Are you using, avoiding or not bothering to look? I have gone all organic based on the experiences of farmers elsewhere showing yields are down, sometime soil residuals keep you from growing non tolerant round up crops. What are your thoughts, please?
This has been discussed a number of times on DG, I'm not sure there is anymore to say...GMO seeds are not available to the home gardener. They are available to large farms. There is paperwork and such that comes with GMO seeds. You can buy seeds that come from places that have a safe seed pledge. GMO seeds are expensive so they aren't likely to be sold to the average gardener.
I can see where yields might be reduced in areas where GMO plants have been grown. If the plants, thus soil has been saturated with Round Up it doesn't seem odd that plants aren't happy growing there. You may want to do a search on DG. This subject has been discussed jillions of times.
Agreed. and there are no round-up ready vegetable seed. Only GMO's on the market are Bt Sweet corn which is not available to home gardeners. There are many restrictions and lots of paper work in both cases. At present only Syngenta offers it altho other companies are coming into the business. It will have names like BC 0822, GH0851, WH 0809 etc. Syngenta's trademark for that gene is Attribute.
Not a reprimand at all, that was not my intent. The more you get to know me you'll understand that's not how I am. I didn't know if you were aware that there was such a forum but I thought you might be interested. There is a lot of really good, interesting information there. I don't see any foolish interjections...
I know many people refuse to buy seeds from vendors that Monsanto might own part of, or whose seeds come from suppliers that might deal with Monsanto.
I've heard of the Safe Seed Pledge, but I don't know of one that means "nothing from any company with any ownership by Monsanto".
I heard a claim that Johnny's Seeds was "owned by Monsanto", even though Johnny's claims to be "family owned". I have no idea either way about them, I just like their catalog.
And I know that home gardeners CAN'T buy genetically modified seeds inadvertently. Seed vendors promising not to sell GMO seeds to the home market might as well be promising not to sell us Moon rocks.
I thought there were only a small number of GM crops available commercially (other than for research). Like cottonseed, corn, soybean, the tasteless "Flavr Savr" tomato. But now I see alfalfa, papaya, canola, zucchini and sugar beets added to the list.
I went looking for GM rice, particularly Golden Rice 2, since the Vitamin A increase would have huge health benefits. I've read about small-scale free licenses being given away by Monsanto for Golden Rice 2 crop sizes up to $10,000. But one website claims that NO large scale production of genetically modified rice is occurring yet. I don't know.
But the only way any transgenic genes are getting into mail-order seed packets unknown to the buyers is if GM pollen blew into someone's seed plots and escaped from the lawyers and lawsuits that followed it.
Processed food products are another matter. Anything with corn or corn oil or corn syrup in it might have some GM corn in it, as far as we can tell from the labels. Ditto for cottonseed oil or canola oil, I assume.
Maybe also sugar-beet sugar? In that case, it's got to be approaching 100% of all processed food! That's my understanding, anyway.
I have seen a list of seeds that have been altered, that is why I posted the questions, it is not just corn seed as I understand it, and I was curious where people stood on the issue.
For those of us who are newer, I am sorry you do not think that there is any more to discuss. I have been gardening for many years, teaching gardening some and writing about gardening, and I thought it was a legitimate item to discuss
It's not that it's not legitimate it just that it has been discussed so many times that we just can't keep posting and discussing it over and over...if I get a chance I'll post some recent links.
If you do a DG search or even look back on this forum, the tomato forum, and maybe the beginner veggie forum you'll find some very recent discussions, which you can read. I think many of us feel like we just can't talk about it anymore.
The most likely place you are going to run into GMO products are in your grocery store.
nancy - as far as know from what I have researched - only one variety of sweet corn has been genetically modified. The corn fed to livestock is "dent corn" - from my research 98% of this corn has been genetically modified. Which means, that unless the animal products we eat have been raised organically, they more than likely have been raised on genetically modified corn.
Personally, I will not give up exploring the ramifications of GE crops.
A closed mind is a terrible thing, to me. People that dont want to talk about GM crops dont have too, but why tell others they cannot? I dont think this has been talked to death, I think people are ignoring a very real threat to the environment and our health. Here is one question that should have you thinking about how real the threat is:
If there is no danger in GM crops why did monsanto and others spend MILLIONS of dollars to defeat prop. 37 in calif (that would have required anything genetically modified to be labeled as such)
Please keep doing your research, discuss this with like minded people, check out Occupy Monsanto and other groups.
I love the internet, am also retired. this GM thing has a lot of info that is kept from the public. One thing that really bothers me is that Clarence Thomas went from a bigwig at monsanto to court justice, and contiually rules in their favor. seems like a huge conflict of interest.
This interests me immensely because I am finally getting to do a veggie garden for the first time(have done them in containers previously)
I'll talk about GMOs to whoever will listen, I'm still surprised that many still don't know what it is
I'm always surprised when people don't know what that means also. I was just posting on another forum that I suddenly realized that even though I garden organically, I've doubtless been inadvertently feeding my chickens GMO feed. So I switched to organic, even though it's double the cost and I can't pass it on to my usual customers because they really don't care about it.
A couple places that the effects of GMOs are often overlooked is in manure, and hay, used as mulch. Even Organic amendments bc there's not much, if any regulation. I hate to see somebody use GMO hay as mulch and then they can't grow anything.
My answer initially was about the title of this thread and GMO seeds aren't available to the home gardener, but there are other aspects.
When I'm on my regular computer I'll try to link some of the other DG threads where this has all been dicussed recently.
this is copied from the nongmo project page- a list of gmo and gmo "contaminated" crops. the last paragraph shows just much GMOs have entered into the food supply.
High-Risk Crops (in commercial production; ingredients derived from these must be tested every time prior to use in Non-GMO Project Verified products (as of December 2011):
•Alfalfa (first planting 2011)
•Canola (approx. 90% of U.S. crop)
•Corn (approx. 88% of U.S. crop in 2011)
•Cotton (approx. 90% of U.S. crop in 2011)
•Papaya (most of Hawaiian crop; approximately 988 acres)
•Soy (approx. 94% of U.S. crop in 2011)
•Sugar Beets (approx. 95% of U.S. crop in 2010)
•Zucchini and Yellow Summer Squash (approx. 25,000 acres)
ALSO high-risk: animal products (milk, meat, eggs, honey, etc.) because of contamination in feed.
Monitored Crops (those for which suspected or known incidents of contamination have occurred, and those crops which have genetically modified relatives in commercial production with which cross-pollination is possible; we test regularly to assess risk, and move to “High-Risk” category for ongoing testing if we see contamination):
No the hay (grain) is round up ready. It's been saturated in systemic herbicide and I'm not assuming anything. There has been a lot written about it on DG and elsewhere. It's also used in compost, organic or not. You can check for it buy trying to grow a legume seed in it, beans are very sensitive to it.
If I'm not sure of something I will preface that in my post. There has been so much written about contaminated compost...
I think there is a difference between hay and straw.
I don't know where hay comes from, but straw is usually from wheat and possibly oats.
As far as I know NO grain has been GE'd yet. It's next on the list but has yet to be approved by the USDA.
Alfalpha is now GE'd. This is fed to animals, as is GE'd corn.
Other crops that have been genetically engineered are: Soybeans, Canola, and Sugar Beets. (There are others, but these are the main ones.)
If an ingredient list says "cane sugar" or "evaporated cane juice" then it is from sugar cane and probably not GE'd. If the ingredient lists says "sugar" then it is from sugar beets and is probably GE'd.
Things are changing daily - I'm trying to keep up (LOL)
There has been a bunch of info on here and elsewhere about contaminated manure, compost, and hay being contaminated with systemic herbicide contaminating garden soil and the people have to wait yrs for their soil to be usable again.
Hay is a general term...Alfalfa is feed as hay in some areas.
We don't have straw here we have hay. I used to use it as mulch but not anymore unless I'm sure of the source. It may not be GMO but a broadleaf systemic herbicide could have been used on it, which can contaminate your soil for years.
Edited to add: straw is just the stalks, there is oat, wheat, coastal, etc...types of hay, when only the stalks are left it is now straw.
No matter whether you 'can get GMO seeds due to permissions/paperwork, etc.' I know that GMO can infect other crops around them, that's been proven time and time again. I know there are proponents of GMO at this forum site, so not arguing with them, they are entitled to garden however they want, and I celebrate that, but I don't plant things that aren't organic, from open pollinated, or are on the watch list (like beets, corn, soy, peanuts, etc.) without knowing they're from a reputable provider or organic. Better safe than sorry. I want to keep my kidneys and other organs. Those who believe in GMO, go for it, but not me. There's been too much research and now I even shop differently at grocery stores.
Watch this video: http://vimeo.com/22997532
Search for "dangers of GMO" if you are concerned, or "GMO infection of other crops" and you'll probably find some information.
I'm not here to argue with those who support the GMO industry. Everyone needs to make up their own mind, after doing the research. There's a lot of information out there, now, and some are .org, .net, and .com sites - because it isn't just universities, government committees, or organizations that have seen what GMO crops are doing, many people have experienced or researched this on their own, many with an unbiased attitude toward it, until they realized the truth. We can't stop it, but we can avoid it, at least so far, if we have concerns about our health and those around us.
I think one of the issues is that (like anything else) there is a lot of misinformation, or propaganda put out there and bc of the Internet it spreads easily. I have read so much information that was taken out of context. I'm in no way for GMOs of any type. But I don't like the misinformation because it lessens the credibility of the info that is spot on.
Always ask your straw or hay supplier, let them know it is for gardening. At least my straw supplier is very careful about it. He sold stuff one year, ruined a bunch of gardens. Another fellow was growing in raised beds in a hoop house and his soil is not in very good shape after using gmo's straw then folding it into the garden at the end of the season.
The extension service has him growing some green manure crops to try to clean it up. But his hoop house is 60 x 100 and he is not looking forward to having to replace all that soil. He is hopeful but this is only his second year of green manure crops, and I believe they told him 3-4 yrs.
There is a lot of confusion that is constantly perpetrated on the net. Only alfalfa hay would have GMO's. Even so it is roundup ready. Round- Up (glyphosate) is now available as generic as the patent has expired. It is not residual which makes it popular for crops. On the other hand Chemical companies all over the world are competing for the herbicide market and many are systemic and residual as Honeybee pointed out. These are usually broadleaf herbicides and are used on grasses.
Has nothing to do with GMO's but can caused significant damage when misuded. The round-up ready GMo gene is used in broadleaf plants like soybeans,alfalfa, cotton, sugar beets etc. Gmo corn has the gene which generates Bt which serves as an insecticide. Here are some the fear tactics on cucumbers ( the one in question in this blurb is Poona Keera) http://www.disclose.tv/forum/gmo-cucumbers-t56571.html. This one is repeated in various form all over the net http://www.thelapine.ca/monsanto-cucumbers-cause-genital-baldness-immediately-banned-nova-scotia. Seminis does not offer a Vo5 or other pickling cucumber. Monsano does research before going on the open market, so it is possible that it is a research product that is not available to everday farmers. I do get suspicous tho as most genetic research takes place at land grants universities.
Our farmers grow wheat, and much of it has been gmo'd here. So Finding some that has not, is paramount. Likewise, I get my manures from a feedlot who grows their own feed, and does not use genetically altered seed supply, at least so far. Alfalfa has recently been added to teh approved for GMO'ing list. But don;t think there is very much interest at the moment, 7 billion dollar lawsuit just filed by a huge number of farmers, against Monsanto over charging them for using their own seed. That will be something to watch
Unfortunately, farmers aren't lawyers. I dare say none of the Justices have ever sown a seed in their lives. They can walk into any supermarket and buy food, take it home, eat it and not drop dead. Seems safe enough. Only time will tell IF GE'd vegetables are safe, but by then it may be too late.
[quote="Farmerdill"]Round- Up (glyphosate) is now available as generic as the patent has expired. It is not residual which makes it popular for crops. On the other hand Chemical companies all over the world are competing for the herbicide market and many are systemic and residual as Honeybee pointed out.[/quote]
Technically, Round-Up and the generic forms of Glyphosate ARE systemic. Most herbicides are. They must enter the plants' vascular system to work.
The point is :NOT residual. Hay/straw mulch problems in the soil are not due to glyphosate, but to the many herbicides that are residual. Again it has nothing to do with GMO. By the way the purpose of most of GMO's on the market is not to increase yeild, but to decrease labor, fuel and machine needs. One can cultivate corn, but you can imagine the costs associated today with hoeing a field of corn. And yes we used to do it that way, mechanical cultivate between the rows and use a hoe for weeds that could be taken out by the horse drawn or tractor mounted cultivator. Since corn is a grass, broadleaf insecticide and premergent herbicides are still used to control weeds. Even so Corn Gmo's are to combat corn borers Corn ear worms and the like. These can be controlled with insecticides but it takes crop duster aircraft (remember those) or helicopters to apply the insecticide at appropriate times. Round-up ready crops are broad leaf crops which can also be cultivated. However, They cannot be weeded with broadleaf herbicides. One of our neighbors once lost his entire soybean crop to morning glories. Morning glory seeds are poisonous and could not be seperated from the threshed soybeans and were not marketable. In todays market a crop must be clean.
>> Our farmers grow wheat, and much of it has been gmo'd here.
Thank you for correcting the impression I had. It looks like several GM crops were approved, then used commercially for a while, then withdrawn. It sounds like there was research to do multiple different things to wheat, but the only one I'm sure went onto the market was "Roundup Ready" wheat and/or "Hard White Wheat".
Do you know what-all varieties were being used in Oregon?
I hadn't previously seen wheat on the list of GMO crops currently being grown commercially, but I read further and found that "Hard White Wheat" was grown commercially from 2002 to 2005 in the US.
Wiki's interpretation of that article was:
"Monsanto decided to no longer offer Roundup-Ready Wheat commercially until transgenic wheat is more widely accepted."
"Currently no transgenic wheat is used commercially in the United States."
I'd love to know if that Wiki author was wrong or out-of date.
I have been told by a very reliable source that GMO wheat is no longer on the market.
I was the one who introduced the confusion between soil contamination and GMOs. I guess I hadn't had enough coffee and confused the issues. The bottom line is the same tho a Round up ready crop is drenched with herbicides and not damaged a crop that is sprayed with a broadleaf systemic herbicide is also not damaged bc only the broadleaf weeds are damaged but the crop is still drenched in herbicide.
I personally wouldn't care if I got round up ready seeds on accident bc Im not going to drench it with herbicide, which is the main concern.
Bt is put into Corn as a pesticide that works on worms. Bt is an organic pesticide that can be used by itself. I really don't like the idea of eating corn that has that in it's genetics but if it's in animal feed and I use that manure in my garden I don't really see an issue.
Different things are poisonous to different organisms, ie the Herpes virus is deadly to Apes, we just get a cold sore. I'm surprised that more people don't realize this, human beings are not the center of the universe. That's what makes the study of Toxicology so difficult, just bc it's toxic or not to lab animal doesn't mean we will react the same.
Many organic gardeners use bt and consider it safe bc it's organic. It's applied and can be washed off, but when it's injected its in the whole plant. We are also a lot bigger then pests. That's why the Dose Makes the Poison (great book). There is a lot of difference in acute and chronic toxicity, also.
Round up ready seed doesn't have round up in it. It means that if the plant is sprayed with round up it won't be harmed. If you don't spray it, then there is no round up. Clearly, there is much to be learned, before one should jump to conclusions. Rat poison is actually a blood thinner used in humans for medicinal reasons. I do recommend the above mention book, but it's not an easy read.
Here is what a friend told me about the Round up ready plants he said that you plant x number of corn and while it is young you apply a lite spraying of round up Just enough to maybe just hurt it a bit .. let it mature ,,harvest it and save the seeds repeat the process for three years increasing the strenght each year after three years you have a crop that is Round up resistant ..This was of course a simplified version told so an amatuer could understand He farms 2500 acres divided between cornsugar cane and cotton always varying the acreage trying to out guess the market He said the problem lies with insects if you were do do the same with pesticides the insects can produce 40 generations in the same span of time so when you spray insects you better kill them outright
copied from above post dont know how to make that box thing:
[That's what makes the study of Toxicology so difficult, just bc it's toxic or not to lab animal doesn't mean we will react the same.]
so why animal testing at all if this is true?
There has to be a reason why GMOs are being banned in country after country, yet here we praise them. maybe it has to be because Monsanto cant buy these other countries like it has the US. If there is no harm in them, why are millions upon millions being spent to prevent labeling them in food?
I think people would be appalled at just how widespread the use of GMOs is, how many everyday foodstuffs contain it to some degree. You cannot keep putting pesticides in your body without some reaction. So they may not affect a human the way it does an insect. maybe it kills the insect but just gives a human some kind of cancer or other debilitating disease.
That's the problem, Rising Creek. Humans live a long time and no longitudinal, mulit-generational studies have been conducted. And once the GMOs are out there, contaminating regular seeds and crops, there's no going back, so even if we discover down the line that there are serious consequences, there won't be much we can do about it.
I know they were finding early problems though(study not needed) when they started crossing soy/wheat or corn with nut genes and people with nut allergies are having reactions to foods that don't show nuts in the ingredients but because they were genetically modified they do not have to list nuts as an ingredient, because another problem here in the US is that there are no truth in labeling laws...ugh don't get me started!!
So even though those foods are processed they were still have allergic reactions, so even though it's a minute amount it was effecting them. I'm glad I made changes in what food I buy(I wish I knew sooner) and what made my decision to start growing as much of my own veggies and fruits that I can
[quote]Why do they have to keep messing with our food?[/quote]
Because there is nothing that says they can't/shouldn't.
There was a line the in the movie "Jurassic Park" - I don't remember it exactly, but it said something like: The scientists were so eager to see if they COULD, they didn't stop long enough to think whether they SHOULD.
Similar questions should, in my opinion, have been asked by current scientists before they started messing with the DNA of our food supply!
Artificial sweeteners have been semi- controversial for years. They are a big part of the on-going fight against natural sugars. Nothing to do with GMO's but goverment and lobby groups are always trying to protect us from ourselves. Fluorides and chlorine in our drinking water for example. We are a pill popping society, who now looks to cure every malady from insomnia to arthritus to depression as well as cancer with introduced chemicals. Often they have side effects which enrich trial lawyers. And that is not even considering the recreational drugs so prevalent in our society. We load many poisons into our bodies, many of which are beneficial in moderation. Whether it is good or bad we are living longer than parents and grandparents and multiplying like crazy. With population doubling almost every generation, we will at some time hit the limit of our food supply.
>> With population doubling almost every generation, we will at some time hit the limit of our food supply.
I read an interesting argument that used that fact as an argument against more efficient crops. He pointed out that any increase in food supply promptly results in an increase in human population, resulting in the same amount of famine and malnutrition, just for more people and consuming m ore agricultural chemicals and energy.
For example, the second Green Revolution stopped some famines for a few decades, but now population is catching back up and we'll be back to wide-spread scarcity soon. I think Malthus said much the same thing about the Industrial Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap
P.S. The above author counts the 1940s-1970s as the "second" Green Revolution. I would say that heavy use of pesticides, chemical fertilizer, gasoline energy for tillage, irrigation and transport, and very intensive cropping in general, can be counted as part of that era.
In that system, the Neolithic discovery of agriculture was the "first" Green Revolution.
The current genetic engineering explosion is the "third" Green Revolution.
Maybe there will be a "fourth" Green Revolution where the GM tools are used to make more-sustainable crop varieties - for example, tolerant of heat, dryness and lower fertility, but "designed" to grow at sustainable levels of intensity. Unfortunately, agribusiness will always maximize short-term profit over sustainability, risk/fear of genetic Armageddon, or anything else.
So first we need to genetically engineer some kind of mind-control drug to suck excess greed or short-sightedness out of decision-makers who currently consider quarterly profits much more important than survival over the next few hundred years. Or would that be more like campaign reform laws?
Rick, the ultimate truth was spoken in the old Pogo cartoon, "we have met the enemy and he is us". The major greed is in us as a people. We want what we want and we want it now. In most open societies demand drives the market. Even the countries of the old Soviet Union and China have come around to that truth. There are still a few that control everything from the top example North Korea. It is a fact that every biological organism expands to the limit of its food supply but other than lemmings few decide to go off the cliff. We the people demand that population collapse be postponed as long as possible. Just going back to WWI farming methods would bring on mass starvation.
[quote="Farmerdill"]The point is :NOT residual. Hay/straw mulch problems in the soil are not due to glyphosate, but to the many herbicides that are residual. Again it has nothing to do with GMO. ...
Round-up ready crops are broad leaf crops which can also be cultivated. However, They cannot be weeded with broadleaf herbicides. [/quote]
What Farmerdill said makes sense to me. Any problem with using hay or straw (or anything else) as mulch or compost would come from residual persistent herbicides, not from the crop being a GMO variety.
Roundup Ready GM crops tend to have more Roundup (glycophoshphate) used on them, but from what I read, Roundup isn't persistent in the plant, and/or isn't taken up from the soil after the plant decomposes (you have to spray it on foliage).
One argument FOR Roundup Ready GM crops for people who accept chemical weed control is that Roundup can be used instead of other, environmentally worse herbicides some of which are more persistent than Roundup.
Of course, the motivation for choosing Roundup over phenoxy herbicides m ay not be an expression of Green sentiment. It's more likely economic , due to issues like:
"These herbicides can cause substantial crop injury and yield loss in small grains if applied before tillering begins or after development of the grain heads have been initiated."
Convenience and economics. I'm more sympathetic to a farmer trying to break even or make a profit from his land, than I am to Monsanto backing everyone in to a corner where they have no options other than Monsanto seeds. And I feel some mean-spirited satisfaction at Monsanto's expense that (of course) weeds are evolving to be resistant to glycophosphate, as it becomes more and more widely used.
But Farmerdill's other comment has me thinking: what if it is not just desire for more profit, but aversion to wide-spread starvation, that drives modern intensive or hyper-intensive agricultural practices? The distinction between "food prices would go up" and "some people would starve" isn't a real distinction in a world where poverty is widespread.
Am I right that Roundup can't be used on wheat or alfalfa UNLESS they have Roundup Ready genes, because wheat and alfalfa are not broadleaved?
Nancy the reason your hay supplier asks that may have nothing to do with GMOs. It probably has to do with the fact that they use a systemic broadleaf herbicide, that kills the weeds in hay but will also kill the plants in your garden,
I wish I had never mentioned GMOs and hay, it was a mistake . But I do think it's important that people realize the damage that contaminate hay can do but it's NOT bc of GMOs
I use Coastal (grass) and alfalfa hay to feed my lawn ornaments. Either one could be a problem in manure, compost or mulch, either bc the coastal hay has had a systemic broadleaf herbicide used on it repeatedly or bc the Alfalfa has Round up ready gene in it (GMO) and has been drenched with herbicide. The result is still the same.
[quote="Farmerdill"]Alfalfa as are clovers and lespidezas is broadleaved. Wheat, rye, barley and corn are grasses so any broadleaf herbicide can be used on them. Not much advantage to making them roundup-ready.[/quote]
OK, I'm confused (and no comments about shooting fish in a barrel, please). Roundup was not a broadleaf herbicide when I was in school. It kills everything, even (or especially) grasses. In fact, Roundup was specifically used to control grasses; we already had effective (and much cheaper) herbicides for broadleaf weeds.
Not everything, but it is broad based. Most of the problems in grass crops are broadleaf weeds. Crabgrass and nutsedge being exceptions, but these are handled with premergence and special nutsedge herbicides respectively. Nutsedge being one thing glyphosate won't kill, but It will burn the tops down. Nutsedge is not really a grass but it looks like one. Image and Sedgehammer are popular herbicides. 2-4d-amine, Buctril or Banvel are popular for crops like winter wheat. Bayer has a product called Huskie which is more broad spectrum for cereal crops. There are a lot of herbicides awaiting registration.
[quote="1lisac"]Rat poison is actually a blood thinner used in humans for medicinal reasons.[/quote]
The last rodent "poison" I bought is actually high-dose vitamin D in a food bait. It worked very well. The key is the dose.
[quote="risingcreek"]There has to be a reason why GMOs are being banned in country after country, yet here we praise them.[/quote]
Lots of things have been banned in "country after country". India banned Coca Cola for years because the company refused to release the secret "10x" formula. Countries frequently ban products that are patented in order to encourage their own scientists to come up with a substitute. We've done it here "to protect domestic industries".
And of course, MANY countries ban free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the rights of women to vote, etc.
You often have to dig a little to find the real reasons governments do things.
[quote="flowAjen"]I know they were finding early problems though(study not needed) when they started crossing soy/wheat or corn with nut genes and people with nut allergies are having reactions to foods that don't show nuts in the ingredients but because they were genetically modified they do not have to list nuts as an ingredient, because another problem here in the US is that there are no truth in labeling laws...ugh don't get me started!![/quote]
Maybe you should check your sources. There was ONE attempt to incorporate a Brazil nut gene into soy. The resulting beans were quickly discovered to contain nut allergens. It was NEVER MARKETED. So naturally there was no need to label them as nuts...
There are those who do not worry about their food being GE'd and there are those who wish to avoid food that has been GE'd. In either case, it is my opinion that, food should be labeled with it's contents, or, as in the case of fresh produce, have a statement saying that it has been genetically altered.
Then everyone would be happy.
In recent weeks I have read that aspartame or sucralose might be added to dairy products WITHOUT the addition being stated on the label!
LOL, he saw a news story about fluoride, after the cold war they had an over abundance of it because they didn't need it anymore(was used in making bombs) so he's thinking because people are learning how bad aspartame is for you the companies probably have too much of it and they need to sell it to someone
They are already flavoring the kids regular milk at school and label it vanilla, don't know why they need to make it any sweeter... of course the chocolate milk is already too sweet
Actually it is an effort to retain sales while accomodating the War on childlhood obesity. The artificial sweeteners are actually more expensive than natural sugars. Started with "diet " soft drinks, coffee sweeteners and is now being extended to all types of "diet" foods. Low carb and sugar free is a good selling point at the moment. As the old folks say; "this too shall pass"
I have always thought that aspartame should not just be on the label - it should have a warning label. It can cause headaches &/or diarrhea in some people. I knew one Mom who didn't know why her kids kept getting diarrhea until she told the doctor about giving them beverages with aspartame. And it is not just kids - my adult sister is one of the ones that gets headaches.
Rjogden-The last rat poison happened use was a lethal dose of vitamin D, so? I'm trying to see what point your trying to make. Does that mean an anticoagulant is not used in rat poison? Or that YOU using vitamin D negates anyother poison. If you read my other posts I did mention a very good book called the The Dose Makes the Poison.
Why don't you add to the discussion instead of picking apart what others have posted.
Pollen-it would be very hard to put warning labels on products bc everybody has different reactions to things. There has to come a point where people are responsible for the own choices. I can't imagine feeding my kids anything with Aspartame in it. I can't eat MSG. BUT I can read the lable and make my own choices. I really recommend the book I mentioned above.
That's a pretty sweeping statement. If they are talking about bacteria in general, they are clearly incorrect. Bacteria play the key role in a number of natural foods, from yogurt and cheeses to sauerkraut, Kimchee and fruit or malt vinegars - and while some modern products contain cultured organisms, in most cases the native products contains whatever bacteria happen to flourish in that area. Even the bacteria that are currently cultured are all wild somewhere. Bacteria in dairy products, in particular, make it more digestible. My father, who could never drink milk without severe effects on his digestive system, was able to eat yogurt without any ill effects.
As far as the fear of ingesting bacterial protein, the cells in our bodies that contain our own DNA are far outnumbered by cells that do not. Most of them (in a healthy gut, anyway) are bacteria.
[quote="1lisac"]Rjogden-The last rat poison happened use was a lethal dose of vitamin D, so? I'm trying to see what point your trying to make. Does that mean an anticoagulant is not used in rat poison? Or that YOU using vitamin D negates anyother poison. If you read my other posts I did mention a very good book called the The Dose Makes the Poison.[/quote]
I was referring to your own remark that what poisons rats is used by us as a medicine. The effect is entirely dose-dependent. In this case, the same substance used to prevent a vitamin deficiency and aid in calcium absorption and metabolism is capable of killing under other circumstances. I was agreeing with you.
[quote="1lisac"]Why don't you add to the discussion instead of picking apart what others have posted.[/quote]
Because I prefer actual science to quotes from non-scientific sources that set out to make a political point.
Let me say that I really wish we could find a way to produce enough food to provide for the needs of what I firmly believe is a ridiculously overpopulated planet by some means other than the use of genetic modification and herbicides, if for no other reason than that is has NOT been thoroughly studied and we DO have the means to do so. OTOH, unless we are willing as a WORLD to reverse population growth, we are fast running out of choices.
It is in all likelihood going to get a lot worse. At the present rate of exploitation, it is just a matter of time before we run out of the last remaining traditional sources of food from the sea. After the collapse of the North Atlantic cod fishing industry and subsequent bans on cod fishing over large areas, most experts expected the cod populations to recover. They did not. Despite what we have learned, we are still busily removing fish at rates far greater than their reproduction can support, and in addition we are directly impacting their genetics by improving the chances for survival and reproduction of the smallest members of the populations.
Anyone for jellyfish?
We have known for MANY years that we need to stop paving over good farmland, and actively work to preserve what is left. Instead our public policies have supported economic "growth" at the expense of agricultural sustainability. The move to GMO seeds owes it's growth at least in part to the need to squeeze more food out of fewer acres.
Yes, the actual science sources you speak of, could you share those with us also. I am not even sure what the topic those science sources are refering to anymore. I can't even tell what point rjogden is trying to make yet! But I would be interested in knowing. I am not even sure he was disagreeing with 1lisac except on one point.
[quote="Seedfork"]I can't even tell what point rjogden is trying to make yet! But I would be interested in knowing. I am not even sure he was disagreeing with 1lisac except on one point. [/quote]
Bingo! You got it. I was agreeing with 1lisac.
[quote="nancynursez637"]There is enough food on the planet, it is politics and greed that keeps the distribution away from the hungry[/quote]
I've been reading and hearing about famines and uneven distribution of food around the world my entire life - about 63 years so far - and there seem to be two recurring themes, both rather "common-sensical".
First is that food shortages occur primarily in areas subject to recurring droughts or other bad weather, or areas of marginal soil, when the population outstrips the ability of the land to produce adequate food. Reliable European records from the colonial period, starting around 1665, indicate famines were already occurring in areas of Africa subject to periodic weather cycles.
The second major cause of widespread hunger is certainly politics. In Africa for example a number of famine events have coincided with revolutions or other armed conflicts, and restricting access to food has been and is used as a weapon (e.g. the War in Darfur, in Sudan, which has been going on intermittently since 2003). In China during the Maoist regime uncounted people (some say up to 45 million) starved during the Great Chinese famine (1958-1961) which coincided with the Cultural Revolution - a completely political event that served no purpose except to support the Communist government (which it ultimately failed to do). Remember the Gang of Four? I do. They took the fall for Chairman Mao's abysmally poor centralized planning.
Greed is a bit more difficult to quantify, but I suppose the political leaders in those areas could spend more money on food production and less on the military. There always seems to be enough money to pay for weapons and soldiers...
Does anybody here do anything to participate in organizations that redistribute food? There are plenty of local opportunities around the country. Aside from donating our garden excess to local food pantrys we pick up and deliver more than a ton food each month that is a part of providing more than eight hundred meals a day in our city. Be a part of the solution.
[quote="MaypopLaurel"]Does anybody here do anything to participate in organizations that redistribute food? There are plenty of local opportunities around the country. Aside from donating our garden excess to local food pantrys we pick up and deliver more than a ton food each month that is a part of providing more than eight hundred meals a day in our city. Be a part of the solution.[/quote]
Yep. The Publix stores in this area have an ongoing program that allows customers to buy food and contribute to the local food bank for distribution to the needy/hungry. That's all the time. Then some times of the year they accept cash donations that are used to supply local charities. My understanding is that that allows the charities to tell them what they need for their kitchens. I try to chip in something every week.
I dropped out of the GMO discussion a long time ago, because all of the apparently unfounded fear and hysteria was distressing me. I say "unfounded" because i have not seen one reference to anyone actually dying from GMO.
But i want to thank Lisa, Farmer Dill, Rick Corey and a few others that stay in the discussion trying to add a little bit of common sense to it all.
And personally, i am glad my ancestors were Genetically Modified, because at my age, it would be very difficult to still be climb[ng around in the trees.
And as far as the references to Greed goes, The Business of Business is Making Money, and the same thing that drives that, is what drives people on pensions trying to get as large a pension as they can, or people trying to get as much pay for their work or produce as they can. The difference is in the amount but not in the desire, so Greed seems to be something we all share equally.
Flowajen, If our genes had never been modified, we would never have evolved, and become human beings. This is such a basic concept it is difficult for me to know how far back i will need to go to help you understand. But the reason Plants, animals, and all other living organisms change is because our genes get modified, and that happens quite frequently. So, now we have both people and tomatoes of many different colors and characteristics, and instead of waiting for nature or an accident to modify soybeans, Monsanto stepped in and and pushed the trait they wanted along.
I do hope your question was meant to be sarcastic, and does not reflect your actual knowledge.
I'm sure Flowajen was being sarcastic. The term "genetically modified" refers to changes imposed through scientific intervention which insert traits into organisms that would never develop there through natural evolution, such as adding Bt to corn or genes from one species into the DNA of another. I'm surprised you're not aware of this distinction, but it's the in-the-lab DNA meddling that people are concerned about, not the sort of breeding programs that produce different strains of dogs or petunias, nor the sort of natural evolution that produced Homo sapiens.
You sound very knowledgeable, but you are speaking of a distinction without a difference.
The definition of Genetically Modified is when one organism receives genetic material from another organism that alters its behavior. That transfer is not limited to the Laboratory, as i personally have accidentally genetically modified trees when chip budding. Some modifications are beneficial and some are detrimental. But until danger is observed, it should not be assumed.
Once again to clarify when speaking about GMO veggies fruits and grains we are talking about changes made in a LAB
The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content.
Talk about damages to humans
A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology proves once again that there really is no safe level of exposure to Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide formula for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to the new findings, Roundup, which is applied by the tens of thousands of tons a year all around the world, is still toxic to human DNA even when diluted to a mere 0.02 percent of the dilution amount at which it is currently applied to GM food crops.
Exactly Honeybee, there was a comment made by one of the food organizations in England that the US is using us as human guinea pigs
Sometimes it takes years to know what effect something is going to have and yes testing should have most certainly been done WAY before forcing mutant foods on us
You can already see the effects that hormone and antibiotic filled meats and dairy are having on the children, that didn't take that long
You are arguing with the dictionary, not with me, about the definition and meaning of the words and phrase.
But to get back to my original post on this, i was not discussing the pros or cons of glysophate, i was questioning the benefit of all the unreasonable Fear and Hysterics. When the first person dies or can prove harm from any thing, we will be well informed by the Lawyers and the Media.
FlowAjen, thanks for that link. I actually watched the whole talk, he was so compelling! I think most of us here are on the same page - Primum non nocere, which means First, do no harm. If there is any chance of causing a problem, the wisest course is to do nothing. In this case we have no idea whether we're causing a problem; it will take generations to know.
I also liked the speaker's point that the question of whether to label has gotten mixed up with the question of whether GMOs are safe. But whether they are or not, people have a right to know what's in their food if the inclusion of that substance or use of that practice isn't obvious from visual inspection. Therefore people are informed whether seafood is wild-caught or farm-raised, and whether food is irradiated, and whether guar gum is added to ice cream or other foods as a thickener, to offer a few examples. Why NOT label GMOs? And if that many people would be resistant to eating food that they know includes GMOs, maybe this is something that our government needs to take into account before approving its use in more and more foods?
No, I didn't. I assumed that if it said "wild-caught" that's what it meant. But farm-raised in pens in the ocean is a bit better than farm-raised in some inland operation where there are PCBs and other pollutants in the water, which is the main concern re farm-raised as I recall.
It's a whole new ballgame, now, after Fukushima, though. Researchers have detected elevated radiation in some crops (and I think livestock) in California, so it's probably much worse out in the ocean between us and Japan. Debris has already reached the west coast, too. I won't eat ocean fish anymore. If you could find an organic fish farm, that would be the safest route, imho, these days. The Atlantic/Gulf is affected by that awful incident that messed up the beaches and fishing industry, too. How do we honestly know what's poisoned and what's not unless the fish is actually tested? They don't test everything.
I just got a Vegetable Grower magazine in the mail. There is an article on food safety. Of course the government is involved. Some of the rules are completely ridiculous. So down the line when food gets to expensive to buy, you can blame discussions like this where the people don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Minnesota had Timber Wolf season last fall. The wolves are getting to thick. Now some activists are up in arms & may get it stopped for future years. This news comes right along with why the Moose population has declined at an alarming rate lately. Is it possible the over supply of wolves are hungry ?
Fish. Do you know what you are talking about ? We have a nice lake a few miles from here. You are supposed to eat only so many fish a year out of it, because they have a high level of Mercury. After years of testing they can't figure out why.
Anybody eat Talapi ? Most of what is sold here is farm raised in China. Smog is number 1 product of China. Do you suppose the fish could be contaminated by the chemicals in the smog ?
I saw a TV thing the other day about raising some kind of Bass in the desert in California. They ship out about 80,000 lbs a week. I don't think there are to many pollutants in a desert. But this is farm raised fish.
Like I said earlier, don't jump to conclusions you have no basis for.
I don't buy any farmed raised(PBS special awhile ago on the nasty farm raised fish business) but then there are some areas of problems with wild caught
Was talking with a friend who works for the state dep, she said to stay away from any wild caught near Japan or Thailand(still effects from the tsunami) by the Jersey shore(cause of Hurricane Sandy there were TONS of petroleum swept into the ocean) but she told me on the qt, the gov't is not going to tell you any of that!
I am sure there are many readers of this forum that see the benefits of using Roundup, but have some reasonable apprehension about the long term effect of using it.
I have happened to have considerable experience with repeated use of it, and can document the effect it had on the soil with pictures. I do not write this trying to change anyone's mind, but simply to inform those that would like to learn more about this.
I started and operated a Shade and Ornamental tree nursery in Idaho for fifteen years and have closely watched the operation for another 15 years. The trees were grown out for an average of 5 years, and when harvested, due to logistical reasons, the next crop was planted in the same row space. Weeds cannot be controlled around trees with mechanical cultivation, and hiring labor to hand weed 30 miles of tree row is impractical, so i started using Roundup, which, in the early 80's was a fairly new product and no one knew much about it.
The pictures i will show you are of these tree rows that had been sprayed every year, as many times as was needed, to control the weeds. The trees being grown now are growing the same as the earlier crops of trees grew. So, you can see for yourself that Roundup, Commercial strength, does not in itself, sterilize the soil. We would have regrowth of weeds in the tree rows, without the soil being disturbed every year until the trees were harvested.
My experience with 2 4 D, which we used to completely kill the weeds under the New Zealand type electric deer fence, did seem to be sterilizing the soil, as weeds stopped sprouting in some areas.
The trees shown in the pictures are 3 to 5 years old.
I was not addressing you ladies that seem to relish living in fear, i was responding to the members that had expressed concern about some weedkillers sterilizing the soil.
I am an old man, soon to be 87 years old, and in that long life span i have seen many friends and acquaintances die, some from Cigarettes, Cheap whiskey, Accidents, Heart attacks, Diabetes, etc, but not one of them have died from the Love Canal nonsense, Global Warming, GMO, Green house gases, or any of those things that some people seem to be so afraid of.
So, i admit i am a bit skeptical of the threat of all these looming disasters that you read about and refer to, in the Fringy press.
But, i believe you have the right to do what you want to, as long as it does not actually harm anyone else, just like Monsanto has the right to do what it wants to, as long as they do not harm anyone else.
I know that you know that hybridization isn't the same thing as GMOs. So why would you say that?
To recap what I said above just in case you're not sure or you missed it:
"The term "genetically modified" refers to changes imposed through scientific intervention which insert traits into organisms that would never develop there through natural evolution, such as adding Bt to corn or genes from one species into the DNA of another. I'm surprised you're not aware of this distinction, but it's the in-the-lab DNA meddling that people are concerned about, not the sort of breeding programs that produce different strains of dogs or petunias, nor the sort of natural evolution that produced Homo sapiens."
I do have grandchildren as well as great grand children, and i certainly do not want them to live a life of dreadful fear of things that almost certainly will never happen. I recall seeing a generation of little kids that were taught to hide under their desks and be terrified of Atom Bombs that never fell. I thought people that deliberately scared those little kids were guilty of child abuse.
Love Canal symbolizes the start of the entire Fearful Future Industry. just like the Spotted Owl is the symbol of all the useless economic damage that has been done by the Eco Nuts.
And yes, i do remember this thread is supposed to be about GMO and not Grand children.
When i Genetically Modified the Organism commonly known as a Crabapple tree, i did it accidently with a budding knife. But it disturbed and rearranged the genes in that plant and produced a new and improved variety, instead of the expected clone. And my laboratory was the field, where much of the work on the soybeans is conducted.
So, that variety of crabapple, being resistant to many of the common diseases that Malus are susceptible to, is just as much a GMO as a Roundup resistant Soybean plant.
And there is absolutely no reason why the same thing could not have been done 2000 years ago.
What we really need to decide this debate, is just a little bit of actual proof that people are dying from the modified Soybeans.
[quote="CountryGardens"]I just got a Vegetable Grower magazine in the mail. There is an article on food safety. Of course the government is involved. Some of the rules are completely ridiculous. So down the line when food gets to expensive to buy, you can blame discussions like this where the people don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Minnesota had Timber Wolf season last fall. The wolves are getting to thick. Now some activists are up in arms & may get it stopped for future years. This news comes right along with why the Moose population has declined at an alarming rate lately. Is it possible the over supply of wolves are hungry ?[/quote]
And vice versa. In the East, herbivore populations occasionally get so high due to lack of native predators that they endanger the entire environmental balance. Deer eat the twigs and bark off emerging saplings, killing them and preventing replacement of trees that are past their prime. Wild hogs destroy the root systems of young plants while they are digging for roots, killing the plants and interrupting the natural replacement. Yet there always enough ignorant people agitating to save the "poor innocent animals" from the "mean old hunters" to keep the ecosystem in constant peril.
[quote="Solace"]The Atlantic/Gulf is affected by that awful incident that messed up the beaches and fishing industry, too. How do we honestly know what's poisoned and what's not unless the fish is actually tested? They don't test everything.[/quote]
What happened in the Gulf was indeed a disaster, but mostly because of the volume of material released and it's adverse affect on wetlands. The ocean floor is constantly releasing petroleum, and it is constantly finding it's way to beaches and into the food chain. It has as long as there's been petroleum in those offshore deposits - way longer than we've been around. I find it reassuring that we co-evolved with the stuff.
[quote="ERNIECOPP"]I am an old man, soon to be 87 years old, and in that long life span i have seen many friends and acquaintances die, some from Cigarettes, Cheap whiskey, Accidents, Heart attacks, Diabetes, etc, but not one of them have died from the Love Canal nonsense, Global Warming, GMO, Green house gases, or any of those things that some people seem to be so afraid of.[/quote]
God bless you Ernie - you make me feel positively young!
[quote="HoneybeeNC"]Roundup is a systemic herbicide. I don't want it in my food! [/quote]
Just as a side note, virtually every effective herbicide in common use is systemic. The only one I can recall off the top of my head that is NOT systemic is paraquat, which is extremely toxic, only available to licensed users, and can easily kill outright if not used very carefully.
[quote="HoneybeeNC"]Ernie - I gather from your posts that you don't care what happens to future generations of humans. It might take two or three generations for the ill effects of GMO's to be discovered.[/quote]
Pretty strong words. It seems to me that's very likely been said about every new invention or discovery probably since time began.
Imagine the poor guy who discovered how to control fire. "You're gonna burn yourself". "It's smoky". "It smells bad". "It makes the food taste funny". "It's too dangerous". "Think of the children..."
[quote="ERNIECOPP"]When i Genetically Modified the Organism commonly known as a Crabapple tree, i did it accidently with a budding knife. But it disturbed and rearranged the genes in that plant and produced a new and improved variety, instead of the expected clone. And my laboratory was the field, where much of the work on the soybeans is conducted.
So, that variety of crabapple, being resistant to many of the common diseases that Malus are susceptible to, is just as much a GMO as a Roundup resistant Soybean plant.
And there is absolutely no reason why the same thing could not have been done 2000 years ago.
What we really need to decide this debate, is just a little bit of actual proof that people are dying from the modified Soybeans.
Apparently we need to reintroduce people to colchicine. Occurring naturally in the roots of the Autumn Crocus, it has been used for MANY years to genetically modify plants.
Rick, Go ahead and complete the introduction if the Thread master will allow.
I see it has long been used to treat Gout, and is now being used to treat fever, so although it is called toxic, it seems to have some benefical uses. But not having had gout, i am not familiar with it.
I am sure we all know the difference, between hybridizing and genticic engineering, as well as when the term overlaps. I believe it was Farmer Dill that explained the Soy Bean program consists of choosing the plants that show resistance to mild doses of Roundup, and then breeding those plants back. And if that is true, which i believe it was, it sounds identical; to the way we did Breed Improvement on New Zealand Coopworth Sheep. Pick the strongest and breed them back.
But one of the major underlying problems with food labeling is the economic fact that only a few thousand people want it labeled, but the rest of the 130 million people have to pay for it. I forget the exact estimate, but it was millions and millions of dollars it was projected to cost, just in California, but the supporters missed the chance to step forward and offer to pay for what they want. They want all of us to pay for something they want, but we do not feel the need for.
Everything costs money, and we should be prepared to pay for those things we want.
>> Go ahead and complete the introduction
LOL! I was still working on the Preface - no, the Abstract. ;-)
People who don't like long posts should skip ahead with the page down key.
>> Imagine the poor guy who discovered how to control fire. "You're gonna burn yourself". "It's smoky". "It smells bad". "It makes the food taste funny". "It's too dangerous".
I'm willing to take the other other side ... that "fire" stuff IS dangerous! The smoke alone ...
You reminded me of the beach party cookout held by the Nutrition and Food Science department while I was an undergrad. All these top-shelf PhDs were grilling hot dogs over a smoky charcoal fire that had been started with hydrocarbon lighter fluid.
They started talking about their research projects, like:
- the very potent carcinogens and downright toxins in the N-nitrosoamine family, created from nitrites when heated in combination with protein, pretty much the definition of hot dogs.
- carcinogens in polycyclic hydrocarbons (charcoal lighter fluid)
- carcinogens from incomplete combustion, like soot and PAH in smoke
- the way caffeine potentiates many carcinogens, at least in tissue culture (Coca-Cola and coffee)
When one of the grad students (perhaps the vegetarian) pointed out that they were demonstrating everything they were studying, they roared with laughter, agreed, and kept on living.
They had a sense of the magnitudes of the risks, and strongly expected Cambridge air and traffic to kill them long before the nitrites and smoke.
But they ate scorched nitrite-preserved meats INFREQUENTLY to keep the dose and the risks down - the risks of cholesterol and bad ground meat and, oh yes, the chemical carcinoigens too. The dose makes the poison.
I don't think any of them were smoking cigarettes: the risk of that was high enough to be an objective concern when they looked at the numbers, so there were ex-smokers but few or no smokers. High risk, take action.
And they were darn careful when they handled radio-isotopes, acids, bases, dieing mice and aflatoxin. And careful when they crossed the street and matched their reflexes against motorists who seemed to think "one point for undergrads, two for grad students, and three for post-docs". More risk, more care.
They had a sense of perspective. If they had worried about increasing a one-in-50,000 chance of something up to one-in-40,000, they wouldn't have been able to face the REALLY dangerous parts of their jobs (or life) at all.
Maybe people who don't want to take any risks, reduce any possible risk, or want food to be pure or natural or organic by some definition, are smarter than the N&FS PhDs. Seriously, maybe that is more rational.
Would a statistician find that they lived measurably longer? I doubt it.
Are they any healthier in some way? Maybe. If they have LESS mental stress from knowing they've reduced their body's load of pollution by 20%, yes probably they are healthier. If they've INCREASED their mental stress levels by worrying about every aspect of life that is less natural than it was 100 years ago, probably not.
Drifting again, here's a fairly strongly held belief of mine: NONE of our grandchildren will ever complain about the way we allowed our food supply to become unnatural. They will be much too busy bitterly cursing our stupidity and short-sightedness for allowing climate change to make their world really hellish. There is one danger that isn't 1-in-50,000. Wars may go back to being global in scope as each region goes through periods of not being able to feed their population with or without GM tools. Maximum risk, put our heads in the sand and pretend it will just go away.
That was a good story, and i do not mind long posts, but the introduction i was looking for was how the "Colchichine" you mentioned is used to modify genetics. Google indicated it kills the gout without killing the goutee, but did not mention in the part i saw about its effect on genes.
Someone else must have posted about Colchicine. Isn't it used to make tetraploid or polyploid plants? Blocks chromosome separation during meiosis? Very toxic. Brutal stuff.
My definition of "genetic engineering" or "genetic modification" is very narrow. You can use the words any way you want, but it's useful to have a shorter way to say "Agrobacterium plasmid-mediated transformation of plant cells with DNA 'engineered' using techniques including sequencing, recombinant DNA methods, polymerase chain reaction (and others developed since around 1960)".
The field exploded when certain tools were invented, so I make a big distinction between GE / GM and the last 10,000 years of plant breeding. Until plasmids and Agrobacterium were used, breeding was just a million times slower and random.
Compared to the modern power tools, breeding and hybridization are in a different ballpark - a different continent. Not on the same planet, re4ally. Once they got the plasmid vector working on plants, the flood gate (or Pandora's Box) was open.
(The "gene gun" was more recent and clumsy despite its cutesy names "bioballistics" and "biolistics". But it does "count" as GE because Agrobacterium doesn't work on every plant species, and it can shoot the same plasmids. Much less efficient than Agrobacterium, but hugely better than anything else. Honest, a modified Crosman air pistol was used first, to shoot little tungsten particles coated with engineered plasmids. Then they used a nail gun cartridge to accelerate plasmid-laced tungsten powder. Hokey, and lame, right? Old school compared to Agrobacterium.
The Agrobacterium has always been able to splice some of its own DNA into plants. I think it makes a tumor or gall or some kind of plant wart. Agrobacterium has a few plasmids (small mobile sections of DNA that can go a'wandering). I think they are circular. Anyway, they have evolved to be very good at infecting plants.
So when geneticists figured out how Agrobacterium did it, they started using it as a shortcut. They piggy-back on the Agrobacterium plasmid, and let the bacteria do their DNA insertion for them. It's thousands of times more efficient than anything they came up with themselves.
So in that sense, GE or GM is "natural" - it uses a plasmid and a bacterium that have been around longer than agriculture.
But the bacterium is like a hypodermic needle. The transgenic and Frankenstein aspects come in when they modify the plasmid with DNA from species other than the target plant.
Geneticists already had enough tools that they can splice and dice the plasmid DNA, removing most of what they don't want, but keeping the initiator and terminator regions (not that kind of Terminator, we hope). Those regions let the plasmid infect the plant DNA. Then they splice in the "other" DNA that they want to play with, like a group of genes that make Vitamin A, or a toxin to kill insects.
They usually splice in a "select-for-me" gene like antibiotic resistance. They replicate or "amplify" the modified plasmid and slip it back into the Agrobacterium. Then they mush together plant cells and the Agrobacterium. Wait for a few of the bacteria to do their thing and infect some plant cells. The they call all the UNtransformed plant cells by adding antiobiotic. Any plant cells lacking the "select-for-me" gene die. What is left is mostly transformed plant cells.
If the plasmid carried in the antibiotic resistance gene, it probably alos carried in the genes they wan ted to fool around with. Now they grow the transformed plant cells back into plants, and Abra-ca-dabra, FrankenPlant.
THAT's what "genetically modified plants" means to me.. Plasmid-mediated transformation of plant cells with 'engineered' DNA.
With these power tools, geneticists "know enough to be dangerous". They can do in a few days what plant breeders could try for years or centuries to do randomly (even if they knew about what Agrobacterium can do, they didn't have the tools to dice and splice DNA to order.
It looks like we got the Rick and the Rich mixed up here. It was Rich that mentioned Colchichine modified genes, but did not say how it did that, and apparently when i followed up on that, to ask him to elaborate, I modified the Rich into Rich, causing a bit of confusion here.
Interesting description of what "genetically modified plants" (or, I assume, animals) means to you. I don't know if that will sink in with those who think it's identical to hybridization and long-term breeding programs - or natural selection - but you definitely gave it the old college try.
Without that common understanding of terminology there is really no point discussing this any further, so I won't.
A person who works at a company that does genetic (chemical kind) modification, would either defend them (to keep a paycheck coming in) or they'd quit (due to knowing you are contributing to people's misery and death) and find another job elsewhere.
Findings of the effects of genetic (chemical, not hybridazation or natural) modification was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.
Labels are not a bad thing. Other countries label them, so why don't we?
Findings from the study
Here are some of the shocking findings from the study:
• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.
• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.
• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.
• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that's grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that's in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.
I admire your tenacity in continuing the fight for common sense and truth. I was not getting anywhere so i finally gave up.
What they do not seem to realize is, if the GMO killed the rats the Lawyers would jump in and win millions of dollars for the dead rats estate, as well as for all the people that had worried themselves to death.
It was attacked by people with strong ties to the GMO industry or who were otherwise not unbiased to begin with. Read the article by another member of the French Academy, whose specialty is statistics and who found rejection of Séralin's results to be appalling and his study to be well-conducted and reliable:
They were feeding the rats straight round up. Amount was stupid. Comparison, a human would have to drink gallons per day! How dumb.
Car anti-freeze set out in pans is the best rat killer around, but people don't go around drinking anti-freeze.
Do I think food should be labeled, yes, I would hate to open a can to see what is in it.
In the USA if it's on the shelf for sale, it is most likely fit to eat.
Food poisoning don't happen until something is cooked or served.
Haven't heard of anybody dying from food except for food poisoning.
I'm just shaking my head. I cannot believe you honestly believe that, CG. After all the information out there about additives in foods and what they do to people. Just because thousands don't keel over all at once, doesn't mean people aren't dying a slow death by the way food is produced now, especially processed food. Next time you go to the store, sit in the parking lot for a while and watch the people going and coming from that store's doors. It's obvious there's a huge problem. If you can tell the food they're eating is killing them from across the parking lot, by the way they and their children look, then how is the food not affecting them? People have become so disconnected with what's happening and there's no love for people anymore, or they'd care. Just because a corporation is successful and has nice shiny ads all over tv and print, doesn't mean they're doing all good for people. They are in it for the bucks. They tell themselves they're giving the public what they want. The public, from the age of a toddler, is told by the media what to want. The whole system is haywire. Every family needs to grow their own healthy food, even if they have to do it on the rooftop or a laundry room, and quit taking this government sactioned poison into their bodies. I can't believe that anyone thinks "food poisoning don't happen until something is cooked or served". What about pesticides on raw vegetables? What about food from other countries that is grown in human dung? If people are dying from their food, CG, you'll never hear about it, because something else will get the blame. The whole system is messed up.
I'm sorry, but I worked at one time in a plant that processed old laying hens into canned chicken. Also some beef & pork. The food safety was unbelievable. Inspectors everywhere. No line was started until inspector made sure all was right. The chicken line was tore down & sanitized at noon hour. Then same at end of day. Now they run 24 hour day. This place is 8 miles from my house. If you go to Sam's Club & buy canned chicken, it is canned here.
Are you talking about all the overweight people coming & going to the stores. I don't know of any other food aliment you could see from your car.
I don't believe there are enough rooftops to grow food for everybody.
Your town sits in the middle of many irrigated fields. Put them on roof tops?
There was a 'rat study' in France that used rats bred to develop cancer..[.so they could try treatments on them] to 'prove' that GMOs gave cancers. It can take a long time to drain that scam out of the blogs.
Indy, that's the study I referred to above. The rats used in that study were the same strain that Monsanto also used in their tests to show no harm; they are a standard test animal. Those objecting to the study were associated with or GMO producers or had other clear conflicts through one avenue or another. The link I included in my last post was an article about scientists decrying the rejection of the study's findings, because they found it to be sound research. They also found the procedure through which the study was criticized to be flawed.
i took the time to read every word of the Biased Criticism by the dissident member of the French Academy, of the French Academy Committe's Criticism of the Frenchman Analyst's Criticism of the Biased study provided by the GMO proponents of the GM Maize.
This link was posted as proof and verification by GG that GMO is a Killer.
And, I was hoping to find a dead body, or at least an autopsy report, or some shred of proof that would lend a little bit of credence to the purported dangers of GMOs. But all i found was Hypotheses, Beliefs, Guesses, Opinions, and Speculations. So, since i did not find any evidence at all that either GMO is Dangerous or that GMO is the Savior of Civilization, I am still of the opinion that neither side has a leg to stand on until someone dies and their Autopsy report proves conclulsively that GMO Done it.
They kill roughly 1¼ people per day in Minnesota on the highways. These are documented deaths. We should not drive cars as they are killers.
No documented deaths from GMO's, but they should be outlawed.
THINK ABOUT IT!
Hospitals are killing lots of people now, too, by allowing patients to become infected with drug resistant virus and bacteria. So the world is dangerous, but still some people seem to focus on very minor problems, and elevate those problems far above where they should be in the greater scheme of things.
I do not think the anti GMO protest will become too big, as GMO is providing so many benefits to so many people, but sometimes mistaken beliefs like the Spotted Owl fiasco that destroyed the Northwest Logging Industry and countless families, small businesses, etc., did tremendous economic damage before it was discovered a more aggressive bird was causing the problem, and not the logging Industry at all. So, there is a danger, however small, that unwarranted protest movements can become larger problems.
I just happened to notice the post that you opened this thread with. You were concerned about the problems that Roundup might possibly be posing to the fertility or growability of the soil that had been treated with Roundup.
Please look at the post #9451450, dated 3,16,2013, to see how little effect 30 years of Roundup has had on the trees pictured.
This thread has segued into a heated discussion of GMOs. I knew there was a misconception about Roundup, but i did not recall who had expressed that.
I just stumbled on a statement by Dr. Deno about glycophosphate.
I agree with him that is is a LOT safer than many things, but I didn't think it broke down THAT fast in soil. I thought it bound tightly to soil, then broke down slowly. Of course, it breaks down "slowly" compared to some things, but "fast" compared to traditional persistent herbicides.
Just like it's much less toxic and persistent than arsenic, but worse than pyrethrins (if it is more toxic to humans and more persistent than pyrethrins).
Dr Deno, "Seed Germination, Theory And Practice" 2nd Edition, p. 61
How can I naturalize wild flowers?
The highway department in
Pennsylvania and private groups have taken to broadcasting seed of flowers in
patches in the median strip in our four lane divided highways and in the plots enclosed
in clover leaf intersections. This has been most successful, but it should be
remembered that it only works if the area is first sprayed with an herbicide of the
glycophosphate type such as Roundup. The seeds can be planted in a day or two
after the spraying.' using this technique we maintain sizable beds of Dianthus
barbatus, Delphinium grandiflorum, and Primula japonica with minimum effort. The
glycophosphate type of,herbicide is rapidly degraded in soils to glycine and
phosphates which are plant nutrients and are both beneficial to plants. The above
point is emphasized because there is much promotional literature appearing that
infers that one can just throw the wildflower seed anywhere. This simply will not work
if there is a thick sod of grass or a thick growth of other plants.
Many growers are frightened of chemicals. It is true that some older herbicides
such as simazine and arsenicals should not be used because they leave residues in
the soil that are detrimental to life. It is also true that herbicides of the Paraquat type
are dangerously toxic to humans. However, glycophosphate herbicides such as
Roundup and its congeners quickly degrade in soils to glycine and phosphates.
Glycine is a natural amino acid and a component of every protein in your body and
phosphates are a plant nutrient. No harmful residues are left, and seeds can be
planted minutes after spraying. These glycophosphate herbicides are the basis for notillage
farming which is the way that much corn is raised today as well as many other
Avoiding the use of Roundup because it is a chemical reminds the of a bumper
sticker that I saw on a pick up truck on a desolate back road in the outback of
Wyoming. if you think education is costly, try-ignorance.
Persistent URLs for Dr. Deno's book
"Seed Germination, Theory And Practice"
[quote="CountryGardens"]Car anti-freeze set out in pans is the best rat killer around, but people don't go around drinking anti-freeze. [/quote]
It works, but I certainly wouldn't call it "the best". It is sweet to the taste and is readily consumed by domestic pets and livestock, which react just like the rats do after drinking the stuff. Depending on where you did it and who saw you, "setting it out in pans" would likely put you in a very unenviable position.
Rick, I will try to keep your and Rich's names straight tonight. I hope the article you quote, which confirms what i learned about Roundup using it for 15 years and observing it for an additional 15 years, will soothe some of the fears and apprehensions many people seem to have about it.
This combining of our different knowledge bases reminds me of how well it worked during the years i worked closely with the University of Idaho, both with their Vet School, and their Tree Nursery programs. We would combine what they knew from teaching with what i had learned from Business and Farming, and we learned a lot from each other. So, reading what you and Rich Ogden have written here, from your higher education viewpoint, has fit in well with my field and life observations.
The Vet school is certainly off topic here, but the artificial insemination of sheep is a very expensive and difficult subject to teach without actual sheep to work with so a large group of their Professors and Vet Students would come up and practice using the semen i was importing fron New Zealand. And that cooperation, between Universities and Agriculture or Business is very valuable, and i refer to it here to illustrate how knowledge works best when it is flowing both ways.
While you are discussing the merits of different ways to kill rats, you might enjoy one of the problems described in the GMO Critique link posted by GG that i read today.
One of the disputes concerned the ages of the rats that were used in the test of GMOs. It seems the Pro group believed the test should have been conducted using mature rats, but the Con group that wanted to prove a danger with the GMO wanted to use younger rats.
Apparently rats only live two years, and the Con group wanted make sure the rats would die from the the GMO before they died of old age, and the Pro group wanted to use the old rats so they would die of old age before the GMO killed them.
>> We would combine what they knew from teaching with what i had learned from Business and Farming,
Bingo. That's what I was trying to get at in my "bottom heat" rant. Ivory-tower academics are probably usually exactly right about what they saw happen in controlled experiments, but it isn't always relevant to practical applications.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they ain't."
>> We would combine ...
That's the only way to make progress. Intellectual hybrid vigor.
Paraphrasing J. Michael Straczynski of Babylon 5 fame:
"Controlled experiments and practical experience are the shoes on your feet.
You can travel further with both than you can with just one."
>> the Con group wanted make sure the rats would die from the the GMO before they died of old age, and the Pro group wanted to use the old rats so they would die of old age before the GMO killed them.
Thanks for giving a practical example of what I was trying to say about "you have to know the prior bias of a team to evaluate their results". I'm not randomly calling all scientists liars.
Both your subconscious and your conscious experimental design that cause you to select in good faith (or otherwise) the conditions that allow you to DETECT the thing you are trying to detect. You may have spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get ANY measurable results. Yes, after the MEASURABLE results become possible, you should spend more years and thousands to get measurable results about realistic, practical scenarios (if that's possible).
Snap quiz: you could go to your boss and beg for twice the funding, and spend another few years, to try to DISprove the relevance and importance of the margin al results you finally managed to publish.
If you succeed, and show that your first paper was stupid, you may never get a grant again, kill your career and be a laughingstock to your peers. How hard do you beg for that extra funding? Or do you defend your results in yor own min d, and welcome the partisans who think you are a laboratory GOD for getting the results you already got.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. It makes the world go 'round, and scientists are people, too.
Of course, when the first paper was funded by Monsanto and they liked the PRO results, how easy will it be to get funding from them to show that your paper proved nothing practical?
Or if your funding came from a government agency whose existence depends on protecting people from perceived (and/or real) threats, are THEY likely to approve the second grant request titled :I think I was wrong, your rules are stupid, and there really WAS no evidence of danger"?
The biases probably come as much fr5om the fun ding process and peer review as by individual bias.
Science doesn't work by "THIS study proves THAT". It works over time by the combined weight of evidence finally overwhelming THAT school of belief and showing that THIS school of belief was on a rightER path (and should get funding to purge THEIR mistakes).
And when BIG discoveries are made, like quantum mechanics and relativity, you just have to wait for the stubborn and inflexible members of the old school (like department chairmen and heads of funding organizations) to DIE OFF, so the new ideas can be "accepted".
He must have written it before he became totally academic. He seemed aware of the real world and how people actually think and form beliefs, not how mathematicians and academic philosophers prove each other wrong. I know he HAD to become academic and appeal to philosophy wonks to have any career. But it made him less interesting to me!
You have compiled and expressed several points that are relevant to this and most other discussions. I hope some of them are able to penetrate the curtain of bias that seems to be hiding the truth and common sense here.
And i do hope everyone reads your post about the components of Roundup. I had never really paid any attention to the benefits of the phosphate in it,
I am going to take a look at the Web of Belief you reccommend.
It appears your well reasoned, documented, and clearly expressed points on the GMO last night, brought reason to the discussion and it was badly needed, as the discussion had become circular in nature and would never had reached an end on its own.
I want to thank you, because while it had been a very interesting debate, I think we all learned something from it, at least about human nature if nothing else.
An idea has been perking around in my head and trying to come to the surface related to this thread. Something like "why are feelings so aroused about this, and the talk so at-cross-purposes"?
Now I also notice that everyone cared passionately about "WE SHOULD" and "I CARE" and "I FEAR" or "NO ONE SHOULD FEAR" ... but only 1-2 people are interested to discuss the nerdy, wonky details of how to try to prove whether there is, isn't, or might be, something no worse than coffee grounds, or worse than raw sow manure.
I think part of it is that we are mixing several things without acknowledging that they are DIFFERENT things, mostly VERY different things and even different KINDS of things.
Some are more like values or personal decisions than measurable facts.
- how cautious do I CHOOSE to be, for myself, about synthetic chemicals I put in my body?
- how cautious do I think the world SHOULD be about releasing fields full of plants with transgenic DNA?
- how much do I TRUST Monsanto, pro-scientists, con-scientists, politicians, and activists?
- how much do I VALUE "reducing risk" vs "holding down the cost of food", compared to each other (how would I CHOOSE to trade those off against each other, if I were in charge?
Value decisions (like "what do I CARE most about?) can't be proven or disproved, or even much done to persuade people, because they come 80% from emotion and passion and long-held ideals. "Prove me wrong and I'll disbelieve you." More like religion and fear and desire than analysis. Because they are personal, they can't be usefully debated.
- - -
If it were POSSIBLE to resolve issues like those, we could probably discuss dispassionately "what each study meant" and what its technical drawbacks were. But we might also fall asleep, since those issues are REALLY HARD and excruciatingly technical.
Things that honest experiments should be able to determine:
- HOW MUCH glycophosphate remains in each crop after harvest (or breakdown products)
- HOW MUCH of that makes it all they way into the processed foods we buy
- what is the FREQUENCY of short-term effects on humans fed X, Y and Z amounts for a few years?
- WHAT and HOW MUCH of various contaminants is in the commercial products (not pure lab reagents)
- HOW FAST does it break down in soil, wash into streams, evaporate.
- WHAT are all the things it breaks down into, considering microbial action
- HOW MUCH do farmers apply:
- - - - any amount that is convenient and has a positive cost-benefit ratio
- - - - usually gross excess,
- - - - only enough to reduce losses, only when evidence shows heavy weeds are likely
- - - - more than they would have to, if they farmed in a totally different way and made less profit
(Even If someone could PROVE that XYZ was not and never COULD hurt ANYONE, they would still have to convince people with strong feelings to the contrary - there is probably denial on both sides of the debate).
Even if we had enough research grants and time to research HONESTLY all those MEASURABLE issues, there are still many important things almost impossible to prove.
- If billions of people ate X, Y or Z amount of glycophosphate from childhood to grave, did the health of any of them change for better or worse? Subtle, rare and long-term effects are all hard to prove or even detect.
- What changes occur in a plant with X, Y or Z amounts of glycophosphate in its tissues?
- How and how much would those speculative changes affect humans eating those plants over decades?
Because not everything is knowable or provable ahead of time, science can only take us so far. Then each person is either still worried, or UN-worried enough to keep food cheap.
And that is just "what would I do if I were in charge".
Next we would have to consider public policy for people who disagree about their individual values, who they believe, and even the "measurable" facts.
If the public policy is going to be decided by something like democracy, we need to remember (perhaps fear) the fact that a lot of voters smoke tobacco, drink to excess, eat fatty foods to gross excess, drive drunk, burn their house4s down while deep-frying turkeys, etc etc
It's a very imperfect world!
It's no surprise that we get even more worked up ab out this than about "the right way" to start seeds, fight damping off, or make compost.
Coffee grounds or Sow manure.. This difference may be rooted in the amount of control we are willing to give other people over our own lives, or to try to regulate other people. I think there is a strong generational difference, as people as old as i am grew up with very few governmental controls, and we would not think of voting for a law that controlled the personal lives of other people. But as Society has become more complex, and Politicians have found it to be a lucrative career path, following generations have allowed themselves to be much more controlled, and not they think it is fine for the Government to pass regulations that control other people, so now different groups want the Government to pass laws regulating against everything they do not like. And for whatever reasons, perhaps just more awareness, most people are more fearful now than people formerly were.
Trusting Monsanto... You should only trust any business to try to make money, as the Business of Business is Making Money. But you can absolutely trust the Unwritten Laws of the Market Place, to control businesses. If Monsanto, for instance, is successful in producing a better grain, that will feed more people and make people healthier, happier, and live longer, they will be greatly rewarded. BUT it is very risky to try new things, or be careless in how you run your business, or you will punished and driven out of business by the Market place and/or the Lawyers. Only recently, a simple peanut butter factory allowed their product to be contaminated, now they are in Bankrupctcy, and it will cost them every penny they have made. A few people died from poisoned peanut butter instead of being hit by a bus, but balance that by all the healthy happy hungry kids that have been helped through the years by the good peanut butter they made. That is life.
Value decisions cannot be proven...is true, an people cannot be persuaded against their will. But we all need to make our own Value decisions and Personal Choices using as much common sense and proven factual information as we can muster, for our own interests. We should use logic and our own independent thinking to try to get the best for ourselves. We need to be our own best friend and not our own worst enemy. I value my independence, and prefer to pay for my own mistakes, rather than to follow someone blindly, as i will also have to pay for his mistakes.
Honest Experiments...I am sure with todays technology, all of the suggested items could be identified, BUT, in reality, what would the Cost/Benefit figure out to be. And, what would the reaction be to using Human Beings for the guinea pigs that would be necessary. That was tried in the past for TB, Syphyilis, Atomic Radiation and a few other things, and caused quite an uproar.
But the Market Place and the Economy will work it out, and that Risk is the Price we Pay for Progress. So far the Cost/Benefit ratio has been in our favor because the world is a better place because of the progress we have acheived. Or so i believe.
If Total Safet was proven...I do not believe such perfection could ever be reached. But even it it was, i do not think it would be desirable. Remember the Rats in the GMO test. They all died, either from old age or eating GMO, so in the long run, it did not make much difference to the rats, and probably does not make much difference to us at that time, whether we died from the old age or the GMO.
So, Rick, you and i wind up in the same place. It would be very hard to improve on the system we have now. It is not perfect, but it is the only one that seems to work.
And people do seem to get pretty worked up about what is the proper way to do the gardening. We all have very firm specific beliefs about a lot of things that obviously have many different suitable methods.
And i still do not worry about the Roundup, but Arsenic is a different thing completely.
I don't see why a similar icon could not be placed on food that has been genetically engineered. No need to change recipes. Simply "label it" with a pretty little icon. Then we, the consumers, would know what we are buying, and those who do not fear genetically altered food would be happy, and so would those who choose to avoid such adulteration.
What are genetic engineers afraid of? A pretty little icon?
I purchase organic fruit whenever possible, and each individual fruit has a sticker which gives country of origin and the word "organic". A little sticker that says "genetically engineered" is all that's necessary.
[quote="HoneybeeNC"]I purchase organic fruit whenever possible, and each individual fruit has a sticker which gives country of origin and the word "organic". A little sticker that says "genetically engineered" is all that's necessary.[/quote]
Except of course what you're really purchasing isn't really "organic" at all. It's just what the government has redefined as organic. Rodale would be rolling in his grave to see what has become of that term. So much for labels...
I was shocked when i heard the estimated cost of labeling the GMO food in CA was, I believe, 30 million dollars. I did not hear that figure disputed.
In order for the label to be guaranteed accurate, each canner, bottler, packager or manufacturer, would have to have a certified testing lab or its equal, to certify it was as stated.
Then, the Government Agency that enforces the statute, would have to duplicate the testing labs, to verify that the certified labels were as stated.
And then, the lawyers would have an entire new field to plow, looking for excuses to file lawsuits, frivolous or sincere, and adding all those costs up, makes that "pretty little icon" a "pretty expensive little icon."
Yes, i am sure it is the same for all of them, and each additional regulation adds to the total. And that is one of the main reasons that everything now costs so much more than the basic product itself costs. The tin can and the few green beans or whatever, cost very little.
But rather than labeling all the cans, the vast majority of which will never be checked, perhaps the people that are interested could get specialty producers to GMO label different foods so those that want them, can find them, as the organic producers now do. You pay more for Organic products, to cover that cost, and no one objects to organic labels, even if they never choose the product.
Each straw weighs very little, but enough of them broke the Camel's back.
Labeling should be done, no matter the cost. Still surprised Cali voted against it. Breaking down the numbers, would cost $25 a month per household($300 per year) for labeling. Not bad at all. I'd pay that, but apparently many wouldn't.
If you buy meat from a store or butcher, you've eaten GMO's. There's never been a GMO meat law...yet, some companies are placating.
Anyways, grow your own. You'll never have a problem with GMO vegetables as a home grower.
Instead of Round Up, use distilled vinegar. It's a couple of dollars per gallon, doesn't sterilize the earth or kill earthworms and beneficial microbes, and will not pollute our groundwater. Put it, undiluted, into a spray bottle and spray away. Just don't spray anything you do not want to kill.
[quote="ERNIECOPP"]People have no right to complain about the government getting bigger and infringing on our own personal freedoms if we keep demanding they infringe on other people's freedoms. [/quote]
Thank you, Ernie! Well said.
Absolutely, 100%. You post a perfect example of the mess Government regulations cause.
Just like with the GMO, i have never seen evidence that Gay Marriage has ever harmed Heterosexual Marriage, and even having to make a decision, either way, about Abortion, must be one of the most difficult and most personal problems any of us will ever have in our life, and should be left to the people that have to make that decision.
I suppose that some people were engaging in unnatural sex and aborting babies a long time ago. Except when it got to the degree of Sodom and brought God's wrath on them, I tend to feel that they can engage in such things and feel that they answer to God for this.
The problems come in when these things are touted as normal and must be accepted and funded by others who do not agree.
What IS your problem? You don't get to decide who uses what here. Someone posted a legitimate observation and I responded. I'm sure this British poster is really impressed with us now. Thanks for making DG a welcoming place for a new member.
As most of you on this thread know, we have relaxed the old rules about no political discussions here at DG, with the understanding that our audience is typically mature and responsible enough to handle themselves in a polite and respectful way even with touchy subjects. None of us wants to go back to the total clampdown on political discussions (and Melody and I certainly don't want to spend the majority of our DG time policing threads for infractions.)
And before you point your finger at the "other guy", everyone needs to consider whether your own comments fueled the fire. You probably think you are totally in the right in your position here...but so does someone whose opinion is in direct opposition to yours.
I'm locking this thread to further comment. I am now following the new thread, and I will edit and issue warnings as necessary, but as a participant in this discussion, each of you has an "edit" button beneath your name on every post you've made. Make it easier on everyone and go back through the next thread and edit your own comments if necessary.
But one of the major underlying problems with food labeling is the economic fact that only a few thousand people want it labeled, but the rest of the 130 million people have to pay for it. I forget the exact estimate, but it was millions and millions of dollars it was projected to cost, just in California, but the supporters missed the chance to step forward and offer to pay for what they want. They want all of us to pay for something they want, but we do not feel the need for.
Exactly. This is exactly the point I made in another thread. Let those that want it pay for it.
I also want to thank you, as well as CountryGardens, RickCorey, Farmerdill & rjogden for bringing sanity to this thread.