Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

[Spiral]

Most vegans are against GMOs as are most consumers in Europe. It is simply bad marketing to include GMOs in products intended for vegans.
Absolutely. If I saw a product containing GMOs that was endorsed by the vegan society I wouldn't buy it. I don't want GMOs full stop. We vegans are good at boycotting things we find unacceptable :)

[StevieP]

Hi Mike,


Stevie,

that is to say that do not involve any cruelty to animals used either in their ingredients or in their testing?



I agree with this, but again, this is what the trademark already states. We do not, therefore, need a specific clause about GM.

What you want to argue is this :

"that do not involve any cruelty to animals used either in their ingredients or in their testing" = VEGAN

"that do not involve any cruelty to animals used either in their ingredients or in their testing" != GM

therefore GM != VEGAN.

But the grey area is here:


can any company supplying foods containing GMOs guarantee that they are vegan

The can is a question not a statment and as yet, no one on this list, at least, has clarified the can bit - this is the sticking point. The assumption you are making is that th can is really a can not.

So we get:

"that do not involve any cruelty to animals used either in their ingredients or in their testing" = VEGAN

( "that do not involve any cruelty to animals used either in their ingredients or in their testing" != GM OR

"that do not involve any cruelty to animals used either in their ingredients or in their testing" = GM )

therefore (GM = VEGAN OR GM != VEGAN).

Until someone with more expertise than I, and I expect you :) , steps forward with an answer to this can question, (and any level of testing we may find is not comparable to other forms of animal use we do accept), then I don't think we are in a position to argue this point any further. If things are as I have shown above then the current trademark stance is adequate to protect us from non-vegan products.


I'm not disagreeing with your general objection to GM, just whether it is the interest of the Vegan Society, (who campaign on vegan issues and that is what is members pay for) and is consistent and fair.

I am a member of FotE and Green Peace and support their campaigns against GM.

[Spiral]

The Vegan Society statement on GMOs is more detailed in the Animal Free Shopper than on the website and there seems to be some contradiction between the two.

From the website:

"The Vegan Society's Policy on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

On 13th June 1999, the Vegan Society Council reviewed the Society's GMO policy and adopted the following position with regards to genetically (modified organisms)

In keeping with its vegan ethic, the Vegan Society is totally against the use of animal genes or animal substances in the development and production of GMOs.
The Vegan Society believes that all foods that contain, may contain, or have involved GMOs should be clearly labelled.
In addition any product must also meet the Society's Criteria for Vegan Food . Products carrying the Society's trademark can contain GMOs, but must be clearly labelled and comply with the definition above."

From the Animal Free Shopper:

Of concern to the consumer wishing to avoid genetically modified organisms (GMOs), because of possible long-term effects on health or the implications of their release into the environment, is the presence in the UK food supply of GM soya containing genes derived from a bacterium, a virus and a petunia. Soya is found in around 50% of all processed foods.

So far there has been very little research to access the health and safety implications of GMOs. The insertion of foreign genes can have many harmful unexpected effects: for instance the insertion of a Brazil nut gene into soya resulted in a reaction in people allergic to nuts. There is also a risk of increasing antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Critics warn of unexpected and irreversible effects on agriculture and boidiversity. They condemn the immorality of 'patenting of life' - transgenic animals, plants and seeds. From a vegan perspective, even if no animal gene was used during the modification process, it is likely that animal-derived enzymes were employed.

GM material can cross species barriers to other crops and weeds, and once released it is impossible to clean up any unforseen consequences. Plants designed to kill 'pests' can kill beneficial insects as well and stimulate the development of resistance in the pests. Plants engineered for herbicide resistance will encourage increased use of chemicals. Most American farmers who have turned to GM crops seem to be getting yields no better than farmers growing traditional varieties. They also appear to be using similar quantities of pesticides.

The Soil Association believes that genetic modification has no place in the production of safe and healthy food. Organic farming systems aim to produce food with care for human health, the environment and animal welfare.

In keeping with it's Vegan ethic, The Vegan Society is totally against the use of animal genes or animal substances in the development and production of GMOs. The Vegan Society believes that all foods that contain, may contain, or have involved GMOs should be clearly labelled, and has signed up to the five year freeze campaign for a moratorium on genetic engineering and patenting in food and farming.

No mention of products containing GMOs carrying the society's trademark there and an admission that even if no animal gene was used during the modification process, it is likely that animal-derived enzymes would be employed.

So why the difference? The latest edition of The Animal Free Shopper has only just been published, has the society changed it's position on GMOs and just hasn't updated the website?

I think we should be told :)

[StevieP]

Thanks for pointing that out.

[eve]

In the heart of the Alsace wine region, researchers have planted France's only GM vines in the hope of finding a way to battle the damaging "court noue" virus afflicting a third of the country's vines. GM vines worry French winemakers

Many local winegrowers fear the plants will contaminate their vineyards and ruin the reputation of France's wine sector. "It makes me angry because this is imposed on everyone without us being informed about the risk," Pierre-Paul Humbrecht, a maker of bio-wines, said. "If there's a problem, it concerns us all. We fear for our vines."

In France, resistance against GM food is fierce. Farmer and environmentalist Jose Bove shot to national fame for ripping up modified crops. INRA stopped its first tests on GM vines in the Champagne region in 1999 following protests.

A prison-style fence was requested by environmentalists, who wanted to prevent animals and human intruders from carrying parts of the plants outside the enclosure.

[Jon Cousins]

I may be a little dim here, but why can't the Vegan Society have a GM Policy that is anti all GMOs?

This is an issue that the Society has felt neccessary to make a separate Policy for, so I am puzzled why it is OK to have a policy that is anti animal based GMOs (for which the standard vegan principal already exists!), but not anti all GMOs (which I feel this thread has highlighted several times as being a form of animal exploitation what ever the gene source of the GMO! for which the standard vegan principal already exists)

The Vegan Society made this an issue by separarting out animal based GMOs and non-animal based GMOs, one it won't, and one it could endorse.

If - as StevieP points out - all GMOs are unlikely ever to be endorsed (for animal testing/exploitation or whatever) - why have a separate GM policy?

My basic thought is if the Vegan Society have made this an issue worth a policy, why not make that policy make sense - surely the only useful GM Policy is one that is anti all GMOs?

:confused:

[Kevster]

In the animal free shopper 7th edition p.9.

'Genetically Modified Organisms
The development and/or production of gmos must not have invoilved animal genes or animal-derived substances. Products put forward for registration which contain or may contain GMOs must be labelled as such.'

Thus the consumer gets to make up their mind. It may be convenient for people wishing to avoid GMOs to have things labelled vegan which automatically means GMO free, in this case perhaps go for organic products. For me this is enough, i avoid GMO products by buying mostly organic. I don't feel the vegan society trademark is an endorsement beyond the fact that something is vegan, it may be vegan but may not necessarily be good for you for other reasons.

This is not the vegan anti GM society.

Though it is pretty good that they seem to outline the reasons that the soil association give for their anti-gm stance. Just some thoughts, but i don't reckon this is such a big deal for the vegan society. It may be a big deal for some of its members.

[eve]

The Independent Environment Editor reported today that startling new government research shows GM crops contaminate the countryside for up to 15 years after they have been harvested.

The findings cast a cloud over the prospects of growing the modified crops in Britain, suggesting that farmers who try them out for one season will find fields blighted for a decade and a half. Financed by GM companies and Margaret Beckett's Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the report effectively torpedoes the Government's strategy for introducing GM oilseed rape to this country.

Ministers have stipulated that the crops should not be grown until rules are worked out to enable them to "co-exist" with conventional ones. But the research shows that this is effectively impossible. The study, published by the Royal Society, examined five sites across England and Scotland where modified oilseed rape has been cultivated, and found significant amounts of GM plants growing even after the sites had been returned to ordinary crops. It concludes that the research reveals "a potentially serious problem associated with the temporal persistence of rape seeds in soil."

Last night Pete Riley, the director of GM Freeze, said; "It is becoming clearer and clearer that it is going to be impossible to grow GM crops in Britain."

[adam antichrist]

oilseed rape

:D that's no typo I bet :D

[Gliondrach]

These people, who want to plant GM crops, say that they won't contaminate adjacent crops as long as there is enough distance between them. If pollen can stay active for long enough ( I don't know if it goes 'off' quickly ) and the crops are pollinated by the wind, then it is impossible to prevent cross polination. I have on two or three ocassions had sand from the Sahara covering my car. Sand is much heavier than pollen and can be blown thousands of miles.

[eve]

A former agricultural adviser to US presidents says the failure of a GM field pea trial should act as a warning for future GM crop testing. The 10-year Australian CSIRO trial was abandoned when tests found the peas were making mice seriously ill.

Dr Charles Benbrook, who advised presidents Carter, Bush senior, Reagan and Clinton says the field pea trial failure shows current GM crop testing is grossly inadequate. "I don't believe that this new study proves that all GM food is posing a great threat to people but it certainly confirms the need to go back and look at the major food crops," he said.

He has called for changes to the Gene Technology Act, which is currently under review, to tighten GM crop regulation and increase scientific scrutiny of potential commercial varieties.

[Kevster]

I've probably gone on about this before somewhere *yawn* but i came across this particular article while looking for something else...

''GM animal feed - the story so far

Last edited: 20-01-2006

The UK campaign to get GM out of our food has been really successful. Due to public pressure, supermarkets and food producers have removed GM ingredients from their products and no GM crops will be grown in the UK in the foreseeable future.

However, one loophole remains - GM animal feed. The GM that was going into our food is now being dumped on the animal feed market.

One area is particularly problematic - dairy cow feed. [...]'

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?SitekeyParam=D-I-A&CFID=4352431&CFTOKEN=31686718

[Kevster]

Here's what i was looking for:

'Press Release

European Commission objects to anti GM contamination policies from 10 member states

Mar 10 2006

The European Commission is opposing legal measures aimed at protecting their conventional crops from GM contamination by 10 member states because they "create obstacles to the free movement of goods", an official EC report reveals today [1].

The report summarises progress made by European Member States in putting in place measures to control GM contamination of conventional and organic crops - so called `coexistence' - and details the European Commission's response. [...]'

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/european_commission_object_10032006.html

[DianeVegan]

I hope you manage to get all GMs out of your country. Despite public outcry and the majority of Americans desiring the labeling of GM food, the U.S. government sold us out to the food industry a long time ago. Most americans are unaware that they eat GM food on a daily basis and have no idea which foods have been "modified" thus far. Newspapers (corporate owned) and television news stations (also corporate owned) won't report on it for fear of losing advertising dollars or getting into law suits. Some states have laws against stating negative comments about a food group that could result in loss of profit.

[Jane M]

DV you are so right. I am afraid to eat anything that is not organic now. Those of us in America just have no other recourse if we want to avoid GMOs. I worry alot about the cross contamination of crops though. Happened with corn already I believe.

[eve]

Governments at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have, on 31/3/05, unanimously upheld the international de facto moratorium on Terminator technology - plants that are genetically engineered to produce sterile seeds at harvest.

The 8th meeting of the CBD ended in Curitiba, Brazil.

"The CBD has soundly rejected the efforts of Canada, Australia and New Zealand - supported by the US government and the biotechnology industry - to undermine the moratorium on suicide seeds," said Maria Jose Guazzelli of Centro Ecologico, a Brazil-based agro-ecological organization.

"Terminator seeds are genocide seeds," said Francisca Rodriguez from Via Campesina, "We have pride in being one more step forward in our struggle but we will not stop until Terminator is banned from the face of the earth."

And so say all of us!

[DianeVegan]

That is great news.

[veganblue]

That is great news.

I have to agree!

[eve]

Conservation groups are opposing moves to step up trials of genetically modified cotton in northern Australia.

The groups, including Environs Kimberley and The Environment Centre in the Northern Territory say commercial cotton growing involves massive land clearing and could lead to river pollution. Two companies, Bayer CropScience and Monsanto have applied for licences which could mean the extension of trials of GM cotton in the Ord River Irrigation area.

The Environment Centre's Gary Scott is urging the Gene Technology Regulator not to approve the applications.

"The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator rejected a previous application by Monsanto a few years ago because of the potential for GM cotton to become a weed. We think that's still an issue," he said.

[vegan1969]

I just jumped in and didn't read all the post. This is what is on Morningstar Farms website:
Question:

Are Morningstar Farms®, Worthington®, Loma Linda®, or Morningstar Farms Made with Organic Soy® products made with non-GMO ingredients?
Answer:

The ingredients we use have been approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities and all of our products comply with food labeling requirements in markets where they are sold throughout the world. Nevertheless, we recognize that our consumers may prefer foods that do not contain biotech ingredients. While our products are not considered biotech-free, we use non-biotech sources for ingredients containing soy protein isolates and textured soy concentrates. We will also continue to consider non-biotech versions of minor ingredients as they become commercially available. http://www.kelloggs.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/faq/faq.pl?skin=msfarms;id=808
---------------------------------
It's true, they do use gmo. I just wrote Boca to see if they are the same.

Ok, I just got a reply from Boca:

Thank you for visiting http://www.bocafoods.com/ (http://www.bocafoods.com/).
Boca products appeal to a variety of consumers and we are committed to providing all of our consumers with great-tasting products made with the highest-quality soy. Given the fact that much of the soy grown in the United States has been enhanced through biotechnology, Boca's traditional line of soy-based products may contain ingredients that have been genetically engineered.
At the same time we realize that biotechnology is a concern with some of our consumers. That's why we introduced a line of products made with organic soy to meet those consumers' preferences.
We make every reasonable effort to ensure that our organic product line does not contain genetically engineered ingredients. We use only organic ingredients that have been certified by reputable certifying agencies that require identity preservation programs. However, we cannot - and do not - make the claim that our organic products are 100 percent free of genetically engineered ingredients.
At Boca we are committed to bringing you a variety of great tasting meatless products that make you feel good about what you're eating. If you're interested in further information about Boca, please read the package label or visit our website at www.bocafoods.com.
Also ,I'm delighted to hear that you're happy with our product.
We strive to maintain high quality products and to create a variety of new products that offer our consumers important food choices.
It's gratifying to learn that our efforts have been successful.
I will pass your comments on to the appropriate departments.
If you haven't done so already, please add our site to your favorites and visit us again soon!
Kim McMiller
Assoc Director, GCR Consumer Services

[Kevster]

Interesting article in The Independent today:

'Farmers use as much pesticide with GM crops, US study finds
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 27 July 2006

One of the major arguments in favour of growing GM crops has been undermined by a study showing that the benefits are short-lived because farmers quickly resort to spraying their fields with harmful pesticides.

Supporters of genetically modified crops claim the technique saves money and provides environmental benefits because farmers need to spray their fields fewer times with chemicals.

However, a detailed survey of 481 cotton growers in China found that, although they did use fewer pesticides in the first few years of adopting GM plants, after seven years they had to use just as much pesticide as they did with conventional crops.

The study found that after three years, the GM farmers had cut pesticide use by 70 per cent and were earning over a third more than conventional farmers.

But, by 2004, the GM cotton farmers were using just as much pesticide as their conventional counterparts and were spending far more because GM cotton seed is three times the price of conventional cotton seed. [...]'

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1199339.ece

[veganblue]

It is to be expected - something is likely to have a resistance to the introduced toxin in the plant (the original deterrent) and with alll that resource at hand that nothing else can eat - is likely to rapidly multiply.

GM of plants with novel toxins is no point unless you can keep varieties ahead of the natural mutation rate in predator populations. You would think that they would consult an ecologist about the possibility - but then, genetics courses contain population dynamics sections now... Who knows why they go ahead anyway.

Maybe next time they will try companion planting... something old fashioned. :)

[eve]

In today's "Weekend Australia" there is an article about GM grass designed to improve golf courses that has caused alarm in the US after escaping into the wild. It has spread up to 5km outside a test site in Oregon. Apparently this GM grass is impervious to glysophate so golf course managers can really go to town spraying large areas to kill off weeds without harming the grass.

Are they mad? The US Dept of Agriculture has ordered a full environmental audit of this of the impact to wildlife etc.

[Korn]

Are they mad? I have feeling that they are. But 'everybody' aren't mad: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

[eve]

interesting website and articles there. must say some of the articles reveal that consumers in the US appear to be unaware how widespread gm foods are.