I'll read that, thanks! No need to be snarky though UC.

JBArk

yeah jbark.."natural" has become a loaded term..while being entirely ambiguous.

Yup. I do like your distinction though - "incongruence". Way more on the money and meaningful than saying something is "unnatural". I think i'll steal that term!

Sorry, not trying to be snarky barky. I just find it sort of confusing and sometimes a little disturbing when people say 'we don't know' so it is 'probably safe' etc when discussing something for which there is actually a decent amount of evidence that suggests otherwise, IMO.

I think that the whole natural vs. unnatural debate is sort of besides the point and distracts from the actual issue, since it's riddled with semantic/perspective differences/interpretations

I'll read the info in that link with great interest over the next day or two when I have a chance. I have been, up to now quite convinced with all that I have read on the subject, that there was little to no evidence of real health risks associated with genetically modified foods, and that most of the opposition was essentially knee jerk reactions to the "unnatural" nature of it. But I have remained, nevertheless, sceptical. I would love to have evidence to sway my opinion one way or another, but it's going to require some pretty solid sources. I hope that link you shared is one of them.

JBArk

Thanks! Unfortunately I can only read the abstract--but I am not in doubt that evidence exists supporting claims thats GMO's pose significant health/environmental risks.

I want to clarify that my intent here is not to defend the use of GMO's or advocate the opposite. I simply want to offer my own understanding in a clear and non biased way so that I can both further my own understanding (there is much I'm still learning) and foster a safe and open discussion about issues that are controversial but deeply relevant to all of life on earth. If it helps make anyone feel more comfortable about my position; I eat almost entirely organic food, I'm a vegetarian, and I eat predominately vegan when shopping/cooking for myself. I don't support the current implementation of GMO's, but in light of certain things I've learned I can't say that I believe GMO's in of themselves are inherently negative. As I stated, my opinion is that the paradigm in which these technologies are employed is harmful, not the technology itself. And in that regard I agree very much with jbark.

Cosmic Spore, I'll have to check those out when I have some free time.



Thank you jamie, though I suppose I knew that hybridization is a process that occurs without human interference. I guess my question is what is it, specifically, about the process of genetic modification that poses a health risk? I know how hybridization works, but how does genetic modification (where it stands now) work? How do they make GMO corn? Hopefully that clarifies.



This is essentially what I'm asking.


Thanks for all the responses! I think we're predominately on the same page. Uni, I'd have to agree completely. And thanks for the link--Ill definitely read up when I can!

EDIT: 100th post

It should also be noted that monsanto's round-up ready GMO crops are made to withstand larger doses of hormone disrupting herbicides like Glyphosate and other found in roundup, which are dumped by the hundreds of millions of pounds every year, and have a very far from benign health/environmental profile IMO. Of course monsanto has countless organizations and institutions essentially in it's pocket, so there is no shortage of conflicting information and backlash.

scientists fired by Monsanto
monsanto scientist that have been fired
Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of GMO’s (one of multiple).
Clarence Thomas Monsanto (supreme court member)
Monsanto revolving door.

I don't see what pickling, curing or cooking food for that matter has anything to do with the genetic modification of "food". We've created these processes out of need to stretch out the shelf life of things we plan on consuming or to rid said food of harmful bacteria. I dont see how bringing these processes up though means that theyre bad or unnatural. And while I understand that theres no guarantee that theyre what nature intended, the processes are simple and utilize natural means. You pickle with natural ingredients. You cook with heat from a flame. Does heat change the chemical makeup of food? Yes, but be clear that a GMO is no relation to cooked, organic food. Theres a reason why many stick with a raw vegan diet, and it works. Show me a raw vegan with uncontrollable acne, difficulty focusing or remembering, fatigue, or obesity and Ill show you a pink unicorn...without hyperspace travel! Id be willing to bet that there is not one person on earth whos gone organic and committed to a non-gmo diet who is unhappy with their decision and who's health has not improved vastly, or has had their health worsened by making the switch. I could almost guarantee that person does not exist.

The practices of big companies like Monsanto, the forefront of the GMO industry, is what the problem is. The chemicals used and the astronomical spike in allergies, disease, etc in the past 30 years should be a universal red flag to anyone with half a brain that the reason this spike has occurred and is so widespread can only be from a few sources. While there are several billion people on the planet, the fact that the majority of the population consumes food from only a handful of commercialized companies who control the vast majority of the food supply (who only care about PROFITS and supplying 'food' with the bare minimum of safety/quality standards) should probably flick a switch, no? These spikes in health issues didnt just happen magically. So many dont question the source of ingredients or processes utilized to produce what they put in their bodies, and then suddenly these people wonder why XYZ happened out of 'nowhere'.

Garbage in, garbage out. Everyone is welcome to float as they please, but why float with crap if you don't have to. And especially, why line the pockets of these companies when you don't have to.

Unfortunately, the above statements are grossly incorrect. Genetic modifications happen far more frequently that we understand in Nature, and has been around much long before humans. There really is no need for biotechnology to make GMOs. There are numerous examples of organisms inserting their genes in other organisms for all sorts of purposes. And organisms have molecular machineries to accept or discard pieces of exogenous DNA as they see it fit.

A few examples include viruses that will splice their genes within the genomes of their hosts. This they will do to either hide from host defenses and/or to hijack their hosts' genome to make it work to the virus' advantage. Bacteria will commonly uptake random DNA that may happen to be in their environment and incorporate them in their genomes with the view that this might be useful in the long run. A very common example of an organism that genetically modifies another is the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens. This bacterium will splice several rogue genes from its genome in the genome of its host plants with a view to divert the plant's metabolism to suit the bacterial needs. Examples of organisms genetically altering the genomes of other organisms are plenty in the natural world and for ecologically-related organisms it is just another trick in the book to establish parasitic and/or mutualistic relationships.

Ironically enough, and as far as the technical aspects of how to make a GMO go, scientists use the very same tools that were taught to us by Nature to carry genetic modifications. With regard to GMO plants, one popular approach is to take Agrobacterium tumefaciens and tweak it so that it will splice our gene of interest instead of the genes it would normally splice in the plants we wish to genetically modify.

Sorry to break it but we do nothing novel by creating GMOs. We can make GMOs because we saw it happening in the Nature and then we used the very same tools to do the same.
EDIT; the process og gene transfers among different organisms is also known as Horizontal Gene Transfer and wikipedia has a fairly accurate article, including examples, on the matter.


Selective breeding is not too entirely different from genetic modification. By eugenics you effectively select which genes from an organism's genepool you wish to propagate and which ones to discard. As such you may end up losing a fair amount of context in the long term. One may even claim that deleting a gene from a plant by using biotechnology is not too entirely different than doing the very same thing by selective breeding.



As far as safety of GMO foods go I am still sitting on the fence; there sure are arguments in favor and arguments against. With regard to human or animal health feeding on GMO plants, we can only say that most test or comparisons may not have been in depth enough or performed to the right direction to identify a difference. And scientists can and have been wrong in the past and there is always more to learn about the delicate mechanisms of biological systems.

As for the labelling of GMO content on food packages mention in the OP? There is ambiguity here as well. From one side the consumer should be informed enough about what he puts in his body, fair enough. But how much should he be informed? Should we also start adding Bisphenol A, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates etc warnings wherever there is some sort of plastic? Or the potential contaminants of bleaching agents on recycled paper? There is a whole can of worms to open if we are to label anything potentially toxic. And from my perspective, it'd make more sense to add warning labels to items containing compounds with well-documented health risks such as BPA or PHAs instead of GMO products without much well-recognised risks. But it is the nature of politics to always be absurd and dirty...

It was a response to your blanket statement that we should not eat anything altered, that i will quote again:
YOU:

"Why put something, anything, in your body that was not here on this earth to begin with exactly the way nature intended?"

ME:

"What about cooking. Or pickling. Or Curing. Etc. How do we presume to know what "NATURE" intends? A little anthropocentric as argument, no?"

Not really sure how to be any more clear about it. The point was that we have been altering what "nature intends" for our own purposes (rephrasing you, I don't necessarily agree with this phrasing) since we were able to make fire, build tools and understand basic chemistry.

But for further elucidation read Infundibulum's pertinent post above.

I am not even going to touch your blanket statements about no vegans "who's health has not improved vastly" (sic) or none who are obese, because it is just patently false; or even go down the road of marketing that is so-called "organic" food. (what a ridiculous term, "organic", implying that all other foodstuffs are inorganic. Great marketing though. Brilliant actually).


Cheers,

JBArk

Y u no like PTFE sammich ?

GMO foods are debatable, id rather eat higher yielding GMO crop then dying of hunger in Africa for example.

But intentionally lobbying all over the world to hide the fact that GMO ingredients are used in food products is pretty suspicious.
If you are convinced by the quality of your product you certainly would not need to hide it...

jbark Im not sure if youre serious or not about your "inorganic" comment.

Organic in this case does not mean carbon based.


Organic food means organically grown, via methods not utilizing pesticides or chemicals. Though there are a few pesticides still allowed in some organic farming, it is not heavy like standard farming methods.

"Theres a reason why many stick with a raw vegan diet, and it works. Show me a raw vegan with uncontrollable acne, difficulty focusing or remembering, fatigue, or obesity and Ill show you a pink unicorn...without hyperspace travel! Id be willing to bet that there is not one person on earth whos gone organic and committed to a non-gmo diet who is unhappy with their decision and who's health has not improved vastly, or has had their health worsened by making the switch. I could almost guarantee that person does not exist."

I was very strict raw vegan for a number of years. I dont even want to get into it..but I can assure you it does not work for a good number of people. Actually I beleive being raw vegan put a huge strain on my adrenals and left me more nutritionally deficient than I was prior.

Ive encountered a number of other people who did not thrive on that diet.

Interesting. Do you think you left something vital out of your diet?

I worked at a bicycle shop for many years, we specialized in high end road race and triathlon bicycles and a very large portion of our customers were raw vegan and were in phenomenal physical shape and many claimed that it was the game changer in taking their performance to the next level by cutting out meats and going raw organic. Im not just talking "normal" people who were in good shape either, these people were top competitors in Ironman style triathlon and Cat 1/2/3 pro level road race.

I suppose though its just a standard case of what works for one wont necessarily work for another.

I highly doubt you went from your RV diet to eating McDonalds though daily, right? lol

I am very serious, and of course I know what "organic" has come to mean to a lot of people - but it doesn't make the term correct or even very useful in terms of meaning. It does not mean "carbon based" to many now - but only because of the marketing! "Organically grown"? Are you saying there are fruits and vegetables that do not grow "organically??!! You've bought the marketing, my friend!

And incidentally, they very often do use pesticides - lots and lots of them. "Organic" pesticides: for the most part untested and unregulated so farmers/corporations are free to use AS MUCH as they want of these so-called "natural" pesticides. Any person who asserts that "natural" things can't kill or cause disease or be otherwise unhealthy to humans needs to do a quick google search.

I wasn't going to get into this - it deserves its own thread. I suggest you do research into "organic" foods yourself to see what an incredibly vast grey area has been marketed to you.

JBArk

PS so-called "organic" meat is a whole other story. Much merit there generally, as research yields.

as language evovles, so does our application of certain terms.

In reference to agriculture, the term "organic" certainly means much more than simply carbon based now. I really dont know what else to say about that...we can argue semantics all day long but it is pointless.

I know all about what goes on to be certified organic in canada. I have a certificate in organic horticulture. You cannot just use organic pesticides and non GMO crops and claim you are organic. You cannot just not spray at all and say you are organic..you cant even simpy grow heirloom corn and do nothing but let the rain fall on it and say you are organic. It's a multi level process. To begin with, you have to get your land itself certified or you cant be organic anything..which means you have to have people come in and start taking samples to be tested in a lab to make sure the earth itself you want to farm falls within acceptable limits for residues of agricultural toxins. If your neighbours are spraying roundup and its leaching into your farm, it will show up in the tests and you will not be able to get your land certified and you cannot call your produce organic. If you buy land that was farmed by someone else 8 years ago and it still tests too high, you cannot get your land certified organic. If an established organic farmer of 30 years moves to a new farmland, they will have to get the soil tests and pass in order to still maintain an "organic" farm.

Yes, there are some "organic" pesticides that can be used, and not all of them are good. Organic is beginning to loose it's relevance again somewhat..but it is not just entirely some scham and there are protocalls in place. Even when they do spray, what pesticides are used does make a difference. I have personally had to apply glyphosate in greenhouses..you have to wear hazmat suits and gas masks to apply the stuff. It is discusting stuff and you definatly do not want to eat it. If you dont buy organic food, you can bet you are eating some glyphosate. I dont know everything about other "organic" pesticides..but I do know all about glyphosate..avoid it.

In general, the whole "eco friendly" pesticide/herbicide thing is getting more and more criticism and companies who claim to be using these eco-friendly products are being called out and look pretty stupid. I have worked for people who make these same claims while walking around dumping caseron all over the place. These people just make bunk claims about being eco friendly because it is trendy..in landscape horticulture there really is not much regulation like there is in agriculture..so landscape gardeners make all kinds of silly claims abotu being organic or eco friendly while dumping all kinds of sterilizing toxins into the soils.

The organic thing has become a double edged sword.

In permaculture however, which is what alot of organic farming is going to look like in the next while I predict, you dont ever spray pesticides etc..organic or not.

In the USA, the standards for what passes as organic are worse than in Canada.

The next step above that is farm employees themselves being certified organic under the SOUL certification, which is recognized internationally now. It requires education for a person to be able to challenge the test and pass. This covers eveything from composting, compost teas as soil ammendments, the application of microorganisms to reduce or eliminate the need to ever spray. Alot of organic and permaculture farms will hire employees with either SOUL certification/permaculture certification or other organic hort certifications over random farm workers because they understandall of this.

Alot of organic farmers dont spray anything at all, and will lable the produce as such. If you go to any farmers market here(ive been to lots of them) there are lots of organic farmers who are not spraying anything..not any "organic" pesticides or anything else. Some of them spray microorganisms but it is rare at this point and it is essentially like applying probiotics..you can drink the microorganisms that they spray.

I don't know if you meant to, but you just articulated my point of view. Calling anything organic is not only a misnomer (you may disagree with this part), but it is also, very often (but not always), meaningless, for the reasons you outlined above.

JBArk

Why assume I bought into marketing? I grow my own vegetables and herbs!