Are GMOs bad for you?

Just for s&g an article on climate change lobbying. My figs in prior post were a total of three years and about the GMO labelling in US so not directly comparable. But back to climate change this article says $115M yr is spent by firms lobbying against climate change compared to $5M by pro climate change orgs.

Corn never grew this far north. But now I see regular crops. There has to have been a new variety developed.

jgnatca wrote: »

Corn never grew this far north. But now I see regular crops. There has to have been a new variety developed.

This mentions a little something on that (corn being grown more in farther northern regions of Canada than before): http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/11913-eng.htm

"In Manitoba, corn for grain acreage increased significantly with the development of earlier maturing varieties which expanded areas suitable for corn production. The largest market for Manitoba corn is livestock feed, followed by processing in the ethanol production plant which opened in 2008. The number of farms reporting corn for grain increased to 713 in 2011 compared to 152 farms in 1971. During the same period, the seeded area jumped by more than 20 fold from 3,678 to 85,449 hectares. Average area of 119.8 hectares per farm was almost twice as big as the national average of 56.8 hectares per farm reporting corn for grain (Table 3)."

Anyway, the site, without rewriting my not particularly incendiary comment: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/11913-eng.htm

Supports the idea that corn production is increasing farther north in Canada.

CSARdiver wrote: »

Macy9336 wrote: »

Amerane wrote: »

Macy9336 wrote: »

Amerane wrote: »

Just a couple of notes as someone with a little experience in the field:

1. Not all studies funded by industry (but conducted by a university or other outside organization) are inherently bad or biased, vice versa for independent studies. Research conducted BY industry can be tricky, but again not all of it is bad. The best thing to do would be to look at the journal it's published in and the history of the researchers involved. Is it a respectable, high-impact journal like Science, Nature, PLOS One, PNAS, etc? Are the researchers known for high-quality work? Then it's probably ok.

2. GMO is a tool. Saying all GMOs are bad is like saying all face creams are bad. Each GMO does something different. Some aim to reduce herbicide use, some make corn sweeter, some improve flavor and storage time, others provide protection from insect damage. Some even produce Bt, which is a commonly used organic pesticide with high selectivity for caterpillars.

3. Farmers aren't made of gold, and pesticides are expensive. Even using small amounts of the industrial versions (aka the stuff the farmers use not what you buy at stores) for research can get $$$ (although most companies will donate material for research if you ask). Farmers are probably not wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on herbicides/pesticides if they don't need to due to GMO crops (which are also not necessarily cheap).

4. Agricultural companies are not evil. Yes, they want to turn a profit, but they also want to maintain effectiveness of their products and not get hit with tons of litigation for literally poisoning the global population. Sure, sometimes the research comes late (ex. DDT), but the current system of pesticide registration usually takes 10+ years before a product actually reaches the market, including extensive research on safety. GMOs have been around for a long time, much longer than people realize. And yet the most valid arguments against GMOs are not for human safety, but for ecological reasons such as having roundup-resistant weeds.

1. Agree not all industry funded studies are bad...but they are all biased. There is no way they couldn't be. Agree not all independent studies are good..nor are they all unbiased...some are biased the other way. As well as reputation of publisher/researcher, I think conflicts of interest are important to consider. Publishers and/or researchers who have conflicts of interest are much more likely to skew results in favour of whoever is throwing money at them or they have loyalty towards.

2. Yes GMO is a tool. I don't think they are all bad, I personally think that none have been proven to be good for the environment or safe for consumption. The safety testing should be at same level as tests for new drugs....right now GMOs are being introduced with zero long term studies on health impact or environmental impact. With no labelling it is impossible to trace whether any of the anecdotal reports of health issues are due to GMOs or not. Some well respected animal studies have shown health problems linked to GMOs. Even if we have been astoundingly lucky so far, we have no way to quickly find a single "bad" GMO either before or after it hits the market and no process is perfect. For the environment, GMOs have not delivered on the higher crop yield, insect repelling, less pesticide using, drought resistant, etc etc promises. In fact, US farmers are beginning to move away from GMOs as much as they can because the GMOs have higher production costs (more expensive seed, need more fertiliser, no less pesticide in some cases more pesticide, more susceptible to extreme weather conditions, etc).

3. As addressed above, yep farmers are not made of $$$, which is one reason why some are now switching from a GMO to conventional or organic crops as a result of a purely economic business decision.

4. I do think Big Agra engages in unethical business practices. I wouldn't say they are "evil" but they are certainly very willing to talk up their products beyond what there is scientific evidence, fight against consumers even having a the freedom to choose whether or not to buy/eat their products, spend millions lobbying for no regulation and immunity from poisoning innocent consumers. It's not exactly ethical neighbourly behaviour and should not be condoned.

1. To say they're all biased is flat-out wrong. I personally know people who have conducted such industry-funded research, and they didn't care what our results were, as long as they were accurate. Few agricultural research programs can exist without at least some funding from industry. The funding goes through sometimes years before the research is finished, so it's out of the company's hands once they sign it over. Plus the company is interested, financially and ethically, if results counter-indicate current usage.

2. Yes, GMOs have delivered higher crop yield, inset repelling, less pesticide-using, drought resistant crops. Ask farmers who plant corn, soy, or cotton.

3. Organic is not more economical due to losses and expensive alternative management strategies. Certain conventional crops can be, but do realize there isn't gmo everything.

4. Won't argue on this as I think it's a problem with most businesses in a free market/capitalist system. But again, no more evil than literally every other company/industry.

1. We'll have to agree to disagree on the bias issue. History tells us that the scientific studies on tobacco funded by the tobacco industry were in fact biased. So it's not outlandish to say that GMO studies funded by the GMO industry are similarly biased. For the record, I also think organic studies funded by the organic industry are also biased.

2. Ahhh well you see GMO crops have not delivered...and I'm getting my info from farmers. They say the crops worked at first, but within five years the yields were down and they needed to ramp up pesticide use dramatically. A growing number are moving away from GMOs because the yields are no different, the same pesticides are needed, the cost of seeds are much higher than non GMO, and nonGMO can sell at a premium. They're doing it purely as a business decision.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/04/money-talks-some-farmers-go-non-gmo-because-of-price-premiums-not-rejection-of-biotech/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/american-farmers-abandoning-genetically-modified-seeds-non-gmo-crops-productive-profitable/


3. Organic can be more profitable than GMO when you take into account all the costs of production vs. crop prices. Farmers look at maximising returns per acre...yes it may be higher cost to go organic, but the profits are higher. It is also a farming model better suited to small rural farmers..so organic supports small family businesses. I do know there isn't gmo everything since I did say farmers were moving towards organic and conventional non GMO crops.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/january-2015/more-farmers-plant-non-gmo-this-year-some-considering-organic.php

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/30/usda-organic-corn-soy-profitable-conventional-crops-despite-higher-costs/

This isn't following a scientific method - you are biased in your analysis, constructing argumentum by strawman, and subscribing to conspiracy theorem rather than connecting the points of data.

1. ....and? It is outlandish until proven otherwise. This is pure biased conjecture.

2. Yield of corn has quadrupled. Bushels / acre have increased from ~50 bushel/acre observed in 1960 to ~200 bushel/acre in 2010.

3. The profits are only higher as this limited scale market serves a consumer base with disposable income. The market has reached capacity and has reached maximum expansion. This is a fad and will not survive an economic downturn.

1. No, bias exists both conscious and subconscious it is part of the human condition. It has been proven that it exists many times over. Funding source does drive a bias towards the vested interest of that funding source. Bias is the reason behind most ethics laws and regulations. Most corruption investigations "follow the money trail" as corruption is simply a type of bias that affects government operations.

2. Now who is biased. You disagreed that nonGMO yields were as good as GMO yields and said to me just go ask the farmers. So, I got sources with farmers saying they get an avg of 15-30 bushels an acre more with nonGMO vs GMO corn. But that didn't match your bias that GMOs are exactly as advertised. So now you're tossing out an (unsupported) historical statistic of 1960-2010 (even though for most of that time, the majority of crops were non GMO as for the first 30yrs of that 50yr span GMOs weren't even grown). If you look closer at the causes behind the historical trend, you'll find that the yield increase is due to farming methods not GMO vs nonGMO. Farming methods are a lot more high tech than they used to be, they have also incorporated organic principles like crop rotation and no till planting. Too a recent study comparing crop yield gains in US vs Europe showed that it was the advances in farming methods not GMOs because Europe had just as much a gain as the US and they don't grow GMOs.

3. GMOs used to be a niche market....so it doesn't matter that something is a niche market or not. What matters is that the farmers are responding to consumer demand (which is what is driving prices up). Organic foods already survived and thrived through the Great Recession...so yeah they'll be around after the next economic downturn.

Macy9336 wrote: »

Organic food production has not actually reached maximum capacity. In fact there is a shortfall and the US is importing organic grains from places like Romania.

These two sentences don't seem to go together.

Food production reaching capacity is about how much can be produced (i.e., supply).

A shortfall is about demand.

That there is demand beyond the current point says nothing about maximum supply. It does affect price.

US wheat isn't GMO, so you seem to be mixing two separate issue, organic and non GMO. (Most US sweet corn that's eaten as corn isn't either. Lots of GMO corn is grown, but for other uses.)

Macy9336 wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

Macy9336 wrote: »

Amerane wrote: »

Macy9336 wrote: »

Amerane wrote: »

Just a couple of notes as someone with a little experience in the field:

1. Not all studies funded by industry (but conducted by a university or other outside organization) are inherently bad or biased, vice versa for independent studies. Research conducted BY industry can be tricky, but again not all of it is bad. The best thing to do would be to look at the journal it's published in and the history of the researchers involved. Is it a respectable, high-impact journal like Science, Nature, PLOS One, PNAS, etc? Are the researchers known for high-quality work? Then it's probably ok.

2. GMO is a tool. Saying all GMOs are bad is like saying all face creams are bad. Each GMO does something different. Some aim to reduce herbicide use, some make corn sweeter, some improve flavor and storage time, others provide protection from insect damage. Some even produce Bt, which is a commonly used organic pesticide with high selectivity for caterpillars.

3. Farmers aren't made of gold, and pesticides are expensive. Even using small amounts of the industrial versions (aka the stuff the farmers use not what you buy at stores) for research can get $$$ (although most companies will donate material for research if you ask). Farmers are probably not wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on herbicides/pesticides if they don't need to due to GMO crops (which are also not necessarily cheap).

4. Agricultural companies are not evil. Yes, they want to turn a profit, but they also want to maintain effectiveness of their products and not get hit with tons of litigation for literally poisoning the global population. Sure, sometimes the research comes late (ex. DDT), but the current system of pesticide registration usually takes 10+ years before a product actually reaches the market, including extensive research on safety. GMOs have been around for a long time, much longer than people realize. And yet the most valid arguments against GMOs are not for human safety, but for ecological reasons such as having roundup-resistant weeds.

1. Agree not all industry funded studies are bad...but they are all biased. There is no way they couldn't be. Agree not all independent studies are good..nor are they all unbiased...some are biased the other way. As well as reputation of publisher/researcher, I think conflicts of interest are important to consider. Publishers and/or researchers who have conflicts of interest are much more likely to skew results in favour of whoever is throwing money at them or they have loyalty towards.

2. Yes GMO is a tool. I don't think they are all bad, I personally think that none have been proven to be good for the environment or safe for consumption. The safety testing should be at same level as tests for new drugs....right now GMOs are being introduced with zero long term studies on health impact or environmental impact. With no labelling it is impossible to trace whether any of the anecdotal reports of health issues are due to GMOs or not. Some well respected animal studies have shown health problems linked to GMOs. Even if we have been astoundingly lucky so far, we have no way to quickly find a single "bad" GMO either before or after it hits the market and no process is perfect. For the environment, GMOs have not delivered on the higher crop yield, insect repelling, less pesticide using, drought resistant, etc etc promises. In fact, US farmers are beginning to move away from GMOs as much as they can because the GMOs have higher production costs (more expensive seed, need more fertiliser, no less pesticide in some cases more pesticide, more susceptible to extreme weather conditions, etc).

3. As addressed above, yep farmers are not made of $$$, which is one reason why some are now switching from a GMO to conventional or organic crops as a result of a purely economic business decision.

4. I do think Big Agra engages in unethical business practices. I wouldn't say they are "evil" but they are certainly very willing to talk up their products beyond what there is scientific evidence, fight against consumers even having a the freedom to choose whether or not to buy/eat their products, spend millions lobbying for no regulation and immunity from poisoning innocent consumers. It's not exactly ethical neighbourly behaviour and should not be condoned.

1. To say they're all biased is flat-out wrong. I personally know people who have conducted such industry-funded research, and they didn't care what our results were, as long as they were accurate. Few agricultural research programs can exist without at least some funding from industry. The funding goes through sometimes years before the research is finished, so it's out of the company's hands once they sign it over. Plus the company is interested, financially and ethically, if results counter-indicate current usage.

2. Yes, GMOs have delivered higher crop yield, inset repelling, less pesticide-using, drought resistant crops. Ask farmers who plant corn, soy, or cotton.

3. Organic is not more economical due to losses and expensive alternative management strategies. Certain conventional crops can be, but do realize there isn't gmo everything.

4. Won't argue on this as I think it's a problem with most businesses in a free market/capitalist system. But again, no more evil than literally every other company/industry.

1. We'll have to agree to disagree on the bias issue. History tells us that the scientific studies on tobacco funded by the tobacco industry were in fact biased. So it's not outlandish to say that GMO studies funded by the GMO industry are similarly biased. For the record, I also think organic studies funded by the organic industry are also biased.

2. Ahhh well you see GMO crops have not delivered...and I'm getting my info from farmers. They say the crops worked at first, but within five years the yields were down and they needed to ramp up pesticide use dramatically. A growing number are moving away from GMOs because the yields are no different, the same pesticides are needed, the cost of seeds are much higher than non GMO, and nonGMO can sell at a premium. They're doing it purely as a business decision.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/04/money-talks-some-farmers-go-non-gmo-because-of-price-premiums-not-rejection-of-biotech/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/american-farmers-abandoning-genetically-modified-seeds-non-gmo-crops-productive-profitable/


3. Organic can be more profitable than GMO when you take into account all the costs of production vs. crop prices. Farmers look at maximising returns per acre...yes it may be higher cost to go organic, but the profits are higher. It is also a farming model better suited to small rural farmers..so organic supports small family businesses. I do know there isn't gmo everything since I did say farmers were moving towards organic and conventional non GMO crops.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/january-2015/more-farmers-plant-non-gmo-this-year-some-considering-organic.php

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/30/usda-organic-corn-soy-profitable-conventional-crops-despite-higher-costs/

This isn't following a scientific method - you are biased in your analysis, constructing argumentum by strawman, and subscribing to conspiracy theorem rather than connecting the points of data.

1. ....and? It is outlandish until proven otherwise. This is pure biased conjecture.

2. Yield of corn has quadrupled. Bushels / acre have increased from ~50 bushel/acre observed in 1960 to ~200 bushel/acre in 2010.

3. The profits are only higher as this limited scale market serves a consumer base with disposable income. The market has reached capacity and has reached maximum expansion. This is a fad and will not survive an economic downturn.

1. No, bias exists both conscious and subconscious it is part of the human condition. It has been proven that it exists many times over. Funding source does drive a bias towards the vested interest of that funding source. Bias is the reason behind most ethics laws and regulations. Most corruption investigations "follow the money trail" as corruption is simply a type of bias that affects government operations.

2. Now who is biased. You disagreed that nonGMO yields were as good as GMO yields and said to me just go ask the farmers. So, I got sources with farmers saying they get an avg of 15-30 bushels an acre more with nonGMO vs GMO corn. But that didn't match your bias that GMOs are exactly as advertised. So now you're tossing out an (unsupported) historical statistic of 1960-2010 (even though for most of that time, the majority of crops were non GMO as for the first 30yrs of that 50yr span GMOs weren't even grown). If you look closer at the causes behind the historical trend, you'll find that the yield increase is due to farming methods not GMO vs nonGMO. Farming methods are a lot more high tech than they used to be, they have also incorporated organic principles like crop rotation and no till planting. Too a recent study comparing crop yield gains in US vs Europe showed that it was the advances in farming methods not GMOs because Europe had just as much a gain as the US and they don't grow GMOs.

3. GMOs used to be a niche market....so it doesn't matter that something is a niche market or not. What matters is that the farmers are responding to consumer demand (which is what is driving prices up). Organic foods already survived and thrived through the Great Recession...so yeah they'll be around after the next economic downturn.

1. Stay on topic please. Strawman construction serves no purpose.

2. There are a multitude of variables in agriculture that have resulted in a 200% increase yield in corn production of which GMO must be included. To further refute anti-GMO nonsense can you differentiate between hybrid seed, original line and "GMO"? Substantiate your claim with data.

3. Did you mean to state organic? Market capacity is a critical business parameter. A business is either expanding, stable, or downsizing - all based on market forces. Organic farming expanded based upon faulty logic and junk science. There is no demonstrable difference between the end products. Organic is nothing more than marketing woo playing on fears of the science illiterate.

I look at the organic industry in the same light as the diet industry - much emotion, no data, little logic, but outstanding marketing preying on the ignorance of the masses through a massive disinformation campaign.

Are you attempting to get closer to the truth or trying to be right?

http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Academics-Review_Organic-Marketing-Report1.pdf

CONCLUSION
This review of more than 100 published academic and market
research studies clearly shows that food safety and health concerns
are the primary drivers of consumer organic purchasing. Further,
research reveals that other factors, such as sustainability, environmental
claims and even organic certification, do not motivate general
consumers to purchase organic products in the absence of health
risk claims. Research by USDA, the organic industry and independent
academic organizations also confirms that the use of the USDA
Organic Seal is critical to conveying confidence in organic labeling
claims, which the majority of consumers mistakenly believe to mean
healthier and safer food products.
This research is well known and shared throughout the organic
marketing industry via trade shows, market research publication,
trade and mainstream media publications. Organic industry CEO’s,
marketing directors and research consultants are quoted in sales
presentations, financial analyst meetings and news interviews acknowledging
consumer food scares and health risk concerns are key
components to organic market growth. Some openly acknowledge
that the industry should engage in fear-based marketing. Extensive,
annually published trade and market research materials document
the need to broaden organic sales growth to consumer segments for
whom creating concerns about personal health and food safety are
requirements to get them to switch from more affordable conventional
to higher priced organic foods.
This research is translated into organic marketing campaigns that
imply or directly assert food health and safety risks with foods produced
using competing conventional practices. Our review of the
top 50 organic food marketers finds these practices to be pervasive
throughout the industry and not simply by a few bad actors.
This disparagement marketing via absence claims with direct and
implied health risk allegations is found on food packaging and labeling
claims, in-store marketing displays, online campaigns, media
relations, and extensive advertising in print, radio and television. Additionally,
research reveals that anti-GMO and anti-pesticide advocacy
groups promoting organic alternatives have combined annual
budgets exceeding $2.5 billion annually and that organic industry
funders are found among the major donors to these groups.
This review of published research, documented organic and natural
produce industry practices and advocacy collaborations shows
widespread, collaborative and pervasive industry marketing activities,
both transparent and covert, disparaging competing conventional
foods and agriculture practices. Further, these activities have
contributed to false and misleading consumer health and safety
perceptions influencing food purchase decisions. These findings
suggest a widespread organic and natural products industry pattern
of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and
advocacy related practices that have generated hundreds of billions
in revenues.
Finally, the findings strongly suggest that this multi-decade public
disinformation campaign has been conducted with the implied use
and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal in
direct contradiction to U.S. government stated policy for use of said
seal. USDA’s own research confirms that food safety and health risk
concerns associated with conventional foods combined with consumer
trust and confidence in the USDA Organic Seal are responsible
for the significant growth and corresponding profits enjoyed by
the organic industry since the seal’s launch in 2001. This use of the
USDA Organic Seal to convey superior food nutrition, safety or quality
attributes of organic over conventional foods contradicts both the
stated USDA intention for the National Organic Standards Program
and the extensive body of published academic research which show
conventional foods to be as safe and nutritious as higher priced organic
products.
As a result, the American taxpayer funded national organic program
is playing an ongoing role in misleading consumers into
spending billions of dollars in organic purchasing decisions based on
false and misleading health, safety and quality claims. Further, U.S.
government agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
which entrusted with the authority to enforce truthful, non-misleading
consumer protections against such abuses have either ignored
or become complicit in these marketing abuses.
These combined marketing and advocacy expenditures disparaging
conventional food health and safety by organic food marketers
can be estimated to be in the billions of dollars annually. However,
it would be interesting to see what would happen if a corresponding
product disparagement campaign by conventional food industry
competitors was run. It is likely any similar types of disparagement
marketing and use of false or misleading health claims to increase
conventional sales would result in condemning media headlines and
editorials, mass tort litigation and congressional hearings.

What I'm wondering is why people think GMO's are a new thing. If you ate corn or wheat anytime in the last 40 years, you've eaten a genetically modified food. Or are people just not counting the green revolution of the 1960's "officially GMO"?