Let's talk GMO's...

Exactly. I'm torn on the issue, too. Genetic modification has helped many crops with little collateral damage (just like breeding a good dog), but a few crops and/or companies have ruined the image of all GMO foods IMHO. I think it should be labeled. Nothing more and nothing less. That way I can avoid the toxic corn, but eat the GMO wheat that has more nutrients.

Oh, and Monsanto can go berkeley itself. I hate what that company has done.

JoeyM wrote:

Tom Suddard wrote: Thanks for catching that, Joey. But I'm sure we can just turn up the poison dial to kill the new bugs, too.

...and like you said, we'll be eating that crap HOPING that it isn't doing anything to us.

The important fact, how much of the yearly corn/soybean crop go towards actual human consumption ? I'll bet you its smaller than you think.

Meh just another way in which we are all screwed, no different from anything else.

GMO needs a more attractive name. Call it something like "USDA Improved." Capital-O Organic is part of the USDA's marketing board, and a lot of people assume that the certification means that the product is free of chemicals and that Farmer John picked it himself. Would anyone eat hot dogs if they were called "Finely ground chicken and pork shiny happy people packed in Babe's duodenum?"

Renaming only works if nobody knows what the thing being renamed was beforehand. Worked for "cochineal" and "castoreum," didn't work for "enhanced interrogation" or the company formerly known as Blackwater.

In reply to Mitchell: Im glad someone here still know how to laugh/make others laugh. +1

yamaha wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

Tom Suddard wrote: Thanks for catching that, Joey. But I'm sure we can just turn up the poison dial to kill the new bugs, too.

...and like you said, we'll be eating that crap HOPING that it isn't doing anything to us.

The important fact, how much of the yearly corn/soybean crop go towards actual human consumption ? I'll bet you its smaller than you think.

You're right, but that still hurts us just as much. If a cow eats poison corn, then we eat the cow, we're exposed to much more of that poison than if we'd just eaten the corn. It's the same process (biomagnification ) that makes tuna dangerous.

Mitchell wrote: Would anyone eat hot dogs if they were called "Finely ground chicken and pork shiny happy people packed in Babe's duodenum?"

I knew soylent green was people, but hot dogs?

Forum filter win!

I've got an idea... lets just reduce the worlds population to a naturally sustainable number...then we won't need mutant food...and the roads will emptier...and gas prices will go down due to less demand...I'm hungry

Sounds like a plan. You get into the hopper first.

nicksta43 wrote: I've got an idea... lets just reduce the worlds population to a naturally sustainable number...then we won't need mutant food...

no kids here...

Shotgun?

There's a nice GMO article at io9 right now:
http://io9.com/gmos-are-one-solution-to-an-ancient-puzzle-458716189

(Yes, it is a gawker media site. I'm sorry. )

Tom Suddard wrote: You're right, but that still hurts us just as much. If a cow eats poison corn, then we eat the cow, we're exposed to much more of that poison than if we'd just eaten the corn. It's the same process (biomagnification ) that makes tuna dangerous.

Not really true as a blanket statement.

First, the poison must be a bioaccumulative type. One that steadily builds in the body. If it is a poison that is excreted, such as warfan, than you will get a much lower dose than that the cow received.

Second, even with a bioaccumulative, you've got to eat the portion where the poison is accumulated. take a cow and mercury for example, the mercury will be built up in the bone marrow and the brain tissues. If you eat the muscle fibers, you will only be exposed to a trace level.

Good point, I stand corrected. Still worth mentioning, though.

Haha, 3 pages and nobody answered my question.

Typical.

I am not sure how I feel on GMOs. On one hand I figure it is just an extension of what humans have been doing for thousands of years (aka trying to create a better crop) but on the other hand you just have to wonder what if they don't do it right now.

I mean my dad works at a large pig company and what they do is keep records on every pig in the breeding program. The record includes the weight of the pig over time, the amount of food that the pig eats and then when they kill it they do something to figure out how lean the pig is and using using that data combined with genetic samples (usually part of the tail) they try to figure out which genes give wanted traits and then breed a better pig.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Haha, 3 pages and nobody answered my question. Typical.

One might assume by the remainder of the 1st post that you were interested in more than yes/no to that small question in a larger commentary.

You only asked one question - yes, I saw The Future of Food. Better?

First you had selective breeding, then things like grafting and hybridization. GMOs are another step. The good thing about GMO are they can be life-saving e.g. "golden" rice or used to reduce environmental damage.

The bad thing about GMOs is their proprietary nature and propagation of industrial farming. GMOs should have kill switch mechanisms to prevent unwanted spread of their genes. For example, fast growing fish that can only survive in special temperature, pH, nutrients, etc. to keep them from thriving in salt/fresh water. But with the proprietary nature, we know nothing. Current industrial farming techniques have already caused lack of diversity among crops. That Wheaties you had today is not the same as the one 60 years ago (genetically speaking).

We have to make them (Agribusinesses) earn our trust to put GMOs in the market. Don't be easy on them. They're a billion or trillion dollar business. They can afford the testing and regulations. We can't afford their failures.

Do it right, and it will be good for humans and the earth. Do it wrong, and we will cause so much damage.

phillyj wrote: We have to make them (Agribusinesses) earn our trust to put GMOs in the market. Don't be easy on them. They're a billion or trillion dollar business. They can afford the testing and regulations. We can't afford their failures. Do it right, and it will be good for humans and the earth. Do it wrong, and we will cause so much damage.

+1. It is possible to be cautious without being a luddite.

Tom Suddard wrote: It's the same process (biomagnification ) that makes tuna dangerous.

HEY! I am NOT dangerous.

I eat local whenever possible. Doing that enables me to shake someone's hand and look them in their eye and get more insight into their product than just the "O"rganic label alone.

My cows come from a rancher and are grass fed on his field.

My milk and butter from the same deal.

My cheese is in flux, we're working on a good solution.

Heirloom seeds in my garden, and farmers markets and a CSA for veggies.

You CAN avoid this stuff. It is a little more expensive and a LOT more work, but when you're feeding poison corn enhanced sugary-doo-dads to the kids, you start paying attention.

I applaud your effort. I work in a grocery store, so grocery shopping is about a million times easier for me than going to the farmer's market, since I work or have school during most of the daylight hours. The local cheese has all been excellent, though, and the prices are competitive, as long as I go to the working class market across town, instead of the more granola market down the street from my house.