What can you say that's positive about GMO foods?

They’re edible, available, and delicious.

GMO bananas are used to produce Hep B vaccines. Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants (2005) Sunil et al Planta 222, Issue 3, pp 484–493

They will solve world hunger.

More and bigger food is able to be produced without raising the prices too much.

I have an urge to start tearing into the propoganda… But I am resisting.. not so gracefully : )

Which propaganda @rosehips? The comments above or the opinion that GMO is deadly?

Lol I see what you are saying @Dutchess_III.

I take the opposing stance and am decently versed in facts not marketing ploys.

It’s really pretty food. As a food photographer from twenty years ago, we had to search the market for the perfect specimens of tomato, apple, everything. Now everything is gorgeous and ready for the camera right off the shelf.

There is a lot of opposition to it in Australia. I am not up on the subject sufficiently to make a judgement. Keep talking folks and educate me. From what I understand the reasons against it are not only what it is doing to your body from ingesting it but also that it is trapping the farmers into using it and never being able to save seed from a previous crop. You have to buy new from Monsanto each year. And farmers who have fields adjacent to gmo fields are going to be cross contaminated and then they will have to pay monsanto even if they don’t want to use their seed.

What about irradiation? They are starting to do that to foods here and no one is saying anything but I just read in USA you are protesting because it is going to be done to pet foods. I guess I should ask that in another question.

I think they last longer and bruise less. Grass roots people will tell you there’s something wrong going to be found out eventually about them, while hard working people who aren’t really health conscious will tell you genetically modified organic doesn’t mean much to them and we should all shut up and eat the fruit/vegetable/wheat/whatever and enjoy it.

@rosehips – share the facts with us, I would like to know more. I am surprised that our usually uber suspicious of corporate greed types, are falling in line with Monsanto’s spiel. What is right or wrong about the stuff???

@rooeytoo I will and would love to but at the moment I am going to bed.

hehehe, probably a wise decision!

Here is another perspective on this situation.

This is a multifaceted issue. GMO foods are no more or less healthy than regular foods. You will get the same nutrients. The advantage of GMO foods is that they are pesticide resistant and you can have more of them.

Now, having said that, I do not agree with the policies and tactics of the GMO companies like Monsanto. But that’s politics, not health. I have absolutely no problem if people want to be opposed to GMO companies because of their policies. I do have a problem when they start making false negative health claims about them. Don’t confuse the issue.

Hear hear, @Rarebear.

There are many learned folks out there who disagree with @Rarebear‘s opinion. I am still sitting on the fence. I think it is good to look at both sides of the discussion.

That said, I prefer to buy my produce from a local farmer and preferably organic. I have never considered factory farming of any sort to be desirable.

Apparently Japan isn’t quite as sure as some here are.

@rooeytoo my statement is not an opinion. It is a statement based upon the current medical evidence. If there is good data to show otherwise I will change my statement.

I used to think that global warming was not human caused. Now that I have read the evidence I have changed my tune.

The operative phrase I think is “current medical evidence.” Many think there is not enough current evidence, medical or otherwise, to reach an absolute conclusion. Whenever someone tells me about the safety of current medical evidence, I think back to thalidomide. That was used extensively based on current medical evidence and look at the results.

Monsanto has very deep pockets and long arms, probably funds a lot of research…. But I am a skeptic and a cynic especially when it comes to this sort of subject.

@rooeytoo That is what is called a straw man argument. Read about it.

@rarebear – What is a straw man argument, that many reputable scientists from around the world disagree with your profoundly absolute statement? And that “current medical evidence” has many times in the past proven to be inaccurate at a later date? Where is the straw man?

Thalidomide.

There are a lot of people with malformed limbs who would argue whether that is a straw man or not.

@rooeytoo you obviously don’t know what a straw man argument is as you are continuing it.

“A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[3] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.” wiki

I haven’t done that at all. You have stated that because “current medical evidence” has not yet discovered it to be to be harmful, therefore, it is absolutely not harmful, that is safe for all. I pointed out that “current medical evidence” is often proved to be incorrect, unfortunately often after much harm has been done.

You should stop speaking in absolutes, state it as your studied opinion and it is not an arguable position. When you speak as the pope, in an ex cathedra manner, I will disagree as do many more learned on the subject than I.

Sure you did. You equated GMO foods to thalidomide. It’s a false analogy.

Look, it’s very simple. Show me a good, well designed study showing medical harm from GMO foods and I’ll change my view. I go where the science leads.

I am disagreeing with your remark that “current medical evidence” is sufficient to prove long term safety and bring up an example of where “current medical evidence” was exactly the opposite. So you accuse me of straw man logic, doesn’t make sense to me.

Open your eyes when you do your research, you will see many studies which have grave reservations about the long term effects and safety of GMO. You believe what you want to believe and I will be more circumspect.

Current medical evidence means no one is dropping dead instantly or showing a predisposition to any other diseases immediately, but it does not offer any guarantee as to any long term problems which may develop. Here’s another straw man example for you, people here are just now showing the effect of having worked, unprotected, with that miracle insulating material, asbestos 40 years ago.

“you will see many studies which have grave reservations about the long term effects and safety of GMO.”

Show me one good, well designed, peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal.

I think you can find them yourself if you open your eyes and your mind.

@rooeytoo Ha! I KNEW you would write that. (I must be psychic!)

Look. You obviously know the literature way better than I do, and you clearly have access to some source of data that I haven’t seen. I’m just asking for one (really only one) well designed, randomized trial, in a peer reviewed reputable journal that shows harm. You’re the one who said that there were “many studies”. Okay, prove it.

Or, if you’re just making these statements up, own up to it and we’ll move on.

(And, by the way, you’re right about asbestos being a straw man argument. And also, by the way, asbestos is an organic non-genetically modified substance that clearly causes harm. So it disproves your argument anyway.)

(And if you’re following the usual script, the next thing you’re going to do is resort to some sort of argument ad hominem and then drop off this thread. I certainly hope you don’t.)

I’m not being argumentative here. I honestly, really and truly, want to see good data.

No you’re not being argumentative you are simply stuck in the high school debate mode and out to win! Is that ad hominem enough to suit you? I thought I said asbestos was bad, did I say it was a good thing?

You are the researcher, do your research on all sides of the subject. Problem is, you have had your mind made up for you by your background. It happens all of the time. I guess that’s why straw man arguments (as you call anything that doesn’t fit into your agenda), upset you.

Yup. Okay. So you don’t really know of any good research but are afraid to admit it. Fair enough.

I didn’t know this was a contest, I have stated that there are many whose opinions differ from yours. And I said I am not convinced nor are other countries around the world who want nothing to do with it. Now you are convinced it is a good thing. So be it, you eat the stuff. I still prefer locally produced, pesticide free albeit with a few brown spots and imperfect shape, food.

Let us keep in mind however, that GMO is not a new subject, it has been bandied about for quite a few years and during that time I have read much opposing it and written by people more learned on the subject than I. Unfortunately I have not made notes of each and every article and you are right that I am not going to go and hunt it all up for you. There is plenty available. If you care so deeply, you do your research. If you do not care to read differing opinions then continue to preach your pov to all who wish to listen. I am always wary of anyone on any subject, who speaks in absolutes as you are doing. Too many mistakes have been made at very high cost thanks to that sort of arrogance.

I don’t get why you feel this need to make me say I agree with you or that you are right. But since it seems to be so important to you, yep you are right, I am shivering in my boots!

For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen an anti-gmo article that wasn’t trying to sell me something, usually overpriced “organic” vitamins or a cure for chemical contrail syndrome. So… There’s the agenda.

I don’t know how you are so badly missing my point but you are. Badly.

I’m not trying to get you to agree with me. I’m trying to get you to get me to agree with you. All I’m asking you to do is to get me some good evidence to show your point. That’s all.

You keep saying “do your own research”. I have and I haven’t seen anything that shows a health risk.

I’ve asked you three times to help me understand and you’ve refused or ignored me three times. I will now ask another. Please show me something. Anything. Not a blog post. All I want is some good medical data.

Why won’t you present the info that @Rarebear asked for, @rooeytoo?

The Dr. offered thalidomide to my Mom when she was pg with me. She declined. Thank God.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Genetically_modified_foods is the first one, the state of Victoria published this one, and really if you google “dangers of gmo food” you will get a couple of million hits. You will have to go through them yourself because an theory I find satisfactory, may not suit you.

The last line in the report linked above says exactly what I have been saying, but falling on deaf (or biased) ears.

“Things to remember
The benefits, risks and ethical concerns regarding GM foods are still being researched and debated.
The health risks associated with consuming GM foods or ingredients have not been unequivocally established.
No current evidence suggests that GM foods are harmful to health.
GM foods sold in Australia, or foods containing GM ingredients, are required to be labelled.”

Now I am sure you will pounce on the “no current evidence” line, but I think the rest of the disclaimer is more important, particularly the health risks not being UNEQUIVOCALLY established.

@Dutchess_III – @rarebear is a nurse or researcher or something, he/she will probably not find my research adequate anyhow, so I figured why bother. Now see what he/she has to say about the Victorian position. I also pointed out that Japan and several other countries do not want gmo products imported. Did you ever hear the one about “fools rush in, etc.”. And that was ignored.

It is good your mom declined even though it is only a straw man.

@rooeytoo That’s not what I was asking for. You said, “you will see many studies which have grave reservations about the long term effects and safety of GMO”. What you linked me to is not a study. It’s a website with an opinion piece on it.

Show me one of the many studies you are referring to.

See what I mean, I am psychic too, I knew he/she would say that!

You win the contest. I give up. Let’s hope all those who take your advice and munch away, never live to regret their decision and your absolutes.

@rooeytoo

Of course you knew I was going to say it, because I told you that I didn’t want a blog post or a website. I wanted a good scientific article. You didn’t give me one.

I am only absolutely devoted to science. I go where the science leads. If you choose to live by the precautionary principle that’s certainly your choice. I advise you, however, never to get into your car again as you are statistically FAR more likely to die from a car accident than you are from GMO foods.

(How’s that for a straw man argument?)

Rarebear is a boy bear and he’s a doctor and he makes his own GM beer in a GM bathtub in his garage. I think he drives a GM too. I don’t. I have a Buick.

@@rooeytoo The article you posted appeared to have a great many positives listed for GMO food. More positives than negatives. Also, the negatives were prefaced with “may” or “could.” Overall, the concern that people could have allergic reactions, for example, seems to out weigh feeding (literally) starving children.

@Rarebear Could you post one ”....well designed, peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal” regarding GMO? Please and thank you.

@Dutchess_III Actually, the beer I make is organic. But only because that happens to be the ingredients I get. And I drive a Toyota.

Here you go
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14749339

Thenk you.

If I read it right, @Rarebear, basically, the concern is about humans become further resistant to antibiotics, but the risk of that with GMO, compared to the abuse/over use of antibiotics is minimal. Did I read it right?

Well in this study, yes. It is only one study, and it’s pretty specific in the question it asks (as are all good scientific studies). You can’t make any big generalizations based upon one study, but it definitely did not show harm.

That’s why I was so keen to see any studies Rooey had. As I said before, I am rather opposed to GMO foods because of large agrobusiness company policies. But I have yet to see any good medical data showing any harm from GMO foods.

The thing is that I believe (and this is a belief based upon geopolitical food projections not necessarily science) that GMO foods has the potential save millions of lives because of more efficient farming practices and higher crop yields. People who tend to be pro-organic tend to be liberal, white, relatively well off, and have never known starvation. The hypocrisy never fails to take my breath away.

I wish organic farming would work to feed the world. But the world doesn’t run on wishes.

”...who’ve never known starvation.” Good statement. The same goes for people who refuse to eat certain foods for moral reasons. That’s an utter luxury.

@Rarebear knew all along it’s too soon to tell of ill effects. Give it time.

Nutr Rev. 2009 Jan;67(1):1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1753–4887.2008.00130.x.
Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health.
Magaña-Gómez JA, de la Barca AM.
Source
Coordinación de Nutrición, Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico.

Abstract
The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models, and parameters. The most common result is that GM and conventional sources induce similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. Diversity among the methods and results of the risk assessments reflects the complexity of the subject. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods. (PubMed=what else?)

@Aster yes I saw that. But that article is basically a report saying that there hasn’t been good research. Doesn’t add nor subtract anything

It might help the employment opportunities available here in the US.

“Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds”.
“To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.”
Source

@rojo Interesting, but not relevant to the discussion of GMO foods.

@Rarebear would it help to know that I got to that page by looking up information on GM Wheat designed to be Round-Up resistant, which led to Round-Up resistant corn and soybean which led to Round-Up resistant weeds. GMO’s may have the potential for good but without proper safeguards the potential for evil is just as great. These crops will grow without the modification so why do it and take the chance?

@rojo not really. It’s a blog post linking to a blog post. I think the precautionary principle is fine, however I need to see hard data to be convinced myself.

Pascal’s Conspiracy Theorem?

I came across this study today. Thoughts anyone??

@Cupcake Link didn’t work for me.

Is it that BS pig stomach thing making the rounds on Facebook?

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf Does this work?

OK, BS is harsh.

Let’s say this: It was a poorly conducted test.

It was published in an online journal that is not considered well-respected.

The list of doctors is a Who’s Who of Anti-GMO Activists.

½ the pigs caught pneumonia during the course of the study.

The study noted that pigs fed GMO foods had inflamed stomachs, and happened to leave out the fact that more pigs who weren’t fed GMO had inflamed stomachs, and that stomach inflammation is common when pigs are overfed or their meal is too finely ground.

Table 3 actually shows that many more pigs fed non-GMO feed had stomach inflammations than those with GMO feed. So 31 non-GM pigs had ‘mild’ inflammation, while only 23 GM pigs had it. For ‘moderate’ inflammation, a GMO diet again seemed to be beneficial: 29 non-GM pigs had moderate inflammation of the stomach, while 18 had it. So that’s 40% vs 25%. Do Carman et al perform a test for statistical significance to see if GMO feed has a protective effect on pigs stomachs?

The study was funded by The Organic Federation of Australia and other openly anti-GMO activists. So I’ll give that exactly as much credit as a study published by Monsanto that says their corn will cure cancer.

Table 3. 15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so. Similarly, twice as many non-GM pigs as GM ones had liver problems.

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said:

“The study’s conclusions don’t really stand up to statistical scrutiny. The authors focus on ‘severe’ stomach inflammation but all the other inflammation categories actually favour the GM-diet. So this selective focus is scientifically inappropriate.
“When analysed using appropriate methods, the stomach inflammation data does not show a statistically statistical association with diet. There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.”

Prof Patrick Wolfe, Professor of Statistics at University College London, said:

“I am not an expert on animal health, husbandry, toxicology etc, and therefore I cannot comment on these aspects of the study. As a statistical methodologist I can however comment on the data analysis undertaken and presented in the article.
“The biggest issue is that the study was not conducted to test any specific hypothesis. This means that the same sample (in this case nearly 150 pigs) is, in effect, being continually tested over and over for different findings.
“The statistical tests employed assume that a single test is done to test a single, pre-stated hypothesis; otherwise the significance levels stemming from the tests are just plain wrong, and can be vastly over-interpreted.
“Thus there is a higher-than-reported likelihood that the results are due purely to chance. The number of pigs being in the low hundreds (instead of, say, the thousands, as is often the case in large medical studies) can make this effect even more prominent.
“Bottom line: a better-designed study would have hypothesized a particular effect (such as changes in stomach size), and then applied a statistical test solely to check this hypothesis. Perhaps another independent team of researchers will go down this path. Until then, this study definitely does not show that GM-fed pigs are at any greater risks than non-GM fed pigs.”

source

Thanks @Seek_Kolinahr

Good job, @Seek_Kolinahr.

Link worked for me. Maybe you’re the on who’s broke, @Rarebear. ;)

There is a picture going around on fb. The Outraged Everyday group is claiming it’s a Monsanto employee spraying a monsanto field. I think it’s hinky, for one thing, the purpose of the Monsanto crops is to be able to get rid of, or cut back on exterior pesticides. And for crops that size they wouldn’t don’t use a dinky golf cart to spray.

Also, does Monsanto own their own crops? My fb friend said “Have you ever been to or seen any of Monsanto’s fields? Valerie Henson Vogler Billionis, they own land, lots of it right here in Kansas. I’ve driven by it myself.” I can’t imagine what she’s referring to.
She’s also talking about some Food Inc Documentary. I asked her to send a link.

@Dutchess_III That’s just plain silly. Heck, anybody who spray paints a lot uses a face mask. It doesn’t mean that we can’t hang a picture on the wall.