The Anti GMO movement, is it the new Kony 2012?

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Hes

That is fantastic that you eat "Natural". Maybe you like the taste better. That is a perfectly valid reason do so. How do you define "natural" though ? Is it any product with a label that says so ??

Also. Do you realize that Organic food is worse for the planet than GMO and inorganic farming ?

There is a reason most Natural food stores are situated in high end suburbs with affluent populations. Those are the people that can afford the $7 Cauliflower and the $20 Organic, non GMO pasta sauce.

My definition of 'natural' has nothing to do with labels. A box of #### claiming to be 'all natural' is a farce 9 times out of 10. What do I consider natural? Foodthat comes as close to its normal state as possible. If it isn't branded, packaged, trademarked, patented, marketed, or licensed, it's a safe bet it's pretty close to 'natural'.
Sure, you can raise the argument "Well cooking is processing!" Or "Everything is not natural unless you pull it out of a virgin angels womb", but those are usually obtuse arguments by those who think 'organic' is synonyms wth 'idiot who can't think for himself and is being played'. You know what's worse than paying a little more for something that maybe has negligible health benefits over the conventional? Multi-generational health issues because most people's diet is as diverse in actual substanance as the soil the corn is grown in. Which is to say, not at all.
Also, it would take some pretty remarkable evidence to convince me Organic farming practises are worse for the environment than GMO farming practises. Yes, the "Organic" label is flawed, as I've spoken with many people who grow my food in a manner I would call organic but they do not meet some rather silly criteria for he Organic label.
And where the hell are you buying your food where ANY bottle of pasta sauce is $20? I promise you, I shop everywhere but Walmart for food, and never seem to have to pay 200% for an Organic or close alternative. And while I'm more likely to chose a product based on its merit, not just an Organic label, its a reliable alternative to products that directly support the terrible business practices of companies such as Monsanto, yes.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by 81MC

My definition of 'natural' has nothing to do with labels. A box of #### claiming to be 'all natural' is a farce 9 times out of 10. What do I consider natural? Foodthat comes as close to its normal state as possible. If it isn't branded, packaged, trademarked, patented, marketed, or licensed, it's a safe bet it's pretty close to 'natural'.
Sure, you can raise the argument "Well cooking is processing!" Or "Everything is not natural unless you pull it out of a virgin angels womb", but those are usually obtuse arguments by those who think 'organic' is synonyms wth 'idiot who can't think for himself and is being played'. You know what's worse than paying a little more for something that maybe has negligible health benefits over the conventional? Multi-generational health issues because most people's diet is as diverse in actual substanance as the soil the corn is grown in. Which is to say, not at all.
Also, it would take some pretty remarkable evidence to convince me Organic farming practises are worse for the environment than GMO farming practises. Yes, the "Organic" label is flawed, as I've spoken with many people who grow my food in a manner I would call organic but they do not meet some rather silly criteria for he Organic label.
And where the hell are you buying your food where ANY bottle of pasta sauce is $20? I promise you, I shop everywhere but Walmart for food, and never seem to have to pay 200% for an Organic or close alternative. And while I'm more likely to chose a product based on its merit, not just an Organic label, its a reliable alternative to products that directly support the terrible business practices of companies such as Monsanto, yes.

Here are a couple good links.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/26...ootprint-11338

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...e-environment/

It also includes links in the article with studies. Essentially the Carbon footprint may be the same, but you use up to 40% more Land to produce the equivalent amount of food with Organic farming.

Does this convince you at all ?

I would also like to know how you intend for the growing population of the Earth to be fed with backyard gardens using seeds passed down through the generations. It is a LUXURY that you get to do this. 90% of the planet does not have that luxury. I have arguments with hard line Anti-GMO folks that think a human population cull is a good thing.

[station]

I will never understand the charged emotions and lack of mutual understanding around this issue. Not everyone who buys organic is a naive, elitist hypocrite and not everyone who promotes science-based, large scale agriculture is a soulless corporate shill.

I like growing some of my own food using heritage seeds obtained at seed swaps. I like going to the weekly farmer's market here in my small town to buy mostly organic produce. I believe that on an indivual farm basis there are benefits to an organic approach to farming. I also recognize that this doesn't scale up and the benefits are mostly lost when lower yields are factored in. I agree that science-based agriculture is feeding (some of) the world and has the best chance of ending world hunger and malnutrition. But I also believe that mono-cultures are not perfect and over use of pesticides and herbicides is a legitimate problem. I believe that gmo foods, conventional foods, and organic foods are all safe and nutritious.

Am I not allowed to exist in this world of absolutes?

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

So I should have said accelerates the propagation of the plants with glysophate resistant genes but I didn't realize people would be so pendantic.

It's artificial selection in action.

As you say, mutation has a scary connotation in common usage, but really mutations happen all the time. Every human has 100+ mutations.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Hes

Here are a couple good links.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/26...ootprint-11338

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...e-environment/

It also includes links in the article with studies. Essentially the Carbon footprint may be the same, but you use up to 40% more Land to produce the equivalent amount of food with Organic farming.

Does this convince you at all ?

I would also like to know how you intend for the growing population of the Earth to be fed with backyard gardens using seeds passed down through the generations. It is a LUXURY that you get to do this. 90% of the planet does not have that luxury. I have arguments with hard line Anti-GMO folks that think a human population cull is a good thing.

Sorry I haven't read those links yet, but just a quick response.
Land usage does not equate to benefit/detriment of environment. At all.
Also, the 'feeding the planet' thing is, in my mind, incredibly misguided and off point. There's almost a billion acres of farmland in the US alone, and almost 200 million acres of it is Corn and Soy. Obesity, diabetes, general ####ty health creating a generation with a shorter lifespan than the one preceding it in North America. Millions yet again at risk due to famine around the world might disagree with the promise of feeding the world through genetic engineering. There are few places in the world incapable of sustaining any sort of food production, GE crops or not. Poorer people in North America also have a worse diet, statistically speaking. Not because they eat less Organic and Free Range, but because they consume more corn and 'meat' products by way of fast foods and cheap grocery items (which are almost all filled with corn, soy and their by products). Literally their diet is killing them, but we herald the same products as saviours of the human race for sustaining our food needs? The problem is not needing to maximize every square yard of land for yield. Rather, it's ensuring the land can continue to produce yield, without destroying everything around it Consider who stands to gain from something and how much, and who stands to lose. Consider than small farms are declining in numbers, while >1000 acres are rising.

[GGG]

My argument would be that organic corn and organic soy are effectively just as bad as gmo corn and soy.

Effectively the real problem is subsidized US agriculture producing a surplus of cheap calories which food companies need to process and package in order to drive consumption.

Organic vs non-organic is not moving the needle.

For example people are outraged that fruit loops are made from pure gmo corn. It doesn't matter organic gmo free fruitloops is still terrible for you.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Sorry I haven't read those links yet, but just a quick response.
Land usage does not equate to benefit/detriment of environment. At all.
Also, the 'feeding the planet' thing is, in my mind, incredibly misguided and off point. There's almost a billion acres of farmland in the US alone, and almost 200 million acres of it is Corn and Soy. Obesity, diabetes, general ####ty health creating a generation with a shorter lifespan than the one preceding it in North America. Millions yet again at risk due to famine around the world might disagree with the promise of feeding the world through genetic engineering. There are few places in the world incapable of sustaining any sort of food production, GE crops or not. Poorer people in North America also have a worse diet, statistically speaking. Not because they eat less Organic and Free Range, but because they consume more corn and 'meat' products by way of fast foods and cheap grocery items (which are almost all filled with corn, soy and their by products). Literally their diet is killing them, but we herald the same products as saviours of the human race for sustaining our food needs? The problem is not needing to maximize every square yard of land for yield. Rather, it's ensuring the land can continue to produce yield, without destroying everything around it Consider who stands to gain from something and how much, and who stands to lose. Consider than small farms are declining in numbers, while >1000 acres are rising.

So your answer it to change the eating habits of 1/6th of the planets population ?? Good luck with that.

All this misguided fear-mongering over good technology is just making the issue more complex. It likely actively drives people to eating crappy. Especially if their friends on facebook make them feel bad for eating perfectly good GMO food.

This same misguided fear-mongering (from groups like Greenpeace) is scaring poor farmers around the world from adopting a technology (GMO) that could improve their quality of life (and potentially save lives).

So do you think those small farms do not jump at the chance to be more efficient ? If the GMO seed provides a 40% greater yield of course they are going to use it. Do not be surprised if many of your local Farmers Market veggies are made using round-up ready crops.

Also, I need some citations to some of the stuff you are saying. I always hear that "this generation will be the first that does not outlive the last". Let's see some evidence. Can you also use paragraphs ?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thor

I didn't say that, GGG did.

No. You said it. But anyways, GGG has clarified for you.

Originally Posted by GGG

first mutation is not a big scary word.

Agreed, not a scary word.

Originally Posted by GGG

We know their are mutations because some weeds are resistant to gysopahte and other weeds are not. Given that the majority are not it makes sense to assume that the glysophate resistance is a mutation of a gene within the weed.
When you spray these weeds with glysophate you kill all the ones without the mutation allowing the ones with the resistant gene to propagate.

Yes but we have no idea if this trait was already randomly present in some plants before intense glyphosate applicatoon or was a result of a mutative adaptation by some plants as a result of it.

And agreed, what we see now is a multitude of these plants because external selection pressure selects for this particular trait/mutation.

Originally Posted by GGG

So I should have said accelerates the propagation of the plants with glysophate resistant genes but I didn't realize people would be so pendantic.

Yes, agreed. Selection pressure accelerates the propagation of these plants.
There was nothing "pendantic" about it. It was a request for clarification of a statement that obviously confused others.

Can we not agree that there is a significant difference between saying something accelerates the abundance and distribution of an organism with a particular trait and something accelerating mutations within an organism? Not pedantic at all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No. You said it. But anyways, GGG has clarified for you.


Agreed, not a scary word.


Yes but we have no idea if this trait was already randomly present in some plants before intense glyphosate applicatoon or was a result of a mutative adaptation by some plants as a result of it.

And agreed, what we see now is a multitude of these plants because external selection pressure selects for this particular trait/mutation.


Yes, agreed. Selection pressure accelerates the propagation of these plants.
There was nothing "pendantic" about it. It was a request for clarification of a statement that obviously confused others.

Can we not agree that there is a significant difference between saying something accelerates the abundance and distribution of an organism with a particular trait and something accelerating mutations within an organism? Not pedantic at all.

You aren't following the conversation. I posted it, Thor made the point that Gysophate could be replaced with any other herbicide and the discussion would be the same. No one but you seemed confused as Thor was the only one who quoted it.

The discussion was ongoing with no confusion around my post. Therefore it was pedantic.

[afc wimbledon]

I have no idea if it's Monsanto's fault or not but Germany has lost around 75% of all flying insects in 30 years, as a species this will doom us

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GGG

You aren't following the conversation. I posted it, Thor made the point that Gysophate could be replaced with any other herbicide and the discussion would be the same. No one but you seemed confused as Thor was the only one who quoted it.

The discussion was ongoing with no confusion around my post. Therefore it was pedantic.

I followed it just fine.
To seek clarification of a statement that states that mutation is accelerated is not being pedantic. There is a big difference between that and your corrected version.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Hes

That is fantastic that you eat "Natural". Maybe you like the taste better.

Maybe? The food I grow in my garden is superior to anything I can buy, anywhere. The tomatoes especially are much better and never go bad if you leave them long enough they simply dry out. The applesauce I make from my tree is incredible.

I'm not saying GMOs are detrimental health wise, I'm saying mass market food isn't very good taste wise, sometimes it is downright terrible.

[PepsiFree]

Mass market food tastes fine to me.

I must be a GMO gobbling commoner.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by zamler

Maybe? The food I grow in my garden is superior to anything I can buy, anywhere. The tomatoes especially are much better and never go bad if you leave them long enough they simply dry out. The applesauce I make from my tree is incredible.

I'm not saying GMOs are detrimental health wise, I'm saying mass market food isn't very good taste wise, sometimes it is downright terrible.

Seem’s much more like a hobby than a daily occurrence. There is also another 8 months of the year where growing fresh food is out of the question.

[Canada 02]

The vast majority of GMO crops are corn, soybean, canola, alfalfa and cotton. Almost all of it is used as animal feed. Most of the rest is for highly processed food products like corn starch, corn syrup and refined oils. Very few GMO items in the produce aisle

Seems some are confusing domestication and breeding with genetic modification

There are no commercial GMO tomatoes, nor are there GMO apples yet (although a Canadian company is about to bring a GMO non-browning apple to market soon).

"Natural" tomatoes were poisonous. It took hundreds of years of cultivation and breeding to arrive at heirloom varieties, not to mention supermarket varieties. Totally agree about the taste of most supermarket tomatoes. This has a lot to do with what most consumers want - blemish-free, perfectly shaped, bright red tomato. The great tasting backyard garden tomato likely fails commercial quality control because it is slightly mis-shaped, has a small blemish or isn't perfectly uniform in color. I know for a fact there are very active breeding and GM programs to restore taste into those beautiful, tasteless tomatoes.

Before domestication and genetic modification, 'natural' corn was a grassy weed that produced a handful of kernels per plant. Human intervention made this plant an edible and productive crop

Natural should not imply better or healthier

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Mass market food tastes fine to me.

I must be a GMO gobbling commoner.

Except for tomatoes. Grocery store tomatoes are awful.

[Barnes]

Anyone want to guess what wild, natural food this is?



No peeking at the image name.

[zamler]

I don't necessarily expect bought stuff to be as good as freshly harvested from my garden, but a lot of supermarket produce is really awful and I'd like to know why.

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Seems some are confusing domestication and breeding with genetic modification

Almost everyone I know doesn't know the difference, not that I'm an expert but I understand the basics. BTW organic bananas are terrible.

[Canada 02]

^wild banana; I think it was poisonous as well; certainly inedible

[station]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't necessarily expect bought stuff to be as good as freshly harvested from my garden, but a lot of supermarket produce is really awful and I'd like to know why.

Freshness is one reason. Much of our produce comes from California and Mexico so there can be a lengthy gap between farm and table. Some produce is harvested early to make it hardier for the shipping process and may not ripen prooperly. This is especially true with fruit like peaches which don't ripen well at all after picking.

Another reason might the methods of selective breeding and hybridizing. I heard an interview on Quirks and Quarks (CBC) with a food scientist who was trying to lead a movement toward better tasting commercial produce. He argued that for decades they've been selecting traits like hardiness, drought, flood, and pest resistance, colour, shape, size, etc. He listed I think 21 traits in total and taste wasn't one of them. So we've ended up with beautiful looking fruits and veggies that ship well but taste bland.