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)
- The Ultimate Parenting Hack | Online Grocery Shopping - April 11, 2019
- How to Grow Dahlias - April 3, 2019
- Curly Girl Method | 4 Month Update - March 26, 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 the crop. We now spray glyphosate once. Not because it is more toxic but because the science has made a smart plant. Please be aware of JUNK SCIENCE. There are people who make a living by making you afraid of your food. And if you are afraid of your food, have a conversation with us farmers…. we are honest about our passion… feeding the world.
[…] 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, more guns leads to a more dangerous community, and genetically modified crops pose little threat to human health while providing tremendous benefit to humanity."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=…
My recent post The Heresy of ‘Pro-Life’ Christians
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 every way with the exception of their origin.
These too by law must be disclosed. Often they can be sold for LESS money than natural and that is one of their selling points.
So let GMOs be marked and let them be sold for less.
The reality is that GMO's are starting to cost MORE to produce because nature has – on one example – created SUPER WEEDS that now do not die from Round Up. So now farmers are not getting the desired results and have to spend more time, and more money and use stronger chemicals to kill weeds. This is verifiable and can be looked up on line.
GMO's will actually prove to be more damaging and more expensive to produce…. And they contaminate organic and heirloom plants.
What they will do is promote profit for corporations where profit never before existed. Farmers by law cannot save GMO seeds so every year they have to buy them over and again from the corporation.
This argument does not do anything for farmers or consumers.
This is one of the worlds biggest money grabs in history. To control agriculture is bigger than anything. It is more money that gold or diamonds or oil even!
This isn't about saving consumers, but about saving these food corporations. Most of it can be verified on line.
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 to get them cleaned and treated – it's a hassle, it's extra fuel, extra hours. Before you go making assumptions about how the business of farming works, please ask! That's what we're here for.
A lot can be verified online, but we have to make sure that the source is reliable.
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 only India but in many countries. The process of genetically altering seeds is immoral in the view of many.
Before you say that farmers have been making hybrids for generations lets illustrate the difference: If a Mexican and an Italian hetero couple of the right age fall in love and have a baby, you could say that this baby is a "hybrid" (politically incorrect but for illustration).
If a person falls in love with a coconut tree, in order to have a baby a group of scientists in a lab would have to figure out how to combine their DNA in a lab to create a human coconut baby. That is GMO.
Largely untested…. Interesting parallel with the rise in autism, Alzheimers, all sorts of digestive disorders and many other diseases prevalent in the western "modern" world. The lack of independent testing is problematic. The history of Monsanto began with President Roosevelt saving them and their one product made from coal tar (saccharin) from being shut down as the entire US food regulatory machine was created. Corporations think long term and strategically and this company has been aligned with our government, the department of defense and now the department of agriculture for over 100 years and most people sadly do not take the time to read history. The end result is they have people in position – like FDA food safety czar Michael R. Taylor who WRITES laws protecting their interests while ignoring and altering information that challenges their position.
Defense and Agriculture. The two biggest money making arms of the corporate world. More money than gold, diamonds or oil….
World domination of food supplies. Even when I worked as a street vendor in college selling jewelry it was always the people selling food at carnivals and events that made the most money.
I'm *really* good at research and much of it can't be posted on your blog without running it over. I won't attempt to do that to you.
But farming… I know a bit more than you give me credit for. I spend time on farms on some of my vacations. I have friends opening cooperative farms in parts of the US and the Caribbean.
I do know about reliable verified sources of information. I have to for the work I do.
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 "myth" is that this miraculous poison just dissipates when eaten by humans.
I know that if you believe me or not, corn does not taste worthy of purchase at regular price and I'd have no motivation, if I still lived in the Caribbean to pay an additional $35 to have it shipped there under the circumstances of today.
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 would not use them if they required more pesticide. Pesticide is expensive. Farmers are smart. They do what works.
…If it is not toxic, and is simply digested as been shown, it does not matter how much of the protein is present– unless you are the larvae that dies, the farmer that saves money or the environment that benefits from less broad-spectrum insecticide."
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 know what is going on with their food is completely backward and un-American. It is a backward non-logic that belongs in the Superman reverse world known as the BIZZARO world.
Each of us has a right to know and be told the truth about the source of what we buy. Why this new idea of not labeling food is being promoted makes zero sense. People make choices to buy labeled jewelry and many other things in the marketplace. For food, pul-EEEZE. This is an incorrect ruling. Labeling should be expected – demanded – and should be law.
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 market decide.
I've been running a contest on my FB page…
YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW is what I call it.
Go into a store and buy an engagement ring. The jeweler tells you that the case of beautiful sparkly things are engagement rings that can be made of diamond, cubic zirconia, white sapphire or moissanite. But – although they are difficult to tell apart the jeweler isn't labeling them because YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW….
At your local watering hole, you can choose any beer on the shelf, but none of the bottles have labels so you don't know what brand is which…. because "YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW!" The bartender says, "Hey, they are all good beer, so just trust me and buy a bottle!
You drive into a gas station and the gas is all unleaded but the octane isn't labeled…. Just go up to any unlabeled pump and fill up your car. Your car will run ok and all that labeling just costs more money… "YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW!"
Some of the contest entries are funny… but at the end of the day if I want to buy a moissanite instead of a diamond, they are twice as sparkly and a 9.5 and just about as hard as diamonds… they'll look just as good for a lifetime too! And being in the jewelry business I do find that some customers may choose to buy that instead of a diamond.
The way business in the USA has been done is that customers are told what they can choose and they make the choice.
The insistence on hiding the truth is actually FUELING the public desire for labeling.
We are lucky to live in a world where we have a choice but that has changed so that these multinational food corporations are working to eliminate the choice.
If it's the same, then do like every business with a new technology has to do. Prove it. Convince the public. I work in technology and if you have a better mousetrap then show the world and the world will run to your door.
If you have to keep it a secret… well that kind of implies that there is something wrong.
That really is the way that business in the US is done. What the anti labeling people are continuing to prove is that something is radically wrong with the product. The fear of simply informing the public is out of control.
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 didn't realize how disconnected people had become from the source of their food. WE do now and are trying to figure out better ways to explain to those that care about their food and where it comes from. The problem is we're behind the eight ball and have a lot of catching up to do. Figure that in with the fear mongering and outright lies coming from the organic side (Organic farmers aren't evil either, just want' to clarify that.) and we've got this huge web of craziness.
Sarah's correct in saying that nutrition is the same in GMO as it is in organic or conventional. That's not different. If you want production methods, then organic is different, no-till is different from conventional till, ridge till is different from strip till, contour farming is different than farming up and down rows. So how are you going to differentiate all these type of production practices? Where does it end? I'm being facetious but I think you get my point.
The multinational food corporations are limiting choice? Not so sure I see that. They've provided seed technology that produces a better yield than before. They also keep the conventional seeds too. Are you talking about the seed companies or the companies that make food such as Frito lay, General Mills?
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 about GM technology is out there and available among all the baseless fearmongering, and it cannot be shrunk down to a label in such a way as to allow the consumer to make an informed decision.
Note that there's a difference between "need / right to know", and "would like to know". It's also not a food safety issue, so it doesn't belong alongside the "may contain nuts" labels.
Besides, some consumers are already thinking that a GMO is something that is added to food, like MSG, as opposed to a breeding process that give the crop more desirable traits. Labels will not help this misunderstanding.
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 who is doing the fearmongering as the one who is trying to pull a fast one.
-your friendly neighborhood Biophysicist
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 the next growing year. Organic producers can participate too, but from what I understand they have to pay higher premiums on their crop insurance because the crop they grow isn't as productive as conventional or GE crops. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
This post IS about protecting our farmers, Kay. You want to take away a farmer's right to choose which kind of seed he/she uses. Right now, they can CHOOSE which seed to use. If you had your way they could only choose organic or conventional without the protection of GE seed.
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 to educate anyone, it is nothing more than pro-gmo propaganda. Why don't you just say outright that anyone that disagrees with you is not welcome on your blog? At least that would be honest.
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 reading the comments that the same logical fallacies are used by all the groups. Keep up the good work.
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 is such an insult. I work with PhD level scientists that make $30,000 a year for 80 hours a week of outstanding work– because they love the science and DON"T want a corporation to tell them what to do.
I always appreciate people like you. You know more about scientists than the scientists do, and certainly more about the science. In reality, you don't have anything close to a clue.
Invitation stands. If you are ever in North-Central Florida stop in. Better yet, come at 6pm on a Sunday. We'll walk down the halls and I'll introduce you to all of the people working (grad students, postdocs, professors) here just to stay afloat in science.
It takes a lot to be an independent public scientist these days. It is people like you that crap on our profession that make our journey even more pleasant.
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 field of science. But conversely, for every advance in science, there is always the question of ethics which must be raised. Scientifically, you may show me that 600 "peer reviewed articles" show that GMO's are safe, but ethically, should we still be modifying our crops? And should 6 companies control the vast majority of these GM commodity crops that are being produced? Especially considering that one such company genetically modifies their crops to be resistant to their actual herbicide. My gut, not science, not the government, not a peer reviewed article, tells me that something is just not right there.
Our waistlines, at least here in America are increasing (we Americans are consuming on average 700 more calories a day than we did just 20 years ago). Most of the GM crops we consume here in the US go towards processed foods or to feed animals on feed lots. We're not feeding the homeless with all these GM commodity crops. And we're definitely not feeding the grains to the hungry over seas. We're feeding it to ourselves so we can eat processed foods and lots of meat for really cheap.
I'm not a scientist, and I'm definitely not a farmer. In those areas, you and your husband would definitely have a lot to teach me, and I respect your position and your point of view. Has there been a lot of fear mongering out there, and are the tactics used extreme at times? Of course! Have I been fooled into believing that just because a sugary breakfast cereal smacks a nonGMO label on it, it suddenly means it's good for me? Definitely not! We should all take the time do do our research and do what we feel is right. We all have to support our families and feed our families what we feel is best.
I appreciate you for putting a different point of view out there, and taking the time to present valid research that needs to be digested if one is to make an informed decision. I guess I just ask that you also weigh the ethics behind this whole thing. As a farmer, I'm curious what your husband thinks about some companies suing other farmers for pollen drift and copyright infringement of unknowingly using their seeds. I've read many accounts of that. Are they all hoaxes and publicity to try and get us to be anti-gmo?
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 (especially on social media) out there that I wanted to do "my part" to show that it's not as scary as it sounds. It's a very specific "copy & paste" system to get a very specific trait in a plant vs. radiation which many organic crops have derived from, as well as the very famous Ruby Red grapefruit…yet there's not a label on the grapefruits saying "made with radiation".
The law suit myth is a hoax. If a farmer signs a contract to plant seed for a year and NOT regrow that same seed (save it to plant next year) and breaks that contract? Yes Monsanto/Dow/Syngenta/"big ag seed company" has every right to sue that farmer as HE broke a contract – just like if any contract is broken. No farmer has ever been sued (to my knowledge) from cross pollination.
I truly respect your views and truly do thank you for reading and your comment. Feel free to reach out to my husband @WheatlanderJay on Twitter or @kevinfolta an independent scientist from Florida who LOVES to teach people about science/GMOs.
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, but plain and simple, it's hard to believe it all when you don't even understand it all. I'm just a mom, and please don't call me a "mommy blogger' (that term is detestable), who is trying to figure this all out and raise 3 kids and work. It's all a lot to sort through and even though I'm a red blooded Republican, I grow leery of huge corporations which own a conglomerate of an industry. It's hard to believe that so many people are just out there spreading lies though. I'm not saying that in a naive way, like people can't actually lie, it just seems like there is so much of it that it's hard to wade through and find the truth.
Look, I want to trust science and I want to trust that GMO's are safe, and I do believe after reading a lot, that there is no actual hard concrete evidence that shows it is not safe at this point.
But to reiterate my concern which I do still have, and which no one (and I've read through ALLLL the comments), really addressed, is why is so much of what we grow now GE? What I have been led to believe is we do it because we can produce a lot of it, inexpensively, and use it to mass produce lots of foods which aren't that good for us. Soda pop (HFCS), chips, packaged crackers, cookies, etc. We also use it to fatten up our meat supply quickly (cows are supposed to be fed grass not corn), so we can continue to fuel a fast food industry which, and I don't think anyone can argue, is way out of control. What I would be interested in seeing is a peer reviewed study which shows how much GE crops are actually going to feed the poor, and feed them well, not processed foods, and how much of what is grown is going to these huge processed food companies.
Does this make sense? So again, my concern at this point, isn't so much how completely safe it is (GE crops in general), but why we're converting to grow so much of it, and what is the breakdown of what it's actually being used for. Those are the questions and concerns I'd love to see addressed and answered.
Again, thank you so much for your patience and attention to this matter, and I think arguments on both sides matter. I understand if at this point you're over me, but I'm hoping one of the other commenters who seems to be trolling the feed (meant in a positive way), may address this concern of mine. I may even email Kevin Folta myself and ask him these questions, because I'm genuinely interested to see what he has to say or any info he can provide. I just got off his site, where I spent 30 minutes, and I should be working! Ahhh!
P.S. I should note that my uncle, whom I told you about, grows GE soy beans and I don't think he's evil. 🙂
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 us any less intelligent, I just was trying to point out that I do not, by any stretch, know it all.
The thing about safety, is that no food is100% safe. We can never prove that. Organic spinach and most recently organic pomegranate seeds have actually killed people and made people terribly ill….the same cannot be said about GM foods, there has never been any link or evidence.
I truly don't know what percentage of America's or Canada's crops are GE. For our family farm, we grow a combo of wheat (no GM wheat for sale/to produce) and GM/conventional canola. At most 1/3 of our crops are GM, but we don't only seed GM canola – it wouldn't be smart or economical to do so. GE crops are not "the" solution to feeding the world, they're just a big part of it.
A far as environmentalists… Oh boy. I think the further you dive into groups like Greenpeace, they have other things on their agenda. They successfully stopped imported GM corn to a famine-ridden Zambia in 2002. People died because they couldn't eat when food would have been provided to them. That's okay? Activists recently vandalized golden rice crops in the Phillipines. This could potentially save countless lives and children from going blind from a vitamin A deficiency. They say they want reseach…then they destroy it. There's something else going on, you know?
Have you read this post of mine? Written by a mom in the ag business: http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2013/02/organic-v… I'm sure you know this, but if you stay away from processed foods…you're avoiding GMO's…we really all should be doing this anyway. It doesn't mean GM foods are BAD because they are made using biotechnology….the end product, the food, the processed, can-be sugary food – THAT is not healthy for you.
I highly recommend to email Kevin, I'll reach out to him too and make sure he gets back to you! As far as my hubby, it's busy busy busy season so he might not be able to get back to you right away 🙂
Thanks, Andrea….truly, lots of respect to you! 🙂
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 papers that show the use of transgenic technologies as solutions to problems– for humans, ecology or the environment. These studies have been done in greenhouses or controlled fields but the results never commercialized or released. They are solutions that could help people. Look at golden rice!!
That's the tip of the iceberg. High folate tomatotes were available in 2007 but could never be released strictly because the high cost of deregulation even for humanitarian purposes. (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/8334/description/Planting_the_Seeds_for_Folate_Enrichment)
There are drought resistant plants, virus resistant plants, nutrient-fortified plants, you name it– solutions exist, they work and they can be deployed, but the anti-biotech activists will stop them. The only entities that can commercialize or release these materials are the Big Ag companies and even they only attempt to release their highest-possiible producers.
I'm always glad to answer your questions.
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 you'll agree there.
Most beef cows are on grass or hay pastures, it's only the last 30-60 of their lives that they are finished off on a grain mix. It gives the beef more marbling and a better taste. (At least in my opinion.) Dairy cows need some grain to help produce milk and to grow efficiently. All of our cows were fed a balanced mix of dry hay, silage (fermented, chopped hay or corn and it's stalk), soy protein feed, minerals, and grain. A nutritionist helps the dairy farmer find the perfect blend for the cows. Cows, love grain, but it's like giving candy to a kid, it's not so good for them in large quantities, but it gives them a nice energy buzz. and proteins needed for production.
If you think about our food, most of all that we eat has been modified in some way over the centuries. Do a quick google search on the history of broccoli, or kale. It's kinda interesting to note that a lot of our food really wasn't that safe or productive before humans figured out how make it safe and more productive. I hope that made sense…. GMO's are taking the whole process a huge leap forward. Instead of blindly doing selective breeding we can copy and paste genes that help the farmer and the consumer. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could figure out which protein in peanuts is making people allergic to them and if we could take that out of the peanuts genetic code? People wouldn't live in fear of their lives for accidentally eating something with a hidden peanut product!
I think it's open, questioning minds like your own that people like Sarah are addressing, not the dyed in the wool activists like Kay and Jen.
Thanks for writing a great response!
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 non-altered crop of the same species?" This question has to be asked of every single alteration, because no two alterations are alike, and every crop that has made it to the market has been shown to pass this test, and the results of these tests are reproducible.
I have no reservations about myself or my family eating foods created by GMO technology. I see them as being the same as non-GMO foods and Organic foods. This new technique of crop breeding is just another refinement of something we've been doing for tens of thousands of years.
As Sarah, Kevin, Jodi, and yourself point out, we should be a little more wary of processed foods, which can be based on crops produced by any technology. The flip side is that increasing a person's level of activity is probably far more beneficial for fighting obesity than restricting their diet.
* Actually, proper scientific research questions have extra nuances that sometimes elude me, but this is my best approximation of a question that might appear at the beginning of a research paper. Ref. http://bml.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/pdf/cameos/CAME…
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 of consumers to have an informed choice, for example through labeling". The governments of numerous countries already label GE foods. This isn't about not trusting the government, this is a democracy so we are the government, which is why this will be put to a vote.
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 technology from serving those it could help should be held accountable, and in the long run they will be.
And NO… science is NOT a democracy. There is no vote about creation vs evolution. There is no vote about stem cell research or no. There is no vote about gravity being real. You do not get to vote on whether facts are true or not. They are. Live with them.
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 EU already labels GE foods.
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 import-export dynamics of some countries. Spain, Portugal and other countries DO grow GM corn– and more every year.
Contact me any time if you'd like to talk to EU scientists. They'd love to tell you what a joke public policy is.
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 corresponding to the registered application rate of the Bt-toxin-based biopesticide DIPEL. This means that the genetically modified corn plant represents a 1500-2000 times higher load on the environment than the registered non-biotechnological toxin application rates."(Székàcs, 2003).
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 pesticide. Pesticide is expensive. Farmers are smart. They do what works.
Your statistic about 1500-2000 times higher is a complete red herring. If it is not toxic, and is simply digested as been shown, it does not matter how much of the protein is present– unless you are the larvae that dies, the farmer that saves money or the environment that benefits from less broad-spectrum insecticide.
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 already have both a system and labels ready to go to label GE ingredients in the U.S.
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 amount to US$35 to US$48 per person per year. According to Jaeger (2002), this estimate is high because the study was based on limited information and used upper bound aggregate estimates of costs (e.g., they assumed that 70 to 85% of processed foods would incur the full cost of segregation). The same year, KPMG (2000b) published a report on the introduction of mandatory labeling of GM food in Australia and New Zealand. That report estimated that the total costs of labeling would amount to US$9.75 and US$2.65 per person per year for Australia and New Zealand, respectively. This estimate included private costs of compliance and government costs of implementation. A third published report (National Economic Research Associate [NERA], 2001) studied the cost of five different labeling scenarios in the United Kingdom. The first scenario corresponds to the ongoing EU regulations in 2001, the second adds a voluntary labeling scheme for GM–free food, and the third includes products derived from GM ingredients but not meat or processing aids (as done in the extension of the EU rule in 2004). The fourth option adds a voluntary labeling scheme for GM–free food to the third scenario, and the fifth option includes all three (meat fed with GM, processing aids, and products derived from GM ingredients). The respective per–capita annual cost estimates are: US$0.23, $0.64, $1.77, $2.01, and $3.89.
Jaeger (2002) reviewed these different cost estimates available and used the results of those studies to discuss the costs of implementing the proposed mandatory labeling policy defined under Oregon’s Ballot Measure 27. This proposed US state measure, which included very stringent labeling of GM food and non food products, was rejected by 70% of Oregon voters by referendum in November 2003. He concluded that the total annual costs of the Oregon labeling proposition would range from US$3 to US$10 per person per year. This approximation is based on the assumption that labeling is used by all processors with GM ingredients, and thus does not result in any change in product ingredients.
De Leon, Manalo, and Guilatco (2004) conducted a comprehensive economic study of the potential economic effects of labeling options in the Philippines, a country that produces GM maize and imports large volumes of potentially GM commodities. Their study shows that mandatory labeling would result in an increase of manufacturing costs by 11–12%, which would lead to increases of 10% in consumer prices for certain products. They conclude that, given the high cost of implementation and uncertainties in the international regulatory context, it would be better to avoid the immediate use of mandatory labeling. Instead they suggested a progressive policy alternative, initiated with the introduction of a voluntary labeling system, while waiting for a possible international standard on labeling.
Lastly, Cloutier (2006) provided a cost study of introducing a mandatory labeling policy for GM food in Quebec, separating fixed and variable costs for the different actors in the food chains.3 The study reports that the total set up cost for a mandatory labeling system would amount to CAD 161.75 million (equivalent to US$20/person), and the variable cost for mandatory labeling after its implementation would amount to CAD 28.37 million annually (equivalent to US$3.5/person/year) for Quebec. These total estimates are relatively low, perhaps reflecting the very low use of targeted GM crops by regional farmers, and the lack of explicit threshold level in the analysis.
More generally, it is important to note that the economic effects of labeling are intrinsically linked to the presence or absence of domestically–produced GM crops, and imports or exports of GM food products. The three original producers and exporters of GM crops (i.e., the United States, Argentina, and Canada) have adopted voluntary labeling approaches, whereas the first countries to adopt mandatory labeling requirements are large importers that do not produce GM crops (or produce GM crops in very limited areas). China and Brazil are the only major countries in an intermediate position, as large producers and exporters of GM crops and with mandatory labeling. However, China officially only produces GM cotton, whose main products are not required to be labeled anywhere, and Brazil only produces GM soybeans, which tend to be mostly exported and used as animal feed in countries that do not label meat fed with GM. This situation raises the question of whether labeling can be considered a non–tariff barrier to trade. We will now turn to international considerations.
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 year were obviously wrong, and it seems to cost much less to label then even the lowest estimates of $.23 per year per person.
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 risks as observed in animals, and no real health rewards for the consumer. It is unethical to experiment on human subjects without their informed consent, especially when there is no health benefit for the subject and only risk. For example, the Declaration of Helsinki states, "Medical research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the inherent risks and burdens to the research subjects".
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 it must be true. Read the studies and see for yourself, most of them are not independent animal feeding studies using mammals that look at GE foods currently consumed by humans and use quality health parameters, so they are not relevant to human health.
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 a mom" in this case. I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. As a mom, I'm just trying to learn more about a very heated topic as my husband talks about GMOs all the time.
I am going to take CGParadise's advice and block your comments from now on. I've had enough of going around the mulberry bush, you've had more than enough of your say.
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 ignored.
Between the three stoic antis here, all I’ve seen is a paper thin excuses for good science, claims of various studies proving the ill effects of GMOs, and zero legit studies an those 30+ posts. If you got proof post it. Please. I’ll mail you 5 bucks if you do!
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 GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants".
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 chickens. #6 uses Bt176 #7, 8, 9, 10 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not. #11 uses unapproved wheat. #12 not a GMO feeding trial. #13 the sheep ate young Bt cotton plants and not cottonseed oil like humans would consume. #14 is an unapproved variety and only looks at nutrient content and not an animal feeding trial #15 was conducted by Pioneer. #16 is not an animal feeding trial and uses unapproved
#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 do with health
#40 not a feeding trial
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 and broiler chickens
#58 Monsanto study on glyphosate, not GMO
#59 unapproved variety
#60 Pioneer researchers
I can keep going but there really isn't much here in terms of independent animal feeding studies using mammals that look at GE foods currently consumed by humans and use quality health parameters.
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 will expect to find studies which find a parameter here or there that is different. But it takes repetition between studies to make them anything more than statistical blips. So when they say above about a "possible" problem from one thing being different, they are playing around with statistical blips that are expected to be found.
As one of the people running the GENERA project that they are trying to dismiss, I can only say this: Soon it will no longer be a mere list, but an actual database showing the outcomes of every study as reported by the authors. So playing around with trying to "paint by numbers" to dismiss them is really a futile exercise.
My recent post Forego a hamburger, feed a person
"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 treating the list as if it were allegedly scientific proof that GMOs are "100% safe." It is a list of studies of or relating to GE crops, much of which indicates that the technology itself is safe. Some of these studies have allegedly indicated that a strain may be unsafe, like #438, which, according to wikipedia (refer to the links provided in wikipedias references) "The EFSA reviewed the 2009 Séralini paper and concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by the data in their paper, that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper, and that there was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human and animal health, and for the environment.[29] The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee[30] (HCB) also reviewed the Séralini 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."[31] The HCB also questioned the authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the Séralini web page still showed a 2008 Austrian anti-GM article which had been previously withdrawn by the authors themselves as flawed. Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results from the 2009 Séralini study were due to chance alone.[32]"
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, as a scientist that has clawed his way up this business for 30 years, there's absolutely no amount of money that could "hush" me. And guess what? There are tens of thousands of us out here, working for you, every day. We could make a whole lot more money working for Monsanto, but we don't. Too bad you want to fight us with BS.
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, there is no excuse for keeping people in the dark about what they are feeding their families. It also isn't true that GMO labeling will cost much. http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.asp…
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 but not for other types of food consumers might like to know about. What's the REAL reason for demanding labels only on GMO foods?
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 & nutritious products (as compared with conventional & GMO) with the certified non-GMO project or organic label. Just please do not force your beliefs onto everyone else that will probably increase food prices, possibly stifle innovation, and reduce consumers choices. But if you want labels for GMOs do understand that crops developed using mutagens & hybrids developed via conventional breeding are just as dangerous as GMOs. And since GMOs are tested more thoroughly than any new crop produced, or old crop, using those other methods, probably safer.
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 to prepare for lawsuits challenging the “naturalness” of their products." Something to think about.
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 Pesticides were used way before GM crops were developed. Onto the economics, farmers don't want to spend any more money on something that they don't need to. So "Spray,spray, and spray larger and larger doses" isn't even real! Do you have any idea how much diesel in a tractor costs? Or how much even 2.5 gallon of RoundUp Max costs? Then balance that all out with the other costs and the profit. Farmers will always try to do with less pesticides, fuel, fertilizer, or whatever if it still maintains a good yield. So both of you get a better and fuller picture before you spread more of your misunderstanding and organic ideology.
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 humans. Just because they have been in the food system for several years, doesn't really mean anything. CFCs were used for many years and only found out their damage much later on. You can just say it is safe because we have been eating it for 20 years and no big deal so far. I wish you would focus on other topics, because it makes me not want to read your blog since you are getting a bit preachy about the subject. But that is just my opinion.
My recent post Currently
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 post.
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.
As for focusing on other topics? I have written or had guest posts on organic/farming/GMOs since Feburary. 4 post since February and my last 2 have been 1 month apart. That's too much? You can read what you want. If my agriculture posts upset you…skip over them or just don't read my blog – completely your choice.
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 of understanding and paranoia do not mean that science is wrong. It does not mean that the rest of us that accept scientific evidence need to build a new bureaucratic empire to cater to your fears.
You say, flat out, "I still don't believe they are safe". I KNOW they are safe. Science shows that. There is no need to "believe" when we know.
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 don't shove it down the throats of everyone else. If you want to support the mega corporations that are trying to have total control over our food supply, who drive farmers in India to suicide over the high price of seed, who sue farmers all over the world when their GMO crop pollutes their non-GMO crop, well, be my guest, but I think you are morally corrupt. And/or sadly misinformed.
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 over 3 trillion meals served. No harm indicated.
As far as the Indian farmer suicides, they benefit from GE crops. They were previously exposed to harmful pesticides that they were forced to spray via backpack because they didn't have GE crops.
Farmers are sued if they breach their contracts with seed companies – just like when anyone breaches a contract. No farmer has ever been sued from "cross contamination" of GE crops.
As for your last comment…I disagree with you and might say the same to you.
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- there are more studies coming out now showing the dangers of the chemicals that are sprayed on the genetically engineered crops.- Endocrine disruption, and disruption of the beneficial bacteria in our guts.
Please see the studies conducted by Samsel and Senoff on this issue.
also, the glyphosates act as chelators in the soil and bind to nutrients that the plants should be taking up. The plants are blocked from receiving the proper nutrition, and again, studies have shown that Genetically engineered foods are less nutrient dense than their organic counterparts.
I do, however, agree that organic farms do use pesticides (and the only difference is that they are "approved" for organic certification.)- this is part of a bigger problem, as these farms are typically monocultures which do not allow for biodiversity in the soil-so, the bugs proliferate and farmers need to do something to protect their crops.
Perhaps, we should look to small scale farming, poly cultures, biodiversity, healthy soil- this will produce healthy plants AND keep away the pests and the need for pesticides, and genetic engineering, for that matter will be lessened.
Also, many farmers who are using genetically engineered seeds are not seeing the desired results (higher yields, less weeds). Many are now seeing herbicide resistant weeds which are just calling for stronger and stronger chemicals.
This is a huge environmental, human and animal health issue that must be addressed. The issue of genetic engineering is muti faceted, it is not merely an issue of good vs. bad, label vs. no label.
Afterall, we should know by now that we can't outsmart nature and we need to really start thinking about the kind of stewards we are being with this amazing gift that God has given us.
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. She specializes in computers and artificial intelligence. This would be like me, as a nurse, writing a paper and doing studies on architecture.
So you say organic farms are monoculture? It is the farmer's responsibility to research the proper use of any pesticide along with crop rotation. It's for their best interest and livelihood. It's a practice that we value very much on our family farm.
I would love to know these "many farmers" you speak of. Because of GE crops we use LESS pesticide, therefore less weeks and higher yields. On a load just taken over to the elevator this week of GE canola, the dockage was <1%! That's the amount of extra stuff (weeds, etc) that contaminate the crop. If you truly do some research, organic farming isn't as great for the environment as everyone things. More fuel is used for more tilling…I could go on and on.
We take great value and pride in being great stewards of our land.
"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 GMO labels and others? No. Never. Labels will always come with the unspoken message,
“DANGER”
And that’s exactly what the Organic Industry and those against technological progress want.
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 shelf-life, but not to add insecticides or herbicide resistance to them because of potential health risks. I also thought that Monsanto was a big, evil mega-corp that made chemical weapons, went around suing farmers, planting moles in the US government, and striving to take control of the food supply.
So, I waded into the debate with the simple idea that different GMO alterations shouldn't be lumped together, and the technology needs more study, but shouldn't be banned outright. Over the years, I learned that there was copious amounts of testing done by dozens of international organizations, I just wasn't aware of them at the time. I learned that there were term limits on the patents, and those limits were already over half over by the time the modification makes it past the scrutiny of those organizations. I also learned that the insecticides are the same as those found in other plants (like tobacco) and allow more of the crop to survive until harvest while at the same time decreasing the insecticides sprayed over the whole field. I learned that the herbicide resistance added went hand-in-hand with a new herbicide (Glyphosate) that is pretty miraculous when you compare it to what it replaces: it's less toxic to humans than table salt, it has a half-life measured in weeks, and it breaks down to common molecules. It also reduces the need to till the soil to clear the land for planting, which goes a long way to reducing CO2 emissions and soil erosion, thus increasing sustainability.
Even then I begrudgingly accepted all this while thinking that Monsanto is still an unethical mega-corp, until I learned that no, they don't sue farmers unless the farmers breach their contract, and even then they donate the proceeds to charity. I also had the opportunity to read the contract that they use to enter into an agreement with farmers, and there's nothing out of place there. I learned that "saving seeds" is simple in theory, but a pain in practice requiring specialized machinery to "wash" the seeds and remove debris and unwanted seeds from weeds and other plants. Because of this, many farmers themselves choose to buy new seeds every year because it's more cost-effective. Speaking of cost-effective, I learned that a farm is like any other business in that they keep costs like spraying pesticides or fertilizer down as much as possible in order to maximize profits, and this has led to the development of techniques like targeted spraying that is better for the environment than blanket-spraying the whole field.
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 often use MORE pesticides and have to till after they harvest to control the weeds which is bad for the soil, wastes more fuel, etc. There's a place in the world for all kinds of farming, I just wish conventional/GE crop farming wasn't beat up on so much.
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 take over the industry. I learned that because of corporate mergers and departmental splits (all of which are public record) it isn't even the same company or people who manufactured chemical weapons. It has just kept the name because in the seed business, name-brand loyalty by farmers is big enough that companies who try to change their name tend to go out of business. They do not control the FDA, and their GM crops have to pass through more regulatory bodies than any other crop.
Even though I understand the scientific process, I haven't been trained to properly read scientific papers, but yet I've taken the time to read several papers both for and against GM technology. To my untrained eye, the papers showing that GM crops were no more harmful than any other crops of the same species appeared to have followed the scientific process, but the papers that demonstrated that GM crops caused harm (such as the papers by Seralini and Carman) had thrown the scientific process out the window. I've also read papers that showed GM technology as being beneficial, but were promoted as "proof" that they cause harm, with the promoters expecting that you don't actually read the paper itself. I should at this point add that there are no papers that say that GM crops are safe, because that's not how science works. Nothing is safe. The purest organic crop could still choke you if it gets in your airway, crush you in sufficient quantities, or even cause you to die of malnutrition if that was the only food you ever ate. What science can show is that GM crops aren't any more harmful to our bodies than non-GM crops, and this has been shown to me to my satisfaction.
After all this, I started wondering who was behind the campaign against GM technology in the first place, and why are they so intent on spurring activists (such as myself) to raise pitchforks and form an angry mob against this technology? Looking at the various websites against GM technology has led me to discover that they were owned by various people and organizations invested in the Organic industry. This industry made $60+ Billion dollars in 2011 alone, and relies solely on the "appeal to nature" fallacy to justify charging higher prices for food that hasn't been proven to be any more nutritious than any other food, despite being grown using techniques that aren't as efficient or sustainable as what modern agriculture has to offer. In fact, the Organic industry is several times larger than the GM industry, and "you know how big corporations play politics with their money". It's not just the big Organic corporations, though; the panic industry is also big business, and writing articles with extreme and controversial claims is a surefire way to get people over to your website to see your ads or buy your product, even if they're there to point out how ridiculous your article is.
I've also pondered how the anti-GM movement has gained so much traction when it's clearly based on such shoddy science. The movement plays on the fear of not knowing what's going into your body, the same fear the anti-vaccination movement was based on. Ironically, these are the same fears that led to the establishment of the FDA, DEA, EPA, and so forth, which the anti-GM movement dismisses because they're inconvenient for their argument. It also plays on the mistrust of big corporations, which again is ironic when the organic industry is so much bigger than the GM industry (in terms of profits, not output).
So yes, I'm an ordinary man, I've been given the opportunity to know what GMOs are, I've talked to a lot of nice farmers and other people (on both sides of the debate) in the process, and I'm quite satisfied that they're a valuable tool alongside other modern farming techniques to get more food from less land in a sustainable fashion.
(Disclaimer: I do not own shares in any agricultural company, organic or otherwise, and I have not been paid a single penny for this post, so don't even bother with the "corporate shill" accusations.)
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 much be held libel and run the risk of paying the price and getting sued, this isn't unique to Monsanto and farmers!
I feel there's a place for organic farming, but as you point out I think they have been a huge contributor to spreading fear against biotech, when as I've stated before organic farming isn't as environmentally friendly as people assume it is and it has never been proven to be nutritionally better than conventional food. Organic farming isn't small. People have this romanticized idea that organic farming is small backyard farming and free-range grass-fed animals…such is not sustainable nor the case. They are a $60+ billion dollar industry. WOW.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and commenting.
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 and http://thefarmerslife.com/, to tell the real story from the front line, and not baseless accusations by armchair activists.
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 seed the plant the next season if they break a contract, as anyone who breaks a contract would be held accountable for. Our farm gets tested yearly to make sure we aren't reusing seed that has been sold to us. We don't worry because we don't break contracts.
As far as "how GM crops affect our bodies" all the research thus far shows no affect. Hope that helps a bit!
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?