'cause they are afraid of the side-effects that some genes can cause. Toxins and the like even though genetically modified food would be tested for toxins before it was moved into production and then retested before being shipped.
At least, that's my assumption (on the testing) and if I'm wrong, I can see why people would be complaining.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
The problem with testing in USA is that the criteria for a healthy food. Standard way of testing the food is overdosing animals(or cells) and showing that in an acute case cells/animals don't die. Federal regulations do not impose long terms tests. Thus, companies do not do it because they want to save money on costly tests.
Reality is no one knows what are the real long term usage effects. Except maybe number of scientists working on the particular subject. Not that anybody asks them anything.
Last edited by vecnuh; 2013-01-03 at 10:33 PM.
Genetic modification isn't bad by itself. The problem is actually what the products are being modified for.
In the case of GMOs in the agricultural industry, they're being modified for the express purpose of resisting extreme exposure to chemicals like pesticides and herbicides. You'll notice that Monsanto corn and soy is referred to as "Roundup Ready". Roundup is a Monsanto herbicide product meant to kill weeds. Speaking of chemicals, check out some of Monsanto's other greatest hits: Agent Orange - rBGH -
So in effect, if you buy products made from GM crops, you're buying products that have been endlessly showered with poisonous chemicals. With such constant exposure, it's inevitable that some residue will remain in the resulting food products. Pesticide companies insists that these quantities are too small to prove harmful to humans, but neglect to mention that continued exposure will lead to a gradual buildup of the chemicals in your system. We've learned a great deal about how this buildup process plays out by studying its effect on bees (Ever heard of "Colony Collapse Disorder"? It's starting to appear very likely that the cause is exposure to agricultural chemicals)
Valid reasons! have you not seen the effects Godzilla has every single year on tokio? they make a documentary every single year!
On a tad more serious note, there are alternatives, why risk going for the one that can have quite the nasty effects, when we can use safer tech.
Japan is shutting down its nuclear reactors, which are in most cases, safe, because of what happened with the earthquake, we dont live in that of a controlled environment just yet and "perfectly safe" is many times "virtually safe" which sadly have to tendency to go "oh sht, we didnt see that one coming"
Nuclear Power Plants kill less people on average than Coal power plants. The rare occasion where something does go wrong has spectacular results so people pay more attention. It's sort of like how walking down a street you're far more likely to get injured or die than flying in an airplane, but when an airplane crashes, the results are spectacular, so many people fear flying a lot more than walking down a street.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
1. They're actually planning to start them up again. Japan just had an election recently and the government changed hands.
2. The nuclear plant is a bloody footnote to the disaster as a whole. You needed a massive disaster that killed almost 16,000 people to cause the plant to go haywire!
High fructose corn syrup is a blend of fructose and glucose. Fructose is a simple monosaccharide which means your body only has to metabolize it once. Glucose is also a monosaccharide. However, when you combine them, your body is effectively being forced to metabolize the sugar twice. This leads to excess energy consumption; which leads to the storage of energy as fat.
The reason why people are afraid of GMO crops is simple. The testing is far from conclusive as to the effects on our own genome of these crops.
In the case of selective breeding as someone else mentioned you cannot crossbreed incompatible genetics. One concern with GMO is this, "Roundup Ready" crops, which Monsanto already creates. I am unwilling to accept that just because they have genetically made the crop itself immune to an herbicide that somehow that toxin is not present in the flesh of the plant when I eat it because last I checked I have not been genetically modified to resist it.
Cross breeding required decades of work, and it was only done on a pure observational level, you would see a head of Kale that grew in a round ball rather then an open leaf configuration and you selectively chose to cultivate that crop rather then the other loose leaf kind. More importantly you could not "force" a breeding, if the genetic properties of one plant could not produce the results in another there was nothing you could do to make it happen. With GMO we introduce cross species traits that could not occur in nature, we create plants that produce a toxin in the flesh that makes them toxic to insects.
We as humans wouldn't have eaten these plants in the past since they would have been toxic to us as well, with GMO variant, it has a low enough dose that we do not reach a reaction level of exposure. The lead in paint or asbestos in insulation was not lethal to us in a small singular dose, however prolonged exposure proved to be another thing entirely.
That is what people are scared of, extended exposure over decades, that is also what these companies do not test for.
Back to the original question as well, the levels of HFCS we consume is more the issue.
Last edited by Mmoplayer111; 2013-01-03 at 11:59 PM.
It's worse than sugar. Take that as you will.
It's no worse than sugar is for you. In moderation, it's just fine, but taken in excess, it's bad. Just like most other things
why would it have any effect on our own genome, if you eat a pig do you turn into a pig or something, so if you ate corn with a tiny bit of pig DNA would it turn you into a pig, no, that is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
also the outside of the crops are sprayed thats why you wash fruits and vegitables are washed before you eat them, and for many fruits and vegitables you don't even eat the skin, the only place pesticides would be.
Last edited by Gamdwelf; 2013-01-04 at 03:39 AM.
It's about the same as sugar statistically.
I think sugar products affect people differently. Some people can drink pop and eat candy all day everyday and remain perfectly healthy and some can't.
There's some merit to your point, but unfortunately it's not entirely correct. ALL crops on which pesticides are used retain some amount of residue in the portion we eat, but the amount does vary between crops in a manner that's partly related to the type of crop and what portions of it we eat, etc.
In any case, it's been tested and proven that pesticide residues are present in the food that ultimately makes it to the supermarket. For further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_residue
The other significant issue I'd like to touch on is that not all pesticides are applied externally-
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PesticideA systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. With insecticides and most fungicides, this movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result.
Some forms of systemic pesticides are applied to the seeds and remain part of the plant through its entire life without need for further application. Yum.