Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea

[ZombieHorde]

Scientific American
By The Editors

Snip...

We have been tinkering with our food's DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms' genomes, turning a scraggly grass into plump-kerneled corn, for example. For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health [see “The Truth about Genetically Modified Food”]. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not. (The GMO-fearing can seek out “100 Percent Organic” products, indicating that a food contains no genetically modified ingredients, among other requirements.)

Many people argue for GMO labels in the name of increased consumer choice. On the contrary, such labels have limited people's options. In 1997, a time of growing opposition to GMOs in Europe, the E.U. began to require them. By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand. Major food producers such as Nestlé followed suit. Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.

Americans who oppose genetically modified foods would celebrate a similar exclusion. Everyone else would pay a price. Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods—and for a questionable return. Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400. The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the “naturalness” of their products.

Snip...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea

Truly a controversial subject.

[ljm2002]

1. So the editors of Scientific American...

...object to giving American consumers simple, factual INFORMATION about the foods they eat?

That is sad.

Regardless of one's opinion of GMO foods, it is indefensible to withhold information from consumers. If GMO foods are so great, they will prevail. In the meantime, at least let people know what choices they are making.

Personally, I think it is a grave mistake to have introduced GMO foods on a widespread basis without informing the public first. I am NOT against GMO research, nor against producing GMO foods as long as people can have an informed choice in the matter. Same thing as organic vs. non-organic: consumers can choose whether they want to pay more (usually) to avoid pesticides and the use of chemical fertilizers.

Yes there is misinformation and hysteria out there, on both sides of the issue. Let us be trusted to make our choices. If labeling of GMO foods slows down their adoption, well so be it. What's the big deal with that anyway? What's the big push for GMO foods? We all know the answer to that one: corporate profits. That is the ONLY reason GMO foods are being pushed so hard.

[Recursion]

5. Only until something else becomes the new nutritional shiney

At least that's how I read it.

[ZombieHorde]

11. Do you think bananas should be labeled as GMOs? nt

[diwali 1103]

14. Not hybridized...

Splicing the genetic material of another species (including animals ) and altering the plant within itself are not synonymous, but I am sure you know all about it...

[ZombieHorde]

15. Yeah, but they all have the same name.

I think we need to have different names for different types of GMOs.

[diwali 1103]

16. Does Frankenfoods work for you?

[ZombieHorde]

23. As long as almost everyone agreed with the definition. nt

[laundry_queen]

20. Why do they all have the same name?

probably some marketing guy at Monsanto made it that way to try to confuse the argument.

[ljm2002]

18. I guess that would depend on the banana...

...whether it was genetically engineered or not.

Yes I am aware that we have been breeding plants for millenia, encouraging characteristics that we want. However, there are still some very relevant differences in the processes. For one thing, genetic engineering takes genes from other unrelated organisms and injects them into the plant. For another thing, some of the characteristics injected are worrisome on their own -- i.e., giving the plant the ability to produce its own insecticide.

Our ability to accelerate the process of genetic change is a double edged sword. Biological systems are just that, systems. Once we have introduced changes such as the widespread adoption of GMO corn and soy crops, we can't go back. Those changes are now part of the overall environment. Sure, we know these plants don't kill us outright. Good. OTOH, I'd like to avoid eating plants that produce their own insecticides. At least with regular vegetables and fruits, you can wash them and get rid of the insecticide residues that may remain on the plant. Not so with the GMO versions.

Also, the speed of change of these organisms is an issue in itself. People say "oh but the mechanism is the same at the genetic level". But we are introducing cross-species blending, and we have no idea what the long term effects may be. At a molecular level, rust and fire are the same thing, namely, oxidation. The big difference is the speed at which oxidation occurs. The result of that difference in speed of the reaction, is a huge difference in the resulting phenomena. You don't hear much about rust alarms...

No it's not a perfect illustration; however, the bottom line is this: we have rushed into commercializing the products of genetic engineering. As I said, I am not against the research, nor am I against ultimately using the research, as long as we control the process. However, allowing the corporations to push this stuff out there with minimal to nonexistent controls is hugely risky. We have this very focused approach to the life sciences, as if biology can be reduced to DNA. It is a reductionist approach. Of course DNA is the essential component of life; but the systems interactions of living things -- both at the level of individual organisms, and at the larger scale of interactions between organisms -- are subtle and still poorly understood. So I would prefer caution in this arena.

Of course it is already too late for caution. Oh well kiddies, we're all part of that great GMO food experiment now. Unless you are very, very careful about the foods you buy, chances are you already consume lots of GMO foods. And going forward, trying to tease out the effects of GMO foods vs. all of the other environmental factors will be next to impossible. Which is all to the good, as far as Monsanto et al are concerned.

[HeiressofBickworth]

2. As I've said many times before

it's all about the money (applies to nearly every subject). If consumers make a choice not to ingest GMO foods, the market-share of Monsano and other agri-culture businesses would drop. It's always about the money. They don't give a damn about consumer choices or anything else. They just don't want their bottom line negatively affected. Bastards.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

3. I always look for labels that I can trust,

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Seems legit.

[Lunacee_2013]

4. I still want food labels.

We should all have the right to know about the things we eat. Besides, if gmo foods are better, theyll still sell no matter what. Or does that whole "free market, sink-or-swim" thing only apply to the little people?

[Union Scribe]

6. I'm not against labeling but the article

raises good points about the disadvantages society brings upon itself based on irrational fears. It's the same issue whether we're talking about this or vaccines or a number of other things.

[Celefin]

7. From Scientific American no less. Sad.

Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.

Well, yes. The vast majority of consumers chose to steer clear of GMO. What happens to a non-agricultural product that the vast majority of consumers avoid for whatever reason? Exactly; it gets taken off the shelves. It's called the free market.


The rest of those four paragraphs is... ok, it's an editorial. But an editorial from Scientific American so badly biased is depressing.
And of all the dead horses to choose from they choose to flog the health aspects of GMO/conventional produce that always get dragged out when there's a GMO debate (because people get emotional over stuff they eat and stop looking at the bigger picture), thus neatly avoiding the much larger problems seen from an agro-ecological/sustainable development/genetic diversity/food security perspective.

*sigh*

[Cha]

8. It's pathetic.

I've worked in stores for many years in the USA.. that you would not find any GMOs.. we had products with a big slash through GMO.

Yes, they're natural food co-ops.. the last one was non profit in New York.

[ZombieHorde]

12. The line you quoted is interesting to me because Europe

probably has bananas and other foods have been GMOs for a long time now. I wonder if SA is changing the definition of GMO for that line.

[Celefin]

22. EU regulations require a GMO-label on every product containing more then 0.9% GMO

As of 2011, livestock feed was allowed to contain 0.1% GMO, as the previous 0% rule meant that large quantities of especially US-produced feed could not be marketed as cross-contamination was more or less unavoidable. The 0.1% limit was the result of US/EU negotiations initiated by the US in 2009. in the meantime it has been changed to 0.9%

Any food for human consumption in the EU has a 0.9% limit above which it has to be labeled as GMO-containing although large food corporations are lobbying intensely to water down this rule.

The European Court set a precedent for the 0% rule in 2011 in the so-called 'Honey-Ruling'. The court ruled that the sale of unlabeled honey that contains traces of pollen from GMO-maize is illegal.

Currently there are 138 GMOs with a permit for import and use and 1 GMO (a non-food potato) with permit for agricultural production within the EU. Because of the labeling-requirement, the actual use of these permits is quite limited.

If for example a Banana in a supermarket in the EU was found to be a GMO it would have to be labeled accordingly and as such next to impossible to sell.

[ZombieHorde]

24. That is interesting information.

Unless the banana is filled with seeds, it is GMO.

[killbotfactory]

27. In what way are modern bananas GMOs? nt

[ZombieHorde]

30. They have been genetically modified to not be filled with seeds.

This was done through cross breeding, and other "natural" techniques, as opposed to splicing animal genes into the fruit.

[newfie11]

9. I tend to not want frog genes in my oranges

Leave things the was they were pre Monsanto.

[eridani]

10. Nutrition isn't the only issue

What if you object to fuckers like Monsanto attempting to establish control over farmers and our food supply? One of their profit centers is looking for patented genes in small fry farmers' fields (where they inevitably escape to) and suing the shit out of them.

[hedgehog]

13. The other downside to GMOs is the rush to monoculture -

when every field is planted with the same seeds, the entire crop is at risk!

[ZombieHorde]

31. That is a good point, in my opinion. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

17. I am pro-label. n/t

[OnionPatch]

19. Not buying it. We have a right to know.

They have no right to assume that consumers are un-informed, frightened idiots. Those I know who are against GMOs cite valid reasons for wanting to avoid them. I think the real fear probably resides with the other side. They're terrified that people will reject their products and choose real food and a healthy environment.

BTW, There's a difference between hybridizing similar plants, as has been done for centuries, and splicing genes into them from completely different species.

[haele]

21. Perhaps there should be a difference between "breeding" GMOs and "laboratory" GMOs

Most people have no problems with breeding one strain of vegetable or fruit X to another strain in the same fruit or vegetable family to make a hybrid that might be hardier or yield more or have a shorter growing season. It doesn't create a radical change in the fruit or vegetable and in most cases creates something that could potentially be replicated in nature, all beit a few centuries down the road. Yes, that's still a form of genetically modifying a food item, but it's not a radical change to the natural order of things and doesn't create significant metabolic reactions in the food chain or in the internal "gut" systems of those within the food chain.

What many of us do have an issue with is taking a seed or other plant or animal and pumping it full of proteins, virus, or chemicals that are significantly foreign to its natural state to alter it to be resistant to chemical poisoning or cause it to be poisonous to it's natural predators.

There's a reason why poisonous plants are poisonous, why we don't eat the leaves of the rhubarb or the tomato, or the "tomatoes" from the belladonna plant (even though it's a cousin of the tomato). They do nasty things to our system - they're meant to ward off predators from the parts of the plant that are don't have those chemicals in them and are good to eat. Lots of people in the past got very sick and died to teach us which plants or parts of plants are healthy, and which weren't - and now, for convenience, businesses want to genetically modify those plants and plant parts so that they are also now poisonous or have an additional chemical presence in its current evolutionary form?

Poison is poison, even if the poison is "genetically targeted" to specific genes that supposedly only certain life forms have?
Plants and genetic codes evolve (witness bacteria and virus) - so the problem many people have is in adding a chemical that wouldn't naturally appear in that plant will affect the nutritional and health profiles of that plant within several generations.

Having done some research in herbal medicine as an alternative, I liken this to the Borage herb, introduced into the US back in the 17th century. If grown in certain environmental situations (specifically a hot, damp climate with the type of soil common to the Southeast US), it becomes toxic and has been linked to liver failure if a moderate occasional amount has been ingested; yet grow in a cooler, drier climate just a hundred miles north in an environment similar to the European soil and climate it evolved from, it can be normally used fairly regularly as a mildly medicinal herb or as part of a salad with no discernible affects to the liver.

Who is to say what Monsanto's Round-up Ready(tm) food-grade Soy Beans will evolve to in 20 years, even if they do force farmers not to save seed for the next crop? Are they continuing to test existing seed quality and genetics after the patent is tested and approved? Do they test it on all soil conditions to ensure there is no adverse reaction to the chemical they have introduced to their seed - in, say, a more alkaline soil, or one that has more nitrogen, manganese, potassium, or lime?

It may sound hysterically anti-science, but there is a history of natural occurances behind this concern on what genetic modifications can result in.

At least with the GMO by breeding, nature can usually take care of the problems - eventually. GMO by laboratory? I'm not so sure, especially if there is profit to be made.

Haele

[ZombieHorde]

25. Good post. nt

[killbotfactory]

26. Jesus christ GMO is not the same as selective breeding

We could never selectively breed certain traits in fish with tomatoes.

GMO's do NOT increase diversity, they destroy it. The legal tactics of Monsanto against small farmers should clue one in to that.

Nevermind giving companies like Monsanto a patent on widely used staple crops.

[Vincardog]

29. genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected

result. I call Bull$hit. GMOs have never been shown to produce ANY positive change.

It is not the job of the US government to show that foods are not allergenic, it is the job of the producer of the Frankenfood to prove that they are SAFE.

Roundup-ready crops are transferring their roundup resistance to weeds.
How is that for an unexpected result?