Pros and cons of organic vs nonorganic?

[Cindy in PA]

The funniest part about the whole GMO argument is that mutagenicly bred foods are organic.


IE, I can expose a seed to a whole cocktail of mutagenic chemicals and radiation to cause it to mutate uncontrollably, and sell any offspring produced from this method AS ORGANIC, but if I splice a gene in under controlled lab conditions, everyone has a tizzy.


I've literally never met anyone who has taken a college level genetics class, and has a problem with GMO foods. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Where do you get this stuff from? I will start polling everyone who has taken a college level genetics class & see if I can replicate your findings. This is wonderful. GMOs are our friend.

 

[Imachicklvr2]

The funniest part about the whole GMO argument is that mutagenicly bred foods are organic.


IE, I can expose a seed to a whole cocktail of mutagenic chemicals and radiation to cause it to mutate uncontrollably, and sell any offspring produced from this method AS ORGANIC, but if I splice a gene in under controlled lab conditions, everyone has a tizzy.


I've literally never met anyone who has taken a college level genetics class, and has a problem with GMO foods. Shouldn't that tell you something?

It tells me they didn't pay attention in class or like a large percentage of Americans, they don't know and/or don't want to know about their foods' origins.
I have taken a college course in genetics. I avoid GMO products as much as possible and feed my chickens organic layer. Until there is absolute proof that GMO foods are not harmful to people or to the environment then I will err on the side of caution and continue avoiding them. There are reasons that nearly every steady done on the safety of GMOs is "inconclusive" or "flawed", particularly if there is any indication of potential harm caused by them or the glyphosphate they are sprayed with.

 

[Lazy J Farms Feed & Hay]

Journal of Animal Science Article

This paper was just published in the Journal of Animal Science discussing the safety of GMOs in livestock feeding. This is a segment of their Abstract:

"Data on livestock productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GE crops in 1996, and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of predominately GE animal feed. These field data sets representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals."

 

[ChickenCanoe]

Not exactly related to GMO but still interesting.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/ge...tility-is-the-end-of-commercial-poultry-near/

 

[CrazyTalk]

There are reasons that nearly every steady done on the safety of GMOs is "inconclusive" or "flawed", particularly if there is any indication of potential harm caused by them or the glyphosphate they are sprayed with.

This simply isn't true. There are literally hundreds of conclusive studies - we've studied GMO foods much more than we've studied non-GMO foods.

Also, glyphosate has nothing to do with most GMO crops.

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

This simply isn't true. There are literally hundreds of conclusive studies - we've studied GMO foods much more than we've studied non-GMO foods.

Also, glyphosate has nothing to do with most GMO crops.

That latter point, if I understand you correctly, is untrue. One of the GMO crops of greatest concern to many of us are the "RoundUp Ready" (read: glyphosphate tolerant) crops popularly in use in large scale agriculture today.

At the risk of repeating the same point I've made previously: it is absolutely true that GMO foods / crops present no direct health risks to people or livestock: innumerable validated studies have all come the same conclusion. But that, to my mind, is a red herring to the greater question of whether we should embrace GMO. The real issue, to my mind at least, is the widespread use of genetically engineered (as opposed to strain development through breeding) seed stock with little or no understanding of the long term effects on overall environmental sustainability. Not to mention the societal risks of turning over our entire food supply to a handful of large multinational corporations. We will all find our own truths. For me, I choose to avoid GMO, and try my darnedest to manage my little farm in as sustainable a manner as possible.

 

[CrazyTalk]

That latter point, if I understand you correctly, is untrue. One of the GMO crops of greatest concern to many of us are the "RoundUp Ready" (read: glyphosphate tolerant) crops popularly in use in large scale agriculture today.

The vast majority of GMO crops have nothing to do with Round Up. The vast majority of GMO crops have had genetic things done to them that have nothing to do with pesticide resistance. There's nothing untrue there.


Roundup ready crops are only a small segment of the market, and Monsanto is actually not a very big player in the GMO market.

"to my mind at least, is the widespread use of genetically engineered (as opposed to strain development through breeding) seed stock with little or no understanding of the long term effects on overall environmental sustainability."

This is a red-herring. A gene is a gene is a gene. If I turn on the gene for producing beta carotene in rice (golden rice) instead of in just the leaves of the plant, it doesn't matter whether it was done in a lab, or via a spontaneous mutation. It's the same thing. Again - there's way more study going on about GMO crops than there are non-GMO crops, and absolutely no reason to believe that a GMO crop is going to have more environmental impact than a non-GMO crop. GMO crops are tested way more heavily than non-GMO crops, which means they're LESS LIKELY to cause the sort of runaway effects you're worried about.

Kudzu, for example, isn't GMO. It's destroying large chunks of the SE USA.


"Not to mention the societal risks of turning over our entire food supply to a handful of large multinational corporations."

This is another red herring. Golden Rice (GMO), for instance, is freely available. There are conventionally bred crops, that are not freely available, but are patented, and controlled. You're conflating ancillary issues (in this case the patenting of live organisms) with GMO.

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

1. I did not mention Monsanto - but it's a valid example.
2. Small segment of the market or not, glyphosphate-resistant crops are a serious concern to many people, myself included. Your prior statement "glyphosate has nothing to do with most GMO crops" might be technically accurate in that you use the word 'most', but it is at best misleading.
3. Your point that GMO crops are 'less likely' to create runaway effects is simply an hypothesis which some of us do not support testing in the real world.
4. Adaptation through husbandry is not the same thing, in result, as direct genetic manipulation. Glyphosphate resistance is a good example - it is not conceivable that such adaptations would occur without direct genetic intervention.

You may perceive my latter issue as a conflation - I do not. While you may feel that the large multinational agribusiness concerns are altruistic and benevolent, and that direct genetic manipulation poses no environmental, societal, or economic risks others of us do not.

 

[ChickenCanoe]

The vast majority of GMO crops have nothing to do with Round Up. The vast majority of GMO crops have had genetic things done to them that have nothing to do with pesticide resistance. There's nothing untrue there.


Roundup ready crops are only a small segment of the market, and Monsanto is actually not a very big player in the GMO market.

That's a reach.
In 2013, 83% of all corn and 93% or all soybeans in the United States were herbicide tolerant, totaling nearly 155 million acres, much of it in the Midwest.

 

[CrazyTalk]

1. I did not mention Monsanto - but it's a valid example.
2. Small segment of the market or not, glyphosphate-resistant crops are a serious concern to many people, myself included. Your prior statement "glyphosate has nothing to do with most GMO crops" might be technically accurate in that you use the word 'most', but it is at best misleading.
3. Your point that GMO crops are 'less likely' to create runaway effects is simply an hypothesis which some of us do not support testing in the real world.
4. Adaptation through husbandry is not the same thing, in result, as direct genetic manipulation. Glyphosphate resistance is a good example - it is not conceivable that such adaptations would occur without direct genetic intervention.

You may perceive my latter issue as a conflation - I do not. While you may feel that the large multinational agribusiness concerns are altruistic and benevolent, and that direct genetic manipulation poses no environmental, societal, or economic risks others of us do not.

I'm going to address these individually:

1. Monsanto produces glyphosate - they hold the (now expired) patents, and they produce a ton of it - if we're talking about glyphosate, we're talking monsanto.

2. They're a serious concern to you only because you don't understand the science, or are unwilling to read it. This has been studied, with literally TRILLIONS of food trials.

3. Yes, it is a hypothesis - it's called the null-hypothesis - and it's the basis of the scientific method - you don't assume absolutely ridiculous things are going to happen without any evidence - again, a gene is a gene is a gene. It's source doesn't affect how it codes for proteins at all.

4. Organisms naturally becoming resistant to environmental stressors is the basis of evolution via natural selection - and forms the basis of medicine, biology, genetics, and most of science. If you don't believe that organisms can naturally become resistant to pesticides, you're just flat out wrong.



Again, GMO crops, and patenting of food crops are completely separate issues - as is evidenced by there being patented non-GMO food crops. Big-Agriculture is scary, but they can be just as scary without GMO. They're separate issues, and conflating them does nothing but confuse people.