It seems to that some GMO products would give the producers bragging rights for example if the product had a higher level of antioxidents or targetted therapies. I think there are some good GMO products and think some are perhaps not so good. The products should be labeled and good attributes could be used as a selling point.
3
get rid of nutrition and ingredient labeling too
corporations would never put anything bad or unhealthy in yopur food
they love you
you can always trust corps to do th right thing w govt interference
its been proven again and again
corporations would never put anything bad or unhealthy in yopur food
they love you
you can always trust corps to do th right thing w govt interference
its been proven again and again
14
--------- calgene tomatos that wouldn't rot (GMO ) sat on the shelves until they rotted - people just wouldn't buy 'em and boycotted stores that carried 'em . . .
8
I don't want GMO labeling. Say I find something is a GMO: what do I do next? Research the modified genes and find the rationale for the modification? Assess the risk of the modified gene(s) to my consumption? Will I find anything significant out before the expiration date? Sorry, it takes enough time as it is to read labels for allergens (which I need to avoid dairy; alas, I don't need it to tell me that shredded wheat contains wheat!).
5
Your advocacy of labeling is great. Your belief that GMO produce is safe is unwarranted. Corn and soybeans are GMO'd to make them "Roundup-ready." - resistant to Roundup so they can tolerate getting sprayed with that herbicide.
But people are NOT Roundup-ready. Check back with us when you've discovered a way to GMO us to make us resistant to eating corn and soybeans that have been soaked with Roundup.
But people are NOT Roundup-ready. Check back with us when you've discovered a way to GMO us to make us resistant to eating corn and soybeans that have been soaked with Roundup.
22
In addition to GMO labeling let's have pesticide residue labeling. This would help show that some GMO foods have reduced pesticide burdens.
24
There is no scientific consensus on GMO safety. Hundreds of scientists have signed a statement concluding that "the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature." The statement, including links to cited studies, was published in Environmental Sciences Europe: http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
12
I have a scientific background. I strongly support science and rational thought. But I have deep concerns about genetically modified plants and animals that I do not think the GMO community is addressing or addressing honestly. My primary concern is NOT about the safety of eating GMO products. It is about fundamentally altering the natural DNA of plants and animals and then allowing them back into the environment where they may forever change the DNA of plants and animals throughout nature. Cabbage that has been mixed with the DNA of scorpions or goats that have been mixed with the DNA of spiders fundamentally alters the natural world in ways that we cannot understand or control. This is just not prudent. And those GMO advocates who say that we have been selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years are just being disingenuous--- selecting a plum for the expression of characteristics that already exist within its DNA-- size, flavor, etc.--- is far different than fundamentally altering it's DNA or mixing its DNA with that of other plants or creatures. Once we have opened this Pandora's box we cannot recall it--- we have changed the basic stuff of life on this planet. And I doubt that we have the wisdom to really know what we are doing.
26
It is unfortunate that "conventional wisdom" in science is increasingly in doubt. Most scientific reports end with the statement, "but more research is required." In particular, I don't completely trust science in the food/heath industry as there has been so much generalization and backtracking. Just look at the 30 year cholesterol experiment we are starting to come out of. How about the science around hydrogenating fats and the terrible impact that has had. No more experimenting with the public food system, please.
11
It is interesting that the male-dominant ag regime in charge of increasing its robust income stream from glyphosate-soaked "Roundup Ready" wheat, corn, and other products ignores or refutes studies suggesting that one effect of glyphosate - a known endocrine disruptor - is reduced testosterone levels.
Ironically, the company that makes Roundup - formerly Monsanto, now Pharmacia LLC - is now owned by Pfizer -- the company that makes Viagra and testosterone-replacement hormones. So it's all good, dudes! Keep buying! One imagines Ceres, the Goddess of Agriculture, laughing at this wonderful irony.
Ironically, the company that makes Roundup - formerly Monsanto, now Pharmacia LLC - is now owned by Pfizer -- the company that makes Viagra and testosterone-replacement hormones. So it's all good, dudes! Keep buying! One imagines Ceres, the Goddess of Agriculture, laughing at this wonderful irony.
20
He says "Clear, consistent and truly informative labels will mean that consumers have not just the right to know about their food, but the ability to think about how it is made."
Trouble is, as some folks point out below, virtually everything we eat has been GMO'd, either with legacy methods (call the LGMOs) or with modern methods, the more precise, quicker, and safer methods which are the targets of the activists (call them N for "new" GMOs or NGMOs).
To figure out which is which and trace back NGMOs and LGMOs would be a pile of work and cost. I prefer to rely on what the FDA-required labels tell us about calories, salt, fat, trans fat, etc. After an estimated three trillion serving of NGMO here and the U.S. and (as one scientist put it) not a sniffle to show for it, I'm against the waste that labeling as suggested would incur. This is, as nobel laureates Pauling and Carter put it "...a rich country argument that is hurting the poor."
Trouble is, as some folks point out below, virtually everything we eat has been GMO'd, either with legacy methods (call the LGMOs) or with modern methods, the more precise, quicker, and safer methods which are the targets of the activists (call them N for "new" GMOs or NGMOs).
To figure out which is which and trace back NGMOs and LGMOs would be a pile of work and cost. I prefer to rely on what the FDA-required labels tell us about calories, salt, fat, trans fat, etc. After an estimated three trillion serving of NGMO here and the U.S. and (as one scientist put it) not a sniffle to show for it, I'm against the waste that labeling as suggested would incur. This is, as nobel laureates Pauling and Carter put it "...a rich country argument that is hurting the poor."
13
This is an issue with as much disinformation circulating as climate change. When CA proposed prop 37, 75% surveyed were in favor of mandatory labels in May. By September, the # had fallen to 55. What happened? Monsanto and others funded messaging that muddied people's understanding of the issue. Commercials emphasizing the double standard, how dog food was subject to labeling but meat for people not (it was because the corn in dog food was modified but the meat wasn't). This time-honored "too many exemptions" argument won people over, along with the scare threat of food getting more expensive. Why would putting a label on food make it more expensive? Hard to say, but in countries where labels are mandatory, like Europe, most people shun GMO food. Of course many countries have also banned GMOs as well, and its not just because of potential adverse effects on humans. Roundup ready corn is doused at such a rate that superweeds have cropped up, replacing much of the milkweed in the Midwest and decimating the Monarch's staple. Hence, the butterfly on the non-gmo label.
Its a very complicated issue but one that demands that people pay attention. Surely regulation of some sort will be part of the use of gmos as their blanket use cannot be adopted without some problems. The question goes much further than to label or not to label. The question is, what kind of overall environment do we want to engineer? Because right now we're letting the Monsantos engineer it for us.
Its a very complicated issue but one that demands that people pay attention. Surely regulation of some sort will be part of the use of gmos as their blanket use cannot be adopted without some problems. The question goes much further than to label or not to label. The question is, what kind of overall environment do we want to engineer? Because right now we're letting the Monsantos engineer it for us.
11
How many GMO foods are made without poisoning the planet, the workers and humans (and other animals) with pesticide and herbicide residues and effects?
6
Now we know that HFCS affects our brains and makes us eat more and artificial sweeteners affect our gut flora and causes us to gain weight but for many years people were harmed by believing the lines the government promulgated based on a simplistic notion that reduced calories were an easy answer to weight control.
Millions have been made obese by various policies all based on feeding people as cheaply as possible and then recommending this diet. Because of these policies 35 countries are now healthier than the United States.
Now they want to do it again. How long before the people wake up to what the government has done to them. We are being poisoned.
Millions have been made obese by various policies all based on feeding people as cheaply as possible and then recommending this diet. Because of these policies 35 countries are now healthier than the United States.
Now they want to do it again. How long before the people wake up to what the government has done to them. We are being poisoned.
7
Companies should embrace the GMOs they sell and point out there benefits.
For example
"This genetically modified, virus-resistant papaya increases farmers' yields in Hawaii by 40%."
"Proudly made with the GMOs to help reduce your environmental footprint."
For example
"This genetically modified, virus-resistant papaya increases farmers' yields in Hawaii by 40%."
"Proudly made with the GMOs to help reduce your environmental footprint."
13
Genetically engineering organisms are indeed safe; there are a ton of tests and safety checks in place to ensure they are safe for consumption -- it's not as if an organism is engineered overnight and released upon everybody. It takes years and years of research before a decision is made -- be it just to obtain a longer shelf life for a product, or to reduce the use of pesticides in crops. In fact, I don't think the "regular" foods are as tested for safety as GMOs -- they're just assumed to be better because they're "natural" (now there's a fallacy staring in your face).
That being said, I'm not sure if labeling products as being GMO and non-GMO makes sense. Humans have genetically changed the food they eat for eons -- they just used crude methods for doing so. The tomatoes and the grains and everything else that we consume today are totally different from their ancestors: they're more nutritious, and there is more yield per crop than way back -- and it's all due to artificial selection, grafting, a.k.a. gene modification, but at a very slow pace. Doing it today in a lab is just a faster way of the same thing.
If anything, a "Produced with genetic engineering" label makes much more sense. But then the main issue is not addressed: there should be more effort put into educating the public about what all this means. Green warriors of the world will still attack scientists, spread misinformation and keep the ignorant in the dark about GMOs.
That being said, I'm not sure if labeling products as being GMO and non-GMO makes sense. Humans have genetically changed the food they eat for eons -- they just used crude methods for doing so. The tomatoes and the grains and everything else that we consume today are totally different from their ancestors: they're more nutritious, and there is more yield per crop than way back -- and it's all due to artificial selection, grafting, a.k.a. gene modification, but at a very slow pace. Doing it today in a lab is just a faster way of the same thing.
If anything, a "Produced with genetic engineering" label makes much more sense. But then the main issue is not addressed: there should be more effort put into educating the public about what all this means. Green warriors of the world will still attack scientists, spread misinformation and keep the ignorant in the dark about GMOs.
5
It's one thing to take medication that's genetically engineered -- you're sick already and need help.
It's another thing altogether to consume foods engineered to withstand the repeated application of potent pesticides. What are the levels of pesticide residues in these foods?
Food is our most potent medicine because we eat every day, and often with an intention of maintaining or regaining health. How can that be accomplished with pesticide-laden foods?
The "nutritional rice" argument always seems specious to me -- if the rice were grown without pesticides, the marvelous amaranths and chenopods that that grow between the rows provide plenty of beta-carotene, so there would be no need for this vitamin A-enhanced rice. (Oh, right, how to get those greens to market in a corporate food-handling system...)
Maybe I'd be more open to the subject if it were pursued by actual scientists, and not Monsanto hacks defending the corporate right to profits, maintaining secrecy and fighting informed consent, covering up the spread of super-weeds, and setting the Pinkertons on farmers.
It's another thing altogether to consume foods engineered to withstand the repeated application of potent pesticides. What are the levels of pesticide residues in these foods?
Food is our most potent medicine because we eat every day, and often with an intention of maintaining or regaining health. How can that be accomplished with pesticide-laden foods?
The "nutritional rice" argument always seems specious to me -- if the rice were grown without pesticides, the marvelous amaranths and chenopods that that grow between the rows provide plenty of beta-carotene, so there would be no need for this vitamin A-enhanced rice. (Oh, right, how to get those greens to market in a corporate food-handling system...)
Maybe I'd be more open to the subject if it were pursued by actual scientists, and not Monsanto hacks defending the corporate right to profits, maintaining secrecy and fighting informed consent, covering up the spread of super-weeds, and setting the Pinkertons on farmers.
15
Vermont "requires that foods containing bioengineered ingredients be labeled with the words “produced with genetic engineering.” This is not nearly enough information for consumers to make informed choices.
Which ingredients are made using genetic engineering? And more important, why?" This is the rub. Saying only that something "contains GMOs" conveys absolutely nothing about the ingredients. It only serves to cater to scientifically baseless fears. Rather than a label that only says something contains GMOs (which is a technology, not an ingredient), if you are going to label a food, actually say what has been added (or removed) and why.
Which ingredients are made using genetic engineering? And more important, why?" This is the rub. Saying only that something "contains GMOs" conveys absolutely nothing about the ingredients. It only serves to cater to scientifically baseless fears. Rather than a label that only says something contains GMOs (which is a technology, not an ingredient), if you are going to label a food, actually say what has been added (or removed) and why.
5
All first year economics texts tell us that fully informed and rational customer are required for free markets to work properly.
All supporters of market baswd economic systems should support full labeling. Or admit that we need more regulation and government activity to orotext consumer interests.
All supporters of market baswd economic systems should support full labeling. Or admit that we need more regulation and government activity to orotext consumer interests.
6
Adding a label that says "Made with GMOs" does not "inform" the consumer in the way that economics textbooks speak of.
2
All rational economics experts tell us that the only thing required for free markets to work properly is the complete lack of government interference (hence the "free" in "free market"). Unfortunately that's too dangerous a concept - freedom - to allow anyone to actually practice it.
Government's job in a truly free market is: Protect individual rights by denying anyone the right to initiate the use of physical force in a market transaction. So if I hold a gun to your head to take your money, government should intervene. But if I offer a jug of milk for $5K, government should stay out, even if I am the only one offering a jug of milk and your life depends on it.
Government's job in a truly free market is: Protect individual rights by denying anyone the right to initiate the use of physical force in a market transaction. So if I hold a gun to your head to take your money, government should intervene. But if I offer a jug of milk for $5K, government should stay out, even if I am the only one offering a jug of milk and your life depends on it.
2
Let's do a little survey among Times' readers here today.
Raise your hand if you or a loved one take insulin to treat diabetes. Wow, that's more than I expected.
OK, now keep your hands up if you are o.k. with doing away with the use of human insulin and returning to pig insulin like diabetics took 50 years ago.
(Woosh!) What, no hands raised? None? Well, then. Now we know how genetic engineering must be explained to the people.
Raise your hand if you or a loved one take insulin to treat diabetes. Wow, that's more than I expected.
OK, now keep your hands up if you are o.k. with doing away with the use of human insulin and returning to pig insulin like diabetics took 50 years ago.
(Woosh!) What, no hands raised? None? Well, then. Now we know how genetic engineering must be explained to the people.
7
This is a direct quote from ECO WATCH
According to ELISA test results from the accredited Biocheck Laboratory in Germany: “All participants excreted glyphosate by urine.”
The experiment was spearheaded by the Green Party in the European Parliament, which wants a ban on the controversial herbicide in the European Union.
The group noted in a press release ...
On average, the MEPs had 1.7 micrograms/liter of glyphosate in their urine, 17 times higher than the European drinking water norm (0.1 microgram/litre). This means that everyone we tested was way above the limit for residues of pesticides in drinking water.
Of the 48 participants, EU-parliament members from Belgium, France and Germany made up more than 80 percent of the whole investigated participants. The test showed that EU-parliament members from Lithuania, Spain and Croatia had the highest concentrations of glyphosate. The lowest concentrations were in the urines of participants of from Italy, Finland and Ireland.
“.. all investigated EU-parliament members were glyphosate contaminated. This will show glyphosate is also in the food chain of members of the EU-parliament,” ...
Glyphosate, which the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared a possible carcinogen last March, is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s widely used weedkiller, Roundup. It is also found in herbicides manufactured by Syngenta and Dow.
https://ecowatch.com/2016/05/12/mep-glyphosate-urine-test/
According to ELISA test results from the accredited Biocheck Laboratory in Germany: “All participants excreted glyphosate by urine.”
The experiment was spearheaded by the Green Party in the European Parliament, which wants a ban on the controversial herbicide in the European Union.
The group noted in a press release ...
On average, the MEPs had 1.7 micrograms/liter of glyphosate in their urine, 17 times higher than the European drinking water norm (0.1 microgram/litre). This means that everyone we tested was way above the limit for residues of pesticides in drinking water.
Of the 48 participants, EU-parliament members from Belgium, France and Germany made up more than 80 percent of the whole investigated participants. The test showed that EU-parliament members from Lithuania, Spain and Croatia had the highest concentrations of glyphosate. The lowest concentrations were in the urines of participants of from Italy, Finland and Ireland.
“.. all investigated EU-parliament members were glyphosate contaminated. This will show glyphosate is also in the food chain of members of the EU-parliament,” ...
Glyphosate, which the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared a possible carcinogen last March, is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s widely used weedkiller, Roundup. It is also found in herbicides manufactured by Syngenta and Dow.
https://ecowatch.com/2016/05/12/mep-glyphosate-urine-test/
8
Whether or not they are safe is irrelevant. If people do not want to consume them, they have a right to know. Dairy farmers in Pennsylvania lobbied the legislature to forbid milk producers who do not use cows affected with growth hormones to label their product as such. Why not? Why don't I have the information I need to make a choice about what I intend to purchase and consume. If I decide to take a GMO medication to save my life-that's my business. If I likewise choose to avoid a GMO food product because there are variables and options, why should I be denied that info? Bottom line is this: GMO products save money for producers (business people) and therefore increase profit margins (for business people). The consumer is to be kept in the dark in order to deprive him/her from making the choice in order to protect profits (for the business people.) It's the classic "business interests vs. the people"s interests". Harry Truman once said that the only lobbyist the people have is the President. But that was a long time ago. Right now the people have no lobbyist and the business interests have all the lobbyists.
10
If GMO foods are safe and desirable, we need to label the foods which contain GMOs and let the market decide. Those who oppose the labeling are only slowing down progress and harming our food supply.
BTW, there is a HUGE difference between genetically modifying a plant which is then planted on millions and millions of acres, versus using medicines created by genetically modifying an organism and growing it in an isolated pharmaceutical engineering facility. Kind of like the difference between children going and seeing lions and tigers in a zoo versus seeing them roaming the wild. We can easily shutdown the zoo if something gets out of control, doing the same out in the wild over millions of acres, involving millions of people is not simple. Mind you, I used lions and tigers and not scary things like Ebola or Zika (lab vs real world exposures) in order to be fair to GMOs.
Secondly, GMOs are under suspicion not because of genetic modification per se. The concern is using these very artificially made organisms as a substitute for heirloom varieties which have been genetically modified in more natural ways (grafting, etc). Nature rejects certain genetic structures for a reason. In small numbers, overcoming this rejection is fine. But in large numbers we do not know what the consequences would be in the long run. It is a legitimate concern, even if some of those raising it are a bit flaky.
BTW, there is a HUGE difference between genetically modifying a plant which is then planted on millions and millions of acres, versus using medicines created by genetically modifying an organism and growing it in an isolated pharmaceutical engineering facility. Kind of like the difference between children going and seeing lions and tigers in a zoo versus seeing them roaming the wild. We can easily shutdown the zoo if something gets out of control, doing the same out in the wild over millions of acres, involving millions of people is not simple. Mind you, I used lions and tigers and not scary things like Ebola or Zika (lab vs real world exposures) in order to be fair to GMOs.
Secondly, GMOs are under suspicion not because of genetic modification per se. The concern is using these very artificially made organisms as a substitute for heirloom varieties which have been genetically modified in more natural ways (grafting, etc). Nature rejects certain genetic structures for a reason. In small numbers, overcoming this rejection is fine. But in large numbers we do not know what the consequences would be in the long run. It is a legitimate concern, even if some of those raising it are a bit flaky.
10
The author's point about insulin is not quite on point, though, but it is close. He should have gone one step further, because there is insulin on the market called "Humalog" that is a complete designer drug - nature didn't make it, but some enterprising chemists discovered that by swapping a couple of insulin's amino acids they were able to prevent "clumping" which made the designer insulin much more effective. Essentially, Humalog is better than even human insulin, and while it's not the same as genetically-altered cells, it's a compound that was created by chemically-altering a natural compound.
Is there danger in using Humalog instead of human insulin? There is risk involved in every breath you take, and in every bite you eat or drop you drink. Consumers have to weigh the risks - benefit vs. danger - on their own.
Remember: Hypoallergenic doesn't mean "no one will ever be allergic to this." It's a bell curve.
Is there danger in using Humalog instead of human insulin? There is risk involved in every breath you take, and in every bite you eat or drop you drink. Consumers have to weigh the risks - benefit vs. danger - on their own.
Remember: Hypoallergenic doesn't mean "no one will ever be allergic to this." It's a bell curve.
2
There are two separate issues being conflated here by many. One is whether GMO foods are safe, and the other is whether customers should be informed as to whether the food they're considering buying has been bioengineered or not. One need not believe that GMO foods are unsafe, whether completely or in part or rarely, or not at all, to believe that customers should know in order to decide for themselves what they want to buy. The snooty superiority of those who consider customers children who will make the "wrong" decisions unless kept in the dark is off-putting, part of what seems a general decline in respect for people as customers, workers, or fellow human beings.
14
This article appears to support labeling via "SmartLabel", which will not give consumers a label. Instead, one will have to scan with a smartphone and then explore the website connection to see what information is there. This will be so difficult for consumers! About 1/3 do not use smartphones; cell signals are not universal; reading fine print on a tiny phone is absurd. I definitely support labeling for several reasons, primarily because of herbicide and pesticide contamination (though allergic reactions to certain modified genes are also a concern for many). But federal legislation for a SmartLabel appears to be an effort to ban individual states from requiring disclosures and allowing companies to use a technique that will continue either to hide the real information or (at least) make it very difficult to access. That is NOT consumer-friendly.
9
Correcting a grammatical error in my post: Next-to-last sentence should read "...legislation...appears to be an effort to ban...and to allow" (not "to ban" and "allowing"). Sorry.
Virtually all corn and soybeans grown in this country are grown using genetically modified seed. Why? Because farmers believe they derive benefits sufficient to justify paying for them. So, any consumer should automatically assume that any product with corn or soybeans in it contains GMO ingredients.
Food companies should not be required to label products as containing GMO ingredients any more than they should be required to label a product "Not kosher" or "not organic".
Besides, think about what a product label would look like following this author's ideas. It would either state that it contained GMO ingredients without specifying which or would take the list of ingredients and require each one with a GMO component to be individually listed. It would need to come with a plastic magnifier to read the 3 point type.
And for what?
Food companies should not be required to label products as containing GMO ingredients any more than they should be required to label a product "Not kosher" or "not organic".
Besides, think about what a product label would look like following this author's ideas. It would either state that it contained GMO ingredients without specifying which or would take the list of ingredients and require each one with a GMO component to be individually listed. It would need to come with a plastic magnifier to read the 3 point type.
And for what?
4
what's interesting is that the arguments don't seem to be about GMOs, rather, they are about the people who want to avoid them. those people are ruining everything! it doesn't take an understanding of science to vilify or caricature another group to make yourself feel superior over those stupid people. admit that what you're engaged in is social stigmatizing as payback for some psychological wound.
2
Because it would become a faux warning label forced onto competitors' products by the multi-billion dollar "natural" food industry.
1
The Seralini study in France using rats fed with GMO food and the tumors they produced was enough for me. The fact that the GMO companies don't want labeling and the EU ban also do not inspire confidence. What do they know that we do not?
4
It seem like the study was redacted due to not including enough rats to compensate for a normal high rate of cancer (70%-80%) for that kind of rat. He'd needed about 120 rats to overcome that - but used 20.
I hate the kind of animal abuse which studies like these are where you should have known from the start that you wouldn't get any reliable data out of it.
I hate the kind of animal abuse which studies like these are where you should have known from the start that you wouldn't get any reliable data out of it.
1
The problem with labeling GMO produced products is that it implies the label has significance to product safety. This is a false premise: some GMO products may well be ecologically unsound and others, such as the insulin the author cites, are definitely life saving and likely safer and more efficiently produced than the old fashioned product from ground up pig pancreases.
The push for GMO labels, in fact, comes from those the who are indiscriminately distrustful of government and industry. There are those who say, outright, that this is a way to attack Monsanto. While there are solid reasons to distrust government and industry (and Monsanto especially), GMO is not one of them.
I have not read one argument that GMO foods endanger our health. I have read reports of adverse ecologic changes due to GMO foods and would appreciate knowing more. This type of information, however, is not so simple as to fit into the few square inches of print on food labels.
In sum, let's get informed on the risks of specific GMO products. Let's not be guided by uninformed fears. Get educated on just where government and industry work against the common good. And let's understand genetics; it is the frontier of biology and will become a major tool of science and medicine. Other than insulin production, there are many other extremely beneficial products made from our understanding of genetic mechanisms. It's a full story and so much more interesting than just fearing a method of production.
The push for GMO labels, in fact, comes from those the who are indiscriminately distrustful of government and industry. There are those who say, outright, that this is a way to attack Monsanto. While there are solid reasons to distrust government and industry (and Monsanto especially), GMO is not one of them.
I have not read one argument that GMO foods endanger our health. I have read reports of adverse ecologic changes due to GMO foods and would appreciate knowing more. This type of information, however, is not so simple as to fit into the few square inches of print on food labels.
In sum, let's get informed on the risks of specific GMO products. Let's not be guided by uninformed fears. Get educated on just where government and industry work against the common good. And let's understand genetics; it is the frontier of biology and will become a major tool of science and medicine. Other than insulin production, there are many other extremely beneficial products made from our understanding of genetic mechanisms. It's a full story and so much more interesting than just fearing a method of production.
2
An imperious need. GMO are what benefits medicine, food and agriculture industry, and environment. Ignorant bullies have caused so much damage followed by uneducated people. Creating continuous hysteria against products that have benefits to mankind. These factors have caused many industries to be hesitant to mention the weird GMO. An example is the stupidity and ignorant of somebody trashing the use of vaccines ,a person ignorant with desires of public attention. Misinformation is terrible and laws should prohibit to false advertisement claims such as gluten free corn or cholesterol free vegetable oils. To start they never had gluten or cholesterol. Honesty and transparency is good but also people must become responsible of their decisions when buying or consuming those products. Without later looking for excuses to sue everybody. There is not such a thing as a perfect world. We donot know so much to predict the future.
3
If genetically modified food is considered so safe, then why are people freaking out that it isn't labeled? It should only have to labeled when it's considered unsafe. If considered safe then why worry? There is not a single food on the earth nowadays that isn't genetically modified, whether it's the pesticides used or the preserving process they use to keep it's shelf life longer. Why worry when we are told it's safe and it's been proven safe, the paranoia is too much.
1
"There is not a single food on the earth nowadays that isn't genetically modified"
That is absolutely not true.
That is absolutely not true.
6
I want to know what has been manipulated by guys in lab coats. I steer clear of anything processed and try my best to eat organic food.
Label it!
Label it!
5
Listen buddy... If you think that organic means what I think you think it means, you are sadly mistaken. Unless you live somewhere other than the US or Europe, chances are that that food is somehow processed and GM. If the food you are eating is 100% unprocessed, I'm concerned or the safety of your health...
The successful anti-GMO propaganda has established that GMO=BAD in the minds of many poorly informed consumers. Please take the time to read the article, "Seeds of Doubt" by Michael Specter in the New Yorker (August 25, 2014). People can make informed choices only when they are truly and well informed.
3
I agree with the desire to label GMO's. I should have the choice to eat and consume what I want or not. Those decisions shouldn't be made for me. GMO's are labeled in 60 other countries including the EU. If the biotech industry doesn't have anything to hide, then why be so fearful? Transparency should be the order of the day, but it isn't. I have to wonder if the industry had been transparent from the beginning would we even be having this conversation?
And p.s. biotech technology has NOT reduced the use of pesticides in monoculture. Quite the opposite in fact has occurred, as both insects and weeds have adapted to survive against the products used. You see, nature will always prevail.
And p.s. biotech technology has NOT reduced the use of pesticides in monoculture. Quite the opposite in fact has occurred, as both insects and weeds have adapted to survive against the products used. You see, nature will always prevail.
5
There are multiple issues with GMOs, and their possible effect on human health is just one aspect. First, GMOs are intertwined with industrial-chemical agriculture, a modern practice that focuses on short term economic gain, ignores the incredible complexity of the soil ecosystem and which no one can imagine is in the long-tem interest of soil health and productivity. Second, the escape of GMO genes from the field into the wild is inevitable, with who-knows-what ecosystem consequences. Third, many people simply do not trust the gigantic chemical/GMO agricultural industry to tell them the truth, or to conduct (and report) objective studies on the possible downsides of their cash cows. I would not trust Big Tobacco on cancer research or Big Oil on climate change, and I sure don't trust Big Ag on GMOs.
12
The concern I have over GMO grains is that the modification makes the organisms resistant to glyphosate (Roundup), which has been linked to cancer and serious neurological disorders. The GMO itself may be perfectly safe as the author states, but what is applied to it is dangerous.
7
I have to disagree with you, they are dangerous and the only way anyone is going to find out is when there is a bad reaction.
I read a book back in the late 90's about GMO's and the insidious nature of the companies involved. There were normally expected failures and they destroyed careers of scientists who reported them openly. The poison potato being the main story along that line. I didn't give it much credence since I trusted science.
Go forward to the last couple of years and I get nasty allergic reactions to eating potato chips...... My throat closes up, massive choking amounts of thick sticky mucous (think of that slime producing eel on dirty jobs) keep coming and coming my nostrils are closed and it is very difficult to breathe made worse by coughing and trying to expel the mucous choking me. This lasts for a couple of hours with short respits which I expect is my body processing the water I take in into more mucous.
I suspect the GMO potatoes in the chips, Trader Joes and Kettle brand both, for having this effect on me.
I never had a reaction to eating potato chips or any food prior to this taking place. It happened 3 times over several months before I realized it was the chips. I first believed I breathed something in.
I read a book back in the late 90's about GMO's and the insidious nature of the companies involved. There were normally expected failures and they destroyed careers of scientists who reported them openly. The poison potato being the main story along that line. I didn't give it much credence since I trusted science.
Go forward to the last couple of years and I get nasty allergic reactions to eating potato chips...... My throat closes up, massive choking amounts of thick sticky mucous (think of that slime producing eel on dirty jobs) keep coming and coming my nostrils are closed and it is very difficult to breathe made worse by coughing and trying to expel the mucous choking me. This lasts for a couple of hours with short respits which I expect is my body processing the water I take in into more mucous.
I suspect the GMO potatoes in the chips, Trader Joes and Kettle brand both, for having this effect on me.
I never had a reaction to eating potato chips or any food prior to this taking place. It happened 3 times over several months before I realized it was the chips. I first believed I breathed something in.
4
"...the only way anyone is going to find out is when there is a bad reaction."
Which is the only way anyone ever finds out something is dangerous to them.
If you have evidence that GMO foods are universally dangerous, please present it. You haven't, because you don't have evidence. Your claim that potato chips cause you an allergic reaction means only one thing: Don't eat them.
Which is the only way anyone ever finds out something is dangerous to them.
If you have evidence that GMO foods are universally dangerous, please present it. You haven't, because you don't have evidence. Your claim that potato chips cause you an allergic reaction means only one thing: Don't eat them.
1
Genetic engineering has gone on for millennia only it was called "selective breeding" or "botany". See Dog, Beltsville Turkey, Black Angus Beef, Broccoli, Sweet Corn, Delicious Apples, etc, etc, etc. With advanced technology the approach is changing, but the positive results are surprisingly similar.
3
The biggest issue with the current regulatory scheme is that it is process-based, not product-based. If you created herbicide-tolerant plants through radiation mutagenesis (see: BASF's Clearfield crops), those do not trigger regulatory hurdles, but if you take the more precise & efficient route of inserting the gene you want, then it's stop the presses.
There is no safety issue with GMOs on the market. They're not "doused" in pesticides (& actually result in reduced or better pesticide use): http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 ; Long term feeding studies have been done and no harm has been identified in animals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25184846 . Patents are a nonissue (plants have been patented since the 1930s; see: Plant Patent Act of 1930) and the protection of intellectual property has actually encouraged a more scientific approach to farming that resulted in improved yields. Farmers aren't "forced" into contracts and generally don't want to save seeds, nor do "terminator" seeds exist on the market. The only reason that herbicide and pest-resistant traits showed up first is due to the primary "consumers" of seed companies being farmers.
To continue, GMO is a process. It tells you nothing about who made it, what was modified, how it was grown, etc... It's an empty label that people have been pushing because the science doesn't support their anti-biotech position or because they have money to make in selling organic foods to ignorant consumers.
There is no safety issue with GMOs on the market. They're not "doused" in pesticides (& actually result in reduced or better pesticide use): http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 ; Long term feeding studies have been done and no harm has been identified in animals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25184846 . Patents are a nonissue (plants have been patented since the 1930s; see: Plant Patent Act of 1930) and the protection of intellectual property has actually encouraged a more scientific approach to farming that resulted in improved yields. Farmers aren't "forced" into contracts and generally don't want to save seeds, nor do "terminator" seeds exist on the market. The only reason that herbicide and pest-resistant traits showed up first is due to the primary "consumers" of seed companies being farmers.
To continue, GMO is a process. It tells you nothing about who made it, what was modified, how it was grown, etc... It's an empty label that people have been pushing because the science doesn't support their anti-biotech position or because they have money to make in selling organic foods to ignorant consumers.
2
Until reading this piece, I did not know that many animal-based cheeses now are curdled with bioengineered rennet that actually doesn't come from the guts of cows. I think that's amazing! And as a vegan, this makes me feel that bioengineered food really may be a step in the right direction, at least in some circumstances. That said, I really don't think it is accurate to say that a product used to make cows milk into cheese is vegan. Veganism is an ethic of nonviolence that means animals are not ours to eat, wear, or use. In any case, this article was enlightening to me and has encouraged me to do more research on the subject. Thank you.
2
As a scientist involved in the food and hospitality industry, I fully support Dr. Kelly's call for transparent labeling of all genetically engineered food and ingredients. However, such transparency will be surprising to the consumer. We cannot be passive and will, as Dr. Kelly mentions, need to "educate ourselves" to make informed decisions.
When GM labeling expands to flavors, aromas, and processing ingredients, nearly every item in our shopping baskets will be found to have GM ingredients. From enzymes used to make cheeses and breads and even to flavors that enhance prepared vegan dishes, many are GM derived. We will be surprised and overwhelmed.
Yet simply excluding anything with a GM label forces us into other value judgments. Would we favor 'traditional' cheese made with animal rennet over a cheese made with GM rennin (chymosin), even if this means the slaughter of milk calves for their stomach tissue to make 'traditional' rennet? Would we favor saffron flavor made from GM yeasts in a small container over natural saffron that requires artificial fertilizers and large carbon emissions? Or would we be concerned with the saffron farmers who would lose their market?
Full and transparent identification of all GM derived ingredients is needed, yet it alone will not cure our ills or automatically create an ethical food chain. Those actions are up to informed consumers working with producers and governments.
When GM labeling expands to flavors, aromas, and processing ingredients, nearly every item in our shopping baskets will be found to have GM ingredients. From enzymes used to make cheeses and breads and even to flavors that enhance prepared vegan dishes, many are GM derived. We will be surprised and overwhelmed.
Yet simply excluding anything with a GM label forces us into other value judgments. Would we favor 'traditional' cheese made with animal rennet over a cheese made with GM rennin (chymosin), even if this means the slaughter of milk calves for their stomach tissue to make 'traditional' rennet? Would we favor saffron flavor made from GM yeasts in a small container over natural saffron that requires artificial fertilizers and large carbon emissions? Or would we be concerned with the saffron farmers who would lose their market?
Full and transparent identification of all GM derived ingredients is needed, yet it alone will not cure our ills or automatically create an ethical food chain. Those actions are up to informed consumers working with producers and governments.
1
If they're "safe" why aren't they labeled?
Because, this individual wouldn't buy bio-engineered food unless I was ignorant of the fact.
Safe - like the water in Flint, Michigan is safe to drink?
Safe - like the air in Manhattan right after 911.
When the government and corporations say "safe", they usually mean "cover up the facts".
Label the foods, and watch bio-engineered food companies go bankrupt.
Because, this individual wouldn't buy bio-engineered food unless I was ignorant of the fact.
Safe - like the water in Flint, Michigan is safe to drink?
Safe - like the air in Manhattan right after 911.
When the government and corporations say "safe", they usually mean "cover up the facts".
Label the foods, and watch bio-engineered food companies go bankrupt.
4
Everything in life is about choice. The very minimum we can expect is to know how the product was elaborated. Labeling the products with G.M.O is the right move because it gives me the choice to buy the product knowing, which I will not do. I am a scientist also and I respect fully the J.K's position. I also know as a scientist that we have a hard time estimating what we do not know. I know G.M.O reduces the use of say pesticides, which is very good, but we do not really know the impact on biodiversity. So, because of that I will try to avoid some of the G.M.O food.
1
How many realize that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup becomes part of the plant that it is sprayed on and is immune to its affect because the plant encapsulates it with an enzyme. This allows the glyphosate to also become part of the fruit of that plant and this is what we eat.
We are told that the level is so low that it is safe but we don't really know what the truth is but the European do know. A Norwegian study found that the levels of glyphosate in some foods is well beyond even the "safe" levels.
This is one of many reasons why so many people are concerned the use of such dangerous chemicals.
We are told that the level is so low that it is safe but we don't really know what the truth is but the European do know. A Norwegian study found that the levels of glyphosate in some foods is well beyond even the "safe" levels.
This is one of many reasons why so many people are concerned the use of such dangerous chemicals.
5
The problem is not with the 'genetic engineering' - the big problem is the mass ingestion of glyphosate-contaminated ('Roundup Ready') crops that spread this known endocrine-disruptor into the food chain. So our commercial wheat and corn products are all contaminated with this BigAg drug. The only good news is that it appears that Roundup/glyphosate-infected foodstuffs cause lower testosterone levels. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Glyphosate_Roundup_and_Human_Male_Infertility.php
2
If 88% scientists really do believe that GMO food is safe, I'll take their word for it. The organic food industry, after all, demands a ridiculous premium for its products. Honestly, I'm more afraid of scary chemicals and overuse of HFCS/sugar in our food than genetic engineering of food.
1
Driving in upstate NY at this time of year you pass by beautiful green fields and also lots of dead grayish brown fields. The dead fields are the ones where they've used gmo seeds so they can douse the fields in chemical herbicides, killing everything but the seeds. They say the herbicides become inert after a while, but not only do I find it hard to believe that the chemicals that kill so much won't do harm to the land and water they reach, I also don't like killing all the life in those fields and I prefer to eat food that has grown in living soil, with bugs and microorganisms contributing to the nutrition of my food. The dead fields that gmo seeds enable may make farming cheaper and easier, but it's not what I want to do to our planet and not what I want to eat.
9
Food industries will lobby vigorously against this practical suggestion because if their products are labeled as containing GMO ingredients, they will be perceived as less natural and sales will drop. The cheese industry is an excellent example.
I do agree that transparency and forthright information to the consumer is best but the reality is, this is America. Follow the money...always...$$$$
I do agree that transparency and forthright information to the consumer is best but the reality is, this is America. Follow the money...always...$$$$
2
Thank you. More information is a good thing.
I don't know that these foods are unsafe. Nor do I know to a metaphysical certainty that they are safe. I'm just concerned that throwing the genetic dice in this way may set up unknown and unknowable problems well down the road.
I don't know that these foods are unsafe. Nor do I know to a metaphysical certainty that they are safe. I'm just concerned that throwing the genetic dice in this way may set up unknown and unknowable problems well down the road.
3
The people who oppose GMOs do so for ideological and even semi religious reasons. Logic is not in their vocabulary, and they are not interested in science. They have shown in the past that they will use the lowest, most dishonest propaganda methods to vilify it - stuff straight out of Dr. Goebbels' playbook. I just hope any labeling standards don't play into their hands.
its nice you feel that way
but th govt needs to FORCE
companies to label gmo products as such
cant depend on th largess of american companies
but th govt needs to FORCE
companies to label gmo products as such
cant depend on th largess of american companies
3
People don't seem to realize that pretty much everything they eat has been "modified genetically" through hybridization, selective breeding and so on. This has been going on since humans have kept animals and farmed. Surprise!
I, for one, prefer we examine our farming methods and bring back more labor intensive practices (like weeding) in place of chemical spraying. Likewise animals need to be kept in smaller numbers in better conditions. Food needs to cost significantly more and people need to support local growers and breeders (and likewise grow their own food!).
I think we might then find less use for bigger, less tasteful and weed/bug/disease resistant foods filled with a cocktail of residual pesticides, insecticides, growth hormones, antibiotics. We might also finish what we eat, stop getting fatter and enjoy real food instead of the garbage we shovel in our pie-holes every day.
I, for one, prefer we examine our farming methods and bring back more labor intensive practices (like weeding) in place of chemical spraying. Likewise animals need to be kept in smaller numbers in better conditions. Food needs to cost significantly more and people need to support local growers and breeders (and likewise grow their own food!).
I think we might then find less use for bigger, less tasteful and weed/bug/disease resistant foods filled with a cocktail of residual pesticides, insecticides, growth hormones, antibiotics. We might also finish what we eat, stop getting fatter and enjoy real food instead of the garbage we shovel in our pie-holes every day.
2
Having lived a great part of my life in Europe, I understand what all the fuss is about when it comes to rejecting GMO-products -- it is something that is outright rejected over there.
It's not so much the fear, as fear of the unknown. And that is why it is a good idea to label them.
If anything, it at least gives one the conscious choice of deciding whether or not they wish to consume it.
While Biotechnology has made great progress on many fronts, there are many consumers who may not want to be part of the lab experiment.
If there's truly nothing to hide -- Label it.
It's not so much the fear, as fear of the unknown. And that is why it is a good idea to label them.
If anything, it at least gives one the conscious choice of deciding whether or not they wish to consume it.
While Biotechnology has made great progress on many fronts, there are many consumers who may not want to be part of the lab experiment.
If there's truly nothing to hide -- Label it.
6
I agree. If their is nothing to hide, label them.
Let the consumers decide.
Let the consumers decide.
3
The author and most of the commenters here seem to be focused about consumption of GMO food. I believe its safe to eat GMO food and it can do a lot of good to help world hunger. But I'm more concerned about plants and animals are GMOed "escaping" to our natural ecosystem and destroying the native species. Unless they address this problem, I'm always going to be a skeptic.
40
I support a health food chain and the government regulation to make it so. A labeling requirement like the one in Vermont is useless to most consumers, who have no idea what they mean. Who knew that the vitamins they put in our processed foods and the enzyme to make cheese are GMO? I want to know if they are SAFE to consume and only serious government oversight will provide that information.
2
I support a HEALTHFUL food chain - one that helps keep me healthy.
1
Vitamins in processed foods or in form of vitamin pills are always synthetic products manufactured nowadays by four or five companies mostly in India and China and then sold to any company that uses them, including to all those fraudsters that sell so called 'natural' vitamins!
I think a large part of resistance to GMO foods originates with the disgusting use of GMO firms to alter food plants so that they don't develop seeds, thus forcing farmers to buy seeds every year from firms driven by a ruthless and rapacious form of capitalism.
In addition, that threatens to destroy the ancient holy (to me) partnership of farmers and the life cycles of plants .. That feels to me to be culturally destructive, as well. It is also a form of thievery.
However, I am delighted with other forms of GMOs, especially considering the looming liklihood of global starvation. I'm thinking, for instance, of the GMO rice that now can contribute vitamin A to those who depend on rice as a basic food. I hope that GMO scientists are seeking to double the protein content of rice, such as one finds in wild rice (which isn't rice.) That I would applaud.
In addition, that threatens to destroy the ancient holy (to me) partnership of farmers and the life cycles of plants .. That feels to me to be culturally destructive, as well. It is also a form of thievery.
However, I am delighted with other forms of GMOs, especially considering the looming liklihood of global starvation. I'm thinking, for instance, of the GMO rice that now can contribute vitamin A to those who depend on rice as a basic food. I hope that GMO scientists are seeking to double the protein content of rice, such as one finds in wild rice (which isn't rice.) That I would applaud.
1
So called "terminator" seeds are not sold commercially. Farmers also don't want to save seeds for a number of reasons: 1) they grow hybrids and the later generations won't breed true and will be worse and 2) it takes a lot of resources to save seeds. Plant patents have been around since the 1930s and every type of seed sold that is patented has similar licensing terms, whether it was a GMO or not. Companies want to protect the intellectual property they spent the time and money developing. Farmers are free to sign or not sign those contracts. They can always grow off-patent or nonpatented seeds.
The great irony with the terminator crops though is how people scream about "contamination" on one side of their mouth, but then with a very viable solution to that problem, they scream about "seed saving" out the other side.
But what about 'seedless' fruits? Those are not made via GMOs - they are chemically treated to become polyploidal and thus strerile. I don't hear any complaints on that front.
The great irony with the terminator crops though is how people scream about "contamination" on one side of their mouth, but then with a very viable solution to that problem, they scream about "seed saving" out the other side.
But what about 'seedless' fruits? Those are not made via GMOs - they are chemically treated to become polyploidal and thus strerile. I don't hear any complaints on that front.
1
This a true test of whether the public is scientifically literate enough to accept the consensus that GMOs are safe to consume and increase yield, guard against disease and reduce the need for dangerous pesticides.
Opposition to GMOs stems from the same misinformation about vaccinations and human-caused climate change in that a scientifically-illiterate public is ill-equipped to criticize the support of the scientific communities for these advances and their knowledge thereof. It is essentially a debate between amateurs and experts that really shouldn't be taking place.
I'll take the word of a scientist over an armchair conspiracy theorist any day.
Opposition to GMOs stems from the same misinformation about vaccinations and human-caused climate change in that a scientifically-illiterate public is ill-equipped to criticize the support of the scientific communities for these advances and their knowledge thereof. It is essentially a debate between amateurs and experts that really shouldn't be taking place.
I'll take the word of a scientist over an armchair conspiracy theorist any day.
2
"I'll take the word of a scientist over an armchair conspiracy theorist any day."
Some scientists believe that GMO foods are harmful.
Some scientists believe that GMO foods are good.
Some scientists believe that saccharine is cancer-causing.
Some scientists believe that saccharine is ok.
Some scientists believe DDT should be banned.
Some scientists believe DDT isn't harmful to humans.
Some scientists believe humans are causing Climate Change via massive production of CO2.
Some scientists believe the Climate changes all the time, and that humans aren't causing much of a change with the additional CO2 they add.
Which of the above scientists are armchair conspiracy theorists, and which aren't?
Some scientists believe that GMO foods are harmful.
Some scientists believe that GMO foods are good.
Some scientists believe that saccharine is cancer-causing.
Some scientists believe that saccharine is ok.
Some scientists believe DDT should be banned.
Some scientists believe DDT isn't harmful to humans.
Some scientists believe humans are causing Climate Change via massive production of CO2.
Some scientists believe the Climate changes all the time, and that humans aren't causing much of a change with the additional CO2 they add.
Which of the above scientists are armchair conspiracy theorists, and which aren't?
1
Genetically modified foods, like so many continuously evolving technologies affecting our lives, are here to stay. It will be increasingly difficult, and perhaps it is already impossible for the less advantaged billions who don't have a Whole Foods nearby - or even a car to drive to one - to avoid GMO them.
I applaud Mr. Kelly for his ethics and his realistic views in this stance.
I applaud Mr. Kelly for his ethics and his realistic views in this stance.
1
The vast number of scientists and studies agree, gmo is safe.
Anti gmo = anti science.
Gmo deniers should be prosecuted.
Anti gmo = anti science.
Gmo deniers should be prosecuted.
Disagreeing with scientists, whether a majority or a minority of them, is not a criminal act. It's bizarre that you think it is or should be. You're advocating violating people's Constitutional rights to free speech; and that IS worthy of prosecution.
2
"Disagreeing with scientists, whether a majority or a minority of them, is not a criminal act."
...unless you deny human-caused global warming, in which case Al Gore disagrees with your bemusing idea.
...unless you deny human-caused global warming, in which case Al Gore disagrees with your bemusing idea.
The issue for me is the that the GMO crops are engineered with 'what we don't know' NOT for better nutrition but to profit food producers by making them disease resistant. The fact that they don't want the information to get to the consumer is really frightening. This is not just an issue of food supply safety (which it is) but when odd allergies and immune issues occur and the medical industry won't or can't acknowledge food causes then the public begins to lose trust in their physicians and that is something we don't want. I know many people who are going to alternative medicine because their physicians won't recognize or can't find treatment for their medical issues.
4
I am in favor of a central register for genetically modified food, similar to the E numbers that we have in Europe for artificial additives. Just like with those additives the genetically modifications should be listed on the packaging of food.
Genetic modifications result in the modify the food in such a way that its chemical composition becomes like it is never be found in nature. Given the prominence of food allergies at the moment people should be able to track for such changes.
Many modifications may turn out to be harmless. But we can't be sure that a certain modification is really safe for everyone. Human food allergies are very diverse. And science isn't so advanced that it can really oversee the side effects of the GMO modifications.
Genetic modifications result in the modify the food in such a way that its chemical composition becomes like it is never be found in nature. Given the prominence of food allergies at the moment people should be able to track for such changes.
Many modifications may turn out to be harmless. But we can't be sure that a certain modification is really safe for everyone. Human food allergies are very diverse. And science isn't so advanced that it can really oversee the side effects of the GMO modifications.
1
Per CDC data, each year foodborne illnesses hospitalize approximately 25,000 Americans and kill more than 500. None of these illnesses, however, are attributable to bioengineered foods. There's a finite amount of space on food labels and it would be better used in warning about the real risks of aflatoxin, salmonella, nasty forms of E. coli, and so on, rather than imagined health risks of bioengineered foods. The tragedy of the "GMO" debate is its similarity to global warming, vaccine and fluoridated drinking water debates: People with strong opinions, even very smart people, sometimes aren't persuaded by facts. With bioengineered foods, I blame Hollywood as the public's primary source of science (most scientists, and nearly all biologists, are sanguine about bioengineered crops and microbes). Every bioengineered creature on the big screen ends up stomping on its creator rather than as a delicious, nutritious and environmentally sustainable side dish for dinner.
6
Simply put, government should not get into pseudoscience. There are many food movements that are fads and are not factually based. As such, many Americans consume theses foods with the belief that they are better for the consumer regardless of any scientific evidence. Why, then, would we as active citizens require the government to substantiate pseudoscience by telling citizens, "you need to know if your food has GMOs in it"? Because we all know that labels of GMO-free will turn into some "green" or "health" movements like organic, gluten-free, or whatever. I can see it now, two items on the shelf. One GMO and one GMO-free. As an uninformed consumer, wouldn't you think that the GMO-free product is "better" for you than the GMO alternative, simply because of labeling. Leave GMO labels, as well as other pseudoscience movements, to the private sector. Let Campbell Soups continue to market GMO-free for either an ideological movement or a financial one. But keep my tax money working on science and bettering our society.
2
Aside from the intrinsic safety of GMOs (which is not fully understood) these products have several negative impacts on people:
- GMOs are subject only to short term toxicity tests which would not show cigarettes or radiological materials to be harmful either
- most GMOs are engineered for glyphosate tolerance which is a known carcinogen and is becoming pervasive in water and soil
- GMOs have been used to destroy local small scale agriculture through patent lawsuits when pollen drifts
- GMOs are part of the destructive industrial agriculture complex that is efficient only in returning value to shareholders - not producing low cost food for people
- The GMO manufacturers follow the tobacco playbook exactly - they act like they have a product they know is harmful but they lobby aggressively, do not encourage open investigation, fight every effort to perform safety studies and keep a lid on the information they have through proprietary claims, etc.
- GMOs are subject only to short term toxicity tests which would not show cigarettes or radiological materials to be harmful either
- most GMOs are engineered for glyphosate tolerance which is a known carcinogen and is becoming pervasive in water and soil
- GMOs have been used to destroy local small scale agriculture through patent lawsuits when pollen drifts
- GMOs are part of the destructive industrial agriculture complex that is efficient only in returning value to shareholders - not producing low cost food for people
- The GMO manufacturers follow the tobacco playbook exactly - they act like they have a product they know is harmful but they lobby aggressively, do not encourage open investigation, fight every effort to perform safety studies and keep a lid on the information they have through proprietary claims, etc.
4
This is the second comment against GMOs that invokes the tobacco industry. You can now see how the unscientific propaganda against GMOs works. Guilt by association, even if the association is totally bogus.
1
Monsanto is about the dirtiest word one can utter amongst GMO detractors, but the breakthrough of Roundup resistant soybeans in 1996 opened the door for advances in food technology that go well beyond herbicide resistance. The ability to alter a plant's DNA using bacteria has the potential to mitigate human starvation and suffering around the world. That's not bad, that's good.
If one is looking for a real villain in the food industry, highly processed foods containing high fructose corn syrup would be it. That arises from plain old factory farming, not from cutting edge science or even hybridization. Would it be better to grow food like we did 100 years ago, on smaller plots? The question is, Would it feed the world? The answer is no.
But the Luddites would rather drink their Cokes and complain about Frankenfoods than embrace a technology that has the potential to bring healthier and more abundant food to everyone. And of course, as previously noted in the comments, the organic food industry is fueling the superstitions of the blissfully uninformed.
If one is looking for a real villain in the food industry, highly processed foods containing high fructose corn syrup would be it. That arises from plain old factory farming, not from cutting edge science or even hybridization. Would it be better to grow food like we did 100 years ago, on smaller plots? The question is, Would it feed the world? The answer is no.
But the Luddites would rather drink their Cokes and complain about Frankenfoods than embrace a technology that has the potential to bring healthier and more abundant food to everyone. And of course, as previously noted in the comments, the organic food industry is fueling the superstitions of the blissfully uninformed.
8
It seems that a huge percentage of the bio-engineered foods that are in the supply chain are so engineered as to be impervious to the herbicides and pesticides *made by the same company that makes the seeds.* So the resulting food products have just as much pesticide/herbicide sprayed on them as do the weeds that are killed. Only instead of being killed by those chemicals, these genetically engineered plants survive and come to us in our food heavily laced with these chemicals. And the bees are dying, too, because, well, pesticides are killing them, apparently.
But not to worry. That same company is going to genetically engineer some bees that are impervious to their pesticides. So there. Eat it all and weep.
But not to worry. That same company is going to genetically engineer some bees that are impervious to their pesticides. So there. Eat it all and weep.
7
The term "GMO" is deceptive: genetic modification has been the business of plant and animal breeders for thousands of years. If it is transgenics we fear, we should realize that we routinely digest mixed DNA and proteins from many different species simultaneously.
Modern genetic engineering is a powerful tool, which will be critical to feed humanity in an age of overpopulation and global warming. If you don't like what Monsanto is doing with glyphosate, do not blame the tool that was used.
Modern genetic engineering is a powerful tool, which will be critical to feed humanity in an age of overpopulation and global warming. If you don't like what Monsanto is doing with glyphosate, do not blame the tool that was used.
5
GMO-hate is no less scientific than climate change denial. But bioengineering certainly isn't going to stop here -- there are far too many advantages to manipulating genomes directly as opposed to manipulating them the old-fashioned way, by cross-breeding, where genes are not precisely controlled.
Soon the O in GMO will include humans, too. Should they also be shunned? More likely everyone will want in when GM drastically reduces the incidence of some birth defects, and then, confers advantages to children.
Soon the O in GMO will include humans, too. Should they also be shunned? More likely everyone will want in when GM drastically reduces the incidence of some birth defects, and then, confers advantages to children.
5
Labeling is a good first step. Consumers should be allowed to choose what they will eat. They should also be told about the pesticides used. I am of the opinion that many genetically manipulated foods have not been proven safe and as a result should not be on the market but least that could be done is labeling. Pesticides on the other had have generally been proven to be hazardous to man and beast. Labeling and banning are a good way to go.
Companies who sell GMOs and fight labeling appear to have something to hide and are afraid of competition. Unfortunately for the humans they have their friends in the White House and Congress and the TTP AND TTIP both of which are structured to take away a countries right to pass or enforce consumer, worker and environmental protections. If you want labeling you must fight these dangerous "trade" agreements and you must refuse to vote for anyone who supports them not just because of the agreements although that would be enough reason but for what it tells you about how important that person views the needs of humans versus the profits of corporations.
Companies who sell GMOs and fight labeling appear to have something to hide and are afraid of competition. Unfortunately for the humans they have their friends in the White House and Congress and the TTP AND TTIP both of which are structured to take away a countries right to pass or enforce consumer, worker and environmental protections. If you want labeling you must fight these dangerous "trade" agreements and you must refuse to vote for anyone who supports them not just because of the agreements although that would be enough reason but for what it tells you about how important that person views the needs of humans versus the profits of corporations.
3
One day you're growing GMO corn on your farm. The next day the corn is chasing you down the street with an ax. I believe that is how most people view it.
34
@ryan bingham: I strongly oppose ax-wielding corn, and if my corn is going to jump off the plate and pick up an ax, I think I need labeling so I won't buy that variety!
The human body is about 4 million years old and has evolved and survived around certain genes in food that are suddenly being replaced by science . Science knows that there are plant compounds that affect our ability to cope with illnesses because pharmaceuticals are made from them in many cases. Sure engineer insulin as diabetes is dangerous but keep your engineering out of our food
A company should stand behind its product. Bribing congress to prohibit labeling against the express demand of consumers does not strike me as having confidence in what you produce.
Consumers in Europe are in charge. They don't want GMO and food producers have no choice but to comply as they can't exert much influence on politicians and supermarkets. Unlike in the US, where a handful of corporations tell supermarkets what to put on the shelves.
Besides, over 40% of the US packaged food supply is labelled kosher, so the additional cost of labeling can't be the issue.
Consumers in Europe are in charge. They don't want GMO and food producers have no choice but to comply as they can't exert much influence on politicians and supermarkets. Unlike in the US, where a handful of corporations tell supermarkets what to put on the shelves.
Besides, over 40% of the US packaged food supply is labelled kosher, so the additional cost of labeling can't be the issue.
1
The fact is no one KNOWS that they are safe eventhough we WANT them to be. There are no long term studies that prove safety. With pollutants in the air, water, and every environment we do not need a new toxic load. Add to that the toxic (side effects) of medications, toxins in food, Roundup, etc. We are walking toxic factories and our immune systems are showing it. Look at the increase of chronic illness over the last 50 years. Keep your GMO. I'll always err on the side of natural.
3
Isn't it ironic 90% of scientists who believe in global warning are right, but 90% of scientists who believe GMOs are safe are wrong. Just saying...
11
It's more than a little ironic that many of the same people who mock "climate change deniers" for ignoring the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community exhibit the exact same behavior when it comes to GMOs.
In fact, last time I looked the with the largest gap between the percentage of scientists who agree on an issue and the percentage of the populace who believes them is GMOs, not climate change.
In fact, last time I looked the with the largest gap between the percentage of scientists who agree on an issue and the percentage of the populace who believes them is GMOs, not climate change.
2
Our high school health education needs to cover the knowledge on GMO foods. They are safe to eat and easier to grow. It is our poorly educated politicians who made poor decisions.
3
Easier to grow because it is resistant to pesticides. GMO = higher profit. When was the last time this benefited the consumer? Local / organic is best for the public. But where's the big money in that?
3
it is not better always to use G.M.O food.sometimes they may have harmful effects.
1
The writer intentionally avoided the issue of Roundup residue on much of the corn and wheat grown in the US.
I am much less concerned about GMO corn that is NOT sprayed with Roundup.
I am much less concerned about GMO corn that is NOT sprayed with Roundup.
4
A timely and important perspective. When I'm asked at the grocery if I found everything, I reply, "No, where is the GMO isle?". It's time to let consumers vote with their wallets.
3
Because it's all modified--surprise! If you want to avoid GMO then grow your own.
1
I think you may be confused. There are plenty of foods with non-GMO labels.
If you're talking about breeding and cross-pollination, that's not the same as GMO.
If you're talking about breeding and cross-pollination, that's not the same as GMO.
2
Most reasonably intelligent people know GMO foods are safe for them to eat.
Many anti GMO people lambaste Monsanto because of their efforts with GMO products. Well I have traveled a lot in tropical countries and a staple food in those places is yams/sweet potatoes because regular potatoes will not survive in the tropics. A blight hit tropical yams/sweet potatoes so Monsanto set about developing a GMO sweet potato that was resistant to this blight. Well Monsanto did not get a penny for this effort - yes tropical countries tend to be poor.
While traveling in the tropics, I saw first hand the Malaria scourge and investigated why some med was not developed to fight Malaria. Well turns out the big pharma's only do research that has a promise to make money for them. Every year, from half a million to a million people - mostly children die from Malaria.
Having worked for a consumer products company for years, when government labeling laws are changed - it takes money to make those changes and guess who pays - the consumer.
The insulin example is a good one - my next shot is in about an hour.
Many anti GMO people lambaste Monsanto because of their efforts with GMO products. Well I have traveled a lot in tropical countries and a staple food in those places is yams/sweet potatoes because regular potatoes will not survive in the tropics. A blight hit tropical yams/sweet potatoes so Monsanto set about developing a GMO sweet potato that was resistant to this blight. Well Monsanto did not get a penny for this effort - yes tropical countries tend to be poor.
While traveling in the tropics, I saw first hand the Malaria scourge and investigated why some med was not developed to fight Malaria. Well turns out the big pharma's only do research that has a promise to make money for them. Every year, from half a million to a million people - mostly children die from Malaria.
Having worked for a consumer products company for years, when government labeling laws are changed - it takes money to make those changes and guess who pays - the consumer.
The insulin example is a good one - my next shot is in about an hour.
5
I realize many consumers would like to know but maybe they want to know if the food is produced in a union shop, if the work force is diverse, exactly where all the ingredients came from and so on. Labelling is about nutritional content and ingredients. There is widespread agreement that GMO ingredients are chemically identical and no different in safety and nutrition than non GMO ingredients. Much of our food already has GMO ingredients and that has been the case for decades. Labelling will only stigmatize a healthy product. I realize many people without evidence think otherwise but that is no way to make policy.
1
it has not been proven that gmo are safe
not even close
and how nice of this chap to allow us to find that on th label
his largess is truly kingly
not even close
and how nice of this chap to allow us to find that on th label
his largess is truly kingly
1
Every organically-grown piece of food you consume has been genetically modified from its original, natural version.
Scientists believe they have found the original grain that today's "wheat" comes from - and the DNA is almost completely different than when pre-agricultural humans found it 10,000 years ago.
Ditto rice, oranges, beef, chicken, pork, apples, celery - farmers practice genetic modification every year. Have been for 10,000 years.
Scientists believe they have found the original grain that today's "wheat" comes from - and the DNA is almost completely different than when pre-agricultural humans found it 10,000 years ago.
Ditto rice, oranges, beef, chicken, pork, apples, celery - farmers practice genetic modification every year. Have been for 10,000 years.
I do not want to have to use a device to scan a code just to be able to read about a product, it should be clearly printed and easy to read, no tiny print, no phone number to call, no website to log on to, etc....respect the customer's precious time and label your product boldly... if it's a product to be proud of say so clearly and why.
3
You make the case for consumer sovereignty in the world of imperfect information. I support your cause but I question the efficacy of the outcome.
The classic example is dolphin-safe tuna labeling. Yes, the industry adapted and changed in light of consumer conscience. However, do you feel better about the long term viability of the world's tuna fisheries as a result? How about the health concerns associated with greater tuna consumption?
I'm not sure any labeling will ever genuinely inform the user as to the full consequence of their purchase. The fallacy is one of the most obviously flawed assumptions within the realm of Keynesian economics. We assume everyone knows everything equally.
Worse: we assume they'll draw the correct conclusions from the information available. Even scientists debate what is "correct" in consumer outcomes. I'm sure a label in a supermarket will make it perfectly clear to everyone else.
The classic example is dolphin-safe tuna labeling. Yes, the industry adapted and changed in light of consumer conscience. However, do you feel better about the long term viability of the world's tuna fisheries as a result? How about the health concerns associated with greater tuna consumption?
I'm not sure any labeling will ever genuinely inform the user as to the full consequence of their purchase. The fallacy is one of the most obviously flawed assumptions within the realm of Keynesian economics. We assume everyone knows everything equally.
Worse: we assume they'll draw the correct conclusions from the information available. Even scientists debate what is "correct" in consumer outcomes. I'm sure a label in a supermarket will make it perfectly clear to everyone else.
1
I think it's actually premature to know whether such products are really safe as there can be no studies of their longterm effects yet. And least that's what common sense tells me. Another thing is common sense is the to follow the money when something is so relentlessly promoted and pushed on people like GMO food and right there is plenty of incentive for proclaiming safety in favor of profits. In other words: we don't have proof but we surely have plenty of motive for criminal misbehavior here!
61
20 years isn't enough for you Heinrich? We all have been eating GMO food components for that long (you too Heinrich, whether you know it or not). And in that period there hasn't been a single scientifically verified case of it causing any harm.
2
How longterm are you talking about? We've been eating GM foods for twenty years, with no adverse health consequences whatsoever.
We've had hundreds, if not thousands, of years of exposure to human-engineered foods - starting with the first cross-bred grains, when the humans doing the breeding had absolutely no clue what they were doing. Not to mention the effect on the environment from the intentional introduction of non-native species, often to the detriment of local flora and fauna. The difference now is that the modifications are deliberate and specific - and then tested to death. Sounds like a better approach, and I'm all for it.
1
The debate about GMO's and Biotech in agriculture is a debate about an entire system of farming, food production and distribution. So many people pro and con try to reduce it to safety, labeling, nutrition, patents or something else. It's really a whole package of production and distribution that people like myself are against. We all need to 'get back to the garden'. There may be nothing really wrong with a GM organism itself, it's the system that is literally killing the planet and making everybody sick.
1
What total nonsense! Without modern agriculture the world would be unable to feed today's population let alone the projected future one
1
Issue is- if we all "got back to the garden" millions upon millions of people would starve. It is GMOs that will be helping feed the planet when there isn't enough room to grow food for an ever growing world population. If you are rich enough to even know the term "GMO" you are probably educated enough to read about how to create a world where everyone has enough to eat. With privilege comes responsibility. Be responsible.
1
Jason, I'm glad you "believe" GMOs are safe. There are still people around who believe the earth is flat.
I'm especially glad you support labling them, so that those of us who don't share your confidence can avoid them. You must know of the law of unintended consequences: history is littered with examples of well-intended innovations that turned out to have unfortunate consequences...that "no one could have predicted."
Most people think of Shelly's "Frankensrein" as a horror story. But on closer examination it's really more of a warning about scientific hubris--a scientific horror story about mankind's tendency to screw things up, again and again, through our unconscious arrogance.
The biblical parable about Pandora's Box is another such warning: there are things which, once taken out of the box, can't be crammed back in. Nuclear weapons are the most notorious example.
Indigenous people accept the need to adapt to their environment. We "Civilized" people demand that the environment adapt itself to US...and are then condemned to forever having to adapt and re-adapt to the CHANGES we've made to our environment!
When we start messing with the basic building blocks of Nature--changing the food supply, changing the SEED supply (talking to YOU, Monsanto), we are playing God...without the infinite wisdom of the Creator.
To paraphrase the humorous definition of an optimist, we jump off a ten story building, and as we pass the third floor, tells ourselves, "So far, so good!"
I'm especially glad you support labling them, so that those of us who don't share your confidence can avoid them. You must know of the law of unintended consequences: history is littered with examples of well-intended innovations that turned out to have unfortunate consequences...that "no one could have predicted."
Most people think of Shelly's "Frankensrein" as a horror story. But on closer examination it's really more of a warning about scientific hubris--a scientific horror story about mankind's tendency to screw things up, again and again, through our unconscious arrogance.
The biblical parable about Pandora's Box is another such warning: there are things which, once taken out of the box, can't be crammed back in. Nuclear weapons are the most notorious example.
Indigenous people accept the need to adapt to their environment. We "Civilized" people demand that the environment adapt itself to US...and are then condemned to forever having to adapt and re-adapt to the CHANGES we've made to our environment!
When we start messing with the basic building blocks of Nature--changing the food supply, changing the SEED supply (talking to YOU, Monsanto), we are playing God...without the infinite wisdom of the Creator.
To paraphrase the humorous definition of an optimist, we jump off a ten story building, and as we pass the third floor, tells ourselves, "So far, so good!"
4
OK .... but please ... Pandora's box is not biblical.
1
"Bioengineered food products are safe. So why do we try to hide the facts about them?"
To be honest, it doesn't matter to me whether they're safe or not. I'd rather not eat bioengineered anything, much for the same reasons I choose not to use pharmaceutical drugs, even though I'm assured of their safety too.
To be honest, it doesn't matter to me whether they're safe or not. I'd rather not eat bioengineered anything, much for the same reasons I choose not to use pharmaceutical drugs, even though I'm assured of their safety too.
7
Well Lippity, that means you basically can't eat! Virtually every prepared food on the market has GMO components.
4
There are plenty of "prepared" foods with the non-GMO label.
Enough with the smart label propaganda. They really are determined to mask the "contains genetically modified ingredients" words with a QPC code. Not like it's a surprise that they continue to be unscrupulous and shady. The consumer should not need a smart phone to read a product label. No, no, no, no, NO.
5
How about a label that says "GMO, FDA approved" ?
The public that has close to no education in genetics cannot make a personal opinion on the safety of a product. That is what our public safety organizations such as the FDA were created for. Just labeling "GMO" does not inform about safety. This would not be the first time we put safety information on products, from baby cribs to most household products, etc. etc. Why make an exception for GMOs?
The public that has close to no education in genetics cannot make a personal opinion on the safety of a product. That is what our public safety organizations such as the FDA were created for. Just labeling "GMO" does not inform about safety. This would not be the first time we put safety information on products, from baby cribs to most household products, etc. etc. Why make an exception for GMOs?
2
But then, why make an exception for non GMOs? GMOs are some of the most well-studied components of our food system. Organic pesticides are considerably less well-studied. I'd rather know when those are FDA-approved.
1
It's not that GMO's are unhealthy to consume. It's their very existence that is a potential danger. They are a threat to biodiversity when they replace beneficial organisms with those that can only reproduce with high tech intervention that's only available at a price. There are many great applications for this technology, but corporations aren't the best judge when self-interest is involved.
8
Yet another flat earther!
1
That's not unique to GMOs. All crops replace beneficial organisms. Most crops require high tech intervention to survive and reproduce.
1
There is nothing better way to be able to shed preconceived ideas than by education, and be open-minded to an ever-changing world, by embracing science, and the technology based on it. Genetic engineering may be out of our daily understanding, unless we dedicate time and effort to study it, but empiric observation thus far seems to support the use of G.M.O. technology; its labels in display may, eventually, become unnecessary, if the practice becomes widespread and routine, with no harmful effects to speak of.
2
GMO technology is all about one super famous herbicide and chemical-industrial farming. Take a few gallons of that herbicide home and put it under your dinner table and share the toxins gassing off through the plastic container with your family for a few weeks.
Then tell me how safe you think it is. Think about the people who use these chemicals on a regular basis, think about the run off from the millions of super famous herbicide acres, think about the animals, and think about the micro-organisms that make dirt into soil. We are now in the early stages of turning away from chemical, industrial farming. GMOs have helped highlight how destructive Agri-Business as been to the farming sector. GMOs are about profit not food.
Then tell me how safe you think it is. Think about the people who use these chemicals on a regular basis, think about the run off from the millions of super famous herbicide acres, think about the animals, and think about the micro-organisms that make dirt into soil. We are now in the early stages of turning away from chemical, industrial farming. GMOs have helped highlight how destructive Agri-Business as been to the farming sector. GMOs are about profit not food.
1
Interestingly, I have an auto immune disease, and no one in my ascending generations ever had it. I was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam, and now the VA has determined that auto immune diseases are linked to Agent Orange. I was exposed in 1969-70, and it hit me 5 years ago. My concern with GMO products is that it may take a generation before we will know the effects. They "are safe" the industry tells us, but they can only determine that in the short term (I'm a scientist, I get that). In 30 years it may be too late.
21
Almost every scientific advancement I can think of has immeasurably improved the lives of humankind (or at least the privileged among humankind), and has inadvertently reeked havoc on the environment. In the grand scheme of human existence and the corresponding damage to the world we inhabit, GMO's are pretty small potatoes. We all have to pick our battles - I guess for some, this is theirs.
1
I strongly favor GMO labeling. Maybe if the facts around what scientists are really doing with GMO plants that we consume are out in the open we, the consuming public can make responsible choices. Plants that thrive because the are drought resistant or immune to a fungus have shown great promise for increasing food production.
But 97% of of GMO agricultural activity is designed to make plants resistant to herbicides and it is those herbicides, particularly glyphosate that the WHO declared to be a probable carcinogen. I have no less a right to know if that's in a food product than I do to know if a product contain peanuts, which i may have an allergic reaction to.
But 97% of of GMO agricultural activity is designed to make plants resistant to herbicides and it is those herbicides, particularly glyphosate that the WHO declared to be a probable carcinogen. I have no less a right to know if that's in a food product than I do to know if a product contain peanuts, which i may have an allergic reaction to.
12
In some ways this articled is refreshing. But hardly all of it.
Admit it - 98% of GMO's actually produced are for the purpose of making them glyphosate tolerant. That word "glyphosate" is never mentioned.
The red herring "insulin" is produced quite differently than GMO corn.
Another red herring "Yellow Rice' is not produced commercially anywhere and the study "proving" it efficacy was fraudulent and as withdrawn.
The bottom line is that tests for GMO safety have been short term and done by the vendors - who have every reason to hide results they don't like.
Any blanket statements about GMO safety are just plain false. If and until proper testing is done they should not be allowed in the food stream
Some of the neere GMO methods are easy too easy. Imagine hat teh Noth Koreans could do with Anthrax or Bird Flu. Bingo a virulent disease with no cures and prevention.
Admit it - 98% of GMO's actually produced are for the purpose of making them glyphosate tolerant. That word "glyphosate" is never mentioned.
The red herring "insulin" is produced quite differently than GMO corn.
Another red herring "Yellow Rice' is not produced commercially anywhere and the study "proving" it efficacy was fraudulent and as withdrawn.
The bottom line is that tests for GMO safety have been short term and done by the vendors - who have every reason to hide results they don't like.
Any blanket statements about GMO safety are just plain false. If and until proper testing is done they should not be allowed in the food stream
Some of the neere GMO methods are easy too easy. Imagine hat teh Noth Koreans could do with Anthrax or Bird Flu. Bingo a virulent disease with no cures and prevention.
8
"So why do we try to hide the facts about them (GMOs)?"
Gee, the inherent dishonest amorality of capitalism would be my guess.
Gee, the inherent dishonest amorality of capitalism would be my guess.
8
Most people who support labeling of "genetically engineered" food (and most food is) believe that it will lead to the public rejecting them. In reality I agree with Mr. Kelly: Instead it will and should lead to greater acceptance.
5
It's ridiculous that people won't eat GMO but they will eat a sausage wrapped in a chocolate chip pancake.
2
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye have written books, produced videos explaining that genetically modified organisms have been around for centuries!
Farmers have been crossing beef cattle, dairy cattle, corn, wheat since agriculture began! They looked for hardier species, plants that weren’t affected by insects, increased yield per acre in a world now populated by 7.2 BILLION people.
Now scientists can do even better selection at the genetic level. We would have lost all papayas in Hawai’i if they hadn’t modified papayas to resist “ring virus.” Children in Africa were becoming blind by little access to Vitamin A. So bananas were modified to produce 30 times the amount of Vitamin A...and we aren’t seeing this blindness.
We are over-fishing or destroying rivers and streams, so we modified salmon to grow faster, and be able to live in polluted waters. Every genetically modified organism has made that species BETTER.
Corn used to be multi-colored (as you see for Halloween decorations) but it wasn’t sweet or tender. Scientists modified corn to be white or yellow, larger tender kernels that are sweet.
I grew up on a farm when we crossed beef cattle to get better tasting, faster growing cattle, with more meat on each steer. We grew hybrid corn, soybeans, alfalfa. My first college degree was genetics.
I can’t even comprehend how something couldn’t be “safe” if it were modified? What does that even mean?
GMOs are keeping the world from starvation. They’re a GOOD thing!
Farmers have been crossing beef cattle, dairy cattle, corn, wheat since agriculture began! They looked for hardier species, plants that weren’t affected by insects, increased yield per acre in a world now populated by 7.2 BILLION people.
Now scientists can do even better selection at the genetic level. We would have lost all papayas in Hawai’i if they hadn’t modified papayas to resist “ring virus.” Children in Africa were becoming blind by little access to Vitamin A. So bananas were modified to produce 30 times the amount of Vitamin A...and we aren’t seeing this blindness.
We are over-fishing or destroying rivers and streams, so we modified salmon to grow faster, and be able to live in polluted waters. Every genetically modified organism has made that species BETTER.
Corn used to be multi-colored (as you see for Halloween decorations) but it wasn’t sweet or tender. Scientists modified corn to be white or yellow, larger tender kernels that are sweet.
I grew up on a farm when we crossed beef cattle to get better tasting, faster growing cattle, with more meat on each steer. We grew hybrid corn, soybeans, alfalfa. My first college degree was genetics.
I can’t even comprehend how something couldn’t be “safe” if it were modified? What does that even mean?
GMOs are keeping the world from starvation. They’re a GOOD thing!
4
I have been in the farm seed business almost 40 years. When Round Up soybeans hit the market it changed everything. Now farmers only needed to use ONE herbicide to control weeds. Today Round Up is used world wide on more food crops than any other herbicide. Round up is labeled as a desiccant for sugar cane, oats, wheat, barley, rye almost any crop you want to kill to dry down quicker. Then these crops enter the food system sometimes only days after been sprayed with Round Up. This is the problem.
12
Dear Mr. Kelly,
Please, please, please, don't allow GMO's in Hostess Cupcakes, okay?
They really don't need it!
Please, please, please, don't allow GMO's in Hostess Cupcakes, okay?
They really don't need it!
What a refreshing take, to support transparency, respect a spectrum of views, and accommodate valid concerns about the future. Thank you for providing a blueprint for the way forward for the safe consumption of GMOs.
2
Food doesn't come out of a box. It's always about convenience in this country. Everything has to be fast. Americans need to be re-educated on what and how to eat. GMO's need to be listed and marked on the food so we can have a choice. Sugar needs to be cut back in most of the foods. Sugar is the new tobacco..
There already is a non-GMO label - it is called "organic".
I can think of three reasons to oppose mandatory labeling:
1) Labeling implies there is a risk associated with GMOs, yet no risk has been found after 20 years of GMOs in our food system.
2) Labeling could increase food costs as a separate supply chain must be maintained and verified. Many low income people would be forced to pay higher food prices for something for which there is no scientific support.
3) In many cases, GMOs are actually better for the environment. GMOs have led to reductions in insecticide use and an increase in no till agriculture which has enormous environmental benefits. GMOs have also led to a significant reduction in the use of atrazine, an herbicide that is bad for the environment.
Policy should be based on science. The science says GMOs are safe.
I can think of three reasons to oppose mandatory labeling:
1) Labeling implies there is a risk associated with GMOs, yet no risk has been found after 20 years of GMOs in our food system.
2) Labeling could increase food costs as a separate supply chain must be maintained and verified. Many low income people would be forced to pay higher food prices for something for which there is no scientific support.
3) In many cases, GMOs are actually better for the environment. GMOs have led to reductions in insecticide use and an increase in no till agriculture which has enormous environmental benefits. GMOs have also led to a significant reduction in the use of atrazine, an herbicide that is bad for the environment.
Policy should be based on science. The science says GMOs are safe.
8
Thank-you, sir for your well-considered discussion.
3
Obvious. Transparency should rule (almost) everywhere: finance, food labeling, hospital surgery outcomes, whatever. Enable consumers.
8
Indeed. The issue is choice for the consumer. There is nothing the Monsantos of the world would like better than to control food production for the planet. If that happens, what would/could follow? Soylent Green?
It's pretty simple. Without GMOs which have been around for decades, and are likely prevalent in your diet whether you know it or not, millions of people would have starved over the years. They've repeatedly proven to be safe. There's a great Scientific American article on GMOs from a few years ago that synthesizes info from many research papers. I don't understand how people who understand nothing of the science of this kind of stuff have the audacity to claim they have a clue what they're talking about. Just like how republicans irrationally attack the idea of global warming, liberals tend to irrationally attack GMOs. Without GMOs your food would be a lot more expensive and no more safe.
7
I believe that, properly used, GMO can be safe and would be, in many cases, a preferable alternative to use of, say, chemical insecticides. But I think that GMO should be used only when it benefits the public and the environment... Not simply to generate profits for a big corporation.
I also believe in the public's right to know what is or is not in their food. The fight over the labeling of dairy products to let the public know whether the cows have been injected with growth hormone or not is a case in point. The hormone was only being added to increase milk yields, it did not produce better milk. And the initially successful attempts by industry to keep dairies from labeling the milk made it clear that the state and federal regulators were more interested serving big agribusiness than in the consumers' best interests. Fortunately the public's right to know won out in that case but as is evident with the GMO debate; the battle continues.
I also believe in the public's right to know what is or is not in their food. The fight over the labeling of dairy products to let the public know whether the cows have been injected with growth hormone or not is a case in point. The hormone was only being added to increase milk yields, it did not produce better milk. And the initially successful attempts by industry to keep dairies from labeling the milk made it clear that the state and federal regulators were more interested serving big agribusiness than in the consumers' best interests. Fortunately the public's right to know won out in that case but as is evident with the GMO debate; the battle continues.
3
I've been follow the whole GMO controversy for many years, and having some background in biology I find that most of the hysteria about GMO crops has been fueled and encouraged by the organic foods industry, and yes, it is an industry. Also true is the fact that organic crops are much more expensive to produce, are not as productive per acre as conventionally-raised crops, and therefore, are much more expensive to the consumer. Popularity of organic food has exploded, but but this growth may have reached a leveling off, as many people simply cannot afford them. This creates a dilemma for the organic industry.
How can they continue growth in their industry unless they can convince the general public that conventionally-grown crops are unsafe to consume and therefore the only alternative is to pay way more and eat organic. What has developed is a "parallel universe" with organic adherants becoming "true believers" who won't change their opinions despite massive amounts of contrary evidence from the scientific world, much like deniers of global warming. Requiring mandatory labeling of GMO ingredients will do nothing but foster fears in the public about the safety of products that were extensively researched before being released to the agriculture industry. So quit worrying and just eat your vegetables, chosing the best value your budget can afford.
How can they continue growth in their industry unless they can convince the general public that conventionally-grown crops are unsafe to consume and therefore the only alternative is to pay way more and eat organic. What has developed is a "parallel universe" with organic adherants becoming "true believers" who won't change their opinions despite massive amounts of contrary evidence from the scientific world, much like deniers of global warming. Requiring mandatory labeling of GMO ingredients will do nothing but foster fears in the public about the safety of products that were extensively researched before being released to the agriculture industry. So quit worrying and just eat your vegetables, chosing the best value your budget can afford.
81
Do you really believe the public is too stupid to understand a reasoned argument? If so, just give up. Actually, GMO producers have caused their own problem.
Withholding information is the surest way to reinforce that there is something wrong with GMOs. If people are ignorant about the safety and benefits of GMOs, it is because the GMO industry has tried to hide instead of marketing their products effectively.
The organic industry has gained simply by saying their products are free of GMOs without needing to say they are inferior. The absence of information to the contrary is the key to their success.
Why don't food producers advertise the benefits of GMO? Until they do, consumers will continue to assume the dark side.
Withholding information is the surest way to reinforce that there is something wrong with GMOs. If people are ignorant about the safety and benefits of GMOs, it is because the GMO industry has tried to hide instead of marketing their products effectively.
The organic industry has gained simply by saying their products are free of GMOs without needing to say they are inferior. The absence of information to the contrary is the key to their success.
Why don't food producers advertise the benefits of GMO? Until they do, consumers will continue to assume the dark side.
2
Glad to see that someone has caught that this is not a contest between Big Business/Evil Science and the poor, truth-telling crusader, but actually two lucrative industries trying to sell competing products. Proponents of GMOs admit the business aspects, but the anti-GMO crowd are completely dishonest about their interests.
1
Paul,
You could not be more wrong.
GMO advocates who oppose labeling propose that consumer buy organic foods as a safe bet if indeed consumers wish a certain alternative to unlabeledGMO foods.
As for your "parallel universe" comment, I have met any pro-labeling advocates who are also "deniers of global warming." Quite the opposite, in fact.
The Republican majority that keeps on pushing the aptly nicknamed "deny Americans the Right to Know" Act are the very folks who love GNO technology but deny anthropogenic climate change.
I have to wonder about the NYT's vetting process. Why on earth has it chosen your non-sensical comment as one of its "Picks"?
You could not be more wrong.
GMO advocates who oppose labeling propose that consumer buy organic foods as a safe bet if indeed consumers wish a certain alternative to unlabeledGMO foods.
As for your "parallel universe" comment, I have met any pro-labeling advocates who are also "deniers of global warming." Quite the opposite, in fact.
The Republican majority that keeps on pushing the aptly nicknamed "deny Americans the Right to Know" Act are the very folks who love GNO technology but deny anthropogenic climate change.
I have to wonder about the NYT's vetting process. Why on earth has it chosen your non-sensical comment as one of its "Picks"?
3
I'm for GMO labeling because I'm in favor of people empowered to make their own decisions about it. I don't personally care if the food I buy is GMO or not, but since other people do what is the harm in letting them decide for themselves?
99
So basically label everything that is GMO since 99.9% of all pharmaceuticals and foodstuff contain GMO in one form or another!
The harm is not that people choose what their own food should be. There is certainly no harm in that. The harm comes when people with an irrational agenda use poorly framed labeling as a propaganda tool to wage an dishonest ideological war against a true advance in feeding the world.
29
Yes Andy Sandfoss. Ignorance is bliss, and the less people know, the better. The food manufacturers certainly know better than we do, and we have no right to encourage better food production methods by where we spend our money.
2
Glyphosate kills bacteria. When it is sprayed on the food we eat it kills the beneficial bacteria in our gut. So, your comment that GMO food is safe is false. I would say "it depends" on how it was modified. All things exist on a spedtrum. There are very few absolutes.
8
Monsanto's War. They continue poisoning food, us and the planet.
7
I have no doubt the GMO foods are safe just as I have no doubt the pork is safe to eat. That does not however give me the right to secretly feed pork to a Jew or Muslim. Food is a cultural and emotional experience and the failure to recognize that is what has created GMO pushback . I think we all have a right to know what we are eating and make our own choices about what we value. Old mentality commodity farmers fear GMO labels because the expect it to hurt profits but smart young farmers see labels as profit opportunity and in the end GMO labels will probably bring more total dollars into the national farm gate and not affect the price of GMO commodity corn and beans one whit. Why are so many Farm Bureau types so upset at the thought that consumers are willing to spend more for their products? No other industry wants to sell cheaper goods.
4
The environmental impact of GMO food production cannot be ignored. "RoundUp Ready" corn for example has greatly increased the use of glyphosate in fields. The result is an even more barren mono-cultural dead zone devoid of weeds and grasses. That's great for yields and ease of harvest but very bad for biodiversity. Since humans control and shape ever more land area, biodiversity on those lands becomes more important.
Monarch butterflies are disappearing with the milkweed eradicated by the massive use of herbicides. We take notice of iconic species such as the butterfly but it would be foolish to believe they are the only victims. Other holes are surely being punched into the web of biodiversity by eliminating food sources: bugs eat plants, birds eat bugs, birds eat other birds, foxes eat birds ... and so on up the food chain.
Using food production techniques that benefit one species (us) often comes at a cost to other species. Those costs, or benefits where present, need to be carefully considered before patting ourselves on the back for increased yields.
Monarch butterflies are disappearing with the milkweed eradicated by the massive use of herbicides. We take notice of iconic species such as the butterfly but it would be foolish to believe they are the only victims. Other holes are surely being punched into the web of biodiversity by eliminating food sources: bugs eat plants, birds eat bugs, birds eat other birds, foxes eat birds ... and so on up the food chain.
Using food production techniques that benefit one species (us) often comes at a cost to other species. Those costs, or benefits where present, need to be carefully considered before patting ourselves on the back for increased yields.
12
Big ag companies, with their millions to spend on PR and lobbyists, have succeeded in casting GMOs as the savior of the human race. The reality:
Most GMO crops, like corn and soybeans and canola, are engineered by injecting genes from the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis to produce an insecticide in the cells of the plant. This government-regulated insecticide is known as Bt toxin. When you eat foods made from GMO crops, you are eating this insecticide.
Some argue that this insecticide is used by organic farmers. True. But it's applied on the outside of plants and quickly dissipates. That's not the same as eating it. There's an increasing body of evidence that BT toxin is harmful to at least some people's digestive systems. I'd challenge anyone to buy and eat BT toxin.
Most GMO crops are also engineered to be immune to weed killers like glyphosate (used in RoundUp), and/or 2,4-D (used in Agent Orange), so much more can be dumped on farm fields. These toxic chemicals end up in the soil and water, the GMO crops you eat, and everyone's bodies. There's a growing body of evidence that glyphosate leads to a variety of health-related problems in potentially many people.
The FDA, arguably under the control of big ag and their lobbyists, has NEVER required INDEPENDENT, LONG-TERM testing of GMOs. They have NOT been proven safe. That is why 64 countries, which subscribe to the highly rational notion of the "precautionary principle," ban or require labeling of foods containing GMOs.
Most GMO crops, like corn and soybeans and canola, are engineered by injecting genes from the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis to produce an insecticide in the cells of the plant. This government-regulated insecticide is known as Bt toxin. When you eat foods made from GMO crops, you are eating this insecticide.
Some argue that this insecticide is used by organic farmers. True. But it's applied on the outside of plants and quickly dissipates. That's not the same as eating it. There's an increasing body of evidence that BT toxin is harmful to at least some people's digestive systems. I'd challenge anyone to buy and eat BT toxin.
Most GMO crops are also engineered to be immune to weed killers like glyphosate (used in RoundUp), and/or 2,4-D (used in Agent Orange), so much more can be dumped on farm fields. These toxic chemicals end up in the soil and water, the GMO crops you eat, and everyone's bodies. There's a growing body of evidence that glyphosate leads to a variety of health-related problems in potentially many people.
The FDA, arguably under the control of big ag and their lobbyists, has NEVER required INDEPENDENT, LONG-TERM testing of GMOs. They have NOT been proven safe. That is why 64 countries, which subscribe to the highly rational notion of the "precautionary principle," ban or require labeling of foods containing GMOs.
11
Thank you for one of the most well-articulated comments on this article.
I can understand the reluctance of manufacturers who have been demonized for just about everything these days (and not always justifiably). There are two sides to every coin. And relying on the consumer to make informed choices is as risky as relying on Republican primary voters to do the same - sometimes voters and consumers make poor choices, and good people suffer as a result.
But this is a democracy, and right or wrong, the voter and the consumer are the final arbiters of who holds office and who buys what. Whether voters or consumers make good decisions or not is the business of no one but the individual. Any restrictions on those choices - whether voter restrictions or information restrictions via incomplete labelling - is inherently counterproductive to that goal.
In simpler terms, manufacturers who are opposed to genetic labelling are like mothers who forbid their daughters from seeing that naughty boy down the road. The mothers are virtually guaranteeing that their daughters will want to find out what's up with that bad boy - and the manufacturers are virtually guaranteeing that public mistrust of GMO's will grow.
It's human nature, guys. Hide something from us and we're either intrigued or terrified. But we're definitely not given the tools to make informed choices.
But this is a democracy, and right or wrong, the voter and the consumer are the final arbiters of who holds office and who buys what. Whether voters or consumers make good decisions or not is the business of no one but the individual. Any restrictions on those choices - whether voter restrictions or information restrictions via incomplete labelling - is inherently counterproductive to that goal.
In simpler terms, manufacturers who are opposed to genetic labelling are like mothers who forbid their daughters from seeing that naughty boy down the road. The mothers are virtually guaranteeing that their daughters will want to find out what's up with that bad boy - and the manufacturers are virtually guaranteeing that public mistrust of GMO's will grow.
It's human nature, guys. Hide something from us and we're either intrigued or terrified. But we're definitely not given the tools to make informed choices.
1
Love Mr. Kelly's sly comment that 88% of scientist agree. Touche'
The author makes a blanket statement that foods with bioengineered ingredients are safe. We hear this constantly. What we don't hear about are independent third party safety tests. Repeating genetically engineered food is safe over and over doesn't make it safe. No matter how many times you say it. It is a good brainwashing tool, but it doesn't make the products any safer.
8
Human hybridizing of crops and animals has been going on for at least 10,000 years. It has always consisted of cross-breeding closely related strains of the same species (members of the same species are, by definition, close enough genetically to interbreed).
GMO is a VERY different phenomenon. It involves taking DNA from unrelated species and combining them to make new species. It is disingenuous to say that genetically engineered food is completely safe as the technology is much too new for us to understand its long-term effects on our food supply. Humans' long-term reactions to foods with such disparate genetic structures are not totally predictable, and the effect on our species generations from now are even less predictable once GMO foods get into nature. In a study done a number of years ago, a GMO variety of corn, bred to be resistant to a particular insect pest, was engineered and a single experimental field was planted. Within a year, corn grown from what was thought to be conventional seed in mountainside terraces deep in Mexico tested positive for the altered genes. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there is no putting it back.
The movement toward GMO foods is being driven by the need to feed a world where humans are outbreeding our natural food sources. We have over 7 billion people on a planet that MIGHT be able to support 4 billion. Of curse, animals bred to grow larger and come to market sooner is motivated by greed as well as humanitarianism.
GMO is a VERY different phenomenon. It involves taking DNA from unrelated species and combining them to make new species. It is disingenuous to say that genetically engineered food is completely safe as the technology is much too new for us to understand its long-term effects on our food supply. Humans' long-term reactions to foods with such disparate genetic structures are not totally predictable, and the effect on our species generations from now are even less predictable once GMO foods get into nature. In a study done a number of years ago, a GMO variety of corn, bred to be resistant to a particular insect pest, was engineered and a single experimental field was planted. Within a year, corn grown from what was thought to be conventional seed in mountainside terraces deep in Mexico tested positive for the altered genes. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there is no putting it back.
The movement toward GMO foods is being driven by the need to feed a world where humans are outbreeding our natural food sources. We have over 7 billion people on a planet that MIGHT be able to support 4 billion. Of curse, animals bred to grow larger and come to market sooner is motivated by greed as well as humanitarianism.
4
I, like Mr. Kelly, am personally involved with a company based on a GMO product. I have also, like Mr. Kelly, come around to his view about labeling & have publicly cited Campbell Soups move as a positive step for the education of the public about GMOs.
You see that if such labeling is truthful, virtually every compounded food sold will have to be labeled as containing GMO components. It's that pervasive. Indeed billions of humans have consumed billions of tons of GMO produced foods over the last 20 years & so far there has not been a single scientifically verified case of anyone being harmed from so doing.
On the other hand, the significantly higher yields produced by using GMO seeds has meant that more people are better fed than every using less arable land. What's wrong with that you eco-activists?
You see that if such labeling is truthful, virtually every compounded food sold will have to be labeled as containing GMO components. It's that pervasive. Indeed billions of humans have consumed billions of tons of GMO produced foods over the last 20 years & so far there has not been a single scientifically verified case of anyone being harmed from so doing.
On the other hand, the significantly higher yields produced by using GMO seeds has meant that more people are better fed than every using less arable land. What's wrong with that you eco-activists?
5
I fully understand all the "benefits" of GMO crops - and basically all of the benefits increase profitability of the large agribusiness that produce and sell them.
While the end products (GMO corn, GMO soybeans, etc) may be relatively safe, the real issue to me is the chemicals the foods have been doused with to remain resistant to pesticides.
Here's what I would love to see: How about the pesticides used to grow crops are labeled? Would you readily select an ear of corn if it says on the label it has been doused with carcinogenic chemicals when one next to it just says: ingredients: corn, water, sunshine.
While the end products (GMO corn, GMO soybeans, etc) may be relatively safe, the real issue to me is the chemicals the foods have been doused with to remain resistant to pesticides.
Here's what I would love to see: How about the pesticides used to grow crops are labeled? Would you readily select an ear of corn if it says on the label it has been doused with carcinogenic chemicals when one next to it just says: ingredients: corn, water, sunshine.
5
I am not fundamentally against transgenic ingredients used in food. I am against toxic elements introduced into our food (glyosphate) either through genetics or topically. My primary concern, however, is the unintended consequences of GMOs loose in nature. First-order effects include poisoning insects and birds. Second-order effects may be the creation of highly-invasive species which threaten eco-systems.
111
Well, I have some good news for you: extensive testing has shown that any residual pesticides on foods are far below the acceptable daily intake limits, which are already quite conservatively set based on animal testing. You'd literally have to eat hundreds of pieces of produce per day to reach that limit (and you'd still see no effects from the pesticide residue).
2
there has not been extensive testing on glyphosate residue
2
The history of GE crops is very clear in reductions of insecticides (good for insects except the pest insect) and reductions in over herbicide use and switching to less environmentally harmful alternatives like glyphosate (look up @Wyoweeds) to learn about this transition. Two good reviews are "Impact of GE crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States"-National Academy of Sciences 2010 and "Planting the Future"-European Academies Science Advisory Council 2013. Both are available for free on-line
1
Some think GMO foods are save and others don't. The truth of the matter is there has not been enough long-term testing here in America to prove it one way or the other. It is very similar to what the Tobacco Industry did, where it bought off our government and its agencies, before all research was completed. the corporations even lied and covered up the truth. It is now impossible to reverse or prevent GMO crops from cross contaminating other crops (even organic) and the soil being killed of essential bacteria. It is destroying what made America great, its agriculture.
The EU Union will not allow GMO foods to be grow or imported into their country. They have done some of the long-term testing and are convinced they had to ban GMO.
It seems that we don't have the right to know what is in our food, however that is the norm when it comes to the greed and corruption in corporations.
The EU Union will not allow GMO foods to be grow or imported into their country. They have done some of the long-term testing and are convinced they had to ban GMO.
It seems that we don't have the right to know what is in our food, however that is the norm when it comes to the greed and corruption in corporations.
31
Actually, it is not at all similar to what the tobacco industry did. Scientists--and the general public--knew that tobacco was harmful, and so the tobacco industry was not successful in their efforts to make tobacco seem harmless.
The EU didn't do any more long term testing then the US did. Produce your data. They are just more agreeable to banning thing that people just don't like, for whatever reason.
Why is this a NYT pick? It's factually incorrect.
From "Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union" on Wikipedia:
As of September 2014, 49 GMO crops, consisting of eight GM cottons, 28 GM maizes, three GM oilseed rapes, seven GM soybeans, one GM sugar beet, one GM bacterial biomass, and one GM yeast biomass have been authorised.[3]
From "Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union" on Wikipedia:
As of September 2014, 49 GMO crops, consisting of eight GM cottons, 28 GM maizes, three GM oilseed rapes, seven GM soybeans, one GM sugar beet, one GM bacterial biomass, and one GM yeast biomass have been authorised.[3]
Irradiated foods are safe too... Often safer. Chipotle customers needlessly died for their opposition to irradiation. The same mindset exists for Gmos.
I fully concur - just label it. I am not against technology, hey I am an engineer. I just want to know what I put in my body.
4
Not so much GMOs that scare me; it's the torrents of toxic pesticides and herbicides they help unleash into our biosphere, food chain, and microbiomes.
9
The question is why are grains GMO? The main reason is so Roundup weed killer an be sprayed over the entire field and not kill the beans,oats,corn, etc. The problem is now, one is eating Roundup. From the early days plants have been genetically manipulated, it is the reason not the process that is the problem.
4
We are on the verge of a revolution in GMO through CRISPR-CAS9 technology.
We are ill prepared ethically and in terms of health, safety, and intellectual property "rights".
In the meantime, use of glyphosate (in Roundup herbicide) has increased (note, not decreased) by 15 times since the introduction of GMO crops. It's everywhere and in all of us. Weeds have become resistant (who would have predicted it?) so Roundup is being reformulated with 2,4-D (yes, that's agent Orange).
CRISPR will bring unimagined benefits and scary challenges. Technology has always been thus.
But let's get the massive use of herbicides out of the food system.
We are ill prepared ethically and in terms of health, safety, and intellectual property "rights".
In the meantime, use of glyphosate (in Roundup herbicide) has increased (note, not decreased) by 15 times since the introduction of GMO crops. It's everywhere and in all of us. Weeds have become resistant (who would have predicted it?) so Roundup is being reformulated with 2,4-D (yes, that's agent Orange).
CRISPR will bring unimagined benefits and scary challenges. Technology has always been thus.
But let's get the massive use of herbicides out of the food system.
2
Issac Asimov is purported to have said, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
How can Facts and Reason hope to prevail in competition with good ole emotional fear-mongering superstitions, fictionalized misconceptions, out right prevarications and a brick wall of ignorance...then there's "the politics" further mucking things about.
How can Facts and Reason hope to prevail in competition with good ole emotional fear-mongering superstitions, fictionalized misconceptions, out right prevarications and a brick wall of ignorance...then there's "the politics" further mucking things about.
1
The fact is there is no scientific evidence proving that GMO-produced foods are safe. When the FDA approved GMO corn they did so based on the fact that "it looks like corn." A true study would have to be multi-generational.
It is interesting to note that the health epidemics facing this country - obesity, diabetes and asthma - all food-related, began around the same time GMO foods were entering the markets.
It is interesting to note that the health epidemics facing this country - obesity, diabetes and asthma - all food-related, began around the same time GMO foods were entering the markets.
5
GMOs are just another kind of hybrid. We now know that genes jump from one organism to another in nature, no different than GMOs. Non-GMOs need the same testing that GMOs do. What we really need is a label that says "Resistant to pesticides: Roundup" and "Farmers cannot plant seeds," the real GMO evils.
1
The human species has been genetically modifying its food for 10,000 years. It's called "husbandry". Scientists now believe they have discovered the original grain of wheat, in the Middle East, which looks genetically nothing like what farmers plant today.
The oranges you buy? Genetically modified from their "natural" state. Same for your orange juice. Apples? Yup. Beef? Uh-huh. Chicken? Oh yeah.
By the author's logic, every food made from living cells (and that's pretty much everything you eat) should be labeled as GMO. Because they all have been.
Perhaps if the screamers in the anti-GMO-foods coalition (similar to the screamers in the anti-vaccination coalition) would shut up, the rest of us could decide for ourselves whether we want to eat GMO foods, labeled or not. Because let's face it: In the Internet Age, there are no manufacturing secrets. All it takes is time. So if one company "hides" the fact that its products contain GMO ingredients, all it will take is one lab analyzing the product and shouting about it to reveal the information.
The oranges you buy? Genetically modified from their "natural" state. Same for your orange juice. Apples? Yup. Beef? Uh-huh. Chicken? Oh yeah.
By the author's logic, every food made from living cells (and that's pretty much everything you eat) should be labeled as GMO. Because they all have been.
Perhaps if the screamers in the anti-GMO-foods coalition (similar to the screamers in the anti-vaccination coalition) would shut up, the rest of us could decide for ourselves whether we want to eat GMO foods, labeled or not. Because let's face it: In the Internet Age, there are no manufacturing secrets. All it takes is time. So if one company "hides" the fact that its products contain GMO ingredients, all it will take is one lab analyzing the product and shouting about it to reveal the information.
1
Whenever the subject of GMO's comes up I'm reminded of the cargo cults found on a Pacific Islands that worship airplanes as gods.
This banner is just as fallacious as the Christian Right and their "life begins at conception" meme.
we've been genetically engineering animals and plants for centuries, albeit the slow way by breeding for certain characteristics.
When will people stop cowering at the moon?
This banner is just as fallacious as the Christian Right and their "life begins at conception" meme.
we've been genetically engineering animals and plants for centuries, albeit the slow way by breeding for certain characteristics.
When will people stop cowering at the moon?
Do you know what a false analogy is? You should.
2
Thank you, Jason Kelly.
You are so right to begin your advocacy for labeling by noting the tremendously beneficial effects of genetically engineered insulin, which is perhaps the most important advance of the biotech industry but one seldom acknowledged by us pro-labelers.
However, you neglect to note that GE insulin had to undergo rigorous clinical trials before being approved by the FDA.
To the everlasting shame — and our mistrust — of the industry and the FDA, GE corn and GE soy never have been similarly scrutinized. In vitro studies yes, but no clinical studies, no cohort studies on living humans ingesting food products made with GE corn and soy, and no longitudinal studies.
You also fail to mention the deleterious effects of glyphosate, aka Roundup, a weed killer which GE corn, soy, beets and cotton are specially engineered to be impervious to. Last year the World Health Organization upgraded, if you will, glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen."
Nevertheless, your affirmation of Americans’ Right to Know and your support of the Vermont labeling law is a positive step; your highly honorable critique of that law’s exemptions is a helpful clarification in the interest of full disclosure.
There is now a GMO labeling bill in your Massachusetts legislature still struggling to make it past at least one more committee before being voted on by the entire House.
It too has many exemptions, but I will be sure to forward your op-ed to pertinent parties.
You are so right to begin your advocacy for labeling by noting the tremendously beneficial effects of genetically engineered insulin, which is perhaps the most important advance of the biotech industry but one seldom acknowledged by us pro-labelers.
However, you neglect to note that GE insulin had to undergo rigorous clinical trials before being approved by the FDA.
To the everlasting shame — and our mistrust — of the industry and the FDA, GE corn and GE soy never have been similarly scrutinized. In vitro studies yes, but no clinical studies, no cohort studies on living humans ingesting food products made with GE corn and soy, and no longitudinal studies.
You also fail to mention the deleterious effects of glyphosate, aka Roundup, a weed killer which GE corn, soy, beets and cotton are specially engineered to be impervious to. Last year the World Health Organization upgraded, if you will, glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen."
Nevertheless, your affirmation of Americans’ Right to Know and your support of the Vermont labeling law is a positive step; your highly honorable critique of that law’s exemptions is a helpful clarification in the interest of full disclosure.
There is now a GMO labeling bill in your Massachusetts legislature still struggling to make it past at least one more committee before being voted on by the entire House.
It too has many exemptions, but I will be sure to forward your op-ed to pertinent parties.
2
I am still on the fence about GMO foods. Recent history has demonstrated that man-made products can have unintended consequences. BPA plastics come to mind releasing artificial hormones as they breakdown.
Labeling is the final stage of how GMO produced products should be handled. How are GMO's being examined and tested at the development stages. This is a very young industry.
So questions come to mind - some GMO products might be fine and others not. What should be tested and how long should that be done.
I think, though I don't know, but bacteria modified to product rennet substitute seems likes what bacteria does but when genes are spliced in from animals into plants, that seems like it could potentially have more problems.
Nature has a way of biting back when humans fool with it. Diversity is important. The diseases and insects are part of nature. The reason they are causing so much damage is that industrial farming is an unnatural setting for nature. I think we should listen to what she is saying. GMO is not going to solve that problem and it might just exacerbate it.
Millions of people might be helped currently by the increased productivity GMO allows but what about 100 years from now. Will we be fighting a battle like the antibiotics development companies are doing.
Also, who will own all these GMOs. Will the cost of food go up as companies like Monsanto are sole producers of the organisms. More government intervention in our lives to control the corps.
Labeling is the final stage of how GMO produced products should be handled. How are GMO's being examined and tested at the development stages. This is a very young industry.
So questions come to mind - some GMO products might be fine and others not. What should be tested and how long should that be done.
I think, though I don't know, but bacteria modified to product rennet substitute seems likes what bacteria does but when genes are spliced in from animals into plants, that seems like it could potentially have more problems.
Nature has a way of biting back when humans fool with it. Diversity is important. The diseases and insects are part of nature. The reason they are causing so much damage is that industrial farming is an unnatural setting for nature. I think we should listen to what she is saying. GMO is not going to solve that problem and it might just exacerbate it.
Millions of people might be helped currently by the increased productivity GMO allows but what about 100 years from now. Will we be fighting a battle like the antibiotics development companies are doing.
Also, who will own all these GMOs. Will the cost of food go up as companies like Monsanto are sole producers of the organisms. More government intervention in our lives to control the corps.
2
There is not a piece of food that you eat which has not been altered by human genetic manipulation. That turkey you eat, the corn, the wheat, the beef - not one bit of it resembles what was originally found in nature. Man manipulates his environment and without that manipulation Malthusian catastrophes would have overcome us long ago.
My biggest beef (excuse the pun) with those who protest GMOs or for that matter vaccinations, are that they generally are people who want to pick and choose their science rather than stick to the scientific approach for all of their decision-making. Science is can be right on global warming but wrong on GMOs? Give me a break.
My biggest beef (excuse the pun) with those who protest GMOs or for that matter vaccinations, are that they generally are people who want to pick and choose their science rather than stick to the scientific approach for all of their decision-making. Science is can be right on global warming but wrong on GMOs? Give me a break.
172
Please don't equate not wanting to eat GMO food with being an anti-vaxxer. Nothing can be further from the truth. I believe in vaccines and am angry that parents are allowed to opt out of vaccinating their children. On the other hand, because I've spent time and energy researching GMO food I absolutely do not want to eat Monsanto's GMO corn, for example, which is heavily sprayed with the carcinogenic herbicide, RoundUp. If you want to eat that, fine, let me see what foods contain that corn and make my own decision not to eat it.
4
@Jeff
Those who object to GMOs are well aware that all our food is altered by "genetic manipulation," i.e., selective of breeding animals and plants for certain traits. That is not the same thing as genetic modification, where for example, animal genes are crossed with plant genes, something that could never occur in nature. GMO foods also contain a higher level of pesticides, a known cancer risk.
There is certainly no scientific agreement on the safety of GMOs: http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
Those who object to GMOs are well aware that all our food is altered by "genetic manipulation," i.e., selective of breeding animals and plants for certain traits. That is not the same thing as genetic modification, where for example, animal genes are crossed with plant genes, something that could never occur in nature. GMO foods also contain a higher level of pesticides, a known cancer risk.
There is certainly no scientific agreement on the safety of GMOs: http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
3
I could support labeling of GMO products and truly independent testing if the GMO opponents can accept rational and thoughtful studies and results. Unfortunately I see too many GMO opponents as self serving and shrill with positions unable and unwilling to accept outcomes that they do not agree. If both sides can sit down a understand each other that would help.
77
We need much better scientific education in this country, starting in grade school. All the labeling in the world won't make much difference if people don't know how to interpret it.
I'm all for labeling and I don't have blanket opposition to GMOs. We have a right to know what's in our food. But truly, I don't know that I have the knowledge (chemistry, biology) to really understand it, anyway.
I'm all for labeling and I don't have blanket opposition to GMOs. We have a right to know what's in our food. But truly, I don't know that I have the knowledge (chemistry, biology) to really understand it, anyway.
5
I think GMO food is safe. I just worry worry that one day there'll,be one that's not.
7
Safe? How can you make such a statement? Please, before saying such a thing, read a bit more, do some research and then, you will have a better idea of what is and what is not good for us. Everything that grows naturally is good for us, anything else is artificial. There are unknown or unquantifiable disfunction that a genetic alterations in food can cause on a human being.
The GMO labeling debate is just the tip of much larger issues such as the long-term physiological effects of recombinant ingredients, ones that the human body has never before ingested. The hope that these nutritional mysteries could be resolved by research is delusional. Commercial interests are adept at sponsoring and publicizing studies that buttress their bottom line, at persuading amenable scientists to propagandize their views to other scientists and to the public, at planting stories in the media and journals supporting their views and neutralizing those of opponents, all while steaming ahead with more technological "advances." In effect, commercial interests have deftly modified the traditional meaning of science and research. To be an informed consumer in this informationally contaminated environment requires a lot more time and energy than the majority of consumers are accustomed to investing.
70
I work in medicine and informed consent is the standard for all procedures and all things given to a patient. The same should be true for food, cooking ingredients, consumer pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, clothing, utensils and food storage containers without exception.
We live in a time when autoimmune diseases are much more common than they have ever been and one wonders if the barrage of chemicals - much less GMO "Frankenfoods" are possibly involved. The same is true of the widespread occourance of cancers. Again, from medicine, do no harm.
It is absolutely wrong to force feed through a veil of trade secrets, patents, intentionally not including the presence of genetically modified products in our food. Given the option, I will not ingest anything of that type without first knowing that it has been tested for safety with openly available and reviewed results from an independent source.
Further, release of GMO seeds and other life into nature without similar safeguards is totally irresponsible. Bayer, Monsanto and others should have never been allowed to release corrupted seeds into nature and should not be able to patent life itself. This is immoral on so many levels. No farmer should be compromised because patented frankenseeds ended up in his or her fields.
The decision to hide information is cowardly marketing decisions made by greedy business managers. Science should always be transparent. Always.
We live in a time when autoimmune diseases are much more common than they have ever been and one wonders if the barrage of chemicals - much less GMO "Frankenfoods" are possibly involved. The same is true of the widespread occourance of cancers. Again, from medicine, do no harm.
It is absolutely wrong to force feed through a veil of trade secrets, patents, intentionally not including the presence of genetically modified products in our food. Given the option, I will not ingest anything of that type without first knowing that it has been tested for safety with openly available and reviewed results from an independent source.
Further, release of GMO seeds and other life into nature without similar safeguards is totally irresponsible. Bayer, Monsanto and others should have never been allowed to release corrupted seeds into nature and should not be able to patent life itself. This is immoral on so many levels. No farmer should be compromised because patented frankenseeds ended up in his or her fields.
The decision to hide information is cowardly marketing decisions made by greedy business managers. Science should always be transparent. Always.
201
Agree 100%, David Gregory! Thanks.
1
I would attribute autoimmune disease and allergies increasing in incidence more to a cleaner home environment. The immune system needs to be well educated through exposure to a broad range of antigens to be able to hone its ability to decide what should and shouldn't be attacked. An uneducated immune system is more likely to make mistakes.
1
I am absolutely amazed to read such an unscientific opinion from someone "working in the medical field". It is full of conjecture and the type of fear mongering that gets people to stop being vaccinated or taking their medications. I thought the article was very well written and reasoned. Labeling, however, will meet the same issue that informed consent encounters, i.e. the lack of knowledge by the consenting party. As everyone knows who works in medicine (I do including being the chair of an IRB), there is no true consent when knowledge is asymmetrical. What is needed is better public education and reasoned discourse before rejecting potentially highly beneficial agents out of hand.
3
All G.M.O. products clearly do not have the same risk. However some genetically engineered products such as pesticide resistant corn, contain pesticides which are likely not beneficial to health. If pesticides at that those concentrations in food are safe, the scientists and corporate executives should add a similar amount to the other foods they consumes for years as volunteers in an ethical, long term experiment.
19
Actually, the pesticide in GMO plants is Bacillus thuringiensis. This is also a widely used pesticide in organic farming. So if you've been buying organic, you are probably already eating that pesticide.
2
As long as hysterical GMO opponents refer to such food as "Frankenfood" having such labeling becomes the proverbial "Scarlet Letter." Another reader wisely suggested that real third-party testing of GMO foods be done to determine and ensure their safety. Objective, independent testing may help to prevent the same kind of misinformation and frenzy that caused many parents to avoid having their children vaccinated to the detriment of many.
49
Nobody's keeping you from eating all the processed and genetically engineered food you want. People just want to be allowed to have access to the info when buying or boycotting such products, so they can make their own decisions.
Third-party testing DOES NOT and should not substitute for labeling, because third party testing is simply delegating the decision making to entities that may, or may not, be trustworthy, or be in a conflict of interest. Furthermore, empirical testing does not guarantee innocuity simply because nothing was found during the trial. Asbestos was deemed fine for decades, until it was eventually found to be the common denominator between numerous people sharing the same symptoms. A fixed-term, limited scope testing process wouldn't have determined asbestos to be sufficiently harmful to ban it.
So unless you're suggesting third party testing, say, on 2 groups of people (on newborns in the families of Monsanto and Bayer executives for the GMO-laden frankenstuff, and random civilians for the non-GMO foods), for a duration of 50 years (to assess the actual effects of GMO VS natural over a long enough time to actually be able to come to credible conclusions), then bogus third party testing over 6 months or 2 years is likely to be just that: bogus. Cancers, hormonal problems, and other possible outcomes of long term exposition to GMO foods will likely develop over time, perhaps decades; and will thus likely elude token third party testing.
Third-party testing DOES NOT and should not substitute for labeling, because third party testing is simply delegating the decision making to entities that may, or may not, be trustworthy, or be in a conflict of interest. Furthermore, empirical testing does not guarantee innocuity simply because nothing was found during the trial. Asbestos was deemed fine for decades, until it was eventually found to be the common denominator between numerous people sharing the same symptoms. A fixed-term, limited scope testing process wouldn't have determined asbestos to be sufficiently harmful to ban it.
So unless you're suggesting third party testing, say, on 2 groups of people (on newborns in the families of Monsanto and Bayer executives for the GMO-laden frankenstuff, and random civilians for the non-GMO foods), for a duration of 50 years (to assess the actual effects of GMO VS natural over a long enough time to actually be able to come to credible conclusions), then bogus third party testing over 6 months or 2 years is likely to be just that: bogus. Cancers, hormonal problems, and other possible outcomes of long term exposition to GMO foods will likely develop over time, perhaps decades; and will thus likely elude token third party testing.
3
this puts a bit too much faith in scientific research, in the short run
It's the long run that kills us
It's the long run that kills us
2
Again, a serious consequence is that once new GMO varieties get out into nature, there is no assurance that they will stay in their own fields. GMO species will do what natural species have done for millions of years - they will proliferate throughout the world's food supply. Do we then label ALL food as GMO just to be sure? Also, what happens when one GMO-altered strain of corn naturally hybridizes with a different GMO-altered strain - or a dozen different strains? What will these unplanned hybridizations produce? We are experimenting, primarily for financial gain, which often leads to rashness and early introduction with inadequate testing, on the food supply for the only planet we have to live on.
2
It's not that the GMO food is bad in itself, it's that seeds are modified to be unaffected by herbicides which then are widely sprayed and some have been carcinogenic. There have been significant increased in birth defects and cancers where herbicides have been used because the crops have been genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicides. Great crop production but at what cost to the local populations?
123
Make a comparison of your herbicides: atrazine vs glyphosate, including their residues in the food and environment. Then make your choice.
Please state your sources.
Please supply a reference from a reputable source for your claim regarding birth defects and GMOs.
2
Most of the new drugs are genetically modified substances and people applaud their discovery and use. A genetically modified plant is vilified. I find it odd that a genetically modified substance is injected into a person people find that ok but are freaked out by a genetically altered plant.
138
Mike, I just want to point out that the the debate about GMO's and Biotech in agriculture is a debate about an entire system of farming, food production and distribution. So many people pro and con try to reduce it to safety, nutrition, patents or something else. It's really a whole package of production and distribution that people like myself are against. We all need to 'get back to the garden'. There may be nothing really wrong with a GM organism itself, it's the system that is literally killing the planet and making everybody sick.
7
Don't be silly. There's a major difference between punctually ingesting specific chemicals to treat a disease (exposing oneself to a lesser evil (aggressive medications with possible side effects) in hopes of a greater good (recovery)), and exposing oneself - actually, in this case, sneakily being exposed for economic interests - over the long term. Take antiibiotics, for instance. Great to treat certain ailments for no longer than a week; will mess you up if you take them as a daily supplement.
63
Genetically modified medications can not proliferate into non-GMO drugs. GMO foods, on the other hand, inevitably will spread their new genes to neighboring crops via natural wind-driven or insect-driven pollination and eventually enter entire biomes. What happens when dozens or hundreds of differently altered foods naturally fertilize each other creating thousands of varieties with multiple GMO genes? A food that may be "safe" today may be unrecognizable and dangerous in 50 years. I am not against the idea of genetic modification per se (I work for one of the world's most pre-eminent medical research centers, BTW). But, our problem is not GMO food, it is having let our planetary population get grotesquely out of balance with our natural resources. Now, we are looking for GMO engineering and factory farming to try desperately to feed the extra billions of people on the planet.
It is a race between science's and commercial producers' attempts to feed these extra masses of people and natures dispassionate mechanisms to thin out the herd to match natural food sources, as nature has done throughout the history of life. Natures tools are primarily disease, starvation, and wars over inadequate resources. If I had to bet, I'd bet that our thoughtless overpopulation of our only lifeboat in the universe is going to be rectified by nature in ways I don't want to contemplate, rather than the headlong rush into increasing yields any way possible. The curse of Malthus.
It is a race between science's and commercial producers' attempts to feed these extra masses of people and natures dispassionate mechanisms to thin out the herd to match natural food sources, as nature has done throughout the history of life. Natures tools are primarily disease, starvation, and wars over inadequate resources. If I had to bet, I'd bet that our thoughtless overpopulation of our only lifeboat in the universe is going to be rectified by nature in ways I don't want to contemplate, rather than the headlong rush into increasing yields any way possible. The curse of Malthus.
4
I am a vegetable grower with 800 acres. I pack and sell to the large chain stores. I do not grow GMOs, but I am a proponent of them.
The genetic composition of organisms (our foods) is fluid, subject to both natural and man made alterations. Sure added labeling adds costs. But the public has a right to know how their food was produced. (As a side note, would these added costs be enough to now push your nice local small farmer out of business?)
Once the public realizes that GM foods are only higher quality, more affordable, better for the environment and without any health concerns, then the entire discussion of GM food will become a non-issue.
The consumption of non-GM foods will be left only to those with more money than sense.
The genetic composition of organisms (our foods) is fluid, subject to both natural and man made alterations. Sure added labeling adds costs. But the public has a right to know how their food was produced. (As a side note, would these added costs be enough to now push your nice local small farmer out of business?)
Once the public realizes that GM foods are only higher quality, more affordable, better for the environment and without any health concerns, then the entire discussion of GM food will become a non-issue.
The consumption of non-GM foods will be left only to those with more money than sense.
34
When I was a child, I could always tell we were in Michigan because of the black dirt (topsoil) on the farmers fields. I loved spring and fall as these same farmers used cover crops to protect and nourish their soil. Better soil makes better food. Now when I come into Michigan the newly plowed fields are taupe or light brown. Growers that grow GMO's are told not to grow cover crops, do not put anything back into the soil but just use our products for a better yield and poison our soil with herbicides.
Organic farmers nourish the soil, plant cover crops, have richer soil that contains iron, magnesium, etc. to grow their produce. I try to always buy these vegetables because they have sustainable farming practices.
I want to see our fields have rich black dirt like it did when I was a child, not a chemically sterile soil.
Organic farmers nourish the soil, plant cover crops, have richer soil that contains iron, magnesium, etc. to grow their produce. I try to always buy these vegetables because they have sustainable farming practices.
I want to see our fields have rich black dirt like it did when I was a child, not a chemically sterile soil.
6
Wouldn't the added cost of a few lines of text on a label of already-known information ("the wheat used in this product has been genetically modified") be minimal.
On what basis can you state:
- GM foods are only higher quality (how does one measure "quality"?)
- GM foods are more affordable (I'm assuming that you mean only financially)
- without health concerns (do you mean human, animal, or environmental health?)
None of this has been independently confirmed.
On what basis can you state:
- GM foods are only higher quality (how does one measure "quality"?)
- GM foods are more affordable (I'm assuming that you mean only financially)
- without health concerns (do you mean human, animal, or environmental health?)
None of this has been independently confirmed.
4
"Once the public realizes that GM foods are only higher quality, more affordable, better for the environment and without any health concerns, then the entire discussion of GM food will become a non-issue.
The consumption of non-GM foods will be left only to those with more money than sense."
Hmmm.. Pests developing resistance to pesticides (non just a GMO issue, agreed), dying bees and other pollinators, ... better for the environment? Without any health concerns?
A lot of unfounded slogans pitted against observable phenomena. Not very convincing.
The consumption of non-GM foods will be left only to those with more money than sense."
Hmmm.. Pests developing resistance to pesticides (non just a GMO issue, agreed), dying bees and other pollinators, ... better for the environment? Without any health concerns?
A lot of unfounded slogans pitted against observable phenomena. Not very convincing.
3
This article seems disingenuous at best. Generally, the types of GMOs that most people want to see labeled are "transgenic" - meaning that the DNA of an unrelated species has been spliced into the DNA of the crop. An example is DNA from a bacterium spliced into corn. Other methods of genetic engineering including gene editing, gene silencing, mutagenesis, grafting, and a whole host of other means of creating edible, high-yielding, and nutritionally dense varieties from wild types, do not fall into this category. Many of the examples given in this article are not transgenic GMOs.
51
Why should transgenic GMOs be of any greater concerns to the public, and do you have evidence to support that concern?
So I can edit a gene in maize, and change it so that its amino acid sequence is now identical to a bacterial gene and it is not transgenic? Good to know. So, GMO is not what is in the genome, rather, it is the method of how the genome was changed that makes it GMO (and of course no vector sequence present).
My understanding is that almost all corn grown in American if GMO. We in the South are going to continue to enjoy our cornbread, hush puppies and corn pudding.
5
The problem with GMO foods is that some (e.g. wheat) have been doused in dangerous chemicals like glyphosate, which is the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, a known carcinogen. Did you know that Roundup was patented as an antibiotic? The deleterious effects of this chemical on human health might not be fully understood for many years, yet it it has become frighteningly pervasive not just in our food system but in the environment at large. THIS is the reason why labeling is so important. The Environmental Working Group keeps a list of foods that you should never buy GMO due to pesticides (Dirty Dozen). Humans should avoid foods that have been contaminated and poisoned with chemicals.
87
Get rid of the Environmental Working Group until they provide the public with verified scientific proof for every statement before they can go public with it.
2
Agribusiness is not only producing transgenic foods resistant to Roundup and other dangerous insecticides, it is producing transgenic foods that produce insecticides within the food. And, in that case, all the washing and boiling in the world isn't going to clean our foods of potentially carcinogenic insecticides.
3
Sorry Hank, but there is no GMO wheat on the market. This is a completely false claim you have made. Again, there is no GMO wheat!
2
I will never knowingly buy or consume GMO products, even for my dog. It is one thing to modify corn so it's sweeter, but quite another to add a pesticide to a gene. Further, the industry suppresses research, thus eroding consumer acceptance and trust.
31
Exactly what pesticide is to added to a gene? Let me answer for you. If you are referring to roundup (which is an insecticide), it is not "added" to a gene. Your whole construct suggests that you don't understand the science.
1
Opps, roundup is a herbicide.
The confusion I see most often is related to definition of GMO and the scientific illiteracy of the public. Varieties arising from cross pollination and hybridization techniques that have been used for millenia are not GMO (although many GMO supporters will use this as a diversionary argument). The best definition I have seen that makes sense is "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination." The skill and ingenuity of DNA manipulation has gone far beyond either natural mating or natural recombination. Splicing a gene from an animal to a plant is now possible and I think almost all the public would readily accept the result is a GMO product. We also hear from the GMO supporters that they are merely speeding up the process of evolution. However, supporters fail to answer the question why nature had not already evolved the same way if it was so useful. At least the article suggests a middle ground on GMO but first we need to educate the public.
44
We can not deny some of the GMO products they are made for a good purposes and some of them are made just simply for profit-making purposes. The good objective communication, education, and advertisement will help the consumer to wisely decide what they want to buy and eat or use.
11
When people tend to get their science information from the University of Google, it is hard to “educate” them away from the glut of misinformation and pseudoscience they find on the interwebs.
I have no real objection to labeling, but at this point, all it would do is feed the imagined conspiracies in the minds of so many.
I have no real objection to labeling, but at this point, all it would do is feed the imagined conspiracies in the minds of so many.
20
A very polite way of saying that ignorance is more comforting than knowledge...
1
Common sense. I've been pointing out this contradiction for a decade. That it's taken this long for someone to say something so obvious tells a sad story of itself. Who are these people who decide the rules on the basic course of my survival? Food for thought.
48
The consumer have every right to know what they are buying.
In the meantime I will continue to avoid GMOs .
If there is nothing to hide......then put it in the label.
In the meantime I will continue to avoid GMOs .
If there is nothing to hide......then put it in the label.
112
And then when it's labeled, will you say: "If it is so safe, why does it need a warning label?"
3
Clothing is labeled. Is it cotton, wool, rayon, silk, polyester or some sort of blend? If it is a blend I like to know the percentage. For some items I prefer 100% natural fabrics, for other items I may prefer something synthetic or a blend.
If I buy organically grown heirloom tomatoes I know that they will taste good, bruise easily, have a shorter shelf life and cost more than other tomatoes. So I make my decision based on that knowledge. It is not a fear-based decision.
When I go to a farmers market I try to learn which farm has the best tasting green beans. If it is Farmer Jones, then I look for his sign (a sign is a label) and buy from him. That is the purpose of labeling.
If I buy organically grown heirloom tomatoes I know that they will taste good, bruise easily, have a shorter shelf life and cost more than other tomatoes. So I make my decision based on that knowledge. It is not a fear-based decision.
When I go to a farmers market I try to learn which farm has the best tasting green beans. If it is Farmer Jones, then I look for his sign (a sign is a label) and buy from him. That is the purpose of labeling.
44
Virtually all food is genetically engineered, albeit not in a laboratory. Farmers have been cross-pollinating and breeding for millennia, such that domesticated plants and animals bear little resemblance to their wild forebears.
It's clear why there is resistance to gmo labelling-- just what are you going to label, that won't be the target of hysterical protests and editorials?
It's clear why there is resistance to gmo labelling-- just what are you going to label, that won't be the target of hysterical protests and editorials?
51
I think that's why they want a law requiring labeling, rather than getting out in front of the issue with their own labels: if everyone has to do it, than no one will get targeted by protesters while non-labeling competitors escape their wrath. It is a shame that what should be a scientific discussion has to use words like "targeting" and "wrath".
3
This argument if often attractive to people with a little scientific education. However, it reveals a couple things. First is a complete lack of understanding of why so many people find GMOs weird. Second is a complete unwillingness to engage with the public, instead calling them "hysterical." Not surprisingly, this argument hardens the opposition to GMOs and reinforces the impression of GMO supporters as having something to nefarious hide. That false impression is unfortunately self-inflicted. It is difficult to see the path out of that condition.
13
Hybridization and genetically attaching different organisms to DNA is NOT the same thing. This is basic 5th grade biology science. Naturally incompatible organisms due to DNA composition and chromosome chains will not reproduce.
"Unlike hybrids, which are developed in the field using natural, low-tech methods, GM varieties are created in a lab using highly complex technology, such as gene splicing. These high-tech GM varieties can include genes from several species — a phenomenon that almost never occurs in nature. With GM varieties, genes are transferred from one kingdom to another, such as bacteria to plants,... Hybrids are the product of guided natural reproduction, while GMOs are the result of unnatural, high-tech methods used to create untested organisms that would never emerge in nature.” "Genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms that will produce a variety of desired traits. For example, genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes" Mother Earth, PBS
This would not occur in nature. This ignorance of basic science is very depressing. Whether GMO's are safe or not is arguable, especially when herbicides that are linked to cancer, autism and other diseases and conditions are genetically introduced to the DNA of a consumptive food product. Glyphosate, the main ingredient of Round-Up, a Monsanto product, has been labeled a carcinogen by WHO and will soon be labeled as such in California.
"Unlike hybrids, which are developed in the field using natural, low-tech methods, GM varieties are created in a lab using highly complex technology, such as gene splicing. These high-tech GM varieties can include genes from several species — a phenomenon that almost never occurs in nature. With GM varieties, genes are transferred from one kingdom to another, such as bacteria to plants,... Hybrids are the product of guided natural reproduction, while GMOs are the result of unnatural, high-tech methods used to create untested organisms that would never emerge in nature.” "Genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms that will produce a variety of desired traits. For example, genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes" Mother Earth, PBS
This would not occur in nature. This ignorance of basic science is very depressing. Whether GMO's are safe or not is arguable, especially when herbicides that are linked to cancer, autism and other diseases and conditions are genetically introduced to the DNA of a consumptive food product. Glyphosate, the main ingredient of Round-Up, a Monsanto product, has been labeled a carcinogen by WHO and will soon be labeled as such in California.
6
I as a consumer have the right to buy what I want, for whatever reason that I want. For instance, if I want to buy eggs from chickens allowed to range free over land rather than cooped up in a cage, then that is my right, and it is not up to the government to say that only questions of (human) safety are to be labelled. On the contrary, it is my right to have a government which listens to me. This kind of common sense seems to be an exceptional position in America; fortunately, it is less so in Europe.
119
"This kind of common sense seems to be an exceptional position in America; fortunately, it is less so in Europe. "
One of the reasons for that is that the big GMO companies, although multinational, are based in the US, and have been putting pressure on congress to have their way, like many other lobbies taking over public interests for their own. Europe has been largely able to make decisions free from the influence of special interest groups, other than their own farmers organizations. That makes for better, more cautious decision-making.
One of the reasons for that is that the big GMO companies, although multinational, are based in the US, and have been putting pressure on congress to have their way, like many other lobbies taking over public interests for their own. Europe has been largely able to make decisions free from the influence of special interest groups, other than their own farmers organizations. That makes for better, more cautious decision-making.
43
Of course the writer is referring to processed food additives,all
of which should be avoided.
of which should be avoided.
What this country really needs is rigorous testing of GMO products. At present the only testing required by the FDA are tests conducted and paid for by the producer. Imagine testing of used cars conducted by used cars salesmen! God forbid! Yet that is all our government requires from food producers.
Courageous scientists such as Arpad Puztsai and Eric Seralini who tested GMOs independently have been viciously attacked by industry scientists who rely on food producers for their bread and butter.
Enough of this self-serving rhetoric from food producers. I demand real third party verified tests of GMOs.
Courageous scientists such as Arpad Puztsai and Eric Seralini who tested GMOs independently have been viciously attacked by industry scientists who rely on food producers for their bread and butter.
Enough of this self-serving rhetoric from food producers. I demand real third party verified tests of GMOs.
150
Capt Planet, you nailed it. The biggest danger comes not from diversity but from incorrect labelling. A major food scandal was exposed 3 years ago in the German magazine Der Spiegel when it emerged that 50 % of foods in the E.U. labelled 'organically grown' or 'ecologically grown' were in fact blatantly mislabelled. Consumers merely paid double the price to obtain standard produce; not to mention the health hazards to infants at greatest risk to poor quality foods.
So all those in favour of permitting but labelling GMO foods should be aware of the high probability that huge volumes of GMO foods will fail to be identified as a result of producer errors, deception and outright fraud.
So all those in favour of permitting but labelling GMO foods should be aware of the high probability that huge volumes of GMO foods will fail to be identified as a result of producer errors, deception and outright fraud.
30
The Seralini study has been soundly discredited by real science. Since your position is based on faith, I doubt that ANY scientific investigation would change your mind.
19
Real science has not soundly discredited the Seralini study. Over 1200 scientists demanded that the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology reinstate the study. The study has been reissued. In addition, the international Agency for Reseach on Cancer has asserted that glyphosate which gmo corn and soy require more and more is a probably carcinagen.
5