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
-
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 -
@Aaron_K123 are you against labeling per se, or are they just something you don't feel the need for?0
-
Labels I've found offensive include "Fat-Free" on Jell-O packages. It's a marketing ploy with no useful information for the consumer.2
-
I just started on the last season of The Americans, and it just so happens its about the Americans starting to develop GMO grains. Of course the Russians think that they are creating something to destroy the world and how the GMOs are horrible for the world. Very good and interesting watch.
Loved that thread in the series. Very timely and highlights how damaging a skewed perspective can be.0 -
-
Aaargh! That just drives me nuts, @stanmann5710
-
certified non-GMO labels don't bother me anymore than other marketing puffery like "handmade" or "artisan." It's just marketing.2
-
@Aaron_K123 are you against labeling per se, or are they just something you don't feel the need for?
I am against them. I believe that the only legitimate reason for the government to require a label on something is for scientifically established legitimate safety concerns or scientifically established nutritional information relevant to public health. I don't think it is a democratic choice whether or not something is safe or nutritious, it's an objective thing to be evaluated in a controlled unbiased way divorced from personal bias and emotion. So therefore I don't think what the government labels should be voted on on the basis of people's feelings, even if those people represent a majority. Science isn't a democracy.
That said I am fine with "Non GMO" labels voluntarily applied by companies if they want as a form of marketing.
By way of analogy I am fine with the Jewish community producing Kosher foods or validating foods as being Kosher and voluntarily applying whatever label they see fit. I would not be fine with them demanding that the government mandate that any non-Kosher foods be labeled as such so that they can be better informed as consumers. If you can see the distinction there I'd hope you can see how it applies with GMO labeling as well. Food labels shouldn't be a matter of politics and popular opinion.
It riles both my scientific and libertarian values and when the issue of mandated GMO labeling came up in the state of Washington I voted against it.10 -
Certified organic beef caused a big stir here in Alberta.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/earls-alberta-beef-q-a-certified-humane-1.35592290 -
I'm just going to have fun with an analogy.
Imagine two cereals, Trix and Crunchberry, going at eachother in the competitive marketplace. Trix uses a specialized "ingredient" that they spent money developing and that they patented that allows them to drive the cost of their product way down and as such Crunchberry is starting to lose out in the market. As a means of retaliating Crunchberry comes up with a rather ingenious marketing tactic. They start to label their cereal as specifically NOT including that special ingredient Trix uses coupled with a campaign implying that that ingredient poses potential environmental and health risks (without outright saying it themselves of course). They encourage their subsidiaries to label their products as well as not containing that ingredient. That call gets picked up by the general public who go onto social media and DO make the outright claim that the ingredient damages the environment and hurts health and it escalates and escalates. Soon thousands of unrelated companies are labeling their products as not containing the ingredient to calm concerns of potential customers.
After years of this the general public has an overall sense of disquiet and doubt about this ingredient and the majority of people think it is dangerous. The company that produces Trix has become utterly demonized and is considered a den of evil by most people. A petition is put forth that this ingredient should be labeled and that the government should mandate a label to applied to ANY product that contains it. This petition has overwhelming majority support as most of the public is either convinced of the danger of this ingredient or is not sure and feels there is no harm in having the label there as it is merely informative and not a warning label per say. At no point is actual evidence of harm brought forth and if scientific evidence is shown that actually it appears that the ingredient does not appear at all harmful this evidence is rebuked by simply repeating the mantra "more studies are needed".
The measure passes. The government does what the people demand and requires that businesses label their products if they contain this ingredient. Of course at this point most vaccines, a good percentage of medicines, and almost all reagents in the biological sciences require a label as well. This is because although all this time everyone was using words and language suggestive that this was an "ingredient" actually it was more of a process, a process that was used and applied in many ways far exceeding the scope of Trix cereal. In fact if you were to actually scientifically examine the contents of Trix cereal you would not be able to distinguish an "ingredient" within that was as any different objectively speaking than the ingredients in CrunchBerry. The fear of this "ingredient" was well established however and not only companies but the government itself began to shrink from its use. Funding going to research and development using this process was cut or sharply decreased, certain types of products could no longer be produces as no other process was possible. Research that was completed after 12 years and successful went unused because the "ingredient" was involved so no money was deployed to implement it. Many of these products and programs and research were actually humanitarian in nature and often non-profit and thus could not survive the cut in public funding.
But hey, at least Crunchberry got their marketshare back right?14 -
Sorry for another post but just want to make clear I have no issue with the concept of organic farming nor certainly any issue with organic farmers. My issue is with marketing taking the form of fear mongering and misinformation that is long term damaging to the public and culture. The armies of people with some misconstrued ideas who glorify organic into something it isnt and demonized "conventional" into something it isnt. People who have then taken to blogs and social media who amplify this message to the point of utter conspiratorial absurdity. That is where I have the problem.
If someone wants a buisness running a farm that grows and produces food using certain techniques that appeal to a certain market or demographic that can afford it then cool. Especially if it's within a community where it inspires an informative and truthful dialogue and leads to a feeling of connection between workers and food. All for that.
I just wish people turned to actual farmers when it comes to information pertaining to farming and to actual scientists when it comes to information about genetic engineering rather than to the sensationalized lunacy this organic/conventional/GMO thing has become online. Personally I try not to speak on farming because I'm not a farmer, I'd be making a lot of asumptuous and although some might be informed asumptions most would probably end up being wrong in some way simply because that isn't my life. If I want to learn about it I'd probably try to seek out some farmers to talk to if they were willing.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Please tell me the manufacturer is trying to be ironic...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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).
I would argue the opposite, though. By restricting DDT use in agriculture, DDT remains effective against mosquitoes for longer periods of time, because it slows the acquisition of DDT resistance in mosquito populations. Overuse of pesticides greatly shortens the time to acquire for the pest population to acquire immunity, in exactly the same way that overuse of antibiotics shortens the time for the emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
DDT is still used for malaria control in the malaria-heavy regions of the world, but now it's being used by organizations that are weighing the pros of killing mosquitoes today against the cons of accelerating DDT resistance among tomorrow's mosquito population and attempting to find the overall optimal strategy, versus using DDT commercially and trying to improve their bottom line regardless of the long-term health impacts.1 -
I think it's only a very small % of people who actually have problems with gluten.
The rest are caught up in a mass-hypnosis.6 -
No. GMO is such a loosely defined term that by definition, all nectarines, avocados, bananas, and watermelons are GMO via human interference. Everything living is a GMO, unless it's a clone.1
-
JohnnyPenso wrote: »
Selective breeding =/= gene splicing.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
I avoid all GMO foods as best I can, because I don't trust that genetic modifications are being done for my benefit, they are being done with a profit motive and that can and has led to shortcuts being taken, negative results being covered up etc. I don't eat corn or soy or any of their derivatives to begin with and I rarely eat packaged or processed foods so I'm not likely to run across any GMO foods anyway.
So no avocados, bananas or nectarines for you... They are so delicious.1 -
Humans have been modifying food for thousands of years. GE is just another tool to do what we've been doing all.that time.
In general, GE is more targeted and more accurate than conventional breeding. It's also more tightly regulated than conventional breeding. The end result is that gmo is at least as safe, if not safer than conventional breeding3 -
BigNorthernBear wrote: »The "organic" labelled ruby red grapefruit is a GMO food, the technique used was blasting a tonne of grapefruit seeds with radiation forcing mutation, planting them and seeing what grew, and if it tasted good and added a new twist sell it.
No stringent safety testing was ever demanded or done.
On the other hand, foods currently called GMO are only a subset of foods modified using 3 out of the 5 methods and are the MOST TESTED CONSUMER PRODUCTS EVER.
For someone to convince me GM makes food less safe, they would have to explain to me how transplanting on to five genes is somehow more dangerous then say hybridization which essentially mixes 30+ million genes from two separate subspecies.
In the first case, we can pinpoint only the feature we want, in the latter we just hope for the best. In the first case the end product is rigorously tested, in the later its a total free for all.
Not to mention some GM foods do not actually add genes, they simply turn off a gene, such as the new arctic apple, which prevents it from rotting so soon like regular apples.
The only arguments I have ever seen against GMO are the typical antigovernment, anti agri, anti pharma conspiracy theories and selected examples numbering in the single digits pulled from the millions of safe useful products we all enjoy.
Or conflation with other conspiracy theories about Monsanta etc... Meanwhile there are metastudy reviews compiling research from 10s of thousands of studies that show with perfect consistently GM technology is safe.
What really gets under my skin about all this GMO fear mongering and LIES out of either ignorance or malice is that GM technology is our VERY BEST hope to cure many diseases including cancer, and our very best hope to create transplant-able human organs, directly saving lives.
Yes "science" sometimes, occasionally, gets things wrong, but conspiracy theories are wrong a good 99.5% of the time, and the .05% of the time they are right is pretty much equal to a broken clock being right twice a day.
Louder for the people in the back. Bolded for emphasis.3 -
Mmmmmmmm. Roundup ready.11
-
Science I trust (WHO, CDC, pretty much every major health organization) says GMOs are fine. Monsanto's business practices suck and that's the source of a lot of the hate.8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions