GMOs = The Smart Future of Food

It is not the Oats that are GMO in the product. It is in reference to the sugar and was more based upon possible contamination before. Original Cheerios, recipe wise, is non-GMO because Oats are not an approved GMO crop. Cheerios has stated that the only change was a process to ensure that cane sugar could not get mixed with beet sugar to make the product GMO-free: Sugarbeets are one of the approved GMOs grown in the United States, but must be segregated from pure cane sugar to call a product GMO free.I like this meme that I have seen regarding GMO sugar (just follow the link, I can't get it to load:
GMO Labeling Quiz: Sucrose

Okay, I think we are making some progress here. I have agreed that the industry has been heavy handed, although I do think that this is an issue with how the laws we currently have did not anticipate this technology as far as patents were concerned. I think that patent reform for living organisms can reduce the ability of the company to use its heavy handed responses in similar ways.Voluntary labeling is the only reasonable solution that can be found between the two, but I do understand some of the apprehension that the industry has in allowing it to occur also. With the consistent tactics of individuals to discredit GMOs not based on science, but on emotion, it is likely that people would turn toward labels saying Non-GMO not based on logic and good science, but based on fear of the unknown. Whether this is a reason to completely fight the voluntary process is not as clear cut to me, but I can see the issue they have with the current media attack on the products.I will agree that it was the refusal to allow the voluntary GMO-Free or All-Natural labels that has forced the organic crowd to demand that GMOs be labeled instead. Again, I get Monsanto and Co.'s reasoning (not that I agree with it completely), but they perhaps fought too long and have brought this new issue onto the scene. Voluntary would not force the enormous infrastructure overhaul that a mandatory would entail, so could actually be implemented on a company by company basis.

I am for the voluntary labeling myself, and suprisingly I thought people being banned from labeling foods GMO Free sounded fishy, but even more surprisingly I was correct. Both the FDA and USDA have guidelines for voluntary labeling of genetically modified foods. The USDA was the last of the two to add it in 2013. The FDA had voluntary regulations involved in their process in 1992. So, Monsanto is a terrible puppet master, we have learned that... Source: FDA GMO Voluntary labeling guidelinesSource: USDA Appproves GMO Free labeling from third partyI think I have begun to hear more about it because of the fervor that is going against it. Personally, I cannot go one day on my facebook feed without witnessing someone posting something about oil pulling (which any abrasive force on teeth prior to brushing would benefit the brushing process), anti-vaccination(fucking idiots), anti-GMO, or some other new scientific cover-up. If I trusted American opinions on science I would think that scientists are all a bunch of shady, back alley deal makers who are only trying to get rich. The increase in pseudoscience I believe has made the scientists want to use social media to come forward and defend their work. And I believe that this will continue to grow and start to counter some of the misinformation. I have had the pleasure of discussing some of this stuff with researchers that work for Monsanto, with farmers who plant organic and/or conventional, and other biotech researchers(I was lucky to come across a group online, similar to how I found this place). And they are happy to share what they know about it, which I think is a first step in the right direction. Monsanto has obviously lost its lobby to stop the USDA from allowing GMO Free labels, so that is no longer an issue. Now, people can know what they are eating and the labeling issue should stop there. But as we see in Vermont, it is not stopping there....Vermont just passed mandatory labeling laws requiring products to have a label if they have GMOs. Are some companies going to altogether stop shipping to Vermont because the increase in overhead will outstrip any profit gains from Vermont? Voluntary label to your heart's content, but as we see it has not been about voluntary since 2013. Now, it has become about forced labels for no health or nutritional reason. So, we are in agreement that a corporation is going to corporate.....or something like that. I do think that it is in my best interest, and most of ours, by accident when one of their products makes it to market. The ability of these products to increase yield is wonderful and they can reduce the use of chemicals, water, and gasoline. I would be a fool to think that the entire corporation of Monsanto or DuPont or Syngenta were only working on one type of product at a time. From reading the literature a lot of this stuff does not work out. Flavr-Savr, Tobaccy, Peas, Wheat (Has not made it through yet), I think what we have ended up getting, I believe 40 approved patents worldwide could definitely be seen as a lucky accident.ABE - I just checked, there are 27 approved crops worldwide and wheat has made it through as an approved crop...so another lucky accident! Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Before I got engaged (let's not talk about the details), I joked with her about that. I was like, "How would you like a Blood Diamond Ring?" She replied, "that would be awesome!" Good sense of humor that one. Lol. I got her the Black Death virus stuffed animals as part of Christmas gifts one year. Back to the topic!

I agree with both of these statements. There is an overzealous side to the Pro-GMO side as the saviors of humankind, but I guess I find overzealousness, checked by regulation, better than manipulation through fear of the unknown. The word gene is scary, all the more so because of the incomprehensible size we are talking about for most people. You get individuals like Mercola who prey on these individuals...Whole Foods is a bad example, they are just Monsanto to me...a business doing what is best for that business. They do admit that science says GMOs are safe if you read their page about it. So, it is more the Food Babes and Mercolas of the world I am discussing, I would say...they are the manipulators. It still is best, in my mind, to go with the bigger bulk of the evidence and in GMOs case, that lies with GMOs at this time and has been that way since these began. There are a majority of the studies, in the cases of products that are released, that show the safety and efficacy and they are included on that GENERA page. I went through just the first 25 studies on the independent studies section of GENERA and I found each one applied to products that were approved either within the United States or abroad. Well, the money trail is what it is...but I also have to trust that all these scientists don't want their funding shut off and have chosen to misrepresent themselves on a wide scale. As we saw in Cosmos, it is possible that it is a wide array of a couple of top actors with others who don't want to rock the boat until one comes along. This is, as you will mention next quote, a cost-prohibitive industry. I cannot set up my own experiments to test these out. I must trust in what the consensus of scientists say through peer-reviewed literature, which does speak to the safety and efficacy. I trust an engineer to build me a bridge and a plant microbiologist to do his or her best to grow me a damn good plant. But, for me and the laymen, the best I can do is to educate myself and those I care about on the topic. Well, as I see it just because someone is Pro-GMO or anti-GMO it doesn't mean they do bad science. Rather, it just takes someone doing bad science, which can be seen in the lack of replicatability and prediction power. So, take away their politics and we can look to the papers that they have authored or coauthored. If the scientist is Pro-GMO because the results he or she has seen point to positive results and the research he or she has done does similarly, should we fault them for that? The European Union set extremely high thresholds for GMOs in their countries and now they are considering loosening them because of lack of evidence coming forth. So, perhaps the reasons the regulations were set as is (which these are just the regulations for Bt crops, correct?) were based on good science. While I want to blame government incompetence, sometimes couldn't it just be good science that led the way? This is a very true statement and I agree. Corporation wise, I am not Pro-Monsanto (although I think they have done everything legally in their favor, can't argue with that), but I think some changes could be made for the better to rein these groups in. However, I don't see these high costs going down anytime soon, so wouldn't the best plan be to not let fear and ignorance control but to educate ourselves. If someone has learned the facts and still prefers organic, more power to them, but don't let it be based on lies and manufactured controversy. All major health organizations in the World agree with GMOs...this is either a major conspiracy from a group of companies that couldn't even stop voluntary labeling or they honestly believe what they say based on the evidence. I have heard opposite of this. Just recently a Farmer in Arizona wrote something for the Pro-GMO side about how much Bt Cotton has helped to make Arizona Cotton farms more sustainable. I will see if I can find it again and add it by edit when I do.

Bridge Away. I bolded the important part in your quote. The Proponents I am speaking of are fighting to have mandatory labeling of all GMO products, not voluntary labeling of Non-GMO products. The FDA and USDA do not require this because there are not health or nutrition benefits to going organic. Vermont has already fallen to the fear and has instituted this mandatory process. One state will not force massive infrastructure changes but from farmer's perspectives a federal mandatory labeling law would force difficult and expensive proposals for changeFoodie Farmer: Costs of GMO LabelingI do feel that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of GMO foods and to that end we should use them and not force a major overhaul in infrastructure. Implementing voluntary labeling of non-GMO products is perfectly okay, and allowed by both the FDA and the USDA, see my earlier message to NoNukes. I feel people, such as Mercola and Food Babe, who use this fear to draw up support for items that do not agree with the science is science denialism. I have not been given much evidence to change my opinion of where the majority of support lies in journals. That is why I am making that comparison. I have admitted Whole Foods was a bad choice as my initial example, although I belive they are apt as an organic equivalent of Monsanto, willing to do what it legally can to increase its market share. Corporations gon'a corporate. They do want it though, they want to force all GMO products to have a label that has GMO Inside or some such. Why not leave it as a voluntary system, which the FDA does allow (They will just verify that it is actually GMO free, so a few extra regulations come along with the voluntary choice). The zealot to me is the anti-GMO crowd forcing everyone to see what most people do not give two rat's behinds about. Their mandatory push is a statement that, "Everyone must know whether or not they are eating GMOs, whether they give a crap about it or not." That is zealotry and pushing your beliefs onto everyone. Monsanto and Co. did not block Federal Voluntary labeling because its been on the books since 1992. Source: FDA Labeling guidelinesThe FDA offers guidelines for how to label foods as Non-GMO and will inspect to ensure that no GMO products are in the final product as well, according to their website. USDA added voluntary GMO-Free labeling from GMO Free Nation in 2013. I am against any mandatory labeling, which is where the Anti-GMO crowd has brought the debate to at this point. There are reasons to make that choice beyond scientific, but the individuals I am talking about, the Greenpeaces (Stopping Golden Rice from helping vitamin A deficiency), the Mercolas (shilling his all-natural products after telling you everything GMO gives you cancer), the Food Babes (Everything scary sounding gives you cancer, buy only what I tell you to). These are the people that are forcing people to live in fear and I believe irrational, science-hating, granola-headed liar is an apt term for these three individuals. The problem is that Americans aren't listening to the science, these are the people they are listening to for information. The show, "The Doctors", had Food Babe on giving her credibility. The View hired Jenny McCarthy, giving her a platform from which to speak...sadly, those who don't want to research will listen to these people who are not experts, similar to the creation movement (I promise last comparison) And I do not care what doubters of GMOs believe, just don't force an entire industry to restructure without evidence. I will gladly join the anti-side if I can get enough evidence to change my mind, but until then I will continue to argue that mandatory labeling is based on emotion, fear, and misinformation.

While it seems that many of us do appear to be in favor of GMOs, the biggest complaint I think I have noticed is the current regulations and the fact that industry experts were involved in setting the standards for safety inspections of the products. As this is the case, I thought that we should look into exactly what the requirements are for a GM food to be approved in the United States and possibly see where individuals think the industry expert pushed regulations to be more in their favor then for safety:When attempting to get a GM food approved for sale within the United States, there is a process that must be followed to determine if the food is substantially equivalent to existing products on the market. This determination requires six-seven different steps (6 if not for animal feed, 7 if it will be used as feed). Ifa GM Food can be shown to be substantially equivalent to an existing food product, then the regulation of that GM product will follow similar rules to the existing product. However, three key components to showing substantial equivalence involve showing that there has not been any unexpected changes in toxins, nutrients, or allergens in the food product and that those that are present present the same antinutrients present in the existing food. According to the wiki: The policy beyond this in the United States has three main tenets involved in regulation of GM foods: Food products must be approved by both the USDA and APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and can include additional approval from the FDA or EPA. The EPA reviews all cases of GM plants that contain a pesticide of any type. The FDA also offers a voluntary consultation service, which wiki states: Source: Wiki on Regulation of the Release of Genetically Modified OrganismsSo, with this process outlined, where are the areas that people feel the industry has been successful at blocking proper regulation? Personally, I definitely agree with the stance that only regulation based on verifiable, scientific risks will be tolerated. And I think that this statement would serve to deny mandatory labeling since it (at this time) would not be based on verifiable scientific risk.Another question I have is why Monsanto is the company that bears the brunt of individual's anger about this industry, when DuPont is actually a larger supplier in the seed industry? Or is Monsanto just the generic choice to apply to all BigAg companies?

How is his old employement a conflict of interest, strictly by definition? I could agree that it is a guaranteed conflict of interest if he were working at the FDA, while concordantly working for Monsanto. However, he worked first with a law firm that represented Monsanto in the 1980's. Then worked for the FDA starting in 1991, leaving in 1996. He worked for Monsanto for 16 months in the late 90's, began doing academic research in the 2000's and finally returned to the FDA in 2009. Are we supposed to assume that ever since he worked for this company they have had him consistently on the payroll? Or are individuals allowed to work for a company without a guarantee of them absorbing all the evil that supposedly comes long with it? If a company you worked for at some point in your past was thought to be doing nefarious deeds, yet you never were a participant, should your entire future career be clouded because you took a good paying job? I don't personally have the same values as my workplace, but according to your idea I would do my best to defend them even though my values differ. How is the place of employment the person? Source: Mike TaylorIs it...? Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto prior to them becoming a seed developing company in the 1970's yet you expect me to think that he has continued loyalty and that this absolutely necessitates a conflict of interest. Why? The main case that he is claimed to have decided was a decision of 6-2, he only wrote the majority opinion. He was not a deciding vote and the case did not even involve Monsanto, but Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Yes, there is a Bt Toxin, which has a shape that can attach to the stomach lining of two specific insects (with very slight overlap with the monarch butterfly). However, there have been tests done and submitted to peer-reviewed journals showing that there is not a danger to humans from consumption of this Bt Toxin corn. In fact, Bt Toxins are used in the organic farming industry as well, but as a spray pesticide rather than a part of the plant's genome. Plus, these poisons have been determined through testing to be safe for everything with a backbone. SourceSource

My fault, I meant main case as in the case where he actually wrote the decision. Correct, there have been other cases and they have involved Monsanto, but I still am not sure how Clarence Thomas' involvement could even reasonably be seen as a conflict of interest. He worked for Monsanto as a lawyer from 1976-1979, a total of three years. This was still prior to their entrance into the seed marketing and biotechnology arena. How is his involvement seen as any negative in Bowman, which was decided by a unanimous decision with a decision written by Justice Elena Kagan? Bowman admitted to breach of contract by saving seed to avoid purchasing it for an attempt at late season planting. Because late season planting is more risky, he did not want to buy the seed for a poor turnout. Breyer should definitely have done as he did and recused himself because of familial attachment to the previous decision. However, I am still not sure how 3 years of employment 35 years ago, prior to the company entering the biotechnology field constitutes even the reasonable assumption of conflict of interest. If that is reasonable, then one can assume that every person who has ever worked for any company shares the values and standards of the company, which is absurd. I currently work for my company and I do not share the values and standards of this place, but I work because I must. Perhaps you could explain how three years of work for a company 35 years ago is a reasonable reason for people to assume collusion, especially considering the overwhelming abundance of justices on the side of Monsanto in these cases:Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. JEM Ag Supply, Inc. - Decision 6-2
Monsanto v Bowman - Unanimous
Monsanto v Geertson Seed Farms - 7-1Maybe I am just not understanding how it is reasonable to assume that three years of employment present a reasonable thought of conflict of interest, perhaps you could clarify this...ABE - References:
Source: Bowman v Monsanto; Supreme CourtSource: Wiki on Clarence ThomasSource: Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed FarmsSource: JEM Ag Supply, Inc v. Pioneer Hi-Bred InternationalEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

No, it is not a defense of Monsanto, nor have I tried to defend Monsanto, outside of asking people to look beyond the company to what they actually do and the products they release. If a corporation is using the current standards of law to protect themselves, while I can be anti-corporation, I have to agree that the rule of law was followed.Not one instance that has been put forth of Monsanto's egregious behavior has been substantiated, rather you say, "Well, they acted within the law, but the law should be changed." That is wonderful but until the law is changed, they are acting in accordance with it, correct?I have agreed that they have created products that were not safe, but that it wasn't regulation but testing by the company that caused them to abandon the project. No one has given me any viable proof that any of their approved products have been determined to be unsafe, there is just the constant attacking of the company, not the products. Finally, you say I do not change opinion until backed into a corner, but in the OP I even mentioned I do not like the aggressiveness of Monsanto and that because the business side offers many areas where I do not agree with the company, I wanted to focus on the products the company makes. I would not be surprised to find that their chemicals are their primary motivation in sales, although with their main product (Round-up) having the patent run out, it is important to remember that any company can produce glyphosate now, not only Monsanto. In regards to this, I would appreciate some evidence that this is actually the case. I have ehard the complaint that they are all short-term, but there have also been long-term studies, especially ones that attempted to recreate what Seralini had said would be the case from Bt Corn in rats, which was not replicatible. According to an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology: The results from these tests showed slight differences, but these differences fell within the range of normal parameters. These were long-term studies that included multiple yers and multiple generations. These results still show the safety and efficacy of these products. Also, I mentioned that the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) conducted an extended two year study of all available resources and have determiend that there is no increased risk of adverse health effects Source 1
Source 2However, this is incorrect. A plant's ability to affect Biodiversity is something that is tested for prior to approval, which includes a few different tests that must be performed, including tests to show: SourceThese are other topics that are also being researched on these products by academia. SourceSo, these complaints are areas that are already being addressed and the current scientific standing is that the danger is minimal, or comparative to other types of foods for pests to develop resistance. At the levels we are seeing with products that have been on the market for almost eight years to only have four cases of pest resistance be seen is a pretty good benchmark at this time. Funnily enough, no one from the Pro side has ever told me that they will be absolutely safe. These are the individuals who have told me about the failed crops and why they failed. And these products are tested against non-target species, so the danger to other creatures within the biosphere is known for these products, such as the minimal risk with the Monarch butterfly. Unless you have some evidence of an outbreak of Bt poisoning in non-target species?

Then this is a lack of understanding on the extent they claim "appearance" of conflict of interest on my part. I do not personally hold jobs people have had over a long career for a minimal portion of their total career as evidence of conflict of interest. However, if the Supreme Court is to err on the side of caution, then yes, Thomas should recuse himself from any further Monsanto(Or any of BigAg) cases and should have done so before. The difficulty I was having in this point is that it does not even seem reasonable to have a conflict of interest when it is in regards to a product they did not even sell, or participate in the making of, at the time he worked there. However, if it is supposed to be blanket coverage to avoid any murmurings, then I agree Thomas was in the wrong.

The Case of the Poison LanapeAbove is a link to a tale about the Poison Lanape. This was a potato bred through conventional cross breeding and was allowed to be released on the market because there is no restrictions for organic, non-GMO foods to be tested for toxins. Well, the potatoes had an increase in the level of Solanine, found in all plants from the family Solanaceae, which made them toxic to human beings. From the article: So, there is a risk no matter what because most plants use toxins as a means of pest resistance, and whether GM or conventional, a possibility exists of increasing these toxins to unsafe levels. As per pesticides, if the US is below the level that science says (Not the EU or the US, nor any other country), then why should we worry about this product which has been used since 1947 with no known cases of illness stemming from these products? Plus, there was a review on these product in 1997 which came back saying: Also, why are you not washing your apples prior to eating them? These products are only able to be harvested once a year in the fall and this means they must store for long periods of time to be available. DPA helps make this possible and washing would remove any residue from the outside of the apple.I don't think the European model is successful because it places a hamper of timidity on products that, whether organic, GM, or artificial, carry some risk inherently. Even water is toxic in high enough doses. According to the best science at the time, 10 ppm is an acceptable level for this pesticide residue. Should they complete their 15 year review, yes, but that doesn't remove the previous scientific research from the journals. Plus, even the member states of the EU are not happy with the political blockade that has arisen against GM foods and want to make it a country based decision, instead of a Union. And claiming the FDA doesn't require safety testing is incorrect on food additives, otherwise why do additives and preservatives have labels from the FDA such as, "Generally regarded as safe" or "Ban" or "PD(Petition Denied)". I agree our supplement industry operates on a method of harm must come from the products before the government can act (something that should be changed), but food additives do require approval, which has testing that goes along with it.This reminds me of the argument from Anti-GMO groups that GMOs are not tested for safety. Stating this while there is a regulation process that requires 10 years and 40 million dollars to get a product approved seems incorrect, especially while organics can simply be released and see what happens. Otherwise, how did they set the standard for PPM for DPA use on apples, if there is no regulation and testing? Group asks U.S. to examine pesticide-coated apples banned in EuropeFDA Food AdditivesBTW, I do agree that the FDA needs to be given back some authority that has consistently been stripped from it by Congress (especially in regards to supplements). Without authority, no one is held accountable, but I do think they do their best with the resources they have. Hence why we do not hear of food borne illness outbreaks every day.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.