GMOs causing autism?! We report, you decide!

[bhsup]

(Sorry for the title, Farmboy, I couldn't resist!)

I figured since it has taken up most of the last page of the rants thread, it merited its own thread. Here are all of the posts before now...

I've heard that before, too. Remember in Nazi Germany the largest group of people were the bystanders...

Also, vaccinate your kids and label your freaking GMOs or I WILL put you on the KAR list...

Or not...

Ungh, do not mix those in opposition to witchcraft endorsing GMO labelers with witchcraft endorsing anti-vaccers.

All of my (remaining) farmer friends* are interestingly in that category. Anti-GMO (in a specific sense opposing patented seeds, NOT anti genetic modification) -- Anti-Monsanto/ Cargill/ ADM and pro-vaccination.

That is to say, they also, generally, oppose international monopoly capitalism and are favorable to workers, especially our members.

*those friends who have not been put out of business, that is.

GMO labeling is generally synonymous with an anti-science food fetishization similar to anti-science anti-vaccers. That is the limit of the scope of my statement, not the general state of affairs in the effed up disbursement of subsidization, estate taxes, and the rights of multi-nationals.

Interestingly, there was just an editorial in today's Kansas City Star about GMO labeling. Actually, it was a Chicago Tribune editorial that the Star stole.

No like on the KC Star site, so here it is from the Tribune.

I can't read that without a subscription.

You're kidding! It opened right up for me. Oh well, since they are fine with me reading it, here ya go. Breaking my own personal rule for excessive quoting here, but for you...

Spoiler :

July 15, 2014

Vermont recently joined two other New England states and passed a law to require labels on food that contains genetically modifed ingredients. Similar labeling laws have been proposed in two dozen other states, including Illinois. A push is on for a federal labeling requirement.

We favor giving consumers as much information as possible about the products they buy and consume. We wonder, though, if the state-by-state push for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food will do more to frighten people than to inform them.

Ample research and decades of experience have shown that genetically modified crop technology is safe. People have been consuming genetically modified food for years. The vast majority of Midwest corn and soybeans used for animal feed and many pantry staples is genetically modified.

Moreover, this technology represents an astonishingly effective way to increase the food supply — to feed a rapidly expanding global population.

There is vast potential: crops with enhanced nutrition, crops that grow in droughts, crops that enable subsistence farmers to deal with conditions that thwart conventional crops. Those innovations are well within reach.

Labeling should inform the public, not prompt alarm. It's better to do this at the national rather than local level. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration permits food manufacturers to indicate through voluntary labeling if foods have not been developed through genetic engineering. The agency requires the labels to be truthful but otherwise has no formal requirements.

If people don't want to consume genetically modified food, they have a ready option: Buy organic. The Agriculture Department requires that foods labeled 100 percent organic contain no GM ingredients.

It's not a question of when you're going to ingest genetically modified. Chances are, you — hold tight, don't panic, everything's going to be OK — already are.

EDIT: For the record, I have no problem with forced labeling. I also have no problem with munching down on some nice GMO greens. I just figure more information is never a bad thing.

Ah ok, nothing too new there. Problem with GMO labeling is it's pretty cynical. "This is totally safe, but if you're worried about satanic witchcraft science tainting your precious bodily fluids then don't worry, we'll label it for you." The malefactor that is Whole Foods has to be giggling.

Thanks! The ban applies to foreigners as well.
That's why I usually paste the text when I quote a newspaper article.

I do agree with you. GM crops aren't necessarily bad, yet I do think that making them unreproduceable breaks anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws and conventions.

Problem is a GMO label isn't going to catch that issue very well. Hybrid vigor is all natural and getting on 70+ years old. It will catch crops that take reduced energy and chemical inputs to grow. Now if they came up with a label that said, "grown with natural rainfall instead of irrigation then not shipped under refrigeration across two continents fresh to your table!" That might have some merit.

Out of curiosity, when does a food become a GMO? Did the high-yield wheat developed at the University of Minnesota back in the 60's count as a GMO? It certainly was bread to have certain characteristics.

To the best of my knowledge selective breeding does not constitute a GMO, no. Even if it creates Hybrid Vigor that fades after one generation. It's when that pesky science gets too involved and creates a "frankenfood" as it's called, that a food becomes a GMO. Insert a gene that renders a highly specific insect pest non-threatening so you don't have a spray an insecticide? That's a frankenfood. Render something Roundup resistant so you can use a less toxic chemical for weed control and spray with a high-efficiency highboy instead of manually tilling out weeds with a cultivator and far more diesel? That's a frankenfood. Insert genes from outside the same species to make a crop more drought resistant thus reducing pull on water tables through irrigation? That's a frankenfood. This issue makes me queasy just like the anti-vaccers do.

Oh... I just got the link. Vaccines are genetically modified!

I understand that you feel people are irrational scare-mongering dimwits, but I'd like to highlight a different perspective:
People don't have a reliable and/pr precise way to protect themselves against health-damaging food.. Who can say what this or that change to food will mean? Or that or this substance added to it?
And not only food, modern products are full of potential health risks. Aluminum on deodorants may be responsible for the stark increase in breast cancer, for instance. Perhaps plastic bottles are bad for out health. Who really knows?

How do you deal with such a chaos of uncertainty? You definitely can not deal with it in a reliable or precise manner. You can draw lines, though. Make rough rules.

For instance by saying we accept the possibility of harm done by gene changes on account of random mutations. But we reject the one done by designed gene changes.
And I don't think this argument is totally bullocks. I bet that designed changes in general carry a greater risk. Can be worth it, though.

But the argument is totally bollocks. If for no other reason that the risk group of GMO catches such a wide cross section of stuff it's meaningless. It doesn't catch corporate profiteering reliably either. All it catches reliably is science desperately attempting to reduce the energy and resource inputs that go into food production.

It's a simple label designed for the uninformed layman with the heebie jeebies that doesn't correlate with anything meaningfully useful. Avoiding a food due to objections about Monsanto corporate policy is a sensible political stance if so inclined. Avoiding a food due to it being a GMO is idiotic.

How? You only repeated your perspective. But as said that is not the only one.

Yes. Irrational and factually inaccurate fears are a real position. Anti vaccination campaigns, for example, provide a similarly useful and real perspective.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes. Irrational and factually inaccurate fears are a real position. Anti vaccination campaigns, for example, provide a similarly useful and real perspective.

I don't think it is irrational to assume that directly designed genes carry greater risk.

 

[Antilogic]

Sam Seder made the point that labeling GMOs could be a decent bank shot at trying to educate the American populace on national food policy.

In conversation with some biochemist people, the only health-related issue that may come up would be an allergic reaction to a GMO crop. This would only occur if the genes for an allergenic protein was copied over to the GMO crop (presumably with other genes that code for more useful proteins because adding random allergies for no reason kinda sounds like a dick move).

 

[choxorn]

The only thing I'm sure of is that vaccines caused my GMO's.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's also, with the same degree of information, not irrational to assume 'unnatural' vaccines administered to children cause autism.

How are GMOs dangerous? We don't know!
Do we have any evidence that bt genes in plants cause health detriments? Nope.
Do we have any evidence that Roundup resistance genes cause health detriments? Nope.
Do we have any evidence that drought resistance genes cause health detriments. Nope.
Do we have any evidence that pesticide exposure causes health detriments? Depends on the chemical and concentration, but yes.
Do we have any evidence that drought resistance, reduced need for fertilization and chemical applications, and increased fuel efficiency address real environmental concerns in the 21st century? Yes, we do.
So what is there to be afraid of in the label so broad as GMO? It signifies something unnatural.

Bonus points if you realize the protecting domestic agricultural production in an era of free trade is still in national interests and the heebie jeebies can give dishonest but effective economic cover for protectionism without calling it what it is.

 

[plarq]

I think mercury is far more dangerous than either of these stuff.

 

[classical_hero]

It's also, with the same degree of information, not irrational to assume 'unnatural' vaccines administered to children cause autism.

How are GMOs dangerous? We don't know!
Do we have any evidence that bt genes in plants cause health detriments? Nope.
Do we have any evidence that Roundup resistance genes cause health detriments? Nope.
Do we have any evidence that drought resistance genes cause health detriments. Nope.
Do we have any evidence that pesticide exposure causes health detriments? Depends on the chemical and concentration, but yes.
Do we have any evidence that drought resistance, reduced need for fertilization and chemical applications, and increased fuel efficiency address real environmental concerns in the 21st century? Yes, we do.
So what is there to be afraid of in the label so broad as GMO? It signifies something unnatural.

Bonus points if you realize the protecting domestic agricultural production in an era of free trade is still in national interests and the heebie jeebies can give dishonest but effective economic cover for protectionism without calling it what it is.

The problem is that they haven't been properly tested to see if they are dangerous or not. The testing regime is pathetic and currently Americans are the guinea pigs. They should never have been released without proper testing. Some things that I have read about some GM and how they tested them doesn't fill me with much hope they are safe. One thing we do know is that some of the pesticide being used are dangerous to the pollinators and we should be not using them.

 

[Farm Boy]

One thing we do know is that some of the pesticide being used are dangerous to the pollinators and we should be not using them.

If referring to bees and neonicitonoids and vacuum planters, I believe Europe has offered itself up as the test ground for that one. The causal link is anything but proven, but at least there should be a big ol' lump of data in several years/a half decade.

 

[Evie]

While I have no trouble with eating GMO myself...I fully support mandatory labeling. People are entitled to knowing what they're eating.

In the same vein, having two celiac siblings (diagnosed medically), I really want to see proper gluten labeling, especially for spices and other things that add flour as a filler.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

The problem is that they haven't been properly tested to see if they are dangerous or not. The testing regime is pathetic and currently Americans are the guinea pigs. They should never have been released without proper testing. Some things that I have read about some GM and how they tested them doesn't fill me with much hope they are safe. One thing we do know is that some of the pesticide being used are dangerous to the pollinators and we should be not using them.

What are wireless internet?

 

[Light Cleric]

I would like to see some documentation of the cases of people getting these various illnesses, diseases, and disorders. Until then it reeks of the stuff that the anti-vac, alternative medicine and homeopathy people push.

 

[Quintillus]

Shouldn't it be objective scientists who decide, not members of CFC? Most of us don't have the expertise or knowledge to make such judgements.

My thoughts are mixed. On the one hand, other than a few crops such as bananas, we already are eating plants and animals of varied genetics - the apple you ate yesterday and the apply you ate three weeks ago will have different genetics, unless they came from the same tree. So different genetics isn't anything new. On the other hand, we don't have a complete understanding of the side effects of the genetic modifications that we are performing, so we could be inadvertently causing harm. But back on the first hand, chances are some of the apples you've eaten are worse for you than other apples due to genetics as-is. And kind of on both hands, we've also made some questionable decisions at times by selective breeding - I recall reading that preferring apples (or was it tomatoes?) that looked nice in stores also led to choosing apples that weren't necessarily as nutritious.

Although the influence of companies such as Monsanto, which have morally questionable histories, makes me favor GMO labeling. I'd rather have a company with a squeaky-clean reputation be the leading company in genetically modified food. And given that it is still early on in GMO food history, I agree with Oda that it's something people should be informed about, similar to whether allergens and artificial ingredients are used. On a slight tangent, I'd also support requiring more specific labeling of what "natural flavors" are.

My favorite brand of cereal, a store brand, happens to be non-GMO (and thus often sourced from Germany and Poland, since a lot of U.S. crops - in particular corn - are GMO). But I buy it because of the good taste, the good price, the lack of overpowering sweetness, and the lack of artificial flavors rather than because it's non-GMO. Outside of cereal, I'm sure that I do wind up eating a fair amount of GMO food. It wasn't until I became friends with someone who is allergic to corn that I realized just how prevalent corn - and thus GMO food - is in the U.S.

But as to whether GMO is actually dangerous? That's best left to the scientists who can make accurate determinations.

 

[Farm Boy]

While I have no trouble with eating GMO myself...I fully support mandatory labeling. People are entitled to knowing what they're eating.

In the same vein, having two celiac siblings (diagnosed medically), I really want to see proper gluten labeling, especially for spices and other things that add flour as a filler.

As with CH's concern regarding bees, gluten labeling has nothing to do with GMOs. This is sort of like linking studies on chemotherapy with studies regarding transmissible bacterial infections. Yes, they're both medical issues, but they're fundamentally different issues within the field.

You already have the labeling you desire in the USA, it's called 100% organic. And while I think it's a backwards and harmful trend, those products are available and labeled for the food is mystical crowd. You don't need the additional fear mongering label. The ''I'm with stupid'' label should already be accurate without promoting more medieval superstitions?

 

[bhsup]

Wait, wait. Is there nothing between GMO and 100% organic? What about all the farmers that don't use GMO patented seeds, but just grow good ol' fashioned crops and use pesticides on them. Those wouldn't be GMO, but they wouldn't be organic either. It seems to me to say that the alternative already exists with "100% organic" labeling seems a bit off.

 

[Farm Boy]

Wait, wait. Is there nothing between GMO and 100% organic? What about all the farmers that don't use GMO patented seeds, but just grow good ol' fashioned crops and use pesticides on them. Those wouldn't be GMO, but they wouldn't be organic either. It seems to me to say that the alternative already exists with "100% organic" labeling seems a bit off.

I suppose planting that stuff does let your product get exported to Europe. I wonder what the markup is on that. If you drink your own well water I have a hard time imagining it's a particularly good choice for soy or corn. It has to exist though, since the inefficient separation of the logistics chain is real. You can see it at the elevator.

 

[bhsup]

Hrm... Okay, I need you to explain something to me, then, because I may have been operating under false assumptions about how widespread genetically modified crops are in farming.

I thought that genetically modified crops were, at best, just a small percentage of crops grown, with the majority still being "normal" seeds. However, given your reply, I am beginning to think that genetically modified crops are far more widespread in agriculture than I assumed, possibly even to the point where only purposely grown organic crops are not genetically modified now. Is that the case? If so, then yes I cannot disagree with you on the labeling being stupid.

Also, if that -is- the case, then I suspect a lot of people back the labeling for the same reason I was. Ignorance. Not out of fear of GMOs, but simply out of a 'right to know' viewpoint. A viewpoint which becomes moot if all the agriculture in America is already genetically modified except for the intentional organic market.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Also, if that -is- the case, then I suspect a lot of people back the labeling for the same reason I was. Ignorance. Not out of fear of GMOs, but simply out of a 'right to know' viewpoint. A viewpoint which becomes moot if all the agriculture in America is already genetically modified except for the intentional organic market.

To elaborate on this I think that when most people think of GMOs they think of something resembling radioactive, eerie bright green shiny vegetables that you'd see in a cartoon or something, they don't think of more mundane aspects to it. I'm sure there is probably stuff like that out there, but no one would eat it in their right mind just as like no one in their right mind would've started farming potatoes next to Cherynobyl in the late 80s.


That said I'm not against GMO labeling, nor am I for it, I just think it's a waste of time when other health issues can be looked into.

 

[Farm Boy]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx



I'm not kidding when I say they(GMOs) reduce chemical and diesel inputs. Farmers don't like using those things anymore than they have to. We pay for that diesel. We drink the water under our farms. I really do hope they(positive modifications) become more robust and in more crops.

 

[Evie]

I favor food labeling, period. If an item regarding food is relevant to a portion of the public (as in THEY hold it to be relevant), then they souldn't be denied that information.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

My big issue is, as always, with the role of government in oversight, and it's collaboration with agribusiness that puts them at an unfair advantage over the smaller family and single-proprietor farms, who go into hock at the beginning of the season and fight an uphill battle to get ahead.

As a communist, the whole intellectual property thing rubs me the wrong way... Like, Salk said "Patent? What patent? Could you patent the sun?"

I am not anti-business, and I am certainly in favor of using less water and fossil fuels, but what we have is a beast ( Monsanto, et al) that cannot be satiated and is not subject to the same restrictions as We The People are. That has to change.

In a nutshell...