Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Study - GMOs are safe?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Study - GMOs are safe?

    Read this article today wanted to hear your thoughts...

    2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable - Forbes

  • #2
    I believe it, but this doesnt me˝tion nutritional quality of gmos.

    Sent from my XT907 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by zwschlei View Post
      Read this article today wanted to hear your thoughts...

      2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable - Forbes
      Quote from the article:

      Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.
      Well, i'm not sure what a "conventional food" is.

      According to Oxford Dictionaries the primary meaning of "conventional" is:

      1based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed
      conventional: definition of conventional in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

      Maybe it would mean cereal and orange juice for breakfast, a sandwich and potato chips for lunch, and pasta in the evening. isn't that what's "generally" eaten in the West?


      Anyway, I do know what's meant by an organic food:

      Any product sold as ‘organic’ must comply with strict rules set at UK, European and international levels. These rules (known as standards) assure consumers they are buying genuinely organic products that can be fully traceable back to the farm.

      Organic standards cover all aspects of organic food certification including production and packaging, animal welfare, wildlife conservation, and ban unnecessary and harmful food additives in organic processed foods.
      Soil Association : Certification


      Previously, I'd often bought those. I had supposed that "harmful food additives" were not a good thing. I had also thought that animal welfare and wildlife conservation mattered.

      But now I see the error of my ways.

      Forbes is telling me that something else is "as safe or safer". I'm worried now. I trust Forbes implicitly. It seems my food may be unsafe. And, after all, what does either animal welfare or wildlife conservation (which is required to be looked to by law if a farming practice is to be classed as "organic") matter when my safety is as stake?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Lewis View Post
        Well, i'm not sure what a "conventional food" is.
        I think they mean foods that are neither organic nor GMO. Just normal fruits & veg.

        I'm not really worried about the genetics of GMO stuff, but I am worried about pesticides and chemicals used ON produce.
        Depression Lies

        Comment


        • #5
          Maybe GMOs of some types of food will be safe. I'll let others eat them for a decade or so. If they don't get sick and die at 40, maybe I'll give them a shot.

          Which is a less than gracious way of saying that I don't believe any conclusions can be drawn yet.

          At Whole Foods where they label all their produce, they use Organic and Conventional to distinguish them. Conventional being "pesticides come free with your food."
          "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

          B*tch-lite

          Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

          Comment


          • #6
            It all depends on what the "genetic modification" does. If it is one that put 30 rows of kernals on the ear, I can't see how that would be detrimental to health, as we have used selective hybridization for centuries to get more kernals per ear of corn, or more kernals per head of barley/wheat/rye etc. If the modification puts the gene from chrysanthimums that produces pyrethrin in to your food so farmers don't have to spray it... I can see how that might be a problem..... However, I'm not sure that is necessarily a problem as some cultures eat chrysanthemums.....

            Look at the OMRI list of approved "organic" pesticides.... some of that stuff is just as toxic as many of the "conventional" pesticides....
            Last edited by ssn679doc; 10-17-2013, 02:12 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              My thoughts are that you can prove anything you want depending on how you skew the statistics...

              I have a degree in nutrition and physiology, a PhD in nutritional biochemistry (both from major UK universities). I worked in the nutritional field teaching farm animal nutrition for 4 years. I have written several papers (several peer reviewed scientific studies published in 3 scientific journals), presented at conferences and co-wrote an entire chapter in an animal nutrition text-book... (I no longer work in the academic field btw - too disillusioned by it!)

              my experience is that if you want to favour a certain view point you can influence it by how you present your statistics.... believe me, most statisticians will tell you that you can prove ANYTHING by use of statistics!

              And most nutritional studies are poorly thought out and poorly run... and then they manipulate the statistics to show what they want to show!

              My take is that there have been no satisfactory INDEPENDANT studies that prove that GMO crops are safe for human consumption. the vast majority of positive studies that say GMO is safe has at least some funding from Monsanto (so industry bias). There are plenty of studies that show that GMO crops, and/or the pesticides and herbicides used in their production are unsafe however, and all of these have no industry bias that I can find..

              That means that I am more inclined to follow the latter viewpoint...

              I also worry about relying on one very narrow genotype of some of our major food plants... all we need is a virus to develop that attacks GMO corn/wheat/soy/sugarbeet and we will have something resembling the Irish Potato Famine all over again... but on a global scale this time...billions would die...

              Sorry but I don't buy into the pro-gmo propoganda and I avoid them where possible.
              Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

              Dr. Seuss

              Comment


              • #8
                This is why they can't find anything wrong with GMOs and keep posting these experiments and studies

                Make America Great Again

                Comment


                • #9
                  good,I'm not really worried about the genetics of GMO stuff, but I am worried about pesticides and chemicals used ON produce.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                    Maybe GMOs of some types of food will be safe. I'll let others eat them for a decade or so. If they don't get sick and die at 40, maybe I'll give them a shot.
                    A sensible enough approach I feel. GM is too new for any decent long term studies to be have carried out.

                    I am quite happy that humans can selectively breed plants for greater production and pest resistance but adding greenfly (or your choice of other species) DNA to cabbage for greener leaves (or whatever) does not seem right to me, or many people in Europe.
                    Why use a sledge hammer to crack a nut when a steam roller is even more effective, and, is fun to drive.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by namelesswonder View Post
                      I think they mean foods that are neither organic nor GMO. Just normal fruits & veg.
                      When writing articales like this, especially in a high profile publication like Forbes, wording is everything. If they say "GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods" this conveniently does not mention veggies, fruit or meat directly. Plausible deniability. If it were to turn out later down the line that conventionally farmed non-GMO produce was actually safer, the wording of that sentence would allow Forbes to say they were alluding to comparisons between the regular western diet as a whole (lots of pre-packaged foods) and NOT to conventionally grown plants and animals. This way they never advocated GMO crops directly.

                      Originally posted by Salixisme View Post
                      My take is that there have been no satisfactory INDEPENDANT studies that prove that GMO crops are safe for human consumption. the vast majority of positive studies that say GMO is safe has at least some funding from Monsanto (so industry bias). There are plenty of studies that show that GMO crops, and/or the pesticides and herbicides used in their production are unsafe however, and all of these have no industry bias that I can find..

                      That means that I am more inclined to follow the latter viewpoint...

                      I also worry about relying on one very narrow genotype of some of our major food plants... all we need is a virus to develop that attacks GMO corn/wheat/soy/sugarbeet and we will have something resembling the Irish Potato Famine all over again... but on a global scale this time...billions would die...

                      Sorry but I don't buy into the pro-gmo propoganda and I avoid them where possible.
                      This is pretty much at the heart of the GMO-problem and something that was conveniently completely ignored in the Forbes article: the fact that most studies done on GMO-crops are at least partially funded by Monsanto (making them completely biased) and adding to that the positive publication bias that makes publishing things that show non-positive effects or negative effects that are non-deadly extremely hard. Remember how long it took to get studies published that showed a definitive link between smoking and lung cancer? For the longest time smoking was good for you.

                      And like you noted, the environmental studies mentioned there don't seem to study at all the effects of diminished biodiversity. This is an actual issue. Much like killing all those birds that "spoiled the crops" in China caused a massive famine, so does growing crops that are genetically modified to not be suitable for any other organism to use as food or shelter cause those organisms to die. Of course plants and animals naturally evolve to have these types of protection mechanisms, but that happens over time which gives the co-dependent life forms time to evolve in turn. GMO happens instantly giving the surrounding ecosystem no time to adapt. And because they are designed to be resistant to all natural "predators" (insects, other plants, bacteria and fungi) they quickly become the dominant plant life, taking over the habitats of all related crops that have these natural "weaknesses" (ie. the ones that feed into the natural cycle of the ecosystem). So all it will take is one plant disease or bug that adjusts quickly enough to cause crop losses on a massive, world wide scale.

                      And none of this takes into consideration if eating excessive amounts of the pigmentation that causes chrysanthimums' colouring is a long term health risk for humans....
                      My diary comics
                      My fitness inspiration blog

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Salixisme View Post
                        ...my experience is that if you want to favour a certain view point you can influence it by how you present your statistics.... believe me, most statisticians will tell you that you can prove ANYTHING by use of statistics!
                        I'm the guy who gets paid to do this.

                        Believe me, I can tell the story however the firm wants the story told. That the average person can't do math makes it quite easy...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          My stepfather is a bee keeper.
                          GMO crops are affecting and harming bees.
                          A study was done (im sorry I dont have it) where they let bees out on GMO crops and took them away. After 6 generations of queens there was still pesticides from the GMO crops in the hives and they werent healthy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hannakb View Post
                            My stepfather is a bee keeper.
                            GMO crops are affecting and harming bees.
                            A study was done (im sorry I dont have it) where they let bees out on GMO crops and took them away. After 6 generations of queens there was still pesticides from the GMO crops in the hives and they werent healthy.
                            Yeah, that's not so much the GMO's themselves as the POINT of the GMOs.

                            Most GMOs are done by Monsanto to breed pesticide resistant crops. This in turn means that the farmers can buy more Roundup and apply more to their crops, and the GMO crops will survive.

                            Pitty the bees don't.
                            Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                            Griff's cholesterol primer
                            5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                            Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                            TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                            bloodorchid is always right

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                              Yeah, that's not so much the GMO's themselves as the POINT of the GMOs.

                              Most GMOs are done by Monsanto to breed pesticide resistant crops. This in turn means that the farmers can buy more Roundup and apply more to their crops, and the GMO crops will survive.

                              Pitty the bees don't.
                              Think Ill have to ask about the study in more depth, cause some of the plants are made to produce their own pesticides as well. Being in Australia I'm also unsure of how different the regulations for GMOs are, and the politics behind it.
                              I know we have had a decline in native bees and insects.
                              I do know that the farmers that did do the first lot of GMO canola werent happy when they couldnt get rid of the crops & they spread.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X