Anti-, problems with, etc GMO foods

[where I want to]

Of course there are advantages to growing GMO- that's their only point. My problem comes with three issues.
First, GMO will escape into the world and, because it is designed to outgrow natural plants, it will eliminate diverse plants in the wild.
Second, the long term effects are unknown. Although it is possible to test somewhat if they are toxic, what they exclude will take a lot longer to discover.
Third, some weinie in a lab will think that somnething would be interesting to try, do it then lose control of it. If it's bad, there will be no eliminating it from the world.

[AngieM2]

This was moved to a thread, that is ANTI - GMO so we can keep the two points of view from colliding into a mess.

Trying to give each side a clear spot to post their points of view.

[rambler]

I don't think someone should own a patent on another life form.

When we get to gmo animals and humans, there will be some very thorny issues as to what is moral vs what is legal. That is down the road a ways, but the issue will be there. And it will be difficult.

A good gmo program in a crop fighting a pest results in this one thing being the most effective cheapest option, so everyone uses it exclusively. This encourages a single way of fighting a weed, or insect. So we end up following along one sole method at a time.

Some of the negatives I see.

Paul

[mekasmom]

I am not going to even worry about the supposed "science" behind it. I see them as bad for simple reasons:
1. The ecoterrorists (tree huggers) love them. That must mean they are bad for people.
2. It is not scriptural to mix different species or even different genes from different species to breed anything be it corn or snake crossing fish or whatever. You don't mix the corn and the wheat.
3. It's not natural. It is not the "order of things". If it is Frankenstein type creation then I will not put it in my mouth. And I wouldn't support it.

[Lazy J]

Ok, some might think I only post PRO GMO comments.

I am not a fan of having multiple resistances to herbicides in one plant. For example some of the corn hybrids contain resistance to both Glyphosate and Gluphosinate. I think it should be one or the other not both.

[Judy in IN]

RR corn and soybeans make life much easier and convenient for the farmer. No more cultivating, weeding, etc, etc. It makes more land available to farm; land that otherwise would be used as pasture, hayground, or woodlot. I see farmer's tearing out fences left and right to no-till farm that ground. GMO's and Roundup make it possible for a farmer to have 5000, 6000 acres around here. Sounds great, doesn't it?

MY concern is the price that we are paying health-wise. Monsanto tries to squash any long-term research into the effects of their products. Now, finally, enough information has made it past the Monsanto barricade that we can judge for ourselves whether we want to feed GMO's to our families.

I always thought those people paying premium dollars for organic produce were kinda nuts. Then I started doing the research myself. It will take a HUGE effort to get away from GMO's, but I am willing to make that effort. I already have irritable bowel syndrome, although there's no family history of it, saving my younger sister. I have had bouts of diverticulitis, another gut problem never heard about in my family. I believe that raising a garden has helped mitigate some of the effects, but now I'm willing to go a step farther and take my livestock away from GMO feed.

I believe that, like Europe, we will eventually ban the GMO crops that are showing such strong correlations to diseases like Autism and Asperges. The evidence supporting allergies and digestive tract problems is very convincing to me. It's going to be an uphill battle, since Monsanto's people are entrenched in the U.S. government.

Remember back when DDT was so wonderful? Well, it turned out to have a heavy price tag attached. How sick do our children have to get before we decide that we can do without RR crops.

Now, I know that there are people who are not convinced about cigarette smoking, until they come up with cancer. But, I'm hoping that even people like that care enough about their children to make the right choice.

[JJohnson]

I have a problem with a company that is so embedded with our gov't and is actively trying to monopolize agriculture. Also I have a problem with a company that goes after others who are doing research.

Here is an example: I know its old but it show's how monsanto operates.

http://www.naturalnews.com/035688_Mo..._collapse.html


They are messing with genetics and mother nature and its going to have a negative effect on our enviroment. There not going to stop with crops, next is fish, then all other livestock. I also do not like what ive heard about cross polination. But lastly, the simple fact that they have not been proven to be safe and people are being used as guinea pigs at the moment. There are reasons why other countries are banning GMO's.

[salmonslayer]

I actually like the fact that RR products reduce the need for chemical weed control and from an environmental standpoint it has some positives but like many I am very troubled by the unknown effects both to our health and to the environment as certain weeds develop resistance and become in effect superweeds. I also think its hard for too many people to deny that patenting of the process and how its been handled by some manufacturers is troubling and has been a PR disaster.

On the flip side, DDT as mentioned above was drummed into us as an extremely dangerous product also that would kill all the birds, contaminate the oceans, cause cancer etc which has all been proven false but its still banned and the result is hundreds of thousands of deaths from insect borne diseases throughout the world and we are now using a much larger volume of way more toxic substances than DDT to control the same thing, just not as effectively.

The myth of DDT still persists and our environment is more polluted with other chemicals because of it and that is my biggest fear over RR crops; are we inadvertently advocating for the use of even more toxic weed control agents by resisting RR or other GMO crops?

Unfortunately, I am not convinced the science is settled on GMO crops and the whole patent issue and refusal to label GMO ingredients pushes me to the side of being against RR and other GMO crops at this time. I just hope its the right side to be on and we dont end up with the same kind of opportunity lost we had with DDT.

[highlands]

I don't like them patenting life and locking other researchers out of the field. Life was here when we got here. We are life. Nobody should have strict control. Deep pockets should not be destroying other people through destructive lawsuits. We need automatic retaliatory lawsuits agains those who bring lawsuits that fail. There needs to be a stiff damages against nasty lawsuits.

There also needs to be s lot more testing of GMO products before they are released out into the wild.

[Johnny Dolittle]

I call myself a fence sitter concerning GMO issues but actually I come close to agreeing with Rambler. His position is that he is ok with GMO crops and very hesitant to go along with GMO livestock. I am quite ok with the idea of genetic modification of crops as long as it is tested for safety to my satisfaction. I am a bit reluctant to say I am satisfied at this point.

I am very uncomfortable with the cozy arrangement between the government and GMO companies. Also I am very concerned for peoples rights including the right to choose. I am for labeling. GMO companies object to labeling unless a product is tested to ensure it is GMO free ..... however testing is for all practical purposes impossible. It is the GMO companies that produced this "problem" and it is to their benefit that there is no labeling..... something smells foul here !!! But there is some backlash too because people have reacted to this as having their rights stepped on and they counter this by their response which we experience here in these forums. The GMO companies bring on more hatred by objecting to labeling. I am for labeling .... I support a certification program insuring that crops are grown in a manner to significantly reduce the possibility of contamination by GMO crops. This is not a perfect solution and I already know what the objections will be .... but if you must go ahead and state your objections!!! But here is at least one step towards reconciliation of this issue .... not perfect but reasonable I think.

I have been thinking of conducting a poll here. The first attempts to make rr crops involved splicing genes from weeds which expressed some resistance to glyphosate which is the active ingredient in Roundup type herbicides. The results were not acceptable and included some significant yield reduction in the crop (corn I think). So a protein in bacteria was isolated and that protein would effectively break down the glyphosate molecule making the crop plant resistant to the glyphosate. One of the questions in my poll would be "Would you accept GMO if only genes were transferred from one plant to another plant?"

And finally I have a very provocative question which kind of relates to the last one ..... What if the very first GMO crop involved transplanting genes from nitrogen producing legumes onto say corn ! The nitrogen in fertilizer comes from the atmosphere which is full of it. Plants are bathing in atmospheric nitrogen but are unable to use it being it is in the wrong chemical form. To convert to useable form takes energy and that energy most commonly is natural gas .... a non-renewable fossil fuel !!!!!!

Actually this has been the pie-in-the-sky goal of plant breeders for many decades ..... the desire to make non leguminous plants into legumes .... With GM now comes a real possibility.

........ And if this had been the first successful GMO .... how different might public perception be .... concerning gene splicing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..... did the GMO companies sour the milk ???????????????????

I want to give sandc a huge amount of credit here .... some contact with sandc via PM very much inspired my response. sandc has a very very unique perspective on this issue. sandc is the person conducting the GMO poll !!!!

[meanwhile]

I want choices. I want to know what I am eating, buying and what I am feeding my children. Label it. Those who think it is safe to eat or grow can eat it and those of us who are either not sure or flat out don't like it, can stay away from it.

I suspect it is not a "black or white" issue. There are many shades of gray.

I do not think anyone should be able to patent a gene or seed or plant and then sue a farmer or anyone else when the pollen goes a'flying where it aught not be. To me it smacks of a bully and a tyrant.

[southerngurl]

My problems with GMO:

-It is forced on us without our consent. It has been put in our foods without labeling. There is no excuse for this.This one point should stop this in its tracks and would if not for politics.
-It WILL contaminate non GMO crops. I've heard the same arguments over and over about GMO alfalfa. "Alfalfa is harvested before blooming" Always, really? I know one local farmer who does NOT off the top of my head! Not only that, but you never harvest every single plant. There will always be plants on the edges and corners that are not harvested and they WILL contaminate other non-GMO crops. Also, alfalfa does have to go to see to make more alfalfa seed! Alfalfa nectar is a huge crop for beekeepers, there are alfalfa plants going to flower and seed all over this country.

This contamination has already occurred with corn. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find pure corn seed. Corn pollen can travel for MILES. We aren't just talking about growing some new, experimental varieties of food crops, we are talking about TRADING what we have now, which has worked for thousands of years, for these new, experimental, varieties of food crops. Every time we try to cheat the system, it causes unforeseen problems later. This will too.
-GMO's will NOT feed the world/hungry. We already produce enough food in this world to feed 10 billion people. Hunger and starvation is about food not getting to people, it is NOT about too little food being produced.
-GMO's encourage, and are made for, large scale monocropping. This is the most inefficient and toxic way to produce food and is a result of too small a piece of our population growing food. This is also completely unsustainable and totally reliable on fossil fuels. The cheapness of fossil fuels is the only reason we are growing food this way and that will end. It also doesn't adapt to different terrains and areas. How much corn can you grow with the typical huge-scale farming techniques on the hills I live in? However, small scale, integrated, sustainable food production can produce more food per acre without waste and pollution and poisons. This type of agriculture can be put together in endless combinations that take advantage of each areas unique strengths, weaknesses, features, climates and micro-climates. Outputs from one crop are inputs for another. Wildlife are not wiped out, but many can benefit this kind of setup AND are benefited by it. *This* is where it's at folks! People may say, well not enough people are willing to grow food. With our typical way of doing things, I wouldn't be either. But, this type of farming- the type God set us up for, is actually fun and very rewarding! Huge scale is not. Huge scale is like running a factory. Subsidies lock us into this inefficient, unsustainable, toxic and fragile (no genetic diversity is asking for diseases and pests to wipe out entire crops- remember diseases are always changing, they are not static) type of farming and trick us into thinking it's cheap food. It's not, you've just already paid for part of it before you buy it in the store.
-GMO's encourage ever greater use of chemicals. This is also unsustainable as the organisms they target become resistant to them. And, of course, these chemicals are not good for those of us who eat the end product, the people who live near these crops, the people working these crops or the wildlife in the area. Use of chemicals, by nature, tends to cause greater use of chemicals. For example, pesticides tend to kill off birds, spiders, lady bugs, lacewings, praying mantids etc, causing greater pest problems down the road. The cure is always more poison.
-GMO's work to consolidate control of food. Fewer and fewer people control seeds. Since food is the most important commodity there is and man is inherently selfish and enjoys being able to control his fellow man, this is extremely foolish.
-For you consumers who do NOT want to eat contaminated food, the more this stuff goes on, the harder it gets for those of us who want to produce organic food or non GMO fed animals and animal products or non GMO crops. Because of contamination of crops, one man lost 40 years worth of soy breeding to monsanto's GMO pollen contamination. What a heart ache that would have to be. All that work lost. And what that man was breeding, was naturally diverse and no doubt well adapted to the area, it was unique and would have been more resistant to widespread disease issues, because if a disease comes along in a situation with genetic diversity, some plants are killed, some are not. And those that are not go on to live another year, producing naturally resistant progeny. And I can tell you right now, it can become so frustrating that your best people, people who's heart are in this, will get out of it. Alfalfa is an absolute staple crop for milk production. How are we going to produce milk without corn, soy or alfalfa? It's frustrating. There are enough things against a farmer to have to deal with it! It's already hard enough!

[Bearfootfarm]

one man lost 40 years worth of soy breeding to monsanto's GMO pollen contamination.

Got a source for that?

[PrettyPaisley]

Please do not assume that because something is labeled organic it is GMO free. There are loopholes and wiggle room in labeling from the USDA/FDA. All labeling will do is bring attention to the subject of GMO (which wouldn't be a bad thing) but it will not protect you from eating frakenfood. I think it's clear Monstanto is trying to get a jump on the labels with their commercials full of America's Farmers and putting their name in lights surrounded by hay fields, butterflies and neon hearts. It's more marketing ploys that most will eat with a spoon.

It is now time to assume that if it is processed and on the shelf at the store there is risk of GMO contamination. That said, I would not trust a local farmer unless he is growing heirloom seeds (which still isn't 100%) to provide vegetables that are not somehow cross contaminated with GMOs. While it might not be knowingly, the risk is there. GMO sugar beets can contaminate swiss chard. http://www.takepart.com/article/2012...gmo-sugar-beet
According to Baker Heirloom seeds, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find heirloom corn that has not been contaminated with GMOs. I know some with squawk about hybrids but I've read several articles about how they have fewer nutrients in them than heirloom ... which might not be a huge deal to some but if I'm going to grow a tomato that my girls will eat I want it to be as nutritious as possible.

Just my $.02.

[where I want to]

People keep talking about GMO plants needing less pesticide application. Which is a somewhat Obamaesque logic. Indeed less has to be applied because the plant come with a pesticide built in. Does that mean less overall environmental contamination?
I have not heard anyone address the issue. If every little bit of plant has what was considered a contaminant built in that can't be washed off, isn't there a possiblity that more residue ends up in people and the ground?
I was horrified by learning of the inclusion of BT into the genetic structure of plants. BT has been, for me, a rarely used treatment when things look to be getting out of hand. Most years I don't use it at all.
But now it is mega-crops where the chances of creating an insect that resist the effect of BT is increased many fold. Sort of like the effect of antibotics being so readily available. In my little garden, the chance of a bug developing resistance is small and the the chance of that bug actually being advantaged enough be able to out breed it's neighbors is even smaller. In large acreage of monoculture plants, the success of that bug is almost assured. Then BT will become useless for all.

[rambler]

I was going to pm a (gentle) reply to Whereiwantto's question, but their pm is closed, and I don't want to poison this thread with open debate/comment that will derail it.

A bit of a quandary there. We probably shouldn't ask questions in this thread as that will derail the intent of it as I understand it. Also don't feel like starting a new thread as that would also derail the point of these threads.

Thanks, enjoy reading the comments.

Paul

[where I want to]

Originally Posted by rambler

I was going to pm a (gentle) reply to Whereiwantto's question, but their pm is closed, and I don't want to poison this thread with open debate/comment that will derail it.

Paul

You can always put it in the pro-GMO thread.

[haypoint]

Originally Posted by PrettyPaisley

Please do not assume that because something is labeled organic it is GMO free. There are loopholes and wiggle room in labeling from the USDA/FDA. All labeling will do is bring attention to the subject of GMO (which wouldn't be a bad thing) but it will not protect you from eating frakenfood. I think it's clear Monstanto is trying to get a jump on the labels with their commercials full of America's Farmers and putting their name in lights surrounded by hay fields, butterflies and neon hearts. It's more marketing ploys that most will eat with a spoon.

It is now time to assume that if it is processed and on the shelf at the store there is risk of GMO contamination. That said, I would not trust a local farmer unless he is growing heirloom seeds (which still isn't 100%) to provide vegetables that are not somehow cross contaminated with GMOs. While it might not be knowingly, the risk is there. GMO sugar beets can contaminate swiss chard. http://www.takepart.com/article/2012...gmo-sugar-beet
According to Baker Heirloom seeds, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find heirloom corn that has not been contaminated with GMOs. I know some with squawk about hybrids but I've read several articles about how they have fewer nutrients in them than heirloom ... which might not be a huge deal to some but if I'm going to grow a tomato that my girls will eat I want it to be as nutritious as possible.

Just my $.02.

I got it to open, thanks

[farmerDale]

All righty. I have thought on this for not just a few hours. I have been thinking about the negative potential of gm crops for almost two decades. This is how long I have grown some gm crops.

The problem I see with gm production is, I do not want gm animals. I do not want another gm crop, unless it has a proven environmental, cost effectiveness, or gives a large boost to food production, like it has in the case of certain crops.

To me, there are actually very few crops which fit the bill for my personal hopes as stated above. Corn, canola, soy, are a few of the ones that I feel have seen a giant positive benefit.

But, I think other crops like wheat, barley, oats, etc. already have great herbicides, great productive means to farm them effectively.

I would hope that we therefore, while on one hand embracing the technology for certain crops that are helped immensely by being herbicide resistant for example, we limit any new crops in the gm fold. We do not have the need for gm wheat like we did canola. We do not need gm barley to preserve the environment like gm canola does effectively.

So on the one hand, I am strongly pro gm if there is a net positive to the environment, the soil, the farmers bottom line. But I am also anti gm if you will, if the crop does not have a net positive benefit.

The reason I have that anti streak in me, is not because I am scared of what is in my food, it is because as a farmer, gm crops should be ONE of the tools of farming, not ALL of the tools of farming. Having more than one or two crops of the same trait on the same farm is more dangerous, and could lead to weed resistance issues if not paid attention to.

Thankfully, up in Canada, particularly the west where corn soy is not a fixture of our landscape for climate reasons, we only have one gm crop, and that is canola. It fits perfectly and makes farming more efficient by a country mile. If we had rr, or ll wheat, then we would need to spray the volunteer wheat with expensive grass herbicides, which would defeat the purpose of gm technology, and open a new can of worms.

down in the soy/corn areas, it is another story. A story that will take more care. Whereas I grow about 12 or 15 different crops on my farm, many down there only plant one or two. And when these crops are BOTH rr crops, or gm crops, you limit yourself to too many things agronomically.

I hope this makes a bit of sense.

The final thing I do not like about gm crops, is of course the false information spread around about them. But that is where I shift gears, and start typing why I appreciate gm technology. To the other thread I will go, but probably not until tonight later. I need to go haul some of my prime, non-gmo, Hard red spring wheat.

[PrettyPaisley]

Originally Posted by haypoint

The web site you listed won't open, page not found.

Works for me.