Lately I have been watching a lot of nasty language aimed at people who hold one or more of the following views: 1. Want GMOs labeled 2. Want GMOs banned for human consumption 3. Want to preserve heirloom non GMO seed sources in order to ensure accessibility while preserving genetic diversity. 4. Want better quality food in general. 5. Want more sustainable food sources in general. The desires listed above can be because the consumer has health problems, or has a strongly held desire for a more sustainable agriculture, it could be tied in with views on pollution, global climate change, or conservation. It can also be a way of expressing concern over future food security issues. Lately there has been a backlash against these people, and it takes the forms of a lot of personal attacks, and straw-man arguments. The most popular of which is to conflate these sentiments exclusively with CT and mostly that CT being of the Anti-Vaccine Movement. It's a bit sickening and I will tell you why: Follow me through the orange portal to see what I mean.
The scenario described above, combined with some internet commentary that grossly misrepresented a movement that is about GMOs, but that is about so very much more than that. First of all, timing is everything, and it's that season again. Its an election cycle where each side looks for wedge issues to confound their opposing parties. In this case GMOs/anti-Vaccine/CT is the wedge issue here. I am kind of surprised our side hadn't put it together. But I guess we all have our blind spots. Right now there is a movement. It has diverse elements that don’t always see eye to eye, but lately this large and varied movement gained enough momentum to pressure General Mills and Post to start offering nonGMO products. It has pressured Lowes into promising in the near future to stop carrying nursery plants treated with NeoNicotinoids. Other businesses have gotten involved like Chipotle. Panera Bread has begun a program to remove additives from it's menu items by 2016, but it's part of a larger initiative.
Today’s additives announcement was part of a larger “food policy” released by the chain, which outlines its commitment to an array of causes that food activists and conscientious eaters hold dear, including meat raised without antibiotics and sustainable fishing and farming. CSM.
The usual attacks on businesses striking out to make these things happen, is that "it's impossible" and that any attempt to make these changes are misleading to their customers. Well, that last issue seems to be present across the board then. Mostly what I take from such attacks is, "don't even try." What a positive, life affirming, empowering sentiment for all of us to internalize.
DON'T EVEN TRY.
For me, when that pops up, along with "Don't think for yourself" type attacks those are big red flags for me, and for others too. What else shouldn't we try? Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels? Reduce our use of plastic bags or plastics in general? Should we bother with water conservation? How about hand washing during flu season? Imagine if Gay activists had taken that sentiment to heart. Or if women had simply stopped attempting to break out of the kitchen.
It's impossible, and anyone who does it will never do it perfectly therefore, Don't Even Try.
I always have had a special place in my heart for that sentiment. If you cannot accomplish your goal perfectly and without error the first time, then don't even bother. But now we have Wildlife Refuges that have stopped growing GMOs and spraying pesticides on their territories. Programs that were reminiscent of the Gypsy Moth eradication programs way back in the day. How many animals do you kill, how many ecosystems do you poison in order to get at an emerald ash borer? GMOs and Pesticides aren't just coming to your kitchen from the corporate farm, they were in our parks and forests too. Imagine how much pressure had to have occurred to cause Post and General Mills to start offering nonGMO products. Those are two very large food manufacturers of cereals for starters. How would this affect King (GMO) Corn? Be sure and check out this Corn Timeline too This movement has a powerful enough momentum, that it has gotten investors attention, as a new market becomes more defined, and it has others creating businesses that specialize in acquiring and moving non-GMO food, held in conserve for businesses that want to process it and put it in their mass produced products.
“The difficulty of supplying large quantities of non-GMO commodities is such an urgent problem that in December three dozen representatives of grain and food groups formed the "Non-GMO Working Group" to try to expand the non-GMO commodity supply chain.” US Food Companies Find Going nonGMO Is No Easy Feat
Let that sink in for a moment. Now consider how this occurrence might cause certain GMO companies like Monsanto and Syngenta to kick in their sleep a bit. When I say, this backlash is really about Commerce and Regulation I am not exaggerating. Here it is in black and white. The demand for Organics (which includes) nonGMOs is high enough that there are businesses being formed solely to increase supply to match the demand. Now lets reexamine the labeling issue with GMOs. Some people like me aren't for GMOs, but they are here. So in the very least they should be strictly labeled period. I also posit that farmers of nonGMO crops should have the right to sue over contamination of their crops with transgenes from adjacent GMO crops. At the consumer level--Right now, consumers like myself do a pretty good job is letting the corporations know how we feel a bout GMOs by buying food products that are advertised as organic or GMO free. We have already seen the affect that has had on the food-market. But what response have we gotten over the labeling issue? Resistance. Not just resistance but a smear campaign against people who want labeling as well. Why would that be? Because right now there is fierce competition to jocky for position in a quickly changing food market. No one wants to be left out in the cold when customer-voters make it very clear they are willing to pay a premium to acquire Organic food or GMO free food. And where those choices are limited, some consumers are willing to go off the grid to get what they want, whether that involves bartering with local growers, or raising their own part of the time or year round. The ripples of this movement go far into the fabric of society. Hey kids! Ever wonder why I have my own garden, chickens and bees? Ever wonder why we have seen a comeback in home canning and preserves? When you see Ball Canning Books and supplies at local box stores? Ever wonder why people are taking up foraging and wild crafting too? It has been responsible for a larger organic section in major chain stores and as well as responsible for labeling wars by the food industry to try and hide GMO sources of sugar, specifically refined sugars from Sugar Beets, and High Fructose Corn Syrup which are unpopular for several reasons with some consumers. Pepsico, another big player is now offering soda pop sweetened with cane sugar instead of High Fructose Corn Syrup. I know some of you say--but sugar isn't health food, WTF? Yep, it's not. But even people who eat organic like a cupcake or a soda once in a while. So while it's not healthy, it's about where the food comes from and what's in it. In this case, corn syrup is made of corn and most of the corn in this country is pesticide laden GMO corn. So the rejection of it isn't over necessarily it's nutritional value, but over the seed itself (GMO) and the pesticides used to grow it. Pepsico is figuring out what the Beer industry is dealing with. Small soda crafters are breaking into the market offering not only more flavors, but some with more sustainable ingredients that don't involve GMOs. But there's more to it than that. That's another category of change to check off with this movement, it's part of the Buy Local movement. This is how small soda crafters stand out from the big brands like Coke and Pepsi. They offer different, better ingredients, and the promise of keeping those dollars circulating in that community as well as cutting down on shipping costs and fuel expenditures (read carbon footprint). Think of it like those beer commercials. "I don't drink soda often, but when I do, I prefer something made with organic cane sugar". I pay more for my soda, which insures what? That I drink less of it, which is healthier for me, I enjoy it more because now it's a treat and not a food group, and I don't mind paying more for it because I buy less of it, so it's okay to put the cost of sustainable farming costs into the drink for those reasons. So foods including soda pop and candy, and you can add cosmetics and personal care products. Remember ripple effect. Cotton is GMO too. But more than that, the cotton used in personal care products is often full of dioxins. No big deal right? Unless you are putting up next to or in your vagina. So there is a movement to buy not only make-up that contains fewer harmful chemicals, but dioxin free, chemical free feminine care products. Women in particular are concerned with chemicals, because we are more severely affected by them due to our unique physiology. But don't worry men, you aren't being left out, our world is so saturated now, that you will catch up with us if you haven't already. This is also overlapping the Raw Food Movement and the Slow Food Movement. If you haven't noticed a difference in flavor between the usual store bought tomato and an heirloom variety that actually ripened in the sunshine--you need to. Sometimes these decisions are about healthy food, sometimes it's just about the flavor, sometimes it's about both. People want food that tastes like it should, not like flavor packets from a chemistry shop, nor bland textures reminiscent of a synesthetes impression of depression; they want known nutritional content and fewer or no chemicals in it. They want to know where their food comes from. They want to know that their food is good for them, or at least not poison. Ever wonder why we have this explosion of roof top farms, and micro-eco-farms and urban farms and farmer's markets? Here it is. More off the grid buying and bartering to get those organic and pesticide free, heirloom varieties on the table. But but it's all driven by CT! This is where battles over the label "All Natural" come into play. Enter food-green-washing. So companies recognized the demand some time ago, and started to tamper with labeling and consumers punched back. All of this has certain Agri-chemical companies running scared. And it should. In a world where GMO-Corn is King, along with Cotton and Soy, when consumers start demanding phrases like “All Natural” and “Organic” be indicative of not only a dearth of chemicals, but also genetically modified organisms in those products, as well as demands for cruelty free and antibiotic free meats. More consumers have decided for a variety of reasons, that the factory farm, the practice of monoculture is bad for the environment, and bad for human health. So they have started to put pressure on companies to start carrying items that are made in a way, that the shopper can feel they have made the most ethical decision possible when they spend their hard earned cash on organic and natural products. And some of these consumers are leading by example. That is where permies come in with their food forests. Not everyone will or can do this, but many are. Consider it the home-food source that utilizes some xeriscape concepts. Maybe your neighbor offers one product seasonally like Honey or Persimmons. Or maybe several of your neighbors sell goat or cows milk or eggs. That's still products off the grid usually grown or raised by people who have a different standard. If I made enough, I could sell raw honey. I could sell my chicken's eggs. I can hop in my car and drive a couple miles and buy organic goat and cow milk, or even a side of goat or beef for my freezer. And I know people who do just that all the time. I can go to certain areas and forage for Chickasaw plums, and persimmons and mulberries and blackberries. Pesticide free, growing here since at least the land run, maybe longer than that depending on the species. We read about other aspects of this movement regularly. Meatless Monday--hello. Eating Seasonally. Reducing food waste, buying local, raising your own food, etc., And most importantly: The reason GMOs can be patented is because the courts declared that they are not natural. Natural matter cannot be patented. You cannot patent stevia plants, or plantain weeds, or dandelions, unless you have first done something to create a new strain which makes them patentable which in this case involves gene splicing to create a plant that has a chimeric gene code. By splicing genes into a code of a plant or bacterium, the courts have decided that's enough to make the organism man-made, and not naturally occurring. Diamond vs Chakrabarty 1980: A patent is granted to a Genetic Engineer via an application from General Electric for a GMO, a bacterium that eats oil, meant to be used to help clean up oil spills. A live, human-made organism is patentable subject matter under 35 USC-101 The organism was patentable because it was not a naturally occurring organism, it was not natural. It had been created in a lab. NOT NATURAL.
In Diamond v. Chakrabarty a divided 5 to 4 Supreme Court held that a genetically modified bacterium that was genetically engineered to ingest oil (for use in oil spill cleanups) was not a "product of nature" and was patentable subject matter under the patent statute. The case did not deal with naturally occurring genes. It dealt with a man-made, genetically engineered micro-organism that the court described as not naturally occurring. The decision made clear that products and laws of nature are not patentable: "The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. . . . Such discoveries are 'manifestations of . . . nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.'" ACLU
Regardless of the cultural baggage associated with the phrase, "not natural" i.e., "not naturally occurring," the fact of the matter is, General Electric and Dr Chakrabarty won their case on the merits of this oil-eating, genetically-engineered organism being NOT NATURAL. So when you see people like me demanding that GMOs be labeled, and that organic and all natural, have specific definitions that don't include artificial ingredients which includes the absence of genetically modified organisms, we are simply going along with the legal definition passed on by Justice Burger way back in 1980. Just because the powers that be have declared that GMOs are an edible substitute for their NATURAL, nonGMO counterparts isn't the same as declaring them the same. If GMO crops are the same as natural corn, and natural soy, and natural cotton, then the companies have no right to patent the seeds, and have no legal standing whatsoever to launch witch hunts against farmers whose crops are cross pollinated volunteers from previous or adjacent transgenic crops. In short--"Sound Science Champions", you can't have it both ways. If GMOs are natural, then they are not eligible for a patent. If GMOs are eligible for a patent, then they are not natural. You get to pick one. Patentable genes have been a problem from the start. Or did we all forget the legal battles over access to testing for BRAC1 and BRAC2 genes, or Canavans disease? See Who Owns My Disease? and ACLU on Free Speech and gene patents The ethical issues over genetic industry are wide and varied, and almost always end up being about HOW MUCH WE CAN CHARGE THE PUBLIC for the tech. Whether that's genetic testing for onco-genes, or access to patented seeds, or the threat of legal suits if your seed is cross pollinated with GMO crops, or the inability to sell your crops as organic and nonGMO due to transgenetic pollution. The notion to include GMOs in organic products are simply a desire to reverse engineer the laws on the books. The companies want it both ways, after all it is a chance to charge consumers a premium for a product they don't want. By attempting to include GMOs in organic products unlabeled or labeled as "organic" it would set a legal precedent for companies to challenge the prerequisites for labeling any product Organic while still keeping the patented status. Its intended to be a GOTCHA moment for the organic consumer. The USDA is pretty clear on what is and is not organic:
The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer can’t plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can’t eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can’t use any GMO ingredients. To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show they aren’t using GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with prohibited substances, such as GMOs, from farm to table...Any certified organic operation found to use prohibited substances or GMOs may face enforcement actions, including loss of certification and financial penalties. However, unlike many pesticides, there aren’t specific tolerance levels in the USDA organic regulations for GMOs. As such, National Organic Program policy states that trace amounts of GMOs don’t automatically mean the farm is in violation of the USDA organic regulations. In these cases, the certifying agent will investigate how the inadvertent presence occurred and recommend how it can be better prevented in the future. For example, they may require a larger buffer zone or more thorough cleaning of a shared grain mill. USDA
Note the "related" posts on the USDA page linked to and quoted above: USDA: Leading The Way Towards Restoring our Water Soil and Lands From Commerce to Conservation; Coastal Areas Reap Rewards Working Together To Restore The Colorado Front Range. Like I said--it's more than just GMOs, it's about conservation, and sustainability So all of this is a backlash against a movement that responded to the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in this country with a government that wheels and deals with multinational corporations and revolving door politics. We the people could not get our government agencies to properly regulate these new agri-technologies be it GMOs, or chemical biocides used to support these GMO crops. So we side stepped the whole process and started voting with our wallets. And now that the market has started to respond in a significant fashion, the wailing from the agri-giants who thought they had it all figured out, has been deafening. They failed to see how their arrogant ham-handed behavior might piss off the voters in this country. Because consumers are voters. They thought they could MAKE us eat their crap without so much as a by your leave. Well they succeeded up to a point. But at least this portion of America has a long memory, and a longer attention span, and the momentum to empower ourselves in spite of the regulatory hanky-panky, and it has grown to the point that it can no longer be ignored. Some of you wouldn't be calling us names if it were otherwise. This has been going on for a while. See this quote from Market Place in 2012:
David Brancaccio: The Monsanto corporation is making a big presentation to Wall Street today, trying to assure investors that the company's genetically-modified foods continue to sell just fine. But the company is also watching efforts in 20 states -- including Vermont -- to pass laws to require genetically-modified foods be labeled as such, which may be useful information for consumers but could cut into sales.
You don't have to like it, or agree with it. It is what it is. You always hear the mating call of the bagger, "Let Market Forces Decide!" well here it is. Many of us have decided that we don't want to eat poisons or transgenes, and want a more sustainable farming practice to benefit the environment. Some of you are all into better living through chemistry. That's fine. That is your choice. This is my choice. But let me be clear, this attempt to make an entire movement about only GMOs, to reduce this to the single most controversial issue out of the batch? What does that remind me of? Oh yea, Right Wing Nutjobs reducing the constellation of issues surrounding women's rights to only Abortion. I am not fooled by any of these tactics because these are older than King Tut's dry rotted undies. Some will keep complaining that this crosses party lines and sometimes people in other voting blocks are heavily involved for reasons you don't approve of. Well boo-fucking hoo; ever hear the old saying, "Politics makes for strange bedfellows"? Here we found a collection of issues so universally unpopular that areas of the Right and the Left, meet in the middle. Better run outside and see if the world is about to end, I think I hear the scream of the approaching, planet killing asteroid! So lets recap. The people that oppose GMOs meaning they want them strictly labeled and controlled or banned outright, also want greater accessibility to Organic or pesticide free food and products Want Biocides and GMOs kept out of parks, and recreational areas in order to preserve the natural beauty of these places but also to preserve their natural ecosystems as well, whenever possible. Want Science to become more independent from profit driven corporations. Want to see more sustainable agricultural practices when raising plants and animals as sources for food and medicine and other goods. Wish to conserve our native Genetic Diversity which includes our heirloom varieties of crops and farm animals. Wish to conserve an environment that is safe for people and pollinators in the short and long term (think bioaccumulation) Believe that each human has a fundamental right to choose with knowledge what they ingest. That to avoid accurate labeling is to deprive the human consumer of knowledge and to forego consent, because consent cannot happen in ignorance. anything less than accurate clear labeling is nothing more than a form of corporate coercion. Recommended Reading and Watching: National Academy of Science: Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods; Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects Questions that get asked, Ultimately what you see here are people whose beliefs ultimately enmesh with system's theory, vs industrialists who employ linear thinking, and a short term version at that. Here is the main page for it though. Here is a close up look at how these companies first unleash their pollution on poorer, indigenous communities before dumping it on the doorsteps of everyone else. This is the long history, the long memory of people who fight against what we consider an unsustainable method of industrial agriculture that is unhealthy for humans and the environment. In case you missed it, see what happens to scientists professionally, when they challenge these big agri-chemical companies: The New Yorker: A Valuable Reputation, After Tyrone Hayse said that a chemical was harmful, it’s maker pursued him; by Rachel Aviv. Ms Aviv should have added, "for years" at the end of that title. Dr Hayes has been dealing with Syngenta's bullshit for a very long time. He was also interviewed by Democracy Now. And has visited Kauai, Hawaii,a community and an island being poisoned to death by ag-testing centers and their biocide overspray and runoff. The Ecologist, and The Grist. And why worry about GMO consumption when you can become one some day? Mother Jones: New Monsanto Spray Kills Bugs By Messing With their Genes. Counterpunch; Growing Doubt: A Scientist’s Experience with GMOs by Jonathon Latham. Maybe we should get this guy in contact with Dr Hayes. He may need some pointers soon. Truth Out: GMO Safety Physicians Take on the Biotech Industry. Good luck to all. Vote your conscience. I know I do, every time I choose organic products. I know I vote every time I grow heirloom plants from seed. Maybe we can't all be perfectly organic all the time, but we have done it well enough to force this confrontation between the people and the food manufacturers and the giant agri-chemical companies.
Tue Oct 20, 2015 at 12:50 PM PT: Truthout: Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Pro-GMO Propaganda using TaxPayer Dollars (20 Oct 2015): http://www.truth-out.org/…
Nov 13 2015 CNN, What’s in your pad or Tampon