GMO labeling

[-X-]

that their food contains genes from x

And that's what you call a 'superfood'.

You're welcome.

 

[brokeu91]

Awesome. I always look forward to debating with someone who makes me do additional research and gives me talking points to discuss; especially someone with a medical background and strong opposing stance. Iron sharpens Iron and all that. To that end, let me just discuss with you some things that I both need to clarify, and take issue with.

Yes, we have been genetically modifying foods for quite some time through breeding and cross-pollination. Nobody disputes that or thinks it's wrong. Even Mother Nature is responsible for genetic modifications through evolution. What we *haven't* been doing for very long (by comparison) is giving seeds pesticidal gene traits that are directly responsible for the mutation of weeds and insects that make them even more resilient to pesticides and herbicides - thus requiring even MORE of those chemicals to kill them. Not to mention the environmental impact of that kind of run-off. It should be noted, and should NOT be overlooked, that companies like Monsanto not only lead the charge on this type of genetic research (in addition to funding the testing), but also produce the seeds, pesticides and herbicides that farmers use. Keep that in mind as I continue.

As per your broad brush-stroke statement that people who want GMO warnings (false - we want transparency through non-judgmental labeling) don't understand the science behind it or don't care? That's entirely not true. There is a massive grass roots movement happening of people who are trying to gain as much information and understanding as they can. The problem with that, is that the science behind this new trend of genetically modified foods is:

A. Inconclusive. As I said earlier, there have been zero epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption, *because* there has been no labeling. How to do you study its effects if you don't know who your focus group really is, or which foods even contain them? And when I say "them", I mean this new science. Not the good science implemented by Borlaug who created a disease resistant strain of dwarf wheat and implemented plans for government support for modern agricultural methods through the use of large quantities of fertilizer, price supports, irrigation, and improved infrastructure. That's all good stuff and ecologically responsible. The toxicity levels of fertilizer are VASTLY lower than that of pesticides like Roundup. But I digress.

B. Controlled. While research on genetically modified seeds is still published, only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. Scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research (they have to gain access to the seeds for studies), but most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. One group of scientists led by a Cornell University entomologist submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”

Now, to address your army of straw men.

those hipsters who are all about getting GMO labeled are not out there eating wild type foods

Wild-type foods like Organics? Yes, some of *us* are. And people who want to do so shouldn't be blocked from doing so by politicians who are in the pockets of industry lobbyists. Specifically by sponsoring bills like H.R. 4432 that would modify the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to establish a voluntary federal labeling standard for genetically engineered foods. It would also specifically prohibit Congress or individual states from requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods or ingredients.​

Worst off all, they cast off the fact that GMO has saved hundreds of millions of lives

That's an extremely insulting thing to say, my friend. Even Norman Borlaug, who stood the most to lose in the face of opposition, didn't say that. His words were that some of the environmental lobbyists of the western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. Of that, we can agree. I will not deny that there are many people who are jumping on this train because it's *a cause*, and not because it's a cause in which they're fully (or even remotely) invested. Try not to cast such a large net, and we can continue to have a meaningful dialogue on this. You know, as a favor to me.
​

Because we have selected food that is better over the centuries we have food now that can feed the world. Poor people have much more access to food than say 500 years ago, our world population has boomed, and people have survived terrible illnesses that would kill otherwise malnourished people. But those that want this GMO label don't know or don't care. Why should they? They all have enough money to buy their precious "heirloom" food. Who cares about the poor around the world?

Wow. I'm truly taken aback by that. So now I'm a proponent of death by starvation? Let me direct you back to the core issues real quick before you accuse me of wanting to club baby seals to death. The issue isn't with higher-yields and the propaganda that GMO's are designed to 'feed the world.' The issue is with the secrecy/agenda associated with experimentation on people and a refusal of their inalienable right to CHOOSE what goes into their bodies. Unless you think that people should just walk in lockstep with Corporations and the Government and just eat whatever the freak we're told. If I truly want to eat just Organic foods, I want to be able to know that my foods have no GMO's in them. It's really as simple as that. I want to know that pesticide residue in my body is significantly lower than those who choose to eat GM foods and processed foods (of which somewhere near 90% of which is genetically modified). Am I to be denied that right through legislation sponsored (and funded) by Corporations and passed by our elected officials?
​

So to summarize, I'm not against genetic modification, because that would mean I'm against nature. I'm for ecologically responsible genetic modification, organic farming and consumption, transparency through labeling, scientific testing that isn't funded and controlled by the companies who serve to benefit from same, and a proponent of an ecoargicultural society that is (and is proven to be) sustainable. The problem with organic farming is that Corporatocracy is making it impossible to achieve on a massive scale due to a monoculture system facilitated by patent law, corrupt political officials, and obscene amounts of money. Money that absolutely pales in comparison to those of us who have enough of it to purchase our precious 'heirloom' food (and we don't, because it's becoming increasingly more expensive to purchase it). And finally, my daughter moved to Belize and is an organic farmer. Would it be fair of me to play the, "are you in favor of my daughter failing as steward of our ecosystem because she's anti-corporation" card? Or can we just drill down to what we're actually saying and hear each other out?

Thanks, broke. Look forward to hearing back from you.

Alright Paulie, I didn't mean to insult you there. I realize that what I wrote was inflammatory; I was just getting this off my chest. I warned you that it was a rant. It wasn't aimed at you, I hope you weren't really offended. I was just ranting on people who appear to support something that they don't understand, and I wasn't lumping you among those who don't understand, it was just a rant, a vent so to speak. Much of this rant has more to do with my anger at people who believe they understand things that possibly couldn't and then try to persuade others to think their way. Most of the people who I know that are "anti-GMO" are also anti-vaccine (a really, really big pet peeve of mine) who are really just anti-corporation and not anti GMO. There are studies that show the less educated people are, the more they believe they understand, when in fact they know very little. The more educated people are the more they tend to realize that they don't understand everything. For instance I don't pretend to understand engineering, computers, physics etc, because I know it's much more complicated than anything I read on the interwebs.

It really is one of my medical pet peeves along with things like vaccinations being unsafe. There seems to be an undercurrent in the US that science is wrong, and they're right because they read some stuff on the internet. The people who are proponents of GMO labeling, in general, do not have scientific backgrounds and don't understand the way food is processed by our digestive systems. To sum it up, our digestive system does not recognize anything different between GMO, wild type organisms, organic, non-organic, etc. It's pretty much all broken down the same.

It seems to me that many, perhaps most of the people who want GMO placed on food are unwilling to place it on their own food, despite the fact that all food we eat today is GMO. The point I was trying to make was that human beings have been practicing artificial selection for thousands of years. All that GMO does is speed up the process. They can actually splice in genes that would allow food to grow in tough places, or in the case of Monsanto one that would be unharmed by herbicides (which by the way has been around so long that if something was harmful we would have known by now). So one question I have is, what does GMO even mean? How does that differ from pretty much all other food eaten today?

There are good, well researched, well designed studies that have shown no difference in nutritional value or safety of organic vs. inorganic foods. You are right in that there really is no studies indicating GMO, but GMO foods are registered as non-organic.

If you want to put labels on food, go ahead, it doesn't bother me-I'll buy GMO since I don't really care. I was not personally opposed to the labels, believe it or not. But I don't think most people who see these labels even realize what it means or doesn't mean. I'm afraid that we're going to raise the cost of food in this country because land that could be producing a lot more wheat using GMO is now being used for non-GMO foods causing less of it available. It's hard enough for poor people to actually afford good healthy food to begin with, and I'm afraid that will worsen their ability to purchase it for them and their family.

This was not meant to be a rant supporting corporations. Believe it or not, I am a liberal. But sometimes people take causes too far. I have to deal with that every day in my job and it becomes hard to change someone's mind once it's made up. That is especially true for people who are uneducated-a lot of research supports that. So, I don't think necessarily putting a label of "GMO" will change anything for the better. Should the public have the right to know? Sure. But forcing to put things like "GMO" on a label makes people less likely to buy that product. If you want to put "Non-GMO" or something on food that we decide is not GMO (once we have a satisfactory definition of that), then I don't care. I just am afraid that poor, uneducated people will not purchase cheaper, equally nutritious food because of a label.

 

[RamFan503]

Where do you think banana peppers came from?

Well I'll be. I clearly need to widen my view.

 

[RamFan503]

And that's what you call a 'superfood'.

You're welcome.

 

[-X-]

Alright Paulie, I didn't mean to insult you there. I realize that what I wrote was inflammatory; I was just getting this off my chest. I warned you that it was a rant. It wasn't aimed at you, I hope you weren't really offended. I was just ranting on people who appear to support something that they don't understand, and I wasn't lumping you among those who don't understand, it was just a rant, a vent so to speak. Much of this rant has more to do with my anger at people who believe they understand things that possibly couldn't and then try to persuade others to think their way. Most of the people who I know that are "anti-GMO" are also anti-vaccine (a really, really big pet peeve of mine) who are really just anti-corporation and not anti GMO. There are studies that show the less educated people are, the more they believe they understand, when in fact they know very little. The more educated people are the more they tend to realize that they don't understand everything. For instance I don't pretend to understand engineering, computers, physics etc, because I know it's much more complicated than anything I read on the interwebs.

It really is one of my medical pet peeves along with things like vaccinations being unsafe. There seems to be an undercurrent in the US that science is wrong, and they're right because they read some stuff on the internet. The people who are proponents of GMO labeling, in general, do not have scientific backgrounds and don't understand the way food is processed by our digestive systems. To sum it up, our digestive system does not recognize anything different between GMO, wild type organisms, organic, non-organic, etc. It's pretty much all broken down the same.

It seems to me that many, perhaps most of the people who want GMO placed on food are unwilling to place it on their own food, despite the fact that all food we eat today is GMO. The point I was trying to make was that human beings have been practicing artificial selection for thousands of years. All that GMO does is speed up the process. They can actually splice in genes that would allow food to grow in tough places, or in the case of Monsanto one that would be unharmed by herbicides (which by the way has been around so long that if something was harmful we would have known by now). So one question I have is, what does GMO even mean? How does that differ from pretty much all other food eaten today?

There are good, well researched, well designed studies that have shown no difference in nutritional value or safety of organic vs. inorganic foods. You are right in that there really is no studies indicating GMO, but GMO foods are registered as non-organic.

If you want to put labels on food, go ahead, it doesn't bother me-I'll buy GMO since I don't really care. I was not personally opposed to the labels, believe it or not. But I don't think most people who see these labels even realize what it means or doesn't mean. I'm afraid that we're going to raise the cost of food in this country because land that could be producing a lot more wheat using GMO is now being used for non-GMO foods causing less of it available. It's hard enough for poor people to actually afford good healthy food to begin with, and I'm afraid that will worsen their ability to purchase it for them and their family.

This was not meant to be a rant supporting corporations. Believe it or not, I am a liberal. But sometimes people take causes too far. I have to deal with that every day in my job and it becomes hard to change someone's mind once it's made up. That is especially true for people who are uneducated-a lot of research supports that. So, I don't think necessarily putting a label of "GMO" will change anything for the better. Should the public have the right to know? Sure. But forcing to put things like "GMO" on a label makes people less likely to buy that product. If you want to put "Non-GMO" or something on food that we decide is not GMO (once we have a satisfactory definition of that), then I don't care. I just am afraid that poor, uneducated people will not purchase cheaper, equally nutritious food because of a label.

Nice. I agree with much of that, and some not so much. But you open up a lot of points parallel to this debate that I'd like to discuss with you, particularly because of your expertise. And I mean A LOT. Not now though, because I have to run out to Earth Fare with my wife and get some food. To give you a teaser of what I'd like to discuss with you, I'm contemplating doing a video of two trips to two grocery stores (one Organic, one not) with the same amount of money (say, around $200.00) to demonstrate how much unhealthy shit (that's being passed off as healthy) you can get at one store as opposed to Organic food of the same 'type' at another. The things I'd like to discuss with you are in the 'processed foods' vein. Which isn't far removed from GM foods. That, of course, will lead to discussions about Big Grocery and Big Pharmaceuticals, so you let me know in advance if you'd like to stay away from that.

 

[RamFan503]

I am not going to stop buying things because they are GMO even if labeled so. My wife for one though has had blood tests to see what she might be allergic to. Funny enough, she thought maybe gluten but that came back negative. She is mostly allergic to dairy and poultry eggs but things like ginger and turmeric came back as minor. I realize most are not going to get this kind of in depth analysis done, many will just assume gluten is the culprit, and also many are going to ignorantly turn their nose up at the thought of genetically engineered foods - just cuz. I can't help them and don't really want to try. I am more to the point of not buying into the other side that says that labeling requirements would be onerous or expensive. I also think that simply stating that something contains "GMO" or whatever term is kind of an appeasement and doesn't really do much. A non-GMO labeling might be more appropriate - though verifying might be problematic.

The devil is in the details. First a definition of what constitutes genetically modified should be hammered out. Personally, I don't consider enhanced selection as being a form of genetic modification. I do however, believe that forcing plants to accept certain genes from an unrelated species in a lab or modifying a plant to allow it to tolerate higher levels of certain pesticides as a modification I'd like to know about. Modifying a plant so that it produces an enzyme that kills off insects? The enzyme may be very safe or it may not have much in the way of conclusive studies.

I also think that more studies need to be made to see if, for example, we are ingesting more glyphosate with these genetic modifications. Yes Round-up has been around for a long time and when I was in horticulture was considered to have a very high LD50 (low toxicity). But back then and when I was in farming, we used glyphosate on the fields before germination. Glyphosate doesn't readily move through the soil and by the tests I read becomes largely inert when it hits the soil. But glyphosate is also a systemic killer. That means that the plant takes it in throughout. If a plant is resistant to glyphosate, that doesn't mean it doesn't take in the pesticide. And in turn that we are ingesting glyphosate. Over time, is the ingestion of glyphosate a bad thing? I don't know. But as the levels have and will increase, and the time that this has actually become a potential issue with certain pesticides, do we just buy that it is ok to put in our bodies?

Paul already brought up some of the potential environmental issues. We already know we are creating more resistant forms of ragweed for example. And it is not like these same companies haven't asserted their previous products were safe. It took us over 30 years to ban the use of DDT.

 

[Stranger]

Anyone else have an opinion on this

I have an opinion, but it's outside the container.

 

[-X-]

I have an opinion, but it's outside the container.

So? I'll bet you that we're not that far off on it.

 

[RamFan503]

I have an opinion, but it's outside the container.

Afraid someone is going to label you?

 

[Dodgersrf]

At its most basic level its taking desired qualities and adding them to different organisms. As I stated before it is speeding up natural selection/evolution in a big way. They take genes, mutate/add/delete them just as evolution does, but instead of it taking thousands of millions of years(and a huge number of generations) it only takes a few. Nature does the exact same thing, and that is why it works.

From my point of view bigger food that grows faster and in more locations that requires less pesticide/water/nutrients to grow sounds really, really good.

Even if it doesn't sound good, at some time it may become a necessity.
The world is growing at a faster rate than ever. Countries like China have to limit the number of children parents may have. Population growth is a real and serious consideration. Food needs to be available.
We also currently have issues with over fishing of many species.
Feeding the world isn't an easy accomplishment.

 

[-X-]

The world is growing at a faster rate than ever. Countries like China have to limit the number of children parents may have. Population growth is a real and serious consideration. Food needs to be available.

Funny you should say that, because China wants nothing to do with GMOs, and has banned them since last year. But I *think* it's because of cross-contamination issues that they want them out of their Country. To me, it seems like a ploy by the GM Foods industry to intentionally contaminate other shipments with their product in an attempt to force Countries to buy them.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Funny you should say that, because China wants nothing to do with GMOs, and has banned them since last year.

They probably won't grow without air.

Seriously though. That is interesting. A head scratcher actually.

 

[-X-]

They probably won't grow without air.

Seriously though. That is interesting. A head scratcher actually.

Okay, I read up on it some more. It appears that it's just a new GM corn (that I know of - could be more stuff). The disruption in U.S. corn shipments to China began in November 2013, following the detection of MIR 162. MIR 162 is produced by transformation of corn tissue using A. tumefaciens to introduce a gene that confers tolerance to certain lepidopteran (caterpillar) pests of corn. The problem is, Syngenta (a rather large agribusiness) rolled out this new breed of corn before China even approved it, and they detected it in shipments of U.S. corn and distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). Given China’s zero tolerance policy for unapproved biotech events, these disruptions effectively shut U.S. corn farmers out of China’s feed grain import market.

 

[RamFan503]

Even if it doesn't sound good, at some time it may become a necessity.
The world is growing at a faster rate than ever. Countries like China have to limit the number of children parents may have. Population growth is a real and serious consideration. Food needs to be available.
We also currently have issues with over fishing of many species.
Feeding the world isn't an easy accomplishment.

I guess I'll ask. So we should not have higher standards here because another country has allowed their population to grow well beyond their means? I'm sorry but I am not about to determine what I think is acceptable, needed, or desired based on other countries' ability to feed their people. If foods need to be available, let them grow it or buy it and they can determine how it is presented within their own countries. I don't believe in bailing out failed systems at the expense of the health of our own citizens.

 

[Dodgersrf]

I guess I'll ask. So we should not have higher standards here because another country has allowed their population to grow well beyond their means? I'm sorry but I am not about to determine what I think is acceptable, needed, or desired based on other countries' ability to feed their people. If foods need to be available, let them grow it or buy it and they can determine how it is presented within their own countries. I don't believe in bailing out failed systems at the expense of the health of our own citizens.

Nor do I. However, what goes on in other parts of the world can and does affect our country. We are also reliant on other countries for other resources.
All I'm saying is, that there may come a time when it's necessary for us. Even to feed our own country. Not in our lifetime


I do believe we deserve transparency with anything we purchase.

 

[RmsLegends]

I have no problem with any kind of labeling. I just think maybe they could do so in a more cost effective way. As any calls for new labeling is gonna be a cost that companies will pass on to the customers not only the initial cost but how much more it cost for any additional material it takes to do so. An I think any additional cost hits middle America and lower income families harder as much of the food products in question are the brands and types they buy.

So I would be more in favor of a new type of labeling where companies are more general and not as specific on their labels, cutting the cost for paper, ink, man hours, machine hours and etc, but on their already company maintained website they go into what the generalizations really are. An could even provide links to any studies done on each ingredient or additive so the consumer could feel more informed about the product. Then of course pass the savings on from the offset of a new labeling model to the consumer.

 

[Thordaddy]

Anyone here grow up and end up living on a farm besides me?
They have been modifying seeds for forever.
It's done to fit a purpose, yield , heat and weather tolerance, location, and harvest times etc..
If modification had never happened then 80% of the worlds population would have never been born.

Like Organic GMO is just a media term. You eat it, it's been modified. You're still alive and a Ram fan what more could you want.

Here's a seed catalog, I like DeKalb. Good products. Some of these seeds have been it for as long as I remember. Every seed has been modified in some way. Mostly cross breeding and hybridization ( not same thing).

http://www.aganytime.com/dekalb/featured/Pages/default.aspx

That's sort of an urban myth Hopper, a Japaneese land buyer told a real estate broker I know that Japan could feed itself by farming the the medians in our Interstate Highway system.
There is so much land not utilized that could produce ,the shortage faced is a shortage of capitalism ,socialism starved the Soviet Union, over 7 million Ukraine's starved to death alone during "The Harvest of Sorrow" .

And yes , I grew up in the city and moved to a farm in 1988, but that was my family moving back , grandfather was a registered Hereford breeder who moved to the city when his farm was condemned under eminent domain to build a POW camp in Weingarten MO. WW II "the big one".

 

[bluecoconuts]

Okay, I read up on it some more. It appears that it's just a new GM corn (that I know of - could be more stuff). The disruption in U.S. corn shipments to China began in November 2013, following the detection of MIR 162. MIR 162 is produced by transformation of corn tissue using A. tumefaciens to introduce a gene that confers tolerance to certain lepidopteran (caterpillar) pests of corn. The problem is, Syngenta (a rather large agribusiness) rolled out this new breed of corn before China even approved it, and they detected it in shipments of U.S. corn and distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). Given China’s zero tolerance policy for unapproved biotech events, these disruptions effectively shut U.S. corn farmers out of China’s feed grain import market.

A lot of that, same with a lot of the GMO stuff in Europe is also mercantilist practices as well, especially with China. Most of what China does is to protect their assets and their economy. They can always use the cover of something as the reason, but chances are its to protect their economic interests.

I guess I'll ask. So we should not have higher standards here because another country has allowed their population to grow well beyond their means? I'm sorry but I am not about to determine what I think is acceptable, needed, or desired based on other countries' ability to feed their people. If foods need to be available, let them grow it or buy it and they can determine how it is presented within their own countries. I don't believe in bailing out failed systems at the expense of the health of our own citizens.

With more and more globalization, what happens elsewhere affects us too though, so its not really smart for us to just say "well fuck em" because that'll hurt us too. Plus isn't this similar to the China labor industry, people say we should lower our standards to compete with China? I would say no to both, but GMO's arent lowering our standards, in most cases they improve on the item.

 

[Stranger]

Afraid someone is going to label you?

just that they will label me "incorrectly"

 

[Stranger]

but GMO's arent lowering our standards, in most cases they improve on the item.

noooooooo