Return to the Soil Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Posted by doowad z6 MO (My Page) on
Wed, Aug 8, 12 at 9:15

I had asked earlier about my concern that the straw I bought was from GMO wheat. Somebody unwisely mentioned that GMO crops were not authorized for human consumption. Here's the scary truth, not from a radical site at all:

Here is a link that might be useful:


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Your link didn't make it. Try again?


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

We have been eating Genetically Engineered foods for some 40 years now. Almost anything with corn in it probably is from GE corn. Wheat has now been added to that list and Canola has been almost as long as corn.
When GE corn was first put out there were prohibitions about that corn getting into the food chain meant for human consumption, fine to feed the cattle that would become the meat we would eat but not for us. Some studies have found that corn grown in Mexico, miles from the nearest GE corn fields has the GE genes.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Wed, Aug 8, 12 at 13:32

There is no GMO wheat approved in Canada and I have not heard of any other country approving it either (yet).

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

That is my understanding also, no GM wheat is commercially grown.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Since they don't have to tell people, they probably won't.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Wed, Aug 8, 12 at 17:02

Given that any GMO seed is waayyy more expensive than traditional seed, I find it hard to believe that any producer would pay for this seed knowing that he could not sell the resulting grain. I also don't think anyone would develop a GMO seed and then sell it for the traditional seed price so I seriously doubt there is any GMO being grown commercially.

This of course would not stop researchers from growing it.

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Lloyd, I assume you're referring to wheat and/or Canada?

According to Wikipedia, in the US, 93% of soybeans and 86% of corn is GMO.

There's a handy table just 1-2 screens down.

Here is a link that might be useful: Wikipedia - Genetically Modified Food


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Not sure what happened to the link, hope it works now. Like I said, not even from a typically environmental source:

http://eatthis.menshealth.com/slideshow/9-natural-cereals-arent?cm_mmc=ETNTNL-_-998412-_-08082012-_-UnHealthyCereals-hed


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by jolj 7b/8a-S.C.,USA (My Page) on
    Wed, Aug 8, 12 at 19:20

Lloyd, I am under the belief that you grow wheat.
If that is so, then you are part of the market.
I will believe you over some site that has an agenda or two.
Still have not seen proof that GEO wheat is grown for food in North America.
96% soybeans & 86% corn are GEO & Americans are living longer then ever before.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Agenda? It is a pretty lame stream health advice column. Not sure what you are talking about.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Wed, Aug 8, 12 at 21:15

Sorry, yes, I was referring solely to wheat. As a producer, I have to certify, in writing, the type of wheat I am delivering. The powers that be take this fairly seriously.

Having said that, Canada has been identified as a source of GM flax and hopefully we are a bit more careful about this issue. In any event, someone screwed up big time and our reputation as a reputable source of agricultural products took a big hit, we do not want this happening with our wheat.

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Wed, Aug 8, 12 at 21:37

Now that I have looked at the link, I now understand doowad was not actually specifically referring to wheat but rather GMOs in general. I guess I was just confused.

Some GMO products have been in the food chain for many years and I am surprised that not everyone knew this.

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

The concern about wheat straw appears to be settled, however.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

I just hope you guys are right. One thing about labeling I thought was funny is that "Taco Bell" brand taco shells did at one point state that they were from GMO corn on the package. Well, not funny, I guess I meant scary.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

They don't have to put that stuff on the label, so it's probably still in there but they just took it off of the package.

Here is a link that might be useful: GMO food labeling


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Federal rules and most states laws prohibit a food packager from identifying foods that contain Genetically Engineered foods, just as they once did milk, and milk product, from being identified as being free of the Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (RGBH).
Because enough consumers found out about the RGBH and refused to buy milk containing it most milk producers stopped using it.
Why would someone in the business of producing milk inject their cattle with something to make them produce more of something there is already a surplus of?


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

"Surplus" is all relative. As long as a producer can sell a product for a positive return, there is an incentive to increase production if it will mean a minimal increase in cost. Simple economics. Not that I'm in favor of RGBH, just saying.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Not surprising.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Reckon their combined output adds up to about 97% of the US food supply. If you just look at Cargill and Con-Agra alone, they touch most of the grain.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

"The Council For Biotechnology Information" (upper left corner)

Really? Think they meant to say

"council for control of biotechnology information"

I don't know what this organization is, but doubt they're concerned about my health.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

According to Sourcewatch.org,

"The following "Big 6" Biotech Corporations are listed as members of CBI as of July 2012:[4]"

BASF
Bayer
Dow
DuPont
Monsanto
Syngenta

So, yeah.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Wheat is not GMO? As I understand it, it actually is, although Monsanto didn't do it, and gene splicing techniques were not involved. Instead it was done in the 60's by exposing wheat embryos to mutagenic chemicals and radiation. The result was a much denser wheat kernel containing more protein (and gluten), as well as a shorter, stockier, uniform plant that was less prone to blowing over and easier to harverst.
If I recall correctly, this accounts for virtually all North American and European wheat consumption.
I wonder why noone protests over this.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Wed, Aug 15, 12 at 15:37

My understanding is that "GMO" has a pretty specific definition and to my knowledge anything we have done to wheat does not fit that definition.

No doubt much 'experimentation' has been done on darn near everything in order to see if some improvements could be made (feeding arsenic to poultry for example).

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Anytime you have a plant that produces a seed you have a "genetically modified organism", a GMO, since the combining of two genes from two different parents modifies the genetic structure of that seed.
The proper term for what is being done in the laboratory is "Genetic Engineering".


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Is the OP eating straw? I don't understand the concern.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

jonfrum, not understanding the concern is not unusual because unless you have dug into the question there is not much information easily available, and most people are unaware that their food is being adulterated. Many others are simply content to believe the assuarances of these companies, known by many of us to have lied in the past, that there is no problem even though there is no research to support that position.
There are many of us that believe in the Precautionary Principle,"When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Well said.

On its face, the human risk of putting GMO material into the compost is likely to be much smaller than it would be if the same material was being eaten directly. But it's true that we don't know everything about either process yet, and so the risks are 1) not zero and 2) not fully quantitated.

For example, in 50 years, will we learn that some obscure protein from GMO corn survives the digestion process, is absorbed into the body, and increases the risk of heart disease by 28%? Who knows.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Mon, Aug 20, 12 at 11:25

Won't be long before someone uses your 50 year speculation as "fact". Read it on a gardening forum so it must be true.

OTOH, if it does turn out to be true, people will compare you to Nostradamus.

;-)

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Hardly! Compostradamus, maybe. :-D


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

From kimmsr: "Anytime you have a plant that produces a seed you have a "genetically modified organism", a GMO, since the combining of two genes from two different parents modifies the genetic structure of that seed. The proper term for what is being done in the laboratory is "Genetic Engineering".

I wish people would STOP equating Genetically Modified Organisms" and "Genetically Engineered Organisms" with natural hybridization!!!

GMOs and GEOs are organisms (plant or animal) that have had their DNA altered by inserting DNA from totally foreign material from a different species to create a totally new set of genes.

Anyone who thinks that plants naturally acquire new genes from insects, mammals, fish and other sea creatures, herbicides, Bt and other toxins, foreign proteins, foreign bacteria and foreign viruses flat-out doesn?t know what they?re talking about. If anyone thinks I?m wrong, you?d better be ready to give a specific example ? even ONE.

Deliberate or laboratory HYBRIDIZATION is exactly the same as Mother Nature?s hybridization except for better control of the pollination to gain specific results. You can?t call hybridization "genetic modification" when you aren?t altering the genes themselves.

Get your terms straight!

Sue


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Sue, you are a Genetically Modified Organism. When the genes from each of your parents met and combined they produced modifications of themselves.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Zog many sad.

Zog run away from cave, wife, kids, work. Come to composting cave to make happy, get smart. Compost good.

Smart ones argue too much for Zog. Zog go back to own cave. Zog family not have dictionary!


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Tue, Aug 21, 12 at 11:20

You know we are going to call you Zog from now on.

;-)

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Zog called many things, just never call late for dinner, or Zog angry.

OK to call Zog late for composting mastadon carcass.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

I think people have very little understanding of genetic engineering and what it does.

Most GMO plants are modified to make them resistant to applied herbicides and pesticides. The genetic modification may not be natural to that species but the DNA insertions themselves are only producing enzymes in the plants to allow them to continue living. They are not, in and of themselves, harmful.

What is harmful is the over use of herbicides and pesticides that GMO allows the farmer to do. Not necessarily the modification itself.

To say all GMO is bad or unhealthy is a gross over statement.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Kimmsr: There is a huge difference between "genetic variation" and "genetic modification".

You can cross any (non-GMO) corn with any corn and you?ll still get corn, because of the variation in the genes within the corn. It may be corn of different colors, and it may be from different countries, but all the genetic VARIATIONS of those genes still come from corn.

But when the DNA of corn is tampered with in a laboratory, and the DNA of a fish that glows in the dark is added to the DNA of the corn, resulting in corn that glows in the dark, that is genetic MODIFICATION. The DNA has been altered with a foreign material. You can cross regular corn for 1000 years and not get corn that glows in the dark.

A baby can have a black mother and a white father, but it?s still a baby, and still human. It isn?t part salamander or frog or mosquito.

Garyinnd: "Most GMO plants are modified to make them resistant to applied herbicides and pesticides? To say that all GMO is bad or unhealthy is a gross over statement."

First, do you really think that drenching food crops in heavy doses of pesticides and herbicides is a good thing? I believe I read that Monsanto was bragging that RoundUp-Ready crops can tolerate up to SEVEN TIMES the usual dose. The usual dose of toxins wasn?t enough, I guess.

They lied about how safe RoundUp was, but they?re telling us the absolute truth about their GMOs?

The problem is that we don?t know enough about GMOs to say if they?re safe or a disaster. Monsanto has spent an incredible amount of money stomping on anyone who says anything against its products. They "contribute" a ton of money to the Ag colleges, and then threaten to withdraw it if anyone comes up with a question or proof or a paper that indicates anything but wonderfulness. Doesn?t that make you wonder, even a little bit?

Hog and cattle farmers are having problems with their GMO feed: their animals are having trouble conceiving, and if they do conceive, they give birth to bags of water. Monsanto?s immediate reaction was to produce "proof" that it wasn?t the GMO, it was mycotoxin contamination. Really? Was this an independent discovery, or paid for by Monsanto?

[If the people who run the world think there?s too many people, maybe they can use it for birth control.]

But with the FDA and the USDA agreeing to everything Monsanto wants (do you think some money has been changing hands?), the genie has already been let out of the bottle.

If it is found that GMOs were a really bad idea, like causing babies to be born with three eyes (or something even worse), the medical profession can write thousands of reports, and the world governments can scream and hang every Monsanto employee right down to the janitor, and you still won?t be able to stuff that genie back into the bottle no matter how hard you try. It?s just plain too late.

If the GMO corn has accidentally been genetically contaminated with a sensitivity to some kind of fungus, and that fungus has a good year here in WA, what?s to prevent it from being carried on the wind to that 86% of the corn grown in the U.S., and destroying the major part of the corn crop? How many years would it take to gather up and increase the supply of non-GMO, non-fungus-sensitive seed to the point we could even have a quarter of the usual annual corn crop?

Then we have the corn-dependent CAFOs. In 2008, there were about 60 million hogs in CAFOs in the U.S. There are probably more now. Visualize the results of no more corn to feed them. Whoops!

What about the people in the world who depend on corn as a good part of their diet? Is "Sorry, folks" going to solve that problem?

Although more corn is grown here than anything else, most of it is sold as animal feed. Rice is probably feeding more people in the world. Now there is a new GMO rice called Golden Rice. Picture all the robot-brained farmers diving into production of that, and then something goes wrong. Well, it?s just too bad, eh? It doesn?t hurt you until it hits YOUR dinner table.

The trouble with GMOs is that nobody knows anything for sure. Monsanto, Dow and all the others in the GMO-production crowd just want their money. What they really want is control of the world?s food supply. But I?m sure they?ll settle for just the money.

Sue


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Sue, thank you.

Here is a link that might be useful: Monsanto discussion on


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Sue,

While I agree with a lot of what you say, I think you are terribly mischaracterizing my post.

-----------------------
"Garyinnd: "Most GMO plants are modified to make them resistant to applied herbicides and pesticides? To say that all GMO is bad or unhealthy is a gross over statement."

First, do you really think that drenching food crops in heavy doses of pesticides and herbicides is a good thing? I believe I read that Monsanto was bragging that RoundUp-Ready crops can tolerate up to SEVEN TIMES the usual dose. The usual dose of toxins wasn?t enough, I guess.
----------------------------

I guess you didn't read my post enough to (1) get my name correct and (2) see that I said, "What is harmful is the over use of herbicides and pesticides that GMO allows the farmer to do. Not necessarily the modification itself."


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Sat, Aug 25, 12 at 22:48

As a producer, my goal is to use the minimum amount and types of pesticides as possible to achieve the desired results. I don't know of any producer that indiscriminately uses copious amounts of pesticides, this stuff is expensive.

However, I do know several homeowners that love to buy jugs of lawn chemicals and soak the hell out of the weeds. These are the same guys that go through bags of fertilizers and weed 'n feed and run their sprinklers in the heat of the day.

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Lloyd,

Your message is right on! Yes, it is about minimizing the use. What people fail to realize is that some GMO modifications can help reduce the amount of pesticides needed. If there is a safer more natural pest deterrent built into the plant then pesticides would not need to be applied.

In my dealings with the owners and operators of the large farms around me I have nothing but respect. They are very conscientious of keeping spraying to a minimum, avoiding spray drift and informing me of their activities. I can't say the same for my neighbors dumping stuff on their lawns in town on a windy day. I've had more problems with herbicide drift there than out at the farm.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Companies that paid to defeat Prop 37 in CA yesterday, that would have required foods to indicate if the ingredients were GMO.

Here is a link that might be useful: Companies that oppose GMO labeling


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

As some have already said. GMO= More yield, less land, less pestisides, less fertilizers. It does everything we NEED it to do to keep up with our huge over population. Those that talk bad about GMO or Monsanto do not understand the real problem....


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

The link I just posted wasn't about the debate over the merits or lack thereof regarding GMO's. Simply that people would like to have information on the label to make their own choice, as people in 61 other countries are able to do.

Apparently you have read nothing here and popped in just to say something inflammatory with no real meaning. Arguing for the sake of argument, again, obviously, since it's too difficult to believe you actually believe the ridiculous stuff you're saying. There is a forum specifically made for arguing, hot topics. I suggest you take your kool-aid on over there where it is appropriate.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by jolj 7b/8a-S.C.,USA (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 11, 12 at 15:49

purpleinopp, maybe you need to go to THAT forum too.
This is not the first time you talked down to anyone who does not get on your bandwagon.
What are you afraid of?
I mean if you are right, why all the "Kool-aid" talk.
You sound like a fanfic in your last post.
I thought this was an open forum, am I wrong about that?


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

@purpleinopp,

Lets see how many other are talking about the same thing I am. Why point me out?

What is wrong? Did I put an end to the false facts and hype about organics? Do not be mad at me, be mad a science..

Posted by greginnd Z4 ND (My Page) on Sun, Aug 26, 12 at 11:18

"Lloyd,
Your message is right on! Yes, it is about minimizing the use. What people fail to realize is that some GMO modifications can help reduce the amount of pesticides needed. If there is a safer more natural pest deterrent built into the plant then pesticides would not need to be applied. "

Posted by greginnd Z4 ND (My Page) on Fri, Aug 24, 12 at 13:14

"I think people have very little understanding of genetic engineering and what it does.
Most GMO plants are modified to make them resistant to applied herbicides and pesticides. The genetic modification may not be natural to that species but the DNA insertions themselves are only producing enzymes in the plants to allow them to continue living. They are not, in and of themselves, harmful.

What is harmful is the over use of herbicides and pesticides that GMO allows the farmer to do. Not necessarily the modification itself.

To say all GMO is bad or unhealthy is a gross over statement."

@jolj,

"I thought this was an open forum, am I wrong about that? "

Yea, Well said.

Nope your not wrong at all. I think some may get mad when they have been doing something one way for years and years only to be proved by science it makes no difference. I would be mad too if I wasted all that time. :)


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

I think some should look into the book- "The Truth About Organic Foods" before saying anything. It may bring light on the subject to see what the real problem is.

Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize Winning Ag Scientist, says, "The Truth About Organic Foods gives consumers a through and straight-forward explanation of why organic foods offer no real health or safety bebefits. More importantly, Avery communicates why organic farming's lower yields and reliance on scarce organic fertilizers represents a potential threat to the world's forests, wetlands and grasslands. The book offers scientifically sound evidence that more-affordable conventional foods are healthy for families and also good stewardship of nature."


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Master Gardener, I did check out Alex Avery, and I see that, as some have surmised, he has a definite agenda. I know you're really excited about his book, and that's great, but it really is only one opinion among many. In reading his papers, he did not convince me that Rachel Carson is evil or that all chickens and ducks must be contained indoors lest they cause the deaths of millions of people world wide. On the subject of organic gardening I prefer the scholarly scientific studies that have been done over a period of many years, on real farms, that have convinced me of the exact opposite of what Alex Avery believes. And actually, were I ever to meet the man, I would steer very clear of any political discussions, just from reading what he thinks of the EPA.

On these forums there will never be 100% agreement about GMO's, about whether organic can feed the world or not, or whether og food is better or not. There will never be a book or a study that will prove one side or the other to everyone.

Ambiguity is the spice of life :)

Elisa

I

Here is a link that might be useful: Alex Avery's papers


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Yea your right. It just gave me another view on it all. Thats all.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

This Avery is a slippery fish. In his "dust bowl" paper he tries to make it seem as if the prarie sod-busters were doing the same thing as today's best eco-farmers. He must know that is not the case.

A quote from his paper: "The Dust Bowl taught us that low-input farming was unsustainable".

I disagree. What it taught us is that uneducated huge-scale disturbance of soils will always have bad consequences, whether it's from farming or developing suburbs. In an arid climate like the southwest, the consequences will be quick and severe. Contour-plowing, fallowing, and other types of soil conservation became standard after the dust-bowl experience, and eventually spread to pretty much the entire continent. Low-input agriculture isn't what is degrading, its the taking of more than the land can sustainably give, regardless of whether high or low input in terms of fertilizer and labor.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

TheMasterGardener1,
"Did I put an end to the false facts and hype about organics?"

If you posted any facts, I missed them. What were they? For the entire history of humanity, food has been produced organically until very recently. Instead of trying to understand nature and natural relationships and use that info to increase farming success, these scientists are trying to bully nature into submission with fabricated proprietary substances in the interest of profits. These companies have a long history of unleashing their poisonous substances which they insist are great for humanity but are so often later found to be damaging or even lethal. How could anyone not be bothered by being forced to be the unwilling subject of corporate experiments - AGAIN? Do you really trust these companies to make your decisions for you?

"GMO= More yield, less land, less pesticides, less fertilizers."

One of the goals of GMOs is to create plants that can be saturated in proprietary pesticides and herbicides without damage. This is what merited the kool-aid comment, your embrace of the propaganda. As an intelligent being, I'm surprised that you would place your health and that of your family in the hands of these companies.

Jolj, There is nothing anyone can say about GMOs that would eliminate my desire to know if they're in a particular package or not. If that's a bandwagon, then yes, I'm on it. How could you not want to know what's in your food?

The FDA doesn't care about you or me or anyone, just the profits of their cronies. Look at all of the drugs that have been recalled because they are eventually found to create more damage than they cure, several per year that get enough press coverage to become known by almost everyone. You'll see the commercial every 5 minutes for a few months. Then the next year is the commercial from the lawyer who you can call if that stuff harmed you or a family member so you can be part of the class-action suit against the company that made the stuff. I know 2 people involved in lawsuits for 2 different "wonder drugs." The FDA approved them all, obviously without concern for humanity. It's much easier and profitable to unleash these experiments into the population first, then see what the effects are. The profits must be more than ample to pay the resulting lawsuits, it happens SO often.

This is the same genre of companies that fought prop 37 in CA election last week - which would have required foods with GMO ingredients to indicate such on the label - partially on the basis that it would open the door to lawsuits, which they implied they wanted to avoid, in the best overall interest of consumers, of course. Regardless of one's opinion about GMOs, people deserve the right to know what is in their food, a right already afforded those in 61 other countries.

I don't think the corn, wheat, soy they've been putting in the food present immediate danger to the average, healthy person. But there is no way to be certain that there are no ill effects to people from these things. Eighteen years is not enough time for absolute conclusions to be drawn. If there were a problem found in the future, it will likely be impossible to eliminate this stuff. It is already considered a lost cause by many as GMO has been detected in so many isolated regions of Mexico. Pollen is uncontrollable.

If found to be a mistake, we can't undo it. Can you even begin to wrap your mind around trying to produce enough seed of untainted crops (the EDIBLE PART) from "scratch" from small caches of heirloom seeds to even be able to begin to match the current scale of farming that feeds huge amounts of people after such a scenario? There are no such untainted heirloom seeds already for some crops. Causing certain foods to become extinct, the loss of any food diversity, can not possibly be beneficial to humanity. The thing I find scary about GMOs is that they can't be recalled. You can stop making and using DDT or some prescription medication, but you can't undo or stop GMOs, whether or not they are approved by the FDA and then "recalled."


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

purpleinoop,

You posted the following sentence, " For the entire history of humanity, food has been produced organically until very recently."

Well, you need to realize that many fruits and vegetables in the past were treated with some substances that would not pass muster today...lead arsenate, paris green, and likely some other baddies.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

If all those industry botanists worked full-time on it, the GM-content in the corn biome could probably eliminated in a generation or two, at great cost. It would;t be too surprising of that is what they will be working on 50-100 years from now.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

"Well, you need to realize that many fruits and vegetables in the past were treated with some substances that would not pass muster today...lead arsenate, paris green, and likely some other baddies."

Wayne, that is very recent history. And you make a good point in support of what I said, thank you. As soon as people started putting fabricated and processed substances on crops, the problems began. It is good the problems with these substances you mentioned have been realized, as so often happens with non-organic and even some organic substances used improperly.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Diatomacious earth, for example, which when dusted all over plants in bloom kills a lot of pollinators.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Final conclusion: Wash your produce before you eat it.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Final, final conclusion: Eat with thanksgiving to God...be truly in harmony with nature.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

"Final conclusion: Wash your produce before you eat it. "

One cup of coffee offers 1000X greater cancer risk then a year exposure to synthetic pestiside residue.

Final, Final, Final conclusion: Drink Kool-Aid


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Competing for the final word, are we? Obviously, that prized position needs to go to a woman.

3 minutes of Alex Avery stalking has turned this up:
He works for an ultra conservative think-tank in Washington D.C., which receives money from Monsanto, DowElanco, and the Ag-Chem Equipment Company. (It's the Hudson Institute, which was ranked a 7 on a scale of 1 to 8 with 1 being farthest left and 8 being farthest right)

His book, The Truth About Organics was published by Henderson Communications, an agri-business consulting group.
So, penultimate final word: Be careful not to confuse science with politics!

Oh, and someone asked about the OP, since we don't eat straw: I believe that the concern with straw from GMO crops is that they have residue from the herbicides used on them which, if the straw is used on a garden, will kill the garden crops. I understand that the herbicides can even persist into the manure from animals that ate the GMO crops.
So, final, ultimate, completely final word: don't eat the yellow straw.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by jolj 7b/8a-S.C.,USA (My Page) on
    Wed, Nov 14, 12 at 22:10

Be careful not to Confuse science with politics.
That sums up this whole thread.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

There is nothing political about this. Plenty of folks from both sides of the aisle involved. AFAIK, you're the first to bring up politics in this discussion.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Purpleinopp -- Definitely agree there is no "only one side of the aisle" going on with these issues. My reference to politics was because there are three threads (that I know of) on which the Avery book was being held up as scientific proof about various things in Organic farming. I looked Avery up and saw that his motivations are quite political--if nothing else, he needs to please the people who pay his salary, so I thought that was important info to add to the discussion. Know your sources, as it were.

Hey -- does washing your produce actually do much to cut down pesticide exposure? I thought that most of it ended up inside the food -- otherwise why would potatoes be on the "dirty dozen" list?


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

elisa says, "Hey -- does washing your produce actually do much to cut down pesticide exposure? I thought that most of it ended up inside the food -- otherwise why would potatoes be on the "dirty dozen" list?

Now that begs the question. How much of pesticides are on the surface and how much are internal...on which vegetables and fruits?


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

I would think it is probable that in the case of potatoes the many sprays of insecticides per season on the foliage drips off in the rain and/or overhead irrigation and leaches through the few inches of soil and gets on the tubers.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

"Don't eat the yellow straw". Good one! I guess there would be a hell of a price gouge on "organic straw", eh? I may go back to mulching with my own organic lawn clippings, what do other folks use for 'maters & peppers?


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Elisa, that makes sense, thanks! My last comment was in response to Jolj, though:

"Be careful not to Confuse science with politics.
That sums up this whole thread."


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 18:44

Everyone forgot Wall Street, one major reason for GMO corn is the seed user has to sign a contract; therefore he cannot just save some seed from last years crop to reseed, he has to buy new seed.

A farmer lost a large settlement in Federal court over this.

Now if seed companies were efficiently evil, one would develope a bug that only attacks seed from rival companies--hmm, I wish I had stayed with getting a biology dgree, I could be Dr. Evil II.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Straw doesn't need to come from a GMO crop to have persistent herbicide residues on it. Clopyralid is a persistent herbicide used on grasses to kill broadleaf weeds. Most commonly a problem using hay or grass clippings that were treated with Clopyralid or related chemicals. The herbicide can persist through composting and through the digestive tract of horses or cattle grazing on the treated grass or dried hay, and show up in your garden through applying compost or manure, and can still kill some particularly susceptible garden plants like peas.

GMO herbicide resistance is to Roundup. Clopyralid is specific for broadleaf plants and can be used safely on pretty much any monocot, like grass and wheat, no genetic engineering necessary.

FWIW, GMO insecticide producing plants are increasing insect resistance to Bt, the insecticide created by the GMO plants. Which is inevitable, really, from an evolutionary perspective. You increase exposure to a mortality factor, and the exposed population is going to evolve around that. And insects evolve fast. Basic tenet of integrated pest management - don't overdo things with the chemicals because you're just setting yourself up for pesticide resistance in the pest population. Same goes for overusing herbicides.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 18, 12 at 14:44

Has nothing to do with GMO but a local grower found out the hard way about persistent herbicides.

And just to add to the previous post it is not just the overuse of herbicides but the overall misuse of them as well.

Lloyd

Here is a link that might be useful: The weed killer that killed our crop


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

reg -- thanks for the clarification about Clopyralid.

And I guess I'll keep smashing my cabbage worms and cutting them with scissors rather than resorting to Bt. (oh, and eating them with broccoli, of course.)

purple -- that quote was *me* -- that's why I answered you :)

Rpr -- Dr. Evil II -- LOL. Actually, nature seems to be striking back at the GMO crops pretty consistantly. It's like watching a very slow sci-fi movie in which monster insects and weeds invade. Movie not over yet.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Thanks, elisa, sometimes context is lost in a longer discussion like this when one just pops in to read the new additions, sorry.

This made me chuckle: like watching a very slow sci-fi movie in which monster insects and weeds invade.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Humanity has to face the fact that there will be intense pressure going forward that to feed a world population in the billions and growing. The current solution seems to use GMO seed and pesticides, suck water out of deep non-rechargeable aquifers, use fossil fuel in abundant quanitities, blanket all the best agricultural regions with mono-crops, grow our animals in concentrated animal feeding operations, etc. I wonder if this way of producing food is sustainable or desirable??

Something that we all can do today to reduce the pressure is reduce the quantity of food that we eat, in particular meat that is produced in CAFOs and feedlots (which is almost all of it). Eat most of our food locally and seasonally. Grow a little of our own. Etc.

Because I don't see the genetic engineering of food going away if consumers are not willing to change too.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by jolj 7b/8a-S.C.,USA (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 23, 12 at 17:12

Tell me again what GMO in food supply have to do with manure or compost.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

As I mentioned in the beginning of this Spanish Inquisition-length thread, I had asked about GMO straw and someone commented that GMO was not allowed for human consumption in the US. I had no idea we would still be here 72 replies later!


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

So, do you have the answer you sought?


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Sat, Nov 24, 12 at 17:16

I've been trying to locate this "previous post", any links to it?

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

On the GMO straw, I guess I did get my answer. Like with anything, you have to research your sources. I'm still not sure if possibly using GMO straw as tomato mulch will have any ill effects on my garden or our health. And I posted the old link below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Old Post


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Sat, Nov 24, 12 at 20:36

Okay, so somehow my reply in that thread got translated to "GMO crops were not authorized for human consumption" and "someone commented that GMO was not allowed for human consumption". I've re-read what I wrote and I can see no possible way it could be interpreted to say anything else but what I wrote.

This is a classic example of misunderstanding the written word that is so prevalent on forums such as these. :-(

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

And your reply is to what end? I wasn't mocking you or belittling your reading comprehension as you are apparently doing to mine (I can't tell since my understanding of the written word is so poor), when you did express the opinion that "no cereal grains were GMO". This kind of cattiness is why I left this forum 5 years ago.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 25, 12 at 10:39

It was not meant to be catty, nor did I intend to mock or belittle a persons reading comprehension. I apologize if it was taken that way.

It was written in a sad tone (sad face at the end), borne out of many years of being frustrated by interpretations and assumptions that are often incorrect.

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Many are misled. GE food can save the world from hunger. Protest groups against GMO stopped a city in Africa from accepting a resistant crop strain that could have saved many from starving.

Look up Norman Borlaug. He saved many from starving with Genetic engineered crops. Just like Dr. Norman said himself- these protesters are on cloud nine . ;)


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 25, 12 at 11:49

If I'm not mistaken, all of the wheat varieties Norman Borlaug came up with were developed by breeding versus genetic engineering.

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

You may be right. His newer work was involved in GE though. He for sure supports GMO.

There is endless info, here is just a little-

"Borlaug, who received a Nobel Peace in 1970 for his efforts to feed a hungry world, said genetic engineering (a term he prefers to GMOs) was the only technology that must be embraced by countries whose food supply is threatened by the inequalities of the world. "

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)


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

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Okay, no sweat. Of course the concern I would have with GMO would be overuse of pesticide in those that are created with resistance to pesticides, as well as invasion and corruption of native species (like teosinte in Mexico). But with new technology, we don't know what 30-40-50 years of consumption of GMO products will do to us. Peace, Lloyd.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

I look at GMO as double edged...both a friend and potential foe. When nuclear energy began to be used, it has some highly potential possibilities and yet there is the bomb which helped to win the peace in WWII and probably kept mus from dreadful wars with Russia and perhaps China...and yet, this [bomb] could blow up on us at any time


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

It is merely one tool and should not be depended upon to be The Answer, any more than a single energy source can solve all our energy problems.

As with energy, conservation could reduce our need for other tools such as the double-edged sword. In the US, 30-40% of the food produced does not make it into anyone's stomach.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Lloyd and Wayne and tox, excellent points. I don't know about the odd, unsubstantiated statistic, but agree that diversity is crucial.

I've just started reading a book which discusses (among many other things,) the Inca/Inka civilization in south America, which is fascinating me. In a nutshell, the leaders saw what each niche and section of their area had to offer, and setup whatever size settlements necessary to maximize the results. Like a group growing rice in the swampy areas, groups tending particular trees and animals at various altitudes, fishing near the shoreline, yada yada yada... They didn't try to make areas different from what they were originally, and according to the author, their food supply was the most comprehensive and sufficient of any large civilization in history.

1491 by Charles C. Mann, if anyone's interested.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

GMO can feed starving people. These GMO protesters are doing so much harm by stopping people from getting food. So while GMO protesters sit there with a full stomach protesting against something they have no idea about, there are scientests that are working hard to feed the world.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Wed, Dec 5, 12 at 1:46


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

"I'm still not sure if possibly using GMO straw as tomato mulch will have any ill effects on my garden or our health."

No doubt. Looks like you didn't get this answer because none is yet known.

"These GMO protesters are doing so much harm by stopping people from getting food." Are you referring to the incident you mentioned with this, "Protest groups against GMO stopped a city in Africa from accepting a resistant crop strain that could have saved many from starving." ? How about a link to a news story about this? That would substantiate this claim so it can mature from a hysterical blurt into a fact. Even the name of the city so folks could find a trusted source on their own.

"http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html"

I'm not reading anything called "doomsayers." This would almost certainly be the ramblings of someone with a paid agenda, profit potential*, and/or an ax to grind, in the form of insulting certain people by putting an unattractive label on their thoughts, not written with the intention of providing dispassionate info.

"So while you GMO protesters sit there with a full stomach..." full of unlabeled GMO ingredients...

"...something you have no idea about..." You being GMO protesters in general, I think. Wonder what made them want to protest? Right or wrong, they had some idea... Or were you claiming to know everything known by a particular person on this forum?

"I know so many people against GMO it is a little sickening." I'm not sure why you or anyone would find the notion of people who want to know what they are eating and avoid certain things, especially the unknown, sickening. And I would imagine whoever these people are, their upset at being used as uninformed, unconsenting guinea pigs is equally upsetting to them, if not more.

"They feed into the hype very well." What is the hype?

*Not that there's anything wrong with making a profit. But when folks are so greedy they are willing to secretly toy with the public's food supply purely for profit, then spend millions to defeat legislation that would have put an end to the secrecy, people do get upset. I don't trust a guy/company who says, "this stuff is perfectly fine to eat whether you know you are eating it or not. You can mix up edible genes in any old way and it's safe for everyone. We know so because the profits are enormous and besides, we know what's best for you, not you." That's what I hear these guys/companies saying.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Let us hear a quote from the man who provided food for billions, Norman Borlaug-

It does not matter the source. This is what was stated by him. He only wanted to do one thing; feed the world.

-Borlaug, who received a Nobel Peace in 1970 for his efforts to feed a hungry world, said genetic engineering (a term he prefers to GMOs) was the only technology that must be embraced by countries whose food supply is threatened by the inequalities of the world. "

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

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

And then there are these points to ponder from the Rodale Institue:

"Farmers who cultivated GM varieties earned less money over a 14-year period than those who continued to grow non-GM crops according to a study from the University of Minnesota.

Traditional plant breeding and farming methods have increased yields of major grain crops three to four times more than GM varieties despite huge investments of public and private dollars in biotech research.

There are 197 species of herbicide resistant weeds, many of which can be linked directly back to GM crops, and the list keeps growing.

GM crops have led to an explosion in herbicide-use as resistant crops continue to emerge. In particular, the EPA approved a 20-fold increase in how much glyphosate (Roundup�) residue is allowed in our food in response to escalating concentrations"

That last ditty is similar to raising our debt ceiling. lol

tj


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

GMO foods are dangerous and research proved 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


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

"Contamination" implies a harmful substance. Do we (do you) know anything more about this Gene VI and why it would be harmful? Not a loaded question, I'm genuinely curious.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

Thats just it, its all hear say.

I said what I needed to in this thread. Just read back.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

regarding weeds, read C.Walter's book on control of weeds without poison. I enacted some of what I learned there last season, and it worked as advertised.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

I posted this in another forum, but since the person who dug up this old thread to talk about "gene 6" in multiple forums...

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.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

The reason farmers use GMO grains is that they have been engineered for drought and pests and are Roundup ready..the reason farmers do it is because of greater yeilds. It makes fiscal scence (dollars). Its real simple more bushells to the acre more mouths are fed around the planet and more dollars to spend on the economy that keep people working in the thousands of spin off jobs related to agriculture.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 10, 13 at 19:23

There are other reasons for seeding GMO crops other than just increase in yields.

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

For the most part a farmer chooses GMO for a variety reasons ultimately summing up to less $$ spent on cropping inputs leading to a greater profit.

It's yield + a mixture of equipment/labor/pesticide/herbicide use and a few things in between that makes up for the higher initial seed cost.

Whether the mixture-du-jour of a particular cropping system in a given era is more or less earth friendly is up for debate, but most farmers are looking at costs put in vs profits realized given current market conditions.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

  • Posted by pt03 2b Southern Manitob (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 10, 13 at 23:35

Crop rotation is a large consideration in seeding a GMO crop. Using a glyphosate tolerant crop can clean up a field for the next years seeding of a different crop. For example, seeding a canola crop to be followed by an oat crop cleans up the wild oats for the next year. A good crop rotation is extremely helpful for curtailing herbicide resistance and seeding GMO into the rotation works well for this type of cropping system. With the climate changing up here, some farmers are even introducing soybeans into their rotations giving them the added value of a nitrogen fixing crop into the cropping toolbox. It's not all about yield, big picture planning is important.

Lloyd


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

More farmers really should follow a better pattern of gly/GMO use crops, but too many (especially in the US) don't. It's one RoundUp resistant crop after another...not counting winter crops for those that even bother.

Some people really don't like RoundUp, but compared to many herbicides we've had since the invent of "chemical agriculture"...RoundUp is really great stuff with relatively low toxicity levels (not to mention rather cheap, especially since it's gone patent-free).

The insect side of the GMO-resistant issue is being well addressed with the planting of trap/attract crops keeping genetic diversity alive...keeping a population of insects around that aren't heavily resistant naturally. The herbicide part of the issue is lagging, though. It's a shame, really.

With the newer 2,4-D crops being pushed to market it's thought that a lot more farmers will "rotate" 2,4-D/gly plantings...at least helping delay of RoundUp becoming economically useless in cropping systems.


 o
RE: GMO in the food supply (follow-up to previous post)

nc-cm: Thanks for the detailed post above about the P6 virus thing. As a scientist knowledgeable enough to understand what the concern would be, I can only hope that those developing these GMO's are making sure, and that the regulators are keeping watch so we don' t create monsters. I also get that we are 98% chimpanzee, and that doesn't make me think I'm going to turn into one. :-D


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Soil Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here