GMO Foods; What's the general scientific opinion?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The overwhelming majority of the studies that have been done on the GMOs that are currently in use in the food supply chain show that they have no adverse effects.

Yes, but those are all paid for by Monsanto. Or something.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We often hear that line of argument in these debates but, at best, it just muddies the waters.

In modern parlance GMO <> a hybrid strain developed over many years from what was naturally available.

No natural crossing of tomatoes and cranberries is possible, either in the wild or in the greenhouse, in order to create purple tomatoes with plenty of <whatever it is that's supposed to be good about cranberries>.

Splicing cranberry genes into tomatoes, in a lab, then propagating from the resulting plant, is what we understand by 'GMO'.

But both cranberries and tomatoes are "natural".

 

[Maestro]

Here y'all go, a rather timely and excellent article about GMO.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gmo-controversy/

ETA: It's interesting to note that the one species of black tomato created by GMO technology was subjected to rigorous testing while the 50 species developed through cultivation techniques were not. Which means that the cultivated varieties would have a higher risk of unknown effects.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No one has ever been sued for accidentally growing GMO crop. Please show me a court case because I have looked. In every single one I found the farmer knew he was growing the GMO crop without paying for it.

No one is selling sterile GMOs. Monsanto never commercialized that technology.

Weedkiller resistance? Glyphosate is one of the safer herbicides for people. It is much less toxic than the herbicides that were used before the round up resistance strains were developed.

Overpromising? The farmers choose GMOs because of the benefits and they keep coming back because they are happy with the product.

Correct on all points.

 

[catsmate]

And likely they're funded by the (worth billions of dollars) organic food industry.

A good point. One of the most vocal anti-GMO nuts, Gilles-Eric Séralini, had some interesting connections. Several studies were paid for by CRIIGEN. That institute is presided over by a homeopath and acupuncturist and has financial connections to two French supermarkets Auchan and Carrefour. Carrefour launched an advertising campaign for their GM-free product range just five days after Séralini's study was published.
More funding for Séralini came froim an organisation named The Foundation for Human Progress, which has direct ties to anti-GM activist groups.

False. You are using an equivocation. GMO specifically refers Genetic engineering technology. It is a modern development unrelated to standard breeding practices.

So what about deliberately induced artificial mutations?

 

[GlennB]

I've seen this question raised any number of times. Please explain the mechanism by which a genetically determined sterility can spread through a population.

Spread in the sense of 'increase'? No, for reasons you suggest -the seed is sterile.

What it could do is lead to sterile seed in neighbouring conventional farms - seed that gets retained for re-planting - reducing germination rates in the next season.

Ok, so by "cause sterility" you really meant "reduce germination rates temporarily", correct?

Obviously, if you can read for comprehension. Causing sterility lasts as long as the (notional) GM crop in question might be able to pollinate conventional crops nearby. How 'temporary' is that in terms of your original question? You seem to be bandying words here, hoping to score a point.

Meanwhile, would this putative reduction in germination rates be a plausible reason to ban the use of GM 'suicide seed' until further notice?

Your original "Please explain the mechanism by which a genetically determined sterility can spread through a population" suggests a "no", though you perhaps you were being slightly provocative about the issue there. Or maybe you didn't spot the possibility of sterile retained seeds?

 

[Old man]

Obviously, if you can read for comprehension...

????

Causing sterility lasts as long as the (notional) GM crop in question might be able to pollinate conventional crops nearby. How 'temporary' is that in terms of your original question?

I've talked with quite a few people who believed that 'Terminator Seed' technology would destroy our ability to grow anything. I'm just trying to understand what you think.

You seem to be bandying words here, hoping to score a point understand what I'm saying.

FIFY.

Meanwhile, would this putative reduction in germination rates be a plausible reason to ban the use of GM 'suicide seed' until further notice?

That depends on the crop in question, and what my seed source is.

Your original "Please explain the mechanism by which a genetically determined sterility can spread through a population" suggests a "no", though you perhaps you were being slightly provocative about the issue there. Or maybe you didn't spot the possibility of sterile retained seeds?

Or maybe I didn't want to jump to conclusions about what you meant based on a couple of quickly written sentences.

 

[Old man]

Here y'all go, a rather timely and excellent article about GMO.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gmo-controversy/

ETA: It's interesting to note that the one species of black tomato created by GMO technology was subjected to rigorous testing while the 50 species developed through cultivation techniques were not. Which means that the cultivated varieties would have a higher risk of unknown effects.

Thanks for the link, Maestro, I hadn't run across the UK tomato work before.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Here y'all go, a rather timely and excellent article about GMO.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gmo-controversy/

ETA: It's interesting to note that the one species of black tomato created by GMO technology was subjected to rigorous testing while the 50 species developed through cultivation techniques were not. Which means that the cultivated varieties would have a higher risk of unknown effects.

Indeed, an excellent article.

 

[dudalb]

The GMO issue is a classic case that the actual science often take backseat to the politics. A lot of the Anti GMO people are really Anti Big Corporatation,and will support ANYTHING opinion which makes Large Corporatations look bad. I have no great love for Large Corporations, but less love twisitng science to fit a political agenda.

 

[luchog]

I know folks who claim their health has dramatically improved by cutting out all GMO foods from their diets. It reminds me of people who claim that gluten is terrible and their health dramatically improved by cutting it out (even though they tested negative for celiac disease.)

I have acquaintances who claim to stop eating whatever fad "evil" food of the week is, and how it's really improved their health, and I just sit and wonder why, if it has made that much of an improvement, why do you whine about being sick just as much as before? Of course, they'd never even consider seeing one of those horrible Western medicine doctors.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Modern Farmer magazine discovered that there is a movement among farmers abandoning genetically modified organisms (GMO) because of simple economics.

“We get the same or better yields, and we save money up front,” crop consultant and farmer Aaron Bloom said of non-GMO seeds. Bloom has been experimenting with non-GMO seeds for five years and he has discovered that non-GMO is more profitable.

The re-converts to non-GMO seeds are not hippies but conservative Midwestern farmers who are making a business decision, Modern Farmer discovered. source

Of course even non GMO corn pales in profit and productivity comparison to raising the animals directly on pasture. The problem being that the government in collusion with industry has regulated that option away from many farmers.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Of course even non GMO corn pales in profit and productivity comparison to raising the animals directly on pasture. The problem being that the government in collusion with industry has regulated that option away from many farmers.

The gubmit won't allow farmers to raise cattle in pastures? Huh???

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The gubmit won't allow farmers to raise cattle in pastures? Huh???

Got a speech impediment? Or rather a reading and writing deficiency? I said animals, not cattle, and I said many, not all. Hey but acting stupid is all part of the game right? How else are you going to actually justify growing corn no one wants or needs?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Got a speech impediment? Or rather a reading and writing deficiency? I said animals, not cattle, and I said many, not all.

Please provide a list of animals the gubmit says I'm not allowed to have wandering around my pasture. Squirrels, perhaps?

Hey but acting stupid is all part of the game right?

You're the past master, so maybe you can answer?

How else are you going to actually justify growing corn no one wants or needs?

No one wants or needs corn? Why does the elevator give me money for it? Seems like odd behavior. And they don't even keep it, they sell it to other people who don't even want or need it!

THC

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Why send 18 billion a year in direct farmer subsidies? If everyone was so eager to buy it and farmers were just following demand, why the need to subsidy them? Oh and BTW, as you well know THC, The government very heavily regulates all animal foods in the country. Just try and sell some raw milk from your cow, or traditional country cured ham at the market and see how fast you go to jail. Oh and BTW don't try to say that is food safety, because the one thing they have not banned is the most unsanitary, unsafe, polluting, and ecologically harmful ways of producing food ie CAFOs. Why? Because CAFOs use corn, and corn is what the government is paying 10's of billions yearly to promote. And that's just direct payments. That doesn't include massive subsidies in corn biofuels subsidies other indirect subsidies. All done to prop up a failing industrial factory farming business model for the Neo-Luddites lining their pockets.

 

[catsmate]

But both cranberries and tomatoes are "natural".

So is aconite. And water hemlock.

Here y'all go, a rather timely and excellent article about GMO.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gmo-controversy/

ETA: It's interesting to note that the one species of black tomato created by GMO technology was subjected to rigorous testing while the 50 species developed through cultivation techniques were not. Which means that the cultivated varieties would have a higher risk of unknown effects.

Indeed. Mutation breeding has a long history, far longer than transgenic farming but is potentially far more hazardous; it's a far less selective technique.

This anti-GMO crap always amuses me, given the crossover between them and the "pot is wonderful" groups and the history of induced mutation (by UV, ionising radiation, EMA, colchicine et cetera) amongst cannabis growers.

 

[catsmate]

Why send 18 billion a year in direct farmer subsidies? If everyone was so eager to buy it and farmers were just following demand, why the need to subsidy them? Oh and BTW, as you well know THC, The government very heavily regulates all animal foods in the country. Just try and sell some raw milk from your cow, or traditional country cured ham at the market and see how fast you go to jail. Oh and BTW don't try to say that is food safety, because the one thing they have not banned is the most unsanitary, unsafe, polluting, and ecologically harmful ways of producing food ie CAFOs. Why? Because CAFOs use corn, and corn is what the government is paying 10's of billions yearly to promote. And that's just direct payments. That doesn't include massive subsidies in corn biofuels subsidies other indirect subsidies. All done to prop up a failing industrial factory farming business model for the Neo-Luddites lining their pockets.

So you won't be answering Scrut's question then?

 

[pakeha]

A good point. One of the most vocal anti-GMO nuts, Gilles-Eric Séralini, had some interesting connections. Several studies were paid for by CRIIGEN. That institute is presided over by a homeopath and acupuncturist and has financial connections to two French supermarkets Auchan and Carrefour. Carrefour launched an advertising campaign for their GM-free product range just five days after Séralini's study was published.
More funding for Séralini came froim an organisation named The Foundation for Human Progress, which has direct ties to anti-GM activist groups.


So what about deliberately induced artificial mutations?

Auchan and Carrefour, fallen women?
Interesting.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So you won't be answering Scrut's question then?

Scrut wasn't asking a question. Scut was mocking me. And no need to answer mocking questions directly, no. I did give Scrut a serious answer, mostly for anyone else that might come across the thread. That's more than I needed to do.