Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why? (page 2)

cognisonance

I'm not anti-GMO in general, to me it depends on the type of modification (such as golden rice vs round-up ready corn). I do have major concern about pesticides and conventional (GMO or not) crops have shown to have higher levels of pesticides by the time they end up on your plate than Organic produce. By eating mostly organic that means I rarely eat GMOs. It could be that I'm just wasting my money, but I view trying to eat the healthiest produce possible as cheap insurance on my future health.

As regards the evidence for safety here are some recent scientific articles for food for thought:

And in the interest of intellectual honesty, contrast these views with the statements here:

Genetically modified crops: the truth unveiled

20years_to_get_free

My only issue with GMOs is that as a consumer I should have the right to know the origins of my food. GMO labeling should be mandatory. So should origins of fruits and veggies, as well as fish. None of this should be remotely controversial to food companies.

DJS

20 years,

Some states have passed such laws.

And there is a consensus as to the safety of GMO food. To suggest otherwise is to search for the very few antagonists who 'feel' differently. From Scientific American: "The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not."

Based on meta-data studies, GMOs are safe, kinder to the environment and more profitable for farmers. Soon those few extremist reactionaries will be likened to Jenny McCarthy and her rants about vaccinations. Unless, of course, Killer Tomatoes terrorize the villagers.

Once again theists and non-theists are on essentially opposite sides of an OP, This occurs whether the topic is religious or secular. Feeling, Believing, Thinking, Knowing, Proving.

Splash

If it means we can produce more food globally, make it pest, disease and drought resistant, store it longer and it's safe to eat, I'm for it.

The downside is that it's often more expensive to buy the seed in the first place and it often has its reproductive gene turned off so you have to buy new every year instead of keep some back each year to replant.

cappytan

Since there is no evidence that GMO's are harmful, labeling should be the other way around.

It's more logical for a company that wants to appeal to consumers like 20years_to_get_free to label their products non-GMO than to force all food that has GMO's to have the label.

You don't see Celiac's folks demanding that foods be labeled to indicate they contain Gluten. No, they go to the store and buy foods that they either already know are gluten free, or they are labeled Gluten Free.

And there is hard evidence that people that suffer from gluten sensitivity and Celiac's disease are adversely effected by Gluten.

No such similar evidence exists on the adverse effects of GMOs.

That's why it's far more reasonable for foods that are nonGMO to label themselves as such.

Crazyguy

Do to the modification of the crops by companies like Monsanto people are finding that thier body's can no longer process the food properly and many have become allergic to them or have other reactions. I have a friend that if she eats any GMO food has a serious reactions and becomes very ill. So whatever your opinion remember there are people that are getting sick because of this.

DJS

CrazyGuy,

When you aren't posting videos of KH intrusions you are making ridiculous unsubstantiated, reactionary comments. Your 'friend' is likely full of theist bullshit:

"According to Food Allergy Research and Education, “nearly any food is capable of causing an allergic reaction.” Most allergens are proteins, and the organization states that ninety percent of food-allergic reactions in the United States are caused by allergens from only eight foods: peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, wheat, soy, shellfish and fish.

Of those, only soy is commercially available in genetically modified varieties. But if a person is allergic to conventional soy, s/he will also be allergic to GM soy as it is not different compositionally. The Food Allergy Service, maintained by the Institute of Food Research in the United Kingdom, asserts that “to date, no food derived from GMOs has been found to cause new allergies.”

The AllergenOnline database at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, independently managed by a panel of internationally recognized allergy experts who review and vote on allergen inclusion, does not list any allergens coming from GMOs. The database “lists every known protein that has been shown to cause an allergy and or even might be suspected of possibly causing a reaction,” said Richard Goodman, a food allergy research professor who runs the database at the university. Three main tests are conducted to ensure that any new proteins from GM foods do not cause allergies: in vitro test, in silico test and digestion.

The in vitro test introduces new proteins into serum from people with existing allergies. The new proteins pass the test if the antibodies in the serum do not attack it. The in silico test compares the new proteins to known allergens, making sure that they are not similar. Finally, digestion involves destroying the proteins with heat, acid and stomach enzymes, going by the rationale that many allergens are resistant to digestion.

These tests kept the only documented case of a GM soybean that was potentially allergenic off the market. Researchers who tried to improve the nutritional quality of soybeans using a Brazil nut protein realized that they were working with an allergen and immediately stopped the work. This is strong evidence that scientific methods to prevent allergy-causing GMOs from reaching consumers are robust and work."

OUTLAW

GMO`s are still relatively new..

A reliable food source is great....Being one of the guinea pigs to test it not so much..

We don`t know what long term effects are yet...

Label it GMO..

People have the choice of whether to use those products or not..

cappytan

Do to the modification of the crops by companies like Monsanto people are finding that thier body's can no longer process the food properly and many have become allergic to them or have other reactions.

Where is the documented medical proof that GMO's are the cause?

I have a friend that if she eats any GMO food has a serious reactions and becomes very ill.

That's a case of the placebo effect. Some will read a bunch of scary stuff on GMO's, then feel ill when they eat them.

So whatever your opinion remember there are people that are getting sick because of this.

Again, where is the documented medical proof that these are the cause?

Let me put it another way:

Due to the world conditions getting worse, many people are finding that they have a deep seated concerns as to their spiritual well being. I have a friend with cancer, that when she prayed to God, her tumors shrank she she was cured. So, whatever your opinion on prayer and God is, remember there are people that could be cured because of this.

Does the above sound like rational, evidence based reasoning to you?

Barrold Bonds

GMOs themselves are fine. The politics and the shitty corporations behind them are evil but that's a whole other topic.

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

Share this