C. The Case Against GMO Labeling

(based on www.classwarfarerg.blogspot.com, Post C)

   With the reasonable, I will reason.  With the humane, I will plead.  But with tyrants , I will yield no ground, waste no argument.                                             William Loyd Garrison (paraphrased)

    The purpose of this post is not to reason with nor to argue with the tyrannical  pro-GMO/anti-labeling proponents.   The rationales for not labeling Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in food presented by agro-industry scientists and the government (possibly including your own representatives) can sound so convincing as to make one wonder if there is any rational reason for labeling GMO foods.  

    I am aware of three rationales used by GMO proponents.  I will present each rationale and respond to it in order to expose the less than substantial ground on which each rationale rests.  

    Rationale 1.  Those promoting GMOs claim that there is no scientific evidence that GMOs  are harmful to human health. 

   My Response.  I question the claim that GMOs (even those not developed yet) have no negative effects on human health.  Period.  This is not a valid scientific nor logical statement.  True science postulates theories.  When most scientists agree with a theory based on the presented physical evidence, the theory is considered to be valid based on the present available data.  A scientific theory is never considered immutable or unchangeable for the rest of time.  Why?  Because new valid data may be uncovered in the future which might contradict the present available data.  When that happens, what was considered a valid scientific theory is invalidated.  For example, at one time the planet Earth was theorized to be flat.  When evidence was presented that the world was actually round, the Flat Earth theory was invalidated.

        In the 1940's, DDT was considered the best thing since buttered toast.  Less than 40 years later its use was banned in this country due to a public outcry that saved the Bald Eagle and the Peregrine  Falcon from extinction.

      Pre-1960 theory: Artificial food colorings derived from coal tar are inert substances that will not interact with physical bodies.  Red Dye #1 was banned in 1960 as a suspected carcinogen.

      Based on scientific testing, it was theorized that the following prescription drugs were safe for general use:  MERIDIA (banned 2010), ZELNOAM (banned 2007), TEQUIN (banned 2006),  BEXTRA (banned 2005), VIOXX (banned 2004), BAYCOL (banned 2001), PROPOLSIA (banned 2000), REZULIN (banned 2000), RAXAR (banned 1999), REDUX (banned 1997), AVANDIA (use restricted 2010

    Scientists theorizing that a chemical or biological agent is environmentally harmless or safe for human consumption is not a product guarantee.  It is possible that GMOs may one day be banned.  The difference between GMOs and artificial food color is that the presence of that ingredient is listed on the label.  So the consumer can choose to not consume it.  Not so with unlabeled GMOs.

      The claim that GMOs are perfectly harmless is based on the available scientific research published in scientific journals.  Can that published GMO research be trusted? An article in the August, 2009 issue of Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/) questions the objectivity of published GMO research.   This peer-reviewed published research approved by the seed companies as well as research from the companies' own scientists is what the FDA uses to determine if GMOs are safe.  Who in the FDA makes those determinations?  Check out the article at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422.

It documents the various high-ranking Monsanto employees that have been appointed to positions of responsibility in the FDA and the Department of Agriculture by Presidents Clinton and Obama.

One example is described  by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA)   (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/).  Margaret Miller, a Monsanto researcher, contributed to a research report on a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone for the FDA.  Shortly before the report was submitted to the FDA, Miller was hired by the FDA.  Her first job was to review the same report.  The artificial hormone was subsequently approved by the FDA.  The FDA official who decided milk produced from cows given the hormone would not have to be labeled was a former Monsanto lawyer.

       I don't like consuming any man-made chemicals, such as artificial colors, not found in nature.  These artificial chemicals allegedly cause no harm but are listed on food labels.  To not list GMOs because they allegedly cause no harm is contradictory and senseless.

   For some problems there is a scientific solution.  There is also a sensible solution.  They aren't always the same.                                                                                                                                                                        Richard Geiger 

      Rationale 2.  The GMO backers claim that Genetically Modified crops make better use of the limited resources of land, water and fertilizer.

      My Response: In fact, all physical resources on the planet are limited.  The intended implication is that there is not enough land, water and fertilizer to feed everyone on the planet.  But actually, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/), "one third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally."  That amounts to 1.3 billion tons annually.  On October 21, 2013 the FAO Director-General Jose' Grozianoda Silva said, "If we reduce food loss and waste to zero it would give us additional food to feed two billion people."  According to FAO 1.15 billion of the earth's people were undernourished from 2011-2013.  So, if all food loss and waste were prevented, there would be more than enough food produced to feed everyone.  The problem of undernourishment is not due to limited resources.  It is due to other factors involving distribution, preservation, pricing, etc.

  

Rationale 3. GMO supporters claim that labeling would result in economic hardship for consumers as well as growers.

      My Response:  That claim, I suspect, is not based on the expense of writing "This food contains GMOs" on each food label.  I understand that GMO proponents are, as of this month (June, 2014), in process of suing the state of Vermont over their mandatory GMO-labeling law.  Their argument is that if each state is permitted to pass such laws it will increase the expense of food manufacturers who will have to make different labels for each state.  They claim that would be inefficient and would increase the cost of food.
     It may occur to you that Vermont may be the first and last state to pass such a law and, if that  is the case, the food manufacturers would have the choice of not selling GMO food in Vermont, thus avoiding the need and extra expense of changing a single label.  But let's give them the benefit of assuming different states will come up with different labeling laws.  The simple solution would be a standardized federal mandatory labeling of all GMOs in food.  The Grocery Manufacturer's Association does not favor that solution.  They want no labeling at all.
     There is also another solution which would prevent inefficiency without the benefit of  a federal law.  Let's say that some states would require the letters GMO to appear in bold letters as "GMO".  Another state wants GMO italicized.  Four other states require the letters to be enlarged: GMO.  The solution?  "GMO" satisfies all three sets of state requirements.  Let's say another state requires that the type of GMO be included.  All labels in all states could include that information.
      The alleged problem of inefficiency in labeling GMOs can be easily overcome.  In fact, according to an article at http://www.anh-usa.org/how-much-will-gmo-labeling-cost-consumers/, the cost of changing food labels is negligible.  So what is the real issue?  Let's face it.  People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required.  So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand.  But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients.  Their products will be more in demand.  The last time I checked we are still supposed to have a free market system in the United States.  That would seem to preclude certain companies from gaining advantages over other companies through government legislation.

      The GMA's campaign to defeat state GMO labeling ballot initiatives and to get Congress to take away states' rights to pass GMO regulations suggests that the  GMA does not believe in a free market system.  If the GMA succeeds, consumers will be deprived of their right to know what they are eating.

      In regard to the claim that GMOs make products more affordable, according to www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/science...,Superweeds  have increased the cost of growing cotton from between $50-$75/hectare a few years ago to $370/hectare.  Growing soybeans in Illinois used to cost $25/hectare.  That has increased to $160/hectare.  That extra expense means higher prices for consumers.

        I think it's ironic that to avoid GMO consumption without labeling, the alternative is to eat organic.  Organic produce, unless one grows it oneself, is more expensive than non-organic.  The irony is that people who are profiting the most from GMOs are the same people who can more easily afford to purchase organically grown food.

        Another related fact is that when GMO pollen blows into an organic farm and pollinates the organic crop, that crop can not be sold as organic.  This factor decreases the available supply of organic produce, as well as doing economic damage to the organic farm.

        Monsanto's ambition is not limited to America.  An article from Rueters announced a plan coordinated by the Obama Administration for companies like Monsanto to invest billions of dollars to "improve" agriculture in Africa.   Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, a policy think tank, said, "The problem is all this is based on large-scale commercial agriculture. Who does it benefit? All of these things are supporting the formation of large-scale commercial agriculture, which will hurt small farmers. They could spend far less but focus on providing credit facilities, ensuring open markets and ensuring the rights of small holder farmers." (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518)

      This grand plan for Africa will result in wealthy landowners raising large GMO mono crops and Monsanto making additional millions of dollars.  Why Africa?  In Europe, there is strict regulation for GMOs.  The growing and marketing of GMOs in Russia is discouraged by the authorities (http://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/04/16/russia-completely-bans-monsanto-gmos-china-bans-monsanto-gmos/) and China recently rejected millions of tons of corn grown with Syngenta GMOs (http://www.blacklistednews.com/US_corn_exports_to_China_drop_85_percent_ after_ban_on_GMO_strains_%E2%80%93_industry_report/34432/0/38/38/Y/M.html).

In Conclusion

So, where does that leave us?    We have a large multi-billion dollar multi-national company, Monsanto, that virtually controls the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture making false, misleading and unsupportable claims in order to keep profiting from its patented seeds and agro-chemicals.

     The objective of Monsanto, many believe, is to control human life on the planet. He who controls the food supply, controls life.  If  and when the majority of farmers on earth are all raising GMO produce, they will be completely dependent on Monsanto or a similar company, not

only for the seeds for each growing season but also for the chemical fertilizers/herbicides that are designed to work with those particular seeds.

    

PLU CODES

You may have heard of PLU Codes as a solution to the problem of identifying GMO foods.  These codes do not make GMO labeling unnecessary.  According to www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/05/... PLU codes are four or five digit numbers printed on stickers that are placed on fresh fruits and vegetables for the purpose of aiding in sorting and retail check-out.  If the 5 digit code starts with 3 or 4, it indicates that produce was "probably" grown conventionally (using synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, etc. but not genetically engineered).  If the five digit code starts with an "8", it indicates GMOs.  In 2010, corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, papaya, and squash were the only GMOs being widely sold, according to this article.  Today, that list would include beets and alfalfa.

       The problems with relying on PLU codes for GMO identification are the following:

1) The codes are used on fresh produce, not on processed food.

2) Not all produce is coded.

3) The program is voluntary. 

4) #3 means that GMO growers can use a 3 or 4 instead of an 8 on GMO produce.

                  

FEEL FREE TO MAKE COPIES OF THE GMO HANDOUTS AND SHARE THEM FREELY WITH OTHERS. RG