Dependence on relatively few varieties is a valid concern.
However this problem predates the GM era and has had serious consequences for farmers who don’t grow GM crops (take the case of the coffee fungus that’s devastating Central America’s Arabica varieties).
And genetic modification is part of the solution to such pests - for instance, the Rainbow papaya.
Problems frequently cited for GM crops (overdependence on few varieties, overuse of single pesticides) have occurred with equal frequency for conventional crops, and it’s important to use good agricultural practices (including crop rotation and diversification) and not expect a terrific-sounding new variety to solve your problems.
Indeed - if it weren’t for the massive outcry about terminator seeds (based largely on almost ludicrous misinformation*), we wouldn’t have this stupid problem. Or, you know, if people weren’t dumb. Cross-contamination is an issue for all kinds of crops… It’s just that GM crops are the only one that people care about - for no good reason. :rolleyes: I mean, name an alleged GM problem, and the odds are good that it’s some combination of totally fake, a problem that GMs aim to fix, or problems in all farming.
*I’m reminded of a movie I saw a while back which implied that if the “terminator seed” crossbred with standard breeds, it could lead to massive crop failures. Which is hilarious, because GURT is sterile - it can’t crossbreed because its defining qualifier is “sterile”. It’s really so asinine I can barely wrap my head around it.
I agree completely that monoculture dependence has been an ongoing problem (which is why I said “continuing trend”). My concern about GM products is not about ingesting them, but how they factor into worrisome practices about large scale commercial agriculture, in general. I think GM foods have more potential to help than hurt, as long as we’re smart about protecting the food supply.
I actually include the Rainbow Papaya in my genetics class I teach as an example of fighting crop viruses using GM technology.
In Melb.Aus that is legal. It is a common belief among pharmacists here that you should get your drug advice from the pharmacist, not from the package insert. I don’t agree, but it is certainly the case that package inserts may contain confusing or even incorrect material.
Yes, Kosher/Halal labeling provides an alternative model. It’s not required, but some people look for it and some manufacturers provide it.
The difference is that your neighbor doesn’t have the legal precedent to sue you when his heirloom corn starts showing up (in greater and greater percentages with each generation of re-seeding) in your conventional corn.
Schmeiser was probably guilty of intentionally seeding with Monsanto Roundup Resistant canola. The 60% Monsanto content of his original 3-4 acre plot (that he seeded the 1000 acres from that resulted in the lawsuit) seems suspiciously high for accidental contamination, although it’s remotely possible some Johnny screw-Monsanto Canolaseed was spreading fistfuls around (reasoning that if it grew everywhere they couldn’t make him pay for it).
Schmeiser may have been acting on the assumption that plants that showed up on his land unasked were his to do with as he pleased (if Monsanto wanted absolute control of it they should have absolutely controlled it, making it sterile like GURT).
I support Monsanto’s right to control and sell their GMO seeds, as long as they also own any associated liabilities (if GMO insect resistant varieties were proven to be responsible for declining bee populations, for instance) but those liabilities include undermining the profits of a farmer selling to a strictly (and sometimes rabidly) non-GMO market. When the minority opinion in Monsanto v. Schmeiser pointed out that “The patent can only be for the founder plant and not necessarily its offspring.” I just can’t see the validity of ruling that “Monsanto’s binding representations remove any risk of suit against the appellants as users or sellers of trace amounts (less than one percent) of modified seed,” if greater than trace amounts are eventually inevitable, strictly unintentional, practically unavoidable and potentially ruinous to non-GMO growers (opinions of their consumers intellect aside).
I remember reading an article about an organic farm that was growing curcurbits ( can’t remember the specifics) in Australia. As I recall, there was an issue with insect infestation, in response to which, the curcurbits did what comes naturally: they upped their production of endogenous alkaloids, causing the people who consumed them to get violently ill, although I don’t remember if there were any fatalities. Does this ring a bell with anyone?
My point being that “Organic” is not necessarily benign, just as GMO is not automatically “toxic”
Shipping live chicken to China and then shipping it back here would add a bunch of cost and not save you much in the cost of labor. Think of the costs of shipping live chickens to China to be slaughtered and processed.
The rumor started because Smithfield Foods is being bought by a Chinese firm (Snopes). However, most of the traffic is from the U.S. to China:
The lesson here is not that it’s impossible for a GM variety to some day manifest an unexpected health problem - but GM crops do undergo considerable testing not required of conventionally bred crops, and there’s good reason to think they are as safe or safer than those conventional varieties.
[QUOTE=penumbrage]
Schmeiser was probably guilty of intentionally seeding with Monsanto Roundup Resistant canola. The 60% Monsanto content of his original 3-4 acre plot (that he seeded the 1000 acres from that resulted in the lawsuit) seems suspiciously high for accidental contamination
[/quote]
It was considerably higher than 60%. From the article I linked:
“The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser’s 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling[4]). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known “or ought to have known” that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998.”
That’s a lot different from the anti-GMOer scenario where a poor innocent farmer gets sued for having a tiny percentage of his crop turn out to represent a patented GMO variety through “contamination”. Nobody’s ever shown me such an example exists outside of fantasy.
If you don’t own the rights to a patented variety, it seems doubtful that you could sue someone else for growing it without paying you. Monsanto and other corporations did not invent the concept of a plant patent with the development of GMOs - it existed long before that.
What would happen if a farmer growing a conventionally bred (or GM) variety of sweet corn argued that a small fraction of his crop was “contaminated” by a neighboring organic farmer’s heirloom corn crop, and thus made less valuable because it wasn’t as sweet or tasty? He’d get nothing from me if I was on the jury hearing his lawsuit, because he should know that corn cross-pollinates naturally and he’d need to establish a buffer zone of however many yards distance, if he wanted a pure crop of his preferred variety. Organic farmers should be well aware of this too. If some of their customers are so rabid on the subject of GMOs that the chance of a tiny percentage of “contamination” from GMOs drives them up the wall because their Purity of Essence is violated - well, that’s too damn bad.
When a plan was put forth to control a mosquito population by introducing mutant males that had been rendered sterile, an outcry arose against it, because there were folks who believed that these sterile mutant males might breed and make other sterile mutant males. No, I’m not making that up.
Even if we grant (because it seems to be true) that the guy deliberately encouraged the roundup-ready canola, does it follow that he did anything wrong? Seed naturally ended up on his property, after which point it’s his to do with as he wills… even if what he wills is to deliberately breed that seed for his next crop. Even if (as seems likely) he knew that the seed originated from Monsanto’s genetically-engineered strains, that doesn’t make it his responsibility.
From the Canadian court judgement against Schmeiser:
“Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000.”
Looks like Schmiser went to an awful lot of trouble to grow a patented variety without paying for it, even more than another guy who bought up corn at grain elevators (knowing a lot of it would be GM) and planted that to save money too.
I’m pretty surprised by the hateful attitude in this thread toward people who don’t want to eat GMOs. There is a lot of strawmanning of their motives, and anyway, what business is it of yours?
GMOs are an ingredient. Put it on the label. It isn’t a conspiracy, some people just don’t want to eat it. Let them decide for themselves.
Ironically, Monsanto planned to make all of their GMO crops sterile to make this type of scenario impossible. However, there was such a hue and outcry that the poor farmer would forever be indebted to Monsanto to buy next year’s crop since they cannot keep some of their older crop for seed. Monsanto ditched the plan.
Now organic farmers are upset that their crop could become contaminated by GMO crops, and in many places have sued farmers who grow GMO crops to prevent cross contamination.
Don’t want to eat foods produced via genetic modification? Buy the increasingly wide variety of stuff labeled non-GMO. Eat more fruits and vegetables (almost all of which are non-GMO). Avoid processed foods. Make a bit of effort to learn about what you eat, and avoiding the Evil DNA is a cinch.
Just stop trying to use government to demonize safe and useful technology.
Largely pseudoscientific, neo-luddite sentiments are being used in an attempt to destroy a technological advancement which holds a ton of promise for the world (and of course, those in first-world nations like us won’t have to deal with much of the fallout). An uninformed first world problem causing serious harm to the poor and needy? What possible business of mine could that be? :rolleyes: This shit matters.
Piffle. What is hybridization if not genetic modification? Or selecting and raising natural mutants with traits you like? Are there any fruits or vegetables that have not had their genes shuffled over the millennia to better suit human palates or needs? I mean, other than Kirk Cameron’s bananas.
The best way to get the benefits of fresh, local food of known and trusted provenance, without needing your own farm, is to get to know a local farmer who will allow you to view their operations, and buy direct from the source if possible. There are some regulations that restrict ability to do that for some animal products, but for veggies it should be relatively easy. (Unless you live in Manitoba, and then the potato police will come for you, or rather for the farmer, for not going through a middleman or two.)
A CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) buy-in for the growing season is another good way to get these benefits, with the added benefit of bulk buying and delivery, and it’s a good way to support the farmer as well. Again, I’d go with one that had maximum transparency. I’d want to know about the kinds of products and methods used. I would prefer to support a farm that takes deliberate care to preserve the viability of the land in the long term, as well as avoiding GMOs and industrial chemicals as much as possible. Because such farms tend to be smaller and less able to exploit economies of scale (because such EOS often involve hidden costs that destroy the fertility of the land in the long term), they benefit more from the stability that a guaranteed income from a CSA buy-in can provide.