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?

13468920

Replies

  • finny11122
    finny11122 Posts: 8,436 Member
    Just ate organic dinner . I feel at one with mother Gaia . It's amazing .
    Brothers and sisters of the natural organic world unite ! :p
  • kk_inprogress
    kk_inprogress Posts: 3,077 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    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 ! :p

    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.
  • trainervash
    trainervash Posts: 5 Member
    everything you eat has been genetically modified technically through forced evolution via mass production & consumerism.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    everything you eat has been genetically modified technically through forced evolution via mass production & consumerism.
    That's actually an oversimplification and not technically correct at all. Cross breeding is nothing like artificial manipulation of the DNA.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    everything you eat has been genetically modified technically through forced evolution via mass production & consumerism.
    That's actually an oversimplification and not technically correct at all. Cross breeding is nothing like artificial manipulation of the DNA.

    How about forcing mutations by exposing them to radioactive material? This is considered a "traditional", non-GMO method.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Amerane wrote: »
    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.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    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.
  • mswag84
    mswag84 Posts: 67 Member
    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
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
    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=banr
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Macy9336 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.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Macy9336 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....
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    ra0uc24di6jg.jpg

    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.