General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you are in California, please vote YES on 37. -Updated
Last edited Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:08 AM - Edit history (3)
Huge amounts of money has been going to defeat this measure which would put labels upon all GMOs (genetically modified organisms), from Monsanto and others. Who have been fighting this tooth and nail. If they're so good, why wouldn't they want labels to direct people to their product? None of the ads mention Monsanto or GMOs or the fact that a very recent study showed lab mic blowing up to twice their size with cancerous growths. Or that most of the world has kicked Monsanto OUT. Thank you.
Edit: And be careful...Hershey's is working against Prop 37. Perhaps they use high-fructose corn sweetener from GMO corn?
I should have also qualified: those with "concern" will be immediately put on Ignore. Thank you for your concern.
Via Chuck Cirino:
YES on Proposition 37 - We have a right to know what's in our food. The donors below are the OPPONENTS to Proposition 37 and listed is how much money they've spent on trying to kill it. This list alone should make up your mind on how to vote. YES.
Monsanto - $7,100,500
DuPont - $4,900,000
Pepsi - $2,145,400
Bayer - $2,000,000
Dow - $2,000,000
BASF - $2,000,000
Syngenta - $2,000,000
Kraft Foods -
$1,950,000
Coca-Cola - $1,455,500
Nestle - $1,315,600
General Mills - $1,135,000
ConAgra - $1,077,000
Kellogg’s - $790,000
Smithfield - $684,000
Links for your examination:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=monsanto+cancer+mice&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)It needs to be labeled and then this will force these people to finally openly test these products. In the meantime people will be able to make their own minds up. I wrote a long thing about this on the other thread with historical stuff.
Here is a letter that I sent out to parents at my daughter's school- many who work as scientists in the industry who are quite frightened that this will destroy their industry.
Dear Prop 37 undecided voters,
As an older mom, and as a scientist, plant breeder and organic farmer, I would like to share my perspective on Proposition 37 with you.
The fight that I see going on regarding the labeling of GMOs reminds me quite a bit of a fight on the playground: anger created by bullying, resulting in name calling and no end of drama and hysterics. Just the sort of thing we as the grown ups are continually called upon to stop. How do we create a basis for healing and moving on and growing and learning from this discord?
When the first scientists figured out how to harness the capacity of particular bacteria and viruses to cut genetic material from one species and then infect another species with it, many wild hopes were raised within the scientific community. I recall hearing how all the streetlights would be replaced by trees whose leaves would have the bioluminescence of fireflies spliced into them- imagine all the electricity to be saved! There were so many exciting possibilities. And there still are. Many a new start up was created which sought venture capital funding, some in the area of pharmaceuticals and others in agriculture. At this very beginning stage of the biotechnology industry a terrific rift was formed between those that saw the enormous power of this new technology as something to be very careful with indeed, and those that needed to get products to market as quickly as possible to fund their start-up business ventures.
The biggest surprise players in this initial schism were the business people in the largest ag chemical companies. They appeared to use their influence within the government to circumvent the regulatory agencies (the EPA and FDA) by making the wild claim that this technology was no different from classical plant breeding and thus required no safety testing whatsoever (other than any they chose to do within their own corporations and which were not scrutinized in a public forum). Many of the scientists within this new industry were horrified by this position, but were told that the products had to get to market to fund future research. This decision to resist any and all regulatory testing allowed a number of GMO crop plants to enter the marketplace very quickly. It allowed a great amount of funding to flow to scientists who were thrilled to be doing such advanced work. But this blatant disregard for testing--all the while claiming the GMO plants were safe--backfired, and outside the U.S. the doors were quickly shut to these new varieties of crops created by genetic engineers. I asked an executive at one of these firms, who was a scientist, how they would justify the damage to the reputation of all scientists when the general public found out how they had been lied to about the safety of this technology. The answer was this: "If we do not lie we will not get funding. Without funding we will not be able to do our work. Our work is the most important way to save the world."
The rift formed by business decisions made in the 1980's has developed into the brawl that we witness today. Both sides have become inflamed and each side has valid points. One of the greatest difficulties for me is that I know a number of great scientists who work in this industry who have not only agile minds, but the best of intentions. Some are parents of my daughter's friends at school. The scientists doing this work all believe that their products are safe- they had been told by their professors that all the safety testing was already done back in the 80's. These scientists claim that all these hysterical calls for labeling are from the same kind of people who don't believe in science or global warming. They feel maligned and frightened that their industry that they believe holds so much potential for scientific promise will be thwarted by activist fools.
The people calling for labeling are a much larger group. Before the over 40 million dollars worth of ads against it, some 70% of people polled were in favor of Proposition 37. Within this group are people who suffer from allergies (or whose children suffer from them), who simply want all the information possible on labels. There are people who for religious reasons object to the mixing of kingdoms (animal genes mixed in with plants, etc.), which is an issue for a variety of faiths. There are the people who distrust the technology of genetic manipulation in general. There are the people who only distrust the products of this technology that have not undergone public transparent testing. There are people who worry about the environmental impacts that they feel are not being addressed by the industry. They all want to just be able to decide if they want to buy these products or not.
The fear of the people employed in the genetic engineering of food crops is that labeling will effectively shut down their industry, because, when polled, more than half of people claim they do not want to eat food that is the result of genetic manipulation. They view labeling as branding the word "Frankenfood" over the products of their labors and their devotion to working for a better future.
And so how do we as voters begin to solve this problem created by business decisions made over 25 years ago?
The place I suggest we turn to is The Union of Concerned Scientists. They have been grappling with this schism within the scientific community since the early 1990's. They recommend that a thorough and transparent system of testing be started immediately so that all the allegations of safety or the lack thereof can be settled. Openly and thoroughly. They support labeling of all GMO products.
I think that labeling is the way to achieve a peace. Those that value a bargain and who trust the industry will be fine with purchasing these products. Those that want to know will be able to do so. It is simple and it does not destroy any farmer or this new industry that is still just forming. It will encourage those businesses who rushed products to market prematurely to sit down with the scientists who called for safety testing and come up with a plan to test the products.
Thank you for considering this issue with such care,
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Here's a razor sharp informative article on Prop 37 for you to share if you like it.
Published on Saturday, November 3, 2012 by Common Dreams
Prop 37 and Corporate Lies in the Post Truth Era
by Zack Kaldveer
As a historic vote with profound implications for the future of our food system nears, the question becomes whether a campaign with limitless resources and a disdain for the truth can defeat an overwhelmingly popular idea supported by a grassroots army, and over 3000 public interest organizations: the right to know what's in the food we eat and feed our families.
<>
The Only Recourse: An Unprecedented Campaign of Deception
The campaign against the right to know has relied on three essential components: unlimited resources, a willingness to repeatedly lie, and a willingness to double and triple down on those lies-even when they are debunked by independent fact checkers.
Seriously, when was the last time giant, out-of-state pesticide and junk food companies spent $45 million to improve your health, protect the environment or save you money?
Spoiler Alert-they never have.
The No On 37 campaign knows that the less you know about your food, the more money they are likely to make. Their goal is literally that simple, even though their campaign of deception is far more elaborate.
They've set up phony AstroTurf groups, misrepresented spokespeople and embellished their credentials, and misrepresented leading science, government, professional and academic organizations-including (but not limited to) the National Academy of Sciences, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,US Food and Drug Administrationand World Health Organization. They've bankrolled demonstrably phony "economic studies," made repeated false statements in advertisements, deceived voters with mailers sent by obvious front groups, and repeated one falsehood after another---hoping somehow that no one would ever notice.
Well, someone just did. We filed a complaint to the Department of Justice about the potentially fraudulent use of the FDA seal in No on 37 campaign propaganda, and the DOJ has referred the matter to FDA to look into.
The No on 37 Campaign and the "Post Truth Era"
After four weeks of million dollar a day advertising by out of state pesticide and junk food corporations, No on 37 shrunk a 40 point deficit into a lead. Not because they were right on the facts-because they don't care about the facts.
No on 37's red herring arguments around common sense exemptions, phony lawsuit scares, bogus "big bureaucracy claims", and "cost increase hysteria", has been painstakingly documented.
Ultimately, we believe that "No on 37's" financially motivated corporate "sting operation" constitutes a profound disdain for the democratic process and the citizens of this state.
<>
roody
(10,849 posts)Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)But even if the Prop loses Monsanto loses as the issue is all blown up now and will not go away.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Vote for the Dinner Party
Is this the year that the food movement finally enters politics?
By MICHAEL POLLAN
Published October 10, 2012
<...>
Surely this explains why Monsanto and its allies have fought the labeling of genetically modified food so vigorously since 1992, when the industry managed to persuade the Food and Drug Administration — over the objection of its own scientists — that the new crops were “substantially equivalent” to the old and so did not need to be labeled, much less regulated. This represented a breathtaking exercise of both political power (the F.D.A. policy was co-written by a lawyer whose former firm worked for Monsanto) and product positioning: these new crops were revolutionary enough (a “new agricultural paradigm,” Monsanto said) to deserve patent protection and government support, yet at the same time the food made from them was no different than it ever was, so did not need to be labeled. It’s worth noting that ours was one of only a very few governments ever sold on this convenient reasoning: more than 60 other countries have seen fit to label genetically modified food, including those in the European Union, Japan, Russia and China.
<...>
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"
Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune
September 3, 2000
BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.
In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.
As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.
Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.
<>
More at link.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) 
Webster Green
(13,905 posts)I'm worried about this one. The propaganda has been overwhelming.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)for 2 months now. It WAS winning 3:1. Right up until Monsanto, ConAGra and DuPont spent $40 million to defeat it. Polls show that it's going to be CLOSE.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)and people have been confused by the ads, but most seem to be voting yes. I so hope that it passes. If it does not, the issue will only blow up on a larger scale. It will not be going away. The money they put into this was a very big mistake.
blazeKing
(329 posts)Like saying people's grocery bills will go up 1000 dollars a year...totally misleading and false. California really gets it from outside groups whether it's gay marriage or marijuana. Sadly it is effective, I heard 37 may lose. But even if worse comes to worse, California starts the trend and other states will have this labeling measure come to the ballot. Monsanto cannot stop this for long.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)things, they are very clever and very deceiving. I could see people being persuaded by them.
Dems need to do a better job of educating people about this issues. I bet a lot of people who support labeling food will end up voting against it, purely out of confusion.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)please vote yes on 37! Who wouldn't want to know what they're feeding their kids?
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)One bright spot amid the deceptive ads against it--today I saw an ad by the League of Women Voters slamming the dishonest ads and urging a YES vote! 
mike_c
(37,045 posts)Not because I'm any friend of Monsanto, General Mills, etc, but because I've had many conversations with friends, neighbors, and students about Prop 37 and it's clear to me that their real issue is not to the business practices of corporations like Monsanto, which I loathe, but rather their fear and ignorance regarding genetic engineering. Fear and ignorance are never good positions to vote from.
No on 37.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)reasons. I don't live in CA, but I found it interesting and would probably vote no if I did.
roody
(10,849 posts)Monsanto.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)Now you're proposing shit you know nothing about. Very few of us-- scientists-- are paid by the likes of Monsanto. I'm paid by the people of California, for example.
roody
(10,849 posts)and academia.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)for the American people. Forgot how to get sarcasm Tag.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)September 7, 2012
Tiny Lifesaver for a Growing Worry
By KATIE THOMAS
It has become an all-too-familiar story in schools across the country: a child eats a peanut or is stung by a bee and suffers an immediate, life-threatening allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis.
<...>
[font style=color:blue]Although no one knows exactly why, the rate of food allergies among children appears to be on the rise.[/font] One survey found that in 2008, one in 70 children was allergic to peanuts, compared with one in 250 in 1997.
“I don’t think it’s overdiagnosis,” said Dr. Scott H. Sicherer, the author of the report and a researcher at the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. “There really seems to be a difference.”
A study last year in the journal Pediatrics found that about one in 13 children had a food allergy, and nearly 40 percent of those with allergies had severe reactions. A recent survey in Massachusetts, where schools are permitted to administer epinephrine to any student, found that one-quarter of students who had to be given the drug for a reaction did not know they had an allergy. But in many schools, employees are not allowed to use epinephrine injectors on children who do not have a prescription.
<...>
blazeKing
(329 posts)Interesting. Should we get rid of made in china labels too since , you know, a lot of people are scared of communist china? How about made in mexico too? Lots of people scared and ignorant of mexican immigrants here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)WARNING: CONTAINS HYDROGEN
(Hydrogen, BTW, is present in literally everything you eat)
I hate anti-science, whether it's global warming deniers or the more colorful parts of our party.
blazeKing
(329 posts)Studies aren't being done to show Hydrogen is dangerous in food, they are on GMO's. People who want food that isn't genetically manipulated have a right to know. Organic labeling does not solve the problem.
To me, the issue isn't so much health risks although some are documented, it's the environmental risk. Did we not learn our lesson from Jurassic Park? Nature will find a way. There are already strains of antibacterial resistant bacteria. Superbugs. I wonder how nature is responding to GMO's? It's foolish to think that manipulating DNA is safe for the environment. It isn't. And many environmentalists who promote GMO should be ashamed for thinking it is safe.
Being skeptical of DNA manipulation of our environment isn't anti-science, it's pro environment. Science also brought us DDT and agent orange. Guess you forgot that one.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)"Science also brought us DDT and agent orange."
I don't have anything to add, really. This is about those who fear things they don't understand and those of us work to create new things.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)about what they do. Once I hear a genetic engineer not try to pretend that they are just "oh shucks a simple plant breeder" I'll be happy to begin a discussion. Until then I see you are using the same tactics - bullying, shaming and more lies.
I work to create new things. I am a plant and an animal breeder and I am NOT a genetic engineer.
If your industry wants respect then it must begin acting with honesty, integrity and being open for scientific discourse.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)GMO foods are not just "RoundUp-Ready". But reducing water consumption or increasing yield doesn't fit with anti-GMO's view. So they, and you as a result, ignore those.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)How is it that you accuse me of not being honest.
Some links please?
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)BUT it better be properly tested and open and clear what one is doing. To claim that it is "just the same as plant breeding" is the big lie that creates the whole problem of distrust.
You have made a great point and thank you for contributing to the discussion.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Can't test things when eco-terrorists destroy your stuff.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)nobody has burned the fields, There is no excuse for not testing the products.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Jurassic Park is fiction. The only lessons are those that the author imagines. Those lessons aren't necessarily based in reality. For example, "Did we not learn our lesson from Atlas Shrugged?" So we should all be Randians since Ayn wrote a book?
(And, FYI, Crichton got his science very wrong)
Depends on what you are manipulating the plant to do. If you are adding something like RoundUp resistance or producing an insecticide, then there's evolutionary pressure as with antibiotic resistance.
But that's not the only thing we're doing to plants. For example, we've inserted two genes into sweet corn to make them sweeter. We've also put in genes to increase crop yields. Neither of those are going to produce evolutionary pressure on other creatures.
Based on what specific mechanism? This is science. You don't get to wave your hands and say "Oooooo! Spoooooooky!!". You have to explain exactly the mechanism by which manipulating DNA is harmful for the environment.
If you want to talk about the dangers of RoundUp Resistance or the pant producing insecticide, then you've got something to talk about. But that's not all we're doing. For example, using genetics to increase yield or lower water consumption is better for the environment - less of the environment is wrecked to grow food.
But you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater out of fear over something you don't understand.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)showing how the raw Bt toxin engineered into plants biodegrades. And it's half life. I am not interested in how the crystal toxin produced by the bacteria biodegrades, I know all about that already- that work was done in the 60's.
How are the seed companies making sure that the toxin does not mutate? What tests do they perform on each batch of seeds?
What is the tolerance allowed in foodstuffs for this raw toxin. Why do you think it is now being found in over 90% the blood of women and infants in Canada? Any toxicology work on it to share with us?
And how about the amount of glyphosate left as a residue in the crop plants. What are the tolerable limits of it?
How about the problem of the promotors leaving the plant cells with the infecting genes and infecting the soil microorganisms with those genes. Any studies to share with us about that? And while we are on that topic how about with the microorganisms that reside in mammalian digestive systems. These are sensible questions and issues that should be addressed within a regulatory system.
If this industry has any hope of progressing it needs to label and come up with a regulatory system. You can only ignore the Union of Concerned Scientists for so long.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bt+toxin+degrade&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=IN6XUOOQIofp0QG8wYHwDg&ved=0CB0QgQMwAA
Might want to bother using google before asserting "they'll kill us all!!!!!"
How are the organic seed companies making sure their tomatoes don't mutate and start producing the toxin in Nightshade?
Being a GMO plant doesn't suddenly make the plant much more likely to mutate.
Well, we've been putting using it as an insecticide since the 1920s:
Hey look! Organic farmers are dumping Bt Toxin on their fields! They're out to kill all Canadians!!
You do realize that penicillin is a toxin, right? Perhaps you could share the mechanism where it's harmful to humans? I'm aware that a whole lot of anti-GMO people are claiming all sorts of harm from it, but I can't find any studies to back that up.
And since we've been using it since the 1920s, one would think if it was a major problem we'd have stumbled across it by now.
Yeah, they don't do that anymore. It works too poorly in eukaryotes.
But keep waving your hands!
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)for the crystal.
This opens the door for a whole lot os more questions, it does not answer mine.
Try again, the toxin produced by the plants is not the same as the crystal protoxin produced by the bacteria.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)In any event, vertebrates lack receptors to bind it, so it's NON TOXIC except to target insects. AND it's only stable for short times when buried, because sunlight breaks it down rapidly. For crying out loud, Bt is the answer to every organic farmer's prayers. All this bleating about it having a different crystalline structure in bacterial expression and transformed plant expression is utterly beside the point. You might as well argue about it being purple rather than yellow. It's still non toxic to all but target insects because only they have the gut physiology necessary for its toxicity.
Look, I'm not a fan of Bt transformed crops, not because I fear genetic engineering, but because I'm an entomologist and fear induced resistance to one of the best, most benign insect population management tools we've ever had. The whole history of the pesticide industry can be summarized in one sorry statement: Where a gram is enough, use a ton. THAT is the real danger of Bt transformation-- it hastens the development of insect resistance by favoring resistant population fractions.
In my experience, most proponents of anti-GMO labeling, etc don't ever get far enough past their simple and irrational fear of things they don't understand to actually pay attention to WHY Bt transformed crops might or might not be a bad thing, or whether their real beef is with the business practices of predatory corporations like Monsanto.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)Of this toxin on soil microbes, nematodes, soil fungi, etc. This is a huge and radical difference and this work should have been done prior to these plants being cultivated on over 80% of US cropland. This has major environmental significance. Just as big a deal as the insects becoming resistant to the natural Bt.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)The natural B.t. preparations are tested - every batch is tested for mutation. Mice are injected- every batch per EPA regulations.
How are the plants expressing the raw actual toxin- not a protoxin protected by it's crystal structure - being tested?
This is what science demands.
Don't talk to me about science and then throw these silly things at me.
roody
(10,849 posts)It is an ingredient list. The 'warning' meme comes from big-Agra.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)You state down thread that you already avoid foods you know to be genetically engineered. So even though it's not a warning, you intend to treat it that way? Disingenuous much?
roody
(10,849 posts)interview with the NO on 37 actors or doctors. Are you hoping to deprive me of my freedom to choose organic food? How will you do that?
mike_c
(37,045 posts)I simply don't respect your reasons for fearing genetic engineering. I find them anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. Also, I'll readily admit that I'm making some assumptions about those reasons, but you've not said anything in this thread to dispel my assumptions either. If you have data-based, biological arguments against genetic engineering rather than emotional, fear-based reasons, then I'm happy to listen to them and consider them, even to the point of reevaluating my own stance on GMOs.
What is it about moving genes around that you find so fearful? Genes are just information. All eukaryotes have the same biochemical mechanisms for gene regulation, protein transcription, and translation-- plugging this gene or that gene into their genome is no more fearsome than popping a CD into your computer-- it makes new information about proteins they couldn't make before available to them. Medicine is routinely produced that way. Do you object to such things as GMO insulin, or GMO vaccines? How is GMO food qualitatively different?
What is it about giving an organism access to information gained during the evolutionary history of another organism-- whose different evolutionary history makes that information possible-- that you find so fearful? I find it wonderful and inspiring.
roody
(10,849 posts)keeping GMOs a secret, or only insult others?
mike_c
(37,045 posts)Most of the arguments put forth by GMO opponents are anti-science, anti-intellectual, and fear-based rather than fact based. Now, one can argue that everyone is entitled to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but there's the rub. I have not seen ANYTHING that even comes close to convincing me that genetic engineering is an inherently bad or harmful technology, or that GMO foods are necessarily any worse than non GMO foods-- they're often better from a variety of different perspectives-- but it is clear to me that the motives of GMO opponents, notwithstanding the disingenuous argument that they simply want "truth in labeling," include doing economic harm to farmers and retailers who produce and sell GMO foods, and to the people who might otherwise consume those foods.
I think a very good argument can be made that corporations like Monsanto do much harm in the world, but let's get our targets straight. It isn't genetic engineering that does that harm-- it's the business models of companies that put profits before the best interests of their customers and the world at large. If their production processes are not themselves responsible for the evil they do-- and again, I've heard lots of accusations and downright hysteria about that, but seen no real data-- then attacking those processes is completely misdirected.
roody
(10,849 posts)get rid of USDA organic labeling.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)You seem to think that because I'm taking a rational, evidence based stance on GMOs that I would naturally oppose organic labeling. How does that follow?
It doesn't, and I have no desire to oppose labeling for products that meet organic standards. All, BTW, are already free to label their products "No GMO ingredients" if that's the case. And I have no objections to their doing so.
roody
(10,849 posts)companies should be advertising its excellent qualities! Why are they hiding it and terrified of a simple ingredient label?
mike_c
(37,045 posts)...is that I agree with you wholeheartedly-- in a rational world people should have access to all the information they need to make informed decisions. But preconceptions do not inform rational thought; they stymie it. And that's what I see among most proponents of Prop 37-- not an honest desire to make informed decisions, but rather an avenue for expressing their irrational fears of technology that they fear and misunderstand.
Can you honestly tell me that a GMO label won't AUTOMATICALLY bias you against buying a product just because you fear GMOs?
roody
(10,849 posts)I like food the way nature made it.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)Unless you're a forager, just about every foodstuff you eat is the result of thousands of years of human selection, manipulation, hybridization, and modification. What you're really saying is that you only fear the kinds of modifications that you don't understand.
You probably wouldn't even recognize most foods "the way nature made" them.
roody
(10,849 posts)or only insult others?
mike_c
(37,045 posts)Up thread, just a little.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)these buyers are the main buyers at the stores. Instead of spending over 40 million to get this bill to fail, they should have used the money to say all the good that they think gmo's do. Advertise and label. That is marketing 101.
roody
(10,849 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)"Jeep is sending jobs to China". Chrysler has had to spend a chunk of effort refuting that.
"All GMOs are evil and will kill you! Buy only organic!". You can either spend a lot of effort explaining science to people who will just scream "Monsanto!!!" and ignore you. Or you don't talk about it and just make your corn flakes cheaper with less water and less acreage.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)GMO ingredients should not be present in infant formula until long term animal feeding studies have been conducted proving safety.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"
Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune
September 3, 2000
...As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.
<>
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You're asserting there is possible harm. What specific mechanism would cause that harm?
And no, waving your hands and making spooky noises isn't the same as a mechanism.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)
A hypothesis for a plausible mechanism is presented.
"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"
Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune
September 3, 2000
BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.
In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.
As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.
Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.
<>
More at link.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Protecting Children’s Health: American Academy of Pediatrics Misses the Big Picture in Their Flawed ‘Organics’ Analysis
October 30th, 2012
COMMENTARY
By Charlotte Vallaeys
For the first time, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has weighed in on organic foods for children. Its news release was widely covered in the national media.
While the AAP should be commended for acknowledging the potentially harmful effects of pesticide residues on conventional foods, their report—and associated press coverage—is seriously flawed in its basic approach to agrochemical contamination in our food supply and the associated threat to public health.
Even though the AAP acknowledges that many pesticides are neurotoxins, that studies have linked exposure to pesticides to neurological harm in children, and that a recent peer-reviewed study correlated higher pesticide residue levels in children with higher rates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the AAP is cautious about reaching a conclusion regarding the harmful effects of pesticides.
Why such a reckless approach? AAP explains, “No studies to date have experimentally examined the causal relationship between exposure to pesticides directly from conventionally grown foods and adverse neurodevelopmental health outcomes.”
With this statement, the AAP suggests that it considers existing knowledge about toxic pesticides to be inadequate and incomplete for the purposes of recommending organic foods for children, which have been shown in peer-reviewed published studies to radically reduce children’s pesticide exposure.
The pediatric group suggests, as agrochemical manufacturers have for decades, that the question of whether pesticides harm children will remain unanswered until results from experiments provide definite proof of harm. With this expectation, the AAP joins the agribusiness and pesticide lobbyists in setting an impossible standard. Let’s step back for a minute and imagine what such an experimental study would look like.
<>
Charlotte Vallaeys is Director of Farm and Food Policy at The Cornucopia Institute. She holds a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School and a Master of Science from the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.
roody
(10,849 posts)all kinds of other junk, why not market GMOs?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"We charge you the same, but it costs us less to make!". Boy that's a winning formula.
The only reasonable marketing campaign would be based on the increased yields and lower water usage being an environmental benefit. But the people who would respond to that campaign are the same people who insist GMOs are going to walk out of the fields and strangle us in our sleep.
roody
(10,849 posts)afford it.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Most people are too stupid to realize that "dihydrogen monoxide" is water, they just see a chemical name and think "BAD!!!"
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)The general reaction is to tune the person out. And the scientific rift, it it can be healed, requires labeling and testing in some sort of regulatory way. It is that simple. Otherwise it will continue to escalate out of control.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)into thinking these plants were the same as those produced from classical plant breeding. They wanted to know how the average citizen did not know there was a difference. They wanted to know what we taught our kids in Hight School Science courses.......
roody
(10,849 posts)has nothing to do with warnings. It is about ingredient labels. The fact that the NO promotors keep saying warning is in fact a warning.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...it's going to look like a warning to many people.
I'm a California voter, and I'm only inclined to vote for this to piss on the corporations. I'm not convinced by the arguments of either side though that it's as bad as they say. I don't see the problem with voluntary labeling (as many brands already do) - businesses that want to cater to people who care about the issue are free to do so, but in absence that this is going to cause a massive amount of confusion on top of substantial ignorance about our food sources.
roody
(10,849 posts)this country that says 'genetically modified' anything.
I've seen this brand readily available in 3 states, including at my local Ralphs Supermarkets here in the South Bay of California.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy%27s_Kitchen
I find it odd that someone who is so adamantly for Prop 37 doesn't realize that many food companies already do this. Go to Trader Joes or Whole Foods and ask a clerk.
roody
(10,849 posts)Non-GMO, but 37 will require that GMOs be identified in the ingredients.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)The real issue here is voluntary vs. forced labeling. Moreover, there is no scientifically demonstrated difference in terms of health between say GMO and Non-GMO corn. Prop 37 is playing political games with science and in doing so attempting to sway public opinion toward a certain economic conclusion.
Like I said before, if I actually decide to vote for it, my vote will be cast to give big business the finger and not out of any genuine sincere belief that its outcome is wise and necessary.
roody
(10,849 posts)to make our own decisions. 61 countries require labeling of GMOs.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)demosincebirth
(12,825 posts)Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 2, 2012, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)
This was a bad business decision made in the 80's gone awry. Time to clear it up and move on. Label and test so that the industry can go forward.
It is the only way out as if you think this will be settled by the proposition failing, you are mistaken. It will only be ramped up.
The Union of Concerned Scientists supports labeling.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Are you saying that because labeling isn't legislation against genetic engineering and that it is fear mongering to the ignorant then it shouldn't be done?
If the food is labeled it will raise awareness. Awareness will probably make (some) people change their buying habits. This will have an effect on the industry via their profits.
So some of the ignorance will be eliminated once people start seeing these labels. A lot of people don't even realize this is happening at all.
roody
(10,849 posts)and perfected it. Is that fearful? I have the right to know what I am eating. It is a very simple concept.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)The corn you've eaten is the product of a hybrid of two wild grasses and thousands of years of selective breeding.
I don't think much of the most common current applications of genetic engineering of plants, but GMO corn has a lot more in common with the most natural organic, heirloom corn you can find than it does with wild maize and teosinte. You likely wouldn't recognize the latter as anything but weeds.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)can do naturally. And the form of the toxin is not at all the same as the crystal protoxin produced naturally by the bacteria.
Natural corn the product of great Native American plant breeders has no protein toxin in each cell. A toxin never tested and which is now found in the bloodstreams of people.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)My kid once drank a big swig of it out of a bottle (because I had it under the sink for my backyard organic garden) and when I called poison control they said the only records they could find of it doing anything to anybody, ever, was some lip sores somebody reported on cows once. That was ten years ago. The kid's still here. He's never been eaten by caterpillars though.
I'm way more concerned about "roundup ready" everything, for the perfectly reasonable reason that I'd rather not eat anything that was slathered liberally in glyphosate.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)produced by the bacteria. The bacteria produces a protoxin that forms a crystal structure when fermented properly. The crystal will only dissolve into toxin if it is in an insect gut or a solution that has a pH over 10. Mammalian stomachs are typically acidic (less than ph7) and so the crystal does not dissolve. It biodegrades and that is why it is so safe. But at the fermentation facility a lot of testing goes on. Each batch is sent for mouse toxicity testing as living things can mutate.
What the genetic engineers did was insert the gene that codes for the actual toxin into the plants and did not test how the toxin biodegrades or even perform the simplest toxicity testing on it all the while making the claim that it was the same as the crystal toxin. It is not the same. They had no information on it. This was just one rash act by these so called scientists. Right now they are finding this toxin in blood of women and babies in Canada. Who knows what this means. Why weren't these things tested 30 years ago?!!!!!! Why aren't they being tested now? 30 years ago a whole group of scientists resigned from the EPA over this. I testified. They would listen to no reason. They seemed to be totally bought off. When I asked about testing seed lots for mammalian toxicity in case of mutation, as the fermented product is required by them to perform they looked at me and said "why would the gene mutate?" I was just speechless.
I do not like eating foods sprayed with glyphosate either as there were never any residue levels calculated for tolerance as no plant had ever survived round up before.
The industry will be destroyed unless they change, initiate testing and labeling.
roody
(10,849 posts)Engineering. Selective breeding allows the corn to pollinate in a natural way.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)Pollination has little or nothing to do with genetic engineering, which is why GE permits insertion of genes from reproductively incompatible species. And of course, most selective breeding completely prevents natural, open pollination.
Look, your ignorance about selective breeding and genetic engineering is showing, and I don't mean that to be insulting. Surely you don't think fear and ignorance are good foundations for public policy, or for making informed decisions yourself? Do you mind my asking: have you studied much biology? I've asked you before, what scares you so much about swapping genetic information in and out, but you haven't answered. What frightens you so much?
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)between classical plant breeding and genetic engineering I think that you need to go back to school.
And I would not advise you to pick on other DU'ers about this topic.
If the scientists who loved this technology so much would just stop all this silliness and address the fact that proper regulatory testing and open labeling would solve the problem, we could make progress.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)you wouldn't recognize the original form (or find it for sale anywhere)
roody
(10,849 posts)it is a far cry from genetic engineering.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Why waste years for a good mutation to pop up when you can put useful genes directly into the organism?
And don't give me the "Playing God" crap.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)mutations to show up. But if one wants to use this technology to get the exact response that one desires, feel free to do so. Just do not call it classical plant breeding. It is not. It is rocket science and those doing it need to stand up to the business community that is ruining their industry by pretending that they are the same in the hopes of avoiding regulation.
The scientists are being used by these guys and it is wrong for all of us.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)You're conceptualizing it wrong. The technique necessitates disrupting the normal genome in unpredictable ways. It's not like building with Legos where everything remains intact following the addition of a discrete new block (gene).
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)of testing (regulatory) needs to be put into place to make sure that living plants and or animals and or microbes are not released out into the biosphere which cause all sorts of unintended consequences.
Labeling is a beginning, proper testing is what is really needed.
I am very glad that at least we may have a chance to begin something that should have been done a generation ago.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I am NOT opposed to regulation, I think Monsanto's practices are despicable. GM technology should be being used to increase yields, to make plants resistant to pests without pesticides, and other GOOD things, the opposite of what Monsanto is doing. What I am opposed to are regulations based on technophobic scaremongering based on demonizing the technology itself.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)it will not work anymore, too many people know now.
roody
(10,849 posts)vote yes or no on its merits?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)they figured out how to cross breed plants. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. The farmers that used genetically engineered corn faired better during the draught than farmers who did not. We probably shouldn't limit ourselves to so few species of plant or we could end up with another potatoe famine, but I don't see how the plant itself is bad for you.
roody
(10,849 posts)are not the same. GE mixes species.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)Genetic engineers take particular genes which can come from any species and using various tools such as viruses or bacteria or both infect a plant or animal with that new gene. Or they can turn gene's off. This is not done with great precision either as the infecting gene can land anywhere on a chromosome.
I am a plant and animal breeder. We have the biology of the plant or animal providing a limit as to what can or what cannot be expressed.
In m y opinion genetic engineering is a very powerful technology that has much to give to all of us. But a real regulatory system for safety testing must be put into place. If they continue to refuse to do this, then the least we can do is label the products of this technology.
roody
(10,849 posts)for voting no.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Published on Thursday, November 1, 2012 by Common Dreams
Why Monsanto Is Fighting Tooth and Nail Against California's Prop 37
by Sonali Kolhatkar and Vandana Shiva
<>
Kolhatkar: You are a scientist by background - your training is in science. Those who are against prop 37 such as Monsanto, which is a long time foe of yours, say that Proposition 37 is anti-science, because there is no evidence that GMOs harms human beings. Does one actually need evidence of harm in order to have labeling?
Shiva: Well I think the labeling question is totally separate from the scientific debate of safety. A label is just a fundamental democratic issue. It's about the freedom of citizens' right to know and choose. A certain amount of salt is not harmful for us, but we still put it on the label. Calcium is not harmful for us; we still put it on the label, just for people to make decisions on the basis of information.
Earlier this year, CODEX Alimentarius which is the highest body on food safety, said every country has a right to label. This was after a twenty year tussle where the United States had tried to block the right to label as a global right, because then they could have used labeling to sue countries, which they did with Europe.
There are of course huge scientific issues related to GMOs and tragically it is corporations like Monsanto who are pushing anti-science, non-science on the public. I have lived long enough with this issue to know what they've done across the world. I was on the first expert group set up by the United Nations to frame the bio-safety protocol and I saw how in the United Nations they tried to mislead.
The United Nations which represents countries across the world wouldn't have a protocol on bio-safety if safety had been proven. Now unfortunately the United States is not a signatory [to that protocol] and therefore it is constantly denying its citizens the rights that citizens elsewhere have.
On the Science question, what is the science of genetic engineering? It is really not a science; it is a technology of shooting a gene that doesn't belong to a plant through two means. One is a gene gun and one is an agro bacterium or a plant cancer. You don't know where it's landing; you don't have the science of prediction. You don't know what it is doing. You don't know if it is getting absorbed, that is why you add antibiotic resistance markers. You know the plant is not expressing it so you add super virulent viruses to pump up the expression. They're called promoters.
So, you have a bundle of toxic risky genes. All of the real science tells us there is a phenomenon called horizontal gene transfer in nature. Vertical transfer is where your genes are taken from your parents, so it's offspring to offspring. Horizontal transfer is when it moves across species. We know the bacteria in our food hybridize with the bacteria in our gut. We know the viruses in our food hybridize with the viruses in our gut. We know, in spite of them saying the BT toxin doesn't last, new studies in Canada show it has been found in the blood of pregnant women and in the fetuses they've given birth to.
A new 2 year feeding study in France showed high levels of cancer in mammals. A similar study had similar results, in Russia at the Academy of Sciences. These are independent studies done by scientists with absolutely no involvement in any business industry interest. They are what we call public scientists.
The UK government asked Hungarian scientist Arpad Putzai, one of the most eminent scientists to do a study on GM foods, way back around 1998 and he did it. He was actually a promoter of genetic engineering, but when he did the study, he found the following result: the rats he had fed had shrunken brains, enlarged pancreases and a collapse of immunity. He went to his director and said if this has happened with three months of feeding rats, what will happen to a lifetime of feeding human beings? He wanted to inform the public. They did, and he went all over BBC immediately.
Then, a call was made from Monsanto to Bill Clinton to Tony Blair to get rid of this top scientist who had left Hungary for freedom. And he said "I had more freedom in Communist Soviet Union, in Hungary, than in corporate ruled England." That freedom is what the US is losing and US citizens are losing as corporations take over our science, our decision-making, our food systems and our seed.
So Proposition 37 is not an insignificant proposition. It is, in a way, a reflection of the larger debate in this election. Will money run it or will the people's democratic votes run it? Will democracy in America be "of the people, by the people, for the people" or is it going to be reduced to "of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations?" In which case, you have corporate rule and corporate rule means corporate dictatorship and corporate dictatorship as Mussolini said is Fascism. The convergence of political power with economic power is a very dangerous moment, but it is also a moment that pushes us to create new levels of aspiration and actions for freedom.
<>
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)She has such a great talent of explaining the issues. How lucky we are to have her intelligence and passion on the side of the people.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:38 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.angio.org/about-funding.phpSee Clinton Foundation listed. Poke around website and read about Wm Li.
http://www.standup2cancer.org/article_archive/view/foods_that_fight_cancer
http://www.eattodefeat.org/
http://www.eattodefeat.org/evidence
http://www.google.com/search?q=autism+revolution+martha+herbert+organic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
GOOGLE: autism revolution martha herbert organic
More (sorry, posting from a tablet is tedious).
Yeah, yeah, I know, not all scientifically proven... YET.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:12 PM - Edit history (2)
Of course, as far as I've read neither so much as breathes the term GMO, instead side-stepping any lawsuit potential by advocating for organic (Herbert) and 'food as medicine' (Li).
Time will tell. Meanwhile, the Precautionary Principle applies.
Google: Martha Herbert diet. See youtube: Dr Martha Herbert says "Diet is Big" for Autism
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Angiogenesis_Foundation
Again, this is a thread off-shoot not directly relevant to Prop 37. Apologies.
EDIT: Look what I just found.
http://www.biotech-info.net/exposed.html
"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"
Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune
September 3, 2000
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 01:12 PM - Edit history (3)
Romney And Bain Boosted Agriculture Giant Monsanto In Spite Of Toxic Past
By Aviva Shen on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:37 am
Biotechnology firm Monsanto Company, which currently owns most of the patents for America’s staple crops, is already cozy with American lawmakers. A new Nation report, however, indicates that “a very old friend in a very high place” may usher in the corporation’s most prosperous years yet.
The Nation’s investigative report ( http://www.thenation.com/article/169885/mitt-romney-monsanto-man# ) has uncovered how Mitt Romney personally helped Monsanto shed its string of toxic chemical-related scandals and reinvent itself to dominate American agriculture. Monsanto, an early Bain & Company client, was so impressed with Romney that they started bypassing his superiors to deal with him directly. Romney’s close relationship with then CEO John Hanley prompted his boss to create Bain Capital to keep Romney from leaving and taking their largest consulting client with him.
From 1977 to 1985, Romney helped navigate Monsanto through very rocky waters. The agribusiness was flooded with lawsuits after Congress banned the toxic coolant PCBs, a Monsanto product that has been linked to cancer and neurological disorders. At the same time, Monsanto’s Agent Orange toxin, used to defoliate jungles in the Vietnam War, was linked to the contamination of millions of Vietnamese and American soldiers and had been dubbed “the largest chemical warfare operation” in human history.
Tom Philpott at Mother Jones dug up a 2002 article ( http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/romney-monsanto-bain ) describing Monsanto’s attempts to hide its toxic waste disposal even after managers discovered fish “spurting blood and shedding skin” within 10 seconds of the PCB dump:
Faced with costly litigation, Monsanto relied on Romney to create their new public image — one that did not involve poisoning soldiers or dumping chemicals in rivers:
<...>
COMMENTS
Deconstructing Dinner
...As a journalist, Kloor failed to report on the almost 20 years of similar attacks which have also been well coordinated when any research questioning the safety of GMOs is published.
Kloor further insists that "anti-GMO campaigners have distorted the science on genetically modified foods" yet fails to question whether GMO advocates and industry have done the same?
Where all credit that might go to Kloor gets blown out the window is following his classic error made by GMO advocates when he quotes UC Davis geneticist Pamela Ronald who states, "no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops."
As a long-time journalist covering this issue, I can confirm without a modicum of doubt, that had Keith Kloor asked Ronald... "Can you point me to the studies which have been tracking the long-term health effects of GMOs since they were first introduced?" There's only one answer she could have given... "no". Why? Because there have been no such studies.
Jon Steinman
Deconstructing Dinner
More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11425077
slutticus
(3,431 posts)I'm always amazed at the general revulsion to anything "GMO" without realizing what is being said. The practices of companies like Monsanto are indeed revolting, but the real issue for me is general ignorance related to genetic engineering.
people hate "GMOs", but do they actually know that GMOs produce things like insulin, cancer drugs, drugs for multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, etc...?
This whole "SAY NO TO GMOS!!!11!!1" thing is ridiculous. Prop 37 does nothing to stop monsanto from screwing over farmers, but it sure might help Whole Foods charge even more for their "organic" stuff.
On Edit: forgot to add that I will be voting yes on this Prop, but it really isn't going to do anything to help the real problem...
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)this weekend talking up Yes on 37. People are greatly confused by big agra's lies. Too bad that Monsanto can't just make their case for no labeling. All they have are lies and distortions.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)DaniDubois
(154 posts)All I'm asking for is a label telling me what my food really is and what it contains. If I'm paying my hard earned money for a beef product, I want to know if it's pink slime. Parents should have a right to know what they're feeding their children. It's called being informed.
roody
(10,849 posts)so the pink slime is not GMO. But the livestock eat GE corn,soy, and some ghastly other foods. There is a GMO shopping guide at:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)It just shows what throwing over 40 million dollars into defeating a proposition that had over 70% approval will do.
catchnrelease
(2,151 posts)And a K&R
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Given the choice between Mercola and Monsanto, I'd be hard pressed to determine which one I hold in greater contempt.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)Right now it is over 40 million from Monsanto and other big ag and food companies vs 4 million from a whole bunch of small donors, one of whom is this Mercola. You can look at the donors, one of them was an founder of seed savers exchange. Others are organic farmers- such as me.
I am tired of this silliness. Monsanto should never have rammed these products past the regulators and until this lie from 30 years ago is settled this will not go away. People are not going to forget about this if the bill fails, it will only go on larger on the national stage.
The only hope for the biotech industry is to label and test and participate in setting up some sort of regulatory system that addresses the new risks such a powerful technology presents.
Follow the Union of Concerned Scientist recommendation. End of story.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)leaving a trail of suicided farmers in India, getting kicked out of entire nations for doing exactly what they're doing in the US...and please note that part of the reason they haven't yet been kicked out of the US is because Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court was once a Monsanto attorney, and he will not recuse himself from Monsanto cases. Hillary Clinton once worked at a law firm which worked with Monsanto. A member of the FDA used to work for Monsanto. Etcetera 
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...with the technology itself? 
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)...because they thwart science by denying independent scientists permission to test their patent-protected "technology."
...because they destroy careers of scientists and farmers, and threaten legal action against states seeking to provide their citizens with labeling.
...because blanket approval of "the technology itself" when introduced was opposed by the majority of FDA scientists who were then overruled by nonscientist revolving-door government regulators and politicians.
...more.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)stand up and say no to these thugs in suits.
They have no right to ruin the promise of this technology for short term profits.
roody
(10,849 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)propaganda.
what does gmo mean?
what parts are harmful?
this is just a propaganda battle.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)untested in your food- that is fine with me. I do not want it. At least not until it has an established tolerance level.
Labeling allows us all to make our choices.
roody
(10,849 posts)is made by forcing genes from one species, such as bacteria, viruses, animals, or humans, into the DNA of a food crop or animal.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)and it requires a regulatory system that addresses the new risks that this technology presents.
Until that is put in place- which should have been done 30 years ago - labeling is the only way the public has of deciding if they want to take the word of the people in the industry.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)when I sent in my absentee ballot.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)Wouldn't standard mouse chow already contain GMO corn? I mean, what animal chow *doesn't* contain GMO corn/HFCS already?
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
OnionPatch
(6,325 posts)Until its proven GMOs are safe, I think I have a right to know if I'm eating them or not. Those of you who are convinced they are safe can eat 'em up. Those of us who have doubts don't have to feel like guinea pigs.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)Oh I hope that it passes.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I see the Right isn't the only one full of anti-science people.
The reactionary irrational technophobia in this thread is pathetic. As is the willfully ignorance conflation of the technology itself with Monsanto's business practices.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)mike_c
(37,045 posts)The study you're referencing has been thoroughly discredited.
Links:
http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/gm_maize_causes_tumors_rats_here_how_experts_responded-94259
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33000/title/Further-Dismissal-of-GM-Corn-Study/
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)
GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)The reason they want a no vote is so that they can conceal anything.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)
Raine
(31,173 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Embedded links available at CP.
WEEKEND EDITION NOVEMBER 2-4, 2012
AAAS Sells Out
Premiere Scientific Organization Captured
by RUSSELL MOKHIBER
Has one of the nation’s premiere scientific organizations been captured by big corporations?
<>
Simon points out that the chair of the AAAS Board is Nina Fedoroff.
Fedoroff is closely aligned with the corporate funded No on 37 campaign.
She has signed onto a No on 37 campaign statement and is quoted as being “passionately opposed to labeling.”
She served for five years on the scientific advisory board of Evogene, an Israeli-based biotech firm.
She served on the board of Sigma-Aldrich, a multinational biotech firm.
Fedoroff has been called “the U.S. ambassador for G(enetic)E(ngineering).”
<>
“I can tell you that our statement is not the work of nor was it influenced by any outside organization,” Pinholster said.
AAAS might not be an advocacy group.
But the chair of the AAAS board surely is an advocate.
Who needs an outside organization to influence you when the chair of the board is the U.S. ambassador for GE?
Captured from the top down.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Yes: Food Labels Would Let Consumers Make Informed Choices - Scientists from AAAS
By Patricia Hunt of Washington State University and 20 other scientists
Environmental Health News 2012
The paternalistic assertion that labeling of genetically modified foods "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers" is an Orwellian argument that violates the right of consumers to make informed decisions. Civilization rests on the confidence that an individual's basic human rights will be respected by the government, including the 'right to know.' The AAAS board failed to note that the FDA's testing program for GM foods is voluntary.
As a group of scientists and physicians that includes many long-standing members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), we challenge the recent AAAS Board of Directors statement opposing efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants. Their position tramples the rights of consumers to make informed choices.
The statement argues: "These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow 'unnatural' and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm."
This narrow focus on GMO safety ignores the broader life-cycle impacts of GMO crops. Many GM crops are engineered to be herbicide-resistant, which has led to the evolution of weeds resistant to widely used herbicides, including RoundUp and its active ingredient glyphosate. This, in turn, has led to increased herbicide use and to searches for alternatives. Thus, herbicide-resistant GMOs are committing us to a chemical treadmill.
<>
Link from: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26559.cfm
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)My goodness, you are doing good work!
Zorro
(18,650 posts)Although I understand its emotional appeal.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)
Zero emotional appeal, pure SCIENCE. Article excerpt in post #158 above.
"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"
Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune
September 3, 2000
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)Thanks for posting another great article!
JLRC
(6 posts)I am not in favor of useless labeling regulation, we need unequivocal, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that this is a difference worth pointing out. Let those who are non-GMO label as such instead of putting something that could potentially needlessly alarm people that are just trying to save money on food.
Too much regulatory BS like Prop 65 and now 37 gives us liberals a bad name.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It's a strange world you occupy, JLRC.
JLRC
(6 posts)This is all part of the problem. CA is in trouble because we keep letting people who don't have the responsibility to implement law, pass laws. Let's just run the country the way we always have, where your elected officials make the laws with input from the public.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)independent testing laboratory which was researching whether GMOs contribute to the bee die-off, they sue farmers around the world out of existence, they've been kicked out of more countries than you can name using the fingers on both hands...survey says, they're harmful. And when finally tested, will likely reveal more harmful effects than expected.
Note that the "no" ads in California never mention GMOs or Monsanto. They're hiding. Criminals hide.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I feel I have the right to know about the content/ag culture my food comes from.
LancetChick
(272 posts)...and I have a fucking right to know. "Trust us, we know all about GMOs and we've decided they are hugely beneficial to society and will never be used for any but the very best reasons" is something I've heard before. I deserve to know what's in the food I pay for, and I voted yes on Prop 37.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The industry will probably preempt it by passing some federal legislation to the contrary. That is what they do.
Kablooie
(19,103 posts)A huge majority of grocery products are made using corn in some fashion and nearly all corn in the US is GM.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)Prop 37 goes down in flames. Rationality prevails over fear and ignorance.
/gloat
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)mike_c
(37,045 posts)I just hope that education can raise peoples' fear threshold before they throw the baby out with the bath water.
If you're interested, we've been discussing the matter further here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10402251
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Narrow Loss; Movement Victory!
California "Yes on 37" Right to Know Campaign
Statement on Election Results from the California Right to Know Campaign
Yesterday, we showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant and too powerful to stop. We always knew we were the underdogs, and the underdogs nearly took the day. Dirty money and dirty tactics may have won this skirmish, but they will not win the war.
Today, we are more than 4 million votes closer to knowing what’s in our food than when we started. This is a victory and a giant step forward. We are proud of our broad coalition of moms and dads, farmers, nurses, environmentalists, faith and labor leaders who did so much with so few resources to bring us to this point, and we will carry forward.
These results are also a reminder of the corrupting influence of huge multinational corporations on our electoral process. The world’s leading pesticide and junk food companies outspent Yes on 37 by more than 5 to 1, and beginning on October 1, spent about a million dollars a day on a hailstorm of false claims, misrepresentations and fear mongering over five simple words on a label. In the end, they spent enough money to hide the truth from the majority of voters. The food manufacturers are on the wrong side of history; they should not fight their customers, but join them.
Today is not the end of our campaign to secure our fundamental right to know what’s in our food. It is a strong beginning, and we thank the millions of Californians who stood with us. We are proud of our grassroots movement, our 10,000 hardworking volunteers, and the diverse coalition of health, faith, labor and consumer groups that stood with us. We will keep fighting for consumer choice, fairness and transparency in our food system. And we will prevail.
To Victory!
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Front Groups Against Prop 37: Foes of Honest Labeling Pose as Fake Cops and Phony Democrats to Trick Voters
For Immediate Release: November 5, 2012
Voter guides from obviously fake front groups posing as cops, literacy groups, green groups and Democrats are making a last-ditch attempt to try to sway voters against Proposition 37.
Pamela Prindle from Albany was alarmed when she received a slate mailer over the weekend from a group she thought was the Democratic Party, advising her to vote against the GMO labeling initiative. “I was so upset, I called the Democratic Party and they said their official position is endorsing Proposition 37,” Prindle said.
Then she realized the mailer -- which features photos of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy -- was from a group called the Democratic Voter’s Choice which has a notorious reputation for deception. “People are going to get this in the mail three days before the election and they’re not going to take the time to check into it like I did,” Prindle said.
More at link.
<...>
Read more about pay-to-play slate mailers and the huge money being made by dubious characters who apparently have some success convincing voters with their scams, see the San Francisco Sentinel. Link (2010 article, apparently details long-standing shady PR groups): http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=68694
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)I think that it is time to demand that the EPA demand proper documentation on these products and the USDA needs a regulatory system for them.
Thanks for your efforts- we all made a difference. Look how many people now know about this- when before most did not.