Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

[Deleted]

Again, as far as I know, there is nothing preventing people from putting "GMO free" on their products.

Telling people to google the dangers of GMOs isn't helping. There are a lot of uninformed idiots spewing lies.

So?
/10characters

[xuros]

And the straw man arguments begin...

I was thinking the same thing when I read that post!

[TZucchini]

There you have it. Corporativism at its finest. Informing citizens is pointless.
By the way, in here all sources need to be labeled on packages. Weird isn't it.

You're out of your fucking mind. I fully support corporate regulation to protect consumers.

It's just that "knowing who private corporations buy their goods from" and "labeling GMO" is not a protection. If the product is safe, then it's an onerous and pointless regulation.

[Deleted]

You're out of your fucking mind. I fully support corporate regulation to protect consumers.

It's just that "knowing who private corporations buy their goods from" and "labeling GMO" is not a protection. If the product is safe, then it's an onerous and pointless regulation.

The product might be safe for consumption. Its long term effects on agriculture and health though, are still mostly unknown. Plus "GMO" isnt a single entity. Every variation would have to be studied and the results verified.
So there is absolutely no way you support regulations for companies while at the same time being so adamant about GMO labeling. GMO labeling affects NOTHING but the companies producing GMO. If they start marketing their products in a proper way and educating people about what they do like ANY OTHER COMPANY accessing the free market would, they'd have no issues. They don't though.
You know your marketing line is shit when it goes "we wont label them but dont worry theyre ok".

[SteveZombie]

We in Europe do NOT want this GMO crap here. I don't care how much they say they're good to go, I'd MUCH rather have all natural food.

I suppose everything that winds up on your plate is plucked fresh from the forest then? Well hey, that's great. But please explain to us what in particular makes that preferable to foodstuffs that have been produced by what is essentially an advanced form of selective breeding.

[petej0]

Again, as far as I know, there is nothing preventing people from putting "GMO free" on their products.

Yes, and you would have entire food lines with this label. Which means you would be hard pressed to fine something without the label. I wouldnt be surprised that companies are against it because they know it is in everything and they wouldnt want to open themselves to lawsuits by not putting a label on something that ended up containing trace amounts of a product that was GMO

[Underverse]

There you have it. Corporativism at its finest. Informing citizens is pointless.
By the way, in here all sources need to be labeled on packages. Weird isn't it.

The issue is that information in this case can, and most certainly will be, misconstrued. The public's knowledge of GMO products is limited. Adding extra information without context can be destructive in any case, and most likely would be in this case.

[petej0]

GMO labeling affects NOTHING but the companies producing GMO.

Which is basically any food manufacturer.

If they start marketing their products in a proper way and educating people about what they do like ANY OTHER COMPANY accessing the free market would, they'd have no issues. They don't though.
You know your marketing line is shit when it goes "we wont label them but dont worry theyre ok".

They can market their products as GMO, but it wont change peoples opinions of what GMO is. That is the problem. The public is uninformed and think GMO means glow in the dark tomatoes. When it really could just be a tomato plant that is less susceptible to frost.

[Deleted]

The issue is that information in this case can, and most certainly will be, misconstrued. The public's knowledge of GMO products is limited. Adding extra information without context can be destructive in any case, and most likely would be in this case.

Destructive for who's selling said products maybe. Maybe it's time they stop spending money recruiting private armies and start spending money on marketing their products in a good light and educating people about their products huh?
This is what companies accessing the free market do.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is basically any food manufacturer.



They can market their products as GMO, but it wont change peoples opinions of what GMO is. That is the problem. The public is uninformed and think GMO means glow in the dark tomatoes. When it really could just be a tomato plant that is less susceptible to frost.

Once again, it looks as if the private companies that are supposed to educate people about the product they are selling, failed miserably in doing as such.
Why should I care?

[petej0]

Once again, it looks as if the private companies that are supposed to educate people about the product they are selling, failed miserably in doing as such.
Why should I care?

Because seeing a product labeled "GMO" does not tell you anything about what a GMO is and about the GMO product. Consumers just see GMO and freak out. If I am a potato chip manufacturer do I need to now label the GMO process for the potatoes I buy, the GMO process for the Canola Oil I fry them in and any other ingredients I use?

It is unrealistic to expect the Chip maker to add that to his labeling.

[Underverse]

Destructive for who's selling said products maybe. Maybe it's time they stop spending money recruiting private armies and start spending money on marketing their products in a good light and educating people about their products huh?
This is what companies accessing the free market do.

There are many strategies for success, and not all of them are happy market outcomes. Some say that the free market is capable of anything. Anything includes a lot of bad things.

But that aside, forcing GMO labeling will just cause a lot of stress for basically no reason. I agree that it's preferable for people to know more about their food, but only if they have the right context for that information. If everyone had complete knowledge about GMO products, then I would say go for it - label everything. But this isn't the case.

[Detritivores]

All those people with peanut allergies are just faking it too!

That family member actually had constant terrible stomach aches and asthma before this whole GMO thing came around. Doctors tested them for everything... even the more common allergies and found nothing and thought they were faking it. Well, they were only tested for the common allergies, not a comprehensive test.

It wasn't even until they got a specialist that tested them for an extremely comprehensive list of allergies that they found this. They were not told what they were being tested for for each immune reaction. So it's not like they're some kind of anti GMO fanatic who has a faked reaction.

Ever since they started avoiding corn, their condition went away. They can eat corn though if it's confirmed heritage corn.

I would be curious to hear an explanation for why that would happen, physiologically. Because it doesn't make any sense at all. How did one person end up with a gmo corn allergy and why is their case not widely published? It would be the first and only documented case of gmo allergy that I've heard of. If true that would at the very least deserve a case report being published, if not a complete rethinking of how we test for allergies.

[Deleted]

Because seeing a product labeled "GMO" does not tell you anything about what a GMO is and about the GMO product. Consumers just see GMO and freak out. If I am a potato chip manufacturer do I need to now label the GMO process for the potatoes I buy, the GMO process for the Canola Oil I fry them in and any other ingredients I use?

It is unrealistic to expect the Chip maker to add that to his labeling.

So? Neither does "free range" say anything and if you look it up it actually doesnt mean what it means. Still. A label isnt there to educate people. Educating the costumers about their products is responsability of who's selling them.
You could simply add (gmo) next to the ingredients used.
Worried about this affecting sales? Their problem not mine. Market will balance out and allow GMO in or not depending on a series of factors. Not last is how good their marketing campaign was.
So far, it's been brutal.

- - - Updated - - -

There are many strategies for success, and not all of them are happy market outcomes. Some say that the free market is capable of anything. Anything includes a lot of bad things.

But that aside, forcing GMO labeling will just cause a lot of stress for basically no reason. I agree that it's preferable for people to know more about their food, but only if they have the right context for that information. If everyone had complete knowledge about GMO products, then I would say go for it - label everything. But this isn't the case.

A lot of stress? For who? The guys printing the labels?

[Narwal]

Why do you care?
This is what I really cannot explain. Why do you guys take so much at heart the profits of a private company.

GMO doesn't just affect private company profits, it produces affordable food. I have friends who work in the GMO field of seed, I can tell you their single goal. PRODUCE MORE FOOD. You get there a couple ways: by making plants more hardy to survive extreme temperatures/weather, pests, and diseases; and by producing more per acre.

You shouldn't be bashing GMO products as evil because you think it's all for profit. It's fine to have a healthy skepticism about them and ask for safety measurements to be involved. GMO is the only thing we currently have that's going to allow this planet to sustain a growing human population. Or do you think we should just cut down the rain forests and make the entire land mass of the earth farm land?

Interestingly enough, as the population grows and we have urban sprawl, we're actually losing farm land. So not only are we growing the population, but as such occurs, farmland will be lost.

On the packaging request to denote it as GMO: They could just say like "pesticide/disease free"

[petej0]

So? Neither does "free range" say anything and if you look it up it actually doesnt mean what it means. Still. A label isnt there to educate people. Educating the costumers about their products is responsability of who's selling them.

So Lays has to educate their consumers about the GMO process of the potatoes they use and the Canola oil they use? Where on the packaging should they put this?

You could simply add (gmo) next to the ingredients used.
Worried about this affecting sales? Their problem not mine.

I am not worried about it affecting sales, because once the labeling is required people will be shocked about how much GMO is in their food. They will be forced to eat it or starve haha.

Market will balance out and allow GMO in or not depending on a series of factors. Not last is how good their marketing campaign was.
So far, it's been brutal.

Its not brutal, its not required. The FDA deems it safe so there is no requirement to label foods as safe, because the default position is the food you buy is safe. They require unsafe items to have a label. So requiring a label would make people think that they are unsafe.

[Deleted]

GMO doesn't just affect private company profits, it produces affordable food. I have friends who work in the GMO field of seed, I can tell you their single goal. PRODUCE MORE FOOD. You get there a couple ways: by making plants more hardy to survive extreme temperatures/weather, pests, and diseases; and by producing more per acre.

You shouldn't be bashing GMO products as evil because you think it's all for profit. It's fine to have a healthy skepticism about them and ask for safety measurements to be involved. GMO is the only thing we currently have that's going to allow this planet to sustain a growing human population. Or do you think we should just cut down the rain forests and make the entire land mass of the earth farm land?

Interestingly enough, as the population grows and we have urban sprawl, we're actually losing farm land. So not only are we growing the population, but as such occurs, farmland will be lost.

On the packaging request to denote it as GMO: They could just say like "pesticide/disease free"

In Europe we do not need to produce more food. Do you have to produce more food in the US? By the way as the report in here clearly states, prouction isnt increased.

[Eroginous]

Yeah, it's pretty much another vaccine scare or global warming denial, people not knowing science.

And even after the Academy of Sciences released the report, they were attacked by anti-GMO groups, just like climate change scientists are.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2...food/84458872/

SAN FRANCISCO — Genetically engineered crops are safe for humans and animals to eat and have not caused increases in cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal illnesses, kidney disease, autism or allergies, an exhaustive report from the National Academies of Science released Tuesday found.

Work on the 388-page report began two years ago and was conducted by a committee of more than 50 scientists, researchers and agricultural and industry experts convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. It reviewed more than 900 studies and data covering the 20 years since genetically modified crops were first introduced.

Overall, genetically engineered (GE) crops saved farmers in the United States money but didn’t appear to increase crop yields. They have lowered pest populations in some areas, especially in the Midwest but increased the number of herbicide-resistant weeds in others. There’s also no evidence that GE crops have affected the population of monarch butterflies, the report said.

The review was thorough and systemic, assessing many of the issues that have been raised about genetically engineered crops over the years, said Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the non-profit watchdog group the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington D.C. The group was not involved in the report's creation.

The genetic material of GE plants is artificially manipulated to give them characteristics they would not otherwise have. The two most common are pest resistance and the ability to withstand certain herbicides. That allows farmers to spray fields with herbicide, killing weeds while not harming the crops. Drought tolerant traits are newer and also becoming popular.

The report, "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects," was meant to be an objective overview of current research into the safety and environmental and social effects of these increasingly popular crops and the foods made from them.

Safe for humans

To gauge whether foods made from genetically modified crops were safe for human consumption, the committee compared disease reports from the United States and Canada, where such crops have been consumed since the mid-1990s, and those in the United Kingdom and western Europe, where they are not widely eaten.

No long-term pattern of increase in specific health problems after the introduction of GE foods in the 1990s in the United States and Canada was found.

There was no correlation between obesity or Type II diabetes and the consumption of GE foods. Celiac disease, which makes humans intolerant of gluten, increased in both populations. Patterns in the increase in autism spectrum disorder in children were similar in both the United Kingdom and the United States, the committee reported

Economic and ecological effects

Overall, the report found that GE crops save farmers money in terms of time spent tilling and losses to weeds and insects, but can have both positive and negative effects on pests, farming practices and agricultural infrastructure.

Pest-resistant crops have resulted in lower pest populations overall in some areas of the midwest, especially European corn borer, the report found.

However the use of herbicides on GE crops in some areas has resulted in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds.

Despite claims by some proponents of GE crops, their adoption didn't appear to increase yields overall among U.S. farmers, the report found.

The report specifically addressed a commonly cited link between GE crops and falling populations of monarch butterflies.

As of March 2016, there was no evidence that the suppression of milkweed (the only food of the insect in its caterpillar state) by the use of herbicides caused declines in the monarch population, the committee found. In fact, the monarch population has seen a moderate increase in the past two years. Still, the report called for continued monitoring of the situation.

Mostly cotton, soy and corn

There are only 12 genetically modified (GM) crops grown commercially grown worldwide according to the report. The vast majority of GM acreage is concentrated in cotton, soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola.

In the United States, the list of commercially grown GM crops includes cotton, soy beans, corn, sugar beets, canola, alfalfa and papaya, in addition to small amounts of zucchini and yellow summer squash, apples and potatoes.

However four of them are extremely popular with farmers. In 2015, 99% of sugar beets, 94% of soybeans, 94% of cotton and 92% of feed corn grown in the United States were genetically engineered to either be herbicide or pest resistant, or in some cases both, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

Globally, 12% of all cropland is planted with genetically engineered plants, according to the report.

However there has been significant pushback against these crops, particularly in Europe.

GMO-free a selling point

A significant portion of American consumers are concerned about the safety or other effects of foods made with genetically modified crops, often called GMOs for genetically modified organisms.. A survey released last year by the NPD Group, a market research firm, found that 57% of Americans were concerned that genetically modified foods posed a health hazard.

The food industry has taken notice. In 2015, Progressive Grocer, a trade publication, reported that total U.S. sales of food and beverage products labeled “non-GMO” reached $10 billion during 2014.

Labeling foods as GMO-free has become a popular marketing and differentiation method for companies. The Non-GMO Project, a labeling program, has almost 35,000 verified products, according to its website.

Packaged Facts estimates that the global food and beverage market was worth more than $5 trillion in 2014 and that non-GMO products accounted for $550 billion of that. It projects that the global market for non-GMO foods and beverages will reach to $1 trillion by 2019.

The National Academies report will likely not sway these consumers, said Phil Lempert, a Los Angeles-based food industry analyst.

“It’s an emotional issue, it’s not a science issue,” he said.

Good! Now we can stop talking about 'evil GMOs.'

Hopefully...

In Europe we do not need to produce more food. Do you have to produce more food in the US? By the way as the report in here clearly states, prouction isnt increased.

I'm glad you speak for the food needs of all Europeans? I wish I was that ignorant to assume we just have all the food we need...

Realistically, the goal of producing more food isn't a bad goal. We (and other countries) send food aid to other countries, where do you suppose that should come from? And it's not just food for people they are growing. They are growing corn (and soy) for animal feed, cotton for clothing/poly blended materials, and soy for non food products such as Bio Diesel. In Addition, the vast majority of soy, corn, and sugar produced this way is processed into something else completely. You're basically complaining/afraid of something that isn't even healthy for you to eat (which means you should avoid it anyway) and I don't think mass producing these things (especially for non food uses, so we don't have depend on what's needed for our food) is a bad idea by any means. Especially if we can engineer them to be more pest/herbicide resistant or hardier in the process. Think about it. If a crop yields even 5% more, isn't that worth it? To have 5% higher yield on something we all eventually end up needing?

You have to understand that we don't just produce food once and that's it. Our food needs are ongoing, which means food production has to remain constant. Our global population is increasing, which means our annual food needs are increasing, so to sustain nutrition across the globe, the rate of our food production has to increase constantly too. Even if Europe as a continent did have it's food demands met, there's still a segment of the global population who does not.

That 5% I talked about earlier could go a long way to helping people when we don't need it. I like helping others, don't you?

[petej0]

In Europe we do not need to produce more food. Do you have to produce more food in the US?

Using less land to produce the same amount of food is not a bad thing.

By the way as the report in here clearly states, prouction isnt increased.

I would beg to differ, by creating drought tolerant or crops resistant to disease you do increase production. They have modified corn to be able to grow closer together and produce more ears per stalk.

[Deleted]

So Lays has to educate their consumers about the GMO process of the potatoes they use and the Canola oil they use? Where on the packaging should they put this?


I am not worried about it affecting sales, because once the labeling is required people will be shocked about how much GMO is in their food. They will be forced to eat it or starve haha.




Its not brutal, its not required. The FDA deems it safe so there is no requirement to label foods as safe, because the default position is the food you buy is safe. They require unsafe items to have a label. So requiring a label would make people think that they are unsafe.

Is "Lays" one of "the big 6"? no? Then they shouldn't be educating people about GMO. The companies behind GMO should educate people for GMO and not FORCE their products into the markets.
Corporativism bends the rules of free market?
Marketing is required, or else no one will be educated about the product you are selling and people wont buy into it. Which is exactly what's happening now.

- - - Updated - - -

Using less land to produce the same amount of food is not a bad thing.



I would beg to differ, by creating drought tolerant or crops resistant to disease you do increase production. They have modified corn to be able to grow closer together and produce more ears per stalk.

This report clearly states this is not the case. Yields do not improve.

Despite claims by some proponents of GE crops, their adoption didn't appear to increase yields overall among U.S. farmers, the report found.

So yeah.
That sounds good. Drought tolerant and disease resistant crops sound good. We just need to make sure that A) it does not destroy local ecosystem wherever planted, B) each variety of crop and its effects are tested both short term and long term.
Once that is done we're good to go.

[Slant]

Hmmm, random internet dude or National Academies of Sciences? Who to believe?....

What are your views on vaccines?

Who gives a fuck about bought american studies? That's right, Europeans dont.