Johns Hopkins professor: There Are Plenty of Reasons to Worry about GMO Food

[brentspeak]

Because Johns Hopkins professors have a long-standing reputation for both fear of science and profound ignorance on scientific topics...

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-consumers-be-worried-about-genetically-modified-food/there-are-plenty-of-reasons-to-worry-about-gmo-food

There Are Plenty of Reasons to Worry about GMO Food

By Robert Lawrence, Professor in Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
June 5, 2013 | 1:30 p.m. EDT

One problem is the dangerous precedent being set, whereby corporations are permitted by the government to sell these foods without labeling them. In effect, consumers are being denied their right to know what they are buying and eating and are thus unable to make informed decisions.

A second major cause for concern is the concentration of power in monolithic companies such as Monsanto and Dupont/Pioneer. These two companies alone control 50 percent of the global seed market. As these corporations monopolize seed production in the U.S., and increasingly around the globe, we'll see a big hit in low-income countries. Those nations that employ traditional plant breeding and cultivar selection lack the capital to start their own biotech industries. The top ten seed producers in the world are all located in the U.S., Europe and Japan. This monopolizing of seed production is driving seed prices up for farmers in low-income countries and will also affect struggling farmers in "rich" nations such as the U.S. In fact, it already has, but it will continue to worsen.

Third on my list of concerns is that as the monoliths dominate seed production, the seeds that they sell will dominate agriculture. As a result, we will lose many more species of plants, thereby accelerating the loss of biodiversity that is already creating environmental stress on our planet. Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy seeds have 94 percent market share in the U.S. In the face of climate change, we need more biodiversity, not less. The combination of species loss and climate change creates a perfect storm for long-term food insecurity for millions—or billions—of people.

A final cause for concern is exemplified by the recent discovery of GMO Roundup Ready wheat on an Oregon farm. The farmer who discovered it didn't plant it, and Monsanto ceased its GMO wheat trials eight years ago. So how did the seeds survive all this time and drift to an unintended plot of land? Until ecological drift is resolved, we need to be very careful about the unintended consequences of ecosystem disruption, already happening with the proliferation of Roundup resistant "super weeds" requiring every more toxic herbicides to control.

[villager]

1. You dare question the Gospel According to Monsanto!?

That's now how good citizens behave in a democracy...!

[yellowcanine]

2. Actually none of his concerns have to do with the safety of GMO food.

His concerns are about (1) food labeling precedents (2) Domination of the global seed market (3) Loss of biodiversity and (4) Escape of GMO germplasm (presumed, not proven). These are all legitimate concerns but really have nothing to do with the question of GMO food safety. The title is misleading.

[gratuitous]

3. The title doesn't mention "safety"

It mentions "reasons to worry," not "safety." I wonder why anyone would inject that element into the thread while acknowledging "legitimate concerns"?

Puzzling.

[yellowcanine]

4. Title on the link says "should consumers be worried." Implies safety. It is misleading.

Also, except for the labeling concerns, all of the listed concerns have to do with GMO crop production, not GMO food. When one says GMO food, it implies a safety concern.

[gratuitous]

6. Your statement is nonsense

But perhaps less puzzling.

[yellowcanine]

7. How so? "Your statement is nonsense." is not an argument.

Like saying, "You are wrong." without explaining why.

[LanternWaste]

9. I think you're confusing "imply" and "infer".

I think you're confusing "imply" and "infer".

[yellowcanine]

11. Not according to "Grammar Girl"

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/imply-versus-infer

The speaker implies (hints at), the listener infers (guesses)

When one says "consumers worry about GMO food" the implication is one is talking food safety.

[TheSarcastinator]

14. ridiculous

So your position is that the argument by a well-established and credentialed Professor of Environmental Health at Johns Hopkins University should be completely discounted because you have a problem with the semantics of the headline?

Your concerns have been duly noted and subsequently discarded as completely irrelevant.

The article makes the opinion very clear: it is only your semantic dodge that clouds the issue.

[yellowcanine]

17. Hmm. Not what I said, actually. Read it again.

I said his concerns were legitimate concerns. They are. But his concerns are not about the safety of GMO food, which is what the title of the article and the title of the link imply.

[KT2000]

18. Give it up.....

Neither the author nor the headline said safety. That was YOUR inference.

[yellowcanine]

20. Right. The American consumer worries about biodiversity and market domination all the time.

[Dont call me Shirley]

34. Yes we do, market domination is the worlds largest troublemaker and as biodiversity decreases

disease increases.

[jen63]

37. I worry about it

and I know that if dumb me worries about it, there are a lot more out there.

[Native]

26. This is for you & all the posters responding to you

Doesn't anyone on DU bother to actually click on links and read entire articles before commenting, many times inanely? The opening paragraph (which is not in the snip above) reads: "There's much debate about the healthfulness or risk associated with consuming GMO foods, and the long-term health effects are unknown. But even if these foods were perfectly safe to eat—and that's a big "if," because we can't conduct epidemiologic surveillance or long-term population studies without product labeling—there are plenty of good reasons to worry about these foods."
Geez.

[Dr. Strange]

10. Correct.

He doesn't have any concerns about their safety.

[Native]

27. Did you bother to read the opening para?

The one you would have seen if you'd clicked on the link?

[Rex]

12. "...we need to be very careful about the unintended consequences of ecosystem disruption..."

Sounds like safety to me.

[HuckleB]

25. Exactly.

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

The first concern is unjustified, and the rest of his concerns are just as big for every other type of seed technology.

Lame sauce.

No, GMOs Won't Harm Your Health
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/inquiring-minds-steven-novella-gmo

[pnwmom]

42. Labeling does concern safety. Problems with consumer goods including food and drugs are often

only discovered after being consumed by millions of people. Without labeling there is no possibility for post-market research.

As he says in his FIRST paragraph:

"But even if these foods were perfectly safe to eat—and that's a big "if," because we can't conduct epidemiologic surveillance or long-term population studies without product labeling—there are plenty of good reasons to worry about these foods."

[LawDeeDah]

8. Thank you

I read here in disbelief that some think the likes of Monsanto would be trustworthy and we would be best to just take their corporate, money grubbing word on anything.

Every other corporation is suspect of greed and harm to the public in one way or another, but Monsanto. YEAH SURE!

[arcane1]

13. Thank you for this voice of reason. It does a good job of outlining my concerns.

[closeupready]

15. B-b-b-b... but ..... SCIENCE!1!!

[99th_Monkey]

16. GMO labeling on Oregon Ballot in Nov.

So far it seems to be getting majority support .. about 52% according to polls.

[Unknown Beatle]

19. Federal Government and Monsanto

[FiveGoodMen]

43. corporatism noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

"Theory and practice of organizing the whole of society into corporate entities subordinate to the state. According to the theory, employers and employees would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and largely controlling the people and activities within their jurisdiction. Its chief spokesman was Adam Müller (b. 1779—d. 1829), court philosopher to the Fürst (prince) von Metternich, who conceived of a “class state” in which the classes operated as guilds, or corporations, each controlling a specific function of social life. This idea found favour in central Europe after the French Revolution, but it was not put into practice until Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy; its implementation there had barely begun by the start of World War II, which resulted in his fall. After World War II, the governments of many democratic western European countries (e.g., Austria, Norway, and Sweden) developed strong corporatist elements in an attempt to mediate and reduce conflict between businesses and trade unions and to enhance economic growth."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism

[bobclark86]

21. How about this:

If it's cottonseed (94 percent), soy (93 percent), canola (90 percent) or corn (88 percent), it's got a 9 in 10 chance of being GMO.

So, for all intents and purposes, if it has any of those four things, it's almost certainly GMO.

Now you're an informed consumer. That was hard.

[djean111]

30. And I avoid all of those whenever I can. I rarely buy processed foods.

Oh, and yeah, by processed food I mean food with lists of ingredients. Since, as you say, it is hard to avoid them, that just means I avoid ALL foods with those ingredients, since I cannot tell which have GMOs. Also cook with butter, olive oil, peanut oil, coconut oil.
Not having GMO labels means I avoid more things than necessary, maybe, but that's okay by me and my family.

[HuckleB]

31. But there's no reason to avoid them.

So....

[djean111]

32. That's not for you to say, as concerns what I put into my body, really.

Not like I am missing out on some fantastically healthy food by avoiding those things, you know. They have no nutrients I cannot get somewhere else.

[HuckleB]

33. Yes, but so what?

If you choose to make illogical decisions, you have that right.

However, the calls for mandatory labels are not based in science or logic:

http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/

And a follow up piece:

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

[djean111]

38. Why on earth should your "logic" apply to what I eat?

And why on earth would I need a "right" to make decisions about my food? That's either some weird sort of hubris, saying that, or just silly.

There is nothing in the list of GMO foods that is necessary to my well-being.

Anyway, I suspect that there could be a label on, say, cheesy crunchy thingies that says "Every ingredient in this will give you high cholesterol and make you obese and cause your eyes to twitch uncontrollably and turn your teeth permanently orange " - and people would still buy them.

The Real Foods article really just is the Ron Swanson (Parks & Rec) opinion that less government is better and people don't have a RIGHT to know if food is kosher, GMO, Halal, laden with pesticides, etc. They may WANT to know, but that's too bad, in his view.
The actual market is different, though - people who keep Kosher will only buy Kosher food, and will avoid foods not labelled Kosher, if the food needs to be Kosher for them. Like anything on his crabby little list, manufacturers have the right not to label, and people have the option to just not buy stuff if they are looking for a label. Free hand of the market shit, you know - except all of a sudden some don't like that sort of thing. The market will take what they give them. Or not, which evidently is worrisome.

Same for the other article - the argument is that people have no legal right to know. Fine. Then I will just avoid things I suspect, and this won't harm my health one little bit.

[Dont call me Shirley]

35. And now the concerns are that these are contaminating the organics

[chervilant]

40. Your glib condescension is unwarranted.

Consumers can still purchase non-GMO foods. And, Monsanto has been a vile corporate entity since before they attempted to vilify Rachel Carson.

[bobclark86]

41. Was there something factually wrong with what I said? N/T

[littlewolf]

22. K & R for exposure .... nt

[blkmusclmachine]

23. Nothing good can come from privitization of seeders.

[HuckleB]

24. Four short paragraphs that say almost nothing, by a guy who does not know jack about genetics.

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

This is the typical anti-GMO logical fallacy silliness.

It's baseless fear mongering. See Ebola for comparison. Or anti-vaccine silliness.

Antivaccine versus anti-GMO: Different goals, same methods
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

[whatchamacallit]

36. Certainly he knows less about genetics than HuckleB

What a fucking joke the internet is.

[enki23]

28. Very little of that has anything directly to do with the plants being GMO.

1. Labeling: Labeling battles have been, and are are ongoing over many things. "GMO" is just one of them. FOr the most part, I'd be in favor of labeling. But I also recognize most of the motivation for this is over silly bullshit.

2. Agribusiness consolidation and oligopolies: Big Ag has been consolidating for long before GMO crops came along. There are some issues with the business around GMO tech that may speed things up in some areas. But let's not pretend that this happened because of GMOs. That would be wrong. Stupid wrong.

3. Loss of species diversity: This one has virtually nothing to do with GMOs. A huge percentage of Mid America has been stuck in a soybean/corn rotation rut for long before GMO versions of those came along.

4. And that GMO wheat? That's fishy as hell. Wheat is almost entirely self-pollinated. The small (ten percent under ideal conditions) amount of cross-plant pollination is very short range. This is almost certainly a case of human error, or perfidy rather than gene transfer from GMO trials eight years ago. That just screams "bullshit."


Many of us who realize that GMO technology, as it's been used, does not pose any direct hazard to human health still have plenty of reservations about big agribusiness.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Patents don't last forever.

The patents help to pay the geneticists, etc., and then they expire, which will allow others to use the seeds without paying Monsanto a dime. The monopoly will end and people all around the world will benefit from Monsanto's work.

[grahamhgreen]

39. If GMO's were good for us, they would WANT them labelled.

[woo me with science]

44. K&R