If you had a choice to eat GMO foods, would you? Yes/No

Natures_Nature(5 OH)December 17, 2013

If you had a choice to eat GMO foods, would you eat then or not? Yes or No?

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

I guess not, since I only eat what I grow, or know where it's grown, or is labelled organic.

    Bookmark   December 17, 2013 at 10:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

You do have a choice.

It just requires a bit of research and searching these days compared the past.

Besides, coming at this treating all GMOs are the same is short-sighted.

A GMO papaya expressing a resistance to Papaya Ringspot Virus through a dead protein coat which no human is allergic to, much less has a toxic reaction to in even the most mild manner, isn't in the same realm as corn that is genetically manipulated to uptake gylphosate.

Neither of these are in the same realm as GMO production of enzymes/vitamins (such as rennet in cheese or beta-carotene), either. There is a whole lot of GMO rennet used in food production (80-90%+ of all world cheese production, especially hard cheeses)...and a lot of anti-GMO people I know seem to not care or know about it.

    Bookmark   December 17, 2013 at 10:08PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Natures_Nature(5 OH)

Thanks for the reply Nc. However, I would just like a yes or no answer, no other comment please. Simply "Yes",or "No". Thanks guys..

    Bookmark   December 17, 2013 at 10:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

Why?

Context is important. I don't have a Yes or No. I have a Yes and No...as well as a reason why.

To make it even more complex, I wouldn't avoid the GMO for the non-GMO if you gave me a cheaper price or more product. For some stuff I wouldn't even care to begin with.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Dec 17, 13 at 22:56

    Bookmark   December 17, 2013 at 10:47PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

NC, please don't try to explain why a complex reality is complex. Most people like to keep it simple :)

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 9:15AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elisa_z5

Sorry, it's just too complex for a yes or no answer for me -- and I appreciate the complexity and the explanations. If you answered No, are you going to stop eating all non organic cheese? Never ever go out to eat unless everything on the menu is certified? Never put Heinz ketchup or Hellmann's Mayo on your hamburger at a friend's cookout?

I'm still reeling from the Hellmann's Mayo debacle.

So, my doesn't-follow-directions answer is, I'm phasing them out where I can find them in my diet, but I don't think it's possible to avoid them altogether, without moving to Europe and without being so picky that the stress of it would drive me nuts.

So, no.
I mean yes.

:)
I think this can be a great discussion with all the explantions!

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 10:26AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

Did you know there are GMO protesters that are stopping people in parts of the world from getting food, and being able to grow their own food?

There are gmo crops that can be grown in parts of Africa that no other crops can thrive in. Yet protesters are stopping them. GMO protesters are taking food out of families mouths...

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Wed, Dec 18, 13 at 11:03

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 10:55AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana

I like eliza's answer.

I believe that when it comes to spiritual things that I want to be very careful what I intake. When it comes to natural things, I want to be aware, but give thanksgiving for my food and therefore receive God's blessing and protection.

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 11:09AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Natures_Nature(5 OH)

"If you answered No, are you going to stop eating all non organic cheese? Never ever go out to eat unless everything on the menu is certified? Never put Heinz ketchup or Hellmann's Mayo on your hamburger at a friend's cookout?"" don't think it's possible to avoid them altogether, without moving to Europe and without being so picky that the stress of it would drive me nuts."

Exactly my point. Do we really have that much of a choice to consume them? It's like a monopoly, nearly everything has GMO crops in it. So do we really have a choice? I say no we don't, especially if we don't know whats gmo and whats not.

Nc brought up a great point: "Besides, coming at this treating all GMOs are the same is short-sighted.

A GMO papaya expressing a resistance to Papaya Ringspot Virus through a dead protein coat which no human is allergic to, much less has a toxic reaction to in even the most mild manner, isn't in the same realm as corn that is genetically manipulated to uptake gylphosate.

Neither of these are in the same realm as GMO production of enzymes/vitamins (such as rennet in cheese or beta-carotene), either. There is a whole lot of GMO rennet used in food production (80-90%+ of all world cheese production, especially hard cheeses)...and a lot of anti-GMO people I know seem to not care or know about it."

So, it does depend on whether we think they are a potential hazard(uptaking glyphosate), or if they seem safe(papaya ring spot virus)..

The reason i did not want any commenting is because i did not want any biased information, also commenting tends to stray off the whole point of the posts.. I would like to keep this thread on topic, but it might already be to late.

I simply want to see if we, the people, actually want to eat this food, or not. Thats the whole point of this posts. Do you guys want to eat GMO food, or do you guys try and avoid it?

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 2:40PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

"Do you guys want to eat GMO food, or do you guys try and avoid it?"

Some people, in parts of the world wish they could eat anything, gmo crops can be grown where they live, but unfortunately people with unscientific evidence stop them from growing these crops.

I dont know, you tell me if GMO's are really bad or not?

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 2:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

"There are gmo crops that can be grown in parts of Africa that no other crops can thrive in."

I will bet you $100 right now that statement is untrue. You find such a place, we'll both go there for a year so that you can prove it.

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 3:13PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
albert_135(Sunset 2 or 3)

Quote me a current exact price and I will give you a yes/no answer.

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 3:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

There is a sustenance crop for almost every agriculture-capable area, GMO or not.

The biggest GMO advancements for Africa is going to be drought resistant and aluminum tolerant crops. Drought resistance is self-explanatory. Aluminum tolerance is important because of the huge lack of liming materials to bring pH into ideal ranges.

BT crops are already huge profit/yield makers there. Many farms there don't have the equipment to safely apply or even supply other pesticides. It also has a side effect of lowering mycotoxin fumonisin+aflatoxin instances...it's effect is quite significant in sub-Saharan grown BT corn.

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 3:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

Thank you nc-crn for that brilliant addition!

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 5:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

"There is a sustenance crop for almost every agriculture-capable area, GMO or not."

Did you miss that, MG? Actually, there are multiple sustenance crops for every region.

I will match your GM crop in any region with an appropriate land-race. BT corn can't compete in dry land culture in tough environments. As an extreme example, Blue Hopi will produce in an environment that no other cultivar can.

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 6:19PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

Optimum AQUAmax (Dupont/Pioneer) and Genuity DroughtGard (Monsanto) are awesome dry land corn (some varieties with BT technology in them), fwiw.

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 6:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
little_minnie(zone 4a)

I would put money on that being dribble too. What a joke. GMOs do not feed the world but feed agribusiness bank accounts.
I doubt any GMOs are being developed for the poorest places in the world where 'nothing else can grow'. That doesn't sound like a money maker. And what proof is there that a GMO would grow where an old heirloom bred there would not? Or are we talking about roundup resistant maize growing in the Sahara? Wow. Ok Monsanto, work on that one.

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 9:39PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
little_minnie(zone 4a)

Here is what I don't understand. Why come and post on an organic gardening forum when you have no interest in organic gardening?

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 9:42PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

Africa isn't the only place in the world with drought or aluminum issues.

We have a severe aquifer water supply issue in the Mid-West US away from river sources that's developing.

This technology is already being used in the US for dry land cropping. It's been a growing technology on the market for a little over 3 years now.

    Bookmark   December 18, 2013 at 9:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chezron

H-ll no I don't eat GMO

    Bookmark   December 19, 2013 at 12:24AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

Posted by little_minnie 4 (My Page) on Wed, Dec 18, 13 at 21:39
"I would put money on that being dribble too. What a joke. GMOs do not feed the world but feed agribusiness bank accounts.
I doubt any GMOs are being developed for the poorest places in the world where 'nothing else can grow'. That doesn't sound like a money maker. And what proof is there that a GMO would grow where an old heirloom bred there would not? Or are we talking about roundup resistant maize growing in the Sahara? Wow. Ok Monsanto, work on that one."

Think what you want to think, but facts are facts. The hard working men and women at monsanto are developing GMO's that can in fact be grown in parts of the world where no other crops can be grown, feeding thousands of people that don't have food....

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Thu, Dec 19, 13 at 0:48

    Bookmark   December 19, 2013 at 12:43AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kimmsr(4a/5b-MI)

No. If I had a choice, as those living where the European Union controls Ag product labeling have I would not purchase any product containing crops grown using artificial genetic modification.
If the European Union finds a problem with these GMO crops, enough to ban them, why does the USDA accept the premise by those developing them that inserting a gene that would not ever get into to a plant any other way as substantially the same as pollination.

    Bookmark   December 19, 2013 at 6:31AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

MG makes blanket statements about regions of the world he knows nothing about. None of us here in fact know anything about subsistence in Africa.

I think that is exemplified by implying that GM corn hybrids that make factory-farmers a profit in mild drought years in temperate-latitude NA will automatically be a solution for people trying to grow enough calories to keep their children alive in some of the most severe conditions in the world. In many such cases, it's probably a serious error to grow maize at all. It isn't a good subsistence crop for some situations. For example, if you tried to raise all your calories in the sands of peninsular florida, maize of any kind would not be useful.

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.

    Bookmark   December 19, 2013 at 8:34AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lazy_gardens

Not only yes, but HECK YES!

I've always wanted tentacles and a third eye.

    Bookmark   December 19, 2013 at 8:41AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elisa_z5

Natures Nature -- it was a great question, but so much for my idea of a "great discussion" without hijacking. I was actually rather amazed that my question about where they are in the food supply went so smoothly, but then there were no shills present then.

Anyway, back to your question. I think your point is correct -- many people want to avoid GMO's in their diet, but in this country we have no choice if we don't want to be painfully special-needs eaters. "Don't you have any ketchup with only organic corn syrup in it? Or at least evaporated cane juice? No? Okay, I'll skip the ketchup. but is the cooking oil you use from certified non-gmo soy? Um, I'll just have a glass of water--is it filtered?"

Sigh.

    Bookmark   December 19, 2013 at 9:30AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Natures_Nature(5 OH)

"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.

    Bookmark   December 19, 2013 at 10:11AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

"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?

    Bookmark   December 19, 2013 at 3:00PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
little_minnie(zone 4a)

"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.

    Bookmark   December 20, 2013 at 11:26AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
little_minnie(zone 4a)

GMOs are so unnecessary. The world can produce enough food and it does produce more than it needs. The problem is not production. People don't starve because there isn't any food available. Everyone knows this.

And IF Monsanto actually made GMOs that could grow anywhere, including desserts where nothing else can grow, who would pay for the seeds? the starving people?

    Bookmark   December 20, 2013 at 11:28AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

"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...

    Bookmark   December 20, 2013 at 4:04PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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.

Here's a corn farm in Kenya.

Here's a corn farm in South Africa.

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

    Bookmark   December 20, 2013 at 5:00PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

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.

    Bookmark   December 20, 2013 at 7:44PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

" 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

    Bookmark   December 20, 2013 at 8:56PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
GreeneGarden(5)

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

    Bookmark   December 20, 2013 at 10:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

"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.

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 1:32AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

"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

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 4:58AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

"" 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.

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 9:14AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
GreeneGarden(5)

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

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 10:03AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

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

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 10:52AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Lloyd

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

Abraham Lincoln

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 1:25PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

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..."

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 2:04PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

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.

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 2:22PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

"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...

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 2:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elisa_z5

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."

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 5:03PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gonebananas_gw

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.

    Bookmark   December 21, 2013 at 5:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
orangehero(6a)

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.

    Bookmark   December 31, 2013 at 8:25PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

elisa,

I would happily discuss that over in HT.

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

    Bookmark   January 1, 2014 at 11:25PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
greenleaf_organic(8, TX)

No. No. No GMO!

    Bookmark   January 2, 2014 at 9:44AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elisa_z5

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

    Bookmark   January 2, 2014 at 10:48AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
TheMasterGardener1(5B)

"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!:)

    Bookmark   January 2, 2014 at 2:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
reubenT

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.

    Bookmark   January 3, 2014 at 6:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Firephly

No.

Just no.

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 1:39AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 2:28AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

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.

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 7:20AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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.

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 8:18AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana

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

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 10:51AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 6:56PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

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...

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 7:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Natures_Nature(5 OH)

"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

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 8:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

"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.

    Bookmark   January 4, 2014 at 9:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elisa_z5

". . . 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.

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 4:59AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 6:20AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
henry_kuska

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.

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 10:54AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

@ 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.

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 12:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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.

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 6:29PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 6:42PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

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.

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 6:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
henry_kuska

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

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 8:07PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 8:20PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

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.

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 8:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 9:55PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
henry_kuska

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

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 11:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

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.

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 11:19PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nc_crn

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

    Bookmark   January 5, 2014 at 11:45PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

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.

    Bookmark   January 6, 2014 at 12:52AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

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

    Bookmark   January 6, 2014 at 8:36AM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Earth, A new wild
If you have not yet seen this series, there are 4 programs,...
kimmq
Organic way to get rid of Bermuda grass
Probably a hopeless cause, but is there any way to...
kathyp
Transplanting Strawberries
I have numerous strawberry plants that grew out of...
Gregory Wilhelm
Flowers and neonictinoids
I am in the Burbank California area. I have a small...
ltlredwagon
This article may be of interest to some here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/home/why-your-garden-needs-fertilizer--or-not/2015/02/10/153eb5b8-ad6e-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html kimmq...
kimmq
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™