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
-
ladyannique2017 wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »In the wise words of James Fell:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on GMOs.
The two issues of GMOs and world starvation are not related. People aren't starving to death because someone chooses to eat or not eat GMOs. There is no correlation.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
I was curious about this so found a neat history piece on World Hunger and food production. There is this slide show...but it doesn't say anything about GMOs being the reason world hunger is declining...only that better seeds and fertilizer have done it and then it shows charts of lots of countries with their food productivity sky rocketing. Can you explain the gmo link?
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/title-slide.
One example is Golden Rice, you can Google that to see a lot of info and opinions. I wasn't meaning to state a fact, rather to clarify what the James Fell quote was referring to, though I do agree with him.
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
The point of the Fell quote is that GMOs are being used to more affordably and quickly feed starving or malnourished people. It's easy to be anti-GMO when you are shopping at WF and farmer's markets. When your kids are starving in a poor village somewhere, your life may very well depend on GMOs. #firstworldproblems
So when you wrote the above and then said you didn't mean it as a fact, were you just thinking about future potential of GMOs to help World Hunger? [/quote]
The GMO corn and soy that are currently being used in this country were developed to make these crops easier and cheaper to grow. That's why they are used in so many food products now. Whether this has affected world hunger or not, I have no idea. There are countless socioeconomic and geographic issues that affect people's access to food, it's not just about cost and supply. However, many cheap "processed" foods have GMO corn or soy in them, and I'd bet companies would be pushing more GMO crops which could further reduce food prices if the issue hadn't become so politicized.
I didn't say GMOs have reduced world hunger (I didn't even use the words "world hunger", that was another poster), just that it's easier to be picky about the way your food is grown when you live in abundance. Since GMOs are often developed to make crops hardier, faster growing, and easier to grow it seems logical to me that they could bring down food costs and increase supply. Unfortunately, many people around the world are hungry for far more complicated reasons than supply and poverty.[/quote]
Oh, I agree completely. Food choice is a luxury that many people around the world don't have, especially those who are starving. As I was telling janejellyroll, I went to the gmo answer website she suggested and asked them whether GMOs have helped increase food aid. I'm waiting on an answer now. I agree that the future potential for GMOs to do these things...increase supply, lower costs etc is really bright. I was just wondering that since they've been around awhile what impact have they already had? But anyway, I'll wait for the gmo answers people to get back to me. Thank you again for all the information. I do appreciate the pointers you gave...and I stil have that NAS 606page document someone else posted to get through in the meantime!
0 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »I was thinking about what you wrote last night, and I was wondering that maybe what you experienced could have been pesticide related? You said the organic farmer used different, natural pesticides from the GMO farmers. I know Roundup is a popular pesticide..and I saw recent article saying that the WHO and other scientists now think Roundup(glyphosate) is a carcinogen? Do you think maybe you were reacting to that instead?
Fried potatoes are carcinogens, too. So is wood smoke.
Glyphosphate is water-soluble and has a very short environmental persistence. That means it degrades quickly, and also washes off readily. That means plants treated with glyphosphate are not going to deliver any significant amount of the substance to your table. The WHO has studied this extensively and concluded that glyphosphate poses no risk to human health as typically used or in your food.
*Obviously you shouldn't drink the stuff, but I don't think you should drink Dawn dish detergent, and you probably use that or something like it on your plates and cookware daily.
Ok. But from what she said the pesticide used was the only difference between the corn she bought and ate other than the fact one was GMO and the other nonGMO. So if you're saying it couldn't be the Roundup pesticide (glyphosate), causing her GI distress; what did she react to then? Could she have reacted to it because it's GMO like she thinks? This wasn't a one time thing, she wrote she did this for weeks and it happened every time...so she obviously reacted to something. Lots of posters have said it's probably not because it's GMO. I thought it might be the pesticide...now that's out. Anything else that it might of been?
0 -
She said they tasted different (which could be due to different varietals and her preferring the one even if there's not a mental element to it) and that the one caused gastric distress 2 of 3 times. Seems too sketchy to assume any particular cause.
I tend to have a mildly negative reaction to corn which sucks because I love fresh corn on the cob and live in a state where it's extremely available (local, sweet corn, organic, non GMO, to the extent you think that matters) and cheap during the season (and also I get lots in my farm share box). I eat it anyway because I love it when it's super fresh and in season and my reaction isn't that bad. I avoid it the rest of the year because it's not tasty enough when frozen, etc. to be worth it to me.
I don't draw any broader conclusions from this.1 -
The first thing that crosses my mind when I read this is, If they take 20 years doing this and messed up somehow and made the rice too tall, how do we know there aren't other, less obvious or completely hidden and unintended consequences in GMO food that actually makes it to the market?ladyannique2017 wrote: »
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
Food for thought.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »She said they tasted different (which could be due to different varietals and her preferring the one even if there's not a mental element to it) and that the one caused gastric distress 2 of 3 times. Seems too sketchy to assume any particular cause.
I tend to have a mildly negative reaction to corn which sucks because I love fresh corn on the cob and live in a state where it's extremely available (local, sweet corn, organic, non GMO, to the extent you think that matters) and cheap during the season (and also I get lots in my farm share box). I eat it anyway because I love it when it's super fresh and in season and my reaction isn't that bad. I avoid it the rest of the year because it's not tasty enough when frozen, etc. to be worth it to me.
I don't draw any broader conclusions from this.
Oh yeah, it's just an anecdote so not a science experiment or anything. I just felt concerned for her and it struck me it might be a pesticide related allergic reaction or something so threw the idea out there for her to consider. Sorry to hear you react to corn..it's one of my favorite foods...I think I have chips and salsa at least a couple times a week.0 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »
The first thing that crosses my mind when I read this is, If they take 20 years doing this and messed up somehow and made the rice too tall, how do we know there aren't other, less obvious or completely hidden and unintended consequences in GMO food that actually makes it to the market?ladyannique2017 wrote: »
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
Food for thought.
That is what field trials are for, and why no one with any sense says "GMOs are safe" or "GMOs are unsafe". The fact that something was genetically engineered doesn't make it safe or not safe, just as the fact that a plant evolved without human intervention does not make it safe or not safe - to us or to the environment.
Golden Rice ran into problems in field trials and (according to the test labs in the Phillipines) because the creators do not understand that the beta carotene wouldn't be well absorbed. According to them, malnutrition, parasitic load, and gastrointestinal diseases prevent it. Not something the rice could fix, if so. Or something that has been verified, apparently. There does not seem to be a trial supplementing beta carotene in the amounts that would be consumed if it were present in one of the region's staple foods. Whether or not the locals would be willing to buy and eat Golden Rice is yet another outstanding question.
FWIW, this is why newer GE technologies are exciting - the means to change exactly what you intend and no more. Should reduce unintended consequences significantly.3 -
The main issue with world hunger is not the availability of food, we have more than enough food to feed everyone. It's that the food there is is not where the starving people are because they have problems growing their own.
I wonder how a technology that makes it possible to create crops able to grow in harsh environments with increased yield and nutrient content could possibly help that. hmmmmm.6 -
GMOs have been shown to be safe over decades.
Organic food still uses pesticides, and many a lot more harsh than the ones you fear and have to be reapplied more times over a season.
Eat local is BS
Science doesn't give a crap about your feels.7 -
I don't think GMOs generally do much harm, at least physically (population keeps rapidly increasing?) Perhaps mentally (autism is alarmingly growing.)
Economically, I think GMOs are terrible for independent farmers and GMO patent laws need to be reformed. If a GMO farm contaminates a nearby local non-GMO farm, the GMO company can sue the independent farmers for "unlawfully growing and selling their product" regardless whether or no if they knew it. (**Edit** I may be wrong, this may have been reformed)
How do you copyright/own fruits and vegetables? The concept seems so evil to me.3 -
metalmeow1 wrote: »If a GMO farm contaminates a nearby local non-GMO farm, the GMO company can sue the independent farmers for "unlawfully growing and selling their product" regardless whether or no if they knew it. (**Edit** I may be wrong, this may have been reformed)
This is based on a misunderstanding (apparently intentionally spread from what I've seen -- not accusing you, lots of people innocently know this version) of a particular case where the court found that the farmer who was sued intentionally cultivated the GMO seed without paying. Not for inadvertent contamination.
Here's a piece about it: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/01/04/gmo-patent-controversy-3-monsanto-sue-farmers-inadvertent-gmo-contamination/
I'm too lazy to dig up the threads where this was discussed before, but I and a couple of others read the relevant legal decisions, and they were consistent with this -- the farmers sued were intentionally using the seeds.1 -
metalmeow1 wrote: »I don't think GMOs generally do much harm, at least physically (population keeps rapidly increasing?) Perhaps mentally (autism is alarmingly growing.)
Economically, I think GMOs are terrible for independent farmers and GMO patent laws need to be reformed. If a GMO farm contaminates a nearby local non-GMO farm, the GMO company can sue the independent farmers for "unlawfully growing and selling their product" regardless whether or no if they knew it. (**Edit** I may be wrong, this may have been reformed)
How do you copyright/own fruits and vegetables? The concept seems so evil to me.
Don't know why this is a hard concept to understand. You develop a specific plant, you may legally get a period of time where you own certain rights to it as a recompense for your work. You have to meet certain standards to get a patent, and it's a limited time deal - eventually anyone can do whatever they want with it.
This is not at all a new thing and not limited to GMO, either. There are any number of hybridized plants that are not legal for anyone but the developer to deliberately reproduce. Most of the newer landscape plant varieties at the nurseries have such patents, for example. If there were no such thing, there would be no incentive to purposefully develop new plant varieties outside of hobbyists.2 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »
The first thing that crosses my mind when I read this is, If they take 20 years doing this and messed up somehow and made the rice too tall, how do we know there aren't other, less obvious or completely hidden and unintended consequences in GMO food that actually makes it to the market?ladyannique2017 wrote: »
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
Food for thought.
GMO varieties where we target and know what was changed require extensive testing, but mutation breeding which uses ionizing radiation and chemicals to increase mutations and causes unknow, random changes to the DNA code with hope of producing a desirable trait, requires none and is allowed in organic farming. Hmmm...1 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »JohnnyPenso wrote: »
The first thing that crosses my mind when I read this is, If they take 20 years doing this and messed up somehow and made the rice too tall, how do we know there aren't other, less obvious or completely hidden and unintended consequences in GMO food that actually makes it to the market?ladyannique2017 wrote: »
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
Food for thought.
GMO varieties where we target and know what was changed require extensive testing, but mutation breeding which uses ionizing radiation and chemicals to increase mutations and causes unknow, random changes to the DNA code with hope of producing a desirable trait, requires none and is allowed in organic farming. Hmmm...
This is a great article on mutagenesis vs. GMOs (transgenic). It says that the unknowns from mutagenesis are higher than with GE but the dangers from both are "trivial." Also says that the environment of the plant; the climate and day to day growing, has more impact on its genome than either mutagenesis or GE. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/12/03/gmos-vs-mutagenesis-vs-conventional-breeding-which-wins/
To me, organic is a farming method. Currently, GMOs are only farmed using conventional methods, but there is no reason why GMO seeds could not be farmed using organic methods. In fact, the lead GMO companies offered to supply seeds to organic companies but they refused. The organic companies choose not to use GMO seeds. I think it's kind of hypocritical to accept all mutagenic seeds (which to me are just crudely done GMOs) and not accept the more advanced transgenic GMOs. Really, each seed/food should be tested equally no matter how it was "made."0 -
metalmeow1 wrote: »I don't think GMOs generally do much harm, at least physically (population keeps rapidly increasing?) Perhaps mentally (autism is alarmingly growing.)
Economically, I think GMOs are terrible for independent farmers and GMO patent laws need to be reformed. If a GMO farm contaminates a nearby local non-GMO farm, the GMO company can sue the independent farmers for "unlawfully growing and selling their product" regardless whether or no if they knew it. (**Edit** I may be wrong, this may have been reformed)
How do you copyright/own fruits and vegetables? The concept seems so evil to me.
I sort of agree that the US laws on contamination do need to be updated. I think the GMO companies do have a right to sue and recover damages if their patented plant is intentionally planted/stolen. However, it should cut both ways. If a farmers conventional/organic nonGMO crop is contaminated by GMO pollen or plants, then that farmer should be able to sue for damages due to losing out on nonGMO or organic certification which means losing a ton of money. Right now, the farmers whose crops get contaminated cannot sue at all. So the onus is on only them to prevent contamination which is economically unfair. GMO and nonGMO farmers should be sharing the costs of pollen barriers and buffer zones so they can peacefully coexist.0 -
Ever since Brother Mendel and his peas. . .2
-
ladyannique2017 wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »JohnnyPenso wrote: »
The first thing that crosses my mind when I read this is, If they take 20 years doing this and messed up somehow and made the rice too tall, how do we know there aren't other, less obvious or completely hidden and unintended consequences in GMO food that actually makes it to the market?ladyannique2017 wrote: »
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
Food for thought.
GMO varieties where we target and know what was changed require extensive testing, but mutation breeding which uses ionizing radiation and chemicals to increase mutations and causes unknow, random changes to the DNA code with hope of producing a desirable trait, requires none and is allowed in organic farming. Hmmm...
This is a great article on mutagenesis vs. GMOs (transgenic). It says that the unknowns from mutagenesis are higher than with GE but the dangers from both are "trivial." Also says that the environment of the plant; the climate and day to day growing, has more impact on its genome than either mutagenesis or GE. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/12/03/gmos-vs-mutagenesis-vs-conventional-breeding-which-wins/
To me, organic is a farming method. Currently, GMOs are only farmed using conventional methods, but there is no reason why GMO seeds could not be farmed using organic methods. In fact, the lead GMO companies offered to supply seeds to organic companies but they refused. The organic companies choose not to use GMO seeds. I think it's kind of hypocritical to accept all mutagenic seeds (which to me are just crudely done GMOs) and not accept the more advanced transgenic GMOs. Really, each seed/food should be tested equally no matter how it was "made."
The use of GMO seeds is prohibited in organic production. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products0 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »Farms can also be sued if their corn is polinated 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.
Actually, this is no longer true - can't find the link to the ruling, but a federal judge squashed this possibility .../quote]
What level of federal court? That decision could apply to just one district, or one circuit.0 -
ladyannique2017 wrote: »metalmeow1 wrote: »I don't think GMOs generally do much harm, at least physically (population keeps rapidly increasing?) Perhaps mentally (autism is alarmingly growing.)
Economically, I think GMOs are terrible for independent farmers and GMO patent laws need to be reformed. If a GMO farm contaminates a nearby local non-GMO farm, the GMO company can sue the independent farmers for "unlawfully growing and selling their product" regardless whether or no if they knew it. (**Edit** I may be wrong, this may have been reformed)
How do you copyright/own fruits and vegetables? The concept seems so evil to me.
I sort of agree that the US laws on contamination do need to be updated. I think the GMO companies do have a right to sue and recover damages if their patented plant is intentionally planted/stolen. However, it should cut both ways. If a farmers conventional/organic nonGMO crop is contaminated by GMO pollen or plants, then that farmer should be able to sue for damages due to losing out on nonGMO or organic certification which means losing a ton of money. Right now, the farmers whose crops get contaminated cannot sue at all. So the onus is on only them to prevent contamination which is economically unfair. GMO and nonGMO farmers should be sharing the costs of pollen barriers and buffer zones so they can peacefully coexist.
Here's advice from an organic grower. Pesticide contamination seems like a bigger problem, and it seems like there are things in place that help resolve the potential problems.
https://mosesorganic.org/wp-content/uploads/Publications/Fact_Sheets/19ProtectingLandChemicalSpray.pdf
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »metalmeow1 wrote: »I don't think GMOs generally do much harm, at least physically (population keeps rapidly increasing?) Perhaps mentally (autism is alarmingly growing.)
Economically, I think GMOs are terrible for independent farmers and GMO patent laws need to be reformed. If a GMO farm contaminates a nearby local non-GMO farm, the GMO company can sue the independent farmers for "unlawfully growing and selling their product" regardless whether or no if they knew it. (**Edit** I may be wrong, this may have been reformed)
How do you copyright/own fruits and vegetables? The concept seems so evil to me.
I sort of agree that the US laws on contamination do need to be updated. I think the GMO companies do have a right to sue and recover damages if their patented plant is intentionally planted/stolen. However, it should cut both ways. If a farmers conventional/organic nonGMO crop is contaminated by GMO pollen or plants, then that farmer should be able to sue for damages due to losing out on nonGMO or organic certification which means losing a ton of money. Right now, the farmers whose crops get contaminated cannot sue at all. So the onus is on only them to prevent contamination which is economically unfair. GMO and nonGMO farmers should be sharing the costs of pollen barriers and buffer zones so they can peacefully coexist.
Here's advice from an organic grower. Pesticide contamination seems like a bigger problem, and it seems like there are things in place that help resolve the potential problems.
https://mosesorganic.org/wp-content/uploads/Publications/Fact_Sheets/19ProtectingLandChemicalSpray.pdf
It's a great link you posted, shows communication and respect between neighbor farmers that grow for the different markets can go a long way.0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »ladyannique2017 wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »JohnnyPenso wrote: »
The first thing that crosses my mind when I read this is, If they take 20 years doing this and messed up somehow and made the rice too tall, how do we know there aren't other, less obvious or completely hidden and unintended consequences in GMO food that actually makes it to the market?ladyannique2017 wrote: »
Hi Kimny, I read up on Golden Rice last night. Learned that it is a humanitarian project to add Vit A to rice to help prevent blindness in malnourished children. But sadly, it's apparently been in development since 1992 and I couldn't find a release date...only comments like 'we're still years away from release' and 'we still have to test whether eating the beta carotene in the rice can actually be absorbed into the body as Vit A.' There were also issues with yields in test fields...apparently when they did the GE to add the beta carotene, they accidentally affected the tallness gene so a lot of the rice plants from the developmental seeds are all stunted and sort of drown in the water of a rice paddy because they are too short?!
So although Golden Rice is an awesome idea, it can't have affected World Hunger yet because it's still in testing. It might in future..and is a very exciting application of the technology.
Food for thought.
GMO varieties where we target and know what was changed require extensive testing, but mutation breeding which uses ionizing radiation and chemicals to increase mutations and causes unknow, random changes to the DNA code with hope of producing a desirable trait, requires none and is allowed in organic farming. Hmmm...
This is a great article on mutagenesis vs. GMOs (transgenic). It says that the unknowns from mutagenesis are higher than with GE but the dangers from both are "trivial." Also says that the environment of the plant; the climate and day to day growing, has more impact on its genome than either mutagenesis or GE. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/12/03/gmos-vs-mutagenesis-vs-conventional-breeding-which-wins/
To me, organic is a farming method. Currently, GMOs are only farmed using conventional methods, but there is no reason why GMO seeds could not be farmed using organic methods. In fact, the lead GMO companies offered to supply seeds to organic companies but they refused. The organic companies choose not to use GMO seeds. I think it's kind of hypocritical to accept all mutagenic seeds (which to me are just crudely done GMOs) and not accept the more advanced transgenic GMOs. Really, each seed/food should be tested equally no matter how it was "made."
The use of GMO seeds is prohibited in organic production. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products
Yeah, it's prohibited because the organic growers association negotiated an agreement with the USDA that there would be no GMOs that could be certified organic. If GMOs had been accepted like all the other plant breeding techniques, there'd only be organic vs conventional.0 -
As a geneticist with over 25 years of biotech drug experience (and a sister who's a weed scientist for Syngenta), it's always been interesting to me how much time, money and energy is spent debating and defending the safety of food R&D, while people line up in droves to spend crazy prices for biotech drugs, and not just for life saving diseases - the top 4 best selling biotech drugs (~$40M) are for arthritis. I've always been curious how many organic, non-GMO food eaters take biotech drugs?10
-
rhtexasgal wrote: »It was the exactly same variety of corn in both cases. Since my diagnosis, I have not bought foods with corn in it, especially HFCS, cereal, etc. It would set my gut off. If I somehow slip, my gut tells me in quite a rude manner! Most everything I consume is fresh and the only thing in a box I eat is pasta made from quinoa and rice. It greatly limits eating out but my health now dictates it. I still eat corn but only from one organic farmer at my local farmers market that uses heirloom organic seed and uses no chemicals or herbicides.
As a general rule, gmo varieties are not the same as conventional varieties, and are likely very different from the varieties organic farmers use, despite what they might have said. If their description was sweet corn, that is a broad category of corn varieties that encompasses both gmo and non-gmo varieties. It is likely that differences in your taste and body's reaction to the corn was a result of different levels of starch, sugar, and fiber between the variety of gmo corn and the organic corn.
There are also many other factors including planting time (non-gmo varieties are often planted at different times than gmo crops to prevent cross-breeding), fertilizers used, etc that would explain the differences between the two varieties of corn. Unfortunately, it would be extremely difficult as a consumer to get a hold of both gmo and non-gmo versions of the same variety of corn and even then you would still need to taste them double-blind to be sure your own expectations weren't biasing the results.
TL;DR I think the differences you saw in your body's reaction and the flavor might be due to other factors since gmo varieties are often very different from the varieties used by organic farmers0 -
Genetic engineering is a tool, nothing more nothing less. There is nothing inherently dangerous nor inherently safe about a product produced in part with genetic engineering. Each product would have to be evaluated independently on its own merits or concerns. Asking if a product that was in made in part using genetically engineering is dangerous because of the use of genetic engineering would be like asking if something made in part using a hammer was dangerous because of the use of a hammer. Its a non-sequitur and is honestly just a weird question to ask.
The answer is that knowing something was made using genetic engineering doesn't really tell you anything about its safety at all, good or bad.13 -
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
Genetically modified is NOT the same as selectively breeding. Selective breeding is the process of developing a plant or animal based on selecting desirable characteristics of the parent. For example, saving seed for replanting from plants within a crop that have shown to be particularly robust; or breeding a white dog with a black patch over its eye via two parents that have the same traits.
Genetically modified organisms is when genes from one species is introduced to an entirely different species by human intervention. For example a fish and a tomato (yes this was done) or a corn plant that is resistant to herbicide, so you can spray the crops to kill the weeds and not the corn.
Personally, I try to eat organic as much as possible and avoid pesticides and GMOs.8 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
So many people focus on profits increasing through the use of GMO. However, the other benefit is that the rate of food supply increase has been able to do a better job of keeping up with population growth due to these scientific methods. If the world was banned from the current food technology, there would be more people dying from starvation around the world. Efficiency in food creation helps to keep more people alive.8
-
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
Genetically modified is NOT the same as selectively breeding. Selective breeding is the process of developing a plant or animal based on selecting desirable characteristics of the parent. For example, saving seed for replanting from plants within a crop that have shown to be particularly robust; or breeding a white dog with a black patch over its eye via two parents that have the same traits.
Genetically modified organisms is when genes from one species is introduced to an entirely different species by human intervention. For example a fish and a tomato (yes this was done) or a corn plant that is resistant to herbicide, so you can spray the crops to kill the weeds and not the corn.
Personally, I try to eat organic as much as possible and avoid pesticides and GMOs.
Interesting. What is your stance on genetic modification when nature does this at random?4 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »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
Genetically modified is NOT the same as selectively breeding. Selective breeding is the process of developing a plant or animal based on selecting desirable characteristics of the parent. For example, saving seed for replanting from plants within a crop that have shown to be particularly robust; or breeding a white dog with a black patch over its eye via two parents that have the same traits.
Genetically modified organisms is when genes from one species is introduced to an entirely different species by human intervention. For example a fish and a tomato (yes this was done) or a corn plant that is resistant to herbicide, so you can spray the crops to kill the weeds and not the corn.
Personally, I try to eat organic as much as possible and avoid pesticides and GMOs.
fish genes were put into tomato to protect from frost damage. it worked
corn plant resistant to herbicide increases yield, which accomplished the goal of higher yield and profits.
GMO is good.
I thought they ATTEMPTED to insert a fish gene into a tomato but weren't able to do it, either way it never made the market.
0 -
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
Personally, I try to eat organic as much as possible and avoid pesticides and GMOs.
If you think organic means pesticide free, you are delusional or seriously mislead. Many organic approved pesticides are more harmful towards humans, less effective for their goal and require multiple sprayings.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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