Would anyone here eat this?

[Archae]

Of course not.

Yet...

We do eat the genetically altered version, quite happily.



I keeps seeing all sorts of rants about genetically altered crops. and of course, "Big Ag."

Yet most of the time this "Big Ag propaganda" comes from a woo propaganda source, Rodale Press.

Ever see an "organic" strawberry, and one from a large farm?
They are identical.

"Organic" is a buzzword used as a con, to jack up prices on produce.

And now we've learned that "Eden Foods," one of these "organic" producers, is throwing a RW tantrum against "Obamacare."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Foods_Inc.#Employee_healthcare

[HiPointDem]

1. actually, wild bananas were and are eaten by people, being one of the earliest domesticated plants.

http://www.stuartxchange.com/Butuan.html

and modern commercial bananas are a product of selective breeding, not 'genetic modification' in the way we think of it today (though selective breeding is of course genetic modification of a sort).

[Archae]

2. Exactly, selective breeding is genetic modification.

I have two products of that who live with me, my two housecats.

Whether it's by selective breeding, or by altering genes, we humans have been genetically altering food and animals for literally thousands of years.

Yes "Big Ag" can go overboard. Like any other industry.
The movie and TV studios fought like hell to keep all of us from taping their stuff on VHS machines.
Likewise, Monsanto is going overboard trying to "patent" all of nature.

[HiPointDem]

5. not exactly. old-fashioned selective breeding works from a 'palette' of already-existing genes

(e.g. the genes already present in the wild banana plants).

modern genetic modification can literally insert a pig gene into a tomato. it's a different order of modification.

selective breeding takes traits *already present* and amplifies or minimizes them.

genetic modification can create 'new' traits in a cultivar.

[Scootaloo]

6. This is why "GMO labeling" is a dead cause

Unless you're eating things you root out of the woods, pretty much everything you put in your mouth is GMO, due to the process of domestication... and make no mistake if some how labeling legislation is passed, they will label all their food that contains say... wheat, or gelatin, or apple juice, to be GMO, in order to mask products that are lab-altered, spliced, stretched, or the like.

The real key, of course, is to refuse the patenting of living organisms.

[HiPointDem]

7. no, it's not. selective breeding is not analogous to modern genetic modification.

[Scootaloo]

11. Scientifically, it absolutely is

"Genetically modified organism" is any organism that humans have had an active hand in shaping the genome of... And yes, that very certainly does include every domesticated plant and animal on the planet, no matter whether it's due to some farmer trying to breed pink wool on his sheep, or someone splicing flamingo and sheep genes for the same effect. Whether it's penises or pipettes adding genetic material, the reality is the same.

It's such a broad term that it's effectively useless for what advocates want to get out of it. Now if you want to make it more specific, requiring labeling of chimera organisms in food could work. But I maintain that the wholesale refusing of patents for genomes is the best way to go.

[Recursion]

13. What? Do you even know the basics of this subject? The term is defined, and not how you're using it

You can't just make up the meaning of a term.

Start with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and come back when you realize you're being absurdly simplistic.

[HiPointDem]

14. no, old fashioned selective breeding is not analogous to modern genetic modification. not in

its palette, not in its techniques, and not in its scope.

not 'scientifically' either.

that genes are 'modified' in both does not make them analogous.

[Voice for Peace]

23. thank you!

I find it viscerally distressing when I hear defense of gmo.. lordy lordy

[newfie11]

30. Agreed. Nt

[truebluegreen]

69. +1000

[DCBob]

103. What if the modification results in exactly the same as what can occur naturally?

is it just the fact that its done in lab that makes it troubling?

[HiPointDem]

111. but they don't.

[DCBob]

117. of course they could.

[HiPointDem]

118. they 'could' do other things too. and they do.

[DCBob]

119. no doubt... I agree there are issues to consider.. eg. unintended consequences.

[Katashi_itto]

49. Not in the slightest. Educate yourself.

[darkangel218]

107. So youre saying all the kittehs and pups are GMO?

[Recursion]

10. Well, if "GMO" meant what you were pretending it does, you would be right

Since it doesn't, you're not. Words have definitions, particularly in technical fields like agriculture.

[roody]

58. Not dead at all. GMO labeling efforts

are just beginning.

[kestrel91316]

76. Plant breeding and genetic engineering are two completely different things.

Claiming that they are the same is a well-known right wing talking point. That's forbidden on DU.

[Cleita]

41. Not the same thing. For one I would eat that unaltered, wild banana and

two, creating domestic breeds by selective breeding, is quite different than sticking a flounder gene into a corn seed. FYI corn, like on the cob, was achieved by the Native Americans by selective breeding from a plant that had an ear no bigger than a head of wheat grain, but they never combined genes from two different species let alone from combining plant and animal genes.

[kestrel91316]

74. Selective breeding can NEVER in a million years insert

pig or fish or bird genes into a plant, however.

Thank you for making crystal clear your utter lack of comprehension about the difference between natural plant breeding and genetic ENGINEERING.

Genetic engineering gets novel genes into plant or animal cells by firing them out of a high tech miniaturized GUN, for gawd's sake. And in doing so it opens up a Pandora's box.

Please do your homework before you go spouting your "there's no difference" crap - because it's complete bullshit.

I oppose the use of genetic engineering technology for many reasons. And I DO understand what they are doing. I have studied genetics at the university level, just for starters, and have a degree in microbiology, and even back then, we knew all about this new technology and scientists warned about how it could backfire in a big way.

I don't oppose GMO technology in its entirety, BTW. It is used to make some of the safest and most effective animal vaccines on the planet. But I want all GMO products labeled so that I can be the one to decide which GMO products I will use and which I won't. Just like organics. It's my decision whether or not I want my consumer dollars going to companies that do business in a way that harms people or the environment.

[Warpy]

19. If you have access to specialty markets

that carry varietal bananas, try them. The big yellow Cavendish jobbies in the supermarket are incredibly bland in comparison.

My favorites are the ruby fingerings, a pink variety. They also come in a bluish color, bright taxicab yellow and white. The peel is thick and the fruit is small and you feel cheated until you pop it into your mouth and taste what bananas are supposed to taste like.

[pinboy3niner]

28. The green banana types cooked in Latin American cuisines are good, too

Completely different from peel-and-eat bananas, but good in their own right when boiled or fried. Even the early type pictured in the OP probably was eaten at one time.

[Warpy]

88. Anything that didn't immediately poison the diner

was eaten by our ancestors, especially when times were lean.

[uppityperson]

3. Organic strawberries are different from non. And no, they aren't the same in most cases.

Of course it depends on the farming practice and regulations to be certified organic, but no. They are not the same.

I see a big difference between gm crops from a lab using non whatever the fruit veg genes are and carefully saving seeds and cross breeding to change plant characteristics.

[Drahthaardogs]

53. There is absolutely no strain of strawberries called "organic", they are the same plants

They are just grown differently.

[hedgehog]

77. They may be the same plants, but there is a huge difference between my home grown,

picked at just ripe, organic strawberry that I can get for three weeks in June and the giant, tasteless red rocks labeled "strawberry" to be found year round in supermarkets.

[uppityperson]

86. I bet yours, like mine, do not keep for the same period of time the non-organic store ones do either

I finally learned with my garden to pick and eat vs pick and put in the fridge for a week as my vegetables and strawberries would last only a few days before becoming chicken food whereas store fruit/veg's last 1-2 weeks. And it is not just the variety but how it is grown, what it is sprayed with.

Here is a link found during a quick search and not highly researched. Interesting and I know I am preaching to the choir with you hedgie, but wanted to include it in case others were interested.

Why do store bought potatoes not sprout like they use to?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janine-yorio/where-did-the-potato-spro_b_659766.html

[hedgehog]

87. I agree; one should never eat a food that doesn't go bad properly!

if bacteria can't eat it, what makes you think you should!

[RC]

120. You make a very good point!

And if bacteria can eat BP oil, but not some "food" labeled for us...
Always read the label.

[uppityperson]

85. That is true. Strawberries grown by the organic method are not the same as those grown with

chemicals. Typically they are smaller, and have less pesticide/fungicide residue on them.

There is not a brand, though I don't know for sure as someone may have a brand they call that. But the growing method differs and the outcome differs. Some fruits/vegs do not have much difference between organic and non, but there is a big difference with strawberries with the result.

[Mnpaul]

121. and the organic strawberries

actually have flavor and sweetness. The commercially grown ones only have large size. I seriously doubt that they are same in any way.

[LWolf]

97. Not always.

They may be the same plants for larger farms.

For home gardens, though, many organic growers deliberately choose non-hybrid species. Not just for strawberries, but for everything else, as well.

There is a large difference.

[longship]

4. Love bananas!!

They're a wonderful food. And, there would be no bananas as we know them without selective breeding... Or, by an alternative but equivalent terminology, genetic modification which humans have been doing for thousands of years and nature has been doing for billions.

Oh! And by the way... Monsanto sucks.

[Fumesucker]

8. Selective breeding is not the same thing as direct genetic manipulation in the lab

You are being deliberately disingenuous, evidently for some sort of political purpose given your last paragraph.

[GoCubsGo]

43. Thank you!!!

And, yeah, those conventional strawberries are just like the organic ones--except for that nice glaze of pesticides. Yum!

[Recursion]

9. Organic sequesters atmospheric CO2; non-organic uses petro carbon

There's also the desire to reward growers who put less pesticide into the environment.

Interesting thought question: where does the dry mass of a tree come from? An acorn weighs, what, a couple of ounces? Where do the several tons of dry weight of the adult oak tree come from? Assuming it's "natural" (I'm skeptical about that word, too) and not being fed with petroleum based fertilizer, the tree's mass comes from the air, not from the ground.

[Drahthaardogs]

51. Huh?

You fertilize with Nitrogen, not carbon. All plants use C02 for their cellular respiration via the C3 or C4 cycle. You fertilize with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, not carbon...

[Recursion]

68. That was true until a few decades ago

The nitrogen still has to happen, though.

[antigone382]

101. Synthetic fertilizer derived from the haber-bosch process requires intensive fossil fuel inputs.

The modern food system accounts for a phenomenal amount of global carbon emissions which are not offset by the carbon sequestration of growing crops. Granted, going organic alone does not eliminate the emissions for transport, nor for running the tractors and other machines that plow, plant, harvest, and process.

Nor are natural fertilizers such as manure free from potential harm in the form of nitrogen pollution (not the same as direct carbon emissions although it does have implications for the carbon cycle). Too much manure applied to a field can result in nitrogen runoff and algal blooms in the same way that excessive synthetic fertilizer application can; however, manure and organic materials also improve soil qualities such as water retention, making nitrogen run-off somewhat less likely. And it isn't as if nitrogen fertilizer displaces manure, either. Because farming has switched from small-scale diversity to large-scale monoculture, we now have crop-fields with excessive fertilizer application leading to nitrogen pollution in some areas, while other areas have feed lot operations that generate large amounts of manure. Heavy with moisture, that manure is unfeasible to transport very far for use as a soil amendment, so it tends to just sit there, contributing to both methane emissions and nitrogen pollution.

[Buzz Clik]

54. It's your thought that non-organic foods do not use CO2 during photosynthesis?

Are they getting their carbon exclusively from petroleum products?

Damn. Damn. Damn.

[Recursion]

63. Nope

Is it your thought that is what I said?

Damn

[Buzz Clik]

64. It is exactly what you said.

I am relieve that it is not what you meant.

[Recursion]

67. Nope

All plants extract carbon from the air.

Plants fertilized with petro also extract carbon from the petro. Which is why plants fertilized with petro grow faster.

*facepalm*

Frankly, your attempt to pretend I wasn't saying that was pretty stupid. Bye.

[Salviati]

83. No, the petroleum based fertalizes provide nitrogen to the plants

amongst other nutrients that limit the growth of the plants. Carbon is generally not a factor limiting their growth. I think that the interpretation that you were suggesting that non-organic plants got their carbon from the fertilizer is probably what most people would take away.

[Buzz Clik]

84. Wow. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. No longer.

You honestly believe that plants extract carbon from petro chemicals. You think the mechanism by which plants respond to "petro" is through enhanced carbon assimilation from the "petro"?

And you are calling me stupid?

[hedgehog]

78. Good point - Rodale is increasingly emphasizing the downstream

environmental effects of conventional agriculture vs. organic methods. Ever hear of the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico?

[olddots]

12. this could be a long thread

[Warpy]

16. It usually is when someone blasts organic farming methods

because he's completely missed the point of why they are being used.

[Buzz Clik]

57. He isn't blasting organic at all.

His point is the starting plant material and the raging paranoia about "genetic modifications." You can buy Organic bananas that are totally genetically modified, or any other ag product for that matter.

Organic, genetically altered food -- good!
Non-organic, genetically altered food -- bad.

[Warpy]

89. That's rather childish thinking.

Organic methods build the soil. GM foods might offer more benefit than risk if greedheads at Monsanto can be reined in.

Everything needs to be considered by its risks and benefits.

[Buzz Clik]

92. Some organic methods build soil, some do not. Some organic practices are dangerous and polluting.

Anyone who goes for generalizations is not thinking clearly. If you find that childish, I really don't care.

[Honeycombe8]

96. Exactly. I drink organic milk. I wonder if anyone could guess why.

Probably not for the elaborate reasons they think.

[Archae]

17. I expect it to be.

The "natural food/organic" woo FTB's are already champing at the bit.

[tkmorris]

21. Then answer the posters above

Those who point out the very clear distinction between crossbreeding in the field and inserting genes in a lab. I notice that you have chosen to check in here while completely ignoring those points which were posted earlier in the thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. It's you who has the 'woo' becaue you conflate GMO with crossbreeding using made up

definitions to attempt to make a point that is false. So many people asked you to address that and you did not offer so much as a word.

[LanternWaste]

100. "woo" being merely that which does not validate your opinions.

"woo" being merely that which does not validate your opinions.

Regardless, many valid counters to your premise (including the big one-- your self-definitions) have been proposed, yet not addressed. That, to me, more clearly illustrates which is "woo" and which is not.

[Warpy]

15. The problems with many GM crops

are first that the insecticide spliced into their genome has been killing beneficial insects like bees and monarch butterflies and second that plants grown from GM seed are sterile. That is a disaster for subsistence farmers who must save seed over from one crop to plant the next. It doesn't help him to use old fashioned seed since his crop can be pollinated by an agribusiness farm miles away, meaning a portion of his subsequent crop will produce sterile seed that will not germinate.

Organic farming methods are anything but a con, building soil instead of depleting it the way agribusiness farming does. No, there's no difference between organically farmed grains, legumes and produce and that grown using agribusiness methods that the customer can see or taste. The difference is in what it's been grown in.

As for right wingers in control of some companies, that's what happens when the original owners retire and/or sell. I'm saddened but not surprised, heirs and buyers generally have little interest in running the company the way the original owners and staff did. And likely a few owners drank the Koolaid between 1980 and now.

[Zoeisright]

18. Oh good god.

Don't know much about science, do you?

Genetic engineering is completely different from selective breeding and cross-pollination. Nature is not going to put a fish gene into a tomato, and is not going to make corn, wheat, and sugar beets resistant to toxins like Roundup. We're playing Frankenstein with foods here and we have no idea what the long term consequences are going to be. And before you start blathering on about how "there have been no adverse effects from GMO foods", here's something to chew on. The problems caused by this tampering will probably take 30-40 years to show up.

Read this and LEARN something:

http://blogs.prevention.com/inspired-bites/2013/04/26/a-new-study-highlights-the-risks-of-genetically-modified-foods-and-the-chemicals-used-on-them/

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/is-organic-better-ask-a-fruit-fly/

Pesticides and herbicides like glyphosate not only are dangerous to our gut bacteria, but they reduce the nutrients that plants make. That means we eat less of them and that increases our risk for disease, including cancer.

I've got a B.S. in Biology and a M.S. in Food Science. My guess is you've got nothing.

[Archae]

20. See what I mean?

"Prevention" magazine is a Rodale press woo spreader.

"You're not getting enough vitamins! So but these supplements we just happen to be selling..."

[tkmorris]

22. And yet you still don't answer.

"Genetic engineering is completely different from selective breeding and cross-pollination." Address this point and maybe we can have a conversation. Assassinating a poster's source only goes so far.

[Fumesucker]

24. The OP is claiming others have an agenda while clearly having one of their own n/t

[tkmorris]

25. It would be an odd agenda to have

Unless of course one was employed by a corporation that benefited from GMO tech. I am trying to give him the opportunity to address the arguments raised. I have little hope he will actually do so.

[Voice for Peace]

27. there are some people whose exposure to "natural foods" etc. has been primarily via woo operations

and we all know there are many scammers and crazy claims
out there.

So while Person A speaks of organic food, thinking
of the bountiful local produce at the co-op, whole
grains, free range chickens; Person B thinks of
expensive "natural" highly processed foodstuffs
from health food stores, or the late night TV
ad shows about alternative medicines, etc.

The two sides are talking about two different things
most of the time, but calling it by the same name,
and never understanding each other.

[Voice for Peace]

26. you're correct that there's a lot of woo out there

but if you let go of that, see past that, use your own
common sense, read some different sources with an open
mind, seek with humility to learn something that can
benefit humankind instead of defending things that are
poisonous to small living creatures.. just try it. It is
much more gratifying to learn something new than to
win a debate.

[Fumesucker]

29. The poster is advancing an agenda rather than arguing in good faith

It's a waste of time to address them.

[hedgehog]

79. I happen to suscribe to both Organic Gardening and Prevention magazine

Both carry advertising to cover the cost of publication. Organic Gardening sells books on the subject. Prevention does sell any number of books on various diets. It does carry articles from authors who may fall into the category of "woo", but it also carries solid health information. Generally, it is clear what the source of any statement is, allowing the reader to judge whether it is woo or solid science. Prevention does not directly sell supplements.

[NickB79]

104. You need to read up on "horizontal gene transfer"

Nature is not going to put a fish gene into a tomato, and is not going to make corn, wheat, and sugar beets resistant to toxins like Roundup.

Nature has been moving genes between widely different phyla of plants and animals for hundreds of millions of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

[Kali]

113. I was wondering if anybody here would bring this up.

fun to throw a wrench in the WHOLE works, eh?

[enjoyingyourpeasyet]

31. The US Fought wars over Non GM bananas to protect US Corporate Interests

Now how many wars will now be fought protecting US Corporate interests in GM Food?

[fasttense]

32. Wild bananas can be wonderful.

They can be sweeter and much more fully flavored than the ones sold in American grocery stores, especially when wild bananas are allowed to ripen on the tree and not harvested green to ship.

Bananas don't always grow true from seeds and seeds are not the primary way banana plants are reproduced. Basically all the bananas you eat and buy from major grocery stores chains are clones. They are Not genetically modified like you describe. The seeds are NOT bred back and forth to get the perfect banana (though they may have been many long years ago). Today no seeds are used in growing and selling bananas. They are rootstocks or rhizomes that are split and replanted. I know of no GMO manipulation that is used on rootstock and rhizomes. So, they aren't in any way like GMO because seeds are not used in producing the banana you picture above.

Organic labels are sometimes abused but most are not. To get an organic label a farmer must pay well over $1500 a year. And the farmer is rigorously inspected. That's why the cost of organic certification is so high. It pays a private inspector to come out and evaluate you. Now private inspection can easily lead to private bribes and manipulation. But I have noticed that those farmers who claim to be organic but are NOT, don't stay in business long. Customers who truly want organic or Certified Naturally Grown (CNG) know what they are looking for.

I've been selling CNG produce for the last five years here at the farmer's market. What I notice is that those farmers who claim they are organic or CNG, but really are NOT, will quickly lose their customers. Yes, some customers are fooled for a short time but they soon catch on and stop buying from the guy who is faking it. Serious customers who are looking for real organic foods (and not just a lower price with a label) are very aware of what to look for when purchasing organic produce and they aren't fooled for long.

[Heidi]

33. Al Gore's, Bill Maher's and Ted Danson's publisher is a "woo progaganda source"?

I don't think so and you haven't proven it to me.

http://www.rodaleinc.com/products/books/author/al-gore/689
http://www.rodaleinc.com/products/books/oceana-our-endangered-oceans-and-what-we-can-do-save-them
http://www.rodaleinc.com/products/books/new-rules-polite-musings-timid-observer

[OneGrassRoot]

34. That's what struck me. I never considered Rodale as woo.

The woo must really be spreading. I don't even know what woo is any more, seeing so many things bashed here as woo.

[cali]

35. Here are the "woo" publications they offer:

Bicycling
Children's Health
Men's Health
Organic Gardening
Prevention
Running Times
Runner's World
Women's Health


Here are the charitable organizations they partner with:



BikeTown Africa: The Rodale Institute partnered with BikeTown Africa and has distributed 1,300 bicycles in the last three years, plus 200 to AIDS' workers in Botswana and other stricken African countries.[8]
Chez Panisse Foundation: The Rodale Institute is partners with the Chez Panisse Foundation in Berkeley, California.[9]
Community farmers' markets: Rodale supports local farmers and locally-grown organic crops through financial aid to offset operating costs of community farmers’ markets.[10]
New York Restoration Project: Projects include the Rodale Pleasant Park Community Garden in Harlem. Rodale Inc. CEO Maria Rodale is a NYRP board member.[11]
The Rodale Institute works worldwide to achieve a regenerative food system that improves environmental and human health.[12]
The Rose F. Kennedy Greenway: Rodale was a charter sponsor of the Rose F. Kennedy Greenway initiative from 2008–2010, providing cultural, sustainable, and diverse programming and developing a live and digital farmer’s market on the Greenway parcels.[13]
WaterWorks: Organic Gardening partnered with the American Community Gardening Association. They brought sustainable water supply and improvement funds to 35 community gardens in North America in 2007-2008.[14]

We could do with more "woo" like this.

[OneGrassRoot]

36. Indeed. Thanks, cali. n/t

[Heidi]

37. Absolutely. I've long considered Rodale a progressive publisher.

I am more than a bit puzzled as to why the OP does not.

[Marrah_G]

38. I disagree

[jwirr]

40. Hmmm, I am 70+ years old and no banana I have ever eaten has looked like the green ones you are

showing here. Bananas must have been genetically modified long before we ever heard of GM. The yellow ones are most likely hybrids.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Cause Cavendish bananas were selectively bred

Not genetically modified.

[jwirr]

93. That is what I was trying to say. Thanks.

[edhopper]

42. What apologist tripe

Putting Big Agriculture in quotes doesn't make them any less destructive.

If you don't understand the difference between years of selective breeding done by farmers over centuries and unleashing a lab-produced species into the environment, you are being willfully ignorant.

[MineralMan]

44. BAN SELECTIVE BREEDING!

Actually, I've eaten several different types of bananas in my lifetime. Those pretty grocery store ones have nothing to do with GMO. They've been around for a very long time, and were created by selective breeding a very long time ago.

Rodale Press' health-related publication and all of the "nutritional supplement" purveyors are trying to convince us of things that aren't true. And I'm speaking as someone who has written two books for Rodale. Both were woodworking project books, though, not health books.

[BlueToTheBone]

45. There's a difference between

genetically altered crops and hybrids. In plant breeding, there is no alteration in the genes; but they may take plants from different strains and mix pollen to breed a stronger plants; but because there are two different strains, the off spring of the hybrid plant will not breed true. Genetically altered is completely different. See wikipedia for more details.

[whatchamacallit]

46. Idiotic

[QC]

47. Cavendish bananas are not genetically engineered.

Here's a great book on bananas, their origins, varieties, cultural significance, and even their political ramifications, in case you are genuinely interested in this subject: http://www.amazon.com/Banana-Fate-Fruit-Changed-World/dp/0452290082/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367159057&sr=1-1&keywords=bananas

[reformist2]

48. Umm... modern GM splices in DNA sequences that produce insecticides.

Ordinary hybridization is nothing like that.

[polly7]

50. Speaking of bananas and genetically altered crops:

Vandana Shiva - We Don’t Need Genetically Engineered Bananas For Iron Deficiency

Saturday, April 27, 2013

The latest insanity from the genetic engineers is to push GMO bananas on India for reducing iron deficiency in Indian women.

Nature has given us a cornucopia of biodiversity, rich in nutrients. Malnutrition and nutrient deficiency results from destroying biodiversity, and with it rich sources of nutrition.

The Green Revolution has spread monocultures of chemical rice and wheat, driving out biodiversity from our farms and diets.

And what survived as spontaneous crops like the amaranth greens and chenopodium (bathua) which are rich in iron were sprayed with poisons and herbicides. Instead of being seen as iron rich and vitamin rich gifts, they were treated as “weeds”. A Monsanto representative once said that Genetically Engineered crops resistant to their propriety herbicide Roundup killed the weeds that “steal the Sunshine”. And their RoundUp Ads in India tell women “Liberate yourself, use Roundup”. This is not a recipe for liberation, but being trapped in malnutrition.

Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/we-don-t-need-genetically-engineered-bananas-for-iron-deficiency-by-vandana-shiva

[Buzz Clik]

52. LOL! What a great thread.

[roody]

55. Genetically altered or genetically modified?

[Buzz Clik]

59. Now you've spoiled part of the fun.

Most of those terrified of Franken Foods do not understand the difference between plant breeding and high tech, genetic modification. It's fun to watch them try to figure out if the hybrid plants they have been eating contentedly for decades are actually killing them. "That may explain my seasonal allergies."

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Yup, once it ripens

There are varieties that are also grown in plantations that Americans don't eat either and are just yummy if well...cooked.

By the way, nannas are not GMO...they are selectively bred over centuries, and the ones on the bottom are clones...don't worry, those might be on a way out due to a blight that the clones can't fight.

The wild banana and it's cousins are actually able to fight it, no fish genes involved.

It's important to know the difference between GMO and selective breeding

[Berlum]

61. More overwrought Science Poo

This poo is less cogent than woo. Anyone is free to eat mutant GMO crapola. But those who choose otherwise are not free, they are victimized by corporate occultism.

Stuningly stanky stuff.

[Buzz Clik]

65. Nonsense. You can get non-GMO, organic food everywhere.

[Berlum]

71. But GMOs are occultly lurking just about everywhere

You are placing the burden on the consumer to protect himself or herself from GMO mutant foodstuffs which are occulted, rather than placing the burden on the profit-making, genome-owning corporations that want to peddle this chemically drenched, genetically mutant crudola and keep the truth hidden from the public.

That is Corporate Fascism, plain and simple. The Corporate "science" that supports this Food Facism reeks of poo.

[gateley]

62. "Organic" is a con -- a buzzword?

Are you aware of what is required to label a product organic?

What do you want?

[burnodo]

66. Sure I would

looks similar to below and I eat these frequently

[truebluegreen]

72. I think I have eaten that.

Maybe not that exact variety / species....

[KittyWampus]

73. Complete FAIL. You are ignorant of basic science. Non-GMO modern bananas are diverse genetically

by slight amounts.

GMO bananas are not.

That's just for starters

[kestrel91316]

75. Oh, and BTW Cavendish bananas are not GMOs.

They are NOT genetically engineered, lol. I can't believe you are so foolish as to believe that.

You REALLY have no clue what genetic engineering even is.

[Kalidurga]

80. What an assumption...

Properly prepared the first fruit pictured might be quite tasty. I have never had it, but I would try it. I will try just about anything as long as it's not poisonous.

Secondly when nature produces a plant with pesticides right in it, I will agree that GMO is exactly the same as selective breeding.

[hedgehog]

81. Enjoy the Cavendishes while you can - they are suffereing from one of the drawbacks of

commercial monoculture:

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-06/can-fruit-be-saved

[bunnies]

82. This post is total bullshit.

But you probably already knew that. And yes, any person with half a brain would eat a wild banana. Why the hell wouldnt you?

[leveymg]

90. This post is total bullshit from the usual RW sources. Flame bait.

and some of their cheerleaders on this board.

[Pisces]

94. Agreed. They do not respond to the many posts explaining the difference.

[LWolf]

91. I dispute

the suggestion that Rodale Press is a "woo spreader." Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's "woo." "Woo" is a rather "woo" term, lol.

Organic is what it is.

It is the increasing demand for organic products, and the efforts made to regulate organic farming, that get politics and "Big Ag" capitalism involved, and that's where the corruption begins.

I really don't give a flying fuck about Eden Foods and any RW tantrums against "Obamacare." No one group has a monopoly on "organic" food; as long as there is a market in a capitalistic economy, there will be those exploiting that market from any and all political groups.

I don't like "Obamacare" myself. I eat organic when possible and am not in the least "right wing." I'm not dlc/centrist/3rd way/new dem/neoliberal enough to fit in the mainstream Democratic Party anymore, let alone the "right wing."

My dispute with "Obamacare" has nothing to do with my preference for organically grown food, but with my opposition to for-profit health insurance.

My preference for organic food has nothing to do with corporate food producers on the organic bandwagon, or with whether or not a strawberry looks or tastes different when it's organic. It has to do with my support of a healthy planet, and of healthy, sustainable farm practices.

I don't need Rodale Press to tell me that proprietary ownership of the food supply by a few mega-corporations is a devastatingly harmful idea.

I don't need Rodale Press to tell me that genetically modifying plants and allowing that pollen to "drift" outside the planned corporate farming area is a bad idea.

I also don't need Rodale Press to explain to me that genetically modifying something in a lab, a modification that would not happen in nature, is not the same thing as a hybrid produced by cross-pollinating. Of course, organic gardeners generally prefer open-pollinated varieties anyway. That seed can be saved year after year; there is no need to keep buying hybrid seed that won't reproduce true from seed companies.

[Honeycombe8]

95. There are many reputable organic farms.

It's not fair to rant against an industry because a couple of them are bad. There are always bad apples. (pun intended)

[Generic Other]

98. Ever tasted wild strawberries?

They are smaller and sweeter than the hybrid varieties grown in fields. And because the cultivators don't see them as having value, they are allowed to grow without being molested.

I'd choose the wild strawberry any day over the overfertilized pesticide laced flavorless red fruit being sold in stores.

[Archae]

99. I sure have, they really are good. IF I can ever find them!

I think it's easier to find Bigfoot than finding wild strawberries, or better yet, wild raspberries.

But the find is sure worth it!

[Marrah_G]

102. You can grow them in your own yard

You can buy seeds online.

We found some wild ones and transplanted them in the yard. We did the same with raspberries ( which rather quickly turned into a huge patch that we had to trim out.

[ZombieHorde]

105. This argument seems to be based around semantics, in my opinion.

Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification, but that is not what people generally mean when they use the term "gmo."

[DCBob]

106. I get your point and tend to agree with you but..

modern genetic engineering has taken this to a whole nother level. I dont think GMO should be banned but they do need more scrunity to ensure the modifications dont cause some weird toxic effects.

BTW, I dont agree with you comment "organic is a con". There are legitimate health concerns with pesticides, chemicals and antibiotic use in agriculture. A true certified organic product is grown without those inputs.

[nessa]

108. Is Organic Better? Ask a fruit fly.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/is-organic-better-ask-a-fruit-fly/

[Progressive dog]

109. GMO and seletively bred organisms are different

Simple as that. Usually GMO's have gene(s) that did not previously exist in the species. One gene type commonly added to corn causes corn to manufacture a bacterial toxin that acts as an insecticide. This toxin is spread throughout the corn plants.
Another alteration that is common to GMO crops is strong resistance to roundup herbicide. This gene also comes from a bacteria.

I can't get too upset about GMO foods yet. The insecticidal corn probably reduces chemical insecticide use.

As for organic foods, there is very little evidence of any advantage.

[peace13]

110. Wow!

Can we have a picture of the cancerous rats already? Why do the animals stomachs explode after eating GMO? Yum Yum eat em up!

Nice sell job though.

[baldguy]

112. If GM foods are so great & wonderful, why does Big Ag fight tooth&nail against labeling reqs?

[sakabatou]

114. Artificial selection does NOT equal GMO.

[alphafemale]

115. Don't tell Kirk Cameron. nt

[rug]

116. I'm pretty sure I saw cliffordu chomping on the first one.