Do you suffer from GMO-phobia? Why is there so much misinformation being spread about GMO products?

@curiosi allergic reactions to common food are often caused by infants being exposed to them before their digestive tract can handle it and thus their body establishes a pattern reaction from infancy

@curiosi I think I found what you are referring to. Yeah, that Marc Rothenburg guy got his ass handed to him for what he had published in Elle Magazine. You know Elle right? That peer reviewed scientific journal? Also, there has been no link found between EoE and GMO.

"In a 16-year follow-up study, an average annual incidence of 1.4% was reported[5]. The marked increase in incidence does not appear to be explained by a greater recognition of this disease since it is higher than the increased number of endoscopic procedures that are being performed[6]. The prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is higher in cold climate zones of the United States than in tropical or arid zones suggesting a possible relationship between climate and the disease[7]. There is also a higher incidence of this disease in westernized countries and in urban areas of the United States with a significant Caucasian predominance of almost 90%[8,9].

More recent studies have updated the estimates of the incidence (7/100000) and prevalence (43/100000) of EoE[10] similar to the estimates reported from Olmsted County, Minnesota (incidence 9/100000; prevalence 55/100000) in patients identified retrospectively[11]. A similar prevalence estimate (52/100000) was derived from physician surveys. It is far more common in males than in females with a 3:1 to 3:2 ratios[11]. In some reports the incidence in males is even as high as 86% of patients. This gender difference remains unexplained and it contrasts with the higher incidence of allergic asthma in females than in males[8]. There is also an increased rate of family history of atopy in patients with EoE, and the disease tends to occur with familial clustering"


Correlation does not imply causation.

@curiosi The concern seems to be that genetic engineering introduces allergins and harmful proteins to the GMO. It is entirely possible but is also the reason that these biotech companies perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. There have been over 1,700 peer reviewed studies performed with GMO and 770 of them directly examined the safety of GMO consumption and overall they had found that GMO causes no more harm to people or animals than regular organic crops. This doesn't mean that it is not potentially harmful, it just means that there have been no proven scientific correlations between illness and GMO. There was a GMO study in 2012 conducted in France that concluded that Lab rats were developing tumors on a GMO corn diet. That study has never been able to be reproduced and was widely discredited and pulled from scientific journals because it had demonstrated to have faulty testing methods. Also, we have been testing GMO products extensively for the last thirty years. The problem is that the consumer population simply cannot keep up with the science of genetic modification and the general public are largely ignorant to biotech sciences. I would suggest to take scientific studies you read about in lifestyle and health magazines with a grain of salt and stick with the actual reproductive scientific journals.

Looking through the information, I have found so much discredited misinformation on GMOs that it is no wonder why people are afraid of them. It is definitely enough to fool scientifically illiterate people.

@Fernie I'm not sure what any of that has to do with GMO products. Are you saying that GMOs are dangerous? What makes you think that they are dangerous or unhealthy?

@Fernie The scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs is just as strong as the scientific consensus on Climate Change to be perfectly honest. GMO safety has been extensively studied over the last thirty years with over 1,700 peer reviewed studies and 770 of these studies directly related to the overall ecological and consumption safety of GMOs.

Here is a decent resource link to an organization with a great cause.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/

@SatyrService what the hell does that mean? We are morons? GMO is a GOOD IDEA?

@Fernie it means many people have been mis-informed.
we are not morons, we have been mislead.
a gmo product should be scrutinized carefully mistakes can be and have been made but horizontal gene transfer, also happens in mature. even in higher mammals like ourselves.

my suggestion that fear, dis-minds us, is true even of the most intelligent.

as far as my grudging admission that some people are stupid is merely acknowledging that. they are easier to scare

@ozgirl512 that's worrisome.

@ozgirl512 That's the same thing selective breeding did. And now it's in an even more controlled environment.

@ozgirl512 Straylight is right. Genetic modification of foods is proven to be no more dangerous than our conventional crops. Biotech companies extensively test for allergins and unwanted proteins before putting the product on the market. As with most food products, these are regulated by the FDA. GMOs have been endorsed by nearly every major scientific organization. It's pretty cut and dry as to if GMOs are inherently "unhealthy" and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that no, they are not unhealthy in terms of the most common types of GMO products that have been thoroughly tested. The genetic engineering of crops has been endorsed by:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The American Medical Association
World Health Organization
The National Academy of Sciences
The European Commission
The American Council on Health and Science
The American Society for Cell Biology
The American Society for Microbiology <Hey! I know those guys!
The American Society of Plant Biologists
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
Crop Science Society of America
The International Society of African Scientists
Society for In Vitro Biology
The Society of Toxicology
The French Academy of Science
The Union Of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
The International Council for Science
The International Seed Federation

Since these are all valid scientific institutions and organizations, I would say that the consensus is pretty overwhelming. In this day and age, you really have to go to town with verifying information that has been presented through the media or online.

@bijouxbroussard You are welcome. I know they are trying to make some drought resistant and to need less water as many areas undergo desertification and crops can cut into our fresh water supply.
They tend to anymore use what is called CRISPER to take a stand of DNA and cut segments out and insert new segments.
In the early 90's before CRISPER there was an increase in cancer in the organism that was modified but the technique has gotten better. They didn't really know as much about genetics then. What often happened was the "glue" that they used to stitch the segments back together would come undone and push the cell into a cancer state.
But it does not translate to an increase in cancer in the people that eat the food. It is just the equivalent of eating a tumor. Which sounds gross but isn't going to create cancer in the person eating it. I mean look at naval oranges or modern strawberries. They are basically tumors.

@SatyrService That makes sense. It is in my state that a worker who had regularly sprayed Round Up as part of his job duties and contracted cancer was awarded a settlement recently.

@bijouxbroussard There are many beneficial reasons to grow GM crops. Insecticide use with GMO crops is down 85%, while the overall world's use of insecticides are down 37%. Crop yields are up an average of 21%. GMOs use less land and produce more crops, less pesticides, less fuel, and less labor. IT literally saves time and money across the board. There are massive amounts of peer reviewed scientific studies on GMOs and their safety. GMOs are the most regulated and widely studied crops in plant breeding history.

Peer reviewed studies just on the safety and consumption of GMO = 770
Peer reviewed studies highlighting the dangers of GMO products = 0

@Straylight the answer to world hunger is not more good but less people

@ozgirl512 Nah, its scientific advancement. The time is fast approaching to move beyond the earth.

@SW-User Fact! 6 years after the introduction of GMO's to the food supply the number of hospitalizations related to food allergies increased by 265%

@curiosi ad hoc ergo propter hoc?

one can say very similar things about good old fashioned hybridization.

I like that at least HERE, we have label warnings

@curiosi Can you demonstrate the correlation? Can you demonstrate anything you've claimed so far? I can't find the study that you are referring to. I did however see many studies showing the complete lack of understanding of biotechnology field in the average US citizen.