GMO crops are safe, say scientists. Should they be labeled anyway?

[Zorro]

Source: CS Monitor

Genetically-modified crops pose no greater risk to our health or the environment than natural crops, a comprehensive study from the national scientific academy found.

The 408-page report, released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on Tuesday, found no evidence that genetically-modified crops led to widespread health problems or that insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops have decreased plant or insect diversity. In some cases, it found the crops increased insect diversity.

The report comes as the debate over genetically-modified organisms (GMO) and their safety intensifies. Opinions are divided over GMOs' dangers and ethics and if they should be labeled. Cognizant of the contentious nature of the subject, the report's authors declined to provide an "authoritative" answer on genetically-modified crops.

"We made recommendations on our findings. Ultimately, however, decisions about how to govern new crops need to be made by societies," reads the report's preface. "There is an indisputable case for regulations to be informed by accurate scientific information, but history makes clear that solely 'scientific-based regulation' is rare and not necessarily desirable."

Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0517/GMO-crops-are-safe-say-scientists.-Should-they-be-labeled-anyway-video

[no_hypocrisy]

1. GMOs may or may not be safe insofar as the plants.

The herbicides that have to be used to grow the plants make them dangerous.

[JackRiddler]

6. The trick is to define away the issues.

Let's not talk about the increased pesticide use, oh no.

Let's not talk about the ecological dangers through monocultures, oh no.

Let's not talk about the effects of the GMO propaganda, which sell the incredible lie that these are somehow a solution to world hunger (thus distracting from the actual causes and ways to solve world hunger).

Let's especially not talk about the business model, which amounts to Monsanto & Co. getting to claim ownership of life-forms so as to shakedown the world's farmers for an annual tribute, reaping unearned profits and destroying countless lives.

Let's focus on an aspect - their possible direct health effects on humans of the crops themselves - that cannot be definitively proven either way, because controlled conditions separating the effects of given foods out of thousands of others are nearly impossible to achieve.

Now declare that global fuck-over safe!

[denverbill]

7. I agree completely but I also think they minimize the risks.

Few food scientists in the 80's or 90's thought it was bad to feed cows unwanted tissue from dead cows, brains, etc. After all, it's just protein and protein is protein, so it's perfectly safe. Until cows and then people started developing mad cow disease from the prions which were passed from the dead cow's tissue to the living cattle and people.

I don't object to GMO foods completely, but I completely reject the arguments of the food Nazis who claim that labeling foods as GMO should be banned.

[apnu]

16. Well said. GMOs have more going on than science and human health (nt)

[Major Nikon]

17. That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.

― P.C. Hodgell

[larkrake]

30. you are so right, might as well drink herbicides and get it over with

[KansDem]

52. "Let's especially not talk about the business model..."

We need to remember how Monsanto will take legal action against farmers for "reusing patented seeds" and cross-pollination.

Where is the justice? Since 1997, Monsanto has filed 145 lawsuits, or on average about 9 lawsuits every year for 16 straight years, against farmers who have “improperly reused their patented seeds.”

The biotech giant hasn’t lost a single case, either. Not one. This includes when farmers tried to sue Monsanto over cross-pollination of their organic crops with GMO seed. For example, a federal court dismissed one of those cases, saying that it couldn’t protect Monsanto against unfair lawsuits should they side in the farmers’ favor.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-sued-farmers-16-years-gmos-never-lost/#ixzz497e4SGwZ
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

"Crop contamination"

Organic farmers and others have worried for years that they will be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement if their crops get contaminated with Monsanto biotech crops.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/monsanto-wins-lawsuit_n_3417081.html

Monsanto seeds wind up in your field due to no fault of your own and you're liable! You can't win!!

[Pharaoh]

2. Who paid for these "studies"?

And if they are safe and you have "studies" to back it up why would you have a problem labeling them? Just like you have to label all ingredients in food products already?

[Indydem]

10. Probably because of propaganda

The anti-science crowd has been spreading lies, innuendo, and propaganda against GMOs for years.

People have a negative reaction because of lies.

Labeling them stirs up those reactions.

[LanternWaste]

56. I'd pretend that to be the case as well if I had nothing of substance to support my negative bias

I'd pretend that to be the case as well if I had nothing of substance to support my negative bias against labeling.

[Major Nikon]

25. Because it's not just like that

GMO corn is corn. So a label that says a product contains corn is entirely accurate. What the anti-science propagandists want is a label that lists the breeding method used to derive the ingredient's seed, which is completely unprecedented. Products that contain tomatoes produced by hybridization do not require a label that says hybridized tomato. Products that contain organic Ruby Red grapefruit don't require a label that says produced from mutation breeding (which if the anti-GMO crowd knew what that actually meant, they would be even more irrationally afraid).

[Pharaoh]

26. a hybrid

and a GMO are totally different things.

GMO, means you messed with it's genes. Maybe added some salmon genes in your tomato.

A Hybrid plant is kind of like grafting part of a plant on to a different kind of plant. Your not dissecting its DNA.

Don't play God with our food. Label it!

[Major Nikon]

28. Do you know what you get when you don't mess with a plant's genes?

The same thing you started with.

Virtually all commercial produce is nothing like what it was before man started 'playing god with it'.

GMO isn't totally different. To put it in terms that might be easier to understand, what is different about GMO is that instead of playing god with thousands of genes, you are only playing god with one at a time. The results are far more predictable.

Grafting actually is a totally different thing. Hybridization is not "kind of like grafting part of a plant on to a different kind of plant". It produces a completely different set of genes, and produces characteristics not found in either parent, unlike GMO.

[NutmegYankee]

32. Hybridization is entirely messing with genes.

It's just done in a slower method that Gregor Mendel used to discover genetics in the first place. Almost all human food has been wildly altered to suit our tastes. Corn was once more like grass. We've bred the poison levels in beans low, and created several distinct vegetables from one plant - The wild mustard. "Brassica oleracea is the species of plant that includes many common foods as cultivars, including cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and kai-lan." Think about the mad science here:




We have modified every single food we eat over the last few thousand years.

[yellowcanine]

34. A hybrid plant is nothing like grafting.

Grafting is a kind of vegetative manipulation of plants - no crossing involved.


Hybrid plants involve controlled crosses and collecting the seed from the crosses for replanting.
Producing hybrid varieties requires a great deal of genetic manipulation - not the same kind of genetic manipulation done to produce a GMO, but still genetic manipulation. Hybrid varieties do not occur naturally so in a sense, one is "playing God" as you put it.

[Scootaloo]

27. Here's the problem with labeling.

"Genetically Modified Organism" is a uselessly broad term that includes every organism whose genome has been altered by human intent. It does not necessitate molecular manipulation - selective breeding is intentional genetic modification just as certainly as the stuff guys in labcoats do with pipettes. It's just slower and messier, a less advanced technique.

Every domesticated organism is a GMO, in other words.

That being the case, if labeling is required, Tyson Foods (or whoever) will file suit. It will demand all other companies be required ot label their genetically modified foods as well. And the science will be on the litigant's side. If it's not wild herbs or game, it will be labeled "GMO," and you're back to square one.

[Major Nikon]

29. That slippery slope has other pitfalls as well

Food is labeled by ingredients, not by how it's produced. Once you go down the road of requiring labels for how things are produced rather than content, what is to stop monied interests from inciting a campaign to demand produce that has been fertilized by cow shit from being labeled as such? Unlike GMO, cow shit used as fertilizer actually does manage to sicken and kill people.

Sometimes requiring completely unnecessary new requirements can have effects not anticipated by those who promote and support them. Public opinion can be easily manipulated by monied interests, so if we are going to let public opinion, rather than science, dictate how we regulate the food safety, we are simply going to initiate a war where the strongest monied interest will inevitably win.

[larkrake]

31. True of show dog breeds, changing genes bring unforseen problems

GMOs Must be labeled. Our boys already have breasts, our hormones messed up, there are octomoms, where will it end?

Without labels, how will we eliminate high fructose corn syrup from our diets, or shield against peanut allergies. Label everything!

[Major Nikon]

33. If "changing genes bring unforseen problems"...

Then why label just GMO?

Why not label varietals produced from each method of hybridization, selective breeding, mutation breeding, and every other method of deriving new cultivars?

[Scootaloo]

35. Oh lord.

Show dogs are damaged because of massive, massive inbreeding. You could still eat them and be just fine, if you wanted.

Your boys have breasts because everything is loaded with sugar.

Nadya Suleman became "octomom" through in-vitro fertilization, because the method of IVF involves implanting many, many fertilized eggs and hoping one of them adheres to the uterus. In her case, eight of them did.

The problem of high fructose corn syrup is its prevalence in everything. If tomorrow it were swapped out for straight white sugar, across the board... We'd still see the same results. it has nothing to do with GMO.

Nor do peanut allergies.

[Indydem]

57. Actually.

Boys have breasts because of the high levels of synthetic hormones (birth control primarily) in our domestic water supply.

[63splitwindow]

3. Yes...

since all food has to be labeled in other ways, why not? Seriously, why not?

[madokie]

4. Its not so much that the gmo crop itself is bad for us

its what the gmo plant allows thats bad for us. Like drenching it with poisons to kill weeds and insects that'll do us in

how stupid do they think we are anyway???

[crim son]

5. Clothing companies inform us what our t-shirt is made of.

Surely we should be as informed about our food.

[Major Nikon]

44. You are if you read the ingredients label

[crim son]

47. Only if the label is complete. n/t

[Major Nikon]

48. It's complete by law

[Equinox Moon]

8. Ridiculous!

It's like "the defendant" being evaluated by the prosecutors choice.

[Squinch]

9. Meh. Scientists said thalidomide was safe. And asbestos. And smoking during pregnancy.

And hormone replacement therapy. I could go on.

PS: to say "GMO foods are safe" is absurd. There is no way to responsibly make a blanket statement about the safety of all GMOs.

[cstanleytech]

14. Dont forget vaccines!!! We all know they cause autism after all no matter what the science says!!!

And yes I was being sarcastic because the truth is science has debunked that myth time after time.
But you know whats sad? That Republicans are supposed to be anti science and its sad to see people here on the DU advocating for an anti science stance.

[Major Nikon]

23. Some people value convenient lies more than inconvenient truths

[cstanleytech]

24. True but I wonder why those people (the anti science ones of course) dont switch to the

party that shares their anti science views.

[Major Nikon]

18. Sounds quite a bit like right wing arguments against global warming

Pointing out that informed conclusions based on scientific evidence has sometimes been wrong does not negate all the times it has been spot on.

PS: to say "non-GMO foods are safe" is absurd. There is no way to responsibly make a blanket statement about the safety of all non-GMOs.

[Squinch]

39. No, actually it doesn't sound anything like that. It is a statement of the fact that scientists

said that thalidomide, asbestos and smoking during pregnancy were safe. Which, of course, scientists did.

And who said all non-GMO foods were safe? I know I didn't. To say that would be as stupid as saying all GMOs are safe.

[Major Nikon]

40. Did you even read the article?

Genetically-modified crops pose no greater risk to our health or the environment than natural crops, a comprehensive study from the national scientific academy found.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Hmm...it seems your assertions are, at best, incomplete, at worst, deceptive...

In the case of tobacco, slick and deceptive advertising campaigns gave the impression that medical authorities ruled them safe, when this isn't true:

https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/p-nid/60

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/

It appears that asbestos-related illnesses were known by the medical profession since at least the 1920s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law

As far as Thalidomide, its effects on fetuses weren't known, but once known and identified, a clear causal link means that they were able to identify thalidomide as a source, using science, and able to regulate and restrict its usage accordingly.

Here's a question, which GMOs are unsafe, what makes them unsafe, and what conditions/diseases are they associated with?

[Archae]

11. All we need to do is look at two sources...

This report is out from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and let's face it, there are few science research people more credible than they are.

The opposition is being led more or less by a guy who got a business degree from the UNaccredited Maharishi Yogi "university," and that place has the credibility of "Trump University."
And Jeffrey Smith spends much of his time at the Maharishi's "college" bouncing on a mat trying to fly through "transcendental meditation."

The anti-GMO hysterics will always be anti-science luddites.

[Geronimoe]

13. They used to be credible

They are now largely funded by corporations. And there is only on medical doctor on the committee. Most of the scientists are from agriculture. It has also been recently reported that "Round Up" used in growing GMO plants is carcinogenic.

[Major Nikon]

19. Actually that's not was reported

It's also helpful to understand what actually was reported.

[yellowcanine]

36. "Most of the scientists are from agriculture." And your point is?????

Food Science, Agronomy, Plant Breeding, etc. happen to be agricultural disciplines, so yes, most of the scientists are from agriculture. So what? Most USDA and university agricultural scientists and research is funded by federal or state tax dollars, not corporations.

[NuclearDem]

12. I demand we label products with DHMO content.

[jmowreader]

15. If the DHMO was added to the product, they're already required to

DHMO that's already in there doesn't have to be labeled.

[Major Nikon]

20. DHMO killed Andy Warhol

It can be lethal even in small doses. It's also commonly used as an industrial solvent.

[NuclearDem]

21. Schools give it to our children regularly, and it's used to spray crops.

[Thor_MN]

22. Does it matter if it is pure DHMO or refined DHMO?

Processed DHMO has to be bad, right?

[reddread]

37. label the scientists with their income information

[0rganism]

38. if anti-GMO was a religion, there wouldn't be any problem with labeling, right?

Kosher food gets labeled, even though non-Kosher food isn't necessarily worse for humans or the environment. hell, there are special labels for Pareve food that might as well be Kosher because it doesn't have any suspect ingredients (no meats, cheeses, etc.)

so if we can prop up a reasonably informative food labeling system to support Kashrut, what is the goddam problem with putting a label on GMO or non-GMO foods? how about just a little circle-G somewhere on the corner of the packaging? i'm not seeing a problem.

[Major Nikon]

41. You're comparing a completely voluntary labeling system with a mandatory one?

[0rganism]

42. do you think they're completely incomparable?

[Major Nikon]

43. I don't think they are in any way comparable

[0rganism]

45. even though both are/would be food labeling systems, they are not in any way comparable?

[Major Nikon]

46. I supposed they could possibly use the same adhesive to stick them on

Beyond that there isn't much to compare.

Manufacturers pay to have a Rabbi certify their Kosher processing. They are affixing those labels because they are paying for the privilege. In what way does that compare?

[0rganism]

49. adhesive? usually printed on the packaging itself

i see you're very particular about this.

manufacturers pay to have Kosher labels so they have access to Kosher buyers, and it's become sufficiently regular that very often adhesives aren't even used and the tag is printed directly on the packaging itself. why wouldn't they do the same for access to people concerned about GMOs? have a lab certify no GMOs were used, add the label, and increase market share. comparable things have worked before.

[Major Nikon]

50. It sounds like your only comparison is that both situations are technically feasible

...which I don't think anyone disputes.

The part you're missing is voluntary vs mandatory. Any food regulatory requirement that is mandatory should be required to have some kind of basis grounded in reason.

[0rganism]

53. not just technically feasible

> Any food regulatory requirement that is mandatory should be required to have some kind of basis grounded in reason

we could certainly go back and forth about how "close to the ground" such regulations need to fly, as i tend to agree that there needs to be a reasonable basis; however, as noted by the report in the OP: "history makes clear that solely 'scientific-based regulation' is rare and not necessarily desirable". it seems to me, in the end, the GMO labeling (or non-GMO labeling) will have a basis grounded in economics and be achieved voluntarily.

i'd suppose, if a sufficiently significant portion of the customer base requires assurance of some kind, no matter how unreasonable, manufacturers are eventually going to respond voluntarily -- they'll want to use the label to get the customers, they technically could use the label, so as with Kosher labeling it boils down to certification from a trusted authority.

[Major Nikon]

54. Actually there's at least two efforts on the voluntary front

Organic certification prohibits GMO, so anyone who doesn't want GMO for whatever reason can just look for an Organic label. There's also the voluntary “Non-GMO Project Verified” label.

[0rganism]

55. i guess the concern is it's not applied evenly

which seems like something that will work itself out over time.

[ViseGrip]

51. Just came out, the part in the 800 pages, not released, they are harmful.

They just decided to omit that part. It was on a news segment on Thom Hartman, someone who read all 800 pages was on the show last night. There is another section, they said is 'troubling'....and did not release that. Look, Mobil/Exxon/Chevron lied for 50 years about global warming.

The work for us today, to survive and know the truth, is to read the 800 page report ourselves.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. How are they harmful? Was there anything specific that's a concern?

Such as which GMOs are harmful, how they can be demonstrated to be harmful, and what are they harming, and more importantly, how?

[Dont call me Shirley]

60. By scientists on monsanto payroll...