GMO Safety

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've often heard people crying out about how GMOs are so horrible, and I have often heard science minded rational people say that is nuts. I've read a number of articles and studies showing that GMO is and always (or at least almost always?) has been safe, so I'm leaning heavily in that direction. But I do have a nagging doubt that perhaps somebody here can help me with.

GMO just means the organism is genetically modified, but does that not open the door to problems of untested organisms we are not sure is safe? If not, why not? Is there a super strict testing procedure for these things? Could one not argue that non-GMO fruits that have been eaten for decades is proven safe over that period of time but a band new GMO fruit doesn't have such a long safety record? I think that concern pops up in the minds and becomes a foundation for many who are anti-GMO. Perhaps we can explain that away?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I remember Bill Nye had those same concerns, and he was pretty skeptical of GMO's. He visited several scientists working within the field and ended up changing his mind. It may be instrumental in helping you with your concerns perhaps?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tn6ohImsZ0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

After reading that, no it does not address my concern. It does show the anti GMO people to often be anti GMO because they are nutters, but that doesn't mean that GMO should not be looked at on a case by case basis and carefully tested with some hesitation from rushing in as Nye originally said.

 

[J842P]

After reading that, no it does not address my concern. It does show the anti GMO people to often be anti GMO because they are nutters, but that doesn't mean that GMO should not be looked at on a case by case basis and carefully tested with some hesitation from rushing in as Nye originally said.

Do you think the non-GMO species are tested for safety? Why don't they make you uneasy?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is GMOs don't create new genes.

Rather, they take an existing gene from something else and splice it into the target. The gene still functions exactly like it did before. If the behavior in the organism it came from is acceptable then it almost certainly will be acceptable in the new organism.

Now, there should be a bit more regulation about what they do, there are things that have been created that shouldn't have been. Starlink corn comes to mind--I forget what the benefit is but the spliced-in gene has possible allergy implications and so the result was restricted to animal feed. Utter stupidity--think the supply chains remain perfectly clean?!?!

 

[bilby]

Every organism is a GMO. The only difference is that human modified ones have slightly more predictable compositions.

If genetically engineered stuff needs stringent testing (and if course it does, like everything else), then stuff that mutated naturally, or that was bred through traditional husbandry, or that was produced by induced mutation, needs far more stringent testing.

GMOs are not guaranteed to be safe. They are just more likely to be safe than any other potential foodstuffs.

 

[DBT]

It's the business interests that I don't trust. Cutting corners, sometimes engaging outright fraud in order to sell a product and turn a profit. The desire for Profit being the driver of many a dodgy business practice.

 

[bilby]

It's the business interests that I don't trust. Cutting corners, sometimes engaging outright fraud in order to sell a product and turn a profit. The desire for Profit being the driver of many a dodgy business practice.

Off topic.

Almost everything you consume is produced by business interests. Business interests and GMOs are unrelated issues.

 

[DBT]

Companies have business interests. It is a business that produces and sells GMO foods and their aim is to return a profit. That may mean that products are possibly being put on the market before they have been adequately tested.

I'm saying that business and profit often comes first.


2.1 Myth: GM foods are strictly tested and regulated for safety


''Industry and some government sources claim that GM foods are strictly regulated.1,2 But GM food regulatory systems worldwide vary from voluntary industry self-regulation (in the US) to weak (in Europe). None are adequate to protect consumers’ health. All rely on safety testing done by the GMO developer company that wishes to commercialize the genetically modified organism (GMO) in question.

As criticism has mounted of the deficiencies in GM food regulatory systems, the message from pro-GM lobbyists has shifted, from “GM foods are strictly regulated” to “GM foods are no more risky than non-GM foods, so why regulate them at all?” They point out that each time a plant breeder develops a new variety of apple or beetroot through conventional breeding, we do not demand that it be tested toxicologically, and there is no reason to think that GM foods will be any more toxic.

But this argument is spurious. Humans have co-evolved with their food crops over millennia and have learned by long – and doubtless sometimes bitter – experience which plants are toxic and which are safe to eat. There would have been casualties along the way, but the survivors would have learned from any mistakes and would only have developed their food crops from plants that were proven safe over many years of use.''

 

[bilby]

Companies produce and sell GMO foods and they have an interest at turning a profit. That may mean that products are being put on the market before they have been adequately tested.

I'm saying that business often comes first.

FTFY. Your claim is exactly as true of ALL foods. There's no rationale for singling out GMOs here.

2.1 Myth: GM foods are strictly tested and regulated for safety


''Industry and some government sources claim that GM foods are strictly regulated.1,2 But GM food regulatory systems worldwide vary from voluntary industry self-regulation (in the US) to weak (in Europe). None are adequate to protect consumers’ health. All rely on safety testing done by the GMO developer company that wishes to commercialize the genetically modified organism (GMO) in question.

As criticism has mounted of the deficiencies in GM food regulatory systems, the message from pro-GM lobbyists has shifted, from “GM foods are strictly regulated” to “GM foods are no more risky than non-GM foods, so why regulate them at all?” They point out that each time a plant breeder develops a new variety of apple or beetroot through conventional breeding, we do not demand that it be tested toxicologically, and there is no reason to think that GM foods will be any more toxic.

But this argument is spurious. Humans have co-evolved with their food crops over millennia and have learned by long – and doubtless sometimes bitter – experience which plants are toxic and which are safe to eat. There would have been casualties along the way, but the survivors would have learned from any mistakes and would only have developed their food crops from plants that were proven safe over many years of use.''

There's nothing spurious about it. GMOs don't contain any novel traits not found in other foods - indeed, other foods may well contain traits that are completely unknown or unexpected.

This argument is self defeating; it admits that conventional breeding leads to problems, and then tries to imply without evidence or reason that those problems will be repeated in GMO foods.

'People got lost when there were only paper maps; and now only those people who didn't get lost are still around. Therefore we should stick to tried and tested paper maps and not allow any of this dangerous GPS business, which for all we know could get people just as lost as the old fashioned maps that we insist that everyone should keep using'.

By the way, that website is such unadulterated bullshit that you could use it to fertilise an organic garden.

 

[DBT]

Companies produce and sell GMO foods and they have an interest at turning a profit. That may mean that products are being put on the market before they have been adequately tested.

I'm saying that business often comes first.

FTFY. Your claim is exactly as true of ALL foods. There's no rationale for singling out GMOs here.

2.1 Myth: GM foods are strictly tested and regulated for safety


''Industry and some government sources claim that GM foods are strictly regulated.1,2 But GM food regulatory systems worldwide vary from voluntary industry self-regulation (in the US) to weak (in Europe). None are adequate to protect consumers’ health. All rely on safety testing done by the GMO developer company that wishes to commercialize the genetically modified organism (GMO) in question.

As criticism has mounted of the deficiencies in GM food regulatory systems, the message from pro-GM lobbyists has shifted, from “GM foods are strictly regulated” to “GM foods are no more risky than non-GM foods, so why regulate them at all?” They point out that each time a plant breeder develops a new variety of apple or beetroot through conventional breeding, we do not demand that it be tested toxicologically, and there is no reason to think that GM foods will be any more toxic.

But this argument is spurious. Humans have co-evolved with their food crops over millennia and have learned by long – and doubtless sometimes bitter – experience which plants are toxic and which are safe to eat. There would have been casualties along the way, but the survivors would have learned from any mistakes and would only have developed their food crops from plants that were proven safe over many years of use.''

There's nothing spurious about it. GMOs don't contain any novel traits not found in other foods - indeed, other foods may well contain traits that are completely unknown or unexpected.

This argument is self defeating; it admits that conventional breeding leads to problems, and then tries to imply without evidence or reason that those problems will be repeated in GMO foods.

That's true. Not only GMO, but any new type of food, not only food but any new products that may potentually pose a risk. It's just that the subject matter at hand happens to be GMO food. The principle applies to any product that may pose a risk.

As I said, it is the trustworthiness of big business and their practices that I question.

 

[bilby]

FTFY. Your claim is exactly as true of ALL foods. There's no rationale for singling out GMOs here.


There's nothing spurious about it. GMOs don't contain any novel traits not found in other foods - indeed, other foods may well contain traits that are completely unknown or unexpected.

This argument is self defeating; it admits that conventional breeding leads to problems, and then tries to imply without evidence or reason that those problems will be repeated in GMO foods.

That's true. Not only GMO, but any new type of food, not only food but any new products that may potentually pose a risk. It's just that the subject matter at hand happens to be GMO food. The principle applies to any product that may pose a risk.

As I said, it is the trustworthiness of big business and their practices that I question.

Then GMOs are a trivial and pointless distraction from your point.

This isn't a thread about the awfulness of big business. You can start one if you like.

 

[DBT]

FTFY. Your claim is exactly as true of ALL foods. There's no rationale for singling out GMOs here.


There's nothing spurious about it. GMOs don't contain any novel traits not found in other foods - indeed, other foods may well contain traits that are completely unknown or unexpected.

This argument is self defeating; it admits that conventional breeding leads to problems, and then tries to imply without evidence or reason that those problems will be repeated in GMO foods.

That's true. Not only GMO, but any new type of food, not only food but any new products that may potentually pose a risk. It's just that the subject matter at hand happens to be GMO food. The principle applies to any product that may pose a risk.

As I said, it is the trustworthiness of big business and their practices that I question.

Then GMOs are a trivial and pointless distraction from your point.

This isn't a thread about the awfulness of big business. You can start one if you like.

As the topic of the thread is - ''GMO safety'' - and If big business is putting GMO foods onto the market without adequate testing, this is related to the OP question.

Anyhow, unless someone else takes it up, I've said what I wanted to say..

 

[Peez]

 

[braces_for_impact]

One thing I've always found interesting from a non-GMO standpoint. One can often see anti-GMO propaganda where they have scary images of people using a syringe on a tomato, and mention how unnatural GMO's supposedly are. What is never mentioned are traditional methods of changing the genome of a plant. A common one should send any frankenfood adverse people running for the hills, yet it never so much as gets a mention. That is the blasting of plants and seeds with radiation to induce mutation.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem may not be a GMO organism as such. But things like making a GMO plant that is resistant to weed killer and then dousing the environment with weed killer. It can be a pain when your neighbor sprays his crops with weed killer and it affects your non-GMO crops next door. And now weeds are reportedly rapidly developing resistance to weed killers like Roundup.

 

[bilby]

The problem may not be a GMO organism as such. But things like making a GMO plant that is resistant to weed killer and then dousing the environment with weed killer. It can be a pain when your neighbor sprays his crops with weed killer and it affects your non-GMO crops next door. And now weeds are reportedly rapidly developing resistance to weed killers like Roundup.

Well, I suppose that could be a problem, in some hypothetical case. But in the actual case of actual GMO crops, we find that these encourage the use of weedkillers that are much less harmful to animal life (including humans); Encourage the use of less pesticide than was previously used; and that the 'effects' on non-GMO crops of over-spray are entirely psychological*.

Not all weedkillers are the same. In all cases, the dose makes the poison - and glyphosate targets a metabolic pathway that doesn't exist in animals, so it turns out you need a VAST amount of it to do you any harm.

It's all absolutely terrifying, but only to those who take the horribly simplistic view that all weedkillers are essentially identical, and/or that no level of exposure is acceptable - both of which are completely contrary to reality.




*Crops 'affected' by overspray at levels that do not cause damage can no longer be used in the marketing scam called 'Organic food', but are completely identical in every other respect. Overspray of herbicides that kills or damages a neighbour's crop is not specific to GMOs or to glyphosate, and can be remedied through the courts in the usual fashion.

 

[bilby]

 

[scombrid]

It's the business interests that I don't trust. Cutting corners, sometimes engaging outright fraud in order to sell a product and turn a profit. The desire for Profit being the driver of many a dodgy business practice.

Is the 'alternative' medicine, 'all natural', and supplement industry immune to that?

 

[Peez]

It's the business interests that I don't trust. Cutting corners, sometimes engaging outright fraud in order to sell a product and turn a profit. The desire for Profit being the driver of many a dodgy business practice.

Is the 'alternative' medicine, 'all natural', and supplement industry immune to that?

Worldwide sales of "organic food" were about 90 billion US dollars last year link.

It is also interesting to note that about $500 billion is spent on tobacco products link, but that did not stop research showing that tobacco use is associated with health problems.

Peez