3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Diet Central > Weight Loss News and Current Events

Weight Loss News and Current Events Discuss the latest weight loss news headlines and major events.

GMOs, and doesn't THIS put a different light on the subject?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-06-2013, 10:33 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Misti in Seattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 8,561

Height: 5'8.5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heather View Post
Misti -- Well, Mark Lynas himself says it was fears that drove his activism. He was very anti-science when it came to GMOs. I haven't finished reading his lecture, but it's here:

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lec...-january-2013/

And again, I think Nikel1979 was not calling you a freak-out personally.
Again, my apologies and I have edited my post and responding only to you (as moderator) and not other comments on it; and withdrawing myself from the thread.
__________________



First major goal met 12/7/12. Next major goal ONEderland!
Misti in Seattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 11:16 AM   #17
Moderator
 
Heather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,030

S/C/G: 295/225/back to Onederland

Height: 5'5"

Default

Misti -- Your passion for the topic is obvious, and I'm sorry you feel the need to remove yourself from the thread.
__________________


My 5 C's of healthy living: Commitment to conscious control, with the understanding that choices have consequences
Heather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 11:31 AM   #18
Moderating Mama
 
mandalinn82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Woodland, CA
Posts: 13,112

S/C/G: 295/191/175

Height: 5' 8"

Default

Quote:
Also, please note... while I personally think GMOs should not even be legal, the big battle going on now is over LABELING them. They don't want us to KNOW what we are eating.
Historically, labeling has led to a withdrawal of such ingredients from the market, so while the law may be about labeling, history (in Europe, Japan, and Australia, among other major markets) demonstrates that requiring labeling results in removal of those ingredients from the marketplace.

For those who are interested in avoiding GMOs in the US, you do already have that option. If you purchase organic foods, those foods by definition do not contain any GMO ingredients.
__________________
Goal Met - 10/28/07 - My Progress Picture Collage - My Goal Story

No matter how slow you go, you're still lapping everyone on the couch!

Maintained Oct 2007-Sept 2011, then got pregnant. Our baby boy was born in May, 2012...now to lose the baby weight!!
mandalinn82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 02:18 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,278

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

It's been my understanding that genetic science has not yet reached the level at which artificial, man-made substances can be genetically coded into an organism.

That is that genetic modification can only be done by inserting bits of existing genetic code from one plant or animal, into another.

That means that any "pesticides" that are genetically coded into a plant have to be pesticides that are found in the natural, animal kingdom.

I understand that it may be possible to put animal DNA into plants, but ordinarily that isn't done.

That means that what they're doing with GMO plants is taking bits of DNA (and what that DNA does) into other plants. So the "pesticides" being bred into some crops are pesticides that occur naturally in other plants (though some of these are plants that we do not generally eat).

Since the pesticide has to be organic (has to come from a living plant or animal) to be inserted into the DNA of the plant being modified - that means it's a pesticide that organic farmers are allowed to use.

One of the reasons I decided against entirely organic diet, is that I could only afford mass-produced organic - and many of the organic pesticides used on large organic farms are every bit as dangerous as the non-organic ones.

I'd rather eat a GMO crop that contains the genetic coding to produce a natural pesticide than to eat a crop heavily treated with either man-made or organic pesticides - but my preference is to eat locally grown, small-farm, organic. The cost of becoming certified, is prohibitive for small farms, meaning that most small organic farmers can't afford to be certified. And many small farms, even if they're not fully organic, generally produce safer crops than mega-farm organic.


I'm not saying that all or even any GMO crops are perfectly safe, but it does mean that it's important to not only know if a crop has been genetically modified, but how it's been genetically modified.

For example there's a genetically modified corn that is fed to cattle, but not to humans. The reason being that the corn contains I believe a bit of soy or peanut DNA (or some other plant that is a common allergen). The reason it's not considered safe for human consumption is that people allergic to the plant that was used to modify the corn, might react to the modified corn with that plant's DNA.

A few years ago, some of the GMO corn got into the food supply. Only a few brands of corn meal and corn tortillas were affected (if I'm remembering correctly) and it caused a bit of a panic. Many people believed that all corn was unsafe to eat.

I'm not so worried about GMOs that take genetic code from one edible or safe-to-eat plant (some plants are safe to eat, but are considered inedible because of flavor or the amount of undigestible fiber) and insert it into another (which I believe is as far as Monsanto and genetic engineering has gotten outside of the lab, that is into the food supply).

I think there is potential for problems, of course because it's at least theoretically possible to put tangerine DNA into an apple and get something toxic, but in practice I think it's unlikely.

The biggest risk of GMO crops currently (in my opinion) is to the economy and to the ecology.

To the economy because Montanso "ownes" the genetically modified organisms. That means if your crop becomes cross-polinated with a GMO, Monsanto owns your crop as well as it's own. It also means that you can't buy and grow GMO plants without the permission of (and payment to) Monsanto.

To the ecology because GMO crops, because of their modifications have an unnatural advantage over the natural vegetation of an area. Send GMOs to third world countries and you might save the population from starvation, but destroy their ecosystems in the process.

In terms of edibility, I think GMOs are currently pretty safe because they're blending edible plants, and if anyone has proof otherwise, if you could refer me to publicised data - journal articles, books, or professional association or university websites, I'd greatly appreciate it (not private organization or individual websites though - there are tons of those out there claiming outlandish and impossible things).
__________________
My Etsy shop (currently closed for the summer)

http://www.dreamstormdesigns.etsy.com
etsy link by permission from 3fc! Want to add yours? Ask them!
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 02:19 PM   #20
Nicole
 
Nikel1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East TN
Posts: 359

S/C/G: 252/ticker/150

Height: 5' 10"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misti in Seattle View Post
Manufactured pesticides do not "naturally" occur in soil. Granted it is still going to be in some crops because when they spray it all over one area, some of it i bound to contaminate other areas.

But we will do the best we can.
Bt is NOT a pesticide. And yes, it does naturally occur in soil.
__________________
Nicole
July 4 Goal


Nikel1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 02:25 PM   #21
Nicole
 
Nikel1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East TN
Posts: 359

S/C/G: 252/ticker/150

Height: 5' 10"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heather View Post
Misti -- Well, Mark Lynas himself says it was fears that drove his activism. He was very anti-science when it came to GMOs. I haven't finished reading his lecture, but it's here:

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lec...-january-2013/

And again, I think Nikel1979 was not calling you a freak-out personally.
Sorry, yes, I was referencing some WAY OTT freak-outs on facebook. Like it's all a terrorist plot conspiracy type freak outs. Freak out as in verb, not noun.

Just for clarity here, Bt is a naturally occurring microbial soil bacterium. I'm a soil science major, entomology & plant pathology minor, and work in a plant path lab. I'm quite certain on this point.
__________________
Nicole
July 4 Goal



Last edited by Nikel1979 : 01-06-2013 at 02:26 PM.
Nikel1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 05:54 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Misti in Seattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 8,561

Height: 5'8.5"

Default

Just to clarify... I didn't feel as if I "had" to leave the thread. But I am at 3FC to lose weight... to receive support and hopefully offer encouragement to others. I am not offended and not upset in any way... the GMO debate over labeling is "hot" in my state right now and I have and will continue to fight for labeling. However, this forum is, for me, not the place for it.
__________________



First major goal met 12/7/12. Next major goal ONEderland!
Misti in Seattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 06:10 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 308

Default

I think the consumer should be able to know what is in their food. If food producers are afraid of consumer reaction to a GMO label, the producer can stipulate what has been done to the product, and then the consumer can use or not use that product based upon that additional information.

Currently, I've been trying to buy more organic, but it is pricey.

Attached is a link to one GMO study:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...about-research
deetermined2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:06 AM   #24
Ironman USA Finisher...
 
TripSwitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 1,120

S/C/G: 180/160/150

Height: 5'9"

Default

Very interesting... thanks for the links... this is one of those areas that I always wonder if I'm just being too overly concerned about...
__________________
TripSwitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 07:56 AM   #25
Moderator
 
Heather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,030

S/C/G: 295/225/back to Onederland

Height: 5'5"

Default

I think one of the biggest problems I've had with the GMO issue (actually, with many issues) is that the anti-GMO arguments have really been designed to evoke fear, without necessarily addressing the central issues. Mark Lynas essentially admits the latter in his talk.

I teach a college seminar in persuasion and have read a lot about persuasion from a psychological POV. Fear is a very popular persuasion tactic, and it tends to do a great job at changing attitudes. So when I see fear tactics being used (and using death and illness as outcomes of doing X is definitely a fear tactic), especially when logical arguments seem to be avoided, I tend to just be skeptical of the endeavor. So I have been wondering about GMOs, because so much of the persuasion involves fear appeals, and what science I do know seems to be ignored.

Anyway, reading Mark Lynas' talk confirmed to me that many of the people leading the anti-GMO movement were doing exactly as I feared.

My personal opinion is that the issue is complex, and if our goal is to feed the planet the solution not necessarily obvious. GMOs are likely not nearly as dangerous as many would like us to believe, but probably the outcomes of using GMO foods not completely known.

I do think that any of us who are concerned would benefit from really figuring out what we mean by GMO and do our best to seek out unbiased sources -- or at the very least not pay attention to sources who seem to only want to scare us. But that can be tough!

I think that advice actually goes for lots of issues...

Just my mutterings and musings...
__________________


My 5 C's of healthy living: Commitment to conscious control, with the understanding that choices have consequences
Heather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 10:17 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 308

Default

There may be some benefits to some GE crops, but I have mainly heard of the examples where the seed failed to deliver what was promised. Attached is an article about farmers who used GE seed.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...t-farmers.aspx
deetermined2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 06:29 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 308

Default

Here is another link to the effect of GE crops on earthworms, soil, and poultry.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...0112_DNL_art_1
deetermined2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 06:42 AM   #28
Empress/Queen
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,274

Default

I have an app in my phone that rates food products on various criteria & gives an option to warn me about GMOs. It warns that GMOs are "likely" in almost all products I have looked up & rates them down on that. I love the app but to me it reflects certain points of view that I mostly share but are clearly just opinion & l often find myself lacking possession of an informed personal conclusion that I can come to but at least I have a kind of labeling system.

I would like to see more effort made in the U.S. to actually require a definition of GMOs & other factors about the production of each individual food sold & a clear labeling requirement.
Amarantha2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 10:56 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
JudgeDread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 503

S/C/G: 160/150/145

Height: 5'7

Default

If you all have 27 minutes you should watch this........................ (there's a part 2)

Pretty good points brought up...even though it is Penn and Teller lol.

Last edited by JudgeDread : 01-13-2013 at 10:57 AM.
JudgeDread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 07:35 AM   #30
Recovering Pantry Pest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,926

S/C/G: 174.5/156.6/<148

Height: 5'7.5"

Default

I didn't know that Forbes took the action of retracting Monsanto's 2009 "Company of the Year" award over their business practices (thanks, deetermined2). I remain unconvinced of the safety of this stuff, and will continue to campaign to get it labelled. Monsanto and the food processors have already started their work on weakening the meaning of the USDA Organic label; check the list of newly-approved additives if you're interested.

Heather, I absolutely agree with you that the fear tactic seems to have become the sole way information is presented. I am so very sick of being told how to "feel" - instead of being given facts, and being allowed to THINK. It seems to me that this might have a lot to do with why civilized dialogue has become such a rarity; everyone's so caught up in emotional absolutes that they have trouble listening to opposing viewpoints and evaluating potential merit and (gasp) learning from them.
__________________
~ Becky ~
2014-15 season: 2250
2013-14 season yards: 47530
ICUwishing is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2