The Anti GMO Crowd Finally Won Me Over

[roseBudd]

http://open.salon.com/blog/lbjeffries/2013/04/26/the_anti_gmo_crowd_finally_won_me_over

The Anti GMO Crowd Finally Won Me Over

It took me a while, but I finally came around on the GMO controversy. I was on the wrong side for a long time, but now it’s clear: We have to keep science out of the grocery store.

And, while we’re at it, the schools.

After last year’s snow storm that disproved Global Warming, I’ve been re-examining everything I ever thought about science, and I decided I’m against it. Modern medicine, climate change, vaccines: I don’t trust any of it. You hear about the kid who developed autism after getting vaccinated? He died recently, when he mixed Mentos with soda.

Initially it made sense to be on the side of the scientists – you know, because they were educated – but eventually it started to feel like high school again. The cool kids wouldn’t talk to me after I insulted their Facebook memes (the one that warned against “Franken-foods” made me laugh so hard, I spit out my government-control-chlorinated tap water), and then I was ostracized for hanging out with the nerds.

Not “fun” nerds – like the ones who faked the Moon landing – boring nerds.

So you can see why I joined the cool crowd. You don’t hear scientists (well, good ones) threatening that GMO food will give us cancer, or diabetes, or allergies, or autism. Because it won’t.

That is, if you believe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. National Research Council, the National Institute of Health, the British Society of Biology, and the European Commission Joint Research Centre.

After 15 years of cultivation and 2 billion acres planted, hundreds of peer reviewed reports on multiple continents have confirmed that there are no adverse health effects from GMO crops. In fact, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops are safer than using chemical insecticides as an alternative.

But that’s science talk. And even a little Latin. We can’t listen to that...

So it’ll be rough, but it’s still a no-brainer. When it comes to science, and a vocal group of anti-science paranoids, whose side do you really want to be on?

[djean111]

1. Still wondering why Monsanto finds it necessary to have its lapdogs exempt it from any lawsuits

over harm from GMOs.
Why, GMOs sound downright scrumpalicous, why do they need the Monsanto Protection Act?

[roseBudd]

2. Those boring science believing people say...

http://www.metabunk.org/threads/conspiracy-theory-update-theres-no-monsanto-act.2451/

If a biotech crop has already been approved (or deregulated) by the USDA and a court reverses that approval, the provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status at the request of a grower or seed producer, to allow growers to continue the cultivation of the crop while legal challenges to the safety of those crops are underway.[7]
...

A joint letter from ten agricultural organizations[note 1] sent to congressmen Hal Rogers and Norman D. Dicks, the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations, on June 12, 2012, stated that the provision was a response to frivolous procedural lawsuits against the USDA which were attempting to "disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of agricultural biotechnology."[10]

Section 733 provides certainty to growers with respect to their planting decisions. If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA. Moreover, the language would apply only to products that have already satisfactorily completed the U.S. regulatory review process and does not remove or restrict anyone’s right to challenge USDA once a determination of no plant pest risk has been made. The inclusion of Section 733 is a positive step to ensure U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops.[10]

[djean111]

3. Ah, so of course any and all lawsuits would be "frivolous". Got it.

Lawsuits aside, I just want to know what I am eating. Dunno why that is such a touchy subject.
At least I can still buy non-GMO seeds and try and avoid GMO veggies, easy to do now, wondering if the next step is to outlaw labeling seeds and food as NON-GMO.

[roseBudd]

4. What is the deal with the paranoia?

I really don't get it. But then I don't get chemtrails, antiVaxers, the no flouride peeps, the climate change deniers, or the creationists.

I definitely do not want melamine, lead, or pharamceutical contaminated foods, herbs or supplements.

And I do worry about salmonella, e. coli and listeria

[djean111]

5. Why label caution as paranoia?

Lumping all the disparate things people are wary of or believe into that one bucket is an attempt to marginalize.
In any event, I worry more about the killer side effects of pharmaceuticals (listed on the label, thanks!) than I worry about supplements.
The idea is to have free choice - not try and stamp out anything.
No one is making you accept herbs and supplements, you know. Why care if others want them? That seems so strange to me!

"I definitely do not want melamine, lead, or pharamceutical contaminated foods, herbs or supplements. "

You will adore the TPP - likely, it will be illegal to label anything that might have these problems (bearing in mind that, say, lead or melamine or pharamceutical contaminated foods are not in any way the same as herbs or supplements) because to do so may impact profits. Something for you to look forward to!

[roseBudd]

6. You have a choice

You can purchase certified organic. You can choose to purchase foods labeled GMO free.

There are lots of people who can't absorb the additional cost that labels will impose. There are people who need that $1 loaf of bread and that $2 box of cereal. That $400 additional annual cost is 400 loaves of $1 bread.

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

Quick Facts...
Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods in the United States has been proposed, but not enacted, at the national, state, and local levels.
Those in favor of labeling emphasize consumers’ right to know what’s in their food.
Opponents of labeling point out the expense and logistical difficulties of labeling, and the fact that no significant differences have been found between GE and conventional foods.
Implementation of mandatory labeling will require resolution of several complex technical issues.
Whether or not to require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods is a key issue in the ongoing debate over the risks and benefits of food crops produced using biotechnology. Bills requiring mandatory labeling have been introduced in Congress and in the Colorado legislature, and there have also been attempts to place citizens’ initiatives on statewide and local Colorado ballots.

The most common GE crops in the United States are soybean, corn, cotton, and canola. Because many processed food products contain soybean or corn ingredients (e.g., high fructose corn syrup or soy protein), it’s estimated that 60 to 70 percent of processed foods in grocery stores include at least one GE ingredient.

Current Labeling Policy
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently requires labeling of GE foods if the food has a significantly different nutritional property; if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present (e.g., a peanut protein in a soybean product); or if a food contains a toxicant beyond acceptable limits.

Anti-labeling Arguments
Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GE food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect.
Labeling of GE foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GE products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GE products (Carter and Gruere, 2003).
Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients.
The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in this country could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GE and non-GE products.
Consumers who want to avoid animal products need not worry about GE food. No GE products currently on the market or under review contain animal genes.

[djean111]

7. The most common GE crops in the United States are soybean, corn, cotton, and canola.

Because many processed food products contain soybean or corn ingredients (e.g., high fructose corn syrup or soy protein), it’s estimated that 60 to 70 percent of processed foods in grocery stores include at least one GE ingredient.
Believe it or not, I am living on Social Security, and find my diet is better when I avoid processed foods, and I do not buy foods with those ingredients.
Kind of funny to me, when I look at the weekly circulars from grocery stores, I am aware of how many things are heavily processed foods and thus not what I consider "food" any more. I think I have already adapted to the non-labeling of GE foods in that respect.

FDA, IMO, has been sold to the highest bidder. My hair is not on fire about any of this stuff, I just avoid what I can, now.

[HuckleB]

9. How is it caution when it's about the most studied types of veggies around?

That just seems odd to even say. No?

[djean111]

12. I just don't think I need to eat anything I have ever felt "caution" about.

It is not like I am doing without vital nutrition.
No one NEEDS corn or soy or sugar or canola, for example.
No one needs gluten. No biggie to skip it.

[HuckleB]

13. You're response has nothing to do with what I posted.

And "feelings" are not a great way to decide what to eat.

[djean111]

16. Sure they are. Grabbing processed foods is not a great way to decide what to eat, IMO.

What we eat is one of the few big personal choices we have left. Very very personal.

And you are saying caution = paranoia, somehow, and I am saying what's wrong with caution?
Is the economy going to crash because I don't eat corn? Is it impossible to be healthy if I don't eat GMO food?
Nope.

[HuckleB]

17. Caution based on "feelings" is not smart.

If you don't know why you're doing or not doing what you're doing, then there's really no point in making any decision from the word go.

[djean111]

21. Oh, we have to agree to disagree there.

I don't see anything wrong with caution based on feelings - especially in regard to such a totally personal thing as choosing food.
Also don't think it smart to base my diet on whatever comes out of the FDA, it is too controlled by corporate interests, IMO.
No biggie, really.

[roseBudd]

28. But what gives you a right to force your feelings on those who...

don't have conspiratist ideation?

I don't want to pay more for paranoia.

[djean111]

32. Bwahahaha! " conspiratist ideation"!!!! Excellent!!!!!!

Guess what - I have already conceded that Monsanto and GMOs will carry the day - I am being chastised for saying fine! I just won't buy anything I suspect may have GMO ingredients.
Hmmmmm.........perhaps you think refusing to buy GMO foods is a Conspiracy? It is a choice.
Unless your ideal would be food stores with no choices? I am just saying I will pick and choose. Had no idea that was so nefarious or underhanded. I feel like I am being told I MUST eat my (GMO) peas, (I used peas as a familiar example, no need to educate us all on whether peas are GMO or whatever).

[roseBudd]

31. The antiGMO issue is nopt about processed foods. Most people don't

cook wheat berries and only eat fresh corn. Is soymilk proceed food by that definition?

I want Omega 3 Soybeans. I want Golden Rice, and golden cassava to save lives.

I want drought tolerant crops, to better deal with climate change.

I Fucking Love Science, whether it is stem cell research or biotechnology.

I want scientists to continue saving crops from diseases that destroy them, like papaya.

[djean111]

33. Oh, GMO soy and corn have slithered into an awful lot of processed food.

I don't eat corn at all. It is not a vegetable, it is a grain, anyway.
I don't need soy for anything, either.
Ugh to soymilk, too - I prefer almond or coconut milk, anyway, on occasion.
I just don't buy stuff in boxes with long lists of bizarre chemical ingredients and HFCS and soy, stuff like that.

Really, you are kind of overreacting to what you are saying is a small group of people (as opposed to "most people&quot - so why do my choices merit such scorn? Monsanto will win, ya know!
There is good science and bad science, I am kinda picky about bestowing love on an entire category.

[roseBudd]

27. GMO produce has never killed anyone, organic has

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-ecoli-beansprouts-idUSTRE7552N720110606

The warm, watery, organic growing environment suspected as the source of a deadly E.coli outbreak in Germany may produce delicious, nutritious bean sprouts, but is also an ideal breeding ground for the dangerous bacteria.

Bean sprouts are often prime suspects in E.coli outbreaks around the world, and health experts say it is no surprise the hunt for source of the lethal strain that has killed 22 people and made more than 2,200 sick has led to an organic bean farmer.

Some say the case raises questions about the future of organic growing methods.

"Bean sprouts are very frequently the cause of outbreaks on both sides of the Atlantic. They're very difficult to grow hygienically and you have to be so careful not to contaminate them," said Paul Hunter, a professor of public health at Britain's University of East Anglia.

"And organic farms, with all that they entail in terms of not using ordinary chemicals and non-organic fertilizers, carry an extra risk."

Hunter said he personally bought organic fruits and vegetables, but steered clear of organic raw salad foods "for precisely that reason."

The original source of the contamination in Germany is highly likely to be manure, farm slurry or feces of some sort, since the Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli or STEC found in this outbreak are known to be able to lurk in cattle guts.

[paulkienitz]

37. I have nothing against frankenfoods

as long as what's frankensteined into them isn't pesticides. And that's exactly what Monstanto likes to put into them. And what they want to keep the public as ignorant of as possible.

It keeps coming back to the same question: if a well informed consumer has nothing to fear from it, why work so hard to prevent them from being informed of what they're buying?

[lunasun]

39. they want to keep the public as ignorant of as possible........

Postings here prove they have succeeded !!!

[HuckleB]

42. Oh, the irony.

It is strong.

[HuckleB]

20. Exactly.

[HuckleB]

8. Can you explain what's in the provisions of the "act" which is not named as you claim?

If you can do so honestly, then we can talk.

[roseBudd]

10. I don't think you are interested in "talk"

If I am able to learn about this using the internet, so can you.

[HuckleB]

11. I know what the provisions are.

Do you? Or does the individual I responded to...?

[djean111]

14. I have already accepted that the act assumes lawsuits will be "frivolous".

I got this from the excerpt you posted.
Okay - I accept that this is what the act does.
I am not outraged, because that is a waste of time and energy.
I have already been adjusting my diet for years, no biggie to avoid stuff that is probably GMO.
Since labeling food with GMO information is being fought so assiduously, I won't just shrug and say oh well, I just go at avoiding GMOs another way, by skipping some categories altogether. Easy!

[HuckleB]

15. What excerpt that "I posted"?

Your post indicates that you don't understand the reason for the provisions.

Can you try again, or are you just going to offer up more of the usual cliches?

[djean111]

18. Sorry, roseBudd posted something upthread.

In any event, no sarcastic put-downs will ever affect what I eat, so likely this is a futile conversation.

[HuckleB]

19. You've made it clear that good, science-based information will not affect what you eat.

Apparently, bad, fiction-based disinformation WILL affect what you eat.

Hmmmmm.

[djean111]

22. As long as I am not malnourished, why is it the least bit important what I choose to eat?

That doesn't even make sense.

[HuckleB]

36. Why are you advertising your baseless fears?

[dougolat]

25. Good, science-based information would be appreciated!

Unfortunate for us all that the USDA and FDA are informed and led by partisans whose interest in certain corporate profits dwarfs and clouds their scientific objectivity and thoroughness.

[HuckleB]

35. Unfortunately, you're not paying attention.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/06/15/environmental-groups-must-face-down-the-anti-science-in-their-own-house/

[dougolat]

40. I read it and like comments #10 and #20

Confidence in a few studies that fail to show great immediate harm is hardly sufficient for unleashing "Round-Up Ready" on the world; besides, it's already failing: resistant weed strains are becoming a bigger problem than the original ones. Same with BT and insects.

Such stunning naivete is hardly something to be smug about.

It's unfortunate that the potential for GM to do wonderful things is besmirched by corporate heavies pushing poison pills, but that's what we're dealing with.

[HuckleB]

43. 2,000 studies.

You can like whatever you want to "like," but no food grown in the world is more studies.

It's absolutely silly to even begin to use that argument.

[lunasun]

24. 26 countries have banned GMOs many more countries have labeling but you trust the FDA

[roseBudd]

29. Logical fallacy argument from popularity

http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activities/gmo/potential-health-effects-gmo

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqgmo.htm

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

[bemildred]

30. You post a piece of whine like that up there and then babble of "logical fallacies"?

[HuckleB]

34. Links supporting your claim regarding "bans?"

Etc... Thank you. And, no, the usual anti-science rant sites are not legitimate links.

[lunasun]

38. You do not even know that other countries have banned GMOs and think it is a fable WOW

need links........think the statement is woo WOW
Guess it is understandable for here but to be part of this discussion and not be aware
Do you know other countries have also banned our exceptional meat from import ?
never mind not wasting time linking
let it be myth here

GMOs
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176863/twenty-six-countries-ban-gmos-why-wont-us#
http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops
http://www.ehow.com/info_8527757_countries-banned-gmo-foods.html < this one has pictures so

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/are-un-labeled-geneticall_b_2433223.html
Are unlabeled GMO foods already in circulation all over the world?
A. No! Sixty two countries have either banned or required mandatory labels for GMO foods (as of late 2012). This includes not only all of Europe, but also China, India, Brazil, Russia, and Syria.
............................................................
That is right even China has GMO labelling
I have been disheartened to pick up an Asian product from PRC and sigh even they have labels (that is mainland China)and not USA
this is what came up on 1st google page search

Do not like sources + you can not be convinced of da ""bans"" that is OK:
I can not waste time to look further not looking to reply

[HuckleB]

41. Those are all bad sources.

The word "ban" is not accurate in most cases. Anti-science nonsense seems to think outlandish hyperbole is more important than honesty. Further, a "ban" does not make that "ban" anything but bad politics.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/25/decimating-the-flawed-beliefs-of-anti-gmo-activists/#more-11369

[bemildred]

26. Sarcasm is not much of an argument. nt

[Berlum]

44. Ummm hmmm

[HuckleB]

45. Seralini? Really?

Please stop pushing debunked nonsense in order to push ugly, baseless fear upon other humans.

It's wrong.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022930996#post102

and that's just for starters.

Again, it's time to stop adding to the disinformation campaign. It's misguided at best.

[Berlum]

46. Industry sympathizers routinely attack the ugly, mutant GMO reality.

But no matter the poo that gets flung by GMO, Inc. and Big Chem, Inc. sympathizers, mutant is mutant is mutant with chem sprinkles on top.

Eat what you like, but do not advocate occultly shoving mutant crapola food-like product down the throats of the rest of humanity.

http://gmspud.com/seralini-and-science-an-open-letter/

[HuckleB]

47. Nice shill gambit.

You're pushing ugly fictions upon people. Progressives are not anti-science. Why are you?

BTW, you can push all the BS hyperbole you want. It's not going to change the fact that you're pushing baseless fear upon others. And that is unethical at best.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

and

http://gmoanswers.com/ask/why-are-independent-scientists-find-gmos-be-unsafe-systematically-threatened-and-discredited

[HuckleB]

48. The Right to Know What I’m Eating

http://food-ethics.com/2010/09/28/the-right-to-know-what-im-eating/

"In the debate over the labelling (or non-labelling) of genetically-modified foods, one of the most common refrains is that consumers “have a right to know” what they’re eating. I’ve commented briefly on that here before. (See “Should Companies Label Genetically Modified Foods?”) But it’s an important and complicated topic, so I’m going to say a little more here.

We first need to distinguish legal from moral rights. Legal rights are established through legislation or through precedents set by courts. But when people say they have a “right to know” what they’re eating, they’re not usually referring to a legal right (especially given that, as far as genetic modification goes, there just is no such legal right in the U.S. or Canada). No, when people say they have a right to know what they’re eating, they’re talking about a moral right to that information — they mean that it is ethically obligatory for someone to provide it to them. But simply claiming a right doesn’t cause that right to spring into being. It needs to be justified some way, grounded in some strong ethical argument.

So, when does someone have a moral “right” to some piece of information? The philosophical literature on rights is enormous. I’ll just offer here what I think is a fairly straightforward explanation of the ethical grounding of rights, without going into too much philosophical detail.

Rights are mechanisms for protecting important human interests. In free societies, for example, we have a right to security of person and a right to own property and a right to free speech, because we see these things as crucially important to living a good human life. We may have other interests or needs, but not all of them are protected by rights. Why? Well, it’s worth remembering that when someone has a right to something, this imposes obligations on other people. In some cases (as in the right to free speech) it means an obligation not to interfere. In other cases it means an obligation actually to provide something (for example, if I’ve performed my job as promised, I have a right to be paid and my employer has a positive obligation to provide me with my wages). It’s also important to note that, given that rights impose obligations on other people, we need at least to consider just how burdensome those obligations are, before we assert the correlative right with any certainty. (For example: even if you desperately need a kidney, you don’t have a right to mine while I’m still using it.)

..."