In Defense of GMO

"Admittedly, there are few neutral studies of GMO products, and so the jury is still out on any negative health effects from eating GMO foods."

I believe GMO foods are and have been the most widely tested and studied foods to date....

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977

The reason we have few studies is Monsanto and other GMO seed producers strictly prohibit this neutral activity. You sign off when you purchase the seed. Monsanto tries to control governments but they are loosing this battle as they have been restricted or kicked out of many countries. To argue this point we would have to agree or admit that the scientists in these countries are incompetent. Most universities are funded in large part by Monsanto and they who control the purse strings control the research. Weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup thus much stronger applications are being administered. The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate which has been proven to kill off the natural bacteria and fungi that is critical to the absorption of nutrients in the soil. When we lose the top 6 inches of soil and its nutrients we as the population of earth are doomed to starvation.

Farmers and veterinarians have noticed that animals that are fed GMO grains develop leaky guts, diseased livers and a host of previously rare medical events. These events are spontaneous abortion, infertility, still birth in numbers that defy any reason except for the food. Incidentally this fertility crisis is also very common in the human race especially North America.

Bottom line is No One has ever proven the GMO product safe but the testing that has been done has either proven or created alarm bells so loud that only a fool would ignore the symptoms.

For myself I will stick to organic since as a health coach I see a lot of nasty things happening and it pains me to be of little assistance to these people. You are what you eat is a phrase that has more meaning today than it ever has.

You're just making this up, and you're insulting the intelligence of the readers of this forum....

As one of the brightest engineers on this forum I admire your knowledge but in this case you have to ask your self who did these tests. Since it is against the signed contract for any one to test these seeds the only organization that is allowed to perform these tests have to have agreement with the Patent holders. Every independent scientist that performed testing independently and was employed by an university or government lost their job for disclosing the results same as happened to Dr. Chiv Chopra. As follows.

In 1998 and 1999, Chopra, along with two co-workers: Drs. Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert, testified to the Canadian SenateStanding Committee on Agriculture and Forestry that they were pressured by senior supervisors to approve multiple drugs of questionable safety, including Bovine Growth Hormone (rBST) and Baytril, which in the words of Chopra, "is even more controversial. It's a critical antibiotic, one that produces cross-resistance against a critical antibiotic necessary for human use called ciprofloxacin. It's from the same class of drugs. When it is used in poultry, beef, turkeys, pigs, or whatever, then it causes cross-resistance in the intestines of those animals. Then those bacteria, like salmonella, campylobacter, or E. coli, get transferred to people and cause disease and death of immense order."^[9][10][11] Prior to the mad cow disease crisis in Canada, Chopra warned the government that the current handling of feed to cows was inadequate.^[12] Following this, Chopra, Haydon, Lambert and colleague Chris Bassude complained to the Public Service Integrity Officer (PSIO) office, a federal investigative body under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board of Canada, indicating again that they were pressured by their seniors to pass a number of veterinary drugs, including Tylosin, Revalor H, Synergistin Injectable Suspension, Baytril, rBST, Carbodex and Eugenol, without proof of human safety.^[13][14] The PSIO case was initially dismissed in 2003, but the ruling was appealed to the Federal Court of Canada.

In June 2004, Chopra, Haydon and Lambert were fired from Health Canada.^[12] Health Canada denied that the trio was fired for speaking publicly about the pressure employed by their supervisors to approve the usage of a number of animal drugs, but did not reveal the exact reason, mentioning that the reasons were confidential and included in the letters of termination the three scientists received.^[15]Chopra's letter revealed that the stated reason for his dismissal was his "total lack of progress" in a current project.^[

These scientists discovered that Monsanto was lying concerning Bovine Growth Hormone but their superiors were bought off same as FDA was bought off. Result Fired for trying to prevent a growth hormone from entering the Canadian food chain.

Solar Eagle please do your research into this topic I still wish to look up to you as previously mentioned. You may take a look at Jeffery Smith video on You Tube as this scientist has the facts.

"The most common employment of GMO in crop production is to provide the plant with

a neutral disposition to the herbicide glyphosate. Previously, planting rows had to be sufficiently spaced to allow the mechanized maintenance of crop fields, but with glyophosate-resistant crops, the herbicide can be sprayed to eliminate weeds without affecting the desired produce."

This means that when I buy this food it may be carrying the poisons that are used to kill unwanted plants and insects. Please don't tell me they are not poisons, they are formulated to kill something and because the plants are unaffected they may carry an accumulated load.

Recommended reading....

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/weeds/weed-control-guides/nd-weed-control-guide-1/wcg-files/11-Gen.pdf

I guess you've never done any farming. You don't spray the crops when it's harvest time, by then the control chem's have biodegraded. If you lived in the South you would know that Roundup is the only thing that works well against weeds.

I think the fringe media has tried to scare us about the evil Monsanto Corporation, Frankenstein Genetic Modifications and Government payoffs. How much of this is true is anybody's guess. Any intelligent person will know that most comes from those activists.

We, the citizens of the world have done one heck of a job overpopulating it. We obviously need food to survive and GMO foods sure have helped. Lose your crop to bugs or use GMO seeds. Farming is a business, so if GMO crops didn't make financial sense, why would the farmers grow them. A conspiracy? I don't think so. Just plain business decisions.

Here in the US, we've grown accustomed to the "more is better" mentality. Supersize your McDonalds (like you need the extra calories or fat). Buy that 2 lb bag of potato chips at Costco, because you save money. More, more, more! Bigger, bigger, bigger! We have created a generation of bigger and cheaper. How else do you satisfy the new consumer? GMO.

There are the educated ones (typically the higher income) who choose not to follow the bigger is better crowd. They pay more for quality - nothing wrong with that. Some choose organic produce, because it tastes better (if you don't believe it, try an organic banana vs regular). I doubt many care whether it's GMO or not. In fact, due to cross pollination, there are many crops that you probably can't get true non-GMO.

And if you want to blame the obesity/ADD/diabetes, etc problem on GMO, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. High fructose corn syrup is my guess - cheap to make and the kids (and adults) love the taste. But that's another topic.

The genes are hacked using ecoli because the gene structure is two difficult to penetrate otherwise. Now natural seed stocks are being bought and patented to prevent us from havin access without having to pay these big companies. It's diabolical.

Genes are spliced using restriction enzymes, not e-coli bacteria....Natural seeds nor anything in nature can not be patented...What is patented is genetically altered seeds, and those patents only last 20 years, they will start to expire this year....

" In the past, insulin was only obtainable from the pancreas of cadavers (and it required 50 cadavers to yield one dose!). With modern splicing techniques, enough insulin can be produced for all diabetics. "

Diabolically clever maybe, but diabolical, no....

http://library.thinkquest.org/19037/therapy2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_enzyme

Solar, Wait one darn second here! Was that GMO insulin and was the diabetes from GMO crops?

Just checking.

Go Monsanto.

The biggest problem here is not the few opponents of an issue, but the media looking for another craze to go off on. For example, I heard them going on about drones last night. Some statistic about how many times the drone doesn't know who is in the target zone for sure. No - really? Drones aren't intelligent. People send them. The people sending them don't know for sure either. Would that statistic be any different if it were a manned jet with missiles? NO! But that would not be as interesting and would not be reported on. The mdeia has to jump on this fear of drones thing and are pushing that on us. Same issue with the GMO fear, and the fracking fear, and the climate change fear and..... Find anything they can to stir up controversy with and push it for months.

Okay - but my point was not to deter from the subject but rather that we get only one side of any point of conflict anymore, and it is the most radical or sensational just to keep ratings up. That's all I've seen on the GMO issue is the "we're all going to die" side of it. Where's the scientific studies and data? Not in our main stream media.

I appreciate these posts. Certainly, Monsanto does its work for profit - and I have no problem with that. Profits are the 'rewards' a company gets for meeting its customers wants and needs. Along the way, Monsanto has developed products that are halping to save the 3rd world from starvation. But nearly all the press you see and hear is anti-Monsanto from a small but vocal group on the extreme political fringe. My problem with Monsanto is when they use their profits to buy political favors. Nevertheless, I appreciate these links to articles that explode the myths I've heard.

There are many companies much more evil, IMHO, who get no bad press at all. One group that easily comes to mind are the Wall Street banking companies who were partly responsible for the mortgage crisis and the resulting recession, and who were 'rewarded' for their disastrous schemes with billions of dollars in bailouts with taxpayer money.

I'm sorry but there is no defence of Monsanto and GMO food. The science is in:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/genetically-modified-corn-study-reveals-health-damage-and-cover-up/

GMO corn has been shown to be less nutritious and responsible for all kinds of health problems.

Independent studies have shown that GM crops have done little to improve yield over traditional crops.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf

rBGH or Bovine Growth hormone another product from Monsanto is banned in Canada and Europe because it has been proven to cause cancer but was literally forced through the FDA for approval in the US.

Monsanto's business practices should cast doubt on everything they do and there's been a revolving door between the Executive Branch, the FDA and top Monsanto Executives for years:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center

As deputy commissioner of the FDA Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto

The list goes on.

People should have the freedom to choose to buy or not buy GMO products but Monsanto ensures this is almost impossible by making sure through massive lobbying that labelling laws are defeated. They know their products won't be purchased in open competition with non-GMO as is the case in Europe.

I suggest anyone reading this do your own research and come to your own conclusions about the moral and health implications of GMOs. This is about money not feeding people.

Excellent and full of truth.. Monsanto business practices and buying legislation that protects them from damages of GMO should to any reasonable person sound alarm bells. It has in Europe and New Zealand.

The science is in?! One disputed incomplete study from 15 years ago? by some old geezer? LOL

http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/02/analysis-of-pusztai-study-on-gm.html

This is from 2010....

http://www.emilywaltz.com/News_briefs_10_Oct_Monsanto.pdf

Anti-GMO protesters are destroying attempts at researching the safety of GM crops...

http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-vandalism-108181917.html

Thanks SolarEagle the first article is definitely encouraging and we'll see what the new studies show with this increased cooperation.

I certainly don't condone vandalism in any form and it is certainly true that there is too much hysteria around this issue. IMHO it is important that all of the risks be openly identified and examined on a fair, non-interference basis in detail before these products are put on the market.

You're quite welcome....I too think that vigilance of products being sold to and consumed by the public is essential to the well being of all....and have learned some interesting details from gmopundit2, in her analysis of the study ....

Truthseeker, I have a question that you may know the answer. I've seen reports that show GMO crops are not helping world hunger, which implies that there is no benefit to the farmer, ie the plants are not producing more food. I've also heard that Monsanto strictly prohibits the farmer from using seeds from the crops that were grown.

If I accept the statement that GMO plants do not produce more food, then I must be missing something here. If I'm the farmer (or the corporation that owns the farm), my goal is to increase production and decrease cost, while keeping quality to a set standard. From the farmer's point of view, there would be no benefit in using Monsanto seeds, because they cost more (can't use the seeds you produce, so you're constantly buying every year + you're paying extra for the R&D and corporation) and they don't produce more food. So, what am I missing?

This is why I've come to the conclusion that there must be a good reason why these GMO plants are being grown and the anti GMO group propaganda is based on lies and manipulation.

If you think the anti GMO group is based on lies than consider India that has banned GMO as dangerous based on over 10 years of experience and 250,000 farmer suicides due to poor crops, financial ruin and death of livestock from eating leftover cotton that has for hundreds of years been animal feed. Consider also Europe banning most or all GMO due to evidence of health risk and soil contamination. Monsanto has left Europe at least for the time being. New Zealand is also on a GMO ban, are all the scientists in these countries stupid, is their research suspect? Probably not.

If you want to eat GMO go ahead and lets see if we have the same contributors in 5 or 10 years. Too bad it takes so long for the symptoms to appear a cold smoking gun is not always the best evidence. With the fertility issues and other health issues it will be good news for the medical industry. North America has most expensive medical costs and the sickest population of the world. What caused all this is not totally apparent but a lot happened in the past 20 years.

Cisgenesis, transgenesis, mutagenesis....know your GMO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgenesis

It all comes out the same.....conventional breeding is just slower and therefore more expensive....

Excellent comments, hybrid and GMO are so far apart that they should not be discussed on the same page. I decided not to participate further on this topic due to the obvious ignorance between selective breeding, hybrid breeding and blasting in a foreign gene as is done in GMO. GMO can never be replicated in nature but has been proven to interact with nature after the fact. Selective research is not research however is very common in pushing an agenda or ideology, usually for financial gain or control. Cheers.

That horse has left the barn according to 17.3 million farmers growing GM crops worldwide....

Very true, so let's hope that the Biotech companies are right and that the dangers have been overblown and sensationalized otherwise we could have a very large problem on our hands.

There is nothing absolutely perfect, everything has a cost.

We've been modifying genetically what we eat for thousands of years, except that we did it thru conventional breeding, but it still GMO.

Blame on you immune system for your allergies, not what you eat.

About increased pesticide resistance, would you feel better if the produce died along with the weed?. A crop is not supposed to feed sworms or rodents, it's supposed to feed us.

One last thing, I think you have to scratch a little deeper yourself, DNA or RNA cannot enter your cells, they need a vehicle: the dreadful viruses, which are destroyed after injecting their malicious load, but start being replicated, etc..

Please research up on GMO it has nothing--nothing in common with cross breeding, hybrid, cross pollination. It is man made for a specific purpose and by inserting a foreign gene into it that can never never happen in nature. You appear to be from Mexico research the damage to your ancient corn varieties and the damage caused by GMO. This in itself is a hideous consequence of the GMO agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D3TUk-XX1o

Sure everything has a cost but not everyone is willing to pay especially if the cost is too high!

We have not been modifying our food supply through transgenesis for thousands of years, it is not GMO by definition as transgenic methods are at least 3 sigma removed from hybridization and breeding and the mutagenic consequences of these techniques is profound compared to controlled breeding.

My immune system is an expression of my genes which are influenced by many many factors called epigenetics of which the food supply is a part.

I agree, crops are supposed to feed us not pests but they also shouldn't be a potential health threat.

Your argument about the inability of DNA to penetrate cell membranes on its own is a good point and was somewhat speculative on my part however, it doesn't take much to get DNA to penetrate a cell membrane. Your example of a virus is pertinent. Another example is a cell penetrating peptide CPP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell-penetrating_peptide

Also if conditions cause the cell membrane to weaken or rupture this could allow DNA fragments to penetrate. Again, somewhat speculative but not impossible. Gene flow is a reality in nature and to assume we understand all of the mechanisms is arrogant in the extreme.

If it was so easy to insert DNA in our cells by eating it, or even injecting it directly, we could cure cancer tomorrow...and just about every other malady that plagues mankind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

Conventional breeding IS NOT GMO. Increased pesticide pesticide resistance is due to lazy people drenching the fields with pesticides instead of conventional methods. Corporations buy up farms, apply for subsidies, fewer people work the fields and the products are contaminated. All in the name of corporate profit. That profit then buys political favors, have you noticed what's happening over the last 25 years?

This is a tough question because as with the health side of this issue the studies on yeild are few, conflicting and often corrupted by corporate influence. Years ago I attended a city hall type forum on this and all the farmers in attendance listened intently until the end when one of them stood up and said basically that these products made his life easier and his business more profitable so as long as there was no difinitive proof of a danger to himself or the public he would continue to use them.

That being said, as the years of product use and the corresponding data have accumulated there is more conflicting evidence and it would appear that these products have a diminishing return due to soil deterioration and growing resistance of weeds and pests. It was also once thought that glyphosphate was totally safe, this has been proven to be inaccurate. This is exactly why more independent study is needed into the short, medium and long term effects of these products on soil quality, crop yield, nutrition, bee populations and human and animal health.

I don't believe all of the anti GMO information is all propaganda or lies. There is clear evidence that these products may not be good for animal and human health but to say that GMOs cause Autism etc. is not being scientific. There is also a massive unknown element to releaseing modified genetic material into the environment as even Monsanto will admit they don't know how cross polination of plants and transgenic mutations within pollinating insect populations will manifest itself but it's important to avoid emotional thinking on this because genes are changing all the time in nature but we need to understand and quantify the risk.

For my own personal perspective I believe in the sovereign right of the farmer to keep and use his own seed and I don't accept patenting on genetic material that is released into the environment as intellectual property. Monsanto has bullied farmers and even governments into accepting their products without sufficient study, this is a matter of public record. They have sued farmers who through no fault of their own were found to have patentend crops growing on their land due to seed drift and used this to force farmers into paying royalties and using their products. I believe they as a corporation represent a threat to food freedom but this is just my opinion.

Hopefully now that Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF etc are being pressured to be more transparent and cooperative with the scientific community we will all learn difinitively if GMOs are safe and are a viable solution for the food supply but I have my doubts.

Truthseeker, thanks for your opinion. I'm not sure if it's safe or not and I do see a danger in cross contamination, messing with nature, etc. I also see that we've caused this problem, because of our consumption.

I sure would like to see long term scientific studies, but I don't know if it's possible for a number of reasons. I believe our own psychological health is a huge determinant in our bodies fighting off toxins. So how do you have a long term control group, where psychological health can be factored in? How do you compensate for new GMO strains or natural evolution? Long term is tough and you'd have to have a large sample to get a usable statistical result.

I look at this from the business side. If people want to buy non-GMO products, then they should. If there is enough demand for non-GMO, then the producer of the product can label their products as such. I don't think it's right to force companies to label their products as GMO, with the implication that it's bad for your health. The results aren't as clear cut as the link between smoking and cancer - where a label is required by law. Instead of marking something GMO, why not go after a bigger culprit in the poor health of our children and adults - high fructose corn syrup?

Autobroker, I totally agree with the HFCS problem as well and I think it should be raised more. Don't forget however that most if not all of the HFCS made in North America is from GMO corn. Nobody should eat that stuff!

You're point about psychological impacts to health is also excellent as this plays a huge roll in our health as shown by all the studies demonstrating how bad chronic stress is for us.

As for our consumer "throw away" economy this will catch up to us. It's a bit off topic but I suggest you look into Chris Martenson's Crash Course.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

I just watched the first eight videos. I read about the Fed in the book "The Creature from Jeckyll Island" a few years ago. I agree, good stuff and something everyone should know

I will watch the rest in the next few days. Thanks for sharing.

whatch the video at 'thrivemovement.com'...info about GMO, the fed, banking and many other things, and then after you watch it, tell me why it was removed from Wikipedia and google. I don't believe it is just 'conspiracy theory' as a reason as posted on Wikepedia. Look at the crap that has been brought to light about politics in recent weeks.

The question of GMO food safety would have been resolved by now, with data for it or against it, if Monsanto had been willing to compete openly for market share by labelling the product. This is not a 'hazard' label, just identification of the product for the consumer to freely choose, just as other food producers brand and promote their products and methods of production, to capture market share.

Some people believe it's adequately tested and safe, and some people don't. Those who don't will not buy it, and vice versa, some people like Solar Eagle would probably buy it in preference to 'organic' or conventional food. Twenty years later, it would be easy to analyze the statistics, and see whether there are disease correlations in the population that preferred and chose to eat GMO food or not. Those facts and statistics are not available and will never be known, precisely because Monsanto refused to label or brand their product.

Sure, as soon as organic growers are required to print this disclosure on their labels...

"Naturally derived insecticides allowed for use on organic farms use include Bacillus thuringiensis (a bacterial toxin), pyrethrum (a chrysanthemum extract), spinosad (a bacterial metabolite),neem (a tree extract) and rotenone (a legume root extract). Fewer than 10% of organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable growers in California use rotenone while 1.7% use pyrethrum.^[40]:26 These pesticides are not always more safe or environmentally friendly than synthetic pesticides and can cause harm.^[25]:92 The main criterion for organic pesticides is that they are naturally derived, and some naturally derived substances have been controversial. Controversial natural pesticides include rotenone,copper, nicotine sulfate, and pyrethrums^[41][42] Rotenone and pyrethrum are particularly controversial because they work by attacking the nervous system, like most conventional insecticides. Rotenone is extremely toxic to fish^[43] and can induce symptoms resembling Parkinson's disease in mammals.^[44][45] "

you only need that disclosure if you used those products- what is good for the goose is good for the Gander- let us push to get both sides to disclose fully- I am sure the Organics are more than willing to do so- is Monsanto!!!?- if you have nothing to hide why refuse

" I am sure the Organics are more than willing to do so- "

Then why haven't they? Talk is cheap, the only thing I ever see published in the main stream press is that organically grown foods contain no pesticides, which is as misleading as requiring GM containing foods to be labeled..

Very interesting SolarEagle do you mind linking the source?

Well the rules governing organic certification can be had from several locations....I'm not surprised you don't recognize the qualifications to be certified organic in this country...

This particular quote is from wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming

If you can take the time to go through all the rules I'm sure you'll be surprised....

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3f34f4c22f9aa8e6d9864cc2683cea02&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl

Here's the list of chemicals that are allowed in organic farming....extensive eh? Notice all the loop holes?

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5068682

Anyone who buys a certified organic food (or is just curious enough) can find out exactly what that means: what is permitted to be used in the production process and what is not. It is entirely documented, and the product is labeled.

Your suggestion that organic practices are secret is ludicrous. Organic growers pay big bucks (and work like dogs to do the documentation) in order to certify and label their produce for sale. That is one reason why certified organic products are more expensive. There's a very detailed paper trail, inspectors are paid, etc.

Your worries about these practices have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised: the penetration of unlabeled GMO's into the market, the removal of consumer choice in the matter, and the absence of medical/epidemiological data as a consequence of not knowing who ate what.

No one who objects to "Naturally derived insecticides...etcetera" is obliged to buy organic produce, since it is clearly labeled for the consumer and the permitted practices are available to be reviewed, a person with your concerns can easily avoid buying anything with a certified organic label. If other people are willing to pay a premium price or preferentially choose food which is produced in a documented manner, that's completely in harmony with the 'free market economy' concept, eh.

If GMO foods were labeled, I would not oppose anybody's right to choose to eat them instead of 'certified organic' or whatever other sector of the food market. Different strokes, Solar Eagle. Why are you so opposed to other people's food choices?

I live in a very "Organic Conscious" part of California-- Please tell me "What is Organic" ????? Neighbors trying to get Organic certification are having to prove that no pesticides have been used on the soil for "X " amount of years. The large Organic farmers, have written the rules in their favor, and the Small organic farmers are paying the bureaucratic price.. Big wins every time. Do you know how much it costs to have soil samples taken, and then tested and submitted to the grand Poobahs of the State??? The little guys are being forced out just like Big agribusiness works. Sting operations at many local markets find produce being brought in from over 200 miles away, and they just put up an "Organic" sign, and there is no way to tell. The other things that came from these stings are that the produce was often over 4 days old, and the Yuppies and like, are so wooed by the Organic label, that they will buy it over last day picked, by local farmers, product. Just like Global Warming---Where did you stick that thermometer??

C-Max, I agree with you - big business = lobbyists = get their way. I too live here in California and our local grocery store sells Organic produce that's on it's last leg (ready to expire). I know there are some who will only buy Organic. It's their choice and I'm okay with it. If they think it's better to buy "old" Organic produce vs fresh non-Organic, that's fine with me.

If non-GMO has a strong enough niche market, then why aren't the non-GMO labeling their products as such. Here in California, we recently voted for a Proposition (one of the ways we get laws passed here) regarding GMO labeling. It failed and the non-GMO people were blaming Monsanto for the loss. Bottom line is that most people don't care and voted that way. They also did not want their cost of food to go up and voted with their wallet.

There is nothing in our lawbooks that says companies cannot label their products non-GMO. I believe the reason most don't is the lack of demand. You can bet the big guys have done a lot of market research on this one and found out that most people simply don't care.

Yep, C-Mac, I'm well aware of those issues too. I looked into the cert process years ago when I had a small farm, and could not afford it. Friends of mine who are presently farming have given up on the certification issue because of the high cost, and instead are marketing their product as 'local, non-certified organic', while keeping within the the official certification standards in their practices. The market is local and direct, so anyone who wants to know more about their practices can ask or visit, but ultimately it comes down to trust. Caveat emptor applies to all products, whether certified or not.

In fact, many of the 'approved' practices which big agribusiness may rely on, simply never happen on the small farms that I know of. The present trend in pest control, for example, is using row cover over the crop. Very effective against the common pests (cabbage moth, carrot rust fly..) and no need to apply an 'approved' pesticide whatsoever.

What verification do you have that the non organics are fresher- in our market most of the winter products and many summer come from Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and China, shipping plus broker plus store warehouse to store does not sound fresh to me- and do not forget agrobusiness has the capabilities to artificially keep products looking fresh- I will buy local markets every time

I agree on the dangers of GMO. Here is some news

Lucy Sharratt - CBAN Coordinator	9:55 AM (22 minutes ago)
to cban-e-news

The first-ever study of mixed GM feed on pigs - a long-term toxicology study - has observed negative health impacts.

The study's authors - Dr Judy Carman, Adelaide Australia, et al. - conclude that "Pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs fed a comparable non-GMO diet. Given the widespread use of GMO feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern. The results indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans."

Documents including a summary of the study and today's press release from the authors are posted at http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Human-Health-Risks
The study: Judy A. Carman, Howard R. Vlieger, Larry J. Ver Steeg, Verlyn E. Sneller, Garth W. Robinson, Catherine A. Clinch-Jones, Julie I. Haynes, John W. Edwards (2013). A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems 8 (1): 38-54. Open access full text: http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

Pigs fed GM grain have more stomach inflammation, study finds
Carey Gillam, Reuters
Tuesday, Jun. 11 2013
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/pigs-fed-gm-grain-have-more-stomach-inflammation-study-finds/article12479860/

I'd like to avoid organic as well as GMO, but as you know, that's not possible.

Artsmith, I think you need to look at the purpose of GMO crops vs are they 100% safe. If you use the analogy of pharmaceuticals, know that there are side effects. What matters is how effective is the drug vs what harm is done (if any). Remember that GMO crops were created to increase output by making the crops more resistant to bugs, disease and to provide more nutrients to the plant by killing the weeds. If there is a health risk, you must balance the risk against the reward. If GMO crops make people sick, how bad is the illness? What percentage of people are affected? How does this compare with the losses if we don't use GMO crops? Here are some questions I have for you.

1. If a person is "careful" about what they eat, then they most likely take care of their body. How do you run a test knowing this? What is your control group?

2. Since cross contamination has occurred, how do you know if a health issue is from the GMO or cross contamination?

3. Since non-GMO farms are using different pesticides vs GMO vs organic. How do you factor this in?

4. What about hormones used in livestock?

5. Or GMO feed used for livestock?

6. How do you run long term tests when the item your testing is constantly changing? GMO crops do change over time, as the seed companies are improving their product.

7. How do you factor in the reduction in crop production and the additional cases of malnutrition and starvation - this is a concern, because if you remove GMO crops, you are also reducing the output? Death and illness will occur due to lack of food.

If we accept the idea that GMO crops were created to help feed the growing population, then the question isn't if they are safe, but what is the trade off? If they are safe, it's just a plus. If their safety is unknown, then why should we require them to be labelled? If however, the non-GMO group wants to know if the product they're buying does not contain GMO, then the seller should use this in their marketing. For the 80% + who don't care, why force them to pay a higher price of testing, labeling, fulfilling independent state laws, lawsuits, etc (if a company must pay more to produce a product, then they'll pass the cost on to the consumer)

splarf is the technical term I'll borrow to respond to that.

In a free society, each individual makes their own evaluation of the "tradeoffs" and chooses what to eat, what medicine to use or not, etcetera. Since there's no labelling, though, we have no way of evaluating what the long term 'tradeoffs' are.

At the present time, a person who strongly chooses not to eat GMO foods has only the option to eat certified organic and pay the extra price for the label and the paper trail.

In a free society, we do have the right to make our own evaluations. This is why some people choose to smoke, even though they know the potential health risks. I think we're all okay with this, as I haven't heard anyone claim otherwise.

Suppliers of foods can also choose to label their products as non-GMO, correct? To do this, they would need to prove that their products are non-GMO, because as you should know, we live in a world where huge law suits occur. If they label their product non-GMO, they are taking on additional cost and liability, so they will need to increase the price. From a business perspective, there are two reasons why companies are not doing this: 1. The market for non-GMO is too small and they would not recoup the extra expense or 2. They cannot prove their product is non-GMO due to things like inconsistent sources, imported materials, etc. The non-GMO crowd will claim that there is a third - payoffs and conspiracy.

At the end of your comment, I think you sum up things pretty well for both sides of the argument. If a person is inclined to eat non-GMO foods, then they need to pay the extra price (for certified organic), which is due the being labeled as such and the paper trail. This fits in perfectly with conclusion #1 above.

One final comment; in our free society, people can choose to buy non-GMO or they don't care. For those who want non-GMO, there are companies who label their products as such (Whole Foods has a line of these) or you can choose Organics. You will pay a premium, which I see no problem with. You are asking for something out of the ordinary, which should cost more. And since we have the freedom to choose, why should it matter to us what others eat?

In our market I find that we do not have a premium to pay for Organic certified foods in a large number of stores and outlets- about the same as unlabelled mostly- I do note the Canadian responders on this site seem to be more organically oriented that the US

This sounds promising, but time will tell if there are any side effects.

Maine passes GMO labeling but it won't happen yet for fear of lawsuits. Monsanto is very powerful and the govenment is on their side.

Monsanto is very powerful the future, and the government law is on their side....so are the vast majority of informed people....

I think you have to revise the last word "UN informed people"

Following this thread is interesting, and I am anti GMO. Just listened to an ad on the radio about a childs chance of being born autistic. ad says 1 in 110. When I was in gradeschool and highschool I knew of NO autistic children. I have heard many theories as to what causes it. A thought I am having is that the time frame of the increase may parallel the development and use of GMO products in our food chain. Proteins are complex chains, if a link is a mirror image of a natural link in a GMO product, could this be causing problems?

I was on the anti vaccine theory at one time and still am but after working in the field for several years it is apparent that there are at least 4-5 serious causes. If you google Keri Rivera in Puerta Valarta she has cured about 90 last count and uses many protocols. This is just one site so do some surfing to get more info.. She uses diet, oxygen, mms, organic, just to list a few. Wonderful lady and very easy to talk to. http://www.mmsautism.org/

I must have been on vacation when this came up.

I think that genetic modification will eventually lead to some great things. Possibly the fast growing salmon, for example. I'd eat it.

GMO has not been a failure, only the Roundup ready modifications. Our food soaks up increasing amounts of glyphosate, and the glyphosate and Bt poisons already have created both bugs and weeds that have become tolerant.

In addition to consuming larger and larger amounts of glyphosate in our diets, we have managed to alter the natural evolution of pests and made them stronger.

I think part of the problem, is that people assume that GMO and Roundup ready are synonomous; they are not. The Roundup ready modification is creating huge problems; it doesn't mean that all GMO is bad.