I'm not going to try and convince people that they should eat organic or stay away from it. Although I personally find that a lot of people who don't eat organic, seem to have a need to convince those that do eat organic that they are wasting their money. It makes me think that they are trying to make themselves feel better about their own decisions. I'm not interested any more in responding to people trying to convince me otherwise. Choose what you want to do and be confident in your decision, or re-evaluate it.

I'm not bothered about GMO food. I am bothered about the abundant use of artificial chemicals and hormones not fit for human consumption. For me it is about probability. I want to reduce the probability of being at risk from dodgy farming practises employed to reduce cost and increase profit, such as feeding cow brains to cows.

Primarily though I want to reduce both the build up and variety of artificial chemicals in my body over the course of my lifetime, most of which are not tested for human consumption. The only concern I have with GMO food is in relation to increased use of pesticides. I believe that eating organic food where possible reduces this risk and the amount and variety of artificial chemicals that I consume.

This doesn't just relate to food, but to all kinds of chemicals. For example cleaning chemicals. The stuff you use to clean your floors were never tested for toxicity in the body, but the liquid dries off leaving a toxic dust behind that gets breathed in as it gets kicked up into the air. Adverts for washing up liquid often show a pile of sparkling bubbly dishes, but this leaves a distinguishable film and taste on your crockery and cutlery that you can taste the next time you eat from them. These can contain many carcinogenic chemicals that were never meant to be ingested, e.g. Dawn (Fairy Liquid in the UK). I've even spoken with Americans that wash their shop bought vegetables in Dawn. Make-up is another one. Where does all that lipstick go? It doesn't flake off so I am probably unconsciously consuming it when I lick my lips to stop them getting dry. And we know that chemicals can be absorbed through the skin.

@Mathilda,

I'm not convinced that organic farming practises are that better, don't they use all kinds of different pesticides and fungicides like copper which don't sound very desirable to have on my food either? Merely not using artifical stuff doesn't make it more fit for consumption. In principle, not using specifically designed substances will give you more unwanted side effects and can require higher doses.

(March 22, 2016 at 5:26 am)Mathilda Wrote: I'm not bothered about GMO food. I am bothered about the abundant use of artificial chemicals and hormones not fit for human consumption.

Folic acid though is tested, it works exactly the same as folate.

It's so cute that GMO vs Organic is a thing...

Don't like GMO? Don't eat bananas!
Can afford the ridiculous prices of organic? by all means, have it!

Food is food. You body breaks it down to nutrients with which it can work.
What it can't work with, it throws away.
Sure, some of those nutrients are a bit nasty to our innards... but we all know that every substance, if abused, becomes toxic... even the ubiquitous Dihydrogen Monoxide.
It's a matter of juggling the correct amount of stuff you put in.

Now, if I was going to build a company devoted to producing food, with the ability to modify the genes of that food, I'd be place a few items as priority:
- high yield - the more of the stuff gets produced, the more can be sold! $$$$!!
- Disease resistant - the less of it spoils during production, the more can be sold! $$$$!
- Similar flavor to previously known products - the less it taste like something people know, the less gets sold!
- Minimize toxicity for consumers - the less people die from eating this, the more people buy it! $$$$!

From what I understand, the Monsanto guys have done something extra... remove the ability for seeds to breed and propagate, thus keeping farmers dependent on buying new seeds from them, for each new year. That's a business decision that has no impact on the quality of the food that is grown from such seeds.

If GMO farming provides the same quality nutrients, requiring less pesticide, herbicide and other external chemicals, what is the problem?
The cost to the farmer... the farmer is now paying for those seeds... paying for something he'd get virtually for free, a few years ago. But he's not paying for the pesticides and herbicides (at least, not as much)...

Just following the money, I see traditional farmers complaining about Monsanto seeds.... and I see GMO producers with nice yielding crops that can be sold over and over and over again.

Also, knowing research as I do, I'd expect GMOs to steadily improve all of their qualities, while doing away with the nasty parts of traditional crops.


How about GMO animals?

(March 22, 2016 at 5:56 am)pocaracas Wrote: From what I understand, the Monsanto guys have done something extra... remove the ability for seeds to breed and propagate, thus keeping farmers dependent on buying new seeds from them, for each new year. That's a business decision that has no impact on the quality of the food that is grown from such seeds.

I was under the impression that that's not a principle that was introduced recently on purpose to make money, but has been a really old hat and a biological necessity ever since people decided to use hybrid seeds?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed

(March 22, 2016 at 6:20 am)Alex K Wrote:

(March 22, 2016 at 5:56 am)pocaracas Wrote: From what I understand, the Monsanto guys have done something extra... remove the ability for seeds to breed and propagate, thus keeping farmers dependent on buying new seeds from them, for each new year. That's a business decision that has no impact on the quality of the food that is grown from such seeds.

I was under the impression that that's not a principle that was introduced recently on purpose to make money, but has been a really old hat and a biological necessity ever since people decided to use hybrid seeds?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed

hmmm... interesting... didn't know that.

(March 22, 2016 at 5:49 am)Alex K Wrote: @Mathilda,

I'm not convinced that organic farming practises are that better, don't they use all kinds of different pesticides and fungicides like copper which don't sound very desirable to have on my food either?

Sure it's not perfect but at the very least it cuts down on the variety of different chemicals that I am ingesting which means that the likelihood of consuming something particularly nasty is reduced. I'd rather consume copper than organophosphates specifically designed to attack the nervous systems of insects.

Not that I want a copper pesticide either but at least the Soil association only permits its use in the event of a major threat to crops. This is better than a farmer spraying a pesticide liberally in the absence of any threat in order to ensure maximum profit.

I am sometimes tempted to buy non-organic if there is no organic version available, such as with Mangoes or avocados which are peeled. But I wouldn't buy non-organic blackberries for example which you can't peel.

I used to enjoy eating non-organic raspberries because I particularly love raspberries and made an exception for them. But stopped when I found that it was giving me a very slight sore throat. I do not get the same thing happen with organic raspberries.

As I said, it's all about probability and trying to minimise exposure.

(March 21, 2016 at 9:40 am)Nymphadora Wrote: I will be more than happy to admit that I'm wrong about them, until proven so, however, documentaries have been done on Montsano that show what they are doing. They don't hold patents in crops themselves, but they do hold patents on seeds that have been genetically modified and that's the rub. Crops like wheat have seeds that can get carried away in the wind, thus spreading to other farmland. Farms that don't have the exclusive rights to plant GMO seeds are being sued.

There's been a bit of mythmaking about monsanto in that regard, not that their legal dept isn't as shady as any other major multi-national.  Monsanto brings things to trial when it's determined that a significant portion of the crop is theirs. In the most famous case, over 95% of the field was roundup ready, this was not lost on the small farmer..he was using roundup on it- he knew exactly what he had. He claimed that this was wind blown contamination, and saved seed. That's so unlikely as to be impossible (but it makes for a good story).  When that happens, monsanto first offers to license, then to buy the crop at extreme discount, and finally to destroy the crop at their own cost.  Having refused all of these offers, a farmer will be sued...and they will lose.  

(March 22, 2016 at 6:20 am)Alex K Wrote: I was under the impression that that's not a principle that was introduced recently on purpose to make money, but has been a really old hat and a biological necessity ever since people decided to use hybrid seeds?

Yes and no.  F1 hybrids don't produce true to type.  That;s not something breeders engineered or bred in, just heredity.

(March 22, 2016 at 7:27 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(March 22, 2016 at 6:20 am)Alex K Wrote: I was under the impression that that's not a principle that was introduced recently on purpose to make money, but has been a really old hat and a biological necessity ever since people decided to use hybrid seeds?

Yes and no.  F1 hybrids don't produce true to type.  That;s not something breeders engineered or bred in,  just heredity.

What's the no?

(March 21, 2016 at 7:42 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 11:27 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: It is true that GMO technology is not the same as selective breeding techniques; it is a faster way to achieve the same, or similar, results.

No, it's a faster way to achieve the same goal. We don't know for certain what the results are. Look, inserting genes that have been previously selected by evolution to be scrapped and putting them back in is hardly a straightforward move. You're intentionally undoing what evolution was doing.

Ah, yes.  Misuse of language on my part; point acknowledged.

(March 22, 2016 at 5:56 am)pocaracas Wrote: It's so cute that GMO vs Organic is a thing...

They're certainly not mutually exclusive, unless you get anti-GM people who don't like GM because it's not natural.  GMO and so-called Organic products seem like natural allies to me.

Quote:From what I understand, the Monsanto guys have done something extra... remove the ability for seeds to breed and propagate, thus keeping farmers dependent on buying new seeds from them, for each new year. That's a business decision that has no impact on the quality of the food that is grown from such seeds.

It's a business decision for the farmers as much as it is for the seed company; buying seed every year rather than using saved seed means more consistency/uniformity in the product being farmed year-to-year, better disease resistance, and better yields.

It is also a myth that Monsanto sells so-called "terminator seeds."  It is true that they own the patent on that technology, and they may introduce it to a commercial market in the future, but due to public backlash about it they have not yet commercialized it.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/1999...6/gm.food2