No that I know much about it, but what I always thought is that the GMOs are that way to allow the use of pesticides on the crops. The GMOs are immune to the damages, but still soak it all up, so we end up eating roundup and other poisonous stuff as part of the crop. Anyone else know more about this or can link to a study or something?

Pesticides and Herbicides can be used on GMO crops, very efficient ones that might be harmful to non-GMO crops. Round-up the herbicide and Round-up Ready both by Monsanto are an example of this.

From what ive gathered, the problem i find credible with gmos is that they have much less nutritional value than their natural "organic" counterparts. Sure, the gmo veggies and fruit are more aesthetically appealing, but that doesnt do much if they lack or have less vitamins and minerals than the originals.

I havent fact checked this, so take it as it is.

Also, with the same disclaimer as above, i also have read that an issue with gmos has something to do with pesticides, whether thats in their dna or used topically, im not sure. Im personally not too worried about gmos, but i do avoid them in general, just not to the point where i wont eat them, if that makes sense.

I hope i at least helped in directing you towards topics that you can further your research on..

i also have read that an issue with gmos has something to do with pesticides, whether thats in their dna or used topically, im not sure.

Close enough and probably correct, yes you can see that it has to do with the agri-industry as a whole with Monsantos Round-up Ready crops, GMOs designed to withstand a Monsanto Glyphosate Herbicide, the name of which is Roundup (and their crops are 'ready' for it).

This is an excellent documentary that tried to show both sides of the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdHaGOwNJ5Q

I am currently watching it and thought it relevant to post in response to your question.

You shouldn't ask on Reddit, too many shills bought off by Monsanto to get any relevant conversation going about our food.

This is very very true. Google a few documentaries on youtube for a less biased response.

Google a few documentaries on youtube for a less biased response.

Considering that doing this results in heavily biased and sources with blatantly incorrect information, this doesn't really seem like good advice. It's better to entirely dismiss someone who resorts to the "Monsanto shill" argument and ask for the actual science. If there is a shill saying something incorrect, you can disprove that with scientific evidence. If someone says you can't trust the science because someone is bought off, whatever bias is being claimed should be evident in the methods of the paper and easily pointed out by anyone competent in the field. That's why I never trust anyone who just claims shill immediately without showing any legitimate evidence.

edit: spelling

That's why I never trust anyone he just claims shill immediately without showing any legitimate evidence.

This is something that has always annoyed me, if what they are saying is scientifically accurate and well supported why does it even matter if they are a shill?

The idea that the existence of a clear conflict of interest makes ones points invalid just seems absurd to me. I'm not saying that we should be oblivious to bias, but bias on its own shouldn't be the sole ground of dismissal.

In this topic, I think it has more to do with people just not being familiar with how to interpret research findings or specific topics like agriculture, toxicology, etc. It's much easier just to skim to the funding source of a study or make some connection to a company than look at the actual evidence. For instance, correctly interpreting research papers in this topic often requires an M.S. or Ph.D level of science education and expertise in the specific field. This basically excludes most of the general public. Many people still want to comment though, so for some they take the sloppy way out and resort to a shill one-liner. It may not be appropriate at all in these discussions, but sometimes that's all people have to contribute when they have an overriding urge to say something. I can't fault people too much for not being familiar with agriculture or science topics, so I prefer to think it's simply a good-faith effort people are attempting to put forward rather than willful ignorance.

you're wrong here, there is a long history of monsanto shills on reddit that people who have been here for a while know about. I'm not going to waste my time citing a truckload of comments to belabor the point, just a friendly warning to new members in the community. of course, the rest of your comment is common sense and people are free to make their own judgments and evaluate the science, etc etc.

The whole point I was making that simply calling someone out as a shill is irrelevant. If they are saying something incorrect, then get straight to the point and show why it's incorrect.

I think the fact that there is an organized corporate PR presence on reddit is relevant and many others do as well.

[deleted]

Source on this? Everything I've seen indicates it's harmless (i.e. requires both a basic stomach and the correct receptors, which we have neither). That would be big news that it actually causes harm and why, so I'd like to see where this is coming from.

[deleted]

Any idea where it came from then in general? Coming from a toxicology background, you definitely need a credible source to make a claim like that.

[deleted]

Since you mention it a lot, can you point out anything that's wrong with the Monsanto funded studies and their methodologies? Funding source alone is never a valid reason for discrediting a study. If there was some sort of bias, you should be able to point it out in the methodology, results, and conclusions. That's the criteria we use when deciding to accept or reject any scientific paper during peer review.

As for studies with independent funding, this list might interest you: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

[deleted]

Then point out where that conflict exists in the actual paper. Show what they did incorrectly. This is essentially science 101, so there's really no room for disagreement on this topic. If there was a bias due to the funding source, you should be able to show that bias in the paper. That's why only pointing to the funding source doesn't tell you a thing. You need to get straight to the point and look at the actual methodology of the paper. That's the same thing any scientist has to do when peer-reviewing a paper to determine if it should be accepted or rejected.

I guess in my opinion, there are some things that Mother Nature did right and that man doesn't need to change. I think fruits and vegetables are two of them. Why mess with something that's already perfect as it is?

I guess in my opinion, there are some things that Mother Nature did right and that man doesn't need to change. I think fruits and vegetables are two of them. Why mess with something that's already perfect as it is?

Lets assume you understand the implications of what you just said.

What "Mother-Nature-created" food do you imagine that you would be eating?

I would love to hear about it.

Here's an interesting graph plotting the relationship between glyphosate and autism: http://media.mercola.com/imageserver/public/2013/May/glyphosate.jpg

And here's another concerning senile dementia:http://survivingthemiddleclasscrash.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/graph10.jpg

When you eat genetically modified foods, you're eating foods that are designed to be sprayed with glyphosate but not die from it. Ask yourself whether you really want to be eating glyphosate, this is admittedly only one very small part of the overall debate there are many others (including monoculture for one).

Correlation != Causation.

of course it doesn't but glyphosate is a known toxic chemical / endocrine disruptor. if you want to eat it, go right ahead.

There is very little evidence that glyphosate acts as an endocrine disruptor in vivo.

Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans

hus, a sufficient battery of studies has been conducted to evaluate the potential for endocrine mod- ulation. Taken together, results from all studies dem- onstrate that glyphosate and AMPA are not reproduc- tive toxicants and do not perturb the endocrine system. The U.S. EPA (1998a) reviewed these studies and also concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate produces endocrine-modulating effects. The results of subchronic and developmental toxicity tests on POEA also showed no evidence of endocrine modulation. In addition, the metabolism of POEA would be expected to produce short-chain carboxylic acids and similar derivatives, which are not considered to be endocrine modulators. The lack of any indications of hormonal activity in subchronic toxicity studies with Roundup herbicide supports the conclusion that POEA does not possess endocrine modulating activity.

Here's some more on the general safety of glyphosate.

Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis.

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review.

Here's a safety analysis of glyphosate in many animal studies. Glyphosate does not become toxic until absurdly high levels are consumed, and these levels are orders of magnitude higher than what any human is likely to encounter.

hey check it out - a study from july 2013 showing glyphosate toxicity! http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/30/glyphosate-toxicity.aspx

nice try.

hey check it out - a study from july 2013 showing glyphosate toxicity!

Don't you mean an article from july 2013?

Here we have several in vitro studies of glyphosate/roundup on cell cultures in a petri dish. Again, when you look at in vivo studies none of these effects actually carry forward in humans/mammals.

Their was also mention of the Seneff study which was purely a correlation = causation study, and a weak one at that.

The only in vivo study was on daphnia magna which is a small aquatic invertebrate, even ignoring that their results conflict with previous studies, drawing a conclusion that this effect on an aquatic invertebrate will also extend to humans is stretching. And again I already provided you with a list of mammal studies which have found glyphosate to be relatively safe at current application amounts to humans/mammals.

Arguing about the effects of glyphosate on aquatic animals is a different topic all together.

lol.

Eat gmo become a gmo. Cancer is big business and cancer is modified genes so its gotta be coming from somewhere.

I avoid most gmo but still eat some.

[deleted]

It's crazy, all over the world countries are starting to ban GMO foods and products from being sold.

But....

In the United States we can't even get corporations to put labels on them. Sad.

Awareness campaigns can be against companies, some people will boycott but that's not the focus, the focus should be forcing them to label their GMO products.

On the other hand, companies could also label their foods as GMO free. This might be easier to achieve in the US.

Yes I completely agree. We can't avoid the foods all together but it would be nice to be aware of what exactly is going into your body.

There is very little evidence that glyphosate acts as an endocrine disruptor in vivo.

Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans

hus, a sufficient battery of studies has been conducted to evaluate the potential for endocrine mod- ulation. Taken together, results from all studies dem- onstrate that glyphosate and AMPA are not reproduc- tive toxicants and do not perturb the endocrine system. The U.S. EPA (1998a) reviewed these studies and also concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate produces endocrine-modulating effects. The results of subchronic and developmental toxicity tests on POEA also showed no evidence of endocrine modulation. In addition, the metabolism of POEA would be expected to produce short-chain carboxylic acids and similar derivatives, which are not considered to be endocrine modulators. The lack of any indications of hormonal activity in subchronic toxicity studies with Roundup herbicide supports the conclusion that POEA does not possess endocrine modulating activity.

Here's some more on the general safety of glyphosate.

Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis.

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review.

Here's a safety analysis of glyphosate in many animal studies. Glyphosate does not become toxic until absurdly high levels are consumed, and these levels are orders of magnitude higher than what any human is likely to encounter.

I guess in my opinion, there are some things that Mother Nature did right and that man doesn't need to change. I think fruits and vegetables are two of them. Why mess with something that's already perfect as it is?

Lets assume you understand the implications of what you just said.

What "Mother-Nature-created" food do you imagine that you would be eating?

I would love to hear about it.