On The GMO Controversy

UC Davis has a new comprehensive study of a trillion meals that concludes there isn't any controversy; just charlatans making a lot of money trying to create one:

[www.forbes.com]

Gordon

Glad you posted this, I agree with it. With GMO plants less sprays need to be used, soil doesn't have to be greatly enriched, yields are heavier, all of this is a boon to poor countries.

A lot of these granolas want to take us back to the stone age, same with "Global Warming", this is another scam, Al Gore has been preaching that the ice caps are melting, they are not, there is a lot more ice. Gore has made a ton of money off of this fiasco, actually, we are in a mini ice age, our weather has been a lot cooler, our winters are becoming colder with more snow, there was records set this past winter.

liz

I would expect nothing less in a financial report aimed at protecting investors in such companies.

However, if you have the ‘stomach’ for it, this website offers a plethora of reports on the prevalence of GM foods and the problems with it. [www.healthfreedoms.org]

GMO in supplements… the comments about NOW brands acknowledging they use GM sources for their Vitamin C products.

Quote from this report:
As you may or may not be aware, wildly popular substances like vitamin C are usually extracted from corn — one of the leading GMO crops in the US. It is from this that the question immediately comes into focus: could supplement makers be using GMO corn to create vitamin C supplements? What about the countless other formulas that can extract from GM foods as a source. And when you consider GMO-containing ‘food’ can legally be labeled as ‘natural’ under current regulations, what ‘natural’ supplements could be based on Monsanto’s GMO crops?

As it turns out, this is indeed the case. While it is impossible to compile a full list without a large amount of financial investment for testing every brand, what we do know is that major producers have explained how they usually will list ‘Non-GMO’ on their GMO-free options. In other words, chances are vitamin C may be extracted from GMO corn unless it is stated to be organic, non-GMO, or specifically not extracted from a non-GMO source. In reality, many reputable supplement companies have already begun listing their high quality products with the ‘GMO-free’ label and other quality re-assurances.

Some, however, continue to source GMO or ‘potentially GMO’ corn. If you’re like me, this is a gamble that you are not willing to take.

An investigator researching for this piece actually got in contact with NOW, a leading supplement producer. They asked about how they extract their vitamin C products when considering the high percentage of GM corn that currently supplies the industry. Concerned for their health and the health of consumers, worldwide, they wanted to know if they were swallowing GMOs — or at least vitamins derived from GMOs. In response to their inquiry, a NOW team member replied:
“All of our C is derived from standard corn not certified to be non-GMO… Many products [in the industry at large] contain soy or corn derivatives which are generally GMO’d. We are motivated towards non-GMO-sourced products.”

The NOW Science & Nutrition Group rep then included some information from their Technical Director Michael Lelah, which talks about how NOW is generally opposed to genetic manipulation of the food supply but does not specifically use non-GMO sources for all of their products. The excerpt from Lelah which the rep said was copied from a blog ‘Natural Is Better’, reads:
“Genetic Modification: NOW is opposed to genetic modification, because there are real and unknown harmful effects. Unfortunately, much of the world’s supply of corn and soybeans is genetically modified which is why we continue to offer more products that are certified GMO-free.” Source: [www.healthfreedoms.org]

2 Videos by
Listen To These Doctors Explain Why They Don’t Eat GMOs [www.healthfreedoms.org]

More:

Cargill Sues Syngenta after China Forbids the Sale of Its GE Corn
[www.healthfreedoms.org]


After a reported $90 million loss from rejected shipments of genetically engineered (GE) corn seeds that are not approved in China, the U.S. grain company Cargill Inc. sued the biotech giant Syngenta AG.
According to Cargill, since mid-November 2013, China has rejected imports of U.S. corn due to the presence of Syngenta’s MIR 162 trait because of its lack of approval for import, virtually halting U.S. corn trade with China.

Cancer Deaths Double in Argentina’s GMO Agribusiness Areas
[www.healthfreedoms.org]

Sharply increased levels of crop spraying in Argentina’s most intensively farmed areas have resulted in a public health disaster, writes Lawrence Woodward, with large increases in cancer incidence. And it’s all the result of the widespread use of GMO crops engineered for herbicide resistance.

A report by the Ministry of Health in Córdoba, Argentina reveals that deaths from cancerous tumours are double the national average in areas where genetically engineered crops are grown and agro-chemicals are used.
This comprehensive report documented five years of information on cancer cases in the province.

A plethora of science-based reports can be found through a Google.

Jackie

Well, isn't it strange this article says that China does use GM food.


GM food management
Updated: 2014-03-19 09:15
By Xin Zhiming ( chinadaily.com.cn)

Comments Print Mail Large Medium Small


China has probably become the world’s largest consumer of genetically modified (GM) grain after it imported a record-breaking 63.4 million tons of soybeans, mostly GM, in 2013. It’s a fact that calls for better policymaking transparency and full public discussion if policymakers and researchers want to win public understanding of the controversial crops.

Despite claims from domestic and international scientists that eating GM food does not pose any risk to human health, a large number of people have expressed concerns and raised questions as to the safety of GM crops.

GM crops result from the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome, using biotechnology for purposes such as raising yields and reducing the use of pesticides. In the manipulation process, however, some fear that there could be undesired genome mutation that poses risks to human health after people consume such food.





Transparency and public discussion needed in GM food management


Xin Zhiming


In response to these concerns, scientists and researchers in the industry have simply shrugged them off as nonsensical and unfounded doubts by people ignorant of science.

Those scientists and researchers, in return, have been accused of being biased and bought by commercial interests.



While it will take time for the public and scientists to reach an ultimate consensus regarding the safety of GM food, policymakers and researchers should reflect on their ways of communication with the public to alleviate their concerns.

For example, many people wonder why, since the EU countries are generally very cautious on the raising and consumption of GM crops, has China has been so aggressive in introducing GM grain.

The EU, together with Japan, has imposed strict restrictions on the import of GM grain and food containing GM ingredients, mainly citing potential health risks.

In the latest move, France on Feb. 17 banned the planting of GM maize, citing environmental risks.

In contrast, Chinese scientists and researchers have been busy lobbying the government to commercialize the planting of GM rice, a staple food for most of the Chinese people. Policymakers have issued certificates and given the go-ahead to trial planting of GM rice.

Given the safety concerns from the public, it is better for Chinese scientists and policymakers to thoroughly explain why the EU and some other countries are so cautious and why China has been so hasty in introducing GM crops, especially a staple food such as rice. Such information would help the public better understand this stance and alleviate suspicions that the haste is tied to commercial interests.

Unrestricted public discussion is also indispensable. Opponents’ voices should not be repressed; instead, they should be allowed so that the public can hear the opinions of both sides, which will help them make reasonable decisions.

What has made many uneasy is that while they have failed to do that, top Chinese agricultural officials have given unreserved endorsement to GM crops and food, citing the many benefits of GM crops that pro-GM scientists claim they have, such as rising yields and the reduced use of pesticides.


You just can't believe everything you read, can you Jackie.

Liz

Jackie: Doesn't track in you drawing the conclusion that the University of California at Davis, a major ag college, is publishing such a significant report with a slant toward business. How did you come to that conclusion?

Gordon