General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Problem with G.M.O. Labels
By Michael Specter
Americans are spending a lot of time worrying about what is in their food. This is understandable, given that so much of it is laden with sugar, highly processed flour, and saturated fat. In polls, an overwhelming majority of respondents say they want foods with genetically engineered ingredients to be labelled, and most people add that they would use those labels to avoid eating such foods. Dozens of bills have been put before the legislatures of more than half the states. Vermont and Connecticut have already enacted labelling laws, and many more are likely to follow.
Who, after all, wants to stand in the way of transparency? As John Mackey, of Whole Foods, the temple of organic consumption in America, has said, People have a right to know what is in their food. He is right, of course. Yet there is another, equally compelling truth to consider: the overwhelming scientific consensus, based on hundreds of independent studies, demonstrates that foods containing currently available G.M.O.s pose no greater health risk or environmental concern than any other foods.
~snip~
Since this kind of statement is often purposely taken out of context, let me be clear: genetically engineered products are not magic. They will not by themselves feed the poor or heal the sick. But the world needs crops that demand less from the environment and provide more nutrition, using less water, on the same amount of land. Without relying on progress and the advance of science, as we have for centuries, its simply not going to happen.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/problem-g-m-o-labels
GMOs save lives. Labeling GMOs will severely hinder their development, which will lead to great suffering for the poorest people. Organic food cannot feed everyone. GMOs can feed everyone. Like the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement is going to hurt many people.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Especially foods and drugs.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)It's not going to happen soon.
Kind of. The definition scientists use for GMOs is very different than definition anti-GMO people use. There is a difference between full discloser and warped discloser.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Editors Note: The New Yorker carried an article in its 25 August 2014 issue Seeds of Doubt by journalist Michael Specter, dedicated ostensibly to Vandana Shiva and the anti-GMO campaign, but is in truth a none-too-subtle ploy to discredit both in the service of the biotech industry. Specter had already published a book in 2009, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, purporting to defend science from its critics in denial of scientific progress (see a review of the book here: http://grist.org/article/2009-10-31-michael-specter-denialism-organic-gmo). This is her reply.
I am glad that the future of food is being discussed, and thought about, on farms, in homes, on TV, online and in magazines, especially of The New Yorkers caliber. The New Yorker has held its content and readership in high regard for so long. The challenge of feeding a growing population with the added obstacle of climate change is an important issue. Specters piece, however, is poor journalism. I wonder why a journalist who has been Bureau Chief in Moscow for The New York Times and Bureau Chief in New York for the Washington Post, and clearly is an experienced reporter, would submit such a misleading piece. Or why The New Yorker would allow it to be published as honest reporting, with so many fraudulent assertions and deliberate attempts to skew reality. Seeds of Doubt contains many lies and inaccuracies that range from the mundane (we never met in a café but in the lobby of my hotel where I had just arrived from India to attend a High Level Round Table for the post 2015 SDGs of the UN) to grave fallacies that affect peoples lives. The piece has now become fodder for the social media supporting the Biotech Industry. Could it be that rather than serious journalism, the article was intended as a means to strengthen the biotechnology industrys push to engage consumers? Although creative license is part of the art of writing, Michael Specter cleverly takes it to another level, by assuming a very clear position without spelling it out.
Specters piece starts with inaccurate information, by design.
Early this spring, the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva led an unusual pilgrimage across southern Europe. Beginning in Greece, with the international Pan-Hellenic Exchange of Local Seed Varieties Festival, which celebrated the virtues of traditional agriculture, Shiva and an entourage of followers crossed the Adriatic and travelled by bus up the boot of Italy, to Florence, where she spoke at the Seed, Food and Earth Democracy Festival. After a short planning meeting in Genoa, the caravan rolled on to the South of France, ending in Le Mas dAzil, just in time to celebrate International Days of the Seed.
On April 26th, 2014, at the Deutsches Theater Berlin, one of Germanys most renowned state theatres, I gave a keynote speech for a conference on the relation of democracy and war in times of scarce resources and climate change. From Berlin, I flew into Florence for a Seed Festival organized by the Government of the Region of Tuscany, Italy, The Botanical garden of Florence (the oldest in Europe), Banca Etica and Navdanya. I was joined by a caravan of seed savers, and we carried on to Le Mas dAzil where we had a conference of all the European seed movements.
Cha
(297,655 posts)meaculpa2011
(918 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Nature decided, it always decides, you can't fool Mother Nature....
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Your post is quite shocking to me.
You seem to be implying that, given the world's increased population, you think people should be allowed to perhaps starve in order to save the world so that ... I don't know, people like YOU can continue to eat what you like? Is it your belief that some impoverished person in Sri Lanka should have less right to existence than you? And isn't this an argument for eugenics of a sort? Is that a liberal position?
There are other reasons to oppose GMOs than safety (ecological ones, for instance, or even political ones) ... but it is also undeniable that rates of famine have decreased in the wake of biogentic engineering. So if we are going to rail against it, we really need to come up with some solution to address poverty, agriculture, and development. We can't small-organic farm our way out of this with precious heirloom tomatoes. So I'm fine if people want to argue against GMOs (though they will certainly be arguing against the vast consensus of scientific opinion, much like climate deniers) ... but if you do, you'd better come up with a better answer for addressing the issues of hunger and health than some sort of "let them eat nothing" attitude.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I mean really correct me if I'm wrong.
Think of the planet as a grocery store.
Do you just go in and take what you want???
kcr
(15,320 posts)Your post was shocking to read.
Cha
(297,655 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)campaign to take over the world. Damn them to hell.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)That is difficult to believe.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Gluey stuff Dole sells....
randome
(34,845 posts)I know truth doesn't often matter in debates like this but the processed sugars, preservatives and carcinogens that most people willingly put into their bodies is likely far more deleterious (toxic) to health than GMOs.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
So you think making up thing, and pushing crap hyperbole is ethical?
How?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)for once?
Who is this "WE" anyway? As if other countries can't grow food?
It's about corporate control. The idea that the world needs GMO Corn to survive is a huge load of bollocks.
Dennis Normile Sciencemag.org 20 August 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025427504
China has nearly reached self-sufficiency in producing rice using conventional varieties, so the ministry has decided there is no need to commercialize Bt rice in the near future, says Huang Jikun, director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy...
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/08/china-pulls-plug-genetically-modified-rice-and-corn
From the OP: "Yet there is another, equally compelling truth to consider: the overwhelming scientific consensus, based on hundreds of independent studies, demonstrates that foods containing currently available G.M.O.s pose no greater health risk or environmental concern than any other foods."
So why have labels at all? Just put "Contains Molecules that pose no greater health risk or environmental concern than any other food."
I won't be eating this corporate engineered "food". Good luck to those that do. But don't expect lots of sympathy if something goes wrong. 10 year studies (by corrupt corporations) are not "long term" no matter what anyone says. F* Monsanto.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)We have food labels so we can know the nutrition values and possible allergens in the food we eat.
There have been many independent studies as well.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)If GMOs are harmless, or even beneficial, make that argument. Because right now, you're opposing the right of consumers to know what's in their food. You're arguing that people knowing what's in their food will be bad for them. GMOs are already labelled here (UK) and it doesn't seem to have stopped people buying them. De-couple the argument about whether GMOs should be in food from the argument that people have a right to know what they're eating. Because right now, you're acting like you have something to hide.
rurallib
(62,448 posts)let the marketplace decide.
for full disclosure!
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)There are already ingredient lists on food labels, so most US adults can easily tell what is in their food.
This is a fair accusation because there is something to hide. There are so many anti-science people in the US that there is concern enough people will avoid GMOs, which are currently our best option for feeding everyone.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Just like "may contain traces of nuts" and "chemicals used here are known by the State of California to cause cancer" (the latter one I started to totally disregard when it started popping up in Disneyland).
freshwest
(53,661 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)I reserve the right to object to GMO foods because I don't want corporate dictaroship over our food supply.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...why would the industry object to labeling? Wear it proud!
Cha
(297,655 posts)them on DU.
alp227
(32,052 posts)labeling would do more harm than good.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that old "let the marketplace decide" thingy?
You are arguing to keep consumers ignorant of something they want to know, because according to you, they're ignorant anyway.
Which of course directly mirrors the attitude of the large corporations towards the general population.
What a load of crap.
alp227
(32,052 posts)You say I'm calling consumers ignorant? Sadly, yes I am.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)"The marketplace can't make a decision of something it's ignorant of."
Which is exactly why Big Ag wants to keep consumers ignorant of GMOs in their food -- because then consumers can't decide for themselves if they want to buy it.
More occultism, less transparency. Because surely that's the way to a brighter future.
alp227
(32,052 posts)The easy mainstream "Frankenfood" definition of GMO is not science at all. For a GMO-free world, go in a time machine.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)...we only used to hear that "elitist BS" nonsense from creationists.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...because creationists have always been noted for seeking out information, and for making sure the population is MORE informed, not LESS so.
Yet somehow, when people want to be informed about what they are taking into their own bodies in the form of food, the GMO promoters suddenly want to keep people less informed... because, you know, they're ignorant anyway.
Yep. A load of crap.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)by calling them elitists, as if to say people who might understand the issue better than them are somehow bad just by that virtue.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that it's YOU and the GMO supporters in this instance, who want to force people to remain ignorant of what's in the food they eat.
Boo, hiss.
TTFN
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I am a supporter of genetic modification, though not a "GMO supporter" as you're probably trying to imply.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)has successfully turned "GMO" into a charged word along the lines of "eats babies" based on utterly shoddy reasoning.
They completely shot their own labeling efforts in the foot, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Are you trying to advance the argument that if genetically modified crops are harmless then people will not try to avoid eating them as a serious proposition, or just looking for a cheap shot?
Whether or not genetically modified crops are dangerous and whether or not people would boycott them are questions with very little connection, because most people are not very good at assessing scientific evidence.
All sorts of harmful or even beneficial things get boycotted (MMR vaccine, for example).
Zorra
(27,670 posts)"Conventional techniques, often simply a random mixing of genomes, are not necessarily safer than engineering."
When propagandists use statements like this, that are intended to mislead, it's "Game Over". All dude is really saying here is, paraphrased,
"GMO's might be safe, we simply don't know if they are yet. But that doesn't meant that they aren't safe! We've put them into general use, and now all living things are our test subjects, and this general environmental testing will determine at some future date if GMO's are safe or not."
We already know that conventional techniques, such as hybridization within species using Mendel's same species natural inheritance process, have been tested over a long period of time, and proven to a very large degree to be safe. And there is no reason to believe they would not be safe. Mixing genomes within species is a heck of a lot different than altering the genome of a species by inserting genes of a different species into it's genome.
In contrast, GMO's are not time tested, and have not been proven to be safe.
snip--
Modifying one segment of DNA does not have a single direct result; instead it can cause a spiraling effect of unintended consequences
snip---
Genetic engineering is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on lab-created living organisms
(more)
http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-risks/
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
alp227
(32,052 posts)Anyone can write anything via the Wordpress template and make the website look credible. i'll take the scientific consensus over some self-published outfit any day.
I proudly eat GMO's and will continue to do so.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)And let people who really care about avoiding GM food limit themselves to eating food marked as such.
But we should not force people who do not want to to pander to their stupidity.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)labeled GMO free because that implies that their products are not.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Next.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)tooth and nail till Ted Kennedy finally pushed it through. (Although even he couldn't get them to label gluten, which the food industry especially didn't want labeled, because it is so pervasive.)
Labeling won't hurt the GMO producers. So much will be labeled that people will realize they've been eating it all along, and most people won't care.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)She has used the same techniques to fight vaccines, and other science based medicine, over the years.
The only thing that's interesting about her posts, is the consistency of the BS she pushes, regardless of the topic.
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)that so very many GMO advocates come off sounding like used car salesmen?
alp227
(32,052 posts)They're no different from flat earthers or creationist or climate change deniers.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)They were against labeling as well
alp227
(32,052 posts)plenty of evidence exists against tobacco. none against gmo's
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)the evidence finally was brought to light.
Maybe we should wait for decades until the harm is already done (and billions in profit are made).
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Oh wait, you seriously believe GMO corn and soy are saving lives and can feed everyone? I've got these five GMO beans to trade you...
Last I heard, GMO was NOT producing any greater yields than non GMO crops. Not that we actually need it. We're already capable of feeding the world, we just don't, because it's not cost-effective for those growing the food. Feeding people who can't pay for the food doesn't make the Cargills of the world line up to do good. Growing GMO vs non-GMO isn't going to do squat to feed any of the starving people who can't afford to buy the food, no matter what type it is.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)j/k
MH1
(17,600 posts)Totally and completely missing the fecking point.
alp227
(32,052 posts)When it comes to science, you can't pick and choose what parts of science you accept. I think it's hypocritical to condemn global warming denialism and creationism while spouting GMOphobia.
Archae
(46,345 posts)You really think organic foods isn't a multi-BILLION $$$ business?
Why are they lobbying so hard?
Simple. They already charge double or even triple grocery prices for their organic food, with a label, they can charge even more.
And don't say "They won't do that."
They will.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Why are THEY lobbying so hard...even here on DU?
Archae
(46,345 posts)To protect their cash cows. (Pun intended)
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)The market will decide that.
There is no ethical argument for not labeling, anymore than there was for not labeling ingredients on food labels -- which the producers fought tooth and nail for decades.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)Out just this past week: long but extremely comprehensive, fair, and well documented. Fans of Vandana Shiva will likely not be happy about it. There are dozens of paragraphs that could be quoted here. But really, it won't help those who are determined to maintain their ideas. For those more open-minded and inquisitive, read the whole thing, here:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)the usual talking points. Not comprehensive, fair or well documented in my book. Pro-industry. Much disrespect for the zealous Indian woman who can't possibly be taken seriously.
(And she wouldn't talk to him in India--wah wah)
But thanks for posting.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)you know the rest. It's great that you're such a free spirit that you feel free to disagree with the preponderance of the scientific community on this issue. When people do that with climate change, we call them ... well, you know the rest.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I'm familiar with the preponderance of the scientific community--quite familiar LOL. And I know that scientists are flawed humans like everybody else, and tied to the corporate money cow.
Science is not as objective as you like to pretend.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Like the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement is going to hurt many people.
Yeah, it's pretty easy to make baseless claims. Somewhat ironic when these claims come from people that act as if they're defenders of science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Or.... What?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)GMOs save lives. Labeling GMOs will severely hinder their development, which will lead to great suffering for the poorest people.
GMOs kill people. Growing GMOs will promote their development, which will lead to great suffering.
People are more than happy to make up and throw out silly unsupported claims (or overlook them, while attacking posts that mock them) if it supports their cause. Doing so while pretending to speak for science takes a certain amount of chutzpah.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)People aren't buying GMO corporate bullshit anymore.
Give them the truth, not your lies.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Once GMO's are labeled, people will realize how many of their ordinary foods are GMO's and they will go right on eating them.
But the few who do want to avoid them will be able to do, and researchers will be able to track their use in the general population.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)which we are allowed to have when it's convenient for the producer, but not when it's not.
Labeling is easy but they won't do it.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You can't have one without the other.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)to read are aware of the science, as far as we are allowed to understand it by the various invested sources. And consumers wish to make their own decisions. But consumers in the US are treated like babies who don't have the right to know what is in their food.
The fact that the industry fights consumers in a very obvious way--like not allowing labeling--leads one not to trust the industry. And the practices of Monsanto and others leads one not to trust the industry. They don't have a good track record regardless of "science."
"You can't have one without the other."
And you can't have trust without transparency.
roody
(10,849 posts)with tons and tons of poison? Oh......because Monsatan sells it!
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)I'm very concerned about the increase in pesticide use.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)----Roundup has been found in all of these crops. We are eating it.
And the scientific data for GMO consumption only runs for 90 days, after which the study animals are harvested. As anyone in the field knows, this is not enough.
WE are the test population for GMOs and glyphosates in humans. In the old days they would do invasive testing and post-mortems on prison populations but not any more. We are it.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)which I can't comment about because I haven't read it yet.
Posted September 2, 2014 by Vandana Shiva & filed under Economics, GMOs, Health & Disease, Soil Erosion & Contamination, Water Contaminaton & Loss.
Editors Note:
The New Yorker carried an article in its 25 August 2014 issue Seeds of Doubt by journalist Michael Specter, dedicated ostensibly to Vandana Shiva and the anti-GMO campaign, but is in truth a none-too-subtle ploy to discredit both in the service of the biotech industry. Specter had already published a book in 2009, Read more »
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You do know that "permaculture" is just propaganda nonsense, right?
Right?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And reading Shiva's lies carefully does not make them true.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)LOL - your schtick is wearing so thin, I'd suggest changing into a speedo pretty soon, amigo.