the nutrition of gmo corn

Discussion in 'General Gardening' started by Gypsi, Mar 29, 2013.

  1. Gypsi

    Gypsi Super Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    New report. It isn't the gmo that is the problem I'm pretty sure. I am NOT sure if this is the right forum, but I just got my Hopi blue drought hardy seed corn in, going to try it this summer.

    Actually I have almost all heritage seeds this year, am missing dark red kidney beans but finally found a catalog with them. Here's the report.

    Please take what you like and leave the rest, but I like to eat and I like to be healthy.

    http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning_corn_comparison_gmo_versus_non_gmo
     
  2. tecumseh

    tecumseh New Member

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    comparing the first line of the table (ergs of energy) is fairly alarming <kind of makes you think this is the junk food of the future.

    and how did that old saying go... 'you are what you eat'.
     

  3. Crofter

    Crofter New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am curious about the reports this petition letter refers to; The greatly divergent levels of different elements suggests that perhaps treated seed on one hand is being compared to harvested grain on the other. There never was any question about the consumption of treated seed whether genetically modified or not. I remember reading 4o years ago about a great number of deaths in India when treated seed grain got ground into flour. I would like to know more about the nature of the tests. Statistic can be very misleading while still factually correct: Whenever there is agenda it is a given!

    My objection is to the loss of genetic diversity when the large seed companies select a handfull of varieties for the nations, even the worlds, entire grain crop whereas a relatively few years ago there were thousands of distinct varieties. All the molds, fungi, worms, etc. are constantly doing there own genetic modifications to foil the plants and it is easier for them to concentrate on a monoculture. We are taking part in deliberately putting our eggs into ever fewer baskets.

    Genetic modification is ongoing in every species alive, us included so is not in itself bad; the deliberate fast forwarding of it could create problems though as it is less subject to natures culling of unadvantageous new offspring. Unintended consequences haunt us on many fronts.
     
  4. tecumseh

    tecumseh New Member

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Crofter....I myself think that with the older and slower plant breeding programs man himself had time to test and adjust to these newer products. Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs, Steel) does a pretty good job of explaining how and where the traditional plants were developed and how they spread and the time require for this distribution to take place... typically over fairly long periods of time but in the process the element or variable often overlooked is time and the essential part that time plays in adaptation and perhaps even more importantly culling (which I consider to be the neglected step child of most breeding programs)

    Looking back over my short life time I have witnessed the steady and growing 'social cost' from the industrial marvel that 20 years prior was suppose to transform the world. So at least part of the real rub here is (at least from my prospective).....we allow public funds to help develop product that are then handed over to 'very rich' people to profit from and when things go horrible wrong we the public then pick up the tab for the error? there is of course any number of occasion when whatever went horrible wrong cannot be corrected no matter how much public funds are devoted to the process.
     
  5. Crofter

    Crofter New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also believe that there is danger in a system that can make mass introduction and bypass nature's slow trial and error process. We have greatly changed the nature of agriculture and are now dependent on mechanization having moved more than 40 percent of the population to cities and must grow and ship their food to them. Much of the green revolutions methods require monoculture and chemical weed and pest control to make them as efficient as they are. To wean off them now would perhaps be the wisest thing to do but can the worlds present social systems survive the strife that would occur should the cost of bulk food raise appreciably. Egypts present resource problem is an example of something that could go critical. When a population is at the subsistance level a basic foods price increase is certain troubles. It is becoming harder and harder to keep the impacts of such problems from jumping across oceans.
    Genetic modification to enable chemical weed and pest control may be a long term unwise solution to our situation but it may be one that seems like no choice economically and thus politically. Globally we have some hard choices to make.

    Cuba had an interesting time when their USSR dependant economy collapsed and they had to move a large percentage of their population back to virtual hand work on the land raising food; relatively easy with a dictatorial political system but could you imagine the whining and crying with our spoiled and entitled population.
     
  6. Iddee

    Iddee New Member

    Messages:
    8,996
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anyone remember Thalidomide?

    Let's use the new stuff now and see what it brings later on down the road. NOT!
     
  7. Crofter

    Crofter New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thalidomide was bad; penicillin was not, insulin was not, sulpha drugs were not, polio vaccine, tuberculosis vaccine, etc., etc. Not a good argument.
     
  8. Iddee

    Iddee New Member

    Messages:
    8,996
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which of those were released for public use without testing?
     
  9. Crofter

    Crofter New Member

    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Testing is a good idea; how long and how extensive and is there to be a cost benefit analysis. This is the part that gets tricky. If you look at the carcinogenic properties of petroleum products or alcohol, let alone many other every day essentials and decide they should retroactively be subjected to testing for harm ...... oh my! Maybe we better grandfather those items.

    It is easy to get wrapped around the axle over one issue and lose sight of the bigger picture.
     
  10. Gypsi

    Gypsi Super Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I really think roundup is the worst offender. The GMO will contaminate other crops, but roundup is some nasty stuff. There are still veterans that were exposed to agent orange and other defoliants in Viet Nam that are having trouble getting the VA to help them with their health issues. I don't use any herbicides. Not even Scott's Bonus S. The goat was supposed to help with the weeds, darn, I miss my goat.
     
  11. brooksbeefarm

    brooksbeefarm Active Member

    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Gypsi, are you sure Roundup has agent orange? i've heard people talk about 2 4 D having agent orange in it. Hadn't heard that Roundup did? Jack
     
  12. Gypsi

    Gypsi Super Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Roundup doesn't, but I distrust the stuff on principle and don't want to eat it. My chickens eat grass and weeds, I won't spray them.
     
  13. brooksbeefarm

    brooksbeefarm Active Member

    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Roundup is used mostly for the no til farming, it's the only herbicide that i know of that you can spray and plant in the same operation. It only kills what it's sprayed on above the ground, if it went into the ground you couldn't plant seed with it at the same time. I'm by no means defending Roundup, but i've not heard of any bad effects in it's uses,like run off,ect. Jack