http://www.ask-force.org/web/Benefits/Phipps-Park-Benefits-2002.pdf
These show a decrease in glyphosate and that there is zero evidence of adverse reactions.
There is also no evidence that organic crops are better for us & the only reason organic crops show no evidence of herbicide, when tested, is that they weren’t tested for the organic herbicides used, many of which are harmful to humans.
2 Likes
Thanks for the information, panlezark. We could get into a long debate, quoting from various contradictory scientific papers about both glyphosate (and other manufactured chemicals) and organic agriculture but it would be reasonable to think that poisons introduced into the food chain would have a negative effect on the health of the environment, including human health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/
3 Likes
@unclegeorge – you have a point about secondary health impacts. But wouldn’t that be a stronger argument for pesticide labeling, to address that issue directly? Or even “Roundup Ready” labelling? On the flip side, the nice thing about certification labels like Australian Certified Organic is that you can go and look them up to find out just what their process is and what it means.
CHOICE will always fight for better, clearer labelling for any issue that effects consumers. We believe strongly in the right of consumers to make up their own minds. There are some commenters above who point out that people may make poor decisions if they’re poorly informed – but for me that’s an argument for more information, not less.
I’d like to talk more about clarity in product labelling and responses like CluckAR but it’s going off topic, so I’ll reply as new topic to this one to start it off in a new thread.
6 Likes
Actually you’d be hard pressed to find anything in a scientific journal showing harm.
Also, anything is poison, it depends on the dose. Too much oxygen or water, will kill humans.
If the chemicals break down, or reduce to safe levels, there is no impact. This is what happens & unless some peer reviewed papers show otherwise, the risks are small and the improvement in production and quality is much greater.
2 Likes
Yes viveka… Labelling is VITAL for any product and transparent and clear labelling, not the sort of stuff that the DARK act is all about in the USA… and yes hence your name… CHOICE… we want just that to be able to make our own Choice as to whether we want to consume carcinogenic GMO foods or to have GMO free foods. If GMO foods are supposed to be so good for you then why do GMO companies fight so hard to have no Labelling as they have done in the USA.
1 Like
just found this link… Airline food and Oz Harvest https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/aussie-airports-donating-leftover-plane-food-to-ho/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Australia_Australia_August_19_2016_food_and_hunger_ozharvest_actives
thanks
George 
@viveka Monsanto vs Farmers… again… http://www.panna.org/blog/monsanto-vs-farmers-again?utm_source=groundtruth&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=gt-08-19
Monsanto’s latest genetically engineered (GE) seeds are wreaking havoc this season in soybean country. “Xtend,” the corporation’s new GE soybean, is engineered to tolerate application of the drift-prone herbicide dicamba. The seed was approved in 2015, and now soybean farmers who did not adopt it are reporting damage to their crops from dicamba drift
And the damage is extensive. An estimated 200,000 acres of soybeans have been lost so far on farms in Arkansas, Tennessee and Misssouri. Growers of other crops, such as peaches, are suffering significant losses as well. How did this happen? …
See the full article click on the link… to see what Monsatin has been doing again… Warm Regards… George
2 Likes
@arcobelina @natural.thought @phb
See this latest info… http://www.panna.org/blog/monsanto-vs-farmers-again?utm_source=groundtruth&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=gt-08-19
Loving this thread, great to see the opinions out there!
Such a complex issue and I’m involved personally.
I personally don’t think that GM is a bad thing in itself, I believe it’s going to be essential for productivity increases to keep the population fed efficiently, without stressing the environment more and more for food production. I think it’s a trade-off, at some point we need to be realistic. A few not-for-profits, such as The Gates Foundation, are pouring a lot of money into GM research for crops that can help combat other social problems. Without picking a side, the Golden Rice example is fascinating, and you can see how the various issues play out.
In fact my own company currently competes with GM technology to improve the productivity of plantation eucalyptus trees. While we aim to assist natural breeding programs to increase efficiency, a few of our competitors are trying to genetically modify eucalypts. Of course, I’m on my own side There is no need to genetically modify trees when you can achieve better results through breeding.
However, we’ve seen examples of appalling behaviour by some companies pushing/protecting their GM products, which I see as a separate issue. Some companies will just behave badly. As a side issue, I think the Australian Story: Seeds of Wrath is well worth watching. So many issues at play.
Can labelling help consumers make a better choice not to support some of these practices? To a degree, I think so. Certainly, if you’re going to claim your products are GM free then they 100% should be. That’s not negotiable.
4 Likes
Transparent GM labelling will give us choice. Many people are concerned by the safety of GMOs and do not trust our regulators . Others may not like the idea of having their food controlled by chemical giants. The EU has had GM labelling since 1999 so it is possible.
2 Likes
There is nothing difficult about understanding what has been genetically engineered and what is not. Muddying the waters by confusing traditional breeding with GM is not useful.
1 Like
Jokeran. WE have been unknowingly eating GM derived foods for less than 20 years. During that time there has not been one study to see if they are safe for humans to eat . Not one. The only study done involving humans was to test the hypothesis that the GM DNA would be broken down in the gut and not pass through the gut lining. The study consisted of a small group of volunteers eating a GM soy burger, and a GM soy milkshake. The results showed that the GM DNA in fact survived the gut tract. There has never been any follow-up.
1 Like
@jan60gro, there are two aspects of GMO, the science and emotion.
The science used for a vast majority of GMO research is to produce agricultural products which have higher nutritional value, environmental and disease resistance (heat, drought, cold etc) and yield. Such in the past was done through breeding programs which took many years more to achieve the same outcome…for exanple breeding drought resistance or better water efficiency in wheat.
GMO research has allowed plant breeders a new tool to achieve the same results in shorter time periods which is cheaoer, provides greater consistency, quality and repeatability.
There is fringe research looking at cross genus gene transfer to see if benefits of one agricultural product can be translocated to another. For example, transferring the omega oil gene from fish into a cereal grain. Such work is being carried out as humans have been great at exploiting and depleting the earths natural resources…such as harvesting almost everything in the world’s oceans to satisify the demand for products with perceived omega 3 health benefits.
There has also been cross genus transfer for chemical and pest resistance, most notable is possible roundup ready soybean. Roundup resistance occurred naturally in other species, and the gene placed in soybeans.
The emotional aspect is about thinking GMO research is unnatural or everything is ‘frankenstein’ food.
Any discussion on GMO must be rational and based on science, not emotion.
In relation to fish genes, fish genes don’t cause allergies. It is chemicals or parts of the fish that do this. Otherwise, as outlined in other posts, people with alergies would be allergic to almost everything as genes are common across all living plants and animals.
1 Like
So far all they have achieved are two main traits…one that allows the plant to absorb pesticides and another that allows the plant to produce its own pesticides.
Genetic engineering is not like moving Lego blocks. The process is far more complex and we have no idea what is being created when the DNA blueprint is changed.
1 Like
Yes the smell of the peanut would contain ‘some of the peanut’ much like the fish genes contain ‘parts of fish’ You cannot disassociate them. Read this article about fish allergies to see how difficult and dangerous this problem can be. http://www.foodallergy.org/allergens/fish-allergy “•Fish protein can become airborne in the steam released during cooking and may be a risk. …•The protein in the flesh of fish most commonly causes the allergic reaction; however, it is also possible to have a reaction to fish gelatin, made from the skin and bones of fish. Although fish oil does not contain protein from the fish from which it was extracted, it is likely to be contaminated with small molecules of protein and therefore should be avoided.”
Hi @jan60gro
This is not correct. There have been substantial achievements in generic engineering as outlined in my eariler post.
In relation to pesticides, the plants contain genetic material from a fragment of DNA of a bacteria, which causes the plants to produce a protien which is toxic to insects. Other non-GMO plants do similar through natural sekection and evolution…produce compounds which are toxic to insects. Pyrethrim is a obvious example. The compounds produced are natural, albeit not from the species in question. It is not a pesticide as such, but installing a natural defence mechanism against attack.
Plants absorbing pesticides is also incorrect. All plants sprayed with say glyphosate absorb the salts through the point of contact. GMO plants are provided with genes which protect the plant from the effects of low concentrations of glyphosate…which would have otherwise case injury or death to the plant.
As outlined above, it is important to focus on the science and not emotions/myths.
1 Like
Please give examples of these in the real world, and not just as concepts.[quote=“phb, post:46, topic:5334”]
The emotional aspect is about thinking GMO research is unnatural or everything is ‘frankenstein’ food.
Any discussion on GMO must be rational and based on science, not emotion.
[/quote]
This is the first mention of ‘Frankenstein’ food, and it came from you.
Crops that have the Bt gene inserted in them, such as Bt corn and Bt cotton exude pesticides from every cell for the life of the plant. Unlike the Bt spray used by organic farmers, this pesticide is inside the plant, in every cell, cannot be washed off nor does it dissipate in the sunlight. It is also 3,000 to 5,000 times more toxic than the spray. And then it is harvested and enters the food chain, unlabelled.[quote=“phb, post:50, topic:5334”]
Plants absorbing pesticides is also incorrect. All plants sprayed with say glyphosate absorb the salts through the point of contact. GMO plants are provided with genes which protect the plant from the effects of low concentrations of glyphosate…which would have otherwise case injury or death to the plant.
[/quote]
When a plant is sprayed with Roundup the adjuvants in the mixture allow the spray to enter in the plant cells thus delivering the chemical which will kill the plant. If the plant is Roundup Ready the same process will occur, but the chemical, once inside the plant, will not kill it. It will remain inside the plant, whcih will thenl enter the food chain, unlabelled.
1 Like
I’m with you! I would much rather see were the food is from. The country of origin is way more importent.
