Note: For the next few days I'll be reporting from Eco-Farm, the annual conference held by the Ecological Farming Association of California. At Eco-Farm, some 1,400-1,500 organic farmers, Big Organic marketers, and sundry sustainable-ag enthusiasts pack into a rustic, beautiful seaside conference hall an hour-and-a-half south of San Francisco to talk farming amid the dunes.
I've been writing about genetically modified food since I first took up food-politics writing back in 2005. My lens has always been corporate power and biodiversity. I saw GM seeds as yet one more way corporations siphon profit out of the food system, brazenly claiming ownership of a broad chunk of humanity's seed heritage.
I also saw the explosion of a few GM seed varieties -- particularly for cotton, corn and soy -- as a reckless narrowing of the already razor-thin genetic basis of modern agriculture.
In short, I've been portraying the GM phenomenon as an intensification of an industrialization process that began a century or so ago; but I haven't written much about the radical break with the past the technology represents -- and in particular, its health implications.
Honestly, since GM food entered the food supply so suddenly and broadly -- introduced in 1995, GMOs were appearing in 70 percent of U.S. by 2000 -- I figured it must be just as nutritionally suspect as normal industrial food, but no more. After all, if GM food actually introduced new dangers, wouldn't we know it by now? Wouldn't there be some huge outcropping of disease or something?
After attending an Eco-Farm workshop by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, I see that I may have been hoodwinked. Smith delivers compelling evidence that GM foods do pose significant health risks -- evidence that the GM seed industry has managed to suppress.
Eric Schlosser, Michael Pollan, Marion Nestle, and other writers have driven home the point that our food system can only thrive under a cloak of broad, industry-generated ignorance. The explosion in GM foods represents a great triumph in the history of manufactured ignorance. Smith reports that polls show that 55 percent of Americans believe that GM foods haven't entered the food supply. Another 15 percent say they're not sure.
It's in that context that we have to interpret the recent statement by a food-industry flack that "most consumers are not concerned about biotech." That's a lie. Most consumers don't know that their food supply is shot through with biotech.
And that's no accident. Industry has scotched every effort to require labeling for GM food.
It has also managed to squelch evidence that GM foods cause all manner of health troubles. In his presentation, Smith pointed to several studies from the 1990s showing rats fed GM food suffered liver damage, reproductive problems, and more.
That evidence was suppressed within the FDA -- and suspect industry-funded research was accepted in its place. Since then, the further study -- needed, no doubt -- of the health impacts of GM food has gone unfunded. I don't have time to tease out particulars of this story now, but will soon, as I feel that it has been dramatically underreported.
How did that happen? Good old crony capitalism, evidently. In 1994, Smith reports, the Clinton administration created a new position within the FDA for a man named Michael Taylor: deputy commissioner of policy. His charge was to oversee safety concerns around GM food. Before taking that portfolio, Taylor had been a lawyer for Monsanto.
He spent much of the rest of the decade breaking down regulatory hurdles to GM food. For his good work, Monsanto later rewarded him with a lucrative vice president position. Someone should ask Hillary Clinton how her own view of Monsanto and GM foods differs from that of her husband.
But if GM foods are inherently unhealthy -- even worse than regular industrial food -- why haven't we seen more health troubles? When I contemplate that question, I reflect that everyone I know who's over 30 either rigorously avoids industrial food -- or relies on the pharmaceutical industry to get through their days. And I think about accelerating obesity and diabetes rates, a seeming epidemic of allergies and asthma among children, etc., etc.
It's a brilliant strategy, really. In a society already beset with chronic ailments and reliant on pharmaceuticals, you can introduce a whole array of dangerous foods, and no one would even notice.
Cloned burgers, anyone?
New book looks at economic devastation in an Iowa meat-packing town
No healthcare reform without food-system reform
Ask Umbra’s video advice on sunscreen
Comments View as Flat
PermieWriter Posted 7:31 am
25 Jan 2008
Messaging problem
I worked on the Measure M campaign in Sonoma County, 2005, a 10-year moritorium on planting GE crops. The major problem with bringing up the excellent points raised by Smith and Pollan and the research by Arpad Pusztai and others is that those claims sound so incredible.
Most folks simply can't bring themselves to believe that our food system is so corrupted. The claims are so outlandish-seeming that unless the person you're trying to convince already suspects that corporations and the government have an unhealthy relationship, they'll dismiss you out of hand.
Frequently in debates I found myself toning down the claims so that they would be within believable bounds. But then the person I was debating, provided by our local Farm Bureau, over the protests of most of our local farmers, would spout such nonsense that it was hard not to pull out those facts as toppers.
If we could just get some good, neutrally done studies about the developmental effects of transgenic foods, we could actually face this issue sensibly. Since the corporations that are profiting by the public's ignorance, it seems that the movement will be forced to ban them wholesale.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 8:01 am
25 Jan 2008
One more reason
Just one more reason to NOT vote for Hillary. And one more reason to demand CHANGE in Washington. And one more reason to buy directly from farmers you know and trust.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:51 am
25 Jan 2008
I'm listening...
Tom wrote...
"In his presentation, Smith pointed to several studies from the 1990s showing rats fed GM food suffered liver damage, reproductive problems, and more."
Can you provide some specific information regarding this? I would like to know if I'm killing people. If someone can provide solid evidence showing that consumption of GMOs, in general, causes liver damage, reproductive problems, and more, I would have to find another career.
But right now I really don't see how, for example, making a papaya that expresses a specific viral protein, is resistant to infection by the virus, and actually contains LESS viral protein than a non-GMO papaya would be more dangerous than a non-GMO papaya.
Tom also wrote...
"But if GM foods are inherently unhealthy -- even worse than regular industrial food -- why haven't we seen more health troubles? When I contemplate that fact, I reflect that everyone I know who's over 30 either rigorously avoids industrial food -- or relies on the pharmaceutical industry to get through their days."
Might not be statistically significant. Most of the people I know who are over 30 don't worry about their food, are healthy, and have healthy children. Does this show GMOs are perfectly safe? Would you accept this as evidence?
Tom also wrote...
"It's a brilliant strategy, really. In a society already beset with chronic ailments and reliant on pharmaceuticals, you can introduce a whole array of dangerous foods, and no one would even notice."
You could also introduce a whole array of safer foods, free of...
copper ammonium carbonate, copper sulphate, copper oxychloride, rotenone, potassium salts of fatty acids, nicotine sulfate, veratrine, azadirachtin, salannin, potassium permanganate, and pyrethrin.
I firmly believe we should label GMO food. Are organic farmers prepare to label their products if the above chemicals were used? Shouldn't consumers be fully informed about how their food was grown and was was sprayed on the crops?
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:30 am
25 Jan 2008
not to steal Tom's thunder
but start with Árpád Pusztai. Here too.
One of the things I find most interesting, and damming, is Pusztai's assessment of the feeding protocols used by the corporate researchers (short-term trials starting with adult animals) as compared to his trials (lifetime trials starting with infant animals).
But right now I really don't see how, for example, making a papaya that expresses a specific viral protein, is resistant to infection by the virus, and actually contains LESS viral protein than a non-GMO papaya would be more dangerous than a non-GMO papaya.
Well, that's the whole problem, is it? It does seem strange that, per Pusztai's results, the food is toxic as a result of the genetic modification process. And maybe his results were wrong. But we'll never know, because he was fired, his work was destroyed, and the materials he used (including that particular type of potato) are no longer available. He found results that were inconvenient to the corporate agenda, and they shut him down before anyone could validate or deny his results.
Wiscidea: I appreciate and admire your desire to do good for the world, and your willingness to change course if what you are doing is harmful rather than helpful. Unfortunately, we will probably not have a definitive answer to your question "are GM foods harmful to people?" any time soon. However, one thing is quite clear: the relationship that has formed between academic science and the biotech industry around GMO foods has been and will continue to be harmful to the integrity of the process of scientific discovery and the accumulation of unbiased knowledge. Ask Ignacio Chapela about it, if you don't believe me.
Or better yet: your a researcher in the field. Why don't you try to answer these questions. Find out exactly what protocols were used in the testing done by the GMO companies, and by independent researchers. Duplicate the research. Try to get it funded. I suspect you'll run into a political brick wall within your organization very quickly, and you may well be putting your job at risk. On the other hand, if they fire you for asking these questions, then you've got your answer, don't you?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:53 pm
25 Jan 2008
Biodiversity is a concern.
Aside from the concerns about the safety of the food, biodiversity of the food supply is a concern. If a significant percentage of the US corn crop comes from a few closely related genetic lines and that corn crop provides a majority of the calories that people eat we have a problem. All it takes is for the inevitable bacterial, viral or fungal disease to find a chemical attack to those crop lines and we starve.
If you don't think this is a problem read up about the problems of commercial banana crops and fungal diseases. For that matter the Irish Potato blight was caused by a genetic bottleneck in the potato varieties used. The lack of genetic diversity in root-stock is causing grape growers to tear up fields of wine grapes in California due to viral attack. Chestnuts were a major source of lumber, food, fuel and fodder prior to the spread of chestnut blight spread by men.
Lack of biodiversity in food crops can kill you. It certainly can hurt you bad even if you buy every bite at the local supermarket.
While there is a small amount of scientific research into using genetic engineering to increase the diversity of crops the majority is focused on patentable seed lines. Money is made on these seed lines by promotion and market saturation. Market saturation of GMO seed lines contaminates local seed lines developed by farmers and forces them to rely on seed producers also. Obviously microbial organisms can go through thousands of generations in the two or three years it would take to develop, breed, test and distribute the seed for resistant varieties.
Since the companies developing GMOs aren't going to make any money promoting biodiversity they don't mention it and pooh-pooh concerns when they are raised. Worse they pollute the genetic sources of these crop varieties with their seed and pollen lines putting the entire future of some crops at risk for short term profit.
While I believe that genetics is a very important tool in the development of new crop varieties I also think that we are painting ourselves into a biological corner. GMO crops should be strictly controlled and regulated and never, ever, ever be allowed to represent a significant portion of the food supply. Right now however a significant fraction of the calories available to industrialized nations are sourced in a few dozen, at most a few hundred seed lines. It's literally "putting all our eggs in one basket" and hoping the basket is proof against all possible attacks.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 9:00 pm
25 Jan 2008
Well put Pangolin
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:49 am
26 Jan 2008
Absolutley Correct!
Pangolin wrote...
"Aside from the concerns about the safety of the food, biodiversity of the food supply is a concern. If a significant percentage of the US corn crop comes from a few closely related genetic lines and that corn crop provides a majority of the calories that people eat we have a problem. All it takes is for the inevitable bacterial, viral or fungal disease to find a chemical attack to those crop lines and we starve."
This problem arose before the advent of GMOs and is a problem that would have to be addressed even if GMOs were not an option. It was not created by GMOs. It probably started the moment human beings gathered seeds from their favorite plants and passed them on to other groups. The potato famine obviously occurred before GMOs. We did not learn our lesson. Vast monocultures of corn and wheat were grown before the advent of GMOs.
I still think we should focus on the underlying problems:
Corporate control of plant diversity.
Corporate control of biotechnology.
Corporate control of evaluation of our food safety.
Application of harmful chemicals to our food.
Those concerned about food security should be trying to find ways to ensure farmers acquire full control over seed they purchase, ensure puplic institutions maintain control over the genetic commons, and that independent panels of scientist evaluate ALL concerns we have regarding food.
I'm interested in GMOs because I do not want ANY toxic chemicals, preferably NO chemicals, sprayed on my food. I'd like to be able to purchase produce and know, for sure, that copper isn't poisoning the soil somewhere and rotenone isn't poisoning aquatitic animals somewhere.
Eliminating GMOs will not eliminate the majority of problems being discussed by those opposed to GMOs. It will only delay finding real solutions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:55 am
26 Jan 2008
Another career?
How about turning anti-GMO activist? You know all about it. Might be harder to get payed though.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:06 am
26 Jan 2008
Árpád Pusztai
Hello All.
Can someone please direct me to a concise, accurate, and complete account of Árpád Pusztai's experience evaluting GM potatoes? I would like to know precisely what he recalls regarding how the experiment was done and what happened afterwords.
I was attempting to look into it and it looks like a moving target. I should point out that the WHOLE matter -- his perspective and the Rowett Institute's perspective -- looks like a moving target, everyone involved changing their stories as events unfolded! Neither side did themselves any favors by changing their stories! And my admittedly limited information suggests neither can really be trusted!
I appreciate GreenEngineer's suggestion that I read about this case. Everyone should be more informed about the potential consequences of their work.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:14 am
26 Jan 2008
Another career?
I suppose I could set up a home business testing food for transgenes. Then I could live in the middle of nowhere and not have to commute to work. There are probably enough people out there who are concerned and could provide a decent income. Oh oh... just gave the idea to someone else! Doesn't matter. I would have to see some pretty strong evidence that all GMOs are a threat to humanity and the rest of the world before I joined the rest of you. Keep it coming.
Permalink
sbelleo Posted 4:39 am
26 Jan 2008
Real Fear
I think there are real fears behind GM foods. What was wrong with "real" "whole" non-GM food?
One serious point is that we're putting altered DNA into our systems when we consume GM foods. The purpose of DNA is to bind and replicate. Once this gets into our systems how do we know (for example) how a tilapia-spliced tomato is changing our bodies?
GM foods (like GM fish) are often more aggressive than non-GM. They take over an ecosystem and eradicate the diversity that once was.
This aggressive takeover and fall of genetic diversity provides us with monocultures. Monocultures are horrible in any environment. Does anyone need to be reminded of the potato famine? We currently have monoculture soy and corn in the U.S., what happens when the corn crop fails, like it did in 1970?
By picking GM foods over "regular" foods we are marking the "regular" food for extinction. We already know that by tearing down the rainforests we are killing off potentially medically helpful plants and animals. By picking GM over non-GM food, how do we know what vitamins and nutrients we are saying goodbye to? What is wrong with eating potatoes and spinach? I don't need a potato spliced with iron from spinach.
On a slight tangent, the argument that we're helping feed developing countries through GM foods is bs. Developing countries are starving and can no longer feed themselves b/c we have erected our corporate plants (like coca-cola) in these countries. We buy up land and put toxins into the ground (through factory waste) so family farmers can no longer work the fields, forcing them into cities, which creates a cheap labor force by overpopulation. This drives the people, who could once grow their own foods, into the factories and now they don't have the time to farm for themselves. They are forced to buy their food (imported) which keeps them working and keeps them buying. Let's try to solve the root of the problems instead of creating solutions for problems we implement.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:53 am
26 Jan 2008
Sure
But what about those glow in the dark kitties sbell? They're a pretty cool result of GMO. So what if all generations of life in the future are altered? It's worth the risk to have really freakish mutations like this.
http://www.itchmo.com/scientists-clone-red-fluorescent-ca ...
Think of the energy savings on night lights! Excellent.
Don't stand in the way of progress. for instance,human/monkey GMO clones could work like slaves and be slaughtered for food to keep the remaining slaves alive. A never ending cycle of guilt free corporate atrocity.
That's enhanced productivity through unimaginable cruelty. Using satanic-like powers. Sauron would be so proud!
Does anyone else think it's high time for us villagers to take up pitchforks and torches and march on down to wisci's place of work? Out damn Frankenfooders! Get thee into the soylent green vat. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:32 am
26 Jan 2008
Sure
I realizing you are just adding a bit of humor to the conversation, but do you really want to "vandalize" another thread?
hehehehehehe
I'm probably opposed to GM animals as much as anyone else is, especially if it is for entertainment. This thread is about GM plants.
Regarding whipping up enthusiasm among the peasants and marching down to my place of work, I don't think violence is a good approach. Keep in mind... one could also whip up enthusiam among the peasants and march down to the offices of anti-GMO people. All one would have to do is persuade them that "environmentalists" are opposed to GMOs because they really want to reduce the human population via cutting off our food supply. I really don't want to live in world where we solve our problems by exploiting ignorance and fear. It really isn't working too well right now.
Still... I appreciate amazingdrx's efforts to stir up discussion. Keep up the good work!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:49 am
26 Jan 2008
Vandals
Huns, and Visigoths!
No need to worry about villagers nowadays wisci. They won't march unless there's a big thanksgiving sale at best buy. And they sure aren't paying attention to my suggestions.
Those kitties are pretty cool though. You have to admit. I bet they will be going for 1500 a cat in local per stores soon.
What about a chimp with human genes to do yardwork. Say around a 45 IQ? When will they be mass produced and inexpensive? This would solve the immigration problem.
Humor, it's a good thing. Keeps the tears at bay, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:32 am
26 Jan 2008
Please...
Try to focus on the plants.
No glowing cats. No GM animals for yard work. Have we not learn our lesson? A chimp with an IQ of 45 would probably neglect doing the important work around your house and try to bring democracy to the neighbor's yard instead... if you know what I mean...
Permalink
FoodObsessed Posted 5:28 am
28 Jan 2008
Morgellons?
I saw Jeffrey Smith speak a few years ago and was impressed--he seems to be the only one talking publicly about this. Glad to see discussion here about the effects of human health and gm seeds.
Recently, I saw this article in the Washington Post mentioning a potential link between this weird emerging disease, which they are calling Morgellons, with genetically modified organisms. Also mentions a possible connection to the disease with people who work in and around soil or animal waste.
Dan Shapley at The Daily Green also posted on this.
Scary stuff--especially if it can be linked to the way we produce food.
Permalink
cmello Posted 3:42 am
29 Jan 2008
response to amazingdrx
I know that you were joking (sorta) and that wiscidea wants us to stay with plants and not animals, but your comment about the monkey slaves made me think about...
The Monkey Matrix
Coming soon to a theater near you!
To wiscidea, don't you worry that reducing biodiversity in our food supply using GM makes us at risk for a catastrophic "potato famine" or "dutch elm disease" type event?
cmello
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:58 am
29 Jan 2008
biodiversity in our food supply
Hello cmello.
The reduction of biodiversity in our food supply by any means creates an accident waiting to happen. I firmly believe we have to move away from extensive monocultures of hybrid plants.
GM plants did not create the problem and do not have to worsen the problem.
As I've mentioned earlier regarding potatoes, they are already clonally propagated. Genes conferring resistance to different diseases could easily be put into almost any cultivar grown. Our lab in particular is working with Asian countries to put the desired genes into varieties the local farmers prefer to grow. They can then use these in their conventional breeding programs if they wish to.
I would propose something similar be done when genes conferring resistance to various diseases are added to other cultivated plants. It should not be done in a manner that encourages clonal propagation and establishment of monocultures of a few varieties of each species everywhere on Earth. Rather, the modified plants should (1) be appropriate for a region and culture and (2) useful for conventional breeding or propagated by open pollination.
I wish to add useful genes -- reducing chemical inputs -- to a cultivated plant's gene pool, not reduce biodiversity.
I probably did not explain this well. I'll work on it. Feel free to ask additional questions.
Permalink