Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If You Doubt The Organic Industry Leads The Anti-GMO Movement, This Settles It
Replies
-
Wetcoaster wrote: »
Its about money on both sidesWetcoaster wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »
Do you like when children die of starvation? No? Neither do I. Do you know why it happens less frequently in the developed world than in the third world? Hint: it's not because of organic, grass-fed, cage-free labeling on food. Extra hint: it's because of foods that were genetically modified to be more robust and versatile.
It's also because we have social supports put in place to help prevent people from starving, as well as better food distribution overall. Third-world countries don't have SNAP and WIC. Their road and rail systems aren't half as developed as ours are. Even if the food is grown, there's nothing to make sure that it gets to where the hungry people are like there is in developed countries.
Have GMOs boosted food production past previous levels and given us even more (excess) food? Sure. But they're not the only things that have prevented poor people from starving in America.
I dont think starving people in America is what it is about.
It's not about public health either. It's about money. Which should come as no surprise to anybody.
Sure it is. I wouldn't allege that either side is being altruistic.
While not altruistic (because they're paid workers), I do think that scientists researching doing GM foods are doing so in part because they have the best interests of humanity in mind. I liken them to vaccine researchers. The corporations who employ them may be profit-driven, but there are people behind that research who are compelled by more than just money.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
What?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
What?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.
Oh, this. A thousand times this!0 -
@Wetcoaster
Great link and scoop. I think it's just another attempt to market the product, as in the end the science isn't there to back the claims, and most of the population will see right through it. But I'll also say, it doesn't take a lot of product sales to make the money back for the anti GMO crowd, and raising a stink will likely increase their sales as well.
But in all fairness, I don't think that all the non GMO sales are driven by the fact that people don't know the science behind GMO's. I've worked in the food brokerage industry for years, and a lot of the people that buy some of the organic and/or GMO free stuff don't do it out of any fear of GMO's. They do it for new flavors, quality control, and choices that weren't around for years. Sure there are some against GMO's, but that is nothing more than their choice IMO. Some people buy brands I don't like, and they don't have to justify their reasons to me, nor do the people that buy non GMO. It's their money, and some of those lines sell big.
I've got some grass fed ribeyes, some Farro, and a few other organics and non GMO and/or gluten free products in the house right now. But it's simply because I like them, and for the price point I think there are better than some of my other choices. I think the one exception to that is the Farro, only because its' grown in a region of Europe where GMOs aren't allowed.
As for the whole labeling thing, personally I think they should just allow the non GMO foods to label as such, or even require it if they want to make a stink about things. It's a smaller, newer market in the US, and overall would save money. A great number of them are already labeling as non GMO and/or organic already, so much of the work is already done.0 -
The movie seeds of deception explains a little bit of a different thought regarding gmos. Monsanto, creator of the round up ready seeds sues small town farmers to put them out of business. Monsanto wants to control the food supply. GMO seeds cannot be saved and have to be bought yearly. There is alot of politics involved in the GMO world and alot more then meets the eye. Nearly everyone in the FDA is also involved in some way with Monsanto. Yes organic farmers are anti gmo and leading the movement. ..makes sense to me.
I dont always buy organic, I do try to support my local small farmers as much as possible. And I use to believe gmos should be labeled but really its just as easy to just buy organic label food.0 -
antennachick wrote: »The movie seeds of deception explains a little bit of a different thought regarding gmos. Monsanto, creator of the round up ready seeds sues small town farmers to put them out of business. Monsanto wants to control the food supply. GMO seeds cannot be saved and have to be bought yearly. There is alot of politics involved in the GMO world and alot more then meets the eye. Nearly everyone in the FDA is also involved in some way with Monsanto. Yes organic farmers are anti gmo and leading the movement. ..makes sense to me.
I dont always buy organic, I do try to support my local small farmers as much as possible. And I use to believe gmos should be labeled but really its just as easy to just buy organic label food.
You mean the guy that stole their product?
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.
The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee." Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?
Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser's canola contained Monsanto's Roundup resistance gene, and it's impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds. However, there's lots of confusion about these tests. Other samples, tested by other people, showed lower concentrations of Roundup resistance — but still over 50 percent of the crop.
Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.
This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's decision. Schmeiser's site contains other documents.)
So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
What?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.
Citation expected. Then I will consider you to not be misleading.
No you won't. Because, as usual, you won't even bother reading it.
But here you go anyway
Van Eenennaam and Young then approach the question of GMO feeding from a different angle. Since 1996 90-95% of animal feed in the US has been GMO. Prior to 1996 0% was GMO. This offers the opportunity for a large observational study to see if the rapid and thorough introduction of GMO feed in the US resulted in any adverse health effects for the animals.
This data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.
In this case the data is particularly useful for a couple of reasons. First, the number of animals for which there is data is massive – in the billions per year. Second, the industry actually carefully tracks certain outcomes, as it is necessary or critical to their business.
For example, cattle are examined both premortem and postmortem for any abnormalities, such as tumors or signs of infection or other illness. Any sign of illness and that cow is not approved for meat. The percentage of cattle that are found to have such abnormalities is called the condemnation rate, and annual condemnation rates are kept in public databases.
The authors pooled data from various such databases for various animal industries before and after the introduction of GMO into animal feed:
Livestock production statistics for the US before and after the introduction of GE feed crops in 1986 are summarized in Table 4. In all industries, there were no obvious perturbations in production parameters over time. The available health parameters, somatic cell count (SCC; an indicator of mastitis and inflammation in the udder) in the dairy data set (Figure 1), postmortem condemnation rates in cattle (Figure 1), and postmortem condemnation rates and mortality in the poultry industry (Figure 2), all decreased (i.e., improved) over time.
So, multiple health parameters for multiple animals, including billions of animals over about 15 years showed no adverse effects from the rapid introduction of GMO animal feed. If there were any significant adverse effects from GMO it seems reasonable that it would easily show up in this data.
The reason for the background improvement in health parameters is likely due to improved genetics and handling. This slow improvement over time continued without change through the introduction of GMO.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/
0 -
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
What?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.
Citation expected. Then I will consider you to not be misleading.
I've noticed from you across several threads where you want citations yet none of the citations you provide actually support your position ... and several of the sites you've claimed don't support anything logical at all. Perhaps you should demand the same from yourself that you demand of others.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page.
It's funny that it's usually wealthy and rather porcine people in Western nations who make this argument.
I guess if you ask hungry people in developing nations what the greatest threat to human life on the planet is they may say poverty and starvation.
Organic = privilege.
0 -
That OP article is a terrible screed/rant and as full of nonsense as Mercola's site. Confounding field hybridisation with GMO techniques is as bad as the fear mongering.0
-
Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/02/23/if-you-doubt-the-organic-industry-leads-the-anti-gmo-movement-this-settles-it/#21a391e06083
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
I live in Europe. Currently 15 countries are banning growing GMO crops. Plus food that makes use of GMOs in its production needs to be labelled. Currently more than 60 countries around the world require labelling. Exceptions are basically countries in North and South America and Africa.
Most of the world (168 countries) has signed the biosafety protocol which regulates among other things GMOs. America is in the minority.
Are you trying to tell me that all this is happening because of some American Alternative Medicine dr no one non-American has ever heard of? Or that his $250000 have bribed all these governments? Or that all these governments, organisations and committees lack scientific understanding?
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »That OP article is a terrible screed/rant and as full of nonsense as Mercola's site. Confounding field hybridisation with GMO techniques is as bad as the fear mongering.
How so? The latter is just a more efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. Neither is inherently healthier or safer.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/02/23/if-you-doubt-the-organic-industry-leads-the-anti-gmo-movement-this-settles-it/#21a391e06083
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
I live in Europe. Currently 15 countries are banning growing GMO crops. Plus food that makes use of GMOs in its production needs to be labelled. Currently more than 60 countries around the world require labelling. Exceptions are basically countries in North and South America and Africa.
Most of the world (168 countries) has signed the biosafety protocol which regulates among other things GMOs. America is in the minority.
Are you trying to tell me that all this is happening because of some American Alternative Medicine dr no one non-American has ever heard of? Or that his $250000 have bribed all these governments? Or that all these governments, organisations and committees lack scientific understanding?
Historically, governments lack understanding in more areas than just science.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/02/23/if-you-doubt-the-organic-industry-leads-the-anti-gmo-movement-this-settles-it/#21a391e06083
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
I live in Europe. Currently 15 countries are banning growing GMO crops. Plus food that makes use of GMOs in its production needs to be labelled. Currently more than 60 countries around the world require labelling. Exceptions are basically countries in North and South America and Africa.
Most of the world (168 countries) has signed the biosafety protocol which regulates among other things GMOs. America is in the minority.
Are you trying to tell me that all this is happening because of some American Alternative Medicine dr no one non-American has ever heard of? Or that his $250000 have bribed all these governments? Or that all these governments, organisations and committees lack scientific understanding?
Yes.
Economic protectionism and public ignorance. Science doesn't have a thing to do with it.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-policies-europe-turns-against-science.html?referer=0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/02/23/if-you-doubt-the-organic-industry-leads-the-anti-gmo-movement-this-settles-it/#21a391e06083
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
I live in Europe. Currently 15 countries are banning growing GMO crops. Plus food that makes use of GMOs in its production needs to be labelled. Currently more than 60 countries around the world require labelling. Exceptions are basically countries in North and South America and Africa.
Most of the world (168 countries) has signed the biosafety protocol which regulates among other things GMOs. America is in the minority.
Are you trying to tell me that all this is happening because of some American Alternative Medicine dr no one non-American has ever heard of? Or that his $250000 have bribed all these governments? Or that all these governments, organisations and committees lack scientific understanding?
Yes.
Economic protectionism and public ignorance. Science doesn't have a thing to do with it.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-policies-europe-turns-against-science.html?referer=
Right.
It's politically driven.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »That OP article is a terrible screed/rant and as full of nonsense as Mercola's site. Confounding field hybridisation with GMO techniques is as bad as the fear mongering.
How so? The latter is just a more efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. Neither is inherently healthier or safer.
GE techniques are not only more efficient, they also allow us to create more extreme modifications without generational testing and use both vectors and gene inserts that could not occur in "classical hybridisation". This type of power has already resulted in a few GMO either not being commercialised or withdrawn from market.
For example - consider StarLink - this GMO corn resulted in a protein which had some concerns (according to the EPA and FDA) in human allergic response. When found in food used by humans - the company that manufactured this product tried to get approval for human use but had to withdraw it and recall the product.
I'm for GE - but I do not believe that GMOs are blindly safe and do consider that they require a case by case authorisation and review. Because of the capacity of transformation is much higher with GE they are inherently more uncertain both in transformational power and unknown step consequences in the wild. Plasmid drift to new species is still something we continually fail to evaluate with classical processes, I'm pretty sure we aren't doing our homework in general.
In agriculture, we have a history of underestimating serious and unforeseeable consequences, including genetic contamination of wild species, disruption of natural ecosystems and spread of chemical and biological pollutants - being more efficient means, without proper and long term oversights that we will continue to do this on a larger and more effective scale. If one isn't at least a little concerned by this and considers all GMO's are safe 'just because', then one is as blind and propagandist as Marcola and his ilk, just on the other end of the spectrum.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/02/23/if-you-doubt-the-organic-industry-leads-the-anti-gmo-movement-this-settles-it/#21a391e06083
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
I live in Europe. Currently 15 countries are banning growing GMO crops. Plus food that makes use of GMOs in its production needs to be labelled. Currently more than 60 countries around the world require labelling. Exceptions are basically countries in North and South America and Africa.
Most of the world (168 countries) has signed the biosafety protocol which regulates among other things GMOs. America is in the minority.
Are you trying to tell me that all this is happening because of some American Alternative Medicine dr no one non-American has ever heard of? Or that his $250000 have bribed all these governments? Or that all these governments, organisations and committees lack scientific understanding?
Yes.
Economic protectionism and public ignorance. Science doesn't have a thing to do with it.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-policies-europe-turns-against-science.html?referer=
Nice opinion propaganda piece.
Europe is now aligned with Zimbabwe, oh noes!!
The idea that science alone should rule agricultural policy is ignorant and as the French say, "se mettre le doigt dans l'oeil", a massive illusion.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/02/23/if-you-doubt-the-organic-industry-leads-the-anti-gmo-movement-this-settles-it/#21a391e06083
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
I live in Europe. Currently 15 countries are banning growing GMO crops. Plus food that makes use of GMOs in its production needs to be labelled. Currently more than 60 countries around the world require labelling. Exceptions are basically countries in North and South America and Africa.
Most of the world (168 countries) has signed the biosafety protocol which regulates among other things GMOs. America is in the minority.
Are you trying to tell me that all this is happening because of some American Alternative Medicine dr no one non-American has ever heard of? Or that his $250000 have bribed all these governments? Or that all these governments, organisations and committees lack scientific understanding?
Yes.
Economic protectionism and public ignorance. Science doesn't have a thing to do with it.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-policies-europe-turns-against-science.html?referer=
Right.
It's politically driven.
As is the use of GMO's - it's a profit and business policy driven by lobbies, at least to some extent.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »That OP article is a terrible screed/rant and as full of nonsense as Mercola's site. Confounding field hybridisation with GMO techniques is as bad as the fear mongering.
How so? The latter is just a more efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. Neither is inherently healthier or safer.
GE techniques are not only more efficient, they also allow us to create more extreme modifications without generational testing and use both vectors and gene inserts that could not occur in "classical hybridisation". This type of power has already resulted in a few GMO either not being commercialised or withdrawn from market.
For example - consider StarLink - this GMO corn resulted in a protein which had some concerns (according to the EPA and FDA) in human allergic response. When found in food used by humans - the company that manufactured this product tried to get approval for human use but had to withdraw it and recall the product.
I'm for GE - but I do not believe that GMOs are blindly safe and do consider that they require a case by case authorisation and review. Because of the capacity of transformation is much higher with GE they are inherently more uncertain both in transformational power and unknown step consequences in the wild. Plasmid drift to new species is still something we continually fail to evaluate with classical processes, I'm pretty sure we aren't doing our homework in general.
In agriculture, we have a history of underestimating serious and unforeseeable consequences, including genetic contamination of wild species, disruption of natural ecosystems and spread of chemical and biological pollutants - being more efficient means, without proper and long term oversights that we will continue to do this on a larger and more effective scale. If one isn't at least a little concerned by this and considers all GMO's are safe 'just because', then one is as blind and propagandist as Marcola and his ilk, just on the other end of the spectrum.
I remember from a thread from quite some time ago the story about a potato breed that was bred the classical way having unsafe amounts of some chemical that no one bothered to check for prior to making and distributing it, and it ended up being pulled.
If the "normal" way can have just as bad and worse potential outcomes as the GMO, why is only one being extensively restricted?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »That OP article is a terrible screed/rant and as full of nonsense as Mercola's site. Confounding field hybridisation with GMO techniques is as bad as the fear mongering.
How so? The latter is just a more efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. Neither is inherently healthier or safer.
GE techniques are not only more efficient, they also allow us to create more extreme modifications without generational testing and use both vectors and gene inserts that could not occur in "classical hybridisation". This type of power has already resulted in a few GMO either not being commercialised or withdrawn from market.
For example - consider StarLink - this GMO corn resulted in a protein which had some concerns (according to the EPA and FDA) in human allergic response. When found in food used by humans - the company that manufactured this product tried to get approval for human use but had to withdraw it and recall the product.
I'm for GE - but I do not believe that GMOs are blindly safe and do consider that they require a case by case authorisation and review. Because of the capacity of transformation is much higher with GE they are inherently more uncertain both in transformational power and unknown step consequences in the wild. Plasmid drift to new species is still something we continually fail to evaluate with classical processes, I'm pretty sure we aren't doing our homework in general.
In agriculture, we have a history of underestimating serious and unforeseeable consequences, including genetic contamination of wild species, disruption of natural ecosystems and spread of chemical and biological pollutants - being more efficient means, without proper and long term oversights that we will continue to do this on a larger and more effective scale. If one isn't at least a little concerned by this and considers all GMO's are safe 'just because', then one is as blind and propagandist as Marcola and his ilk, just on the other end of the spectrum.
And none of these concerns are unique to GMO's. Nobody is arguing against oversight and I agree that we should continue to evaluate them on a case by case basis (which we already require fir gmo but not for hybrids).
Nobody is claiming that any potential GE crop we can come up with is safe "just because", but those that make it to the market are just as safe as the rest of the food supply.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/02/23/if-you-doubt-the-organic-industry-leads-the-anti-gmo-movement-this-settles-it/#21a391e06083
This week, Dr. Joseph Mercola, famous alternative medicine advocate and vaccination opponent who sells homeopathic and organic supplements at Mercola.com, proclaimed the “#1 most visited natural health website,” has launched the latest rally against genetic engineering, with a push for donations to the Organic Consumers Association, whose goals include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.”
Matching up to $250,000 in donations for “GMO Awareness Week” to the OCA, which reported over $3 million in revenue in 2013, the wealthy Dr. Mercola is pitching up to half a million dollars into the ring against genetic engineering.
“GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet,” explains the GMO Awareness Week page. A vague and fear-mongering statement, nearly all leading scientific bodies around the world and hundreds of studies, many of which aren’t industry-funded, disagree.
But that doesn’t matter. Mercola and OCA want to get rid of the products of genetic engineering. Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations. Never mind that the anti-GE lobby creates unscientific and overly stringent regulations that make it too tedious for small and medium businesses and organizations to bring additional engineered products, such as gluten-free wheat or nutrient fortified bananas to people who need them. Never mind that genetic engineering is a breeding tool; a process and not a menacing substance to scoop into a bowl.
The undeniable reality is that the anti-GMO movement is organic industry-led, and it all begins with the lobby for mandatory labeling of products created with genetic engineering.
As I’ve written about several times, including here and here, there is no logical “right to know” whether a food contains GMOs:
“If we really want to label food based on breeding techniques, the only logical tactic would be to label ALL breeding techniques, including those that created our friends the sterile watermelons, atomic grapefruits, and others like hybridization, marker-assisted breeding, and more so-called ‘non-GMO’ techniques.”
“GMOs,” a term that applies to diverse techniques and products, from cotton, corn and eggplant engineered with an insecticidal protein that prevents pest damage, to gene silencing techniques used to engineer both potatoes that don’t bruise and non-browning, non-bruising Arctic apples, aren’t one homogeneous process or thing.
Nearly all the foods we consume (including organic), with the exception of wild herbs, game, and some types of mushrooms and fish, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab, with techniques ranging from selective breeding to application of mutagenic chemicals or radiation.
Labeling products of these technologies would make no scientific, economic, legal or common sense; moreover the push for mandatory labeling is an organic-industry ploy to eliminate genetic engineering in agriculture.
When framed as a right, the “right to know what’s in our food” rhetoric seems benevolent, trickling down from on high and becoming a righteous battle cry of indignation, shouted from the mouths of celebrity moms and boots on the ground at anti-GMO rallies alike.
But the reality is more sinister than a simple “right to know.” Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in 2012 ahead of California’s prop 37 GMO labeling ballot initiative:
“The burning question for us all then becomes how – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
But labeling isn’t only about organic market niche, but a means to eliminate genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote in 2012:
“Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.”
And the good doctor puts his money where his mouth is. “To contribute to a GMO-free future, we’re matching donations to OCA for the entire week up to $250,000,” Mercola’s site boasts.
A GMO-free future? Fitting. “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool,” explained Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman when the National Organic Program was announced in 2000. “It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
We know that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. We know that organic farming tends to produce lower yields. And we know that genetic engineering is prohibited in organic farming though the technology can lead to beneficial traits, many of which cannot be achieved by other methods.
So what’s the organic industry to do? Perpetuate frightening myths about the very technology it’s not allowed to use, of course. Then, with an altruistic guise, demand in the name of a so-called “right” that products of this technology be labeled.
And best of all, make up an “Awareness Week” during which a wealthy alternative medicine doctor will match up to a quarter million dollars of donations to help label, and eventually eliminate these technologies. My, that’s a lot of money
0 -
GMO's have been around for a very long time, it is not a new concept, man has been doing this for thousands of years.
I can't say that I believe any food is truly in its' original state, and to me, organically grown is somewhat a gimmick, that some people are willing to pay more for.
I support the local farmers, and buy at farmers markets, as I know that the food is fresh at least.
Big business truly runs the world.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/
Totally unrelated. Coeliac Disease affects Australians at a ratio of 1:70
Statistically speaking 56 of these Australians are not aware they have it. A large amount of statistics that cannot be included, fall into category of gluten sensitivity. Not a mere herd mentality.
Back to topic though thank you, Alyssa_Is_LosingIt.
I agree with the OP. My position is anti-GMO. However If people want to support it that is no skin off my nose.
What?
I'm aware that coeliac is a thing. I'm aware that it is a disease that causes great suffering for the people that have it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the term "gluten-free" is brandished as a marketing tool. Much in the same way that the anti-GMO labels will.
As for your stance on GMOs, well, I can't help that you can't understand science. I just wish that people like you would leave the science to people who actually DO understand it, and stop spreading misinformation and fear all over the Internet.
Citation expected. Then I will consider you to not be misleading.
What exactly do you need a citation for?
That coeliac is real? You've already stated that. Not sure why you'd want a citation for something you already believe.
That the anti-GMO labels will be used as marketing tools? Go to the grocery store and look at all of the labels and buzz-words that are used in marketing on products. "Gluten-free!" "Made with 100% whole grain!" "0 grams trans fat!" These are marketing tools, and the claims are dubious in most cases because companies find loopholes in the labeling requirements. This is why they can put the whole grains claim on stuff like Froot Loops or the 0 g trans fats claim on products that have less than a few g of trans fats.
Or did you need a citation for the fact that you don't understand science? Well, go search for literally any comment you've made on this forum. That's all the citations anyone needs.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »That OP article is a terrible screed/rant and as full of nonsense as Mercola's site. Confounding field hybridisation with GMO techniques is as bad as the fear mongering.
How so? The latter is just a more efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. Neither is inherently healthier or safer.
GE techniques are not only more efficient, they also allow us to create more extreme modifications without generational testing and use both vectors and gene inserts that could not occur in "classical hybridisation". This type of power has already resulted in a few GMO either not being commercialised or withdrawn from market.
For example - consider StarLink - this GMO corn resulted in a protein which had some concerns (according to the EPA and FDA) in human allergic response. When found in food used by humans - the company that manufactured this product tried to get approval for human use but had to withdraw it and recall the product.
I'm for GE - but I do not believe that GMOs are blindly safe and do consider that they require a case by case authorisation and review. Because of the capacity of transformation is much higher with GE they are inherently more uncertain both in transformational power and unknown step consequences in the wild. Plasmid drift to new species is still something we continually fail to evaluate with classical processes, I'm pretty sure we aren't doing our homework in general.
In agriculture, we have a history of underestimating serious and unforeseeable consequences, including genetic contamination of wild species, disruption of natural ecosystems and spread of chemical and biological pollutants - being more efficient means, without proper and long term oversights that we will continue to do this on a larger and more effective scale. If one isn't at least a little concerned by this and considers all GMO's are safe 'just because', then one is as blind and propagandist as Marcola and his ilk, just on the other end of the spectrum.
And none of these concerns are unique to GMO's. Nobody is arguing against oversight and I agree that we should continue to evaluate them on a case by case basis (which we already require fir gmo but not for hybrids).
Nobody is claiming that any potential GE crop we can come up with is safe "just because", but those that make it to the market are just as safe as the rest of the food supply.
The efficiency and possibility of larger unintended consequence is specific to GMOs.
No claims?
"Never mind that GE technologies are safe and beneficial to consumers, farmers, the environment and the needy in developing nations."
StarLink made it to market and no, it was not as safe as the rest of the food supply - hence it was withdrawn.
Another aside:
I happen to like some rare varietals (particularly in strawberries and peaches) - the generalisation of GMOs would indeed put these at risk (difficult to find them in the US because of monolithic crop practices) and the political pressure to reduce the generalisation of crops for pure efficiency serves the purpose of slowing introduction and preserving varietal heritage. I don't see that as a bad thing in Europe. The current moratorium serves that cultural agenda.
I sincerely doubt that building better corn is really about feeding the poor but more about biofuel and profit concerns. We've seen shifts from sustenance crops in certain countries to cash crops (which in turn create economic crisis when overproduction occurs) as political issues that do suggest that countries need to use these political levers to assure economic balance.
It isn't that GMOs don't have a higher risk - I think they do (quite small but present). BUT I also think that so far, we've demonstrated that we are managing those risks well.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »GMO's have been around for a very long time, it is not a new concept, man has been doing this for thousands of years.
I can't say that I believe any food is truly in its' original state, and to me, organically grown is somewhat a gimmick, that some people are willing to pay more for.
I support the local farmers, and buy at farmers markets, as I know that the food is fresh at least.
Big business truly runs the world.
No they have not, only since 1987.
If you are claiming thousands of years then you don't know what GMOs are.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »GMO's have been around for a very long time, it is not a new concept, man has been doing this for thousands of years.
I can't say that I believe any food is truly in its' original state, and to me, organically grown is somewhat a gimmick, that some people are willing to pay more for.
I support the local farmers, and buy at farmers markets, as I know that the food is fresh at least.
Big business truly runs the world.
No they have not, only since 1987.
If you are claiming thousands of years then you don't know what GMOs are.
I am expecting something about selective cultivation to follow
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »That OP article is a terrible screed/rant and as full of nonsense as Mercola's site. Confounding field hybridisation with GMO techniques is as bad as the fear mongering.
How so? The latter is just a more efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. Neither is inherently healthier or safer.
GE techniques are not only more efficient, they also allow us to create more extreme modifications without generational testing and use both vectors and gene inserts that could not occur in "classical hybridisation". This type of power has already resulted in a few GMO either not being commercialised or withdrawn from market.
For example - consider StarLink - this GMO corn resulted in a protein which had some concerns (according to the EPA and FDA) in human allergic response. When found in food used by humans - the company that manufactured this product tried to get approval for human use but had to withdraw it and recall the product.
I'm for GE - but I do not believe that GMOs are blindly safe and do consider that they require a case by case authorisation and review. Because of the capacity of transformation is much higher with GE they are inherently more uncertain both in transformational power and unknown step consequences in the wild. Plasmid drift to new species is still something we continually fail to evaluate with classical processes, I'm pretty sure we aren't doing our homework in general.
In agriculture, we have a history of underestimating serious and unforeseeable consequences, including genetic contamination of wild species, disruption of natural ecosystems and spread of chemical and biological pollutants - being more efficient means, without proper and long term oversights that we will continue to do this on a larger and more effective scale. If one isn't at least a little concerned by this and considers all GMO's are safe 'just because', then one is as blind and propagandist as Marcola and his ilk, just on the other end of the spectrum.
And none of these concerns are unique to GMO's. Nobody is arguing against oversight and I agree that we should continue to evaluate them on a case by case basis (which we already require fir gmo but not for hybrids).
Nobody is claiming that any potential GE crop we can come up with is safe "just because", but those that make it to the market are just as safe as the rest of the food supply.
Safe in what way? For consumption, for the environment? Possibly yes. Or no. This is where regulations, which are not always enforced, or even exist, come into play.
As for GMO safety in general, there appears to be absolutely no scientific consensus still:
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/92/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12302-014-0034-1.pdf?originUrl=http://enveurope.springeropen.com/article/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1&token2=exp=1456320841~acl=/static/pdf/92/art%253A10.1186%252Fs12302-014-0034-1.pdf*~hmac=98bf9bf404934ea835a9f1e78cf0a1db6c98ab07cd5aa16d696624bae4e60a49
"Conclusions
In the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few
examples to illustrate that the totality of scientific research
outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced; complex;
often contradictory or inconclusive; confounded by
researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources;
and, in general, has raised more questions than it has
currently answered.
Whether to continue and expand the introduction of
GM crops and foods into the human food and animal
feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable
or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic
considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific
debate and the currently unresolved biosafety research
agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the
broader society. They should, however, be supported by
strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM
crops and foods for human and animal health and the
environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical,
rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently
diversified to compensate for bias.
Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture
should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative
claims by an internal circle of likeminded stakeholders
that a ‘scientific consensus’ exists on GMO safety."
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »GMO's have been around for a very long time, it is not a new concept, man has been doing this for thousands of years.
I can't say that I believe any food is truly in its' original state, and to me, organically grown is somewhat a gimmick, that some people are willing to pay more for.
I support the local farmers, and buy at farmers markets, as I know that the food is fresh at least.
Big business truly runs the world.
No they have not, only since 1987.
If you are claiming thousands of years then you don't know what GMOs are.
Strictly speaking, GMOs HAVE been around for centuries.
Clue me in to what is in its' truly natural state? Some is natural evolution, some has been altered by man, and not all in recent history.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »That OP article is a terrible screed/rant and as full of nonsense as Mercola's site. Confounding field hybridisation with GMO techniques is as bad as the fear mongering.
How so? The latter is just a more efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. Neither is inherently healthier or safer.
GE techniques are not only more efficient, they also allow us to create more extreme modifications without generational testing and use both vectors and gene inserts that could not occur in "classical hybridisation". This type of power has already resulted in a few GMO either not being commercialised or withdrawn from market.
For example - consider StarLink - this GMO corn resulted in a protein which had some concerns (according to the EPA and FDA) in human allergic response. When found in food used by humans - the company that manufactured this product tried to get approval for human use but had to withdraw it and recall the product.
I'm for GE - but I do not believe that GMOs are blindly safe and do consider that they require a case by case authorisation and review. Because of the capacity of transformation is much higher with GE they are inherently more uncertain both in transformational power and unknown step consequences in the wild. Plasmid drift to new species is still something we continually fail to evaluate with classical processes, I'm pretty sure we aren't doing our homework in general.
In agriculture, we have a history of underestimating serious and unforeseeable consequences, including genetic contamination of wild species, disruption of natural ecosystems and spread of chemical and biological pollutants - being more efficient means, without proper and long term oversights that we will continue to do this on a larger and more effective scale. If one isn't at least a little concerned by this and considers all GMO's are safe 'just because', then one is as blind and propagandist as Marcola and his ilk, just on the other end of the spectrum.
And none of these concerns are unique to GMO's. Nobody is arguing against oversight and I agree that we should continue to evaluate them on a case by case basis (which we already require fir gmo but not for hybrids).
Nobody is claiming that any potential GE crop we can come up with is safe "just because", but those that make it to the market are just as safe as the rest of the food supply.
Safe in what way? For consumption, for the environment? Possibly yes. Or no. This is where regulations, which are not always enforced, or even exist, come into play.
As for GMO safety in general, there appears to be absolutely no scientific consensus still:
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/92/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12302-014-0034-1.pdf?originUrl=http://enveurope.springeropen.com/article/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1&token2=exp=1456320841~acl=/static/pdf/92/art%253A10.1186%252Fs12302-014-0034-1.pdf*~hmac=98bf9bf404934ea835a9f1e78cf0a1db6c98ab07cd5aa16d696624bae4e60a49
"Conclusions
In the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few
examples to illustrate that the totality of scientific research
outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced; complex;
often contradictory or inconclusive; confounded by
researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources;
and, in general, has raised more questions than it has
currently answered.
Whether to continue and expand the introduction of
GM crops and foods into the human food and animal
feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable
or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic
considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific
debate and the currently unresolved biosafety research
agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the
broader society. They should, however, be supported by
strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM
crops and foods for human and animal health and the
environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical,
rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently
diversified to compensate for bias.
Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture
should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative
claims by an internal circle of likeminded stakeholders
that a ‘scientific consensus’ exists on GMO safety."
The part where almost all animal feed was replaced with GMOs and the health of the cattle actually kept improving from upthread is pretty compelling evidence.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions