Toxic Free NC Tip Du Jour: Sayin’ No to GMOs

they're in everything.

April, 29, 2010 , by Billie Karel

Toxic Free NC Tip Du Jour: Sayin’ No to GMOs
Advertise on NR

According to USDA, 91% of the soy and 85% of the corn grown in the USA in 2009 was genetically modified. Whoa. Other crops that are often genetically modified include canola and cotton (i.e. cottonseed). I don’t think the average person buying food really gets that. I mean, I don’t completely get it myself. And of course, unlike Europe the US doesn’t require that genetically modified foods be labeled as such, so how would we know?

These crops - soy, corn, canola and cottonseed - are the building blocks of the industrial food system. They’re fed to livestock (even the grazers that really oughtta be eating grass), and they’re processed to make a wide variety of ingredients that go into most foods under plastic at the grocery store. A lot of the crazy chemistry words on your ingredient labels are actually corn or soy products, and even some of the things that look simple enough (“sugar”) might not be what you think they are. Here’s a list of common ingredients made by processing “the big 4,” corn, soy, canola and cottonseed.

You know how I feel about pesticides, and how it’s my job to talk to people about using less of them? Well, I’m uncomfortable with genetically-modified foods for a lot of the same reasons. As with pesticides, I’m not a purist: I’m the first to admit that strategic use of these technologies in situations where the benefits outweigh the risks is a good thing. But, like pesticides, I think that scientists don’t really understand all the health and environmental risks of GMOs yet, and that the average person knows even less. Meanwhile, both things are already everywhere and in everything at the grocery store. Call me a Luddite, but that sounds like putting the cart before the horse to me.

There’s more to connect GMOs and pesticides. Most GMO seed is produced by the same companies that make pesticides….the same companies that try to bury scientific results that are unflattering to their products and sue farmers for gene pollution they really ought to be apologizing for. Needless to say, I do not trust them. 

The fairytale of genetically modified crops is about the power of science and technology to feed the world’s hungry - crops genetically altered to be more nutritious, grow in salt water, or produce life-saving medications cheaply….wow! But the present reality is that 91% of the US-produced soy and 85% of the US-produced corn that we (and our livestock) are eating everyday is engineered for pesticides, not for nutrition or anything else. Most are engineered to be “herbicide-tolerant,” meaning they can withstand application of an herbicide (mostly RoundUp) directly to the plant. That means you can spray down a whole field with RoundUp or whatever herbicide the plants are engineered to withstand, and you’ll only kill weeds, not the crop. It sounds very convenient, but every other living thing in the soil is still normal, not “RoundUp Ready.” All the worms, bugs and soil microbes that are necessary for soil health can be seriously hurt by all that RoundUp. The results: yields for RoundUp Ready crops are no better than for conventional, and in some cases they’re worse, meanwhile much more RoundUp gets used: 200 million pounds in 2008, up from about half that in 2005. RoundUp has a reputation for being relatively low-toxicity among pesticides, but new research is coming out all the time to suggest that it’s more toxic than originally thought. Meanwhile, like the genetically engineered crops, that train has already left the station, and RoundUp is already used to the tune of over 200 million pounds a year!

So, what to do about your shopping list? There’s an extensive Non-GMO Shopping Guide that lists out food brands that don’t use GMOs, but it is rather long and I imagine it would be difficult for the average person to use on a daily basis. I’d recommend a quick and dirty version stemming from #1 and #3 of the guide’s “4 Simple Tips:”

**Buy Certified Organic. There’s no labeling requirement for genetically-modified foods, but there is a requirement that foods labeled “USDA Certified Organic” do not contain anything genetically modified. So that’s some reassurance! I think this is an especially important argument for buying your processed foods certified organic in addition to your produce - all the stuff that comes under plastic like crackers, cereal, peanut butter, veggie burgers, tofu, etc etc. Because, if it contains a soy, corn, canola or cottonseed product and it’s not certified organic, there’s a high likelihood that those ingredients are genetically modified.

**Avoid the Most At-Risk Ingredients: Soy, Corn, Canola and Cottonseed (and all the things made from them). That’s where this list of all the various ingredients made from those four main crops comes in very handy. That’s the one I’m printing and carrying around in my wallet!

Good luck, and eat well!!

PS: Some additional links if you want to read more on this issue:
Soil: not roundup ready - USDA downplays own scientist’s research on ill effects of Monsanto herbicide from Grist Magazine
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, from the International Journal of Biological Sciences
Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds, from the NY Times
Organic on a Budget, previous post by the same author on NewRaleigh.com


Get more & sign up for updates at ToxicFreeNC.org.
Have a request for another Toxic Free NC Tip? Submit it here.

Read More

Politics , Other posts by Billie Karel.

Tagged

Toxic Free NC Organic GMO

Tracker Pixel for Entry

Related

  • Matthew
    04/30 01:25 AM

    Thanks for the article!

  • JT
    04/30 09:52 AM

    Nice Mr. FUDrucker. 

    The third world needs GMOs because population grows geometrically and crop yield is linear.  Granted in general the US doesn’t because we are all horribly rich by world standards, but for the other denizens of the world they’d like to stay fed.

  • T-Plain
    04/30 10:59 AM

    Organic food, when bought at a grocery store, is much more expensive than the stuff not labeled as organic. This difference could be because it’s cheaper to produce non-organic food, or because stores know people will pay more for organic. The latter isn’t attractive, and the former is, I’d guess, a good enough reason for most people to select non-organic food. Not to mention the tons of exceptions and exemptions that companies can take advantage of and still call their products “organic” (see USDA http://is.gd/bOxgo). At this point, until “organic” is a simply defined term and/or is proven by some metric to be worth the extra cost, I see commercial organic food mainly as be a way to separate the privileged and/or smug from their money.

  • Billie Karel
    04/30 11:36 AM

    Organic is the fastest growing sector of the American food industry, and the bigger it gets, the more competitive it gets, and the lower the prices get, and that’s good for everyone. Prices are already moving in the right direction.
    Certified Organic is a set of rules and standards that are fallible just like the people who made them, but it’s better than nothing. For instance, it explicitly prohibits GMOs, which is cool, and my point. smile

    Plus, organic food doesn’t have to always be more expensive either, and sometimes when it is, it’s worth it: http://www.newraleigh.com/articles/archive/toxic-free-nc-tip-of-the-week-budget-organic/

    Also, a recent study looking at health effects of GMOs: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
    The basic plain-English translation is that scientists fed rats different kinds of genetically modified corn, and their internal organs got all messed up - especially their livers and kidneys. Yeesh. I’m not saying GMOs are absolutely bad all the time, I’m saying that the verdict is still out about whether they’re really safe for us to eat over the long term, but they’re already in everything, and that seems nuts.

  • AEM
    04/30 11:42 AM

    Wow, T-Plain….someone clearly needs to watch Food Inc or do a little more research about the hidden costs of all that “cheap” non-organic food.  Costs to our health, environment, etc.  Of course Organic food is more expensive, but consider how much of the “cheap” food goes to waste anyways?!?  You can make good points on both sides of the food production argument, but I find it hard to argue against the fact that the “factory” farms producing most of our food and all the chemicals making people so unhealthy are doing more good than harm overall.

  • arthurb3
    04/30 01:44 PM

    No Soy, Corn, Canola and Cottonseed?? They are in everything from Ice Cream to microwave popcorn!!

  • miamiblue
    04/30 02:35 PM

    That is a depressingly long list of invisible GM ingredients: http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/SG/ShoppingGuide/InvisibleIngredients/index.cfm

  • Ames
    04/30 02:50 PM

    So limit your intake of GMOs, reduce or eliminate prepared/processed foods.  Eat fresh foods - preferably local - and buy organic when you can.  Here’s a great “pesticide load” list to see which fruits and veggies to buy conventional vs. organic: http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php

    RE: food insecurity there are many topics to include beyond GMOs.  Check out this research paper on “Food Security and Social Reproduction” for starters: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/3/0/4/p73044_index.html

    “...agro-exporting through the aegis of transnational food firms has turned the natural world into a giant chess board of corporate comparative advantage at the expense of rural communities and biodiversity…”

  • ernie
    04/30 03:27 PM

    If you don’t like genetically modified foods, you better stop eating.  Everything you’ve ever eaten in your life has been genetically modified.

  • T-Plain
    04/30 05:03 PM

    Billie - thanks for the additional insight. I agree, in general, it’s better than nothing. I just think it’s important to know what these labels mean and don’t mean. In general, if something is grown according to the organic guidelines, they are likely better for everyone involved.

  • arthurb3
    04/30 05:16 PM

    Many labels are misleading. Example: free range: In the United States, USDA regulation apply only to poultry and indicate that the animal has been allowed access to the outside for a few hours a week.

  • smitty
    04/30 08:14 PM

    Don’t forget to stop drinking beer and wine, many have GM enzymes.  Too bad they don’t have to list ingredients.

  • m r
    04/30 11:40 PM

    Are you talking about plant breeding or are you talking about the actual meaning of the acronym, GMO?

    GMOs are not legal for human consumption in the US. However, livestock do consume GMOs.


    You might want to correct this in your post. 


    read more on who.int: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

  • Taylor
    05/01 05:25 PM

    Probably the most accurate statement in this article is when the author says “I mean, I don’t completely get it myself.” 

    I’m not defending GMO crops or supporting the “industrial food complex”, but this article is woefully inaccurate and misleading.

    For starters the author attempts to create the narrative that marketing gurus are pulling one over on the general population by touting how GMO crops are needed to feed and clothe billions, when in reality they are engineered to maximize pesticide use.  News flash:  these two concepts are not mutually exclusive! 

    By creating GMO varieties that make it more efficient to control yield-limiting factors, such as weed and insect competition, growers are able to produce more food and fiber, and therefore feed and clothe more people as advertised. 

    It’s not that GMO crops out-yield conventional varieties; that is a red herring.  The genius of GMO crops is that they allow the grower to use far fewer inputs (herbicides, insecticides, diesel fuel and labor) to produce their crop.  This has several positive ramifications. 

    It means first and foremost that food and fiber can be gown cheaply, making them more accessible and affordable for the masses around the world. 

    There are several environmental benefits that should be considered as well.  Contrary to the author’s assertion that herbicide use is increasing due to GMO crops, the reality is that OVERALL herbicide use has actually decreased.  Yes, the use of glyphosate (Roundup) has increased, as the author sites.  But he conveniently leaves out the stats for all other herbicides.  There use has dramatically declined because glyphosate has taken their place.  The result has been a net reduction in the amount of pesticides being applied on our land. 

    Glyphosate has a much more environmentally-friendly profile than most of the herbicides it has replaced.  It is a contact herbicide meaning it is rendered inactive when once it touches the soil.  Many of the residual herbicides it has replaced are specifically engineered to bind with the soil and remain viable for several weeks.  So when the author tries to claim how bad glyphosate has been for the micro organisms in the soil, he should ask himself which is actually better: the ability to spray a few applications of glyphosate or being forced to apply 3-fold the amount of other herbicides, which are much more toxic.

    In short, glyphosate is regarded in the scientific community as a 1 in 100 year development; a breakthrough that is seen on par with the creation of penicillin. 

    Also consider how GMO crops promote better land use.  They have allowed growers to practice “no-till” meaning they can rely on glyphosate for weed control versus having to plow their fields.  This leads to less erosion and in turn better water quality.  No till avoids the release of carbon into the atmosphere and burns far less diesel fuel as growers make fewer trips across the field. 

    Keep in mind that everything growers can do to maximize production per acre means that we can preserve land from agricultural use.  Average corn yield per acre, for instance, has more that doubled in the U.S. since 1970.  That means we would have to use twice the land in 2010 to produce the same amount of corn in 1970.  That is remarkable. 

    I think we should apply appropriate skepticism towards genetic engineering in agriculture, with a desire to make to make it work.  There are many legitimate concerns and questions for GMO crops.  But it certainly helps when those who voice them know the basics of what they are talking about.

  • Billie Karel
    05/01 07:14 PM

    Taylor, care to state your affiliation?

  • Billie Karel
    05/01 07:18 PM

    Or cite some sources?

  • Phillo
    05/01 08:39 PM

    That W.H.O article linked by m r is probably a better source of information than an article where the author admits not really understanding the issue. 
     
    Unless you are looking for a boogieman.  GM food has it all.  Evil corporations and their scientist henchmen conspiring to poison the food supply and the planet for monetary gain and power, hiding behind scientific jargon just to confuse regular people.

  • Billie Karel
    05/04 09:28 AM

    From today’s NY Times: overuse of Roundup creating superweeds -
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html

  • m r
    05/04 09:33 PM

    Billie Karel is being fed the NYT link from following Food Inc on facebook. I know- because my friends were linking it.

    If you are going to make grand statements, I expect better resources on your part.

    Also, the “super weed” has been happening since the beginning of the 2000s with RoundPp. How nice that the NYT catches on now, in 2010, when talking about the problems with agriculture is trendy.

  • m r
    05/04 09:39 PM

    The Facebook reference is a joke by the way. Figured I should clarify that before it is the only part of my comment people respond to…

    Disappointed in NewRaleigh for allowing this post to continue without correction. This is not sound journalism.

    I guess go back to covering Megafaun and HopscotchFest? I’ll still read because ultimately, this website/blog is great.

  • Phillo
    05/05 02:07 AM

    “This is not sound journalism. ” 
     
    That’s why they call it “blogging”.  It’s a guy with a microphone.

  • Billie Karel
    05/05 11:51 AM

    m r, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Genetically-modified organisms, i.e. not traditional plant breeding but actual cut-and-paste genes, are very much legal for both animal and human consumption in the US as well as in many places abroad.
    More on policies about that from FDA: http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/default.htm

    Anyway, thanks y’all for the conversation. I think my point - that the public doesn’t understand that they’re already eating GMOs all the time - is well illustrated. If we had a GMO labeling requirement in the US, it would be easy for people to choose for themselves, but we don’t, so in a way, that choice has already been made for us. Hmm.
    I don’t think asking for clear scientific proof that GMOs won’t hurt us or the environment BEFORE we all start eating them makes me a science denier. In fact, I think it means I really like science. smile

  • Phil
    05/05 01:38 PM

    Another good read/listen on GMOs.

    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112

  • m r
    05/05 04:30 PM

    More on policies about that from FDA: http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/default.htm

    Biotechnology is a broad heading that includes plant breeding- conventional and otherwise as well as GMOs as we are speaking about them here. So, your reference does not clarify the point you are making, but instead, continues to show your lack of knowledge on the subject.

    Ultimately, I agree with you…the simple fact that I cannot find a sound reference online discussing any of this is inherently problematic but passing on incorrect information, further blurring the public’s understanding is not the solution.

  • ms
    05/08 03:51 PM

    Uhh… m r, I don’t get your angst over this piece. Did you really look at all of the resource links before you called them fallacious? Maybe, biotech is your field and you want to defend it. That is fine, why don’t you submit to NewRaleigh? I would be interested to know what you have to say.
    Also, I think that you should reassess your assertion that currently, discussing “problems with agriculture is trendy.” I think that people are examining all kinds of areas of public policy/global policy more than ever before. We want to know what is in our food. If none of us asked questions, or shared info, then we would all think like JT up there.

  • Justin
    05/11 03:11 PM

    As a molecular biologist, I feel totally safe eating genetically modified food.  If you educate yourself as to how the food is modified, your fears will be calmed. 

    If you enjoy $0.20-.50 an ear corn price during the summer, ask yourself whether you would rather have a pesticide sprayed on your corn, which likely remains in the food chain, OR corn that is not sprayed because it expresses a protein that is innocuous to humans and mammals, yet poisonous to corn borers? 

    Please educate yourself on topics of biotechnology before spreading panic.

  • Alex
    05/17 11:49 PM

    Biotechnology has not been around long enough for scientists to know whether certain chemicals that enter the food chain are absolutely safe or not. In many studies, long term effects are unknown. Promoters of biotech can argue this point, but can they also say with CERTAINTY that insect pests will not develop tolerance to these chemicals one day and become an even greater threat? The best way to prevent pest problems is to use sustainable methods, focusing on soil health, crop rotation, conservation tillage, all of the methods of old that have been displaced by agribusiness.  All of these biochemicals offer short-term fixes and will eventually lead to system collapse.

    No need to panic.  Just educate yourself and pay a little more attention to what you eat.

Share Your Thoughts

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.