Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond makes a compelling argument the 'domestication' of grains began in the Fertile Crescent, a region of Southwest Asia abutting the Mediterranean Sea.
When I heard 'westernization' of diets, I think "coca-cola".
Changing the emphasis doesn't amount to much: if the FDA is not conducting, or compelling companies to conduct, sufficiently rigorous safety assessments prior to the marketing of a GMO product and instead presumes such products to be safe until evidence to the contrary arises, they are failing their responsibility to protect consumers. Of course the FDA retains its enforcement powers; my complaint is their being reactive instead of proactive.
Sorry if my selections were unsatisfactory--I didn't think
1) The FDA permits companies themselves to make the determination of whether the genes introduced by GM are "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS). When companies determine GM modifications are GRAS (and I'm unaware of an instance they haven't), those foods are exempt from the food additive regulations.
2) Regulatory authority is, as you point out, split across the FDA, USDA and EPA. Each of the agencies only considers a subset of a proposed product. In the case of Bt potatoes, for instance, the FDA doesn't care about the Bt protein since it's a pesticide and therefore the EPA's problem. The EPA figures the original potato was safe and the Bt protein is safe, therefore the new Bt potato is safe. Interestingly, when it comes to labeling, the potato is back to being considered food and the FDA regs prohibit labeling of pesticides so Bt potatoes are anonymous when sold.
3) When GMO crops are evaluted, they are not done so with sufficient rigor. Consider again the Bt potato: the EPA supposedly tested the effects of Bt on mice but they didn't feed the mice Bt potatoes, they fed them pure Bt. If complications arose in the production of the protein within the potato itself, they couldn't have known.
How's that for process? Does the USDA do better? That second link you provided describes how the USDA 'streamlined' its regulations in order to "reduce the length of the petition process by more than 50 percent". I don't consider that an improvement.
Ultimately, though, you bring up the trump card: regulatory authority. I have no doubts whatsoever this will result in litigation which ultimately sees the ban struck down.
I think jet skis are included too. Certainly the trailer needs a license.
Don't drop context: "genes from entirely separate species"
Jellyfish & potatoes: "A full-length cDNA corresponding to the RNA genome of Potato leafroll virus (PLRV) was modified by inserting cDNA that encoded the jellyfish green fluorescent protein (GFP) into the P5 gene near its 3 end." I'd say jellyfish and potato are separate species...
Or soil bacteria & potatoes: "Colorado potato beetle (CPB) resistance has been achieved through the incorporation of a gene for the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein into potatoes." Again, two separate species which wouldn't normally have any mechanism to transfer genes. Oh, and this example is in our food chain.
You were saying?
You didn't take me literally enough.
then at least some officials will lose their jobs and/or land in jail.
If any officials are reprimanded, it won't be the ones deserving it. (Note: that's a huge if)
That should be in air-quotes:
And it's all "legal," according to their interpretation of the law.
Glyphosate can be used responsibly. But GMO crops don't promote responsible use. They encourage "over prescription," if you will, which accelerates pests' resistance.
Not to mention GMO crops are patentable and able to cross-breed with non-GMO crops, which places that non-GMO farmer at risk of patent litigation.
The irony here is that the FDA itself conducts no scientific review.
As reported last October: (emphasis added)
Q: Does the FDA test these foods before they're allowed on the market?
A: No. Instead there is a voluntary consultation process. Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process. Foods are presumed to be safe unless the FDA has evidence to the contrary, Jaffe says. The FDA "has to show that there may be a problem with the food, as opposed to the company needing to prove it's safe to FDA's satisfaction before it can get on the market," he says.
And from the horse's mouth itself: (emphasis added)
[Section V B] It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met. In section VII., FDA provides guidance to the industry regarding prudent, scientific approaches to evaluating the safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including the safety of the added substances that are subject to section 402(a)(1) of the act. FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.
Also, the basis for the fallacious assumption that genes introduced from other species are not worth rigorous testing: (emphasis added)
[excerpted Section V C] With respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), generally FDA does not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation. Nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism, including every plant and animal used for food by humans or animals, and do not raise a safety concern as a component of food. In regulatory terms, such material is presumed to be GRAS. Although the guidance provided in section VII. calls for a good understanding of the identity of the genetic material being transferred through genetic modification techniques, FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.
"Obviously GMO organisms are safe because we have no expectations they won't be safe." Most people would call BS on that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Does the FDA really not understand it's how those nucleic acids are arranged, not just what nucleic acids are present?
Uh... the herbicide companies are the seed companies! Well, company.
In theory a pest resistant crop might have fewer pesticides/herbicides
And in reality, more pesticides are used on pesticide-resistant crops. FTA:
"Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent," Benbrook said.
Monsanto officials had no immediate comment.
These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO to be as or more healthy.
FTFY
Cross-breeding is very different from shot-gun insertion of genes from entirely separate species. Go educate yourself.
And what the hell does seaweed have go do with anything?
...That's kind of the point for most people advocating GMO labeling requirements. It's still possible to find non-GMO foods but without labels, it's much harder to find them.
These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water"
That's an overly broad and unfair characterization. Everyone seems to be ignoring that companies are not required to prove with sufficient rigor that GMO crops are adequately safe.
The FDA requires new pharmaceuticals to undergo years of testing. In contrast, GMO crops are assumed to be safe because they 'closely approximate' their originating crop. That's a foolish assumption.
Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.
