Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Do you believe GMO foods are safe?

By Howard B. Owens
Dave Meyer

I voted no but it's a conflicted vote.
Generally, GMO foods are widely considered to be safe to eat.

The problem is that the seeds are modified (in the case of corn) to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) which is used for weed control. There IS some suspicion that glyphosate causes cancer at higher doses but not at the "doses currently used in foods")
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/glyphosate-cause-cancer/

What concerns me is, what if someone at some farm somewhere applies the wrong amount of glyphosphate to a field of corn? What if that corn makes it into the food supply?
Look, I know I'm tilting at windmills here, the GMO ship has sailed, but I'd like to hope that SOMEONE (the USDA, the FDA, the EPA) would be keeping an eye on this. Given the trump administration's penchant for laissez faire governance with regard to the Agricultural industry I have SERIOUS doubts.
As an example, the trump "administration" recently approved the neurotoxin Chlropyrifos for use as an approved pesticide DESPITE THE FACT that it is known to cause brain damage. In addition to humans, it is highly toxic to bees, birds, aquatic invertebrates, freshwater fish and marine organisms. No worries right???
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4901/trump-epa-appro…
trump's administration will apparently stop at NOTHING to make sure that corporate interests are advanced while doing nothing (or very little) to protect the health of the citizens of the US and the World.

I'm sure some will characterize this as a political post and to some extent it is. ONE of the functions of government is to protect its citizens from harm both foreign and domestic. Seems to me that the recent behavior with regard to the domestic responsibilities are lacking - specifically at the EPA. Pruitt is destroying that agency and the good work it has done for DECADES. I can only hope that the damage he's doing can be undone in 4 years.

Dec 30, 2017, 7:46am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Dave Meyer states the case against GMOs succinctly and accurately. Contrary to the PR dispensed by companies like Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta which suggests GMOs were developed to enhance agricultural production and improve produce, the primary objectives are two-fold: 1) produce crops that are tolerant of proprietary insecticides and herbicides and 2) produce species that are patentable. Objective number one bolsters sales (and use) of toxic agricultural chemicals, and objective number two monopolizes the sale of seeds. Objective number two also opens farmers up to lawsuits as cross-pollination shares patented GMO genes with non-GMO crops. There are multiple cases of soybean farmers planting non-GMO crops only to be sued after the plants flowered and were pollinated by a neighboring GMO crop. GMO species are not necessarily superior species. They tolerate the specific herbicide or insecticide they were modified to survive or (in the case of corn) produce their own insecticide. The benefits are significantly limited to the grower as opposed to the consumer. The first GMO species was the Flavr-savr tomato. It was also the first to be shelved. It lived up to being firm for 45 days but tasted lousy. GMO cotton defied the African bollworm, but the cotton lint is so inferior buyers don't want it. ...Another shelved GMO. The problem for consumers revolves around the steady defense of GMOs by the corporations that own them. They've defied attempts to label GMO products, they've sundered every report that is critical of them and they have their stalwarts running the FDA and the USDA. The evidence that toxins such as Roundup are carcinogenic, the evidence that pesticides and herbicides sterilize the soil thus decreasing the nutritional value of our food, the evidence that many GMOs are less hardy than non-GMO varieties, the evidence that essential pollinators like bees are being wiped out by toxic agricultural chemicals, the evidence that our food-chain and water supplies are being poisoned by agricultural chemicals, the evidence that a handful of corporations are taking over the world's food supply- it all gets buried. Whether GMOs (in and of themselves) are inferior is not the important question. The greater protocol of GMO agricultural production vis-à-vis herbicides, insecticides and petro-fertilizers combined with the corporate monopoly on global food production- THAT is the important question.

Dec 30, 2017, 2:19pm Permalink
Julie Morales

“GMO Opponents are Immoral…”

The subtitle:

“It's past time to tell your anti-GMO friends, family and neighbors they are helping to kill poor people.”

Biased, baiting, political BS, claiming we all should just go with the flow of human innovation wherever it may lead while we wait for the earth to mysteriously somehow spontaneously correct itself. No worries! A deus ex machina! In the meantime if you disagree you are a depraved “anti-science” murderer.

If GMOs are the world’s “miracle” savior, as Mitch Daniels’s op-ed claims, why don’t they label their GMO products so consumers can make their own informed decisions, then?

“Currently, 64 countries around the world require labeling of genetically modified foods. Unlike most other developed countries – such as 28 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China – the United States has no laws requiring labeling of genetically modified foods.” (justlabelit.org)

So sick of lying hypocrites.

FYI Neither Daniels nor Ronald Bailey is a scientist; Daniels is a retired politician and Bailey is a shill for the Cato Institute, a think tank founded as the Charles Koch Foundation. That rings obvious bells.

Dec 30, 2017, 6:46pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

So nobody who isn’t a scientist should ever write an article about the scientific consensus around global warming.

Bailey derives his income from a lot of sources including one of the finest institutions in the country, the Cato Institute.

Labeling is a big waste of money and would raise unjustified and unnecessary alarms amongst consumes. It would only serve the anti-science trolls some feel-good legislation and do nothing to protect consumers. It’s a complete straw man to say that not labeling is somehow proof that GMO derived foods aren’t safe.

Dec 30, 2017, 10:03pm Permalink
Ed Hartgrove

Howard. You wrote, "Bailey derives his income from a lot of sources including one of the finisist institutions in the country, the Cato Institute."

What's does "finisist" mean?

Dec 31, 2017, 1:14pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I've closed the poll and deleted all the votes.

A pro-GMO Facebook group with a large number of members discovered the poll and was rigging the poll with a couple of thousand of yes votes. While they may be right on the science, they are wrong in interfering with our community poll.

Dec 31, 2017, 10:47pm Permalink
Brian Graz

I went to school [OACS] with Dave and his brother Bob. When we began disagreeing on the Batavian I wasn't sure if it was the same Dave. Sadly it was. And I say sadly because of his too early passing.

Jan 2, 2018, 9:48pm Permalink

Authentically Local