for next to nothing for years as techs and assistants, working crazy hours with no social life? The human beings who make up the company are not inherently evil. Those scientists went to work doing something that they believe in, just like you did. They didn't immediately don their black trench coats and monocles, and grow handlebar moustaches to become mad scientists working for a greedy corporation.

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?

Meh. I believe pesticides today are safer than they were in, say, the 70s. And my parents rinsed off their commercially grown produce and ate them, and are not eaten up with pesticide-induced cancer, soo....

I happily rinse off my WalMart apples and eat them. Feed them to my kids, too. We do like to support our local farmers as well, but I have no qualms about feeding my family commercially grown produce.

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

Yeah, you've really driven this point home.

But you are not the only person with a degree on these boards, and you're not the only person able to give a qualified opinion on this subject. I'm glad that you have your beliefs, and please feel free to live your life according to them. But that does not mean that you are factually correct, and I feel that using that appeal to authority ("I know more, I have a degree in this stuff - listen to me!") is a little offensive. Not only to people like myself who have developed informed opinions based off of current research, but also to those with degrees in other fields of scientific study who have responded with very tactful and knowledgeable responses to your comments.

It has not been proven. They have paid scientists who have a vested interest in the GMO market. My opinion is that it can't be coincidental that food allergies have risen sharply since the introduction of GMO products, the same for mental illness,and gastrointestinal problems. Now that they have begin labeling most GMO items I choose to avoid them as much as possible. Unless they are able to prove GMO's to be harmless beyond a shadow of a doubt and prove it with scientific evidence from some completely independent source who has nothing to gain from the GMO market then I will MAYBE reconsider. As of right now? I do NOT trust them.

finny11122 wrote: »

Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer . And humans are mammals . So eat them or not , the choice is yours at the end of the day .

Can you link to these tests? I'm assuming it's written down somewhere.

finny11122 wrote: »

Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer . And humans are mammals . So eat them or not , the choice is yours at the end of the day .

Rats and mice are mammals. There are lots of clinical tests (especially with cancer) that applied to them that doesn't apply to humans.



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