"No GMOs" on Food

[alfaniner]

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.

Exactly. Occasionally I find myself looking at something in those sections by mistake, checking the price, and saying "Why the **** is it so expensive?" Then I look up and see the sign. Always followed by "**** that 'organic' ********."

 

[wasapi]

I spent some time at the market looking at pretzels. Looking for a brand that did NOT say, "No GMO!" as its selling gimmick. Yeah, pretzels.

 

[cosmicaug]

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.

The first is true. However, applying intellectual property to plants in the USA is as old as the 1930s (YMMV in other countries: many currently treat plant intellectual property similarly to the US & some do not) so I think this is less significant than it is made out to be. The things that follow are also typically brought up as good reasons to be skeptical but are orthogonal to use of genetic engineering in crops. Biotech traits do not in fact encourage (or discourage) monoculture or run the risk of humans being increasingly dependent on a smaller and smaller gene pool for our food crops. This can, of course, happen but whether you use biotech traits is not an enabling factor.

Monoculture (by which I understand: this is a field of rice, this is a field of potatoes, this is a field of cabbages, etc. rather than we grow cabbages & sweet potatoes and carrots in the same field) is as old as agriculture. 99% of the time, monoculture is the whole point (that is not to say that companion plantings do not exist). It is certainly the way large scale agriculture has always been done most of the time (regardless of the use of biotech traits).

The same can be said about reduced gene pools & genetic uniformity of plantings. In the US, the wake up call was a corn blight that hit our farmlands in the 1970s (I won't look it up right now but, if it interests you, no one is stopping you or anyone else). Yes, breeders will produce remarkably uniform seed varieties these days. It's a QA thing (they are selling a certain genetics & they are ensuring that the customer is getting exactly what they chose to buy). However, with modern breeders, this would be the same regardless of whether a biotech trait was in use or not. Nevertheless, note that you are not going to have the same variety used all over the country and and note that because of the lesson from the 1970s maize blight breeders are more careful these days.

As for the impact on all of that by biotech traits, it is essentially none. The regulatory peculiarities of GE traits is that they are (de)regulated by the trait. More precisely, the regulatory framework is applied to transformation events (that is, it is applied to each time that a trait is introduced into a single plant by means of molecular biology/"genetic engineering" techniques). So the genetic construct is inserted into a given genetic background, plants are examined, chosen & tested to see that they meet expectations & that they have no surprises & then you seek and (hopefully) get an approval for one chosen derived line. That plant line then gets introgressed into parent breeding lines from which many varieties will be developed (many varieties from one event). You end up with many varieties that would be developed the same way as what would have been the case without involving a biotech trait.

By the way, you will find that all the big ag companies are going to have enormous germ plasm repositories. They care a lot about this (if nothing else, because it is a resource that can potentially affect their bottom line). It's not like they are going to intentionally destroy this simply because they are Evil Corp.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I spent some time at the market looking at pretzels. Looking for a brand that did NOT say, "No GMO!" as its selling gimmick. Yeah, pretzels.

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

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

 

[cosmicaug]

The tomatoes on the vine at the supermarket will always be much better than the gmo ones, the taste is just blander in those.

Troll!

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.

Which is to say, not at all. One was briefly marketed ages ago (1990s). However, there are no GE tomatoes on the market currently.

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.

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

 

[alfaniner]

I spent some time at the market looking at pretzels. Looking for a brand that did NOT say, "No GMO!" as its selling gimmick. Yeah, pretzels.

But were they "Gluten-Free"? You know, like the plastic bags they come in?

 

[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 patterns inherent favored in pesticide resistant crops? Do we want even more dominance by big Agra? Separate issue from GMO.

Fixed that for you.

 

[theprestige]

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

As far as I can tell, most gluten sensitives are gluten sensitive as a lifestyle choice. I think a GMO'd gluten that didn't trigger a celiac response would make no dent in anti-gluten rhetoric or anti-GMO rhetoric.

Though vegans would still find some way to complain. [emoji 1]

It's funny because it's true.

 

[Modified]

As far as I can tell, most gluten sensitives are gluten sensitive as a lifestyle choice. I think a GMO'd gluten that didn't trigger a celiac response would make no dent in anti-gluten rhetoric or anti-GMO rhetoric.


It's funny because it's true.

And many people may have issues with things in wheat other than gluten, and blame it on the gluten.

 

[Jim_MDP]

As far as I can tell, most gluten sensitives are gluten sensitive as a lifestyle choice. I think a GMO'd gluten that didn't trigger a celiac response would make no dent in anti-gluten rhetoric or anti-GMO rhetoric.





It's funny because it's true.

[emoji20][emoji20][emoji20]
Gawds damned TapaCrap just ate my reply.
[emoji20][emoji20][emoji20]

 

[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 patterns inherent favored in pesticide resistant crops? Do we want even more dominance by big Agra? Separate issue from GMO.

Fixed that for you.

I suppose without adding context, it could seem like I am needlessly inserting some euphemisms to obscure your meaning. That was not my intent.

The point is that it is taken for granted that these herbicide tolerant crops increase the use of herbicides and that is not something that has been satisfactorily demonstrated. Some studies suggest they do & some suggest otherwise. The changes are not dramatic, either way.

It's not like when these traits entered the marketplace farmers discovered herbicides. Rather they used herbicides differently. Many plants are already tolerant of some herbicides so a maize farmer might use a broadleaf herbicide without worrying about effects on their crop. Or the when & how might be different (ie. pre-emergence use). What this means is not that we will be using herbicide when we did not previously use it; it means that herbicide will be used differently.

My "favored" substitution is because anti-GMO advocates often seem to put forth that GMOs need certain chemicals and this is not true even with the herbicide tolerance traits. Of course, if you have a herbicide tolerance trait you are probably going to make use of it. Sometimes, you might even get a choice in some varieties with stacked herbicide tolerance traits (though it wouldn't imply that you would want to use both herbicides).

From https://twitter.com/DavidKucher/status/732247253994209280:

Caption:
"The right 1 herbicide for #GMO sugar beets The left herbicides for conventional sugar beets"

 

[casebro]

And many people may have issues with things in wheat other than gluten, and blame it on the gluten.

It's actually the tyrosamine/tyramine in fermented wheat products. It's made from the tyrosine when it gets fermented. Lots of wheat in most soy sauces, so lots of tyrosamine, and MSG gets the blame.

Tyrosamine is also made accidentally when they process wheat into "Modified food starch". In this case Processed = Bad.

It makes some people's blood pressure go through the roof, 250/170. MSG headache? Google "cheese headache".

 

[casebro]

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 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

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.

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".

 

[alfaniner]

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".

Copyrights do expire -- it's just that the expiration period (if a copyright is maintained) keeps getting longer and longer, thanks to the Disney juggernaut. I think the limit is 95 years now. Almost anything created before 1925 is now in the public domain (in the U.S.).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Has anyone mentioned the cross pollination ( potential ) problem?

Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted

 

[Puppycow]

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".

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.

 

[jadebox]

"New research from Iowa State University (ISU) found that Russia is actively attempting to turn US public opinion against genetically modified organisms."

https://allianceforscience.cornell....-information-warfare-portray-gmos-negatively/

 

[arthwollipot]

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

I'm pretty sure it's because most people don't realise it's happening.

 

[Armitage72]

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

It's looks that are the big thing. When a golden nematode outbreak in parts of the US threatened potato crops, South American varieties that they wouldn't attack were imported. Those potatoes were smaller and "uglier" than conventional potatoes, and nobody would buy them. They had to create hybrids that looked like normal potatoes but had the immunity of the South American varieties.

 

[Armitage72]

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

I work for a company that makes cleaning products, and a big part of our business is products for cleaning equipment in food processing plants. Organic, Kosher, and Halal food plants even have to use cleaning products that are themselves certified for use in those facilities. For organic, it's not that big of a deal, since most of our products require a potable water rinse after use and confirmation that no residue remains to actually contact the food, so they won't impact organic production. One of our popular no-rinse sanitizers is a blend of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, and peracetic acid. 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.