Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience
In reply to the discussion: Michael Pollan as GMO ‘denialist’ dupes credulous New York Times [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)33. Please see http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-NEW-PROTEINS
Best and saddest expert analysis I have encountered on GMOs ever and not a word since. New proteins = potential allergens.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins
"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"
Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune
September 3, 2000
BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.
In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.
As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.
Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.
<>
More at link.
"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"
Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune
September 3, 2000
BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.
In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.
As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.
Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.
<>
More at link.
So, "...no evidence of GMOs causing allergies." Doubtful, however, assuming that's accurate, perhaps
...because there exists a virtual monopoly on "the technology itself."
...because these companies thwarts science by denying independent scientists permission to test their patent-protected "technology."
...because these companies destroy careers of both scientists and farmers, and threaten legal action against states seeking to provide their citizens with labeling.
You are aware that blanket approval of "the technology itself" when introduced was opposed by the majority of FDA scientists who were then overruled by nonscientist revolving-door government regulators and politicians.
MORE: http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2012/may/29/dan_quayle_and_michael_taylors_nightmare_lives_on/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Ok, let's look to the scientists for safety of 'food additives,' where most are exposed to GMOs.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#1
YOU: Reject Pollan on GMOs, not a scientist. ME: Fine. Read this knowing that GMOs = food additives.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#6
Food additives derived from GMO corn, GMO soy, GMO canola, GMO cottonseed are indeed 'GMOs.'
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#11
I said you were in la la land, and then you further prove it with your response.
HuckleB
Oct 2013
#13
The science-based links are at odds with the business-based links. Got cognitive dissonance?
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#19
SEE POST #1, please note depth and breadth of analysis of currently abysmal state of affairs.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#21
Hardly. Here are all the links separated from the news aggregating sites you're so fond of dissing.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#23
That translates into a whole lotta recent science w zero relevance of personal attacks on M.Pollan.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#24
The update was to my own post which lit up the yellow tab for MY POSTS and linked to this old post.
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2014
#48
PRESS RELEASE > Environmental Chemicals Harm Reproductive Health: Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Change
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#2
Nope, The American Society for Reproductive Medicine & The American College of Obstetricians and Gyn
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#7
GMO's are mainly consumed as food additives which scientists, not Pollan, are assessing in my links.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#12
No need to be rude. The whole world (slightly exaggerated) apart from the US is wrong? Snort. nt
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#16
Oh, please, it's a PRESS RELEASE backed by 57,000 ob-gyns + 7.000 reproductive medicine specialists.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#8
RECOMMENDED Press Statement, along with Pollan's brilliant 'Food Rules: An Eater's Manual.'
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#26
Check it out. DISCLAIMER: Recognized experts, although I have no familiarity with Robbins or event.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#31
Please see http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-NEW-PROTEINS
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#33
Ah, I see you've posted from the highly respected science magazine Elle
EvolveOrConvolve
Oct 2013
#35
Go figure. Your source cynically parses words or is woefully uninformed.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#38
"This is not a hit piece on Michael Pollan" - I'd hate to read what the author does consider
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2013
#40
If that's your understanding, may I suggest due diligence necessitates additional reading?
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2014
#49