CONNECT
Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling and Proposition 37
Natural Society / News Report
Published: Friday 24 August 2012
Monsanto has even recently published a page on their site titled “Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,” where the GMO giant attempts to logically explain why it is against GMO labeling.
Due to the near future voting on November 6, 2012 for California’s Proposition 37, there has been a lot of heat going back and forth concerning GMO foods. Up until now, 10′s of million of dollars have been funneled into the opposing side of the bill, with biotechnology giant Monsanto dishing out a whopping $4.2 million alone. Monsanto has even recently published a page on their site titled ”Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,” where the GMO giant attempts to logically explain why it is against GMO labeling. Needless to say, the post reeks of false and misleading statements, and oftentimes downright deception. Here are the top 7 lies Monsanto wants you to believe regarding GMO labeling and Prop 37.
Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies
1. The bill ”would require a warning label on food products.”
GMO foods will not require a warning label (although they ought to!) Actually, foods made with GMOs would say ”partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering,” – not a warning label, but a clear warning sign to those of us who want to avoid GMOs. The whole idea of the GMO labeling bill is to make consumers aware of what they are consuming, not to bash GMOs on every label. We have a right to know.
2. ”The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established.”
This may be the most comical statements of all. While no long-term studies portray the dangers or benefits of GMOs, countless studies using a ‘shorter’ time interval show not only how GMOs are a danger to humans, but also the environment and the biosphere. One study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences shows that GMO corn and other GM food is indeed contributing to the obesity epidemic and causing organ disruption.
Through the mass genetic modification of nature via GMO crops, animals, biopesticides, and the mutated insects that are created as a result, mega biotechnology corporations are threatening the overall genetic integrity of the environment as well as all of humankind. This is just one reason that GMO crops are continuously banned around the world in nations such as France, Peru, Hungary, and Poland.
3. “FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers.”
While the FDA may think that labeling GMO foods would be misleading, in reality the exact opposite is true. Most consumers are in the dark when it comes to GMOs residing in their purchased foods. Foods being sold that contain hidden GMOs is much more misleading than letting the consumer be aware.
The FDA may call it ‘misleading’ since ‘GMOs are safe,’ but research shows that this is far from the truth.
4. “The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”
Although true, the American Medical Association also recently called for mandatory premarket safety studies for GMOs – a decision virtually polar opposite of the above quote. It seems that the AMA is being inconsistent no matter which view is taken. Here is a quote from Consumers Union recently noted in its reaction to AMA’s announcement:
“The AMA’s stance on mandatory labeling isn’t consistent with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If unexpected adverse health effects, such as an allergic reaction, happen as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to determine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect.”
5. ”…the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply.”
Not engaged int he production of our nation’s food supply? Countless farmers, food producers, and consumers who are engaging with their hard-earned dollar support Proposition 37. In fact, many farmers have taken legal action against Monsanto in the past for widespread genetic contamination.
Here is a growing list of endorsements for the GMO labeling bill.
6. ”The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers.”
Monsanto says “at the expense of the majority of consumers.” Maybe the biotech giant isn’t away that GMO labeling is so desired that the pro-labeling side has a 3-to-1 advantage, based on recent polls. The majority of consumers actually want GMO foods to be labeled. It is no secret that government organizations such as the FDA and USDA are in bed with Monsanto, but this is a decision for the people – not any government organizations.
It has also been revealed that Monsanto has control of virtually all U.S. diplomats, and the company has even used its massive influence to force other nations to accept their genetically modified crops through economic threats and political pressure.
7. ”Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails.”
There is absolutely no reason to think that because of Proposition 37, food choices would become more limited. Actually, the bill would add value to the purchase by consumers, as no one would need to ‘eat in the dark’ and unknowingly consume GMOs.
Top Stories
By Robert Jensen
17 comments on "Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling and Proposition 37"
August 26, 2012 2:05am
Dr. Folta (for presumably you are the Univ. of Florida Hort. Sci. professor):
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a "Monsanto shill" and have never taken any of their money, and furthermore, that you disliked the corporate science culture you found when you interviewed at Cargill. Fair enough, all we can do in comments sections and on blogs is take each other at our word, or not, barring references. But if you are that person, you claim to be passionately commited to science education and communication. Your comment that "Letting uninformed, frightened and manipulated citizens change laws is a bad idea" is fascinating -- um, just how do you think politics and elections work? How do you think government works? All those decisions are by informed, calm citizens exercising unadulterated, well-informed free will? Really? Shouldn't you be working to educate and calm citizens, not just telling them they have no right to make decisions about what they eat?
Your Huffington Post interview says you don't think we (as a society) should lose the opportunities biotechnology offers to create more plentiful, more nutritious food. OK, but that's not what Monsanto is doing. It is creating monopolistic control of what is grown in the US (and beyond) -- as a scientist in the field, you should appreciate that genetic diversity is an essential survivial trait for a species and for a food supply. Monsanto is not working to make food more nutritious, it is working to make money. You see, I didn't get sick enough of the corporate science culture until I had endured it for a dozen years. You haven't had that experience, and you fail to understand how the profit motive controls big corporations. Monsanto hasn't made corn or soybeans better for us (well, mostly for livestock) to eat, it has made them resistant to pesticides it also makes. And when people have been assured that the Bt toxin won't hurt them, and that it couldn't survive the human digestive system anyway, but now it has been found in pregnant women and their fetuses, they have a right to wonder what else they've been told that isn't true (and what they might not have been told at all).
When I left the corporate world, I went back to academia and started teaching introductory classes to students who were never going to be scientists, many of whom were only taking the classes to fulfill a requirement, not out of interest. Let's pretend for a second that "we scientists know best" -- which seems to be the position you're espousing. Well here's the catch: it's not "we scientists" doing the decision making, it's a government suffering from regulatory capture doing the bidding of big money (corporate) interests. I might not personally care to have laws passed by uninformed citizens or by corporate profit-seekers, but if that's really our choice, and since I've been involved with both sides, I'll take the citizens. I'll risk the ignorance of citizens vs. the greed and profit motive of corporations.
This is also where your analogy to a majority being in favor of creationism being taught falls apart: it's not "uninformed citizens" running amok (you may not like their religious beliefs, but let's not be surprised they have them, and let's try to be tolerant, eh?), and teaching evolution isn't being backed by corporate greed-heads. Here the case for the science is well established, and the creationism-teaching faction isn't winning the day, regardless of the polls. (Doing a little fear mongering yourself, professor?)
But lastly, what to me blows your whole "uninformed, frightened and manipulated citizens" argument out of the water is the whole "Right to Know" regime. From Wikipedia: "Right to know", in the context of United States workplace and community environmental law, is the legal principle that the individual has the right to know the chemicals to which they may be exposed in their daily living. It is embodied in federal law in the United States as well as in local laws in several states. "Right to Know" laws take two forms: Community Right to Know and Workplace Right to Know. Each grants certain rights to those groups. The "right to know" was a movement made popular by Rachel Carson with her book Silent Spring.[1]" All putting labels on GMO/GE food is doing is being consistent with this principle -- people have a right to know what they are exposed to. This principle is why we have Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) -- so people can educate themselves. Some people react: "Oh, it has chemicals in it, it must be bad." Well, of course, we and every material around us are made of chemicals. Those darn uninformed, frightened, manipulated people! Now that they can know the hazards of what they're exposed to, they'll avoid everything! Except they don't -- some pay no attention, some educate themselves. The Right to Know protocols were put in place, MSDSs were written (and yes, companies had to spend money to get this done, hiring people, committing resources, etc.), and no businesses failed because they had to comply. The national and world economies haven't been hurt by Right to Know, and people have been helped. If you really are concerned about science communication and science literacy, labeling food that contains GMOs will be a great way to do it -- while some people won't care, many will want to know more about GE plants and the foods made from them. If GMOs truly are safe, that's what people will eventually find out. And along the way, they're going to learn more science. Shouldn't you be in favor of all this? If there's nothing to hide, why fear labeling foods?
Gainesville, FL
August 26, 2012 6:14am
Dregs, Thanks for taking the time to generate a substantial post. I'm with you 100% for the first three inches! Seriously, I have no problem with the idea that people oppose monopolization of the food supply. I don't like this either. The problem is that they want to fight it from a bogus position-- that the technology is dangerous. You seem to know a lot about the topic, yet even you post "now it has been found in pregnant women and their fetuses" (Arias and Leblac's study) even though that work is completely flawed and easily debunked. It is an awful study that breaks simple scientific rules. I can explain elsewhere (you can find it on my blog etc).
I totally get your point- if it is greedy corporations and their minions that make the decisions or citizens, you want it to be citizens. But what if citizens are wrong? What if citizens are so hostile toward the corporate entity that they are willing to lie, cheat and smear that company's products? THAT is what labeling is about and the honest folks here in anti-GM world will tell you that. It is not about choice. If it was about choice it would apply to the dozens of exemptions too. It is about a warning label that effs the few companies that make GM products.
Creationism. Unfortunately you are wrong on this one. 50-some percent of Americans don't accept evolution and some states are voting to install creationist, young-earth discussions in science classes. That's not fear-mongering, that's fact. When I get done writing about kooky anti-GMO anti-science I'm over busting the creationists and working with our groups and legislators to stop it from happening here in my state. It is exactly the same thing. Citizens have a non-science-supported opinion and want to change laws to get it their way. Just like GMO labeling.
And let's keep in mind that not all GMO is "corporate greed heads". GM papaya saved an industry and the Arctic Apple is a small company looking to promote a good product. Many others soon to come that are not MON/DOW etc.
Your last paragraph is right on. No argument here. Right to Know can be a good thing-- but then let's be honest and the labels need to be applied to all plant products. Organic products need to say, "May contain higher levels of mycotoxins than conventional produce". Bananas need to say, "Triploid, contains an extra set of chromosomes". Some citrus needs to say, "Created by subjecting plants to DNA damage from radiation and/or chemicals". Wheat products would say, "Contains genomes from three different species and 60,000 genes that we don't understand". Pear-shaped tomatoes need to have a warning, "Contains a new gene that was created when a transposable element moved in the genome and landed near a gene controlling hormone synthesis".
I could go on all day.
This is the problem. Transgenic manipulation is the most modest alteration we do to plants-- by far, but this is it the one that people want to know about. So it is not about the process, it is about who is doing it. The goal is to use the label as a visible basis for misinformation campaigns targeting the biotech industry. My guess.
The other bad part is that I have yet to meet a person that supports prop37 that has actually read it. It is based on bad information and outright falsehoods (section 1, "Findings") and it creates a legal environment that will cost CA a pretty penny to enforce and litigate. Plus item 10 says that it cannot be repealed or changed except to make it more stringent. That's a bad thing to put into a law that has no scientific basis.
The cool part is that prop37 will pass, CA will be happy, the smear campaign can begin, it will work for awhile, food costs will increase, and then America will settle back into its GM Froot Loops and Snackables. Posts here will stick around and we can revisit them and their prophecy.
And I do use GMOs (along with climate change and creation) to show how science works and how scientists are ignored when people disagree with reality. Most times in these forums people don't care about becoming more scientifically literate, they are misinformed about GM technology and are pretty sure that pregnant women and fetuses are dying from it.
And yes, I am all for labeling-- but then label everything and be honest. Make the levels of mixing reasonable and compatible with production practices. As written prop37 is a nightmare. I don't know if these things are tried after the pass, but since there is no science to back its need and the "Findings" section is mostly fantasy, I suppose it could be easily shown to be baseless scientifically in court. I'd love to be that expert witness against it. it wouldn't stand a chance.
But the CA folks love it so vote away and enjoy. I'm with you on most of your thoughts and appreciate your thoughtful post.
August 26, 2012 9:45am
Dr. Folta,
Having seen Aris and LeBlanc's response to Kuntz' (and other) criticisms, I have found myself dissatisfied with both/all. I tend to give a nod to A and L's work having made it through a peer review process to get published in the first place; I suspect the calibration curve overcame doubts about the test's sensitivity. I'm not saying that was the correct call by the reviewers, just pointing out that I could see how they got there. I couldn't find your specific hammering of their study -- got sidetracked in the Eva v. Ewan s/he said competition. Reading about folk complaining about argument tactics took me back to watching Oxford-style debaters yammer about debate theory rather than the topic. Ugh. Anyway, shoot me a link to your take on A and L's work, please.
I'm not sure the pro-37'ers are as much anti-biotech as they are anti-Monsanto. Having watched (from inside and out) how corporations use questionable tactics to get their way, I'm not unsympathetic to a takedown of Monsanto, hardly a paragon of virtue. People use the tactics available to them -- and Monsanto has already captured D.C. Will there be babies thrown out with that bathwater? Yup, and adjustments will be made, and potentially a new proposition could be written. In the meantime, just as the federal limits on stem cell research didn't kill that field (just slowed it way, way down in the US), all the methods of genetic modification you compiled in your table will stay available somewhere (like conventionally bred papayas resistant to ringspot -- props to the Phillipine researchers).
Food prices go up... Will we notice in comparison to food prices going up because of weather/climate, diversion of food crops to biofuels, speculation in commodities markets, continuing overpopulation/demand for more food, increased demand for a Western-style meat-intensive diet, desertification, increasing fossil fuel costs, etc., etc.? Has an independent group run the numbers to get an estimate of how much Prop 37 labeling requirements will add to food cost? Food in the US is quite cheap (as is gasoline), compared to international costs, and the US wastes almost 40% of its food -- seems like there may be some slack in the food system that will allow any food cost increases due to labeling requirements to be absorbed. Of course, there's no slack for the growing ranks of those living in poverty, so a general cost of needing more tax dollars for nutritional assistance should be factored in.
California has a history of legislation by proposition, such as the infamous Jarvis-Gann Prop. 13 that is "credited" for making CA the ungovernable mess it is today. But just a couple years after Prop. 13 passed, CA voters turned down the Gann initiative Prop. 9, that would have made the financial situation there even worse after tax cuts nailed public services. I recall writing a letter or two to the editor of the local paper arguing against Prop. 9 as a high school student... My point being that the proposition process may not be ideal, but it's not a total fustercluck, either.
By the way, do you spend as much time trying to influence Monsanto's behavior? If the goal here is to protect the science (perhaps crudely put), how 'bout that ounce of prevention, pound of cure angle? Monsanto's behavior and tactics (and Dow's, and other's...) are giving the science a bad reputation. If the powerful use science to benefit themselves, and it's viewed as being done exploitively, there'll be a backlash. The reaction of many towards biotech is driven by how Monsanto is viewed. Smaller companies (the Arctic Apple folk, et al.) and non-greedheads suffer because of it. Corn and soy are a big part of folks' diet in the US (directly or indirectly), and most of us have learned to live with browning apples. Papayas are important to Hawaii, but they're not on many US dinner tables. In other words, it's Big Ag that people will see and target. It's not just here: reports are that a Brazilian court has ordered Nestle to label GMO-containing foods (and uncovered some apparent food industry-government corruption). There's the Wikileaks release of Monsanto wanting US "punishment" of non-GMO allowing foreign governments. Because Monsanto is the face of the science you're trying to protect, it's easy to interpret what you're doing as protecting Monsanto (and I believe you've noticed you're not getting shown much love for that perception...).
Back to Creationism: Are we evolutionists actually near 50% in the US? I thought we were down closer to 40%... I'm well aware Creationists, and ID-ers, have been trying to get into science classes, particularly in the big textbook states. My point on the fear mongering is that, while it has been and will be a battle (of Biblical proportions? sorry, couldn't resist), when it comes down to it, no state has taken the economic suicide pill of allowing it. When high school students from a given district or whole state can't get accepted into science and technical fields at colleges and universities, or have to take remedial classes at community colleges to improve deficiencies, parents will not be amused -- and they vote, and/or they move to other states, and science and technology companies don't locate there, and businesses relocate because of a shortage of qualified, educated workers... Maybe it has to happen once or twice -- maybe we just have to run that experiment. Galileo won out in the long run.
I suspect the massive reduction in government funding of higher education over the last couple of decades is a bigger problem -- making room for all those pesky corporately endowed chairs and funded research, which you then end up defending or explaining. As my Ph.D. advisor said twenty years or so ago: There's no such thing as academic freedom -- you have the freedom to work on what you can get funded. Government funding is easier to perceive as being for the public good; corporate and other special interest funding comes with bigger question marks as to motivation.
Science doesn't happen in a political vacuum (ask Galileo, or the members of the Manhattan Project, or look how the effects of nanoparticles in the environment are being studied at a relatively early stage as compared to the new materials of yesteryear).
Gainesville, FL
August 26, 2012 12:45pm
Holy Cats Dregs! I'd love to take this on at the moment but I'm up to my eyeballs in science (yes, it is Sunday and I"m in the lab, my huge monsanto paycheck ensures my reasonable working hours). Actually doing some super cool work for a small farmer that grows a novel crop-- we're able to do some tweaking of their environment to add substantial value. Big bucks for this guy and others too. No GMO either!
The links to A&L are all over, many better than mine. I did my analysis first and then found others. Mine is at http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-debunking-anti-gmo-claims.html
My main criticism is that the kit they used for detection was not appropriate for the use, and the "positive" data they found were below the detection limit for the assay. In other words, the staggering levels of Bt that are killing children and poisoning all of us really are not there, at least as determined by this assay. The reviewers should have caught that, but they didn't so now it is permanently an argument against transgenic crops. If it was real, it would have been reproduced, expanded and used as a means to take the products off the market. I'd be happy to put my name on the paper that takes out 70% of agriculture and changes the way things are done. Then I'd get my Nobel Prize and my picture on Amy's Pot Pies and Doctor Bonner's Soap.
Your second paragraph is exactly my point. This is not about choice, it is not that anyone cares about health. It is about taking an evil company down a peg.
Prices-- I think the problem will be that farmers will have to use non-GMO crops which are more expensive to grow and require massive inputs (fuel, pesticide, etc) compared to GMO alternatives (e.g. Bt crops). Plus they will have to have built in checks to ensure no GMO/non-GMO mix and separate production streams if producing both. Economists suggest it will be $1M to run the program and I think it will be more, but that's my gut feeling. Stuff is cheap because it costs less to produce GM crops. That's why they use them.
Your paragraph about me "influencing Monsanto's behavior". As you've seen, they don't care too much about what people think, and certainly bottom lines win over what some professor-guy says. If I worked for them I would fix some of the PR and public outreach for sure. What really needs to happen is that we need an honest discussion of the technology-- I'd love to hear my lefty friends (I have tons and we agree on everything except this issue) say we are all for GMOs and their claims to the point where we want to completely deregulate them. Make them equivalent with traditional breeding in the approval process, with some checks for invasiveness and health evaluations for unintended consequences. Let small companies, new innovators, university dorks and government labs compete against the big MON. That's how everyone wins. If people want choice and the science is sound, give them more companies to buy the science from!
That is not helped by those that slam the science, which is pretty stellar. It just happens that this company happens to be on the right side of the science, yet on the wrong side of business ethics and social graces. So you're right, by defending science I defend them. But I'm defending the Truth, and that's the job of the (ethical) scientist.
Creationism--- the "teach the controversy" laws have passed in LA and are on the ballots elsewhere. You'll see more of it this season. Yes, Galileo won in the long run, but it took until 1992 for the anti-science folks to admit it. I don't think we want to play that game with food. Let science rule now.
I hear you on funding. I'm about to enter into my first private contracts so my claim of being completely public is valid today but not in the near future. However, with both companies we have clear agreements about publication and presentation of data. I'm in control. I'll publish what I find whether it is in their interest or not, and they are happy with that. They are using me for my expertise and if my findings don't support their targets then that's good to find out. So I still have my academic freedom, only now I have someone to pay for it!
FInally I agree that science does not happen in a political vacuum, yet in the long run it does. Facts are facts regardless of what everyone believes. The truth always comes out and nowadays that happens faster all the time.
I wonder who will turn first, the anti-GMO people embracing the benefits of the technology, the anti-climate change folks acknowledging that thermometers are correct, the anti-vaxers admitting that vaccines don't cause autism, or the Tea Party folks believing the birth certificate. I heard Neil Armstrong was going to come forward about never landing on the moon, so they whacked him.
Ha ha. I'm just glad to do the job I do and see how biotech has been and will continue to be helpful. I'd love to take every anti-GMO advocate out for a beer and nachos and draw on napkins until they understood that this is okay stuff.
Geez, I gotta go. I truly appreciate your thoughtful comments. I'm glad to say that I agree with most of what you post and I appreciate your well spoken civility in the discussion.
August 26, 2012 9:38pm
A quick postscript to my longer reply below.
With regard to food costs, I've seen estimates that place the cost of food waste in the US at $165 billion. If GMO labeling adds a billion dollars to food costs, we're talking amounts that are to the right of the decimal, %-wise.
And with findings like this: http://www.nanodaily.com/reports/Super_Strong_High_Tech_Material_Found_t... , and previous coverage of nano zinc oxide's potential crop risk (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/343143/title/Nanosized_pollut...), and with studies of transgenerational effects and epigenetics starting to make a public impact (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/kristof-big-chem-big-ha...), I can understand why people would react strongly to work like that of Aris and LeBlanc that purported to find Bt in people, and would then interpret debunking of A&L's work as being Big Ag acting like Big Chem (and Big Oil and Big Tobacco before, etc., etc.). People are learning that small amounts of small things can still have big effects, and they aren't buying into the corporate "trust me" campaign.
August 26, 2012 8:46pm
Dr. Folta,
Thanks for the link re: A&L's shortcomings. Now I have seen enough to satisfy my scientific skepticism -- enough documentation of the flaws in the reasoning behind their calibration curve and how they applied it. It would seem like the reviewers dropped the ball on this one, given that published reports of the limitations of the assays used by A&L existed. So, has this information been given to the editors of that journal so they can adjust their reviewing roster and A&L can be requested to respond in a peer-reviewed fashion, rather than this get played out in blogs and in comments of various articles? That's one way science avoids the kind of she said/he said situations that leave people uninformed and thinking that just because you can find one naysayer, there's legitimate scientific debate (see also, climate change/global warming and false equivalencies perpetuated by corporate/mainstream media).
Re: Galileo. While official Vatican acknowledgment of "Oops, we blew this one" didn't come for centuries, that hadn't stopped other scientists (or the Apollo program) in the meantime. Rather interesting that the Catholic church has found a way to accomodate evolution... As for "teaching the controversy" (a miserable phrase if ever there were as there is no real controversy to teach) are you saying you haven't had students, even grad students, who still needed to "run the experiment" despite it being well established how that particular experiment would turn out? That's how some peope have to learn. It speaks to decades of failure in science education preceding now, mainly in primary and secondary education. However, when the anonymity of the voting both is available, people can quit the play acting they do for the benefit of their neighbors and the whole political scheme -- voters have come through before.
If ethical scientists defend the Truth, what are people supposed to think an unethical (business-wise, social graces-wise, or otherwise) corporation is defending? They're not going to think that corporation is defending science, whether it is or not. Frankly, in the long run, taking down Monsanto may do more good for the science -- get rid of the bad poster child and then let people see what's left. While they're not the fault of transgenic biotechnology per se, but rather the uses to which it has been put, corn rootworm resistance to Bt, "superweeds," contamination of organic crops, bug resistance to Bt potentially taking a key tool away from organic growers, monocropping in general, consolidation of the food and seed supply in the hands of a few companies, etc. are all reasons to be anti-Monsanto. If labeling GMO-containing food reduces demand for GE crops, farmers would be expected to grow less, and maybe that'll be an opportunity to make headway on some of these other problems (and of course it will create, or re-create others). People use the means at hand, and given that Monsanto has hardly fought fairly, don't expect people to do so in return. People feel they're in a hole, they're trying to find a way to stop the digging.
In grad school, I had a ringside seat as a research group stopped what it was doing and pivoted to see if Pons and Fleishmann's cold fusion claims about cold fusion were valid (and they weren't). In a different venue, I later had one to watch how corporations got out of the C8 fluorochemical business. From what I personally observed in the two cases, I have more confidence in publicly conducted science rather than the corporate version, particularly when it comes to the transparency of results.
Academicians go to corporations looking for funding, and I've been on the corporate side of that. The discussion was about how to "handle them" and direct their research toward the benefit of the corporation -- which of course is not how our corporate postition was presented when working with the academicians... So my training and biases are with scientists, being one of them, but my experience also says to be wary of the corporations, having been there, too. Biotechnologists have allowed Monsanto, et al., to become the face of their science -- bad move if you want people to accept the science on its merits.
For our beer and nachos, please make my beer dark and from a local craft or microbrewer. Make my tortilla chips and cheese non-GMO and rBGH-free, organic if possible -- because I choose to not support Big Ag with my consumer dollar if I can avoid it. And while those choices may not actually affect my personal health immediately, I feel they do affect environmental health generally, which does affect my personal well being (and that of others). I recognize my good fortune in being able to afford these choices and would be delighted to see a system in which everyone could do the same. My expertise is in polymers, materials science, and nano this and that, so I appreciate learning more about the biotech. And please accept this good-natured elbow in the ribs: Spare me the (admittedly I'm paraphrasing) "I'm working on Sunday so it means I'm not on Monsanto's payroll" line. :-) You've used that line on your blog, too. The university doesn't pay you by the hour -- you're there on Sunday for the same reasons I/everyone else have/has been (or nights, or Saturdays, or 2-3 days straight, or whatever): you effin' love the science. It's pretty typical in academia (certainly grad school), not too uncommon in the corporate world, but I never saw it during my government lab time (different rules in a secured area and all that). On a practical note, here's how people will use that against you: In the corporate world, you may be accused of trying to show up your M-F, 9-5 colleagues, and management may accuse you of having poor time management and prioritization skills ("work smarter, not harder"). In the advocacy world, you will be accused of being so blinded by your passion that you lack perspective on the ramifications of your work.
Good luck with your work with the small farmer. Would love to hear about it, but recognize that may not be possible in an open forum at this point in the work. By the way, if you start to tell the pro-biotechnology story from the standpoint of small farmers, rather than in a way that can be interpreted as pro-Monsanto, you'll probably gain more traction. There's a reason the big industrial poultry producers put the pictures of the families that actual raise the birds on billboards... You needn't like the enemy to learn from his tactics.
August 25, 2012 2:11pm
Good article. Others have well answered commenter Kevin Folta, who in effect argues that less info is better - even all we're talking about is a single bit less - in this case a single Yes/No on whether the product has at least one GMO mod.
Actually, what consumers (and product evaluators) merit - just on grounds of usual patent info to consumers - is a list of ALL specific patented GMO mods used in a product.
But please, readers, bear in mind that there is a terrible but nigh-forgotten irony to the Monsanto-(et al)-driven US Government's current promotion of indiscriminate genomic toxic dumping into the environment - a close parallel to what Rachel Carson's Silent Spring warned us was happening in regards to 'conventional' toxic chemicals.
Namely, this government-sponsored abandonment of elementary precaution in dealing with new genomes and life forms is totally at odds with NASA's expensive and time-consuming precautions in returning the Apollo lunar astronauts. For several extra days those celebrities, whom everyone wanted to welcome home, were instead kept in quarantine against the possibility of their having brought back lunar microbes - which scientists had every reason to believe likely didn't exist and indeed were not found.
When surviving future historians tell us how the OBushma and other administrations opted to chemically and genomically poison the planet, maybe they'll put in a lone good word for NASA, which did the right thing and opted for due precaution.
Gainesville, FL
August 25, 2012 12:45pm
Talk about lies! Just read Prop37! The first page (Findings) that justifies the Act has not one factual statement on it. Prop37 also labels somatic fusions, so it will affect citrus that is not rDNA based. Other foods are exempt, so this only affects some crops. The legalese is amazing and item 10 makes the law irrevocable.
Everyone will vote for it, nobody will read it, and someday they'll wish it never happened.
There can be food labeling, but not Prop37 as written.
Plus, everyone on this board falls victim to the same garbage science that says this transgenic crops are harmful. There is no evidence of this. The cited stuff above are lonesome articles in low-impact journals that you all treat like gospel.
Everyone hates big ag. Fine. But don't slam the good science. GMOs are safe, there is no evidence of harm, and labeling is the first step in demonizing a good technology.
Letting uninformed, frightened and manipulated citizens change laws is a bad idea. Let's stick to science. This is just like when they voted to teach creationism in science class in Louisiana. Sure the public wants it, but the public is wrong, and is acting against the direction of science.
August 25, 2012 9:01am
Last march we had a food sovereignty forum here. I videoed it. Both our old line parties sold us out on Labeling. They never deserve our votes again. EVER.
For every dollar Monsanto spends on advertising they probably put $100 into the pockets of our politicians. There should be jail time for treason like this.
Real Name: Doug Pederson AKA SpectateSwamp
Search for the playlist on youtube
Food sovereignty oliver b.c. 20mar2012
August 25, 2012 5:13am
Monsanto is so afraid about being exposed. GMO garbage is not allowed in many European countries where they care more about humanity then money. If they do label their toxic crap and people get wise, this will force these weasels to do things the right way. There,unfortunately, will always be a market for the pre-packaged crap sold in American grocery stores..so why are they worried? To all the scum-bag farmers who grow this tainted poison I hope more of your crops shrivel and die from lack of rain.
August 24, 2012 3:23pm
Every single argument Monsanto gives is a Red Herring. The only thing the people need to know and remember is that if WE want to know what we're eating, then WE should have that option--it's a democracy Monsanto--get it? A democracy!
Gainesville, FL
August 25, 2012 12:51pm
Do you also feel that food should be labeled when made by induced polyploidy? Natural polypoidy forced to cross with diploids? Mutation breeding? Wide introgressive crosses? Plants carrying known disruptions in genes from transposons? In the last 1000 years tens of thousands of genes have been mixed with tens of thousands of genes in ways we still don't understand. Nobody cares. Yet if someone adds one gene that is well understood, known to not affect humans, helps the environment and farmers, that is somehow forbidden? I don't get that. There's not a scientist I know that things GMOs are a bad idea-- just the misinformed masses with their pitchforks and torches looking to trash good technology they lack the sophistication to understand. Sorry, but that's where this is at.
August 24, 2012 3:17pm
It is unfortunate that when a great majority, as polls show, support GMO labeling that we have to resort to the initiative process when every politician we send to Sacramento know very well the will of the people. The fact that we have to resort to the initiative process says it loud and clear - - the system is broken! The remaining question: is it beyond repair?
Gainesville, FL
August 25, 2012 12:54pm
The majority of people in Mississippi think that we should teach creationism as part of science class and take out evolution. So do you support a proposition that lets the majority make a permanent decision that is not based on science? Very, very scary. That's prop37.
August 24, 2012 2:37pm
Good article, does not go far enough though. I watch in awe as big business from Monsanto saying GMOs are good in spite of the dead and dying they leave behind to BP extolling the ethnic cleansing they did to the animals in the Gulf and wonder when we will ever be strong enough or rich enough to make the truth shine out.
August 24, 2012 12:40pm
As an engineer and the producer of exceptionally high quality foods I sincerely appreciate your intelligent and unbiased article.
Contrary to Monsanto's claim that Prop 37 could deny consumers choice regarding GMO, it would label them in an unbiased fashion facilitating choice.
It is interesting to note that Monsanto's early marketing in France ballyhooed the inclusion of GMO ingredients in consumer products. Unfortunately for Monsanto the informed consumers resoundingly rejected tinkering with what they fed their families.
Kashi, the famous manufacturer of "natural foods" made exclusive use of GMO Soy and Corn in their products. Once this became public knowledge their sales plummeted; now they have changed their formula to one utilizing only NON-GMO and have prominently labeled the new versions as such. My local grocer reports the Non-GMO labeled cereals outsell the remaining GMO versions 4 to 1. It is a great example of a free market at work.
Monsanto may own the politicians and regulatory agencies, but a well informed consumer has the final say, and that is what they are afraid of.
GMO has no place in our food supply, and certainly not on my family's table.
August 24, 2012 10:52am
This is a great article; doesn't make more claims about GMO's than can be clearly supported by good research, but includes the problems with farming, especially for anyone not using all the latest hi-tech industrial chemicals and technology. The AMA's inconsistent and illogical stand is fascinating, and Consumers' Union is always unbiased. It's always good to remember that all of these products are new on the market and have only been used on a short-term basis.