GMO

[nononsensemumof2]

Morrisons, Siansburys, Co-Op and M&S have joined Tesco in allowing GMO fed chickens on their shelves.! This is the tip of the ice burg.!
There is an International protest against GMO on 25th May, I urge you all to organise to join in, if you value choice about what you eat, because if GMO is allowed into our food chain, we will have let the genie out of the bottle, forever.!
Cross contamination and patented law suits will be the order of the day, if we allow Monsanto to get a foot hold on our food supply.
Not only is this vile virus a health hazard to humans, but it is destroying our environment too, re bees, etc.
Plus it is attempting to own Mother Nature via its patented seeds, thereby selling us dangerous produce with a corporate stamp.!
We must all wake up to this onslaught against nature and our right to chose. Please get out in force and demand an end to this profit lead evil against nature now.

I don't know enough about homeopathy. I have never looked into it, so I can't say whether it works or not.

'I am the public. I am massively in favour of GM.'

That doesn't sound very representative of the public as a whole.

According to a spokesperson for Friends of the Earth, the public aren't that keen on GM food

"One in ten foods on sale in high street stores contains GM ingredients without declaring details on the label, an investigation has revealed.
Everyday products such as bread, cakes, burgers, ready meals, soya products and crisps were involved, sold at a wide range of outlets and including household names.

The major supermarkets claim to have removed GM ingredients from their own-brand products in response to customer concerns. But the discovery of the deception - which is a criminal offence - makes it clear manufacturers and retailers are failing to carry out proper checks.

EU rules allow foods to contain up to 1 per cent GM ingredients without declaring the fact on the label. Trading standards officers found, however, that a tenth of the foods they examined were above this limit.

More than 5 per cent of the soya present in one product was genetically modified. Friends of the Earth said the survey was 'very worrying'. ' People have made it very clear that they don't want to eat GM food and now the labelling regulations are failing them,' spokesman Carol Kearney added yesterday.

'More rigorous enforcement is needed. If people want to avoid GM food, the safest bet is to buy organic food."

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-66183/Food-giants-accused-GM-cover-up.html

This member of "people" hasn't "made it very clear they don't want to eat GM food"

I have no objection at all. All the food we eat has been genetically modified over centuries. We are just now doing it a bit more quickly and with less waste.

..... and by the way organic food has NO health benefits. It's an overpriced marketing scam

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249848.php

This was in 2002. The EU have listened to European cinsumers' concerns and implemented the toughest labelling restrictions in the world. However, as far as i understand it, there is no GM labelling for animals that have been fed with GM feed.

"US efforts to break down European resistance to genetically modified food products suffered a setback yesterday after the European parliament voted to introduce the toughest GM labelling and traceability rules in the world

In a vote that attracted massive lobbying from US biotechnology companies and consumer groups, the assembly - which has real power to determine the shape of future legislation - took heed of consumer concerns and decided that all derivatives of GM food and animal feed products sold in the EU should be subject to labelling.

It also tightened up the present 1% threshold for genetically modified organisms in foods, reducing it to 0.5%.

Effectively, this means tens of thousands of products like crisps, soft drinks, breads, cakes, chocolate and sweets could now be labelled GM. Consumer groups estimate that at least 30,000 food products contain derivatives of GM maize or soya.

However, the parliament stopped short by three votes of demanding GM labelling on products of animals reared on GM foods. Eggs, milk and meat will not be labelled even if the animals have been reared on GM foods

The vote is an embarrassment for the UK government and the food standards agency, both of which said the European commission's proposals would be unworkable."

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/04/foodanddrink.eu

There's a slight difference between breeding for desired traits like drought resistance or pest resistance which we have done for thousands of years and insertion of foreign genes like the aforementioned fish genes into strawberries. Unless you think that could happen naturally...
I'm not actually anti GMO, my sister works in the industry but I dont think the safety testing has been rigorous enough given that once its in the wild there's no control. The herbicide resistant genes have already crossed into weeds requiring even more roundup (great for Monsanto of course) to be sprayed onto crops (not so great for farm workers) and I want it labelled. Something the biotech industry is doing its best to resist.

And yes, I'm naturally suspicious because it seems like everytime we do mess with food in the name of profit, we fuck up. Antibiotics fed to farm animals to increase growth led to more resistant bacteria and poorer conditions for those animals. BSE crisis because it was cheaper to feed ground up carcasses to cows. Horse meat in just about everything, pork found in chicken and beef. All for profit and cheapness, not about 'feeding the hungry'.

Good points, infamouspoo

I am in favour of strong regulation of the biotech industry, I don't want another 'light touch regulation' type thing that we saw with the financial industry, and I want tough rules on labelling, including on meat, milk and eggs that have come from animals given GM feed.

If it is safe, what's teh problem with labelling it and letting everyone know that it is in the food product, so that we can all partake of the goodness of the GM food.

It seems that some consumers might even seek out GM food as they believe it is more beneficial than rganic food. Why deny them that choice if they is what they want?

I wonder how much money is spent worldwide on lobbying and developing GM technology as opposed to how much is spent on regulation of the industry.

dreamingofsummer "..... and by the way organic food has NO health benefits. "

That depends how you word the question. What the study you cite showed was that organic food doesn't contain a different quantity of vitamins and minerals.

If you assume that there are no health risks associated with pesticide traces, then of course there are no benefits to organic. Personally, I don't believe that most people buy organic because they expect their cabbage to be in some way a super-cabbage, I think they buy organic because they want to avoid the risks associated with pesticide/herbicide traces.

I've pasted in below a quote from Hansard regarding government advice on peeling carrots, the full page is here. Frankly, I'd rather have organic carrots and use my veg peeler, rather than have to take off x mm with a knife.

"Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are aware of the disadvantages of organophosphates. That is why we have introduced a number of measures limiting their use. We continue to recommend using a knife to peel carrots, for example, and not to depend simply on washing.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm what he has just said? I was going to ask whether the official advice from two or three years ago still stands; that not only should we peel carrots, but in the case of young children it is advisable to peel fruit as well.

Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords, that is still our advice."

!st -GM foods have been around for many years, eaten across the globe by animals and humans and no scientific evidence of problems have been found despite the work of many who want it stopped - the lobbying against GM is just as powerful as for except they need no evidence and just say 'may be harmful' to get things removed.

2nd - organic does not mean chemical free here and here

caroldecker, I'm afraid I don't know much about American organic standards, so I can't comment on your link. Pesticide use in UK/EU organic standards is very severely restricted. Even using, for example, soft soap to counter aphids (fatty acid based soap which kills aphids by contact, essentially it suffocates them) would be something that organic registered farmers could only do in extremely limited circumstances.

Its similar to antibiotics - organic farmers are allowed to use antibiotics to treat a sick animal. However, milk/meat withdrawal periods are much longer, and they aren't allowed (as is the norm in non-organic production) to routinely treat healthy animals with antibiotics to increase weight gain.

caroldecker, its also worth noting that there have been dutch studies highlighting health problems in pigs fed GM soy. I'm pretty sure I linked to the study higher up this thread.

'the lobbying against GM is just as powerful'

Yes, good point. I never realised that, but thinking about it, there is a lot of lobbying from respected green organisations such as Friends of the Earth, the soil Association, Greenpeace and probably a whole lot more. So there is a lot of publicity and a lot of pressure groups who lobby against it.

takvar

here

also allowed chemicals here search for pesticides.

one allowed pesticide is copper sulphate. Health risks here

Basically organic is farming as happened in victorian times, not necessarily better for you or the environment.

Caroldecker, using copper sulphate (ie bordeaux mixture) has long since been severely restricted, to the point of being pretty much unusable.

As I pointed out above, it is like antibiotics, use is allowed very occasionally in extremely restricted circumstances. As it happens, I would be happy to use copper sulphate on my crops as a very occasional thing, and (were I organic registered, which I'm not) could make a good case for so doing, BECAUSE my land is very low in copper, so vegetables grown there will be much lower in content of that mineral compared to those grown on a more typical soil.

Actually, the fact that I don't want to have to justify every single decision of that type to an inspector BEFORE taking action to get a derogation, and record it meticulously is one reason that I'm not organic registered.

From the link you quote, which by the way is a minimum standard for the whole of the EU, I would note:

"The use of pesticides, which may have detrimental effects on the environment or result in the presence of residues in agricultural products, should be significantly restricted. Preference should be given to the application of preventive measures in pest, disease and weed control. In addition, conditions for the use of certain plant protection products should be laid down."

It is also worth noting (won't copy here, because it is a huge list), that the allowed pesticides are noted in the document. They are things like soft soap, sulphur in minimal quantities - so yes, some chemicals that have been used since victorian times - but having taken out those which have been identified as harmful to human health.

There are also many, many techniques which would have astounded the victorians, I'm thinking of introducing predatory insects, just for example.

I should note, use of copper sulphate is restricted by the Soil association, it is from that document linked allowable in small quantities in the minimum EU standards

caroldecker - I'm impressed you found the EU docs, though, finding stuff on their website is usually a nightmare. What's your background - I'm guessing you work in the trade?

I'm a seed grower, hence why I spend too much time dealing with this stuff. We're not registered organic because the benefits vs costs don't really stack up for us, and also I have an ingrained objection to people telling me what I can and can't do on my own land (And we have enough of it already with the seed regs without adding more!)

OK, I found the Soil Association factsheet for growers on "Materials for pest and disease control in organic crops"

Basically all the 'permitted' options are biological controls (things like predatory mites, parasitic wasps, hoverfly pupae).

All the other options are then either 'with approval' ie, with approval given in advance by the certifying body (so they'd be looking for things like my land being low in copper, and therefore some use of copper sulphate being acceptable), or 'with permission' where this would be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

An example of that would be a one off use of ferrous sulphate slug pellets last season, when brassica transplants were literally being wiped out overnight by the slug pressure.

There aren't any systemic pesticides allowed - so no organophosphates, for example.

First let me say claig, I love you.
Second its rather irrelevant which disastrous GM effect is worse than the other, be it economic or health, the point surely is that either and both are not beneficial.!
Europe has resisted this onslaught, perhaps the only good thing to come out of it for Britain, ( but thats another issue,) yet we are now caving in, despite all the nonsense about referendums, etc.!
The world does not need this, it will not 'solve' world hunger, there are far better ways to address this question than allowing Mother Nature to be served up on a plate to these American Multi-Nationals, for their profit and our loss, not only of choice about what we eat but also the many risks to the health of future generations.

I am not an expert in this, but interested. I agree organic is probably less harmful to the environment than non-organic, but I think it cannot be more than a niche. My point was organic does not necessarily mean pesticide free and those who want GM labeling should also accept similar warnings on organic.
I personally ignore organic fruit and veg but buy organic meat for the animal welfare issue rather than any supposed health benefits.

nononsense we have yet to see any actual evidence of any disastrous GM effect - just comments that we are all doomed and will nobody think of the children.

There's a really interesting (and highly persuasive) argument than on a global scale, organic is more harmful to the environment than a more high-intensity model of farming, as more space is needed to produce the same crop, which means that more biodiverse land is ploughed up for farming. It's one of these arguments where most people's immediate reaction is against it (mine certainly was) but the speaker I've heard argue this is very thought-provoking and convincing. The interesting thing is that he himself is a conservation scientist.

Head....meet brick wall.....ouch that hurt...

I would love to be able to buy glow in the dark mice in Sainsbury's

Organic is more harmful? You have got to be joking me.!
Oh yes of course, because plants injected with erroneous chemicals are bound to be more safe than Mother Natures own.!?

I would love to see evidence of plants (intended for any consumption) being injected with any chemicals.

Tbf if you take a scientific definition DNA is a chemical....in the same way as water...oxygen....all highly hazardous...

Organic farming is fine for a world population of about 1 billion - so we'll just starve 80% of the world because you've read a pamphlet you don't understand