Look, I'm not a proclaimed expert on GMO not am I trying to start any serious heat. All I know is that I'm strongly opposed to the idea of fucking with our food's genes. All the unnecessary chemicals and food additives we consume is absolutely terrible. If we keep living like this, it will surely be the end of us. Just my two cents.
Forum Debate: Are you For or Against GMO?
- Thread starter obeychase
- Start date
AlabamaJack
eXtreme
I understand your fears obey...and I'm not arguing with you either...just stating my opinion...the fact remains is that there are many many foods out there you could eat that are not healthy for you, for instance. Pork...I went to my doctor and he asked me if I ate a lot of pork...I said I sure do...he said...it taste's good to doesn't it...I said yes sir, it sure does...he said "SPIT IT OUT......."...point being that pork is probably the worse meat you can eat that will cause hardening of the arteries because of the fat content.... and that's where knowing where what you eat comes from is important....I bet you I have not eaten a meal not fixed at my house more than 2 times in the last 3 months...I always cook at home...I visit farmers markets quite often and know the growers and how they grow...so...it's just a lifestyle that you have to get used to if you want to avoid GMOs...
Like I said earlier, I don't worry about it and still eat what I want to...
I am going to pick at your third sentence "unnecessary chemicals and food additives"....do you think for a minute the USDA would allow stuff to be put into food that is not good for us?...I personally trust them....
and our last sentence sounds like "the sky is falling"....just not true my friend...
Like I said earlier, I don't worry about it and still eat what I want to...
I am going to pick at your third sentence "unnecessary chemicals and food additives"....do you think for a minute the USDA would allow stuff to be put into food that is not good for us?...I personally trust them....
and our last sentence sounds like "the sky is falling"....just not true my friend...
unnecessary additives are for the most part, quite necessary.
food emulsifiers for example. anti caking agents etc. are all used in sauces of all sorts.
many are plant, or mineral based too.
food emulsifiers for example. anti caking agents etc. are all used in sauces of all sorts.
many are plant, or mineral based too.
1. Assuming someone is allergic to a chemical that is produced by a gene that is added to a food that would not normally have it. It should be labeled that it contains the same chemical as whatever the gene came from. For example, soybeans having a warning saying that they include a gene normally found in peanuts.queequeg152 said:
2. I wasn't talking about Monsanto specifically. Someone is definitely going to sue though. My reason for disliking Monsanto was that they don't let anyone save the seeds, which usually leaves people in debt.
AlabamaJack
eXtreme
cruzzfish said:
sadly, one of the most terrible things in our society...money IS the root of all evil and we all know who makes money off of law suits...and then they turn to a political career and you see where that leads us...
F-em all...
AlabamaJack
eXtreme
I should not have posted that...my bad...
not gonna continue that line of conversation...
not gonna continue that line of conversation...
1. yea but its way way easy to test for allergens these days. if they somehow produced a cultivar that somehow produced an allergic reaction, it could be readily diagnosed. they used to, and may still do, those little tests, where they prick a kids back with needles containing all sorts of common allergens. i dont see how one could go unknown into the market.cruzzfish said:
allergens are legitimately super dangerous, and do require labeling. but never once heard of a food allergy specific to gmo crops.
2. way before GMO, you effectively could not save seeds. F1 hybrid cultivars are notoriously unstable, and the subsequent generations are almost always sterile or entirely different from the parents. its nothing new really.
yea they dont let you save seeds, but really, if we are being genuine and honest here, its intellectual property. in 20 years or w.e their patent runs out, im sure this trait will be all but free.
I concede the second point. For the first one though, you still need to let them know that what they're buying isn't a normal (INSERT PRODUCT HERE). GMO isn't widely used enough for there to be allergens in them yet, but sooner or later one is going to be modified such that it does contain an allergen, and that needs to be warned about. It won't be GMO specific by any means, but a label would still be needed.queequeg152 said:
allergies are god damned serious. if you label everything as GMO, under the pretense that it is to protect folks from allergens, than you are infact doing folks a DIS-service by blanket labeling every gmo containing product. you have a penut allergy? sorry no ketchup for you. i think you see what im saying.
only products that solicit allergic reactions should be labeled as such.
labeling stuff as GMO because it is scary is another matter entirely. the FDA mandates labels for one reason, to protect/promote health, not to pander to political pressures.
Any gmo labeling should be carefully distinguished from actual health concerns such as penut allergies etc. it probably should not even be on the same side of the packaging as the health information.
only products that solicit allergic reactions should be labeled as such.
labeling stuff as GMO because it is scary is another matter entirely. the FDA mandates labels for one reason, to protect/promote health, not to pander to political pressures.
Any gmo labeling should be carefully distinguished from actual health concerns such as penut allergies etc. it probably should not even be on the same side of the packaging as the health information.
I am for them completely, with the obvious caveat that they need to be rigorously tested first. There is simply no way we can meet the food demand for our future populations without it, imo. Not to mention that organic farming is often more damaging to the environment.
We have a responsibility to reduce our meat intake as with our current diets it is simply not sustainable. The raising of livestock is far more resource demanding and damaging to our environment that growing crops. I think if we start by choosing one day a week were we don't eat meat then it will have a major impact on our planet.
There is a serious amount of pseudoscience bandied about with respect to GMO, largely from the organic food industry, many of whom are very unscrupulous. We have been modifying plant genes (and animals) since we became settled and started farming the land. As long as GMO's are used prudently then I think we have nothing to fear and they are vital if we are to sustain the numbers that our population growth will yield in the future.
We have a responsibility to reduce our meat intake as with our current diets it is simply not sustainable. The raising of livestock is far more resource demanding and damaging to our environment that growing crops. I think if we start by choosing one day a week were we don't eat meat then it will have a major impact on our planet.
There is a serious amount of pseudoscience bandied about with respect to GMO, largely from the organic food industry, many of whom are very unscrupulous. We have been modifying plant genes (and animals) since we became settled and started farming the land. As long as GMO's are used prudently then I think we have nothing to fear and they are vital if we are to sustain the numbers that our population growth will yield in the future.
cruzzfish said:
I can't see any reason why we would want to insert a gene for an allergen into another food type, it would not make sense, so I feel it is a moot point or at least not something that would arise. If for some strange reason someone did, then obviously it should be labelled that it contains x, y or Z allergens.
It wouldn't be to directly insert an allergen, no. It would be if, hypothetically, there was a group of people that lack vitamin D in their diets and for some reason cannot raise cattle, so we modify a coconut or something to produce milk that's more akin to that of a cow or goat, and the end result is that it has lactose in it. it would help them, but if we where to sell that as an alternative to milk for vegans or something, they would need to be warned in case they're lactose intolerant. See what I'm saying?Celtic67 said:
Well, I sure have learned a lot since my post yesterday. Although GMO is quite unhealthy is some aspects, it is necessary with our worlds population and does reap SOME benefits. In my opinion, our foods should NOT be tampered with. I still stand at that. But I DO see the lighter side of things.
GMO is bad no matter how you cut it. Hybridization is not the same as GMO and cannot be lumped togethet with it. The stuff is bad and there is a reason there are people against it. The deal is we don't know what foods its in because the companies are either A. too greedy or B. Just don't care.
People don't have a problem with getting the insulin the way they do. But when you have a corn that can produce its own pesticide, how can that be food for someone?
I am going to pick at your third sentence "unnecessary chemicals and food additives"....do you think for a minute the USDA would allow stuff to be put into food that is not good for us?...I personally trust them....
I know I'm a newbie here but trusting the USDA is a scary thing. IDK if this was meant to be sarcasm or not, bit this is the same organization that approved aspartame after three goes and they did it by adding panel members to the approval process till they passed it with the director breaking the tie. BTW he was good friends with Donnald Rumsfeld CEO of the original company trying to sell aspartame. That stuff is bad bad bad for you. They also approved drugs like lipator. BTW I'm a cardiac nurse and despise giving the statins. I don't trust half these big drug companies much less our government or big Agra. There are many many many more reasons not to trust any one of them besides GMO.
People don't have a problem with getting the insulin the way they do. But when you have a corn that can produce its own pesticide, how can that be food for someone?
I am going to pick at your third sentence "unnecessary chemicals and food additives"....do you think for a minute the USDA would allow stuff to be put into food that is not good for us?...I personally trust them....
I know I'm a newbie here but trusting the USDA is a scary thing. IDK if this was meant to be sarcasm or not, bit this is the same organization that approved aspartame after three goes and they did it by adding panel members to the approval process till they passed it with the director breaking the tie. BTW he was good friends with Donnald Rumsfeld CEO of the original company trying to sell aspartame. That stuff is bad bad bad for you. They also approved drugs like lipator. BTW I'm a cardiac nurse and despise giving the statins. I don't trust half these big drug companies much less our government or big Agra. There are many many many more reasons not to trust any one of them besides GMO.
AlabamaJack
eXtreme
man, you don't have to eat it if you don't want to and my statement about the USDA was NOT sarcasm...this organization has been around since 1862 thanks to Lincoln...and I do trust them....
are you sure you are not confusing the FDA with the USDA?
are you sure you are not confusing the FDA with the USDA?
