Genetically Enhanced Food

[Addy]

Faster, more efficiently grown but is it safe for us to eat & does it have potentially bad consequences for the environment?

*****
Pivotal moment hit in battle over genetically enhanced food

By Ben Goad and Julian Hattem - 05/18/13 11:17 AM ET
The decades-old fight over genetically modified food has reached a fever pitch in Washington.

The Obama administration and Congress are weighing the safety of technological advances that seem ripped from science fiction, including salmon that can grow to full size in half the normal time and strains of crops engineered to resist powerful herbicides.

Critics of these innovations warn that they could pose threats to public health, damage the environment or, in the salmon’s case, lead to the destruction of species when gene-splicing goes wrong.

Proponents argue that genetic engineering is perfectly safe and say it’s critical to providing a sufficient food supply for the world’s ever-growing population.
Rest of story here: http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/energyenvironment/300555-pivotal-moment-reached-in-battle-over-genetically-enhanced-food-

 

[Addy]

I like knowing what I am eating, drinking, etc. and think foods should be labeled.. re: lead in foods wouldn't be something I would knowingly consume.. Just finished reading an interesting article on Green Tea.. I drink Green Tea.. not sure now -- if the type I have been drinking is lead free.. depends apparently on what country the Green Tea came from.. Green Tea made from Asian Tea leaves is apparently the safest and the best.

Back to the first link and topic.. here is some of the read..

As they await the FDA’s decision, industry groups are smarting from a U.S. Agriculture Department’s (USDA) announcement that it would need additional environmental studies for crops genetically modified to be resistant to two weed-killers.

For years, farmers have planted herbicide resistant or “Roundup ready” corn, cotton and soybeans, which allow farmers to spray their fields for weeds.

But the crops have led to stronger “super weeds,” leading chemical and agricultural companies Dow and Monsanto to produce new herbicide resistant plants that the USDA has concluded need to be studied before approval.

Public interest groups cheered the increased scrutiny, but industry organizations said the delays involved would be a blow to the companies who developed the new strains as well as for farmers who have grown to rely on them.

While the Obama administration is taking executive action on multiple fronts, it has been careful not to take sides in the broader debate over the merits of genetically enhanced crops.

“Some people want you to pick sides,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told The Hill. “I'd rather do the tougher job: trying to bring sides together. That’s what I'm going to focus on."

 

[ARMCX1]

Last November there was a citizens initiative (Prop37) in California about truth in food labeling -- particularly with respect to notifying consumers of the presence of GMOs. It appeared headed for an easy victory until about 3-4 weeks before the election. Make a long story short, Prop37 got carpet bombed by misleading and false ads that changed the polling from an easy victory to a defeat (53% No; 47% Yes).

When it was all said and done, mostly out of state money (Monsanto; Hershey, others) spent ~$44 million while supporters spent ~$7.3 million.

If California had passed Prop 37, it would have been the first state in the U.S. to pass GMO labeling legislation. China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, countries in the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, India and Chile are just a few of the nations that already require GMO foods to be labeled.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html

 

[Addy]

Slow learners apparently here in the US.

Too bad, big money won the election there regarding (Prop37).


Thanks for the link, ARM..

 

[ARMCX1]

Maybe this will help clear things up?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/25/global-protests-monsanto/2361007/

 

[Addy]

By 2018 -- all Whole foods will be labeled.. according to the read..

I would like to read the link by the FDA specifically stating there is no difference in genetically modified food and organic.
My original link states, The FDA has not yet approved the newer and stronger herbicides for weed control -- since the older types of herbicides have grown resistant to weed control.
Your link was very informative -- thanks, ARM.

 

[Addy]

Okay.. I found this comment.. apparently qualifies as an endorsement from FDA on food quality & safety re: difference in GMO & organically grown.

***
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group that represents Monsanto, DuPont & Co. and other makers of genetically modified seeds, has said that it supports voluntary labeling for people who seek out such products.

But it says that mandatory labeling would only mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe, even though the FDA has said there's no difference between GMO and organic, non-GMO foods.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/05/international_protests_take_pl.html

 

[ARMCX1]

Here's another interesting GMO story.

In this case, GMO wheat was found growing in Oregon. The GMO wheat is from tests Monsanto conducted in Oregon and terminated in 2005 because world markets refused to accept GMO wheat cultivation and the use of GMO wheat.

An Oregon farmer noticed some of the wheat he planted was Round Up Ready resistant. Genetic tests confirmed that the what was one of Monsanto's test strains.

Two points come to mind.

One is the persistence of GMO wheat in the environment long after the experiment had been terminated and allegedly all GMO plants destroyed. These GMO arose 8 years after the end of the test.

The second point is that the rejection of GMO wheat cultivation and produce by the world markets underlies Monsanto's fears and opposition to labeling food. Monsanto fears that labeling its products as containing GMO will lead to market boycotts. Monsanto accuses its critics of fear mongering if those critics demand accurate labeling of foods.

It's a Catch 22 for Monsanto. GMOs are not harmful according to Monsanto but consumers don't buy foods labeled as GMO out of fear of the use of the product.

Rather than hiding behind an argument that fear-mongering is reason enough to oppose accurate labeling, it seems that Monsanto and other GMO producers have done a poor job of educating consumers why GMO products are not harmful.

In order to do so, Monsanto would need to release the studies it submitted to the FDA, Agriculture and EPA that demonstrated that GMOs were safe for human consumption and served as the basis for permitting the use of GMOs.

It's an odd, indirect and ineffective defense of GMOs to insist all is well with GMOs but labeling foods as GMO is fear mongering because consumers are not convinced. After all, Monsanto has the studies that convinced the FDA, Agriculture and EPA that GMOs are safe.

The question is why would Monsanto prefer to make its anti-labeling fight one about fear mongering rather than one about truth telling the safety record of GMOs?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/usa-wheat-search-idUSL2N0EC0HB20130531?feedType=RSS&feedName=basicMaterialsSector&rpc=43

 

[Addy]

Monsanto controls all of the studies apparently, part of the agreement from several years back.. No other scientist or researchers are allowed to have access to study the genetically altered seeds..
******
The only research which is permitted to be published in reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals are studies which have been pre-approved by Monsanto and the other industry GMO firms.

The entire process by which GMO seeds have been approved in the United States, beginning with the proclamation by then President George H.W. Bush in 1992, on request of Monsanto, that no special Government tests of safety for GMO seeds would be conducted because they were deemed by the President to be “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO seeds, has been riddled with special interest corruption.
Former attorneys for Monsanto were appointed responsible in EPA and FDA for rules governing GMO seeds as but one example and no Government tests of GMO seed safety to date have been carried out. All tests are provided to the US Government on GMO safety or performance by the companies themselves such as Monsanto. Little wonder that GMO sounds to positive and that Monsanto and others can falsely claim GMO is the “solution to world hunger.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570

 

[Havelock]

All tests are provided to the US Government on GMO safety or performance by the companies themselves such as Monsanto.

Not to quibble, but the federal government does very little safety or performance testing on any food or drug product. Almost all such test data is generated by the companies themselves -- usually via contracted research projects -- and submitted to federal regulators for review.

Cheers.

 

[ARMCX1]

Not to quibble, but the federal government does very little safety or performance testing on any food or drug product. Almost all such test data is generated by the companies themselves -- usually via contracted research projects -- and submitted to federal regulators for review.

Cheers.

Yes, that pretty much sums up the situation.

The study data exists but it's not publicly accessible. That's a problem for those who actually want to take a look at the studies that are the basis for the approval of GMOs.

And, it's a problem for the GMO industry because the companies insistence upon proprietary restrictions to information fuels the controversy over the safety of GMOs. Proprietary restrictions are nonsense since any competitor would simply buy the GMO product, isolate the genomic DNA and sequence the trans genes that provide resistance to Round Up or produce pesticides.

The fact that the corporate interests don't want to publicize the data suggests they are not confident the studies would put the issues to rest. From my perspective, it's likely that the studies most glaring weakness is that they were probably short term studies that won't detect potential effects of long term environmental exposure and consumption of GMOs. So, they'd rather fight critics on the grounds that critics are fear-mongering than make the data public for scrutiny.

 

[Addy]

Not to quibble, but the federal government does very little safety or performance testing on any food or drug product. Almost all such test data is generated by the companies themselves -- usually via contracted research projects -- and submitted to federal regulators for review.

Cheers.

That's the worst conflict of interest imaginable.. I agree, Havelock..
This type of unfair so called monitoring & regulations is an absolute farce!

 

[NightSwimmer]

That's the worst conflict of interest imaginable.. I agree, Havelock..
This type of unfair so called monitoring & regulations is an absolute farce!

Funny, I didn't read that much into Havelock's comment.

 

[Addy]

Funny, I didn't read that much into Havelock's comment.

From Havelock's comment:

[QUOTE]Almost all such test data is generated by the companies themselves -- usually via contracted research projects -- and submitted to federal regulators for review.[/QUOTE]

Apparently I am reading something into it.. & I am not the only one.. What federal regulators?

Although,, he wasn't agreeing with my comments -- I got it.. as he started out his sentence not to quibble.. etc..

 

[NightSwimmer]

From Havelock's comment:

[QUOTE]Almost all such test data is generated by the companies themselves -- usually via contracted research projects -- and submitted to federal regulators for review.

Apparently I am reading something into it.. & I am not the only one.. What federal regulators?

Although,, he wasn't agreeing with my comments -- I got it.. as he started out his sentence not to quibble.. etc..[/quote]

The Food and Drug Administration.

 

[Addy]

Apparently I am reading something into it.. & I am not the only one.. What federal regulators?

Although,, he wasn't agreeing with my comments -- I got it.. as he started out his sentence not to quibble.. etc..

The Food and Drug Administration.[/quote]

NS.. I have searched for a very specific link stating the FDA has approved GMO products.. found only a small mention in one article.
Do you have specific link, please show it to me.. ?

 

[NightSwimmer]

The Food and Drug Administration.

NS.. I have searched for a very specific link stating the FDA has approved GMO products.. found only a small mention in one article.
Do you have specific link, please show it to me.. ?[/quote]

No, I have no link. I was simply answering your question. The federal regulators in question are, in this case, the FDA.

 

[Addy]

NS.. I have searched for a very specific link stating the FDA has approved GMO products.. found only a small mention in one article.
Do you have specific link, please show it to me.. ?

No, I have no link. I was simply answering your question. The federal regulators in question are, in this case, the FDA.[/quote]

Thanks. NS! BTW.. I know the definition of federal regulators.. lol

 

[ARMCX1]

The study data that was submitted to the regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA, USDA) exists but it's not publicly available. Most likely, the release of the studies would provoke more questions than they answer because they are likely to be short term studies that wouldn't detect the appearance of GMOs in non-GMO fields (cross pollination, seed contamination, gene flow) or the longer term consequences of growing and consuming GMOs.

Anyway, that's my take.

 

[Addy]

The study data that was submitted to the regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA, USDA) exists but it's not publicly available. Most likely, the release of the studies would provoke more questions than they answer because they are likely to be short term studies that wouldn't detect the appearance of GMOs in non-GMO fields (cross pollination, seed contamination, gene flow) or the longer term consequences of growing and consuming GMOs.

Anyway, that's my take.

Thanks for your input.. as always, ARM