Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

[scorpy]

Monsanto are pure evil. I base this on everything that I have read about them.

Kind of late but, amen to that :)

[Jon Cousins]

Hi,
It has been a long time since anyone posted onto this thread. I am still boycotting the Vegan Society because of their GMO policy as it stood in 2003.
My question is has the Vegan Society changed it GMO Policy or is it still pro GMOs if they do not contain animal genes?
I believe this is disgraceful. GMOs are a Vegan Issue even if they are purely constructed from different plants and bacteria.
The animals that are fed GMO bt maze have no say in the matter, just as animals experimented on in labs. But because bt maze is made from corn and bacteria genes that is alright is it? NOT IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF VEGAN
Why is no one interested in this????
:confused:

[Risker]

How are you boycotting the vegan society? Just by not being a member or not buying any products with their logo?

[Jon Cousins]

I had been a member and supporter of the UK Vegan Society for many years, but in 2003 - when I worked out that the wording of the Society's GMO policy was pro GMOs created using plant and bacteria genes - I contacted Rick Savage direct and asked him why the Society would endorse products that contained GMOs. The reply I got - which was that the Society considered GMOs produced without animal genes to be a suitable part of a Vegan diet - gave me no other option but to resign my membership.

How can we be ethical about food and the society that is supposed to represent us is pro Bio-tech companies like Monsanto? It would be like endorsing Huntingdon Life Sciences ... If you don't think so take a look at Monsanto's track record of human and animal and environmental welfare.
Aren't Vegans supposed to be concerned about "People, Animals and the Environment" ?

Bio-tech companies will destroy our Vegan lifestyle if unchallenged by Vegans and the groups representing us - both formally through groups like the Vegan Society and personally by our direct action. Bio-tech companies are not concerned where they get their genetic material and what they put it into: Q. When is a potato not a potato? A. When it’s partly a scorpion ...

I no longer use the Vegan symbol as an indicator of what to buy. My diet is 90% fresh UK Soil Association Organic Vegetables from local producers, and a small quantity of UK Cert. Soil Association canned fruit and vegetables.
As the Vegan Society tend to endorse processed foods, I don't generally buy items they endorse.

My boycott is therefore a membership one, as this is the only way an individual like me can have an impact on them. So long as they support GMOs, I can not support them.

Hope this answers your question.

[Korn]

The reply I got - which was that the Society considered GMOs produced without animal genes to be a suitable part of a Vegan diet - gave me no other option but to resign my membership.
Are you sure they said this... or could it be that they meant that GMO food as such isn't necessarily non-vegan? Are they really pro GMO, or are they only trying to be neutral?

[Jon Cousins]

I'm not sure what the current UK Vegan Society GMO Policy is. Can anyone advise?

Yes I did ask Rick Savage if their GMO policy ment that the Vegan Society would endorse plant/bacteria based GMO products, and although he didn't like it, he had to admit they would.

I don't feel endorsing GMOs is a neutral position. Do you?

[Korn]

I wouldn't endorse GMOs - the question is if the UK VS actually are endorsing GMOs, or if they say that GMO/non-GMA isn't a vegan/non-vegan topic.

[Mahk]

I don't like to consume artificial food coloring (although I do on occasion) simply because I question whether it is healthy or not. But I want the vegan society to tell me if the artificial coloring (and foods) I'm eating are derived from animals and nothing more. I don't want to know if they think it's good for my health or not. Similarly, I don't want anyone's selective politics to enter into whether a food is "vegan" or not.

Was it made in a country with human rights violations? Doesn't matter. Does the food cause cancer? Doesn't matter. Does the company that makes it use environmentally friendly light bulbs to light the factory? Doesn't matter. Does the company waste fresh water? Immaterial. How does the company stand on equal opportunity employment? abortion? gun control? the death penalty? None of these things have anything to do with whether the food they produce is vegan or not.

As for "but they tested their food on animals, that makes it not vegan", wouldn't the same be true for most new foods and medicines invented in the past almost century or so? The example of car safety belts mentioned earlier is a perfect example. I can't use safety belts, contact lenses, etc because they were tested in a manner I wouldn't approve of?:rolleyes: Sure I wish they used some other non-animal tests but I also wish the company that makes my vegan tofu didn't feed their employees hamburgers for lunch. Should I consider the tofu not vegan?:rolleyes: The early space industry sent dogs and monkeys up into space before humans and they met a terrible fate. Should vegans boycott all industries and products born out of the space industry? Velcro? GPS? satellite weather maps? satellite TV? Internet and telephone satellite communication?

There may be dozens of reasons why one should boycott a company, but keep the definition of "vegan" distinct. The Vegan Society insists GMO foods can only be made from plant and bacteria DNA samples, not animal, to be "allowed". Saying they "endorse" GMOs would be reading into things, IMHO.

[SusanL]

Well said Mahk.

It would appear that Jon has an unhealthy obsession with the Vegan Society!

Jon :

"I only buy soil association organic, local fruit and veg form small scale suppliers - as a vegan this seems to be my only option."

From the Soil Association website :

Farmers cannot use meat, blood, bone, hoof and horn meals on the land, but they can add it to compost for use in pots to grow plants from seeds. However this can only be used on farms where there are no cattle or sheep.

Farmers can also use the waste wool left after shearing sheep, but only if this will not come into direct contact with the crop, and lime from sugar production.

In compost for growing seeds, in glasshouses or for plants that live for more than one growing season, farmers can use fishmeal as a fertiliser.

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/ed0930aa86103d8380256aa70054918d/dfd18ddeee9cef8a80257149004c
b42b?OpenDocument

So as the Soil Association allows the usage of meat, blood, bone, hoof and horn meals, waste wool and fishmeal to be used in conjunction with their 'organic symbol' - are you now going to boycott the Soil Association marked produce too?

If not, then why not? Surely the usage of all the above is against any usage of the term 'vegan' including your own 'expanded' term?

Also, if not then you must understand my usage of the term 'unhealthy obsession' in my reply above.

"The feeding of animals GMOs (from whatever origin); is it exploitation or cruelty?"

Okay. Surely the feeding of anything to farm animals to make them achieve slaughter weight is both exploitation and cruelty? Are you now going to boycott anything fed to farmed animals (ie corn, wheat, soya, etc)?

"Or does it become a separate issue from veganism if the Society suffers loss of revenue."

Your unhealthy obsession is leading you to make deliberately misleading points about the vegan society. Have you noticed in the news they've removed their trademark from Ecover because of their policies? Surely this should be ample evidence that they don't put revenues above principles?

In light of this, are you now going to withdraw your above remark ?

"What next? endorsement of animal products that come from creatures which have died of natural causes? I could very easily argue for that one if my motivation was income... Seems a bit dodgy to me."

As above, the withdrawal of the trademark from Ecover shows how wide of the mark these obsessed comments are.

"NOT IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF VEGAN"

Your understanding of vegan incorporates GMO which no other defintion of vegan seems to do. To foment a minority view and use this as a basis for obsession is not healthy.

"which was that the Society considered GMOs produced without animal genes to be a suitable part of a Vegan diet"

I doubt very much the phrase 'suitable part of' was used. As exampled above, you make insinuations which real world events (Ecover) prove completely untrue, I have no doubt you would choose to remember a phone conversation from years ago in a manner which was useful to you.

"As the Vegan Society tend to endorse processed foods, I don't generally buy items they endorse."

I think the term is 'register' as a vegan product, not 'endorse' or 'recommend' to vegans. Again, your bigotry and bias shows through.

Some questions for you :

You state you were a vegan society member. Did you ever attend an AGM to try get your views on GMOs adopted by the members as policy? If not, then why not if it is of such importance to you?

You keep blaming the society as an entity for it's policies, yet the plain fact is that members attending AGMs formulate and vote on these policies, so the policy on GMO is that which was voted on and accepted by the members at the particular AGM.

You state you were a member of the society at this time, did you attend the AGM?

[sizeT]

every seed is GMO now .. I cant say my sources..
you cant get away from GM foods..

[Willowherb]

I have been assured by someone who works for the Vegan Society that they have not registered any products containing GMOs and that it's very unlikely that they will as companies who produce foods containing GMOs don't fulfil the Vegan Society critera because they test on animals. In the extremely unlikely event that the Vegan Society did register something the product would be clearly labled so it could be avoided by those who disagree with GMOs.

If anyone feels that strongly about the issue they should bring it up at the next AGM and propose that the current stance of registering products containing GMOs be overturned and you can't do that by not being a member :) The Vegan Society is a democratic organisation and does what the majority of it members who vote at AGMs want. If you want your views to be heard and you want a say in how the society is run you have to be a member to take part in the decision making process and then you can propose ideas and vote at AGMs. As far as I can see this is not the fault of the Vegan Society as all thay have done, is what they must do, and implement a proposal that the majority of voters wanted.

[Jon Cousins]

I am very happy that 'it is very unlikely' that the Vegan Society would register products containing GMOs.

To me this is not as useful as 'WOULD NEVER', and I fully appreciate that many many Vegans disagree with me.

No, I have never attended an AGM of the Vegan Society.

Any concerns I have about the Soil Association are different to those around the Vegan Society's GMO policy, because the Soil Association are not promoting Veganism.

I wonder what the Vegan Organic Network make of all this?

My obsession comes from wanting to be able to eat. "All seed is GM" maybe truer than we would like to think.

It is very upsetting.

[Willowherb]

To me this is not as useful as 'WOULD NEVER', and I fully appreciate that many many Vegans disagree with me.
I don't think many, many vegans do disagree with you, Jon, but I think many probably don't put it at the top of their things-to-get-upset-about list. If you want the society to refuse to register products containing GMOs completely the best way to try to realise that is to re-join and put forward the proposal at an AGM. If you put a convincing case forward as to why it's an very important vegan issue you might find that many people agree with you and will vote accordingly.

[Jon Cousins]

I have stated over the course of this Thread why I feel the UK Vegan Society should change its GMO Policy (perhaps it already has - what is the wording of the current policy?). If not, if anyone who is currently a member of the UK Vegan Society feels that this is a valid request, and would like to table it as an agenda item to the AGM - please feel free to use any part of my argument from any previous message.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Veganism is not a 'diet', it is a 'philosophy' / it is not just concerned about the exploitation of animals for 'food', it is concerned about the exploitation of animals for 'food, clothing or any other purpose' / it is not just about 'animals', it is about 'humans, animals and the environment.'
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/downloads/ArticlesofAssociation.pdf

[Mahk]

I would assume this Vegan Society page (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/gmo_policy/) that I took this quote from is still the current policy:

"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 labeled.

In addition any product must also meet the Society's Criteria for Vegan Food . Products carrying the Society's trademark can contain GMOs [emphasis mine], but must be clearly labeled and comply with the definition above."

My interpretation from this is they believe GMOs are allowed only if they are not from animal genes or substances, but instead from plant and bacteria sources. Exactly as I think it should be, and I agree that GMO food should be clearly labeled as well but thats not a vegan issue. It's a side issue. I feel the same way about irradiated food. Vegan food is about whether animals were used or not, not if the food is good for you or the environment. Those are different issues.

[Willowherb]

I have stated over the course of this Thread why I feel the UK Vegan Society should change its GMO Policy (perhaps it already has - what is the wording of the current policy?). If not, if anyone who is currently a member of the UK Vegan Society feels that this is a valid request, and would like to table it as an agenda item to the AGM - please feel free to use any part of my argument from any previous message.
You obviously feel very strongly about this issue but seem very reluctant to actually do anything about it yourself. You can only bring about change if you are actively involved and that means re-joining the society and bringing up the issue at an AGM yourself. Why wait for someone else to do it for you?

[Jon Cousins]

I'm not waiting. As stated in the first message on this thread, I would like to know what other Vegans think about the UK Vegan Society's GM Policy and whether it would be better worded thus:

"Genetically Modified products or products containing Genetically Modified ingredients are not acceptable to the Vegan Society because the Society believes it is impossible to guarantee that such products are completely in accordance with the Society's vegan principles."

Personally, I feel it was wrong to support a group that would put their logo on food containing GMOs - whatever their origin.

I feel this as someone finding it harder to eat, because I am Vegan.

This is a Vegan issue - There is no going back once there are animal genes mixed into plants, to quote Donald Watson: "the irreversible genetic nature of what is our basic food supply in the future." The same bio-tech companies that create animal/plant/bacteria GMOs create plant/bacteria GMOs. It is really that simple to me.

I must say it feels strange to be challenged by other Vegans over this. To be accused of having 'unhealthy obsessions', or that things not directly related to 'animals' are things that do not matter.

[steven1222]

or that things not directly related to 'animals' are things that do not matter.

It is not that they do not matter. It is that they should not be integrated into a definition of 'vegan' or whether or not a product can be certified as vegan. You seem to see no difference there.

[Willowherb]

This is a Vegan issue - There is no going back once there are animal genes mixed into plants, to quote Donald Watson: "the irreversible genetic nature of what is our basic food supply in the future." The same bio-tech companies that create animal/plant/bacteria GMOs create plant/bacteria GMOs. It is really that simple to me.

I must say it feels strange to be challenged by other Vegans over this. To be accused of having 'unhealthy obsessions', or that things not directly related to 'animals' are things that do not matter.
I hope you don't think I was challenging you over the issue of GMOs, Jon, as it's a very important issue and does matter. All I was trying to point out is I thought that the Vegan Society had been put into a difficult position by some of it's members (it was a member who made the proposal and members who voted yes to it) and it would be a good idea if it was you who brought up the issue again at an AGM, but if you feel you can't re-join the society again, that's that. I did think the 'unhealthy obsession' comment directed at you was unnecessary.

[Mzee]

"Any concerns I have about the Soil Association are different to those around the Vegan Society's GMO policy, because the Soil Association are not promoting Veganism.

I wonder what the Vegan Organic Network make of all this?

My obsession comes from wanting to be able to eat." - from Jon's post of 20/8 above.

This is very interesting. I bought "Growing Green" by Hall & Tolhurst, published by the VON. The Stockfree-Organic Standard by the Soil Association is very rigorous and challenging; I certainly have had to do some thinking. My conclusion so far has been to "think global and act local" and to try to bring the few square metres of my garden up to the Standard. It's very far from enough to feed me all year, but it does make a good contribution for a few weeks of the year. Using raised beds with close spacing and weeding by hand, the yields are higher (per square metre) than they would be for a commercial grower.

[Sergio]

I think this is an issue that is of interest to at least a few and maybe worth reviving. Some starter topics;

What is it about a GMO that you wouldn't want to eat it?

The risk that it will do some harm to me or my children.


Are there any circumstances where GM is worthwhile?

Yes.


Would you consider wearing a product that was made from GMO's - for example a plant the instead of producing just cellulose, produced silkworm silk fibres?

Yes, as long as doesn't involve continuing suffering of silkworms. (for example to make seeds of that plant, silkworms will need to be killed permanently)


What is your opinion on flu vaccines developed via GM technology?
Would you eat a GM fruit if it contained B12?

Positive, as long as continuing suffering of other animals is not involved to create it.


Remember, the technology is currently well within the reach of science now.
I know :)

[DavidT]

American doctors call for GMO ban (http://www.aaemonline.org/pressrelease.html)


"GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health."

This is, unfortunately, based upon animal studies of the effect of GMOs.

We're a dangerous species.

[DavidT]

Please support this action against pro-GMO people being placed in charge of food safety in America if you can.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27042

[DavidT]

From the South African Sunday Independent:


Chickens refusing to eat the maize they had been fed has led to the discovery that their feed had been genetically modified to include a well-known weed and insect killer. Strilli Oppenheimer was recently approached by Dawid Klopper, the head gardener at the family estate, Brenthurst, informing her that her indigenous African chickens were refusing to eat the mealies in the chicken feed bought from a large supplier. Concerned that the birds may be ingesting genetically modified maize, she instructed Klopper to have the maize tested.

The chickens' diet was immediately changed to include organic vegetables, Oppenheimer stopped consuming the home-grown eggs and the maize was sent to the GMO testing facility at the University of the Free State for analysis. The results confirmed Oppenheimer's initial suspicion - the maize had been genetically engineered to produce proteins that are toxic to certain insects and weeds.

"It contained BT1 which makes the maize insect resistant, as well as Roundup which makes it weed resistant. This is the first report we have had of chickens not eating GM feed," said a GM expert.

While small quantities of BT1 and Roundup weed killer were found in the seeds, the concern remained with the cumulative effect of GM feed, not only on the chickens, but also on the eggs they produced for the family.

"This is of serious concern. Do you know that 96 percent of soya-based foods are genetically modified and that maize in South Africa is contaminated," asked Oppenheimer, pointing out that research by well-known scientist Dr Arpad Pusztai had shown that rats fed on GM potatoes suffered from a weakened immune system and stunted growth of their internal organs, including the liver, kidneys and brain.

Pusztai was fired by the Rowett Research Institute in the UK in 1998 after his research into the human nutritional consequences of GM. His findings had far-reaching implications for the biotech industry, which had contended that GM crops and products would not adversely affect human health. International research has shown a direct link between certain types of genetic engineering and cancer.

Gundula Azeez and Coilin Nunan of The Soil Association, a UK environmental charity, stated in their paper, "GM Crops - the health effects", that international research had shown that milk, eggs and meat from GM-fed animals contained GM crop DNA, concluding that it was likely that people were frequently being exposed to GM DNA. They concluded that because of the lapses in extensive safety assessments, there were "very good scientific reasons for being concerned about the safety of GM crops".

Rose Williams, acting director of Biowatch, said globally there was great concern that GM products had not been adequately tested in terms of their effect on people, animals and the environment.

"There has been no testing on humans, very limited testing on animals and very little research on environmental impacts. This is the case globally, but in South Africa even less work has been done, even though the commercial release of GM maize, GM soya and GM cotton has been approved."

Williams said concerns by NGOs such as Biowatch, the African Centre for Biosafety and SAFeAGE about the lack of control over GM crops and contamination of non-GM crops had largely been ignored.

"Government has not done enough to protect the public from the potential threats of GM foods. There is also the matter of liability - who will take responsibility for people's losses and any health problems relating to consumption of GM foods, whether they are for people or for animals." Williams said the contamination of non-GM crops was a real problem, with the biotech industry leading people to believe that co-existence of GM and non-GM crops was possible. "But it is not," she said.

While the recently implemented Consumer Protection Act called for the labelling of GM foods, the regulations linked to the measure had yet to be finalised. About her chickens' refusal to eat their maize, Oppenheimer said: "They're smart."

[DavidT]

From here. (http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11401-benn-gm-and-a-farming-revolution-) A very American type of appointment.


The Government's push on GM coincides with the decision to appoint former Labour minister and GM supporter Lord Rooker as chairman of the Food Standards Agency

It is about to launch a 12-month campaign to persuade the public to accept GM.


Ministers are still fixated on genetic modification but this isn't a solution - GM crops do not have higher yields and the mythical drought and salt resistant crops still exist only as expensive PR promises rather than commercial reality.