"No GMOs" on Food

[cosmicaug]

Peracetic acid is a synthetic substance, but the USDA has specifically approved it for use in organic production because it's an unstable compound that breaks down into hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid once it isn't in solution with those chemicals.

You are framing it as if there are rational justifications for what is organic & what is not. In fact, it's pretty arbitrary and doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course, USDA Organic is not the only game in town but it applies to all organic certifications. They are all ultimately arbitrary and the only thing that they do well is defining what organic is for the sake of having something defined as organic. Organic does not achieve any other goals well (such as health of the consumer, health of the environment in general, health of the soil, etc.).

First point of contention would be the entire natural vs. not natural divide which is not meaningful. Even if we could agree on what it means (is glufosinate "natural"? How about copper sulfate?), whether something is "natural" or not has no bearing on whether it is desirable or not.

But also there's no real consistency about how rules may be applied. For instance, you could make the argument that there's no "GMO" in livestock fed with GE based feeds (much like the argument about peracetic acid). That does not stop various organic certifications from saying that meat from such animals cannot be called organic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Really? You can copyright (not just patent) a drug?

Got a link or something that explains? I wasn't aware of this.

I thought that copyrights were for stuff like books, music, etc. not inventions.

I think it was intended to be Trademark not copyright, as trademarks do not expire. So you have the trademark name of the drug and the generic name of the drug and that does not expire.

 

[theprestige]

Trademark: A name that identifies your business and are reserved for use exclusively by your business. Trademarks have to be defended. If you let other people use your trademark even for "harmless" purposes, it creates a pattern of disinterest in maintaining it as a mark of your proprietary trade.

Copyright: The right to publish material that you wrote*. Copyrights come into existence automatically whenever you write something. Unlike trademarks, and patents, you don't have to register your written works. All you have to do is show that you're the original author, if the question comes up.

Patent: The right to profit from something you invented. Patents do have to be registered.

My understanding is that while genes occur naturally, isolating a gene for use in genetic engineering comprises a patentable method, and for some reason the patent includes the gene itself that has been so isolated. I think this might be to prevent people from applying the isolation method in secret, and then profiting from the genes without having to pay the patent holder. Just having the genes isolated at all obliges you to the patent holder. But I'm not sure about this, or whether it extends to other isolation methods.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The recent issue of Consumer Reports had an analysis of residual pesticides in a variety of organic and non-organic fruit and vegetables. They've made the results available on-line here: https://www.consumerreports.org/pesticides-in-food/stop-eating-pesticides/

The bottom line conclusion is that level of pesticide residue varies according to the item and the source (US vs imported) but that, in general, non-organic products are "better".

The article moved my mind somewhat on the organic/non-organic debate. Based on the article, better US legislation is required.

I'm working my way through http://davidrichardboyd.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-we-eat.pdf trying to understand the Canadian situation.

 

[Armitage72]

You are framing it as if there are rational justifications for what is organic & what is not. In fact, it's pretty arbitrary and doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course, USDA Organic is not the only game in town but it applies to all organic certifications. They are all ultimately arbitrary and the only thing that they do well is defining what organic is for the sake of having something defined as organic. Organic does not achieve any other goals well (such as health of the consumer, health of the environment in general, health of the soil, etc.).

Oh, I absolutely agree that organic is largely nonsense. The first post I ever made on these forums was about how the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), the group that certifies our products, will certify homeopathic remedies for use on organically-raised livestock. Pay their fee and they'll certify tap water as suitable for organic production, based on the ingredients that they pretend are in the water.
Most of our certified products are ones that require a potable water rinse, making certification completely unnecessary. The certificates even say that the products meet the requirements of the National Organic Program if steps are taken to ensure that the products never contact food. They won't affect the food if they never touch the food. What an insight! We only got them certified at the insistence of one of the Marketing Managers because a competitor had gotten their similar products certified and were using it for a sales edge.

 

[cosmicaug]

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 usealtered pesticide use patternsinherentfavored in pesticide resistant crops? Do we want even more dominance by big Agra? Separate issue from GMO.

Fixed that for you.

Here's an abstract from a paper that just popped up in my Twitter feed:

ABSTRACT
This study assessed the farm-level economic and environmental impacts from the use of genetically modified (GM) corn in Vietnam (resistant to Lepidopteran pests of corn and tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate). It was largely based on a farmer survey conducted in 2018–19. The GM varieties out-performed conventional varieties in terms of yield by +30.4% (+15.2% if the yield comparison is with only the nearest performing equivalent conventional varieties) and reduced the cost of production by between US $26.47 per ha and US $31.30 per ha. For every extra US $1 spent on GM seed relative to conventional seed, farmers gained between an additional US $6.84 and US $12.55 in extra income. The GM maize technology also reduced insecticide and herbicide use. The average amount of herbicide active ingredient applied to the GM crop area was 26% lower (1.66 kg per ha) than the average value for the conventional corn area (2.26 kg/ai per ha) and in terms of the associated environmental impact of the herbicide use, as measured by the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) indicator, it was lower by 36% than the average value applicable to the conventional corn area. Insecticides were used on a significantly lower GM crop area and, when used, in smaller amounts. The average amount of insecticide applied to the GM corn crop was significantly lower by 78% (0.08 kg/ai per ha) than the average value for the conventional corn area (0.36 kg/ai per ha) and in terms of the associated environmental impact of the insecticide use, as measured by the EIQ indicator, it was also lower by 77% than the average value for conventional corn (14.06 per ha).

Again, YMMV, but it is by no means a given that using HT traits increases herbicide use.

 

[cosmicaug]

Not about the technologies used in currently marketed traits but still relevant.

From https://twitter.com/methylcytosine/status/1312255466932703232

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not about the technologies used in currently marketed traits but still relevant.

From https://twitter.com/methylcytosine/status/1312255466932703232

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjYQ7moXcAArsUT?format=jpg&name=small[/qimg]

Twitter? 280 characters?

How about: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aepp.13084 an actual analysis of the current EU position on "EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond"?

Sample quote:

Directive 2001/18 is relevant to the approval of GMOs for deliberative release into the environment (i.e., “cultivation”) or for placement on the market within the EU. The Directive does not directly apply to approvals for the import and processing of genetically modified food and feed, which are covered under Regulation 1829/2003 (EC 2003a) on genetically modified food and feed (hereinafter “Regulation” or “Regulation 1829/2003”). This Regulation defines genetically modified food and feed as “containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs” (Article 2, Regulation 1829/2003), with GMOs understood as defined in Directive 2001/18. All food and feed covered under Regulation 1829/2003 are further subject to requirements concerning labeling and traceability. These requirements are further detailed in Regulation 1830/2003 on the labeling and traceability of GM food and feed (EC 2003b). Labeling exemptions apply to the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of traces of GMOs, as long as they do not exceed the threshold level of 0.9%, as defined under Regulation 1829/2003. This threshold applies to the labeling of GMOs that have been authorized for import and processing. For GMOs that have not been approved but that have received a positive risk assessment by the EFSA, a threshold level of 0% applies for food, with a threshold of 0.1% for feed (EC 2011). Regulation 1830/2003 also states that GMOs require unique identifiers prior to authorization.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Bet if a GMO'd wheat which didn't affect gluten sensitives came out... we'd see a sharp drop in anti-GMO blather.

It's a race. There are Gluten-free non-GMO flours now.

https://bestreviews.com/best-gluten-free-all-purpose-flour

Though vegans would still find some way to complain. [emoji1]

I don't think I'm allergic to gluten, and I DGAF if the flour I use has GMOs, and I'm vegan.

 

[Puppycow]

I think it was intended to be Trademark not copyright, as trademarks do not expire. So you have the trademark name of the drug and the generic name of the drug and that does not expire.

Trademark: A name that identifies your business and are reserved for use exclusively by your business. Trademarks have to be defended. If you let other people use your trademark even for "harmless" purposes, it creates a pattern of disinterest in maintaining it as a mark of your proprietary trade.

Copyright: The right to publish material that you wrote*. Copyrights come into existence automatically whenever you write something. Unlike trademarks, and patents, you don't have to register your written works. All you have to do is show that you're the original author, if the question comes up.

Patent: The right to profit from something you invented. Patents do have to be registered.

My understanding is that while genes occur naturally, isolating a gene for use in genetic engineering comprises a patentable method, and for some reason the patent includes the gene itself that has been so isolated. I think this might be to prevent people from applying the isolation method in secret, and then profiting from the genes without having to pay the patent holder. Just having the genes isolated at all obliges you to the patent holder. But I'm not sure about this, or whether it extends to other isolation methods.

My understanding of copyrights and trademarks is that same as yours. The thing that I am questioning is the following:

Copyrights are used for GMO drugs, like insulin made by GMO e-coli. It's legally difficult to make a 'generic' of what is called a "biological drug".

I am doubtful of this claim. I also understand that trademarks don't expire unless they are deemed to have been abandoned. But trademarks are just branding, nothing more. Like the Coca Cola trademark is owned by the Coca Cola company, but anyone is free to make a similar product, as long as they sell it under a different name and logo.

 

[cosmicaug]

Patents? or copyrights? Copyrights never expire, if Mickey Mouse has anything to say about it. Copyrights are used for GMO drugs, like insulin made by GMO e-coli. It's legally difficult to make a 'generic' of what is called a "biological drug".

I am doubtful of this claim. I also understand that trademarks don't expire unless they are deemed to have been abandoned. But trademarks are just branding, nothing more. Like the Coca Cola trademark is owned by the Coca Cola company, but anyone is free to make a similar product, as long as they sell it under a different name and logo.

There are patented insulins. They have small sequence differences as compared to normal insulin which change their characteristics such as to make them faster acting or longer acting.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Like copper sulphate, rotenone et cetera. Of course sampling shows that over a quarter of US produced "organic" foods contain synthetic pesticides anyway.
And don't forget the risk of food poisoning; E. coli has been shown to be several times more common in "organic" farmed foods and similarly for listeria.

 

[jadebox]

Pepsico has gone all-in on the "Non-GMO" silliness. They apply the label to their Tropicana orange juice even though no brand of orange juice contains GMOs.

But, citrus greening is threatening to destroy the Florida orange juice industry and genetically engineered oranges are likely to be what saves it.

It will be interesting to see how Pepsico backtracks.

 

[theprestige]

My understanding of copyrights and trademarks is that same as yours. The thing that I am questioning is the following:



I am doubtful of this claim. I also understand that trademarks don't expire unless they are deemed to have been abandoned. But trademarks are just branding, nothing more. Like the Coca Cola trademark is owned by the Coca Cola company, but anyone is free to make a similar product, as long as they sell it under a different name and logo.

I think casebro is using "copyright" when he should be using "patent".

 

[Armitage72]

Pepsico has gone all-in on the "Non-GMO" silliness. They apply the label to their Tropicana orange juice even though no brand of orange juice contains GMOs.

Orange juice seems to do stuff like that a lot for some reason. I remember a commercial that said "Everyone knows that Florida grows the best oranges in the world. It makes you wonder why some of our competitors import their oranges." Due to the line of work I was in at the time, my first thought was "They're probably located in a citrus-growing state other than Florida, so the state-wide citrus quarantine means they can't use Florida oranges."

 

[Orphia Nay]

On the topic of genomic editing:

"Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna ...just won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry!
Both scientists have also received the 2016 L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Award for their revolutionary invention of genetic scissors." - The United Nations.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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

It's a huge problem. A literal existential threat.

 

[Puppycow]

It's a huge problem. A literal existential threat.

Why?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Weirdly, there's little interest in this. There's a professor at the University of Florida at Gainesville who has had a breeding program for flavor & other more commercially interesting traits (yield & disease resistance) so that you won't need to choose between one & the other & there is very little interest from business.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/07/garden-gem-tomato-why-harry-klees-perfect-cultivar-isnt-sold-in-supermarkets.html

Not weird at all actually. A packet of 15 seeds costs $7.50. I have never seen any bulk offering for Garden Gem. No commercial growing is going to spend that sort of money on seeds. A gardener might. But even the most expensive heirlooms I grow don't usually cost that much, and after the first year I can save my own seed for basically free. (a little labor in saving seeds but not much.) Garden Gem I would need to buy every year!, either that or make my own hybrids, a two year process that DOES take a lot of skill and labor.

An example for context, I can purchase a pound of Rutgers, an old heirloom commercial variety that also tastes great because it was developed before "big ag" even existed and flavor still mattered, for about 80 dollars +/-. That's ~152 THOUSAND seeds. So Garden Gem is roughly 1000 times more expensive for seeds and I can't just save the seeds from this years crops and plant next year.

If it actually does meet the hype, and is actually the flavor of a true heirloom, yielding 22 pounds per plant grown by commercial methods, then MAYBE I might grow a few. It's worth buying 15 seeds just to check it out, since I typically get 3 to 4 dollars a pound. But I can easily see why large commercial growers who get less than 50 cents a pound absolutely refuse to even care much. Even other productive and flavorful hybrids like Mountain Spring I can get for about 7 cents a seed in bulk, a long long way from 50 cents a seed! Just to compare head to head.. I can get a packet of 50 for 5 dollars. That's a lot cheaper when you start talking about 5000 plants an acre and large commercial growers planting hundreds of acres.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Why?

Because it kills the biology (especially in the soil) along with the so called "weeds". This biology has many functions we call ecosystem services. And these ecosystem services are required for sustainable survival of human civilization. It is literally suicidal to ignore this existential threat.

This graphic is backed by this science: Global Consequences of Land Use

Now if this was just a little land, it probably wouldn't matter much.

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.

Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show Oops not just a little land. LOTS of land. Glyphosate in particular is really bad because it not only kills plants, but a whole lot of other things relying on the shikimate pathway.(mostly microorganisms) It is also a chelating substance. (bonds to minerals in the soil making them unavailable to the plants) This causes a ecological collapse in the soil food web that effects even many organisms that don't use the shikimate pathway. End result is a 90%+ loss of soil ecosystem services.