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.

GMO's and Food

JustRobby1
JustRobby1 Posts: 674 Member
I think just about all of us know at least a few people that are borderline psychotic over GMO, Gluten, etc. related matters, but I just encountered a few people over on a another forum that have most assuredly skipped a dose or two of their meds and have instead entered the world of flat out conspiracy theory.

So I will give you a breakdown of the basic premise (I use the term loosely). These folks essentially believe that there is some kind of worldwide conspiracy on the part of agribusiness and food producers to suppress information that GMO's cause lots of harm, even intentional harm. This in spite of hundreds of independent labs telling them they are retarded. Taking things a step further, some also try to make the assertion that GMO's are intentionally put forth to cause worldwide food shortages and that large companies are either bribing or working in collusion with the US FDA, National Academy of Sciences, or other similar organizations to suppress the truth. Proponents also attempt to put forth that certain health crisis events in the world can be tied to GMO's; such as the Zika and Ebola outbreaks, Chipolte's food safety concerns and others.



«13

Replies

  • Old_Cat_Lady
    Old_Cat_Lady Posts: 1,200 Member
    agribusiness interests donated more than $26.3 million to political campaigns, including those of several congressmen who sit on the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
    * some people have trouble fully trusting with so much money involved. Personally, I don't give a hoot.
  • JustRobby1
    JustRobby1 Posts: 674 Member
    edited July 2017
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Conspiracy will always be the tool of the weak minded. It's lazy. Very easy to assemble various dates, people, places, but the real effort is connecting the dots - a key element all conspiracies lack. It's a quick endpoint for a mentality that rejects personal responsibility and enables a victim mentality.

    There is no functional difference between the action of a transposon "jumping genes" from one DNA strand to another and the intentional insertion of the same gene. This occurs in nature all the time and one of the key to adaptation and evolution.

    As for outbreaks - these diseases have existed for millennia. Previously these deaths were tracked under different diseases/maladies. Increased international travel simply increases the chance of transmission.

    This just highlights the lack of science education and teaching critical thought. Where these sad souls were once left to their own thoughts, the internet gives them a voice and a group of like-minded to live in a bubble where these ideas are unchallenged.

    I could not agree more with your above statement. That being said, there is still an entire section of most grocery store devoted to Non-GMO products. So apparently while not everyone in this camp is a raving lunatic like I described above, there does exist an apparently wide swath of people that do actually believe in some facet that GMO is going to hurt them despite clear evidence to the contrary.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2017
    Not really:

    https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/england-wales.php

    Genetically modified (GM) crops are currently not grown commercially in the UK, but they are imported. These crops are primarily used in animal feed and a few food products.[2] There is no general prohibition on the planting of GM crops, but planting them is only permitted “if a robust risk assessment indicates that it is safe for people and the environment.”[3] The government has stated that if GM crops are commercially grown in the UK, it will implement “pragmatic and proportionate measures to segregate these from conventional and organic crops, so that choice can be exercised and economic interests appropriately protected.”[4] In the past, there have been protests when GM crops have been planted, and anti-GM groups frequently destroy such areas. There are strict labeling rules in place that require the disclosure of GM products if they have been used.

    This was interesting (it's obviously an opinion piece): http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/02/02/don-t-fear-genetic-modified-american-food-it-s-perfectly-saf -- title is "Brexit will flood the UK with genetic-modified American food - and it's about time too"
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Conspiracy will always be the tool of the weak minded. It's lazy. Very easy to assemble various dates, people, places, but the real effort is connecting the dots - a key element all conspiracies lack. It's a quick endpoint for a mentality that rejects personal responsibility and enables a victim mentality.

    There is no functional difference between the action of a transposon "jumping genes" from one DNA strand to another and the intentional insertion of the same gene. This occurs in nature all the time and one of the key to adaptation and evolution.

    As for outbreaks - these diseases have existed for millennia. Previously these deaths were tracked under different diseases/maladies. Increased international travel simply increases the chance of transmission.

    This just highlights the lack of science education and teaching critical thought. Where these sad souls were once left to their own thoughts, the internet gives them a voice and a group of like-minded to live in a bubble where these ideas are unchallenged.

    I could not agree more with your above statement. That being said, there is still an entire section of most grocery store devoted to Non-GMO products. So apparently while not everyone in this camp is a raving lunatic like I described above, there does exist an apparently wide swath of people that do actually believe in some facet that GMO is going to hurt them despite clear evidence to the contrary.

    This is just the long line in media hyperbole. Real scientists issue results of a study showing a modest change and journalists cry wolf as if it is going to decimate the population if we don't take action. People have been conditioned to find something or someone to blame. This makes for a easily manipulated society.

    Fear is a powerful motivator. Stops people from thinking about what you may be trying to achieve and gets people reacting to a perceived threat, regardless if that threat is real or imagined.
  • Fuzzipeg
    Fuzzipeg Posts: 2,258 Member
    As someone who reacts to salicylate a substance most plants and vegetables use as a protection for themselves from moulds and mildew attack I'd be fearful foods labelled gmo will have salicylate introduced into it a that particular item would cause my reactions, more than something similar on the official list created by the RPA Hospital somewhere in Australia which gives levels from non, through negligible the amount I can take to moderate, high and extremely high. (Calculated on the amount in 100g or 4 oz, not that we'd have 4 oz of some hot spice)

    I have also wondered what the likelihood would be of gmo plants having the propensity to increase the plants ability to induce higher histamine levels. I have problems eliminating both substances, which makes life very complicated without my phenol eliminating enzyme capsules. I still like to know my food item is standard not a composite designed to reduce the need for weed supressing substances. (I go organic where possible and grow my own from organic seeds corms because the use of weed and pest supressing chemicals are fewer. UK,btw) I am contemplating heritage seeds too.

    If you have not reason not to avoid produce, go for it. Each to their own

    (salicylate sensitivity is recognised by Immunology in our teaching hospitals. For the uninitiated its not woo, thank you, it probably has not affected you or your immediate family for now. I hope it never does)
  • Sunna_W
    Sunna_W Posts: 744 Member
    Here is a link to the GMO tomato debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato
  • karahm78
    karahm78 Posts: 491 Member
    karahm78 wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.

    Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.

    You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.

    Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.

    Do you think it is a good idea?
  • Shawshankcan
    Shawshankcan Posts: 900 Member
    karahm78 wrote: »
    karahm78 wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.

    Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.

    You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.

    Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.

    Do you think it is a good idea?

    Your comment saying "they are for profit" led me to my comment.
  • karahm78
    karahm78 Posts: 491 Member
    karahm78 wrote: »
    karahm78 wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.

    Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.

    You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.

    Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.

    Do you think it is a good idea?

    Your comment saying "they are for profit" led me to my comment.

    What I said that of course they are jockeying for market share, which all for-profit companies do. Organic companies also want market share, but their strategies are obviously different. But no one can convince me that consolidating the food supply to for-profit companies will benefit consumers. Corner the market and eventually the prices will rise, but once we go down that road it is hard to turn back.

    I have zero concerns about the actual safety of the foods. Frankly I prefer local vs organic.... I like to support local farmers and businesses.
  • Shawshankcan
    Shawshankcan Posts: 900 Member

    I'm actually appalled at organic marketing strategies. The majority of their advertising campaigns are scare tactics covered in a facade of pretending that their food is better for you, and by doing so insinuating that anything that isn't organic is worse, when in reality they're equal. 99.9% of food companies are for profit, right down to the farmer. It's just the way it is.

    I was going to say this, more or less.

  • karahm78
    karahm78 Posts: 491 Member
    karahm78 wrote: »
    karahm78 wrote: »
    karahm78 wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.

    Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.

    You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.

    Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.

    Do you think it is a good idea?

    Your comment saying "they are for profit" led me to my comment.

    What I said that of course they are jockeying for market share, which all for-profit companies do. Organic companies also want market share, but their strategies are obviously different. But no one can convince me that consolidating the food supply to for-profit companies will benefit consumers. Corner the market and eventually the prices will rise, but once we go down that road it is hard to turn back.

    I have zero concerns about the actual safety of the foods. Frankly I prefer local vs organic.... I like to support local farmers and businesses.

    I'm actually appalled at organic marketing strategies. The majority of their advertising campaigns are scare tactics covered in a facade of pretending that their food is better for you, and by doing so insinuating that anything that isn't organic is worse, when in reality they're equal. 99.9% of food companies are for profit, right down to the farmer. It's just the way it is.

    That being said, I'd rather the profits go directly into the farmers hands then all the middle men.

    Agree with this! Organic food companies have their own set of issues for sure.... local as much as possible is the best for me at least.