Thread by @micha3lamal

the truth about GMOs: a thread

i've been wanting to do a thread on GM for a while now, but I was inspired by a documentary I watched last night called food evolution. this documentary's main idea was that the fear mongering around GM is largely based in pseudoscience, and the myths are far reaching/disasterous

i've looked at the research from both sides, and when i say "research", i mean actual research, not from the non-gmo project, GMO OMG or the institute for responsible technology. i'm not about to explore pseudoscience in the name of staying neutral.

anyway, the first aspect and the most misunderstood is the health concerns surrounding GMOs. the way these health myths got started was from the release of a study suggesting that rats fed GM crops grown with the herbicide glyphosate developed tumors.

what they don't tell you is that a. this study has been retracted by it's creators, and b. the rats used in the study were actually already PRONE to tumors.

another study addressing the "negative outcomes" of consuming GM crops was done by a researcher named Charles Benbrook, who was exposed as being paid by Big Organic to report those findings. meanwhile some of y'all think *all* the GM supporters have been paid off 😂

if this sounds familiar, it's because it is. the anti-vaccine movement came about because of a retracted and falsified study about it causing autism.

contrary to popular belief, genetically modifying foods is not a new thing. i mean, we have been selective breeding through natural processes since humans have been eating crops. and we have been consuming foods produced through GM tech for DECADES. yes, you heard that right.

in all of that time, the FDA have still come to the conclusion that GMO crops pose no unique health risks. in fact, the health risks have been "attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli–infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in 2011."

as for the environmental consequences of GM crops, there are mixed views, some of which are certainly warranted. one of the benefits of using GM crops is that they require less insecticide than non-GM plants, leading to less insecticide runoff.

critics of GM crop production have said that GM foods appear to need increasingly more herbicides (glyphosate), which will eventually lead to herbicide resistance. and this is a valid hypothesis, however there are some key points that are left out of this concern.

people seem to believe that more pesticides = more toxicity but that's not true when it comes to glyphosate. it is actually a far less toxic pesticide than others being used on non-GM crops. glyphosate is shown to have no toxic effects on humans and very minimal effects on rats -

the only negative effect of glyphosate on rats has been reduced body weight, there were no carcinogenic or teratogenic impacts recorded, no nerve or organ damage either.
pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extox…

not to mention that the problems with herbicide resistance aren't limited to GM crops, in fact some of the pesticides used on non-GM crops have toxic effects. yes, even your organic crops can be sprayed with pesticides known to have some toxic effects:
npr.org/sections/healt…

the other concern that anti-GM proponents rise that i think is worth exploring is the rising use of monocultures. they propose that certain GM crops encourage monocropping and therefore reduce biodiversity. the problem with this claim is that monocropping isn't a new practice.

this article states that "ancient Hebrew scriptures (Leviticus 19:19) specifically prohibit planting fields with more than one crop"+that "Ancient farmers from the Fertile Crescent to the Far East have[...]tried to limit a given field or paddy to one crop"
gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/do-gmos-en…

the article also mentions that refusing to use monoculture practices isn't always economically viable for farmers and that there is a way to produce plants through monocropping in a way that reduces the risk of decreased biodiversity.

so why is the anti-GMO fear-mongering movement so problematic? well first off, it ignores the overwhelming evidence in support of GM crop production as well as the scientists and reputable organizations such as the american medical association and WHO who are in favor of it.

a widespread survey found that while 88% of scientists are in agreement that GMOs are safe for human consumption, only 37% of the public says the same. this is an issue that makes it clear how little people understand about the science behind GM.
pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/pub…

because of these people's misinformed rhetoric, there are far reaching consequences. for starters, it takes far more land to grow non-GM crops, ESPECIALLY when they're organic, meaning without the production of GM crops we will have less food.

and growing more GM food could make food cheaper.
although, i would argue that the biggest consequence of the anti-GMO movement is its effects on people living in developing nations.

the anti-GMO movement was founded by primarily middle-class white people who can afford to put food on the table for their families, and to buy non-GMO, organic food. but by advocating against GM, they're making it so that countries like uganda share the fear of GM as well.

there are GM crops like golden rice that have vitamin A engineered into them to prevent blindness in areas where that is common. there are pest-resistant GM banana plants that would help people in uganda save their plantations from financial collapse+provide them with ample food.

but because of the fear mongering propogated by the anti-GMO movement, leaders of said countries have placed bans on GMOs, GMOs that are safe and could greatly benefit them.

i understand that there is a skepticism of GM because "we don't know enough about it to conclude that it is safe," but the fact is that we do. of course we can't say without a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing wrong w GM, but GMOs go through extremely rigorous evaluation-

in fact, a 400 page paper outlining the hundreds of studies done by many organizations was published, all of them coming to the same conclusion: that GMOs are safe for human consumption and for the environment.

and when people continue to doubt the studies that have already been done on GMOs, animals also suffer. yes, animals. because who do you think GMOs are tested on? so by continuing to push for more testing, you are risking the lives of more animals, mainly rats and other rodents.

not that GMOs would kill them, but what do u think happens to those animals after they've been tested on? not like they're released into the wild to live happy lives.
&scientists are also trying to make GM cheese/meat which tastes the same, bc it virtually is,but w/o the cruelty!

i'm not going to touch on the economic pitfalls and benefits of GM in this thread, though @unnaturalvegan goes into it a bit in her video if you want to check that out:

all in all, i feel that it is important to listen to science+stop the fear mongering! this applies not only to GMOs but also vaccines, fluoride, processed food etc. i hope that u learned something and feel free to comment, tho if you're gonna challenge me pls have sources thx :-)

sources (not already mentioned in thread):
sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-acade…
csicop.org/si/show/no_hea…
scientificamerican.com/article/the-tr…
vegangmo.com/vegan-gmo-miss…
news.virginia.edu/content/larges…
Bill Nye Saves the World // Netflix // Episode 4
Food Evolution // Hulu

and please like this tweet if you want me to do a thread on why i think organic food is BS :-)

+before i get any MORE comments about the effects GM has on farmers, please read the comment section in which farmers have left their remarks. because non-farmers may have a very different view of GM implementation than actual farmers do and it’s important not to speak over them.

y'all said you wanted me to do this so ...

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @micha3lamal view original on Twitter