Welcome to the Afibber’s Forum
Serving Afibbers worldwide since 1999
Moderated by Shannon and Carey
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Home
>
GENERAL HEALTH FORUM
>
Topic
Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight
Posted by Jackie
|
Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 24, 2014 04:08PM |
Registered: 6 years ago Posts: 18,881 |
Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight
Submitted by Alice on April 20, 2014
After 20 years of battling Monsanto and corporate agribusiness, food and farm activists in Vermont, backed by a growing Movement across the country, are on the verge of a monumental victory—mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods and a ban on the routine industry practice of labeling GMO-tainted foods as “natural.”
On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed H.112 by a vote of 28-2, following up on the passage of a similar bill in the Vermont House last year. The legislation, which requires all GMO foods sold in Vermont to be labeled by July 1, 2016, will now pass through a House/Senate conference committee before landing on Governor Peter Shumlin’s desk, for final approval.
Strictly speaking, Vermont’s H.112 applies only to Vermont. But it will have the same impact on the marketplace as a federal law. Because national food and beverage companies and supermarkets will not likely risk the ire of their customers by admitting that many of the foods and brands they are selling in Vermont are genetically engineered, and deceptively labeled as “natural” or “all natural”; while simultaneously trying to conceal this fact in the other 49 states and North American markets. As a seed executive for Monsanto admitted 20 years ago, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”
Proof of this “skull and crossbones” effect is evident in the European Union, where mandatory labeling, in effect since 1997, has all but driven genetically engineered foods and crops off the market. The only significant remaining GMOs in Europe today are imported grains (corn, soy, canola, cotton seed) primarily from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. These grains are used for animal feed, hidden from public view by the fact that meat, dairy and eggs derived from animals fed GMOs do not yet have to be labeled in the EU.
Given the imminent passage of the Vermont legislation and the growing strength of America’s anti-GMO and pro-organic Movement, the Gene Giants—Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta—and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), representing Big Food, find themselves in a difficult position. Early polls indicate that Oregon voters will likely pass a ballot initiative on Nov. 4, 2014, to require mandatory labeling of GMOs in Oregon. Meanwhile, momentum for labeling continues to gather speed in other states as well.
Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws, but these laws contain “trigger” clauses, which prevent them from going into effect until other states mandate labeling as well. Vermont’s law does not contain a “trigger” clause. As soon as the governor signs it, it will have the force of law.
Divisions Between Big Food and the Gene Giants
Given what appears to be the inevitable victory of the consumer Right-to-know Movement, some of the U.S.’s largest food companies have quietly begun distancing themselves from Monsanto and the genetic engineering lobby.
General Mills, Post Foods, Chipotle, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and others have begun to make changes in their supply chains in order to eliminate GMOs in some or all of their products. Several hundred companies have enrolled in the Non-GMO Project so they can credibly market their products as GMO-free.
At least 30 members (10 percent of the total membership) of the GMA who contributed money to defeat Proposition 37 in California in November 2012, have held back on making further contributions to stop labeling initiatives in other states. Among the apparent defectors in the GMA ranks are: Mars, Unilever, Smithfield, Heinz, Sara Lee, Dole, Wrigley, and Mead Johnson. Under pressure from the Organic Consumers Association, Dr. Anthony Weil’s natural health and supplements company, Weil Lifestyle, pulled out of the GMA.
Meanwhile a number of the Gene Giants themselves, including Monsanto, appear to be slowly decreasing their investments in gene-spliced GMOs, while increasing their investments in more traditional, and less controversial, cross-breeding and hybrid seed sales. Still, don’t expect the Gene Giants to give up on the GMO seeds and crops already in production, especially Roundup Ready and Bt-spliced crops, nor those in the pipeline such as 2,4-D “Agent Orange” and Dicamba-resistant corn and soybeans, GE rice, and “RNA interference” crops such as non-browning apples, and fast-growing genetically engineered trees.
America’s giant food companies and their chemical industry allies understand the threat posed by truthful labeling of GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, growth promoters and toxic chemicals. They understand full well that the GMO monocrops and factory farms that dominate U.S. agriculture not only pose serious health and environmental hazards, but represent a significant public relations liability as well.
This is why the food and GE giants are threatening to sue Vermont and any other state that dares to pass a GMO labeling bill, even though industry lawyers have no doubt informed them that they are unlikely to win in federal court.
This is also why corporate agribusiness is supporting “Ag Gag” state laws making it a crime to photograph or film on factory farms. Why they’re lobbying for state laws that take away the rights of counties and local communities to regulate agricultural practices. And why they’re supporting secret international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that will, among other provisions, enable multinational corporations to sue and eliminate state and local laws on matters such as GMOs, food safety, and country of origin labeling.
The bottom line is this: Corporate America’s current “business-as-usual” strategies are incompatible with consumers’ right to know, and communities’ and states’ rights to legislate.
Coca-Cola, Pepsi, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Campbell’s, Safeway, Del Monte, Nestlé, Unilever, ConAgra, Wal-Mart, and every food manufacturer with GMO-tainted brands, understand they’re not going to be able to label their products as “produced with genetic engineering,” or drop the use of the term “natural” on GMO-tainted products, only in Vermont, while refusing to do so in other states and international markets. This is why their powerful front group, the GMA, is frantically working in Washington, D.C. to lobby the FDA and the Congress to take away the right of states to require genetically engineered foods and food ingredients to be labeled, and to allow them to continue to label and advertise genetically engineered and chemically-laced foods as “natural” or “all natural.”
Industry’s Last Chance: Indentured Politicians
Conspiring with the GMA, Monsanto’s minions from both the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress, led by the notorious Koch brothers mouthpiece, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), introduced in early April in the House a GMA-scripted bill to outlaw mandatory state GMO labels and allow the continued use of “natural” or “all natural” product labels on a wide range of Frankenfoods and beverages.
The GMA’s federal offensive to prop up the dangerous and evermore unpopular technology of transgenic foods comes on the heels of two high-profile ballot initiative battles in California (2012), and Washington State (2013), where GMA members were forced to spend almost $70 million to narrowly defeat GMO labeling forces. The 15 largest contributors to stop GMO labeling in California and Washington include the following GMA members:
(1) Monsanto: $13,487,350
(2) Dupont: $9,280,159
(3) Pepsico: $4,837,966
(4) Coca-Cola: $3,210,851
(5) Nestlé: $2,989,806
(6) Bayer CropScience: $2,591,654
(7) Dow Agrosciences: $2,591,654
(8) BASF Plant Science: $2,500,000
(9) Kraft Foods (now in part Mondolez International) $2,391,835
(10) General Mills: $2,099,570
(11) ConAgra Foods: $2,004,951
(12) Syngenta: $2,000,000
(13) Kellogg’s: $1,112,749
(14) Campbell Soup: $982,888
(15) Smucker Company: $904,977
The Fire Next Time
These “dirty tricks,” “dirty money” ballot initiative victories in California and Washington now ring hollow. If Congress or the FDA, prompted by these same companies, dare to stomp on states’ rights to require GMO labels on GMO food, if they dare to repress the rights of millions of consumers to know whether or not their food is genetically engineered, they run the very real risk of detonating an even larger and more vociferous grassroots rebellion, including massive boycotts and a concerted effort to throw “Monsanto’s Minions” out of Congress. The widespread furor last year over the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” surreptitiously appended to the Appropriations Bill, and then, after massive uproar, subsequently removed, is but a partial foreshadowing of the turmoil yet to come.
Likewise Congress or the FDA should think twice before legally sanctioning the patently outrageous practice of allowing companies to continue to label or advertise GMO or chemically tainted food as “natural” or “all natural.”
Given the fact that 80-90 percent of American consumers want genetically engineered foods to be labeled, as indicated by numerous polls over the last 10 years, and given the fact that it is obviously unethical and fraudulent to label or advertise GMO or heavily chemically processed foods as “natural,” even the FDA has so far declined to come to the rescue of Monsanto and Big Food. In the face of 65 so far largely successful national class-action lawsuits against food companies accused of fraudulently labeling their GMO or chemically-laced brands as “natural, ”Big Food’s lawyers have asked the FDA to come to their aid. But so far, the FDA has declined to throw gasoline on the fire.
It’s clear why “profit at any cost” big business wants to keep consumers in the dark. They want to maximize their profits. The consumer, the environment, the climate be damned. But let’s review, for the record, why truthful food labeling is so important to us, the overwhelming majority of the people, and to future generations.
Here are three major, indeed life-or-death, issues that drive America’s new anti-GMO and pro-organic food Movement:
(1) There is mounting, and indeed alarming, scientific evidence that genetically engineered foods and crops, and the toxic pesticides, chemicals, and genetic constructs that accompany them, are hazardous. GMOs pose a mortal threat, not only to human and animal health, but also to the environment, biodiversity, the survival of small-scale family farms, and climate stability.
(2) Genetically engineered crops are the technological cornerstone and ideological rationale for our dominant, out-of-control system of industrial agriculture, factory farms, and highly processed junk food. America’s industrial food and farming system is literally destroying public health, the environment, soil fertility and climate stability. As we educate, boycott and mobilize, as we label and drive GMOs off the market, we simultaneously rip the mask off Big Food and chemical corporations, which will ultimately undermine industrial agriculture and speed up the “Great Transition” to a food and farming system that is organic, sustainable and climate stabilizing.
(3) Fraudulent “natural” labels confuse consumers and hold back the growth of true organic alternatives.Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as “natural,” or “all natural”and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are “certified organic.”
Recent polls indicate that many health and green-minded consumers remain confused about the qualitative difference between products labeled or advertised as “natural,” versus those labeled as organic. Many believe that “natural” means “almost organic,” or that a natural product is even better than organic. Thanks to growing consumer awareness, and four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $35-billion “certified organic” food and products sector that prohibits the use of genetic engineering, irradiation, toxic pesticides, sewage sludge and chemical fertilizers. As impressive as this $35-billion Organic Alternative is, it remains overshadowed by the $80 billion in annual spending by consumers on products marketed as “natural.” Get rid of fraudulent “natural” labels on GMO and chemically tainted products, and organic sales will skyrocket.
With the passage of the Vermont GMO labeling law, after 20 years of struggle, it’s time to celebrate our common victory. But as we all know, the battle for a new food and farming system, and a sustainable future has just begun.
Source(s):
organicconsumers.org
Published by Health Freedom Alliance
www.healthfreedoms.org
Submitted by Alice on April 20, 2014
After 20 years of battling Monsanto and corporate agribusiness, food and farm activists in Vermont, backed by a growing Movement across the country, are on the verge of a monumental victory—mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods and a ban on the routine industry practice of labeling GMO-tainted foods as “natural.”
On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed H.112 by a vote of 28-2, following up on the passage of a similar bill in the Vermont House last year. The legislation, which requires all GMO foods sold in Vermont to be labeled by July 1, 2016, will now pass through a House/Senate conference committee before landing on Governor Peter Shumlin’s desk, for final approval.
Strictly speaking, Vermont’s H.112 applies only to Vermont. But it will have the same impact on the marketplace as a federal law. Because national food and beverage companies and supermarkets will not likely risk the ire of their customers by admitting that many of the foods and brands they are selling in Vermont are genetically engineered, and deceptively labeled as “natural” or “all natural”; while simultaneously trying to conceal this fact in the other 49 states and North American markets. As a seed executive for Monsanto admitted 20 years ago, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”
Proof of this “skull and crossbones” effect is evident in the European Union, where mandatory labeling, in effect since 1997, has all but driven genetically engineered foods and crops off the market. The only significant remaining GMOs in Europe today are imported grains (corn, soy, canola, cotton seed) primarily from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. These grains are used for animal feed, hidden from public view by the fact that meat, dairy and eggs derived from animals fed GMOs do not yet have to be labeled in the EU.
Given the imminent passage of the Vermont legislation and the growing strength of America’s anti-GMO and pro-organic Movement, the Gene Giants—Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta—and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), representing Big Food, find themselves in a difficult position. Early polls indicate that Oregon voters will likely pass a ballot initiative on Nov. 4, 2014, to require mandatory labeling of GMOs in Oregon. Meanwhile, momentum for labeling continues to gather speed in other states as well.
Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws, but these laws contain “trigger” clauses, which prevent them from going into effect until other states mandate labeling as well. Vermont’s law does not contain a “trigger” clause. As soon as the governor signs it, it will have the force of law.
Divisions Between Big Food and the Gene Giants
Given what appears to be the inevitable victory of the consumer Right-to-know Movement, some of the U.S.’s largest food companies have quietly begun distancing themselves from Monsanto and the genetic engineering lobby.
General Mills, Post Foods, Chipotle, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and others have begun to make changes in their supply chains in order to eliminate GMOs in some or all of their products. Several hundred companies have enrolled in the Non-GMO Project so they can credibly market their products as GMO-free.
At least 30 members (10 percent of the total membership) of the GMA who contributed money to defeat Proposition 37 in California in November 2012, have held back on making further contributions to stop labeling initiatives in other states. Among the apparent defectors in the GMA ranks are: Mars, Unilever, Smithfield, Heinz, Sara Lee, Dole, Wrigley, and Mead Johnson. Under pressure from the Organic Consumers Association, Dr. Anthony Weil’s natural health and supplements company, Weil Lifestyle, pulled out of the GMA.
Meanwhile a number of the Gene Giants themselves, including Monsanto, appear to be slowly decreasing their investments in gene-spliced GMOs, while increasing their investments in more traditional, and less controversial, cross-breeding and hybrid seed sales. Still, don’t expect the Gene Giants to give up on the GMO seeds and crops already in production, especially Roundup Ready and Bt-spliced crops, nor those in the pipeline such as 2,4-D “Agent Orange” and Dicamba-resistant corn and soybeans, GE rice, and “RNA interference” crops such as non-browning apples, and fast-growing genetically engineered trees.
America’s giant food companies and their chemical industry allies understand the threat posed by truthful labeling of GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, growth promoters and toxic chemicals. They understand full well that the GMO monocrops and factory farms that dominate U.S. agriculture not only pose serious health and environmental hazards, but represent a significant public relations liability as well.
This is why the food and GE giants are threatening to sue Vermont and any other state that dares to pass a GMO labeling bill, even though industry lawyers have no doubt informed them that they are unlikely to win in federal court.
This is also why corporate agribusiness is supporting “Ag Gag” state laws making it a crime to photograph or film on factory farms. Why they’re lobbying for state laws that take away the rights of counties and local communities to regulate agricultural practices. And why they’re supporting secret international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that will, among other provisions, enable multinational corporations to sue and eliminate state and local laws on matters such as GMOs, food safety, and country of origin labeling.
The bottom line is this: Corporate America’s current “business-as-usual” strategies are incompatible with consumers’ right to know, and communities’ and states’ rights to legislate.
Coca-Cola, Pepsi, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Campbell’s, Safeway, Del Monte, Nestlé, Unilever, ConAgra, Wal-Mart, and every food manufacturer with GMO-tainted brands, understand they’re not going to be able to label their products as “produced with genetic engineering,” or drop the use of the term “natural” on GMO-tainted products, only in Vermont, while refusing to do so in other states and international markets. This is why their powerful front group, the GMA, is frantically working in Washington, D.C. to lobby the FDA and the Congress to take away the right of states to require genetically engineered foods and food ingredients to be labeled, and to allow them to continue to label and advertise genetically engineered and chemically-laced foods as “natural” or “all natural.”
Industry’s Last Chance: Indentured Politicians
Conspiring with the GMA, Monsanto’s minions from both the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress, led by the notorious Koch brothers mouthpiece, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), introduced in early April in the House a GMA-scripted bill to outlaw mandatory state GMO labels and allow the continued use of “natural” or “all natural” product labels on a wide range of Frankenfoods and beverages.
The GMA’s federal offensive to prop up the dangerous and evermore unpopular technology of transgenic foods comes on the heels of two high-profile ballot initiative battles in California (2012), and Washington State (2013), where GMA members were forced to spend almost $70 million to narrowly defeat GMO labeling forces. The 15 largest contributors to stop GMO labeling in California and Washington include the following GMA members:
(1) Monsanto: $13,487,350
(2) Dupont: $9,280,159
(3) Pepsico: $4,837,966
(4) Coca-Cola: $3,210,851
(5) Nestlé: $2,989,806
(6) Bayer CropScience: $2,591,654
(7) Dow Agrosciences: $2,591,654
(8) BASF Plant Science: $2,500,000
(9) Kraft Foods (now in part Mondolez International) $2,391,835
(10) General Mills: $2,099,570
(11) ConAgra Foods: $2,004,951
(12) Syngenta: $2,000,000
(13) Kellogg’s: $1,112,749
(14) Campbell Soup: $982,888
(15) Smucker Company: $904,977
The Fire Next Time
These “dirty tricks,” “dirty money” ballot initiative victories in California and Washington now ring hollow. If Congress or the FDA, prompted by these same companies, dare to stomp on states’ rights to require GMO labels on GMO food, if they dare to repress the rights of millions of consumers to know whether or not their food is genetically engineered, they run the very real risk of detonating an even larger and more vociferous grassroots rebellion, including massive boycotts and a concerted effort to throw “Monsanto’s Minions” out of Congress. The widespread furor last year over the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” surreptitiously appended to the Appropriations Bill, and then, after massive uproar, subsequently removed, is but a partial foreshadowing of the turmoil yet to come.
Likewise Congress or the FDA should think twice before legally sanctioning the patently outrageous practice of allowing companies to continue to label or advertise GMO or chemically tainted food as “natural” or “all natural.”
Given the fact that 80-90 percent of American consumers want genetically engineered foods to be labeled, as indicated by numerous polls over the last 10 years, and given the fact that it is obviously unethical and fraudulent to label or advertise GMO or heavily chemically processed foods as “natural,” even the FDA has so far declined to come to the rescue of Monsanto and Big Food. In the face of 65 so far largely successful national class-action lawsuits against food companies accused of fraudulently labeling their GMO or chemically-laced brands as “natural, ”Big Food’s lawyers have asked the FDA to come to their aid. But so far, the FDA has declined to throw gasoline on the fire.
It’s clear why “profit at any cost” big business wants to keep consumers in the dark. They want to maximize their profits. The consumer, the environment, the climate be damned. But let’s review, for the record, why truthful food labeling is so important to us, the overwhelming majority of the people, and to future generations.
Here are three major, indeed life-or-death, issues that drive America’s new anti-GMO and pro-organic food Movement:
(1) There is mounting, and indeed alarming, scientific evidence that genetically engineered foods and crops, and the toxic pesticides, chemicals, and genetic constructs that accompany them, are hazardous. GMOs pose a mortal threat, not only to human and animal health, but also to the environment, biodiversity, the survival of small-scale family farms, and climate stability.
(2) Genetically engineered crops are the technological cornerstone and ideological rationale for our dominant, out-of-control system of industrial agriculture, factory farms, and highly processed junk food. America’s industrial food and farming system is literally destroying public health, the environment, soil fertility and climate stability. As we educate, boycott and mobilize, as we label and drive GMOs off the market, we simultaneously rip the mask off Big Food and chemical corporations, which will ultimately undermine industrial agriculture and speed up the “Great Transition” to a food and farming system that is organic, sustainable and climate stabilizing.
(3) Fraudulent “natural” labels confuse consumers and hold back the growth of true organic alternatives.Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as “natural,” or “all natural”and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are “certified organic.”
Recent polls indicate that many health and green-minded consumers remain confused about the qualitative difference between products labeled or advertised as “natural,” versus those labeled as organic. Many believe that “natural” means “almost organic,” or that a natural product is even better than organic. Thanks to growing consumer awareness, and four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $35-billion “certified organic” food and products sector that prohibits the use of genetic engineering, irradiation, toxic pesticides, sewage sludge and chemical fertilizers. As impressive as this $35-billion Organic Alternative is, it remains overshadowed by the $80 billion in annual spending by consumers on products marketed as “natural.” Get rid of fraudulent “natural” labels on GMO and chemically tainted products, and organic sales will skyrocket.
With the passage of the Vermont GMO labeling law, after 20 years of struggle, it’s time to celebrate our common victory. But as we all know, the battle for a new food and farming system, and a sustainable future has just begun.
Source(s):
organicconsumers.org
Published by Health Freedom Alliance
www.healthfreedoms.org
|
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 24, 2014 11:38PM |
Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 1,748 |
Just because a product says Organic, doesn't mean that it is all organic:
In the United States, federal legislation defines three levels of organic foods.[8] Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods can be labeled "100% organic," while only products with at least 95% organic ingredients may be labeled "organic." Both of these categories may also display the USDA Organic seal. A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients," but may not display the USDA Organic seal. In addition, products may also display the logo of the certification body that approved them.
I wonder if posters here realize that you can buy seed that is not GMO, a packet of regular seeds can cost 3.00 but a packet of seeds GMO free will cost around 9.00, if one has to buy a lot of seeds GMO seeds would cost hundreds and thousands of dollars, then food raised and harvested would cost a tremendous amount, most people would not buy it, food would rot and the poor guy is out a lot of money.
Liz
In the United States, federal legislation defines three levels of organic foods.[8] Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods can be labeled "100% organic," while only products with at least 95% organic ingredients may be labeled "organic." Both of these categories may also display the USDA Organic seal. A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients," but may not display the USDA Organic seal. In addition, products may also display the logo of the certification body that approved them.
I wonder if posters here realize that you can buy seed that is not GMO, a packet of regular seeds can cost 3.00 but a packet of seeds GMO free will cost around 9.00, if one has to buy a lot of seeds GMO seeds would cost hundreds and thousands of dollars, then food raised and harvested would cost a tremendous amount, most people would not buy it, food would rot and the poor guy is out a lot of money.
Liz
|
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 25, 2014 11:17AM |
Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 322 |
|
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 25, 2014 06:32PM |
Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 1,748 |
What is happening is that states are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to GMO. This will make it very difficult to operate a food system--different labels in different states would create a very complicated scenario for food producers/retailers. This labeling has to come from the FDA.
Also if genetic engineering is supposedly a potential health risk that warrants a label, why are there exceptions-- for cheesemakers, dairy, meat and alcohol? Why is genetic engineering suspect when it's comes to vegetables and produce, but not for other things. Meat producers will not have to label their meat even if its fed nothing but gmo feed, and is then treated with vaccines and medicines derived from genetic engineering. That seems like a pretty glaring double standard. If genetic engineered products "need" to be disclosed for the sake of consumers right to know then why don't consumers have a right to know that almost all their cheese is made with gmo chymosin, or if their beef was fed gmo crops. Also why are restaurants exempt from disclosing GMO products on their menus, doesn't a consumers right to know extend to restaurants? And why the exemption for alcohol?
Liz
Also if genetic engineering is supposedly a potential health risk that warrants a label, why are there exceptions-- for cheesemakers, dairy, meat and alcohol? Why is genetic engineering suspect when it's comes to vegetables and produce, but not for other things. Meat producers will not have to label their meat even if its fed nothing but gmo feed, and is then treated with vaccines and medicines derived from genetic engineering. That seems like a pretty glaring double standard. If genetic engineered products "need" to be disclosed for the sake of consumers right to know then why don't consumers have a right to know that almost all their cheese is made with gmo chymosin, or if their beef was fed gmo crops. Also why are restaurants exempt from disclosing GMO products on their menus, doesn't a consumers right to know extend to restaurants? And why the exemption for alcohol?
Liz
|
Anonymous User
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 25, 2014 08:01PM |
“If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
I found the following:
"Labeling is the key issue," said Norman Braksick , president of the Asgrow Seed Co. "If you put a label on a genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it. "
Braksick was referring to the possibility of an equivalently-perceived-label-effect (skull and crossbones) that might result from a requirement by the government to label GMO food as such, considering public sentiment, not that he personally considered GMO foods to be poison.
Typically, the websites on which I see that quote by the "Monsanto executive" (see below) omit the "Labeling is the key issue," part of the complete quote. The Kansas City Star newspaper article that contains the unredacted quote, is here:
[pastebin.com]
Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co. was quoted in 1994 in the March 7 edition of the Kansas City Star newspaper. Asgrow Seed Co. wasn't acquired by Monsanto until 1996 and wasn't incorporated until 1997 according to this source:
[investing.businessweek.com]
A "Monsanto executive" didn't make that incomplete and uncontexted comment, a seed-company president did. In 1994 Braksick wasn't a Monsanto executive.
Conclusion: disinformation, incomplete information, and spin occur on both sides of the GMO controversy.
PS: As one can see, I'm diligently trying to break the world record for the number of times that a post has been edited. And as a step to the furtherance of that goal I have intentionally misspelled “misspell” here in this PS so that I can, at some later time, come back and re-edit this post to make the correction. Ironically, when I do come back and make the edit, the misspelling will be corrected and people might wonder what the heck I was "talking" about.
Edited 26 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2014 08:45AM by morpheus.
I found the following:
"Labeling is the key issue," said Norman Braksick , president of the Asgrow Seed Co. "If you put a label on a genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it. "
Braksick was referring to the possibility of an equivalently-perceived-label-effect (skull and crossbones) that might result from a requirement by the government to label GMO food as such, considering public sentiment, not that he personally considered GMO foods to be poison.
Typically, the websites on which I see that quote by the "Monsanto executive" (see below) omit the "Labeling is the key issue," part of the complete quote. The Kansas City Star newspaper article that contains the unredacted quote, is here:
[pastebin.com]
Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co. was quoted in 1994 in the March 7 edition of the Kansas City Star newspaper. Asgrow Seed Co. wasn't acquired by Monsanto until 1996 and wasn't incorporated until 1997 according to this source:
[investing.businessweek.com]
A "Monsanto executive" didn't make that incomplete and uncontexted comment, a seed-company president did. In 1994 Braksick wasn't a Monsanto executive.
Conclusion: disinformation, incomplete information, and spin occur on both sides of the GMO controversy.
PS: As one can see, I'm diligently trying to break the world record for the number of times that a post has been edited. And as a step to the furtherance of that goal I have intentionally misspelled “misspell” here in this PS so that I can, at some later time, come back and re-edit this post to make the correction. Ironically, when I do come back and make the edit, the misspelling will be corrected and people might wonder what the heck I was "talking" about.
Edited 26 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2014 08:45AM by morpheus.
|
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 25, 2014 11:02PM |
Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 1,748 |
|
Anonymous User
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 26, 2014 01:26AM |
Hi Liz,
"A lot of things are taken out of context to bolster one side of the equation, glad you posted."
Yes, it's actually quite common, I suspect we all do it at times. Wikipedia has an article called "confirmation bias". It's rather long so I'll just post a short excerpt and then the link.
"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position."
[en.wikipedia.org]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2014 05:20AM by morpheus.
"A lot of things are taken out of context to bolster one side of the equation, glad you posted."
Yes, it's actually quite common, I suspect we all do it at times. Wikipedia has an article called "confirmation bias". It's rather long so I'll just post a short excerpt and then the link.
"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position."
[en.wikipedia.org]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2014 05:20AM by morpheus.
|
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 26, 2014 08:56AM |
Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 306 |
|
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 27, 2014 02:31PM |
Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 322 |
New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
[www.collective-evolution.com]
Also look into the movie Genetic Roulete Have not watched it yet. Just found it.
[fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb" rel="nofollow">www.google.com]
[www.collective-evolution.com]
Also look into the movie Genetic Roulete Have not watched it yet. Just found it.
[fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb" rel="nofollow">www.google.com]
|
Anonymous User
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 27, 2014 07:03PM |
I haven't looked at the video as yet. But I have looked at the article at collective-evolution.com. The article states that "The study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research.(1)(2)"
Reference (1) has no link to the text of the study.
Clicking on reference (2) goes to a PDF file which is a press release announcing:
"Genetically Modified Foods Proposed as Trigger for
Gluten Sensitivity
FAIRFIELD, IA, November 25, 2013 - The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) released a report today proposing a link between genetically modified (GM) foods and gluten-related disorders. In today’s report, a team of experts suggests that GM foods may be an important environmental trigger for gluten sensitivity, which is estimated to affect as many as 18 million Americans."
The word "report" in the above press release is a hypertext link that, when clicked, will cause a pop-up window to appear that asks if you want to be redirected to a website called "www.glutenandgmos.com". If you click "allow" in the pop-up window you will be redirected to a website called "[www.responsibletechnology.org]". At that website, in reference to the report, you will find 3 options: "BRIEF ARTICLE READ FIRST", "READ THE FULL REPORT" and "READ THE PRESS RELEASE".
I first clicked on "READ THE FULL REPORT". Clicking that brings one to a webpage that asks for email address and name in order to download the report. I chose not to provide that information so I went back and clicked "BRIEF ARTICLE READ FIRST"
Clicking for the brief article, one finds that the author is Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology.
There is no indication on that brief article link that the report has been published as a peer-reviewed journal article. Perhaps it has?
According to wikipedia, Smith is a self-published author:
"Jeffrey M. Smith (born 1956) is an American consumer activist,[2] self-published author and politician. He is the author of two books on genetically engineered foods, one of which, Genetic Roulette - The Gamble of Our Lives, he produced as a film in 2012. He has appeared twice on The Dr. Oz Show.[3] Smith has worked with organic food marketers and alternative health product promoters[4] to advocate against genetically modified food. Supporters identify Smith as an influential educator on the alleged risks associated with genetically modified foods, while others point out Smith's lack of scientific background or expertise in the field.[3] In 1998, Smith ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a candidate for the Natural Law Party.[5] Smith is currently the executive director and sole employee of the Institute for Responsible Technology.[6]"
That fact that Smith is the sole employee of the Institute for Responsible Technology and is the sole author of the report may not be of importance. After all, Albert Einstein, a then-clerk in the Swiss Patent Office and working alone, produced "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" which revolutionized physics. However, Einstein published in a recognized peer-reviewed journal.
After you have read the full report, Todd, I, for one, would be interested to to see you present some verifiable highlights here, if you so wish. By "verifiable" I mean references to peer-reviewed journal articles which either substantiate Smith's claims or contest them. Thanks.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2014 07:10PM by morpheus.
Reference (1) has no link to the text of the study.
Clicking on reference (2) goes to a PDF file which is a press release announcing:
"Genetically Modified Foods Proposed as Trigger for
Gluten Sensitivity
FAIRFIELD, IA, November 25, 2013 - The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) released a report today proposing a link between genetically modified (GM) foods and gluten-related disorders. In today’s report, a team of experts suggests that GM foods may be an important environmental trigger for gluten sensitivity, which is estimated to affect as many as 18 million Americans."
The word "report" in the above press release is a hypertext link that, when clicked, will cause a pop-up window to appear that asks if you want to be redirected to a website called "www.glutenandgmos.com". If you click "allow" in the pop-up window you will be redirected to a website called "[www.responsibletechnology.org]". At that website, in reference to the report, you will find 3 options: "BRIEF ARTICLE READ FIRST", "READ THE FULL REPORT" and "READ THE PRESS RELEASE".
I first clicked on "READ THE FULL REPORT". Clicking that brings one to a webpage that asks for email address and name in order to download the report. I chose not to provide that information so I went back and clicked "BRIEF ARTICLE READ FIRST"
Clicking for the brief article, one finds that the author is Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology.
There is no indication on that brief article link that the report has been published as a peer-reviewed journal article. Perhaps it has?
According to wikipedia, Smith is a self-published author:
"Jeffrey M. Smith (born 1956) is an American consumer activist,[2] self-published author and politician. He is the author of two books on genetically engineered foods, one of which, Genetic Roulette - The Gamble of Our Lives, he produced as a film in 2012. He has appeared twice on The Dr. Oz Show.[3] Smith has worked with organic food marketers and alternative health product promoters[4] to advocate against genetically modified food. Supporters identify Smith as an influential educator on the alleged risks associated with genetically modified foods, while others point out Smith's lack of scientific background or expertise in the field.[3] In 1998, Smith ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a candidate for the Natural Law Party.[5] Smith is currently the executive director and sole employee of the Institute for Responsible Technology.[6]"
That fact that Smith is the sole employee of the Institute for Responsible Technology and is the sole author of the report may not be of importance. After all, Albert Einstein, a then-clerk in the Swiss Patent Office and working alone, produced "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" which revolutionized physics. However, Einstein published in a recognized peer-reviewed journal.
After you have read the full report, Todd, I, for one, would be interested to to see you present some verifiable highlights here, if you so wish. By "verifiable" I mean references to peer-reviewed journal articles which either substantiate Smith's claims or contest them. Thanks.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2014 07:10PM by morpheus.
|
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 28, 2014 09:38AM |
Registered: 6 years ago Posts: 18,881 |
Thanks Todd…
I’m glad Jeff Smith continues to bring awareness to the public through his consumer activism. He’s been at it for a long time.
Here’s a clip from an interview with Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus at Purdue and Toxicology expert…with Dr. Mercola… (you can read the full interview at the weblink below)….
Dr. Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, and professor of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years.
His agriculture research is focused on the epidemiology and control of soil-borne plant pathogens, with specific emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and the physiology of host-parasite relationships.
His research over the past few decades has led him to become very outspoken against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) foods and the use of Roundup in agriculture in general.
He’s really one of the best scientists we have in the GMO movement for documenting the dangers of genetically engineered foods.
He says:
Three Things You Need to Know About GMOs
There’s a lot of confusion about the basic validity of concerns about genetically engineered (GE) foods. Many have been deceived into thinking that there’s really no difference between GE foods and conventional fare, and all these worries are just paranoid fear-mongering.
According to Dr. Huber, the following three facts are some of the most important that everyone needs to understand about GMOs:
1. Despite what the media and so-called “experts” proclaim, there are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops.
According to Dr. Huber, so far, no one has been able to establish that there’s a safety factor to either the genetically engineered proteins (i.e. the foreign proteins produced by the genetically modified plant) or the chemicals we’re consuming in ever larger quantities as a result of the genetic engineering process.
There are, however, both clinical and peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the hazards of GMO crops, including harmful secondary effects.
“A group of us met with top USDA administrators. They assured us that they based all their decisions on peer-reviewed science. When we asked them if they would share any of that, they were unable to produce any,” he says.
2. Epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases correlated with our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food.
3. Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods. They also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins.
Continue…[articles.mercola.com] for a summary report..
Download the complete transcript here: [mercola.fileburst.com]
Sample:
JM: Now, you’re really an outspoken critic of GMOs. From your perspective as really an expert scientist, what would you say are the top three things that you believe the average person needs to be aware about when it comes to GMOs?
DH: They need to recognize what we don’t know perhaps as much as anything else. There are zero peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of the GMO crops or of the products that they’re engineered to accept or produce.
JM: That is a pretty profound statement because if you listen to their arguments, they would tell you the exact opposite. So, why are they claiming that they’ve got this mountain of evidence supporting the safety?
DH: There are none. A group of us met with top USDA administrators. They assured us that they based all their decisions on peer-reviewed science. When we asked them if they would share any of that, they have been unable to produce any.
Now, there are many papers, both clinical papers as well as peer-reviewed scientific papers, on the safety of GMO crops, the secondary effects of them, and the products that they’re engineered to accept that showed just the opposite. We have some recent ones that are extremely effective in documenting what many of those health effects are. I know of none on the other side that will establish that there’s a safety factor to either the genetically engineered proteins (those foreign proteins that they’re producing) or the chemicals that we’re consuming in ever larger quantities as a result of the genetic engineering process.
JM: Okay, the first one is that there is no science to support their statement.
DH: That’s right.
JM: What are the other two?
DH: The other two would be what’s happening to us health-wise. If you look at the epidemiological patterns, we have a perfect fit for over 30 human diseases in addition to the animal and plant diseases increasing that have an epidemiological pattern that’s identical to our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food.
JM: Okay. And then what would the third be?
DH: The third one would be the sustainability of our agricultural program, of our basic necessities in life: a supply of a healthy and a nutritious food. They need to be aware of the reduced nutrient content, lower nutrient density, as well as the environmental impacts, which we see with the extreme exposure to these new pesticides or new proteins, that are impacting all of our support system for agriculture.
I’m glad Jeff Smith continues to bring awareness to the public through his consumer activism. He’s been at it for a long time.
Here’s a clip from an interview with Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus at Purdue and Toxicology expert…with Dr. Mercola… (you can read the full interview at the weblink below)….
Dr. Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, and professor of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years.
His agriculture research is focused on the epidemiology and control of soil-borne plant pathogens, with specific emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and the physiology of host-parasite relationships.
His research over the past few decades has led him to become very outspoken against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) foods and the use of Roundup in agriculture in general.
He’s really one of the best scientists we have in the GMO movement for documenting the dangers of genetically engineered foods.
He says:
Three Things You Need to Know About GMOs
There’s a lot of confusion about the basic validity of concerns about genetically engineered (GE) foods. Many have been deceived into thinking that there’s really no difference between GE foods and conventional fare, and all these worries are just paranoid fear-mongering.
According to Dr. Huber, the following three facts are some of the most important that everyone needs to understand about GMOs:
1. Despite what the media and so-called “experts” proclaim, there are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops.
According to Dr. Huber, so far, no one has been able to establish that there’s a safety factor to either the genetically engineered proteins (i.e. the foreign proteins produced by the genetically modified plant) or the chemicals we’re consuming in ever larger quantities as a result of the genetic engineering process.
There are, however, both clinical and peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the hazards of GMO crops, including harmful secondary effects.
“A group of us met with top USDA administrators. They assured us that they based all their decisions on peer-reviewed science. When we asked them if they would share any of that, they were unable to produce any,” he says.
2. Epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases correlated with our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food.
3. Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods. They also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins.
Continue…[articles.mercola.com] for a summary report..
Download the complete transcript here: [mercola.fileburst.com]
Sample:
JM: Now, you’re really an outspoken critic of GMOs. From your perspective as really an expert scientist, what would you say are the top three things that you believe the average person needs to be aware about when it comes to GMOs?
DH: They need to recognize what we don’t know perhaps as much as anything else. There are zero peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of the GMO crops or of the products that they’re engineered to accept or produce.
JM: That is a pretty profound statement because if you listen to their arguments, they would tell you the exact opposite. So, why are they claiming that they’ve got this mountain of evidence supporting the safety?
DH: There are none. A group of us met with top USDA administrators. They assured us that they based all their decisions on peer-reviewed science. When we asked them if they would share any of that, they have been unable to produce any.
Now, there are many papers, both clinical papers as well as peer-reviewed scientific papers, on the safety of GMO crops, the secondary effects of them, and the products that they’re engineered to accept that showed just the opposite. We have some recent ones that are extremely effective in documenting what many of those health effects are. I know of none on the other side that will establish that there’s a safety factor to either the genetically engineered proteins (those foreign proteins that they’re producing) or the chemicals that we’re consuming in ever larger quantities as a result of the genetic engineering process.
JM: Okay, the first one is that there is no science to support their statement.
DH: That’s right.
JM: What are the other two?
DH: The other two would be what’s happening to us health-wise. If you look at the epidemiological patterns, we have a perfect fit for over 30 human diseases in addition to the animal and plant diseases increasing that have an epidemiological pattern that’s identical to our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food.
JM: Okay. And then what would the third be?
DH: The third one would be the sustainability of our agricultural program, of our basic necessities in life: a supply of a healthy and a nutritious food. They need to be aware of the reduced nutrient content, lower nutrient density, as well as the environmental impacts, which we see with the extreme exposure to these new pesticides or new proteins, that are impacting all of our support system for agriculture.
|
Anonymous User
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight April 28, 2014 12:42PM |
"1. Despite what the media and so-called “experts” proclaim, there are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops. "
The above quote is an example of a fallacy of informal logic known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "appeal to ignorance". Basically, the intent of the above quote is to imply that **because** there are "zero" peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops or of the products that they’re engineered to accept or produce, **then it must be concluded** that GMO crops and the products that they’re engineered to accept or produce are **not safe**.
"2. Epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases correlated with our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food"
The above quote is an example of the logical fallacy known as "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", or "with this, therefore because of this".
Other examples of this type of fallacy are the "Men's underwear index" and the "Hemline Index" (although **non-peer-reviewed research** in 2010 asserted the rectitude of a temporally-leading hemline correlation, suggesting that "the economic cycle leads the hemline with about three years"--partially paraphrased from wikipedia, emphasis mine). Bear in mind, though, that choosing the right datasets--which countries to include in the analysis, etc.--, can get a desired result.
"3. Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods. They also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins."
As for the assertion in the first part of the above quote: " Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods.", consider the following:
"Claims have been made recently that glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops sometimes have mineral deficiencies and increased plant disease. This review evaluates the literature that is germane to these claims. Our conclusions are: (1) although there is conflicting literature on the effects of glyphosate on mineral nutrition on GR crops, most of the literature indicates that mineral nutrition in GR crops is not affected by either the GR trait or by application of glyphosate; (2) most of the available data support the view that neither the GR transgenes nor glyphosate use in GR crops increases crop disease; and (3) yield data on GR crops do not support the hypotheses that there are substantive mineral nutrition or disease problems that are specific to GR crops."
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
As to the second part of the quote: "They also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins."
Finally, a fact. Certain pesticides have documented harmful health effects.
Some of us are aware that direct exposure to certain pesticides can have harmful health effects. But, do the levels of those pesticides **in and on GMO foods have a harmful health effect at the levels typically encountered in and on those foods?**.
Are the "novel, highly allergenic, proteins" also found in non-GMO foods? If they are, will the claim be made that their appearance was due to contamination by GMO products?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2014 02:19AM by morpheus.
The above quote is an example of a fallacy of informal logic known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "appeal to ignorance". Basically, the intent of the above quote is to imply that **because** there are "zero" peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops or of the products that they’re engineered to accept or produce, **then it must be concluded** that GMO crops and the products that they’re engineered to accept or produce are **not safe**.
"2. Epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases correlated with our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food"
The above quote is an example of the logical fallacy known as "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", or "with this, therefore because of this".
Other examples of this type of fallacy are the "Men's underwear index" and the "Hemline Index" (although **non-peer-reviewed research** in 2010 asserted the rectitude of a temporally-leading hemline correlation, suggesting that "the economic cycle leads the hemline with about three years"--partially paraphrased from wikipedia, emphasis mine). Bear in mind, though, that choosing the right datasets--which countries to include in the analysis, etc.--, can get a desired result.
"3. Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods. They also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins."
As for the assertion in the first part of the above quote: " Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods.", consider the following:
"Claims have been made recently that glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops sometimes have mineral deficiencies and increased plant disease. This review evaluates the literature that is germane to these claims. Our conclusions are: (1) although there is conflicting literature on the effects of glyphosate on mineral nutrition on GR crops, most of the literature indicates that mineral nutrition in GR crops is not affected by either the GR trait or by application of glyphosate; (2) most of the available data support the view that neither the GR transgenes nor glyphosate use in GR crops increases crop disease; and (3) yield data on GR crops do not support the hypotheses that there are substantive mineral nutrition or disease problems that are specific to GR crops."
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
As to the second part of the quote: "They also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins."
Finally, a fact. Certain pesticides have documented harmful health effects.
Some of us are aware that direct exposure to certain pesticides can have harmful health effects. But, do the levels of those pesticides **in and on GMO foods have a harmful health effect at the levels typically encountered in and on those foods?**.
Are the "novel, highly allergenic, proteins" also found in non-GMO foods? If they are, will the claim be made that their appearance was due to contamination by GMO products?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2014 02:19AM by morpheus.
|
Re: Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight May 09, 2014 08:45AM |
Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 306 |
Here's what appears to be a pretty balanced AP article on the GMO controversy:
Associated Press
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
FILE - In this April 24, 2014, file photo,, Katie Spring rolls up plastic that was used to cover certain plants during the winter in a field at the Good Heart Farmstead in Worcester, Vt. Spring and her husband Edge Fuentes, who both own the farm, back the GMO labeling bill passed by the Vermont legislature. Genetically modified foods have been around for years, but most Americans have no idea if they are eating them. The Food and Drug Administration says they don't need to be labeled, so the state of Vermont has moved forward on its own. On May 8, Gov. Peter Shumlin signed legislation making the state the first to require labeling of GMOs _ technically genetically modified organisms. (AP Photo/Wilson Ring, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Genetically modified foods have been around for years, but most Americans have no idea if they are eating them
The Food and Drug Administration says they don't need to be labeled, so the state of Vermont has moved forward on its own. On Thursday, Gov. Peter Shumlin signed legislation making his state the first to require labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
What about the rest of the country? And does labeling matter?
There's a lot of confusion about genetically modified foods and their safety.
Some people feel very strongly about GMOs. Opponents, who at times have protested in the streets, say consumers have the right to know whether their food contains GMOs. The Vermont law is their first major victory.
The food industry and companies that genetically engineer seeds have pushed back against the labeling laws, saying GMOs are safe and labels would be misleading.
"It's really polarizing," says New York University's Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies. "There's no middle ground."
A look at the debate and some of the facts about genetically modified foods:
___
WHAT THEY ARE
GMOs are not really a "thing," Nestle says, and that's hard for the average consumer to grasp. You can't touch or feel a GMO.
Genetically modified foods are plants or animals that have had genes copied from other plants or animals inserted into their DNA. It's not a new idea — humans have been tinkering with genes for centuries through selective breeding. Think dogs bred to be more docile pets, cattle bred to be beefier or tomatoes bred to be sweeter. Turkeys were bred to have bigger breasts — better for Thanksgiving dinner.
What's different about genetically modified or engineered foods is that the manipulation is done in a lab. Engineers don't need to wait for nature to produce a desired gene; they speed up the process by transferring a gene from one plant or animal to another.
What are the desired traits? Most of the nation's corn and soybeans are genetically engineered to resist pesticides and herbicides. A papaya in Hawaii is modified to resist a virus. The FDA is considering an application from a Massachusetts company to approve a genetically engineered salmon that would grow faster than traditional salmon.
___
IN YOUR GROCERY CART
Most of the genetically modified corn and soybeans are used in cattle feed, or are made into ingredients like corn oil, corn starch, high fructose corn syrup or soybean oil.
Even in some of those products, the manufacturing process itself may remove some of the GMOs.
A few fruits and vegetables are engineered — the Hawaiian papaya and some squash and zucchini, for example. Only a small amount of sweet corn, the corn we eat, is genetically modified.
But there's no genetically modified meat or fish, like the fast-growing salmon, in the market now; the Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve any.
___
THE RISKS
The vast majority of scientific research has found genetically engineered foods to be generally safe.
An Italian scientist's review of 10 years of research, published in 2013, concluded that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected "any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."
One French research team raised safety questions, but their much-criticized 2012 study linking genetically modified corn to rat tumors was retracted in 2013 by the scientific publisher, who cited weak evidence supporting the conclusions.
Even the food police say they are safe: The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a well-known critic of food companies and artificial and unhealthy ingredients in foods, has not opposed genetically modified foods, on the basis that there's no evidence they are harmful.
Though what we are eating now appears safe, the main concerns for the future would be new genetically engineered foods — from the United States or abroad — that somehow become allergenic or toxic through the engineering process. The FDA says the foods they have evaluated to this point have not been any more likely to cause an allergic or toxic reaction than foods from traditionally bred plants.
Unlike animals, the FDA is not required to approve genetically engineered crops for consumption. However, most companies will go through a voluntary safety review process before they put them on the market.
____
THE BENEFITS
There are clear benefits for the agricultural industry — the crops that are resistant to pesticides and herbicides, for example. And companies like Monsanto that produce modified seeds say their technologies will be needed to feed a rising world population as they engineer crops to adapt to certain climates and terrains.
While most modified foods have so far been grown to resist chemicals or disease, advocates envision engineering crops to make them more nutritious as well. Food animals have been engineered to be bred to be free of diseases, be cleaner in their environments or grow more efficiently, though none has yet been approved in the United States.
____
THE POLITICS
There is an escalating political fight between the labeling advocates and the food industry, which has dug in against labeling. In the absence of a federal labeling standard, GMO opponents have gone to the states to try to get a patchwork of labeling laws approved — a move that could eventually force a national standard.
Ballot measures in California and Washington state failed, but the legislative effort prevailed in Vermont. Maine and Connecticut also have passed laws requiring labels, but they don't take effect unless other states follow suit. The food industry is widely expected to challenge the Vermont law in court.
The state efforts aren't slowing down. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are 85 pending GMO labeling bills in 29 states.
In Congress, the food industry is pushing a House bill that would head off efforts to enact mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients by proposing new voluntary labels nationwide — an attempted end run around the state-by-state laws.
_____
THE FUTURE
Safe or not, consumers are increasingly interested in what is in their food, including GMOs.
"There's so much confusing speech on food packaging and food advertising that consumers are often buying things they think are GMO free when they are not," says Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, which is pushing for the labels.
Faber and other labeling proponents say it's about transparency, not technology. They say there is precedent, like orange juice labels that say whether the juice is from concentrate.
David Ropeik, the author of the book "How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts," says he thinks the food industry should endorse labeling so it can move past the debate.
"By supporting labeling, companies would say, 'There's no risk, we have nothing to hide,'" he says.
He says people rightly or wrongly fear GMOs because they are more concerned about man-made risks than natural ones and the food industry's control over what we eat.
"It's a surrogate for a values war they have against big companies," he says.
Associated Press
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
FILE - In this April 24, 2014, file photo,, Katie Spring rolls up plastic that was used to cover certain plants during the winter in a field at the Good Heart Farmstead in Worcester, Vt. Spring and her husband Edge Fuentes, who both own the farm, back the GMO labeling bill passed by the Vermont legislature. Genetically modified foods have been around for years, but most Americans have no idea if they are eating them. The Food and Drug Administration says they don't need to be labeled, so the state of Vermont has moved forward on its own. On May 8, Gov. Peter Shumlin signed legislation making the state the first to require labeling of GMOs _ technically genetically modified organisms. (AP Photo/Wilson Ring, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Genetically modified foods have been around for years, but most Americans have no idea if they are eating them
The Food and Drug Administration says they don't need to be labeled, so the state of Vermont has moved forward on its own. On Thursday, Gov. Peter Shumlin signed legislation making his state the first to require labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
What about the rest of the country? And does labeling matter?
There's a lot of confusion about genetically modified foods and their safety.
Some people feel very strongly about GMOs. Opponents, who at times have protested in the streets, say consumers have the right to know whether their food contains GMOs. The Vermont law is their first major victory.
The food industry and companies that genetically engineer seeds have pushed back against the labeling laws, saying GMOs are safe and labels would be misleading.
"It's really polarizing," says New York University's Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies. "There's no middle ground."
A look at the debate and some of the facts about genetically modified foods:
___
WHAT THEY ARE
GMOs are not really a "thing," Nestle says, and that's hard for the average consumer to grasp. You can't touch or feel a GMO.
Genetically modified foods are plants or animals that have had genes copied from other plants or animals inserted into their DNA. It's not a new idea — humans have been tinkering with genes for centuries through selective breeding. Think dogs bred to be more docile pets, cattle bred to be beefier or tomatoes bred to be sweeter. Turkeys were bred to have bigger breasts — better for Thanksgiving dinner.
What's different about genetically modified or engineered foods is that the manipulation is done in a lab. Engineers don't need to wait for nature to produce a desired gene; they speed up the process by transferring a gene from one plant or animal to another.
What are the desired traits? Most of the nation's corn and soybeans are genetically engineered to resist pesticides and herbicides. A papaya in Hawaii is modified to resist a virus. The FDA is considering an application from a Massachusetts company to approve a genetically engineered salmon that would grow faster than traditional salmon.
___
IN YOUR GROCERY CART
Most of the genetically modified corn and soybeans are used in cattle feed, or are made into ingredients like corn oil, corn starch, high fructose corn syrup or soybean oil.
Even in some of those products, the manufacturing process itself may remove some of the GMOs.
A few fruits and vegetables are engineered — the Hawaiian papaya and some squash and zucchini, for example. Only a small amount of sweet corn, the corn we eat, is genetically modified.
But there's no genetically modified meat or fish, like the fast-growing salmon, in the market now; the Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve any.
___
THE RISKS
The vast majority of scientific research has found genetically engineered foods to be generally safe.
An Italian scientist's review of 10 years of research, published in 2013, concluded that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected "any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."
One French research team raised safety questions, but their much-criticized 2012 study linking genetically modified corn to rat tumors was retracted in 2013 by the scientific publisher, who cited weak evidence supporting the conclusions.
Even the food police say they are safe: The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a well-known critic of food companies and artificial and unhealthy ingredients in foods, has not opposed genetically modified foods, on the basis that there's no evidence they are harmful.
Though what we are eating now appears safe, the main concerns for the future would be new genetically engineered foods — from the United States or abroad — that somehow become allergenic or toxic through the engineering process. The FDA says the foods they have evaluated to this point have not been any more likely to cause an allergic or toxic reaction than foods from traditionally bred plants.
Unlike animals, the FDA is not required to approve genetically engineered crops for consumption. However, most companies will go through a voluntary safety review process before they put them on the market.
____
THE BENEFITS
There are clear benefits for the agricultural industry — the crops that are resistant to pesticides and herbicides, for example. And companies like Monsanto that produce modified seeds say their technologies will be needed to feed a rising world population as they engineer crops to adapt to certain climates and terrains.
While most modified foods have so far been grown to resist chemicals or disease, advocates envision engineering crops to make them more nutritious as well. Food animals have been engineered to be bred to be free of diseases, be cleaner in their environments or grow more efficiently, though none has yet been approved in the United States.
____
THE POLITICS
There is an escalating political fight between the labeling advocates and the food industry, which has dug in against labeling. In the absence of a federal labeling standard, GMO opponents have gone to the states to try to get a patchwork of labeling laws approved — a move that could eventually force a national standard.
Ballot measures in California and Washington state failed, but the legislative effort prevailed in Vermont. Maine and Connecticut also have passed laws requiring labels, but they don't take effect unless other states follow suit. The food industry is widely expected to challenge the Vermont law in court.
The state efforts aren't slowing down. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are 85 pending GMO labeling bills in 29 states.
In Congress, the food industry is pushing a House bill that would head off efforts to enact mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients by proposing new voluntary labels nationwide — an attempted end run around the state-by-state laws.
_____
THE FUTURE
Safe or not, consumers are increasingly interested in what is in their food, including GMOs.
"There's so much confusing speech on food packaging and food advertising that consumers are often buying things they think are GMO free when they are not," says Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, which is pushing for the labels.
Faber and other labeling proponents say it's about transparency, not technology. They say there is precedent, like orange juice labels that say whether the juice is from concentrate.
David Ropeik, the author of the book "How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts," says he thinks the food industry should endorse labeling so it can move past the debate.
"By supporting labeling, companies would say, 'There's no risk, we have nothing to hide,'" he says.
He says people rightly or wrongly fear GMOs because they are more concerned about man-made risks than natural ones and the food industry's control over what we eat.
"It's a surrogate for a values war they have against big companies," he says.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.