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?
Options
Replies
-
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Not being argumentative just wondering in what world a pregnant woman would be given thalidomide.
Thalidomide is an angiogenesis inhibitor (inhibits growth of new blood vessels) and indicated for use in the treatment/prevention of erythema nodosum leprosum. It is also be used in conjunction with dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myelomas.
Actually fewer risks in comparison to ACE inhibitors, but lacking the media hyperbole.
The disastrous teratogenic effects of thalidomide were not known until the drug was used in off label indications for "morning sickness".
But is it now safe in any form for pregnant women? Because that is what I was questioning Northcascades about. You then posted a meme implying I was wrong. So where is the study showing it's safe in any form for pregnant women?
Repeat: The R variant has a very safe pharmacovigilance profile.
Two can play at that game.
Repeat: But is it now safe in any form for pregnant women? Because that is what I was questioning Northcascades about. You then posted a meme implying I was wrong. So where is the study showing it's safe in any form for pregnant women?You are welcome to review the pharmacovigilance profile on the FDA site which comprises every reported adverse drug experience.
I did just that. Going to the links on Thalidomide on the website you posted brought me to this:
https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=2eda833b-1357-4ed4-a093-194524fcb061
Well gee, look what it says:EMBRYO-FETAL TOXICITY
If thalidomide is taken during pregnancy, it can cause severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Thalidomide should never be used by females who are pregnant or who could become pregnant while taking the drug. Even a single dose [1 capsule (regardless of strength)] taken by a pregnant woman during her pregnancy can cause severe birth defects.
Because of this toxicity and in an effort to make the chance of embryo-fetal exposure to THALOMID® (thalidomide) as negligible as possible, THALOMID® (thalidomide) is approved for marketing only through a special restricted distribution program: THALOMID REMS® program, approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
You can get the information about THALOMID and the THALOMID REMS program on the Internet at www.celgeneriskmanagement.com or by calling the manufacturer’s toll-free number 1-888-423-5436.
So it looks like you are the one who is
What am I wrong about?
You are missing the point. Are you attempting to learn something or just trying to be right? The statement you provided lacks necessary detail.
Start by looking up chirality.
Birth defects are caused by the S - enantiomer of thalidomide. The R - enantiomer is safe. The revised manufacturing process contains multiple steps to eliminate the S - enantiomer. Note that when originally launched the teratagenic effects of the S - enantiomer were not detected until thalidomide was used off-label as a anti-nausea medication for "morning sickness".
Then how come they don't sell the R version and then they wouldn't have to force women to sign disclaimers and put themselves on double birth control because of birth defects.
Manufacturers only sell the R enantiomer. The S enantiomer is not manufactured and eliminated from the process.
Due to the history of this product and the increased sensitivity FDA regulates this under the REMS program.
It's part and parcel to the bureaucracy - little to no science behind it, but fear is a powerful motivator and CYA rules the day.
Not according to Celgene:
https://media.celgene.com/content/uploads/thalomid-pi.pdfThalidomide is an off-white to white, odorless, crystalline powder that is soluble at 25C in dimethyl sulfoxide and sparingly soluble in water and
ethanol. The glutarimide moiety contains a single asymmetric center and, therefore, may exist in either of two optically active forms designated
S-(-) or R-(+). THALOMID is an equal mixture of the S-(-) and R-(+) forms and, therefore, has a net optical rotation of zero
Oh, and there seems to be science behind the fact that the R form is not safe in pregnant women as I and others have posted above.1 -
'You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together. - Leviticus 19:19 (NASB)
"You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, or all the produce of the seed which you have sown and the increase of the vineyard will become defiled." - Deuteronomy 22:9 (NASB)
I am convinced that at least some of the resistance is from the religious right, which uses selected Old Testament verses to condemn the practice.
These verses however, condemn all hybridization. Do they know how many of their fruits, vegetables, and flowers these days are hybrids? (Hint, it's a lot)
Yes, this is definitely being debated vigorously by Kosher-observing Jews, if that is what you mean by the "religious right" (although probably most would take that phrase to describe conservative Christians). There are probably all kinds of fascinating articles you could read citing Nachmanides and other medieval and ancient philosophers, but suffice to say, they are not prohibiting intra-species hybrids, or even, to my knowledge, interspecies hybrids like Granny Smith apples which were hybridized in nature (and then grafted when discovered).
I would not enjoy debating a rabbi on this topic.
Interestingly, since all my Jewish friends happily wear shatnez, eat cheeseburgers, and don't maintain separate sets of cookware, the only people on my Facebook feeds loudly fulminating against GMOs (and definitely not citing scripture) are primarily atheists, witches, Wiccans, and pagans. (Gardening makes for strange bedfellows).0 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Not being argumentative just wondering in what world a pregnant woman would be given thalidomide.
Thalidomide is an angiogenesis inhibitor (inhibits growth of new blood vessels) and indicated for use in the treatment/prevention of erythema nodosum leprosum. It is also be used in conjunction with dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myelomas.
Actually fewer risks in comparison to ACE inhibitors, but lacking the media hyperbole.
The disastrous teratogenic effects of thalidomide were not known until the drug was used in off label indications for "morning sickness".
But is it now safe in any form for pregnant women? Because that is what I was questioning Northcascades about. You then posted a meme implying I was wrong. So where is the study showing it's safe in any form for pregnant women?
Repeat: The R variant has a very safe pharmacovigilance profile.
Two can play at that game.
Repeat: But is it now safe in any form for pregnant women? Because that is what I was questioning Northcascades about. You then posted a meme implying I was wrong. So where is the study showing it's safe in any form for pregnant women?You are welcome to review the pharmacovigilance profile on the FDA site which comprises every reported adverse drug experience.
I did just that. Going to the links on Thalidomide on the website you posted brought me to this:
https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=2eda833b-1357-4ed4-a093-194524fcb061
Well gee, look what it says:EMBRYO-FETAL TOXICITY
If thalidomide is taken during pregnancy, it can cause severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Thalidomide should never be used by females who are pregnant or who could become pregnant while taking the drug. Even a single dose [1 capsule (regardless of strength)] taken by a pregnant woman during her pregnancy can cause severe birth defects.
Because of this toxicity and in an effort to make the chance of embryo-fetal exposure to THALOMID® (thalidomide) as negligible as possible, THALOMID® (thalidomide) is approved for marketing only through a special restricted distribution program: THALOMID REMS® program, approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
You can get the information about THALOMID and the THALOMID REMS program on the Internet at www.celgeneriskmanagement.com or by calling the manufacturer’s toll-free number 1-888-423-5436.
So it looks like you are the one who is
What am I wrong about?
You are missing the point. Are you attempting to learn something or just trying to be right? The statement you provided lacks necessary detail.
Start by looking up chirality.
Birth defects are caused by the S - enantiomer of thalidomide. The R - enantiomer is safe. The revised manufacturing process contains multiple steps to eliminate the S - enantiomer. Note that when originally launched the teratagenic effects of the S - enantiomer were not detected until thalidomide was used off-label as a anti-nausea medication for "morning sickness".
Then how come they don't sell the R version and then they wouldn't have to force women to sign disclaimers and put themselves on double birth control because of birth defects.
Manufacturers only sell the R enantiomer. The S enantiomer is not manufactured and eliminated from the process.
Due to the history of this product and the increased sensitivity FDA regulates this under the REMS program.
It's part and parcel to the bureaucracy - little to no science behind it, but fear is a powerful motivator and CYA rules the day.
Not according to Celgene:
https://media.celgene.com/content/uploads/thalomid-pi.pdfThalidomide is an off-white to white, odorless, crystalline powder that is soluble at 25C in dimethyl sulfoxide and sparingly soluble in water and
ethanol. The glutarimide moiety contains a single asymmetric center and, therefore, may exist in either of two optically active forms designated
S-(-) or R-(+). THALOMID is an equal mixture of the S-(-) and R-(+) forms and, therefore, has a net optical rotation of zero
Oh, and there seems to be science behind the fact that the R form is not safe in pregnant women as I and others have posted above.
Like the serious increase in thalidomide babies in developing countries due to drug sharing....so surely if they only sold the R varient because that's "safe" there wouldn't be any defects.or the need for women to double protect themselves against accidental pregnancy.
True, but what do we know, we lack scientific understanding.1 -
Shawshankcan 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
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.
0 -
The only thing about GMO that we can be absolutely sure about is that we just don't know enough about it yet. That doesn't make it good or bad. It doesn't mean it hasn't been strenuously tested. But DDT was strenuously tested. The list of things we once believed to be perfectly safe that turned out to be hideously dangerous is long and varied.
As a farmer, I'd be concerned about my neighbor planting GMO that might impact my crop in any way. Because let's face it, the controlled release of GMO crops in the early days went pretty badly. *(Starlink) And as a consumer, I wish simply for clear, honest and accurate labeling. So I can make informed choices based on my research, whim or preference. In a very broad sense, I would feel better about GMO if it had a bit more time in circulation. And I'm more than happy for monsters like Monsanto to test it on other people in far away lands.
On the side topic of organics that has popped up a few times, In my humble opinion as an organic certified farmer. The whole organic industry badly requires reassessment. Most certifications trace their origin back to a document written well before many modern farming techniques were even imagined, let alone viable. As a result, the criteria is full of hard rules that are frustratingly irrelevant. And as people have mentioned in previous posts, all the while some things you would think were important to control or exclude are not even monitored. Different governments from one country and state to the next have taken different directions and the whole thing is a mess. Ultimately, Organic does not mean what most consumers think it means..6 -
The only thing about GMO that we can be absolutely sure about is that we just don't know enough about it yet. That doesn't make it good or bad. It doesn't mean it hasn't been strenuously tested. But DDT was strenuously tested. The list of things we once believed to be perfectly safe that turned out to be hideously dangerous is long and varied.
Don't remember if it was earlier in this thread or another thread, but the decision to ban DDT was not made based on science - it was a political decision made by the head of the EPA based on complaints from the Audubon Society (which the EPA head just happened to be a board member of) and on wild conjecture based from the sensationalist book title 'Silent Spring'. Even the head of the EPA admitted publicly that the decision to ban DDT based on politics over-ruled all of the EPA scientists who concluded that there was no link to be found between DDT and environmental issues.3 -
The only thing about GMO that we can be absolutely sure about is that we just don't know enough about it yet. That doesn't make it good or bad. It doesn't mean it hasn't been strenuously tested. But DDT was strenuously tested. The list of things we once believed to be perfectly safe that turned out to be hideously dangerous is long and varied.
Don't remember if it was earlier in this thread or another thread, but the decision to ban DDT was not made based on science - it was a political decision made by the head of the EPA based on complaints from the Audubon Society (which the EPA head just happened to be a board member of) and on wild conjecture based from the sensationalist book title 'Silent Spring'. Even the head of the EPA admitted publicly that the decision to ban DDT based on politics over-ruled all of the EPA scientists who concluded that there was no link to be found between DDT and environmental issues.
Quite true, even today it's only listed as mildly toxic and probably carcinogenic. But it was banned because of it's impact on natural ecosystems. Killing mosquito's is one thing, but it's widespread use was killing insects indiscriminately. And over time speculation grew as to further environmental impacts. Some suggest the near extinction of the Bald Eagle amongst other birds of prey. All the while mosquitos were getting more resistant to it.
Australia has a similar tale.. The canetoad. Some of our brightest minds, seeking a way to control the cane beetle that ravaged the Australian sugar cane industry. After extensive studies, decided it would be a good idea to introduce cane toads from Sth Africa. The problem was as soon as they got to Aus, they went nuts and started eating just about anything but cane beetles. And of course with no natural predators, their numbers swelled to billions and now we have a cane toad plague we will never likely get rid of. The scope of the environmental impact is incalculable.
My point wasn't about any one thing. It was simply that science is not perfect. It is just a study. You test and test until you discover something and some of our most world changing scientific discoveries have been totally unplanned. I have the same reservations about GMO as I do any new groundbreaking field of scientific endeavor. GMO will be part of our future.. But for now it's a field that is barely in it's infancy.0 -
The only thing about GMO that we can be absolutely sure about is that we just don't know enough about it yet. That doesn't make it good or bad. It doesn't mean it hasn't been strenuously tested. But DDT was strenuously tested. The list of things we once believed to be perfectly safe that turned out to be hideously dangerous is long and varied.
Don't remember if it was earlier in this thread or another thread, but the decision to ban DDT was not made based on science - it was a political decision made by the head of the EPA based on complaints from the Audubon Society (which the EPA head just happened to be a board member of) and on wild conjecture based from the sensationalist book title 'Silent Spring'. Even the head of the EPA admitted publicly that the decision to ban DDT based on politics over-ruled all of the EPA scientists who concluded that there was no link to be found between DDT and environmental issues.
Quite true, even today it's only listed as mildly toxic and probably carcinogenic. But it was banned because of it's impact on natural ecosystems. Killing mosquito's is one thing, but it's widespread use was killing insects indiscriminately. And over time speculation grew as to further environmental impacts. Some suggest the near extinction of the Bald Eagle amongst other birds of prey. All the while mosquitos were getting more resistant to it.
Australia has a similar tale.. The canetoad. Some of our brightest minds, seeking a way to control the cane beetle that ravaged the Australian sugar cane industry. After extensive studies, decided it would be a good idea to introduce cane toads from Sth Africa. The problem was as soon as they got to Aus, they went nuts and started eating just about anything but cane beetles. And of course with no natural predators, their numbers swelled to billions and now we have a cane toad plague we will never likely get rid of. The scope of the environmental impact is incalculable.
My point wasn't about any one thing. It was simply that science is not perfect. It is just a study. You test and test until you discover something and some of our most world changing scientific discoveries have been totally unplanned. I have the same reservations about GMO as I do any new groundbreaking field of scientific endeavor. GMO will be part of our future.. But for now it's a field that is barely in it's infancy.
Opinion piece on DDT and malaria and Rachel Carson: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-rachel-carson-cost-millions-of-people-their-lives
I haven't researched it enough to have an opinion, but I do know some who have and agree with the author, so it's a view I give some credibility (with the understanding that I would need to look into it more).2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The only thing about GMO that we can be absolutely sure about is that we just don't know enough about it yet. That doesn't make it good or bad. It doesn't mean it hasn't been strenuously tested. But DDT was strenuously tested. The list of things we once believed to be perfectly safe that turned out to be hideously dangerous is long and varied.
Don't remember if it was earlier in this thread or another thread, but the decision to ban DDT was not made based on science - it was a political decision made by the head of the EPA based on complaints from the Audubon Society (which the EPA head just happened to be a board member of) and on wild conjecture based from the sensationalist book title 'Silent Spring'. Even the head of the EPA admitted publicly that the decision to ban DDT based on politics over-ruled all of the EPA scientists who concluded that there was no link to be found between DDT and environmental issues.
Quite true, even today it's only listed as mildly toxic and probably carcinogenic. But it was banned because of it's impact on natural ecosystems. Killing mosquito's is one thing, but it's widespread use was killing insects indiscriminately. And over time speculation grew as to further environmental impacts. Some suggest the near extinction of the Bald Eagle amongst other birds of prey. All the while mosquitos were getting more resistant to it.
Australia has a similar tale.. The canetoad. Some of our brightest minds, seeking a way to control the cane beetle that ravaged the Australian sugar cane industry. After extensive studies, decided it would be a good idea to introduce cane toads from Sth Africa. The problem was as soon as they got to Aus, they went nuts and started eating just about anything but cane beetles. And of course with no natural predators, their numbers swelled to billions and now we have a cane toad plague we will never likely get rid of. The scope of the environmental impact is incalculable.
My point wasn't about any one thing. It was simply that science is not perfect. It is just a study. You test and test until you discover something and some of our most world changing scientific discoveries have been totally unplanned. I have the same reservations about GMO as I do any new groundbreaking field of scientific endeavor. GMO will be part of our future.. But for now it's a field that is barely in it's infancy.
Opinion piece on DDT and malaria and Rachel Carson: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-rachel-carson-cost-millions-of-people-their-lives
I haven't researched it enough to have an opinion, but I do know some who have and agree with the author, so it's a view I give some credibility (with the understanding that I would need to look into it more).
That is the conclusion I came to after researching the subject.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The only thing about GMO that we can be absolutely sure about is that we just don't know enough about it yet. That doesn't make it good or bad. It doesn't mean it hasn't been strenuously tested. But DDT was strenuously tested. The list of things we once believed to be perfectly safe that turned out to be hideously dangerous is long and varied.
Don't remember if it was earlier in this thread or another thread, but the decision to ban DDT was not made based on science - it was a political decision made by the head of the EPA based on complaints from the Audubon Society (which the EPA head just happened to be a board member of) and on wild conjecture based from the sensationalist book title 'Silent Spring'. Even the head of the EPA admitted publicly that the decision to ban DDT based on politics over-ruled all of the EPA scientists who concluded that there was no link to be found between DDT and environmental issues.
Quite true, even today it's only listed as mildly toxic and probably carcinogenic. But it was banned because of it's impact on natural ecosystems. Killing mosquito's is one thing, but it's widespread use was killing insects indiscriminately. And over time speculation grew as to further environmental impacts. Some suggest the near extinction of the Bald Eagle amongst other birds of prey. All the while mosquitos were getting more resistant to it.
Australia has a similar tale.. The canetoad. Some of our brightest minds, seeking a way to control the cane beetle that ravaged the Australian sugar cane industry. After extensive studies, decided it would be a good idea to introduce cane toads from Sth Africa. The problem was as soon as they got to Aus, they went nuts and started eating just about anything but cane beetles. And of course with no natural predators, their numbers swelled to billions and now we have a cane toad plague we will never likely get rid of. The scope of the environmental impact is incalculable.
My point wasn't about any one thing. It was simply that science is not perfect. It is just a study. You test and test until you discover something and some of our most world changing scientific discoveries have been totally unplanned. I have the same reservations about GMO as I do any new groundbreaking field of scientific endeavor. GMO will be part of our future.. But for now it's a field that is barely in it's infancy.
Opinion piece on DDT and malaria and Rachel Carson: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-rachel-carson-cost-millions-of-people-their-lives
I haven't researched it enough to have an opinion, but I do know some who have and agree with the author, so it's a view I give some credibility (with the understanding that I would need to look into it more).
Piece written by one of my colleagues along a similar line:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/03/mosquitoes-time-war-column/79716868/
The risks using DDT were severely overblown due to agenda. This highlights the dangers of science journalism and political involvement.1 -
"Are GMOs bad for you?"
No. We have been eating genetically modified foods for hundreds of years.
"Is organic food really better for you than regular food?"
No, but it's better for the place that sells it to you because they can charge you 3-5 times as much.5 -
Due to my previously mentioned experience in a government Pesticide Chemicals file room, I'd say DDT and PCB's definitely should stay out of the environment. Reporters always get it wrong when they see the decontamination crews come out in their white suits, headlining their articles, "Toxic PCB spill" and somesuch. The danger of these two chemicals is not their toxicity but their near indestructibility. In other words, "Once in the environment, always in the environment." Predators and humans just so happen to be fairly high up on the food chain, so as these chemicals get ingested by the higher primates, the amount of DDT/PCB's in their bodies rise as well. These chemicals are so darn near indestructible they can even be found in the fatty tissues of our arctic animals.
DDT is still used in areas of the tropics where mosquitoes pose a greater risk than environmental buildup.
Now, back to GMO's. A GMO is not a thing or a chemical. It's the blueprint for a living thing.
I maintain that the (Christian) religious right do get in bed with the nature woo's on this issue of GMO's. It is seen as human tampering of a divinely natural thing. I don't think they have given the ancient biblical commands nearly as rigorous a workout as the average Rabbi. Too bad.
If GMO's make some people mad, what in the world do they think of CRISPR?3 -
-
stanmann571 wrote: »
Yeah, malaria is super scary.0 -
TOTAL rabbit trail here, but I am excited about the https://nothingbutnets.net/ program in Malawi.
AND the near-eradication (99.7% reduction) of the Guinea worm. Using public education and a simple filter.
100% scientific, 100% natural.1 -
Amusing article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nongmo-label-20171025-story,amp.htmlMeanwhile, the nonprofit Non-GMO Project, based in Bellingham, Wash., has put its butterfly emblem on 43,000 products, with annual sales of more than $19 billion. It verifies products based on the source crops — the grass and grains cows eat, or the soy that becomes lecithin.
"When something is labeled non-GMO, it isn’t about the presence of detectable DNA or protein,' said Michael Hansen, chief scientist of Consumers Union, which vetted the Non-GMO Project standards....
That approach has resulted in non-GMO labels on kitty litter, Himalayan pink salt, waters (coconut, flavored and “alkaline,” in particular) and condoms.
Even Jeff Hollender, co-founder of Sustain brand condoms, found it hard to explain why his New York-based company’s prophylactics, made of latex derived from sap from a rubber plant, bear the seal of the Non-GMO Project.
“What we’re having certified is that neither the sap nor any of the 12 other ingredients, which are a variety of different chemicals, are GMO,” Hollender said.
Asked what chemicals are GMO, Hollender said, “I’m not a chemist.”
2 -
Piece I wrote on the topic a while ago:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/#3f2d2f9a47fe
I think as with any new technology genetic engineering enables us to do new things and explore new teritory in terms of molding our world and civilization to fit our needs. With any such new ability comes its share of both opportunity and dangers. It is something I think the public and scientists would both benefit from having a thoughtful and properly informed discourse on in terms of ethics, applications and where we want to invest our efforts. Unfortunately I think that the possibility for even-keel rational discussion has been made almost impossible by fearmongering, misunderstanding, ignorance and conspiritorial belief. Genetic engineering itself is just a tool, it isn't inherently dangerous or inherently good. Like with any product put forward for mass distribution it has to be evaluated for safety concerns and what potential benefit it may give. Having genetic engineering be part of the processes utilized to produce a product does not make that product dangerous...it doesn't make it safe either. As such it is by no means the standard for which one should judge safety. It is for that reason I don't think labeling makes any sense. I think people want a label because they want to avoid products that benefit from GMO because they think GMO = Monsanto and they want to hurt Monsanto in its pocketbook by not buying those products. That wish, that desire, is not a legitimate reason to demand government intervention. It is asking for something unprecedented and I fear dangerous which is government mandated labeling to sate public fears rather than on the basis of actual science-based safety tests or information shown scientifically to be relevant to health.
Anyways, getting a bit ranty again.6 -
Rabbit trail; at one time the Russians spurned genetics in favour of an "assumed heritability of acquired characteristics". That is, if mom and dad get good in math, their little kidlets will be even better in math. This was a party position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions