Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Study - GMOs are safe? page

  1. #1
    zwschlei's Avatar
    zwschlei is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41

    Study - GMOs are safe?

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

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

  2. #2
    DeltaCypher0's Avatar
    DeltaCypher0 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    116
    I believe it, but this doesnt me˝tion nutritional quality of gmos.

    Sent from my XT907 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

  3. #3
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote 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?

  4. #4
    namelesswonder's Avatar
    namelesswonder is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    11,033
    Quote 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.
    Journal on depression/anxiety
    Currently trying to figure out WTF to eat (for IBS-C).

  5. #5
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Laissez le bon temps rouler!
    Posts
    6,552
    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

  6. #6
    ssn679doc's Avatar
    ssn679doc is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,147
    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 at 02:12 AM.

  7. #7
    Salixisme's Avatar
    Salixisme is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    46
    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

  8. #8
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    This is why they can't find anything wrong with GMOs and keep posting these experiments and studies

    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

  9. #9
    goubiaiqin's Avatar
    goubiaiqin is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2
    good,I'm not really worried about the genetics of GMO stuff, but I am worried about pesticides and chemicals used ON produce.

  10. #10
    Nigel's Avatar
    Nigel is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Spalding, Lincolnshire
    Posts
    524
    PrimalCon New York
    Quote 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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •