No GMOs in Food

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Plutonius, Jul 20, 2017.

  1. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #1
    Is anyone still going to eat at Chipotle after seeing the news about rats failing from the ceiling ?

    Is Chipotle unfairly being targeted (another store closed in Virginia the week due to health concerns) or are these general restaurant issues that the public never hears about ?

    Are no GMOs / all organic actually healthier ?
     
  2. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #2
    I'd say it general restaurant issues that are being over looked by the restaurants. In the case of the Virginia store, they weren't cooking the meat to the proper temperature and weren't keeping the storage containers at the proper temperature. I'd chalk both cases up to poor individual store management not a system wide problem. The push against GMO's is nonsense. Humans have been genetically engineering foods for hundreds if not thousands of years.
     
  3. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3

    Corn for example. The stalk used to be as "high as an elephants eye" with smaller cobs of corn, now the stalks are much shorter with bigger cobs. Farmers cross pollinated to produce a bigger harvest. OMG GMO!
     
  4. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #4
    Corn, Bananas, watermelon.....
     
  5. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #5
    Not gonna change my stance on eating out. I never eat at a restaurant unless it's a social obligation.

    If they are, the difference is negligible to the average person. Someone with special dietary needs, then the difference would be significant. GMO (genetically modified) is just farmers have been doing for centuries (selective breeding), only done artificially. Unless they're going Dr Moreau on the fruits and veggies, it's all good.

    If you're gonna buy organic, do it for the taste. The even someone with impaired taste buds, like me, can taste the difference between a home grown tomato and a store brought tomato. No point in buying organic if it tastes just as bland as the half the cost mass produced stuff.

    As for eating healthy, the average American would benefit several folds more by cutting down on their sodium in take than eating organic/non-GMO.
     
  6. LordVic macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Location:
    Ontario
    #6
    I'm not sure what GMO's have to do with the health code violations...

    these seem like entirely two different topics.
     
  7. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #7
    Maybe the rats were genetically modified? ;)
     
  8. Plutonius thread starter macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #8
    The rats were non-GMO organic.
     
  9. kingalexthe1st macrumors 6502

    kingalexthe1st

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    #9
    Interesting thing about bananas, as the article says, is that they are the cross pollination of two inedible plants, the musa ecunimata and musa bulbisinia. But the result is sterile, much like the mule when you cross a donkey with a horse. I think it was the spaniards who discovered this, but after carefully cross-pollinating (aka genetically modifying) the plants to get the result more akin to today's banana, they found that if you chop off a root and re-plant it, then a new plant sprouts up. With no genetic mixing from reproduction occurring, almost every banana in the world today is a clone of 1 of about a dozen species.

    This has some serious consequences though - without genetic variation, diseases can evolve to take advantage of this and find a niche to exploit. The standard banana has nearly been wiped out a couple of times already, and there is a lot of money being pumped in to banana research (as crazy as it sounds) because so many countries rely on banana exports to prop up their economy. If a bight were to happen, these countries would fall in to economic turmoil.

    Now, in case you're wondering why I'm such a banana-loving freak, I'm not. I read this on a great website called Damn Interesting a while ago. It's well worth donating some money to them to get all their articles. They're, well, damn interesting!
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    I also don't understand the tie-in to GMO from the OP article...but to talk about GMOs for a minute...two things:
    1. The incidence of Celiac/Gluten-intolerance - yeah, some people are just making stuff up - but the others never would of survived historically if wheat had been the problem - it's highly suspect that GMO/Chemically-Modified food is to blame.
    2. Monoculture for maximum financial gain also makes it more likely for total crop failure by a single pathogen - profits over pragmatism...
     
  11. johannnn macrumors 65816

    johannnn

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Location:
    Sweden
    #11
    Basically all food have gotten less healthier over time. Look at todays fruits (just sugar) compared to back in the days before we selected for sweeter fruits.
    But selection of wanted traits, be in naturally or in the lab, makes no difference. There is absolutely no overall preference of non-GMO food.
    Of course, the lower genetic variation has to be weighted against the gain from the selected trait.
    /PhD biochemistry
     
  12. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #12
    Bananas have been GMO a food since before I was born. I could care less about GMOs.

    But after seeing that Netflix movie Okja, I can understand why many turn away from meats.
     
  13. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    Well, less about GMO per-se, but about monoculture - "old" bananas were wiped out in the early 20th Century because they were a monoculture and a singular fungus wiped them out. Evidently, they were better then the Bananas we know...yet, fast-forward 100 years and the same thing is happening...short-term profit and convenience over maintaining a sustainable food-source...
     
  14. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #14
    There is no commercially produced GMO wheat anywhere in the world. It's still in lab testing.
    Most believe changes in gut bacteria due to overall dietary changes are to blame.
    GMO's are still not as widespread as many think. A lot of GMO crops are not used for human food sources.
    Primary use of GMO corn is cattle feed and methanol production.

    As for organic, it's mainly a marketing gimmick to increase revenue.
    The commercial farming techniques are the same for both crop types.
    Trading one toxic chemical pesticide for a naturally occurring pesticide that is just as toxic, if not more so than it's lab produced counterpart.
    You want true organic... grow it yourself. Tend to the weeds and pest by hand and you will have a truly organic food source.
     
  15. ActionableMango, Jul 24, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017

    ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #15
  16. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #16
    Yeah I'll pass on that.
    Cross breeding plants and gene manipulation (turning on or off genes or splicing in genes form another plant) in a lab is one thing... mixing genes from animals into plants... yeah no.
     
  17. kingalexthe1st macrumors 6502

    kingalexthe1st

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    #17
    Hold your horses and don't jump to conclusions just yet. Not every gene of ours is distinct to humans. We share many, MANY genes with almost every living organism. I've seen a quote saying that 40%+ of a drosophilia (fruit fly) can be found in our genome. There are stats showing that we share a good amount (10%+) with a banana (though I can't find the source right now). And if ONE of our genes, out of the 20,000 that we are thought to have, makes a tomato more resistant to the cold then why not use it? With an accelerating global population, we absolutely need food crops to yield more.
     
  18. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #18
  19. ActionableMango, Jul 25, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017

    ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #19
    These are all very fair and respectable points, especially your last point.

    However, (1) I am tired of people equating modern GMO techniques with ancient techniques like eating the smallest corn while saving the biggest corn to plant. Planting the biggest seeds and inserting human genes are significantly different. And (2) the gene in question that was inserted into the tomato is always referred to as a human gene. I've never seen it referred to as a common or shared gene, or as sourced from anything else. Someone had the idea of combining humans with tomatoes, and did exactly that. (EDIT: The first article specifically points out that the gene they used has not yet been found in plants.)
     
  20. Rhonindk, Jul 25, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017

    Rhonindk macrumors 68020

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    Bloom County: Meadow Party
    #20
    1. GMO via selective breeding/cross pollination
    2. GMO via artificial breeding/cross pollination
    3. Manic GMO via gene splicing (flora with fauna with ...)
    4. Extreme Fringe GMO via ????

    I think we are discussing 1 & 2. The others (3&4) are something completely different.

    As for Organic, are we talking actual organically grown/raised or the marketing term "organic"?
    They are completely different items... ;)
     
  21. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #21
    Gene splicing might have been "fringe" 30 years ago. Today it is common.
     
  22. Rhonindk macrumors 68020

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    Bloom County: Meadow Party
    #22
    Thanks - fixed that.
     
  23. LizKat, Jul 25, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017

    LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #23
    Yet there are fish genes in a lot of tomatoes and other frost-tender plants now. EDIT: that appears to be a misstatement on my part. Fish genes are sometimes in bacteria sprayed on plants likely to freeze in a cold snap... the bacteria get washed off when after the frost danger passes...

    I sometimes think I taste fish in strawberries, but that has to be my imagination. I splash on some milk or yogurt and eat them anyway, how much can it matter at my age. When I grow a flashy set of fins, maybe I'll write to my Congress critter about GM foods that contain fish genes.

    However, If I were 20-something years old, I might be pretty concerned about the resistance to complete food labeling that growers and distributors seem to have. Right to know is a big deal.

    "Information wants to be free... only as long as people with money want that to be."
     
  24. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #24
    The issue with food labeling is that the current regulations are a joke.

    The use of the term "natural", for instance, is so far beyond what you or I would consider natural. In fact there is no federal regulation on the use of the term "natural" when marketing a product.

    The over use of "Gluten Free" label is also another joke. They stick it on things that never contained it to begin with.
    I've even seen it on a damn water bottles!!!

    The "Organic" label is another one of my pet peeves. Just because something is "organic" does not make it any safer or healthier than a product grown using modern farming techniques. The whole "certified organic" program is a marketing tool. It was created as such by the USDA back in 1992. There is no food safety standard associated with the certification.
    It simply means a product that was grown using "natural" pesticides and fertilizers instead of synthetic ones and no food coloring or solvents in the processing. Natural again being a subjective term as some processing is still required even for "organic" pesticides and fertilizers.

    Natural pesticides are just as toxic, and in some cases more so, than synthetic versions. Rotenone comes to mind.
    Widely used and is mildly toxic to humans (you'll typically throw up before you can ingest a deadly amount), but deadly to insects and fish. Runoff from fields must be contained if near any bodies of water containing fish. It works by attacking the mitochondrial DNA of the cell it's exposed to.

    The real kicker... organic farmers don't have to record the amount of "organic" pesticides used, but conventional farmers do.
    Pesticide residue, organic or otherwise, can still be toxic to humans.
    I recall reading an article about organic farming in the EU where 25% of the random selected organic items actually failed synthetic pesticide residue tests. The farmers were cheating.
     
  25. Tapiture macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    #25
    There's nothing wrong with GMOs in most cases. GMOs mean farmers don't have to use as many (or any) pesticides and herbicides and will be essentially required to feed an ever-growing population. There's no reason to avoid foods containing GMOs, they are actually more environmentally friendly.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 25, 2017 ---
    Here’s a really great video explaining why certain types of GMOs are good and some are bad.
     

Share This Page