GMO OMG the movie - Who controls the future of your food?

A couple of things....

Yield drag can occur with genetically modified plants at least initially. This is because you are purposefully selecting for the traits such as insect tolerance or herbicide tolerance or disease tolerance and putting those traits above yield or crop quality. This same thing can be said about naturally crossing disease resistant cultivars. Often the most disease resistant plants do not give very good yields or very good quality fruit/grain. An example is in tomatoes...there are some wild types with disease resistance to late blight or early blight. These varieties give fruit that is not very good to eat and do not give much yield. It is as if the resistance comes at a cost. So it takes time to cross the resistant varieties with the tasty and high yielding varieties. This is also true in GMO.

For corn and soybean varieties this is also true. Even with genetic modification there are still many many steps of traditional breeding that must be done and years and generations of the crop to ultimately get the variety that is wanted with the desired resistant traits, the desired yield traits and the desired quality. Also many of the corn and sybean varieties are locally adapated and will yield poorly if grown in areas it is not adapated to. It takes many years to get these GMO traits into all the varieties.

But I can assure you that a GMO herbicide, insect or disease resistant cultivar will not have a yield drag at all in the presence of the weeds, insects or diseases. So this whole idea of yield drag isnt of much importance with the commercial varieties on the market. In real life farmer scenarios they are not dragging yields at all. They are out performing non GMO varieties while requiring less pesticide to do so. They are more sustainable because they require less sprays, less tractor trips and less fuel and more ecological because with less sprays there is less harm to the beneficial insects, less soil compaction etc..

"Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end."

In the US and most other countries GMO traits are patentable. So if a company develops a patent for a particular trait they developed then they have control over any publishing with that trait and the rules apply as it would to any other patented product. A researcher always has to get certain permissions with the patent holders. Often in order for the researcher to even get the GMO trait to begin with they have to get a confidentiality agreement with the company that will stipulate what if anything can be published.

Many GMO traits are owned by agrichemical companies, some are owned by seed companies, some are owned by universities. But whoever owns them they then have control of those traits and their publication until the patent expires.

One can argue about the whole patent system. It does provide a short term monopoly to the developer of the technology but its the American way. Its always been the way to reward those who come up with the newest technologies. The money they acquire during that patent phase pays for the work it took to develop the technology and provides funding for new technologies.

I understand the rules regarding patents. But in that case there is no way for the FDA or any other entity to determine that these substances are substantially the same as conventionally-grown foodstuffs and to allow them free rein on the marketplace. That's the problem here. If there's a short-term monopoly, use of the product should be severely curtailed until independent research and results can be reviewed.

The FDA, EPA and USDA require numerous rigorous tests on every GMO trait that goes into commercial production before they will approve them. These tests include environmental fate, toxicology, exposure etc. This research is not all done at the company that develops it. It is done at private contracted research companies, universitties etc under confidentiality. It takes 8-12 years to develop a trait mainly because of government testing that is required.

For some this is too much regulation. For others it is not enough.

I am sure if automobiles were put such types of testing they would never be approved since they kill roughly 50,000 people a year. GMO crops do not kill anyone. But people fear them more than they do cars. I know cars are so important to our society. They get us to where we need to go. But how important is eating?

Once the applications are submitted to the goverment agencies for approval it becomes all public knowledge at that time...even all of the various tests that were required. Often the submission package amounts to thousands of pages.

It is ultimately the FDA, EPA and USDA that determine if the products are safe to eat or not after reviewing all of the research as well as conducting their own. Then and only then can the product be approved and sold.

This thread continues to be interesting and informative. I'm glad it hasn't degenerated into chaos and name calling. My sincere thanks to drobarr, greenhouse_gal, and RickCorey_WA for their information, research, and comments.

As I age, I discover that I am less and less certain of many things and this thread certainly emphasizes that thought.

After originally (thoughtlessly) buying the idea that patent protection is a valid argument to protect manufacturers of GM products from independent evaluators, the absurdity of the idea just whacked me upside the head. Tons of products, or at least components in them, are protected by patents, but that doesn't stop Consumer Reports and others from reporting on them. Books, movies, and music are copyrighted, but reviewers regularly rip some to shreds anyway. Why should producers of GM product have legal protection from independent investigation of their products? That just don't sound quite right to me.

I agree, Willy. Same with drugs. Researchers are allowed to test them for unanticipated side effects as well as efficacy.

This is fascinating; some farmers are returning to conventional crops due to higher yields and lower costs:

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/

I read comments from farmers on AgTalk. Some non Gmo plantings out yield GMO plantings and vice versa. I suspect that some of the success for non GMOs is due to reduced insect pressure due to GMOs. If so, how long will this last? Perhaps as ling as others are planting GMOs.?

>> conventional crops due to higher yields and lower costs:

I wonder if they are using things like Integrated Pest Management that takes a lot of work and expertise, but keep costs down? Or maybe they are using conventional, highly toxic pesticides. I don't know. The last time I followed a link like that, and the links that trailed off from it, they just cited "higher yields and lower costs" without specifying the conditions.

Hmm, I see:
" During the growing season, Huegerich sprays both his conventional and his GMO corn twice with herbicides and twice with pesticides, despite the GMO’s theoretical resistance to rootworm. “It gives me peace of mind,” Huegerich says."

Also:
“Five years ago the traits worked,” ... " Now, the worms are adjusting, and the weeds are resistant. "

The writers of the article said:
" In pockets across the nation, commodity growers are becoming fed up with traits that don’t work like they used to."

In the cost comparison, the writers assumed exactly equal costs for herbicides and insecticides for conventional and GE crops. Well, if you don't TAKE any advantage of the GE features, I wouldn't expect them to have much economic advantage.

It sounds like "GMO resistance" in the pests is accumulating faster than I guessed it would. If they truly do lose all of their "edhe", the issue will become moot.

Or, more likely, even more GE will be used to create even more modified crops, to evade developing resistances. That turned out to be a "diminishing returns" scenario with antibiotics.


And (hurray) resistance in the domestic supply chain may be emerging.

People who don't want to "risk" eating foods from GMOs will soon be able to pay more to get what they want, and conventional seed development will resume.

>> " Wyatt Muse, a merchandiser for Clarkson Grain, which buys conventional and organic corn and soybeans, pays farmers a premium — up to $2 extra per bushel over the base commodity price of soybeans, $1 for corn — to not only grow the crop but also preserve its identity. (That is, keep it separate from genetically modified grain all the way from planting through harvest, storage and transportation.) "



>> Why should producers of GM product have legal protection from independent investigation of their products?

Because Monsanto buys legislators by the bushel?
Campaign financing laws are a joke?
We have the finest Congressmen hat money can buy?
(Full disclosure: I don't have any training or serious research into this aspect, I just have strongly held opinions without scientific evidence. )



WillyFromAZ said:
>> As I age, I discover that I am less and less certain of many things

I agree with you! It might even be that thing they call "wisdom", though I don't know if I would recognize it if I fell into a vat of it. Much less certainty, but hopefully also less stubborn wrong-headedness.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
William Butler Yeats, 1919, " The Second Coming"


drobarr said:
>> I am sure if automobiles were put such types of testing they would never be approved since they kill roughly 50,000 people a year.

When I briefly worked in a lab in a Nutrition and Food Science Department as an undergrad, I heard a lot of stories. One was that orange marmalade (pure, organic, no-additive orange marmalade) would NEVER pass modern FDA testing since orange peels are full of known toxins and carcinogens. Enough to kill? Naah.

Enough to harm? By whose standards? By the standards applied to GMO crops and ingredients? Yes, for sure. You could NEVER market anything as deadly as orange marmalade. It would be caught early on and thrown out on its ear. Never mind that you would have to eat tons of it, or make a 1,000X concentrate. to be able to MEASURE the effect. This is the standard of safety that is being applied.

That's one reason I get so mad when I see headlines that have to be malicious propaganda, or clueless ignorance. There is a mile of distance between "CORN CAUSES LEUKEMIA" and "we have not yet done enough long term studies (30 year tests, not 3 year tests) to be SURE that we have PROVEN that there CAN BE NO RISK WHATSOEVER, EVER.

Current tests go a mile beyond establishing reasonable safety. After all, current testing would reject orange marmalade as if it were Agent Orange (the contaminated kind).

The long term studies that everyone (including me) would LIKE to see may be almost impossible to do, and surely will be very expensive, and perhaps would still not convince everyone who dislikes the idea of "Frankenfood".

But for a journalist to imply that there are actual, PLAUSIBLE risks involved with things now on the market has to be irresponsible or poorly informed (my opinion). If they were responsible, they would try to establish some kind of index like "proven to be TEN times safer than orange marmalade, but not yet proven to be ONE HUNDRED times safer than orange marmalade".

My theory is that GMO corn syrup, sugar and soy lecithin ingredients ARE probably 1,000 or 10,000 times safer (except for obesity, empty calories and so on, which are not GMO-caused). But how would you prove that?

GE salmon and fresh, whole ear GE sweet corn ... I don't know. That's about where my superstitious conservatism kicks in.

I'm afraid of the monopolistic/legal, loss of genetic diversity large-scale mono-crop tendencies and possible ecological "genetic pollution" caused by widespread use of GE crops. That's made worse by my severely limited trust in government agencies, and zero or negative trust in Monsanto et alia. And yes, scientists can be ego-driven, arrogant, carried away and enthralled by their new toys.

Golly gee, RickCorey_Wa. Do I detect that you are cynical when it comes to the motivations of our upstanding elected officials??? Shame on you! (Not)

Awww, Willy, you caught me being a bad boy.

I don't mind at all being cynical and suspicious - I just WISH I was totally wrong.

The very scariest thing I can imagine is that even the people that seem to me like hypocritical, lying, self-serving low-lifes do sincerely believe that their own creepy idea of some ideology is "virtue".

Some #@%^##*## from Forbes magazine was saying that there should be no Food Stamps in America until children are roaming the streets with distended bellies and dying of starvation. And even then, he thinks private charity is the only "fair" thing to do.

Perhaps, "shame on me for thinking ill of him".

But the fact that he thinks he's Fighting For the Right (I mean "correct" Right, not "Right Wing Right") scares the pants off me.

This has all been very informative. I also applaud everyone for staying polite.

Sadly, many people fearing the worst health effects from GMO foods already know of other well documented actions they could take to protect themselves from known health risks (dietary/ exercise) and yet they don't take those actions either. We are all tragically human.

Sally,

Of course you are right, but it is just so much easier to Worry, Blame, and Complain, common sense has no chance to compete.

Ernie

Labeling GMO foods would be a joke.
Just think about it.
Most corn & soybeans grown are GMO.
Cows, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry all eat corn & soybeans.
So meat, milk, eggs and any other product connected to animals contains GMO.
Most foods are made with something derived from corn or soybeans.

Another point I will make, (now I am not opposed or in favor of GMO's or BT & Round up).
There is a lot of sweet corn grown here for processing. Before Bt Sweet corn came along, the airplanes would fly on pesticides to kill the earworms & corn borers. The company would post signs on the ends of the fields cautioning you to stay out of sprayed fields. I have no idea what they used, but it must have been very toxic.

The days before Round ready soybeans, the farmers had to "ride" beans. What this was, people would sit on a toolbar in front of a tractor. Each one had a sprayer wand. They would shoot spray on weeds as they went by. Guess what, end of the day those people, mostly teenagers, were drenched in the spray. Could that be good ?

Everyone should sit back & really think this stuff through before condemning certain practices & companies. There are lot more companies than Monsanto involved in these things.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

A study in Norway found that GMO soybeans contained significantly higher residues of glyphosate as well as AMPA, a toxic breakdown product, than were found in either conventionally grown standard soybeans or organically grown soybeans. Organically grown soybeans also showed a healthier nutritional profile. Their point was that GMO soybeans are not substantially similar to non-engineered soybeans, contrary to industry claims.

Thanks for linking.
I cannot criticize the study. It seems complete. I wanted to see what they said about other pesticides, and that is addressed.
I'm not sure I agree with their conclusion that GMO soybeans are not substantially similar...maybe I just disagree with a general statement, rather than saying that 'GMO soybeans have glyphosate/AMP residues, and have 2% less protein .." which it seems to me is what the results are, quantitatively.
Others' thoughts?

I think what they were looking at was whether there were significant differences along the lines that they wished to study - e.g. "we investigate whether plant products from a defined geographical region, produced under different agricultural practices are substantially equivalent or not, in terms of quality indicators like nutritional content, elemental characteristics and herbicide/pesticide residues." If nutritional content, elemental characteristics, and herbicide/pesticide residues aren't parameters which concern health officials and nutritional scientists, then you're right, they're not substantially different. But since those are major concerns for me when I choose which foods I'm comfortable eating, for me it's significant.

You can eat Cheerios now & not worry about GMO's.
They are using the minute amount of corn & sugar that are not GMO.
I am not sure it makes up for the oats that is used, which is undoubtedly sprayed with
broadleaf pesticides such as 2,4-D.
Nobody seems to care about chemical pesticides.

Bernie, I noticed the new version of Cheerios; it definitely says something about what the public is interested in if a major brand like that thinks it's worthwhile to go GMO-free. I wouldn't eat them because of the pesticides, though, and many other people feel the same way. There are organic versions of Cheerio-like cereals and that would be my choice.

Yes, they differ. Is 1.7% less protein significant? 1.7% over 34.6% protein in the GMO -= about 5 percent difference. Well now that sounds more meaningful.

CHeerios= what it says is the company fears the black blot of the GMO issue looming over the industry. It indicates something about consumer opinion, that's all. Consumers are asking if there are GMOs, and not asking about pesticide residues.

That's because GMO is a good hot topic now. Give it a few years & you won't hear any more about it.
Every hear about Agent Orange from the Vietnam war ? Same class of pesticides as what is used on Oats, Wheat & Barley. Kills broad leaf weeds on contact. Covers all the grain as it is sprayed.

If they are really concerned about GMO in their cereals, why not take it out of their corn based cereals ?

I think people are growing more and more concerned about pesticides in foods. Five years ago I could find almost no organic foods in my local supermarket; now there's a huge selection of products and they wouldn't stock them if they didn't sell. Interest in organics seems to be burgeoning.

I think that the GMO attributes would not show up much if any in sugars and starches...proteins would likely be so.

Oh, I have to stick my nose in here and report something that I recently read when looking for organic-NonGMO seeds.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1237/is-it-true-they-allow-certified-organic-produce-to-be-sprayed-with-chemicals

Food for thought.

This is a paragraph from that article.

I don't want to give organic farmers a hard time. They don't spray field crops with herbicides, use artificial fertilizers, or engage in a lot of other dubious practices common in conventional agriculture. But let's be realistic. If you're a farmer, whether organic or otherwise, you're faced with a host of bugs, weeds, vermin, etc., that are trying to wreck your crops. Your job basically is to destroy the little bastards before they destroy you. (Or at least interfere big time with their life cycles.) An organic farmer tries to accomplish this in a natural way with a minimum of collateral damage. That doesn't mean zero risk. For example, excessive use of copper sulfate can cause copper buildup in soil, which is detrimental to plant growth.

And another;

[Am I telling you not to buy certified organic food? Not at all. Although organic produce accounts for only 2 percent of crops in the U.S., increasing sales in this category send a powerful signal to the agriculture industry. While it may not be practical or desirable to apply strict organic methods to mainstream U.S. farming, a related set of techniques known as integrated pest management is gaining wide acceptance. IPM doesn't condemn synthetic chemical use but downplays it in favor of crop rotation, biological pest controls, use of bug-resistant varieties, and so on--many of the same techniques organic farmers use. Some surveys say half of all farmers now use IPM techniques to some degree, and the U.S. goal is 75 percent by the year 2000. Greater consumer interest in organic food adds to the national sense of urgency regarding this goal. I'm not big on symbolic gestures but buying organic is one that arguably makes sense.]

Conclusion;
If people would follow common sense instead of getting on some band wagon against things that will not be changed anyhow, the whole world would run better.

People should let the farmers & companies supplying them raise the food & be thankful you have an abundance of food to eat.
You could be in a foreign country where there isn't enough food to go around.
I bet those people would be very happy with Cherrio's that contain GMO sugar & corn.

Sally and Ernie, I think you are very right. Risks from obesity, alcohol and slat are hugely greater than from GMO foods. I think the jury is still whether GMO foods are safer or less safe than conventional - since both have pesticide residues, and the non-GMO pesticides are MUCH, much more toxic than RU.

>> ... substantially equivalent or not, in terms of quality indicators like nutritional content, elemental characteristics and herbicide/pesticide residues."

I'm sure that GMO crops would have higher levels of glyphosate and AMP residues since they were sprayed with RoundUp (glyphosphate). And presumably those are more toxic than "nothing" would be, in a 100% organic, non-chemical garden. But non-GM farmers who can compete on price are surely using "traditional" pesticides. I guess we're just repeating known positions.


>> Consumers are asking if there are GMOs, and not asking about pesticide residues.

That's the kind of thing that makes me pull my hair out and think that all activism is futile. Only fashion matters. Back in the era of "Silent Spring", the wake-up call was clear, relevant and easily supported by obvious facts. The facts about chlorinated hydrocarbons and organophosphates have not changed, but the activist fashions have changed.

Five seconds in a cereal isle will reveal that there must be relatively few parents concerned about stuffing children with concentrated sugar, as if they were geese to be harvested for hyperactive foie gras that can give you diabetes.

The "Chips" isle and the beer, wine and liquor isles show that huge numbers of consumers don't care about salt, fat and alcohol - so the heart, arteries and liver must be considered relatively unimportant.

Maybe the knowledge that we eat like suicidal, high tech maniacs has sunk in at an unconscious level, but most people just don't want to listen to their subconscious tell them that "everything you eat is bad for you". Maybe the conclusion (I should eat bland foods that I won't like) is so frightening that we suppress obvious knowledge.

Or we know it consciously and do it anyway (raising my chubby hand and blushing).

Maybe it's easier for that knowledge to surface as a fear of something "unknown" and "futuristic" like GM crops, especially if you don't pay attention to the fact that they are already everywhere. It still feels like fear of "the future" if you can ignore the fact that it is, after all, "the present".

Maybe we're lucky that at least processed foods are only loaded with sugar, salt, fats and just a dash of chlorinated hydrocarbons and organophosphates. No shredded tobacco or opiates. Maybe the consumer demand "just isn't strong enough yet".

Indy said:
>> I think that the GMO attributes would not show up much if any in sugars and starches...proteins would likely be so.

I agree. Also, I would expect no difference in GMO-sourced chemically pure extracts like cornstarch, high fructose corn syrup or beet sugar (sucrose).

When we start to see whole ears of sweet corn, or apples genengineered to not turn brown, or salmon with transgenes to let them survive being farmed in each others feces ... then I worry. I'd be eating the whole cells including the nucleus and DNA that's modified.

I don't have facts to make me worry, just uncertainty. I would want to trust the organizations that do the testing, and my faith in politicians has been eroding since I learned to read.

THAT is when I really want labeling. But no one will take my bet that few people will buy a clearly labelled "genetically engineered apple". Or "sweet corn with bacterial DNA".

- - -
Countrygardens and Grayce, I agree that "consumer awareness" (if that is not a contradiction in terms) is the only ting that will change industrial practices. The power of the buck. If it hits their bottom line, doing smart things like IPM, or strictly enforcing pesticide residue laws that are probably on the books, will become worth their while.

How about extending the "Fancy", "AA", "A" and "B" labeling laws to indicate the actual measured AMOUNT of pesticide residue? Side-by-side bins of apples labelled "up to 30 PPM malathion" or "less than 15 PPM Malathion" would motivate ME to buy the more expensive, smaller, insect-damaged apples.

However, the idea that some lobbyist convinced someone to vote that 300 PM was not THAT toxic, does not fill me with confidence.

Too bad we don't have black-light gadgets like CSI we could shine on produce to produce a blue glow if there are low levels of organophosphates!

'... I'd be eating the whole cells including the nucleus and DNA that's modified.''

reading that statement made me think…
So the concern is that you will absorb the weird DNA?
But have you absorbed DNA from everything else you have been eating your entire life?

Not speaking directly to you Riccorey…but to I think some folks out in the general (uneducated) public who are thinking they will absorb weird genes from eating GMO food.

>> So the concern is that you will absorb the weird DNA?

That and every other changed cell product - proteins, enzymes, cell membranes.

>> But have you absorbed DNA from everything else you have been eating your entire life?

True - from a fairly short list of animals and plants. And a much shorter list of microbes (yeast, mainly, in any quantity). And whatever is in yogurt and cheese, I think mainly a very short list of bacteria.

The real GM foods, as they hit the market, will have some intentional genes from whatever the genengineers got their hands on, plus the antibiotic resistance gene they used to select transformed cells, plus the Agrobacterium plasmid that splices the transgenes into the engineered plant, plus whatever baggage happened to migrate with the transgenes, randomly picked up and carried along.

The plasmid is what worries me most on an ecological scale. OK, it is probably an ancient plasmid that has been causing warts on leaves for millions or billions of years.

How many of those plant-gall species did our ancestors eat?
Aren't those galls really bitter so that we would have spit them out?

I would like to think that someone has checked really thoroughly to be sure that Agrobacterium plasmids only have quick-zip access to plant chromosomes, not primate chromosomes.

But mainly, while scientists are grinding them up and spinning them down and playing games with their libraries of synthetic and borrowed DNA, the intended genes, the plasmid genes, the antibiotic selector genes and the unintended DNA sequences have been going through "unnatural" manipulations that probably cause some crossovers and mutations, especially in the DNA regions that are not intentional. In rare cases, there's nothing to prevent an unintended carry-along sequence from being activated and doing something unintended.

Yes, very unlikely and just about as superstitious as any other fear of anything that can't be clearly understood and predicted from past experience.

In this case, I can imagine several steps where a little unplanned DNA from the lab could creep into our bodies through food - but not into the DNA in our gonads where it could accumulate in future generations.

Say (oops) there was always a 2-3% inclusion of unknown and unplanned DNA in each GE crop modification, ...
... we already triple-stack some GE changes
... and (oops) suppose there was a 0.0001% rate of DNA crossover from eaten corn or apples into human gut cells,
... and 0.0001% of those crossovers included functional gene sequences
... and 0.0001% of those were harmful
probably a few people on the planet would have something like a tumor or a griowth that had never been seen before.

But it seems unlikely to me to become a big human-health issue becuase I don't know of any plausible mechanism for transformed DNA to migrate from our gut to our gonads. If we can't pass on alien DNA to our children, how could it accumulate.

Anyway, that thought leaves me merely grumpy and reluctant to be among the first few thousand people to eat lots of GE plant and animal tissue. Sucrose and corn starch: who cares? But whole GE corn kernels for direct human consumption? Oh, well, at least we have a few decades of animal consumption to suggest that the risks are lower than, say, Doritos or orange marmalade. So I'm not storming the barricades, I'm just in favor of honest labelling.

Sorry this was so long and rambling! I should have gone home hours ago.

Gosh, are you still at "work"?

Honest and accurate labeling sounds great to me. I just wonder how honest we can make them, and how accurate labels will be . For example, the drift of GMO genes into non GMO fields and crops. (Drift from one corn plant to another, which is way different from drift of a corn gene into a person)
And to what expense to get a federal agency ramped up for more labeling accuracy. And how much information to require on food labels, and how much testing to require of foods to ensure accurate honest labels. discussion just above of

RicCorey, I think you were speaking in the voice of the skeptic with your discussion of transfer of mutations. We need a scientist, or scientific source, to address that. Of course, You can't prove something will never happen, but I think your odds of something happening are like you said, effectively yielding a 0.0000000001 chance of it happening. Or something.

I do think one group of fearful people ARE out there saying- ''that GMO gene is getting into my body and will make a giant tumor and kill me'.

What I got from the article is that buying Organic produce/products is NOT ANY INSURANCE that you are "Free and Clear." Oh no, it is not that simple. There's yet another consideration: pesticide RESIDUE. This means, organic spraying. Maybe worth a new thread?

RickCorey_WA, you confirm what my father often advised: "Vote with your money."
Now I have some thinking to do. No, I will not go back to ignorance and support GE foods knowingly, but I certainly will look a bit further into the creation of organic and non-GMO produce/products as much as possible.

SallyGg, after reading the article, I can certainly see that a product labelled as Organically-grown means, for the most part, that I need to concentrate on the "Organically-Grown" issue.
This seems scarier than Non-GMO/GMO, for, and correct me if I am wrong, either something is GMO or not from "birth," and the concentration of this does not change - it stays at 100%.

However, treatment of Organic produce is NOT consistent, so this is what needs to be addressed. Will even more labeling discourage farmers from producing Organic goods? Will it refine techniques in a consumer-protective way?

In my own garden, I use one organic product (after research), until I am educated to another one. Then I compare and choose. One thing that I stay clear of, though, is genetically-engineered seed. I wish to support the farmers who follow this philosophy, as I believe their cause is just. And, their offerings are what I wish to grow.

Thinking about my dear father, who used to spray the ____ out of his produce, with some rather nasty chemicals, is why I read these threads and choose a different way. He used what was most successful. His family farmed, and their fore-family farmed...they believed the hype, and the results made their hard efforts bring about a beautiful, bountiful crop. The American population desired PERFECT - looking food, and farmers complied. Maybe the tide is turning toward accepting an imperfect-looking product, and rejecting the more "staged" food?

I thank everyone for their ramblings, peruses, and opinions in this thread. It helps form my opinion.

Rambling, perusal, my opinion is evolving as well:
I was told in some class or another- that our digestive tract is an extension of our skin. It's a continuous surface connected to our outer skin at opening such as mouth and nostrils. (Respiratory system too)
So as a skin, digestive tract is very good at blocking invaders. We are chock full of bacteria in our mouths and guts. Do they get into our blood and kill us? Only rarely, with some horrible aggressive pathogen, injury, disease. right? We live a century with a teeming horde of completely foreign genetic material right in our tummies.
So why is my GMO food any more likely to get into me/ affect my genes than the person I work next to who is a genetic carrier of some genetic disease. Or even marry?

>> The American population desired PERFECT - looking food,

That is a lot of the problem.

>> So why is my GMO food any more likely to get into me/ affect my genes

Right - probably not, 99.99999% not. But if there is a risk, it is probably out in the 9th or 12th or 15th decimal place. And if one person out of a billion or trillion might get a tumor, well, one person on the planet over the next 1,000 years is an acceptable risk.

But IF (another unlikely IF) the genetic transfer COULD move from a gut cell to a gonad (or a corn cell to a weed to something else) and PROPAGATE, then we've introduced truly foreign genes into the population.

Truly a long shot and low probability, but if the discussion started out about eating beef who ate GM corn having human health effects, we ARE discussing low probabilities.

Being reasonable ... all this speculation about "what if a gene was transferred ..." is not reasonably likely to occur to any one person.

And the rationale for even talking or thinking about it is that, if something happens once in a billion times, but there are billions of people, and a thousand days in every 3 years, then eventually, unlikely things are likely to happen at least once.


>> So as a skin, digestive tract is very good at blocking invaders. We are chock full of bacteria in our mouths and guts. Do they get into our blood and kill us? Only rarely, with some horrible aggressive pathogen, injury, disease. right?

Yup, totally. Done that for millions of years. Done it with agricultural species for 5-10 thousand years. And, just like bacteria being "mostly sexless", we "mostly" never import DNA from those gut bacteria into our body's DNA, let alone our gonads' DNA. But like bacteria, there is probably a low rate at which it trickles across the gut barrier.

Before they discovered Agrobacterium plasmids, they would "transform" plant cells by just mixing raw DNA with the cells. Some found its way into the cell, into the nuclei, then crossed over into the DNA. Just a little. They sped it up a little by using (literally) a modified Crossman pellet gun to "blow" tiny fragments into the nuclei and let them diffuse from there.

I assume that something similar happens in the human gut, but at a rate to low to observe.

"Real" genetic engineering was born when someone remembered that Agrobacterium species had some efficient mechanism for inserting DNA INTO plant cell DNA. They identified the plasmid that does that (like a zipper that can unzip itself and then re-zip so that it is merged INTO the plant chromosome. Hey-presto!

Now they can transform plant cells some millions of times faster and easier. Sadly, the magic-zipper plasmid is carried along with the transgenes and are present in every cell of every GM crop. So it's presence in the environment has been multiplied by something like a billion-fold or trillion-fold.

And each plasmid in every cell in every plant in every GM field has "leftover" DNA sequences that happened to come "along for the ride" when someone extracted a trans-gene from any source whatsoever (plant, animal, fish, fowl, bacteria, fungus, virus or purely synthetic).

Bon apetite! That's where my "I don't know but think we're very safe" changes to "I don't know but Gee Howdy I wonder how this will play out over the next few hundred years!"

(They are called "transgenes" or "Frankengenes" when they came from a species other than the one plant itself, like "not-corn" genes.)


>> We live a century with a teeming horde of completely foreign genetic material right in our tummies.

"Completely foreign genetic material" ... but we have had time to evolve defenses to the stuff that we have been exposed to since we were all monkey's uncles.

However, really completely foreign genes that someone found in rare African frogs, or weird anaerobic microbes living in deep sea hot vents now ARE being inserted into food crops and being multiplied a billion-fold and spread across the globe and onto my dinner plate. We never evolved any resistance to that, or tested it's interaction with common human cold viruses.

I suppose the subconscious fear is that something like AIDS or contagious sterility or spontaneous combustion (to make things up from imagination) "might" pop out of some unexamined sequence of DNA that some researcher assumed was just harmless junk DNA.

I have a queasy feeling that I shouldn't even say that after labeling it as pure speculation or subconscious fear.

>> either something is GMO or not from "birth," and the concentration of this does not change - it stays at 100%.

I would say you are right. It is what is. Now, they might then decide to spray LOTS of Roundup on it if the Roundup won't kill the plant, but I still think that is better than 2,4D or dioxin.

On the other hand, they are inventing "stronger" and more varied GM genes. And they are combining more than one intentional change into each crop. Look for the words "double-stacked" or "triple-stacked" GE changes.

Newer varieties of GE crops might have more genes from outside the Plant Kingdom than older GE crops.

>> One thing that I stay clear of, though, is genetically-engineered seed.

Even though many seed vendors proudly announce that they do not knowingly sell any GM seeds, they are just blowing smoke up our skirts.

It is a little like boasting that they don't sell antimatter or plutonium. GM seeds are only sold wholesale to farmers, and there are or used to be heavy legal agreements that had to be signed before Monsato or other GE vendors would ALLOW you to buy their seed.

I don't think any mail order seed store or any store that supplies hobbyists and home gardeners is ABLE to sell any GM seeds.

(Some people feel strongly about growing even F1 hybrid seeds, since those can't be effectively saved from one crop to the next. They prefer OP and heirloom seeds. That's a valid choice, if you care about saving seeds or preserving heritage varieties of vegetables or plants. But hybridizing is so NOT Genetic Engineering!)

>> (Drift from one corn plant to another, which is way different from drift of a corn gene into a person)

Totally agree! And I'm not worried about the corn genes that we've been eating for 5,000 years. I'm worried about the ragged bits and trailing edges of DNA from "Frankengene libraries" that humans have never been significantly exposed to, before now.

>> Drift from one corn plant to another

And also from corn to weed (transferred RU resistance). And "genetic pollution" moving from arcane DNA libraries to crops to anything else in the plant kingdom that Agrobacterium plasmids can infect.
That environmental concern or "plant gene pool pollution" is more real to me than the human health risks. I totally expect weeds, crops and other plants to start acquiring whatever DNA Monsanto puts into large scale cultivation (intentionally or otherwise). Weeds have already picked up the RU resistance gene, and I bet a dollar that the antibiotic marker gene can now be found in plants and microbes that never had it before.

(BTW, that's one way we got "superbugs" - human pathogens with multiple antibiotic resistances, like MRSA. One species developed pretty good resistance. It jumped to other pathogen species and genera and gained resistance by combining with mechanisms from other microbes. "Generic antibiotic resistance" started to emerge that would pump almost ANY dangerous antibiotic out of the microbe. Then those "generic" pumps started spreading through hospital germ populations. Now there are human pathogens out there that have resistance to antibiotics we have not even invented yet, due to the generic nature of the pump mechanisms. When humans apply selective pressure like RoundUp or penicillin etc, nature responds almost faster than we can invent.)


>> RicCorey, I think you were speaking in the voice of the skeptic with your discussion of transfer of mutations.

Yes, exaggerating the "maybes". We can stretch things either way when we don't know: Monsanto can say a risk "is probably less than 0.000000001" but if I'm leaning towards caution I can say "but it might be greater than 0.0000001".

I think the only "fact" is that we are both speculating. When you don't know, you DON'T know.

When the discussion was only about human health damage from refined GMO ingredients my speculation was that "very very probably there are no effects".

When it was "do pigs eating 100% GMO fodder for most of their life get more stomach irritations than control pigs" my speculation was "I would have thought not, but there WAS that one study that either suggested that, or suggested that fodder with low levels of aflatoxins is not so good".

Now that it's "would Rick Corey eating GM whole apples and sweet corn and salmon ever notice a difference", my inclination is to say "probably not, but now my skepticism is triggered enough to ask for better proof before I shrug it off".

Actually, I'm old enough that I DARE Monsanto to market anything bad enough to hurt me detectably in my remaining years! Fat chance I should live THAT long! But I do care about everyone else!