the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... )

Agreed. The ones that concern me in food are those that include toxins or that allow higher doses of toxins to be used during crop growth. They also concern me from a biological perspective as they are causing more virtually sterile areas for all other organisms. The effects on bees and butterflies, etc. Yet I don't eat highly processed foods. Way too many additives imho. The ingredients list in my peanut butter is "organic peanuts" and nothing else. Yogurt is organic from non-GMO fed cattle.We just changed to Empire Kosher Chicken because it is all natural, organic, free-roaming, antibiotic free and 100% vegetarian fed poultry, with no growth hormones added:

quote:

---

Empire Kosher produces the best tasting and highest quality truly natural, socially responsible, and strictly kosher poultry products for a diverse range of customer needs and preferences. Empire Kosher chicken and turkey are not only for those who keep kosher for religious reasons; Empire Kosher is the best option for any consumer who wishes to eat healthy and safely, buy responsibly, promote worker and animal rights, protect the environment, and support local farmers and their communities.

---

This is the way real chicken tastes -- not the water-added, GMO fed, cage grown factory chickens you get in the normal supermarket shelves. We happily pay the slightly higher cost because the taste is so much better, it's like a different kind of bird. or vaccinations or Teabag Politics .... My mom (PhD psychiatrist) joked that just because you are paranoid doesn't mean you are not being followed.To me the issue is risk, and it seems to me that there is lower risk with non-GMO foods. There is lower risk in getting vaccinations imho, and lower risk in doing things to deal with climate change. Other people are free to make other assessments ... IF they have the information on what's in the food.Here's what Jerry Greenfield had to say about the cost of labeling:

quote:

---

Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder on Knowing Your GMOs: Changing a Label Costs "Essentially Nothing"

​

Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, discusses the company’s campaign for a successful genetically modified food labeling measure in its home state of Vermont, as well as one in Oregon where it renamed one of its ice cream flavors as "Food Fight Fudge Brownie" that ultimately failed to pass on Tuesday. "We are really proud of the ingredients we use," Greenfield says. "It is just so hard to imagine that other food companies wouldn’t want to tell consumers what is in their food." Ben & Jerry’s plans to complete its transition to all non-GMO ingredients by the end of the year. "That transition to all non-GMO ingredients is not going to raise the cost of a pint at all to a consumer. So it can be done." ...

---

Note that is not just the cost of labeling but the cost of conversion to non-GMO ingredients.Enjoy

No problem, I was trying to be brief in my post and that can lead to not expressing oneself adequately. This is a great point. It is unfortunate that the increased scrutiny hasn't translated into increased public trust, but its not really surprising. We have been duped and exploited by these types of mega-corporations for over a hundred years now. It's difficult to trust them, it is simply that their only real motivation is profit and if that means sacrificing public good, they certainly will. Sure if issues of public good can prevent them from losing revenue or creating a poor image, they will be concerned about it - because it will ultimately affect their bottom line profit. (However, this is all another subject) I think I know what you mean here, but could you expand on what you mean by "scientifically based and trait based regulations" and how that would differ from current regulations?HBD

I meant it a bit more tongue-in-cheek, but I am studying plant pathology (my lab works with sugar beet and those field crops that are used in rotation - mostly dry beans and corn), so where else would I go? I believe duPont and Monsanto both have research fields relatively close to where I live. But at this point, I don't know where I will go after graduation. It also depends on whether I decide to go on and get my PhD or stop at a MS. At this point, I am not really inclined to move out of Michigan - this is my home, I have lived here my whole life and I love Michigan. That is definitely the trend. There is a lot of work going on at MSU related to microbial communities, soil health, and sustainable agriculture. In fact, the Plant Pathology department has been recently merged with the Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences department, while it was at least partially a financial decision, it is a sensible fit. I think if it wasn't cross-kingdom gene transfer, it wouldn't have generated such fear and misunderstanding. Do you think people would have been so freaked out if the for first genetically engineered crops they took a resistance gene from a tomato plant and put it into a potato (both Solanaceous crops)? Probably not. Although the funny thing is that gene probably would have been cloned into an agrobacterium and then transformed into the target plant. But the overall perception would have been vastly different. Maybe if genetic engineering would have started out a bit more conservatively?HBD

I can agree with those concerns, but to me it is not an issue of genetic engineering itself, but it is more of a cultural practice issue. Let me ask you this ... consider that Monsanto had developed a Round-Up ready soybean, but instead of farmers switching to Round-Up as their primary or even the only cultural practice to control weeds, they used a balanced approach, which included using Round-Up, but also included more sustainable practices. This would mean chemical controls would actually be reduced as well as shifted to the much more safe alternatives. Would you still be concerned about GMOs?If your answer is "No," then what you are really concerned about is the cultural practices that result from exploiting GMO traits. If "Yes," then what do you think is really the difference between genetic engineering and conventional breeding? Actually, I was suggesting that the reduced processing is what accounts for the improvement in flavor. Just like this. You blamed genetic engineering for the lack of taste (or actually the lack of genetic engineering for the improvement in taste) but what about all the other factors? Consider two chickens, everything about them is identical except that one is raised in an 18" x 18" cage with two other chickens and the other is unconfined. Which would you expect to be more healthy and flavorful?It may be that genetic engineering is not the actual problem, but the cultural practices that are accompanying them so that food companies can maximize profit. One of the things that deeply concern me is the increasing need throughout the world for food. The world's population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. Our current agricultural practices WILL NOT sustain that population increase. Sure, maybe in the US we could return to a more organic, non-GMO style agriculture, but could that possibly provide the amount of food required to feed an additional 2 billion people in the world? I don't see any possible way. We desparately need to be able to substantially increase food production.Another criticism I have of GMOs is the traits they target. What about engineering crops that are more drought tolerant, or have higher concentrations of protein in the edible parts, or than can grow better in our changing climate (which will disparagingly affect developing and third world nations), etc? The problem is that there isn't a multi-billion dollar market in Africa for drought resistant crops - they just don't have the resources. This then becomes a social issue.HBD

I am puzzled. Did we not during the last discussion talk about people who wanted to label their own stuff voluntarily and the general industry opposition to exactly that position? Even the FDA was opposed.Yes, the FDA did eventually cave, but we ought to know that there are plenty of people who are satisfied with voluntary labeling as long as its accuracy is enforced. The industry was part of creating an enormous bogey man by opposing voluntary labeling.

Yes, I can. I learned about the difference from asking questions of a company called Arctic Apples. This is a 7 farmer co-op out of Canada that designed a non-browning apple and are going through the approval process in both countries currently. They have a great Facebook presence and are always willing to answer questions about their products or about the current regulations they are experiencing. Arctic ApplesIn the US it is a science based system of regulation testing for safety in regards to health, the environment, and allergens, but each individual crop that will display the trait is required to be tested, not the trait itself, before it is deregulated. Using Arctic Apples as an example, the same process will work with every apple through silencing the gene responsible for creating the enzyme that causes them to turn brown. In Canada, once the trait is deregulated, they can begin to market Arctic Fujis, Arctic Granny Smiths, or any other type or arctic apple with the same regulation as conventional apples. In the United States, they are required to have each individual apple deregulated individually. This is causing the company to only focus on two approvals for right now, Arctic Goldens and Arctic Granny Smiths, because the cost is too high to attempt for more deregulated breeds. One of the best ways to reduce the cost, while still having safety testing, is to switch a system more like the Canadian one.

I think you are missing some of the more recent developments in the industry. DroughtGard corn was grown in the Western Plains States for commercial use in 2013. During testing it gave showed less loss during drought conditions. DroughtGardAlso, these companies have technology they will give to subsistence farmers (they consider any farmer making less than 10,000 dollars (US) as a subsistence farmer). Source, under Reaching Out headerIn some cases, such as certain drought areas, this has been through traditional cross breeding because of GMO cultivation bans, but the companies are still funding research to help in these areas. SourceYes, for US farmers their primary concerns seem to be more yield related, but that doesn't mean the companies are not assisting in research toward humanitarian goals. There are lots of new traits in the research pipeline right now. Nitrogen fixation, increased nutrients, Lower saturated fats in oils, and (my dad would say most importantly) reducing allergens such as gluten from wheat. My dad is Coeliac and would love to have wheat products back. Source

Yes, we did discuss that and this change was implemented over a year ago. The FDA had said that the only standard to a voluntary label was truth in advertising and the USDA approved the Non-GMO Project label in June of 2013. The industry should not have opposed it and I would agree that was a mistake on their part. However, even with the voluntary process in place for a year, the initiatives continue because voluntary was never the goal of the Anti-GMO movement. You can hear it from their own mouths: Is Labeling really about your right to know?Also, source for the USDA approval of voluntary labeling:
SourceI agree many people have accepted the voluntary labeling system, but they are not the predominant segment of the Anti-GMO groups. They were just pro-labeling, not the vocal group who claim GMOs are poison. I could've separated between the groups more efficiently.

No, I had not heard about that, so thank you for that information.Presumably mutagenesis (generation of mutations) is viewed\rationalized as a way to speed up the mutation process so that beneficial mutations can be selected in our life-time.It also assumes that the people doing the selecting are good at replacing natural selection in determining if there are long term health risks Curiously I would label both. Both are forced modifications to the genetics without testing for long term effects. Looks like I am not alone on this either:http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/...5/p/dia/action3/common/publicOrganic Mutagenic/Cell Fusion Hybrid Seeds are Genetically Engineered | Food Safety News

quote:

---

By international organic certification standards, cell fusion is classified as genetic engineering, but these standards established by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) are being ignored by the United States, Europe and other countries.

​

In April 2014, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), representing more than 850,000 members, including several thousand businesses in the natural foods and organic marketplace, launched a consumer campaign to ban cell fusion mutagenesis in the USDA NOP organic production standards.

​

Like genetic engineering, mutagenesis can cause dramatic shifts in genetically determined traits, producing unknown toxins or allergens. ‘Wheat Belly’ author Dr. William Davis blames mutagenesis, which is used to produce modern wheat including organically grown wheat for increases in wheat allergies and intolerances, states the OCA.

---

So I don't see how this benefits your argument, rather the opposite.Enjoy.

You want me to find pre-internet papers on the internet?
Really?As I recall they had several universities doing studies that purported to show little effect ... the studies were funded entirely by the industry and the research was controlled by the industry.Familiar?Enjoy

And a PDF form: http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.pdf

Really, I would like you to see what science had to say on the matter, since it was your claim that the tobacco companies had hijacked science, something even the oil industry has been unable to do in regards to climate change. Oh, they have been able to affect the conversation, same as the tobacco companies were able to do, but they do not affect the science over the long term. So, what was the science showing in the lead up to the 50's. So, let's look at the Surgeon General's report from 1964, which was based on a metastudy of over 7,000 research papers on the topic of smoking and health: Does this sound like the industry is being successful at controlling the science in the long term? They even stated that heavy smokers are twenty times as likely to develop lung cancer as non-smokers. And the report doesn't stop at cancer risk: Low birth weight, bronchitis, heart disease, all linked to smoking through research conducted between 1930 and 1960. So, how soon did the Surgeon General link smoking to lung cancer: To be fair, the one item the Surgeon General's report missed was the addictiveness of nicotine. The report said there was not enough information to fully understand the addictive nature of nicotine, but that it should at least be considered habituation. The Reports of the Surgeon General: 1964 Report on Smoking and Health.So, what do some of these research documents say: From 1958
SourceFrom 1950
SourceFrom 1931 and already dealing with second hand smoke issues too!
SourceSo, not too difficult to find what science was saying about the dangers of smoking back before the Internet if you are willing to try. I do not deny that some scientists were bought off, but the predominate amount of the literature stated that smoking increased the risk of cancer, which is shown by the meta-analysis conducted in the early 60's by the Surgeon General's office. The current scientific consensus (Not the few scientists bought by some industry, in this case those being paid by organic advocacy groups) is that there is no nutritional, allergen, or toxicity differences between genetically engineered foods and conventional agriculture.So, now it is contingent on you to find scientific papers that show a different scientific consensus as you still need to defend your claim. Also, I would like you to explain how the 65 billion dollar food industry is able to buy off so many scientists for consensus, when the oil industry is unable to do the same thing in regards to climate change?And a recent Meta-analysis of GMO crops conducted by the National Academy of Sciences and published in PLOSOne has returned extremely positive results in terms of GMO production: ABE - This study was not the National Academy of Sciences as I thought, but was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Union's Seventh Framework Program FOODSECURE. SourceSo, scientific consensus in the early part of the 1900's for smoking, that it was most likely bad for you and had an extremely high correlation with cancer. Scientific consensus on smoking by 1960 was that it definitively had a connection to cancers of the lungs, throat, larynx and mouth and that it at least risked habituation. Scientific consensus on GMO's at this time, GMO's are equivalent to conventional crops in terms of nutrition, allergens, and toxic effects...with the additional benefits of increased crop yields, reduced pesticides and increased farmer profits. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

First, these individuals only began calling for labeling of these products when it was brought to their attention the processes used in organic agriculture by who...? The Pro-GMO groups. These individuals were clamoring for right to know before they even knew or cared to know how their own food was produced. If they can't be concerned about educating themselves on the production methods they already consume, why should we give them more information they will not pay attention to. Also, labels will become absolutely pointless blasts of too much information if production method, rather than nutritional content, is highlighted. Kosher has as much science backing it as forcing labels on GMO crops or Mutagenesis crops, should all kosher foods require a label? Or is the current system allowing companies to label their food kosher through a third party successful at ensuring that individuals who want this knowledge can find products willing to satisfy the market demand?It brings me back to the main point of labeling...Why is the current voluntary labeling process for non-nutritional reasons (organic, GMO-Free Project, Kosher, Halal, etc.) not sufficient for you to find foods that do not contain GMOs, RAZD? This is the most important question, does the current system provide you access to GMO free options through voluntary labeling?

Hey Everyone.As this topic is becoming more contentious in this country, I thought I would post a link for a live NYC GMO Debate that is occurring at 6:30EST tonight. The debate will be moderated by John Donvan and will include these individuals. (I'll just copy paste their bios from the site)For the motionRobert Fraley Alison Van Eenennaam Against the motion:Charles Benbrook Margaret Mellon Here is the link for the live stream of the debate:
Live Stream NYC GMO Debate

Saw that it was going to be on, but had conflict -- I'll have to check for the stream tomorrow.Did you watch it?Enjoy