# warning about people interested in cornstarch seed propagation



## maitaman (Jun 5, 2015)

I don't know where else to put this, but it has recently been discovered that using cornstarch made from GMO corn will not work in germinating orchid seed. I feel this is important in that it indicates, to me, that it could well be damaging to people who use the GMO cornstarch. 
I've put a warning on the blurb for the book, _Orchids From Seed: cornstarch method_. Labeling of GMO foods is not required in the USA. For this and other reasons, it should be. It is in many countries.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jun 5, 2015)

Without any kind of reference to the research or an article to support this, it comes off as just another diatribe against GMO crops.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 5, 2015)

I don't look at it that way. All I ask is choice: label the foods either GMO or GMO-free, then I can choose whether I want them or not. Without the label, I have no choice. The same is true of media for seed propagation. What is wrong with that?


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jun 6, 2015)

No evidence was offered to back up the claim that it is harmful in this case (or in most cases). I have no problem with labeling, but GMO or not is one of the least important things we don't know about food or agricultural commodities.


----------



## ehanes7612 (Jun 6, 2015)

yes, cornstarch , that mecca of superfoods...nutritionally bound ..could alone feed an entire community of people ..so worthy of the GMO debate


----------



## ronan (Jun 6, 2015)

we don't need GMO to feed the world, it's just lobbying and all about money. Just look at indian farmers problems with GMO coton...Masters and slaves, nothing changed!
Fortunatly there're still people fighting for their rights to grow good and "ethical" food, and there're still parents raising their childs with the same respect for the nature.


----------



## Linus_Cello (Jun 6, 2015)

Could you let us know where you got this info from (it may be cited in your book, can you post a link to your book?)? What do you mean by GMO corn? Is this corn that includes the BT gene? Is this corn that has genetic resistance to "roundup ready"? Is this genetically enhanced to produce additional vitamin B? Is the genetic modification "sterilization" with the terminator gene? What genetic modification are your referring to?


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 6, 2015)

We artificially breed generation after generation of orchids................not far from GMO, really.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 6, 2015)

Ozpaph said:


> We artificially breed generation after generation of orchids................not far from GMO, really.



Hybridization is very very far from GMO.


----------



## Lanmark (Jun 6, 2015)

Thank you for speaking up, maitaman.

I'd like to know more as well, and I, like Dot, would like to have mandatory GMO/NON-GMO food labeling rules in place so I could at least choose what I put into my body.

GMO corn products are now being used in a wide array of food products being offered for human consumption around the world. It's not just the starch.

There are people who blow off warnings about pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, antibiotics and growth hormones in our food as well, but more and more pieces of evidence have come to light over the years which clearly show the dangers of eating such things. I choose organic whenever I can.

Getting back to the germination of orchid seeds in starch, I have all the same questions which Linus_Cello asked. I am very interested to know these things.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Jun 6, 2015)

I am unconcerned by GMOs. I don't think they are toxic or bad for you. I don't have any fundamental dislike for the idea (I love the glofish!!!). What concerns me is this:
Disease risk associated with residual glyphosate in GMO crops, http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24678255
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25883837

Most GMOs out there are for glyphosate resistance or for BTtoxin. We know that BT toxin can cross the placenta to enter the circulation system of the fetus as well as end up in breath milk (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 ) and there is some evidence for it damaging red blood cells (sadly, I have lost this reference).

There is very little product testing of these crops beyond the economic feasibility. There are few safety experiments for the food and products. 

I support the idea of labeling if but only because it will force companies to do the necessary safety testing.

I also believe people have the right to choose whether they would like to buy GMO products and manage the risk associated with glyphosate exposure.

I understand that mandatory labeling will probably increase the price of bread a few cents per loaf but that is the price of freedom of choice.

Maitaman, I would like to know the source for your cornstarch comment.


----------



## ehanes7612 (Jun 6, 2015)

Here is a good rule of thumb..anything made as a byproduct of corn, soy bean or sugar beat will probably be GMO..High fructose corn syrup, lecithin, corn starch, etc etc. and etc. Anything you buy as processed food will 99% guarantee be GMO. If you don't want GMO , the only guaranteed way is to make everything from scratch or buy from guaranteed organic certified GMO free ..but like I said, the more processed the more likely it has some GMO. And the more processed food you buy ..like chips and soft drinks and whatever..your concern for GMO is a bit alarmist as that stuff is more toxic from the additives.


----------



## Secundino (Jun 6, 2015)

Reading your comments, I'm happy to live in olde europe ... even with Spain being the coun try with most acres of GMO growing!

Those products which are susceptible of being produced with GMO I don't buy any more, and as I don't buy processed food - I love to cook myself - it's pretty easy.


----------



## Ray (Jun 6, 2015)

Some folks just have a very narrow definition of "genetically modified organism" and assume the rest of the world agrees with it.
Hybrids between orchids that do not have naturally-occurring, overlapping territories are definitely artificially-produced GMO's, as far as I'm concerned.
If folks have a different definition, they should carefully delineate it so the rest of us can understand it and form an opinion.


Ray Barkalow
firstrays.com


----------



## ehanes7612 (Jun 6, 2015)

The GMO debate in the recent Washington state labeling made a distinction and this is what I tend to hear more often. GMO is more akin to placing genetic material specifically in the gene sequence that you can't get from hybridizing. Recombinant DNA techniques such as artificially splicing DNA into the genes made from scratch..using plasmid vectors or whatever they do now (I have been out of Biotech for 20 years so my tech language may be old school). I think the school of thought is that with hybridizing, the plants use their natural abilities to create new genetic material..whereas with GMO, there is a sense that the new DNA is forced, thus creating 'Frankensteins"


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 6, 2015)

My understanding, also, Ed.


----------



## Lanmark (Jun 7, 2015)

I also cook the vast majority of my food from scratch starting with organically produced products. I don't drink soda, eat chips, processed foods and so forth. I try my best to avoid GMO food products. I am certainly not alone in this sentiment or endeavor. Mandatory labeling would greatly help.


----------



## cnycharles (Jun 7, 2015)

I worked with a professor who created roundup ready soybeans, who worked for years and years breeding the plants. For his plants there was no GMO insertion, it all came from the genes the plants already had. I had no problem with the roundup part at the time because it wasn't known to cause problems. 
The issue many people don't know is that political proponents of spreading roundup ready material is that selecting for this and many other resistances decreases the yield of the plant. If you truly are trying to increase the food supply massively, then roundup ready is not, it is going to decrease the food supply. 
I am not sure that bt in corn or other things is a problem, more of a problem or less of one; at least in North America Bt is ubiquitous. This is why during wet years you don't have to spray forests to kill caterpillars because the natural Bt is already doing the job. Having helped a family who grew fresh crops for sale including corn, I saw that during high insect pressure times it was necessary to spray the corn every day! These chemicals were more botherable than Bt I think. So, at least here you are being exposed to it all the time as the spores or whatever are in the wind or rain. If I'm wrong about the risk then of course I'd like to be corrected. 
The fact that there is resistance to labeling things GMO or not when everything nowadays gets labeled indicates that there is very big money behind it. Also it used to be an 'expectation' maybe I'm wrong that GMO would never be released unless it could be shown to be safe. We have plenty of food here so there should be no mad rush to introduce something that could be very unsafe unless there are very big bucks behind it or there is another reason for doing so
 maybe the corn starch being used for seed germination isn't working because it's roundup ready (meaning it has round up in it) GMO corn... I'm mostly joking (and it's an incorrect example actually) but that's the problem with GMO is that if you aren't told what was introduced and for why, you can't make an informed decision. What if companies start putting peanut genes into everything? People allergic to peanuts would be in big trouble. 
I enjoy cooking and using fresher things, but have that lack of time thing which restricts doing so but more power to those who can!  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bullsie (Jun 7, 2015)

ehanes7612 said:


> The GMO debate in the recent Washington state labeling made a distinction and this is what I tend to hear more often. GMO is more akin to placing genetic material specifically in the gene sequence that you can't get from hybridizing. Recombinant DNA techniques such as artificially splicing DNA into the genes made from scratch..using plasmid vectors or whatever they do now (I have been out of Biotech for 20 years so my tech language may be old school). I think the school of thought is that with hybridizing, the plants use their natural abilities to create new genetic material..whereas with GMO, there is a sense that the new DNA is forced, thus creating 'Frankensteins"



EXACTLY!

I have only my own experiences to go by. I raise sheep. Sis raises horses. On GMO corn I treated a lot of pneumonia in the sheep. Sis treated a lot of pneumonia in her horses. I had wasting and high mortality in my sheep. Sis' Vet bills were astronomical. Vet couldn't figure my mess out at all. Sis and I did a little research about GMO corn and a question to our feed provider. Recent growing of GMO corn.

Stopped using GMO corn (until recently, most farmers thought GMO just as good as traditional - what was all the fuss about). Horses immune systems returned. No more sick horses. The sheep stopped losing weight and mortality ceased. No more pneumonia! That was two near three years ago. 

Again, this is my experience. Folks have to make their own mind up. Mine was made up in dead and dying animals.


----------



## rbedard (Jun 7, 2015)

Side-stepping the political issue of GMOs, if you need non-GMO cornstarch for any reason, it is not difficult to get. Here in the US where the powers that be do not subscribe to a full disclosure epistemology, I will only purchase cornstarch from the EU which is non-GMO.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 7, 2015)

Anecdotes are not science.
However, observation and epidemiology do provide insights into unexpected occurences.


----------



## bullsie (Jun 7, 2015)

Science when right is good. When it is wrong it is ugly.


----------



## cnycharles (Jun 7, 2015)

I have an idea Bullsie; maybe someone can take a sample of the expected bad corn and take it to someone who has a mass spectrometer and see what is different in it. When working for the soybean prof we could put samples into the 'burner' and see what likely compounds were in it based on what it gave off when burning. This was mostly for beans I think that were destined for human consumption rather than animal feed 
This may not show some particular things but should show chemical compounds 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray (Jun 8, 2015)

ehanes7612 said:


> The GMO debate in the recent Washington state labeling made a distinction and this is what I tend to hear more often. GMO is more akin to placing genetic material specifically in the gene sequence that you can't get from hybridizing. Recombinant DNA techniques such as artificially splicing DNA into the genes made from scratch..using plasmid vectors or whatever they do now (I have been out of Biotech for 20 years so my tech language may be old school). I think the school of thought is that with hybridizing, the plants use their natural abilities to create new genetic material..whereas with GMO, there is a sense that the new DNA is forced, thus creating 'Frankensteins"



That makes sense, Ed.

So let me ask this: What makes all "Frankensteins" bad?


----------



## maitaman (Jun 8, 2015)

This was not supposed to be about GMO, which has possibilities for good things, but not so long as big greedy "to hell with side-effects" corporations are involved.
I really appreciate that "diatribe against..." remark. Do you know the meaning of the word?
The book is _Orchids From Seed for Pennies: Cornstarch method_. It's om B&N, Kobo, Apple, etc.
I put that here and other sites because I don't want people to try the method and it fails.
I discovered what was happening, as i use the method to raise seeds from crosses of natural species here in Panamá. Everything from phrags to epis to spathy to brs. I never had a problem until a little over a year ago, when the method stopped working. The cornstarch would sour and liquify. Things that germinated would soon die off. I just got the information about the GMO corn a few days ago. Both brands available here are made from GMO corn, so I have to find a new source of cornstarch or have it made for me by my Indio friends - who absolutely refuse to use any GMO seed for anything. 
Yahaira says the seeds smell poisonous.
I do think that this shows that there are dangers, possibly to people's health, from a product that poisons seeds. I know I will never use those two brands in cooking in my house again.
YES, such things should be labelled. Period. The consumer should have the choice of what he/she and their children EAT, for crying out loud!


----------



## gonewild (Jun 8, 2015)

Ray said:


> So let me ask this: What makes all "Frankensteins" bad?



All are not bad. But one bad Frankenstein could be enough to have a major negative impact on the entire world. 

Laboratory GMO is not the same as plant hybridization. 
Hybridize two corn varieties and you get something that is 100% corn
Splice a gene (GMO) from a fungi into a corn cell and you have a Frankenstein.
Will the frankenstein corn increase food supply by being resistant to rust or will it destroy all corn on Earth? No one can be sure of the answer and no company or scientist or government should have the right to artificially create life or life changing organisms based on an educated guess.

I'm 100% against GMO. Will I eat food that is labeled GMO? Yes I will.
I don't think there is likely a health issue caused by the direct consumption of the modified plant. The risk I see by releasing GMOs into the environment is that they reproduce and pollinate other plants. There is a possibility that the artificial life forms could completely alter the related natural life forms in a negative way. No one should have the right to decide that is safe for us.


----------



## bullsie (Jun 8, 2015)

gonewild said:


> The risk I see by releasing GMOs into the environment is that they reproduce and pollinate other plants. There is a possibility that the artificial life forms could completely alter the related natural life forms in a negative way. No one has the right to decide that is safe for us.




In South America, the farmers are being taught how to distinguish GMO corn from their native natural varieties. They have a huge fear of it destroying what their ancestors have kept pure for centuries and their population - and probably the world (research the potato blight that affected Ireland) - rely upon.


----------



## bullsie (Jun 8, 2015)

One has to remember too, many studies conducted and submitted for approval are done by the companies who make or engineer them. For some reason today, independent studies are not as important or necessary to gain a products approval for use. Sort of like having the fox maintain the chicken house.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 8, 2015)

bullsie said:


> In South America, the farmers are being taught how to distinguish GMO corn from their native natural varieties. They have a huge fear of it destroying what their ancestors have kept pure for centuries and their population - and probably the world (research the potato blight that affected Ireland) - rely upon.



Peru has a constitutional law banning GMOs of any kind.
BUT the big money is paying off congress to open the door.
They use excuses like GMOs can help prevent climate change.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 8, 2015)

bullsie said:


> One has to remember too, many studies conducted and submitted for approval are done by the companies who make or engineer them. For some reason today, independent studies are not as important or necessary to gain a products approval for use. Sort of like having the fox maintain the chicken house.



It's not a popular position to take when you argue science is wrong when that science supports the big money corporations and is the only source of research funding.


----------



## Linus_Cello (Jun 8, 2015)

Could we move the discussion about GMOs generally to another thread, and limit this one just to use of GMO cornstarch for germination? (and while we're at it, the thread could also discuss politics, religion and k-lite  )


----------



## bullsie (Jun 8, 2015)

I'm good with that! Although, the reason for the cornstarch/germination difficulties is present here and there.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jun 9, 2015)

maitaman said:


> I really appreciate that "diatribe against..." remark. Do you know the meaning of the word?



Why yes, I do know the meaning of the word. I should have been more specific and said "ad hominem diatribe" since that makes my intent far clearer. Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate.


----------



## Stone (Jun 9, 2015)

gonewild said:


> All are not bad. But one bad Frankenstein could be enough to have a major negative impact on the entire world.
> 
> Laboratory GMO is not the same as plant hybridization.
> Hybridize two corn varieties and you get something that is 100% corn
> ...



Believe it or not I completely agree with this Lance!
No doubt well intentioned scientists initially came up with the idea of adding exotic genes to an organism to see if they could solve a problem. But after big money ''took over'' the potential for pandora's box being opened is now here.
After hearing outrageous stories like Monsanto suing a canola farmer for using seed which had been pollinated by his neighbour's GM canola, I now consider these companies as having absolutely no regard for human health but profit only.

Getting a bit off topic (but related), the argument about ''feeding the world's people'' with GM crops fails to address the elephant in the room. IMO there are too many people on this planet as is. Almost all modern economic and environmental problems can be quickly traced back to too high a world population. As I see it there simply cannot exist a popultion of any species (including Homo Sapien) without food to sustain it. It is impossible. By sustain I don't mean thrive, I mean survive long enough to breed.

So looking at it in that light, the short sighted policy of increasing the world food production will not lead to solution but only to more human misery in the end. Not once have I ever heard any politician anywhere in the world even dare to mention this issue. Growth is their answer to everything. What we need is stability not constant growth! Yet there must come a time where this problem must be faced. When will it happen??


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 10, 2015)

Stone said:


> Believe it or not I completely agree with this Lance!
> No doubt well intentioned scientists initially came up with the idea of adding exotic genes to an organism to see if they could solve a problem. But after big money ''took over'' the potential for pandora's box being opened is now here.
> After hearing outrageous stories like Monsanto suing a canola farmer for using seed which had been pollinated by his neighbour's GM canola, I now consider these companies as having absolutely no regard for human health but profit only.
> 
> ...



Well, except China with a one child policy.................


----------



## Secundino (Jun 10, 2015)

maitaman said:


> I discovered what was happening, as i use the method to raise seeds from crosses of natural species here in Panamá. Everything from phrags to epis to spathy to brs. I never had a problem until a little over a year ago, when the method stopped working. The cornstarch would sour and liquify.



That explains a lot! I thought that would always happen with starch-based media. Now I've learned a new thing! Thank you! 

I hope I can get that book over here too.

Best wishes and "cuídate" !


----------



## TyroneGenade (Jun 10, 2015)

bullsie said:


> One has to remember too, many studies conducted and submitted for approval are done by the companies who make or engineer them. For some reason today, independent studies are not as important or necessary to gain a products approval for use. Sort of like having the fox maintain the chicken house.



I don't see a problem with this. It is in there interest of the company to do accurate research and avoid liability. Look at the Tobacco industry who were caught hiding data concerning the threat of smoking to health. How many millions have they paid out in liability claims? How much as Pfizer, Merck etc.. paid out for poorly researched products that damaged people? It is in the financial interest of GMO producers to check their products and do proper research. When people start dying off from GMO, that is hard to hide... 

My concern is that the companies assume that their product is safe and don't do the experiments. While necessity is the mother of invention, assumption is the the mother of all screw ups.

The case against glyphosate is building mass. In that case the glyphosate resistance gene isn't the problem--i.e. it isn't a GMO issue---so much as a failure of the entire concept. On the other hand, golden rice go from strength to strength: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice .

Labeling will force companies to do the toxicology work to prove their case that the GMOs are safe. And they will probably have to get independent labs to do the experiments to win the trust of the rational portion of the populace.


----------



## paphioboy (Jun 10, 2015)

Stone said:


> Getting a bit off topic (but related), the argument about ''feeding the world's people'' with GM crops fails to address the elephant in the room. IMO there are too many people on this planet as is.



Too many people is one factor, but IMHO, the inability to feed the world's people is not just due to inability to produce enough food. My personal perception is one of the major factors is increase in food wastage, especially in more developed countries.


----------



## cnycharles (Jun 11, 2015)

There is a lot of food wastage, and a lot happens from 'food pests' and improper storage. One very large problem is that at times when certain areas have a food and water shortage, those few who have power are a different group than others in that region, so food going to 'the least' gets stolen or never distributed to those most in need on purpose or simply kept for just the leading clan. In other situations I've heard where food brokers and other related ilk getting very upset with people donating food to people in famine regions. Because the donating 'cuts down on the brokers profits'. In both cases the ones who 'have' don't care if the have nots starve; it's their friends first or their wallet that matters only. ..... But wastage is a huge problem but it's not all from gluttony but much from pests and decay 



Sent using Tapatalk


----------

