Who's anti-GMO?

[Rick]

normal hybridized breeding program

What on earth is that? Grafting is one of the most used commercial methods to produce plants that would "never cross in the wild" and is used all the time as a way to speed up the maturity of hybrid plants. Yep, it's a sterile mule. We don't think about that when we eat cherries do we?

Here's a name everyone should research, Norman Borlaug. All the wheat you eat today can be traced back to the work this man did. It's estimated that he saved over 1 billion people from starvation, won the Nobel Peace Prize (along with a zillion other awards) and worked for the Rockefeller Foundation, a mega corporation.

[LowKey]

You'll notice that nowhere have I said the food is not safe to eat.
Nor did I diss Monsanto (other than their profit motive.)
Grafting is not a genetic technique. You are not mixing DNA when you graft. You can graft to dwarfing rootstock and still produce viable seed that is as true as any seed that is open pollinated. Grafting doesn't create mules.
Everyone understands that seeds from hybrid crosses, if not sterile do not reproduce true. Even the guys going to the grain elevator for their seed know this.

As an aside, why did this guy lose his lawsuit?
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-soybean-seeds

The work of Norman Borlaug was a lifetime of hybridized breeding programs using various cultivars of wheat he found around the world. He sped up his wheat breeding program by growing in a place that had two crop seasons (Mexico, I think.)
He was not in the lab splicing bacterial DNA into the genome of wheat.
That is the difference between GMO and "normal" hybridized breeding.

He also developed multi-lines of the crop that varies disease-resistance among the plants in the field, giving the crop at least some chance of surviving if a portion is wiped out by disease. He was not growing monocultures of genetically similar plants manipulated to be resistant to single-target pests or pesticides.

If you want to grow corn resistant to corn borer, you select in the field the corn that the corn borer isn't eating. You do this for years maybe. You don't go grab a Bt producting bacteria and cross it with a corn plant. To do that you have to take it in the lab and take genes from the bacteria and with some steep chemical science, insert them somewhere in the plant DNA. And then you patent it.

I'm far more concerned about this:
http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/blog...-spur-concerns
The farmers still growing non-GMO corn (and other crops the borer infests) now may not be able to use spray-applied Bt to control corn borer in their crops. Is this ok with you?
(granted the same thing may have happened with selection, but hopefully not to the point where monoculture has been established.)
Either scenario goes back to my petri dish analogy. If it has gotten to the point you can't lose some crop to a few worms...
There is no stemming this tide.

[ClayPick]

It’s my understanding that Borlaug achieved most of his work through conventional plant breeding techniques and relied on hybridization within the boundaries set by nature and not through genetic engineering? His work would have been even more efficient if he had genetic mapping to work with.
All I know about commercial grafting is what I see around here in the greenhouses ....... they graft roses to roses, apples to apples and tomato to tomato.
If people want to eat GENETICALLY ENGINEEED food that’s fine by me, fill your boots. My thing is to catch and make as much of my food as I can and not rely on being spoon fed from the cradle to the grave. LK, you beat me to the button.

[nell67]

You'll notice that nowhere have I said the food is not safe to eat.
Nor did I diss Monsanto (other than their profit motive.)
Grafting is not a genetic technique. You are not mixing DNA when you graft. You can graft to dwarfing rootstock and still produce viable seed that is as true as any seed that is open pollinated. Grafting doesn't create mules.
Everyone understands that seeds from hybrid crosses, if not sterile do not reproduce true. Even the guys going to the grain elevator for their seed know this.

As an aside, why did this guy lose his lawsuit?
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-soybean-seeds

The work of Norman Borlaug was a lifetime of hybridized breeding programs using various cultivars of wheat he found around the world. He sped up his wheat breeding program by growing in a place that had two crop seasons (Mexico, I think.)
He was not in the lab splicing bacterial DNA into the genome of wheat.
That is the difference between GMO and "normal" hybridized breeding.

He also developed multi-lines of the crop that varies disease-resistance among the plants in the field, giving the crop at least some chance of surviving if a portion is wiped out by disease. He was not growing monocultures of genetically similar plants manipulated to be resistant to single-target pests or pesticides.

If you want to grow corn resistant to corn borer, you select in the field the corn that the corn borer isn't eating. You do this for years maybe. You don't go grab a Bt producting bacteria and cross it with a corn plant. To do that you have to take it in the lab and take genes from the bacteria and with some steep chemical science, insert them somewhere in the plant DNA. And then you patent it.

I'm far more concerned about this:
http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/blog...-spur-concerns
The farmers still growing non-GMO corn (and other crops the borer infests) now may not be able to use spray-applied Bt to control corn borer in their crops. Is this ok with you?
(granted the same thing may have happened with selection, but hopefully not to the point where monoculture has been established.)
Either scenario goes back to my petri dish analogy. If it has gotten to the point you can't lose some crop to a few worms...
There is no stemming this tide.

Well said Lowkey.

[2dumb2kwit]

My opinion; Like most things, there are good and bad points. The problem that I see, is the lack of "good" information. As has been said, money sways "research". We can find info for and against and we just don't know who is right.

The plus side is that there is plenty of food. I'm for growing stuff cheaper and having plenty of it. The thing that I fear, is losing the old varieties of many foods. When you grow everything to last longer, be tougher to stand transportation and so on, you give something up. Is it just the taste? I don't know. I do know that there is a world of difference between a tomato from the store and ones grown at home. That makes me wonder what else I'm missing, by eating food that is sold in stores.

Maybe I just want to have my cake and eat it too.

[madmax]

My brother works for Monsanto. Defends them to the death.

[hunter63]

Like many things...logic doesn't have much to do with how people perceive this issue and decisions they make.....Unless you are a Vulcan.
People make decisions with their feeling , and gut reaction.


Home grown veggies taste much better to me over store bought,...and I know what's in them.... don't like paying more for organic, not sure if they are really organic, or not...depend on whose rules are followed.

I think it's a good thing people all over the world are being fed....but for the selfish reason, that hungry people would want ours/yours....if they weren't.

Data one way or another will never decide anything, either....pick your side and go for it.

[wilderness medic]

I've seen the arguments from pro-GMO people that "man has been manipulating plants since the beginnings of agriculture." The "Pro-GMO" cannot see that the lab cut-and-paste of genetic material from organisms so different they would never cross in the wild is not the same as hybridization.

Good statement, thanks. One of the arguments I use, good to look into more of the lab side.

BTW,
Using a term like "Anti" to describe people who don't like GMO is derogatory in nature and will not get you any type of response. Using terms like "cherry pick" and "fear mongering" you have shown you have no patience or any intent to listen to someone who doesn't ascribe to GMOs as a food source and seem to want to ridicule and sneer at anyone who does. They may be Pro-Organic. Or Pro-Natural Selection rather than Anti anything. There actually can be science behind being anti-GMO. I have a degree in Botany with a minor in Wetland Ecology/taxonomy. I was still in school when Terminator genes were developed and there was quite the debate in plant physiology class over whether it was even an ethical use of science to ever conceive of such a thing in the name of profit.

Maybe to you. If that really hurts your feelings I don't know what to tell you. If you are not pro you are anti. Pro gun, anti gun. If that really upsets someone and they feel it's somehow derogatory... Tough, cry me a river. Wussification of American and having to be politically correct on everything so absolutely no ones little feelings get hurt. The same for cherry picked information. This is a term that is widely used and applicable to both sides. IF you pick and choose to fit your agenda and IGNORE the other side, it's cherry picked. For both sides, and I am not impatient or lacking intent to listen. I am here to learn and look at BOTH sides. Something that has been lacking from the majority of anti-GMO (yes anti) people i've talked to. You can show me evidence and peer reviewed research and I will accept having my mind changed. The problem lies with the people who are already concrete and won't accept new evidence, or anything that goes against what.....Hunter said perfectly...

Like many things...logic doesn't have much to do with how people perceive this issue and decisions they make.....Unless you are a Vulcan.
People make decisions with their feeling , and gut reaction.

The thing that I fear, is losing the old varieties of many foods. When you grow everything to last longer, be tougher to stand transportation and so on, you give something up. Is it just the taste? I don't know.

Now THAT is a good reasonable fear. I like it.


Lowkey-Furthermore, while researching more groups most of them identify themselves as anti GMO. Unless that was some sort of joke I didn't pick up on I have no idea how you could construe that as derogatory.

[edr730]

"Enlist" a new GMO corn is resistant to the newer herbicide which is a combination of Roundup and Agent Orange (Enlist Duo) and has now been approved.

[wilderness medic]

"Enlist" a new GMO corn is resistant to the newer herbicide which is a combination of Roundup and Agent Orange (Enlist Duo) and has now been approved.

"8. Is 2,4-D the same as “Agent Orange”?
No. “Agent Orange” was a mixture of two different herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, as well as kerosene and diesel fuel. Agent Orange contained high levels of dioxin, a contaminant found in 2,4,5-T that causes cancer and other health concerns in people. EPA canceled all use of 2,4,5-T in 1985 because of these risks.
In evaluating this requested use, we performed a thorough and conservative safety review for any potential human health and environmental risks associated with the expanded use of 2,4-D on these GE plants and also explicitly considered any possible risks from any formulation contaminants."

-EPA.org

[edr730]

I'll retract that statement. It is called the Agent Orange herbicide and contains 2,4-D which is one of the chemicals in Agent Orange....so not to worry.

[Rick]

As I said, one more peeing contest.

[Batch]

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

We picked cucumbers, strawberries, and tomatoes today. Organic, with sugar cane, purslane, water Hyacinth, water lettuce.

[Rick]

If anyone is interested they are splicing genes in human embryos in China. That ought to get some blood boiling.

[wilderness medic]

Who's having a peeing match? I learned something.

GMO topic is covered enough for what I needed. Thanks.

[edr730]

Yes, Rick they have been doing gene splicing for a while. Human/human, human/sheep human/cow human/mice. Kind of a different subject except when it could entail intellectual property rights.
Part of the issue with many plants today, which include GMO's, are these intellectual rights or patent rights. Although 25% of the worlds farmable land produces 70% of the worlds food, it's becoming increasing difficult for these small farmers with diverse seeds to continue due to patents, controls and regulations.
Recently, last fall, the Mayan of Guatemala protested against the many regulations which would, in effect, made seed saving and distribution illegal for these small farmers with these diverse seeds. It all involves international agreements or CAFTA. I was there when these same campesinos attempted to block the highway between Guatemala City and Antigua when the CAFTA agreement was being considered. A number of anti-CAFTA leaders and educators were assasinated. They had seen the economic disaster for the campesinos in Mexico after NAFTA had passed. During the time that GMO corn was introduced in Guatemala. through CAFTA, the price of tortillas, or corn, has doubled.

[Rick]

A large part of the increase in corn prices in Central America has been driven by conversion to biofuel rather than human consumption. The same is true of animals that consume corn. Their prices have gone through the roof as well. As long as we are dumb enough to convert food to fuel the supply will be limited and the demand will increase thus driving up the price.

[edr730]

Perhaps the price of field corn could drive the price up for the black or white maize used for food in Guatemala. I don't know. I do know that less land is available for growing these food corn varieties of the productive diverse small farmer.

My main concern is throwing the Mayan indians in jail or charging them two months earnings for saving their own seed. which they developed over centuries. I don't think that would be the ethical use of intellectual property law.

The priests, educators, and Mayan campesinos have seen these problems coming for ten years and that is evident by the past and recent protests.

GMO companies play their role in this senerio by making the saving of seeds financialy impossible. They also will have large tracts of land with GMO corn contaminating other corn varieties. They then will own, though intellectual property rights, all the contaminated corn which they themselves will be guilty of contaminating.

[2dumb2kwit]

Heck, if it wasn't for gene splicing, the aliens wouldn't have been able to turn neanderthals into humans and we wouldn't be here. Right, Rick?

[Rick]

Did you or the mule post that?