If GMOs Are So Good, Why Not be Proud?

Tuesday Aug 21, 2012 | BY |
| Comments (72)

gabby douglas
We’re proud of Gabby, but why not GMO?

I’ve been thinking and writing about California Proposition 37 a lot in the last few weeks…

This proposition — if California votes yes — will require genetically modified foods to be labeled by the food companies that produce them.

For me, this would be a huge victory for the state as well as the rest of the U.S.

I want to know what is in my food and this labeling legislation would provide anyone who cares about what they eat with the right to know what they put in their mouths.

If California requires labeling GMO foods, then this sets precedence for other states to follow suit. What’s even better, is that if companies need to label products for California, they’ll likely just change their packaging for most — if not all — of their distribution.

(Here are some articles I’ve written that you can go back and access in case you missed them. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.)

So, of course, we’re voting “yes” and encouraging everyone else to do the same.

Know your farmer, know your food, know what you put in your mouth.

But now, as the campaign to get the word out about the Proposition has picked up some steam, the opposition has started to put up some serious resistance. Food and biotech companies have put up millions of dollars to attempt to convince California consumers of three things — (1) that the proposition is poorly written, (2) that consumers will have to pay for the increase in packaging costs and (3) that GMO foods are no different than non-GMO food.

This money is a fraction of what those who support Proposition 37 have been able to gather. It’s my hope that our side will prevail, but I can’t say I’m confident it will be a landslide.

Is Proposition 37 poorly written?

I’m not a lawmaker, so I don’t know much about how the proposition is drafted. I’ve read it and I’m confident it was written by competent people. So, on this point I’m sure the food industry leaders are looking for any way to discredit the campaign — and in particular single out the majority of Californians who have no idea what they’d be reading if they did get a copy of it.

Will it really cost more?

In terms of packaging costs, Kellogg Company just pasted Olympian Gabby Douglas all over their Corn Flakes boxes — all with no increase in price to the consumer. So to me, and maybe to you too, it seems like these companies are saying that they’re willing to punish consumers by increasing prices of their product if they have to be truthful about what is in their products.

Gabby Douglas, no fees passed on to the consumer.

Being truthful? Extra cost to the consumer.

This is a double standard that must be mentioned in any discussion about GMO labeling. It just isn’t fair and is the equivalent of school yard bullying — “I’ll give you your shoe back, if you give me your lunch money” kind of stuff.

On a personal note of comparison, we change labels all the time. For us, it costs about $35-50 an hour for a designer and nothing extra to reprint the materials, since we wait until we need more.

Total: $35-50 per label.

I understand, food companies are much more bulky and heavier to lift, but since the Proposition allows for a grace period to change their labels, I find it really hard to swallow that there will be dozens of millions of dollars in extra cash spent changing the boxes or labels to be compliant. I’m sure they print new boxes/labels/packages regularly and there will be minimal design costs outside of the amount of money that they normally spend to print this new packaging on their previously determined design and promotional schedule.

Here’s a suggestion: Do the label adjustments during the holidays when many companies put a holiday spin on their products. Shiny new packaging, shiny new GMO label.

But the real question is…

Now, as for point number three, I’ve had a question knocking around in my head for the last few days that I would love to ask those higher ups in the food industry:

If GMOs are so good, why not be proud?

The food industry has been really good at promoting winning nutrients and ingredients. (Any industry is, in fact.)

Fiber, antioxidants, omega 3s — if their products contain one or many of them, their marketing department is more than willing to share. They may even spend money to change the label (and not charge the consumer — or threaten to.)

So, in this case, why not be proud? Particularly their your stance is that GMOs are no different than regular food — and could possibly save the world (one of their claims.)

Why not superimpose “Made with Real GMO Sweet Corn” on the front of Ms. Douglas’ gold medal? It would be non-American not to boast about the achievements of the biotech industry.

If GMOs allegedly help reduce the use of pesticides, claim that on the front of every Nestle chocolate bar — “Made with GMO Soy: You’re Helping Us Use Less Pesticides.”

(Nestle is a supporter of the campaign against Proposition 37.)

Why not proclaim that “by purchasing this GMO-rich product you support feeding hungry people across the globe.” (Read more here. And the rebuttal here.)

Of course, I’m not asking for these things to seriously happen, but I am asking for reasons why no one is being effervescently boastful.

It’s an important question to ask. So why so mum?

I’m not exactly sure, but from an industry that shouts from the rooftops if their product contains even a token amount of resveratrol or lycopene, you have to be suspicious of the silence.

Chances are, it’s because the industry knows no one can really stomach the idea that their corn or soy latte may at one point have been producing a pesticide — by itself. Or maybe they don’t want to shine a light on a topic many people know nothing about and open up a public debate — featuring the good, bad and ugly.

I’m sure it’s a little bit of both — and more — but what I do know is that human (or corporate nature) is similar across the board.

When I was younger and I’d get an A on my report card, I’d proudly come running home to Mom. But when I got a D, I’d hide it in my book bag hoping that she’d never remember that it existed.

When people are proud they boast, when they’re not they don’t.

You have to wonder why — and what — the food and biotech companies are holding back.

Your question of the day: Do you think there’s something the food and biotech companies are trying to hide?

Live Awesome!
Kev

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 RenegadeHealth.com — 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.

72 COMMENTS ON THIS POST

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. These are great points, Kevin. We too change our labels frequently. It probably costs us more since we contract an artist outside of our company. I am confident they already have people on staff that do this.

  2. erin b says:

    as the old saying goes; if you do it, own it!

    I use to work for one of these companies for many years…oh my, if you only knew the full story. You are just hitting the tip of this iceberg. Don’t judge me please, I did say “use to”.

  3. Elizabeth Williams says:

    It could be the case that they realize if GMO’s are required to be identified that they would have to switch to non gmo inputs for their products and that is where the increase in price would come from.

  4. Darlene says:

    GMOS are NOT good, they are obviously hiding something by NOT labeling them!~

  5. Pam says:

    I think Erin and Elizabeth’s comments go together, in a way. (I’d love to sit down with you Erin, and hear your story.) I occasionally try to imagine the covert goings-on behind their big steel factory doors, and always come up with the image that they don’t want to get caught. They’ve gotten away with their dirty deeds so far, and they don’t want anyone to stop them from making more dirty money. If CA passes Prop 37, I am just holding my breath in anticipation of their reactions. Who knows how deep the corruption actually goes? How long can they keep it up?

  6. Mary Kay says:

    Good points. Thanks.

  7. This is the best article i have read from you Kevin. You are posing the best questions by asking us to think.
    Thank you!

  8. Debra says:

    The interesting thing is that these multi-national food conglomerates are selling their products WORLDWIDE, and are doing so in countries that ALREADY REQUIRE LABELING of GMOS. (All European Union nations, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, India, Russia, China). In other words, they are already labeling their foods for sale in these countries, or are choosing to omit the GMOs. They are feeding the GMOs to all of us poor guinea pigs, whose corrupt government officials are being bought off. In many cases these government officials are in and out of the revolving door of being in high government regulatory positions, and also being top executives of the very same Biotech Ag/food and pesticide giants they are supposed to be protecting the public against. It’s not food safety for Americans, it’s about greedy corporations feeding us cheap crap, and wanting to control the world food supply. Declaring intellectual property rights over food. Farmers being unable to save seeds, and all the while telling US to shut up about it. YES on Prop 37 Californians!!!! The world is watching us!!!

  9. Benita Gettel OTR/L CHT CCH says:

    the Mon$anto foxes have been appointed by our current President to watch over the henhouse….Sec of Agriculture Vilsack, FDA corruption abounds…..The prior President appointed a former Mon$anto lawyer to be a Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas)..when you connect the dots it is quite obvious to see the’hidden agendas’ of these Corporate goons….. he who controls the food controls the World…. The American people are slow to wake up and terribly misled by powerbrokers…..read Crimes Aginst Nature by Robert Kennedy Jr… millions and millions of dollars have been spent stuffing the wallets of our elected officials…they no longer represent We the People…..and the BEST we can do is NOT purchase tainted food products…

  10. chris says:

    what business do chemical manufacturing corporations have producing food anyway?

  11. tsimitpo says:

    Who’s to say that they’ll tell the truth anyway if the very organizations who test for such truthfulness are in on the game.

    The way I see it, it still comes down to honesty, integrity, and basic morality, which seems to be depreciating at about the same pace as the dollar.

  12. Lauren says:

    It seems the labeling discussion is driven by fear that GMOs are bad–amplified by a lot of hype. Companies oppose labeling because the way the GMO discussion is handled having to mark something GMO implies it is “bad”. That they oppose the law doesn’t mean that the companies are hiding something — that they are not “proud” of their GMO “foods”. Instead it is because it is unfair.

  13. Francine Maclure says:

    Why not make GMO foods an election issue?

  14. Lauren says:

    Big biotech companies are not always the big bad wolf. They’ve done the research, the FDA has approved GMO’s. The big biotech companies have already been heavily scrutinized by the FDA for safety or GMOs would not be on the market. GMOs are nothing new they’ve been around for years. THIS is why the companies do not want the labeling. Because the labeling is about hype & not actual facts. Do you see the difference? It has nothing to do with being proud or not. Its about people not understanding what GMO means.. you just can’t base your decision off of watching documentaries like FOOD INC. If people didn’t have it in their heads that GMOS were “bad” they wouldn’t care about labeling.

  15. Lauren says:

    There is a lot of science out there examining why / how GMOs are not “bad”. Most people do not read or learn the science for themselves… they prefer to believe what “people say”, and thus the majority will believe Hype and not buy GMO if they are labeled. KEVIN, why don’t you do research on GMO science for all your readers? Of course everyone wants to know what is in their food, what they are putting in their mouths… however, is there really GMO protein in the actual food part we eat? Do you understand what trace proteins are? If it is proven that GMO protein isn’t actually in the food… would people care about the labeling? If science proves there has been no harm to humans… would they want labeling? I guess most likely not. I’d think it would be great if you would do the research and look up these important points and then see where you stand on the labeling. 🙂

  16. chusmacha says:

    Total: $35-50 per label. “?”

  17. Jodie says:

    I’d like to hear Erin’s story.
    Kevin could you do an interview?

  18. Oh my goodness, what a great post Kevin. I am definitely sharing this. We definitely need to know if our food is GMO.

  19. chusmacha – I think he means #35 to #50 to redesign one label.

  20. Larry Fishman says:

    Yes, I think there’s something the food and biotech companies are trying to hide – an inferior product.

  21. in germany a anarchist put up all the infiltration of universities and goverment with the gmo industry. if you google “gen seilschaften” or “gen-dreck weg seilschaften” you will find his videos also “projektwerkstatt”

    its in german still very interesting and learning

  22. Genie says:

    Kraft foods in the UK are of a higher standards than those sold in the US. Many people were hoping that when the last CEO was replaced the new one being a woman with a family would change the US sold products to a higher standard. Guess what? Money Talks!

  23. Faye says:

    Debra, I live in China and they don’t even require that you label anything in a package. I wish they did label GMO’d products, as well as what other kinds of things are in their products.
    I am not sure where you got your information, but this is just not so that they label.

  24. Mary says:

    In answer to your question, of COURSE!
    But consumers, especially from the companies you cited, are not interested in science. They’re interested in taste. If it looks…tastes… like a (duck)….etc., etc., and has a pretty picture on the box, they buy.
    Yes, some education is necessary. But consumers shop from their gut, not their brain.
    “Wheaties, Breakfast of Champions” isn’t about nutrition, or truth. It’s a feeling that makes a consumer proud to be eating Wheaties so they can feel like a champion, too.
    They don’t care what’s in–or not in–that dried up flake.

  25. http://www.projektwerkstatt.de/gen/filz.htm
    http://www.projektwerkstatt.de/gen/filz_brosch.htm
    http://www.projektwerkstatt.de/gen/buch/
    http://www.gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de/gentechniknetz

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBx2Qd8NPpk
    gennetz.wordpress.com/tag/seilschaften/

    he just talks in the video its called “sicherheitsforschung”
    so if people would read GMO field. they would get protesting.
    So they call it in Germany “sicherheitsforschung” what is “Security Science”

    There are little companies in Germany which are split from the big companies. to hide the big companies. its some glimpse he mentiones in his talk.

    kevin this is related to my last post

  26. http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/germany.html
    http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/gentechnik/lebensmittel/

    if the cow eats GMO food, it dont has to be labelled in germany. So if you buy milk or other animal products it might be it is feed with gmo food.

  27. zyxomma says:

    Because of the GMO contamination of the American food supply, I have stopped eating corn, soy, zucchini, papaya, and any packaged food that is not organic. Do you know how difficult it is to find a product that does not contain any canola, soy, corn, etc. on the shelf of a supermarket?

    I’m grateful that I have great health food stores and greenmarkets within walking distance of home.

    Health and peace.

  28. https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html

    organic foods and brands which are linked to GMO companies

  29. Lori says:

    Good point, Kevin. One thing I’d like to say, the biotech companies have promised the farmers that by using their GMO seeds, they will be using less pesticide on their crops than conventional. However, the opposite has proven to be the case. Farmers are now using four times the amount of pesticides on their GMO crops than what is used on conventional. This is why some big pesticide companies have recently donated millions of dollars to oppose labeling GE food. They have been enjoying these higher profits because of the higher demand for their products, and they don’t want the party to be over.

    @ Lauren – I get the feeling that you’re likely a paid promoter of the opposition to Prop. 37. (After all, they have money to burn on this, $100 million to be exact.) If you’re not a paid promoter, then you have swallowed their propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

    To quote you, “They’ve done the research, the FDA has approved GMO’s. The big biotech companies have already been heavily scrutinized by the FDA for safety or GMOs would not be on the market. ” This could not be further from the truth.

    The FDA scrutinizes all the products that cross their desks EXCEPT for the new biotech product because of the millions upon millions of dollars the biotech companies have spend ‘lobbying’ the government, including the White House, to declare their products, “substantially equivalent.” And, because of this, they are automatically put onto the market without any testing, not even short-term tests on a few laboratory rats. Please, these are the facts. Anyone is welcome to look them up for themselves. Note to Lauren: please scrutinize your sources before you start believing facts.

    ******One final comment to Lauren: Bottom line – Prop. #37 isn’t an issue about food safety, it is solely an issue on citizen’s rights. We have the right to know what we are eating, and no one should be taking away this right and deciding for us.*****************

  30. Lori says:

    To get the facts on our right to know what’s in our food, please check out carighttoknow.org.

    Click on the ‘Get The Facts’ button on the bottom of the home page. On the next page, click the ‘Read the Initiative’ button, upper right, and you can read the actual document in its entirety. It’s a great place to start for getting the facts on Prop. #37 to label genetically engineered food.

  31. Joe says:

    Could it be as simple as seeing GMO on a label, and just googling it drawing their own conclusion? I know if I saw GMO printed on a label, I’d get real curious and start doing my own research and probably get the wrong idea of what is, but that’s just me.

  32. Colleen says:

    I agree with Mary, many Americans go by the taste, and the price.
    These large corporations are in business to make a profit, and trust me they already have their people in place with a plan if this passes in California.

    My thought is, if this passes and they are forced to label GMO products, as with organic foods, the non GMO foods will be more expensive and in smaller quantities and the GMO products will be discounted.

    In your community of readers I think it is safe to say they are well informed and concerned about what they eat, however I would feel safe in saying in the “real” world people don’t care. Why do I say this?, all the documentaries produced on the harmful foods introduced into our food supplies the alarming obesitiy rates in all races and age groups, the obesity related illnesses and death, and the high cost of health care, fast food restaurants and companies that produce poor quality foods are making record breaking profits

    As I said before at the end of the day it is about taste and profit

  33. Barbara says:

    Of course the GMO’s have lots to hide.
    The fact that there are NO FACTS about GMO safety.
    No testing… unless you count the two weeks the GMO
    guys themselves did. Yea like you can trust that !

    But mostly I think it’s consummate arrogance.

    Who are we, the public, to ask for proof?
    How dare you challenge the great OZ… I mean the great
    Monsanto? : )
    But unlike the great OZ, there is no heart or compassion.
    Just greed and arrogance.

    Also, once they poured so much money into GMO’s before they found that it wasn’t better or safe they had to continue to recoup their investment. There aren’t about to take the loss because it’s bad for people. By the time we can prove the harm, they have their billions and are living safely in a villa in some foreign country.

    If the problems about GMO’s aren’t covered in main stream media most people won’t pay attention, and they don’t know.
    I find most ARE interested, but they don’t know how to get more info. how to change things. Unfortunately the lifestyles of people with families is not conducive to resolving, or easily finding out the issues and taking action.
    How to get things changed for the better.

  34. Jeff says:

    The American Academy of Environmental Medicine warned against the use and consumption of GMO’s stating, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food.” These health risks include: infertility, decreased immunity, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and poor insulin regulation. Companies pushing for GM crops state that the research shows no negative consequences for the environment or public health. The reality is a host of research shows troubling consequences from the consumption of Genetically modified food.

  35. Pam says:

    @Lori- Thank you so much Lori, for your kind rebuke of Lauren. She clearly hasn’t been educated, or else she IS working for the Misinformation Campaign. Very sad indeed.

  36. Anna says:

    More good awareness-raising thanks!

    In response to Debra’s comment about labelling world-wide:

    “these multi-national food conglomerates are selling their products WORLDWIDE, and are doing so in countries that ALREADY REQUIRE LABELING of GMOS. (All European Union nations, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, India, Russia, China)”:

    NZ does have requirements to label GMOs in food, but they are too loose and apparently not monitored – it’s a farce. Such GMO ingredient labels are never seen, so the consumer can’t know whether GMO-derived food ingredients are in their food.

    Labelling should include all GMO-derived ingredients, i.e. not only GMO ingredients that have DNA in them but also those that have no DNA but are derived from GMO substances. That’s the loophole. So make sure the laws are loop-hole proof and effective monitoring is actually carried out.

  37. Mary Ellen says:

    I do not like it when people say that everyone only cares about their tastes & their pockets. There is something else to consider many people are not well & have food allergies & should not have unhealthy foods. How are they going to get well if they are eating unhealthy foods or foods they are allergic to, so it is extremely impt to know exactly what is in whatever you are eating. There should be no extra cost for different labels as you said they are not charging any more for product w/Gabby on it, so there should no difference. Also they always change things when there are holidays or specials, so there should be no need to pass the cost onto consumers. Like you say it’s a punishment & they think if they hit you in your pocket u will buy whatever is less money.

  38. Beverly says:

    We were the greatest country in the world, we have let the wolves come into the chicken coop, better wake up America. Our children are the ones who are going to suffer, the true people of God, heal yourself and your love ones https://jdimlm.com/index.php?page=1c&theme=1&id=miracles

  39. Paul says:

    My personal feeling is that the producers of GMO products are well aware of the potential damaging effects of their products, as are the fast food industry in general.

    They help create huge amounts of money for the drugs companies via the health?care (drug dependency) system. Once you are hooked into that, your future isn’t looking good, but the profits are huge.

    Not to mention destroying third world subsistence farming by ensuring the farmers always have to buy their seeds from the GMO companies because the GMO seeds are infertile.

    Control and profit is the reality, but most sheeple are too asleep to realize. Now is time to wake up if you you value the future. GMO labeling is a small step in the right direction.

  40. Jeff says:

    Though not perfect, Prop. 37 represents a large step forward towards honest food labeling, which has been severely lacking in the U.S. since GMOs first came onto the scene back in the early 1990s. If Californians successfully pass Prop. 37 in November, much of the rest of the U.S. will likely follow in its footsteps in the coming months and years, which has the potential to unhinge the corporate monopoly that currently controls the American food supply.

    But as grassroots efforts try to promote better transparency in labeling, companies like Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and others are simultaneously working hard to keep Americans in the dark about the foods they eat. Monsanto recently forked over a whopping $4.2 million dollars to defeat Prop. 37, while Dupont contributed more than $1.2 million against it. Dow Agrosciences, Pepsico, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Bayer Cropscience, ConAgra, BASF, the Kellogg’s Company, Hershey’s, Hormel and many other industrial food and chemical producers have also donated millions to defeat Prop. 37.

    You can view a list of the top 20 largest contributors trying to defeat Prop. 37 here:
    http://www.carighttoknow.org

  41. Robert says:

    Hi Gang, Why is it that farmers report that the native fauna walk past the GMO crops to get to the natural species, do they know something we don’t?.
    In India, after the crops have been harvested, they put the cattle into the paddocks to eat the stubble, & they report that the cattle are dying.
    Lauren says the FDA approved GMO’s, but bear in mind, the biotech’s don’t have to do any tests on humans to get approval.
    Lauren also cites Protein & Trace Protein, well, what about the Enzymes & the DNA strands of the plant?
    Farmers who use GMO seeds report smaller yields from those crops, & they cannot keep any seeds for the next season, they have to buy a new lot of seed.
    I wonder which company Lauren works for?.

    Keep well,

  42. June says:

    God, most of you are daft. Just don’t buy the damn stuff or anything that you’re not sure whether it has GMOs or not. Try to grow your own fruit and vegetables. You don’t have to eat grain at all to live or be healthy. Avoid soy, all grains, all packaged baked goods, cereals, biscuits, etc. Make your meals at home from scratch.
    There are plenty of diets that advocate whole foods without grains – Paleo is one. Do a search and you’ll find one to suit you.
    If you’re complaining about lack of labeling but don’t do anything about it (such as avoiding grains/soy or actively protesting) you are totally unauthentic.

  43. Aletta says:

    There are scientific studies showing the effects of GE corn: Scientists in Norway have released results from experimental feeding studies, carried out over a ten year period. The results show a positive link between GE corn and obesity. Animals fed a GE corn diet got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to animals fed a non-GE grain diet. The studies were performed on rats, mice, pigs and salmon achieving the same results. Read more: http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/07/obesity-corn-gmos/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obesity-corn-gmos

  44. mike says:

    Lauren the GMO troll, go back to your Monsanto break room, have a GMO soy latte, and eat some Frosted GMO Flakes, and give up. No one is buying your “package”.

  45. mike says:

    …and Lauren the Troll, even if GMOs posed NO threat to us directly, it still does pose a threat directly. Monsanto has had farmers fined and imprisoned for using “their” seeds. I don’t want to live in a world where corporations OWN the genetic food and the seeds produced by the plants. Talk about too much power corrupting. Next they will want Godhood, OH that is what they are already saying, they made the change to the seed genetics, so now THEY not God own the product. Funny you never hear the “right” talking about this stuff.

  46. Autumn says:

    why will it cost more?

    It might be their way of saying that if they have to label gmo’s they will have to take em out of their product bc they know they are bad; Just like transfats. Thecompanies eventually took most of the transfats out onceit needed to be labeled!

  47. Chuck says:

    All I ask is for clear labels: GMO, irradiated, MSG. Put whatever you want in the package; just label it clearly. I would expect the FDA/USDA to take a proactive stance and protect the consumer but even a neutral stance would equate to clear and concise labeling. Kev, keep up the good work.

  48. Jan says:

    I will keep on fighting for Non GMO food!
    There is so much evidence out there to attest that it is not good for us HUMANS! Animal research- Yes! God bless all the animals who had to suffer and die! Cows whose milk is given to Us! They have suffered and most other animals who were fed GMO’s They get weak and have to be given antibiotics- the cycle goes on and On! They become infertile.
    There is a reason we in America have the highest Cancer and obesity rate ever! It used to be Heart Disease- now it is obesity- cancer-infant mortality-autism- diabetes! most infants are born with toxic overload! It is so alarming! Greed and money rules our system! I do think it is planned to eliminate the population. we will become infertile too.
    Sheepies follow and do not object!
    I am sure that most employees of the Monsanto world – do not eat their own products! If they do then they will perish too!
    JJ

  49. Sally Garber says:

    No question about it!Of course they have lots to cover up. It’s a shameful situation.

  50. Debbie says:

    When you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.

  51. Brianna says:

    @Lauren, Comments #14 & #15:

    Hey Lauren,

    Kev actually has done the research. He has searched the literature and written about it here on renegade health. You should check out his articles about it (He actually linked to some of these other articles in this one). Specifically, he reported on some literature that has been stifled about GMOs being test on animals. The outcome was not favorable… infertility within 3 generations, blue testicles, and other weird anomalies, to name a few. Scientists reporting these findings (who were hired by the biotech giants to do this research), were fired and blacklisted.

    Kev has done his homework. And he has informed us as well. He has found facts. His opinion is not based on biased documentaries.

    And just because GMO’s have been around for a while, and are FDA approved, doesn’t mean they are safe. In fact, a recent article in the literature reported bacteria found in women’s intestines producing small amounts of pesticides (now, where do you think they came from?)

    Check out this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22771368

    It concludes that GMOs are safe! Easy to back up the other side, see? But wait… on closer inspection, who did this study? The College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.

    China was the first to approve GMO crops, in 1992. Now lets look closer at the article. At the end of every article, authors are supposed to admit any conflicts of interest. These authors said there are none. Great! but, let’s see who funded them… Genetically Modi?ed Organisms Breeding Major Projects of PR China Grant! That seems like a conflict of interest to me! Perhaps an independent lab would find different results…

    Oh- and they repeated this same study, but with corn and found that it was safe, too! Shocking… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22709787

    Just a stroll thru pubmed.com, and the aforementioned University in China is doing MUCH of the latest publishing on the ‘safety’ of GMO’s. They, of course, have much to gain by these findings.

    All of these studies seem to be conducted in other countries. The one I found on my brief tour conducted in the USA was done by DuPont Pioneer. Gee, that’s not a conflict of interest.

    As a scientist in training… I see scientist doing this all the time – you HAVE to find the truth, even within the “Facts” you find in the literature. Find out who funded the study, and many times, you’ll find the answer they wanted to hear.

    I think it’s great to question experts. But, you better have your homework done, too, if you’re going to criticize.

  52. AutumnSun says:

    Thanks Kevin and Lori!!! It’s a corrupt world we live in indeed.

  53. Lauren says:

    Lori – Pam: I’m not going to waste time answering your ignorant statements about me personally. Although, I must say they made me laugh! Can you provide any links online to science/ studies that prove GMOs are bad for human health or even animals? I mean real hard scientific studies / facts? The only links that claim health concerns online I can find are on “Natural Health” sites, but they do not have hard scientific facts or studies posted. Again… just hype.

    Many of the people posting here are just spewing out random precautionary things that they have HEARD about GMO. “There bad for animals, for health.. etc…” Why don’t you all find some real case studies online proving what you say and post them here!

    If you really care about wanting to learn more about GMO: Any average Joe can google “Why are GMO’s bad”… go ahead… get out there and do it. You will not find a case studie or science that proves them to be bad for the health humans or animals.

    Here are just a few examples / links for anyone who would like to learn the other side of the debate / and what GMO are, how they work etc… :

    http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5058.html

    http://japr.fass.org/content/12/2/242.full.pdf

    http://biotech.about.com/od/faq/f/GMOs.htm

    P.S. And for the people who say they can taste the difference while eating GMO foods & that they can feel (ex: cramps, bloating, etc…)… May I ask how you know that it is GMO food?

    Lori: Bottom line: This is not about a right to choose! Rather: You can’t label things on food or drugs that are PRECAUTIONARY without proven studies that confirm something is bad for heath. End of story!

  54. Oleander says:

    All GMO foods should be labelled, but what’s that got to do with the comment ‘America used to be the greatest country in the world’

    Only an American would say that. It is a very egotistical point of view, possibly based on the fact that many Americans have little concept of the ‘outside world’ unlike, for instance, Australians.

    Oleander (Great) Britain

  55. jerry says:

    Good article. I’ve started shopping at whole foods a lot lately. Today our front, they have a local market every wednesday. I bought low temp pasturized, not homo milk that was from the cow yesterday. I got 2 dozen free range fed eggs, grass fed beef and free range chicken and organic flour. I’m thrilled at the opportunity to buy local and excellent quality. Support you local farmers and whole foods and similar markets. Corporate america responds to the dollars we spend, period. If we buy good stuff they’ll produce it. If we continue to eat garbage at McDonalds or buy it at you local grocery store that’s what they will keep producing.

  56. Brianna says:

    @Lauren:

    The link you shared doesn’t cover all aspects of GMO’s (ex: pesticide production). Also, this article does as good as anyone who has a bias already: it only refutes one point, it doesn’t take articles that have found something else (like, the pesticide producing bacteria, and blue testicle studies) and highlight those.

    Unless you’d like to read each paper cited in this article, look for conflicts of interest by investigating who funded the work, and then look for contradictory evidence to get a non-biased opinion, this link really does you no good but support your obvious stance on the matter.

    I’d absolutely be willing to hear what you find if you decide to do the work.

  57. Marcy says:

    A quick comment about FDA approval – they have also approved several drugs that have later had to be taken off the market. FDA approval means little these days.

  58. Xtine says:

    Lauren, I followed the link to the article you mentioned and I have to agree; you are clearly either a paid proponent of GMO’s or you have bought into it using only research that is one sided. This website was set up two years ago claiming to critique peer-reviewed studies, however the only topics they cover are regarding GMO’s. In fact when I clicked on the “Topics” tab, it referred me to their glossary of scientific terms, all 20 or so had to do with, again, GMO’s. When I tried to find out who founded this organization, the page was blank. When I tried to see who contributing members are; I was surprised to see there are only two; (neither identified by either a first name or initial, as is customary) Dr. Tribe and Dr. Chassy. Since the latter had the more unique name, I decided to look him up. Dr. Bruce Chassy’s background is chemistry and food science, quite the desired background of one who might potentially be more apt to tout the positives of emerging technologies. The rest of the website was so poorly and shallowly put together (including the singling out of GMO opponent Jeffrey Smith) that I must implore you, Lauren, please either do better (more broad and not so obviously slanted) research or please tell your cronies that not all the American public is naive enough to believe just any old website without doing a little fact checking of their own.

  59. Pam says:

    @ Lauren – Thank you for your reply to my statement,#35, and Lori’s #29. I’m not a debater. I only want the most nutritious food we can find to eat. In the end, whether a food is fresh off the farm, or processed by a company, I want to know that it won’t harm my family in the years to come. There have been no clinical studies of the affects of GMOs on humans, so how can a scientist/manufacturer say they are safe for human consumption? Of course the FDA approved GMOs, they got paid to do it. That’s how they work. We don’t like it, but we have to live with it. Until they do find the affects on humans, I would like to have the right to know if a food has been genetically engineered. It’s my choice, not theirs. The point is, if GMO foods are safe then label them, and be proud. So far, all they’ve done is sneak them into our food system and become angry and aggressive because they’ve been caught. Typical bully tactics. Not good science. I do hope you will read Dr. Smith’s book, or look at one of his videos. That is the “real hard science/studies” you’re asking for.

  60. Thomas says:

    GMOs are scary enough, but now it’s important to also test your rain water if you are interested in eating healthy food.

    This is a great video about the chem trails over your house right now:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis

  61. In general, I’m against food industry regulations wherever possibly, and against almost anything the FDA does. However, probably the most important safety issue facing consumers is their ability to know what’s in the foods they are buying.

    Whether the consensus is that there’s a difference between GMO and non-GMO foods is irrelevant; it’s probably not even possible to know definitively at this point. What’s important is that people can have the option to stick with foods that haven’t been modified in a laboratory if that’s what they feel more comfortable with.

    Regardless of what happens with this proposition, the truth will out; more and more people are talking about this issue, and sooner or later the bigger companies will have to yield to market pressure from other companies who go non-GMO and make a lot of noise about it.

  62. hubert says:

    @ Erin (no 2)
    I always wondered why not more people from the industry who got fed up with it’s morals speak out and talk about it. I assumed they were afraid to get ‘hit’ by that same industry (the bad guys).
    But now I see one more reason: they are afraid we (the good guys) will judge them like Erin says.
    I think Erin, the good guys appreciate someone with the guts to quit and speak out. So Erin please share your story. Or @Kevin: please interview him. Thanx.

  63. Gary P says:

    If there is no difference between GMO and non GMO foods, why do they insist we need GMOs?

  64. Lauren says:

    Hey Kevin!
    “Genetic Roulette, Smith claims to show 65 different “documented health risks” associated with biotech foods. Not one of them has been found to be scientifically valid by Academics Review. His self-published books Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette have built for him an online profile that has made Smith one of the most widely quoted opponents of biotech ag —despite his evident lack of scientific credentials or other formal training on the subject. (He has had formal training in swing dancing, however, which he used to teach professionally.)”

    http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/

  65. Irene says:

    I have personally tested GMO pig grower, made of 100% corn and soy. I raised pigs for 10 years before I started the trial. I started the trial after reading message boards from other pig farmers. Year 1 I grew the most beautiful weiners I’ve ever seen but they did not breed the first year, and when they did breed the following summer there was a high mortallity rate forcing me to bring the pigletts in the house. Year 2 saw only 3 sows survine out of 15 or so pigletts in the litter. Those sows did breed after a year and true to the message boards they each had less than 5 pigletts each and 2 pigletts died at birth for each of my sows so I had 1 boar and 2 sows after breeding my first generation GMO pigs. Third generation was truely sterrill and the two sows never produced offspring even after I replaced the boar with a healthy one. When the boar was butchered we threw the whole pig out because he had white liver disease and swollen misscolored stinking internal organs. I’ve done this same experiment on chickens, cats and unfortunately, my gaurd dog. It is being done to my children through the school lunch program. None of this information was gleaned off the internet, because I performed these experiments myself, on my own! The only variable other than species was the food. My new bloodline of pigs organically raised, has 10 to 15 pigletts after 4 months of life and the survival rate is near 100% with the sow maybe rolling on the 1 runt but not the whole litter being small and weak and dead from mystery causes. GMO = soft kill eugenics…

  66. Lauren says:

    Briania / Xinte: I was only trying to make a point that any of us can Google & get studies about GMOs. I just gave a few examples of what you can find. I don’t have a stance. Just because a person shares a difference in opinion or seeks an open discussion, doesn’t mean they are a “paid opponent”. If I had enough time, for fun, I would like to dig at who writes which studies. Although its not my responsibility to provide them here on this blog. You can do it if you want to. Kevin has pointed to the book Genetic Roulette for his “research”. You can look and ask Kevin where / who his literature came from. I bet it all came out of Jeffrey Smith’s books or people with ties to Maharishi.

    Whether pro-GMO or Anti-GMO, It seems that the world is full hypocrites who simply want to push their position on others. Science isn’t right or wrong by who funds it, it is right or wrong by how it is done, and the techniques used. It is easy to find science that shows GMO have little to no deleterious impact. It is not so easy to find peer reviewed science that shows harmful effects of GMO. Instead there are anecdotes. Please realize that papers in scientific journals are peer reviewed—it is irrespective who paid for it, although that is interesting to note. Crappy science isn’t supposed to be published. The article you cited on PubMed tested two well-known traits—one called an input trait (Roundup Ready), and the other and output trait (high oleic oil). It is no surprise the rats did well. The protein expressed in the soybean that makes plants roundup ready digests easily, and high oleic oil is actually healthy. So one can conclude in this experiment that this particular rat species didn’t mind either. No surprise. Not because of who paid for it. Because of the technical facts. BUT is it generalizable? Does it mean then all Roundup Ready and all high oleic are safe for all species? NO. That wouldn’t be good science.

    Remember that science is supposed to be hypothesis driven, then the hypothesis should be tested. What is hard in the scientific method is that a hypothesis can NEVER be proven correct, indeed it can only be supported by data. On the other hand IT CAN be disproven. (look it up in any basic science book). In science when something withstands challenge after challenge it becomes a doctrine or theory. In the case of GMO’s, the hypothesis would be “GMO’s are toxic”, then to prove this hypothesis wrong, experiments to test toxicity would be done. An alternative hypothesis is “GMO’s are safe”. Let’s go back to the rat experiment: all that can be concluded from this experiment, is that the GMO’s weren’t toxic, no conclusion can be draw that they are safe.

    This gets to the heart of the problem of GMO’s: It isn’t possible to conclusively prove they are safe in all circumstances in all situations. Science can’t do that. GMO’s aren’t alone. NOTHING can be PROVEN to be safe. Hence there is fear. However, when the data is overwhelming in one direction, as has happened in with certain of the GMO traits, there are many experiments and reports GMO’s that they are not toxic (each experiment with its acknowledged limitations). There are very few scientific studies that show deleterious impacts. The body of evidence (with its limitations) would indicate that the GMO traits in play today at large scale (roundup ready, BT, etc) are generally not toxic.
    The thing to do is step back and look at all of the data: GMO’s are being adopted across the world. Why? Could it be that the farmers make more money with them? Why? Could it be that they save money on chemicals, labor and fuel, make enough so that it offsets the added cost of the seed? I suggest you take the time to get to the Midwest and talk to farmers. Find out what really is happening. Go meet with them.

    I saw a post that GMO crops hurt pigs, and stopped them from reproducing. Interesting. Why is it then that pig production/consumption has increased by about 1% per year according to the USDA for the last decade (see the Production, supply, and distribution database). This is the same time from GMO’s increased in use. So, how did pig production go up if GMO’s hinder reproduction of pigs? Could the person who posted the anecdote had sterile piglets—certainly could have, but the conclusion that it is likely the GMO’s seems faulty. That could easily have been from something else—the sterility issue commonly can be tied to hormone mimics. (See the website ourstolenfutue.org for a great collection of scientific papers on the impacts of trace chemicals on sterility, infertility, ADHA, obesity, etc).

    If you want labeling, then do it correctly. For example, it is conceivable that there could be GMO modifications that result in an allergen. In these cases, it would seem to make sense to label them. Just as something containing peanuts is labeled. But to label all GMO’s just because they are GMO’s, well taking the cynical point of view, labeling seems to be a marketing effort to bolster organic products.

    I get frustrated when people just want to push a point of view, and a lot of the Prop 37 discussion sure seems to center around beliefs rather than facts.

    You told me to do my homework. Well I did. I looked up Genetic Roulettes author. Jeff Smith. What I found was disturbing. More hypocritical stuff. He has a business tied to the testing of GMO products. He is in the Maharishi Religious Group & Natural Law Political Party, but he isn’t an expert. It sure looks like he has an agenda to me.
    I also looked up Arpad Pusztai. … anti-GM campaign platforms with John Fagan of the Maharishi University. Again, disturbing.

    Here are some links if you are interested.

    http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/18-mothers-for-natural-law

    http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=751

    http://www.biofortified.org/2010/12/vedic-businesses-use-clever-advertising/

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt-theyre-trying-to-scare-you/story-e6frfifo-1111114996720

    So in the end, all I see is hypocrisy. The idea that all GMO products are equal is absurd (I mean that in the logical argument sense). Some may be bad—these should be labeled. But I don’t believe that all products that have been genetically modified should be labeled as such—that doesn’t give anyone a choice.

  67. Pam says:

    Irene, please pack your kids lunches. I just retired from teaching in a California elementary school and was appalled every day I did lunch duty in the cafeteria. The sludge they feed our precious little ones is revolting. I could hardly stomach it. They dress it up in cool kid-friendly packaging. School cafeterias don’t have ovens, they have microwaves to heat institutional garbage. Makes me cry.

  68. Pam says:

    @ Irene: And . . .I am impressed with your own research. Your results are the same as the ones told by Micheal Pollan and others. Bravo for such a courageous and risky
    undertaking.

  69. Brianna says:

    @Lauren:

    Impressive work. To be sure. The fact remains that GMO’s weren’t tested on humans before being released. They’ve had unintended consequences with the environment as well (but that is beside the point).

    Honestly… what is so wrong about labeling foods with GMO’s in them? I’d like to know. Granted, it’s VERY easy to stay away from GMO’s if you stop eating processed foods. But, for those of us who do not want to do that, we are just asking for the ability to make a choice. Many American’s won’t take a second look at the label – in fact, the percentage of people who actually take the time to read the label is pretty slim. But, those of us who care… why not give us the choice? We want it – that’s our right.

    You may be right, Lauren. About all the science. But, under the constitution we live by, we have the freedom to choose. The freedom to pursue whatever makes us happen, as long as it does not directly harm another person. And, since a little label saying whether or not food contains GMO’s doesn’t directly harm anyone, the question remains: why the opposition to labeling?

  70. Em says:

    Sooooooo True……….SUCH a great point, such a great question. We must start asking this question.

    Comments are closed for this post.