On that one I will just refer back to the Canadian and UK articles suggesting current spacing between GMO and non-GMO crops might be insufficient, and that government action may be necessary to increase it to sufficient levels (I am not sure if either paper draws any conclusions about what constitutes "sufficient.")


That, and its capacity to drive non-GMOs to extinction, are my principal concern. Like I say, I am not insensitive to general ecological concerns and the effects on other species present, but I do not want to be at the mercy of industrial agriculture. Or at least, no more than I already am; in America, Thomas Jeffersons ideal of self-sufficient and therefore free yeoman farmers received a mortal blow from the Civil War, and the Great Depressions Dust Bowl finished it. Now we work for someone else to earn our living, until we can no longer do so, then pray we get enough from Social Security to feed and house us, and that Medicare can keep us hale enough to enjoy a few years of retirement before we die.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farms_and_farmland.html

According to those census figures, corporate farming is not so pervasive as I had feared, but the average farm size is not quite 450 acres. That is commercial, not subsistence farming, and the increasing prevalence of GMOs must inevitably make those and all farms dependent on those who own not only the seed, but its DNA. When farming without a licensing agreement becomes illegal (as it already has in many cases) we are all in trouble.


(Note: I edited the first sentence of my second paragraph above because it said just the opposite of what I intended, though you seem to have understood it rightly.)

We are still talking natural selection, which was my initial point there: Artifical (i.e. human) factors promote growth by both GMO and non-GMOs, but natural ones hostile to the original species are inevitably more destructive to varieties not genetically designed to resist them, so they disappear over time. Further, as GMOs predominate ever more they consume more and more of finite resources all varieties require. That is especially true when GMOs higher yields and hardiness influence grower preference for one or the other. Natural and artificial selection combine for an environment where non-GMOs cannot subsist even if not sterilized by neighboring GMOs. Indeed, for whatever reason, we may already be there: http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/transgenic.html

Note in particular: "In 1999, transgenic crops were grown on 63.1 million acres in the U.S., constituting 72% of the global acreage of these crops."

That was 12 years ago; I think it safe to say the numbers have increased since.

This is legal, not scientific, paper from Penn State, but still instructive. http://law.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified.pdf

Page 3 briefly summarizes Monsantos infamous (and successful) Canadian lawsuit against Percy Schmeiser for planting seeds produced by HIS OWN CROPS after they were cross-pollinated by neighboring GMO canola. Despite, indeed, BECAUSE he never bought Monsantos GMO seed he could not lawfully re-plant seed of his own, because it was NOT his own: It was Monsantos, due to his plants being cross-pollinated by plants they created.

Pages 4 and 5 cover the danger of GMO cross-pollination to non-GMO crops grown for their market, but note particularly the page 5 reference to GMO Starlink corn found in commercial taco shells, despite the fact Starlink had not received FDA approval for human consumption.

Cross-pollination is a real occurrence and thus concern, and at distances far greater than 20 or even 60m. The following IS a scientific article from Ohio State noting that 99% of pollen is desposited within 60m of corn plants, but PREVENTING cross-pollination (i.e. reducing it to 0%) is not possible even at a distance of a third of a mile. http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0153.html

Finally, not a scientific study, but a scientific article in Scientific American (generally regarded as a reputable publication:) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=genetically-modified-crop

Apparently one can not swing a dead cat without hitting GMO canola in ND, even including a variety with "stacked" GMO traits Monsanto has been been unsuccessfully trying to engineer in the lab for years: Various of their other varieties got loose, cross bred and did it for them. Guess who still owns it (hint: NOT the state of ND, even though it is growing on public land.) I can not speak to the less objective allegations in the articles comment section, but they are certainly logical enough: Since Monsanto routinely sues for copyright infringement when they find seed produced from GMO pollen growing outside licensed fields, even (especially) where GMOs are not sterile it is only a matter of time until their ever more prevalent numbers pollinate ALL non-GMO crops, which then become Monsantos property RETROACTIVELY.

GMOs need not crowd out or out-endure non-GMOs, only pollinate them (impossible to prevent) and, bit by bit, all crops will be GMO, whatever is initially planted.

I do not think that a uniquely US problem; again, the studies I cited on the need to increase distance between GMO and non-GMO crops, a need great enough both studies suggest could require government intervention, were from Canada and the UK.


I have heard much criticism in both directions on that one, so would like to see more research but, again, while that does concern me, it is not my PRIMARY concern.


This was the first I have heard of it, but if both non-GMO and GMO soy had that effect under otherwise identical conditions, that is sufficient. It does rather undermine the notion of soy as a panacea substitute for things of trivial importance (e.g. meat and milk ) but that is another issue.


I would need to study it far more than I am willing to now to dismiss it on the basis of metabolic mechanics, because many substances are metabolized slightly or not at all and/or long persistent in the system even when they are metabolized. Heavy metals come most prominently to mind; the body does not simply purge them in a matter of a few months, and even relatively small concentrations can be harmful, even lethal. I mainly included those articles as examples of concerns rather than smoking guns. The above links DO strike me as smoking guns, from far more objective and scholarly sources.


What I meant by that is that dangers from GMO produced toxins may not be immediately evident if the GMO is itself resistant to them, particularly in commercial monocultures. If the only noticeable organism for miles in any direction is one engineered to resist the toxins it produces it could be some time before those toxins leech through the water table to more susceptible organisms. If one never examined any species but cobras the logical and likely conclusion would be that cobra venom is harmless, but having observed its effect on other species we know better.


Yeah, OK, fair enough; again, that was mainly to illustrate rather than substantiate some of my concerns, and I do not pretend those particular sources objective.


My impression of the Canadian and UK article was "if you’re planning to try and grow non-GM and GM crops together, then be careful how you space them because they can transfer," BUT that "together" in this case means "within the same county or province, if not nation."

Think of it this way: On a 450 acre farm (the average US size) how much cross-pollination occurs if 0.1% of pollen is scattered a third of the mile in four directions?