Don't understand the importance of "non GMO"

[torilovessmiles]

The amounts of pesticides that remain on traditional (non-organic) foods is actually quite minuscule - not enough to reach the egg. These small amounts of chemicals have shown to have no ill effects on humans when the produce is eaten directly, much less after going through a chicken.

Now GMOs, the object of controversy. While pesticide resistant crops could harm the environment, GMOs themselves have no ill effects either. Basically, they are modifying the genetic code that would otherwise either take generations of selective breeding, or simply would not be able to happen. Heritage goose was right about the nutritional content sometimes being changed - but not about adding more gluten. They modify the genetic code to add vitamins and other essential parts of our diet to crops that would not have otherwise had them. Even if gluten was increased, keep in mind that gluten is not bad for you unless you have celiac disease. You can't really do an accurate test on "GMO corn" without testing only a specific organism that has been genetically modified. One modification. There are too many factors, and in a scientific experiment, only one variable can be observed at a time. If that is not respected, the experiment is void. I have yet to read a scholarly article stating that GMOs cause cancer or any other health problems. The environment, yes, but not health problems.

In addition to what HeritageGoose said about Monsanto suing other farmers for using their plants, that's how a patent works. They discovered that a specific gene modification causes a plant to have a certain trait. You can't use that discovery without Monsanto's permission. If I discovered how to modify wheat to have the same type of protein as beans, for example, and I had that patented, Monsanto would not be able to use my creation and I could sue them if they did. Monsanto does not "own" GMOs, they own the ones they have created.

Some environmentalist groups have good points, but they get their point across by causing fear in lies and exaggerations. GMO's themselves are not going to hurt you or your chickens, but some may hurt the environment. If you don't see any point in paying $10 extra, don't do it!

 

[ccrow]

I'm also interested in this discussion. It annoys me, though, when people try to discredit any anti-GMO opinion by comparing selective breeding to gene-splicing techniques. I grant you that selective breeding is a form of genetic modification, but it is a passive form; it's never going to have results like, for example, those horrid little day-glo-colored zebra danios. I think the purpose of this thread is to talk about the active modification, such as adding in genes that would never be there even after thousands of generations of selective breeding... correct me if I'm wrong, Mutt Farm!

I personally object to being the unwilling and unknowing participant in a large-scale experiment. OK, let's say there's no overt evidence these things are harmful to humans; how many things used to be considered safe but are now considered harmful? I think these creations have not been around long enough to accept them as completely innocuous.

 

[torilovessmiles]

I'm also interested in this discussion. It annoys me, though, when people try to discredit any anti-GMO opinion by comparing selective breeding to gene-splicing techniques. I grant you that selective breeding is a form of genetic modification, but it is a passive form; it's never going to have results like, for example, those horrid little day-glo-colored zebra danios. I think the purpose of this thread is to talk about the active modification, such as adding in genes that would never be there even after thousands of generations of selective breeding... correct me if I'm wrong, Mutt Farm!

I personally object to being the unwilling and unknowing participant in a large-scale experiment. OK, let's say there's no overt evidence these things are harmful to humans; how many things used to be considered safe but are now considered harmful? I think these creations have not been around long enough to accept them as completely innocuous.

Respectable. But then again, we have selectively bred lethal genes into Japanese Bantams and crested ducks with selective breeding. If you eat one of those that has a genetic mutation, you're not going to get extremely short legs or a hole in your head

We have also bred lethal genes into munchkin cats and selectively bred bulldogs so much that their average lifespan is only 6 years. I wouldn't call selective breeding "passive." We've bred wolves down to chihuahuas. Selective breeding reaches much more drastic measures than what you think it could!
That being said, I can understand your point about not wanting to be a guinea pig. Personally, I don't see the risk. Eating something that is genetically modified doesn't translate directly to an ill effect. A gene has simply been changed, so there's really no reason to assume is will harm you to eat it. You don't retain its genetic code

 

[ccrow]

Respectable. But then again, we have selectively bred lethal genes into Japanese Bantams and crested ducks with selective breeding. If you eat one of those that has a genetic mutation, you're not going to get extremely short legs or a hole in your head

We have also bred lethal genes into munchkin cats and selectively bred bulldogs so much that their average lifespan is only 6 years. I wouldn't call selective breeding "passive." We've bred wolves down to chihuahuas. Selective breeding reaches much more drastic measures than what you think it could!
That being said, I can understand your point about not wanting to be a guinea pig. Personally, I don't see the risk. Eating something that is genetically modified doesn't translate directly to an ill effect. A gene has simply been changed, so there's really no reason to assume is will harm you to eat it. You don't retain its genetic code

To clarify, by 'passive' I mean methods that allow change to occur naturally, such as selective breeding. Of course that can result in bad traits as easily as in good ones. I'm not saying I think 'all genemod is bad'; it can be a useful shortcut, as in turning genes on or off... but I don't think we know enough about the potential ramifications to make blanket statements about more invasive-type mods like inserting genes from totally unrelated organisms. And even if such mods don't directly harm humans, they could still harm us indirectly; again, we just don't know.

 

[torilovessmiles]

To clarify, by 'passive' I mean methods that allow change to occur naturally, such as selective breeding. Of course that can result in bad traits as easily as in good ones. I'm not saying I think 'all genemod is bad'; it can be a useful shortcut, as in turning genes on or off... but I don't think we know enough about the potential ramifications to make blanket statements about more invasive-type mods like inserting genes from totally unrelated organisms. And even if such mods don't directly harm humans, they could still harm us indirectly; again, we just don't know.

True, we don't know, but I would like to clarify again, there is nothing natural at all about selective breeding. Most selectively bred organisms would simply die out in nature. The very strongest would evolve into something else. Selective breeding goes completely against natural selection, where the best traits suited to the environment survive, leading to the evolution of new species. Selective breeding chooses traits for a human purpose, not suited to nature. Laying breeds of chickens would die in the wild, because they require more calcium that the environment can provide and do not sit on their own eggs. Birds should only lay about 30 or so eggs per year, not 300+. Those numbers are on level with (or surpass) the yields of GMO crops modified to produce more fruit per plant. Selective breeding has proven to be extremely destructive to many species and, as of right now, GMOs are more controlled than selective breeding. You can selective breed whatever you want, but GMOs are still subject to regulation.
It is perfectly fair to compare the two, since both are man-made and unnatural ways of messing with an organism's genes.

Selective breeding has caused, in animals:
Cancer in many, many breeds
Osteoporosis
Hip dysplasia
Epilepsy
Predisposition to reproductive diseases (such as internal laying)
High infant death
Inability to give natural, vaginal birth
Inability to breed without Artificial Insemination
Many Neurological diseases, including Cerebellar Cortical Disintegration, which causes premature death of the cells in the cerebellum (often seen in "bully breeds" of dogs)
Shortened lifespan
Predisposition to early heart disease
Severe dental issues
Respiratory problems, often leading to death (particularly in snub-nosed breeds of cats and dogs)
High body fat percentage, leading to health problems (and very unhealthy for consumers among meat animals)

And that's just a handful. In no way is selective breeding natural. There are a lot more negative effects of selective breeding than positive. While GMOs may "just not feel right," there is proven negative effects on selective breeding, but not GMOs.

 

[Shellz]

Good discussion.

Here's a great article about patents. More choices are becoming available, so a farmer doesn't have to do business with Monsanto if he/she doesn't wish to.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/539746/as-patents-expire-farmers-plant-generic-gmos/

 

[GitaBooks]

True, we don't know, but I would like to clarify again, there is nothing natural at all about selective breeding. Most selectively bred organisms would simply die out in nature. The very strongest would evolve into something else. Selective breeding goes completely against natural selection, where the best traits suited to the environment survive, leading to the evolution of new species. Selective breeding chooses traits for a human purpose, not suited to nature. Laying breeds of chickens would die in the wild, because they require more calcium that the environment can provide and do not sit on their own eggs. Birds should only lay about 30 or so eggs per year, not 300+. Those numbers are on level with (or surpass) the yields of GMO crops modified to produce more fruit per plant. Selective breeding has proven to be extremely destructive to many species and, as of right now, GMOs are more controlled than selective breeding. You can selective breed whatever you want, but GMOs are still subject to regulation.
It is perfectly fair to compare the two, since both are man-made and unnatural ways of messing with an organism's genes.

Selective breeding has caused, in animals:
Cancer in many, many breeds
Osteoporosis
Hip dysplasia
Epilepsy
Predisposition to reproductive diseases (such as internal laying)
High infant death
Inability to give natural, vaginal birth
Inability to breed without Artificial Insemination
Many Neurological diseases, including Cerebellar Cortical Disintegration, which causes premature death of the cells in the cerebellum (often seen in "bully breeds" of dogs)
Shortened lifespan
Predisposition to early heart disease
Severe dental issues
Respiratory problems, often leading to death (particularly in snub-nosed breeds of cats and dogs)
High body fat percentage, leading to health problems (and very unhealthy for consumers among meat animals)

And that's just a handful. In no way is selective breeding natural. There are a lot more negative effects of selective breeding than positive. While GMOs may "just not feel right," there is proven negative effects on selective breeding, but not GMOs.

Yes, I study the affects of poor breeding, where people select for appearance above health. It is terribly sad that it is done so regularly and leads to such painful, short lives in animals. We would still have our dog with us if people had selected for health above a cute appearance or perfect show standards.

Not all selective breeding is bad, as long as people focus on an animal that can survive without the need of all kinds of medications or surgeries. I certainly promote breeding animals that can live naturally and have a long, natural life. Variety in domestic animals is so very cute, I love it, all the colors and shapes, but there is no excuse for breeding a dog or cat or any animal that can not behave naturally just because it is unique. People would never want to live with those mutations. Ever. It would be considered a terrible epidemic if we had dwarfisim as commonly as dogs do.

Sorry about the ranting.

My poor family hears about this all the time, so I thought I'd give them a break.

 

[Mutt Farm]

I think the purpose of this thread is to talk about the active modification, such as adding in genes that would never be there even after thousands of generations of selective breeding... correct me if I'm wrong, Mutt Farm!

My purpose was to gain insight into a subject that I was completely clueless and concerned about. I didn't know what non GMO meant! I am learning so much here and appreciate all of the points that are being made. It seems this thread is interesting to quite a few people and I really appreciate all of the posters for sharing their thoughts. If the topic gets a little broad that's ok too, it's fascinating.
I personally refuse to debate because I just don't know. The truth I found is that it's hard to find the truth. I'm still sitting on the fence for now. I'm grateful to learn from folks on this thread that aren't paid to lobby.

 

[torilovessmiles]

Yes, I study the affects of poor breeding, where people select for appearance above health. It is terribly sad that it is done so regularly and leads to such painful, short lives in animals. We would still have our dog with us if people had selected for health above a cute appearance or perfect show standards.

Not all selective breeding is bad, as long as people focus on an animal that can survive without the need of all kinds of medications or surgeries. I certainly promote breeding animals that can live naturally and have a long, natural life. Variety in domestic animals is so very cute, I love it, all the colors and shapes, but there is no excuse for breeding a dog or cat or any animal that can not behave naturally just because it is unique. People would never want to live with those mutations. Ever. It would be considered a terrible epidemic if we had dwarfisim as commonly as dogs do.

Sorry about the ranting.

My poor family hears about this all the time, so I thought I'd give them a break.

No, I completely agree, but I was using it as an example as to why selective breeding is comparable to genetic modifications, and selective breeding actually has more confirmed problems than GM when actually compared side-by-side. We have changed a lot more through selective breeding than we have through GMOs.

Some animals just shouldn't be bred, though. There is no way to select for health in some breeds, such as the English Bulldog, and conform to standard. French bulldogs are the same way, if they are able to breed on their own, they probably won't conform to standard. Kennel clubs need to change their standards, because it's ridiculous. But that's for another discussion

 

[oldhenlikesdogs]

We as a country have allowed GMO's to become a part of our food crops just by the process of demanding cheap food. People seem unwilling to pay money for good food. Stop demanding your McDonald's hamburger cost only a dollar, stop complaining when the cost of dairy goes up. I don't know if GMO'S are bad, I do know they have been bad for the family farms and local producers who can't compete with the Monsanto's, or the Tyson chickens, we are coming down to a few companies controlling our food production, that makes me more nervous. I personally seek out organic, non GMO'S, and locally produced products just because I wish to have some say on where I get my food from now and hopefully in the future.