5 ms·

It does sound like a "throw the baby out with the bath water" scenario. In theory, GMOs could be more healthy than not GMO. In practice, this has not happened

It does sound like a "throw the baby out with the bath water" scenario. In theory, GMOs could be more healthy than not GMO. In practice, this has not happened. The objectives instead have been to increase crop yield. The side effects have been to make the plants more toxic in very subtle ways that are hard to track and take decades for people to show symptoms. Maybe in a few more decades we'll see "good" GMOs. It should also be noted that many of the problems with GMOs are shared by crops that have simply been selectively bred for a long time... which is most crops that we eat a lot of...

hyperpape 11y ago
Do you have something I could read for that claim regarding toxicity? I'm not super up on the debate surrounding GMOs, but I have a few friends who have scientific backgrounds and are interested, and I've never heard anything quite like what you're saying.
- nostrebored 11y ago
  (it doesn't exist, or appeals to the "fact" that toxicity is so minor that we can't see it yet)
- ChrisDutrow 11y ago
  Probably my favorite book is "Death by Food Pyramid". I can't remember if she went into this particular topic though. I don't know of any definative proof, which I think is what makes issues like this so dangerous. Scientific proof is a high bar when dealing with something this complex, pit that against powerful food lobbies and truths can stay buried for a long time. For me, it's been an observation of many cues, then making a personal decision about how I eat from that. One interesting place to start is corn: Most corn that you eat isn't the sweet corn you buy in the store and cook on the grill. It is very hard and must be broken down with lye before being eaten.
  - hyperpape 11y ago
    There's a lot of ground between definitive proof and "personal observation of many cues". Put it this way: are there any scientific reasons, however nebulous or merely suggestive, to suspect that this is the case?
    - ChrisDutrow 11y ago
      Yeah, if you google it, a lot of stuff comes up. I'm sure if you google "GMO's are not toxic" you'll find a lot of stuff supporting that claim too. My advice would be to start paying attention to nutrition in general, then over time you can draw your own, educated conclusions. Unfortunately I don't think is a topic that you will be able to find a black-and-white answer to.
    - brianwawok 11y ago
      How about looking at it from the flip side. Things you put in your body can have a pretty massive effect on you. I would rather err on the side of paying $.05 too much for the corn that people have been eating for 50 years over the newest GMO strain. You only get one body. I do not want to beta test things in my body if I don't have to.
      - hyperpape 11y ago
        This might be right, but it's irrelevant to the thread you're in, which is about whether the claim about subtle toxicity is something we should believe.
splawn 11y ago
I think golden rice has been around for at least 20 yrs now.[0] Also serious question, What evidence do we have for "toxic in very subtle ways"? I wasn't aware that this actually exists. [0] http://www.goldenrice.org/ http://www.goldenrice.org/
- ChrisDutrow 11y ago
  The rise in gluten allergies is what jumps to my mind. I've heard a lot of people deny they exist though. And I'm sure other people will claim they are attributed to different factors. A lot of people with gluten allergies can eat older strains of wheat that haven't changed since the early half of the century. The theory is that these are strains from before GMO time and were also not subjected to heavy selective breeding over the past century (of course it would have been selectively bred since the dawn of the fertile crescent 13,000 years or so ago).
  - splawn 11y ago
    A rise in gluten allergies? This is news to me. Is there anything published that you can cite?
    - glup 11y ago
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-race-celiac-gluten-idUSKBN0ME2SY20150318 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-race-celiac-gluten-...
      - splawn 11y ago
        How is that evidence that GMO's are toxic? It doesn't mention GMO's at all. I guess I am supposed to just speculate? "connect the dots" as Jesse Ventura would say? Edit: I gave you an upvote tho, because you did go thru the trouble of finding a link. (Even if it missed the full context of the thread, imo)
- undersuit 11y ago
  Goldren Rice has made no significant progress even though we have extensive use of Glyphosate-resistant GMOs. From what I've read the people behind golden rice have yet to release their product for 20 years now, while at the same time in the US we've switched the majority of our largest crop yields to GMO products with wheat being the major holdout. GMO corn, soybeans and sugar beets aren't being produced for health, they are being pushed to keep the American diet of highly processed sweets and oil cheap.

hyperpape 11y ago

Do you have something I could read for that claim regarding toxicity? I'm not super up on the debate surrounding GMOs, but I have a few friends who have scientific backgrounds and are interested, and I've never heard anything quite like what you're saying.

nostrebored 11y ago
(it doesn't exist, or appeals to the "fact" that toxicity is so minor that we can't see it yet)
ChrisDutrow 11y ago
Probably my favorite book is "Death by Food Pyramid". I can't remember if she went into this particular topic though. I don't know of any definative proof, which I think is what makes issues like this so dangerous. Scientific proof is a high bar when dealing with something this complex, pit that against powerful food lobbies and truths can stay buried for a long time. For me, it's been an observation of many cues, then making a personal decision about how I eat from that. One interesting place to start is corn: Most corn that you eat isn't the sweet corn you buy in the store and cook on the grill. It is very hard and must be broken down with lye before being eaten.
- hyperpape 11y ago
  There's a lot of ground between definitive proof and "personal observation of many cues". Put it this way: are there any scientific reasons, however nebulous or merely suggestive, to suspect that this is the case?
  - ChrisDutrow 11y ago
    Yeah, if you google it, a lot of stuff comes up. I'm sure if you google "GMO's are not toxic" you'll find a lot of stuff supporting that claim too. My advice would be to start paying attention to nutrition in general, then over time you can draw your own, educated conclusions. Unfortunately I don't think is a topic that you will be able to find a black-and-white answer to.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    How about looking at it from the flip side. Things you put in your body can have a pretty massive effect on you. I would rather err on the side of paying $.05 too much for the corn that people have been eating for 50 years over the newest GMO strain. You only get one body. I do not want to beta test things in my body if I don't have to.
    - hyperpape 11y ago
      This might be right, but it's irrelevant to the thread you're in, which is about whether the claim about subtle toxicity is something we should believe.

splawn 11y ago

I think golden rice has been around for at least 20 yrs now.[0] Also serious question, What evidence do we have for "toxic in very subtle ways"? I wasn't aware that this actually exists. [0] http://www.goldenrice.org/ http://www.goldenrice.org/

ChrisDutrow 11y ago
The rise in gluten allergies is what jumps to my mind. I've heard a lot of people deny they exist though. And I'm sure other people will claim they are attributed to different factors. A lot of people with gluten allergies can eat older strains of wheat that haven't changed since the early half of the century. The theory is that these are strains from before GMO time and were also not subjected to heavy selective breeding over the past century (of course it would have been selectively bred since the dawn of the fertile crescent 13,000 years or so ago).
- splawn 11y ago
  A rise in gluten allergies? This is news to me. Is there anything published that you can cite?
  - glup 11y ago
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-race-celiac-gluten-idUSKBN0ME2SY20150318 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-race-celiac-gluten-...
    - splawn 11y ago
      How is that evidence that GMO's are toxic? It doesn't mention GMO's at all. I guess I am supposed to just speculate? "connect the dots" as Jesse Ventura would say? Edit: I gave you an upvote tho, because you did go thru the trouble of finding a link. (Even if it missed the full context of the thread, imo)
undersuit 11y ago
Goldren Rice has made no significant progress even though we have extensive use of Glyphosate-resistant GMOs. From what I've read the people behind golden rice have yet to release their product for 20 years now, while at the same time in the US we've switched the majority of our largest crop yields to GMO products with wheat being the major holdout. GMO corn, soybeans and sugar beets aren't being produced for health, they are being pushed to keep the American diet of highly processed sweets and oil cheap.