Do you think GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) or vegetables are better than real pure foods?

Asked by: Peyton22
  • There are many more nutrients and minerals not only that they are bigger and fill you up more.

    Not much less needed to be said. Except They might not taste the same not only that they aren't excactaly tastier than natural. There isn't a single restaurant that accually gives natural food unless they have a garden and they use there own plants. However you can get genetically modified seeds if your not to careful and it grows genetically modified plants and vegetables.

  • Better? Maybe, maybe not. Not all GMOs are necessarily created equal.

    While it's possible that genetically modifying the foods we eat could result in the creation of organisms which are unfit for human consumption, there's no credible evidence that any of the genetically modified foods currently available on the market are unsafe for human consumption, and most people aren't aware of just how much of the food you eat each and every day was genetically modified in some way. Do you know what a wild apple looks and tastes like? Every apple you have EVER eaten was genetically modified to be totally unlike its wild variant, guaranteed.

    The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that they are safe for human consumption, and certainly, arguing that all GMOs are bad is just moronic. There are innumerable ways to alter these organisms, and many of them have already been altered through selective breeding; humans have been altering all of the fauna and flora we've ever domesticated since the day these organisms were first domesticated. Now that we can do it in a laboratory over a shorter period of time, you suddenly have a problem with it? Why?

    We should be careful to see that they don't cause harm either to ourselves or the environment, but there's no reason to place a moratorium on research into GMOs.

    The folks arguing the opposite on here are ignorant fools, and there's a reason why they don't get paid to opine on the subject, whereas the actual experts, with whom they are disagreeing, do.

  • Depends on the needs that have to be met.

    Rich, fertile regions can get by perfectly fine without GMOs. In areas with poor soil and crop yields, GMOs can be a literal life-saver. Engineering a plant to be more nutrient rich, or resistant to drought or parasites can only benefit famine regions. These GMOs can also produce medicines, further helping people in impoverished regions.

  • Let's Look At The Facts

    It's very fashionable right now to rant anonymously online about playing god, but let's be reasonable. Though there are valid scientific concerns about GMOs escaping into the wild and outcompeting native organisms, GMOs are not inherently bad for you, and no "alanbaban", GMOs are not made with chemicals, they are made by modifying the genes of an organism. Unless, they're modify to be poisonous, which no one trying to sell them as food would do, they are nutritionally the same as original species. In fact, often times they are more caloric per square foot, which has been instrumental in providing humanitarian aid for famines, making mass growing easier, for farmers, and less destructive to the environment.

  • It really depends.

    If they are engineered to be better, they'll probably be better. If they're not, then they probably won't be. I'm taking this side because of the obnoxious wording of the question. "real pure foods"? That's like if someone asked if you prefer immigrants to "hard working REAL Americans". It's a loaded question, because the question itself implies something the person that you're asking it to might disagree with.

  • They can be.

    It really depends on the specific modifications. If you wanted, you could engineer them to be much better. I'm going to take this side because of the obnoxious wording of the question. "real pure foods"? It seems like you've already decided what's better. Monsanto is the problem, not the technology.

  • Depends on the modifications.

    We can modify a plant to produce a plant which will have more nutrition and grow bigger at the same time. However GMOs as a whole are not healthier, they are what we program them to be. If a company decides that it is more profitable to produce larger fruit which are ultimately less nutritious, than that specific GMO would not be as good.

  • Just the Oppostie

    GMOs are terrible for you. I cannot see why Congress has not banned them from being put into food yet. GMOs are not made to be healthier, they are made to have a longer shelf life and grow faster, that is it. Anyone who thinks they are healthier than organic food has been lied to.

  • GMOs are bad for you

    As stschiffman said, it's just the opposite. GMOs are detrimental for your health. In fact, GMOs have been connected with an increased risk of certain types of cancer (http://www.Theguardian.Com/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer). The pesticide most often used on GMOs (glyphosate) has been linked to a decrease in beneficial gut bacteria (http://responsibletechnology.Org/roundup-damages-beneficial-gut-bacteria-promotes-botulism-and-other-pathogens/). And, on top of all this, no real unbiased studies have shown that GMOs are safe to eat.

  • Bad for you

    T h e y a r e b a d f o r y o u r b o d y ' s h e a l t h s y s t e m . T h e y h a v e l o t s o f b a d s y n e t h e t i c t o x i n s .

  • GMO s are bad

    If you did`t know, Europe has labelled all GMO foods- to protect people from dangerous chemicals that GMO s have- Glyphosate ( it is permanently sprayed on GMO seeds) Organic foods have naturally occurring nutrients that are found in our body, unlike GMO foods that have chemicals that are man made: which most of the time are toxic to the human body. More and more people are suing Monsanto ( the major company in the U.S.A that creates GMO`s) because they want to know what is in their food and they know that GMO foods causes harm to the human body. Monsanto is fully aware of the dangers that GMO foods pose- since they researched it, but covered the evidence up because A) they are corrupt and B) They just want more money for their top dogs. Here is a question: if GMO foods are so safe, then how come more people in North America have food allergies ( like wheat, milk, eggs) then people in Europe?

  • GMO s are bad

    The quality of GMO crops are worse than Organic- organic has the nutrients that are natural occurring, while the GMO s have chemicals that are man made. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto`s round up, is highly toxic to both nature and humans. If anyone drinks even a cup of it, they will be dead within 10 minutes. Glyphosate , when sprayed, is now permanently on the plant/crop-it can`t be taken off. That being said that when we eat it, we are eating potentially harmful chemicals that should`t even be legal. GMO s are changing nature- they are changing the DNA in the plant/crop which means we are now losing our genetic biodiversity in plants. Here is a question: If GMO s are so good, then how come more people in America/Canada have more food allergies (like wheat and milk) than Europe? It has been proven by court, that Monsanto has been found lying and covering up the truth about GMO s. They are fully aware of the dangers that GMO foods has on our bodies, but they covered it up because A) they are corrupt B) they just want more and more money for their top dogs.

  • GMO's are not better

    Gmo's have so many hormones that they are killing our children. They give us Aids and make us kill people. They are la la la la la la la la la la la la lakl l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ;

  • GMO should be prohibited

    I would call "GMOs" "The concern of 21st's century that no one realises"
    Have we ever thought why the rate of people who got cancer have increased constantly? Now, you all get the right answer! Labs use chemical substances to grow these vegetables, and those food would be sent to shops. But, the issue is that the consumers do not know if these chemical substances cause a threat to their body or not. So, most of them might be under threatening of the nowadays concern which is "Cancer."

  • The opposite yes

    What he said, they cause cancerous tumors, so I will fill the rest of this up with randomness:
    G M O 's a r e b a d f o r y o u n o t b e t t e r f o r y o u !

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.