Is this one new? Researchers develop protein-packed potato

All I ask is GMO vegetables be clearly marked as GMO so I can have a CHOICE. Is that too much to ask?

Well, the choice I've made is to grow most of my own vegetables. In time, that will probably be regulate.

Then it won't be long before Soylent Green.

Too bad most of us will only be able to afford Soylent yellow and red.

All I ask is GMO vegetables be clearly marked as GMO so I can have a CHOICE. Is that too much to ask?

He__ yeah, it is too much to ask when corporations don't want you to make an informed choice.

Dan

Let's see now. U.S. most obese nation of industrialized countries. Cancer historically one in 200, now strikes 1 in 3. Diabetes and heart disease rampant. (Heart disease was virtually unknown in the very early 1900s). Many new chronic degenerative diseases not seen by our forefathers. Seems to me that this grand experiment in refined foods and chemicalized slurry we call food is a dismal failure. Now we are asked to simply trust the "experts" that GMO is just fine, and they have our best interest at heart? Well this is one citizen that is more than a little skeptical. Organic methods have proven that pests will crawl all over and consume a weaker plant but leave the healthy adjacent plant alone. Oh, but that wasn't a 50 million dollar study so I guess that doesn't count. The rules of the game are rigged so that only the big players can play and the little guy with a good idea that really works cannot make label claims so he cannot compete in the market place. So hey, let's play God and instead of learning how to build the soil let's just create a plant that can handle a whole new level of onslaught from toxic roundup. Don't you know the history of this country? After 40 years average, soils were depleted and farms could no longer sustain a family so settlers moved westward, until there was no longer any virgin land to exploit. Meanwhile the Chinese had the same fertile farmland in use for thousands of years. (That is not to say that the Chinese are still following traditional farming methods- I do not know). Read Lessons in Nature by Malcolm Beck for some wise approaches. And if you want to know an unbiased approach to human nutrition, read the seminal work Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price, original copywright 1939.

May God help us all.

Thank you.

Well stated, greenleaf_organic.

Greg
Southern Nevada

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Lloyd

pt03: I assume you were responding to greenleaf's post. It's not a case of post hoc for me -- I see a clear chain of testable causes running through agricultural history.

Step-by-step: 1. Arable farming leads to loss of soil carbon. This has been measured at between 50% and 75% of levels in pre-ag soils. 2. Pre-industrial farmers partially mitigated the loss by manuring and returning crop residues to the soil. 3. Encouraged by Liebig's thesis, modern farmers relied on artificial fertilizers to maintain soil fertility and forgot about manuring and crop residues, because the immediate crop response to fertilizers is so marked. So trace minerals, obtained from farm wastes were ignored or replaced by importation from off-farm sources. 4. Thus soil carbon was allowed to fall to very low levels. Since soil carbon holds moisture and is the domicile of soil micro-organisms, natural fertility declined -- masked by artificial fertility. (Not a sustainable state of affairs.) 5. It gets worse: the thrust of seed breeding has been to make plants more responsive to irrigation and fertilizers, rather than to provide resiliant diversity and innate resistance to drought and insects. 6. Loss of natural fertility coupled with atificial pest control resulted in plants that have lost their natural pest resitance.

Please pick this apart; I'm always learning. Regards, Peter.

"Let's see now. U.S. most obese nation of industrialized countries. Cancer historically one in 200, now strikes 1 in 3. Diabetes and heart disease rampant. (Heart disease was virtually unknown in the very early 1900s). Many new chronic degenerative diseases not seen by our forefathers. Seems to me that this grand experiment in refined foods and chemicalized slurry we call food is a dismal failure"

Blaming society's woes on food alone is a fallacy and anyone who doesn't challenge a statement like that is being dishonest in IMO.

As far as your points, sure there are problems in ag. Ag is changing every year. I see farmers, old and young, trying different methods all the time. Some examples being, reduced tillage, different crops, different equipment, different rotations etc etc. Nothing in ag is static anymore and just like any industry, mistakes are made (Toyoto uncommanded acceleration comes to mind), and methods change or get abondoned. To decry one practise as if it is the only practise throughout the world is once again being dishonest IMO.

But as I stated in another thread, I ought to learn to just bite my tongue. :-)

Lloyd

"Blaming society's woes on food alone is a fallacy and anyone who doesn't challenge a statement like that is being dishonest in IMO."

Lloyd, my neighbor to the north. True it is not food alone. Toxins in the air and water, even poisons used in household applications and even furnishings as well as toxic lawn applications play a part to be sure. You could surely list many more (side effects of drugs comes to mind).

I really have to give credit here though to Dr. Weston A. Price who proved once and for all the failings of what he called "foods of commerce". He was a Harvard trained dentist who noticed in the 1920's and 30's that there was a rampant increase in tooth decay with all of the other associated dental maladies. He then searched out people groups on every continent but antartica to find the healthiest people left out there who had not yet been exposed to refined and processed foods. What he found was astounding. Villages and groups of people with virtually no cavities among them, while adjacent villages where modern foods had been introduced were ravaged with not only tooth decay but generationally they started giving birth to increasingly not only unhealthy offspring but an increase in birth defects, the list goes on since it seems the health of the teeth is a visible sign of the health of the whole body. One more thing, he documented the only variable- their diet. Diets were documented, food samples sent to labs for analysis. He also took an abundance of photos where the traditional diet adherents stood side by side with the refined food consumers and smiled for the camera. The photos don't lie. The difference was night and day. His work is a masterpiece, over 500 pages. It was discovered that it was practiced among some native groups to pass on dietary wisdom generationally. Some groups even fed engaged females a special high nutrition diet for six months before the wedding so they would procreate in the most healthy manner.

He even used the dietary knowledge he learned about overseas in studies with patients back in the states. Results were once again astounding. The food was definitely the difference maker. Further cavitations were virtually completely halted on the traditional diet which he replicated. When the diet was no longer adhered to, cavitations resumed again.

I sincerely hope this helps anyone who happens to read it. Once again, the book is "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price.

In addition please let me state here that I am not anti-farmer (although I am not so keen on Monsanto) I fully understand that the paradigm for the longest time has been getting paid on volume. Bushels per acre if you will. Unfortunately the long term health of our soil has taken a back seat to paying the bills today. I also lived on a farm for 10 years of my life which, not making me an expert by any stretch I do have some exposure. Malcolm Beck, another national treasure as far as I am concerned, tells in his book Lessons in Nature how a farmer he knows in North Texas went to organic methods for growing cotton since he was falling behind financially. With organic methods the farmer was able to forego irrigation and still maintain a viable crop. While the crop was not quite as abundant as the neighbor's, he made more money overall becaue his expenses were lower. Just an example here of what we are talking about.

All the best.

I am by no means a expert and my knowledge on the topic is limited to the last three or four minutes of hopping from site to site on Google. But at a quick glance it looks like, in the U.S. at least, infant mortality is at an all time low and life expectancy is at an all time high.
Many of the technologies that are responsible for our environmental ills are also responsible for some of the most outstanding benefits to our health. When viewed as a whole, is that a positive or a negative?

Hi Gargwarb. I really don't see it as an either or scenario. I agree that we enjoy modern conveniences and in addition we have possibly the best trauma care ever known, which certainly extends life span. I quite enjoy even the basic conveniences of modern life, right down to that of a hot shower for example. While I like to breathe clean air, I do my share of travel via car, airplane, etc. Then again, I have also planted many hundreds of trees in my lifetime as well. I suspect modern sewage disposal systems which keep disease abated are a factor in modern longevity.

I actually have no data to base my next comment on, and am not trying to be inflammatory either, but is this not the first generation that can detect fetal abnormalaties and/or diseases which then may or may not prompt some to terminate their pregnancies? Does this skew the infant mortality rate and/or life expectancy rate? I have no idea. Sorry, didn't want to be morbid there but it may have an impact on the numbers.

It is one thing for people born 70 to 80 years ago to still be alive today, but it remains to be seen how long of a life span people born today will live. I have heard estimates that one in three children born today will have diabetes in their lifetime. Again, I really do not in any way relish to bring this up, but if this estimate in remotely accurate, then I think we may in for a significant swing in the other direction as far as longevity. Diabetics on average do not live long life spans. One thing all centenarians have in common is that they have stable blood sugar.

Anyway, as I said previously, I hope someone finds the references I stated earlier helpful. I am more interested in seeing someone regain or improve their health. For me organic gardening is a big part of that. (not only enjoying the healthy fruits of your labor, but enjoying the entire process out there in nature). There are plenty of smarter people out there than myself who can engage in the debates. Organic Dan for example has done a heck of a job in my opinion, and Greg from Southern Nevada just to name a few- I always enjoy your posts as well. (That said, I will probably get drawn in again to this thread.) :)

To your health

but is this not the first generation that can detect fetal abnormalities and/or diseases which then may or may not prompt some to terminate their pregnancies? Does this skew the infant mortality rate and/or life expectancy rate?
That's a good point.

It is one thing for people born 70 to 80 years ago to still be alive today, but it remains to be seen how long of a life span people born today will live.
Yet another good point.

Peter, your post on September 25 was very well said. I am impressed.

The next generation of GMO will be the 'terminator' which has already been given a broad spectrum patent. Even before the process was decided, they received the patent.

Read the linked article. The process and implications are explained. This is one scary venture.

Here is a link that might be useful: How the Terminator (Gene) Terminates

Hi Peter

I'm not sure how familiar you are with agriculture but reading your points leads me to believe it is not first hand experience. Some things that you might not be aware of (please do not construe this to be all encompassing, it is just a couple of examples in relation to your points)....

Farmers I know, including myself, are very aware of crop residue. We very often return huge amounts to the land when harvesting is done.

Plant breeding looks at much much more than just tolerance to chemicals and drought resistance. (please note I am not talking about herbicide tolerant wheat).

Lloyd

Farmers I know, including myself, are very aware of crop residue. We very often return huge amounts to the land when harvesting is done.
Good point, Lloyd. And even when someone says "harvest", it may not always be what some folks think of as a "harvest", especially in veg crops. (although, if memory serves, you're more a grain guy)
Let's take cauliflower. A grower has a contract to provide cauliflower but the client only wants "sixes" or "eights". Not only do all of the stems, leaves, stalks (and roots of course) get disked backed in but a very significant amount of the edible parts as well because anything bigger or smaller gets left in the field.
Not super important in the discussion, but just one more bit of information to include when considering how much goes back into the system.

I used to live in Davis, CA in the middle of farm fields. The old GF at the time worked for a Resource Conservation District, and her farmers were very aware of IPM, trap cropping, refugia, soil C, intercropping, fallowing, all that. I also rode past fields where residue was not disced under as described above, and then the fields were plowed when the north wind was gusting to 35 kt. Back before they made them stop, rice fields used to be burned such that my eyes burned and skin itched and many of us coughed to a degree that downwind in the foothills, the silicates resulted in an increase in lung cancers and asthma exacerbations. So come now, let's stop with the hasty generalizations about practices.

So yes, there are farmers who know residue. There are still others who are on a schedule and plow fence line to fence line and play futures.

There are plenty also who have totally lost the ability to be resilient and resourceful, as we see with the GM sugar beet halt and the stories of folks who don't know what to do now because all their equipment is set up for GM crops.

Dan

As an organic growing I fear the GMO will negate some of the heirlooms I grow. As the corporations expand into the other species we shall truly have a challenge to feed the world as they increase prices.

On the gardening front I make an effort to have something growing most of the year. Even before the harvest I have a cover crop seeded. Spring is my tillage time with the cover crop and stubble tilled under. Straw mulch adds to the carbon for spring incorporation with transplanting after 2-3 weeks as the weather dictates.

It may be decades before we see the impact of GMOs in our food chain. Far too much of the science advancements are accepted without full trials. So many of the early scientists warned of the impact on soil prior to the 'green' revolution. Our processed foods are filled with artificial nutrients that by-pass many of the natural interaction processes. It is no wonder there is an increase in disease and associated costs.

Here is a link that might be useful: Monsanto Cafeteria Menu

"GM foods not served in Monsanto cafeteria"

Well that about says it all, doesn't it?

Greg
Southern Nevada

"As the corporations expand into the other species we shall truly have a challenge to feed the world as they increase prices."

I've read this statement about "feeding the world" many times in many posts here on GW. I've always had an interest in this but up until now I've refrained from commenting. Now before anyone labels me as a cold hearted -uncaring person based on what I'm about to write, I'd like to say that you would be wrong. It's because I do care that I say what I say.

I just have to ask: Since when was it deemed that the USA and it's citizens are responsible for "feeding the world?" Granted we are a nation of over-consumption, and have been gifted with the ability - knowledge, and resources to be totally self-sustaining. Many people have worked very hard through the years to get us to that point. However, there are still areas in the US where people are going to bed hungry and this shouldn't be happening. Why is it that when I go to the grocery store I read where the vegetables have been grown and shipped from Mexico - Guadamala - South America - etc. Why are they not from California and other American farming areas? I then learn that much of the produce grown here is shipped to foreign countries - Huh? Whenever there is a natural disaster in another country the US is the first there with ships and planes loaded with relief supplies and the manpower to distribute it. Whenever "We" have a natural disaster you see nothing (or very little) from those we have helped many times in the past. All we get from them is bad-mouthing us for who we are.

I feel that it's long past the time that we start taking care of the hungry people here in the US, and to build this country back-up to what it once was. If we have extra then by all means help-out those in other countries who need the help. But until that happens, let's take care of the needy here first.

So let the flaming begin...

Greg
Southern Nevada

I see no evidence that 'we' = yew ess eh in the aforementioned statement upthread.

Dan

Ahh, maybe read the whole article...

"as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant." (my bold added)

And what about GM canola products?

I find it humorous that anyone could fall for this stuff and even more humorous that others nod their head in agreement of it. It's all about marketing.

Lloyd

"I find it humorous that anyone could fall for this stuff and even more humorous that others nod their head in agreement of it. It's all about marketing."

With all due respect here, there is nothing funny to me about GMO foods being so ubiquitous that it is not "practicable" to serve up meals GMO free. If it is "all about marketing", I guess the GMO side is not doing such a hot job, otherwise they would not have to veil their foodstuffs in secrecy rather than labeling GMO foods so as to give the consumer a choice. And they have the big bucks for marketing dollars, too! Interesting...

WADR greenleaf, unless a person is growing every bit of foodstuff they consume and I mean every bit, they are in all likelihood consuming some amount of some kind of GMO'd product. Fact of life.

The "all about marketing" is about making people think they are consuming a GMO free product. The particular story linked by Dan obviously fooled some and they bought it lock stock and barrel. Think of the "better for the environment" claim....being "better" doesn't mean it's good for the environment. Marketers love to use that one, especially targeted at children.

It's all about marketing.

Lloyd

P.S. Now that I think of it, I wonder how many fall for the "zero percent interest" car loan?

Well I gotta agree with you there Lloyd. Too many consumers just read the "sizzle" on the front of the package rather than looking deeper on the ingredient label. Case in point, today Ben & Jerry's ice cream announced today that they will be removing the claim "natural" on several of their labels. Seems they were finally called out on alkalized cocoa, corn syrup, and partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

(Yet the truth remains, we are not told on the label if a product or ingredient is GMO) Let's hear it for truth in labeling. Boy, I bet you would see a drop in GMO crop production then baby! :)

I'm not sure truth in labelling would have a huge impact. Some impact, sure, but the North American consumer (us Canucks are in there too) "knows" lots of things but chooses to disregard them. Case in point, we can all pretty well agree fast food is not the healthiest, yet if you want an investment that is fairly stable, even in a recession, that's one place to put it. They don't often lose a lot of money. We also "know" of human rights abuses from some of our trading partners yet we continue to purchase their goods.

Getting slightly back to the topic, I wish people would take steps to grow and consume their own organic produce. Even a few carrots, spuds, beans and peas in a small garden area isn't all that difficult and would go a long way to changing the direction we are heading right now. Getting to that point will require calm, sensible persuasion and running around tilting at windmills will only alienate those that can be helped. Small, easily attained goals will impress and convince people of the validity of the program. Constantly attacking big chem, big pharma, big government will do nothing to convince people, it just riles them up. Show people what you do and how successful you are, that is what reasonable people will pay attention to. After all it's difficult to argue against success.

Lloyd

Just off the presses, "GM maize 'has polluted rivers across the United States'". See link below.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

A careful reading of the news article clarifies the headline. Unfortunately I cannot seem to find the paper so I cannot speak to how it clarifies the article.

Thanks!

Dan

The abstract of the "Insecticides from genetically modified corn present in adjacent streams" paper is at the link below. There is a ten dollar charge to view the full paper on line.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Just so I have this straight... a by-product of a natural, soil dwelling, organism has been found in some streams that also have some corn remnants in it. 86% of the streams had corn plant remnants in them yet only 13% had the by-product and 100 percent of the streams were located near fields where corn was grown. (Would I be correct in assuming that all fields of corn contain soil?)

Lloyd

Thank you for the link. When I checked this morning the ed. wasn't up yet. We have to wait a couple weeks before we can read the paper for free. Surely the headline writer was different than the body text writer.

But, no Lloyd you don't have it straight. The abstract clearly states that the genetically altered protein has escaped into the environment. It is not a by-product per se of the original organism.

And the 'soil' non-sequitur kinda sends a signal about more than faulty rhetoric.

Dan

So isn't this Cry protein the "toxin" produced by the bacterium and isn't this Bt stuff used as an insecticide as a stand alone product? I don't get that it has been used in the U.S. since 1958 and only now has been discovered to have escaped into the environment.

And if it has "escaped", why in only 13% of the streams tested when 86% of the streams had corn residue in them?

Something doesn't seem to add up. Or is this one of those issues that a person needs several degrees to fully understand?

Lloyd

It is Bt corn. The gene is inserted into the corn. The toxin is expressed by the plant.

The abstract does not give possible reasons for the incidence of "Cry1Ab protein in stream-channel maize at 13% of sites and in the water column at 23% of sites". This conclusion: I don't get that it has been used in the U.S. since 1958 and only now has been discovered to have escaped into the environment. does not follow from the premises explicit and implicit in the paper.

OK, back to much simpler thought processes in setting cobblestones

Dan

Genetically modified corn helps protect non-engineered

Did you hear the TV story to the effect that a van full of illegals who crossed at Brownsville could not find work in the sugar beet fields in Wisconsin because of RoundUp Ready beets had eliminated the need for their labor.

I will always choose non GMO over GMO foods when given a choice. The GMO cartel sells their wares to the general public with the pretense of "we must feed the world". Just wait until the day comes when the GMO crops fail on a grand scale due to some unforseen scenario unfolding as a result of trying to play God. I know, I will now be labeled as shrill, knee jerk, uneducated, etc. Well, what I am is passionate and I do not apologize for that. Stay tuned.

Looked up the Cary Institute, seems the vast majority of their Phd. staff gradated between 1980 and 1986, wonder if university depts. with the same positions are filled with staff about the same age range. Could be a generation thing. As is often, reporting on scientific work leaves more questions than answers, not too many Journalism majors with a science background.

Read and then wonder if there may be other genetic implications in future generations.

The random nature of GM insertion can have immeasurable implications. Viral promoters and the antibiotic-resistant markers have unleashed unlimited horizontal gene transfer potential.

No living organism can resist genetic mutation under this technology abuse. Nobody can be held accountable.

Here is a link that might be useful: Why Genetic Engineering is Hazardous

Agreed. These GMO foods are killing us. I have read in daily express that the commonest modification in GM crops includes a "significant fragment of a viral gene" known as Gene VI, a new viral DNA in GMO foods causing food contamination.

Ever hear of Norman Borlaug?

Here is a qoute from him.

"There is no evidence to indicate that biotechnology is dangerous. After all, mother nature has been doing this kind of thing for God knows how long," he said. Told a packed hall consisting of researchers and food scientists in the Kenyan capital.

He dismissed the critics of GMOs as people who had not produced even a kg of food and yet were yelping about bio-safety and the dangers involved in the technology.

"he described people who have been championing a GMO-free world as "utopian thinkers" who do not understand the complexities of food production"

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Mon, Feb 11, 13 at 22:03

Repeatedly pasting senseless blather won't make it less false.

In case anyone wants some information about "gene 6"...better/correctly known as "P6"...as it pertains to current discussion based on a study by the EFSA...

This is a very wide range of proteins found in virus encoding from HIV to mosaic virus...these proteins are also found in the smoke of burning meat and tobacco. It's a very wide range. In this case, one of the biggest dangers would be a chance encoding to re-invigorate the "dead" version of cauliflower mosaic virus (or P6 residues) that's very commonly used as a carrier string for DNA/RNA insertion that it's inserted into. This could lead to some allergy problems, too, even if it doesn't fully express the mosaic virus but still overlaps enough to express P6 proteins. P6 is a known allergen, though it's not one that everyone is sensitive to.

The expression of this gene is highly unlikely, though...and would be regulated to a single (or very small groups) of plants doing this replication rather than entire seed source or a field suddenly replicating mosaic virus or P6 residues. If it is the case that encoding suddenly made it large-scale available it would show up heavily in the research stage and it wouldn't make it out into the consumer market since it's showing inferior/bad genetic expression. One of the biggest parts of GMO research is tossing out 99%+ of everything you're actually trying to create because positive effects of expression aren't stable enough to sell it as seed...or it's showing "bad" expressions.

There's a lot of otherwise harmful viruses (to plants or humans) used to insert GMO traits for start/end points into a genetic change that are made inert (and distinctly different) from their original genetic package, but still contain large parts of what makes up the virus, itself. Viruses can easily carry genetic information and they're ideal vehicles for transferring it. The genetic carriers of the virus are merely vehicles. Once you change the "genetic package" inside a virus it's not even what you started with. The "guts" are changed dramatically. If you put a Dodge Neon engine in a Porsche very few people would still consider it a Porsche. That's the level of dramatic change in sequencing going on inside of these packages. You can take certain virus types, depending on what you're trying to achieve, and precisely insert genetic information with start/termination points into existing DNA/RNA...totally turning it's genetic information into something totally different in both makeup and application.

Btw, to those with P6 protein sensitivities...this would be a big deal. I'm not trying to knock the research at all. I'm just saying it's overlapping expression would most likely be contained to a very few plants in a field, not widespread. While genetic start/termination points are very good with insertion and replication once stable, nothing is perfect when you're exchanging genes...we see it even natural breeding. The major problem with this particular chain of insertion is the overlapping of the 2 sequences given as example in the paper and what could happen as a consequence of them being genetically linked so closely together...even if there's a very small chance of it happening as defined.

It's also worth mentioning we're talking a single virus carrier, not the 100s of types (or the 20-ish most commonly used) carriers. It would also be greatly influenced by the new information inserted, what was cut out, and where the start/termination points overlap (if there is any replication overlap). There's more than 1 way to insert genetic information into virus and the chances of overlap encoding or reversion is different depending on the type of method used.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Feb 8, 13 at 15:54

Okay, here's my completely subjective, dare I say gut, objection to GMOs.

A couple years ago some friends of mine had a crazy neighbor who "thought" he had rights to their land and came and sprayed it in preparation for planting GM corn.

Before the spray, the field was native grasses and plants, filled with insects that would buzz around your head and drive you crazy if you stood at the edge of it. (It was actually being used as an experimental field where they were trying to dig out invasive species and leave only native plants.) It was beautiful.

After the spray I went to stand by the field, and it was empty of all life. Not only were all the weeds and grasses dead, but ALL of the insects were GONE as well. Deathly quiet. Not even a single annoying gnat.

Multiply that times many, many acres . . . doesn't feel like a good thing to me. Is this what is killing the bees?

If we kill too many of the pollinators, we won't be able to feed the world.
If too many acres of farmland are taken over by Roundup resistant weeds, we won't be able to feed the world.

I, for one, am rooting for the pig weed.

Pig weed is one of the biggest dangers to organic farming.

If you think it's hard to control in chemical agriculture lands you should see how much of a pest in organic systems.

It grows fast, doesn't need much nutrients, and quickly shades/out-competes everything.

RoundUp is here-today-gone-tomorrow. We've over-used it too quickly without proper rotations of other resistant crops. A couple of decades from now RoundUp's replacement...whatever that may be, if it's found...will be needed. We've hastened the evolution of too many plants over using it.

2,4-D crops (which is next to impossible for pest weeds to build a resistance to, not counting escaped GMO 2,4-D crops) are the stop-gap GMO. Aside from cotton production, I'm not that much of a fan of it systemically produced in food. So far the only "superweed" known to 2,4-D is waterhemp...which isn't very wide-spread on a noxious level (though found in almost every state). It is related to "pig weed." There's something about amaranth that makes it a highly adaptive plant...go figure.

Also, aside from tree fruit/nut crops and squash/melons/pumpkins we actually don't rely on bees for much of what we eat. Most of our food comes from wind pollinated and self-fertile plants.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sat, Feb 9, 13 at 15:07

On the subject of 2,4-D resistance...

What makes a plant 2,4-D tolerant is the GMO insertion of a soil bacteria that breaks down 2,4-D. The isolated enzyme of this bacteria is the GMO addition to the plant. It takes 2,4-D (which moves systemically through the plant) and quickly breaks it down into phenols...which are handled rather well by our body as harmless. This works differently from RoundUp resistant crops because very little breakdown of RoundUp is done...it simply is tolerant to it's application thanks to the inserted enzyme which makes it tolerant. Theoretically, 2,4-D "should" be a bit safer because in addition to taking in the herbicide, it goes through the extra process of breaking it down into inert compounds within the plant.

My main concern is the plant not breaking down all the 2,4-D. I'm really interested to see some research on how much residual 2,4-D is left in the plant after the conversion of most of the 2,4-D into phenols.

While 2,4-D is mostly human safe (and the most widely used herbicide in the world for many decades), I'm a bit concerned about residual 2,4-D in plant materials considering how much of it will be in our food supply.

I'll feel a lot better (or worse) about 2,4-D GMOs when I see some real science about residues...but so far it's so tightly held by the companies developing them (mostly Monsanto and Dow) that very little peer review outside of the companies have been done.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sat, Feb 9, 13 at 15:28

Okay, I'll stop rooting for the pig weed.

nuts, fruit and squash . . . sounds like my diet! (just add potatoes)

I'm no friend of GMO, in fact I've been railing against them since before they were introduced. And I had discussions with the inventor of terminator technology. But I have a question: is anyone aware of any GMO product that actually uses terminator technology? I'm not, so I obviously need to be brought up to date. Regards, Peter.

Terminator technology is an owned patent...not something put into use. It was owned by Monsanto after they bought a company that developed it and it's intellectual property...they received many more patents than that one when they purchased the company, but it's one that got a lot of attention after the fact.

Also, the owner of that technology (believe it or not) doesn't have much interest in producing terminator seeds.

GMO seed makers have absolutely no trouble getting customers to return and "seed saving" is a whole lot less of an issue than some would have you believe. Anyone growing GMO seed signs a slew of legal contracts plainly spelling out the penalties for saving/selling seed they've bought and contracted from a GMO seed supplier. You can't just go buy a bag of GMO corn in/out the door like you can "normal" or hybrid seed.

There also is some confusion about the word "terminator" because it's also used in GMO seed production that has -nothing- to do with plants producing "dead" seed. In a GMO insertion a termination/terminator site marks the end point of where a GMO insertion goes into the DNA/RNA. It's a chemical signal that says "stop replicating yourself here" in order to keep the insertion from producing way more copies of the insertion than necessary. A start point and an end point (terminator site) is common in any GMO insertion, though it has nothing to do with producing "dead" seed.

I thought so, because most (possibly all) GMO crops are hydrids, so their seeds aren't worth saving anyway. Regards, Peter.