118 replies to this topic

[Mikes]

I agree with this, its way more easier to put a bottle in an infant's mouth or place the plate in front of them and let them have finger food than it is to have a child lay still for a shot. Not to mention the pain the child would go through. Even if you gave a sleeping infant a shot, the child wouldn't be asleep for long and would soon wake up screaming. (my daughter is getting her teeth in, and doesn't like people prodding her mouth, so when we're not using a bottle, it's best to just let her use her hands (for now))

I don't see where the organic comes in at but maybe I missed something. Also would someone (besides junsu as he only asked where I got that) please let me know if I got the discussion correct in my previous post.

As for the myst comment.. I'm not sure I don't think so tbh but we might and I probably just hadn't heard of it -,-

Interesting argument regarding vaccinations; wouldn't that lead to new strains being developed faster since everyone has the vaccine?

Before I start my opinion, my interest in this topic stems from my interest in health. Since college I have been looking for the "perfect" diet, with foods that I love to eat and can do everyday..... blah blah blah..... anywho, I have read many books on diet and nutrition and I recently got a book from the library called, "debating GM foods". It was a compilation of arguments from both sides and I got through a few. It was SOOO interesting. I have also taken Sociology (off-topic) but I think it helps here since everything depends on the situation. Debating GM foods is a hefty topic and without much research, I don't feel super comfortable putting my foot down, but from what I have learned so far here is my opinion:

Pros:

Could help impoverished people obtain vitamins necessary to avoid silly diseases (like scurvy)
Could help the general population obtain vitamins necessary! Look at the obesity in America; hardly anyone is eating fruits and veggies anymore with the advent of all the processed foods; I was one of them. It's hard to give up delicious food that is supposedly "healthy" for some carrot Lol.
Overall: just an easier way for people to obtain nutrients deemed "important" in food

Cons:

According to one argument I read, there was this thing called "golden rice" that was developed to help deliver vitamin C to impoverished people in Asian countries (since rice is a staple in their diet and is cheap as well) Some problems with it though is that:

~ one would have to eat 1-2 pounds of rice (not sure the number, but it was ridiculously huge) to get the effect of eating one orange
~ The GM food industry would have COMPLETE control over the food supply; I am all for science, but it goes too far a lot of the time

"Real" food will probably always be better for you.

~ As mother nature intended haha. The whole organic thing is interesting; even people who CAN afford to go organic, don't since it is more costly. I do believe there are many health benefits though. As a poor student, I cannot afford it yet, but it is something I am willing to invest time into.

This is a pretty interesting topic. Any other opinions? I love hearing new ones

[Junsu]

Anyone with half a brain would obviously have understood my aforementioned statement, but you chose to take the immature road and pretend like you had no idea what I was referring to. Obviously, you need to look up some words in the dictionary. Civil can be used as an adjective, and I used it as such. Civil =/= civilians, just because they come from the same root does not mean they mean the same thing.

Cliffs:
1) Please grow up.
2) Learn to get to know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

I love it how the person who has to grow up has not lost his cool.

As for the myst comment.. I'm not sure I don't think so tbh but we might and I probably just hadn't heard of it -,-

Basically... instead of a shot, the doctor has a stick that sprays a "myst" into your nose, then you sniff it in.

[DragonX]

I think that there are definate benefits to GM foods that make such an endevour worth pursuing. However, I think that more rigorous testing (paritcularily long term tests) need to be done before we let it inflitrate our food to the degree we have already.

[Redemptionist]

Girl hormones in guys=homosexuallity

[Sweeney]

Girl hormones in guys=homosexuallity

Um, no.

[Wangalang]

Have you seen the shit called golden rice? That shit looks so good, I just want to eat it all up.

[devil669988]

genetically modified food is still in its infancy so it not be entirely safe now but give it 5 years and we can see the great benefits since by then it would be possible for there to be delicious food with all the benefits of vegetables but without the taste or texture.

[fxckyouguys]

genetically modified food is still in its infancy so it not be entirely safe now but give it 5 years and we can see the great benefits since by then it would be possible for there to be delicious food with all the benefits of vegetables but without the taste or texture.

but i love my veggies

[devil669988]

remember in genetically modified food it could look like a veggy it might have the same texture as a veggy but it won't taste like a veggy if you like the taste then of course there is reason to believe that it is theoretically possible to make food that taste like veggie but isn't veggie scratch that doesn't some medicine taste like vegetables already

[kittycat]

LMAO... Oh Neocodex, what have I been missing?

[emerkeng]

eating genetically modified food is bad . . . eat all natural food from all natural sources (free range meat, wild fish, organic fruits and vegetables, no processed grains) and you'll be healthy without having to resort to genetically modified food if you eat healthy you can get all your nutrients from natural foods *shudders at thought of Genetically Modified Food . . .

[Sweeney]

eating genetically modified food is bad

What, nothing to back this up?

[emerkeng]

What, nothing to back this up?

look up the rest of my post to see my reasoning . . . its better to eat natural foods than foods that have had chemicals used on them . . .

[Sweeney]

look up the rest of my post to see my reasoning . . . its better to eat natural foods than foods that have had chemicals used on them . . .

That's not reasoning, that's an assertion. You just said it, with no evidence.

[emerkeng]

http://www.safe-food...ue/dangers.html
http://www.seedsofde.../Public/AboutGe
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/neticallyModifiedFoods/index.cfm


Also look at the paleo diet for example humans do not evolve in less than 100 years to digest anything they want. Grains that are not allowed on the paleo diet have been known to affect a lot of people with digestive problems we do not even know the long term effects of GMO's they could be potentially dangerous due to the chemicals/pesticides used on them the growth hormones used on them etc.

[Sweeney]

The first page is between ten and twenty years out of date. The other links are broken.

Anyway, nothing you've linked to that I can read indicates that genetically engineered foods have less nutritional content.
Except for "Transgenic foods may mislead consumers with counterfeit freshness. A luscious-looking, bright red genetically engineered tomato could be several weeks old and of little nutritional worth.", which is a tenuous point at best. That's a consumer awareness issue, not a fault with the technology.

[emerkeng]

The first page is between ten and twenty years out of date. The other links are broken.

Anyway, nothing you've linked to that I can read indicates that genetically engineered foods have less nutritional content.
Except for "Transgenic foods may mislead consumers with counterfeit freshness. A luscious-looking, bright red genetically engineered tomato could be several weeks old and of little nutritional worth.", which is a tenuous point at best. That's a consumer awareness issue, not a fault with the technology.

Just because it may have or it may not have less nutritional content is besides the point it is still unhealthy for you due to the chemicals and hormones used in the process and even though that first page was 10-20 years old and I don't know how the other links are broken -_- . . . the point of there having been not enough extensive research on the long term effects of GMO's should be a red flag to just eat healthy organic meat and vegetables (why risk hazardous health effects?). GMO's are potentially dangerous at this time due to the fact that there has not been enough extensive research for all we know after 30 years of ingesting GMO's cancer cells may accumulate or other possible effects. However, if you eat only natural foods you are eating food the way God intended it to be.

[Sweeney]

Just because it may have or it may not have less nutritional content is besides the point it is still unhealthy for you

Well, no. Either it's less nutritious, and bad for you, or it isn't.

due to the chemicals and hormones used in the process

Of engineering?
Those chemicals will have no effect on the product outside of the genetic manipulation that they were used for. None of those chemicals will remain in a fruit from GE stock.

and even though that first page was 10-20 years old

The entire field was in its infancy less than 50 years ago. Ten years is a lifetime from the point of view of cutting edge research. The difference in GE now, to last year even, is vast

and I don't know how the other links are broken -_- . . .the point of there having been not enough extensive research on the long term effects of GMO's should be a red flag to just eat healthy organic meat and vegetables (why risk hazardous health effects?). GMO's are potentially dangerous at this time due to the fact that there has not been enough extensive research for all we know after 30 years of ingesting GMO's cancer cells may accumulate or other possible effects.

How would you determine "enough" research? There has been a lot.
I don't disagree that care needs to be taken, but there's a limit to how much progress can be delayed. The fact is that GE isn't some mysterious arcane magic, it's a science that involves careful manipulation of existing genetic material. At this point in time, the level of manipulation that would be carried out on foodstuffs is relatively predictable.

However, if you eat only natural foods you are eating food the way God intended it to be.

Utter bollocks. The process of farming has changed crops and livestock irreversably. A process, by the way, which is arguably a macroscopic form of genetic engineering.
And yes, even organic farming.

[Nonygirl]

However, if you eat only natural foods you are eating food the way God intended it to be.

This statement pretty much disqualifies any point you might have had.

[WhiteRabbit]

YAY! I like square watermelons

[bends1]

I see nothing wrong at all with genetically modified foods, as long as they are kept from pollenating other fields that are unrelated, and are regulated such that only single genes are implemented and the effects tested in animal models, prior to human consumption, the same way synthetic insulin was, as well as other drugs that are obtained though recombinatorial sythesis.

Edited by bends1, 18 July 2010 - 02:13 PM.

[Sweeney]

YAY! I like square watermelons

Who doesn't?

Of course, they're just normal watermelons, grown in a square box, no genetic tweaking required... but still.

[emerkeng]

Well, no. Either it's less nutritious, and bad for you, or it isn't.


Of engineering?
Those chemicals will have no effect on the product outside of the genetic manipulation that they were used for. None of those chemicals will remain in a fruit from GE stock.


The entire field was in its infancy less than 50 years ago. Ten years is a lifetime from the point of view of cutting edge research. The difference in GE now, to last year even, is vast


How would you determine "enough" research? There has been a lot.
I don't disagree that care needs to be taken, but there's a limit to how much progress can be delayed. The fact is that GE isn't some mysterious arcane magic, it's a science that involves careful manipulation of existing genetic material. At this point in time, the level of manipulation that would be carried out on foodstuffs is relatively predictable.


Utter bollocks. The process of farming has changed crops and livestock irreversably. A process, by the way, which is arguably a macroscopic form of genetic engineering.
And yes, even organic farming.

http://www.examiner....-Modified-Foods
This article will disprove a lot of your false beliefs. Food that has the same nutrition content as another food can still be bad for you look for example at grain and fish (from the wild not farmed farmed fish are fed foods that are not part of their diet naturally making them less healthy which passes on to us in several ways) and vitamin B while grains and fish both have vitamin B some people have digestive issues with grain but no one has digestive issues with fish. In this case is not grain bad for you even though it may have the same nutritional content of vitamin b?

You say the chemicals will not have an adverse effect on us yet there is no proof that it hasn't effected us trace chemicals may still remain also.

Enough research imo would be a whole generation of people only eating GMO's for at least 50 years to see if any negative health effects accumulate.

It may have been a macroscopic form of genetic engineering but there's a huge difference for one people in those days did not put any chemicals in the crops and vegetables they ate unlike our current scenario. Also, a lot of people have issues with grains and get violently ill from grains which shows that it does have negative health effects on people.

[emerkeng]

. . .

This statement pretty much disqualifies any point you might have had.

How does it disqualify any point i may have had?

Who doesn't?

Of course, they're just normal watermelons, grown in a square box, no genetic tweaking required... but still.

Haha at least we can both agree we like square watermelons (=

Edited by pathentic, 18 July 2010 - 02:20 PM.

[Sweeney]

http://www.examiner.com/x-35475-NY-Holistic-Health-Examiner~y2010m6d28-The-Hidden-Dangers-of-Genetically-Modified-Foods
This article will disprove a lot of your false beliefs. Food that has the same nutrition content as another food can still be bad for you look for example at grain and fish (from the wild not farmed farmed fish are fed foods that are not part of their diet naturally making them less healthy which passes on to us in several ways) and vitamin B while grains and fish both have vitamin B some people have digestive issues with grain but no one has digestive issues with fish. In this case is not grain bad for you even though it may have the same nutritional content of vitamin b?

You say the chemicals will not have an adverse effect on us yet there is no proof that it hasn't effected us trace chemicals may still remain also.

Enough research imo would be a whole generation of people only eating GMO's for at least 50 years to see if any negative health effects accumulate.

It may have been a macroscopic form of genetic engineering but there's a huge difference for one people in those days did not put any chemicals in the crops and vegetables they ate unlike our current scenario. Also, a lot of people have issues with grains and get violently ill from grains which shows that it does have negative health effects on people.

"Jamel Cherry, is a certified Holistic Health Consultant, herbalist, spiritual life coach and third-degree reiki master."
The author of that article is a liar and a con man.

Your entire argument is a mess. You say eating natural is better, but you won't accept that everything we eat is farmed in such a way that it hasn't been "natural", or "as god made it", for centuries.

I have no idea what you're going on about with respect to fish and grain. Fish and grain don't have the same nutritional content, even though they both contain vitamin B. And for the record, thousands of people are allergic to fish.

Chemicals that are applied to an ovum cannot persist in amounts that can be harmful, if at all. That's not propagaganda, that's simply a fact.

And I wasn't saying there was no difference between modern farming, and historical farming. That would be mind-numbingly stupid. What I was saying was that your "as god made it" argument was undeniable irrelevant.