what's your take on GM foods?

Discussion in 'Health & Nutrition' started by Christ_empowered, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. Christ_empowered

    Christ_empowered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,250
    Christian:
    Yes
    genetically modified foods are...controversial.

    What do y'all think? I have 0 science background and it seems that both the pro-gm and anti-gmo groups probably provide slanted views of the issue. Or maybe it is like the anti-gmo people say, and multi-national corporations are putting $$$ ahead of, you know...the health and well-being of the rest of the planet.

    So...have y'all done any serious reading on it?
     
    Intuitive change likes this.
  2. James Clark

    James Clark Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    GMOs are unproven frankenfoods. No good for us.
     
  3. gerbilwoman

    gerbilwoman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    Messages:
    840
    Location:
    USA
    Christian:
    Yes
    Very against genetically modified foods. They are not good for us and the seeds of GM foods are cross pollinating with regular seeds, which scares me. GM foods have also caused tumors in rats, I wouldn't be surprised if they cause tumors in humans some day.
     
  4. Roro1972

    Roro1972 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,824
    Location:
    Tenn
    Christian:
    Yes
    I dont use them. also a farmer can no longer save seed from gmo food like corn. them must buy seed every year. naturally Monsanto gets a cut cause they made most gmo's
     
    Christ_empowered likes this.
  5. Christ_empowered

    Christ_empowered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,250
    Christian:
    Yes
    me again. this gmo bizness is scary. there seems to be potential health risks. the big thing that concerns me is having so much of the world's food supply controlled by multinational corporations, as roro pointed out. id like to think that with increased awareness and such there might be a move away from gmo foods, but im not so sure, especially in the us. not to be too down on american culture, but it seems like corporations get away with things here that they dare not do in other nations. plus, with growing inequality in the us and people slipping out of the middle class down into the working and lower classes (and, of course, some people moving up to millionaire and now and then billionaire status), it seems to me that fewer and fewer people are able to afford quality food already, gmo or not. the growing number of poor people in the us and the growing inequality is part of what's fueling the so-called "obesity epidemic."
     
    Intuitive change likes this.
  6. Roro1972

    Roro1972 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,824
    Location:
    Tenn
    Christian:
    Yes
    I believe in Europe the gmo is getting more of a fight from consumers.
     
    Christ_empowered likes this.
  7. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,626
    Christian:
    Yes
  8. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,553
    Christian:
    Yes
    Humans have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years. Doing it with gene insertions is no different than doing it by selecting new mutations.

    Something unhealthy could show up either way, but there's no evidence that one is more likely to do that than the other.
     
  9. Intuitive change

    Intuitive change Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    13
    Dislike I just try and make everything homemade hoping that's like less bad. ..maybe My orchid is also organic. I do the best I can but hard to advoid.
     
    DavidC and Christ_empowered like this.
  10. Christ_empowered

    Christ_empowered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,250
    Christian:
    Yes
    yeah....it seems that they've changed labeling laws in the us, so now at least some products have to let you know if gmo foods are involved in making their products. sadly...some of my faves seem to use gmo foods, so...that's...'special,' lol.

    i don't know. i -get- wanting to create some sort of hunger-ending super crops, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. i see a lot more multinational corporate control over the world's food supply, plus some serious $$$ spent on trying to convince consumers that Big Business is somehow "on our side," and that those who oppose GMO products are anti-science or...something.

    I did read that creating beta carotene-rich crops has been a long term goal of the gmo people, and I suppose that's admirable. Many people in developing nations suffer from the ill-effects of vitamin A deficiency, so it stands to reason that ramping up the beta carotene content of their staple crops could be quite beneficial to everyone involved. And yet...

    ...im into an old school form of "alternative" medicine, Orthomolecular. It focuses on high-to-massive doses of vitamins, minerals, now and then amino acids, etc. Anyway...as part of my Orthomolecular protocol, I now take a fairly high dose of natural form beta carotene (apparently, the synthetic form isn't as helpful and might cause problems for some people...who knew?). I usually take 3-4 capsules daily, with a high fat meal, and it helps with a lot, or seems to, anyway. Thing is...even though I buy natural form (a bit more $pendy) and a reputable brand, my costs for this (vital) nutrient are fairly low, and I'm deliberately consuming way more than most people in the US, definitely far more than the malnourished people in many other countries. This makes me wonder...

    ...why aren't more developed, affluent nations sending these malnourished people vitamins? Or...boosting their self-sufficiency and health status by encouraging the use of traditional crops and judicious use of pesticides and such ("integrated pest management") ?

    Then again...here in the US, it seems that we have lots of people who are over-fed but under-nourished. And then you have the affluent people at the top of the totem pole who are often on perma-diets, because one's body is now an indicator of one's social class. Why don't we give school kids (and everybody else) basic vitamins? Why don't state hospitals try Orthomolecular for the "mentally ill" (Orthomolecular began as vitamin-based treatment of psychosis...)? Which leads to a bigger, more fundamental question...

    ...why is this world so irrational and crazy?
     
    Intuitive change likes this.
  11. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,626
    Christian:
    Yes
    Non gmo oranges or non modified oranges.dud you know that in my youth how many groves where here?

    36 ,now only 5.nafta didn't do this.disease and a few freezes.disease is the primary cause of these.
     
  12. DavidC

    DavidC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    214
    It's all about money and the gov't controliing our food source. There are many diseases caused through our foods and with this increasung so will those diseases and maybe even new ones.

    My family eats all whole foods, no processed. My dad hunts, my mom gardens, she preserves leftover garden items.
     
    Intuitive change likes this.
  13. DavidC

    DavidC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    214
    Ha no doubt.

    Remember when michelle obama redid the school lunches? All the kids posted pictures of disgusting food they got from school? I can verify this! I didn't think they could get worse but after she had that implemented, it was so much worse. All my friends pack lunches, the ones who are free and reduced are stuck eating it.

    I think we should have less gov't control because obviously, the more control our gov't takes, the more screwed up everything gets.

    Let private nutritionists take over! They are the experts.
     
  14. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,626
    Christian:
    Yes
    So the usda,and private grove owners shouldn't pool together to stop a blight via funding research?
    Just let greening wipe out all the grape fruit and oranges in the world.it's not just in my state but everywhere.
     
  15. DavidC

    DavidC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    214
    That's a bummer.
    Idk, it seems like the usda hasn't protected us in the past. Sugar is toxic but we are all addicted, allowing the same foam substance they put into yoga mats into our bread.
    Maybe they are too easily paid off like pharmaseutical companies.
     
    Intuitive change likes this.
  16. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,626
    Christian:
    Yes
    No,this is a real problem, canker is a problem.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrus_canker

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrus_greening_disease

    So when you cure a disease you dont have a right to make money of it?
     
  17. Roro1972

    Roro1972 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,824
    Location:
    Tenn
    Christian:
    Yes
    Isnt there some sort of fly that places it eggs in the orange trees and they have to destroy the whole grove?
     
  18. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,626
    Christian:
    Yes
    bacteria. and its mentionied in following links I posted.
     
  19. banded butterfly

    banded butterfly Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2017
    Messages:
    232
    Location:
    In the hand of Jesus forever
    Genetically Modified (GM) foods are really nothing new.

    Excerpted from source: AgBioWorld
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Genetically Modified Foods Are Nothing New
    Our food has long been "unnatural," and it's a good thing. So why all the fuss about modern genetic practices?
    By Channapatna S. Prakash and Gregory Conko
    October 06, 2003

    (sic)
    How natural are our crops?

    All crops are unnatural. Not only are they vastly different from their wild ancestors, but most also had their origin and domestication far from where they are now grown. For instance, the US is the world's leading producer of corn and soy, yet these crops are native to Mexico and China, respectively. Wheat, grown throughout Western Europe, was domesticated in Mesopotamia. The world's largest traded commodity, coffee, had a humble origin in Ethiopia. But now, most coffee is produced in Latin America and Asia.

    Florida oranges have their roots in India, while sugarcane arose in Papua New Guinea. Food crops that today are so integral to the culture or diet in the Old World, such as the potato in Europe, chili pepper in India, cassava in Africa and sweet potato in Japan, were introduced from South America. For that matter, every crop in North America other than the blueberry, Jerusalem artichoke, sunflower and squash is borrowed from somewhere else.

    All our crops, domesticated long ago, have more recently been improved for human use. Rapeseed, grown in Asia for centuries, naturally contains two dangerous chemicals that make it more amenable for use as a lubricant than a cooking oil. But in the 1960s, Canadian scientists used conventional breeding techniques to eliminate the genes responsible for producing those toxic and smelly chemicals. They named their creation canola (short for Canadian oil), a popular but completely new crop now grown widely in North America and Europe.

    In the most fundamental sense, all plant and animal breeding involves, and always has involved, this kind of intentional genetic modification—adding useful new genes and shedding old deleterious ones. And though critics of today's most advanced breeding method, recombinant DNA, believe it is somehow unique, there have always been Cassandras to claim that the latest technology was unnatural, different from its predecessors and inherently dangerous. As early as 1906, Luther Burbank noted that, "We have recently advanced our knowledge of genetics to the point where we can manipulate life in a way never intended by nature. We must proceed with the utmost caution in the application of this new found knowledge," a cautionary note one might just as easily hear today regarding recombinant DNA—modern genetic modification.

    But just as Burbank was wrong to claim that there was some special danger in the knowledge that permitted broader sexual crosses, so are today's skeptics wrong to believe that modern genetic modification poses some inherently greater risk. It is not genetic modification per se that generates risk. Recombinant DNA modified, conventionally modified and unmodified plants could all prove to be invasive, harmful to biodiversity or harmful to eat. Rather, risk arises from the characteristics of individual organisms, as well as how and where they are used. Thus, an understanding of the historical context of genetic modification in agriculture may help us to better appreciate the potential role of recombinant DNA technology, and quell public anxieties about its use.

    Even though it is guided by human hands, hybridization may seem perfectly natural when it simply assimilates desirable traits from several varieties of the same species into elite cultivars. But when desired characteristics are unavailable in cultivated plants, hybridization can be used to borrow liberally from wild and sometimes quite distant relatives. Domesticated tomato plants are commonly bred with wild tomatoes of a different species to introduce improved resistance to pathogens, nematodes and fungi. Successive generations then have to be carefully back-crossed into the commercial cultivars to eliminate any unwanted traits accidentally transferred from the wild varieties, such as glyco-alkaloid toxins common in the wild species.

    When crop and wild varieties do not readily mate, various tricks can be employed to produce so-called "wide crosses" between two plants that are otherwise sexually incompatible. Still, the embryos created by wide crosses usually die prior to maturation, so they must be "rescued" and cultured in a laboratory. Even then, the rescued embryos typically produce sterile offspring. They can only be made fertile again by using mutagenic chemicals that cause the plants to produce a duplicate set of chromosomes. The plant triticale, an artificial hybrid of wheat and rye, is one such example of a wide-cross hybrid made possible solely by the existence of embryo rescue and chromosome doubling techniques. Triticale is now grown on more than three million acres worldwide, and dozens of other wide-cross hybrids are also common.

    Finally, when a desired trait cannot be found within the existing gene pool, breeders can create new variants by intentionally mutating plants with x-ray or gamma radiation, with mutagenic chemicals or simply by culturing clumps of cells in a petri dish. A relatively new mutant wheat variety has been produced with chemical mutation to be resistant to the BASF herbicide ClearField. Mutation breeding has been in common use since the 1950s, and more than 2,250 known mutant varieties have been bred in at least 50 countries, including France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the US.

    It is important to note that these sophisticated and unnatural breeding techniques are considered "conventional," and go almost totally unregulated. Yet, despite the massive genetic changes and potential for harm, consumers and anti-technology activists are largely unaware of their existence and evince no concern.

    Full Article
     
    jasonc likes this.

Share This Page