Organic food versus GMOs. I think big farma is in on the organic food prices and put false narratives about the dangers of gmo foods.
They're also not even the same category. Organic vs. non was about what kinds of chemicals amwere allowed to be added. Herbicides, pesticides, that kind of thing. GMOs are about whether a certain technology was used to genetically engineer the plants (artificial selection vs. the techniques of molecular biology). But they get all mixed up together as a result of marketing and a public that does not receive information any other way.
There are dangers with GMOs but they're about farming sustainability and corporate power, particularly the use of IP law. The food itself, so far, is perfectly safe.
Also, organic food is not necessarily safer. You can still put fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on organic crops, you're just restricted to the use of certain kinds. You still need to wash organic produce to get rid of potential residue.
People don't know about the U.S. seed mafia and it shows
I wish the debate around gmos didn't focus on bs about poison so that we could talk about it's moral issues and the disgusting behavior that some gmo producers practiced
Aren't bananas and corn both genetically modified, at least in the analog sense? Both wouldn't exist without humans altering them.
By that logic a lot of vegetables are GMO.
If by "a lot" you mean "nearly all commonly grown crops in the last 200 years or more", then yes. There are very few crops we haven't altered in our quest to feed more people with less work, and even things such as heirloom produce are just varieties that breed true (and may have been around longer than the other varieties).
I have some concerns about GMOs, mostly because we aren't very good at it yet. When we start producing things with the behavior of cucumbers producing cucurbitacin (not a desirable trait, but highly targeted), or if we're adding benign genes that make something produce beta carotene, I'm all for it.
I wasn't sure how many crops are actually bred in a significant way, and I didn't feel like researching so I just wrote "a lot".
". . .. plant breeding, going back to ancient egypt"
But breeding and GMO are different tech entirely, even if they might have similar results.
Breeding plants probably started before egypt (they just the earliest with decipherable writing ) even just as an unintended biproduct of agriculture, just planting stuff together then weeding out the plants with less desirable yield, or selecting seed from the most productive plants for next year would do it. t may not hve been conscious or scientific, but it would have been effective over the generations.
Yeah, GMO is not the same as breeding. Its just that the comment I originally replied to claimed that, unless I didn't understand them correctly
My qualifier for the 200 years or more is because we have some crops that we've only grown extensively for a couple hundred years, and the almost is because I don't know the details for some new world crops such as quinoa and amaranth.
Yeah. Those were just two examples that came to mind. Tangelos or any "seedless" produce are some other ones.
I see GMOs as just another form of agricultural development to decrease issues/problems with production. (like splicing in a gene that makes them less appetizing to pests so you would use less pesticides or one that makes them more drought tolerant)
One of the largest drawbacks to GMOs though (aside from the capitalistic approach of introducing sterility) is due to allergies. This could however be easily mitigated by listing where each gene comes from so people who may be allergic to the gene of the donor would know if it should be avoided.
You guys are mixing too much concepts here. Non GMO doesnt necessarily mean organic. A lot of seedless varieties come from hybrids, not GMOs. IMHO though, GMOs and seed patents are the way of bringing capitalist concept of copyright into plants and food. It's not good not being able to have your own seeds and grow them.
I don't disagree on the symantics of the term. I'm just alluding to the fact that selective breeding/hybridizing foodstuffs can be similar to genetic modification from an outside perspective.
There are a lot of people that will completely discredit anything that that says It has been genetically modified. What they don't necessarily realize is that GMOs and selective breeding/hybridizing can both carry similar, if not the same risks/benefits. You can make your "all-natural" seeds (for instance) sterile. They can both carry similar risks for allergies. They can also both have the same benefits of of disease/pest/drought tolerance. (see the Great French Wine Blight)
It's also not good, not being able to feed your people without imports.
Organic food versus GMOs. I think big farma is in on the organic food prices and put false narratives about the dangers of gmo foods.
They're also not even the same category. Organic vs. non was about what kinds of chemicals amwere allowed to be added. Herbicides, pesticides, that kind of thing. GMOs are about whether a certain technology was used to genetically engineer the plants (artificial selection vs. the techniques of molecular biology). But they get all mixed up together as a result of marketing and a public that does not receive information any other way.
There are dangers with GMOs but they're about farming sustainability and corporate power, particularly the use of IP law. The food itself, so far, is perfectly safe.
Also, organic food is not necessarily safer. You can still put fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on organic crops, you're just restricted to the use of certain kinds. You still need to wash organic produce to get rid of potential residue.
People don't know about the U.S. seed mafia and it shows
I wish the debate around gmos didn't focus on bs about poison so that we could talk about it's moral issues and the disgusting behavior that some gmo producers practiced
Aren't bananas and corn both genetically modified, at least in the analog sense? Both wouldn't exist without humans altering them.
By that logic a lot of vegetables are GMO.
If by "a lot" you mean "nearly all commonly grown crops in the last 200 years or more", then yes. There are very few crops we haven't altered in our quest to feed more people with less work, and even things such as heirloom produce are just varieties that breed true (and may have been around longer than the other varieties).
I have some concerns about GMOs, mostly because we aren't very good at it yet. When we start producing things with the behavior of cucumbers producing cucurbitacin (not a desirable trait, but highly targeted), or if we're adding benign genes that make something produce beta carotene, I'm all for it.
I wasn't sure how many crops are actually bred in a significant way, and I didn't feel like researching so I just wrote "a lot".
Yeah, i think it is more like thousands of years. wiki origin of species (Darwin)
But breeding and GMO are different tech entirely, even if they might have similar results.
Breeding plants probably started before egypt (they just the earliest with decipherable writing ) even just as an unintended biproduct of agriculture, just planting stuff together then weeding out the plants with less desirable yield, or selecting seed from the most productive plants for next year would do it. t may not hve been conscious or scientific, but it would have been effective over the generations.
Yeah, GMO is not the same as breeding. Its just that the comment I originally replied to claimed that, unless I didn't understand them correctly
My qualifier for the 200 years or more is because we have some crops that we've only grown extensively for a couple hundred years, and the almost is because I don't know the details for some new world crops such as quinoa and amaranth.
Yeah. Those were just two examples that came to mind. Tangelos or any "seedless" produce are some other ones.
I see GMOs as just another form of agricultural development to decrease issues/problems with production. (like splicing in a gene that makes them less appetizing to pests so you would use less pesticides or one that makes them more drought tolerant)
One of the largest drawbacks to GMOs though (aside from the capitalistic approach of introducing sterility) is due to allergies. This could however be easily mitigated by listing where each gene comes from so people who may be allergic to the gene of the donor would know if it should be avoided.
You guys are mixing too much concepts here. Non GMO doesnt necessarily mean organic. A lot of seedless varieties come from hybrids, not GMOs. IMHO though, GMOs and seed patents are the way of bringing capitalist concept of copyright into plants and food. It's not good not being able to have your own seeds and grow them.
I don't disagree on the symantics of the term. I'm just alluding to the fact that selective breeding/hybridizing foodstuffs can be similar to genetic modification from an outside perspective.
There are a lot of people that will completely discredit anything that that says It has been genetically modified. What they don't necessarily realize is that GMOs and selective breeding/hybridizing can both carry similar, if not the same risks/benefits. You can make your "all-natural" seeds (for instance) sterile. They can both carry similar risks for allergies. They can also both have the same benefits of of disease/pest/drought tolerance. (see the Great French Wine Blight)
It's also not good, not being able to feed your people without imports.
Try some organic food.
What’s your point? It’s tastes the same.