You're postulating that all "food" is the same. GMO foods have some additional things present and other things missing. If a crop is modified to excrete it's own kind of pesticide, guess what - you're now consuming that pesticide as well.
ya, pretty sure that's why coffee beans came to contain caffeine. the point im failing to make is rather simple. the first law of thermodynamics(conservation of information?).
1 g of angus beef will be just as energy dense as 1 g of GMO angus beef.
GMO is a retarded term anyways. Think about it, English Bulldogs are "Genetically Modified Organisms", I somehow doubt that the chemical energy stored in a english bull dog is any different than another canine of same size.
GMO isn't about equivalent caloric energy. DNA is used to make proteins. When you modify the DNA, the cells start to produce proteins that never existed in nature before. These proteins can be toxins, they can be allergens, they may be both.
In addition to that, synthetic genetic manipulation may insert genes from a completely unrelated species into another species. For example, insert the genes of an insect into a fish. Something that never happens in nature, and for good reason.
I'll concede that gene splicing like he's talking about here could have dangerous ramifications. But how can it be said that modified cells produce proteins that never existed before in nature, when these proteins came from nature it's self?
I don't condone man trying to modify the DNA of other organisms, that's Pandora's box and needs to stay shut for the World's sake.
This is a good question. It is also explained a little bit towards the end of the video with the rat study and the GM peas. In the end they found that the GM peas produced a protein that had never existed before (but produced by nature none the less), and it was so toxic that they had to abort the whole project.
So yes you could call the protein "natural", as in "produced by nature", but it is also "unnatural", because nature would never have produced it in the first place, unless it was forced to by man.
Forcing nature to do things which it would not do under normal circumstances, is at least for me what puts something like that in the "unnatural" category.
I hope that helps a little bit. So yes, it is possible to make nature do things it would not normally do, and in some cases, if we are not careful, it could be the Pandora's box like you say.
view the rest of the comments →
Hey_Sunshine ago
How does my body, which uses food for fuel, break down the energy of GMO'd food differently than non GMO food?
Since when did Cavendish bananas become bad for you?
badruns ago
You're postulating that all "food" is the same. GMO foods have some additional things present and other things missing. If a crop is modified to excrete it's own kind of pesticide, guess what - you're now consuming that pesticide as well.
Hey_Sunshine ago
ya, pretty sure that's why coffee beans came to contain caffeine. the point im failing to make is rather simple. the first law of thermodynamics(conservation of information?).
1 g of angus beef will be just as energy dense as 1 g of GMO angus beef.
GMO is a retarded term anyways. Think about it, English Bulldogs are "Genetically Modified Organisms", I somehow doubt that the chemical energy stored in a english bull dog is any different than another canine of same size.
although I would love to be proven wrong
qwop ago
GMO isn't about equivalent caloric energy. DNA is used to make proteins. When you modify the DNA, the cells start to produce proteins that never existed in nature before. These proteins can be toxins, they can be allergens, they may be both.
In addition to that, synthetic genetic manipulation may insert genes from a completely unrelated species into another species. For example, insert the genes of an insect into a fish. Something that never happens in nature, and for good reason.
This video explains the basics of what is going on pretty well. Hope you learn something new.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU9LmFLaC18
Hey_Sunshine ago
I'll concede that gene splicing like he's talking about here could have dangerous ramifications. But how can it be said that modified cells produce proteins that never existed before in nature, when these proteins came from nature it's self?
I don't condone man trying to modify the DNA of other organisms, that's Pandora's box and needs to stay shut for the World's sake.
qwop ago
This is a good question. It is also explained a little bit towards the end of the video with the rat study and the GM peas. In the end they found that the GM peas produced a protein that had never existed before (but produced by nature none the less), and it was so toxic that they had to abort the whole project.
So yes you could call the protein "natural", as in "produced by nature", but it is also "unnatural", because nature would never have produced it in the first place, unless it was forced to by man.
Forcing nature to do things which it would not do under normal circumstances, is at least for me what puts something like that in the "unnatural" category.
I hope that helps a little bit. So yes, it is possible to make nature do things it would not normally do, and in some cases, if we are not careful, it could be the Pandora's box like you say.