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
Options
Replies
-
Strawblackcat wrote: »I honestly don't understand why so many people are against labeling. If I don't want to eat GMOs, that's my decision. If you want to eat them, that's your decision. There's nothing wrong with either choice. But I should have enough information avaliable to me regarding the food I buy that I am able to make that choice.
To me, it's kind of like country-of-origin labeling for other consumer goods. If I want to buy a toy made in America, then that's fine. If I want to buy a toy made in China, that's also fine. But I should have enough information avaliable that I'm able to figure out where the toy that I'm considering buying came from.
People are against labeling because there is a lot of money to be lost to needless scaremongering. Strictly from a business standpoint, it's will not benefit the farmers or the companies that utilize it, and the labeling will likely not benefit the people who consume it.
COOL was also implemented from a business standpoint to give local products a competitive advantage and for some other logistical considerations. It had little to do with "customer's freedom of choice".
Companies have the freedom to label their products "GMO Free" as a selling point, and they do. Customers who wish to ride that rollercoaster already have that option without having to create supply and demand bottlenecks or stand in the way of research and progress.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »
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.
I'm not sure if anyone else has shared this but the above statement is not entirely true as per a new study published recently by the British Journal of Nutrition
blog.journals.cambridge.org/2016/02/16/health-benefits-of-organic-milk-and-meat/
I do want to point out that I have no real issue with GMO, I just wanted to share this.
0 -
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional-meat-and-milk/Wetcoaster wrote: »
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.
I'm not sure if anyone else has shared this but the above statement is not entirely true as per a new study published recently by the British Journal of Nutrition
blog.journals.cambridge.org/2016/02/16/health-benefits-of-organic-milk-and-meat/
I do want to point out that I have no real issue with GMO, I just wanted to share this.
FTA
In other words, the differences found can be entirely due to the difference between grass feeding and grain feeding – that’s it. That is the real variable here, not organic vs conventional. Grass fed conventional meat and milk has the same profile as grass-fed organic. It is therefore deceptive, in my opinion, to frame this difference as organic vs conventional when it is clearly grass-fed vs grain-fed.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »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.
No, strictly speaking GM is intended to define a specific technique. You are confounding with breed (genetic) selection. The term is clearly designated in research and governmental policy. That genes are modified or selected in breeding is an understood given - but really, the entire discussion is around specific modifications processes that allow changes we could never produce by traditional methods.
I have no idea what "its' truly natural state" was meant by you so I can't clue you in. I can say that a modification that inserts the genetic code to make cats glow in the dark cannot be achieved by just breeding - it requires GM techniques.0 -
Well in the absence of clear grass vs grain labelling, perhaps the easier option is to buy organic.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
It's pretty selective evidence. Since it has also been shown that some GMO's have concerns. This is worth underlining:
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.
For me, it remains a one by one case.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »
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.
I'm not sure if anyone else has shared this but the above statement is not entirely true as per a new study published recently by the British Journal of Nutrition
blog.journals.cambridge.org/2016/02/16/health-benefits-of-organic-milk-and-meat/
I do want to point out that I have no real issue with GMO, I just wanted to share this.
Thanks for sharing that. The original article is here, it is an interesting review:
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/S0007114516000349a.pdf&code=66dc76ee7e68693681bc6fe8a66d382c
While it shows a "better fat profile" as defined by the authors, there is no evidence that eating organic improves health indicators.
It is like saying I should eat raspberry ketones to lose weight - they've been shown to improve lipid substrate use. Yet the effect hasn't been shown to improve quality of weight loss. The same holds for organics.
Variety and general diet are significantly more important.0 -
-
Well in the absence of clear grass vs grain labelling, perhaps the easier option is to buy organic.
Except not all organic meat is grass fed (and vice versa)
And if you read the article you would see that the actual difference is trivial at best.
"For example, if you drank a half liter of whole milk every day, consuming grain-fed milk would provide 11% of the recommended daily intake of omega-3, while drinking grass-fed would provide 16%. If you drink 2% or 1% milk the effect is even smaller. Simply put, you are not going to reach your targets of omega-3 by consuming milk."
0 -
How would it affect that? There are so many organic options, nowadays I would suggest its less likely to affect overall diet variety than say, being vegan or paleo restrictive.
I tend to buy organic options if they are available and not if they aren't. I'm not a zealot, but this is from years of my own experience that organic food, particularly meat, tastes better than non-organic. I don't have a study to back that assertion up though.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »And if you read the article you would see that the actual difference is trivial at best.
I did read the article and there is no need to be so terse. I was merely sharing an interesting bit of research not proclaiming myself an expert on the subject.
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.
You asked for citations? You got it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html
http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/national-list
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/
http://www.michaelkovich.com/blog/catalog-information-gmos-monsanto-related-topics/
http://thefulcrum.ca/features/the-truth-behind-gmos/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/Drought Resistant Wheat
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-14/nrn-gm-wheat/5199240
----
http://www.scidev.net/global/gm/news/egyptian-scientists-produce-droughttolerant-gm-wh.html
----
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/KeithEdmisten/agent-presentation-on-gmo-9-2515
----
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/
----
http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/next/files/2014/04/nEXT-Talk-T-Miller-04_17_2014-handout.pdf
----
http://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/category/gmo-labeling/
----
http://agrilife.org/next/2014/04/15/genetically-modified-foods/
----
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/index-eng.php
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
-/-/-
Foodband in us
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/#24714903162b
http://wiki.skeptiforum.org/wiki/GMO_Skepti-Forum_Threads
http://skeptiforum.org/2014/04/24/richard-green-gmos-in-food-and-medicine-an-overview/
http://ingvararni.blogspot.com/2014/05/student-nurse-perspective-gm-technology.html?m=1
https://www.reddit.com/r/GMOSF/
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/26/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=rAcz0JvrbA4C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=ith+the+continuing+accumulation+of+evidence+of+safety+and+efficiency,+and+the+complete+absence+of+any+evidence+of+harm+to+the+public+or+the+environment,+more+and+more+consumers+are+becoming+as+comfortable+with+agricultural+biotechnology+as+they+are+with+medical+biotechnology.&source=bl&ots=KaX3U-08il&sig=-jSUVJlcn1rRaidDCrw6Y0LgQ6M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YUbvUabTDpDc9QTBxIHgCg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.nap.edu/read/9889/chapter/3
As highlighted by the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) report: >>Extensive review of the data available on crops relevant for agriculture in Europe provides no validated scientific evidence that the cultivation of GM crops has caused any environmental harm. A recent comprehensive assessment from the Swiss National Science Foundation (2012), reviewing more than 2000 studies, confirms that no health or environmental risks have been identified related to GM technology<< - http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/Reports/Planting_the_Future/EASAC_Planting_the_Future_FULL_REPORT.pdf - page 25
Of course, about 90% of the research analyzed in the EASAC report was not funded by corporations (http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693).
Genetic engineering techniques are far less disruptive of DNA, as a whole, compared with traditional breeding (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414177 , http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf400135r).
Edgar already cited the EU funded research, but let's elaborate on the context. The European Commission published the reports documenting EU sponsored research into GMO safety going back to 1985. In that 25 year period, the EU spent over 270 Million Euros on over 130 projects conducted by over 400 scientific teams. Overall, the consensus of that research concluded that GMOs are not riskier than their non-GMO counterparts.
Since 1982, the European Commission has invested over €300 million on research on the bio safety of GMOs
A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010):
EC-sponsored research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms (1985-2000)
<< - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm
GMOs are tested, extensively, more so than many non-GMO crops. There are a host of tests, including environmental tests that GMOs undergo that are not done on any other food, as shown on the USDA's website. You know? The same USDA that approves organic food.
Crops produced through genetic engineering are the only ones formally reviewed to assess the potential for transfer of novel traits to wild relatives. When new traits are genetically engineered into a crop, the new plants are evaluated to ensure that they do not have characteristics of weeds. Where biotech crops are grown in proximity to related plants, the potential for the two plants to exchange traits via pollen must be evaluated before release. Crop plants of all kinds can exchange traits with their close wild relatives (which may be weeds or wildflowers) when they are in proximity. In the case of biotech-derived crops, the EPA and USDA perform risk assessments to evaluate this possibility and minimize potential harmful consequences, if any.
Other potential risks considered in the assessment of genetically engineered organisms include any environmental effects on birds, mammals, insects, worms, and other organisms, especially in the case of insect or disease resistance traits. This is why the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the EPA review any environmental impacts of such pest-resistant biotechnology derived crops prior to approval of field-testing and commercial release. Testing on many types of organisms such as honeybees, other beneficial insects, earthworms, and fish is performed to ensure that there are no unintended consequences associated with these crops.
With respect to food safety, when new traits introduced to biotech-derived plants are examined by the EPA and the FDA, the proteins produced by these traits are studied for their potential toxicity and potential to cause an allergic response. Tests designed to examine the heat and digestive stability of these proteins, as well as their similarity to known allergenic proteins, are completed prior to entry into the food or feed supply. To put these considerations in perspective, it is useful to note that while the particular biotech traits being used are often new to crops in that they often do not come from plants (many are from bacteria and viruses), the same basic types of traits often can be found naturally in most plants. These basic traits, like insect and disease resistance, have allowed plants to survive and evolve over time. << - http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=AGRICULTURE&contentid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml
Indeed, GMOs have passed safety tests.
From the World Health Organization: >> GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.<< - http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Consensus document on safety of GMOs (14 Italian scientific societies): >> GMOs are regulated by a regulatory framework that is unmatched in the food and therefore appear to be more controlled than any other food product... GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption. << - http://www.siga.unina.it/circolari/Consensus_ITA.pdf - page 9, http://bit.ly/166WHYZ
Here's a great example of GMO regulation: the soybean with a Brazil nut gene that was discovered to be an allergen during the testing phase (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103 ).
As a result of the pre-commercial testing, the soybean was discontinued, and it never was approved for market sale. >> The only documented case where a human allergen was introduced into a food component by genetic engineering occurred when attempts were made to improve the nutritional quality of soybeans using a brazil nut protein, the methionine-rich 2S albumin... Once this was discovered, further development of the new soybean variety was halted and it was never marketed. << -http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
It's pretty selective evidence. Since it has also been shown that some GMO's have concerns. This is worth underlining:
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.
For me, it remains a one by one case.
And why I used the word "inherently "
0 -
I looked through some of the articles posted by skysiebaby. Let's produce crops resistant to frost??? Lol. That's why there's a "growing season". I don't think it can be said that GMO crops like that have been around for that long.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »I looked through some of the articles posted by skysiebaby. Let's produce crops resistant to frost??? Lol. That's why there's a "growing season". I don't think it can be said that GMO crops like that have been around for that long.
In theory, what would be the issue with having a crop that is resistant to frost? It would create a longer growing season, which may in turn reduce the time it takes to get fresh produce from the farm to the grocery store. I don't see an issue with something like this.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
The second I read the word 'mercola' was the second I lost faith in this thread.0 -
How would it affect that? There are so many organic options, nowadays I would suggest its less likely to affect overall diet variety than say, being vegan or paleo restrictive.
I tend to buy organic options if they are available and not if they aren't. I'm not a zealot, but this is from years of my own experience that organic food, particularly meat, tastes better than non-organic. I don't have a study to back that assertion up though.
Because some people do become zealots. That "you" wasn't you specifically but a generalisation. The idea that "organic and only organic" is healthier way of eating may be full of traps for a lot of people.
My own experience is that quality beef (in terms of taste) is more about sourcing and the butcher than labels, although I can see that in some places they may go hand in hand.0 -
skysiebaby wrote: »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.
You asked for citations? You got it.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html
http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/national-list
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/
http://www.michaelkovich.com/blog/catalog-information-gmos-monsanto-related-topics/
http://thefulcrum.ca/features/the-truth-behind-gmos/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/Drought Resistant Wheat
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-14/nrn-gm-wheat/5199240
----
http://www.scidev.net/global/gm/news/egyptian-scientists-produce-droughttolerant-gm-wh.html
----
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/KeithEdmisten/agent-presentation-on-gmo-9-2515
----
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/
----
http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/next/files/2014/04/nEXT-Talk-T-Miller-04_17_2014-handout.pdf
----
http://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/category/gmo-labeling/
----
http://agrilife.org/next/2014/04/15/genetically-modified-foods/
----
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/index-eng.php
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
-/-/-
Foodband in us
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/#24714903162b
http://wiki.skeptiforum.org/wiki/GMO_Skepti-Forum_Threads
http://skeptiforum.org/2014/04/24/richard-green-gmos-in-food-and-medicine-an-overview/
http://ingvararni.blogspot.com/2014/05/student-nurse-perspective-gm-technology.html?m=1
https://www.reddit.com/r/GMOSF/
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/26/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=rAcz0JvrbA4C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=ith+the+continuing+accumulation+of+evidence+of+safety+and+efficiency,+and+the+complete+absence+of+any+evidence+of+harm+to+the+public+or+the+environment,+more+and+more+consumers+are+becoming+as+comfortable+with+agricultural+biotechnology+as+they+are+with+medical+biotechnology.&source=bl&ots=KaX3U-08il&sig=-jSUVJlcn1rRaidDCrw6Y0LgQ6M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YUbvUabTDpDc9QTBxIHgCg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.nap.edu/read/9889/chapter/3
As highlighted by the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) report: >>Extensive review of the data available on crops relevant for agriculture in Europe provides no validated scientific evidence that the cultivation of GM crops has caused any environmental harm. A recent comprehensive assessment from the Swiss National Science Foundation (2012), reviewing more than 2000 studies, confirms that no health or environmental risks have been identified related to GM technology<< - http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/Reports/Planting_the_Future/EASAC_Planting_the_Future_FULL_REPORT.pdf - page 25
Of course, about 90% of the research analyzed in the EASAC report was not funded by corporations (http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693).
Genetic engineering techniques are far less disruptive of DNA, as a whole, compared with traditional breeding (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414177 , http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf400135r).
Edgar already cited the EU funded research, but let's elaborate on the context. The European Commission published the reports documenting EU sponsored research into GMO safety going back to 1985. In that 25 year period, the EU spent over 270 Million Euros on over 130 projects conducted by over 400 scientific teams. Overall, the consensus of that research concluded that GMOs are not riskier than their non-GMO counterparts.
Since 1982, the European Commission has invested over €300 million on research on the bio safety of GMOs
A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010):
EC-sponsored research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms (1985-2000)
<< - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm
GMOs are tested, extensively, more so than many non-GMO crops. There are a host of tests, including environmental tests that GMOs undergo that are not done on any other food, as shown on the USDA's website. You know? The same USDA that approves organic food.
Crops produced through genetic engineering are the only ones formally reviewed to assess the potential for transfer of novel traits to wild relatives. When new traits are genetically engineered into a crop, the new plants are evaluated to ensure that they do not have characteristics of weeds. Where biotech crops are grown in proximity to related plants, the potential for the two plants to exchange traits via pollen must be evaluated before release. Crop plants of all kinds can exchange traits with their close wild relatives (which may be weeds or wildflowers) when they are in proximity. In the case of biotech-derived crops, the EPA and USDA perform risk assessments to evaluate this possibility and minimize potential harmful consequences, if any.
Other potential risks considered in the assessment of genetically engineered organisms include any environmental effects on birds, mammals, insects, worms, and other organisms, especially in the case of insect or disease resistance traits. This is why the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the EPA review any environmental impacts of such pest-resistant biotechnology derived crops prior to approval of field-testing and commercial release. Testing on many types of organisms such as honeybees, other beneficial insects, earthworms, and fish is performed to ensure that there are no unintended consequences associated with these crops.
With respect to food safety, when new traits introduced to biotech-derived plants are examined by the EPA and the FDA, the proteins produced by these traits are studied for their potential toxicity and potential to cause an allergic response. Tests designed to examine the heat and digestive stability of these proteins, as well as their similarity to known allergenic proteins, are completed prior to entry into the food or feed supply. To put these considerations in perspective, it is useful to note that while the particular biotech traits being used are often new to crops in that they often do not come from plants (many are from bacteria and viruses), the same basic types of traits often can be found naturally in most plants. These basic traits, like insect and disease resistance, have allowed plants to survive and evolve over time. << - http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=AGRICULTURE&contentid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml
Indeed, GMOs have passed safety tests.
From the World Health Organization: >> GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.<< - http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Consensus document on safety of GMOs (14 Italian scientific societies): >> GMOs are regulated by a regulatory framework that is unmatched in the food and therefore appear to be more controlled than any other food product... GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption. << - http://www.siga.unina.it/circolari/Consensus_ITA.pdf - page 9, http://bit.ly/166WHYZ
Here's a great example of GMO regulation: the soybean with a Brazil nut gene that was discovered to be an allergen during the testing phase (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103 ).
As a result of the pre-commercial testing, the soybean was discontinued, and it never was approved for market sale. >> The only documented case where a human allergen was introduced into a food component by genetic engineering occurred when attempts were made to improve the nutritional quality of soybeans using a brazil nut protein, the methionine-rich 2S albumin... Once this was discovered, further development of the new soybean variety was halted and it was never marketed. << -http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
Holy word dump. Did you even read the citations you posted?
From the last one.
"The changes in the composition of existing foods produced through biotechnology are quite limited. Assessing safety may be more difficult in the future if genetic engineering projects cause more substantial and complex changes in a foodstuff. Methods have not yet been developed with which whole foods (in contrast to single chemical components) can be fully evaluated for safety. Progress also needs to be made in developing definitive methods for the identification and characterization of proteins that are potential allergens, and this is currently a major focus of research. Improved methods of profiling plant and microbial metabolites, proteins and gene expression may be helpful in detecting unexpected changes in BD organisms and in establishing substantial equivalence.
A continuing evolution of toxicological methodologies and regulatory strategies will be necessary to ensure that the present level of safety of biotechnology-derived foods is maintained in the future."
The arguments for cautious evolution are right there. Also, it is not the only documented case of an introduced food allergen. Upstream I wrote about an EPA/FDA concern that led to the withdrawal of a GMO crop in the US.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
It's pretty selective evidence. Since it has also been shown that some GMO's have concerns. This is worth underlining:
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.
For me, it remains a one by one case.
And why I used the word "inherently "
Ok, fair point.0 -
Why would anyone doubt that the organic industry leads the anti-GMO movement? Though they seem much more interested in labeling GMO than banning it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions