• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most Exhaustive Compilation of GMO Studies Concludes... Safe... Duh

Sherman123

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A group of Italian scientists has painstakingly compiled and summarized 1,783 studies about the safety (both in terms of health and environmental concerns) of GMO's. The conclusion? "The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded." Which shouldn't come as a surprise considering that every single international science body in the world has been saying for years. The scientific consensus behind the safety of GMO's is colossal.

Can we finally discard this completely artificial phobia?


2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable - Forbes
 
What about dependence, the chemical treadmill and ecology?
 
It might be safe for humans but what about other animals and the ecosystem as whole.
 
Sherman123 said:
A group of Italian scientists has painstakingly compiled and summarized 1,783 studies about the safety (both in terms of health and environmental concerns) of GMO's. The conclusion? "The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded." Which shouldn't come as a surprise considering that every single international science body in the world has been saying for years. The scientific consensus behind the safety of GMO's is colossal.

Can we finally discard this completely artificial phobia?


2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable - Forbes
Click to expand...

I agree with that, I also think that GMO's should be labled as such. Or at the very minimum, non-GMO'd food shoud be able to get a label.

Leave the safety of the food out of the discussion, there are still reasons why someone may not want to support GMO'd food. Regardless of the rational, they deserve the freedom to make that choice for themselves. You should have the right to know where your food comes from.
 
Carjosse said:
It might be safe for humans but what about other animals and the ecosystem as whole.
Click to expand...

Environmental review was and is covered in these studies and by international scientific and regulatory bodies.
 
ecofarm said:
What about dependence, the chemical treadmill and ecology?
Click to expand...

The chemical treadmill is a poor argument though. It's logical conclusion would be to cease the usage of everything from anti-biotics to pesticides on the presumption that resistance will build up. The answer is continued technological development that includes novel or more sophisticated gene modifications, new delivery systems for anti-biotics, or new methods entirely. At present we are hardly in the midst of a crisis yet research on the next iteration continues.
 
Sherman123 said:
A group of Italian scientists has painstakingly compiled and summarized 1,783 studies about the safety (both in terms of health and environmental concerns) of GMO's. The conclusion? "The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded." Which shouldn't come as a surprise considering that every single international science body in the world has been saying for years. The scientific consensus behind the safety of GMO's is colossal.

Can we finally discard this completely artificial phobia?


2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable - Forbes
Click to expand...

The joke is that we have been genetically modifying or crops since the beginning of agriculture. That's what hybridizing is. The idea that a new method of making hybrids is inherently dangerous to our heath is pretty foolish. Genetically engineered biological WEAPONS is another story entirely.
The development of rice that produces vitamin A has the potential of eliminating deficiency caused blindness in millions of 3rd world children. It is not a biological weapon.
 
Mithros said:
I agree with that, I also think that GMO's should be labled as such. Or at the very minimum, non-GMO'd food shoud be able to get a label.

Leave the safety of the food out of the discussion, there are still reasons why someone may not want to support GMO'd food. Regardless of the rational, they deserve the freedom to make that choice for themselves. You should have the right to know where your food comes from.
Click to expand...

The prime reason we oppose GM labeling is because it is being pushed as a method for fear mongering. It is an effort to drive consumers away from GM foods by labeling and otherizing a product that is too complex to be understood quickly. Similar efforts in Europe were devastating.
 
What about the radical increase in gluten in wheat and the corresponding rise worldwide in gluten allergy?
 
Sherman123 said:
The chemical treadmill is a poor argument though. It's logical conclusion would be to cease the usage of everything from anti-biotics to pesticides on the presumption that resistance will build up. The answer is continued technological development that includes novel or more sophisticated gene modifications, new delivery systems for anti-biotics, or new methods entirely. At present we are hardly in the midst of a crisis yet research on the next iteration continues.
Click to expand...

The chemical treadmill argument is not so much about resistance, it's about chemical dependence, the degradation of soil and ecology and the loss of farm independence. Further, while new chemicals may replace old ones, they will not reverse the damage done or dependence created.
 
iguanaman said:
The joke is that we have been genetically modifying or crops since the beginning of agriculture. That's what hybridizing is. The idea that a new method of making hybrids is inherently dangerous to our heath is pretty foolish. Genetically engineered biological WEAPONS is another story entirely.
The development of rice that produces vitamin A has the potential of eliminating deficiency caused blindness in millions of 3rd world children. It is not a biological weapon.
Click to expand...

Introducing antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance (which transfers to weeds) and jellyfish genes to a crop is not the same as hybridizing.
 
clownboy said:
What about the radical increase in gluten in wheat and the corresponding rise worldwide in gluten allergy?
Click to expand...

1. There is no commercially available GM wheat in the world today. So this supposed correlation is impossible on its face.

2. Some of it has had increased gluten content in field trials to assist bakers.
 
ecofarm said:
The chemical treadmill argument is not so much about resistance, it's about chemical dependence, the degradation of soil and ecology and the loss of farm independence. Further, while new chemicals may replace old ones, they will not reverse the damage done or dependence created.
Click to expand...

Why would GMO's lead to the degradation of soil, the local ecology, or farm independence for that matter? I'm not saying you are doing this but I a lot of people conflate modern industrial agriculture with GMO's. While I support both whole heartily there is a massive difference between the two. If anything GMO's reduce the use of pesticides which I think would be a tick mark in the 'pro' column for what you seem concerned about.
 
Sherman123 said:
Why would GMO's lead to the degradation of soil, the local ecology, or farm independence for that matter?
Click to expand...

This would require significant lecture. You can look into it if you're interested.

If anything GMO's reduce the use of pesticides which I think would be a tick mark in the 'pro' column for what you seem concerned about.
Click to expand...

In theory. In reality, a farmer applies much more pesticide (organophosphates, RoundUp) at various times in the growing cycle because the crop cannot be harmed. Additionally, Bt splices push resistance and Bt cannot be replaced naturally.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
The prime reason we oppose GM labeling is because it is being pushed as a method for fear mongering. It is an effort to drive consumers away from GM foods by labeling and otherizing a product that is too complex to be understood quickly. Similar efforts in Europe were devastating.
Click to expand...

As I said, then allow non-GMO food to get a special label. There's no scientific basis for "Kosher" food, but some people feel very strongly that their food meet a strict set of religious conditions.

You're in pretty dangerous territory when you advocate for decreased consumer information. If GMOs are beneficial, they'll decrease the cost to produce GMO food. That benefit has to overcome consumers perceived risk of GMO. Its simple economics.
 
Mithros said:
As I said, then allow non-GMO food to get a special label. There's no scientific basis for "Kosher" food, but some people feel very strongly that their food meet a strict set of religious conditions.

You're in pretty dangerous territory when you advocate for decreased consumer information. If GMOs are beneficial, they'll decrease the cost to produce GMO food. That benefit has to overcome consumers perceived risk of GMO. Its simple economics.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying but I'm actually willing to take that risk. I think the harm caused by increased awareness in this instance does more harm than good and would contribute to a negative end. The system we've had so far in the US has functioned fine and GM adoption has continued to increase. Why change it now?
 
Sherman123 said:
1. There is no commercially available GM wheat in the world today. So this supposed correlation is impossible on its face.

2. Some of it has had increased gluten content in field trials to assist bakers.
Click to expand...

Hybridization is just slow non-lab based GM, but you are correct.

Btw, I'm not anti-GMO, but I am against monoculture and the patenting of seeds.
 
Sherman123 said:
I understand what you're saying but I'm actually willing to take that risk. I think the harm caused by increased awareness in this instance does more harm than good and would contribute to a negative end. The system we've had so far in the US has functioned fine and GM adoption has continued to increase. Why change it now?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I have no problem taking the risk for most types of food. But, I'm not about to make that choice for everyone.

If I want to go through and produce and sell non GMO food, why should I not be able to label it as such?
 
ecofarm said:
Introducing antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance (which transfers to weeds) and jellyfish genes to a crop is not the same as hybridizing.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Same thing, different method and timetable.
 
clownboy said:
Well then, educate me. How is it different?
Click to expand...

It provides genes not found in nature and crosses even kingdom lines. It creates superweeds, dependence and centralization in our agricultural system. It does far more harm to diversity than actual hybridizing. The list goes on...
 
Sherman123 said:
Why would GMO's lead to the degradation of soil, the local ecology, or farm independence for that matter? I'm not saying you are doing this but I a lot of people conflate modern industrial agriculture with GMO's. While I support both whole heartily there is a massive difference between the two. If anything GMO's reduce the use of pesticides which I think would be a tick mark in the 'pro' column for what you seem concerned about.
Click to expand...

You would THINK that GMO's would reduce pesticides / herbicides. However, because these chemicals will not harm the crops, farmers become much more liberal in the use of these chemicals.

Also, since these chemicals become absorbed by the plants, they can no longer simply be washed off.

Another aspect to consider is that 99% of these studies are short term safety studies (90 days) and the few studies that were longer-term / generational studies are the ones that started showing negative effects... But those studies are quickly hit by the debunker train (often within HOURS of publishing).

Consider, if GMO's are really that safe, why is it that Monsanto had to get liability protection for a case where GMO foods could be proven to have caused damages??
 
ecofarm said:
It provides genes not found in nature and crosses even kingdom lines. It creates superweeds, dependence and centralization in our agricultural system. It does far more harm to diversity than actual hybridizing. The list goes on...
Click to expand...

Present evidence that any of this is true.
 
BmanMcfly said:
You would THINK that GMO's would reduce pesticides / herbicides. However, because these chemicals will not harm the crops, farmers become much more liberal in the use of these chemicals.

Also, since these chemicals become absorbed by the plants, they can no longer simply be washed off.

Another aspect to consider is that 99% of these studies are short term safety studies (90 days) and the few studies that were longer-term / generational studies are the ones that started showing negative effects... But those studies are quickly hit by the debunker train (often within HOURS of publishing).

Consider, if GMO's are really that safe, why is it that Monsanto had to get liability protection for a case where GMO foods could be proven to have caused damages??
Click to expand...

Monsanto didn't "have to get" that. They wanted it, because what company wouldn't want liability protection for free?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom