Corporate irresponsibility over GMOs - The Washington Post

I've been very concerned about the current popular effort to denigrate "Genetically Modified Organisms" or GMO food.  Genetic modification, in effect, accelerates the process of cross-breeding to achieve specialized hybrids which have helped feed the world.  There have been no proven cases of sickness or disease specifically caused by the genetic modification of foods.  But the mystique seems to continue!

I was very impressed by this op-ed by Michael Gerson in the Union Tribune that was a reprint from the Washington Post Corporate irresponsibility over GMOs - The Washington Post

Michael explained the problem much better than I ever could, and his main point is that now many large, mainstream companies such as Chipotle & Whole Foods are "cashing-in" on the concept and are helping to promote the fear of GMO foods.  Yes, anything to discriminate their business from the others, and be able to extract a premium price over their competitors seems like good business.  Michael points out that the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization all conclude that GMOs are safe to eat.  How many leading organizations need to say something is OK to cancel out one bit of "junk science" that says it isn't OK? (see this link)

Yes, there may be other reasons to not want to use GMO food.  For example, it is possible that pollen from a GMO crop could get infused into wild plants.  It could damage habitat and put endangered plants or animals at risk for extinction.  However, it doesn't make sense to avoid all GMO food based upon that rationale.

Should those of us who believe GMO food is safe now boycott businesses such as Chipotle & Whole Foods?  Should we go out of our way to buy GMO foods?  Somehow, I think that very few people would jump on that bandwagon!  At first the anti-GMO crowd were just a few "junk science" believers who came up with clever terms such as "FrankenFood" --but now Anti-GMO has the power of large businesses with huge marketing muscle to help spread even more "fear" among the masses. The movement is going to end up hurting the world!  Gonna be tough to stop!

I'm also ashamed of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. I have been a supporter and subscriber to Consumer Reports continuously since around 1970, and believe in their causes.  In this GMO cause, however, the leadership of CU has lost their way and gone off the deep end!  By insisting on GMO labeling, CU adds credence to the fears that GMO food might be in some way dangerous to eat.  It is clear that CU knows there is no danger, but pushes anyway for disclosure.    There are many dangerous things hiding in our foods that we do need labeling for, or have them removed.  By fighting for GMO labeling, CU loses the political capital needed to push for protecting our food supply against the much more dangerous chemicals, such as pesticides, heavy metals, or even the amount of Neu5GC in our red meat, which UC San Diego has shown to be the cause of many of the cancers as we get older.
CU should refrain from trying to paint all GMO foods with the same brush.  If a specific GMO food or food additive is determined to be harmful, then CU should advocate to have it removed from our food supply or the amount identified on labels.  Meanwhile GMO foods have saved the world from famine and malnutrition.

Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food | Talk Video | TED.com

I am getting very tired of reading about the seemingly overall hatred of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in our food supply.  The GMO opponents seem to be reacting with irrational fear and emotion with very little or no scientific rationale for their actions.  I was impressed by this TED video which presents some arguments FOR the use of GMO:

Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food | Talk Video | TED.com

I do want our food supply to be safe.  I also believe in good labeling, so we know what we are eating.  However I think it is unreasonable to consider all foods which have some sort of genetic modification to be dangerous or "frankenfoods."

I can certainly believe that it could be possible that some genetic modification to a food source could make the food dangerous to eat.  However, I have not yet heard of any that have been produced that are truly dangerous to all humans.  Yes, there are anecdotal reports that some people have had allergic reactions or problems with some GMO food.  However we find many more people have problems with existing foods that are generally accepted as safe.  How many people are now finding they have problems with Gluten?  With peanut allergy?  With Lactose?  Since everyone is different, it is just as likely that some will have reactions to slightly different foods.

I can understand the fear of change.  There is good reason to say that if our food is OK now, why take chances on changing it?  It is relatively easy to determine if animals or people get sick immediately after eating a food.  But what about the effects of eating a particular food over periods of years or decades?  Could the modified food have an effect on our babies?  Could it contribute to dementia in old age?   These are very difficult to test for.  The best we can do is make short-term safety tests based upon reasonable scientific processes.

Even foods which have been considered safe for centuries, are now being questioned.  The latest findings that eating beef, pork, lamb and fish eggs causes an increase in the probability of mutations in our body's cells to cause cancer is a good example.  These findings seem relatively unequivocal. (See my previous Blog post)  However the anti-GMO crowd appears to be more afraid of the unknown than what seems to be known and proven.

I also understand the potential problems that GMO food crops could introduce to the environment.  Pollen or nectar from a GMO plant designed to resist pests or diseases could kill or injure other beneficial pests.  The genes from the GMO food crop could become transferred to other similar native species and cause harm to the environment in many different ways.  What that means to me is that the world needs a global database of all organisms and we need to keep track of all modifications made to them, whether through "natural breeding" or genetic manipulation.  I believe with the power of the internet and the huge databases that are currently being used and built, we are getting close to that.  Then, we do need to have some sort of process to record and approve of all new food products as they are developed, and before they are unleashed and released to the world's food supply.  The problem now is that so many of these modifications are done "in secret" to protect patents, or unpatentable technologies that the public doesn't have full knowledge of what is happening to their food supply.