GMO foods don't need special label, American Medical Assn. says

[ag_dude]

Source: LA Times

Should foods containing genetically modified ingredients be specially labeled as such? The American Medical Assn. doesn’t think so, according to a policy statement adopted Tuesday at its annual meeting in Chicago.

The 500-ish-word statement, which is not yet up at the medical association's website, says among other things that as of this month, “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.”

Federal oversight in agriculture, the statement also says, “should continue to be science-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant or animal, its intended use, and the environment into which it is to be introduced, not by the method used to produce it, in order to facilitate comprehensive, efficient regulatory review of new bioengineered crops and foods.”

In other words, it’s less important whether a plant or animal was altered by conventional breeding or genetic engineering, say, than what the potential for a problem might be.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-gmo-foods-medical-association-20120620,0,7489455.story

[Voice for Peace]

1. this is absurd, there's no good reason not to label the gmo foods

especially if they are so proud of how wonderful they are.

They should ADVERTISE it!!
Charge MORE for it!!

[ag_dude]

2. What's your "scientific justification for special labeling"?

[harun]

4. What's your "scientific justification for freedom"?

[ag_dude]

8. Your question doesn't make any sense.

You can eat what you want, I'm not telling you to do anything. Who said you should be required to buy food that you don't want to buy?

If you want to know for a fact that your food is not genetically modified, you can locally source or you can buy food that is labeled as such. The people demanding that food be labeled are the ones trying to foce their opinion on somebody else.

I answered your question, now you answer mine...What's your "scientific justification for special labeling"?

[harun]

12. Neither does yours.

Back when they were doing nuclear testing in Nevada one could have made the same argument. There is no scientific evidence that testing nukes in Nevada has any ill effects on anyone anywhere. Well, people didn't feel all the data was in. Same with GMO's. People just want the information.

Plenty of countries have outright banned GMO's. Here in the U.S. the corporate media is so corrupt we can't even ask the question on if GMO's should be banned or not. We can't even get the information put on a label. If big ag is so proud of their GMO creations why don't they label them as such and market them? Sing it from the rooftops how man has triumphed over natures genome.

[ag_dude]

14. If big ag is so proud of their GMO creations why don't they label them as such and market them?

They can if they want.

You are the one that brought up freedom, why are you trying to force them to label it when they already have that option?

You are pulling up all the strawmen/red herrings you can think of. Nuclear testing, corporate media, "big ag", why not just mention the boogey man?

[what_is_freedom]

144. You mention freedom, but do you have a sound concept of it?

@ag_dude

You noted that your interlocutor brought up freedom. Then, you went on to say "why are you trying to force them to label it, when they already have that option?"

In the most moronic definition of freedom possible, you are correct. Now, I'll propose an alternate version of freedom for you to mull over. This is about the freedom of the consumer to access information about what he is buying. Not the freedom of corporations to deceive consumers.

This is the open-source view pioneered by Richard Stallman Originally applied to software, this view holds that the user should have the privilege of reading the source code of any software. This is the idea of free information. Information should not be hidden from consumers because it results in larger/easier profit for big ag. If I can read and compile my own source code, I can know whether a program will harm my computer or spy on me. This idea should definitely extend to food.

When there is a potential for harm hidden in the proprietary details of a consumer good, the consumer should have a right to know. This should be true regardless of whether some bureaucrats think so or not. I should be able to read the label of my food and make an informed decision based on absolute facts of how it was manufactured and what it contains on whether I want to eat it. A cowardly company should not be able to keep secrets about these things for fear of competition. It just proves they can't make a good product without telling us white lies.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

152. It seems that non-GMO producers have a waiting market

Freedom is those producers capitalizing on that opportunity by labeling their products "No GMO."

When there is a potential for harm hidden in the proprietary details of a consumer good...

Except the AMA apparently doesn't see such a potential. To force someone -- anyone -- to do something because someone somewhere has misgivings would make for an unliveable society. If there is potential for significant harm than I would not advocate for mere labeling as much as I would advocate for outright denial of permission to sell.

[Voice for Peace]

169. as many countries have. A chance in hell we can ban it here in US? Labeling is a compromise

"If there is potential for significant harm than I would not advocate for mere labeling as much as I would advocate for outright denial of permission to sell."

[HuckleB]

175. Labeling is not a compromise.

It is an attempt by some corporations to make higher profits by using the government to fear-monger the products of other corporations.

It's quite disturbing, and the poor will pay for it the most.

[Voice for Peace]

170. thanks for this post.

"In the most moronic definition of freedom possible, you are correct. Now, I'll propose an alternate version of freedom for you to mull over. This is about the freedom of the consumer to access information about what he is buying. Not the freedom of corporations to deceive consumers. "

"What is freedom?"

Outstanding question. When I was in 8th grade I had a wonderful
teacher who allowed this question to be explored in open discussion.
Such a subject!! What a sweet memory.

It was the only time I can recall open discussion being allowed, much
less encouraged, in all those years of school. Life changing for me.

[ag_dude]

15. Yet again - What's your "scientific justification for special labeling"?

[harun]

25. Public Health

But I don't need scientific justification for anything. Why would you assume one would?

But there is plenty:

http://www.naturalnews.com/025001.html

Plenty of references at the bottom of that article but I doubt you are actually asking for real justification.

[ag_dude]

30. Which of those studies do you think applies directly to public health?

Or did you just google that and post the link without actually looking at it.

[proverbialwisdom]

47. The Indiana State Medical Association and the Illinois State Medical Society urge labeling (2012).

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/AMA_please_label_gmos/

[img][/img]

This weekend the American Medical Association will consider an important resolution to call for the support of GMO labeling. The AMA is the nation's largest and most respected association of doctors and medical students and their support of labeling genetically engineered foods will go a long way in protecting the health and rights of their patients.

The Indiana State Medical Association and the Illinois State Medical Society have both introduced resolutions to the American Medical Association supporting Federal legislation and/or regulations to require labeling of food with genetically engineered ingredients and they need your support today


A copy of this petition will be delivered to Dr. Roger Brown, Director of Office of AMA House of Delegate Affairs, on behalf of the American Medical Association:

Adopt Resolution 509-A-11 in lieu of the Council Report on GMO labeling

Dear Doctors and Delegates of the American Medical Association,

I am writing to urge the American Medical Association House of Delegates to Adopt Resolution 509-A-11 in lieu of the Council Report on GMO labeling. Medical doctors have a vital role to play in guaranteeing that the rights and health of their patients are taken seriously and by passing a resolution to label GMOs, the AMA would be taking that important step.

A simple label on foods could help doctors keep track of important data related to the rise of food allergies and the novel proteins found in genetically engineered foods. Without labeling, there is no way to track potential adverse consequences of eating genetically engineered food.

Americans have a basic right to know what's in their food and how it's produced. Already nearly 50 countries recognize their citizens' basic right to label genetically engineered foods in order to give them vital information about the food they are eating. While the long-term health effects of consuming genetically engineered food are unknown, there is global agreement that genetically engineered foods are different from traditionally bred crops.

In 2011, the United Nations food safety standards organization adopted guidelines recommending all genetically engineered foods go through a safety assessment prior to approval, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require health studies before the products are approved for human consumption.

In an effort to join growing international consensus regarding the potential for GMOs to introduce increased toxins and allergies in our food supply, I urge the American Medical Association to support GMO labeling to better inform consumers about the food they are buying and feeding their families.

Sincerely,

[ZombieHorde]

142. I think that is an interesting argument. nt

[proverbialwisdom]

51. See genetically engineered bovine growth hormone fiasco, rBGH (breast/prostate cancer rates go up).

The American Public Health Association came out strongly against rBGH and in favor of the right to demand labeling.

http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1379

[img][/img]

AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION

Policy Statement Database

Opposition to the Use of Hormone Growth Promoters in Beef and Dairy Cattle Production

Policy Date: 11/10/2009
Policy Number: 20098

There is clear evidence that hormones originating outside the body can interfere with our own hormone function.1 For example, estrogen is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a group 1 human carcinogen.2 In 1971, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned use in pregnant women of diethylstilbestrol or DES (the first synthetic hormone) after scientific studies showed higher cancer risks in their daughters.3–5 These “DES daughters,” are at least 40 times more likely than the general population to develop clear cell adenocarcinoma, a rare kind of vaginal and cervical cancer, in their teens or twenties.6 Experience with DES constitutes some of the earliest and most compelling human evidence that disruption of the human endocrine system occurs from exogenous hormone exposure.

In its first scientific statement issued in June 2009, the Endocrine Society, citing the Precautionary Principle,7 determined that “Results from animal models, human clinical observations, and epidemiological studies converge to implicate EDCs [endocrine disrupting chemicals] as a significant concern to public health.”8, p293 The statement echoes the findings of a 1996 article in American Academy of Pediatrics News that “scientific knowledge about [EDCs’] effects on humans . . . appears sufficient to justify societal approaches to limiting population exposures.”5

Fetuses, infants, and children are thought to be more vulnerable to the hormone-disrupting effects of exogenous hormones and hormone-like chemicals. A recent consensus conference reviewed the robust and growing body of science that exposure to environmental chemicals, especially in utero, can disrupt normal hormone function and alter child development, as well as alter fetal programming, adding to the risks for hormone-related cancer and other chronic diseases later in life.9 Today, many hormone-related chronic diseases are common or on the rise, including breast and prostate cancer,9–12 thyroid disease,13–15 obesity and diabetes,9,16–19 endometriosis,20 uterine fibroids,21 and infertility.22,23 Early-stage breast development in young girls appears to be occurring at younger ages today compared with 1991, as indicated by a recent study in Pediatrics.24

<...>

In February 2007, Monsanto appealed unsuccessfully to the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission to restrict the labeling of rbGH-free milk. Since then, policymakers in 8 states have attempted to ban or restrict the labeling of rbGH-free dairy products through bills or administrative rules. All failed except in Ohio, where the proposed rules are being challenged in court.

Medical authorities and foreign governments have documented scientific public health concerns associated with rbGH use. As long as the FDA allows rbGH to remain on the market, consumers should have the right to know if it is present or absent in dairy products they consume. This right to know about hazardous or controversial substances has been defended in APHA Policy 2002-5.65

<...>

Precautionary Approach to Hormone Growth Promoters in Beef and Dairy Cattle Production
Consistent with its explicit endorsement of the Precautionary Principle, APHA is therefore opposed to the use of hormone growth promoters in beef and dairy cattle production, and strongly recommends the following actions:

3. Companies producing and retailers offering products produced without rbGH or other hormones should retain the right to label such products in an easily readable and understandable fashion so that consumers in the free marketplace can be equipped to make an informed choice about which brands they buy.

RECOMMENDED: 65 references.

[proverbialwisdom]

53. More context.

http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/assets/pdfs/apha-opposes-rbgh-press.pdf

...APHA is the oldest and largest association of public health professionals in the world, representing 50,000 professionals nationwide. APHA’s resolution follows an official position statement released last year by the American Nurses Association opposing rBGH. The past president of the American Medical Association (AMA) last year asked all AMA members to serve only rBGH-free milk in hospitals.

<...>

[proverbialwisdom]

54. The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine Calls For Moratorium On GM Foods (2009).

http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html

Press Advisory
May 19, 2009

The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine Calls For Immediate Moratorium On Genetically Modified Foods

Wichita, KS - The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health."

The AAEM calls for:

• A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.

• Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods.

• Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients' disease processes.

• More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM.

"Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions," said Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM. "The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil."

The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html .

AAEM is an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health. More information is available at http://www.aaemonline.org/ .

About AAEM The American Academy of Environmental Medicine was founded in 1965, and is an international association of physicians and other professionals interested in the clinical aspects of humans and their environment. The Academy is interested in expanding the knowledge of interactions between human individuals and their environment, as these may be demonstrated to be reflected in their total health. The AAEM provides research and education in the recognition, treatment and prevention of illnesses induced by exposures to biological and chemical agents encountered in air, food and water.

[arikara]

80. Who cares?

Just you, Monsanto and the bought and paid for politicians who approved it in the first place. Our wonderful governments did not require proper testing before the crap was thrust onto the market and into people's grocery carts. Millions want it labelled and why not? I suspect the motives of anyone against labeling... the only reason to be against it is because sales will plummet on the creepy crap if it was labelled as such. Most of us don't care about that.

[FlaGranny]

141. I don't know what his justification is.

But my question is what happens if peanut or shellfish genes are added to another edible plant, like corn or cabbage, or whatever. What if a person who eats that corn or cabbage is violently allergic to peanuts or shellfish? Could he have a bad reaction? How would he know that the peanut or shellfish gene was in the product he was eating? Has this problem been thoroughly researched?

[LaurenG]

23. Crock and a lot of it.

"people demanding that food be labeled are the ones trying to force their opinion on somebody else." Really? And black is white and up is down - please tell monsanto to f themselves for me.

[ag_dude]

27. Oh, the Monsanto boogey man too.

And people wonder what potential downside there is to GMO labeling. Nope, no irrational fear here.

How is the proposed California law not forcing your opinion on somebody else?

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO LABLE FOOD.

Producers already have the choice.

[LanternWaste]

37. One of Upton Sinclair's antagonists in The Jungle argued that very thing...

One of Upton Sinclair's antagonists in The Jungle argued that very thing...

[LaurenG]

44. Yeah so they should just label it.

Why in the hell is this a problem to start with? Some people don't want to eat GMO - including the law abiding citizens in England where some GMO products are not allowed in their country to start with.

I am wlling to bet that most Americans don't read the label on foods but they should always have the ability to know what they are ingesting whether the gov thinks there is a problem or not.

Go ag_dude get your propaganda on!

[BanzaiBonnie]

56. Yes, you sound like the right wing machine that you probably represent

It's the same argument that we hear surrounding freedom of religion. Always pull out the "freedom" card and say that someone is FORCING their opinion on someone.

The producers argued just as forcefully against the package labeling we have now. I remember how much money the big corps put into that. And if they didn't label, I'd not know that the butane related substance in the Peanut Butter Cup candy bar was what made me sick. I'll know to never eat another one. That's freedom of choice.

I request that we federally require labeling of GMO foods now.

And if you saw the innards of the pigs fed GMO corn and non-Gmo corn, side by side, you'd have no curiosity about that? The small farmers know what's up. They're seeing it up close and personal.

[stockholmer]

82. It IS illegal to label food as not containing GMO, you really dont know what you are talking about

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/

Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,’ biotech spokesman says

That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.
In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.”

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms. It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

snip

--------------------------------------------------------

Genetically Modified Foods: More Reason to Avoid Them; Why They Threaten Organic Agriculture

http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-modified-food-more-reason-to-avoid-them-and-why-they-threaten-organic-agriculture/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

FDA's new regulations won't allow non-GMO, GMO-free label

New regulations propose strict guidelines for voluntary labeling of non-GMO productsIn mid-January, the US Food and Drug Administration announced new regulations requiring biotechnology companies to consult with the FDA at least 120 days before marketing new GM foods. Previously, such consultations were voluntary. Biotech companies must provide health safety data about the new GM foods to the FDA, and the agency said it would make this information available on the Internet.

While biotechnology and food industry representatives praised the new regulations, consumer and environmental groups criticized them, saying they didn't go far enough, particularly in terms of labeling GM foods. The FDA rejected consumer demands for labeling.


Notable for companies wanting to advertise products as non-genetically modified is the fact that the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible. Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.

Recently, a U.S.-European biotechnology committee had recommended that the U.S. strengthen regulations on GM foods, including labeling. The Consumers Federation of America had also issued a report criticizing the current U.S. regulations. Editorials calling for labeling GM foods have appeared in major U.S. newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and Des Moines Register in the past year.


Comment on the FDA's new regulations

The FDA's new regulations are open to public comment. The FDA will take comments on the premarket review until April 3, 2001 and the labeling guidelines until March 19. To comment on the new regulations, visit http://www.fda.gov. Scroll down the page to the section titled, "Let us hear from you," then click on the heading "Tell us your views on FDA's proposed regulations." The regulations are found in the following FDA dockets:
•Docket No. 00N-1396, CFSAN 74. "Premarket Notice Concerning Bioengineered Foods."
•Docket No. 00D-1598, CFSAN 123. "Draft Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Availability."

[stockholmer]

83. see my posts in this thread, you are dead wrong on all accounts so far

And ffs, the deputy head in charge of the US FDA Food Safety division(appointed by Obama) is an ex Monsanto Vice President.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/21/former-monsanto-exec-appointed-to-the-head-of-the-f-d-a/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

-------------------------------------------------------

[xxqqqzme]

154. And they chose NOT to

label. The amounts of money being poured into the CA initiative, by big ag, is mind boggling. They do not want this to pass because they know their sales will plummet. This is a huge consumer market (why do you think the auto industry opposed CA CAFE regs). We will be heard!

[HuckleB]

195. Exactly.

[A Simple Game]

68. "Who said you should be required to buy food that you don't want to buy?"

That would be you, haven't you paid attention to what you are writing? You are the one advocating for non-disclosure.

"you can locally source or you can buy food that is labeled as such."

You're kidding right? Have you read anything that you have written?

No one needs "scientific justification" for labeling, but how about this. As with any new process or product, there can be very many variables, known and unknown, and many known and unknown properties, would you agree? How can anyone track these variables with any hope of correlating cause and affect if they don't even know they are Guinea pigs? If I am part of a scientific experiment, and that is what this is, I would like to know about it and have the option to opt out.

[A Simple Game]

66. "scientific justification for special labeling"?

Would anyone advocating for science want to limit a consumers access to information?

Not that there need be any scientific justification for being a consumer. A consumer can purchase on a whim. Do you think limiting available information helps consumers make good decisions? Why would it be "special labeling" if all food were labeled as GM or non-GM? Is it "special labeling" to tell me if my fish is farm raised in China, or wild caught in Canada. And yes that one does make a difference to me!

If GM food is good for you, it would do no harm to let people know what benefits they are getting from it. I can remember when food companies would brag about the advancements they made, and how much better it was, not try to hide what they did.


"scientific justification for special labeling"? Looks to me to be a diversionary justification to change the subject.

[DeSwiss]

71. Start here:

[PostCapitalist]

74. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2011/05/10/new-pathogen-livestock-reproductive-problems-crop-failure-monsantos-roundup-ready%C2%AE-crops-take-action/
http://www.calciumproducts.com/dealer_resources/Huber.pdf

You can start there and continue to the effects of Roundup on Human and Animal Health since the main GMO seems to be
roundup ready crops. Work from there to Brazil and India. Superweeds that are resistant to roundup. Farmers in India promised
increased yields with less water for GMO cotton that proved to take more water leading to crop failures.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

Of course no one made those silly Indians commit suicide.

[Scootaloo]

77. If I don't want to buy GMO foods, I should have the choice

If I want to buy a product that doesn't have anchovies in it, I can check the mandated list of ingredients.
If I want to buy a product made in the United States, I look for them mandated labeling proclaiming its place of origin.
If I want to buy kosher or halal, I look for the little kosher stamp that comes on such foods.
If I want to buy food that's low in sodium, I look at the mandated nutrition label.

The justification for special labeling is consumer interest. "Produced from genetically modified organisms." How hard is that?

[stockholmer]

81. Monsanto GMO's linked to organ failure + GMO causes sterility in lab animals in 3 generations + more

http://www.newslook.com/videos/179678-monsanto-gmos-linked-to-organ-failure

FDA won't allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/215318-FDA-won-t-allow-food-to-be-labeled-free-of-genetic-modification

in the USA, it is ILLEGAL to label any food as not containing GMO

Fears grow as study shows genetically modified crops 'can cause liver and kidney damage

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/Fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1346840020070313

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.backpacker.com/monsanto_gmo_corn_toxic/blogs/green_scene/1585

Choose Your Tortillas Wisely - Monsanto GMO corn linked to organ failure

It's already January 15th,and I have yet to write a depressing blog entry about how the environment is collapsing around us or how corporate America is screwing the public. Hope you enjoyed your vacation... here we go.

International Journal of Biological Sciences just released a study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, and found that three varieties of Monsanto GMO corn that had been approved for human consumption in the US and Europe in fact cause organ damage in rats, and could in humans too. You'll be shocked to note (or maybe not) that the original study that proclaimed the corn safe for dinner was conducted by Monsanto after a full 90-days of evaluation. I'm neither a doctor nor am I a scientific researcher, but I spend more time 90-days testing boots before they get reviewed in Backpacker. It seems like an insufficient amount of time to test a possible human toxin.

Incredibly, an independent study just found that the three varieties of corn Monsanto claimed safe in fact cause kidney and liver problems in rats (the kidneys and liver are the two primary organs that clean toxins from the body). But wait, that's not all. The corn was also toxic to rats' heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells. The first studies were done on rats, but suggest that there could be serious problems for humans who consume this corn whether straight up or in any of the thousands of food products that contain corn syrup.
According to the Huffington Post, Monsanto insists the independent study is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products." The study author replied on the Food Freedom blog, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

---------------------------------------------------------------


Seeds of Deception

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2108022965800005689#

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

GMO's Making American Fat?

part 1

part 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cloning animals for food is also bad news:

BBC: Cattle 'cloned from dead animals'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10951108

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths--a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)--so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

snip

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study Confirms Genetically Modified Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Austrian-Government-Study-by-Institute-for-Resp-081115-414.html

(Los Angeles, CA.) - A long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.

Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.

In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Perfect Storm of GMOs, Chemicals, and Cancer

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/a-perfect-storm-of-gmos-chemicals-and-cancer/

Several books, including Seeds of Destruction and Corrupt to the Core, along with the film, The Idiot Cycle, lay out the framework for, and evidence of, a concerted effort to sicken and then treat humanity, while earning obscene profits. When we factor in other recent actions taken by transnational corporations and lawmakers, the conspiracy adopts a more ominous tone.

Authors William Engdahl and Shiv Chopra appear in Emmanuelle Schick Garcia’s powerful film, The Idiot Cycle: What you aren’t being told about cancer. Both writers provide detailed evidence of a corporate-government conspiracy to adulterate the food and water supply with dangerous substances linked to a host of illnesses. The Case Against Fluoride, a book using hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, provides more evidence. In David Gumpert’s Raw Milk Revolution, we get a peek at the US government’s war on the natural dairy industry.

Looking at six companies, Dow Chemical, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Astrazeneca (Syngenta), and Monsanto, Idiot Cycle exposes corporate-government collusion in the release of carcinogenic chemicals, but also reveals how some of the same chemical companies then profit from treating cancer. It’s a cycle only an idiot would tolerate. Going further, much of the film then addresses genetically modified food and its potentially disastrous effect on health and the environment.

snip

------------------------------------------------------------


The World According to Monsanto

------------------------------------------------------------


Greenpeace International on GMO Dangers

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ge-threat-to-fertility-11112008



Guardian UK Health: Soya-based foods may harm male fertility, say scientists

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jul/24/foodtech.medicalresearch

------------------------------------------------------------

[Eljo_Don]

93. Why?

When you breed the good old way you don't introduce new genes. But when you alter the DNA so that the plants produce pest control substances, baby you eat that sh** and you will be in trouble.

[LanternWaste]

153. I don't think that consumer choice requires a scientific justification...

I don't think that consumer choice via the mechanism of a simple truth requires a scientific justification...

[Voice for Peace]

167. Surely this isn't a serious question.

It has something to do with choice, if that helps.

[yellowcanine]

125. Actually there is a good reason not to label because nearly all processed foods do contain GMO

And companies have a hard time telling which contains GMO and which doesn't because commodities are not segregated by GMO and non-GMO in storage and transporting.

So if they are required to label they will just label everything as "may contain GMO"

[proverbialwisdom]

127. Yeah, everybody's so healthy that we should just accept the status quo.

Or maybe you don't think that food is a major influence on health? Too much integrative medicine, alternative medicine or woo-woo in that claim? Fortunately, the AMA disagrees. You will note posts #47, 51, 53, 54 and especially 67.

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-gmo-foods-medical-association-20120620,0,7489455.story

By Rosie Mestel, Los Angeles Times / For the Booster Shots blog

June 21, 2012, 6:00 a.m.

<...>

And more from Harris: “Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public. We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

[yellowcanine]

130. Please don't make assumptions about what I think or don't think.

Not a fair debating technique. If I said it you can try to refute it but please don't make arguments based on what you think I might think. Also, make your arguments if you can and use the links to back up the argument. I am not going to click around to figure out what is you are trying to say.

[Voice for Peace]

128. even that might be helpful for many people

just to bring the existence of GMO into their awareness.

[yellowcanine]

131. Few people pay much attention to food labels so I don't think so.

[Voice for Peace]

168. ok, well that is a fair response. It would eat into their profits.

They'd have to do a lot of extra work to separate out the
gmo from the non gmo.

Like the local cooperatives do, and most healthy food
businesses, and we pay for it because it matters.

[2pooped2pop]

151. is this the food genetically modified with toxins?

Where the weedkiller has been put into the seed? It kills bugs that eat it, animals that eat it, and Monsanto won't put it in their own cafeterias, but it's good for us?

Or is this something else?

[Voice for Peace]

156. that's the one

I don't know why but I read your name as "too pooped to scoop"
(as in, very tired, out on a walk with dawg, too pooped to scoop.)

[2pooped2pop]

157. lol on too pooped to scoop

MMMMMMM, can we have some, re: gm rat poison food.

[Voice for Peace]

158. seriously rat poison (you probably know already, it made the rats very sick.)

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted.

As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others.

We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

[2pooped2pop]

159. actually, no I didn't know about the rats

thanks for the update.

[HuckleB]

164. Do you still believe in all those fantasies?

I sure hope not.

[2pooped2pop]

171. no trust for Monsanto

at all. Even if it is not killing the rats, I am pretty sure it is fucking with humans and bees.

[HuckleB]

173. Monsanto?

What does that have to do with the technology?

[2pooped2pop]

183. I must be missing your point.

The thread is a couple of years old but I thought it was about the bullshit toxic shit that Monsanto adds to our food. You know, the food that they won't allow in their cafeterias. The food that is poisoning the bee's.

The technology? Sometimes when you take parts out that was originally in, and add new structures that weren't originally in, you destroy the natural way it works with our bodies and create crap that attaches to receptors that was not meant to attach. Sometimes it fucks things up.

[HuckleB]

186. Wow! You just posted several of the usual anti-GMO lies.

How are GMOs poisoning the bees? Why do you believe the anti-GMO lie about Monsanto's cafeteria? Why do you think the word toxic has any meaning at all when you're talking about several different plants? Why do you think that natural genes are not natural?

WOW!

PS: http://hawaiifarmersdaughter.com/2014/04/08/end-the-gmo-paranoia-knowledge-is-the-key-to-fighting-fear/

[2pooped2pop]

187. u work for monsanto?

yep. I believe they are poisoning us. I guess I believe because I am anti-GMO.

big corps-all about the money. They don't care who dies for them to get it. Monsanto big corp? yep

[HuckleB]

188. And now the shill gambit.

The evidence base does not support your beliefs. You are pushing fictions aimed at creating unjustified fear.

That is wrong.

[2pooped2pop]

189. well, I'm not really pushing anything

u dug up a post that is 2 years old that I was pretty much done with then. Done with it now too.

[HuckleB]

190. Well, it's interesting that you will repeat dishonest propaganda, but...

... aren't curious enough to look into the matter. This is par for the course for the anti-GMO crowd.

[2pooped2pop]

191. whatever

go away now and quit harassing me. I do find it interesting that you would dig up a post that is two years old to try to convince me to change my mind. Why don't you just make a new post and discuss the issue with people who want to discuss it with you. If I sound anti GMO it is because I am anti GMO and I do find it unusual that you would try so hard to change my mind.

I believe you do work for Monsanto.

[HuckleB]

194. You keep responding, but you have no way to support your stance.

[2pooped2pop]

196. not going to prove anything to you

haven't tried. Maybe you should try to prove your stance since every single thing I get on google proves mine.

[Voice for Peace]

166. exactly the stuff, lol.

And people want to know what they are eating and buying.

[HuckleB]

163. There is no good reason to label GMOs.

Do you still think otherwise?

[Voice for Peace]

165. yes I do. People have a right to know what they are buying!

[HuckleB]

172. Knowing the technology used to develop gives you no actual information.

Knowing that, do you still buy into the fear mongering about GMOs?

[Voice for Peace]

184. I don't get your question, & believe you may be trying to bait me so I'll decline to engage, thanks.

[HuckleB]

185. Bait you?

Perhaps you should look into the topic a bit more. You are advocating for labels that serve no actual purpose. Unless, of course, the people who want labels are trying to foment fear about certain products in order to increase their own profits. Hmm.

PS: http://hawaiifarmersdaughter.com/2014/04/08/end-the-gmo-paranoia-knowledge-is-the-key-to-fighting-fear/

[2pooped2pop]

192. odd that that poster dug up this two year old post to

make an attempt to change our minds rather than begin a new post isn't it? I've asked him to leave me alone too. Creepy

[Voice for Peace]

193. I didn't even notice how old the post was.

thanks for your post, helps validate my instincts.

[harun]

3. Who elected these assholes? Oh yah, NOBODY.

[ag_dude]

5. That's because they're the scientists.

I'm sure mixing politics in there would make their opinion so much more reliable and fact based.

[part man all 86]

10. the ama are doctors and quacks, not scientist!

[ag_dude]

11. Oh, okay, sorry about that.

We should depend on politicians, they'd be much more likely to return a fact based opinion.

[part man all 86]

19. ama is polictical.

they influence laws in every state in the union. doctors are no more correct than polictians. prime example is during the bush administration ama helped in putting a limit on damages from a law suit, reason malpractice insurance running doctors out of business, BS! so screw the ama!

[ag_dude]

24. Okay then, so be it.

In that case, since you are obviously basing your opinion on facts and science, what's your "scientific justification for special labeling"?

[LaurenG]

48. Transparency

There should never be a reason to hide what you're feeding someone. Evidently some people are scared s***less that the population won't buy their GMO food. Tough, they took their chances by infecting regular crops in order to force American farmers to use their seed. They have succeeded in bullying most of them.

Some of us won't bend and we are not going to bend willingly.

[Voice for Peace]

52. instead of defending the non-labeling position of Monsanto & the AMA

why don't you do some research on your own about the possible
health effects & reasons for banning GMO in so many other countries?

[tavalon]

36. Politics mixing with medicine!

Oh, my, the horrors, the horrors. If you don't believe that Medicine and Politics are firmly enmeshed and have been for a very long time, then I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap.

Ask me sometime about the CDC, Smithkline Beecham, Dr. Verstraeten and $600,000 per year. We can sit around a fire and shine lights on our faces to make it a real horror story. Not that it isn't a horror story in the light of day but since one doubts, one should get the full effect.

Edited to add: Not on this forum, though. I don't talk of such things here. It stresses the people too much. They do love their doctors and medical science and who am I to deny them such faith? I am but a lowly nurse. What would I know of backroom deals and politics in medicine. Okay, need to stop now, I'm getting a stitch in my side.

[Gormy Cuss]

46. That the AMA is even making a statement on this should be a tipoff

that it's a political statement, not a medical one. Thanks for reminding people here that the AMA isn't some benign club for doctors.

[tavalon]

49. 23 years as a Registered Nurse

I felt it was my duty to remind people. While I'm at it, don't go believing every thing the American Nurses Association says either. They are also a bought and paid for subsidiary of well, anyone who'll pay.

Now, bedside nurses are another matter. If we would stop fighting with each other, dump the ANA and get organized, we really would be the benevolent overlords or whatever. Not all nurses might realize it, but we want universal healthcare because we really do care about you and you and you and you. If we had gotten our feces consolidated, universal healthcare would be a really, old, really obvious way to do things. Like in the rest of the civilized world.

[Voice for Peace]

58. lol

"if we had gotten our feces consolidated"

[Gormy Cuss]

87. Nurses know about feces. : ) n/t

[yellowcanine]

126. I would rather have physicians making recommendations about food safety than politicians.

Majority rule does not determine whether a food is safe or not.

[Stargazer09]

6. Okay

So they are saying that foods that were altered by conventional means (i.e. selective breeding--where desirable traits appear more or less via natural mutation and are bred into subsequent generations) are no different than those altered by genetic engineering (i.e. scientists messing with something they don't really understand). Hmmm... I thing Monsanto has just purchased the AMA.

[GOTV]

22. Right. Because Tomatoes frequently mate with fish.

[tavalon]

31. No, not just.

They've been pocket buddies for a long, long time. Along with Smithkline Beecham, Merck and many others. It's a big pocket.

[yellowcanine]

129. No what they are saying is that the GM process does not inherently make food less safe.

Because it doesn't. Lots of food crops developed by conventional means are not safe for some people because they are allergic to specific proteins. It is actually easier to breed crops without allergenic proteins in them using GM technology because in conventional breeding you sometimes get a boatload of other genes along with the one you want. GM breeding can be much more selective as to which genes are actually transferred. I know this doesn't fit into the "anything Monsanto does is evil mantra" but it happens to be the truth. Ask any plant breeder or geneticist.

[Stargazer09]

132. I understand that

But do they really know what they are doing? What happens when those proteins are removed? How do they know it's not causing something worse?

Just because using GM techniques is easier doesn't mean it's the best way to do things.

Believe it or not, but I don't think everything geneticists (or even Monsanto) do (does) is evil. I just don't think we know enough about genetics to be absolutely certain that GM food is as safe as more naturally bred food crops.

If GM foods are so safe and wonderful, then there should be no problems with labeling them as such. That's just my opinion, though.

[yellowcanine]

133. Almost all processed foods contain GMO. So labeling is pretty much useless.

Because with such a requirement the manufacturers would just slap a "may contain GMO" on everything.

Soybeans, wheat, corn, etc are not segregated by GMO/non GMO in the buying, selling, storage or transportation process. To do so is logistically not feasible and would add significantly to the cost of food production.

[proverbialwisdom]

134. Labeling is done in at least 49 countries worldwide and alternatives to GMOsourced food exist there.

Are American children thriving lately? Are not GMOs a third-rail research topic for independent scientists and physicians? Are Americans captive as their public health plummets? Profits don't begin to matter under these circumstances.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101734849

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduces a GMO Labeling amendment to the Farm Bill
Posted: June 14th, 2012

Video from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101734849

Maybe related, maybe not. The SCIENCE is out.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/books/the-autism-revolution (strongly advocates ORGANIC diet, does not mention GMO)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014144103 (Sharp rise in child bowel disease cases, Scotland)

[yellowcanine]

145. "Labeling is done in 49 countries" is not a valid argument. Look up "is/ought fallacy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

[Arkansas Granny]

7. Regardless, I would still like to know if the food I'm eating has been genetically altered.

IMO, it's one thing to cross breed plants or animals to get a better product, but introducing a jelly fish gene to make your food glow in the dark is something else entirely.

[ag_dude]

9. You have that choice.

You can buy food labeled as such or go to known local sources.

[Fumesucker]

13. What's wrong with just being able to glance at any food package and tell if it has GMO ingredients?

Is there a downside to such labeling?

[ag_dude]

17. Nope, that's why you can already do it.

Shop somewhere it's labeled like that and you can do that as much as you wish.

In contrast to the proposed laws in California, nobody is forcing you to do anything.

[roody]

63. What is so scary about labeling, Mr. Monsanto? eom

[Fumesucker]

96. What do people have to hide?

Why the strong disinclination to reveal what goes into the food that's being sold to America?

The rational free market assumes perfect information, are you not in favor of rational free markets?

[Arkansas Granny]

16. If the GMO foods are not labeled as such, what choice do I have?

Do you expect that everyone who produces a non-GMO food product will indicate that on their label? Not everyone has the option of known local sources for their groceries.

[ag_dude]

20. You do have choices.

Where are you located that you don't have the option of buying local?

Buy organic. Almost any legit organic certification is going to be free of GMO if you are scared of it.

[classykaren]

41. NO you can't

Even health food stores have signs up stating they can not state their food is non GMO

[denvine]

18. Freedom of choice

I think the idea is to know what you are buying. Just as you already know whether there is added sugar, salt or msg, it would be good to know whether it is genetically modified. It's freedom of information as to what you are purchasing. I don't understand why this is such a big deal. If there is nothing to hide than why not post it?

[ag_dude]

21. We HAVE freedom of choice

The issue right now is that California is trying to force labeling on the industry.

The industry is not forcing organics and locally grown food to stop labeling.

[Arkansas Granny]

26. The issue is that the consumer has a right to know what they are purchasing.

Even our clothing labels have to tell us the fiber content used. If we are going to make informed choices, we need all the information necessary.

[ag_dude]

32. Then choose to go with food that is labeled.

YOU HAVE THAT CHOICE

[Arkansas Granny]

43. I don't recall that I have ever seen a label that says a food is NOT GMO.

Have you?

[PostCapitalist]

75. Yes I have. On some food items we are starting to see "No GMO's" "No BGH"..

[FiveGoodMen]

72. Do you get paid by the post or by the hour?

[DeSwiss]

73. Exactly.

[siligut]

85. I think it is by the post

I saw an ad for people to write "articles" and they are paid by the number of "articles" that they write.

[freshwest]

88. Yep. Too bad the air quality of DU goes down with every outburst of trollish flatulence.

[siligut]

91. LOL, I thought I smelled something

He isn't at all convincing and has weak skills, repetition and circular reasoning just stink.

[freshwest]

92. The repetition is a dead give away, and the smell. You just can't escape... Le Sigh...

[harun]

29. Only labeling will give the consumer choice

You say you have the freedom to go to local sources. No you don't. You think I have a way to tell if my local pick your own farm is using GMO soybean and corn seeds. Fuck no I don't. They can say they are but without a law it isn't worth shit because they have no reason to tell the truth about it.

[ag_dude]

33. Then tell them.

There are SERIOUS repercussions to claiming food is something it's not.

If you don't already know that, you are not familiar enough with this subject to have an informed opinion. Unfortunately, as with most things related to food, that sure doesn't seem to stop you from expressing it forcefully.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. Why is the industry resistant to the labeling?

Perhaps the industry is worried that with labeling their products will become less marketable. The market research shows that the vast majority of consumers want labeling of GMO food.

[nebenaube]

108. because the invisible hand of the market will slap them in the face... n/t

[tavalon]

28. Fuck you, American Medical Association for fucking me

Fuckers.

Nuff said.

[cbrer]

34. Excuse me?

"it’s less important whether a plant or animal was altered by conventional breeding or genetic engineering, say, than what the potential for a problem might be"


WTF is that supposed to mean?

[tavalon]

40. That's called middle management/lawyerly speak

In other words, gobbledygook.

I bet if you read the whole thing (and I won't because I don't care to have my eyes bleed) it will say "due diligence" in there somewhere. "Due diligence" is the favorite catch phrase for middle management hospital paper pushers everywhere. It's all the rage.

But really, they don't expect you to actually read that crap. This is for their overlords at Monsanto, not you.

[ag_dude]

35. For those I was having conversations with.

Gotta go to work at 9, already late.

I hate it when people leave without warning. No disrespect intended.

[tavalon]

42. Actually, that's really polite

I'm not agreeing with much you have to say, but letting people know when you're leaving is very polite. Shocking in the venue, actually.

Thanks.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

45. sounds like you were already at work

posting pro gmo.

Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures
http://arizonaadvancedmedicine.com/articles/genetically_modified_foods.html
Rhetoric from Washington since the early 1990s proclaims that genetically modified (GM) foods are no different from their natural counterparts that have existed for centuries. But this is a political, not a scientific assertion.

65 Health Risks of GM Foods
Section 1: Evidence of reactions in animals and humans
1.1 GM potatoes damaged rats
1. Rats were fed potatoes engineered to produce their own insecticide.
2. They developed potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreases and intestines and immune system damage.
3. The cause was not the insecticide, but in all likelihood was the process of genetic engineering.
4. GM foods on the market—which were created with the same process—have not been subject to such an extensive testing protocol.
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes

Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops
Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety 11-14-08
http://www.abundantlifeessentials.com/news/gmofertility.htm

Monsanto's GM Corn MON863 Showed Kidney, Liver Toxicity in Animal Feeding Study
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4790.cfm

Russian researchers present new data on negative influence of GMO on human health
http://www.regnum.ru/english/813298.html

Click here to download GM Crops – Just the Science, a 2009 document prepared by preeminent researchers and scientists based in the EU. This excellent summary contains 136 citations and is written in plain English for accessibility to the general public.
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/gm-crops-just-the-science/

Fate of food DNA
Evaluation of the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops seems to be hampered by the unwillingness of regulators recognize and to evaluate the impact of genetic effects that are outside simplistic models of genes and their behavior. It has been presumed that the organism destroys food genes during digestion and excretion. However, studies on DNA immunization showed that DNA could be delivered to the immune system through oral uptake. A few daring German researchers have also explored the fate of orally ingested genetic material. The papers below show that ingested DNA is not only circulated through the animal body but may be associated with nucleus and chromosomes.
http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientific_studies.htm

[cyberswede]

38. So, if...

"voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education"

...then let's provide some focused consumer education, too.

BTW, I disagree that labeling is without value without education - allowing people to know what's in their food has value in and of itself.

[classykaren]

39. Thank Bill clinton

This is Bill Clintons fault. I remember when he asked if labeling GMO food would be best so people could have a choice and was told no because everyone will pay extra for not GMO food. In Europe they almost rioted in the streets over this. Monsanto actually wanted us to punish the French over this. They still so not allow GMO foods in their country

[hunter]

55. I wonder how much the AMA got paid, and how?

They've already sold themselves to the pharmaceutical industry, so it's not surprising to see them blowing big ag too.

GMO foods fuck up the natural environment and screw small farmers worldwide. For those two reasons alone they ought to be labeled.

[Trillo]

60. G20 Leaders Declaration?

Maybe this has something to do with it, the G20 Leaders Declaration:

59. We strongly welcome the launch of the “AgResults” Initiative, aimed at improving food security for the poor and vulnerable by encouraging private sector innovation of new agricultural products and systems constrained by market failures in agriculture. We look forward to the launch of the pilot projects focused on innovations in nutrient-fortified crops, post-harvest waste-reducing storage solutions and crop quality technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa. We commend those who have already committed or signaled their intention to commit funding to this initiative and encourage broader participation.


http://www.g20.org/images/stories/docs/g20/conclu/G20_Leaders_Declaration_2012.pdf

[hunter]

69. Reducing the diversity of food crops kills more people than it saves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine

It happens again and again throughout history.

This kind of agricultural "innovation" also results in land clearances, dislocating people from the places they have lived for many generations, either by force or by economic deprivation.

Our masters would always prefer sheep over people.

The Highland Clearances (Scottish Gaelic: Fuadach nan Gàidheal, the expulsion of the Gael) was the forced displacement of a significant number of people in the Scottish Highlands during the 18th and 19th century, as a result of an agricultural revolution (also known as enclosure) carried out by hereditary aristocratic landowners, such as the Duke of Sutherland. The changes were seen to be supported by the government, who gave financial aid for roads and bridges to assist the new sheep-based agriculture and trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

[Odin2005]

57. I trust doctors more than random technophobes on the internet

And more than prominent technophobes with an agenda like Bill McKibben.

[proverbialwisdom]

62. Sorry, see posts #47, 51, 53, 54 - it's doctors vs doctors.

Voting on Sanders-Boxer amendment coming up any minute: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Backstory: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101734849

[proverbialwisdom]

147. 7/6/12 NEWS - The 'Monsanto Rider': Are Biotech Companies About to Gain Immunity from Federal Law?

Apparently, the real action is occurring under cover of stealth in the House of Representatives.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25791.cfm

The 'Monsanto Rider': Are Biotech Companies About to Gain Immunity from Federal Law?

By Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins
Alternet, July 6, 2012

Link: http://www.alternet.org/food/156195

While many Americans were firing up barbecues and breaking out the sparklers to celebrate Independence Day, biotech industry executives were more likely chilling champagne to celebrate another kind of independence: immunity from federal law.

A so-called "Monsanto rider," quietly slipped into the multi-billion dollar FY 2013 Agricultural Appropriations bill, would require - not just allow, but require - the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed. All the farmer or the biotech producer has to do is ask, and the questionable crops could be released into the environment where they could potentially contaminate conventional or organic crops and, ultimately, the nation's food supply.

Unless the Senate or a citizen's army of farmers and consumers can stop them, the House of Representatives is likely to ram this dangerous rider through any day now.

In a statement issued last month, the Center For Food Safety had this to say about the biotech industry's latest attempt to circumvent legal and regulatory safeguards:

Ceding broad and unprecedented powers to industry, the rider poses a direct threat to the authority of U.S. courts, jettisons the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) established oversight powers on key agriculture issues and puts the nation's farmers and food supply at risk.

<...>

[roody]

59. I will be voting to label GMOs in November.

It is my right to know.

[roody]

64. How many courses in nutrition does

someone have to take to graduate medical school?

[roody]

180. Zero.

[4th law of robotics]

65. I don't see any health reason but . . .

I see no reason *not* to label them.

It's like Kosher versus non-kosher. I don't care. Some people do. So there's no harm in labeling it as such.

[proverbialwisdom]

67. More from the OP link.

By Rosie Mestel, Los Angeles Times / For the Booster Shots blog

June 21, 2012, 6:00 a.m.

<...>

And more from Harris: “Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public. We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

[DeSwiss]

70. Anyone who listens to the AMA.....

...will be dead before their time. Remember, these are the same people who once said smoking cigarettes wouldn't harm you either. Even when they had indisputable proof that smoking was deleterious to one's health -- they LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH FOR DECADES.

And ask yourself: "Who benefits from the illnesses and disease this GMO crap gives people?" Why that would be Big Pharma, the AMA and their doctors. Of course.

What's really the saddest part of all this here (as well as telling), is that we all know that it's THE GREED AND CORRUPTION which has forced us to distrust institutions that many once thought were more or less impervious such self-serving promotions and outright bullshit and lies. But we've been forced to learn to live with this on a daily basis now. The corruption of Capitalism gets into everything eventually. And then turns whatever it touches, into crap.

- We've reached the point where you can no longer believe scientists, nor their science -- because they can't be trusted to tell the truth. Not when their masters (Big Pharma, et.al.) own their schools and control the labs -- and dictate what they can say......

[proverbialwisdom]

76. That's way too pessimistic. I think a huge brawl is happening within the AMA over this (post #47).

Reputations and careers may be on the line, certainly, for independent scientists and physicians in the research trenches facing down the 'profits over people' crowd. Public awareness and LOUD support will help.

This issue isn't going away anytime soon.

[DeSwiss]

78. Actually considering whom we're talking about and.....

...given the the circumstances and actions taken thus far, I think it's quite a realistic position to take.

[proverbialwisdom]

86. Do you know how your Senator voted on the Sanders-Boxer amendment to permit states to require labels

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00161#state

[DeSwiss]

89. Unfortunately I do know......

...and w/o even having to click your link. You see, I live in Tennessee.

- Thanking you in advance for your condolences.

[RainbowSuperfund]

79. A clue is in the sticker:

For those of you who ARE interested in avoiding GMOs, I just came across this info about the numbers on the produce sticker. A 5 digit PLU beginning with an 8 indicates genetically modified produce. I hope this helps you find the safe food your looking for.

[Arkansas Granny]

84. Thanks for the info.

[DeSwiss]

90. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

- You should post this as a thread in GD.

[Mz Pip]

95. This is what I was looking for.

I just want to know what I am buying.

Thank you!!!

[proverbialwisdom]

97. Processed food additives from soy, corn, canola, sugar beets, cottonseed are GMO unless organic.

http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods

http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/

http://michaelpollan.com/books/food-rules/

[RainbowSuperfund]

113. +1 Thanks! :) n/t

[TuxedoKat]

118. I've been wondering about this

thanks for posting this.

[BlueIris]

99. Thanks!

I'd never read that.

[harun]

100. This isn't reliable at all

http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/produce.asp

[DisgustipatedinCA]

101. Why isn't it reliable "at all"?

Your Snopes link says "mixed". It's not required for produce to have the sticker, but where it does, it indicates whether the item is GMO or organic. It isn't perfect, which is of course one of the reasons food labeling needs to be carefully regulated. But it does seem to be at least a guideline, and therefore is at least somewhat reliable, where the stickers are used.

[harun]

102. Because people think you can use this to see if it is GMO

and you cannot.

The GMO people are consuming is corn and soybeans. When's the last time you saw a PLU sticker on your salad dressing (soybean oil and corn syrup) or cereal (soybeans and corn)? (and pretty much every other product not bought as a whole veggie or fruit has soy or corn in it, don't believe me go look at the labels).

It's the reason they don't want to label anything GMO. Because the whole damn super market (besides whole veggies and fruits) has GMO corn and/or soy in it.

[proverbialwisdom]

103. Food Rules by Michael Pollan provides a simple guide without mentioning the term GMO.

Dodges those Food Disparagement laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/additives/

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-basics/gmos-in-food

GMOs in Food

Here is a summary of crops, foods and food ingredients have been genetically modified as of May, 2010:

<...>

References:
Natural Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture: Acreage. Click here to download PDF (2009)

Ruth Winter, A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives: Descriptions in plain English of more than 12,000 ingredients both harmful and desirable found in foods, 6th ed. (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004).

Robert S. Igoe, The Dictionary of Food Ingredients, 2nd ed. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989)

Research Triangle Institute, Economic Characterization of the Dietary Supplement Industry, March 1999 Click here to download PDF

Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) Online Database of the World Health Organization (WHO) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the reports of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Available at:http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/additives/index.html

The University of Maryland Medical Center database of supplements by name: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/index.htm

Archives of the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/

Reports of the European Commission Scientific Committee for Food: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/reports_en.html

U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) PubMed Central (PMC): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

[harun]

104. Muchos Gracias, very good info.

[RainbowSuperfund]

109. Thank you for all the links and info.

Thank you for all the links and info. I found this one to be particularly approachable for a layperson like myself: http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-basics/gmos-in-food
Just reading through this makes me realize how pervasive the use of GMOs is. I use fresh foods primarily, but even then it is hard to avoid this stuff, because I don't make my own pasta, or peanut butter, etc...
Your post was very helpful, thanks.

[proverbialwisdom]

112. Choosing organic where feasible eliminates GMOs.

Moreover, multinational food companies have demonstrated some responsiveness to CONSUMER DEMAND for nonGMO products, as demonstrated below.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032575_GM_canola_Australia.html

Australia shuns GM canola in response to consumer demand for non-GMO products

Wednesday, June 01, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/what-kix-cereal-is-not-all-natural/

What? Kix Cereal Is Not All Natural?

August 31, 2011

The outcry against GMOs from other countries has been heeded by some companies, who now sell non-GMO products in countries that have raised a voice against them. (For example, Hershey has developed non-GMO product for Europe, but not for the US, where consumers are not as excited about GMOs...)

"Organic," on the other hand, refers not only to the food itself but also to how it was produced. Foods labeled organic must be certified under the National Organic Program (NOP)(called "NOPe" by some), a program that took effect October 21, 2002.

To be labeled organic, food must be grown and processed using organic farming methods that recycle resources produced. Crops must be grown without using synthetic pesticides, bio-engineered genes, petroleum-based fertilizers and sewage sludge-based fertilizers. Organic livestock must have access to the outdoors and be given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic foods may not be irradiated.

<...>

http://www.naturalnews.com/030826_Hersheys_GMOs.html

RECOMMENDED:

http://www.confectionerynews.com/Markets/Hershey-to-launch-confectionery-brands-in-UK-and-Europe
http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12749-hershey-deal-to-supply-non-gmo-products

Hershey's brings non-GMO confections to Europe, but not to US

Friday, December 24, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The Hershey Company is expanding its confectionery market to Europe. And the company plans to reformulate its Europe-destined products to be free of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in order to meet demand and to comply with the non-GMO requirements of Asda, the U.K. subsidiary of Wal-Mart that will be Hershey's exclusive retailer in the U.K. However, Hershey's has no intentions of changing any of its U.S. formulas, all of which are tainted with GM ingredients, say reports.

According to an email obtained by GMWatch, an independent watchdog group fighting pro-GMO propaganda, Hershey's agreed to reformulate 21 varieties of its chocolate products, including Reese's brand chocolates, to meet Asda's requirements. And a report in Confectionery News confirms this as well, noting that the reformulations are strictly for the European market and not for the U.S. market.

"The key ingredients which have been re-formulated from non-GM sources include changing the sugar source from beet to cane sugar and using IP (Identity Preservation) soy lecithin," explained Julian Walker-Palin, Head of Corporate Sustainability at Asda, in an email to Peter Melchett, head of the U.K. Soil Association. "In addition to this the transportation and storage have been confirmed also as GM-free or cleaned before use with these products."

According to reports, Asda does not carry any products that contain GM ingredients, so Hershey's had to agree to work with the company to create appropriate new formulas.

In the past, many large U.S. food producers have argued that reformulating their products to exclude GMOs is not cost effective. But why it was worthwhile for Hershey's to change its product formulas for the European market, but not for the U.S. market, so far remains a question without an answer.

Sources for this story above.

The fight here is vicious, absent public involvement to counter the $$$.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/organic-elite-surrenders-to-monsanto/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/nov/23/corporate-giants-target-developing-countries

[DisgustipatedinCA]

106. Fair point, and thanks, but that poster was talking about produce, saying sticker provides a clue

And it does provide a clue. You also have a good, but different point about the soybean and corn.

[harun]

107. "For those of you who ARE interested in avoiding GMOs"

The OP said "For those of you who ARE interested in avoiding GMOs".

This labeling does nothing whatsoever to help people avoid GMO's. Find me a PLU with five digits that starts with an 8 and I will redact my statement. Hell even find an image of one.

The debate on if they should be labeled or not is the wrong debate to be having. It should be on if we should allow GMO or not. The debate on produce labeling or not is the wrong debate to be having. It should be on if we label a product that has GMO ANYWHERE in the food chain. Fed to the cattle, used in the oil, etc.

All these false debates serve to benefit one group, and it isn't us. It is big ag and Monsanto. Anyone who aids the false debates is an accompliss to their crimes.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

110. I simultaneously feel that we're both on the same side, and that you just want to be confrontational

Have a good weekend.

[RainbowSuperfund]

111. I get your anger about this, however,

you seem to be attacking people who agree with you, here. I don't want to eat it either. I don't want it in the food chain either.

I just want to know how to grocery shop for my family, now. I am looking for ways to know what I'm buying, because, "I'm not buying it" seems to be the only thing that gets through to corporations. That is why I think labeling is important. My preference is that it not be used at all.

I said "for those of you who ARE interested", because some people in this thread weren't interested, so I wasn't talking to them. I realize looking at the PLU # is a very small thing, and the stuff is pervasive. I had a little piece of information that I found helpful, and thought others might as well. So I wanted to share it.

Peace.

[harun]

114. Understood

It just seems the PLU propaganda is perfect fodder for RW'rs to say, "Hey we are already labeling, leave us alone". Because they aren't really labeling anything pertinent.

I'm under no allusions that I can eliminate GMO's from my diet. I just want to limit them to a certain level. Without the labeling I cannot.

[RainbowSuperfund]

115. I see what your saying.

Providing cover for these guys will never be my goal.

[proverbialwisdom]

116. Defeatist malarky or, rather, wishful thinking by fake food biz considering abysmal health outcomes.

Sorry, here we disagree. This food challenge is but a blip, IMO. I think science will prevail over commerce. And, by the way, it isn't "RW'rs" at fault, plenty of misguided democrats are involved, too. One Republican crossed over (yea!), but far many more Democrats voted on the wrong side of this issue.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00161#state

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2310 to S. 3240 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012)

Statement of Purpose: To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

Vote Counts: YEAs-26 NAYs-73 Not Voting-1


Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Coons (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Nay Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Nay Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Nay Paul (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Brown (R-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Heller (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Ayotte (R-NH), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Portman (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Nay Lee (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Manchin (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Johnson (R-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay

[RainbowSuperfund]

122. I'm very disappointed to see the number of Democrats voting nay with the Republican on this.

I hope you are right and science does prevail, although the AMA does not inspire confidence. We did finally get them to admit that smoking is bad for your health, so I guess with enough evidence, the truth will come out.
You are a walking reference center on this topic. Thank you again for sharing your knowledge. This piece I found particularly helpful.
http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods

And the Iphone app I will check out more closely too. Thanks this is really useful.

[Mz Pip]

117. About all any of us can do

are small things. Maybe every little bit helps, maybe it doesn't. As an idividual it's hard to have much of an impact when you're up against big ag and Monsanto.

My objection to Monsanto has more to do with their scorched earth business policies.

[Mz Pip]

94. I would just like to know

I don't know if there are health issues but I don't like what Monsanto is doing globally. I'd just like to have the choice to not support them. The fact that Monsanto is fighting the labeling gives me pause. If their produce is so great why not advertise it?

Short of growing my own, I feel like I'm not really allowed to decide for myself whether or not to buy genetically modified foods.

[Citizen Worker]

98. It may not be a question of need in the minds of the AMA but it is a question of what the public

wants and that has been made very clear.

[warrprayer]

105. Jesus Loves Frankenfood

... and so will you!!!

[mother earth]

119. Deciphering supermarket code system of fruits/veggies to find out if GMO:

Take a look at the code (check sticker on fr/veg or sku code on pkg):

1. If there are only four numbers in the PLU, this means that the produce was grown conventionally or “traditionally” with the use of pesticides. The last four letters of the PLU code are simply what kind of vegetable or fruit. An example is that all bananas are labeled with the code of 4011.

2. If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “8?, this tells you that the item is a genetically modified fruit or vegetable. Genetically modified fruits and vegetables trump being organic. So, it is possible to eat organic produce that are grown from genetically modified seeds. A genetically engineered (GE or GMO) banana would be: 84011

3. If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “9?, this tells you that the produce was grown organically and is not genetically modified. An organic banana would be: 94011

[proverbialwisdom]

120. Just say if the code starts with 8, then the item is GMO; if it starts with 9, it cannot be GMO.

Really, too much noise in #2. Who possibly cares if a genetically modified fruit or vegetable is organic, other than the GMO producers who hope to muddy choice?

[mother earth]

121. Yes, certainly simplify to whatever suits your needs, but there is much confusion in "organic" & the

consumer needs to be educated. Non-GMO organics fetch top dollar, imposters are hoping to cash in. Buyer beware.

[proverbialwisdom]

123. What are you talking about? "GMO organics" do not exist, nor should they, despite what GMO co. want.

[mother earth]

140. Marketing/labeling organics when they aren't...that's what I mean, hence the confusion for the

consumer.

[proverbialwisdom]

124. 17 June 2012, EarthOpenSource Report: "GMO Myths and Truths, An evidence-based examination..."

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers

Notes:

The report, “GMO Myths and Truths, An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops”, by Michael Antoniou, PhD, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan, PhD is published by Earth Open Source (June 2012). The report is 123 pages long and contains over 600 citations, many of them from the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the rest from reports by scientists, physicians, government bodies, industry, and the media.

The report is available here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58 . A shorter summary version will be released in the coming weeks.



Earth Open Source Press Release
17 June 2012

Aren’t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn’t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report released today, “GMO Myths and Truths”,[1] challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

One of the report’s authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”


Another author of the report, Dr John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer.

“These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”


The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we – not biotechnology companies – keep control of our food system and crop seeds.

“We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities.”

Key points from the report (please see link).

[proverbialwisdom]

135. Old MacDonald had a Farm, E-I-E-I-O. With a gmo here and a gmo there...

Unless labeled organic, processed foods contain GMOs due to additives. The frame here isn't labeling and GMOs, it's millions and billions of dollars. Great reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/nocera-burger-king-the-cash-cow.html

Op-Ed Columnist

Burger King, the Cash Cow

By JOE NOCERA
Published: June 22, 2012

Earlier this week, a well-known company went public in a complicated transaction that involved a handful of Wall Street sharpies and a mysterious investment vehicle called a SPAC. The company was Burger King.

<...>

Enter — ta-da! — private equity. In 2002, Goldman Sachs, along with two private equity firms, TGP and ... hmmm ... Bain Capital, teamed up to buy Burger King. This is exactly the kind of situation private equity firms like to trumpet: taking over a downtrodden company and nursing it back to health. And to get them their due, Burger King’s new owners did some good, stabilizing both the company and the franchisees, many of whom were in worse shape than Burger King itself.

But the private equity investors also cut themselves an incredibly sweet deal. Their $1.5 billion purchase price included only $210 million of their own money; the rest was borrowed. They immediately began taking out tens of millions of dollars in fees. Four years later, they took Burger King public. But, first, they rewarded themselves with a $448 million dividend. In all, according to The Wall Street Journal, “the firms received $511 million in dividend, fees, expense reimbursements and interest” — while still retaining a 76 percent stake.

Does it need to be said that Burger King was soon back to its old struggling self? Or that the solution, once again, was to sell to another private equity firm? Of course not! In 2010, Bain, Goldman and TPG cashed out, selling Burger King to 3G Capital, for $3.3 billion. In sum, the original private equity troika reaped a fortune by selling a company that was in nearly as much trouble as it had been when they first bought it. Surely this represents the apotheosis of financial engineering.

<...>

[proverbialwisdom]

136. Friends of the Earth News Release: Going GM-Free in Europe but not USA.

I can't find a date for this, but it appears current

http://www.progress.org/gene45.htm

Friends of the Earth News Release

Going GM-Free in Europe But Not USA
Major U.S. Companies Drop Genetically Engineered Foods in Europe

The survey shows that most of the top food manufacturers are aware of opposition to GMOs throughout Europe and have been forced to take action. The same companies in the U.S., however, have yet to make take similar action.

"It's only a matter of time before these companies are forced to make the same commitment to consumers here at home," said Larry Bohlen, Safer Food -Safer Farms campaign director for Friends of the Earth, U.S. "If companies are feeling the heat from 22 European nations, wait until they start hearing from 50 American states."

Bohlen noted that legislation to ban or to label genetically engineered foods has been introduced in several states including Minnesota, California, Vermont and Maine, and just last week, the Boston City Council voted unanimously in favor of a resolution to ban GE foods until they are labeled and subject to safety testing.

<...>

Companies that said that they currently source all their ingredients from GMO-free crops for the food and drink they sell in Europe, include Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola, Heinz, Mars, Danone, Kelloggs, Campbell Foods, Cadbury Schweppes and Kraft/ Jacobs/ Suchard. Almost all of these indicated that they also use GMO-free derivatives. And Europe's top fast food chain McDonald's Europe "have asked suppliers to source non-GM ingredients, additives and processing aids."

Liana Stupples, GMO campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "This survey shows how food manufacturers are being forced to listen to European consumers increasingly concerned about potential health and environmental damage from GMO food and crops."

Today, at a Brussels press conference, Friends of the Earth Europe announced the launch of a new Europe-wide campaign to halt GMO pollution. FoEE groups in twenty-two countries across Europe will aim to safeguard for the people of Europe the right to choose GMO-free food, to grow GMO-free crops and to protect GMO-free habitats.

<...>

Diageo: Is made up of its drinks business (no information on GMO policy) and two food arms: Pillsbury - "None of our brands contain any ingredients derived from genetically modified crops which could fall within the labelling regulations in Europe. Recognising consumer concerns in Europe , we have been progressively removing ingredients and additives that could have been derived from GM crops, wherever it is technically feasible...for the last 18 months" and; Burger King -"in relation to the countries in Europe... Burger King has removed GM ingredients from its menu items". BK had no information on derivatives.

Friends of the Earth also contacted McDonald's Europe - Europe's largest restaurant outlet. It said that "McDonald's in Europe have asked suppliers to source non-GM ingredients, additives and processing aids".

<...>

[proverbialwisdom]

137. Yup, I read all the comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/nocera-burger-king-the-cash-cow.html

Financial engineering with genetically engineered food.....is this a great country, or what?

June 23, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.

[RainbowSuperfund]

138. They might want to reconsider after reading this article posted in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002848609

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/

[crim son]

143. I read that this morning.

I was already a supporter of labeling, this news just confirmed my fears. And for the people who are saying, "just" buy organic, organic is expensive, sometimes prohibitively so. It's not just a matter of making the switch or I would have done that years ago.

[proverbialwisdom]

139. WATCH!

Real Time with Bill Maher - GMOs (Genetically Modified Foods)
22 june 2012

[Vanje]

146. Your username might more appropriatley be....

Monsanto_ dude.

Archer Danials Midland? Izzat you?

[roody]

148. I always go to the AMA for my nutritional advice.

[proverbialwisdom]

149. Mother Jones:"Food Industry Ditches Trans Fats, Kids' Cholesterol Levels Drop"

The parallels to the unfolding GMO story are evident.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/08/kids-cholestorol-trans-fat

Food Industry Ditches Trans Fats, Kids' Cholesterol Levels Drop

By Tom Philpott| Tue Aug. 21, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

"0 grams trans fats." That promise appears prominently on packaging for that classic American junk food, the Lay's Potato Chip. McDonald's iconic French fries? Trans-fat free—as are its Chicken McNuggets.

It wasn't always thus. As recently as 2006, journalist Nina Teicholz could report that consuming a large order of McDonald's fries and McNuggets in one sitting meant taking in nearly 10 grams of trans fats, a "substance considered so unhealthy that the National Academy of Sciences concluded, in 2002, that the only safe amount of trans fats in the diet is zero."

Trans fats are made through a process known as partial hydrogenation—basically, when you add hydrogen to ordinary vegetable oil, it becomes solid at room temperature, making it a cheap substitute for butter.

According to Teicholz, probably the journalist most responsible for exposing the ill effects of the once-ubiquitous, now-scarce substance, "A daily intake of five grams of trans fats increases the risk of contracting heart disease 4 percent to 28 percent."

<>

Teicholz reported trans-fat production was dominated by agribusiness giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge. These companies ran a trade group called the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils (ISEO), which "for decades" worked "behind the scenes to squelch bad news about trans fats." Teicholz reported:

As far back as 1968, the ISEO was mentioned in an internal memo written by the medical director of the American Heart Association: According to the memo, the ISEO objected to the AHA’s intention to include a warning about trans fats in its dietary guidelines; subsequently, the AHA took it out.

And the food industry, too, actively sought to repress research showing trans fats' ill effects. According to Teicholz, independent-minded scientists examining the topic had to "deal with the tidal wave of industry pressure unleashed against them at meetings, conferences, and events. Their papers were rebutted with unusual ferocity, and their research funding was scarce." The pressures came from the industry's highest levels:

Dr. Thomas Applewhite and Dr. J. Edward Hunter, industry scientists employed, respectively, by Kraft and Procter & Gamble (which held the original U.S. patent for trans fats), were the principal forces behind this criticism. Given that they worked for two food giants, the potential for bias was apparent, but their ability to fund research (as well as their own encyclopedic knowledge of the field) meant they could exercise considerable influence.

With independent science about its health effects virtually nil, trans fats took on a healthy sheen, promoted by a food industry that was happy to have found a cheap replacement for butter that also worked well in deep frying. By the '70s, "margarine manufacturers used the slogan 'Healthy for Your Heart' and marketed the product like a drug to doctors," Teicholz reported. 

Meanwhile, damage to public health was severe. Teicholz cited Harvard epidemiologist Walter Willett, who reckoned that "of the half million Americans who die prematurely each year from heart disease—the leading cause of death in this country—at least 30,000 are killed by trans fats."

The breaking point came in 2002, when a panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences produced a scathing report on the effect of trans fats. Spurred by the NAS document, the FDA had little choice but to move on labeling, which it began to require in 2006. Then came bans on using trans fats in restaurants in New York City, Philadelphia, and California. The drop in trans fat consumption was swift—a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that trans-fat levels in the blood of white adults plunged by 58 percent between 2000 to 2009. (The fats the industry has seized upon to replace trans fats, palm oil and interesterificated vegetable oil, may present their own problems, both to health and the environment, but that is a topic for another post.)

Although a long time in coming, the melting away of trans fats in the American diet shows that progress can be made—that when independent science can cut through industry-induced fog, and when regulators are compelled to do their job—the American diet can improve. But as the Journal of the American Medical Association article shows, things are still dire. Kids' cholesterol levels are coming down, the article notes, but obesity and overweight levels remain stubbornly high.

That unhappy fact, I think, stems from another practice the food industry picked up in the late '70s—adding massive amounts of empty sweeteners to processed food. As the journalist Gary Taubes has shown, the food industry has largely managed to bury a growing body of research on the harms of that habit.

Recommended comment: birdmechanical @ 09:41 AM yesterday.

[proverbialwisdom]

150. CHECK IT OUT - http://www.carighttoknow.org/

http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements
Endorsements for YES ON 37

http://www.carighttoknow.org/newmediatoolkit

http://www.carighttoknow.org/

Join over one million Californians who have already said: We Have the Right to Know What We Eat.

Sign up today to send the message that food products should have simple labels that tell us if they have been genetically engineered. The right to know is a fundamental right and a bedrock American value. In a democratic, free-market society, consumers get to make informed choices about what we eat and feed our families. Join Us

The more you get involved, the more say you have in this campaign. Check out all the great ways you can help us win in November.

[Trillo]

155. Why would they think it should be labeled?

Doctors get paid to collect and record detailed health information on everyone.

[One_Life_To_Give]

160. Wouldn't GMO_Free be a better label?

We have optional requirements for Organic, Cage-Free etc. Why not a GMO free?

[Glassunion]

161. Is my tinfoil hat on straight?

"there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education."

I'm gonna rant here for a bit. So, if you want Cliff's notes, just skip to the last sentence.

An absence of evidence does not result in: "evidence of absence". If a scientists never looks up, he could state "there is no scientific justification in classifying birds as animals that can fly". Where is the evidence that shows a "scientific justification" that there is no need for special labeling?

Personally I have no evidence that GMO foods are as safe as non-GMO foods. Therefore my wife and I avoid the non-GMO foods. It does not mean that they are unsafe, it simply means that there has been no evidence provided to us on the contrary.

My biggest issue, and perhaps it's because I'm jaded or skeptical, is that GMO comes from large corporations. Corporations are in business to make money, and lots of it. They sell their seeds with a "technology agreement", that is similar to software. We are talking about seeds where a contract needs to be signed for the farmer to have a legal right to drop them in the dirt.

Let's look at what is involved... The Farmer; by signing a "technology agreement" or simply "opening the bag of seed" agrees to the following:
- Farmers have no opportunity or rights to negotiate the terms of the (TA),Technology Agreement which they are required to sign.
- Farmers accept all the terms and responsibilities of the TA by signing the contract OR BY simply OPENING THE BAG!
- Farmers signing this agreement have agreed to have all of their rights under the Federal Privacy Act waived.
- Farmers can not save any seed or provide any seeds to others. Remember it's an annual contract.
- Farmers must allow the corporation access to their fields to inspect crops and to determine the farmer’s compliance with the contract.
- Farmers must allow the corporation full access to their records including USDA, FSA, Risk Management Agency (RMA), and invoices for all seed and chemical transactions and allow the corporation to copy any relevant receipts and documents.
- There is no “sunset” or time limit to these contracts – The corporation can review a farmer’s documents, fields and crops even after the farmer has stopped growing the corporations seeds.
- Farmers accept all liability and responsibility for keeping GM crops out of markets, elevators or other farmers’ fields that do not want or allow GM crops.
- Corporations will not honor any warranties if the farmer does not also use the corporations approved chemicals with the corporation's GM seeds.
- If the farmers are caught violating the contract – the corporation will seek to collect damages and attorneys’ fees and costs from farmers.

Don't even get me started on these GMO corporations suing farmers that never used the company's product, yet had the misfortune of GMO seeds blowing over into their fields. That's a patent infringement lawsuit.

To me it just seems to be another level of corporations guiding policy.
Who lobbied to have the USDA ease requirements for "USDA Organic" labeled foods when they realized that organic foods were a growing market?

Who highjacked the FDA to promote GMO?

Who manipulates consumers with bullshit labels like: "reduced fat", "no fat", "low fat", "natural" or "organic", when the product can contain mountains of fat, not-natural and non-organic ingredients?

What about a nice whole Red Snapper bought from the seafood department? Should have one ingredient right? You know... "Ingredients: Red Snapper" However odds are you are buying something else completely with a little red dye in it to make it, well... red. Ingredients: Tilapia or Rockfish or Perch or Porgy or Whatever, Red Dye #12.

I have a hard time when any group/agency/corporation tells me something is safe. Especially when backed by a group/agency/corporate study. It doubly fucking sucks that I have to look at every food label with my bullshit detector set to 11. If my potato has pig genes in it, if my pork has jellyfish, if my lettuce has tobacco, if my corn produces its own pesticides, if my potatoes have jellyfish in them, I think I have a right to know what I am buying without being deceived.

Sorry... I'm done ranting.

This stance the AMA has that their proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false is bad science in my book.

[LaydeeBug]

162. that's disgusting. nt

[HuckleB]

174. Why?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

176. Have they taken a similar stance on Kosher foods? nt

[roody]

179. The AMA says lots of things that

I don't believe.

[roody]

181. If you want to know if it is or isn't,

http://responsibletechnology.org/

[KT2000]

182. AMA not a scientific organization

The AMA is chartered to look after the business interests of their members.
Any time they cone out with conclusions and directives it is not based on specific science but usually a consensus of panel members who do not reveal their financial interests, the materials upon which they base their OPINIONS, or even necessarily have expertise.
They are often given credence when they should not be.
They are not the cutting edge.