Are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a threat to organic agriculture? Are they dangerous when consumed? Do they lead to higher use of chemical herbicides and pesticides? And why aren’t GMOs labeled so we know which foods are made with them? We find and discuss the latest news on this critical issue.
The most recent skirmish in the battle for and against genetically modified crops is being fought over GMO wheat. And the weapon the GMO supporters are using is drought. In a recent New York Times opinion piece entitled “We Need GMO Wheat”, GMO advocates Jayson Lusk and Henry I. Miller make seemingly reasoned arguments worthy of any high school debating team in favor of developing drought-tolerant wheat. Look closely at the arguments and they start to come apart.
The article generated over 400 responses before comments were closed. As always, they’re worth reading — no, we’re not suggesting that you read all 438 of them — because they demonstrate the strong feelings coming from both sides of the issue. But they also underscored some of the fallacies that Lusk and Miller proffer. (more…)
Is there another, potentially harmful genetic modification in the works about to be slipped past the public and scientists concerned about human and environmental health?
That possibility was announced this week in the pages of The New York Times ahead of a meeting held Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency on the potential risks of the new technology. While the Times article promoted the benefits of the new technology known as RNA interference, it also noted that several experts had serious questions about its use in the world outside the laboratory. (more…)
The battle to label foods containing GMOs has seen some obvious setbacks in the last year. When the ballot initiative in Washington State went down this fall, many pundits could only see the defeat. What the results also reveal is a groundswell of support for labeling GMOs, evidenced by the narrow margins of defeat after the GMO industry (food manufactures, corporate agriculture, and genetically modified seed producers) outspent pro-labeling forces by millions and millions of dollars.
Food producers might be beginning to realize the marketing potential of declaring their products GMO free. General Mills has announced that they will make their best selling cereal Cheerios without GMOs. (more…)
– In Europe, the number of scientists and other experts contesting EU chief science adviser Anne Glover’s statement that genetically modified foods are no less risky than conventional, natural grown foods continues to grow. Over 275 specialists have signed a document that states that GM foods have not been proven safe and that existing research raises concerns, according to GM Watch, a European organization that monitors and reports on issues relating to genetically manipulated food sources.
Dr Angelika Hilbeck, chair of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, told GM Watch, “We’re surprised and pleased by the strong support for the statement. It seems to have tapped into a deep concern in the global scientific community that the name of science is being misused to make misleading claims about the safety of GM technology.” (more…)
We knew that the forces allied against GMO labeling — not just the large chemical corporations that manufacture genetically manipulated plant seeds and the products (herbicides, pesticides) associated with them, but stand-ins for the corporate food industry as well — would go on the offensive after defeating labeling initiatives in Washington State and California. Now we’re getting a clue as to the direction this movement will take.
Grist reports that the National Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group that provides name cover for corporations including Coca-Cola, ConAgra and General Mills as well as Bayer CropScience, has written the Food and Drug Administration. The letter declared the Association plans to push for use of the label “natural” on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. The New York Times also has the story. (more…)
–False Assumptions and GMOs: The spread and use of genetically modified crops in the production of food is a highly controversial topic… no need to tell you that. The arguments for their use are often based on false assumptions. This wonderful article from Ensia, a magazine that comes from the University of Minnesota’s environmental department, highlights some of the wrong thinking in terms of increasing food production that is often sold to us as an important reason for the growing of GMO crops.
The writer, Jonathan Foley, reminds us that most of the GMO crops grown aren’t grown as food and are only involved indirectly in the production of other, processed foods. Here’s how it opens:
You’ve probably heard it many times. While the exact phrasing varies, it usually goes something like this: The world’s population will grow to 9 billion by mid-century, putting substantial demands on the planet’s food supply. To meet these growing demands, we will need to grow almost twice as much food by 2050 as we do today. And that means we’ll need to use genetically modified crops and other advanced technologies to produce this additional food. It’s a race to feed the world, and we had better get started.
Foley points out that much of this need for more food really isn’t due to an increasing population. It’s due to changing diets. As economies grow and people become richer, they eat richer diets. This means more meat, more dairy, more processed products. Foley argues that we need to change our thinking about our diets and the kinds of food we eat. Only then will we have enough food to feed our ever-increasing global population. (more…)
Yes, there’s some finger pointing going on after the defeat of Washington State’s GMO labeling initiative earlier this month. But, surprisingly, not really all that much. Most of it is directed at the huge amount of money spent by seed companies Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer and the Grocery Manufactures Association that fought against labeling. But there are other issues here.
Maybe the central question here is how something like labeling, an idea with consistent high support among the public, can be so easily defeated. And this requires a look at the opposition tactics. One aspect that’s been pointed out is that the opposition often says it too supports the consumer’s right to know. But it argues that the Initiative as proposed, was poorly written with too much confusion and too many exceptions written in to it. This of course was the same tactic used to defeat the California labeling initiative, and many of its claims were based on exaggeration and out-and-out falsehood. (more…)
Even as big, out-of-state corporate money triumphs, the struggle to spread the truth about GMOs continues.
Those of us who live one time zone later than Washington State woke up this morning to disappointing news: I-522, the Washington State initiative to label foods containing genetically-modified ingredients is going down to defeat and by a sizable margin. While votes are still being counted as of this writing, it appears that the difference won’t be made up. At one point in September, polls showed the initiative was ahead by 45%. How did it end up losing by 10%?
If we can quote a line from one of our all-time favorite movies on politics, follow the money. Those allied against the initiative broke state records with the $22 million it collected against the measure. As the Seattle Times reports, only $550 of that came from Washingtonians. The rest–let me do the math for you: $22 million – $550 = $21, 999, 450 — came from out-of -state businesses, corporations, and shell groups designed to hide the names of the actual companies fighting the initiative. (more…)
The voting is on in Washington (tomorrow is election day there) and it’s time to take a last look at I-522, the GMO labeling initiative, before the results are decided. Final results in fund raising? The No forces have raised $22 million shattering the all time record. Meanwhile, funds raised in support of the measure total $6.8 million, not a bad take in a race like this. But then look who they’re up against.
Surprisingly, not all the big corporate donors that contributed to defeat the California initiative have dumped money into Washington. Speculation is that some of the corporations who have healthy, natural product lines don’t want to be seen on the wrong side of this issue, like Lever Bros. who now owns Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.
Here’s a fine Seattle Times interview with Phil Bereano, professor emeritus of technical communication at the University of Washington, on why he supports I-522. He gives straight-forward rebuttles to many of the anti-labeling and pro-GMO arguments. Read it; you’ll be glad you did. (more…)
Corporate Money, Deceit Threaten Washington’s Initiative 522
You friendly Plant Natural blogger likes to remain cheerful! upbeat! and optimistic! Today? Not so much and with good reason. A recent public opinion poll in Washington State shows that support of the GMO Labeling Initiative that would require labeling of foods containing genetically-modified ingredients has changed a negative 41% since the big-money interest ads attacking the initiative were rolled out in September. The momentum connected to such a swing suggests that the initiative, still favored by plus 4% of the public, is in danger of being defeated. The initiative enjoyed a 45% lead just six weeks ago.
The amount of money allied against the initiative breaks a record in the state which has seen its share of expensive initiative battles. The Center for Media and Democracy reports that all of the money for No on 522 came from the Grocery Manufacturers Association and five chemical and biotechnology corporations: Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, and BASF. The total is at least $17.1 million. Of that over $17 million, how much was given by individual contributions to fight the initiative? $550. (more…)