"Oh they don't affect your physical health. GMO's have a neural suppressant effect that discourages independent thinking." - Some dirty hippy, about 6 months from now
I was just thinking about that. You think climate change deniers are crazy but we all omit facts and evidence to fit our narrative.
I mean I'm not conducting any of these studies (let alone reading more than the occasion abstract) so I just have to trust. I figured GMOs would be along the lines of airplane radiation as far as long-term effects (if any). But i know good friends will dismiss this article as monsanto propaganda (It was my first reaction)
If you're curious, nature biotech had a good piece last year on different countries' regulations on GMO crops. US regulations are surprisingly lax, but the companies that developed them have a decent amount of comparative and acute toxicity data. Long-term safety is another question: Based on the nature of the genes inserted (An enzyme for breaking down glyphosate in the case of RoundUp Ready and a pore-forming toxin that is degraded in the acidic stomach in the case of Bt), cronic toxicity would be unexpected. But the human body is complex and weird, so it's possible that there's an effect that scientists wouldn't predict... That's ground for a bit of debate, but also what OP's link is trying to dispel as extremely unlikely, given their decades of use. That all said, human toxicity is a different question from agricultural sustainability and economic impact, which are by far the more important questions at this point.Of the over 100 peer-reviewed feeding studies done to assess such risks (Supplementary Table 1), the majority are short-term studies on a small number of traits, which would not reveal any chronic effects from long-term consumption of transgenic foods. And, absent food labeling or otherwise tracking transgenic foods, the impact of transgenic foods on those consuming it cannot be known.
"That all said, human toxicity is a different question from agricultural sustainability and economic impact, which are by far the more important questions at this point."
Exactly, what's gonna kill us first. The long term effects are what I'm curious about. But I guess we're adaptable and living in concrete jungles staring at various computer screens is going to have an unnatural long-term effect. Living in space would have long term effects. We're space monkeys.
See, but depression, myopia, carpal tunnel syndrome, and lower back pain are already well-known chronic conditions that result from that lifestyle. They get picked up on very quickly because they are such huge liabilities to companies with office workers. But how widespread are companies that only sell organic produce in their cafeterias? Any sane manager would sooner cut out the red meat and E. coli-laced lettuce.But I guess we're adaptable and living in concrete jungles staring at various computer screens is going to have an unnatural long-term effect.
There are other reasons to be wary of Monsanto, such as their patent scandals a while back. Although I'm not opposed to GMO's, some people are opposed to them not because of their health risks, but because of the economic and political effects of their distribution.
I have to say, this is one of the silliest articles I've ever read. Of course GMOs are a safe diet for animals. No rational person disagrees with that. Giving alternative medicine-pushers airtime is not constructive. Waste of page-space. Top that off with the worst headline of all time and you've got a recipe for a Forbes article. I'm pro-GMO, but obviously concerned with biodiversity impact. That's essentially the only effect of GMOs that anyone should be worried about.
I had to re-read your comment multiple times because it's so far from what I believe. I believe that GMOs are something we should be concerned about. What's wrong with naturally occurring plants? GMOs have already been linked to Colony Collapse Disorder in Bees. Since most European nations have banned them, they've noticed their bee populations come back. Bees are animals, and they're not safe for them. We're animals, are they safe for us? And what's wrong with "alternative medicine?" If natural medicines were the original medicine, aren't pills made to cure symptoms instead of causes made in a laboratory with extreme side effects the alternative? I live in Oregon now and we're voting this November to label GMOs. I'm voting to label them.
Citation? And there's a fair bit of safety research on GMOs in humans... (See comment in other chain) Well yeah, that's just called herbal medicine; it's less controlled dosage and more potential contaminants, but still viable for plenty of people. The trouble is when you start getting into with proof of patient improvement for more off-the-road treatments. There is some value to the placebo effect, but when you're comparing that to drugs not found in nature, you're usually worse off (Not that every illness deserves a drug, but for those that do). Besides, pretty much every drug, natural or synthetic has side-effects, the point is to characterize them and prescribe them in cases where appropriate (Not that that is always the case, either =/).What's wrong with naturally occurring plants? GMOs have already been linked to Colony Collapse Disorder in Bees. Since most European nations have banned them, they've noticed their bee populations come back.
And what's wrong with "alternative medicine?" If natural medicines were the original medicine, aren't pills made to cure symptoms instead of causes made in a laboratory with extreme side effects the alternative?
A lot of speculation in there and not a lot of evidence to make any conclusions (and it's from 2005, almost a decade old now)... There's also no mention of the EU's ban on GMOs or the changes in their absence... perhaps you're thinking of their more recent neonicotinoid ban?
Perhaps. But to be frank, I am skeptical of many modern conventions. I am from the school of thought that believes things were better when they were simpler. Sure, there may have been more deaths, but then the world wasn't rife with issues brought by overpopulation.
i don't understand how anyone in the first place could oppese GMOs broadly. To say that genetic modification itself is a risk factor for anything is ridiculous. GMOs are organisms with new genes thrown in, which happens all the time in nature. The only difference between a natural organism and a GMO is that humans had a hand in the design of GMOs. You can, however, oppose specific modifications. If Monsanto puts out some kind of nitrogen fixing corn and a side effect of that nitrogen-fixing gene is like alzheimer's or something, then you can say, "This specific variant of corn is bad, let's not eat it." You can't say, "This corn was genetically modified, therefore all GMOs cause alzheimer's."
There are modifications that for profit businesses will make even if it's not in the best interest of the consumer/earth etc. There are also, modifications that could benefit both the consumer and the earth that anti gmo people will cease to believe or acknowledge."If Monsanto puts out some kind of nitrogen fixing corn and a side effect of that nitrogen-fixing gene is like alzheimer's or something, then you can say, "This specific variant of corn is bad, let's not eat it." You can't say, "This corn was genetically modified, therefore all GMOs cause alzheimer's."
I think this is a rational way to look at it and that there are irrational people on both sides of this issue and of course, they tend to have the loudest voices.