I for one see no harm and only good to be gained by Gene engineering. However, is there any logic, any reason that people should not have the right to see what is in there food/ Yes. the industries want to hide as much as they can but the n=main purpose of government is to protect and serve the people. This has been turned around with the $$ in politics.
For a detailed discussion of Gene engineering, pros and cons and techniques see letswakeupfolks.blogspot.com-the fear of genetic engineering.
For a detailed discussion of Gene engineering, pros and cons and techniques see letswakeupfolks.blogspot.com-the fear of genetic engineering.
Spend all the money you want, chemical companies. We will still seek out organic alternatives, and our buying power will completely change the market place, and eventually put you out of your current business. It will take time, but you will get in line.
2
It is always fascinating to notice the absence of foundational concerns. Genetic change is a life process. Animal interventions resulting in and from alterations of environments are nothing new. Computers and motivations, as well as cumulative knowledge produce changes in the calculations of profitable activity. It is not merely a questions of what we -- humans consume -- but of the transfer of wealth from the less to the more affluent. And maximizing return on investment. Thus there is no way of determining in advance the interventions of genetic changes other than the designer ores, on the life and controlled environments in which some cycle of modified seed
(patented) designed to resist local predators through the application of substances (patented) that modify the choices of those predators. And so forth. The failures are no different in many respects from current failures other than in the distribution of the consequences.
(patented) designed to resist local predators through the application of substances (patented) that modify the choices of those predators. And so forth. The failures are no different in many respects from current failures other than in the distribution of the consequences.
". . . the execrable excess of corn- and soy-based junk food that is sickening our population and decreasing our life spans."
The names of those products are: meat, eggs, and dairy. We grow corn and soy for imprisoned, tortured animals. Not for humans. It isn't just junk, it is also atrociously cruel. Boycott.
The names of those products are: meat, eggs, and dairy. We grow corn and soy for imprisoned, tortured animals. Not for humans. It isn't just junk, it is also atrociously cruel. Boycott.
3
In so far as comprehensive, truthful labeling would spur healthier food production from top to bottom it can only be a good thing. I don't want corn that has been genetically modified to tolerate Round Up or any other pesticide. I don't want chicken that was processed in China, or any food grown in China for that matter.
If a product was modified to resist a disease I will be free to decide whether or not to buy it. That should be MY choice.
What decisions in our lives are more important than what we put in our bodies? When there is so much hatred on the political right for regulation and disclosure measures like those the author proposes we must push back or lose the fight.
If a product was modified to resist a disease I will be free to decide whether or not to buy it. That should be MY choice.
What decisions in our lives are more important than what we put in our bodies? When there is so much hatred on the political right for regulation and disclosure measures like those the author proposes we must push back or lose the fight.
2
Thank you for a very good insight into the future of our foods and their labeling.
As our country lurches to the left in response to the extreme right wing take over of the Republican party, sensible laws will be enabled.
At last.
As our country lurches to the left in response to the extreme right wing take over of the Republican party, sensible laws will be enabled.
At last.
I am very concerned with the focus on whether GMO food is good for you or not, while the whole process just seems out of control. I believe the FDA has a very narrow focus for approval - whether or not it is dangerous to consume something. They are not tasked with the effects of, say, releasing GMO salmon into the wild, or the effects on neighboring farms whose seed gets "contaminated" by GMO crops, and who get sued for not having bought the seeds in the first place. They are not focussed on the effects of seed markets dominating an agriculture that used to do its own seed exchange, but has now been monetized by industry rather than farmers.
In the end I am not worried very much about the dangers of consuming GMO products. We put enough of a variety of foodstuffs into our system without really questioning it. Does anybody really believe that all "natural" foods are equally good for us? Part of enjoying our meal is simply enjoying it, without pondering whether it might actually be "bad" for us. I am talking here of "natural" ingredients, not of the twinkie or foods whose ingredient label most of us would find quite a challenge to decipher. Not knocking junk foods here, I'm just trying to limit the discussion to a group of foods we think we know. I am also not recommending a head in the sand attitude toward GMO foods (and medicines). I just think the focus is in the wrong place. I think there is plenty to be cautious about when it comes to GMO and our future.
In the end I am not worried very much about the dangers of consuming GMO products. We put enough of a variety of foodstuffs into our system without really questioning it. Does anybody really believe that all "natural" foods are equally good for us? Part of enjoying our meal is simply enjoying it, without pondering whether it might actually be "bad" for us. I am talking here of "natural" ingredients, not of the twinkie or foods whose ingredient label most of us would find quite a challenge to decipher. Not knocking junk foods here, I'm just trying to limit the discussion to a group of foods we think we know. I am also not recommending a head in the sand attitude toward GMO foods (and medicines). I just think the focus is in the wrong place. I think there is plenty to be cautious about when it comes to GMO and our future.
2
How about a food label explaining how GMOs that enable crops to be sprayed with strong pesticides end up leading to weeds resistant to those pesticides, thereby requiring the use of even stronger pesticides, leading to even more resistant weeds? And so on, and on.
From the point of view of businesses that sell both the GMO seed and the pesticide I suppose this arms race looks like locked-in sales. To the rest of us I think it should look like a slow-moving and potentially very large problem.
From the point of view of businesses that sell both the GMO seed and the pesticide I suppose this arms race looks like locked-in sales. To the rest of us I think it should look like a slow-moving and potentially very large problem.
1
I have the distinction of being a natural food retailer for 41 years who is also a scientific-minded graduate of MIT. It's rare to witness a rational discussion of GMOs because they are ensnarled in scientific, technological, economic, political, philosophical and religious issues. Most discussion is politically motivated and either originates from or exploits public ignorance.
We need to put genetic engineering in perspective. We had a massive impact on our foods through millennia of conventional breeding. For decades we developed thousands of new plant breeds by using radiation and chemicals to mutate seeds, a much more invasive and haphazard method than genetic engineering. Almost no one talks about that.
The health impacts of refined carbohydrates and the ecological impacts of mono-cropping, petroleum-dependent agriculture and massive use of pesticides are both intertwined with and separable from GMOs.
Genetic engineering is clearly a powerful tool. Whether it can be wielded by large corporations for the benefit of humanity is highly questionable, but I suspect that can best be assured through transparency, public education and participation.
Mark Bittman has provided some of the best perspective I've seen on GMOs.
We need to put genetic engineering in perspective. We had a massive impact on our foods through millennia of conventional breeding. For decades we developed thousands of new plant breeds by using radiation and chemicals to mutate seeds, a much more invasive and haphazard method than genetic engineering. Almost no one talks about that.
The health impacts of refined carbohydrates and the ecological impacts of mono-cropping, petroleum-dependent agriculture and massive use of pesticides are both intertwined with and separable from GMOs.
Genetic engineering is clearly a powerful tool. Whether it can be wielded by large corporations for the benefit of humanity is highly questionable, but I suspect that can best be assured through transparency, public education and participation.
Mark Bittman has provided some of the best perspective I've seen on GMOs.
Every commercial farm product is the result of thousands of years of genetic modification. Unless you are picking acorns off oak trees, all your food (except perhaps for wild fish) is genetically modified.
1
What we really know is this: most GMO food is perfectly safe. Really. What isn't is what is sprayed on it, injected into it and enhanced with mono and diglycerides, whatever they are. I don't need artificial color, either. Cut back on the salt, if you don't mind. And if it is supposed to be a bit sweet, use sugar...real sugar made from cane or beets. Whether my farm raised salmon grew faster or slower is of no consequence. We might be luckier eating the fast growing fish in that it will have taken up less mercury or whatever junk is ingested in the food train. More than likely, if time and energy permitted, the fish could have been selectively bred to grow faster, the same way that roses are cross bred. I can live with that.
In reading European based food labels, I get more info than on ours. They also prohibit some additives we allow. Can't we follow them?
In reading European based food labels, I get more info than on ours. They also prohibit some additives we allow. Can't we follow them?
3
GMOs will now be labeled because people believe there are safety concerns with GMO products in spite of the overwhelming consensus of experts that this is not so. Safe, healthy products that are nutritionally identical to their non-GMO counterparts will now be stigmatized because of bad information and misguided fear. GMO howlers are no different than the anti-vaccine crowd, climate change deniers and proponents of the teaching of creationism in science class in public schools. They do not believe in scientific analysis and expertise. Emotional reasoning replaces critical thought. When a fact is false because it contradicts a political or religious narrative than truth is meaningless and we should fear the future. Who would have thought there is a connection between GMO fear and Donald Trump.
6
Felix,
GMOs may or may not be safe. But what is true is that they tolerate heavy doses of insecticides that cannot be washed off and that humans therefore ingest. GMOs are created to tolerate these poisons. Humans are not, so eating the GMOs is very dangerous.
GMOs may or may not be safe. But what is true is that they tolerate heavy doses of insecticides that cannot be washed off and that humans therefore ingest. GMOs are created to tolerate these poisons. Humans are not, so eating the GMOs is very dangerous.
1
The level of corruption in our government has reached a level never before seen, This is largely due to the repeal of anti-trust laws that allow corporations to consolidate into huge economic monopolies. With corporate profits larger than some gross national economies, these companies exert influence any way they can to keep the profits rolling in. Witness the power held by the oil companies, big Pharma, big Food, and the biotech industry, to name a few. Why consider the health of the planet, or the health of our fellow human beings when corporate profits can be made?
Let’s take a look at the biotech industry. In 1958, congress passed an update to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act called the Food Additive Amendment. Under this amendment, additives to food were no longer presumed safe but rather were presumed to be harmful. The food industry had the burden of proving them safe. When genetically modified organisms were introduced into the food system, the FDA declared them as being safe without any scientific proof. This was in direct violation of congressional law, and when the FDA scientists voiced concerns over the deficiency of safety testing, they were fired on the spot. This should have been headline news, but it was covered up and buried by the media. The level of corruption spreads over many layers.
I think I will pass on putting food made from genetically engineered food on my plate. Our corrupt government says their safe, which doesn’t make me feel very assured.
Let’s take a look at the biotech industry. In 1958, congress passed an update to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act called the Food Additive Amendment. Under this amendment, additives to food were no longer presumed safe but rather were presumed to be harmful. The food industry had the burden of proving them safe. When genetically modified organisms were introduced into the food system, the FDA declared them as being safe without any scientific proof. This was in direct violation of congressional law, and when the FDA scientists voiced concerns over the deficiency of safety testing, they were fired on the spot. This should have been headline news, but it was covered up and buried by the media. The level of corruption spreads over many layers.
I think I will pass on putting food made from genetically engineered food on my plate. Our corrupt government says their safe, which doesn’t make me feel very assured.
3
Your writing a book on fiction?
1
"The level of corruption in our government has reached a level never before seen,"
Oh, I doubt that very much.
Oh, I doubt that very much.
2
Hey folks, this is the stuff that they don't allow in many many many other countries. There are many things in our food that are outlawed in europe, Australia and Canada.
5
I am all for better informed eaters.
But the anti-GMO movement, including the GMO labeling movement, isn't about spreading information. It's about spreading MISinformation: namely, that GMO ingredients are something that you should be more concerned about than "normal" foods.
The science is clear, and yet somehow the same crowd that will bemoan the other side for their climate denial perpetuates the same denial themselves regarding GMOs.
GMOs are not inherently dangerous just because they're GMOs. Some GMOs may be harmful, but to consider all GMOs as dangerous simply because they're GMOs is like saying all plants are unhealthy because some of them are poisonous.
Stop the misinformation campaign. Then, we can discuss about proper information on packaging.
But the anti-GMO movement, including the GMO labeling movement, isn't about spreading information. It's about spreading MISinformation: namely, that GMO ingredients are something that you should be more concerned about than "normal" foods.
The science is clear, and yet somehow the same crowd that will bemoan the other side for their climate denial perpetuates the same denial themselves regarding GMOs.
GMOs are not inherently dangerous just because they're GMOs. Some GMOs may be harmful, but to consider all GMOs as dangerous simply because they're GMOs is like saying all plants are unhealthy because some of them are poisonous.
Stop the misinformation campaign. Then, we can discuss about proper information on packaging.
8
Information that I have read tells of the soybean seed encapsulating the molecule of glyphosate in a enzyme web to protect the bean plant. It stays until we eat the bean and digest the web and releases the glyphosate, which is a potent neurotoxin. We don't know much about what then happens.... do we rapidly discharge it or does it stay in our bodies and brain... and what is the affect on children?
Tell us your source. I have read a lot of fiction too.
2
Labeling isn't just transparency; it's also an implied warning. Try this:
NOTICE: THE INK ON THE PRINT EDITION OF THE NY TIMES CONTAINS CARBON.
Read this and you think, wait, does that means it causes cancer or something? They wouldn't be warning me if there wasn't something to fear.
The whole anti-GMO movement is like the anti-vaxxers and the evolution skeptics and climate change deniers - a triumph of superstition over science.
NOTICE: THE INK ON THE PRINT EDITION OF THE NY TIMES CONTAINS CARBON.
Read this and you think, wait, does that means it causes cancer or something? They wouldn't be warning me if there wasn't something to fear.
The whole anti-GMO movement is like the anti-vaxxers and the evolution skeptics and climate change deniers - a triumph of superstition over science.
15
At least once a year a NYT reporter ( and undoubtedly disgruntled former Park Slope Food Coop member )writes a negative piece about "The Coop." They always wonder why anyone would want to me a member of this strange place? This article vindicates the 14,000 plus members which has maintained full capacity in recent years.
The collusion between the food industry and government could never work in in the consumer's favor. As for me, I'll never go back to a conventional supermarket with its secret GMO's hidden from scrutiny. I'd trust the integrity of bunch of "hippies" any day over policy written by the food lobby.
The collusion between the food industry and government could never work in in the consumer's favor. As for me, I'll never go back to a conventional supermarket with its secret GMO's hidden from scrutiny. I'd trust the integrity of bunch of "hippies" any day over policy written by the food lobby.
2
At this point, I think there canNOT be too much information regarding our food. Of course the problem then becomes WHO is performing the food safety oversight? Companies like Monsanto have so much money to influence the outcomes and/or reported outcomes of such investigation and oversight. And as with lead in the ground, what is known may not be divulged in a timely manner. I would like to see support for the independent 'smaller' American farmer.
2
I'm hoping that, at minimum, the new law doesn't prevent products that are GMO-free from carrying labels that state that fact. It's my understanding that the FDA's ban on GMO-free labelling is no longer relevant. Is that correct?
2
The article contains a statement that no harmful effects from GMO containing foods have been shown. As one who has practiced epidemiology (some involving studies of food), I can assure the author and readers that the establishment of such harm is an exceedingly, expensive, and a long term process involving complex data collection and sophisticated analysis. We shouldn't feel reassured that this innocuous statement lets industry and government off the hook. Let us first see the scientific studies in highly-recognized journals that demonstrate proof. Finally, because no single study ever suffices, there needs to be agreement among several studies before we should be satisfied of the absence of harm. Let both writer Bittman and reader beware!
3
Why not start the revolution now? Buy clean, non-GMO foods. Call for a boycott of companies that use pesticides with abandon, who produce all the corn and soy (much more than we need in fact), and eat much more non-processed foods. It's not that hard. When will the boycott call to arms come? Our family already avoids the companies who produce food irresponsibly, we eat clean. Once the money dries up for these products, the change will come.
1
A slight step forward unless one lives in or buys food from Vermont. I want to know what's in my food. I just learned that food I thought was safe, like store-brand rolled oats may not be so safe. We need to use this law as a stepping stone to stronger laws, real oversight of food production and safer foods packaged in clean environments that do not have mold (to which I'm very allergic), listeria and other dangers.
So why is it exaclty that Big-Food and Big-Ag and Big-Chemical are so against labeling GMOs?
Just who else is in this constituency opposed to labeling?
Are they not proud of thier fine work?
Is there something wrong with GMOs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Just who else is in this constituency opposed to labeling?
Are they not proud of thier fine work?
Is there something wrong with GMOs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
1
All reproduction in the world-outside of cloning, must have elements of genetic manipulation or "modification". The corn on the cob we eat now would be a one inch long half bite if not for the choosing and development of larger strains of the plant. Apples would all be small if not for the intervention of farmers and orchards working to make their fruit as large, and attractive as possible.
Far too much complaining about so called GMO foods is an expression of the fears and suspicions of a large segment of the populace which no longer has any connection to the soil, to farms or to the very processes which go into raising crops, plants and animals. So many Westerners are so removed from any knowledge of biology that they would be surprised to learn that they, too, being the offspring of a father and a mother, are GMO's also.
Far too much complaining about so called GMO foods is an expression of the fears and suspicions of a large segment of the populace which no longer has any connection to the soil, to farms or to the very processes which go into raising crops, plants and animals. So many Westerners are so removed from any knowledge of biology that they would be surprised to learn that they, too, being the offspring of a father and a mother, are GMO's also.
4
How many people realize that GMO is OMG spelled backwards?
3
GMOs-- glyphosate-resistant soybeans, etc. just aren't dangerous. How many scientists have to declare this before you all listen? If you don't like people on the crazy-right for ignoring scientists' conclusions about global warming, then how can you support people on the left who ignore scientists' conclusions about the safety of GMOs. Sheesh.
5
GMOs contaminate organically grown food. Chemical companies use GMOs to increase profits, not grown more food. These same companies endanger our heirloom varieties and we may need these heirloom seeds in the future to sustain agriculture.
3
The 'economic justice' argument cuts both ways--if one views detailed information about food as an economic good or service, then the 'economic justice' argument holds that those who want that service should pay for it, especially so that those who don't value the information don't have to pay for it. It's possible to spray paint a tiny bar code on every soybean seed and, with enough money, it's possible to provide every itty bitty detail of information anyone could imagine as to how & where & by whom food is produced. But not all of us value what the Foodites value, and not all of us think it is fair to have to spend more of our own money to pay for information they desire.
4
I think it's adorable that my fellow liberals a) worry about climate change because the science is so obvious, then b) condemn GMOs because SCIENCE LIES.
9
"I think it's adorable that--"
some, and not necessarily anything resembling a majority, of
"--my fellow liberals [...]"
some, and not necessarily anything resembling a majority, of
"--my fellow liberals [...]"
I can see that the industry PR trolls are quickly filling the reader comments section. The fact is that not a single epidemiological (post-market) study has been conducted to determine the health impact of having fed the US population GMO ingredients for the past 15 years. Thus claims of safety are based on ZERO data. In addition GMO ingredients contain a cocktail of pesticide residues that are used to grow these crops, some of which are applied just prior to harvest. GMO crops are not grown in a vacuum, but as indicated by Bittman are part what has been well documented to be an unsustainable system leading to soil degradation, widespread environmental pollution, declining health of the population, and destruction of the social fabric, in rural communities.
6
Billions of people have eaten trillions of meals containing GMO food. Yet its opponents cannot point to one person who's been injured by GMO food. Meanwhile, the impoverished who would benefit from the increased quality and reduced price of GMO food are left to languish by full-bellied environmentalists. This battle isn't about the facts of safety, it's about a distain for humanity.
10
All the food we eat has been genetically modified. Doesn't anyone remember Gregor Mendel? He was genetically modifying plants in the 1800s. or Luther Burbank who was doing the same thin in the early 1900s? The corn and tomatoes we love are the result of genetic modification. Plant residence to disease modifications have a long history. So, now we are modifying plant and animal genes directly at in the laboratory. I've not read one scientific study that shoes that these genetic gene modifications are any more risky than the old fashion genetic modifications.
If we are to label every product that mankind has genetically modified then everything has to have the label. This is just modern Luddite ignorance.
If we are to label every product that mankind has genetically modified then everything has to have the label. This is just modern Luddite ignorance.
4
Our government has been purchased by the GMO industry so we can't expect any help from politicians beyond the handful of them who are crying out in the wilderness. Vermont struggled for years to pass a labeling law and finally through great work and expense got it achieved. A month later, Obama passed a shabby excuse for labeling which completely nullified Vermont's law.
64 nations in the world require their food to be labeled for GMO content. Those include communist Russia and communist China. Some of those nations won't even allow GMOs to be grown in their country. Others won't allow GMOs to be imported into their countries or food systems. So, are we being told in the U.S. that our scientists are smarter than those in foreign lands? Are we being told that our politicians are more honorable and knowledgeable in making food choices for us than those leaders in other countries? No, we know better than that.
As an example of a civilized nation's attitude toward GMOs, consider the case of Scotland whose government says,
" The Scottish Government is opposed to the cultivation of GM crops. The cultivation of GM crops could damage Scotland's rich environment and would threaten our reputation for producing high quality and natural foods. It would damage Scotland's image as a land of food and drink."
In the U.S., we mouth the words "land of the free and home of the brave." But, In Scotland, they actually live by those words.
64 nations in the world require their food to be labeled for GMO content. Those include communist Russia and communist China. Some of those nations won't even allow GMOs to be grown in their country. Others won't allow GMOs to be imported into their countries or food systems. So, are we being told in the U.S. that our scientists are smarter than those in foreign lands? Are we being told that our politicians are more honorable and knowledgeable in making food choices for us than those leaders in other countries? No, we know better than that.
As an example of a civilized nation's attitude toward GMOs, consider the case of Scotland whose government says,
" The Scottish Government is opposed to the cultivation of GM crops. The cultivation of GM crops could damage Scotland's rich environment and would threaten our reputation for producing high quality and natural foods. It would damage Scotland's image as a land of food and drink."
In the U.S., we mouth the words "land of the free and home of the brave." But, In Scotland, they actually live by those words.
3
It is simply not practical for a food company to document every aspect of how the food was produced on the label. Furthermore, every piece of information that needs to be included adds cost and label clutter. Therefore the government should only require label information that supports good health and nutrition decisions. The science is clear that GMO foods are the same from a health and nutrition standpoint to the equivalent unmodified versions.
The way the term 'GMO' is commonly used is also problematic. Humans have been genetically modifying our food through selective breeding since we began farming thousands of years ago. The wild ancestors of many of the foods we eat were very different than what we're familiar with. The term 'GMO' is typically used to distinguish between crops that have been genetically modified by selective breeding and crops that have been modified by introducing a gene from another species. Mandating that one category to have the GMO label and not the other requires food producers to use misleading terminology that feeds false perceptions about health risks.
If consumers refrain from buying products because of false perceptions about 'GMO' labeled foods, these products may become less available.
This would be unfortunate because GM crops provide enormous benefits. They help the environment by reducing the amount of land required for farming. They also reduce the price of food, benefiting everybody, especially the poor.
The way the term 'GMO' is commonly used is also problematic. Humans have been genetically modifying our food through selective breeding since we began farming thousands of years ago. The wild ancestors of many of the foods we eat were very different than what we're familiar with. The term 'GMO' is typically used to distinguish between crops that have been genetically modified by selective breeding and crops that have been modified by introducing a gene from another species. Mandating that one category to have the GMO label and not the other requires food producers to use misleading terminology that feeds false perceptions about health risks.
If consumers refrain from buying products because of false perceptions about 'GMO' labeled foods, these products may become less available.
This would be unfortunate because GM crops provide enormous benefits. They help the environment by reducing the amount of land required for farming. They also reduce the price of food, benefiting everybody, especially the poor.
8
GMOs are perfectly safe and we have been eating genetically modified food for decades.
The push for a labeling law is the regulatory state at its most absurd.
The push for a labeling law is the regulatory state at its most absurd.
16
Really? And how do YOU know it's safe?
3
Simple. Because they are actually tested unlike organic foods and nutritional supplements.
2
I deserve to know what is in my food. This is supposed to be a free country, right?
The thought of gene splicing makes me feel ill. It may be the cause of my current health problems. Studies by industry supported experts don't change my mind.
Simple.
The thought of gene splicing makes me feel ill. It may be the cause of my current health problems. Studies by industry supported experts don't change my mind.
Simple.
lets forget about enacting laws forcing companies to label GMO food as such. I already make the assumption that if a food product is not labeled NON-GMO then it has GMO components. We should be putting our efforts and money into ensuring that food labeled NON GMO actually is, and to educational outreach that that gets people to understand that if a product is not labeled NON GMO then I it is GMO.
1
The implication that the government makes when requiring labeling of GMOs is that GMOs must be bad in some way. Telling consumers that a product is genetically modified does nothing to further our understanding of "what is in our food." Would it be OK to require foods produced by Muslims to be labeled as such, under the notion that we deserve to "know who is producing our food"?
4
There is a tiny minority in the country that is selling "GMO-free", "all natural", "organic" food at a premium. It is more expensive to produce than commercially grown food, and accessible only to the elite. If they can get all food manufacturers to put labels on their food that says "unnatural," "contains GMO," "non-organic," the cronies will be able to raise the prices on their foods while imposing additional costs on their competitors.
They gin up support from the ignorant by anti-science rhetoric like, "..foods produced with G.M.O.s have not been found to be harmful..." but you never know. The science is settled except when a wealthy crony group wants it not to be because they can make money by introducing fear and imposing costs on consumers.
The funny thing is that the article is making it sound as if big food is making the case to prevent labelling. The reality is that big food is delighted with new regulations because it advantages them relative to smaller competitors. If they jumped on board in support of new labelling regulations, the progressives would be on to the scheme. But by pretending to be opposed, they are able to suppress their competitors. So big food and crony "natural" purveyors are in cahoots to increase costs to consumers and increase their own profits.
They gin up support from the ignorant by anti-science rhetoric like, "..foods produced with G.M.O.s have not been found to be harmful..." but you never know. The science is settled except when a wealthy crony group wants it not to be because they can make money by introducing fear and imposing costs on consumers.
The funny thing is that the article is making it sound as if big food is making the case to prevent labelling. The reality is that big food is delighted with new regulations because it advantages them relative to smaller competitors. If they jumped on board in support of new labelling regulations, the progressives would be on to the scheme. But by pretending to be opposed, they are able to suppress their competitors. So big food and crony "natural" purveyors are in cahoots to increase costs to consumers and increase their own profits.
2
It will never satisfy those that decry all the advances of modern civilization by commenting on the Internet via computer. Which coincidentally requires electricity to run, and energy expended to create electricity.
4
as much as possible, grow your own food. if you own a house, you have some land around that house. get rid of the sterile, useless turf grass. make your little bit of the earth produce something useful! turn that vacant weed patch into a community garden; use organic growing methods. Tim DeChristopher said it perfectly: "we think we have no power, when, in fact we have more than enough power." don't count on Big Brother to do everything for you!
3
Ahh- the pastoral life... Sounds like you are relegating "evil GMOs to the unwashed masses who don't have their own plot of land to plant in. So much white privilege surrounds this non-scientifically based GMO bashing, it is insane. (Not to mention that you can raise a perfectly good home garden using GMO seeds if you wanted to)
3
To Irb945: I have 12 fruit trees in my garden, plus a variety of herbs & blackberries. No pesticides or herbicide. My eight year old daughter loves to pluck the fruit off the trees freely. The taste so much better than the ones at the store!
1
To momomo: You can grow herbs and vegetables in containers, even some fruit trees. You don't have to own a lot of land. A deck will do. People of all walks of life use communal gardens as well. My father does and shares his bounty with other neighbors. Gardens are life-affirming and can lower stress. It is your choice if you prefer GMOs. I don't use them and that is my choice. I don't like HOW Monsanto does business and I vote with my purchases.
I sincerely hope everyone who is in favor of GMO labeling laws is similarly in favor of no regulation based on climate change. There is scientific unanimity regarding climate change, the safety of GMOs, and vaccinations. Deal with it.
6
Will food producers from other countries be able to sue the US for GMO labeling after Hillary or The Corpratist in the white house signs the TPP?
1
GMO are bad not because they are genetically engineered but because they contain a very high amount of Round-Up: a known toxin and labeled by WHO as carcinogen. Farmers use Round-Up not only to kill weeds but also spray it directly on crop such as soy and corn to dry them! No wonder GMO are banned in over 50 nations. Why should customers - read paying customers- ingest a known carcinogen, without their consent?
7
False. There are thousands of different kinds of GMOs- different things being modified in different species of plant. Making a general statement that speaks to all GMOs has said to me that you have read none of the science regarding GMOs, only the voodoo. Oh, regarding your outrageous Roundup claim-many are bred to be pest resistant which means NO POISONS IN THEIR CULTIVATION. It pains me to see policy being informed by people who are as ignorant to science as you are.
4
GMOs don't contain roundup! If farmers use it and it's toxic and can't be washed off then yes, should be stopped. The two things don't come together though. Stick to the facts
3
Can the food-obsessed fringe of the left please go away until November? While there is some bipartisan appeal that both left and right have folks in their camps that are afraid of science, this election is too important for these type of unproductive, and perhaps damaging debates.
3
GMOs in agriculture enable production of more food than ever before. GMO food is healthier, longer-lasting and more sustainable. One would have to search very hard to find any studies demonstrating any risk to human health or the environment from genetically modified organisms. We need more food, and we need it to be cheaper and more sustainably grown.
Those who oppose GMOs are acting based on superstition and ignorance; they are favoring famine and hunger worldwide. "No GMO" labels on foods are the moral equivalent of "Whites Only" signs. Companies who cater to this ignorance are committing a crime against the undernourished of the world.
Those who oppose GMOs are acting based on superstition and ignorance; they are favoring famine and hunger worldwide. "No GMO" labels on foods are the moral equivalent of "Whites Only" signs. Companies who cater to this ignorance are committing a crime against the undernourished of the world.
9
Get over yourself. There is no such thing as too much information; maybe you want to eat this stuff without knowing it, but don't condemn everyone else to your ignorance. And stow the colonial attitude of "we know better than you ignorant savages in the third world", which is racism at it's worse
2
WOW So this Author/journalist states that "These foods produced with G.M.O.s have not been found to be harmful to people who eat them" Really How about the current rise in Childhood Obesity as well as Childhood Cancers! The cases for each has grown exceptionally since the inception of GE Foods over 20 years ago. When you feed your child GE FORMULA you are putting them at risk of developing thicker Bones and Skin hence raising their BMI levels and Potentially cancers! They inject seeds with both pesticides and Human Growth Hormones--hence negatively impacting the Natural development of children by increasing Natural HGH to that of unnatural consequences!!!!!!
3
That is a whole lot of assertions based on not a whole lot of data.
6
The upsurge in obesity is NOT from GMOs. Rather, it is primarily due to added sugars in virtually all the groceries we eat, and a lack of child exercise.
If you want to be excited about food dangers, advocate for the removal of added sugars from products you buy when you shop
If you want to be excited about food dangers, advocate for the removal of added sugars from products you buy when you shop
6
Dear MR. Bittman,
IF you have any questions concerning my knowledge on HGH and its negative impact on Children please do ask. I know more about the effects of Excess HGH on a baby or even an adult than most Doctors for I happen to have a rare HGH disease! And therefore Yes I do know the negative impacts of feeding Children GE foods which do contain excess HGH!!!!!!!!!
IF you have any questions concerning my knowledge on HGH and its negative impact on Children please do ask. I know more about the effects of Excess HGH on a baby or even an adult than most Doctors for I happen to have a rare HGH disease! And therefore Yes I do know the negative impacts of feeding Children GE foods which do contain excess HGH!!!!!!!!!
1
Interesting. G.M.O.'s are here to stay, and the public has the right, the need actually, to know as much as possible as to its impact on their health. From my rather limited exposure to many nuances not clearly depicted, I can sense a potential conflict of interest, in that the F.D.A., and other regulatory bodies, may be serving the industry and the public simultaneously; and serving two bosses may not be good for us consumers. Further work may be appreciated.
5
At least 99% of food is genetically modified. Traditional means of selective breeding genetically modify the organism. We have been doing that centuries. Modern technology and science enable us to speed up the process. Golden rice and Monsanto remind us that humans can do both good and bad with any development. We have a classic baby bath water scenario.
Labelling is another matter. Where are the labels on cars, re carbon dioxide? Where are the labels on unvaccinated / vaccinated children? Both of these are hazardous to the population.
We are creating impossible situations and opening too many cans!
Labelling is another matter. Where are the labels on cars, re carbon dioxide? Where are the labels on unvaccinated / vaccinated children? Both of these are hazardous to the population.
We are creating impossible situations and opening too many cans!
18
On the other hand, food producers who know that a huge number of customers WANT GMO free products can take this opportunity to loudly splash the GMO-Free label on their products and we will buy those products. Let the market do it's job in our favor.
21
This is rather one-sided. The difficulty is that the question is not simply that people have information, but that they use it wisely. And there is a question of just how significant the information is. If the information has little known objective significance, is it really right to burden other people to produce it? And will it be misused? This is a very real concern with GMO's (read about Golden Rice).
Few consumers are really educated about GMO's (as is clear from the fact that their attitudes towards them are vastly different from those of most biologists). Yet their reluctance to buy GMO foods has huge economic consequences -- and not just for "big food," but also for small farmers.
Few consumers are really educated about GMO's (as is clear from the fact that their attitudes towards them are vastly different from those of most biologists). Yet their reluctance to buy GMO foods has huge economic consequences -- and not just for "big food," but also for small farmers.
1
"..or a code.."
So if a manufacturer chooses "code", I am stuck because I don't have a smart phone.
So if a manufacturer chooses "code", I am stuck because I don't have a smart phone.
1
This is simply a marketing ploy by the non-GMO food companies. It was already perfectly legal to label food as not containing GMO's, as long as you had the proper documentation. And few paid any attention. But what if you could put something that looks like a warning label on everything that might contain GMO's? Maybe people would buy more of the (more expensive) non-GMO foods.
You can never prove a negative, but the legitimate research that has been done shows that the GMO's that are allowed to enter the market are safe. Conspiracy theories aside, FDA is doing its' job in protecting the public.
This isn't about transparency, this is about marketing.
You can never prove a negative, but the legitimate research that has been done shows that the GMO's that are allowed to enter the market are safe. Conspiracy theories aside, FDA is doing its' job in protecting the public.
This isn't about transparency, this is about marketing.
6
GMO-labeling laws unfairly reinforce an arbitrary stigma while giving consumers a false sense of being informed about their food choices. The GMOs currently on the market have been subjected to extensive scientific investigation and testing.
They're safe. Scare-mongering about GMOs is equivalent to climate change denial in its appeal to anti-science. This kind of idea misinforms the public and reinforces the inappropriate stigma.
They're safe. Scare-mongering about GMOs is equivalent to climate change denial in its appeal to anti-science. This kind of idea misinforms the public and reinforces the inappropriate stigma.
8
One dirty little (not so) secret that the wheat industry doesn't want you to know is that almost all of the wheat harvested in northern climes that's not being saved for seed will first be sprayed with Roundup to speed up the ripening process. Roundup is non-selective. It is designed to kill everything in the field except the G.M.O. such as soybeans. When it's sprayed on wheat, farmers call it "sunshine in a can."
Wheat is not a G.M.O., but there's at least a 50% chance that the bread or pasta you're eating today has been sprayed like it is.
Wheat is not a G.M.O., but there's at least a 50% chance that the bread or pasta you're eating today has been sprayed like it is.
2
About the same percentage of scientists say that genetically modified foods are safe as those who accept that there is global warming (over 85%). The Times should be ashamed to give any prominence to the nonsense expressed in this opinion piece. (The author's opinion is that there is no proof of danger, but there might be.)
6
Bittman makes a couple of omissions in his otherwise uncharacteristically ecumenical piece. First, he cites the millions spent by Big Food to lobby against labeling, but fails to mention the millions spent by Big Organic to lobby for labeling (Environmental Working Group and the Center for Food Safety, just to name two pro-labeling lobbying groups, raised more than $42 million between 2009 and 2013). Second, he faults herbicide-resistant GMOs for developing resistance and "forcing growers to turn to more and different herbicides in a cycle of chemical warfare." This cycle is not unique to GM crops, but rather is an unavoidable part and process of crop agriculture in general. In other words, this complaint about GM crops has nothing in particular to do with GM crops; it's a non sequitur that is meant to mislead.
11
"G.M.O.s have become an indispensable crutch for the fertilizer- and pesticide-dependent monoculture that is wrecking our land"
The real promise of GMO is to reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Crops engineered to need less of each. We have 7,000,000,000 people looking to eat dinner every night, and GMO holds the best hope for feeding them more efficiently and with less impact. The world's population will not be fed by local farmers raising organic food.
The real promise of GMO is to reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Crops engineered to need less of each. We have 7,000,000,000 people looking to eat dinner every night, and GMO holds the best hope for feeding them more efficiently and with less impact. The world's population will not be fed by local farmers raising organic food.
16
The problem with GMO labeling is that it does not provide useful information, but rather an invitation to irrational fear. By labeling food this way, sellers imply that this is relevant, that the food might be wrong in some way.
Marking food as being genetically modified is akin to labeling it as "May have been handled by Mexicans." Neither provides real safety information, and both are an appeal to prejudice.
Marking food as being genetically modified is akin to labeling it as "May have been handled by Mexicans." Neither provides real safety information, and both are an appeal to prejudice.
7
Since 90% of all corn and soybeans are genetically modified in this country, food labeling would be virtually meaningless. Most cooking oils and corn starch, which are used in almost all commercial products would have to be labeled that they contain GMO ingredients. These would include all fried foods, and even yogurt that often contains corn starch as a thickening agent. Most Tofu would also have to be labeled. This would not help anyone make sound decisions about their choices of food. Not only that, oils and starches are highly refined before they are marketed and probably do not contain any residues from Round Up or the type of insecticide that is introduced to make them insect resistant. In addition, the insecticide is used by organic farmers since it is a natural product. The process of genetic modification itself does not add any toxic proteins or DNA to food. Replacing a growth hormone from one type of salmon with a growth hormone from another type of salmon will not make it dangerous. The human body digests growth hormones, which is why they have to be injected if necessary for medical reasons. I think the whole controversy is really silly. The things we should be worrying about in our food supply is contamination of by dangerous bacteria, such as e coli, listeria and salmonella.
5
... and TTIP wants to bring the control of corporations (over national + health interest) to Europe, where in many countries GMO food is not allowed. period.
(a much easier solution than being on hold on a 1-800- hotline while shopping - the cynicism of it !!!)
Not every single GMO food is bad - but corporations have proven that they cannot be trusted to tell us the truth - or do unbiased research, no wonder we wound up mistrust them all.
(a much easier solution than being on hold on a 1-800- hotline while shopping - the cynicism of it !!!)
Not every single GMO food is bad - but corporations have proven that they cannot be trusted to tell us the truth - or do unbiased research, no wonder we wound up mistrust them all.
2
Not every single GMO food is bad- Please tell us which ones are. The answer is none. They allow for LESS pesticide and fertilizer use , things that are actually bad for us or the environment in overly large amounts. I'll make you a deal, let me have my better tasting and cheaper GMOs and I will make it law that there must be so called "organic" food available at market price. Oh, and sorry, your unvaccinated kids will have to go to school with other unvaccinated kids. And please keep them away from mine . That should be a law too. I promise to keep my chem trails and radio frequency poisoning away from you.
The real truth is that GMOs are designed to grow where drought and pests and poor soil could cause famine. This is totally different from using antibiotics on livestock that have long been know to select for resistant organisms.
The real truth is that GMOs are designed to grow where drought and pests and poor soil could cause famine. This is totally different from using antibiotics on livestock that have long been know to select for resistant organisms.
3
I think you've been duped by corporate pseudoscience...
1
So this is not about safe food but about the big bad corporations.
The first thirteen years of my life were GMO free; mandated by era, not idealism. I can now claim the subsequent decades have been by far my most healthy. I sleep sounder, arise better rested, have more energy, cuts and bruises heal noticeably faster. Causing me to wonder, had I fed my body GMO the first thirteen years, how great I could've become.
Wrong. Every food you've eaten in your life, since the day you were born has been genetically modified, unless you were and are a hunter/gatherer.
3
When our president, congress and laws don't get it right,
because they have corrupted relationship with corporations what are we to do? It is not an opportunity, it is crimes committed against us and needs punished.
We can be a financial force to make companies label GMO or non-GMO products. Businesses cannot exist without its customers and it is time we unite and use the leverage we have to get rid of the deception. We can make their deceptions fully visible, because we now know how they are trying to deceive us, even by controlling our laws.
I use to shop one store who refuses to label its brand, even though it says every product with its store name on it
is non-GMO. However I know they purchase from major cereal manufactures their exact product who use GMO grains, so it can't be non-GMO.
I have found other stores to buy from. We can help companies figure it out, through their lack of sales and profits. It is their deceptive and immoral practices on its customers that we have to change. If we stop the
corporate lies and deceptions, we can start to create the right response from our government and its agencies.
because they have corrupted relationship with corporations what are we to do? It is not an opportunity, it is crimes committed against us and needs punished.
We can be a financial force to make companies label GMO or non-GMO products. Businesses cannot exist without its customers and it is time we unite and use the leverage we have to get rid of the deception. We can make their deceptions fully visible, because we now know how they are trying to deceive us, even by controlling our laws.
I use to shop one store who refuses to label its brand, even though it says every product with its store name on it
is non-GMO. However I know they purchase from major cereal manufactures their exact product who use GMO grains, so it can't be non-GMO.
I have found other stores to buy from. We can help companies figure it out, through their lack of sales and profits. It is their deceptive and immoral practices on its customers that we have to change. If we stop the
corporate lies and deceptions, we can start to create the right response from our government and its agencies.
4
Mr. Magoo, the short sighted one:
You can get the government to impose new regulation on big food. Big food will be glad to do so because they can pass the costs along to the consumers.
There are very few consumers who are willing to pay 5% more for their commodity food to pay for additional labelling. You apparently are willing to pay extra for labels that say your food is GMO free. Why should all people pay a 5% premium so you can avoid a 50% or 100% premium.
Your motivation is to socialize your food cost by imposing regulations. Consider someone else for a change.
If you are dissatisfied with commercial food production, grow your own.
You can get the government to impose new regulation on big food. Big food will be glad to do so because they can pass the costs along to the consumers.
There are very few consumers who are willing to pay 5% more for their commodity food to pay for additional labelling. You apparently are willing to pay extra for labels that say your food is GMO free. Why should all people pay a 5% premium so you can avoid a 50% or 100% premium.
Your motivation is to socialize your food cost by imposing regulations. Consider someone else for a change.
If you are dissatisfied with commercial food production, grow your own.
2
ebmen,
Don't know you nor do you know me, but I'm not near sighted, I'm blind. That does not make your attack on me or you argument a good one.
From you comment you should be working for the food industry? That is the only other someone else which we should not consider, like you do.
What cost, a new label? That is a one time costs and if corporations were so anxious to past this cost on, why hasn't it happened?
We may not have the legal right, however we have a moral right to know what our food is and what is in our food, but many commercial foods don't want us to know, because we would not buy some of the food if we knew.
As far as GMO goes, it has never been studied long term on humans and according to you if we care, grow our own. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide used on GMO crops, has been the focus of increasing scrutiny after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined it to be a probable human carcinogen. It's imperative ALL GE foods be labeled clearly without a smartphone scan code, because not everyone owns a smartphone is that the others who need to be considered?
The Grocery Manufactures of America actually owns the "Smart Label" trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called “compromise” to on-package GMO labeling.
Our land does not support our needs, but our daughter grows non-GMO/organic produce in Wi.
Don't know you nor do you know me, but I'm not near sighted, I'm blind. That does not make your attack on me or you argument a good one.
From you comment you should be working for the food industry? That is the only other someone else which we should not consider, like you do.
What cost, a new label? That is a one time costs and if corporations were so anxious to past this cost on, why hasn't it happened?
We may not have the legal right, however we have a moral right to know what our food is and what is in our food, but many commercial foods don't want us to know, because we would not buy some of the food if we knew.
As far as GMO goes, it has never been studied long term on humans and according to you if we care, grow our own. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide used on GMO crops, has been the focus of increasing scrutiny after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined it to be a probable human carcinogen. It's imperative ALL GE foods be labeled clearly without a smartphone scan code, because not everyone owns a smartphone is that the others who need to be considered?
The Grocery Manufactures of America actually owns the "Smart Label" trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called “compromise” to on-package GMO labeling.
Our land does not support our needs, but our daughter grows non-GMO/organic produce in Wi.
2
What food that we eat hasn't been genetically modified? We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years. How close do you think today's corn, cows, or tomatoes are to their ancestors of 10,000 years ago?
We've been artificially pollinating and doing forced breeding of the best producers, the most disease-resistant, the most drought tolerant, etc., and the end result is quite different from "natural." It has also allowed a small number of people to feed a huge population.
Why is it "GMO" if a scientist studies which gene will make a plant more drought tolerant and moves that gene into a plant, but not "GMO" if other scientists cross-pollinate various plants in greenhouses until they, more randomly and less efficiently, produce the same outcome?
If we're going to be honest about GMO labelling, virtually everything we eat will be labelled as such.
We've been artificially pollinating and doing forced breeding of the best producers, the most disease-resistant, the most drought tolerant, etc., and the end result is quite different from "natural." It has also allowed a small number of people to feed a huge population.
Why is it "GMO" if a scientist studies which gene will make a plant more drought tolerant and moves that gene into a plant, but not "GMO" if other scientists cross-pollinate various plants in greenhouses until they, more randomly and less efficiently, produce the same outcome?
If we're going to be honest about GMO labelling, virtually everything we eat will be labelled as such.
10
You are right, because even if the seeds is non-GMO the plants get cross pollinated and contaminated as GMO. We need to stop all GMO seeds from being used. The corporate purpose for farmers to use GMO seeds is for the company to sell their GMO seeds every year and their weed killer, where the GMO plants are harmed by the weed killer. However, these weed killers are no longer working, because weeds have become resistance to it, so what's next?
1
Being from Vermont, I was disappointed with the national "compromise" legislation, but agree that we should make the best of it. To me, the issue is mostly about the health of the land and soil, not the safety of the food; I think it will be very difficult to demonstrate scientifically that non-GMO food is safer than GMO food. The missed opportunity (which I had advocated for with my legislators) is that in giving in on the weak labeling requirements, the food-labeling proponents should have pushed for "point-of-origin" labeling requirements on produce and other food. We should be able to know that the garlic we buy at Safeway comes from China. I think point-of-origin, or at least "country-of-origin" labeling could have been obtained with the national legislation, and I hope that our legislators will push for that.
27
It's pretty simple. People should have an absolute right to know what their food is made of and where it comes from. Anyone who advocates or accepts less than that is trying to hide something. If your worry is that uninformed people will not buy your product, the solution is simple. Education. If your worry is that informed people will not buy your product, you probably shouldn't be selling it. But industry's continued position seems to be a combination of "ignorance is bliss" and "shut up and eat what you're given".
3
There are very few people who are willing to pay extra to know where the wheat for their Wheaties was grown. Many people want to know where their fish came from and whether it is wild caught or farmed. The law requires that country of origin be on fish labels.
If you are eating wheat or soy containing products, you know that it is GMO containing unless you are paying a huge premium to buy products labeled non GMO.
It's pretty simple, you do not care how much poor and middle class people have to pay to satisfy your anti-science belief about GMOs. If you want special food, pay the premium. Do not act like your motivation is to save the people by imposing higher food costs on them.
If you are eating wheat or soy containing products, you know that it is GMO containing unless you are paying a huge premium to buy products labeled non GMO.
It's pretty simple, you do not care how much poor and middle class people have to pay to satisfy your anti-science belief about GMOs. If you want special food, pay the premium. Do not act like your motivation is to save the people by imposing higher food costs on them.
1
Why do we make life so hard for ourselves? No scientist worth his salt thinks GMO foods are a problem. If the food industry would just make the information transparent in a uniform way, the noise would go away. And to those who say the cost of packaging change would be onerous? I worked in the food industry, packaging is changed all the time. The law only needs to give companies a long lead time to revise packaging and to run out old packaging. As for me putting more pressure on the food industry? I have bigger fish to fry (no pun intended).
2
OK Mark....Some questions/facts...
Evidence for maize and soybean based-foods sickening our population?
{{BTW whose population? USA, world, Mark's friends?}}
Evidence for decreasing lifespans?
http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/life-expectancy-increases-globall...
Crops are grown in monocultures because it is much more efficient and cost effective to plant and harvest the crop in this fashion. Of course crops could be grown in polyculture and hand-harvested, but costs would be extremely high.
With regard to the information you are requesting for agriculture products (transparency revolution!), why are you limiting this inquisition only to food products, why not expand to all manufactured products as well?
N.B. Not all countries have a minimum wage. This includes highly developed European countries.
Many countries do not allow unions
Sustainability of crop water use depends on where it is grown...if grown in water rich areas OK, but more problematic if grown in arid environments..
So even if you have this information, it is not so easy to interpret...
Evidence for maize and soybean based-foods sickening our population?
{{BTW whose population? USA, world, Mark's friends?}}
Evidence for decreasing lifespans?
http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/life-expectancy-increases-globall...
Crops are grown in monocultures because it is much more efficient and cost effective to plant and harvest the crop in this fashion. Of course crops could be grown in polyculture and hand-harvested, but costs would be extremely high.
With regard to the information you are requesting for agriculture products (transparency revolution!), why are you limiting this inquisition only to food products, why not expand to all manufactured products as well?
N.B. Not all countries have a minimum wage. This includes highly developed European countries.
Many countries do not allow unions
Sustainability of crop water use depends on where it is grown...if grown in water rich areas OK, but more problematic if grown in arid environments..
So even if you have this information, it is not so easy to interpret...
6
Wow. I am always amazed at the lack of information and the people who profess to know everything but know nothing.
Vitamins and minerals are diminished when the genetic structure is altered in a plant or animal when modified. Yes in some cases some can be increased. But those are few. And how will that altering of the genetic structure affect the way that or animal is used by the body.
We have a lot of fat children as well as adults and some scientist say by altering the structure of a plant or animal can affect the way our bodies process it causing our bodies to retain more of what is bad for us and and less of what is good for our bodies.
Allergies have been shown to be on the increase. Fat people are on the increase. under nourished people who are eating regularly are everywhere. GMO's have a much larger problem though. They require huge amounts of Oil products to allow them to grow to maturity. And those products sprayed on the crops and the soil are the problem. They use the basic chemical makeup of Agent Orange used as a defoliant during the Vietnam war. This chemical caused many problems for the Vietnamese people. Birth defects, Cancer and digestive issues, just to name a few.
Plus the chemicals will be present in the soil for 10,000 years. And it gets into the water supply, the air and the ocean. Kills birds and bees and other beneficial bugs and animals and also deforms them by altering the genetic structure of their own genome. Same could happen to us.
Vitamins and minerals are diminished when the genetic structure is altered in a plant or animal when modified. Yes in some cases some can be increased. But those are few. And how will that altering of the genetic structure affect the way that or animal is used by the body.
We have a lot of fat children as well as adults and some scientist say by altering the structure of a plant or animal can affect the way our bodies process it causing our bodies to retain more of what is bad for us and and less of what is good for our bodies.
Allergies have been shown to be on the increase. Fat people are on the increase. under nourished people who are eating regularly are everywhere. GMO's have a much larger problem though. They require huge amounts of Oil products to allow them to grow to maturity. And those products sprayed on the crops and the soil are the problem. They use the basic chemical makeup of Agent Orange used as a defoliant during the Vietnam war. This chemical caused many problems for the Vietnamese people. Birth defects, Cancer and digestive issues, just to name a few.
Plus the chemicals will be present in the soil for 10,000 years. And it gets into the water supply, the air and the ocean. Kills birds and bees and other beneficial bugs and animals and also deforms them by altering the genetic structure of their own genome. Same could happen to us.
1
As a plant molecular biologist I have conflicted feelings about labeling laws. Full disclosure: I construct transgenic plants for basic research and not for food or fiber production, so I know how it's done but have no financial skin in the game. On one hand, the best scientific evidence says that there is no harm in eating genetically engineered foods, period. By the way, sweet potatoes have been found recently the be "genetically engineered" naturally at some time in the past by the same bacterium used to do modern genetic engineering (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/18/5844.abstract). Oh, and yeasts for wine and beer-making are genetically modified as well. However, there is a lot of misinformation and, I think, conflation of hatred for Monsanto, the over use of herbicides its products encourage and its business practices and fear of genetically engineered foods: not all genetically modified foods are resistant to RoundUp. This is why it's misleading to lump them together as "GMOs". They really ought to be considered individually, which unfortunately requires more information on the part of consumers. On the other hand, consumers have a right to know what they are buying. It's really disheartening that fear and misinformation usually win out over rational discourse.
63
In many cases the labeling battle has already been fought with a de facto win on direct "non GMO" information on the product. Who wants to stop aisle by aisle to connect to the internet for information concerning a mystery symbol?
(And who doesn't suspect the manufacturers who wish to hide product information?)
As far as farming practices, we need to realize the hidden costs of factory farming in terms of our health (and the hidden subsidies that make added food fillers cheaper than healthy ingredients). We also need to come to terms with the fact that many people struggle to buy healthy food because of price. Once it is no longer easy to lower product costs by adding "food fillers" such as cheap sugars and starches without a consideration of the health costs we will be on our way to healthier farming. But this is a very tall order.
(And who doesn't suspect the manufacturers who wish to hide product information?)
As far as farming practices, we need to realize the hidden costs of factory farming in terms of our health (and the hidden subsidies that make added food fillers cheaper than healthy ingredients). We also need to come to terms with the fact that many people struggle to buy healthy food because of price. Once it is no longer easy to lower product costs by adding "food fillers" such as cheap sugars and starches without a consideration of the health costs we will be on our way to healthier farming. But this is a very tall order.
Don't get get mad; get even. They want us to call? Okay, we will call. Since some producers will use a toll-free number that consumers can call for more information, consumers should call relentlessly, over and over again, until producers understand that it would be to their benefit to place GMO labels directly on their products. Call the toll-free numbers, call the headquarters, call the consumer affairs offices. Call Call CALL
1
It's not enough to simply label something as 'containing GMOs,' Some GMOs are positive and some - like those allowing spraying of powerful herbicides - are more problematic. Let's start by saying what was modified and why. Because the controversy over generic 'GMOs' makes people believe that ANY GMO is automatically bad, and you lose perfectly good tools for improving health and safety, like the effort to reduce Zika transmission by releasing male GMO mosquitoes in transmission areas. It isn't allowed in the Florida Keys because people are 'uncomfortable with it.' Why? Male mosquitoes don't bite. If the scheme works, they breed with females and the larva don't develop, reducing the population by 90%. If it don't work, NOTHING happens. There isn't any additional danger, the GMO males die in a few weeks. There is no down side and significant upside, but 'GMO' has become such a lightening rod that people are refusing a lifeline. Let's get smarter about how we discuss these things.
4
Given how common both GMOs, agricultural chemicals, corporations, and counterfeiting (false labelling) are, it seems likely that there will need to be a lot of product testing to respond to consumer concerns and lawsuits. It will be interesting to see how successful anyone is in meeting those tests, especially as the criteria may expand along the lines that Mr. Bittman seems to advocate. Either a lot of people will lose their GMO-free (or corporation-free) labels or some compromises will be made -- at which point labelling may seem less worth the effort from the purist's point of view.
Some of these GMO free Labels are simply lies that corps such as GM has put on their products. In fact once many of their products were tested it was found that YEs they contain GE Ingredients!
Seed patenting is the real reason to fight G.M.O.'s, and is largely lost in the U.S. conversation. Monsanto's monopolization of the market through the intellectual property rights of seed patenting allows it to extract monopoly rents from farmers around the world. While the labeling fight is important, passing laws that ban the patenting of genetic codes and enshrining farmers' rights to save and reuse seeds should be at the top of activists' agendas. If there were a law passed at the federal level doing both the corporate interest in G.M.O.'s would wither, and we would liberate small farmers internationally from a portion of the burdens placed on them.
2
Seeds and plants have been patented since the Plant Patent Act of 1930; decades before modern GMOs.
I wish people like Mr. Bittman would advocate for a blend of conventional and organic-type agricultural practices. Newer safer pesticides and herbicides, GMOs, and no-till farming of conventional agriculture combined with sustainable practices of organic agriculture would then prompt the big ag companies to promote the practices as well. This is not an either-or debate, as is the case most of the time. People just do not know the difference.
Think, if people would accept GMOs, then companies would have incentive to invest in better fruits and vegetables, which would allow them to be incorporated into big ag and reduce monocultures!
Think, if people would accept GMOs, then companies would have incentive to invest in better fruits and vegetables, which would allow them to be incorporated into big ag and reduce monocultures!
1
I have a right to know what is in my food!
"DuPont and Dow merged in 2015, and Sygenta and China National Chemical Corporation agreed to merge in February. If Bayer's purchase of Monsanto goes through, it would be the biggest foreign takeover by a German company ever, and could leave the world in a situation where three companies control half of global seed sales."
Seed companies bought by Monsanto as of 2012. Monsanto shut down all ongoing research by these seed companies.
Gardener Seeds:
Audubon Workshop
Breck’s Bulbs
Cook’s Garden
Dege Garden Center
Earl May Seed
E & R Seed Co
Ferry Morse
Flower of the Month Club
Gardens Alive
Germania Seed Co
Garden Trends
HPS
Jung Seed Genetics
Lindenberg Seeds
McClure and Zimmerman Quality Bulb Brokers
Mountain Valley Seed
Nichol’s
Osborne
Park Bulbs
Park’s Countryside Garden
R.H. Shumway
Roots and Rhizomes
Rupp
Seeds for the World
Seymour’s Selected Seeds
Snow
Spring Hill Nurseries
Stokes
T&T Seeds
Tomato Growers Supply
Totally Tomato
Vermont Bean Seed Co.
Wayside Gardens
Willhite Seed Co.
"Farm Seeds":
American Seeds
Asgrow
Campbell
DeKalb
De Ruiter
Diener Seeds
Fielder’s Choice
Fontanelle
Gold Country Seed
Hawkeye
Heartland
Heritage Seeds
Holdens
Hubner Seed
icorn
Kruger Seeds
Lewis Hybrids
Peotec
Poloni
Rea Hybrids
Seminis
Specialty
Stewart
Stone Seed
Trelay
Western Seeds
"DuPont and Dow merged in 2015, and Sygenta and China National Chemical Corporation agreed to merge in February. If Bayer's purchase of Monsanto goes through, it would be the biggest foreign takeover by a German company ever, and could leave the world in a situation where three companies control half of global seed sales."
Seed companies bought by Monsanto as of 2012. Monsanto shut down all ongoing research by these seed companies.
Gardener Seeds:
Audubon Workshop
Breck’s Bulbs
Cook’s Garden
Dege Garden Center
Earl May Seed
E & R Seed Co
Ferry Morse
Flower of the Month Club
Gardens Alive
Germania Seed Co
Garden Trends
HPS
Jung Seed Genetics
Lindenberg Seeds
McClure and Zimmerman Quality Bulb Brokers
Mountain Valley Seed
Nichol’s
Osborne
Park Bulbs
Park’s Countryside Garden
R.H. Shumway
Roots and Rhizomes
Rupp
Seeds for the World
Seymour’s Selected Seeds
Snow
Spring Hill Nurseries
Stokes
T&T Seeds
Tomato Growers Supply
Totally Tomato
Vermont Bean Seed Co.
Wayside Gardens
Willhite Seed Co.
"Farm Seeds":
American Seeds
Asgrow
Campbell
DeKalb
De Ruiter
Diener Seeds
Fielder’s Choice
Fontanelle
Gold Country Seed
Hawkeye
Heartland
Heritage Seeds
Holdens
Hubner Seed
icorn
Kruger Seeds
Lewis Hybrids
Peotec
Poloni
Rea Hybrids
Seminis
Specialty
Stewart
Stone Seed
Trelay
Western Seeds
4
I believe that everything should be labeled, and mainly agree with Mark. However, we all shop at Trader Joes, Whole Foods, and our local supermarket. I've been doing a very unscientific (I'm a geoarchaeologist) study of shoppers at these stores. My wife and I read every label, and have modified our purchases accordingly, however, in three years of my unscientific study I have never, that's never seen anyone else look at a product label. Americans aren't interested, in general. Now this could all be sampling error - I've just missed someone in the other aisle, or it could be that Americans don't really care. I do, but what proportion of Americans do?
On the other hand, what do corporations have to hide? That's the way this comes off. If genetic modification is so safe, why hide it? Americans don't read the labels anyway. I know that's not the point. I believe that the contents should be there for all to see, but will anyone look?
On the other hand, what do corporations have to hide? That's the way this comes off. If genetic modification is so safe, why hide it? Americans don't read the labels anyway. I know that's not the point. I believe that the contents should be there for all to see, but will anyone look?
1
Many years ago, the historian Crane Brinton argued that every revolution in history, including the less violent and rather conservative American Revolution, was ideologically justified by its protagonists by appealing to nature. I am confused. Is Mr. Bittman an ideologist in this sense or is he asking for a reassessment of our conception of nature?
If we get what the author proposes, we'll have two results. The first will be more expensive food as the costs of tracking and reporting all this information is added on to the cost of production. The second result is that this information will ignored by most consumers. After all, how many people pay attention to he labels that state: "This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer." These labels seem to be ubiquitous, particularly on products that aren't consumed by people.
2
Any step, however short and frustrated, can be seen as a first step. It could also be the last, near total defeat a goal line stand. Which is it? That requires seeing the balance of forces, and not just in the moment but how they are evolving. In international politics it is rising powers vs status quo powers hanging on against falling relative power. It is the same here.
Looking forward, the key fact is that 2/3 of adults have and can use smart phones. Knowing stuff, wanting to know stuff, making the now minimal effort to find out, those things are the shifting balance of power.
We are rising. It can't be stopped.
Looking forward, the key fact is that 2/3 of adults have and can use smart phones. Knowing stuff, wanting to know stuff, making the now minimal effort to find out, those things are the shifting balance of power.
We are rising. It can't be stopped.
5
Mark: Smart phones, stupid people.
The GMO labeling movement is much more than simply about what goes into our food. It's about who controls the food in America and much of the world. It's about what has happened to our democracy. It's about how anti-trust situations are not being enforced by the federal government.
Vermont debated our GMO labeling bill for two years before it was passed. Labeling bills were passed in a number of other states, including some that wanted to see if Vermont's bill would pass first, because they didn't think they could afford to be sued by Monsanto without other states to help foot the bill. The Grocery Manufacturers Association spent over $100 to kill GMO labeling, although 90% of Americans wanted it. Now we find that the organic dairy companies are being consolidated so that one company controls 25% of organic milk. Horizon was sold to Dean Foods, then Dean sold it to Dannone, now we hear that it is being sold to Stoneyfield. Organic dairy farmers are being told to cut back 2-3% on production, and take a cut in price. Those of us who have been promoting organic food for the past 40 years to support family farmers and healthy foods are constantly at war with the US Government and the huge mega-corporations that have so much money, they can do whatever they want. Organic wasn't attractive to them when we were small. Now that there is a big demand for organic, they want to control it!
Vermont debated our GMO labeling bill for two years before it was passed. Labeling bills were passed in a number of other states, including some that wanted to see if Vermont's bill would pass first, because they didn't think they could afford to be sued by Monsanto without other states to help foot the bill. The Grocery Manufacturers Association spent over $100 to kill GMO labeling, although 90% of Americans wanted it. Now we find that the organic dairy companies are being consolidated so that one company controls 25% of organic milk. Horizon was sold to Dean Foods, then Dean sold it to Dannone, now we hear that it is being sold to Stoneyfield. Organic dairy farmers are being told to cut back 2-3% on production, and take a cut in price. Those of us who have been promoting organic food for the past 40 years to support family farmers and healthy foods are constantly at war with the US Government and the huge mega-corporations that have so much money, they can do whatever they want. Organic wasn't attractive to them when we were small. Now that there is a big demand for organic, they want to control it!
5
I agree with Amala that this was a good article. While there is always concern when something new comes along, very large studies indicate that GMO's don't seem to cause any harm. So labeling products made from GMO's is probably a good idea, but it is doubtful if consumers will make any significant change in buying habits, as they continue to buy tons of food and drink made with high fructose corn syrup. But any way you cut it, we are going to need ways to produce more food for our current hungry citizens and another billion or so that will come along in the next half century.
2
I understand that just because a food has been genetically modified doesn't make the food potentially dangerous. There's genetically modified and then there's genetically modified.
Example: I have no complaint with GMO rice with Vitamin A embedded (known as Golden Rice, www.goldenrice.org) designed to rid countries of Vitamin A deficiency blindness where rice is the primary food source. This is a great example of additive genetic engineering, where a new benefit to human is added to a food staple without reducing or destroying the nutritional value of the base food stock.
And, then we have Monsanto with its GMO seed stock for corn, soybeans and wheat, a modification designed to make the food stock resistant to Round-Up herbicide. The only documented benefit derived from this modification is higher yields to farmers and higher profits to Monsanto. There are no studies indicating the nutritional value of the food stocks has been diminished, increased or remains the same. No long-term studies to evaluate safety. Just a blunt campaign that says, "We made the crop more herbicide resistant to make food cheaper. You can't label any food as containing our GMO product, conduct any safety/effectiveness studies, nor label non-GMO products as NOT containing our product. Happy Eating!"
Golden Rice is an example of "good" GMO food; the latter, unfortunately, is a prime example of "bad" GMO food. The issue for government, IMHO, is to help citizens distinguish between the two.
Example: I have no complaint with GMO rice with Vitamin A embedded (known as Golden Rice, www.goldenrice.org) designed to rid countries of Vitamin A deficiency blindness where rice is the primary food source. This is a great example of additive genetic engineering, where a new benefit to human is added to a food staple without reducing or destroying the nutritional value of the base food stock.
And, then we have Monsanto with its GMO seed stock for corn, soybeans and wheat, a modification designed to make the food stock resistant to Round-Up herbicide. The only documented benefit derived from this modification is higher yields to farmers and higher profits to Monsanto. There are no studies indicating the nutritional value of the food stocks has been diminished, increased or remains the same. No long-term studies to evaluate safety. Just a blunt campaign that says, "We made the crop more herbicide resistant to make food cheaper. You can't label any food as containing our GMO product, conduct any safety/effectiveness studies, nor label non-GMO products as NOT containing our product. Happy Eating!"
Golden Rice is an example of "good" GMO food; the latter, unfortunately, is a prime example of "bad" GMO food. The issue for government, IMHO, is to help citizens distinguish between the two.
3
I think we are overdue for a new Underwriters Laboratory or Consumer Reports to evaluate independently and certify or rate the ever changing complexities for consumer safety standards.
I'd like to see something like the UL on the package, or a bar code on the package leading to the Consumer Report summary on a smart phone. If wholesalers don't want to do it, retailers can just to have a one up over the store down the street.
I'd like to see something like the UL on the package, or a bar code on the package leading to the Consumer Report summary on a smart phone. If wholesalers don't want to do it, retailers can just to have a one up over the store down the street.
3
I just left Consumer Reports because of their anti-GMO content. They are not independent when it comes to this. It made me question all thier content so I left. W
We do have independend evaluations from academic organizations. Activists just do not like their conclusions.
We do have independend evaluations from academic organizations. Activists just do not like their conclusions.
4
I wish that articles on GMOs would explain the difference between hybridization and genetically modified organisms, the former being intraspecies crossbreeding to enhance favorable traits, sort of life accelerated evolution, and the latter being interspecies crossbreeding where under laboratory conditions two species which otherwise have no business coming together are rather created to form globalized monoculture crops for world domination of our food supply by a couple of corporations. One makes Mendel's experiments seem almost quaint; the other still raises questions and concerns. Tomatoes and bananas are not GMOs. Corn, soybeans, beets, yes.
3
interspecies crossing occurs naturally. It is called horizontal gene transfer. Scientists use a natural bacteria that does this in plants all the time, Agrobacterium tumifaciens.
2
I'm sure there will be a little something left over for the food producers to see that Congress and the POTUS quash any efforts for honest labels or food safety, unless Jill Stein miraculously wins the Presidency.
1
Of course, with Stein we get fear that vaccinations cause autism and Republicanism! An MD who doesn't read the scientific literature.
2
"foods produced with G.M.O.s have not been found to be harmful to people who eat them"
I think "found" is an incorrect word making the overall statement false. It implies that people have been looking at the question. No real research has been published looking at the effects of GMO foods on people. The industry has managed to suppress anyone looking to FIND anything about GMO products. (Similar to the NRA suppressing any research looking into gun-related deaths.)
I think "found" is an incorrect word making the overall statement false. It implies that people have been looking at the question. No real research has been published looking at the effects of GMO foods on people. The industry has managed to suppress anyone looking to FIND anything about GMO products. (Similar to the NRA suppressing any research looking into gun-related deaths.)
7
You are not looking into the research. See a a recent metastudy done by the national academy of sciences (an actual academic science organization unlike greenpeace, consumers of concerned scientists, center for food safety, the food babe, etc.)
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/
1
@NS, do you know -- are you concerned -- that commenting in the NYT's comments section has not been found to cause cancer?
1
GMOs are not the real issue. And even the broader issue of labels that completely and accurately disclose the source of food and the additives incorporated into our food is a relatively minor issue.
The read issue is sustainable agriculture. Our monoculture, fertilizer and pesticide regimes and the effects of global warming are real issues. How much of an annual increase in fertilizer and pesticide usage will be required to maintain the current level of agricultural output? Will we reach a point where next year's increase render the food produce unfit for consumption? Will global warming result in the need to resort to greater of use gene splicing and other techniques to produce the heat and drought tolerant plants we will need to feed our population?
I'm of the opinion that this labeling bill is just the sort of tinkering around the edges approach that distracts us from the very real urgency of developing a truly sustainable agriculture.
The read issue is sustainable agriculture. Our monoculture, fertilizer and pesticide regimes and the effects of global warming are real issues. How much of an annual increase in fertilizer and pesticide usage will be required to maintain the current level of agricultural output? Will we reach a point where next year's increase render the food produce unfit for consumption? Will global warming result in the need to resort to greater of use gene splicing and other techniques to produce the heat and drought tolerant plants we will need to feed our population?
I'm of the opinion that this labeling bill is just the sort of tinkering around the edges approach that distracts us from the very real urgency of developing a truly sustainable agriculture.
6
As a scientist in agriculture, I agree with some of your assertions based on the scientific literature. However, you seem to hint that organic practices are superior, which they are not always. This is not an either or debate. GMOs and the new safer synthetic pesticides and glyphosate should be used with best management practices used in sustainable ag. This would be a true revolution, especially if the environmental activists promote GMOs, then companies will jump at making our food system better.
1
It's encouraging that one of the 99 commenters is able to see the forest.
I think it's a big stretch to call the law a victory for the consumer. Call an 800 number? Go to a web site? Why not change cigarette package labeling to match? If a republican president signed this law, the NY Times would be calling foul.
4
A negative for GMO food not mentioned is the bullying tactics of Monsanto. They will sue an organic farmer when their seed 'migrates' into their clean fields. This can happen by truck spillage yet the farmer is sued. Farmers in poorer countries are not permitted to save seed - something they have been doing for centuries. This forces them to buy more seed and chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
A commenter has written: "GMOs....are a practical answer to at least one of the problems of industrial agriculture. It has decreased the use of harmful pesticides. If you were to have completely removed the existence of GMOs, what you might have is less arable land, more pesticide usage, and more backbreaking labor from farmers overseeing less resilient plants." This is the Monsanto Mantra and it is false. I have seen GMO corn fields near my home in Upstate NY with dead insects - including pollinators - blowing out of this field. Sick bees writhing in circles in the street before they died. It is a scorched earth approach.
Forgive me, but I see no upside to GMO seed no matter how they spin it.
A commenter has written: "GMOs....are a practical answer to at least one of the problems of industrial agriculture. It has decreased the use of harmful pesticides. If you were to have completely removed the existence of GMOs, what you might have is less arable land, more pesticide usage, and more backbreaking labor from farmers overseeing less resilient plants." This is the Monsanto Mantra and it is false. I have seen GMO corn fields near my home in Upstate NY with dead insects - including pollinators - blowing out of this field. Sick bees writhing in circles in the street before they died. It is a scorched earth approach.
Forgive me, but I see no upside to GMO seed no matter how they spin it.
32
Monsanto is abusive.
It is also being acquired by Bayer. Will Bayer change this?
We could condition approval of the acquisition on changing that abusive pattern.
It is also being acquired by Bayer. Will Bayer change this?
We could condition approval of the acquisition on changing that abusive pattern.
2
My undergrad students care more about healthy food than anything else that impacts us as a community and are remarkably savvy about nutrition, vis-a-vis my generation, so I agree that this legislation will represent the thin edge of the wedge. Food is an important political issue.
1
Starting this year, the entire Michigan State University campus is smoke free, meaning tobacco and vaping and marijuana and everything else. That means effectively the entire city of East Lansing is smoke free. That is not just standing outside the door of a building, it is the whole city.
That is the future. Food will be the same. The young lead us on these things, because for them it isn't change from what they've always done, it is just doing it right as they start out in life.
That is the future. Food will be the same. The young lead us on these things, because for them it isn't change from what they've always done, it is just doing it right as they start out in life.
5
"These foods produced with G.M.O.s have not been found to be harmful to people who eat them. (This isn’t to say they won’t be; our system for declaring products safe leaves much to be desired.)"
In other words, there is no evidence to support the presumption that GMOs are bad for human health.
In other words, there is no evidence to support the presumption that GMOs are bad for human health.
8
Putin banned all gmo food from Russia. Other European countries have had the ban in place for years. We Americans believe the propaganda of the big corporations, and we don't act in our own interests. Until it is too late.
5
This was done because of propoganda from people afraid of the science, i.e. Greenpeace.
4
What Bittman is envisioning would be a food label much, much larger than the package or can. Health benefits for workers? Just in America? What about Mexico, China, Thailand, Germany, Italy? How about a label that says "this product wasn't produced with slave labor."
And why stop there? "This product was treats with the following herbicides and/or pesticides, of which trace amounts may be present in the contents." Or, "This steak came from a lovable steer named Harvey, who was raised and loved by gentle ranchers in Alberta Canada."
Sarcasm, obviously, to point out that once you place a warning sticker about GMOs on a food package, there's no end to what you could add to market to paranoid consumers.
And why stop there? "This product was treats with the following herbicides and/or pesticides, of which trace amounts may be present in the contents." Or, "This steak came from a lovable steer named Harvey, who was raised and loved by gentle ranchers in Alberta Canada."
Sarcasm, obviously, to point out that once you place a warning sticker about GMOs on a food package, there's no end to what you could add to market to paranoid consumers.
2
Non-GMO Project verification. Works for me.
1
The plainly stated truth would be far better and should be the law.
Informed consent is the standard in medicine and should also be the standard in processed food and fresh produce. Just as you have a right to understand what Doctor is going to do and why, you should know if what you are consuming is the result of nature or of some lab process.
The supporters of Frankenfood tell us we have nothing to worry about, but they have poured Millions of Dollars to kill any and every consumer effort to get clear and unambiguous labeling on food. Adopting the tactics of the Tobacco Lobby does not tend to make people trust the AgriBusiness and Food Processing lobbies.
Next, we have the Investor-State Dispute Resolution provisions in many of our so-called "Free Trade" deals like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership and enacted ones like NAFTA, CAFTA, KFTA, etc. We lost country of origin labelling of meat because Chinese and other interests want to import food and sell it to you without your knowledge. Congress quickly repealed a hart fought for consumer labeling law to satisfy one of the Kangaroo Courts of the WTO provided for under these sketchy trade deals.
I have little doubt that Smithfield- now controlled by China- or some other food company will challenge even this horribly weak labelling law.
We need to get out of these Trade Deals that put the WTO and corporate lawyers over our government and we need clear labels that tell us what we are eating and where it came from.
Informed consent is the standard in medicine and should also be the standard in processed food and fresh produce. Just as you have a right to understand what Doctor is going to do and why, you should know if what you are consuming is the result of nature or of some lab process.
The supporters of Frankenfood tell us we have nothing to worry about, but they have poured Millions of Dollars to kill any and every consumer effort to get clear and unambiguous labeling on food. Adopting the tactics of the Tobacco Lobby does not tend to make people trust the AgriBusiness and Food Processing lobbies.
Next, we have the Investor-State Dispute Resolution provisions in many of our so-called "Free Trade" deals like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership and enacted ones like NAFTA, CAFTA, KFTA, etc. We lost country of origin labelling of meat because Chinese and other interests want to import food and sell it to you without your knowledge. Congress quickly repealed a hart fought for consumer labeling law to satisfy one of the Kangaroo Courts of the WTO provided for under these sketchy trade deals.
I have little doubt that Smithfield- now controlled by China- or some other food company will challenge even this horribly weak labelling law.
We need to get out of these Trade Deals that put the WTO and corporate lawyers over our government and we need clear labels that tell us what we are eating and where it came from.
6
@David Gregory: "Informed consent"? What does scientific "information" on GMOs say? Should that be part of the label? Or only the information that you consent to?
2
The intellectual dishonesty of the Left on GMOs is rivaled only by that of the Right on climate change.
'Stir a revolution', in what, Mr. Bittman? Stupidity?
'Stir a revolution', in what, Mr. Bittman? Stupidity?
11
California 2012 proposition for GMO labeling :$45,000,000 against lableling $8,000,000 for it; 51% voted no 48% yes;Three weeks prior to the vote Yes was ahead in polls, then Big Corporate monies came into the picture.
Legislation Paid and Bought by those whose products we all buy;
This new Law $100,000,000 million paid to our Congress to represent us so we can now contact our food suppliers in a most difficult way to be transparent. Corporation/businesses tell us how expensive it would be to comply with the consumers of the products they deliver, to label them,yet spend $100 million not to so.
Legislation bought and paid for by those whose products we all buy.
Legislation Paid and Bought by those whose products we all buy;
This new Law $100,000,000 million paid to our Congress to represent us so we can now contact our food suppliers in a most difficult way to be transparent. Corporation/businesses tell us how expensive it would be to comply with the consumers of the products they deliver, to label them,yet spend $100 million not to so.
Legislation bought and paid for by those whose products we all buy.
5
I view the new federal law as a major step back. It is complicated, and puts those who cannot afford the use of smartphones at a disadvantage. The Vermont law was clear. The information was on the label for all to clearly have access to. Whether GMO products are neutral, positive or negative, the issue in Vermont was simply the right of the consumer to know what is in the food we purchase. For us, it was as simple as knowing salt, sugar, chemicals. So, a step back in the ease and information for the person in the supermarket or food store.
8
I saw people making the wrong conclusion from the VT label. It wasn't clear, it wasn't helpful, and it was arbitrarily on products.
But confusion was part of the goal, I will admit that. So it did succeed on that front.
But confusion was part of the goal, I will admit that. So it did succeed on that front.
1
No discussion about GMOs is complete without a clear statement up front: GMOs are not the problem (which Mark tacitly admits in his piece that focuses on actual food issues). They are safer than new strains produced by conventional breeding (having undergone more extensive screening), and offer lifesaving hope to billions of people. The technology itself is NOT inherently dangerous and can't mutate you any more than eating plants makes you start to grow leaves. There are people literally starving to death who when asked why they don't grow the crops which would feed their children point to rich Westerners who refuse to eat GMO and say "They are rejecting them, we trust what they do not what you say is good for us." ANY American or European who rejects something because it's GMO should hang their head in shame if they care about the well-being of the worlds poor.
The article does a good job of pointing to things which actually ARE problems; the processes and residual chemicals which go into our food and our addiction to processed corn and soy. Those can and do hurt you, so focus on them. Testing food for residual herbicides (including roundup) is sensible; labeling things herbicide free if they test as such is a GOOD idea.
P.S. the herbicide resistant weeds being a GMO problem is a canard, if you use herbicides you get resistant weeds against whatever you use - that is how selection works.
The article does a good job of pointing to things which actually ARE problems; the processes and residual chemicals which go into our food and our addiction to processed corn and soy. Those can and do hurt you, so focus on them. Testing food for residual herbicides (including roundup) is sensible; labeling things herbicide free if they test as such is a GOOD idea.
P.S. the herbicide resistant weeds being a GMO problem is a canard, if you use herbicides you get resistant weeds against whatever you use - that is how selection works.
10
We would all like to know more about the food we eat. What pesticides, hormones, etc are used, what's added and what that means. How the animals are treated. The supermarkets are changing and have more bio food areas so they know people want to know more so they should be encouraged to reveal more. GMO is just one area.
1
The simple truth is that the new labeling law allows food producers to hide the fact that their food contains GMOs in a barcode that virtually no consumer is going to check,. Shame on the Congress for allowing producers to hide this from the public. How Bettman gets a positive from this is incredulous.
2
Amen!!!!
Best way for the government to modify eating habits and reverse the obesity epidemic in our nation is to give people the facts! Let them decide and make the truth available.
Best way for the government to modify eating habits and reverse the obesity epidemic in our nation is to give people the facts! Let them decide and make the truth available.
1
Mr. Bittman's critical assessment of why this defeat happened would have been more interesting to read than his spinning this defeat into a trojan horse bearing victory.
9
The research has not been done on the impact of GMO's.
But much research has been done on the impact of pesticides and herbicides in our foods, and their devastating impact on the land, water and animals. Most GMO's are used to create weed-killer and pesticide resistant crops. That means that most of the GMO's that we are eating everyday have been doused with neurotoxins and other designed-to-kill chemicals. Is that really what we want to be eating? If I wouldn't feed it to my dog, why would I want to feed it to my children or eat it myself? Much has been said about the current rise of gluten intolerance. Do people realize that their (non-GMO) wheat has been sprayed with glyphosate as part of the harvest process? No wonder it makes us sick!
GMO's are a part of a corrupt corporate big-food system that puts profit way before the sanctity of human or environmental health.
But much research has been done on the impact of pesticides and herbicides in our foods, and their devastating impact on the land, water and animals. Most GMO's are used to create weed-killer and pesticide resistant crops. That means that most of the GMO's that we are eating everyday have been doused with neurotoxins and other designed-to-kill chemicals. Is that really what we want to be eating? If I wouldn't feed it to my dog, why would I want to feed it to my children or eat it myself? Much has been said about the current rise of gluten intolerance. Do people realize that their (non-GMO) wheat has been sprayed with glyphosate as part of the harvest process? No wonder it makes us sick!
GMO's are a part of a corrupt corporate big-food system that puts profit way before the sanctity of human or environmental health.
39
Your description of "corporate big-food systems" sounds a lot like big pharma, our health care systems, and other conglomerates that exist only for profit and to h--l with public health.
1
The recent "rise" in gluten intolerance (celiac disease) is due mostly to greater awareness and thus more frequent diagnosis. At most a very small fraction of wheat grown in the US is treated with glyphosate prior to harvest. There is no scientific evidence that this practice is a concern for human health -- certainly there is no evidence that "it makes us sick." To the contrary, the use of glyphosate, which is an herbicide (kills plants), has not been shown to subsequently be meaningfully toxic for animals or humans.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyp...
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.h
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyp...
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.h
1
There is some evidence that our newer wheat hybrids have higher levels and different proportions of the types of proteins -- gliadins and glutenins -- which give rise to gluten, which may contribute to the increase in gluten intolerance. And commercially prepared bread is very different from older breads produced from starter cultures containing wild yeast and bacteria (sourdough) and much longer fermenting and proofing times, which may also contribute to this problem.
You don't mention (few ever do) the biggest problem with gm foods. No, it's not their effects on consumers. It's the effects on farmers and farming when the seed and pesticide producer (now often the same corporation) has monopoly power and the ability to enforce patent protection (they own the genes).
In traditional farming, farmers save their own seed, which becomes adapted to local conditions, requiring fewer pesticide treatments. The mosaic of different, locally adapted varieties across the landscape protects the crop against being wiped out by disease. The farmer doesn't have to pay the exorbitant seed prices of today that makes it all but impossible for any but the largest farms to earn a profit.
None of this has anything to do with the real potential benefits of gm to solve hunger issues in the third world. But it costs a lot to produce such crops. The reason so few have been developed is that there's no profit in it for today's mega-corporate seed-production monopolists.
Let's drop the silly talk of Luddites and look at where the money's going. Personally, I'd prefer my food dollars to support farmers, not seed companies.
In traditional farming, farmers save their own seed, which becomes adapted to local conditions, requiring fewer pesticide treatments. The mosaic of different, locally adapted varieties across the landscape protects the crop against being wiped out by disease. The farmer doesn't have to pay the exorbitant seed prices of today that makes it all but impossible for any but the largest farms to earn a profit.
None of this has anything to do with the real potential benefits of gm to solve hunger issues in the third world. But it costs a lot to produce such crops. The reason so few have been developed is that there's no profit in it for today's mega-corporate seed-production monopolists.
Let's drop the silly talk of Luddites and look at where the money's going. Personally, I'd prefer my food dollars to support farmers, not seed companies.
129
The comment of sceptic makes the essential point: this is not about breeding techniques, plant varieties, biodiversity, food safety, or human health -- it's about corporations.
16
Then why the weasel proxy war waged with pseudoscience against the "wrong" enemy?
The assertion that "In traditional farming, farmers save their own seed" is wrong when it comes to corn, the nation's largest crop. Commercially grown corn is a hybrid, and there is no assurance that the offspring of the hybrid corn will be the same as the hybrid (rather than the hybrid's parents. Farmers don't save seed from hybrids. And only a minority saved seed from varietals.
While I always favor transparency in labeling, regardless of GMO or not, much info necessary for healthy eating decisions is already present; but mostly wasted on people who ignore it anyway. Sugar content: evident in the 'grams of sugar' entry (even if on the ingredients tag the sugar has been 'hidden' by calling it corn syrup, cane syrup, or whatever); similarly for fat, and for salt. Most people will continue to favor highly processed food. Whether or not the corn or wheat in that concoction is 'genetically modified' will be
of minor health consequence compared to all the other toxins the manufacturers add.
of minor health consequence compared to all the other toxins the manufacturers add.
6
That some people are too stupid to read the labels shouldn't mean the information can be omitted; many people DO want to know what they're eating!
2
I try to buy as much as possible from the EU specifically for the controls there. Here too is a marketing campaign waiting to arrive with a line of foods all compliant with EU standards and from the EU in many cases. Trader Joe's seems to carry many EU compliant items.
Beyond food our water's contamination is a big concern since even with water treatment extra measures have to be taken to remove medical and other surface or waste water contaminants. More sewering and enhanced plants need to be federally funded.
Beyond food our water's contamination is a big concern since even with water treatment extra measures have to be taken to remove medical and other surface or waste water contaminants. More sewering and enhanced plants need to be federally funded.
9
We should insist that Congress give us a real labeling law, and now one that makes it as difficult as possible for consumers to get the information.
6
Oh, that's a switch. I remember when Bittman said this during his (brief) gig at a meal delivery company about product information:
"At the end of the day, you don’t really need to know more. This isn't about withholding information; it’s about making things simpler. "
But no, you aren't getting more. What the rocket non-scientist fopd activists with philosophy and polisci degrees who screwed up this legislation aren't telling you is that in politics, once an issue has been considered "done" by legislators, they aren't picking it back up for a decade or more. And it's still years out to decide what goes on this label. I appreciate that you all need to keep fundraising, though. I think this is a nice effort to do that.
But did you see Campbell's report yesterday? They were hurt by their organic division. Foodies are not truthful that they'll buy products where the companies give them useless info they claim to want. And companies are figuring this out.
"At the end of the day, you don’t really need to know more. This isn't about withholding information; it’s about making things simpler. "
But no, you aren't getting more. What the rocket non-scientist fopd activists with philosophy and polisci degrees who screwed up this legislation aren't telling you is that in politics, once an issue has been considered "done" by legislators, they aren't picking it back up for a decade or more. And it's still years out to decide what goes on this label. I appreciate that you all need to keep fundraising, though. I think this is a nice effort to do that.
But did you see Campbell's report yesterday? They were hurt by their organic division. Foodies are not truthful that they'll buy products where the companies give them useless info they claim to want. And companies are figuring this out.
6
Mem-somervile said: "Foodies are not truthful that they'll buy products where the companies give them useless info they claim to want."
Campbell didn't switch non organic products to organic...it acquired Plum organics, a large baby food company that already makes organic baby food. You are implying that consumers didn't take the organic bait, when in fact, organic baby food is a very competitive market. Organic food sales are growing by double digits annually, proving that consumers are increasingly looking for the organic label.
Campbell didn't switch non organic products to organic...it acquired Plum organics, a large baby food company that already makes organic baby food. You are implying that consumers didn't take the organic bait, when in fact, organic baby food is a very competitive market. Organic food sales are growing by double digits annually, proving that consumers are increasingly looking for the organic label.
1
Or perhaps "foodies" don't want the crud-in-a-can that is Campbell's, because they'd rather use fresh ingredients to make real soup? I know this "foodie" does just that.
3
It is an old and somewhat apologetic saw, but, like the ACA, it is a step in the right direction which now unfortunately in both instances will take a bit longer to reach to the desired and needed result
9
Wee need to be a great deal more involved in our food culture and in understanding what goes into what goes into our mouths. But we also need a more nuanced understanding. We shouldn't stop at GMO labeling because that's incomplete. For example, modifying barley from a grass with 2 rows of seeds in the husk to one that contains 8 was a good idea. But when we modify a plant like soybeans to be resistant to the effects of powerful weed killers like Roundup (AKA Agent Orange) we inadvertently invite metabolites of the weed killer on to our dinner plates with the potential for cancer causing effects down the road. The transparency revolution is a good idea but it's a skeleton that needs some meat on the bones.
10
Roundup is not Agent Orange. Agent Orange is a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T.
Most pesticides and their metabolites do not cause cancer. They are tested for several years before they are approved, There are cancer causing metabolites of some plants not treated with pesticides.
Most pesticides and their metabolites do not cause cancer. They are tested for several years before they are approved, There are cancer causing metabolites of some plants not treated with pesticides.
7
Ok on agent orange, Roundup is Glyphosate, but roundup ready plants have been linked to digestive problems, on reason the EU is against GMOs. many weeds are also developing tolerance for the chemical rendering it less effective.
There is a real business opportunity in marketing and distributing a new product grocery line that voluntarily proudly displays its GMO origins. It would boldly announce and guarantee, "Contains GMO's for your nutrition and safety." The sales campaign would explain to the public that the present day GMO story is truly a very advanced form of cultivation continuing the work that began with Gregor Mendel's hybridization back in the 1800's which revolutionized farming and the quality of cultivated food. The ads and labels will give the facts about how the benefits are plentiful tell how a more healthful food, with the further benefit of lower costs, will not only solve world hunger problems, but bring a healthier populace everywhere.
Surely, that's coming... the truth is an extremely a powerful marketing tool.
Surely, that's coming... the truth is an extremely a powerful marketing tool.
13
Yes, indeed, Polemic. It sure is a big business and marketing opportunity for the Monsanto folks. Just please note that Mendel and subsquent hybridizers did NOT us genes from other species like Monsanto and the current gang do. Nor were chemicals inserted, like Roundup, etc.
Nor did the hybridizers patent their products the way Monsnto and the others are doing. Only in very recent times was it considered okay to patent life forms as the Monsanto graduates engage in the revolving door of the regulatory agencies.
A bad and slippery slope ignored by those who try to justify GMOs and their ability to save the world from starvation, etc.
We need to know what we are eating! Period.
Nor did the hybridizers patent their products the way Monsnto and the others are doing. Only in very recent times was it considered okay to patent life forms as the Monsanto graduates engage in the revolving door of the regulatory agencies.
A bad and slippery slope ignored by those who try to justify GMOs and their ability to save the world from starvation, etc.
We need to know what we are eating! Period.
2
The truth is powerful and quite welcome when it actually can be realized, but propaganda is not truth, and generally its true intent is to control the populace.
Consider just your one point: hunger. Given that the USA has ample food, and given that hunger in the USA does in fact exist, it seems rather obvious that more food of any type - GMO, organic, or otherwise - is not the issue by any means. It is, in fact, a false dilemma, and those who actually research issues rather than spew out the GMO propaganda sound bites realize this rather quickly.
But honestly, I would hope for a line of food products that proudly displays its GMO contents and origins. It would make my shopping much easier in knowing, to some extent, what brand(s) to avoid like the plague.
Consider just your one point: hunger. Given that the USA has ample food, and given that hunger in the USA does in fact exist, it seems rather obvious that more food of any type - GMO, organic, or otherwise - is not the issue by any means. It is, in fact, a false dilemma, and those who actually research issues rather than spew out the GMO propaganda sound bites realize this rather quickly.
But honestly, I would hope for a line of food products that proudly displays its GMO contents and origins. It would make my shopping much easier in knowing, to some extent, what brand(s) to avoid like the plague.
1
Good luck finding cheese made without the help of GMOs: "By 2008, about 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC [fermentation produced chymosin]." But then: "With genetic engineering it became possible to isolate rennet genes from animals and introduce them into certain bacteria, fungi, or yeasts to make them produce chymosin during fermentation. The genetically modified microorganism is killed after fermentation and chymosin isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the fermentation-produced chymosin (FPC) used by cheese producers does not contain a GMO or any GMO DNA." So, is cheese a GMO product, or not?
The reasons a grower uses GMOs is of prime importance in the education of the food consuming public. e.g. Can a benign pesticide now be used as an alternative in production? Yields are up with GMOs, so can that hilly back 20 acres now be a wildlife preserve and also reduce soil runoff? Are the CRISPR generated mutants produced in your local farmer's lab even considered GMOs? Food safety-wise, will the added costs of inspections and farm upgrades now push your nice local organic grower out of business?
5
What a twisted food system we have. Our taxes subsidize growing unhealthy foods that make us sick...herbicide, pesticide and fungicide-drenched processed GMO corn and soy foodlike objects and antibiotic-infused, cruelly treated livestock. Fruits and cegetables, whcih we should be eating much more of, are considered "specialty" foods by our government. 90% of the corn and soy grown is fed to livestock, and 90% of antibiotics are as well. We pay for bad food three times...once to subsidize corn, soy and cotton (not for clothing; for cottonseed oil), most of which is fed to livestock, once more to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, and again at the cash register, where the processed foods and meat SEEM cheap, because we've already paid to produce it twice. Oh, yeah...then we develop heart disease and diabetes from our subsidized diets, and the pharma industry steps in again with meds to treat conditions we've paid thrice to develop. So we pay more for health care than anyone else in the world. And finally, big food and big pharma send in the trolls to call people who want to eat better diets "anti-science" and "anti-vaxxer," even though less than one percent of the population is anti-vaccine, but more than 90% wants GMO labeling.
93
Thank you, UGH from NJ!!!
You said it all and everyone needs to know and understand about what you wrote.
You said it all and everyone needs to know and understand about what you wrote.
1
Although I thought this was a great article with a level-headed description of the positives and minuses on GMOs. I don't like that it conflates the need to label GMOs with that to label other aspects of food. It's almost satirical.. to want to know if farm workers have health insurance? Lets step back for a second..
The industrial agriculture is just that, it's industrial, large-scale. Although that's not ideal (massive release of pesticide, irresponsible use of water, human rights abuses) this article is unrealistic.
GMOs, although they do contribute to things like monoculture, are a practical answer to at least one of the problems of industrial agriculture. It has decreased the use of harmful pesticides. If you were to have completely removed the existence of GMOs.. what you might have is less arable land, more pesticide usage, and more backbreaking labor from farmers overseeing less resilient plants.
I DO like that we are being critical of the companies that make our food. However, there is a reason policy makers are making this information harder to get. An inundation of food fats isn't going to spur a revolution of knowledge, it's going to lead to fear of our food. Though pesticides have been proven to be harmful and GMOs have been safely consumed for more than 20 years.
As eaters, most of us are way too busy or naive to know what to do with this "transparency"
The industrial agriculture is just that, it's industrial, large-scale. Although that's not ideal (massive release of pesticide, irresponsible use of water, human rights abuses) this article is unrealistic.
GMOs, although they do contribute to things like monoculture, are a practical answer to at least one of the problems of industrial agriculture. It has decreased the use of harmful pesticides. If you were to have completely removed the existence of GMOs.. what you might have is less arable land, more pesticide usage, and more backbreaking labor from farmers overseeing less resilient plants.
I DO like that we are being critical of the companies that make our food. However, there is a reason policy makers are making this information harder to get. An inundation of food fats isn't going to spur a revolution of knowledge, it's going to lead to fear of our food. Though pesticides have been proven to be harmful and GMOs have been safely consumed for more than 20 years.
As eaters, most of us are way too busy or naive to know what to do with this "transparency"
41
As an "eater" I am never too busy to find out what is in my food. Your comments make no sense!
4
GMOs have decreased the use of some pesticides, but have increased the use of others like glyphosate (yes, herbicides are pesticides) dramatically. We've recently learned that it is considered a carcinogen.
4
"GMOs" ie, plants and animals purposely genetically modified have been around for centuries. Case in point. Man has been genetically modifying wheat for thousands of years. The anti-GMO people need to take some science classes.
Interesting that there were no such thing as "weeds" before 21st century genetic modification. I would have expected that since the dawn of agriculture plucky little seeds dropped by birds or carried by winds would have taken advantage of a farmer's newly plowed fielded. It seems as though these "weeds" would have been plaguing humanity for thousands of years by now.
The idea of "monoculture" seems familiar too. I remembered something about an Irish potato famine almost 200 years ago - long before Monsanto began its quest for world food domination, according to the conspiracy theory.
In fact, if we label genetically modified organisms we must label almost everything we eat, which we've been genetically modifying for thousands of years. You will absolutely never see corn and dairy cattle in the wild, for example, because they have been created by humans, changed far more than many of our more recent genetic modifications.
The idea of "monoculture" seems familiar too. I remembered something about an Irish potato famine almost 200 years ago - long before Monsanto began its quest for world food domination, according to the conspiracy theory.
In fact, if we label genetically modified organisms we must label almost everything we eat, which we've been genetically modifying for thousands of years. You will absolutely never see corn and dairy cattle in the wild, for example, because they have been created by humans, changed far more than many of our more recent genetic modifications.
23
A: The Irish potato famine had nothing to do with monoculture. There was ample grain in Ireland, but, free-market-wise, it was for those who could afford it. Three quarters of the population did afford it--and the remainder was exported to the English market for soldiers and cavalry. The poorest of the poor subsisted on potatoes. The American myths on this topic force me to say that all of the Irish died in the famine and then they came to America.
8
But those cows and corn haven't been genetically altered with genes from other species nor filled with pesticide residues, etc.
A quest for a flower of a different color means messing with that species of flower, not cross-breeding among species. There are those who define GMOs to include historic means of hybridization, but they are not the same thing.
Remember the fury about the tomatos being crossed with cold water fish genes? Cross-species genetic engineering is not okay, at least with me.
A quest for a flower of a different color means messing with that species of flower, not cross-breeding among species. There are those who define GMOs to include historic means of hybridization, but they are not the same thing.
Remember the fury about the tomatos being crossed with cold water fish genes? Cross-species genetic engineering is not okay, at least with me.
1
Wow, who knew that the Native Americans hundreds of years ago were amazingly ahead of the times to "mix up" some genetic goo and create things like corn, and I presume beans and squash and other crops, so they could grow it as a crop. Nope, nothing existed in the wild but dirt and, what, small tubes of "genetic stuff - mix at your own risk".
(And as thanks, we Smart White Boys attempted to kill them all. What gratitude. Must have seen the potential for ownership and control, thus profit, of All Things.)
(And as thanks, we Smart White Boys attempted to kill them all. What gratitude. Must have seen the potential for ownership and control, thus profit, of All Things.)
1
How much information is too much information? When does it all become a background hum of dread?
I'm all in favor of the consumers right to know the source of their food and the conditions in which it was made, but the question is how do we gather and then make available that information? Is it even remotely practical?
What about a more radical transformation... regaining the consumers trust in the government organizations that specialize in food health and safety? We've been conditioned to think that all big gov & big ag wants to do is make money at any cost. Isn't it time our gov't adequately funded the food agencies that are supposed to look after our food sources? And vetted them so we have experts in science and not lobbyists?
I'm all in favor of the consumers right to know the source of their food and the conditions in which it was made, but the question is how do we gather and then make available that information? Is it even remotely practical?
What about a more radical transformation... regaining the consumers trust in the government organizations that specialize in food health and safety? We've been conditioned to think that all big gov & big ag wants to do is make money at any cost. Isn't it time our gov't adequately funded the food agencies that are supposed to look after our food sources? And vetted them so we have experts in science and not lobbyists?
59
Tell it to the Republican do-nothing (except for corporations and big Ag and big pharma) Congress.
Judith I agree that it is only government that can be the final check on the honesty and transparency of food producers. How do we get there when we are inundated constantly with regulation hating, government hating industry lackeys from the political Right?
Who is fighting GMO transparency? Well, wonder of wonders, the anti-regulation, anti-science, climate change denying, libertarian Koch brother supported Republican Party. Are Republicans against GMO labeling because it is bad for Americans? No. They're against it because huge chemical giants like Monsanto & Dow Chemical are against it. If American eaters knew of the Frankenstein attributes of their vegetables, grains & meat they might not buy them. The folly of our supposed American Democracy, because of zealot right wing Republicans obstructionism, not being able to tell its citizens basic information about the food they eat is another sign of America in decline, a country maybe even touching totalitarianism. Cut through all the scientific reports, the heated debates on op-ed pages: identifying food that has been genetically modified is truly low hanging fruit. It is Republicans who refuse to allow us to pick it. The sooner the likes of Paul Ryan & Jason Chaffetz are kicked out of office the sooner America can begin to center itself on practical ideas like GMO labeling.
68
Does this mean you're not going to "vote energy.org"? I believe those commercials are the epitome of what's wrong with years of letting oil run the country.
Poor Mark. Beating that dead horse in spite of nearly unanimous scientific agreement over the safety of GMOs. ("But...but...they*might* be harmful *later*!!) Idea: Pay more attention to *actual* food safety problems, like the many recalls of (frequently) organic food for contamination.
46
I'm a scientist who is very concerned that GMOs have never been adequately tested for safety. And no one is addressing the issue of landscape-scale application of GMOs containing BT toxin, which as a result reduces worm populations and has been found in the sediment in the St. Laurence River. The article mentions the massive increase in glyphosate (a carcinogen) application. It can now be found on foods which could never before have tolerated it, and you and I are eating it. I consider this an "actual" food safety issue.
I agree that there are many other real food safety issues, but GMO remains one of them.
I agree that there are many other real food safety issues, but GMO remains one of them.
2
Google the administrative heads and upper management of the EPA and FDA and see where they worked before.
"Michael R. Taylor, currently the deputy commissioner of the Office of Foods. He was also the deputy commissioner for Policy within the FDA in the mid ’90s. However, between that position and his current FDA position, Mr. Taylor was employed by Monsanto as Vice President of Public Policy."
"Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines. The guidelines, announced in February 1994, virtually prohibited dairy corporations from making any real distinction between products produced with and without rBGH. To keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA announced that labels on non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the naturally occurring hormone.
In March 1994, Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labelling laws concerning rBGH dairy products."
"Michael R. Taylor, currently the deputy commissioner of the Office of Foods. He was also the deputy commissioner for Policy within the FDA in the mid ’90s. However, between that position and his current FDA position, Mr. Taylor was employed by Monsanto as Vice President of Public Policy."
"Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines. The guidelines, announced in February 1994, virtually prohibited dairy corporations from making any real distinction between products produced with and without rBGH. To keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA announced that labels on non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the naturally occurring hormone.
In March 1994, Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labelling laws concerning rBGH dairy products."
1
Thank you, Suzanne! I was a research plant scientist (now retired), and I completely agree with you. I think we have a very short-sighted view of "safe" or "adverse" effects -- we certainly tend to see what we want to, especially if that advances our own agendas -- and I worry about the law of "unintended consequences." We actually know very little. I recall reading very old articles about the wonderful health benefits of the new and safe technology of radiation -- it was used to treat all kinds of conditions, including skin ailments -- and looking at the photographs of patients years later and reading about what happened to them. That's just one example, one of many. I prefer proceeding with caution. Once you learn about unanticipated adverse effects, it can be too late.
I don't really care if my bananas and tomatoes were modified to resist a blight. I wish I could go back in time and modify the chestnuts and elms and dogwood trees.
I do care if my food was modified to allow Round-up to sprayed on it, or other systemic herbicides and pesticides. I do care if my food is laced with residual antibiotics or hormone or other harmful agents. I do care if my chicken was grown in Delaware but shipped to a Chinese province to be butchered and packaged and shipped back. I care about all the added salt in chicken too.
I don't want GMO labeling. I want real food safety oversight. And that won't happen anytime soon.
I do care if my food was modified to allow Round-up to sprayed on it, or other systemic herbicides and pesticides. I do care if my food is laced with residual antibiotics or hormone or other harmful agents. I do care if my chicken was grown in Delaware but shipped to a Chinese province to be butchered and packaged and shipped back. I care about all the added salt in chicken too.
I don't want GMO labeling. I want real food safety oversight. And that won't happen anytime soon.
171
Cathy, real food oversight will never happen--there's no profit in it!
I want GMO labeling. You are welcome to ignore it.
1
Cathy, if you researched ALL the genes that are spliced into YOUR food and the testing that is done to see if there are allergic reactions to the nut and pig genes used you might care even more. Star Link corn was restricted to fuel and animal feed use because of allergic reactions. While banned in THIS country, DDT is sprayed on the bananas that YOU eat.
1
I appreciate Mr. Bittman's "glass half full" interpretation. More information is better than the current state of affairs. Although I personally doubt that GMOs are harmful, I am not convinced that they benefit society. More likely they benefit agri-corps. Patented seeds with their matching pesticide and seed police who protect the claims of monster-ag-business are the creepy results of atheistic-capitalism mixed with molecular biology and hubris.
It's not like we don't produce enough food to feed the world. We simply don't care to distribute it properly.
If we've learned anything in the past 50 years, it is that whey you alter a system, it finds a new equilibrium. When that new equilibrium is detrimental to humanity, we call it "blowback" or "collateral damage." But people with lots of profit on the line ignore this basic truism.
Information is the only way we can be informed. No information is paternalism, what conservatives always complain about. "We can't trust the public to know what is actually going on." Well, this time the paternalism is coming from their beloved industry.
It's not like we don't produce enough food to feed the world. We simply don't care to distribute it properly.
If we've learned anything in the past 50 years, it is that whey you alter a system, it finds a new equilibrium. When that new equilibrium is detrimental to humanity, we call it "blowback" or "collateral damage." But people with lots of profit on the line ignore this basic truism.
Information is the only way we can be informed. No information is paternalism, what conservatives always complain about. "We can't trust the public to know what is actually going on." Well, this time the paternalism is coming from their beloved industry.
19
Its not the GMO's that I worry about, tho we don't yet have a long-term study on their effects. Its the round-up they use on the crops that I worry about. I don't want it in my body and I don't want it in our environment.
2
People eat mostly aquaculture fish from China and they worry about GMO.
14
Well, one has to start somewhere.
2
I am waiting for the day when we also have a definition and proper labeling for "Organic" foods.
7
you must not have been looking too hard
The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), enacted under Title 21 of the 1990 Farm Bill, served to establish uniform national standards for the production and handling of foods labeled as “organic.” The Act authorized a new USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to set national standards for the production, handling, and processing of organically grown agricultural products. In addition, the Program oversees mandatory certification of organic production. The Act also established the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) which advises the Secretary of Agriculture in setting the standards upon which the NOP is based. Producers who meet standards set by the NOP may label their products as “USDA Certified Organic
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/organic-productionorganic-food-information...
by th by, foods labeled organic may not be gmo
11
I try to just buy organic produce from California. It has even more stringent laws on organics than the 1990 Federal Law. And, I tell all my friends about it.
And there exist AT LEAST 150 exceptions to those standards, making the whole program useless--"organic" doesn't really exist, except as a good idea!
1
Vermont had a simple GMO labeling law that went into effect (after years of debate in the Vermont legislature) about one month before President Obama signed the current federal law that superseded it. The law required simple labeling on packages and food manufacturers seemed to have no problem with it. In fact, some of them declared that they’d just continue with the simple labeling, at least for Vermont, regardless of the loophole the federal law gave them.
Secondly, I take Mr. Bittmans’ point that we may see more information about food sources in the future even though it’s very unlikely given a Congress happy to take lobbyist’s money. But that doesn’t address the actual consequences of GMO based foods in the present. As written, the current law will make it nearly impossible for many consumers to determine which products contain GMO components. Mr. Bittman said it best when he wrote that GMO-based foods are, “…wrecking our land and water and generating the execrable excess of corn- and soy-based junk food that is sickening our population and decreasing our life spans.” What more evidence do we need?
Secondly, I take Mr. Bittmans’ point that we may see more information about food sources in the future even though it’s very unlikely given a Congress happy to take lobbyist’s money. But that doesn’t address the actual consequences of GMO based foods in the present. As written, the current law will make it nearly impossible for many consumers to determine which products contain GMO components. Mr. Bittman said it best when he wrote that GMO-based foods are, “…wrecking our land and water and generating the execrable excess of corn- and soy-based junk food that is sickening our population and decreasing our life spans.” What more evidence do we need?
46
The Vermont "GMO labeling law" specifically excuses cheese (one of their biggest products) from being labeled as containing GMO.
1
So basically another milestone in a Luddite fight with science.
Next stop: labeling and "detoxifying" vaccines.
Next stop: labeling and "detoxifying" vaccines.
23
So anyone who wants to have information about what goes into their body is a Luddite? Science has made many wonderful advances. It also gave us the atomic bomb. Open access to information is the exact opposite of being a Luddite. I think people have the right to know what they are putting in their body whether it is a drug or some chicken loaded with antibiotics.
104
I fail to see the problem here. Is it a Luddite fight to want to know what is in food? Seems to me that knowing stuff is what science is all about. It's patronizing to keep the curtain drawn.
Trusting science to know what is best hasn't always worked out. Tuskegee? Thalidomide? PFOAs. More doctors smoke Luckies. Restless Leg Syndrome™. Estrogen injections. "Talk to your doctor about....." We're supposed to trust them? They make money off of this stuff. Lots of money. If you haven't noticed, money has a corrupting effect. Money makes people justify evil. Is it being a Luddite to ignore basic human nature?
GMOs are probably benign, but are they better for us or just better for their corporate producers? Then again, we don't even have a reasonable definition for GMO™ or Organic™ for that matter.
Information is power. If we don't have information, we are at a fundamental disadvantage. This is a democracy... or at least I thought it was.
Trusting science to know what is best hasn't always worked out. Tuskegee? Thalidomide? PFOAs. More doctors smoke Luckies. Restless Leg Syndrome™. Estrogen injections. "Talk to your doctor about....." We're supposed to trust them? They make money off of this stuff. Lots of money. If you haven't noticed, money has a corrupting effect. Money makes people justify evil. Is it being a Luddite to ignore basic human nature?
GMOs are probably benign, but are they better for us or just better for their corporate producers? Then again, we don't even have a reasonable definition for GMO™ or Organic™ for that matter.
Information is power. If we don't have information, we are at a fundamental disadvantage. This is a democracy... or at least I thought it was.
56
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION? Since when is food produced from genetically modified organisms exempt from the Freedom of Information Act? Now if Wikileaks would dump huge amounts of info about which foods are genetically modified, where, when and how that would be a great boon to the US public. In act, the actions of big food to keep the information secret is another example of government for sale to the highest bidder. It's time for the food gulag of the US to see the light of day and for those dealing in genetically modified crops and foodstuffs be called to account like the rest of us citizens are! The 99% are entitled to know what they are eating and to choose to consume what they have found to be most nutritious for them. Power to the people!
38
The Freedom of Information Act only applies to information controlled by the federal government, not states, cities, corporations, or individuals.
1
From the article,
"All of this information could be made available. Some people care about this, others don’t."
Those of us who do care about this can do the work of reading the bar codes etc. and spreading the information with social media. People who might not otherwise care that much could feel empowered with the information if they receive it via twitter or face book. I too am optimistic.
"All of this information could be made available. Some people care about this, others don’t."
Those of us who do care about this can do the work of reading the bar codes etc. and spreading the information with social media. People who might not otherwise care that much could feel empowered with the information if they receive it via twitter or face book. I too am optimistic.
6
That people believe they have the right to prevent paying consumers to know what they are paying for let alone putting in their bodies clearly illustrates how screwed up this society is.
91
Heat catalyzed oxidation has a more common name: it's also called cooking.