Are GMO's actually bad?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Don't you think that there is a distinction between dominating the environment and working with it in a more effective way?  Maybe nature is there to be played and tinkered with, and as long as that is done carefully and with respect for life, why not?  We have been tinkering and genetically modifying food for thousands of years now, it is not anything new.  I don't know what nature is anymore.  I think it is something which is constantly changing.

I am going to keep shopping organic for the time being, but I shall keep questioning.  Besides, shopping in supermarkets is neurotic heh.

Working with nature in a more effective way is what I was referring to with permaculture. The issue is that GMOs, as they are currently implemented, are representing the opposite end of that spectrum. The most common genetic modification is to allow plants to withstand being heavily sprayed by pesticide, so that all other life in the field is either directly killed or indirectly killed as a result of the ecosystem collapsing. Completely sanitizing a field so that the only living organism is the crop you are growing is clear domination, I think.

And there is a very big distinction with "genetically modifying" food by selective breeding and hybridization, which is not what is referred to when we talk about GMOs. GMOs are specifically organisms with genes which were altered as a result of laboratory tampering. It is direct manipulation of the DNA and not a guided evolution.

This is important for a few reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that GMOs (as they are currently implemented) are, by their very nature, not sustainable. Farmers must continue to receive seeds from the person that creates them in a lab, and most of the time these purchases come with strict contracts meant to control the market. Selective breeding is something any farmer or seed grower can do, and seeds can always be saved from the crop to sustainably continue to grow the strain (except for with hybrids, but the hybrid seed market is not at all the same as the GMO market).

If there is a broader spectrum of "tampering with nature," I agree that there is not a distinct line and the ethics probably vary with context. But when it comes to directly manipulating genes in order to more effectively destroy the surrounding ecosystem, rather than guiding nature with a gentle hand to allow a balanced and sustainable ecosystem to provide food, I feel that these things clearly fall on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

'Organic' refers to how the crop is grown, Not how it's been hybridized or genetically modified. So it is now necessary to seek produce that is labeled 'Non-GMO Certified' to be sure.

Organic certification does not allow GMOs. Organic farmers can lose their certification if it is found that their crop has been contaminated with GMO DNA. The actual planting of the seeds is very controlled, as the organic farmer has to provide receipts for all purchases and prove that all products used were organic compliant. The contamination factor is not heavily tested, I don't think, but they do regulate it. There is definitely a chance of eating a GMO contaminated plant despite an organic label, but it's not for the lack of trying from regulators.