I guess we only count the studies done by people who want to sell the product then, right?
People want them labeled so they can choose what they are eating. It shouldn’t be that hard, and it shouldn’t require hoping every company is honest with their labeling because it isn’t regulated. (The way the Organic label basically means nothing these days.)
I wish they would. Knowing that farm raised salmon is unhealthy by comparison makes it a bit tricky when I’m in a restaurant and deciding on fish or chicken.
Then again, I probably shouldn’t eat out at all since I have no way of knowing what the fuck is in my food… because “regulations are bad… m’kay.”
I’m not sure what you mean, but who do you expect to pay for it? It’s unreasonable to expect anti-GMO activists to fund the studies; they’d be delighted if GMO products weren’t on the market at all. I’m not an expert, but from what I understand the process is something like you create something, test it, and then submit your findings to the FDA to get approval to sell. As far as I know the FDA hasn’t deemed any GMO food unsafe. Am I ignorant here? Are there killer GMO apples out there I’m not aware of?
You’re missing the point. An apple is an apple. You’re eating an apple. There is far more difference between cultivars than between a GMO and non-GMO apple.
I would like fish labeled when they have been severely traumatized before capture. Of course, that would require following a fish for its entire life before acquiring it, and then deciding what is a severe trauma, but I have a right to know what I am consuming.
There have been studies which did find problems with GMO foods. The most famous one was pulled from a reputable magazine under mysterious circumstances.
For what it’s worth if there were more independent studies showing it was safe, I’d be more inclined to believe them. Then again, GMO’s have only been around for ~18 years. Even known carcinogens like cigarettes can take decades to cause cancer so it’s a bit difficult for me to believe we’ve studied all the possible effects.
Literally not true, or there would be no point to the genetic engineering. It is different, and we don’t fully understand the potential of those differences. We don’t even have a great understanding of how food is processed by the body yet! Something makes GMO corn not die when it’s sprayed with RoundUp… that makes it different by definition.
Not really, you’re arguing we shouldn’t require labeling so we can actually know what’s in our food.
But that’s not the way you characterized @wezaleff argument. You claimed that he was arguing that GMO labeling should not be required on the basis that “regulations are bad… m’kay.”
Wezaleff never said that regulations, as a general matter, are bad. Wezaleff is arguing that these particular regulations are bad, on their individual merits, for specific reasons that he is describing. As I understand it, Wezaleff’s position is that the probative value the required labeling provides about the healthfulness or safety of food products would be minimal to nonexistent. (I’m not sure if he’s explicitly said so, but I would wager to guess Wezaleff also believes that that minimal/nonexistent probative value would be outweighed by the tendency of the labeling to unnecessarily prejudice consumers against buying certain products, and the result of this situation would be bad.)
Regardless of whether or not you agree with that position, it’s very different from “regulations are bad… m’kay.” That was a straw man.
I don’t want to ask if you just made that up, but what “reputable magazine” was that? What “mysterious circumstances”? Are you alleging a conspiracy? If so, I don’t think anything I can say would ever change your mind.
I honestly don’t know where to start with this. Do you not agree that, e.g., a GMO apple that was engineered not to brown is otherwise still an apple? I think that’s the fundamental disagreement here. I don’t think anything I can say will convince you otherwise if you think it is no longer an apple.
GMO corn is still corn, how it’s grown doesn’t directly affect its nutritional value. Should we also require labeling for corn grown indoors vs. outdoors?
I didn’t say GMO apples are genetically identical to normal apples (obviously). All I’m saying is that they are both apples (obviously?) and they are more similar than two different cultivars of apples. Are you worried about new apple cultivars causing cancer in 20 years too, or just GMO apples? What is uniquely dangerous about GE vs. older methods?
I am not. If you’d like to continue arguing against that, first you will need to find someone who believes it.
“This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.”
I had seen that study years ago, at the time it was criticized for using rats “prone to cancer.” Now it was pulled for some reason… who knows, I didn’t really spend a lot of time looking into it but it’s hardly a conspiracy if Monsanto pays off an editor somewhere to pull a report from their website.
That’s ridiculous. A granny smith apple and a crab apple are both apples. That doesn’t mean you should eat the crab apple. There are differences, something causes that apple to not brown. So let’s be specific here: Do you know what it is about a GMO apple that causes it to not brown? Do you know that whatever substance causes that effect is safe for human consumption?
Please cite sources.
And a crab apple is still an apple.
FFS there’s different types of corn too. You don’t generally want to eat the same corn they use for ethanol, for instance. You keep using these broad categories to talk about specific things… it’s ridiculous.
I won’t say “uniquely dangerous” but I will say “different.” When you cultivate different breeds of apples, you are selecting traits which are already there. Now we are introducing new traits.
My argument, in it’s entirety, is that I’m not sure we’ve studied this enough and that far too much of the research comes from the people trying to sell it. If something is RoundUp resistant, I want to know that whatever chemical the plant is secreting to make that happen is not going to cause me health problems in 30 years.
First, a quick biochemistry lesson. When the cell of a typical apple is ruptured – for example, by biting, slicing or bruising – polyphenol oxidase (PPO) found in one part of the cell mixes with polyphenolics found in another part of the cell. (PPO is a plant enzyme. Polyphenolics are one of the many types of chemical substrates that serve various purposes, including supplying its aroma and flavor.) When PPO and polyphenolics mix, brown-toned melanin is left behind.
Arctic® apples produce practically no PPO so that enzymatic browning reaction never occurs. This means Arctic® apples’ polyphenols aren’t burned up when the apple is bitten, sliced, or otherwise bruised. No chemical reaction, no yucky brown apple left behind.
The small number of genes (four, to be exact) that control PPO production were identified several years back, when the apple’s genome was mapped. To create a nonbrowning Arctic® version of an existing apple variety, our science team uses gene silencing to turn down the expression of PPO, which virtually eliminates PPO production, so the fruit doesn’t brown.
The end result of all this science is just an apple tree, now with very low PPO production to prevent enzymatic browning in its fruit.
Why should we worry that these apples will cause cancer if we’re not worried about “normal” apples?
You seem to be confused, so let me be clear: I agree that crab apples are apples and there are different types of corn. That was actually my point.
Uh, no, mutations are a thing. How do you think we achieved such variety from conventional plant breeding (or, heck, from natural selection)? As stated above, GE can simply remove traits vs. adding new traits, but in either case I think it is as safe or safer than conventional plant breeding.
Ok, that seems safe enough since something is being removed. There’s a small chance the PPO helps prevent cancer or provides some nutritional benefit but nothing I’d worry about.
Now, what about RoundUp ready corn?
No, your point is that you don’t think a company should have to tell you if their smoothie is mostly crab apples. Or GMO apples. Because they’re all just apples.
I guarantee you don’t want a crab apple smoothie though.
I’m not exactly an expert on the history of plants, but I’m guessing there’s a lot more selective breeding than mutation.
I know you do. Once upon a time we also thought it was fine to paint childrens’ bedrooms with lead paint and use it as an additive in gasoline… our society is still suffering from the residuals of that.
I am honestly not that concerned over the nutritional contents. Soylent has been trustworth thus far. The Proposition 65 list was fear mongering made by those against Soylent. The anti-GMO crowd are well-intentioned but misinformed. Everything negative said about it seems minor and there seems to be an upward trend in nutritional quality.
Having said that. The biggest question that I have while I wait for version 1.6 to be shipped to me is this:
How does it taste? Does anyone know? Is it smooth? Is it thick? IS it something textured like 1.3 was? I must know!
I’m not going to address each GMO product with you with one-by-one. I suggest Google.
Another argument you created to argue against? Okay.
Crabapples and apples are different fruits from different species of tree (from the same genus). In the US, your crabapple smoothie would say INGREDIENTS: CRABAPPLES. Pineapples are also not apples.
For an example of two different apple cultivars, the smoothie could be made with granny smith or fuji apples. Or a mixture of apples. It would only need to say INGREDIENTS: APPLES in either case.
I never claimed random mutations are the only way plants evolve. My point was that random mutations are guaranteed to be less controlled than GE. You happily eat food every day that has undergone countless random mutations (everyone does). How is targeted GE more dangerous than random mutations?
If someone wanted to genetically engineer an apple that produces a deadly poison, they could. Why would a food company do that? Assuming they did, how long do you think the FDA would let them sell it?
Tastes like not much of anything, but there is a bitter aftertaste (to me). It’s about as smooth as 2.0, I’d say it’s pretty thick, especially after a night in the refrigerator. Not like 1.4, though. It’s been a long time since I had 1.3, but my memory of it was a lot grittier than 1.6 is.
I’d rather eat an apple with controlled genetics than an apple with random mutations but not by much. I wouldn’t worry about the random mutation unless it contained the zombie virus or something. I don’t worry about GMO unless it can be proven that the modifications somehow produce a poison. Something like that is easily proveable. GMO apple and an organic apple contain the same composition. The only real difference is the price and if it uses a pesticide and whether or not this pesticide is much different from an organic pesticide and whether it washes off easily. Why pay more for the same product?
I’m not making fun of anyone since I am kind of superstitious about microwaves. There really is no evidence that it’s bad and not all radiations created equal. I’d still rather heat something up in a skillet.
I don’t think the FDA has authority to ban cigs and the same goes for alcohol. They do focus on health concern awareness and trying to make it overall safer. I guess people will smoke just like people will drink or smoke weed. It’s a matter of if they should be allowed to ban recreational use of tabacco.
Doctors back then didn’t generally support tabacco use. Most of the claims that it was safe came from actors from ads designed by tabacco companies. A small number were from doctors that were addicted themselves but tried to mention “healthier” brands. But by the 50’s, there were studies being conducted linking smoking to lung cancer and number of smoking doctors declined significantly. By the 60’s warning labels were being made.
I am not saying the FDA is beyond corruption but science eventually gets out on these things… especially when any study group could take a GMO apple and conduct tests on it. There has to be a reason to fear these modifications other than suspicion that it does have something in it to fear. Something clear and obviously: “These apples contain x chemical and this x chemical has been directly linked to seizures”.
Eventually… after how many people died? Tobacco was around for much, much longer than GMO’s have been. I’m only saying people should have the information they need to decide for themselves, and fighting GMO labeling does the opposite of that. The field is basically in its infancy, yet they’re trying to tell us it’s no different than regular food. Just like corporations told everyone lead paint and leaded gasoline were safe.
[quote=“Telos, post:36, topic:25769”]Really, for me to completely buy into GMO foods I’d want to know when it was being used, and be able to look into what exactly was changed for each food, and then be able to ensure that was safe.[/quote]Do you demand to know the changes in the offspring every time a chicken or cow has sex?
Do you get the DNA tested for each corn flower that pollinates?
Do you check each cabbage to make sure a wild virus didn’t transfer DNA of a turnip into it?
Nature makes random genetic modifications every generation to a much greater degree than scientist do. So make sure to study each individual “organic” apple to see what changes happened and make sure it’s safe.