An Argument Against Genetically Engineered Foods You Don’t Want to Use at the Dinner Table : Exclusive Renegade Health Article

Tuesday Aug 14 | BY |
| Comments (43)

I just caught wind (better than breaking wind) of a new documentary film featuring Jeffrey Smith — one of the champion activists against genetically modified foods.

I’m excited to see something like this coming out so timely, considering Proposition 37 in California will be voted on in the upcoming November ballot.

Proposition 37, which I wrote about here, is a proposition that will require food companies to label their foods if they contain GMO ingredients — something we strongly support at Renegade Health.

We simply want to know what is in our food.

This film, just released, called Genetic Roulette should be a great way to introduce this concept to others. I just bought this film and you can too here.

In this article, though, I want to highlight some things that I saw in the trailer that I think you should be aware of — one is a very bad argument as to why genetically modified foods should not be allowed into our food chain.

First you can watch the trailer, then you can read my comments…

While I haven’t watched the entire film yet, I do have a major criticism of the content in this trailer…

Before I get into that, I have to disclaim the heck out of this article — I fully support GMO labeling. I purchased this film to help support the work of Jeffrey Smith and the IRT. I appreciate the efforts put forth by this filmmaker and everyone else involved. I also don’t doubt that GMO foods may cause health issues — and possibly disease.

Ok, with that out of the way, now I can highlight a major mistake — that actually can undermine the credibility of Proposition 37 and any other attempt to get our food labeled.

(As far as I know, there is little connection between the IRT and the California Right to Know campaign, but this reflects across all social and food conscious organizations.)

My rub comes when the image of the skeleton appears on the screen then the words cancer, diabetes, heart disease, celiac, obesity, Parkinson’s, autism, and more are faded in and out. This all happens in line with the sound bite, “illnesses that weren’t epidemic before are now epidemic.”

If you didn’t catch it, watch it again.

It’s between 0:50 – 0:54 seconds.

Here’s a screencap in case you didn’t want to scroll around…

Did you get it?

Basically, whether intentional or not, this part of the trailer suggests that GMO foods were the cause of an epidemic of disease.


Look, there is evidence that GMO foods are unhealthy and can be dangerous to our environment. You can see all the studies in Jeffrey’s book of the same name “Genetic Roulette” — I keep a copy of it here on my desk.

But to suggest that GMO foods are the cause of all disease is a serious mistake.

They’re not the cause of en epidemic of disease. They may contribute, but the cause is much more mulch-dimensional.

As much as I’d like to make the link to rising disease rates to GMO foods, I can’t — and neither should this clip.

What’s worse is that saying this completely undermines the credibility of the trailer, particularly in the minds of those opposing the labeling of GMO containing foods.

Here’s why the argument stinks…

There are just too many factors influencing today’s increasing health issues to pinpoint just one.

You can’t imply that just GMO foods are causing our health problems — or even hint at it — without conceding that there are multiple factors.

I can list a few here…

– Processed foods.
– Hybridized wheat foods (non-GMO)
– Fast food.
– Environmental toxins.
– Plastics.
– Air pollution.
– Heavy metal contamination.
– Sedentary lifestyles.
– Too much bad TV.
– Stress.
– Job dissatisfaction.
– Relationship dissatisfaction.

All these contribute to poor health and many people are affected by a combination of them. Almost any one of these — or more — could be blamed for an epidemic of disease.

Excessive gluten? Sure. Mercury in our rivers, streams and fish? Yep. Fast Food Nation? There’s a book on it.

Unfortunately, science will never be able to separate all the variables to pinpoint one as the ultimate cause.

That’s why an argument to label GMOs based on health will never fly — in the public space — against its detractors. And this is exactly why not cutting these 4 seconds out of the trailer is an epic mistake.

The dirt is always what sticks.

When U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner sent sexy pictures of himself to a girl on Twitter, he cemented his spot in history as the “politician from New York who sent racy pics of himself on Twitter.” (He DM-ed his ding-dong.)

No one, outside of Albany, NY, probably knows much about his politics. He might have been an amazing congressman. He could have sucked at it. We don’t know.

My point is, his public dirt is what stuck in my mind, and likely yours too.

To bring this back to the GMO issue, if the scientific, logical-minded opposition catches wind of this unprovable truth, it’s great firepower to shoot down the credibility of a credible campaign.

If the other side highlights that we, who support labeling, think that GMOs cause all disease — they’ll laugh us out of the ballot boxes.

Just like Weiner, they won’t remember the wins, but the poor judgement (in this case, poor logical argument.)

Arguments that do fly?

Of course there are better arguments that do make sense.

1. Simply, we want to know what is in our food. We don’t need science or anything else to justify this. If I ask you where you got a sandwich that you were giving to me, I have a right to know if you bought it from the deli or pulled it out of the garbage can. Call your mega-food company and ask where the corn was grown to process the maltodextrin in your Snacky-Doodles and they won’t have a clue.

2. There is science that questions the safety of genetic engineering. (See the book “Genetic Roulette” by Jeffrey Smith.) If there is science that questions how healthy something is on a small scale, then it makes sense to at least go back and test some more — if not completely shelf and idea that may cause harm to our fellow humans and animal friends.

3. There is evidence that animals have been harmed by these crops. It’s in the Genetic Roulette book. You can see it there. Not cool.

There is also evidence of industry cover up and blacklisting those who speak out against GMO. But this ends up categorized more as hearsay to those who were not actively involved.

Usually when there is mention of a cover up, you’ll always find histrionic people and real fraud. The truth is always somewhere in between.

Anyway, I don’t want to rock your world here too much. I support any labeling of food that includes location it was grown or raised and full disclosure of ingredients — so this proposition is a winner for me — I just want to make it abundantly clear to you and whoever has produced this trailer that their credibility will get creamed if they introduce this concept into the public forum (or even at a dinner table among their family members.)

Even if the concept is so important and necessary, its moral or personal “rightness” won’t convince just anyone to move over to your side.

You need a solid argument.

This one, simply, is not.

Your question of the day: What do you think of the trailer?

Live Awesome!

Kevin Gianni

Kevin Gianni is a health author, activist and blogger. He started seriously researching personal and preventative natural health therapies in 2002 when he was struck with the reality that cancer ran deep in his family and if he didn’t change the way he was living — he might go down that same path. Since then, he’s written and edited 6 books on the subject of natural health, diet and fitness. During this time, he’s constantly been humbled by what experts claim they know and what actually is true. This has led him to experiment with many diets and protocols — including vegan, raw food, fasting, medical treatments and more — to find out what is myth and what really works in the real world.

Kevin has also traveled around the world searching for the best protocols, foods, medicines and clinics around and bringing them to the readers of his blog — which is one of the most widely read natural health blogs in the world with hundreds of thousands of visitors a month from over 150 countries around the world.


Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Sheerah says:

    Thank you, you seem to be the only sane person talking about this subject at the moment. I hate combining bad science with hearsay, it just hurts the argument in the long run! I want to know what is in my food, plain and simple, we have a good argument for labeling food that contains GMO, we don’t need to go making stuff up!

  2. Sarah says:

    Good point. It is unclear from the voice: do you think it was Jeffrey Smith who made that comment? If so, might be worth sending him a letter about it. When I argue against GMOs, I usually quote the work of Dr. Vandana Shiva. This is because it is places like India where the excuse for GMOs is the “Green Revolution” or the “feed the world” argument. In her books, Dr. Shiva points out what has happened to people and farmers in her country with the use of GMO foods. Apart from fighting for labeling, I think our only hope is that countries out there who ban GMO foods from entering their countries will continue to do so and that we are all supporting those who keep heirloom seed banks, including the ones that exist in secret all over the world.

  3. Lance says:

    Jeffrey Smith has another REALLY good book out called the “Seeds of Deception”

    A great resource for anyone looking to understand the industry and shares all the things the bio-tech industry DOESN’T want you to know 🙂

    I like your approach about being careful how you bring this topic up with other though. It can be a touchy subject!

  4. Debbie says:

    It was a bit sensationalized, and I found most of the information rang true.

  5. Donaji says:

    I’m glad you posted this Kevin, I agree fully with you. Thank you! I’m actually volunteering for the campaign and things are getting tricky. We hope that people are focusing on the right thing here, which is OUR RIGHT TO KNOW, OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

    I think we can all discuss GMOs in length and the their consequence, but we have to accomplish one thing at a time: and fist would be to get EVERYONE WE KNOW to vote YES ON 37! Just because we it’s our right to know. Then we can focus on accomplishing other things, hopefully, eventually banning GMOs.

    If everyone that comments on this blog would tell their friends and families about the CA Right to Know campaign, we could win! So please spread the word everyone, point people to the website and tell them to sign, we need the numbers, we’ve got 1 million but we’re running against the BIG GUYS, we need more people to sign our petitions.

    Thank you Kevin, I hope the trailer is edited very soon!


  6. Sharon Intilli says:

    Kev, being careful not to misrepresent information is indeed important. At the same time, I recently read something that said many traditional doctors (maybe they weren’t so traditional) have begun to change the diets of people who would normally eat – unknowingly – gmo foods and that people are getting healthy again from the change. Could be just all
    those fresh foods being added back into one’s diet but at the same time
    I personally have no doubt that anything used long term that is GMO
    cannot be good for anyone. Science is always loathe to say anything for “certain” but I am betting circumstances will in the future point to the reality that GMOs are harmful to one’s health over the long term.

  7. aida suarez says:

    HI Keven! Another winner in your blog today concerning this terrible GMO. Your opinion regarding this “generalization” on the cause of all deceases is right on the dot! A kiss for the baby for me. Aida

  8. Stop splitting hairs. Whose pocket are you in buddy boy?

  9. James Harkin says:

    GM Foods will never be labelled until ALL Foods are GM … the reason being … nobody would buy them 🙁

  10. Ed says:

    The trailer is fine, the threat of what entered our planet without proper testing more than warrants the use of the symbol.The fact that animal testing leads to sterility in three generations or less might not register with your batty take on a most serious threat.

  11. Ed says:

    When the 370 plus weeds became roundup resistant in the last 18 years, they are forever changed.A weed is named by virtue of location, many of the so call weeds are in fact herbs.Change herbs to survive mineral blocking hormone disruptor’s and you have entered B. F. Skinners brave new world. The proof was never on the creator with false promises, but still to this day does not even have to give choice to consumers of it’s statice in their lives. Now that is batty.

  12. Mary says:

    Thanks so much for calling everyone’s attention to the trailer’s mis-info. Often similar mis-information gains power from a headline that misinterprets a news story. A busy copy editor might give a quick read to a story and slap on a headline at deadline. Same result. Baaad!
    So thanks again, for the hedsup. Just keep putting out the positive info and a concise picture of what Proposition 37 is meant to accomplish.

  13. Sara says:

    I do think the main point is the right to know. However I will point out my own experience regarding health-my daughter who is 5 has eczema. It flares up like no ones business when she eats gmo soy and gmo sugar. There is clearly a connection as the organic counterparts don’t cause a problem. Are GMOs the cause of disease? Nah, but do they contribute in a significant way-you bet.

  14. Beth says:

    mulch-dimensional or multi-dimensional? 🙂

  15. Jeff Bell says:

    The main argument in support of labeling is that it is simply our right to know. Period! And if GMO foods do not pose any special threats or risks then there is no legitimate excuse for the producers to avoid labeling them. Again, we have the right to choose, and if we can’t easily tell the GMOs from the non-GMOs then we are deprived of our right to choose. That should be more than enough to make labeling mandatory without any exceptions.

    A second point that I believe is covered in the film, but which is not covered in these comments, nor in Kevin’s post is that we really do not have the technology to control the spread of most GMOs. In other words, once they are outside the laboratory, it is all too easy for the GMO foods, crops, fish, or whatever to contaminate the non-GMO varieties. Once that occurs, there is no going back. For example, most of the Canadian crop of canola oil used to be completely free of GMOs. But it has been largely contaiminated by wind-born pollen from GMO canola plants. Now it is almost impossible to find canola plants that do not contain GMO DNA. And there is nothing to be done about it. Besides the health concerns that this rasies, it has had a terrible financial impact on Canadian canola farmers, who now can no longer sell their crops in most world markets due to the GMO contamination. ANd, of course, Monsanto, whose irresponsible and greedy actions caused this problem takes no responsibility for it.

    BTW, I just use that as an example. I am NOT promoting canola oil, which I do not think it fit for himan comsumption regardless of whether it is GMO-free or not. It is just a good example of the overall contaimination issue that GMOs pose.

    In short, with GMOs we have another example of where humankind’s technological cleverness and craftiness has outstripped our wisdom, control and ethics. Reminds me of the nuclear power industry. Same damn problem and likely similar dangers posed.

  16. Claudia says:

    I agree with you. This kind of thing in the video reminds me of the political videos where they always slip things in that not necessarily true. We have to be better than the GMO proponents and state things exactly with the necessary background support. Then they will have nothing to counteract us with.

  17. Kevin says:

    On a lighter note, the Lakers got Dwight Howard! It looks like another championship for Kobe!

  18. Velda says:

    Good point, Kevin. I have seen the trailer before, and that did not jump out at me only because I believe GMO foods to be a big contributor to rise of illnesses. But, you are correct, of course, when you talk about many other factors that also contribute. Prop 37 is not about whether GMOs are bad or good, just that we have a right to know, and we (I) should stick with that. Thanks for the reminder, Kevin.

  19. Carolina Chan says:

    The blog mentioned that other contributing factors to diseases are junk food and processed food. Well, nearly 80% of processed food and probably over 90% of junk food are genetically engineered. So doesn’t that make GMOs a primary cause of disease? Yes, we need to stick to “Consumers have the Right to Know…” in order pass Prop 37. But let’s be frank – there is an epidemic of disease and the primary causes are the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breath.

  20. Pamela says:

    Excellent work Kevin! This is EXACTLY why I love following your blog. I absolutely agree with everything you said. Here in Norway where I live we are lucky as they do not permit GMO foods. I have horses and last year an alfalfa product that I feed them was stoped because it was discovered that the oil which was added turned out to be a GMO corn oil. It was not allowed back onto the market until the oil had been switched to a non-GMO type.
    Good luck in California!

  21. Anna says:

    I live in a country so far free of GM/GE crops, but there is an ongoing struggle, legal and civil, to keep it this way. We have GE labelling legislation which isn’t enforced and is inadequate. So we are interested in any campaigns such as that in California and hope like mad that they have success with achieving labelling as it reinforces our wishes and the interests of the planet as a whole, and also would let us know what’s in imported foods.

    I agree with Kevin that it undermines credibility to make global claims about GE causing all sorts of disease – this can’t be proven and while it seems clear and logical that GE/GM can undermine health, it is likely to be one of many factors contributing to the epidemic levels of so many diseases.

    THE MAIN THING IS WE KNOW WHAT’S IN FOOD PRODUCTS AND CAN CHOOSE WHAT WE EAT. This is especially important with GE/GM ingredients which many people want to avoid for themselves and their children as they see it as such a disruption and violation of natural bio-systems. This means, logically, GE food substances can’t be recognised and adequately processed by the human body and therefore undermine health. And of course what goes into our bodies ends up in the environment as well. BUT CHOICE IS THE MAIN ISSUE for the referendum.

  22. Heather says:

    Hey Kev,

    The reason for all the diseases listed is because it is hard to narrow down something that there was never a base test for. You can’t come out and say it is canola that is causing people to get sick because canola was only tested for what 9 months by the FDA – no follow up with the patients, and canola was only used for frying, not an ingredient. They also don’t label amounts of ingredients on packaging today, so you have no way to know how much of what you are consuming in a day. Is there a difference between 5 milla whatevers taken a day vs. ten times that much…. Nobody knows… never tested.

    But what I can tell you for a fact that I spent 5 years getting stomach pains after eating foods with canola, it took me that long to figure it out due to all the code names and the lax labeling requirements. I can’t find any human studies of course other than the FDA one, but I read a few articles which talked about the fatty organs and lethargy in the animals that eat the same ingredients. And I can’t get anyone to listen to me either because either – they think I’m a nut or they hope I will die before I can get anyone to help me. Usually they give me the general FDA post about how they are within FDA guidelines. I don’t know if I would call them guidelines, but you read them and let me know what you think. Please read the FDA’s report. Really read it straight from the horses mouth. Read the statistics regarding the testing. See how many participants and the conditions of the study. Then take the results and ask yourself what if you were ingesting an unknown amount on a daily basis. They didn’t test for that. They have done no long term studies. Why not? What happened to those people? Why wasn’t a follow up required BEFORE feeding it to the general population?

    Then look up the gov websites of the countries that have banned its growth and read why.

    Then ask yourself if there is nothing wrong with GMO’s especially canola in my case then ask yourself if videos like this are being made…. why doesn’t someone do an independent study and prove it. I mean, shouldn’t we be gearing up for a 20 year study soon anyway? It won’t happen, and if they aren’t forced to label it then we will continue to have words flying around on the screen because until we test it we won’t know.

    And then ask yourself why not just not test it and label it, then people will begin to notice and that would bring problems. They don’t want to open Pandora’s box when there is cash on the line. That’s how class action lawsuits start. And once you go there you can go conspiracy crazy like – what if they are making people sick on purpose so they can sell them more medicine. Once you consider the fact that the government sold out its own citizens for profit and seats on big argiculture company chairs reaping the benefits while poisoning the citizens…. I don’t know about you but it makes me angry to think that someone somewhere knew and did not do the right thing it makes me very, very angry. Why if it has been banned in other countries, why will the US not test it? Because the pockets run deep, and that’s not the way it works anymore. Canola blows everywhere and there won’t be anything for me to eat in 20 years at this rate.

    So if you read my long late night rant thank you and I’m sorry, but I leave you with some parting words from my favorite morally centered TV character Captain Jean Luke Picard:

    “How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral?”

  23. Anna-Carin Rahm says:

    This is SO scary. Thank you for bringing it to awareness. I live in Sweden and I don´t really know about the legislation here, I really have to try to find out. To me it is the biggest threat ever to mankind. What is so extremely scary is as jeff Bell wrote earlier in these comments that there is no going back. How could anyone ever think it is worth it. We have to fight. Well I think according to the video that whatever is said, it has to be true.

  24. Brooke says:

    Hi Kevin! I agree wholeheartedly with this article. To play and win at politics, you have to make sure you fight the status quo with hard, concrete evidence or their propaganda machines will tear the grassroots movement apart. As much as the mindless masses will say they don’t like politicians and they don’t believe everything they hear, it turns out they do. The status quo has such a stranglehold on public perception that subtle tricks like what was used in that trailer become blown out of proportion to discredit the movement. Believe me, I have seen this first hand being an avid Ron Paul supporter. You would think the message of non-aggression, loving your neighbor as yourself, and freedom would win elections, but obviously not and we can thank the elites and propaganda outlets (like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC among many others) for that.

    Labeling GMOs can only be about choice. Vaccines can only be about choice. Growing a garden in your front yard can only be about choice. The problem in this country is that everyone thinks they can make better decisions for other people. The USA was founded on having the choice to do anything in your life – not what the government permits you to do or what others think you should do. In this country we are given choices and forced to pick from just those. Well, what happens when I don’t like the choices? Like in the presidential election (2 choices aren’t much better than 1, especially when their policies are virtually identical)? Or like what is given to me as choices in my grocery store? If other people want to eat GMOs, that’s fine. I will be available for people if they want to know why I don’t eat them, but I certainly won’t push my ideals on other people. This is about freedom manifesting itself as GMO labeling. We are adults and we can make our own choices. I pray that California passes this law. Thanks, Kevin, for all you do for health freedom and for helping us to think outside the box!

  25. zyxomma says:

    I had no problem with the trailer. If GMOs are CONTRIBUTING to the list of illnesses in ANY way, that’s a good enough reason to include them. It may have been wiser to leave it out of the trailer, but trailers are often the most sensational part of every film; they’re attention-getters.

    My personal actions (apart from petitioning every government agency involved) include (1) contributing money to Yes on 37, and (2) before November’s election, I’m contacting everyone I know in California (friend, acquaintance, relative, business associate) to give them my opinion on why they should vote YES. Btw, filmmakers are often uninvolved in cutting a trailer from their own films; that’s usually someone else’s job.

    Anthony Wiener was a member of Congress, not a state politician in Albany. He did not represent my district, but he truly represented ALL of us. I attended one of his meet-ups (in my neighborhood), and he was very forthcoming at the Q&A. He was one of the most vocal proponents of universal health care, and called it Medicare-for-All. I miss his voice in Congress (along with Alan Grayson, and the soon-to-be-retired Dennis Kucinich, who appears in the trailer). As we’ve seen from other politicians, had he been a Republican, he most likely would not have resigned (just look at Mark Sanford, who was visiting his mistress in Argentina while pretending to hike the Appalachian Trail). Had he not been caught mis-using Twitter and lying about it, he’d still be a great representative. Hubris. However, he worked in Washington, not Albany. Until recently, you lived in nearby CT, not CA, and I’m surprised you were unaware of his stellar representation of his district.

    Health and peace, and YES on 37.

  26. Brianna says:

    Great points. Great article, Kev. I’m just very happy with your ability to see flaws without bias – from both sides. Well done.

    Though… the major flaw of this article was inserting this joke about mid-way through:

    (He DM-ed his ding-dong.)

    LOL. I was giggling and distracted the rest of the way! But, I did finish reading the article 🙂

  27. Karen says:

    “It’s the most dangerous thing facing human beings in our generation.” That is the opening line and that turned me off immediately. Lots more pressing issues are facing humankind. Why do zealots insist on insisting that their cause is the most important issue on the table? I love to get good, unbiased information and I believe that I get that from you, Kevin. Don’t stop questioning everything – that’s one of your greatest strengths.

  28. Pam says:

    Thank you again, Kevin, for a close look at details that may be missed by most people. I watched the trailer several times, and feel that this clip of the skeleton and diseases was inserted in an “out of context” sort of way. GMOs do CONTRIBUTE to illness and disease. We know that from the scientific reports. That’s why other countries have banned GMOs, and why we are having to fight them here in America. However, never in that clip did they actually say the words GMOs
    CAUSE disease. They just state that illnesses that weren’t epidemic, are now. It’s suggestion. Then they go on to explain WHAT GMO foods are, the main subject.
    I find most people I encourage to vote yes on 37, need to be educated as to why they should. (Ones who already eat healthy diets don’t need to be told.) There are no billboards on I-5 telling Californians what it’s really about. No articles in our newspapers, no ads anywhere. Am I wrong? Have any Californians seen Pro-GMO labeling ads out there, anywhere besides on the internet? The message needs to be shouted from the rooftops in every city.

  29. Mary says:

    Yes, I do see your point of view. I don’t think however the gmo’s could shoot down Jeffreys’s film without at the same time shooting themselves in the foot. For whilst they may wish to latch on to the other causative factors of ill health on your list, this is difficult for them to declare publicly because, ironically, they are the producers of the very agri-chemicals etc which contribute to the many health problems on that list. A conundrum for them…

  30. montorrah says:

    Kevin I really appreciate your commitment to keeping us informed. And,yes,you are spot on. There are multiple reasons for the current health status of this nation. GMO’s are just one aspect of it.

  31. Annomy says:

    Everyone should be focused on the toxic chemicals from petroleum and pollution. GMO is no different than cross bred plants. GMO techniques allow the developments to be done faster. What is wierd is that the same proteins in GMO corn, are on organic corn. The corn kernels don’t contain any GMO protein!!! Silly. People ought to get organized on all the trace pollutants—that will make a difference in health.

  32. Thomas says:

    Speaking of GMOs, this article was in today’s news:
    “British GM crop scientists win $10m grant from Gates”

    It’s part of the Gates/Monsanto partnership plan to own and control agriculture in Africa.

    I always knew Microsoft was the ‘enemy’. 🙂

  33. Malcolm says:

    Voting for labeling laws to identify GMO origins etc is but a unique
    endorsement of the right to include them. Your warned/You shop

    Not including GMO labeling allows GMO stuff to be “ghosted” into your
    shelfs – So as Laurel and Hardy would have said “That’s a fine mess
    you got us into this time”.
    Must be some aethiests behind this.

  34. Lauren says:

    I think it is wrong logic. Corn kernels don’t have GMO material in them even if the plant that produced the kernels do. Corn already has been shown not to have health effects. It already has been reviewed and approved by FDA (as it should). Trace chemical labeling isn’t a requirement, why should trace proteins that aren’t even in the consumed product be required to be labelled? In final products the expressions of proteins are fully known.

    This part is bizarre: In corn kernels there is no difference in the kernel GMO or not. With tomatoes there is a slight difference. Both are absolutely tomatoes. But is the difference really different or outside of normal? If someone sticks in something totally unnatural that doesn’t occur in the food system somewhere, then it would mend to be studied very thoroughly before being implemented.

    The GMOs in use are incredibly well studied as they should be. More so than most anything. GMO opponents would like people to believe they haven’t been. As I said with corn: How many people understand there is ZERO GMO protein or other chemical in the part of corn that people eat?? GMOs before they are put in the market should be and are well studied. Genetic engineering is not plant breeding, however the results can be same. There are some generic engineering things that can’t be done by breeding, that is true, but not always true like some suggests.

    The purpose of experiments is to sort out what is unknown. In the case of GMO they are so well studied it is ridiculous. A bunch of people trying to raise money for their cause—playing on fears.

  35. Lauren says:

    To explain further: a trait is an expression of a gene. Proteins are what genes result in–what they cause to be produced. So the discussion of GMO is about what proteins are produced and what do those proteins do?

    Here are a couple examples: With a GMO corn, there is no GMO protein in the kernel. That’s a fact. So should the corn be labeled? It doesn’t contain any GMO. In the case of tomatoes, both color and flavor are enhanced by GMO techniques. Both the color and flavor products from GMO enhancement are natural and normal. Should it be labeled?

    The GMO traits that have been commercialized are against pests, and for weed control (herbicide resistance). None of these impact health for humans or animals. There is zero evidence that it impacts humans. The future traits will be drought resistance, fertilizer reduction, etc. Basically things that make food cheaper.

    Could a company do something stupid and make a product that is trouble? Yes. About 15 years ago people talked about producing antibiotics in GMO plants. Bad idea. It would spur anti biotic resistant bacteria.

    The anti GMO people distort facts. They hide behind a flag of “we’re concerned for people”. I call BS. They are only concerned over their own agenda to raise money, or to protect a market against cheaper produce. Hypocrites.

    People: Don’t believe the HYPE. Learn the SCIENCE! 🙂

  36. Lori says:

    For what its worth, I think you’re construing things, Kevin. The sound bite you take such exception to, ““illnesses that weren’t epidemic before are now epidemic” is suggestive at best. Not definitive as you’re claiming. Please, lets leave the misconstructions to the opposition.

    I think your post, Kevin, is a gross over-reaction, almost nit-picking, but, more importantly, I think it gets people off-topic. We need solidarity if we are going to pull this off. Please, just focus on Prop. #37’s message which is now our mantra: “We have the right to know what’s in our food.” End of story.

    Its so critical that we stay on-topic, Kevin. Especially now, that the opposition has had a sudden $25 million influx of cash, whereas our campaign is extremely cash poor. This is sobering. I hope you post a lot more about Prop. #37, and you write about what it stands for – the right to know what we eat.

  37. Steph/Cliff says:

    Hi Kevin,
    Our understanding – is a lack of knowledge to foods, Good Foods or Bad Foods = your diet.
    Which contribute to your health or illnesses.

    GMO is another Bad Diet because it is not natural, contributing to illnesses.

    To make changes to being healthy – we need to stick together.

  38. Anni says:

    I really did not get the impression that they were saying that its the reason of the diseases, but it most certainly CONTRIBUTES to them in a humungous ways!!!!! Look at health trends for over the years. Look at the bad rep coconut oil got when they wanted to introduce “liquid” oil. It’s called money.
    Read the book called “Wheat Belly” by William Davis, MD. I have to keep holding my jaw up because of what ‘they’ have done to wheat!!! Without testing it to see what the consequences were to anyone eating the changed wheat. Just about EVERYTHING has wheat in it and Dr. Davis has some real good points of this change to wheat and the rampant diseases we are now battling. Definitely worth the read/education.
    Yes, we need and have the right to know what has been done to our food.

  39. Seppo says:

    I think this GMO discussion needs more science, reason and logic and less hype and emotional arguments. I’m all for following science and truth – no matter where it leaves.

    Unfortunately we can’t anymore say that labeling GMO is about choice. In a way it is, but the organic lobby and interest groups have thorougly poisoned that well. They’ve infused the public consciousness with the message that GMO equals skulls and bones. People in the natural health movement don’t often like to acknowledge the fact that organic is massive business and they have their own dirty tricks in the sleeve – just like any other massive business.

    Their drive to support GMO labelling is just a way to stifle competition. Because buying organic produce protects you from ‘evil’ GMOs. So this is not about debate of logic and merit. It’s just another emotional argument.

    If we label GMOs should we also label organic food? Because when compared to conventional agriculture the yields are 34% lower (according to a recent comprehensive meta-analysis). Should we label organic food with pictures of rain forest destruction? With pictures of habitat loss and animals going extinction? For what’s it worth that argument has much more scientific validity than GMOs being dangerous for health.

    It’s not my intention here to push GMO or say they are without risks. I just want to bring in the other side of the story also. Since this blog seems to be open to rational discussion.

    I haven’t really made up my mind with GMOs yet. There’s a lot of studies showing little to no difference to non-GMO produce. Studies on allergenicity or GMO vs. non-GMO produce shows no difference. Perhaps there are individuals who react badly to them, but there’s no evidence this is true in larger scale.

    There’s also the little problem of global warming and what it’s doing to our planet. We can expact lot of our productive farmlands to be wiped out because of drougths and sea level rise. GMO can (and will) help us to develop crops that are more suitable for these environments. Should we not do that?

    There’s also evidence that GMOs have reduced pesticide use, and at least in some cases, increased bio diversity at farms.

    Of course there are negatives also. Nobody denies that Monsanto uses some questionable tactics. But this technology is larger than one company. And I’m sure there are cases where GMO has caused herbicide-resistant weeds.

    Like all other technologies GMO has benefits and down-sides. But we shouldn’t just focus on the negatives. Let’s try to look at this technology objectively. Learn to use it responsibly. Take what works and discard the things that didn’t work.

    I’m afraid humanity is running out of time. That’s why we need science, reason and logic to get us out of this mess. Emotionally-laden, biased arguments rarely do humanity any good.

  40. Tony R. says:

    I watched the Genetic Roulette trailer at YouTube and my biggest criticism of the movie and its promoters is that they don’t permit criticism. There were exactly six (6) comments about the trailer, and all of them were positive. When I submitted my comment, which merely pointed out that we’ve been eating genetically modified food for millennia, because farmers have been modifying our foods through animal breeding and selection of beneficial plant mutations, I was met with a message that my comment was being held for “review”. Wanna bet that it will never be allowed to appear?

    I am distrustful of any and all individuals and organizations that hype a point of view and marginalize anyone who questions their agenda.

    • Kevin Gianni Kevin Gianni says:

      Tony, I’m sorry they censored you. To their defense, sometimes comments are held for review. About 50% of ours are, for no particular reason at all. But ultimately, I’d like to point out to you that the thousands of years of hybridization is much different than GMO. There has never been in the history of the world a plant that’s DNA has been altered to produce a pesticide at the level and unstable nature of GMO science.

      Thanks for writing in!


  41. Hi Kevin,

    I watched the movie and it is one long trailer blaming every modern disease to GM foods. I agree that GM food labeling should be done. I do not think that any of the papers used as evidence of the danger is evidence, but extrapolation to the extreme… to many potentially harmful, and unknown risks and when Smith says that he does not have proof between the link of GM food and autism, he insists that no one has shown not to cause autism… REALLY BAD ARGUMENTS THROUGHOUT this movie

    Comments are closed for this post.