You people in the developed world are certainly free to debate the merits of genetically modified foods, but can we please eat first? – Dr. Florence Wambugu of Kenya
Over at TheEnvironmentSite.org Environment Forum, EcoBlogger has posted an article titled Are You Eating Genetically Modified Foods? 7 Tips to Avoid Eating GMOs!
I would comment there at TheEnvironmentSite.org, and be done with it, but I don’t feel like registering for yet another user name and password to forget. So here goes…
Ecoblogger recommends, avoiding GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) by avoiding “conventional sugar,” soy, corn, Canola and cottonseed because, “Most blended oils in North America contain canola and cottonseed” and “Over 90% of this year’s sugar beet harvest will be Monsanto’s GM Roundup-Ready Sugar Beet.” Correct, according to a 2010 National Academies of Sciences study, more than four-fifths of the soybean, corn, and cotton acreage in the United States uses genetically engineered crops.
As you who have followed the Timberati blog for awhile know, I’m not afraid eating GMOs. After all, we already eat GM (also called GE for “genetically engineered”) soy, wheat, corn, rice, canola, tomato, sugar beets, cassava, and other crops with no ill effect. In fact, a thousand million meals from GM crops have been eaten with no ill effects. That track record should tell us something about their safety.
“Genetic engineering is more precise and predictable, yet it is regulated,” says Martina Newell McGloughlin, director of the University of California’s Biotechnology Research and Education Program. “There is no regulation at all on the traditional breeding system.” A traditional system that uses gamma radiation to force mutations.
And, never mind that, by definition, most of our agricultural crops are ‘genetically modified’; corn and wheat bear little resemblance to the grasses they started from.
Of course, almost by definition, all crop plants are ‘genetically modified.’ They are monstrous mutants capable of yield unnaturally large, free-threshing seeds or heavy, sweet fruit and dependent on human intervention to survive…Wheat has three whole diploid (double) genomes in each of its cells, descended from three different wild grasses… Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves
Ecoblogger writes, “Unfortunately there isn’t a lot of research, testing and results documented on the effects GMOs have on humans.” Hmmm….
There is broad scientific consensus that GE crops currently on the market are safe to eat. The National Research Council (NRC), a non-profit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice to the US Congress, reports that the process of genetic engineering poses a similar risk of unintended consequences as conventional approaches of genetic alteration. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment. – Pamela Ronald, Professor of plant pathology, University of California, Davis
Ecoblogger recommends, “Buy Organically Grown Food – For now, the organic certification process is a relatively safe bet to ensure your food is free of GMOs, although this may not be the case in the future. Help support global sustainability by purchasing certified organically grown food.”
There’s global sustainability if you don’t mind losing rainforests. I’ve noted before:
[O]rganic farming needs more land to grow sustainable yields for the world. Worldwide, crops require 80 million tons of nitrogen to feed our current population. Generating that amount of nitrogen organically would require about six billion head of cattle plus the land to grow feed. [Now, do the math for the additional one billion on the way] Fossil fuels allow conventional farming to use less land than organic methods. “By spending not much energy to make fertilizer and run machinery — and trivial amounts of energy to ship the stuff we grow from the places it grows best,” writes Stephen Budiansky, a former editor of the scientific journal, Nature, “we have spared and conserved hundreds of millions of acres of land that otherwise would have had to be brought into agricultural production. That’s land that protects wildlife, that adds scenic beauty.” That means we spare wetlands, grasslands, forests, and rainforests from being cleared for agriculture.
Despite the fact that we:
- have eaten lots of GMOs already and haven’t become ill;
- are living longer;
- have the ability to target only one gene instead of nuking all the DNA and getting collateral damage in hopes of producing a desired trait;
- know that traditional method are no safer than genetic modification;
many still worry about GE/GM and the debate goes on. On its website, the Sierra Club uses up its hyperbole allotment going for simple lizard-brained terror, calling GM crops, “radically new and environmentally hazardous technology.” And Greenpeace is just plain crackers. “Do you ever eat major brands of bread, crackers or cereal? Are there canned soups or frozen dinners in your diet? If so, there’s a good chance you’re ingesting genetically engineered soy.” Oooh, boogedy-boogedy, I’m scared now.
Nullius in Verba 
Ridiculous drivel. Who is tracking illness reports about gmo crops? No one. Why? Because it’s not labelled. Why? Because the biotech industries spend millions to make sure it’s not labelled. Why? Because if ge foods were labelled, health effects could be tracked.
Why are all your quotes from UC Davis scientists? Because UC Davis is supported by Monsanto. But does that mean that their research is questionable? Of course it does. If you don’t believe that, I’ve got some land to sell you.
How do you get off saying these are reasonably green thoughts on this anti eco blog of yours? I’m mystified.
Thank you for commenting Sarah, though I ask that in the future you refrain from attacks. And rather than saying the post is “ridiculous drivel,” add to the discussion by providing counter-arguments. I would welcome those insights.
Though my comment about making appropriate replies stands, I appreciate your concern. As David Ropeik noted in a July 2010 Psychology Today, “The perception of genetically modified food is like the perception of any risk, a combination of the facts and how those facts feel, a mix of reason and gut reaction. GM food has several unique characteristics that psychologists have determined make some things feel scarier than others. It’s human-made, and that alone makes it scarier than a risk that’s natural. We’re more afraid of what we can’t detect ourselves, what we don’t understand, and what we’re exposed to involuntarily (remember your complaint about no labels?). We depend on the government to keep us safe, but we don’t completely trust the government, and that lack of trust feeds greater worry (ergo the complaints about secrets).”
All our crops differ from their wild counterparts. If GE is unnatural, then so are the crops we are eating. That is what agriculture is: using plants and animals to produce food for us. If GE food should be labeled because the food is “unnatural,” then let’s toss in traditional selection breeding methods as well. For the past fifty years, “traditional methods” have used chemical or radiation mutagenesis. Is irradiating or chemically altering a species to produce mutations safer than the selection and insertion of a specific trait? If one points out that we know that they are because we have been eating them for decades, the same can be said then for GE crops.
“No one” tracks the illnesses caused by GMO food? This seems hardly so.
The Food and Drug Administration monitors all bioengineered food. If a bioengineered food is significantly different from its traditional counterpart such that the common or usual name no longer adequately describes the new food, the name must be changed to describe the difference. If an issue exists for the food or a constituent of the food regarding how the food is used or consequences of its use, a statement must be made on the label to describe the issue. If a bioengineered food has a significantly different nutritional property, its label must reflect the difference. If a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based on the name of the food, the presence of that allergen must be disclosed on the label.In a 2000 investigation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that there was absolutely no evidence of any adverse affects due to GM corn.
The Economist carried a story on GE food in 1998, “Greenpeace, the rich world’s noisiest environmental campaigning group, cites an experiment in which a gene from a Brazil nut was transferred into a soyabean. People allergic to Brazil nuts were found to be allergic to the modified soyabean as well. But this health risk was picked up by safety tests long before the food reached the shops. The incident simply shows that, as with any new food containing a mix of ingredients, regulators need to be vigilant.” And, the FDA requires: “If a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based on the name of the food, the presence of that allergen must be disclosed on the label.”
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, The State of Food and Agriculture 2003–04, notes, “The international scientific community agrees that foods derived from the transgenic crops currently on the market are safe to eat and have been appropriately evaluated.”
The National Research Council agrees, “Genetic engineering is one of the newer technologies available to produce desirable traits in plants and animals used for food, but it poses no unique health risks that cannot also arise from conventional breeding and other genetic alteration methods. Any of those methods could result in unintended changes in the composition of the food.” [emphasis added] Please note that conventional breeding alters the genetics of the organism. Therefore, “[F]oods should be assessed on a case-by-case basis before they are sold to the public to determine whether unintended changes in the composition of the food could adversely affect human health. Surveillance after a food is on the market might also be needed in some cases.”
Here are some resources that you may find helpful:
Prescott, D. B. (2002). A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Conventionally Produced Foods. (Department of Food Science, University of Otago) Food Science and Nutrition .”A decade of EU-funded GMO research” by the European CommissionUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. (2003). The State of Food and Agriculture 2003–04. United Nations. Finally, as for whether I’m “green” enough and what gives me the right to say these are ‘reasonably green thoughts,’ let me point out what Stewart Brand says about fearing GE, “I dare say the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we’ve been wrong about. We’ve starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment, and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool. In defense of a bizarre idea of what is ‘natural,’ we reject the very thing Rachel Carson encouraged us to pursue – the new science of biotic controls. We make ourselves look as conspicuously irrational as those who espouse ‘intelligent design’ or ban stem-cell research, and we teach that irrationality to the public and to decision makers.”
I am a forester, not a romantic.
Brand notes about romantics and scientists: ‘The romantics identify with natural systems; the scientists study natural systems. The romantics are moralistic, rebellious against the perceived dominant power, and dismissive of any who appear to stray from the true path. They hate to admit mistakes or change direction… [scientists] are easily ignored, suppressed or demonized when their views don’t fit the consensus story line.”
You are obviously working for them.
Oh, you got me, J. They bought me off with affordable and nutritious food. As a result, I and my cohort live an average of ten years longer than my parents.
In the future, please refrain from ad hominem tactics and add to the information.
I´m a spanish agriculture engineer with some background in scientific research and fully support what Norm has written. Biotechnology just increases the rate of occurrence of what already happens in Nature. You just have to open your eyes and your minds: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34824610/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Agriculture is not natural. Plants have to be genetically domesticated to adapt to any cultivation practice. Cultivation per se is a genetic selection method, being it conscious or not.
What mystifies me is the absolute state of confussion that makes some of you think that sustainable is equivalent to organic. Or that transgenics cannot be organically grown. Organics is a regressive form of agriculture that won´t meet future food demand and that is introducing exotic “natural” predators at an alarming rate (do a little search for japanese ladybugs, for instance). Do you really think that is sustainable? IMO that´s outrageously ignorant and frivolous. Enjoy your propaganda.
You mention Rachel Carson in a positive way – this woman was all about romance and science. Have you read her books? How can you separate being a caregiver of forests from romance? How do you separate the heart from the mind when being an environmentalist? Mystifying and sad. This does not mean that I and other environmentalists don’t rely on hard science. Nope. Those days of butterfly costumes at protests are long gone, as far as I’m concerned. We have to counter people like you. People who have swallowed the propaganda that science backed by corporations is a positive thing that produces positive results.
I don’t have a psychological aversion and fear of ge foods, biotechnology and the like. I have researched and studied the issue (perhaps longer than you have?) and have come to conclusions that are rock solid: genetic manipulation through biotechnology is a harmful practice, rife with unintended consequences, that destroys biodiversity, creates superweeds, harms beneficial insects and cannot be controlled once it has been released. Links to research on each of these and other points are listed in my response to your record bee letter to the editor at http://www.topix.net/forum/source/lake-county-record-bee/T5002NMEV1LCK2CL4#c18
Regarding your points about chemical and radiation mutagenesis, I am unfamiliar with that technology but feel free to post links on it. If it creates new proteins like genetic engineering does or alters it in such a way that it can pass on its traits, then yes, that is concerning. Does it mean I need to jump off the anti GE bandwagon? Nope. You can be on the mutagenesis bandwagon – feel free. I might jump on it with you. However it points to the very thing that perhaps we both agree on: the consumer has the right to know what is in their foods. I for one read labels and am extremely angered by corporate interference about what is allowed on our labels.
It just is not true that the “FDA monitors all bioengineered food.” Show me the list, show me the department monitoring this, show me what they are monitoring, show me their conclusions. No one is tracking consumption of ge foods and illnesses. There are no ge illness forms. You state that “if a bioengineered food is significantly different from its traditional counterpart”, then it must be labelled accordingly. That is the crux of the debate: SIGNIFICANTLY. Cottonseed oil that has the insecticide Bt in it because it is from Bt cotton is not significantly different? RR soy that has antibiotic resistant marker genes and cauliflower mosaic virus intertwined in its DNA is not significantly different? What’s the threshold for being significantly different – does it have to be able to burst into multicolored blooms while singing You’re a Grand Old Flag on your plate?
I’m happy to see that you support the National Research Council’s recommendation that ALL foods be assessed on a case by case basis to determine whether these foods adversely impact human health. Let’s start with ge foods.
What these guys are saying is crap. They have been paid off with their affiliation for their product. Do your own research. for 2 books by Jefferey M. Smith on GMO. They will tell you all you need to know.
Not only this, but if you go ALL Organic for just two weeks you will see i huge difference in how you feel. Don’t take what anyone tells you as accurate. Yesterday after eating for the last two months only organic I came down with severe acid reflux and severe vomiting. This was after eating a non organic meal. I.E W/corn chicken rice etc.. I have never ever felt this way before. After about 15 trips to throw up throughout the night (from 3-6am)I have taken teas, fluids and many other things right now to feel better and I cant! I have thrown up everything I have in my stomach and still have this feeling.
Unfortunately the pain now lies past the stomach and it cant be thrown up. So now its a waiting game to see what happens. It is not 1:30pm and no signs of clearing up. Here is an interesting article as well. I’m sure this posting will be deleted if it is i will be making another site which you can review this posting later.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/blogs/healthy-food/genetically-modified-corn-organ-problems-rats
I think Alicia may be on to something. A visit to a doctor seems in order.
I recommend Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food by a married couple, Pamela C. Ronald (Professor in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis) and Raoul Adamchak (Market-Garden Coordinator at the UC Davis Student Farm). Professor Ronald is a plant geneticist and Mr Adamchak is an organic gardener. I am currently reading it. According to Oxford Press, “We learn how the couple, who share the goal of a sustainable agriculture, work together to tackle such issues as that of farmers trying to produce higher yields without resorting to environmentally hazardous chemicals–a problem that will loom larger as the world’s population increases. A colorfully written, insightful look at genetic engineering and organic farming, this book will interest consumers, farmers, and policy makers.” Organic Gardening Magazine said, “We found the book insightful and well-documented.”
I hope you feel better soon.
Alex, your symptons match better with an infection by a parasite of the digestive system. Go immediately to the doctor. I hope that it is not severe and that you will feel soon better.
On the other hand, many thanks for the link. As we can read in the Aknowledgements section:
Greenpeace is an advocacy group, isn´t it? Now I feel compelled to carefully read the paper when I have more time. After a quick look I have seen nothing conclusive, just the usual “more research needed”.
What product?
Oh, Great and Powerful Oz, we believe all the words that are coming forth from your mouth, and the EPA, and the USDA … well, obviously not. Just because you are scientists does not make you smarter than people who use common sense to determine their direction in life. Common sense says screwing around with DNA is insane. The genetic codes are, in my opinion, almost sacred since they are the very proof of an Intelligent Designer. So really, I believe THAT is the true issue here. Scientists do not want to admit to proof of intelligent design, so if they can “improve” on that design, manipulate and change it to suit needs as they see them, then the Designer must not have been the Most Intelligent after all. Correct? I think, after all is said and done, Science will find that they have made a false assumption and have played in the wrong pool.
You people in the developed world are certainly free to debate the merits of genetically modified foods, but can we please eat first? – Dr. Florence Wambugu