I love organic foods. My favorite local restaurant serves only organic food and I frequent it several times a week. The chefs are wonderful; food is fresh, local and delicious. While more expensive than other foods, I am blessed with the resources to eat there. My “significant other” cooks and eats only organic and I love her food. I eat these foods because they taste good. I don’t con myself into thinking they differ nutritionally (I am familiar with the Stanford University meta-study). And from my colleagues who work in the area of sustainable agriculture, I am well aware of the bacterial outbreaks from fecal material in organic foods. I know organic foods are not completely safe, but safe enough.
I eat organic foods because I enjoy them. I also like free range eggs. I like the dark yellow yolk although I try not to think about the fact that roaming chickens like to pick at animal droppings on the ground when they eat.
I grew up on a small to medium sized farm in Indiana. We had a cow, a riding horse, some chickens, some sheep and some hogs. We raised corn and hay. My mother had two large gardens. Hogs roamed the fields and were birthed in small barns for each sow. We spread manure on the fields, installed terraces to minimize soil erosion and didn’t use herbicides. I attended college at Purdue University and the University of Wisconsin.
My confession: I am a strong proponent of genetically engineered foods. My position comes from two perspectives: (a) growing up on a farm and remaining an active family member in its operations and (b) being a professor of Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Florida.
At Wisconsin, I received a PhD in Genetics. I then joined the faculty at Florida in January 1974. This was about the time restriction enzymes were being discovered. These enzymes allowed the synthesis of recombinant DNA molecules. I remember the moratorium scientists placed on this technology and watched the scientists develop safety practices for the manipulation of recombinant DNA. Soon after this discovery, methods were developed to insert these recombinant DNA molecules into other organisms. Scientists again developed methodologies for the safe study of these recombinant organisms. Hence my career has spanned the time of plant biotechnology. I have watched and participated from the beginning.
I strongly support this technology for one main reason. Plant improvement programs are needed to feed a growing human population in the face of climate change on a smaller carbon footprint. Biotechnology is simply a technique that can be used for plant improvement. It provides food for hungry people and keeps food prices as low as possible for all of us. I should also mention that this technology allows us scientists to gain a much deeper understanding of how plants work.
The criticisms of this technology have been mind boggling, bewildering and frustrating. I suspect that most criticisms come from people with a political or checkbook agenda but I could be wrong. In my view, each of the popular criticisms of this technology has a fatal flaw and can be dismissed with a few scientific facts and common sense. I address the main ones below.
GMO foods put more pesticides into our food and hence should be banned or at least labeled
There is the famous study published in 1990 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by Dr. Bruce Ames and colleagues showing that most human carcinogens or cancer causing chemicals come from pesticides in food. Many scientists cite this paper. However, what is often omitted from the public discussion is that Ames and his colleagues noted that that 99% plus of the cancer causing pesticides are not added by man; rather, they are synthesized by the plant. That plants produce pesticides makes sense because plants cannot get up and move when they are in danger. Plants that do not evolve such defense mechanisms go the way of the dodo bird.
Pesticides differ of course in their toxicity. One pesticide produced by some plants is the very toxic molecule cyanide. When an insect chews on a plant tissue, cell integrity is lost and the enzyme making cyanide is mixed with the substrate for this toxin. So, here is the question I ask myself: Would I want to eat a food plant that protects itself by producing cyanide or by producing the Bt protein engineered into soybean, corn and potato seeds to protect against certain destructive insects? The Bt protein has been used by the organic industry for years and is considered safe by them. But many critics advocate banning or at least labeling plants producing the BT protein. I will take Bt over cyanide any day of the week.
Herbicide resistant genes lead to super weeds and hence should be banned or at least labeled
That weeds resistant to glyphosate (originally sold under the Monsanto trade name Roundup) now exist is a fact. The evolution of so-called ‘super weeds’ was predicted. Spraying weeds with a weed killer provides a phenomenal selection screen for the rare resistant plant. While mutation occurs at extremely low rates, the rare resistant plants have a huge selective advantage. They grow and reproduce with virtually no competition. Perhaps a good analogy is the past overuse of antibiotics and the selection of antibiotic resistant microbes in hospitals.
The point often forgotten in this debate is that it is irrelevant where the resistance gene in the food plant came from. It could be a transgene or it could be a rare mutation the breeders selected in that plant species. Selection is selection and Mother Nature really doesn’t care where the gene came from. The history of traditional plant improvement and breeding programs is filled with cases of weeds or pests overcoming the man-selected resistance in the plant because of a rare mutation occurring in the weed or bug.
Roundup resistant plants cause cancer and early death and hence should be banned or at least labeled
Many critics of crop biotechnology highlight the work of French scientist and anti-GMO campaigner Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues that purportedly demonstrated that corn containing the Roundup Ready gene and sprayed with glyphosate causes cancer and early death in rats. This work is highly controversial; was published, then retracted and then published in a pay-to-publish journal. Major criticisms have been detailed elsewhere. Those of the anti-GMO crowd argue that the retraction was caused by undue pressure from the food, chemical and seed industries.
One approach is simply to accept Séralini’s conclusions and ask if they apply or have predictive value to other animals. Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam and colleagues at the University California, Davis did just that and concluded in a massive review of data that there was no adverse effect. Their meta-analysis involved millions of farm animals, a sample size infinitely larger than that used by Séralini and associates.
On our home farm we now produce and sell about 13,000 hogs per year (a number also larger by several orders of magnitude compared to the Séralini rat study). Before 1996 they ate only non-GMO feeds; now they eat 100% GMO feeds. The health and the production of our hogs are at an all-time high. By any common sense comparison the Séralini study comes up wanting.
Adding any new gene to a plant is dangerous, just wrong and should not be allowed or at least labeled
No doubt the strongest criticism of the new gene technology is that it is just wrong. It is unnatural. It is not the way Mother Nature intended it to be. Each organism has its own set of genes and that’s it. But when we look to the products of Mother Nature, we find a totally different picture. Because of newly developed techniques of gene technology, we now know that there are genes NOT found in all members of the species. In corn, which is my research focus, there are thousands of genes found in some but not all corn plants. In fact, “factories” located within the plant itself are now known to make new genes. The new genes are composed of pieces of old genes and are put together haphazardly. Hence, we have always been eating foods containing brand new — but totally uncharacterized —genes.
The only thing different about genes inserted by man is that we study them extensively and therefore we know what they do, whether their products are allergenic and whether they have affect composition. I will take the latter type any day of the week. In other words, we can monitor what the “man-inserted” gene can do because we know what that gene is. We cannot monitor the genes the plant inserts simply because, until recently, we didn’t know this type of plus/minus gene polymorphism existed.
Plant biotechnology allows companies to patent life and hence should be banned
Often I hear the criticism that seeds (any seed) should be free to everyone to save and palnt. It’s said that farmers have the right to the seed they produce. The argument goes that biotechnology and the companies that produce GMO seeds changed all of that, that farmers and plant growers lost their rights because of biotechnology.
Regardless of the validity of the argument concerning lost rights, let us be clear that this so-called “loss” was not caused by biotechnology. President Hubert Hoover signed into law the Plant Protection Act — in 1930. It allowed for the patenting of seeds. The argument for this was that companies had invested lots of time, effort and money to produce superior plants. Because one could reproduce this superior material simply by growing it, seed companies were not receiving any reimbursement for their years of risky and expensive research.
Analogies to the present day software industry are obvious. Similar arguments supported the Plant Variety Protection Act that was signed in 1970. It is important to note that seed companies must be proactive in protecting the plants they develop and unique genes combinations that resulted from years of research and effort. They must file all the paperwork for these patents. Some companies producing for example soybean varieties did not file for patent protection and hence farmers were free to save and replant these plant materials. Corn on the other hand exhibits something called inbreeding depression (the same reason you do not marry your first cousin) so farmers learned a long time ago that saved seed did not perform nearly as well as the seed they bought from the seed company.
People have the right to know whether their foods contain genes inserted by man
Anti-GMO groups point to polls saying that the vast majority of the people want their food labelled. (There is also a poll showing that just as many people want their food labeled if it contains DNA!! That is why I am investing my retirement funds in companies selling DNA free salt!!). The antis argue that while the government says these foods are safe, they base their conclusions on data furnished by the company wanting to sell the plant—an allegation refuted by most scientific groups. Interestingly, so far, when labelling laws have appeared on state ballots they are generally defeated. So there seems to be a disconnect between polling and balloting results.
In my mind, the “big unknown” in all of this is the cost of labeling. Plant ingredients would have to be segregated from harvest on. This would be hugely expensive. Also, what level of contamination is acceptable? The idea of GMO-free is simply not in the cards. To guarantee a food lacks a transgene is impossible. The only way to make sure every single tomato, ear of corn, head of lettuce, etc. lacks a transgene would require that every single tomato, ear of corn, head of lettuce, etc. be sampled. Because these tests are destructive, no produce would be left to sell.
How do we test for transgenes? Early in the history of plant biotechnology, virtually all transgenes contained some common DNA sequences. These sequences could be then used for identification. In contrast the newer transgenes lack these sequences so older tests will not detect them.
Are there lists available for all the transgenes placed into foods? While only a few transgenes have been “deregulated” for commercial use, there have been literally thousands of genes placed into each of the major crops for experimental purposes. Do we have to test for each one of them? If so, is there a list of all these genes? I think not.
What type of infrastructure would be required to quickly test all foods we consume? Having experience in the area, I know it would be huge and terribly expensive. How do we handle perishable produce? The delay required for testing fruits and vegetables will have significant negative effects on the sweetness and flavor of the produce. Is that what the consumers want?
Do farmers really want government inspectors and samplers out in their fields? Most farmers, especially the organic ones, are pretty independent and want to do things their way. I seriously doubt if they want “government people” in their fields.
Personally, I just don’t’ think society would want or will pay for the system outlined above. Perhaps I am wrong, too pessimistic, too connected to the science and technology. Maybe enough people want (and will pay) to have their foods labeled. Maybe the best solution then is for society to figure out the level of GM mix they will tolerate and pass the law. Then let the private sector take over. Companies can sell foods with a label that gives the probability that this food contains a transgene at a percentage equal to or less than that determined by the voice of the people. If people want it and will pay for it, the company will do well. If people don’t want to pay for it, the label will disappear.
The advantage to such a voluntary label is that people (like me) who don’t want to have to pay more for their food won’t have to. In contrast, mandatory labelling requires everyone to pay regardless of their need for the information.
These are interesting times. From a personal perspective, my life would have been much simpler (and just fine) had recombinant DNA and transformation systems not been invented. But that is not the world we live in. We now have a technology that can do many many good things for society. I look forward to the time that all of these nonsensical arguments disappear and we can put 100% of our efforts into using (rather than defending) the new technology.
Curtis Hannah is a University of Florida Research Foundation professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department focusing on molecular biology and plant genetics. Contact him at [email protected]
If we really understand what we are doing with genetic modification, then, why have we released the round-up ready genes into the environmental weeds? If we really understood genetics, we could use plants to do our mining for us and not have to worry about dangerous mine waste ending up in our food.
Mary,
Perhaps I was not clear. We have RoundUp resistant weeds NOT because the weeds picked up and incorporated the RoundUp resistance transgene from engineered plants; rather we have RoundUp resistant weeds because of rare mutations occurring within the weed itself. But the point I was making is that this occurs regardless of whether the resistance gene in the food plant was inserted by scientists or was a rare mutation occurring within the plant and then selected by plant breeders. Selection is selection.
Curt Hannah
Mary, I don’t think you understand basic genetics. Glyphosate is already “released into the environment” with organic farmers, who use it extensively and safely, for 100 yards. If you have a serious concern–which you should not from a science perspective as glyphosate, developed as a water softener, is no more harmful than table salt as used–you should logically be directing your ire at organic farming.
What about the effects that systemic pesticides have on the ecosystem. Bees, butterfly’s, basically any insect that comes in contact with the pollen/nectar can transfer them to another plant or in the bees case trace it back to the hive. There are many studies into the decline of the bee populations, especially in Ontario Canada. They recorded death rates of around 50% in 2013. Gmo seeds which are treated with systemic pesticides are thought to be a contributor but that has yet to be proven.
My biggest issue with the use of chemicals is that some studies are very narrow sighted. They test for levels of toxicity yes but what effects do these pesticides have on reproduction rates, the hatchling babies in the hives that feed off pollen contaminated with pesticides, the behavioral effects. I believe there are still a lot of unanswered questions. I’m curious if you can enlighten me on your thoughts.
vanessalynn, if you use the search engine on this site, you will find many enlightening and informative articles on the issue of bee colony decline, as well as the research into the causes of it.
Jon, I think you mean *Bt* has been used by organic farmers for 100 *years*. Glyphosate is not approved for organic production. Glyphosate has been used by farmers since the mid 70s
Here, here !
Curtis, excellent article! I wonder if down the road all this “either/or” diatribe of “organic VS gmos” will disappear, when and if organic farmers adopt gmo technology, and the organic standard re: gmos changes at the USDA level….
Surely it must!!
When your food product has no health advantages, no nutritional advantages and costs more to produce, how else are you going to grow market share except by demonizing the competition?
That is exactly what the organics business is and does.
The organic powers that be are what I call, “agricultural creationists”, where science matters not.
Your whole post is a perfect example of demonizing the competition.
The real costs of “conventional” agriculture, AKA torturing the earth, are beyond computation. Try factoring in the damage it does to the soil, the aquifers, and every form of life, including ours.
You’re the one who needs to bone up on your science, JoeTorturer.
Provide some citations to back up your claims, bub.
Start with Google, Joe, and take it from there.
Really, that’s the best you can do?
Sounds like you have no idea what you’re talking about. In fact, I’m sure of it!
If indeed I don’t know what I’m talking about, then at least I’m good company on this thread! But no, I assured you that I do.
I would take a look at the website of the Organic And Non-GMO Report. They were reporting on glyphosate resistance well before anyone else. The Oregon Tilth archives have masses of material too. Glad to oblige.
Is the concept of linking foreign to you?
How about some links that support your claim of “..”conventional” agriculture, AKA torturing the earth”?
I’m beginning to think you won’t because you can’t.
Especially when you claim that some organic group in Oregon “was reporting on glyphosate resistance well before anyone else.” Care to tell us what year that happened and on what continent?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I don’t know how to link, wise guy.
You asked ,for references and I told you where to look, to the best of my ability. Now go to those websites and educate yourself.
OK.
But a quick question for you – do you think the first glyphosate-resistant weeds are associated with GMO crops?
No. Glyphosate resistance started in the 70s, with the introduction of Roundup. GMO crops have simply vastly accelerated the process.
Wrong. Glyphosate resistant weeds were first seen in Australia in 1996.
Your “Non-GMO Report” is just a website/magazine. Disappointing – I was hoping for some actual scholarly research, not Op-eds from the Kimbrells and Ronnie Cumming’s wife or daughter or whoever it was.
If glyphosate was first used to control weeds in the 70s then it follows that resistance to it began then. It doesn’t matter when it was “first seen”.
The Organic and Non-GMO Report is a clearing house, highly respected in the industry, for academic findings and, yes, opinion pieces by experts in the field.
I’m not quite sure what your beef is with the OCA, which has done a fine job of representing the burgeoning organic market. At any rate, I think I’d like to put you in a room with Ronnie Cummins.
Are you really a farmer, by the way, or is that just a whimsical nom de plume?
“If glyphosate was first used to control weeds in the 70s then it follows
that resistance to it began then. It doesn’t matter when it was “first
seen”.
Absolute nonsense.
“The Organic and Non-GMO Report is a clearing house, highly respected in
the industry, for academic findings and, yes, opinion pieces by experts
in the field.”
Meh. I’m not seeing it. Makes Rodale look better, though.
” At any rate, I think I’d like to put you in a room with Ronnie Cummins.”
Bring it on! I have plenty of questions for him, like how does he sleep at night?
“Are you really a farmer”
Yes, I grow corn, soybeans and a little alfalfa.
Lordy, so you have a beef with Rodale too! Why is the GMO crowd so touchy, I wonder?
Well, good luck with those soybeans and corn, Joe. You should check out Enlist Duo, by the way….glyphosate AND 2,4-D, sprayed all over those crops of yours. It will be the answer to all of your weed problems! Seriously!
And if it’s not, don’t worry! Ve haff DDT-ready soybeans in the works! They will be the final solution to your weed problems! Seriously!
More nonsense.
DDT is an insecticide, not a herbicide. But you picked DDT because organic-types panic over it, right?
“Ve haff” and “final solution”?
I guess you should get credit for not going fully Godwin. Still, pretty classless.
Ve haff
trying to frame transhumanists as nazi’s..sooooo clever
Thats asinine.
Touchy? No. Intolerent of B.S.? Yes.
I’m sure your lack of agricultural knowledge makes stuff like 2,4-D sound pretty scary. Those of us who actually know something realize that it’s just a synthetic form of an auxin (natural plant growth hormone) and that it’s been used safely for 70 years. Safe enough that it’s the active ingredient in homeowner weed control formulations. Not persistent in soil, decomposes quickly, doesn’t cause pollution problems.
Fortunately, modern farmers have science-based solutions to weed control. You organic types have to use tillage, which is bad for the environment!
It persists in the environment and is an endocrine disruptor.
At low levels, lots of crops actually perform better with 2,4 D.
I live in a region where 2,4 D is super popular because we grow the worlds perennial ryegrass and some other grasses. Anyways, we have plenty of frogs around the fields and they are healthy (frogs are primary indicators for disruptive chemicals). The 2,4 D levels are not showing any large disruption.
Our only deformities come from naturally occurring bacteria in the rivers.
Actually, 2,4 D is much more of a problem than glyphosate….and yet you fail to make that distinction.
So you need a law to tell you not to not grow GMO corn?
Or is this about you keeping your competition at a “comfortable” distance?
Just out of curiosity, do you view weeds developing a resistance to glyphosate as a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing?
Bad.
If you oppose the spraying of crops with glyphosate, wouldn’t it be a good thing for weeds to become immune to it? That way everyone would stop spraying with glyphosate, and problem solved.
Its bad to the extent that you can’t grow a brain and use other techniques as well.
Round up resistant weeds pull up just as easy on any organic farm as any other weed.
So glyphosate will be obsolete then. And that isn’t normal?
Yes..all of agriculture are genetically modified organisms.
I think you mean to say GE crops…. and the answer is no.
If I spray vinegar on weeds every year..it becomes less effective with time. Eventually, I have to soak the plants in the stuff and some just thrive on it.
We better ban organic pesticides
Lets ban genetic engineering because plants gain resistance to hormones that disrupt their growth on their own.
Its logical
Yes..organisms can tend to evolve resistance to environmental stressors which are frequently present.
I don’t see how that is a reason to oppose GE technology.
Said the pot to the kettle. NO ONE in conventional ag has ever tried to have the competition outlawed at the ballot box, much less participated in vandalism of GMO testing fields. You have zero idea of what you’re talking about.
Organic farmers don’t go vandalizing fields. They’re too busy pulling weeds. The vandals are from the fruitcake fringe.
I am a 25-year veteran of the organic food industry and I have every idea of what I’m talking about.
“fruitcake fringe…?” And who would that be, exactly? OCA, Greenpeace, FOE?
You don’t know anything about the OCA, do you? What is it with the anger shown by the pro-GMO crowd?
The anger comes from working for several organizations that have been victimized by this felony vandalism committed by the “fruitcakes”.
Na…saying dumb stuff is enough
Banning gay marriage and Cannabis irritates me just as much as banning GMO’s.
Right…but their supporting hippy liberal douche bag consumers do..
In Oregon, there was a bunch of hubbub over some “contaminated” seed and the genius Chinese and the likes refused trade witht he region as a consequence. Guess who did it, a Pro-GMO advocate or Anti-GMO advocate. It certainly didn’t help the protagonist side because they are bottom liners and China types refusing to trade is bad mojo.
Thats why its a hippy liberal douche bag issue. You know, the health police…selling the healthy stuff they ban.
“The real costs of “conventional” agriculture, AKA torturing the earth, are beyond computation. Try factoring in the damage it does to the soil, the aquifers, and every form of life, including ours.”
Maybe you could help us by siting some evidence of what these damages are? I’ve been in farming for 20 years and my direct experience seems to contradict what you’re saying.
“torture the earth” That is ridiculous. Another emotion stimulating accusation that is fact free. Just yesterday I was outside on the farm and heard no cries of pain emanating from the earth near my greenhouses. This in spite of the posts “”violently”” inserted to stabilize them.
It is what you would call “projection.”
It shows their true motivation is the “Earth religion” sentiment.
Avatar is a good illustration of the sort of complex
Ya..you are giving the Earth pain by stabbing it with your hoes!
I wonder why acid rain that burns your skin with SO2 from volcanoes isn’t “torture” but SO2 from burning coal which was sparked by man and not a volcanically sparked event (1 extinction event included massive volcanism sparking huge coal deposits)
Why? Because that notorious revolving door will let the wolves into the sheep fold?
Who do you recommend be appointed to regulatory boards that require expertise in a specific area? Does your expertise in a subject vanish the moment you start working for a company? Are you forever tainted? Are these regulators simultaneously on the payroll of corporations when they make their rulings?
Do you not see the impropriety of an individual from a company being in a position to help make policy that might allow that company to profit? Your expertise doesn’t vanish, but your motives will be in question.
You didn’t answer the question. Who do you suggest we put in place? If you exclude anyone that ever worked in industry, good luck finding qualified candidates.
Hypothetically speaking, if I had a job at Company X and then left for another job, either as a regulator for the government or a job at Company Y, I’d have little incentive to continue doing things that help Company X. I’m highly skeptical of the notion of some grand conspiracy. If you hire competent people with integrity (which likely means you’ll need to pay them accordingly – why leave a good industry job for a government job with mediocre pay?), then this should never really be a big problem.
It is a hellish problem, I will admit. Even academics depend on their funding.
If government jobs pay less than corporate jobs, you get a government like ours..
Work as a legislator for $250k, pass favoritist law, get hired for corporate buddy and get paid $3mil for good work as a legislator.
Actually, I don’t think the opposite would work better. People are douches and cannot be honest with each other or them selves.
Are you talking about individuals from 501c3s? The NGO people?
Unless you hated working at that company. A possibility that you should acknowledge before accusing others of impropriety without evidence.
Like individual land owners who sell “non-GMO” produce supporting bans on GMO production?
Or like individual hypochondriac consumers obsessing over minute traces of contamination from “unhealthy” production techniques?
The distinction of organic is oxymoronic…Ya, pure synthetic ammonia= bad; dirty ammonia from animals=good
Also, you can dust your crop with Bt the day before harvest in OMRI for example. Thats just dandy.
Very well done. Interesting and thought provoking and thanks for your unique perspective. I too eat organic foods for a plethora of reasons. I also am very comfortable eating GMO products in my daily life.
I also think that the debate has brought up very interesting conversations about our domestic food supply. I strongly believe we should be able to determine what products come from what producer at all times for many reasons. I agree that this would be an expensive endeavor. This will probably come from the consumer, however i can also see this type of thing being a shared cost with a savvy biotech company (pick one). I think that labeling is the natural course of action.
Thanks for the kind words. I think voluntary labeling would do just what you want. If you want to know the things you want to know, are willing to pay for it and can get the people to agree to such a label and make it a law, then go for it. But it doesn’t make sense, at least to me, to have people pay extra for information they do not want.
THe Grocery Manufacturing Association of America resists labelling legislation not because it would cost a lot to label but because they know that a “contains Genetically Modified Ingredients” label would cause a marked decrease in sales; they know this from surveys already conducted. They don’t want to take the loss. So the question we should really be asking is why would consumers be leary of eating products containing GMO’s if they are already eating them…its because there is no consensus on their long term safety and they don’t actually know they are eating them. If the proponents of GMO’s are so sure that they are safe then why not label? We’re talking fractions of cents per item…not exactly a big deal to consumers.
Get GMO-free food certified and slap on a 5% premium. Non-GMO producers get an extra 5% from their crop, people who want to avoid GMOs can do so, those who accept all the scientific findings to date can save 5% on food. Everybody wins, no mandate necessary. Don’t wait for government to mandate it, start labeling GMO-free food now and problem solved.
Not sure I follow your logic through this, but in contrast to what you say, there is a consensus that these foods are safe. There are the outliers, but consensus does not mean unanimous. I do agree that the label you describe infers an intrinsic danger, a danger that simply does not exist. However I described a system that should please everyone. If you want your food labeled “GMO-minimized” then support voluntary labeling and pay for it. Why do you want to force people to pay more for their food than they need to? And concerning your cost of cents per item, I am curious how you came up with that number. I explained many of the unknowns in the process. How they are resolved by the will of the people (level of GE mix allowed and the confidence on that number, etc) totally affects the final cost of the process. Perhaps you have some insight into this I do not have.
The fractions of cents per item would be the cost of the ink to add the words GMO Free: (and we shouldn’t get too hung up on the possibility of contamination as a reason not to label. 3rd party organic certification takes this into account, but when people are able to vote with their dollars then change is possible. This of course would be the cost once the labels were reformatted and legeslation passed through congress. Whats really upsetting is the 10’s of millions of dollars the Biotech companies are spending to resist labelling when it is just a matter of time before it becomes law. The added cost argument is how they’ve managed to scare consumers and stall the legislation. The california ballot initiative Prop. 37 was just barely defeated in 2012. So when you talk about “consensus does not mean unanimous” I don’t think you realize how a democracy works.
Given your argument why do organic groups bring lawsuits against people presumably contaminating their fields with pollen or seed? You can’t have it both ways. You need to look at the public records about transgenic rice accidentally being shipped to Europe and look at the added cost. I described a system for legalized voluntary labeling that should satisfy your need to know and my desire for cheap food.. Please comment on that. Otherwise just buy organic.
” I don’t think you realize how a democracy works.”
I don’t think you know enough to pass a high-school government course.
Voluntary GMO Free labels are a fraction of a cent per label. Mandatory labeling, however, will not be cheap, because it requires a regulatory agency, legal standards and oversight. Which means civil and criminal sanctions, punishments and lawsuits, which means lawyers. Lots and lots of very expensive lawyers. And that’s just the icing on the cake. The cake itself would be the costs of trying to comply with the regulatory requirements regarding crop separation from field to processor at each step of the journey from field to table, so that labels could have meaningfully accurate content.
Mandatory labeling is simply a full employment act for the Trial Lawyers Association and public employee unions. Consumers will see no benefit in safety, cost or nutrition.
Thats great that it would cost a lot and mean jobs. That doesn’t mean the cost should be passed onto the consumer. It should be up to the companies that use GMO’s to prove to their consumers that they are safe. If people don’t trust those companies or GMO’s then there should be transparency until such time as there is trust. But these billion dollar corps can afford to label these products, they just don’t want to have to because they know they will lose market share. What I don’t get is that if they know they will lose market share why don’t they just invest more in Organic products, oh wait they’re buying up everything.
Can you prove to me that eating organic foods with fecal material is “safe”? Of course not, but organic foods with bacteria kills dozens of people and sickens tens of thousands of people every year. By your reasoning, organic foods should be banned. As for GM foods/products, scientists have definitively said that they are AS SAFE OR SAFER than organic or conventional foods. If you ban GM foods over safety, than all foods were need to be banned. And FYI, Whole Foods annual revenue is about the same as Monsanto’s. Organics is a $45 billion industry, far lever than the seed industry.
Organic farmers are very passionate on the subject of GMOs and the danger they pose to our food supply. You should not feel so complacent about eating them.
Except they don’t pose a danger.
That’s the problem – you organic types have absolutely no problem lying, either through ignorance or malicious intent.
And passion like anger and other emotions can overcomes logic and lead to bad decisions. For example I have a niece that has taken a strong emotional stand against vaccinating her kids.
You gave an example of emotion [passion] taking precedence over facts. I gave another. And my niece is no nuttier than thou, Now, “danger to our food supply” Nope and you have no proof. So, I hope that soon I get to complacently eat some g.e. papaya or perhaps some golden rice.
You’d do better with a bowl of Lundberg organic brown rice and a piece of local seasonal organic fruit. Trust me.
Hmmm…
Yesterday, I asked you how organic production could be superior, yet only 0.6% of U.S. farm land was under organic production. And no response
Yet you took this opportunity to insult Eric’s family.
Color me unimpressed, even though you shared your special interest in aquatic life.
It’s onerous to convert to organic farming. There’s that three-year conversion period when you don’t have access to premium prices, no price guarantees after that, and the most onerous regulatory obstacles imaginable. To put it bluntly, the organic farmer has to be a visionary and a little crazy, because it’s NOT going to make him rich.
Having said that, I’m humbled and inspired by the passion of the 20-something organic farmers I deal with on a daily basis.
I apologize to Eric’s mentally ill niece.
What a disappointment! We actually have dictionaries here, and I’m having a hard time seeing how “onerous” has anything to do with, “voluntary marketing standard endorsed by USDA’s Marketing Arm”.
I was hoping you’d answer my question: If organic production is a superior method, why is only 0.6% of U.S. farm land under organic production?
It’s funny, everyone who I pose that question to either disappears or ignores it! Maybe you’ll be the guy that makes it all clear.
” Unlike the Monsanto whores among us.”
Like I said in another post, you organic types have no problem lying, either by ignorance or with malice.
Now you’re just being nasty. “We organic types” (I love the way you think “organic” is an insult!) are only interested in a safe, sustainable food system. But I bet you think Rachel
Carson and Wendell Berry were dangerous subversives, and the OCA has its headquarters in Moscow.
In my opinion, you have a huge chip on your shoulder because you are not a real farmer. With your poisons, you pervert the definition of agriculture. You think the soil is there to hold your plants upright. And you’re driven to demonize organic farmers because you hate the fact that they’ve preserved a sense of nobility, even spirituality, in their profession.
Remember this thread when your fields are choked with weeds you cannot control, and Monsanto is suing you for non-payment. That is, after they’ve finished suing your neighbor for patent infringement after your 2,4-D drifts onto his lettuces…..
Do you think Monsanto has a patent on 2,4-D?
No. Perhaps the Dow legal department would handle that one.
Then how could Monsanto sue you for patent infringement for having 2,4-D drift over to your farm? It seems like you are just throwing out wild scenarios that have absolutely no basis in reality.
You are way out of line. And you make the organic group look even worse than they are.
Every one of your posts is blatantly incorrect and laced with insults. I’m not wasting any more time on you.
There is no doubt this subject is a very emotional topic for many. A word of advise. Every time you insult someone every one stops paying attention to you statements. If you want to have people read and understand you position, stop with the insults.
Pretty much everyone on this thread has thrown mud, Bob. And pretty much everyone on this thread is in the GMO camp (Are you happy I didn’t say “Monsanto whores”?).
I have to ask: If, as Joe points out, organic farm land in this country is only 0.6% of the total acreage, why do those in the GMO camp feel so threatened?
By every conceivable practical metric, GMO has won the war. Why do they waste so much money on the anti-labelling campaigns?
Speaking of which, I’m noticing that VOLUNTARY GMO-free labels are spreading like wildfire. It just shows that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Percy Schmeisser deliberately planted 1,000 fracking acres of seeds that he knew to be roundup-ready canola, and didn’t pay for them. He got sued for it and lost, and I believe had to repay the profits of that particular harvest to the patent holder, Monsanto.
When a farmer sprays three acres of his canola crop with glyphosate and then harvest the seeds from the canola that was glyphosate tolerant, when the harvested seed is then sent for processing for planting the next year, when the said farmer plants over a thousand acres with that seed he is guilty . Is there anything in these facts you would like to challenge.
?
He’s a liar, Schmeiser did not put forward any defense of accidental contamination at trial. He lost at trial, he lost at the appellate level and he lost at the Supreme Court. A 3 time loser who continues to be held up as an example by anti’s who are either lying or are ignorant of the plain truth recorded in the legal records and trial transcripts.
It’s true, old Percy dug his own grave by saving, and planting, those seeds. Monsanto’s lawyers had every legal right to swoop in and charge him with stealing their property (although why would they bother? The whole point of Roundup-ready seeds is to sell lots of Roundup, which would have made Perce a 4-time loser!)
But WTF? They’ve done this nearly a hundred times! Talk about creating a bad image in the eyes of the public!
By the way, it would be so much more polite to say “He’s mistaken” or “He needs to refresh himself on the intricacies of those court transcripts”, rather than “He’s a liar”.
Just sayin’, douchebag.
I pitty anyone who couldn’t stand hanging out in an organic garden. I’m pretty sure Eden was organic. If you want to teach children about the miracle of life plant an organic garden and watch things come alive.
I just read the whole comments section and it is you and a few others who are doing the lions share of insulting. You apparently think Monsanto sues poor non GMO farmers at the drop of a hat. Sorry complete myth. Look up OSGTA v Monsanto and see that no suits have ever happened for adventitious presence of GE crops in non GMO fields.
There is nothing voluntary about the requirements that organic farmers
It is 100% voluntary, no one is forced to be a “Organic” farmer. If you want certification you have to follow the rules, written by the “Organic” industry.
Organic farmers have to jump through endless regulatory hoops AND pay through their noses for the privilege of doing so.
Well of course they have to, or else they would just be conventional farmers, who farm “Organically”. If you want to sell your crop as certified “Organic” you have to jump through all the hoops and pay the coin to get the certification.
Well, it’s a bitch
to convert to organic farming.
It is supposed to be.
NOT going to make him rich.
Tell that to the owners of earthbound farms, that just sold for 600 million dollars, that is a lot of lettuce.
I don’t quite get this post, but thanks for affirming my points anyway.
Yes, Earthbound Farm shows that an organic farmer can make it big-time, with the right combination of business acumen and A-type personality. Gene Kahn did it too. But many of us think EF stretches the definition of “organic”. Their operation is too much like monoculture, and frankly the stuff in those little clamshells is kind of lifeless.
What dont you get? That organic is 100% voluntary or that some Organic farmers are the 1% ers?
This could be because it takes a stronger type of personality to become an organic farmer. You have to be willing to pull weeds by hand and work longer hours. When things become overly mechanized the farmer gets lazy and disconnected from the land. Then he has no qualms with poisoning the soil and forfeiting the possibility his grandchildren will have a future in farming. The diversity of microbiology of the soil has everything to do with the viability of farming without chemical inputs. When we rely on chemicals we become slaves to the chemical companies. If they can’t supply then the crops won’t grow. If this ever happens then you’d better hope your in good with some organic farmers.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
“This could be because it takes a stronger type of personality to become an organic farmer. You have to be willing to pull weeds by hand and work longer hours. ”
In one acre of corn in 30″ rows, there are 3.3 miles of row to weed. No organic farmer is doing that by hand! They are using either tillage, which is bad for the environment, or they are using flame weeding which takes 5-10 gallons of propane per acre, which is also bad for the environment.
“When things become overly mechanized the farmer gets lazy and disconnected from the land. ”
Pure nonsense. The organic operations I see use things like tractors, too!
“Then he has no qualms with poisoning the soil and forfeiting the possibility his grandchildren will have a future in farming.”
Clearly you have no scientific background in agriculture. We are producing 10 times the corn per acre than my grandfather and great-grandfather did, and the soil is in much better shape.
“The diversity of microbiology of the soil has everything to do with the viability of farming without chemical inputs.”
I hate to break it to you, but I and other modern farmers are quite familiar with soil microbes and mycorrhizae. That’s part of the reason why U.S. farmers had a record corn yield in 2014.
It never ceases to amaze me how utterly clueless organic supporters are! I’m willing to bet serious money that you live in a suburb.
I’ve worked with farmers who are transitioning to Certified organic. Its not that big of a deal as you’re basically doing what you would do anyways during the transition period. The inspector comes and checks things out. You pay some fees and get your certification if you’re following protocol. Then you get to charge a premium for quality (pesticide free) food and recover all the capital costs. Once in place the inspector only comes by every few years and does a walkthrough, no biggie.
Organic does not mean “pesticide-free”. And it doesn’t mean “quality”, either. USDA organic is a marketing program, nothing else.
Tell me what you know about mycotoxins.
Organics are not pesticide free.
Can you please explain “pesticide free ” then as you seem to suggest contradictory information in this post. And please answer the question about mycotoxins if you would be so kind.
I know you like to say that plants produce their own pesticide so we should regard all pesticides the same. But we all know there are many types with vastly different effects on the environment.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/types.htm
Most people don’t refer to these as pesticides so your just using the word in the broadest sense to confuse people. I am referring to chemical pesticides not allowed on organic farms like Glyphosate and synthetic fertilizers. I’m not saying all pesticides are bad but there certainly are many nasty ones that should never be used. Surely you can agree on that.
We already can determine when what and where our food comes from. It’s just not labeled on every single item. Just give the producers a call or shoot them an email.
Labelling shouldn’t even be a debate. No matter the reason, the consumer has a right to know. In anycase, while I’m all for GMOs produced to increase nutrition and a plants ability to withstand higher salt concentrations and various other geographic issues. I still cannot help but point out the continued failure to perform long term testing. Also while many of these plants have been tested and shown no short term ill effects on human tissue, there have been quite a few published and peer reviewed studies showing them to negatively impact gut bacteria. Which given the clear statistics that show a rise in auto immune disorders, should more then cast enough doubt as to the safety of alot of these plants.
An entire population should not be a test subject. They have a responsibility to study and understand completely just what it is that they are doing, before subjecting the public to it.
Anybody that says that they do know exactly what they are doing, shows a clear lack of knowledge when it comes to the field of biology.
Our government is supposed to represent us, not make our decisions for us.
And i take serious issue with the fact that the biggest supplier of GMOs to the US also has board members and associates within nearly every branch of government. That alone is enough to cause mistrust as it is a clear conflict of interest.
Also your labeling arguement is outright silly. The farmers growing GMO crops know what they planted, and the companies buying there produce know what they are buying. So considering that companies rebrand and change their labels all the time. It certainly wouldn’t take much to print Contains GMO on their product.
Hi John,
I’m not sure I totally followed you- you crammed in a lot of “tidbits” of counter-points, but didn’t exactly provide proof or evidence for what you’re saying, but I’ll do my best to help explain.
1) I think the “right to know” is an argument that carries a lot of weight with consumers… but I think the only way this label works out and doesn’t add too much cost to the system is if it says “may contain GMO ingredients.” The devil is truly in the details- as Curt mentioned, guaranteeing absolute separation in grain elevators, completely stopping cross-pollination, guaranteeing no contamination, is a pretty impossible goal, and one that will just open up things for lawsuits. Addressing your last point (I think?), even though it’s the same as your
first: “farmers growing GMO crops know what they planted.” True. They
paid for it. They better know that. But they simply grow the food- they
don’t directly give it to the grocer. All grains from all kinds of
farmers with different growing practices, with different adherence to
the law, all give their grain to the same place- so no, grocers don’t
always know what they’re buying, unless it’s organic and has separate rules, I suppose. Also, not all transgenes are created equally- some may carry more risk than others. How were they made? Are they a knockout of the normal gene? Is it a RNAi transgene that “knocksdown” expression of another gene? Is it cis-genic? (a trangenic produced from a gene from “within” species- but even the concept of a “species” is sometimes hard to define). It truly should be a case-by-case basis, and that’s how they’re regulated by the government. The point of a label is to inform, and I don’t think any short label to the consumer would really be that informative to help them weigh risks.
B) How is there a “failure” of long-term testing? There are over 2000+ studies confirming their safety link here: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/), meta-study referenced by Curt Hannah explained here (http://www.science20.com/jon_entine_the_contrarian/29year_100_billion_animal_study_reinforces_safety_of_gm_foods-146431). You need to define it- what exactly IS long term testing? GMOs have existed since the early 1980s, and they are by far the most tested food in the history of human kind. For example, every new “naturally cross-bred” variety may contain new combinations of THOUSANDS of genes- not just one. We know more about this one gene than we do about most of the other 35,000 + “natural” genes that are found in an organism- that’s why we haven’t cloned many of those genes. Your gut bacteria hypothesis is an interesting one, as bacteria also contain the shikimate pathway that round-up targets (EPSP synthase is the gene)- however, even if the gut bacteria are effected at some level, what is SIGNIFICANT is a different question- we’ve had trillions of animals eat these foods, and there have been no decreases in animal health. If you have a hypothesis that round up is somehow impacting our health substantially, I encourage you to test it, with several replications, include control groups, use accepted statistical practices, submit your paper to a high-impact journal such as Nature or Science, as this would truly be a major ground breaking study that runs contrary to everything else published in the literature.
3) Correlation does not equal causation. We’ve had more reality TV series skyrocket since the mid-90s. So have autism spectral diagnoses. These are positively correlated. Does that mean that watching reality TV series causes autism? Not a chance.
4) Your accusation of former employees of biotech corporations is a) irrelevant and b) reeks of conspiracy. That one is not even worth my time.
To anyone else who has questions regarding GMOs or their safety, how they work, etc, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Scott Stelpflug
PhD Candidate, Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics
UW-Madison
May take me a bit to round up my references. In the meantime, However I’m curious how you think clear conflict of interest “reeks of conspiracy”.
I made no accusation towards any person. Simply pointed out a fact. What you choose to think of it is up to you. Whether or not they were or were not biased in their decision making is irrelevant. The potential for bias is there.
Also I see your point on the “May contain GMOs”
Thats irrelevant to my ultimate point though.
My main concern is that we are leaping to soon into GMOs. You yourself admitted that it is possible that roundup could be damaging to gut bacteria.
In a case like this involving an entire population, it shouldn’t be up to me to show that its dangerous. It should be up to those that will profit, to prove that beyond a doubt it is perfectly safe. I believe they have made great strides towards that goal, but they clearly haven’t reached it yet.
Thank you for your response. I will post my references shortly.
If your criteria is that something must be perfectly safe, beyond any doubt, then nothing passes, not even you.
Being a loser is the primary cause of health problems. Don’t have shitty parents, and you will be far less concerned about “contamination” in your food.
The revolving door policy, whereby former corporate executives get to write government policy and then typically go back to the boardroom, is NOT irrelevant. It is an outrage.
And yes, it is in fact a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy at the highest levels to put profit before all else. It’s called business as usual.
A little outside your field, maybe, Mr Stelpflug, but possibly worth your time to read up on.
Do you mean the corporate execs that remain loyal and take bribes from the companies they left? Of which you have offered no proof of, just speculation. Do you ever consider the fact that sometimes folks leave because they are unhappy, or perhaps have grudges? I have heard wild rumors that there is such a thing as a disgruntled ex-employees.
It would be good for you to go to school and actually learn something with truth in it, as contrasted with taking your education from the local movie hall where highly paid actors and entertainers take great pride in vicariously titillating your communistic bent. The corporate world is obviously unfamiliar to you.
What on earth are you talking about? Are you off your meds again?
Dear John,
I admire your passion.
Concerning your points about labeling, please note that I addressed labeling and proposed a mechanism that satisfies both your need to know and my need to pay as less as possible for my food. I also note that Scott Stelpflug addressed your concerns as well and presented some quite cogent and compelling arguments. (For a little senior mentoring, use of terms like “outright silly” do not usually lead to serious and open dialogues.)
You, like many, imply a premium on the “GMO free” label (note that it is impossible to have a GMO-free label for statistical/ sampling reasons — the label would have to read “GMO-minimized” ) and you raise a good point that some farmers knowingly produce foods that are GMO’s. Hence, the voluntary (but legalized) labeling system I envisage would focus only on a label reading “GMO-minimized”. Only those companies wanting to legally sell foods with this label would go through the testing protocols I propose. Please look up the public records on the transgenic rice that was inadvertently shipped to Europe. Here is a case where the American farmers had no idea they were growing GE rice.Mistakes happen. My point is if you are going to have a law about labeling, you have to police it.
Your calls for “proven beyond doubt” of total safety are simply not in the cards. You are not guaranteed total safety in any phase of life (next air flight, trip to the office, crossing the street, taking a shower, eating organic food, etc) so you simply can’t ask for it with GE foods. And science does not work that way. Scientists can test for a problem. If the problem is not found, it simply means it was not found; it does not mean it does not exist.)
Curt Hannah
Thanks for your response.
Again, point taken on labelling.
As for your arguement against proving the safety of GMOs. I would first like to point out that with “(next air flight, trip to the office, crossing the street, taking a shower, eating organic food, etc)” the risks are known and accepted before a person undertakes them.
The problem with some GMOs (mainly bt containing crops) is that the risks are not known. Especially when the consumer has no way to know that they are eating them.
Biology has reached a point where it is discovering that our microbiome has profound effects on our physiology. That is not something that should be ignored, and it depresses me enough to think that we live in a society where it is okay for companies to release there products. Just so 20 years later they set aside a tiny fraction of their profits into a fund to pay for the pain and suffering caused by the product, that they clearly didnt understand in the first place.
I’m not one to stand in the way of progress, and I very much look forward to a future where food crops are capable of growing in otherwise hostile enviroments. Perhaps even with higher nutritional value.
With that being said, I understand enough about the scientific method, to know that it is entirely possible to show the probability of negative effect of bt on our microbiome. Also I am completely aware the correlation does not equal causation, however there has been a precipitous rise in auto immune disorders since the 80s. Auto immune disorders now being linked to imbalances in gut bacteria. So there must be something causing this, and while it may not be GMO crops containing bt. Its seems reasonable to me that there should be studies to show that it isnt, so that we may at the very least remove it from the list of possible causes.
I have yet to see a comprehensive study of the effects of bt containing foods on gut bacteria, except of course by independent organizations that are immediately dismissed by the mainstream scientific community (usually for errors in their method, So i can understand the dismissal).
I myself hardly have the resources to feed myself, let alone afford the equipment and facilty necessary to perfom such a study. Nor do I believe that it should be anybodys responsibility, except those that will profit.
Im still digging through my desktop for my reference list.. Will post it when found.
Again, thank you for your response, and for managing to make it past my often rather awkward grammer.
To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any study showing a negative effect to the organism hosting the microbes you mention when exposed to BT. I suppose you have the same concern about organic food since organic agriculture also uses the BT protein as an insecticide. Please note that organic food consumption has also risen during the time frame you mention. I have also seen compelling correlation plots between organic food consumption and autism. I remind you of the work of Ames et al in showing that virtually all of the carcinogens you are exposed to come from pesticides the plant (not man) synthesizes. Grim facts but these are real life.
You kinda just made my point for me.”I remind you of the work of Ames et al in showing that virtually all of the carcinogens you are exposed to come from pesticides the plant (not man) synthesizes. ”
We are in fact talking about plants developed to produce more of their own carcinogens. Rather then having them sprayed on them.
I don’t understand why scientists are okay with blanket approval of GMOs.
The simple fact is that GMO foods are all different. They are designed with different objectives in mind after all, with different genes, in different plants.
Also your right when you said “To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any study showing a negative effect to the organism hosting the microbes you mention when exposed to BT.”. The reason you haven’t seen such a study is because no study has been done. I realize that the importance of our microbiome is just now becoming known over the last few years. What i dont understand however is that now that this new info is available, why there hasn’t been a study performed to determine the effects of bt containing plant cells on on gut bacteria. Especially when there is reason to believe its possible that it may have a negative effect.
Is it really to much to ask that when faced with new information, scientists adapt and integrate said new information into their research?
For all I or anybody else knows there may be no problem, a slight problem, or a major problem. Hell, its likely that if it were to have a negative effect it could be solved by something as simple as a weekly probiotic supplement. The point is, there is a reason for the study, even if it ends up showing my fears are unnecessary. I would in fact prefer that it did, but my feelings and preferances dont matter.
I depends on what you mean by blanket approval, but my answer would be they aren’t okay with it. It takes more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new GE product to market, that is a lot of testing for efficacy and safety. If a product is found to be allergenic, it is not brought to market, if it is found to be toxic it is not brought to market. It is not the case now that just anything goes.
And what is this new information to which you refer?
Regarding your statements about Bt, whether exogenous (sprayed on) or endogenous (GMO trait), the studies on it are published and the regulatory findings are freely available on the U.S. EPA website. There’s nothing mysterious about it. It’s one of the safest means used today to prevent insect infestation of our food crops. We need more insect mitigation traits in our foods, not less. The secondary effects following insect invasion, both in the field and during storage, are much more dangerous than those from the technologies that we use to control them. Study up on mycotoxins, particularly those which are produced by fungal organisms that are vectored and enhanced by insects.
Look up “Another Inconvenient Truth” at NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 25 NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 2007 page 1330 – it makes very interesting (entertaining even, if not so serious) reading on Bt maize and the results of an Italian Government sponsored study at the University of Milan. Its only a page, and very non-technical.
The livestock industry has been feeding gmo corn and soy for the past thirty years, millions of animals and dozens of generations with no observable negative effects. What happens in a petrie dish doesn’t mean it will occur outside the petrie dish. If the allegations regarding the theoretical effects on gut microbes actually occurred in practice, it would have long ago been noticed by livestock producers when their animals didn’t thrive.
They can buy products that have labels they like..They want everyone to be forced to use politically charged words for their economic and sociopolitical benefit.
Label the chemistry of the product.
GMO is not the chemistry. Its not even accurate for you to use because you actually mean GE.
Some things you left out:
1. BT and cyanide are the like same thing when produced by plants and perfectly legitimate analogy.
2. Overuse of BT is not going to cause any problems like the overuse of glyphosate.
3. Overuse of glyphosate hasn’t caused any problems either.
4. Glyphosate is perfectly safe to drink, breathe and eat. Have some, whether you want to or not.
“1. BT and cyanide are the like same thing when produced by plants and perfectly legitimate analogy”
No, it’s not a legitimate analogy. Cyanide is potentially toxic to humans but Bt isn’t.
“2. Overuse of BT is not going to cause any problems like the overuse of glyphosate.”
Overuse of anything can be problematic. That’s why we have Insect Resistance Management (IRM) requirements to meet when we plant Bt crops.
“3. Overuse of glyphosate hasn’t caused any problems either.”
While you’re probably being sarcastic, it is important to rotate herbicides which means using different chemistries that have different modes or sites of action. This is not a glyphosate issue, it is an issue with any herbicide.
“4. Glyphosate is perfectly safe to drink, breathe and eat. Have some, whether you want to or not.”
In the tiny amounts consumers are exposed to, yes it’s perfectly safe. I wouldn’t recommend you consume it directly, though.
Curtis, you are smug and patronizing. “I admire your passion,” you tell your critics. “There is a consensus,” you purr; those who disagree are “outliers”. Yet, given the choice, and because you are well-heeled, you and your significant other won’t touch the GMO stuff with a bargepole.
I’d like to toss you into a roomful of Oregon organic farmers.
Who funds your “research” down there at the University of Florida, anyway?
Hey Curtis, when you’re in the roomful of Organic Farmers, ask them who INSPECTS their composted manure.
I would buy them a beer first!!
When you think it may help or notice an opportune time. I would be interested in you doing a presentation or seminar at our local markets. I am easy to find if interested. Also I am wondering if you think it might be a good idea to do a flyer at events at agricultural events or festivals. I know it would be risky in Gainesville due to the local biases.
Please contact me directly and we will see what we can do.
Curt
In my neck of the woods, that would be Oregon Tilth. Any further questions, smartass?
“Oregon Tilth is an American nonprofit membership organization dedicated to supporting and advocating organic food and farming, based in Corvallis, Oregon.” An advocacy group? Under what AUTHORITY do these guys act. Gotta do better than that, dirtbag! And you whine about the FDA and Monsanto??? Nice try.
Oregon Tilth is an organic certification agency accredited by the USDA, moron. Do your homework.
It’s hot when you call me dirtbag! I love dirty living soil!
You clearly don’t love facts.
But here’s a serious question for you: If organic production is a superior method, why is only 0.6% of U.S. farm land in organic production?
They do like implying farmers are too dumb to notice.
Yep, that seems to be a common theme in a lot of the activist memes.
“For a farmer, Joe, you sure spend a lot of time typing!”
Well, we don’t grow anything during the winter here. And our entire operation’s management is technology-based, so I’m always near a smart phone, tablet or laptop. It’s not the days of a guy in overalls with a straw hat sitting on a Farmall any more.
“It has been a very revealing to jump onto this site and see just how
riled up you biotech “farmers” become when your precious GMO seeds get
criticized.”
As I said in another post, I have a low tolerance for B.S. And you have exceeded that tolerance.
“I think we can all agree that Roundup-ready crops have been a disaster.”
Given the adoption of HT crops by farmers, you would be as wrong as is humanly possible!
“At the very least, a dead end.”
I wouldn’t say that either. Glyphosate tolerant crops are still useful, even though there are glyphosate-resistant weeds.
“Otherwise, there’d be no need to be throwing 2,4-D into the mix.”
We’ve been using 2,4-D since the 1940s in early-stage corn. Dow’s Enlist trait will just enable a useful change in timing of application. Use of 2,4-D in soybeans will be a new thing, but a good thing, since historically the post-emergent herbicide choices for soybeans have been pretty limited.
“And you guys know very well how the Enlist Duo saga is going to play out. You’re not that dumb, or that deep in denial.”
Do explain how you think it’s “going to play out”! But I’m going to cut you off at the pass on one thing I think you’ll claim, and that is future resistance to 2,4-D. Here’s a little helpful info: In 70 years of 2,4-D use in the U.S., there have only been 3 cases of 2,4-D resistant weeds. And we’ll still rotate herbicide SOA/MOA just to be safe.
“You’re running scared….”
What exactly do you think I am scared of?
If you don’t want people to use 2,4-D or glyphosate in the first place, what would it matter if weeds are resistant to them. If 2,4-D is off the table anyways, why would those resistant weeds be any harder to get rid of than non-resistant weeds?
Good catch, Jackson. I believe “tofu” is nothing but a shill working for the organic industry, trying to foist off a lot of half rotten, insect and disease laden produce on an unsuspecting clientele at hole foods and their ilk. “Tofu” wouldn’t know the difference between waterhemp and kochia. He’s never farmed in his life. He depends on the rest of his commune to feed him while he bangs away at his keyboard like a well trained chimp.
Correct. I am not a farmer.
Correct. I work in the organic industry. I have been an organic processor (packaged foods) since 1990. I also run the first certified organic restaurant on a university campus.
I buy my produce, and much of my grains and legumes, exclusively from farms in my area or within the state of Oregon. I have never purchased, let alone seen, “a lot of half-rotten, insect and disease-laden produce”. If I had, I would have been out of business decades ago.
I take it you have encountered produce like this at your local Whole Foods. Would you care to mention which location?
Speaking of Whole Foods, I consider it way more significant that Walmart has whole-heartedly embraced organics. The times are a’changin’, mah friend.
By the way, no one with your IQ should be casting aspersions on the intelligence of a chimp.
So you do work for the organic food industry. That is a $35 billion dollar industry in NA. Do you see your self as a “shill” for the organic industry? Do you see yourself having a conflict of interest in this debate? If not then why not and how is your involvement in the organic industry any different than others so work in the biotechnology field?
Your comment makes no sense. Processing organic foods is my livelihood. I entered this debate as an interested party – as did, presumably, the GMO farmers on this thread.
He is utterly clueless about agriculture, that’s for sure!
Hyperbole much?
Not. Science-based prediction. Maybe the kids will keep a stiff upper lip.
Seriously, the Nebraska waterhemp is no exaggeration. Check it out. It refutes what Joe asserted about 2,4-D resistance.
No herbicide lasts forever as I explained in my original article
What about “Biomagnification”. They don’t have to last forever just long enough to be consumed by an organism.
I have no clue what you are talking about
I think I can interpret. There is miscommunication of the term “lasts forever.”
Larkin Curtis Hannah is using it to refer to the effectiveness of an herbicide, as in, “that herbicide will not be effective forever.”
gefreekamloops is talking about halflife, as in, “that herbicide will not remain in the soil forever.”
Yes a halflife, exactly. Does anyone know what the half-life of Glyphosate is because I’d be interested to know, not that you would likely know. Not unimportant in the least albeit.
Glyphosate does not accumulate in animals or humans.
I rather doubt you are really interested to know, though. You appear to be more interested in peddling an intellectually and morally bankrupt ideological agenda than anything else.
Peruse through the glyphosate fact sheet if you would like to learn more about it.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf
Thanks
Its the principle of Biomagnification. It’s used in Ecology to show how toxins are concentrated by being eaten by organisms and then being drawn up the food chain. “DDT is good for me” is a prime example. Thus a herbicide may eventually break down but what if it finds its way into the food chain first?
You mean the same USDA you don’t trust to deal with GMOs? In any case, the membership organization is inspecting its own members. If that’s not okay for Big Ag, how can it be okay for Big Organic?
I’ve got a couple of pizzas says he won’t answer that last question.
Pizza crust is usually made from wheat flour and there is no g.e. wheat on market. Also I order veggie pizzas. And the curdled mammary secretions have a few hormones even if the cow was not given any. Finally, It is Loren that might win the pizza.
You seem to be confusing the FDA and the USDA. The former sets policy, the latter carries it out.
It’s the FDA that I “don’t trust to deal with GMOs”, because the FDA is currently in thrall to the biotech industry. The USDA comprises mostly flak-catchers and field-level drones.
For better or worse, the official advocacy group, the USDA, has authorized other advocacy groups, like Oregon Tilth (as well as scores of private companies) to oversee the organic program. Sure, the concept stinks, since it relies on trust and integrity at the most basic level. No system is perfect.
Wrong again. In reality all three agencies can be involved in the journey from the lab to the field. The USDA handles the part around field testing and such (checking constructs, issuing movement permits, etc). If the trait is classified as a pesticide or herbicide, the EPA has role. If it is a food, the FDA is definitely involved.
“No system is perfect.” True, but people of your ilk expect GMOs to go away or be subjected to arbitrary regulations, while for the organic industry its a shrug and business as usual.
I don’t get your point. Organic farmers are subject to massive regulation and record-keeping. That’s part of their “business as usual”.
But you’re right: they would like GMOs to go away.
Where can I find these test results?
You might also ask them where the manure came from and what those animals were fed. The dirty little secret is that the nitrogen in the animal manure most likely came from the conventionally produced grain that those animals ate. In other words, synthetic fertilizers!
I would prefer that we communicate at a higher level. Name calling really doesn’t help. My research is supported by USDA/NIFA. And I eat both organic and GMO foods. Actually, I feel safer eating GMO since those foods have been through tests not used on organic foods.
You’re still being smug! Nobody has any idea how safe GMO crops are.
Good old name calling, the last recourse when there is nothing left
Well, where are the Organic food safety studies? Organic peanuts can kill.
And exactly how safe are organic crops? Any foodborne illiness stats for us?
This statement is total nonsense. We have every idea how safe GMO foods are. In fact, we have a far better idea than we do with foods produced conventionally because of the amount of testing that GMO foods are subject to that other foods are not.
You’re doing nothing but fear mongering or sticking your head in the sand.
Jason, you left out my favorite the evidence free “who funds your research” shill accusation. This almost always marks the accuser as being wrong as well as non-thinking.
“On our home farm we now produce and sell about 13,000 hogs per year (a
number also larger by several orders of magnitude compared to the
Séralini rat study).” Well, there goes any credibility you might have had. You murder 13,000 hogs/year. Anyone so morally bankrupt as to murder 13,000 animals a year for personal profit is so beyond any type of credibility that it boggles the mind. Clearly, you will do absolutely anything for your own personal profit and satisfaction, no matter how many innocent lives are taken in the process. How could you begin to profess any interest in making the planet a better place when you are working so hard to turn it into hell? Of course you believe that we should all become slaves to Monsanto, but that’s not what most people want for our planet. Perhaps your conscience will lead you to repent before you die a miserable death, but it seems unlikely.
There we go! Pushing personal morals onto others as if they are defined fact. You claim that to know what “most people want for our planet” yet it would appear through purchase decisions that the vast majority of people don’t share your opinions at all.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/24/9e/4f/249e4f668774ae1f8caacff254f1b437.jpg
I too like to eat “organic” vegetables… from my own garden! But I am under no illusion that we can feed 9 billion people by 2050 and 12 billion by 2100 without every tool at our disposal and GE technology is the best tool we have. The minimum tillage that Roundup Ready crops allow is actually much better for the soil than plowing everything under. In America already 30% of these crops are grown with minimum or no tillage. This prevents erosion due to rain and wind, preserving valuable soil. The anti-GE hysteria is spread by people who know nothing about agriculture. They have a “checkbook agenda!” What a classic! I’ll have to use that one over and over!
Thanks for this comment Stuart. It seems this reality (9 billion/12billion) is often overlooked by the anti-GMO crowd. Growing everything organically is wishful thinking. The marketplace has enough room for both/all types of products.
I see more activists saying, “We don’t need more GMOs, we need less food waste!”
But what they don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) is that waste is coming from spoiled produce, not from staple crops. No one is throwing away 30% of the corn, soybeans or rice, so their argument is phony.
When you see articles about “percent of waste”, it is always percent BY WEIGHT.
All staples are virtually water free before being sold. Corn Meal, Flour, Rice, Oats, dried beans, Pasta, Soy Oil, Corn Oil, Canola oil or Sugar etc, and besides lasting almost indefinitely in your pantry are much more nutrient/calorie dense than the perishable crops like Tomatoes, Cucumbers, Lettuce, Berries, or Melons that make up most of our “waste”, when all you do is measure weight. Its a numbers MEME, and is highly misleading.
The latter fact, University PhD, tells the real story of his conflicted morality: paid to play in the monoculture GMO sandbox…of course, totally free of fecal matter and flush with a sea of petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic chemical toxins.
Another post totally free from fact or reason. Par for the course for you, though.
Curtis, I have to ask you this:
If, as some on this thread have asserted, organic produce has no health advantages, no nutritional advantages, is way more expensive, is “half-rotten, insect and disease-laden”, and is produced by a tiny clique of farmers who degrade their soil and routinely demonize the competition;
Why do you seek it out?
Or was that just a cynical little hook for your GMO cheerleading session?
As I said in my article, I like the taste. They are fresh mostly because they are local. I also like the people who prepare the food. There need not be two camps.
Excellent article. The only exception I take?
“I seriously doubt if [farmers] want “government people” in their fields.”
As a farmer I can understand and even validate your point, but we work with so many specialized experts (like yourself) in our fields, if you will. All the time.
For me, one of the most fascinating and exciting things about modern agriculture is that through programs like Extension we have access to experts in everything. PhDs in everything from bugs, to dirt, to grass, to specialized veterinary care.
For those with questions or concerns about how and why your food is grown the way it is, you can come ask our volunteer experts at http://www.askthefarmers.com. We have organic, conventional, and individuals from almost every type of operation! We love to hear from consumers!
The cost doesn’t go up. These are all multinational food companies that already have seperate lines for gmo and non gmo. Plenty keep the gmo stuff here and the non gmo sent to europe. And you are right, you are emotionally attached to your broad statements.
Sounds almost as though your paycheck comes directly from Monsanto.
And anyone with half a grain of intelligence knows by now that ‘studies’ can be – and usually are – ‘doctored’ to show the ‘results’ desired by those paying for said ‘studies’ in the first place.
LMAO!
No one with half a grain of intelligence plays the shill card. It means you’ve got nothing and are conceding any argument you thought you had.
Thanks for playing!
Quite wrong. In point of fact, “studies” conducted in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) cannot be fraudulent because they are subject to external audit. Criminal penalties await anyone and/or any test facility that might issue a fraudulent report based on “doctored” data. There have been several prosecutions on that basis. The key governmental agencies that regulate biotechnology as it applies to food base their decisions on GLP compliant studies. Wild, loosely conducted experimentations, such as the fraudulent rat feeding test conducted by that Seralini huckster, are not GLP compliant, thus are not valid for regulatory purposes. Neither are blog posts or blabberings from Dr. Oz and other TV entertainers considered as evidence by the regulatory agencies. Agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and their counterparts in other countries rely upon authentic, scientifically generated data from studies that they themselves audit. You really should study some of the guidelines, and read some of the regulatory decisions they have made on GMOs. They are freely available on the EPA website.
Clearly you live in America, where everything you’re told and everything you read is swallowed wholesale.
Guidelines are like ‘rules’ – always made to be broken. In other words, play with the truth, dance around the rules, and as long as the right amount of money greases relevant palms, vested interests can do as they please.
Who the hell is Dr Oz? Clearly no one of any import.
The only accurate segment of your above post is the part about Dr. Oz. Congratulations on getting one thing right… Keep working on the rest.
This article is rife with the kind of generalizations and omissions he claims those of us opposed to GMOs use. “Plant improvement programs are needed to feed a growing human population” is the kind of argument GMO cheerleaders (most of whom benefit, like the author, from their use) trot out. It has never been true, even during the so-called Green Revolution. Food scarcity is not a scientific problem, it is a social one of distribution.