Do you avoid GMO's?

[Geoff_M]

Problem with "golden rice" is that there are no studies that show that there will be sufficient carotenoid levels left after storage & cooking. Studies haven't been done (well, 2 flawed and controversial studies notwithstanding). Well, maybe studies have been done, but they haven't been released & publish for public & independent scrutiny.

You may want to update your information, additional studies have been published that support its use as an effective source of Vitamin A. But then again, no amount of reproducible data in support of its use would be enough to convince the core of the anti-GMO crowd that such a product isn't "The Debil". However, it is promising that some past critics have even agreed that the newer data suggests that its something still worth looking into.

 

[ellone]

You may want to update your information, additional studies have been published that support its use as an effective source of Vitamin A. But then again, no amount of reproducible data in support of its use would be enough to convince the core of the anti-GMO crowd that such a product isn't "The Debil". However, it is promising that some past critics have even agreed that the newer data suggests that its something still worth looking into.

Mark Lynas most likely was bought out by EuropaBio. Leaked documents show he was their most sought after spokesperson.

Until David Suzuki comes out and says GMOs are fine, I don't buy it.

 

[twinboysmom]

We try to avoid them.

 

[Geoff_M]

Mark Lynas most likely was bought out by EuropaBio. Leaked documents show he was their most sought after spokesperson.

Right, because citing conspiracy theory is a handy means to dismiss any contrary opinions or data. This is the analog of the anti-vaccine movements use of the so-called "Pharma Shill Gambit". It's is a key tool, because otherwise, one risks having to consider the notion that a "GMO" might actually offer a net benefit and therefore puts at risk the whole belief that "GMOs are categorically bad".

 

[Hannathy]

Right, because citing conspiracy theory is a handy means to dismiss any contrary opinions or data. This is the analog of the anti-vaccine movements use of the so-called "Pharma Shill Gambit". It's is a key tool, because otherwise, one risks having to consider the notion that a "GMO" might actually offer a net benefit and therefore puts at risk the whole belief that "GMOs are categorically bad".

 

[ellone]

Right, because citing conspiracy theory is a handy means to dismiss any contrary opinions or data. This is the analog of the anti-vaccine movements use of the so-called "Pharma Shill Gambit". It's is a key tool, because otherwise, one risks having to consider the notion that a "GMO" might actually offer a net benefit and therefore puts at risk the whole belief that "GMOs are categorically bad".

The man claimed he was an environmentalist. However he now says GMOs are A-okay even though the use of pesticides has skyrocketed since GMOs came on the market. GMOs were supposed to allow farmers use less pesticides not more. How can you claim to be an environmentalist and be okay with pouring more and more chemicals into our soil and having it end it up in our water & air? Something just don't smell right.

Pesticides also harm other animals. Monarch butterfly populations are on a downward spiral because glyphosate kills milkweed - their food. Again, how can an environmentalist be okay with an insect population being decimated and still consider himself an environmentalist? Earthworms are smaller than they used to be (hey they help with plants) because they spend so much of their energy trying to detoxify themselves of the chemicals we pour on our plants.

Glyphosate actually inhibits plants from absorbing nutrients from the earth so the food has fewer vitamins & minerals. Of course it also kills the beneficial bacteria in the soil as well.

 

[Geoff_M]

The man claimed he was an environmentalist. However he now says GMOs are A-okay even though the use of pesticides has skyrocketed since GMOs came on the market. GMOs were supposed to allow farmers use less pesticides not more.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with "Golden Rice" as that product has nothing to do with the issue of pesticides. I get it, you have a beef is a type of genetically modified corn that may, or may not, be affecting Monarchs. But that's just one example of the use of GM technologies. Your position is "GMO = Bad". However, that's like saying because of Vioxx, "Pharmaceuticals are categorically bad".

 

[FlightlessDuck]

No.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with "Golden Rice" as that product has nothing to do with the issue of pesticides. I get it, you have a beef is a type of genetically modified corn that may, or may not, be affecting Monarchs. But that's just one example of the use of GM technologies. Your position is "GMO = Bad". However, that's like saying because of Vioxx, "Pharmaceuticals are categorically bad".

That's not exactly a fair comparison. Vioxx is one drug among many, many, many others, some of which save lives. The danger, in pharmaceuticals, is the exception rather than the rule. With GMOs it is just the opposite - there's the one shining example of "golden rice", but the vast majority of GMOs in use in the US are not genetically modified for health/nutritional benefit. They're created for the express purpose of increasing use of a particularly hazardous herbicide.

I don't avoid GMOs because of any direct health concern from the food itself. I avoid GMOs because of the effects of spraying Round Up over hundred of thousands of acres of agricultural land each and every year. You can talk all day about golden rice but in the US avoiding GMOs has nothing to do with rice and everything to do with "Round-Up Ready" corn, soy, canola, and sugar beets.

 

[summerblue]

We do not eat GMO foods. We raise the majority of our own vegetables, either in our greenhouse or in the garden during spring and Summer, the seeds used are from the lineage my great grandpa grew, every year seeds are harvested from the veggies and saved for the next growing season. We raise our own cattle and chickens. We hunt venison, turkey, duck and hog, we also co-op with other area farmers to buy and trade for what they raise. The things I do have to buy I try to buy organic, We also do not eat anything with artificial color, flavors or preservatives. Yes, it is hard work, I spend my summer in the kitchen canning, scouring our state and neighboring ones for in season organic fruits to can for the pantry. Yes things I buy from the store are more expensive and I have to drive an hour to go to Whole a Foods and the Organic market, but the pay off is our health. We spend 1/8th of what we used to on DR bills before I buckled down and put in the effort to make our lives healthy. My DDs ADHD is completely controlled WITHOUT the use of medication. My DHs gastrointestinal problems are gone, and I no longer have ovarian cysts that have to be removed several times a year. So I am a firm believer in only putting organic, non-GMO, natural foods into our bodies.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

No

 

[Sacha_L]

But this is not a GMO issue, it's a Monsanto issue. The same thing in theory could be done with a patented strain developed with "traditional" genetic modification. I'm not here to defend the every action of the company, but it's important to realize that "Monsanto" is not "GMO", and "GMO" is not "Monsanto".

Agreed but:

By avoiding GMO I am avoiding health issues

By avoiding Mobsanto I'm avoiding an unfair business practice.

It's a twofer

 

[Sacha_L]

I do some. For those that do watch for GMOs there is a great app that will tell you about the "health" rating of foods. I don't use it a lot, but it gives different information than food labels. Gives ratings from A to F in being healthful. I was surprised by some of the ratings. It's pretty cool, you can scan the bar codes and the ratings come up with explanations (including GMOs). I don't have time to use it much. Usually I'm zooming through the grocery. It also has a library of foods and ratings. Pretty interesting stuff. The app is called: Fooducate. I'm an app junky.

Thanks! I downloaded now off to play with it.

 

[EMAW_KSU]

No.

 

[ennazus]

This was my first introduction to thinking about what I'm eating. Thank you 11-year-old (at the time) Birke Baehr. http://www.ted.com/talks/birke_baehr_what_s_wrong_with_our_food_system

I try to avoid foods that are most likely GMO- based on which foods are more likely to be GMO such as corn, soy, canola, sugar beats. I wish GMO's were labeled. I live in Maine which passed a law requiring labeling of GMO's. The legislation doesn’t go into effect until five nearby states, including New Hampshire, pass similar labeling laws.

And I try to consider the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen when deciding to buy organic
http://livology.net/?attachment_id=298

That said, I do NOT strictly follow that as I do eat out and I do consider the budget. Strawberries are a weakness.

What is a GMO? explained in 1 minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXbwQyGZWKw&list=UUEpUgQ6muzZ9YPy53O7w2HA

 

[OceanAnnie]

Thanks! I downloaded now off to play with it.

You're welcome! I love it.

Is it still free? I got it from "app price drops". It's an app that lists free and reduced apps (for a limited time) for the I phone and I pad. You can even request an e-mail alert to let you know when prices drop or is free on something you are watching. Someone mentioned it on the Dis a good while back. I have gotten a lot of use from that tip!

I'm app rich.

 

[ebtbmom]

No, partly because I'm lazy and cheap. Partly because I find genetic engineering fascinating. I considered studying it in college. I would have been your worst nightmare, a mad scientist dicing and splicing everything to see what would happen (maniacal laugh).

 

[Geoff_M]

That's not exactly a fair comparison. Vioxx is one drug among many, many, many others, some of which save lives. The danger, in pharmaceuticals, is the exception rather than the rule. With GMOs it is just the opposite - there's the one shining example of "golden rice", but the vast majority of GMOs in use in the US are not genetically modified for health/nutritional benefit. They're created for the express purpose of increasing use of a particularly hazardous herbicide.

I think your view of the use of GMOs is rather limited. Its scope extends well beyond the issue of pesticides... and the analogy of pharmaceuticals is more apt than you think. More and more pharma research is moving away from traditional "small molecule" compound work (since novel compounds are getting harder and harder to find) to so-called "bio-ceuticals" that incorporate GMO technologies. But if people continue to demonize the entire GMO technology, then what should our society make of such resulting therapies?

 

[Colleen27]

I think your view of the use of GMOs is rather limited. Its scope extends well beyond the issue of pesticides... and the analogy of pharmaceuticals is more apt than you think. More and more pharma research is moving away from traditional "small molecule" compound work (since novel compounds are getting harder and harder to find) to so-called "bio-ceuticals" that incorporate GMO technologies. But if people continue to demonize the entire GMO technology, then what should our society make of such resulting therapies?

I'm not sure I believe there is a demonizing of the entire technology so much as a demonizing of the applications of the technology with which people are familiar. Maybe this is regional - I'm in farm country, corn and sugar beet - but the people I know who avoid GMOs, support labeling requirements, want buffer zones and other stronger environmental protections, etc. are more concerned with the fact that our kids are playing in a river full of Round-Up runoff and that when some of the bigger farms are spraying you can't avoid the smell of the stuff on the wind. Maybe in a more urban/suburban context the technology itself is the thing people have problems with but out here it is more concrete - there's no way that the application of thousands of gallons of glyphosate to the farmland all over our region is benign. Go ahead, bioengineer drugs. Beef up the nutrient content of staple crops grown by subsistence farmers. But don't use those theoretical good deeds to defend a product that serves no purpose other than the sale of massive amounts of the manufacturer's flagship poison.

 

[lakelandgal70]

Yes I do try to avoid them at all costs. Just found out I have Celiacs so trying to eat more real and fresher foods.