Do I Really Need Expensive, Organic, Non-GMO Feed?

[aart]

My biggest beef with GMO's are the ability for them to spread to non-GMO crops nearby and the monopoly of the manufacturers 'ownership'.

 

[Compost King]

My biggest beef with GMO's are the ability for them to spread to non-GMO crops nearby and the monopoly of the manufacturers 'ownership'.

This is a big issue of mine too, I don't equate it to the GMO as much as I equate it to unscrupulous corporate practices. You can defeat them in courts if you like paying or lawyers. If your pollen escapes your confines (the farmer's land you lease the seed license to) then you shouldn't be allowed to own it on someone else's property.

 

[Acre4Me]

I do not believe farmers spray round up all the time, that's a silly assumption.

But, previously you stated:

These are plants that are in fields that maybe constantly sprayed with round up to get rid of weeds.

And here:

GMO is created so that plants are resistant to Round Up.. or the GMO's most people are concerned with are.

Contradiction:

The Concern I have for GMO is round up ready, its the concern people have when they mention various pesticides (in this case an Herbicide) But I never said it was everybody's concern.

You may not have realized you made these contradictory statements, and you may not have meant to express your opinion in such a broad way.

Also, How do you know that the entire EPA is corrupt? That is quite broad - I don't know one way or the other. Being a big agency, I'm confident I could come up with various tid-bits showing some kind of dishonesty or corruption, no doubt there - but, the entire agency corrupt? Of course, with this logic...every agency is corrupt! Hmmm...maybe we should move to countries with less corrupt governments....Venezuela anyone?

 

[chickengeorgeto]

My biggest beef with GMO's are the ability for them to spread to non-GMO crops nearby and the monopoly of the manufacturers 'ownership'.

Since almost all the seeds planted in commercial farmng are some form of bybtid seed and because hybrid will not reliably produce or reproduce themselves any so called farmer who saves his own seeds after buying seeds is only hurting his own bottom line. This is a non issue mostly because anyone who does this is living in government housing and getting their food with food stamps mostly because they have already gone bankrupt at farming or they are about to go belly up.

 

[Fishkeeper]

The trouble is with things like corn that are pollinated by the wind. People will claim that, because pollen from a crop of GMO corn blew over into the next field and pollinated that non-GMO corn, they now own the non-GMO corn's crop because it's been pollinated with their copyrighted GMO pollen.
The issues with GMOs are primarily due to human usage of them, not the GMOs themselves.

 

[FlyWheel]

I wonder when these people are going to wake up to the fact that every domesticated crop, animal or vegetable, is genetically modified and has been for centuries. The only difference is that up till now the modifications have just been done using a clumsier method.

We call it "selective breeding".

That being said I think it is about time we either loock this thread or douse the flames and/or get back on topic.

 

[Acre4Me]

I wonder when these people are going to wake up to the fact that every domesticated crop, animal or vegetable, is genetically modified and has been for centuries. The only difference is that up till now the modifications have just been done using a clumsier method.

We call it "selective breeding".

That being said I think it is about time we either loock this thread or douse the flames and/or get back on topic.

Here is a quick summary found on WHO site:

“Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species.”

So, GMO is not something that is necessarily what Greggory Mendel was dabbling in when researching plant genetics way back when. It is a very powerful methodology with large impact whether people agree with it or not.

 

[aart]

I wonder when these people are going to wake up to the fact that every domesticated crop, animal or vegetable, is genetically modified and has been for centuries. The only difference is that up till now the modifications have just been done using a clumsier method.

We call it "selective breeding".

That being said I think it is about time we either loock this thread or douse the flames and/or get back on topic.

Not the same thing.....SMH.

 

[Birdinhand]

I wonder when these people are going to wake up to the fact that every domesticated crop, animal or vegetable, is genetically modified and has been for centuries. The only difference is that up till now the modifications have just been done using a clumsier method.

We call it "selective breeding".

That being said I think it is about time we either loock this thread or douse the flames and/or get back on topic.

I've been following this discussion and it's been interesting and I have a few points of clarification.

hybridising through selective breeding, which has been practiced since the dawn of human civilization, and recombinant DNA technology are not synonymous. recombinant technology allows for the combination of organisms that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) with ones that have never been incorporated as a food. The introduction of new things like proteins and new chemistry, can potentially lead to health issues for consumers. For instance, theoretically, a vegetable that produces it's own pesticide could also be even just mildly toxic to gut flora, adversely effecting digestion/assimilation of nutrients, leading to subtle but difficult to identify health problems.

With the proper safeguards, genetic modification can conceivably lead to good advancements, but we all know of examples of were the profit motive can cause some to put blinders on when it comes to profits. GMO technology most notably allows a producer to patent gene sequences that occur in nature just by modifying them, sometimes even slightly, so that when they end up in a new crop, they own the new crop. Monsanto has actually gone after farmers this way, it sounds preposterous, but it's well documented. It appears that under current law, GMO producers can abuse their proprietary rights. I support stricter standards for GMO's to assure safety and limits on how far a patent holder's rights go, before I can feel generally trusting of a given product.

My support of organic food is in part that I trust GRAS foods the most and don't feel certain that a new gene tech added to a GRAS food means it's still GRAS. In general, organic practices assure better farmer health, that the water and air are less polluted, that the food stream is less polluted and that for a fruit or vegetable or animal to look robust, it typically reflects that it was raised in a manner that assures good husbandry. This does not mean that everything GMO is evil, but for now, I will take all the claims of safety and profit with a grain of salt and err on the side of caution.

 

[Acre4Me]

I've been following this discussion and it's been interesting and I have a few points of clarification.

hybridising through selective breeding, which has been practiced since the dawn of human civilization, and recombinant DNA technology are not synonymous. recombinant technology allows for the combination of organisms that are generally recognized as safe (GRASS) with ones that have never been incorporated as a food. The introduction of new things like proteins and new chemistry, can potentially lead to health issues for consumers. For instance, theoretically, a vegetable that produces it's own pesticide could also be even just mildly toxic to gut flora, adversely effecting digestion/assimilation of nutrients, leading to subtle but difficult to identify health problems.

With the proper safeguards, genetic modification can conceivably lead to good advancements, but we all know of examples of were the profit motive can cause some to put blinders on when it comes to profits. GMO technology most notably allows a producer to patent gene sequences that occur in nature just by modifying them, sometimes even slightly, so that when they end up in a new crop, they own the new crop. Monsanto has actually gone after farmers this way, it sounds preposterous, but it's well documented. It appears that under current law, GMO producers can abuse their proprietary rights. I support stricter standards for GMO's to assure safety and limits on how far a patent holder's rights go, before I can feel generally trusting of a given product.

My support of organic food is in part that I trust GRASS foods the most and don't feel certain that a new gene tech added to a GRASS food means it's still GRASS. In general, organic practices assure better farmer health, that the water and air are less polluted, that the food stream is less polluted and that for a fruit or vegetable or animal to look robust, it typically reflects that it was raised in a manner that assures good husbandry. This does not mean that everything GMO is evil, but for now, I will take all the claims of safety and profit with a grain of salt and err on the side of caution.

One correction: Generally Recognized as Safe is GRAS (not “grass”, and is usually pronounced with a different “a” sound than grass at least in the industry I spent the bulk of my career). I’ve worked in an industry completely reliant on GRAS where the largest department (after accounting) was regulatory...everything had to be GRAS.