No GMO's Please! Said No African Child Ever

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I gotta tell you- it takes something for me to post something from the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason- an out and out Atheist organization- because I think they are combating misinformation here.  I am on a low-carb diet, and it's working very well for me.  I think in general agricultural subsidies have a lot to do with obesity- that and the propagation of the utterly-without-merit "lipid hypothesis".  

However, in all the research I've done on wheat- which I do think we get too much of- I cannot lay my finger on solid evidence that it's "frankenwheat" or that "GMOs" are all bad.  I'm not a fan of big agricultural subsidies and agribusiness that relies on them in general.

www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/8/7/gmos-don-t-hurt-anyone-but-opposing-them-does

How do you demonize scientists who added 3 genes to the 30,000 in rice in order to stop vitamin A deficiencies in poor countries with rice-dominated diets? There are zero pitfalls to it yet an elaborate, well-funded marketing campaign has been leveled against it.

Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer genetically engineered their Golden Rice, called that because the genes they used for producing beta carotene, a Vitamin A precursor, gave the rice grains a 'golden' color, and even persuaded companies to waive patent rights so that they could give the seeds away for free. No 'Monsanto is evil' nonsensical reasoning applies to this, yet 'green' juggernauts like Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists have opposed it by every means possible, using lawyers and, of course, scare campaigns about biology.

How many kids have died in the 14 years this has been protested as "Frankenfood"? Estimates on deaths are always somewhat overblown but activist groups love to throw them around so let's give them one they can think about; as many as 18 million children have died due to vitamin A deficiency while they have blockaded just this one technology and another 18 million have gone blind, according to World Health Organization numbers. Deaths due to GMOs? Zero. Heck, stomach-aches due to GMOs - still zero.

[mmhmm]

Moving this to Current Events. - mmhmm, Administrator

[Deleted]

There isn't even such thing as "frankenwheat".  Not in the US food supply, anyway.  None of the wheat grown in the US is GMO.  If it was, we could not export it to Europe.  And we export a lot of wheat to Europe.  US wheat is even the best wheat for the best Italian pasta.

But you're right.  People tend to fear things they don't understand.  It's a good response when you live in the wild as a caveman.  It's not so good when we are trying to make scientific progress.

[Opti]

It will take years before the long term effects of GMOs will be known. I don't think of the great rice fields of Africa so my guess is the target of this rice was more likely places like China, India, and other such countries. People have the right to demonstrate against it just like recepient countries would have the right to accept or deny it.

[Deleted]

 This issue is one with major political and economic repercussions... it is a travesty that the "politics and money chit-chat" board rejected it as an unsuitable topic.
 That being said, engineering agricultural products (grains, etc.) to contain additional nutrients is far less controversial than engineering them to contain "natural" pesticides, or proprietary resistance to commercial herbicides.

[Deleted]

Why?  Other than fear of something you don't understand?

FWIW, there is no such thing as a crop that "contains pesticides", and roundup resistance exists naturally and is developing naturally in weeds frequently treated (but not treated well enough to kill them all).

[Virgil Showlion]

It's a reasonable stop-gap solution. Obviously the more comprehensive solution would be to expand agriculture and trade to accommodate a broader range of foods, but that may not be realistic short-term.

As long as the producers keep the modified strains separate from heirloom rice crops, and as long as citizens whose diets are not vitamin A deficient can purchase the unmodified rice, the rewards would appear to outweigh the risks.

[Deleted]

We hve plenty of Frankencorn... And it's in everything...

[Deleted]

ok, I guess patiencetried is not going to answer my question.  Figures.

This is the thing.  Since people are worried about "unintended consequenses", there really is no reason to believe that genetic modifications to increase nutrients is in any way "safer" than modifications to add pest or weed benefits.  Feeling safer about the high nutrient rice is a perfect example of how this argument is more about feelings than science.

Absent the ability to assess what the unintended consequenses might be, all three are equally "dangerous" or "risky".  The acceptance of the modified rice is purely based on the sense that people get that the rice is truly helping people.  This is completely unrelated to the worry about unintended consequenses.

[Deleted]

Are you talking about the process of 'enriching' ? 

[Angel!]

People do fear technology they don't understand and tend to have a mistrust of scientists.

I do find it interesting that someone who would be so outspoken of scientists in certain areas (climate change for example ) would have such faith in scientists genetically engineering food. 

There are a lot of reasons to be against GMOs if you are a paranoid person that doesn't trust scientists.  The biggest, IMO, is that changing a single gene can do several things.  So changing 3 genes could have unintended consequences that scientists don't find until later.  So it isn't completely unreasonable to worry that the changes could cause the crop to no longer be resistant to some disease causing massive loss in crops and famine or something.  There is a reason some of the genetic modification testing is done in an underground facility - so that actual crops can't be contaminated with what they might produce, because it could be very bad. 

But, mutations also happen on their own all the time.  So we aren't doing anything that mother nature doesn't do.  We are just more selective in how we go about it.  There is nothing inherently bad about GMO food, we are just messing with mother nature.

[Opti]

IBob, I'm concerned in general as I have food sensitivities. As it currently stands its actually hard to fully stay away from certain foods if you eat anything with artificial flavors. They get derived from quite varied sources.

There's a restaurant in a local shopping mall which specializes in sandwiches, salads, wraps, etc. One year they went to full disclosure labeling. I was shocked to find things like shellfish as part of a chicken salad. It would have never occurred to me to check for something like that just like people with serious peanut allergies discovering a secret ingredient in meat and bean chili was peanuts. Genetic modification will further muddy the waters. Putting in vitamins will likely just take genes from other plants, but I've read things that suggest gene hacks from fish or animals into plants. We won't know how safe or unsafe these choices will be until many years pass or it goes horribly wrong early on.


Personally I'd prefer to avoid them so strict labeling of the item and any processed food that uses it would be OK for me. Right now as someone else pointed out we already have GMO corn in the food supply, mostly unlabeled, showing up in corn syrup and other related corn products.

[Virgil Showlion]

The acceptance of the modified rice is purely based on the sense that people get that the rice is truly helping people.

It's about weighing the risk of a known unknown (future risks) against a known benefit.

The rice seems likely to prevent some of the millions of deaths associated with vitamin A deficiency. That's a considerable immediate benefit.

For issues like "built-in pesticides", etc., the issue is yields and farmer profits. Many people would consider this a lackluster immediate benefit to pit against unknown future risks.

Science is nowhere in the mix. It's presently blind to the long-term risks, which the scientists admit. If there are serious consequences down the line associated with any of the countless genetic modifications being introduced, I'm not even convinced that scientists could reliably establish which one(s) are responsible.

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2013 15:23:17 GMT -5 oped said:

Are you talking about the process of 'enriching' ? 

Me? No. GMO rice that has more nutrients was mentioned as being supposedly safer than other GMOs.

[Deleted]

Optimist--That is surprising. Was the shellfish an ingredient, or were they saying it was produced on equipment that processes shellfish.

[Deleted]

Virgil, you are wrong. Everyone benefits from more efficient farming. Long term, food costs have increased slower than inflation. And more yield means fewer people starve to death, which was the main point of the OP. over recent decades, we've learned to produce much more food with much lower energy and material inputs. How could that not be a good thing for everyone?

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 9, 2013 15:45:47 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Virgil, you are wrong. Everyone benefits from more efficient farming. Long term, food costs have increased slower than inflation. And more yield means fear people starve to death, which was the main point of the OP. over recent decades, we've learned to produce much more food with much lower energy and material inputs. How could that not be a good thing for everyone?

It depends on how much you trust in the findings of anti-GMO organizations.

I've seen claims that various crops grown in greater abundance due to genetic modification are less nutrient-rich and less nutritious. I've seen legitimate concerns about increasing crop homogeneity, which increases the risk of blight and genetic diseases in crops. I've seen legitimate concerns that modified foods consume more water, interfere with the pollination cycles of other crops, or slowly skew the chemical makeup of farm soil in unfavourable ways. Other groups present evidence that modified crops don't taste as good, or are more fibrous, or trigger any number of undesirable immune responses. I don't have a hard time believing them since I've experienced the same thing myself (with respect to certain GMO veggies tasting like crap).

If a farmer's primary concern is how many pounds of tomatoes he can put on the flatbed at the end of the day. He isn't concerned with the nutritional content of the food, or heath and environmental side-effects he may have to worry about decades down the road. He isn't going to concern himself with matters like homogeneity, the water table, erosion, and long-term soil quality until these things become a problem. And by the time they become a problem, there may be very little he can do to remedy the situation.

I'm not denying that these kinds of modifications and experiments with gene mixing have thus far provided immense benefits. But if we use fossil fuels and climate change as an analog, some scientists are convinced that climate change will ultimately wipe out thousands of species and billions of lives. Unintended consequences from one of the greatest and most revolutionary technologies ever invented: the internal combustion engine. Eighty years ago, somebody might have looked at the incredible ways the ICE revolutionized agriculture and asked "How could that not be a good thing for everyone?".

Now we know.

[Opti]

Aug 9, 2013 15:42:46 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Optimist--That is surprising. Was the shellfish an ingredient, or were they saying it was produced on equipment that processes shellfish.

No shellfish was an ingredient. I'm fairly sure it was from an added flavor in the dressing.
I've forgotten, but there are a bunch of things you would not expect used just to create
the flavor of artificial vanilla. See what I can find via Google.

[Deleted]

Interesting.  I must admit, I prefer simpler ingredient lists.

Virgil--Those are different concerns that may or may not be legitimate.  Not really related to what I said.  And as long as they are being looked at from an unbiased and scientific manner, I agree they need to be paid attention to.  Though in the case of farmers caring about their land, of course they do!  It's their livelihood, and in many if not most cases, it's going to be passed down to their children.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 9, 2013 16:34:08 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Interesting.  I must admit, I prefer simpler ingredient lists.

Virgil--Those are different concerns that may or may not be legitimate.  Though in the case of farmers caring about their land, of course they do!  It's their livelihood, and in many if not most cases, it's going to be passed down to their children.

I should rephrase.

Farmers obviously care about the future, but when it comes to weighing their immediate concerns--staying in the black--against a litany of future problems that may or may not occur, the former is definitely going to reap the lion's share of their concern.

[Deleted]

Yes, we all benefit from the obesity epidemic largely sponsored by the ready availability of cheap corn....

not.

[Opti]

Not much success on the Vanillin search. Only found clove oil and wood pulp referenced (Wiki) and something about a Harvard researcher who figured out how to derive it from cow poop. I did find out that artificial flavors differ from natural flavors in that they come from inedible sources like petroleum products.

[Deleted]

I'm not so much concerned about artificial flavors, I guess.  It may seem gross that they are derived from cow poop or oil, but that's just a psychological aversion to something safe.  Like not wanting to drink purified water made from pee or thinking "pink slime" is gross.  Both understandable reactions, but that doesn't mean they are unsafe.

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2013 17:25:24 GMT -5 oped said:

Yes, we all benefit from the obesity epidemic largely sponsored by the ready availability of cheap corn....

not.

Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than one burns.  Blaming it on corn is completely missing the issue.  And while cheap food in the US makes it easier to get obese, it also makes it easier for millions or billions to simply stay alive, right?

[Deleted]

No it's not just a number of calories issue. I was overweight for years, but didnt consume an unusually high number of calories. Even after I gave up wheat, i couldnt lose even if i exercised. When I gave up corn, I immediately dopped 20 lb. I made sure at first to sub calories, not cut them. 

Even now... I eat lbs of raw cashews, natural potato chips, dark chocolate,I love oil... I've been steadily dropping for the past 14 months. I'm down 45 lb. it's so not hard at all when you stop eating fake fucking food and eat real food... Fat, doesn't matter. Sugar doesn't even matter as long as its more natural in form. 

It might not be 'cheap' ... But im not convinced our food should be 'cheap'...

[Deleted]

It is always an energy and mass balance.  If it weren't it would violate the laws of thermodynamics.  You have calories consumed, calories burned, and calories that pass through without being converted to "fuel".

I don't doubt your weight loss story at all, I'm just saying it still comes down to a mass and energy balance.

[Deleted]

And I'm telling you it isn't that simple. It just isn't. 

Bad foods cause me inflammation. That impacts weight.

If I'm eating bad for me foods, I tend to pass things though my system before nutrients can be extracted. This causes my body to think it is starving, and impacts fat storage, etc. 

i can eat a food that is bad for me, and have my scale go up 2 - 3 lb overnight. 

These are just some of the general statements I can make bout food and weight. 

It is NOT a simple 'mass energy balance' ... 

I could recommend some reading if you were interested.

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2013 21:30:51 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

It is always an energy and mass balance.  If it weren't it would violate the laws of thermodynamics.  You have calories consumed, calories burned, and calories that pass through without being converted to "fuel".

I don't doubt your weight loss story at all, I'm just saying it still comes down to a mass and energy balance.

 No... it's a bit more complicated than that.
 You can eat thousands of calories without gaining weight if your digestive system isn't functioning correctly for various reasons.
 Celiac disease, chronic IBS, chronic diarrhea... are just a few of the things that affect absorption of of caloric intake.

[Deleted]

oped--Like I said, I'm not trying to make light of your food issues.  The things you described are still part of the mass and energy balance.  If your body thinks it's starving, you burn fewer calories.  Inflamation probably involves water retention.  It's all still a mass and energy balance.  You cannot gain a pound without first putting several pounds into your body via your mouth.

No... it's a bit more complicated than that.
You can eat thousands of calories without gaining weight if your digestive system isn't functioning correctly for various reasons.

This is the exact same thing I just said.  Calories consumed, minus calories burned, minus calories not digested/absorbed equals calories stored.  Calories stored equals weight gain.  Water retention can also cause weight gain.  Energy and mass balance.  I think you are agreeing with me.

So can you insted explain why you think GMO rice is safe, while other GMO foods are not?

[Deleted]

 Personally don't eat any GMOs if I can avoid it... As they are unmarked/ foods prepared for you eating out are not labeled, 'm sure I consume some at some point eating out. 

Bob you seemed to be suggesting that all people need to do is consume less calories, or exercise more, and they will lose weight. That just isn't true for many people. The is content of those calories, the way they are processed in the body, has a significant impact ... And the further we get from real food, the greater difficulty we have in processing and efficiently using the calories we ingest.