So what is the rationale for not labeling foods for human consumption grown or raised with GMOs? In short, the following are four objections or rationales that GMO proponents hold in objecting to GMO labeling:
1) there is no valid scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful to human health
(2) GMO crops make better use of limited resources
(3) labeling would result in widespread panic
(4) labeling would raise the expense of food for growers and consumers
I will respond to each of these claims.
Rationale 1. Those promoting GMOs claim that there is no scientific evidence that GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are harmful to human health.
My Response. Since I am not a scientist, there is nothing to be gained from trying to argue this point. The scientist is always going to sound more convincing than the non-scientist. What I question is the claim that GMOs (even those not developed yet) have no negative effects on human health. Period. This is not a valid scientific nor logical statement. True science postulates theories. When most scientists agree with a theory based on the presented physical evidence, the theory is considered to be valid based on the present available data. A scientific theory is never considered immutable or unchangeable for the rest of time. Why? Because new valid data may be uncovered in the future which might contradict the present available data. When that happens, what was considered a valid scientific theory is invalidated. For example, at one time the planet Earth was theorized to be flat. When evidence was presented that the world was actually round, the Flat Earth theory was invalidated.
In the 1940's, DDT was considered the best thing since buttered toast. Less than 40 years later its use was banned in this country due to a public outcry that saved the Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon from extinction.
Pre-1960 theory: Artificial food colorings derived from coal tar are inert substances that will not interact with physical bodies. Red Dye #1 was banned in 1960 as a suspected carcinogen.
Based on scientific testing, it was theorized that the following prescription drugs were safe for general use: MERIDIA (banned 2010), ZELNOAM (banned 2007), TEQUIN (banned 2006), BEXTRA (banned 2005), VIOXX (banned 2004), BAYCOL (banned 2001), PROPOLSIA (banned 2000), REZULIN (banned 2000), RAXAR (banned 1999), REDUX (banned 1997), AVANDIA (use restricted 2010). These are the marketed drugs deemed unsafe for unrestricted use from just 1997-2010 by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Scientists theorizing that a chemical or biological agent is safe for human consumption, won't prevent that agent from harming you. The same is true of GMOs.
The claim that GMOs are perfectly harmless is based on the available scientific research published in scientific journals. Can that published GMO research be trusted? An article in the August, 2009 issue of Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/) questions the objectivity of published GMO research.
This peer-reviewed published research approved by the seed companies as well as research from the companies' own scientists is what the FDA uses to determine if GMOs are safe. Who in the FDA makes those determinations? Check out the article at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422.
It documents the various high-ranking Monsanto employees that have been appointed to positions of responsibility in the FDA and the Department of Agriculture by Presidents Clinton and Obama.
One example is described by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/). Margaret Miller, a Monsanto researcher, contributed to a research report on a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone for the FDA. Shortly before the report was submitted to the FDA, Miller was hired by the FDA. Her first job was to review the same report. The artificial hormone was subsequently approved by the FDA. The FDA official who decided milk produced from cows given the hormone would not have to be labeled was a former Monsanto lawyer.
In an article entitled "Critics Slam Obama For 'Protecting' Monsanto" by CBS News (March 28, 2013) (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/critics-slam-obama-for-protecting-monsanto/), it was reported that a provision was surreptitiously included in a 2013 budget bill which "protects genetically modified seeds from litigation suits over health risks posed by the crops' consumption." That should have read "protects the manufacturer" (one of which is Monsanto). If Monsanto is so convinced that GMOs are safe, I can't help wondering why they would be worried about losing law suits. In their defense, it is costly even for a multi-billion dollar international corporation to defend itself in court. On the other hand, I can't imagine Congress taking away the right of American citizens to sue car companies that decide to suppress information about safety defects rather than issuing prompt recalls.
For some problems there is a scientific solution. There is also a sensible solution. They aren't always the same. Richard Geiger
Rationale 2. The GMO backers claim that Genetically Modified crops make better use of the limited resources of land, water and fertilizer.
My Response: In fact, all physical resources on the planet are limited. The intended implication is that there is not enough land, water and fertilizer to feed everyone on the planet. But actually, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/), "one third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally." That amounts to 1.3 billion tons annually. On October 21, 2013 the FAO Director-General Jose' Grozianoda Silva said, "If we reduce food loss and waste to zero it would give us additional food to feed two billion people." According to FAO 1.15 billion of the earth's people were undernourished from 2011-2013. So, if all food loss and waste were prevented, there would be more than enough food produced to feed everyone. It follows that there must be enough land, water and fertilizer to produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem of undernourishment is not due to limited resources. It is due to other factors involving distribution, preservation, pricing, etc.
There would be more arable (suitable for planting) land, particularly in this country, if the same class that is making millions from GMOs had not made millions more by constructing shopping malls and housing projects on perfectly fertile farm land all over this country. (According to American Farmland Trust at www.farmland.org/resources/fote/ between 1982 and 2007, 45,404,300 acres of U.S. agricultural land was converted to developed uses.)
There would be more fresh water if everyone would stop wasting it. There would be more water available for agriculture in North America if 90% of the wetlands in the U.S. and Canada had not been drained and converted to other uses (source - FAO). The drought conditions we are experiencing world-wide is probably the result of the increased rate of global warming. The increased rate of Global Warming (climate change) is due mostly to the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). Instead of building oil pipelines all over the country, perhaps we should build water pipelines between areas of the country that are prone to flooding and those areas stricken with drought. It would happen if someone could figure out how to make millions in profit from doing it. According to the U.N. (www.unep.org/wed/2013/quickfacts/) the U.S. throws away 30% of all the food it produces. The largest human use of water is agriculture. An estimated 50% of the water used to produce this wasted food is itself wasted.
Human produced chemical fertilizers would not be necessary if we did not throw so much yard waste/nutrient-rich food/food waste/animal and human waste into landfills instead of converting it to fertilizer. If the population continues to increase, there may indeed be resource shortages. If GMOs are perfectly safe and cheap and good for the environment, fewer people will die from starvation. The more people that survive to child-bearing age, the faster the world population will increase. Feeding the hungry does not solve the other problems resulting from overpopulation.
The big agrochemical companies also claim that GMOs decrease the need for pesticides. That is because they can genetically engineer the seed to produce pesticides that are lethal to specific insect pests. So while GMO food may have less chemical pesticide residue on it, the pesticide is in some of the GMO food that we consume. There are also reports of "Super Pests", insects that have developed an immunity to the genetically engineered pesticides in specific GMO crops.
Then there is the problem of Superweeds. Superweeds are a dozen species of weeds that have developed an immunity to Monsanto's Rodeo Roundup herbicide. They are tougher and bigger than their non-genetically modified relatives. They have been known to damage farm equipment. Of course, they also deprive the crop of needed moisture and nutrients. To control Superweeds farmers use stronger combinations of herbicides. (www.ucsusas.org/news/press_release/superweeds-overrun-farmlands...)
Rationale 3. Proponents of GMOs claim that letting people know which foods contain GMOs would result in widespread panic.
My Response: I am aware of no research that suggests that the level of concern most Americans have for their health would rise to the level of panic due to food labeling. An article at www.labelshechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/05/about-60-percent-pay-attention-to-nutrition-facts/ by Dr. Sanjay Gupta refers to a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that found that only 43.8 % of people pay attention to health claims on food labels.
I read the ingredients on all food I purchase. I don't like consuming any man-made chemicals not found in nature. If food can be produced without artificial colors, flavors and preservatives , then these things do not add to the nutritive value of the food and are unnecessary. Why should we have to ingest things in our food that Nature never intended? These artificial chemicals allegedly cause no harm but are listed. To not list GMOs because they allegedly cause no harm is contradictory and senseless.
The way to prevent widespread panic or confusion is public education. An Organization (GMA) that spent $68 million to defeat ballot initiatives in California and Washington could easily afford to create a campaign to educate the 43.8% of consumers who pay attention to health claims on food labels.
Rationale 4. GMO supporters claim that labeling would result in economic hardship for consumers as well as growers.
My Response: That claim, I suspect, is not based on the expense of writing "This food contains GMOs" on each food label. I suspect it is more likely that the supporters of GMOs fear that people will opt to buy products without that disclosure statement. Let's face it. People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required. So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand. But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients. Their products will be more in demand. The last time I checked we are still supposed to have a free market system in the United States. That would seem to preclude certain companies from gaining advantages over other companies through government legislation.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association's (GMA) campaign to defeat state GMO labeling ballot initiatives and to get Congress to take away states' rights to pass GMO regulations suggests that the GMA does not believe in a free market system. If the GMA succeeds, consumers will be deprived of their right to know what they are eating.
The GMA favors federal legislation that would empower the FDA to require labeling of specific GMOs that pose a danger to human health. This would mean all GMOs would not have to be labeled. I can't help wondering why the FDA would allow foods to be sold that they know endanger human health. This proposed legislation is nothing but a ploy to prevent GMO labeling.
This is additional information as of 6/20/14. I have finally discovered the rationale for claiming extra expense due to GMO labeling. The rationale is based on the idea that a number of states would have different GMO labeling requirements, thus requiring manufacturers to create different labels for each state. This would be inefficient except for the fact that a label that would comply with the strictest state requirements would comply with the states with less strict requirements. If one or more states required info that none of the others required, it could still appear on all labels. This would result in a standard label that would meet all state requirements. No problem with inefficiency. Nor would this objection be relevant to a national standard mandatory labeling of all foods containing GMOs.
In regard to the claim that GMOs make products more affordable, according to www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/science...,superweeds (which require more herbicide to kill) have increased the cost of growing cotton from between $50-$75/hectare a few years ago to $370/hectare. Growing soybeans in Illinois used to cost $25/hectare. That has increased to $160/hectare. That extra expense means higher prices for consumers.
I think it's ironic that to avoid GMO consumption without labeling, the alternative is to eat organic. Organic produce, unless one grows it oneself, is more expensive than non-organic. The irony is that people who are profiting the most from GMOs are the same people who can more easily afford to purchase organically grown food.
Another related fact is that when GMO pollen blows into an organic farm and pollinates the organic crop, that crop can not be sold as organic. This factor decreases the available supply of organic produce, as well as doing economic damage to the organic farm.
Monsanto's ambition is not limited to America. An article from Rueters announced a plan coordinated by the Obama Administration for companies like Monsanto to invest billions of dollars to "improve" agriculture in Africa. Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, a policy think tank, said, "The problem is all this is based on large-scale commercial agriculture. Who does it benefit? All of these things are supporting the formation of large-scale commercial agriculture, which will hurt small farmers. They could spend far less but focus on providing credit facilities, ensuring open markets and ensuring the rights of small holder farmers." (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518)
This grand plan for Africa will result in wealthy landowners raising large GMO mono crops and Monsanto making additional millions of dollars.
IN CONCLUSION
So, where does that leave us? We have a large multi-billion dollar multi-national company, Monsanto, that virtually controls the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture making false, misleading and unsupportable claims in order to keep profiting from its patented seeds and agro-chemicals.
The objective of Monsanto, many believe, is to control human life on the planet. He who controls the food supply, controls life. If and when the majority of farmers on earth are all raising GMO produce, they will be completely dependent on Monsanto or a similar company, not
only for the seeds for each growing season but also for the chemical fertilizers/herbicides that are designed to work with those particular seeds.
The issue is a simple one. Should people have a right to know if the food they are eating contains GMOs or has been produced through means of genetic engineering? Sixty -four countries, including members of the European Union, "enforce consumer 'right to know' laws for GE foods" according to the Center for Food Safety (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/ international-labeling-laws).
I compare this issue to skydiving. An imperfect analogy but the best I've got at the moment.
Some people are not meant to skydive. They may have an intuition about it. Sky-diving enthusiasts will never understand those people. They will insist your chances of not suffering any ill-effects are 99.5% or whatever. If I were to force someone who is not meant to skydive, to do it because the danger is minuscule, I would be violating their basic rights.
Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association want to coerce people into eating food whose genes have been artificially manipulated by banning mandatory GMO labeling. This is abusive and a violation of human rights.
I would feel the same way if the FDA approved adding sawdust from rare tropical forest trees to processed foods as a fiber supplement. Even if the FDA deemed it safe to eat, I would remain morally bound to boycott that food. I could not do that if the food containing the offensive ingredient was not labeled as such. People who don't care, have a right to not know what is in the food they eat. All they have to do is not listen to the information and not read food labels. People who do care should likewise have the right to know what the food they eat contains.
Is this the most pressing problem today? Probably not, by itself. It is, however, one aspect of a very serious problem that the main stream media chooses to ignore. That problem is sometimes called Plutocracy. Others prefer the term Oligarchy. It boils down to those with the greatest wealth getting wealthier by means of controlling the government, while those with the least wealth and power get poorer and more powerless.
I support people's right to know what's in their food. I favor the labeling of every man-made substance not found in Nature that is in or on the food we eat. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing".
Edmund Burke
What have I done about it?
There are people who, upon reading and understanding the issue will claim they can't do anything about the problem. So, this is what I have done.
There is a pledge at Causes.com sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to boycott the companies that belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). I have taken that pledge. I also listed the most popular companies and some of the brands familiar to me in a Daily Kos diary. This way the reader can contribute to the boycott even if he/she can't sign the pledge.
I have published other diaries concerning GMOs on Daily Kos.
I wrote "GMO Opinionated Fact Sheet" and "GMOs and Human Rights", made about 140 copies of each so far and have been passing/mailing them to others. I also sent them to each of my State and Federal congressional representatives and to Mrs. Obama. I am also in the process of e-mailing the companies on the above-mentioned list whose products I have previously purchased to let them know why I will no longer be using those products. Examples follow:
To: Colgate-Palmolive
I have been using nothing but Ajax for Dishes since the 1970s when Consumer Reports found that it was the most economical product for its use. I have been buying Colgate toothpaste for several years now for myself and lately for my significant other as well. I am sorry to have to inform you that I will not be buying these nor any other Colgate-Palmolive products henceforth. Your membership in the Grocery Manufacturer's Association supports that organization's efforts to deprive Americans of their right to know what is in the food they purchase. I appreciate the quality of your products, but I choose not to help finance the effort to deprive my fellow citizens of their right to know. I will also be encouraging others to boycott Colgate-Palmolive products unless and until you terminate your membership in GMA and support GMO labeling.
To: Pepsi Co.
I contacted you a few weeks ago about GMOs. I have yet to hear back with any answer, reasonable or otherwise. I want to inform you that even though I used to buy several Pepsis every week and used to eat Quaker Oats and even Frito-Lays on occasion, I will no longer be purchasing your products and will be encouraging others to boycott as well. Since you spent $4.8 million to help defeat GMO food labeling voter initiatives in California and Washington,you do not deserve the support of those whose rights you would deprive. If you decide to renounce your membership in the Grocery Manufacturer's Association and publicly support GMO food labeling, let me know. I still am thirsting for a pepsi.
To: Coca-Cola Co.
I am very disappointed that your company spent $3.2 million to help defeat GMO food labeling voter initiatives in Washington and California. I will no longer be contributing to your financial ability to take away the right of American citizens to know what is in their food. No more Coke or Minute Maid fruit juice for me and mine. I will encourage others to boycott your products as well. Should you decide to renounce the Grocery Manufacturer's Association and publicly support mandatory GMO labeling, please let me know. I'm going to miss my Minute Maid.
To: Nestle Co.
I am confused. According to your website you are working to let consumers know when your products use GMO's in significant amounts. Your website also states that you support consumers' right to know what is in their food. So why would Nestle have contributed/spent $3 million to help defeat GMO labeling ballot initiatives in California (Prop 37) and in Washington State (I-522)? Seems contradictory or at least hypocritical. (Does explain the rising cost of your chocolate bars.)
I understand Nestle belongs to the mega lobbying group Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) which is is in the process of suing Vermont over its mandatory labeling law. Again, hypocritical. Inspite of what your website states, the actions of Nestle Company suggest that you are against mandatory GMO labeling and therefore, opposed to consumers' right to know. Although I have enjoyed Nestle Almond and Crunch bars, have purchased Purina One for the cat, and Lean Cuisine dinners for my significant other, I regretfully will not be using your products while Nestle remains a member of GMA.
To: Hershey's
I have enjoyed your products for many years. I am fussy about what I eat. I tend to avoid artificial additives. It's not easy finding products without artificial colors and preservatives. Some of your candy (Hershey's with Almonds, Mr. Goodbar, Kisses, most Reese's), your chocolate syrup and Shell (only found recently) fit the bill for me for many, many years. Makes my mouth water just to think about. Now, however, I find out that you spent $888,000 helping to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California (Prop 37) and Washington state (I-522). You belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a giant lobby, which led the offensive against the consumers' right to know in these states and is now suing the state of Vermont over its mandatory GMO labeling law.
If Hershey's decides to quit the GMA and openly support consumers' right to know what is in their food, let me know. I have been craving some Hershey's chocolate. But I refuse to support your company with my purchasing power as that amounts to supporting efforts to take away consumers' right to know.
Reply to Hershey's:
To Welch Foods:
To Sunoco:
I have pledged to boycott products of companies that do not want GMO labeling on food. I just realized that that will include Sunoco gas! This is hugely disturbing to me. I thought Sunoco was one of the good petro-chemical companies. Your company has not spilt huge quantities of oil into the environment like BP and Exxon have, as far as I know. You aren't threatening the fragile eco-system in Alaska like Shell is. Why don't you want people to have the right to know what they are eating? You probably belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association which means some of the $68 miilion dollars GMA spent defeating ballot initiatives in Washington and California came from Sunoco. I hope you think it was worth it. Until you quit GMA and publicly express your support of American consumers' right to know what they are eating, I will not be buying any more of your gas and will encourage others to follow suit.
To McDonald's:
I am curious as to how you rationalize your concern with sustainability, community, health, etc. and yet oppose people's right to know what they are eating. I suppose you belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association lobby which has spent millions trying to prevent mandatory GMO labeling on food, thus denying consumers right to choose. Here's where you tell me that GMOs are perfectly safe for human consumption just like every one believed DDT was perfectly harmless in 1940. That is not the point. Artificial food colors are supposedly safe. I thank God that they are listed on labels so that I don't have to consume them inadvertently. I will not do anything to support the maker of saccharine, PCBs and Agent Orange, let alone GMOs. Why do you oppose my right to take that stand? As long as you belong to GMA and oppose people's right to know what they are eating, I will not be eating at McDonald's and will encourage others not to eat there as well.
Pre-1960 theory: Artificial food colorings derived from coal tar are inert substances that will not interact with physical bodies. Red Dye #1 was banned in 1960 as a suspected carcinogen.
Based on scientific testing, it was theorized that the following prescription drugs were safe for general use: MERIDIA (banned 2010), ZELNOAM (banned 2007), TEQUIN (banned 2006), BEXTRA (banned 2005), VIOXX (banned 2004), BAYCOL (banned 2001), PROPOLSIA (banned 2000), REZULIN (banned 2000), RAXAR (banned 1999), REDUX (banned 1997), AVANDIA (use restricted 2010). These are the marketed drugs deemed unsafe for unrestricted use from just 1997-2010 by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Scientists theorizing that a chemical or biological agent is safe for human consumption, won't prevent that agent from harming you. The same is true of GMOs.
The claim that GMOs are perfectly harmless is based on the available scientific research published in scientific journals. Can that published GMO research be trusted? An article in the August, 2009 issue of Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/) questions the objectivity of published GMO research.
This peer-reviewed published research approved by the seed companies as well as research from the companies' own scientists is what the FDA uses to determine if GMOs are safe. Who in the FDA makes those determinations? Check out the article at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422.
It documents the various high-ranking Monsanto employees that have been appointed to positions of responsibility in the FDA and the Department of Agriculture by Presidents Clinton and Obama.
One example is described by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/). Margaret Miller, a Monsanto researcher, contributed to a research report on a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone for the FDA. Shortly before the report was submitted to the FDA, Miller was hired by the FDA. Her first job was to review the same report. The artificial hormone was subsequently approved by the FDA. The FDA official who decided milk produced from cows given the hormone would not have to be labeled was a former Monsanto lawyer.
In an article entitled "Critics Slam Obama For 'Protecting' Monsanto" by CBS News (March 28, 2013) (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/critics-slam-obama-for-protecting-monsanto/), it was reported that a provision was surreptitiously included in a 2013 budget bill which "protects genetically modified seeds from litigation suits over health risks posed by the crops' consumption." That should have read "protects the manufacturer" (one of which is Monsanto). If Monsanto is so convinced that GMOs are safe, I can't help wondering why they would be worried about losing law suits. In their defense, it is costly even for a multi-billion dollar international corporation to defend itself in court. On the other hand, I can't imagine Congress taking away the right of American citizens to sue car companies that decide to suppress information about safety defects rather than issuing prompt recalls.
For some problems there is a scientific solution. There is also a sensible solution. They aren't always the same. Richard Geiger
Rationale 2. The GMO backers claim that Genetically Modified crops make better use of the limited resources of land, water and fertilizer.
My Response: In fact, all physical resources on the planet are limited. The intended implication is that there is not enough land, water and fertilizer to feed everyone on the planet. But actually, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/), "one third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally." That amounts to 1.3 billion tons annually. On October 21, 2013 the FAO Director-General Jose' Grozianoda Silva said, "If we reduce food loss and waste to zero it would give us additional food to feed two billion people." According to FAO 1.15 billion of the earth's people were undernourished from 2011-2013. So, if all food loss and waste were prevented, there would be more than enough food produced to feed everyone. It follows that there must be enough land, water and fertilizer to produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem of undernourishment is not due to limited resources. It is due to other factors involving distribution, preservation, pricing, etc.
There would be more arable (suitable for planting) land, particularly in this country, if the same class that is making millions from GMOs had not made millions more by constructing shopping malls and housing projects on perfectly fertile farm land all over this country. (According to American Farmland Trust at www.farmland.org/resources/fote/ between 1982 and 2007, 45,404,300 acres of U.S. agricultural land was converted to developed uses.)
There would be more fresh water if everyone would stop wasting it. There would be more water available for agriculture in North America if 90% of the wetlands in the U.S. and Canada had not been drained and converted to other uses (source - FAO). The drought conditions we are experiencing world-wide is probably the result of the increased rate of global warming. The increased rate of Global Warming (climate change) is due mostly to the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). Instead of building oil pipelines all over the country, perhaps we should build water pipelines between areas of the country that are prone to flooding and those areas stricken with drought. It would happen if someone could figure out how to make millions in profit from doing it. According to the U.N. (www.unep.org/wed/2013/quickfacts/) the U.S. throws away 30% of all the food it produces. The largest human use of water is agriculture. An estimated 50% of the water used to produce this wasted food is itself wasted.
Human produced chemical fertilizers would not be necessary if we did not throw so much yard waste/nutrient-rich food/food waste/animal and human waste into landfills instead of converting it to fertilizer. If the population continues to increase, there may indeed be resource shortages. If GMOs are perfectly safe and cheap and good for the environment, fewer people will die from starvation. The more people that survive to child-bearing age, the faster the world population will increase. Feeding the hungry does not solve the other problems resulting from overpopulation.
The big agrochemical companies also claim that GMOs decrease the need for pesticides. That is because they can genetically engineer the seed to produce pesticides that are lethal to specific insect pests. So while GMO food may have less chemical pesticide residue on it, the pesticide is in some of the GMO food that we consume. There are also reports of "Super Pests", insects that have developed an immunity to the genetically engineered pesticides in specific GMO crops.
Then there is the problem of Superweeds. Superweeds are a dozen species of weeds that have developed an immunity to Monsanto's Rodeo Roundup herbicide. They are tougher and bigger than their non-genetically modified relatives. They have been known to damage farm equipment. Of course, they also deprive the crop of needed moisture and nutrients. To control Superweeds farmers use stronger combinations of herbicides. (www.ucsusas.org/news/press_release/superweeds-overrun-farmlands...)
Rationale 3. Proponents of GMOs claim that letting people know which foods contain GMOs would result in widespread panic.
My Response: I am aware of no research that suggests that the level of concern most Americans have for their health would rise to the level of panic due to food labeling. An article at www.labelshechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/05/about-60-percent-pay-attention-to-nutrition-facts/ by Dr. Sanjay Gupta refers to a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that found that only 43.8 % of people pay attention to health claims on food labels.
I read the ingredients on all food I purchase. I don't like consuming any man-made chemicals not found in nature. If food can be produced without artificial colors, flavors and preservatives , then these things do not add to the nutritive value of the food and are unnecessary. Why should we have to ingest things in our food that Nature never intended? These artificial chemicals allegedly cause no harm but are listed. To not list GMOs because they allegedly cause no harm is contradictory and senseless.
The way to prevent widespread panic or confusion is public education. An Organization (GMA) that spent $68 million to defeat ballot initiatives in California and Washington could easily afford to create a campaign to educate the 43.8% of consumers who pay attention to health claims on food labels.
Rationale 4. GMO supporters claim that labeling would result in economic hardship for consumers as well as growers.
My Response: That claim, I suspect, is not based on the expense of writing "This food contains GMOs" on each food label. I suspect it is more likely that the supporters of GMOs fear that people will opt to buy products without that disclosure statement. Let's face it. People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required. So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand. But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients. Their products will be more in demand. The last time I checked we are still supposed to have a free market system in the United States. That would seem to preclude certain companies from gaining advantages over other companies through government legislation.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association's (GMA) campaign to defeat state GMO labeling ballot initiatives and to get Congress to take away states' rights to pass GMO regulations suggests that the GMA does not believe in a free market system. If the GMA succeeds, consumers will be deprived of their right to know what they are eating.
The GMA favors federal legislation that would empower the FDA to require labeling of specific GMOs that pose a danger to human health. This would mean all GMOs would not have to be labeled. I can't help wondering why the FDA would allow foods to be sold that they know endanger human health. This proposed legislation is nothing but a ploy to prevent GMO labeling.
This is additional information as of 6/20/14. I have finally discovered the rationale for claiming extra expense due to GMO labeling. The rationale is based on the idea that a number of states would have different GMO labeling requirements, thus requiring manufacturers to create different labels for each state. This would be inefficient except for the fact that a label that would comply with the strictest state requirements would comply with the states with less strict requirements. If one or more states required info that none of the others required, it could still appear on all labels. This would result in a standard label that would meet all state requirements. No problem with inefficiency. Nor would this objection be relevant to a national standard mandatory labeling of all foods containing GMOs.
In regard to the claim that GMOs make products more affordable, according to www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/science...,superweeds (which require more herbicide to kill) have increased the cost of growing cotton from between $50-$75/hectare a few years ago to $370/hectare. Growing soybeans in Illinois used to cost $25/hectare. That has increased to $160/hectare. That extra expense means higher prices for consumers.
I think it's ironic that to avoid GMO consumption without labeling, the alternative is to eat organic. Organic produce, unless one grows it oneself, is more expensive than non-organic. The irony is that people who are profiting the most from GMOs are the same people who can more easily afford to purchase organically grown food.
Another related fact is that when GMO pollen blows into an organic farm and pollinates the organic crop, that crop can not be sold as organic. This factor decreases the available supply of organic produce, as well as doing economic damage to the organic farm.
Monsanto's ambition is not limited to America. An article from Rueters announced a plan coordinated by the Obama Administration for companies like Monsanto to invest billions of dollars to "improve" agriculture in Africa. Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, a policy think tank, said, "The problem is all this is based on large-scale commercial agriculture. Who does it benefit? All of these things are supporting the formation of large-scale commercial agriculture, which will hurt small farmers. They could spend far less but focus on providing credit facilities, ensuring open markets and ensuring the rights of small holder farmers." (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518)
This grand plan for Africa will result in wealthy landowners raising large GMO mono crops and Monsanto making additional millions of dollars.
IN CONCLUSION
So, where does that leave us? We have a large multi-billion dollar multi-national company, Monsanto, that virtually controls the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture making false, misleading and unsupportable claims in order to keep profiting from its patented seeds and agro-chemicals.
The objective of Monsanto, many believe, is to control human life on the planet. He who controls the food supply, controls life. If and when the majority of farmers on earth are all raising GMO produce, they will be completely dependent on Monsanto or a similar company, not
only for the seeds for each growing season but also for the chemical fertilizers/herbicides that are designed to work with those particular seeds.
The issue is a simple one. Should people have a right to know if the food they are eating contains GMOs or has been produced through means of genetic engineering? Sixty -four countries, including members of the European Union, "enforce consumer 'right to know' laws for GE foods" according to the Center for Food Safety (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/ international-labeling-laws).
I compare this issue to skydiving. An imperfect analogy but the best I've got at the moment.
Some people are not meant to skydive. They may have an intuition about it. Sky-diving enthusiasts will never understand those people. They will insist your chances of not suffering any ill-effects are 99.5% or whatever. If I were to force someone who is not meant to skydive, to do it because the danger is minuscule, I would be violating their basic rights.
Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association want to coerce people into eating food whose genes have been artificially manipulated by banning mandatory GMO labeling. This is abusive and a violation of human rights.
I would feel the same way if the FDA approved adding sawdust from rare tropical forest trees to processed foods as a fiber supplement. Even if the FDA deemed it safe to eat, I would remain morally bound to boycott that food. I could not do that if the food containing the offensive ingredient was not labeled as such. People who don't care, have a right to not know what is in the food they eat. All they have to do is not listen to the information and not read food labels. People who do care should likewise have the right to know what the food they eat contains.
Is this the most pressing problem today? Probably not, by itself. It is, however, one aspect of a very serious problem that the main stream media chooses to ignore. That problem is sometimes called Plutocracy. Others prefer the term Oligarchy. It boils down to those with the greatest wealth getting wealthier by means of controlling the government, while those with the least wealth and power get poorer and more powerless.
I support people's right to know what's in their food. I favor the labeling of every man-made substance not found in Nature that is in or on the food we eat. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing".
Edmund Burke
What have I done about it?
There are people who, upon reading and understanding the issue will claim they can't do anything about the problem. So, this is what I have done.
There is a pledge at Causes.com sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to boycott the companies that belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). I have taken that pledge. I also listed the most popular companies and some of the brands familiar to me in a Daily Kos diary. This way the reader can contribute to the boycott even if he/she can't sign the pledge.
I have published other diaries concerning GMOs on Daily Kos.
I wrote "GMO Opinionated Fact Sheet" and "GMOs and Human Rights", made about 140 copies of each so far and have been passing/mailing them to others. I also sent them to each of my State and Federal congressional representatives and to Mrs. Obama. I am also in the process of e-mailing the companies on the above-mentioned list whose products I have previously purchased to let them know why I will no longer be using those products. Examples follow:
To: Colgate-Palmolive
I have been using nothing but Ajax for Dishes since the 1970s when Consumer Reports found that it was the most economical product for its use. I have been buying Colgate toothpaste for several years now for myself and lately for my significant other as well. I am sorry to have to inform you that I will not be buying these nor any other Colgate-Palmolive products henceforth. Your membership in the Grocery Manufacturer's Association supports that organization's efforts to deprive Americans of their right to know what is in the food they purchase. I appreciate the quality of your products, but I choose not to help finance the effort to deprive my fellow citizens of their right to know. I will also be encouraging others to boycott Colgate-Palmolive products unless and until you terminate your membership in GMA and support GMO labeling.
To: Pepsi Co.
I contacted you a few weeks ago about GMOs. I have yet to hear back with any answer, reasonable or otherwise. I want to inform you that even though I used to buy several Pepsis every week and used to eat Quaker Oats and even Frito-Lays on occasion, I will no longer be purchasing your products and will be encouraging others to boycott as well. Since you spent $4.8 million to help defeat GMO food labeling voter initiatives in California and Washington,you do not deserve the support of those whose rights you would deprive. If you decide to renounce your membership in the Grocery Manufacturer's Association and publicly support GMO food labeling, let me know. I still am thirsting for a pepsi.
To: Coca-Cola Co.
I am very disappointed that your company spent $3.2 million to help defeat GMO food labeling voter initiatives in Washington and California. I will no longer be contributing to your financial ability to take away the right of American citizens to know what is in their food. No more Coke or Minute Maid fruit juice for me and mine. I will encourage others to boycott your products as well. Should you decide to renounce the Grocery Manufacturer's Association and publicly support mandatory GMO labeling, please let me know. I'm going to miss my Minute Maid.
To: Nestle Co.
I am confused. According to your website you are working to let consumers know when your products use GMO's in significant amounts. Your website also states that you support consumers' right to know what is in their food. So why would Nestle have contributed/spent $3 million to help defeat GMO labeling ballot initiatives in California (Prop 37) and in Washington State (I-522)? Seems contradictory or at least hypocritical. (Does explain the rising cost of your chocolate bars.)
I understand Nestle belongs to the mega lobbying group Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) which is is in the process of suing Vermont over its mandatory labeling law. Again, hypocritical. Inspite of what your website states, the actions of Nestle Company suggest that you are against mandatory GMO labeling and therefore, opposed to consumers' right to know. Although I have enjoyed Nestle Almond and Crunch bars, have purchased Purina One for the cat, and Lean Cuisine dinners for my significant other, I regretfully will not be using your products while Nestle remains a member of GMA.
To: Hershey's
I have enjoyed your products for many years. I am fussy about what I eat. I tend to avoid artificial additives. It's not easy finding products without artificial colors and preservatives. Some of your candy (Hershey's with Almonds, Mr. Goodbar, Kisses, most Reese's), your chocolate syrup and Shell (only found recently) fit the bill for me for many, many years. Makes my mouth water just to think about. Now, however, I find out that you spent $888,000 helping to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California (Prop 37) and Washington state (I-522). You belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a giant lobby, which led the offensive against the consumers' right to know in these states and is now suing the state of Vermont over its mandatory GMO labeling law.
If Hershey's decides to quit the GMA and openly support consumers' right to know what is in their food, let me know. I have been craving some Hershey's chocolate. But I refuse to support your company with my purchasing power as that amounts to supporting efforts to take away consumers' right to know.
Reply to Hershey's:
Thank you for responding to my concerns about GMOs. I can understand your concern about the
inefficiency of individual states having different requirements for GMO Labeling and the added expense to food
manufacturers. So the question for
consumers is how much are we willing to spend to protect our right to know what
we are eating? For you, the question is
what prices will the market bare before product consumption starts to decrease?
The concern over
GMOs is growing. It may be cheaper for
the food industry to shelve the whole idea for now.
Failing that,
demand standard mandatory GMO labeling for all foods in the U.S. regardless of
health or environmental risks. Think of
it as consumers' right to know. Since
this is a possibility, your argument about individual states with different
requirements is weak at best.
Another reason it is not convincing, is that by complying with the
states with the strictest regulations, you would be in compliance with those
states with weaker regulations. No need
for inefficiency at all.
To Welch Foods:
I have always loved Welch's Concord Grape Juice. I have
joined the boycott of products made by about 300 companies that are opposed to
mandatory GMO labeling. Please let me
know if you decide to reject the GMA and support universal standard GMO
labeling.
To Sunoco:
I have pledged to boycott products of companies that do not want GMO labeling on food. I just realized that that will include Sunoco gas! This is hugely disturbing to me. I thought Sunoco was one of the good petro-chemical companies. Your company has not spilt huge quantities of oil into the environment like BP and Exxon have, as far as I know. You aren't threatening the fragile eco-system in Alaska like Shell is. Why don't you want people to have the right to know what they are eating? You probably belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association which means some of the $68 miilion dollars GMA spent defeating ballot initiatives in Washington and California came from Sunoco. I hope you think it was worth it. Until you quit GMA and publicly express your support of American consumers' right to know what they are eating, I will not be buying any more of your gas and will encourage others to follow suit.
To McDonald's:
I am curious as to how you rationalize your concern with sustainability, community, health, etc. and yet oppose people's right to know what they are eating. I suppose you belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association lobby which has spent millions trying to prevent mandatory GMO labeling on food, thus denying consumers right to choose. Here's where you tell me that GMOs are perfectly safe for human consumption just like every one believed DDT was perfectly harmless in 1940. That is not the point. Artificial food colors are supposedly safe. I thank God that they are listed on labels so that I don't have to consume them inadvertently. I will not do anything to support the maker of saccharine, PCBs and Agent Orange, let alone GMOs. Why do you oppose my right to take that stand? As long as you belong to GMA and oppose people's right to know what they are eating, I will not be eating at McDonald's and will encourage others not to eat there as well.
WHY DO I SUPPORT GMO LABELING? (Revised)
(based on www.classwarfarerg.blogspot.com, Post C)
What
is the rationale for not labeling foods for human consumption grown or raised
with GMOs? I am aware of at least three objections or
rationales that GMO proponents hold in objecting to GMO labeling. I will
respond to each of these claims.
Rationale 1. Those
promoting GMOs claim that there is no scientific evidence that GMOs
(Genetically Modified Organisms) are harmful to human health.
My Response. Since I am not a scientist,
there is nothing to be gained from trying to argue this point. The
scientist is always going to sound more convincing than the non-scientist.
What I question is the claim that GMOs (even those not developed yet) have no
negative effects on human health. Period. This is not a valid
scientific nor logical statement. True science postulates theories.
When most scientists agree with a theory based on the presented physical
evidence, the theory is considered to be valid based on the present
available data. A scientific theory is never considered immutable or
unchangeable for the rest of time. Why? Because new valid data may
be uncovered in the future which might contradict the present available
data. When that happens, what was considered a valid scientific theory is
invalidated. For example, at one time the planet Earth was theorized to
be flat. When evidence was presented that the world was actually round,
the Flat Earth theory was invalidated.
In the 1940's,
DDT was considered the best thing since buttered toast. Less than 40
years later its use was banned in this country due to a public outcry that
saved the Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon from extinction.
Pre-1960 theory: Artificial food
colorings derived from coal tar are inert substances that will not interact
with physical bodies. Red Dye #1 was banned in 1960 as a suspected
carcinogen.
Based on scientific testing, it was
theorized that the following prescription drugs were safe for general
use: MERIDIA (banned 2010), ZELNOAM (banned 2007), TEQUIN (banned
2006), BEXTRA (banned 2005), VIOXX (banned 2004), BAYCOL (banned 2001),
PROPOLSIA (banned 2000), REZULIN (banned 2000), RAXAR (banned 1999), REDUX
(banned 1997), AVANDIA (use restricted 2010
Scientists theorizing that a chemical
or biological agent is environmentally harmless or safe for human consumption
is not a product guarantee. The same is true of GMOs.
The claim that GMOs are
perfectly harmless is based on the available scientific research published in
scientific journals. Can that published GMO research be trusted? An
article in the August, 2009 issue of Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/)
questions the objectivity of published GMO research. This peer-reviewed published research
approved by the seed companies as well as research from the companies' own
scientists is what the FDA uses to determine if GMOs are safe. Who in the
FDA makes those determinations? Check out the article at
It documents the various high-ranking Monsanto employees
that have been appointed to positions of responsibility in the FDA and the
Department of Agriculture by Presidents Clinton and Obama.
One example is described by the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/).
Margaret Miller, a Monsanto researcher, contributed to a research report on a
genetically engineered bovine growth hormone for the FDA. Shortly before
the report was submitted to the FDA, Miller was hired by the FDA. Her
first job was to review the same report. The artificial hormone was
subsequently approved by the FDA. The FDA official who decided milk
produced from cows given the hormone would not have to be labeled was
a former Monsanto lawyer.
I don't like consuming any man-made chemicals,
such as artificial colors, not found in nature.
These artificial chemicals allegedly cause no harm but are listed on
food labels. To not list GMOs
because they allegedly cause no harm is contradictory and senseless.
For some problems there is a scientific
solution. There is also a sensible solution. They aren't always the
same.
Richard Geiger
Rationale 2. The GMO backers claim that
Genetically Modified crops make better use of the limited resources of land,
water and fertilizer.
My Response: In
fact, all physical resources on the planet are limited. The intended
implication is that there is not enough land, water and fertilizer to
feed everyone on the planet. But actually, according to the Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations
(www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/),
"one third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted
globally." That amounts to 1.3 billion tons annually.
On October 21, 2013 the FAO Director-General Jose' Grozianoda Silva said, "If we reduce food loss and waste to zero it
would give us additional food to feed two billion people."
According to FAO 1.15 billion of the earth's people were undernourished from
2011-2013. So, if all food loss and waste were prevented, there would be
more than enough food produced to feed everyone. The problem of
undernourishment is not due to limited resources. It is due to other
factors involving distribution, preservation, pricing, etc.
There would be more arable
(suitable for planting) land, particularly in this country, if the same class
that is making millions from GMOs had not made millions more by
constructing shopping malls and housing projects on perfectly fertile farm land
all over this country. (According to American Farmland Trust at
www.farmland.org/resources/fote/ between 1982 and 2007, 45,404,300 acres of
U.S. agricultural land was converted to developed uses.)
There would be more fresh
water if everyone would stop wasting it. There would be more water
available for agriculture in North America if 90% of the wetlands in the U.S.
and Canada had not been drained and converted to other uses (source -
FAO). Worldwide drought conditions are probably the result of the
increased rate of global warming. Instead of building oil pipelines all
over the country, perhaps we should build water pipelines between areas of the
country that are prone to flooding and those areas stricken with
drought. It would happen if someone could figure out how to make
millions in profit from doing it
Human produced chemical fertilizers
would not be necessary if we did not throw so much yard waste/nutrient-rich
food/food waste/animal and human waste into landfills instead of converting it
to fertilizer. If the population continues to increase, there may
indeed be resource shortages. If GMOs are perfectly safe and cheap
and good for the environment, fewer people will die from starvation. The
more people that survive to child-bearing age, the faster the world population
will increase. Feeding the hungry does
not solve the other problems resulting from overpopulation.
The big agrochemical companies also
claim that GMOs decrease the need for pesticides. That is because they
can genetically engineer crops to produce pesticides that are lethal to
specific insect pests. So while GMO food may have less chemical pesticide
residue on it, the pesticide is in some of the GMO food that we
consume. There are also reports of "Super Pests", insects that have
developed immunity to the genetically
engineered pesticides in specific GMO crops.
Then there is the problem
of Superweeds. Superweeds are a dozen species of weeds that have
developed an immunity to Monsanto's Rodeo Roundup herbicide. They are
tougher and bigger than their non-genetically modified relatives. They
have been known to damage farm equipment. Of course, they also deprive the
crop of needed moisture and nutrients. To control Superweeds farmers use
stronger combinations of herbicides. (www.ucsusas.org/news/press_release/superweeds-overrun-farmlands...)
Rationale 3. GMO supporters claim that labeling
would result in economic hardship for consumers as well as growers.
My Response: That
claim, I suspect, is not based on the expense of writing "This food
contains GMOs" on each food label. I understand that GMO proponents
are, as of this month (Junes, 2014), in process of suing the state of
Vermont over their mandatory GMO-labeling law. Their argument is that
if each state is permitted to pass such laws it will increase the
expense of food manufacturers who will have to make different labels for
each state. They claim that would be inefficient and would increase
the cost of food.
It may occur to you that Vermont may be the first and last state to pass such a law and, if that is the case, the food manufacturers would have the choice of not selling GMO food in Vermont, thus avoiding the need and extra expense of changing a single label. But let's give them the benefit of assuming different states will come up with different labeling laws. The simple solution would be a standardized federal mandatory labeling of all GMOs in food. The Grocery Manufacturer's Association does not favor that solution. They want no labeling at all.
There is also another solution which would prevent inefficiency without the benefit of a federal law. Let's say that some states would require the letters "GMO" to appear in as bold GMO. Another state wants italicized GMO. Four other states require the letters to be enlarged: GMO. The solution? "GMO" satisfies all three sets of state requirements. Let's say another state requires that the type of GMO be included. All labels in all states could include that information.
The alleged problem of ineffeciency in labeling GMOs can be easily overcome. So what is the real issue? Let's face it. People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required. So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand. But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients. Their products will be more in demand. The last time I checked we are still supposed to have a free market system in the United States. That would seem to preclude certain companies from gaining advantages over other companies through government legislation.
It may occur to you that Vermont may be the first and last state to pass such a law and, if that is the case, the food manufacturers would have the choice of not selling GMO food in Vermont, thus avoiding the need and extra expense of changing a single label. But let's give them the benefit of assuming different states will come up with different labeling laws. The simple solution would be a standardized federal mandatory labeling of all GMOs in food. The Grocery Manufacturer's Association does not favor that solution. They want no labeling at all.
There is also another solution which would prevent inefficiency without the benefit of a federal law. Let's say that some states would require the letters "GMO" to appear in as bold GMO. Another state wants italicized GMO. Four other states require the letters to be enlarged: GMO. The solution? "GMO" satisfies all three sets of state requirements. Let's say another state requires that the type of GMO be included. All labels in all states could include that information.
The alleged problem of ineffeciency in labeling GMOs can be easily overcome. So what is the real issue? Let's face it. People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required. So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand. But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients. Their products will be more in demand. The last time I checked we are still supposed to have a free market system in the United States. That would seem to preclude certain companies from gaining advantages over other companies through government legislation.
The Grocery Manufacturers
Association's (GMA) campaign to defeat state GMO labeling ballot initiatives
and to get Congress to take away states' rights to pass GMO regulations
suggests that the GMA does not believe in
a free market system. If the GMA succeeds, consumers will be deprived of
their right to know what they are eating.
In regard to
the claim that GMOs make products more affordable, according to
www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/science...,Superweeds have increased the cost of growing cotton from
between $50-$75/hectare a few years ago to $370/hectare. Growing soybeans
in Illinois used to cost $25/hectare. That has increased to
$160/hectare. That extra expense means higher prices for consumers.
I think it's ironic that to
avoid GMO consumption without labeling, the alternative is to eat
organic. Organic produce, unless one grows it oneself, is more expensive
than non-organic. The irony is that people who are profiting the most
from GMOs are the same people who can more easily afford to purchase organically
grown food.
Another
related fact is that when GMO pollen blows into an organic farm and pollinates
the organic crop, that crop can not be sold as organic. This factor
decreases the available supply of organic produce, as well as doing economic
damage to the organic farm.
Monsanto's
ambition is not limited to America. An article from Rueters announced a
plan coordinated by the Obama Administration for companies like Monsanto to
invest billions of dollars to "improve" agriculture in Africa.
Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, a policy think
tank, said, "The problem is all this is
based on large-scale commercial agriculture. Who does it benefit? All of these
things are supporting the formation of large-scale commercial agriculture,
which will hurt small farmers. They could spend far less but focus on providing
credit facilities, ensuring open markets and ensuring the rights of small
holder farmers."
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518)
This grand plan for Africa
will result in wealthy landowners raising large GMO mono crops and Monsanto
making additional millions of dollars.
IN CONCLUSION
So, where does that leave us? We have a
large multi-billion dollar multi-national company, Monsanto, that virtually
controls the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture making false,
misleading and unsupportable claims in order to keep profiting from its
patented seeds and agro-chemicals.
The objective of Monsanto, many
believe, is to control human life on the planet. He who controls the food
supply, controls life. If and when the majority of farmers on earth
are all raising GMO produce, they will be completely dependent on Monsanto or a
similar company, not
only for the seeds for each growing season but also for
the chemical fertilizers/herbicides that are designed to work with those
particular seeds.
The issue is a simple one.
Should people have a right to know if the food they are eating contains GMOs or
has been produced through means of genetic engineering? Sixty -four
countries, including members of the European Union, "enforce consumer
'right to know' laws for GE foods" according to the Center for Food
Safety
(http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/ international-labeling-laws).
I compare this issue to
skydiving. An imperfect analogy but the best I've got at the moment.
Some people are not meant to skydive. They may have
an intuition about it. Sky-diving enthusiasts will never understand those
people. They will insist your chances of not suffering any ill-effects
are 99.5% or whatever. If I were to force someone who is not meant to
skydive, to do it because the danger is minuscule, I would be violating their
basic rights.
Monsanto and the Grocery
Manufacturers Association want to coerce people into eating food whose genes
have been artificially manipulated by banning mandatory GMO labeling.
This is abusive and a violation of human rights.
I would feel the same way if the FDA approved adding sawdust from rare tropical
forest trees to processed foods as a fiber supplement. Even if the FDA
deemed it safe to eat, I would remain morally bound to boycott that food.
I could not do that if the food containing the offensive ingredient was not
labeled as such.
Is this the most pressing problem today? Probably not, by itself.
It is, however, one aspect of a very serious problem that the main stream media
chooses to ignore. That problem is sometimes called Plutocracy. Others
prefer the term Oligarchy. It boils down to those with the greatest
wealth getting wealthier by means of controlling the government, while those
with the least wealth and power get poorer and more powerless.
I support people's
right to know what's in their food. I favor the labeling of every man-made
substance not found in Nature that is in or on the food we eat. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is
that good men do nothing".
Edmund Burke
What have I done about it?
There are people who, upon reading and understanding the issue will claim they
can't do anything about the problem. So, this is what I have done.
There is a pledge at
Causes.com sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to boycott the
companies that belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). I
have taken that pledge. I also listed the most popular companies and some
of the brands familiar to me in a Daily Kos diary. This way the reader can
contribute to the boycott even if he/she can't sign the pledge.
I have published other diaries
concerning GMOs on Daily Kos.
I wrote "GMO
Opinionated Fact Sheet" and "GMOs and Human Rights", made about
140 copies of each so far and have been passing/mailing them to others. I
also sent them to each of my State and Federal congressional representatives and
to Mrs. Obama. I am also in the process of e-mailing the companies on the
above-mentioned list whose products I have previously purchased to let them
know why I will no longer be using those products. Prepared by R. Geiger 6/15/14
WHY DO I SUPPORT GMO LABELING? (REV. 2)
(based on www.classwarfarerg.blogspot.com,
Post C)
With the
reasonable, I will reason. With the humane, I will plead. But with
tyrants , I will yield no ground, waste no
argument.
William Loyd Garrison
The purpose of this third Genetic Modified Organism (GMO) handout is not to reason with nor to argue with the tyrannical pro-GMO/anti-labeling proponents. If you are as open-minded as I am the rationales for not labeling GMOs in food presented by agro-industry scientists and the government (possibly including your own representatives) can sound so convincing as to make one wonder if there is any rational reason for labeling GMO foods.
The purpose of this third Genetic Modified Organism (GMO) handout is not to reason with nor to argue with the tyrannical pro-GMO/anti-labeling proponents. If you are as open-minded as I am the rationales for not labeling GMOs in food presented by agro-industry scientists and the government (possibly including your own representatives) can sound so convincing as to make one wonder if there is any rational reason for labeling GMO foods.
I will present three rationales used by GMO proponents and respond to
each in order to expose the less than substantial ground on which they rest.
Rationale 1. Those
promoting GMOs claim that there is no scientific evidence that GMOs
(Genetically Modified Organisms) are harmful to human health.
My
Response. I question the claim that
GMOs (even those not developed yet) have no negative effects on human
health. Period. This is not a valid scientific nor logical
statement. True science postulates theories. When most scientists
agree with a theory based on the presented physical evidence, the theory is
considered to be valid based on the present available data. A
scientific theory is never considered immutable or unchangeable for the rest of
time. Why? Because new valid data may be uncovered in the future
which might contradict the present available data. When that happens,
what was considered a valid scientific theory is invalidated. For
example, at one time the planet Earth was theorized to be flat. When
evidence was presented that the world was actually round, the Flat Earth theory
was invalidated.
In the 1940's,
DDT was considered the best thing since buttered toast. Less than 40 years
later its use was banned in this country due to a public outcry that saved the
Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon from extinction.
Pre-1960 theory: Artificial food
colorings derived from coal tar are inert substances that will not interact with
physical bodies. Red Dye #1 was banned in 1960 as a suspected carcinogen.
Based on scientific testing, it was
theorized that the following prescription drugs were safe for general
use: MERIDIA (banned 2010), ZELNOAM (banned 2007), TEQUIN (banned
2006), BEXTRA (banned 2005), VIOXX (banned 2004), BAYCOL (banned 2001),
PROPOLSIA (banned 2000), REZULIN (banned 2000), RAXAR (banned 1999), REDUX
(banned 1997), AVANDIA (use restricted 2010
Scientists theorizing that a chemical
or biological agent is environmentally harmless or safe for human
consumption
is not a product guarantee. It is possible that GMOs may one day be
banned. The difference between GMOs and artificial food color is that
the presence of that ingredient is listed on the label. So the consumer
can choose to not consume it. Not so with unlabeled GMOs.
The claim that GMOs are
perfectly harmless is based on the available scientific research published in
scientific journals. Can that published GMO research be trusted? An
article in the August, 2009 issue of Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/)
questions the objectivity of published GMO research. This
peer-reviewed published research approved by the seed companies as well as
research from the companies' own scientists is what the FDA uses to determine
if GMOs are safe. Who in the FDA makes those determinations? Check
out the article at
It documents the various high-ranking Monsanto employees
that have been appointed to positions of responsibility in the FDA and the
Department of Agriculture by Presidents Clinton and Obama.
One example is described by the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/).
Margaret Miller, a Monsanto researcher, contributed to a research report on a
genetically engineered bovine growth hormone for the FDA. Shortly before
the report was submitted to the FDA, Miller was hired by the FDA. Her
first job was to review the same report. The artificial hormone was
subsequently approved by the FDA. The FDA official who decided milk
produced from cows given the hormone would not have to be labeled was
a former Monsanto lawyer.
I don't like
consuming any man-made chemicals, such as artificial colors, not found in
nature. These artificial chemicals allegedly cause no harm but are listed
on food labels. To not list GMOs because they allegedly cause no
harm is contradictory and senseless.
For
some problems there is a scientific
solution. There is also a sensible solution. They aren't always the
same.
Richard Geiger
Rationale
2. The GMO backers claim that Genetically Modified crops make better
use of the limited resources of land, water and fertilizer.
My Response: In
fact, all physical resources on the planet are limited. The intended
implication is that there is not enough land, water and fertilizer to
feed everyone on the planet. But actually, according to the Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations
(www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/),
"one third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted
globally." That amounts to 1.3 billion tons annually.
On October 21, 2013 the FAO Director-General Jose' Grozianoda Silva said, "If we reduce food loss and waste to zero it
would give us additional food to feed two billion people."
According to FAO 1.15 billion of the earth's people were undernourished from
2011-2013. So, if all food loss and waste were prevented, there would be
more than enough food produced to feed everyone. The problem of undernourishment
is not due to limited resources. It is due to other factors involving
distribution, preservation, pricing, etc.
Rationale 3. GMO supporters claim that labeling
would result in economic hardship for consumers as well as growers.
My Response:
That
claim, I suspect, is not based on the expense of writing "This food
contains GMOs" on each food label. I understand that GMO proponents
are, as of this month (June, 2014), in process of suing the state of
Vermont over their mandatory GMO-labeling law. Their argument is that
if each state is permitted to pass such laws it will increase the
expense of food manufacturers who will have to make different labels for
each state. They claim that would be inefficient and would increase
the cost of food.
It may occur to you that Vermont may be the first and last state to pass such a law and, if that is the case, the food manufacturers would have the choice of not selling GMO food in Vermont, thus avoiding the need and extra expense of changing a single label. But let's give them the benefit of assuming different states will come up with different labeling laws. The simple solution would be a standardized federal mandatory labeling of all GMOs in food. The Grocery Manufacturer's Association does not favor that solution. They want no labeling at all.
There is also another solution which would prevent inefficiency without the benefit of a federal law. Let's say that some states would require the letters GMO to appear in bold letters as "GMO". Another state wants GMO italicized. Four other states require the letters to be enlarged: GMO. The solution? "GMO" satisfies all three sets of state requirements. Let's say another state requires that the type of GMO be included. All labels in all states could include that information.
The alleged problem of ineffeciency in labeling GMOs can be easily overcome. So what is the real issue? Let's face it. People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required. So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand. But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients. Their products will be more in demand. The last time I checked we are still supposed to have a free market system in the United States. That would seem to preclude certain companies from gaining advantages over other companies through government legislation.
It may occur to you that Vermont may be the first and last state to pass such a law and, if that is the case, the food manufacturers would have the choice of not selling GMO food in Vermont, thus avoiding the need and extra expense of changing a single label. But let's give them the benefit of assuming different states will come up with different labeling laws. The simple solution would be a standardized federal mandatory labeling of all GMOs in food. The Grocery Manufacturer's Association does not favor that solution. They want no labeling at all.
There is also another solution which would prevent inefficiency without the benefit of a federal law. Let's say that some states would require the letters GMO to appear in bold letters as "GMO". Another state wants GMO italicized. Four other states require the letters to be enlarged: GMO. The solution? "GMO" satisfies all three sets of state requirements. Let's say another state requires that the type of GMO be included. All labels in all states could include that information.
The alleged problem of ineffeciency in labeling GMOs can be easily overcome. So what is the real issue? Let's face it. People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required. So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand. But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients. Their products will be more in demand. The last time I checked we are still supposed to have a free market system in the United States. That would seem to preclude certain companies from gaining advantages over other companies through government legislation.
The GMA's campaign to defeat state GMO labeling ballot initiatives
and to get Congress to take away states' rights to pass GMO regulations
suggests that the GMA does not believe in
a free market system. If the GMA succeeds, consumers will be deprived of
their right to know what they are eating.
In regard to
the claim that GMOs make products more affordable, according to
www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/science...,Superweeds have
increased the cost of growing cotton from between $50-$75/hectare a few years
ago to $370/hectare. Growing soybeans in Illinois used to cost
$25/hectare. That has increased to $160/hectare. That extra expense
means higher prices for consumers.
I think it's ironic that to
avoid GMO consumption without labeling, the alternative is to eat
organic. Organic produce, unless one grows it oneself, is more expensive
than non-organic. The irony is that people who are profiting the most
from GMOs are the same people who can more easily afford to purchase organically
grown food.
Another
related fact is that when GMO pollen blows into an organic farm and pollinates
the organic crop, that crop can not be sold as organic. This factor
decreases the available supply of organic produce, as well as doing economic damage
to the organic farm.
Monsanto's
ambition is not limited to America. An article from Rueters announced a
plan coordinated by the Obama Administration for companies like Monsanto to
invest billions of dollars to "improve" agriculture in Africa.
Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, a policy think
tank, said, "The problem is all this is
based on large-scale commercial agriculture. Who does it benefit? All of these
things are supporting the formation of large-scale commercial agriculture,
which will hurt small farmers. They could spend far less but focus on providing
credit facilities, ensuring open markets and ensuring the rights of small
holder farmers."
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518)
This grand plan for Africa
will result in wealthy landowners raising large GMO mono crops and Monsanto
making additional millions of dollars.
In Conclusion
So, where does that leave us? We have a
large multi-billion dollar multi-national company, Monsanto, that virtually
controls the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture making false,
misleading and unsupportable claims in order to keep profiting from its
patented seeds and agro-chemicals.
The objective of Monsanto, many
believe, is to control human life on the planet. He who controls the food
supply, controls life. If and when the majority of farmers on earth
are all raising GMO produce, they will be completely dependent on Monsanto or a
similar company, not
only for the seeds for each growing season but also for
the chemical fertilizers/herbicides that are designed to work with those
particular seeds.
The issue is a simple one.
Should people have a right to know if the food they are eating contains GMOs or
has been produced through means of genetic engineering? Sixty -four
countries, including members of the European Union, "enforce consumer
'right to know' laws for GE foods" according to the Center for Food
Safety
(http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/
international-labeling-laws).
I compare this issue to
skydiving. An imperfect analogy but the best I've got at the moment.
Some people are not meant to skydive. They may have
an intuition about it. Sky-diving enthusiasts will never understand those
people. They will insist your chances of not suffering any ill-effects
are 99.5% or whatever. If I were to force someone who is not meant to
skydive, to do it because the danger is miniscule, I would be violating their
basic rights.
Monsanto and the
Grocery Manufacturers Association want to coerce people into eating food whose
genes have been artificially manipulated by banning mandatory GMO
labeling. This is abusive and a violation of human rights.
I would feel the same way if the FDA approved adding sawdust from rare tropical
forest trees to processed foods as a fiber supplement. Even if the FDA
deemed it safe to eat, I would remain morally bound to boycott that food.
I could not do that if the food containing the offensive ingredient was not
labeled as such.
Is this the most pressing
problem today? Probably not, by itself. It is, however, one aspect
of a very serious problem that the main stream media chooses to ignore.
That problem is sometimes called Plutocracy. Others prefer the term
Oligarchy. It boils down to those with the greatest wealth getting
wealthier by means of controlling the government, while those with the least
wealth and power get poorer and more powerless.
I support people's
right to know what's in their food. I favor the labeling of every man-made
substance not found in Nature that is in or on the food we eat. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is
that good men do nothing".
Edmund Burke
What have I done about it?
There are people who, upon reading
and understanding the issue will claim they can't do anything about the
problem. So, this is what I have done.
There is a pledge at
Causes.com sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to boycott the
companies that belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). I
have taken that pledge. I also listed the most popular companies and some
of the brands familiar to me in a Daily Kos diary. This way the reader can
contribute to the boycott even if he/she can't sign the pledge.
I have published other diaries
concerning GMOs on Daily Kos.
I wrote "GMO
Opinionated Fact Sheet" and "GMOs and Human Rights", made about
140 copies of each so far and have been passing/mailing them to others. I
also sent them to each of my State and Federal congressional representatives and
to Mrs. Obama. I am also in the process of e-mailing the companies on the
above-mentioned list whose products I have previously purchased to let them
know why I will no longer be using those
products.
PLU CODES
You may have heard of PLU Codes as a solution to the problem of identifying GMO foods. These codes do not make GMO labeling unnecesssary. According to www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/05/... PLU codes are
four or five digit numbers printed on stickers that are placed on fresh
fruits and vegetables for the purpose of aiding in sorting and retail
check-out. If the 5 digit code starts with 3 or 4, it indicates that
produce was "probably" grown conventionally (using synthetic fertilizer,
pesticides, etc. but not genetically engineered). If the five digit
code starts with an "8", it indicates GMOs. In 2010, corn, soybeans,
cotton, canola, papaya, and squash were the only GMOs being widely sold,
according to this article. Today, that list would include beets and
alfalfa.
The problems with relying on PLU codes for GMO identification are the following:
1) The codes are used on fresh produce, not on processed food.
2) Not all produce is coded.
3) The program is voluntary.
4) #3 means that GMO growers can use a 3 or 4 instead of an 8 on GMO produce.
Prepared by R. Geiger
FEEL
FREE TO MAKE COPIES OF THE GMO HANDOUTS AND SHARE THEM FREELY WITH OTHERS. RG
