the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... )

I wish I had more time to spend discussing this issue, but I just don't right now. But I will offer a small piece of input.First, I understand your concern, especially considering your health situation. And I say, by all means, if you are experiencing health benefits (whether real or perceived) then continue on.Personally, my major concern with GMO foods is the relatively few companies who will soon have a virtual monopoly on our food supplies. The power and influence these companies have in Washington is tremendous to say the least. They are every bit as powerful and influential as Big Pharm. That simply makes me uncomfortable.However, to the issue of GMO's themselves, you must consider them on a case-by-case basis. To make a sweeping generalization that somehow any food crop that is genetically modified is inherently bad is not a fair or logical position. If you want to talk about how consuming corn that has been modified to express the BT toxin that is legit. But to say that is the same situation as Round-Up Ready crops or Golden Rice is not an accurate way to approach it.So for Round-Up Ready crops, is it the fact that they have been genetically modified that is the problem or is it the fact that they retain glyposhate in the plant tissue that is the problem. I would think the latter is the concern, not so much the former. So to make a sweeping generalization about GMOs is problematic. We need to consider the technology on an event by event basis.Another issue that give me pause is that the companies involved in genetic modification seem to think they are above the laws of nature and the reality of evolution. When Monsanto released Round-Up ready crops they stated that weeds would never (yes, they said never) be able to evolve resistance because they had 100's of their most brilliant scientists that spend over 10 years and 100 million dollars to develop these crops and the weeds would not be able to figure it out. How extremely foolish of them! We cannot allow these companies to approach this technology as if they are God and they can outsmart nature.As far as GMOs transferring DNA to gut bacteria and that somehow happens differently than it would happen with other organisms (bacteria are already known to have the ability to take up bits of free DNA), I would be curious as to what this mechanism is. How does a genetically modified organism enhance or facilitate horizontal transfer?HBD

I think you misunderstood my position on GMOs. I agree they are generally safe. As you pointed out, they are subject to much more scrutiny than conventionally mutated breeding lines. I am a grad student at MSU and although my lab doesn't work with transgenic plants, many others do throughout the building. They can only be grown in growth chambers (not in the greenhouses), they must be marked and destroyed when done, and I don't think they can even go in the compost bin even after being autoclaved. I didn't say they controlled scientific consensus. I said they could control Washington, just as Big Oil and Big Pharm do. My concern is not that the science will not be sound but the politics are what concern me. I didn't say Monsanto was evil - heck, I'll probably end up working for them after I graduate . I certainly don't begrudge a company making a profit. But the control that these big companies could end up having on the world's food supply is what gives me pause. Which is where legislation and regulation will come into play. Round-Up ready crops and no-till farming is one of the best improvements to farming since oxen were first hitched to a plow. Despite claims that pesticide use has gone up, the fact is that use has shifted from very toxic compounds to much, much safer ones - like glyphosate. I am less enthusiastic about 2-4D resistant crops, but it is now become necessary.The problem is that Round-Up Ready crops were thought of as a silver bullet - an end-all answer to agricultural profits. And a lot of that was based on Monsanto's conceited claims and push to increase their own bottom line. I hope we have learned our lesson by now. The management scheme of the future needs to shift towards integrated pest management (IPM) rather than rely so heavily on chemical control. I think the mechanism of resistance suggests that glyphosate is retained in the plant. When glyphosate binds the EPSP enzyme of a resistant variety, it does not deactivate it - the enzyme is able to continue operating in the chorsimate biosynthesis pathway - with the gluphosate molecule attached. As far as I know, glyphosate is not retained in a free state, and honestly I don't know if the EPSP enzyme is recycled after a period of time. But because of the resistance mechanism, it would be more appropriate to provide evidence that glyphosate is NOT retained. Yes, I know. Round-Up is the safest of the pesticides. That is part of why the shift away from herbicides like atrizine, pendimethalin, trifluralin, metolachlor, alachlor, oh, and 2-4D is such a good thing. Glyphosate is more than 100 times less toxic than any of the herbicides I listed. However, now we are losing the battle again and need to start bringing back some of the more toxic herbicides - like 2-4D. Source - (table 2)The main thing I wanted to get across to RAZD is that GMOs can't be painted with a broad brush. It is wrong to say GMOs are bad in general. They need to be evaluated on an event by event basis.HBD

I don't think it is necessarily unreasonable to be skeptical. But rather than taking the position that genetically modified food is bad as a whole, address the events themselves; each genetic modification is a unique event and needs to be considered on its own. I would be willing to bet that this "more flavor" is related to processing rather then the use of GMO products. So much of our food is highly processed. Food producers that make the effort to use non-GMO products probably take more care in processing. It was in the "Walking Dead of the Food Industry" poster you posted. There are a number of questionable (to say the least) claims on that poster, the bacteria in the gut just stuck out to me. The poster says "GMOs found to transfer genetically altered DNA into the DNA of bacteria living in the human stomach, reproducing indefinitely." And you said: A couple other really bad statements on that poster are: "Monsanto Protection Act prevents government restrictions on GMO food found to cause health risks." - not an honest assessment of what the provision stated, and "One corn GMO type threatened to wipe out Monarch butterfly larvae by contaminating milkweed." - discredited back in 2001.Anti-GMO propaganda has a lot in common with climate change deniers - bad science, exaggerated claims, and scare tactics.HBD

Funny that nicotine is approved for use in organic gardening.

quote:

---

Nicotine is extracted from tobacco or related Nicotiana species and is one of the oldest botanical insecticides in use today. It's also one of the most toxic to warm-blooded animals and it's readily absorbed through the skin. (Wear gloves when applying it, follow label directions and keep pets away from application areas.) It breaks down quickly, however, so it is legally acceptable to use on organically grown crops.

---

SourceHBD

No problem, I was trying to be brief in my post and that can lead to not expressing oneself adequately. This is a great point. It is unfortunate that the increased scrutiny hasn't translated into increased public trust, but its not really surprising. We have been duped and exploited by these types of mega-corporations for over a hundred years now. It's difficult to trust them, it is simply that their only real motivation is profit and if that means sacrificing public good, they certainly will. Sure if issues of public good can prevent them from losing revenue or creating a poor image, they will be concerned about it - because it will ultimately affect their bottom line profit. (However, this is all another subject) I think I know what you mean here, but could you expand on what you mean by "scientifically based and trait based regulations" and how that would differ from current regulations?HBD

I meant it a bit more tongue-in-cheek, but I am studying plant pathology (my lab works with sugar beet and those field crops that are used in rotation - mostly dry beans and corn), so where else would I go? I believe duPont and Monsanto both have research fields relatively close to where I live. But at this point, I don't know where I will go after graduation. It also depends on whether I decide to go on and get my PhD or stop at a MS. At this point, I am not really inclined to move out of Michigan - this is my home, I have lived here my whole life and I love Michigan. That is definitely the trend. There is a lot of work going on at MSU related to microbial communities, soil health, and sustainable agriculture. In fact, the Plant Pathology department has been recently merged with the Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences department, while it was at least partially a financial decision, it is a sensible fit. I think if it wasn't cross-kingdom gene transfer, it wouldn't have generated such fear and misunderstanding. Do you think people would have been so freaked out if the for first genetically engineered crops they took a resistance gene from a tomato plant and put it into a potato (both Solanaceous crops)? Probably not. Although the funny thing is that gene probably would have been cloned into an agrobacterium and then transformed into the target plant. But the overall perception would have been vastly different. Maybe if genetic engineering would have started out a bit more conservatively?HBD

I can agree with those concerns, but to me it is not an issue of genetic engineering itself, but it is more of a cultural practice issue. Let me ask you this ... consider that Monsanto had developed a Round-Up ready soybean, but instead of farmers switching to Round-Up as their primary or even the only cultural practice to control weeds, they used a balanced approach, which included using Round-Up, but also included more sustainable practices. This would mean chemical controls would actually be reduced as well as shifted to the much more safe alternatives. Would you still be concerned about GMOs?If your answer is "No," then what you are really concerned about is the cultural practices that result from exploiting GMO traits. If "Yes," then what do you think is really the difference between genetic engineering and conventional breeding? Actually, I was suggesting that the reduced processing is what accounts for the improvement in flavor. Just like this. You blamed genetic engineering for the lack of taste (or actually the lack of genetic engineering for the improvement in taste) but what about all the other factors? Consider two chickens, everything about them is identical except that one is raised in an 18" x 18" cage with two other chickens and the other is unconfined. Which would you expect to be more healthy and flavorful?It may be that genetic engineering is not the actual problem, but the cultural practices that are accompanying them so that food companies can maximize profit. One of the things that deeply concern me is the increasing need throughout the world for food. The world's population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. Our current agricultural practices WILL NOT sustain that population increase. Sure, maybe in the US we could return to a more organic, non-GMO style agriculture, but could that possibly provide the amount of food required to feed an additional 2 billion people in the world? I don't see any possible way. We desparately need to be able to substantially increase food production.Another criticism I have of GMOs is the traits they target. What about engineering crops that are more drought tolerant, or have higher concentrations of protein in the edible parts, or than can grow better in our changing climate (which will disparagingly affect developing and third world nations), etc? The problem is that there isn't a multi-billion dollar market in Africa for drought resistant crops - they just don't have the resources. This then becomes a social issue.HBD

The Roundup resistant gene was actually found in a strain of Agrobacterium. This is, I feel, the major rub a lot of people have with GMOs - cross kingdom gene manipulation. If the gene HAD been found in a plant and bred into a crop, few would have raised an eyebrow. But since this is a bacterial gene, that somehow makes it dangerous to put into a plant. What they fail to grasp is that a gene is a gene - bacterial genes, plant genes, animal genes... they all function the same way. This is so true! With conventional breeding, not only is the gene of interest manipulated, but also genes that are closely linked and even just random, unrelated genes. Breeders also use mutagens to create mutations and therefore variation with which they can then work with. This could have serious consequences but, these plant lines can be released with virtually no regulation or scrutiny - the new breeding line could be producing a toxin and that would not need to be tested for.Genetic engineering works with only the target gene and inserts it into a variety with known genetic background. It is then subject to extensive scrutiny. The only thing that bothers me about gene insertions is the way that it is done. Not only the target gene gets transferred but also some incidental material in the vicinity of the gene. So along with the gene of interest promoters, enhancers, etc. can be transferred. In addition, where this new material gets inserted into the host is not precisely controlled but can insert virtually anywhere in the genome. This could potentially be a source for unintended products such as miRNA and snRNA. The potential for this problem will diminish as the tehnology becomes more and more precise.The problem I see with GMOs is in how we USE them. For example, when Roundup Ready crops is our ONLY weed management strategy, we find ourselves in big trouble... as we have seen in recent years with resistant weeds developing.HBD