Fyi: GMO papayas

[Buttersquash]

Yet another common GMO food is papaya. If like me, you're concerned about GMO foodstuffs for you/your pets, seek out Maridol or Caribbean Red papayas. Most papayas from Hawaii are a gmo variety.

The reason for my concern is a fairly recent Russian study (which confirmed findings of earlier studies) which showed that rats fed a predominantly GMO grain diet were virtually sterile by the 3rd generation. A concern IMO particularly for any of those interested in breeding.

 

[LunaLovebird]

Do you have a link to said study?

 

[Buttersquash]

New Study Finds GMO Corn Makes Rats Infertile | Natural Society

 

[Buttersquash]

To clarify: that link was an Egyptian study which had similar findings to the Russian study. If you search "GMO rats sterile" you can do your own research.

And here's an article on the GMO papaya controversy:

 

[Buttersquash]

Papaya in the Crosshairs: A Heated Island Battle Over GMOs - Modern Farmer

 

[LunaLovebird]

I don't know, that looks a little off to me. I'm going to read a bit more into it, but a few things spring to mind for the moment:

1.) The link you send me wasn't to the scientific article, but to a report on the article. I am unfamiliar with the particular website you linked, but media reports of scientific findings rarely report anything accurately.
2.) The journal the scientific article comes from seems dodgy and I am wondering if it is a predatory journal (more on this later).
3.) I realise this might not be a popular thing to say here, but there is currently no scientific basis (that hasn't been been discredited - and for good reason) on which to assert the claim that GMO's are unsafe for consumption. By all means, feed your parrot(s) as you see fit and buy whatever brands you think are best, just know that this is where the consensus actually is.


Edit: I did some searching and I believe the company that produces the journal in question is either predatory or plain bad. They used to have another journal called Life Science Journal, which ended up being delisted by Scopus and their impact factor removed over some suspicious circumstances. They are now listed under Beall's list of predatory journals and I would not trust a single thing that came out of one of their publications.

 

[Buttersquash]

Yes that article wasn't New England JOM and we all know the GMO debate is hotly contested. Do your own research everyone, and do what you're most comfortable with.

I am aware Europe has banned GMO foods for some time.

The other issues with GMO feeds are environmental, concerns with genetic diversity, etc.

 

[LunaLovebird]

It doesn't have to be in a high impact factor publication, but it should at least come from a journal that isn't by a predatory publisher. If the work is of good, scientific merit, it should have no problem being accepted into a decent journal.

Whether or not Europe has banned GMO's has no bearing on the science of the matter. It was a response to public opinion. And the claims regarding environmental safety are also somewhat spurious. This is a topic for another time, however, and you are certainly correct to say that people should do their own research on the topic before coming to any conclusions.

 

[Buttersquash]

Curious... Can you expand on how the environmental claims are 'somewhat spurious'?

Well I'm pretty certain that the GI system of Ramphastids did not co-evolve with comsuming GMO grains and as such I will not feed it.

 

[LunaLovebird]

Just as I am sure we didn't co-evolve with the internet or modern medicine, yet here we are.

Curious... Can you expand on how the environmental claims are 'somewhat spurious'?

I don't really think it is an appropriate discussion for this thread as per the title and your OP, nor do I think it a good fit for this particular forum (given that it is intended for discussion about our feathered comrades). I do frequent another forum that focuses on science, however, and if you were interested in carrying on the discussion there, I am happy to pass on a link to it via PM.

 

[Buttersquash]

Ah Yes, here we are replete with our computers and repetitive movement disorders and modern medicine and antibiotic resistant superbugs and fossil fuels and greenhouse gases and all!

Not saying it's all bad, but there's seems to always be a catch, hmm? And it seems sometimes we find out about that 'catch' sooner than later. Or later rather than sooner.

I choose the precautionary route.

Anyhow I agree this topic is inappropriate to discuss further on this forum.

 

[LunaLovebird]

And living to average ages twice what they once were, with clean water and better life quality than someone from even hundred years ago could have dreamed of (depending on where in the world you're from, of course). When was the last time you heard of someone dying of smallpox?

We've been genetically modifying our food for hundreds, if not thousands of years. As well, GMO's are not just food crops. I myself have worked with GMO algae in the past. Though the ethics of the companies that sell some of the GMO crops available today are questionable (this is another matter altogether), the science is not in favour of the statement that GMO's are bad, whether for health or for environmental reasons.

 

[Buttersquash]

Thought we were Not posting anymore on this topic, but I simply have to correct this statement in your post:

We've been genetically modifying our food for hundreds, if not thousands of years. [/QUOTE]

You are confusing selective plant breeding with genetic modification (the latter done only since 1996).

 

[slinky-kitty]

Very interesting debate!

I think it's a great forum topic! Why not? If people don't want to engage they don't have to

 

[Buttersquash]

To be more exact: GMO foods have only been released since about 1994.

 

[LunaLovebird]

Thought we were Not posting anymore on this topic, but I simply have to correct this statement in your post:

I said that comments on environmental concerns weren't really the topic of conversation, not that I wouldn't be replying.

We've been genetically modifying our food for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

You are confusing selective plant breeding with genetic modification (the latter done only since 1996).

I am not. Selective plant breeding is a form of genetic modification. It is simply that the common usage of the term does not recognise that, where the actual definition does. I'll admit that it's semantics; I realise that what you're talking about is the introduction of foreign genetic material into an organism. Still, you are incorrect to say the first GMO (as per your definition) occurred in the 90's. The very first one appeared in the 1970's.

To be more exact: GMO foods have only been released since about 1994.

Food crops, perhaps. We've used GMO bacteria in cheese production since the late 80's / early 90's.

 

[Buttersquash]

See my last post with clarification.

The concern I had was not with selective breeding of plants to produce desired traits, but with manual manipulation of DNA from one species to another (which is my definition of gm), there's a big difference between the two.

 

[LunaLovebird]

See my last post with clarification.

The concern I had was not with selective breeding of plants to produce desired traits, but with manual manipulation of DNA from one species to another (which is my definition of gm), there's a big difference between the two.

I edited my last post in response.

It's true that there is a difference. However, as I have already mentioned:

...there is currently no scientific basis (that hasn't been been discredited - and for good reason) on which to assert the claim that GMO's are unsafe for consumption. By all means, feed your parrot(s) as you see fit and buy whatever brands you think are best, just know that this is where the consensus actually is.

 

[Buttersquash]

And there's simply no way to know the long-term multi- generation effects of GMO food consumption, (many such foods have pesticide residue such as Roundup) BC its simply too soon to tell.

 

[LunaLovebird]

Very interesting debate!

I think it's a great forum topic! Why not? If people don't want to engage they don't have to

I just saw this. Perhaps it is. It's not a topic I'll be starting, though. The other forum I mentioned is one I help run and I'm personally tired of the debate, as I've had to step into far too many of them. However, there are people there who are professional biologists and who know their stuff (I myself am a chemist). I don't consider myself as equipped to address the finer points as they are, hence why I offered the alternative.