It seems like these conversations always come down to feelings. I feel like GMOs are unsafe because XYZ. And that's fine because in the end whether someone buys GMO or not does not have the same immediate grave risks as whether someone vaccinates or not. At this point though, as someone who leans crunchy and buys organic, it's hard for me to invest much emotional response to the anti GMO movement without more data.
I think this is why the anti-GMO irks me a lot. Because they are blocking funding for more data. I really think that GMO is a big part of the answer to counteracting nutritional and environmental problems, but this hysteria about them being unhealthy is taking away from gains that can be made. (Basically, the last few paragraphs of the article explain why it's frustrating.)
Still reading but shouldn't companies have to show that something *is* safe before selling it rather than just putting it out there and saying "see, nobody died yet!"? I'm not really interested in being an unknowing (and uncompensated) guinea pig.
A lot of our food is regularly modified at the generic level. Many of our grains (the health freak kind) could not occur without modern technology. They just use old techniques like cyanide and x-rays.
Imo, I prefer ge as safer. With old techniques you have no idea what you're going to get, what unintended consequences. With ge there's more predictive value.
People wouldn't have much issue with GMO's if the companies at the forefront of GMO's weren't crooked as hell. They can thank themselves for every bit of skepticism that comes their way. Don't want people to think your product is shady? Don't be a shady fucker.
Thus, GMO's get a bad name by association.
This.
I don't fear putting GMOs in my body. We've been modifying seeds for centuries. That doesn't bother me. But I just think they should be labeled because I would like to be able to make informed decisions about what I'm supporting when I shop.
In particular, plants grown from GMO seeds don't produce seeds that can be saved and replanted. Our agricultural system and food supply used to be based on diverse sources of food that could reproduce each year with ease by anyone who wanted to. No one person controlled the ability to grow food and eat, it's always been a democratic process, if you will. The more we rely on GMOs for our food, the closer we come to consolidating the control of our food supply in the hands of a few powerful corporations. Who are shady as all fuck.
Diversity in food supply is an issue of national security, and I'm not going to blindly trust that Monsanto has this country's best interests at heart.
I also don't fully understand how GE goods are supposed to cause things like cancer. I can see plenty of the potential issues since like any tool GE can be used for good or evil, and potential problems with allergens, invasive species, etc. But what is the mechanism by which the act of genetically engineering foods makes them cause health problems?
I don't know about health problems, necessarily, but there's so much we don't know about individual foods and the nutrient make-up and how they work in tandem to be good for you. Take an apple. Okay, it has carbs from natural sugars. And if you process the sugar out or just juice it, it's not as good for you as eating the flesh and the peel. Part of it is that the whole apple contains fiber, which helps to slow the sugar on its way to your blood stream, and make you feel fuller, but there's probably a lot more to it than that, and we're very far from discovering exactly how micronutrients and macronutrients work together to seem to be more than the sum of their parts.
I think there can be concern about whether inserting additional DNA into products then interrupts the nutritional benefits. Yes, we can put Bt in crops to make them insect-resistant while making them safe for human consumption and decreasing the amount of chemicals used, while, on the surface, maintaining the same nutritional value. But do we know for sure? I don't know. A GMO apple is still better for you than organic oreos, that's for sure. And I admit that things like Golden Rice are great products that do a lot of good. But much like the good in maintaining heritage breeds of many types of produce, I'd hate for all of our food supply to become GMOs and then realize that we actually did ourselves a nutritional disservice.
I also don't fully understand how GE goods are supposed to cause things like cancer. I can see plenty of the potential issues since like any tool GE can be used for good or evil, and potential problems with allergens, invasive species, etc. But what is the mechanism by which the act of genetically engineering foods makes them cause health problems?
I don't know about health problems, necessarily, but there's so much we don't know about individual foods and the nutrient make-up and how they work in tandem to be good for you. Take an apple. Okay, it has carbs from natural sugars. And if you process the sugar out or just juice it, it's not as good for you as eating the flesh and the peel. Part of it is that the whole apple contains fiber, which helps to slow the sugar on its way to your blood stream, and make you feel fuller, but there's probably a lot more to it than that, and we're very far from discovering exactly how micronutrients and macronutrients work together to seem to be more than the sum of their parts.
I think there can be concern about whether inserting additional DNA into products then interrupts the nutritional benefits. Yes, we can put Bt in crops to make them insect-resistant while making them safe for human consumption and decreasing the amount of chemicals used, while, on the surface, maintaining the same nutritional value. But do we know for sure? I don't know. A GMO apple is still better for you than organic oreos, that's for sure. And I admit that things like Golden Rice are great products that do a lot of good. But much like the good in maintaining heritage breeds of many types of produce, I'd hate for all of our food supply to become GMOs and then realize that we actually did ourselves a nutritional disservice.
This makes sense and I understand what you are saying, but why isn't the opposite true? Like, if we can make a GMO rice with vitamin A and iron and it's just as safe as conventional rice, then wouldn't we be doing ourselves a nutritional disservice by not growing that? Why can't it be all of the above types of food?
People wouldn't have much issue with GMO's if the companies at the forefront of GMO's weren't crooked as hell. They can thank themselves for every bit of skepticism that comes their way. Don't want people to think your product is shady? Don't be a shady fucker.
Thus, GMO's get a bad name by association.
This.
I don't fear putting GMOs in my body. We've been modifying seeds for centuries. That doesn't bother me. But I just think they should be labeled because I would like to be able to make informed decisions about what I'm supporting when I shop.
In particular, plants grown from GMO seeds don't produce seeds that can be saved and replanted. Our agricultural system and food supply used to be based on diverse sources of food that could reproduce each year with ease by anyone who wanted to. No one person controlled the ability to grow food and eat, it's always been a democratic process, if you will. The more we rely on GMOs for our food, the closer we come to consolidating the control of our food supply in the hands of a few powerful corporations. Who are shady as all fuck.
Diversity in food supply is an issue of national security, and I'm not going to blindly trust that Monsanto has this country's best interests at heart.
I wear my tinfoil hat proudly on this one.
This is not true. GM plants do produce seeds that can be planted and they will germinate and produce fruit.
GMO labels won’t clear this up. They won’t tell you whether there’s Bt in your food. They’ll only give you the illusion that you’ve escaped it.
To the extent people aren't buying GMO because they want "safe" food, GMO-free is misleading. It's like putting "BPA free" on things. Doesn't make the plastic safe. There's a lot of other types of bisphenols that are just as dangerous.
The real solution isn't just GMO labeling. It's a dramatic reform of all food labeling and disclosure requirements. Since that won't happen, I'd rather get the damn GMO labels because it's better for people to be supporting diverse food, even if their reasons are jacked up.
I don't fear putting GMOs in my body. We've been modifying seeds for centuries. That doesn't bother me. But I just think they should be labeled because I would like to be able to make informed decisions about what I'm supporting when I shop.
In particular, plants grown from GMO seeds don't produce seeds that can be saved and replanted. Our agricultural system and food supply used to be based on diverse sources of food that could reproduce each year with ease by anyone who wanted to. No one person controlled the ability to grow food and eat, it's always been a democratic process, if you will. The more we rely on GMOs for our food, the closer we come to consolidating the control of our food supply in the hands of a few powerful corporations. Who are shady as all fuck.
Diversity in food supply is an issue of national security, and I'm not going to blindly trust that Monsanto has this country's best interests at heart.
I wear my tinfoil hat proudly on this one.
This is not true. GM plants do produce seeds that can be planted and they will germinate and produce fruit.
It's my understanding that many kinds do not. Or at least the ones created by Monsanto.
Are people that are anti-genetic engineering ant-GE in all circumstances or is it mainly an issue with food? Genetic engineering is an extremely common lab technique used for all kinds of things including production of insulin and enzyme-based cleaners, so it's not that new.
I don't think GE is bad, even in food.
I just think we should be careful that patented seeds are not at the center of our country's food supply. One way to prevent that from happening is better labeling so people who want to avoid can.
I don't know about health problems, necessarily, but there's so much we don't know about individual foods and the nutrient make-up and how they work in tandem to be good for you. Take an apple. Okay, it has carbs from natural sugars. And if you process the sugar out or just juice it, it's not as good for you as eating the flesh and the peel. Part of it is that the whole apple contains fiber, which helps to slow the sugar on its way to your blood stream, and make you feel fuller, but there's probably a lot more to it than that, and we're very far from discovering exactly how micronutrients and macronutrients work together to seem to be more than the sum of their parts.
I think there can be concern about whether inserting additional DNA into products then interrupts the nutritional benefits. Yes, we can put Bt in crops to make them insect-resistant while making them safe for human consumption and decreasing the amount of chemicals used, while, on the surface, maintaining the same nutritional value. But do we know for sure? I don't know. A GMO apple is still better for you than organic oreos, that's for sure. And I admit that things like Golden Rice are great products that do a lot of good. But much like the good in maintaining heritage breeds of many types of produce, I'd hate for all of our food supply to become GMOs and then realize that we actually did ourselves a nutritional disservice.
This makes sense and I understand what you are saying, but why isn't the opposite true? Like, if we can make a GMO rice with vitamin A and iron and it's just as safe as conventional rice, then wouldn't we be doing ourselves a nutritional disservice by not growing that? Why can't it be all of the above types of food?
I guess it depends on the individual food. The alternative to not growing Golden Rice was tens of thousands of children dying every year. So in that case, we should be less concerned about whether people are getting optimum nutrition from their fresh fruit and more concerned about kids surviving. In that specific case, too, I'm not sure that rice has a lot of nutritional value on its own.
The US is kind of the opposite in a way. We have a lot of food. We have a lot of cheap food. We have a lot of processed food. While there are children who are impoverished and experience nutritional deficiencies here, they are less likely to experience caloric deficiencies. I''m not saying childhood hunger isn't a thing, but childhood obesity and, hell, adult obesity is a big problem. So rather than growing the rice with beta carotene, maybe someone develops a banana that tastes like s'mores to try to get people to eat more fruit. Extreme example, but possible. But it's also possible that the process of making the food more desirable to people who are trying to be healthier wouldn't be as good as... people just eating food that's already healthier.
I don't know if I explained that well at all. Anyway, I'm not opposed to GMOs, or at least all GMOs, and I see that some do good things, like addressing world hunger through crop yields and nutrition. I am good with labeling them, but like ESF said, given the variety of things that count as genetic engineering, I don't know how much good that would do.
This is not true. GM plants do produce seeds that can be planted and they will germinate and produce fruit.
It's my understanding that many kinds do not. Or at least the ones created by Monsanto.
Monsanto (a company which I do not advocate for) has never commercialized a sterile food crop seed. Gene use restriction technology (GURT) IS something that Monsanto has patented but not used in food crop seeds.
Are people that are anti-genetic engineering ant-GE in all circumstances or is it mainly an issue with food? Genetic engineering is an extremely common lab technique used for all kinds of things including production of insulin and enzyme-based cleaners, so it's not that new.
I don't think GE is bad, even in food.
I just think we should be careful that patented seeds are not at the center of our country's food supply. One way to prevent that from happening is better labeling so people who want to avoid can.
The centralization of our food supply in general is addressed in one of the Michael Pollan books. Decentralization helps guard us against food terrorism, and climate change, and all kinds of stuff. Sorry, Monsanto.
People wouldn't have much issue with GMO's if the companies at the forefront of GMO's weren't crooked as hell. They can thank themselves for every bit of skepticism that comes their way. Don't want people to think your product is shady? Don't be a shady fucker.
Thus, GMO's get a bad name by association.
This.
I don't fear putting GMOs in my body. We've been modifying seeds for centuries. That doesn't bother me. But I just think they should be labeled because I would like to be able to make informed decisions about what I'm supporting when I shop.
In particular, plants grown from GMO seeds don't produce seeds that can be saved and replanted. Our agricultural system and food supply used to be based on diverse sources of food that could reproduce each year with ease by anyone who wanted to. No one person controlled the ability to grow food and eat, it's always been a democratic process, if you will. The more we rely on GMOs for our food, the closer we come to consolidating the control of our food supply in the hands of a few powerful corporations. Who are shady as all fuck.
Diversity in food supply is an issue of national security, and I'm not going to blindly trust that Monsanto has this country's best interests at heart.
I wear my tinfoil hat proudly on this one.
This is why I am anti-GMO. I am sure they are safe to consume but creating monocultures in our food supply is bad news. I don't want to support that.
Plus I hate fucking Monsanto and their overly aggressive litigation tactics.
It's my understanding that many kinds do not. Or at least the ones created by Monsanto.
Monsanto (a company which I do not advocate for) has never commercialized a sterile food crop seed. Gene use restriction technology (GURT) IS something that Monsanto has patented but not used in food crop seeds.
Yes, but they have in other crops like cotton. It isn't a large leap to think that it isn't coming. The devil Monsanto is corrupt.
And, if I recall correctly, a farmer that plants a Monsanto food crop does not have the right to save seed from the year's crop to plant the next year. So farmers are caught in a never-ending cycle of having to buy their seed from one of the GMO seed producers.
So the seeds may not be sterile but they may as well be for all intents and purposes.
It's my understanding that many kinds do not. Or at least the ones created by Monsanto.
Monsanto (a company which I do not advocate for) has never commercialized a sterile food crop seed. Gene use restriction technology (GURT) IS something that Monsanto has patented but not used in food crop seeds.
Thank you for this information. I'll give you that I agree that the anti-GMO crowd has been amazingly successful at spreading misinformation, and apparently, I am not immune.
That said, I still stand by the fact that centralization in our food supply is a problem. Given that they own the patent on such a scary piece of technology, I'd hate to see them acquire such a monopoly that they decide that it's time to use it.
And then there are assholes like FoodBabe, who are all "zomg chemikillz!!!" and "don't eat anything a 3rd grader can't pronounce", therefore, creating the continued fear mongering without true data to back it up.
Monsanto (a company which I do not advocate for) has never commercialized a sterile food crop seed. Gene use restriction technology (GURT) IS something that Monsanto has patented but not used in food crop seeds.
Yes, but they have in other crops like cotton. It isn't a large leap to think that it isn't coming. The devil Monsanto is corrupt.
And, if I recall correctly, a farmer that plants a Monsanto food crop does not have the right to save seed from the year's crop to plant the next year. So farmers are caught in a never-ending cycle of having to buy their seed from one of the GMO seed producers.
So the seeds may not be sterile but they may as well be for all intents and purposes.
They haven't done it in the 16 years since they patented the technology. *shrug* Anyway, the comment wasn't that they could do it. The comment was that GM plant seeds can't be saved and replanted and that statement is false.
Monsanto (a company which I do not advocate for) has never commercialized a sterile food crop seed. Gene use restriction technology (GURT) IS something that Monsanto has patented but not used in food crop seeds.
Thank you for this information. I'll give you that I agree that the anti-GMO crowd has been amazingly successful at spreading misinformation, and apparently, I am not immune.
That said, I still stand by the fact that centralization in our food supply is a problem. Given that they own the patent on such a scary piece of technology, I'd hate to see them acquire such a monopoly that they decide that it's time to use it.
Monsanto (a company which I do not advocate for) has never commercialized a sterile food crop seed. Gene use restriction technology (GURT) IS something that Monsanto has patented but not used in food crop seeds.
Yes, but they have in other crops like cotton. It isn't a large leap to think that it isn't coming. The devil Monsanto is corrupt.
And, if I recall correctly, a farmer that plants a Monsanto food crop does not have the right to save seed from the year's crop to plant the next year. So farmers are caught in a never-ending cycle of having to buy their seed from one of the GMO seed producers.
So the seeds may not be sterile but they may as well be for all intents and purpos
I'm halfway through. Do I need to start freaking out about ingesting Bt?
Only if you're a bug. Bt is not harmful to mammals.
So what is this influx of Bt doing to the bee population? Could this be the reason that so many bees are dying? How many of our food crops are pollinated by various bee species? Granted, I started skimming the article towards the end, but I didn't see that concern addressed.
Only if you're a bug. Bt is not harmful to mammals.
So what is this influx of Bt doing to the bee population? Could this be the reason that so many bees are dying? How many of our food crops are pollinated by various bee species? Granted, I started skimming the article towards the end, but I didn't see that concern addressed.
I don't know. I'm not an entomologist. However the insects that are killed from Bt are the ones that are ingesting the plant's leaves, stems, and fruits. Honey bees generally ingest nectar and gather pollen. If the Bt is available via nectar, than I would think it would be harming bees. If not, than it may not be a contributor to their decline. Also, if the Bt is topically applied (rather than produced in the crop plant itself), that could be doing harm to bee populations.
Again, not a scientist.
I was just confirming to ijack that since she is not an insect, she personally would not be harmed by ingesting Bt.
Monsanto (a company which I do not advocate for) has never commercialized a sterile food crop seed. Gene use restriction technology (GURT) IS something that Monsanto has patented but not used in food crop seeds.
Yes, but they have in other crops like cotton. It isn't a large leap to think that it isn't coming. The devil Monsanto is corrupt.
And, if I recall correctly, a farmer that plants a Monsanto food crop does not have the right to save seed from the year's crop to plant the next year. So farmers are caught in a never-ending cycle of having to buy their seed from one of the GMO seed producers.
So the seeds may not be sterile but they may as well be for all intents and purposes.
It is true that a farmer who purchases his/her seed from Monsanto is legally bound not to save that seed and use it the following year. That is a condition for purchasing the product and the farmers who buy from Monsanto must sign an agreement to that fact. Farmers are not beholden to buying seed from a GM seed producer. There are dozens of seed companies who do not make GM seeds.
Interestingly, my one anti-vax friend also refuses to feed her kid GMOs.
Anyway, I get the science of GMO food being fine. I really do. To me, there are 2... well, 2.5 issues.
1) In the vegan/vegetarian community, not knowing the source of the products is scary. Is this tomato spliced with fish DNA? Will using a known allergen, like peanuts, in growing a different product produce anaphylaxis? How can I be sure I'm eating what I personally choose to eat?
There is also a part of the Vegan community that is totally fine with GMOs. Go check out www.vegangmo.com/.
My grandfather (a Master Gardner and all-around wicked smart man), has said we've been eating GMO foods for decades and there's nothing wrong with them. I believe him.
A lot of foods we eat have been genetically modified over centuries, just not by gene splicing. More than 5 or 6 natural almonds would kill you with the amount of cyanide they contain; only by genetically modifying through breeding are we able to eat almonds safely today. Same with tomatoes.
My grandfather (a Master Gardner and all-around wicked smart man), has said we've been eating GMO foods for decades and there's nothing wrong with them. I believe him.
A lot of foods we eat have been genetically modified over centuries, just not by gene splicing. More than 5 or 6 natural almonds would kill you with the amount of cyanide they contain; only by genetically modifying through breeding are we able to eat almonds safely today. Same with tomatoes.
But you're still getting an end product that is "natural" in that it was produced by two trees (even if humans picked which two trees). This is something else entirely, something that nature never could or would have produced. That's where the uneasiness comes from for people like me.
This was really fascinating, jeanie. Thanks for posting it. I may have to share it on FB; I'm sure this will rile up a few people. Admittedly, I've been on bandwagon organic/non-GMO for a few years now. Partially because I watched King Corn and Monsanto made me want to throw things at my television, but also because I had never really considered the possibility that I'm ingesting more pesticides by eating organic than I would be if I bought non-organic. So much for the Dirty Dozen! The really unfortunate bit that I took away from all this is that as a consumer you have no idea what you're ingesting with either organic or GMO. So cheers to that!