Bottom line? If you want to be part of this corporate government's twisted experiment with our food supply, keep eating GMO. If you trust the people that made Agent Orange to serve you safe wholesome food, roflolol.
If, on the other hand, you don't want to expose yourself to these potential health risks, opt the fuck out.
You know what kind of food has never been proven to cause cancer--Organic.
Lulz. The rat tumor study alone was nonsensical. There really wasn't much of a control group and the cancer occurrence fell within normal range for the specific type of rats used. In other words, cancer occurred within the test subjects that statistically would have occurred even if the rats were not being fed the GMO corn feed.
Not trying to dissuade people from avoiding GMO but thus far, the data on GMO have all been pointing towards them being safe. In fact, the modification of our food supplies in modern times are better controlled and understood than they were in the past. With modern technology, they have been able to target specific genes to modify rather than what occurred in the past where farmers modified a tremendous amount of genes all at once by cross pollination or bringing in seeds from completely different regions that were not indigenous to where they planted them.
Herbicide on the other hand, that's another issue and is of great concern especially for those whom are still using the old highly toxic herbicides. Modern herbicides however are relatively safe. The damage from herbicides today are also mainly remnants of the aftermath of massive use of the old toxic herbicides (which have now mostly been banned).
When one makes a fear mongering thread like this one, at the minimum one should take in information from all sides rather than just linking and presenting one sided biased arguments.
Same problem. The issue comes down to the type of rats they used (Sprague-Dawley, and btw, this is the same questionable study from years back actually but republished in another journal).
I think their intents were good. Use a type of rat that was highly susceptible to cancer so if any rat is going to be impacted by cancer caused by the GMO, these rats would theoretically be great candidates. This is a double edged sword however. Monitoring this specific type of rat over a 2 year period as they did in the Seralini study, that falls within the the time frame in which these rats will typically end up getting cancer anyway. So if you think about it, if the GMOs would accelerate the cancer, one would think symptoms would have surfaced in a much shorter time frame (thus Monsanto's 90 days period is more suitable, though I don't recall what types of rats Monsanto used). When you stretch it out to the 2 years that Seralini did, now you have a confounding variable, is the cancer just inevitable in the first place due to the type of rats or is the cancer truly caused by the GMO.
If they wanted to do a long term study to figure out possible long term impacts on health that GMOs may possibly have, they should have used a different type of rat that were not so naturally susceptible to cancer and of course, use a much larger sample.
Ultimately, it's far from conclusive (both the pro and con stances on GMOs). Do they directly cause cancer? Are they safe for otherwise healthy individuals but might not be good for those genetically prone to cancer? Is it due to nutritional composition of these GMOs (that's probably going to be the biggest difference between GMO crops and non-GMO crops, nutritional composition).
Think of it like folic acid, if you are genetically prone to breast cancer for example, folic acid is not your friend as it can promote breast cancer. Otherwise, folic acid has many health benefits. So is folic acid bad? If you're otherwise healthy, it's actually good for you, if you have underlying issues such as being genetically predisposed to breast cancer, you might want to limit your folic acid intake.
So in practice, it would appear that GMOs are generally safe as the world has been consuming them in mass quantities for a very long time already. People make the correlation that during this period of time, people have also gotten more unhealthy. However, if you look at what people are consuming regularly, is it actually due to food sources being GM or is it more of an issue of terrible food choices with a heavy reliance on foods which are calorically dense but nutritionally deprived?
I'm not pro or against GMOs btw, but I honestly do feel that the stances coming from both sides lean way too far left or way too far right. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Is organic really organic though? Think about this for a moment, much of the produce we have in this country, even if it's organic, does not originate from the regions we are growing this stuff from. That alone already significantly introduces genetic modification to the plant/animal/etc.
So what is really being gambled when it comes to GMO? If anything, GMOs are going to be better understood than many of the produce that we now grow in this country (US) that is completely foreign to the lands we grow them on. Take bok choy for example, that is NOT an indigenous plant to the US and Canada yet we grow a variety of them in this country.
With a GMO the genetic modifications are targeted. Because specific genes are being tweaked, we can better understand what is doing what. Growing something completely foreign such as bok choy on lands that has never had the stuff grow on, there's not an inkling of an idea as to what genes and how many genes are being modified.
I think the ultimate take away with GMOs is that the dangers are probably not with any toxicity issues with the produce itself but rather what environmental impacts they may have. Most of the times GMOs are created so that the crop can survive harsher environmental conditions. That's the main point of GMOs. What isn't clear however is what effects this would have on the environments they are grown in. This is especially concerning when it comes to GMOs designed to withstand herbacides. It's fine and dandy that the crop will not be negatively impacted by herbacides due to GM but now the questions comes down to what the heck is this herbicide doing to the top soil, air quality, and water supplies in the environments they are being used in.
Through poor nutrition, people are modifying their own genes in unhealthy ways. The world is already over-polluted and overpopulated, so creating poor quality food more cheaply is not high on my priority list. Increased herbicide use and potentially invasive species only pose further threats to our health collectively.
I understand that nutritionally, GMOs are very similar to their non-GMO counterparts. I think we're mostly on the same page there... although organic does usually have more phytonutrients and less pesiticide/herbicide.
I did not say we should let people starve to death. I just didn't elaborate. The real problem is that people choose to eat processed junk, and GMOs are not going to change people's tastes. As for the food supply, we will eventually hit a breaking point where the old enough is no longer, even with GMOs.
Underfed people in third world countries are often more nourished than overweight people in more developed countries with more access to GMOs. I do not want people to suffer at all, but that's not possible, especially with an unsustainable system of agriculture. We are essentially turning the entire earth into a concentrated animal feeding operation. As a result, superbugs are becoming increasingly common. It's not that GMOs are killing us, but our reliance on grains is. GMOs should be labeled IMO, and they should be containable but that is not possible at this time. Pollen can travel many hundreds if not thousands of miles.
You're mixing and matching a whole slew of not necessarily connected things there buddy
The world has relied on grains since the advent of agriculture. Grains really are not killing us. Grains are also not particularly inflammatory unless you have an underlying grains specific tolerance issue or straight up have celiac disease (both of which are actually VERY rare relative to total population).
Let's put it this way, what has the Chinese relied on since goodness knows how far back (we're talking about the age of dynasties here at least)? Grains. What had the Romans relied on as they conquered? Grains. This whole anti-gluten/anti-grains movement is actually relatively new and has little to no real data to back it up. Going by the logic that grains are bad, China should not have such a dominant population in terms of numbers on this planet.
I do agree that GMOs should be labeled but they practically are labeled if you think about it, because it's a huge bustling business these days for selling organic/raw/non-GMO foods. There's a lot of monetary value in being able to label things gluten-free/grains-free/organic/raw/non-GMO/etc. these days. If you think about it logically, GMOs not being labeled is really a non-issue seeing how people are happily putting in effort to look for products specifically labeled as non-GMO and what not along with paying a good premium on such things.
I think it's pretty clear going by your post there along with the popularity of gluten-free non-GMO etc. foods that there's a complete lack of understanding what is actually good or bad. Such as your statement about grains killing people. It's really not at all. There's a lot more people with shellfish and nut allergies than there are with grains/gluten intolerance.
Yes celiac is rare - about 1 in 100. But non-celiac gluten sensitivity is another thing all together. You are incorrect to say that "a lot more people with shellfish and nut allergies than there are with grains/gluten intolerance." Web MD estimates it at 6 in 100. Shellfish is 2 in 100. Nut allergies about 1 in 100.
People choose not to eat healthy whole grains by in large. I didn't mean to villainize all grains. To clarify, I definitely should have added the word "refined" when I said grains are killing people -- The majority of calories consumed in America is from high GI refined grain (especially if you include corn syrup). It's people's indifference to making healthy decisions that is killing people - of which lack of exercise, overconsumption, and high GI, low nutrient foods are major factors. But just because whole grain can be part of a healthy diet, it would not be right to ignore the fact that refined grains are a big factor in many diseases.
When you make reference to the Chinese, you have no credible basis to justify any correlation between rice consumption and health, longevity, or population size. They are not one in the same. Their modern diet is not their traditional diet. Their previously healthy lifestyle was related to hard work and their connection with food. For instance they understood that soy should be fermented, tofu was rarely if ever eaten, and meat was eaten in small amounts or separately from rice. Also, ability to reproduce has more to do with freedom and resources like total size of geography, climate, soil fertility, farming methods, and technological know how.
1) I am Chinese, you're obviously not and know nothing of the culture. 2) Wheat noodles for one thing is the everyman food for sustenance in China since the 9th century or earlier. 3) The northern and southern Chinese will either rely mainly on wheat or rice. Northerners mainly rely on wheat. Southerners mainly rely on rice. Why? Because in the north is where the wheat is grown and the south is where rice is grown. They have largely been an agricultural culture, you eat what you grow. 4) You're point about tofu being rarely eaten, that's just laughable and clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the diets of the Chinese. HA HA HA. 5) Meat was rarely eaten not because it was healthier, it was because it was more expensive. We're talking about a very poor culture here, why do you think they relied so much on wheat in the north and rice in the south? 6) I am actually talking about their traditional diet. There's still a lack of a "modern" diet throughout China. The food there really has not changed in goodness knows how long. The fact that you think there's some sort of special "modern" diet demonstrates how you are clueless on the matter. 7) It's laughable that you actually think that the Chinese takes the quality of food all that seriously. Quality is NOT and HAS NOT ever been of a concern for the majority of the population. In fact, it's pretty much been a foreign concept there for goodness knows how long.
Ultimately, everything you've posted on this matter and come to think of it, your posts on nutrition in general, has been nothing more than buying into the whole paleo/bulletproof hype (it's very clear why bulletproof is part of your username). Dave Asprey sure has you hook line and sinker there.
Lastly, please refrain from posting about an entire culture which is quite obviously completely foreign to you. The fact that you think there's some sort of special "modern" diet in China is outright hilarious. You probably think there's a huge trend for meat heavy foods or McDonald's over there (meat is still expensive and still considered a luxury and you're NOT going to find fast food outside of the cities in China, and there's not that many cities in China, the whole country is pretty much rural with specks of cities here and there). Myself being Chinese, I'm actually quite offended how you are trying to explain to me and others how the Chinese culture is like even when it's clear as day that you do not have an inkling of a clue of an idea as to how the culture is like or what their diets are like. For goodness sakes, you can hardly find a supermarket in most of China, you literally buy things from market vendors plain and simple. Farm to table.
Know what that is? It's literally wheat gluten. It's just nuggets of wheat gluten. It's a STAPLE in the Chinese diet and goes back to goodness knows how far back. THAT is one of the MAJOR things we consume regularly and it dates back MUCH farther than whatever your arbitrary made up "modern" Chinese diet goes. MOST of the time that gluten (and it's literally nuggets of wheat gluten) is marinated in oil or we typically just fry the stuff (and guess what? TRADITIONALLY we REUSE our oil! Why? BECAUSE THAT IS THE PRACTICE OF A TRADITIONALLY POOR/IMPOVERISHED CULTURE). Also, keep in mind that most of our foods are going to be MSG heavy even without adding MSG to it, that's just what happens when you ferment and age things. We also don't ferment and age things because it's healthier, it's been the practice because we've been cooking and eating the same things long before there was a concept of refrigeration.
1) Most importantly, I apologize if you were offended by my statements. 2) Second most important, my name HAS NOTHING to do with Dave Asprey. You say "it's very clear why bulletproof is part of your username." Wrong. I chose this name 2 years before that website was launched, so there. Look it up. Think you know me, do ya? I probably know a lot more about nutrition than you give me credit for because you made generalizations about me. 3) I actually do know a good amount more about Chinese culture that the average non-Chinese person (although I am indeed white). I'm sorry about that last part. Clearly I don't know as much as you about the subject. 4) I've been to the Chinese countryside. In fact, I have family there. 5) Nothing I said about soy was incorrect. All cultures which traditionally eat soy learned it should be processed to minimize phytates, etc. (Oh no, Whitey is talking about all soy eating cultures now!). This is a fact. I'm not simply speaking out of my white bulletproof ass here. I said they didn't traditionally eat tofu - meaning they didn't eat raw soybeans. I suppose "raw soy beans" would have been more appropriate. I can see how this subtle difference was easily misinterpreted. I was correct about limited meat consumption and I do know why, knowing how the economy (and political system) have changed in the past 20 years. 6) Chinese do take food quality seriously. Freshness is very very important (as you are well aware). I'll save from elaborating. 7) Also, back to the point of this thread - China banned certain GMO corn from the US. Also they banned pigs raised with Ractopamine (which is/was nearly all US pigs). 8) I understand the point that political and economic restraints didn't allow for much consideration of quality/variety of food choices.
Please just explain how a culture with diets so dependent on WHEAT and where eating straight up GLUTEN regularly, have not demonstrated much if any adverse reactions to wheat/gluten sensitivities.
As for the China ban on GMO corn from the US as well as for drugged up animals, it could be for genuine health concerns or it could very well be due to economic reasoning. Remember, it's pretty recent that China now owns Smithfield Foods. That is the world's largest purveyor of pork. China also consumes and produces the most pork in the world.
If you ever actually go to China, not the major cities because that is NOT an accurate representation of how the people in that country live and eat, you'll quickly see that health concerns of quality foods is NOT a concern. Let's put it this way, the commercial cooking oils which are being used in that country, a large part comes from RECYCLING oil (taking used oil, refining it into cooking oil). It's also a nation where pretty recently they were producing fake eggs (literally eggs with ceramic shells and I forget what they filled it with, these were being sold as real eggs).
You honestly think that they ferment soy because they know that is the best way to prepare it? No. Fermented soy being healthier is a mere byproduct produced out of necessity (being able to store food). It's the way that it has been done for goodness knows how long now and it's the way they know how to. It's literally that simple.
But again, let's go back to the huge dependency on wheat in China. That is the reality there, so how is grains and especially wheat and gluten all of a sudden some major evil? This is something that has been consumed as a staple to practically every meal people have since the age of dynasties and even earlier, why is gluten or wheat sensitivities really not an issue over there? Please, explain.
As for taking freshness as being highly important, that I agree with you. Unfortunately that is then immediately contradicted by a lot of bad habits which are commonly practiced in China, such as reusing used cooking oil (the folks you know may not practice this but let me assure you, this is a very common practice). Also, the importance of freshness is practiced not really for health reasons, it's because inherently we know that the fresher the produce is the better it tastes. Remember, we are talking about a mainly agriculture-based culture.
Lastly, I apologize for jumping to conclusions on the Bulletproof thing, it's just that what you are saying about gluten and grains falls very much in line with what Asprey champions.
I don't know. Stronger genetics? They complain less so it goes unnoticed? I don't have a solid answer to this.
There is certainly a lot of value placed on frugality in the culture. As for fraud and greed... well greed is natural. As for fraud, there's this thing called the fraud triangle. Each of 3 things must be present for fraud to take place. Opportunity, rationalization and pressure. Political and food quality systems, everyone's doing it mentality, the importance of money and success in the culture. We see these frauds happening time and again and it won't stop anytime soon.
This is a valid argument. Maybe it's just me (having celiac), but when I eat raw soy beans, I get a gut ache.
Most people don't have a reaction could be a major reason. This and the ability to detect the condition, or even understand there is a connection between wheat consumption and health, is something that was previously not regarded.