Are We Really Eating Healthy with GMOs in Place?

With the biotech corporation, Monsanto taking over our food chain, can we really say that we are eating healthy? Will the corporation take over and drive the organic farmers out of the market? How can we tell if the fresh produce we are eating is GMO, if the grocery store does not have to disclose this information to us, and if there are no labels indicating this? Any thoughts?

Honestly if people want to avoid this stuff, they have every right to do so.
Wholesale banning of this stuff is a death sentence to a lot of the world. Without modern agricultural techniques the Earth wouldn't support the current population.

Agreed. I'm tired of Monsanto's name being invoked as if that was some sort of valid argument that they're the antichrist. Nothing thus far supports that GMOs are dangerous. Granted that could change.

Edited to add: I however do NOT support Monsanto's business practices.

There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are unhealthy. Also organic fruits and veggies seem to be no better than non organic in terms of nutrient density or pesticides used

There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are healthy. There is a growing body of evidence that there needs to be more study on the impacts of GMOs, but we're rapidly passing a tipping point where if we're wrong about them being safe, we won't be able to go back. It's Monsanto's stated goal to have their patented genes dominate all life on Earth, and through the use of GMOs combined with their heavy-handed treatment of farmers, we're rapidly losing the basic genetic diversity upon which all of agriculture has been based for years 93% of veggie varieties available in 1903 had gone extinct by 1983, and since then Monsanto has actively purchased and then liquidated many traditional seed vendors (Seminis being the worst loss). So, while it remains to be seen that GMOs are unhealthy, it also has yet to be proven that they are safe, and that combined with their business practices, yields an untenable situation where if the company that promised us DDT, Agent Orange, 24D, and Roundup were all safe is wrong about this one, or nature does what it always does when there's too much of one genetic line and brings in a pest/disease/whatever that takes it out, we're utterly screwed. It seems unwise to dive head first off a cliff without first checking to see if the water is more than a couple of inches deep...

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/07/food-ark/food-variety-graphic


There is considerable evidence that organic fruits and veggies are better nutritionally. The USDA's own nutritional data shows an amazing drop in the nutrient density of foods. For example, Broccoli in 1950 had 5.8% more phosphorus, 14.3% more vitamin C, 26.7% more iron, 37.4% more riboflavin, and 59.9% more calcium than broccoli in 1999. However, the nutritional value of organic broccoli has remained unchanged.


There are similar reports for a slew of fruits and veggies here:
http://www.traditional-foods.com/nutrient-decline/

In terms of pesticides used, while organic is not the same as no pesticides (as there are some that are approved), for the most part they're less toxic, less damaging to the environment, and less likely to be used in the first place. One of the tenets of organic farming is minimal use of even organic-certified pesticides, and they're so flipping expensive, and profit margins so low, that few organic farmers apply pesticides unless there is ongoing damage that is worse than the cost of the pesticide, as opposed to, say, the conventional potato farmers near me (growing for potato chip companies), that crop dust their fields with Chlorothalonil as often as 3 times per week with no visible damage of any kind. Chlorothalonil causes liver and kidney damage, eye damage, skin irritation, loss of embryos in early pregnancy, DNA damage, kidney and stomach cancer; kills fish, frogs, beneficial soil microbes, and worms. In our region, beekeepers with hives within 2 miles of one of these potato fields have lost 70% of their hives on average (we lucked out and only lost 66% of ours!) each year.

Honestly if people want to avoid this stuff, they have every right to do so.
Wholesale banning of this stuff is a death sentence to a lot of the world. Without modern agricultural techniques the Earth wouldn't support the current population.

Actually, on a per acre basis, organic and traditional farming methods produce more food than modern agricultural techniques. And only one crop in one year of a GMO crop (if I remember correctly, it was a weevil-resistant corn, and it was only 1 year out of 7 in the study) outyielded a previously-available conventionally-bred crop. There are many, many instances of lower yields from the GMO crops, and still more of approximately equal yields, but far greater costs to the farmer because of inability to save seed from year-to-year and greater costs for herbicides and insecticides. It's the business practices that have lead to their overwhelming widespread acceptance, not higher yields.

However, I do agree with the sentiment that the name Monsanto does not make them the antichrist. I have met a couple of Monsanto researchers, and I believe they truly to believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of humanity, and I imagine that is the case with most of their employees.

But, like all corporations, by law they must be primarily concerned with making money for their shareholders, not protecting and feeding the world. And if the corporation itself was confident that its technology was benign, it would be lobbying in favor of labeling GMO foods, as opposed to lobbying so intently against labeling, because people would seek out GMO food.

Besides, there's also ADM and Cargil that share a great deal (perhaps an equal share) of the "antichrist" spotlight. Somehow they come off as also-rans in the public image.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for accurate labeling requirements and all that. And I completely agree with you on the fiduciary duty thing (I honestly wish more people WOULD realize this too).

However the per acre yield thing didn't sit well. For various economic reasons it doesn't make sense; organic stuff is more expensive because OF lesser yields, and smaller supply.

I'm in grad school so I'm kind of lucky that I have "free" access to journal repositories.

Anyway I found some articles from journals (free abstracts, full reports cost) here:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html


If anything there's plenty of variables including geographic location, methods, which crop,etc. In any case organic yields ARE lower on a per-acre basis then standard though. How much lower is dependent upon the variable.

Edit:
word choice

Don't get me wrong I'm all for accurate labeling requirements and all that. And I completely agree with you on the fiduciary duty thing (I honestly wish more people WOULD realize this too).

However the per acre yield thing didn't sit well. For various economic reasons it doesn't make sense; organic stuff is more expensive because OF lesser yields, and smaller supply.

I'm in grad school so I'm kind of lucky that I have "free" access to journal repositories.

Anyway I found some articles from journals (free abstracts, full reports cost) here:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html


If anything there's plenty of variables including geographic location, methods, which crop,etc. In any case organic yields ARE lower on a per-acre basis then standard though. How much lower is dependent upon the variable.

Edit:
word choice

The second article is blocked by the firewall (I'm at work, and teach at a boarding school. Sometimes there's no telling what will get blocked). But I should have been more specific. I've seen similar meta-studies to the one in the first link (which I admit to just skimming - have to teach in just a minute), and they have a similar narrow focus. It tracks wheat, corn, barley, potatoes, and soybeans. Those are quite difficult to grow at large scale organically, true. However, they, especially corn, also tend to deplete soils, while an organic farmer is primarily interested in building soils. For a conventional farmer, the soil is seen as almost irrelevant, just a medium to hold roots, nutrients, water, and pesticides.

There are indeed lots of variables. But the studies that show organic farming more productive per acre take a multi-year, diversified cropping plan as their basis. And, really, when you get down to it, it's more the diversified cropping that's more productive, more than organic. Organic prejudices in favor of smaller farms growing more diversity of crops. Smaller, more diverse, farms are more productive per acre.

Also, note that the crops in the study are all commodity crops, aimed at trading, futures markets, and processing. the diversified farm is going to focus, instead, on growing food crops that are actually food - fruits and veggies. For example, while we grow a tiny bit of grain - rye, buckwheat, and oats, but mostly as cover crops and green manures to improve the soil and control weeds. The value vs. production cost on those crops is prohibitive on a small scale.

If you want to feed the world effectively, getting the most nutritional value possible out of your land, you want to grow fruits and veggies, not commodities. So, saying conventional ag yields more per acre than organic, and focusing on the major commodity grains is like saying a dump truck could drive across the US faster than a Ferrari. Of course its true if you need to haul 20 tons of gravel!

But, at any rate, the reason organic stuff is more expensive is not because the yield per acre is lower. It's a combination of several factors. The "easy" one to work around is that conventional ag has enormous supports in the form of crop insurance, financial assistance from commercial concerns, easier financing by banks, and especially subsidies. The actual dollar cost of growing, say, conventional sweet corn is actually higher than organic. But the taxpayer pays most of the cost of the conventional crop, but none of the organic. In order to get crop insurance, you have to subscribe to conventional growing processes - in many case spraying schedules are actually contractually required, but in any case, you will get declined as an organic farm. So, apply those supports to organic, or remove them from conventional, and you'll go a long way toward leveling the cost difference. But organic would still cost more.

The more difficult one to work around is that organic has a lower yield per unit of labor. Conventional requires one guy and a fleet of heavy equipment. Organic, for the most part, requires several people and a pile of hand tools and implements that haven't been manufactured in the last 30 years and are expensive and tedious to maintain.

However, that "weakness" of organic could actually be seen as a strength in a situation absent artificial controls through subsidies and whatnot. Yeah, food would cost more, but then, in America, at least, we're currently paying less for food as a percentage of income than any culture in the history of the world (unless you factor in the costs of those subsidies you pay via taxes, etc). A focus on smaller, organic farming could employ many, many more people, thus boosting the economy. More, smaller, locally-focused farms makes the food system more resilient to drought, flood, plague, contamination, terrorism, sea level rise, recession, vagaries of the commodities markets, and produces more tomatoes, broccoli, lettuce, spinach, etc. etc. per acre than conventional.

And that's before you factor in the amount of petroleum and natural gas used to power the equipment and make the chemicals for conventional ag, which is just not sustainable...

Oh no doubt, I'm just using this stuff as a distraction. I actually have research due Sunday so admittedly I can't spend too much time trolling journals in JSTOR, or EBSCO. It's definitely interesting, and something I'd like to look into more.

This would make a fantastic research project for my class (Environmental Law), but I already picked that about 6 weeks ago!

Really I don't have an opinion on it either way. I don't go out of my way to eat organic, but I'm not against it. I think it's a fine consumer choice issue best left to the individual. I do use both too, it depends on the product.

Arbitrarily banning things is very bad though IMO (whether it be transfat, GMO, HFCS,etc). Transparency however is an issue that I can usually agree with completely.

Facts:
100% of smokers die.
100% of people who eat broccoli die.

With the biotech corporation, Monsanto taking over our food chain, can we really say that we are eating healthy? Will the corporation take over and drive the organic farmers out of the market? How can we tell if the fresh produce we are eating is GMO, if the grocery store does not have to disclose this information to us, and if there are no labels indicating this? Any thoughts?

There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are unhealthy. Also organic fruits and veggies seem to be no better than non organic in terms of nutrient density or pesticides used

that's because they haven't been tested, because Monsanto won't test their products and the FDA doesn't require it.

it's a flaw in the system. there isn't proof they're dangerous, and there isn't proof they're NOT dangerous. There's no proof of anything, and that's the problem.