Canadian apple growers raise concerns over genetically engineered varieties

© AgMedia Inc.


No genetically grown vegetables now grown in Canada?? Really?? Is that because the corn that's being grown is no longer considered to be a vegetable but is in fact an pesticide? Isn't it bad enough we now have to search out organic non-gmo corn but now you want to make it so we have to question eating apples, good grief, stop the madness!!! Apples are a gift from GOD, stop thinking mankind can do a better job than God, they can't!!!!

Oh really? Do you care to sprculate on our abilities to improve upon the products of the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy as well?

Now were apples a gift from God or were they the temptation from the Devil ?
Was it Adam or Eve who could not resist the temptation ? I think you know who it was ?

As for corn being a veggy or a pesticide ? You are so lost it is not even funny .

Do not allow GM apples in Canada! An apple a day keeps the doctor away! GMO makes you fat and slow!
Don't ruin a wonderful natural fruit with science. We already have too many gm foods in this world. We don't need another.

As a consumer of apples, I realize that the varieties we have today are the product of generations of genetic tampering. However, I believe that there is enough evidence about harm in modern genetic engineering techniques to question the widespread use of this process. Please do not allow these varieties into Canada.

While the above, typically-anonymous poster falls all over himself/herself to proffer the claim that there is "more than enough evidence about harm in modern genetic engineering techniques to question the widespread use of this process", he/she offers not one scintilla of verifiable evidence to support his/her rather bald-faced and sophomoric claim.

Therefore, I challenge the above poster, or anyone else, to identify even one peer-group reviewed research document to back this "GMO is bad" claim and then weigh any so-called "harm" caused by GMO against, for example, the health benefits of genetically-modified "golden rice" developed by Dr. Ingo Potrykus and which overcomes the Vitamin A deficiency found in conventional rice. (Google -"genetically modified rice")

Sigh! - I wish there was some sort of genetically-modified food which compelled posters on this site to:

(A) think before they post drivel.
(B) sign their names

Stephen Thompson

Absolutely agree ...No scientific evidence .. sounds like a familiar trend amongst some environmental groups! We have gotten to the point of applying the "precautionary principle" on so many issues that they should be almost afraid to get up in the morning.

Please do't let this be approved! There are no long term studies! We don't need food that doesn't brown. How do you know the effects of this on the pollinators? Please stop this. Who makes the decisions? The people with the most money?

These new apples don't brown for three weeks. I think that is a little scary. I would not want to eat food containing "fresh" apples when the food had been prepared weeks before. All the more reason to shop organic and prepare our food at home. We need to keep GMO food out of Canada, and if that is impossible, (since we already have GM wheat, soy , corn and canola), then to push for labeling laws.

What data do you have to back up your title ?
When did we get GMO wheat in Canada ?
It seems like all those who are so against are also many times the ones who buy the cheapest and shop with their wallet when at the grocery store . I don't blame any one for doing that as the choice is theirs . At the same time it really smacks of the huge lack of true knowledge about agriculture .

Wheat is not yet GM commercially...although sugar beets are...

Simply email your grocery store and tell them you won't be spending any more money with them. Boycott the product and stores that sell this abomination.

Virtually 100% of the food we eat is genetically engineered in some way

Ahhhh yes, the artic apple will be the death of civilization as we know it! (Sigh!)

Why do l have this nauseating feeling the same people so much against GMO are the same strain of people propelling the virtues of raw milk.

The apple growers have reason to be concerned over the fallout from GM apples. We won't buy them. So don't grow them. The earth is not your science experiment. Food oxidises
for a reason. Not only does food discolour when exposed to light, it looses nutritional value: These apples will end up in bakery products, restaurants, hospitals, and institutions that want to increase the bottom line, without regard for nourishment. Apparently, growers and legislators don't care about nutrition either. But consumers do. Canada, be warned, you will face the onslaught of GMOs the people in the US are battling. If you value your people and your land, you better start boycotting now.

Can you please post chapter and verse and the study that states there is a nutritional difference ?
What if the study says the GMO apple has more nutrition ??

As someone who has survived aggressive radiation and chemotherapy treatments in order to vanquish a type of cancer which can now be effectively prevented by vaccinating 12-year-olds, I am bemused, saddened and on occasion even horrified by the similarity of the arguments coming from the anti-GMO people and the anti-vaccination people.

The fact of the matter is that mankind, even in the form of vaccination programs, intervenes and interferes with biology all the time, and we live longer, healthier lives because of it.

Some people embrace genetically-modified food - some eschew it in exactly the same way people either embrace of eschew vaccinations and/or traditional interventionist medical procedures and each has the right to do so, regardless of how stupid and/or life-shortening that decision might be.

However, I object to the anti-crowd's characterization of interventionism, whether it be food or medicine, as being somehow sinister or dangerous.

Stephen Thompson,

hmm...was taught to just dip exposed part in lemon juice and/or and water. by the way it works...might be an old gramma thing. but...also works for cut eggplant, potatoes and most veggies but...geesh you should still eat within a week. You can't stop Mother Nature forever.

GMO disaster. Who cares if apple is brown. I won't buy them. Can see why fruit growers worried about consumer backlash.

The whole reason for developing a bruise-free apple is because of the demand of consumers to have everything perfect!

The Canadian consumers demand to have perfection in all foods has lead to massive food waste in this Country.

Why do you think the health of everyone on this planet is deteriorating. We don't need any more GMOs that poison us. So tired of trying to find healthy foods going into a grocery store. Its so full of chemicals and GMOs. Enough already. WE DONT WANT GMO ANYTHING.

So go organic, the question is is it organic, pay for organic but maybe it is GMO, Everybody wants cheap food but you are not going to get cheap food if you want more restrictions you have to pay ask the government why our health is gone ,is that why we are putting up windmills because the way our hydro is made maybe causing health problems

The organic movement lost all credibility when giant agri-food corporations like General Mills,Cargill,Kellogg,Coca-cola,PepsiCo,Kraft and a host of others found out that premium price meant premium profit and got onboard.

If the CFIA clears apples from South Africa or Chile,where we have no clue what is used in their growing why would we question their clearance of a Canadian apple ?

Any business that sells or promotes GMO "food" will NEVER make any money from me whatsoever.

Let's say your doctor prescribed some sort of relatively-inexpensive "nutra-ceutical" food as an alternative to an expensive prescription medicine to control an illness - would you be so dogmatic about GMO food then?

In addition, might you be as equally dogmatic about not drinking fluoridated water because of its similarity to GMO food?

More to the point, those of us who have had chemotherapy, arguably the ultimate in GMO "food", simply don't see the problem because the alternative for us was far-worse.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Reminds me of BST rants.
Funny, eh?

BST, COOL and even GMO labeling are "birds of a feather" in that they all demonstrate that consumers want to know more about their food even if they don't appear to process that information in a logical and systematic manner - yet farmers, in an equally-illogical manner, clearly seem to be falling all over themselves in an attempt to dismiss these constantly-increasing consumer concerns.

From a consumer point of view, I see nothing wrong with COOL for everything including meat, BST-free stickers on milk containers and GMO labels on other foods - it's my money, I do all my own grocery shopping and I deserve the choice.

I don't give a rat's patooie about either local or organic food, but I do care about the smugness of the Canadian dairy industry for lulling consumers into thinking that Canadian dairy cow milk is BST-free when, because there are no restrictions on BST being imported by dairy farmers for their own use and because there are no non-tariff restrictions on the import of dairy products containing BST, Canadian dairy products are anything but BST-free.

Therefore, Canadian milk consumers deserve to see a "This product may contain artificial BST" stickers on their milk containers, yet they do not.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

COOL,BST. Organic and GMO labeling are just an opportunity for retailers to charge a higher premium price for something that is not neccesarily more nutritious or less harmfull to a persons health.The only reason they get away with it is that developed Countries such as Canada and the US (and many more) seem to have a populace with the money to spend on such trendy scams.
Gluten-free foods are a great example of that premium pricing,sure there are many people that can't handle gluten in their food but there are many more that just hop on the gluten-free bandwagon because it's trending!

When food retailers take advantage of the margin opportunities available on products for which, like gluten-free foods, there is an increasing primary demand, they are simply "balancing their books" in order to compensate for the losses they incur on dairy and poultry products because of the price gouging implemented by supply managed farmers.

More to the point, while the anonymous poster is quick to claim retailers are able to get away with price-gouging consumers on so-called trendy items because consumers have "the money to spend on such trendy scams", he/she conveniently overlooks the fact that the basis of supply management is also because consumers appear to have "the money to spend on the supply-management scam".

While finding fault with retailers seems to be an eternally-popular pastime for farmers, not only is there no basis for this fault finding, but also, if anything, any fault, thanks to supply management, is with farmers themselves.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

That you can write - "This product may contain artificial BST" - tells everyone that you don't understand.

I understand that the US dairy industry doesn't hoodwink US consumers about BST the way the Canadian dairy industry hookwinks us by allowing Canadian dairy farmers to import BST for their own use.

Simply stated, as long as Canadian dairy farmers are allowed to import and use BST, it is irresponsible for anyone to claim, or even suggest, that Canadian dairy products are BST-free.

And, of course, I also understand that anonymous supply management supporters on this site are always so unable to dispute the truth about the BST deception on the part of their industry, that they feel constantly compelled to "shoot the messenger".

When the Canadian dairy industry is prepared to package and sell milk in either regular or BST-free formats, then the above anonymous poster might have a point, but until then, he/she is simply grasping at the straws of dismissive hyperbole.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I don't know if it's willful Canadian scientific ignorance about BST or just your seemingly pathological need to make every issue about supply management.

Some people are hoodwinked and some people choose to be. 

There is no BST-free milk in either the U.S. or Canada although all the fluid milk is produced without supplemental BST in both.

This might seem like semantics to you but it is not.

Since the minute levels of BST in all milk are always constant, it is not relevant.

People that pay more for "BST-free" milk are getting hosed.

Canada does not allow labelling celery as "cholesterol-free" for the same reason - foolish people need to be protected.

But hey, keep buying US milk - and the gas is really cheap too!

Please provide proof to support the claim that "all the fluid milk is produced without supplemental BST" in both Canada and the US.

In addition, if the above poster is correct, and all the fluid milk in Canada and the US is, indeed, free of supplemental BST:

(A) how is it possible for people pay "more" for BST-free milk if there is no other kind?
(B) why would anyone in the US put what appear to be now un-needed "BST-free" labels on milk jugs?
(C) why would US dairy farmers appear to still be offered more money for BST-free milk than milk produced with supplemental BST?
(D) why would supply managed interests continue to fearmonger about BST by pointing out that its sale is banned in Canada but not the US in a seemingly-desperate attempt to dissuade Canadian consumers from buying their milk in the US?

It would appear that the above poster has hoodwinked himself/herself by effectively claiming, without providing either his/her own name or any proof whatsoever, that there is now absolutely no difference whatsoever between US-produced and Canadian-produced milk except for the price gouging Canadian farmers put in place at the farm gate level - leading, as it always does, right back to the evils of supply management.

Sigh! - why can't supply management supporters ever think before they post semantic drivel on this site?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The complaints about why every thing Thompson responds to turns back to SM is getting old at best . If you don't want to hear or read it then don't . If you really don't want to hear it why bother replying back to his postings ? Really now people , it is common sense that is lacking here . If you don't want skunks around you don't keep throwing your table scraps out just off the edge of your lawn for them to feed on !
sighhhh !

If people, especially the anonymous ones, didn't continually publish absurdities and half-truths, especially in defense of supply management, I wouldn't keep pointing out how and/or why these postings are absurd and/or half-true.

The only "skunks" on this site are, as always, anonymous posters who don't know what they are talking about and have nothing to say.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I agree. Certainly most of us know about feeding skunks and trolls.
On the flip side - predictable, pontificating, smarter-than-everyone diatribes makes some people into caricatures that renders them harmless. We recognize skunks and can smell them coming. I prefer not to get too close.

When somebody comes on this site to anonymously claim that "all fluid milk" in both Canada and the US is produced without the use of supplemental BST, and then goes on to claim that US retailers then charge "more" for this product, all the while ignoring:

(1) the definitional impossibility of charging "more" when there is no other alternative product on the market to charge more than.
(2) that even when US retailers are supposedly deceiving consumers and therefore somehow ripping them off, US retail prices for milk are still substantially-lower than the retail prices of milk in Canada for what the poster claims is the identical product.

Yet, when I point out the absurdities in these anonymous postings and sign my name when I do, in the incensed and dim-witted minds of supply management supporters, I somehow become the "skunk" and/or "troll" instead of the anonymous sod(s) who post this kind of "pontificating" and "smarter-than-everyone" garbage in the first place.

And then, equally-incomprensibly, supply management supporters still can't understand why supply management is not well-liked and will not be missed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Your frequent misuse use of "by definition" is telling.

It is not a magic wand that changes a personal opinion into a fact in an argument.

For example - Hockey is, by definition, a sport.

Anonymous posters are, by definition, not named. Any other traits attributed or observed are opinion. 

One who purposely and deliberately argues in a manner which attacks others and engaging in name-calling on a forum mainly to provoke others without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers is, by definition, a troll.

Signed and anonymous posts can both be either thoughtful, interesting and correct or exactly the opposite. Your attacks on all anonymous posts are ridiculous.

Your posts define you very clearly.

The fact that the above poster can't sign his/her name to his/her posting tells it all - anonymous postings are unverifiable garbage and the posters themselves deserve no respect or consideration at all.

For about the ten-thousandth time, it is:

(A) impossible to "name-call" when the offending poster offers no name
(B) impossible to dignify anything posted anonymously by calling it an "argument"
(C) impossible for an anonymous poster to be a peer to anyone but another anonymous poster.

I purposely, deliberately and, I suggest, somewhat-accurately skewer the absurdities/whitewash continually proffered by:

(1) the people involved in the original Better Farming articles
(2) anonymous posters on this site.

When someone does sign their name I try to take issue with only the ideas proffered. That's why, for example, if I take issue with Mr. Black, Mr. Beuerman and/or Mr. McGivern, I try to enhance the understanding of the issues they raise, but when someone doesn't have the decency to sign their name to the absurdities they post, and thereby try to "white-wash" something by not revealing any personal connection they might have to the issue at hand, then it's "go-time" and so it should be.

It's like this - when people don't know what they are talking about and have nothing to say, (as well as almost always have something to hide) they say it anonymously and on this site, that is entirely the case.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

Sign to face abuse and harassment? No thanks.
Your choice to ignore fair comment.

Any one have any good Ag websites the could suggest ? This one has been run into the manure pile !

Get back to us when there is actually a test to detect synthetic BST in milk.Just as with anything remotely connected with organics,the US milk industry is all to eager to slap that BST-free label on the package and charge the premium.Of course the consumer is none the wiser.

As you can see by some of these comments, many people really do believe all the crap they read on the internet.

Instead of believing the scientists and the science, these people, who obviously can't take the time to do even just a little bit of research on the safety of GMOs, have fallen prey to the incredible marketers behind the huge, and ever growing organic industry.

In a disgusting turn, several leading biotech scientists are currently being harassed by nuisance public records requests. Kevin Folta describes the campaign against him here:

GMO's are safe . Maybe more people need to hear it from one of their own who has seen the light , realized he was wrong and is now speaking the truth .

check out new film online called "Bought".One of the topics is GMO's

Here's a helpful link to a review of the movie you recommend:

I find it comical that people believe this conspiracy theory rhetoric that has been produced by people who are MAKING HUGE MONEY OFF THEM BELIEVING IT. - i.e. don't vaccinate because "BIG PHARMA", but instead, buy the untested, probably useless and possibly harmful homeopathic "cures" from me off my website.

They don't even realize that what they are watching is just one giant ad.

So the insect eats the bt corn and dies.So how is it that the cob of bt corn is no way different to a organic cob of corn? I know which one I want to put in my belly.

And Bt is used in organic production. Apparently you've been putting it your belly all along.

Here's what Health Canada says about Bt in GMOs:

"The Bt proteins introduced into plants are toxic to certain species of insects yet are harmless to humans and are digested like other proteins in the human digestive system. Health Canada has thoroughly reviewed potatoes, corn, cotton and tomatoes that have been genetically modified to contain these proteins and have found them to be as nutritionally safe as their unmodified counterparts. The Department is not aware of any reports which link adverse reactions of any consumers to consumption of plants containing the Bt proteins."

The BT that is applied to crops is sprayed on the outside of the corn (the husk), and breaks down over time.

Where as the GM BT that is in the corn, doesn't break down and is in all parts of the plant, not just the husk.

Nice try though.

I am not sure if sweet corn is seed is marketed as BT .
Me gets the feeling that general public does not understand the difference along with not understanding how the BT gene works .

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.