GMO foods..bother you?

[Janeway]

I had a problem with one of my cans of soup today and so I had to call Campbells. When reading the label to them, I realized it was labeled that it has GMOs in it. I am upset. When I got done with the call, I went and asked my husband. He thinks it is no big deal. He says if it bothers me, do my own research and find out how to avoid the GMOs and such, and if they are actually bad for us.

 

So I came here, because I knew 30 minutes on this board is worth more than 10 hrs on the world wide web. So please tell me what you all think and what, if anything, you do with regards to this.

[SparklyUnicorn]

No not really.  Short answer is I don't want to go through life worried about every detail of every minute thing.  In most places they aren't even required to disclose that information.

 

And I'm skeptical that such a thing TRULY exists in the US. 

[Guest]

People have huge misunderstandings about GMOs. Oftentimes, it isn't the seed itself that is the issue, if we say, take corn for example. It simply means that the seed has been modified in some way, most likely to be resistant to certain herbicides. So the corn seed itself, isn't the problem. Its the herbicide that is sprayed all over the corn that is the problem. So first you need to sort out what exactly your particular issues are, before you can decide how you think about them. 

 

ETA: is it the modification process that bothers you, or the chemicals that the GMOs allow themselves to be sprayed in? Are you trying to completely avoid pesticides and herbicides? It's just an entire can of worms. I mean insulin for diabetics is technically a GMO, so it's hard to say ALL GMO's are bad. It would be easier to provide more info if you had a more specific question. They are neither bad or good. It's not black or white. It's a process if that makes sense. 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by texasmom33

[Janeway]

no..I put a response here that belonged elsewhere. Sorry.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Janeway

[fdrinca]

I am more concerned about the effect of GMO crops than I am about consuming the foods.

[City Mouse]

GMO foods have been around for many years, but they just weren't labeled as such. farmers have been growing hybrids for many, many years. If you wanted only foods that have not been modified in any way, you would have to from your own from heirloom stock. I don't know if that is even possible.

[mamiof5]

Another vote for no. I just can't live overly paranoid about EVERYTHING...or, that itself will make me sick.

 

I don't know a whole lot about GMOs, and I don't want to know. I want to believe we eat somewhat healthy. I AM SURE we could eat better, but I try to teach our kids moderation (in candy, treats, desserts, chips etc).

 

We just try to eat decent. But, can't worry about every single ingredient or I'll go batty

[SparklyUnicorn]

Humans modify a ton of things.  Not just this.  If I have any doubts about it it is more that I wonder if we ultimately know the ramifications of all of our manipulations, but that's the way it goes.  Progress isn't always 100% awesome. 

 

Like my house having lead paint and asbestos and me having to deal with it.  I wonder what materials I'm using now that I'll be told many years later are instantly hazardous to my health.  But what can I do?  Lose sleep over it?  I just don't want to. 

[fdrinca]

GMO foods have been around for many years, but they just weren't labeled as such. farmers have been growing hybrids for many, many years. If you wanted only foods that have not been modified in any way, you would have to from your own from heirloom stock. I don't know if that is even possible.

 

I heard this argument a while ago, and while true, it doesn't entirely keep with the spirit of why people are up in arms about GMOs. Corn as we know it today, varietal apples, those crazy cotton candy grapes we ate in the early summer...all are GMOs. The variety of tulips, roses, giant and miniature pumpkins (thinking of things in my garden now) are also all GMOs. 

 

But, the above are not suicidal seeds, and they don't carry licencing requirements the way that some **other** GMO crops do. Also, they're not engineered with fish proteins or other extra-genetic manipulations.

[Guest]

I heard this argument a while ago, and while true, it doesn't entirely keep with the spirit of why people are up in arms about GMOs. Corn as we know it today, varietal apples, those crazy cotton candy grapes we ate in the early summer...all are GMOs. The variety of tulips, roses, giant and miniature pumpkins (thinking of things in my garden now) are also all GMOs.

 

But, the above are not suicidal seeds, and they don't carry licencing requirements the way that some **other** GMO crops do. Also, they're not engineered with fish proteins or other extra-genetic manipulations.

A lot of those you listed are actually hybrids and not GMOs. The list of produce GMOs is actually pretty small compared to the total variety of produce types. But for certain crops they are mostly GMO, like corn and soy. Hybrids aren't modified; just crossbred.

[Anacharsis]

For me, the annoyance is that it's not easy to find more info -- "genetically modified" tells me that something has been done, but not what.

 

Sometimes the concern isn't health-related, but ethical. One rather controversial form of modification is adding copy protection to seeds (I think the formal term is "Genetic Use Restriction Technology"). Wherever use is allowed, it places an incredible burden on poor farmers, who can be forced into buying new seeds each growing season if access to regular seeds is restricted.

 

There was an interesting article on it last year in the Wilson Quarterly, mentioning its role in the changing economy of India after de-regulation:

 

In the early 1990s, while he was nearing the end of his law program, life on Manam’s family farm changed dramatically. As India’s economy teetered on the brink of collapse in the late 1980s, the government acquiesced to a host of structural reforms imposed by the World Bank in exchange for investment loans. Among those reforms was an agricultural policy that deregulated the Indian seed market and brought it under the jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Seeds that Indian farmers had used their whole lives became the intellectual property of American corporations like Monsanto and Cargill, who collected royalties on their acquisitions and forced seed prices to skyrocket.

Manam’s family had to stop growing their own seeds, which they had normally replanted every year, and were forced to buy more expensive seeds, ones that had been genetically modified so that they could not be replanted in future seasons. The family also had to switch from homemade fertilizer to a more expensive foreign brand. Nationwide, imported food products made cheap by heavy subsidies from western countries flooded the market, driving the price down on the crops that Manam’s family sold.

“My input costs shot up from 4,000 to 15,000 rupees [$62 to $235],†remembers Manam’s brother Veeranjaneyu, who still works as a farmer. “The yield increased a little, but not nearly enough to cover the increase in input costs. And my crops sold for less money than before. I was forced to take out six lakhs [$9,412] in loans from private moneylenders. The loan has been a horrible burden on my life.â€

Edited July 18, 2016 by Anacharsis

[Lady Florida.]

GMOs are safe. I am not bothered by them. In fact, I will purposely not buy something that says it's non-GMO because it's a sham. Or scam. Or at the very least misinformed.

[TravelingChris]

I am not bothered by them/

[LucyStoner]

In terms of consuming them, I am not worried. I have ethical issues with patented seeds and with some farming methods but the credible science I'm familiar with points to GMOs being safe for human consumption.

 

All requiring labeling would do would be to line the pockets of those preying on the fears about the safety of GMOs and hurt farmers who are growing commodity crops who can't label their products GMO free. Or perhaps people would see how prevalent t they are and stop worrying when they realize how many of them have been in their diets all along.

[TranquilMind]

I avoid them where possible, but with Monsanto in bed with the government, it is kind of hard to do.  All I can do is the best I can do.

Food should not be tampered with, in my view. GMO's (or genetically engineered) foods are loaded with glyphosate. We spend a lot of money on organic food here, but little on doctors.  Works for me.  I'd much rather spend it on healthy foods. 

 

We've been told all kinds of lies, so no, it isn't particularly comforting when we are assured something is safe.

 

Cigarettes were not only safe, but healthy, if you ask some medical professional in the 30's or before.

 

Eggs are safe and healthy, but we've been told for generations that they caused high cholesterol and to avoid them. 

 

Saturated fat is the devil and causes heart disease.  Oh wait, no it isn't and it doesn't. 

 

Low fat foods are "good for you."  Aspartame and fake sugars are "safe." 

 

The food pyramid.  Load up on carbs. Wrong.

 

Interesting article about alcohol consumption.  It's safe.  No, it isn't.

 

 

" In 1979, the government advised men to drink no more than 56 units of alcohol a week. This was later reduced to 36 units, then 28 units and then 21 units. Last month, the Chief Medical Officer reduced it once again, this time to 14 units. Upon announcing this, she also asserted that there is no safe level of drinking and that the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption were ‘an old wives tale’."

 

 

So yeah, I'm going to use my own judgment and God's leading on this one and just pray for the best.  It's all I can do. 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by TranquilMind

[fdrinca]

A lot of those you listed are actually hybrids and not GMOs. The list of produce GMOs is actually pretty small compared to the total variety of produce types. But for certain crops they are mostly GMO, like corn and soy. Hybrids aren't modified; just crossbred.

 

This would beg the question how you define "genetically modified."

 

The post I replied to suggested that hybrids are genetically modified. That is, we have modified the genome of the plant in question for desired qualities.

 

I understand that position, but argue as well that it becomes a straw man when considering the true concern: specific manipulation of genomes by inserting foreign genetic materials. 

 

For the record, I do not consider hybrids or varietals GMO by this definition.

Edited July 18, 2016 by fdrinca

[Liz CA]

I avoid it. I don't know it I'd have a reaction - likely not because there had to be at least a few times when I unwittingly digested GMO food. If I ate it indiscriminately, perhaps there would be long-term consequences - who knows? I simply try to stay away from anything like alterations, herbicide, pesticide. I have been very ill twice in my life and while I cannot trace any illness to diet, I sure have been feeling great since I changed to more organically grown food and local food.

FDA is not a good judge of what is harmful or not. The examples by Tranquil Mind illustrate this. Yes, you'll have to do your own research and decide if it warrants a change for your family.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Liz CA

[Guest]

This would beg the question how you define "genetically modified."

 

The post I replied to suggested that hybrids are genetically modified. That is, we have modified the genome of the plant in question for desired qualities.

 

I understand that position, but argue as well that it becomes a straw man when considering the true argument - that is, specific manipulation genomes by inserting foreign genetic materials. 

 

For the record, I do not consider hybrids or varietals GMO by this definition.

 

I'm a little confused by what you're saying? All a hybrid is is breeding and is the same thing farmers have done for millennia. There is no way a genetically modified organism- where you are manipulating genes in a lab, can be confused with a hybrid. They're not even on the same planet as far as similarities. Some people get upset about hybridization, but it's not a GMO, in any way shape or form. It's just breeding, and breeding and breeding. If breeding hybrids is the definition of a genetically modified organism than mules are GMOs too. 

[Alte Veste Academy]

Hybrid and GMO are not even in the same ballpark as far as I am concerned.

 

http://www.pbs.org/pov/hybrid/genetically-modified-foods/

 

http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/

 

GMO products do concern me, for my consumption and for nature. And I also get tired of people thinking of those who buy organic/non-GMO etc. only do so for their own health. I am as concerned about plant health/diversity and the future of the natural world as I am about my family's nutritional health. And having to buy seed yearly instead of being able to save seed from the year's crop is not good for the poor in any country.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Alte Veste Academy

[fdrinca]

I'm a little confused by what you're saying? All a hybrid is is breeding and is the same thing farmers have done for millennia. There is no way a genetically modified organism- where you are manipulating genes in a lab, can be confused with a hybrid. They're not even on the same planet as far as similarities. Some people get upset about hybridization, but it's not a GMO, in any way shape or form. It's just breeding, and breeding and breeding. If breeding hybrids is the definition of a genetically modified organism than mules are GMOs too. 

 

 

This would beg the question how you define "genetically modified."

 

The post I replied to suggested that hybrids are genetically modified. That is, we have modified the genome of the plant in question for desired qualities.

 

I understand that position, but argue as well that it becomes a straw man when considering the true concern: specific manipulation of genomes by inserting foreign genetic materials. 

 

For the record, I do not consider hybrids or varietals GMO by this definition.

 

A common straw-man argument of the pro-GMO camp is to say that, unless you are dealing with heirloom crops, all modern crops are GMO. 

 

I am not making this argument.

 

I am saying this argument is not compelling to the debate.

[SparklyUnicorn]

In terms of consuming them, I am not worried. I have ethical issues with patented seeds and with some farming methods but the credible science I'm familiar with points to GMOs being safe for human consumption.

 

All requiring labeling would do would be to line the pockets of those preying on the fears about the safety of GMOs and hurt farmers who are growing commodity crops who can't label their products GMO free. Or perhaps people would see how prevalent t they are and stop worrying when they realize how many of them have been in their diets all along.

 

Yes I think this hits the nail on the head for me.  I don't feel threatened by eating these things.  Not even a little.  But sure I don't know what the results of some of those practices are and I wonder if that is considered enough.  Businesses tend to think in terms of most money now rather than what's safer in the long run.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh and honestly, I'm more concerned with some of the other ingredients in their soups.  I do sometimes buy them, but for example, they put way too much sodium in them. 

[MistyMountain]

I am not worried about the process of genetically modifying plants at all. I have no safety concerns with that. A lot of the sites like mercola and others that say they are the devil and cause problems are using fear mongering and very very poorly done studies they do themselves. They did one study with the rat breed that gets cancer in high amounts anyway and they post pictures of the tumors to scare people. I have seen lots of "studies" like that.

 

That said the business practices of Monsanto are really predatory. I do not like how you have to buy their seeds every year or how they go to lots of places in the developing world and do the bad seed practices and the farmers who were doing fine no longer are. I also do not like how they develop the seeds to use with their herbicides so you are using more of their product.  

Edited July 18, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Carrie12345]

I'm not worried much about the eating of GMO foods.  My concern is more for the environment and the farming industry.

[shawthorne44]

Yes, I am worried.   I know of many people whose dogs suddenly developed skin allergies when they bought a new bag of the exact same food they'd been buying all along.   The manufacturer said that they sometimes use GMO corn, but that it wasn't labeled in anyway.   Skin allergy disappeared when switched to a corn-free dog food.  

Dog food is pretty simple.  They eat one thing, and their lives are pretty simple.  So, it is easy to figure out what changed when a problem like that comes up.   People on the other hand have much more complex diets and lives.   I can totally seeing a problem like that caused by GMO consumed frequently to be one of those mystery health problems.  

[Bluegoat]

It's really difficult to avoid GMOs in any ssort of prepared or processed food.  Chances are if it contains corn it is GM sometimes.  Most canola these days is GM I think. 

 

I don't have many worries about this on a health level.  Which isn't to say I don't think there could be safety errors made, but I am not especially worried about it compared to other things.

 

However, I have serious problems with the approach to agriculture that thinks GM is a real solution, I think it buys right into a very destructive mindset around sustainability,  I think it is a pernicious example of the tendency of capitalism to put more and more power and wealth in the hands of the elite, and I think there is pretty significan hubris in the claims that science can be sure that there are no environmental/ecosystem risks to those products.

[nevergiveup]

Yes, I am worried.   I know of many people whose dogs suddenly developed skin allergies when they bought a new bag of the exact same food they'd been buying all along.   The manufacturer said that they sometimes use GMO corn, but that it wasn't labeled in anyway.   Skin allergy disappeared when switched to a corn-free dog food.  

Dog food is pretty simple.  They eat one thing, and their lives are pretty simple.  So, it is easy to figure out what changed when a problem like that comes up.   People on the other hand have much more complex diets and lives.   I can totally seeing a problem like that caused by GMO consumed frequently to be one of those mystery health problems.  

Yes, but dogs aren't supposed to eat corn anyway.  Maybe the dog just had a corn allergy regardless of it being GMO?

[shawthorne44]

Yes, but dogs aren't supposed to eat corn anyway.  Maybe the dog just had a corn allergy regardless of it being GMO?

 

It was the same food with the same ingredients.  

[Farrar]

Consuming GMO's doesn't concern me in the least.

 

I have a few concerns about GMO's and the environment as well as the corporate practices associated with patenting them. However, those are more general concerns about how agriculture is practiced now and GMO's are mostly just part of it.

 

Overall, I believe the strong scientific consensus that says they're safe. I'm strongly against labeling GMO's.

[StaceyinLA]

I avoid them if at all possible, and I would prefer they were labeled so I could make informed choices about my food and where it comes from.

[regentrude]

I have no problem consuming GMOs because there is no evidence that they are harmful to human health.

 

I avoid GMOs because my concerns are:

the ecological aspects of, for example, pesticide resistant grains, which may cause to an indiscriminate application of pesticides

the possibility of GMO species competing with other species, possibly becoming invasive due to the engineered traits

the business practices of companies like Monsanto with licensing their seeds, using their monopoly, pressuring farmers. I have ethical problems with that.

 

But eating the food itself - nope, that is not my concern.

 

ETA: For a highly processed food like canned soup, whether the ingredients are GMO would be the least of my worries. There would be plenty of other things I'd consider less than ideal.

Edited July 19, 2016 by regentrude

[Pawz4me]

Yes, I am worried.   I know of many people whose dogs suddenly developed skin allergies when they bought a new bag of the exact same food they'd been buying all along.   The manufacturer said that they sometimes use GMO corn, but that it wasn't labeled in anyway.   Skin allergy disappeared when switched to a corn-free dog food.  

Dog food is pretty simple.  They eat one thing, and their lives are pretty simple.  So, it is easy to figure out what changed when a problem like that comes up.   People on the other hand have much more complex diets and lives.   I can totally seeing a problem like that caused by GMO consumed frequently to be one of those mystery health problems.  

 

 

It was the same food with the same ingredients.  

 

Among dog food geeks--people I trust to really know their stuff--it's widely reported that there is often wide variation of ingredients between one bag of dog food and another regardless of what the label says. The big manufacturers (and if it had corn in it it was in all likelihood made by one of the huge pet food companies) buy their ingredients in very large volume from many sources. That can lead to a lot of variation not only in quality of ingredients from bag to bag, but also in actual alterations of ingredients (usually lesser ones). The point is that there could have been many different things in a bag of food to trigger a reaction.

 

The above is one of the most compelling arguments for using a "prescription" food for a dog that has any sort of chronic health issue. There is reportedly much more consistency from bag to bag or can to can of the "prescription" foods than in regular commercial foods.

[creekland]

I am not worried about the process of genetically modifying plants at all. I have no safety concerns with that. A lot of the sites like mercola and others that say they are the devil and cause problems are using fear mongering and very very poorly done studies they do themselves. They did one study with the rat breed that gets cancer in high amounts anyway and they post pictures of the tumors to scare people. I have seen lots of "studies" like that.

 

That said the business practices of Monsanto are really predatory. I do not like how you have to buy their seeds every year or how they go to lots of places in the developing world and do the bad seed practices and the farmers who were doing fine no longer are. I also do not like how they develop the seeds to use with their herbicides so you are using more of their product.  

 

:iagree:

 

I'm definitely not worried about consuming GMOs at all.  I tend to worry more about the larger odds that can affect my life - like nearby drivers texting and driving or keeping my own car in decent working shape, etc - even eating healthier overall vs hot dogs and bacon all the time.

 

I do not care for the business practices of those who tend to own the patents on GMOs and if I were to avoid eating them (I don't), that would be why.

[Spryte]

It was the same food with the same ingredients.

In addition to Pawz' comments...

 

People develop new allergies all the time. To foods they've eaten all along. DS is now allergic to wheat, dairy, and eggs - three of his previously safe foods. He has frequent allergy testing, so we know this is new. I became allergic to shellfish in my 40s. Bummer, as it was a favorite food.

 

I would imagine dogs are the same.

 

My concerns with GMO foods are ethical.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Spryte

[foxbridgeacademy]

I actually haven't decided how I feel about GMO's personally,  but I do know that I have the right to know what's in my food and it should be in a clear and simple language so all people can easily understand and make the decisions for themselves.  

 

Pink Slime was determined to be safe but that doesn't mean I want to eat it or that companies have the right (ethically) to put it in my food without telling me.  

 

 

[SemiSweet]

I go back and forth on this, but I have recently come to the conclusion that I just can't worry about everything, I buy local when I can, organic sometimes but I have a budget and time constraints. We eat pretty healthy and that has to be good enough. Like many others, the ethics of the industry bigger me much more than the health aspect.

[ktgrok]

When genes from one organism are put into another organism I think that should be labeled, if only to avoid allergic reactions. I think we need a lot more stuff of GMO crops and foods. And no, it is NOTHING like hybrid plants. It is putting the gene from one thing into the DNA of another thing. 

[skimomma]

I avoid GMOs (and factory farmed, non-organic, high mileage, etc.... foods) due to the ethical issues.  That is how I vote with my dollars.  But I do not worry about any personal health issues from eating GMOs so do not scrutinize every bite.  I do not even think about it when eating outside of my own house.