Farmers and eaters around the country and the world are watching the Nov. 6 election in California with bated breath.
Will Proposition 37 -- requiring labeling of GMOs in our food -- pass? Note that even China requires labeling! But here in the U.S., GMOs took off in the 1990s with no public debate, and today they're in most processed foods, making Americans the world's GMO guinea pigs.
We know it's easy to get sunk by "information overload" and agribusiness advertising. So far the largest GMO maker, Monsanto, and other industry giants have plowed at least $35 million into keeping us in the dark.
To help us think straight, we've prepared seven points to consider and share with your friends -- all backed by authoritative studies. Here's what they reveal:
1. GMOs have never undergone standard testing or regulation for human safety. And now that they're in 70 percent of processed foods, it's extremely difficult for scientists to isolate their health risks.
2. But we know that GMOs have proven harmful in animal studies. A 2009 review of 19 studies found mammals fed GM corn or soy developed "liver and kidney problems" that could mark the "onset of chronic diseases." Most were 90-day studies. In a new two-year study, rats fed GM corn developed two to three times more tumors -- some bigger than a quarter of their total body weight -- and these tumors appeared much earlier than in rats fed non-GM corn. Among scientists, the study has its defenders and critics, but even the critics underscore that we need more long-term studies.
3. And the most widely used GMOs are paired with an herbicide linked to serious health risks. GM crops -- Roundup Ready soy and corn -- are treated with the herbicide glyphosate, which in exposed humans has been associated with DNA damage. In the lab, it's proven toxic to human liver cells.
4. The consequences of GMO technology are inherently unpredictable. Inserting a single gene can result in multiple, unintended DNA changes and mutations. "Unintended effects are common in all cases where GE [genetic engineering] techniques are used," warn scientists. One such environmental consequence -- genetic contamination of other plants -- is already documented. Note that unlike food, once released into the environment, seeds can't be "recalled"!
5. GMO makers intimidate and silence farmers and scientists. GMO corporations use patents and intellectual property rights to sue farmers, block research, and threaten investigators. "For a decade," protested Scientific American editors in 2009, GMO companies "have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research," so "it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised."
6. GMOs undermine our food security. Within the biotechnology market, Monsanto alone controls 90 percent of GE crops worldwide. And Monsanto is one of three GMO companies including DuPont and Syngenta that control 70 percent of the global seed market, reinforcing monopoly power over our food. GMO seeds are costly and must be purchased every year, so they worsen farmers' indebtedness, dependency, and vulnerability to hunger.
7. GMOs aren't needed in the first place, so why would we take on these risks and harms? Studies show that safe, sustainable farming practices applied worldwide could increase our food supply as much as 50 percent. And keep in mind that the world's already producing 2,800 calories for every person on earth every day -- more than enough. And that's just with what's left over after using half the world's grain for feed, fuel and other purposes, and wasting one-third of all food. So the urgent question isn't about "more" anyway. It is, How can all of the world's people gain the power to secure healthy food? And a good start is knowing what's in our food.
For a cool, just-released animated video devouring the myth that we need industrial ag, see foodmyths.org.
Shopping in the Know (Not GMO)
• Avoid processed foods! It's a simple way to reduce exposure to the four most common GM ingredients: non-organic forms of soy, canola, cottonseed and corn, including high-fructose corn syrup.
• Look for the voluntary "non-GMO" label.
• Buy "certified organic," which ensures that no GMO ingredients were used.
• Visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com for a list of thousands of GMO products and brands.
To sort more food myths from facts, visit the new Food MythBusters: the Real Story About What We Eat website at FoodMyths.Org. And, if you live in California, vote Nov. 6 for Proposition 37 to require GMO labeling.
Speak out, wherever you are. Demand federal GMO labeling and work to end GMOs.
All of his previous studies have been thoroughly debunked by other legitimate scientists in the field (No, not "all paid by Monsanto"). In one study, he purposely chose a surfactant that caused cell death, applied the surfactant + BT toxin directly to cells, and said "Look! BT Toxin is deadly to humans!". Most people with an ounce of brain matter can figure out the obvious flaws in his studies just after a quick read.
Considering the extent to which the author relies on Seralini-studies, when you discount Seralini's studies, and this entire article becomes meaningless.
The Huffington Post fails to mention that the food being fed to the rats was being treated with a herbicide. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if the study you rely on for a claim that GM foods are harmful also included the use of a toxic herbicide, the results might be more than slightly skewed.
Why don't they just perform a study where they give rats GM foods that have been contaminated with rat poison so they can publish a news article that says all the rats that ate GM foods died instantly and GM foods will straight-up MURDER you?
If you're going to spread misinformation, you might as well go all out.
Are farmers going to buy more expensive Roundup-ready corn seeds to grow organically? Not bloody likely.
The Roundup does affect the overall health and structure of the plants that are sprayed.
However, to extrapolate that into saying "Well, pesticide resistant crops are GM crops, therefore GM crops are also all bad!" is more than a little irrational.
Luckily, Monsanto isn't the only company creating new GM strains, and there are other companies creating new crops that will greatly decrease pesticide use.
"The Roundup does affect the overall health and structure of the plants that are sprayed."
While we should always be concerned about what pesticides are being used, we do have to put down our predetermined beliefs and open our minds to science once and a while. Glyphosate has been in use for decades and has been widely studied, its effects are minimal and well known.
examples:
The main, and only really prominent, study that points to health detriments from GMO is the one about the mice growing tumors. This is why that study shouldn't be considered valid:
1. Small control group/sample size
2. The mice that they use have been shown to be predisposed to cancer as was shown by the control group developing tumors also. That shouldn't happen.
3. Maize the mice were fed was also sprayed with roundup-- not part of the GMO legislation
4. Statical analysis methods used are generally considered less reliable than what researchers typically use. Why would they deviate to a less reliable method in their study?
5. If the effects were as deadly as reported, we'd be dropping like flies to the already genetically modified food we eat.
6. Several other studies done by non-monsanto sponsored researchers show no evidence of harm for the time they were conducted.
7. The long-term effects of GMO have been studied for around 15 years. Not bad in the lifetime of most animals.
Also, the article talks about the damage to human DNA as a result direct exposure. It's a correlative study about over-exposure on humans, not the edibility of the food.
The rest is just how Monsanto corporation is a bully. Duh. However, they aren't the only ones who use GMO.
Monsanto, Dow Chemical, etc. spent $60+ million to defeat it, hugely outspending the people "For". Monsanto's advertising: nonsense, but all people see. There's NO research on the safety of GMO's. The American people are in an experiment, they don't know it. Labeling GMO's gives people choice whether or not to join.
After safety trials new drugs are put on the market--but data continues to be collected--"Phase 4" of testing, as problems may appear when drugs are used by millions. There was no clinical testing before GMO's were released. Anyone who eats corn, soy or canola is in the experiment. Doctors who pay attention to people's health see bad effects in people who consume GMO's, that resolve when they quit eating them.
Monsanto claims that requiring labeling increases food cost, but in Europe, when labeling was introduced, there was no increase. They claim that labeling is inconsistent--a Stanford professor (6 figure income paid by Monsanto) says dog food would require labeling, but hamburger not. But dog food is 50% meat, the rest: corn & soy, so would require labeling. Ads say soy milk would require labeling, but cow's milk not. But soy milk is soy, and 93% of soy is GMO's. Cow's milk does not contain soy.
Until proven safe, I urge you to avoid GMO's. Demand labeling to know which foods contain them. There is an experiment underway, & you have the right to choose.
Damon P. Miller II, MD
How could you conclude that any discernible shift in wellbeing can be attributed to the presence of GM foods in the diet? i.e. distinct from the benefit of displacing processed crap with more nutritious foods? Would you expect a guy who regularly washes down a bag of GM tortilla chips with a GM soda to somehow fare better if he maintained the same consumption patterns with organic chips and soda?
"Actually, I now use very few pharmaceuticals with my patients, simply because I am committed to practicing safe medicine."
"The benefits of dropping GM foods from the diet are not hypothetical. I, and other physicians like myself who pay attention to the connection between health and diet can give many examples of people who have had challenges to their health, especially involving their immune function, who have eliminated GM foods and seen their health improve. I learned long ago that just because I could not explain something, I should not ignore the obvious, so I pay attention to the cause and effect that I see daily in the people I work with."
--Dr. Damon P. Miller
OrganicMD
If you wish to carry on the conversation, I suggest you contact Dr. Miller directly: millermd@flash.net
-TMAO, web liaison.
Well, perhaps we should also place that impossibly high standard on... say... global warming? We only that global warming is HIGHLY LIKELY to be happening and attributable to humans.
We are more sure about the safety of GMO's than we are about global warming. So, since we're not 100% on either, we should believe both statements must be false?
Do tell, how does a human reach a 100% level of understanding, in anything? If you know anything about advanced mathematics, you know that we're not even 100% sure that 1+1 really equals 2.
Pass 37 because polls have shown that the majority of people want to know if their food contains GMO's. It's called democracy.
Type of soil the produce was grown in.
Nationality of workers handling my food.
Proximity to major highway.
Brand/model of farming equipment used, and emissions standards of that equipment.
How the soil is tilled.
Do the farm workers wash their hands and keep a log of such cleaning?
Vote YES to irrelevant information! More the better! Right?
How is that comparable? People are scared of spiders in Australia because they know some can kill you. People are not scared of spiders in Canada because they can't.
People fear GMO because of a lack of proper knowledge and education, or "People just fear what they don't know".
Seriously? That's in the first three sentences of your argument?
So if China censors Google searches we should vote for that regulation as well?
What an utterly corrupt statement!
It is precisely BECAUSE China censors the Internet, because they're notoriously secretive and keep their citizenry in the dark about all manner of subjects, that makes the fact that they keep their citizens more informed on this issue than we do so shocking.
The fact that China is already imposing this regulation on it's citizens is, on its face, not a good argument why I should vote to impose it on my fellow Californians.
The fact that you cannot see this connection speaks more to your reading comprehension than mine.
By making us aware of GMO's in our food (via prop 37), we can potentially reduce the amount of GMO (RoundUp ready) crops, and hopefully reduce the overall use of pesticides, which would be good for everyone.
Probably should turn down the sarcasm a notch and educate yourself:
http://web (dot) pppmb.cals (dot) cornell.edu/resourceguide/
This leaves behind a collection of primarily much smaller funders whose names give the impression that Prop 37 is not a proxy crusade in the name of Natural, but instead a campaign to inform consumers about something that presents a threat to our environment and personal wellbeing.
Which is it, Anna? You're the mythbuster after all.
two great products i use ... you'd never believe all
the uses of this great product ! ! !
Thanks for this info, i will continue to use these products.
Let's vote with our dollars folks, all this GMO and pesticide ridden crops shouldn't
be consumed. but heck we cant even label it ?
Who is putting money on this PROP 37 both pro and con should be your guide?
Too bad Whole Foods hasn't stepped up to help this measure pass ....
Whole Foods' CEO donated $25K to Pro-37 as an individual, but the company hasn't, probably because it's way too polarizing. The lawyers who wrote 37 did a great job of making sure it would enable them to sue as many companies as possible, including many that don't even produce GM items.
37 opponents are driven by a number of concerns, and their cases should not be simplified as a sinister crusade to withhold information in the interests of “big ag.” I oppose 37 because none of my qualms about the biotech business irk me nearly as much as the strategy of leveraging fear and scientific illiteracy to portray the food system as in a state of terrible disrepair. (37 is at least to some extent about undermining agricultural biotechnology, protecting the environment, assuring perfectionists they're safe from uncertainty, advancing Natural, etc.)
I used to work on an organic CSA, and I've taught hundreds of families and teenagers about healthy eating strategies. Although I don't speak about pesticides and biotech by default, I would never mislead loved ones and others who trust me if I believed these things presented an appreciable threat to their wellbeing.
One thing I can promise you is that potential for real progress in the food system is often impaired by well-meaning but ill-informed calls for dramatic upheaval.
You support him? You don't believe in vaccines? huh? The AntiVaccine crowd is Just more antiScience crazyyyness from the left.
What he certainly didn't say was "I support Mercola because I don't believe in vaccines and hate science."
Please don't attack someone based on a false representation of their argument. Even if he does support Mercola, that is irrelevant to the validity of his point.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm
"The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment."