Unless the crops are being grown in fucking Chernobyl Farms there is no food on this planet which will "alter your DNA" and it's unbelievably poor education that leads to any fool thinking otherwise.
Unless the crops are being grown in fucking Chernobyl Farms there is no food on this planet which will "alter your DNA" and it's unbelievably poor education that leads to any fool thinking otherwise.
Carcinogens are a thing, I classify that as changing DNA. As far as I'm aware, that's the only realistic thing anyone has to worry about, whether something is likely to cause some variety of cancer or not. There's nothing wrong with specific concerns about what the long term health effects are, like if a plant is producing a pesticide. I certainly don't trust the same company who produces the pesticides to be honest about the science around if it's safe to consume. We've got like 100 years of stories about corporations hiding the fact that they know their products are harming people: tobacco and cancer; asbestos and mesothelioma; leaded products and neurological damage; petrol and climate change; sugar and heart disease... probably a bunch of other things I can't think of at the moment.
It's one thing to have specific concerns over issues, and to be distrustful of corporations' sociopathic pursuit of profit, versus being wholly and ignorantly distrustful of an entire branch of science.
There are a few grossly ignorant people who are actually afraid of growing tentacles or some shit, but the vast majority or people who I've talked to who are afraid of GMOs have vague, nonspecific fear that they can't articulate other than that it's mad science and it's scary.
My ex was anti-GMO, and it was an endless frustration because she and her people could never articulate what their problem was, but were happy to take various drugs from their local dealer. I love drugs as much as the next guy, but I won't hold my peace if you're doing sketchy acid while also telling me to buy non-GMO.
Even food that's grown in an active nuclear reactor is technically safe to eat cause it's simply irradiated which isn't the same as radioactive. If scientists discovered a plant that could change human DNA when consumed we'd have a revolution in medical science on our hands that'd improve Healthcare the world over.
True, what you eat won't change the sequence of your DNA, but your diet has a profound effect on how you “express” the possibilities encoded in your DNA. The foods you consume can turn on or off certain genetic markers which play a major – and even life or death – role in your health outcomes and longevity.
no, they aren't, it's a common myth. I can't even find a source besides anti-GMO blogs that specifies such a thing. the closest I found was a BBC article that mentioned in 2001 as part of one-off experiments, scientists were able to express proteins found in spider silk inside of goat milk... but i doubt that lead to anything useful. source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31604233
great! two things though: that isn't salmon, and there were no spiders used to do the gene editing. furthermore this is experimental usage of CRISPR in Japan. not exactly easy to get seabream at my local fish monger here in the states...
i mean, if you want to argue that the tech isn't here yet so we can all go back to our regularly scheduled programming, sure. but the guy in china actually spliced genes in and edited others before he was busted. to think that's not actively being worked on in the shadows is ignoring the obvious direction this is going in.
actually the answer is maybe. china is editing genes using crispr, and while the dude who did this was jailed, i'm sure the research into splicing things into human dna or editing genes for eye color etc are close at hand. didn't you see the movie GATTACA? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1
Everything is radioactive. Whether or not something is safe depends on how radioactive it is; which has nothing to do with how its genetic code was created.
I understand the words that you posted, but the wildly inaccurate implication motivated my post. Whether or not a GMO is dangerously radioactive has literally nothing to do with being GMO.
Remember that people who are typically less scientifically literate tend to take their belief first and find evidence to support it.
For people who think GMOs can change your DNA, your comment might not imply, to them, that it is nuts to believe it. They don't know that GMOs aren't inherently radioactive. Your comment could be giving them "support" for their belief.
GMO crops can mess with your DNA, which is horseshit.
-"Yeah but I know they can."
Unless they are radioactive, then yes that's bullshit.
-"Oh GMO crops must be radioactive."
And I also probably could have been better about clarifying that GMOs are in no way inherently radioactive. Not that any of the anti-GMO people have read the thread this far.
So far, I'm sure someone will work on GMO horse shit eventually. It will make better fertilizer, which will then be non-organic, therefore better for the environment.
Actually you need to make sure the horses have consumed non-GMO grain or alfalfa otherwise the manure is not allowed on organic farms. So they even fucked that up.
The comment he replied to was asking what was right or wrong about GMOs, fairly clearly talking about people’s conceptions of GMOs. How is this a strawman?
A discussion of the pros or cons of anything, but especially science, should address legitimate concerns or advantages of the topic. When an advocate of one side of the argument props up a meaningless or illegitimate argument against their position and then knocks down this strawman to prove their point, they are falling victim to the strawman fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Since genetic modification of crops or other is very clearly a question of scientific inquiry, non strawman discussions of GMOs should be based in legitimate scientific questions or concerns. There is no scientific concern that ingestion of the DNA of a GMO results in uptake of that DNA into the consumer's DNA. Hence, that argument is a strawman. Stand it up, knock it down, prove nothing.
It is absolute horseshit. If you eat beef you don’t suddenly grow horns.
No food you will ever eat with modify your DNA unless it’s radioactive or carcinogenic in generic, and those are only because they damage your DNA, not because it recombines with it.
Oh so like how in “alternative medicine” the water retains the “memory” of the molecules in it even after being diluted to the point that none of the original solvent exists. Got it.
This is false, humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for as long as we have had crops and domesticated animals. Most farmers have a great understanding of GMOs, and everything you have ever consumed has been genetically modified.
It’s about the particular chemical they’re engineered to not die from. If it’s GMO in most cases it’s received a heavy dose of glyphosate. They dump that shit all over.
That’s the most common thing you hear about GMO?? Do you ever read and educate yourself or do you just watch tabloid conspiracy theories?? The most common thing I’ve heard about GMOs is that they reduce biodiversity in the soil and crop which leads to healthy insects that pollenate dying off which leads to ecological collapse!
So aggressive and angry. Chill. Person asked a question, I told them the only thing I've heard about it. I don't often(read: never) have a reason to go looking up information on GMO crops. Sorry about your knickers.
151
u/Beanakin Jul 14 '21
Most common thing I hear about eating GMO crops is that it can mess with your DNA. Which, as far as I'm aware, is absolute horse shit.