This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Do We Have a Right to Know If Our Food Has Been Genetically Modified?
The FDA is close to approving genetically modified (gm) salmon. See this and this.
We know that at least some genetically modified foods may harm the environment. See this.
And serious questions have been raised about whether some gm foods might
increase allergies or cause other health problems in humans and other
organisms. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
Indeed, as Mother Jones pointed out last week, gm salmon may itself increase allergies:
Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen called the company's food safety tests "woefully incomplete," and the group pointed out that the FDA approval panel is mostly comprised of GE [i.e. genetic engineering] cheerleaders,
with no fish ecologists or allergists. Why's an allergist important?
Because the company's own tests suggest that the new salmon could be
much more allergenic than regular salmon.
In order to understand the allergy tests, a bit of backstory on how AquAdvantage salmon are made
is necessary. First, genetic engineers create a "diploid" fish,
meaning like people, it has two sets of chromosomes. Then, to make the
final market product, they add genetic material from other fish and
breed a new salmon with three sets of chromosomes—a "triploid" female
that can't reproduce. AquaBounty researchers compared the
allergenicity—or potential to cause an allergic reaction—of a control
group of salmon to both the genetically engineered diploids and
triploids. They found (PDF,
see page 102) that the diploid salmon were 40 percent more allergenic
than the control, while the triploid group was 19 percent more
allergenic.
AquaBounty says that the triploids' allergenicity
level wasn't statistically significant, and although the diploids'
level is significant, it doesn't matter because only triploids will be
sold. But Hansen of the Consumers Union finds a few problems with this
argument. For starters, the test wasn't double blind, meaning the
researchers knew which fish were part of which test group. Second, the
sample size of triploid fish was tiny—only six fish in all. Third,
although AquaBounty is going to try to turn all its market-bound fish
into triploid sterile females, the process isn't perfect, and some 5
percent could end up as the more allergenic diploid. Especially scary
when you consider that unlike the triploids, the diploids aren't
sterile. So if they escaped, they could breed with wild salmon.
The
FDA simply doesn't have enough information to determine whether
AquaBounty's salmon are likely to cause more allergic reactions than
their non-GE counterparts. But there is good reason to be concerned
about the potential allergenicity of all GE foods, says Margaret Mellon,
director of the scientist Union of Concerned Scientsts' Food and
Environment Program. "You have this technology that allows you to
essentially move proteins around from food to food," she says. "You can
move a highly allergenic protein into a new food, and no one will know to avoid the new food."
Indeed, a 1996 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine
found that people who were allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic
to soy beans that had been implanted with a Brazil nut protein. There
is also some evidence that even proteins don't usually cause allergies
can become allergenic when they are moved to a new food. A 2005
Australian study
found that mice who were fed peas containing a typically
non-allergenic protein from kidney beans experienced allergic
reactions.
Another
worry is that potentially allergenic GE crops might "escape" into
foods. In the late '90s, the pharmaceutical giant Aventis introduced
StarLink, a genetically engineered variety of corn. StarLink was
approved for sale in the US, but only for non-food uses, since it
contained a potentially allergenic protein. But then, traces of it
started turning up in food (most famously, Taco Bell taco shells), and 28 people claimed they had suffered allergic reactions to foods containing StarLink. Although the CDC later found no medical evidence
that any of those people had an allergy to the corn, an EPA advisory
panel acknowledged that the CDC's tests did "not eliminate
StarLink...protein as a potential cause of allergic symptoms."
The
bottom line: It's not that genetically engineered foods are inherently
more allergenic than traditional foods, but transfering genes does make
it more likely that allergens might pop up in unexpected places.
"There can be a lot of unintended side effects when you do genetic
modification, which means you have to test very carefully," says
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the watchdog group Food and Water Watch.
"In the case of salmon, one test on six fish just seems very
insufficient for something that will open the floodgates to other GE
meat and fish."
Allergic reactions can - in a small
percentage of people - be more severe than just a sniffle or stomach
ache. Some people die from allergic reactions.
At least genetically modified salmon will be labeled as such, so people can avoid it if they wish. Right?
Wrong.
As the Washington Post notes:
The
FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically modified food
once it determines that the altered fish is not "materially" different
from other salmon - something agency scientists have said is true.
Perhaps more surprising, conventional
food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that
their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.
Unfortunately,
stifling the ability of producers of traditional foods to tell
consumers they are not using an additive is nothing new. For example,
Monsanto has sued milk producers who labeled their product as not containing growth hormone.
Similarly, Scientific American notes that gm seed producers control research, so that independent scientists can't study the effects of gm:
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops.
Liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians should all be up in arms about this.
We have a right to know what we're eating.
Postscript: Farmed salmon contains less of the healthy Omega 3 fatty acids and more pollutants than wild salmon. See this and this.
GM salmon will be farmed (unless it escapes into the ocean). So
eating wild salmon may potentially be one way to avoid gm salmon, reduce
exposure to pollutants, and increase healthy Omega 3s.
The
reason that wild salmon has more Omega 3s than farmed salmon is that
wild salmon eat Omega 3 rich foods. It is the same reason that
grass-fed beef contains more Omega 3s than beef from cows fed corn, meat
or other "modern" feeds. See this and this.
Eating Omega 3 rich foods can increase gray matter in adults and boost neurological development in children. Conversely, low dietary levels of Omega 3s in mothers can reduce their kids' IQ.
This is not entirely surprising, given that (1) our brains are about 60% fat, and (2) leading
nutritionists say that humans evolved to consume alot of Omega 3 fatty acids in the wild game and fish which they ate (more),
and that a low Omega 3 diet is a very new trend within the last 100
years or so
- advertisements -
The bleeding-out actually makes the meat taste better. This is the method I use. It *can* be done humanely, but, I cant say that it is being done humanely by others.
I encourage everyone to keep an open mind. It's a complicated issue and I find the scientific truth to be illusive. I've seen persuasive arguments both for and against. I do know that we have been modifying food via artificial selection, cross breeding, and forced random mutations for a long time. And I do know we may need to further modify food to allow us to grow enough when climate change really starts to bite.
I recommend you read Stewart Brand's new book "Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto" for the perspective of a respected environmentalist who recently changed his view in favor of GM food.
Do you suppose that a Study that meets the standards of a 9th grade science class would be a good idea for helping us the find something approximating the scientific truth?
Do you thing the patenting of this mutant fish will lead anywhere different from where Monsanto has taken the world today?
ten thousand years of evolution in the span of three years seems a little forced.
perhaps thrity or forty years of testing were in order....
Breaking News (September 30, 2010)
Court Restores Right to Know in Ohio and Throughout the U.S.
Oeffa.org
“Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit struck down a significant part of a pending rule in Ohio that would restrict the information consumers get about whether milk was produced with the artificial growth hormone rBGH. Today’s decision, the result of a lawsuit filed by the International Dairy Foods Association and the Organic Trade Association, threw out a part of the rule created by the Ohio Department of Agriculture that essentially prohibited labeling dairy products as ‘rBGH-free.’ The court also rejected a portion of the rule that had placed severe restrictions on other types of labeling that referred to the use of rBGH.
“This means that farmers in Ohio will be able to label their milk as produced from cows that were not treated with rBGH, and that consumers will still be able to use this information when they purchase dairy products.
Not just the GM itself. Often GM'ing a food is designed to allow heavier use of pesticides/herbicides. So the food can pose no harm itself, sail through the FDA's requirements, and still be more toxic when it actually hits store shelves.
Getting farm raised fish that have been color 'enhanced' labeled as such was difficult enough.
But GM food, that's got to be clear cut; label as such.
Maybe requiring the patent number to be displayed on the package would be a way to side-step the 'GM' taint while still conveying the information.
Thanks, GW.
You are busy on all fronts!
From our friends at Food & Water Watch:
If you don't want genetically engineered salmon to end up on your plate, we need you to make a call to the White House today. President Obama can stop the approval of these Frankenfish; we just need to
raise the visibility of this issue. Can you take 30 seconds and make your call now?
http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4750
The Food & Drug Administration is on track to approve genetically engineered salmon for people to eat in just four days. President Obama has the power to stop this approval. We're working to get in
over 1,500 calls to the White House today. Can you take a moment and make a call right now?
http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4750
The FDA has a flawed process for approving these GE salmon and unfortunately for us, the process isn't focused on what happens to people who eat genetically engineered animals. If the FDA moves forward,
these salmon would be the first GE animals approved for human consumption.
Can you make a call as part of our National Day of Action to ask President Obama to stop the approval of genetically engineered salmon?
http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4750
GW (A$$CLOWN),
Must really really hurt to be short a stock that goes up every single day in your face. VEry easy to write libelous columns when you're feeling so much pain right?
Yah, yah, yah. Whatever, Monstrous Santa is doing great for you, congratz: you're capable of shooting yourself in the face, how very impressive. Personally, I couldn't give a ratz anus if you wanna whore yourself and yours out as guinea pigz, but you had better quit trying to force feed me frog while telling me it's a tomato.
So, when companies that don't use GMO's in their products want to advertise them as 'GMO free' but aren't allowed to because it might hurt your precious share-holding feelings... well let's just say that Monstrous Santa and its s/p can lick my ballsac. You don't get to chose what me and mine eat.
Vendetta?
Eat kosher or halal.
I bet Alberto Contador would like to know....
And the lesson from Contador's positive test scares me -- what is it that food producers are introducing into the consumption stream that I don't know about?
Organic and Local seems to be the only effective defense mechanism, because I can't trust the goverment to do its freaking job.
I am a libertarian and I say yes, we have the right to know.
In my ideal world it would be through free market mechanism, but since we dont have a free market I will take what I get.
in my ideal world, pizza would grow on trees like giant oranges you could tear open to find piping hot cheesosity...
mama mia!
libertarianism is gonna be great in the 27th century.
It WAS great in the 19th century, and the first part of the 20th.
Or are you confusing libertarianism (roughly total government spending between an arbitrarily small amount and 5% of GDP) with anarchy (total government spending=0)?
>I am a libertarian and I say yes, we have the right to know.
A libertarian believes in liberty, i.e. I have the right to grow food how I want and not tell you, and you have the right to ask and then not buy the food if I don't answer the questions to your satisfaction.
But you certainly have no right to know how I grow food. A libertarian would not trespass on my property to study my production methods, for example.
But I do have the right to not buy your food. And without government intervention and without credit monopoly there would be enough competition as to make posible that I only buy from companies that tell me what kind of products they are using.
Unfortunately, the libertarian ideology doesn't work when it comes to general public safety issues because there's too much conflict between private profits and the best interests of society; and public safety - having good laws and enforcing them - is one legitimate function of government.
The only conflict exists in the mind of the liberals who have been in control of our government for the last 100 years, and those that support them.
According to your logic, the government could also kill off up to 49.999% of the population to protect the other 50.0001% from some plague. Certainly, it is taken to an extreme, but one must FORCE a liberal to see the end result of his logic to stop him from destroying everyone around him. This is currently happening in the economy, where the liberals have been allowed to do whatever they wish without regard for actual liberty for a hundred years, and now the world is crashing down around their ears.
All I can do is shrug.
Liberals controlling government? Which ones? The Fem Dems? The one's whose party was founded by Averall Harriman? Those liberals? There are no liberals! Only small bands of hippies who "get it". Will Hegelian Idealists not fault both sides of the system? Was W a liberal? He changed the landscape with amplification. Herbert Walker? Whose father was best friends with your "liberal" Harriman? You are stuck in a mindset that was bestowed on you by both sides. What makes a liberal? Someone who does not spend on defense? You know these libs have spent more to fund and propagate wars than replubs? This fascism cares not about blue and red, but just monie. That is all it wants, monie. BS Bernanke was nominated by the Prince of the Neo Cons, yet he appeals to the libs? Who is he? Who is Ben Shalom Bernanke? And how would we better the situation with the Replubs? Impalin will make it all better, because she 'isn't one of them'. Yeah right! McCain along with Barry, came off of his campaign trail to promote the TARP. Where are your Replubs? Where were they to save the day? They had their chance, but they are all Keynsians now.
The conflict is due to human nature and any solution that discounts it is bound to fail, and I'm not a "liberal." You're totally misunderstanding my logic.
>the libertarian ideology doesn't work when it comes to general public safety issues
Perhaps you should study economics and political theory further.
>because there's too much conflict between private profits and the best interests of society
There is no "best interests of society". There is no "society". There are only individuals. Also, I'm very curious why you think your statist solution - a bunch of violent thugs extracting wealth from people to provide them monopolistic services - is somehow immune to corruption or conflicts of interest, if not outright cruelty.
There once was a state that felt placing people in ovens was in the "best interests of society".
Thanks for the suggestion about studying economics and politics. I disagree with you that there is no "best interest of society" and no society, and my solution is not to have a bunch of violent thugs extract wealth from people, nor do I think government is immune to corruption -- quite the contrary.
So, corporations can donate to campaign funds (i.e. buy off politicians) as it is their right to free speech.
Yet, good corporations cannot exercise their free speech right by labeling their food as hormone free, GMO free, etc..
It seems to me that our government is criminal, corrupt, and illegitimate!
Actually the two statements are compatable. The second one is a byprodcut of the first.
Yawn..
The free market already solved this problem.
If this GM food scare stuff bothers you, buy from one of the 100's of local health food stores, or whole foods, nutrition mart, etc etc.
problem being, dog, that GMO crops such as corn and sugar beet, basics in most foods produced commercially, cross-pollinate with organic crops:
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/jun08/sugar_beet_industry_converts...
. . .which, of course, removes the option of "choice" - rather like tap water, and the air we breathe. . . pervasive, invasive, and annoying as f*k.
Thanks for the info, I see your point.
All I have to say is:
"cross-pollinate with organic crops"
Those god-dammed bees!
yeah, you do not want to get me started with the ongoing "colony collapse disorder":
"The mysterious four-year-old crisis of disappearing honeybees is deepening.
A U.S. survey indicates a heavy bee die-off this past winter, while a new study shows honeybees' pollen and hives laden with pesticides."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/03/24/tech-bee-colony-collapse.html#ixzz11SUdDBAbIf only the GMO free products were allowed to advertise themselves as such I'd be right with you MaosDog, until then the choice of what my family eats is left up to Monstrous Santa...ef that chite.
Nope it does not. It may surprise you that a lot of GM food companies are major brand owners of non-GM food companies. Check out what Pepsi does and does not own !!
I'm not afraid of eating GM food. I am more afraid that limiting GM technology would cause increased food prices and greater poverty and death, especially in poorer countries.
There's no need for nanny government to tax me and then be involved in my food choices. The monopolistic FDA should be abolished to make room for competing private companies. If the FDA is solving problems that people need solved, then freely acting people would quickly fill the vacancy. For example, if I want, I am always free to insist that my food producers be inspected by a private organization of my choice and I can refuse to purchase from food producers that don't submit to private inspections and whose food isn't certified.
god you know im getting really sick of this. government is totally corrupt in america. ok . it sucks. but the fact is...you NEED a good government. one that works for you. this stupid idea that big business is your friend and will solve all your problems is bullshit. yes free market. im all for it, but you need a government that can do things too and isn't bought off by the corporations. corporations dont give a shit about you. they just want to take your money as quickly as possible.
Such an obvious spook....
1) you know food prices are going up because the USDA have been supplying overly bullish harvest data for the last 2+ years.
2) you know the value of the USD is about to fall off a cliff causing global food (and commodity) prices to rise within the US and $ pegged countries (china)
3) there are no private food organizations outside of the Establishment that are allowed to prosper
Yes there will be some medium term economic dislocations that affect the food chain and yes it was all designed that way and yes GM foods will be offered as the answer and yes...
...you sir are a fcking cunt.
I'm not afraid of eating GM food.
•• and it's not afraid of eating you.
I am more afraid that limiting GM technology would cause increased food prices
•• etf's are gmo?
and greater poverty and death, especially in poorer countries.
•• a twinkie in every pot!
There's no need for nanny government to tax me and then be involved in my food choices.
•• mmmm, arsenic.
The monopolistic FDA should be abolished to make room for competing private companies.
•• like moody's and s'n'p.
If the FDA is[n't?] solving problems that people need solved, then freely acting people would quickly fill the vacancy.
•• or the cemetary.
For example, if I want, I am always free to insist that my food producers be inspected by a private organization of my choice
•• farmers own shotguns.
and I can refuse to purchase from food producers that don't submit to private inspections and whose food isn't certified.
•• you can.
Who will pay for the private groups to do this?
The government's response to the outbreak of mad cow disease was simple: it stopped testing for mad cow, and prevented cattle ranchers and meat processors from voluntarily testing their own cows (and see this).
Are you sure that private groups will be allowed to test and then reveal their findings?
The government caused this problem. I'm not sure more government is the solution.
If the government had stayed out of it, the cattle ranchers and meat processors would have paid for it. The only problem here is the government.
>Who will pay for the private groups to do this?
I will, if I want a certain quality of food. Or, I will not, if I need to spend the money on other things, say, like feeding my children. Currently, I'm forced to pay the FDA through taxation whether I want to or not.
>The government's response to the outbreak of mad cow disease was simple: it stopped testing for mad cow
Yes, monopolistic organizations like FDA provide poor quality services at high prices. A private company that behaved that way would face irate customers, loss of revenue, possible litigation, and potentially, liquidation.
>Are you sure that private groups will be allowed to test and then reveal their findings?
Not necessarily. For example, the government might intervene to "protect" the food producers. But do you think what we have now with the FDA is working?
Doc, market fundamentals and "picky" consumers only exist in times of normal credit expansion/existence. It might be possible that with the contraction of credit, you may very well get a day and age when consumers irately dispense with cheap and/or harmful immitations ala wallstreetpro. However, we're not there yet... not by a long shot (think ipads).
If a private company was going to supplement and/or usurp the FDA, it could have done so already... there is nothing stopping it. If this is left to private groups, you end up just like the mortgage market... the "watch dogs" are likely in on the take... on some of these matters, if the cat gets out of the bag, the damage can be so severe that it outweighs the benefits derived from privatization....
I'm not sure the governmental watch dogs are much better... the problem lies effectively in our point along the timeline... if we are to change, we need some type of planned transition or else face literally no safeguards...
Not quite true. The Chinese sent over milk products contaminated with melamine.
...and drywall, and toothpaste and toys...
I can't wait until they start peddling financial products --oh wait!
The outcome may be more like what we got with the ratings agencies -- the food companies will pay the food quality assessors more than "we" as individuals can and will. Either way though, there's no good argument not to consider genetic modification a "material difference" in and of itself.
"The outcome may be more like what we got with the ratings agencies -- the food companies will pay the food quality assessors more than "we" as individuals can and will."
Oh, I thought with ratings agencies that it was a result of government intervention. But I don't know enough about rating's agencies regulation and licensing, really. In any case, I wouldn't trust a ratings agency that is paid by the entities they are rating.
The implementation of WTO's Codex Alimentarus in US law is proceeding, with the House version passed and SB.510 on its way.
Grow your own veggies?
Keep your own seed?
/not any more/
More info please if you have it. This is news to me. I don't have a clue about it. I have truck farmed before and am ordering in seed for when it become s necessary and I am trying to get as much of it as possible, non hybrid seed. These puke bastards--well what the hell, another law I guess I'm going to have to ignore Appriciate any info you can provide. Milestones
milestones ~
consider open-pollinated (heirloom) seeds, just to help maintain biodiversity
I can recommend the Seed Savers site, they have an amazing range of seeds on offer, and while they have a "membership fee" you don't have to be a member to browse the catalog online, nor to order seeds.
http://www.seedsavers.org/
there are many other places to get heirloom seeds - search them in your fave engine - a great community of people and advice!
thanks for bringing up the Codex Lebalance, I'll add a couple of links for anyone not familiar with what's currently going on. . .
last June, while the media was occupied with such events as the oil spill in the Gulf, Obama passed an Executive Order furthering the Codex Alimentarius agenda, which together with global corporations and such caring authorities as WHO, seeks to "normalise food standards" between nationstates. . .
which, given the extremely lax standards already present in amrka, should be alarming to many. . .
if anyone's interested, a link to a lively thread discussion:
http://survivingthemiddleclasscrash.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/barry-soeto...
also, more information on who's behind the Codex, and actions being taken:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=5604.
this has been on the "agenda" for decades now, tightening up control over "supplements" such as vitamins and herbs - if it's not patented and owned by a corporation, then they don't want you using it. . .
thanks for keeping up on things GW, as always!
Correct. The Neocons (while they were still Democrats, before switching sides to the Republican banner under Nixon) kicked this off in 1963 ... coincidentally, not long after all those onerous Executive Orders which give the POTUS dictatorial powers whenever he wants to use them.
As of January 1st 2010, the Codex came into full effect and they will be going hard from now on in to prevent the population from consuming any natural foods, vitamin supplements, or anything else which might be remotely capable of keeping us alive and/or healthy.
As of this year, any country which is not "fully compliant" with the Codex will be denied access to the WTO to resolve any trade disputes. So, it will be interesting to see how much longer the EU will hold out against it.
How else would they be able to create a sub-class of human servitude?
We are what we consume in ever sense of the word.