Posted on 09/23/2013 5:34:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
The left is in a frenzy over the American agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto and other agribusinesses that tinker with crop genetics. Is there any truth to their scare stories asserting that we’re being poisoned with “Frankenfood,” breeding new strains of superbugs and superpests?
Genetically modified crops, known as GMOs (genetically modified organisms), have been used by American farmers since the mid-1990s in order to increase crop yields and reduce the use of pesticides. The FDA has approved their use. Today, 70-80 percent of grocery products in the U.S. include genetically engineered ingredients. In contrast, only 5 percent of the food sold in Europe contains GMOs, due to governmental restrictions.
According to opponents of GMOs, “The concern is that genetic modification alters the proteins in foods in ways that researchers do not yet fully understand. Substances that have never existed before in nature are entering our food supply untested.” In addition to ingesting modified food, people are eating livestock that has been fed GMOs. Food sensitivities, allergies and other health problems have been increasing in recent years, and opponents claim it is due to GMOs. Where the science gets murky is whether this correlation is true.
Efforts are being made by the left to pass laws requiring the labeling of GMOs. In Washington state, Initiative 522 would require fruits, vegetables and grain-based products to be labeled, but exempts meat and dairy products from animals fed genetically engineered grains. Monsanto has contributed $4.6 million to defeat I-522, and opponents are outspending proponents by more than three to one. A similar initiative lost in California last year, where opponents including agribusiness and major food manufacturers outspent proponents almost five to one. Initiatives have passed in Connecticut and Maine, and legislation is pending in 20 states.
I-522 opponents cite estimates by the state’s Office of Financial Management computing that the average family’s food bill would rise $490 a year if it passes. The liberal Seattle Times editorialized against the initiative, pointing out that consumers already have the option of buying organic foods, and many companies already choose to self-label. Dan Newhouse, a former director of the Washington Department of Agriculture, says the bill is poorly written, containing confusing and absurd requirements.
The website junkscience.com says labeling genetically modified food would put a stigma on it. “The very act of labeling suggests to consumers there’s something potentially risky about X – if you don’t believe it try giving away bottles of water labeled ‘Contains DiHydrogen Monoxide’ and see what reactions you get.”
There is some scientific approval of GMOs. The American Medical Association has come out against labeling GMOs, declaring, “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.” UCLA professor Bob Goldberg, a molecular biologist and a member of the National Academy of Science, asserts, “Bioengineered crops are the safest crops in the world. We’ve been testing them for 40 years. They’re like the Model T Ford. There is not one credible scientist working on this that would call it unsafe.” One prominent environmentalist activist, Mark Lynas, recently switched his position on GMOs, coming out in support of them.
The problem with GMOs is there hasn’t been scientific testing done on human subjects - and both sides of the debate are using this to their advantage. Rats given massive doses of GMOs had adverse reactions. Female rats lost their babies at a high rate, gave birth to fewer and smaller babies, and the testicles of male rats changed color. A study of buffaloes in India that were fed GMOs produced similar results. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine warned, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation.”
The problem with studies like these is the dosages of food given the animals is forced and unrealistic. There have been reports of humans becoming sick who live in close proximity to GMO-producing farms. Yet these stories are anecdotal evidence and not rigorous scientific studies.
The most controversial aspect of GMOs involves the modification of crops beyond just hybrids. The latest modification added an actual pesticide component to food. A built-in pesticide was added within the cellular structure of corn, a gene copied from the insect-killing bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. It eliminates the need to spray the corn with pesticides. This prompted concerns about humans ingesting food containing a built-in pesticide.
One study found that this pesticide-enhanced corn is causing problems for some crops in Illinois. Michael Gray, a professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois, observed that rootworms are growing more resistant to the genetically modified corn - despite the fact that the corn was modified to resist the rootworms. Previously, farmers rotated corn crops with soybean crops, since rootworms would not infest the soybeans. Since the modified corn was introduced, rootworms are now being found in the soybean fields too, destroying both kinds of crops. Some farmers are reluctant to reject the modified corn, however, because generally it helps reduce pesticide use.
There is a lawsuit in place currently against Monsanto by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), a group of 73 American organic and conventional family farmers, public advocacy groups and seed businesses. They are accusing Monsanto’s genetically-engineered seed of contaminating neighboring non-GMO farms via wind-borne pollen and insects.
Monsanto spends millions lobbying Congress and the Department of Agriculture. A Monsanto attorney, Michael Taylor, has spent the last few decades revolving between Monsanto and government jobs with the FDA and the USDA, where he directed much of those agencies’ policies on GMOs. To the casual observer, this would appear to be a clear conflict of interest. This is typical of the Obama administration, known for its revolving door between the big banks and Obama’s cabinet.
Republicans better not be in the pockets of big agricultural business. While onerous regulations are not the answer to murky science, sweeping everything under the rug isn’t either. Many of those speaking out in defense of GMOs come directly from the GMO industry, lowering their credibility. Unfortunately, most Republicans have little interest in investigating GMOs, since the hysterical left is leading the opposition to them, straining credibility.
Americans are getting sicker than people in other high-income countries. Until there are rigorous scientific studies performed on human subjects, both sides should tread carefully in this area. Since “you are what you eat,” consumers who believe that GMOs present a threat to their health should put their money where their mouth is and buy food from businesses like Whole Foods which label food or provide organic food. And don’t force everyone else to.
“Monsanto must be held responsible.”
Then file a lawsuit. Oh, but then you’d have to actually be able to demonstrate that they did you harm. Good luck with that.
The problem is not the development of GMO’s. the problem is with the application, just as the problem with antibiotics is with their over prescription and misuse. There’s plenty of evidence that natural selection breeds superbugs and superpests....
Few people object to buying pasteurized milk, and yet pasteurized milk is clearly labeled as such. If GMO was such a benign and forward-looking technology they would be proud to label GMO food.
This is a classic example of crony capitalism, which is the opposite of the free market.
Farmers haven’t planted open pollinated corn for generations.
“This sounds awfully like the anti-fracking nonsense.”
Bingo. When the left gets this upset about something, you can be sure there is another agenda below the surface that they don’t want to talk about. With fracking, they really want to stop us from finding new sources of fuel, because they don’t want a strong, energy independent America.
With the anti-GMO hysteria, the left is trying to minimize our food production, to both weaken us, and to reduce the world food supply as a backdoor to population control.
It’s not just leftists who hate Monsanto. Monsanto is deep in government pockets and is on its way to controlling food sources. Control the means of food production and you control the people. Get your heirloom seeds while you still can.
Stalin would have loved Monsanto,
“Monsanto is absolutely sinister.”
Geez, you even sound like a leftist now.
So you want the FDA to do what? Ban food that isn’t known to be harmful because you think it might be?
You've bought the leftist agitprop hook, line and sinker. Only an anti-capitalist could think that a company wants to force its customers out of business.
They want the land and don't want the competition..
Monsanto wants the land? That's nuts. Most family farms use commercial seed, and even if it isn't GMO, it is hybridized. Monsanto is the biggest in the industry because they provide products that farmers willingly purchase because they find value in it.
They regularly sue these farms for "illegally using Monsanto crops".
Regularly? Really? Monsanto has more than a quarter million customer who sign purchase agreements with Monsanto every year. Over the last 12 years, there have been less than 150 legal actions between Monsanto and their contracted customers. Of those, only about 10 have ever been required a trial for resolution. For a company of that size, with hundreds of thousands of contracts, to only have about 12 legal actions a year is pretty damn low. Those are not the kinds of numbers a rational person would describe as "regularly."
I prefers God's genetic structure in my food and should have the choice regarding what I eat.
Just about everything you eat these days has been genetically modified. If you only ate what was originally found on earth, you'd probably starve. No one is forcing you to do anything. You can find non-GMO labeled food if you want to find it. If this is such a big issue, then the market will deliver options for you without you demanding big government force the market to provide it for you. That is, unless you want government to have even more power over industry......
There really isn't any difference. One just gets you there faster than the other.
Hybrids are created everyday in nature.
Natural grafting occurs, that is true. However, there are all kinds of problems that can come from it. Grafting of plants by humans, on the other hand, is responsible for most of the varieties of food you enjoy today. Furthermore, it was human inspired genetic modification that was responsible for the Green Revolution that saved more than a billion people from starvation. The hybrid plants that saved so many people, mostly children, from the horror of death by starvation would have never been possible from people like you. And you call others ignorant....?
Utter and complete nonsense. The food industry is massive, and it is one of the most fragmented industries in the world. It's Hollywood nonsense (The Omen) to think that one company is going to control food production/sources.
And you think that is a good argument for “GMOs magically make you fat”?
No, I don’t. I didn’t make it as such.
All I refuted was the fallacious argument that that couldn’t be so because weight is strictly a function of calories in versus calories expended.
Have you see the predictions for the world's population by 2050? Even if you accept the lowest estimates, agricultural productivity will have to rise 60% by then to feed all of these people. That is roughly double the output possible with current farming technology.
What's your solution? Victory gardens? You'd better hope bio-science continues to advance. Luddites starve.
Yes, metabolism impacts calories burned. It doesn't exempt you from the (energy in)-(energy out) equation.
Grafting and hybridization are two different things.
How many more years do you have left at monsanto before you can retire?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.