Is There a Rational Reason for Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods?

[Nous]

Interestingly, just this week, a coalition of 70 "food safety, farm, environmental, and consumer advocacy organizations and food corporations," apparently headed by the advocacy organization Center for Food Safety, sent US Senators a letter urging them to vote against a new mandatory GM food labeling law. The letter lists 5 reasons why the coalition opposes the bill, the most important of which would seem to be #2:

A VAST NUMBER OF CURRENT AND FUTURE GE FOODS WILL BE EXEMPT FROM ANY LABELING -- Either intentionally, or through poor drafting and lack of scientific expertise, the novel definition of “bioengineering” under the bill would exclude from labeling a vast number of current foods produced with genetic engineering, including those where the “modification” is “found in nature,” those in which technology cannot as yet detect the novel genetic material, and foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques, such as new generations of food made with RNAi and so-called “gene-editing” techniques. In fact, 99% of all GMO food COULD be exempt from labeling as the bill leaves it entirely up to a future USDA Secretary to determine what “amount” of GMO ingredients in a food qualifies it for labeling. If that Secretary were to decide on a high percentage of GMO content, it would exempt virtually all processed GMO foods which comprise more than 99% of all GMO foods on the market.​

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/gmo-labeling-to-senateoppose62916_29341.pdf

I'd say this good enough reason to oppose this bill.

My question is whether there is any rational reason to require the labeling of foods that are, or are made from ingredients that are in some part, "genetically modified"--though exactly what that term means these days seems to be unclear. That's one of the big problems with mandating that a label have "GMO" or "GE" on it.

Of course, every food item on grocery store shelves is made of ingredients whose genome has been altered greatly by humans. Conventional breeding and hybridization methods modify the genetic code of the foods we eat in much larger and more uncertain ways than do rDNA techniques.

Four years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement assuring us that:

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

[. . .]

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report[1] states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.​

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

The statement goes on to note the testing and approval process that GM plants are subjected to and must pass in the US.

The Genetic Literacy Project has created an infographic quoting 10 esteemed scientific associations from around the world asserting the safety of genetic modified crops for human consumption: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

GLP has also compiled a list “10 Reasons why we need crop biotechnology,” some of which might be arguable or at least fail to tell the whole story about the consequences of genetically engineered crops: https://www.geneticliteracyproject....7/Biotechnology-infographic_7.29.13-clean.pdf If you wish to present evidence and argue to the contrary to any of these items, please do.

Nevertheless, for the government to require that foods be labeled "GMO" or "GE" overtly suggests that there must be some reason to be concerned about the safety or nutritional content of GM foods for consumption. And provoking such anxiety among consumers is one of the primary objections that manufacturers have to mandatory labeling, which raises First Amendment issues. The Court has always understood the First Amendment as not only protecting against the government suppressing speech, but also protecting against the government compelling speech.

In Grocery Manufacturers Association v. Sorrel, a case challenging Vermont's mandatory genetic engineering labeling law, which goes into effect today (and which would be usurped by the federal law that the Center for Food Safety opposes), plaintiffs argue (inter alia) that the law compels manufacturers to engage in speech against their best interests, prohibits them from making statements about their products that they do wish to make, is impermissibly vague in the terminology it uses uses and requires (foods made from plants that have been subjected to certain hybridization methods are also deemed "genetically engineered" by Vermont's law), and that the labeling requirement is not rational, having nothing to do with the either the safety or nutritional content of the food. The district court's order on defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction: http://cases.justia.com/federal/dis...ce/5:2014cv00117/24226/95/0.pdf?ts=1430246378

So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?

 

[Laika]

Interestingly, just this week, a coalition of 70 "food safety, farm, environmental, and consumer advocacy organizations and food corporations," apparently headed by the advocacy organization Center for Food Safety, sent US Senators a letter urging them to vote against a new mandatory GM food labeling law. The letter lists 5 reasons why the coalition opposes the bill, the most important of which would seem to be #2:

A VAST NUMBER OF CURRENT AND FUTURE GE FOODS WILL BE EXEMPT FROM ANY LABELING -- Either intentionally, or through poor drafting and lack of scientific expertise, the novel definition of “bioengineering” under the bill would exclude from labeling a vast number of current foods produced with genetic engineering, including those where the “modification” is “found in nature,” those in which technology cannot as yet detect the novel genetic material, and foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques, such as new generations of food made with RNAi and so-called “gene-editing” techniques. In fact, 99% of all GMO food COULD be exempt from labeling as the bill leaves it entirely up to a future USDA Secretary to determine what “amount” of GMO ingredients in a food qualifies it for labeling. If that Secretary were to decide on a high percentage of GMO content, it would exempt virtually all processed GMO foods which comprise more than 99% of all GMO foods on the market.​

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/gmo-labeling-to-senateoppose62916_29341.pdf

I'd say this good enough reason to oppose this bill.

My question is whether there is any rational reason to require the labeling of foods that are, or are made from ingredients that are in some part, "genetically modified"--though exactly what that term means these days seems to be unclear. That's one of the big problems with mandating that a label have "GMO" or "GE" on it.

Of course, every food item on grocery store shelves is made of ingredients whose genome has been altered greatly by humans. Conventional breeding and hybridization methods modify the genetic code of the foods we eat in much larger and more uncertain ways than do rDNA techniques.

Four years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement assuring us that:

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

[. . .]

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report[1] states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.​

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

The statement goes on to note the testing and approval process that GM plants are subjected to and must pass in the US.

The Genetic Literacy Project has created an infographic quoting 10 esteemed scientific associations from around the world asserting the safety of genetic modified crops for human consumption: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

GLP has also compiled a list “10 Reasons why we need crop biotechnology,” some of which might be arguable or at least fail to tell the whole story about the consequences of genetically engineered crops: https://www.geneticliteracyproject....7/Biotechnology-infographic_7.29.13-clean.pdf If you wish to present evidence and argue to the contrary to any of these items, please do.

Nevertheless, for the government to require that foods be labeled "GMO" or "GE" overtly suggests that there must be some reason to be concerned about the safety or nutritional content of GM foods for consumption. And provoking such anxiety among consumers is one of the primary objections that manufacturers have to mandatory labeling, which raises First Amendment issues. The Court has always understood the First Amendment as not only protecting against the government suppressing speech, but also protecting against the government compelling speech.

In Grocery Manufacturers Association v. Sorrel, a case challenging Vermont's mandatory genetic engineering labeling law, which goes into effect today (and which would be usurped by the federal law that the Center for Food Safety opposes), plaintiffs argue (inter alia) that the law compels manufacturers to engage in speech against their best interests, prohibits them from making statements about their products that they do wish to make, is impermissibly vague in the terminology it uses uses and requires (foods made from plants that have been subjected to certain hybridization methods are also deemed "genetically engineered" by Vermont's law), and that the labeling requirement is not rational, having nothing to do with the either the safety or nutritional content of the food. The district court's order on defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction: http://cases.justia.com/federal/dis...ce/5:2014cv00117/24226/95/0.pdf?ts=1430246378

So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?

I am Not very familiar with the debate on GM crops but labelling it gives the consumer the choice as to whether to buy GM or not. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've heard third party sources claim a Gmo food using genes from a food with common allergens can cause allergic reactions in a consumer (i.e. Brazil nut genes in a kiwi) therefore should be labeled just like foods prepared in areas that can have trace common allergens. But I haven't seen actual reports claiming this happens. And it's a pretty outlying circumstance.

I'm more concerned with gmo seeds not properly sterilized becoming invasive and interfering with local species. As well as big agriculture companies suing small farmers because their patented genes make their way into their crops. But that's another subject.

 

[Augustus]

So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?

Yes.

They have not been proved to be be "safe", they have not been shown to be harmful.

There is still risk involved with them. Collectively this is a pretty significant risk (most importantly to the ecosystem, rather than humans).

It's immoral to not give people the choice.

There is no rational reason not to label (unless you are representing business interests then it is very rational).

 

[columbus]

Four years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement assuring us that:

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

I'm quite old.
I remember when official reports proved that smoking tobacco was safe.
Maybe the business people who want to profit from GMO are better at managing government corruption than Mr. Williams and the Governor of Virginia.
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?

Personally, I'd like to see a broadsheet detailing all aspects of production and manufacturing methods for anything I put in my stomach. At the local farmer's market, I can directly ask the producer. At those baneful things called supermarkets, where industrial food reigns king, I cannot.

 

[columbus]

At the local farmer's market, I can directly ask the producer.

How do you know that what they tell you is true?
Tom

 

[columbus]

There is still risk involved with them. Collectively this is a pretty significant risk (most importantly to the ecosystem, rather than humans).

Not all the risks are health related.
A few years back, Monsanto Corp sued a bunch of poor Mexican farmers. Monsanto claimed that their copyright was being infringed by the farmers.
Pollen from their fields was pollinating the Mexicans fields, so a giant USA company forced the poor farmers to sell their crops to the Corporation, at the Corporation's price, to protect the Corporation's patent rights.
Poor farmers were put up against the legal and marketing divisions of Monsanto Corp, and predictably lost.
Tom

 

[Nous]

I am Not very familiar with the debate on GM crops but labelling it gives the consumer the choice as to whether to buy GM or not.

Consumers in the US do have a choice. Anyone who does not wish to purchase genetically engineered foods has a huge variety of "non-GMO" products to choose from. Any fruit or vegetable whose Price Look-Up code is 5 digits and begins with 9 is organic, and there are several available databases and apps that provide lists of the proliferation of products that are, or are made from ingredients that are, not genetically engineered. E.g., http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

It is the mandatory labeling of GM foods that limits choice, because such a government-required label makes people believe that there must be some issue with the safety or nutritional profile of the food. Indeed, it seems the primary purpose of mandatory labeling is to deprive consumers of the option to choose the highly beneficial, environmentally friendlier, and less expensive genetically engineered food, is it not?

Many people argue for GMO labels in the name of increased consumer choice. On the contrary, such labels have limited people's options. In 1997, a time of growing opposition to GMOs in Europe, the E.U. began to require them. By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand. Major food producers such as Nestlé followed suit. Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.

Americans who oppose genetically modified foods would celebrate a similar exclusion. Everyone else would pay a price. Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods--and for a questionable return. Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400. The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the “naturalness” of their products.​

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/

I haven't been in a UK grocery store in several years, but I don't recall seeing many foods with a "GMO" label on them.

 

[Nous]

I've heard third party sources claim a Gmo food using genes from a food with common allergens can cause allergic reactions in a consumer (i.e. Brazil nut genes in a kiwi) therefore should be labeled just like foods prepared in areas that can have trace common allergens. But I haven't seen actual reports claiming this happens. And it's a pretty outlying circumstance.

I wonder if you might be referring to the fact that the conventionally bred and hybridized kiwi was not tested for allergenic properties prior to being introduced into the US in the 1960s, and is known to produce allergic reactions in some people: http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8180.pdf

This is from the AMA's Council on Science and Public Health:

Potential allergenicity problems have occurred in two documented cases. In both, pre-and post-market safety procedures effectively halted exposure.[11] The first case involves transgenic soybean intended for use in animal feed; the soybeans were engineered to express a methionine-rich protein from the Brazil nut. Pre-market testing verified that the transgenic protein was able to bind to Immunoglobulin E (IgE) from people allergic to Brazil nuts, an indication that the protein is an allergen. As a consequence, and even though it was only intended for animal feed, the transgenic soybean variety was never commercialized.34 The second case involved a variety of corn engineered to express Cry9C, an insecticidal protein. The corn was approved for use as an animal feed, but not for human consumption because upon pre-market testing, Cry9C howed some attributes associated with an allergen.[11]​

http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA Report.pdf

I'm more concerned with gmo seeds not properly sterilized becoming invasive and interfering with local species.

You don't know of any case of that happening, do you?

Why would a genetically engineered crop plant be more likely to become "invasive" and "interfere" with local species than would crop plants whose genome has been modified by conventional breeding and hybridization techniques?

As well as big agriculture companies suing small farmers because their patented genes make their way into their crops.

You don't know of any instance of that happening, do you? What kind of freakish law or judicial precedent would allow "big agricultural companies" to prevail in such a suit?

 

[Nous]

So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?

Yes.

They have not been proved to be be "safe"

So you have assessed the evidence and determined that this statement from the AAAS is false:

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

[. . .]

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report[1] states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.​

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

?

If so, provide the evidence by which you have determined that the AAAS statement is false.

It's immoral to not give people the choice.

Repeating my reply to Laika:

Consumers in the US do have a choice. Anyone who does not wish to purchase genetically engineered foods has a huge variety of "non-GMO" products to choose from. Any fruit or vegetable whose Price Look-Up code is 5 digits and begins with 9 is organic, and there are several available databases and apps that provide lists of the proliferation of products that are, or are made from ingredients that are, not genetically engineered. E.g., http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

It is the mandatory labeling of GM foods that limits choice, because such a government-required label makes people believe that there must be some issue with the safety or nutritional profile of the food. Indeed, it seems the primary purpose of mandatory labeling is to deprive consumers of the option to choose the highly beneficial, environmentally friendlier, and less expensive genetically engineered food, is it not?

Many people argue for GMO labels in the name of increased consumer choice. On the contrary, such labels have limited people's options. In 1997, a time of growing opposition to GMOs in Europe, the E.U. began to require them. By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand. Major food producers such as Nestlé followed suit. Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.

Americans who oppose genetically modified foods would celebrate a similar exclusion. Everyone else would pay a price. Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods--and for a questionable return. Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400. The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the “naturalness” of their products.​

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/

 

[Nous]

I'm quite old.
I remember when official reports proved that smoking tobacco was safe.

So, your "reasoning" is that because there were (supposedly) "official reports" 70 years ago that claimed that smoking tobacco was safe, the following statements by various associations of scientists the world over are also false?

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

[. . .]

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report[1] states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.​

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

The American Medical Association:

There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. [. . .] Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.​

http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA Report.pdf

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine:

Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.​

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/

The European Commission:

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.​

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

Do you also deny all other claims that scientific organizations assert because you believe there were "official reports" claiming that smoking tobacco was safe? Do you deny the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis that a number of scientific organizations have concluded to be true?

Maybe the business people who want to profit from GMO are better at managing government corruption than Mr. Williams and the Governor of Virginia.

Come again? What does any of that mean?

 

[Nous]

Personally, I'd like to see a broadsheet detailing all aspects of production and manufacturing methods for anything I put in my stomach. At the local farmer's market, I can directly ask the producer.

What do you think farmers do differently in planting, growing and harvesting genetically engineered crops than farmers do in growing crops whose genome has been modified by conventional breeding and hybridization methods?

Can you show us the "broadsheet detailing all aspects of production and manufacturing methods" that you looked at before putting garbanzo beans (or any other vegetable) in your stomach?

Why should there be mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods just because you haven't seen a "broadsheet detailing all aspects of production and manufacturing methods" of genetically engineered foods? I asked for a rational reason for mandatory labeling of GM foods.

 

[Nous]

Not all the risks are health related.
A few years back, Monsanto Corp sued a bunch of poor Mexican farmers. Monsanto claimed that their copyright was being infringed by the farmers.
Pollen from their fields was pollinating the Mexicans fields, so a giant USA company forced the poor farmers to sell their crops to the Corporation, at the Corporation's price, to protect the Corporation's patent rights.
Poor farmers were put up against the legal and marketing divisions of Monsanto Corp, and predictably lost.

Oh my God!!! What absolute nonsense and lies!! Nothing of the sort has ever happened!

 

[columbus]

So, your "reasoning" is that because there were (supposedly) "official reports" 70 years ago that claimed that smoking tobacco was safe, the following statements by various associations of scientists the world over are also false?

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

[. . .]

Yes. That is one reason that I don't trust such reports. I want the choice of buying nonGMO food in the store where the choice is actually made.
If the free market makes GMO foods less competitive then so be it. That's just how it works.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

So you have assessed the evidence and determined that this statement from the AAAS is false:

[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

Anyone who said this is incompetent and should be fired immediately. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Was thalidomide 'safe' when it went on sale to the public?

Medical trials are very flawed, agree?

Why do you have absolute faith in GMO trials?

If so, provide the evidence by which you have determined that the AAAS statement is false.

This paper explains it pretty well.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf


In short though, atomised trials, testing a small number of variables for a limited time are nothing like real world conditions. Also, we are unable to predict the effect our actions will have on the environment as it is too complex. In a complex system the long term effects of changing a single variable are unknowable, and effects can be non-linear. They can also compound with other effects.

GMO will change the ecosystem in some way do you think that we can predict this accurately? (If you do, then go and look at our species' track record of predictions, it is terrible. If you still do, then you are a sucker and I've got some magic beans you might want to buy)

 

[Nous]

Yes.

Then you need to learn to reason correctly. The fact that there were supposedly "official reports" 70 years ago making a false claim does not lead to the conclusion that any of the statements I quoted from scientific organizations on GM foods are false.

I want the choice of buying nonGMO food

You have that choice now. Do you exercise it?

 

[Nous]

Anyone who said this is incompetent and should be fired immediately. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There isn't an absence of evidence showing that GM foods are just as safe as foods whose genomes have been changed by conventional breeding and hybridization techniques. The evidence exists showing that GM foods are just as safe as foods whose genomes have been changed by conventional breeding and hybridization techniques.

This paper explains it pretty well.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf

This paper begins: "The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally) . . . " By the scientists (et al.) who have assessed the evidence, there isn't any "suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public" due to consumption of genetically engineered foods. Just the opposite. For instance, from the Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities:

Based on the published scientific literature, this report examines the potential hazards and risks of consuming genetically modified (GM) plant products. Toxicity, carcinogenicity and food allergenicity, and the possible effects of consuming foreign DNA (including antibiotic resistance genes) are all taken into account. The report concludes that food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.

[. . .]

Conventional maize cobs are often infected with the fungus Fusarium moniliforme, resulting in production of the fungal toxin fumonisin. For more than a century, “mouldy corn disease” has been recognised as a hazard for horses, pigs and other livestock, with entire herds dying after being fed corn infected with Fusaria. Sixteen years ago, the fumonisin was identified as the cause of the disease. It is known to induce liver cancer in rats. Fumonisin is thus a serious problem; it so stable that it survives processing and can sometimes be found in cornflakes. In the UK in September 2003 the analysis of 30 samples of maize products in supermarkets led to the removal of ten of them because of excessively high levels of fumonisin content; the contaminated samples with the highest fumonisin contents were those labelled “organic”.

Several studies have found contamination with fumonisin to be greatly decreased in insect-resistant (Bt) GM maize; whereas in conventional maize plants the fungi proliferate in cobs injured by insects, in GM maize there is much less insect damage and hence less fumonisin. These findings indicate that food from GM maize is more healthy for humans than that from conventionally grown maize.

Is there a higher risk of food allergy from eating food derived from GM plants than from conventional food?

Estimates suggest that 5-8% of children and of 1-2% adults are allergic to certain conventionally produced foods. Peanuts, for instance, are known to contain 12 allergenic proteins.

While there is no legal requirement for the testing of foods from conventional varieties, strict allergy tests are mandatory for GMO products. The WHO (World Health Organisation) has introduced a protocol for detailed GMO allergenicity tests, both for the plant products concerned and also for their pollen. This protocol is being constantly improved. Tests of this sort on one occasion alerted scientists to the fact that the introduction of a gene from brazil nut into soy bean, in the hope that it would improve quality, would be allergenic for certain persons. As a result, further development of that GMO was abandoned by the company involved prior to any commercialisation, demonstrating that the safety regulation system functions well.

Our collective experience to date shows the strict allergenicity tests of GM products to have been very successful: not one allergenic GM product has been introduced onto the market. In conventional breeding, in which genes are altered at random by experimentally caused mutations or unexpected gene combinations generated by crossings, such tests are not legally required. For this reason the risk of GM plants causing allergies can be regarded as substantially lower than that of products from conventional breeding. Furthermore, intensive gene technology research is already under way with a view to removing allergens from peanuts, wheat and rice.​

http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/special-topics_are_there_health_hazards.html

For instance:

GM crops in general need fewer field operations, such as tillage, which allows more residue to remain in the ground, sequestering more CO2 in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2011, these practices were equivalent to removing 10.2 million cars from the road for one year. (source: PG Economics)​

The new generation of GM crops--Golden Rice, which delivers vitamin A enhanced rice, high carotene mustard seed oil, Vitamin A enhanced cassava, enriched sweet potatoes and even edible vaccines--are just a few innovations awaiting approval. (source: Plant Physiology, Journal of American College of Nutrition, Gates Foundation)

Biotechnology saves the equivalent of 521,000 pounds of pesticides each year and helps cut herbicide runoff by 70 percent. (sources: ISAAA, PG Economics)
​

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....7/Biotechnology-infographic_7.29.13-clean.pdf

 

[Augustus]

There isn't an absence of evidence showing that GM foods are just as safe as foods whose genomes have been changed by conventional breeding and hybridization techniques. The evidence exists showing that GM foods are just as safe as foods whose genomes have been changed by conventional breeding and hybridization techniques.

This paper begins: "The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally) . . . " By the scientists (et al.) who have assessed the evidence, there isn't any "suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public" due to consumption of genetically engineered foods. Just the opposite. For instance, from the Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities:

Based on the published scientific literature, this report examines the potential hazards and risks of consuming genetically modified (GM) plant products. Toxicity, carcinogenicity and food allergenicity, and the possible effects of consuming foreign DNA (including antibiotic resistance genes) are all taken into account. The report concludes that food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.

[. . .]

Conventional maize cobs are often infected with the fungus Fusarium moniliforme, resulting in production of the fungal toxin fumonisin. For more than a century, “mouldy corn disease” has been recognised as a hazard for horses, pigs and other livestock, with entire herds dying after being fed corn infected with Fusaria. Sixteen years ago, the fumonisin was identified as the cause of the disease. It is known to induce liver cancer in rats. Fumonisin is thus a serious problem; it so stable that it survives processing and can sometimes be found in cornflakes. In the UK in September 2003 the analysis of 30 samples of maize products in supermarkets led to the removal of ten of them because of excessively high levels of fumonisin content; the contaminated samples with the highest fumonisin contents were those labelled “organic”.

Several studies have found contamination with fumonisin to be greatly decreased in insect-resistant (Bt) GM maize; whereas in conventional maize plants the fungi proliferate in cobs injured by insects, in GM maize there is much less insect damage and hence less fumonisin. These findings indicate that food from GM maize is more healthy for humans than that from conventionally grown maize.

Is there a higher risk of food allergy from eating food derived from GM plants than from conventional food?

Estimates suggest that 5-8% of children and of 1-2% adults are allergic to certain conventionally produced foods. Peanuts, for instance, are known to contain 12 allergenic proteins.

While there is no legal requirement for the testing of foods from conventional varieties, strict allergy tests are mandatory for GMO products. The WHO (World Health Organisation) has introduced a protocol for detailed GMO allergenicity tests, both for the plant products concerned and also for their pollen. This protocol is being constantly improved. Tests of this sort on one occasion alerted scientists to the fact that the introduction of a gene from brazil nut into soy bean, in the hope that it would improve quality, would be allergenic for certain persons. As a result, further development of that GMO was abandoned by the company involved prior to any commercialisation, demonstrating that the safety regulation system functions well.

Our collective experience to date shows the strict allergenicity tests of GM products to have been very successful: not one allergenic GM product has been introduced onto the market. In conventional breeding, in which genes are altered at random by experimentally caused mutations or unexpected gene combinations generated by crossings, such tests are not legally required. For this reason the risk of GM plants causing allergies can be regarded as substantially lower than that of products from conventional breeding. Furthermore, intensive gene technology research is already under way with a view to removing allergens from peanuts, wheat and rice.​

http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/special-topics_are_there_health_hazards.html

For instance:

GM crops in general need fewer field operations, such as tillage, which allows more residue to remain in the ground, sequestering more CO2 in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2011, these practices were equivalent to removing 10.2 million cars from the road for one year. (source: PG Economics)​

The new generation of GM crops--Golden Rice, which delivers vitamin A enhanced rice, high carotene mustard seed oil, Vitamin A enhanced cassava, enriched sweet potatoes and even edible vaccines--are just a few innovations awaiting approval. (source: Plant Physiology, Journal of American College of Nutrition, Gates Foundation)

Biotechnology saves the equivalent of 521,000 pounds of pesticides each year and helps cut herbicide runoff by 70 percent. (sources: ISAAA, PG Economics)
​

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....7/Biotechnology-infographic_7.29.13-clean.pdf

I'll write a proper reply when I have time, but a few questions first :

1. Do you believe gmo tests are a perfect replication of long term real world conditions?
2. Do you believe the risk of each new "safe" gmo causing harm to the ECOSYSTEM (not health) is zero?
3. Do you believe we can perfectly predict the long term effects of changing variables in the ecosystem?
4. Do you believe medical trials are a perfect replication of long term real world conditions and the risk of each new "safe" medicine is zero?

 

[Quintessence]

What do you think farmers do differently in planting, growing and harvesting genetically engineered crops than farmers do in growing crops whose genome has been modified by conventional breeding and hybridization methods?

Can you show us the "broadsheet detailing all aspects of production and manufacturing methods" that you looked at before putting garbanzo beans (or any other vegetable) in your stomach?

Why should there be mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods just because you haven't seen a "broadsheet detailing all aspects of production and manufacturing methods" of genetically engineered foods? I asked for a rational reason for mandatory labeling of GM foods.

I see the point of that post was lost on you. Allow me to make it more obvious, then.

It is perfectly rational to want to know about where one's food comes from and how it is made, for any and all parts of the process. For most of human history, we were all the farmers directly producing these foods, or it was produced by a neighbor in town who we knew and could chat with. We knew how our foods were produced because we did it ourselves. Now, the details of production methods are hidden behind walls and cardboard boxes. I'm in favor of tearing down those walls and boxes. It encourages product accountability, which for industrial food is very important given its mass produced nature and wide reach... and it allows customers to purchase with respect to their values. Disclosing the hereditary origin of a food product would only be one tiny piece of that effort (and to my mind, not a particularly relevant one compared to, say, the use of poisons to produce foods).