Obama Signs Bill Mandating GMO Labeling

[Goobadin]

It'd have been easier to legislate a legal definition of organic. Companies are already labeling to benefit off the masses of stupid. Why we need to waste time labeling GMO instead... is beyond me. We just cant ever seem to do things the easy way.

Also, because I don't follow all his that closely, does the anti-gmo crowd distinguish between selectively bred crops too? Like... is any corn or tomato or banana good to be labled as non gmo?

[THE Bigzoman]

Fine, dumb people can go pay high prices for their 'organic food'.

Except these dumbfucks just raised the cost of producing food, possibly passing it on to consumers.

Good job dumbassess.

And no, society shouldn't have to suffer because of senseless paranoia.

[Selastan]

Wow! Someone compared the severity of labeling foods as GMO to the that of Nazis labeling Jewish people during WWII. A lot of crazy shit has been slung in this thread, but this takes the grand prize.

"We can't say there's a problem with these Jews, but just in case you want to avoid them, we gonna label em for ya."

"We can't say there's a problem with these GMOs, but just in case you want to avoid them, we gonna label em for ya."

Why even imply that someone would want to avoid them? By agreeing to label the food, the government is saying that GMOs for some reason need to be singled out. Now what would the unknowing public see? One sack of onions with a sticker labeling it as a GMO, one without. Which one would they pick. "Oh hey, I've heard of these on the news before. Not sure what they are, but I'd better go for the natural one."

[GennGreymane]

Holy crap... people are comparing GMO food labeling to marking Jews during the holocaust... this forum sometimes....

[THE Bigzoman]

Astrology has nothing to do with heath or whats in the food.

SO...like GMOS?

*slowclap*

[GennGreymane]

SO...like GMOS?

*slowclap*

GMO does involve whats in the food......

*regular clap*

[THE Bigzoman]

GMO does involve whats in the food......

*regular clap*

There's no difference in the end products. There haven't been any significant difference between GMO and non-GMO food.

Why take the time of distinguish the two?

[Barnabas]

There will be very little food labeled non gmo. Foods that contain vinegar and citric acid are gmo based. I can go on but those two examples cover most processed food.

[GennGreymane]

There's no difference in the end products. There haven't been any significant difference between GMO and non-GMO food.

Why take the time of distinguish the two?

There have been issues with particular allergies.

[THE Bigzoman]

There have been issues with particular allergies.

I've never heard of anyone having an allergic reaction towards GMO foods.

[GennGreymane]

I've never heard of anyone having an allergic reaction towards GMO foods.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safet...allergies.html

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/20...gies-and-gmos/

http://responsibletechnology.org/gen...gies-part-one/


Its still being researched, but certain proteins being used to make some foods resistant may be causing allergic reactions. I see absolutely no harm in labeling the food, much like we currently do for plenty of other reasons.

[Garnier Fructis]

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safet...allergies.html

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/20...gies-and-gmos/

http://responsibletechnology.org/gen...gies-part-one/


Its still being researched, but certain proteins being used to make some foods resistant may be causing allergic reactions. I see absolutely no harm in labeling the food, much like we currently do for plenty of other reasons.

The punchline of those links is that no allergenicity has been found in GMO's approved for human consumption, specifically because they put a lot of effort into avoiding it.

[GennGreymane]

The punchline of those links is that no allergenicity has been found in GMO's approved for human consumption, specifically because they put a lot of effort into avoiding it.

However as some suggest, there is cross pollination that is simply unavoidable.

So a label, that the food industry seems to also favor, is a fine enough solution.

[Garnier Fructis]

However as some suggest, there is cross pollination that is simply unavoidable.

That's not a risk inherent to GMO's.

[GennGreymane]

That's not a risk inherent to GMO's.

But it is due to how our farming system works. Massive farms produce this, not little ma and pa on the prairie. Its basically almost unavoidable for any industrial farm.

[Breccia]

A bill that creates a federal labeling standard for foods containing genetically modified ingredients (commonly called GMOs) was signed into law by President Barack Obama today.

Which passed the House with a 306/117 vote, way over the veto override, with a majority of both Democrats and Republicans (especially Republicans, 205 yay 36 nay) supporting it.

So it really shouldn't have mattered if Obama had signed it or not.

[Malachi256]

I wonder if the labeling is going to get specific at all - is this a BT crop, round-up ready, etc? Or is that too sophisticated for the target audience?

[Begrudge]

But it is due to how our farming system works. Massive farms produce this, not little ma and pa on the prairie. Its basically almost unavoidable for any industrial farm.

But you didn't respond to what he said, it isn't a risk inherent to GMOs which is what the conversation is about.

- - - Updated - - -

David Lee Hamilton
David Lee Hamilton
University of Stirling
GMO crops. Is there any peer reviewed scientific evidence that questions their safety?

The popular media and a lot of groups with apparently "green" agendas are opposed to the use of GMO crops and often cite safety concerns as an argument to stop their production/development/use. However, is there really a difference between selectively breeding for pest resistance and genetically modifying a crop to be pest resistant and does this really present the consumer with food safety issues?
Topics

Genetically Modified Organisms
Cereal Technology
Food Science
Crop Biotechnology
Genetics
May 26, 2013
Share
12 / 3
Popular Answers
Alexander J. Stein
Alexander J. Stein · www.AJStein.de
Disregarding links to obscure website and the general media, it seems only two papers that did studies with GMOs have been cited so far in response to this question.

On the Pusztai paper there is e.g. a discussion at Academics Review, where also many other GMO-related questions are covered and backed up with sources from the literature: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-...flawed-claims/

On the Seralini paper there is e.g. a discussion by David Tribe at GMO Pundit, where many Letters to the Editor and other references are linked that respond to the study: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/1...ussion-of.html

The website of David Tribe has a lot more info and also a comprehensive discussion and supportive references regarding the safety assessments of GM food: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/0...nts-on-gm.html

A much longer list of published studies (currently 600) covering risk assessment and GMOs, as well as a lot more info, can be found at Biofortified.org: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

Then there is also an overview of studies on GMOs funded by the EU over 25 years that concludes that "there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms:" http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm

And there is a literature review from last year on the "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials" that concludes that "GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed." http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048

This means there is a handful of papers that suggest negative findings (but that have been heavily criticized by many other scientists in the field) and then there are hundreds of studies from all around the world that do not support concerns about the safety of GM food.

If the popular media and activist groups cite safety concerns as an argument to stop GMOs, they do so based on a very small selection of carefully cherry-picked (and otherwise disputed) papers out of a trove of other papers that contradict their position. (If they bother with evidence at all.)
May 31, 2013
Alexander J. Stein
Alexander J. Stein · www.AJStein.de
The original topic/question of this post had been “GMO crops. Is there any peer reviewed scientific evidence that questions their safety?” In response to this question I listed some sources with aggregated information on the scientific evidence on the safety of GMOs. What this evidence suggests is that there is no reason to question the safety of GMOs per se. While there are a few studies that have come to more cautionary conclusions, the findings of these studies are not confirmed by the vast majority of other studies, and those few studies are heavily criticised by other scientists in the field for all sorts of shortcomings that compromise the reliability of the results.

Simply because one scientist (amongst others) has put an effort into compiling some this information doesn’t mean he actually carried out the 600 studies or he wrote and signed the dozens of statements and letters to the editor in which these few other studies are criticised (http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/1...ussion-of.html). Exactly because there are so many studies out there, none of the sources I listed refer to the work by a single individual but I linked to reviews and lists with studies that were done by many, many scientists and labs the world over. Neither do any of the sources I linked make claims out of thin air, but the statements are generally supported by references (to work by others), i.e. the veracity of the points can be checked. Discarding all this evidence because of one individual who helped aggregate some of the information amounts to shooting the messenger.

About the link that doesn’t work, apparently there was a problem at the journal’s website – earlier I couldn’t access it, either. The full reference is: Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50: 1134-1148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048 – The title states that the review is about health impacts, and it is unclear why the one finding that “GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts” should invalidate the other that “GM plants... can be safely used in food and feed.”

Judging based on appearances is always tricky: The EU report summarizes the results of GMO safety studies that had been funded by the European Commission, i.e. public money. The EU has funded GMO safety studies since 1982, which were carried out by hundreds of independent research groups, and once in 2001 and then again in 2010 it had concluded that there is no evidence that questions the safety of GMOs. If then, in 2012 – after 30 years of GMO safety research – the Commission proposes a strategy for a sustainable bioeconomy in Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioecon...0120213_en.htm), in which GM crops only play a minor role, this comes AFTER it ascertained that GMOs are as safe as other plants and organisms. That is, if anything, the bioeconomy strategy is a result of the work done in the preceding decades.

However, it is of course valid to look at the funding and the driving forces behind a report or a study and to be cautious when there are possible conflicts of interest. While the findings of such work do not need to be wrong, greater scrutiny may be justified. This applies to all studies, though, i.e. those that find no evidence that questions the safety of GMOs and those that do. In this context one could argue that there are some question marks surrounding the work by Séralini and colleagues. For instance, (i) a study that produces sensational findings probably promotes the commercial success of a book and a movie about that very same study and therefore benefits the author financially: “Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work.” http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-...rutiny-1.11566 or “Séralini’s paper was a whopping media success... it also served as great PR for a book and movie Séralini launched the same week.” http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/featur...ralini-affair/ (ii) There also seem to be commercial ties between Séralini et al. and a company that sells a “protectant” against glyphosate – the substance that Séralini et al. incriminated in their study.
http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/01/s...k-science.html (iii) On the other hand, if Séralini claims that his funding sources are irrelevant to his scientific credibility – and even sues other scientists for libel who suggest that the funding he received from Greenpeace represents a conflict of interest http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/19/gr...nced-scientist – then the assumption of such absolute integrity and independence should be applied to “both” sides.

Regarding the independence of the research on GMO safety (neither funded by the biotech industry, nor the organic industry, nor advocacy or lobby groups), there is the aforementioned EU research, but also an estimated 1/3 of the 600 studies on risk assessment and GMOs in the GENERA database were independently funded. http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/ Then there is also public research going on within individual EU countries. For instance the German Ministry of Education and Research supported a website (http://www.gmo-safety.eu/) to disseminate the findings of research projects that were funded by the German government, which are compiled in a database http://www.gmo-safety.eu/database.html And in a previous reply Detlef Bartsch provided links to literature reviews that were done in the context of a Swiss national research programme (and the Swiss, which are not part of the EU, are generally deemed to be critical of the technology). Furthermore there are statements on GMOs by national scientific bodies and international organisations, such as the Australian Academy of Science http://www.science.org.au/policy/gene-tech.html or the World Health Organization http://www.who.int/foodsafety/public...h/20questions/ – even the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences had organised a “Study Week” and published the proceedings: http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/ac...ransgenic.html

In addition to being researched, GMOs generally also have to be approved by independent regulators before they can be used for food and feed. For instance, in the EU the risk assessment is done by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the risk management is the task of the European Commission, and the authorisation of the organisms is initially the responsibility of the 27 Member States (whose representatives convene in a committee or the Council of Ministers). While so far EFSA has issued favourable opinions on GMOs (see Answer 4: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqgmo.htm), this simply means it deems the organisms that it assesses so far to be safe. (Simply to “prove” its independence, a public authority can hardly reject a safe product.) The independence of the Authority can be gauged better by the criticism it has drawn from industry in other areas (where the science is not as clear or where the literature is less comprehensive): EFSA health claims standards are ‘too high’ http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Bus...s-are-too-high, EFSA refutes Danone health claims criticism http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regu...aims-criticism, Probiotic health claims ruled unproven http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...laims-unproven, Food and drink sector hot topic http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/w...ood_businesses,

While GM trees are usually less of a topic in people’s minds, research has been done on them and their potential impact on native forests and flora, too: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/press/1298....vironment.html – in the US but also in the EU: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/basic-info/...e-poplars.html. In the GMO-Safety database there is an entire category for woody plants http://www.gmo-safety.eu/database/search?topic=129 – and that only covers projects funded by the German government. But apart from research, GM trees are already under commercial cultivation, whether poplars in China since 10 years http://www.gmo-safety.eu/science/woo...and-times.html or papaya trees in the US even longer http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a07-gonsalves.htm, i.e. so there is a lot of experience with the cultivation of GM trees. On the other hand, genetic engineering could bring back the extinct American chestnut: http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...ately-wildwood

Questions relating to common agronomic challenges (weed control), general nutrition concerns (obesity), widespread agricultural practices (monoculture), or socially balanced intellectual property laws (patents) are all certainly also interesting and important, but they have little to do with GMOs per se and they do not affect the science and safety of GMOs, the topic of this thread: Herbicides were used long before the commercial cultivation of GMOs and they are used in all sorts of settings today that are unrelated to GMOs. Similarly, obesity has been on the rise before the introduction of GMOs and it is also a problem in countries where GM food is less prevalent. The same is true for monoculture, which has nothing to do with GMOs has there has been monoculture before GMOs and there is monoculture in countries where no GMOs are cultivated.

Finally, also the patenting of seeds is nothing new and predates GMOs by decades (in the US the Plant Patent Act has been enacted in 1930: http://www.nal.usda.gov/pgdic/Probe/v2n2/plant.html). Moreover, stewardship agreements that limit the use of farm-saved seed are also used for seed that has been developed through traditional plant breeding techniques, e.g.: http://www.midgetolerantwheat.ca/far...agreement.aspx. And for instance “conventional” hybrid seed (or even more obviously seedless fruit) have an in-built mechanism that prevents farmers or gardeners from saving the seed even without resorting to patents: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/gar...bles-different. Yet, farmers and gardeners buy these conventional seeds even though they are more expensive http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/a...sc/hybrid.html. Furthermore, as a quick Google search for “organic hybrid seeds” shows (https://www.google.com/search?q=organic+hybrid+seeds), plenty of hybrid seeds are also available for organic farming, and also organic seedless watermelon are available.

While none of this prevents a farmer or gardener from opting for seed that is neither protected nor hybrid, the practice of saving seeds is being abandoned by many growers – and not because of GMOs. Just like few people build their own house or make their own clothes – or, indeed, farm their own food – for good reason, farmers prefer to simply buy quality seed instead of spending time and efforts on ensuring their own seed supply and risk getting low performing or diseased seeds. In the case of GMOs this is evidenced by the ever increasing acreage that is cultivated with GMOs: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publi...ic/default.asp At the same time the global acreage of organic agricultural land is also increasing http://www.ifoam.org/press/press/2008/statsbook2010.php, which clearly indicates that farmers have a choice how to farm and that some are happy to serve the organic market.

Perhaps most importantly, nothing prevents society from investing in public research into GMOs and to make the resulting germplam available for free. There is nothing in GMOs as such that prevents the seed from being saved. For instance, provitamin A-rich “Golden Rice” is an example of a GMO that is being developed under a humanitarian mandate and that will be made available to smallholders without royalty payments http://www.goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who4_IP.php. Similarly, in India insect-resistant eggplants were developed in a public-private partnership, meaning that the technology can be made available to resource-poor farmers free of charge.

[GrinningMan]

Holy crap... people are comparing GMO food labeling to marking Jews during the holocaust... this forum sometimes....

Tell me you're surprised.

No, really. Tell me that shocks you in the least.

[Osmeric]

Holy crap... people are comparing GMO food labeling to marking Jews during the holocaust... this forum sometimes....

The suppression of Golden Rice is literally genocidal, so the analogy is better than you want to admit.