The industry-funded campaigns to block GMO labelling laws brilliantly labelled anyone who simply wanted to know what they are eating as "anti-science", but what does science actually have to say about GMOs?
The vast majority of GMO products are modified to either be resistant to pesticide (Round-Up Ready) or they contain an insecticide. Here's the FDA's list: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon
Follow links from there, and here's the FDA's letter accepting corn able to survive increased soakings of glyphosate Round-up herbicide:
"Based on the information Monsanto has presented to FDA, we have no further questions concerning food and feed derived from MON 87427 corn at this time. However, as you are aware, it is Monsanto’s continuing responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe…"
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm304083.htm
So the FDA bases approval solely on the assurance of Monsanto?
Let's look it up another way, through the data on glyphosate, the herbicide known by the brand Round-Up(TM):
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0057.htm
_II.A. Evidence for Human Carcinogenicity
__II.A.1. Weight-of-Evidence Characterization
Classification — D; not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
Basis — Inadequate evidence for oncogenicity in animals. Glyphosate was originally classified as C, possible human carcinogen, on the basis of increased incidence of renal tumors in mice. Following independent review of the slides the classification was changed to D on the basis of a lack of statistical significance and uncertainty as to a treatment-related effect.
__II.A.2. Human Carcinogenicity Data
None.
__II.A.3. Animal Carcinogenicity Data
Inadequate. Charles River CD-1 mice (50/sex/dose level) were fed diets containing glyphosate at dose levels of 0, 1000, 5000, or 30,000 ppm for 24 months. The incidence of renal tubule adenomas observed in the male mice exceeded that of the controls (0/49 controls; 0/49 low-dose; 1/50 mid-dose; 3/50 high-dose). A re-evaluation of the renal tumor slides prepared from the male mice indicated the presence of an additional adenoma in the control group and malignant tumors in the two higher dose groups. Therefore, the incidences of the reevaluated data are 1/49 control adenoma; 0/49 low; 1/50 mid, carcinoma; 3/50 high, 1 adenoma, 2 carcinomas. It was the judgment of two reviewing pathologists that the renal tumors were not treatment-related. In addition, the inclusion of a tumor in the control group eliminated statistical significance for the high-dose group.
In a 26-month study Sprague-Dawley (CD) rats, 50/sex/dose were fed 0, 30, 100, or 300 ppm glyphosate in the diet. The study is being repeated to include the MTD. There were some thyroid tumors, which were considered of normal incidence. Power to detect an effect was reduced since a MTD was not demonstrated, and the highest dose tested was less than 1/100 of the high dose in the mice (Monsanto, 1981). OPP has requested that the study be repeated on the basis of the degree of species difference in the highest dose tested and the possibility that higher doses (MTD) might produce additional tumors.
—
So the carcinogenicity data is "inadequate", and the request that the 1981 study be repeated does not have any follow-up. There are no human trials, except the one you see in the mirror.
Here's some recent science:
Pesticides In Tap Water Responsible For Food Allergy Increase
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253513.php
Let's see what a scientist who led the EPA's biosafety program has to say:
Scientists find multiple problems with GMOs
Agroeconomists have shown repeatedly that the best-yielding, most-affordable crop varieties, to "feed the world", are those derived from conventional non-GMO hybrids (U.N Commission on Trade and Development).
As a lifelong scientist, I am deeply troubled to report that promises of patent enforcement by American agrichemical seed companies have prevented U.S. scientists from researching what some exclaim are "problems" associated with GMO crops. We will not know the facts as long as the seeds and plants that we, our children, pets and livestock consume are not made available for conducting long-term, controlled experiments.
Norwegian scientists recently detected Roundup in 10 of 10 farms using genetically engineered soybeans. We had to also learn from these Norwegian (not American) scientists that the nutritional composition of soybeans grown on 31 Ohio farms differed depending upon the type of farm management system employed. Soybeans harvested from organic farms had higher concentrations of protein and essential amino acids, and higher concentrations of two minerals, and no Roundup residues (Food Chem. 2014).
Now we know from the scientific literature that the same concentrations of Roundup residues in soybeans is sufficient in laboratory assays to: induce hormone disruptions during frog development (mixed-sex frogs); kill young trout and tadpoles; stop the growth of earthworms in soil; inhibit activities of beneficial soil and human gut bacteria; and stimulate the growth of human breast-cancer cells assayed under laboratory conditions.
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140413/OPINION/404130320/0/SEARCH
Ramon J. Seidler, Ph.D., of Ashland, is a professor of microbiology and a retired senior scientist and team leader for the Environmental Protection Agency's biosafety program.
A former scientist for Agriculture Canada, Thierry Vrain, has turned whistleblower as well:
Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/
Comments
So farmers are not smart enough and choose more expensive GMO products instead of natural crops? P1 is against open market.
On another side Monsanto and other companies will be out of business if anything bad eventually will be found in their crops. Their survival depends on it. They do not want another Vioxx (or smoking companies) disaster.
Antitrust laws should be used if companies like Monsanto make it impossible to conduct studies about their product safety. But then again it would be a suicide for Monsanto.
You would think so. But by that reasoning +Alexey Solofnenko, Wall Street firms would be out of business if they wrote risky loans, exceeded rational leverage ratios, and wreaked havoc on the world economy. In a prior savings and loan scandal 1000 people were charged with crimes, 800 were sentenced. This time the loses were many times larger (70X larger if I remember correctly), the government bailed out the offending companies, not a single person was charged, and the executives responsible even collected bonuses. The revolving door between Wall Street firms and the intense lobbying of Congress are contributing factors. (The chief "regulator" assigned to investigate and prosecute crimes from the latest financial crash recently landed a job in Wall Street, paying $3M.)
Note that chemical companies have similar lobbying and there is a similar revolving door between the FDA and companies like Monsanto (Google it).
So given the current state of government in the U.S., the most likely scenario may be that when if health issues documented in European scientific studies become glaringly obvious in the U.S. population, the government will treat Monsanto like a victim, a "too big to fail" component of our food supply, Monsanto will be granted bail-out funds to deal with the entirely predictable problem of needing to replace the country's GMO seed, and the executives will get bonuses instead of going to jail. The precedent has been set, and the model has been tested by Wall Street.
That is the face of the American democracy since implementation of the strategies described in the Lewis Powell Memo, reinforced and aided by the Citizens United ruling:
The Lewis Powell Memo – Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/
Obama and the Romney household eat only organic foods, choosing not to eat the food the rest of the country is subjected to, without even the simple courtesy of labeling, so people can make informed choices.
+Jeff Sullivan, this is way too long to fit on Google +, but thank you for sharing your research!
Hmmmmm
+Alexey Solofnenko – Market manipulation does not follow any principle of a free & fair market. Commodity foods, like most GMO crops, are big business. Margins are small and quantities huge. It only takes one or two players in this market to make a switch to a cheaper, cost externalized method of production to effect the price. Once that happens, it of course cascades all the way down to the smallest farmers. The great gmo adoption rates we see in corn, soy, etc by farmers are a result of this process.
Normal farming itself, is not in general profitable*. The large corporate players make there money through other means, and all of it is financed, which is why they are able to function this way among the elitists who share the same corporate and financial ties.
The successful market = superior & safe product argument is also a hollow talking point in this case.
* by profitable I do not mean to say that they cannot make money at all, but that the income is not enough to make it more than survival for most small-mid sized farms, and large farms, as I said, have off-farm income like land holdings that push them into the black.
You scream lies about GMO's being unsafe, and then demand that they be labeled? No wonder the industry does not want to label GMO foods. Maybe if you didn't lie about GMO's and try to scare people, they'd be more willing to label them.
Better yet, why not label all foods that DON'T have GMO's as "GMO-Free"?
What lies am I talking about? Well, glyphosate is not a GMO, for one. No GMO food contains glyphosate. Golden Rice, for example contains not glyphosate, nor are the Golden Rice fields sprayed with it. Yet, you still claim that all GMO's are unsafe.
Antitrust laws should be used if companies like Monsanto make it impossible to conduct studies about their product safety.
Says who? Go to your grocery store, buy an ear of corn and test it. No one is stopping you. No one is stopping the scientists from the endless tests that have already been performed.
+Jeff Sullivan what would be the role of Cargill in this whole picture? They are moving to Costa Rica rapidly. I know they had bought all the old national franchises and brands locally, but the´re still hiding themselves under their names… If anyone has more data it will be highly appreciate. Thank again +Jeff Sullivan for this post!
+Bryan May – I think only an extreme minority would claim that all gmo's (not associated with pesticides) were unsafe.
The mean argument is essentially that the testing procedures take short-cuts in favor of profitability and convenience, and not in an open, transparent scientific method. There is wide consensus that these products must be tested on a case-by-case basis, and yet the industry wants to de-regulate themselves even further before their next round of products come online, which raise new questions.
There is no scientific reason to test chemical technology leading to medicines consumed by humans with more rigor than the genetic technology leading to food that is consumed by humans (not to mention the environment).
+Bryan May Clarifying the second paragraph…
The vast majority of GMO products are modified to either be resistant to glyphosate pesticide resistant ("Round-Up ready") or they contain an insecticide.
A very high percentage of GMO crops are specifically engineered to receive stronger applications of glyphosate herbicide. That is the concern.
GMO MythS and Truths Report
A laboratory study in human cells shows that very low levels of glyphosate (the main chemical ingredient of Roundup herbicide, which most GM crops are engineered to tolerate) mimicked the hormone estrogen and stimulated the growth of breast cancer cells. The level of glyphosate that had this effect was below the level allowed in drinking water in Europe and far below the level allowed in the USA. It was also below the level found in GM glyphosate-tolerant soy, which is imported into Europe for animal feed and human food. If confirmed in animal studies, this finding would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate. (p. 221)
A rat feeding study led by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, which found toxic effects from a GM maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, was retracted by a journal editor for unscientific reasons. Yet the study is far stronger and more detailed than many industry studies that are accepted as proof of safety for GMOs. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had to reject the study in order to protect its own previous opinions on this and other GMOs, for reasons explained in the report. The findings of this study, if confirmed, would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate and Roundup. (pp. 94, 147)
– See more at: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths#sthash.LsIRJzfK.dpuf
As the weeds develop resistance to glyphosate, the doses have to get higher and higher, while as the European studies are showing, the human tolerance to the poison may be overestimated.
No one is asking you to stop eating glyphosate, but some people would like the simple courtesy of knowing which food has been given an extra heavy coating.
+Bryan May "Go to your grocery store, buy an ear of corn and test it. No one is stopping you. No one is stopping the scientists from the endless tests that have already been performed."
You might want to actually read the original post before commenting. As the lead EPA scientist explained, U.S. laws have been manipulated to prevent testing in the U.S.:
"As a lifelong scientist, I am deeply troubled to report that promises of patent enforcement by American agrichemical seed companies have prevented U.S. scientists from researching what some exclaim are "problems" associated with GMO crops. We will not know the facts as long as the seeds and plants that we, our children, pets and livestock consume are not made available for conducting long-term, controlled experiments."
Ramon J. Seidler, Ph.D., of Ashland, is a professor of microbiology and a retired senior scientist and team leader for the Environmental Protection Agency's biosafety program.
So yes, the chemical companies are stopping everyone in the U.S. from double-checking their studies.
So, the mice that tested positive for carcinogenicity were not fed GMO corn; they were fed a diet with glyphosate as an additive, and the amount of glyphosate used was 1,000 times, 5,000 times, and 30,000 times the expected concentration of residue on GMO corn.
The effects documented were deformations in the kidneys. Only in the mice with the highest dosages, 3% of their diet consisting of glyposate, were actual carcinomas found.
So the mice being given large doses of the chemical in question developed abnormalities in the kidneys: the same kidneys filtering that chemical out of their blood.
This seems like weak evidence for carcinogenic effects of glyphosate in the expected concentrations you would find in a food crop. It is much better evidence for the renal damage expected from toxic doses of glyphosate.
But the important point is that the test on the mice has nothing at all to do with the genetic modifications to the corn. It was testing for problems caused by the herbicide. The genetic modifications were present in the corn only to increase its resistance to the herbicide.
I am far more concerned by the use of patent enforcement threats to stifle research, but patent reform is a different issue.
+David Blackwell IS THIS WHY I'M HAVING SYMPTOMS THAT LOOK LIKE KIDNEY SYMPTOMS?!?! (Yes, I was screaming. I'm gluten-intolerant in the first place and spent about half of 2014 feeling too sick to eat after having ingested GMO and/or glyphosate-treated food!)
+Bryan May I don't think it's lies so much as it's clumsy wording. People are digesting big awkward chunks of information and trying to write about it quickly in limited space.
+David Blackwell No, you're claiming an a expected concentration of 1 part per million for glyphosate, 6000 times less than what has been proposed as an acceptable concentration in potatoes.
This was reported in April 2013:
"GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. This is quite significant and well worth remembering."
"The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “safe” level for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm… At 13 ppm, GMO corn contains more than 18 times the “safe” level of glyphosate set by the EPA."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/04/30/monsanto-gmo-corn.aspx
The response? Clearly the limit must be raised:
U.S. plans to hike allowed glyphosate levels in food supply
http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/14769-u-s-plans-to-hike-allowed-glyphosate-levels-in-food-supply
The article below says the new EPA regulation would allow “oilseed” crops such as flax, canola, and soybean oil to contain glyphosate at levels up to 40 parts per million (ppm), up from 20 ppm, which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to induce the growth of human breast cancer cells in vitro, according to a recent study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
It also raises the allowable glyphosate contamination level for food crops such as potatoes from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.
Meanwhile, a new report by Food & Water Watch analyses official USDA and EPA data to find that the quick adoption of GM crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report can be downloaded here:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/superweeds/
So contrary to your characterization, the mice that developed tumors were given doses ranging from 1/6th to 5/6th to 1 2/3 the concentration that you may soon get from eating French fries.
Bear in mind that the study with mice was very short term, not at all adequate to simulate a human's lifetime exposure.
And yes, as implied in my original post and reiterated in comments, a major concern with GMO crops is exactly the heavier glyphosate application and the increased residue on our food. In what way is that difficult at all to understand? Where in the world is the strange notion that the two are not related coming from, that it came up twice in so few comments?
As weeds become resistant, the applications will continue to get heavier, and as more crops are treated as well, human exposure will skyrocket.
+Bryan May If specific types of GMO food were labelled, it would be much easier for people to reach conclusions like "BT corn doesn't seem to make me sick (yet) but 'Roundup-ready' corn does." (True for me.) There'd be less of the confusion to which you object here. So, help us demand labelling!
+Priscilla King I've had no concern for this topic until recently when I started having allergic reaction to something in my food. I've never been allergic to anything, and allergies decline with age, but allergies re increasing in the U.S.. I had never herd of anyone having food allergies 30 years ago, but now I know quite a few people with allergies and gluten or lactose intolerance. Like most people, I just assumed that eh FDA was there to safeguard our food supply. In fact, it is exactly the opposite, they clearly state that they are there to do nothing at all like that; they are apparently there to give that impression, to whitewash the topic.
My hands and face are swollen at the moment, and my airway was restricted last night. I have kidney pain when I have those other symptoms, so my kidneys may be working hard to filter out a particularly nasty dose of something. I didn't even know until I read it just now that potatoes could absorb glyphosate so well. I eat a ton of potatoes.
The problem, +Priscilla King, is that there have been fake studies released and widely publicized by unethical people that claim Bt corn causes cancer, death, infertility, organ failure and so on:
http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/16/flawed-seralini-gmo-study-back-in-spotlight-as-hastings-center-makes-ethical-stumbles-in-ethics-critique/
+Jeff Sullivan Sorry to hear that! (Gluten and lactose intolerance existed more than fifty years ago, though; they just weren't well documented. A lactose-intolerant friend spent years being tested for everything and only feeling worse before some doctor finally admitted that this White woman had classic symptoms of lactose intolerance…that sort of thing.)
+Bryan May The scarey thing is that even though Bt corn doesn't seem to affect me (yet) it is theoretically likely to build up in the liver and affect people's immunity to who knows what-all. But if it were labelled, we'd be able to know for sure which claims reflected panic or confusion, which were valid, and which–if any–were outright lies.
In case you're wondering–I want the facts about how food affects me, just as +Bryan May does, and I've been as rigorous about this as it's possible to be in the absence of labelling. "Organic" corn and rice, I can still eat. Even one brand of brown rice, I can still eat, but its store-brand equivalent started making me sick last year. That sort of thing.
I'm a total bore and pain-in-the-neck to any friend who tries to share food with me. That's been the price of twenty years of excellent health, after the horror of developing celiac sprue at age thirty. So it's been horrible to lose the control over this genetic disease, and the good health, even while tracking every ingredient in every bite of food I take.
Bt has been used for decades +Priscilla King, and has been determined to not only be safe, but organic. You go into any organic nursery and ask them what you can spray on plants to kill caterpillars, every one of them will hand a bottle of Bt. There have been no reports of anyone dying or getting sick from Bt. It is so incredibly harmless that it doesn't even hurt other insects, beneficial or otherwise in your garden.
Don't worry about Bt. You'll be fine. I've used it for years on my tomato plants with excellent results. To me, the main benefit is not poisoning my family, pets or even beneficial insects that I take great care to cultivate.
As for labeling, a farmer can drench his crops every day with Bt, soak the fruit in Bt, and then transport it in drums full of Bt, and still call it organic without ever washing it. No labeling required. The same could be said for farmers that use organic, but just as dangerous pesticides such pyrethrins or nicotine. Meanwhile, the farmer that grows Bt corn, which would actually have less Bt, if any at all, would have to label his corn Bt corn as "Containing GMO Products", as would everyone he sells it to for corn syrup, corn chips, corn oil, etc. Do you really think that is fair or even accurate?
And again, there has been so much disinformation out there that the well has been poisoned. It's not really fair or ethical to literally spread lies and scare stories about a harmless product and then demand that those products be labeled.
Finally, GMO free does not mean organic. I see products all the time that say "Hormone and GMO Free" that don't carry the hefty price of "Certified Organic". They also tend to sell much better to health conscious consumers even though they still carry a price premium over the standard stuff.
Oh, and celiacs sucks. As someone with a family history of diabetes, I have a small understanding of how hard it is to eat food that is gluten or grain free. Atkins and other low carb diets did wonders for my health. If you avoid carbs, you can be certain to be gluten/grain free. However, that diet is still not for everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair
+Priscilla King I don't have any problem with glucose or lactose intolerance. I'm having an allergic reaction to something in my food. It's more like people who are allergic to bee stings, the reaction can lead to anaphylactic shock and death. I'll be making an appointment to get it diagnosed ASAP.
Some people do develop allergies as adults. One such allergy is to iodine which can make eating seafood or using iodized salt dangerous. As far as the video of supposed myths exposed, it is full of red flags. When they can't even properly pronounce the name of the product they're demonizing or they show a herbicide while talking about pesticide use the red flags start flying. On the subject of glyphosate, it works on plants by disrupting a particular cell pathway. Mammals (including humans) do not have that cellular pathway. In mammals it does not bioaccumulate it is excreted in urine and feces. That said, if one was to ingest a 41% solution death would occur within a few hours. As with most things, even water, it is the dose that makes the poison.
+Bryan May – you repeated this again, as if it were really important. ".. there has been so much disinformation out there that the well has been poisoned. It's not really fair or ethical to literally spread lies and scare stories about a harmless product and then demand that those products be labeled."
Again, this is true, but for only a few cases. What is not fair is that you categorize, nor argue from such an insignificant minority case, and that is what the biasly framed industry argument wants. What you're not seeing (or saying) is that the same thing is true of the agro-chem industry, for all cases. Their talking points have been the same from day one, and are clearly unsubstantiated.
Long before any opposing special interests had even formed, the agro-chem industry had framed the information, and kept real debate from happening. They "poisoned the well" long before anybody had even heard of gmo.
The lack of labeling reflects the industries very well crafted legal defense, which you can see their methodology by examining how they were able to deflect guilt and liability away in the post-agent orange atrocities. You must create plausible deniability, and you can also play 'tag-team' with the US Gov. The Gov claims they "didn't know it was harmful", (where was the science?) while the producers (who led them to believe that) claim "the Gov did not follow instructions".
You can see the same game being played now (and for the last 2 decades) between the Gov / FDA, and Chem producers, with a few small twists. The Gov does not check for safety themselves, so they will be able to say "they didn't know", while the industry will be able to say "this was all legal", or "the body of literature shows no evidence of harm" – which they are responsible for crafting, and flooding with redundancy and inadequacy.
The lack of labeling also is instrumental in preventing scientists from studying the effects of these products on the population. The fact that there are no labels, combined with the fact that there have been no proper scientific studies conducted on the effects on humans, means they are in breach of several ethics laws, that require people who the subjects of experimentation be informed, and give consent. Ironically, they were busted for this in China, home of the free.
This whole thing reflects the standard Corporatocracy business model of privatized profits, and diverting losses to the public . Everyone should question this more.
Your whole point, +Malthus John seems to rest on the idea that GMO foods are not tested. Actually, they are, more than any other product on the market today. First they are tested by the company making them. This is actually the most extensive testing because if a GMO company released a product that killed a single child, the entire industry is done. They have more to lose than anyone. They also pay independent researchers to test their products. Next, there is government tested. And while the FDA may not test these products themselves, they do evaluate the work from independent researchers that do the testing for them. Once it is determined GRAS, it is allowed for public consumption. Now is when the REAL testing begins. This is where anyone can purchase the product and test it themselves. And yes, you can purchase GMO seed, grow it yourself, and perform your very own tests on it. And yes, THE SEED IS LABELED, if nothing else, by the endless slew of legalese trademarks.
As for the poisoned well… well, you believe that GMO products are never tested and are not determined to be safe because it is what you've been told.
+Bryan May – no, that is not my stance. I said tested properly, and defined that in the comment prior to the one you've responded to.
I am fully aware of the testing that is done, and how, and by whom.
Your (the Industry's) argument lies upon this: rats = humans.
Of course we know that to be untrue, but the assumptions that follow from it are equally untrue: that animal studies are good predictors for effects in humans. They are simply not; in fact, they are wrong 70% of the time. This is the simple and logical reason why chemicals called "drugs" are required to ascend the ladder of proof, which ends in human testing.
As I stated above, "There is no scientific reason to test chemical technology leading to medicines consumed by humans with more rigor than the genetic technology leading to food that is consumed by humans (not to mention the environment)." We are dealing with unknowns either way, and we have no where near enough theoretical understanding of the various pertinent topics to predict the outcomes. That is why we test.
I do not get drawn into "proving harm". The burden of proof is with the claimant, as by law, is any and all liability, intentional, knowingly, or not. They will of course, deflect most of the blame to farmers, for 'improper use', if any claims arise. (read about legal precedence in my comment above)
What they've done, completely contrary to scientific principles, is to claim "substantial equivalence" (a term borrowed from regulating machines ). This was done by Economic Development organizations to "promote the new technology", not by scientists who thought the "A = B" argument contained any logic.
Also, I contest your claim that (all gmo's) have been listed as GRAS. I think you will find that if that were true, none of the testing would be required at all. You will find separate categories for "cisgenic" and "transgenic" here, and for obvious reasons, when you apply the question of "has this appeared in nature before?", you will get different answers. This uncovers a bit more about the deception involved with the industry's blurring of the lines between the terms "gmo" and "genetically engineered", which had to be dealt with by regulatory bodies recently. We should not be using the term "GMO" here, it is inapplicable.
And yes, you are right: the bags of seed are clearly labeled. Everyone in the product chain except the end user is aware of what they are buying. Why is that? Is that fair?
What would you consider proper testing +Malthus John? Do you think any of these organizations can perform a proper test? This site has links to hundreds of studies. Are none of them "proper"?
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html
Has the corruption reached academia?
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/
This article uses evidence sprinkled with common sense to the claim that GMO's are not properly tested:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/
And if you're still convinced that none of these tests were "properly" done, why don't you start a crowdfunding project and do your own testing? It really can't be that expensive. All you need to do is purchase some GMO food, send it to a lab for a chemical analysis. When you get the chemical analysis back, compare the results to an organic food product, and research the differences to see if anything is harmful. Honestly, a couple of thousand dollars should do the trick. Just think, you could be the one to blow the lid off this whole GMO thing and take down evil Monsanto:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chancebarnett/2013/05/08/top-10-crowdfunding-sites-for-fundraising/
I do not get drawn into "proving harm". The burden of proof is with the claimant, as by law, is any and all liability, intentional, knowingly, or not.
The claimant has proven that the food is safe. Now it really is up to you to prove your claim that it's not. The argument of "We don't know" is called "argument from ignorance" and it's a fallacy.
+Bryan May The very first point of evidence on that page is the following
– A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are as safe in fact shows nothing of the sort. Instead many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk. The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. – See more on page 102 of this report:
GMO MYTHS AND TRUTHS REPORT
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths#sthash.LsIRJzfK.dpuf
You enthusiastically denounce climate science despite the 97% consensus, why do you think you're on the right side of this topic?
How can you slam Obama on just about anything and everything, yet completely trust Obama's FDA?
You seem to be an enthusiastic Fox News viewer as well. How do you counteract the tendency of Fox to misinform viewers, so that you're not a typical Fox viewer, proven to be less accurately informed than someone who watches no news at all?
Study: Watching Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/01/30/does_watching_fox_news_make_you_less_informed.html
+Bryan May – Seriously? Did you read what I just wrote? (twice!)
It's not "my" view either, it's Science. The procedures for human safety testing stretch back for many, many decades. Profiteers altered this with BS, and whines of inconvenience, just for these new products.
"The claimant has proven that the food is safe." Yes they have. For rats. Good for them! Step one is finished (with alarming redundancy), now kick them in the ass & let's get this finished! Maybe Primates next? That's pretty standard.
Testing is not just analysis of constituents. Nor is it only "do these plants grow and result in the intended way?". The complex relationship between living organisms must be studied on very large scale, and a controlled basis. They cut corners on this, and it's time to call them onto the carpet. Finish what they started. Testing on animals (called pre-clinical) is done first to lower the risk of the initial Phase 1 testing on humans. It is not a method to directly establish human safety.
Then you do Phase 2, 3, and 4. Then you have taken the necessary steps to claim "it's safe for humans", and "the benefits outweigh the risks".
Here it is for the 3rd time: "There is no scientific reason to test chemical technology leading to medicines consumed by humans with more rigor than the genetic technology leading to food that is consumed by humans (not to mention the environment)." We are dealing with unknowns either way, and we have no where near enough theoretical understanding of the various pertinent topics to predict the outcomes. That is why we test.
If you have no scientific argument to refute this, maybe it's time you changed your beliefs? We've heard the economic argument: "oh, but that takes time and costs money, isn't there a way around this, <wink>".
+Jeff Sullivan
The entire credibility of the page and book was ruined by this:
_ A rat feeding study led by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, which found toxic effects from a GM maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, was retracted by a journal editor for unscientific reasons. Yet the study is far stronger and more detailed than many industry studies that are accepted as proof of safety for GMOs. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had to reject the study in order to protect its own previous opinions on this and other GMOs, for reasons explained in the report. The findings of this study, if confirmed, would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate and Roundup. (pp. 94, 147)_
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini's "study" has been thoroughly debunked and is the gold standard example for a lack of ethics. Not only was the study completely funded by groups like GreenPeace and other anti-GMO groups, but the released coincidentally happened at the same time as Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini's book.
Sorry, but anyone who uses Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini's "study" as an example of the dangers of GMO products is not only an unethical liar, but too incompetent to even consider as a valid source.
+Malthus John
"The claimant has proven that the food is safe." Yes they have. For rats. Good for them! Step one is finished (with alarming redundancy), now kick them in the ass & let's get this finished! Maybe Primates next? That's pretty standard.
No. They put the product in a blender and tested the mush for it's chemical composition. Nothing harmful was found. That's a valid, proper study. What more do you want? The dairy farm down the street just purchased a new cow. How do you know the milk from that cow is safe to drink? Do you test on rats, then primates, then finally a 20 year controlled double-blind study on human volunteers? No! You analyze the milk looking for dangerous compounds. If none are found, the milk is safe. It's really that simple.
+Bryan May As noted, the study was rejected by the EFSA, which has a conflict of interest in the situation:
Europe’s pesticide and food safety regulators – Who do they work for?http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/europes-pesticide-and-food-safety-regulators-who-do-they-work-for#sthash.to7GvEyh.dpuf
That's discussed in the 331-page report referenced, but you won't download it, because it debunks the supposed debunkings of its original edition.
Authoritarians, Altemeyer concludes, “maintain their beliefs against challenges by limiting their experiences, and surrounding themselves with sources of information that will tell them they are right.”
The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers Are the Most Misinformed
Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape factual challenges to their beliefs.
http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed
+Steve Hosford Sure, but some people developing allergies as adults fails to explain the rising allergy rates. Did you read the original post above? It included this link.
Pesticides In Tap Water Responsible For Food Allergy Increase
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253513.php
"Our research shows that high levels of dichlorophenol-containing pesticides can possibly weaken food tolerance in some people, causing food allergy. This chemical is commonly found in pesticides used by farmers and consumer insect and weed control products, as well as tap water."
Data of 10,438 people from the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006 was analyzed for purpose of the study. Dichlorophenols was found in the urine of 2,548 subjects, but 2,211 were further observed.
Results showed that 411 of the 2,211 analyzed had a food allergy, and 1,016 had an environmental allergy.
"Previous studies have shown that both food allergies and environmental pollution are increasing in the United States. The results of our study suggest these two trends might be linked, and that increased use of pesticides and other chemicals is associated with a higher prevalence of food allergies."
—
I'm not following your reference to a 41% solution, 6000 parts per million, the glyphosate dose proposed as perfectly legal for potatoes, and greater than the doses which proved problematic for mice, is a .006 or 0.6% solution, and it's over 6000 times higher than the allowed standard for drinking water contamination in the U.S. and Europe. (both under 1 part per million).
Former pro-GMO Agriculture Canada researcher and advocate Thierry Vrain paints a very different picture than you do, pointing to hundreds of studies as reason for concern, as he explains here:
"I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc … This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public."
"GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds. Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans. Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement."
GMO MYTHS AND TRUTHS REPORT
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths#sthash.LsIRJzfK.dpuf
– A review purportedly showing that GM foods are safe on the basis of long-term animal studies in fact shows evidence of risk and uses unscientific double standards to reach a conclusion that is not justified by the data. (p. 161)
– A laboratory study in human cells shows that very low levels of glyphosate (the main chemical ingredient of Roundup herbicide, which most GM crops are engineered to tolerate) mimicked the hormone estrogen and stimulated the growth of breast cancer cells. The level of glyphosate that had this effect was below the level allowed in drinking water in Europe and far below the level allowed in the USA. It was also below the level found in GM glyphosate-tolerant soy, which is imported into Europe for animal feed and human food. If confirmed in animal studies, this finding would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate. (p. 221)
– A rat feeding study led by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, which found toxic effects from a GM maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, was retracted by a journal editor for unscientific reasons. Yet the study is far stronger and more detailed than many industry studies that are accepted as proof of safety for GMOs. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had to reject the study in order to protect its own previous opinions on this and other GMOs, for reasons explained in the report. The findings of this study, if confirmed, would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate and Roundup. (pp. 94, 147)
– See more at: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths#sthash.LsIRJzfK.dpuf
Sorry +Bryan May , that is exactly how it's done, as I explained to you quite thoroughly.
Altering genetics, and playing with evolution, mutation, health, etc. is not the same as "chemical composition", where we simply identify the already known. You would throw a computer in a blender, and expect to be able to sift through it and find errors in the code? Please!
Transgenic technology is inherently unknown and that is why their extraordinary claims must be backed by extraordinary evidence. Sure, it's too late to do it in the right order, but it still needs to be done. At least now, they already have their extraordinary profits in hand, and can easily pay for it.
They've spent more on anti-lableing propaganda than they would have to do to establish human safety according to the scientific method. They've also had 20 years to do it. I feel zero sympathy for the position they've put themselves in. Actions… consequences, right?
+Malthus John Good point. That is odd, if the increased consumption of glyphosate due to GMO crops were safe, why would chemical companies specifically avoid human trials for 20 years, spend millions lobbying Congress to gain special intellectual property protection which prevents tests, as well as millions more to fight labeling? It doesn't seem to make any logical sense at all as a business strategy, unless there are doubts regarding how a human trial may turn out.
+Malthus John
You would throw a computer in a blender, and expect to be able to sift through it and find errors in the code? Please!
Nope! I would analyze the output, which is exactly what we're talking about here.
is not the same as "chemical composition"
Again, chemical composition is the output. I don't care if they put the genes of a rattlesnake in my banana, as long as the banana doesn't become venomous. And if the banana, in this case, is not venomous, what's the problem?
And yes, it is all about "chemical composition". That's exactly what everything around you is. If there are no harmful chemicals in it, it's not harmful. Provided it doesn't have spikes sticking out of it or you don't have an allergy to whatever it is, it's not going to hurt you to eat it.
Transgenic technology is inherently unknown
It's well known. Just because YOU don't know does not mean it's unknown. Do you want to know? Go buy an ear of corn and study it. BAM! Now you know.
I think this is the root of the problem. You are convinced that GMO food is the result of some type of voodoo magic. It's not. It's a real world scientific process. Is it possible that something bad may be created? Absolutely. But that's why they put the ear in the blender and test the output. If they find rattlesnake venom in the corn, they know not to release that product and go back to the drawing board.
They've spent more on anti-lableing propaganda than they would have to do to establish human safety according to the scientific method.
But they've already spent what was needed to prove human safety. Then other groups spent even more trying to disprove human safety and they all failed. every. single. one. of. them. But again, it's not that hard to do a study to see what's in GMO foods.
However, we may not know the long term effects of, say, round up, but round up is not a GMO product. If you think round up is dangerous, work to get round up banned. But that has nothing to do with GMO products like Golden Rice or Bt corn.
+Bryan May BT is a disease germ to which most humans are immune. Some people will ask for it and pay for it as a human-safe pesticide. Some of those people would probably be willing to buy corn with DNA from BT spliced into it, if that corn were so labelled, and if it were also cheap and fresh. The more people saw other people eating BT corn and surviving, the most people would buy it. I have read credible claims that there may be limits on some humans' tolerance for BT. Some people would probably want to test those limits. So, no, I don't think labelling GMO products with a precise description of what makes each one special would necessarily do the farmers much harm…although it would probably boost profits for those who take the trouble to grow smaller, more labor-intensive crops of "all-natural heirloom" foods.
+Priscilla King
I have read credible claims that there may be limits on some humans' tolerance for BT.
Odd that those reports come out now that Bt is in a GMO food. It's not like Bt products have been on the market for well over 20 years or anything. What are the odds the very people who spent the past 20 years claiming that Bt was the greatest thing since agriculture are all of a sudden claiming that it's getting people sick?
it would probably boost profits for those who take the trouble to grow smaller, more labor-intensive crops of "all-natural heirloom" foods.
I see Cherokee Purple tomatoes at my local grocer. They cost about $5.00 each. I don't think their profits can be boosted any more than they already are. Frankly, I prefer to grow my own Cherokee Purple tomatoes. I can usually pull in about 100 lbs a season, which is much more than I can possibly eat (I can a lot)
+Bryan May so now you're arguing with my choice of words in an analogy. Great.
The point is simple: the scales involved, and the very theories that exist to explain these things are totally different. It's like you're claiming to study quantum mechanics with your iphone's zoom lens. "It's all pixels", you say. It's a sophomoric argument that is easily dismissed.
This has nothing to do with my knowledge, or lack of it. Pay attention to the argument at hand, please.
Genetics is still in its infancy, and there are more questions than answers. Recent findings have shown that several fundamental ideas we had were totally wrong, and/or incomplete. Most of these crops we're talking about either have not been, or have just recently been sequenced. Absolutely no predictions can be made based on our existing theories.
The same along the lines for lateral gene transfer, which simply does not exist in standard hereditary science, and evolution. Technology is advancing more by trial & error than by accurate predictions from theory. That is why I said the we're dealing with "inherent unknowns".
You can of course, also find those words verbatim in any published paper that addresses this issue over the last 2 decades. Again, not me/my words – but Science. It's well known to anyone who has researched it.
And again, nothing has been done as to human clinical trials. You're beating a dead horse. Asking me to do it is a distraction.
+Bryan May It's not been all that sudden…I first found a claim that BT might have aggravated someone's liver problems during a quick Google search in 2007. And some left-wing friends of a friend were opposing GMOs in the 1990s, before most of us were convinced that genes were really being spliced. As with food intolerance in the 1950s, the story just wasn't big enough to be widely reported.
He is cary Virginia uhler Vic