Hi, good buddies!
I listened to a podcast about GMOs by Andrew Kimbrell, a lawyer who specializes in GMO cases. It was frightening to say the least but made a lot of sense.
So many good points were made in this talk:
1. Everything that the chemical companies who make GMOs told Congress during hearings about GMO "safety" 20 plus years ago were lies. For example, they claimed that GMOs would decrease the need for chemicals on crops. In fact, it has doubled the need. They claimed that "superweeds" would not develop. In fact, they have and are now threatening up to half of all midwest farmland. (Superweeds are partly responsible for the demise of the Monarch butterfly, since the weeds have choked out the butterfly's main food source - the milkweed). Also, they claimed that the chemicals would not affect nearby non-GMO crops. A lie! The newest chemical is the worst - after it is sprayed on crops and lands on the ground, it "revaporizes", rises in the air, and can travel up to several miles before it falls onto the ground and kills whatever it touches.
2. The chemical companies claim that the GMO process is no different from the hybridization that has always been done with plants......that we have always tried to find plants with ideal characteristics and cross-breed them. Kimbrell points out a huge difference - that hybridization is done at the organism level, while GMO tinkering is done at the cellular level. In fact, did you know that GMO is done in the nucleus of the cell? A bacterium is used by the chemists to carry/insert the new genetic material into the nucleus, and this bacterium is known to cause cancer.
3. It only makes sense that the best foods for humans would be those that we have evolved with over thousands of years.
4. The GMO movement is carried out by chemical companies for the sole purpose of creating a market for their chemicals. Creating safe/nutritious foods, helping the environment, and/or helping the farmer do not appear to be major goals.
5. OK, here is the really scary part. Did you know that the seven chemical companies are buying up all of the seeds in the world (including heirloom seeds)? In fact, they now own half of the world's seeds, with Monsanto alone owning 25%. This will give them total control over the world's food supply. They will be able to pick and choose whatever seeds they want to use - potentially they could destroy seeds forever that would have little need for chemicals.
I think we all need to get involved to make sure that GMO labelling happens. As MCers, we have a heightened interest in assuring that we will have safe, wholesome foods. The chemical companies (as well as the companies that sell mostly "junk" food, like Coke, Pepsi, Kellog's, General Mills, etc.) have spent millions to stop labeling efforts. They have a bill in Congress at present that would ban GMO labelling forever in this country as well as nullify any law passed by a state that requires labelling. This issue requires activism, IMHO. It is not sufficient to sit back and think "Well, I'll just buy wholesome, organic food for myself and not worry about the big picture". Because in the big picture, there will no longer be safe, wholesome, organic foods - the GMO chemicals will see to that.
Polly
More on GMOs - very bad news
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
More on GMOs - very bad news
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly, Polly, Polly,
As you know, I'm not a fan of the use of GMO technology either, but I can't believe that you would fall for that pitch. Why on earth would you expect a smooth-talking lawyer to tell the truth, when he makes his living by filing lawsuits on GMO issues, any more than I would trust Monsanto to tell the truth, because they make most of their money these days from GMO technology.
Please do your homework. First off, "everything" that the chemical companies told Congress 20 years ago was not a lie (only some of them were. LOL). Sure, some of them have turned out to not be true, but how different is that from the drug companies (and our doctors) telling us for years how safe and beneficial certain drugs are, and then we discover one day that most of what we were told about drug "X" was speculative BS designed to promote it, and the manufacturer has known for years that the drug is actually quite dangerous?
The fact is, GMO seeds have not increased the "need" for chemicals. Actually, on a practical level they have indeed reduced the "need". However, since they make chemical use so easy and efficient, and because the costs of certain chemicals have come way down over the years (such as roundup, for example), such chemical use has increased in response to cost efficiencies and convenience (not because of a "need"). Sure, the overall effect is the same, but the lawyer's premise is a misrepresentation of the facts (lie). And of course he pulls the Monarch butterfly into the argument, because that automatically wins him the support of zillions of amateur entomologists (whether there is any significant amount of truth in what he says or not — but I'm guessing that in this case there very well might be).
And the problem with his argument that conventional selective breeding has always been done on an organism level (which is true), is that the actual effects on the plant itself have always occurred on a cellular level (quite similar to what happens as a result of GMO manipulation). Yep, natural selective breeding is based on changes in the nucleus of the cells of the plant (but the changes are due either to random, or naturally-induced effects) . Why no one has bothered to point that out is beyond me — aren't scientists capable of thinking for themselves anymore? The only difference (as far as the organism is concerned) is that selective breeding done on an organism level is either random and opportunistic, or due to an epigenetic change caused by the environment, whereas GMO alterations are very specific and methodical, IOW they're much more efficient.
But history shows that virtually every significant agricultural advance has always been met with revolt. Did you know that? Consider this quoted information from references cited in a book I'm working on:
Apparently it's a part of human nature. And true to history, as a farmer, I am not a fan of GMO seeds. But my main reason is different from most non-farmers — GMOs promote grain surpluses, and anytime grain supplies are in excess, prices (and therefore grain production profits) are depressed. But I will be the first to admit that those grain surpluses guarantee that cheap food will be available all over the world, so I can't deny the humanitarian benefits of GMO seeds. This is a complex topic, and every entity involved in the dispute has their own agenda, but the bottom line is that GMO technology is just one more productivity advance in agriculture that helps to ensure that the world will not run out of food.
And the BS about the seed companies buying up all the seeds in the world — there's nothing new there. Seed companies have always owned most of the seeds in the world — seeds are their business. You can't develop new seed hybrids if you don't have parent stock available that possess the characteristics desired in the final product. Who else would be more likely to own seeds than seed companies?
But of course, this is what lawyers are for — to distort the facts just enough to create an element of doubt that will enable them to win an acquittal in some cases, and huge sums of money in other cases, for clients who are more than willing to accept the use of possibly unscrupulous means to justify the end that they are seeking. It's always about money, or power, or both, and of course in this case, that's true for both sides. But Monsanto has plenty of money (and so do the anti-GMO advocates), and GMO seeds are already ubiquitous in most developed countries. I have a hunch that when the game is over, and everyone counts their money, the only ones smiling will be the lawyers, as usual.
Tex
As you know, I'm not a fan of the use of GMO technology either, but I can't believe that you would fall for that pitch. Why on earth would you expect a smooth-talking lawyer to tell the truth, when he makes his living by filing lawsuits on GMO issues, any more than I would trust Monsanto to tell the truth, because they make most of their money these days from GMO technology.Please do your homework. First off, "everything" that the chemical companies told Congress 20 years ago was not a lie (only some of them were. LOL). Sure, some of them have turned out to not be true, but how different is that from the drug companies (and our doctors) telling us for years how safe and beneficial certain drugs are, and then we discover one day that most of what we were told about drug "X" was speculative BS designed to promote it, and the manufacturer has known for years that the drug is actually quite dangerous?
The fact is, GMO seeds have not increased the "need" for chemicals. Actually, on a practical level they have indeed reduced the "need". However, since they make chemical use so easy and efficient, and because the costs of certain chemicals have come way down over the years (such as roundup, for example), such chemical use has increased in response to cost efficiencies and convenience (not because of a "need"). Sure, the overall effect is the same, but the lawyer's premise is a misrepresentation of the facts (lie). And of course he pulls the Monarch butterfly into the argument, because that automatically wins him the support of zillions of amateur entomologists (whether there is any significant amount of truth in what he says or not — but I'm guessing that in this case there very well might be).
Really? That's a shocker to all farmers, because that class of hormone-based herbicides has been around for almost 3 quarters of a century, beginning with the development of 2-4-D in 1941 (and 2-4-D is still in use today, incidentally). The highly-volatile characteristics of this class of herbicides have always been an issue for surrounding crops and other plants, so their use has been highly-regulated by USDA and all state agricultural agencies for many decades. But this concept is certainly not a new pesticide innovation, by any means. The technology is at least as old as I am, and that puts it in the downright ancient category.The newest chemical is the worst - after it is sprayed on crops and lands on the ground, it "revaporizes", rises in the air, and can travel up to several miles before it falls onto the ground and kills whatever it touches.
And the problem with his argument that conventional selective breeding has always been done on an organism level (which is true), is that the actual effects on the plant itself have always occurred on a cellular level (quite similar to what happens as a result of GMO manipulation). Yep, natural selective breeding is based on changes in the nucleus of the cells of the plant (but the changes are due either to random, or naturally-induced effects) . Why no one has bothered to point that out is beyond me — aren't scientists capable of thinking for themselves anymore? The only difference (as far as the organism is concerned) is that selective breeding done on an organism level is either random and opportunistic, or due to an epigenetic change caused by the environment, whereas GMO alterations are very specific and methodical, IOW they're much more efficient.
But history shows that virtually every significant agricultural advance has always been met with revolt. Did you know that? Consider this quoted information from references cited in a book I'm working on:
It seems that everyone hates progress in agriculture — even farmers.In 1701 AD the Berkshire farmer Jethro Tull devised a simple seed drill based on organ pipes, which resulted in eight times as many grains harvested for every grain sown. Like most agricultural innovators since, he was vilified. A century later the threshing machine was greeted by riots.
On July 2nd 1909, with the help of an engineer named Carl Bosch from the BASF company, Fritz Haber succeeded in combining nitrogen (from the air) with hydrogen (from coal) to make ammonia. In a few short years, BASF had scaled up the process to factory size and the sky could be mined for nitrogen. Today nearly half the nitrogen atoms in the proteins of an average human being's body came at some time or another through an ammonia factory. In the short term, though, Haber merely saved the German war effort as it was on the brink of running out of nitrogen explosives in 1914, cut off from Chilean nitrates. He went on to make lethal gas for chemical warfare and genocide.
On farms, Haber nitrogen ran into much the same revulsion as had greeted the seed drill. For many farmers, the goodness of manure could not be reduced to a white powder. Fertiliser [sic] must in some sense be alive.
Apparently it's a part of human nature. And true to history, as a farmer, I am not a fan of GMO seeds. But my main reason is different from most non-farmers — GMOs promote grain surpluses, and anytime grain supplies are in excess, prices (and therefore grain production profits) are depressed. But I will be the first to admit that those grain surpluses guarantee that cheap food will be available all over the world, so I can't deny the humanitarian benefits of GMO seeds. This is a complex topic, and every entity involved in the dispute has their own agenda, but the bottom line is that GMO technology is just one more productivity advance in agriculture that helps to ensure that the world will not run out of food.And the BS about the seed companies buying up all the seeds in the world — there's nothing new there. Seed companies have always owned most of the seeds in the world — seeds are their business. You can't develop new seed hybrids if you don't have parent stock available that possess the characteristics desired in the final product. Who else would be more likely to own seeds than seed companies?
But of course, this is what lawyers are for — to distort the facts just enough to create an element of doubt that will enable them to win an acquittal in some cases, and huge sums of money in other cases, for clients who are more than willing to accept the use of possibly unscrupulous means to justify the end that they are seeking. It's always about money, or power, or both, and of course in this case, that's true for both sides. But Monsanto has plenty of money (and so do the anti-GMO advocates), and GMO seeds are already ubiquitous in most developed countries. I have a hunch that when the game is over, and everyone counts their money, the only ones smiling will be the lawyers, as usual.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex, Tex, Tex!
Just another of the myriad of issues that we will need to agree to disagree on, although I certainly appreciate your viewpoint! LOL! (And we definitely agree on lawyers and big pharma). No sense in us discussing specifics any further - we both can find plenty of documentation for whatever we believe.
My question for you - why should there not be GMO labelling of foods? After all, that's what I am advocating for in my post. Why can't people be given a choice as to whether they want to eat GMO foods or not? This is the crux of the issue, IMHO.
Polly
Just another of the myriad of issues that we will need to agree to disagree on, although I certainly appreciate your viewpoint! LOL! (And we definitely agree on lawyers and big pharma). No sense in us discussing specifics any further - we both can find plenty of documentation for whatever we believe.
My question for you - why should there not be GMO labelling of foods? After all, that's what I am advocating for in my post. Why can't people be given a choice as to whether they want to eat GMO foods or not? This is the crux of the issue, IMHO.
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly,
I am strongly in favor of GMO labeling (as well as country of origin labeling, and anything else that might be important to many of us). But because of government opposition, and the simple fact that our government responds to political money similar to the way that Pavlov's dogs responded to the smell of food, IMO the practical chances of obtaining GMO labeling that will actually be reliable and accurate are relatively slim. And if it can be won, the cost will probably be more than it is worth.
The problem is that GMO seeds dominate much/most of the worlds food production, and the process is not reversible. Once the genetics are out there in the field, they cannot be returned to the lab where they originated. They will be with us forever, because anytime a non-GMO plant is pollinated by a GMO plant (which happens naturally in surrounding fields for many miles around), the GMO trait is passed on. That guarantees that true non-GMO products will be rare commodities in the future. Who will be able to actually afford truly GMO-free foods? Only the wealthy, that's who.
The rest of us will read the label, sigh, and buy it anyway, because we simply can't afford to pay 4 or 5 times as much for a product when it's only distinction is a line on the label that reads, "No GMO Ingredients". Our food budget simply will not allow us to indulge in such luxuries.
Tex
I am strongly in favor of GMO labeling (as well as country of origin labeling, and anything else that might be important to many of us). But because of government opposition, and the simple fact that our government responds to political money similar to the way that Pavlov's dogs responded to the smell of food, IMO the practical chances of obtaining GMO labeling that will actually be reliable and accurate are relatively slim. And if it can be won, the cost will probably be more than it is worth.
The problem is that GMO seeds dominate much/most of the worlds food production, and the process is not reversible. Once the genetics are out there in the field, they cannot be returned to the lab where they originated. They will be with us forever, because anytime a non-GMO plant is pollinated by a GMO plant (which happens naturally in surrounding fields for many miles around), the GMO trait is passed on. That guarantees that true non-GMO products will be rare commodities in the future. Who will be able to actually afford truly GMO-free foods? Only the wealthy, that's who.
The rest of us will read the label, sigh, and buy it anyway, because we simply can't afford to pay 4 or 5 times as much for a product when it's only distinction is a line on the label that reads, "No GMO Ingredients". Our food budget simply will not allow us to indulge in such luxuries.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Isn't this another highly-controversial topic that's sort of held hostage by government policies (as a result of politically-motivated election campaign "investments").
Tex
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Polly,
I couldn't agree with you more. I am rather certain GMOs have played a role my development of MC and DM. After all, there is a reason I react to virtually every GMO out there!! My body says HELL NO!! They also first appeared in the 1990s, before autism and many other epidemics.
News articles like these, about their money-grubbing mission, make me want to vomit. No mention of humanity, a sustainable food supply, nothing! Just shareholder profits!!
http://m.stltoday.com/business/columns/ ... touch=true
Sadly it appears they have Hillary Clinton in their back pocket, and yet I imagine she steers clear of them in her diet, thanks to her enlightened daughter.
I couldn't agree with you more. I am rather certain GMOs have played a role my development of MC and DM. After all, there is a reason I react to virtually every GMO out there!! My body says HELL NO!! They also first appeared in the 1990s, before autism and many other epidemics.
News articles like these, about their money-grubbing mission, make me want to vomit. No mention of humanity, a sustainable food supply, nothing! Just shareholder profits!!
http://m.stltoday.com/business/columns/ ... touch=true
Sadly it appears they have Hillary Clinton in their back pocket, and yet I imagine she steers clear of them in her diet, thanks to her enlightened daughter.
1987 Mononucleosis (EBV)
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
Our corrupted food supply is at the heart of so many health issues. Unfortunately, think it will get more difficult, not less, to source non-GMO foods in years to come. And Zizzle, the Clintons definitely aren't eating crap, as one of their dr's is Dr. Mark Hyman, but I'm sure as you've suggested, her politics will be a different story.
Lisa
Lisa
-
humbird753
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:44 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
I don't often post anymore, but come here from time and when I saw this string of posts, felt that I needed to post. But I almost hesitate to bring this up, as it is really discouraging. I have learned that there are some new techniques for introducing foreign genes or other changes to DNA that are being marketed as technical loopholes to get around the FDA and EPA definition of GMO. By using these techniques, the FDA and EPA will not have any role in their development or oversight, and foods containing these genetic modifications won’t have to be labeled as GMO.
So how did I learn about this? I am a biologist, and recently was at a retirement party given for a professor. At that party I encountered an old fellow-student from my graduate school days, and we talked about what we were doing. He has a job with a company that is using a new technology to modify genes. The end result is just the same as traditional GMO techniques. But the foreign DNA isn’t actually incorporated into the DNA of the host plant. Without getting technical, it is used as a temporary template to copy the foreign DNA and then is clipped out. According to the FDA definition, this isn’t considered GMO even if the end result is the same. Of course the FDA could revise and update its definition of GMO to take into account new technology, but what do you think the chances would be?
As I investigated further, I came across this article in the New York Times that gives a very good overview of these issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/busin ... .html?_r=0
Regardless of how you feel about the safety of GMO's it just doesn't seem right that for-profit companies can mess around with this without any oversight............
Rosie
So how did I learn about this? I am a biologist, and recently was at a retirement party given for a professor. At that party I encountered an old fellow-student from my graduate school days, and we talked about what we were doing. He has a job with a company that is using a new technology to modify genes. The end result is just the same as traditional GMO techniques. But the foreign DNA isn’t actually incorporated into the DNA of the host plant. Without getting technical, it is used as a temporary template to copy the foreign DNA and then is clipped out. According to the FDA definition, this isn’t considered GMO even if the end result is the same. Of course the FDA could revise and update its definition of GMO to take into account new technology, but what do you think the chances would be?
As I investigated further, I came across this article in the New York Times that gives a very good overview of these issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/busin ... .html?_r=0
Regardless of how you feel about the safety of GMO's it just doesn't seem right that for-profit companies can mess around with this without any oversight............
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
Hi Rosie,
Thank you for sharing that. That's scary, since the basic premise is that most of it is unregulated. This comment seems to sum up the problem:
Tex
Thank you for sharing that. That's scary, since the basic premise is that most of it is unregulated. This comment seems to sum up the problem:
That kinda reminds me of the failure of internet security, and a few other things these days.“The technology is always one step ahead of the regulators,” said Michiel van Lookeren Campagne, head of biotechnology research at Syngenta, a seed and agricultural chemical company.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Yes, Rosie, thanks for sharing that. BTW, good to see you again!
Do you have any suggestions for how we can most effectively fight back? It seems we have become a corporatocracy in this country. I have always believed in the power of the people....a recent example was the public outcry/pressure that made Kraft take the colorings/preservatives out of its mac and cheese. But it is so overwhelming now, given the $$$$ and political clout of the mega-corporations. And TPP will assure that corporations will forever be able to do whatever they want. It will give them permission to sue state gov'ts.......for example, when a state passes a GMO labelling law (like New Hampshire has)....by stating that the law is interfering with their profits. There is no way a state could prevail legally given the deep pockets of the corps. Sigh.
Polly
Do you have any suggestions for how we can most effectively fight back? It seems we have become a corporatocracy in this country. I have always believed in the power of the people....a recent example was the public outcry/pressure that made Kraft take the colorings/preservatives out of its mac and cheese. But it is so overwhelming now, given the $$$$ and political clout of the mega-corporations. And TPP will assure that corporations will forever be able to do whatever they want. It will give them permission to sue state gov'ts.......for example, when a state passes a GMO labelling law (like New Hampshire has)....by stating that the law is interfering with their profits. There is no way a state could prevail legally given the deep pockets of the corps. Sigh.
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.