Comments on: Genetically modified foods

By: Beverly Spicer

Beverly Spicer — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:59:33 +0000

I guess it’s true that since we have more and more humans than ever before, that humans are eating more and more than ever before. But I don’t know the projections about the food supply being or not being adequate. I do know that Thomas Malthus had some theories that I’ve never heard disputed.

By: Claude Fullinfaw

Claude Fullinfaw — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:19:43 +0000

The other day I heard something new on the radio. The commentator mentioned that our food supply is going to run out in the next 20 years if we don’t do something about it. The reason being is that humans are eating more and more than ever before.

By: Beverly Spicer

Beverly Spicer — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:12:09 +0000

John’s comments underscore the controversies surrounding the issues of GMO and organically grown foods alike. As our food supply gets more complicated and genetic modification finds it way more and more into what ends up on our table, there are massive pros and cons, and much passionate sentiment to go along with them. Thank you, John, for pointing out the other side of the coin, that organic and natural foods can be dangerous as well, and we must not lose sight of the possible perils along with the potential benefits of both. As for me, I make a stand for full disclosure in all foods. I want to know where my food has been, whether the seeds from which the crops are produced are non-reproducing, whether there have been other genetic modifications and for what purpose, how the crop or animal was raised, if irradiation has been applied to kill bacterial, under what conditions the food was processed, what the additives are used, and specifically what is contained within vague labeling of categories like “natural flavors,” or “preservatives,” or “seasonings.” Transparency and full disclosure are the only things that will allow the consumer to make a conscious and well-considered choice. Likely, many would choose to accept modifications that other would not — as it seems to be in all things — and those choices we would hope would be efficient and self-regulating.

By: John Hall

John Hall — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:56:23 +0000

The problem with Andrew kimbrell is that he’s just like that ex-boss of his,
Jeremy Rifkin and [expletive deleted] Ronnie Cummins.They’re all full of it and
they’re all hypocrites.For years,they’ve been condeming Genetically Engineered foods,saying they’re dangerous and unsafe.Then they turn around and try to convince people to eat organic foods.What they neglect to tell people is that organic foods are grown with animal manure that contain
deadly e-coli bacteria.The truth is that these activists get money donations from these organic companies to push their products on the people.They think that since organic foods are “natural”,that there’s nothing wrong with them. And they don’t WANT to hear about people getting sick from organic foods. Rifkin asks who’s going to be liable if pollen from a GE-crop spreads to a non GE crop, but he’s not asking who’s going to be liable if someone gets sick from eating organic foods.

By: Sharon E.

Sharon E. — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:31:46 +0000

Beverly - We need more informed discussions like this! A certain hysteria accompanies the NO GMO movement in Portland, Oregon, and facts are in short supply. The public is definitely more interested in knowing the origin of its food. Farmers’ markets are on the rise, as are community gardens, and seed banks. I believe the home orchard society has for years been saving and exchanging seeds from old fruit varieties, but isn’t it possible that uncontrolled GMOs may wipe everything off the map? Besides being concerned with food, I’m interested in native plant species (Oregon playing host to hundreds of them), and we have one of the original seed banks here in Oregon at The Berry Botanic Garden, which works collaboratively with agencies around the world to protect and reintroduce endangered plant species. is the same being done with food on a national or international scale?

By: Beverly Spicer

Beverly Spicer — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:02:43 +0000

I ran into a book review today that is right on topic. Here is the review from Buzzflash:

YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food (Paperback)
by Andrew Kimbrell

“More than half of America’s processed grocery products from cornflakes to granola bars to diet drinks contain genetically altered ingredients. They are unlabeled, untested …and we’re eating it. YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW is a complete, full color reference guide outlining how unmarked genetically modified foods get onto the family dining table and what consumers can do about it. Turning a bright light on the GE foods controversy, this definitive and accessible how to primer is for concerned parents and the buying public who want to know more about health risks, organic options, shopping choices, and the ways we can fight the corporate agroindustrial takeover of the food we eat.”

This is an informative, colorful, large format consumer introduction to the widespread use of genetic engineering in the foods we eat. It also includes a guide to activism on the issue and a handy GE shopping guide.

Many good genetically modified foods books are well-researched and argued explorations of the issue. “Your Right to Know” is an easily accesible and attractive overview of the issue that emphasizes what you need to know about genetically engineered foods as a consumer.

Read The Full Review:
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/700

Andrew Kimbrell serves as the executive director of both the Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology Assessment and has been involved in public interest legal activity for nearly 20 years. His articles on technology and law issues have appeared in Harpers, Utne Reader, the Ecologist, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Andrew lives in Washington, DC, with his wife and two children.

By: Beverly Spicer

Beverly Spicer — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:59:47 +0000

It would be interesting to take poll. I suspect 99%, maybe 100% consumers of all foods would like to know if/if not what they are going to eat has been genetically modified. Many would accept the modified foods, others would avoid it, but it is only fitting in regards to advice and consent and what we think of as our basic right to make informed choices.

By: sglasson

sglasson — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:05:46 +0000

They really should be required to label these types of foods and continue to do research on this subject. This kind of makes me want to stay away from corn.

By: Sister

Sister — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:32:28 +0000

http://saynotogmos.org has much information on this subject

By: Sister

Sister — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:00:48 +0000

Sharon, this statement is incorrect.

“One of the primary properties sought after in genetic modification is shelf storage.”

That was true of the FlavrSaver tomato (that was never commercialized) but is not true of current GMO crops. The main characteristics are 1) resistance to weed-killers (like Monsanto’s RoundupReady) or 2) Bt insecticide spliced into the plant genome or in the case of Hawaiian papayas, resistance to a pathogenic virus.

Yes, these plants propagate only too well and contaminate related species. Sharon, the Canadian farmer you mentioned is Percy Schmeiser. You can watch the “Heartbreak in the Heartland” video that SNTG put together after his appearance in Austin in 2001 from the site (link is on the index page). You can also read the details of the final decision - just Google within the site. The final judgment did not exactly absolve Percy but I have never been able to fully grasp the legal subtleties.