VEGANGELICA

Evidence of GMO cross pollination with non-GMO plants:

(1) In 2000, Starlink GMO corn genes were found to have contaminated non-GMO corn through cross-pollination, leading to Kraft's recalling millions of taco shells.

''I didn't grow any StarLink corn, but I got contaminated by a neighbor,'' said Keith Weller, 50, who farms near Westside, Iowa. ''This issue of contamination is a real problem.''

Gene-Altered Corn Changes Dynamics Of Grain Industry - NYTimes.com

(2) In 2001 and 2004, corn transgenes were found in non-GMO corn varieties in Mexico. This was especially bad because GMOs weren't even supposed to be allowed in Mexico:

A. PIÑEYRO-NELSON et al. (2009) Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations, Molecular Ecology

Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations - PI[]EYRO-NELSON - 2008 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

(3) In 2011, after GMO rice was found to have modified non-GMO rice, Bayer paid the farmers $750 million in damages.

"Bayer and Louisiana State University had tested the rice, bred to be resistant to Bayer’s Liberty-brand herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, La. The genetically modified variety cross-bred with and 'contaminated' more than 30 percent of United States ricelands, Don Downing, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said at the start of the first farmers’ trial in November 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/bu...hrCBGsooWJU6PQ

The case was actually thrown out for a very different reason: Monsanto had already agreed that it would not sue farmers if their crops were only slightly contaminated with its GMO crops.

Reading from this article about the case, "The crops are widely used in the United States and Latin America. It has proven difficult to keep the genetic alteration from contaminating non-biotech crops, as recently occurred in a wheat field in the U.S. state of Oregon."

"In its ruling Monday, the court noted that records indicate a large majority of conventional seed samples have become contaminated by Monsanto's Roundup resistance trait."

Monsanto Wins Lawsuit Filed By U.S. Organic Farmers Worried About Seed Contamination

Creating GMOs is fundamentally different than traditional breeding because GMOs introduce DNA from one species into another using non-sexual methods (with uncertain outcomes when the foreign DNA integrates in the target organism's genome), while traditional breeding uses a single species' own sexual reproduction methods to shift different naturally occurring alleles of genes within that species.

The article you site that attempts to debunk common GMO claims actually substantiates one of them, which is one that concerns me: the impact of GMOs on insect species.

My opinion on GMOs:

I support the use of recombinant DNA technology in the creation of vaccines (such as the recombinant flu vaccine How Influenza (Flu) Vaccines Are Made | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC ), but I oppose the creation of GMO plants and animals for three reasons:

(1) Most GMOs are an attempted quick fix to problems that could, and I feel should, be addressed using less risky, conventional methods. For example, people desire higher grain yields and fewer pests, but this problem can be addressed by using more crop rotation and greater crop diversity, and by reducing the quantity of grain fed to animals to produce meat such that more land is available to grow crops to feed humans directly.

(2) GMOs can have unpredictable consequences, which creates the potential of harm to people and non-human animals. For example, there is the possibility of a person's being allergic to a protein introduced into the food species that normally wouldn't contain that GMO. Also, making GMO animals is using the animals as "guinea pigs" to fulfill the whims of humans, and I oppose that.

(3) As documented above, GMO plants and animals can cross-breed with natural plants and animals in the wild, which creates genetically modified organisms no longer under the control of people. This has possible unintended consequences for plants, animals, humans, and ecosystems.

Here's an article describing how GMO salmon (which are not 100% sterile) could potentially escape and interbreed with wild salmon and other fish species:

Genetically Modified Salmon Can Cross-breed and Pass on GM Material : Animals : Nature World News

__________________

Frownland

Thanks for the info on cross pollination, but the farmers case was still affected by the farmers' lack of evidence.

I find your fears unwarranted, tbh. You keep talking about how risky it all is without mentioning those risks, it's a series of ifs ifs and more ifs. Could you give an example of those proteins someone could be allergic to? The bt corn case is said to have caused a rise in food allergies but it's a correlation, not a causation.

As for gmos going into the wild, I don't see (nor am I finding in my research) any risks in that accept the fear that some people have towards anything that isn't natural. Do you have any evidence?

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

duga

Gotta weigh in on this. I have a M.S. in Botany and Plant Pathology and actually did research on GMOs with the aim of increasing biomass for ethanol production (biofuels, renewable energies...that kind of thing).

Bottom line: GMOs are NOT harmful and the fearmongering is so widespread that seemingly reputable scientists are trying to publish shoddy research to support their claims. I liken it to conservatives funding research to support their ridiculous claims that global warming isn't real. Anytime something that can present change that people are not familiar with (and are too lazy to educate themselves on), this kind of thing happens.

You guys have discussed quite a bit, so feel free to ask me specific questions.

One bad aspect I am willing to relent on: corporations. The crops Monsanto are growing are not harmful, but the policies they enact are.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Chula Vista

Nail meet hammer. Thanks for that post.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

DwnWthVwls

Sorry if this is a dumb question..

Do you consider modern industrialized farming techniques to be inefficient and/or more harmful than beneficial? If so, do you think GMOs give further incentive to continue inefficient farming practices when considering top soil nutrition and preventing decline in top soil over all (and any other problems I'm unaware of)?

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

duga

It depends where you are in the world, really. If you are referring specifically to agriculture within the US, then I would say no. The farmers in this country are some of the smartest out there. Modern day dust bowls and topsoil corrosion happen for a variety of factors, but poor farming practices are not one of them. Our big agricultural states have gotten crop rotation down pat (for example in Indiana crops are rotated between corn and soybeans, which happen to complement each other perfectly). Crop yields were down 2 years ago because of a record breaking drought (which was caused by...big surprise...global warming). If we move outside the US, then preventing these problems is as simple as educating the local farmers. Unfortunately, major corporations like to swoop in and get a monopoly on their agricultural economy with little thought about how it might effect the local ecology.

Now, before I go off on a tangent there, I'll bring it back to GMOs. You asked if GMOs would encourage lazy farming practices. Before I was exposed to this world, I may have said yes. However, I can tell you that the farmers in this country are just as skeptical as everyone else and will not plant something they don't trust. I can't tell you how many times I've been to a conference and it wasn't my fellow scientists asking the hard questions and stumping the presenters...it was the farmers. They know their ****. They educate themselves and do whatever they can to ensure they get the best out of what they do. Think about it - it's their livelihood and a poor crop yield or famine-riddled crops will mean they might not be able to eat this winter. They hate taking risks more than anyone.

Edit: And that was a really good question, btw.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

DwnWthVwls

Thanks Duga. I recently decided to change my degree to environmental science but I haven't decided on what aspect of the field I want to focus on so this is all very interesting. It's also the exact opposite of what I learned at a different college a few years back. I wish I had some of the links and material that I was taught to compare ideas.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

duga

This might be the right time to get in on environmental science. It was just recently I feel that global warming has finally gained general acceptance, so we are gonna need people to clean up the mess. What kinds of things were they teaching you at this college?

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

DwnWthVwls

I was referring specifically to the farming practices. It's been over 3 years so my memory of the subject matter isn't fresh, but I definitely remember learning that industrialized farming in America is a huge contributor to top soil depletion.

My professor
Ph.D. - Ecology and Evolution, Rutgers University (2006)
B.A. - Biology, Rutgers University (1998),

but he was definitely a nature lover and didn't appreciate/agree with things like GMOs. He was a great teacher, but now that I think back he was probably biased and presented material that supported the way he felt the world should be instead of the real science behind everything. He showed us documentaries like Food, Inc, Gasland, and An Inconvenient Truth.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

duga

Ah, seems to be a fresh professor. Our farming practices do have an effect on the topsoil, but it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. I mean, ever since humans learned how to farm we've been messing up the Earth (just read Ishmael), but my main point is that farmers aren't just sitting around with their thumbs up their butts and planting whatever cool new seeds get thrown at them. You can make arguments either way, but the important thing is that we all get on the side of trying to help improve things and not just try to trip the "other guy" up. That doesn't help anyone.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...