Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Jul 24, 2015, 05:04 PM

GMO will feed the world if we stop being Luddites .

Did you know that the tomato is a close relative to belladonna, or deadly nightshade ...one of the most toxic plants for humans ? But today the tomato is a staple food in many kitchens around the world . How did that happen ? Because tomatoes the tomatoes that we consume have been modified to be different from their precursors. This is the same for most foods humans consume . Corn was once a grass with small seed . In fact ,unless you are consuming fish ,wild berries ,and mushrooms you are eating food that has been genetically modified .

The only difference between GMO today and Gregor Mendel's hybrid experiments is that today recombinant DNA technology and the new gene-editing techniques–are far more precise and predictable than their predecessors.

Keep that in mind when chowing down on your pasta in tomato sauce ,you are eating food, like wheat ,that has gone through genetic modifications dating back to 9000 BC .

Fr_Chuck · Jul 24, 2015, 05:55 PM

Include mushrooms in that list also. We are working on DNA modification of rice at our university. I had lunch with the lead scientist a couple of weeks ago. Making different types that can grow in various environments. While I am not 100 percent sure, but I would guess fish at some of the fish farms can be included in those lists also.

tomder55 · Jul 24, 2015, 08:26 PM

yes there are what are called frankenfish ,aka AquAdvantage ,which are farm raised salmon. But I think the government has been bowing to the pressure of the anti--GMO lobby . I mentioned the golden rice on another q .

paraclete · Jul 24, 2015, 08:36 PM

The question isn't about improving strains of various plants but the actions of firms like Monsanto who claim rights to the very pollin the GMO plants produce as if the farmer is resonsible for the action of the wind or pollinators. Besides a number of the hybrid strains do not faithfully reproduce and are corrupting wild varieties

tomder55 · Jul 25, 2015, 01:58 AM

Courts have already found that accidental contamination does not constitute infringement. And regulations already state that incidental cross crop seeding in organic fields will not penalize organic farmers with loss of certification.No farmer has been penalized for accidentally having GM crops on his land. You can't have it both ways . Monsanto makes 2nd generation crops sterile and people complain . Then if they allow their plants to reproduce , people complain.

paraclete · Jul 25, 2015, 04:28 AM

Oh please don't defend the indefensible because you think capitalism rules and should be defended. Fact is Monsanto will tie farmers up in courts for years even if they know they will loose. Have you been to a supermarket lately? Find a tomato or a cucumber that sis not regulation size find a strawberry that is not oversize. I didn't even start to discuss the plight of organic farmers. It isn't about having GM crops on your land it is about contamination from neighbouring lands and ownership of the seed you have grown. You are niaive Tom to think that capitalistic agriculture and chemical companies have anything but their own interests in veiw. Is corn grown for fuel? Ediable it is an interesting question

tomder55 · Jul 25, 2015, 05:56 AM

Have you been to a supermarket lately? Find a tomato or a cucumber that sis not regulation size find a strawberry that is not oversize.I didn't even start to discuss the plight of organic farmers.

I have no problem with that ,and the fact that the prices of these goods are so much more affordable to the common folks than your fancy organic foods ,that are all the rave in the rich communities.

I grow veggies during the summer . I don't use chemicals . But that is my choice and if my garden gets infested with the bugs or disease and my personal crop fails ,it is not a catastrophe . I can always go to the market and buy veggies that were grown on the other side of the country ,or half way around the world ,and still eat a healthy meal.
If anything ,GMO makes local farming more sustainable because the plants can be engineered to grow on land that they were never intended to grow on. I don't care about Monsanto's profit motive .I celebrate it . Without the profit motive farmers would still be plowing their fields hitched up to oxen.

As far as ethanol goes ;it is the farmers unholy alliance with government that has caused that issue. But think about corn. Do you really think it started out as a grain you can pick off of tall grass ready to eat ? It took centuries of genetic manipulation to create an edible corn. Modern GMO streamlines the process.

paraclete · Jul 25, 2015, 06:06 AM

Give me a break why do you grow crops that fail

But that is my choice and if my garden gets infested with the bugs or disease and my personal crop fails

this is a nonsense You want to believe in science and yet you know what you do is not sustainable. Do the seed companies sustain what you are doing, no they don't

tomder55 · Jul 25, 2015, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Give me a break why do you grow crops that fail this is a nonsense You want to believe in science and yet you know what you do is not sustainable. Do the seed companies sustain what you are doing, no they don't

I don't sustain myself with the small plot of land I grow my veggies in. They are good for a few meals during the summer ;a gallon or so of tomato sauce ,some frozen veggies later in the year , a couple jars of pickled cukes ,and peppers ;and a couple loaves of zucchini bread . That is why it doesn't matter if I try it organic and chemical free or not. If I needed it to survive ,you bet I'd be using the state of the art fertilizers and bug resistant seeds .

paraclete · Jul 25, 2015, 06:16 AM

I watch people like you and I wonder what are you doing? Are your preserving rare varieties or are you preserving a myth

tomder55 · Jul 25, 2015, 06:41 AM

it's called a hobby .

talaniman · Jul 25, 2015, 07:11 AM

This is the crux of the problem for me Tom concerning GMO products, what's in them, and I cannot take the words of a for profit company that refuses to reveal that information.

House passes anti-GMO labeling law

What could they be hiding?

tomder55 · Jul 25, 2015, 08:08 AM

I'll tell you what I know about the labelling issue. We make many soy based products . For our customers who insist on their products being GMO free ,we do the testing to guarantee that there are no GMO organisms in their product ;and we make them pay for that testing .

So do you really think they absorb that cost ? Nope they are greedy for profit companies. Of course that cost gets passed on to the cost of the product . So be it ,it's their choice and how they market their product.

Now what do you think would happen if that type of expensive testing was required for all products ? Think about it .

Here's a clue for you . If the labelling says GMO free and it is not ..then there is fraud and the product should be recalled . But if the labelling doesn't say GMO free ;you should just assume that there is a possibility of GMO in the product. So go to your pantry and throw away anything that doesn't say it's GMO free . Then go to your local grocery and find products that say they are GMO free and leave the rest of us alone who think it's perfectly fine to consume GMO products .

Catsmine · Jul 25, 2015, 09:25 AM

The only trouble I have with the new techniques is that the products are not as robust as breeding techniques produce. If the new crops are successful, profit motive will produce monoculture crops. As gengineered crops become dominant, even a slight variation in a blight fungus or virus can prove catastrophic. If Ireland had used more than one breed of potato, Boston wouldn't have a St. Patrick's Day parade.

There is also the matter of unintended consequences. Does corn that produces corn worm insecticide ever kill bees? Ten generations from now? The studies aren't completed.

talaniman · Jul 25, 2015, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'll tell you what I know about the labelling issue. We make many soy based products . For our customers who insist on their products being GMO free ,we do the testing to guarantee that there are no GMO organisms in their product ;and we make them pay for that testing .

So do you really think they absorb that cost ? Nope they are greedy for profit companies. Of course that cost gets passed on to the cost of the product . So be it ,it's their choice and how they market their product.

Now what do you think would happen if that type of expensive testing was required for all products ? Think about it .

Here's a clue for you . If the labelling says GMO free and it is not ..then there is fraud and the product should be recalled . But if the labelling doesn't say GMO free ;you should just assume that there is a possibility of GMO in the product. So go to your pantry and throw away anything that doesn't say it's GMO free . Then go to your local grocery and find products that say they are GMO free and leave the rest of us alone who think it's perfectly fine to consume GMO products .

Snarky this morning huh? Must be those GMO coffee beans you're grinding. :D

tomder55 · Jul 25, 2015, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Catsmine

The only trouble I have with the new techniques is that the products are not as robust as breeding techniques produce. If the new crops are successful, profit motive will produce monoculture crops. As gengineered crops become dominant, even a slight variation in a blight fungus or virus can prove catastrophic. If Ireland had used more than one breed of potato, Boston wouldn't have a St. Patrick's Day parade.

There is also the matter of unintended consequences. Does corn that produces corn worm insecticide ever kill bees? Ten generations from now? The studies aren't completed.

What do we call it the yin and yang . I just contend there is more good than bad. The rapeseed was grown in Asia for centuries . But it contained chemicals that were toxic for humans . Canadian scientists were able to remove the bad chemicals from the plant and today we are able to cook with canola oil (Canadian oil ) as a result.
Plants can become invasive no matter how they were derived ,naturally occurring, or from gene manipulation. Modern methods in fact make outcomes more predictable . Farmers have used less sophisticated methods for years to produce stress tolerance and herbicide resistance crops . The pollen and seeds of these experiments have always cross bred with other crops .
And these GM plants do not do well outside of the domesticated environment . I'll take my chances with GMO over someone introducing a wild breed into an area it is not native to. I'm sure you have seen or read about the havoc that plants like kudzu have done here.

Bottom line ;we use far less acreage today to feed the world than we would use if GMO had not been introduced .

paraclete · Jul 25, 2015, 03:45 PM

I regard GMO as the work of the sorcerer's apprentice, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Think on this for a while, the rise of obesity in the developed world has occurred in parallel with the introduction of GMO crops. You cannot protect yourself from them because even if you don't eat GMO labelled food, it is contained in the feedstock of animals, in the production processes and it is even used as fuel so the particulate is in the atmosphere

Catsmine · Jul 25, 2015, 04:08 PM

We need to define terms here. Yes, genetic modification by breeding has been going on for millennia. Genetic Engineering is fairly recent, and reports of strange if not weird results continue to crop up, especially of superbugs and superweeds that incorporate the engineered genes.

paraclete · Jul 25, 2015, 04:32 PM

Yes I agree helping plants with selection of those with desirable characteristics is one thing, manipulating DNA another

cdad · Jul 25, 2015, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Courts have already found that accidental contamination does not constitute infringement. And regulations already state that incidental cross crop seeding in organic fields will not penalize organic farmers with loss of certification.No farmer has been penalized for accidentally having GM crops on his land. You can't have it both ways . Monsanto makes 2nd generation crops sterile and people complain . Then if they allow their plants to reproduce , people complain.

Which court are you talking about ?

The appeals court decision was based on Monsanto’s supposed promise not to sue farmers whose crops - including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others - contained traces of the company’s biotechnology products. In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

â€‹Supreme Court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue â€” RT USA