# GMO Salmon approved for sale



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://news.yahoo.com/us-approves-genetically-modified-salmon-food-145306836.html



> Miami (AFP) - US regulators on Thursday approved a type of genetically-modified salmon as safe to eat, making it the first transgenic animal
> destined for American dinner tables.
> 
> The Food and Drug Administration's decision came after years of
> ...


Let the hysteria commence!


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I stopped buying salmon when they started shipping it to China for processing. There is no telling what it is loaded with when it comes back. So no need to become hysterical now.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Salmon farming in general has proven to be pretty destructive to local habitats. I don't even care about the GMO side of it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Seems sort of pointless to turn a Atlantic salmon into a western king salmon When all you had to do was move a few of the king salmon in the first place


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I have no problem with GMO anything except when it is sold, but, not labeled as such and when the GMO interbreeds with non GMO such is the case with Roundup ready corn and other crops. It may be as safe as any other type of food, but, people have the right to choose what they put into their bodies.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Tastes just like chicken! 

I have no problem with it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Me neither I don't like salmon.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

It also contains genes from the Ocean Pout which is somewhat like an eel.

Here in the pacific northwest, we eat a lot of salmon. Most of it comes from the cold waters in Alaska. It is very easy to buy it fresh wild caught. We even have different types from different areas and time of season. Some people are really picky about which one they like. My favorite is the Copper River Salmon.

I sometimes see farm raised salmon for sale. It looks different. Apparently they do not develop that dark orange that wild caught have. Someone once told me that they have to add a coloring to their food to get a more orange color. It hardly sells and most folks don't even consider it. It usually says 'farm raised' on the label so we know to avoid it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Seems sort of pointless to turn a Atlantic salmon into a western king salmon When all you had to do was move a few of the king salmon in the first place


If it were that simple don't you think they would have done that?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it were that simple don't you think they would have done that?



No .


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Seems sort of pointless to turn a Atlantic salmon into a western king salmon When all you had to do was move a few of the king salmon in the first place


I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain what you're talking about when you suggest *moving* a few Chinook/King salmon.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Kings return to the waters they are raised in. It would be a simple thing to introduce a bucket of king salmon eggs to the water where they want bigger fish.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

That's already been done in several places in the east, including transplants as far south as Atlantic South America, so that the Chinook can migrate in Atlantic regions. 

So how will transplanting Chinook to the Atlantic regions help with fish farming? And, seeing as how it's already been done, why isn't the Atlantic Ocean teeming with millions of Chinook salmon suitable for commercial and sports fishing now?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I have read a lot of negative things about "farming" salmon, but it seems like still has to be better than over-fishing the wild stocks.

About the only "farmed" fish I will buy is catfish. Anything else is wild caught or we just do without. It isn't practical to expect to dine on fresh seafood frequently, living here in the middle of the continent so far from the seas. I buy Alaska salmon in cans more often than fresh or frozen.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I wonder how many people wet their pants over GMO Salmon, but will buy farmed fish from Asia? BTW, lots of fish labeled wild caught, wasn't.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

haypoint said:


> BTW, lots of fish labeled wild caught, wasn't.


Can you elaborate on this? Where did you get this information?

Wouldn't that violate truth in advertising laws?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

logbuilder said:


> Can you elaborate on this? Where did you get this information?
> 
> Wouldn't that violate truth in advertising laws?


Every now and then, it gets reported. But as far as sea food, there are very few checks. You think we have USDA inspectors in Asia checking this stuff?:umno:http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food-safety/article/how-safe-your-imported-seafood


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) laws were put on hold due to complaints to the World Trade Organization that it is unfair for Americans to know where their food comes from. That's why you saw all those improved, more specific labels in the meat case starting a couple years ago, but there was whining from our trading partners that it hurt their opportunities and the WTO went along with them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Kings return to the waters they are raised in. It would be a simple thing to introduce a bucket of king salmon eggs to the water where *they want bigger fish*.


They didn't want "*bigger* fish".
The main reason was given in the OP:



> The fish, called AquAdvantage Salmon, is made by AquaBounty
> Technologies in Massachusetts, and *can reach adult size in 16 to 18
> months instead of 30 months* for normal Atlantic salmon.


They grow twice as fast


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Yup, they grow faster. This write up about them in Wikipedia says the genetically engineered triploid salmon called AquAdvantage have the _capability_ to grow 11 times faster than wild-type salmonids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

We don't eat it, so whether salmon is wild-caught, farm-raised, or GMO doesn't matter that much to me.

HOWEVER...I do understand why they did it (or anything else GMO for that matter). As world population increases, so does the demand for resources. Farmlands are sold off and converted to housing (over-priced, cookie-cutter neighborhoods around these parts) or recreation, rivers/lakes/streams are over-taxed due to increased water demand, etc. As the population increases (and lives longer), at some point the demand will exceed the supply of just about everything. 

I don't like the idea of modifying foodstuffs at the genetic level, but, in the future, if this growing population wants to eat, something is going to have to be done to insure the food supply is sufficient.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Just so long as it's labeled as GMO, and has no chance of escaping the area like a plant's pollen often does, it doesn't matter much to me. Don't eat much fish anyway.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I don't like it. We only eat wild caught salmon. But it is only a matter of time until the GMO version escapes and the genes are spread into the wild.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I don't like it. We only eat wild caught salmon. But it is only a matter of time until the GMO version escapes and the genes are spread into the wild.


Which part of "landlocked farms only" and "sterile hybrids" mentioned in the article lead you to those conclusions.

All those "genes" are already in the wild. That's where they came from.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I don't like it. We only eat wild caught salmon. But it is only a matter of time until the GMO version escapes and the genes are spread into the wild.


If the GMO version escaped there is no risk of their genes mixing in with other salmonid species. It's not possible for them to interbreed with non-GMO Atlantic salmon. There is only one other species that non-GMO Atlantic salmon are capable of interbreeding with and that is the European Brown Trout.

IF the GMO species _were_ fertile and if they escaped the one risk there would be is if they bred with each other and eventually out-populated other fish species to the extent they out-competed other fish for food.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Fennick said:


> If the GMO version escaped there is no risk of their genes mixing in with other salmonid species. It's not possible for them to interbreed with non-GMO Atlantic salmon. There is only one other species that non-GMO Atlantic salmon are capable of interbreeding with and that is the European Brown Trout.
> 
> *IF the GMO species were fertile and if they escaped the one risk there would be is if they bred with each other and eventually out-populated other fish species to the extent they out-competed other fish for food.*


That's the biggest concern I have seen put forward.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which part of "landlocked farms only" and "sterile hybrids" mentioned in the article lead you to those conclusions.
> 
> All those "genes" are already in the wild. That's where they came from.


Because you know people never cheat. And nature never finds a way. All the GMO plants were touted as safe and tightly controlled. Look how that turned out.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

> *IF the GMO species were fertile and if they escaped the one risk there would be is if they bred with each other and eventually out-populated other fish species to the extent they out-competed other fish for food.*





Patchouli said:


> That's the biggest concern I have seen put forward.


I think it's not a valid concern because it's an impossible scenario. 

They are ordinary female Atlantic salmon that have been injected with genes or hormones from other fish to make them infertile and grow faster and withstand cold better. They have not had the other genes bred into them, only injected, so the capability to grow faster isn't something they would carry in their own genes nor be able to pass along to offspring (if they were fertile, which they aren't). It's like if an athlete weight lifter gets injected with steroids to create more muscle mass, it doesn't mean she's going to pass those steroids along to her offspring.

If the injected females were fertile and were to escape into the wild they would still need to find ordinary wild male Atlantic salmon to breed with them to produce offspring. Their resulting offspring would be just like other ordinary wild Atlantic salmon and those that have already been bred and released into new locations.

To date, the wild Atlantic salmon throughout their entire ranges (both natural and introduced) have not show any indication of out-populating or out-competing other fish. I doubt there will be any type of supersalmon magically manifesting in the oceans out of non-fertile females that might escape.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Because you know people never cheat. And nature never finds a way. All the GMO plants were touted as safe and tightly controlled. *Look how that turned out*.


It turned out just fine unless you believe all the misinformation parroted by the anti's.
If you want to make such claims you should offer some specifics


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I'll just wait until a few years down the road when the salmon cause a problem. You can believe whatever you like about GMOs and I will go with what I believe. I know better than to waste my time posting links for you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I'll just wait until a few years down the road when the salmon cause a problem. You can believe whatever you like about GMOs and I will go with what I believe. I know better than to waste my time posting links for you.


That's what I figured.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Fennick said:


> If the GMO version escaped there is no risk of their genes mixing in with other salmonid species. It's not possible for them to interbreed with non-GMO Atlantic salmon. There is only one other species that non-GMO Atlantic salmon are capable of interbreeding with and that is the European Brown Trout.
> 
> IF the GMO species _were_ fertile and if they escaped the one risk there would be is if they bred with each other and eventually out-populated other fish species to the extent they out-competed other fish for food.


We've got Asian Carp migrating up the Mississippi and are getting into the Great Lakes and you are worried about a Salmon overpopulation?

Still waiting for GMO Corn, soybeans, Canola, alfalfa and sugar beets to escape and out-populate the weeds.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It turned out just fine unless you believe all the misinformation parroted by the anti's.
> If you want to make such claims you should offer some specifics


 I know RR corn does and has cross pollinated with heirloom, open pollinated corn, ruining the genetic integrity of the corn and costing the growers of that corn big bucks. The non GMO market is real and it can be lucrative, if the growers can keep the GMO genes out of their seed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I know RR corn does and has cross pollinated with heirloom, open pollinated corn, ruining the genetic integrity of the corn and costing the growers of that corn big bucks. The non GMO market is real and it can be lucrative, if the growers can keep the GMO genes out of their seed.


Then show some documented examples that can be discussed.

It's hard to get Corn to pollinate unless it's planted correctly, so most stories of "cross-pollination" are "stories" only, and many cases have proven to be the actual planting of GMO corn rather than cross-pollination

https://hort.purdue.edu/ext/HO-98.pdf



> Distance. Since pollen is carried by the wind rather
> than insects, distance can be used as an effective
> barrier.
> 
> ...


http://agdev.anr.udel.edu/weeklycropupdate/?p=4560



> Pollen is light and can be carried considerable distances (up to 600 feet) by the wind. However, most of it settles within 20 to 50 feet.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then show some documented examples that can be discussed.
> 
> It's hard to get Corn to pollinate unless it's planted correctly, so most stories of "cross-pollination" are "stories" only, and many cases have proven to be the actual planting of GMO corn rather than cross-pollination
> 
> ...


 Here is what Purdue says about GMO cross contamination:

https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.00/GMO_Issues-000307.html

Here is a story albeit from a biased source (I can't seem to find a non biased source on either side of the debate.) http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/apr10/organicfarmers_gmocontamination.php

I am not speaking of a little pollen drift from you neighbors 1000 acres of RR corn to your 1000 acre field of Non-GMO corn. I am speaking of a little pollen drift from your neighbors 1000 acre GMO field to your 10 acre plot of rare Cherokee White Eagle seed corn, or, the certified organic farm on the other side.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It turned out just fine unless you believe all the misinformation parroted by the anti's.
> If you want to make such claims you should offer some specifics


 Sure has turned out ok just look at how many things are in use today because of what took place years ago, and things are just fine.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Here is what Purdue says about GMO cross contamination:
> 
> https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.00/GMO_Issues-000307.html
> 
> ...


There are strategies to stop unwanted cross pollination, as this has been an issue with corn since long before GMO corn was on the market. Anybody growing seed corn would want to employ them whether they have a GMO growing neighbor or not, it's in their best interest to ensure the purity of their seed against any and all other varieties.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> There are strategies to stop unwanted cross pollination, as this has been an issue with corn since long before GMO corn was on the market. Anybody growing seed corn would want to employ them whether they have a GMO growing neighbor or not, it's in their best interest to ensure the purity of their seed against any and all other varieties.


True, but, when your claim is "non-GMO" keeping GMO out of the mix is paramount. 1% contamination by some non-gmo variety is one thing, 1% contamination by Monsanto's latest, is quite another.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> True, but, when your claim is "non-GMO" keeping GMO out of the mix is paramount. 1% contamination by some non-gmo variety is one thing, 1% contamination by Monsanto's latest, is quite another.


It is, only if you set the standard that all the DNA from all other varieties of corn are not a concern, but every bit of DNA from any herbicide-restraint corn has kooties.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> It is, only if you set the standard that all the DNA from all other varieties of corn are not a concern, but every bit of DNA from any herbicide-restraint corn has kooties.


 
If the corn tests positive for GMO, it is positive for GMO and can no longer be sold as a "Non-GMO" product, kooties not withstanding.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> If the corn tests positive for GMO, it is positive for GMO and can no longer be sold as a "Non-GMO" product, kooties not withstanding.


Non-GMO is the standard to be certified organic. Who do you think pushed for that exclusion? Yup, the Monsanto is the Devil, anti-anything Monsanto, Church of the Holy Mercola crowd.

Prior to Monsanto's Frankenfood, very little of the seed corn was open pollenated. 99% was hybridized. Care is taken to insure that the pollen from the tassels of one corn variety only pollenates the silk of another variety of corn. Let me explain. Corn variety A provides the pollen and Corn variety B has the silk and produces the seed. No seed is collected from corn variety A. The ears of corn variety B are covered with a paper bag, then the tassels of corn variety B are removed. Only the pollen from corn variety A is left in the field and only the seed from corn variety B is picked for seed. This is a simple single cross. Often there are four way crosses that utilize the pollen from corn variety AB and the silk and resulting seed from corn variety CD, resulting in the desired traits of four corn varieties.

Plant scientists have eliminated much of the hand labor of bagging ears and de-tasseling, by further manipulation of seed corn varieties. Today, the variety that would have the tassels removed, is bred to grow a foot taller and tassel late. Machinery can run across the field, mowing off the unwanted tassels, leaving the other variety's tassels uncut.

Corn seed production could never work if the myths of pollen drift were true. Seed corn production always required reasonable distance between varieties being grown for seed. It has only with the formation of the anti-Monsanto, anti-GMO that this straw man argument has been presented.

I can't grow my OP yellow popcorn plants next to my neighbor's OP Indian Corn. Instead, I plant a few rows of pumpkins and a few rows of tomatoes, closest to my property line to insure the remote chance of pollen drift doesn't bother me or my neighbor.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Here is what Purdue says about GMO cross contamination:
> 
> https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.00/GMO_Issues-000307.html
> 
> ...


I'm sure there are *random* instances, but they are statistically insignificant, and easily avoided with a little planning 

If one is growing "seed corn" they need to be aware of what is planted nearby, and the timing of the plantings.

There are many thousands of farms, and hardly any examples of cross-pollination

Here's what your source really boils down to:



> A spokesman for the group, which wishes to remain* unidentified* to protect their organic markets, says, 'We're doing more testing and seeing increased low levels of GMO contamination.'


An anonymous group making vague statements, with no documentation.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Apparently, research work on GMO Salmon with the Bt gene has been halted after the discovery that salmon are not commonly infested with corn borers. However, production of hybrid corn with the Bt continues its popularity.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

About a decade ago, Monsanto planted a field of Roundup Ready GMO alfalfa. They did in in South Dakota, far from the alfalfa seed growing areas of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, so there wouldn't be any worry about cross pollination. 

Because alfalfa seed production depends on weed free seed and seed undamaged by insects or molds, organic alfalfa accounts for a tiny bit of the seed alfalfa market. 
No sooner had they planted their GMO alfalfa and an anti-GMO group purchased land that bordered this plot and began, you guessed it, growing organic alfalfa for seed.

Cool trick, it worked. This tiny group, their contributors and their team of lawyers halted Roundup Ready alfalfa for over a decade. But the pollen drift red herring remains.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Calling people, who don't want GMO corn crossing with their Open pollinated corn, "anti-Monsanto" is a poor pejorative. Of course, they would be against a company that is a threat to their livelihood. Of course Monsanto and its supporters would say that the threat is not significant (until it affects them). If one depends on producing seed that is non-GMO and there is ANY cross pollination with GMO corn, that crop is suspect at best. 

IMO, it should be up to the person who plants the GMO corn to ensure that his pollen stays on his place, just like it should be his responsibility to keep his crossbred commercial bull out of his neighbors seed stock Angus herd.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They didn't want "*bigger* fish".
> The main reason was given in the OP:
> 
> 
> ...





Fennick said:


> Yup, they grow faster. This write up about them in Wikipedia says the genetically engineered triploid salmon called AquAdvantage have the _capability_ to grow 11 times faster than wild-type salmonids.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon


 Wow so with genetic engineering they grow just a little slower than a regular wild king salmon?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Calling people, who don't want GMO corn crossing with their Open pollinated corn, "anti-Monsanto" is a poor pejorative. Of course, they would be against a company that is a threat to their livelihood. Of course Monsanto and its supporters would say that the threat is not significant (until it affects them). If one depends on producing seed that is non-GMO and there is ANY cross pollination with GMO corn, that crop is suspect at best.
> 
> IMO, it should be up to the person who plants the GMO corn to ensure that his pollen stays on his place, just like it should be his responsibility to keep his crossbred commercial bull out of his neighbors seed stock Angus herd.


IMO, if you want to grow a specialty crop (let's face it, non-GMO is becoming a specialty crop), with extra requirements, then you need to take prudent steps to insure your plants' purity. Growing organic corn that tassels at the same time as your neighbor's commercial corn, right up against the fence line is akin to not maintaining the fence that separates your purebred Angus from the neighbor's cull bull. There is a shared responsibility. Placing it all on the farmer because you don't like GMO isn't fair either.

Often, with Bt GMO corn, farmers do grow a border of non-gmo around it, giving you the border you want.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> IMO, if you want to grow a specialty crop (let's face it, non-GMO is becoming a specialty crop), with extra requirements, then you need to take prudent steps to insure your plants' purity. Growing organic corn that tassels at the same time as your neighbor's commercial corn, right up against the fence line is akin to not maintaining the fence that separates your purebred Angus from the neighbor's cull bull. There is a shared responsibility. Placing it all on the farmer because you don't like GMO isn't fair either.
> 
> Often, with Bt GMO corn, farmers do grow a border of non-gmo around it, giving you the border you want.


What they do, on their side of the fence is their business, until what they do affects what is happening on my side of the fence. It then becomes my business.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> What they do, on their side of the fence is their business, until what they do affects what is happening on my side of the fence. It then becomes my business.


Because corn is wind pollinated you have to acknowledge the reality that the wind doesn't respect a property line. So you make sure you have the distance, the timing, etc. to keep your own corn "pure". Again, this is not a new issue. People growing seed corn have developed strategies over many years to ensure the purity of their seed, whether it be an heirloom variety, a hybrid or the GMOs. People growing corn for consumption, but who still need their corn to be "pure" to its variety, can benefit from what the seed growers learned the hard way. Not nearly as big a deal as you are making it out to be.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> Because corn is wind pollinated you have to acknowledge the reality that the wind doesn't respect a property line. So you make sure you have the distance, the timing, etc. to keep your own corn "pure". Again, this is not a new issue. People growing seed corn have developed strategies over many years to ensure the purity of their seed, whether it be an heirloom variety, a hybrid or the GMOs. People growing corn for consumption, but who still need their corn to be "pure" to its variety, can benefit from what the seed growers learned the hard way. Not nearly as big a deal as you are making it out to be.


 The fact that other Non-gmo corn can cross with other non-gmo corn is not at issue. A 1% contamination of Non-GMO X in a crop of heirloom seed corn is not a tragedy. A 1% contamination of GMO corn in that same crop of heirloom corn, ruins the crop. That contamination, IMO, doesn't make the corn unsafe to eat, or, whatever other claims the Non-GMO crowd says, but, it does make that crop useless to the farmer who is trying to fill that market. 

So the fact that it is not a "significant" amount of cross pollination is relative. 1% from a non GMO corn is insignificant, 1% from GMO corn is very significant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Calling people, who don't want GMO corn crossing with their Open pollinated corn, "anti-Monsanto" is a poor pejorative. Of course, they would be against a company that is a threat to their livelihood. Of course Monsanto and its supporters would say that the threat is not significant (until it affects them). If one depends on producing seed that is non-GMO and there is ANY cross pollination with GMO corn, that crop is suspect at best.
> 
> IMO, it should be up to the person who plants the GMO corn to ensure that his pollen stays on his place, just like it should be his responsibility to keep his crossbred commercial bull out of his neighbors seed stock Angus herd.


Your source didn't say it was all from "cross-pollination"
It only said shipments were found that contained GMO kernals, meaning it could have gotten in at harvest or shipment

If one wants seed, they simply take the proper precautions regarding timing and distance


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> What they do, on their side of the fence is their business, until what they do affects what is happening on my side of the fence. It then becomes my business.


Really? Please detail the steps you take to contain the pollen on your land from blowing onto your neighbor's land? Perhaps your rule is just for others?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow so with genetic engineering they grow just a little slower than a regular wild king salmon?


Maybe you should read things again


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe you should read things again



Why ?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Why ?


Because you said:



AmericanStand said:


> Wow so with genetic engineering they grow just *a little slower* than a regular wild king salmon?


You said that immediately after you quoted two other people who explained to you that it makes them grow *a lot* *faster*, (not bigger, not a little slower, but faster) than the wild king salmon.

So go back and read again what was actually said to you in the posts you quoted.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Your right I should explain. I looked up the article and took a quick peek at the wiki. 
Apparently these fish grow ALMOST as fast as a king for about 30 months. 
It appears that both Atlantic and western king salmon grow larger over a longer period of time. 
It also appears that the new thing isn't quite a salmon. The muscle fibers are thinner so they lack both the power and stamina of the normal salmon. 
Not to mention they lack the flavor of even a farm raised pink salmon. 

The pertinent point is they grow slightly slower than a king but since they don't have the same sex development as a normal salmon they mature at a younger age and bigger than a Atlantic at that age.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Your right I should explain. I looked up the article and took a quick peek at the wiki.
> *Apparently these fish grow ALMOST as fast as a king for about 30 months. *
> It appears that both Atlantic and western king salmon grow larger over a longer period of time.
> It also appears that the new thing isn't quite a salmon. The muscle fibers are thinner so they lack both the power and stamina of the normal salmon.
> ...


It's obvious you aren't reading nor understanding the other posts


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It's obvious that you believe anything the "authorities" feed you.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Really? Please detail the steps you take to contain the pollen on your land from blowing onto your neighbor's land? Perhaps your rule is just for others?


 As there is no seed, kept by farmers, growing GMO corn (the company that has the patent on the corn is the only legal producer of the seed) a little cross pollination by non-gmo crops does no damage. For the farmer who is trying to produce certified non-gmo crops, a little pollination from the GMO crops does catastrophic damage to his crop. It is all a matter of potential damage. It should be the grower of the damaging crop (GMO'S, in this case) to ensure that the pollen from his crop doesn't destroy his neighbors crop, by use of very wide buffers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> As there is no seed, kept by farmers, growing GMO corn (the company that has the patent on the corn is the only legal producer of the seed) a little cross pollination by non-gmo crops does no damage. For the farmer who is trying to produce certified non-gmo crops, a little pollination from the GMO crops does catastrophic damage to his crop. It is all a matter of potential damage. It should be the grower of the damaging crop (GMO'S, in this case) to ensure that the pollen from his crop doesn't destroy his neighbors crop, by use of very wide buffers.


You're just repeating yourself while offering no proof that cross pollination is even a real problem

If you're concerned about it, you have to make an effort to ensure it doesn't take place.
It's not the other guy's problem


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're just repeating yourself while offering no proof that cross pollination is even a real problem
> 
> If you're concerned about it, you have to make an effort to ensure it doesn't take place.
> It's not the other guy's problem


 
The article I provided from Perdue, stated that it was a possibility. There have been reports from Non-GMO seed sellers having a hard time finding seeds that have not been contaminated with GMO's. (of course, that is a biased source, as is just about every source to someone). I don't know if GMO's are dangerous to humans and animals, or, not. That is not the issue. The issue is that small farmers are having their livelihood threatened by the chance of cross pollination by GMO's. They cannot sell their seeds if they have ANY positive results of GMO contamination. A years worth of work gone because their neighbor planted the newest Monsanto corn. This danger doesn't work in reverse. The farmer with GMO corn is not going have his crop ruined by a little open pollen seed drifting into his field. 

I guess it is another case of the small farmer being run over by the big guy.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> The article I provided from Perdue, stated that it was a possibility. There have been reports from Non-GMO seed sellers having a hard time finding seeds that have not been contaminated with GMO's. (of course, that is a biased source, as is just about every source to someone). I don't know if GMO's are dangerous to humans and animals, or, not. That is not the issue. The issue is that small farmers are having their livelihood threatened by the chance of cross pollination by GMO's. They cannot sell their seeds if they have ANY positive results of GMO contamination. A years worth of work gone because their neighbor planted the newest Monsanto corn. This danger doesn't work in reverse. The farmer with GMO corn is not going have his crop ruined by a little open pollen seed drifting into his field.
> 
> I guess it is another case of the small farmer being run over by the big guy.



Some you the no government in my life wants the government to control your neighbors choices but not yours! Got it


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> Some you the no government in my life wants the government to control your neighbors choices but not yours! Got it


 
What?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> What?


You are always promoting getting govt. Out of your life but want the gov. To control the actions of others so you don't have to exercise that personal responsibility you talk about


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> You are always promoting getting govt. Out of your life but want the gov. To control the actions of others so you don't have to exercise that personal responsibility you talk about



One of the few legitimate and basic functions of government is to enforce the no trespassing laws. It's like the guy next-door starts a Rattlesnake Ranch without any fences


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I guess it is another case of the small farmer being run over by the big guy.


The small farmer needs to be smart enough to prevent that from happening.

In this scenario, it's a simple matter of adjusting planting dates


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> ...... It should be the grower of the damaging crop (GMO'S, in this case) to ensure that the pollen from his crop doesn't destroy his neighbors crop, by use of *very wide buffers*.


I agree that GMO farmers should be cooperative with non-GMO farmers in ensuring that their neighbours' non-GMO crops don't become corrupted by GMO pollen but can you explain what very wide buffers would be? How does one go about creating buffers to prevent pollinating insects and birds from spreading pollens wherever they go? Insects and birds do as they see fit and know no boundaries.




Bearfootfarm said:


> The small farmer needs to be smart enough to prevent that from happening.
> 
> In this scenario, it's *a simple matter of adjusting planting dates*


I don't understand. To the best of my knowledge plants won't pay any attention to planting dates, plants don't know what dates are. Plants also do as they see fit and grow best when and where there are the best conditions for them. Please explain how would adjusting planting dates make a difference? 

Also who is it that would need to be adjusting planting dates, the GMO farmers or the non-GMO farmers?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Fennick said:


> I agree that GMO farmers should be cooperative with non-GMO farmers in ensuring that their neighbours' non-GMO crops don't become corrupted by GMO pollen but can you explain what very wide buffers would be? How does one go about creating buffers to prevent pollinating insects and birds from spreading pollens wherever they go? Insects and birds do as they see fit and know no boundaries.
> 
> I don't understand. To the best of my knowledge plants won't pay any attention to planting dates, plants don't know what dates are. Plants also do as they see fit and grow best when and where there are the best conditions for them. Please explain how would adjusting planting dates make a difference?
> 
> Also who is it that would need to be adjusting planting dates, the GMO farmers or the non-GMO farmers?


They can coordinate the dates fairly easily.
Most non-GMO corns are the "sweet corn" varieties, and GMO is generally "field corn". They will have different "maturity" dates and growing periods

By staggering the planting dates, it won't tassel at the same time, so there will be little chance of cross pollination.

Corn is hard to pollinate as it is, and just a few hundred feet can reduce to chances to near zero

Lots of corn grown for seed is actually hand pollinated to ensure no out-crossing

The complaints of cross pollination from GMO crops are blown way out of proportion to reality.

http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edi...rn-pollination-how-to-hand-pollinate-corn.htm


http://www.walterreeves.com/gardening-q-and-a/corn-preventing-cross-pollination/



> Plant your two corn crops a couple of weeks apart. In this way they wonât be shedding pollen at the same time and youâll likely get a good harvest of both kinds of corn.


Insects and birds don't pollinate corn, and distance can solve most of the problems, as can any type of barriers that interrupt wind flow:

https://hort.purdue.edu/ext/HO-98.pdf



> Quote:
> Distance. Since pollen is carried by the wind rather
> than insects, distance can be used as an effective
> barrier.
> ...


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

I don't believe that insects don't pollinate corn. Insects go on everything.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Fennick said:


> I don't believe that insects don't pollinate corn. Insects go on everything.


First you state that you have no idea how planning dates for your corn to tassel at different times than neighboring corn, a basic fact known by anyone with even a passing interest in corn seed production. Then you frost the cake by disputing the most basic known fact of corn pollination.

OK, it is clear that you know very little about corn seed production. It is also clear that you expect the 1000 acres of corn to be planted so as to not interfere with a backyard plot of corn.

If we could dispense with the grasping of straws and look at this in a far more realistic fashion, you'd see that your neighbor's 1000 acers of corn is as important to him as your bushel of open pollenated heritage seed corn. He has identified the pitfalls and come up with solutions, I'd advise you to do the same. Most farmers rotate crops. Plant your corn the year he has soybeans. Also, farmers do plant buffer strips. I'm not sure the requirement, so won't say what I don't know.

But if those 1000 acres of corn was plain old 1940s style hybrid field corn and you planted your open pollenated sweet corn or open pollenated pop corn, your crop would be effected. Just now you think GMO is evil so you are trying to road block it any way you can.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

haypoint said:


> ...... Just now you think GMO is evil so you are trying to road block it any way you can.


That's a load of bollocks. I double dog dare you to produce any post of mine at any time that indicates I'm against GMO. Double double dog dare you. Triple dog dare you. I can 100 % guarantee you that I have had and still have no reason to ever have expressed such sentiment and you will never find any post of mine that says I'm against GMO.

I am a practitioner of gene modifications with both plants and animals.

And you have serious problems with reading comprehension. 

Get off your high horse and pay attention to what people are really saying instead of reading your own willful interpretations into their posts and jumping to your narrow preconceived conclusions about people and making nasty sarcastic responses to them.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

"I agree that GMO farmers should be cooperative with non-GMO farmers in ensuring that their neighbours' non-GMO crops don't become corrupted by GMO pollen but can you explain what very wide buffers would be?"

Even handedness would include that the non-GMO grower would cooperate with the GMO grower. Things like not planting next to the GMO field, only growing non-GMO when the neighbor is growing soybeans. Sounds like the responsibility, in your version, falls on the big GMO farmer.

When opponents to GMO initially complained about a lack of testing and research, most thought that after a few decades and a few billion pounds of GMO corn, the opponents would quiet down. Soon, it became clear that no matter now many tests, no matter who did the tests, no matter how many trouble free years, it would never be enough. Clearly, whatever the buffer, it wouldn't be enough to satisfy some folks.

"I don't believe that insects don't pollinate corn. Insects go on everything."

Often when facts do not support an argument, people deny the facts. In this case, insects do not pollenate corn, tassels do. To not believe the basic reproductive method of all corn begs the question, "What reason might a person have to deny this fact?" Well if you could be assured that the physical distance was sufficient to prevent pollen drift, one might try to imagine insects as a vector for pollination. 

Every thing you and I read is our individual interpretation of that written word.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Fennick said:


> *I don't believe* that insects don't pollinate corn. Insects go on everything.


What you "believe" doesn't change the fact that Corn is pollinated by wind, not insects.

Read the information on the sites I linked


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What you "believe" doesn't change the fact that Corn is pollinated by wind, not insects.
> 
> Read the information on the sites I linked


I appreciate that you posted links for me. I wasn't able to read on them though because no links that are posted on this website will load for me. HT's website or server or whatever you call it doesn't like my computer and isn't compatible with the browsers I have to use. So it's becoming increasingly more difficult for HT pages to load for me without me having to hit the refresh button 50 million trillion bazillion times just to read on here and I'm getting about ready to throw the towel into the HT ring and give up on it.

I digress though and I have a story to tell you about "the birds and the bees" as they relate to corn while I still manage to stay logged in this time. I don't know what your links said but I'm not totally ignorant about corn. I'm not interested in growing corn but I know farmers who do so I've learned a few things from them and from personal observations. So some of the things I know about is tassels and silk strands and wind drift and how a good stiff wind can carry heavy corn pollen on the wind to a mile away in 15 minutes. (Which is part of the reason why I asked Farmerga to explain what s/he thought very wide buffers would be.) I know there are early season, mid season and late season corns and that some farmers plant new seed every 2 weeks for 2 or 3 months depending on their location and length of daylight hours. I know that farmers of some types of corn will organize detassling teams who go down corn rows cutting off tassels and then flailing the silk strands with the tassels to pollinate them by hand. It's not a lot of knowledge about the intricacies of growing corn I admit, but enough for me to know that I'm definitely not interested in growing it. 

But I also know that certain insects and birds will also pollinate corn and here is where I get to the story part about birds and insects. It's an anecdote about my own personal observations from my geographical region but it will have to suffice. There are a variety of insects that like to get at corn to chow down on it but my story involves just corn leaf aphids. Corn leaf aphids like tassels but they are particularly fond of corn silk because it is tender and juicy to them. The more they suck on the silk juices the bigger they get and the more sticky honeydew they produce. They in turn attract other predator insects who chow down on the aphids of course (and who might inadvertently carry and relocate pollen on their bodies to other places) but the aphids also attract certain very tiny birds who love to eat honeydew and sweet, juicy aphids. In particular little Titmice and Little Brown Pacific Bushtits. Are you familiar with Little Brown Bushtits that are indigenous to the PNW coast? They are adorably sweet little birds. They are much smaller than hummingbirds, about half the size of our local Anna's hummers, and they hang out year round in extremely hyperactive family groups up to 35 - 50 birds to a family flock. Hard to see if you don't know to look for them because they're so very tiny and dull coloured, but easy to find if you listen because they're very musical and cheery sounding when they're eating and bathing. 

Little Brown Pacific Bushtits like to wallow and bathe in corn pollen and to fill all their feathers with pollen until they look like tiny round puffy yellow dustballs with wings. They do it with other types of pollen too, (very keen on ***** willow and pine pollen too and if you look you might find some of the pictures of them online of them wallowing in pollens) but we're talking about corn pollen here now. So when the bushtits come to corn fields to look for corn leaf aphids to eat they will also get into the tassels and hang upside down on them and flutter their wings to shake pollen out of the tassels all over onto themselves. They also look on the ground for patches of pollen drifts on the ground and they'll take a dust bath in the pollen drifts there too. Then when they've finished their pollen wallowing and feather stuffing they go to the silk on the corn to rootle around in the silk to gobble down all the sweet, juicy corn leaf aphids they can find. In the process they pollinate some of the silk from the pollen stored in their feathers. 

Then when they leave that field of corn, the entire large family together, they fly to another corn field next door or maybe a few miles away and they pollinate another farmers' corn fields with his neighbour's pollen that the birds had stuffed into their feathers. It falls out of them enroute as they're flying to other fields and it falls out of them onto silk when they reach the other farmers corn where they will bathe again in pollen from tassels and ground drifts and eat more aphids again and pollinate more silk again.

And that's how GMO corn pollen might get into non-GMO corn more easily than many people realize without having to totally rely on wind or teams of detasslers to do it.

I think most of the people who write up their scientific observations and articles about corn and pollination and all that other stuff don't pay enough attention to Mother Nature and what very tiny birds and insects are doing under their own noses. There are various species and sizes of titmice and bushtits all over North America. If the Little Brown Pacific Bushtits here do corn pollen wallowing then who is to say that other species of titmice and bushtits don't do something the same or similar elsewhere across the continent?

Personally, I'm more interested in gene modified salmon than in modified corn and I was disappointed to see an interesting topic about salmon was hijacked and taken off track again, as usual, by the GMO/anti-GMO crowd and turned into a discussion about plants. So I have no further interest in talking about corn and how it is pollinated.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So let's see if I have this right. 
Those in favor of GMO. Corn think that the little 40 acre guy growing high value OP corn should Accommodate the 5000 acre guy by raising his crop on just 1/3 of a acre so the 5000 acre guy can use all 5000 acres to grow his low value crop Anywhere he chooses ?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Can I move to a rural area, next to a 10,000 hog operation and force that business to shut down because the smell makes me sneeze?
Can I move to a rural area, next to a 200 dog puppy mill and force that business to shut down because barking dogs irritate me?
Can I move to a rural area, next to a guy that target practices every night and force that guy to stop shooting because I take a nap in the late afternoon?
Can I move to a rural area, surrounded by agricultural fields, plant OP corn that will tassel the same time as the surrounding NON-GMO corn and expect the farmer to mow down his corn before it tassels, so your OP corn won't be effected?
The answer is no, no, no and no.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So let's see if I have this right.
> Those in favor of GMO. Corn think that the little 40 acre guy growing high value OP corn should Accommodate the 5000 acre guy by raising his crop on just 1/3 of a acre so the 5000 acre guy can use all 5000 acres to grow his low value crop Anywhere he chooses ?


The one growing non-GMO corn has to plan his schedule and plantings to achieve his objectives without hindering anyone else.

If you want them to *all* play by the same rules, then organic farmers will be required to plant some GMO corn, the same way GMO farmers are required to plant a percentage of NON-GMO corn.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The one growing non-GMO corn has to plan his schedule and plantings to achieve his objectives without hindering anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want them to *all* play by the same rules, then organic farmers will be required to plant some GMO corn, the same way GMO farmers are required to plant a percentage of NON-GMO corn.



So the big guy who can accommodate the little guy at no cost shouldn't while the little who can't is expected to do so ?

Seems ignorant to me. 

Since when is there a requirement to plant a percent of non GMO corn ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So the big guy who can accommodate the little guy at no cost shouldn't while the little who can't is expected to do so?
> 
> Seems ignorant to me.


I'm not sure how you figure there is "no costs" for the "big farmer".

They generally use large equipment that burns huge amounts of fuel, and has to be transported long distances, so they can't afford to run here and there planting a few fields and leaving others for later.

The small farmers most often live on their farms and can be more flexible in the scheduling.



> Since when is there a requirement to plant a percent of non GMO corn?


http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/refuge.aspx

What is refuge and what is its purpose?


> Farmers who plant crops with Bt trait(s) *must* also plant a refuge area -- a block or strip of crops without the Bt gene. The purpose of the refuge area is to prevent pests from developing resistance to the technology.
> 
> By leaving non-Bt crops in the field, insects who feed on that crop remain susceptible to Bt technology. When they then mate with the rare insects that survive after feeding on Bt corn, they produce offspring that is susceptible to the technology. This works to preserve the effectiveness of Bt technology, which helps the corn plants protect themselves from the pests that feed on their roots, damage them, and ultimately reduce yield for farmers.


It's really not hard to find the facts:



> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) *requires* a corn field that contains insect-protected (or Bt) crops with a single mode-of-action against corn rootworm to be planted with *20% non-Bt corn* in corn-growing areas (the U.S. Corn Belt) and *50% non-Bt in cotton*-growing areas (the U.S. Cotton Belt).


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure how you figure there is "no costs" for the "big farmer".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It makes little difference in costs to the big farmer which crops he plants where. 
The forty acre guy on the other hand would be able to use less than 1% of his land. 
That seems like a very unequal burden , let alone that it is created by the big rich farmer. 

Please note that like I thought there is no requirement to use a certain percent of non GMO seed. 
But if there was the reasonable place to use it would be by the small farmers non GMO crops.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It makes little difference in costs to the big farmer which crops he plants where.
> The forty acre guy on the other hand would be able to use less than 1% of his land.
> That seems like a very unequal burden , let alone that it is created by the big rich farmer.
> 
> ...


Gee, I wish you'd get your computer fixed so you could open and read the links provided.:huh:
Am I hearing that those with less land and less money should have rights and privileges above and beyond those that have greater amounts of land and a perceived greater amounts of money?
How is it that farmers have been buying and using hybrid seeds for a hundred years, but now, because you don't like GMO, people that make their living growing crops must police their pollen? 
In the olden days, when everyone farmed 40 acres and had a collie dog, people that raised and produced open pollenated seed corn were able to do it, in spite of the fact that they were surrounded by hybrid corn crops.

There are a lot of apples grown in Michigan. To keep the worms out of the fruit and keep the insects from eating the leaves or boring into the bark, insecticides are used. It is all washed of or otherwise broken down long before the fruit is consumed. 
There are many places where fruit trees were planted and no longer tended. There are places where people grow apples and simply eat around the worms.
These untended areas are a reservoir for pests, requiring commercial orchardists to spend more money and use more insecticides to combat the pests from the untended trees. Are you in favor of holding those property owners responsible for the insects that escape their property?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Any more on identities? Last nite heard one-at least w/Arabic name. Go figure. Saw 2days ago there was 'chatter' re:big event to happen in 2 days...was this it?
No doubt it was those hated white Christians again.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> You are always promoting getting govt. Out of your life but want the gov. To control the actions of others so you don't have to exercise that personal responsibility you talk about


 For one, when did I ever even mention the Government? For another, one of the few valid roles of government is to prevent one citizen from harming another. As is clear, there could be real harm done with GMO's cross pollinating a Non-GMO crop.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They can coordinate the dates fairly easily.
> Most non-GMO corns are the "sweet corn" varieties, and GMO is generally "field corn". They will have different "maturity" dates and growing periods
> 
> By staggering the planting dates, it won't tassel at the same time, so there will be little chance of cross pollination.
> ...


 Not entirely true, but close. There are literally hundreds of Non-GMO corn varieties. They can be Dent, Flint, Sweet, Popcorn, etc. They have highly variable maturity times, some known better than others. Distance will usually isolate them sufficiently, but, when you are dealing with GMO contamination that isolation must be 100% (I have heard the ideal isolation range should be at least 1 mile for 100% isolation, but, I would like to see more study in that area)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by AmericanStand View Post
> It makes little difference in costs to the big farmer which crops he plants where.


It's obvious you really don't have a clue about large scale farming


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Any more on identities? Last nite heard one-at least w/Arabic name. Go figure. Saw 2days ago there was 'chatter' re:big event to happen in 2 days...was this it?
> No doubt it was those hated white Christians again.


^^^^^^^
Proving my theory that you seldom actually read things before posting


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Not entirely true, but close. There are literally hundreds of Non-GMO corn varieties. They can be Dent, Flint, Sweet, Popcorn, etc. They have highly variable maturity times, some known better than others. Distance will usually isolate them sufficiently, but, when you are dealing with GMO contamination that isolation must be 100% (I have heard the ideal isolation range should be at least 1 mile for 100% isolation, but, *I would like to see more study in that area*)


You've seen "more study" if you just read the links that have been posted in this thread. 

You just keep repeating the same things.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've seen "more study" if you just read the links that have been posted in this thread.
> 
> You just keep repeating the same things.


 Well, people don't seem to get that "Nearly all" contamination being avoided will not cut it when you sell non-GMO contaminated seed. 

I have read them, they say things like "nearly all" and such when speaking of 700ft boarders. Well "Nearly all" doesn't cut it. It must be 100% isolation from GMO's. This is not a breed cross we are talking about. My non-GMO Flint corn crossing with a neighbors non-GMO Dent corn at a level of <1% is a non-event. On the other hand, my non-GMO Flint corn crossing with my neighbors GMO Dent corn at a level of <1% ruins my crop.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Well, people don't seem to get that "Nearly all" contamination being avoided will not cut it when you sell non-GMO contaminated *seed.*


If you are selling *seed* it can't be crossed with *any* other variety, GMO or not
If you are growing *seed*, you take the needed precautions.

Seed companies have no trouble growing *certified* seed of different varieties in adjacent fields, so I don't know why the "small farmers" can't seem to figure out how to do it.

The science is there to show how


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you are selling *seed* it can't be crossed with *any* other variety, GMO or not
> If you are growing *seed*, you take the needed precautions.
> 
> Seed companies have no trouble growing *certified* seed of different varieties in adjacent fields, so I don't know why the "small farmers" can't seem to figure out how to do it.
> ...


 If you were to do DNA tests on any variety of any vegetable, you will likely find a small amount of cross pollination with other varieties, that is true of any type of plant. Where there is a rub is when you claim Non-GMO status of your seed. It must me 100% free of GMO DNA. It becomes more difficult, each year, to produce seed (Corn more than anything else) that has no contamination, be if from seed companies (only a few actually claim no-GMO contamination), or, small famers who supply those seed companies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It must me 100% free of GMO DNA. It becomes more difficult, each year, to produce seed (Corn more than anything else) that has no contamination, be if from seed companies (only a few actually claim no-GMO contamination), or, small famers who supply those seed companies.


And again, you repeat the same thing as the last 5 posts

I'm done, since there is nothing new to discuss


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And again, you repeat the same thing as the last 5 posts
> 
> I'm done, since there is nothing new to discuss


 
What else is there to say? 700ft barriers stop just about all cross pollination. "Just about all" is not good enough for those who sell 100%GMO free products.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haypoint said:


> About a decade ago, Monsanto planted a field of Roundup Ready GMO alfalfa. They did in in South Dakota, far from the alfalfa seed growing areas of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, so there wouldn't be any worry about cross pollination.
> 
> Because alfalfa seed production depends on weed free seed and seed undamaged by insects or molds, organic alfalfa accounts for a tiny bit of the seed alfalfa market.
> No sooner had they planted their GMO alfalfa and an anti-GMO group purchased land that bordered this plot and began, you guessed it, growing organic alfalfa for seed.
> ...


 Sure it does, but these anti this and anti that folks will never say that is the case they all are anti big ag simple as that and nothing will change their minds. Nothing.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The vast majority of contamination of GMO corn in non-GMO corn doesn't come from pollen drift. It comes from an incompletely cleaned bin, truck, combine, fanning mill, etc. 
But no Anti-GMO advocate wants to talk about that. Better attack the non-existent pollen drift myth. That way they can vent their hate for successful farmers and the world's most successful plant breeding corporation, Monsanto.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's obvious you really don't have a clue about large scale farming



Lol right. 
Please tell me how you know all about farming and why you think I don't know anything about it. 

I know you are going to have a hard time with this concept but sit down an read it slow. 
Knowledgeable people don't always agree with you. 
None of us is the center of the universe.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> *The vast majority* of contamination of GMO corn in non-GMO corn doesn't come from pollen drift. It comes from an incompletely cleaned bin, truck, combine, fanning mill, etc.
> But no Anti-GMO advocate wants to talk about that. Better attack the *non-existent pollen drift myth*. That way they can vent their hate for successful farmers and the world's most successful plant breeding corporation, Monsanto.


If pollen drift were a non-existent myth, would not ALL GMO contamination come from the places you list?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> If pollen drift were a non-existent myth, would not ALL GMO contamination come from the places you list?


Show me the list of non-GMO corn that was tested and found to contain GMO DNA from pollen drift.
Anyone that is seriously going to grow, test and market non-GMO corn would have taken the simple steps outlined above to avoid even a remote risk of contamination from pollen drift. 
Growers of non-GMO corn, destined for the certified non-GMO market, would be careful to clean the equipment and storage. Obviously, this a fairly simple task. Contamination from field to table is rare. Yet this is where most of the contamination occurs. This shows that pollen contamination is nearing, if not already there, unicorn status.

I'm sure there are a few Monsanto haters out there that would intentionally contaminate their corn to try to make a case against Monsanto. Like the guy in Canada that tried to claim the 100% GMO Canola harvested and sold from his 160 acre field was caused by pollen drift from seed that sprouted along the road ditch.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Show me the list of non-GMO corn that was tested and found to contain GMO DNA from pollen drift.
> Anyone that is seriously going to grow, test and market non-GMO corn would have taken the simple steps outlined above to avoid even a remote risk of contamination from pollen drift.
> Growers of non-GMO corn, destined for the certified non-GMO market, would be careful to clean the equipment and storage. Obviously, this a fairly simple task. Contamination from field to table is rare. Yet this is where most of the contamination occurs. This shows that pollen contamination is nearing, if not already there, unicorn status.
> 
> I'm sure there are a few Monsanto haters out there that would intentionally contaminate their corn to try to make a case against Monsanto. Like the guy in Canada that tried to claim the 100% GMO Canola harvested and sold from his 160 acre field was caused by pollen drift from seed that sprouted along the road ditch.


From what I understand, the tests simply detect GMO contamination, they do not determine from where it came. 
It should be the responsibility of the growers of GMO corn to ensure, through large buffer zones, that the offending pollen doesn't contaminate their neighbors crops. Pollen does drift. GMO corn can and has crossed with non GMO corn. The damage done is almost entirely one way, so, it is the responsibility of the producer of the GMO crop to keep his GMO pollen out of his neighbors fields.

BTW, there are a plethora of labs that test for GMO's in non-GMO crops. There are several stories of them finding trace amounts. Several companies have claimed contamination in non-GMO seed corn. One of these is Baker Creek Heirloom Seed company.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> From what I understand, the tests simply detect GMO contamination, they do not determine from where it came.
> It should be the responsibility of the growers of GMO corn to ensure, through large buffer zones, that the offending pollen doesn't contaminate their neighbors crops. Pollen does drift. GMO corn can and has crossed with non GMO corn. The damage done is almost entirely one way, so, it is the responsibility of the producer of the GMO crop to keep his GMO pollen out of his neighbors fields.
> 
> BTW, there are a plethora of labs that test for GMO's in non-GMO crops. There are several stories of them finding trace amounts. Several companies have claimed contamination in non-GMO seed corn. One of these is Baker Creek Heirloom Seed company.


Damage entirely one way? What about the GMO seed plots, where they grow GMO seed corn? Your plot of Indian Corn is going to ruin their crop.
Are you going to control your corn pollen or is it just the big guy because he has more land?

The place where I buy feeder pigs is next door to a dirt track race track. One could require the dirt track from putting clouds of dirt into the air, settling who knows where. One could compel the race track owners from disturbing the pigs with all that noise. One could complain about the smell of manure spread in a field ruining their fresh air. But they get along. The hog owner doesn't spread manure on race day and puts up with the dust and noise.

It is never going to be the way you seem to expect it to be. It just isn't. You are tilting windmills if you think anyone is going to care about your desire to grow an organic corn next to a 1000 acre GMO corn field. Just like everything else in life, you figure out a way to make it work. Those ways are detailed in earlier posts.

If I were selling to a segment of society that feared GMO, I'd want to tell stories about how much trouble it is for me to get you the pure seeds you can't save yourself. Good business.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Damage entirely one way? What about the GMO seed plots, where they grow GMO seed corn? Your plot of Indian Corn is going to ruin their crop.
> *Are you going to control your corn pollen or is it just the big guy because he has more land?
> *
> The place where I buy feeder pigs is next door to a dirt track race track. One could require the dirt track from putting clouds of dirt into the air, settling who knows where. One could compel the race track owners from disturbing the pigs with all that noise. One could complain about the smell of manure spread in a field ruining their fresh air. But they get along. The hog owner doesn't spread manure on race day and puts up with the dust and noise.
> ...


If my corn pollen endangers his crop, it would be my responsibility to ensure that my pollen didn't cross. If it is mutual (I am growing Non-GMO Corn for seed he is growing GMO corn for seed, we should both give up some area to ensure that they won't cross.)

Is there damage from the dust and noise? Can it be proven? If so, the producer of said damage is liable. 

You don't seem to understand how the heirloom seed industry works. The fact that customers can save the seeds is a major selling point. There are no patents. It does no good for a business such as that to claim that this popular variety of corn is no longer available because of GMO contamination. It simply means that there is fewer varieties of corn to sell.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ^^^^^^^
> Proving my theory that you seldom actually read things before posting


YOU LIE LIKE A RUG! Lies, lies, lies...all lies! And lots of VILENESS too! And cottage cheese, truckloads of it!


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

haypoint said:


> The place where I buy feeder pigs is next door to a dirt track race track. One could require the dirt track from putting clouds of dirt into the air, settling who knows where. One could compel the race track owners from disturbing the pigs with all that noise. One could complain about the smell of manure spread in a field ruining their fresh air. *But they get along. The hog owner doesn't spread manure on race day and puts up with the dust and noise.*


So, you're saying the hog owner is the only one doing all the compromising and putting up with all the inconveniences then? 

What does the race track owner do to make compromises to the hog owner? If he makes no compromise then why not?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

I've always been a firm believer in first come first served.

If the non-GMO farmer was there doing his thing first and the GMO farmer comes there after him then it's the GMO farmer who needs to make all the compromises.

Likewise if the GMO farmer was there doing his thing first and the non-GMO farmer comes after him then it's the non-GMO farmer who needs to make all the compromises.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Fennick said:


> I've always been a firm believer in first come first served.
> 
> If the non-GMO farmer was there doing his thing first and the GMO farmer comes there after him then it's the GMO farmer who needs to make all the compromises.
> 
> Likewise if the GMO farmer was there doing his thing first and the non-GMO farmer comes after him then it's the non-GMO farmer who needs to make all the compromises.


It doesn't have to be either/or.
It's a simple matter of timing of planting dates and barriers.

The cross-pollination problem isn't nearly what it's made out to be.
No one to my knowledge who has sued over it has been able to prove it in court


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't have to be either/or.
> It's a simple matter of timing of planting dates and barriers.
> 
> The cross-pollination problem isn't nearly what it's made out to be.
> No one to my knowledge who has sued over it has been able to prove it in court


Regarding timing, I disagree. What does one do about timing his own planting dates when a neighbour farmer is planting new seeds every 2 weeks for 3 or 4 months and may have plants producing pollen throughout a full 4 months or more?

Barriers - well I told you the story about the bushtits. How ya going to put up barriers against flocks of inconspicuous birds half the size of a hummingbird that go out of their way to take pollen baths in every farmer's corn field that they can fly to?

Maybe the people who haven't won their suits have also not put up adequate surveillance equipment to demonstrate the passage of pollen via other means besides wind.

Personally I think that GMO farmers and non-GMO farmers should not be growing their crops for miles and miles anywhere near each other. Then nobody should have anything to complain about and no compromises would be necessary.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Regarding timing, I disagree. What does one do about timing his own planting dates when a neighbour farmer is planting new seeds* every 2 weeks for 3 or 4 months* and may have plants producing pollen throughout a full 4 months or more?


I'm not sure how they do things where you are, but large scale farmers here plant hundreds of acres per day and move on to the next area.

What you are talking about is only possible in the tropics, given the growing periods and maturity dates for corn

Your "solution" would be to not plant corn at all if fields had to be separated by "miles"

We need to keep things realistic, which is admitting cross-pollination isn't the problem it's made out to be.

If it was, all the seeds everywhere would already be contaminated



> Maybe the people who haven't won their suits have also not put up adequate surveillance equipment to demonstrate the passage of pollen via other means besides wind.


I believe in most cases it was proven they simply lied


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure how they do things where you are, but large scale farmers here plant hundreds of acres per day and move on to the next area.
> 
> What you are talking about is only possible in the tropics, given the growing periods and maturity dates for corn
> 
> ...


I think you aren't thinking outside of the box.



> What you are talking about is only possible in the tropics, given the growing periods and maturity dates for corn


That's not true about it only being possible in the tropics. As I mentioned before there are early, mid and late season varieties of corns. Look it up online. Home farmers here in the PNW (not necessarily commercial farmers) will plant them in blocks instead of rows, and then they continue planting blocks of new seeds of the early or mid season varieties every 2 weeks.

One farmer of my acquaintance plants some type of early season sweet corn, it has white and yellow kernels and is very juicy and sweet. He plants blocks of seeds every 2 weeks starting at the end of February and continues doing that for 3 to 3.5 months. It's a mild climate that isn't as warm here as it is where you are and the daylight hours in very early spring and very late fall aren't as long as they are were you are. But there is much longer hours of daylight here during the 3 summer months than what there is where you are. The further north you go, the longer the daylight hours during summer so that extends growing time. 

If he and so many other northern latitude farmers across the country do it then I imagine farmers at more southern latitudes can do it too, unless maybe it gets TOO hot for corn to grow in the south at the height of summer???? I don't know if intense heat effects corn because as I mentioned I don't grow corn. In any case, I don't consider any part of North America to be tropical except perhaps some parts of Florida.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Home farmers *here in the PNW (not necessarily commercial farmers) will plant them in blocks instead of rows, and then they continue planting blocks of new seeds of the early or mid season varieties every 2 weeks.


And the only 2 week period they would need to avoid is the one when the commercial GMO crops are tasseling

How many times has your friends crop been "ruined" by cross pollination?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many times has your friends crop been "ruined" by cross pollination?


I don't know if that's ever happened. Do you mean cross pollination from somebody's gene engineered crops? If you do then probably not likely here. There are very few GE farmers in my area. For starters we don&#8217;t have huge chunks of land given over to large-scale commodity farming so commercial corn farmers here are few and far between. Most farmers here who do grow corn grow it for small organic farm markets or else corn for cow fodder for their own dairy farms and the one large scale commodity farmer nearby me that focuses strictly on growing corn to sell for human consumption has banned production of any kind of GE plants on his land. 

By the nature of our geography and our collective culture we&#8217;ve mostly avoided the introduction of GE crops throughout pretty much most of the province. Organic and _au naturelle_ are very important in our west coast culture and important to the type of customers we cater to locally or export to. There are many agricultural regions and cities here that are officially GE free zones where gene engineered plants of any kind are banned outright, including bans on doing any kind of experimentation. The bans effect not only agricultural veggies, fruits and hay crops, they include bans on seeds and oramental plants and shrubs started in nurseries for home gardeners, commercial greenhouses, orchards and vinyards, and plants and trees planted along city boulevards or parks and around public buildings.

This is not to say there aren't any farmers in the province growing GE plants, because there are some, but just a few.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And the only 2 week period they would need to avoid is the one when the commercial GMO crops are tasseling


I don't believe it is possible to arrange things to grow that way unless one can control the weather, the temperatures and the amount of sunlight that plants get. I don't grow corn but I do grow many other plants and often will plant seeds every 2 weeks to ensure a steady supply of container plants for my farmers market customers from early spring to early winter. There has been many a time that something I started 2 weeks or even 4 weeks after a first batch was started that the younger batch has matured, flowered and pollinated at the same time or even before the first batch matured simply because of unexpected changes in the weather, temperature and sunlight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't know if that's ever happened. Do you mean cross pollination from somebody's gene engineered crops? If you do then *probably not likely* here.


Not likely anywhere, as I've said all along


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

"There are many agricultural regions and cities here that are officially GE free zones where gene engineered plants of any kind are banned outright, including bans on doing any kind of experimentation. The bans effect not only agricultural veggies, fruits and hay crops, they include bans on seeds and oramental plants and shrubs started in nurseries for home gardeners, commercial greenhouses, orchards and vinyards, and plants and trees planted along city boulevards or parks and around public buildings."
Sort of easy to ban stuff that doesn't exist. In the Veggies, you have a very few GMO summer squash, nothing in orchards or vineyards. No landscaping trees or shrubs. Alfalfa might be GMO, but no other hay plant.
GMO plants are a short list: soy, corn, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, maybe cotton and the uncommon summer squash. 
I can't think of one city that has GMO plants. Perhaps some gardener growing GMO-sweet corn. But I doubt that there are any large agricultural areas that are GMO-free in the US.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You are ignoring the. 700 pound gorilla in the room. 
That is Monsanto suing you if your corn has their genes and you haven't paid for them.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

haypoint said:


> ....... Sort of easy to ban stuff that doesn't exist. In the Veggies, you have a very few GMO summer squash, nothing in orchards or vineyards. No landscaping trees or shrubs. Alfalfa might be GMO, but no other hay plant.
> GMO plants are a short list: soy, corn, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, maybe cotton and the uncommon summer squash.
> 
> I can't think of one city that has GMO plants. Perhaps some gardener growing GMO-sweet corn. But I doubt that there are any large agricultural areas that are GMO-free in the US.


Yes, they're also banning GE stuff before it exists as a precaution. Considering that more and more new GE products are being and will continue to be introduced I can't say I blame them. They're thinking ahead of the game and nipping a potential monster problem in the bud before it gets a chance to get out of control in their communities the way it has in the USA. Looking at USA as the canary in the coal mine, I guess that could be called survival & emergency preparedness. Pretty darned smart, eh?
&#12288;
You missed some things on your (short) list of GE products. I don't know if that was just oversight on your part or if you genuinely didn't know, but here is the list of GE products that are already approved and are being mass produced, plus some of the more recently developed ones you may not have heard about yet.
&#12288;
Soy, corn, sugar beets, canola, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, yellow squash, rice, potatoes, cotton, tobacco, alfalfa, Kentucky bluegrass, meat cattle, dairy cows, salmon. 
&#12288;
Some of the more recent developments now, a few of which are still awaiting approval for mass production, include apples, strawberries, tomatoes, lettuce, carrots and grapes: 
&#12288;
Apples and Strawberries - with antifreeze from the Arctic Flounder genes spliced in. So they can be packaged and shipped fresh at freezing temperatures. 
&#12288;
Tomatoes - from Israel some researchers have created the Lemato which is a tomato with lemon basil genes spliced in, it tastes like a bland tomato but smells like lemons and roses. Yum yum. 
&#12288;
Lettuce - From Professor Henry Daniell at the University of Central Florida comes lettuce (and tobacco) that carries and delivers insulin to the consumer. 
&#12288;
Carrots - A couple of Texas researchers have created GE carrots that are multi-coloured giants which allow the consumer to absorb 40% more calcium than what can be obtained from other normal carrots. 
&#12288;
Grapes - from Japan&#8217;s National Institute of Genetics comes the GE graisin which is a humongous, giant grape. In Japan it's grown to produce huge raisins (hence the name) but some researchers are further developing it for the wine industry. 
&#12288;
And coming soon to a place near you - transgenic wheat, barley and oats, and pigs, which have been developed but are still awaiting approval for production.
&#12288;
What's next, and where will it end? It probably won't end. So I think it's understandable that people in some countries who don't want GE products growing in their communities are putting the kibosh on them by banning them ahead of time. 
&#12288;
&#12288;


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> You are ignoring the. 700 pound gorilla in the room.
> That is Monsanto suing you if your corn has their genes and you haven't paid for them.


Also known as Frankenstein's 700 pound *M*onster. And yes, the big M have moved in and utterly destroyed many small farmers and organic farmers whose pollen got into the big M's GE crops.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Fennick said:


> Also known as Frankenstein's 700 pound *M*onster. And yes, the big M have moved in and utterly destroyed many small farmers and organic farmers whose pollen got into the big M's GE crops.


I believe there have been less than 150 cases out of millions of farms.
I'd be happy to see the actual data though.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Even one is one too many.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Fennick said:


> Even one is one too many.


Again, one has to be realistic.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Just because a scientist was able to grow an ear on the back of a mouse, don't expect to find one eating your cheese.
I listed the GMO foods in the food chain. Summer squash is yellow and zucchini.
Most of the others were created, but didn't make it beyond the research.
There most certainly are no GMO cattle. There was a clone of the National Grand Champion Holstein, but that isn't GMO and that cow and it's milk never made it to market. 

I just read a report that 75% of the population believe chickens are given steroids or growth hormones. about the same number believe there is antibiotic residue in poultry. An amazing 70% believe chickens are GMO.
What do you do when the majority of people believe something that is false? 

Several of the plants Fennick lists are past experiments. Some listed that I have never heard were GMO, but will look further into GMO Oats, GMO blue grass.I checked one of the anti_GMO web sites for Blue Grass info (http://naturalsociety.com/kiss-grass-fed-beef-goodbye-scotts-gmo-grass-approved/) then looked to see if I could buy this product. Nope, not available and no sign that it will be.
So many lies about Roundup and other things in that web site, I wouldn't know where to start.

Rice, potatoes, apples, tomatoes and strawberries were experiments that are not currently available. Cotton isn't a food.

Fennick's list includes foods that I've never heard were GMO, but it has been a while since I last visited Mercola's web site. If not there, where could I go to read about healthy bi-colored GMO carrots, etc?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya there sure is a lot of misinformation and misguided info and scare tactics spilled around by the anti Gmo folks. A Lot of it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm neither pro nor anti GMO but there are issues that do create problems for those who are not raising GMO crops but I look at it as being as complicated as it is for certified organic operations. 

Cross pollination is as much an issue as chemical drift for organic operations but it's maybe a bit more complicated up here because we can't stagger our spring seeding because of our short growing season. 

I do know personally know a farmer that was sued by Monsanto for patent infringement based on volunteer plants from the previous year but I also know of a few guys that have clearly violated their agreements with Monsanto and managed to reap the benefit without the associated costs. 

In my area, it's not uncommon for a farming operation to own several sections of land and only a couple organic operations. Right now, most are situated so they feel comfortable with reasonable buffers in place but one land sale could cause complications.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I'm neither pro nor anti GMO but there are issues that do create problems for those who are not raising GMO crops but I look at it as being as complicated as it is for certified organic operations.
> 
> Cross pollination is as much an issue as chemical drift for organic operations but it's maybe a bit more complicated up here because we can't stagger our spring seeding because of our short growing season.
> 
> ...


Be careful about believing some of the pollen drift myths. One of the early suits happened in your providence. A seed dealer was selling the harvest of 160 acres of canola. When caught, he said it was pollen drift from some GMO Canola seed spilled on the highway. Accidently sprayed his crop with Roundup and it didn't kill the crop. But it was the second year RR Canola was available. Bottom line, he sold seeds for planting against the contract he signed with Monsanto. Pollen drift is a concern for some, but the lawsuits Monsanto have nothing to do with pollen drift.

www.GMOanswers.com


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Be careful about believing some of the pollen drift myths. One of the early suits happened in your providence. A seed dealer was selling the harvest of 160 acres of canola. When caught, he said it was pollen drift from some GMO Canola seed spilled on the highway. Accidently sprayed his crop with Roundup and it didn't kill the crop. But it was the second year RR Canola was available. Bottom line, he sold seeds for planting against the contract he signed with Monsanto. Pollen drift is a concern for some, but the lawsuits Monsanto have nothing to do with pollen drift.
> 
> www.GMOanswers.com


When I commented on drift, it was in reference chemical drift within proximity of organic operations in my area as well as the fact that with our short growing season, we can't offset spring seeding to accommodate the theory of delayed or offset seeding dates. Agriculture in my country is based on a 120 day growing season.

Between my professional designation and my own background, there aren't too many people in agriculture within my province I don't know and have a pretty good idea about who's selling a big sob story, who may have made an honest mistake and who is rock solid. 

I don't have a dog in the GMO battle and prefer my information comes from a broad range of industry sources as well as various print articles.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser



I was aware of that but that's not the situation I had in mind when mentioning a neighbor.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> I was aware of that but that's not the situation I had in mind when mentioning a neighbor.


Haypoint trots that one out anytime anyone mentions Monsanto or GMO drift. He seems to think it was the only case ever.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Haypoint trots that one out anytime anyone mentions Monsanto or GMO drift. He seems to think it was the only case ever.



It was significant and it's not without merit. 

I'm neither pro or con GMO and am always receptive to further information and since we come from diverse areas and backgrounds, one can never be sure what each of us has read.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Haypoint trots that one out anytime anyone mentions Monsanto or GMO drift. He seems to think it was the only case ever.


It's the most well known, and is the one most often mentioned by the "Monsanto is Satan" crowd too.

There have been less than 150 lawsuits since 1997


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Haypoint trots that one out anytime anyone mentions Monsanto or GMO drift. He seems to think it was the only case ever.


OK, trot out ten you like and them I'll trot out ten others. For educational purposes, you know. They are all detailed on line, google is helpful.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

The non-GMO crowd will eventually die off (as we all will) and the majority of young people understand that we cannot feed the world with the tools of our grandfathers, including seed.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I actually get the resistance to making growers of GMO's responsible for damages that their crops cause to other farmers, but, for the life of me, I don't understand the resistance to GMO labels on our food products.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

In all of this discussion, we have forgotten about so-called "super weeds". The concept has nothing to do with pollen drift, but, rather weed species developing resistance to herbicides over time because of overuse as a result of GMO RR crops. We have seen the same thing happen with parasites when de-wormers are over-used and antibiotic resistance bacteria as a result of over use of antibiotics.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Resistance to GMO labeling? There might be several reasons. Since you asked, I&#8217;ll discuss my reasons. Cost. I see nothing wrong/different/fearful with GMO foods. This subject has been discussed here many times. If you want non-GMO, buy organic. Simple. But if you add a label that most of the general public doesn&#8217;t have a working knowledge of, it seems scary. People will needlessly avoid what they don&#8217;t understand. By demanding the food I select get an added label, when you already have a way to avoid GMO sounds like you not only want to avoid GMO for you and your family, but you want to punish producers of foods that contain GMO products. If, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you would support sugar or oil be labeled GMO, because it came from a GMO plant, even when there is no altered DNA, then you are on what I see as a punishment campaign.
If you had your way and the 4% of the nation&#8217;s corn crop that goes into human food (the rest goes into ethanol production and animal feed) had to be marked GMO, the public might want to avoid it. This would require a lot of documentation, extra labor from field to gravity box to farm bin to truck to train to factory to bin to processing line to production to boxing, adding cost to consumers. I wouldn&#8217;t have a choice. Since there is actually nothing harmful in GMO crops, adding all those documented steps to the cost of my food is foolish. Each step would require a complete shut down and emptying/cleaning of every combine, auger, bin, truck, with some sort of documentation showing/proving puriety. Since 75% of consumers wrongfully believe chicken contains hormones, I seriously doubt they are ready/prepared to tackle GMO.
All through history, weeds have developed resistance to eradication measures. Even when cultivation was the only weed control, plants with rhizomes were the &#8220;super weeds&#8221;, broken segments of roots reseeded themselves. Weeds didn&#8217;t become resistant to herbicides because of GMO. They do it no matter what the herbicide.
Weeds are expected to develop resistances to herbicides. Been this way since long before GMO. Just switch to another mode of action. Prior to Roundup, lots of herbicides remained in the environment, got into wells, streams and lakes. Roundup breaks down fast, doesn&#8217;t leach into wells, streams and lakes. About as toxic to humans and animals as salt water. Switching to Roundup has been a great improvement over previous herbicide choices. 
Roundup and roundup resistant crops have eliminated the need to cultivate fields. Cultivation once cost farmers several tons of topsoil, per acre, per year. Plus all the fuel and soil compaction to cultivate. Roundup Ready crops allows the no-till method of farming. Corn stalks and soybean plants from last year can remain on the surface to reduce erosion and hold moisture. Roundup is far more effective than cultivation. So, farmer&#8217;s fields feed their crop, not the weeds.
As weeds mutate to resist Roundup, a switch to another type of weed killer is used. Much like people rotate wormers for their livestock. 
Possible resistance to the Bt gene in corn borers has been worked out, too. Zones of non-Bt GMO corn are planted next to the Bt GMO corn crop. The non-resistant majority of corn borers will mate with the few resistant corn borers and break the resistant cycle.

Maybe an open mind and www.GMOanswers.com would help?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Gmo food is without a doubt harmful to our bodies. Much scientific evidence backs this. Research has also shown an organic farm of the same size and labor force can produce 30% more yields than Gmo expelling the myth of organic can't compete . This constant overuse of weed killer and Gmo have wiped out our nation's bee supplies . Without them neither organic or Gmo will grow. There are many simple solutions to these problems. But to much money involved in Gmo industry keeps them from being implemented .


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There is a huge cost to make labels 100% accurate. The anti folks just can't see th eight when incomes to all the checks and balances and clean tanks and railroad cars and trucking industry that must have to be 100% certified. That cost will be passed on and people will resist the price increases. And then there is the logistics that would have to be implicated to make sure everything is 100% clean. This isn't just about slapping a label on a can or bottle, nope, not at all.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Resistance to GMO labeling? There might be several reasons. Since you asked, I&#8217;ll discuss my reasons. Cost. *I see nothing wrong/different/fearful with GMO foods.* This subject has been discussed here many times. If you want non-GMO, buy organic. Simple. But if you add a label that most of the general public doesn&#8217;t have a working knowledge of, it seems scary. People will needlessly avoid what they don&#8217;t understand. By demanding the food I select get an added label, when you already have a way to avoid GMO sounds like you not only want to avoid GMO for you and your family, but you want to punish producers of foods that contain GMO products. If, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you would support sugar or oil be labeled GMO, because it came from a GMO plant, even when there is no altered DNA, then you are on what I see as a punishment campaign.
> If you had your way and the 4% of the nation&#8217;s corn crop that goes into human food (the rest goes into ethanol production and animal feed) had to be marked GMO, the public might want to avoid it. This would require a lot of documentation, extra labor from field to gravity box to farm bin to truck to train to factory to bin to processing line to production to boxing, adding cost to consumers. I wouldn&#8217;t have a choice. Since there is actually nothing harmful in GMO crops, adding all those documented steps to the cost of my food is foolish. Each step would require a complete shut down and emptying/cleaning of every combine, auger, bin, truck, with some sort of documentation showing/proving puriety. Since 75% of consumers wrongfully believe chicken contains hormones, I seriously doubt they are ready/prepared to tackle GMO.
> All through history, weeds have developed resistance to eradication measures. Even when cultivation was the only weed control, plants with rhizomes were the &#8220;super weeds&#8221;, broken segments of roots reseeded themselves. Weeds didn&#8217;t become resistant to herbicides because of GMO. They do it no matter what the herbicide.
> Weeds are expected to develop resistances to herbicides. Been this way since long before GMO. Just switch to another mode of action. Prior to Roundup, lots of herbicides remained in the environment, got into wells, streams and lakes. Roundup breaks down fast, doesn&#8217;t leach into wells, streams and lakes. About as toxic to humans and animals as salt water. Switching to Roundup has been a great improvement over previous herbicide choices.
> ...


YOU see no harm in GMO foods. What of the people who do? I don't see any harm in foods that contain peanuts, but, some do. How much does it cost to add "Contains GMO food products" to a label that is already being printed? We require a list of ingredients and nutritional information to be included, why not GMO content? 

I have read the research. I don't know if GMO's are dangerous, or, not. I will not take government data as proof that it is not dangerous. Many a drug, that made it through FDA trials, has turned out to cause a whole host of problems. GMO's are too new to fully understand what damage they may or may not cause over time, be it damage to the environment, or, damage to humanity.

It is a matter of truth in advertising. Without disclosure of GMO content, you are lying by omission.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> There is a huge cost to make labels 100% accurate. The anti folks just can't see th eight when incomes to all the checks and balances and clean tanks and railroad cars and trucking industry that must have to be 100% certified. That cost will be passed on and people will resist the price increases. And then there is the logistics that would have to be implicated to make sure everything is 100% clean. This isn't just about slapping a label on a can or bottle, nope, not at all.


Once they see cancer rates and overall health care expenses drop they won't mind. It would also create many jobs. Many countries already ban gmo all together. They would import our goods again. The UK is waking up. I hope we follow.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Gmo food is without a doubt harmful to our bodies. Much scientific evidence backs this. Research has also shown an organic farm of the same size and labor force can produce 30% more yields than Gmo expelling the myth of organic can't compete . This constant overuse of weed killer and Gmo have wiped out our nation's bee supplies . Without them neither organic or Gmo will grow. There are many simple solutions to these problems. But to much money involved in Gmo industry keeps them from being implemented .


There is no legitimate research that I have seen. There is a lot of pseudo-science making the rounds, and people who apparently want to believe in the boogeyman suck it right up. A couple of "studies" got a lot of attention because they had MIT staffers attached to them. Guess what, they weren't done in the lab, they were extrapolations based on mining data. A total garbage in, garbage out operation. 

I was skeered of GMO when it first came out, too. Bought into the Frankenfood hype for a time. But almost 30 years later and the sky didn't fall, well that tells me something. And then we moved into the middle of row crop farmland, have been surrounded by modern farming operations for many years, and see firsthand there is a healthy population of wildlife co-existing with those operations, including numerous frogs and toads which are extremely sensitive to toxins in the environment. 

If enough evidence could be conjured up to sway a jury of 12 under the demands of evidence that is admissible in court, the lawyers would be lined up for miles to file their class actions and "rehome" some of Big M and the other companies' money. You'd be seeing their ads just like the "bad drug" class actions where they advertise on tv for more plaintiffs. When you see that happen, somebody has produced some believable evidence. But don't hold your breath.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Wow now that IS far out of the normal thinking, but then the anti this group anti goo always has been 'Way Out There'.
There is absolutely NO scientific studies done that says there is a connection between cancer and ANY gmo.
The ONLY reason cancer has been on the up tick is People ARE Living Longer and sooner then later Something is going to take over your body and you are going to die.
And also New Diagnostic testing and x rays have been invented seeing these cancers.~!
Population in the US has been increasing big time, and with that so does ANY illnesses increase, but sure as heck doesn't mean GMO in food is causing it that is just plain scare TATICS AND NOTHING [email protected]


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> YOU see no harm in GMO foods. What of the people who do? I don't see any harm in foods that contain peanuts, but, some do. How much does it cost to add "Contains GMO food products" to a label that is already being printed? We require a list of ingredients and nutritional information to be included, why not GMO content?
> 
> I have read the research. I don't know if GMO's are dangerous, or, not. I will not take government data as proof that it is not dangerous. Many a drug, that made it through FDA trials, has turned out to cause a whole host of problems. GMO's are too new to fully understand what damage they may or may not cause over time, be it damage to the environment, or, damage to humanity.
> 
> It is a matter of truth in advertising. Without disclosure of GMO content, you are lying by omission.


I guess I wasn't clear.
At one time you could have said, " I don't trust the studies from a slew of Universities and government studies." But, that statement starts getting weak after a few decades, billion of meals and not a single link to any hazard. Zero. 

With the public's fear of the unknown, placing a simple label would add to the confusion. I see people spending 5 minutes trying to buy eggs. Brown seems better, cage free would be nice, free range might be better, vegetarian fed sounds healthy, and on and on and few if any really know what that means. So slapping a Contains no GMO label on a box of oatmeal creates yet another meaningless choice,
What you propose might create more fears and consumers might shy from Contains GMO, even though they have little or no idea what it is and there is zero reason to avoid it.
So, that creates a demand for non-GMO products. The tiny portion of America's corn crop that goes into human food, would be further divided. To insure the non-GMO products are really non-GMO, the harvesting combine would need to be cleaned of each kernel of corn prior to harvesting the non-GMO corn. Each gravity box vacuumed, each auger cleaned, separate grain bins erected, on farm and at the processing factory. Each mode of transport would need to clean and document. Records would need kept, documenting the non-GMO status at each step. This adds to the cost. This cost is passed on to the consumer. I don't want to spend more money to support your unfounded fear of the unknown. 
As it now stands all organic foods are non-GMO, that gets you where you want o be. So, please don't shove your belief system onto my food purchases.

We have over the past few decades entered into a number of trade deals with many countries. Generally they were poorly designed agreements with exclusions for them and iron cladding for us. Just the other day, a tariff has been placed on stuff we export to Canada and Mexico as punishment for putting Country of Origin Labels on our meat. 
American farmers are far more productive and efficient than those in the rest of the world. That is one area of free trade that we excel. So, every trading partner seeks ways to protect their market. In Europe, they do it with a ban on GMO. More to do with politics than any real concern about GMO.

Lying by omission? What if my mother choked on a Delicious apple. Despite all studies to the contrary, I won't buy a Delicious apple. I want every jar of applesauce to state that it does or does not contain Delicious apples. I expect the appleauce company to maintain records from tree to jar of what varieties they used. Otherwise it is lying by omission. Right?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I'm sorry but the only ones who have studied Monsantos gmo effects are monsanto. They have never let anybody in house to study their system and its effect on mice. And Monsantos own study that is the main one released was a 3 month study on mice. It has been duplicated for 14 months and the mice changed dramatically . Recently a study was done on 1100 kids. They were tested before and after a 30 day trial. For 30 days they ate only gmo food. Their health went south and inflammation in the body sky rocketed. Heart rates were elevated and cognitive thought impaired . 100% seen some negative side affect. Then they went 30 days organic. Everything went back to normal and in 91% they were healthier than before the trial began. In my own home we can tell a drastic difference. My wife was eating a lot of stuff we know know was gmo. She was having many problems. Her sed rate was off the chart . Switched to organic and every bit went away and her levels returned to normal. So we changed our lives. It's not pseudo science . It's nature's way .


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> Wow now that IS far out of the normal thinking, but then the anti this group anti goo always has been 'Way Out There'.
> There is absolutely NO scientific studies done that says there is a connection between cancer and ANY gmo.
> The ONLY reason cancer has been on the up tick is People ARE Living Longer and sooner then later Something is going to take over your body and you are going to die.
> And also New Diagnostic testing and x rays have been invented seeing these cancers.~!
> Population in the US has been increasing big time, and with that so does ANY illnesses increase, but sure as heck doesn't mean GMO in food is causing it that is just plain scare TATICS AND NOTHING [email protected]


Explained that to the people with children who died of cancer. The child hood cancer rate is now equal to the adult rate.where as in 1990 it was 40% less. Not to mention the vast amount of children with cognitive issues which has also skyrocketed.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I guess I wasn't clear.
> At one time you could have said, " I don't trust the studies from a slew of Universities and government studies." But, that statement starts getting weak after a few decades, billion of meals and not a single link to any hazard. Zero.
> 
> With the public's fear of the unknown, placing a simple label would add to the confusion. I see people spending 5 minutes trying to buy eggs. Brown seems better, cage free would be nice, free range might be better, vegetarian fed sounds healthy, and on and on and few if any really know what that means. So slapping a Contains no GMO label on a box of oatmeal creates yet another meaningless choice,
> ...


 So, you must not be on board with the trans fat scare. There were studies for decades that said it was fine, now, not so much. 

Decades of eating GMO's? Try two, that does qualify as "decades" but just so. If tobacco were introduced in 1995, do you think there would be conclusive proof of it's cancer causing properties in humans? 

Why would there need to be verification if they were to place a label that reads "Contains GMO's", on their products? A claim to the contrary would require proof and as most processed food contains GMO's, there would be no great burden. 

I know, you don't want the dullards to be "confused", I simply want them to be informed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I'm sorry but the only ones who have studied Monsantos gmo effects are monsanto. They have never let anybody in house to study their system and its effect on mice. And Monsantos own study that is the main one released was a 3 month study on mice. It has been duplicated for 14 months and the mice changed dramatically . *Recently a study was done on 1100 kids.* They were tested before and after a 30 day trial. For 30 days they ate only gmo food. Their health went south and inflammation in the body sky rocketed. Heart rates were elevated and cognitive thought impaired . 100% seen some negative side affect. Then they went 30 days organic. Everything went back to normal and in 91% they were healthier than before the trial began. In my own home we can tell a drastic difference. My wife was eating a lot of stuff we know know was gmo. She was having many problems. Her sed rate was off the chart . Switched to organic and every bit went away and her levels returned to normal. So we changed our lives. It's not pseudo science . It's nature's way .


You forgot to post a link to your "study".
Is it because it doesn't exist, or because the source has no credibility, like Mercola or the "Health Ranger"?

There are thousands of studies that conclude there is no practical difference in GMO and conventional or organic foods

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Once they see cancer rates and overall health care expenses drop they won't mind. It would also create many jobs. Many countries already ban gmo all together. They would import our goods again. The UK is waking up. I hope we follow.


Cancer rates have declined since the introduction of GMO foods.
Don't parrot the hype without showing the sources

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/what-is-cancer/statistics


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> So, you must not be on board with the trans fat scare. There were studies for decades that said it was fine, now, not so much.
> 
> Decades of eating GMO's? Try two, that does qualify as "decades" but just so. If tobacco were introduced in 1995, do you think there would be conclusive proof of it's cancer causing properties in humans?
> 
> ...


All foods have the ingredients listed.
Anyone can find a complete list of GMO foods sold in the US.
Compare the two and you are "informed"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> So, you must not be on board with the trans fat scare. There were studies for decades that said it was fine, now, not so much.
> 
> Decades of eating GMO's? Try two, that does qualify as "decades" but just so. If tobacco were introduced in 1995, do you think there would be conclusive proof of it's cancer causing properties in humans?
> 
> ...


https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/16/anti-gmo-big-lie-labeling-really-right-know/


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I'm sorry but the only ones who have studied Monsantos gmo effects are monsanto. They have never let anybody in house to study their system and its effect on mice. And Monsantos own study that is the main one released was a 3 month study on mice. It has been duplicated for 14 months and the mice changed dramatically . Recently a study was done on 1100 kids. They were tested before and after a 30 day trial. For 30 days they ate only gmo food. Their health went south and inflammation in the body sky rocketed. Heart rates were elevated and cognitive thought impaired . 100% seen some negative side affect. Then they went 30 days organic. Everything went back to normal and in 91% they were healthier than before the trial began. In my own home we can tell a drastic difference. My wife was eating a lot of stuff we know know was gmo. She was having many problems. Her sed rate was off the chart . Switched to organic and every bit went away and her levels returned to normal. So we changed our lives. It's not pseudo science . It's nature's way .


http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

Not interested in what your wife eats and how she feels, but could you supply a link to the 1100 kids study? While you are at it, I'd like to read Monsanto's 3 month mouse study you mentioned, too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'd like to read Monsanto's 3 month mouse study you mentioned, too.


I bet he's talking about Seralini's rats


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

OK, I guess I am interested in what you and your wife switched to.

"In my own home we can tell a drastic difference. My wife was eating a lot of stuff we know know was gmo. She was having many problems. Her sed rate was off the chart . Switched to organic and every bit went away and her levels returned to normal. So we changed our lives. It's not pseudo science . It's nature's way ."

Just what was it that you didn't know was GMO? When you switched to organic, did you continue to eat all the processed foods you ate before. Did you go gluten free, too? A switch from corn flakes to Cheerios and from cornbread to biscuits would cover much of the GMO in most people's diets. Wouldn't be hard for me to give up tofu.
Often times, the main supply of organic food is locally grown fruits and vegetables, making the noticed improvements more about a healthy diet and not about GMO.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

haypoint said:


> OK, I guess I am interested in what you and your wife switched to.
> 
> "In my own home we can tell a drastic difference. My wife was eating a lot of stuff we know know was gmo. She was having many problems. Her sed rate was off the chart . Switched to organic and every bit went away and her levels returned to normal. So we changed our lives. It's not pseudo science . It's nature's way ."
> 
> ...


We were eating processed foods like sandwich meats and hotdogs , vegetables from what we learned were gmo companies' cereals from gmo processed companies. Wife always cooked with canola oil and drank soy milk as well as soy ice cream . We switched up and bought all certified organic seeds , bought from certified organic local farms and started milking goats . She now cooks with organic olive and sunflower oil. We did go gluten free due to daughters celiacs. 95% of corn and soybeans are gmo on the market and they are in many products as filler.-Its simple. Even the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has established a protocol for evaluating the safety of GMOs, which it says have the potential to introduce toxins and new allergens (or increase levels of existing ones), or cause nutritional changes in foods and other unexpected effects.-

So why put something in your body that is not natural or organic? That corn your buying for the grill came from a seed with a pesticide and herbacide in it. Common sense tells you it passes to the next seed kernel you are eating .


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> We were eating processed foods like sandwich meats and hotdogs , vegetables from what we learned were gmo companies' cereals from gmo processed companies. Wife always cooked with canola oil and drank soy milk as well as soy ice cream . We switched up and bought all certified organic seeds , bought from certified organic local farms and started milking goats . She now cooks with organic olive and sunflower oil. We did go gluten free due to daughters celiacs. 95% of corn and soybeans are gmo on the market and they are in many products as filler.-Its simple. Even the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has established a protocol for evaluating the safety of GMOs, which it says have the potential to introduce toxins and new allergens (or increase levels of existing ones), or cause nutritional changes in foods and other unexpected effects.-
> 
> So why put something in your body that is not natural or organic? That corn your buying for the grill came from a seed with a pesticide and herbacide in it. Common sense tells you it passes to the next seed kernel you are eating .


 Iâm not exactly sure I understand. You stopped eating the ground snouts and lips bologna and franks. What do you mean by, âvegetables from what we learned were gmo companies' cereals from gmo processed companiesâ?
Then, you got off ice cream and started gardening with organic seeds and buying local produce. You went with a healthier oil. You gave up non-GMO wheat, reducing your starch intake. You correctly stated (well somewhat close) that 95% of corn and soybeans are GMO. But doubt that corn or soybeans are filler in much of anything. I went to the FAO web site. Not sure they are connected to the United Nations as their name might suggest. But WHO doesnât post any GMO safety sheet. They do have a food safety page, but donât mention GMO, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs399/en/ So, Iâm not clear on where you got the toxins and allergens info.
âThat corn you are buying for the grill came from a seed with a pesticide and herbicide in it.â Actually, GMO Bt reduces or eliminates any use of insecticides. If you are buying non-GMO, it is more likely to have been sprayed with an insecticide. I canât figure out what you mean by âa seed with a pesticide and herbicide in it.â You thinking GMO is a pesticide or herbicide? Are you talking about the pesticide coating on some seeds? Certainly, a seed coating isnât passed to the seed harvested from that plant 6 months later. Roundup would be used early in the season and long gone before the ears formed. But, any spray insecticides would also be gone, too.
But congratulations on eating local, growing your own and eating more vegetables. I am not surprised your wifeâs health improved. I am puzzled how you concluded the improvement was due to a switch away from GMO corn and soybeans?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That *corn your buying for the grill* came from a seed with a pesticide and herbacide in it. Common sense tells you it passes to the next seed kernel you are eating .


Hardly any sweet corn is GMO, and you still haven't posted anything that supports all your assumptions.

I really believe you're just parroting the hype, and none of your "health problems" really had anything at all to do with GMO's


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I think some think everything that is a Hybrid is GMO or they just don't know the difference or they do, but still want to say anything that is a Hybrid like Sweetcorn is being made using GMO. Which of course is not true either. But to them anything that is manipulated by man is GMO wether or not the genes have been messed with or not.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All foods have the ingredients listed.
> Anyone can find a complete list of GMO foods sold in the US.
> Compare the two and you are "informed"


 Yes, but I can have cornbread that does not contain GMO's. And you can have cornbread that does. The ingredient list would be the same.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/16/anti-gmo-big-lie-labeling-really-right-know/



If GMO's are safe, one should be proud to include the fact that they are in their products, on their label. Only those who are ashamed, or, trying to hide something would not. 

If a product has added water, that fact must be included on the label.

If it is safe or not is irrelevant to the fact that people should have a right to know if it is GMO.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> If GMO's are safe, one should be proud to include the fact that they are in their products, on their label. Only those who are ashamed, or, trying to hide something would not.
> 
> If a product has added water, that fact must be included on the label.
> 
> If it is safe or not is irrelevant to the fact that people should have a right to know if it is GMO.


When the anti_GMO movement started, their battle cry was " Too soon, not enough testing!", now after billions of tons consumed and nary a problem, they have switched tactics. Not it is the labeling straw man. We both know it isn't about any right to know or truth in labeling.
It is about control. 
We both accept the fact that 90% of the corn and soybean crops are GMO. We both agree that humans eat about 6% of the nation's corn and soybean crop. I think we also agree that every processed food that has corn or soybeans has GMO corn and GMO soybeans, except organic corn or soybeans. So, we should also know that if it doesn't say organic, we can be reasonably sure it has GMO corn or soybeans in it.

So, to add a label serves what purpose? I say that beyond punishing farmers, there is no further purpose.

How far does one's "right to know" extend? IMHO, there is less difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn than there is a difference between a steak from an Angus and a steak from a Holstein. Should I demand a label for that, with trace back to the farm of origin? Should a can of soup inform the public where that chicken spent its adult life?

I don't want my fuel purchases going to support terrorists. Shouldn't there be a label at the gas pumps telling me where the crude oil came from that made this gasoline? Don't I have a right to know?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, but I can have cornbread that does not contain GMO's. And you can have cornbread that does. The ingredient list would be the same.


and it would be exactly the same cornbread. 
90% of all the corn is GMO. So, you already are assured that it is going to be GMO, unless you buy organic.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

haypoint said:


> When the anti_GMO movement started, their battle cry was " Too soon, not enough testing!", now after billions of tons consumed and nary a problem, they have switched tactics. Not it is the labeling straw man. We both know it isn't about any right to know or truth in labeling.
> It is about control.
> We both accept the fact that 90% of the corn and soybean crops are GMO. We both agree that humans eat about 6% of the nation's corn and soybean crop. I think we also agree that every processed food that has corn or soybeans has GMO corn and GMO soybeans, except organic corn or soybeans. So, we should also know that if it doesn't say organic, we can be reasonably sure it has GMO corn or soybeans in it.
> 
> ...


Problem is there are problems and allergens popping up like crazy . Crude oil has nothing to do with health. What we eat feeds our body and all its functions. As such we should know what's in it. There are many forms of gmo corn and soybean. And sweet corn is gmo many times. Some are from pesticide resistance seeds. Or herbacides. Should I not know I'm eating a herbacide or pesticide ? It is in fact in every single kernel to keep the bugs from eating said kernel. It's also going into the animal I'm going to eat. Over time it will build up in the body . Buy any bag of herbacide and it way say don't eat. Poisen! Yet it's ok to be engineered into our food supply.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, but I can have cornbread that does not contain GMO's. And you can have cornbread that does. The ingredient list would be the same.


There's really not much chance of any commercial corn meal not being GMO unless it's labeled "organic"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

*Problem is there are problems and allergens popping up like crazy*. No. http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31

*Crude oil has nothing to do with health*. Correct, I was speaking about labeling. IMO, labeling safe GMOs differently than non-GMO has nothing to do with health either.
*What we eat feeds our body and all its functions*. Yes
*As such we should know what's in it.* You do.
*There are many forms of gmo corn and soybean.* Three.
*And sweet corn is gmo many times.* No. Not many times, just the sweet corn without grubs. 
*Some are from pesticide resistance seeds.* There are no pesticide resistance seeds. There is no pesticides sprayed on GMO Bt corn. The Bt is approved to be poured on all organic vegetables. Bt is in the soil, in each of us. It isn&#8217;t scary unless you don&#8217;t know what it is. It reduces agriculture's use of chemical insecticides. 
*Or herbacides*. There are no herbicides in GMO crops. While most farmers have been spraying all sorts of toxic weed killers on fields for many decades, Roundup is about the least worrisome. It breaks down fast, doesn&#8217;t remain in the plant and doesn&#8217;t soak into the soil. Soil breaks it down. It is so sensitive to soil contact, hard water starts to break it down.
*Should I not know I'm eating a herbacide or pesticide ?* Yes, but since GMO crops eliminate the use of toxic herbicides and GMO Bt corn eliminates the need for toxic insecticides, GMO reduces the things you seem concerned about. 
*It is in fact in every single kernel to keep the bugs from eating said kernel.* Yes, in GMO Bt corn. Not true for any other GMO crops. But what is in GMO Bt corn is the Bt that already exists in soil and animals and even you and me, long before GMO. 
*It's also going into the animal I'm going to eat.* What&#8217;s going into the animal you eat? Grain? Yes. Toxins? No.
*Over time it will build up in the body* . Some chemicals will accumulate in the body, often in the fat. The resistance to the weed killer Roundup doesn&#8217;t build up in your body. The Bt doesn&#8217;t build up in your body. If you eat a lot of GMO Corn, fat will build up in your body, just as too much non-GMO corn would.
*Buy any bag of herbacide and it way say don't eat. Poisen!* Each herbicide has a data sheet. It lists warnings and precautions. Roundup has a very low level of toxicity. Then it is mixed with many gallons of water. Then a small amount is sprayed onto the weeds. The weeds die and the Roundup breaks down into harmless compounds. But you are correct, it doesn&#8217;t say eat. But we aren&#8217;t talking about eating a bag of herbicide. There isn&#8217;t any Roundup herbicide in GMO Corn.
*Yet it's ok to be engineered into our food supply*. Yes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Problem is there are* problems and allergens popping up like crazy* . Crude oil has nothing to do with health. What we eat feeds our body and all its functions. As such we should know what's in it. There are many forms of gmo corn and soybean. And sweet corn is gmo many times. Some are from pesticide resistance seeds. Or herbacides. Should I not know I'm eating a herbacide or pesticide ? It is in fact in every single kernel to keep the bugs from eating said kernel. It's also going into the animal I'm going to eat. Over time it will build up in the body . Buy any bag of herbacide and it way say don't eat. Poisen! Yet it's ok to be engineered into our food supply.


More parroted hype, still no data to support any of your claims.

The Bt pesticide in GMO corn is a natural bacteria approved for use in organic farming also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis



> Toxicology studies[edit]
> Animal models have been used to assess human health risk from consumption of products containing Cry proteins. The United States Environmental Protection Agency recognizes mouse acute oral feeding studies where doses as high as 5,000 mg/kg body weight resulted in no observed adverse effects.[53] Research on other known toxic proteins suggests that toxicity occurs at much lower doses, further suggesting that Bt toxins are not toxic to mammals.[54] The results of toxicology studies are further strengthened by the lack of observed toxicity from decades of use of B. thuringiensis and its crystalline proteins as an insecticidal spray.


http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-11-new-study-gmo-sweet-corn-rare-in-us-supermarkets


> Only two corn samples out of 71 (2.4 percent) tested positive as genetically engineered. Both were confirmed to be Monsanto SeminisÂ® Performance Seriesâ¢ sweet corn.
> 
> Monsantoâs GMO sweet corn was purchased at City Market in Breckenridge, Colorado, and Stop & Shop in Everett, Massachusetts. The corn from Everett was grown in Ontario, Canada, while the Breckenridge corn was of unknown origin.
> 
> No GMO sweet corn was found in samples purchased in Washington State, California, Illinois, Vermont, Washington, D.C. or Oregon, or in other stores in Colorado or Massachusetts. Samples purchased at Walmart stores in Seattle and Denver tested negative, despite the storeâs stated intention to sell GMO sweet corn.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It's like the high fructose labeling sugar is sugar but since I raise corn I prefer my sugar to come from corn. 
Why shouldn't i be able to put my money behind products I support. ?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's really not much chance of any commercial corn meal not being GMO unless it's labeled "organic"


 Correct, so, there shouldn't be any problem with labeling it as such, correct?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> and it would be exactly the same cornbread.
> 90% of all the corn is GMO. So, you already are assured that it is going to be GMO, unless you buy organic.


 As far as GMO content, it wouldn't be the "Same cornbread" It may taste the same, smell the same, and chemically be the same, but, the fact is that one contains GMO's and one does not, therefore they are different. 

So, why such resistance to a label that reads as such? There is no "tracking" of the products involved. Just a tiny addition of 3 words on the label already affixed to the product "May Contain GMO's". There is no real cost burden to the producer. No tracking, no extra testing, just a little more information. 

The Organic and Non-GMO crowd has to pay for the burden of GMO's as their existence precipitates lots of testing and altered farming practices to avoid GMO's. Producers of GMO's are not hindered by such burdens, and it is really no big deal for them to add three little words to their labels.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Would MAY NOT CONTAIN GMO'S be a suitable sticker? One would be just as accurate as the other.:shrug:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Wanda said:


> Would MAY NOT CONTAIN GMO'S be a suitable sticker? One would be just as accurate as the other.:shrug:


 No one seems to care if there aren't any GMO's in there food. A somewhat large group cares if there is.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> As far as GMO content, it wouldn't be the "Same cornbread" It may taste the same, smell the same, and chemically be the same, but, the fact is that one contains GMO's and one does not, therefore they are different.
> 
> So, why such resistance to a label that reads as such? There is no "tracking" of the products involved. Just a tiny addition of 3 words on the label already affixed to the product "May Contain GMO's". There is no real cost burden to the producer. No tracking, no extra testing, just a little more information.
> 
> The Organic and Non-GMO crowd has to pay for the burden of GMO's as their existence precipitates lots of testing and altered farming practices to avoid GMO's. Producers of GMO's are not hindered by such burdens, and it is really no big deal for them to add three little words to their labels.


 The anti-GMO and Organic group reap the rewards of their added efforts. It is in their interest to fan the flames of misinformation and creation of doubt. IMHO there has been an unfair stigma attached to GMO. 

The only purpose for a GMO label on products known by everyone that might care to contain GMO is to drive people away from their products.

People want to make informed choices with their food choices. But in nearly every case, what people believe is wrong. I end up being blasted on this site when I attempt to explain that what you think is true, really isn't

I've seen several free range commercial poultry operations. I promise it isn't how you and most consumers think it looks. I've documented the time from hen to store and will argue store bought eggs are often fresher than many roadside Fresh Eggs. People believe oat meal is GMO, wheat is GMO and honey spread is mostly honey. No, no, no and no. People read "Contains no growth hormones" on a package of chicken and expect that all other brands are laced with hormones. People believe apples have pesticides on them and in them. Not true. I could go on and on. I've been a back to the land guy for 40 years. I want the world to be how you wish it were. But, often times, it just isn't. I don't want anyone to get sick from raw milk. I don't want Whole Foods to have another food recall. I wish there was a way to peal away the myths of Mercola and the truth be available in a way everyone could understand.

Getting a label on any food that is factually safe, just to appease the anti-GMO splinter group, that will drive up fears and drive away business, while adding confusion, just doesn't seem likely.

Since my belief that GMO foods are safe has withstood safely feeding millions over two decades, I think your demand for a label is as unnecessary as requiring a list of which corn hybrids are in my corn flakes.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> As far as GMO content, it wouldn't be the "Same cornbread" It may taste the same, smell the same, and chemically be the same, but, the fact is that one contains GMO's and one does not, therefore they are different.
> 
> So, why such resistance to a label that reads as such? There is no "tracking" of the products involved. Just a tiny addition of 3 words on the label already affixed to the product "May Contain GMO's". There is no real cost burden to the producer. No tracking, no extra testing, just a little more information.
> 
> *The Organic and Non-GMO crowd has to pay for the burden of GMO's *as their existence precipitates lots of testing and altered farming practices to avoid GMO's. Producers of GMO's are not hindered by such burdens, and it is really no big deal for them to add three little words to their labels.


No, the organic and non GMO crowd would be in a world of hurt if GMO suddenly went away. Ranting against it seems to be their preferred form of advertising.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> No one seems to care if there aren't any GMO's in there food. A somewhat large group cares if there is.


Now there is a survey I'd like to see. You are connected to folks that stand against it and expect you are in the majority.

I'm going to guess if you took a group of a thousand people, asked them to correctly name the GMO foods commonly found in grocery stores, correctly name the two types of GMO corn and correctly answer the question if , out of hundreds of independent studies, there has ever been a peer reviewed study showing GMOs to be harmful.

Then after disqualifying those that don't know what they are talking about, allow them to decide if GMO labels should be required. It is my opinion that people that understand the process are less apt to hate it.

Just occurred to me. Interesting that a group that generally stands against government intrusion into their lives, wants to add a government regulation. Sounds like someone hates Monsanto more than they hate the government?

I'm guessing you'd rather have an uninformed public force a needless label on food producers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It's like the high fructose labeling sugar is sugar but since I raise corn *I prefer my sugar to come from corn*.
> Why shouldn't i be able to put my money behind products I support. ?


Where do you think the "high fructose" comes from?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Correct, so, there shouldn't be any problem with labeling it as such, correct?


No, there is no problem labeling it "organic" if that's what you want to buy.

Otherwise you can assume it's GMO, so no further labeling is needed beyond the ingredient listings

The problem with labeling is proving they are accurate, so odds are even if you got the laws passed, most "organic" corn products would have to say "MAY contain GMO" since they can't test every kernal



> Originally Posted by Farmerga View Post
> No one seems to care if there aren't any GMO's in there food. A somewhat large group cares if there is.


Not large enough to get labeling laws passed where they have been on the ballots



> So, why such resistance to a label that reads as such? There is no "tracking" of the products involved. Just a tiny addition of 3 words on the label already affixed to the product "May Contain GMO's". There is no real cost burden to the producer. *No tracking, no extra testing*, just a little more information.


That's totally incorrect. 
If it's on the label, it has to be proven through testing.

Your "organic" corn would have the same labeling and a higher price too


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> No one seems to care if there aren't any GMO's in there food. A somewhat large group cares if there is.



The label you proposed has no more value than mine since they would only be a guess on the content. If you want separation of the supply chain, please do not complain of the costs. Your 3 word label remark was not valid but tends to imply that labeling could be done at very little cost. My label would do the same.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Multiple countries require gmo labeling with no cost increase or headaches.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well good for them, they are not the USA. We don not need to have such things going on here. Period.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Multiple countries require gmo labeling with *no cost increase* or headaches.


Prove there is no cost
Otherwise it's just another unsubstantiated assertion

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/17/hidden-costs-in-gmo-labeling/



> The food supply chain in the United States relies on a system of commingling, grain delivered to the elevator by farmers throughout the region. Maryland has 2 million acres of farmland, nearly a half million of which grew corn in 2012. In a not very good growing year, Maryland farmers produce 53 million bushels of corn.
> 
> If GMO labeling were to pass, that would require a HUGE addition to both on and off farm storage. Nationally, weâre talking billions of dollars in infrastructure needed to segregate grain.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

http://www.justlabelit.org/about-ge-foods-center/ge-labeling-and-food-prices/


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cost-500-more-in-groceries-per-family-a-year/

2011 study by the USDA looked at the impact of labeling on consumer behavior and market prices in countries that mandated GMO-labels. Even large warning labels on the front of packages are not guaranteed to attract consumer attention, the study says.

Researchers-did not find significant retail price increases-resulted from labeling requirements in other countries. Advocates on both sides point to Ben & Jerryâs, which switched to non-GMO products. The premium for non-GMO ingredients ranged from 5 to 20 percent,-the-Wall Street Journalreported. But Ben & Jerryâs planned to absorb the costs rather than pass them on to customers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The premium for non-GMO ingredients ranged from *5 to 20 percent*,-the-Wall Street Journalreported


That's a pretty big increase that has nothing to do with labeling.

Your source talks about the cost of the labels themselves, and ignores the documentation and testing required to make sure they are accurate.

They are ignoring the process to give the false impression it's all "just a few words on some paper" as was actually stated in an earlier post

It also stated:


> But Ben & Jerry&#8217;s planned to absorb the costs rather than pass them on to customers.


You said there were "*no* costs", so what are they absorbing?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

We have the data from other countries. It proves no increase to costumers other than a few pennies. They have done the same thing to gluten free. Chex cheerios went gluten free. Didnt cost me more to buy them.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

It's simple. When my wife and i make our jams and jellies or or soap, we have to label all the ingredients. So should everyone else. It's a God given right to know what we are putting into our bodies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> We have the data from other countries. It proves *no increase to costumers other than a few pennies*. They have done the same thing to gluten free. Chex cheerios went gluten free. Didnt cost me more to buy them.


"No increase *other than*" means there was an increase.
There are also increases to farmers and processors

Your "gluten free" Cheerios are being recalled:
http://www.cheerios.com/Home/Articles/Gluten Free Cheerios.aspx


> We are embarrassed & sorry to share an incident that occurred at our production facility in Lodi, California, that allowed wheat flour to enter our *gluten-free oat-based* system. As a result, original and Honey Nut Cheerios produced on several dates may contain wheat and were wrongly labeled gluten free.


They fooled you because Oats never had any Gluten to begin with, and there are no GMO Oats, so while their labels are technically correct when they say "no GMO, no Gluten" it's not due to anything they did other than play on the fears of those who don't take the time to educate themselves


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "No increase *other than*" means there was an increase.
> There are also increases to farmers and processors
> 
> Your "gluten free" Cheerios are being recalled:
> ...


Actually if you would educate yourself you would realize that oats are often grown with wheat. They are often also processed together causing cross contamination. They had to change their facilities and providers of oats. Those providers of oats have to make sure that their equipment never makes contact with wheat. A tough thing in a market so closely linked.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Actually if you would educate yourself you would realize that oats are often grown with wheat. They are often also processed together causing cross contamination. They had to change their facilities and providers of oats. Those providers of oats have to make sure that their equipment never makes contact with wheat. A tough thing in a market so closely linked.




I will take what you posted about oats at face value. There are not any GMO oats available to plant, but your article says they have a tough time keeping them separate from a different grain. Now explain how we are going to separate a portion of the supply stream for corn and beans by genetic makeup for a small cost? Do we genetic test every kernel before it is processed?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Wanda said:


> I will take what you posted about oats at face value. There are not any GMO oats available to plant, but your article says they have a tough time keeping them separate from a different grain. Now explain how we are going to separate a portion of the supply stream for corn and beans by genetic makeup for a small cost? Do we genetic test every kernel before it is processed?


Is really quite simple. There are processors who grow only non gmo varieties. Believe it or not is almost equal by comparison in the US. There is no shortage of organic corn in America. At our food lion its 4 ears for 1 dollar for non organic corn. Organic is 5 ear packs for 1.89. Not much cost difference. So those who don't gmo will have a clean stream to the market and those who do gmo will not. It's the customers choice which to buy. Even with gmo labeling many people will ignore it to save a few pennies. But those who don't will still be supporting local growers and American businesses. Nobody losses. Again look at the European Unions and other countries. It's been done. The govt puts strong regulations on is small farmers. We are going through it now with our goats cheeses. Stuff that makes no sense. The big guys should have the same rules. Including labeling all details of the products they sell. It's really a no brainer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Actually if you would educate yourself you would realize that *oats are often grown with wheat*.


No, they are not grown with Wheat if they aren't being used for a cover crop or Winter forage.



> They are often also processed together causing cross contamination.


If they are, it's listed in the ingredients. Cheerios are made with Oats only.
The extra expense comes in from having to make sure they aren't mixed.

Generally they are processed on the same machinary but in different batches.

The same problems occur with all grains since there is no system to keep them separate during final processing or transportation from field to factory.

They don't have separate silos for GMO and conventional corn, and it's generally not tested before being mixed, since that is another added cost



> There are processors who grow only non gmo varieties. Believe it or not is almost equal by comparison in the US. There is no shortage of organic corn in America.





> At our food lion its 4 *ears* for 1 dollar for non organic corn. Organic is 5 ear packs for 1.89.


I already said most *sweet* corn isn't GMO, and "non organic" isn't always GMO.

Ears of corn don't have labeling requirements though, so it's not relevant
Produce can't be compared to processed foods in this context.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where do you think the "high fructose" comes from?



Corn. 
I suppose you are going to explain how in your weird world I'm wrong again ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they are not grown with Wheat if they aren't being used for a cover crop or Winter forage.
> .



Can you prove this or is it just another one of your wild assertions ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[QUOTEThey fooled you because Oats never had any Gluten to begin with, and there are no GMO Oats, so while their labels are technically correct when they say "no GMO, no Gluten" it's not due to anything they did other than play on the fears of those who don't take the time to educate themselves[/QUOTE]



Advertising is about telling the benefits of your product. 
Nothing crooked about it.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> [QUOTEThey fooled you because Oats never had any Gluten to begin with, and there are no GMO Oats, so while their labels are technically correct when they say "no GMO, no Gluten" it's not due to anything they did other than play on the fears of those who don't take the time to educate themselves




Advertising is about telling the benefits of your product. 
Nothing crooked about it.[/QUOTE]


So you would agree that my MAY NOT CONTAIN GMO'S label is appropriate and informational?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Now there is a survey I'd like to see. You are connected to folks that stand against it and expect you are in the majority.
> 
> I'm going to guess if you took a group of a thousand people, asked them to correctly name the GMO foods commonly found in grocery stores, correctly name the two types of GMO corn and correctly answer the question if , out of hundreds of independent studies, there has ever been a peer reviewed study showing GMOs to be harmful.
> 
> ...


 First off, do you know of any group of people who INSIST on having GMO's in their food? There are really only two types of consumers, those who don't want GMO's and those who don't care. I never claimed that the anti-GMO crowd was in the majority. 

I am for truth, that is all. If you will notice, I have never claimed that GMO's are dangerous. I eat GMO's I don't care if they are in the products that I consume. There are those who believe, rightly or wrongly that GMO's are dangerous. Being that I am for truth and, as you say, the majority are not aware of what does and does not contain GMO's, there should be a label whenever a GMO ingredient is used in the food product. The same goes for trans-fat, peanuts, soy, and all the other ingredients that warrant a warning label on food.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Corn.
> I suppose you are going to explain how in your weird world I'm wrong again ?


You complained about "fructose" being called sugar, then said you "prefer your sugar to come from corn".

The obvious contradiction shouldn't need to be pointed out



AmericanStand said:


> It's like the high fructose labeling sugar is sugar but since I raise corn I prefer my sugar to come from corn.
> Why shouldn't i be able to put my money behind products I support. ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> *Can you prove this* or is it just another one of your wild assertions ?


First ask that of the original claim that they *are* grown together for grain harvest


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ok Bearfootfarm I will take that as a no there's no proof of what you said. 
Oh and in case you haven't noticed I find you daring to order me around laughable.
Worse yet how insane is it to tell me to go back in time and do something ? I can't ask them first since I've already asked you. 
This concerns me. 
I really think you should seek professional mental help. 
Please for those of us here and around you that are concerned for your welfare take care of yourself.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

double post.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> First off, do you know of any group of people who INSIST on having GMO's in their food? There are really only two types of consumers, those who don't want GMO's and those who don't care. I never claimed that the anti-GMO crowd was in the majority.
> 
> I am for truth, that is all. If you will notice, I have never claimed that GMO's are dangerous. I eat GMO's I don't care if they are in the products that I consume. There are those who believe, rightly or wrongly that GMO's are dangerous. Being that I am for truth and, as you say, the majority are not aware of what does and does not contain GMO's, there should be a label whenever a GMO ingredient is used in the food product. The same goes for trans-fat, peanuts, soy, and all the other ingredients that warrant a warning label on food.


We agree that there are those that want GMO labeled and those that don't care. If I felt that hybrid corn was evil and open pollenated was great, shouldn't every product with corn in the ingredient list specify that the corn is hybrid? Hey, I'm for truth, as a consumer it is my right to have truthful labels. Right? You or others might say that is taking "truth" too far. Some would argue that nearly all corn used in food is hybrid so an additional label would be of little interest.
I'd like details on how maraschino cherries are manufactured, but that isn't going to happen either.
The ingredient label is there to provide a list of ingredients, not to provide a soap box for anyone's convoluted beliefs nor to elicit an interest in plant science.


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> First ask that of the original claim that they *are* grown together for grain harvest


Wheat and oats are not grow together. They are different grains with different food uses, growing them together in the same field makes them worthless for food.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok Bearfootfarm I will take that as a no there's no proof of what you said.
> Oh and in case you haven't noticed I find you daring to order me around laughable.
> Worse yet how insane is it to tell me to go back in time and do something ? I can't ask them first since I've already asked you.
> This concerns me.
> ...


Take it any way you like.

It won't change the reality that farmers don't grow Oats and Wheat together if the intentions are to harvest the grain, and all the off-topic ranting just makes you appear irrational. :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> First off, do you know of any group of people who INSIST on having GMO's in their food? There are really only two types of consumers, those who don't want GMO's and those who don't care. I never claimed that the anti-GMO crowd was in the majority.
> 
> I am for truth, that is all. If you will notice, I have never claimed that GMO's are dangerous. I eat GMO's I don't care if they are in the products that I consume. There are those who believe, rightly or wrongly that GMO's are dangerous. Being that I am for truth and, as you say, t*he majority are not aware of what does and does not contain GMO's*, there should be a label whenever a GMO ingredient is used in the food product. The same goes for trans-fat, peanuts, soy, and all the other *ingredients that warrant a warning *label on food.


It's easy to find a complete list of all the GMO foods allowed in the US, or anywhere for that matter. If they are the ones who "want to know", why don't they educate themselves instead of trying to change the entire food production system?

There's no credible evidence GMO's "warrant a warning"
The bulk of the science says they are harmless


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Actually if you would educate yourself you would realize that oats are often grown with wheat.


I'm sorry but YOU need to educate yourself about growing small grains! 

Oats and Wheat have very different uses in food products. Growing them together would not allow the farmer to sell them into the market.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Lazy J said:


> I'm sorry but YOU need to educate yourself about growing small grains!
> 
> Oats and Wheat have very different uses in food products. Growing them together would not allow the farmer to sell them into the market.


Oats and grains like barley, wheat and rye are rotational crops. They change each year per field. All three have a harvest rate average of 92% . Leaving behind 8% to reseed and grow amongst the following years crop. That causes contamination through pollination and dust contamination at harvest time. For a celiac patient that means serious problems.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Oats and grains like barley, wheat and rye are rotational crops. They change each year per field. All three have a harvest rate average of 92% . Leaving behind 8% to reseed and grow amongst the following years crop. That causes contamination through pollination and dust contamination at harvest time. For a celiac patient that means serious problems.


I have grown oats, wheat, barley and Spelt over a span of 40 years. These grains are often planted with clover and timothy and are a cover crop. 
After the grain is harvested, the remaining straw is baled. The grain that is lost in the harvesting process will re-seed. The harvest is completed in the late summer or fall. The crop that results from lost seed is killed by the fall frosts and winter cold. I have never seen grain plants in my hay crop the following year.

Because of plant pests and diseases common to these small grain crops, it is uncommon to follow one small grain with another.

In my area, small grain crops are a part of the re-seeding of a hay field. In more traditional farming areas, small grains are a part of a rotation with corn and soybeans. Never heard of anyone following wheat with oats.

There is no cross pollination between oats and wheat.

There can be contamination in the harvesting machinery, transport vehicles, storage bins, seed cleaning processes. But I doubt that even a cup of wheat added to each semi truck load of oats would trigger a celiac attack. Wheat is often harvested a month or so prior to an oat harvest, so any grain residue would be on the initial bin filling.

Attempts to grow field peas and oats together proved too difficult and is no longer practiced. I know of no other "blended" crop.


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Oats and grains like barley, wheat and rye are rotational crops. They change each year per field. All three have a harvest rate average of 92% . Leaving behind 8% to reseed and grow amongst the following years crop. That causes contamination through pollination and dust contamination at harvest time. For a celiac patient that means serious problems.


I don't know where you gained your information but for the most part it is wrong. Farmers practice crop rotation to break disease cycles and improve yields.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Oats and grains like barley, wheat and rye are rotational crops. They change each year per field. All three have a harvest rate average of 92% . Leaving behind 8% to reseed and grow amongst the following years crop. That causes contamination through pollination and dust contamination at harvest time. For a celiac patient that means serious problems.


That's not "growing them together" intentionally, and very few farmers rotate grain crops *back to back* since the growing seasons tend to be the same.

They are most commonly rotated with corn or soybeans between the grain crops

None of that has anything to do with GMO's


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Take it any way you like.
> 
> 
> 
> It won't change the reality that farmers don't grow Oats and Wheat together if the intentions are to harvest the grain, and all the off-topic ranting just makes you appear irrational. :shrug:



Still can't prove it can you ?

Lol it must be nice to live in your special world where if you don't do something no one else possibly can. 

Here both crops are marginal and sometimes used as cover I know more than one cattle farmer that will plant both in hopes one will do well. Usually he grazes them down by spring but I have seen one harvest a field of the mixed grain. 
Not sure what he does with it because I can't see a elevator buying the mix.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Still can't prove it can you ?
> 
> Lol it must be nice to live in your special world where if you don't do something no one else possibly can.
> 
> ...


Why should I when you've done it for me?

The discussion is about GMO's for *human* consumption.

It has nothing to do with grain grown as forage crops, which was stated earlier.

Post #187:


> No, they are not grown with Wheat if they aren't being used for a cover crop or Winter forage.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I once read that in the facilities that manufacture ketchup, it is impossible to keep house flies from entering the building. Flies do become a part of the ketchup. Just no way around it. So, when inspected, there is an allowable amount of insect parts. Sure, it is a very tiny amount and it is prior to the heating process, but it is there. 
For all you "right to know" folks, shouldn't the final ingredient on the ketchup label be insect parts? All this gnashing of teeth over a kernel of GMO corn in a bin of your organic fish batter, but nothing about insect parts? 
Do you honestly prefer rat droppings that you must recognize get into the steam rolling oat processor at Con Agra over the non-existent, imaginary GMO in your corn oil? Where's your outrage? 
I see a lot of people rallying against Monsanto, based on a few people that have made a lot of money creating this scare. Dr. Mercola, you are a genius. Easy to blend in some lies with a general hatred/envy people have of wealthy people and successful businesses.
There are important causes, folks. But GMO isn't one of them.


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Still can't prove it can you ?


Technically you can't prove a negative, so YOU have to prove that it does. Your assumptions and calculations are not proof.

I'm a farmer, we grow wheat. Contamination with oats results in rejection of the wheat at the mill because it can't be used for what our type of wheat is intended.

When farmers sell wheat grown in the plains they are sold based on a protein content, having oats in that sample will result in rejects not only because they have oats but because they resulting sample won't make grade.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol Bearfootfarm expects every statement to be proved on the atomic level but when I ask him to all I hear is crickets!
Lazy J where I'm at cross contamination of corn and soybeans is accepted up to about ten percent. Is it different with wheat and oats ?


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

I love GMO I keep a shaker full on the table and sprinkle it on my grits to inhance the flavor.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You complained about "fructose" being called sugar, then said you "prefer your sugar to come from corn".
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious contradiction shouldn't need to be pointed out



Lol I did no such thing. 
Do you actually comprehend English ?

I pointed out how sugar from corn is labeled so that you know it comes from corn. This pleases me since with this knowledge I can buy products made from corn and support a industry I'm involved in. 

You do this to me all the time and like dealing with a whinny five yearold it's tiresome. 

Read what I said. Don't make up stuff. Use a dictionary if you don't understand the words.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol I did no such thing.
> Do you actually comprehend English ?
> 
> I pointed out how sugar from corn is labeled so that you know it comes from corn. This pleases me since with this knowledge I can buy products made from corn and support a industry I'm involved in.
> ...


While this post has morphed away from GMO Salmon to GMO crops, I hate to say you've gotten off topic with your corn syrup, high fructose sugar drift.
As I've said before, it is truth I seek and I try to dispel wrong information. 
Generally cane sugar and beet sugar aren't labeled as such, just sugar. In the items I'm familiar with, corn sugar is only listed when it is in syrup form, as in high fructose corn syrup. 

So, you buy high fructose corn syrup and products containing high fructose corn sugar, and that those purchases support Monsanto and Monsanto's customers?
Just trying to make it clear and that I'm comprehending your words correctly.

This thread can be a learning moment for all. But if you resort to name calling and just plain arguing, this topic gets locked. I'd ask you to tone it down a bit, but afraid you'd just see it as an attempt to order you around.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Read what I said*. Don't make up stuff. Use a dictionary if you don't understand the words.


Most of what you said is simply wrong, mixed in with a lot of off topic rambling. 

You're more intent on making it about me than paying attention to the real discussion.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

haypoint said:


> So, you buy high fructose corn syrup and products containing high fructose corn sugar, and that those purchases support Monsanto and Monsanto's customers?
> Just trying to make it clear and that I'm comprehending your words correctly.
> 
> This thread can be a learning moment for all. But if you resort to name calling and just plain arguing, this topic gets locked. I'd ask you to tone it down a bit, but afraid you'd just see it as an attempt to order you around.



You are right I should try harder to be nice. 
Point taken and appreciated. 
Thank you. 


I'm not a fan of Monsanto but I do by a lot of their products. 
I'd suspect that purchasing HFC products would support ADM , another company I'm not particularly fond of.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most of what you said is simply wrong, mixed in with a lot of off topic rambling.
> 
> You're more intent on making it about me than paying attention to the real discussion.



Lol this is not a highly moderated forum the topics tend to drift.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol this is not a highly moderated forum the topics tend to drift.


"Drift" is natural and expected.
Talking about me *instead of* the topic isn't "drift", and neither is continuing to parrot misinformation.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Interest twist on the gmo field. It appears the study that proves gmo tumors, was only retracted temporarily due to suits. It is now peer reviewed and republished and is author awarded 2 court victories. 


http://www.sott.net/article/308623-...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Interest twist on the gmo field. It appears the study that *proves gmo tumors*, was only retracted temporarily due to suits. It is now *peer reviewed* and republished and is author awarded 2 court victories.
> http://www.sott.net/article/308623-...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


It doesn't "prove GMO tumors" and "peer reviewed" means he found some anti-GMO people to claim they read it.

Seralini's research has been debunked by all the real scientists who have looked at the limited data he released.

The court didn't rule on the validity of the study.

They ruled on a "libel" case involving another scientist who forged Seralini's name.


> On November 25, the High Court in Paris indicted Marc Fallous, the former chairman of France's Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for *"forgery"* and the "use of forgery." The details of the case have not been officially released.





> This was the second such court victory for the professor's team, following a November 6 victory in a *defamation* lawsuit over an article in the French Marianne magazine which categorized the SÃ©ralini team research as "scientific fraud".


It appears you didn't really read beyond the headlines and hype


----------

