this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
44 points (97.8% liked)

Science of Cooking

1111 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to c/cooking @ Mander.xyz!

We're focused on cooking and the science behind how it changes our food. Some chemistry, a little biology, whatever it takes to explore a critical aspect of everyday life.

Background Information:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
AlchemicalAgent@mander.xyz
44
Mexico waiting on US proof that GM corn safe for its people, deputy ag minister says (www.reuters.com)
submitted 8 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/cooking@mander.xyz
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sal@mander.xyz 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You can find the document submitted by Mexico here: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/MexUSMCAInitialEng.pdf

On the point of transgenic varieties having a negative impact on local strain diversity, I think the concerns are valid. The introduction of high-yielding GMOs can lead to displacement of local varieties and ultimately decrease diversity.

I skimmed through the document to see if they make some good points about the health impact of GMOs. From what I can gather, the arguments are:

  • Glyphosate herbicides are commonly used when farming GMO corn. There is no global consensus on the potential long-term health effects associated with exposure to glyphosates and formulations that contain it.

  • Techniques to modify the genome are not perfect. Often, viruses are used, and some viral proteins could be inserted into the genome. Other things could go wrong. Ultimately, you may have an unexpected phenotype that turns out to make the plant toxic.

  • They argue that the GMO corn has a worse nutritional profile than native varieties. This worse nutritional profile ultimately has a negative health impact.

Personally... Maybe the glyphosate claim I can get somewhat behind but the other two health claims I don't find compelling. The risks over-stated, and their use of citations is not great.

I have an example of their use of citations that made me chuckle... They write:

Mexican corn, mainly native corn, has a better quality in nutritional terms, including compounds that prevent diseases and promote human health.^75^

And the citation reads:

^75^ In Mexico there are scientific compilations and files that bring together the aforementioned literature.

Ah, well, thank you for that πŸ˜…

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm glad you responded. I was really curious to see, as this smells more political than health related.

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah. Claims about potential health effects can be very persuasive.

It is a factual claim that something could go wrong, or that we have a gap in our understanding, and the outcome of that may be detrimental to our health. We can't disprove this because it is true, and so what we need to do is to assess risks in a balanced manner. It is also a factual claim that a de-novo mutation could occur and produce a toxic strain, or maybe we do not understand something about a plant that we commonly eat and we later find out that it is carcinogenic. Our understanding evolves over time, and risks are everywhere.

But most politicians are not so concerned with painting a balanced picture. The claim "a risk exists" is always factual and that is good enough to push an agenda.

In my opinion this does not in itself mean that one political position is better than the other. Maybe the health claims are not a good argument, but there are many other valid reasons to want to stop GMO corn.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm more suspect about the companies involved than the concept of GMOs to be fair haha.

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 3 points 8 months ago

Profit? What's that? No no, that's never a motive. We only want the world to be a better place thanks to our wonderful technology.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

In a written submission to a panel of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Mexico, the top buyer of U.S. corn, argued that science proves GM corn and the herbicide glyphosate are harmful to human health and its native varieties, and that its decree to ban GM corn for human consumption is within its right.

TBF, we're not picking on Mexico, we give it to our own people too. I like that they're making them prove it's safe as opposed to proving it's harmful. That's the way to go about it.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yes and i would not trust any food related claim from the US without data backing up it.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I live here and eat the food. And I 10000% agree with this statement. Do not trust the USAs word.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There's a reason why Europe has tons of banned foods that the US doesn't, we care about profits and the share holders above the health of our people (especially the poor).

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 3 points 8 months ago

The poor should just invest their money so they can afford higher quality food, duh.

/s

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The GM hysteria is stupid though. By this logic you would have to prove this for every single non GM plant too. Whether you use completely random mutations over controlled mutations is somewhat irrelevant, although arguably the random ones could potentially be even more dangerous than the planned ones, since you don't have control over them.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The GM hysteria is stupid though.

Is it though? We don't know about things we haven't tested for because humans are different than livestock and rats. Time will tell, but most of us will be dead before we know for sure. We're messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions that we may already be experiencing.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It is, because it shows that you have no idea how new non GM crops are being bred.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Inform me, I took it from the UK healthcare talking about them testing it.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

By blasting them with chemicals or radiation in order to create a bunch of random mutations, in the hopes that one of those mutations are beneficial. So instead of injecting very specific target genes into a plant, which is a very controlled process, you end up with a bunch of random mutations of which you apparently aren't worried about the side effects. Those breeds are not labeled in any way and simply mixed in with everything else in your local supermarket. This whole "we're messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions" in regards to gene editing is just uneducated esoteric nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-mutation-breeding

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This whole β€œwe’re messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions” in regards to gene editing is just uneducated esoteric nonsense.

How close are we to monkeys, apes, etc.? Can you see the future and how is the climate going? We don't know if taking away one thing will affect another down the road. Will every gene edit cause harm? Probably not, but we don't know which ones or how many. Have a great life selling cigarettes.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't think science deniers with a complete lack of understanding of genetics should try to berate anyone on climate change, thank you. Like, you're literally arguing like a covid denier too as to why people shouldn't wear masks. If you're so worried about the repercussions of "taking away one thing", then why does that same logic not apply to "taking away many random things"? And no, cigarettes are harmful, you're the one who'd argue that we don't know this for sure. lol

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a science denier, nice buzzword though. Science isn't a thing btw, it's a process. The process of science hasn't worked out how us fucking with nature will turn out.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a science denier, nice buzzword though. Science isn't a thing btw

🀑

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The clown suits you.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago

It's your badge, but I'm not surprised you didn't got that either.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Where's this science that genetically modified food causes harm? All I can find looking for anything that says something other than that GM food affects you the same as non-GM food is linking back to this article. And I mean, if you want to get technical, pretty much all plants we consume in the modern age were genetically modified through selective breeding.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Do... do they not know that corn was selectively bred from what amounts to a wheat like grass? Modern corn is NOTHING like its wild ancestor (which still grows there) granted thats a different method of altering what genes are or are not there but its still a form of modification by humans. What we used to do is just a very crude and haphazard way of doing it in a way that we have no idea what actually happened whereas with modern GMO, you are making very specific changes.