Genetic engineered "franken" salmon: Sign both petitions and share!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2013 7:18 PM GMT
    GMO Salmon can wipe out other fish and create havoc in the environment, not just for some local river, but the whole food chain in the ocean.
    Say no to GMO monstrous SALMON: Sign both petitions and share!
    Join GMO Free USA in supporting Organic Consumers Association’s petition to the FDA:
    http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9142
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Mar 02, 2013 8:18 PM GMT
    "AquAdvantage also contains elevated levels of the growth hormone, IGF-1, which is linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers."

    The site lists this as a potential health effect, but what it doesn't say is that IGF-1 is a peptide hormone and like all peptides it gets broken down as part of digestion. Eating it doesn't do anything, just like eating insulin don't lower blood sugar (has to be injected).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:31 PM GMT
    France will uphold a ban on Monsanto's corn.
    http://rt.com/news/french-ban-gm-crops-368/

    Gotta love this witty response from the first comment: " Play a little bit with the letters and you have MonSatan. In french Mon is My. The French know that USA Satan is MonSatan. Really is if you read what Roundup insecticide in the genetic code of a plant does. It aint pretty and you arrogant WASP eugenuist will get it in the smacker genetically speaking not in 40 years but now. Looking for terrorists in the arab world ? No need. You have Monsanto and these biotech companies which in reality are bio terrorists and will destroy USA. Maybe a good thing after all. Vive la France ! They know what these GMOs do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:50 PM GMT
    This sort of stuff preys up on the ignorant of you who don't really understand science.

    Reality is that most food, food handling, food processing, all has some level of modern science injected into it to make it less expensive, higher quality, better shelf life, and so on.

    The World's fisheries are in trouble. They're nearly fished out. This provides a way to help abate that fish out, and to produce fish that are better, year round. Chemicals are used in nearly every part of food production, and while genetic engineering as a buzzword is fairly new selective breeding has been going for 1000's year (e.g. dogs).
  • CDNinOZ

    Posts: 38

    Mar 02, 2013 10:12 PM GMT
    The gene inserted into Aquadvantage Salmon is from Chinook Salmon, another Salmon Species.

    Aquadvantage Salmon in production are all females that are sterile due to induced triploidy. They would not be able to mate and produce offspring in the wild.

    The survival of Aquadvantage salmon in the wild would be impaired because of decreased predator avoidance and much lower availability of food. In captivity they get pellets, in the wild they would need to hunt prey. They also have higher oxygen demands because of the higher growth rate and triploidy, again this would limit their performance in the ocean and their fitness.

    The risk of inter-mating and establishment in the wild is not zero, it never is, but it is much much lower than lets say introducing a non-native species. However, it will not be the Salmocalypse.


    Much more info here...

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224760.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 10:17 PM GMT
    France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China also ban GMO produce from the USA. For those who are ignorance of bad science versus good science, there is no hope for them. Because it's a religious argument for them.

    Just as there will always be evil in the world that will employ and bend science to their evils. Think Monsanto's agent orange that is the cause of millions of cancer in innocent children in southeast asia, and US Veterans from the stupid Vietnam war (created by lobbyists - and so is the Iraq invasion, etc). Think Hitler's use of science new discovery of nerve gas. Think of the nuclear bombs that are the product of bad science.

    Wake up from bad science employed by greed and lobbyists. Furthermore, there are a lot of mediocre scientists out there playing with food as children playing with electric powered tools, machine saws. Don't trust an ecology analysis to an opinion from some mediocre scientist from a tainted institution like the FDA (that passed many drugs that have been recalled, and drugs that are pushed by drug corporations).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 10:20 PM GMT
    There is, no doubt, that some terrible things come from science (or things that can do terrible things). VX is a classic example of Raid for people (and not just bugs).

    Dioxin (Agent Orange) is still used just about everywhere today, except in lower amounts that what was in Agent Orange.

    DDT is not used very much any more, because it did such havoc on ecosystems but did save many, many, lives from malaria and typhus.

    VX has no practical uses, other than killing biological organisms.

    24-D, 50% of Agent Orange, is in common use today in food production nearly everywhere, and is the 3'rd most used pesticide in modern American agriculture.

    Many poisons have some good uses for humanity: eg. blood pressure meds made from snake venom derivatives.

    The introductory of pythons to the ecosystem of Florida has been catastrophic, but, it wasn't genetic engineering. It was stupid people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 10:24 PM GMT
    CDNinOZ saidThe gene inserted into Aquadvantage Salmon is from Chinook Salmon, another Salmon Species.

    Aquadvantage Salmon in production are all females that are sterile due to induced triploidy. They would not be able to mate and produce offspring in the wild.

    The survival of Aquadvantage salmon in the wild would be impaired because of decreased predator avoidance and much lower availability of food. In captivity they get pellets, in the wild they would need to hunt prey. They also have higher oxygen demands because of the higher growth rate and triploidy, again this would limit their performance in the ocean and their fitness.

    The risk of inter-mating and establishment in the wild is not zero, it never is, but it is much much lower than lets say introducing a non-native species. However, it will not be the Salmocalypse.


    Much more info here...

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224760.pdf


    The problem with this is that no one has knowledge of the complete ecology, all of the variables, even when they are so sure they know all the variables - they don't. Even if they can carry as-complete-as-possible a controlled experiment in the wild, which by definition, a non sequitur, an impossibility.

    Better science would be to use concepts in permaculture to improve the complete food chain, and not depleting any part of it. Just common sense.

    "Common sense is all too uncommon" - even in science (Oscar Wilde)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 10:30 PM GMT
    chuckystud saidThere is, no doubt, that some terrible things come from science (or things that can do terrible things). VX is a classic example of Raid for people (and not just bugs).

    Dioxin (Agent Orange) is still used just about everywhere today, except in lower amounts that what was in Agent Orange.

    DDT is not used very much any more, because it did such havoc on ecosystems but did save many, many, lives from malaria and typhus.

    VX has no practical uses, other than killing biological organisms.

    24-D, 50% of Agent Orange, is in common use today in food production nearly everywhere, and is the 3'rd most used pesticide in modern American agriculture.

    Many poisons have some good uses for humanity: eg. blood pressure meds made from snake venom derivatives.

    The introductorion of pythons to the ecosystem of Florida has been catastrophic, but, it wasn't genetic engineering. It was stupid people.


    We always make tradeoffs, whether it be large dams, chemicals, etc. Sometimes the the tradeoffs are too expensive, and, like DDT, we backoff, and nature recovers over time.
  • CDNinOZ

    Posts: 38

    Mar 02, 2013 10:38 PM GMT
    Science in itself is not bad or evil. It is simply the quest for evidence based knowledge using testable hypotheses.

    Of course, using science for evil is deplorable.

    GM foods are not even in the same category as agent orange, nerve gas or the nuclear bomb.

    There is plenty of evidence supporting the safety of GM foods.

    Too often, opposition to GM is almost a religion. People believe that GM is bad and no evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise.

    Mark Lynas used to be anti-GM. He's realised that he could not reconcile his opposition to GM with the scientific evidence on the subject. It's an interesting read and watch.

    http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 10:51 PM GMT
    "AquaBounty Technologies, a Massachusetts-based biotech company, created the "AquAdvantage" salmon by injecting a fragment of DNA from an ocean pout fish, which is a type of eel, along with a growth hormone gene from the Chinook Pacific salmon, into a fertilised Atlantic salmon egg. The result? A salmon that produces growth hormone year round, instead of only during warm weather. This allows the fish to reach market weight in just 18 months, instead of the usual three years."

    We shouldn't screw around with nature in this way. Who knows of the consequences that could develop from eating this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 10:57 PM GMT
    GMO are defined into 2 categories:
    1. Conventional GMO, using Mendellian methods of genetic selection
    2. Genetic engineering (using new techniques like gene splicing)

    This is a definition adopted by many governments (i.e. Canadian).

    Even with conventional GMO, foods can loose genetic diversity and can be the source of food allergy when micronutrients are squeezed out of species in favor of selection for bigger carb content, i.e. corn, or wheat, and rice.

    With genetic splicing, they inject pig genes, or other animal genes, into fruits and vegetables, just to see if they can make stronger, for example, a tomatoes that can stay on a super market shelve longer.

    While fun and novel, genetic splicing produce can cause violent and virulent reactions in some consumers.

    Not all scientists are equally ethical nor equally intelligent. There are so many below average scientists (low GRE or MCAT entrance scores) from low-ranking universities, not only in the US, but around the world are giving the license to play with nature, in the hope that a happy accident will happen to give them a permanent place in history. Employed by unethical corporations, the problem compounds beyond check and control of the uninformed public. It's doesn't not help the public that the US government is under the heavy influence of lobbyists from these corporations especially Monsanto.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 02, 2013 11:00 PM GMT
    This salmon has been pending approval for 12 years. I don't think it's going to happen.
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Mar 02, 2013 11:19 PM GMT
    xybender saidGMO are defined into 2 categories:

    1. Conventional GMO, using Mendellian methods of genetic selection
    2. Genetic engineering (using new techniques like gene splicing)

    This is a definition adopted by many governments (i.e. Canadian).

    Even with conventional GMO, foods can loose genetic diversity and can be the source of food allergy when micronutrients are squeezed out of species in favor of selection for bigger carb content, i.e. corn, or wheat, and rice.

    With genetic splicing, they inject pig genes, or other animal genes, into fruits and vegetables, just to see if they can make stronger, for example, a tomatoes that can stay on a super market shelve longer.

    While fun and novel, genetic splicing produce can cause violent reactions in some consumers.




    Unless you eat food directly from the wild by foraging and hunting you've just proven yourself to be a hypocrite. Mendellian genetics of selective breeding for hardier plants and animals has been going on since humans began farming. Select seeding from good crops is exactly what Mendellian genetics is, finding traits deemed desirable and collecting seeds only from that yield for the next season. icon_confused.gif What I'm trying to say here is that just about everything you buy from the store is a product of selective culturing and breeding whether it be in a short time span or hundreds of years. By the definition you just provided I'd say a good majority of produce at your local market with the exception of wild caught fish would qualify as GMO.
  • CDNinOZ

    Posts: 38

    Mar 02, 2013 11:22 PM GMT
    xybender saidGMO are defined into 2 categories:

    1. Conventional GMO, using Mendellian methods of genetic selection
    2. Genetic engineering (using new techniques like gene splicing)

    This is a definition adopted by many governments (i.e. Canadian).

    Even with conventional GMO, foods can loose genetic diversity and can be the source of food allergy when micronutrients are squeezed out of species in favor of selection for bigger carb content, i.e. corn, or wheat, and rice.

    With genetic splicing, they inject pig genes, or other animal genes, into fruits and vegetables, just to see if they can make stronger, for example, a tomatoes that can stay on a super market shelve longer.

    While fun and novel, genetic splicing produce can cause violent reactions in some consumers.




    I generally agree on the definitions.

    For disclosure, I am a Geneticist working for the most part within definition 1. I research the use of genomics to select on existing genetic variation to increase production, product quality, disease resistance and welfare of farm animals and plants.

    In some cases GM has quite noble aims. For example, Golden Rice contains a gene that increases its content of beta-carrotene, a precursor to vitamin A. This rice could save the lives of 1000's of children were Golden Rice approved for use. Is it ethical to keep blocking its release after numerous studies have found no harmful effects?
  • CDNinOZ

    Posts: 38

    Mar 02, 2013 11:24 PM GMT
    JArking said
    xybender saidGMO are defined into 2 categories:

    1. Conventional GMO, using Mendellian methods of genetic selection
    2. Genetic engineering (using new techniques like gene splicing)

    This is a definition adopted by many governments (i.e. Canadian).

    Even with conventional GMO, foods can loose genetic diversity and can be the source of food allergy when micronutrients are squeezed out of species in favor of selection for bigger carb content, i.e. corn, or wheat, and rice.

    With genetic splicing, they inject pig genes, or other animal genes, into fruits and vegetables, just to see if they can make stronger, for example, a tomatoes that can stay on a super market shelve longer.

    While fun and novel, genetic splicing produce can cause violent reactions in some consumers.




    Unless you eat food directly from the wild by foraging and hunting you've just proven yourself to be a hypocrite. Mendellian genetics of selective breeding for hardier plants and animals has been going on since humans began farming. Select seeding from good crops is exactly what Mendellian genetics is, finding traits deemed desirable and collecting seeds only from that yield for the next season. icon_confused.gif What I'm trying to say here is that just about everything you buy from the store is a product of selective culturing and breeding whether it be in a short time span or hundreds of years. By the definition you just provided I'd say a good majority of produce at your local market with the exception of wild caught fish would qualify as GMO.


    +1
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 02, 2013 11:26 PM GMT
    xybender saidGMO are defined into 2 categories:
    1. Conventional GMO, using Mendellian methods of genetic selection
    2. Genetic engineering (using new techniques like gene splicing)

    This is a definition adopted by many governments (i.e. Canadian).

    Even with conventional GMO, foods can loose genetic diversity and can be the source of food allergy when micronutrients are squeezed out of species in favor of selection for bigger carb content, i.e. corn, or wheat, and rice.

    With genetic splicing, they inject pig genes, or other animal genes, into fruits and vegetables, just to see if they can make stronger, for example, a tomatoes that can stay on a super market shelve longer.

    While fun and novel, genetic splicing produce can cause violent and virulent reactions in some consumers.

    Not all scientists are equally ethical nor equally intelligent. There are so many below average scientists (low GRE or MCAT entrance scores) from low-ranking universities, not only in the US, but around the world are giving the license to play with nature, in the hope that a happy accident will happen to give them a permanent place in history. Employed by unethical corporations, the problem compounds beyond check and control of the uninformed public. It's doesn't not help the public that the US government is under the heavy influence of lobbyists from these corporations especially Monsanto.


    Legally, selectively bred organisms are not GMO. Only spliced or plasmid modified organisms.
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Mar 02, 2013 11:34 PM GMT
    To further my statement I don't disagree with you about the precautions that need to be taken when it comes to introducing science into the ecosystem. I would, however, approach my concerns a bit differently.

    To start rather than simply providing a cause that I am against and rallying the troops to my side I'd also look at what the science aims to do. In this case, as other posters have indicated, it's to combat the current deficiencies in farmed salmon yields when it comes to sustaining the market demands.

    Next I'd research "green", "organic" sustainable fishing endeavors taking place and voice my support for them while rallying the troops to their side as well. Because raising my voice to stop someone else in making an effort to save our environment and not raising my voice to support a movement that meets my expectations is harmful to their cause and makes it seem like I only care about myself and not what they are trying to achieve icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 11:35 PM GMT
    JArking said
    xybender saidGMO are defined into 2 categories:

    1. Conventional GMO, using Mendellian methods of genetic selection
    2. Genetic engineering (using new techniques like gene splicing)

    This is a definition adopted by many governments (i.e. Canadian).

    Even with conventional GMO, foods can loose genetic diversity and can be the source of food allergy when micronutrients are squeezed out of species in favor of selection for bigger carb content, i.e. corn, or wheat, and rice.

    With genetic splicing, they inject pig genes, or other animal genes, into fruits and vegetables, just to see if they can make stronger, for example, a tomatoes that can stay on a super market shelve longer.

    While fun and novel, genetic splicing produce can cause violent reactions in some consumers.




    Unless you eat food directly from the wild by foraging and hunting you've just proven yourself to be a hypocrite. Mendellian genetics of selective breeding for hardier plants and animals has been going on since humans began farming. Select seeding from good crops is exactly what Mendellian genetics is, finding traits deemed desirable and collecting seeds only from that yield for the next season. icon_confused.gif What I'm trying to say here is that just about everything you buy from the store is a product of selective culturing and breeding whether it be in a short time span or hundreds of years. By the definition you just provided I'd say a good majority of produce at your local market with the exception of wild caught fish would qualify as GMO.



    I grow 1/4 of my produce from my yard, herbs, onion, tomatoes, etc. Raspberries grow wild like weeds - their leaves and stems make great tea for male tonic, and they have little spikes that keeps slugs away. Grapes leaves also add a lot to a diet - they also grow 20-30 feet of edible leaves/stems per year.

    It's super healthy and possible to go back to a small-farm scenarios that is available to many city dweller. You can buy organic green onion stems and put them in a pot of soil. They will keep coming back every year. They survive frost to 22 degree F. Fresh green onion for hot vegie miso soup is amazing. Fresh home-grown green onion is sweeter. Their juice has an aloe after taste ... being more fresh. Green onion has an amazing amount quercetin, an immune system booster...

    I started sharing and xchange produce, heirloom seeds, wild seeds with other backyard farmers.

    To be clear, I'm not against conventional GMO if they don't squeeze out micronutrients. I haven't eaten corn for 10 years because i don't digest them as well anymore.


  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 02, 2013 11:38 PM GMT
    xybender saidGMO Salmon can wipe out other fish and create havoc in the environment, not just for some local river, but the whole food chain in the ocean.
    Say no to GMO monstrous SALMON: Sign both petitions and share!
    Join GMO Free USA in supporting Organic Consumers Association’s petition to the FDA:
    http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9142


    So tell me, do you think genetically engineered people will also wreak havoc and wipe out common man?

    Just curious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 11:42 PM GMT
    JArking saidTo further my statement I don't disagree with you about the precautions that need to be taken when it comes to introducing science into the ecosystem. I would, however, approach my concerns a bit differently.

    To start rather than simply providing a cause that I am against and rallying the troops to my side I'd also look at what the science aims to do. In this case, as other posters have indicated, it's to combat the current deficiencies in farmed salmon yields when it comes to sustaining the market demands.

    Next I'd research "green", "organic" sustainable fishing endeavors taking place and voice my support for them while rallying the troops to their side as well. Because raising my voice to stop someone else in making an effort to save our environment and not raising my voice to support a movement that meets my expectations is harmful to their cause and makes it seem like I only care about myself and not what they are trying to achieve icon_confused.gif



    Yes, this is a good approach. I don't know if there is a permaculture example to fish farming or management of wild salmon runs and ecology, but that definitely would be good science. I'm not starting a cause, just passing and sharing the petition signing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 11:43 PM GMT
    xybender saidGMO Salmon can wipe out other fish and create havoc in the environment, not just for some local river, but the whole food chain in the ocean.


    badass!
  • JArking

    Posts: 139

    Mar 02, 2013 11:55 PM GMT
    xybender said
    JArking said
    xybender saidGMO are defined into 2 categories:

    1. Conventional GMO, using Mendellian methods of genetic selection
    2. Genetic engineering (using new techniques like gene splicing)

    This is a definition adopted by many governments (i.e. Canadian).

    Even with conventional GMO, foods can loose genetic diversity and can be the source of food allergy when micronutrients are squeezed out of species in favor of selection for bigger carb content, i.e. corn, or wheat, and rice.

    With genetic splicing, they inject pig genes, or other animal genes, into fruits and vegetables, just to see if they can make stronger, for example, a tomatoes that can stay on a super market shelve longer.

    While fun and novel, genetic splicing produce can cause violent reactions in some consumers.




    Unless you eat food directly from the wild by foraging and hunting you've just proven yourself to be a hypocrite. Mendellian genetics of selective breeding for hardier plants and animals has been going on since humans began farming. Select seeding from good crops is exactly what Mendellian genetics is, finding traits deemed desirable and collecting seeds only from that yield for the next season. icon_confused.gif What I'm trying to say here is that just about everything you buy from the store is a product of selective culturing and breeding whether it be in a short time span or hundreds of years. By the definition you just provided I'd say a good majority of produce at your local market with the exception of wild caught fish would qualify as GMO.



    I grow 1/4 of my produce from my yard, herbs, onion, tomatoes, etc. Raspberries grow wild like weeds - their leaves and stems make great tea for male tonic, and they have little spikes that keeps slugs away. Grapes leaves also add a lot to a diet - they also grow 20-30 feet of edible leaves/stems per year.

    It's super healthy and possible to go back to a small-farm scenarios that is available to many city dweller. You can grow a pot of green onion, and they will keep coming back every year. They survive frost to 22 degree F. The list goes on and on for the road to self sustainability, together with other small farmers, to share and xchange produce, heirloom seeds, wild seeds.



    I am aware of the self sustainable growing methods, wild grape leaves can be pickled and taste great with rice, wild leeks make a great soup, raspberries make a great tea etc. However, these sort discussions about harmful inclusion into the ecosystem can go on forever and in the end it's very difficult to find someone who truly lives by what they preach.

    For instance you mention you grow tomatoes amongst other plants which are very likely to not be native to your region. Non-native plants have the potential to become invasive (like the franken-fish) and growing them damages natural ecosystems. Even if there isn't a chance of them being invasive your plants still occupy space and utilize precious nutrients which play just as much a concern in this issue as genetic advantage. That's how nit-picky we can get about these things. If you were to grow only native vegetation to sustain yourself you'd be doing your yard and our ecosystem a favor.

    The only truly "natural" method is to mimic the natural ecosystem in your own yard and encourage it. It's a tough game, but it is possible to play along and some are making the effort.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 11:58 PM GMT
    I will admit, as a particularly avid fan of salmon, especially Pacific salmon, I am rather wary of these modified fish. My gut feeling is that I should avoid it if possible and stick to the natural unmodified fish. The modified versions may or may not be safe to consume, it's hard to tell. It never hurts to play it safe and stick to the natural stuff? icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2013 1:55 AM GMT
    JArking said
    xybender said
    JArking said
    xybender saidGMO are defined into 2 categories:

    1. Conventional GMO, using Mendellian methods of genetic selection
    2. Genetic engineering (using new techniques like gene splicing)

    This is a definition adopted by many governments (i.e. Canadian).

    Even with conventional GMO, foods can loose genetic diversity and can be the source of food allergy when micronutrients are squeezed out of species in favor of selection for bigger carb content, i.e. corn, or wheat, and rice.

    With genetic splicing, they inject pig genes, or other animal genes, into fruits and vegetables, just to see if they can make stronger, for example, a tomatoes that can stay on a super market shelve longer.

    While fun and novel, genetic splicing produce can cause violent reactions in some consumers.




    Unless you eat food directly from the wild by foraging and hunting you've just proven yourself to be a hypocrite. Mendellian genetics of selective breeding for hardier plants and animals has been going on since humans began farming. Select seeding from good crops is exactly what Mendellian genetics is, finding traits deemed desirable and collecting seeds only from that yield for the next season. icon_confused.gif What I'm trying to say here is that just about everything you buy from the store is a product of selective culturing and breeding whether it be in a short time span or hundreds of years. By the definition you just provided I'd say a good majority of produce at your local market with the exception of wild caught fish would qualify as GMO.



    I grow 1/4 of my produce from my yard, herbs, onion, tomatoes, etc. Raspberries grow wild like weeds - their leaves and stems make great tea for male tonic, and they have little spikes that keeps slugs away. Grapes leaves also add a lot to a diet - they also grow 20-30 feet of edible leaves/stems per year.

    It's super healthy and possible to go back to a small-farm scenarios that is available to many city dweller. You can grow a pot of green onion, and they will keep coming back every year. They survive frost to 22 degree F. The list goes on and on for the road to self sustainability, together with other small farmers, to share and xchange produce, heirloom seeds, wild seeds.



    I am aware of the self sustainable growing methods, wild grape leaves can be pickled and taste great with rice, wild leeks make a great soup, raspberries make a great tea etc. However, these sort discussions about harmful inclusion into the ecosystem can go on forever and in the end it's very difficult to find someone who truly lives by what they preach.

    For instance you mention you grow tomatoes amongst other plants which are very likely to not be native to your region. Non-native plants have the potential to become invasive (like the franken-fish) and growing them damages natural ecosystems. Even if there isn't a chance of them being invasive your plants still occupy space and utilize precious nutrients which play just as much a concern in this issue as genetic advantage. That's how nit-picky we can get about these things. If you were to grow only native vegetation to sustain yourself you'd be doing your yard and our ecosystem a favor.

    The only truly "natural" method is to mimic the natural ecosystem in your own yard and encourage it. It's a tough game, but it is possible to play along and some are making the effort.


    It took 50 years to completely destroy the small farm live style in the US and many places in the world. It will take 50 years to go back there. But it's easier and easier for me. Nuts and berries are rarely genetically selected (almond is not a nut and highly genetically selected). Sprouts like pea sprouts, seeds sprouts, micro greens are easily made just by soaking with water. Growing organic peas is easy.

    Most herbs are wild. Most onions are heirlooms as they are highly toxic to insects and have no need to be genetically selected. The book of wild edibles in California is surprisingly large with selection with amazing health benefits, i.e. horseradish, an amazing health booster, stopping cancerous cells upon contact (many publications on PubMed).

    Fruits like persimmons are highly nutritious and not selected. Some have been genetically selected recently to remove seeds. This practice of removing seeds is an example of a stupid conventional GMO. Grapes with seeds are more tasty, i.e. the green grape Niagara grape has seeds with complex oil. When blended the whole grape, the seed oil, the grape skin, and the juice make a thick juice that has hundreds and hundreds of nutrients from carb, to protein, to several lipids (fat), flavornoids, and compounds like resvaretrol, an anti fungus and anti aging molecule. Grape seed oil and grape seed extract are being marketed for numerous health benefits.

    Similarly, watermelon seeds are highly nutritious and should not be genetically selected out, even as a conventional GMO.