# GMO Foods: No one can seriously dispute what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [August 1, 2014, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571 "2014-08-01T11:43:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/101 "2014-08-05T14:02:05Z")
I think it is worth pointing out that the whole question of whether GM foods are safe is moot. Potatoes are considered safe- does that exempt them from labeling? Of course not. I can’t recall one instance of anyone throwing a tantrum over being required to list ‘potatoes’ in the ingredients list of their product. It has been clearly determined in a court of law that GM corn =! corn. Remember that guy who pulled the shenanigans to get free GM seeds without paying for them? The judge didn’t treat him like he was just growing ‘corn’, no, he was growing GM corn, and he had to pay Monsanto for the privilege. So. Corn is not GM corn. On the label, label corn as ‘corn’ and label GM corn as ‘GM corn’. If someone doesn’t want to buy it, correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that was how the free market works. The dumb side of the debate is, “You must eat our product without knowledge.” Since when is that the status quo? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/102 "2014-08-05T14:06:38Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > …correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that was how the free market works. My understanding of the free market is that it adapts to meet consumer demand. And in this case it is (as demonstrated by the numerous products voluntarily labeled “non-GMO”). Demanding that the government mandate labeling is not a manifestation of the free market. It’s not even a reasonable action based on non-free market considerations. If companies want to label their products as to whether there are GMO-derived ingredients, fine by me. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/103 "2014-08-05T14:22:13Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I think it is worth pointing out that the whole question of whether GM foods are safe is moot. Potatoes are considered safe- does that exempt them from labeling? Of course not. I can’t recall one instance of anyone throwing a tantrum over being required to list ‘potatoes’ in the ingredients list of their product. > > It has been clearly determined in a court of law that GM corn =! corn. Remember that guy who pulled the shenanigans to get free GM seeds without paying for them? The judge didn’t treat him like he was just growing ‘corn’, no, he was growing GM corn, and he had to pay Monsanto for the privilege. > > So. Corn is not GM corn. On the label, label corn as ‘corn’ and label GM corn as ‘GM corn’. If someone doesn’t want to buy it, correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that was how the free market works. That’s silly. It’s not that GM corn isn’t corn, it’s that it’s proprietary product. Again, what about corn oil derived from GM corn. None of the foreign DNA or proteins. Just pure oil. Should that be labeled as GM? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/104 "2014-08-05T19:13:43Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > It has been clearly determined in a court of law that GM corn =! corn. Remember that guy who pulled the shenanigans to get free GM seeds without paying for them? The judge didn’t treat him like he was just growing ‘corn’, no, he was growing GM corn, and he had to pay Monsanto for the privilege. > > So. Corn is not GM corn. :rolleyes: Situations are different, so they have different results. A Volkswagen and a Scion are both cars. There are situations where just saying “car” is sufficient, and it doesn’t matter if you mean a Volkswagen or a Scion. Person 1: “How do I get across town?” Person 2: “You can walk, you can take a bus, you can drive your car, or you can get someone else with a car to give you a ride.” There are situations where it does matter which car it is. Person 1: “Man, that’s an ugly car.” Person 2: “Of course, it’s a Scion.” Property rights is one of those cases where it makes a difference. Use as food may or may not, it hasn’t been established just because it has for a different situation. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/105 "2014-08-05T19:40:38Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I think it is worth pointing out that the whole question of whether GM foods are safe is moot. Potatoes are considered safe- does that exempt them from labeling? Of course not. I can’t recall one instance of anyone throwing a tantrum over being required to list ‘potatoes’ in the ingredients list of their product. Yeah, to a degree, but never has labelling demanded to know what brand it was, or what farm produced it. And it would be silly to do so or demand so. It’s one thing to know what you’re eating; it’s another to know every little meaningless detail about every little meaningless issue. > [@](#): > > It has been clearly determined in a court of law that GM corn =! corn. Remember that guy who pulled the shenanigans to get free GM seeds without paying for them? The judge didn’t treat him like he was just growing ‘corn’, no, he was growing GM corn, and he had to pay Monsanto for the privilege. Uh… Wat? Software is software. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have a patent on a particular form or design. The issue was not “this is GM corn which is totally different”; the issue was “you are violating Monsanto’s patent”. > [@](#): > > The dumb side of the debate is, “You must eat our product without knowledge.” Since when is that the status quo? No, the _ **dumb** _ side is people afraid of everything with no reason destroying the possibilities of an incredibly valuable technology. And again, the status quo is that when it comes to information that makes no difference is “enforce very little”. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/106 "2014-08-06T04:35:23Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > That’s silly. It’s not that GM corn isn’t corn, it’s that it’s proprietary product. > > Again, what about corn oil derived from GM corn. None of the foreign DNA or proteins. Just pure oil. Should that be labeled as GM? That question almost amounts to a whole 'nother debate. I could see a good argument for excepting oil from the GM label, along with, say, booze fermented from GM crops, or beef derived from cows who were fed GM corn or what-have-you, but are themselves ordinary, ul-altered cows. That’s just off the top of my head; I bet we could come up with more examples like this. Good question- I’m inclined to say cases like these are not as important. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > My understanding of the free market is that it adapts to meet consumer demand. And in this case it is (as demonstrated by the numerous products voluntarily labeled “non-GMO”). I disagree. It could not be more clear that a significant minority of consumers demand labeling of GM products so that they may avoid them. None of the arguments against labeling really stand up- not labeling boils down to corporate malfeasance. Labeling will result in… not much. If people don’t want to eat it, let them do so. This is America. This isn’t complicated at all. > [@](#): > > Demanding that the government mandate labeling is not a manifestation of the free market. It’s not even a reasonable action based on non-free market considerations. Ridiculous. People have a right to know what they are buying. I don’t know how you can even talk about a free market without that. Not labeling is more in the style of a command economy, something America is not generally recognized to endorse. > [@](#): > > If companies want to label their products as to whether there are GMO-derived ingredients, fine by me. A ridiculous alternative. Labeling other ingredients isn’t at the discretion of the manufacturer. _The Jungle_ was published in 1906- we really have settled all this long, long ago. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yeah, to a degree, but never has labelling demanded to know what brand it was, or what farm produced it. And it would be silly to do so or demand so. It’s one thing to know what you’re eating; it’s another to know every little meaningless detail about every little meaningless issue. It isn’t meaningless. GM corn is not the corn that God/nature created. It has been altered, and in a way that isn’t the same as breeding/horticulture. It is its own category of thing, and so it deserves those two letters on the label: GM. You’re free to think it is silly, but it still ought to go on the label. > [@](#): > > Uh… Wat? Software is software. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have a patent on a particular form or design. The issue was not “this is GM corn which is totally different”; the issue was “you are violating Monsanto’s patent”. Right, a patent on a new organism that some people would rather not consume. The only way they can have that choice is if it is labeled. It is disingenuous to claim GM corn = corn, when GM corn is by definition a Genetically Modified Organism. > [@](#): > > No, the _ **dumb** _ side is people afraid of everything with no reason destroying the possibilities of an incredibly valuable technology. And again, the status quo is that when it comes to information that makes no difference is “enforce very little”. For one, I think you strawman the motives of people who don’t want to consume GM products. For two, I seriously, seriously doubt the GM dissenters are going to bring an end to GM technology. I don’t think you can defend the proposition that this information “makes no difference”. Clearly it does to the people who advocate for GM labeling. The resistance, I think, comes down to greed on the part of organizations like Monsanto who just can’t stand the thought of losing 1-2% market share. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/107 "2014-08-06T10:57:59Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I disagree. It could not be more clear that a significant minority of consumers demand labeling of GM products so that they may avoid them. None of the arguments against labeling really stand up- not labeling boils down to corporate malfeasance. Labeling will result in… not much. > > If people don’t want to eat it, let them do so. This is America. This isn’t complicated at all. So change the variable to something else. Say… Muslims who don’t want to buy food that was not prepared/butchered Halal. It makes just as much difference to the healthiness of the food, it’s just as equally based on asinine fears, and it’s just as much of a waste of time. Would you support mandatory labeling of food that is non-Halal? Especially if you knew that the end goal of maaaany people who support this labeling was the banning of all non-Halal food? > [@](#): > > Ridiculous. People have a right to know what they are buying. Yes. Which is why I demand: - Full ingredient lists, including percentage counts - i.e. 58% flour, 22% sugar, 20% eggs - A clear statement on the front whether or not it contains trace amounts of heavy metals - A list of all cooking procedures involved in the preparation. - A list of all major religious doctrines this food violates …All of which are infinitely more valuable and interesting for the consumer than “Does this have a difference which is so utterly insubstantial as to be substantially equivalent to the consumer?” > [@](#): > > It isn’t meaningless. GM corn is not the corn that God/nature created. It has been altered, and in a way that isn’t the same as breeding/horticulture. So is hybridized corn. Look into some of the other methods involved in making new types of seeds, and you’d be shocked at how unnatural they are. Should they be listed? _No, because like GMOs, the difference to the end user is zilch!_ > [@](#): > > I don’t think you can defend the proposition that this information “makes no difference”. Clearly it does to the people who advocate for GM labeling. Imagine, just for a moment, that a new compound, let’s call it “flapdoodle”, is discovered in a substantial amount of foods. It’s found to be completely and utterly inert in almost all ways - foods with flapdoodle are completely and totally equivalent to food in every way, save perhaps that they have a minor positive quality during manufacturing. But people explode over it - “I DON’T WANT FLAPDOODLE IN MY FOOD!” they proclaim self-righteously. Can you honestly say that it matters to these people? They’re being morons! It doesn’t actually matter whether or not there’s flapdoodle in their food - if they didn’t know it was there, they wouldn’t care or notice, and nobody would suffer. And them demanding to know is just ridiculous, because there is _no reason to know!_ It’s a complete waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/108 "2014-08-06T12:43:37Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I disagree. It could not be more clear that a significant minority of consumers demand labeling of GM products so that they may avoid them…People have a right to know what they are buying. I don’t know how you can even talk about a free market without that A “free market” is not defined as “whatever a “significant minority” of consumers demand, they must get”. Free market principles are already operating in that companies see increased profits in marketing “non-GMO” products to consumers. It could be argued that buyers have a right to have vegetable and meat products labeled as to whether they were grown/produced with the aid of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.There is no such mandated labeling and few would see the need, since we have an “organic” food industry that thrives on suggesting to customers that their products are safer/healthier than the alternatives (even when evidence shows they are not). Come to think of it, “organic” has also been interpreted to mean “no GMOs” - so people wanting to avoid GMOs can buy organic. There’s lots to choose from. Even my local Kroger has a big display of organic veggies. So why again is there a compelling need to label GMO foods? By the way, the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed back in the early 20th century to protect people from demonstrably adulterated and harmful products. GMOs do not meet that description. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/109 "2014-08-06T14:21:34Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > A “free market” is not defined as “whatever a “significant minority” of consumers demand, they must get”. Free market principles are already operating in that companies see increased profits in marketing “non-GMO” products to consumers. Labeling ingredients is already SOP. The comparison to Halal fails. Gotta go to work. I’ll be back. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/110 "2014-08-06T14:40:02Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Labeling ingredients is already SOP. The comparison to Halal fails. You’re missing the point. The required ingredient labels list only broad categories of food. You’re allowed to put “apples” on the ingredient list without specifying what breed or variety of apple it is. Same with beef, and corn, and everything else. GMO corn is just another breed of corn. (Actually, it’s not even that; it’s just a category of certain corn breeds.) Why is the “this ingredient was derived from genetically modified organisms” trait important enough to call out on a label when so many other traits (“this ingredient was derived from a hybridized organism”; “this ingredient was derived from organisms that were developed in Nazi Germany”; etc) are not? Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/111 "2014-08-06T17:35:30Z")
Whether it has meaning or not, it’s only the policy because Monsanto’s attorney, Michael Taylor, wrote the policy and the industry got the FDA to adopt it. It has no real meaning in terms of whether it’s safe or not; whether it harms animals or not. We have NO idea. It’s Michael Taylor’s policy to allow the GMO industry to specifically avoid ANY testing of the safety of this stuff on humans. It’s a policy that says, this stuff is “equivalent” to the stuff that came before it so we’re not going to require proof of its safety. It’s a FREE PASS for GMO’s. That’s the policy. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > They have, _you just don’t understand it_. Again, from Monsano’s website, because you weren’t paying attention: > > This is absolutely standard operating procedure (again: no food has ever been “tested for human consumption” the way you demand), and it makes perfect sense. Human testing is extremely expensive and difficult when it comes to GMOs, and establishing that they are safe via equivalency is entirely reasonable. > > [Somehow, “no scientific meaning” rings rather hollow when. to quote wikipedia, “Substantial equivalence” is a starting point for the safety assessment for GM foods that is widely used by national and international agencies - including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Japan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the OECD.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetically_modified_organisms#Substantial_equivalence) Hell, to further quote wikipedia: > > That’s simply not true, I’m sorry. Equivalency is well-defined, and this definition is accepted by many major scientific organizations. It’s a relatively new term, but that doesn’t make it scientifically meaningless. And as a way of establishing the safety of GMO foods, it is widely accepted. If you consider that “not good enough”, then that’s on you, but I’d ask you why you think that any other non-GMO food is safe - after all, we’ve never tested them. ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/112 "2014-08-06T17:43:55Z")
I retract nothing. I stand by it. There’s no evidence – no study – that this stuff is safe for human consumption. Everything you cite are animal studies or studies of the properties of the GMO foods themselves. We’ve been eating this stuff for 30 years. BT toxins are showing up in baby cord blood and pregnant mother’s blood. There’s NO study of GMO and human health. Instead of citing 1,600 studies show me just ONE. Of human health and GMO’s. As a Monsanto genetics engineer admitted to me: “We’re all just Guinea Pigs for this stuff.” > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I’d ask you for a citation on this, but given what you write below, I’m rather think that would be a waste of time. For fuck’s sake, you violate [Seralini’s Rule](http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-seralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html) - don’t do that. > > Well, other than a 50-year natural experiment in the USA. But what I’m really curious about is the thought process behind this. What, exactly, is it about GMOs that requires extreme care? There’s nothing in the basic science that would imply that they’re dangerous. There’s no reason to be particularly afraid of them - it’s like if someone brings out a new hybrid brand of potatoes - you think that gets a ton of attention? No - of course not. We don’t even think particularly hard about it! There’s nothing that would imply that GMOs are dangerous. And then animal testing showed universally good results. > > So… what does that have to do with anything? Serious question - why should I care that the publication hired [a scientist that you can play 6-degrees-of-separation](http://angryscience.yougetwhatyouwant.org/how-monsanto-controls-the-fda-6-degrees-of-kevin-bacon/) with? Why is that relevant? Even if we’re thinking about conflicts of interest, why should it matter that Richard E. Goodman worked for Monsanto? I’m not seeing the conflict. He doesn’t work there now, does he? He isn’t still on the payroll, is he? > > But we don’t even have to go that far. It doesn’t _matter_ if Goodman was indebted to Monsanto, or if there was any reason to suspect conflict of interest; none of that would have any real impact on what the study actually shows. And Seralini’s rat study is the type of pseudoscientific drivel that no self-respecting publication _should_ publish - I haven’t seen a study so obviously flawed since Regnerus’s gay parenting study (you know, the one that didn’t actually interview more than 2 gay parents). Even if it hadn’t been retracted, it would still be crap whose data is completely insufficient to determine any results. 20 (or was it 10?) rats per group with a rat strain that has a baseline cancer incidence of upwards of 50% (with some studies putting it closer to 70% or 80%)? Missing vital statistical analysis? Data presented in graphs which are nearly impossible to read? Cherry-picking results (where’s it mentioned in the paper that the male rats that drank straight roundup were statistically significantly likely to live longer)? It’s complete garbage! Not only that, but the fact that it’s garbage _should_ be immediately apparent to anyone who takes the time to actually read it. > > Link’s dead for me. Google found it, but the website appears down. I’m not particularly interested, honestly. You might as well link me an article by the AFA defending Regnerus’s study. It’s garbage, and by defending it, all you’re doing is showing that you haven’t read it, or you’re so ideologically biased to not recognize the myriad of flaws. > > [Really? News to me.](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gJwulXnO_o/Ue8hgkh4YkI/AAAAAAABCT8/1o4qQ40IjHQ/s1600/GMAuthoritiesnew1.jpg) In fact, the reality of what is happening is that there is a very strong scientific consensus, with a very small minority of scientists taking the position that GMOs are not safe. The majority of major scientific organizations with a relevant interest (including many government-run organizations, such as the FDA) are very convinced. Those who aren’t would do well to examine the peer-reviewed literature - while the consensus among scientists may not be 100%, almost every single paper which purported to find issues with GMOs was widely discredited - not because “Big Ag” didn’t like it, but because the papers were pseudoscientific garbage - things like the Seralini study! Large-scale metareviews have found next to nothing. So why is that? Why can’t these scientists who feel that the scientific evidence against GMOs is good publish papers showing it? Well, if the Seralini study is any indicator, it’s because it simply is not supported by the evidence. > > So with GMOs, like with AGW, like with vaccines, like with evolution, like with HIV, like with any such idea, you end up with a large scientific organizations (WHO, FDA, AMA, CDC, USNAS, AAAS, [et cetera](http://www.skeptiforum.org/richard-green-on-the-scientific-consensus-and-gmos/)) and the peer-reviewed literature showing a strong consensus ([even if you ignore the studies with a link to the industry, which you really shouldn’t](http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-studies/)). > > And then you still have morons like Richard Lindzen, Andrew Wakefield, Michael Behe, Peter Duesburg… People who have legitimate degrees in their fields and who still end up on the wrong side of history. People like Giles-Eric Seralini. You can collect signatures all you want; the fact is that those signatories have yet to present any convincing evidence that what they say has any merit. Hell, you can find the same dumb petitions for antivaccination campaigns, for AGW denialists, for young earth creationists. They do nothing except expose the signatories as unscientific, credulous fools who are letting their personal beliefs lead the evidence, rather than the other way around. If they had the evidence to back up their claims, they wouldn’t be signing petitions, they’d be publishing peer-reviewed papers and convincing others. > > Citation needed. > > I’ll see your 86 scientists who disagree with the consensus on GMO safety and raise you [over 30,000 who disagree with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change](http://www.petitionproject.org/). These aren’t brave, maverick scientists, daring to stand up to authorities. These are _morons_. > > Of course, the disappointing fact about that is that he almost certainly is referring to a list of studies including, among others, studies by Pusztai, Carmen, and Seralini - studies that have been long since rejected as incredibly poorly-designed and unscientific. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/113 "2014-08-06T18:00:59Z")
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] Labeling ingredients is already SOP. The comparison to Halal fails. [/QUOTE] I have not said anything about halal. And you have failed to address the question of why mandated GMO labeling is needed when labeled non-GMO and organic alternatives are abundant. > [@whatsomattu](#): > > Whether (substantial equivalence) has meaning or not, it’s only the policy because Monsanto’s attorney, Michael Taylor, wrote the policy and the industry got the FDA to adopt it. The reality is that substantial equivalence is a concept that dates back decades, applies to numerous things besides GMOs (like medical devices) and as pointed out to you, is recognized and used by numerous regulatory agencies around the world (for instance the Organisation for Economic Co-operative and Development formulated it back in 1993). Michael Taylor (anti-GMOers’ favorite bogeyman) is an attorney and food safety expert whose controversial (to conspiracy nitwits) return to a post at the FDA occurred in 2009. The FDA has been using substantial equivalence in its policy towards GM foods for nearly 20 years - long before Taylor left his job at Monsanto and came back to the FDA. Monsanto did not get the policy written. > [@whatsomattu](#): > > I retract nothing. I stand by it. It’s been documented for you that despite your claim of no GMO regulation in the U.S., the FDA, EPA and USDA all have jurisdiction over the introduction of GMOs. Simply saying you’ll cling to your mistaken beliefs does not enhance your credibility in this debate. ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/114 "2014-08-06T18:08:28Z")
If you mean, meaningful rules governing their use in food, then, yes, there is NO regulation. The “equivalence” policy specifically forbids ANY requirement of safety testing of GMO’s as food. I read your cite and looked at it. The FDA admits that the Industry self-regulates. The EPA may “regulate” only the planting of stuff but even that was recently neutered by Congress in the Monsanto Protection Act. Can you tell me a single crop? A single Acre that was stopped by the EPA? HA. Don’t make me laugh. There’s a term called “regulatory capture.” It’s when an Industry has captured the governmental body that is supposed to regulate it. Like when a Monsanto attorney becomes the No. 2 guy at the FDA and his job is to “regulate” his former company. Good one. Read your link – it only talks about the EPA regulating “pesticide.” And we all know the EPA does not regulate food – the FDA does. And the FDA does NOT regulate GMOs thanks to Michael Taylor, et. al. [http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/reg\_of\_biotech/eparegofbiotech.htm](http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/reg_of_biotech/eparegofbiotech.htm) YOUR STATEMENT THAT: It’s been documented for you that despite your claim of no GMO regulation in the U.S., the FDA, EPA and USDA all have jurisdiction over the introduction of GMOs. Simply saying you’ll cling to your mistaken beliefs does not enhance your credibility in this debate. IS EASILY DISPROVED. Show me one crop, one example, where the EPA, FDA, or USDA stopped introduction of a GMO. And, thanks to the Monsanto Protection Act, these governmental bodies couldn’t do anything if they wanted to. Which they don’t. [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/10/1832621/monsanto-protection-act-power/](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/10/1832621/monsanto-protection-act-power/) The USDA has never denied a single application for Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops. USDA chief Tom Vilsack briefly considered limiting Monsanto’s alfalfa planting to protect organic crops from contamination, but deregulated it entirely instead. In another win for the company, their controversial growth hormone for cows was approved under Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist-turned-USDA-administrator-turned-FDA Deputy Commissioner, even though it was banned in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and Canada over health concerns. The hormone was approved in the US after Monsanto employee Margaret Miller oversaw a report on its safety, took a job at the FDA, and promptly approved her own report. Another Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui, later wrote the USDA’s organic food standards, allowing irradiated and genetically modified foods to label themselves as organic. And Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a Monsanto lawyer, will help decide a challenge to Monsanto’s GMO patents this year. The controversy behind the Monsanto Protection Act is a case study in Monsanto’s cozy relationship with regulators. In 2010, a federal judge chided the USDA for violating environmental law by rushing through approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered Round Up Ready sugar beets. The judge ordered a halt on all planting of the beets until an environmental study was completed. Ignoring the court, the USDA deregulated the beets anyway, claiming that the delay would result in a sugar shortage. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/115 "2014-08-06T18:58:03Z")
The Farmer Assurance Act (“Monsanto Protection Act”) [expired last year](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision). Its content was considerably different than what’s been alleged about it: \*A joint letter from ten agricultural organizations[note 1] sent to congressmen Hal Rogers and Norman D. Dicks, the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations, on June 12, 2012, stated that the provision was a response to frivolous procedural lawsuits against the USDA which were attempting to “disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of [agricultural biotechnology].”[10] ``` Section 733 provides certainty to growers with respect to their planting decisions. If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA. Moreover, the language would apply only to products that have already satisfactorily completed the U.S. regulatory review process and does not remove or restrict anyone’s right to challenge USDA once a determination of no plant pest risk has been made. The inclusion of Section 733 is a positive step to ensure U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops."* ``` In any event, the act is a dead parrot. I see no point in further engaging an ideologue who cannot admit errors and whose idea of a devastating rejoinder is “Ha ha”. ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/116 "2014-08-06T19:23:43Z")
[/QUOTE] In any event, the act is a dead parrot. I see no point in further engaging an ideologue who cannot admit errors and whose idea of a devastating rejoinder is “Ha ha”. [/QUOTE] Yeah, so pick apart one point and ignore the others which you have no answer to. Yes, it’s true the Monsanto Protection Act expired. But they’re getting their Congresscritters to ban state GMO labeling now. But you’ve ignored my other, larger points, like: 1. You can’t find a SINGLE human safety study of GMO’s. 2. You can’t find a SINGLE case where the EPA, FDA, etc., ever stopped a GMO from being eaten, grown or sold. So, yeah, I win the argument. No problem. Go collect your Monsanto check. You keep spouting off about safety and government oversight but there is none. So who’s the ideologue? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/117 "2014-08-06T19:25:45Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > It isn’t meaningless. GM corn is not the corn that God/nature created. Nothing you eat is the same crop that God/nature created. Everything has been genetically modified. > [@](#): > > It has been altered, and in a way that isn’t the same as breeding/horticulture. Everything’s DNA has been altered - what does it matter what technique was used to alter it? And by the way, are you familiar with older methods? Much of the food you eat was genetically modified by exposing seeds to mutagenic chemicals or radiation. The resulting seeds were then grown to see if they had any desirable characteristics. Are you also demanding labels for varieties that were genetically modified by these techniques? If not, then why not? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/118 "2014-08-06T21:11:22Z")
> [@whatsomattu](#): > > Whether it has meaning or not, it’s only the policy because Monsanto’s attorney, Michael Taylor, wrote the policy and the industry got the FDA to adopt it. > > It has no real meaning in terms of whether it’s safe or not; whether it harms animals or not. We have NO idea. It’s Michael Taylor’s policy to allow the GMO industry to specifically avoid ANY testing of the safety of this stuff on humans. It’s a policy that says, this stuff is “equivalent” to the stuff that came before it so we’re not going to require proof of its safety. …All right, let me try to analogize. Imagine you have a drug. This drug is proven safe and widely accepted. Then the company ends up trading out one inert carrier substance for a different carrier substance. If it can be proven that the new carrier substance is equally inert, does it make sense to go through all of the clinical testing steps again? Now imagine that this drug has a very, very limited effect with almost no side-effects. See where I’m going with this? The equivalency test is a valid and valuable way to get around extremely costly and difficult human testing for food. If it’s equivalent, it won’t harm us or animals. If it harms animals, then we have a problem and it’s clearly not equivalent. What you’re saying about proof of safety makes no sense - equivalency is for all intents and purposes proof of safety. It’d take some incredibly unlikely interactions for something to cause harm after equivalency has been established. > [@whatsomattu](#): > > I retract nothing. I stand by it. There’s no evidence – no study – that this stuff is safe for human consumption. > **[2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/)** > > A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue. Those claims are simply not true. NOTE: This... > **[600+ published safety assessments](http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html)** > > It is frequently claimed that GM foods are not properly tested, or asserted that few independent studies have been published to esta... > **[GMO studies with independent funding](https://biofortified.org/genera/independent-funding/)** > > This is a partial list of independently-funded studies on genetically engineered crops that we have collected as part of the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA). About 1/3 of the studies about … Yes, there are, you’re just not looking. > [@](#): > > Everything you cite are animal studies or studies of the properties of the GMO foods themselves. So, just to be clear, do you reject the viability of substance analysis and animal studies for determining how harmful a substance can be? > [@](#): > > We’ve been eating this stuff for 30 years. BT toxins are showing up in baby cord blood and pregnant mother’s blood. BT Endotoxin is widely used in organic farming (sprayed, rather than as part of the plant). It’s also _entirely_ harmless to humans - essentially inert. Why should I care if it shows up in the bloodstream of pregnant women, and what in the world drives you to claim that it has anything to do with GMOs? I already refuted this back in post 79. Go back and read it again if you have to. > [@](#): > > 1. You can’t find a SINGLE case where the EPA, FDA, etc., ever stopped a GMO from being eaten, grown or sold. Nope, because Monsanto isn’t stupid. The stuff that they can show is even remotely non-equivalent? They don’t push it to market! I’m aware that at least one such case is widely-known, although I couldn’t tell you the name… **Jackmanii** might know the name. IIRC it was a soybean that triggered certain other allergic reactions - not even anything toxic, simply not equivalent. This didn’t make it to market not because the FDA or EPA stopped it, but because Monsanto didn’t push it. > [@whatsomattu](#): > > Yeah, so pick apart one point and ignore the others which you have no answer to. > > […] > > So who’s the ideologue? Let’s be clear on something here. I’m what you’d call a “professional brick-wall-head-slammer”. I enjoy conversations with people I know are fanatics - who will never, _ever_ listen to reason, admit they are wrong, or accept evidence against their viewpoint, and who are often stunningly ignorant of the science they pontificate on. Most people aren’t, and most people don’t. In the case of this conversation, you’ve held up Seralini’s 2012 paper as evidence (strike one), sourced a claim to NaturalNews (strike two), and refused to retract claims when clearly and directly refuted (the thing NaturalNews misinformed you about in post 79; strike three). That’s already enough for just about anyone to reasonably say “Yep, you’re not worth talking to” (well, to be honest, just the NaturalNews link is enough to conclude that, so…). To add to that, you don’t understand how GMO safety studies work or why there is a real consensus among biologists with regards to the safety of the current GM crops on the market. I’m impressed **Jackmanii** didn’t bow out earlier, honestly. You’re not going to convince anyone by shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming “LALALALALA I’M RIGHT CAN’T PROVE ME WRONG LALALALA”. If you are interested in having any sort of rational debate here, then take a step back, admit you were wrong in connecting the BT paper to GMOs, and stop touting that misinformation. Show that you can admit when you are very, _very_ clearly at least making a baseless assumption. Then maybe we can try to explain to you why so many scientists in agribusiness consider equivalency to be a valid way to test safety. Oh, and a word of advice: > [@](#): > > So, yeah, I win the argument. No problem. Go collect your Monsanto check. This is really, really dumb. Just… Ugh. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/119 "2014-08-06T21:37:04Z")
You know what I know? Fascinating. You’re a mind reader? All I have said is: 1. There are no studies showing human safety in eating GMOs. Show me ONE study that says this and I’ll shut up. Not 1,700 studies involving rats, pigs, etc. You keep citing Forbes and all those other nonsense meta studies and I looked at them and they’re ALL rat, pig, etc. I prefer to take the word of the Monsanto genetics engineer over you. That we are “guinea pigs” for the safety of this stuff and good luck proving it causes our cancer or whatever. 1. That the FDA policy has been written by a Monsanto attorney to specifically preclude any safety testing requirement. These are irrefutable facts. You can dodge and duke and make all sorts of other points. Also, BTW, I do understand the animal feeding studies and almost all of them are shorter than 90 days. We’ve been forced to eat this crap for 30 years. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/120 "2014-08-06T21:45:17Z")
> [@whatsomattu](#): > > We’ve been forced to eat this crap for 30 years. Oh, boo effing hoo. Grow your own. Problem solved. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571.md?page=7)