Mae Culumber

Mae Culumber

Keys To Effective Potassium Management in Nut Crops

Carol Miller

Carol Miller

How Dixondale Farms Is Aiming To Protect Its Legacy

David Eddy

David Eddy

Pistachio Power: Where Growing and Research Mesh for Success

Bob West

Bob West

Data Dig: California Farmers Working Hard To Protect Their Assets

Colorado, Oregon Voters Say No To Labeling GMOs

David Eddy Posted by David Eddy|November 6, 2014

Colorado voters have decisively rejected Proposition 105, and Oregon voters have chosen to reject Measure 92, the food labeling initiatives on the states’ Nov. 4 ballots.

The measures would have created state-only food labeling regulations for certain foods made with genetically modified (GMO) ingredients. The Oregon initiative lost by a narrow margin, 51% to 49%, but the Colorado measure was soundly defeated by a margin of 67% to 33%.

Just like the tens of millions of voters in California in 2012 and Washington State in 2013, Colorado and Oregon voters saw the flaws in the proposals, according to a statement from Jim Greenwood, President and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

Greenwood says the measures would have created more state bureaucracy, imposed new costs and burdens on local farmers and businesses, and increased food prices for hard-working families.

While the biotech industry is committed to providing information about how food is grown, that information needs to be conveyed in an accurate and fact-based way to consumers. Greenwood said Colorado and Oregon voters clearly believe the initiatives failed in this regard.

Top Articles
A New Biopesticide in the Making To Fight Spotted Wing Drosophila

“Modern farming and biotechnology has enabled farmers to grow more food on less land with fewer pesticide applications, less water and reduced on-farm fuel use,” he said.

Greenwood continued: “The GMO labeling discussion deserves a national solution.  We will continue to explore policies that provide consumers with information about the foods we eat.  In the meantime, non-GMO choices exist in the marketplace, and online resources, such as the GMO Answers website, can answer questions about technology and food production.”

Source: Biotechnology Industry Organization news release

 

0

David Eddy is Editor of American Fruit Grower, a Meister Media Worldwide publication. See all author stories here.

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Matt Matt says:
November 6, 2014 at 12:02 pm

Both states’ initiatives were heavily lobbied for a no vote by the bio-tech industry. Most consumers have no clue what is being proposed or even what labeling would entail. In TRUTH, it would cost the industry virtually NOTHING to label foods. A simple “This product may contain raw ingredients that have been genetically modified” or * May be Genetically Modified. MANY foods already do that and it is a catch all so if a food company didn’t want to do any traceability they would just stick that wording on at their next label print (which happens at LEAST once every few years for ALL products.

The reason the bio-tech companies are lobbying the public so hard is they saw what happened in Europe. When people know what GMOs are, they reject them. They actively look for Non-GMO options. Even General Mills recognizes this and touts Cheerios as Non-GMO (even though virtually none of the ingredients were GMO to start with).

For an article like this to proudly exclaim that “The People” rejected these initiatives is very close to outright lies. “The People” responded to ad campaigns, just like they do in almost every election. If they actually understood that this type of labeling would cost virtually nothing for those that are ok with GMOs in their products, then the vote would most likely be very different.

Big Biotech is afraid of more states going the way of Vermont. Eventually they will. This will then be a defacto country wide labeling requirement as no large manufacturer wants to manufacture and package their products differently for just a handful of states.

Reductions in pesticide use is also a subtle lie. Sure we SPRAY less pesticide, but every cell in the plant contains a pesticide. When we factor in the amount of pesticide (and that IS what is produced inside of a GMO plant to kill insects) that is GROWN by the plant and then left on the field, we have a far different story. The article also does not point out the substantial increase in the use of GMO crops that have herbicide tolerance and the associated increase in the amount of herbicides (which is also a pesticide by definition) that have been applied over the last several decades.

More glyphosate and related herbicides have been used in the last two years than at any time in the history of agriculture. Do we consider spraying millions of gallons of herbicide onto our fields and into our environment as a net positive? Would you rather have your food sprayed with a lot of herbicide in order to reduce the work/increase the profit of big agribusiness?

If you want to have a true discussion and be HONEST in reporting, then a fair and balanced report has to be presented, not the industry sponsored piece that was presented here.

Reply
Avatar for Pete Pete says:
November 12, 2014 at 7:27 am

Matt,
So the voters are actually for labeling but were “tricked” to vote against it? Did you say the same thing when Obama won election and re-election? No, probably not because you were on the winning side that time.

As a grower, I assure you GMO labeling would create more bureaucracy, impose new costs, and burden farmers just as this article says.

Saying GMO foods are laced with pesticides inside of them is inaccurate. That is not how GMO technology works.

No-till stopped soil erosion on my farm which is incredibly beneficial to the environment. Our creeks and streams run clear. No-till is only possible by using safe herbicides such as glyphosate.

Do you use any type of prescription drugs, ever? Why is a new drug that treats blood pressure, etc, great, but when farmer’s use technology in the form of pesticides its frowned upon? I don’t even swallow my pesticides with a glass of water.

Reply
Avatar for Matt Matt says:
November 12, 2014 at 12:33 pm

“Saying GMO foods are laced with pesticides inside of them is inaccurate. That is not how GMO technology works.”

For crops that produce Cry1AC and other “Cry” toxins that is EXACTLY how they work. They have had the necessary genes inserted into their genetic structure artificially. These genes then cause the plant to produce the SAME toxins that the BT bacterium does. When you eat the crop you are eating the same toxins, they are NOT washed off as they exist in every cell of the crop. This is how insects are killed when they EAT the crop.

Since we do not remove all of the crop from the field much of the BT toxin produced is left IN the field in the plant stover. If we then factor in the additional transferred genes that allow for herbicide resistance and the associated spraying of herbicide we have a net increase in the amount of “pesticide” that is applied to the land, NOT a reduction. When GMO marketing wings say their is a net decrease in the amount of spraying for insects, that is technically true, but it is not a net decrease in the amount of pesticide applied to the land when we factor in the total amount of pesticide introduced into the environment by modern agriculture.

“No-Till is only possible with herbicides is also not true.”

If proper cover crops are used and proper tillage is used there can be zero runoff from fields. An example: properly planted cereal rye that is terminated mechanically by rolling or cutting and left on the field as a ground cover has proven to be an effective weed suppressant for most small grains and vegetables. Most farmers have no experience with this so their nature reaction is to say “it doesn’t work”.

“Do you use any type of prescription drugs, ever? Why is a new drug that treats blood pressure, etc, great, but when farmer’s use technology in the form of pesticides its frowned upon? I don’t even swallow my pesticides with a glass of water.”

There is a distinct difference here. You analogy with a prescription drug would be more in line with an IPM pest program. IPM says that a product is NOT used unless there is a documented reason/pest present and causing economic damage of can be reasonably assured will be present.

GMOs treat a problem that may or may not be present. It is similar to water fluoridation. It is something that is done for the perceived benefit when the risk is not always present. If the pest is not present, then why spray or plant for it? The same is true of water fluoridation. It is considered routine in this country to dump waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry into the municipal water supply in an attempt to prevent cavities. In most European nations that do NOT fluoridate the water and yet have BETTER dental health than in the US. WHY? Because people brush their teeth, consume less sugar, etc.

GMOs would be similar to forced medication. Why are we seeing ECB and CEW that are now largely resistant to BTs? It is due to the overuse of GMOs with these traits and farmers who ignore the requirement to plant buffers of conventional corn.

Glyphoste resistant super weeds are now also becoming a problem, again due to the over use of GMOs and glyphosate.

Back to the OT: Hundreds of Millions of dollars have been spent on litigation and campaigns fighting labeling. If they would just label ALL of that money could have been saved or put into labeling.

Reply
Avatar for Pete Pete says:
November 12, 2014 at 9:29 pm

Matt,

When it comes to GMOs, what is your primary concern? Is it health concerns of consuming the GMO foods or is it impacts to the environment (the monarch butterfly, etc).
Please provide an unbiased, non-European study that definitively concludes the cry proteins GMO crops are dangerous to humans. I imagine it will be hard to find because most studies are done with the sole purpose of deeming GMO foods as dangerous. Such findings increase the researchers budgets (and therefore salaries) and give them personal acclaim. I heard the findings of a study the other day that by 2100 we would be at a point of no-return with the effects of man-made global warming. Nothing gets funding to your research like conclusions such as that! GMO researchers funded by crazy groups do the same thing. Anyways, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
I would really like to see you farm 500 acres of cotton using rolled cover crops and “proper tillage” only in the South. Weeds would be over your head by July 4th! Yes, it may work for vegetables if you are able and willing to accept significant yield loss. I know from personal experience that tomatoes and strawberries grown on fumigated plasticulture yield two, three, four time more than crops grown using methods you suggested.
In response to earlier, how do you feel about vaccinations? In my opinion, prevention is good.
Again, labeling just isn’t needed for technology that is safe.

Reply
Avatar for Matt Matt says:
November 13, 2014 at 12:37 pm

Pete. I will try and address your concerns in the order you raised them:

1. When it comes to GMOs, what is your primary concern?

My primary concern is a lack of epidemiological proof that GMOs, the specific new proteins that are expressed by the GMO modified plant, are safe both for human consumption (children and adults) and the environment (non-target species). Most of the studies that have been done by the major GMO crop producing companies are not long term studies. Over 95% of them are 60 days or less and only concentrate on acute problems. There is still too much science based evidence that leads me to believe that there may be long term risks to consuming GMOs or the associated herbicide residues that are present because of GMO trait (herbicide tolerance genes). Remember that DDT, agent orange, PCBs and other products were produced by Monsanto, had numerous studies conducted by or paid for by Monsanto that “proved” they were safe. It was not until decades later that independent science proved that these products were unsafe. Monsanto NEVER admitted that these products were unsafe even when presented with scientifically proven cases of cancer that these agents caused. Because of Monsanto’s past track record of lying about the safety of their products, I do not trust them as a company when they say their products are safe.

2. Please provide an unbiased, non-European study that definitively concludes the cry proteins GMO crops are dangerous to humans.
University of Brazil: http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdf

I have more citations of you want them (Many from Europe that already confirm what this University paper has also confirmed). Disregard the site it is hosted on. The original PDF is what is at the link. It is a scientific based study that proves BT toxins cause cell damage in humans and the effects are worse with long term exposure (through diet). It was notable that GMOs were the main source of the CRY toxins as foliar sprays had virtually no detectable levels in the final food product vs GMOs where the toxins are in every cell of the final food product.

3. “I would really like to see you farm 500 acres of cotton using rolled cover crops and “proper tillage” only in the South.”
Rolled cover crops are simply one method I proposed to control weeds. I was not suggesting that it will provide 100% weed control or that it works for all crops. Cotton has been grown for centuries without GMOs. The idea that we can not grow it without them today is very short sighted. Simple farming practices such as crop rotation, encouraging natural predators through planting of buffer strips that host the beneficials, using IPM methods to control pests when present, etc. are all methods that are successfully used without a loss in yield. It may surprise you that almost all increases in yield, drought tolerance, etc. are achieved via conventional breeding. The addition of transgenic genes is ALWAYS done afterwards. I personally believe that these GMO additions are done more to patent the product than for a true benefit to the consumer or farmer. GMOs cost the same as conventional ag once you factor in the technology fee costs. In almost every case where a farmer uses Land Grant based university bred seed (that they clean and save for next year since there is no patent) the farmer makes MORE money even though he may have extra passes across the field for cultivation or herbicide application. GMOs are more about the transfer of wealth to a few large agribusiness companies than they are about improving a crop or making a farmers life easier.

4. “tomatoes and strawberries grown on fumigated plasticulture yield two, three, four time more than crops grown using methods you suggested.”
That is true if you never rotate your crops and keep planting the same crop in the same field every year. If proper crop rotations are used the yield on tomatoes, strawberries, etc. will be just as high without fumigation. The means that a mono crop system will no longer be viable. A farmer will need to rotate to crops that suppress strawberry and tomato dieses for three or four years before rotating back to Tomatoes. Oraganic and sustainable conventional farmers know this already. Even grain farmers know this where they tend to rotate corn, soybeans, wheat, alfalfa, etc. in a three or four year cycle. I do grow these crops as well and have never needed to fumigate my soil (nor have any of my vegetable and fruit growing neighbors). We use broccoli as a rotation after strawberries to help suppress nematodes and it works! Land that is planting to tomatoes/peppers/potatoes is not rotated back to those crops for at least three years. We have never had yield problems due to weeds or disease when using this system. We also use Cereal rye to mulch the row middles. It’s decomposition has an allelopathic effect on seed germination.

5. In response to earlier, how do you feel about vaccinations? In my opinion, prevention is good.
Not quite sure what this has to do with this debate other than you looking to somehow label me in some way? My view on vaccinations is to weigh the risk vs. reward of the vaccination. I read the mongraphs first to determine what the possible side effects are and the incidence of those side effects. I then make a decision on whether I think the risk is worth the reward. Some vaccinations I take and some I don’t (at this stage in my life). I don’t blindly listen to doctors especially when I ask them how certain medications work or why they choose one vs. the other. I once asked a pediatric doctor to administer oral vitamin K to once of kids at their birth. They had never administered it that way before and argued I should just give the shot. I explained that the US is the only country that gives the vitamin K shot as routine and it has side effects that include death that the oral version does not and that the oral version was just as if not more effective than the shot. This made the doctor very defensive and she proceeded to berate me in front of medical students/resident (it is a teaching hospital) that I am risking my child’s life (not true) etc. etc. I then handed her a two page report that was written by her supervisor at THE SAME HOSPITAL that recommended the oral vitamin K over the shot and had research to back it up. She was visibly embarrassed and then said she did not know where to get oral vitamin K. I had to point to the sheet she was holding that said it was available from the pharmacy in the same hospital. Many doctors have chips on their shoulders and think everyone else is dumb. When they don’t get their way they tend to be dismissive. I always verify what I am being told is true and then decide if what is being told to me is something I want.

Avatar for crush davis crush davis says:
November 13, 2014 at 8:47 am

Pete…it’s a waste of time. Matt has his underwear in a bunch b/c people aren’t voting and spending their money the way he thinks he should. Period. It’s not about people’s or animals’ health, or the “integrity” of the food supply. It’s about activists who only want business or success if it’s on the terms that their sociopolitical and socioeconomic worldview dictates. He’s just another angry, sanctimonious activist. But, there’s good news, Matt. Now that obama’s USDA has given the greenlight to GM alfalfa and a GM potato, the struggle can continue, comrade. You should be thanking Monsanto, Matt. Without them you wouldn’t have a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

Reply
Avatar for crush davis crush davis says:
November 12, 2014 at 9:01 am

Well, you can’t win ’em all, Matt. I’m glad somebody finally stood up to “Big Organic” and “Big Sustainable.” It’s about time. They’ve been misinforming people and passing on bad information for years. I hope it happens more.

Reply
Avatar for Bill Parks Bill Parks says:
November 12, 2014 at 10:36 am

Matt: please crawl out from under your rock.
GMO saves soil, saves diesel fuel, leaves more land for wild animals to be on, saves grower time and has been eaten safely now for 20 years. the science and the practice works – get with modern living.
Even take some time to look at the science for your self. i said science not misinformation from nay sayers.

Reply
Avatar for Matt Matt says:
November 12, 2014 at 12:39 pm

I have looked at the science, and I still find that it is in it’s infancy (As do most university researchers.). Newer breeding techniques, like marker assisted gene transfer that uses conventional breeding but is actually FASTER to develop than GMOs, has none of the downsides of gene splicing will be where money goes in the future.

If you do a poll of consumers with REAL facts and not paid for industry marketing, you will find that most consumers want nothing to do with GMOs. This was proven in Europe and is why so much money is spent fighting labeling laws in the US. If it did not matter then why would MORE money go into fighting labeling vs just complying?

If labeling had not been fought, the close to 1 billion dollars (yes one billion), that has been spent already fighting labeling could have go to label AND to higher commodity prices.

Reply
Avatar for Danielle Danielle says:
November 13, 2014 at 9:01 am

Right on Matt!

Reply
Avatar for Theresa Lam Theresa Lam says:
November 12, 2014 at 11:07 pm

Why not skip the GMO’s and opt for more creative solutions? We all know that with applying all of those herbicides you are speeding up evolution to create superweeds. One cause of this is a high dependency on glyphosate: monsanto.com/weedmanagement/pages/managing-weeds.aspx The outcome necessitates the use of stronger and more herbicide use ie, Dow Duo Enlist
centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3536/epa-approves-new-24-d-herbicide-blend-paving-way-for-controversial-ge-crops

Organic cotton is now being grown in more than 18 countries worldwide. In the United States, approximately 10,000 acres of organic cotton were planted in 1998 in the Mid-South, Texas and California.

How is this being done? http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/background.cfm
“Weed Control: Organic Farmers have many options to control weeds including: mechanical weeding implements, such as hoes and flame weeders, crop rotations, planting several crops together (intercropping), more efficient use of irrigation water, the use of mulches and by even adjusting the planting dates and densities of their crops.
Pest Control: By encouraging biological diversity, farmers create conditions, which reduce the likelihood of any insect, bird or mammal doing any major damage to their crop. To control pests organic farmers may use: beneficial predator insects, crop rotations, intercropping, and as a last resort biological pesticides like Bt and neem oil.”

“In Peru, cotton farmers have saved over $100 per acre in pesticide and fertilizer costs by switching over to organic production.
In Tanzania organic cotton farmers plant sunflowers to encourage beneficial ants that feed on the larvae of the bollworm, and fertilize the soil with manure from their cattle.
In India, organic farmers intercrop cotton with pigeon peas and make insecticidal sprays from garlic, chili and the neem tree.
In California, organic cotton farmers plant habitat strips of vegetation such as alfalfa near their fields as a refuge for beneficial insects.

At a recent farm tour where Chad’s field was a focus, he shared his observations about SCP and reasons for making the shift from conventional growing to more biological systems and even on to organic.

He has found that by eliminating the broad-spectrum insecticides on his farm, there has been a gradual increase in beneficial insects, bio diversity and even in wildlife. At Crivelli Farms in 2009, Chad found quail in the brush piles along the roadways and field margins, something his family has not seen for more than 30 years. This discovery has had a big impact on Chad, his father and brother who both farm with him. They recognize the importance and value of biodiversity and protection of the water and air quality in their area. They like what they are seeing.

“Cleaner Cotton™ really opened up my eyes,” Chad says. “Farmers can still make a profit growing cotton and reduce chemicals. That’s a great feeling. It’s a very good concept. It does work.”
Through SCP, Chad gained the confidence to plant organic cotton. He found that the program’s resources and access to University of California Cooperative Extension and UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management cotton experts supported his questions and increased his knowledge base.” http://www.sustainablecotton.org/pages/show/farmer-profiles

Reply
Avatar for Pete Pete says:
November 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm

Matt,

I will give you credit for thorough and straightforward replies. I appreciate that. However, I’m not buying what you are selling. Your PRIMARY concern is both the environment and human health? I see how the two are related from your perspective but I just don’t see any evidence around me that there is a problem. I actually read most of your study despite the link starting with “gmoevidence…”. I expected exactly something like that from a site such as that. I FOUND THIS LINE VERY INTERESTING IN THE STUDY YOU POINT TO FOUND ON PAGE 7:
“The profile of observed cytotoxic effects of these Cry toxins (in mice) can be related to their high concentrations and the exposure
time. Such exposures at these high concentrations are not commonly found in the environment.” I agree completely.
True, agriculture existed before GMO. However, 4 bale per acre cotton and 300+ bushel corn did not. I agree its possible to get these yields without GMO technology but hoeing is not for me. We use all the good agricultural practices you point to (crop rotation, cover crops) in addition to the latest technology.
Maybe its just me but I do see a link between medicine and agriculture. Technology and break-through advances are found in both. In both, the new technology isn’t always studied for decades before put to real world use. Its okay though.

Reply
Avatar for Tom Tom says:
November 15, 2014 at 8:15 am

Ok You all are missing the point. Why does Monsanto sue farmers ? Why do they put so much effort and $ to stop labeling ?
If Organic an conventional food was labled NON GMO what do u think would happen in the grocery store ? WHAT WOULD U BUY ? I know what I would buy.

Reply
Avatar for Pete Pete says:
November 15, 2014 at 9:23 pm

Tom,
Monsanto defends their intellectual rights. As a farmer, I have no problem with this because I understand it is needed to fund future development. All farmers have the choice whether or not to buy Monsanto developed seeds.
By labeling food Non-GMO, two things happen. From Monsanto’s perspective, their products appear to be 2nd best and sales may fall. However, their products are not 2nd best in anyway. The other thing that happens is added bureaucracy and increased costs for the packagers to place these unnecessary labels on food. I imagine these costs will be passed to the grower.
I would buy the item that cost less since quality would be the same. That would probably be GMO product since they tend to produce better yields increasing supply. The GMO technology also offers farmers additional tools for controlling all types of pests which in many instances decrease the cost of production leading to lower priced items.
Remember, any brand has the right to label their food Non-GMO (if they are non-GMO). Some brands are doing this, but why does the market for Non-GMO just automatically make this happen widespread?

Reply

Related posts