GMO Food, Artificial Sweeteners and Processed Foods

[Kaido]

There have been concerted efforts by environmental organizations to push organic and non-GMO farming on the developed world. To put it bluntly, it is paternalistic, racist, and it's killing people. Then there are people like Norman Borlaug, who few have ever heard of. The man who saved a billion lives by introducing high yield GMO plants to third world countries. The fact that Monsanto owns and is very protective of patents on GMO seeds is a big issue, but not a science one. People need to stop confusing the two.

I couldn't believe I had never heard of Norman Borlaug before, either. I have a blurb on him here:

http://www.davelikesfood.com/post/94927436744/penn-teller-on-gmos

Do I 100% agree with GMO's? No. Is there a 100% correlation between GMO's and ADHD, tumors, etc.? No. It's a gray area right now, and it's low enough below the threshold of acceptability that the majority of the people don't care. I mean, diesel is apparently responsible for 6% of cancer:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/2013/11/diesel-lung-cancer-deaths/

Or, you know, getting cancer from sitting in traffic under the UV rays everyday:

http://upfclothing.org/skin-cancer-uv-exposure-while-driving/

So...yeah. Issue isn't clear. Monsanto does have plenty of government ties, and we all know how things work when politicians & money is involved:

http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/geke.png

 

[norseamd]

If you're implying GMO foods are unsafe, please back that assertion with peer reviewed research.

If you are implying that GMO foods are safe over the long term then please link to some peer-reviewed research.

 

[norseamd]

Your friend is probably allergic to gluten, not GMO.

Gluten sensitivity might not have anything to do with gluten but actually certain carbohydrate chains that often occur in foods that also contain gluten or gluten substances. This is from the original researcher who discovered the possible side effects of gluten in the diet.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm assuming you have strong feelings about salt too?

Cl ions are way different than chloro carbons. Cl ions are necessary for nerve impulses and are part of your stomach acid anyway.

Its like you need a chem degree to go grocery shopping. Thats the actual core of the problem and why there are so many organic crazies on one hand and equally ignorant people eating like 5g of trans fat a day for breakfast because they still never got the memo on trans fat.

 

[Fenixgoon]

so I was talking with my brother's father in law, who used to work for the USDA and also runs a farm.

his take was that GMOs are awesome:
1) you don't have to spray crops nearly as much, significantly reducing environmental impact
2) better crop yields
3) ability to extend growing season
4) they are the most tested foods in human history

that being said, he also said that fruits and vegetables cultivated on an agricultural scale may never taste as good as locally grown produce, simply because those better products do not lend themselves to large-scale production. for example, what makes a tomato a tomato, and one that is desirable to be purchased in a store?

it has to be round, maybe with an aspect ratio between 1:1 and 1:2
it has to be uniformly red
it cannot bruise during shipping
it cannot spoil during shipping

so for somebody to sell a tomato on an agricultural scale, a very specific tomato breed is used. but for local farmer bob, he can grow that tomato that tastes 100x better but looks kinda funny (but it's still good), bruises if you look at it wrong, and spoils much faster.

having local produce is great. having GMO technology available to prevent mass starvation? also pretty great.

 

[OverVolt]

Just learn to cook, problem solved.

 

[Jeff7]

so I was talking with my brother's father in law, who used to work for the USDA and also runs a farm.

his take was that GMOs are awesome:
1) you don't have to spray crops nearly as much, significantly reducing environmental impact
2) better crop yields
3) ability to extend growing season
4) they are the most tested foods in human history
...

Cadmium is a nice coating for fasteners to give them corrosion resistance. It's also pretty toxic.
Radium was nice for making glow-in-the-dark (or light) watchfaces, and was readily available. It's also radioactive.
Convenience isn't always the best overall option.

I love the idea of GMOs. Modify the genetic code and improve the life form to suit our needs.
Problem is, the main organizations that do it also spend a lot of money in lobbyists or political favors to eliminate or circumvent regulations that are intended to protect public safety. Then you end up with interesting terms like "generally recognized as safe."
They also couldn't just say "safe" because that's too definitive. GRAS: If it's not safe....well, we tried. Better luck next time.

having local produce is great. having GMO technology available to prevent mass starvation? also pretty great.

Taking steps to avoid severe overpopulation: Also pretty great. Fewer people to have to feet = less need for extraordinary measures to keep everyone fed. Looking around this impoverished planet, we're doing a lousy job of remaining properly-fed.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

If you are implying that GMO foods are safe over the long term then please link to some peer-reviewed research.

It's YOUR burden of proof to say that GMOs are bad. There has been absolutely no evidence of GMOs causing any long term harm.

YOU have to prove your position, not the supporters of GMO.

 

[norseamd]

It's YOUR burden of proof to say that GMOs are bad. There has been absolutely no evidence of GMOs causing any long term harm. YOU have to prove your position, not the supporters of GMO.

Because obviously you want to eat foods you have no idea about now. I will give you a very big hint. GMO as a concept is not bad. But even organic Ketel Nut will give you cancer and shit. What is important are the particular genetics in the foods we want to eat. The bacteria we usually use for genetically modifying food actually causes plant tumors and shit. And neither side has a unconditional right to require burden of proof from the other side while not carrying any burden of proof themselves. As is obvious both sides like to use fallacies.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

According to the CDC there are roughly 200 chemicals measurable in our blood and urine that have never been present in the American population prior to 20 years ago. It is my belief that most of these chemicals come from the food we eat. Now, no one knows what effect these trace amounts have or, what effects the combination of chemicals have. However, the increase in food intolerance and allergies has risen dramatically within one generation, from 7% when I was a kid to 17% today. Over processed foods, "convenience foods" and, fast food are the most likely suspects.

 

[destrekor]

According to the CDC there are roughly 200 chemicals measurable in our blood and urine that have never been present in the American population prior to 20 years ago. It is my belief that most of these chemicals come from the food we eat. Now, no one knows what effect these trace amounts have or, what effects the combination of chemicals have. However, the increase in food intolerance and allergies has risen dramatically within one generation, from 7% when I was a kid to 17% today. Over processed foods, "convenience foods" and, fast food are the most likely suspects.

A fair portion likely comes from food we eat, true.

There is likely an alarming percentage of that increase simply from the water we drink, thanks to the increase prevalence of pharmaceuticals that just won't degrade, or otherwise have long-lasting byproducts that are expelled through urine. Not all chemical treatment plants can remove or destroy these, and they are present at the most minute levels.

This also, again, goes right back into the food we eat, which is where most of the extra chemicals that are not food additives, yet are food-borne, originate. They get taken up by plants from the groundwater, they get consumed or absorbed by fish, and it all collects in many food-chains.

Also, we are still getting a nasty amount of lead from the environment, among a heaping lot of other chemicals.
So much is in the air we breathe, either as inherently airborne like aerosols, or as sediment that gets kicked up, like lead. The latter is the fun one: we're still dealing with the excessive amount that was pumped into the air but quickly settled, and found no place to go. It gets stirred up regularly, and we get constant exposure. It's settling down now, now that so much has been absorbed by many before us, but lead definitely still exists.

The increase in incidence of many mental health diseases cannot be entirely due to better testing methodology. Granted, as a population increases, the NUMBER of people with anything increases, though percentages of total don't typically chance. Yet... we've pumped more "oh... this should be safe!... wait, twenty years have passed and shit, that's most definitely NOT safe! So sorry!" into the atmosphere, into our bodies, and in general throughout the entire biosphere in the past century than mankind has ever dreamed.
It cannot be a terrible stretch of the imagination to suggest all the extra chemicals we unwittingly introduce to our bodies might just have damaging effects to either our current DNA, or to the DNA of all the potential children waiting for their chance to blossom from our loins.

Which is to say, it's far more likely all the lead, mercury, and other terrific chemicals we blasted at ourselves is more likely to blame for increases in autism, than, say, vaccines.