• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Frankenfood: What do you think you know about GMO?

cduggles

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
20,283
Location
A chromatically corrected world
7 General Myths and Misconceptions About GMO Foods

GMO_myths_resize_md.jpg


GMO, or genetically modified organism, derived food gets a bad rap. But is this fair?


Since the dawn of farming within human civilization, mankind has been playing with the genetics of plants and animals for millennia.

Whilst genetic modification and engineering is more sophisticated that cross- and selective breeding, should we really be concerned about eating GMO foods?

Many have claimed that GMO is either toxic or carcinogenic and is therefore dangerous to eat. Yet others believe GMO will devastate the Earth's natural habitat.

But which, if any, of the claims around GMO actually true? Let's take a look at seven common myths and misconceptions about it.

1. GMO is killing bees


GMO_myths_bees_resize_md.jpg

Source: Ferran Pesta?a/Wikimedia Commons

This is one of the biggest myths that surrounds the apparent controversy over GMO foods. Bee populations, especially Honey Bees, have been in dramatic decline for some time now.

Research has found that between 2008 and 2013, a 30% decline in the bee population was observed in the United States. The state of bees is worse in other places around the world too.

In Spain, for example, around 80% of beehives were lost in the same period. This is worrying for not only honey-lovers but also environmentalists the world over.

Could the cause be GMO? Apparently, this seems to be a case of guilt by association.

Bee population decline actually appears to have been caused by a pesticide called neonicotinoids. These are similar in structure to nicotine and are absorbed by plants through their vascular system and later consumed by insects, like bees.

Pesticides are clearly very different from GMO plants, and so there is currently no substantial evidence of any direct link between bee decline and GMO food.

2. GMO is not healthy


GMO_myths_poison_resize_md.jpg

Source: Andrew Kuznetsov/Flickr

Another big fallacy about GMO
food is that it is inherently harmful to human health. The claim is that, by its very nature, eating GMO food is bound to lead to some serious health issues later down the line.

In fact, GMO is one of the most heavily controlled and tested food products on the market. On average it takes around 13 years and $136 million in testing prior to each and every new GMO seed getting approval.

For this reason, there are currently very few approved GMO crops around the world.

Extensive studies, like those conducted by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, have also conclusively shown that consuming GMO food is perfectly safe.

There are other concerns that GMO food potentially contains poisonous or toxic substances. One example is a GMO crop called BT corn.

The crop does actually contain a pest-killing toxin that has been engineered to specifically kill particular plant-eating insects. A recent Scientific American article summarised the current research around Bt corn and found it to be "are some of the safest and most selective insecticides ever used. Claims that Bt crops poison people are simply not true."

3. Genetic engineering is something new



GMO_myths_breeding_resize_md.jpg

Source: Michael J. Ermarth/Wikimedia Commons

This is probably one of the most prevalent myths about GMO. To some, the very mention for genetic modification sparks images of mad-scientist tinkering and playing god with DNA to create super animals and plants.

In truth, humans have been playing around with the DNA of animals and plants for millennia. Many modern crops and livestock we eat on a daily basis should not actually exist in nature.

Corn cobs, for example, as we know them today, didn't actually exist on the planet around 10,000 years ago. Ancient farmers selective bred a wild grass called teosinte and cross-bred it to give us the modern crop we all love to make popcorn out of.

Current DNA research actually shows this process appears to have been relatively easy for our ancient ancestors. They would have needed to change but 5 regions of teosinte's genes to produce the modern crop maize.

In genetics, this sort of human intervention in evolution is called artificial selection. Artificial selection over the centuries has increased crop yields and created foods that are bigger, more resistant to pests and disease, and tastier.

4. GMO is less nutritious


genetically-modified-foods-520861_1280_resize_md.jpg

Source: Pixabay

Some claim that GMO foods inherently contain fewer nutrients than 'natural' foods.' Quite where this myth has come from is anyone's guess, but rest assured it could not be further from the truth.

Genetic engineering of crops tends to focus on making the plant more resistant to disease and pests whilst simultaneously boosting their crop yields. This process reduces or eliminates, the need to use pesticides and herbicides on them.

By its very nature, this process of genetic modification does not affect the plant's nutritional value. In fact, studies show that genetically modified foods are nutritionally identical to their conventional counterparts.

There are a few crops, for example, high-oleic soybeans, that have been designed to be nutritionally different and are labeled accordingly.

When you think about it rationally, this is pretty obvious really.

Other studies also seem to show the complete opposite. These studies have shown that the nutrient content of conventional food appears to be declining.

The decline in the quality of fruits and vegetables was first reported more than 15 years ago by English researcher Anne-Marie Mayer, who looked at the dwindling mineral concentrations of 20 UK-based crops from the 1930s to the 1980s.

5. GMO is bad for the environment


GMO_myths_mutant_resize_md.jpg

Source: Eliazar Parra Cardenas/Flickr

This myth tends to tie into several other myths we have already mentioned above. From killing bees en masse to visions of world domination through an unstoppable invasion, GMO gets a bad rap about its impact on the environment.

Some have also claimed that GMO plants are causing antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria. This, if true, would obviously be quite a serious issue.

Whilst various studies in 2005 and 2008 have shown that very small amounts of DNA can transfer between plants and bacteria, its risks are effectively negligible on the whole. Despite this, the World Health Organisation has taken steps to urge members not to pick and develop GMO crops that have any antibiotic resistance.

Other concerns include something called outcrossing. This is where GM plant genes spread to conventional crops and other wild species.

Whilst some traces of this have been shown in the past, many nations have since adopted very strict regulations to reduce mixing. This tends to include GM and conventional crop field separation and calls to make GM plant pollen sterile.

There is also some evidence that GMO is actually relatively better for the environment. Their in-built resistance to pests reduces the need for farmers to use often highly-toxic pesticides.

They are also more resistant to environmental problems like drought, disease, and mold. This means their production requires less tiling and deforestation.

6. GMO can cause cancer


GMO_myths_rats_resize_md.jpg

Source: Sasha the Okay Photographer/Flickr

This myth is actually based on a famous 2012 French study that fed rats a GMO-only diet. They used a type of GMO corn that was created to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup.

They found that the rats seemed to show a large propensity for the development of tumors and other organ damage. 50% of male rats and 70% of female rats died prematurely.

This was in direct contrast to 30% of males and 20% of female rats in their control group. Since the only difference was the diet, this must be proof that GMO can cause cancer, right?

Luckily science is, if nothing else, a place for healthy and vital criticism from peers. Other scientific academies "smelled a rat".

Their rebuttals to the research found fault with the design of the experiment. Not to mention their statistical analysis of their results.

Following this, the European Food Safety Authority declared that the study was "of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment."

Critics also noted that the choice of rat species in question tend to show a higher chance of developing things like tumor very easily. Especially when overfed or eating corn contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormonal imbalance.

The 2012 study did not control for these factors and cast significant doubts on the validity of their results and conclusions.

7. GMOs are everywhere


gmoprotests_resize_md.jpg

Source: Unsplash

Some claim that GMO foods are everywhere and are impossible to avoid. In fact, to date, there are only ten crops that have been approved for full production.

These currently include Alfalfa, Canola, Rainbow Papayas, Soybeans, Sugar beets, Corn (field and sweet), Cotton, Squash, Potatoes, and Apples.

In the U.S. there is also no current need to label food that is directly or indirectly made from GMO. Since 2013, the U.S. Government Department of Agriculture did officially approve a label to show that companies are non-GMO.

This process just requires independent verification of any claims made.

In Europe since the late 1990s, the EU has required labeling of GMO foods. This has resulted in many food retailers avoiding selling these products altogether.

This has meant that, as Scientific American has also found, it is nye on impossible to find GMO products in European supermarkets.

This article is a bit rah rah rah for my taste, but I think it's a great topic and many of the major protests about GMO are discussed here.
 
We've been eating human modified food all our lives, since long before genetic modification technology. Gmos are just an advancement of something we've been doing a very long time.

Seedless watermelons aren't created by genetic modification but they sure aren't natural either.

Most of the fruit we eat would either be very different without our influence, or wouldn't exist at all.
 
The GMO thing is one of the most pervasive myths. All sorts of people I know are like "ahh, GMOs are evil! They give you cancer!". IMO it's alarmist nonsense. All that GMO means is that it's been genetically modified. Which, as Jeff pointed out, we've been doing ever since we domesticated wild foods into what we eat today. Of course we don't call those GMO foods, because we genetically modified them through forcing evolution rather than understanding the genome and altering specific DNA sequences. But in the end, the result is the same. Using GMO technology has a lot of potential to really help a lot of people, especially the drought-tolerant versions of nutritious and high-calorie foods like corn that are being (have already been?) developed, for growing far more food in famine-prone third-world countries. The possibilities are virtually endless. Imagine foods altered to produce a wider range of necessary nutrients that are lacking in some areas of the world?

Of course it's probably possible to modify a plant in such a way that it would produce something cancer-causing, but assuming we extensively test new varieties, I think there's no reason to scrap the whole thing just because it could happen.

This myth is actually based on a famous 2012 French study that fed rats a GMO-only diet. They used a type of GMO corn that was created to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup.

Plants that are resistant to Roundup are made that way so that they can be covered in herbicide and survive, which increases yields, but I doubt herbicide is good for you. Of course that's a case of bad growing policies, and not the fault of GMO itself.
 
GMOs have done wonders for helping lift people out of starvation.

But one may (shock!) disagree with establishment narratives and look into something further - and then would least request the choice to know if a food was GMO or not on the label/packaging. Some countries are attempting to remove this option and I've heard that a new term GMO foods will be using is biofortified. Buyer beware. Or not. I don't give a shit. I try not to eat GMO food tho.
 
Active ingredient in Roundup weed killer found in popular beers and wine, researchers say
https://www.foxnews.com/health/ingr...und-in-popular-beers-and-wine-researchers-say

Traces of an ingredient found in weed killers have been discovered in popular beers and wine, according to a study by U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

The pesticide and herbicide glyphosate, a key ingredient in Roundup, was found in 19 of the 20 wines and beers tested, even in organic brands.

Though the levels of glyphosate in the drinks tested aren’t necessarily dangerous, the World Health Organization said in a 2015 report that the pesticide is “probably carcinogenic to humans." In 2017, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced glyphosate “would be added to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer.”
 
I think GMOs have some potential, in theory, if developed properly.

At the moment, their benefits are highly questionable - at best.

Sometimes yields have been shown to be lower, purportedly because the energy required by the gene to provide resistance to the pesticide can outweigh its benefits.

The development of weed/pest resistance to the pesticides used has also been shown to be problematic, resulting in ever larger quantities of pesticides used and the concomitant destruction and sterilization of soil biota - not only, ironically, crippling yields but potentially degrading the soils and pushing us ever closer towards insectageddon.

And, of course, allowing a few select corporations the power to control seeds (by incorporating terminator genes) and establishing - effectively - a rentier model for agriculture is a really dumb thing and no way to ensure food security.

But, yeah, there's obviously benefits down the road at some point. Although just reducing meat consumption would be a quicker, cheaper and easier way of ensuring food security.
 
Flask, thanks for posting that and opening this thread.

The hysteria around gmo's is crazy, mainly because it is generalized, extending to all Gmo food. There are a few bad or questionable apples, yes. Mainly Monsanto, but the majority are fine or better than fine.

At this point literally billions of lives have been saved by the genetic modification of crops to make them more hearty and produce more in conditions that would normally make it hard to turn a crop there. There was one man, I wish I could remember his name, but his modifying of certain crops ended a long horrible famine and saved an estimated billion lives himself. So unless saving billions of lives is a bad thing, then gmo's are not all bad, and can be a tremendous power for good.

Nature genetically modified itself constantly, plants interacting with thier environment, insects and animals. When that happens it's sometimes called evolution. Even insects and animals unwittingly choose for certain traits in plants, and by prefferentially pollenating those or spreading thier seeds vs those of less preferred plants, they modify the future of those plants genes.

Id like to add more but I have to take care of some things. I'll check back in.
 
Last edited:
Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned

dn22287-1_300.jpg


Update: Six French scientific academies issued a statement on 19 October, saying the S?ralini study could not reverse previous conclusions that this and other GM crops are safe, because of problems with the experimental design, statistical analysis and animals used, and inadequate data. Meanwhile the European Food Safety Authority declared the study?of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment?. As promised, the organisation invited S?ralini ?to share key additional information?. That invitation was made on 4 October, and repeated on 19 October. Today, EFSA announced it had (again) made all the data it used to approve the GM maize available to S?ralini.


Original article, posted 19 September 2012

Today, researchers led by Gilles-Eric S?ralini at the University of Caen in France announced evidence for a raft of health problems in rats fed maize that has been modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. They also found similar health problems in rats fed the herbicide itself.

The rodents experienced hormone imbalances and more and bigger breast tumours, earlier in life, than rats fed a non-GM diet, the researchers claim. The GM- or pesticide-fed rats also died earlier.

This kind of GM maize accounts for more than half the US crop, yet the French team says this is the first time it has been tested for toxicity throughout a rat?s lifespan (Food and Chemical Toxicology, DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005).

Are the findings reliable?

There is little to suggest they are. Tom Sanders, head of nutritional research at King?s College London, says that the strain of rat the French team used gets breast tumours easily, especially when given unlimited food, or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormone imbalance, or just allowed to age. There were no data on food intake or tests for fungus in the maize, so we don?t know whether this was a factor.

But didn?t the treated rats get sicker than the untreated rats?

Some did, but that?s not the full story. It wasn?t that rats fed GM maize or herbicide got tumours, and the control rats did not. Five of the 20 control rats ? 25 per cent ? got tumours and died, while 60 per cent in ?some test groups? that ate GM maize died. Some other test groups, however, were healthier than the controls.

Toxicologists do a standard mathematical test, called the standard deviation, on such data to see whether the difference is what you might expect from random variation, or can be considered significant. The French team did not present these tests in their paper. They used a complicated and unconventional analysis that Sanders calls ?a statistical fishing trip?.

Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh, UK, adds that in any case, there should be at least as many controls as test rats ? there were only 20 of the former and 80 of the latter ? to show how variably tumours appear. Without those additional controls, ?these results are of no value?, he says.

Aside from the statistics, are there any other problems?

Yes. Tests like this have been done before, more rigorously, and found no effect of GM food on health. The French team claims to be the first to test for the animal?s whole lifespan. But ?most toxicology studies are terminated at normal lifespan ? 2 years?, as this one was, says Sanders. ?Immortality is not an alternative.? And those tests did not find this effect.

Furthermore, the team claims to see the same toxic effects both with actual Roundup, and with the GM maize ? whether or not the maize contained any actual herbicide. It is hard to imagine any way in which a herbicide could have identical toxic effects to a gene tweak that gives the maize a gene for an enzyme that actually destroys the herbicide.

Does seeming unlikely mean that this is an invalid result?

Not necessarily. But even more damning from a pharmacological perspective, the team found the same effect at all doses of either herbicide or GM maize. That?s unusual, because nearly all toxic effects worsen as the dose increases ? it is considered essential for proving that the agent causes the effect.

Even the smallest dose that the team applied resulted in alleged effects on the rats. That is sometimes seen with other toxic agents. The team suggests that the effect kicks in at some very low dose, hits its maximum extent immediately, and stays the same at any higher dose.

But it could more simply mean the GM maize and the herbicide had no measured effect, and that is why the dose made no difference. ?They show that old rats get tumours and die,? says Mark Tester of the University of Adelaide, Australia. ?That is all that can be concluded.?


Why would scientists do this?

The research group has long been opposed to GM crops. It claimed in 2010to have found evidence of toxicity in tests by the GM-crops giant Monsanto of its own Roundup-resistant maize. Other toxicologists, however, said the supposedly damning data revealed only insignificant fluctuations in the physiology of normal rats.


French blogger Anton Suwalki, who campaigns against pseudoscience, has a long list of complaints about the group, including what he calls ?fantasy statistics?.


And who funded the work?

The group was funded by the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, or CRIIGEN, based in Paris, France. The lead author on today?s study, S?ralini, is head of its scientific board, and it pledges to ?make every effort towards the removal of the status of secrecy prevailing in genetic engineering experiments and concerning genetically modified crops (GMOs), both being likely to have an impact on the environment and/or on health?.

Don?t they realise that other scientists criticise their methods?

They might. The paper is supposed to have been reviewed by other scientists before it was allowed for publication. But the team refused to allow journalists to show the paper to other scientists before the news reports were due to be published.
 
Remember, if you don't like the results of a study, commission your own.

A billion studies saying one thing is conclusive proof, until you have a single study that says something else. Then it's still undetermined.
 
I agree that there are problems (ahem Monsanto) with the implementation... for example, I don't like knowing my food has been sprayed with Roundup because then I'm consuming it. But that doesn't mean GMO is a bad technology, it just means Monsanto is a bad company. I agree that we should be given the choice to know whether we are consuming them, which in the US, we are. But I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives, especially in places where growing food is hard and starvation is a huge problem.
 
Does anyone disagree with forcing companies to list whether a food is GMO on their packaging?
 
I presume the FDA is mandating/verifying it, but I'm not sure. I do support requiring it to be listed, again like I just said in the anti-vaxxers thread, because I believe in a free society we should be able to choose what we put into our bodies.
 
My understanding is that in the US there was a battle by GMO companies to prevent mandatory GMO labelling, which they won - which is a blatent anti-choice move.

So consumers don't even have the right to decide whether they buy GMO or not, which is pretty shitty imo and I think the point Grimez is trying to make.
 
Yes, I get it, but it's like organic food in the sense that a labeling process is in reality problematic. (The standards are problematic and so is adherence to them.)

And I always think in terms of program.
 
I didn't realize they fought and won that battle, though I'm not at all surprised. That sucks, because yeah, consumers should be able to know what they're buying, 100%. It's not up to policy to dictate whether or not someone cares about what they're consuming, it's up to the individual. Even though I think in this case it doesn't actually matter in terms of health, I still think people should be able to choose for themselves, absolutely.
 
Does anyone disagree with forcing companies to list whether a food is GMO on their packaging?

Honestly I don't think I have any particular stance on it.

I wouldn't object to a law requiring such labels, neither would I insist on one.

So no, I suppose I don't disagree.
 
Top