Guest Column — A Conflict Of Interest For Sen. Ruderman?

letterBy Richard Ha

State Senator Russell Ruderman used his own company’s letterhead when he submitted anti-GMO testimony recently to the Hawai‘i County Council. He owns Island Naturals, the natural foods markets.

It certainly seems to be a conflict of interest for him to be supporting the Big Island’s anti-GMO movement, and he should recuse himself from all discussions and votes regarding GMOs. Submitting testimony on his company’s letterhead does not help lessen this impression of his having a serious conflict of interest.

He also wrote an article for Big Island Weekly recently, titled GMO Facts and Fictions, which he says is the first in a series of installments.

What’s most interesting are the comments that follow his article, like this one from Karl Haro von Mogel, Ph.D. Candidate in Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics, UW-Madison, Chair, Biology Fortified, Inc. Von Mogel is highly educated on issues regarding GMOs, and he wrote this:

I applaud State Senator Ruderman’s desire to clear up confusion about genetically engineered crops, but in this ?opinion piece, he has made a great number of outright falsehoods that ?further confuse the topic and muddy the waters. I am a plant? geneticist who studies this topic very closely and is building a ?database of all peer-reviewed scientific studies on genetically ?engineered crops, so I am very familiar with this field. I will attempt ?to correct the most egregious of Ruderman’s errors.

He goes on to correct many of what he calls Ruderman’s “outright falsehoods” in detail. It’s a very long comment.

Ruderman responded with this:

As mentioned in my column, I will be addressing these studies in more detail in future columns. I look forward to discussing the Seralini study, which, in addition to showing serious effects from GMOs, illuminates the aggressive tactics of biotec companies in suppressing science it doesn’t like. These studies point to the need for long-term follow-up studies, which have not been done. I will also clear up the confusion of how Bt affects humans by disrupting our essential gut bacteria, which is not understood by some of the previous commenters.

And then von Mogel, who is highly educated on the science of biotechnology, responded with this:

Mr. Ruderman, you have made a series of very outlandish and false claims about Bt that you did not support with any evidence. This comment of yours would have been the time to at least give us links to the studies that you say exist, or to correct the record. Saying that you are putting off supporting these claims with evidence until some future column suggests that you don’t have such evidence. Indeed, I was very direct in saying that for some of the claims you made, there is not a single study that even remotely suggests anything like that – such as your claim that the genes have transferred to our gut bacteria.?By bringing up the Seralini study, you are changing the subject. Seralini’s (now retracted) study did not involve Bt at all, so it does not support any of the arguments you have made. Indeed, there have been long-term feeding studies with Bt. There have been feeding studies that look at effects on gut bacteria and conclude that there are none. As I said, I am intimately familiar with the scientific literature on this topic, and I can help you find answers to your questions. ?As a State Senator, it is your duty to consult with scientific experts – especially those in Hawaii who work for the state that you represent – so that you can make decisions based on established scientific facts. Hawaii needs leaders who can represent both the concerns of the population and duly weigh the evidence to make informed decisions. Will you be that leader?

We need to hold Senator Ruderman to a higher standard than he’s holding himself to, because he’s our elected official and making decisions on behalf of all of us.

There are other interesting comments there, as well. They’re by far the most interesting thing about that article, in my opinion. Read them all here.

I have asked Senator Ruderman many times how his stance, which does not even seem to be supported by science, will help the Big Island and its food security status. How will it help the rubbah slippah folk in his district? I have never received an answer.

Richard Ha is a farmer on the Big Island and blogs regularly at

76 replies
« Older Comments
  1. Jen
    Jen says:

    Robert Wager, many of the organization’s statements you love to quote state something to the effect that “consumers have been eating GE foods for twenty years without ill effect” which is misleading because there have never been any epidemiological studies conducted and at the same time there has been a great increase in chronic diseases and allergic reactions many physicians and medical professionals believe could be linked to the consumption of GE foods. Also, the WHO’s statement you reference does not talk about our FDA’s policy of “voluntary safety assessments” on GE foods and that the safety assurances it does accept are conducted by the very companies who benefit $$$ from their approval. In addition, Monsanto’s own safety studies have been indicative of kidney and liver toxicity, none of which are long-term studies.

    Hawaiano, articles written by “science writers” who write with a clear bias towards one side or the other and who have no scientific or medical background do not interest me.

  2. Robert Wager
    Robert Wager says:

    Once again you make assertions that are not true.
    Here are two Epidemiology reviews Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: A review (2011)
    “Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate.”

    -Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review (2012)
    “Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.”

    As for the FDA voluntary aspect, yes it is true it is still voluntary but of the 150 odd GE crops 150 have gone thru the FDA evaluation process. Not one has ever skipped the FDA evaluation process.

    The only studies that show harm are studies that have not been done to OECD, WHO food testing standards. That is why every one of those organizations I quotes ALL agree on the safety of GE crops.

    Again with the smear of the organizations with zero proof. Your stick is getting old on this forum.

    Please produce peer reviewed and acceptable science to counter any of the points the international bodies have stated or admit there is no evidence as they state.

    Again I ask you, what tests not already done would you like to see added and why?

  3. punated
    punated says:

    It is being revealed more and more every day that mainland organic farming corporations are contributing large amounts of money to organic gardening sympathizers in the south Kona area. Many of these organic gardening (not farming) sympathizers on the island also have some non-profit they funnel the money through.

    If you want to know real details of what that money is funding, just search “fast eddie oahu surf” and go to the Playboy article (no nudity but NSFW). He is another haole from the mainland, with a dark complexion, masquerading as a “local” but really just a cheap New Jersey thug, not a hit man but an enforcer. According to the article, he is running the Oahu north shore surf syndicate and got his start here by being flown to different islands to enforce equity. He is a big surfer, slowing down to doing organic gardening in his old age, and surprise, an anti-GMO supporter, a big supporter — with enforcement if necessary.

    For those that drone on and on about the environment and safety, here is an article about why organic farming is NOT the most environmentally friendly way for large scale farming. I won’t re-post the article here since it is so well written and the author deserves the click-throughs:
    Six Reasons Organic Is NOT The Most Environmentally Friendly Way To Farm

  4. Obie
    Obie says:

    There is a reason why no studies have been conducted.

    “While some groups and individuals have called for more human testing of GM food, there are several obstacles to such studies. Both the US General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and the FAO/WHO have confirmed that long term studies of the effect of GM food on humans are not feasible, for reasons including: there is no plausible hypothesis to test; very little is known about the potential long-term effects of any foods; identification of such effects is further confounded by the great variability in the way people react to foods; and epidemiological studies are not likely to differentiate the health effects of GM foods from the many undesirable effects of conventional foods.”

  5. John
    John says:

    I don’t think it’s a real conflict of interest, in the sense that a public official supports a measure he would otherwise oppose, because he has a financial interest involved. Sen. Ruderman appears to be a true believer regarding GMOs. But considering how routinely the anti-GMO cult members accuse anyone disagreeing with being on the payroll of Monsanto or otherwise having corrupt motives, the denial of the obvious fact that anti-GMO fever benefits a natural foods business is really rich.

  6. Russell Ruderman
    Russell Ruderman says:

    Mahalo Jen, Greg, Harry and others for your sanity.
    I’ll be replying to Mr. Ha’s inaccurate conflict of interest comments shortly in a new thread.

  7. Hawaiino
    Hawaiino says:

    To Sen Ruderman

    It should be easier to reply to the conflict of interest charges than all of the challenges made to your assertions in your BIW entry. After all, no facts are needed, just a rationale for your position.
    If you have time you might consider a reply regarding the particular statements in your article that were unsubstantiated and reasonably challenged for support or basis. And no, the Seralini article will not suffice. It has been discredited and the man has come across as a charlatan with his attempts to intimidate the press and other researchers.

    On a larger, off topic, subject;
    I appreciate your courtesy to thread participants that (mostly) agree with you, as a political figure you might consider replying equally to your critics. A career in politics requires a thick skin AND a fine touch. Perhaps a single term will satisfy your need to serve and slake your desire to serve? If so, it would be a shame, one term Senators rarely perform for their districts…or their causes. It takes time and earned credibility to make a substantive difference. But that chamber is hard on dilettantes and zealots, it caters to empty suits and hard workers who persist over time.

    Good luck this session and best wishes

  8. Jen
    Jen says:

    Robert Wager,

    Glyphosate and GE are not one in the same, as I am sure you are well aware. Your shtick of appeal to authority is getting old as well.

    In the meantime, here’s a Monsanto “safety assurance study” that appears to be crap. For one, instead of testing 200 experimental rats, and comparing them to 200 controls, there are only 80. Then data was only published for half the original amount of rats. Urinalysis was not published. Etc.
    Hammond, B., Lemen, J., Dudek, R., Ward, D., Jiang, C., Nemeth, M., Burns, J., 2006a. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food Chem. Toxicol. 44, 147–160.

    Seralini’s work is being replicated in Europe. If European scientists didn’t think his preliminary findings are significant no reason to spend several million repeating his work on larger sample sizes.

    No time for any more discussion. Gnite

  9. Jen
    Jen says:

    Robert Wager:

    You keep saying that I am conveying untrue information. I say there are no epidemiological studies on GE foods, which there aren’t. You then cite epidemiological studies on glyphosate, which is not a GE food. Who is the one conveying untrue information here?


    That is an opinion expressed by industry plant scientists, one that is not shared by physicians, veterinarians, and other medical professions who are calling for the labeling of GE foods.

  10. punated
    punated says:

    Back to the topic, Senator Ruderman has displayed monumental ignorance of how government works, while occupying a relatively high level position within the Hawaii state government. The big problem is that he doesn’t seem to understand the code of ethics at all or is completely disdainful of it. Even freshman senators and representatives are given a briefing in government ethics, so they can’t use the excuse of ignorance of the law. His very quirky use of his company’s letterhead to submit legal testimony despite having an obvious personal interest in a biased outcome was so strange, it crossed over into the bizarre. Here is the briefing every Hawaii politician is given. They also are required to take the oath to protect the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A lot of people skip over the last one, domestic enemies of the Constitution, of which there are many. The paragraph against conflict of interest is provided and knowing Senator Ruderman’s special interests in organic farming and being anti-GMO in his business make what he did a clear conflict of interest.

    You must disqualify yourself from taking any official
    action directly affecting a business or undertaking in
    which you have a substantial financial interest.
    HRS §84-14(a)

  11. Robert Wager
    Robert Wager says:

    You do realize it is impossible to do epidemiology studies on human subjects re GE food, don’t you. Because of the uselessness of the data generated it is also immoral to subject humans to any such tests. We use animals for testing food. And there are thousands of tests on Animals with GE feed. Look at the EFSA 2008 document on Safety and Nutritional Assessments :Animal Feeding trials to see them.

    So once again what tests not already done would you like to see added and why?

    A simple question for those who claim to know about GE food testing.

  12. Robert Wager
    Robert Wager says:

    May I respectfully ask you to read this document as it covers you concern,

    The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of
    genetically modified crops: Limitations and recommendations
    Andrew Bartholomaeus12, Wayne Parrott3, Genevieve Bondy4, and Kate Walker5 on behalf of the ILSI International
    Food Biotechnology Committee Task Force on the Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in the Safety Assessment
    of GM Foods*
    Crit Rev Toxicol, 2013; 43(S2): 1–24
    There is disagreement internationally across major regulatory jurisdictions on the relevance and
    utility of whole food (WF) toxicity studies on GM crops, with no harmonization of data or
    regulatory requirements. The scientific value, and therefore animal ethics, of WF studies on GM
    crops is a matter addressable from the wealth of data available on commercialized GM crops and
    WF studies on irradiated foods. We reviewed available GM crop WF studies and considered the
    extent to which they add to the information from agronomic and compositional analyses. No WF
    toxicity study was identified that convincingly demonstrated toxicological concern or that called
    into question the adequacy, sufficiency, and reliability of safety assessments based on crop
    molecular characterization, transgene source, agronomic characteristics, and/or compositional
    analysis of the GM crop and its near-isogenic line. Predictions of safety based on crop genetics
    and compositional analyses have provided complete concordance with the results of wellconducted
    animal testing. However, this concordance is primarily due to the improbability of de
    novo generation of toxic substances in crop plants using genetic engineering practices and due
    to the weakness of WF toxicity studies in general. Thus, based on the comparative robustness and
    reliability of compositional and agronomic considerations and on the absence of any scientific
    basis for a significant potential for de novo generation of toxicologically significant compositional
    alterations as a sole result of transgene insertion, the conclusion of this review is that WF animal
    toxicity studies are unnecessary and scientifically unjustifiable.

  13. Jen
    Jen says:

    Robert Wager:

    Saying that epidemiological studies on GE foods is impossible and “inhumane” is simply false. Epidemiological studies associated with consumption of trans fats, for example, have provided strong support on the causality of their consumption with coronary heart disease.

    There needs to be an FDA policy of MANDATORY premarket safety evaluation (as recommended by the AMA) using independent, blinded, long-term studies.

  14. Jen
    Jen says:

    Robert Wager,

    If there weren’t evidence of toxicity in the safety studies (ex. the Hammond papers & independent studies), then medical professionals wouldn’t be calling for more long term testing and epidemiological studies. The fact that Seralini is being replicated in a $3 million new study, along with the endorsement of labeling by the CMA, APHA, and individual physicians, veterinarians, and medical researchers who have spoken out shows that there is not a consensus on that issue. I personally have more faith in the critiq

  15. Robert Wager
    Robert Wager says:

    Once again you confusepolitics with science. the global science is very clear about the safety of GE crops and derived food. the politics is not. Here is an interesting quote from the EASAC 2013 (again Europe)

    “The misuse of the precautionary principle has led to restrictive legislation and both a political and market mistrust of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

    This has had a profound chilling effect on both public and private investment for European agricultural research

    There is abundant and accumulating evidence from extensive worldwide experience for benefit, and lack of evidence for environmental or human health risk associated with GM crop technology.

    Thus, there is a compelling case for the EU to re-examine its current policy governing the broad area of agricultural biotechnology

    And now the Health Professionals:

    “There is no evidence that Health Canada approved GE foods and food crops are any less safe for human health than non-GE varieties…There is no public health reason for a ban on genetically engineered trees, plants and crops as proposed by the resolution to Council.” “There is no evidence that Health Canada approved GE foods and food crops are any less safe for human health than non-GE varieties…There is no public health reason for a ban on genetically engineered trees, plants and crops as proposed by the resolution to Council.”Vancouver Coastal Health Authority 2012

    ““The overwhelming body of scientific
    evidence continues to support the safety of
    genetically modified food and feed products
    in general…However, whenever new
    information concerning the safety of an
    authorized product arises, this new data is
    carefully reviewed.” Health Canada 2012

    The GM products that are currently on the
    international market have all passed risk
    assessments conducted by national
    authorities. These different assessments in
    general follow the same basic principles,
    including an assessment of environmental
    and human health risk. These assessments
    are thorough, they have not indicated any risk
    to human health. (WHO 2013)

  16. Robert Wager
    Robert Wager says:

    And the AMA 2012 resolution on GE foods:

    “Our AMA recognizes the continuing validity of the three major conclusions contained in the 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper “Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment.” The three major conclusions are:

    (a)There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms;

    (b) The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods;

    (c) Assessment of the risk of introducing rDNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced.)

  17. Jen
    Jen says:

    Robert Wager,

    You continue to repeat things we’ve already discussed. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Good day to you!

  18. Jen
    Jen says:

    Richard Ha:



    DELEGATES 2002

    Resolution 107-02 (Adopted 2-24-02)

    Title: Labeling of

    Genetically Modified Foods

    Author: Cindy Russell, M.D.

    Introduced by: Cindy Russell, M.D., Robert Gould, M.D.

    WHEREAS, Agricultural genetic engineering is a powerful technology that includes the practice of imprecisely inserting novel genetic material into food crops for a variety of reasons; and

    WHEREAS, Agricultural genetic engineering is profoundly different than conventional breeding which develops new plant varieties through the process of selection using sexual and asexual reproduction but instead combines isolated genetic material with foreign viral promoter genes and antibiotic resistance marker genes randomly into hosts which are often reproductively incompatible (flounder genes in strawberries to confer resistance to freezing); and

    WHEREAS, The science of genetically modifying such foods is still in its early and unpredictable stages of development and has resulted in unintended consequences of genetic contamination in wild plants in addition to a significant amount of non GMO crops, with the potential for other adverse environmental effects; and

    WHEREAS, Agricultural genetic engineering can introduce new proteins into food crops not just from known sources of common allergens (e.g., peanuts or shellfish), but from plants of all kinds, animals, bacteria and viruses, whose allergenicity is largely unknown; and

    WHEREAS, There remain many uncertainties in the understanding of allergies that have yet to be resolved including the genetic and environmental factors that predispose to food allergy; and

    WHEREAS, A systematic assessment of allergenic properties of novel and unknown allergens which may be present is not currently being done as there are no animal models that exist for such testing, and

    WHEREAS, there is currently no mandatory pre market or post market safety review of genetically modified food products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine public health or environmental impacts, only a pre market biotechnical notification (PBN) is necessary 120 days prior to market and this may be kept confidential to the public; and

    WHEREAS, Consumers International consisting of all major consumers groups in the US and abroad are requesting mandatory labeling for GM foods as a fundamental right to know; and

    WHEREAS, considering European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and China require labeling of GM foods for import and export; and

    WHEREAS, Widespread use of antibiotic resistance marker genes (e.g. Novartis Bt corn with Ampicillin resistant marker) could exacerbate the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, and consumer labeling would be an important tool in tracking and evaluating any such problem; and

    WHEREAS, Over 60% of processed foods in the United States contain genetically modified food products, none of which are labeled to indicate the presence of these potentially allergenic products and which thus cannot be monitored or evaluated; therefore be it

    RESOLVED, That the CMA support accurate labeling requirements for foods, including genetically modified foods, by appropriate regulatory agencies.


    1) Michelle Marvier,. American Scientist. Ecology of Transgenic Crops . Vol 89, No 2 (March-April 2001). Pgs 160-167 www.

    2) D.D. Metcalfe,et al. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. Assessment of the Allergenic Potential of Foods Derived from Genetically Engineered Crop Plants.

    3) Hilbeck,A, Baumgartnew. Environmental Entomology. Affects of Glyphosate tolerant canola crops on soil microorganisms and bioaccumulation. (1998) Vol 27,480

    4) J. Carpenter. Science, 287,803 (2000)- Herbicide use on Roundup ready crops.

    5) Science. The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plant. L.L. Wolfenbarger and P.R. Phifer. Dec 15, 2000, Vol 290.

    6) Ignacio Chapela. Nature. Nov,2001 – Introduction of corn transgenes in remote Mexico.

    7) SF Chronicle. Study finds Genes do Jump Fields, Jane Kay. Thursday, Nov. 29,2001.

    8) Nordlee et al. New Engalnd Journal of Medicine.. Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans. March 14, 1996. Vol334 No.11Pg688

    9) Melo,VMM. Food Agriculture Immunology.. Allergenicity and Tolerance to Proteins from Brazil -Nut. 1994:6;185-195 [ Showed no allergenic reponse of transgenic soybeans with brazil nut 2S protein unlike human sudies Ref 8 above]

    10) SH Sicherer, et al. Arch Internal Medicine. Underrepresentation of the risk and incidence of anaphylaxis to foods. Vol 161, Sep 10, 2001 pg 2046.

    11) I. Kimber et al. Toxicology Letters. Food Allergy; What are the Issues? Vol 120(2001):165-170

    12) B.B. Moseley. Allergy.. How to Make Foods Safer- genetically modified foods. 2001. 56: supp 67:61-63

    13) ) The Globalization of Poverty, Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms. Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

    14) J.O’b. Hourihane. Allergy. Prevalence and Severity of Food Allergy-Need for Control. 1998: Vol 53(supp 46): 84-88

    15) Mercer, D.K., K.p. Scott, W.A. Bruce-Johnson, L.A. Glover and H.J. Flint, 1999, “Fate of Free DNA and Transformation of the Oral Bacterium Streptococcus Gordonii DL1 by Plasmid DNA in Human Saliva,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 65:6-10

    16) ). Bergelson, J., C.B. Purrington and G. Wichmann, 1998, “Promiscuity in Transgenic Plants”,” Nature, 395:25. ( GM plants 4 to 36 times more likely to cross pollinate than those bred


    17) Mikkelsen, T.R., et al. 1996. The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread. Nature 380, 31

    18) Miller,R.V., 1998. Bacterial Gene Swapping in Nature. Scientific American, Jan,. 67-71

    19) Putnam, l. 1998 Debate Grows on Safety of Gene Therapy Vectors. Lancet, 351, 808.

    20) Assad, F. F. N., et al. 1990. Cauliflower mosaic virus P35S promoter activity in E. Coli, Molecular and General Genetics 223, 517-520.

    21) Forbes,J. M. et al. 1998. Effect of Feed Processing Conditions on DNA Fragmentation, Section 5–Scientific Report, UK MAFF.

    22) Goodman, A. E., et al. 1994. Gene transfer among bacteria under conditions of nutrient depletion in simulated and natural aquatic environments. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 15; 55-60.

    24) Goussard,S,. et al. 1996. Direct gene transfer from bacteria to mammalian cells by kamikazation.

    96th meeting of the American Society of Microbiology,H-84,497.

    25) Gu,Z., et al. Possible involvement of cell fusion and viral recombination in generation of human immunodeficiency virus variants that display dual resistance to AZT and 3TC. Journal of General Virology 76;2601-5.

    26) Hoffman, T., et al. 1994. Foreign DNA sequences are received by a wild-type strain of Aspergillus niger after co-culture with transgenic higher plants. Current Genetics 27;70-76.

    WHEREAS, Antibiotic resistance marker genes, commonly used as a link to identify if a desired gene was successfully inserted into DNA, have been left in certain food crops where they pose a risk of transferring resistance to endogenous bacteria via well studied mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer; and

    WHEREAS, Genetically modified foods that have been engineered for animal consumption and have lower safety testing have not been separated from those engineered for human consumption, and;

    WHEREAS, There has been demonstrated in peer reviewed scientific literature that there are significant potential adverse environmental effects including toxicity to beneficial or harmless insects (monarch butterflys, bees, beetles, lacewings), which could result in reduction of pollination, biodiversity , soil decomposition and soil fertility, as well as increased pest resistance and genetic pollution

    WHEREAS, FDA requires labeling for MSG, food coloring and additives, irradiated foods, ,

    WHEREAS, considering European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and China require labeling of GM foods and labeling is required for import of GM foods as well and in the interest of promoting fair trade for farmers in the U.S. who grow GM crops for export

    WHEREAS, There is no requirement for safety testing or routine testing for allergies Environmental reviews are incomplete, inadequate, and do not apply to all products

    WHEREAS, Consumers have a fundamental right to know what they are eating as a matter of taste and preference, religion, and for many health-related reasons

    WHEREAS, To protect human health from the effects of unrecognized or uncommon allergens, all genetically engineered food must be labeled: Therefore be it

    WHEREAS, The safety testing recommended does not include all of the procedures needed to assess allergies outlined in the report of the new Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology, nor are there clear criteria to judge the safety of bioengineered foods

    WHEREAS, FDA’s explicitly recognizes that genetic engineering is substantially different from traditional breeding in a number of ways that can affect food safety and so requires greater scrutiny of foods developed via biotechnology.

    There remain many uncertainties in the understanding of allergies and among the most important issues that have yet to be resolved are the following:

    • The properties that confer on proteins allergenic potential

    • The characteristics that determine the severity and persistence of food allergy

    • The genetic and environmental factors that predispose to food allergy

    • The importance of pre-or perinatal exposure to the allergen

    • The significance of different routes of exposure

    • Whether, and to what extent, food allergy is becoming more common

    WHEREAS, Consumers International consisting of all major consumers groups in the US and abroad are requesting mandatory labeling for GM foods as a precautionary measure and polls also find that most consumers say they would buy food with such a label.

  19. Robert Wager
    Robert Wager says:

    2002 document to over ride the 2012 ANA document. really?

    Lets look at some up to date information re the whereas’s
    #1 Imprecise

    Only the insertional event is inprecise. After that the exact location, its expression pattern in every tissue of the plant is known. The effects (if any) on neighbouring gen expression is known, the macro nutrient levels, the micro nutrient levels, the anti-nutrient levels are all known. But only for GE crops no other type of breeding has any idea of any of these things.

    Completely misses a variety of “traditional breeding methods” which all have far far greater DNA disruptions than GE breeding and once again none are examined at all at the molecular level.

    Show this forum any evidence of unintended adverse effects. The world experts have not found any. Almost thirty years have not found any.

    Every single GE protein is compared to all known allergenic proteins at the molecular level, every GE protein is tested for acid digestion, before they are permitted to be commercialized. No other crop breeding method even looks at potential allergenicity. To date there is not a single example of an allergenic response to a GE derived food anywhere in the world after three trillion meals.

    This applies to ALL food but as mentioned ONLY GE derived food is tested at all in this regard.

    This one is great. Test for something we don’t know about. Exactly how would you suggest we do that? Every known allergenic protein is compared to every GE protein, how would you suggest we improve that?

    We already covered this every single GE crop that has ever been commercialized has gone thru the FDA evaluation process. According to world food safety experts, world toxicology experts the testing is fine. of course the proof is in the fact no one anywhere in the world has ever suffered any harmful effects from any food derived from GE crops.

    The latest non-leading poll found 7% wanted GE labels.

    Very few GE crops on the market today use ampicillin genes, most use nptII which can be isolated from virtually every square foot of soil on the planet, it was around before animals existed. GE crops hardly represent a new threat because of the nptII gene. further newer GE crops will not have any Ab marker genes. Sugar selection systems have replaced Ab marker genes and newer insertional technologies will give efficiencies so high that marker genes will not be needed at all.

    Split approvals were stopped many years ago. All GE crops must meet human consumption safety tests before they are commercialized.

    All of those alleged environmental issues have been studied and demonstrated to be of little concern.

    GE is a process to breed crops it is NOT an ingredient. We label food based on what is in the food not how the crop was bred in the first place.

    No idea what this means.

    #14 is not true at all. Again “What test not already done would you like to see added and why?”

    There is NO health related reason for GE derived food. Therefore there is no regulations for labeling the one breeding process over all others.

    Already covered this nonsense.

    Simply not true. GE crops are tested to the fullest extent possible for allergenicity.

    The FDA has EXPLICITLY stated all GE crops presently on the market are substantially equivalent. This after testing (see above). None of those points are at all specific to GE derived food.

    Again less than 10% worry about GE derived foods.

    I have given you may recent documents and links to up date you information about the present state of knowledge on GE crops and derived food. I suggest you read some to get a more realistic idea of the present science.

  20. Robert Wager
    Robert Wager says:

    Oh and btw reference #6 Chapela was disavowed by the Journal, the first ever for Nature. It like Seralini was complete junk.

  21. Robert Wager
    Robert Wager says:

    I would suggest you look at figure one of the Seralini paper. The male control rats died at 30%, the rats who ate the highest level of GE feed(33%) died at 10%. In the female rats case the rats with the highest GE feed also did not die at a higher rate. toxicology 101. the dose makes the poison. There is no (absolutely required) dose responses in Seralini’s paper. That is why it is junk and that is why it never should have been published in the first place and that is why the retraction is long overdue.

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *