What's wrong with eating a GMO?

IdiotWithPencil 2019-01-29 04:23:56 UTC #15

they're trying to make the veggies have their own natural pesticides right now(like coffee style), harmless to us of course

viva GMO =D

vothnthorvaldson 2019-01-29 04:52:38 UTC #16

Thank you! I was debating whether to answer or not and you did it for me. It's very nice to see a balanced message ( and thus, closer to reality).

For the organic certification I don't know about US but no GMO in Europe and Canada.

(I'm a biologist and a farmer - so not far from your experience).

vothnthorvaldson 2019-01-29 04:57:44 UTC #17

There are different types of GMO. You can't compare variation obtained by reshuffling between close species with adding new genes into a plant.

indagold 2019-01-29 15:03:04 UTC #18

I'm not saying its the same but the argument for GMOs could be virtually same for selective breeding.

vothnthorvaldson 2019-01-29 16:10:20 UTC #19

I don't think so. It's simply not comparable.

Take a GMO without novel gene addition (or only plant genes from a very similar species), and compare it to selective breeding:

In both cases, you could possibly have toxicity or environmental problems due to the recombination of genetic material; but yes, these risks are pretty similar in both cases, and generally easily spotted (at least for toxicity) .
But in the case of the GMO, you have an additional problem: the existence of 'tools' used to create the GMO, and that remain into the plant. Much research has been done on that, and some newer techniques are less problematic, but still, it is a difference and remains an issue in some GMOs.

Then take the case of a GMO with novel genes: here, you are introducing genes that have nothing to do inside that plant. Genes are very dependent of their genetic environment. Very often, removing a gene from its usual environment and putting it somewhere else gives very strange and unexpected results: That's actually one of the things that makes research on GMO complicated even at the lab level! You can't just do your little market in the pool of available genes and expect it will work.

That aspect makes GMO with novel genes completely unpredictable in a way traditional breeding just can't be.

This being said I'm not against GMO, I'm just a scientist who actually worked on GMO for research purpose (not agriculture) and I know first hand that it is not a benign technique.

I just wish more time and energy was spent pushing toward more comprehensive and transparent testing rather than on insisting that GMO are safe, or that they are necessarily dangerous... But I'm pretty pessimistic about the transparency.

echoeotto 2019-01-29 16:46:16 UTC #21

tired_programmer:

I think that the main reason of negative attitude toward GMO is just because people are somewhat afraid of everything new. The current fashion on "natural products" is probably the part of this. And, of course, marketologes are using these fears and untrust, as well as this whole "natural fashion" just to make their products more attractive to consumers.

I also fully recognize, that the new kinds of plants, created with genetics modifications, should be investigated diligently for being safe for humans, before use them as a food. They are not tested naturarly by many years of wide using, like ordinary edible plants did, so, of course, we should check them for issues (as well as any possible unknown kinds of food) and test them as diligently as possible before eating.But the amount of hype around them is still not quite adequate in my opinion.

Agreeing with this ^^^ Of course we should be responsible with what we put in our bodies, but the negative attitude towards GMOs is largely due to marketing and misconceptions.

There's a misconception that organic = healthy (and, therefore, non-organic = evil), but pretty much every poisonous plant and venomous animal to have ever existed is "organic." It's a false dichotomy.

indagold 2019-01-29 18:12:28 UTC #22

lol thats not at all what I was saying at all. I was saying the people who think gmos are bad but think selective breeding is good makes no sense because they want "natural" from the earth pure stuff despite the fact most food they eat are not the original strain genetic wise, humans have tampered with it. And I said if a gmo is deemed dangerous there could be another gmo out there that isn't. I never said all gmos are perfect. you didn't have to explain that I know what gmos are haha

vfinnigan 2019-01-29 23:03:33 UTC #23

It's because of popular hype against GMO's and advertisers exploiting that trend.

Of course, we've been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of agriculture, albeit with less direct methods like hand pollination or selectively breeding livestock since the dawn of agriculture.

What people should be concerned about is not that their food has been genetically modified, but how and for what purpose.

vfinnigan 2019-01-29 23:14:00 UTC #24

The belief that there's any increase in cases of autism is inaccurate. Rather, people with autism are more likely to be diagnosed as such. Up until relatively recently, it was far more likely for someone high functioning on the spectrum to never get diagnosed and simply get by being considered "a little weird," "extremely shy," or "quirky."

Oh, and vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

Cavechan 2019-01-30 00:36:54 UTC #25

There are GMOs in Europe and Canada, but they are mostly imported. More info here: https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos-grown-and-banned/

I follow Arctic Apples and they're located in Canada. They just had non-browning apples approved.

I just want to reiterate that I'm not a scientist or farmer in any way, shape, or form, but I do think there's enough testing of a GMO before approval. It takes ~13 years and a lot of money for the approval of a GMO. Of course, companies are not going to put their livelihood on stake for a product that is harmful in some way. Not to say that the current way is perfect or that there haven't been issues in the past. Actually, it's good that issues have been found because that means the system is working (sorry, I don't have any examples and not really time to find them. Actually, one I do remember off the top of my head is the golden rice fiasco. But that was due to the producer's bad management instead of anything wrong with the rice itself afaik).

As someone else said, much of the testing is more short term and because GMOs have been around for 30? 40? years, the long term effects, if any, may not be known. One argument I have heard is the effects on gut bacteria. I haven't done much looking into it so I don't know anything myself. I think what we need is more education on the subject in general so people understand it. That's why I'm against GMO labeling.

I think the main takeaway is that as we know it, GMOs are really safe, healthy, and environmentally friendly so the benefits cannot be denied. The biggest concern is the fear mongering that is purposefully pushing this war against GMOs and Monsanto because they want people to buy their product. That's all there is to it. It's just a really, really harmful movement. I stay away from buying anything that says "Non-GMO Project" on it. Sucks because it's everywhere nowadays and I have had to switch products a few times to a different brand that supports science.

qwerty 2019-01-30 01:47:34 UTC #26

@vfinnigan For the record I'll just say that I was only stating a common opinion. I personally don't have any particular reason to believe in a link between GMOs and autism, or vaccines and autism. But then, I don't consider myself particularly well-informed about those things either (and like I said the vaccine thing is a whole different topic, I'm gonna stick with one controversial issue at a time XD)

I did do some reading after this though -

This study seems to have linked 60% of the increase in autism to changes in diagnosis criteria / reporting practices. But that would imply a ~40% real increase (and some misleading headlines), unless I misunderstand something. What would cause the increase in that case, I won't bother speculating about.

I'll disagree here. We don't actually know these things. Nor do we know the opposite.

IDK about the labeling issue, but I hesitate to demonize those who support labels as "fear-mongering" or "against science". You could just as easily say the organic label is "fear-mongering" to get people to buy organic food. I don't see the difference really - they both just provide information so people can make their own choices, which seems like a good thing to me.

About riboflavin in "non-GMO" labeled foods, I'll mention that riboflavin is just a vitamin, not a crop of any kind. I believe it is usually manufactured using GMO bacteria, but it is not a GMO in itself any more than water from a GMO plant is "GMO water". IDK about other ingredients.

Also, just now I found a long-term study (2 years) which establishes toxicity in rats from a certain strain of glyphosate-resistant corn and/or glyphosate itself (one of the most common agricultural herbicides).

Apparently it was originally published a few years ago, then un-published due to criticisms of the study, then re-published again as those criticisms were addressed.

That's definitely something that makes all this stuff difficult to follow - those who disagree with a study can simply say, "it was badly designed and therefore meaningless", and then it becomes a whole challenge to determine if they're right or not.

Anyway, staying informed is exhausting; I'll stick to humble agnosticism ^^;

Cavechan 2019-01-30 03:40:33 UTC #27

To clarify, the "Non-GMO Project" labeling is fear-mongering. As for the organic label or mandatory labels for GMOs, those wouldn't be, but I don't support GMO labeling because I believe it would be too confusing to the consumer as they aren't typically versed in what a GMO even is, let alone what it means to buy or eat one.

Thank you for sharing all of the other information and the study! I'm not able to read it myself due to lack of time and not being educated in how to properly read studies (I'm just a graphic designer), but I'll be sure to glance through it a bit to see what I can decipher.

It is... it is.

vothnthorvaldson 2019-01-30 05:19:55 UTC #28

As you actually quoted me, I was refering to the organic certification only. I know they are GMO in France and Canada, but they can't be grown locally in organic farming.

scythe 2019-01-30 05:59:27 UTC #30

How profitable the 'organic' food industry is, is no doubt in direct reverse correlation to how harmful GMOs likely are.

unknown_user 2019-01-30 07:44:08 UTC #31

It's suprising, how informative this thread appeared to be.
So many links on papers, websites and even cartoon video with explanations, and actual biologists/farmers are participating here. You guys are great I'm saving the link on this thread for the future.

Im_moron 2019-01-30 07:54:39 UTC #32

everything you buy in the store, they're all GMOs

chicken? GMO since they were domesticated, the fact that they were breeded into a domesticated species since the beginning of farming means they are a GMO

tomato? more like tomaGMO

Bannana? GMO

cow? GMO

farms? all seeds were GMO to get the most amount of supply.

your cat? your dog? you think they're safe from the modifications?! GMO, yoU CANT EsCAPE IT! EVen YoUR PETS ARE GMO

a nOT GMO DoG IS a Wolf, and WE GEnETICALLY ModIFIED THem Into A RACe of gOOD BOIS

VERY GOOD BOIS

edit: on a serious note, if you're worried about health concerns, don't you think people doing the cross breeding would be aware of health concerns when breeding a product safe, plentiful and healthy for human consumption?

that's basically what GMOs are, cross bred organisms, you wouldn't want a wild bananna over a store bananna, wild banannas by comparison are like 90% seeds, while store bought ones are 2% (dont quote me on those numbers)

craftymarten 2019-01-30 14:49:39 UTC #33

I'm always pretty on the fence about this.
GMOs (specifically talking about the common use which doesn't include selective breeding) can produce more robust, more nutritious crops, or crops producing vitamins which are uncommon in certain diets (eg: golden rice.) They can also decrease the use of dangerous herbicides in favour of safer pesticides (eg: Roundup ready crops, glyphosate is one of the only herbicides which is pretty safe to use, that we know of).
Although I think GMO is more useful than not I have a big problem with the commercialisation of farming and the movement away from traditional farming practices from an environmental standpoint so it's hard to fully support something that's at least partly systematic of that.
When you're growing vast monocultures it can make the occurrence and spread of disease more common within crops and it removes and fractures habitat from native wildlife leading to less gene flow and less resources available. The removal of hedgerows and minimisation of waste has really impacted farmland birds here.
I think the farming sector (the big players- not individual farmers) should be held much more accountable to the damage they're causing (don't get me started on antibiotic resistance).

vfinnigan 2019-01-30 19:56:37 UTC #34

It's not just a change in diagnostic criteria. It's also a change in reporting. A kid only thought to be "shy" or "quirky" was much less likely to be reported or referred for any kind of diagnosis way back when.

Before standardized testing, schools also had less incentive to refer kids who had any difficulty for evaluation and diagnosis.

IdiotWithPencil 2019-02-02 04:59:26 UTC #35

THANK YOU!!!! god, why are people going crazy about this now!? we have been tampering with the genes of our foods since the first farm were invented

but now people are getting all crazy about it

and fucked their bodies to the point that some (like pugs) live in perpetual pain for their whole lives (can't breathe correctly thanks to us fucking their noses to oblivion XC ) frankly I think that should be more concerning than us breeding bananas to be tastier =P

foxberg 2019-02-03 00:42:20 UTC #36

I am not inherently against GMOs. That being said, I have my concerns. I am in college, and I have had professors express both opinions on two different areas of the spectrum. One professor thinks that they are great, while most of the others are concerned about the lack of transparent long-term studies on the effects of some of these GMOs. Monsanto is particularly bad at transparency. One large area of controversy is that companies like Monsanto can actually file a patent on the genes involved in their GMOs. This act has created multiple concerns. One, an independent scientist cannot legally research a patented GMO without the direct approval of the patent holder. This prevents unbiased research. Two, there is a small potential, and at least a few cases of occurrence, for the genes in the GMO crops to be transferred via horizontal gene transfer. This can happen in fields where GMO crops are grown and then cut. If some tissues from the GMO crop manage to come into contact with tissues of non-GMO plants (for instance the weeds that you are trying to kill with the roundup ready GMO) then those non-GMO plants have the potential to implement that patented gene into it's genome. This can cause one of two issues, a farmer having a now ineffective product thanks to weeds receiving the same benefits as the GMO crops, or another plant gaining that gene, and when that plant grows (whomever's property it is on) the land-owner is inadvertently breeching the patent protections the company has on the gene. Horizontal gene transfer is rare but it is possible, and should be considered as a possible risk in producing GMOs, especially for pesticide resistance. I am not saying to get rid of GMO crops, but that there should not be restrictions on independent study. In the meantime they should be labeled, just like the ingredients for anything we ingest.

On another note, all domesticated plants are probably considered GMOs. I am not as concerned with those that are produced via cross-fertilizing and traditional hybridization, but those where genes are engineered or spliced from other organisms before being placed within the genome of another plant. I, for one, am glad for domesticated almonds. Wild type almonds are actually toxic. Farms can actually be shut down if their almond crop, or one in a nearby farm mutates back to wild type (this happens frequently enough that almond companies actually keep a close eye on this sort of thing).