Eating GMOs

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2008 9:46 PM GMT
    Does anyone else have a problem with eating foods derived from genetically modified organisms?

    Right now, they're in the U.S. food supply without labels.

    Do you support mandatory labeling?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2008 11:01 PM GMT
    I would want to know on an individual modification basis. Just cuz something in genetically modified isnt going to make it bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2008 11:04 PM GMT
    I think it should be on the label. I think it's absolutely important that we can choose. But given the choice, I definitely would eat foods from GMOs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2008 11:11 PM GMT
    Nearly all food in the commercial food chain has some intervention from technology.

    Fertilizer.

    Selective breeding for livestock growers.

    All beef cattle, unless, labeled organic, generally are treated with trenbolone to lower feed costs, and increase the quality of the product.

    Most milk comes from cattle that have been treated with growth hormone.

    Almost all livestock is fed antibiotic and give medicines to avoid parasites.

    For most plant stuffs (veggies and so on), selective breeding / pollination has been in place for decades. Some things, like seedless watermelons and so on, have been altered.

    Fruits are treated with insecticides and wax as well as ripening agents (ozone).

    Much meat, and some processed food is sterilized via cobalt irradiation.

    Technology is everywhere around us. In all the food we eat, in the delivery chain, and even in medicines that help us eat it.

    It provides a much higher standard of food, with longer shelf lives, as a much lower cost.

    Genetic modification, either through selective breeding, or genetic engineering in the lab, has been around for ages. It's everywhere, and is why our food products are as good as they are.
  • ueatzit

    Posts: 174

    Dec 07, 2008 11:25 PM GMT
    GMOs should be labeled with a brief statement of the kind of modification involved. GMOs contain components derived from other organisms in the form of stitched together genes and the resulting proteins that those transgenes are instructions for. Of course these agricultural products are not being created to poison the environment, animals or people. These are created as an attempt to increase the efficiency of cropping systems, nutritional value of crops, market value of crops, disease resistance or to allow plants to survive on toxic soils. Incorporating GMOs in the food supply is not too bad of an idea considering the rising human population and demand for cheap accessible food.

    The truth is one's body has to deal with all sorts of small molecules, proteins and pieces of DNA and RNA every time we eat and eating a mixture of naturally derived gene fragments and gene products (the proteins the genes coded for) isn't going to kill you. Mostly I feel GMOs should be labeled to inform consumers that have allergies that this product or that product might have components derived from an organism they are allergic to.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2008 11:42 PM GMT
    All food is genetically modified, and always has been. Get over it.
    You cannot "choose."

    To label every genetic modification in, say, a can of corn, you'd need about a million labels. Six million years of extensive testing shows that there's no particular hazard involved.
  • bblance82

    Posts: 21

    Dec 08, 2008 12:00 AM GMT
    ueatzit saidGMOs should be labeled with a brief statement of the kind of modification involved. GMOs contain components derived from other organisms in the form of stitched together genes and the resulting proteins that those transgenes are instructions for. Of course these agricultural products are not being created to poison the environment, animals or people. These are created as an attempt to increase the efficiency of cropping systems, nutritional value of crops, market value of crops, disease resistance or to allow plants to survive on toxic soils. Incorporating GMOs in the food supply is not too bad of an idea considering the rising human population and demand for cheap accessible food.

    The truth is one's body has to deal with all sorts of small molecules, proteins and pieces of DNA and RNA every time we eat and eating a mixture of naturally derived gene fragments and gene products (the proteins the genes coded for) isn't going to kill you. Mostly I feel GMOs should be labeled to inform consumers that have allergies that this product or that product might have components derived from an organism they are allergic to.



    he nails it. the foreign dna shouldn't be a concern...it's the gene products that should catch our attention. what makes the GMO a GMO? taking corn as an example: is a gene that naturally exists within the current "wildtype" of corn simply being overexpressed, so that we get more of that naturally occurring gene product? has a naturally occurring gene from another organism been spliced into the corn's genome? or have we dabbled with creating a new gene that would generate a "synthetic" gene product?

    i guess the biggest threat with GMO's isn't the nutritional "they're gonna poison us" threat, but instead, the threat that GMO's pose to the environment. this is mostly with plants that have been modified to resist pesticides/herbicides or grow in conditions that no plant should normally tolerate. what happens if we create an indestructible monster?

    meat is a diff story. cos the issue with that is growth hormone. does a cow modified genetically to overexpress its own growth hormone pose a threat? the question with that is whether or not bovine cow hormone has enough homology with human hormone receptors to do anything in humans?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2008 2:06 AM GMT
    Here's another point to ponder: cattle missing both myostatin inhibition genes. Twice as much beef. (Belgian Blue is the breed, but John Hopkins knows how to do it to about anything.)

    I don't think the poster has engaged in critical thinking on his topic. Clearly, genetic modification has been done many times through the ages. E.g., dog breeding...deliberately giving a breed disabilities for the sake of appearance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2008 2:25 AM GMT
    bblance82 said the biggest threat with GMO's isn't the nutritional "they're gonna poison us" threat, but instead, the threat that GMO's pose to the environment. this is mostly with plants that have been modified to resist pesticides/herbicides or grow in conditions that no plant should normally tolerate. what happens if we create an indestructible monster?

    meat is a diff story. cos the issue with that is growth hormone. does a cow modified genetically to overexpress its own growth hormone pose a threat? the question with that is whether or not bovine cow hormone has enough homology with human hormone receptors to do anything in humans?


    Exactly. The danger of genetically modified plants cross-pollinating with and damaging native or useful species of the same plant is also ever present. This has already been noted in species of rice in Asia in which certain desired strains of rice are being contaminated with the hardier GM species and declining in quality - ultimately the native species may be completely wiped out. Sometimes crossbreeding can also produce offspring that are unable to reproduce (as in mules), leading to the extinction of a species in another way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2008 3:30 AM GMT
    CarlosGringo saidDoes anyone else have a problem with eating foods derived from genetically modified organisms?

    Right now, they're in the U.S. food supply without labels.

    Do you support mandatory labeling?


    I think EVERY detail not attributed to the item naturally, or even added during growth (hormones, etc...at conception), should be marked on the label. I think they should put labels on beef about all that crap they feed them...Corn Cob full of sugar anyone? It's a wonder they create any lean meat anymore...oh wait, that's dwindling too! icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2008 2:09 AM GMT
    Perhaps my original post should have said "genetically engineered," by which I mean a result that could not have been obtained either naturally or through selective breeding or hybridization.

    This has not been around for "ages" but only a couple of decades.

    Thanks to the posters who realize the risk genetically modified crops pose to the environment.