Quote:
Originally Posted by flamefan74
So are the non GMO types. In canola for example, you have the Clearfield system which is considered non GMO but is actually sprayed with worse chemicals than roundup. It is considered non-GMO due to how it is bred. The Clearfield chemicals can actually have residual effects in the soil, so what residue is still on the crop?
If you are comparing GMO to organic, then I would agree with you to a certain extent. But GMO to non-GMO there is no difference.
There needs to be a better understanding of what is GMO, non-GMO, and organic. Most consumers link non-GMO and organic as the same, but there is a huge difference. For example, the company I work for sells a non-GMO (Clearfield) canola oil into the US health market as non-GMO. The health stores know what is involved with the non-GMO canola, but if the consumer is clueless, they will sell it a higher markup and keep quiet about it. And it is legit as the product they are selling actually is non-GMO, it is the consumer assuming non-GMO=organic.
|
Wasn't the original point of the RR ready variation supposed to be that because the plant wouldn't be affected by the glyphosate, it would allow the farmer to get away with less herbicide usage year over year, while at the same time increasing yields?
This plus an increased focus on no till crops, which was also supposed to be made possible with RR, would really cut costs, increase soil fertility, and even cut the carbon emissions that are actually a pretty serious problem in the farming industry.
I agree that more information is needed. I just think people are far to willing to accept GMO because they have a very limited understanding as to how the complete farming process works. Testing GMO seeds in a lab does not in any way analyze the complete process. Far too much emphasis has been and STILL is being put on lab science versus the trials being done by the USDA on test crops out in the field. Of course, pretty tough to properly analyze those crops when funding is being cut.