Obama Set for Major GMO Promotion

Jeffrey Smith (a well known opponent of GMOs in food) recently wrote this article for the Huffington Post, detailing recent appointments of GMO supporters on the Obama team.

All is not gloom and doom however.  Obama has said he wants “stringent tests for environmental and health effects” and “stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice.”  He also said he supports mandatory labelling of GMOs.

If Obama can transform the GM industry into one that sells products regulated and tested in a meaningful way with respect to their safety and environmental impact, and consumers can make informed decisions about what they buy and have the possibility to choose non-GMO products if they want, he will have my full support.

Now our task as consumers and bloggers will be to hold the Obama adminstration accountable to implementing these ideas in a meaningful way.

14 Replies to “Obama Set for Major GMO Promotion”

  1. I don’t feel qualified to say anything about Mr Obama . . . however, about GM . . . I’m wondering whether Bananas might be the only crop where GM be a good thing?

    What do you think?

    Lucy

  2. Hi Lucy,

    I don’t think it’s time to apply GM technologies to bananas.

    I understand bacterial wilt is becoming a very serious problem, they haven’t been able to identify any naturally occurring banana varieties with resistance, and breeding new banana varieties is difficult using conventional methods is difficult because bananas don’t produce viable seeds.

    There has been some limited successes controlling bacterial wilt with good hygiene practices like isolating uninfected plantations and disinfecting tools. I think part of the reason we have this problem is the sheer scale and intensity bananas are being grown in the world today, and perhaps we need to rethink that.

    I can see bananas becoming expensive, and perhaps we will all have to eat fewer of them, but I don’t see them disappearing any time soon. I can also see this problem going away on it’s own, if we can deal with global warming and other environmental problems that are probably underlying cause of bacterial wilt in bananas.

    And, if the time comes that normal bananas can’t be grown anymore, then GM varieties could be considered.

    Governments like Uganda are under intense pressure to blindly accept GM technologies in their banana productions without a clear need, in the absence of safety or environmental testing, and without knowing if consumers will even be interested in buying a GM banana. I don’t really think this is the way to address the problem. I think it should come the other way around, and if there is a true need and a desire for a GM solution then it should be sought.

    I think before any more GM varieties of any plants are approved anywhere, there needs to be a meaningful way to assess and regulate the environmental and safety aspects.

    I also know that, given a choice, I would not purchase a GM banana. I am just not interested, and I would look for some other fruit to buy. Studies show 90% of all people would avoid buying GM food if they were given the chance. Why are they even considering developing a banana that no one wants to eat, unless they were confident of being able to force or trick people into buying it?

  3. Yes, I hope the words aren’t too diluted in practice. It was imporant, I think, for the democrats to have wide support across the ‘left’ of america so he had to say stuff like this. Besides, it’s easy to say ‘regulate’ and hardier, as you say, to actually make that meaningful.

    I am not sure what Canada’s stand is on this… I should know really. As it is, we are in the midst of our own political showdown.

  4. Patrick,

    Yes it would be great to have GMO products listed, but more and more I am realizing that it would be more important to not have them at all as they are not in any way needed.

    The main issues I raise with such support of GMO are as follows:

    If this were the case (and I’m sure it is, take a look and do some research on members of his cabinet) just who exactly will provide the stringent testing of such GMO material? Is it going to be the companies involved in producing the material, will it be a GMO advocate? What exactly will they test for? The problem with testing GMO material is what exactly are we looking for specifically when we have no idea whatsoever of how two different sets of DNA may interact in an unnatrual environment.

    My secondary issue. Let’s pretend for a moment that we do live in a perfect world where we could do such specific testing and get an idea of what to expect, what then about the patenting of such technology in crops which are out crossers and could diffuse their genetic material into our open pollinated crops, giving the chem. companies all they need in order to obtain and own our crops. My opinion is the push for GMO material often has a lot more to do with this pirating of OP seed crops than it really has to do with any humanitarian act of good will towards the world. The very first seed coup d’etat on behalf of the big corporations and their owners.

  5. Hi Alan,

    If we disagree at all, I don’t think it’s very much. Much of what you said here, I’ve also recently said in posts or comments.

    If I sounded optimistic in this post, it wasn’t what I intended. I don’t really believe anything good or useful will become of GM technology. I also don’t really expect meaningful oversight to occur. Like you said, the overriding problem is GM technology is not producing anything useful or needed. Most consumers are not interested in it.

    As much as we would all love to see the US auto industry crumble into a pile of it’s own smoldering ashes, we know that’s not going to happen. Obama has already made it clear he will do whatever is necessary to keep it alive. The same thing is true, even doubly so, with the food industry, for all the same reasons. The food industry is a reality, with GM technology a major part of it, for the foreseeable future.

    In Europe, GM foods are dead. Governments wouldn’t dare to allow the sale of unlabelled foods and consumers don’t want to eat GMOs. There is even increasingly pressure to stop feeding livestock GMOs. This is really the key to putting an end to the industry in the US. If we push hard for labelling and for alternatives to be provided, GMOs won’t be commercially viable.

    Like you also pointed out, the problem of patents on life forms and genes has to be addressed too. It’s just crazy what a race it’s all become to own the genes of the world!

    GM technology itself is not the problem however. It is what it is, and it is a reality. If it will ever be useful is another question, but the genie is out of the bottle. The trick now is to turn it into something useful for humanity, and a useful tool in plant genetics. To whatever extent Obama or anyone else is able to make progress on this, I will be supporting those efforts. Ending patents on living organisms is the first step!

  6. Hi ya’ll

    Glad to hear that GM is dead in Europe, it is still going strong here in Canada, with canola, corn basically monopolized in transgenics. Next season 6,000 acres of round-up ready Sugar beet is going in Nova Scotia for biomass conversion to ethanol (more transgenic bacteria used here. While I am very sad and flumuxed that life was patented and its an honourable struggle to reverse that decision..I don’t think its realistic. Is there any work being done legally to this end? I think the first step is label food – Patrick’s right when he says no one wants it, the industry would collapse. And to demand independent research into health and gene transfer.

  7. I definitely don’t disagree with you Patrick, I know there is really no turning back now (at least not completely as the monster is already loose) and if it is going to be in the food supply it could be labeled. I still believe though if enough of us keep our voices and activism out there we can reverse the trend and keep it from becoming acceptable at all, maybe we can even straighten out this whole mess with patenting. One can only hope!

    Your Friend,
    Alan

  8. I think it is important to look at the Chem Trail issue to see if it is possible that this is what is contributing to all of these diseases to trees and crops. Somehow there needs to be an organized grassroots program or organizational campaign to determine the real reason for Chem trails in a ‘formal’ way, what is being released into our atmosphere during them. Who is behind them, where the planes come from and how they get their flight plans, etc etc etc. I, for one, would not be surprised if they were not responsible for our citrus problems as well as other crop diseases.

  9. Studies show 90% of all people would avoid buying GM food if they were given the chance.

    That’s not true, the only 90% figure refers to a public desire for labeling. But this statistic does not indicate a strong desire specific to GE labeling, but a general desire to have all the information out there. When you ask people if they would like labels if it costs them each individually $1-10 a year through taxes or food prices, the desire for labels drops to about 20%, if my memory serves me right.

    Two experiments have been conducted with Bt sweet corn, and both have found that people prefer the labeled GE sweet corn over the conventional corn. Why? Because fewer pesticides are used on them, there are fewer corn borer infections, and in both places (Farm in Canada and a stand in San Luis Obispo) there was a lot of information out there – a media rich environment.

    Labeling campaigns are predicated on the belief that everyone will reject GE crops as soon as it is labeled as such. But I don’t think it would accomplish what the proponents think it will accomplish.

  10. Hi Karl,

    You bring up really a lot of points here, even some you probably didn’t intend to. Let’s see if I can at least touch on most of them.

    Yes, I think you’re right. I do remember hearing about the GM labelling study you mention, and it’s probably behind my statement that you quote. What I remember reading however was more along the lines of ‘90% of people supported labelling, and the vast majority of them said it was for the purpose of avoiding GM food.’

    Statistics are funny things sometimes, and often make it possible for anyone to come to any conclusion they want. Perhaps if instead of saying ‘show’ I said ‘suggest’, it would be harder to dispute?

    Also, on your point about paying for labelling, I think I would reject that idea too. I think it’s the responsibility of the companies that manufacture GM products to cover the cost of labelling, passing on these costs to their consumers if necessary. I would assume many people participating in the study would have felt the same way.

    This however is only as it relates to the US anyway.

    You’ll have to do your own research here for citations, but studies suggest the number of people in Europe who would avoid GM food given a choice is a lot closer to 95-98%, and may even be growing over time. In any case, I’m sure you’ll find the same problems interpreting these figures as with the US study.

    When I made the statement you quoted, I was not referring to a particular study but generalizing what I thought was probably the situation worldwide, and I still believe my statement to be largely correct based on the information I have come across.

    Your mentioning the study of the Bt sweet corn brings up the idea of unsubstantiated health claims, something that’s been a hot topic in Europe for the last few years.

    For example, cigarettes are no longer allowed to be called ‘light’ here. The reason is because not only in the face of no standards for what ‘light’ meant, meaning tobacco companies could and were using the term in an wildly inconsistent way, but studies showed cigarettes that were truly light are often much more dangerous than their ‘heavier’ counterparts.

    This marketing was also unbelievably successful and large numbers of people were buying these products thinking they were healthier. The tobacco companies simply said they were providing their customers with the information, and letting them make up their own minds.

    It’s recognized that this kind of marketing is also very effective with food products, using terms like light, fortified, low fat or whatever. Terms that have no legal standards or proven health benefits, but come with the suggestion of being healthier for you.

    This method of marketing food is mostly illegal now too in Europe.

    For example, if you want to sell a food product here labelled ‘extra calcium’, you would probably have to do several things first. First base this claim on whatever is the established legal norm of calcium in that product, and if that norm doesn’t exist, arrange for it to be established. Then prove the calcium in your product can be absorbed and retained by the body in a useful way. Then show that your product specifically, actually has some health benefit to the average person who may already get enough calcium from other sources.

    Needless to say, proving this sort of health benefit in a real way is more than most companies can do, so few foods here are labelled with health claims.

    If we now look at the Bt sweet corn study from this perspective, I don’t think this study shows very much.

    What does fewer pesticides mean, and what are the standards being used? Fewer pesticides than organic or non-GM sweet corn with Bt sprayed on it while it was growing? Bt is allowed on organic foods, and in my opinion it shouldn’t make much of a difference if Bt is produced by the plant or sprayed on, should it? What does fewer corn borer infections mean, and how was it measured?

    There are very few reasons to suggest that GM Bt varieties actually result in fewer pesticides being needed. For example, in India many farmers complain Bt cotton not only needs as many or more pesticides, but often more expensive ones as well.

    There are lots of other questions to be asked, like were the non-GM and GM varieties the same other than the inserted genes?

    Perhaps however, the most important question was, were the people participating in the study responding to unsubstantiated health claims. In other words, were they led to believe the GM corn was healthier because it had ‘fewer pesticides’, whatever that means, and were these health claims not substantiated by the food producers? In my opinion this was the case, and this study was more about testing unsubstantiated health claims than consumer preference of GM corn.

    I still maintain that, based on what I know, and given a free choice (including being free of misleading marketing), roughly 90% of all people will choose traditionally breed varieties over GM. As much as it may annoy you, I’m going to continue saying it in posts!

  11. It is now near end of June – where’s the new stricter legislation? Where’s the labeling?
    Stilllllll waitttttinnng. Only 25 years have gone by and we are still Guinea Pigs. Since there has never been a controlled human feeding trial, I can safely assume that many sick people out there are caused by GMOs. Prove me wrong!

  12. I’m with you M. This all couldn’t happen fast enough for me. While I do see Obama taking a lot of steps in the right direction, I am a little disappointed in the slow rate of progress.

    Indeed, there’s little doubt in my mind a lot of people today are developing illnesses because of eating untested new ‘novel’ foods like GMOs.

Leave a Reply

Anonymous comments are welcome, but it's still nice if you leave a name so we have something to call you. Name, Email and Website fields are all optional.

Pretty much anything goes except spam, off-topic comments and attempts to intimidate others. Very short comments that don't show creative thought, or contribute significantly to the discussion, may be considered spam.

Most comments are automatically approved. If you don't see your comment within 24 hours please get in touch.

Cookies must be enabled in your browser to leave a comment, because we use them to verify you aren't a robot.