7 ms·

Almost 95 percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. https://www.thedailymeal.com/travel/8-most-genetically-modified-crops-slideshow h

Almost 95 percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. https://www.thedailymeal.com/travel/8-most-genetically-modified-crops-slideshow https://www.thedailymeal.com/travel/8-most-genetically-modif... In 2007, over half the world’s soybean crop was genetically modified; a higher percentage than any other crop. https://worldofgenetics.weebly.com/genetically-modified-soybeans.html https://worldofgenetics.weebly.com/genetically-modified-soyb... Asians are probably eating less GMO soy (than Americans) and we don't really know what those genetic modifications do in terms of human health. They are typically made to improve profit in some fashion, not to improve human health.

mfer 6y ago
GMO soy is treated with different pesticides than non-GMO. What we eat still has some of the pesticide in it. It’s worth a considering the impact of the pesticide, too
eyko 6y ago
> They are typically made to improve profit in some fashion, not to improve human health. The main goals of GMOs are to increase yield and protect against disease / pests, which is practically the same goal we've had for thousands of years of crop domestication. Take for instance wild pre-domesticated maize vs present day non-GMO maize[1] and you'll see what "natural" crop selection does. Not only do we select for strains that are healthier and with more defenses, we also select strains that give us more bang for buck. Over the years, we've also selected for: texture, size, adaptability to different climates and soil compositions, lower concentration of toxic compounds, etc. Cassava and potatoes, for instance, can be deadly in their "natural" variety, and needed some "help" to get to the varieties we eat today. GMOs are simply the result of applying modern science in combination with what we've learnt from different cultures over thousands of years, to speed this process and hopefully prevent famine and starvation. I'm not saying all GMOs are good for you, but I just wanted to counter this idea that we don't know what effects GMOs have on us -- we've been eating GMOs for millenia. Edit: I should also strain that I fully support questioning GMOs and holding them to a high standard as a society, especially when the modifications are made for reasons which are to a high degree simply for profit. One example of that would be crops that are engineered to be infertile / yield no seeds. PS: I'm more concerned about chemical pesticides, especially in the scale at which they're used. Microplastics, heavy metals, soil depletion, etc. Many modern agricultural practices are not good for the environment, objectively speaking. But I wouldn't just blindly lump GMO in the same group just because it's also modern. 1. https://www.newswise.com/articles/tiny-genetic-tweak-unlocked-corn-kernels-during-domestication https://www.newswise.com/articles/tiny-genetic-tweak-unlocke...
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  we've been eating GMOs for millenia. That's a little like saying "There's zero difference between traditional animal husbandry and cloning." Sorry, I think there is a meaningful distinction between traditional human intervention in plant varieties and the more recent intervention called GMO. Most of the world seems to agree that there is a distinction, enough so that we invented new language for what it is we are doing. Edit in response to your edit: But I wouldn't just blindly lump GMO in the same group just because it's also modern. That's an ugly thing to say and it's not far from a personal attack. There's no blindness on my part. I'm not lumping anything in just because it's modern. I have a genetic disorder and pay enormous attention to the details of my diet because of it. I react poorly to soy products. Research and experience suggest that my firsthand negative experiences with soy may be related to the fact that most soy in the US is GMO. My views here have nothing at all to do with unfounded assumptions, ridiculous neurotic views of "modern" things or anything of the sort.
  - gameswithgo 6y ago
    genes get arbitrarily modified by evolution, breeding, or manual intervention. could a gmo food cause a problem? sure, so could a food whose genes were modified by breeding or accident of nature
    - Retric 6y ago
      Evolution and selective breeding don’t arbitrarily modify DNA. The actual methods are small random changes, copying from some other location possibly backwards, or removing segments. GMO significantly expands what kinds of changes are possible. In practice the difference is generally not that significant, but there is some increase in risks. Personally, I would prefer a different label for new GMO foods. Presumably, the odds of finding an undiscovered issue drops over time. So using a different label for the first 20 years is reasonably appropriate. Plenty of people are going to take slightly higher risks, so they can benefit from and thus test new cultivars.
      - 6y ago
creata 6y ago
> Asians are probably eating less GMO soy I may be out of the loop here, but why do you say that? Are Asians particularly more GMO-averse than Americans?
- ex_amazon_sde 6y ago
  Yes
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  I say that based on the two data points I quoted with sources. Presumably 'more than half' is less than 95 percent in most cases.
  - creata 6y ago
    You're probably right. I just wasn't sure that production and consumption of GMO soy would be so neatly linked like that, because so much of that soy is going to livestock.
    - DoreenMichele 6y ago
      Yeah, the lack of certainty of a conclusion is why the word "probably" is in that sentence. It's a qualifier. It indicates I don't actually know for certain and this is guess work. (The guess work preceded the googling up of hand-wavy numbers. It's an internet discussion, not a defense of a PhD dissertation.)
      - creata 6y ago
        I didn't suggest otherwise.
        DoreenMichele 6y ago
        Sorry, my 17 year old high school self seems to be alive and well, after all these years. (Insert jokes about my dotage.)

mfer 6y ago

GMO soy is treated with different pesticides than non-GMO. What we eat still has some of the pesticide in it. It’s worth a considering the impact of the pesticide, too

eyko 6y ago

> They are typically made to improve profit in some fashion, not to improve human health. The main goals of GMOs are to increase yield and protect against disease / pests, which is practically the same goal we've had for thousands of years of crop domestication. Take for instance wild pre-domesticated maize vs present day non-GMO maize[1] and you'll see what "natural" crop selection does. Not only do we select for strains that are healthier and with more defenses, we also select strains that give us more bang for buck. Over the years, we've also selected for: texture, size, adaptability to different climates and soil compositions, lower concentration of toxic compounds, etc. Cassava and potatoes, for instance, can be deadly in their "natural" variety, and needed some "help" to get to the varieties we eat today. GMOs are simply the result of applying modern science in combination with what we've learnt from different cultures over thousands of years, to speed this process and hopefully prevent famine and starvation. I'm not saying all GMOs are good for you, but I just wanted to counter this idea that we don't know what effects GMOs have on us -- we've been eating GMOs for millenia. Edit: I should also strain that I fully support questioning GMOs and holding them to a high standard as a society, especially when the modifications are made for reasons which are to a high degree simply for profit. One example of that would be crops that are engineered to be infertile / yield no seeds. PS: I'm more concerned about chemical pesticides, especially in the scale at which they're used. Microplastics, heavy metals, soil depletion, etc. Many modern agricultural practices are not good for the environment, objectively speaking. But I wouldn't just blindly lump GMO in the same group just because it's also modern. 1. https://www.newswise.com/articles/tiny-genetic-tweak-unlocked-corn-kernels-during-domestication https://www.newswise.com/articles/tiny-genetic-tweak-unlocke...

DoreenMichele 6y ago
we've been eating GMOs for millenia. That's a little like saying "There's zero difference between traditional animal husbandry and cloning." Sorry, I think there is a meaningful distinction between traditional human intervention in plant varieties and the more recent intervention called GMO. Most of the world seems to agree that there is a distinction, enough so that we invented new language for what it is we are doing. Edit in response to your edit: But I wouldn't just blindly lump GMO in the same group just because it's also modern. That's an ugly thing to say and it's not far from a personal attack. There's no blindness on my part. I'm not lumping anything in just because it's modern. I have a genetic disorder and pay enormous attention to the details of my diet because of it. I react poorly to soy products. Research and experience suggest that my firsthand negative experiences with soy may be related to the fact that most soy in the US is GMO. My views here have nothing at all to do with unfounded assumptions, ridiculous neurotic views of "modern" things or anything of the sort.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  genes get arbitrarily modified by evolution, breeding, or manual intervention. could a gmo food cause a problem? sure, so could a food whose genes were modified by breeding or accident of nature
  - Retric 6y ago
    Evolution and selective breeding don’t arbitrarily modify DNA. The actual methods are small random changes, copying from some other location possibly backwards, or removing segments. GMO significantly expands what kinds of changes are possible. In practice the difference is generally not that significant, but there is some increase in risks. Personally, I would prefer a different label for new GMO foods. Presumably, the odds of finding an undiscovered issue drops over time. So using a different label for the first 20 years is reasonably appropriate. Plenty of people are going to take slightly higher risks, so they can benefit from and thus test new cultivars.
    - 6y ago

creata 6y ago

> Asians are probably eating less GMO soy I may be out of the loop here, but why do you say that? Are Asians particularly more GMO-averse than Americans?

ex_amazon_sde 6y ago
Yes
DoreenMichele 6y ago
I say that based on the two data points I quoted with sources. Presumably 'more than half' is less than 95 percent in most cases.
- creata 6y ago
  You're probably right. I just wasn't sure that production and consumption of GMO soy would be so neatly linked like that, because so much of that soy is going to livestock.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    Yeah, the lack of certainty of a conclusion is why the word "probably" is in that sentence. It's a qualifier. It indicates I don't actually know for certain and this is guess work. (The guess work preceded the googling up of hand-wavy numbers. It's an internet discussion, not a defense of a PhD dissertation.)
    - creata 6y ago
      I didn't suggest otherwise.
      - DoreenMichele 6y ago
        Sorry, my 17 year old high school self seems to be alive and well, after all these years. (Insert jokes about my dotage.)