What about cases in which whole countries are starving and will not accept gmo food that could otherwise save them? Should they be rejecting something that will save them just because they think there could be a risk involved even though no risk has ever been found? (the gmo food offered to them is routinely consumed in other nations)
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
And the article basically says, "we have no proof that these GM foods are dangerous". They don't present any evidence to support the idea that GM foods are harmful.
ZV
There are several types of potential health effects that result from ingesting ANYTHING.
In the end, the DNA breaks down, the carbs break down, and the protein all break down, to be used by our bodies. The only things we need to really worry about are toxins, but that is a problem with any food. I'm more wary of eating a crop thats been sprayed with a pesticide than to one that is resistant through internal means. The food should certainly be tested for toxicity, as I'm sure just about everything is already.
Decreased nutrition - not so sure about that...they are looking towards infusing vitamins into foods, not taking them out.
Allergies - If youre alergic to something, you know what it is. If it contains a particular allergenic substance, such as phenylalanine, it should be labeled as so. No need to blanket mark all GMO crops.
Antibiotic resistance - Thats a completely separate issue...more important is the overprescription of antibiotics.
There are a great many ways to change the DNA of an organism, and the vast majority of those are of no ill effect to us. EVERY crop is genetically modified, because every crop has evolved. They certainly aren't going to produce vitamins they typically wouldnt through evolution. Organisms take a very long time to become resistant to threats that can kill them or slow their growth, and being that agricultural breeding is already essentially there for the same purpose, nothing wrong with more directly speeding the process up. It's the same thing, just on a larger scale.
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
It sounds like you're just trying to rationalize things that you don't understand, it's ok. Biochemists have repeatedly said that it's impossible to predict the recombinations of DNA from GM food (i.e. there is a possibility of proteins from E. Coli can recombine with pesticide resistant bacteria proteins). If you're willing to be a labrat, then that's fine, I'm not and will excercise my choice to eat organic foods.
As a sidenote, on the allergy risk issue, peoples' allergies change all the time. For example, I never used to have photoallergies but now I break out in hives when I get too much sun exposure.
The sad thing is that GM foods have done absolutely NOTHING for the consumer: no better taste, no better shelf life, all they have done is increase yields through more spraying. I see no reason to eat them and support international corporations' bottom lines.
Basically.
Although GM foods have been tested and retested, who knows the long term effects of changing the DNA of vegetation. There may be combinations of enzymes that are created due to the changes that react differently in digestion. Who knows? There is no way to tell until long term research is done.I still eat it, because other options are too expensive (because they aren't huge corporations that mass market food and vegetables and pump them with nitrogen to give them color, so they tend to be more expensive), but my dad grows fruits and vegetables in our yard and we eat those regularly.
"Organic" food tastes better (IMO also digests better, who knows why) and uses less pesticides. But a lot of "organic" food is accidentally cross pollinated. Even still, quality of the fruits and vegetables are better, and therefore better for you. People should stop making it such a big deal because some people can afford to make better lifestyle choices.
I'm a biochemistry major. I understand this far better than you do.
Your example is non-sensical for instance. There is a possiblity that proteins from E. Coli (a bacteria, the most common one in our stomach, not to mention the most studied organism in the world by FAR), are going to combine with pesticide resistant bactera proteins? That has nothing to do with GM...the bacterial proteins are going to recombine whether you like it or not, fully indepedent of the GM. It's all an arms race anyway, we spray, they evolve, we find a better spray, they evolve again ad nauseum.
Sure, it's hard to predict the recombination of the DNA. But it's *recombination* - not creation. The gene for a toxin isnt going to magically appear. The DNA isn't going to recombine into a deadly toxin...thats essentially impossible. And it's not going to combine with OUR dna, if thats what you're thinking.
And increased yield = higher availability + lower prices.
So sure, you can buy organic foods because you perceive them to be better. But you're going to pay extra for nothing. Admittedly fresher and tastier, especially if it comes from your own backyard, but not any more or less likely to kill you.
Originally posted by: DaShen
Basically.
I still eat it, because other options are too expensive (because they aren't huge corporations that mass market food and vegetables and pump them with nitrogen to give them color, so they tend to be more expensive), but my dad grows fruits and vegetables in our yard and we eat those regularly.
"Organic" food tastes better (IMO also digests better, who knows why) and uses less pesticides. But a lot of "organic" food is accidentally cross pollinated. Even still, quality of the fruits and vegetables are better, and therefore better for you. People should stop making it such a big deal because some people can afford to make better lifestyle choices.
Again, the enzymes can combine all the want. They're going to be denatured either way, as soon as they hit the stupendously acidic gastric juices and E. Coli in our stomach.
The problem here is that you are putting all GM under the same blanket. Could some combinations be toxic? Perhaps - but you'll know essentially right away. You have to understand how efficient your body is at breaking organic compounds down and removing waste.
It is *incredibly* hard, in fact at this point, nearly downright impossible to *create* a new gene. They are just taken from other organisms, which we've been eating for millions of years. Once it hits your stomach, it doesnt matter what fruit the resistant gene came from.
Hydrogenated oils are a real danger. This is quite less of a health risk.
Some GM companies marketed GM food as being so adaptive to environments that pesticide/herbicides could be significantly reduce. But what they've done is genetically modified them to withstand more spraying because weeds/pests are adapting to treatments. It's not a desirable cycle. Also the whole GM crop thing greatly reduces biodiversity because they'll sell the same seeds to a ton of farms. Again, not desirable.
Not really anything concrete showing that GM foods are harmful, but what you don't know can hurt you. Digestion is a very complex process, and trillions of bacteria in your intestines contribute to it. Changes in DNA could have consequences.
Genetic engineering is great, but doing it sloppily I'm not so sure about.
Not really anything concrete showing that GM foods are harmful, but what you don't know can hurt you. Digestion is a very complex process, and trillions of bacteria in your intestines contribute to it. Changes in DNA could have consequences.
Genetic engineering is great, but doing it sloppily I'm not so sure about.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: DaShen
Basically.
I still eat it, because other options are too expensive (because they aren't huge corporations that mass market food and vegetables and pump them with nitrogen to give them color, so they tend to be more expensive), but my dad grows fruits and vegetables in our yard and we eat those regularly.
"Organic" food tastes better (IMO also digests better, who knows why) and uses less pesticides. But a lot of "organic" food is accidentally cross pollinated. Even still, quality of the fruits and vegetables are better, and therefore better for you. People should stop making it such a big deal because some people can afford to make better lifestyle choices.
Again, the enzymes can combine all the want. They're going to be denatured either way, as soon as they hit the stupendously acidic gastric juices and E. Coli in our stomach.
The problem here is that you are putting all GM under the same blanket. Could some combinations be toxic? Perhaps - but you'll know essentially right away.
I'm curious how you think you'll essentially know right away? Much of the problem of our food supply isn't in response to acute problems; rather, it's to problems that develop over many years due to the ignorance of consumers and to the apathy of mass agriculture.
A small example: There's been a lot of research into how arachidonic acid (AA) plays a roll in inflammatory diseases; specifically, and in the interest of simplifying this converastion, AA is directly related to the inflammatory response by facilitating production of leukotrienes and prostoglandins. People with chronic inflammatory problems (e.g. lupus, IBS, Crohn's, allergies, asthma, even Celiac's) often make their problems worse by ingesting large quantities of preform AA in their diets, and of course doctor's prescribe medications like Vioxx, Celebrex, etc. to inhibit the enzymes that ultimately lead to the production of the inflammatory leukotrienes and prostoglandins (there is currently no anti-inflammatory that inhibits both enzymes, I believe).
It's things like the above that most people don't consider. "It's all the same!" is usually the argument. Yes, ultimately it is, but farming methods have drastically changes the nutritional content of many foods, especially animal-derived foods. This includes your milk, beef, fish, etc.
For example, if you consult the USDA values on farmed salmon versus wild salmon you'll find very distinct differences; these differences are a result of the farming methods used, but mainly it comes down to the diet changes of the farmed salmon and the dyes used to give the farmed salmon its pink. You'll find that farmed salmon is drastically higher in preform AA than wild salmon, and this isn't something that you'd likely find written anywhere. Of course, you'll have people here and elsewhere argue that "farmed salmon is fine; promoting wild salmon as better is just a scam for tree-huggers" or some similar nonsense.
There are also studies that show many (if not most; I'll have to look it up) of third-world countries largely do not suffer from the same gastrointestinally-related problems of first-world countries. There are a lot of theories as to why this is, but there's no question it's environment + food supply. Allergies are a huge problem in this country
The point is this: There are so many contributing factors that have led to the alteration of our food supply that a consumer is ill-equipped to manage their nutrition, especially for those with chronic disease. People look so superficially at basic calories, carbs, fat, etc. and don't realize that the environmental changes in mass agriculture have led to fundamental changes in composition of many food items, and this is, in my opinion, of great detriment to the consumer. Granted, many of these changes are likely not at all harmful, but the idea is to promote discipline and consumer responsibility.
Long post...
[edit]
A few references:
One
Two
Just provides some basic information on the level of research currently being done.
[/edit]
Look, i've been involved with a Canola breeding program for years. The crops we produce are considered (in the EU) as GMO. What do we do you say? We selected the best looking, higest yields, and the best disease resistance and breed them again again repaeating the process for years until we had a kick A variety. Most of you eat this variety at least once a weel I imagine. We cant send any to third world countries (or food) because the EU doesnt like it. At least the WTO is slapping them good.
Why don't we care in America? Because we have doing this type of programs since the 1700's (documented) and it has been quite beneficial. Look at RR Soybeans. It is a brillant idea. Spray a whole crop with roundup (which is basically soap) and kill all weeds. Plants yield a bunch higher because of it. More food for consumption and its cheaper too!
As for true GMO plants. Don't think they just go rampant. These things are controlled VERY VERY STRICTLY by the USDA. We harvested a field that had a Gene the glowed in the black light and a inspector came down and monitored the harvesting, packaging, and decontamination process. Plus we have to monitor the field for 10 years to make sure nothing escaped out controls. I believe at the time the fine for a lost seed was $10k per. A canola plant has hundreds of seeds per plant so it could be detrimental to a company if any got out.
If you want to talk about organic vs. inorganic then we could have a good debate. But GMO's? Forget it.
Why don't we care in America? Because we have doing this type of programs since the 1700's (documented) and it has been quite beneficial. Look at RR Soybeans. It is a brillant idea. Spray a whole crop with roundup (which is basically soap) and kill all weeds. Plants yield a bunch higher because of it. More food for consumption and its cheaper too!
As for true GMO plants. Don't think they just go rampant. These things are controlled VERY VERY STRICTLY by the USDA. We harvested a field that had a Gene the glowed in the black light and a inspector came down and monitored the harvesting, packaging, and decontamination process. Plus we have to monitor the field for 10 years to make sure nothing escaped out controls. I believe at the time the fine for a lost seed was $10k per. A canola plant has hundreds of seeds per plant so it could be detrimental to a company if any got out.
If you want to talk about organic vs. inorganic then we could have a good debate. But GMO's? Forget it.
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: DaShen
Basically.
I still eat it, because other options are too expensive (because they aren't huge corporations that mass market food and vegetables and pump them with nitrogen to give them color, so they tend to be more expensive), but my dad grows fruits and vegetables in our yard and we eat those regularly.
"Organic" food tastes better (IMO also digests better, who knows why) and uses less pesticides. But a lot of "organic" food is accidentally cross pollinated. Even still, quality of the fruits and vegetables are better, and therefore better for you. People should stop making it such a big deal because some people can afford to make better lifestyle choices.
Again, the enzymes can combine all the want. They're going to be denatured either way, as soon as they hit the stupendously acidic gastric juices and E. Coli in our stomach.
The problem here is that you are putting all GM under the same blanket. Could some combinations be toxic? Perhaps - but you'll know essentially right away.
I'm curious how you think you'll essentially know right away? Much of the problem of our food supply isn't in response to acute problems; rather, it's to problems that develop over many years due to the ignorance of consumers and to the apathy of mass agriculture.
A small example: There's been a lot of research into how arachidonic acid (AA) plays a roll in inflammatory diseases; specifically, and in the interest of simplifying this converastion, AA is directly related to the inflammatory response by facilitating production of leukotrienes and prostoglandins. People with chronic inflammatory problems (e.g. lupus, IBS, Crohn's, allergies, asthma, even Celiac's) often make their problems worse by ingesting large quantities of preform AA in their diets, and of course doctor's prescribe medications like Vioxx, Celebrex, etc. to inhibit the enzymes that ultimately lead to the production of the inflammatory leukotrienes and prostoglandins (there is currently no anti-inflammatory that inhibits both enzymes, I believe).
It's things like the above that most people don't consider. "It's all the same!" is usually the argument. Yes, ultimately it is, but farming methods have drastically changes the nutritional content of many foods, especially animal-derived foods. This includes your milk, beef, fish, etc.
For example, if you consult the USDA values on farmed salmon versus wild salmon you'll find very distinct differences; these differences are a result of the farming methods used, but mainly it comes down to the diet changes of the farmed salmon and the dyes used to give the farmed salmon its pink. You'll find that farmed salmon is drastically higher in preform AA than wild salmon, and this isn't something that you'd likely find written anywhere. Of course, you'll have people here and elsewhere argue that "farmed salmon is fine; promoting wild salmon as better is just a scam for tree-huggers" or some similar nonsense.
There are also studies that show many (if not most; I'll have to look it up) of third-world countries largely do not suffer from the same gastrointestinally-related problems of first-world countries. There are a lot of theories as to why this is, but there's no question it's environment + food supply. Allergies are a huge problem in this country
The point is this: There are so many contributing factors that have led to the alteration of our food supply that a consumer is ill-equipped to manage their nutrition, especially for those with chronic disease. People look so superficially at basic calories, carbs, fat, etc. and don't realize that the environmental changes in mass agriculture have led to fundamental changes in composition of many food items, and this is, in my opinion, of great detriment to the consumer. Granted, many of these changes are likely not at all harmful, but the idea is to promote discipline and consumer responsibility.
Long post...
[edit]
A few references:
One
Two
Just provides some basic information on the level of research currently being done.
[/edit]
But that is a question about the effects of the AA. A question of a specific diet being wrong for a specific population. Not of otherwise complacent genes recombining to be killers. Thats just FUD, and thats why we have an FDA.
All of the above is problems with our general food supply, diet and farming. GM is only a single, and likely one of the least important, factors in all of those problems.
My issue is with the idea of blanket labeling of GM foods, which will invariably lead to a misunderstanding that GM is necessarily a bad thing, when it doesn't need to be.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: DaShen
Basically.
I still eat it, because other options are too expensive (because they aren't huge corporations that mass market food and vegetables and pump them with nitrogen to give them color, so they tend to be more expensive), but my dad grows fruits and vegetables in our yard and we eat those regularly.
"Organic" food tastes better (IMO also digests better, who knows why) and uses less pesticides. But a lot of "organic" food is accidentally cross pollinated. Even still, quality of the fruits and vegetables are better, and therefore better for you. People should stop making it such a big deal because some people can afford to make better lifestyle choices.
Again, the enzymes can combine all the want. They're going to be denatured either way, as soon as they hit the stupendously acidic gastric juices and E. Coli in our stomach.
The problem here is that you are putting all GM under the same blanket. Could some combinations be toxic? Perhaps - but you'll know essentially right away.
<snip long post>
[edit]
A few references:
One
Two
Just provides some basic information on the level of research currently being done.
[/edit]
But that is a question about the effects of the AA.
Right, but there is no question about the effects of AA. The effects are known, published, and well understood. Those responsible for the research received a Nobel Prize for their findings.
I can't disagree with that. I was essentially arguing with the notion that any effects would be perceived right away, and my example was just to demonstrate that many of these more latent problems occur over the span of years or decades. By the time you know it's largely too late. I'm simply suggesting that exercising caution, not complacence, is in order here.
Agreed.
Mostly agree.
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
And people have gotten sick from allergies due to GMO foods, this is fact. You just admitted that some combinations could be toxic! So why the hell would anyone want to eat that when they have the option of eating organic? And if you really think that soaking the earth and our crops with RoundUp chemicals, i.e. something that you would not normally ingest as a food, is healthy then I don't know what to say to you.
People get sick from allergies due to non-GMO too. What in the GM food caused the allergy in the case you are referring to?
I just admitted the theoretical possibility, one so unlikely that I shouldnt have even brought it up. I don't claim to be a food scientist, but I know a lot more about it than someone who reads fear-mongering articles. Since I haven't read every peer reviewed article released in the past ten years, I erred on the side of safety. But thats what the FDA and USDA is for.
Why would anyone want to eat it? It's cheap, and its safe, and it tastes good. It might not taste AS good as organic, but not everyone needs the best every time.
I don't think its good to spray crops, in a perfect world we wouldnt need them....but it's not the problem you're making it out to be.
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
There was a lady on 20/20 who claimed she got sick from a GMO food. She couldn't breathe, and broke out. I couldn't find a link.
You say "it's safe" yet you contradicted yourself above when you said combinations could be toxic and say there is a theoretical possibility. But what are the odds of this possibility occuring? You don't know for sure, and therein lies the problem: we don't know enough about it to give it to the public IMO.
She got sick from eating GM foods perhaps, but what was the substance that isn't present in non-gm foods that got her sick? Thats the key. Until that is known, its just FUD, sensationalist reporting. You should know better than to be swayed by that garbage.
The odds based on my knowledge of genetics - virtually 10000000 trillion to 1. So small of a theoretical possibility that I shouldn't have even mentioned it. Most likely, it is a matter of a known substance having an adverse effect, such as the AA that Descartes describes, its as issue of foods containing AA being labeled, akin to peanuts and phenylalanine, not the fact that its GM.
Your fear arises from not having a basic understanding of genetics. It certainly sounds terrible if you don't....omg theyre playing god, they are making new genes, god only knows what theyre doing etc.
When the reality of it is that it is incredibly hard to do this kind of thing. It is not a matter of making frankenfoods as you are imagining, it is more of a matter of honing the process of selective breeding.
Before GM: some foods and/or strains are more resistant to pests than others, grow better, are tastier etc. Lets selectively breed and cross breed to bring those traits that are beneficial to us out. Very slow process.
After GM: Genetically analyze the crops, determine what genetics have a positive effect. Very painstaking, but in the end, after much experimentation, find out what is specifically is responsible for these desireable traits. Likely a specific compound being produced, or a change in growth timing, patterns etc....keep in mind the crops genes are tuned for IT'S survival (oversimplification, I know), not ours. Engineer and force it to have these traits. You can do a lot that you normally couldn't do with cross breeding. And for the most part, its still all natural, just forced to naturally do what it wouldn't have evolved to do on its own.
Most of our insulin supply is produced by engineering bacteria. We took OUR insulin gene, and stuck it in the right spot in the bacterial DNA, and put them to work for us. Its still the same compound in the end. Are you not going to take that insulin because its engineered?
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
because god didn't make our food,we did. its all been modified through unnatural human selection.
exactly the same as with normally bred food. and if we had to wait generations for long term studies we'd never make progress. nature isn't about feeding us, or being perfect nutrition, its about good enough, make do until you can reproduce and thats fine, thats how it works.
exactly the same as with normally bred food. and if we had to wait generations for long term studies we'd never make progress. nature isn't about feeding us, or being perfect nutrition, its about good enough, make do until you can reproduce and thats fine, thats how it works.
Remember when some Starlink corn made it into the food supply? For a period of at least 6 months, I couldn't figure out why a few products I'd eaten my whole life were suddenly making me feel sick every time I ate them. I gradually stopped eating them, but when I tried them many months/years later I discovered that they didn't cause a negative reaction anymore. Turns out all those products had Starlink corn in them during that period that I quit eating them :disgust:
Starlink was never approved to be fit for human consumption. Doesn't mean all GM foods are bad. It means we need tighter regulations to keep livestock feed away from human food. And considering it's now out of the food supply, obviously something was done properly to rectify the unfortunate situation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter