The comments on this article are painful. Monsanto certainly has a huge problem and that problem is PR. People call them an evil monopoly, but they're not a monopoly. They're the second biggest, sure, but they have lots of competitors behind them, too. Almost every single thing I read that's negative about Monsanto is either a fabrication or spun so heavily that the truth is too distorted.
Honestly, so much negative press really distracts from where you can find negative issues with the company.
To expand on the patent issue, it not only about Monsanto patenting life but also how they go around and enforce it. Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. Its if like a car manufacturer were to patent some new effective engine but then went to demand a cut each time the customer went and filled up the tank. Its not a deal that feels fair, and it makes people feel like someone got tricked.
>Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest.
"Demands"? Many GMO products don't create their own seeds so famers have to re-buy them. They do this before the harvest, not for each harvest. I've talked to farmers before and for some types of crops it's a freaking godsend for them.
I don't think "demands" is the right word. It's closer to a subscription service more than a "demand". Are you saying Google "demands" payment when you sign up to Google Apps? etc...
An entire generation has past. The people current working at Monsanto are not the people involved with Agent Orange. Carrying hatred into a multi-generation blood feud isn't helping anything useful.
If you want be angry at Monsanto, blame them for the things they are currently doing. Their ideas about patents are dangerous, and they learned predatory business practices from Romney (Bain Capital).
In other news, 80% of Americans want food containing gaining DNA to be labelled - comparable to the number that are concerned about dihydrogen monoxide.
Ctrl-F "roundup". Ctrl-F "glyphosphate".... Hmm, nothing found - especially curious for a CATO author who berates the American public's scientific understanding.
In other, other apparently unreported news, Monsanto's GM foods were designed to be extra resistant to the pesticides they sell.
"Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells"
It's important to focus on the fact that the GMO plants themelves without the extra pesticides they were designed to sustain are totally, 100% safe, though.
Signed, CATO (Koch funded think tank, closely allied with Monsanto)
The Schmeisers lost their heirloom corn they had been growing for generations when a neighbour grew Monsanto corn, which pollinated some of the Schmeiser's plants.
Because Monsanto had patented Roundup-ready corn, the Schmeisers lost the right to grow their unpatented family corn as some contained patented DNA. The court ruled 5% contamination was enough to assert IP rights and the Schmeisers could no longer grow their corn.
Seized ownership by genetic contamination is clearly a huge risk.
If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate:
"The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination."
Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the superior traits of the GM crop.
Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now, the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their financial interests for their shareholders.
I have heard this idea the Schmeisers benefited from Monsanto's Roundup-ready and I disagree.
The Schmeisers didn't use Roundup, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled they experienced no benefit from the Monsanto Genes.
For the wider picture this is moot: intentionality was about liability - the contamination lost them their heirloom regardless.
This is of grave concern to Nations as it could well mean in a few generations none of that species can be grown without Monsanto permission and license fees.
This article is part of the problem. People care about seed patents and farmer suicides too, but I don't see any mention of those in the first half of the article.
It's a shame, because all this hate should be directed at the food industry more broadly, including Cargill, ADM, and their armies of lobbyists
The problem is that many people are vehemently against GMO without having a clue. I remember of a famous french actress protesting on TV that people were forced to eat GMO. And saying in disgust "It's disgusting, I don't even want to eat DNA!"
On GMO and Monsanto I recommand a recent .net rocks:
More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda.
Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of other issues like cross contamination and what not but I think it would make a really got start.
You can create poisonous food with conventional techniques. The problem with the anti-GMO movement is that they're focusing on gene splicing without worrying about conventional methods. Labeling and testing cultivars is not a bad idea, but simply labeling "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" gives a false sense of security.
I don't see how GMO labeling could make the situation worse, as far as I can tell people are currently not looking at the potatoes in front of them wondering whether they may contain excessive amounts of alkaloids or not. People are buying their groceries according to price, past experiences, looking at the photo on the box and maybe reading the nutritional content. They are already eating a lot of stuff they better avoided and they do so knowingly. If they want to know whether it contains GMOs, tell them.
The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass of consumers feel this way it will just be a cultural fact that GMO's are "unsafe" and food producers will avoid using them to avoid being seen as purveyors of "unsafe food".
Something similar happened to nuclear power, and we got coal power instead. GMO's enable the intensive agriculture needed to support 7+ billion people with a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be possible, and the technology is still primitive. I don't want it to be stopped in it's tracks by mob psychology.
80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They feel about being forced to live with GMOs exactly the same way you feel about being forced to live with coal power, it's just a matter of on which side of the debate you are, both sides strongly believe to be on the right one.
Why not? Make it blue, not red or green. Maybe even have it on everything, with and without GMOs, to avoid implicitly expressing any bias. People will surly complain that it is not red and has no skull and crossbones, but that's life.
And the reason is that people want to know it. Forget everything pro or contra GMOs, just see it as consumer information in the same way the usual ingredients labels are. I actually feel like this argument should be turned around - consumers have a right to know what is in their products, someone opposing GMO labeling should justify why it is okay or even better to hide this information from consumers.
If this is supposed to be informational, what useful information is it providing? Can you name a single utility that will, in practice, be gained from a "GMO" label that isn't based on ignorance, delusion, fear of the unknown, or fundamental attribution error?
If there is some legitimate use, them I would fully support "GMO" labels. Until strong evidence is presented, presenting the "GMO" label as "informative" is an attempt to mislead. It confuses consumers and encourages delusional behavior.
Don't you consider free choice for consumers about what they want to eat something useful? Products are labeled as vegan so that people can avoid, for example, milk in their groceries. Cows living in captivity for milk production vs some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs. At least to me it is not obvious which of both is the better reason to put a label on products.
I and probably many people in first world nations would certainly feel different if we desperately needed GMOs to feed our people, but we don't. What do have to gain that justifies taking any additional risk however small? Less usage of biocides? More beautiful and homogeneous products? Less work for farmers?
We have produced harmful things - drugs, foods, building materials - before even though we did more or less our best to avoid it. Why not let people stick with things that we know are not harmful because they are time tested?
> some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs
That's the part that's delusional.
> Cows living in captivity for milk production
That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification. Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin.
Milk deserves a label because growth hormones and antibiotics have actual effects on humans. A similar label on Roundup Ready vegetables only encourages the delusional belief that they have "any additionnal risk, however small".
> needed GMOs to feed our people
We crossed that line a long time ago.
> Less usage of biocides?
YES. Roundup isn't perfect, but it is the least worse option compared to previous herbicides.
> they are time tested
Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy.
Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO".
> some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs
That's the part that's delusional.
I don't doubt that most research suggests that GMOs are safe for health and environments but I don't know how one would conclude that there are no residual risks. History has enough examples even if not many. Just asserting that it is safe is a unscientific as seeing it as declaring it the beginning of the apocalypse.
> Cows living in captivity for milk production
That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification.
That was only meant as an example why people want to know what they eat, they have diverse concerns.
Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin.
I never said something like this, I only argued for labeling GMOs so that people can decide for themselves whether to buy the or not.
> needed GMOs to feed our people
We crossed that line a long time ago.
You left out the first world part. The EU, for example, does produce (almost) no GMOs but imports some. I didn't look up the exact numbers but given that we also throw away about a third of our food I am pretty sure we don't need GMOs.
> they are time tested
Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy.
My point was just that we have plants of which we know that they are good to consume so it seems not unreasonable to want to continue to do so instead of taking up risk - however small - with new ones.
Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO".
We will probably have to back up a bit, the discussion became quite fragmented and we are losing sight of the original issue. I am not against GMOs, at best I am for being careful. My original point was that there is a nonnegligible number of people not wanting GMOs - for good reasons or not - and we should just label GMOs so that everyone can decide for themself.
In the EU we already do this - although it is in the small print - but in the end I have no stakes in what the US or some other country does. For me it just seems a reasonable thing to do in order to pour oil on troubled waters. It doesn't really harm and everyone can eat what he likes. It won't help for people afraid of environmental issues but I guess more people are concerned about their personal health than about possible environmental impact.
I don't believe anything prevents a seller from honestly producing,marketing and selling GMO free foods. However, demanding that the rest of the world participate in their marketing scheme is silly.
Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive (as it would be with both FP and GMO) to actually determine the truth.
Also, I suppose corn, tomato, potato, peppers and most other selectively bred crops are can never have the "non-GMO" label?
I am from Europe and here it is mandatory to label products produced with GMOs with some exceptions like meat from animals fed with GMOs. It is not the case that a handful people demanded that, it is a nonnegligible fraction of the population.
And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process the software was build with. For example US companies had to adhere to the Safe Harbor rules if they wanted to offer services in the European Union and they probably had to declare that in the terms of service.
Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather than the current voluntary label system)?
Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.
Why not? Consumers have a right to know what they eat. If half the population really wants to know whether products adhere to some religious practices, then so be it, print it on the box. In some cases businesses will voluntary do such things because they see it as beneficial, in some cases they won't and then you have to make into a law. I guess in your example with the religions they would do so voluntarily because what are the downsides? In case of GMOs they won't because they - probably rightly - fear reduced sales and so we need a law. And faith and objectivity, that may be a thin line. What about vegetarians and vegans? And even in case of GMOs there is still a small but non-zero risk of adverse (long-term) effects.
Just like halal and kosher food makers, non-GMO food makers can include it on the box.
As a vegetarian myself, I assume food which doesn't disclose itself as being veg is not - particularly when outside of India. I don't feel it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to accommodate my personal tastes.
If everyone would label their non-GMO products that would maybe do, but what stops companies from putting non-GMO labels on GMO products if it is not enforced by some law? It also seems a bit backwards, why would one label all non-GMO products if one want's to know which products contain GMOs? That's a bit like labeling everything without honey as honey-free and not labeling honey and products containing honey. And we were already there - it is not you but a nonnegligible fraction of the population.
No one is opposed to requiring non-GMO labels to be accurate, just like all other advertising.
What's being discussed here is simply requiring Joe's Corn & Pork to put "non-Halal, non-Kosher, yay GMO" on their label. I.e., forcing Joe to participate in someone else's marketing scheme.
It is not a marketing scheme, it is customer information just like the usual ingredients labels. As I said in another comment, declaring what is in a product should really be the norm, GMO labeling opponents should justify why it is okay or better to hide this information from customers.
It's very simple. Food ingredients are on the label for safety reasons. There are no measurable safety effects of GMO, Halal, etc.
What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label? Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?
What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label?
Simple, if a substantial fraction of the consumers cares about it.
Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?
People already avoid products from specific companies, countries and whatnot because they disapprove their ethics, labor conditions and so on. If people cared about the race or religion of the people producing the products they buy, then it should be on the label. I would actually almost bet there were products advertising that they were produced by white Americans only or something similar. That it was never a mandatory labeling probably just means that people never cared enough about it, not that it is something totally unimaginable.
If this is really the only argument against GMO labeling, that it would be kind of a random addition amongst many other possible addition to the labels, that seems a pretty weak argument.
If there isn't already a law to identify when a animal was slaughted in a ritual manner, I would not be against it. Its the same as letting the consumer know that the eggs are from free range hens.
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?
Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).
There's nothing specific to GMOs that makes them patentable. Hybrid seeds can be patented, irradiated seeds can be patented, both of which are allowed to be labeled as organic.
I want all food that was packaged on Friday the 13th to be explicitly labeled as FRIDAY THE 13TH FOOD because I have an irrational fear of superstitious dates. I demand the government require all food manufacturers to comply with this labeling regime.
"They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment"
Absolutely not. It _completely_ depends on the organism in question. An organism is a complex chemical reaction, nothing like human engineered artifacts. You simply cannot declare _all_ GM organisms to be safe, in all contexts, ever. One has to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some GM organisms are perfectly safe (in certain contexts), others can be harmful.
I would like to require companies to provide a list of pesticides/fertilizers used, as well as what cultivar they are growing. Simply labeling GMO/non-GMO is not useful. It describes a process rather than an effect. It's like requiring people to label non-grafted plants.
Organic labeling is somewhat useful, since it does provide a list of prohibited fertilizers and pesticides, but I would prefer to simply have a list.
You can't stop people from making presuppositions about life. This is a silly statement since people already question GMO's even without the label. For example: "If Organic is safe, why is it labeled?"
And that's why we should put stickers on science books saying that some people dispute the theory of evolution. That's just truthful information, right?
Because of the problems of genetic diversity and the lack of public seed, even if chunks of Monsanto research is funded by the public in public research/land grant universities through public grants.
EG:While large chunks of cornell's Ag program does end up with some sorts of patents (I think) - much of the fees associated with the introduction of a new plant are paid directly by the consumer (eg: this grape https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell - new yorkers pay lower royalty fees to grow it). Furthermore, this grape (as an example) is considered public seed. I can, my neighbor can, whoever can, breed it with other grapes, sequence it, eat it, take cutting for creating new vines, whatever.
If Cornell^ decided to partner with Monsanto for Flint Corn, the flint corn may not be released to me to do that (hence the lawsuits, and why Monsanto buys/has huge internal labs on top of partnering with state universities)
The other issue of lack of public seed is the lack of genetic diversity, especially over the long term. One of big reasons why we have GM bananas is we only grow one kind of banana (cavendish). Imagine that applied to wheat, and then a grass disease mutates while Monsanto patents hold. If Monsanto wheat is 80% of wheat in the US, that disease is going to have a field day. Public seed is insurance that tinkers can tinker with genetics, thereby increasing genetic diversity of wheat in the field, tomatoes, what have you.
Right now we bank seed and have started z"heirloom seed" orgs like Seed Savers exchange. GM food theoretically has a place in there, but not if it is seen as a way of creating monoculture instead of tinkerers (which is what has happened)
We'll see if the fields turn
^Cornell does partner with outside organizations for plant breeding purposes.
71 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadHonestly, so much negative press really distracts from where you can find negative issues with the company.
1- the name. Monsanto sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
2- the whole concept of patenting a life form rubs many the wrong way
3- previous bad behavior, I.e. Agent orange.
4- self-reinforcing bad information
That's no excuse for making things up whole cloth,but it at least explains some of it.
"Demands"? Many GMO products don't create their own seeds so famers have to re-buy them. They do this before the harvest, not for each harvest. I've talked to farmers before and for some types of crops it's a freaking godsend for them.
I don't think "demands" is the right word. It's closer to a subscription service more than a "demand". Are you saying Google "demands" payment when you sign up to Google Apps? etc...
If you want be angry at Monsanto, blame them for the things they are currently doing. Their ideas about patents are dangerous, and they learned predatory business practices from Romney (Bain Capital).
Because they forgot to set their corporate motto to "Don't be evil".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
In other, other apparently unreported news, Monsanto's GM foods were designed to be extra resistant to the pesticides they sell.
This pesticide, specifically: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n
"Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells"
It's important to focus on the fact that the GMO plants themelves without the extra pesticides they were designed to sustain are totally, 100% safe, though.
Signed, CATO (Koch funded think tank, closely allied with Monsanto)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_con...
The Schmeisers lost their heirloom corn they had been growing for generations when a neighbour grew Monsanto corn, which pollinated some of the Schmeiser's plants.
Because Monsanto had patented Roundup-ready corn, the Schmeisers lost the right to grow their unpatented family corn as some contained patented DNA. The court ruled 5% contamination was enough to assert IP rights and the Schmeisers could no longer grow their corn.
Seized ownership by genetic contamination is clearly a huge risk.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmei...
"The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination."
Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the superior traits of the GM crop.
Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now, the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their financial interests for their shareholders.
The Schmeisers didn't use Roundup, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled they experienced no benefit from the Monsanto Genes.
For the wider picture this is moot: intentionality was about liability - the contamination lost them their heirloom regardless.
This is of grave concern to Nations as it could well mean in a few generations none of that species can be grown without Monsanto permission and license fees.
It's a shame, because all this hate should be directed at the food industry more broadly, including Cargill, ADM, and their armies of lobbyists
"There's going to be an anti-GMO backlash and everyone is going to pick a villain. Pay us and we can make sure it isn't you."
There are many agricultural biotechnology companies. Maybe Monsanto didn't pay.
On GMO and Monsanto I recommand a recent .net rocks:
http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298
Vague and nebulous anecdotes drive me crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of other issues like cross contamination and what not but I think it would make a really got start.
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pota...
Something similar happened to nuclear power, and we got coal power instead. GMO's enable the intensive agriculture needed to support 7+ billion people with a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be possible, and the technology is still primitive. I don't want it to be stopped in it's tracks by mob psychology.
No. Nor should we support their delusions.
> both sides strongly believe to be on the right one
What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts.
If this is supposed to be informational, what useful information is it providing? Can you name a single utility that will, in practice, be gained from a "GMO" label that isn't based on ignorance, delusion, fear of the unknown, or fundamental attribution error?
If there is some legitimate use, them I would fully support "GMO" labels. Until strong evidence is presented, presenting the "GMO" label as "informative" is an attempt to mislead. It confuses consumers and encourages delusional behavior.
I and probably many people in first world nations would certainly feel different if we desperately needed GMOs to feed our people, but we don't. What do have to gain that justifies taking any additional risk however small? Less usage of biocides? More beautiful and homogeneous products? Less work for farmers?
We have produced harmful things - drugs, foods, building materials - before even though we did more or less our best to avoid it. Why not let people stick with things that we know are not harmful because they are time tested?
That's the part that's delusional.
> Cows living in captivity for milk production
That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification. Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin.
Milk deserves a label because growth hormones and antibiotics have actual effects on humans. A similar label on Roundup Ready vegetables only encourages the delusional belief that they have "any additionnal risk, however small".
> needed GMOs to feed our people
We crossed that line a long time ago.
> Less usage of biocides?
YES. Roundup isn't perfect, but it is the least worse option compared to previous herbicides.
> they are time tested
Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy.
Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_methanesulfonate
I don't doubt that most research suggests that GMOs are safe for health and environments but I don't know how one would conclude that there are no residual risks. History has enough examples even if not many. Just asserting that it is safe is a unscientific as seeing it as declaring it the beginning of the apocalypse.
> Cows living in captivity for milk production
That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification.
That was only meant as an example why people want to know what they eat, they have diverse concerns.
Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin.
I never said something like this, I only argued for labeling GMOs so that people can decide for themselves whether to buy the or not.
> needed GMOs to feed our people
We crossed that line a long time ago.
You left out the first world part. The EU, for example, does produce (almost) no GMOs but imports some. I didn't look up the exact numbers but given that we also throw away about a third of our food I am pretty sure we don't need GMOs.
> they are time tested
Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy.
My point was just that we have plants of which we know that they are good to consume so it seems not unreasonable to want to continue to do so instead of taking up risk - however small - with new ones.
Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO".
We will probably have to back up a bit, the discussion became quite fragmented and we are losing sight of the original issue. I am not against GMOs, at best I am for being careful. My original point was that there is a nonnegligible number of people not wanting GMOs - for good reasons or not - and we should just label GMOs so that everyone can decide for themself.
In the EU we already do this - although it is in the small print - but in the end I have no stakes in what the US or some other country does. For me it just seems a reasonable thing to do in order to pour oil on troubled waters. It doesn't really harm and everyone can eat what he likes. It won't help for people afraid of environmental issues but I guess more people are concerned about their personal health than about possible environmental impact.
Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive (as it would be with both FP and GMO) to actually determine the truth.
Also, I suppose corn, tomato, potato, peppers and most other selectively bred crops are can never have the "non-GMO" label?
And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process the software was build with. For example US companies had to adhere to the Safe Harbor rules if they wanted to offer services in the European Union and they probably had to declare that in the terms of service.
Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.
As a vegetarian myself, I assume food which doesn't disclose itself as being veg is not - particularly when outside of India. I don't feel it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to accommodate my personal tastes.
What's being discussed here is simply requiring Joe's Corn & Pork to put "non-Halal, non-Kosher, yay GMO" on their label. I.e., forcing Joe to participate in someone else's marketing scheme.
What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label? Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?
Simple, if a substantial fraction of the consumers cares about it.
Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?
People already avoid products from specific companies, countries and whatnot because they disapprove their ethics, labor conditions and so on. If people cared about the race or religion of the people producing the products they buy, then it should be on the label. I would actually almost bet there were products advertising that they were produced by white Americans only or something similar. That it was never a mandatory labeling probably just means that people never cared enough about it, not that it is something totally unimaginable.
If this is really the only argument against GMO labeling, that it would be kind of a random addition amongst many other possible addition to the labels, that seems a pretty weak argument.
Then you want labeling about patents, not "genetic modification".
It's been the norm ever since the green revolution (modern hybrids often don't breed true http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ ).
They are making an economic decision when they buy and plant any crop, and they are good at making it (it's a low margin business).
Absolutely not. It _completely_ depends on the organism in question. An organism is a complex chemical reaction, nothing like human engineered artifacts. You simply cannot declare _all_ GM organisms to be safe, in all contexts, ever. One has to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some GM organisms are perfectly safe (in certain contexts), others can be harmful.
Organic labeling is somewhat useful, since it does provide a list of prohibited fertilizers and pesticides, but I would prefer to simply have a list.
After labeling: "If GMOs are so safe, then why are they labeled?"
There is literally zero distinction between a GMO and non-GMO ingredient that is not completely fabricated or imagined.
I do remember seeing a TV ad a long time ago. Their new short-lived tagline was, "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605
But to me it came across as, "Without Monsanto, life itself would be impossible."
EG:While large chunks of cornell's Ag program does end up with some sorts of patents (I think) - much of the fees associated with the introduction of a new plant are paid directly by the consumer (eg: this grape https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell - new yorkers pay lower royalty fees to grow it). Furthermore, this grape (as an example) is considered public seed. I can, my neighbor can, whoever can, breed it with other grapes, sequence it, eat it, take cutting for creating new vines, whatever.
If Cornell^ decided to partner with Monsanto for Flint Corn, the flint corn may not be released to me to do that (hence the lawsuits, and why Monsanto buys/has huge internal labs on top of partnering with state universities)
The other issue of lack of public seed is the lack of genetic diversity, especially over the long term. One of big reasons why we have GM bananas is we only grow one kind of banana (cavendish). Imagine that applied to wheat, and then a grass disease mutates while Monsanto patents hold. If Monsanto wheat is 80% of wheat in the US, that disease is going to have a field day. Public seed is insurance that tinkers can tinker with genetics, thereby increasing genetic diversity of wheat in the field, tomatoes, what have you.
Right now we bank seed and have started z"heirloom seed" orgs like Seed Savers exchange. GM food theoretically has a place in there, but not if it is seen as a way of creating monoculture instead of tinkerers (which is what has happened)
We'll see if the fields turn
^Cornell does partner with outside organizations for plant breeding purposes.