Was "Hurray for GMO's!" - Now GMO - What do you think?

Started as a joke but has become a frank and civil discussion. please feel free to contribute.


Yes! hurray for Golden Mottled Orpingtons! Aren't they beautiful?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Why? What did you think I meant?

I thought maybe you were setting out some bait to see if you could start one of those really annoying "I love Monsanto" "But I hate Monsanto" "But I love Monsanto, so shut up" threads that are ever so common on the other forum. And even though I think maybe that's still what you've done, that really is a nice colour!

Oh just poking a little fun at ourselves (myself included).

Even better! Everyone does tend to get a little worked up about the whole GMO thing. Keep poking fun, we need it once in a while!

I can't resist. . .

Well, generally I keep quiet on the really emotional topics, but I'd like to point out that saying "GMOs are bad" is something like saying "hormones (or antibiotics, or just about anything complicated) are bad". It's too complicated for the sweeping statement, in my opinion.

There are many different types of GMOs; many different gene sequences that are inserted, into many different organisms.

Three examples:

1. Pharmaceuticals
Many drugs are made using GM technology these days.
One example is Thyrogen (or Thyrotropin alfa) recombinant human thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH); it is a glycoprotein which is produced by recombinant DNA technology. Thyrotropin alfa is synthesized in a genetically modified Chinese hamster ovary cell line.
Anyone who has any recent experience with thyroid cancer knows what misery Thyrogen allows patients to avoid. I for one think this is a "very good" use of GMOs.
2. Glyphosate resistance gene
This is the "Roundup ready" gene that is inserted into Canola and soybeans. It has undeniably resulted in an in enormous increase world-wide of the use of glyphosate, as well as the evolution of many glyphosate-resistant strains of weeds, necessitating the use of other, probably nastier, herbicides. I think that this is a "very bad" GMO.
3. Bt gene
This bacterial gene has been inserted into cotton, potatoes and corn. Expression of the gene results in the death of specific insect larvae that feed on the crop. It has reduced insecticide use by a considerable amount, and has the additional benefit over conventional pesticides of killing only those insects that are feeding on the crop, not other possibly beneficial, invertebrates. While there is room for argument here, particularly with respect to the evolution of resistant insects, I’d (cautiously) say that I think the use of Bt GMOs has been generally a good thing.

I’m not trying to start a fight, but I do think there’s room for discussion on this subject that might help all of us consider aspects we hadn’t previously thought of.

Does this constitute thread-stealing? I just stuck to the subject line. . .

Beautiful colour on that bird Fowler and I knew you were up to something funny when I read your title.

Must! Resist!!!

Oh what the heck,

I'm not against GMO's as a whole. What I want is proper assessments before they are released for use. The problem I see is that the large companies use their clout to push them through approval before they have been properly tested. These people are using simplistic logic to manage something that is (as you said) very complex. One GMO might be perfectly safe for the environment. That doesn't mean that the same gene put into a different species will also be safe. Each one is a totally new entity.

IPF, I think you should start a thread. I am of the same mind as you but without the knowledge to make any intelligent comments on the matter. It would be great for people to open their minds to both sides of the story and get a little 'in perspecive' info.

Not hijacking, just following the title of the thread.

Problem lies in determining what "proper assessment" entails, of course. It's also a question of risk-benefit analysis - in the case of pharmaceuticals, for many of them at least, the risk is (IMO) minimal, and the benefit, potentially huge. The problematic applications are where the risk is hard to estimate, and especially those where there's no turning back once the genie's out of the bottle - like GMO canola.

I agree - the same gene inserted into two different organisms can have two very different risk-benefit profiles. Years ago I was asked to review a proposal to plant GMO (Bt) pine in a far away country. Didn't take a lot of thinking to convince me that it was a remarkably bad idea; killing every caterpilar that dared take a chomp of pine flowers or foliage doesn't seem in the same league to me as GMO cotton plants.

IPF I just have to ad that with the introduction of roundup ready, farmers were able to use roundup instead of those other nastier herbicides and now that there is some resistance they have to go back to the same chemicals they were using before roundup ready.

Where the real mess up happened is when they decided not to keep GMO crops separated and we now have to keep our GMO free crops separate. For us to grow corn there is no advantage at all to go non GMO as when we sell it it all goes in the same bin at the elevator. We do grown non GMO soybeans which are kept separate. As in we have to plant, combine, truck etc. them separate so there is no GMO contamination. Those are then mostly exported to Asia as the North American people don't care enough to pay one cent more for non GMO.

.

FOr me there are two separate issues. The GMO products themselves. Then there is the conduct of these companies. How they seem to own the governments. How none of our governments have the jewels to stand up and perform a smackdown on behalf of the little guy. We yap and howl about schoolyard bullying, but at the corporate level, well they all may as well be the Mafia. In fact, I know Italian gangsters with far more class and at least some idea of their own ethic, which these monster corporations are utterly devoid of.

While everything they do might be 'legal', it is not moral, ethical, or honest. We have abuse and brutality and gangsterism built into our legal system. Money makes you right and the inability to stand up to these grotesque and faceless, blameless entities has left us all in danger of being crushed beneath the retarded behemoth. Retarded, as in has no brain...just drooling blindly and evily as it mows on.

For me, THAT is the big grudge I have. THe idea that making money allows them to trample over every one of us. Our governments put a price on our heads and sold us on the open market when they did not crush the high handed corruption out of these monsterous entites at the first sign that they were bullies. THAT is what gets up MY nose about GMOs.

ipf wrote:Problem lies in determining what "proper assessment" entails, of course. It's also a question of risk-benefit analysis - in the case of pharmaceuticals, for many of them at least, the risk is (IMO) minimal, and the benefit, potentially huge. The problematic applications are where the risk is hard to estimate, and especially those where there's no turning back once the genie's out of the bottle - like GMO canola.

Very true. I see some uses like say having a goat that can cheaply and efficient produce a pharmaceutical in it's milk as being a HUGE benefit with very low risk.

I agree with Higginsrat and Uno as well. If I decide that I'm OK with eating a particular GMO, that's fine. But it should be up to ME to decide. I am not comfortable with a Corporation removing all options from me or hiding their product information so that I cannot make an informed decision.

Personally, I am against GMOs.
Too mottely..

.

Shannon, what do you mean by "too mottely?"
I agree with Uno, there are two separate inssues, the science of it, and the corporate ethics (or what passes for ethics). Just to be clear, I'm only talking about the science-y end.

I am not necessarily pro or against GMO, but, as conventional farmers we make our living with them. Most of what we use are not GMO's, but hybrids. When we started farming 10 years ago we did use brown bag seed and save our own. We very quickly realized we were getting nowhere fast and started buying hybrid seed. It has increased our yield significantly - more than 30%. We do use round-up ready canola from time to time, but it has a specific purpose. We use it when we purchase or rent a piece of land that is particularily weedy. We plant the canola, spray a few times and it really cleans up a field nicely.

I have not read any conclusive evidence yet that says GMO's are good or bad, but I do think we should move slowly and cautiously.

In the garden, I prefer hybrid seed. I have tried many different heritage varieties, and while adding a bit of spice to the garden, like purple carrots or black tomatoes, I just prefer the taste of the hybrids, most of which seem to have a higher sugar content.

Can't say I am against or for GMO either.

I do appreciate a person who takes the time to understand what a GMO really is and form their own opinions.

I also think that if people will take the time to educate themselves they then have a right to choose what they wish to grow and buy.

One thing I would point out is just because something is naturally occurring or has been around a long time does not make it safe or better. And just because it is a GMO does not make it unsafe or unhealthy. Lots of naturally occurring products have probably had much less testing than many GMO products. The foods we eat or products we use whether GMO or "natural" or made in a lab for that matter are not necessarily safe or good for us. You do need to understand the science and get in deeper than just what the media says to make informed decisions that are right for you. There are plants that produce natural pesticides, fish that will kill you if you eat them, heck there are green potatoes in this world...all are natural and all are bad for you especially in large amounts.

Welcome to the world that is not black and white. It definately has shades of grey and !GASP! sometimes even colors.

I will agree with what has been said about separating science and corporate ethics as they are two separate points for discussion.

And I am pleased to see (even if not intentional) an attempt at a civil discussion on the topic.

poplar girl wrote:
And I am pleased to see (even if not intentional) an attempt at a civil discussion on the topic.

The trick is to not become emotionally invested in one's opinion.

If I happen to disagree with a person about GMO's, I am not casting aspersions on them, their family, their car etc.

I say hurray for GMO, looks pretty enough, how big do they get? Where do you get those from, is monsanto into chikns now? And is that buckeye in the background, GAWD I hope they aren't about messing with them now, we are still conservation breeding and I wanna know for sure for sure when I pick up an egg it isn't full of spider silk and goat milk!

Whether or not it's acceptable technology also depends on the reproductive strategy of the organism. Since corn is wind-pollinated, it is virtually impossible to maintain GMO-free stock - GMO pollen will blow in from miles away. With essentially self-pollinating crops like soybeans it is relatively easy to keep the GMO and non-GMO separate.

So far there are no GMO critters let loose on the landscape, or trees either; there used to be a few in an experimental plantation in northern Albera (as PG probably knows; she may have seen them?) but they are gone now.

And why shouldn't we be polite? I ask you.

ipf wrote:So far there are no GMO critters let loose on the landscape, or trees either; there used to be a few in an experimental plantation in northern Albera (as PG probably knows; she may have seen them?) but they are gone now.

And why shouldn't we be polite? I ask you.

Those trees were destroyed prior my time working with hybrid poplar ipf. Some days when the weeds were waist high and the trees knee high i have wished for those roundup ready trees though. Although sometimes the "weed" was roundup ready canola so that made me laugh. And with poplar being so easily propagated from cuttings a tree that was sterile would do just fine and would avoid those problems of cross pollination.

They do have GMO poplar trees in China as I understand it. And I heard last year that confined trials with some trees were planned in Europe for the first time since the huge issues a decade or so ago when the trials were destroyed.

It makes sense to me that GMO species that spread pollen far and wide and are likely to cross with native or non GMO plants should be made sterile where it is possible to do so.


And we should be polite, we are just not always so.

Did anyone see articles on the featherless chickens they have developed and are raising in Isreal? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I think this is a good example (in particular on a chicken forum!) of how natural breeding and selection can allow for results I would question the acceptability of just as much as GMOs.

I don't think we should have GMO's products shoved down our throats, we should have a choice. Round up ready canola is becoming a problem, it's my understanding that they've created a monster. I have a problem is with Round Up, it's supposed to be inert, no residual effects, it's not.
Just because the GMO'd fruit or veg looks good doesn't mean it tastes good or is healthy. But each to their own. I prefer to grow my own food.

poplar girl wrote:

Did anyone see articles on the featherless chickens they have developed and are raising in Isreal? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I think this is a good example (in particular on a chicken forum!) of how natural breeding and selection can allow for results I would question the acceptability of just as much as GMOs.

They are a bit off when they say "created a mostly featherless chicken by cross breeding a broiler (which are the big, meaty ones) with a species that has a featherless neck". They did not use a Naked Neck. The naked gene popped up in a University flock of New Hampshires and had been maintained for genetic work. This is what they used to cross with broilers to attempt to make a featherless meat bird. I guess I am currently neutral on this one. I understand the concerns that people have regarding the possible social impact on the birds and possible effects of the absence of protective feathers. On the other hand, processing chicken feathers require large amounts of energy and water, both in short supply in many parts of the world. People have developed other traits in animals to make them easier for humans to manage, polled livestock for example.

Still haven't completely made my mind up about this one.

The questions about GMO safety and testing are all answered. Research has been done and is squelched so that consumers remain in the dark. It is like the cure for cancer...already discovered and always on the horizon, if you get the meaning of that. If GMO's were safe, then why are they banned in much of Europe? This is a huge issue, not just about genetic engineering, but on the whole, the picture is control of food. Control food and you control people. An organization called Codex Alimentarius is also involved, as is Monsanto, the giant we hear about all the time, and there are many other large players in the game such as Bayer. The pharmaceutical industry is part of this. GMO drugs are rampant. People are prescribed medications they know nothing about and take them blindly because they are prescribed by a doctor. To avoid GMOs in N America or Australia is all but impossible. Growing your own food is good, but the feed we give to animals is made with GMO grains, so unless you also feed them organically grown feeds, you are already consuming GMO's. Even gardening is difficult because the few pollinators left cannot distinguish between Round up ready corn and your organic corn. This cross contamination of corn is devastating heritage corn grown in Mexico at alarming rates. Cross contamination is rampant. It is what Monsanto sues farmers for. The effects of GMOs are being seen and felt across N America with symptoms not displayed in European countries where GMO products are banned or require labeling. Labeling...wouldn't it be great to have a choice whether to buy GMO products or not? Why don't we?