Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

by cappytan 48 Replies latest jw friends

  • cappytan

    So, the anti-GMO movement scored another victory today. Chipotle has opted to only use non-GMO food items.

    Hooray for them.

    I'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, I have seen no evidence to avoid GMO's for health reasons.

    Basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that I'll buy non-GMO, so long as the price is reasonable.

    So, back to the question, what is your stance on GMO's and why is that your stance, and what evidence to you have to back up that stance?

  • Viviane
    Because evolution, everything is genetically modified. There is zero evidence that GMO food is better or worse than non GMO
  • OneEyedJoe

    It depends on how they're modified. If they modify corn to store up a little more water in order to be more drought tolerant, I've seen no reason to believe that this would result in the corn being bad for our health (well no more than regular corn). If they modify it to produce toxic insecticides, then maybe we shouldn't be eating it.

    This is the sort of problem that happens when you lump a broad group of things into one catchy label. We've been producing hybrid plants (for example, the tangelo) for a very long time, and in most cases GMOs are just more advanced versions of that. Most of the fear over GMOs, in my opinion, is based solely around it's novelty.

    Since there's not much market for corn that kills people, I'm not too worried...

  • DJS

    Using non-GMO foods fits Chipotle's business design. They have a kinder, gentler capitalistic approach, such as free range chickens, counseling for the chickens' families (just kidding), minimizing the use of antibiotics, living wages, etc. I applaud them for this, but their decision re: GMO vegetables, I repeat, vegetables, is based on their business design. Science hasn't anything to do with it.

    I'm with Viv (surprising, huh?). The evidence has failed to suggest that GMO plants are in any manner less healthy or more damaging than regular food. In addition to evolution, as Viv pointed out, humans have been mucking with plant and animal biology for thousands of years; we just have better tools today. The hysteria is unfounded. When Killer Tomatoes are bred that threaten the villagers, then I will modify my views.

  • done4good

    What Viviane said, at least from a health perspective.

    However, also because of evolution, any direct modification to the genetic makeup of an organism, could change evolutionary patterns that have long term effects on the ecosystem overall. Not that this is by necessity an issue, just part of what happens with evolution. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes no known immediate effect.

    Think Africanized bees. When African honeybees were introduced to Europe and North America in the 1950s to improve honey production, it was not expected these bees would take over European bee populations, and produce so-called "killer" bees. By the 1970s, these relatively aggressive bees were overpowering European bee populations, and replacing them, earning the name "killer". At that time it was thought these would potentially become a serious threat to humans. That threat was unsubstantiated.

    Longer term, beekeepers have adapted, and found ways to keep these bees in their farms, and use them for productive honey producing purposes. Likely, any evolutionary change forced by GMO will force some adaptation in the future, at the worst.


  • Hold Me-Thrill Me
    Hold Me-Thrill Me

    My generation experienced the mistake of the older generation thinking radiation therapy was the best thing since the wheel. Radiating acne on teens' necks and faces was a new great idea until it was found to be damaging their thyroid. X-rays were routinely used to track the growth of fetuses in their mother's abdomen. All of this was well intentioned but they went too fast, they ran before they had learned to walk.

    GMOs in my opinion have the potential to do permanent harm to the environment. GMO corn has already entered the wild. It is too early, way to early, to make the claim that GMO crops will not harm the wild not to mention genetically altered animal life entering the wild. They are running before they can walk without being careful for the next generation.

    I'm not against GMOs I'm against the carelessness that so often runs alongside greed and notoriety, the race to be the first. Let's wait 100 years and then we'll know what the effect of all this real life experimentation will be.


  • JeffT

    What Frank said.

    I have a son and daughter in law both working toward advanced degrees in environmental science, we've talked about this a lot. The real complaint against GMO's is not that they are dangerous to eat (as Viv pointed out, they aren't). What we don't know is how they will effect the environment, and the plants around them.

    If we could insure careful handling, and move slowly in allowing them, I'm OK with it. But we need to be careful and study the problems as we go.

  • DJS

    GMO foods have been studied in an exhaustive manner, and they will continue to be. All of us in the US have been eating GMO foods for a long time. They have been around, legally, since 1994, when the Flavr Savr tomato was approved by the FDA for marketing. The modification allowed the tomato to delay ripening after picking.

    With a little help from Wiki: In 1995, the following transgenic crops received marketing approval: canola with modified oil composition, cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, Bt cotton (Monsanto), Bt potatoes (Monsanto), glyphosate-tolerant soybeans herbicide (Monsanto), virus-resistant squash (Monsanto-Asgrow), and additional delayed ripening tomatoes (DNAP, Zeneca/Peto, and Monsanto).

    In 2000, with the creation of golden rice, scientists genetically modified food to increase its nutrient value for the first time. As of 2011, the US is the leading country in the production of GM foods. Twenty-five GM crops had received regulatory approval. As of 2013, roughly 85% of corn, 91% of soybeans, and 88% of cotton produced in the US are genetically modified.

  • thedepressedsoul
    This conversation is over my head. I didn't get a edumication as a young jw.
  • Vidiot

    Humanity's been GMing for thousands of years.

    It's called farming.

Share with others