View Poll Results: Are GMO foods good or bad?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good

    22 50.00%
  • Bad

    12 27.27%
  • Not sure

    8 18.18%
  • GMO Rutabega

    2 4.55%
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 115

Thread: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

  1. #11
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,644
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    I think on a planet with 7 billion and counting, where famine affects more than a billion people already and millions die of hunger every year, that any scientific tool at our disposal to increase crop production and global food supplies is a good thing.

  2. #12
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    Like everything else, it depends on how you use them.

    They're good when improving yield and disease and pest resistance. They're bad when exploited for a monopoly or when cheaper and less healthy ingredients are substituted for ones that are better for us.

    Most of the fears about "frankenfood" are nonsense. There is no fundamental difference between modifying a gene in a lab or doing it with selective breeding, a technique that humans have been employing for more than ten thousand years. Doing it in a lab is just faster. I think we should label GMO foods, but I think we should accurately describe all foods to the customers. I think that our ignorance about what we eat is a big problem. We all bought into the food pyramid and a lot of us overate carbs because of it. We need more accurate information about our food so we can maintain our health. It's one of the many preventative steps that Americans don't do to improve our health.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    I don't believe "bad" is the correct word to use. I think that genetically modified foods are a good SUPPLEMENTAL source of produce, but I don't believe that it is where we need to look solely for the future. In areas where food is scarce, GMO's are a solution to meet basic needs. But in a "developed" country I believe that all able citizens should strive to eat non-genetically altered foods.
    Whats inheritly superior about non-GMO food that is something we should strive for?

  4. #14
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Whats inheritly superior about non-GMO food that is something we should strive for?
    Ecologic stability.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Ecologic stability.
    Proof that GMOs are inheritly ecologically unstable or uncontainable?

  6. #16
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Whats inheritly superior about non-GMO food that is something we should strive for?
    For example, phytate is a compound common in seeds and grains that binds with minerals and makes them unavailable to humans. An inserted gene could cause a plant to produce higher levels of phytate decreasing the mineral nutritional value of the plant (GEO-PIE). Another example comes from a study showing that a strain of genetically modified soybean produced lower levels of phytoestrogen compounds, believed to protect against heart disease and cancer, than traditional soybeans (Bakshi, 2003).
    GMO: Harmful Effects

    I'm not saying that in every instance GMO's are less nutritious, because I'm sure you can find studies and examples that show positive health effects. I just personally feel better eating something from the ground compared to something that began in a lab somewhere. By no means does this mean I will never eat GMO's, just that if I had the choice I'd go organic or natural.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    GMO: Harmful Effects

    I'm not saying that in every instance GMO's are less nutritious, because I'm sure you can find studies and examples that show positive health effects. I just personally feel better eating something from the ground compared to something that began in a lab somewhere. By no means does this mean I will never eat GMO's, just that if I had the choice I'd go organic or natural.
    Every single one of those on the list is a hypothetical. Do you know the difference between hypothetical risks and realized risks?

  8. #18
    Guru
    brothern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,177
    Blog Entries
    8

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    I don't believe "bad" is the correct word to use. I think that genetically modified foods are a good SUPPLEMENTAL source of produce, but I don't believe that it is where we need to look solely for the future. In areas where food is scarce, GMO's are a solution to meet basic needs. But in a "developed" country I believe that all able citizens should strive to eat non-genetically altered foods.
    Why would we do that? If you are concerned about GMO foods, then you shouldn't eat a single variety of produce you can find in the grocery store. Our current produce has been derived from everything from selective breeding, to cross-breeding different species (pomelo + manderin = orange), to purposefully exposing produce to radioactive materials to encourage mutation. GMO technology is way less problematic than any of that.

    If you were honestly to go only for "something from the ground," you'd be eating bananas with rock hard seeds and sour green apples that gave you the runs.
    Last edited by brothern; 09-06-13 at 01:36 AM.

  9. #19
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    GMO: Harmful Effects

    I'm not saying that in every instance GMO's are less nutritious, because I'm sure you can find studies and examples that show positive health effects. I just personally feel better eating something from the ground compared to something that began in a lab somewhere. By no means does this mean I will never eat GMO's, just that if I had the choice I'd go organic or natural.
    That is not a scientific study just so you know. It's a link to a 2003 class summary sheet from a University of Minnesota class.

  10. #20
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    re: Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

    98 % of the negative noise about GMOs can be chalked up to raging superstition (and the post-Communist Far Left lurching around in search of credible targets).

    About those remaining 2%, though.

    On this early stage, the GMOs are designed to be broad commercial blockbusters, naturally. The problem is not that they are somehow "bad" - the problem is that they may be a little too good: For example, a crop engineered to be resistant to some widespread disease, or to be able to thrive on soils with elevated salt levels has every chance of monopolizing the fields, far and wide. And in the short term, it would mean increased farm production and improved nutrition. But in the long term, it could expose the same farms to the most trivial hazard in biology: All adaptation is relative. The superhero plant of today may become a sickly weakling tomorrow, when some new fungus or virus arrives to make our lives less boring.

    The "organic movement", while rooted in ignorance and quasi-ideological righteousness, may end up doing us all a service - by preserving, inadvertently, the diversity of unmodified, untested, unstudied - and probably often quite "harmful", in one way or another - "natural" strains and breeds.

    (Of course, this problem is indeed a problem of the early stage in development: what now can be done only by Monsanto or Syngenta will be within the reach of any "biohacker" with a backyard greenhouse and basic scientific literacy in ten or thirty years. The diversity will explode, exponentially).

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •