Don't Like Monsanto? Then You Should Be Pro-GMO, Not Anti. Here's Why.

[progressoid]

~~~

Injecting big bad Monsanto fears into public perception of GMO has been a brilliant tactic–the phenomenon is hardly a fluke. With non-GMO and organic industry bigwigs pushing the myth that GMO equals big corporations and bad food trends, it’s no accident that these memes are pervasive, from the blogosphere to mommy groups, and mainstream media to street protests. Take the Organic Consumers Association, an anti-GMO lobby group largely funded by the “natural food” and organic industries. With objectives that include increasing organic market share and achieving a “global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops,” it founded the “Millions Against Monsanto” campaign “to fight back against Monsanto and the other Biotech Bullies.”

In the public psyche, the term GMO has become synonymous with Monsanto and the evils the agricultural company symbolizes. While business practices of massive corporations can and should be questioned, much of why Monsanto is hated is based in myth (for example, the company doesn’t sue farmers for unintentional contamination). I will not defend Monsanto here, but it’s interesting to note that Whole Foods, leading seller of “non-GMO” fare, outdid Monsanto’s revenue in 2015 at just over $15 billion.

~~~

Conflating “GMOs” with Monsanto creates a crude narrative and regulatory quagmire that stifles innovation, discouraging smaller entities from developing and commercializing GE products. As a May 2016 Nature Biotechnology article states:

“Multinational corporate crop developers can bear these high regulatory costs for high value, huge-volume commodity crops, but only as long as global sales are large enough to justify the regulatory expenditures. With development costs so high, researchers in the public sector as well as those at nonprofit organizations and small startup companies rarely have sufficient resources to navigate the complex, expensive and uncertain regulatory approval process.

Under these circumstances, it is difficult to justify the expense of developing GE varieties of lower-market-value products, such as so-called specialty crops—fruits, nuts and vegetables—or (especially) the staple crops grown primarily by subsistence farmers in less developed countries.”

Non-browning Arctic Apples and Innate Potatoes, neither of which are Monsanto products, are poised to hit the market, and will reduce food waste due to brown spots and bruises. But these are the exception and not the rule, due to the burdensome regulatory atmosphere that misinformation and ideology have sown. Gluten-free wheat with the potential to help celiac disease patients, tear-free onions, and bananas resistant to xanthomonas wilt (which is threatening food security in Uganda and eastern Africa) are all among GE plants stuck in purgatory. Remember these the next time you have the urge to utter, “but Monsanto.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/10/25/dont-like-monsanto-then-you-should-be-pro-gmo-not-anti-heres-why/#1b99c80c2d73

[niyad]

1. yawn

[progressoid]

3. Yeah, food security is rather a tedious subject.

But it will get a lot more exciting in the very near future as climate change dramatically alters our food production.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply

[niyad]

21. and that was clearly such industry propaganda. so, yes, yawn. we have heard

all this before, and the monsanto apologists are truly boring.

[progressoid]

26. Which industry propaganda?

Do the industries that don't believe in the science of GMOs have no financial incentive to propagandize?

[ReRe]

2. WTF?

Forbes is your source?

Please tell me you posted this as sarcasm.

[progressoid]

4. Kavin Senapathy is the source.

I am an author, public speaker and science activist writing about health, medicine, genomics, agriculture and food. I’m the co-Executive Director of international pro-science, pro-biotech movement March Against Myths, and co-author of “The Fear Babe: Shattering Vani Hari’s Glass House,” a book discussing popular food misconceptions and why they proliferate in the face of mountains of evidence against them. With a passion for refuting misconceptions popular in the wild internet west, my work has appeared in Gawker and Slate, and I am a regular contributor to Genetic Literacy Project, and evidence-based parenting site, Grounded Parents. I believe that swaying someone from unscientific opinions is a marathon, not a sprint.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

[mackdaddy]

5. Without GMO how can massive corporations patent living plants?

Then they can charge huge premiums and sue farmers into oblivion if their crops are contaminated with GMO pollen from neighboring fields, or they have the audacity to try to save seeds from one year to the next like farmers have done since the birth of civilization.

[progressoid]

6. Corporations (massive and small) patented plants long before GMOs.

Even universities patent and license plants. Like the U of Minnesota's non GMO apples http://mnhardy.umn.edu/varieties/fruit/apples

As linked in the above article, farmers are not sued into oblivion due to contamination.

At the heart of the issue was the fact that Monsanto’s promise to never sue a farmer whose fields have been (unknowingly) contaminated by their seeds was a statement on the company website. It wasn’t a law. It wasn’t something that they had sworn to under oath. It was just something on their webpage which, at the end of the day, could be false advertising or a PR gimmick. In back-and-forths between lawyers, Monsanto wrote that they have no reason to go after farmers for low level contamination because there’s no financial incentive, and that if the motives of the growers/farmers is true (i.e. that they don’t intend to use/sell transgenic seeds), then their fear of a lawsuit is unreasonable. The judge in the district court threw out the case in 2011 based on the fact that “these circumstances do not amount to a substantial controversy and . . . there has been no injury traceable to defendants”.

...https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/lawsuits-for-inadvertent-contamination/

Finally, if farmers want to save seed, they are free to do so as long as they haven't signed an agreement not to save a patented seed (similarly, I am not legally allowed to copy Beyonce's music and distribute it without her consent). Although very few modern farmers bother with it. It's too time consuming and inefficient.

[OnlinePoker]

7. "...Monsanto’s promise to never sue a farmer whose fields have been (unknowingly) contaminated..."

Tell that to Percy Schmeiser.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

[progressoid]

9. Did you read the court's conclusion? It wasn't unknowingly.

"The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.

[Wilms]

8. Why should I be pro-GMO???

WTH was that?

Can you explain why? I read the whole article and all I know is I'm supposed to like Monsanto because Whole Foods has larger revenues.

[progressoid]

12. That's the thing.

You don't have to like Monsanto. But people equate GMOs only with corn and Monsanto. GMOs are much more than just one corporation. GMOs saved the US papaya crop in Hawaii. GMO eggplant reduces use of insecticides by 80% and decreases loss due to pests. etc. etc.

And why are we so anti-genetically engineered crops, yet people inject genetically engineered stuff (insulin, vaccines, etc) into their bodies every day. And except from anti-vaccine nutters, nobody complains.

Hell, there are even genetically engineered batteries on the horizon. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102647672

[upaloopa]

10. Screw GMOs and Monsanto both! How's that?

Last edited Tue Oct 25, 2016, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

It never ceases to amaze me the stupid shit pro GMO people come up with.

[progressoid]

15. Sure.

Do you have pets that need to be vaccinated? Or maybe you know someone with diabetes? Genetic engineering is used to mass-produce insulin, human growth hormones, follistim (for treating infertility), human albumin, monoclonal antibodies, antihemophilic factors, vaccines and many other drugs.

Or maybe you like cheese? The chymosin used in cheese making was likely genetically engineered.

You've probably been consuming a lot of that stupid pro GMO shit for a long time.

You're welcome.

[upaloopa]

25. Science can be good and bad

Don't try that crap

[nationalize the fed]

11. "I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs...

—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks

I believe that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks.

By Jonathan Latham, PhD / CounterPunch

By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.

I was not, at the outset, concerned about the possible effects of GM plants on human health or the environment. One reason for this lack of concern was that I was still a very young scientist, feeling my way in the complex world of biology and of scientific research. Another reason was that we hardly imagined that GMOs like ours would be grown or eaten. So far as I was concerned, all GMOs were for research purposes only.

Gradually, however, it became clear that certain companies thought differently. Some of my older colleagues shared their skepticism with me that commercial interests were running far ahead of scientific knowledge. I listened carefully and I didn’t disagree. Today, over twenty years later, GMO crops, especially soybeans, corn, papaya, canola and cotton, are commercially grown in numerous parts of the world.

Depending on which country you live in, GMOs may be unlabeled and therefore unknowingly abundant in your diet. Processed foods (e.g. chips, breakfast cereals, sodas) are likely to contain ingredients from GMO crops, because they are often made from corn or soy. Most agricultural crops, however, are still non-GMO, including rice, wheat, barley, oats, tomatoes, grapes and beans....snip
Full: http://www.alternet.org/food/i-used-work-scientist-gmos-now-im-having-serious-second-thoughts-about-risks



Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public

"GMO's- the biggest scientific fraud of our time"

“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is very readable, thorough, logical and thought-provoking. Steven Druker exposes shenanigans employed to promote genetic engineering that will surprise even those who have followed the ag-biotech industry closely for years. I strongly recommend his book.”--Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods

https://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903

Trying to clean GMO's out of my kitchen entirely, and just learned that anything in Trader Joes with the Trader Joe label is GMO FREE! Good prices for what costs double at Whole Paycheck Foods. My kitchen is now GMO FREE and it's going to stay that way.

[progressoid]

13. More Dunning Kruger effect from the people that think they can fly if they meditate hard enough.

[nationalize the fed]

14. Many GMO Pushers say that all scientists agree that GMO's are the new sliced bread

so I'm happy to prove that BS totally false.

Ignore at your pleasure. Many won't.

GMO's: The BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUD OF OUR TIME

[progressoid]

16. I'll take the word or scientists over an attorney from the Maharishi University of Gibberish.

Altered Genes: Druker’s New Book is Filled with Logical Fallacies

It is disappointing that Druker focuses on long debunked allegations and conspiracy theories instead of the facts.

[nationalize the fed]

17. And how will you slime those that endorsed his book? Or the first PhD in that post?

Jonathan Latham, PhD

From Altered Genes, Twisted Truth on Amazon page

“A fascinating book: highly informative, eminently readable, and most enjoyable. It’s a real page-turner and an eye-opener.”--Richard C. Jennings, Ph.D., Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, UK



“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it's a pleasure to read--and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don't entail abnormal risk.” --David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is lucid, illuminating, and alarming. As a former New York City prosecutor, I was shocked to discover how the FDA illegally exempted GE foods from the rigorous testing mandated by federal statute. And as the mother of three young kids, I was outraged to learn how America’s children are being callously exposed to experimental foods that were deemed abnormally risky by the FDA’s own experts.”--Tara-Cook Littman, J.D.



“Steven Druker has written a great book that could well be a milestone in the endeavor to establish a scientifically sound policy on genetically engineered foods. The evidence is comprehensive, clear, and compelling; and its credibility is irrefutable. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded.”--John Ikerd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri – Columbia



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course.”--Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario



“Steven Druker's meticulously documented, well-crafted, and spellbinding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us. In particular, his chapter detailing the deadly epidemic of 1989-90 that was linked with a genetically engineered food supplement is especially significant. I and my Mayo Clinic colleagues were active participants in the attempt to identify the cause of this epidemic. Druker provides a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence and also presents new findings from our work. Overall his discussion of this tragic event, as well as its ominous implications, is the most comprehensive, evenlybalanced and accurate account that I have read.”--Stephen Naylor, PhD CEO and Chairman of MaiHealth Inc., Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, & Pharmacology Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)



“Steven Druker has done a beautiful job of weaving a compelling scientific argument into an engaging narrative that often reads like a detective story, and he makes his points dramatically and clearly. The examination of genetic engineering from the standpoint of software engineering is especially insightful, exposing how the former is more like a ‘hackathon’ than a careful, systematic methodology for revising complex information systems. I will recommend this book to my friends.”--Thomas J. McCabe, developer of the cyclomatic complexity software metric, a key analytic tool in computer programming employed throughout the world



“Based on over 30 years of teaching computer science at universities and on extensive experience as a programmer in private industry, I can state that Steven Druker has done an excellent job of demonstrating the recklessness of the current practices of genetic engineering in comparison to the established practices of software engineering. His book presents a striking contrast between the two fields, showing how software engineers progressively developed greater awareness of the inherent risks of altering complex information systems – and accordingly developed more rigorous procedures for managing them – while genetic technicians have largely failed to do either, despite the fact that the information systems they alter are far more complex, and far less comprehended, than any human-made system.”--Ralph Bunker, PhD



“Steven Druker has written one of the few books I have encountered, in my many years of public interest work, with the capacity to drive major change in a major issue. What Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed was to the auto industry and what Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was to synthetic pesticides, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will be to genetically engineered food. It is profoundly penetrating, illuminating, and compelling, and it could stimulate a monumental and beneficial shift in our system of food production.”--Joan Levin, JD, MPH



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is a remarkable work that may well change the public conversation on one of the most important issues of our day. If the numerous revelations it contains become widely known, the arguments being used to defend genetically engineered foods will be untenable.”--Frederick Kirschenmann, Phd Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience



“Druker's brilliant exposé catches the promoters of GE food red-handed: falsifying data, corrupting regulators, lying to Congress. He thoroughly demonstrates how distortions and deceptions have been piled one on top of another, year after year, producing a global industry that teeters on a foundation of fraud and denial. This book is sure to send shock waves around the world."--Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception & Genetic Roulette



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is very readable, thorough, logical and thought-provoking. Steven Druker exposes shenanigans employed to promote genetic engineering that will surprise even those who have followed the ag-biotech industry closely for years. I strongly recommend his book.”--Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth reveals how the inception of molecular biotechnology ignited a battle between those committed to scientific accuracy and the public interest and those who saw genetic engineering’s commercial potential. Steven Druker’s meticulously researched book pieces together the deeply disturbing and tremendously important history of the intertwined science and politics of GMOs. Understanding this ongoing struggle is a key to understanding science in the modern world.”--Allison Wilson, PhD molecular geneticist, Science Director, The Bioscience Resource Project

Perhaps ALL of these PhD's that have endorsed Altered Genes, Twisted Truth have been punked. In which case, you should notify them immediately, their reputations are at stake.

[HuckleB]

31. So you're saying the vast majority of scientists who find the nonsense in that book to be nonsense..

... have been punked? You don't appear to realize how many scientists there are in the world.

You do know most of these are the usual anti-GMO crowd, right? They have yet to change the course of actual science on GMOs, because they're not able to prove their claims to other scientists. Hmm.

[kristopher]

33. I don't think you actually understand what "science" is.

You use the word as a cudgel to beat down those who hold values different from you. That act is the antithesis of science because the values by which facts are weighed aren't subject to empirical testing for validity.

Why don't you learn to make an actual argument based on what is being discussed instead of just mindlessly shouting "It's SCIENCE! IT'S SCIENCE I TELL YOU!!!"

[OnlinePoker]

18. More AAAS scientists believe GMO food is safe to eat than believe humans cause most climate change

In a Pew poll last year, it was 88% agreeing that GMO food was safe but only 87% believing humans are the primary cause of climate change.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

[nationalize the fed]

19. You'll no doubt want to ignore the PhD's listed in post #17

Some of us just aren't going to go for this patented lab food. That's ok, right? Because that's the way it is.

Every time I go to the market I tell someone else what they're buying- they are usually surprised - and thankful that someone told then what is in their food. One by one the truth will be told.

And by the way, if I put something in your food and didn't tell you would you be ok with it?

[OnlinePoker]

20. Do you never eat at a restaurant.

You have no idea what the ingredients are that they serve there. As per the PHDs listed, I would assume they would be in the 11% of dissenting opinion.

[kristopher]

35. Let's unpack that statement

From your link:

A majority of the general public (57%) says that genetically modified (GM) foods are generally unsafe to eat, while 37% says such foods are safe; by contrast, 88% of AAAS scientists say GM foods are generally safe. The gap between citizens and scientists in seeing GM foods as safe is 51 percentage points. This is the largest opinion difference between the public and scientists.

What does "generally safe" mean to those involved?

Let me ask two more questions:

Do you think that when an individual with technical training hears the question it evokes different connotations than when an individual without such training hears it?

Do you think it's possible that when an individual with technical training hears the question it evokes different connotations than when an individual without such training hears it?

I did that to illustrate how the use of a word like "generally" can have a strong impact on how a question is answered. Notice that you dropped it's use in your version of the polls findings: "In a Pew poll last year, it was 88% agreeing that GMO food was safe but...".

[niyad]

22. in other words, the experts in europe, who have forbidden gmo's, have no idea what

the hell they are talking about, yes? got it.

[FBaggins]

23. Europe has forbidden GMO's?

That's news to me.

[progressoid]

27. Europe hasn't forbidden GMOs.

... people may incorrectly perceive that the EU has a ban on GMOs for food and animal feed because of polarized public opinion and extended delays in the EU approval process, particularly the final step — a political decision-making process in which the member states vote on the European Food Safety Authority (ESFA) scientific opinion. By mid-2011, 39 GM products were approved for food and feed use in the EU, with 72 approvals pending due to delays in the regulatory process.


Despite the GMO controversy in the EU, it imports 72 percent (2011) of the protein-rich feed needed to support its livestock industry from Brazil, Argentina and the United States, the vast majority of which is GMO.

EFSA’s FAQ on genetically modified organisms is available here.
EFSA director statement on GMO Food.[/blockquote

[GliderGuider]

29. That's unfortunate.

I have faith that they will come to their senses eventually though, and ban genetic engineering across the board.

[GliderGuider]

24. Looks like your spinning seed didn't fall on fertile soil here.

Better try elsewhere!

[HuckleB]

32. So you think the actual reality of the science is spin?

[GliderGuider]

34. No, I think this message is spin. nt

[LWolf]

28. food security

is one issue, of course. Lab-created foods that can be patented, putting the world's food supply into the hands of for-profit corporations instead of farmers and gardeners, directly risks food security, in my opinion.

But to talk about food security in larger terms, I believe there is a clear solution that has nothing to do with creating crops that can be shipped around the world. It's also the solution to climate change and other environmental issues.

Anyone who is truly concerned about all of these issues should be focused on the underlying cause and solution: stop global population growth, and reduce the human population on the planet.

I know this is a hot button topic, pitting free will against global responsibility, so here's the disclaimer: I don't advocate for reducing the population by any means but wide-spread consentual birth control.

That said, while we talk about ways to address all the various problems brought about by global over-population, we might want to acknowledge that food security is not a laboratory or corporate farm issue when there are fewer people to feed.

Again, my opinion. I cheerfully admit to being the daughter of a hippie, and having spent my life a supporter of, and engaging in, organic gardening and seed-saving; to preferring open-pollinated heritage crops (and livestock) to hybrids and specialized breeds. So yes, I have a clear bias against laboratory-created food.

[GliderGuider]

30. With a stable global population under a billion all such problems would go away.

Of course, getting to that level would mean living through some fairly catastrophic problems. However, not getting to that level will ensure fairly catastrophic problems too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Global civilization is in what test pilots aptly call "coffin corner".

[LWolf]

36. Yep.

And, in that case, I think we should be damned for doing something about the issue, even if we can't do it perfectly, rather than damned for doing nothing.