Organic? Genetically modified food?

Macy9336

Study on GMO safety conflicts of interest. https://phys.org/news/2016-12-gmo-financial-conflicts.html
Shows that when looking at the truly independent scientific studies, 64% the majority came to a conclusion that was unfavourable (safety, yield, etc).

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Macy9336

Great article by a scientist who has created GMOs on the fact that many GMOs were not properly tested for safety prior to human consumption. Also on the risk inherent in GMing food. http://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

Macy9336

One of many studies on safety of GM foods. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-hatfield/damning-new-study-demonst_b_3424148.html
The Monsanto funded response to this study was a "trillion meal" study of "100 billion" animals which they claimed showed GM diet to be safe and "ends the debate on safety" The thing is, they looked at beef cattle who were fed GM feed...took all cattle and calculated the number of meals the cattle had during their lifetime. Sounds pretty good except for fact that these cattle did not live happy long lives...nope they were slaughtered for food at age 2 or so. This was also not a controlled study..in the sense that there were no health checks on the animals to see if they were sick or had any health problems. This study assumed if the cow is not too sick to be slaughtered...then everything was a clean bill of health. Considering that USDA stds for what's too sick to eat is mostly concerned with what can be passed on to humans....well that's not really a health check at all. Too since all the animals were killed off long before their natural lifespan would end, no conclusion can be drawn about the effects of eating GM food over a lifetime.

Macy9336

So, since GM crops are actually harmful to the environment, do not produce any more food than non GMO crops and the safety tests prior to release are too lax risking harm to health...why risk it? Another risk is that these crops are all engineered so that any seeds will not grow if planted so the farmer has to buy new seed every year from Monsanto/the company. So we plant the whole Earth with food crops that cannot be replanted unless a company is in business and making seeds? What if the company collapses? Or creates really bad toxic seed? Or doesn't produce enough of the right seeds? The whole Earth now starves because we don't have any regular crops where you can save some seed corn, or cut the potato up and plant that to grow more potatoes, or plant a bean or pea to grow them....no thanks! I cannot support the commercialisation of food to that extent.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

So much head shaking no in one thread.

The only time I buy organic is when it has a reduced price ticket on it. As for GMO I've never even checked for it before on a food label.

Macy9336

Organic food is more nutritious than conventional food. You get more vitamins, anti oxidants and less pesticides/toxic metals from eating organic. So it is healthier to eat organic. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/11/organic-food-more-antioxidants-study

Macy9336

Sustainability is most important factor to consider insofar as morality of organic vs conventional...we can't just feed the world today, but for generations to come....that is sustainability. Organic outperforms conventional in sustainability. So when you go with the cheaper option, you are supporting food now but contributing to increase in non arable land...less land that can be farmed...and thus less food for your descendants. The gap between organic and conventional crop yields is narrowing to the single digits...but what is use of 10% higher crop yield now when in a hundred years you've created a patch of desert where no future crops can be grown?
Organic farming is also safer for the workers and creates more jobs (13% higher labour costs) than conventional...so organic also supports the local economy in a positive fashion.
http://www.arc2020.eu/2016/05/organic-vs-conventional-which-is-the-most-sustainable/

ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken

Orphia wrote: »

ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »

Genetically modified food has not been proven safe by any one who does not have a vested interest in the GMO market. I do check all labels and if in doubt I leave it on the shelf. I have found that a lot of organic or non-GMO food is becoming more common and more affordable. You just have to shop around.

This is directed at ME? Wow. Judgmental and putting all kinds of words into my mouth. Your meme is completely absurd. You do not know me or what I do.

Macy9336

zachbonner_ wrote: »

Macy9336 wrote: »

the whole earth starves if no crops are GMO. take your pick. you think people in africa wouldnt want GMO crops that can better grow in arid climates? don't be silly, you have an extreme western bias.

You are mistaken. How can the whole world starve if the crops are nonGM when GM crops do not have a higher yield than nonGM crops? You are denying the science and buying into the advertising literature of the GM companies. Did you not see the EU scientific study I posted which showed no difference in crop yields? People in the third world countries do not want GM crops..several countries have experienced disasters of famine and poverty due to GM crops being shoved down their throats. Look at what is going on in Egypt, India and the Phillipines....then tell me these countries are begging for GMs. I will post those reports/studies as well in addition there have been many nonGM advances in drought resistance etc in crops. Even the GM companies know they've lost on these claims and are now going for things like the Arctic Apple...an apple that does not brown after being cut so that the shelf life of prepackaged cut apples can be longer and so people can't tell if it's gone off before buying it...a clear stab at increasing profit margins and nothing to do with saving the world.

Macy9336

Sorry I messed up the whole quoting thing....not used to this system. Zachbonner wrote first bit and I wrote the second bit.

Macy9336

Shows that nonGM cross breeding has created drought resistant maize....faster and better than GM.
http://www.nature.com/news/cross-bred-crops-get-fit-faster-1.15940?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
It's what Africa is using.....especially Nigeria.

Macy9336

Failure of GM crops in Africa.
http://planetsave.com/2013/09/26/gmo-crop-failure-african-caterpillars-develop-resistance-gmo-corn/

Macy9336

Watch the documentary, ten years of failure on the failure of GM corn in the Phillipines and you'll understand why the Phillipines just banned GMOs. http://www.naturalnews.com/052346_Philippines_GMOs_Monsanto.html They found that the GM corn was not genetically diverse enough to withstand pests and extreme weather conditions ( more common with global warming) compared to nonGM varieties. They are now switching away from GM crops.

Lounmoun

domeofstars wrote: »

Are you happy to pay more for organic food?
Do you avoid foods that are genetically modified?
Why?

No, I do not pay more for organic food. I do not avoid genetically modified foods. I have a tight budget. I buy food that fits my budget.

cmtigger

Macy9336 wrote: »

Watch the documentary, ten years of failure on the failure of GM corn in the Phillipines and you'll understand why the Phillipines just banned GMOs. http://www.naturalnews.com/052346_Philippines_GMOs_Monsanto.html They found that the GM corn was not genetically diverse enough to withstand pests and extreme weather conditions ( more common with global warming) compared to nonGM varieties. They are now switching away from GM crops.

That could happen just as easily with traditional crops. Not every variety is good for every location. If it's a true article (natural news tends to be sensational) it is taking one thing and not quite getting it right.

GM is not about restricting genetic diversity. It's about controlling it to get the genes you want in a plant faster, rather than the slow process that is selective breeding.


(Believe it or not, I used to be anti GMO, then I learned more about the process and testing.)

Macy9336

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html#.WLMCJZHfWhA
Report on how non GM methods increase crop yields unlike using GMs....and are also more affordable and acessible to third world farmers the GM route.

This looks at many varieties in many locations...yes a traditional non GM variety can fail in a location from time to time...But taking all the failures and all the successes of both GM and nonGM, the nonGM farming techniques outperform the GM ones "hands down".

Orphia

Macy9336 wrote: »

Shows that nonGM cross breeding has created drought resistant maize....faster and better than GM.
http://www.nature.com/news/cross-bred-crops-get-fit-faster-1.15940?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
It's what Africa is using.....especially Nigeria.

Only because they've banned GMOs.

Orphia

Macy9336 wrote: »

Good NY times article summarising the fact that GMOs have not increased crop yields AND require more pesticides than non GMO crops.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?_r=0

https://itif.org/publications/2016/11/09/fact-checking-new-york-times-genetically-modified-crop-yields

November 3, 2016
New York Times Public Editor
public@nytimes.com

We write to make you aware that a recent Times story on genetically improved crops (“Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops,” by Danny Hakim, October 29, 2016) erred in several important ways.

First, the article is based on a false premise: It asserts that genetically modified crops have not improved yields even though this is not what they were designed to do. They were designed to manage and mitigate some of the causes of crop loss, especially pre-harvest losses due to insect pests or weeds. Data and experience show they have been successful in this regard—and that by protecting against crop losses have in fact increased practical yields. The most thorough meta-analysis to date found that by safeguarding yields against well-known and frequently encountered threats, biotech crops have increased farmers’ harvests by 22 percent, on average, while reducing pesticide use by 37 percent and increasing farmers’ incomes by 68 percent. This is one of the reasons farmers have adopted GM seeds at rates not seen with any other major innovation in the history of agriculture, as ISAAA has documented.

Second, the article misrepresents the scientific literature by citing selected papers on yield impacts summarized in a recent National Academy of Sciences review, but without including essential context. Specifically, the article claims the NAS report finds no yield gains from biotech crops, which comes from Chapter 4 of the NAS report, but it fails to mention the work cited in Chapter 6 which specifically describes yield gains from herbicide tolerant maize in South Africa. Moreover, the Times article fails to mention the numerous publications by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot and the extensive literature they cite documenting yield benefits of transgenic crops.

Third, the Times article relies on the use of selected (incomplete and unrepresentative) data and inappropriate parameters in a way that distorts the picture. For example comparing the total use of pesticides in the US vs. France is inappropriate because the USA is so much larger than France. The correct parameter for comparison is not total usage but lbs/acre (or kg/ha). Wyoming weed scientist Andrew Kniss has used complete and representative data which document that biotech crops grown in the U.S. have contributed to significant declines in pesticide use, and that U.S. pesticide application rates remain significantly lower than in the EU, even in the (unrepresentative) case of France. The complete data also show clearly that the vast majority of European countries have seen significant increases in pesticide application rates during the relevant interval. Kniss’ findings are strongly supported by the scientific peer reviewed literature.

Fourth, the Times article ignores the verdict of the marketplace—namely that farmers, who must carefully weigh costs and benefits in buying inputs for their crops, continue to choose genetically improved seeds. If biotech improved seeds delivered no value to farmers, then why have 18 million farmers in more than 30 countries around the world adopted biotech improved crops at rates unmatched by any other agricultural innovation in history? And why would they continue to pay premium prices for them year after year? They do this because the seeds consistently increase their productivity.

At the end of the day, farmers adopt practices that maximize their profits, not their yields. Yields between continents are not expected to be the same given differences in climate and pests present in different growing regions, which require different management practices and thus affect the cost of production. Nevertheless, we find it impressive that Hakim considers corn yields to be equal on both sides of the Atlantic. The part that Hakim missed is that the US is getting equal corn yields to Europe, but is doing so with far fewer chemical inputs. That alone is a reason to celebrate GMOs.

These and other flaws in the Times story have been widely noted by experts in the field. (See Appendix A for a partial list.) We hope the Times will provide more accurate coverage of this issue in the future to avoid misleading readers.

Sincerely,

INDIVIDUALS (affiliation for identification only)

Prof. em. Klaus Ammann, Ph.D.
University of Bern, Monruz 20, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland

Prof. Nina Fedoroff, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University

L. Val Giddings, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, Washington, DC, USA

Alan McHughen, Ph.D.
Professor, Biotechnology and Genetics, UC Riverside, USA

Prof. Wayne Parrott, Ph.D.
Department of Crop & Soil Sciences, & Institute of Plant Breeding, Genetics and Genomics
University of Georgia, USA

Prof. Channa S. Prakash, Ph.D., Dean
College of Arts & Sciences, Tuskegee University, AL, USA

Professor Giovanni Tagliabue
Philosopher of life sciences, Como, Italy

Macy9336

Your fact checking letter actually confirms what I said....that the NAS report stated overall crop yields did not increase (chapter 4). I don't care that crop yields increased for one strain of GMO one time in Africa. We can't base a generalisation on a single isolated case. Let's see what you think of the USDA's report that GMs have not increased crop yields overall....http://www.reuters.com/article/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224.

Macy9336

GMOs are not banned in Nigeria. They started growing maize and cotton last year.
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/204966-nigeria-deploys-genetically-modified-cotton-maize-despite-safety-concerns.html

Macy9336

Article regarding study that shows while pesticide use initially decreased with GM crops, long term it has backfired and pesticide use is now at a net increase. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002. I suppose you could say that super weeds and resistant insects would have happened "anyway" but that just further supports the fact that there is no long term advantage to gm crops over conventional crops.

Fuzzipeg

from the point of view of someone who reacts to salicylate, I'm intolerant of the stuff, salicylate is the principal method many plants use to protect themselves from moulds and mildews and the like. My dentist calls me, "one of life's canaries in the coal mine" of the world we have created. I try to go as UK organic as I can. I avoid gm, its more easy here, because those foods will most likely have more salicylate in their composition than the regular version and they are problematic enough, needing to be avoided as a normal portion. My diet has to be very restricted to feel anything like well.

Immunology departments recognise my health issues but endo's and generalist medics, most have not heard of it, they also have not heard of "histamine intolerance", either. More of us are starting to react to the usual foods available to us. It takes real diligence to discover one's triggers especially when you are confronted by medical lack of knowledge.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Macy9336

Zachbonner....just saying "GMOs are going to save the world" doesn't make it plausible. Firstly GMOs do not result in increased crop yields, or lower inputs (fertiliser, pesticide)...so if they don't produce more food than conventional methods, how can they save the world? No more people are being fed. Secondly, there is a growing number of scientific studies showing GMO food to be harmful to human health...so how is eating hazardous GMO instead of proven safe non GMO going to save these starving kids? You think third world parents don't care if they are given poison for their kids? Wow... Thirdly what about the expense of GM seed vs conventional seed...do you think these poverty stricken third world farmers can afford the higher prices of GM seed? And then the added expense of needing more pesticides and fertiliser to grow said seed? Even if I accepted that GMs were 100% safe and healthy ( which I personally don't as that hasn't been proven), the economics alone show that the same number of people can be fed FOR CHEAPER using cutting edge conventional non GMO farming.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jgnatca

We've made some great discoveries in my lifetime to improve farmer's yields. There is now a wide range of pesticides that have a very short half-life so by the time the veggies are picked there is no residue to worry about.

There are improved storage techniques like storing in carbon dioxide where bacteria cannot grow.

Refrigeration and transportation means nearly everyone has access to fresh produce year round. I'm a grandmother now but I remember my grandparents ate nearly everything out of a can. Heck, they canned most of their garden. For them, canned meant botulism free.

And finally the whole natural selection thing means food has been changing all along. We adapt just fine.

Now we live in an upside down privilege-rich society that turns its nose up at a grapefruit but injects Botox on purpose.

Macy9336

Zachbonner.... I see you haven't posted any independent scientific studies to support your repeated disagreement whereas I have posted numerous sources for my assertions. I suppose I am to just trust you that GMOs increase crop yields long term am I? Or that your research into their safety is somehow more complete than my research? Then you close with a rallying cry of if such and such happened THEN we could grow GM cheaper...sorry I'm not interested in crystal ball what ifs, I deal in reality. GM costs of production are higher than non GM...that is the reality today. Same with your assertion the GM might one day get it right and create something that needs less pesticides/fertiliser instead of more...been waiting a few decades now...how long do we wait? Another decade? Too I find your whole attitude that third world countries are somehow clueless about how to farm and are just sitting around waiting for us rich western benefactors to ride in and rescue them with a silver bullet very disturbing. At best it is old western Imperialism and at worst racism. I would say you are thinking more like a traditional westerner than I am. I'll leave you with an article about African farmers. Cheers. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jun/24/gm-crops-african-farmers

HM2206

The short answer is "no" - but I live in Norway.

I'd say the main difference is how different countries produce their food and what kind of food they let into their countries. Norway is very strict.

When I am in the U.S. I tend to be more careful, simply because there is more crappy food around.