When I’m reading reading, researching, and having discussions about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) it seems as though the end point of these discussions is that people opposed to biotechnology want their food labeled. “We have a right to know!” they state. GMO labeling is a valid point to address, and one that a lot of people in my online ‘mommy blogger’ community are concerned about. After all, isn’t it usually us moms who buy the food at the grocery store and cook it for our families? When I do reach this point of discussion about GMOs, we get into “if GMO’s are safe then why are companies afraid to have them labeled?” or “if Monsanto didn’t have anything to hide they would proudly put a label on their product.” The thing I always tell people in my conversations is that personally, I do not support GMO labeling of foods because of all the misinformation and fear that is out there.
A label, to me, would imply that something is wrong with the product. And simply? There is nothing wrong with GM food, as I have discovered. Since GM foods do not pose a health-risk, they do not need to be labeled. We have worldwide scientific consensus telling us that GMOs are safe, but as I said in my previous article no food – GM, conventional, or organic can ever be 100% safe. So why put a label on it? Actually…there is a label. It’s called USDA Organic, CDA Organic, and there is even a Non-GMO Project Verified label on some products now. But? Apparently that’s not enough. The most important factor with GMO labeling is that mandatory labels should be reserved for products that carry a documented health risk, such as allergens, or in cases where products represent a substantive change in nutritional composition and GM foods do not. This would go against current FDA regulations.
How Much Will GMO Labeling Cost?
There’s a very loud movement going on for GMO labeling, especially with voting on I-522 approaching in November in Washington state. So how much would it cost consumers? The government? The farmers? Everyone will pay a price, as Scientific American explains: “Conventional and organic crops often require more water and pesticides [yes, organic uses pesticides too, often more] than GE crops do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods [much like organic foods]—and for a questionable return. Private researchers estimated that Prop 37 would have increased an average California family’s yearly food bill by as much as $400. This would have also have mandated farmers, manufacturers, and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the ‘naturalness’ of their products.” Bill points this same thing out in his article that the law could “lead to unnecessary legal actions at the expense of taxpayers and consumers”. Can anyone else smell the lawsuits?
Dr. Ryan explains in her recent article that:
The agricultural and food production value chain is long and complex and includes many private and public sector actors: research labs, seed companies, farmers, elevator/managers, grain handlers, transport companies, importers and exporters, processors, wholesalers, retailers and restaurants. If mandatory labeling of GMOs were enacted, costs (identity preservation, administrative and other) would be incurred all along the value chain. Make no mistake – those costs will be passed along to the consumer.
Unfortunately I think the millions of dollars being spent on the push for GMO labeling has the hidden agenda of killing the technology, and it’s not because they want “the right to know”. It is highly politicized. Most of the environmental activists who are opposed to GM foods strongly support mandatory labeling policies. Why would they do so if they knew that it would secure a place for GM food at the grocery stores? Funny enough, these groups may be using mandatory labeling as a type of Trojan horse: they support mandatory labeling for the sake of consumer choice, knowing full well that this policy will lead to no choice in practice. Moreover, even if there are some products that are labeled as a result, the products can be easily targeted by the activists. In Europe GM foods have actually been taken off of grocery shelves because of this very thing.
The cost of GMO labeling involves far more than adding a sticker to the food. I would be more in favor of voluntary GMO labeling. It would allow everyone to choose product quality much like a voting system with proportional representation, where a part of the market may buy non-GM food, and the others will buy mixed conventional and GM food without the potential to ban safe products.
They Label in Other Countries, Why Not Here?
[Source] This is the only graphic I could find, but I wanted to point out that it doesn’t show the 156 other countries that do NOT label GMOs.
Britain’s labeling law, touted early on by a senior regulator as ‘a question of choice, of consumer choice,’ has had the opposite effect. Consumers naturally think that government mandated labels signal a cause for concern, so food producers, retailers and restaurant chains in Britain quickly rid their products of genetically engineered ingredients to avoid having to put ‘warning’ labels on their foods.
It has also not resulted in consumer choice, quite the contrary! Retailers have eliminated GE products from their shelves due to perceived consumer fear and aversion to GMO products. Perhaps a more simple way of understanding why policies have changed in other countries is this:
Because it is demanded from emotion, not because of evidence. We should not make binding public policy decisions based on fear, we should make them based on science. – Kevin Folta
The precautionary principle is also irresponsible because it is used as a means to stop something — be it a substance, a practice, or (in this case) a technology. It can trick us into thinking we have “saved” ourselves from potential outcomes when we haven’t. The precautionary principle furthermore encourages dodging responsibility for the present situation. When people want to block change, using emotion and fear of unknown consequences, they rarely assume responsibility for the ramifications of current problems. Leading off that, if you want to halt biotechnology, which is the big picture here or the “hidden agenda”, what is your solution? How are you going to feed the world? And no, I don’t believe GMO’s are the sole answer to that question…but I do believe it plays a big role. Again I wonder: all these people in favor of GMO labeling…do they even know what a GMO is? Or the science of how genes are altered in our food?
As I keep saying, all these organizations have made statements that GMOs are safe, but the anti-GMO movement doesn’t trust the government. Yet ironically, they’re going to go to the government to require a label on their product. It all seems quite contradictory to their belief. GMO labeling is fueled by fear and distrust of corporations and the government – it would be deceptive. That’s what the labeling is about. Bans and labels cost money, time, and resources. That’s not how I want my tax dollars spent. You?
Must EVERYTHING Be Labeled?
This could be another blog post in itself, but there are already so many misleading labels in the grocery store as it is that are completely unnecessary and are a marketing scheme. They buy into consumers’ fears and the buzz topics of today. An example, you ask? Gluten free. It would seem as though EVERYONE wants to be gluten free these days, even when only about 1% of the population actually has Celiac disease. I’ve seen bloggers promoting gluten free fruit salad. Since when is there ever any gluten in fruit anyway? Another example is high fructose corn syrup free peanut butter….when no peanut butter even contains that!
Federal regulation requires that food labels be truthful and not misleading and prohibits label statements that could be misunderstood, even if they are strictly accurate. For example, although a “cholesterol-free” label on a certain variety or batch of fresh spinach would be accurate, it transgresses the FDA’s rules because it could be interpreted as implying that spinach usually contains cholesterol, which it does not. – Henry Miller
Despite this huge push for mandatory labeling of GM foods, the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. How many times must it be said that there is no evidence that GMOs are unsafe? And as far as labeling, I quote from Mr. Miller again “Federal regulation requires that food labels be truthful and not misleading“…where do we draw the line? Should the arsenic be more visibly labeled on apple juice? Should we know the parts per million of feces in each organic product? Good grief, WATER can kill you if you drink too much of it. Why isn’t there a label on the water in the grocery store warning you not to drink too much?
Transgenic/GM food is just made differently. It is a technology, not a product or an ingredient. It is not nutritionally different for better or for worse. Do you care if your books were written on a typewriter vs a computer? It’s still the same book. Still the same content, just produced differently — it’s not “good or bad”. So as the end of that video (if you clicked the previous link) poses — which variety or gene are you concerned about in GM foods? What specifically do you want labeled?
As I keep saying like a broken record, the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe, keeping in mind that nothing can ever be proven to be 100% safe. Over 3 trillion meals have been served worldwide with no evidence of harm. So in my opinion…why label them?
References & Further Reading
Byrne, P., Pendell, D., & Graff, G. Labeling of Genetically modified Foods
Conko, G & Miller, H. Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods is a Losing Proposition
Cooper, J. Thwarting Consumer Choice: A Book Review
English, C. GMO Foods: Why We Shouldn’t Label (Or Worry About) Genetically modified Products
Entine, J. GLP Infographic: Is labeling GMOs really about our “Right to Know”?
Entine, J. Infographic: International science organizations on crop biotechnology safety
GMO Answers If you are claiming that GMOs are supposedly safe than why won’t you label food? What are you hiding?
GMO Answers Why are companies against GMO labeling foods?
Johnson, N. Who’s paying for GMO-labeling initiative campaigns?
Price, B. Analysis of Washington State GMO-labeling initiative I-522
Ryan, C. What’s in a GMO Label?
Savage, S. GMO Food Is Actually Already Labeled If You Know a Few Rules
Schmidt, J. The Cost of GMO Labeling
Senapathy, K. Anti-GMO “Right to Know” movement cashing in on scaring and confusing consumers
Zaluckyj, A. 1 Trillion Meals Later: The GMO Safety Debate is Over
Zaluckyj, A. USDA Creates a GMO Label – Here’s What You Need to Know
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Sarah Schultz
Latest posts by Sarah Schultz (see all)
- Where To Buy Cut Flower Seeds in Canada - March 4, 2020
- Bernardin Mason Jar Christmas Gift - December 17, 2019
- Does The Curly Girl Method Work? | 1 Year Update - December 2, 2019
I am a farmer and mother of 5. In stark contrast to being a schill or any other paid employee I spend my day literally from sun up to down helping to manage our row crops, beef, and dairy operations. No farmers are being paid for our time to post what we know and live everyday. What we see clearly is how much of a positive impact biotechnology has given us and our land. We grow sugar beets. In any given season we used to spray herbicides comprised of 14 different compounds every 8-10 days so weeds did not consume… Read more »
[…] that I don’t support and I have that right as a consumer. It’s also the basis of why I don’t support GMO labeling: I believe it will raise red flags to consumers and they will see them as warning labels. Quite […]
[…] GMO Labeling: Why or Why Not? (nurselovesfarmer.com) […]
You are a Monsanto shill. How much do they pay you to write such garbage? You are proposing that consumers trust a company that has lied about agent orange and PCB's; trust a company that will not serve GMOs in their own cafeterias; trust a company that tried to bribe Canadian scientists to get prosilac approved in Canada. You are clearly bought and paid for, so continue to drink your poison and eat your garbage – people can smell bulls**t, with or without labelling.
Sue me. Prove that I'm a shill. I cannot accept monies and not disclose that. Sue me so I have to pay the $11000 fine. Go ahead, I'll be waiting.The shill card is an act of desperation. Did Whole Foods send you here to comment? Who paid you to comment? Give me a break.Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer,
See also: http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/05/i-am-not-…
I keep finding things I need to say to you, Jennifer! I thought you might find this tweet interesting, it's a myth that Monsanto doesn't serve GMOs in their cafeteria (among the other myths you've listed in your comments) https://twitter.com/MonsantoCo/status/49558484909… and if you want you can join the Facebook conversation here: https://www.facebook.com/NurseLovesFarmer/photos/…
I think you're confused, Jessica. Seralini was retracted for different reasons. If he proved GM foods caused cancer, he'd be receiving a Nobel Prize.
More here: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversi…
[…] GMO Labeling: Why or Why Not? (nurselovesfarmer.com) […]
Sarah, you are doing an awesome job. It is hard to go against the grain (pun intended) and it can take time for peop le to start hearing things that are counter to their preconceived beliefs, It is worth repeating the facts, even when it riles people up. Have you also changed the look of the blog lately? Looks great.
This is Rebecca Gavin, BTW
Thanks for the encouragement, Rebecca. I'm hoping that, like someone said in a previous comment, that it's the "silent" people — the ones not commenting with guns a blazing that have already made up their minds — that I will make stop and think and maybe look into things a little bit more. As for the blog…I have a new profile pic/intro, new labels…just trying to clean it up a bit, thank you!
[…] *Since I originally published this post I have done more research and changed my mind on GMO labeling […]
Good post, Sarah. I almost offered an authoritative link, but you included it – "Everyone will pay a price, as Scientific American explains…". I have written a lot on this subject. A friend, Jim E., made a statement that I especially like to share: "I trust science "I am skeptical of conspiracy theories "When a science issue gets politicized I always rely on the science community to guide my thinking. The science community tells me gender identity is natural, inhaled tobacco smoke is hazardous, humans are a branch of the evolutionary tree, human activity is causing the earth to warm,… Read more »
science also can give different conclusions tomorrow. It was thought that earth is flat. I just want to be informed about my choices I need to make.
Thank you, GemStone. Some people seem to disagree about "paying a price" but I guess we'll never know until/if this bill is passed.
And, Kay – agree to disagree. You're not going to change my mind, or most people that are commenting, so please just leave it as is.
But as a P.S. to you Kay…your argument defending science (that it can give different conclusions)…contradicts everything you've been saying here thus far. It is a fact that GM foods are no more or less harmful/safe than their conventional and organic counterparts.
One more thing… many multinational companies selling GMO foods in the US manage to sell NON-GMO products for regular prices in countries that prohibit GMO's. Studies show that price will not be affected unless we allow corporations to own our food through their GMO genetic mutilations. One of the newest jewelry technologies are man made diamonds – not the fake things like Moissanite or Cubic Zirconias… I'm talking about diamonds made in labs that are identical to natural diamonds with the exception of their origin. They do not come from the ground but are real and identical to diamonds in… Read more »
When coming onto a farmer's blog, I would really hope you might take the opportunity to ask a farmer some questions. Farmer's run big business. It is in their best interest for their business to manage their farm properly to do what they can to prevent "super weeds" by farming smartly using crop rotation, among other things. We don't want to spend more money on more chemicals. Farmers by law cannot save ANY seeds if they have signed a contract that says so from a seed company. If we do keep our seeds we have to go through a process… Read more »
My great grandfather was a farmer and I was 30 when he died so I knew him…. He had a 200 acre farm – small by many standards, but for most of his farming life he sold tomatoes to Campbells soup. India has rightly sued Monsanto for BIO – PIRACY… for taking indigenous plants from the country and altering them without permission, then returning to the country to 1) sell them back to farmers and 2) put farmers under forever contracts to buy seeds only from them forever, and if you actually do the research it is problematic in not… Read more »
There's a difference between gardening and farming, just like there's a difference between the myths you're parroting above and reality.
I'll leave you with this correlation about autism that's based on real, verifiable numbers: http://boingboing.net/2013/01/01/correlation-betw…
When I lived in the Caribbean I had a reason to ask my family in the states to Fed Ex me a few ears of corn, some peaches at the exorbitant additional cost of $35 for 3 ears of corn. Since moving back to the US, I stopped eating it a few years ago because it tasted different and not in a good way. I used to pick corn with worms on it, because they usually ate the best tasting corn. Now the corn has pesticides that kill the worms with something that rots their stomachs from the inside… The… Read more »
Bt is a bacteria that naturally is found in the soil. Here is a comment by Kevin Folta on the previous page regarding Bt: "Bt is used by organic agriculture. It is a harmless protein that has amazing species specificity. When you can make the protein in the corn, you don't need to apply pesticides. That's really cool. If you look at the National Academies of Science 2010 book (these folks are THE authority on science matters) they show clearly that Bt corn and cotton have reduced the application of broad-spectrum chemical pesticides by 50-70% (figs 2-3 and 2-7). Farmers… Read more »
I've worked in the jewelry industry for most of my life and the argument against labeling makes NO SENSE. In my industry labeling is mandatory. Carat of gold must be labeled. Materials like gold, silver, platinum etc must be labeled. Labeling isn't the problem but DECEPTION is the problem. Labeling does not stop people from buying 18k gold or 14k gold or 10k gold or gold plated. Labeling is required for treatments of gemstones, and if labels cannot be applied to the item is it LAW that the seller must disclose treatments of gemstones. This concept that people should not… Read more »
But, Kitcat….foods produced using biotechnology are not any different nutritionally. Just like my typewriter/computer comparison (if you even read my post???) – it produces the same product by a different technology. I addressed the "right to know" statement in my post, but why not just buy organic and non-GMO project foods? Assume everything else is made with biotechnology and you're happy….right?
We're lucky to live in a world where we do have choice. We're not fighting for our next meal or starving. You have a voice, you have a vote.
I work in a technology capacity in the jewelry industry and although man made diamonds (these are real diamonds made in laboratories that are not mined but created in a lab — these are not moissanite or cubic zirconia but are identical to diamonds in EVERY way except the source) these are labeled. What the industry is doing is working to prove that they are at the least equal to mined and possibly superior. That is the way US American business has been for EVER…. if you build a better mousetrap then let me know. Label it and let the… Read more »
Kitcat, It's not a secret that farmers have been using GE seeds for 20 years. I think a lot of this is just coming to light now is because well, farmers farm. They don't really inform people of what they do.They are kinda busy most the time. This isn't an excuse, but more of an explanation. Sarah and others like her are blogging to try to "open up" modern agriculture. Some of this could have been mitigated 20 years ago when it was all first started. Farmers don't really see the need to explain themselves, but 20 years ago we… Read more »
When I look at the backside of a ring and see an "18k" stamp, that's useful information that has direct impact on how much I'm willing to pay for the ring. If I look at the side of a can of food and see "GMO", that doesn't tell me anything. Which GMO? How much? How about what pesticides were used? What was the weather like at the time the crop was harvested? Does the farmer support my local sports team? Well, that last two questions were a little silly, but are questions that could influence my buying decision. The information… Read more »
As far as the "right to know" I'm assuming you didn't really read my post or click through on the links? As Chris blogs here: http://food-ethics.com/2010/09/28/the-right-to-kn…
It is a moral right to know what you're eating, not a legal right, referring to transgenic foods. Just give that article a read, I don't feel like cluttering this space with a copy & paste disussion.
As a note on jewelry labeling, the only reason it is labeled is to drive up the prices of “natural” gems much like the organic label. There is functionally no difference between the natural and lab made, or standard and organic or even gmo that is different for the consumer according to science. No people aren’t having coconut human hybrids in fact the only difference between a gmo and cross breeding is how specific the genetic change is. I get that science you don’t understand is scary and many many people use GMOs as a fearmongering platform but look at… Read more »
Thanks for wading into this fray. I know it can't be easy, but you are definitely a unique and valuable voice here.
Sure doesn't feel like it at times, but thank you, Jason!
round up is linked to many health problems. GMOs are not using less water or yielding more anymore as seeds have become resistant to round ups and now they are also using more water.
Not really. Roundup is one of the most benign herbicides ever developed. It is about as toxic as aspirin. Here is a peer-reviewed paper reviewing its properties: http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/17918/PDF
well, if you smothered your food in aspirin, and ate it, you would die.
There are actual scientist in plant biology answering posts here – why don't you use an inquisitive form, so you could learn something from them? I would call that a great opportunity to get to know stuff, you can probably even get the technical details.
Here, let me help you:
"If Roundup is about as toxic as aspirin, how come it isn't dangerous to eat crops sprayed with it?"
one may not drop dead after eating round up sprayed crops, but they definitely pose health risks.
Hi Loriann. This is great opportunity for you to learn if you want. There's scientists (independent, not paid by Monsanto like everyone thinks) that browse these comments – I urge you to ask any questions you have and I will do my best to get them answered.
I'm thrilled to answer your questions. Please contact me at kevinfolta@gmail.com anytime.
Kevin, Andrea Howe was looking to have her questions answered, very keen to learn! Just scroll up a bit, she tweeted to you as well!
How do we know that? I don't believe anyone, who is trying to convince me.
And therefore why should we bother giving you real information about GMO's?
I agree, Robert. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, clearly not yours so let's just agree to disagree and move on.
Why bother to teach the unteachable? Once they've admitted that there's no evidence they will ever accept, that's where I draw the line.
Let's recognize that Roundup resistant crops were bred to keep harmful tilling to a minimum. It not only saves energy, it preserves the soil. There is nothing devious about the benefits the farmer receives from being able to eliminate weeds with a low impact herbicide without harming his/her crops.
I agree, James. It's also up to the farmer to be a good steward of his/her land and to use the technology responsibly. So many times I hear how much better organic is….yet environmentally? I'm not so convinced, in all aspects anyway. Thanks for the comment 🙂
Srah,
Farmers using gmo seeds get subsidies from the government, while an organic farmer does not. GMO farmers are losing money if it was not for( tax payers subsidies). Why are we protecting Big Corps instead of our farmers?
Girl you are preaching to a farmer…
Nice one Sarah! Kay, organic farmers get subsidies too. GMO farmers farm on a bigger scale than MOST organic farms, and they need that crop production insurance. How would you like it if your only income was dependent on the weather and like last year, the weather didn't cooperate? You had very little income and likely went into debt last year because of the drought. Bad weather is a risk that government is willing to help farmers mitigate by creating crop insurance. It's not like the crop insurance replaces a good year, but it helps the farmer float by until… Read more »
Wow, spam much, all of these claims have been debunked. It is really sad that gish gallop is your only mode of debate. Virtually every professional science association has concluded there is no health risk. 600 plus peer reviewed studies and over two decades of in the field and consumer results have confirmed these findings.
Well according to my spam commenter (whom I have now blocked, 20 comments is enough!) those statements aren't accurate and we haven't read the whole statements or they're old, etc….
Your excuse for blocking him is that he made 20 comments? Those comments were very informative, I wonder if you will remove them too. I read them and he obviously debunked much of what you said, that is the real reason you blocked him. If you were for open dialogue you would have answered him. Just saying those statements aren't accurate is really weak. Maybe that is all you have because you can't prove that anything he said is untrue. I guess anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is a "spam commenter" according to you. Obviously this blog isn't meant… Read more »
I will not remove them Jane, I don't delete comments on my blog. Thanks for coming back! I do reserve the right to block someone, it's my blog and I can if I want to.
that is not true Kimon, if you google, you will find studies from other countries. In U.S. they have been hushed up . No scientist in this country says there is no health risk. They are saying that more studies are needed.
talk to Kevin Folta, shoot him an email please.
Excellent post. I think this is a great discussion of the issue. This science denialism of the labeling front has always been quite apparent to me. It's always struck me as similar to the flawed arguments of the climate denialists, the anti-vaccine movement, and more strikingly similar to the Intelligent Design proponents. Their favorite argument frequently relies on the "it's only fair to identify both and let me,as an intelligent consumer to decide." The problem is that the average person is incapable of reading scientific papers and making informed decisions, whether it's about GMOs or vaccines. It's quite apparent from… Read more »
I can't tell you how many times someone who "believes" they know that vaccines are harmful has told me that I am "morally corrupt or misinformed," or that I should "do my research." The failed logic is the same. They replace evidence with ad hominem. I shrug it off. If you want 7 billion people on the earth to not make each other sick, we use vaccines. If want to feed 7 billion people, we look for more efficient farming methods. It's better living through science. Science and engineering FTW.
Thanks, Ryan. Feeling pretty beat up from all of the comments (20 or so) from "Label GMO".
Why? I think they make sense.
Must you reply to every single comment on here? It's getting a bit taxing.
Haven't you noticed Sarah, Kay is just having fun with us using facetious arguments just to show the silliness of most anti-GMO arguments and chatter.
I'm sure you do. But it's clear that what you think about it and what is demonstrable are two separate things.
Ryan, Vaccines save lives. It is the preservatives like Mercury which is a neuro toxin that causes harm in kids. If we use science responsibly without corruption, we are all for it. Just like, we want to drive our cars. Fracking the way it is done is very irresponsible. There can be a more honest way of making money causing less harm.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
very intelligent argument.
I think we are dismissing an ordinary consumer. First of all , no one wants to deny science if there is no corruption in science. If scientists are kept from being able to publish their findings because of fear of losing their jobs or because the studies are manipulated because of pressure from Big Corps. that kind of science has no meaning.
They are not being kept from publishing anything. Scientists are looking out for our best interests. Please scroll through Kevin's comment where he addresses this very thing.
Kay, You need to come down here and spend a day with me in the lab and office. With all my heart I want to just point you in the right direction here and if I come off mean or difficult it is because I'm BLOWN AWAY by your ignorance and arrogance. Kay, the person that publishes the square peg in the round hole does not lose a job– he or she climbs in a career! No company puts any pressure on me or any of us. We are working for the public good and for you to claim otherwise… Read more »
Hi Sarah, So I've been giving this more thought, after we had a very brief discussion over the weekend about GMO's. I know this post is specific to labels, and I agree that the non-gmo label should be good enough, the consumer should take the time to do their research, in many cases, and decide where they want to vote with their grocery dollars. On the subject of GMO safety though, since you do reference it here, you refer and appeal to the scientific side of the argument, as you probably naturally will since you are a professional in the… Read more »
Andrea, while someone may have issues with a few companies being the primary makers of GMOs, that should not be part of the discussion especially when concerning safety. If you have questions regarding safety I recommend reading the website Biofortified http://www.biofortified.org/ and Kevin Folta http://kfolta.blogspot.com/. Both are great places to start to learn about the safety of GMOs from independent scientists.
Hi David, please see my reply below. maybe you can answer…
Hey Andrea, Thanks for reading and for your comment. I think it's a good part of the solution (not 'the' solution) to feeding the world. I'm not quite sure why ethically we shouldn't be advancing our crops? GM crops saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. It might save the Florida orange next. And yes – we definitely have to do our research and feed our families the best we can. Truthfully the reason why I took so much interest specifically in the topic of GMOs is because my husband talks about them all the time AND there is so much fear… Read more »
Gosh I'm so confused by all of this! What started as a general interest in wanting to improve our diets has led me down an extreme rabbit hole where I don't know what to believe anymore! For instance I just started reading this book, and I love it, but come to find out one of the people used to reference information about crops is Vandana Shiva, who is a political activist! I don't want extremist information on either side, from large corporations or whack job environmentalists. At this point I don't know what to believe. I want to believe science,… Read more »
I don't blame you for being confused, Andrea. There is a LOT to sort through and it can be very intimidating. Do not trust a thing that comes out of Vandana Shiva's mouth. She likened allowing farmers to grow GM crops to giving rapists the freedom to rape. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2… Talk about extremist, right? I, like you, am just a "mommy blogger". I HATE that term too, Andrea…but I really wanted to get across to the hoards of anti-GMO people that I wasn't a shill for big ag, I'm not a scientist, not an expert. I don't think being moms/bloggers makes… Read more »
Andrea, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments. Please feel free to contact me anytime. I understand the strengths and limitations of the technology pretty well. To your point above where it says "to reiterate my concern"… I agree 100%. We use the technology to make cheap food, processed junk and to feed cattle. To me, the best move we could all make is to cut back on processed foods and meats. I eliminated both for big parts of my life. We do have a health crisis that comes from easily availability of low-quality calories. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed… Read more »
Andrea, I can understand your confusion too. I read Sarah's reply to your questions too. I'm just adding my 2 cents. I grew up on a dairy farm and still am active in some aspects of farming. Sarah answered beautifully about the usefulness of GE crops. I won't touch on that too much more other than we can't blame the farmer for American's poor food choices. I see it all the time when I shop, people buying a ton of crap, poor nutrition food. I think the blame for the expanding waist lines goes to the consumer themselves. I think… Read more »
Andrea, it's refreshing to see some engaging discussion on the topic, thank you. I'd like to throw my two cents in and state that no GMO crop has been proven safe. For that matter, no substance in the world has been proven safe. Science just can't provide that proof, because anything can be unsafe given the right circumstances. Even the papers studying GMO technology themselves aren't safe if a large stack of them falls on you. The question to ask (when written in a scientific manner*) is, "Is a GMO-altered crop any more harmful to humans or sustainability than a… Read more »
Andrea,
If you are unsure about GMOs, stay away from them.
Science is always incomplete, as we find new and contrary findings. If we feel GMOs are safe now, science may find otherwise
later. Why not play it safe and stick to what has worked for you. I would not play with fire, if I am not sure.
Kay,
Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree. This is a mulberry bush conversation so let's just leave it at that. Let Andrea ask the questions she wants answered so she can make an informed decision. I have made my choice, you have made yours – leave it at that. You're not going to change my mind, nor I yours. Have a good day.
And Kay, whatever you are eating now you should stay away from too. You think it is safe now… science may find otherwise! Play it safe.
What a horrible way to live. Let science guide your most critical decisions. Not fear. Have the courage to embrace knowledge and evidence. It's not so bad.
The quote from the WHO is from a 2005 report, but a more recent joint report by the UN, WHO and FAO in 2008 abbreviated IAASTD states in the Latin America and Caribbean report, "En regiones o países, que elijan producir GMO, la regulación debería basarse en el principio de precaución y el derecho de los consumidores a tener una elección informada, por ejemplo a traves del etiquetado." if you don't understand Spanish or are too lazy to Google translate, "In regions or countries that choose to produce GMOs, regulation should be based on the precautionary principle and the right… Read more »
That's one opinion. The Precautionary Principle is based on the comfort level of precaution. Certainly you are comfortable using the internet, and that's been around 20 years less than GM technology. No long-term studies have been done, blah, blah, blah. There are people all over the world that don't care much about your threshold for precaution. They need assistance now. Biotech can help deliver that. The precautionary principle is an arrogant retreat to push the elite's tolerance of fear-based risk on the rest of us, and those that need technology the most. It is a deplorable practice. Those that stop… Read more »
but there is a vote about if I want to know what is in my food. There is a vote if our politicians are not looking out for our welfare instead of siding with big Corps. Monsanto guys are heading FDA? what does that tell us? I like to think for myself.
Vote, Kay. God bless America.
As for the claim, " all these organizations have made statements that GMOs are safe" I assume you didn't read some of these reports. For example, a quote is claimed to come from the European Commission, but it is really a quote from an author who is in on the EC and not the whole EC. The report specifically states, "The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.", but your reference(who had a working relationship with Monsanto) failed to mention that, or that the… Read more »
Why don't you contact European scientists and report back here. Find some scientists working in biotechnolgy– not funded by industry or by anti-GM interests (like Seralini). Ask scientists. Every single one I know, and I know hundreds, tell you that it is deplorable what the EU has done to science. It is a political decision, not a scientific one. Send me an email– I'll give you ten independent European scientists you can converse with in a heartbeat. If you want more, I'll give you 100 more. The EU's resistance to biotech has increased the amounts of pesticides used and changed… Read more »
http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/04/20/where-have-a…
The evidence is quite clear that GE crop farming generally uses significantly more pesticides than organic farming. The 2 most used GE crop traits are herbicide tolerance and pesticide expression, which means 100% of farmers growing these crops are using pesticides. Only 48% of organic farmers ever used pesticides and only 9% use them regularly(Walz, 1999). In comparison any GE farmer growing Bt crops are using pesticides 100% of the time and, "According to toxin quantity determined in the entire plant, the toxin level produced on the plantation area was calculated to be 1500-2000 times higher than the toxin dosage… Read more »
This post shows your lack of sophistication. You do not understand what Bt crops are. See, Bt is used by organic agriculture. It is a harmless protein that has amazing species specificity. When you can make the protein in the corn, you don't need to apply pesticides. That's really cool. If you look at the National Academies of Science 2010 book (these folks are THE authority on science matters) they show clearly that Bt corn and cotton have reduced the application of broad-spectrum chemical pesticides by 50-70% (figs 2-3 and 2-7). Farmers would not use them if they required more… Read more »
Labeling GE foods does not mean people will be forced to buy conventional or organic, so claims of a $400 yearly family food cost is absurd. In the report, Economic appraisal of options for extension of legislation on GM labeling: A final report for the Foods Standards Agency of the United Kingdom they estimated the yearly cost per person to be between $.23 and $3.89(U.S). So, unless your family has between 102 and 1739 members, they will never pay $400 a year for GMO labels. Since numerous U.S. companies already label GE ingredients in foods exported to other countries, they… Read more »
Let's read the entire section from where you pasted those numbers: http://agbioforum.org/v10n1/v10n1a06-gruere.htm Cost of Labeling Requirements On the cost side, a few national studies have been published for Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines, and two regional studies were published for Oregon and Quebec. The cost of a labeling system obviously depends on several critical characteristics, such as the threshold level, the capacity of the industry to comply with requirements, and the public authority’s capacity to enforce the labeling rules. First, KPMG International (2000a) estimated the costs of implementing mandatory labeling in Canada and found that it would… Read more »
More dishonesty. I specifically referenced where the stat came from, "Economic appraisal of options for extension of legislation on GM labeling: A final report for the Foods Standards Agency of the United Kingdom". I did not reference AgBioforum which is run by people with connections to biotech companies. Nice try though. In almost all of your references the cost of GE labeling is significantly lower than $400 per family. Since both the EU and Australia have implemented GE labels there has been no increase in food cost associated with those labels. So, the high estimates of $9.75 per person per… Read more »
if enough of us stand by our rights, eventually organic foods will not cost so much. Farmers using GMO seeds have subsidies from the government which come from taxpayers. If they are gone, all foods will cost the same.
Organic farmers get subsidies too. Don't delude yourself Kay. There were organic and conventional food before GM crops and the organic has always cost more. Organic will never cost the same as conventional or GM foods. The production methods are too intensive and costly in organic production to ever be on a level playing field.
As a nurse the author should be aware of medical ethics, and since side effects have been reported in animal studies on the reference list provided and very few human health studies have been conducted using GE foods, the consumer has become the subject in a human feeding experiment. Therefore, it would be medically ethical to label GE foods so the consumer can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to risk those side effects observed in animal studies. According to studies on your own reference list, GE foods currently consumed may have several potential health… Read more »
You can't be fucking serious. The gmos on the market now is NOT part of a medical experiment. More dishonesty. You just painted yourself as a fool.
It appears you are projecting. Where are the human health studies for each GE food currently consumed by humans? Without having human health studies, it makes the consumer the subject in a human medical experiment. Only a Nazi would be in favor of experimenting on humans without their informed consent.
I know exactly what you are doing. You are using gish gallop except you are posting a bunch of nonsense instead of just half truths. If I were Sarah I'd ban you for spamming her blog with a bunch of bs.
Did you consider that perhaps the author is using gish gallop? How many people are really going to read the 600 studies or multiple 300+ page reports she referenced, but doesn't seem to have even read herself? So, hardly anyone is going to respond to these references. However, unlike the author I have read probably 95% of these studies(some aren't in English or other languages I can read). Everything that I posted can be easily verified by reading the references. Don't just believe that because someone says they have 600 studies that show GMO's are safe for human consumption that… Read more »
Hi Label GMO, I'm only going to say one thing to you as I've gotten 20-some-odd emails notifying me of your comments today. No. I fully admit I have not ready every.single.article of the 600. But you know what? I got it from the biologyfortified.org website and I trust and respect every single one of the authors/contributors on their site – so I put my faith and trust into them as you have into the "other" side. You're right. I don't want people to just believe what I write. As I said in my previous post – I am "just… Read more »
Pro-gmo activists would ban someone for speaking the truth because they don't really want honest debate, they don't want facts to be told. Do you even know the definition of spam? Just saying something is nonsense or a bunch of bs doesn't make it true. You just don't like it because it doesn't suit your agenda of wanting to keep people in the dark about what they are feeding their families. I bet you can't even name one thing that he said that isn't true.
Jane I have received 20+ comments/emails from one person without giving hardly anyone a chance to reply. I moderate my own blog, thanks for the input. Getting into semantics, no – I'm not getting spammed. I have not deleted ONE comment on my blog in these discussions. Everything is left up here, but I have the right to block a user for non-stop, repeated (quite frankly annoying) comments that border on harassment – that's how I feel.
Oh Jane, Jane, Jane… she’s just upset that she can't get her buddies to come get us all 12 hr time-outs for calling out her ignorant BS. I'm actually surprised she has hung around on a site that lets both sides speak. She generally doesn’t' engage people unless she can goad them into calling her out by name to get them banned on facebook or is on a site that will block any intelligent fact based comment. And this is coming from someone who was personally banned for answering a question that she kept annoyingly asking while claiming it was… Read more »
Jane won't be coming back. I've heard these stories of her banning people, I don't want any of that happening here. I guarantee you if I went to the Mamavation site I would get banned in a heartbeat and my opinions wouldn't even be posted. I've gotten blocked an ignored by her on Twitter because I have different views than her. She has the cover her ears and scream "lalalalala! I can't hear you!" attitude.
Most of those studies have little if anything to do with health regarding the currently consumed GE foods and virtually nothing specific to human health. A Health Canada report regarding GMO's states, "it would be impossible to effectively monitor different foods for their potential human late health effects if we do not know what those effects are. Therefore, all food products need to be labelled if we are going to embark on a post-marketing surveillance of the potential human late health effects of food".
That is an argument against labeling.
No, this is clearly an argument for labeling. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to conduct epidemiological studies for GE foods without GE labeling.
only if our government would allow that. Monsanto has lined our politicians pockets.
Got proof? You could make a big name for yourself if you could blow that whistle! All I've been able to find are unsubstantiated allegations.
For the claim, "GM foods do not pose a health-risk, they do not need to be labeled. We have over 600 peer reviewed articles telling us this.". Had the author read the studies on that list she would have seen examples like #438 which states, "with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product." so this claim is already debunked. For the inaccurate claim of a scientific consensus, #130 on the list states, "An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of… Read more »
It may be "debunked" for that one study, not the 600+ others.
The authors of one study trying to smear all the data in all the literature as being wrong because of the funding is dishonest. The data is still good and there are still 100s of independently funded studies.
Your "movement" tried to paint all gmos as unsafe was disingenuous. Like wanting to ban all tracked vehicles because tanks are tracked. It was nonsense and it was dishonest.
If you look through the 600 study list you will see many problems, like most of these studies are not relevant(didn't use GE foods people currently consume, weren't feeding trials, didn't use mammals, didn't use real health parameters and instead just looked at carcass weight, etc.). Study #1 only seems to look at meat quality and other parameters with little relevance to human health. Study #2 used Bt176 which is no longer approved for human consumption. Study #3 and #4 are the exact same study referenced twice and chickens aren't good subjects to assess human health risks anyway. #5 uses… Read more »
#17 is a small part of environmental assessment but nothing to do with health. #18 and #19 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not and uses hens #20 uses an unapproved rice. #22 used hens #25 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety #26 used fish #27 suggests potential negative impact #28 used Bt176 #29 used Bt176 #30 not a feeding trial #34 not a feeding trial #35 not a feeding tria, unapproved variety #36 and #37 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not. #39 not a feeding trial, nothing to… Read more »
the funny part is, if fish or hens grew three heads and tumors you'd be showing how perfect these studies are!
#41 and #42 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health #43 Monsanto researcher(Hammond) #44 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health #45 suggests potential negative impact possibly due to higher glucosinolate in transgenic feed. #46 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health #47 unapproved variety #49 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety #50 and #52 are the same study posted twice #52 see #50 #53 used broiler chickens #54 used broiler chickens #55 used Bt176… Read more »
Please keep going.
You'll be equally wrong about it but wasted more time. Go on.
They are actually reposting these from another site. They are engaging in a combination of single-study-syndrome, biased dismissal of science because of fears of industry ties, and a refusal to understand the relevance of the science in the papers. They also don't seem to understand that the list is intended to collect ALL the relevant research, even the stuff that finds issues. That they could only find two that the agreed with is very telling! They also don't understand how science works. You take in all the evidence, and compare studies that are similar to find corroborating evidence. Statistically, you… Read more »
"Pioneer researchers " …as if that renders the data invalid. While a conflict of interest may be an indicator that there may be a bias, it does not make the data itself invalid. If you can prove flawed statistical methods within the study, then do so, but until then you cannot say that because the researchers were affiliated with a biotech company, or because the study itself was conducted or funded by a biotech company, that the study is inherently flawed. Many of the studies in the aforementioned list are also not feeding trials; OMG, call the GMO cops! You're… Read more »
we must be living in a fools paradise. There are enough studies to show how harmful they are. besides lot of these studies were hushed up by Monsanto money.
That's complete crap. As a public scientist I find that completely offensive. There is no company, no person that tells me what I can and cannot publish. There is no hush money. There is no money period. You and the people like you that decide that public scientists are all crooks bias public opinion and make our job harder– allowing big ag to be the key science influence. Bottom line. Any evidence of harm would propel any scientist into instant funding from every public source. That person would get a Nobel Prize. There is just no evidence out there. Plus,… Read more »
Everyone has the right to their opinion and everyone should also have the right to choose for themselves. The labeling of GMOs gives people that right. Who are you to say what others should know and shouldn't know? Why should mandatory labeling be reserved only for products that carry documented health risks? That is very misleading because allergens and other health problems can't be tracked and documented without the labels. Maybe some people have an agenda for the killing of the technology, but not everyone. For some of us it really is about the right to know. Safe or not,… Read more »
If this consumer "right to know what's in our food" is the basis for demanding mandatory labels on GMO foods, why is it limited to GMOs? There's no mandatory labels on foods or crops produced using ionizing radiation mutagenesis, yet I'm much more interested in knowing which foods those might be. And it seems hypocritical that many of the voices demanding mandatory GMO labels are from the organic industry… Are they willing to have mandatory Organic labels? No, they're not. Organic is a voluntary label. So the 'right to know' is a sham when used to justify GMO food labels… Read more »
Well I'm not from the organic industry and I want GMOs labeled. Notice that organic is proudly labeled organic, but companies are never proud to label GMO. I am all for labeling foods "organic", "non-gmo" and "gmo", that would make shopping much easier. If you want mandatory labels on foods or crops produced using ionizing radiation mutagenesis then maybe that can be your cause and you can start a movement. Good luck to you.
Jane, Organic, just like kosher & non-GMO, are voluntary labels to indicate that a product has been produced using a method that conforms with the beliefs of the consumer. Mandatory labeling GMOs without any further information does not tell you anything about the the modification or of its safety. Rather it is used as a fear technique to drive people away from GMOs typically using lies, false inferences, or logical fallacies as is seen in the Yes On 522 campaign and the text of I-522. If you want to buy food that is non-GMO buy those more expensive equally safe… Read more »
we want GMOs to be totally gone, labeling is just the first step, since our government is so corrupt to side with Monsant and other big Corp.s
Aaah, so there we have it. It's about a corporate take over facilitated by lies and fear mongering.
Seriously, screw Rudolf Steinerism, Waldorf schools and your ass backwards luddite newage crap.
There are only two kinds of foods in the market. Gmo foods and non GMO foods. we need both labeled. People can choose to buy GMO foods if they wish to, but we need to know which ones they are.
Jane, labeling GMOs may or may not increase prices. But in a recent Scientific American article they say: "Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods—and for a questionable return. Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants < ;http://www.noprop37.com/files/Northbridge-CA-GMO-Report-7-25-w-new-45.pdf> estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400. The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and… Read more »
Label GMO debunked what you are saying, in fact it looks like he debunked just about everything she wrote. As I have already said, there is no reason not to label GMOs, but reading through these comments there are many good reasons to label them.
"Debunked" is a good way to put it. But if you want to listen to him fine or you could get it straight from indie scientists that know the subject better than most of us on this blog. Try Kevin Folta for one who commented above and you can find his blog at kfolta.blogspot.com or the people at Biofortified.com. "Debunk". That is funny. 🙂
that is completely false. GMO seeds have become resistant to round up and now require three times more pesticides and much more water than conventional crops. An organic farmer can vouch for that.
Kay,
Please talk to farmers who use this technology. One organic farmer does not a conclusion make.
. GMO seeds have become resistant to round up". Oh boy Kay. You really just demonstrated that you know little about biotechnology.
Kay, I think you mean that the pests have become resistant to round up. The GMO crops are bred to be resistant to round up so the farmer can spray, spray and spray larger and larger doses of poison on the soil, air and water and the soy beans will survive. Then we can eat the poisoned little suckers and get all kinds of diseases.
Jessica and Kay, there were weeds all ready resistant to Roundup before GM crops came about. Farmers use what's called different modes of action to keep them in check. The same with GM crops. Farmers are well aware that crop rotation, cultural methods, and other modes of action will help keep these weeds from becoming completely resistant to Roundup. I challenge both of you to do more study on Roundup. It's one of the LEAST toxic herbicides that farmers use. Would you rather farmers use the other stand by's that cost more and are MORE toxic than Roundup. Herbicides and… Read more »
I really wish people would use this as a forum to ASK A FARMER….because we are farmers. Too much assuming. I don't assume all there is to know about your job, as a dietician, Kay.
I completely understand your opinion on this and how you think it is right. But to me, you will always be biased on this subject. Your husband is a farmer that plants some GMO crops, so yes you do need to prove they are safe. I am not saying that is wrong to do so, I would do the same in your position. But I still don't believe they are safe. I am not saying I won't believe at some point, but I really disagree with you on research. I don't think enough research has been done on impacts to… Read more »
What you "believe is inconsequential." You are making the positive claim that something which has been demonstrated to be safe, is in fact not. There is no evidence to support you. So, if you want to put a special label on something to set it aside as different, then you need to back it up with evidence. Your belief has no value.
You say biased because she is in agriculture? How about she just knows what she's talking about. You say several years, how about 20? Gmos are still food, corn has been in our diet for centuries, and gm corn is still corn it's just been bred much more precisely. We need more experts speaking out about agriculture as there is a huge disconnect between today's consumers and farmers. You call it getting preachy, I call it trying to be a voice for farmers, a voice that's not often heard. But that's just my opinion. Thanks Sarah this was a great… Read more »
Hey Megan, So I guess I'm not allowed to blog about agriculture because my husband is a farmer? That doesn't seem fair 🙁 I stated in my last blog post that I wasn't here to convince anyone of anything. These are my findings – like them or not, and clearly lots of people don't. I'm not here to tell you "you are all wrong!" on your opinions, you're allowed to have them. I just think that if people would dive into the research like I have (and I've only hit the tip of the iceberg) it wouldn't be so scary.… Read more »
Megan, sorry, but you will never accept that they are safe. There is no amount of evidence that can ever be created in the history of the universe that can convince you that they are safe. I can accept that. It has nothing to do with Sarah's husband being a farmer. Scratch that. Maybe it does. She took the time to inform herself and understand the science. Farmers have an intimate understanding of these products. They are the world's toughest customers. If they are not proven or open them up to liability– they will not use them. Period. Your lack… Read more »
Thanks, Kevin. I value your passion, expertise, and knowledge greatly! Not sure how to take the whole "long term study/safety" paranoia people have. We cannot prove that ANY food is 100% safe…yet transgenic food takes the beating and farmers get hate for growing "evil" GE crops.
there are enough studies to show how rats developed tumors with GMO foods. Infertility, allergies, leaky gut syndrome, these are some of the side effects of GE foods.
Humor me, and watch this video please: http://youtu.be/jPTy5RD1XSE
What Seralini did to those rats (who are known to grow tumors) was animal abuse.
There have been no independent studies except Monsanto sponsored to show safety of GMOs.
Megan, does your farmer husband see any differences in his farming experience between GMO seeds and organic seeds?
Does he feel sure enough to use round up as a safe product?
A true anti-Monsanto conspiracy theorists. Email: kevinfolta@gmail.com he is an independent scientist and can show you many independent studies. Megan's husband doesn't farm to my knowledge, and RoundUp is one of the most user-friendly, least toxic pesticides on the market.
Kay. You are wrong. Independent work is remarkably easy to find or perform. Simply go to PubMed. You will find too many to read in five minutes of simple searches.
If you need help, let me know. kf
Your reasoning makes no sense. Just as I have a right to know how much sugar, fat, and protein is in the food I buy, I have a right to know if it contains GMOs. Then I can make my choice based on my reasons, and there are many. If you want to eat food that is grown in a way that uses more and more herbicides and pesticides that pollute the air, soil and water be my guest. If you want to be the lab experiment for what GMOs themselves do to the human body, be my guest. But… Read more »
Hi Jessica, As I just wrote in the above comment, organic farming uses pesticides too, often double the amount. You need to do some research on organic farming, it isn't as great for the environment as everyone thinks it is. I'm not against organic by any means, but I'm tired of it getting put on a pedestal. Sugar, fat, protein, etc. are all labelled because that is nutritional components of food. GMO's do not differ nutritionally thus do not legally need to be labelled. As far as what GMOs do to the human body….as I keep saying 20 years and… Read more »
I'd rather be safe then sorry, and I have the right to know how my food was grown and processed and where it was grown and processed.
If there's nothing to hide then label it.
Consumers have the right to know what they are buying. We will vote with our dollars. So if you are growing GMO's you better rethink it.
I believe 100 % in organic, sustainable farming, and small local farms. I want to buy my food from farmers who love the environment and treat it with respect. I also want to support farmers who are honest.
If you believe in 100% organic…then buy it. Organic farming does not equal sustainable farming – talk to FARMER'S. You're on one's blog. Small, local farms cannot feed a country. Organic farming isn't as good for the environment as everyone thinks. More weeds, more tilling, disrupting soil, more fuel used, why do you think their product is more expensive?
Why do you call conventional farmers dishonest? Telling us to rethink growing GM crops? Come and spend a day on the farm. It's a business and farmers are smart folks. They feed you, show some respect and courtesy.
All untrue. Indian farmers commited suicides because of BT cotton and other GMO seeds. The fact is , there is so little rain in India that GMO seeds do not hold up. Then they needed much more pesticides after being resistant to previous amount. Monsanto will not allow
farmers to save conventional seeds. Farmers were truly under so much debt that they had no other choice. These are the first hand facts.
If anyone should know, it is I.
So why aren't you petitioning for labeling whether the plants were blasted with nuclear radiation to randomly alter their genes and subsequently not subjected to safety testing? My guess is because it's approved for organic.
radiated food should be labeled and not as organic.
But it is approved for organic. So where is the outrage and the lying, the fear mongering and the hyperbole there? The process is completely random with no safety testing, opposite of gmo. Can you see how hypocritical that is?
No one is advocating organic foods necessarily. We want our food to be safe and as an educated consumer, we need to know what is in our food,whether Organic or GMO.
"Just as I have a right to know how much sugar, fat, and protein is in the food I buy, I have a right to know if it contains GMOs."
Well, sugar, fat and protein content would qualify as relevant health information, whereas, a label saying "contains GMOs" does not. All the studies that compare them to their organic or conventional counterparts find them to be equal in nutritional value and safety for consumption. Labeling foods containing GMOs would be the same as labeling "May contain food."
food is not labeled just for health. the country of origin is also on the label. consumers have the right to know where their food comes from and how it is grown and processed. if there's nothing to hide then label it.
This is what you sound like to us:
We also need to label whether the crop was done using blue John Deere tractors! I HAVE ZERO SCIENCE TO BACK THIS BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT! Label for blue John Deere tractors NOW! PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!
GMOs are not even close to real foods as they have been altered.
Almost all of our food has been altered in our history, Kay.
Sarah, It is a much larger issue than just labeling. There have been NO Long term health studies conducted on the possible effects of genetically engineered foods. The biotech companies perform their own 90 day studies and present them to the FDA for approval of a particular crop, and the FDA has happily allows these plantings to take place. There are numerous independent studies on animals that show significant health risks from consuming these foods- infertility, organ damage, tumor growth, difficulty regulating cholesterol and sugar levels, etc. etc.. Regardless of these facts, there is also the issue of the glyphosates-… Read more »
Hi Annmarie, When people comment on "long term" studies…I have to inquire, what do you consider long term? It's been 20 years and over 3 trillion meals served. The nutrition of the food has not been altered. As far as the animal studies, please see my previous GMO post which briefly addressed the rat tumor study you're referring to. Seralini used a breed of rat that is prone to grow tumors, that study has been debunked time and time again as well has Carman's pig study. As far as Stephanie Seneff, she has NOTHING to do with agriculture or genetics.… Read more »
"NO Long term health studies" http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/1…
"There are numerous independent studies" No. There are a handful of fraudulent papers that files under pseudoscience. Here's a quick analysis of one: http://mylespower.co.uk/2013/06/29/drinking-round…
Wanted to add, not saying peanuts, shellfish or dairy or harmful, just that people have allergies to those and the labels are a warning to them SPECIFICALLY, but when you see them everyone knows it is as a precaution to those people. So when you see a “May contain GMO” label, everyone will obviously assume that GMOs must be dangerous for some people and look at them in a different, somewhat negative, light.
I knew what you meant, but yes – good to clarify. The "may contain" means that they are dangerous to certain people…but still "may be" dangerous nonetheless.
There is overwhelming evidence that GMOs are dangerous. Why else 62 countries around the world have rejected them? Americans are sicker than Europeans and obesity is rampant. We need to eat food and not what remotely resembles food.
On that note, kay…though your first statement is completely false (please don't site me Earth Open Source, Natural News, Seralini, etc)…why is thee 158 countries who accept them? Perhaps American's are "sicker" and more obese than Europeans because of their diet. How do you pinpoint and blame that on GMO food which is no nutritionally different than conventional?
Kay, do you have any data? Any studies? Any peer reviewed science? Your highly unscientific comments are quit a distraction for those who have legit questions and are attempting to have intelligent conversations.
Good post Sarah, I often shake my head when I am told that GM labeling is for info and would never cause a negative effect. When a label says “May contain Peanuts” it’s a warning When a label says, “May contain Shellfish” it’s a warning When a product says, “May contain dairy” it’s a warning When a product says, “May contain GMOS”, its not a warning, but rather info to aide consumers!?!? Does anyone really think that after years of “May contain….” labels solely for health reasons that all of a sudden people are going to make a distinction between… Read more »
I agree completely, Ben. At first before I looked into this topic, I said that I didn't have anything against a label…but the more you think about it and the deeper you dig, you realize that the activists are using the label as a "Trojan horse" in an attempt to kill the technology. I have heard people argue that organic and kosher foods are labeled and not seen as dangerous…but they also have to go through a certification process for their 'purity' so….all other "may contain" labels, as in your examples, say….we are trained to think they are DANGEROUS! Indeed!
GMOs are not even foods,like peanuts etc. When DNA of the food has been tampered with, it does not act like food in our bodies. Infact, it should be totally eliminates, but since Monsanto has FDA in their pocket, that is not going to happen until we label GMOs.
Wow. Okay. So you are correct – GMOs are not foods. Did you know that the DNA in pretty much all of our food has been "tampered with"? Be in hybridization, radiation, or using GMOs. So Monsanto has the FDA, WHO, EU, AAAS, and ALL these organizations in their pockets? Wow. Conspiracy theorist much?
Hybridization does not tamper with DNA, neither does the radiation.
Monsanto guys are appointed in FDA, these are known facts.
How much did you get paid to write this article? How can you possibly say without hesitation that GMOs are safe? Please provide unbiased evidence instead of just saying “GMOs are totally safe”. It’s up to manufacturers to prove this, not the consumer who’s forced to eat it.
"Disclosure: This post is not sponsored, no compensation was received, and all opinions are (always were and always will be) my own."
As stated at the bottom of this post. I can say it and I did say it because science backs that up. I don't recall where I said "GMO's are totally safe". They are as safe as other foods. Organic food kills people from E.coli bacterial contamination. Should that be labelled on organic food too?
And on a side note, name-calling isn't tolerated here.
I find it interesting that the very people who push for GMO labelling will fight labelling when it's proposed against their own products: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/13/…
The information about GMO foods is out there (despite all the internet hype), and I'm all for open information, but there's nothing about GMO foods that can be conveyed on a label without getting taken out of context by their opponents. Basically, the labels would not convey any information useful to the consumer in such a small space.
I should also add that that map is misleading, of 208 countries, 50 have labelling, and 158 do not, but only two of those 158 are shown.
I know, Mike. 🙁 Do you have a better graphic? This is from an "anti" site so of course it shows the majority that don't. I'm not that good at making graphics otherwise I would have taken a shot at it. I will add that note to the graphic so as not to confuse my readers. Thank you!
Thank you Mike, the other 156 countries are never mentioned in the GMO labeling "debate". We also have to remember that just because one, or a few countries do something, we don't have to do the same. There are over 70 countries that criminalize homosexuality in someway, so why don't we do the same? No need to be proverbial lemmings and do something without good reason.
62 countries have rejected GMOs and there is overwhelming research to show how much harm they cause besides all the first hand experience of farmers (with GMO feeds) with cattles and kids with allergies after eating nonGMO foods were cured.
And 158 have accepted them. Show me your research…nope, there isn't any sorry.
Sarah,
158 countries have not accepted them, just because they have not rejected them. An ordinary man has not been given an opportunity to know what GMOs are. You know how big corporations play politics with their money. We need to be skeptical and think for ourselves and not have an attitude of servitude.
Do you know how big the organic industry is? Billions and billions of dollars! They aren't the "little" guys by any stretch. Everything done in Europe has been ALL politically motivated, not based on science!
I'd consider myself an ordinary man, a software developer in fact. I feel I've been given an opportunity to know what GMOs are over the past three years of participating in the debate. I started with enough knowledge to know that changes made to different organisms must be evaluated and tested individually, because they're as different from each other as, literally, apples and oranges. However, I felt there wasn't enough testing, and these changes should be labelled, and that patenting genomes was wrong and should at least have term limits applied, and that we should modify crops for flavour and… Read more »
Hi Mike, Thank you for being a voice of reason. This is in response to your the first portion of your comment: thank you. People hear "glyphosate" and automatically think "poison". People assume that GM farming = more pesticide use and worse for the environment. This makes me sad…and after hearing it for the 10th time in a day, quite frankly, makes me pissed off. Farmers run a business. They are smart people and, as you pointed out, don't want to waste money where it's not necessary. What a lot of people don't understand about organic farming is that they… Read more »
Back to Monsanto, they did sue one farmer who didn't have a contract with them, over the theft of their seed. The farmer was found guilty in court, and did not use a cross-pollination defense in court on account of the distance of his farm to the nearest GM crops and the percentage of his crops using the seed, which would have made the defense laughable. It didn't stop the farmer from making a documentary against Monsanto anyway. I learned that Monsanto is but one of dozens of seed manufacturers available to farmers, and are nowhere near any position to… Read more »
One of my husband's first responses to the anti-Monsanto crowd is: can you name me even 1 more seed company? Usually – no, they can't. They've been fed all the "evil Monsanto" BS and our conversation usually stops there. I find it amusing that so many people think that Monsanto has control over all of the country – the government, the FDA, politicians….it's really quite the conspiracy theory. And you're right – Monsanto has, and will, sue any farmer who breaches contract. I'm impressed with your knowledge on seeding cleaning and seed treatment. If anyone anywhere breaches a contract they… Read more »
I've learned a lot about modern farming, including seed cleaning and treatment, the economics of a successful farm, weed control and available weed databases keeping track of what weeds are seen where, and other great technology that's in production now or just around the corner (automated weed identification and removal by robot, possibly without herbicides? Yes please, even if its use is limited because it's better to remove the weed before it starts using nutrients from the soil). Anyway, keep up the good work! People such as myself who would like to understand the technology need resources like your blog… Read more »
I smell a rat
I'm not sure what that's in reference to, Kay, but let's be adults and keep the name calling out of this.
Good points about labeling everything. For example, too much water is harmful, true and do we want to know the fecal count in the food we eat! I think all this fuss about what we eat shows we are over fed. Starving people are not 'food fusses'.
I agree 100%. That's my "argument" at the end of the day – how lucky are we to be fighting about labeling our food anyway? The people that complain about food have never starved or had to fight to eat.
we are fed wrong foods, that is why we Americans are so obese and sicker than so many other countries.
Even starving people have rejected GMOs.
Maybe Americans are obese because of their diet of highly processed, fast foods? Just a thought.
Also? Starving people have not had a CHANCE to reject GMOs because they were denied them from Greenpeace activist (Zambia flood in 2002).
Sarah,
GMOs are known to cause Allergies, infertility, leaky gut syndroms and many of these disappear when non GMO foods are switched to.
If anyone out there has these symptoms, give it a shot with non GMO foods. But then, how would we know if the foods are not labeled?
I am a dietitian and have talked to these patients.
It makes me so so so sad that you believe this 🙁
Third world countries like India have rejected GMO food shipments and Indian farmers have tripled the yield with conventional farming.
By planting Bt cotton!
I just watched a film called FOOD INC, and it touched a little about GMO matter. It basically talked about how a crop with genetically modified corn can affect the crop without GMO, and how corporation will try to sue the farmer without GMO in their crop for "cross-containment" . Of course, the movie explained far better than I could, and I was quite surprised to learn about this. I admit that I still did not know or understand how genetically modified crops affects our bodies.
My recent post Developing Friendships Behind the Computer Screen
Hey Ashley! Thanks (as always) for commenting. I don't think we can put too much faith in documentaries like "Food Inc." I watched a part of one myself (can't remember the title) and it started by interviewing a lady that says we must avoid "GMO wheat" at all cost. Well….there is no such thing as GMO wheat, so we really have to be careful what sources we trust and the information we are receiving. No farmer has ever been sued for cross-contamination. That is a lie and a myth. The only times farmers get sued is if they reuse the… Read more »
Are you kidding? GMO wheat: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/30/18710…
Rick there is GMO wheat that has been trialed, it is not currently on the market for sale or in our food chain.
Sarah, youre either a corporate shill or you spurt off, ad hominem. You're statement about scientific consensus around the world is utter bull***t
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
The USA is practically the last developed (un) intelligent country to feed disease to their citizens.
Hi Doug, I'm another one of those poorly paid (or not paid at all) corporate shills that use the best available science-based evidence to make informed choices and educate the public. But if you want scientific consensus please check out the following link to statements make by 22 of the most respected independent scientific organizations. Either they are all shills, like the European Commission which is the executive body of the EU, or the independent scientist that are a part of those organizations use science-based evidence to come to those conclusions. You decide.
http://www.axismundionline.com/blog/the-new-is-gm…
Hey Doug,
I guess you just ignored my disclosure then, hey? I'm legally obligated to tell you if if I'm paid to write posts and I am not. I would LOVE a big, fat ol' cheque from Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer….anyone for this post and anything I say, but sadly I have yet to receive anything.
I did not think so Sarah. I am sorry if I implied that. I just felt that you were very pro GMO. We are trying to be objective here.
I am pro GMO. I'm pro science that backs it up. Please scroll down to Kevin Folta's comments who can say it way better than I can.
that is not true Sarah, studies hushed up by Monsanto are now coming out to show the harm GMOs cause.
Look at our U.S. populations how sick it is. GMOs have altered DNA, it is not anything like any other foods.
Many doctors say that when their patients went on nonGMO foods. lot of their symptoms disappeared.
the are studies to show GMO foods how they affect our bodies. Any one can google and find out.
Yes, but where are your Google searches taking you? Earth Open Source? Natural News? GMOSeralini?
Ashley, GMO foods have been known to cause Allergies, infertility, leaky gut syndroms to name a few. When patients went on nonGMO foods, these symptoms disappreared. Many doctors prescribe nonGMO foods for their patients for these symptoms.
Studies?