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 GMOs bad for you?
Replies
-
GMOs have TONS of pesticides on them (since they're made to be resistant, so farmers spray them more now than ever) that AREN'T good for us and many are known to cause cancer.
You are what you eat. If you're eating food with modified genes, what do you think that will do to your DNA? Is that a risk you want to take?
Ridiculous. Most grown foods have TONS of pesticides on them. Organic produce usually uses more, actually, because they are less effective than synthetic pesticides.
Also, please tell me how eating food alters ones DNA.6 -
GMOs have TONS of pesticides on them (since they're made to be resistant, so farmers spray them more now than ever) that AREN'T good for us and many are known to cause cancer.
You are what you eat. If you're eating food with modified genes, what do you think that will do to your DNA? Is that a risk you want to take?
Your post contradicts itself. Very impressive batch of woo here.
Curious - What do you think eating food with modified genes will do to your DNA? Is that a risk?3 -
GMOs have TONS of pesticides on them (since they're made to be resistant, so farmers spray them more now than ever) that AREN'T good for us and many are known to cause cancer.
You are what you eat. If you're eating food with modified genes, what do you think that will do to your DNA? Is that a risk you want to take?
7 -
GMOs have TONS of pesticides on them (since they're made to be resistant, so farmers spray them more now than ever) that AREN'T good for us and many are known to cause cancer.
You are what you eat. If you're eating food with modified genes, what do you think that will do to your DNA? Is that a risk you want to take?
"You are what you eat" isn't a prediction based on science, it's just a folk saying.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GMOs have TONS of pesticides on them (since they're made to be resistant, so farmers spray them more now than ever) that AREN'T good for us and many are known to cause cancer.
You are what you eat. If you're eating food with modified genes, what do you think that will do to your DNA? Is that a risk you want to take?
"You are what you eat" isn't a prediction based on science, it's just a folk saying.
Pfft, obviously you've never met this guy.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GMOs have TONS of pesticides on them (since they're made to be resistant, so farmers spray them more now than ever) that AREN'T good for us and many are known to cause cancer.
You are what you eat. If you're eating food with modified genes, what do you think that will do to your DNA? Is that a risk you want to take?
"You are what you eat" isn't a prediction based on science, it's just a folk saying.
Pfft, obviously you've never met this guy.
That is . . . mesmerizing.1 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0-Ds6Cioc
I suppose this geneticist knows nothing according to the pro GMO gang .0 -
finny11122 wrote: »https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0-Ds6Cioc
I suppose this geneticist knows nothing according to the pro GMO gang .
Lol! That's David Suzuki, who's never actually studied GMO foods (his background is zoology) and made a fortune in the '90s selling books about spiritual healing.
I have no stance on GMOs, having never studied them myself or cared enough to read any related science, but if you're citing David Suzuki, you're really grasping at straws. Even he doesn't say, "They're dangerous." His whole point is that there could maybe be unintended consequences.
But his primary argument is that Monsanto is evil, which I have no disagreement with. Handing our food supply over to a handful of multinationals is dumb and dangerous. That doesn't make the food itself dangerous, which is why Suzuki doesn't claim that.
Really, you should watch the video you posted and read between the lines. It's all in there.13 -
Yeah, pretty much standard for me is that if Suzuki is against it, it can't be all bad. He has learned how to make money off of scaring people. Used to be okay and his CBC tv show the Nature of Things is not terrible, but getting going on any of the hot topics and he falls flat on his face. Especially if the audience is not vetted first.5
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
But it can have more pesticides on it than a GMO crop. Choose what's important to you.-I would recommend organic because organic legally cannot be GMO.
No, it can't. It still has to fall within specific organic-approved pesticides.
The organic label simply dictates what kinds of pesticides you can use, not how much of them. So yes, organic food can have more pesticides on it than gmo. BTW. many of which are acutely more toxic to humans by volume than the evil roundup used on GMOs. With a degree in horticulture you should know those things.
No, an organic certification means your pesticide use is under constant regulation. You are subject to surprise inspections, and stricter quality tests.
Many commercial growers that don't apply for organic certification are only inspected every 3-5 years. And hardly ever subjected to quality control. You may think they apply less because they say they do. But I have seen growers put 5x the amount of legal pesticide on a crop.
And yes, my degree in horticulture, plus my commercial/agricultural pesticide applicator's license gives me insight into this issue.
This just isn't true.
You have plenty of farms that grow organic right next to non-organic- and no one is under constant regulation.
All are subject to surprise inspections and once certified organic there isn't that much more oversight. The USDA and FDA can't camp out at farms. They don't have the manpower.
5 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »You had nothing factually related to THIS GMO discussion and posted a bunch of unrelated charts to try to make me think I should not hold my opinion. The fact is there is NO solid proof on GMO products either way. If you like them then go ahead and eat them. I choose not to eat this sort of thing and you are just going to have to accept that.
Read the thread- multiple studies- extensive studies are linked saying they are safe. Solid proof that they are safe.
You don't have to eat anything you don't want to but ignoring good science and giving ancedata as much credence is misleading and blatantly false.9 -
finny11122 wrote: »I heard farmers say animals would not eat the GMO feed .
No.GMOs have TONS of pesticides on them (since they're made to be resistant, so farmers spray them more now than ever) that AREN'T good for us and many are known to cause cancer.
You are what you eat. If you're eating food with modified genes, what do you think that will do to your DNA? Is that a risk you want to take?
Eating food can in no way affect your DNA.
The only way DNA is changed is replication errors/mutations.6 -
Just ate organic dinner . I feel at one with mother Gaia . It's amazing .
Brothers and sisters of the natural organic world unite !
1 -
finny11122 wrote: »Just ate organic dinner . I feel at one with mother Gaia . It's amazing .
Brothers and sisters of the natural organic world unite !
I guess I'll go have a double quarter pounder with cheese and large french fries just to keep the world in balance. And to feel at one with Brother Ronald.14 -
finny11122 wrote: »Just ate organic dinner . I feel at one with mother Gaia . It's amazing .
Brothers and sisters of the natural organic world unite !
I guess I'll go have a double quarter pounder with cheese and large french fries just to keep the world in balance. And to feel at one with Brother Ronald.
I'm in.3 -
Just a couple of notes as someone with a little experience in the field:
1. Not all studies funded by industry (but conducted by a university or other outside organization) are inherently bad or biased, vice versa for independent studies. Research conducted BY industry can be tricky, but again not all of it is bad. The best thing to do would be to look at the journal it's published in and the history of the researchers involved. Is it a respectable, high-impact journal like Science, Nature, PLOS One, PNAS, etc? Are the researchers known for high-quality work? Then it's probably ok.
2. GMO is a tool. Saying all GMOs are bad is like saying all face creams are bad. Each GMO does something different. Some aim to reduce herbicide use, some make corn sweeter, some improve flavor and storage time, others provide protection from insect damage. Some even produce Bt, which is a commonly used organic pesticide with high selectivity for caterpillars.
3. Farmers aren't made of gold, and pesticides are expensive. Even using small amounts of the industrial versions (aka the stuff the farmers use not what you buy at stores) for research can get $$$ (although most companies will donate material for research if you ask). Farmers are probably not wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on herbicides/pesticides if they don't need to due to GMO crops (which are also not necessarily cheap).
4. Agricultural companies are not evil. Yes, they want to turn a profit, but they also want to maintain effectiveness of their products and not get hit with tons of litigation for literally poisoning the global population. Sure, sometimes the research comes late (ex. DDT), but the current system of pesticide registration usually takes 10+ years before a product actually reaches the market, including extensive research on safety. GMOs have been around for a long time, much longer than people realize. And yet the most valid arguments against GMOs are not for human safety, but for ecological reasons such as having roundup-resistant weeds.21 -
-
everything you eat has been genetically modified technically through forced evolution via mass production & consumerism.1
-
That's actually an oversimplification and not technically correct at all. Cross breeding is nothing like artificial manipulation of the DNA.trainervash wrote: »everything you eat has been genetically modified technically through forced evolution via mass production & consumerism.
1 -
That's actually an oversimplification and not technically correct at all. Cross breeding is nothing like artificial manipulation of the DNA.trainervash wrote: »everything you eat has been genetically modified technically through forced evolution via mass production & consumerism.
How about forcing mutations by exposing them to radioactive material? This is considered a "traditional", non-GMO method.3 -
Just a couple of notes as someone with a little experience in the field:
1. Not all studies funded by industry (but conducted by a university or other outside organization) are inherently bad or biased, vice versa for independent studies. Research conducted BY industry can be tricky, but again not all of it is bad. The best thing to do would be to look at the journal it's published in and the history of the researchers involved. Is it a respectable, high-impact journal like Science, Nature, PLOS One, PNAS, etc? Are the researchers known for high-quality work? Then it's probably ok.
2. GMO is a tool. Saying all GMOs are bad is like saying all face creams are bad. Each GMO does something different. Some aim to reduce herbicide use, some make corn sweeter, some improve flavor and storage time, others provide protection from insect damage. Some even produce Bt, which is a commonly used organic pesticide with high selectivity for caterpillars.
3. Farmers aren't made of gold, and pesticides are expensive. Even using small amounts of the industrial versions (aka the stuff the farmers use not what you buy at stores) for research can get $$$ (although most companies will donate material for research if you ask). Farmers are probably not wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on herbicides/pesticides if they don't need to due to GMO crops (which are also not necessarily cheap).
4. Agricultural companies are not evil. Yes, they want to turn a profit, but they also want to maintain effectiveness of their products and not get hit with tons of litigation for literally poisoning the global population. Sure, sometimes the research comes late (ex. DDT), but the current system of pesticide registration usually takes 10+ years before a product actually reaches the market, including extensive research on safety. GMOs have been around for a long time, much longer than people realize. And yet the most valid arguments against GMOs are not for human safety, but for ecological reasons such as having roundup-resistant weeds.
1. Agree not all industry funded studies are bad...but they are all biased. There is no way they couldn't be. Agree not all independent studies are good..nor are they all unbiased...some are biased the other way. As well as reputation of publisher/researcher, I think conflicts of interest are important to consider. Publishers and/or researchers who have conflicts of interest are much more likely to skew results in favour of whoever is throwing money at them or they have loyalty towards.
2. Yes GMO is a tool. I don't think they are all bad, I personally think that none have been proven to be good for the environment or safe for consumption. The safety testing should be at same level as tests for new drugs....right now GMOs are being introduced with zero long term studies on health impact or environmental impact. With no labelling it is impossible to trace whether any of the anecdotal reports of health issues are due to GMOs or not. Some well respected animal studies have shown health problems linked to GMOs. Even if we have been astoundingly lucky so far, we have no way to quickly find a single "bad" GMO either before or after it hits the market and no process is perfect. For the environment, GMOs have not delivered on the higher crop yield, insect repelling, less pesticide using, drought resistant, etc etc promises. In fact, US farmers are beginning to move away from GMOs as much as they can because the GMOs have higher production costs (more expensive seed, need more fertiliser, no less pesticide in some cases more pesticide, more susceptible to extreme weather conditions, etc).
3. As addressed above, yep farmers are not made of $$$, which is one reason why some are now switching from a GMO to conventional or organic crops as a result of a purely economic business decision.
4. I do think Big Agra engages in unethical business practices. I wouldn't say they are "evil" but they are certainly very willing to talk up their products beyond what there is scientific evidence, fight against consumers even having a the freedom to choose whether or not to buy/eat their products, spend millions lobbying for no regulation and immunity from poisoning innocent consumers. It's not exactly ethical neighbourly behaviour and should not be condoned.1 -
Oh wanted to add that the argument that GMOs have been around for awhile so they must be safe is faulty. For example salt preserved meats have been around for literally thousands of years AND are a known carcinogen. Therefore, the argument that GMOs have been consumed for a few measly decades definitely doesn't prove safety at all.0
-
Time is going to tell on this one. "Independent studies" tied to tell us cigarettes weren't harmful at one time. Fact of the matter is money drives everything. The money is on the side of the producers and distributors of GMO's. I eat them my family eats them, but do they concern me to some extent absolutely. We are going to find out in the future and hopefully the pro GMO crowd can point and laugh at the people that were concerned1
-
I'll be spending less time observing this ya ya and more time watching http://dels.nas.edu/Past-Events/Forum-Scientific-Society-Leaders/AUTO-5-80-52-G?bname=banr0
-
swagartm12 wrote: »Time is going to tell on this one. "Independent studies" tied to tell us cigarettes weren't harmful at one time. Fact of the matter is money drives everything. The money is on the side of the producers and distributors of GMO's. I eat them my family eats them, but do they concern me to some extent absolutely. We are going to find out in the future and hopefully the pro GMO crowd can point and laugh at the people that were concerned
Because corporations pushing for organic don't have any money?7 -
stevencloser wrote: »swagartm12 wrote: »Time is going to tell on this one. "Independent studies" tied to tell us cigarettes weren't harmful at one time. Fact of the matter is money drives everything. The money is on the side of the producers and distributors of GMO's. I eat them my family eats them, but do they concern me to some extent absolutely. We are going to find out in the future and hopefully the pro GMO crowd can point and laugh at the people that were concerned
Because corporations pushing for organic don't have any money?
Studies funded by organic corporations are not considered to be independent studies. Look up independent...those are studies funded by and done by governments or universities funded by governments.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »swagartm12 wrote: »Time is going to tell on this one. "Independent studies" tied to tell us cigarettes weren't harmful at one time. Fact of the matter is money drives everything. The money is on the side of the producers and distributors of GMO's. I eat them my family eats them, but do they concern me to some extent absolutely. We are going to find out in the future and hopefully the pro GMO crowd can point and laugh at the people that were concerned
Because corporations pushing for organic don't have any money?
Studies funded by organic corporations are not considered to be independent studies. Look up independent...those are studies funded by and done by governments or universities funded by governments.
Well, the poster I responded too seems to be thinking that independent studies are secretly paid for by the GMO producers.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »swagartm12 wrote: »Time is going to tell on this one. "Independent studies" tied to tell us cigarettes weren't harmful at one time. Fact of the matter is money drives everything. The money is on the side of the producers and distributors of GMO's. I eat them my family eats them, but do they concern me to some extent absolutely. We are going to find out in the future and hopefully the pro GMO crowd can point and laugh at the people that were concerned
Because corporations pushing for organic don't have any money?
Studies funded by organic corporations are not considered to be independent studies. Look up independent...those are studies funded by and done by governments or universities funded by governments.
Well, the poster I responded too seems to be thinking that independent studies are secretly paid for by the GMO producers.
Ahhh well some are indirectly "funded" due to financial conflicts of interest of the researchers or peer reviewers. This of course goes both ways. A recent study found 40% of studies had conflicts of interest and the majority of them were in favour of the GMO industry...meaning that's where the most money is. There are of course conflicts of interest the other way as well, but they found fewer cases of that. Check this out. https://phys.org/news/2016-12-gmo-financial-conflicts.html
That's why I like independent studies with no conflicts of interest myself...no side is innocent of trying to influence things their way....0 -
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Nice chart but sort of irrelevant to the post about money being on the side of the GMO companies.... all it does is compare gross revenues between a few companies. Not even a comparison between GMO vs nonGMO. But If you go here, it shows that $192M was spent in proGMO lobbying but only one tenth of that, $9M on antiGMO lobbying.
https://static.ewg.org/reports/2016/food-lobby/anti_pro.html?_ga=1.258402122.1162684285.1488099486
I guess I do like your chart in the sense that it gives hope that the truth will out despite massive contrary efforts of industry giants like Exxon Mobil. Though I don't know how much they did spend on anti climate change lobbying....but my curiosity is peaked.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions