How GMO lobbyists taught me we're winning

[JohnyCanuck]

How GMO lobbyists taught me we're winning
Over the course of 2015, I became convinced we're winning the GMO debate. And paradoxically, what convinced me was the experience of facing off against pro-GMO lobbyists in person and in print.
What did they say to convince me? Here's a quick guide.

snip

'Forward-looking statements' and broken promises

Our conclusion about the state of the GMO debate from studying the best arguments that the GMO lobby can muster is this. Insofar as reason and science are concerned, they've lost. All they have is golden rice and gene editing.

But they don't even have those. Both have thus far failed to live up to their promises and are kept afloat largely by wishful thinking and 'forward-looking statements', as Monsanto likes to call them.

In countries like the UK that have pro-GMO governments, forward-looking whimsy, fuelled by the promise of profits from intellectual property rights on GMOs, may be enough to keep the research funding pipeline flowing for a few years. But that pipeline is running counter to the mainstream. The global rejection of GM foods is growing.

The US government was the first to embrace GMOs – but American consumers are rejecting them in droves. In 2014, non-GMO foods and beverages generated $200 billion in sales and the total global market for non-GMO products is predicted to almost double by 2019. And Campbell's, the world's largest soup company, has just announced that it will label GMO ingredients in its products in the interests of transparency.

More: http://gmwatch.org/2016-articles/16645-how-gmo-lobbyists-taught-me-we-re-winning

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Mid West News Papers at one time

used to run comparatory test results of GMO and non GMO crops. Believe these were done on University Test Plots and Test Farms. Ironic as it may sound,non GMO was producing higher yields and the only difference was weed control. I guess Monsanto says butterfly's and birds don't count,but we sure as hell kill the weeds.

[roody]

2. But, but, but, ..........science!

[GreatGazoo]

3. Maybe they never expected to win a public debate over GMO crops.

GMO crops offer no benefits to the consumer -- potatoes that can be pre-cut with less bruising, longer shelf life, more pesticides.

Even if Monsanto thought they could win with that, McDonald's didn't. They rejected a GMO potato likely because they didn't want to be part of public debate about acrylamide or how long their food sits around before you buy it.

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

At a time when consumers can't afford to get sick and want fresh, healthier and better tasting ingredients, GMO crops offer just the opposite: longer shelf life, more pesticide residue and no consideration for taste.

GMO beets are now being rejected by major US food companies like Hershey and Unilever, and farmers are switching back to non-GMO sugar beets but seed stock for non-GMO is low:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sugar-gmo-insight-idUSKCN0SN0C720151029

It seems like part of the GMO marketing strategy was to contaminate the whole supply chain so that GMO and non-GMO could not be separated. That strategy has cost American farmers and taxpayers dearly, about $8 billion for FY2014.

https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2014/10/corn-farmers-say-syngentas-gmos-have-cost-them-chinese-market

Lastly, "gene editing" seems too precise a term for a process which involves gene expression. The presence of absence of one gene can turn off or on the expression of other genes in unpredictable ways. In the fields, GMO crop systems that pair seeds with RoundUp have led to the development of RoundUp Ready weeds. This makes the GMO creation process less like editing and more like billiards.