I had a friend on FaceBook post this and here's my reply...from someone who works with GMO, btw...

---

It's a decent article... I don't agree with the point that GM is "safer" than conventional breeding based on precise gene placement vs "mucking" with trial/error, though. While gene transfer is more precise, it's the type of genes being inserted that causes issues more so than what the plants are genetically manipulating with it's own native gene stock. For the most part GMO is inserting genes a plant would never mutate on their own. That said, many of these genes aren't a cause for alarm. I do have some reservations about how this can be used, though. The new 2,4-D GMOs being worked on have me a little concerned because this is a GMO resistance made to keep a plant alive while applying a systemic herbicide...aka, one that stays in plant tissues. BT resistant GMO crops that do the same thing don't bother me as much because BT is something we humans don't have receptors for...it's mostly safe stuff even if you drink it. 2,4-D...while mostly safe as far as herbicides go...isn't something I'd want to ingest. I wouldn't have an issue with this in cotton, but as far as eating it via corn chips or feeding it to small animals that end up being our meat...I have some reservations about that.

I does not help AT ALL that many anti-GMO movement employ anti/pseudo-sciecne to fight this, though. A campaign going on right now links Agent Orange to 2,4-D...which is akin to fighting the war on fattening sodas by saying they also contain H2O. 2,4-D is part of Agent Orange formulation, but it's 1- not the most dangerous part of the mixture 2- is the most commonly used and studied herbicide world-wide 3- not guilty by association of being Agent Orange. Bad activism information does nothing to fight the issue. Many would be better off sticking to the point that it's systemic, not that it's an ingredient of Agent Orange. Fwiw, the "bad" part of Agent Orange's formulation has been banned in the US (and for the most part world-wide) for many decades.

Farmers choose GMO in such large amounts for corn/soy/cotton/grains because they yield higher with far less inputs/applications. It's an economic choice made by the farmer. Some would argue it's companies forcing farmers into seed supply issues or making other options unavailable, but this is very false.

One aspect of GMO that is of extreme interest to me is GMO aluminum toxicity resistance. Al is extremely toxic to plants (and humans). The reason we "lime" soils to raise pH in the South-East US is to make Al availability to plants much less than it is. The effect of the raised pH makes Al more plant unavailable. This is the single most important reason to raise pH. In some parts of the world, especially in tropical + sub-Saharan Africa (and parts of Australia, and other parts of the world) liming materials are either unavailable or cost prohibitive. Traditional breeding for Al toxicity can only go so far...GMO can not only speed this process of discovery up, it's more effective.

Also of importance is GMO drought tolerance. This is going to become a huge issue in the future, as you can imagine.

For all the talk about herbicide/pesticide GMO stack insertions into plants, no one seems to want to talk about the GMO insertions that allow a plant to be grown in more areas with less inputs. That's a shame.

On the subject of organic-only farming...this can best be done in areas where a farmer has access to the organic inputs. In some areas a farmer doesn't have access to enough organic inputs to grow intensive crops (most staple crops, grains, etc). Organic inputs are not known for their high-nutrient values aside from micronutrient content. N/P/K inputs from non-organics can run laps around what organics can supply and they can be shipped anywhere in the world with minimal cost. Putting a 100 lbs of "chemical" fertilizers in a field vs 1000s of pounds of organic (bulky, needs to be shipped/applied) along with crop rotation schemes with N-fixing cover crops doesn't work for all farmers. It would be nice to have every farmer able to do N-fixing cover crops, but many farmers (especially those without meat/pasture animals nearby) cannot afford to lay their fields non-productive for 1/3-1/2 of a year while growing a N-fixing cover crop.

By themselves the 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and glyphosate do not cause much harm, although there is some evidence that where they are used there appears to be some genetic alteration in the frogs, toads etc. that are exposed to them. However, when these are mixed together a symbiotice relationship occurs that renders them into poisons much more potent then the individual chemicals. Just recently, on PBS, was a 30 minute program about how some people in Argentina got spraying of numerous herbicides and pesticides reduced with strict limits on when because they could document increases in many disease after massive spray programs were instituted.
We do not know what these Genetically Engineered food products will do, even though they have been a large part of our food system since the 1990's.
This past week we drove through a lot of farm country on our way to and back from Columbus, Ohio and the vast majority of the fields I saw were barren, nothing growing on them to help stabilize the soil or add any organic matter to those fields. Nothing to help prevent soil erosion. I did see, often, water standing on these fields indicating that there is a drainage problem that could be helped by adding organic matter to the soil.

"Nobel Prize laureate, Dr Norman E. Borlaug, has defended the utilisation of Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs to boost food production in the world.

He dismissed the critics of GMOs as people who had not produced even a kg of food and yet were yelping about bio-safety and the dangers involved in the technology."

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"

Haha!

http://foodsafety.k-state.edu/en/news-details.php?a=3&c=29&sc=220&id=44863

O btw,
I know its a bit off topic-

I want to say I like the idea of people that grow organic at their own garden. My friend that composts his own leaves and kitchen waste laughs at me when I say I have to buy some fertilizer. I do agree this is a great organic forum that I did learn a good amount from. Thanks.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Sat, Jan 5, 13 at 12:38

You didn't speak, you pasted someone else's words.

I listed the source though. It was worded very well.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Sat, Jan 5, 13 at 12:49

Labeling gets on the ballot in WA state...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/05/us-usa-food-washington-idUSBRE90402G20130105?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

CA got shafted by those that assumed the "liberal" (sort of a myth outside the coastal and larger cities) CA would pass this one no-doubt.

Many people seem to forget that Central and Eastern CA plant a lot of GMO (as well as being a hotbed for GMO research). For as much hell Stanford gets for some of their research...almost-to-totally unwarranted, imo...people seem to forget the real CA GMO research school UC-Davis exists.

There was a bit of fear-mongering by GMO concerns (especially food companies) that worked in more liberal areas that tipped the vote in the non-labeling favor, but there was almost no way much of Central and Eastern CA was going to vote against their financial interests.

Labeling will do a few things... It will have consumers who wouldn't ordinarily think about GMO, think about it. It will also force packaging changes in a large market...which makes little sense to produce different packaging for different distribution areas, therefore many other states outside of the areas would get the same packaging/notice. I don't know if WA is a big enough state to force mass-packaging notices across many states like a state like CA would, though.

Labeling is probably the best tool the public has to get more non-GMO products on the shelf...via consumer demand by making alternative choices.

Still, GMO will probably be around for a very long time in it's biggest use...animal feed. People seem to not care very much about GMO use in animal feed as much as they do about corn chips and other direct-human-consumed foods.

I was addressing the subject of this thread, "you" being lazygardens.

Um . . . I think lazygardens IS Mark Lynas.
Maybe he will clarify.

I am very relieved to see this thread.
There are some good GMO out there.
The real problem is that most were created to increase the use of organophosphates.
Organophosphates are the real problem.
Make organophosphates illegal and most GMO would disappear overnight.
Cut off the head of the snake, not the tail.
Labeling is a good idea, but we may also have to create GMO free zones with legal liability from a pooled fund.
These bio-tech companies cannot be trusted to test properly and not contaminate intentionally.

Here is a link that might be useful: Garden For Nutrition

I think mark lynas is british, and not living in Phoenix. I read six degrees. Let's all hope fervently that the worst-case scenarios turn out to be way, way off. If not the GMO issue will be entirely unimportant.

Posted by purpleinopp 8b AL (My Page) on Sat, Jan 5, 13 at 11:58

"You didn't speak, you pasted someone else's words."

I just thought it was on subject.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Sun, Jan 13, 13 at 2:10

A professors comment; The Garden Professors - WSU Extension

Farmers are only doing what they can to keep up with food needs...

The problem with the Green Revolution is that in regions suitable to be bread-baskets it has touched off races to the top for absolute harvest quantities and the bottom for the ability of local people to subsist, excepting the minority that gets rich from the export market. Northern India's wheat-producing regions are a classic example. There the people ruined by the changes commit suicide at high rates.

There have been several members advocating a more moderate or balanced approach to the whole GMO issue over the years. There are seldom absolute black or white issues and there will always be the "on the other hand" points.

Lloyd