GMO - yes or "hell no" ?? and why?

[impending_bending]

So I for one do not care about GMO in my food. Am I the only one?
I'm all for GMO - what us your opinion?
I don't mind debate but keep the flames down please.

 

[impending_bending]

LMAO
I can see the headline now "Genetically Modified Bacterium Spawns Giant KoolAid Creature"

 

[Nigel]

As someone who used Molecular Biology for many years in my research, including putting non-mouse genes into mice (jellyfish green fluorescent protein, for instance), my main problem in the USA is the lack of labelling. I expect that people be given the choice to eat GMO or non-GMO and that is not the case right now. I find this a total disgrace. 
 
Putting bacterial genes into corn or soy or whatever is not intrinsically bad, nor are you eating bacteria via this process. Eating food with these extra genes in them has been shown to produce medical issues in rodents in some studies, not in others. However, I think it is disingenuous to say it`s the same as crop breeders have been doing for millennia, but much faster. Bacillus thuringienesis (Bt) genes were never in the crop gene pool, for instance. 
 
For the case of corn (Zea mays) the genome is very large. Around 2.3 billion base pairs, coding at least 32,000 genes. Adding the toxin gene from Bt adds a tiny amount of DNA and only one gene, the gene from CryAb1, the Bt toxin, so the change is infinitesimally small. The question is, what does that toxin do to animals that consume the corn? To date, most evidence point to it being safe. However, I would like to see a lot more data over a longer period before it goes into the food-chain. This has NOT happened.
 
I also worry about the mobility of the genetic material to non-GMO plants, for which there is some evidence. What effect will that have on the insect population over time? Nobody knows, so the studies need to be done properly and not by Monsanto. 
 
For the case of roundup-resistant crops, the weeds are now becoming resistant to round-up as well, showing mobility of the gene that gives round-up resistance. How will that effect plants and animals outside of the GMO plants? We need to find out over a longer period of time before these things go into the food chain. That has NOT happened. 
 
From my point of view, far too little research has been done on GMO crops to say they are "safe" While they may be safe for human consumption, we need far more data to assess their full range of effects on the environment, plants, insects, mammals, birds and the rest. Until then, they should not be available for human OR animal consumption. 
 
At the very least we should all be able to choose whether we eat GMO foods, which is the case in Europe, but not the USA. As usual, the policies in the USA are driven by well-funded lobbies. Outside of a Banana Republic, where else can you buy political influence???

 

[Super Hots Canada]

Nigel - In my response (earlier in the thread) I was originally going to address the issue of labeling, but I didn't feel my words were doing justice to what I was attempting to get across so I scrapped it. I think you've covered that aspect well. *nod*
 
And the issue of a shear lack of long-term testing -before- taking the results out of the lab is precisely my point about corporations/greed, as well. *nod*
 
"Well we gave it six months and the government says that's cool with them, so yeah - we told our scientists to deem it safe. Oh? You claim it kills bees? Our studies in period didn't show that." *cough* Yeah, because you stamped "approved" to make some quick bucks and slipped a little extra in the political pockets for their trouble. That isn't science. That's an incomplete lab experiment dumped on the public with a big grinning smile and a wave and a cheerful "It's cool. We said so. Eat up!"

 

[Kauai1984]

The book Genetic Roulette has a lot of powerful information in it, everyone should check it out when you get a chance.

 

[Nightshade]

Thanks for the opinions folks.
My only concern with GMOs is the potential for contamination of seed. Regardless of how you see it, I think most of us can agree it is good to keep the "classic" versions, if you will, around for posterity and "just in case" (kinda like backing up your hard disc). With the engineering of crops specifically for proliferation, it may get harder to do this...
Other than that, I'd love to see an 8-foot-tall ghost pepper!

search for pepper guru's grow log you will see one he grows organic
http://thehotpepper.com/topic/37882-gurus-2013/page-1?hl= pepper  guru
here you go

 

[Heisenberg]

However, I think it is disingenuous to say it`s the same as crop breeders have been doing for millennia, but much faster.

 
What I said is that its what nature have been doing for millennia.  Random point point mutations, frame shifts, natural bacterial transformation etc.  This is all part of natural selection.  The bad mutations create less hardy, more susceptible plants/organisms which die off, therefore that mutation never takes hold.  Good mutations, ones that may enhance the survivability of the plant/organism, they are the ones that last, being passed from generation to generation.  Its natural selection, the basis of evolution.  Like I said, its been going on forever....and we do it faster. 
 

jellyfish green fluorescent protein, for instance

If youve used GFP, as a selectivity marker or whatever, then you know the huge possible benefits of genetic modifications.
 

my main problem in the USA is the lack of labelling

I would agree to this, it should be law, and I guarantee it will be, its only a matter of time.  Many companies have already voluntarily started labeling their products as having GMO content, they are being transparent without being forced to. 
 
Like with anything, strict oversight needs to be in place.  As long as its regulated, I dont worry about it.  Organizations like the FDA just love to pounce on a product and pull it from shelves the second someone sneezed after consuming it, so I would expect them to have a very close eye on something as controversial as GMOs.
 
There are always going to be people who cry "but its not natural, it wasnt supposed to happen".  Well who is it up to to really determine that?  humans have been 'genetic engineering' for thousands of years at some level if you really want to get down to it.  Farmers have been crossing their most hardy plants to ensure their next round of crops have better yields.  Look at half the types of apples you eat, many were crosses from other apples to create a new strain.  Hell, look at the history of dog breeds.  Granted, these are more gentle, indirect methods of genetic manipulation, but its intentional manipulation nonetheless.  So really, what is truly natural and 'intended'.
 
What it really boils down to is personal choice.  Its up to each individual whether they want to eat it or not, and yes they should be given that informed decision with proper labeling and disclosure.

 

[queequeg152]

As someone who used Molecular Biology for many years in my research, including putting non-mouse genes into mice (jellyfish green fluorescent protein, for instance), my main problem in the USA is the lack of labelling. I expect that people be given the choice to eat GMO or non-GMO and that is not the case right now. I find this a total disgrace. 

 
OK so lets just ignore the fact that the gmo labling conversation is pretty much a naked stab at agribusiness and gmo products in general, a lable on everything gmo is preying on pervasive ignorance pure and simple. but put this aside.
 
theres a huge cost associated with labeling GMO verses non gmo corn soy, oil seed etc.
 
its simply not as easy as just printing lables and slapping them on packaged products. its probably hard to imagine... but even to make a simple product like an oreo, theres a massive massive supply chain working around every single ingredient used...
you might buy the ingrediant from one dude, and be done with it, but that dude buys from another dude, who ships it from another dudes factory, who  in turn buys from a farmer in chile... .
farmer > broker> flour mill > shipping company> oreo factory> warehousing> distributors>>retailers .
 
all that would need to be monitored, and tracked.
 
essentially you would have to have elements of two identical supply chains operating.  cereals etc... field crops, are all commodity products. the farmers havest their crops, a grainery or mill or suger plant w/e buys them at an agreed upon price, they get augered up into a silo and processed, or packaged and sold out to others as a homogeneous commodity.
 
large scale agricultural commodities are basically sold in an environment that is as close to "perfect competition" as you can possibly get.... there is almost no product differentiation, and extremely elastic demand.  small changes in costs incurred are going to make farmers much more un competetive, as they necessarily have to increase prices.
  
these graineries would essentially need additional silos and additional equipment, and maby need to take  additional processing steps to keep the non gmo and gmo product separate and isolated throughout the processing supply chain.
 
moreover some amount of technology would need to be employed to track which grains came from where all throughout the supply chain. a regulatory enviornment would also need to be established to punish folks, as well as manage data and paperwork.  The logistical change itself would be a fairly big hurdle to clear for many, and would require a pretty large investment i imagine.
 
its so so sososososososo easy to just say " there ought to be a law!", its much harder to deal with the unintended consequences of said law.  
 
there is a huge market for organic foods and non gmo products. i dont see why the inverse should be the case as well. simply shop at whole foods or w/e.  the nuances of this should be ironed out within w./e regulatory agency dictates what is organic and what isnt.

 

[Gotrox]

Farmers are killing themselves at the rate of 22 a day over the practices of companies who sell these modified crops.
If your field gets contaminated by your neighbors GMO pollen, you are guilty of theft if you save seed for replanting from your contaminated crop.
Though Monsanto claims their product generally safe, the people developing it ordered none of it allowed in the company cafeteria foods.
 
Less productive, and more costly than "normal" crops, despite the hype.
 
Nature finds a way, like the overuse of anti-biotics that kill off the weaker strains of animal bugs, super bugs and super weeds are evolving.
 
Short term studies show generally safe, but long term studies show some disturbing trends----like sterility in 3 generations and hair growing in the mouth and gut.
 
"Franken foods" GMO is not to be confused with natural "GMO" produced by decades or centuries of hybridization or symbiotic relationships.
 
This is a shortcut to melding different specis by gene modification with little regard to long term effects and only using short term studies before realeasing them "into the wild".

 

[Brain Strain Pepper Head]

[SIZE=14pt]NO GMO!! My family and I gave up all the GMO/ High Fructose corn syrup crap years ago. Strict vegan/vegetarian  here and loving it. Lost 125 pounds and the only thing I did were to cut out package food and meat. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]But we made that decision and everyone is entitled to eat whatever they want.  [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt] [/SIZE]

 

[queequeg152]

Farmers are killing themselves at the rate of 22 a day over the practices of companies who sell these modified crops.
If your field gets contaminated by your neighbors GMO pollen, you are guilty of theft if you save seed for replanting from your contaminated crop.
Though Monsanto claims their product generally safe, the people developing it ordered none of it allowed in the company cafeteria foods.
 
Less productive, and more costly than "normal" crops, despite the hype.
 
Nature finds a way, like the overuse of anti-biotics that kill off the weaker strains of animal bugs, super bugs and super weeds are evolving.

 
w/ respect to monsanto suing everybody. this is a myth. a long time ago i sat down and researched this, and it turns out that they sued like... a dozen people over a decade for blatantly infringing on their intellectul property.
 
the big case that went to the supreme court was about a guy who found some Monsanto canola plants on his property that had round up resistance, saved just those seeds. and planted a new crop the next year from those plants.  in the trial they state that like 99% of his field plants had the monsanto gene.  he was very deliberately cultivating the plants with the roundup resistance, not meerly saving the seed from his entire crop, and coming out with 1 or 2% of his crop that was cross pollinated and still had the gene.
 
the whole case was regarding weather or not you could patent life or something similar.
 
how are they less productive? how are they more costly?
 
and you are 100% correct w/ respect to antibiotics, but the super weed problem is overstated, overuse of antibiotics however is a fairly huge looming problem i think many people are overlooking. 

[SIZE=14pt]NO GMO!! My family and I gave up all the GMO/ High Fructose corn syrup crap years ago. Strict vegan/vegetarian  here and loving it. Lost 125 pounds and the only thing I did were to cut out package food and meat. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]But we made that decision and everyone is entitled to eat whatever they want.  [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt] [/SIZE]

 
more power to you.

 

[Brain Strain Pepper Head]

and don't forget the steriods in the meat industry....You feed chickens, turkey and beef steroids all there life and then you eat the meat but hey....Americans aren't the fatest in the world

 

[Heisenberg]

and don't forget the steriods in the meat industry....You feed chickens, turkey and beef steroids all there life and then you eat the meat but hey....Americans aren't the fatest in the world

 
We need to feed steroids to GMO chile peppers.....think of the possibilities!!! 

 

[Super Hots Canada]

queequeg152 - It really -is- as simple as adding a few words to the label. Claiming it's so incredibly complex to add a few words to a label begs the question of how much of an antiqued printing system that company must be using that it finds it so incredibly difficult. The only difficultly is them changing their stubborn stance from "No, no, no." to "Okay." The argument that it would be near impossible because "who knows which ingredient might be GMO down the line" is a very poor excuse. After all, products that have the potential to even -remotely- be exposed to peanuts are simply labeled "May contain nuts.".. but it'd be vastly complex to add "May contain genetically modified ingredients."? Is it because there's more letters?
 
Heisenberg - You have fair points, but given what we know of how rapidly our actions, as humans, are increasingly affecting rather damaging affect on this planet, it isn't so much a matter of whether it's natural or not - it becomes more of a question of whether the "weak" of our species will get away with hastening us to our downfall as a species or will the "strong" somehow halt the direction we are headed? .. "Weak" and "strong" are never necessarily about who has the highest IQ or is the physically strongest. It's Survival of the fittest is about which of the species & evolutionary traits, if any, will carry the species through and help it to -continue- on in life. And in terms of -our- species, our "weakness" seems, at it's core, to be impatience (and in turn, hastiness). All of our technology has pushed towards that determination - we're always looking to find ways to do things easier, with less effort. And more often than not, without really considering the long-term effects. Sure, there are times we might look at the long term of humans, but for the little we do that we do it vastly less for the rest of the less on the planet - and quite frankly, they are part of us. (I'm not being accusing here.. hope I don't come across that way! lol)

 

[Nigel]

 
OK so lets just ignore the fact that the gmo labling conversation is pretty much a naked stab at agribusiness and gmo products in general, a lable on everything gmo is preying on pervasive ignorance pure and simple. but put this aside.
 
theres a huge cost associated with labeling GMO verses non gmo corn soy, oil seed etc.
 
its simply not as easy as just printing lables and slapping them on packaged products. its probably hard to imagine... but even to make a simple product like an oreo, theres a massive massive supply chain working around every single ingredient used...
you might buy the ingrediant from one dude, and be done with it, but that dude buys from another dude, who ships it from another dudes factory, who  in turn buys from a farmer in chile... .
farmer > broker> flour mill > shipping company> oreo factory> warehousing> distributors>>retailers .
 
all that would need to be monitored, and tracked.
 
essentially you would have to have elements of two identical supply chains operating.  cereals etc... field crops, are all commodity products. the farmers havest their crops, a grainery or mill or suger plant w/e buys them at an agreed upon price, they get augered up into a silo and processed, or packaged and sold out to others as a homogeneous commodity.
 
large scale agricultural commodities are basically sold in an environment that is as close to "perfect competition" as you can possibly get.... there is almost no product differentiation, and extremely elastic demand.  small changes in costs incurred are going to make farmers much more un competetive, as they necessarily have to increase prices.
  
these graineries would essentially need additional silos and additional equipment, and maby need to take  additional processing steps to keep the non gmo and gmo product separate and isolated throughout the processing supply chain.
 
moreover some amount of technology would need to be employed to track which grains came from where all throughout the supply chain. a regulatory enviornment would also need to be established to punish folks, as well as manage data and paperwork.  The logistical change itself would be a fairly big hurdle to clear for many, and would require a pretty large investment i imagine.
 
its so so sososososososo easy to just say " there ought to be a law!", its much harder to deal with the unintended consequences of said law.  
 
there is a huge market for organic foods and non gmo products. i dont see why the inverse should be the case as well. simply shop at whole foods or w/e.  the nuances of this should be ironed out within w./e regulatory agency dictates what is organic and what isnt.

No, it isn`t a naked stab at any business, but thanks for assuming you know what I think. It`s about freedom of choice. Isn`t this country the land of the free, where freedom is a highly prized commodity? I should be able to choose what I eat. Period. And so should everyone else. Period.
 
Costs will rise scar mongering isn`t really getting us anywhere. Labelling is mandatory in numerous other countries, In Europe all products containing more than .9 percent GMO are labeled as such. I don`t see Europe falling apart.
 
Really? There are supply chains? Wow. Hadn`t thought of that. It must be too hard to imagine for an idiot like me. The rest of the world seems to manage, but not the USA. That does sound about right.
 
​Until proper, long term scientific experiments have been done GMO should not be in the food chain. It`s that simple. 

 
What I said is that its what nature have been doing for millennia.  Random point point mutations, frame shifts, natural bacterial transformation etc.  This is all part of natural selection.  The bad mutations create less hardy, more susceptible plants/organisms which die off, therefore that mutation never takes hold.  Good mutations, ones that may enhance the survivability of the plant/organism, they are the ones that last, being passed from generation to generation.  Its natural selection, the basis of evolution.  Like I said, its been going on forever....and we do it faster. 
 

If youve used GFP, as a selectivity marker or whatever, then you know the huge possible benefits of genetic modifications.
 
I would agree to this, it should be law, and I guarantee it will be, its only a matter of time.  Many companies have already voluntarily started labeling their products as having GMO content, they are being transparent without being forced to. 
 
Like with anything, strict oversight needs to be in place.  As long as its regulated, I dont worry about it.  Organizations like the FDA just love to pounce on a product and pull it from shelves the second someone sneezed after consuming it, so I would expect them to have a very close eye on something as controversial as GMOs.
 
There are always going to be people who cry "but its not natural, it wasnt supposed to happen".  Well who is it up to to really determine that?  humans have been 'genetic engineering' for thousands of years at some level if you really want to get down to it.  Farmers have been crossing their most hardy plants to ensure their next round of crops have better yields.  Look at half the types of apples you eat, many were crosses from other apples to create a new strain.  Hell, look at the history of dog breeds.  Granted, these are more gentle, indirect methods of genetic manipulation, but its intentional manipulation nonetheless.  So really, what is truly natural and 'intended'.
 
What it really boils down to is personal choice.  Its up to each individual whether they want to eat it or not, and yes they should be given that informed decision with proper labeling and disclosure.

I spent 20 years as a professional scientist and I still find the argument that "we`ve been doing it for millennia" to be, if not disingenuous, then misleading. Sure, if you want to breed for larger seeds, fine, resistance to verticillium wilt, fine, bigger fruit, fine, but resistance to round-up, or using Bt toxins, or whatever is going to replace round-up?
 
Plant breeding can be done much quicker and desirable traits can be moved from one species to another without having to go through years and years of plant breeding and that`s far quicker without all the possible side effects or undesirable traits you see in normal plant breeding. Yes, that is potentially a great step forward in producing food. All I ask is that the correct long term studies be done properly. I am not against GMO foods as such, but I am against no labeling and I am against putting them in the food chain before we know what the long term results will be. 
 
I agree with you, strict oversight should be in place, but it just isn`t at the moment. At least not in the USA. 
 
I do not want to ban GMO products, nor do I want to see restrictions put on the production of new GMOs. I just want to see it done right. 

 

[SL3]

Yep, what he (Nigel) said.

 

[queequeg152]

queequeg152 - It really -is- as simple as adding a few words to the label. Claiming it's so incredibly complex to add a few words to a label begs the question of how much of an antiqued printing system that company must be using that it finds it so incredibly difficult. The only difficultly is them changing their stubborn stance from "No, no, no." to "Okay." The argument that it would be near impossible because "who knows which ingredient might be GMO down the line" is a very poor excuse. After all, products that have the potential to even -remotely- be exposed to peanuts are simply labeled "May contain nuts.".. but it'd be vastly complex to add "May contain genetically modified ingredients."? Is it because there's more letters?

 
did you read my points above with respect to logistics and supply chain problems?
 
your point about peanuts is misguided to say the least. that's a perfect example of where health consequences and the need for labeling clearly do intersect. 
 
in this case, the cost of insuring that the food supply chain and processing environment are 100% devoid of even minute traces of penut proteins is so cost prohibitive, most food makers simply state that they do contain them or may contain them rather than take on the cost of guaranteeing they do not.
 
food allergies however are not present in any credible form with gmo foods, so why should they be labeled as such??
 
to my knowlage every single mandated label on a food item is directly related to the need to inform people such that they can protect their health.   examples Nutrient content, calories, food allergies etc etc.
 
the body of evidence says that gmo foods are safe, so why should they be labled? the label protects nobodies health according to said body of evidence.
Labeling, and the associated regulatory burdens brought about by political manuvering, and not sound science,  should not be the FDA's mandate.
 
i reread my post however, and i will concede that i may have made things as you say  sound " impossible". this would clearly not be the case.
 
i always remember the old saying... "there are three sides to every story, your side, mine, and the truth", when weighing the arguments of two people.  the truth is almost always going to be in the middle somewhere. 
 
in this case the anti food labelers are claiming the sky will fall, and prices will skyrocket. the pro food labelers are claiming only marginal cost increases at the most. the truth is probably somewhere in the middle with only a medium increase in cost over the long run. however, i still would argue that even a modest increase in costs is un merited to say the least.
 
owing to the great successes anti gmo folks have had with convincing ordinary Americans that gmo anything is detrimental to ones health, what do you think the consequences of labeling gmo food as such will have? 
 
hell almost all oils probably were derived from some GMO crops right? but who cares its a processed oil? does it have the GMO gene for bt protein in the actual oil? i would think not.
 
up untill now ALL LABELS have been mandated ostensibly in order to protect the public health!! what should susan and dave think when they see a new label saying their can of peas may contain GMO products? oh well that must be bad, ill buy this other product thats 50cents more.
 
its simply not merited.

 

[thegreenman]

 
My buddy Randy makes these stickers, and I have to agree. I'm certainly not anti-science but I'm afraid thatGMO foods aren't tested rigorously enough for my liking. 
Also There are different levels of GMO tinkering. Adding a potato gene to a tomato, I'm probably not going to worry too much, But add a fish or spider gene to the cow which I'm going to be consuming and that is something altogether different. 
 
I've read far too much science-fiction horror to believe that nothing will go wrong

 

[Heisenberg]

the body of evidence says that gmo foods are safe, so why should they be labled?

I have no problem with the labeling.  What it will accomplish at the very least, is some level of protection against frivolous lawsuits.  Look at McDonald's labeling of their coffee: "CAUTION, HOT".  I think for 99.9% of the population this would be an unnecessary statement, but there's always someone who will try to take advantage of a situation and say that they were not informed.
 
On a side note, I do notice some companies taking advantage of labeling their products as 'organic'.  Organic products in a supermarket are almost always more expensive.  And sure some of that extra cost is due to the lower crop yields from not using pesticides, fertilizers, GMOs, etc.  However, it makes you wonder to what extent some companies will abuse the term 'organic' just to inflate the price.  As my wife and I say, eating healthy costs more.

 

[queequeg152]

No, it isn`t a naked stab at any business, but thanks for assuming you know what I think. It`s about freedom of choice. Isn`t this country the land of the free, where freedom is a highly prized commodity? I should be able to choose what I eat. Period. And so should everyone else. Period.
 
Costs will rise scar mongering isn`t really getting us anywhere. Labelling is mandatory in numerous other countries, In Europe all products containing more than .9 percent GMO are labeled as such. I don`t see Europe falling apart.
 
Really? There are supply chains? Wow. Hadn`t thought of that. It must be too hard to imagine for an idiot like me. The rest of the world seems to manage, but not the USA. That does sound about right.
 
​Until proper, long term scientific experiments have been done GMO should not be in the food chain. It`s that simple. 

I spent 20 years as a professional scientist and I still find the argument that "we`ve been doing it for millennia" to be, if not disingenuous, then misleading. Sure, if you want to breed for larger seeds, fine, resistance to verticillium wilt, fine, bigger fruit, fine, but resistance to round-up, or using Bt toxins, or whatever is going to replace round-up?
 
Plant breeding can be done much quicker and desirable traits can be moved from one species to another without having to go through years and years of plant breeding and that`s far quicker without all the possible side effects or undesirable traits you see in normal plant breeding. Yes, that is potentially a great step forward in producing food. All I ask is that the correct long term studies be done properly. I am not against GMO foods as such, but I am against no labeling and I am against putting them in the food chain before we know what the long term results will be. 
 
I agree with you, strict oversight should be in place, but it just isn`t at the moment. At least not in the USA. 
 
I do not want to ban GMO products, nor do I want to see restrictions put on the production of new GMOs. I just want to see it done right. 

 
so freedom means you get the right to mandate any arbitrary food label? believe it or not, you do have the right to choose what you eat already. organic labeled food should to my knowledge contain little to none gmo ingredients.
 
you are "free" to eat any products you want, you are free to vote with your dollars. you are not free to mandate labeling for non health centric ( and i would argue political)  reasons however.
 
the argument for long term studies is specious. "long term" studies are for real problems, why spend millions studying something for decades that has hitherto presented 0 evidence for even mild malady? it makes even less sense today, after 20 years of solid gmo use, with zero credible evidence of harm.
 
long term studies are for oil spills on an eco system, or the effects of air pollution on frogs or what have you... real credible demonstrable problems.
 
should cell phones have been banned untill we can do a 30 year study to make sure they do not give us brain cancer? after all we are just being safe right? i mean the public has a right to be safe.
 
we should not have allowed the use of chest x rays, or MRI's  pending a 30 year study either, the reasoning same as above.
 
hell birth control right? no exogenous progesterone until a 30 year study has been conducted, any risk even a unfathomably small one is far too much for the public to bear.
 
the benefit of GMO far and away outweighs the miniscule threat to human health. its hilarious to me that so many dismiss this. i seriously think that people are too far removed these days, from the food supply. even very agressive organic sustainable gardener type people are guilty of this.
 
It would become clear just how much pesticide is being sprayed on conventional crops, and how badly the runoff of fertilizers  can contaminate surface water sources...  if people could live as a farmer for a few years.

 

[Heisenberg]

It would become clear just how much pesticide is being sprayed on conventional crops, and how badly the runoff of fertilizers  can contaminate surface water sources...  if people could live as a farmer for a few years.

 
This is true.  In fact some of the genetic modifications aimed at pest control are the addition of a gene that will create chemicals/proteins within the plant that the insect cannot metabolize, yet that a human can without any issues.  Since the insect cannot metabolize it, the substance builds up and is essentially toxic to it.  This is a fairly non aggressive defense that we add to the plant....as opposed to spraying metric tons of liquid pesticide onto a crop.