Natural Foods Merchandiser

Do more GMO crops really spell the end for organic?

What is in this article?:

Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for The Organic Center discusses the long-term impact of GMOs on consumers, farmers and the organic industry and what he suspects will be the next Roundup Ready crop.  

Charles Benbrook will be joined by Rebecca Spector, West Coast director for The Center for Food Safety, and Mike Movitz, vice president of business development for SPINS, to offer a GMO Update at Natural Products Expo West, Friday, March 11 from 11 a.m. to noon. 

More About:


Q: Who do you think is most impacted by the introduction of GMO crops into our food system?
A: The genetic engineering of plants has created a seed industry with a profoundly different set of goals and priorities than the seed industry up until the mid-1990s. This is without a doubt the biggest impact. Over the last 15 years, the percentage of the total supply of seeds that are genetically engineered has gone from zero to close to 100 percent for many crops in many regions. As a result today, farmers that feel they really haven’t gotten their money’s worth out of their GE seeds or farmers that are tired of dealing with Roundup-resistant weeds, they don’t have an option. GMOs have eliminated the progress and innovation of plant breeding and turned it into a profit center and tool for private corporations to extract more money from farmers.  

Q: And how are consumers impacted?
A: I think that it's very likely that genetically engineered corn and possibly genetically engineered soy beans have contributed to the increase in food allergies. This is very difficult to prove and the biotech industry continues to claim that there is no evidence of a single case of food allergies that can be definitively traced to a particular field of GM corn or GM soybeans. And they’re probably right in making that statement. It’s very difficult to trace any human allergy back to the exact thing that triggers it. That doesn't mean though that the rise of GE foods is completely unrelated to the dramatic increase in food allergies. At the same time that GE crops began to win the natural market share, we saw food allergies increase, particularly in children.

There are food- safety and food-quality risks associated with today’s GE crops and the companies that produce these foods have basically received a free pass from the government. Agencies have not required companies to do the rigorous kinds of testing that many people have asked for. It just hasn’t happened, so it's not possible for science to say for sure whether there are adverse impacts from today’s GE foods. We just don't know.    

Discuss this article 4

My Good Food Friends -

“But the industry (GMO) has made a strong commitment to try to prevent any cross-pollination between Roundup Ready seed fields and conventional seed fields,” Chuck Benbrook. And if he BELIEVES this, then ol’ Chuck probably believes in the Tooth Fairy and that Lucy will HOLD the football! Is Chuck so naïve that he can’t see THEIR end game being played out right in front of him?

And so now, I guess it’s live and let live, huh: "It would be a shame for the momentum behind the growth in the organic livestock industry to be siphoned off or diverted because of one-tenth of 1 percent contamination in a source of animal feed," Chuck Benbrook [“A Growing Debate: How To Define 'Organic' Food”, by Dan Charles, NPR March 1, 2011].

But OF COURSE, cross-contamination will soon be more than that. So, then what level will Chuck ‘accept’? Does he capitulate to ‘coexist’?

“NON-GMO Project goes the next step by conducting a scientifically sound and designed testing protocol to assure that not only were the seeds the organic farmer planted organic but also that the seeds, and hence the crop, are not cross contaminated with a GE variety down to a very low threshold,” says Chuck Benbrook.

That’s a pretty risky statement, misleading consumers into thinking they can choose to, or not choose to, ingest GMO’s by directing them to something with the NON-GMO Project VERIFIED Seal on it, ‘cause in fact, they could be enjoying GMOs in their NON-GMO Project VERIFIED purchase.

There’s a big risk in consumer blowback once consumers discover that NON-GMO Project VERIFIED doesn’t really mean NON.

NOW, you can explain until you’re blue in the face, that the project is a ‘processed-based’ game, but the fact is, in plain, CONSUMER TALK, NON MEANS NON, NO, NONE!

“The Non-GMO Project standard is a process-based standard that avoids the intentional use of GMO ingredients by providing suppliers with procedures and best practices for minimizing the presence of GMO ingredients.” CEO.org 10/3/10

If you were to read NON GMO Project VERIFIED on the label, you’d expect the food with that seal on it would be NON GMO. But remember those greasy trans fat boys and girls? In THEIR world, .5 grams means 0, and they emblazon 0 TRANS FATS right across the front of their packages!

Well, here comes THE SAME obfuscation from the NON GMO Project VERIFIED Program: “testing to ensure that ingredients contain no more than 0.9 percent of biotech material.” So NOW .9 = 0!

And of course, right off the bat, these NON GMO Project people start off just like any good, slippery politician: “Officials with the project would not provide details of the test results conducted so far under the program,” [“Biotech-Free, Mostly”, The New York Times, 8/29/09]

Right under that ‘NON-GMO Project Seal’, will this little disclaimer appear: ‘Hey, we’re only kidding. There can be GMOs. What were you thinking!’

The current coin of the realm is transparency. So where’s there’s?

But the real rub, is that Organic Good Food gave up the high ground, one of its key distinguishing features, and conceded it on a sucker shot, to the greenwashing ‘Natural’ Industry. Now, Organic Good Food finds itself right down there in that muddy ditch with ‘Natural’, where anything goes!

To Your Health!
Dennis L. Weaver, MBA, GFG
Founder
Change Your Food - Change Your Life!™
425.774.8971
www.ChangeYourFood.com
- & -
On the HOME Front Page
Join the Conversation
www.NaturalFoodNet.com
- Plus -
www.OrganicJazz.net
Ellen Livesay SONGS
MaryJanesFarm
I'd Like To Thank You
PayLoadz
CYF-CYL! Presents: GOOD LiViN'
BigOrganicNetwork
Member, Organic Trade Association

By Dennis L. Weaver  on Mar 8, 2011

This article seems very odd to me. What about canola? 50% of Hawaiian papaya? Cotton? Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen? And, yes, I have to say, Mr. Benbrook seems to me to be FAR too trusting of Syngenta etal. I would like him ot be asked what he thinks of Smith's GENETIC ROULETTE.
To me, this article begs a follow-up.

By Christine  on Mar 9, 2011

Please guide us to follow GMO

By Toga Raja Manurung (not verified)  on Mar 9, 2011

I agree with Dennis Weaver. As a long time passionate consumer of natural and organic products, supporting this industry through purchasing dollars as well as working in the industry that means everything to me, I feel betrayed! These GMOs snuck into our food supply, but the fact that they are IN our certified organic products makes our industry a joke! We need to be transparent - and apologize to the natural products consumers for allowing this to happen. And take concrete action to move towards LABELING GMO CONTAINING PRODUCTS, INCLUDING ORGANIC. And this will, as in Europe, start moving the biotech industry into oblivion where it belongs. It's going to take time. But our children and future generations deserve nothing less. We need to know that "NON GMO" means zero GMO's again on this planet. At some point. If we don't do it now, and we allow "traces" and concede to the biotech industry, where will "the acceptable trace levels of GMOs" end? Think about it! And act. Vote. Speak up. NOW. PLEASE.

By Anonymous (not verified)  on Mar 15, 2011
Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your New Hope 360 ID
(optional)