Is the food you buy safe to eat?

[GoldenBrain]

Being wrong on the internet is a serious offence.

I am trembling, no seriously, shaking violently with terror... Bwaaahahahahaha!

Thank you for illustrating my point. As a Westerner, I don't have to worry about starving to death. I also don't live in the hood, so I don't have to worry about getting shot, either. I do have to worry about preventable diseases; the risk factors for such can be reduced through proper diet and lifestyle choices.

You're welcome, and well said!

The idea that we need GMO to "feed the world" is bullsh!t. There have been a number of studies showing crop failure and poor yields after switching to GM crops. The most famous example is the cotton farmers in India.

Even if crop yield improved over conventional yield, as you said, permaculture can produce better results.

Indeed.

[Syn7]

OMG... please read actual studies.

Even the father of the Green revolution, Norman Borlaug, known affectionately as "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", clearly states that organic farming can only feed like a 3rd of the planet. And there were WAY less people when he said that. Does that mean all GMO's are great and that the people who make them act responsibly? No, of course not. Big biz is always douchy to some extent. But we shouldn't shit all over the actual science because it's being abused.


Please please please read actual PEER reviewed studies. You beef isn't with the idea, it's with the practice. Know the difference. This is important.


This is why I don't want to talk about it. Too much to say. So many misconceptions.

[GoldenBrain]

I hear you Syn and totally understand why you don't want to talk about it. For the record I've never read anything from Norman Borlaug. I draw my organic opinions from personal experience. I agree with you that 100% positive conclusions should only be made after studies go through a peer review but that doesn't mean people can't state their opinions. You and anybody else are free to disagree at any time which is always cool with me. I'm not ****ting on science but I do think there is some evidence to suggest that this GMO science is being abused or at least fast tracked to open field testing which may cause lasting problems in our environment.

I think I would be more wiling to back GMO farming if we were facing a problem such as what is being found with antibiotic resistant bacteria. To my knowledge there is no reason to believe the plants we have grown for centuries have somehow become water resistant or soil resistant. Sure there are insects and weeds but short of a locust invasion which GMO will not solve there really isn't a problem here. Weeds are in most cases easy to control and often beneficial since they help to add vital nutrients to the soil.

Take for instance the method of growing corn, squash and beans together. The squash is grown around the base of the corn which keeps weeds from growing to close and the beans are allowed to climb the corn which keeps the vining weeds at bay. I use this method in parts of our garden and it works well. My Choctaw ancestors called it the three sisters and it's been proven over time.

[GoldenBrain]

I could only find 42 studies on GMOs effects, most of which fall between 1998 and 2002. This surprises me because of it's potential to damage the environment. I would think studies on this sort of science would be a big deal. I haven't read all 42 yet but I will go through them in time so for now I'll just focus on the more recent releases.

Below is the most recent peer reviewed study I could find. It discusses the negative effects of GMO feed to pigs. This study was performed in both the US and Australia over 5 years.


Here's the PDF:
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

Here's the site where the study can be found:
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/index.html

Here's a press release on the study:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/p...dverse-effects

[Kymus]

OMG... please read actual studies.

Even the father of the Green revolution, Norman Borlaug, known affectionately as "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", clearly states that organic farming can only feed like a 3rd of the planet. And there were WAY less people when he said that. Does that mean all GMO's are great and that the people who make them act responsibly? No, of course not. Big biz is always douchy to some extent. But we shouldn't shit all over the actual science because it's being abused.


Please please please read actual PEER reviewed studies. You beef isn't with the idea, it's with the practice. Know the difference. This is important.


This is why I don't want to talk about it. Too much to say. So many misconceptions.

If you farm organic produce the same way you farm conventional produce, I'd agree that it's inefficient. It's not sensible to do large monocrop farming in general, IMO. Organic or conventional. This is why permaculture is the way. Of course, I have no idea if any scientific data has been published regarding permaculture; I'm not very familiar with agricultural science.

I've seen a number of studies regarding GMO and crop failure. Unfortunately, I don't bookmark every study I see, so I'm at a loss for data. As I said, the cotton famine in India is the most well known and you can find a lot of data on that if you're interested. I understand of course that it's just a single crop (BT Cotton), but in this instance, I'm just using it as an example to suggest that GM crops aren't what they're promised.

I don't know the numbers when it comes to agricultural studies with GMO, but with health studies, the majority of them are industry funded, which leaves us with remaining questions (IMO, more independent research should be done).

In general, I think the debate is being framed wrongly. There are ways to "feed the world" that don't involve growing grains to export to nations with a high population of starving people. One would be reducing food waste, and other would be to tackle politics that are affecting developing nations and those areas with abject poverty and starvation. Why do these other things never get mentioned in these sorts of discussions? The only thing I hear over and over is that we need to "feed the world" and GMO is the only way. IMO, it's not coincidental that GMO is a huge business (*).

(*disclaimer: I'm just making a suggestion; I'm not offering this as proof of anything. If anyone thinks I am implying anything, I am not.)

[Kymus]

I could only find 42 studies on GMOs effects, most of which fall between 1998 and 2002. This surprises me because of it's potential to damage the environment. I would think studies on this sort of science would be a big deal. I haven't read all 42 yet but I will go through them in time so for now I'll just focus on the more recent releases.

Below is the most recent peer reviewed study I could find. It discusses the negative effects of GMO feed to pigs. This study was performed in both the US and Australia over 5 years.


Here's the PDF:
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

Here's the site where the study can be found:
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/index.html

Here's a press release on the study:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/p...dverse-effects

Golden Brain, I think that may be a little off topic, no? I think Syn's talking about crop yield right now (though given, often these two discussions go hand in hand).

Anyway, about this study, there is a popular counter-claim to it that's circling around amongst the true-believers (showing once again how much science has been politicized and how people are in their own camps). IMO, the guy seems like an industry hack, but I've got nothing to prove it, so I'm not going to make any accusations of him.

Dr. Chris Masterjohn, a biochemist I have a lot of respect for, had a few comments about the counter-claims that I thought I'd share:

He correctly criticizes data fishing in the paper, but the criticism of the stomach inflammation data is weak. The paper showed a shift from moderate stomach inflammation to severe, which is a worsening. His criticism of the animal husbandry isn't very convincing because he doesn't cite normal rates of mortality and disease on typical US farms. I'll look at the paper in more detail but it does seem from the legit points he made to be a fishing expedition.

Both the review and the comments seem driven by ideologues intent on tearing down anything against GMOs and the philosophical approach he lays out in his intro is absolutely preposterous. Nevertheless, even if he's an industry hack, whatever legit points are in his critique are still legit points.

I started to read the comments and really don't want to finish. I see one person defending the study (who clearly agrees with its ideological bent, though she seems honest) against a bunch of knee-jerk ideologues bent on tearing the study apart, lacing a sprinkling of good arguments through terrible arguments. The supporter, Madeline, is not correct that this is a "dosing" study, even though it in some indirect away amounts to one. As a hypothesis-driven study it is a study that compared the use of GMO and non-GMO feed as would occur in the market on farm situations, which can generalize to farm situations. Criticizing this as "uncontrolled" without noting anything positive about the design is thoroughly outrageous. Of course it detracts from the ability to make a categorical statement of comparing presence vs absence of GMOs, but its very clear strength is that it is suitable for realistic inferences about what would happen to pigs on industrial farms fed these grains purchased commercially as they generally are.

I was hoping he'd write an article about the controversy, but he has not. I'll have to see if some of the other biochemists I've got a lot of respect for have touched it.

[Kymus]

This article mentions a group of scientists that are against GMO. Does anyone know what group it's talking about? Is it politically active? What is the background of the scientists involved?

Maybe it's because it's late, but I'm not seeing any mention of names..


(disclaimer: I understand that the article I linked to has links to anti-GMO information that may or may not be questionable. The purpose of my posting that link was solely to find out more information about the group mentioned. I have not looked at any of the links given, nor is my opinion on this topic tempered by them or this site. Once again, I'm not implying anything.)

[Syn7]

Stick to publically funded studies done through universities and credible organizations. Problem solved. If you get your news from anywhere else, you will get spin. Period. So many agendas here. I'm not saying I don't love the idea of things like urban microfarming and all that. I'm just saying that GMO's do not = bad. It's too broad a statement and it trivializes the whole debate. The nuances here are many and quite often subtle. Lemme just end by saying this: A lot has changed since the whole DDT thing that started all this. That was a long time ago and we've learned a lot. Have we learned it all? NO. Of course it's a continuing process. But there is NO DOUBT that we are better off now than EVER before in the history of mankind. Don't even get me started about the whole vaccine thing. lol...

[GoldenBrain]

Golden Brain, I think that may be a little off topic, no? I think Syn's talking about crop yield right now (though given, often these two discussions go hand in hand).

You may be right but I wasn't referencing that study necessarily to debate with Syn. He's a pretty smart individual who doesn't seem to want to get into this debate so I'm not going to try to draw him in or attempt to out science him. Besides, I already stated my opinion on the method of farming that I feel is best. For me it's permaculture all the way which is why I can grow the "grand ultimate produce."

Personally I don't even see why there is a debate on this because it seems obvious to me. Permaculture is a proven method that uses no pesticides, herbicides or fertilizer and yields productive, massive and tasty crops. It's true that I live in the 1st world but if I live in the 3rd world it'd still be a no brainer for me because I wouldn't have to purchase pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers so its completely affordable and sustainable. It may not be the answer to the worlds hunger problem but at this point I don't see why GMOs would be any better.

It just doesn't seem natural or safe to me to engineer frankenfoods to make their own pesticides or be resistant to herbicides in order for commercial farmers to be able to drench their crops with them. To me, weeds are beneficial since they help to provide the vital nutrients that food crops need. Also, many weeds are edible and nutritious as well as medicinal so why would anybody feel they have to kill them?

[GoldenBrain]

Thanks Syn for adding that last bit. You're absolutely right on which studies to draw conclusions from. I'll admit that I sometimes allow my personal bias to influence my opinion. I think most of us do this except for the most rigid scientists among us. At least I'm willing to admit this. I still haven't changed my opinion on GMOs yet but that's not to say I wouldn't be willing to if there is real evidence to show me that those methods are better than what I use. Of course, I'm not starving so I have the luxury to voice this opinion where others less fortunate would be happy with just a bag of rice and a cup of water.

[Syn7]

I'm biased too.... we all are. I am constantly battling my own assumptions. I have to check myself all the time. Who better to put you on blast than yourself? Ya know. It's also ok to simply say "I don't know". And quite frankly, there is a lot that we all don't know. My ideal world and the world I see as practical and possible are two different places. We, as humans, have evolved over a very long time. We have made huge technological leaps in the last few thousand years and more specifically the last few decades, but we are still the same people we were before we had all the stuff we have now. In the past, assumptions saved our lives. They still do. But we have tools we never had before and we should foster and develop them as best we can. There is no doubt that we are all, collectively, better off for it. Child mortality rates are lower than ever. We live longer. We experience less pain, in general. The benefits far outweigh the alternatives. It's pretty scary how fast the fringe elements can become mainstream. But I would never stop anyone from choosing how they feed themselves. It's just very complicated and about way more than pesticides and modifications. Anyways....

[Kymus]

Personally I don't even see why there is a debate on this because it seems obvious to me. Permaculture is a proven method that uses no pesticides, herbicides or fertilizer and yields productive, massive and tasty crops. It's true that I live in the 1st world but if I live in the 3rd world it'd still be a no brainer for me because I wouldn't have to purchase pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers so its completely affordable and sustainable. It may not be the answer to the worlds hunger problem but at this point I don't see why GMOs would be any better.

IMO, it comes down to money. People are making money off of GMO (and large-scale monocrop farming), so therefore, it's being pushed heavily. I knew about GMO before I heard about permaculture!

I think that permaculture, given that it can show people how to grow a lot of food in a small area, would be great to teach to people since it would help to empower them. While you can't grow crops out in the freezing cold, there are a number of ways to make permaculture suitable for most any climate.

[GoldenBrain]

Well said Kymus and Syn!

[GoldenBrain]

I would love to hear about other forum members experiences with backyard gardening and or full scale farming.

Does anybody here grow their own food? Do you use heirlooms, GMO, organic, outdoor, indoor, greenhouse, permaculture...etc?

I'm interested in what methods y'all found to be successful as well as what failed.

[Kymus]

I try to stick to heirloom and wild varieties whenever possible.