+1

Stay away! Watch this, then do a little research.

http://youtu.be/rixyrCNVVGA

confirmation bias

As someone who loves food, I almost never eat anything processed. My fridge is full and cupboards are 75% empty.

That philosophy spills over to GMOs, mostly because GMO food is made to maximize profit which is typically at the expense of flavor.

Who wants less flavor? I imagine people who buy a lot of boxed/processed/manufactured food with tons of salt, corn syrup and fat.

Shaun:
Can you give some more detail about the lack of flavor with GMO? You cant taste an enzyme. I am totally at a loss with that coment. GMO is about utilizing genes that code for specific enzymes to provide for a specifc trait. Be it cold resistance or to a specific pesticide or incect.

GMO really is just an extension of crop breeding. Instead of crossing two plant with pollen, you are using another vector...be it gene tagged iron particles shot into the original culture plant, or via a plasmid. All of our issues with our food crops stems from hundreds of years of self selection by us... we keep the sweetest, biggest corn to plant next year...so year after year the selection for size, color, taste weeds out the reistance to pests...and we end up where we are... in deep need of pesticides.

Like I mentioned before, nobody is designing there own enzymes (and gene sequences) to make artifical expressive traits. When we get there, THEN we will need to move very carefully. Until then, all we can do is push around genes that already exist. So short of some company getting wheat to express the ricin toxin, there isnt any real consumption issue.

The real issue, as others have mentioned, is that the legal mess along with patenting genes has left us very exposed to nature with monocolonial crops. Nature is quite clever and some bug will learn to use our cleverness to its advantage...and boom soybean blight. Or whatever. Hybrid vigor is a good thing along with diversity. But given the horror stories of Monsanto 'protecting' their IP and the farmers going with the plants that make profit, our food supply is getting to a dangerous point...

As a last note...had a great uncle that landed at normandy a few days after the invasion. Told me that they were being eaten alive by sand fleas. Said it was miserable. Then one day the quartermaster comes along handing out cans. Said to shake it all over to kill the fleas. He said they put the stuff everywhere and within two days, no more fleas. Said it was a god send. Turns out it was DDT. Which BTW is an absolutelly outstanding pesticide...t just also so happens to be really hard on birds...so its usage was restricted (and IMHO for the good). HOWEVER, there are outbreaks of malaria where the more enviromentally friendly pesticides dont cut it. We should dig out the DDT in those cases, just use it smartly and sparingly. I figure its a another case of a few asshats not allowing the majority to have nice things..that human trait of greed.

Tadd, exactly, it's all about gene expression. Genes that maximize profit are turned on at the expense, IME, of genes that maximize flavor. Tomatoes are the best example, heirloom vs. modern cultivated, strawberries too, but it cuts across all vegetables. One looks terrible rots fast and taste great. The other looks picture perfect, can sit for an eternity but tastes like cardboard.

They are looking to balance flavor and profit, heavily biased to profit. That is why I grow my own vegetables. Had this old Italian lady give me a few tomatoes that her family has been growing for generations. Ugly as sin, tasted fantastic. I kept some seeds, we'll see how it plays out.

Like hell you can't taste an enzyme.

I will trade you clothing for grandchildren for seeds!

Let's assume for a moment that Tadd is correct - that there is no health risk associated with gene manipulation.

Let me ask about one of the reasons for the gene manipulation: glyphosate resistance

Do any of you think there is a legitimate health concern over eating soybeans, corn, or other crops that have been subjected to repeated doses of glyphosate? What about eating meat from animals that have been fed a diet of grains that have been receiving repeated exposure to glyphosate?

I remember that Alar was safe on apples from 1963 to 1989.

When has mans attempts to control the natural order of things not lead to unforeseen consequences.

We use Glyphosate to kill weeds.

Weeds start to become resistant, natural order of things.

We engineer our foods to be glyphosate resistant so we can use more on the weeds.

Weeds become more resistant, natural order of things.

We are asking our bodies to metabolize things that our digestive tracts just can't handle. I'm not sure if it's the result of pesticide exposure and GMOs but anecdotal evidence is pretty compelling.

When I was a kid I never heard of anyone in school with a food allergy. Food allergies are up over 200% in 30 years. In the U.S. where GMOs are legal and pesticide use is rampant, 1 out of 2 women and 1 out of 3 men will get some form of cancer. The U.S. leads the world in cancer incidence per capita. I don't believe in coincidence. Like Shawn I have tasted the difference between big agribusiness produce and homegrown.

The more you look into the negatives of anything the more uncomfortable you will be. The more I look into starvation the more I like GMO's and glyphosates.

I think the food supply is more at risk from the insanity of planting houses instead of crops on arable and fertile farmland. I remember driving for miles and miles through the Saginaw Valley and seeing a few farmhouses every cupola hunnert acres or so way back in the mid/late 1900's. Now, you can't hardly see the dirt with so many McMansions all over the place.

Just my opinion which is probably wrong.

On this point, we are in 100% agreement. It really baffles me to watch a fertile productive field be torn up to plant a subdivision. We live in a valley and historically, the valley floor was largely cultivated. Seemed like every flat piece of land with good drainage was a fruit orchard (primarily pears). One by one, they are being replaced with subdivisions. It's cheaper to build a subdivision on a flat piece of ground than to use the surrounding hills which require far more building expenses. So...down goes another orchard or planted field, and up goes another subdivision. We are not utilizing other land for cultivation, we are cultivating less land - at least here in our valley.

There is some good news. The vineyards have become quite popular are taking off nicely in the lower hills. We may be short of food in the future, but by golly we are going to have wine. ;)

angela