Mod+ Discussion - Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? Should they be labeled?

Should GMO foods be labeled?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 78.3%
  • No

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Total voters
    23
A reminder

Mod+ Discussion - Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? Should they be labeled?
Drop something more interesting besides a novella link ;) It would be nice to hear something from a GMO "expert" then a layman like novel relating to the topic of GMO
 
GLYPHOSATE. Glyphosate is the active chemical ingredient in Roundup herbicide as well as many other name brand glyphosate-based weedkillers. These herbicides are the most widely used in the world and their use has increased exponentially with the introduction of Genetically Engineered (GMO) crops.
I've even asked for a reference for this (irrelevant) fact.
 
I must've misunderstood this thread. I honestly didn't think this was the point behind food labelling. If it becomes an ongoing problem, the weed killer issue should be resolvable I guess. Maybe we could get people hand weeding (more jobs/MAGA)

It is worth noting that the gmo crops in that study required less insecticide application which is a benefit.
 
Just came across this on my twitter feed:

Scientists to begin revolutionary CRISPR trial on humans
https://pionic.org/scientists-to-begin-revolutionary-crispr-trial-on-humans

Chinese researchers now announced that they will be editing adult human DNA for the first time in the world using CRISPR/CAS-tools. Using this revolutionary kind of genome editing, researchers will try to cut damaged DNA out of a lung cancer patient who otherwise did not respond to any conventional treatment. CRISPR has already been used in the past, but only on cultured cells, plants, animals and non-viable human embryos. This operation though marks the first time that any researcher will use the tool to edit an adult’s DNA.
In the years before, there have been serious ethical concerns surrounding the use of CRISPR as it could lead humanity to a new dawn of Eugenics where practices might be carried out for the pure reason of improving the genetic quality of the population — whatever that means. CRISPR in fact is capable of causing genetic changes to sperm and/or egg cells that might be passed down to future generations. The potential for a whole business developing ‘designer babies’ and humans with certain ‘abilities’ is something we should definitely keep in the back of our minds.
 
I must've misunderstood this thread. I honestly didn't think this was the point behind food labelling. If it becomes an ongoing problem, the weed killer issue should be resolvable I guess. Maybe we could get people hand weeding (more jobs/MAGA)

It is worth noting that the gmo crops in that study required less insecticide application which is a benefit.
The thread title is are GMOs safe? I don't see how this is hard to understand when glyosphate which is toxic is being sprayed on GMOs mostly
 
Plenty of non gmo farmers use a lot of glyphosate. This is, at most, a side issue.
I'm not completely convinced you can separate issues about rDNA crops which have been specifically modified to resist glyphosate, from the glyphosate itself. I mean, you wouldn't normally spray glyphosate onto a none glyphosate resistant plant unless you intended to kill it.

A couple of years ago, I had an argument with a US farmer who was very pro roundup resistant crops, and roundup itself. I found some studies on bees for him, that showed really really minuscule amounts of glyphosate (realistic bee exposure) were affecting learning in bees, IIRC it was sort of affecting memory/learning to and from the hive. I guess you could say they were getting dumber bees. The researchers seemed to suggest this might be an underlying cause of bee/hive survival rates.

Obviously bees are vital to the food chain, due to their pollination activity. If glyphosate spraying of living crops (rDNA modified to be resistant) with flower heads, nectar, and pollen, could cause a bee colony to become dysfunctional and ultimately collapse... that would be a problem.

I'm just not sure you can easily separate the crop from the spraying.
 
I'm just not sure you can easily separate the crop from the spraying.
Rubbish. It is common practice for (non gmo) potato farmers to glyphos their whole field prior to harvest to make it easier to get the spuds out of the ground. Where does that leave us? Is that more hazardous to health than GMOs? Protest against it, or protest against GMOs. Or form a coherent argument for either. Conflating the two issues is a pathetic attempt to smear the field, tangentially relevant only to a subset of GMOs.
 
Protest against it, or protest against GMOs. Or form a coherent argument for either. Conflating the two issues is a pathetic attempt to smea
Now that really is rubbish. To simply state beforehand that that the crop and the spray must each be investigated in isolation is frankly daft. It's not at all scientific.
I can see the there is a relationship between the rDNA modified Roundup ready crop, and the Roundup... by all means investigate whether there is a connection between the two that is significant, and which only occurs when the crop and the spray come together... but to rule it out beforehand is silly.

I've already mentioned a paper on bees... if spraying flowering rDNA crops with Roundup, such that the spraying liquid enters the flower, and is ingested by the worker bees as a mixture of spray and nectar... and we find memory problems in bees exposed to Roundup.... such that these memory problems lead to colony collapse disorder... then there is an issue to be solved, and the issue only arises because of the crop and the spray.
 
Now that really is rubbish. To simply state beforehand that that the crop and the spray must each be investigated in isolation is frankly daft. It's not at all scientific.
I can see the there is a relationship between the rDNA modified Roundup ready crop, and the Roundup... by all means investigate whether there is a connection between the two that is significant, and which only occurs when the crop and the spray come together... but to rule it out beforehand is silly.

I've already mentioned a paper on bees... if spraying flowering rDNA crops with Roundup, such that the spraying liquid enters the flower, and is ingested by the worker bees as a mixture of spray and nectar... and we find memory problems in bees exposed to Roundup.... such that these memory problems lead to colony collapse disorder... then there is an issue to be solved, and the issue only arises because of the crop and the spray.
You've mentioned a study (unreferenced) where glyphos may have affected bees in a non gmo setting. Where is your prior plausibility for the weedkiller combining with gmos to intensify the effect (I think that's what you're claiming)?
 
You've mentioned a study (unreferenced) where glyphos may have affected bees in a non gmo setting. Where is your prior plausibility for the weedkiller combining with gmos to intensify the effect (I think that's what you're claiming)?
I've said... spraying a flowering crop with the affecting chemical, only because the crop is resistant to the chemical.
 
From the horse's mouth:

http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/monsanto-agricultural-seeds.aspx
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/roundup-ready-xtend-crop-system.aspx

GM seed may include the following plant characteristics introduced by modifying the plant’s genome:
  • Herbicide tolerance (Roundup Ready® crops)
Whether it's in soybean or cotton, the Roundup Ready® Xtend Crop System is an advanced weed management system that helps control more resistant and tough-to-control broadleaf weeds than any other system.

With advanced dicamba-and glyphosate-tolerant traits, combined with the proven yield performance of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® Soybeans and Bollgard II® XtendFlex® Cotton, the Roundup Ready Xtend Crop Systme provides growers with the most effective system today.

With multiple modes of action, farmers have more choices for the broad control of weeds — especially glyphosate-resistant and tough-to-control broadleaf weeds — as well as application and planting flexibility.
This is basically recognizes the fact that increased use of herbicides has caused a surge of resistant weeds, which "require further tools", i.e. more manipulation. Gee, what a surprise, a predictably unpredictable response from nature, which one is almost always guaranteed to get!

Clearly the two issues are directly related whether, or not, non-GMO farmers use herbicides. The introduction of GMO technology has altered the behavior around already existing herbicide-use, for the worse in my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
Then, on the insecticide side, you have Bt:

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a natural soil-dwelling bacterium that produces a protein complex called Bt toxin. Some types of Bt toxin possess selective insecticide properties: that is, they will specifically kill certain crop pests such as caterpillars. Therefore Bt toxin has been used for decades as an insecticidal spray in chemically-based and organic farming.
From the GMO Myths and Truths Report

http://earthopensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf

Many GM crops are engineered to produce the insecticide Bt toxin. Regulators have approved GM Bt crops on the assumption that the insecticidal toxin they contain is the same as the natural form of Bt toxin, a substance produced by the soil-dwelling bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Natural Bt is used as an insecticidal spray in chemically-based and organic farming, and is claimed to have a history of safe use and to only affect certain types of insect. Regulators assume that GM Bt crops must also be harmless to humans and other mammals.But these assumptions are incorrect. Natural Bt toxin is different from the Bt toxins produced in GM crops and behaves differently in the environment. GM Bt plants express the pesticide in every cell throughout their life, so that the plants themselves become a pesticide. Even natural Bt has never intentionally been part of the human diet and cannot be claimed to have a history of safe use. Animal feeding experiments with GM Bt crops have revealed toxic effects and a laboratory study showed toxic effects on human cells tested in vitro. Bt toxins and Bt crop pollen and debris have toxic effects on non-target and beneficial organisms.Contrary to claims by the GM industry and regulators, Bt toxin does not reliably break down in the digestive tract. Bt toxin proteins have been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women and in the blood supply to their foetuses. Regulatory approvals of GM Bt crops worldwide have been granted on the basis of poorly designed and interpreted experiments and false assumptions
Once again, GMO technology is very much related to the concomitant, herbicides, insecticides, etc, where some of the GMO-technology is actually designed around and with these other products in mind, as well as altering behavior on past use, and introducing these products into new areas they have never been in before.
 
Last edited:
Then, on the insecticide side, you have Bt:



From the GMO Myths and Truths Report

http://earthopensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf



Once again, GMO technology is very much related to the concomitant, herbicides, insecticides, etc, where some of the GMO-technology is actually designed around and with these other products in mind, as well as altering behavior on past use, and introducing these products into new areas they have never been in before.
Excellent! a relevant study at last!
 
Then, on the insecticide side, you have Bt:



From the GMO Myths and Truths Report

http://earthopensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf



Once again, GMO technology is very much related to the concomitant, herbicides, insecticides, etc, where some of the GMO-technology is actually designed around and with these other products in mind, as well as altering behavior on past use, and introducing these products into new areas they have never been in before.
For balance/risk versus benefit:

http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31

A positive aspect of safety regarding Bt corn is the lower levels of mycotoxins compared with non-Bt corn. Mycotoxins are toxic and carcinogenic chemicals produced as secondary metabolites of fungal colonization (17) that occur as a result of insects such as the corn earworm carrying the mycotoxincontaining fungi that infest the kernels following wounding. In some cases, the reduction of mycotoxins in Bt corn results in a positive economic impact on U.S. domestic and international markets. More importantly, in less-developed countries certain mycotoxins are significant contaminants of food and their reduction in Bt corn could improve human and animal health.
 
Alan Watts, on, well, not really GMOs, but the complexity of nature and attitudes towards it:

"The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it’s really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad — because you never know what will be the consequence of the misfortune; or, you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune."

In the book adaptation, the parable makes the same point in slightly more refined language:

"Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors came around to commiserate. They said, “We are so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” The farmer said, “Maybe.” The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening everybody came back and said, “Oh, isn’t that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again said, “Maybe.” The following day his son tried to break one of the horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors then said, “Oh dear, that’s too bad,” and the farmer responded, “Maybe.” The next day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “Isn’t that great!” Again, he said, “Maybe.”"

The farmer steadfastly refrained from thinking of things in terms of gain or loss, advantage or disadvantage, because one never knows… In fact we never really know whether an event is fortune or misfortune, we only know our ever-changing reactions to ever-changing events.
Maybe my new attitude towards GMOs is .... 'Maybe'.
 
Top