Genetic Modified Foods

I read in the Newspaper yesterday that the Scientists are concerned that our Chocolate is not in enough supply for the Mars Snickers Candy Co, so the scientist are going to mess with the genes to make the Cocoa Plant grow faster. There goes my anti-oxidant Choc. I have been eating to keep from getting sick. By changing our foods, we will not ha ve anything left to eat to maintain our bodies. Its bad enough that they have changed every thing there is to eat in the grocery stores. Does anyone know if our vegetables are genetically changed also. Today I heard they are growing genetic Salmon. I will not eat those man-killing genetic foods. I guess I will have to start growing my own chickens too.

All of our food since man started growing crops have been genetically engineered. The corn on the cob that we enjoy today bears no resemblance to the wild grass that the Native Americans first found. Every domesticated animal we eat is very different from it's wild ancestor.

The papayas that we enjoy today are here because bioengineers were able to develop plants that are resistant to the papaya ringspot virus (PRSV). The papaya industry was almost wiped out in Hawaii until these plants were developed. The development of disease resistant sweet potatoes in several countries in Africa not only spared people from starving, but also produced enough of a crop that farmers sold their excess and made an income. The cacao disease resistant trees will raise the incomes of the approximately 6 million farmers in the tropics. This will happen because not only will they be able to grow more fruit, but they will also not have to spend money on the poisons that they used to use on their trees.

It's good to keep an open mind about genetically engineered food. It is more important to study the science than be afraid of rumors that fear mongers like to spread.

"All of our food since man started growing crops have been genetically engineered."

Not quite, Helen. I think you may be confusing genetically "engineered" and "genetically modified" with mankind's "hybridization" , the latter being what we (people) have been doing "since the beginning", so to speak.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are quite different than creating new hybrid plants. Briefly taking it further GMO's can also be broken down into 'transgenic" organisms, which is what behillman is referencing to in his/her post above (i.e., genetic Salmon, which is being given a gene from an eel-like fish and a growth hormone from another fish).

However, I certainly understand your point about the fear factor involved in this fairly new science and although I don't accept it with open arms I hope one day it will be regulated enough that it cause no ecological harm nor human harm, which at this point is not being governed except in European countries who simply refuse GMO products.

Shoe

Shoe,
I mostly agree with you.It bothers me greatly that Monsanto is doing most of the plant genetics (a very crooked bunch)
Unnatural genetics (Crossing over the species line) could come back to bite us a couple of generations down the road.It may not be probable but it is possible.
I probably do eat some genetically altered veggies,but not on purpose.
Europe is ahead of us in health care and most food production. Better listen to them.
Thanks for listening
Vickie

I hear ya, Vickie. I bet we are all eating GMO products of some sort w/out knowing it. Bummer, eh?

Thanks for your input.
Shoe

I have read that in the days of "Noah" the world was so corrupt & un-natural that the world was destroyed, except for Noah & his family. They were saved to repopulate the world. When it says the world was un-natural , I think it meant all the lying,cheating, etc that was going on and I do believe they also were messing with genetics & corrupting all the plants & animals on the earth. Thats were the dinesaurs came from. They were genetics. Now mankind is going to do it again.

let's end world hunger! I bet a starving man would rather eat something thats been genetically modified than nothing at all. You have the choice to only eat organic, if it bothers you that much do it! grow your own food, but don't stand in the way of others being fed. (this also has nothing to do with mars bars for me cause I don't eat them, but I do love chocolate in vegan forms and if there was a surplus and it was cheaper that would be okay with me)

What's the connection between organic and GMOs I must've missed something.

Presently due to USDA regulations genetically modified foods are not allowed to be labelled as organic. Prettymess has a great point. The genetic engineering that has made fruits and vegetables not susceptible to viruses has done much to feed people and provide them with a way to make a small living. I found an interesting website, www.biofortified.org/ that has analysis and discussion of genetically modified foods. As far as chocolate, I love it and the more the better. Well, I keep having to remember, all things in moderation.

Organic and GMOs are not even the same thing, I was being sarcastic. It just shows that the term organic is truly misunderstood, as is usually the case.
I don't eat organic food but I don't want to eat foods that are Genetically Modified either, nor do I want to feed them to my kids.
Thank goodness I don't have to choose between one or the other because they aren't even in the same spectrum. We can can still buy food and grow food that isn't organic or Genetically Modified.
I realize sometimes its easier to look at things as black or white, but this is comparing apples to oranges.
Genetic hybridization has made many fruits and veggies less susceptible to disease, not just viruses, but it IS NOT the same thing as Bioengineering Genetic Modification, and to pass it off as such is a whole other issue.
Lisa

So let me get this straight, you are totally okay with pesticides and fertilizers killing animals and the earth, and running off of farm land and creating gigantic dead zones in the ocean.... but you are not okay with splicing some genetics to make the foods we grow less susceptible to diseases and more abundant, which means less pesticides and fertilizers!!??

That seems so backwards to me.

I understand how people lack the passion to eat organically, which basically means no pesticides! some people don't care about small animals that get killed by all the pesticides we use, thats okay. But most people think GMOs are unnatural, and therefore unsafe, but almost everything we eat as a culture is processed to an unnatural amount and pumped full of chemicals! We put chemicals in our hair and in our mouths and on our faces! Heck we even shove chemically treated cotton feminine products into our hoo haws!

Just because something is natural doesn't make it better! They make dissolving suture stitches out of all natural 100% kitty cat guts but I would rather have the unnatural chemically treated sutures every time.

"They make dissolving suture stitches out of all natural 100% kitty cat guts but I would rather have the unnatural chemically treated sutures every time."

Psst, no they don't. "Catgut" doesn't come from cats but rather from bovine species (cows and most often sheep ). Why they call it "cat" gut beats me. But, that being said, perhaps it is better to not infer that cute little kitty cat's lives are endangered, eh?

What a great topic going on here. However, many perceptions concerning GMO are often-times off kilter. For example, I hear ya'll saying genetically modified organisms were supposed to increase crop harvest but unfortunately over the past 20 years (when genetic engineering began) it has been proven that more often than not there is no significant increase in harvests. The few exceptions have not shown to be of great value. Perhaps one day though this avenue will come to fruition.

pretty mess, reading Lisa's post I must be missing something as I don't see where she said she was comfortable with "pesticides and fertilizers killing animals and the earth," (as you said above). Not eating organic food doesn't necessarily imply "I love excessive use of chemicals". As for me I eat both organically grown food and non-organic (but I'm one of the few humans on earth who don't put chemicals on their hair, on their face, or up my hoo-haww either). *grin

"understand how people lack the passion to eat organically, which basically means no pesticides"

Growing organically doesn't mean using no pesticides, it means using a safer choice of pesticides so that one can encourage life in the garden/farmlands and not eradicating all pests with the bazooka-type pesticides.

But, I sure hear what you are saying about dead zones in the oceans and such due to overfertilizing, etc..and that is being done by excessive use of chemical fertilizer much more often than manures, etc.

Very briefly, someone above mentioned world hunger and that topic brought up GMO's, lack of food for all, etc. World hunger is not the result of a lack of enough food but has been shown to be the result of poverty, economics, and politics. It's been proven we have plenty of food to feed the populations but those afore-mentioned standards keep getting in the way and have been for many years.

Lastly, may I remind us all to keep this discussion as civil as we can w/out attacking other members and member's opinions? A calm voice with questions, corrections, are perfectly fine (and encouraged) but screaming/hollering, ranting/raving are not. (Sorry to point you out personally, prettymess, but your past posts are full of exclamation points which tend to designate a yelling attitude; perhaps you weren't aware of that since you are fairly new to DG and perhaps Web forums.)

No doubt about it, there is much to learn on these topics. Let's all share and educate, eh!?

Best to all!
Shoe (who really didn't mean to get long-winded! *grin)

BTW-organic fertilizers, fungicides and pesticides come with the same warnings as syntheteic ones. There is even some proof that organic may not be as safe or as effective. and the pesticides kill insects (beneficial and pests). I have a choice of what I want to use on a small scale for a particular situation. I happen to believe that anything home grown is better for my family then store bought.
I'm still stymied over organic being compared to GMOs when they are totally different topics.

I'm kind of conflicted over GMOs because the science fascinates me, but my gut feeling is that there's an awful lot of potential for this to have a huge negative impact in the long run. I don't believe, though, that eating a genetically modified organism would be likely to be harmful; I think the harm is more likely to come from the destruction of natural species by crossing with the GMOs, or just being overrun by them, as with non-native species that are causing a lot of damage. Also that this is going to be a big-business pursuit, so what will that mean in terms of limiting the varieties available for us to grow in our home gardens?

This message was edited Dec 14, 2015 10:59 AM

When I first started this post, I was upset about what the scientist were going to do with the Chocolate that I buy. This Dark Chocolate is full of anti-oxidents that our bodies have to have to starve off cancer & other diseases. It is already known that most of our vegetables are lacking vitamins & minerals that our bodies need to stay alive. What is happening to all the nutrients in our vegetables. You might think that the ones we grow in our home grown gardens are full of nutrients, but if the genes of the seeds are being tampered with, we are back to the vitaminless veggies of the grocery stores. Also, with them adding pesticides to the seeds, the fruit like the tomatoe is killing bees when they eat the pollen. The pesticide is in the fruit also. So, we are eating pesticides also. The FDA says a little poison won't kill you immediately. We have no choice. We will eat pesticides wheather we like it or not.

My main concerns with GMOs are similar to Weedwhacker's. I just don't want to eat it because I feel that furthers the cause of the companies making a profit. The possible adverse effects from a Population Biological stand point are troubling, to say the least.
But the science fascinates me also.

I think more of the fauna side of the issue. To do this to animals really concerns me and since everything eventually has an enemy the thought of the fungus, bacteria, viruses, and prions that could mutate to attack these "new" organism really scares me.

behillman-I grow veggies because it has been shown that homegrown has more nutrients, that could be taken away in the quest for a higher yield. A plant can only produce so much energy and if that energy is divided up among many fruits then each is less nutritious...and you'll have to eat more to get the needed amount for your own body.

most of all DON'T MESS WITH MY CHOCOLATE!

LOL ilisac, DON'T MESS WITH MY CHOCOLATE EITHER.
I agree with you except plants receiving energy being less if divided among many fruits. It is the atomic structure in the genomes that decide the atomic amount of nutrients inside the plant and the whole plant - each leaf or stem or seed would would all be identical .
I don't knowingly eat GMO,s if given the choice.
I'm a firm beleiver in "If it ain't broke, Don't fix it."

vicki-that was how it was explained to me. That a plant that is breed for a high yeild has less nutrients per offspring. I do hope I'm wrong. I have an article somwhere but you all get the idea.
What's everybody's thoughts on this on the animal level? Do we keep them in cages, what if they get out? Just thinking...
Lisa

Oh ok Lis, I misunderstood you (Am good at that) I was thinking different fruit on each offspring.
Good! Totally agree with you.

Vicki-I 'm good at confusing people. I'm really enjoying this thread usually when I talk about stuff like this people's eye's start to glaze over.

I wasn't yelling at anyone! I just get excited and put exclaimation points. I was always taught that if I need to yell I should use CAPS LOCK!

Thanks horseshoe for clearing up the catgut thing, its still gross though. I know that it doesn't typically produce more fruit or veggies but I thought surely the GMO's would produce less fruit with disease, resulting in a higher yield.

I found an article from the journal Science dated Feb. 7, 2003 that discusses many of the issues we've been talking about. You can find it at, www.nslc.wustl.edu/courses/Bio4213/05/quaim.pdf To sum up a few points it is true that in developed countries yields have not increased that much when using GMOs, but the farmers have saved money by not having to buy as many pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. I live next to a field where a farmer grows cow corn and I like the idea of not having these chemical sprayed near me. In the past I remember the smells and seeing the chemicals being sprayed.

However, in tropical and subtropical areas yields have increased dramatically when using GMO crops. This is explained by the high pest pressures that exist in these areas as opposed much the lower pest pressures that are found in the cooler and dryer climates of developed countries. Also, the cost of the chemicals needed to suppress the pest pressure is prohibitive to the poorer farmers found in South and Southeast Asia and Subsaharan Africa. In India alone crop yields from bt cotton plots produced 60% to 80% more cotton than their conventionally grown plots. That is real money and a higher standard of living for these people.

The article goes on to mention that Bt rice, Bt sweet potatoes, Bt cotton, Bt maize, and Bt potatoes "increases yield in agricultural output per unit area are vital for poverty alleviation and food security." I haven't had time to find more articles from scientific journals because it's not snowing yet, but I would give more credence to these articles than I would blogs and or articles written by people with agendas that have not done scientific trials.

Actually, in regard to the pesticides, herbicides, etc., I was just reading an article (I'll see if I can find it again to link to) that stated crops are being developed that are unaffected by Roundup and other herbicides, allowing spraying of weeds without harming the desired crop, and that MORE of the chemicals are actually ending up in the crop itself as a result. Definitely not a good thing, in my opinion!

On the animal level in particular I feel we're playing with fire; in the case of the engineered salmon that are being considered for approval, some of the experts in this field are expressing the fear that if they (engineered salmon) were to escape into the wild salmon fisheries, the wild population would be essentially destroyed.

There is already corn that is unaffected by herbicides. I actually know a DGer that lost his whole veggie garden because a farmer sprayed his field with herbicide and it drifted over. Well you can fill in the rest..

Thanks for clarifying that, Lisa -- that's actually what I meant to say, that they are already available.

from the old song about paving paradise -- "you may spoil some apples, but leave me the birds and the bees..."

I'd far rather see more work being done on worldwide population control than engineering of the food supply.

:-(

You must be much older then I to remember that song. (joking).

Another thing to think about, what happens when the diseases mutate (which can happen very quickly) and what has been put into the plant is no longer affective?

I've just come across this thread and it's something I'm really interested in.

Like lots of people, I agree that the science is interesting but I have reservations about eating GMO foods as there have been no long-term studies on the effects on human health conducted and the very few independent (i.e. not conducted by the biotechnology companies) studies on animals are worrying and show an increase in cancers, tumors and sterility.

To answer someone's question though, the seeds that we plant in our gardens are not genetically modified. They may be hybrid seeds, which are different. The GMO seeds are made to be "suicide seeds" i.e. the offspring will not reproduce - this is supposed to prevent them contaminating "natural" crops although there is evidence this has already happened. It also means that GMO seeds are big business, not available to small home-growers, but also means that the farmers have to buy new seeds every year and cannot save their seeds to grow new crops (incidentally this is being blamed for the high number of Indian farmers committing suicide because they sign contracts, buy the gmo seeds, don't increase their production and can't save seeds so it actually costs them more money they can't afford).

Also, on the chocolate issue - anything produced by the Mars company is not going to give any benefits as these products are all already made with high fructose corn syrup, that likely comes from gmo corn. Any sugar is not good for the body and the best way to get antioxidants from chocolate is to eat pure cacao beans or make your own "raw" chocolate with pure cocoa powder (actually really delicious and pretty simple). By the time all those good chocolate antioxidants are mixed with the sweeteners you'd be better off getting your antioxidants from fruit & veggies.

Any kind of processed or non-organic food sold in the USA that contains corn, soy, canola or cotton (e.g. cottonseed oil) or a derivative of one of these products is likely to be genetically modified. This is almost every type of processed food!! And non-organic dairy contains genetically modified rBgh (growth hormone) unless it specifically says it does not. Makes it pretty difficult to avoid the stuff... there is a "no gmo" guide here: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/141.pdf and I think there's a free iphone app with the same info for those interested (it's called the no gmo shopping guide or something similar).

There's a lot of info on gmo foods on www.mercola.com - personally I do find his website to be pretty one-sided and he has very strong opinions on things (like gmo foods) but he does link to interesting articles (including journal articles) and I find it a pretty useful source of info as long as it is taken in context.