GMO soy linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality, and Birth Defects

[Herecius]

I guess I could be wrong, but it seems they're really upset about the stuff done with fancy new technology and not the stuff done with traditional selective breeding and hybridization.

All that fancy new tech is pretty much just for more efficiently hybridizing the plant species, though. The technology just gives them greater fidelity and control in how the genes change from one generation to the next until they get it just how they want.

In fact, if anything it has the potential to make the food in question far safer than crossbreeding the old fashioned way, because results are more unpredictable when done naturally, and harder to test in a lab, to boot.

[Herecius]

I know, but whether the reasoning of the anti-GMO crowd is dumb or not, it does provide an easy and relatively clear line for a potential label that would address their concerns. As I said above, I'm inclined to oppose labels just to punish them.

My big problem is that the nonsense of being anti-GMO overshadows the real problem, that corporate practices by Monsanto are more poisonous to the food industry than any of their actual food is to us.

[Wilian]

The issue is not in the GMO food. The issue is in the new laws which dictate that if any issue will ever raise because of GMO, the companies theorycrafting/producing and distributing those GMO products are not responsible.

Good luck with corps not abusing such level of power.

[Xenofreak]

Your argument is now that GMOed food cures blindness? That GMO labels are bad, because Organic labels are good? Because of the anti-GMO lobby is keeping the research down from GMO lobby? Those evil anti-GMO corporations...

Yes, Vitamin A enriched rice which helps get rid of Vitamin A deficiencies that cause blindness is a thing being studied right now. Hell, they're working to get a lot more than just Vitamin A into it. Source. Anti gmo lobbies have tried to shut down these operations and research despite the good that it can do solely because it's "GMO". Forget the fact that things like this golden rice could be a great boon to us, we should all listen to greenpeace and only eat organic.

Like I keep saying, the only reason to not label GMO is to protect profits. Companies do voluntarily label them selfs as GMO, but without a standard, it doesn't actually mean anything. There is nothing inhibiting a label of "no GMO", where it only refers to manufacturing and not agriculture. Unless there is a standard in place, in the form of a label.

You can keep saying it but that doesn't make it true.

Fear mongering? You are the guy talking about the evil anti-GMO lobby causing food shortages and blind children. I'm saying GMO labels would allow me to express my prerogative, no fear mongering involved.

Already linked to the nutritional deficiencies, here's a link to them lobbying to have people starve! Read away!

The fear mongering side? You are the one comparing GMOs to vaccines, saying even labeling their will inhibit the food supply and keep children blind. Yet, I'm fear mongering because I want to be informed and express my prerogative?

So, as you can see through sources linked, I'm telling the truth. Is it really fear mongering to talk about the real harm being done by specific groups of people?

Who in their right mind would think I'm fear mongering and you are against it? By responding to me saying it will not harm anyone, with blind children? Yet, have the gull to insinuate people are to dumb to make the choice for them selfs?

I never accused you of fear mongering, I've simply been stating that gmo foods are surrounded by it. Also, let me fix that last sentence for you, for irony's sake: Yet (notice no comma) you have the gall to insinuate people are too dumb to make the choice for themselves?

Kinda. I kind of do. But at the same time, there are countless people who support the idea of only being allowed to vote if you can pass a civics test to show you understand the topics being debated.

Do people not have the right to know what they are eating, and the right to choose not to eat something?

Or is it only OK to have a choice if that choice won't have adverse consequences for a corporation?

And again, I'm a corporate shill, you've found me out!

The main problem with gmo labeling is again the fear mongering. If you make it criminal to try and use fallacious studies to argue against a product, then I might agree. But that creates it's own giant problems when said fallacious studies end up simply having aberrant results rather than actually being fraudulent. You end up with a threat of criminal action if you simply make a mistake somewhere in your study. But as it is, anti-gmo organizations have shown (again, proof cited in this very post, and you can do your own research into these incidents and golden rice) that they don't care about the facts, and will continue to fear monger. And yes, there are people out there who will wrongfully believe the fear mongering, which will not only hurt Monsanto (which again, I don't give two shits about) but (and here's the real problem) greatly inhibit future research into gmo's that could continue to be a major solution to problems we face relating to food and nutrition.

You can talk about how people should be allowed to make a choice for themselves all you want, and in principle I'll agree with you. The problem is, for me to actually agree with you you actually have to get rid of all the bullshit. You have to get rid of the lies, and false studies, and fear mongering surrounding the oh-so-spooky bullshit. To say I'm against people having choice would be wrong, horribly wrong. I think they should be free to choose. But labeling GMO does more than that currently. It gives the hard-line anti-gmo organizations even more of a tool to try and destroy the gmo industry as a whole. To ignore that whole problem and just plug your ears and go "la la la it's only about consumer choice and freedom vs. corporate power la la la" is asinine. The matter of gmo labeling is far more complex than that. Just as forcing people to take civics tests to be allowed to vote is far more complicated than just them proving their "knowledge".

[rayden54]

Would you support images of cows being slaughtered being plastered over every meat product?

I'm sure PETA would.

[Powerogue]

I see dominantly the effects on hamsters and rats. They should, given this evidence, get funding to attempt a similar study with humans. (though I don't think we could live on a 100% soy diet)

They mention "two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle" Well if that is indeed the source of the problem, and you know what the compounds are, then we should work on a variant that does not include them. We're not exactly going to just halt 91% of the US's soy production overnight.

[artemishunter1]

Did you miss the part of the post about them trying to shut down research into rice strains that could help prevent over a hundred thousand cases of childhood blindness? Or perhaps the part about them convincing a starving nation to turn down the food? And it's not just corporate profits that this is about but gm food itself. The anti gmo lobby are against even research into this. You say you personally don't want to buy gmo food. Guess what. That's what organic labels are actually for.

Labeling organic is a far better solution. You might ask, "But why, since organic would still be considered better than the non-labeled wouldn't it have the same effect?" No. It actually wouldn't. Because organic is labelled and promoted as "better" than the alternative, while gmo is promoted as some devilish offspring that will destroy our society if it's allowed to continue. By labeling only organic the choice is perceived to be between default and better. By labeling the gmo the choice, based off of many people's perception due to gross amounts of misinformation and fear mongering, becomes one between unsafe and safe. By labeling as organic those like you who want the "better" food are able to find it just as easily as if gmo was labelled, while preventing the whole problem of damaging the gmo industry.

And you're falling back on one of the core problems of anti-gmo arguments, which is that any argument in defense of gmo is for the sake of defending corporate interests. Which is a bullshit tactic of lies and misinformation to try to discredit your opponent as some sort of untrustworthy shill simply because they disagree with your stance on genetically modified foods. I don't give two shits about the profits of companies like Monsanto. However, if the fear mongering side wins and gmo food is pushed out of the market, and no one is putting money into researching it anymore, advances that help feed millions and can help combat nutritional deficiencies of poverty stricken areas will disappear because people were stupid enough to buy into the lies. Worst of all, it will disappear because of a bunch of yuppies who have no idea what a hard life is actually like lobbied to destroy the industry because "Yo man, like, organic is just better, dude."

I am calling your bullshit. We already have more than enough food production to feed this whole planet. But we don't why? because of cost of transporting that good. Your Yellow Rice would not get where it needs to go, due to energy needed to transport the food. Our children are not deprived of Vitamin A. It would not help at all, but make more money with less cost. Thats it.

It is not lie or misinformation. GM defenders do not even support research into the food. Independent Researchers have shown GM food does have problems. Large scale research could show conclusive proof. But GM defenders are against that. Y

You should truly slap yourself for even suggesting GM foods are researched to feed the hungry. Guess what, the hungry can't even afford it. As I said, we already have more than enough production to feed the entire world.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, Vitamin A enriched rice which helps get rid of Vitamin A deficiencies that cause blindness is a thing being studied right now. Hell, they're working to get a lot more than just Vitamin A into it. Source. Anti gmo lobbies have tried to shut down these operations and research despite the good that it can do solely because it's "GMO". Forget the fact that things like this golden rice could be a great boon to us, we should all listen to greenpeace and only eat organic.



You can keep saying it but that doesn't make it true.



Already linked to the nutritional deficiencies, here's a link to them lobbying to have people starve! Read away!



So, as you can see through sources linked, I'm telling the truth. Is it really fear mongering to talk about the real harm being done by specific groups of people?



I never accused you of fear mongering, I've simply been stating that gmo foods are surrounded by it. Also, let me fix that last sentence for you, for irony's sake: Yet (notice no comma) you have the gall to insinuate people are too dumb to make the choice for themselves?

Kinda. I kind of do. But at the same time, there are countless people who support the idea of only being allowed to vote if you can pass a civics test to show you understand the topics being debated.



And again, I'm a corporate shill, you've found me out!

The main problem with gmo labeling is again the fear mongering. If you make it criminal to try and use fallacious studies to argue against a product, then I might agree. But that creates it's own giant problems when said fallacious studies end up simply having aberrant results rather than actually being fraudulent. You end up with a threat of criminal action if you simply make a mistake somewhere in your study. But as it is, anti-gmo organizations have shown (again, proof cited in this very post, and you can do your own research into these incidents and golden rice) that they don't care about the facts, and will continue to fear monger. And yes, there are people out there who will wrongfully believe the fear mongering, which will not only hurt Monsanto (which again, I don't give two shits about) but (and here's the real problem) greatly inhibit future research into gmo's that could continue to be a major solution to problems we face relating to food and nutrition.

You can talk about how people should be allowed to make a choice for themselves all you want, and in principle I'll agree with you. The problem is, for me to actually agree with you you actually have to get rid of all the bullshit. You have to get rid of the lies, and false studies, and fear mongering surrounding the oh-so-spooky bullshit. To say I'm against people having choice would be wrong, horribly wrong. I think they should be free to choose. But labeling GMO does more than that currently. It gives the hard-line anti-gmo organizations even more of a tool to try and destroy the gmo industry as a whole. To ignore that whole problem and just plug your ears and go "la la la it's only about consumer choice and freedom vs. corporate power la la la" is asinine. The matter of gmo labeling is far more complex than that. Just as forcing people to take civics tests to be allowed to vote is far more complicated than just them proving their "knowledge".

Feeding the hungry is bullshit argument. You should ashamed to even suggest that. Like with vaccine, only fringes will follow the fearmongering. People should have the choice to eat what they want, even if it is expansive. Let the free market decide. Consumers must have unhindered knowledge of the product.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

The issue is not in the GMO food. The issue is in the new laws which dictate that if any issue will ever raise because of GMO, the companies theorycrafting/producing and distributing those GMO products are not responsible.

Good luck with corps not abusing such level of power.

Quoting this mostly because I agree with it.

[artemishunter1]

The answer I can never seem to get from the anti-GMO community is what mechanism - or even a guess at possible mechanisms - can cause these conditions. Thalidomide, for example, came to be banned as scientists realized the chemical inactivates fetal cereblon. Carcinogens may be banned on a suspicion of causing cancer, but that ban will be reversed or eventually defeated if there isn't at least a fairly well accepted method of it's carcinogenic effects. What is the purported mechanism causing all this supposed illness from GMOs? Is there some gene that somehow effects animals? Does genetic modification somehow contribute to the production of some toxic secretion or something? It's easy to join the chorus and yell "omg GMO's!" (catchy slogan, btw) but it seems less tenable than a lot of other backlash against controversial products. And if there is a leading theory, there ought to be more effort to inform the public to help in their awareness campaign; if there isn't much of a theory, there ought to be a heck of a lot more experimenting on that front than in contributing yet another "GMOs have a 51% chance of being dangerous" article to this month's journals.

Problem is EVEN research to find specific mechnism is discouraged by gov't and lobbyists.

- - - Updated - - -

For the love of God, stop using FEED THE HUNGRY Argument. It is insulting. We already have enough food production to feed the entire world. We do not because poor people can not pay for the food. More cheaper or faster food will not solve this problem as we also have more than enough lands to plant more food, but we do not as again it is financially unwise.

Also, People who are saying GM defenders are protecting corporate interest DO have legimate argument. They ARE protecting corporate interest, why ELSE even researching GM food be discouraged?

[Xenofreak]

Hey, Artemishunter, good job showing you know nothing. Read the second paragraph of this article, why don't you before accusing me of lies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkro...ear-mongering/

[Felya]

Yes, Vitamin A enriched rice which helps get rid of Vitamin A deficiencies that cause blindness is a thing being studied right now. Hell, they're working to get a lot more than just Vitamin A into it. Source. Anti gmo lobbies have tried to shut down these operations and research despite the good that it can do solely because it's "GMO". Forget the fact that things like this golden rice could be a great boon to us, we should all listen to greenpeace and only eat organic.

I should be scared of green peace, anti-GMO lobby and that we need GMO to keep kids from going blind? Fear mongering much?

Put it on a label... 'We have GMO so children can see'... Sounds like labeling will be positive for those looking for genetically enriched foods.

You can keep saying it but that doesn't make it true.

What you are saying is making it true.

Poor Monsanto just can't compete with the anti-GMO lobby, so children don't go blind. They would sew anyone that is actively lying about their product for defamation, because corporations are not litigious people. It's like we can sew them. Why won't anyone think of the children? /sarcasm

Already linked to the nutritional deficiencies, here's a link to them lobbying to have people starve! Read away!

I won't starve and have no nutritional deficiency, while being able to afford food that isn't GMO. Send the shit to Africa, but make it easier for me to make a choice. Putting a label on it, will not inhibit people from buying it, just like everything said about fast good has not inhibited it's sales.

So, as you can see through sources linked, I'm telling the truth. Is it really fear mongering to talk about the real harm being done by specific groups of people?

When I am telling you that I want a label to make the choice my self, it absolutely means you are fear mongering. I am not a starving Ethiopian, I can afford to make a choice. Instead you point at anti-GMO lobby, green peace and blind children. I am not a blind child, I am not saying children should not receive vitamin A. I am saying I want to be able to make the choice easier.

Comparing GMO to vaccines is fear mongering, so is talking about anti-GMO lobby versus GMO lobby. Check the spending in California of the two. Check the ads they ran in Washington. Now imagine if they instead spent that money telling us how good GMO is and putting a label on. If it's so good and we can see their spending in these campaigns, just advertise how good it is and put a label on it. You are not employed or benefit at all from GMO as far as financially, yet you can find all these good things about it. Why can't they then label and include that it keeps kids from being blind, while feeding starving in Africa?

I never accused you of fear mongering, I've simply been stating that gmo foods are surrounded by it. Also, let me fix that last sentence for you, for irony's sake: Yet (notice no comma) you have the gall to insinuate people are too dumb to make the choice for themselves?

So, you are just going to ignore what I said to grammar check me? Which is understandable, as it seems you are not talking to me, but at me. Otherwise, why respond to me with fear mongering? I think I'm doing pretty good for ESL...

Kinda. I kind of do. But at the same time, there are countless people who support the idea of only being allowed to vote if you can pass a civics test to show you understand the topics being debated.

Yeah, those people would fail their own civics test, based on their assertion. Your view of other's intellect, is limited by your own. A moron does not have the capability, to tell who is intelligent. The test for voting, is a response from those who feel their guy lost not because people disagreed with their nominee, but because they are dumb.

And again, I'm a corporate shill, you've found me out!

The main problem with gmo labeling is again the fear mongering.

This, even according to you, had nothing to do with what I am saying. Talk to me, not at me...

If you make it criminal to try and use fallacious studies to argue against a product, then I might agree. But that creates it's own giant problems when said fallacious studies end up simply having aberrant results rather than actually being fraudulent. You end up with a threat of criminal action if you simply make a mistake somewhere in your study. But as it is, anti-gmo organizations have shown (again, proof cited in this very post, and you can do your own research into these incidents and golden rice) that they don't care about the facts, and will continue to fear monger. And yes, there are people out there who will wrongfully believe the fear mongering, which will not only hurt Monsanto (which again, I don't give two shits about) but (and here's the real problem) greatly inhibit future research into gmo's that could continue to be a major solution to problems we face relating to food and nutrition.

Defamation is already against the law and has been expressed quite liberally. You do also know that these genetic modifications are patented?

You can talk about how people should be allowed to make a choice for themselves all you want, and in principle I'll agree with you. The problem is, for me to actually agree with you you actually have to get rid of all the bullshit. You have to get rid of the lies, and false studies, and fear mongering surrounding the oh-so-spooky bullshit. To say I'm against people having choice would be wrong, horribly wrong. I think they should be free to choose. But labeling GMO does more than that currently. It gives the hard-line anti-gmo organizations even more of a tool to try and destroy the gmo industry as a whole. To ignore that whole problem and just plug your ears and go "la la la it's only about consumer choice and freedom vs. corporate power la la la" is asinine. The matter of gmo labeling is far more complex than that. Just as forcing people to take civics tests to be allowed to vote is far more complicated than just them proving their "knowledge".

They can label to include the benefits. They can advertise the benefits of GMO. You are complaining about lobby from green peace, in the face of lobby from GMO? Monsanto has less money that green peace? Fear mongering at it's best...

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, Artemishunter, good job showing you know nothing. Read the second paragraph of this article, why don't you before accusing me of lies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkro...ear-mongering/

Yet, here you are, fear mongering for GMO. /golfclap

Linking Forbes is great. Check where Monsanto stands in richest corporation ranking versus the wealth of anti-GMO lobby?

[Underverse]

The answer I can never seem to get from the anti-GMO community is what mechanism - or even a guess at possible mechanisms - can cause these conditions. Thalidomide, for example, came to be banned as scientists realized the chemical inactivates fetal cereblon. Carcinogens may be banned on a suspicion of causing cancer, but that ban will be reversed or eventually defeated if there isn't at least a fairly well accepted method of it's carcinogenic effects. What is the purported mechanism causing all this supposed illness from GMOs? Is there some gene that somehow effects animals? Does genetic modification somehow contribute to the production of some toxic secretion or something? It's easy to join the chorus and yell "omg GMO's!" (catchy slogan, btw) but it seems less tenable than a lot of other backlash against controversial products. And if there is a leading theory, there ought to be more effort to inform the public to help in their awareness campaign; if there isn't much of a theory, there ought to be a heck of a lot more experimenting on that front than in contributing yet another "GMOs have a 51% chance of being dangerous" article to this month's journals.

The most likely mechanism is one that is unpredictable - the introduction of genes that are not intended to be introduced into the target genome. This is a very real concern, and there is research ongoing in this area. The main problem with the current research is that it's only really looking at IgE-mediated allergy, which is a highly visceral and immediate reaction. Chronic conditions are much harder to look for, especially when you're potentially changing the genes transferred with every seed.


This paper goes into detail about what I said above:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...all.12076/full

[Felya]

The most likely mechanism is one that is unpredictable - the introduction of genes that are not intended to be introduced into the target genome. This is a very real concern, and there is research ongoing in this area. The main problem with the current research is that it's only really looking at IgE-mediated allergy, which is a highly visceral and immediate reaction. Chronic conditions are much harder to look for, especially when you're potentially changing the genes transferred with every seed.


This paper goes into detail about what I said above:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...all.12076/full

This is what bugs me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3504473.html

We can't label them and their crop is popping up in places actively trying to avoid GMO.

http://www.wdtv.com/wdtv.cfm?func=vi...s-of-GMOs10351

The workers say they sprayed it, but the wheat wouldn't die. Officials have said the wheat is the same crop of genetically modified wheat that was designed to be "Herbicide-Resistant" but not approved over ten years ago. most of the corn and soybeans grown in the u-s are already genetically modified to include certain traits. including crops grown on farms right here... which are often resistant to herbicides or pesticides. but the country's wheat crop is not. this is why so many wheat farmers have been reluctant to use these genetically engineered seeds.

I don't care that it has no effect on people we are aware of. I do not want to eat food that 'wouldn't die'. Asbestos was safe once too... So were trans fats...

http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientsp.../ucm274590.htm

[forwards1ca]

TLR, not reading all the idiot responses to the idiot OP. The facts are, correlation does not prove causation. Studies link something? So what...what studies? Where's the peer-reviewed, double blind studies that actually might mean something? I'm sorry, but people who start threads like this should be banned from starting further threads. They contribute nothing to society, and are stealing oxygen from those of us who actually have a brain and use it.

[Underverse]

TLR, not reading all the idiot responses to the idiot OP. The facts are, correlation does not prove causation. Studies link something? So what...what studies? Where's the peer-reviewed, double blind studies that actually might mean something? I'm sorry, but people who start threads like this should be banned from starting further threads. They contribute nothing to society, and are stealing oxygen from those of us who actually have a brain and use it.

You clearly know little about biology and our history.

It wasn't until recently that we came to the realization that eating eggs does not, in fact, cause heart disease. We believed it did for over 50 years, and it misled a lot of research. My point here is that we shouldn't declare something safe just because it passes a few tests on mice and doesn't immediately cause harm to humans, when a risk exists - that being the potential to transfer genes unintentionally to the target genome, and perhaps modifying existing genes to be more antigenic (type 4 immune responses, specifically).

[forwards1ca]

You clearly know little about biology and our history.

It wasn't until recently that we came to the realization that eating eggs does not, in fact, cause heart disease. We believed it did for over 50 years, and it misled a lot of research. My point here is that we shouldn't declare something safe just because it passes a few tests on mice and doesn't immediately cause harm to humans, when a risk exists - that being the potential to transfer genes unintentionally to the target genome, and perhaps modifying existing genes to be more antigenic (type 4 immune responses, specifically).

SO, by your logic, because waking up in the morning puts me at risk for getting run over by a car, so I shouldn't wake up and I should stay in bed. Pretty sure I have a good understanding of biology; history, not so much, but I really have no interest in history. The fact remains, correlation DOES NOT prove causation, and anyone who claims otherwise is either retarded or trying to sell you something. Making claims like the ones made in the "study" are ludicrous at best, and typical junk science at worst. You talk about a risk existing. The facts are there is a risk for everything. Calling something unsafe because there might be a potential risk is idiotic. I agree there needs to be more research into things like this, but by reputable scientists doing reputable studies. Business and government need to keep their agendas out of it so that the results can be unbiased.

[wxcopy]

Wow, eating crappy food that we know interferes with our reproductive hormones is a problem?
Not really a big surprise.
Do you eat soy? If I see it on a label, I don't eat it because I know it's bad for mammals.