Why Organic?

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Actually, they have used genes from fish, bacteria, and who-knows-what-else in creating GMO plants and actual people have actually fallen ill due to adverse reactions from consuming them. I'm not going to look through my bookmarks and dig up the information for you because if you're such a rabid skeptic that you would post the statement you just did, then I am not interested in changing your mind. This is for the benefit of the more open-minded people who might have been fooled into believing you.

Fish and plants do not mate.

What plant has fish genes in it? They use bacteria to place the protein into the corn or soybean plant. The RW & RR genes are from other plants. Even organic use Bt gene. When you put it on the fruit, it's in it as well. It's not in every cell of the fruit.

The only GMO that I'm aware of people being allergic to (1 out of million could be, never proved were) was the Starlink gene which was never legallized. When Garst didn't control it well enough, their penalties forced them to sell out. It cost commercial Ag a TON of money who weren't even involved. All because an individual farmer decided to NOT tear up what he was suppose to and didn't follow the protocol he agreed to. Sad story really. Of course, he skated while corp. had to pay.

There is a strawberry (or a proposed strawberry...can't remember if it was completed yet) with a gene inserted from a type of arctic fish to protect the plants from early frosts by producing a kind of biological antifreeze....I'll have to look it up again for more information.



~Chris

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Did you read the links you posted? Because the second one basically nullified the first one, and thus nullified your argument that "snopes is a hoax."



~Chris


ETA -- I think this line from your second link just about sums up all the "hoax" rumors about snopes:

"The bottom line is that if you try to report the truth, there will be those who don't like the truth you've reported and who will develop suspicions about why you did."

 

[seedcorn]

If they use a protein from an animal and put it into a plant, they will have a very hard time getting it approved.

There was one proposed change that was called the fish protein but it wasn't. It was a gene from algae. It's just the fish ate the algae and expressed it from the food they ate. It's late and my old, feeble mind is on "it's bed time" gear. If you really want to know, I'll look it up tomorrow or soon.

Peace, we in AG are a VERY PROUD group that does our best to provide safe, quality and quantity.

 

[chickened]

I have farmer friends and they all do what is right in their view and CONSCIENCE When you are big you make a big target and if you can put big ag in a bad light it can make anothers way seem more palatable, pun intended.
Quote:

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Ah, I found it...in my old textbook from a crop-breeding class back at Cornell. It wasn't a strawberry. It was a tomato. It was approved, but in practice, the tomato plant didn't have improved frost tolerance. After finding it there, I searched for the official application documents, and found it here:

http://www.isb.vt.edu/documents/ea/9107901r.ea.pdf


My feelings on the whole GMO issue are kind of back and forth. On the one hand, I applaud science for taking such an interest in the food supply. But on the other hand, I know that metabolic functions within an organism are very complex, and that the molecules used within an organism are involved in many chemical pathways. I think that there is a lot that can be going on biologically after creating a GMO that isn't readily apparent. The low rate of successful gene transfer in the GMO process is one example of "chaos" entering the mix. I see the good and bad potentials. In any case, I believe people should be able to make informed decisions, and any food containing GMO should be indicated as such. If we label foods for religious purposes, I see no reason why GMO should be exempt.



~Chris

 

[GhostRider65]

~Chris


ETA -- I think this line from your second link just about sums up all the "hoax" rumors about snopes:

"The bottom line is that if you try to report the truth, there will be those who don't like the truth you've reported and who will develop suspicions about why you did."



Yes Chris it does nullify the first page, to prove my point, that all sites are not right nor are they wrong 100% of the time as this GMO thing started out for the right reason only to be exploited and nullified by money, greed, power and control. I wanted to show that the truth is not always found, in the so called truth pages sometimes you must read between the lines or other places, by searching other sites with more information, only a fool believes the first thing he reads even the second can confirm or contradict it but keep reading, if I had only posted the first site it would have been unfair to those who believe everything at first read. So just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't have the right to say what they want, and try to make themselves look grand to those who would believe them. If you read enough you will find the truth. Know it in your heart just as we all must do.
I could care less either way, because nature has a way of dealing with the the foolish, who follow like lambs, and believe everything spewed by idiots who eat poison like rats. They die same as everything that natural selection has touched. I have lots of links saved about our poison food supply in a folder on a disc, since I just redid my computer a month ago I haven't reloaded everything yet when I find it don't you worry I will post all the links for everyone to judge who the idiot's are and who is prepared with knowledge to save themselves. Kim

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Ah, now I see your point. And I agree that there is a lot of misinformation (though I do not count Snopes as a source of misinformation, but that's off-topic). However, I still stand that I prefer making educated choices, and the right for others to do the same. I'm not knocking GMO, but I believe that it should be labeled as such, so that the ability to choose is maintained. If the laws don't require labeling of foods containing GMO, then it must still be maintained that foods are able to be labeled as being GMO-free. If GMO are allowed to mix undetected with non-GMO food, then that ability to choose is gone.

As a comparison, some people believe that keeping Kosher is ridiculous. Other people take it very seriously. If the former push policy that eliminates the latter from being able to distinguish Kosher from non-Kosher, then that is affecting the latter's ability to choose. And that's what I'm all about -- choice.



~Chris

 

[galanie]

Quote:
Exactly. We should be able to have a choice in the matter. As it stands now, Americans have no idea if they are consuming GMO's or not most of the time.

 

[seedcorn]

Quote:
Ah, I found it...in my old textbook from a crop-breeding class back at Cornell. It wasn't a strawberry. It was a tomato. It was approved, but in practice, the tomato plant didn't have improved frost tolerance. After finding it there, I searched for the official application documents, and found it here:

http://www.isb.vt.edu/documents/ea/9107901r.ea.pdf


My feelings on the whole GMO issue are kind of back and forth. On the one hand, I applaud science for taking such an interest in the food supply. But on the other hand, I know that metabolic functions within an organism are very complex, and that the molecules used within an organism are involved in many chemical pathways. I think that there is a lot that can be going on biologically after creating a GMO that isn't readily apparent. The low rate of successful gene transfer in the GMO process is one example of "chaos" entering the mix. I see the good and bad potentials. In any case, I believe people should be able to make informed decisions, and any food containing GMO should be indicated as such. If we label foods for religious purposes, I see no reason why GMO should be exempt.



~Chris

Interesting article. If I understood it correctly it was approved to have tests in controlled environments. It was not approved to use in commercial applications. Nor was it approved to use in the food chain. Basically it was on step 2 of about 6+ steps. You say it never worked so it was scrapped? No surprise as idea was flawed, just like the idea of drought gene is flawed.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Exactly. We should be able to have a choice in the matter. As it stands now, Americans have no idea if they are consuming GMO's or not most of the time.

And that's what I don't like about the GMO issue....more so than the actual GMO.



~Chris