Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

[petej0]

Is "Lays" one of "the big 6"? no? Then they shouldn't be educating people about GMO. The companies behind GMO should educate people for GMO and not FORCE their products into the markets.

Wait you trust "the big 6" to educate you on GMO's but dont trust them and the FDA that GMO's are safe? Yeah, somehow I dont think you really believe what you are saying.

Marketing is required, or else no one will be educated about the product you are selling and people wont buy into it. Which is exactly what's happening now.

Again, you would trust "the big 6" to do this market when they clearly have an incentive to be not entirely truthful?

This report clearly states this is not the case. Yields do not improve.

By making crops drought tolerant and disease resistant crops and able to withstand herbicides, that improves yields. Does it not? Why else do we continue to build new homes on fields once used for farming?

[Xandrigity]

Gmo's, hormones and antibiotics are,beginning to scare me. My 11 year old daughter is developing too fast. I think it's all changing humans perhaps in a bad way. My 11 year old is as developed as I was at 16. I asked around at school and a lot of parents are noticing the same thing.

[Hiricine]

It amazes me that we spent the first tens of thousands of years of our existence eating anything that came in sight, later finding out very quickly whether or not they were toxic or poisonous to humans, only to get into a hypothetical discussion about whether or not the food we eat every day has the same effects.

You'd see alot more instances in nature of food that has comparable health effects to what we see in GMOS if that was even possible. Your body just takes whatever the food is and breaks it down into its basest forms-- carbs, proteins, and fats mostly, and doesn't even give a single shit how they got there. Not to say that a GMO can't have a different nutritional makeup of a non-GMO, but the idea that it can be toxic, poisonous, or lead to long term health effects outside of its nutritional content is silly.

[petej0]

Gmo's, hormones and antibiotics are,beginning to scare me. My 11 year old daughter is developing too fast. I think it's all changing humans perhaps in a bad way. My 11 year old is as developed as I was at 16. I asked around at school and a lot of parents are noticing the same thing.

Girls developing is a myth of hormones in our food. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1070801/

It can also be triggered by their body fat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-...b_1826072.html

[Forogil]

Girls developing is a myth of hormones in our food. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1070801/

I couldn't find it listed as a myth - but exposure to estrogen (a hormone) was listed as one possible explanation.

It can also be triggered by their body fat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-...b_1826072.html

True, and as noted in the article possibly also by fat mothers.
Remember that antibiotics for livestock is not only used to counter diseases but also in low levels to help with growth; I don't know if it has the same effect on humans but it is anyway not the major cause of fat children.

[Xandrigity]

I couldn't find it listed as a myth - but exposure to estrogen (a hormone) was listed as one possible explanation.


True, and as noted in the article possibly also by fat mothers.
Remember that antibiotics for livestock is not only used to counter diseases but also in low levels to help with growth; I don't know if it has the same effect on humans but it is anyway not the major cause of fat children.

Both good points. Daughter is skinny as a rail and always has been, however. I've never been overweight even when pregnant.

[petej0]

I couldn't find it listed as a myth - but exposure to estrogen (a hormone) was listed as one possible explanation.

I linked it just to show that there are other factors.


I have yet to find an online source, but I remember watching a documentary about it and the pediatricians in it said environmental factors would have more of an effect then hormones from our foods. That people hear estrogen and think the hormones are the reason for younger developing girls. Boys eat the same foods and we dont see any results in them due to estrogen from foods.

Both good points. Daughter is skinny as a rail and always has been, however. I've never been overweight even when pregnant.

Not only if the mother is fat, but if the mother ate a high fat diet. Then again, everyone is different, your daughter may just be developing early.

[Nurvus]

What worries me in the future, are the seeds genetically engineered to produce crops that have sterile seeds.
Some people are trying to pass laws that only allow you to plant seeds that are "approved" by X entity, which will inevitably lead to you being forced to purchase those seeds that produce sterile crops.

Things are genetically engineered to make someone money. Period.
Greed has no boundaries, and I fear one day this sterile crop business may bite humanity in the ass too hard.

[Deleted]

Wait you trust "the big 6" to educate you on GMO's but dont trust them and the FDA that GMO's are safe? Yeah, somehow I dont think you really believe what you are saying.



Again, you would trust "the big 6" to do this market when they clearly have an incentive to be not entirely truthful?




By making crops drought tolerant and disease resistant crops and able to withstand herbicides, that improves yields. Does it not? Why else do we continue to build new homes on fields once used for farming?

I have avoided commenting on the science behind GMO for a reason. What I think about their current or future marketing campaign is irrelevant to the discussion.
Reports state production does not increase. Its on the OP.

[Noradin]

How about they stop lying about GMOs to justify their fears. Not only are these lies being used as a smokescreen for protectionism, but they directly contribute to blocking uses of GMOs that could save hundreds of thousands of lives. Personal quirks are inexcusable when they become genocidal.

Please give an example how GMOs could save hundreds of thousands of lives in Europe?
We aren't blocking them anywhere else, after all.

[Deleted]

It amazes me that we spent the first tens of thousands of years of our existence eating anything that came in sight, later finding out very quickly whether or not they were toxic or poisonous to humans, only to get into a hypothetical discussion about whether or not the food we eat every day has the same effects.

You'd see alot more instances in nature of food that has comparable health effects to what we see in GMOS if that was even possible. Your body just takes whatever the food is and breaks it down into its basest forms-- carbs, proteins, and fats mostly, and doesn't even give a single shit how they got there. Not to say that a GMO can't have a different nutritional makeup of a non-GMO, but the idea that it can be toxic, poisonous, or lead to long term health effects outside of its nutritional content is silly.

One of the potential unknown side effects is the exctintion of local varieties and crops. Apart from the ideology behind it, having one kind of potato growing is, as the Irish teach with their famine, dangerous.
There is way more to it then just "compsuntion". Creation of pesticide resistant weeds for example.

- - - Updated - - -

What worries me in the future, are the seeds genetically engineered to produce crops that have sterile seeds.
Some people are trying to pass laws that only allow you to plant seeds that are "approved" by X entity, which will inevitably lead to you being forced to purchase those seeds that produce sterile crops.

Things are genetically engineered to make someone money. Period.
Greed has no boundaries, and I fear one day this sterile crop business may bite humanity in the ass too hard.

There is no doubt that some of the technology being shoveled down out throats is dodgy. Having a lobby monopolising the FOOD MARKET isn't a good idea.
But yeah "science and progress". Lol.

[Noradin]

You aren't answering my question.

I did. several times.
I'm curious what products those would be.
I think it would increase awareness and acceptance of them.
And because people asked for it and I see absolutely no reason not to put those labels. Especially after companies admitted they'd rather sneak those things past us.

[Deleted]

I linked it just to show that there are other factors.


I have yet to find an online source, but I remember watching a documentary about it and the pediatricians in it said environmental factors would have more of an effect then hormones from our foods. That people hear estrogen and think the hormones are the reason for younger developing girls. Boys eat the same foods and we dont see any results in them due to estrogen from foods.



Not only if the mother is fat, but if the mother ate a high fat diet. Then again, everyone is different, your daughter may just be developing early.

Boys would obviously react in a different way to estrogen.

[Noradin]

Great! We have kept an eye on things and every single study has demonstrated safety. You're happy with this I hope?

Yes, of course I'm happy nothing goes wrong.
So, from that expreience I conclude we should keep having case by case testing of every new product.
And, since it has been shown to be effective in the case of GMO, too, we should of course continue not to make an exception for them.

- - - Updated - - -

23% of all childhood deaths in the age range 6mo-5years are due to vitamin A deficiency. All sorts of things have been tried to reduce this number, from supplements to growing other foods, but the problem remain serious.

Golden Rice (and other genetically engineered beta carotene-rich version of staple foods) could end this problem. But the anti-GMO fanatics decided hundreds of thousands of dead third world kids was a small price to pay for the ideological purity of the world food supply.

I'm sure King Leopold would have admired this sentiment.

Excuse me?
How is that in any way connected to lables on food in the EU?

[Rooflesstoofless]

I wonder how many people out there get worked up over GMOs all the while still eating processed foods every day.

[Noradin]

Actually, I would like to see labeling of GMOs. I already avoid foods that claim to avoid GMOs.

There are multiple reasons to like GMOs. Not wanting to kill children is only one of them.

The main reason I bring up that point, though, is to show how evil people like you are. How can you live with the consequences of your ignorant and selfish ideology?



You know, there are no laws REQUIRING anyone to use GMOs. So if there is a risk of GMOs causing monopolies, that can only be the case because GMOs outperform non-GMOs. Your argument is implicitly stating that GMOS are objectively superior in the marketplace. Why do you want to give that up, especially when higher yield would have an immediate positive environmental impact in reduction of land needed to produce a given quantity of food?

So you are not against labeling, but if the EU plans to do it you accuse them of causing thousands of kids to die form vitamin A defiency?
That is a trolling attempt, isn't it? Because Otherwise I'm getting really worried here, maybe next you mistake a window in the sixth floor for a door...

[Deleted]

50 % of people HAVE TO get a cancer. Thanks Science.

[Noradin]

This is bullshit for two reasons. One, I don't think you actually have that right. Where is it written? And two, if you're trying to avoid what you perceive to be unethical practices, you might as well stop buying cars, petrol, eating meat, clothing, etc.. Selective outrage is all this is.

It is written down in our constitutions, where it is laid out how we have the right to appoint representatives (all states in the EU are democraties after all) who, among other things, are to set the rules for trade and commerce in our countries. That includes rules about labeling products.

We do this all the time, like the time when we forced everyone to disclose the calories of all food sold. Or sugar content.
Those are just as random and companies didn't like that either.

[petej0]

I have avoided commenting on the science behind GMO for a reason. What I think about their current or future marketing campaign is irrelevant to the discussion.

I think it is relevant in the fact that you want them to educate us on a science that benefits them. Wouldnt you want a non biased third party to do that? If not then we should consider GMOs safe because they already said they are. No education really needed.

Reports state production does not increase. Its on the OP.

So I am to believe that we are producing less food then 1o years ago because farm land is being devoured to build new homes daily.

Overall, genetically engineered (GE) crops saved farmers in the United States money but didn’t appear to increase crop yields. They have lowered pest populations in some areas, especially in the Midwest but increased the number of herbicide-resistant weeds in others. There’s also no evidence that GE crops have affected the population of monarch butterflies, the report said.

They have lowered pest populations, which would indicate that pests have on some level hurt past crops. That is the definition of a pest. Thus an implicit increase of yield.

For example, the system of planting glyphosate-resistant seed and then applying glyphosate once plants emerged provided farmers with the opportunity to dramatically increase the yield from a given plot of land, since this allowed them to plant rows closer together.

It seems the report is contradictory or at the very least have not defined how they came to that conclusion.

Boys would obviously react in a different way to estrogen.

Are we seeing these reactions?

[Deleted]

I think it is relevant in the fact that you want them to educate us on a science that benefits them. Wouldnt you want a non biased third party to do that? If not then we should consider GMOs safe because they already said they are. No education really needed.

Yes they should sell their products to us. Marketing and all. Like any company that wants to sell something does. That sound weird to you? A third party marketing a private company's products? Why on earth would we want that?! A non biased third party is there to make sure the stuff being said by companies is true. There is a PLETHORA of factors that are still up in the air with GMO. You can say "they are safe" as long as you want, it still doesn't make it an absolute truth.

So I am to believe that we are producing less food then 1o years ago because farm land is being devoured to build new homes daily.



They have lowered pest populations, which would indicate that pests have on some level hurt past crops. That is the definition of a pest. Thus an implicit increase of yield.




It seems the report is contradictory or at the very least have not defined how they came to that conclusion.

You're arguing against the study provided. Ill let you do your researches. Pretty sure you can find their study and analyse their findings.

Are we seeing these reactions?

I wouldn't know.