Let's talk GMO's...

mtn wrote: Monsanto? I have a problem with that. I have a problem with patenting nature, even if it is "man-made" nature.

I understand this viewpoint, but don't necessarily agree with it. I do not like Monsanto's supposed practices of targeting growers whose crops were pollinated by neighboring Roundup-ready fields, but growers who would prefer not to abide by the restrictions of patented plants are welcome to use heirloom varieties. Plant breeding is extremely expensive and time consuming. Without financial reward, what incentive do companies have to increase yield or adapt plants to new disease pressures? I don't work for free, either.

Javelin wrote: In reply to foxtrapper: Breeding and genetic modification are two vastly different things. Implanting parts of a virus to a plant on purpose is not the same thing as going, "well this bush tasted better, I'll just plant that seed this year".

Disagree. Breeding is nothing more than taking some of this DNA, and some of that DNA, splicing them together and hoping one likes the result. That's just how the biology of it works.

Now, we're playing around with doing it directly. And, sometimes mixing things that couldn't have been mixed before.

Is it "bad" or "dangerous"? Dunno. Personally, I don't find it particularly frightening on a first order level. But, as I said before, the rule of unintended consequences invariably rears its head and strikes.

So while a glow in the dark kitty doesn't frighten me, I wouldn't be at all surprised if nature develops say a heartworm specific to glow in the dark kitties, that has lethal properties in deer populations.

Javelin wrote:

Mitchell wrote: Are we willing to change our diet for the world's benefit?

I did. Will you?

Sure!

foxtrapper wrote:

alfadriver wrote: How would you even know if GMO pollen has tresspassed onto your land? I don't know if a farmer can afford to do a genetic test on their seeds. seems as if monsanto would bully their way into the market- find one farm, and move out from there.

Monsanto uses markers that let them identify your crop has "benefitted" from their pollen. They do drivebys on fields in the general area and blanket sue, shifting the burden of proof onto the farmer to prove they have not benefitted.

that's my point- a Farmer will not know if they've been trespassed upon, but a Monsanto rep would. So it's not the farmer's fault that they are getting "turned in". And it really bugs me that Monsanto would be allowed to trespass both with pollen and persons to determine that someone is planing their genetic strain. How about you keep your pollen away from me? When did that become wrong?

Terrible.

(FWIW, I'm ok with GMO for the most part. If we didn't do human intervention on crops, we wouldn't have corn, which is centuries old- but all human developed.)

One tidbit I heard about GMO's.... Forget about using the seeds from the already produced GMO plant to make another plant. One time use only.

berkeley Monsanto. berkeley GMO's.

If a greater power wanted us to put this plan into action, they would have gave us a natural window/door into it. Oh wait, they did!!! But it takes too long and costs too much.

Mitchell wrote:

mtn wrote: Monsanto? I have a problem with that. I have a problem with patenting nature, even if it is "man-made" nature.

I understand this viewpoint, but don't necessarily agree with it. I do not like Monsanto's supposed practices of targeting growers whose crops were pollinated by neighboring Roundup-ready fields, but growers who would prefer not to abide by the restrictions of patented plants are welcome to use heirloom varieties.

but as you note, the heirloom varieties can get contaminated by Monsanto, and nobody can sue THEM over it. (well, not if they plan on winning, anyway....deep pockets buy good lawyers)

This is infuriating on many levels, but the one people have pointed out which bends my mind is that you just have to be downwind of a Monsanto-supplied field and you're hosed.

You can't even keep your heirloom varieties. You are in reality badly wronged by infection by these single-season crops' pollen, then are sued for having been thusly infringed upon.

It's like having somebody salt your fields and then sue you for stealing their salt... And winning!

It's not the GMOs that bother me, it's the patent protection. It's all being done backwards. (does that surprise anyone?)

Shouldn't Monsanto have to do some work to assure that they don't accidentally infect other crops. You'd think they'd want to protect their patents but in this law they are encouraged to spread it around.

BTW Monsanto is also the corporation fighting all the Vets over Agent Orange exposure and long term health benefits. They are able to out live the vets in this fight.

JoeyM wrote: but as you note, the heirloom varieties can get contaminated by Monsanto, and nobody can sue THEM over it. (well, not if they plan on winning, anyway....deep pockets buy good lawyers)

I agree that this is a problem that our legal system should fix.

ransom wrote: It's like having somebody salt your fields and then sue you for stealing their salt... And winning!

Good description.

They've also been nosing around among the beekeepers, trying to figure out a way to force payment for benefits to the hives in the form of pollen and nectar. The hearsay is that they are particularly interested in those of us who harvest a late crop of honey, presumably from soybeans.

carguy123 wrote: It's not the GMOs that bother me, it's the patent protection. It's all being done backwards. (does that surprise anyone?)

I don't got that far- how safe is soy if it's robust to Roundup? Not sure if I want to eat much of that.

I believe that the mode of action for Roundup readiness is that Roundup simply isn't synthesized within the plant. I will have to brush up my memory, though. I do remember reading that the gene was taken from a bacteria or algae that was growing outside of a Roundup plant.

Mitchell wrote:

Javelin wrote:

Mitchell wrote: Are we willing to change our diet for the world's benefit?

I did. Will you?

Sure!

Awesome! The more vegetarians and vegans, the better.

And something like 95% of soybean in the USA is GMO. Just look the ingredient label for "vegetable oil;" it's just soybean oil under a more attractive name. Soybean is in all sorts of food.

Next topic! Patient trolls own your genes too!

Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome

OK, I'm intrigued.....can the OP actually post a link to this whole berkeleying mess so that I actually understand WTF everyone is all pissy about?

Because this isn't new, 93% of soybeans, 86% of corn, and nearly all wheat varieties have been genetically engineered for decades. I'm not used to hearing "GMO" when it comes to this E36 M3, because we have always planted engineered varieties of corn to actually work with our weather.

If your "Heritage seeds" are making more than 25 bushels to the acre for beans and 60 bushels to the acre for corn, guess what.......they've been genetically enhanced at some point in a very big way. SHOCKER

Definitely scary stuff,

Queue "its the end of the world as we know it"

carguy123 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: There's two sides to GMO's that are the problem. One is eating them. The other is pollination/propogation. So if you live next door to someone planing Monsanto patented soy. Whereas you plant your historic family seed that you've separated over time. Next season comes along, and due to natural pollenation, some of that GMO strain has gotten into your seed. You go and separate it, and want to re-plant. But Monsanto sues you for using their seed and patent. You did nothing wrong, technically- their stuff has trespassed onto your land. Yet they can sue you to prevent you from using your own seed. This has happened all over the country, and now it's apparently law of the land. I'd hate to be a farmer.

This is the first step into the food conglomerates owning the world.

Must...resist.. posting Brawndo food pyramid.

In reply to yamaha:

GMO's should be called gene spliced food. Crosspollenazation isn't specifically jamming in fish DNA into my tomatoes.

I don't mind the GMO part, instead I mind the additional pesticides.

Because of roundup ready soybeans, all of our soybeans are covered in poison constantly. That's bad IMHO.

Also, our GMO corn synthesizes its own poison. But don't worry, it doesn't hurt humans. Just every other living thing they've fed it to....

Tom Suddard wrote: Also, our GMO corn synthesizes its own poison. But don't worry, it doesn't hurt humans. Just every other living thing they've fed it to....

....except when it doesn't. We put the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin into corn to fight bugs, and now the bugs are evolving immunity

Thanks for catching that, Joey. But I'm sure we can just turn up the poison dial to kill the new bugs, too.

Bottom line- I buy non GMO whenever I can.

Tom Suddard wrote: Thanks for catching that, Joey. But I'm sure we can just turn up the poison dial to kill the new bugs, too.

...and like you said, we'll be eating that crap HOPING that it isn't doing anything to us.

I suppose that I'm playing the role of agriculture's advocate here, but I hate to see our food production to be so heavily demonized and regulated that it gets shipped overseas like the rest of our industries, where we have even less oversight of its production. I have visited a fair number of fields and packinghouses over the last few years, and most growers are sincerely trying to minimize their ecological impact. If for no other reason than to maintain a profitable business; chemicals are very expensive, so they want to apply the minimum effective input.

Mitchell wrote: I suppose that I'm playing the role of agriculture's advocate here, but I hate to see our food production to be so heavily demonized and regulated that it gets shipped overseas like the rest of our industries, where we have even less oversight of its production.

I believe that we will NEED some GMOs to deal with earth's population. OTOH, everybody should be given the opportunity to make an informed choice about their foods. Requiring labeling of known GMO content is, IMHO, a reasonable middle path.