Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Insightful article in TBT about GMO foods and labels. This is a thought provoking statement.
"GMO labels don't clarify what's in your food. They don't address the underlying ingredients-pesticides, toxins,proteins- that supposedly make GMOs harmful. They stigmatize food that's perfectly safe, and they deflect scrutiny from non-GMO products that have the same disparaging ingredients."

Spot on. You could have a GMO produced product that is safe, and a non GMO product that is loaded with pesticides. Even in "Organic" foods, which have over 200 chemicals, many of which were banned prior to Big Ag's "take-over" of "organic certification".

Solution? Buy locally sustainable products or "grow your own" if possible.

The article touched on how GMO hysteria as prevented "Golden Rice" a GMO rice which would supply beta carotene to millions of children who die from vitamin A deficiencies. Also, how a GMO papaya saved the Hawaiian papaya farmers, and how that food has been enjoyed for decades with no negative effects. Just study the science and look at the facts, and decide for yourselves.

Here in the states at least, I see so many bandwagoners who really have no idea what they're picketing or lobbying against. Just that Monsanto is "evil" and all GMO food is deadly. Just sad, how people are so easily influenced.

Try arguing against monocropping, and allowing 212 chemicals in Organic foods, while not allowing most AP produce. I believe the last has something to do with non composted manure. I'm not 100% on the last statement, as I have given up against trusting any big ag backed "Organic Certification".

Like everything else, it's not black and white. There are reasonable risks you take on a daily basis. If a GMO rice could save millions of kid's lives, are you really going to boycott it?

"Like everything else, it's not black and white." good points, thanks for sharing

"GMO labels don't clarify what's in your food. They don't address the underlying ingredients-pesticides, toxins,proteins- that supposedly make GMOs harmful. They stigmatize food that's perfectly safe, and they deflect scrutiny from non-GMO products that have the same disparaging ingredients."

No, they don't clarify exactly whats in the food, they just tell you if it contains GMO's... that would be the objective of a GMO label..

"They stigmatize foods that's perfectly safe." Well then you just have a marketing issue that should be easy to deal with...

"they deflect scrutiny from non-gmo products that have the same disparaging ingredients" No they don't, they just tell customers whether the goods contain GMO's...

You have a product which many people claim has some serious issues surrounding it, so it should be labeled as a GMO... If you can prove beyond doubt that your GMO is as good as what you say it is, then the GMO label will end up being a badge of honour people will seek out...

Personally I want to know what products contain GMO's, I don't want to eat them or support their use. Other feels differently, fine they can ignore any label or even seek it out if they love the idea of GMO's..

No hysteria here.....

i state this in every GMO discussion on any forum i read..... There is no need for GMOs at all.... ever.... in any way.

I see the appeal to them. The problem is that GMO covers a massive range of change that can be done.

If you could change a gene in something like pumpkin, so it's far more resistant to powdery mildew, then you'll increase harvest, and allow a longer growth period. Or a tomato that's more resistant to fruit fly, so growers in Queensland that spray and suffer through fruit fly out breaks could grow more/spray less. Or modifications that make the high yielding tomatoes that you buy in the shops, make them just as tasty as the nicest home grow tommy.

But on the same hand, they could add a pesticide to corn that'll kill off any bugs, and it'll build up inside our systems causing us harm, and killing off eco systems of benificial bugs. But both are classified under GMO. There should be an independant auditing system, one that can classify them into different branches, and risk levels.

I don't think it's as simple of an issue as GMO = Bad. There are too many humans on Earth, and this isn't going to improve, and our food sources are going to get stretched.

exactly colum, which is why GMO should NOT be made, its a band aid solution.

infact, its like getting a bandaid and rubbing it in some random animal shit, then putting in on the wound.... it may seem to stop the bleeding, but it will make things a lot worse later when people are stupid enough to think that the problem is solved.

We've been modifiying plants for as long as we've been gardening/farming on earth. Most of our widely used plants are genetically modified from their original state to what they are now.

The problem now is that we can do it quicker, with a wider range of changes - gene from an octopus can be put into a tomato.

GMO's aren't going to stop, and I don't think they should. But I do think they should be controlled/regulated by people that can't be bought out by the companies making the GMO product.

It has some great potential. Think of an apple tree that could store water like a cactus, grow in desert conditions and withstand droughts/dry areas, but still produce apples. It'd give a practical use to unusable land.

Or a cereal grain that can dry off on top, but the root system keeps on going and it'll pop up again when it gets water, so a half tuber/half normal roots.

It shouldn't be abandoned because of a stigma, but it shouldn't be allowed to be sold without proper research being done into what the side affects could be.

A GOOD GMO CROP...........no such thing..
are they safe, yep, sure, of course they are, and what manufacturer of GMO food would be silly enough to tell us otherwise..
corn crops that can't be killed. A strawberry that has a cell from a flounder, (a flounder is a fish) that assisted the strawberry to go red.. I HOPE YOUR NOT ALLERGIC TO FISH..IF SO.........DONT EAT THAT STRAWBERRY.

if they can get crops to grow in deserts that would be great, but to have corn fields that don't hold not even one beetle bug or insect for the entire size of the crop is telling us that some grown men really want to be god. and that's scary.

When we breed two different types of tomatoes together, it's genetic modification, clear and simple.

And yes, there is a thing as a good GMO crop. But there is also a thing as bad GMO, there needs to be a distinction. And the technology is only going to get cheaper/easier as time goes on. My Grandchildren might bring home their own genetic modification printer from school, and their project is to make a purple tomato from a roma.

An emotional GMO is evil response isn't a rational response, it needs a rational study, and a case by case basis for what's allowed to be sold on the open market.

After a few beers

I am not particularly for or against (as Column said genetic selection has been going on for basically ever). I do however object to hybrids that cannot reproduce ie from seed or require chemical additions to make them grow.
I would certainly prefer selection as an improvement to stock rather than splicing.

I do not like Monsanto; they are a corporation and as such have no moral values, their whole purpose is to make a profit for their shareholders (as is required by law). They have no interest in starving children unless they can make a profit (and I use that term loosely as positive advertising helps them sell more product).

Ok, im going to stop you there, im not going to sit and explain it all because i have done it with many other people on other forums who just dont get it, but selective breeding is NOT GMO or even close to it.

Your apple tree wouldnt be an apple tree anymore, where is it storing this water? in its woody branches? or are its branches now like cactus limbs? so is it a cactus now or an apple tree?

As i have also put to other people (none of which even attempted to answer).... If there is ever a problem found with GMO based genes later on.... how are those genes going to be recalled, how do you remove them from the environment?

If this can not be answered, then they should not be allowed outside of tightly controlled laboratory conditions.
People used to think DDT was great..... No problems with asbestos!! use it everywhere its great stuff says the governments of the world..... what ended up happening?

To me it isnt about if they are safe or not, it is about they are untested (no a 5 minute test in a lab by the company that made it isnt "tested") and like untested chemicals they are unleashed onto the world in the name of making a few people profits with no regard as to long term safety, no long term tests on humans to see if there are issues, no tests to see if they will change the genes of wild plants, no tests to see if an octopus eats your octopus tomato, will it get mad octopus disease??

The major problem is really the fact that the companies / unis that make these things dont care.... that is not priority number 1 or 2 or 3 or 20.


The solution is to lower the world population, not to make GMO.


I do understand that people think natural selection and GMO is the same, but the way i see it is that the difference is:

If i want a black child as a white person i can either have sex with a black person (NS) or i can get science to change the skin colour of my child i have with another white person (GMO) by tampering with genes.

Considering that science doesnt even know how half of the easily visable / knowable about how bodies and natural systems work.... i think to try to control it is stupid.....

Do you put your 2 yr old child in control of a bulldozer that is surrounded by people?

Don't get sucked in to this post,
we just had Gun Control now we are into GM, Monsanto, Organic certificates, and the welfare of children.

..
and that is all about WHY the US govt. is moving to ban the labeling of GM foods, thus preventing States from having laws requiring the labeling..

Me smell a monsanto rat, i mean monster rat :-)
..
.

Im sorry colum, but i have to question your knowledge of general gardening if you think this.

Is your child genetically modified? You and your wife did exactly what you are calling "genetically modified" to produce that child.... By that definition everything on the planet is genetically modified and it should be open slather on GMO anything....

Well by that case, everything on the planet is made of "chemicals" and all chemicals are made of the same stuff as us, so there should not be any unsafe chemicals in the world as we are all the same.

natural selection and breeding does not equal GMO!

Like Yavi said... There's a big difference between genetic selection in breeding better varieties and genetic modification. *edit covered already*

The whole debate about how we grow enough food to feed the starving billions is such a fallacy, we already produce enough food to feed about 10 billion people, yet only have a population of around 7, the problem is with the inequality of food distribution and wealth. We have the richest nations in the world facing epidemics of obesity and wasting vast amounts of food while others are starving. That's what we need to find solutions for, not how to genetically modify our existing food crops which is really only about corporate gains, we need to distribute it better...