"There you go, MG, you want to put your money where your mouth is? I have ten acres of sand down there. I'll take an acre, you can take an acre next to me, we will not pump any water or import any materials. You bring your GM crops and I'll bring what I know about, or can learn about, and we'll see who starves to death first."

Is there a fast food place' close by?

"Here is what I don't understand. Why come and post on an organic gardening forum when you have no interest in organic gardening?"
That's what almost makes this forum fair and unbiased. You need people from all different aspects to share some light at different angles.. At the same time, you have some people with no intention of actually having a level, circle table for a fair discussion.

I disagree. An organic gardening forum is essentially a club. I wouldn't join a book club and tell them how stupid reading books is. The purpose of the club is to read. The purpose of an organic gardening forum is to discuss organic gardening methods, not to argue with people who don't believe in it.

"Is there a fast food place' close by?"

Yeah, that's what the african peasants can do, after they go all in on some GM crop or other if it fails, go to a Mickey-D's that doesn't exist with cash they don't have...

Not every farmer in Africa is broke...or barely scraping by...or starving.

What they don't have, however, is easy access to loans or substantial cash to invest in their operations.

There are plenty of large-scale 1000s+ acre farming operations in Africa...they just don't have as much cash or equipment resources compared to more industrialized nations (even counting South Africa, which is rather industrialized).

The state of farming in Africa isn't a bunch of guys and girls with a hoe scraping dry dirt around over an acre in between 2 mile walks to the only water source in the village.

{{gwi:162326}}

Here's a corn farm in Kenya.

{{gwi:162329}}

Here's a corn farm in South Africa.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Dec 20, 13 at 17:05

Yessir, Africa is a big place. I believe it could fit north america, south america, europe, and india. So not too surprising there are some big farming operations, not to mention plantations where peonage is the rule, puppet-dictators and massive extraction industries.

What is also a fact is that huge numbers of people are impoverished, and many of these depend on what they or others like them can grow. MG's earlier statement strongly implied that GM crops would provide for such people in conditions that NO other crop can. That is quite a claim, and I again say that it's not true.

" MG's earlier statement strongly implied that GM crops would provide for such people in conditions that NO other crop can. That is quite a claim, and I again say that it's not true."

Well, it is very true.

"Genetically modified crops should be part of AfricaâÂÂs food future"

" The doubters about genetic modifications seem to have the upper hand in Tanzania at the moment, and that is disturbing."

"Surely, there is no harm in a vigorous debate about genetically modified food; if people donâÂÂt understand it, the benefits will never be realized. But it is a shame to abandon these crops based on irrational fears and suspicions. If Europeans choose to forego genetically modified food, they can do so without risking hunger. They ought not discourage its use for those village children in Tanzania who are hungry and at the mercy of drought"

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/genetically-modified-crops-should-be-part-of-africas-food-future/2013/10/22/e9b35488-37f5-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html

There are some good GMO, such as virus resistant cassava. But when animals are given a choice they always avoid BT corn. That makes me very suspicious. If given a choice, I would also avoid a GMO if other animals reject it. They have a finer sense of taste and smell than I do. Even if they did not reject it, I would want to know more about how the GMO process was executed. The IRRI is trying to generate C4 rice by inserting genes from other C4 plants. If that added a gluten like molecule, I would not eat it. If it did not, I might eat it.

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

"But when animals are given a choice they always avoid BT corn."

Really? That is odd. Anyway you can show some info where you heard that? Animals do have a better sense than we do I would agree.

"But when animals are given a choice they always avoid BT corn."

This has been popular via images of corn cob "tests" on Facebook and other internet sites, but for the most part it's highly unlikely what's causing the hits vs. misses has anything to do with BT in the corn since birds and animals don't even have receptors for the BT bacteria strains. There is no evolutionary or self-protection reason to avoid or prefer them. BT is extremely selective in the organisms it affects. Even in types of organisms it affects (such as certain grubs/worms/caterpillars/etc) it takes a specific strain of BT to effect specific types of grub/worms/caterpillars/etc...it's not a one-strain-kills-all approach to insect control.

Many varieties of field corn bred by GMO developers are bred to be naturally tight husked as a means of non-chemical bug protection as well as holding kernels tightly to the cobs. This is not a characteristic of many heirloom corns of which it's easier to separate kernels from cobs, making for easier eating in a dried state.

Either way, there's been no scientific studies on this...just anecdotal tests involving setting 2 types of dried corn on the cob out in the wild done most famously by some heirloom seed sellers.

Aside from the fact these "studies" are just 2 different corn cobs set up only once in the wild...there was no consideration given to how easy the access to one food source is vs the other because of breeding characteristics. This kind of thing matters a lot when the thing feasting off that source is a bird or small rodent-like creature who's whole body is the size of a corn cob to begin with.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sat, Dec 21, 13 at 5:19

"" MG's earlier statement strongly implied that GM crops would provide for such people in conditions that NO other crop can. That is quite a claim, and I again say that it's not true."
Well, it is very true."

No, it isn't. The claim is illogical, since it seeks to prove a negative. None of us know what landraces thrive in this hypothetical region, and yet without knowing what they are or what the circumstances are you say some other crop is better.

You are making an entirely unscientific assertion.

Read magazines like Acres USA or the Grassland Farmer. They both report a widespread experience that ranchers report animals avoiding BT corn. I am not talking about grain or cob. I am talking about corn leaf and stalk forage.

I admit it is not scientific. But some of these companies are so powerful and ruthless that they squash most scientific research. Which makes me even more suspicious. If they have nothing to hide, why the heavy hand?

Anyway, I not do think that GMO are as big a threat as the ever increasing use of organophosphates that it promotes. That is what I think people should really be the most concerned about.

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

pnbrown,

Did you miss-

"They ought not discourage its use for those village children in Tanzania who are hungry and at the mercy of drought"

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Sat, Dec 21, 13 at 11:48

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"

Abraham Lincoln

Lets hear a quote from the greatest man that ever lived-the man that saved a billion peoples lives-Norman Borlaug.

"Reason asked Norman Borlaug about the claim that organic farming is better for the environment and human health and well-being. His answer:

That's ridiculous. This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.

At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.

If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society. But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive..."

One straw man argument after another.

The current system raises commodity crops for CAFO's. This is what most GM crops are made for. Sustainable systems that are managed by the eaters themselves raise mixed crops for humans and animals at low density.

We very much could feed the present human population without chemical fertilizer - but not via a high-meat diet.

But I tire of debating this with you again and again. This correspondence is now closed.

"We very much could feed the present human population without chemical fertilizer - but not via a high-meat diet."

100% wrong. We need to have more cattle just to fit the organic crops nutritional needs, if you would read back...

I read this on the internet, so it must be true:

"Aside from Kissinger, probably the biggest killer of all to have got the peace prize was Norman Borlaug, whose "green revolution" wheat strains led to the death of peasants by the million"
-- Alexander Cockburn

Cockburn made the following statement on Norman Borlaug's 1971 Nobel Prize: "Line up some of the more notorious Nobel Peace Prize recipients, such as Kissinger, and if you had to identify the biggest killer of all it was probably Norman Borlaug, one of the architects of the Green Revolution, which unleashed displacement, malnutrition, and death across the Third World."

I have no problem, as yet, with eating GMO crops.

That is not to say they will never splice in a gene I feel uncomfortable with.

I don't want the triple dose of strychnine obtained from the Transvaal agony bush just because it kills off the leaf-mining stinkbug cheaper than spraying the cucumbers with malathion.

Besides big evil Monsanto, what are your reasons for avoiding GMOs?

Someone posted above that animals avoid BT corn. Not sure if this is true, but animals avoid hot peppers as well.

elisa,

I would happily discuss that over in HT.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Wed, Jan 1, 14 at 23:35

No. No. No GMO!

TMG1 -- Excellent! I think you'll really like it over there, as folks definitely do enjoy a lively matching of opinions on HT. I don't go over there much, but the next time I have some time I'll have a visit and look for your posts.

Edited to add this -- I just went over and read the whole thread. A HOPPING discussion for sure. Looks like you almost got hijacked by DDT, but then they got back to the question at hand. Plus, I thought it was really funny when you said to someone "They were only joking when they told you you could only use two words" LOL. I hope you enjoy it!

Cheers,
Elisa

This post was edited by elisa_Z5 on Thu, Jan 2, 14 at 11:53

"Plus, I thought it was really funny when you said to someone "They were only joking when they told you you could only use two words" LOL. I hope you enjoy it!

Cheers,
Elisa"

Elisa,

I like that you enjoy my comedy! Thanks!:)

absolutely NOT!! Although I realize I can't avoid a little bit as long as i have to buy grocery store food. I'm completely against any man made genetic manipulation on my food.
Oh and I just signed on here, I've been in the gardening scene since before I can remember, more or less organic, I remember as far back as the late 60's when my mother was going at it.

No.

Just no.

It's always amazed those of us in the industry how many people who are militantly against GMOs for claimed health concerns will eat a conventionally farmed apple.

Thiabendazole...acetamiprid (one of the safest neonicotinoids around, but that isn't stopping most people from distinguishing it from all other neonics in the across-the-board furor over them)...diphenylamine (water won't wash this off, but it's mostly harmless)...you've got a near 100% chance of ingesting 1 or all 3 of those in every conventional apple you eat...and that is just the very tip of the "chemical iceberg" as far as apples are concerned. Azinphos-methyl was only recently phased out (though a few exceptions are around...very few) and hardly anyone cared about this being on 1/3rd+ of the apples in the US. This alarmed the hell out of many of us in the industry when it came to our own personal consumption because everyone outside of Bayer and Makhteshim has wanted this banned for almost 2 decades.

More than a few people I've worked with won't touch an unpeeled conventional apple/peach/cherry/etc unless they know what farm it came from (and how clean/diligent their post-harvest activities are). These are the same people who have little to no issue with ingesting GMO corn/soy/etc...especially once it's been highly processed. Keep in mind the people I've worked with also make some of these chemicals sprayed on fruit trees...not just GMO stuff.

The furor over highly processed stuff is just as confusing...such as corn syrup...which is nearly bare to even trace amounts of any herbicide/pesticide/fungicide/GMO-proteins thanks to the very nature of how it's processed. Not liking corn syrup is one thing, but trying to make an issue out of GMO vs non-GMO corn syrup is missing the point of what you're ending up with by processing it.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sat, Jan 4, 14 at 6:27

NC, nobody I know would eat a conventionally-produced apple.

Don't forget that the organic movement is many decades old now and began in precisely that, opposition to pesticides.

It's just the anti-GMO movement is far separated, yet inclusive of, the organic movement.

I know far more anti-GMO people that don't eat organically...though those numbers are most likely skewed on this board given it's specialized nature.

The anti-GMO movement is quite particular, yet broad in it's scope of it's makeup of people.

nc, Is it true that sugars and starches basically do not manifest the GMO dna?

DNA, none to rarely...residues of RoundUp, yes, but very little.

You're going to take your heaviest hit on stuff like canola oil, and even then it's not a whole lot given most people aren't ingesting it raw/uncooked and heating it up destroys residues.

I'm a bit iffy on RU-R sweet corn myself. You're generally only looking at 10ppm (or less) in glyphosate residue which is pretty much nothing to worry about, but it's something one eats totally unprocessed and mostly raw with a low cook time long enough to warm up the kernels. Just applying glyphosate on a garden you're likely to come in contact with more than what's in a few ears of corn and it's considered safe, but introducing it into food any herbicide we're known to eat almost totally raw is concerning to me on levels other than health concerns.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sat, Jan 4, 14 at 19:28

I do think that the protests against gmo maize is more complex than ingesting trace DNA from transgenic sources. Oil and sugar may be "clean" and perhaps only a trace of RU is present, but the plant materials are not and they and the RU cover millions of acres during cropping season. Protesters are pushing for boycotting processed gmo plants,

(BTW, I am sort of persona non grata in Ban GMO circles because I throw in a bit of science and common sense from time to time.)

I rarely eat a conventionally grown apple from supermarkets and have stopped eating most organic apples from supermarkets, the latter lack flavor, texture, and moisture. I grow 12 apple varieties and an experimenting with another 30 as grafts on other tree. After eating from my trees from mid June to November...

"You're going to take your heaviest hit on stuff like canola oil, and even then it's not a whole lot given most people aren't ingesting it raw/uncooked and heating it up destroys residues."

What do you mean by "heaviest hit on stuff like canola oil"? Highest pesticide content? If so, can you explain? Also, I always thought that heating things like canola oil create carcinogens, free radicals, etc.. You are saying the contrary, that heating actually "destroy" residue. What do you mean by destroy, eliminate? Can you explain?

Thanks

"What do you mean by "heaviest hit on stuff like canola oil"?"

Canola oil is pretty much processed raw and untouched. There's not much actual processing done. Heating the oil destroys a lot of residual glyphosate, but straight out of the press/bottle/etc canola oil has one of the highest residual glysphosate and GMO protein content of any of the consumer-end-product GMOs products out there. It's still not a lot, though...and when used like most people use it (for cooking), it's pretty much a null end game.

". . . introducing it into food any herbicide we're known to eat almost totally raw is concerning to me on levels other than health concerns."

nc-cm -- this is an interesting statement. Can you explain what you mean by "levels other than health concerns"? Thanks.

Personally, I don't like the introduction of GMO herbicides or human-receptor/sensitive insecticides contained within edibles we tend to eat/use raw, mostly raw, or unprocessed even if it's mostly harmless (like glyphosate is considered) and little of it works it's way to the harvested part.

Some people I know and have worked with don't care about it, though. They mostly cite how legitimately more toxic other conventional herbicide residues that we commonly ingest are compared to residual glyphosate.

We already have non-GMO systemic insecticides in our food system (such as Imidacloprid) that are proven to move in extremely small amounts into flowering/fruiting tissues. Imidacloprid works well on insect control on all kinds of plants, but doesn't work well at protecting flowers/fruits because of it's mode of interaction. That said, I'm not a fan of it's use in food, either.

Imidacloprid is another one of those chemicals you can add to my "apple rant" above. It's found in a good 1/4th to 1/3rd of conventional apples.

Imidacloprid residues are also found in a whole lot of conventional sugar cane...which is interesting since some people are running scared of GMO glyphosate residue sugar beets and rushing to replace it with Imidacloprid residue sugar cane. Go figure.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jan 5, 14 at 6:36

The following was stated: "Heating the oil destroys a lot of residual glyphosate." .......... "It's still not a lot, though...and when used like most people use it (for cooking), it's pretty much a null end game."

H.Kuska comment: what happens to the so called destroyed glyphosate in cooking oil? i.e. If one is using the oil to cook food, are you breathing glyphosate residue gases? Are the glyphosate residues being absorbed or reacting with the food being cooked? I tried both a Google and a Google Scholar search but could not find answers to this specific situation. Of course not finding something may only mean that I did not set up the searches correctly.

@ nc_crn: Could you take a minute to describe your understanding of the synergistic effects of ingesting so many kinds of residues from plant protection practices. Aside from those applied by producers, ag raw products are often found with rodenticides and other chemicals applied after the products have left the farm gates.

The combined effect of ingesting so many types would be nearly impossible to study and track it's effect in the body.

First, it's really hard to get more than a few ppm of any substance in your body in a day/week...second, we're talking about a dozen+ chemicals, easy...from produce to milk to eggs to meat.

The interaction between these trace amounts of chemicals on the human body would be hard to study on whole compared to just alone.

The people who apply the pesticides/herbicides/fungicides tend to be the people who get the most concentrations and show the "first signs" of issues or compounded issues from multiple chemical interaction.

Glyphosate breakdown via heat produces mostly aminomethylphosphonic acid, carbon monoxide/dioxide, amino acids, and water/vapor...similar to microbe breakdown, but a lot faster.

It is possible for unbroken glyphosate to be carried in vapor.

It is also possible for food to absorb some of it if you're cooking something you're not fully cooking to a high heat.

We're talking about a very small amount of glyphosate, though...and an even smaller amount carried whole in vapor.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jan 5, 14 at 19:11

Yes, my foreman and I have been treated for effects of organophosphate pesticides even though we haven't used any personally since the mid-1980's. He runs the crews for my landscape and maintenance business, so comes into contact elsewhere. Orthene and Mavrik are common treatments for psyllids and scales by other landscape companies. Our customers are rich and therefore insist on massive hedge screening their properties.

The following was stated: "Glyphosate breakdown via heat produces mostly aminomethylphosphonic acid, carbon monoxide/dioxide, amino acids, and water/vapor...similar to microbe breakdown, but a lot faster. ."

H.Kuska comment. I am aware of the microbe breakdown products, but I am not aware of any references that state that the thermal breakdown is similar. The melting point of glyphosate is nearly 230 degrees C. That would be nearly 446 degrees F.

This is the main thermal paper that I have been able to find so far. Unfortunately it does not identify the glyphosate decomposition products. Howver, it appears to me that very little glyphosate would actually decompose in normal hosehold use.
The first observed decomposition product is: "By
analyzing the infrared spectrum of the sample which is
processed by rising temperature to 260 C at the
heating rate of 6 C min-1, the most possible group
loss in this stage may be methylene. Moreover, the
mass loss in the first stage by TGA is in accordance
with the mass loss of a group of methylene in the
molecular of glyphosate."
Then.
"With the temperature increased, the second stage
appeared the exothermic peak after a smaller main
endothermic peak, and the lost mass had continued,
which indicated that this stage might occur burning
phase, thus exothermic phenomenon occurred. By
analyzing the infrared spectrum of the sample which
is processed by rising temperature to 360 C at the
heating rate of 6 Cmin-1, the most possible group
loss in this stage may be the group of carbonyl.
Moreover, the mass loss in the second stage by TGA
is in accordance with the mass loss of a carbonyl in
the molecular of glyphosate."

Now Canola Oil has a smoke point of around 238 degrees C, so I doubt that the glyphosate is breaking down very much in normal Canola Oil use.

http://www.culinary-yours.com/frying_oil.html

Of course, if you can document your answer, I am willing to look at the reference.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to thermal study

Pure glyphosate would have a high melting point (230C), but it is losing mass and stability well before that point.

180C/355F to 190C/375F (appx) you'd start to see losses...especially in a solution that isn't pure glyphosate.

Btw, it's worth mentioning that oil and glyphosate don't mix/bind and glyphosate tends to hang out on the surface of oils.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jan 5, 14 at 20:32

So with syngergists and adjuvants, RU takes on a life of its own in the environment. I gave up using RU in my landscaping business except to kill off weeds in paving and other "inert" sites. My revealing experience came with killing off Bermuda grass patches in a large cover of Potentilla and transplanting more Potentilla into those patches. My admittedly limited experiment left me with the impression that RU in soil had a half life approach a year. My control patches were those damaged by equipment, cleared as were the RU patches, soil amended with organic matter and a bit of gypsum. Within 4 months the non-RU patches (4) had recovered from the transplanting. A year later, I could still see the RU-treated spots (5), the new Potentilla plants were still struggling.

Glyphosate is rarely pure. It's generally sold combined in a salt form (isopropylamine, diammonium phosphate, or potassium, mostly).

The trademarked Monsanto version (RoundUp) is an isopropylamine salt formulation. There's a lot of generic glyphosate formulations using a potassium salt (and others). Some peanut farmers will use a sodium glyphosate formulation as an added benefit to help prevent black root rot depending on soil type and structure.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jan 5, 14 at 22:05

The following was stated: "Pure glyphosate would have a high melting point (230C), but it is losing mass and stability well before that point."

H. Kuska comment: The article clearly states that the first loss was impurities and at what temperatures the other decompositions occur and what comes off at those other temperatures. Are you able to document your original answer?

-------------
The following was stated: "Btw, it's worth mentioning that oil and glyphosate don't mix/bind and glyphosate tends to hang out on the surface of oils."

H.Kuska comment: then why doesn't the canola oil company(ies) simply separate them? I cannot say for sure (no documentation - do you have documentation for your statement for canola oil?) but I would guess that the answer is probably because the mixture actually is a type of solid in oil mixture, colloidal dispersion. See:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/lecturenotesl3/a/colloids.htm

Here is a link that might be useful: discussion of solid in oil mixtures

You highlight an issue that has long bothered me but I don't have the organic chem educ. sufficient to make good judgments. This issue has come up time and again during reviews by the Organic Materials Review Institute of products seeking acceptance for use on organic ground, water or crops or animals. OMRI reviewers have found time and again that the A.I. might be acceptable but one or more of the adjuvants, synergists or "inert" materials were disallowed. Many of these are common materials added to conventional crop or animal protection formulations.

There is very little colloidal dispersion in oil...or suspension...otherwise it would be much cheaper to produce for application to crops.

Yes, during the process of pressing/creating the oil there is dispersion and some may hang around in a minority amount in suspension, but once it's settled most all of it separates quite nicely to the top. Keep in mind we're talking about residues of PPM here...not a layer.

It's barely water soluble. It's why the extra step of making it into a salt form is done.

There is a surface skimming of oil in batches, but it's not going to get everything. We're talking about PPM here, and additional processing besides what's skimmed off the top is generally not done. Besides, the surface skimming is mostly to get rid of residual solids, not residual chemicals.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jan 5, 14 at 23:57

Thus the needs for adjuvants, synergists, pH moderators, etc. and perhaps the inert ingredients other than water. Concentrations of these are sometimes more than the A.I. in formulations.

I gather from this discussion that oils not produced under organic guidelines are much to be avoided.