There has been quite a bit of information in the media surrounding GMOs. Some people champion them as a way to end world hunger and a necessity for modern agriculture. Some, (like us) aren't so sure.  Naysayers fight for labeling, boycotts and in-depth safety research.

This interesting article from Slate raises a different type of concern altogether. Frederick Kaufman urges us to forget about labeling and focus our efforts on what he considers to be the more important matter at hand.

In his sub-title, he tells us: "If the food movement really wants to improve the food supply, it needs to follow the money instead of wasting its time on labels."  Kaufman, the author of "Bet the Farm: How Food Stopped Being Food", tells us his tale of woe from the inside of the genetic modification industry.

He tells us:

"GM foods' effect on health is uncertain, but their effect on farmers, scientists and the marketplace is clear. Some GM foods may be healthy, others not; every genetic modification is different. But every GM food becames dangerous- not to health, but to society- when it can be patented. Right now, the driving force behind the development of new genetic crop modification is the fact that they possess the potential to be enormously profitable... Thats the gist of early American patent law...and the reason why molecular biologists are spiking grapes with jellyfish genes and pulling all-nighters in pursuit of the square tomato." (full article)

He goes on to summarize how patent law and Monsanto's utilization of it, putting pressure on American farmers and ruining the food system.

"The impact of these laws has been enormous.  In essence, plant patent laws created the industrialized food system that the modern food movement rightly decries."

Kaufman tells the story of interesting (potentially beneficial?) GM research that is being done and patented on rice by researchers at UC-Davis, but not being pursued by Monsanto because its not as profitable. Now, arguments like this are difficult because of course, Monsanto, like most companies is for-profit. Why would they pursue potentially less profitable GM options? However, the reason this argument remains compelling is that they are constantly chirping about how GM foods will stop hunger and save lives, just like this rice has the actual potential to do (if deemed safe). 

He summarizes the thrust of the piece in the closing:

"If the goal of the American food movement is to offer an alternative to Big Food, if the goal is to foster small farmers worldwide, to develop better connections between rural and urban environments, and to support sustainable farming techniques- then labeling GM foods, as California's Proposition 37 would have done, will not come anywhere close to doing the job. In order to overhaul the food system, the food movement must think strategically. To the Monsantos of the world, food has become a source of wild profit and a legal construct to be defended at all costs in court. That means the time has come for the food movement to take on patient laws. Instead of tilting at the windmill of food labels, food nonprofits should hire a fleet of I.P. lawyers and send them to Washington to demand reform of the Plant Patent Act. When there's less profit in genetic modification, things will get better for consumers, farmers, and scientist-pretty much everyone except corporate executives."

The article makes for an interesting read. What do you think? Should the food movement focus on GMO labeling so we can make informed decisions or is that the least of our problems? Does Plant Patent Law worry you more?

Labels: farmers, food movement, GMO, monsanto, non-GMO

Genetically Modified Organisms, also known as GMO's: what do we really know about them? They are a hot-button topic and have been popping up more and more in recent news stories. The most recent coverage follows the California GMO labeling ballot which will be voted on in November. The "Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act" will require all foods that contain GMOs to be labeled as such.  Petitioners got more than twice the required number of signatures to get this issue on the ballot. And as of recent polls, a staggering 95% of voters plan to vote in favor of labeling GMO foods. Word on the street is that there are a slew of lobbyists and high-powered PR professionals that are being paid big money in order to convince the public otherwise, allowing GMOs to continue to be seamlessly integrated into the food system, with Americans none-the-wiser. If the bill passes later this year, it's likely that the trend will continue and other states will eventually benefit from the bill. But how did we get here? How is it that we are finding ourselves needing to battle so hard just to know whats in our food?


Before 1900, people pretty much ate what was hunted and gathered in nature.  Around the turn of the century, European plant farmers began hone the techniques of using genetic theory in order to genetically manipulate various species via natural breeding. This process was called "classic selection". The discovery of DNA in 1953 and later tinkering with its properties began, leading the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that genetically modified organisms could be patented. As you know, once something can be owned, it can be exploited.

Though Europe got a bit of a head start, it wasn't until 1987 that the first field tests on genetically modified foods were being conducted in the United States. In 1992, the first genetically modified food (a tomato, engineered to be firmer for longer) was approved for commercial production by the US Department of Agriculture.  That same year, the FDA ruled that genetically modified foods were considered not inherently dangerous (safe until proven otherwise) and such foods were given GRAS status (Generally Recognized As Safe). This essentially gave companies free range to create, sell and hide products that were not thoroughly tested for safety.

Apparently, you can thank Dan Quayle. The FDA ruling was declared a part of Quale's "Regulatory Relief" agenda. This was a rare example of down-regulating from a governmental perspective, and an unfortunately one at that. This initiative of regulatory relief concerning GMOs, by the way, went against scientific consensus at the time. So, since no companies are required to preform safety testing, and many companies even forbid the safety testing of their crops, data on GMO products is limited. However, we do have some evidence to suggest that at the very least, GMOs haven't delivered on their promises to provide better crop yields, increased nutritional value and draught-tolerance. A project that started with wholesome claims about supposed virtues of GM foods, has become a highly-criticised business, wrought with regulatory failings and more recently, human safety concerns. Here is a summary of the safety of GM foods to date. We have evidence that GM salmon isn't so great (read here to see the Consumers Union report on the GM salmon), Monsanto's GM corn is causing organ failure in rats, and GM crops, like alfalfa are requiring greater amounts of more toxic pesticides, which ideally people would avoid eating anyways. And these additional pesticides that GM foods require, are creating superweeds that are devastating farms, just as icing on the cake. And the negative impacts of GM crops doesn't end there. There are environmental concerns as well. Here are some more.

The odds are against the American public. The Obama administration recently appointed a couple of GM food advocates powerful FDA positions. And because GM foods are already a deep-seeded part of our food supply, its not a matter of just calling them out, but then actually getting them out that is going to be a challenge. 95% of all soy grown in the US last year was genetically modified and two thirds of the corn and cotton was as well. Cotton, keep in mind is often used for its cottonseed oil in processed foods as a fat source. GM foods are essentially ubiquitous in our food system, even "natural" foods contain them.

You can do your best to eat a standard diet while avoiding GMOs by utilizing tips about how to understand packaged-food labeling, but the only sure way at this point in time to avoid GMOs is to buy and eat exclusively organic foods. Trends in Europe show that GM labeling drives products off the market; lets hope thats true! To see how you can get involved in the fight against GM foods, check out the Non-GMO Project and Millions Against Monsanto, and keep checking out Innate Response's Facebook page and Twitter feed for the latest.

Labels: FDA, GMO, herbicides, monsanto, non-GMO, pesticides