"Many of the genetically modified foods will be safe, I'm sure. Will most of them be safe? Nobody knows." Jeremy Rifkin (born 1/26/45)
Rifkin (an American economic and social theorist, writer, public speaker and activist) has published 20 books about the impact of technological changes on the economy, society, and the environment. He is no stranger to argument, but this quote puts him in the middle of the raging debate about the value, safety and labeling of GMOs (also known as Genetic Engineering [GE] or Genetic Modification [GM]). Critics often call it Frankenfood.
People generally agree with Wikipedia's definition of a genetically modified organism as "any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques." Modern technology now makes it possible to alter genetic material to create novel traits in plants, animals, bacteria and fungi. This technology has so far primarily been used in crops to increase insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, and in micro-organisms to produce enzymes. But from that point of agreement, the discussions have gone South. There are those who truly hate the presence of GMOs in our food versus those who see them as an absolute necessity to insure there is enough food available for a hungry world.
A little background here: According to the UN's World Health Organization, just ten countries account for almost all – 98% of – the GM acres around the world. The top three countries that cultivate GM crops – the US, Argentina and Brazil – account for over three quarters of global GM acres. GM crops are grown on approximately 3.7% of the world’s total agricultural land, by less than one percent of the world’s farmers.
How much GMOs are in American food? In my last post, I noted that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has said that "Up to 70% of processed foods in the US now contain GMO ingredients." In 2014 the USDA reported GMO crops made up 94 percent of US soybean acreage, 93 percent of all corn planted, and 96 percent of all cotton. Let us not forget our sweet tooth either; the USDA says that 95 percent of sugar beets in the United States are now genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant. I found no evidence that GMOs are used in sugar cane production.
Although the list is changing all the time, GMOs are currently labeled, extremely restricted, or banned in 64 countries, including the European Union (EU). The EU ban is full of contradictions, however. European Seed Magazine's 3/16 issue noted that "About 70 GMO products are currently authorized for import into the EU, of which 19 were approved in 2015 alone."
In my last post, I examined the GMO labeling law (PL 114-216) signed by Obama last year (food companies will have to reveal products with GMO ingredients, but they won't have to print it on the package label. Instead, shoppers would have to scan a QR code with their smartphones for more information. The final seven page version of the bill is available HERE. However, the USDA has missed the deadline twice for an agreement of the final wording of the new law, and as Neon Leon went to press, they are still asking for more time.
Perhaps the most succinct analysis of the time consuming complexity involved was provided nine days ago by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI), (who cosponsored the 2015 H.R. 913 bill to require that food which contain genetically engineered ingredients be labeled accordingly), when she told the told the Maui Now newspaper "Nine out of ten Americans consistently report they want the right to know if their food is produced with genetic engineering ... As the USDA works to establish a mandatory, national disclosure standard for GMO foods, we write to express our strong belief that USDA needs to meet consumer expectations, be consistent with international standards and be inclusive of all Americans – including consumers without smartphones, rural residents and the elderly. We expect USDA’s mandatory GMO disclosure standard to apply to all GMO foods, including foods which contain ingredients like highly refined sugars and oils, as well as foods produced with new genetic engineering techniques.”
I fear I am getting too deep into the weeds here, so I will end this part of my post by providing an admittedly short list of the pro and con factions in the GMO arena.
PRO
National Academy of Science click here.
107 Nobel laureates click here
American Association for the Advancement of Science here
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine here
World Health Organization click here
American Medical Association click here
For an enhanced world view, The Genetic Literacy Project has the ultimate list
of some 235 pro-GMO organizations and independent scientists.
CON
Center for Food Safety click here GMO Awareness click here
Non-GMO Project click here Just Label It click here
Organic Consumers here And the Greenpeace organization, known worldwide for their activism in promoting what they call " a greener, healthier world...", has became the go to source for international anti-GMO sites is right here.
Check this out: That 2013 Rutgers University's research (which remains consistent with recent polling) revealed that "Only about a quarter (26%) of Americans realize that current regulations do not require GM products to be labeled. ...when asked directly whether GM foods should be required to be labeled, 73% said yes.
Despite the abundance of products with GM ingredients, ...the results suggest most consumers are unaware of them. The study found that 43 percent are aware that such products [are sold] in supermarkets... but only 26% believe that they have ever eaten any food containing GM ingredients. Knowledge and awareness of GM foods is low, and so, perhaps not surprisingly, very few people volunteer that they are interested in GM food labeling information."
Both sides of this fight are very passionate, and it safe to assume it will not be settled anytime soon. For this writer, I find a welcome common ground provided by Pope Francis, as he weighed in on the subject in July, 2015. The Catholic leader has made it clear that he’s against this kind of agricultural meddling before, but that July statement also included this: “It is difficult to make a general judgment about genetic modification, whether vegetable, animal, medical or agricultural, since these vary greatly among themselves and call for specific considerations. The risks involved are not always due to the techniques used, but rather to their improper or excessive application.”
editor's note--the next posting will shine a light on the bright future of our food supply due to new agrotech methods, small farmers, and successful sustainability approaches worldwide.
Rifkin (an American economic and social theorist, writer, public speaker and activist) has published 20 books about the impact of technological changes on the economy, society, and the environment. He is no stranger to argument, but this quote puts him in the middle of the raging debate about the value, safety and labeling of GMOs (also known as Genetic Engineering [GE] or Genetic Modification [GM]). Critics often call it Frankenfood.
People generally agree with Wikipedia's definition of a genetically modified organism as "any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques." Modern technology now makes it possible to alter genetic material to create novel traits in plants, animals, bacteria and fungi. This technology has so far primarily been used in crops to increase insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, and in micro-organisms to produce enzymes. But from that point of agreement, the discussions have gone South. There are those who truly hate the presence of GMOs in our food versus those who see them as an absolute necessity to insure there is enough food available for a hungry world.
A little background here: According to the UN's World Health Organization, just ten countries account for almost all – 98% of – the GM acres around the world. The top three countries that cultivate GM crops – the US, Argentina and Brazil – account for over three quarters of global GM acres. GM crops are grown on approximately 3.7% of the world’s total agricultural land, by less than one percent of the world’s farmers.
How much GMOs are in American food? In my last post, I noted that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has said that "Up to 70% of processed foods in the US now contain GMO ingredients." In 2014 the USDA reported GMO crops made up 94 percent of US soybean acreage, 93 percent of all corn planted, and 96 percent of all cotton. Let us not forget our sweet tooth either; the USDA says that 95 percent of sugar beets in the United States are now genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant. I found no evidence that GMOs are used in sugar cane production.
Although the list is changing all the time, GMOs are currently labeled, extremely restricted, or banned in 64 countries, including the European Union (EU). The EU ban is full of contradictions, however. European Seed Magazine's 3/16 issue noted that "About 70 GMO products are currently authorized for import into the EU, of which 19 were approved in 2015 alone."
In my last post, I examined the GMO labeling law (PL 114-216) signed by Obama last year (food companies will have to reveal products with GMO ingredients, but they won't have to print it on the package label. Instead, shoppers would have to scan a QR code with their smartphones for more information. The final seven page version of the bill is available HERE. However, the USDA has missed the deadline twice for an agreement of the final wording of the new law, and as Neon Leon went to press, they are still asking for more time.
Perhaps the most succinct analysis of the time consuming complexity involved was provided nine days ago by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI), (who cosponsored the 2015 H.R. 913 bill to require that food which contain genetically engineered ingredients be labeled accordingly), when she told the told the Maui Now newspaper "Nine out of ten Americans consistently report they want the right to know if their food is produced with genetic engineering ... As the USDA works to establish a mandatory, national disclosure standard for GMO foods, we write to express our strong belief that USDA needs to meet consumer expectations, be consistent with international standards and be inclusive of all Americans – including consumers without smartphones, rural residents and the elderly. We expect USDA’s mandatory GMO disclosure standard to apply to all GMO foods, including foods which contain ingredients like highly refined sugars and oils, as well as foods produced with new genetic engineering techniques.”
I fear I am getting too deep into the weeds here, so I will end this part of my post by providing an admittedly short list of the pro and con factions in the GMO arena.
PRO
National Academy of Science click here.
107 Nobel laureates click here
American Association for the Advancement of Science here
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine here
World Health Organization click here
American Medical Association click here
For an enhanced world view, The Genetic Literacy Project has the ultimate list
of some 235 pro-GMO organizations and independent scientists.
CON
Center for Food Safety click here GMO Awareness click here
Non-GMO Project click here Just Label It click here
Organic Consumers here And the Greenpeace organization, known worldwide for their activism in promoting what they call " a greener, healthier world...", has became the go to source for international anti-GMO sites is right here.
Check this out: That 2013 Rutgers University's research (which remains consistent with recent polling) revealed that "Only about a quarter (26%) of Americans realize that current regulations do not require GM products to be labeled. ...when asked directly whether GM foods should be required to be labeled, 73% said yes.
Despite the abundance of products with GM ingredients, ...the results suggest most consumers are unaware of them. The study found that 43 percent are aware that such products [are sold] in supermarkets... but only 26% believe that they have ever eaten any food containing GM ingredients. Knowledge and awareness of GM foods is low, and so, perhaps not surprisingly, very few people volunteer that they are interested in GM food labeling information."
Both sides of this fight are very passionate, and it safe to assume it will not be settled anytime soon. For this writer, I find a welcome common ground provided by Pope Francis, as he weighed in on the subject in July, 2015. The Catholic leader has made it clear that he’s against this kind of agricultural meddling before, but that July statement also included this: “It is difficult to make a general judgment about genetic modification, whether vegetable, animal, medical or agricultural, since these vary greatly among themselves and call for specific considerations. The risks involved are not always due to the techniques used, but rather to their improper or excessive application.”
He observes that “in many places, following the introduction
of these crops, productive land is concentrated in the hands of a few owners,”
while others lose their farmland. That means “the most vulnerable…become
temporary laborers, and many rural workers end up moving to poverty-stricken
urban areas.”
Further, the pope writes: “The expansion of these crops has the effect of destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of production, and affecting regional economies, now and in the future.” In this, he appears to consider the technique(s) must be safe as well as equitable to everyone and whether it benefits humanity as a whole. Pope Francis noted wisely that "A technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power.”
Further, the pope writes: “The expansion of these crops has the effect of destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of production, and affecting regional economies, now and in the future.” In this, he appears to consider the technique(s) must be safe as well as equitable to everyone and whether it benefits humanity as a whole. Pope Francis noted wisely that "A technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power.”
I hope, dear readers, that you now know how serious the stakes are in this debate. The input of good science must merge with the good for humans as well as all the other creatures in our mutual web of life.
editor's note--the next posting will shine a light on the bright future of our food supply due to new agrotech methods, small farmers, and successful sustainability approaches worldwide.
No comments:
Post a Comment