GMO bad, natural selection good?

[haypoint]

While not yet common, weeds are developing Roundup Ready traits on their own. When a weed evolves to resist the effects of Roundup, it isn’t using any gene splicing techniques. It isn’t stealing Monsanto’s patents. It isn’t caused by pollen drift. It is adapting naturally.

Plants and animals have been adapting to changes in our environment for millions of years. The fact that a few plants have already adapted to this potent herbicide shows that this natural evolution continues.

So, these weeds have a naturally occurring resistance to Roundup. If a few dandelions survived a spraying of Roundup and the seeds from this naturally occurring adaptation were used to plant a dandelion garden, could I sell these greens as organic? While they could be considered, “Roundup Ready”, they are not GMO.

Some GMO plants resist insects. Some plants develop insect resistance on their own.

Organic Orchardists have begun to grow apple varieties that show resistances to insect pests. This adaption underscores the importance of varietal selection. Fruit trees that resist pests or fungal diseases are important to the homesteading orchardist, reducing or eliminate chemicals.

Since GMO plants cannot be considered organic, even when grown using organic methods, can plants that have adapted naturally be banned, too? If they are to be allowed because of their adaption without Monsanto’s intervention, doesn’t this cloud the line a bit? Can we set an organic standard that specifically prohibits Monsanto’s “frankenfood”, yet embrace plants that have developed the same traits naturally?

Where is the line?

[Old Swampgirl]

Time is the big factor here. Other aspects to consider are what other traits/characteristics are modified along with the specificially modified one. You pose lots of excellent questions. Eager to see the answers. Bottom line is that it will be a judgement call based of long term scientific studies of these GMO plants.

[willow_girl]

That's an interesting question. I suspect just about every cultivated crop has been genetically modified by selective breeding. Corn and bananas are two examples that come to mind.

[geo in mi]

haypoint,

Here are a couple of good reads that might help us sort out the science from the philosophical. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18328408

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/gwc/gwc-1.pdf

Basically, weed resistance has always been a factor with any herbicide developed for ag use. It's common knowledge, and all the PhD's are constantly working on it. Based on some of the factors in the literature cited, I'm not certain that you can accurately say that a weed or weeds evolve specifically to resist appliations of Roundup. That weeds survive after application of Roundup is true, but perhaps not because it is a one on one causitive factor. I havent found anything which would state that it is a proven fact that any weed has evolved Roundup resistance.

As a person with space and ability to grow much of my own food, I feel fortunate to have the ability to choose the ways and means to produce it without a wholesale use of questionable chemicals, but then, I'm not fanatical about it.

Hopefully, this thread will not take the same route that most Monsanto/Roundup discussions take on this forum, more heat than fact, with passionate claims and flaming rebuttals.......I'm hopeful, but not expectant. Using the word "frankenfoods" is a hot button term to kick of an M-bash.

(On a side note, yesterday I watched as the neighbor's son sprayed off a sailboat on the dad's lawn. He used the same green pump sprayer that the stepson had used just the other day to spray , probably Roundup, on the weeds between dad's house and field. I have a five day wait.....)

geo

[ronbre]

a simple example of naturally resistant plants would be the elms and chestnuts that survived the blights that killed off all of their friends..people went arounnd searching for elms and chestnuts that survived so that they could breed resistant ones..

problem is..now the new resistant ones are sucumbing to the new diseases out there..there were hundreds of resistant elms in our area that didn't die from dutch elm disease...but this year most of them are standing dead in the fields and woods..for some unknown reason..so i'm glad i didn't plant a "disease resistant" variety..they just took longer..many years longer..to sucumb to some disease that killed them..may be a stronger dutch elm disease...who knows..but they are dead this year..first year no leaves.

[Bearfootfarm]

Since GMO plants cannot be considered organic, even when grown using organic methods, can plants that have adapted naturally be banned, too?

They are "organic", since they are "living"

They may not be accepted by some arbitrary definition, but they are still "organic"

[haypoint]

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

They are "organic", since they are "living"

They may not be accepted by some arbitrary definition, but they are still "organic"

Wow, samantics.
I guess by your understanding of what I wrote, I could have written, " All Monsanto patented GMO seeds upheld in Scientific Groups as 100% organic." It would be true, but not the way most folks in an open discussion of organic vs GMO might think of it.

Yes, I'll try to remember that the term organic is broader than just food grown by a set of standards that avoids chemicals.

Remember, too, there is no such thing as a hot water heater.

[MariaAZ]

Originally Posted by haypoint

Can we set an organic standard that specifically prohibits Monsanto’s “frankenfood”, yet embrace plants that have developed the same traits naturally?

Where is the line?

Just my opinion here...

I think the key word you used is "naturally." I feel there is a MAJOR difference between a naturally occurring trait and a genetically modified one. The question to me is, what organism contributed the genetic material? If the material comes from an organism that the other parent wouldn't be able to procreate with without the use of advanced technology, then to me it's a chimera (which is an artificially created organism according to dictionary.com.) And to me, designating such a chimera as not organic under the accepted legal definition is acceptable.

[Patt]

Haypoint asked: Since GMO plants cannot be considered organic, even when grown using organic methods, can plants that have adapted naturally be banned, too? If they are to be allowed because of their adaption without Monsanto’s intervention, doesn’t this cloud the line a bit? Can we set an organic standard that specifically prohibits Monsanto’s “frankenfood”, yet embrace plants that have developed the same traits naturally?

Looking at it from the perspective of survival of the fittest I see what led to your question, plants that manage to survive Round-up have whatever special genetic structure is necessary to keep them from dying. They live, the others die and we see evolution on a small scale. It appears on the surface to be the same, that it became "round-up ready". The real question though is how that happened and what is the difference between the genetically modified crops and natural genetic resistence.

The reason why those of us who buy and use and want organic do not want GMO's allowed into Organics are mainly because we do not know what the long term effects of genetic modification are: we don't like using an unnatural process of taking the genes of a bacteria and inserting it into a soybean, by doing so you have now created something completely unknown in nature previously. It has nothing in common at all with the marestail or amaranth that just happens to have a normal plant gene that is unaffected by Round-up. There really is an enormous difference there. One happens every day in nature and the other is an utter impossibility in nature.

We don't know the long term effects of genetic splicing. There is a lot of research going on and some of it points to ill effects ranging from sickness in humans and animals to allergic reactions and then everything from the current honey bee crisis to the loss of the Monarch butterfly. Right now all those are possibilities. There are plenty of other things that could potentially happen that we are not aware of yet. Look at all the things science has introduced in the last century to solve one problem that actually created an even worse and completely unforeseen one. Thalidomide anyone?

[marvella]

Originally Posted by ronbre

a simple example of naturally resistant plants would be the elms and chestnuts that survived the blights that killed off all of their friends..people went arounnd searching for elms and chestnuts that survived so that they could breed resistant ones..

problem is..now the new resistant ones are sucumbing to the new diseases out there..there were hundreds of resistant elms in our area that didn't die from dutch elm disease...but this year most of them are standing dead in the fields and woods..for some unknown reason..so i'm glad i didn't plant a "disease resistant" variety..they just took longer..many years longer..to sucumb to some disease that killed them..may be a stronger dutch elm disease...who knows..but they are dead this year..first year no leaves.

in appalachia, when the chestnuts started dying, they didn't go in looking for the ones that survived to save them. they went looking for the survivors to cut them all down before disease could take them. work is still being done on a hybridized replacement.

i'm not at all sure the tinkering we do with all living things is good for us as a species.

however, adaption is a key tenet of my religious beliefs. the entire earth is searching for homeostasis. some species will adapt and survive. others will not. the true beauty lies within the constant striving for balance.

[marvella]

Originally Posted by Patt

Looking at it from the perspective of survival of the fittest I see what led to your question, plants that manage to survive Round-up have whatever special genetic structure is necessary to keep them from dying. They live, the others die and we see evolution on a small scale. It appears on the surface to be the same, that it became "round-up ready". The real question though is how that happened and what is the difference between the genetically modified crops and natural genetic resistence.

The reason why those of us who buy and use and want organic do not want GMO's allowed into Organics are mainly because we do not know what the long term effects of genetic modification are: we don't like using an unnatural process of taking the genes of a bacteria and inserting it into a soybean, by doing so you have now created something completely unknown in nature previously. It has nothing in common at all with the marestail or amaranth that just happens to have a normal plant gene that is unaffected by Round-up. There really is an enormous difference there. One happens every day in nature and the other is an utter impossibility in nature.

We don't know the long term effects of genetic splicing. There is a lot of research going on and some of it points to ill effects ranging from sickness in humans and animals to allergic reactions and then everything from the current honey bee crisis to the loss of the Monarch butterfly. Right now all those are possibilities. There are plenty of other things that could potentially happen that we are not aware of yet. Look at all the things science has introduced in the last century to solve one problem that actually created an even worse and completely unforeseen one. Thalidomide anyone?

per paragraph 2: one other thing to note is that our bodies have adapted to foods that have also adapted naturally. tranfats are a good example. our bodies are used to metabolzing animal fats. they have no idea what to do with a "food" that has been manufactured to fit a market niche. trans fats essentially "burn" the linings of our blood vessels, leaving scarlike tissue behind aka plaque. it's the leading cause of heart disease. the jury will be out for a few generations before we see the results of our tampering.

[oneokie]

Originally Posted by haypoint

Where is the line?

Good question.

Would man manipulated hybrids of corn be considered a GMO? Example the sh2 sweet corn hybrids. Or field corn hybrids? The majority of field corn has a very narrow genetic base.

What about tomatoes? The low acid, sweet tomatoes?

Watermelons? The sugar enhanced ones?

Same with cantalopes and honey dews.

A point could be raised that any plant that will not reproduce true to its parent could be considered to be a GMO.

So, where is that line and who gets to decide?

[Patt]

Originally Posted by oneokie

Good question.

Would man manipulated hybrids of corn be considered a GMO? Example the sh2 sweet corn hybrids. Or field corn hybrids? The majority of field corn has a very narrow genetic base.

What about tomatoes? The low acid, sweet tomatoes?

Watermelons? The sugar enhanced ones?

Same with cantalopes and honey dews.

A point could be raised that any plant that will not reproduce true to its parent could be considered to be a GMO.

So, where is that line and who gets to decide?

Hybrids have nothing in common with GMO's. Hybrids are 2 kinds of corn or 2 kinds of tomatoes crossed. GMO soy is a soybean spliced with a bacteria. When you can get a bacteria to mate with a soybean and pop out a seed in a bean field then I will say GMO is natural.

[MariaAZ]

Originally Posted by Patt

Hybrids have nothing in common with GMO's.

Something just occurred to me when I read this statement. I think, in a strictly literal sense, a man-created hybrid (I mean the crossing of two varieties of the same species) COULD be called a "genetically modified organism" in that the breeding program was manipulated by humans to intentionally create an organism with specific traits.

However, I also think that most people, when they think of GMOs, think of the lab created organisms that combine DNA of donors that wouldn't even remotely exchange genetic material without human intervention.

Is there an actual legal definition of a "genetically modified organism"? Seems to me if there isn't, there should be.

[marvella]

Originally Posted by MariaAZ

Something just occurred to me when I read this statement. I think, in a strictly literal sense, a man-created hybrid (I mean the crossing of two varieties of the same species) COULD be called a "genetically modified organism" in that the breeding program was manipulated by humans to intentionally create an organism with specific traits.

However, I also think that most people, when they think of GMOs, think of the lab created organisms that combine DNA of donors that wouldn't even remotely exchange genetic material without human intervention.

Is there an actual legal definition of a "genetically modified organism"? Seems to me if there isn't, there should be.

pardon my drift, but michael pollan describes hybridization as intentional on the part of the plant as a means of spreading their species by making themselves more attractive to us. it's a means of survival for the plant world.

[Patt]

Originally Posted by MariaAZ

Is there an actual legal definition of a "genetically modified organism"? Seems to me if there isn't, there should be.

A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms which have inserted DNA that originated in a different species. Some GMOs contain no DNA from other species and are therefore not transgenic but cisgenic.

[oneokie]

A plant, animal or micro-organism whose genes have been altered using genetic modification by the inclusion of foreign genetic material or by the alteration of some DNA. The foreign material may come from other individuals of the same or a different species, or it may be synthetic.
www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/organisms/glossary.html

[MariaAZ]

Originally Posted by Patt

A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms which have inserted DNA that originated in a different species. Some GMOs contain no DNA from other species and are therefore not transgenic but cisgenic.

Thanks for the definition. Is this legally accepted? I'm thinking, since our government has legally defined what organic is, they surely would have done the same for GMOs. If this IS legally recognized, then it would seem to me it explains why a GMO might not be considered organic.

[Patt]

I Googled legal definition but only came up with a UN one or the one like oneokie has above from New Zealand. I am sure we have one though.

[Heritagefarm]

Originally Posted by haypoint

Wow, samantics.
I guess by your understanding of what I wrote, I could have written, " All Monsanto patented GMO seeds upheld in Scientific Groups as 100% organic." It would be true, but not the way most folks in an open discussion of organic vs GMO might think of it.

Yes, I'll try to remember that the term organic is broader than just food grown by a set of standards that avoids chemicals.

Remember, too, there is no such thing as a hot water heater.

Actually, the term "organic" means:
Definition: relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis; "hydrocarbons are organic compounds"

And, kindly learn to phrase things nicely. Otherwise, this topic is destined for the same thing as Safe and Reliable Food Source.