GMOs causing autism?! We report, you decide!

[ReindeerThistle]

I'm done, Farm Boy. Thanks for the insight.

 

[plarq]

Commies don't object capitalist evolution, they believe capitalist innovation would dig their own graves and make way for socialism.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm done, Farm Boy. Thanks for the insight.

You too, I suppose.

 

[Farm Boy]

Some new studies and criticisms on the overall topic of the health of organic foods. Standard cnn opinion article(better than some really) with decent links within.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/05/opinion/carroll-organic-food-nutrition/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

[Narz]

I tend to subscribe to the precautionary principle with regards to new materials & new beings. Nothing definitive can be said yet & that's the problem.

 

[bhsup]

But a lot can be said definitively. I thought that was the whole point of having studies. They've shown GMO crops to be safe. Unless you just don't want to believe the studies...

 

[warpus]

Every single food we consume is new in some way - it probably did not exist 10,000 years ago. We've created almost every single thing we eat.

 

[classical_hero]

But a lot can be said definitively. I thought that was the whole point of having studies. They've shown GMO crops to be safe. Unless you just don't want to believe the studies...

Only if you consider a few months testing safe, considering we eat such things for years on end, the effect can only be known after long term use and we don't know that and basically the US consumer is a guinea pig. Some of the way things are tested would absolutely boggle your mind if you found out how sub-standard they are.

@warpus, but the way things changed is that farmers saw a desired trait and they would try and just breed that, but those traits were already part of the genome of the produce, but in many cases we are seeing things not native to the species being added and that carries risks we simply don't understand right now, which is why we should be cautious about the whole situation.

 

[Farm Boy]

@warpus, but the way things changed is that farmers saw a desired trait and they would try and just breed that, but those traits were already part of the genome of the produce, but in many cases we are seeing things not native to the species being added and that carries risks we simply don't understand right now, which is why we should be cautious about the whole situation.

There are 2 genetic modifications on the market in 3 different crops. Roundup Resistance and Bt Resistance being the two modifications. Corn, soybeans, and cotton being the 3 different crops. Everything else on the market is conventional breeding just like you are laying out. That's what traditional or conventional agriculture is. So called organic agriculture is different.

 

[Samson]

There are 2 genetic modifications on the market in 3 different crops. Roundup Resistance and Bt Resistance being the two modifications. Corn, soybeans, and cotton being the 3 different crops. Everything else on the market is conventional breeding just like you are laying out. That's what traditional or conventional agriculture is. So called organic agriculture is different.

It is not Bt Resistance but Bt expression. This is a bacterial toxin that is being expressed in every cell of the plant to reduce the insect damage to the crop. Bt Resistance is what we WILL get when these crops are grown on any scale and for an extended time, and also I feel one of the biggest dangers of our current appoach to GM agriculture.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, all pests will become resistant to broadly applied controls over time. Just like you get with antibiotic use in humans. That's why you cycle them when you can, which requires multiple methods of control, and why there are regulations regarding the percentage of non-Bt modified crops you must plant into your acreage. That's usually called "refuge" crop, and it's used to increase the lifespan of currently used controls. It's a mistake to think that the same pests aren't controlled in the refuge areas, they are, they're just controlled with a different, broader spectrum, poison. The idea is that the pests then interbreed with the ones that develop Bt resistance to slow propagation of that pest trait. It's also a mistake to think that Bt organic pesticide treatments fail to contribute to the same problems of pest resistance.

Yes: I should have typed Bt Insect Resistance not Bt Resistance. Thank you for the correction.

 

[warpus]

@warpus, but the way things changed is that farmers saw a desired trait and they would try and just breed that, but those traits were already part of the genome of the produce, but in many cases we are seeing things not native to the species being added and that carries risks we simply don't understand right now, which is why we should be cautious about the whole situation.

Being cautious is fine with me, and it seems that the proper safeguards and tests are in place, for any new food being introduced into the food supply.

Either way my point was supposed to illustrate that our food supply has been constantly updated with new foods, that we haven't seen before.. And right now we have stricter standards (maybe not in the U.S., they hate regulations over there, but say.. the EU) than we had 5,000 years ago or even 100 years ago.

I'm all up for making these standards stricter, but villifying all genetically modified foodstuffs as "potentially bad" is just silly. You just can't group them all like that and make pronouncements about them - you look at each one individually and you test it. And that's what's been happening...

 

[El_Machinae]

Only if you consider a few months testing safe.

It's not only a few months, but you knew that. There's a broader point people should know, scientifically 'proving'* that something has no effect is vastly harder than showing something has an effect.

*Prove, of course being used colloquially.

 

[Narz]

Every single food we consume is new in some way - it probably did not exist 10,000 years ago. We've created almost every single thing we eat.

Probably true. But that doesn't mean we should eat anything.

 

[Zelig]

But a lot can be said definitively. I thought that was the whole point of having studies. They've shown GMO crops to be safe. Unless you just don't want to believe the studies...

Well if you don't believe the studies, there's some chance that GMO crops are safer than non-GMO crops.

People also need to remember that eating a cake is certainly less healthy than eating a bowl of spinach, GMO or non-GMO.

 

[Tarquelne]

Have we started the thread over? Is that what's going on?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I was shocked to learn that not all of the food I typically purchase had been de-demonized by a certified voodoo sky pilot. I demand labels too!

And...I'm starting to think that my pet Teacup Chihuahua isn't a natural wolf...again, no warning labels!? Why?????

 

[El_Machinae]

One good counterpoint I've heard is: if GMO is so great, why aren't they willing to advertise that their product has it?

Look, now this is taking ownership and selling the contents of your product!

Spoiler :

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, but if it was inspired by the need for a better tasting soft drink, it failed miserably. Sure, it's lightyears better than that redbull crap, but it's still crap. Just lesser crap.

 

[Gori the Grey]

One good counterpoint I've heard is: if GMO is so great, why aren't they willing to advertise that their product has it?

My recent thought was along these lines: We don't need GMO labeling. Since there is a market for non-GMO (even if it's only the equivalent of someone who wants their product de-demonized by a voodoo skypilot), any product that can make that claim will. Any product without the label can be assumed to be GMO.

The status quo lets the fact of GMO matter to those to whom it matters, without stigmatizing GMO products.