Organic farmers - beware of GMO's
 

I recently learned that many 'organic' farmers are unintentionally raising GMO plants. They buy organic seed, but are apparently not told that the organic seeds are GMO seeds.

So, those of you who farm organically - be wary and ask questions!

OK I have a question. what is GMO?

I'll take a guess and say.."genetically modified organic"?
I haven't a clue either... will have to wait till someone tells us what GMO really is...

Kaza

Madam, I would really like to know exactly what and where you
heard" this concerning organic GM seeds. I grow strictly organic and EVERY organic seed company I order from state clearly in their catalogs and on their WEB sites their seed is NOT GM. GM seed is NOT CONSIDERED organic by any stretch of the imagination. GM = genetically modified, have never heard of GMO!

Wooo Hooo!!!! I was right!! talk about a lucky guess.... hehehe

Kaza

Our ag teacher heard it from a guy who runs tests on the crops. I can see about getting more info if you so desire.

A GMO is a genetically modified organism. It's not something to scorn, or take lightly. Here is a great government source if you are interested in reading more about them:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...i/gmfood.shtml

Humans have been manipulating genetics for centuries by selective breeding and environmental manipulation. How else do you think we have so many different dog, chicken, cat, goat, cow, etc breeds? Nowadays we simply have a more efficient way of creating the organism we want by using transgenic methods (either recombining or knocking out genes of interest).

A seed can still be organic and a GMO. As a matter of fact, it may make organic gardening/farming easier to use GM seeds because resistance to certain insects or diseases has already been programmed into the seeds... hence, you don't need chemicals. Many GM seeds are able to propogate normally, but there are a lot of hybrids that will not breed true. In the latter case, you will be dependent on a seed manufacturer for your yearly supply... which is a definite drawback.

GMO's can still have mutations in successive generations, so they have just as good of a chance as any other organism in combatting a new disease or pest. Hybrids, since they don't breed true, will have to be remade by their company to combat the new disease in the next season.

my concern with genetically modified foods is the risk of allegens etc. nature's process is a slow one. sure we can speed it up but we cannot speed up our acceptance of the new protein structures. nature works slowly and those with severe allergens to common foods most likely died off long ago. if we speed up the evolutionary process we will encounter bad mutations at a greater rate. we may not even know something is bad until it has an effect on someone and can be studied.

all the while we become more reliant on a less diverse food base as only certain "productive" foods are mass produced. many species of heirloom foods are gone. sad as they each have specific uses (environment, etc). if the world becomes reliant on a handful of foods, what happens in the event of disaster? maybe some of the antique varieties of food would work better in certain particular disasters like draughts or maybe some unforseen pest infestation.

If breeding for a better plant is considered genetically modifying...wouldn't all domesticated plants be considered "GM" I mean even so called "heirloom" varieties were at one time crossed and selectively bred for certain traits??Otherwise they would still be the same as wild varieties.

When I hear GM it gets me thinking of animal or insect genes inserted into plant genes. It's something that wouldn't come about through generations of selective breeding. For example, Bt corn. Bt is a bacteria. The Bt bacteria secrete a protein that causes certain crop damaging larvae inability to excrete wastes, they therefore die as a result. The gene of the bacteria has been inserted into the corn genetics. It's an unnatural change. It also disrupts the genetic code of the corn itself in certain areas. Nobody can control where the gene lands in the GM genome. Depending on where it lands, it can combine with other genes and produce aberrant proteins which will be ingested. The products of the new genes are likely quite variable in their expression. I'm under the impression there hasn't been a whole lot of research into the safety end of it.

I guess what I'm referring to is called "transgenic". It does fall under the GM category. GMO stands for genetically modified organism.

Certified Organic means NO genetically modified organisms allowed. You can't be certified by a third party if you are lying on this one.

Genetic pollution is these 'tomatoes with salmon genes' crossing with regular tomatoes. MONSANTO will sue you if your tomatos or other crop has genetic pollution, because they copyright their seeds and genes within.

This isn't about natural selection. It's about "creating" new and unnatural hybrids. It's about playing god.

No, GMO's will not help certified organic farmers. We have already found better varieties to grow. We don't need our corn to be resistant to herbicides. We don't need any of that crap. Corn that exudes BTK? We don't need it. The only people that will benefit are the GM (chemical companies) and the farmers that grow corn/potatos etc in the same spot every year. They could really learn a lot about farming by researching organic methods. They're just ruining the soil.

If you support GM food then you support your veggies being drenched with herbicides. These veggies are immune to herbicides, allowing farmers to spray willy nilly without harming the "crop". The chem companies are making a killing. It just doesn't make any sense. American's for whatever reason believe in their government way too much. Parts of Europe this stuff is labelled so you can make an educated decision at the grocery store. The people stood up, and won. Nobody here stood up they just keep eating. I think America is sliding backwards into greed personally. This is a money issue sold off as a good will charity venture. If you believe that...

Wonder which Monsanto troll will be dispatched here this time?

BooBoo

Do they lurk here? :eek:

Perhaps a class action lawsuit alleging cross contamination of "heirloom" varieties would get their attention?

Only in that they would counter sue the growers for growing GM crops without a license.

Yes, Madam, I would be interested in further information. Monsanto has a corner on the market for GM seeds and according to Monsanto every farmer who buys and plants, and grows their seed must sign a contract to that effect and they pay a premium for the seed, and if the crop inadvertently pollinates/crosses with a neighboring crop, Monsanto goes after THAT farmer who has to pay for the "use" of Monsanto technology. Farmer in Canada was sued by Monsanto for having "their" seed mixed in his rape crop and after several years in court the farmer lost BIG TIME to Monsanto. Maybe the guy testing the crops is picking up cross pollination from other GM crops?

my question is if the farmer who got sued felt like his crop afterword (raped) ?

maybe the laws need to change so that any engineered species that can reproduce and could cross-pollinate with other species could be exempt from protection. it is irresponsible for a corporation to manufacture something that could result in such a situation as the canadian farmer found himself in. i understand a company wishing to protect it's product but that should be limited to the product itself and not any irresponsible offspring.

if i were to "manufacture" a species of , let's say fowl, that got loose and breed with both wild and domestic fowl, should i also have claim on the unintended offspring? if they established a habitat in a national park somewhere and the government charged admission to the park, could i sue?

perhaps the farmer should sue them for ruining the genetic integrity of his crops.

We farm 200 acres of corn every year. No GM seeds here, but it is getting increasingly harder to find the Non GMOs. We do NOT like them because the GMO corn is inferior in nutritional quality. I know the seed corn big whigs will argue day and night that it is but we feed it and we can tell or I should say the cattle can tell....they do not gain as well on it. We grind whole corn into a hi moisture pit and we can tell the difference of the appearance/smell/texture of a nonGMO and GMO. A neighbor did an experiment with cornstalk pasture of 1/2 GMO and 1/2 nonGMO and offered it to his cows. The cows ate the nonGMO cornstalks and left GMOs. GMOs=dead nutritionally=BAD

I will always choose a seeded watermelon over a tasteless seedless one.

Touche!

"Farmer in Canada was sued by Monsanto for having "their" seed mixed in his rape crop and after several years in court the farmer lost BIG TIME to Monsanto. "

This was on TV the other day. This case went to the Canadian Supreme Court and they ruled that since the farmer did not benefit financially he did not have to pay Monsanto. The court did (basically) agree that the farmer used Monsanto seed illegally though.

That's why it's called genetic pollution. Once it's here there is no going back and I think maybe the world doesn't need this.

Check out GM Watch
 

The problem of GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) is pervasive. To study the problem in-depth, see the poeple at GM Watch.

Below is a news blurb I got from them today. Follow the link for details.

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
Seems CSIRO's lung-damaging GM peas needn't have been scrapped after all - just grown for export!

Successive U.S. admninistrations have been so keen to produce a regulatory system that suits the need of its biotech corporations that, as New Scientist points out below, absolutely any GM product can be brought into the U.S. and sold for human or animal consumption without any checks at all being mandatory.

EXCERPT: The US is shockingly unprepared. As things stand, anyone wishing to bring a GM product into the country will need to notify the authorities only if it is intended for planting on US soil. Anything else can sail though without any of the mandatory pre-marketing scrutiny demanded in Europe.
---
Export as you would be exported to…
New Scientist, Issue 2526, 19 November 2005
Editorial: page 3

THE genetically modified chickens are coming home to roost. Having spent the past decade insisting that it should be free to export GM crops and foods derived from them, the US is waking up to the possibility that it may soon be asked to accept imports of similar GM material from other countries, such as China and Argentina, which are now producing more than they consume.

This month, the issues raised by this hitherto remote possibility were discussed in Washington DC at a seminar held by an independent think tank, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. The US is shockingly unprepared. As things stand, anyone wishing to bring a GM product into the country will need to notify the authorities only if it is intended for planting on US soil. Anything else can sail though without any of the mandatory pre-marketing scrutiny demanded in Europe.

Delegates had lots to discuss. How will US consumers react if foreign farmers start sending shipments of GM rice, soy and other commodities? Are new regulations needed to safeguard health and the environment? What if GM seeds intended for consumption rather than planting spill onto US soil? And what if US consumers do not want to eat foreign GM produce?

These and a host of other questions will need some adroit answers from the politicians and business people who have slammed Europe for its "irrational" aversion to GM. They will be have to tread a careful path to avoid accusations of hypocrisy once those chickens start to arrive.





---------------

Have you noticed that we haven't heard from the other one lately??? I wonder if he figured out he was just too smart for us???

With his IMMENSE brain power he probably got bored with us...;-)
pc

LOL, I think he is wayyyy too superior for us. :buds:

Deleted,poor judgement on my part.

BooBoo

Okay kids, we do not bash other forum members just because we don't agree with them. Remember, this is not General Chat.

I talked to the ag teacher and got a little more information. The problem isn't as bad as it first appeared.

She attended the National FFA Convention with her students. There was a presentation done by PCR, an organization that does genetic mapping. They have done tests on supposedly organic plants and found genetic markers showing the plants had been genetically modified.

However, the seeds were picked up at grocery stores and feed stores and such. So it seems the problem is primarily for those who don't do their homework to be sure they have reliable suppliers.

Oops,my bad,even without a name it was clear.
Thank you for pointing it out,wasnt needed to be posted.

BooBoo

Thanks, Madam. Appreciate the clarification.

failed field pea trial
 

Last Update: Wednesday, November 30, 2005. 1:15pm (AEDT)
GM crop failure a warning, says US adviser

A former agricultural adviser to US presidents says the failure of a genetically modified field pea trial should act as a warning for future GM crop testing.

The 10-year CSIRO trial was abandoned when tests found the peas were making mice seriously ill.

Dr Charles Benbrook, who advised presidents Carter, Bush senior, Reagan and Clinton says the field pea trial failure shows current GM crop testing is grossly inadequate.

"I don't believe that this new study proves that all genetically engineered food is posing a great threat to people but it certainly confirms the need to go back and look at the major food crops," he said.

He has called for changes to the Gene Technology Act, which is currently under review, to tighten GM crop regulation and increase scientific scrutiny of potential commercial varieties.

But the Grains Council's David Ginns says the failed field pea trial was an isolated case, and the fact health concerns were discovered shows current monitoring is adequate.

"It picked up a problem early and the project was terminated on the basis that there were concerns raised in the trial."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...1/s1519962.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------

"......the failed field pea trial was an ISOLATED case"

Are we actually supposed to believe that ?

I think his name was Percy Smizer...or something like that. I heard about it on Beyond Organic (a radio talk show on Sirius satallite radio).

I am VERY concerned about GMO's polluting our food sources.

This is rather interesting:

Organic Food Standard
Ruined By Congress
Congress Rams Through OTA Sneak Attack
On Organic Standards Despite
Massive Consumer Opposition
From Organic Consumers Association
10-29-5


Changes Were Sought by Large-Scale Food Processors to Cut Costs of Meeting Current Law. Congress voted yesterday to weaken the nation's organic food standards in response to pressure from large-scale food manufacturers.

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) and food processors have been pressing Congress to change the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to allow for the use of numerous synthetic substances in products labeled "organic" and to weaken organic dairy standards.

A recent court decision ruled that the OFPA does not allow synthetic (non-natural) ingredients to be used in foods labeled "organic" and that the act must ensure a strong standard under which dairy cows are converted to organic milk production. After rejecting efforts by members of the public interest and environmental community to reach an agreement on these issues, major food processors in the organic food industry, including Smucker's, Dean Foods, and Kraft, pushed Congress to "quietly" change the law to allow the use of such synthetic ingredients and potentially weaken the organic dairy standards.

"Congress voted last night to weaken the national organic standards that consumers count on to preserve the integrity of the organic label," said Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumers Association. "The process was profoundly undemocratic and the end result is a serious setback for the multi billion dollar alternative food and farming system that the organic community has so painstakingly built up over the past 35 years. The rider will take away the traditional role of the organic community and the National Organic Standards Board in monitoring and controlling organic standards. Industry's stealth attack has unnecessarily damaged the standards that helped organic foods become the fastest growing sector in the food industry."

As passed, the amendment sponsored by the Organic Trade Association allows:

Numerous synthetic food additives and processing aids, including over 500 food contact substances, to be used in organic foods without public review. · Young dairy cows to continue to be treated with antibiotics and fed genetically engineered feed prior to being converted to organic production. Loopholes under which non-organic ingredients could be substituted for organic ingredients without any notification of the public based on "emergency decrees." The amendment was vigorously opposed by consumer, retail and growers groups, as well as public health and environmental groups, including National Cooperative Grocers Association, National Organic Coalition and Rural Advancement Foundation International - USA, Beyond Pesticides, National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, Organic Consumers Association, and Consumers Union. Consumers sent more than 300,000 letters to Congress imploring members to stand up against industry's efforts to weaken the organic standards.

In October 2002, just days after the rules governing organic under NOP were implemented, Maine blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey filed suit against USDA claiming that the USDA regulations governing foods labeled "organic" contravened several principles of the OFPA. Having initially lost on all counts, Harvey prevailed in January 2005 when the Court of Appeals ruled in his favor on the three counts finding:

1. Synthetic substances are not permitted in processing of items labeled as "organic," and only allowed in the "made with organic" labeling category.
2. Provisions allowing up to 20-percent non-organic feed in the first nine months of a dairy herd's one-year conversion to organic production are not permitted.
3. All exemptions for the use of non-organic products "not commercially available in organic form" must be reviewed by National Organic Standards Board, and certifiers must review the operator's attempt to source organic.

How dissappointing. It was finally looking like consumers had a choice for a change. Back to square one for the majority of folks who have to depend on the stores for sustenance.

Add Smuckers, Kraft, and Dean foods to my list of DNB (do not buy).

This is what happens when we consumers allowed the big food companies to get into the organic market.

If you have to depend on buying your food, the safest way IMO is to buy unprocessed certified organic ingredients (beans, rice, etc) and cook from scratch.