We’ve been tinkering with the genetics of our foods since we started farming, haven’t we?  Cross breeding for size and color and hardiiness against temperature and drought?  I remember good ole Gregor Mendel and his pea plants from high school biology.

I’ll listen with a fairly open mind.  Maybe I should be terrified of the tinkering we are currently engaging in.

They’ve really got it down pat with strawberries. First they made them big, now they’re big and sweet. Nice work.

Please talk about the dramatic increase in food allergies, the timing of which coincides with the appearance of GMO food.  Incidentally, the rise in obesity also coincides the rise in GMO food.  Also, ask about Monsanto’s seed bank…

Im tired of hearing corporations are going to pass the cost on to the consumer.  Why do we accept this as a viable argument?  This argument is thrown in the publics face every time regulations are dropped on the doorstep of big corporations.  They are willing to spend 30 million in order to fight this proposition, but are unwilling to swallow the cost of new labeling?  We should be able to trust the corporation to eat the cost and do what is right. 

wondering if the experts consider Bush Snr’s Substantial Equivalence determination a scientific or political classification.

From what I understand the studies with regard to whether organic or “conventional” or gmo has any affect on our bodies are rather short studies…We don’t REALLY know the long term effects, but with the rise in cancer, obesity, and other diseases we can only assume that is because of our environment – which includes food and hence gmo. In addition, alot of gmo’s (not all) are created specifically to withstand heavy duty pesticides (yes some are created so you don’t have to use as many) and therefore, it might not simply be the genetic code of a gmo, but the ramifications of what that means once it’s planted and as it’s grown. Yes. I want to know what’s in my food…then i can choose.

If BT corn is so safe, why do I see virtually NO wooley worms or grasshoppers here in Central Illinois for years now?

The idea that GMO crops have environmental benefits are an outright lie. Bt corn is causing resistant corn borers. Round up ready soy encourages farmers to spray more Roundup and has created super weeds that are resistant to it. Now farmers still growing these crops are turning to even stronger pesticides to fight the new resistant weeds.
Not to mention that these “feedstock” corn crops which we are told we shouldn’t worry about because they aren’t for human consumption are contaminating fields around them making it nearly impossible to grow GMO free corn if you have any neighbors nearby who grow GMO.
Farmers do not support GMO’s, they are having it forced down their throats by the large agribussiness companies. If the only seed available for you to plant is GMO you either grow it or lose the farm, literally.

1. If the public has an interest in knowing what’s in their food, then it seems obvious that we have a right to know. How can the “free market” operate otherwise?

2. It is not relevant that the FDA is of the opinion that GMO will not directly harm the people who eat it. There are other impacts that GMO has on our environment that concern some people. 

3. The cost of changing labels is not really the root of the labelling issue, as companies routinely fine-tune their labeling of processed foods for marketing purposes, and so merely adding something to a label is not going to cost much. More of a problem, possibly, is that many manufacturers just don’t have a clue whether their products are genetically modified or not, and setting up a tracking mechanism would in fact increase costs, as has just been pointed out on the air. So the manufacturers would have to label everything doubtful with the label “may contain GMO”. Either way they incur costs and/or lose revenue. 

4. BUT. This all may prove to be an unnecessary argument, because labeling GMO products specifically may no longer be really necessary in practical terms. While a few years ago we just didn’t know, today we can be pretty sure that if a product is not  labeled GMO-free, then it very likely has some GMO stuff in it. Today, products that are entirely GMO free are clearly labeled because this brings a substantial marketing benefit.

The only reason not to label food is to keep the public ignorant about what they are buying and eating.  It is a real tell that opposition to this comes from Republicans.  Where is their support of the free market?  Their support of the freedom of choice?  Their support of letting the market place and free competition determine success and failure?  Buried under their much higher priority of support for the wishes of big businesses? 

How this is even an argument baffles me. First, all the information used by the federal government to evaluate these foods and technologies is supplied by the companies whose products are being tested. No conflict there? Second, the methodology used in these tests is NOT provided, in other words, there is no way to know if the informaiton provided by the corporations is valid in any scientific way. Third, it’s voluntary. why? Fourth, there is a revolving door at the USDA where former industry exec’s populate the policy groups at the USDA for a couple of years then return to Monsanto, Cargill, etc. when their tenure (more like undercover food subversion if you ask me) is over.

Tom, I am disappointed that you did not mention these things to your UC Davis, GMO food industry apologist. There is no value to these companies to tell the public the truth about these so-called foods. It might impact the bottom line and god knows we can’t have a company do poorly if they are in fact selling us poison.

I know more than a couple of plant biologists (PhD’s) and they are adamant that GMO is the great satan of our food supply. If we, in our arrogance, believe we can reduce our food supply to a few crops that only one or 4 huge corporations own the rights to and any drift from their contaminated pollen results in a law suit AGAINST the victim. We are pursuing the folly of many now extinct civilizations.

I’m concerned about the homogenization of seed sources in the event of naturally occurring disease. More than my own safety, I should be able to vote with my money against the depletion of diversity in the seed crop. No corporation is watching out for the food supply in this regard. They are taking a combative legal stance against farmers who do not use GMO seed in an attempt to eliminate non-GMO seed, and farmers’ ability to grown and use their own seed.

FYI-
UC Davis gets an ENORMOUS amount of funding from Monsanto.

I know – did my undergrad work there – biology in the “College of Agricultural and Environmental Science.”

I’m not anti-GMO across the board, nor am I insinuating that professor Bradford is a corporate shill, or dis-reputing a world class university.

BUT, disclosure is important… O.P. did not address this link, likely was not made aware of it, and given the volume of funding that department gets from a repeatedly unscrupulous multinational corp, it bares mentioning…

Requiring disclosure of ingredients is never a bad idea. Let the consumer decide if they think there is a risk, not a manufacturer.

@ Bulent  Thanks I did not see your post before I posted mine.

“we’ve been using this technology for 15 years on livestock without health effects…”

I think what he means is, “we’ve been experimenting on the american meat supply for 15 years, and so far none of the hamburgers, chicken wings, or ham-hocks have complained.” 

Lousy journalism on this one. In the first 5 minutes you should have had the rap against GMO from some expert biologists so we know what the issues were, but that pro-GMO corporate seed professor dominated discussion, and WE NEVER GOT IT. I was a chemist and first thought anti-GMO people were regressive Druids opposed to the future. I now think Monsanto and the big seed cos are major weasels in the process of  creating multiple ecological catastrophes. The food itself isn’t particularly dangerous to humans… yet,….  but

1. Sterile seeds that can’t reproduce are deeply evil, forcing farmers to come back like addicts to the source, and will lead to major starvation in 2nd and 3rd world when the AGW Great Famines hit. Cross polination by stronger hardier GMO crops could wipe out natural varieties.

2. The Round-Up tolerant corn, canola, soy means imbecile farmers are not using 50-100% more- no they’re using 5 x more!, poisoning the whole web of life from birds to bugs.

3. Some foods now INCORPORATE pesticide (BT insecticidal proteins) in their genetic structure, so it gets into any creature exposed to it or eating it, and roots, soil, feed. While it reduces real pesticide use, it has been linked to Colony Collapse of honeybees, something that could have devastating effects for all crops and plants that rely on bee fertilization. Massive frog and butterfly deaths may also be linked to GMO.

4. Identifying GM food is useless unless it is specific, inc. pesticide resistant, or BT; and virtually impossible now- 80-97% of 3-4 crops are GM and some of them are used in everything.

5. The cat if out of the bag in GMO and there’s no going back. While they may grow more crops per given land- the AGW heat-caused crop failure disasters will overwhelm any improvement, and seriously should there be 10 billion people on the planet?- at some point like with every over-breeding species, there will be a massive die off, aided by opportunistic superbugs, like the Bird Flu (deadliest known virus ever). Humans are highly destructive parasites that destroy every ecosystem- we use 42% of the land surface now- at 50% they surmise we will cause wholesale mass extinctions (which we already are, worse then the dinosaurs meteor).

6. So all this concern is probably just whistling past the graveyard.  Don’t worry, be happy.

http://geneticroulettemovie.com/

This movie helps clarify what GMO is, and why it poses such a threat.  Well worth the time.  I saw it on a free download period, but it may cost a few bucks now, which will be the best healthcare dollars you could spend.