If you feel this is important please sign and share.

NEWS ADVISORY

For Immediate Release: July 22nd
Contact: Kay Carlson, PHONE NUMBER

256 Concerned Citizens Sign "Montana needs GMO Labeling Law" petition

On July 22nd, residents from Billings will deliver a petition to Governor Steve Bullock signed by 256 people.

The petition was created on MoveOn's petition site and states, "We believe GMO labeling should be mandatory in Montana."

We are becoming more and more aware with each passing day that our food supplies are becoming dangerous due to GMO. Our beautiful state of Montana is known for growing gorgeous flowing wheat fields, corn fields, sugar beets and so much more. We must protect that which feeds our families and is the livelihood of so many Montana familes.

To read the petition go to: http://petitions.moveon.o...o-labeling

Please define GMO in some detail.

We are becoming more and more aware with each passing day that our food supplies are becoming dangerous due to GMO.

How so?

Our beautiful state of Montana is known for growing gorgeous flowing wheat fields, corn fields, sugar beets and so much more. We must protect that which feeds our families and is the livelihood of so many Montana familes.

So you would prefer Nortron for weed control in sugar beets instead of gyphosate?

I think GMO labeling is a good idea but there is a tremendous overreaction and panic associated with it. I have never seen any good information that proves it is dangerous. I know about the rat study in Switzerland but that has been pretty well disavowed even by anti-GMO people because it was so badly done.

We know pesticides are toxic and cause problems. We know insecticides are toxic and cause problems. We don't know anything about GMO being either toxic or causing problems.

Is Roundup Resistant corn or sugar beets, both of which are in use in Montana and throughout the country, in any way toxic? Not that I have read.

Before going off half-cocked, you should do some investigating. Yes, GMO products are banned in Japan and the EU but, again, not based on any actual evidence, just on pre-emptive fear.

Skip the crazy web sites that claim GMO products cause mutants and raw milk can cure autism. Look to the serious science folks and show me proof that GMO is worse than the alternative, which are insecticides and pesticides.

And, no, we cannot grow adequate crops to feed the world's population without them.

Amorette..I am not going off "Half-cocked" as you so elegantly stated. And you have NO RIGHT to tell me that I need to research this. I have. And you might notice it doesn't say to eliminate all GMO...it says to LABEL so people know what they are getting.

Here...for those who need it boiled down a bit...

As the June 24, 2013 issue of Green Medical News puts it:

" . . . within the scientific community and educated public alike, there is a growing awareness that Roundup herbicide , and its primary ingredient glyphosate, is actually a broad spectrum biocide , in the etymological sense of the word: "bio" (life) and "cide" (kill) - that is, it broadly, without discrimination kills living things, not just plants. Moreover, it does not rapidly biodegrade as widely claimed, and exceedingly small amounts of this chemical - in concentration ranges found in recently sampled rain, air, groundwater, and human urine samples - have DNA-damaging and cancer cell proliferation stimulating effects."

I agree with Richard. Few things annoy me more than undefined acronyms.

I also favor labeling but your post is a tad hysterical, which is why I assumed you were opposed to GMO food. Then you start going on about RoundUp. The point of GMO food is to use LESS RoundUp so I guess you are in favor of GMO food.

Right. Got it.

Pretty sure the GMO strains in question are produced to resist Roundup, not so that less Roundup gets used. I think the rest of the world is right on this one...Monsanto is BAD NEWS.

Monsanto is a whole 'nother topic.

Here...for those who need it boiled down a bit...

As the June 24, 2013 issue of Green Medical News puts it:

" . . . within the scientific community and educated public alike, there is a growing awareness that Roundup herbicide , and its primary ingredient glyphosate, is actually a broad spectrum biocide , in the etymological sense of the word: "bio" (life) and "cide" (kill) - that is, it broadly, without discrimination kills living things, not just plants. Moreover, it does not rapidly biodegrade as widely claimed, and exceedingly small amounts of this chemical - in concentration ranges found in recently sampled rain, air, groundwater, and human urine samples - have DNA-damaging and cancer cell proliferation stimulating effects."

Umm, the problem here is what qualifies as "scientific community and "educated public". In my experience, the words "educated public" should likely be replaced with "indoctrinated public", as in the readers of "Green Medical News", which is not a peer-reviewed source. Too often it's "band-wagonism" from the likes of Dr. Mercola, posing as a "doctor/scientist" or some other agitator creating "panic" where it is unwarranted.

"Glyphosate ready" technology is a tiny fraction of all that is being done to modify plant genetics.

I am fine with labeling things as GMO, as soon as we can determine what qualifies:

For example, Newhy wheatgrass, (Elymus hoffmannii) is a cross between quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata). Fort Keogh was involved in the development of this species. Do you consider it a "GMO"? Would you eat the steaks from the Line 1 Herford steers that were used to conduct palatably studies? I know I would! Assuming Newhy is classified as a GMO, would beef that consumes Newhy wheatgrass also need to be labeled? How would you track the diet. Do wheatgrasses that hybridize naturally count as GMO's? As you can see, labeling isn't really that simple.

Most people spewing forth the anti-GMO party line don't have a clue as to what they are proposing or the magnitude of what could be considered a GMO. They have a flawed understanding of the technology. Those people pushing labeling and banning glyphosate are really part of the flat earth society where bio-technology is concerned.

There are many reasons to think about how we use GMO's and hate Monsanto. But let's do so based on sound scientific reasoning, not band-wagonism grandstanding.

There are many reasons to think about how we use GMO's and hate Monsanto. But let's do so based on sound scientific reasoning, not band-wagonism grandstanding.

Okay, this sounds reasonable. Let's start with why GMOs should ever have been released into the environment in the first place. What food systems were Roundup-Ready seeds designed to support and what problems are they specifically designed to resolve?

Let's start with defining what meets the definition of a GMO.

I propose that the following USDA definition of GMO [Genetically Modified Organism(s)] be used for the purposes of this discussion:

A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.

The problem is we have been modifying our crops as long as we have been planting them. Every time a farmer saved the largest or best for his seeds next year, he is modifying the genes of next years crops. Condemning a history and process without proof of harm, great areas of land that can not grow food and leaves the world full of hungry people. Producing crops that can grow in poor soil, low water conditions and with less loss from weeds is the major purpose of GMO plants. If you want to complain and ban GMO products, you better start by figuring out ways to feed the world first to eliminate the need for GMO crops. No one will go through the expense if there is no need.

I have no issues with GMO crops. I just prefer they be labeled so I know what I am buying, and may have an option if I choose not to play the genetic game.

The widely-accepted working definition of GMOs painstakingly developed by the USDA does not include seed saving, grafting, crossbreeding, cross-pollination, A.I. or, even, embryo transfer so those methods of plant or animal improvement can safely be set aside in any discussion of GMOs.

If anyone has any convincing evidence to support the "feed the world" argument for GMOs or supporting arguments that plants or animals are healthier, higher yielding, more drought tolerant or require either less herbicide and/or fossil fuel to grow to harvest than more traditional horticulture or husbandry methods on healthy soils then I'd like to see it presented here.

Joe,

I am also waiting for folks to present scientific evidence of their claims on milescity.com. Popular articles do not provide the information we are seeking.

Relative to the use of herbicides, some are reporting that the use may be going up, as targeted weeds become resistant to glyphosate. Like Richard mentioned, with GMOs, folks can use glyphosate in place of some other chemicals.

Here is a reference that you might find interesting. I've not read it yet, but I will.

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/c...0Crops.pdf

Marshall

[This message has been edited by MRH (7/22/2013)]

I would like to thank the asshole who is signing the petition repeatedly using false names and writing nasty remarks. What a way to act like an adult! Apparently milescity.com is only for joking and jerking. If there is something serious this is the last forum to put it on.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Lay Larlson.

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think Eric Brandt's comment is sincere, not inappropriate.

Joe Whalen wrote:

I propose that the following USDA definition of GMO [Genetically Modified Organism(s)] be used for the purposes of this discussion:

A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.

That is an acceptable definition. I applaud your effort, Joe. My concern is that most of the anti-gmo crowd has a thought process that goes something like this:

GMO=Roundup Ready=Monsanto=BAD! Thus, it follows, GMO=BAD!

As I've stated before there is a lot more to GMO's than JUST Roundup Ready technology. Insect resistance is one example. Bt corn has eliminated the need to spray Lorsban or Furidan for corn borer. The environment is a better place because of this GMO technology.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather, let's be a little more discerning. Let's also understand the scope and scale of GMO technology. It is much much bigger and more entrenched than those asking for petition signatures understand. The truth is nearly all of our food would be labeled as "Contains GMO's". Again, I am fine with signing a petition. I just wish people understood the scope of what they are purposing.

Kasey wrote:

We are becoming more and more aware with each passing day that our food supplies are becoming dangerous due to GMO. Our beautiful state of Montana is known for growing gorgeous flowing wheat fields, corn fields, sugar beets and so much more. We must protect that which feeds our families and is the livelihood of so many Montana familes.

I would contend that it is exactly because of GMO's that the above is true.
For example, the Clearfield genes in wheat allow control of grass weeds that would render a lot wheat country much less productive. Consider the following:



There IS some wheat amongst the rye. This field WAS sprayed with a grass/broadleaf herbicide. Obviously, it was not effective. There are a lot of wheat fields in Southeastern Montana that would look like this without Clearfield wheat. This is actually is Clearfield wheat, but the grower decided the herbicide was too much money so went for a cheaper option.

Another example:



The farmer sprayed the outside round and decided on the 14th of May that it was not worth spending additional money on the crop. It started raining on the 17th of May. The stand of wheat wasn't great, but you can see what the field would look like with and without Beyond herbicide and the Clearfield system.

So there are a couple of examples of GMO technology and what our wheat would look like without it. Yields would be greatly reduced. None of this GMO technology has anything to do with Roundup.

I can guarantee you that there are a bunch of farmers cutting wheat today that would love some sawfly resistance in their wheat. Montana State research has discovered that certain varieties of wheat produce pheromones that attract sawflys. Sawflys don't bother oats. MSU is working on identifying the genes responsible for pheromone production in oats with the objective of including those genes into wheat. How would that be objectionable to the anti-GMO crowd?

So let's talk about Roundup. I would contend that it is safer to spray your sugar beets twice a year with Roundup than with Nortron and a whole host of other very nasty chemicals as is the old practice. Roundup as a part of a chem-fallow operation has greatly reduced tillage and in turn protects soil from erosion. One of the benefits of reduced erosion is cleaner water. Because soil isn't moving, soil nutrients such as phosphorus are not transported to our streams and rivers.

There are reasons to be concerned about the over-use of Roundup. There is danger in the development of roundup resistant weeds. There is also a danger in an increasingly narrow genetic pool for our crops. The right pestilence under the right conditions could create major problems with our food supply.

Again, I have no problem with people signing the petition if they so desire. But, let's be more discerning and avoid the associated over-reaction and panic approach to the issue.

You'll have a hard time convincing me the science is complete to declare the environment is "better" because of Bt crops. In all likelihood, Bt crops are contributing to the mass die off of pollinators and any declaration that the crops are safe for human consumption should be met with skepticism. The FDA frequently declares things safe, but the law offices of James Sokoloff prove time and again that our practice of "science" is fraught with error and too frequently influenced by money. Do I think we need to label? No. Buy the stuff that's already labeled non-GMO. Do I think time will prove us wise for modifying plant and animal genes? Of course not. Each and every time man interferes with nature there is some unforeseen, usually negative consequence. With the money involved in GMO, common sense is out the window. It won't be scientists who determine if GMO is safe for man or nature, it will be a judge influenced not by science but by money.

This is a pretty thoughtful article on the subject.

http://grist.org/food/gen...ifference/

For purposes of food safety, environmental quality and the stability of American agriculture, I think it's important that the FDA and the EPA share regulatory authority with the USDA and market signals when it comes to controlling the approval and release of GMOs. At present, that's not the case. The biotech industry and food processors have successfully skirted normal food safety and environmental quality regulation using "revolving doors" that place industry representatives at the helm of those agencies designed to regulate them. Widespread GMO labeling would require the FDA, for example, to formally test and approve GMO products for food safety prior to release. Again, the FDA is not now required to formally test and approve GMO-laced food and beverages for food safety.

On the other hand, 90-96% of the corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are now GMO products, up from less than 60% in 2000. So, if your food contains any of those ingredients or their processed derivatives, such as High Fructose Corn Syrup or your favorite cut of USDA Choice beef, then you're ingesting GMOs. Is it safe? No one knows.

Fortunately, there is one label when grocery shopping in the U.S. and most developed countries you can use to avoid GMOs. Before certification under this label, a rigorous rulemaking and inspection regime verifies that the production and processing of food and fiber is free from GMO contamination. Bon appetit.