And cyanide, arsenic, hemlock, poisonous mushrooms, cobra venom, poison ivy...."natural" doesn't mean "safe" or "good for you."
Exactly. Natural doesn't automatically mean good.
And also...what is natural, exactly? Where is the line drawn? I mean, everything that is on this earth came from the earth/space at one point. The chemicals we make come from nature. It's all we have to work with. Cooking your meat isn't its natural state but we still do it because we've learned that this process makes it more safe, and more easily digestible. We grow food that didn't exist 200 years ago, and those things have become "natural" now. We can learn to manipulate nature in really safe ways. "Natural" can be safe or unsafe. "Unnatural" can be safe or unsafe. I feel like we have to keep on learning, not automatically be scared of something because it's unnatural.
And cyanide, arsenic, hemlock, poisonous mushrooms, cobra venom, poison ivy...."natural" doesn't mean "safe" or "good for you."
Exactly. Natural doesn't automatically mean good.
And also...what is natural, exactly? Where is the line drawn? I mean, everything that is on this earth came from the earth/space at one point. The chemicals we make come from nature. It's all we have to work with. Cooking your meat isn't its natural state but we still do it because we've learned that this process makes it more safe, and more easily digestible. We grow food that didn't exist 200 years ago, and those things have become "natural" now. We can learn to manipulate nature in really safe ways. "Natural" can be safe or unsafe. "Unnatural" can be safe or unsafe. I feel like we have to keep on learning, not automatically be scared of something because it's unnatural.
But to the bolder, how do I know that this particular way of manipulating it is safe? Because the food industry tells me it is? I'm not a scientist, I don't have the knowledge required to understand these studies, and frankly, most doctors don't know much about it either. It hasn't been around long enough for people to feel like "well we've been eating these foods for generations and it's fine" so naturally there is some suspicion. And considering the food industry has a looong history of giving zero shits about people's health if it means higher profits, it's not unreasonable to be suspicious of them when they say "oh yeah, it's fine, don't worry."
I am neutral on GMOs. I feel like I don't know enough about them to be pro or anti. In situations like the golden rice case, where there is a clear benefit to GMOs compared to nebulous, possible/maybe downsides, it makes total sense to use them. But for my every day life, it's hard to see much of a benefit to them for me personally, but I do have some weird uneasiness about them.
My issues aren't with the foods themselves, but the farming practices that tend to go along with them. That said, a lot of farming practices across the board need improvement.
And cyanide, arsenic, hemlock, poisonous mushrooms, cobra venom, poison ivy...."natural" doesn't mean "safe" or "good for you."
Exactly. Natural doesn't automatically mean good.
And also...what is natural, exactly? Where is the line drawn? I mean, everything that is on this earth came from the earth/space at one point. The chemicals we make come from nature. It's all we have to work with. Cooking your meat isn't its natural state but we still do it because we've learned that this process makes it more safe, and more easily digestible. We grow food that didn't exist 200 years ago, and those things have become "natural" now. We can learn to manipulate nature in really safe ways. "Natural" can be safe or unsafe. "Unnatural" can be safe or unsafe. I feel like we have to keep on learning, not automatically be scared of something because it's unnatural.
Haven't read yet but of course want to jump in. My issue with the anti-GMO lobby is that it doesn't really describe what it is. Most are not anti-GMO; they are anti big-agriculture, anti-Monsanto, anti-monopoly. And that's fine. Be that. But get your talking points right.
The distinction of organic versus synthetic is an interesting one. I can't remember where I read it and I'll try to track it down, but basically I read something relating to organic farming. The general admonition is that organic farming is not pesticide free- not by a long shot (as we've discussed). In fact, organic often requires longer and higher doses of naturally occurring insecticidal agents than does conventional farming. So what kind of poison are you most comfortable with? Because botulism or ricin from nature are just as deadly as poisons from a laboratory. **fun story - I was trying to remember the names of some of the deadlier synthetic poisons, thinking about what are used as weapons? Arsenic, strychnine, ricin... they're all naturally occurring. Maybe better living through chemistry is a motto we should revive.
A bit of info about me, first. I have a PhD in plant breeding and genetics/horticulture. I'm currently not working in plant breeding (but am in horticulture), but obviously have many friends and colleagues who are university, industry, and USDA plant breeders. None of the plant breeders that I know well, however, do any work with GMOs, except for gene function studies (as in, these plants are not meant to be commercialized - they're simply created to better understand how certain genes work). That said, to the best of my knowledge, none of the plant breeders and horticultural/agricultural scientists I know have any problems with GMOs from a scientific/human safety/environmental impact standpoint, although some do have problems with the seed companies' business practices.
So, I'd like to respond to some of the questions asked and misinformation presented in this thread.
1. GMOs have not made it impossible for farmers to save seed. From the time that hybrid corn was developed in the 1930s, farmers have not saved corn seed to replant from year to year, because hybrids aren't "true to type," meaning that you'll get an entirely different plant if you save seed and plant it the following year. Soybeans do come true to type from seed, but many farmers had moved to buying new seed each year anyway. www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted (#4)
3. GMOs haven't really lead to higher herbicide use. Sure, use of glyphosate has increased, but the use of other herbicides, which may have had a greater negative impact on the environment. gmoanswers.com/ask/do-herbicide-resistant-gmos-lead-higher-herbicide-usage And yes, there are now weeds that cannot be killed by glyphosate, but there were glyphosate-tolerant weeds long before Roundup Ready corn was developed. Yes, Roundup Ready crops likely accelerated the development of other glyphosate-tolerant weeds, and yes, they likely could have done things that could have slowed the development of glyphosate-tolerant weeds, but they are not the sole cause.
This is a good point. Horizontal gene transfer happens in nature all the time. There are many organisms that have naturally acquired genes from other organisms.
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?
2) The massive amount of pesticides that are dumped on GMO products - and really, that's one of the main goals of GMOs. Reason 2.5 is big, evil Monsanto, which kind of goes along with this.
I have one friend who is very anti-GMO and this is what she always talks about.