"Well, you need to realize that many fruits and vegetables in the past were treated with some substances that would not pass muster today...lead arsenate, paris green, and likely some other baddies."

Wayne, that is very recent history. And you make a good point in support of what I said, thank you. As soon as people started putting fabricated and processed substances on crops, the problems began. It is good the problems with these substances you mentioned have been realized, as so often happens with non-organic and even some organic substances used improperly.

Diatomacious earth, for example, which when dusted all over plants in bloom kills a lot of pollinators.

Final conclusion: Wash your produce before you eat it.

Final, final conclusion: Eat with thanksgiving to God...be truly in harmony with nature.

"Final conclusion: Wash your produce before you eat it. "

One cup of coffee offers 1000X greater cancer risk then a year exposure to synthetic pestiside residue.

Final, Final, Final conclusion: Drink Kool-Aid

Competing for the final word, are we? Obviously, that prized position needs to go to a woman.

3 minutes of Alex Avery stalking has turned this up:
He works for an ultra conservative think-tank in Washington D.C., which receives money from Monsanto, DowElanco, and the Ag-Chem Equipment Company. (It's the Hudson Institute, which was ranked a 7 on a scale of 1 to 8 with 1 being farthest left and 8 being farthest right)

His book, The Truth About Organics was published by Henderson Communications, an agri-business consulting group.
So, penultimate final word: Be careful not to confuse science with politics!

Oh, and someone asked about the OP, since we don't eat straw: I believe that the concern with straw from GMO crops is that they have residue from the herbicides used on them which, if the straw is used on a garden, will kill the garden crops. I understand that the herbicides can even persist into the manure from animals that ate the GMO crops.
So, final, ultimate, completely final word: don't eat the yellow straw.

Be careful not to Confuse science with politics.
That sums up this whole thread.

There is nothing political about this. Plenty of folks from both sides of the aisle involved. AFAIK, you're the first to bring up politics in this discussion.

Purpleinopp -- Definitely agree there is no "only one side of the aisle" going on with these issues. My reference to politics was because there are three threads (that I know of) on which the Avery book was being held up as scientific proof about various things in Organic farming. I looked Avery up and saw that his motivations are quite political--if nothing else, he needs to please the people who pay his salary, so I thought that was important info to add to the discussion. Know your sources, as it were.

Hey -- does washing your produce actually do much to cut down pesticide exposure? I thought that most of it ended up inside the food -- otherwise why would potatoes be on the "dirty dozen" list?

elisa says, "Hey -- does washing your produce actually do much to cut down pesticide exposure? I thought that most of it ended up inside the food -- otherwise why would potatoes be on the "dirty dozen" list?

Now that begs the question. How much of pesticides are on the surface and how much are internal...on which vegetables and fruits?

I would think it is probable that in the case of potatoes the many sprays of insecticides per season on the foliage drips off in the rain and/or overhead irrigation and leaches through the few inches of soil and gets on the tubers.

"Don't eat the yellow straw". Good one! I guess there would be a hell of a price gouge on "organic straw", eh? I may go back to mulching with my own organic lawn clippings, what do other folks use for 'maters & peppers?

Elisa, that makes sense, thanks! My last comment was in response to Jolj, though:

"Be careful not to Confuse science with politics.
That sums up this whole thread."

Everyone forgot Wall Street, one major reason for GMO corn is the seed user has to sign a contract; therefore he cannot just save some seed from last years crop to reseed, he has to buy new seed.

A farmer lost a large settlement in Federal court over this.

Now if seed companies were efficiently evil, one would develope a bug that only attacks seed from rival companies--hmm, I wish I had stayed with getting a biology dgree, I could be Dr. Evil II.

Straw doesn't need to come from a GMO crop to have persistent herbicide residues on it. Clopyralid is a persistent herbicide used on grasses to kill broadleaf weeds. Most commonly a problem using hay or grass clippings that were treated with Clopyralid or related chemicals. The herbicide can persist through composting and through the digestive tract of horses or cattle grazing on the treated grass or dried hay, and show up in your garden through applying compost or manure, and can still kill some particularly susceptible garden plants like peas.

GMO herbicide resistance is to Roundup. Clopyralid is specific for broadleaf plants and can be used safely on pretty much any monocot, like grass and wheat, no genetic engineering necessary.

FWIW, GMO insecticide producing plants are increasing insect resistance to Bt, the insecticide created by the GMO plants. Which is inevitable, really, from an evolutionary perspective. You increase exposure to a mortality factor, and the exposed population is going to evolve around that. And insects evolve fast. Basic tenet of integrated pest management - don't overdo things with the chemicals because you're just setting yourself up for pesticide resistance in the pest population. Same goes for overusing herbicides.

Has nothing to do with GMO but a local grower found out the hard way about persistent herbicides.

And just to add to the previous post it is not just the overuse of herbicides but the overall misuse of them as well.

Lloyd

Here is a link that might be useful: The weed killer that killed our crop

reg -- thanks for the clarification about Clopyralid.

And I guess I'll keep smashing my cabbage worms and cutting them with scissors rather than resorting to Bt. (oh, and eating them with broccoli, of course.)

purple -- that quote was *me* -- that's why I answered you :)

Rpr -- Dr. Evil II -- LOL. Actually, nature seems to be striking back at the GMO crops pretty consistantly. It's like watching a very slow sci-fi movie in which monster insects and weeds invade. Movie not over yet.

Thanks, elisa, sometimes context is lost in a longer discussion like this when one just pops in to read the new additions, sorry.

This made me chuckle: like watching a very slow sci-fi movie in which monster insects and weeds invade.

Humanity has to face the fact that there will be intense pressure going forward that to feed a world population in the billions and growing. The current solution seems to use GMO seed and pesticides, suck water out of deep non-rechargeable aquifers, use fossil fuel in abundant quanitities, blanket all the best agricultural regions with mono-crops, grow our animals in concentrated animal feeding operations, etc. I wonder if this way of producing food is sustainable or desirable??

Something that we all can do today to reduce the pressure is reduce the quantity of food that we eat, in particular meat that is produced in CAFOs and feedlots (which is almost all of it). Eat most of our food locally and seasonally. Grow a little of our own. Etc.

Because I don't see the genetic engineering of food going away if consumers are not willing to change too.

Tell me again what GMO in food supply have to do with manure or compost.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this Spanish Inquisition-length thread, I had asked about GMO straw and someone commented that GMO was not allowed for human consumption in the US. I had no idea we would still be here 72 replies later!

So, do you have the answer you sought?

I've been trying to locate this "previous post", any links to it?

Lloyd

On the GMO straw, I guess I did get my answer. Like with anything, you have to research your sources. I'm still not sure if possibly using GMO straw as tomato mulch will have any ill effects on my garden or our health. And I posted the old link below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Old Post

Okay, so somehow my reply in that thread got translated to "GMO crops were not authorized for human consumption" and "someone commented that GMO was not allowed for human consumption". I've re-read what I wrote and I can see no possible way it could be interpreted to say anything else but what I wrote.

This is a classic example of misunderstanding the written word that is so prevalent on forums such as these. :-(

Lloyd

And your reply is to what end? I wasn't mocking you or belittling your reading comprehension as you are apparently doing to mine (I can't tell since my understanding of the written word is so poor), when you did express the opinion that "no cereal grains were GMO". This kind of cattiness is why I left this forum 5 years ago.

It was not meant to be catty, nor did I intend to mock or belittle a persons reading comprehension. I apologize if it was taken that way.

It was written in a sad tone (sad face at the end), borne out of many years of being frustrated by interpretations and assumptions that are often incorrect.

Lloyd

Many are misled. GE food can save the world from hunger. Protest groups against GMO stopped a city in Africa from accepting a resistant crop strain that could have saved many from starving.

Look up Norman Borlaug. He saved many from starving with Genetic engineered crops. Just like Dr. Norman said himself- these protesters are on cloud nine . ;)

If I'm not mistaken, all of the wheat varieties Norman Borlaug came up with were developed by breeding versus genetic engineering.

Lloyd

You may be right. His newer work was involved in GE though. He for sure supports GMO.

There is endless info, here is just a little-

"Borlaug, who received a Nobel Peace in 1970 for his efforts to feed a hungry world, said genetic engineering (a term he prefers to GMOs) was the only technology that must be embraced by countries whose food supply is threatened by the inequalities of the world. "

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html

"he described people who have been championing a GMO-free world as "utopian thinkers" who do not understand the complexities of food production."

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html

Okay, no sweat. Of course the concern I would have with GMO would be overuse of pesticide in those that are created with resistance to pesticides, as well as invasion and corruption of native species (like teosinte in Mexico). But with new technology, we don't know what 30-40-50 years of consumption of GMO products will do to us. Peace, Lloyd.

I look at GMO as double edged...both a friend and potential foe. When nuclear energy began to be used, it has some highly potential possibilities and yet there is the bomb which helped to win the peace in WWII and probably kept mus from dreadful wars with Russia and perhaps China...and yet, this [bomb] could blow up on us at any time

It is merely one tool and should not be depended upon to be The Answer, any more than a single energy source can solve all our energy problems.

As with energy, conservation could reduce our need for other tools such as the double-edged sword. In the US, 30-40% of the food produced does not make it into anyone's stomach.

Lloyd and Wayne and tox, excellent points. I don't know about the odd, unsubstantiated statistic, but agree that diversity is crucial.

I've just started reading a book which discusses (among many other things,) the Inca/Inka civilization in south America, which is fascinating me. In a nutshell, the leaders saw what each niche and section of their area had to offer, and setup whatever size settlements necessary to maximize the results. Like a group growing rice in the swampy areas, groups tending particular trees and animals at various altitudes, fishing near the shoreline, yada yada yada... They didn't try to make areas different from what they were originally, and according to the author, their food supply was the most comprehensive and sufficient of any large civilization in history.

1491 by Charles C. Mann, if anyone's interested.

GMO can feed starving people. These GMO protesters are doing so much harm by stopping people from getting food. So while GMO protesters sit there with a full stomach protesting against something they have no idea about, there are scientests that are working hard to feed the world.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Wed, Dec 5, 12 at 1:46

"I'm still not sure if possibly using GMO straw as tomato mulch will have any ill effects on my garden or our health."

No doubt. Looks like you didn't get this answer because none is yet known.

"These GMO protesters are doing so much harm by stopping people from getting food." Are you referring to the incident you mentioned with this, "Protest groups against GMO stopped a city in Africa from accepting a resistant crop strain that could have saved many from starving." ? How about a link to a news story about this? That would substantiate this claim so it can mature from a hysterical blurt into a fact. Even the name of the city so folks could find a trusted source on their own.

"http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html";

I'm not reading anything called "doomsayers." This would almost certainly be the ramblings of someone with a paid agenda, profit potential*, and/or an ax to grind, in the form of insulting certain people by putting an unattractive label on their thoughts, not written with the intention of providing dispassionate info.

"So while you GMO protesters sit there with a full stomach..." full of unlabeled GMO ingredients...

"...something you have no idea about..." You being GMO protesters in general, I think. Wonder what made them want to protest? Right or wrong, they had some idea... Or were you claiming to know everything known by a particular person on this forum?

"I know so many people against GMO it is a little sickening." I'm not sure why you or anyone would find the notion of people who want to know what they are eating and avoid certain things, especially the unknown, sickening. And I would imagine whoever these people are, their upset at being used as uninformed, unconsenting guinea pigs is equally upsetting to them, if not more.

"They feed into the hype very well." What is the hype?

*Not that there's anything wrong with making a profit. But when folks are so greedy they are willing to secretly toy with the public's food supply purely for profit, then spend millions to defeat legislation that would have put an end to the secrecy, people do get upset. I don't trust a guy/company who says, "this stuff is perfectly fine to eat whether you know you are eating it or not. You can mix up edible genes in any old way and it's safe for everyone. We know so because the profits are enormous and besides, we know what's best for you, not you." That's what I hear these guys/companies saying.

Let us hear a quote from the man who provided food for billions, Norman Borlaug-

It does not matter the source. This is what was stated by him. He only wanted to do one thing; feed the world.

-Borlaug, who received a Nobel Peace in 1970 for his efforts to feed a hungry world, said genetic engineering (a term he prefers to GMOs) was the only technology that must be embraced by countries whose food supply is threatened by the inequalities of the world. "

"he described people who have been championing a GMO-free world as "utopian thinkers" who do not understand the complexities of food production."

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html

And then there are these points to ponder from the Rodale Institue:

"Farmers who cultivated GM varieties earned less money over a 14-year period than those who continued to grow non-GM crops according to a study from the University of Minnesota.

Traditional plant breeding and farming methods have increased yields of major grain crops three to four times more than GM varieties despite huge investments of public and private dollars in biotech research.

There are 197 species of herbicide resistant weeds, many of which can be linked directly back to GM crops, and the list keeps growing.

GM crops have led to an explosion in herbicide-use as resistant crops continue to emerge. In particular, the EPA approved a 20-fold increase in how much glyphosate (Roundup�) residue is allowed in our food in response to escalating concentrations"

That last ditty is similar to raising our debt ceiling. lol

tj

GMO foods are dangerous and research proved that the commonest modification in GM crops includes a "significant fragment of a viral gene" known as Gene VI, a new viral DNA in GMO foods causing food contamination

"Contamination" implies a harmful substance. Do we (do you) know anything more about this Gene VI and why it would be harmful? Not a loaded question, I'm genuinely curious.

Thats just it, its all hear say.

I said what I needed to in this thread. Just read back.

regarding weeds, read C.Walter's book on control of weeds without poison. I enacted some of what I learned there last season, and it worked as advertised.

I posted this in another forum, but since the person who dug up this old thread to talk about "gene 6" in multiple forums...

In case anyone wants some information about "gene 6"...better/correctly known as "P6"...as it pertains to current discussion based on a study by the EFSA...

This is a very wide range of proteins found in virus encoding from HIV to mosaic virus...these proteins are also found in the smoke of burning meat and tobacco. It's a very wide range. In this case, one of the biggest dangers would be a chance encoding to re-invigorate the "dead" version of cauliflower mosaic virus (or P6 residues) that's very commonly used as a carrier string for DNA/RNA insertion that it's inserted into. This could lead to some allergy problems, too, even if it doesn't fully express the mosaic virus but still overlaps enough to express P6 proteins. P6 is a known allergen, though it's not one that everyone is sensitive to.

The expression of this gene is highly unlikely, though...and would be regulated to a single (or very small groups) of plants doing this replication rather than entire seed source or a field suddenly replicating mosaic virus or P6 residues. If it is the case that encoding suddenly made it large-scale available it would show up heavily in the research stage and it wouldn't make it out into the consumer market since it's showing inferior/bad genetic expression. One of the biggest parts of GMO research is tossing out 99%+ of everything you're actually trying to create because positive effects of expression aren't stable enough to sell it as seed...or it's showing "bad" expressions.

There's a lot of otherwise harmful viruses (to plants or humans) used to insert GMO traits for start/end points into a genetic change that are made inert (and distinctly different) from their original genetic package, but still contain large parts of what makes up the virus, itself. Viruses can easily carry genetic information and they're ideal vehicles for transferring it. The genetic carriers of the virus are merely vehicles. Once you change the "genetic package" inside a virus it's not even what you started with. The "guts" are changed dramatically. If you put a Dodge Neon engine in a Porsche very few people would still consider it a Porsche. That's the level of dramatic change in sequencing going on inside of these packages. You can take certain virus types, depending on what you're trying to achieve, and precisely insert genetic information with start/termination points into existing DNA/RNA...totally turning it's genetic information into something totally different in both makeup and application.

Btw, to those with P6 protein sensitivities...this would be a big deal. I'm not trying to knock the research at all. I'm just saying it's overlapping expression would most likely be contained to a very few plants in a field, not widespread. While genetic start/termination points are very good with insertion and replication once stable, nothing is perfect when you're exchanging genes...we see it even natural breeding. The major problem with this particular chain of insertion is the overlapping of the 2 sequences given as example in the paper and what could happen as a consequence of them being genetically linked so closely together...even if there's a very small chance of it happening as defined.

It's also worth mentioning we're talking a single virus carrier, not the 100s of types (or the 20-ish most commonly used) carriers. It would also be greatly influenced by the new information inserted, what was cut out, and where the start/termination points overlap (if there is any replication overlap). There's more than 1 way to insert genetic information into virus and the chances of overlap encoding or reversion is different depending on the type of method used.

The reason farmers use GMO grains is that they have been engineered for drought and pests and are Roundup ready..the reason farmers do it is because of greater yeilds. It makes fiscal scence (dollars). Its real simple more bushells to the acre more mouths are fed around the planet and more dollars to spend on the economy that keep people working in the thousands of spin off jobs related to agriculture.

There are other reasons for seeding GMO crops other than just increase in yields.

Lloyd

For the most part a farmer chooses GMO for a variety reasons ultimately summing up to less $$ spent on cropping inputs leading to a greater profit.

It's yield + a mixture of equipment/labor/pesticide/herbicide use and a few things in between that makes up for the higher initial seed cost.

Whether the mixture-du-jour of a particular cropping system in a given era is more or less earth friendly is up for debate, but most farmers are looking at costs put in vs profits realized given current market conditions.

Crop rotation is a large consideration in seeding a GMO crop. Using a glyphosate tolerant crop can clean up a field for the next years seeding of a different crop. For example, seeding a canola crop to be followed by an oat crop cleans up the wild oats for the next year. A good crop rotation is extremely helpful for curtailing herbicide resistance and seeding GMO into the rotation works well for this type of cropping system. With the climate changing up here, some farmers are even introducing soybeans into their rotations giving them the added value of a nitrogen fixing crop into the cropping toolbox. It's not all about yield, big picture planning is important.

Lloyd

More farmers really should follow a better pattern of gly/GMO use crops, but too many (especially in the US) don't. It's one RoundUp resistant crop after another...not counting winter crops for those that even bother.

Some people really don't like RoundUp, but compared to many herbicides we've had since the invent of "chemical agriculture"...RoundUp is really great stuff with relatively low toxicity levels (not to mention rather cheap, especially since it's gone patent-free).

The insect side of the GMO-resistant issue is being well addressed with the planting of trap/attract crops keeping genetic diversity alive...keeping a population of insects around that aren't heavily resistant naturally. The herbicide part of the issue is lagging, though. It's a shame, really.

With the newer 2,4-D crops being pushed to market it's thought that a lot more farmers will "rotate" 2,4-D/gly plantings...at least helping delay of RoundUp becoming economically useless in cropping systems.

nc-cm: Thanks for the detailed post above about the P6 virus thing. As a scientist knowledgeable enough to understand what the concern would be, I can only hope that those developing these GMO's are making sure, and that the regulators are keeping watch so we don' t create monsters. I also get that we are 98% chimpanzee, and that doesn't make me think I'm going to turn into one. :-D