GMO bad, natural selection good?

Heritagefarm · #81 07/18/10, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paquebot

I shall repeat, don't buy a product with soybeans in it. If you can post here, you can read. If you can read, soy is one content which must be listed on every product label due to allergies. If the label states CONTAINS SOY, and you don't want to eat soy, don't buy it! Ranting because you are afraid of it doesn't mean that 99.999% of the rest of the world's population has to be afflicted with the same phobia.

Martin

And if you avoid the GMO soy, there might be GMO corn in it.
And then you go over to the meat section... What is it packaged with - citric acid as a preservative. Corn.
The produce is probably the only thing not drenched with corn or soy, and the sugar and spices and flours.

A question... Why, when I say something negative about GMO, corn, food in general, that I immediately get all these snarky responses? But if I reply with something that sounds remotely like I'm agreeing, all the sudden I'm doing the right thing, eh?

Paquebot · #82 07/18/10, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

And if you avoid the GMO soy, there might be GMO corn in it.
And then you go over to the meat section... What is it packaged with - citric acid as a preservative. Corn.

In case you're to busy to look it up, citric acid is derived from citrus fruits, not corn.

Quote:

A question... Why, when I say something negative about GMO, corn, food in general, that I immediately get all these snarky responses? But if I reply with something that sounds remotely like I'm agreeing, all the sudden I'm doing the right thing, eh?

See above reply for reason. If you are unhappy with being told the facts and consider them snarky, it may because you are attempting to report facts which are not true even after having been informed otherwise on either this or previous threads. (You may forget what you may have previously posted but the Internet doesn't.) And if you don't bother to learn the facts about a subject, it lessens any credibility which you may claim about the subject. AND THAT'S A FACT!

Martin

rambler · #83 07/18/10, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

In a perfect world I would like no GMO's. Since they are here and their companies have the financial wherewithall to keep them here we are stuck with them. At some point if I am right and Monsanto is wrong then we will find out that they are bad for us and the environment and they will be cleaned up as much as possible.

So all I can do at this point is ask that my personal food supply be amply labeled so I have a choice. Sadly that is not happening because again Monsanto and company have the financial clout to keep all food from being labeled as to whether there are GMO's in it or not. The only recourse I have is to stick with Organic since it is the only food I know is safe. For the vast majority of Americans their choice has been stolen. If all food was labeled GMO's would die a quick death strictly from consumer choice.

You have some compromise. That's something.

We can co-exist with GMO & non-gmo. Cool.

Well - like I say, I guess we have the food labeling you ask for - if it's labelled organic, than it shouldn't have GMO material in it, and if it is not labeled GMO, then it likely will.

So - why doesn't this work for you?

I'm not quite getting the problem you have with labels. It already is there.

People want cheap food. They will say many things, but they vote with their billfolds, and they want cheap food. GMO's would not die out. Nohow. That is of course my opinion only.

--->Paul

Paquebot · #84 07/19/10, 12:36 AM

Paul,

Patt might appear to have attempted to use this thread as an extension to the aforementioned locked thread but was blocked. That horse had become so dead that it was beginning to stink until someone notified the renderers. Gutters certainly were overflowing with manure. We probably don't have to see this question deteriorate into the same situation but if so, shovel in hand just in case. Otherwise, maybe some dogs just need to be left under the porch to lick their wounds.

Martin

haypoint · #85 07/19/10, 02:59 AM

This thread has been educational and the responders have been, for the most part polite. We have learned that Monanto operates guns with gene coated bullets, there are GMO methods that are so close to natural selection to not require GMO declaration. The anti-GMO movement just wants products that are devoid of GMO to be so labeled to encourage their purchases by the largely vegetarian segment of our population. We learned that the farmers that were trying to violate the purchase agreement with Monsanto, got caught and it wasn’t pollen drift at all. Soybean pollen drift is fake. When you forcefully put something into a bean’s genes it is always bad. If the same thing is inserted into a bean’s genes in a natural way, it is then good. People that have based their lives against government regulation, demand more government regulation for Monsanto’s products because they are evil. Monsanto apparently has a web site that details copyright infringement lawsuits. All processed food contains corn or soybeans. Genes modify naturally. Cisgenesis is a more natural method to create GMO, but is considered by some to be GMO and safe by others. All Phds are working constantly on weed resistance. Plants that develop one resistance later succumb to other diseases. When a Lab creates something previously unknown, it is always bad. When nature creates something previously unknown, it is always good. Transfats are the main cause of heart disease.

Heritagefarm · #86 07/19/10, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paquebot

In case you're to busy to look it up, citric acid is derived from citrus fruits, not corn.

Martin

LOL...
http://www.cornallergens.com/list/co...ergen-list.php
It can be derived from corn, and since the companies have a huge pile of absurdly cheap corn, they're going to take it from corn. Oh, and cheap corn was not, in fact, created by GE.

Heritagefarm · #87 07/19/10, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

This thread has been educational and the responders have been, for the most part polite. We have learned that Monanto operates guns with gene coated bullets, there are GMO methods that are so close to natural selection to not require GMO declaration. The anti-GMO movement just wants products that are devoid of GMO to be so labeled to encourage their purchases by the largely vegetarian segment of our population. We learned that the farmers that were trying to violate the purchase agreement with Monsanto, got caught and it wasn’t pollen drift at all. Soybean pollen drift is fake. When you forcefully put something into a bean’s genes it is always bad. If the same thing is inserted into a bean’s genes in a natural way, it is then good. People that have based their lives against government regulation, demand more government regulation for Monsanto’s products because they are evil. Monsanto apparently has a web site that details copyright infringement lawsuits. All processed food contains corn or soybeans. Genes modify naturally. Cisgenesis is a more natural method to create GMO, but is considered by some to be GMO and safe by others. All Phds are working constantly on weed resistance. Plants that develop one resistance later succumb to other diseases. When a Lab creates something previously unknown, it is always bad. When nature creates something previously unknown, it is always good. Transfats are the main cause of heart disease.

Well, I'm not going to argue, but don't use those facts when talking to a scientist.

oneokie · #88 07/19/10, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

Well, I'm not going to argue, but don't use those facts when talking to a scientist.

Elitist Troll

farmgal · #89 07/19/10, 10:21 AM

This question is too complex to answer. You are throwing pesticide use into a weed controller question mixed in with a little GMO...lol, they are completely different things. Every situation would have to be researched individually. There are too many factors. Once manmade chemicals come into play, anything is possible.

There are different types of round up that work via different pathways. Like, causing respiration on a plant to continue until it dehydrates its self to death. Man-made chemicals have chirality. There is no chirality in nature. This means if we try to make a compound that naturally occurs in nature(which is what most weed controllers pathways consist of) we will get half what we are looking for and half a "mirror image" of what we are looking for(chirality). This byproduct has the exact melt, boil point, molecular properties etc and we cannot separate* them because of this. However, they have different effects on plant or animal responses. The complexity is infinitive. So we dont know the effect of the byproduct on the plants genetic make up. Where we draw a line would have to be looked at from each standpoint from each individual situation.

And if we need credentials to answer this question, I am a chemist with many graduate level plant physiology classes under my belt or should I say under my skirt...lol.

SueMc · #90 07/19/10, 11:33 AM

Pollen drift is a potential problem for corn. This Purdue agronomist states that viable corn pollen can travel up to 1/2 mile in a 15 mph wind:
http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/...s/Tassels.html

If I have a square shaped acre (approx. 209' per side) with sweet corn planted on it, pollination by my neighbor's field corn up to 1/2 mile away IS possible/probable.

Patt · #91 07/19/10, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

I did not know that most people that select organic certified food are also vegetarians. That must make those organic pork, beef and chicken suppliers a real tiny market. Can you direct me to the site that would have the percentages that you speak of?.

I am going by who I sell to and who I see buying at various markets.

The meats market is still very much a niche market compared to all the other organic stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

I read the report on the web site you listed. Very interesting. I think it strange that the samples tested in China were GMO-free, a batch tested at an astounding 20% GMO and following shipments were back to zero. Is this a pollen drift problem. According to the article, "What makes the following incident even more troubling is the fact that a shipment of organic soybeans contained a high level of GM soy—much more than would have been caused by commingling with a small amount of GM soybeans or by cross-pollination." So we can throw that myth right out the window. It wasn't caused by pollen drift.

Too bad that we were only able to hear half of that story, "(Editor’s note: For legal reasons, Chris did not want to divulge the supplier’s name. As a result, we were not able to contact the supplier to obtain his side of the story.)" It would be interesting to get all the facts out on the table.

I understand a lot more that you might expect about organicly certified produce and I am aware that soybeans are a common protein substitute for meat. I also know that vegetarians eat only a tiny portion of the soybeans grown in this country.

Michigan grows more navy beans than any other state. I know my beans.

I missed the post where I insulted you, Patt. Please remind me, so I won't be tempted to respond to your assumption of what I do not know.

True, the article doesn't say pollen drift so I was wrong on that, I assume Martin knows about soybeans since while I may disagree vehemently with his views on Monsanto, I do admire his knowledge of plants. It's possible it was a problem like we had here in AR a couple of years ago where GMO rice seed somehow got accidently mixed with regular seed and they lost enormous amounts of sales when they caught it after the rice had been harvested.

I apologise, I was frustrated last night and got snarky, sorry!

Patt · #92 07/19/10, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

This thread has been educational and the responders have been, for the most part polite. We have learned that Monanto operates guns with gene coated bullets, there are GMO methods that are so close to natural selection to not require GMO declaration. The anti-GMO movement just wants products that are devoid of GMO to be so labeled to encourage their purchases by the largely vegetarian segment of our population. We learned that the farmers that were trying to violate the purchase agreement with Monsanto, got caught and it wasn’t pollen drift at all. Soybean pollen drift is fake. When you forcefully put something into a bean’s genes it is always bad. If the same thing is inserted into a bean’s genes in a natural way, it is then good. People that have based their lives against government regulation, demand more government regulation for Monsanto’s products because they are evil. Monsanto apparently has a web site that details copyright infringement lawsuits. All processed food contains corn or soybeans. Genes modify naturally. Cisgenesis is a more natural method to create GMO, but is considered by some to be GMO and safe by others. All Phds are working constantly on weed resistance. Plants that develop one resistance later succumb to other diseases. When a Lab creates something previously unknown, it is always bad. When nature creates something previously unknown, it is always good. Transfats are the main cause of heart disease.

I am probably mostly in agreement with what you said (a few points are not true at all though) but this one really stands out because for better or worse you are not understanding our point on it and since it is the OP let's try it again. You can not insert the same thing into a beans genes naturally, that's the whole point. There is no natural, evolutionary method that causes a bean to cross with a bacteria. It will not ever happen. That is the main sticking point with GMO. Lots of peripherals but that is the biggie.

oneokie · #93 07/19/10, 12:21 PM

Instead of saying GMO's are bad, why don't we say Transgenetic GMO's are bad? Might save lots of contentious arguments.

rambler · #94 07/19/10, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SueMc

Pollen drift is a potential problem for corn. This Purdue agronomist states that viable corn pollen can travel up to 1/2 mile in a 15 mph wind:
http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/...s/Tassels.html

If I have a square shaped acre (approx. 209' per side) with sweet corn planted on it, pollination by my neighbor's field corn up to 1/2 mile away IS possible/probable.

I'm not saying you are wrong. There is an additional detail tho - time.

Corn pollen & silk is only active for a certain brief time. Typically field corn & sweet corn will be in pollen & in silk at different times. This would very much modify the effect, or make it more controllable.

--->Paul

Heritagefarm · #95 07/19/10, 12:27 PM

No, because there IS a scientific DEFINITION of GMO.
mean·ing
n.
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.

ge·net·i·cal·ly modified organism
n. Abbr. GMO
An organism whose genetic characteristics have been altered by the insertion of a modified gene or a gene from another organism using the techniques of genetic engineering.

genetic engineering
n.
Scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism using recombinant DNA, employed for such purposes as creating bacteria that synthesize insulin.

salmonslayer · #96 07/19/10, 04:27 PM

Well I think the original question of the OP is an interesting one and there have been some good points on both sides. But not having an axe to grind against Monsanto or other large AG companies and as one who enjoys cheap food when I have to buy it but prefer to use heritage seeds in my own garden (because of my perception they taste better mostly)there seems to me to be a couple of points that I got out of the discussion.

1. I can see concern over Transgenetic manipulation as we just dont know how that will evolve. I dont particularly think it is terribly harmful to humans to eat products containing Transgenetic GMOs but my concern would be more that we would end up with noxious plants that become something they were not intended to be.

2. If Organic is already labeled and cant contain GMOs that solves the labeling problem for everything except additives..so whats the harm in adding that corn syrup or anything elkse was derived from GMOs? It wouldnt stop me from buying it.

3. I guess I am in rare agreement with Haypoint that I really dont see a distinction or at least its a very blurry distiction between naturally occurring mutation and lab assisted hybridization if it could have evolved naturally. The fact that man speeded up the process shouldnt matter and we have all benefitted from this manipulation.

4. I dont have a beef with Monsanto or others existing but I will always prefer to buy my meat, produce and yes raw milk from local small farmers. Big Ag allows us to enjoy cheap food, fuel, clothing etc. and thopugh I decry the loss of small farms across the country, the small farmer chose to sell so its kind of hard to blame an industry for its success.

5. I found this quote from Haypoint right on; its the same argument I have used with him on the raw milk debate so I got a chuckle out of seeing it and in this instance I agree with him.

Quote:

Sometimes products prove to have negative effects. This happens with a tiny, tiny percentage of the products and often withing a tiny, tiny percent of users.

6. I found out about hybridization/cross pollination/whatever you want to call it the hard way. I planted my cantelopes this year too close to my pumpkins (first year of growing both and I have oodles of both) and I swear my cantelopes taste like pumpkins...anyone want some??