Discussions

After reading many discussions about food and producing food the term "Genetically Modified" comes up and is used many times out of context.  
Many people have a misunderstanding of the term and the way it applies to improving any living organism. As soon as they see Genetically Modified they assume the worst.  
However if you understand the science behind the term and the way it used to improve any living organism I believe it would change people's mindset.  
Plants and animals have been genetically modified ever since humans began to produce their own food or in some cases animals were modified to be bigger and stronger for work. It used to take decades and decades or longer to modify a plant or animal to change it's natural growth life.  
The best strains of one plant or animal would be merged with another plant or animal through cross breeding to produce a healthier, quicker growing, or show resistance to certain things. Now that process can be done in a very short time under a microscope.  
Being genetically modified doesn't mean anything bad was added to a plant or animal but rather certain traits from multiple plants or animals were merged together. These have developed to be hardier, quicker growing or in some cases resistance to certain chemicals.  
Wheat has been genetically modified as far back as the Egyptians. In the case of canola, soy beans and corn they have been modified to be resistant to the chemical round up. Animals have been modified to yield more meat or be larger and stronger for work.  
All the food that you buy or even the vegetables you grow in your garden have been modified to have larger yields in a shorter time. Even the organic produce that is sold has been modified.  
So when people say they don't want to buy genetically modified food what would you eat because everything has been modified over time.

You are confusing what is meant by the term "genetically modified" with that of the term "hybridization". One is done by natural means, which means there are limits. The other is done by unnatural means pushing those limits to the extreme. The side effects of such sudden changes to our food supply means food that used to be beneficial to humans may start having less beneficial consequences. For example certain plants that are genetically modified to be resistant to certain chemicals may also inhibit our ability to adsorb certain minerals as a side effect.  
In conclusion I find it acceptable when change occurs within the natural limits of breeding and environmental impacts. But to make sudden changes in the genetics of plants and animals meant as food is playing with our health, nutrition, and well being in unpredictable ways... ways that may take decades to see the consequences of it.

Do you believe humans are smart enough to be trusted?

I think this was probably one of the best responses I've ever seen written on social media. Bravo

You're muddying the waters.  
 
While it is true that all food grow via agriculture is "genetically modified" in the sense that humans have guided and aided their development, that is not what that term means in this day and age. Whereas in the past we've applied what we now refer to as Mendelian genetics to pass down desirable traits through successive generations, that was accomplished without directly manipulating the genes themselves, and like a previous poster pointed out, hybridization.  
 
Since the 1980's, when the first genetically engineered crops were introduced, the term has widely meant organisms who's genes we've directly manipulated. And while there are different levels of genetic engineering, the one that tends to get the most press is the transgenic crops  
 
While genetically engineered crops seem to hold a lot of promise - better yields, more desirable traits, more profits - it has some at a price. There are certain environment costs to using these crops, for example, and I'm not just referring to the widespread use of pesticides that they facilitate. They are also a major contributor to monocultures and the loss of biodiversity in our food crops. They are *very* genetically uniform and are controlled worldwide by a very small number of companies. That is concerning.

I have no problem with making crops more drought resistant or whatnot, naturally, but a tomato with fish DNA would never occur in nature. That’s where I draw the line.

My point to this thread is that we must trust the science that is behind the changes. It is not fair to say that something "may" happen as a result of modifying.  
In agriculture, evolving science has given us the opportunity and ability to produce more under trying conditions.  
In medicine, science is providing us with more opportunities to live longer and enjoy life more with products and procedures that are not natural (artificial joints or medication we take).  
Every day millions of people world wide trust the science of physics and engineering when the get on a plane and go somewhere (which is also not natural).  
There are so many things in everyday life that we take for granted that are not natural but rather the result of the evolution of science.

Good on you for your efforts. Sadly, I suspect you will make little headway at convincing anyone. Fear and ignorance of the science or too pervasive.  
 
Regardless of the notion that “  
Fish genes in a tomato “ ( used as an example only not to be taken literally) may help millions achieve proper nutrition, people will allow their fear and ignorance of the science taint their views.  
 
I think much of the opposition is still based in the religious notion of “playing god” and the fears, however irrational, that come along with it.  
 
Thankfully, science literacy is improving with the younger generation so there is hope.

Trust the science? The science that constantly changes & is often proven wrong in its conclusions? I keep wary of things that we are to fully & blindly trust without knowing the full story...especially those large companies with deep pockets. These companies producing & marketing GMO grains also claimed their sprays were/are safe, yet they are losing lawsuits...because it has been proven that they lied and their products have been proven unsafe.  
 
There is a portion under the part that mentions GMOs that comments on some of the known health effects of GMO manipulation. https://draxe.com/health/detox/chain-restaurants-never-eat-at/?utm_source=curated&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190901_curated_labordayplug

The article referenced above involves a quack who IS NOT a medical Dr.  
 
Pay it no mind.

Certain terms sometimes end up with a negative connotation for some reason. It's an uphill battle after that. Kind of like food irradiation as a perfectly safe method for killing germs in food. People hear "radiation" and get all up in arms.

Yes, thank you for differentiating between hybridization and GMO

No. But that is a whole other ball of wax altogether.  
 
All you need to know about this topic is that there is a whole lot of money being thrown around on both sides of the equation. While many make note of (more, fixate on) the Big Biotech aspect, there is also an equally well funded collective that I call Big Organic. It's all about making sales, and if one of the consequences of that is most consumers either don't know what they are talking about OR can't make hyde nor hair out of any of the data they come across, so be it.  
 
Things to remember on your next trip to the grocery store.  
 
1.) Organic may not necessarily be organic. It may just be an excuse for a huge markup.  
 
https://globalnews.ca/news/3556335/organic-food-nutrition-safety-environment/  
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/12/how-much-of-your-food-labeled-as-organic-is-actually-organic/250301/  
 
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=af304063-1b4c-4879-b95e-b58500b80eec  
 
Though a separate issue, it should be noted that the same scrutiny should be applied to claims like Locally Grown as well. Including what you pick up at farmers markets.  
 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/farmers-markets-lies-marketplace-1.4306231  
 
2.) The butterfly Non-GMO verified label is bought and paid for and is of little more value than a listing reading "We only use wholesome, natural ingredients".  
 
Hint: EVERYTHING IS NATURAL.  
 
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/11/07/video-how-accurate-is-non-gmo-projects-butterfly-label/  
 
The only advice I have is, use your common sense.  
No one has food equivalent of a magic bullet, and no GMO food had EVER been proven to be harmful after decades of research. On top of holding back scientific innovation, this hysteria also can have unintended consequences for the people caught in the grip of it.  
 
Corn (for example, BT corn) is a staple of this area of argument. There are plenty of articles out there trying to shame companies like Gerber and Nestle out of using it in baby foods, because, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!  
 
And yet, most of those articles (at least that I have glanced at) fail to highlight a problem in a very likely alternative to corn-based baby foods. If they choose rice-based products, arsenic suddenly becomes a part of the picture.  
 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/arsenic-rice-baby-food-cereal-marketplace-1.5037665  
 
Which means that parents acting out of fear of corn may inadvertently introduce a whole new toxin into the mix.  
 
Short of growing your own foods, were stuck with putting faith into our food providers. For me, that means not buying something just because it is hyped (or priced) as some sort of miracle alternative.

Rum I would like to know what reputable source you are quoting - when you say that certain plants that are genetically modified to be resistant to certain chemicals may also inhibit our ability to adsorb certain minerals as a side effect?  
 
I am thinking you meant absorb and not adsorb? Two different meanings.  
 
And it was likely "cross breeding" that Sensiblefarmer was referring to.  
 
There are actually 6 crop modification techniques: cross breeding, mutagenesis, polyploidy, protoplast fusion, transgenesis and genome editing. Of these 6 ways to change plant material genetically, it is actually only transgenesis that is considered GMO. Transgenesis introduces one or more genes into an organism. Cross breeding is quite accepted and is how we get different varieties of things like apples. Mutagenesis happens in nature too, but can be induced in a lab. Polyploidy allows fruit sizes to increase like grapes. It also allows fertility changes - seedless watermelon.  
 
There are some things that simply are not known for certain, and unfortunately there is a lot of made up things....plain old fear mongering.  
 
Edited by Countrygurl, 2019-09-04 18:35:45

We grow corn on our farm for silage, some of it is gmo, some is non gmo and some is Indian corn that is supposed to be the same corn as hundreds of years ago.  
I have questions about BT corn, and the questions are because of personal experiences.  
When it comes to fruits and vegetables I sort of like them raw, and that includes small amounts of corn. A few years back I ended up in severe pain which landed me in the hospital, the first diagnosis was diverculities, spent four days in hospital, the next year same thing happened at the same time of year, this ended up being 10 days in hospital, a scope to see what the problem was, and a result of a perpetrated colon as the problem. In a discussion with the doctor we discussed the corn as maybe a possible cause. The simple cure was “Don don’t eat the corn”. When I get curious about something I like answers, this resulted in me eating raw corn again, but this time it was corn that did not carry the BT trait. Now it might just be coincidence, but no problems with my digestive tract. Took the time to read up on how BT kills pests and apparently it affects the digestive system of the insects that eat it, so what does it do to us as humans,