I 522 Breaking News

[mountainsandsound]

Yes to the first question. Genes are just building blocks and are conserved through evolutionary time. I think what repulses a lot of people is the idea of combining genes from two distantly related species- it sounds strange. But that itself is not a reason to believe that GMOs would be unsafe for human consumption.

 

The risk lies with the particular gene inserted into the GMOs genome. The gene could, for example, trigger an allergy in some people. So I do support vigorous real-world testing that ensures researchers understand what the effects of that gene are.

 

As FW mentioned above, understanding the full ecological and evolutionary implications is not straight forward, and I think that is where additional concerns about safety are warranted, rather than thinking you may get cancer from eating GM crops. There aren't any links between GM crops and cancer. But a diet high in red meat, organic or otherwise, does put you at an increased risk for colon cancer.

 

So my position is more nuanced than I first indicated. I don't necessarily support GM technology in its entirety. But I don't have concerns about human consumption. And that is why I don't think labeling is necessary. I made a joke about it in an earlier post, but if warning consumers about potential risks to human health posed by particular ingredients is the intent of labeling (I think I-522 is only ostensibly about simply "informing" consumers), it would make more sense to put labels on products that contribute greatly to say diabetes or heart disease.

 

[Kimmo]

Hello Nate, thanks for the reply. I am curious though about a couple of things you say:

 

Earlier in this thread, you said that you believe GMOs are completely safe, and an understanding of genetics is all that is needed to assess GMO safety, and that no actual food safety testing is needed.

 

But in the last post of yours, you say the following:

 

The risk lies with the particular gene inserted into the GMOs genome. The gene could, for example, trigger an allergy in some people. So I do support vigorous real-world testing that ensures researchers understand what the effects of that gene are.

 

Why the change in your opinion?

 

Why do you now support "vigorous real-world testing" for GMOs, when earlier you said "an understanding of genetics" is all that is needed?

 

 

 

 

[keenwesh]

Hello Nate, thanks for the reply. I am curious though about a couple of things you say:

 

Earlier in this thread, you said that you believe GMOs are completely safe, and an understanding of genetics is all that is needed to assess GMO safety, and that no actual food safety testing is needed.

 

But in the last post of yours, you say the following:

 

The risk lies with the particular gene inserted into the GMOs genome. The gene could, for example, trigger an allergy in some people. So I do support vigorous real-world testing that ensures researchers understand what the effects of that gene are.

 

Why the change in your opinion?

 

Why do you now support "vigorous real-world testing" for GMOs, when earlier you said "an understanding of genetics" is all that is needed?

 

 

 

 

You don't understand.

[keenwesh]

A potential problem could arise if the gene (and promoter region, you need both) spliced themselves in the middle of another gene, either deactivating it or changing the gene into something harmful. Any harmful genes would show up during the genomic sequencing. Also, they feed this stuff in massive quantities to rats during the FDA approval process. If they caused cancer/autism/herpes we would know about it.

[Kimmo]

Hello Nate, thanks for the reply. I am curious though about a couple of things you say:

 

Earlier in this thread, you said that you believe GMOs are completely safe, and an understanding of genetics is all that is needed to assess GMO safety, and that no actual food safety testing is needed.

 

But in the last post of yours, you say the following:

 

The risk lies with the particular gene inserted into the GMOs genome. The gene could, for example, trigger an allergy in some people. So I do support vigorous real-world testing that ensures researchers understand what the effects of that gene are.

 

Why the change in your opinion?

 

Why do you now support "vigorous real-world testing" for GMOs, when earlier you said "an understanding of genetics" is all that is needed?

 

 

 

 

You don't understand.

 

 

You are right, and that's why I asked him to clarify.

[mountainsandsound]

An understanding of genetics to know that putting genes from a distantly related organism into a food crop is not itself, cause for alarm, though it sounds very odd to the general public. Vigorous testing is needed to make sure that the particular genes are not allergens, or that they do no interfere with other genes, regardless of where that genetic material came from, be it a flounder or closely related plant.

 

It seems that many opponents of GM food use the "flounder gene in a tomato!" knee-jerk reaction from people to further the cause, when an understanding of biology would dismiss the intrinsic threat that is implied by that argument.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Nater

[Kimmo]

A potential problem could arise if the gene (and promoter region, you need both) spliced themselves in the middle of another gene, either deactivating it or changing the gene into something harmful. Any harmful genes would show up during the genomic sequencing. Also, they feed this stuff in massive quantities to rats during the FDA approval process. If they caused cancer/autism/herpes we would know about it.

 

You are right, I don't understand.

 

So help me out here.

 

1. Firstly, I was told by Nate that an understanding of genetics is enough to assess the safety of GMOs, and no testing is needed.

 

2. Then Nate states that there might be some problems that could occur, allergic reactions if I recall, and that's why he supports vigorous testing of GMOs for safety.

 

3. I asked him about this seeming change, and you chimed in with a "you don't understand." Not sure what that referred to, but...

 

4. You then stated that during the splicing process, the gene could turn into something "harmful", but this would show up during the genomic sequencing.

 

5. You then said that even if the above all didn't work out as planned, rats are fed the GMO, and certainly any problem would be caught at this point.

 

 

Is the above a fair synopsis so far?

 

 

 

 

 

[Kimmo]

An understanding of genetics to know that putting genes from a distantly related organism into a food crop is not itself, cause for alarm, though it sounds very odd to the general public. Vigorous testing is needed to make sure that the particular genes are not allergens, or that they do no interfere with other genes, regardless of where that genetic material came from, be it a flounder or closely related plant.

 

ok that sounds fine, thanks.

 

Do we currently have "vigorous testing", and what does it consist of?

[keenwesh]

from the FDA website:

 

Food and food ingredients derived from GE plants must adhere to the same safety requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act that apply to food and food ingredients derived from traditionally bred plants.

 

FDA encourages developers of GE plants to consult with the agency before marketing their products. Although the consultation is voluntary, Keefe says developers find it helpful in determining the steps necessary to ensure that food products made from their plants are safe and otherwise lawful.

 

The developer produces a safety assessment, which includes the identification of distinguishing attributes of new genetic traits, whether any new material in food made from the GE plant could be toxic or allergenic when eaten, and a comparison of the levels of nutrients in the GE plant to traditionally bred plants.

 

FDA scientists evaluate the safety assessment and also review relevant data and information that are publicly available in published scientific literature and the agency's own records.

 

The consultation is complete only when FDA's team of scientists are satisfied with the developer's safety assessment and have no further questions regarding safety or other regulatory issues.

 

As of May 2013, FDA has completed 96 consultations on genetically engineered crops. A complete list of all completed consultations and our responses are available at www.fda.gov/bioconinventory.

[Fairweather]

[video:youtube]OapaDPrOYwk

[Kimmo]

from the FDA website:

 

Food and food ingredients derived from GE plants must adhere to the same safety requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act that apply to food and food ingredients derived from traditionally bred plants.

 

FDA encourages developers of GE plants to consult with the agency before marketing their products. Although the consultation is voluntary, Keefe says developers find it helpful in determining the steps necessary to ensure that food products made from their plants are safe and otherwise lawful.

 

The developer produces a safety assessment, which includes the identification of distinguishing attributes of new genetic traits, whether any new material in food made from the GE plant could be toxic or allergenic when eaten, and a comparison of the levels of nutrients in the GE plant to traditionally bred plants.

 

FDA scientists evaluate the safety assessment and also review relevant data and information that are publicly available in published scientific literature and the agency's own records.

 

The consultation is complete only when FDA's team of scientists are satisfied with the developer's safety assessment and have no further questions regarding safety or other regulatory issues.

 

As of May 2013, FDA has completed 96 consultations on genetically engineered crops. A complete list of all completed consultations and our responses are available at www.fda.gov/bioconinventory.

 

I guess I don't understand again.

 

Why did you post this?

[Kimmo]

Keenwesh, I'll assume you posted your FDA website info as proof that the "vigorous" safety testing of GMOs Nate calls for already exists, correct?

 

I'm curious, did you read any of the info within the link you posted?

 

I quote:

 

"Based on the safety and nutritional assessment Monsanto has conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that oil derived from MON 87769 soybean for use as an ingredient in human food is not materially different in safety and other parameters from oils of similar chemical composition produced from other sources and used as ingredients in human food."

 

 

Interesting, huh?

 

The FDA asks Monsanto to do their own safety testing! The company that stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars from GMO sales is asked to do its own safety testing. Quite amazing, isn't it?

 

 

I ask you and Nate, does this qualify as "vigorous" safety testing?

Edited November 4, 2013 by Kimmo

[rob]

using fewer pesticides thanks to GMO's

 

Between 1996 and 2011, Bt corn reduced insecticide use in corn production by 45% worldwide (110 million pounds, or roughly the equivalent of 20,000 Olympic swimming pools).

[Kimmo]

Contrary to claims made by the chemical industries, glyphosate use increased 6,504% from 1991 to 2010 according to data from the USDA.

 

 

 

Thanks to glyphosate-resistant crops, farmers are free to spray more than ever.

 

 

 

Glyphosate is showing up everywhere

 

In a 2011 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, glyphosate was frequently detected in water, rain and air in the Mississippi River basin. Also in 2011, Chang et al. reported concentrations of glyphosate in air and rain as high as 2.5 μg/L in agricultural areas in Mississippi and Iowa.

 

 

Just another unintended consequence. Thanks Monsanto!

[rob]

Contrary to claims made by the chemical industries, glyphosate use increased 6,504% from 1991 to 2010 according to data from the USDA.

 

 

 

Thanks to glyphosate-resistant crops, farmers are free to spray more than ever.

 

 

 

Glyphosate is showing up everywhere

 

In a 2011 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, glyphosate was frequently detected in water, rain and air in the Mississippi River basin. Also in 2011, Chang et al. reported concentrations of glyphosate in air and rain as high as 2.5 μg/L in agricultural areas in Mississippi and Iowa.

 

 

Just another unintended consequence. Thanks Monsanto!

 

What most people don't know is that glyphosate is one of the most popular agricultural herbicides in use, even on non-resistant crops. Those non-GMO rasberries? Yep, *slathered* in pre-harvest roundup. Those non-GMO apples? Yep, those too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation

 

Yum, right?

 

Farmers like GMOs because they typically require fewer applications of pesticides, which means they save money. Farmers don't like products that require them to spend extra money on spraying. Duh, right? It's not like farmers are looking for products which require them to spend more money on spraying, which (btw) is expensive.

[Kimmo]

Glyphosate, active ingredient in Monsanto's RoundUp.

 

Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

 

From an article in Scientific American

[Kimmo]

Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.

 

"I would be so tied up in what I was able to do that basically I would have no value to anybody else," he said. "The only person I would have value to is Monsanto, and I would continue to pay them millions in fees."

 

 

CBS News

[Fairweather]

Kimmo, this is kind of an aside, but I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from and to what degree your position is driven by empiricism vs emotion or a particular world view. What are your thoughts on mandatory childhood vaccinations? Animal rights? Are you a vegetarian? Vegan? I'm ok with your position on 522 and I understand why a lot of folks are pushing for its passage. In fact, Jim makes a good point when he says something along the lines that "if Monsanto is against it, then I'm for it," and I'm tempted to follow this path as well. (Although it's too late; I voted No and mailed it in a few days ago.)

[rob]

Sure, roundup is basically poison. I'm not sure there are any herbicides that are safe. But that doesn't mean we should label GMOs. Unless you think roundup is only used on GMOs, which, as I already linked, is just totally untrue.

 

In fact, many GMO products allow farmers to save money by spraying less; for example, the bt corn I linked to.

 

Yet you continue to just post links that indicate roundup is bad. Sure, it's bad, but I-522 (unfortunately) is not about labeling the many non-GE products which contain roundup.

 

I can only assume you're a) not reading my links or b) totally unwilling to reconsider your position, regardless of data.

 

So, kind of a waste of time. Have fun!

[Kimmo]

Kimmo, this is kind of an aside, but I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from and to what degree your position is driven by empiricism vs emotion or a particular world view. What are your thoughts on mandatory childhood vaccinations? Animal rights? Are you a vegetarian? Vegan? I'm ok with your position on 522 and I understand why a lot of folks are pushing for its passage. In fact, Jim makes a good point when he says something along the lines that "if Monsanto is against it, then I'm for it," and I'm tempted to follow this path as well. (Although it's too late; I voted No and mailed it in a few days ago.)

 

I wish you would have followed that path!

 

 

I'll answer your question with a question:

 

Where do *you* think I'm coming from? I ask this because it seems my involvement with this topic here provides a rather strong clue, so I'm a little confused by the question.

 

But, certainly concern over a controversial technology being exploited by a large profit-driven corporation is at the top of my list.

 

The technology itself? Man, what a marvel. And I think it holds great promise that we can't even foresee right now. But foisting it upon the entire planet for commercial gain? I'd hold to the Precautionary Principle on this one.

 

[Fairweather]

 

I'll answer your question with a question:

 

Where do *you* think I'm coming from? I ask this because it seems my involvement with this topic here provides a rather strong clue, so I'm a little confused by the question.

 

But, certainly concern over a controversial technology being exploited by a large profit-driven corporation is at the top of my list.

 

The technology itself? Man, what a marvel. And I think it holds great promise that we can't even foresee right now. But foisting it upon the entire planet for commercial gain? I'd hold to the Precautionary Principle on this one.

 

I don't really care for the rhetorical exercise in this case--but I hinted at the reason for this question earlier in the thread. When Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle in 1906, he wasn't really as concerned about the disgusting meat packing practices of the day as he was systemic change on a meta level. As a committed socialist he was hoping to damage or take down the entire capitalist political-economic structure. He admitted as much when he later lamented something along the lines of "I was aiming for American's hearts but I ended up hitting their stomachs instead." One hundred and seven years later, the structure he despised remains firmly in place.

 

I guess I'm just trying to figure out if you're nuanced in any way--or just another Upton Sinclair.

 

edit: I am curious about your thoughts on vaccinations, though.

[Kimmo]

Really?

 

ok I'll take your question seriously:

 

I *absolutely* believe that GMOs should be labeled. I should be able to pick up any food item meant for consumption and know immediately if it contains a controversial technology. This I believe without a doubt!

 

I shouldn't have to play a guessing game: "well, I know "organic" is GMO free (wouldn't be if Monsanto would have had its way! They fought this one hard.), and some are labeled "GMO free", but this one doesn't have a label. Should I assume it's GMO?"

 

The consumer has rights, codified rights, and considering the unanswered controversies surrounding GMOs, without doubt they should be labeled.

 

We aren't talking about the down-fall of capitalism here, or even the down-fall of Monsanto.

 

And forced vaccinations? My feelings are "nuanced".

[Fairweather]

Respectfully, you seem to be better at asking questions than answering them.

[prole]

Hey, as long as the American regulatory bodies and corporate funded scientists, compromised as they may be, say they haven't found anything harmful to humans YET, it's coo. As far as the rest of the Earth's species are concerned, the one's also living and breeding amongst this shit, they can just FUCK OFF!

[Fairweather]

As far as the rest of the Earth's species are concerned, the one's also living and breeding amongst this shit, they can just FUCK OFF!

 

This is the correct approach, IMO. The human health/gross-out strategy is just more of the same in a long line of emotional, ideology-driven BS. It has never worked. The way these GMOs can affect the natural world is the way this 522 battle should have been fought.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Fairweather