• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"No GMOs" on Food

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Orphia Nay
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
52,463
Location
Australia
You see it everywhere. An interesting new product, with "No GMOs" or "GMO-Free" on it.

What are they scared of? GMO food is tested and tested and tested.

And, as science-based critical thinkers, are we now resigned to Organic food now apart from the "No GMOs" labelling?
 
The wheat used to make bread is simply genetically modified grass. It's been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Growing cereal crops is what modified the genus homo from hunter-gatherer to farming community, and the start of civilisation.
 
The scariest GMO is ruby grapefruit; the Hulk of fruit (although red not green). Literally created by gamma ray irradiation. i wonder why people are prepared to accept GMOs created by random mutation by radiation, and not worry that they might get angry, but are not prepared to accept deliberate and known mutations by very specific gene editing?
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html
 
Orphia Nay said:
You see it everywhere. An interesting new product, with "No GMOs" or "GMO-Free" on it.

What are they scared of? GMO food is tested and tested and tested.

And, as science-based critical thinkers, are we now resigned to Organic food now apart from the "No GMOs" labelling?
Click to expand...

There are reasons to be suspicious of GMO IMO, but they have little to do with the GMO process itself and everything to do with a business model which allows corporations to patent genes, encourages monoculture and runs the risk of humans being increasingly dependent on a smaller and smaller gene pool for our food crops. The only reason GMO gets a look in, is because it's a mechanism for gene patenting.

I don't understand why deliberate manipulation of genes in the lab is any more scary than the fumbling attempts over centuries or millennia of selective breeding.

IMO it comes down to a democratisation of stupidity and a lack of trust in science. Back in the middle of last century, the West was in the thrall of science and every problem could be fixed by scientists - we trusted them completely. Then events like Thalidomide, Three Mile Island and so on eroded people's trust in science and, as usual, we overcompensated to be overly suspicious of science.

At the same time, the internet put all kinds of information, true, false and indeterminant in the hands of people who considered themselves able to assess it and come to a conclusion but who were, in truth, not able to do so. This kind of collective stupidity means it's almost impossible to put lies like "vaccination causes autism" and "5G causes Coronavirus" to bed.

As far as the labelling of food goes, food companies want to make money and so if people want GMO-free food, and they're able to provide it - possibly with enhanced profit margins - then that's what they'll get.
 
Are you serious? You know that in order to genetically modify an organism dihydrogen monoxide (DMHO) has been used at some point in the chain.

Wake up!
 
Orphia Nay said:
And, as science-based critical thinkers, are we now resigned to Organic food now apart from the "No GMOs" labelling?
Click to expand...


In the US, "organic" for food is defined in regulation by the US Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program. It isn't just an advertising buzzword. It establishes exactly what materials and processes can be used when growing and processing foods, particularly limiting growers and processors to the use of naturally occurring substances. Organic production has to be certified by one of the various organizations accredited by the USDA. They can't just say "Organic" on their own.
 
Orphia Nay said:
You see it everywhere. An interesting new product, with "No GMOs" or "GMO-Free" on it.

What are they scared of? GMO food is tested and tested and tested.

And, as science-based critical thinkers, are we now resigned to Organic food now apart from the "No GMOs" labelling?
Click to expand...

The tomatoes on the vine at the supermarket will always be much better than the gmo ones, the taste is just blander in those.
 
bluesjnr said:
Are you serious? You know that in order to genetically modify an organism dihydrogen monoxide (DMHO) has been used at some point in the chain.

Wake up!
Click to expand...

That is a very dangerous substance. Many people have been killed by it. Worse, every criminal consumes the stuff before committing their first crime.

It is water.
 
I saw a package that said it contained genetically modified ingredients. It made me wonder if there's some law now because I can't imagine a company volunteering to put that on their package. Kind of like "contains 100 bug parts per million grams." Maybe legal, but not appetizing.

Armitage72 said:
In the US, "organic" for food is defined in regulation by the US Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program. It isn't just an advertising buzzword. It establishes exactly what materials and processes can be used when growing and processing foods, particularly limiting growers and processors to the use of naturally occurring substances. Organic production has to be certified by one of the various organizations accredited by the USDA. They can't just say "Organic" on their own.
Click to expand...

I always thought it was like "Natural" -- supposed to mean something but anyone can label it any way they want.
 
rockysmith76 said:
The tomatoes on the vine at the supermarket will always be much better than the gmo ones, the taste is just blander in those.
Click to expand...
Vine ripening improves flavor, but that has nothing to do with GMO. Tomatoes on the vine are just as apt to be GMO as non vine.

Flavor was bred out of most tomatoes, in favor of size and uniform redness, before GMO. Vine or no vine, store tomatoes are just awful. If you want a wonderful tomato, you need to grow your own heirloom, buy an heirloom, or wait for them to GMO the flavor back into commercial varieties.
 
varwoche said:
Vine ripening improves flavor, but that has nothing to do with GMO. Tomatoes on the vine are just as apt to be GMO as non vine.

Flavor was bred out of most tomatoes, in favor of size and uniform redness, before GMO. Vine or no vine, store tomatoes are just awful. If you want a wonderful tomato, you need to grow your own heirloom, buy an heirloom, or wait for them to GMO the flavor back into commercial varieties.
Click to expand...

Either way, the ones on the vine taste better, bigger ones, much blander. The ones fresh from my garden... better than both easily
 
I have not made a career out of researching this, so if I have been misled, please let me know.

I used to think GM crops were no big deal. If they can tweak a crop to be more appealing then great. While you're at it, release some of those genetically modified mosquitoes to kill off that disgusting species. But then I learned about the technique of modifying a crop for herbicide tolerance. So crops that did not used to survive being exposed to Roundup can now happily be sprayed to reduce the effort in growing them.

Approval has been granted to grow crops engineered to be resistant to the herbicides 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dicamba, glufosinate, glyphosate, sulfonylurea, oxynil mesotrione and isoxaflutole. Most herbicide resistant GM crops have been engineered for glyphosate tolerance, in the USA 93% of soybeans and most of the GM maize grown is glyphosate tolerant.
 
TruthJonsen said:
I have not made a career out of researching this, so if I have been misled, please let me know.

I used to think GM crops were no big deal. If they can tweak a crop to be more appealing then great. While you're at it, release some of those genetically modified mosquitoes to kill off that disgusting species. But then I learned about the technique of modifying a crop for herbicide tolerance. So crops that did not used to survive being exposed to Roundup can now happily be sprayed to reduce the effort in growing them.

Approval has been granted to grow crops engineered to be resistant to the herbicides 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dicamba, glufosinate, glyphosate, sulfonylurea, oxynil mesotrione and isoxaflutole. Most herbicide resistant GM crops have been engineered for glyphosate tolerance, in the USA 93% of soybeans and most of the GM maize grown is glyphosate tolerant.
Click to expand...

Sounds correct. Do you think it's a problem though?

Yes, herbicide resistance, particularly to glyphosate (aka roundup) is one of the main reasons for GMO crops. I believe the period of patent protection on the earlier strains has already expired.
The Don said:
There are reasons to be suspicious of GMO IMO, but they have little to do with the GMO process itself and everything to do with a business model which allows corporations to patent genes, encourages monoculture and runs the risk of humans being increasingly dependent on a smaller and smaller gene pool for our food crops. The only reason GMO gets a look in, is because it's a mechanism for gene patenting.
Click to expand...

The period of patent protection, at least in the US, is 20 years, so all of this stuff eventually ends up as public domain. Right now, it being 2020, anything patented in the 20th Century is free to exploit for anyone.

These articles are a few years old now:

Soybeans: New Generic Roundup Ready Variety Offers Higher Yields

As Patents Expire, Farmers Plant Generic GMOs
Monsanto no longer controls one of the biggest innovations in the history of agriculture.
Click to expand...

In the long run 20 years just isn't all that much, IMO. Yes, in the meanwhile Monsanto made a lot of money, and I'm sure they still make money from these products even after the patents expire due to brand recognition and market presence, but the technology itself becomes available to all eventually.
 
alfaniner said:
I saw a package that said it contained genetically modified ingredients. It made me wonder if there's some law now because I can't imagine a company volunteering to put that on their package. Kind of like "contains 100 bug parts per million grams." Maybe legal, but not appetizing.
Click to expand...
There are some state laws now:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/agric...ng-genetically-modified-organisms-report.aspx

I always thought it was like "Natural" -- supposed to mean something but anyone can label it any way they want.
Click to expand...

I use the "organic" and "non-GMO" labels to tell me when there's probably a product of equal value, for a lower price, on a nearby shelf.
 
I believe that the creation of GMO plants and animals can be completely safe. This is even more true with the newest methods that leave almost no or no trace of the vectors or selectable markers used. One simply can not distinguish retrospectively the lab from the natural method.

The socio- business implications are a separate issue not confined to lab GMOs. Do we want the additional pesticide use inherent in pesticide resistant crops? Do we want even more dominance by big Agra? Separate issue from GMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom