Scientists Find that GMO Corn is Good for You

[Prossy]

(Source)

Love or hate it, genetically modified crops are our future. There are now 7.6 billion human beings on this planet with the UN estimating the human population to increase to 11.8 billion in 2100. GMOs are more efficient, yield more and are ultimately less environmentally invasive than pesticides.

Well this is a flat out lie, Corn is starchy and F-knows whats in that GMO crap.

This is the problem in America, they don't consider GMO and selective breeding as 2 completely different things, they just re-brand selective breeding as "GMO" so companies like bayer, monsanto and Syngenta can push their crap to market and trick farmers into contracts with them and when people call them out on their bullshit they use the "but we been eating GMO for thousands of years" argument.

Also I can't stress this enough, the world does NOT have a food shortage problem, we HAVE a food wastage problem, Supermarkets alone throw away tons of food past their expiry date, they have huge bins for food they were unable to sell. On top of that thanks to Supermarkets they have this thing where if fruit or vegitibles don't look a certain way or mis-shapen the farmers instantly throw them out because supermarkets don't buy them even though there is nothing wrong with them. Then we got household wastage and transportation wastage, all the food wastage from 1st world countires will feed 3rd world countries thousand times over but instead end up in landfills

[Sting]

Decent thread overall, was afraid I'd have to write a lenghty essay full of nuance. Good to see acceptance on the rise.

See this, this is the issue in Europe. It's not a scientific issue, it's a public perception issue.

GMO's are safe. GMO's use less dangerous chemicals in production. They use less water in growing and have a much lower carbon footprint then conventional farming. These are well researched and supportable facts. But because you heard a rumour that was patently untrue to begin with, you continue to cling on to that belief.

The "Shady shit" companies are no better or worse then the "Shady shit" Agricultural companies that currently have a monopoly. And they are far, far more ethical than the organic lobby, who use fear and lies to further their cause, including Smear campaigns against any scientists that publicly speak out in support of GMO food and farming.

Could you clarify the bolded part? To my knowledge, the use of GMO crops (specifically roundup-ready) is actually causing a gigantic amount of chemicals to be used these days, and roundup is not something you want in your ecosystem. What's even worse is that the weeds themselves are getting resistent to glyphosate (the active chemical in roundup), and farmers now have to use additional chemicals on top of the roundup they were already using. Monsanto, being the shitheads they are, are just modifying the roundup ready crops to be resistent to more chemicals now. This is a VERY bad development.

Let's be real here. Monsanto's main focus isn't feeding the world, helping the poor, nor are they about producing good plant varieties. Their main goal will always be to sell as many chemicals as they can. Pumping the ecosystem full of harmful chemicals, I'd say that's way shadier than some monopoly.

Edit: There's also your claim on page 6 that any major threat to a monoculture would have happened by now, that's just blatantly false. All it takes is for one mutation in a pathogen to make it effective again. It could happen literally any day. Monocultures are dangerous. Just look at bananas, where nearly all of them on the entire planet are identical in genetics. A new fungus variant called TR4 just showed up in the last few years which can infect the banana variety that was used for nearly the last 50 years.

[Osmeric]

Well sure, continue to patent/license certain breeds of crops, i'm sure that'll benefit the small farmers.
Honest question, is it fun to boot lick for daddy big corp? Do you call him 'daddy' when he allows you to lick his boots?

Yes, they patent/license certain breeds of crops. This ADDS options for all farmers. How are they coercing anyone? They didn't take a previously existing crop variety and bring it under IP control.

All farmers, big or small, are free to not buy the new variety. If they don't, they are no worse off than before. If they do, presumably it's because the benefits to them outweigh the costs, and they come out ahead.

So, please, explain to me how this is hurting small farmers. Should I make popcorn while I wait?

[Techno-Druid]

Most of those were made by the natural process of artificial selection, without any genetic modification whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

Those breeds were obtained when people had no knowledge about the genome. They certainly did not modify it in any way.

They definitely did.

[niil945]

Between 5 and 25% of global liver cancer cases are caused by ingestion of mycotoxins. It's a serious issue.

And again, is the reduction statistically significant or meaningful? These are details that weren't provided. Between 5 and 25% of global liver cancer cases is a huge margin, is it 5? or 25? Does it fluctuate depending upon where in the world you're talking about and if so why? And this, just like the article, is something you claim and provide no citation for or supportive data that demonstrates the veracity of said claim. That's exactly the type of vague assertions that I'm talking about. Even if it is a fact, facts require context or they're just talking points. A 35% reduction in mycotoxins could easily translate into a nominal or even no impact on, let's use your example, the number of global liver cancer cases. Better yet, what's the result in the USA? Because if it's different the why is probably important. Here, I'll take a few minutes and actually look into things because you seem like you're selling something that's not on the up and up.

And low and behold, this seems to be a big deal for developing countries and not an issue in developed ones. That means there's no difference between GMO and non-GMO corn for the vast majority of us. That means that 35% less mycotoxin so GMO is good for us is a load of hyperbolized garbage. To me, what was presented was an unsubstantiated claim akin to "go vegan and it'll cure your cancer!" "eat GMO it's 35% better for you!" Except it's not. I questioned the claim. You responded. I did 10 minutes of research on it and determined that while your position certainly has elements of truth, you're intentionally leaving out details that matter. As a matter of fact one of the articles I read had to go back 15 years to point at verifiable deaths due to mycotoxins. In 2003 120 Kenyans died of eating corn with unsafe levels of mycotoxins after a drought.

For like the third time I'm not someone who hates GMO's but at least be honest in your arguments. GMO's aren't the solution to a problem we all have. It's a solution to poverty stricken third world countries with poor food processing. And you turned that into "GMO's are better for us!" Nice spin!

[Najnaj]

And again, is the reduction statistically significant or meaningful? These are details that weren't provided. Between 5 and 25% of global liver cancer cases is a huge margin, is it 5? or 25? Does it fluctuate depending upon where in the world you're talking about and if so why? And this, just like the article, is something you claim and provide no citation for or supportive data that demonstrates the veracity of said claim. That's exactly the type of vague assertions that I'm talking about. Even if it is a fact, facts require context or they're just talking points. A 35% reduction in mycotoxins could easily translate into a nominal or even no impact on, let's use your example, the number of global liver cancer cases. Better yet, what's the result in the USA? Because if it's different the why is probably important. Here, I'll take a few minutes and actually look into things because you seem like you're selling something that's not on the up and up.

And low and behold, this seems to be a big deal for developing countries and not an issue in developed ones. That means there's no difference between GMO and non-GMO corn for the vast majority of us. That means that 35% less mycotoxin so GMO is good for us is a load of hyperbolized garbage. To me, what was presented was an unsubstantiated claim akin to "go vegan and it'll cure your cancer!" "eat GMO it's 35% better for you!" Except it's not. I questioned the claim. You responded. I did 10 minutes of research on it and determined that while your position certainly has elements of truth, you're intentionally leaving out details that matter. As a matter of fact one of the articles I read had to go back 15 years to point at verifiable deaths due to mycotoxins. In 2003 120 Kenyans died of eating corn with unsafe levels of mycotoxins after a drought.

For like the third time I'm not someone who hates GMO's but at least be honest in your arguments. GMO's aren't the solution to a problem we all have. It's a solution to poverty stricken third world countries with poor food processing. And you turned that into "GMO's are better for us!" Nice spin!

GMO is not a comprehensive grouping. You can not say that GMO's are good or bad for us or that they solve or do not solve a problem. There is nothing inherently good or bad about GMO's. They can produce crops that are immune to certain diseases and I would think we can all agree that this would be a good thing in Africa or in Utah. I read somewhere that they also produced a high yielding rice that turned out to be toxic so...bad.

[Therec]

Then we got household wastage and transportation wastage, all the food wastage from 1st world countires will feed 3rd world countries thousand times over but instead end up in landfills

Most of the food would spoil before it ever reached those countries. The stupid "organic only no preservatives" movement trending right now is worsening the issue of food waste.

[Prossy]

Most of the food would spoil before it ever reached those countries. The stupid "organic only no preservatives" movement trending right now is worsening the issue of food waste.

Nothing wrong with organic, not only it's healthier for you but it does taste much better compared to non-organic food. It's the preservatives they use in our food that people have the issue with, they contribute to health problems.

When people use stuff on our food to protect it from bacteria the forget that our stomachs use bacteria to digest our foods and when our food is covered in stuff that stops bacteria touching it we can't digest the food and it ends up being untouched in our stomachs causing health problems and/or discomfort

[Osmeric]

Nothing wrong with organic, not only it's healthier for you

The "healthier" part is not a statement supported by real scientific evidence.

And there is something very wrong with organic: it requires considerably more land to produce a given quantity of food, so its environmental footprint (in displaced natural ecosystems) is larger.

[Elegiac]

The "healthier" part is not a statement supported by real scientific evidence.

And there is something very wrong with organic: it requires considerably more land to produce a given quantity of food, so its environmental footprint (in displaced natural ecosystems) is larger.

Additionally, the expense entailed by organic farming means that such techniques are restricted to developed countries and do fuck all to address the problem of feeding humanity as a whole.

[Zephyr Storm]

Almost everyone knew this already. GMOs are harmless and here to stay. They are how we are going to feed a growing world.

Only complete idiots still think GMOs are bad for you.

[Noradin]

Good. GMO is the way to create crops that are plentiful, use less land, require less nutrients/water, produce less waste, and are more resistant to both predation and viruses/bacteria.

Would be the way, instead it is used as a tool to extort more money. See Monsato.

[Zephyr Storm]

Nothing wrong with organic, not only it's healthier for you but it does taste much better compared to non-organic food. It's the preservatives they use in our food that people have the issue with, they contribute to health problems.

When people use stuff on our food to protect it from bacteria the forget that our stomachs use bacteria to digest our foods and when our food is covered in stuff that stops bacteria touching it we can't digest the food and it ends up being untouched in our stomachs causing health problems and/or discomfort

"Organic" is nothing but a fad that has caught on because there are people stupid enough out there to believe the bullshit surrounding it. It's a money making scheme and nothing more.

Fun fact: There are a lot of organic foods that are still allowed to have pesticides used on them, but the growers/sellers of said food are not required to disclose that information to the consumer.

[Osmeric]

Would be the way, instead it is used as a tool to extort more money. See Monsato.

Please explain how Monsanto extorts money. Offering a new product is not extortion.

Are you under the mistaken impression Monsanto took existing crop varieties, that farmers were using, and placed them under patent control? That's not how patents work.

[Tabrotar]

Selective breeding is genetically modifying it. By not allowing certain traits to exsist, you are forcing other traits to. This is modifying it genetically. Genetically modifying is not just done with test tubes. Look at dogs. Are you telling me that poodles are genetically the exact same as pittbulls? No, they were genetically modified.

Sorr ybut you´re full of shit.

Genetical modifying means that you implant the genes you mant directly into the genom of the respective animal/plant. Which means you get the modification you want in the next generation.

With breeding you TRY to get what you want and it takes many more years because it´s not gurantead that you get what you want.

So care to explain again where the two are the same?

- - - Updated - - -

GMO Corn has been proven safe over 20 years, if this was going to happen then it would have happened by now.

It takes, on average, 7 years for a GMO crop to get to market, It takes millions of dollars, and reams of research to show that a crop is not only safe to eat, but safe to grow.

But that's not even the worst part, there is a perception that there are more GMO crops available then have been developed.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you kidding? You can prove this I assume?

Yeah shure because genetical mutations never ever tend to happen...

[kail]

I'm not conflating the two. Cross breeding only got most fruit and vegetables so far. nearly all of them have now been scientifically altered. 2 of my close friends are literally MicroBiologists, one that works exclusively in Food. I've talked to them at lengths about this stuff. I will take the word of actual Doctors over internet Wikipals any day. I also learnt a lot about GMO and its effect on food under my Chef Apprenticeship.

Wait, so you're an actual meat specialist?

[kail]

Reading comprehension is important...

Was a simple joke...

[Drungan]

Yelling this on a random forum will change the mind of ........ none.

Simply saying : GMO is good ot GMO is bad ...... well it is not that simple .... Making some crops *immune* to x chemical so you can kill off bugs/ unwanted growth is not bad in itself but when you start to mass sprey the chemicals on the crops and it gets into the water supply it can give trouble.

I have 0 issues with eating the GMO food ( right now ) ... and fully understand how it is made and the history of it .... however due to general greed i have no faith in the future of it.

[Deleted]

Corn has been a GMO for thousands of years anyway. Look up what actual natural corn looks like.

Big difference between mixing crops and adding a gene from a goat or something...I'm pretty sure that hasn't been done for "thousands of years"

This "research" (doesn't even say who does it) is bullshit, because safe = long-term analysis cannot exist yet to determine safety since its way too early. Europeans don't wanna be guinea pigs...

Mad props to Spain tho, probably one of the few European countries that actually cares about what the science says on the topic.

Uh-huh...Spain that sprinkles some dirt over garbage patches n grows tomatoes on top n feeds the eu that way? They got enough greenhouses in one spot to be seen from space..with illegals working there (100 000+). I wouldn't trust Spain..

[Techno-Druid]

Big difference between mixing crops and adding a gene from a goat or something...I'm pretty sure that hasn't been done for "thousands of years"

This "research" (doesn't even say who does it) is bullshit, because safe = long-term analysis cannot exist yet to determine safety since its way too early. Europeans don't wanna be guinea pigs...

This study was done on very a period of two decades. The study proves that the GMO corn has less mycotoxins than their "organic" counterparts due to the lack of insect bites, which makes it objectively more healthy for human consumption.