Why ‘GMO-free’ is a corporate marketing ploy you shouldn’t fall for

[HuckleB]

Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:38 PM - Edit history (4)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/02/why-gmo-free-is-a-marketing-ploy-you-shouldnt-fall-for/?postshare=3461454815933558&tid=ss_mail

"A lot of companies are changing their recipes to remove genetically modified organisms and "unnatural" ingredients, and plenty of customers think that's great news. But these moves play more on irrational fear than they do on actual science, and basing all your food choices on avoiding "unnatural" ingredients may not be as healthy as you'd think.

You can read more about the haphazard case against GMOs in this recent takedown by Slate, but here's the gist: To label "GMOs" as being universally safe or unsafe is misguided. They're not a kind of food. Genetic modification is a way of making food -- and one that's been used, in various forms, for many years and to great success. From Slate:

The people who push GMO labels and GMO-free shopping aren’t informing you or protecting you. They’re using you. They tell food manufacturers, grocery stores, and restaurants to segregate GMOs, and ultimately not to sell them, because people like you won’t buy them. They tell politicians and regulators to label and restrict GMOs because people like you don’t trust the technology. They use your anxiety to justify GMO labels, and then they use GMO labels to justify your anxiety. Keeping you scared is the key to their political and business strategy.

Meanwhile, the obsession with avoiding GMOs ignores a lot of food-safety nuance. One big example is Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium commonly known as Bt, which is used as a pesticide. When plants are genetically engineered to produce it themselves, consumers actually ingest less of it than when farmers spray the bacteria onto un-engineered plants. So arguing against creating plants that produce Bt is actually quite misguided -- if you believe that GMO plants that produce Bt are dangerous, then the spray-on pesticide you'll get as an alternative is even more so.

..."

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

This shows how Chipotle's switch to non-GMO actually means that it's selling food that's worse for the planet.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

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

I'll also note that GE technology is being used by countries to develop new crops, and feed their people. Here's one example:

Bangladesh: Regulatory approval sought for GMO late blight resistant potato
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/153052/Bangladesh-Regulatory-approval-sought-for-GMO-late-blight-resistant-potato

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

Another recent piece that brings the science of the matter together:

Digging for seeds of truth in GMO debate
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/digging-for-seeds-of-truth-in-gmo-debate/

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

It's really time to work on the corporations who promote bad practices of all types, instead of falling for the baseless demonization of a science-based seed development technique.

[OkSustainAg]

1. It has been my position against GMOs

Because of controlling seeds and their distribution and suing farmers for saving seeds and replanting and sharing seeds with others.

[HuckleB]

3. All types of seeds are patented, and few farmers have saved seeds for decades and more.

Farmers who want to save seeds, can purchase seeds that are not contracted against saving seeds. In general, however, saving seeds from the year before would not lead to good crops in the following years.

What you have offered here is bad propaganda that is pushed by the organic industry, but it offers a story that is not honest.

This covers reality well: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/22/1249608/-The-Need-to-Save-Seeds-is-a-Bad-Sign

Another good piece on the issue: http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/07/08/genetically-engineered-crops-and-seed-saving-myths/

[peace13]

5. Google 'why are farmers killing themselves'

250,000 and counting.

[HuckleB]

7. The GMO-Suicide Myth: Yet Another Anti-GMO Deception

http://issues.org/30-2/keith/

GMO and Indian Farmer Suicide
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmo-and-indian-farmer-suicide/

Indian farmer suicides not GM related, says study
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india

And a good piece that covers the reality:

Profile of an Indian GM farmer: high-tech seeds on a traditional farm
https://medium.com/the-odd-pantry-spillover/high-tech-seeds-in-a-traditional-farm-profile-of-an-indian-gm-farmer-d573a9043e11#.f36s6ystd

[OkSustainAg]

12. I am still for

A. Open source.
B. No patenting living things.
C: free flow of information.

Every year I am creating more of my own for use things and food. I not interested in patenting anything. I am interested in helping people live more sustainable.

[HuckleB]

13. That's all well and good.

But it has to be about all types of seed development. I don't see how it would be funded, but if you can find a way to fund it, I'm open ears.

[bkkyosemite]

2. We are the only County who voted out growing any GMO's in our County

I am against GMO's. A chemical company manipulating our food supply..along with Synergy and Bayer.

[HuckleB]

4. You have chosen a stance that is not justified by science and evidence.

I guess Bangladesh better find another way to create a blight resistant potato. Newsflash: Big companies are lying to you about GMOs in order to increase their profits. Corporations suck, but the technology should not be demonized or made illegal. Your county acted unethically, pure and simple.

http://www.freshplaza.com/article/153052/Bangladesh-Regulatory-approval-sought-for-GMO-late-blight-resistant-potato

[bkkyosemite]

6. I haven't chosen anything. I will fight for non-GMO labeling. You can

disagree but it does not matter to me and many others. There was nothing unethical about it. Crops blowing and contaminating other crops and then Monsanto and their cohorts sue. GMO's are not healthy and I will avoid them. A chemical company has NO BUSINESS controlling our seeds nor our food supply.

I will not argue with you. I believe what I wish you believe what you wish.

[HuckleB]

9. You have "non-GMO labeling."

Last edited Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:18 PM - Edit history (2)

You don't have a science-based reason to make it mandatory, and the fact that you don't demand mandatory labels for all types of seed development technology, including mutation breeding. makes it clear that the entire propaganda campaign is unethical. Organic food can be developed using mutation breeding, but organic companies aren't labeling it as such. Why is that?

http://www.biotecharticles.com/Biology-Article/Mutation-Breeding-Types-and-Characterstics-3388.html

You're right about one thing: You have a belief. I am simply going with the scientific evidence. My stance is not based in belief. My mind can be changed. Apparently, your mind cannot be changed. That is very telling.

[progressoid]

15. And what would that labeling tell you?

Non-GMO doesn't mean the food was grown more ethically. Nor does it mean it wasn't grown by a large agricultural corporation. Nor does it mean it is healthier.

It's just a marketing and PR scheme.

[Archae]

8. The hysterics are out for your blood...

Back in the 1980's, those who said "Wait one moment..." about the "Satanic Panic" were labeled by the hysterics as evil and pro-Satanic abuse and such.

Here, the anti-GMO hysterics have the same M. O.

[HuckleB]

10. As progressives, we should be looking at the science of the matter, instead of the propaganda.

Somehow, too many of us have fallen for some seriously dubious propaganda on this issue.

[Archae]

14. Absolutely, just look at who is anti-GMO.

Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

It is propaganda, one of the leaders in the anti-GMO propaganda effort is Jeffrey Smith.

His only experience in science or education (past high school) is a "degree" in business from the Maharishi Yogi "university."

YET...

He got a glowing endorsement from none other than Jane Goodall, the chimpanzee researcher.

I'm reminded of when Linus Pauling, the chemist, decided he was a "nutritionist."

[xocet]

23. Would you care to change the label "nuclear physicist" to a correct description? n/t

[Archae]

24. Corrected, oops.

[elljay]

17. Agreed

I have made the argument that we humans are naturally-developed GMOs, since we have not only human DNA, but also bacterial, viral and fungal DNA. There is nothing inherently wrong with either natural or laboratory genetic modification. The problems are with the people doing the mods, their purposes, and with the consequences of certain modifications. These problems could be solved by regulation; however, big business like Monsanto will spend whatever it takes to buy politicians who are opposed to regulating their industry. It is much more profitable to have the discussion we are currently having - Monsanto benefits when it sells GMO seeds, and benefits when GMO seeds are banned because they control a large part of the market for non-GMO seeds.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

11. A big K&R for science and reason! nt

[HuckleB]

31. Thank you!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

16. so very sad

can you not find something better to promote?

[HuckleB]

18. Why do you think it's bad to fight ugly corporate propaganda?

Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)

And critical thinking is a big part of being a true progressive. Thus, promoting critical thinking, and science-based evidence over deceptive propaganda seems like a good thing for all progressives to promote.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/08/critical_thinking_lessons_for_the_anti_gmo_movement_generalizations_evidence.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

That's why what's actually sad is the number of DUers who "like" posts promoting deceptive propaganda on this issue, and small number of DUers who choose to call those posts out for what they really are. It's quite sad, indeed.

Why is it that you don't post on the much more frequent anti-GMO posts of some of our fellow posters with such comments?

[swilton]

19. In my view the article misses the point about the harmful nature of GMO's

The purpose of altering the plant's (and animals) genetic makeup is to make the plant/animal have a trait which does not occur naturally. Some of the traits may include but are not limited to resistance to herbicides and pesticides. The result of stimulating such resistance in say a resistance to herbicides is to allow the plant to be exposed to such herbicides in greater quantities. What ecologists fear, however, is that as the herbicide's target (weeds) grows resilient to the original application, more and more herbicides must be applied to neutralize the predator species. The same thing occurs with insects and pesticides.

Thus the problem is NOT the actual manipulation of the plant or animal's genes, it is that plants and animals treated as such become increasingly exposed to greater doses of poisons. The agriculture practices in such cases become a vicious cycle of poison applications which result in contaminating water, soil and humans who consume or breath such poisons.

The alternative to this dilemma? Organically grown produce which is not only produced and grown naturally without artificially induced traits, the produce is also more beneficial to the environment because it is grown w/o exposure to herbicides and pesticides.

[HuckleB]

20. You're making claims promoted by corporate organic marketing, but not by science-based evidence.

All of the food we eat has been genetically manipulated by humans, including all organic produce, some of which is created using mutation breeding. If you don't know what mutation breeding is, then you should look it up. Also, organic is just a marketing term. Nothing more. It also uses herbicides and pesticides, including Bt, as noted in the article.

Further, while some GMO plants are created to allow them to be treated with less toxic herbicides than were used in the past, that does not mean that they are tolerating some massive amount of them, nor that farmers spend money using lots of herbicide. They wouldn't be able to make a living, if that were the case.

On Organic Pesticides:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

Organic Pesticides: Not An Oxymoron
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

It's also interesting that you tried to use the superweeds argument, which was shown to be off base in the article I posted about Chipotle, in the OP. You can learn more about the topic in this piece:
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

How Much Glyphosate is Sprayed on Our Crops?
http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/

More On The Reality That All Food Is Genetically Modified
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science/sorry-hipsters-organic-kale-genetically-modified-food-180952656/?no-ist

And a good bottom line article on the issue:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Regarding organic farming. Well, it's not necessarily good for the environment, just because its proponents claim it to be.

The Ecological Case Against Organic Farming
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/10/is-organic-food-worth-the-expense/the-ecological-case-against-organic-farming

Organic food: no better for you, or the planet
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22240-organic-food-no-better-for-you-or-the-planet/

HERE’S WHY YOUR ORGANIC WINE IS ACTUALLY REALLY BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
http://vinepair.com/wine-blog/heres-why-your-organic-wine-is-actually-really-bad-for-the-environment/

Organic farms’ need for more land is bad for Earth: study
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/organic-farms-need-for-more-land-is-bad-for-earth-study

Six Reasons Organic Is NOT The Most Environmentally Friendly Way To Farm
http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/six_reasons_organic_not_most_environmentally_friendly_way_farm-110209

Organic farming not always best for environment, says government adviser
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/organic-farming-environment-lord-krebs

[swilton]

26. You should rarely utilize the word 'all'

It is still possible to obtain 'heirloom' produce which have not been tainted by commercial husbandry or at least have been tainted with it degrees less than commercially grown produce.

The organic food that I purchase is not a marketing gimic nor is it a claim put out by corporate marketing. I know the farmers who grow the food I consume and they are able to tell me precisely what they have added to the soils to grow this food. I own a half share of a Community Supported Agriculture program and that farm where I purchase the primary amount of my produce utilizes bio-intensive farming - only fertilizer utilized is horse manure. Btw it doesn't engage in corporate advertising.

You and I will have to agree to disagree about what organic farming is and how it benefits the environment.

[HuckleB]

29. Oh, it's a marketing gimmick, indeed.

It's all about conning people into thinking that what they're buying is better than other products, so they can charge you more money. That's all it is. The farmers who sell you food aren't going to feed the world, and if we tried to do it that way, we would have to cut down every forest around. You really are choosing to ignore the full story.

You can disagree with the reality all you want, but you don't have the evidence to support your belief.

[progressoid]

21. Herbicides and pesticides are used on organic and non-GMO foods too.

Organic doesn't mean no chemicals are applied.

The USDA National List of allowed pesticides for organic growers is quite long. The list includes some substances that one would assume would be relatively harmless, such as mulch, dairy cultures or vitamin B. But others on the list should raise eyebrows: Copper sulfate, elemental sulfur, borax and borates are all known to cause some harm to humans and are approved members of the organic list. Among “synthetic” pesticides, pyrethrums are still allowed, and Vitamin C that is chemically derived (and therefore synthetic) is allowed, as are various forms of alcohol.

Whether “natural” or “synthetic,” these chemicals have unintended side effects. As to safety differences between the two categories, “You can’t generalize that broadly,” said Rob Wallbridge, an organic farmer in Quebec, Canada. “Every pesticide has a different profile, and there are many different ways to define safety.”

Acute toxicity (measured by half of a lethal dose, or LD50) is very often used, but rates of exposure, persistence in the environment, chronic chemical effects, and impact on off-target animals and plants also are important considerations. One criticism of organic pesticides, in fact, is that a farmer has to use a lot of them to get the same effect as conventional pesticide. If it’s true that “the poison is in the dosage,” then some organic pesticides (like sulfur or copper) do not look very benign.

~~~

In addition to these pesticides, organic farms are, in certain circumstances, permitted to use chemicals that are supposedly banned for organic use. One of these is methyl bromide, a fumigant that is used to boost strawberry growth. Although use of methyl bromide was banned several years ago, conventional growers can still use it if no viable alternatives are available. But organic farmers can also use it, for largely the same reasons. For “perennial planting stock,” those plants that are grown throughout the year, there aren’t many organic sources of the initial seedlings. So, organic farmers are allowed to use non-organic strawberry plants, complete with methyl bromide injected into the ground, and grow them as “organic” strawberries, as long as the plants are replanted and/or organically managed starting a year before harvesting.

[swilton]

25. It depends upon the growers

which pesticides and herbicides are used. This is why there is value in locally sourcing produce and talking to the person who grows your food.

[progressoid]

27. Sure. Except that 250 million of us live in urban areas.

Not sure most people have the desire, access, time, or money to locally source their food.

[HuckleB]

22. My food paranoia wake-up call: The EWG wants us to be afraid of the food we feed our kids — don't be

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/my_food_paranoia_wake_up_call_the_ewg_wants_us_to_be_afraid_of_the_food_we_feed_our_kids_heres_why_i_refuse/?utm_content=bufferd25cf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[longship]

28. As Jay Novella might say, "You know about the Hucklebuck!"

So, I give you a well deserved heart.

I presume that you know who the Novellas are. If not, Google "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" a podcast which has not missed a week longer than any other podcast and that goes back over a decade.

Anyway, you have a heart so you deserve one more.

My best to you.


Skeptics Guide to the Universe, the smartest, the best, the most reliable, and the oldest podcast in the universe. Plus, it's ultra geeky.

[HuckleB]

30. Thank you!

I love Skeptics Guide! It's awesome! Thanks for spreading the word to everyone!