‘No such thing as zero’ | Expert says honest conversation needed with consumers about what organic means — and doesn’t
GUELPH, Ont. — Leaders in North America’s organic movement say it’s time to tell consumers that organic food does contain genetically modified organisms.
Speaking at the Guelph Organic Conference in early February, Dag Falck, organic program manager with Nature’s Path, one of the largest manufacturers of organic breakfast cereals and snack bars in North America, said the organic movement has to have an honest conversation with the public about GMOs.
Despite public perceptions that organic products are GM free, Falck said organic food made from corn, soybeans, canola and sugar definitely contain GMOs.
“If you are going to stop eating all those things, you will be able to be GMO free,” Falck told the organic conference at the University of Guelph.
“But if you eat any of those products, and all of us do, you cannot. It doesn’t matter how philosophically pure you want to be, it isn’t going to happen…. There is no such thing as zero percent of anything.”
He said organic cereals and other foods contain GMOs because of cross-pollination between conventional and organic fields. As well, most organic farmers don’t test their seed for GMO before planting, despite the reality that certified organic seed probably contains traces of GMOs.
Maureen Fitzpatrick, a member of Big Carrot, an organic food market in Toronto, said the basic problem in Canada and the United States is that organic farmers grow crops on a landscape saturated with GM plants.
“We live in a polluted world, and unfortunately genetic contamination is part of that picture,” said Fitzpatrick, who also spoke at the conference.
Falck said no one knows the level of contamination in organic crops because testing for GMOs after harvest isn’t a requirement for organic certification.
As a result, an organic cereal bar might contain 0.5 percent or five percent GM grain, even though many consumers assume organic certification means no GMOs.
Fitzpatrick said consumer surveys indicate that 79 percent of organic consumers would stop buying organic food if it contained GMOs, which is why the organic industry must come clean with consumers before it’s too late.
“We must acknowledge as a sector that there is a gap between what the consumer expects and what our standard requires,” she said.
“If we are seen to be looking away from these potentially difficult questions and allowing the perception of zero tolerance (of GMOs) to flourish… we will not regain that consumer confidence.”
Falck said not everyone in the organic industry is convinced that honesty is the best policy.
“There is a lot of fear of broaching that conversation,” he said.
“If we burst their (the public) bubble and we say that’s not true, some people are afraid that this will cause a backlash.”
However, the billion dollar question is how to begin the conversation with consumers so that they understand organic food isn’t 100 percent free of GMOs.
Falck admitted it will be a difficult task, but organic growers, processors and retailers can’t bury their heads in the sand.
“If you don’t speak about it, the problem doesn’t go away.”
Well so be it then. It is time we moved away from ALL PROCESSED FOODS. I will no longer support any of these companies with my dollars, knowing that I WOULD BE POISONING MY KID!!! GMOs should be outright banned so that the earth can begin the healing process!
World food safety opinion do not share your fear of GMO’s
Moreover, the AAAS Board said, 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/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml
and even Europe does not agree with your “poison” statement
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.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
Robert Wagner obviously reads only the paid industry research put out but the biotech industries in cahoots with government (Monsanto shills in at the head of every major agency now overseeing our food supply. We pay no attention to “Mr. Wagner or his cigarette science. Independent research has shown over and over how harmful GMO’s are. Europe labels GMO:s and is trying to keep them out of their food supply for good reason.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine recommends Non-GMO food for all it’s patients. They know the biochemistry, they know how GMO foods are made, they know the score.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers
You want to poison yourself, Robert, by eating GMO’s. By all means, be my guest!
Yes, it is very difficult to avoid some GMO contamination in organic crops and no doubt the agro chemical companies and biotech industry would love nothing better than to convince everybody that they may as well give up and let them rule our food supply.
But if the organic industry can provide me with healthier food without using pollinating insect gut busting seeds and excessive spraying of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides I will always buy organics first. It’s the best spent money when you can protect the health of your family.
Thank you, Denise. Can I just reiterate what you just said, for the rest of my life? This “why bother, it’s too late.”, is certainly the semi-logical under-tone of this article, which seeks to claim that we all eat the four items listed. Raw food eaters could easily avoid those items. Being such a hot button issue, perhaps the article shouldn’t be titled so broadly, as to mislead those that will not read the entire article critically. To give up the struggle, is to give control of our bodies to a handful of entities and ultimately a handful of people in white coats. Frankly, we are all too flawed and too weak to bear that kind of burden on any human shoulders. They sag, then lean and give out every time.
Denise
Fifty years of research has demonstrated no health benefits from organic food according to the Food Standards Agency in the UK.
As for the “gut busting seeds, it may surprise you that the same Bt proiteins found in GM crops are used in whole bacterial form in organic agriculture to “bust the guts” of the pest insects.
Are you aware of the extremely harsh EIQ of the copper compounds used in organic agriculture as alternatives to synthetic fungicides. It would appear not.
In reply to Robert Wagner – ” Funny how those who would vilify these environmentally friendly alternatives to broad spectrum insecticide spraying, GM-Bt crops, refuse to acknowledge the same Bt proteins are used (in whole bacterial form) in organic agriculture. How does that work, if the Bt proteins/bacteria are safe, effective alternatives to insecticide spraying …” – There are some fundamental differences between the Bt used by farmers and those found in the GM-Bt crops. Farmers use the “original” Bt, found in nature, which is inert to humans but is transformed in the gut of the affected insect to become a lethal poison. GM-Bt crops produce only the lethal poison form …
William
That is completely false but I would love to know where you read it. Bt proteins(there are dozens odf different ones with different target pests) all must bind to the receptor protein lining the gut of sensitive species. When the Bt protein binds it eliminates ion control of the bound cell and it dies. Since no mammal has receptor proteins for the Bt proteins to bind to the Bt proteins are digested like every other protein we consume. May I suggest you go to my website and read the UN Consensus Document on the Safety of Plants Expressing Insecticidal Proteins. I recommend page 34.
Cheers
@Denise
There are fifty years of research that show no health benefits from organic food vs conventionally grown food according to three separate meta studies.
“Insect gut busting” pesticides, I assume you mean Bt. Funny how those who would vilify these environmentally friendly alternatives to broad spectrum insecticide spraying, GM-Bt crops, refuse to acknowledge the same Bt proteins are used (in whole bacterial form) in organic agriculture. How does that work, if the Bt proteins/bacteria are safe, effective alternatives to insecticide spraying (which they are ) then they can not also be “vilified as “gut busting” .
As for the fungicides, are you aware of the huge negative EIQ of copper compounds used in organic agriculture as alternatives to modern synthetic fungicides? Further the near future will see fungal resistant GM crops that don’t require any fungicides. Clearly these GM crops are part of the best way forward to a more sustainable future in agriculture.
Seem the solution is obvious. Stop growing any GM seeds and eventually the contamination problem will be solved. Why should organic farmers suffer because GM seeds are being used by corporate farms. The GM farmers should be paying out giant settlements to compensate the farmers and the consumers for contaminating their food supply. Since when can you damage someone’s property and get away with it. An massive lawsuit is the approach that should be taken by ALL organic farmers. These giant corps have no right to ruin OUR earth and the food on it.
Jerrod
That very case went before the NY Supreme court and the judge asked for any of the 30,000 plaintiffs to bring forward examples of loss of crop from GM contamination. Exactly zero came forward. Then the judge asked for any plaintiff who has been sued by Monsanto for adventitious presence of GM in their organic crop. Again exactly zero people came forward with proof of this. At this point the judge threw out the case stating the plaintiffs were trying to create a controversy where none exists. would you like to read the transcript of the trial?
Wow, been subscribing to The Western Producer for years, and this is the first time I’ve thought about cancelling my subscription. I have known Dag Falck and the Nature’s Path team for years, and in no breath would the innuendo of “we have to face GM as a reality for life” theme ever come from Dag. Really sad interpretation and article. Shame on you…
And as for you Robert Wager, you’re a paid schill with zero respect from thousands of people. Your comments are not worth the time to read. As an organic farmer, I don’t use any product for insects. None. Never have, never will have to IF you understand the dynamics of biodiversity. Of course, that’s a field you can’t even stand on….
Now April, we both know I receive exactly zero dollars from the biotech industry. Why do you continually make that false accusation? if those “thousands of people” do not want to know the real science of GMO’s that is too bad but it most definitely will not stop me from educating the public about the real science vs the pseudo-science so common on the web.
Presuming to know what I do and don’t know is a very dangerous thing to post as it is destined to come back to bite you. Credibility is something earned over time. that is why I am so careful to only publish what I can prove to be accurate. It takes years to earn it and seconds to lose it. be warned.
The science says I’m safe to wear a bright purple shirt that’s two sizes too big, but that doesn’t mean for a second I would leave a store with one. Regardless if the salesperson could show me the results of years of testing and articles from peer-reviewed journals showing it’s safe. It’s not what I want, so don’t try to force me to buy it. End of story. The exact same should be for foods. If people don’t want it, don’t try and force them to buy it.
The science of whether GMO crops are safe or not is not the discussion farmers really need to care about. The real discussion is whether people want to eat them or not and why labelling laws must be changed to require GMO’s be labelled. There will be many who couldn’t care less, there will be many who care deeply. Farmers will figure out on their own which type to grow by the price they are able to get from each. My guess, GMO crops might see a dip in acreage. Again, my guess only.
I understand how you might feel that way but the entire food labeling system would need to change in order to truthfully allow for your desires. May I suggest you read the AMA document on labeling to get a better understanding of the entire picture.
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf
cheers
Yes, the entire food labeling system would have to change and that’s exactly what I and others are asking for. We are asking for a change from no label to yes label. It’s not that hard, they did it when they had to start including the nutritional information on the label and they most certainly can do it again.
Don’t even start with the sad story about how it will make companies have to change their labels, they do it all the time anyways to stay current. Heck, they even do it for special themes like the Olympics or Christmas. Give them a year or so to phase it in to run down their inventory, no one is trying to be a jerk about it.
Jayson
It is not as simple as just changing a label on a box. That is the point the people calling for GM specific labels fail to understand. Please go read the AMA document I linked. It explains clearly what is really involved and why it is not in the publics best interest at this point in time without a widespread public education program about the facts of plant breeding and GM breeding in particular. This debate clearly shows how many are myth-informed on this subject.
Hi Denise
The glyphosate-tolerant GMO crops are likely responsible for the accelerating loss of arable farmland to salinity. For 40 years, we were not informed that glyphosate chelates (ties-up) essential nutrients such as manganese, zinc, copper, iron, etc, preventing usage in enzymes and thus starving living organisms. Within the dying cells of a tiny root tip in deep subsoil, I think there exists no biological pathway for the chelated atoms to be released from glypohosate for re-use by subsequent life forms. If a fungal hyphae cannot occupy that location due to an essential nutrient being tied up, then other elements in the plant such as sulfur are released from the living biomass and leach into the mobile soil solution, to concentrate as the white calcium sulphate salts in saline seeps, where salt levels become too high for plants to survive. Vast areas of farmland are being lost from human food production.
But, the glufosinate-ammonia-tolerant GMO system is possibly sustainable, because that herbicide does not translocate within plants into the subsoil.
Interesting assertion Grant. Do you have references that demonstrate it. I would very much like to read them. Thanks in advance
I did find a couple of papers that demonstrate the detoxification potential of glyphosate of heavy metal contaminated soil
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mtktsui/2005EP.pdf
https://www.agronomy.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/70/6/1882
One point not mentioned in your post is the decomposition rates of glyphosate. It is around 40 days in standard conditions found on the farm. Therefore the chelation will only last for about 40 days. If you know of publications to the contrary I would very much like to read them.
Well cross pollinated vegetables will still have a lot less GMO;s than the stuff Monsanto and Dow make in their labs….Where they transplant the stuff in the lab not by pollination…..I feel that these products if Organic are safer than buying the Monsanto Corn,soy and such foods…….so will keep using Organic products and will still avoid most processed foods of any kind and eat whole foods that are Organic………..thank You for the warning, but this is bound to happen until we ban GMO’s………….
After reading the comment section it is becoming apparent rationality is loosing the battle against ignorance. Its extremely disheartening. I think perhaps the only solution to this problem is education. Unfortunately we live in an age where bad science and misinformation is now more readily available than the opposite This is especially true in regards to food products. We need give people the tools to find and to differentiate between good peer-reviewed scientific knowledge from the garbage that is so prevalent today.
Lastly I applaud Robert Wagner for maintaining his cool and class in the face of such discouraging examples of unawareness as well as backing his responses with credible journal articles. You are a bigger man than I.
Look at how long it took for the cigarette giant, Phillip Morris, to finally receive the backlash of educated consumers. It wasn’t that long ago that people were encouraged to smoke, claiming that there were no ill health effects, blah blah blah… How many people had to get cancer from smoking before people started speaking out? We got mad! We demanded the truth. Then came the warning labels. “This product MAY cause health problems”. People started making a choice. Sure, there are tons of people who still chose to smoke… but there are many more who quit. GMO’s are relatively new with no long term proof of health risks. All we are asking for is a label.
I am a farmer who has used fertilizer, pesticide and biotechnology to keep current with modern technology, to keep my farm profitable and to continue to provide nutritous and safe food for my family and all the other consumers I help feed. Its important to realize that GM crops (a negative name given to them by people opposed to it) are the use of biotechnology to speed up the plant breeding process. Plant breeding and plant mutations occur all the time in nature. Mankind has learned over several thousand years that they can speed up this process by selecting specific plants to cross. There have been many other breeding techniques before biotechnology that helped speed up this natural process. GM crops or biotechnology is just the latest scientific advancement. I agree we don’t have 50 or 100 years of studies but we didn’t with refrigeration, hydro, phones, cars, planes, televisions etc. either and yet we have accepted the use of these scientific advancements every day. North American society as well as others have been eating biotech (GM foods) since 1996 and I don’t know of any increase in health problems attributed to that. I think that is a pretty big population size in terms of statistical analysis. But I realize some consumers have a very negative view of the food we produce and I won’t be changing that with my little response here. So I have no problem having biotech foods labelled because I feel very safe with the food we eat. I have nothing to hide with biotech seeds or fertilizers, pesticides, etc. that I use on my farm. My humble opinion is that due diligence has been done by government departments that register these products for use, the same as is done for the drugs you buy at a pharmacy. Also many products are not registered because they don’t meet the criteria for use in Canada. I don’t believe entire departmnets are bought off by the companies that develop the products. I do believe we need to keep current testing criteria and government controls in place to make sure we continue to have safe and nutritous food for everyone.
-there is a principle in Environmental Law: the polluter pays principle; so why do insurance companies refuse to cover cross-pollinated damages in organic crops by GMOs (or rather genetic inheritance changes)?
-some GMOs crops are outlawed by the European Commission, but some soya and corn are imported in Europe, from North and South America, because of commercial agreements!
Both sides can say and regurgitate whatever suits them. I tend to base my decisions not on what others say, but what they do. What do the wives of the research scientists that work for companies like Monsanto have in their shopping carts?
Perhaps insensitive, but I look at things like the life of recently deceased Guy Lafond who spent 30 years pushing agriculture to where it is today. He spent a lot of time in his GMO demonstration plots. Guy, a long-time Agriculture Canada scientist died April 27 from cancer. He was 59.
I guess we should thank him. Now we do not see the dust from neighbour’s fields crossing our lands where our kids play, instead it’s replaced with invisible clouds of the countless chemicals sprayed these days. Don’t know about you, but I would prefer to take my chances of dying from the ill effects of the dust than the alternative.