Should GMO's be the next big battle?

All topics relating to health, diet, nutrition programs and any questions you might have about general health.

Moderators: Mini Forklift Ⓥ, C.O., Richard, robert, SyrLinus

Message
Author
User avatar
rickb
Rabbit
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:25 am

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#16 Postby rickb » Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:29 pm

Fallen_Horse wrote:This is frustrating.

Has anyone here heard of selective breeding? We have been making 'GMO' foods for a long time, just not as advanced as at the genetic level. We have bred plants for specific properties for hundreds of years, and we are becoming better and better at it. The problem has always been the COMPANIES behind the PATENTS, and the MONEY behind the breeding, not the foods themselves.

Please, anyone here that is afraid of GMO foods should immediately run to their nearest chemist or biologist friend and ask them what they think. There is NO evidence that GMO's are any worse for us than traditional foods. The risk is that COMPANIES choose to breed only the plants that produce them the most MONEY, thus breeding out nutrients in the process.

From Wiki:
"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.[1][2][3][4][5][6] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.[2][4][7] In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques."[1] The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse health effects on the human population related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.[2][4][7] A 2004 report by Working Group 1 of the ENTRANSFOOD project, a group of scientists funded by the European Commission to identify prerequisites for introducing agricultural biotechnology products in a way that is largely acceptable to European society,[33] concluded that "the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops."[34] In 2010, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[5]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_plants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Health



OK, I'm glad you brought up selective breeding. This is done frequently for show dogs. Have you ever seen the degradation of the blood lines of show dogs? It is sad really to see what is going on behind the scenes. Take a look at this and tell me if you still think selective breeding is a good idea. And please be careful putting a lot of stock into what you find on Wiki. Anyone...and I mean any idiot (although not always the case) can write or edit the entries there.

Short version:


Long version:

blabbate
Gorilla
Posts: 807
Age: 37
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:58 am

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#17 Postby blabbate » Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:53 pm

rickb wrote:
Fallen_Horse wrote:This is frustrating.

Has anyone here heard of selective breeding? We have been making 'GMO' foods for a long time, just not as advanced as at the genetic level. We have bred plants for specific properties for hundreds of years, and we are becoming better and better at it. The problem has always been the COMPANIES behind the PATENTS, and the MONEY behind the breeding, not the foods themselves.

OK, I'm glad you brought up selective breeding. This is done frequently for show dogs. Have you ever seen the degradation of the blood lines of show dogs? It is sad really to see what is going on behind the scenes. Take a look at this and tell me if you still think selective breeding is a good idea. And please be careful putting a lot of stock into what you find on Wiki. Anyone...and I mean any idiot (although not always the case) can write or edit the entries there.

Comparing selective breeding across species is pointless without looking at specifics, and you're jumping across kingdoms here. It's an utterly invalid comparison. If you disapprove of selective breeding of plants for food, then I hope you don't eat corn. Or rice. Or wheat. Or strawberries. Or cauliflower or broccoli or onions apples sprouts collards carrots etc etc etc.

As for Wikipedia's reliability, the scientific articles are exceedingly well-curated. Wikipedia overall is as reliable as any other encyclopedia or large-scale reference corpus, with the benefit of being self-healing when an error is discovered.
--
Bruce

User avatar
vegan_rossco
Batman
Posts: 1632
Age: 27
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 6:15 am
Location: Isle of Wight, England

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#18 Postby vegan_rossco » Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:57 pm

Ah :) once again Blabbate is the voice of reason on a thread full of psuedo-science!
Interesting discussion and interesting reads you guys
klaatu21 wrote:sensai ross, forgive me for doubting you and myself

Mini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:There's only one thing I'm riding at 6am, and it's not a bike!

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=29098
http://www.facebook.com/ross.d.cosgrove

blabbate
Gorilla
Posts: 807
Age: 37
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:58 am

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#19 Postby blabbate » Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:00 pm

vegan_rossco wrote:Ah :) once again Blabbate is the voice of reason on a thread full of psuedo-science!
Interesting discussion and interesting reads you guys

And fallen_horse!
--
Bruce

User avatar
rickb
Rabbit
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:25 am

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#20 Postby rickb » Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:21 pm

Well...yeah good discussion and I don't think there are "absolutes" in anything I said...I'm pretty open-minded. So I'll just avoid them when I can, and you can tear them up if you wish. ;) I am blessed to live in a town that used to be the self-proclaimed tomato capitol of the world...but probably of Texas is more like it. LOL! There are some great fruits and veggies that come from the locals! And for my belief, I hope they are not GMO.

User avatar
Mini Forklift Ⓥ
VBB Moderator, Powerlifter & Ultrarunner
Posts: 3900
Age: 39
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:13 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand.
Contact:

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#21 Postby Mini Forklift Ⓥ » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:55 pm

vegan_rossco wrote:Ah :) once again Blabbate is the voice of reason on a thread full of psuedo-science!

:lol:
Image

User avatar
Bataleon
Finch
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:19 am

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#22 Postby Bataleon » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:03 pm

Fallen_Horse wrote:This is frustrating.

Has anyone here heard of selective breeding? We have been making 'GMO' foods for a long time, just not as advanced as at the genetic level. We have bred plants for specific properties for hundreds of years, and we are becoming better and better at it. The problem has always been the COMPANIES behind the PATENTS, and the MONEY behind the breeding, not the foods themselves.

Please, anyone here that is afraid of GMO foods should immediately run to their nearest chemist or biologist friend and ask them what they think. There is NO evidence that GMO's are any worse for us than traditional foods. The risk is that COMPANIES choose to breed only the plants that produce them the most MONEY, thus breeding out nutrients in the process.

Selective breeding and genetic modification are two very different beasts.

Selective breeding ensures that particular traits become more prominent (for example, a less "stringy" mango) by breeding together varieties that possess said desired trait. It's perfectly natural.

Genetic modification involves going down to DNA level and "splicing" new genetic information in there which can come from an entirely different organism. This would never otherwise occur in nature.

User avatar
Mini Forklift Ⓥ
VBB Moderator, Powerlifter & Ultrarunner
Posts: 3900
Age: 39
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:13 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand.
Contact:

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#23 Postby Mini Forklift Ⓥ » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:14 pm

Bataleon wrote:Selective breeding ensures that particular traits become more prominent (for example, a less "stringy" mango) by breeding together varieties that possess said desired trait. It's perfectly natural.

Genetic modification involves going down to DNA level and "splicing" new genetic information in there which can come from an entirely different organism. This would never otherwise occur in nature.

Great summary of the differences between the two and well articulated ~ thank you :)
Image

blabbate
Gorilla
Posts: 807
Age: 37
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:58 am

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#24 Postby blabbate » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:29 pm

Bataleon wrote:Selective breeding and genetic modification are two very different beasts.

Selective breeding ensures that particular traits become more prominent (for example, a less "stringy" mango) by breeding together varieties that possess said desired trait. It's perfectly natural.

Genetic modification involves going down to DNA level and "splicing" new genetic information in there which can come from an entirely different organism. This would never otherwise occur in nature.


That last part isn't strictly true, since cross-species and even cross-genera hybrids occur in nature (and even more is possible with bacterial genetic transfer), but I take your point, which is that it's extremely rare, whereas GM lets us wrap whatever we want with a plasmid and fire it into other organisms.

However, just because cross-organism modification is possible doesn't mean it's dangerous, nor does "natural" crossbreeding imply safety. One doesn't follow from the other. Plenty of natural crossbreeding results in plants unsafe for human consumption. In fact, that's where all of them came from. There's still risk when the "natural" method is directed by humans as well, since many of our foods have harmful dormant genes, like much of the nightshade family. Crossbreeding can inadvertently activate those genes.

GM pulls genes from different species, sure, but those genes are selected because we know what they do. In that sense, GM is a scalpel. We don't have to smoosh together big chunks of genome and hope for a useful expression. We can inject specific information, verify that it integrated intact, and even see where on the genome it was incorporated.

Of course, that doesn't mean GM is automatically safe either. That's why we test them both.
--
Bruce

HIT Rob
Gorilla
Posts: 837
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 5:03 pm

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#25 Postby HIT Rob » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:18 pm

I've personally nothing against GMO's...

This last 20 minutes of this programme talks about it, i agree 100% with Penn's comments at the end of the show...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9kNoz_gS7k

Back-space
Rabbit
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:41 pm
Location: The sticks, Canada

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#26 Postby Back-space » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:31 pm

My food is great the way it is. I wouldn't want someone coming in and hiding zinc tablets in my veggies, and I don't want people modifying my food genetically to contain more vitamins/minerals. Having a corporation in control of our food is scary! Especially one like Monsanto. No adverse effects after 15 years or so? How many smokers do you see battling cancer after a decade and a half? And lets optimistically assume that the GMO's we currently have are 100% safe, who's to say the next ones are? Thanks, but I don't wanna be their f***ing guinea pig.

I used to work at a grain elevator in Ontario. Corn and soy for the purposes of animal feed. 100% GMO. I wish I had taken pictures to prove the visible reactions people have to.. handling pesticides, I would assume? I can't stress enough just how much our purchases effect others. That's a more than good enough reason for me right there not to support pesticide laden food when I have the choice.

No animal products, No GMO's, Buy organic when we can :)

Back-space
Rabbit
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:41 pm
Location: The sticks, Canada

Re: Should GMO's be the next big battle?

#27 Postby Back-space » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:44 pm

Bataleon wrote:
Fallen_Horse wrote:This is frustrating.

Has anyone here heard of selective breeding? We have been making 'GMO' foods for a long time, just not as advanced as at the genetic level. We have bred plants for specific properties for hundreds of years, and we are becoming better and better at it. The problem has always been the COMPANIES behind the PATENTS, and the MONEY behind the breeding, not the foods themselves.

Please, anyone here that is afraid of GMO foods should immediately run to their nearest chemist or biologist friend and ask them what they think. There is NO evidence that GMO's are any worse for us than traditional foods. The risk is that COMPANIES choose to breed only the plants that produce them the most MONEY, thus breeding out nutrients in the process.

Selective breeding and genetic modification are two very different beasts.

Selective breeding ensures that particular traits become more prominent (for example, a less "stringy" mango) by breeding together varieties that possess said desired trait. It's perfectly natural.

Genetic modification involves going down to DNA level and "splicing" new genetic information in there which can come from an entirely different organism. This would never otherwise occur in nature.


^ This.

So you don't think fish tomatoes would occur naturally in nature? ;)


Return to “Health & Nutrition Programs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests