I know where you're coming from Macky. I too noticed a lot of confusion on the part of otherwise thoughtful people when it comes to understanding hybrids vs. GMOs. It seems obvious to those of us who plant gardens and save seeds, but to those less versed in agricultural arts and science, it's not obvious at all. I attempted to address this confusion in one part of my book Garden Imperative. I have a whole chapter devoted to the GMO debate, the opening paragraphs of which are copied below. I hope this is useful: "As if the worries over chemical toxins and pathogenic microbes aren't enough, consumers are faced with a new concern about the safety of the food we eat. That concern is genetic modification, and it has been garnering a lot of headlines in recent years. The background explainer on the whole GM conversation as it relates to fruits and vegetables is this: Gardeners, farmers, and plant breeders have been subtly toying with the genetics of food crops for thousands of years, by selecting specimens with desirable traits and using those to produce seed for the next generation. Mutations are fairly common in nature, common enough at least that every once in a while a plant spontaneously updates its genetic blueprint with a trait that we humans find appealing. Ever since the Agricultural Revolution roughly 10,000 years ago, when human beings finally started to settle down in large numbers, leaving their nomadic traditions behind them and for the first time raising their own food, human selection of plants has resulted in a vast and deep food-crop gene pool with tremendous variety. For hundreds of generations, the process went something like this: A farmer or gardener, having saved seeds from year to year or perhaps having bought or bartered them, plants his fields in the spring. Occasionally, natural mutations occur, and this farmer may discover that something he planted did not grow quite as he expected. In fact, it may have grown better than he expected. Perhaps it was a certain squash that resisted the onslaught of mildew when all the other squashes failed. Perhaps it was a single tomato plant which produced better tasting fruits than the others. Maybe it was an onion that lasted in storage until March, when all the other onions had rotted by January. Whatever the case, this farmer decides to save seeds from this particular specimen and replant them the following year. Thus a new variety is born. These genetically unique strains of plants are commonly referred to these days as "heirlooms" or "open pollinated" varieties. The only Genetic Engineer here is God; the only forces at work are those of the natural world. Man's only role has been to recognize the gift and preserve it by saving seeds for the next generation. Mutations don't happen every day though, at least not obvious ones with market value. Growers couldn't depend on regular mutations to deliver them all the characteristics they desired in their fruits, vegetables, and herbs, so they had to get more creative. Hybridization is the process of crossing the genes of one parent with those of another in the hopes of getting the best attributes of both. This is typically done simply by playing match-maker to two different plant parents, transferring pollen grains from one flower to another and then letting nature take its course through the plant's own methods of sexual reproduction. Hybridization is sometimes confused with genetic modification, but they are two very different processes. There's nothing any more objectionable about hybridization in plants than there is in humans, which is to say it's not objectionable at all unless you object to your parents' genes crossing to hybridize you. Hybridization allowed growers to combine disease resistance with improved flavor, larger size with better shelf-life, consistent time to harvest with better performance in droughts, interesting colors with interesting shapes. Seeds from hybrid plants often don't produce plants with the same traits as their parents, but that inconvenience was overcome by simply making more hybrid seed. Human selection of plants with desirable mutations and the subsequent practice of hybridization have, over the millennia given us the vast array of selection we now have among fruits and vegetables. Yet human ingenuity in tinkering with nature didn't stop there, and the new frontier in plant breeding is now genetic modification. When scientists discovered that they could take a portion of the genetic code from one organism and transfer it into a completely different one, and that the host organism would subsequently take on some of the traits of the parent, new commercial applications including exciting new possibilities in agriculture began to take shape. Recombinant genetics quickly caught the attention of big business too. Companies recognized potentially enormous profits, not just in the abstract science of tinkering with genes, but in the applied science of creating new organisms that had commercial value. No longer was agriculture limited to the gene pool shared by any one particular species. With recombinant DNA technology, the gene pool got a whole lot larger. Genes could be spliced and diced into food crops to confer pest and disease resistance, extend shelf life, improve flavor and nutrition, and make crops immune to the effect of chemical herbicides. Science and industry together touted GM foods as the answer to world hunger, a miracle that would make crops easy to grow even in impoverished nations, while at the same time reducing dependence on toxic pesticides. While some began to question the safety of these new products, corporations charged forward, pouring huge amounts of money into their continued development." Here is a link that might be useful: Garden Imperative

Container gardening, if the hour is late and you are fit to be tied for what to do, might be the best, cheapest, and most certainly quickest answer. DH and I moved into this house three years ago, and there really is no place suitable for a garden, except right up next to the house on the south and west sides, where the prior owners HAD rock, then barkmulched on top of it to cover the rock. Now, it's an ugly combination of rocks and bark, and since we both work full time and have three teenagers, time constraints didn't even allow for the "dig up and make it a real garden" option; besides, there are a few nice low shrubs that we didn't want to tear out. So, I did a little research and found the Earth Box. Did a little more research, and didn't begin to want to deal with their customer service, so continued to research. Found Garden Patch Grow Boxes, spoke with reps at customer service and felt pretty good about the company. Bought thirteen of them, and then found an Earth Box at a garage sale--great, this way I could compare. For the record, there is no comparison: the elasticized cover on the Earth Box (through which a gardener is supposed to make "X" hatches and plant starts), coupled with the butt-ugly black pipe sticking out, made the Grow Box a KO winner, especially when calculated in the GB came with the first year's supply of fertilizer. I have since discovered that their plastic covers will break down during the second year, so will be replacing all covers with some 4-mil plastic that I picked up in the Walmart hardware department, and using my own fertilizer, ala EB's original instructions, to make a "hybrid" growing box. Heat? Dry? Not a problem--the GB has a 4 1/2 gallon reservoir, and even on very hot days, if I water in the a.m. and check back in the p.m., they're never dry (and must NEVER be allowed to go dry). Weeds are not a problem, either; the bonus (that I didn't realize would be a bonus) is that we have terrible bindweed in our yard (okay, so that's not the bonus--wait for it!), and I didn't end up planting my garden into the ground right where the bindweed seems to be the worst. I never thought I would swear by container gardening, but I have grown carrots (in the same box with the tomatoes--who needs a separate stinking box!?!), peppers, radishes, eggplant, tomatoes, herbs, lettuce, cucumbers, squash, watermelon, cantelope, and flowers in my boxes. HUGE BONUS for container gardening: when we get our first hard freeze, I can take those suckers in the garage, and we'll have fresh tomatoes from our own garden well into January. They may not be as flavorful as those sun-warmed and -ripened that we miss from last August, but they're better than those pink mushy things loosely marketed as "tomatoes" at the local grocer, and not just cuz they're free! Good luck with your garden, and let us know what you end up doing!!!

USA Today just came out with a slightly different twist in their handling the story. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/01/03/gmo-genetically-modified-organism-facts-cheerios/4302121/ Of particular interest: " FDA is considering two citizen petitions it has received asking the agency to require GMO labeling." And "Why are some people concerned about GMOs? Critics say there are potential health effects (see next question) and environmental concerns surrounding GMOs. One of the supposed benefits of GMOs is that they should result in less herbicide spraying, since some plants have been modified to be herbicide resistant. However, over-reliance on these crops has led to the emergence of "super weeds" that are also more resistant to herbicides, requiring increased spraying, according to a University of Washington study." H.Kuska comment: the U. of Washington study link was given. It is: http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/summary-of-major-findings-and-definitions-of-important-terms/ Of particular interest, to me, is the following: "Today’s major GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011 (527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE crops." And The biotechnology-seed-pesticide industry’s primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn." H.Kuska comment: I could actually cut and paste much of the article, but instead I will simply suggest that everyone read the complete article. However, I will put the conclusion here: "Much new research will be required to translate emerging data on higher exposures to glyphosate and Bt toxins into estimates of human, farm and companion animal, and environmental risks." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ H.Kuska further comment: I feel that the above conclusion is consistent with my personel conclusion that scientists who are opposed to their being GMOs in our food supply generally are opposed to using the general population as beta testers ( beta testers is my term - long term safety studies are still needed is a more common statement). The main concern, as I see it, is what will happen if we are exposed to a continual diet of GMOs for an extended period. Normally included in statements like this is that each type of GMO has to be certified individually. ----------------------------------- 2013 scientific review: Title: "Food health quality of genetically modified crops ��" review of risks and benefits" "However, genetically modified organism are relatively new, as they appeared commercially in the mid 90’s and are poorly addressed by current testing methods [51]. That is why, there is a need for further discussions on risks and benefits of GM crops not only in terms of health, but also in terms of the environmental and socio-economic effects. To obtain more valuable results, the presented factors must be also evaluated in terms of their relative importance under specific conditions. For example, in poor and malnourished societies, “improved nutrition” and “food availability” may be considered a more important aspect of health sustainability than “changes in level of natural toxins” in plants, whereas in rich societies, this relation is likely to be the opposite. A major limitation of this review is the availability of the existing studies, showing results that were often conflicting and rooted in speculations. Thus, further research is needed to obtain more consistent outcome." http://mil-pharm-med.pl/2013/2-6/3.pdf Here is a link that might be useful: USA Today version of story

Oh, and I should add for anyone not familiar with the issue, that the genetic modifications are not usually done to improve taste or nutrition, but rather to make the plants contain a natural pesticide (Bt) or make them resistant to herbicide. Besides possible allergy indications, planting large swaths of plants that contain Bt toxins (a natural and biodegradable pesticide) will only shorten the time span that this tool will be available to organic famers, as the mass use of herbicide and pesticides shortens the time that it takes pests to evolve resistance to it. Mass use of herbicide and pesticide goes against the principles of integrated pest management; IPM was created with the science of ecology behind it, not to fly in the face of it. But it's fussy and cuts into mass profits. Oh, and speaking of the fact that nature passes DNA around, there is nothing to stop WEEDS from picking up the resistance-to-herbicide gene, making the whole thing moot, but that's fine with Monsanto, they'll come up with some other product you have to buy to solve the problem they help create. They've got a great little scam going on there. This was my favorite quote from that article Barnmom linked to: Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to "natural" imposters. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and "natural" purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales. I've known this for a long time. Only go to WF and other such markets for specialty items. I try to buy my produce and staples from producers I can keep a closer eye on. I'll bet half the time the organic label gets put on a product by a bribe. Access to high quality food is not an automatic in this world. Never was, never will be. What's a consumer to do? Caveat emptor! Know your shopping cart contents! With the Internet and a little information literacy, it's not hard to find out about the products you buy. It's also not hard to find folks desperately trying to make a living doing it the right way. But they usually communicate with their customers on a more individual basis, not through mass markets. Oh, and there are a whole lot of reasons farmers don't certify their products as organic, there's a whole lot of bureaucratic baloney you have to go through and some believe the whole process was designed to squeeze out small producers.