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/
This was one of those "stop the car" moments. Snowy Telescope Peak had nice side…
The Geminids are the most active meteor shower of the year, and in recent years…
I was asked this question earlier today, and the more I thought of it, the…
So called "super bloom" years make it easy to find wildflowers in Death Valley, but…
We've reached a major milestone on our workshop program: we celebrated completing ten years of…
Spring 2022 is shaping up to be a very busy year in Death Valley, like…
This website uses cookies.
View 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.