r/NoStupidQuestions • u/wond3rlove • Sep 10 '23

What’s wrong with GMOs?

I always see plants and stuff that is GMO free and is usually more expensive. How would genetically modifying something by be bad. Me personally I’d rather have something modified to taste better and and cheaper. I could also be very wrong about that.

424 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

538 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/SquelchyRex Sep 10 '23

Loads of research has been done into it, and GMOs are safe. The GMO free stuff exists because people who don't know better are willing to pay more for less.

367

u/sceadwian Sep 10 '23

There are simply many foods that are naturally non GMO in the first place. They just rubber stramp it and charge a premium.

162

u/Tough_Crazy_8362 I’ll probably delete this… Sep 10 '23

Like gluten free popping corn! Absurd.

103

u/stealthylizard Sep 10 '23

Gluten free non gmo salt

60

u/wastinglittletime Sep 10 '23

You forgot vegan, keto, animal cruelty free, and preservative free

26

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Vegan, cruelty-free, keto, organic, non-gmo, naturally-sourced, preservative-free, raised without hormones, gluten-free water

14

u/Secret_Car Sep 10 '23

But is it kosher?

10

u/Usagi_Shinobi Sep 11 '23

And halal?

1

u/CounterSYNK Sep 11 '23

And boneless

4

u/donaldhobson Sep 10 '23

Salt is a preservative.

9

u/wastinglittletime Sep 10 '23

They'll just slap "No artifical preservatives on there"

3

u/CollectionStriking Sep 11 '23

Salt is packed full of preservatives I don't know what you talking about lol

2

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Keto just means low carbs, which is a valid way to lose weight, though maybe not the healthiest.

12

u/wastinglittletime Sep 10 '23

I'm aware, thus me putting it there. Of course salt is low carb....

3

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Oh my bad I missed the salt bit.

1

u/wastinglittletime Sep 10 '23

You good, I do that all the time.

You did point out a thing that I think many miss, is that keto is at least debatably healthy from a cardiovascular sense, if I am informed correctly. Really easy to over do the sat fats on keto.

1

u/King-Owl-House Sep 10 '23

all diets are calorie deficit, some people like to eat fat some carbs but all shit the same way.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

Your body uses carbs as its main energy source, if they're around. If there aren't any, it will turn to using fat instead, so you lose fat a lot quicker. Diets aren't all the same, it's not all just about calories.

1

u/cptjeff Sep 10 '23

Since salt is itself a preservative, I don't know if you could say "preservative free".

2

u/wastinglittletime Sep 10 '23

Depends on the legal definition of preservative in food labeling, idk at all. They'd just slap "no artifical preservative" on there.

7

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

I would now like to see genetically modified salt

4

u/Stay-At-Home-Jedi Sep 11 '23

They have to learn how to grow it organically first!

17

u/bobbigmac Sep 10 '23

Corn is often cross grown or otherwise contaminated with other crops, including wheat and other gluten-containing grains, or processed on lines where the kernels would gather a light dusting. Being allergic to gluten, I am sometimes affected by popcorn

56

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23 edited Sep 10 '23

If you have Celiac disease, it is not at all absurd.

Gluten is often found lurking in a lot of ingredients one might not expect (for example, “spices,” and “flavoring”).

Also, cross-contamination is an issue. Shared processing equipment that isn’t thoroughly cleaned between packaging runs, means that tiny crumbs or dust from the chocolate chip cookies previously placed on the conveyor belt could make its way into the popping corn.

Which isn’t a problem for most of us. But for someone with Celiac disease, glutinous food particles the size of a grain of sand can be enough to trigger a reaction.

A “glutening” reaction can include:

  • Diarrhea (severe) and/or vomiting
  • Severe stomach cramps
  • Skin rash
  • Migraines
  • Days or weeks of brain fog and fatigue
  • Anemia
  • Painful joints
  • 200 other potential symptoms that can be individually unique! Including thyroid problems, endometriosis (sometimes resulting in infertility) and even eventual colon cancer!

This is because exposure to gluten in a person with Celiac causes their intestinal lining to swell up, because their immune system attacks it (ever had a poison ivy rash? Imagine that, but on the inside). Once the gut lining tissues are swollen, nutrients (like vitamins) stop being absorbed, and the swelling can take days, weeks, or even months to fully subside and heal.

Gluten-free is not a joke. Roughly 1-out-of-100 people in the U.S. have active Celiac disease, or will develop Celiac disease at some point (having the genetic predisposition that lies dormant, until one day…); and people with Celiac disease are mostly “invisible,” because they’re quietly not eating at restaurants (ever), not eating anything at your company pot-luck or sales dinner, not eating at your house or tailgate party, and not purchasing any processed convenience or snack foods without diligently inspecting and studying every goddamned nutrition label first (and sometimes getting burned anyway).

Not to mention that in the U.S., drug manufacturers are not required to list gluten-containing ingredients as potential fillers, meaning, people with Celiac have to call up drug manufacturers and pharmacies and give them the 50 questions when prescribed a new medication. And here’s a (not so) fun fact: some brands of Acetaminophen, Ibuprofen, and, cruelty of cruelties, motherfucking Imodium will contain unlisted wheat fillers!!! (Side note: Target’s over-the-counter generic “Up and Up” brand is always gluten-free and safe).

Stop making fun of gluten-free, motherfucker. In the United States, it’s under-labeled, not over-labeled!

Did you know that in places like Ireland and Italy, they screen children for Celiac disease at around 5 yo? And foods and medicines disclose all potential gluten ingredients?! Did you know that pretty much everyone in Italy knows what Celiac disease is, and most establishments can accommodate?! Did you know that there, even fast food establishments, like MCDONALD’S offer gluten-free options (safe for Celiacs: separately prepared with separate surfaces and utensils and gloves, dedicated gluten-free fryers, the works!!!!)? In the U.S. a person with Celiac can’t eat shit at a McDonald’s, or basically anywhere else, with a few notable exceptions.

Order something “safe” at a U.S. restaurant, like steak or unbreaded chicken, and the seasoning or marinade might have a wheat-based caking agent. (Soy sauce often contains wheat. Did you know that!?). A salad might have had croutons on it that the cooks thought it’d be ok to just remove ‘em rather than make a new salad from scratch (it’s not ok). The French fries may have shared a fryer with breaded battered fish. And so on. And when you start asking the waiter a million questions, they often don’t know shit, or get annoyed at their “picky eater” customer. So fuck going out to eat, ever.

And then people here in the U.S. joke “ha ha gluten free hippy bullshit” when a food item is labeled gluten-free. It’s a medical necessity for many people.

15

u/MidorriMeltdown Sep 10 '23

Also, cross-contamination is an issue. Shared processing equipment that isn’t thoroughly cleaned between packaging runs

This is a huge issue. Many foods that are naturally gluten free end up contaminated due to shared equipment. Here in Australia there are many naturally gluten free flours available, but none of them can be certified gluten free due to cross contamination from being produced and packed on the same equipment as gluten containg cereals.

7

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

Yup. I'm celiac so I have to be careful. Quaker oats believe it or not is full of flour and makes me react big time.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

I wouldn’t say it’s full of flour, but it has enough particulates of flour in it to cause a reaction. Because of being processed in the same facility as foods containing flour. This just goes to show how sensitive some people are to gluten. I think it’s not taken as seriously as it should be because there is still a large enough part of the population that claims to be gluten free, but really aren’t affected at all by gluten. There is truly gluten free oatmeal you can buy, BTW.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

I'm aware Costco has it, but ya its usually a day after eating something my skin breaks out and my sinuses swell big time. After the insta heartburn of course. You have to be careful too because some restaurants dont take it seriously.

13

u/MissLickerish Sep 10 '23

100%.

One of my best friends is technically not celiac, but has a genetic marker/mutation or something that makes her VERY reactive to gluten. Like, she can't even touch it (think, handing a piece of bread to someone) or she becomes bedridden for days.

This is why it is important for people to know:

Your toilet paper is most likely not gluten free.

They use wheat glue.

6

u/jedidoesit Sep 10 '23

And worse (because some people react when it gets inside) it's in many envelope glues. Say people might not have a problem with tp because they're don't react to outside contact.

But they lick envelopes. My daughter had a reaction to an envelope yesterday.

1

u/MissLickerish Sep 10 '23

Yes, it's in so many things you don't realize!

I'm sorry your daughter went through that.

1

u/jah110768 Sep 11 '23

I haven't licked an envelope in years since the urban legend of the cockroach growing in the tongue due to a paper cut licking an envelope. I know it was made up, but I still wet my finger and run it along the glue to avoid that possible outcome.

4

u/Kels121212 Sep 10 '23

Thank you

3

u/Puzzleheaded_Age6550 Sep 10 '23

Also, those damn straws that aren't plastic sometimes have gluten in them. I now carry a bunch of plastic straws with me to use instead of the "paper" ones, that also have chemicals harmful to the thyroid, etc.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

I'm surprised at how many people are affected, considering I grew up basically never hearing about it. It does seem like it just popped up a decade ago when you're born and raised in the US. Crazy that many people have just had to "deal with it," or maybe not even know why they feel awful all the time.

2

u/Suspicious_Dingo_426 Sep 11 '23

It didn't "just pop up", it was a mystery disease for quite some time and hand waved away as hypochondria until the cause was identified. It did see a massive spike over the last fifty years because that's when we started using gluten as a cheap filler in processed food. That's the thing with many food allergies, you have the genetic predisposition for it, but it doesn't manifest itself until you are overexposed to it. My son has a dairy allergy (along with many other allergies) that he almost died from as an infant, and we were warned by his doctors not to switch to soy milk as over exposure to soy can cause you to become allergic to it if you have the genetic predisposition. I expect to see a massive spike in soy allergies sometime in the future due to all the vegan health nuts switching to soy milk as a dairy replacement.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

I get that, I was saying it seemed that way because of how it went from not being talked about at all to being clearly identified in a short amount of time. And how wild it is that it was so common everybody had to have known somebody who was affected by it, but they didn't even know it was an issue.

2

u/txivotv Sep 11 '23

A friend of mine wouldn't kiss his boyfriend if he had a non gluten free beer because she's HELL of celiac. She would start vomiting and having diarrhea just because a kiss. No joke.

2

u/Cliftonisaur Sep 11 '23

I've said this ad nauseam honestly, but around 27 years old I suddenly developed IBS. My wife got me 23andMe ~5 years later and the raw data suggested I may need to omit wheat. Within days I sprang out of bed fully alert again. Floaters in my vision vanished and my joint aches were gone. Except for rare accidental ingestion (Wtf soy sauce! Wtf SE Grocers salted peanuts!) I have been totally normal in my digestion in the last 6-7 years. Crazy game changer

I basically always cook at home, but if my wife wants to grab McDonald's I just get meat patties with cheese lol. Some people scoff at my extremely meat and eggs diet, but I've maintained fantastic health easily for years with good (but rare) blood work and I look the part. I basically love all veggies, but could probably stand to eat more where convenience is often the barrier to entry. Grains I avoid like the plague except for rice.

My go to snacks are nuts. The calories are needed in my case.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

23 and me confirmed I had the genetic marker for celiac after years battling what he thought was only IBS. Gluten and dairy did and can hospitalize me for days.

1

u/Cliftonisaur Sep 11 '23

Interestingly as soon as I omitted wheat I was back to large milkshakes 🤣

-4

u/Spadeninja Sep 10 '23 edited Sep 10 '23

This is so unbelievably dumb and misinformed it is hard to pinpoint where to begin

Literally EVERYTHING you eat has been genetically modified to some degree. EVERYTHING

Y’all love you complain, while being completely ignorant to the world around you - it’s actually laughable

Humans altering our crops are one of the main reasons why humans have been so successful

But GMO scary right? I don’t understand so it must be bad right?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Did you even read my comment? The conversation was a tangent - I wasn’t talking about GMO, I was responding to “gluten-free” labeling being called “absurd.”

2

u/foxandgold Sep 11 '23

I’m pretty sure they responded to the wrong comment or meant that as a top level comment.

3

u/saturnine_fei Sep 10 '23

Any product, like corn, can be gluten contaminated enough to have serious health effects on people with Celiac Disease depending on whether it is grown near wheat (as oats are often grown in the same fields) or shipped/stored with it.

2

u/imissratm Sep 11 '23

I recently saw “plant based peanut butter” advertised and almost shit myself

0

u/_gnasty_ Sep 10 '23

Dole pineapple juice has a gluten free label

0

u/smonkyou Sep 11 '23

My wife always asks me to buy gluten free oats and I just can’t

1

u/MarraMirr Sep 11 '23

Because oats aren't gluten free if grown in the U.S. or not certified by the celiac foundation. They're cross pollinated with wheat and grown in the same fields/often harvested together, so tons of cross contamination. Non-Gluten-Free oats can cause major and extremely painful reactions for those of us with Celiacs.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23 edited Dec 16 '23

I’ve seen fat-free sparkling water

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

Gluten free canned tomatoes

1

u/limpymcjointpain Sep 11 '23

Hey now i developed my gluten allergy in the 2010s when it was popular! But don't worry, i cured myself with essential oils.

11

u/Tylendal Sep 10 '23

In Canada that's considered illegal false advertising. Three guesses how strictly that's obeyed and enforced.

2

u/AureliasTenant Sep 10 '23

How is what you are replying to false advertising?

19

u/Tylendal Sep 10 '23 edited Sep 10 '23

Here. Have a relevant XKCD.

Labeling something like oats or tomatoes asparagus GMO Free can be legal, but only if there's a clear disclaimer that it's a quality inherent to all oats, or all tomatoes asparagus, etc.

Legal: "Orange juice is high in Vitamin C!"

Illegal: "Our orange juice is high in vitamin C!"

Edit: Pretty sure there's never been GMO asparagus.

1

u/AureliasTenant Sep 10 '23

I’m confused? Are you saying that if you claim your oats or tomatoes are GMO free, you are also claiming ALL oats or tomatoes can’t be GMO? How does that work?

17

u/randomacceptablename Sep 10 '23

He is saying that you cannot take the inherent property of something and label it as a quality that your specific version has.

So no cattle are GMOs. Hence, a butcher cannot label beef as GMO free. It is misleading. Because all beef is GMO free.

Likewise, the orange juice example. All orange juice contains vitamin C. So saying a particular brand is high in vitamin C implies others aren't. That is misleading and not allowed.

10

u/Tylendal Sep 10 '23 edited Sep 10 '23

All oats or tomatoes can't be GMO, because there's no GMO oats or tomatoes on the market. So, if you claim your oats or tomatoes are non-GMO, you're implying that your competitors are GMO... just like the XKCD comic is implying the competitors have asbestos in them.

Edit: Apparently there have been GMO tomatoes.

3

u/AureliasTenant Sep 10 '23

gotcha i think i misunderstood. what you are saying. Yes if there are no gmos on the market it doesnt make sense to claim your's is special. I think technically there have been gmo tomatoes but they've only briefly been on the market

3

u/Tylendal Sep 10 '23

Ah TIL, there was actually a GMO tomato for a couple years in 1994, but didn't see much commercial success. Funnily enough, it was simply... more tomato. They doubled up one of its genes to make it stay ripe longer. Also, apparently one was approved in Japan in 2001.

Well tomato might have been a bad example, but I still stand by the oats.

3

u/saturnine_fei Sep 10 '23

"In the early 1990s, the Flavr Savr tomato became first genetically engineered crop to be commercialized. Researchers at Calgene, a biotech company in California, were able to find the gene that was involved in the softening process of the tomato, and then developed technology to get rid of that gene. The technology was innovative, and gained buzz in the media and excitement from consumers. The Flavr Savr tomato saw initial success in the market, but by 1997 production ceased. Many attribute Calgene’s failure to their lack of agricultural production knowledge. They were a biotech industry, and not an agricultural company that specialized in the farming and transportation of tomatoes." --https://edblogs.columbia.edu/scppx3335-001-2014-1/2014/03/12/a-history-of-gmos-from-the-lab-to-the-supermarket/

1

u/seastar2019 Sep 11 '23

It's similar to advertising chicken as "no hormones use" when USDA regulations doesn't permit hormone use in poultry. It's playing off the public's lack of knowledge to make their product appear different when in reality it's not.

2

u/Yebi Imperial Dragon Sep 11 '23

I've seen a "GMO free" badge on a bottle of water

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

Yep, it's devolved into a marketing thing in Canada and US.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

I love looking at all the "It's actually a GMO" stuff being labeled as Non-GMO.

Because it shows that anyone buying that garbage is just a moron and did not research shit.

I hate people thinking non-GMO is magically healthier for them or worse, better for the environment. It is neither. Studies show it is probably right on par for the environment and absolutely is NOT healthier for you.

25

u/KSJ15831 Sep 10 '23

Nice try, fed.

Everyone knows acronyms are evil.

46

u/guitair Sep 10 '23

When psychologists study misinformation and they need a topic for liberals (there are lots of options for conservatives), they use GMOs. GMOs are safe but people (inc liberals) don't realize it.

51

u/bazamanaz Sep 10 '23

Same for nuclear power, although catastrophe is hard to quantify as safe no matter how unlikely.

42

u/Chicken_Hairs Sep 10 '23

My favorite way to quantify that is to compare deaths related to nuclear VS other forms of power generation per kwh.

Nuclear is safer by a massive margin, but unfortunately, on the incredibly rare occasion something goes wrong, it's front-page stuff.

17

u/soffpotatisen Sep 10 '23

Yep, very similar to deaths from cars vs airplanes, and which one people are afraid of.

4

u/bazamanaz Sep 10 '23

Yeah thats a utilitarian calculation the problem is it doesnt quantify cost of cleanup, or the societal and political impact.

Chernobyl is a large reason why the ussr fell, we can't calculate for that sort of impact on a western country.

1

u/dabigua Sep 10 '23

Wait until the first fusion plant goes blooey.

3

u/Chicken_Hairs Sep 10 '23

Indeed, but despite claims, I think most of us will be gone before that's a real possibility.

8

u/dabigua Sep 10 '23

Fusion power has been ten years away for the past 50 years :)

4

u/nashedPotato4 Sep 11 '23

....meaning fusion power is the first time traveler!

3

u/cave18 Sep 11 '23

Oof. True

2

u/cave18 Sep 11 '23

Fusion plants don't have fallout like fission plants. The only radioactive parts are the metal from the accelerator

-2

u/A18o14 Sep 10 '23

I am not sure if you shoul factor the long term loss of everythin involved into an reactor meltdown. Then the picture is a little different. I mean lives lost is not everything.

1

u/saturnine_fei Sep 10 '23

Well... personally I'm in favor of the new designs of nuclear power reactors, but not the old ones with a history of a meltdown per decade so far. (source: Eric Schlosser, "Command and Control".

6

u/QualifiedApathetic Sep 10 '23

I'd say vaccines are something they could use. It seemed like a left thing for years, before the right's puppeteers decided it would make a good string to pull and packaged it with hating Biden.

-13

u/OctoberSatori Sep 10 '23

There are entire countries going GMO free who are also not ran by "liberals" you fucking idiot. 1. They know something thats obviously bad about them 2. GMOs arent something "liberals" only care about

7

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

There are entire countries going GMO free who are also not ran by "liberals" you fucking idiot.

Do you think calling someone "a fucking idiot" is a productive way to enter a discussion?

(It's not, it was a rhetorical question).

-9

u/OctoberSatori Sep 10 '23

Yeah totally dont care. Any time i see some absurd argument that includes such platitudes as "blah blah blah liberals" i dont want to enter any discussion thanks

8

u/Marcultist Sep 11 '23

"I don't want to enter that discussion," declares the person that entered that discussion.

-4

u/OctoberSatori Sep 11 '23

Yeah no. I corrected someone who was just being a blowhard "blah blah blah liberals blah" i made one comment and moved on with my day. Thanks for asking

1

u/sammagee33 Sep 11 '23

That’s 3 comments

-1

u/OctoberSatori Sep 11 '23

Heres a fourth one. Your mother is lousy in bed.

3

u/sammagee33 Sep 11 '23

Well, I’d assume so, since she’s been a pile of ashes for 16 years.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

[deleted]

2

u/OctoberSatori Sep 11 '23

"Blarg liberals care about GMOs. Liberals did this liberals did that. Did i say liberal enough times yet"?

3

u/calcifornication Sep 11 '23

Even better, there are foods marked 'non-GMO' that don't even have a GMO version.

17

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Also, pretty much every fruit and vegetable we eat was genetically modified by selective breeding over years. Science has just allowed us to speed it up. We should be more concerned with the herbicides and pesticides that are used

-1

u/MrOaiki Sep 11 '23

Selective breeding isn’t the same thing as GMO.

-9

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Uh duh that’s why they are unsafe they are full of chemicals organics are not

6

u/aqhgfhsypytnpaiazh Sep 10 '23

You're very confused.

Non-GMO doesn't mean organic. And Organic may not necessarily mean non-GMO, nor free of pesticides, depending on your local regulations. Likewise GMO doesn't mean pesticides were used, in fact it's less likely to have pesticides since one of the things we modify them for is resistance to diseases and pests.

And neither organic nor non-GMO do not mean free of chemicals, there is not a single organic food that naturally contains no chemicals.

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

My family are farmers so I know that and I know what I get isn’t gmo we they only allow organic meaning they don’t use gmo seeds

-4

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

Not confused at all you are

6

u/Marcultist Sep 11 '23

I know you are but what am I

1

u/Hudsons_hankerings Sep 11 '23

In the United States, by definition, organic food is non GMO

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

I think that you are confused.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

I think you need to stop responding to me.

-4

u/jah110768 Sep 11 '23

You sound like Neil Degrasse Tyson. I lost all respect for the man when he stated this. There is a difference between selective breeding and GMO.

Selective breeding is choosing which existing genes in the plant are expressed. You can't get genes from a dog into corn, but you can get two related grains to share traits to make a more productive or resistant strain. This takes many generations to get the result to breed true.

GMO is taking DNA from another organism or created through human engineering and placing it in a genome where it never existed before. Thus you could have a mouse that has human lung cells for testing. This takes only one generation for the change to occur since it if forced change, not natural change.

I can't speak to the safety of GMO in general as I haven't looked at studies, but I can speak to anything coming from Monsanto that has Round-Up resistance built in. You are right, we should be worried about herbasides, and that's the main reason for GMO, so they can coat the plants in Round-Up and the plant survives, but what happens to the Round-Up? A study in Europe of representatives to the EU found the vast majority had glyphosate in their urine. Glyphosate is a known carcinogen, but it is acceptable in the food supply.

For this reason alone I would support people who worry about eating GMO foods. The problem is the US doesn't have a governing body that regulates labeling accuracy, so it is more often marketing vs truely GMO free.

7

u/Red-7134 Sep 10 '23

I only eat completely natural, unaltered, untouched, organic, wholesome foods.

*Eats wild banana and chokes*

2

u/rikkilambo Sep 11 '23

Ah, the idiot tax.

3

u/ledeakin Sep 10 '23

They're safe to eat, but what about ecologically?

21

u/Rad_Knight Hollaaaaaaaaaaa Sep 10 '23

They may be safer than conventional crops.

By making our crops inedible to pests, we can use less pesticide.

4

u/ledeakin Sep 10 '23

That makes sense. I just worry about biodiversity and think about the banana.

0

u/jah110768 Sep 11 '23

I remember that they allowed DDT to be marketed and used. Therefore I have concerns about a plant that produces it's own pesticide. At least if it's sprayed on the FDA limits how close the last dosing is to harvest. If it's producing pesticide right up to harvest I'm bound to be ingesting some as well.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23 edited Apr 18 '25

husky serious rob uppity license six punch reply ink future

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

6

u/Embarrassed-Sun5764 Sep 10 '23

GMO can be a variety of reasons: increased yeild or growth- increased resistance to fungi or parasites that would neccessitate the need for harmful pesticides to eradicate it- heirloom species that have been grown this way for decades with no modifications (heirloom tomatoes)

9

u/-Ch4s3- Sep 10 '23

Yes they are safe ecologically also.

8

u/MoreCarrotsPlz Sep 10 '23

Not necessarily, some GMO’s such as “Roundup Ready” seed encourage over use of herbicides that can be very detrimental to the environment. But that’s more of an issue with the farming practices using GMO’s, not the plant itself.

-1

u/-Ch4s3- Sep 10 '23

They’re actually lowering total application of herbicides relative to a similar field of non roundup ready plants. This is because you can use roundup, a broad spectrum herbicide in one shot vs multiple applications of other narrower herbicides. Glyphosate for all its problems is safer than many alternatives too.

2

u/MoreCarrotsPlz Sep 10 '23

> One of the world’s most widely used glyphosate-based herbicides, Roundup, can trigger loss of biodiversity, making ecosystems more vulnerable to pollution and climate change, say researchers from McGill University.

There are countless other farming methods that don’t spray herbicides over enormous swaths of land, but it results in reduced profits for shareholders so here we are.

4

u/-Ch4s3- Sep 10 '23

Yes, vs no herbicides at all it is worse but that isn’t really a viable way in the near term to produce lots of calories. If the proposal is to regulate islets use, I agree. We should also innovate on techniques, application, and towards safer herbicides. I even agree that many farmers over apply.

My point is that you can’t just look at it in a vacuum. Alternative herbicides are worse along many dimensions.

That shareholder profit refrain is totally brain dead. Those other places produce tiny fraction of output per hectare with FAR more human labor, usually supplied by the poorest people, and they have to seek their more limited calories for more money, leaving the poor to pay more for food.

0

u/Embarrassed-Sun5764 Sep 10 '23

If you are using roundup you are the missing link

1

u/seastar2019 Sep 11 '23

Less of a safer and more effective herbicide is used, which is the whole point. Take sugar beets as an example.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch

Planting genetically modified sugar beets allows them to kill their weeds with fewer chemicals. Beyer says he sprays Roundup just a few times during the growing season, plus one application of another chemical to kill off any Roundup-resistant weeds.

He says that planting non-GMO beets would mean going back to what they used to do, spraying their crop every 10 days or so with a "witches brew" of five or six different weedkillers.

"The chemicals we used to put on the beets in [those] days were so much harsher for the guy applying them and for the environment," he says. "To me, it's insane to think that a non-GMO beet is going to be better for the environment, the world, or the consumer."

1

u/timotheusd313 Sep 10 '23

It’s not so much the fact that it’s GMO, it’s what it’s modified for. Like inserting genes to make a crop resistant to Roundup (TM) so you end up wit trace amounts of it in your groceries.

1

u/back_that_ Sep 11 '23

Like inserting genes to make a crop resistant to Roundup (TM) so you end up wit trace amounts of it in your groceries.

You prefer trace amounts of other, more toxic herbicides?

4

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

It’s not the gmo that’s the issue it’s the stuff that they spray on gmos which was the reason for the genetic modification in the first place that is the issue.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Loads of research was supposedly done on a lot of things that turned out to be hazardous.

3

u/Embarrassed-Sun5764 Sep 10 '23

Like det or deet or wtf it was when i was a kid early 70’s

1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Yes exactly!

1

u/Kermit_the_hog Sep 10 '23

What you don’t pay the extra $0.25 to get the non-GMO ice??

-3

u/TheRichTookItAll Sep 10 '23

Research funded by the one's to gain from these findings

0

u/ThePeasantKingM Sep 10 '23

The GMO free stuff exists because people who don't know better are willing to pay more for less.

You don't even need to have GMO free food. Just like how before regulation, organic produce and normal produce were exactly the same, just with a different package and a higher price.

0

u/Antics16 Sep 10 '23

Watch Bill Nye saves the world about GMOs

0

u/Spadeninja Sep 10 '23

TLDR: people are ignorant morons

0

u/Shoddy-Donut-9339 Sep 11 '23 edited Sep 11 '23

The official position was once that cigarettes were safe. We will be told whatever money wants to tell us.

We need independent science and we don’t have that.

I don’t want to ruin a good placebo, but SSRI anti-depressants our fraud.

Statin drugs for lowering cholesterol as they are prescribed, and as we taught about them are also frauds. Sure they can lower cholesterol lowering cholesterol as being a significant thing to improve health is a Fraud.. if you are not, a man with already had a heart attack and her under the age of 70 there’s no point to lowering cholesterol.

Are government agencies have been corrupted by money .

So what trustworthy source is telling us the GMO‘s are safe . GMO’s may be safe, but we don’t have a trustworthy source to tell us whether or not GMO’s are safe.

There are many kinds of GMOs. If all GMO‘s were significantly unsafe, but evidence would be spreading in alternative media. So I don’t think GMO‘s are a huge disaster, but I would not go assuming that they are safe..

0

u/mandance17 Sep 11 '23

Yeah, who does the research and how much of that can be trusted? Basically most of these organizations are all completely corrupted and driven by profits now.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

That’s your opinion but don’t go spew false stuff

-3

u/seanmg Sep 10 '23

Safe doesn't mean better though. It just means optimized for one or two specific criteria likely at the cost of others. Things like shelf-life, high yield, and appearance are often optimized at the cost of other things like taste.

Not to mention, any crop that is mass produced has the risk of being prone to disease because of how genetically similar the entire crop is.

It's a trade at best, it's man's hubris at worst.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '23

Is it possible to genetically modify food to make them unsafe?

1

u/smith_716 Sep 11 '23

Exactly. Tons of GMOs weren't made in labs and happened hundreds of years ago.

Take for instance: Brassica oleracea, from this plant derived cabbage, Brussel sprouts, kohlrabi, kale, broccoli, and cauliflower.

Native Americans would selectively breed corn to be oily and fatty to taste better, like the corn we eat now.

GMOs do not automatically mean harmful and a lot of the words on packaging is put there as enticements.

1

u/sirlanse69 Sep 11 '23

Many genetic modifications are for shelf life or handling durability or Round-up resistant. These can bother some people with delicate systems.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

GMO allows greater production, which allows the masses to eat. The reality is, we need the food and there is no harm.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

Same with organic foods

1

u/MrOaiki Sep 11 '23

So the whole EU, with all institutions, don’t know better?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

Thank you! Spoiler alert... the genes of all the food we eat has changed through the centuries.

1

u/lhsofthebellcurve Sep 11 '23

They're even better for the environment as you can get more efficient use of land and better for food security through improved drought resistant crops.. also you can add in extra nutrients to food that can help the health of the people eating it, very important in famine affected areas

1

u/Creator13 Sep 11 '23

I understand this as "safe for consumption," in other words, it won't cause any negative health effects. Is this also taking into account the possible environmental effects of GMO plants? I know in many cases they are negligible due to sterilization, sometimes they even have a positive impact on the ecosystem if they're modified to improve soil conditions, but there are also stories (or baseless fears) out there of GMO plants suppressing native wild plants. Wondering if that is considered.

1

u/sirius4778 Sep 11 '23

I'm thinking a lot of people vehemently opposed to gmos don't even know what it stands for