GMO soy and corn in chicken feed? Discussion

[raingarden]

The thing is, there are not even any plausable routes/mechanisms by which a GMO crop could hurt you. The GMO debate is similar to the mRNA vaccine debate in that sense. At this point, people's view of GMO and mRNA have hardened and there is nothing that is going to change their mind. So..... why bother.

 

[NatJ]

How can you research the effects until a few years have gone by? Or do you think consuming GMO would be an immediate noticeable effect?

I am sure they checked for exactly that, as one of the first steps of testing!

If you feed something to an animal, and the animal dies immediately (or in a few days or weeks), then of course you don't want to give that substance to a person.

You can also test on fast-growing animals, because they tend to show problems more quickly than slow-growing animals. For example, if a mouse is fully grown in 2 months, you can easily check if the GMO food makes it grow much slower or faster than other foods.

Yes, longer-term effects take longer to show up, and effects in longer-lived creatures (like people) can also take longer to show up.

But there also comes a point when it's not worth looking further. For example, if eating it for 150 years would cause a problem in people, that does not matter because people do not live 150 years.

Also, it's harder to tell the cause for long-term effects. If a child eats GMO food, uses a computer, goes to school, rides in a car, and wears a certain kind of clothing, and then they develop a problem at age 50: it might be very difficult to determine which of those things caused the problem, or whether the problem was caused by something else yet.

I agree that GMOs have not been around long enough to show really long term effects-- but any effects that would show in the short or medium term should have been seen by now.

GMOs clearly do have some benefits, and so far they have not been shown to have serious bad effects. Considering the amount of time they have already been studied and used, it seems unlikely that any other BIG effects will show up. Small ones, maybe. But not big ones.

There are many things in life that we use even though we know they cause bad effects, because we think the trade-off is worth it. For example, cars can get in accidents that injure or kill people, but we keep using them. People can get injured while playing sports, but many people do that too. Eating too much and not getting enough exercise is bad for us in many ways, but many of us do those things too. (and so on, and on, and on.)

If you want to avoid GMOs as a personal choice, that is fine. But if you are trying to convince other people that there are good reasons to avoid GMOs, I do not think the evidence supports that.

 

[Iluveggers]

I am sure they checked for exactly that, as one of the first steps of testing!

If you feed something to an animal, and the animal dies immediately (or in a few days or weeks), then of course you don't want to give that substance to a person.

You can also test on fast-growing animals, because they tend to show problems more quickly than slow-growing animals. For example, if a mouse is fully grown in 2 months, you can easily check if the GMO food makes it grow much slower or faster than other foods.

Yes, longer-term effects take longer to show up, and effects in longer-lived creatures (like people) can also take longer to show up.

But there also comes a point when it's not worth looking further. For example, if eating it for 150 years would cause a problem in people, that does not matter because people do not live 150 years.

Also, it's harder to tell the cause for long-term effects. If a child eats GMO food, uses a computer, goes to school, rides in a car, and wears a certain kind of clothing, and then they develop a problem at age 50: it might be very difficult to determine which of those things caused the problem, or whether the problem was caused by something else yet.

I agree that GMOs have not been around long enough to show really long term effects-- but any effects that would show in the short or medium term should have been seen by now.

GMOs clearly do have some benefits, and so far they have not been shown to have serious bad effects. Considering the amount of time they have already been studied and used, it seems unlikely that any other BIG effects will show up. Small ones, maybe. But not big ones.

There are many things in life that we use even though we know they cause bad effects, because we think the trade-off is worth it. For example, cars can get in accidents that injure or kill people, but we keep using them. People can get injured while playing sports, but many people do that too. Eating too much and not getting enough exercise is bad for us in many ways, but many of us do those things too. (and so on, and on, and on.)

If you want to avoid GMOs as a personal choice, that is fine. But if you are trying to convince other people that there are good reasons to avoid GMOs, I do not think the evidenc supports that.

I could care less if people choose to eat GMOs or feed them to their animals. I just wish I knew for sure if they were in the foods I choose to eat. Labeled as such.

 

[NatJ]

I could care less if people choose to eat GMOs or feed them to their animals. I just wish I knew for sure if they were in the foods I choose to eat. Labeled as such.

You can buy things labeled as NOT having GMO, or things labeled organic, or produce the food yourself (being careful about the source of seeds, feeds, etc.)

So there already is a way to tell.

(If you assume that everything has GMOs unless labeled otherwise, you will probably be right most of the time.)

 

[Iluveggers]

You can buy things labeled as NOT having GMO, or things labeled organic, or produce the food yourself (being careful about the source of seeds, feeds, etc.)

So there already is a way to tell.

(If you assume that everything has GMOs unless labeled otherwise, you will probably be right most of the time.)

I was asking some farm stands about gmo sweet corn & nobody could tell me if it was or wasn’t. I try to buy directly from farmers markets but sometimes the kids they hire to work the booth don’t know the information enough to give an accurate answer. I’m sure there’s a bunch of farms around me that do, but only had one know for sure that it wasn’t.

 

[NatJ]

I was asking some farm stands about gmo sweet corn & nobody could tell me if it was or wasn’t. I try to buy directly from farmers markets but sometimes the kids they hire to work the booth don’t know the information enough to give an accurate answer. I’m sure there’s a bunch of farms around me that do, but only had one know for sure that it wasn’t.

Corn pollen can be carried long distances by the wind (1/2 mile or more.)

So even if the farmer plants non-GMO corn seed, it could get pollinated by GMO pollen if anyone within half a mile or so is growing GMO corn. If it is pollinated by GMO pollen, then the seeds (kernels) on the ears would also be considered GMO. So unless the farmer knows for sure that no-one nearby has GMO corn, he cannot guarantee that his ears of corn are GMO free.

(Something like cabbage or carrots, where we eat the leaves or the roots but not the seeds, would have less trouble: plant non-GMO seeds, produce non-GMO crops.)

 

[Magnumchicken]

A few things here:
GMO corn is sprayed WAY LESS with pesticides. Why would a farmer grow expensive gmo seeds, only to need to spray more? Makes NO sense. The most common traits are BT toxin. It is basically a bulking agent that doesn't break down in alkaline stomachs of bugs. Animals have acidic stomachs and easily digest it and actually it's healthy protein for humans.
GMO corn is sprayed with herbicides way safer and less often than non GMO corn that needs more different herbicides that don't kill corn but do kill weeds. Again way more herbicides needed.

Let's get into organic and how it destroys the environment and is bad for your health.
Organic crops use 50% more fossil fuels due to increased tillage to reduce weeds. Since they only produce 40 to 60% as much food per acre, your organic food uses almost triple the fossil fuels.

Then there is runoff. Doubled due to organic requiring double the acreage. So you have water pollution. Now factor in that we cleared 2x as much Forrest land to grow your organics. WOW, you are really really destroying the environment by going organic compared to Gmo.

organic crops are proven to produce less vitamins, protein ect since they are usually suffering from pests and poor nutrients. So are overall less healthy.

 

[3KillerBs]

increased tillage to reduce weeds.

Which means increased erosion.

 

[Magnumchicken]

Correct. For matter of simplicity I was factoring same tillage practice organic vs GMO or non organic. It's nearly impossible to get even to 40% efficiency of no till non organic using no till organic.

 

[3KillerBs]

Correct. For matter of simplicity I was factoring same tillage practice organic vs GMO or non organic. It's nearly impossible to get even to 40% efficiency of no till non organic using no till organic.

I'm old enough to remember back in the 70's or so when FARM EROSION!!!! was one of the big environmental hot buttons.