On May 25, a local group held a protest near where I live to protest Monsanto and GMO foods.
The protest itself, while larger than what I actually expected, wasn't as large as what it could have been, with maybe only about 50 to 60 people attending.
Now about a week before this protest occurred someone was going the area and putting up some posters on lamp post and electric post not only advertising the protest, but also making several claims against both Monsanto and GMO foods.
I've looked into these claims that were made, and this is what I have found:
1. Monsanto fights labeling laws.
This is true [read here] but only to a certain extent, and there are a lot of other companies and groups (including scientists) that oppose these laws because many of them consider them to be unfair, and/or leaves to many loop holes, and many opponents also claim that these laws are really attempts to out right ban GMO foods.
Also, when the people of California were given a chance to vote into law Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, the voters rejected it, so really you can't actually blame Monsanto about that, because when given the chance, the people rejected such laws.
2. Monsanto's propriety and legal actions harm small farmers.
Monsanto has, since the mid-1990's, filled 145 suits against individual US farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed, and while this may sound like a lot, this is actually a very small number in comparison to thousands of individual, independent farmers in the US.
Also, only 11 of these suits actually went to trial, all of which Monsanto won.
3. Scientists' studies show severe damage to GMO-feed animals.
There was a study in 2012 by Gilles-Eric Seralini that claimed to show that rats feed GMO corn increased cancer rates in these rats compared to rats that were not feed GMO corn. This study has been highly criticized for certain unscientific methods (such as the failure to record the amounts of food the rats were feed and their growth rates) and has pretty much been debunked. [read here, here, and here]
4. Monsanto's Agent Orange and DDT contaminate food crops and villagers abroad.
Agent Orange was only used between 1965 to 1970 by the US military in Vietnam (before then they used a herbicide called Agent Blue). Even though this was true, you really can't blame Monsanto because they are not the ones who actually used it. It was various governments around the world who used it. Monsanto (along with Dow Chemical) just made the stuff.
As for DDT, most countries have been banning the stuff since the 1960's for agricultural use, and again, Monsanto is not the only company that made DDT, and it doesn't even make it anymore because of the 1972 US ban.
5. Monsanto falsely advertised it's Roundup as "biodegradable."
In 2007 Monsanto was convicted in France for false advertisement of it's product Roundup as being biodegradable. France is of course the only country that has done this, and some people might even claim that this is the result of France's environmental laws, rather than reality as Glyphosate (the technical name for Roundup) does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.
Whether Roundup should be considered biodegradable or not seems to be more of a matter of opinion then fact.
6. Monsanto blocks regulations. It's CEOs are in a revolving door from Monsanto to FDA (ex: Micheal Taylor, current Food Safety Czar).
This is completely false. Micheal Taylor (whomever he is) was never the Food Safety Czar. There has only been one Food Safety Czar, and that was Dr. David Acheson, and he only had that position from 2007 to 2008.
Monsanto can not actually block regulations, all it can do is lobby against laws and regulations that could affect it's business, and there is no "revolving door", so to speak, between Monsanto and the FDA.
7. Consumers rejected Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in milk.
The rejection of BGH in milk is a matter of consumer opinion, and has nothing to do with facts.
8. 400 scientists and 58 countries conclude that organic farming trumps GMO for sustainable, environmental, and healthy agriculture. GM crops do not offer increased yields.
While studies have shown that organic farming, if done correctly, can be sustainable and environmentally friendly. If done incorrectly however the impact on the environment will actually be negative, and organic farming still requires more land than conventional farming.
Also, a crop's yield has nothing to do with whether or not it's a GMO, and has everything to do with the farming techniques used, and studies have shown that organic farming yields are actually less than those of conventional farming yields [read here].
9. Monsanto's control of the soy market results in 90% of soy market being GMO.
If Monsanto actually had control of the soy market then 100% of all soy beans would be GMO, not 90% as being claimed. Plus if farmers did not want to use Monsanto's soy bean seeds, then they don't have to, as there are other companies that sell soy bean seeds.
10. Allergies skyrocketed as GMO soy entered the system.
While food allergies have increased, and soy allergies are one of the more common food allergies, there is no scientific evidence that links GMO crops with the increase in food allergies.
11. Massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the U.S. and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.
There has been large aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia by the Colombian government (although there is no evidence that the U.S. actually is doing this to, and only gives support and training), the main purpose of which is to destroy coca plants (the plant which cocaine is extracted from).
While this has come under scrutiny for damaging legal crops and adverse health effects, the main criticism about the program (called Plan Colombia) has been about the cost and effectiveness.
Despite the fact that Roundup is used in this campaign, it doesn't mean that Monsanto is to blame for any damage done, as they are not the ones' spraying Roundup on these places.
Great site! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am taking your feeds also
ReplyDelete#2, if you looked at the cases you would see why they were an issue. Monsanto claimed that seed that was purchased by one farmer from another which had the Anti-Round Off gene was theirs. The fact that the pollen crossed the fence and fertilized the neighbor's corn was not considered a defense. That was idiotic. If a person mailed you book and billed you that you did not order, you don't pay and they have to pay for the return. This is very same thing. Monsanto cannot claim all seed corn just because they can't control their gene. Read the cases!!
ReplyDeleteExcept that never happened.
DeletePerry Schmeiser claimed in some film (Seeds of death?) and online that when his neighbours Round Off crops cross pollinated his, Monsanto sued him for stealing their produce.
But in reality, after spraying his crops with round up, he discovered a small number of his plants had been cross-pollinated by neighbouring fields. Despite knowing it was illegal, he kept the seeds, then planted them with intention to sell. Monsanto did not sue him because he was selling unintentionally cross-pollinated produce. They sued him because he was knowingly selling their property. He never even made the defense in court, it was just a lie.
Odin, how is he supposed to keep his crop from being pollinated by the neighboring crops? How could he possibly have non contaminated seed???
DeleteAt least someone understands how irresponsible it is to hold one accountable for something utterly beyond one's control.
Deletejay and vincent, COMPLETELY missing the point. adorable.
Deleteyou'll notice that KEY fact about the farmer KNOWING which seeds were roundup ready and intentionally keeping them for selling.
but please, continue focusing on how they got pollinated, it's so fucking adorable.
Oh, you think this is a conspiracy theory? So, why do they fight and sue anyone who wants to label their Frankenfood, if they are so damn proud of what they are putting out there. So, we as consumers have a choice whether or not to eat/drink these "creations" that monopolize about 90% of our entire food supply in the U.S.A. This is about corporate scumbags and their money. This is about lobbyists and their owning of our entire political system. This is not about making food safer, or better quality, or feeding the world, or ending hunger. This is about money and profit over people's lives as usual. I cannot believe you're defending a company like Monsanto.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it's not "Frankenfood". That just a made up word created by anti-GMO propagandists to try to scare dumb people into buying more expensive "organic" food.
DeleteSecond, it's not just Monsanto that fight these labeling laws, it's multiple food companies that fight these labeling laws, and the reason why is because these labeling laws are both unnecessary and expensive.
Third, there are plenty of food companies that already label their products as "organic", so really you do have a choice whether you want to eat GMO foods or not.
Fourth, you claim this is about corporate greed, but your first two sentences clearly show that it's about GMO foods. Or maybe it is about corporate greed, the greed of "organic" food companies to sell their over priced products by using fear mongering and conspiracy theories to scare the public into buying their product.
So, it's all a conspiracy of the organic food companies to sell over-priced food to dumb people. Nice. How much of the food was Genetically Modified 20 years ago vs. now? Has there not been any increase in diabetes and cancer the last 20 years? It would really take a whole lot of money to slap a small graphic designed label onto a box? I don't really think so. Recently Vermont passed a law requiring these large food corporations to label it... Yes, in California it failed, in Vermont it did not and now Monsanto and their lobbyists, all their corporate supporters are going to sue the state. What is the major problem with labeling when it's the majority of food that is sold so we know for sure it is genetically modified? We should have the choice and no it is unclear. Even some organic food is still under suspicion of not being free of GMO's. Organic food is sold at mainly specialty stores and GMO's are sold at every major store in existence. With a company that has a history of a lot of pretty bad things monopolizes the majority of food while other countries are banning their use it causes a lot of concern among many people. I know you like to debunk everything and it seems you like to just cut and dry call people names, like stupid, but the long term effects over time of this could be something to really consider and think about. You have large corporations who don't want to take a decline in their sales and lose a bit of money for giving people a real clear choice of knowing what they are eating. Spending their money on when they think they are making a healthy choice and they really may be harming themselves and their families. With all the chemicals and preservatives they put into food these days which were not used many years ago you really think this is just another harmless thing for tin foil hat people to squawk about. I'm not a tin foil hat kind of person. Science can be used for good and bad things. From what I've seen of corporate greed and their lobbyists taking over this countries democracy this is a real issue. Just take a look a the current SCOTUS that says money equals speech. Monsanto/DuPont/Syngenta/Bayer/Pioneer, etc. I do not trust them. Why are you so quick to trust in them and give them control?
DeleteActually, Spliffburton, the cost of labeling GMOs is not in the cost of a graphic added to packaging anymore than owning a Mercedes will only cost you $20 because that's what a Benz hood ornament costs on eBay. Crops in North America are not segregated into GMO and conventional so any meaningful labeling scheme would require overhauling the entire agricultural system in that a second redundant infrastructure would have to be built.
DeleteLabeling laws would hurt small food concerns more than large ones. Small food preparers source according price and/or market availability to keep costs down and many restaurants source their ingredients daily! If individual ingredients' genetic status must be listed the cost of maintaining multiple versions of packaging for the same product would be staggering even if they stuck an adhesive label on listing breakdowns of current transgenic content. And a meaningful labeling system would have to specify each transgenic ingredient because genetic modification is a process, not an end result so if a hazard was found in a GM crop (and no problem ever has been identified) it would not mean that other GM foods had the same problem or any problem at all.
Beyond that who would ensure that huge quantities of food were having their genetic lines correctly recorded and reported? If the labeling was enforced by law the regulatory and enforcement bodies would have to be governmental, and such bureaucracies tend to cost a lot of money to operate. I have to wonder how much thought has been given by labeling proponents who demand that the necessarily governmental body they want set up to police the labeling of foods to warn the population that they contain GMOs would be the very same government that the labeling proponents do not trust to assure GMOs' safety.
Who is to be held responsible if a product's label is in error? Is it the raw product supplier or is everyone down the chain all the way to retailer to be held responsible? The legal costs arising from unknowingly selling an unlabeled bag of GM popcorn could wipe out a mom and pop business. Insurance companies will have to get to work figuring out how much to charge for a GMO rider.
How would imports of foods from jurisdictions without labeling laws or with different labeling laws be handled? Will international trade agreements have to be renegotiated?
So not only will we have a brand spanking new and expensive governmental bureaucracy, a new type of liability to keep courts, lawyers, and insurance companies busy, and redundant food supply networks that will waste fuel and resources, we'll have less selection and higher food prices.
Who is supposed to pay for all this? Is it supposed to be paid for with tax dollars or are we going to make the consumer pay for it at the cash? Why not make the organic food industry pay for it because they are the only ones to benefit from labeling?
All this for what? To satisfy people's curiosity as to the genetic history of their food even though no study that survived peer review has ever shown that a genetically modified food is any more dangerous than its conventional counterpart.
Look, if you want to avoid GMOs you can right now... buy organic or foods made under The GMO Project.
By the way, correlation is not causation and not only is there no mode of action ever found that any, much less all, transgenic food crop could be responsible for increased diabetes stats but that in The U.S. the rates for new cancers and cancer mortality has actually been falling steadily over the past 20 years!
Actually, Spliffburton, the cost of labeling GMOs is not in the cost of a graphic added to packaging anymore than owning a Mercedes will only cost you $20 because that's what a Benz hood ornament costs on eBay. Crops in North America are not segregated into GMO and conventional so any meaningful labeling scheme would require overhauling the entire agricultural system in that a second redundant infrastructure would have to be built.
DeleteLabeling laws would hurt small food concerns more than large ones. Small food preparers source according price and/or market availability to keep costs down and many restaurants source their ingredients daily! If individual ingredients' genetic status must be listed the cost of maintaining multiple versions of packaging for the same product would be staggering even if they stuck an adhesive label on listing breakdowns of current transgenic content. And a meaningful labeling system would have to specify each transgenic ingredient because genetic modification is a process, not an end result so if a hazard was found in a GM crop (and no problem ever has been identified) it would not mean that other GM foods had the same problem or any problem at all.
Beyond that who would ensure that huge quantities of food were having their genetic lines correctly recorded and reported? If the labeling was enforced by law the regulatory and enforcement bodies would have to be governmental, and such bureaucracies tend to cost a lot of money to operate. I have to wonder how much thought has been given by labeling proponents who demand that the necessarily governmental body they want set up to police the labeling of foods to warn the population that they contain GMOs would be the very same government that the labeling proponents do not trust to assure GMOs' safety.
Who is to be held responsible if a product's label is in error? Is it the raw product supplier or is everyone down the chain all the way to retailer to be held responsible? The legal costs arising from unknowingly selling an unlabeled bag of GM popcorn could wipe out a mom and pop business. Insurance companies will have to get to work figuring out how much to charge for a GMO rider.
How would imports of foods from jurisdictions without labeling laws or with different labeling laws be handled? Will international trade agreements have to be renegotiated?
So not only will we have a brand spanking new and expensive governmental bureaucracy, a new type of liability to keep courts, lawyers, and insurance companies busy, and redundant food supply networks that will waste fuel and resources, we'll have less selection and higher food prices.
Who is supposed to pay for all this? Is it supposed to be paid for with tax dollars or are we going to make the consumer pay for it at the cash? Why not make the organic food industry pay for it because they are the only ones to benefit from labeling?
All this for what? To satisfy people's curiosity as to the genetic history of their food even though no study that survived peer review has ever shown that a genetically modified food is any more dangerous than its conventional counterpart.
Look, if you want to avoid GMOs you can right now... buy organic or foods made under The GMO Project.
By the way, correlation is not causation and not only is there no mode of action ever found that any, much less all, transgenic food crop could be responsible for increased diabetes stats but that in The U.S. the rates for new cancers and cancer mortality has actually been falling steadily over the past 20 years!
Actually, Spliffburton, the cost of labeling GMOs is not in the cost of a graphic added to packaging anymore than owning a Mercedes will only cost you $20 because that's what a Benz hood ornament costs on eBay. Crops in North America are not segregated into GMO and conventional so any meaningful labeling scheme would require overhauling the entire agricultural system in that a second redundant infrastructure would have to be built.
DeleteLabeling laws would hurt small food concerns more than large ones. Small food preparers source according price and/or market availability to keep costs down and many restaurants source their ingredients daily! If individual ingredients' genetic status must be listed the cost of maintaining multiple versions of packaging for the same product would be staggering even if they stuck an adhesive label on listing breakdowns of current transgenic content. And a meaningful labeling system would have to specify each transgenic ingredient because genetic modification is a process, not an end result so if a hazard was found in a GM crop (and no problem ever has been identified) it would not mean that other GM foods had the same problem or any problem at all.
Beyond that who would ensure that huge quantities of food were having their genetic lines correctly recorded and reported? If the labeling was enforced by law the regulatory and enforcement bodies would have to be governmental, and such bureaucracies tend to cost a lot of money to operate. I have to wonder how much thought has been given by labeling proponents who demand that the necessarily governmental body they want set up to police the labeling of foods to warn the population that they contain GMOs would be the very same government that the labeling proponents do not trust to assure GMOs' safety.
Who is to be held responsible if a product's label is in error? Is it the raw product supplier or is everyone down the chain all the way to retailer to be held responsible? The legal costs arising from unknowingly selling an unlabeled bag of GM popcorn could wipe out a mom and pop business. Insurance companies will have to get to work figuring out how much to charge for a GMO rider.
How would imports of foods from jurisdictions without labeling laws or with different labeling laws be handled? Will international trade agreements have to be renegotiated?
So not only will we have a brand spanking new and expensive governmental bureaucracy, a new type of liability to keep courts, lawyers, and insurance companies busy, and redundant food supply networks that will waste fuel and resources, we'll have less selection and higher food prices.
Who is supposed to pay for all this? Is it supposed to be paid for with tax dollars or are we going to make the consumer pay for it at the cash? Why not make the organic food industry pay for it because they are the only ones to benefit from labeling?
All this for what? To satisfy people's curiosity as to the genetic history of their food even though no study that survived peer review has ever shown that a genetically modified food is any more dangerous than its conventional counterpart.
Look, if you want to avoid GMOs you can right now... buy organic or foods made under The GMO Project.
By the way, correlation is not causation and not only is there no mode of action ever found that any, much less all, transgenic food crop could be responsible for increased diabetes stats but that in The U.S. the rates for new cancers and cancer mortality has actually been falling steadily over the past 20 years!
Exactly my point.
ReplyDeleteYou all talk about the cost of labeling but what about the skyrocketing cost of health care when people become sick from eating these foods!? You want to eat foods that nature never intended? Be my guests! I'll still be kicking it eating my organic food when you're in your graves. Have fun being test subjects!
ReplyDelete