This is a guest post by my husband, Jason Leake. To learn more about Jason check out our team page.
There’s been a flurry of reports circulating the internet about the so called “Monsanto Protection Act,” so this is a good time to weigh in with our thoughts on GMOs in general and to hopefully clear up some confusion in the process.
As we’ve learned firsthand from Lisa and Vani’s recent intense media coverage around the Kraft petition, a lot can get lost in the telephone game (for example Vani is NOT a mom, the referenced food dyes are not actually banned and instead require a warning label in the UK, etc.), and so it is always advisable to do your own digging when you read a story. Over time you’ll determine trusted sources, but it’s never a bad idea to cross-check the facts.
Today’s post is by no means meant to be the ultimate resource on GMOs, chock full of references and counterpoints, but I do want to provide an opinion about them and the “Monsanto Protection Act” based on my experience, reading, and immersion in the food world. Spoiler alert: There’s an interesting link between Kraft and the Monsanto Protection Act.
From the nonGMOproject.org website:
GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms,” are plants or animals created through the gene splicing techniques of biotechnology (also called genetic engineering, or GE). This experimental technology merges DNA from different species, creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding.
What this means: Pesticides are bred right into the seed of some GMO crops (as opposed to spraying the plants to ward off pests). In other cases the plants are modified to survive being sprayed with the chemical weed killer Roundup (which means more Roundup sales for Monsanto).
Genetic modification is different than selective breeding. This is explained in further detail on page 9-10 of this GMO Myths and Truths document.
Nature Is Amazing, and Complicated
The other day I caught a fascinating science story on NPR. Apparently some plants show altruistic behavior to their siblings (as opposed to ‘strangers’ of the same species). Wow. How do the plants identify and communicate with one another? What other examples may exist of this behavior? I am definitely a fan of science (it was my favorite subject growing up and I have Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering), and one thing that amazes me so much is that the deeper we investigate, the more questions form and the more information is uncovered. For example, the discovery of atoms was pretty cool…the building blocks of matter, right? Oh wait, there are sub-atomic particles. Now we are just discovering the role our gut micro-biome may have in our immune system, which could unlock a whole new world of understanding about disease. Check out this related article in the New York Times.
Scientists are regularly blown away by the complexity, power, and sheer number of microbes that live in our bodies. – Carl Zimmer for the New York Times
The point is that nature is incredibly complex, and while I am all for advancements in science, it is arrogant and misguided to think we “have it all figured out” and can start breaking the rules of nature with GMOs. Time and time and time again we see fallout from our interference with nature in the way of unintended consequences. Here are but a few examples:
- Inorganic arsenic showing up in rice (because, oh yeah, the FDA used to allow arsenic in pesticides and currently allows arsenic in chicken feed that turns into crop fertilizer at the other end of the chicken).
- Herbicide resistant super-weeds evolving due to the high application rates of RoundUp weed killer (made by Monsanto) on GMO (and “Roundup Ready”) crops.
- Bee populations (nature’s pollinators) rapidly diminishing and therefore negatively impacting plant production due to pesticides.
Does this mean technology is inherently bad? Of course not. But we need to slow down and allow adequate time for long-term GMO testing, and to not do anything that results in an irreversible widespread change to our food supply (kind of important, don’t you think?).
I see science as the pursuit of truth and discovery, and this is why I love it. The facts are what they are. But it’s also worth noting that industry funded science often gets manipulated, mainly through the funding of specific studies (that stand to benefit the industry or company footing the bill) while not funding others (that would harm the business interests), modifying the research parameters, and so on.
Precautionary Principle vs. Massive Experiment
So are GMOs really causing allergies, disease, super-weeds, increased use of pesticides and herbicides and so on? Honestly I don’t know, but since these concerns are very real possibilities and since GMOs are avoidable (although this is getting more and more difficult over time), I prefer to take the precautionary approach. This is synonymous with our personal decision to cut out processed foods. Case in point, the processed food industry will isolate an ingredient for testing and report a clean bill of health. However, they do not (and cannot possibly) test the combined effects of all the different combinations of the chemicals and food additives contained in their products (see soda recall). Why roll the dice? Personally I’d rather be on the safe side and avoid most products with food additives. I have confidence in eating the real, whole foods that have been consumed for thousands of years. The collective knowledge of food culture tells us what foods we can and cannot eat and the best combinations of them.
It’s interesting to note that many other countries – unlike the US – take the precautionary approach, where food must be proven safe before it can enter the food supply. In the US, it’s innocent until proven guilty. I’d rather not take part in a massive experiment with our food supply that could result in no way to backtrack to where we were. Mess with nature and you can get burned.
Labeling is Key
If we look back just three years, Lisa and I had no idea what a GMO was. Heck Lisa didn’t even read ingredient labels. A lot of people in America are that way, because they assume that everything on the grocery store shelf is safe and that the government will do right by its people. So education and TRUTHFUL LABELING are mission critical. Why are Monsanto, DuPont and the processed food industry fighting labeling of GMOs? Obviously that would be the kiss of death for the sales of products containing them. It’s interesting that these companies lobbied the FDA to deem GMO products equivalent to their natural counterparts, yet they are so different that they fought to have them patented so the seed companies could reap billions. Um, can you say hypocritical? Anyway, not everyone believes GMOs are risky, but we all deserve the right to know what we are feeding our families. The takeaway here is that LABELING IS KEY so consumers are empowered to make their own educated decisions.
The Monsanto Protection Act
This Politico story is by far the best article I’ve come across about the “Monsanto Protection Act,” which is actually part of the recently passed H.R. 933 bill, a continuing resolution spending bill. Please read the Politico story as I am not going to restate its contents here, but I will share the gist below. Many other articles I came across suffer from exaggerations. Senator Roy Blunt, who helped craft the bill and represents Missouri (where Monsanto is headquartered) is a strong ally of Monsanto. Here is his summary of the Monsanto Protection Act:
What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it, but it is only a one year protection in that bill. – Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
If you look at the Monsanto Protection Act on its own it sounds somewhat reasonable. Those crazy food activists are always trying to obstruct progress with (sometimes) frivolous lawsuits, and it doesn’t make sense for a farmer to be exposed to the risk of destroying an entire year’s crop if a legal battle ensues. The act gives them protection so they can feel comfortable planting that crop in the first place (with GMO seeds) knowing they can harvest it. But therein lies the problem in my eyes. If a product is so controversial that there is a legitimate risk a court battle could halt the growing and harvesting of a crop to protect the safety of our nation’s people, I WANT the farmers to have to assess that risk when they make the decision to plant GMO seeds.
And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but the more I learn about the power and persistent, methodical efforts of Monsanto, DuPont, and their supporters to steamroll the path to monopolizing our food supply, the more I see them as the enemy. As in they do not deserve to have each battle looked at individually for merit. As in their efforts are so strong, the money so great, and their influence on our government so overwhelming that the only choice is to fight for every inch of ground and to say NO every step of the way. Again I feel we are on a one-way street and need to slow the hell down.
4/9/12 Update: I just came across an old, but excellent article that so happens to sum up my concerns quite well. It is called “Playing God in the Garden,” by Michael Pollan.
What You Can Do
If you agree that GMOs should be avoided and should not pervade our food supply, here are some things you can do:
- Avoid processed foods.
- Buy organic or “non-GMO” labeled food when possible.
- Read up on the subject
- Watch Food, Inc.
- Read books – for example The Unhealthy Truth covers GMOs as they relate to allergies.
- Check out JustLabelIt.org and nonGMOproject.org for loads of practical information.
- Read this article by Michael Pollan entitled “Playing God in the Garden.”
- Familiarize yourself with the most common GMO foods and avoid (or buy organic versions of) of these foods and products containing them. Beware, corn and soy are in almost all processed foods, and 88% of corn and 93% of soybeans produced in the US are GMO. The ShopNoGMO smartphone app can help while shopping. Here are the most common GMO crops in the US:
- Corn, Soybeans, Canola, Cottonseed, Sugar Beets, Hawaiian Papaya
- Sugar containing sugar beets (which is common unless it’s labeled “pure cane sugar”)
- Dairy: Products may be from cows injected with GM bovine growth hormones
- This is a personal choice, but you may wish to vote with your dollars and boycott companies that fund opposition to GMO labeling laws.
- Take political action if you are so inclined. Support GMO labeling. Good starting points are JustLabelIt.org and the non-GMO Project’s Get Involved page.
- Dispel common myths, which tend to discredit you when you go to share info. For example there is currently NO GMO WHEAT SOLD IN THE US.
- Share this information with those you care about. You can share this post on Facebook, via email, word of mouth, or through scores of other options using the green “Share This” button below.
92 thoughts on “GMOs and The Monsanto Protection Act: Our Take”
For some reason this specific post was getting tons of spam comments, so today I’m turning comments off on it. I appreciated the discussion that occurred during the year after its publication. – Jason
Thank you ! Information is power . I choose real food and I don’t want to play Russian roulette with my families health.
Stumbled upon your blog post today. Great article! I recently delved into this issue and discovered a couple great apps that make avoiding GMOs even easier.
1) ipitt, which allows you to scan barcodes instead of manually searching for non-GMO products & suggests GMO-free alternatives.
2) My personal favorite, Buycott, which allows you to scan a barcode, see the entire family tree of the company that produces the product (i.e. the fact that General Mills owns Cascadian Farms etc.), and the exact dollar amount those parent companies have donated to anti-GMO labeling campaigns. You can then decide to ‘vote’ with your money and choose not to purchase those products.
Thought you and your readers might be interested!
There is an interesting debate upcoming:
Jeffrey Smith, Gilles-Eric Seralini, Jon Entine and Kevin Folta are debating GMOs. One of the rare events where Scientists and activists are going to be debating. Despite the polarizing topic, I so far have never seen a debate where Scientists and activists are actually brought together.
I tried getting the “ShopNoGMO” app on my phone but it said it isn’t available in the US. What a bummer, that would be helpful! Hopefully soon it will be available here… This was an interesting/informational article. Thank you!
I fully respect your right to express your opinion, and your choice in how you live your life. I also have the same rights. I want to express the fact that 98% of farms in the United States are family owned. So “BIG AG” is a misnomer. Also I find that it sounds very ignorant to think that we the farmers would knowingly grow and harvest a crop that is so “bad” for us that we ourselves, and our families will consume. I want my family to be healthy, I want them to eat right. I have heard some say it is because the farmer is ignorant of the true effects or doesn’t understand. This is also untrue. Most farmers are intelligent. They have to be so to stay on top of all the advancements such as the GPS systems, crop mapping, etc. My husband has 3 degrees all in the field of agriculture, and still attends educational courses to better himself.
Also, since the expectation is for us to feed the world, it is impossible with out GMO’s. If it wasn’t for the advancements many people in the cities of our country would be starving. The encroachment on farmable ground leads to decreased area to use for producing our food. There fore we have to grow a crop that can produce more on less. My recommendation is for a “grow for yourself” society. This would eliminate the need for the highly processed foods that you are against. In turn it also eliminates the need for GMO’s.(just a personal soap box)
As far as Monsanto is concerned. I have to say we aren’t big fans, we personally don’t grow corn. We don’t like the domination of the market. But I feel we can’t allow our vision of GMO’s to be blurred just because of companies like Monsanto.
Personally I don’t have a problem with GMO’s. I have a hard time seeing the difference between that, and doctors growing body tissue, or taking a chemically created medicine for some disorder we have. I am more inclined to be concerned about taking a medication than eating corn.
I don’t mean any disrespect or to incite arguments, I just felt the need to encourage people to think of the families that are raising the crops that become the meals on your table. The same thing is on ours. Farming isn’t just about making money, it’s a completely different lifestyle.
Also, keeping the topic of GMO’s politics-free is impossible. The two go hand in hand. If you don’t want to hear politics then you don’t want to discus GMO’s, because it will come up. Maybe you should go read a nice romance novel or sitcom. Leave the things that matter to people who care.
For those who are “pro-GMO”, and consider yourself “science literate” yet you ask why GMO’s and organic crops can’t live in harmony together. Hmmm… Maybe you try a little research. This world-dominating business, Monsanto, can, and has sued farmers not affiliated with Monsanto for having GMO seeds blown into their fields and growing on their land. This company doesn’t want organics to live in harmony with their genetically tampered garbage. They want to rule the world and I am not fine with that. And you people can whine about paying for labeling and whine about those of us who understand the repercussions of messing with nature, out here creating a fight for our lives. But we aren’t going away. In fact, more and more people are waking up everyday, and I’m happy to say I’m helping make that happen.
I have still so much to learn. It amazes me what hoops we have to jump through to get our families some real food
I have heard that GMO produce is labeled by groceries with numbers starting with an 8 – like organic produce starts with a 9 and regular produce starts with a 4. Can anyone confirm that is correct?
Erin – PLU (price look up) codes are 5 digits. They start with a 9 for organic produce, and although the leading 8 was reserved for GMOs, no one uses them and therefore this is not at all an effective indicator. Conventional produce technically starts with a 0, but this is usually omitted, leaving a 4 digit code. To my knowledge most conventional codes used thus far are in the 3000-4000 range. So in my experience, a 9 means organic and a 4 means conventional. You won’t see an 8.
I researched all the brands that the companies who contributed to defeating the labeling act and I can’t figure out how to avoid them all. Muir Glen, Cascadian Farms, etc. even if I never step foot in a conventional grocery store I can’t avoid them all. I know your wife frequently mentions triscuits crackers on your blog but they’re owned by a contributor too. Gold Medal flour is too. I’m just curious about where you draw the line. As a two parent working family with high daycare costs we have neither the time or money to avoid every single item. I haveno idea what to do.
Jessica â€“ Our focus is not activism, but rather helping average families cut out processed foods. This certainly does not preclude us from sharing our stance on issues (a LOT of people were asking about the Monsanto Protection Act, which is why I wrote this blog post), or from becoming more active in the future, but again, thatâ€™s not our focus on the blog or in our personal lives. We vote with our dollars by avoiding most processed foods and buying local, organic, and non-GMO when possible/reasonable. But we donâ€™t take it as far as boycotting brands or parent companies that oppose labeling laws (as I mentioned in the post, that is a personal choice). Just figuring out how to navigate the grocery store aisles, read ingredient labels, and improve cooking skills is enough to challenge most people. So much to the criticism of some of our readers, we regularly buy Laura Bars, which are non-GMO but owned by General Mills, which spent $1.1 million to oppose proposition 37, even though we’d love to see GMOs labeled to make it easy for people to avoid them if they so choose. Just being real.
Regarding Triscuits, we actually very rarely purchase them anymore, but this is mainly because since our 100 Day Pledge weâ€™ve started avoiding refined oils when possible. While Triscuits are definitely a much better choice than many other processed crackers, I need to go back and update those posts with a suggestion to consider Ak-Mak crackers instead, which is what we buy on a regular basis now.
And to your point about having no idea what to do, I say don’t stress yourself out. Decide what core changes are important to you and focus on those. Embrace the 80/20 rule, which states that “for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.” During our 100 Day Pledge we were aware of GMOs but were not focused on avoiding them (although we did take solace that the organic items we purchased were GMO free). After literally a few years of defining our new normal and changing our habits, we now have the bandwidth to put more effort into avoiding them (as a precautionary stance), but are still not pre-occupied with avoiding them at all costs.
I love your post, a great recap on all things GMOs. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I have shared it in my Weekend Wanderings post!
I read your article and, frankly, I am very angry! If a farmer plants a crop and he is then told that he has to destroy that crop because somebody is complaining about genetically modified food then not only does that farmer lose money but there’s all that food that goes to waste! There are over 300 million people in America and 7 billion people worldwide: we can’t afford to waste food! There are millions of people starving right now in third world countries! It’s one thing to say you don’t want to eat processed food but it is an altogether more serious matter when you contribute to world hunger by having American crops destroyed! This is why the rest of the world hates America: it is the sheer arrogance of people saying that their way of life should be imposed on the rest of the world whether it benefits people in other countries or not!
It’s about the bigger picture…as I said I’d prefer the farmer actually having to assess the risk of growing GMO crops. There are many reasons the rest of the world hates Americans (but that topic is not appropriate for this blog), including trying to push GMO crops on them.
“the problem is that by preemptively exempting Monsanto from any future litigation, you have effectively given them a blank pass, which could lead them to act more recklessly than they otherwise would.” from http://agcompetitiveness.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-so-called-monsanto-protection-act.html.
Some starving people won’t even accept GMO crops as aid:
By situating the decision to send genetically modified maize to Southern Africa in the con-text of USâ€“European debates over agricultural biotechnology, it becomes clear that the pro-motion of biotechnology has nothing to do with ending hunger in the region. Indeed,American food aid shipments to Southern Africa have little to do with the famine at all. Instead, I argue that US food aid policy following the 2002 crisis was intended to promote the adoption of biotech crops in Southern Africa, expanding the market access and control of transnational corporations and undermining local smallholder production thereby fostering greater food insecurity on the Continent.
The Peasant Movement of Papay, a group of Haitian farmers, has committed to burning 60,000 seed sacks (475 tons) of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds donated by Monsanto in the wake of the devastating earthquake earlier this year. Peasant Movement of Papay leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste called Monsantoâ€™s donation â€œa new earthquakeâ€ and called for a march to protest the corporationâ€™s presence in Haiti for World Environment Day. The National Peasant Movement of the Congress of Papay sent an open letter on May 14 signed by Jean-Baptiste. The letter called Monsantoâ€™s presence in Haiti, â€œa very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seedsâ€¦, and on what is left of our environment in Haiti.â€
You oppose Monsanto. Fine. You oppose the “Monsanto Protection Act”. Fine. You want to have all GMOs gone, not for health or safety reasons, but because you want to get rid of Monsanto & Big AG in general and you want to use me as your pawn. Not okay. Your fighting tool is to get Monsanto out of business by introducing warning labels which I (NOT you, because you anyway don’t buy GMO-food) have to pay for. That’s ridiculous. I don’t like labeling initiatives with an agenda in mind. A labeling initiative that has the goal to purely inform people – I am with it. But Prop37 was initiated by organic growers who required labelings for others while conveniently excluding themselves. They even had the audacity to try to secure the high-seller term “natural” with Prop37 for themselves. Um, can you say hypocritical?
Jason, fight your fight against Monsanto, unfair politics, etc. – but keep me as a supporter of green biotechnology and consumer of GMO-food out of the game. I am not willing to pay for your fight. Thanks to food activists, as somebody who is almost exclusively home-cooking I do not have the chance to take advantage of the potential benefits of GE. Due to the enormous costs of regulatory compliance, small companies and non-profit research organizations are already out of the game. Big AG has the focus on the large crops (canola, corn, cotton, etc.) ony and don’t even bother to improve the fruits and vegetables I consume.
I consider myself as scientific literate. I know how to read food labels and I made for myself a pro-GMO decision. I like some aspects of organic farming too, and I would love to see a combination of GE and organic farming. I also accept somebody’s decision to not eat GMOs. But why is it, that you food activists don’t have the same level of tolerance towards us? Why can’t GMO and non-GMO crops exist next to each other?
I don’t know how opposing poor countries are to food shipments from the US. But do you really think there would be any difference towards the anti-American attitude if GMOs were removed? I have my doubts… BTW, at least in the non-profit part of plant research, any patented technology is available for free for developing countries (I don’t know if companies have a similar policy).
If there are starving people who won’t accept GM food (which is extremely unlikely) it would be because they are misinformed by people like you who tell them that GM food is dangerous. It isn’t. On the contrary, organic food is more dangerous because natural fertilizer contains bacteria such as the E-coli that killed people in Germany recently.
Comments are closed.