E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Dmitry Naumov / Featurepics.com
California voters will decide whether genetically modified foods should be labeled as such.
If you saw a “genetically engineered” label on a box of cereal, bag of chips, or package of tofu -- would you buy the product?
That’s a question many wonder as California voters prepare to vote on Proposition 37 next Tuesday. If approved, food manufacturers will be required by law for the first time to label all products produced from genetically modified (GM), biotech, or genetically engineered (GE) crops. “Natural,” “naturally made, “naturally grown,” and “all natural” would also be prohibited on labels and advertisements of GM foods.
Previous efforts to mandate the labeling of GM foods have failed in both Connecticut and Vermont.
Introduced commercially in the mid-1990s, GM crops are those in which DNA—the genetic material of an organism—is transferred from one organism to another in order to introduce a new trait into the organism. The resulting crops would then be disease- or pest-resistant, or be more tolerant to herbicides.
Organizations including the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Sciences believe GM foods pose no likely health risk, and proponents of the technology cite benefits including reduced cost to produce crops and increased crop yield; decreased pesticide and herbicide use; and more nutritious crops.
But critics such as the American Academy of Environmental Medicine cite evidence, primarily from animal studies, of possible health risks of GM food consumption including infertility, organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, and accelerated aging. They also cite inadequate safety testing, although an extensive 2010 review of 50 research projects done over a decade by the European Commission found no evidence to link consumption of GM foods with higher risks of food or feed safety when compared with conventionally produced foods.
Although the FDA encourages biotech companies to voluntarily consult with them about the safety of their products before making them available to consumers, GM foods don’t need to be labeled unless they have significantly different nutritional properties, contain allergens not normally expected in the food, or contain toxins beyond acceptable amounts.
Because there’s no mandatory labeling of GM foods, there’s a good chance many of us consume them without even knowing. According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 75 to 80 percent of conventional processed foods currently contain GM ingredients. Among the foods most likely to contain GM ingredients include ready-to-eat cereals, snack chips, tofu and other soy-derived foods, soups, and any processed foods made with corn, soybeans, canola and cottonseed oils.
Those who support the “Yes to Prop 37” campaign believe that consumers should not be left in the dark about what’s in their food. According to one such advocate, Michele Simon, JD, MPH, author of "Appetite for Profit," “Prop 37 is an important step toward bringing America in line with 61 other nations that already require some form of GM labeling.” She also questions what she refers to as “The more than $40 million spent by leading pesticide and junk food companies to keep Californians in the dark about what they’re eating.”
Todd Stenhouse, who represents a California ballot initiative ("Yes on 37 – right to know") on labeling genetically modified foods, joins Martin Bashir to explain why it's important that companies disclose to customers what it is they're eating.
Although it doesn’t support mandatory labeling, the American Medical Association recently updated their position on GE foods and called for mandatory safety testing before they hit the market.
While the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ official evidence-based position on GM foods won’t be available until 2013, registered dietitian and Academy spokesperson Jeannie Gazzaniga-Moloo, Ph.D, R.D. says, “The Academy supports consumers right to know what ingredients are in the foods they purchase to feed their families.” She adds, “Those who have specific questions about foods or ingredients should contact food manufacturers directly.”
Although it’s unclear when and if all GM foods will be labeled, some consumers want to minimize their exposure. Here's what you can do:
Consider going organic, at least sometimes
According to the U.S Department of Agriculture, a food that’s labeled “organic” cannot be produced through genetic engineering. Although some organic foods unintentionally contain small amounts of GM ingredients, choosing more organic foods—especially processed ones made with corn, soybeans, canola and cottonseed oils that are more likely than many other processed foods to contain GM ingredients —can help you reduce your overall exposure. And even though there may not be enough evidence to say organic foods trump conventional ones nutritionally, a recent review in Annals of Internal Medicine found that consuming organic foods may reduce exposure to both pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Be picky with processed foods
To minimize your exposure to GM foods, look for processed foods that have a “Non-GMO Project Verified Seal” on their label. Created by The Non-GMO Project, a non-profit organization in North America; the seal indicates the product has been produced “According to consensus-based best practices for GMO avoidance.”
Mix it up
Because organic foods can be pricey, choose seasonal, local items and buy appropriate amounts based on what your family typically eats to save money and reduce waste. If you can’t afford or choose not to buy all organic food, vary your grocery list and menus weekly or monthly. For example, buy different kinds of beans, whole grains, and oils—that’ll help you vary your nutrient intake, and at the same time, minimize possible health risks associated with individual foods.
For more information on GMOs, check out the World Health Organization website and The PEW initiative on Food and Biotechnology
More from NBCNews.com Health:
Leave a Comment:
Please watch this youtube video about a 2 year study on GMO's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd0RugGjAg
Because reputable scientific research organizations use YouTube to publish their findings? No thanks.
I neither agree nor disagree with the labeling sentiment. But I do lean toward scientific rationalism. And the science says that this distinction is unwarranted and creates discrimination and bureaucracy.
Basing genetic variance as a means of discrimination instead of the merits of the object on a meta level feels the same as discrimination against people with different color of skin.
Here's a newsflash. All the food we eat is GENETICALLY ENGINEERED!!!! Everything. Every piece of meat. Every piece of plant. Every grain. Everything. None of it is in it's natural state. If it was we would all starve to death because none of it would produce enough to feed everyone.
well spoke sane, all of this seems like a common uproar, over what's rational vs. what people understand easier.
If this doesn't bother you:
While the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ official evidence-based position on GM foods won’t be available until 2013, registered dietitian and Academy spokesperson Jeannie Gazzaniga-Moloo, Ph.D, R.D. says, “The Academy supports consumers right to know what ingredients are in the foods they purchase to feed their families.”
And you don't find this disturbing...:
But critics such as the American Academy of Environmental Medicine cite evidence, primarily from animal studies, of possible health risks of GM food consumption including infertility, organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, and accelerated aging.
Then I hope these excerpts at least give you pause:
Georgia has been one of the states hit hardest by Roundup-resistant pigweed [caused by using too much glyphosate because of GMOs that are Roundup resistant], and one farmer in a long line of cotton farmers said the pest could pose as big a threat to cotton farming in the South as the beetle that devastated the industry in the early 20th century...(scientists and farmers say that glyphosate is a once-in-a-century discovery, and steps need to be taken to preserve its effectiveness)..-NYTimes [I know we don't eat cotton, but chemicals get into our environment, and this situation could cause much much more destruction to the industry in the form of superweeds than the initial use of GM cotton prevented in the first place.]
The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farmer dependent on [particular] chemicals.-WHO
[As of 2009] Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. -Scientific American, 2009
Pullmyfinger: It isn't true that all foods are genetically modified in the sense of this Proposition. Man has always created new strains of crops and food animals by cross breeding those with desirable traits. This is a natural process as it can and does occur in nature even when man is not directing the cross-breeding for a specific purpose.
GM foods however could never occur in nature since they involve inserting genes from an entirely different organism into the DNA of another: inserting fish genes into tomato DNA for example to get a product that is easier to ship without damage.
If it's completely safe to consume, then labels won't be a detriment. Stand up, be proud. Slap a label on it stating, "Damn straight it's GMO and we stand behind our product." There is nothing wrong with letting the consumer make an informed decision. At least as informed as we make an effort to be.
I'll be voting yes.
lola3 -- Exactly. Why is so much money being spent on false advertising and scare tactics against the proposition if there's nothing to hide? The ads and (paid) spokespeople also quote some enormous amount of money the prop. is supposed to cost taxpayers but they don't say why. All they (food manufacturers) have to do is modify the label with a few quick keystrokes: 'contains GM ingredients: soy, wheat, corn ...' and print the labels. It won't take much time and that much more ink. And as far as I'm concerned, while they're at it, they can add a few more keystrokes and let us know if the packaging contains BPA or not. Knowing what's in my food so I can make informed choices doesn't scare me at all and so I ignore the asinine ads against it. I'll be voting yes, too.
I don't put people with different skin color in my body.
I too will be voting "yes". If I'm able to know the amount of salt in my food, I should be able to know the genetics.
"an extensive 2010 review of 50 research projects done over a decade by the European Commission found no evidence to link consumption of GM foods with higher risks of food or feed safety when compared with conventionally produced foods."
So the nuts in California want people to pay much more for their foods to satisfy a fringe group that's yelling "The sky is falling, the sky is falling".
The worst part of this legislation is that it will create a huge windfall for lawyers - We will see tens of thousands of attorneys filing 'shakedown suits' (Pay a 'settlement' or get sued) against grocers and farmers about not complying with the law - AND THE LAWYERS DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PROVE THE GROCER OR FARMER DID ANYTHING WRONG - The law 'presumes' they are guilty and no proof is required.
I'm willing to pay to know what I am putting in my body. I have zero faith in someone unwilling to answer my questions.
What I am putting in my body should be my choice and not a secret or a gamble.
They require nutrition labels, they require allergy warnings, why shouldn't they require this. I want to know what I am eating.
From what I understand, the companies that produce the GM foods also produce the pesticides that are being used on the food, such as Monsanto which produces Roundup and had produced agent orange (feel free to look it up).
I hope it passes and the other states follow suit. It won't be easy because the businesses are putting big money into ads. Hope people can see throught it.
If the European Commission found nothing wrong, why don't they allow GMO foods in Europe? I have seen, over the last 30 years, or so an increasing number of people with autoimmune diseases like Lupus, child hood cancers, austism, asthma, severe food allergies and the like. I see children going through puberty 2 years earlier than I did as a child.
I do believe all of these health issues are related to the exposure to pesticides. Now we are eating them in GMO food, not just breathing them or getting them rubbed in our skin, and they wonder why resistant bacteria are now showing up in the community and not just the hospital or nursing home anymore.. If I lived in California, I would vote for this.
Is GMO food safe?
This is a scientific question that will be answered by good scientific research.
It is not a political question that will be determined by voting.
Food labeling should deal with nutritional science.
Any additional information that is religious (ie kosher, halal) or political (ie is the farming methods good for the environment?) should be voluntary.
The anti-GMO gang has lost repeatedly in the science arena, now they are trying to win in the court of public opinion.
And should become an individual decision by the consumer for the ingestion of those products and not secretly and unknowingly forced on them.
The vote is not to determine whether GMO is good or bad, but simply disclosing to the consumer whether or not the product contains GMO ingredients; whereby, the consumer can make their own determination whether or not to consume it, just as we now do with sodium, fiber, etc.
One has to question Monsanto and others motive in pouring so much money and scare tactics into keeping this information secret. It can't be due to the cost of adding three little letters (GMO) to a label because we all know that minor cost will be passed on to the consumer. What are they attempting to hide?
Everybody should realize that labeling something GMO is rooted in fear that the product "might" be harmful as alleged by marketers of "natural" products. The science does not show that, yet people have been scared into thinking it. Should scared people be allowed to make arbitrary rules?
When people got scared that immunization caused developmental problems in children, the harm was very significant. Yet all the science says that it was not a factor. But people don't act rational.
Whats the harm pandering to the fear? It is always small steps that gets society into its lamentable dysfunctional state.
All the legal case law that makes insurance such a mess and the millions of rules that makes bureaucracy such a problem were all small steps.
Read the literature from the prohibition era on why alcohol should be illegal. Or read the papers that explain the evil of marijuana. Their all completely ignore scientific rationalism and people eventually say "how did this get so screwed up?"
Its because the some total of everybody's phobias results in an "Idiocracy". So I say we all need to put our adult underwear on, recognize that the world can't be perfectly safe, and were all better off not indulging everybody's paranoias even if each on their own may seem "reasonable".
As to the EU studies, the quote Roy supplies is really just a summary that is not really supported by the research. There are a number of sources that debate this.
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/3-2-myth-eu-research-shows-gm-foods-are-safe
Part of the problem as I see it is many of these studies are not long term studies specifically addressing possible health issues.
There is confusion too and it is present in this article. Genetically engineered and genetically modified are sometimes used interchangeably. At one time there was a distinct difference regarding the conventions in which these terms were used.
From the very early years of agriculture, man has been doing genetic engineering. This was basically human intervention in natural selection to propagate crops with the desired characteristics. Like plants with different characteristics were frequently crossed through essentially natural means, (pollination), even though it may have been done selectively with human intervention. In this way what you have is man steering or guiding evolution. We have done similar things with animals too. Even cloning is an extension of this process and some plants actually naturally propagate through nature's version of cloning.
Genetic modification is something entirely different. In GM they are manipulating genes in such ways which simply would not occur under natural circumstances. For example, nature does not provide a path for a fish or a mammal to mate with a corn plant. Many plants are even too genetically different to allow the mixing of their genes through any natural process. GM often take genes from entirely different species and splice them into the DNA of the target plant. Some classic examples are inserting genes into food crops so the plant creates its own pesticide. This works quiet well and kills pests that eat the plant. For the life of the plant, it doesn't seem to have any effect, however a plant doesn't have a central nervoussystem like insects and mammals do. In such cases you can be certain that if you eat that plant you also eat that pesticide. It may not kill you like it does the insect, but does it have a long term or accumulative effect? I don't think we know.
That's just one example. Another common one is to modify the plant such that it is tolerant to weed control agents like Round-Up. That means that the plant can absorb the Round-Up without being killed by it. What remains in the edible portions of the plant is uncertain. But we know that regardless of whether or not the residues of the herbicide are present, the modified cell structure is. So now you end up ingesting plant cells that you simply wouldn't eat by nature. When we digest the food and absorb its nutrients we also absorb the residual components of these modified cells. How these are handled within our body is not fully understood. Maybe they get filtered out only to collect somewhere. Maybe they get broken down and get absorbed within our organs or end up getting fed to our own cells through our bloodstream.
There is now evidence emerging that suggests that the genetic information itself can survive digestion and then circulate through the body potentially being incorporated into our own cells. This suggests that our own cells or even more likely, the bacterial cells within our digestive system might get "reprogrammed". So if we now have genetically modified bacteria within our gut, could they possibly be producing the same pesticide the food plant was tricked into producing? Could our own body cells also become modified? Known science suggests this isn't possible as DNA gets broken up in our digestion and genes don't really survive in a reproducible form. If the did it wouldn't just be these specialized genes that would survive, it could be an across the board problem all the time. We have no experiences of leaves growing where our fingernails used to be. If this was to occur it seems more likely that it would take place as some mutation of bacteria in our guts, but most experts say this isn't possible.
What does seem potentially possible is that the different cell makeup of the GM plant cells when digested and converted to useful nutrients might result in some change waste products or possibly some slightly modified nutrients. The fact that we can modify a plant such that when an insect eats it, it dies, suggests that some mechanism does exist that allows the genetically changed cells to fatally impact the creature that consumes it. This alone should be cause for concern. Frankly I don't think this has been studied thoroughly enough. Some European studies suggest that there are mechanisms that we don't fully understand and that significant piece of DNA can survive digestion. Even more scary is a study that show that MicroRNAs survive and circulate in the bloodstream and have an effect on gene expression. The full implications of this aren't known but what was found was completely unexpected and just creates a bunch of new questions.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/09/21/what-you-eat-affects-your-genes-rna-from-rice-can-survive-digestion-and-alter-gene-expression/
I have heard it stated that if they can make it, it could at least theoretically occur as some random mutation. I suppose that could be possible but the odds are probably astronomically high, and for that random mutation to widely propagate would be another astronomically unlikely occurrence.
The way I see it is that when we steer or guide evolution through selective breeding in plants or animals, the resulting "products" are probably just fine from a food perspective as the resulting changes are really relatively small. But I think GM, which manipulates genes in ways simply not achievable through natural evolution, we are taking some risks we simply don't yet fully understand. I am not against researching this stuff but it needs to be regulated as the desire to make money from it may overwhelm the use of due diligence.
If I choose to be "paranoid", isn't that what the free market and capitalism is all about? Free choice?
Studies on the safety of products can be wrong, as witnessed by the birth defects caused by thalidomide. Convince those children born of mothers who took the "safe" drug for their morning sickness all studies should be given carte blanche trust.
GMO grain is WIDELY used to grow the corn, wheat and soy fed to cattle in feedlots in preparation for slaughter.
The easiest way to avoid GMO food is to avoid commercial meat products. Avoid corn syrup products. Eat very low on the food chain. Organic fruit and vegetables and juices, organic grains from a good company such as Lundberg with a history of good stewardship. Seed Savers Exchange supplies heirloom and open pollinated seed for all edible food crops. Check them out.
Folks, we don't need a government mandate. We simply need to take responsibility for our own education and make choices based on facts.
Oh, finally, plant a garden if you can. Even one tomato plant in a pot is a good start. Or a tub of greens, lettuces, green baby onions, etc. Easy and yummy too.
We can get cranky about the state of things or we can simply live our lives as we wish to do.
Cheers.
Hope-295312 - Best suggestion yet! It really is our own responsibility. This proposition doesn't eliminate GMO......if the voters actually read it. It will only inform you of a few GMO products, but not even close to everything....to think this will "inform" you.....it will not. READ IT!
Sanescience provides a very important point with regards to letting the public make certain decisions. The public is... simply put... too stupid to make certain decision. Various people were allowed to make decisions regarding immunization and they made such decisions for themselves and their children. This has led to several outbreaks of disease which affect not only them but others in society. So, yes, there are decisions the general public should not be making because they have no where near the understanding required in that subject.
The reason people are fighting putting GMO is not that they're trying to hide something malicious. They're trying to avoid losing money because certain people are rather foolish and paranoid in their actions. They will lose money not based upon whether their product is better then what's currently out there, but rather based upon a paranoia.
Another reason people are fighting it is because it doesn't actually add any useful information to the product. If a law was being passed that meat had to labeled with the phylogeny of the species it came from because an overzealous politician got a bug up his ass, people would fight that law based upon its stupidity.
You can argue against a law being passed based upon it not actually doing anything and being incredibly stupid. Let's pass a law that says everyone has to wear a green shirt on the 16th of March. It doesn't actually hurt anyone. But, it doesn't actually benefit anyone. It just creates more useless regulations as opposed to useful ones.
You know what's more dangerous to you then GMO foods? Labeling a drink as 100 calories and then putting 3 servings in the can.... If you're going to argue to pass a law, at least make it a non-green-shirt law.
Yes, which is why we need all the facts in order to make informed, responsible decisions.
It's a start and better than no information at all.
Why are you so opposed to information being made available to consumers?
For the same reason Creationists shouldn't be allowed to put labels on biology textbooks that give the impression that evolution isn't true. They love to make the same arguments you are making, "Shouldn't the students hear both sides so they can make a choice?" They have an agenda and they don't have the science to back up their claims, so their labels shouldn't be used.
Creationism is a theory. GMO is a fact. Whether or not it is good or bad is a determination that should be left up to the consumer, but it is still factual information, just as the salt content, fiber content, etc.
No, the determination of whether it is good or bad should not be left to the consumer. It should be left to scientific study. The consumer has no where near enough information on the subject to make a determination of whether it's good or bad.
The day the ability to make our own decisions is taken away from the population, is the day we may as well just shut out the lights, close up shop and bury ourselves six feet under.
You already don't have the ability to make all of your own decisions. You never had the ability to make all of your own decisions. You don't make decisions currently with food you eat unless you grow your own. So, trying to act like not knowing if food genetically modified is suddenly the end of freedom is rather stupid.
Slippery slope arguments only work when there is an actual chance of falling down the slippery slope. Otherwise we could use them in any argument to justify our position.
You're incorrect doggysaywhat. I buy my alot of my food locally and know exactly where it comes from. As for the food not available locally, I read the ingredients, which is required by law to be labeled, as should the "ingredient" GMO.
Reading ingredients in the food does you little unless you actually know what those ingredients are.
Food grown locally doesn't actually give you any information with regards to what is used as fertilizer, pest control, etc. They're covered under the similar laws as larger farms. In fact locally grown merchants can often get away with far more than larger groups because people have the impression that locally grown means the person who grew them isn't subject to the same temptations as larger farms when it comes to cutting costs. They're also not targeted as heavily as national suppliers because less people use them. You may see the farm that it's grown on, but I highly doubt that you go out there and check the residue on the crops. So, you have as little knowledge about what is done with the locally grown food as you do with other food sources.
Tell me, what does think natural means on labeled food products?
doggysaywhat, Part of prop. 37 is to not allow the term Natural to be used for GM products, for your info (and education). I can guarantee that the points you were trying to make are just common sense for everyone interested in buying organic. They've been there, thought about it, and moved on. It all comes down to: if these companies believe in their products and have nothing to hide, then why are they fighting so hard against the proposition? Food manufacturers are proud of all the phony vitamins they spray on their cereals and list them next to the ingredients. If GMOs are so beneficial, why not list them also? For the answers, see dogctor's comments.
Ah, do you know what the term "organic" means, because personally, I'm not a fan of pesticides being a part of my daily diet.
And Anne is correct. For instance Snapple would no longer be allowed to use the term "natural".
Although I've asked the pro GMO folks why they are fighting so hard not to label food containing GMO products, no one has been able to provide an answer.
Anne, natural on a label is not regulated by either the FDA or the USDA so it can currently be put on anything. So, if you covered the food with crap, it could still be labeled as natural. Most people think that natural means something special including those that decided to put it in the prop in the first place. If these people don't even know enough about the labeling to understand the terms what makes you or others think that they would possibly know enough regarding genetics, scientific studies, etc. to make a determination on the safety of a particular type of produce?
With regards to Doc's comments. He cherry picked studies that agreed with his conclusion and put part of the abstract in his description. It's not that hard to do. Watch.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18328408 No difference between GM or normal
Hammond BG, Vicini JL, Hartnell GF, Naylor MW, Knight CD, Robinson EH, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. 1996 The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J Nutr. 126:717-27.
Momma K, Hashimoto W, Yoon HJ, Ozawa S, Fukuda Y, Kawai S, Takaiwa F, Utsumi S, Murata K. 2000 Safety assessment of rice genetically modified with soybean glycinin by feeding studies on rats. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 64:1881-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11055391
No difference in rats
Palombo JD, DeMichele SJ, Liu JW, Bistrian BR, Huang YS. 2000 Comparison of growth and fatty acid metabolism in rats fed diets containing equal levels of gamma-linolenic acid from high gamma-linolenic acid canola oil or borage oil. Lipids. 35:975-81
Again, no difference
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15053345 Hey, another rat feeding study that didn't find any difference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15110110 Now this one is nice. 400 rats over 13 weeks. No difference in health, body weight, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), or organ weights. They also found that gross and microscopic appearance of tissue was the same between groups fed GM food and normal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126808 Here's one looking at crops across the world.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746139 Here's a review of articles pertaining to genetic modification of foods. They talk about potential adverse effects but go onto state that the crops available in the market that are intended for human consumption are generally safe and not associated with serious health problems.
I can keep citing articles like this but I believe I've demonstrated the point of how easy it is to cherry pick results that agree with your conclusion. I could also take parts of their abstract to make it sound more sciency if you like but it wouldn't actually add much value.
What doc didn't post was several important caveats when looking at such studies.
First, GM food is highly variable so if one study happens to find something adverse it doesn't apply to other GM foods because the genetic modification you do in one species is dependent on the DNA of that species which highly varies when you switch to a new one. So, trying to use select groups of studies as a reason to put all GM foods into a group is rather foolish as it doesn't actually give you any useful information such as the type of genetic modification performed.
Second, studies that delve into the difference between GM and normal foods have different testing standards for what they consider normal or abnormal. If you don't give those with a study it's rather pointless. Those testing standards can effect results. If you look hard enough, you will always find differences that appeared by chance alone. So, it's also important to put the number of mice studied to see if that difference holds for a larger group. This is also called replication
Third, rat and mouse studies with regards to feeding are extremely difficult to transfer to humans because they often give far higher doses then what a person receives. You see this all the time with possible cancer causing agents. These agents are shown to give cancer to mice when given doses far higher than a human would ever be exposed to. Rarely will you actually see a study that does a comparable human dosage/composition because humans vary their diets far too regularly to be as controlled as the mouse diet. This is one reason why such studies need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Now, what is actually important is meta analysis of such studies. But, this is very difficult to do because of the differences mentioned previously. When you run across studies that say there is a difference and studies that say there isn't a difference you can often attribute the effect to random chance. If GM foods demonstrated an adverse effect in all foods even if small, the majority of studies would show that. That's not the case here. This is why agencies such as the FDA consider them safe and not different from normal in safety or nutritional content.
The reason why various places don't want to put it on the label is because the populace is not nearly educated enough to even understand what genetic modification actually means. But these places do know that the population is irrational and not highly educated so they will likely make their decisions based upon a TV commercial or a movie they saw regarding genetic modification such as I am legend.
The reason why others not involved in selling them argue against such pointless laws is that the laws don't actually improve quality for the general population but instead create more paperwork and lawsuits to deal with. We don't like politicians wasting time on such pointless pet projects when there are far more serious issues that could be addressed.
For Debbie, Grown locally =/= organic. Do you actually know what natural means?
And, I just gave you the reasons in this and previous posts. Another reason not given is that various places will not provide funding for research into GM foods which have great potential to reduce starvation across the world unless they believe that the populace will actually buy them. So, by labeling them and activist unjustly putting them in a negative light, you slow down research in that area which delays improvements and benefits mentioned previously.
Oh, one other thing. The term locally grown isn't actually regulated so it can be put on plenty of things with little to no meaning. Locally grown definition the consumer uses aren't nearly the same as those used by producers. For example, Whole Foods considered anything grown within a 7 hour drive to be local. There's also doubt from experts that locally grown foods are any better than foods not locally grown. This is probably due to the fact that the definition of locally grown is very broad.
These types of things demonstrate my initial point regarding the average person. They don't know nearly enough about the terms, the techniques, or the science to make an informed decision regarding the safety of a product.
You mixed up locally grown with organic, you're placing actual value on the meaningless term natural (so are lawmakers...), and you're lumping completely different foods into the same GM group. It would be the same if I decided to take studies on trans-fat foods and lump them in with every non-GM food and now insist on more strict labeling for every non-GM food. Pointless waste of time and money that doesn't provide any real benefit....
It's highly suspect that GMOers are attempting to control and withhold information and use the rationale for doing so by accusing others of trying to control and manipulate information.
I don't care what the experts think. It's my body, my purchasing power and my decision.
As long as it's organic, what is your point?
Whether it's determined to be good or bad, or whether my IQ is 98 or 157, I want to know if the food products I am consuming was genetically altered. Period.
And btw, just because I didn't use "locally grown" and "organic" in the same sentence does not mean I have the terms mixed up or lack an understanding.
You erroneously assumed (and we all know what happens when one "assumes") because I stated I purchased my food locally that it contained unknown fertilizers and pesticides and wasn't organic:
Conspiracy theorist highly suspect that the US was behind the bombing of the twin towers. Creation scientist highly suspect that evolution is wrong. We don't pay them much head when it comes to law making, why should your conspiracy theory be any different?
I just demonstrated how you don't have much control over what you buy and put in your body already due to the lack of knowledge in the field so what you need to understand is that passage of this law doesn't actually do much for you in gaining that control. It only wastes time, money, and resources that could be better spent elsewhere and solving real problems such as obesity for example.
I would rather tax dollars go to funding more important projects such as school improvements instead of defending against lawsuits or legal challenges against a pointless law.
And, my point is that if you don't know the terminology and how it's regulated you stick stupid terms in laws that end up as loopholes. For example, the term natural has no special meaning so the fact that it was even mentioned shows that those either voting on the law or creating it have very little understanding of that field.
Many people that aren't knowledgeable of an area want control over it. It slows down scientific funding and progress and often leads to pointless rules that don't provide a benefit but drain resources.
Pay attention to what you wrote.
You: "I buy my alot of my food locally and know exactly where it comes from."
Me: "Food grown locally doesn't actually give you any information with regards to what is used as fertilizer, pest control, etc."
You: "
Ah, do you know what the term "organic" means, because personally, I'm not a fan of pesticides being a part of my daily diet."
You inserted the term organic in a discussion regarding locally grown as a counter to the argument regarding "fertilizer, pest control, etc." in locally grown products. So, either you think locally grown = organic or perhaps you're trying to change the discussion to organic instead of locally grown. But either doesn't really matter which we'll see at the end.
Second, yes it does show you don't know what the terms mean. Locally grown isn't distinct. So, using it at all to show that you have control over your food doesn't actually demonstrate this.
Finally, argument structure is important. You stated you bought locally grown food to demonstrate you had control over what was in your food. I told you that the term locally grown gives you no information regarding pesticides, etc. so locally grown doesn't give you that control. That makes no assumption on whether or not the food contains any sort of pesticides etc. That's simply stating that what you said was pointless with regards to your wish of having more control of your foods.
I'm inferring you didn't know the terms because you used locally grown to support your argument instead of organic, didn't give a definition of natural when asked, and placed erroneous importance on the term natural. If you would have stated your food was organic and used that as a defense of your argument, that would have been correct. You didn't do that, you used locally grown and then used natural in the same sense as you used organic demonstrating a misunderstanding of the terms.
Organic food is one of the biggest scam to be perpetuated whose sole existence relies on the complete ignorance of the general public. Every peer reviewed study on organic food have consistently demonstrated no increase in safety, nutritional value, or taste when compared to conventional or GM foods. (Studies listed below)***
The UK Food Standards Agency have stated "Consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."
A 12-month systematic review commissioned by the FSA in 2009 and conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine based on 50 years' worth of collected evidence concluded that "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content."
In the past 2 years, over 20 organic food has been recalled due to health & safety concerns. Including Salmonella contamination of Andrew Williamson Fresh Produce organic grape tomatoes and Starwest Botanicals organic celery seed. While in the 25 year history of GM food, not ONE single GM food has ever been recalled due to health & safety concerns. So you have a higher probability of getting sick and ill from organic food then you would ever have from GM food.
References (***):
Magkos F, Arvaniti F, Zampelas A (2006). "Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature" (PDF). Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 46 (1): 23–56.
Bourn D, Prescott J (January 2002). "A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods". Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 42 (1): 1–34.
Kouba, M (2003). "Quality of organic animal products".Livestock Production Science 80: 33–40.
Smith-Spangler, C; Brandeau, ML; Hunter, GE; Bavinger, JC; Pearson, M; Eschbach, PJ; Sundaram, V; Liu, H; Schirmer, P; Stave, C; Olkin, I; Bravata, DM (September 4, 2012). "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review.". Annals of Internal Medicine 157 (5): 348-366.
Williams, Christine M. (February 2002). "Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?" (PDF).Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 61 (1): 19–24.
Thank you vision, I was going to include an argument against organic foods with that similar theme but late night snack is calling.
I buy locally grown because I can verify it is organic. You made a wrong assumption to think that because I stated I bought locally, I must not be buying organic.
"Natural" simply means minimally-processed and free from artificial ingredients. Isn't it a bit "soylent greenish" that we now label normal, pre Big Agra food as "organic" to separate it from pesticide-laden, genetically modified food, which requires no labeling at all.
40 countries now require labels for GM foods. Did the American people not get the memo or is Big Agra and their lobbyists just too much of a match for our own government? The only reason Monsanto, Dupont, et al are spending over $44 million dollars fighting to keep 3 little letters off of a label, is fear, and the only thing corporations fear is a threat on their potential profits, which takes precedent over and above anything else.
It doesn't matter to me what you choose to put into your own body. I'm only concerned with what I put in my own. No matter how uneducated or stupid I may be, no one should taint that decision by purposely withholding facts and information.
Debi-1314897 - I'm against this proposition because of all the exemptions & who they are making responsible for the labeling of certain products. So your beef, chicken, eggs, milk, etc. were not genetically modified themselves, this does not mean the animals these products were derived from were not fed or injected with anything genetically engineered. Section 110809.2 (a) of Prop 37. These items will still get the "natural" stamp. Yes, it will inform you of a few items, but not all. Unless you are growing, raising, preparing the food yourself, it's pretty safe to assume something you may not "approve" of has been done to it. & the fact that grocers will be required to do the labeling on produce bins. Why should grocery stores be held liable for labeling? ALL of our produce could very well become pre-packaged.
While the idea is a good one and on the right track, this proposition is very misleading.
Rocklin Resident:
Being told the truth about our food source must begin somewhere. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Those posts above that support GMO foods, or tell everyone that everything you eat is GMO'd, please go and do some research. You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. There is a reason almost every other country has labels on them. If you don't care to eat them, then the labels will make no difference. For those of us who have studied the research behind GMO's, we want them labeled so we can avoid them and future doctor visits.
By the way, I also read how much better for the earth and how these foods are necessary to feed more people. Both are very far from the truth.
How is livestock being fed and/or injected their entire lives with genetically engineered/modified products & these products still getting the "natural" stamp being told the truth? We already have the option to buy organic or hormone free, etc. We already know that processed foods are not the healthiest choice for us. But when you make your local grocer responsible and then held liable for properly labeling these products, that's a bit of a stretch. Especially in such a sue happy state. We may only end up with the option of buying organic, another exemption from this proposition or shopping at whole foods stores. Would I prefer that all my store bought food did not get its start in a lab, of course. There are too many "exemptions" with the way this proposition is currently written. If they were to go back and rewrite it and not hold retailers accountable for labeling, then I would definitely support this.
My prediction if this passes.
Higher food prices (sorry poor people), More confusion of what a GMO is, More bureaucracy and taxes.
People's health and nutrition remain the same.
All this talk about fertilizer, pesticides and GMO's being evil.
Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives by introducing these thing to third world nations.
The proponents of organic farming who hate fertilizer, pesticides and GMO's seem to think those billion lives weren't worth saving.
Just think if it wasn't for Borlaug and his fertilizer, pesticides and GMO's more lives would have been lost than they amount of lives lost in WW2 multiplied by 15.
Can the world really support billions of more lives or should we listen to mother nature and stop trying to artificially alter her?
Rocklin Resident:
Are you then putting concern for retailers ahead of your own?
The only thing I have left to say about this issue is, what's currently stopping the producers who already sell non GMO foods from labeling their products as such? Seems like it would be a great marketing approach. I don't understand why a law would have to be in place for this to happen. We already know the term "natural" is vague in the eyes of the FDA.
"Are you then putting concern for retailers ahead of your own?"
This opens the door to frivolous lawsuits.......which would end up hurting us all.
Those lives were humans already here on planet earth. You know the poor and hungry the people you pretend to care about.
Its funny how the only thing stopping people from creating their own utopia is that they need for millions and millions of people to die.
Rocklin Resident:
Yes, it would seem like a good marketing strategy to announce your product comes to you as nature intended and does not contain any GMO's, but the reason a law is necessary is because without one, how do you keep those making that claim, honest? Why does there seem to be so much resistence to honesty and information? Three (3) little letters on a label, is that too much to ask? Why is so much money being spent over divulging those letters? You don't recognize a red flag?
What kind of frivolous lawsuits?
It's not a matter of "creating a utopia"; it's a matter of finite resources being able to maintain the current population. Even with the abundance of resources and technology today, we can't (more likely refuse to) keep massive starvation in third world countries at bay. It isn't a matter of not enough resources to go around, but one of greed and corruption. Producing food at lower cost and higher profits through the use of GMO's will not change mankind's dark side.
What concerns me is why do they need to be exempt from this law in order to make that claim? If they truly are GMO free......claim it & print it! No law needed for that. Frivolous lawsuits could be as easy as someone ripping the sign down, claiming they were not properly "informed" then suing the grocer. If their products truly are GMO free.....there's nothing currently preventing them from making that statement on their packaging. As far as I know, you can't currently claim to be GMO free if you're not.
For me, that raises a red flag!
Takechargeofyourhealth, frankly it's you that doesn't know what they're talking about. How many peer reviewed scientific studies in any of the major scientific journals have you read? I'm going to guess zero as every single one consistently demonstrates the safety of GM food. Try looking into what the scientific community thinks about this issue.
There's a reason why there's a scientific consensus on this issue which is supported by all the major scientific bodies. U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the British Royal Society, the FDA, the European Commission. While not a single major scientific organization has come out against GM food.
The burden of notification of any changes in the genetics of food should lie with those making the changes.
Organic food has not altered anything and remains just as mother nature intended.
Sounds like you are in favor of increasing crop yields so that we don't have to use more land and resources to grow the same amount of food. More full stomachs and less natural land being turned into farmland. Win-win for everyone
People who say that have never worried about their next meal. They wrongly believe that inefficient archaic farming methods are the solution for our modern world's problems.
We can either fight those whose ideas have already been shown to work or listen to those that ignore the results and say it can't be done.
The world and its finite resources cannot sustain unbridled population growth.
Improving farming methods, not altering the genetic make up of food, is always in our best interest.
Even with the continued improvement of farming methods, we will always have those who will die of starvation; not due to a lack of available food, but because of the greed and corruption of mankind.
No Debi, that was not an assumption. When told that you didn't have control over the food you consume you stated that it was locally grown. You didn't state anything regarding organic. You assumed that people would interpret locally grown with some important meaning. You then tried to put in organic later. Your assuming that locally grown means you actually know where it was grown and that you have control over your food supply. That is is incorrect because the definition of locally grown is far to vague as demonstrated by locally grown label going on food that is grown hundreds of miles away from where it is sold.
Second, you can't verify that food labeled as locally grown is organic anymore then you can verify non-locally grown as organic because the labeling of organic is not related to locally grown. This further demonstrates that you don't know what these terms mean on packaging.
Also, you don't know the definition of natural as applied to packaging, nor do you know the legal definition of natural. If a package of produce is labeled as all natural it does NOT mean that it is free from what you would consider artificial ingredients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_foods
Natural has no meaning when applied to food products. So again, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of these terms.
This only serves to prove my initial point that this type of law doesn't do any of the things which you claim you want. You say you want information about foods to make better decisions and that not having labels takes away control. If you don't even understand what those labels means (as is the case for most consumers) then you had no real control in the first place. So, this law gives you no additional control. It pretends to do something useful. So again, we now have money wasted on a useless law full of loopholes not providing any benefit.
Finally... Debi... scientific advancement in the fields of food growth can reduce starvation in other areas. Unfortunately, funding for scientific research into these areas has been significantly reduced due to budget cuts so now people that work in that field coming up with better technologies for growing food must apply for corporate sponsored grants to get research done. The funding they are willing to give to research into this area is related to how much profit they will make in that area. If their profits are reduced they will pull funding thereby slowing down advancements that could help those countries with starvation problems.
You claim that GMO foods won't solve that problem but, as we demonstrated, you're far from an expert in that area. So, why should we take your word as opposed to the word of numerous scientists studying that field?
Stop pretending that preventing starvation in various countries is a huge drain on the planet's resources. I can guarantee that you're imprint and usage on the planets resources far outweigh the additional resources needed to support an individual starving in a 3rd world country. You're typing on a computer and living in a first world country so I would guess it's more than 10 times higher. Living in a first would country with the amount of resources we use isn't really "listening to mother nature" so stop pretending this fantasy you have about organic foods means you're listening to mother nature.
For Rocklin, yes that's another reason why laws like this create several issues. If you require GMO foods to be labeled as such then you will create several lawsuits with regards to food not labeled as such through accidents. This can increase the cost of produce which is always passed on to the consumer. If you leave laws vague and use terms which have little to no meaning the number of frivolous lawsuits has nowhere to go but up....
No, you're assuming I don't know exactly where my food is grown and that it is not organic. I know exactly where my food is grown, is organic and locally grown is just a byproduct of that information.
We have enough food to feed the world now and we still allow people to starve. How will more food solve that problem?
If a food is not labeled properly, whether by accident or on purpose, there needs to be a method in place for a correction (law). Allowing the proper labeling of food a voluntary measure leads to far too many purposeful "accidents".
Either the label contains the letters "GMO" or it doesn't. Seems pretty simplistic whereby even a caveman can understand it.
VisionsT1 (and those who agree with Vision’s arguments)--
Most of your listed sources are almost 10 years old, but I did find in the article “Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature”
“Although there is an urgent need for information related to health benefits and/or hazards of food products of both origins, generalized conclusions remain tentative in the absence of adequate comparative data.” The abstract actually concludes:
“At our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food.” [my italics] (2006)
Another article you listed ("Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review," from 2012) in its data synthesis goes directly against your implied argument that organic food is recalled more (you make a point of saying “over 20 organic food has been recalled due to health & safety concerns” and “you have a higher probability of getting sick and ill from organic food then you would ever have from GM food”):
“Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork” (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%])” [my italics]. Since many non-organic foods have therefore been recalled (based on contamination rates from the article "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review,"), and since 75 to 80 percent of conventional processed foods currently contain GM ingredients (Grocery Manufacturers Association), clearly some of those were (or should have been) GM foods. To reiterate the last sentence of that quote, clearly non-organic chicken and pork have higher rates of bacteria “resistant to 3 or more antibiotics” as well.
You later state, “There's a reason why there's a scientific consensus on this issue which is supported by all the major scientific bodies.” In my first post I included a quote from this article from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics--“The Academy supports consumers’ right to know what ingredients are in the foods they purchase to feed their families.” There’s also this WHO quote: “The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farmer dependent on [particular] chemicals.” Besides the fact that GM crops haven’t been in our food chain for a full generation, there’s also the issue of testing to begin with: “[As of 2009] Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops” (Scientific American, 2009). There are other market-sensitive issues at stake as well such as the development of “superweeds” from using more herbicides on engineered herbicide (Roundup)-resistant crops (I have a quote in my first post from the NYT on the example of cotton and superweeds affecting that industry).
Regarding pesticides and herbicides on non-organic crops and increased herbicide use due to Roundup-resistant engineered crops we eat or work with (another major aspect to consider when buying organic—people exposed through work or living downwind/downstream), here are some relevant excerpts from the President’s Cancer Panel (2008-2009):
The “prevailing” US model for environmental policy regarding the science of harmful contaminants] “is reactionary rather than precautionary.” They go on to note that, “That is, instead of taking preventive action when uncertainty exists about the potential harm a chemical or other environmental contaminant may cause, a hazard must be incontrovertibly demonstrated before action to ameliorate it is initiated…[H]armful effects [from chemicals]. . .may occur only at very low doses. Further, chemicals typically are administered when laboratory animals are in their adolescence, a methodology that fails to assess the impact of in utero, childhood, and lifelong exposures. In addition, agents are tested singly rather than in combination.”
Unbridled? The population has been growing yes, but the growth rate has been steadily declining for quite some time now and the world's population is expected to peak around 2050. People are choosing to have less and less kids, these fewer and fewer births add to the population count now, but that also means there are fewer babies replacing the people who die from old age.
Me personally I don't care if people overpay for nutritionally equivalent food at Whole Foods, I just don't think starving people in third world countries can afford to shop there.
Let'm starve isn't a solution.
More access to birth control and using science to increase crop yields is the solution and it has been shown to work.
OH Really? So tell me again which one can carry E. Coli.
A. Manure
B. Synthetic fertilizer
Kryss are you under the impression that scientific evidence have an expiration date? Are we dismissing Einstein's theory of relatively because it's "too old"? Do you have any peer review study new or otherwise that counters the assertion from mainstream science that organic food do not show any consistent and significant difference in terms of safety or nutritional value?
How does "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review," counter my argument that organic food is more likely to make you ill than GM food? Nowhere in its data synthesis does it make any comparison of overall recall rates due to safety compared to conventional or GM food. It does specifically mention no significant difference of e.coli but e.coli isn't the only reason products get recalled.
Records from the US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada show that organic food is 8 times more likely to be recalled due to safety reasons than conventional food. "Institute of Food Technologists" have stated that organic food have the potential for greater pathogen contamination than conventional food.
"Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics" is NOT a scientific organization. Its members are registered dietitians, not scientists, and they have absolutely no expertise in bioengineering. Most dietitians never go beyond a bachelor degree.
The official position of the major scientific and medical organizations which include the US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, British Royal Society, World Health Organization, is that GM food is safe. And the scientific consensus on organic food is that there is no consistent and significant safety or nutritional benefits compared to non-organic food.
There are too many exemptions for this proposition to be truly deemed as informative.
110809.2. Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food--Exemptions
The requirements of Section 110809 shall not apply to any of the following:
(a) Food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that has not itself been genetically engineered, regardless of whether such animal has been fed or injected with any genetically engineered food or any drug that has been produced through means of genetic engineering.
(b) A raw agricultural commodity or food derived therefrom that has been grown, raised, or produced without the knowing and intentional use of genetically engineered seed or food. Food will be deemed to be described in the preceding sentence only if the person otherwise responsible for complying with the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 110809 with respect to a raw agricultural commodity or food obtains, from whoever sold the commodity or food to that person, a sworn statement that such commodity or food: (1) has not been knowingly or intentionally genetically engineered; and (2) has been segregated from, and has not been knowingly or intentionally commingled with, food that may have been genetically engineered at any time. In providing such a sworn statement, any person may rely on a sworn statement from his or her own supplier that contains the affirmation set forth in the preceding sentence.
(c) Any processed food that would be subject to Section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes.
(d) Any alcoholic beverage that is subject to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, set forth in Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code.
(e) Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to Section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (1) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (2) the processed food does not contain more than 10 such ingredients.
(f) Food that an independent organization has determined has not been knowingly and intentionally produced from or commingled with genetically engineered seed or genetically engineered food, provided that such determination has been made pursuant to a sampling and testing procedure approved in regulations adopted by the department. No sampling procedure shall be approved by the department unless sampling is done according to a statistically valid sampling plan consistent with principles recommended by internationally recognized sources such as the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA). No testing procedure shall be approved by the department unless: (1) it is consistent with the most recent "Guidelines on Performance Criteria and Validation of Methods for Detection, Identification and Quantification of Specific DNA Sequences and Specific Proteins in Foods," (CAC/GL 74 (2010)) published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission; and (2) it does not rely on testing of processed foods in which no DNA is detectable.
(g) Food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as "organic" pursuant to the federal Organic Food Products Act of 1990 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the United States Department of Agriculture.
(h) Food that is not packaged for retail sale and that either: (1) is a processed food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption or (2) is served, sold, or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other food facility that is primarily engaged in the sale of food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption.
(i) Medical food.
But but ... the consumer should get to decide the facts not the scientists who've devoted their lives to researching food safety. You see the smart guys in the lab coats aren't falling for the misinformation and scare tactics of the anti-GMO gang, that's why we have to let the uninformed consumers decide whats on food labels.
Does anyone else remember when the Zambian gov't turned away 35,000 tons of food aid when millions of their own people were starving because of the possibility that some of it might have had GMO's in it?
This is why I very much dislike the anti-vaccination and anti-GMO groups their lies and scare tactics end up causing people to die.
VisionsT1,
Because the overall current evidence regarding the safety of both non-organic and particularly GMOs isn’t even close to sufficient in terms of scope in the first place, I think it is particularly important to search out new evidence, specifically studies with a wider scope. As the article “Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature” mentions, “Although there is an urgent need for information related to health benefits and/or hazards of food products of both origins, generalized conclusions remain tentative in the absence of adequate comparative data.” Newer research is also able to more fully take into account the entire ongoing process of our understanding of food safety. It is more important to also encourage a more precautionary approach to chemicals used on crops, as the President’s Cancer Panel of 2008-2009 mentioned; this applies to organic vs. non-organic and is important with GMOs because of engineered pesticide (Roundup)-resistant crops. The panel found that:
“U.S. regulation of environmental contaminants is rendered ineffective by five major problems: (1) inadequate funding and insufficient staffing, (2) fragmented and overlapping authorities coupled with uneven and decentralized enforcement, (3) excessive regulatory complexity, (4) weak laws and regulations, and (5) undue industry influence. Too often, these factors, either singly or in combination, result in agency dysfunction and a lack of will to identify and remove hazards.” (President’s Cancer Panel)
Because of that explanation and information like “Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic. Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer…Some chemicals indirectly increase cancer risk by contributing to immune and endocrine dysfunction that can influence the effect of carcinogens” (President’s Cancer Panel)
and “According to the USDA, organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than does conventional produce.”—Mayo clinic,
I choose to avoid many non-organic and probable GM [oils, meat, corn, etc.] foods (labeling of GMOs would make that easier). Although I’m gambling that it will really help me, even if it doesn’t, it helps people closer to the harmful chemicals than I am. I’ve already given examples of superweeds harming the cotton industry, and there are numerous reasons to keep harmful chemicals out of the water supply, etc.
Regarding recalls, the article "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review" does show evidence (that I quoted in my last post) that harmful bacteria are found on both organic and non-organic crops in generally equal amounts. If a majority of non-organic foods are GMOs, then most likely some are making some people ill. Do you know of online primary sites and/or even academic, peer-reviewed titles that make mention of the assertion that “organic food is 8 times more likely to be recalled due to safety reasons”? I could only find an undetailed docket from the Institute of Food Technologists related to this statement. It is important to note again that the article mentions “antibiotic-resistant bacteria” occurring much more often in non-organic pork and chicken; this is something you are therefore avoiding by eating organic pork and chicken, and seems like another good reason to go with those types of organic meats.
Rocklin--I know Debi said the same thing, but if you have no other issues with the law other than it doesn’t go far enough, why not use this as a starting place? Is there something else besides or because of this issue that causes you to want to vote against it?
Also, Zaqqum, I don’t understand exactly why you’re lumping anti-vaccination and anti-GMO people together. I am not anti-vaccines--I am not even very familiar with anti-vaccination arguments, especially after the major article disproving the 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield. If you don’t get vaccines for yourself or children, you/they could possibly die (certain diseases have higher risks than others), plus you can weaken herd immunity. If you, as an American, personally choose not to eat GM foods (if given the choice), you are not hurting anyone, and you are actually helping those who live downstream/downwind and those who work with the crops in the first place in the case of herbicide (Roundup)-resistant GM crops that allow more herbicides.
For Debi, you're missing the point regarding assumptions. I'm going directly off of your post. If you state that something is locally grown or that it's natural it's not up to me to figure out if it's also organic. That's up to you to either state or not. You tried to use locally grown to demonstrate that you had control over your food. You didn't use organic until much later.
Now, with regards to GMO. No, that label is not at all accurate because different foods that are modified have different modification performed. So, the label of GMO doesn't give you any more information about it then not labeling it. You might as well label it with the weather information because it's about as useful.
Fortunately, most individuals saw the stupidity of this particular law and it was voted down.
"research projects done over a decade by the European Commission found no evidence to link consumption of GM foods with higher risks of food or feed safety when compared with conventionally produced foods."
This is NOT the same thing as finding that they are safe. Until they FOUND TO BE SAFE, I don't want to eat them. Food products should be labeled so that I know.
Unless of course corporate profits are more important.....
How do you define "found to be safe" because in science there are no absolutes like that, all you can really do is look at an individual claim of harm and see if it can be backed up by evidence. water for instance isn't safe, if you drink too much of it you can actually die from the sodium deficiency it causes.
The labeling itself isn't the issue, it's the stigma. lets say foods were required by law to list dihydrogenmonoxide as an ingrediant in big bold letters would you want to consume that? dihydrogenmonoxide? the name alone sounds scary... compared to what it is commonly known as... H2O
If you have a good education in basic chemistry you'd probably see that, and know it's water, but how many people also know that? how many people have a good education in basic genetics and know what GMO actually is?
Here's the thing, Steve--It's a scientific impossibility for something to be "found to be safe," at least not in the absolute sense that you are looking for. That just simply isn't how things with science. Scientists pick a potential risk or threat from a substance, and then design and conduct a test to see if that substance actually creates that risk. At the end of the study, they can say substance X does or does not have a link to risk Y. No evidence of a specified risk is scientifically all they can conclude.
Eventually, the number of studies on substance X will pile up, determining, or eliminating, links to specified risks, and at a certain point, like, say, the 50+ studies the European Commission reviewed, one is able to say "there is no evidence of risk."
But it is a scientific impossibility to design a study for unknown risks. Can't be done. The human body, or even the lab rat body, has so many things going on in side of it that you can't simply say "we'll feed this group GMOs and that not, and see what happens." You simply can't test every bodily function at the same, and simultaneously rule all other risk factors your test subjects are subject to during that time frame.
Trying to live life by your standards is utterly pointless and impossible. It's fear-driven, not evidence driven, in spite of your pleas to contrary, as no evidence will ever allay your fears.
Easy, look up GMO rats, the study was with soy and the researchers admitted they could NOT find a 100% GMO free sample of soy for the control rats. So they had to use the sample with the least amount of GMO. Then they found that the GMO rats had a 50% infant mortality rate, including stillborns. Then the survivors grew up 1/3 the size of the controls. They were frail, feeble, had poor coats, looked unthrifty and didn't live long.
The fact is there are two main GMO's. Bt- Baccillus Thuringins, is normally a bacteria us organic growers use in powder form for dusting plants like corn or anything that gets caterpillers. It is a bacteria specific to caterpillers. However, Monsanto began to inject the DNA from Bt into corn mostly, and made it part of the DNA of the plant. If you watch any movies like Food, Inc, or Bad Seed, you can see that the DNA injection process is far from stable, and the DNA moves. it doesn't stay in the area it was intended, and it causes some strange problems. Bt use naturally causes bowel destruction in caterpillers, so that is how they are killed, but Bt GMO crops, has caused colic and bloat (a bowel killer) in cattle and sheep when they were grazed on GMO crop residues.
The other primary GMO, is basically Round Up, When you hear about "Roundup Ready" crops, this is what they are talking about. A chemical called glyphosate is implanted in the DNA of soy, and lawn grass, and now alfalfa, and this is a weed killer. It is designed so that you can spray your whole field with RoundUp and the Roundup Ready crop will be resistant, killing the target weeds. It just sounds like a way to sell MORE weed killer. And the kicker is that the nonresistant weeds are becoming resistant and the whole thing is a backfire. In the meantime, anyone eating this GMO crop like soy or our dairy animals eating RR alfalfa, are having health issues from the ingestion of glyphosate. Search for Dr. Huber; glyphosate for the science on this horrible dilemma. Round Up has been around for years, and people have been using it on their lawns forever, glyphosate itself is causing long term health issues in many ways.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/20/monsantos-gm-corn-and-cancer-in-rats-real-scientists-deeply-unimpressed-politics-not-science-perhaps/
whisperingsage,
Read this, please.
Safety comparable to conventional food can certainly be proven, by Long Term controlled blinded clinical feeding trials. What's stopping the Monsanto's from doing them?
1. cost--they are simply too cheap to spend a tiny proportion of their profits on safety studies
2. they are afraid of what they will find, because their own short term studies actually suggest medical harm: chronic nephropathy and hepatobiliary disease.
But what do you expect, when narcissistic plant experts ( without any medical training) pretend there is no limit to their limited knowledge base and try to act like they are qualified to be formulating health policies?
And what do you expect when these same corporations control the flow of knowledge and the narrative.
Genetically Engineered food is Safe.....Trust Us !
Soybean Glyphosate-tolerant soybean (CP4 EPSPS) Malatesta et al. (2002a).
Irregularly shaped nuclei, higher number of nuclear pores, numerous small fibrillar centres and abundant dense fibrillar component, nucleoplasmic and nuclear splicing factor more abundant in GMfed mice Higher metabolic rate and molecular trafficking. Influence GM soybean intake onhepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice (mechanismsunknown)
Soybean Glyphosate-tolerant soybean (CP4 EPSPS)
Malatesta et al.
Mice 240 days (30) Histocytochemistry pancreatic acinar cells. No structural modifications but quantitative changes in some cellular constituents. A diet containing significant amounts of GM food seems to influence the zymogen synthesis and processing in pancreatic acinar cells (reasons remain unknown)
Soybean Glyphosate-tolerant soybean (CP4 EPSPS) Malatesta et al. (2003).
Mice 240 days (30) Ultrastructural morphetrical and immunocytochemical analyses of pancreatic
acinar cells nuclei 2 groups (n = 12 female mice); in total 24 individuals.
Decrease of the shape index and the fibrillar centres density and increase of the pore density, the
perichromatin granule density, the percentage of fiibrillar centres in GM-fed mice. Lower
labellings for the nucleoplasmic splicing factors A diet containing significant amounts of GM food seems to influence the pancreatic metabolism
Soybean Glyphosate-tolerant soybean (CP4 EPSPS)
Malatesta et al. (2008). Mice 2 years (104) Histocytochemistry of hepatocytes 2 groups (n = 10 femalemice); in total 20 individuals. Different expression of proteins related to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria in Gmfed mice. Indications of reduced metabolic rate in GM-fed mice GM soybean can influence some liver features during ageing
Moreover, preliminary EM analyses of hepatocytes and pancreatic acinar cells revealed smaller, irregularly shaped cell nuclei containing increased amounts of heterochromatin and perichromatin
granules (ribonucleoprotein structural components involved in transport and/or storage of already spliced premRNA) in T lambs (Fig. 3).
Maize Bt Kilic and Akay, 2008.
Wistar albino rats Duration not precise at least 3.5 months (14 weeks)
Granular degeneration level in 10% of examined sections was maximum (level 4) in Group III
Liver Focal infiltration Group III : 7/14 8/16
Congestion: 10/14 7/16
Granular degeneration 9/14 13/16
Nuclear border change 10/14 13/16
Kidney Enlargement in parietal layer of Bowman’s capsule 6/14 5/11
Tubular degeneration 13/14 9/11
Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in
goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings
R. Tudisco et al.
On the contrary, in blood and milk of treated goats, fragments both of the 35S promoter and the CP4 EPSPS gene were detected. These fragments were also found in treated kids with a significant detection of the 35S promoter in liver, kidney and blood, and of the CP4 EPSPS gene fragment in liver, kidney, heart and muscle. A significant increase in lactic dehydrogenase, mainly concerning the lactic
dehydrogenase-1 isoenzyme was found in heart, skeletal muscle and kidney of treated kids, thus suggesting a change in the local production of the enzyme. Finally, no significant differences were detected concerning kid body and organ weight.
Vecchio et al. (2004).
Enlarged vesicles of the smooth endoplasmic reticulum, Decrease in the number of nuclear pores. Reduced labelling during the 2–8 month interval. Increase in perichromatin granules
in Sertoli cells and in spermatocytes of GMfed mice A transient transcriptionnal decrease Causes of the alteration notestablished, especially
because glyphosate residues might influence transcriptionnal process
"Moreover, preliminary EM analyses of hepatocytes and pancreatic acinar cells revealed smaller, irregularly shaped cell nuclei containing increased amounts of heterochromatin and perichromatin
granules (ribonucleoprotein structural components involved in transport and/or storage of already spliced premRNA) in T lambs"
The effect of multigenerational diet containing genetically modified triticale on immune system in mice.
M Krzyżowska et al.
In this study C57BL/6J mice were fed for five consecutive generations with pellets containing 20% of conventional triticale grain (control) vs. pellets containing 20% of the transgenic triticale grain resistant to BASTA herbicide (experimental). The F5 experimental animals showed enlarged inguinal and axillary lymph nodes, but not spleens, and increased WBC counts in blood (but within the norm for Mus musculus). Immunophenotyped cell suspensions derived from spleens, inguinal and axillaris lymph nodes and PBMCs from blood showed the significant decrease in the percentage of T cells in spleen and lymph nodes and the B cells in lymph nodes and blood of the F5 experimental mice in comparison to the control F5 mice. Immunoblotting analysis of IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, IL-12, IL- 6, IFN-gamma levels in serum showed significantly increased IL-2 levels and decreased IL-6 levels in the F5-experimental mice sera. No significant changes in the levels of IgE in sera in both mice groups were observed. The obtained results indicate that multigenerational use of feeds for rodents containing the GM-triticale leads to expansion of the B cell compartment in the secondary lymphoid organs, but it is not caused by malignant processes or the allergic response.
Thank you, dogctor, for the info. I will have to ask my husband (he is a retired physician) about a few of the things you quoted in #2.6, but most of it I fairly well understood (I think!). Definitely some cell changes in the liver and pancreas, and lymph nodes of the animals in the studies. In light of the G I tract problems I have been having, and my process of having to go on a bland, simple diet then adding items back in slowly, I definitely need to know what is in my food! I live in California, and will be voting yes on prop 37. I am not counting on it passing, as I am only one person. This I can tell you, though--the more untrustworthy the big corporations act, the more I avoid them. It is definitely a 'let the buyer beware' world we live in today!
@ Steve
Then my answer to you is "Then dont eat them". Grow your own food or shut your pie hole.
I don't have a pie hole, pal... don't be a rude pri ck.
dogctor, you do realize essentially everything you wrote has been thoroughly debunked by peer review in the scientific community right? There are significant errors and issues with the studies you cited.
"The EFSA concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and they stated that all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats. In addition the EFSA review stated that the statistical methods used in Séralini 2007 paper were incorrect."
"The European Food Safety Authority reviewed the 2009 Séralini paper and concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by the data in their paper, that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper, and that there was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human and animal health, and for the environment."
"The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) also reviewed the Séralini 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."
"This review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods."
There is not a single scientific study that has passed peer review and published in a major scientific journal that concludes a potential health or safety risk of GM food. In fact all the peer reviewed studies in major scientific journals point to the contrary.
The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
"To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."---US National Academy of Sciences
I agree. Monsanto said Agent Orange was safe and tested. They also said Roundup was bio-degradable. Both are huge lies. GMO's are no different. It's about money, not your health.
It's pretty suspicious that some companies don't even want to LABEL their food... how stupid is that?
I've got my fingers crossed that this will start a national movement to start labeling our food and discussing genetically modified foods!
Paranoia can lead to a law negatvily effecting business from what would normally seem like a common sense law... people don't trust GMO because of the what they hear from activists, much of which is untrue or misleading, so they see a product labeled as GMO and they decide not to buy it... because of the paranoia rather than actual facts.
This doesn't change the fact that people have a right to know what they are eating, under any circumstances. Personally, I would eat GM food that was approved by the FDA, but I also support this proposition (Not that my vote matters, I don't live in California.)
Nothing says that government or consumers are obligated to help avoid certain businesses being negatively affected.
This is a transaction between the seller and the buyer. That's all. It's not like refusing to get vaccinated for some dumb reason, which makes you a carrier and hurts the rest of the community.
The other problem is that labeling regime called for the by California law is vague, inconsistent, and so hard to determine that it will serve primarily as a boon for civil attorneys looking for someone to sue. It seems almost as if it's designed specifically to force food businesses to make a Hobbesian choice between supply chain nightmares, civil liability, or over-labeling and innaccurate labeling of GMO. The more ingredients a product has, the greater the chance that some portion will be GMO somewhere along the line, even small portion, but it's unclear in the law the threshhold line for GMO ingredients requiring labelling. If a non-GMO cow is occassionally fed a GMO corn feed, will milk from that cow require a GMO label? Steaks? When dairies aggregate milk from multiple farms, will they need to review the labels on each farmer's feed bags, and segregate the milk from the GMO-fed farms and the non-GMO fed, and make separate bottling runs?
None of this is clear in the law, and will be settled by running farmers, wholesalers, grocery stores, and restaurants through a litigation ringer. And all for labelling what, by all scientific evidence, is an irrelevant distinction.
The lies are coming from MONSANTO. Follow the money... activists have nothing to gain monetarily. None of the promises Monsanto has made about GM crops have come to fruition. No greater yields, not less pesticide or herbicide usage, but more, creation of new superweeds and superbugs, depletion of soil nutrients, cancer in field workers, threats to bee and bat population, the list goes on and on.
50 other countries have banned GMOs - why haven't we?
justross- I'm reading over the proposal now. It is actually pretty clear.......when you read it!
To answer your concern: "If a non-GMO cow is occassionally fed a GMO corn feed, will milk from that cow require a GMO label? Steaks? When dairies aggregate milk from multiple farms, will they need to review the labels on each farmer's feed bags, and segregate the milk from the GMO-fed farms and the non-GMO fed, and make separate bottling runs?"
Pg. 112 Text of Proposed Laws 110809.2 (a)
The requirements shall NOT apply to any of the following:
(a) Food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that has not itself been genetically engineered, regardless of whether such animal has been fed or injected with any genetically engineered food or any drug that has been produced through means of genetic engineering.
& then goes on from there.
However, I do share your concern about civil liability issues. Especially if grocery stores will be required to do the labeling for raw fruits and vegetables sold from bins.
110809 (1) - In the case of a raw agricultural commodity on the package offered for retail sale, with the clear and conspicuous words "Genetically Engineered" on the front of the package of such commodity or, in the case of any such commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale
There is a simple solution for what to label. Simply label everything as containing the product of genetic engineering. That's true. Everything that we eat has been the subject of thousands of years of genetic engineering.
Activist most certainly have motivations that can be monetarily based. For example, if a "natural foods" producer wants to continue to sell overpriced products, they would have a monetary incentive.
An activist not having a monetary incentive doesn't make their cause any less stupid. Does PETA get paid whenever someone doesn't eat meat? No. But that doesn't make their cause any or reasoning any more correct.
We all have the right to know what is in our food. I hope this passes.
This is a great story. I wish it had come out before early voting started. I probably would have changed the way that I voted on this.
Eactly what's the difference in eating a specific "variety" of corn, tomatoe, radish, etc.? Are we eating the same corn that the Pilgrams ate? Of course not. Cross-pollination creates a new "variety", thus a "new", distinctive DNA. Creating new "varieties" of food through cross-pollination has been going on for thousands of years dating back to pre-bibilical Egyptian times. Are we asking food growers to label each new variety as genetically engineered? I would think that if a splice-altered DNA needs to be labelled, then ANY gene-altered food should be labelled. Personnally I really don't think we need labelling on GA or GM foods OR on hybrid pollinated foods. Is there any solid evidence, scientific or apocryphal, to support suspecion of GA/GM foods?
Exactly right, catfish. The only difference between cross-pollination and GMO techniques is that the cross-pollination techniques were really much more a "hope and pray" gamble. You'd take a variety of corn that seemed to do well in drought years but fell victim to a crop disease and try to pollinate with a variety of corn that seemed to survive a particular disease rather well, but couldn't tolerate drought. You would then hope and pray that the resulting corn got both the drought and disease resistant genes, rather than the "needs lots of water" and "falls victim to disease" genes.
GMO techniques allow scientists to determine which genes account for those traits and ensure they show up in the resulting seeds. That's the only difference.
Cross-pollination has never been proven safe, either. This is an assumption that everyone gets wrong. Just one example: Modern wheat has been manipulated so now it contains 50% gluten, whereas 60 years ago, it had 5%. How many people do you know that have problems with wheat now because of 'gluten intolerance' ? I know plenty.
I forgot to mention allergies. When I was young, maybe ONE kid in a classroom had allergies (only one fat kid per classroom as well). Nowadays, everybody's got them, it seems. Gotta be the food.
justross, you clearly don't understand the technology of GMOs. It's NOT the same as cross-pollination.
you are both right AND wrong GMO seeds are ONLY GOOD FOR ONE HARVEST. This is done so that the grower must buy new seeds from Monsanto. That is not just the home grower such as myself, but every corporate farmer as well. A sterile seed is only good to the guy who owns the patent. This is a monopoly plain and simple.
frances -- I don't know -- are GMOs only good for one harvest? Why is Monsanto seeking damages from neighboring farms if a field of Monsanto-engineered product pollinates a nearby field of non-engineered produce? Monsanto has the patents and somehow they're being successful in claiming infringement/damages. Either way, it's pretty disgusting.
Frances is 1/2 right. Some GM seeds can be used over and over. Other GM seeds have a "terminator" gene in them that causes them to be sterile. (Now if that terminator gene crosses over into other seeds...scary thought...)
Another biased misleading article. Whether or not to label the foods is a valid topic for discussion, but this article only talks about the generalities while implying that those apply to Prop 37. Unfortunately there are so many exceptions built into this Prop that it is worse than useless. Everyone here that says they don't want to eat GM or GE foods...how do you feel knowing that Dog Food must be labeled but most meat for human consumption is EXEMPT under Prop 37? IMHO this is the right topic but the wrong Prop.
Eliza Zied and NBC News - FAIL for not doing your homework!
A complete waste of time and money. But we are talking about California and that's what they are famous for. Go figure!
The reason why a labeling bill 'failed' in Vermont and Connecticut was not because people didn't want it (90% DO). Both measures passed the legislature in these states. Monsanto used the threat of lawsuits against the states to intimidate them and forced them to back down.
Democracy in action.
I wish this was up for vote in every state!
Why is it that Europe says no to GMO by labeling all there food so people know what they consume. Its like were always light years behind Europe on many issues. These should of been labeled from day 1. What we consume is important to everyone. Also the farmers cannot even reuse the seeds for the next harvest. They have to give them back to the company monsanto. If they don't vote yes to have them labeled. This will prove how stupid Americans have become. Regions in europe have outlawed GMO. That should make everyone pause and say what do they know that we don't.
Let's think about what we write, before we do. Why is that Europe is light years ahead of us. This is the same Europe that is the verge of complete financial and civil destruction? You ever wonder why America is so prosperous? It's because we are a forward thinking country, we think about the future. Instead of blaming ideas for which you have no qualification arguing, you should focus on what YOU need to do to ensure your childrens' children can survive in this tumultuous world.
tayd7 -- A main reason Europe is having financial problems is because of the banking industry's deregulation, bad loans and subsequent meltdown that happened in this country. Letting Monsanto and others dictate to virtually everyone in this country what goes into our "food" and we don't need to know about it, is not forward thinking. It makes investors wealthy for a period of time but that sort of thing always comes home to roost, just like the housing bubble. We're already paying for it in the form of increasing health problems such as allergies and obesity. Europe doesn't have the obesity problem the U.S. does.
Europe is in financial crisis like most of the world. That's a separate issue. On social policy as well as education and science they are ahead of us in many areas. Why? I think mostly because we've become a society that doesn't think rationally. We listen to whatever fear tactics are out there and take it as gospel. Because of that, we are in a position where we can't move forward. The money decides what would be best to make more money, and by using scare tactics they control the people into fighting for them.
Rational thinking should tell you that people have a right to decide what they put into their bodies. I'm amazed that by telling people that it will bring some sort of economic collapse by labeling foods, people are actually fighting on their side. I don't give a darn about whether or not Monsanto makes money by using us as guinea pigs in their great experiment.
I've been watching this closely since the fist time I ate these products. And with my 3 eyes now it's much easier than before...............................
My husband and I voted against this, not because it is not a good idea, but because the implementation was flawed. Individuals could bring thousands of law suites. That's not the way to enforce this.
I DO want to know what I am eating and would prefer to eat natural non-GMO foods. We will get there.
I'm glad someone else actually read this proposition. Of course we don't want to eat GMO foods. So your beef, chicken, eggs, milk, etc. were not genetically modified themselves, this does not mean the animals these products were derived from were not fed or injected with anything genetically engineered. Retailers should not be held responsible for certain labeling as well.
As a California resident let me shed some light. Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers; the ones who will benefit most from passage. Prop is estimated to add $400 a year to the average family budget. Dog food has to be labeled but meat for human consumption does not.
Only in the land of "fruits and nuts", predominantly lear jet liberals, could anyone think this proposition is designed to "protect' the public or in the public's best interest.
Even the seeds you buy to plant your own veggies/fruits are GA. The only seeds I have found that aren't are Heirloom seeds ( available on line ). We always saved our seeds from what we grew for the following year and couldn't figure out why when we used those seeds we got plants but no food. Now we know that even the seeds have been GA'd. The biggest bully in GA seeds is Monsanto. Yup the old carpet company. Everyone who grows knows that a 'royalty' of sorts is payed to this company in order to grow. It's a shame but that's just the way it is. I live in AZ and I certainly would like to know if I am eating GA or really natural food.
On the surface, this just seems to be a no-brainer that folks would want to know exactly what it is they are eating. For way too long, all these processed foods have been dressed up with snappy commercials - and something like %50 of the country is overweight.
Secondly, let the market decide.
NOT putting on the label smells of something to hide.
Already voted Yes on it!
Anything backed by Monsanto has to be a bad thing. In fact, the Dupont pesticides will soon contain the same stuff used in Vietnam, "Agent Orange". All because crops are growing resistant to their pesticides...See where this is going? Pesticide use increases and become more dangerous while the pesticide makers get a monopoly. No thanks.
It isn't just crops that are growing resistant, weeds are as well. So we now are using more pesticides and more dangerous ones to control it. This is way too dangerous, beyond the actual food. It's very similar to antibiotics. Used too often it creates resistant strains. That's what is happening now with vegetation. And what will happen to the wildlife that lives nearby with all the pesticide use.
Right, I might have that mixed up a bit but something is growing more resistant to the pesticides and herbicides. The weeds or the pests themselves. Either way, more and strong chemicals keep getting used and that gets in your food, the ground water and the air you breathe.
Genetic modification is not the solution for this very reason.
No doubt we're eating this stuff. Monsanto has the FED in bed. FDA Federal Death Administration.
Good luck, I think you will find that most prepared foods will be marked GM, if you include animals that have been raised on GM crops the list will get even bigger.
I would have thought that Californians would have worse things to worry about.
We are all genetically modified. Proposition 37 is scientifically laughable and appeals to the conspiracy fringe. Where else but California?
Bet you said that about organic, too.
Ignorance is bliss....until you have to face chemotherapy.
Not sure what people are calling GM plants, if you are talking about gene splicing in the lab that's one thing, if you are talking about cross breeding plants in the field that's another, corn has been hybrids for 60 years that I know about, not sure when it started. I don't think that there is a farm crop that is the original source plant. If we could go back to the original source plants, it would be a hungry world.
They take viruses/bacteria and use them to insert genes from one plant/animal into another. It is not talking about hybrid plants. It can only be done in a lab.
the end result is the same
No, it isn't.
yea it is...but care to elaborate?
When using such methods it may look the same and taste the same but you may be changing the structure of it. Cloned animals look like any other animal of the same sort, but they tend to not live as long. I see this as being in the same category. We are manipulating our food and distributing it without knowing how it will affect us in the long run. Maybe it's necessary to advance (I doubt it, but maybe) but I don't want to be the experiment in it's early years. We don't yet know enough about the science to conclude without a doubt it is safe.
This is a meaningless statement. Structure of what? Changing it how? Specifically? Different amino acids...different nucleotide sequence..what?
Irrelevant, completely different. I mean, they both deal with science and biology, but other than that, there's nothing in common
There's 25 years of extensive data and thousands of years of empirical evidence of nature doing the same thing
You could say that about just about anything. Probably shouldn't wear clothes with any polyester, or other man made material then
eric -- GM food has more genetic material added to it, so it can end up with many more chromosomes than the original version. There isn't a good way of predicting what it will do to the human body ahead of time, other than unleashing those monstrosities on the public and waiting to see what happens. Modern GM wheat now causes a higher blood sugar spike than table sugar. It also has a much higher gluten content, which would have to be contributing to food allergies. Why are so many people needing gluten-free foods these days? Gluten sensitivity is real and affects more people than you would think. GM is definitely not the same as cross-pollinating crops, which has been done by humans for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Sure there is. Eat a steak---feel anything? Because you just ate about a billion chromosomes. Most cells you eat, whether they be animal or plant, have chromosomes. Again, this statement belies a lack of understanding of biology
I don't believe it. Post source
a) Post source about higher gluten content
b) Only in people who already have celiac disease--in that case, any gluten is a bad idea, GM or not
Pretty similiar
I live in Ohio. I have experience infertility first hand. I have seen relatives die of cancer & I have seen relatives struggle with intestinal issues. I would not wish that on anyone! If preliminary research shows that GM food increases the chances of those things in animals, why would I want to feed it to my children (after years of infertility we were blessed with miracle babies)?
Opponents say that it will cause the price of food to rise. We switched from Aldis to Trader Joe's (no GM in their brand food) & our food bill stayed the same! So cutting GM from the food, will not cost more.
Why I want CA 37 to pass is because although I can get food from Trader Joe's my family and extended family (like many families in the US) live hours away from safe food & can only go to GM laden places like Walmart. If the California bill passes, it will help the whole country to have access to choice.
Choice is what our country desires. Everyone fights for the opportunity to choose to live out what they believe. All I am asking for is the opportunity for people to know what they are eating.
So from a simple Ohioan with an $85 weekly grocery budget, please Californian residents vote YES on Proposition 37!
Thanks for your comments, Han. I'm going to vote yes. The problem is, for every commercial I see for the proposition, I see about 10 commercials against it, funded by many well-known food brands (Heinz, for example, disclosed at the bottom of the TV screen). I hope enough voters can think for themselves.
There's already a scientific consensus that GM food is as safe as conventional food. This is the official position of US National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the European Commission, the World Health Organization, Royal Society of Medicines, etc. Their conclusions are based on 25 years of studies in which no ill effects have been found in any commercially available GM product. Peer reviewed research consistently demonstrate the safety of GM food.
"The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."---European Commission
"To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population"---US National Academy of Sciences
The public has a very misguided view of GM food and seem rather clueless of the science behind it and have very irrational fears of something they don't understand. GM technology allows for crops to be produced more efficiently with higher crop yields with better nutritional and health values and with lower costs to the consumer.
Genetic engineering technology is an enormous leap in the advancement of human society. And the people that oppose it due to irrational beliefs are hindering scientific and technological progress of the human race. In the exact same way those that oppose stem cell research due to irrational beliefs are hindering scientific progress. Genetic engineering will play a much bigger role in the future. Including the genetic engineering of humans where we will be able to eliminate terrible genetic diseases that plague millions of people today that will allow humans to live much healthier lives. I can only hope that by then society will be well informed by then and welcome this enormous scientific advancement of genetic engineering that will greatly assist the health and well being of human society.
VisionsT1--go back and read dogctor's comments #2.5 and #2.6. And do you even know how they modify 'Round-Up Ready Corn' to be Round-Up ready?
Lisa, you need to be able to distinguish reputable sources from ones that have failed peer review. This is the exact same problem the public has with global warming. All scientific peer reviewed research shows that anthropogenic global warming is real and it has an overwhelming scientific consensus but those that deny global warming find very obscure flimsy studies and sources to cite that have repeatedly failed in peer review and have been repeatedly thoroughly debunked.
The same thing here. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that GM food is safe and that there is no established higher risk of GM food compared to conventional food. This is the official position of all the major scientific bodies. Over a hundred peer review studies spanning 25 years consistently demonstrates the safety of GM food. The sources you just cited have repeatedly failed in peer review and are not published in any major scientific journal. Please provide any peer reviewed study in any major scientific journal that concludes GM food as potentially dangerous.
"This review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods."
This is an example of how the political left and right are exactly the same when it comes to science and why Keith Kloor has called opponents of GM food "the Climate Skeptics of the Left". Because the exact same irrational unscientific thinking the right uses to deny global warming, the left does the exact same thing when it comes to GM food.
But if anyone actually cares what the scientific consensus is, here it is. Anthropogenic global warming is real and GM food is safe.
I don't care what the science says. Have the studies been done to see what the environmental impact is? Also, what about the financial effect on farmers and people in the food business? Are they going to eventually have to buy product from one or two companies? There's just so much involved here. And we are talking about labeling food! We aren't saying they will have to be taxed at a high rate or go through some rigorous testing to be sold. We just want to know.
When my daughter was an infant my doctor recommended a vaccine to protect against rotovirus. She had one dose before it was pulled off the market due to safety issues. I was prescribed Zetia a few years back. I barely started it when news broke that it was ineffective at best and could even pose a health risk. Both of these products were at some point proven, scientifically, to be safe. I want to make that choice myself.
Science is a long way away from having all the answers. If it did, the FDA wouldn't have to recall one drug after another that it previously gave its stamp of approval to, correct? I particularly like the self-described scientists who show up for news stories like this. They probably have an AA degree (not that there's anything wrong with that) but at that level they know just enough to be dangerous and they try to dazzle everyone with their vast knowledge. Get back to us in 20 years when you have more common sense and 20 years' worth of additional data about whether GM products are healthy or not.
So 25 years of research and 130 peer reviewed studies are not enough? You want 45 years now?
What do global warming deniers and anti-GM food activists have in common? They both nitpick the filmiest of evidence, ignore every scientific peer reviewed study, ignore the consensus of every major scientific body, and think they know more about science than scientists.
Both the political left and right are guilty of nitpicking the science they want to believe in while refusing to accept scientific facts that conflict with their ideology.
Go ahead and label it. It won't change my eating habits.
At least the decision that you will make if Prop 37 passes, will be an informed one..:)