Thursday
Aug022012
What is the Recommended Daily Value of GMOs? (guest post)
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The first time I ever heard about GMOs (genetically modified organisms) is when I was livinng in southern Germany, close to the Swiss border, in the 1990s. The Swiss were holding a referendum on the regulation of GMOs. The press coverage in that area put GMOs into the spotlight and the general public had to become "experts" on the issue, so that they could make up their mind on the ballot. The Swiss decided and now GMOs are no longer allowed in Switzerland.
Now it is California's turn, but the ballot question is somewhat different. This November, Californians will have the opportunity to decide whether the labels on food products should tell you whether they contain GMOs. As a blogger with the CA Right to Know campaign, I've agreed to help spread the word about the vote in California and to ensure my readers know a bit more about GMOs.
To help with that, while I'm enjoying the BlogHer conference in New York City, I'm happy to share a guest post with you by Kristi Marsh, author of Little Changes.
Here and there, my eyes would run across the acronym GMO, barely acknowledge it, and move right past the letters. I wasn’t sure what it meant or entailed—other than something had been genetically modified. I employed thirty-seven justification techniques to avoid tackling the subject including:
Any term with the word genetic in it was way above my head.
As I chatted with BFFs, it turns out; I wasn’t the only one who was unfamiliar with GMOs. I found comfort in our equal ignorance. Or so I thought. The bigger revelation was realizing that many of us know so little about our own food sources and I started on my path to understand this enigma.
My passion built and as I continued my studies, I was thrown a curveball. I didn’t need to visit a laboratory to find examples of genetically modified items. I simply needed to go to any local grocery store. Or, downstairs to my kitchen cabinet. Our homes? Crawling with GMO food products.
This wasn’t going over so well with me. I was all for advancement, until I learned it was crossing over that one-acre property line of mine without being invited. My hands, highly skilled at product-flipping, went to work as my laser eyes rapidly scanned the front, back, and undersides of boxes, cans, and bottles in my cabinets. Nothing. Not a peep to indicate some or any of the ingredients within might be genetically modified. I was stupefied. You’re telling me I can find out if my groceries were made in a nut-free facility or when a beer was born but not if food was made with GMO ingredients? Why weren’t these companies proudly stating that my mac n’ cheese was enhanced at the hand of a scientist? Where was the former celebrity GMO spokesperson touting health benefits? The picture of the family laboratory proudly producing genetically modified food for a half a generation?
The absence of a GMO label led me to believe they weren’t in the products I used. The bottom line for me: GMO foods have not been in use long enough for me to feel convinced they are safe. There are still too many questions surrounding these foods and not nearly enough answers. As a mom and Director of Household Consumerism, I was being asked to play ball with a blindfold on.
If more than 40 other countries, including Europe, Japan, China, and soon-to-be India label, where is our right to know? Right now, there is a very real chance that my right would disappear forever. This experimentation with the food chain was on my generation’s shoulders, yet few people I knew were informed. Right now, we can make a difference. California has a historic opportunity in November to pave the way with Proposition 37. Proposition 37 is a simple measure that requires genetically engineered foods to be labeled. Proposition 37 is the only number I need to remember about GMOs.
It is within reach. Only two things need to be done: Pass the discussion forward, and, if you are a California resident, lead the way with your vote.
Kristi Marsh is founder and force behind www.choosewiser.com, unofficial representative of the EveryDay Me’s, and proud author of just-launched Little Changes, her 5x8 13-ounce bundle of joy. Little Changes enlightens readers about the simmering, swelling, epic transformation of our generation; becoming self-advocates for their own beautiful bodies. Excerpt from Little Changes lovingly adapted for PhD in Parenting
Now it is California's turn, but the ballot question is somewhat different. This November, Californians will have the opportunity to decide whether the labels on food products should tell you whether they contain GMOs. As a blogger with the CA Right to Know campaign, I've agreed to help spread the word about the vote in California and to ensure my readers know a bit more about GMOs.
To help with that, while I'm enjoying the BlogHer conference in New York City, I'm happy to share a guest post with you by Kristi Marsh, author of Little Changes.
Recommended Daily Value of GMOs?
Here and there, my eyes would run across the acronym GMO, barely acknowledge it, and move right past the letters. I wasn’t sure what it meant or entailed—other than something had been genetically modified. I employed thirty-seven justification techniques to avoid tackling the subject including:
Any term with the word genetic in it was way above my head.
- GMOs must exist for some reason (like astronaut food), but surely it wasn’t in my food.
- I had labels down pat, and my food didn’t refer to any Recommended Daily Values of GMOs.
As I chatted with BFFs, it turns out; I wasn’t the only one who was unfamiliar with GMOs. I found comfort in our equal ignorance. Or so I thought. The bigger revelation was realizing that many of us know so little about our own food sources and I started on my path to understand this enigma.
What I learned about GMO’s was fascinatingly complicated.
My passion built and as I continued my studies, I was thrown a curveball. I didn’t need to visit a laboratory to find examples of genetically modified items. I simply needed to go to any local grocery store. Or, downstairs to my kitchen cabinet. Our homes? Crawling with GMO food products.
This wasn’t going over so well with me. I was all for advancement, until I learned it was crossing over that one-acre property line of mine without being invited. My hands, highly skilled at product-flipping, went to work as my laser eyes rapidly scanned the front, back, and undersides of boxes, cans, and bottles in my cabinets. Nothing. Not a peep to indicate some or any of the ingredients within might be genetically modified. I was stupefied. You’re telling me I can find out if my groceries were made in a nut-free facility or when a beer was born but not if food was made with GMO ingredients? Why weren’t these companies proudly stating that my mac n’ cheese was enhanced at the hand of a scientist? Where was the former celebrity GMO spokesperson touting health benefits? The picture of the family laboratory proudly producing genetically modified food for a half a generation?
The absence of a GMO label led me to believe they weren’t in the products I used. The bottom line for me: GMO foods have not been in use long enough for me to feel convinced they are safe. There are still too many questions surrounding these foods and not nearly enough answers. As a mom and Director of Household Consumerism, I was being asked to play ball with a blindfold on.
I have the inalienable right to life. I fiercely equate ‘right to life’ to right to health.
I have a right to know what I am putting in my body and my children’s bodies.
If more than 40 other countries, including Europe, Japan, China, and soon-to-be India label, where is our right to know? Right now, there is a very real chance that my right would disappear forever. This experimentation with the food chain was on my generation’s shoulders, yet few people I knew were informed. Right now, we can make a difference. California has a historic opportunity in November to pave the way with Proposition 37. Proposition 37 is a simple measure that requires genetically engineered foods to be labeled. Proposition 37 is the only number I need to remember about GMOs.
It is within reach. Only two things need to be done: Pass the discussion forward, and, if you are a California resident, lead the way with your vote.
Kristi Marsh is founder and force behind www.choosewiser.com, unofficial representative of the EveryDay Me’s, and proud author of just-launched Little Changes, her 5x8 13-ounce bundle of joy. Little Changes enlightens readers about the simmering, swelling, epic transformation of our generation; becoming self-advocates for their own beautiful bodies. Excerpt from Little Changes lovingly adapted for PhD in Parenting
Reader Comments (11)
GMO foods are not inherently bad as fear-mongers might say. They have brought about a "green" revolution, allowing fewer pesticides to be used on crops for larger yields in drought or other marginal conditions. It is, at it's core, simply what farmers have been doing for generations (selecting for crops with the "best" traits). In this case, a gene has been transferred from one organism to another. This is something that occurs EVERY DAY in pretty much every molecular biology lab in the entire world.
On the other hand, it may not be completely benign either. We don't know all of the mechanisms that might regulate production of that new gene in the real world (including, among others, cis and trans promoter elements, methylation status, etc). There have also been no long-term epidemiology studies on this. Also, we have only relatively recently started whole genome sequencing and looking for products that may not be translated but that regulate gene expression such as microRNAs. More and more people are showing that these small, previously ignored elements may have major roles in gene regulation. Furthermore, due to selective pressures, it could lead to evolution of new pesticide-resistant super bugs (*already being shown to occur in some areas)
I do believe that labeling foods would be prohibitively expensive. We have kind of already flown the coop on that. When you have large fields of say, corn, it can be difficult if not impossible for them to NOT cross-pollinate. You would effectively have to test *all* food, and even then, you would only be able to give it a 99.9% possibility (for example) of NOT being GMO unless that food was grown inside a greenhouse or isolated island or something. I guess one upside is that it could potentially create thousands of new jobs to test this food?
I kind of agree with EL. Hardly anything about the food is labeled. We don't know if it took a dirty unmaintained diesel truck to get to the store or something non-polluting. We don't know if it was over-fertilized causing an algae bloom killing fish in a nearby lake or river. We don't know if good chemical pesticides were used or if the workers were paid a fair wage or if the plant makes too much noise and annoys the neighbours. We can be reasonably sure the company that produced it is trying to make money, so the GMs are to reduce loss or increase yields likely, or perhaps cosmetics or taste improvements. It's like EL said, in the past they modified genetics by selection to create optimized strains. Now they just have a new tool. I don't think a "GM" label would tell you anything without you knowing which mod was used and could form an opinion about it.
I'm pretty passionately opposed to some of the intellectual property measures Monsanto has taken in the past.
And we should keep a careful eye on GMOs for unforeseen ecological issues like with the butterflies (of course, we should probably do this for all new crops).
I'd also like more labeling requirements for all foods, and I'm somewhat swayed by the argument that labeling known GMOs may be useful for tracing back rare allergy problems (assuming we keep funding the FDA and USDA, I have some faith the industry will test for common allergies). A good label would say something like "contains roundup ready soybeans" not just "contains GMOs".
So I have many points of agreement with those that call for labeling.
That said, I'm a molecular biologist. If you won't learn enough about a subject to distinguish "human-hummingbird hybrids" (as seen on Kristi's blog) from Roundup Ready soybeans, you should NOT be trying to educate people about this topic. You shouldn't be scared off because of the word "genetic", you should learn a bit about genes and proteins and how we understand their functions in an organism.
There's a lot of problems with our food supply. GMOs per se are not high on the list.
I completely disagree with EL, and wonder if he is working for a biotech company deliberately trying to muddy the waters.
The bottom line is this: the vast majority of the people want it labelled. Period. Therefore it should be labelled.
On a personal note, I personally have reactions to both soy and corn, though I can eat them if they are organic. The problem is that they are extremely difficult to identify. GM labelling would help me to avoid these allergens. Luckily my allergies are not life threatening, but imagine if they were. I try to always eat organic, but it can get very expensive. I can't wait for the labels and I SO hope California passes this requirement!
Since no long term adequate testing has been done on GM foods effect on human health, I do NOT want to be an experiment and I do NOT want any GMOs in my diet.
Furthermore, the first two commenters are gravely misguided and spreading tricky lies. Genetic modification has NOTHING to do with NATURAL processes or selecting/breeding plants. Genetic modification simply does not happen in nature. Also, MORE pesticides have been with used with GMO crops since weeds and bugs have developed resistance to GMO crops that are showered in pesticides and herbicides. You might say, well what about BT corn that releases its own pesticide, we don't have to spray that one - well, that's because it IS a pesticide producing plant - in fact, this BT corn is registered with the EPA AS A PESTICIDE, and it is widely consumed in processed foods, here, in the US, without our informed consent. Also, just because something *might* happen every day in a lab doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Labeling will not cost the consumer or producer anything. This is the biggest lie being perpetrated to scare people out of rightful KNOWLEDGE. Europe, Japan, even China already has laws to label GMO foods. Manufacturers change their packaging all the time for all sorts of reasons. A slap of ink, right along with the information on calories, nutrition, and ingredients.
Beware of the opposition who is or is directly connected to Big Ag who has multi billion dollar profits on copyrighted life (genetic modified seeds) and the pesticides those seeds are made for, and thus has big money to send out these baloney troops to perpetrate tricky lies against the movement of the people who are simply standing up for our right to know and make informed choices.
I guess this is precisely why we should not fool with the perfection created for us. the way I see it is if it ain't broke don't fix it. I find it very disturbing that in this mighty county we call home that the powers that be feel we need chemicals in every single things we eat, clean with, brush our teeth with, the water we drink, etc. My body is in chemical warfare each and everyday, and it's all in the name of protecting us? The reality of it is that we have more disease's ever, and more health issues than some third world country's. Something is truly wrong with this picture, and if it's so great and good for the farmer's then why is it so top secret, why not tell the public and better yet eat it in front of us, and feed it to YOUR children Monsanto, and others like you?
If this passes in Cali it would be a huge thing for the entire country. A good thing, that is. It's important to know that the pesticide and GMO giant, Monsanto, is investing an astonishing amount of money to stop this bill. I don't think they'll win, but we need to fight hard defend organic food.
I am university graduate who studied Molecular Biology (Genetics) and who has worked in the field for many years. I agree that not enough long-term studies have been done on this (or many other) consumer products before being release for general consumption. However, I think it is naive to think that we can simply identify all GMO products. The sad fact is that it would be much less laborious and expensive to identify products which are NOT GMO. For example, there is nary a grain of corn on this continent that is not GMO. You eat corn (and so do animals, so it is in eggs, meat), but you also brush your teeth with corn products, it is in fabrics and stuffings, paper, paint, beer, pharmaceutical tablets, sweeteners, and diet foods. It binds together recycled cardboard, refreshes air in our homes, reduces oxidation of fresh foods, emulsifies and is used as a fuel.
This is also a fact for wheat.
The same for potato.
The same for soya.
I am in agreement with the sentiment behind this bill, surely. However thinking that it will "protect" families from GMOs is naive at best. They are already ingrained deeply in every aspect of our lives, and have been for decades, for better or for worse.
That is a good and scary point, but I think it is worth trying to tackle. There are many countries that do require labeling. I wonder if their agricultural systems and food industry supply chains are different / more accountable or if there is some other type of difference.
"Genetic modification simply does not happen in nature"
What, you've never heard of viruses? Inter-kingdom horizontal gene transfer mean anything to you? Or are you another one who sees the term "genetic" and doesn't try to understand, but just tries to persaude others to fear?
Ever see a picture of teosinte? That's what became corn. Do you really think a toy poodle or the mop-like Komondor are the same as wolves? Selective breeding can do astonishing things in it's own right, and isn't natural by any useful definition of the word.
Selective breeding is slower than modern genetic modification, which is a good argument for watching for careful test-release of new crops and watching for unintended ecological consequences.But it's not like we don't have plenty of very serious invasive species problems that would suggest that is something we should be doing for conventional crops too!
Also, Bt corn does contain pesticide- the same pesticide that is "naturally" produced by a bacteria. The same bacteria that organic farmers put on their crops. And the relative *amounts* of the insecticide can be much higher on the non-GMO food, because it can get washed off.
It's a shame when GMOs are used in ways that end up involving more pesticides, but Bt corn is NOT an accurate example of that.
GMO crops themselves are not scary. Many of the ways in which they are used can be good, and many are bad, much like other technologies.
You bring up a lot of good topics here; to be clear, some of them are not directly related to the initiative. The initiative is simple; it is about our right to know. It requires companies to add a few words to their labels if their food contains genetically engineered ingredients. The law requires labels to say, “partially produced with genetic engineering” or, if companies are making foods with the 5 or 6 GMO crops, and they aren’t sure about the source, they can put “may be partially produced with genetic engineering” on the label.
The initiative is available to read for detailed information.