GMOs, “genetically modified organisms”, are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering (GE).
Cathy Konyn presented a review of GMOs on February 11, 2016, at Sierra group monthly meeting.
Cathy Konyn, is an active member of the Riverside Master Gardener Program, answering questions for the public at information booths and working the Master Gardener hot-line. Cathy is a retired clinical laboratory microbiologist and so has an interest in some of the more scientific aspects of plants and gardening.
This summary of the presentation was prepared by Pam Nelson, the Chair of Santa Margarita Sierra Group. She prepared this summary from her recollection of the presentation.
- Humans are consuming products made from crops that are engineered to produce their own insecticide. Farm animals have been the “test” subjects for 50 years. Less pesticide is sprayed, though, since the plant produces its own.
- GMOs promotes the preference for mono-culture agriculture, which is the historic method in the Midwest.
- Pesticides are used at high levels since the target weeds are becoming resistant. Soils can become pesticide-laden. Native vegetation is whipped out.
- Increasing human population drives many of the GMO creations, such as high-nutrient, drought resistant, insect resistant varieties.
- Saving species that are being whipped out by viruses is another use of GMOs. Papayas, American Chestnut tree, bananas, citrus, could we save the white pine?
- GMO insects are useful when whipping our human-vector insects. Oil-based pesticides, aerial spraying can be avoided.
- Pharmaceuticals, vitamins and supplements are produced by GMO microbes more affordably and without the contaminants and dosage issues that were problems when killing animals for extractions.
- No-till farming can be used instead of tilling more readily if the crop is GMO. This cuts down on erosion, soil disturbance and poor air quality from burning. But residual pesticides can be a problem.
The term GMO is defined differently because of the different techniques. How will labeling work? Genetic engineering can mean many things. Transgenic GMOs can occur naturally.
Solutions? Organic farming, requiring multi species agriculture, requiring native plant buffers.
Pam Nelson, the Chair of Santa Margarita Sierra Group
The Center recently sued the EPA for not releasing public records about its approval of Enlist Duo, a pesticide blend that's highly toxic to a wide spectrum of both terrestrial and aquatic species and has significant effects on human health.
Enlist Duo is a toxic combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D created by Dow AgroSciences for use on the next generation of genetically engineered crops, designed to withstand being drenched with the potent herbicide cocktail. But the EPA registered Enlist Duo for use in 15 states, claiming it would have "no effect" on at-risk species.
The Center first sent the EPA a Freedom of Information Act request two years ago seeking information on the agency's decision to approve this dangerous pesticide for use. We still haven't gotten a response -- so we filed suit last Wednesday.
"The EPA needs to be fully transparent about how and why it approves these toxic herbicides," said the Center's Lori Ann Burd. "They pose a serious threat to people and wildlife."
Regulations and definitions need to be tightened. See the Center for Biological Diversity’s recent suit.
Suit Challenges EPA's Failure to Release Public Records on Toxic Herbicide
Please provide your comment and discussion
ReplyDeleteThanks for the summary, Pam!
ReplyDeleteI was disappointed in this presentation. Although Cathy mentioned toward the end that GMOs are harmful to the environment, the info presented seemed to be more slanted in favor of GMOs.
Most of us in the room expressed significant concerns over GMOs when we were polled. I would like to hear another presenter who can answer our concerns with facts.
When one of the attendees asked if there are scientific experiments proving that GMOs are not harmful, the response was that you can't test GMOs on humans because people will not volunteer as subjects.
It was implied that it's alright to put GMOs out on the market without proof that they are safe for human consumption.
This is why so many people are concerned about GMOs. No one has scientific proof that they're safe, and we don't even always know when we are eating them.
We've heard that animal studies have been done showing serious problems with GMOs. The results of those studies are always criticized. Let's have some further research on this issue.
Unfortunately, we don't have to volunteer as subjects because we are all being tested involuntarily.
In my opinion, it is unconscionable that GMOs do not have to be labeled. Food ingredients have to be labeled for a reason. We have a right to know what we are eating.
Big business is winning this war. It's very scary. There is so much controversy over this issue and so many consumers are against GMOs and for labeling. Yet we are not being listened to.
The only thing that is affecting Monsanto is the fact that we are voting with our pocketbooks on this issue. But it's not affecting things fast enough.
Scientists are quick to point out when alternative healing modalities or natural supplements have not been scientifically proven effective. I can't count the number of times I've seen great alternative healing methods that have worked on billions of people over the centuries poo-pooed by scientists as "just anecdotal evidence."
But when scientists want to put something out there without testing it, like GMOs, it's perfectly okay.
This makes no sense.
I, for one, learned how to garden five years ago because of this controversy. We don't eat processed foods, and we keep an eye on the growing list of GMO products to make sure we don't buy them. We don't even eat corn any more, for one.
As Sierra Club members, we need clear, reliable info on this topic. Our fears need to be resolved with proof that GMOs are safe, or they need to be taken off the market.
Palm Nelson
ReplyDeleteresponse to Jan:
I think the speaker, did a great job at trying to be unbiased while providing as much info as she could in the time allotted. She even surpassed the well-attended UC Riverside workshop that included a panel of experts. This is a difficult and broad subject and she did quite a bit of research in order to cover it properly.
Our group could continue researching and discussing GMOs and provide a good service to the community. Many of us worry about the consumption of foods that have modified genes and those that produce their own toxins (herbicides,pesticides). Also, the effects on the environment, such as monoculture and spreading of modified genes is a big worry.
We need to find volunteers to man a committee and give us updates and alerts.
The email below is from U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, a progressive champion from the state of Oregon. Senator Merkley started a petition on CREDO Mobilize, where activists can launch their own campaigns for progressive change. We urge you to sign Senator Merkley's petition demanding Congress protect our right to know what's in our food and pass mandatory GMO labeling legislation.
ReplyDeleteCREDO Mobilize
Tell Congress: We Deserve To Know. Label GMO Food.
Sign the petition ►
Dear Michael,
Any day now, the U.S. Senate could vote on a Big Ag-supported bill known as the DARK Act – for Denying Americans the Right to Know – which would prohibit states from requiring labeling of genetically modified foods. Moreover, it would require a taxpayer-funded public relations campaign extolling the benefits of genetically modified foods.
But the Senate has another choice, one that would put in place a national standard that requires labeling of foods containing GMOs. I recently introduced the Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act and it needs your support.
https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=1mc44m57l983j#2631474450