Filter Questions

Reset Filter

No questions match....

  • Community Manager's picture
    Community Manager
    @Konrad Roeder GMOs do not cause allergies which are not already present due to other factors unrelated to GMOs. In fact, researchers deliberately avoid using unique genes associated with milk, eggs, wheat, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, soy and legumes – the eight major food allergens, which account for 90 percent of all food allergy cases in the US. In addition, GMOs are comprehensively evaluated for numerous other factors, which are associated with allergenic potential, such as protein structure and digestibility. It is important to remember that if a person is allergic to a non-GM plant, they will be allergic to their GMO counterpart that is currently on the market because they are nutritionally the same. But GMOs do not introduce any new allergens.
    Our GMOs and Health section also provides more information on this topic, here: http://gmoanswers.com/explore?carouselid=2&slideindex=4
    More information from the FDA regarding the health and safety of foods from genetically engineered plants is available here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm
    Also, if you feel as if your comment might deserve its own conversational thread, please post it as a new question: http://gmoanswers.com/ask-your-question
  • Konrad Roeder's picture
    Konrad Roeder
    If GMO food were identical in all aspects to non-GMO food, perhaps there would not be a need to require labeling of GMO food. It turns out that food allergy remains one of the principal safety concerns about foods derived from GMOs. For example, some people are allergic to GMO corn and not to its non-GMO counterpart due to sensitivity to the Cry9C protein which was genetically inserted into the corn DNA from bacteria. When people were "accidentally" fed StarLink corn only intended for animal feed, people got sick eating tacos at Taco Bell. Corn has now been deregulated and can be genetically engineered for maximum ethanol production. Who knows what kinds of genes will be added to corn so that it will grow its own fuel additives.
    Despite industry promises, grain dealers did and still do not maintain separate silos for the human food supply, the animal feed supply and what will be used for fuel.

    People with allergies certainly can read the labels. If they are allergic to nuts for example, they can read the label and see that there are no nuts in the product. Furthermore, they can be warned that the food product was prepared on equipment that was used to prepare foods with known allergens. However, there is no way to know if your food contains GMOs or not just by reading the label.

  • labelGMOs's picture
    They remind me alot of the cigarette companies in the 60's. They know GMOs are harmful but they are willling to put profits over human and environmental health.

    Sad really....
  • Philippines's picture
    @cudspan: Agreed, and excellent points you make. These transgenic Bt companies are using the food manufacturers / producers as their shield. They then go on to claim they support labeling, only if there is a health/nutritional reason to do so.

    It makes sense they are not the ones packaging/selling the produce, so they are not responsible for that labeling. However, when you look at people like Michael Taylor and others involved in the FDA during the approval of transgenics to be grown, this whole website and proponents seem like a collective that are concerned on keeping their jobs more than anything else.

    I would love to see food labeling forced upon companies, through legislation. We may see an actual free market in action and the demise of transgenic companies; or we will see a population of people unwilling to change their diet, regardless of transgenic GMO presence or not.

    Suppose everyone starts buying only products that are not transgenic GMO. Will the farmers uproot their GMO crops and plant heirloom? What will people eat in the meantime?
  • cudspan's picture
    Always the same answer... There's no difference between GMOs and other foods. If there was no difference, then you wouldn't be selling it. There is a huge difference in the farming paradigm. Also, there's a difference when you breed a crop to promote the use of a specific herbicide... That herbicide will be used.

    I would like to see all herbicides and pesticides used on a crop to be labeled. I would also like to see GMOs labeled. The labeling *should* be mandatory. It conveys that there *is* a difference... not necessarily in the nutritional analysis of the product, but in the way it's produced.

    There's also the problem of contamination and cross-pollination. You're introducing something into the biosphere that you can't hope to control. I want to know when my dollars are contributing to that. I want the right to vote with my dollars.

    I'll say it again. There's a HUGE difference between GMOs and conventional crops. And it's coercion to sell those products to me without telling me. Stop hiding. If your products are so great, and if your techniques are so superior, then be transparent about it and let me choose.
  • Chris123's picture
    For true answers:
    Evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops: www.gmo-news.com/2013/07/gmo-myths-and-truths/

    as pdf download.
  • Kevin Folta's picture
    Kevin Folta
    I could take a guess at why they spent millions to stop Prop 37. I'm not affiliated with any of these companies, but I'm a researcher in plant biology and understand the topic.

    Proposition 37 was awful legislation. I was amazed when I read it. If they would have consulted with a single scientist it might have had a shot. Unfortunately it is not about science. It is about harming the biotech industry. Labeling, followed by a fear/smear campaign is a sure way to do that.

    I do not think that the response from the biotech industry was unlike what you'd see from any other industry that was being unfairly attacked with horrible legislation and fear mongering. If a group came out with an initiative that said if you drive a car you will die, or if you eat fruit you'll get cancer, I think those industries would spend significant funds to set the record straight.

    Personally, I was disappointed at the corporate response in resulting to fear mongering of their own to beat Prop37. But when someone is fighting dirty like the Prop37 proponents, sometimes you have to fire back.

    The real answer is education and that is what is happening here in this forum. If people understand biotechnology they are not afraid of it. There always will be a fringe that is convinced this is dangerous technology. It is not good use of time to try to educate them. However, the folks in the middle can be motivated by trustworthy science that can be verified. I think that's where this site has significant potential.
  • achood4mu's picture
    @GMO curious - I would love to see all of the "independent" studies that you are citing. I know that there are thousands of independent studies that are published in reputable third party jounals that affirm that safety of GM food. I am aware of ~6 or so studies published in the last few years that question that safety, but all were either discredited by the scientific community or published in "Pay for play" journals. If you have different evidence that the scientific community and governments are unaware of, please bring it forward.
  • Cornlover's picture
    GMOcurious Monsanto is doing well world wide and the peer reviewed studes are not saying what you are saying.
  • GMOcurious's picture
    The people who have been occupying the high end positions at Monsanto have been moving between the FDA and the Government in similar positions. The conflict of interest here is of the highest degree. So a lobbied regulation by Monsanto does not mean it is healthy. In fact, all the independent studies performed on GMO's have come to the conclusion is that if we make it past all the cancerous tumors after eating GMO's we will last only 3 generations before total sterility. Just ask all the countries now who are taking these independent studies serious and kicking Monsanto out of their country.
    • Danny Bowen's picture
      Danny Bowen
      Moving between the fDA and Monsanto? Names.. I've seen that "Facebook image" too.. and I disproved all of them. Only ONE had moved from Monsanto to the FDA, and that was with about 15 years of time between. The REST had moved from the FDA to Monsanto.. for instance.. its hard to make decisions based on moving from the decision maker to the corporation.
  • Cornlover's picture
    Danalee you could be more wrong and close minded.you know just enough to be dangerous.If it was unsafe you would have to label it.Not all these experts can be on the take,so ether listen or quit playing the expert.
  • danalee's picture
    Unlike Apple and Samsung, Monsanto is the only company in the world that doesn't want you to know their technology is inside! Doesn't this seem fishy to anyone else? Sure does to me.
    They donated $8 million to ensure you don't know, and they are spending more everyday.
    Any company that opposes my right to know what is inside of their products, will never see a dime from me, and I hope other people wake up to this soon.
    Sorry Monsanto, we aren't buying your fake food anymore. It isn't feeding the world, and you will soon be trapped in your own web of lies.
    I feel bad for the EPA and FDA. I wonder if they realize Monsanto is going to be throwing them under the bus soon?
  • Community Manager's picture
    Community Manager
    @Brenna Aune your previous comments were deleted for profanity. Thanks @GreeninGreene
  • Brenna Aune's picture
    Brenna Aune
    So if the seeds are going up in price, HOW DOES THIS HELP THE POOR?
  • GreeninGreene's picture
    To: SaveMyFood: The question was answered in this way:
    "We do support mandatory labeling of food, including GMO food, if such food presents a safety risk to a certain population, for example, those allergic to a food ingredient. We believe the harm in mandating labeling for GMO food, just because it is a GMO food, is that such a label would convey to consumers that foods made from the farmers’ crops grown with our seeds are less safe, less nutritious or somehow different from conventional or organic food."

    Cathleen goes on to say that there has never been a reason to label GMO foods since there has never been a link these foods cause harm to its consumers.

    Suffice it to say the money spent to fight labeling is simply keeping all foods labeled with what is contained within that will alter the daily diet uptake of the consumer. To stereotype food based on a non-scientific opinion that GMO foods are any different is simply not founded, and it's that misnomer FDA will wish to avoid.
  • SaveMyFood's picture
    @Cathleen Enright: You didn't provide a direct answer to the question regarding Monsanto's spending of millions of dollars campaigning against GMO labeling. Can you provide a little more information on that?

    "...we support food companies’ decisions to voluntarily label food products." Kind of a round about way of saying you're against labeling because they are against it. Maybe a little more detail on that as well, please.
  • There were no discussions before the expert answer was published.