Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

[Roxy]

I have yet to hear anything close to nice about Monsanto. And yes, they are thoroughly exploiting farmers in developing countries. I have started writing to people there to avoid/stop using their crap. I need to speed up the process. Thanks for the reminder :)

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

[Jon Cousins]

I'm with you Roxy, but where are the Vegan Society?

Jon

[adam antichrist]

I don't see how anybody who eats anything other than 100% organic food can consider non-animal soucred GM food as not vegan. The issue is exactly the same as the use of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides... they are tested on animals and are bad for the environment.

Unless you only ever eat certified organic food you are supporting the pesticide industry, companies like *gasp* Monsanto :eek: .
So does that mean that anyone who ever eats out is not vegan? I think not. If the vegan society endorses food that is not 100% organic, they would be hypocrites to not endorse GM foods that contain no animal genes.

[Korn]

Why not?

I'll try and set one up now.

Cheers

Mike

PS: Well that was a disaster: I went into the Polls section, but couldn't figure out how to do it! Duh....

Just post me the questions, and I'll set it up for you.In some cases it might be a good idea to discuss the reply options in a thread first (I normally do that) - we have a long history of polls with either missing or confusing reply-options! :)

[Jon Cousins]

"So does that mean that anyone who ever eats out is not vegan? I think not. If the vegan society endorses food that is not 100% organic, they would be hypocrites to not endorse GM foods that contain no animal genes."



I am, at best, trying to be vegan.



I am part of a car share scheme, and when I drive, insects, flies, etc., will be killed. My only truly vegan form of transport are my vegan powered limbs, which I use as far as possible.



I only buy soil association organic, local fruit and veg form small scale suppliers - as a vegan this seems to be my only option. This is very difficult, and GMOs are making life even more difficult, Bio-tech businesses are making my vegan life really difficult.



Unlike my transport situation, where I have a choice to use my vegan alternative, I am VERY concerned that my vegan diet is in extreme peril from GMOs and the companies that produce them.



Surely this is one Pandora's Box vegans must fight to keep closed. Our way of life is under threat!



I want my vegan life to be easier. This is why I am so upset with the Vegan Society's GM Policy.



Like splitting the atom, or heating up the environment, this is a once only situation. NO GOING BACK. Unlike splitting the atom or heating up the environment - GMOs will directly affect what I can eat as a vegan.



If we don't make this a priority issue, ALL OUR FOOD WILL BE CONTAMINATED WITH ANIMAL GENES. These businesses aren't interested in our vegan way of life, how could they be with the dreadful things they do? Last year 62,000 mutated animals were born in the UK as a result of gene experiments, many with added human genes. Human genes have been added to cows, pigs, rabbits, sheep and fish.

As a vegan I am begging you as vegans to wake up! PLEASE!

[Michael Benis]

Just post me the questions, and I'll set it up for you.In some cases it might be a good idea to discuss the reply options in a thread first (I normally do that) - we have a long history of polls with either missing or confusing reply-options! :)

Thanks, Korn. I'd propose rewording Jon's original question as follows:

Would you support [vote Yes or No] asking the Vegan society to change its statement about GMOs, which currently reads:

"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."

changing the last sentence and adding a further sentence as follows:

"Products carrying the Society's trademark cannot contain GMOs. 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."

Any other proposals before Korn does his usual hard work?

Cheers

Mike

[Stormypagan]

To me the VS's policy on GM food is yet another acceptance of Gm food, the more people that U turn on it, the more it will become mainstream. It's like many things, the media goes mad on it's faults, and supermarkets etc pick up on it, and follow suit, and then it goes quiet, people forget, and slowly but surely these scary things become normal.

Yes, I agree about the organic side of things to a degree but actually you would have to eat veganic food and there are few farmers that grow veganically (organically with no use of animal products) either way unless you eat veganically, you are stuffed for being 100% vegan. Just plain organic food is still grown using chicken manure and other animal products.

But I guess we do what we can do, to be vegan as much as possible, I don't think its possible to be 100% vegan unless you are a naked hermit, with no pocessions, that lives in the wilderness eating only what nature provide free!!! Even then I am sure there would be something non vegan about that!! Wow, I am on a negative tonight :0/

Love and light
Xxxx Stormy xxxX

[StevieP]

I think we need to break the problem down a bit to understand what the issues are. This may be a bit long winded but I've tried .....

What is the Vegan Society here for?

* To eliminate animals from the human food chain and to seek the removal of products that contain animal material or have been tested on animals.

I expect we all agree on that.

The next question is:

What is vegan food or a vegan product?
Such items do not contain animal material, are not tested on animals and have not directly required any animal materials for their production.

I expect we all generally agree with that, but the word directly is troublesum - ALL products will have a contribution from another product or service that has used animal materials, only if it is the breakfast of the guy that maintains the road that the delivery truck MUST use to get the product to the shop. It is always a question of how far back we take the principle. For pragmatic reasons we say directly.

The next question is:

Why do we want to do the above? Why is being vegan good?

* Because it reduces harm to other animals.
* It is kinder to the environment.
* It has a positive on human health.

These are not the definition veganism, they are the consequences of it - you need to appricated the difference.

It does not follow that a particular vegan product will be kinder to the environment nor that it will have a positive effect on human health. (I'm sure you can all think of examples), but it will still be vegan as it does not use animal materials. It also does not follow that a particular vegan product will be the kindest or the most positive. There maybe an animal product that perform better in certain circumstances. :eek:

So, we get to GMOs. Firstly a bit of DNA is not a bit of animal or a bit of plant, its just a bit of DNA, in the same way a bit of calcium is just a bit of calcium. But we may be concered of where it came from. The same piece of DNA may come multiple sources.

Taking DNA from plant is no different, from a vegan perspective, then a whole leaf, it is just more difficult. Any derived product would contains no animal products. That product may have terrible consequences for the eniviroment, but being good for the enviroment is not the definition of a vegan product.

I, personally do not like GMO products, not because I dislike the science, but because I do not trust the motivations of those developing the technology and the products.

I would like not to see GMOs in Vegan Society trademarked products but it would not be because of my vegan principle, it would be because of my enivironmental principles.

The next question is, and it is the BIG one:

Should the VS have policies on it trade mark that are not related to the definition of veganism?

(For example, if Ford requested the trademark for a vegan car, would we disallow it because we don't like cars and their enviromental impact, which is much much much much bigger than GMOs?)

Before we can answer the GMO question or the Ford question, we need to answer the BIG one .....

[Michael Benis]

The vegan society already excludes contact lenses, for example, from the Animal Free Shopper because their development involves animal testing.


Does that answer your question? it means a precendent has already been set in this respect, making it clear that the society's stance isn's just a matter of ingredients, but of development.

Also, a bit of DNA is not a bit of DNA any more than flesh is just a lump of carbon compounds. The origin comes into this, too, as does any linked suffering. That's what the ethics is about.

Cheers

Mike

[StevieP]

Hi Micheal


The vegan society already excludes contact lenses, for example, from the Animal Free Shopper because their development involves animal testing.
Does that answer your question? it means a precendent has already been set in this respect, making it clear that the society's stance isn's just a matter of ingredients, but of development.



It does not say "development", it says testing, p70 of 7th edition. One could happily argue that the testing is part of the development, but I think the distinction is made to allow us to use safety belts, plasters, anything that uses satellite technology and medical books etc and this is the reason I went on about "directy". No doubt all vitamins supplements have been tested on animals, at some point. Its a difficult one and it is the vegan compromise to live in our current society. How pure should/can we be?

The development of GMO does not imply the use animals. All GMO science required for plants could have been done purely on plants. I know of a vegetarian GMO scientist who has never used animals, beetroots mainly.



Also, a bit of DNA is not a bit of DNA any more than flesh is just a lump of carbon compounds.

A piece of DNA can exist outside of animal, and piece of DNA can be removed with no harm, (your keybaord is convered with it), an identical piece of DNA can come from a plant or an animal (in some cases). A piece of flesh has none of these attributes, it IS the animal.



The origin comes into this, too, as does any linked suffering. That's what the ethics is about.
Granted.

What about the final question I posed? Where do you stand on that? There have been attempts in the past to bring spirituallity, abortion issues etc into the core of the Society .... I know some have even tried to have a non-wind farm stance.

[Michael Benis]

Hi Stevie,

Your big question is quite right, namely "Should the VS have policies on its trade mark that are not related to the definition of veganism?"

Historically and for a variety of reasons, mostly to do with keeping polemics to a minimum and keeping as broad a "church" as possible, the answer has been no, and that's been a wise choice on the whole. But if we go back to your answer and Jon's original question we find they have two things in common: "GMOs may not have anything to do with animals" is essentially what you are saying, while John's position is the mirror image of it, namely that it is impossible to guarantee that GMOs comply with vegan principles (related to the definition of veganism). That being the case, it would seem to me to be logical that the society does not put its symbol on them or act in a way enabling any other form of endorsement to be inferred.

Cheers

Michael

BTW, as I understand it the animal testing involved in contact lenses regards their development (and that of associated fluids) in particular, rather than their production.

[StevieP]

Hi Stevie,
namely that it is impossible to guarantee that GMOs comply with vegan principles (related to the definition of veganism).

Then the problem is how "pure" do we make our veganism? The examples I gave of other technologies that have used, but were not required to use , animals is vast. For example, safety belt systems used animals for testing before the universal adoption of crash test dummies? If we have a general principle of "impossible to guarantee" then we should equally apply the rules to everything, not just to the hot subject of the moment. As I said, I do not like GMO's but I would also not want to go down a road that would allow, philosophically, the introduction of labeling a large number of every day items as being non-vegan.

If the VS was to introduce such a policy, it would need to clearly state it was for potential environment concerns, not vegan ones. This would not be a problem if it were taken under a broader statement of its own Enviromental Policy, - (green electrics, recyling) which I think we would all welcome. But such a policy would not enter the Articles of Association.

How would that sound?

[Jon Cousins]

Vegan is an Ideal.

Ideal Vegans do not eat honey. I have met many people claiming to be vegans who do eat honey who are members of the Vegan Society. That is their choice.

Ideal Vegans do no use leather products. I have met many people professing veganism who do wear leather, use leather who are members of the Vegan Society. That is their choice.

Ideal Vegans would not use products tested on animals. I know too many people who claim to be vegan who smoke, use seat belts, use paints, perfume, etc., etc., who are members of the Vegan Society. That is their choice.

These vegans ARE vegans. Just like me - they are people trying to achieve an Ideal.

My personal vegan ethics, way of life, thoughts and actions have nothing to do with anyone else's definition.

Fortunately, the Vegan Society is not a human being. It has aims and objectives that are beyond the capacity of people (that is why the wording 'as far as is possible and practical' is included). But it does stand for an Ideal.

It stands "to further knowledge of and interest in sound nutrition".
It stands for "increasing the potential of the earth to the physical, moral and economic advantage of mankind".

These things it stands for are through veganism and the vegan method of agriculture.

The Vegan Society already sees DNA from animals as non-Vegan. GMOs are an issue because the Society already has a GMO policy.

My question is simply: why not develop that policy to include all GMOs?

Then, Ideal Vegans would not consume or use products containing GMOs. And I would still meet many people calling themselves Vegans who would continue to consume and use products containing GMOs. That would be OK. That is their choice.

What would be different is that the Vegan Society would not endorse GMOs. Still leaving the final choice to individuals as it does now.

If the final choice is down to us, what harm could their be in the Vegan Society being the best it can be. Standing for (as always) an IDEAL!:)

[StevieP]

The Vegan Society already sees DNA from animals as non-Vegan. GMOs are an issue because the Society already has a GMO policy.

My question is simply: why not develop that policy to include all GMOs?

Then, Ideal Vegans would not consume or use products containing GMOs. And I would still meet many people calling themselves Vegans who would continue to consume and use products containing GMOs. That would be OK. That is their choice.



What I've tried to establish here is what is the general principle we are using to reject GMO from trademarked goods and why that principle would not be applied to other goods we are happy use.

That principle would have to state why a practice was not compatible with veganism - what things were compatible and which were not. It can not be along the line of just barring something we don't like for other reasons.

So far, the issue of GMOs, in principle, is no worse than many of things we accept, from a vegan perspective regardless of how much I may dislike them. Why not enforce fair trade as well?

On a different and practical issue, how would this new policy on GMOs effect the income generated by the trademark for the Society? We may lose so many trademark holders that it would impact the good the Society does.

Companies like the VeganStore, use many American goods which are very likely to have GMOs in them.

[Jon Cousins]

I couldn't agree more - Fair Trade organic seems to be the most possible and practical ethical choice for me.:)

"On a different and practical issue, how would this new policy on GMOs effect the income generated by the trademark for the Society? We may lose so many trademark holders that it would impact the good the Society does."

This is something I have wondered about. "When the money starts rolling in you don't ask how."

Very interesting point you are making:

Loss of revenue Vs a philosophy and a way of living that seeks to exclude - as far as possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to animals, etc.

As for the principle - why not the same as that for animal testing? Why not try this question - "The feeding of animals GMOs (from whatever origin); is it exploitation or cruelty?"

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

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.

Surely the Society stands for the highest principles "for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment." I can not believe that the use of non-animal GMOs is a vegan-suitable animal-free alternative.

If the Society endorses 'animal-free alternatives' that are detrimental, exploitative, and dangerous to humans, animals and the environment where does that leave us?
:confused:

[StevieP]

When I mentioned Free Trade, I meant it to an example of the next possible thing we burdon the trademark with - so it has to be vegan, GMO and FreeTrade - ops there goes Redwoods and Alpro and ....

If the Vegan Society was to have more and more added to the definition of what was regarded as vegan, we would have no trademark holders and no members! We would have a never ending list of "ethical" standards to which the poor trademark holders would have to abide by, and us vegans would be obliged to follow also.

How about, they must use a green energy source, they must have union respresentation, they must have creche facilities, they must have a representive proportions of ethnic races in their employment, they must not use cars, they must, nor their suppliers, be involved in any form of animal abuse (this includes the guy who drives the trunk would like tuna fish sandwiches), they must use recycled materials, they must be a not-for-profit organisation, they must be pro/anti abortion, they must be Christain/Muslim/secular, they must vote Green/Anachists, they must produce whole food products, they must have minimal packaging, the food must be raw, they must not be living in sin, they ....... just add what you think is a virtue.

As I've said, unless you can state a principle that you are making the decisions on, then it just becomes a wish list.

All of you would have had the "you must be even more vegan" argument but against you. It goes, "well, if you don't eat animals, well you shouldn't drive a car because that squashes flies etc". Do we wish to do the same to the Vegan Society - must it carry every virtue, while Company X has none? As was said, veganism is an ideal - should the VS have to carry them all, or should we be using other organisations to fight those other causes? If you want a Vegan GMO-free product should you not just be looking the VS trade mark and the Organic trademark?

Concerning principles and revenue - it would be easy to take that argument to its logical conclusion and make us all unemployed.

[Jon Cousins]

I don't believe adopting a GMO policy that could be worded like this:

"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."

would open up the flood gates to banning products where "the guy who drives the trunk would like tuna fish sandwiches" - even though I personally don't like the thought of the truck driver doing so - or any of the other things StevieP suggested.

It hasn't done for the Vegetarian Society, so why should it for the Vegan Society?

So why not follow the Vegetarian's lead?
:)

[StevieP]

because the Society believes it is impossible to guarantee that such products are completely in accordance with the Society's vegan principles.


Perhaps the whole problem lies in "impossible to guarantee"?

Assuming that principle is "containing or directly using animal products", what we need to understand if the impossibility is true or not, and I guess we need someone on the forum with more technical knowledge than I to asses that. Then we need to understand, if that same level of "impossible to guarantee" is also applicable to other products we are quiet happy with.

So, do we need to actual state organic as a vegan requirement?

Concerning the Vegetarian Society. I think you will find that many vegetarian do not abind by the free range, or vegetable renet cheese requirements, let alone GM.

You may also be interest to know that the Vegetarian Society DOES support GMOs:

"The Society will continue to endorse cheese developed using genetic engineering. Approximately 70 - 80% of UK produced cheese is now suitable for vegetarians. Vegetarian cheese was developed over ten years ago and has been commercially available since 1991. "

Their justification for their stance is also unclear:
"The Society finds unacceptable any form of genetic engineering that has a detrimental effect on the environment, on the health of individuals or on the welfare of animals. "

Which is not the same as "The Society finds unacceptable any form of genetic engineering". That being so, any GMO that does NOT have a detrimental effect is OK.

Furthor more, the principle the Veg Society is using is: "The Society finds unacceptable X that has a detrimental effect on the environment, on the health of individuals or on the welfare of animals. ", where X is the product or service under scrutiny. In that case X could be cars, or tourists, alcohol, coke etc.

Do we really want something as sloopy as this for the Vegan Society? Don't get me wrong, I think its fab the Vegetarian Society does not like GM, but its reasoning is wrong and has nothing to do with vegetarianism, ( anything more than many other products).

Regardless, it does make something correct to do just because someone else has.

[Michael Benis]

Stevie,

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Absolutely no one in this thread has advocated "bolting-on" other ethical concerns to the Vegan Soc. mark or eligibility for inclusion in the Animal-Free Shopper.

Likewise, although your examples of, say seat belts, are intersting, they overlook the fact that the AFS can only provide information, whereas the mark is an endorsement and therefore needs to be risk-free. Of course there are grey areas of compormise - we can't help that in a sick society and we go along with it - otherwise not only would we not wear contact lenses and seat belts, but we wouldn't drive cars or put tyres on our bicycles or accept blood transfusions.

But it's worth exploring the difference between something in AFS and something with the VS mark. Let's take Tofutti products as an example. I do not believe they should be included in the AFS because the company explicitly states (in their website FAQ - and all kudos to them for being honest) that they cannot guarantee whether the sugar they use is refined using bone charcoal or not. So there's a risk. Some may consider that risk of animal abuse to be acceptable and others not. Some may defend keeping Tofutti products that contain sugar in AFS. On the other hand I would hope there is a much broader consensus against these products having a VS mark (which they don't, although that is not - as far as I am aware - the result of any application by Tofutti or any refusal by the VS).

But let's not forget the great work that many of the founders and early members of the Vegan Society fought to have cosmetics that were not only free of all animal ingredients, but also not tested on animals. That is the same principle the society continues to apply to contact lenses and lens solutions, which are made entirely of animal-free ingredients.

I don't think we should be taking steps backwards so as to avoid causing problems regarding products made by companies that use GMO products. Irrespective of whether certain GMO ingredients contain no animal-derived products, it is a fact that it is impossible to guarantee that the development, testing and production of these products in general doesn't involve cruelty to animals, particularly since GMO practices are not transparent and not regulated in the same way as additives (e.g. E numbers).

If it were possible, I would be in agreement with you and not oppose the VS position although I am opposed to GMOs.

I hope that makes my position clearer.

Cheers

Mike

[Michael Benis]

Assuming that principle is "containing or directly using animal products"

I think it would be more accurate to assume that the principle also includes tested on animals...


Cheers

Mike

[Jon Cousins]

Do we really want something as sloopy as this for the Vegan Society? Don't get me wrong, I think its fab the Vegetarian Society does not like GM, but its reasoning is wrong and has nothing to do with vegetarianism, (anything more than many other products).

I couldn't agree more. I wouldn't want to support GM cheese for any reason:)

I'm not happy with GM for many reasons. Not all of them to do with the food I eat, BUT...

I am concerned around the endorsement of non-animal GMOs by the Vegan Society because these products are part of an on going mass expliotation of animals. If we profess to be against animal farming, how can we endorse (in any way) the 'test by fire' that is already going on with non-animal GMO 'Round-up Ready Soy' soya and 'Bt' maize in animal feed? The resulting 'no ill effects' on these animals is and will be used by Bio-tech companies to prove the safety of their product.

In addition these plants have been modified to either withstand deadly poison whilst other surrounding plant and animal life is killed, or to kill animal life by producing poison.

This stuff will (has already!?) end up in our food if we do not stand against it!
What is not vegan about this?

[StevieP]

Hi Jon,

It may seem that I'm just a being a bit award over this, but, the objections you raise, I'm sure, can be rallied against normal pesticides and the VS does not have a policy on that - if we want organic, maybe we just look for the Organic label.

It is for these reasons I think the VS should drawn up an ethical policy on its environmental beliefs, a bit like the COOP has, not just a one off pronoucement on GM and NOT use vegan arguments to support it, just enviromental ones, if we were to go down an anti-GM route.

And as I said before, a block on GM may do the organisation (and hence all vegans) more harm than good. What if the VeganStore went under because its products were not deemed to be vegan?

It would be interesting to know how many trademark products would survive such a policy change on the trademark. If the VS lost its biggest income producer (the trademark), would it survive? I would say no. Would we want to see the VS trademark on 1000's of vegan products that may have some GM influence, or on just a handful of vegan/organic products.

These are the sort of issues we must consider before raising the Vegan bar too high.

If I can see the weak thinking behind the Vegetarian Society's position, and it was copied by the VS, then those who are pro-meat and pro-GM will just have an easy time picking holes in us. The message comming out of the VS has to be well reasoned.

I wish there was a simple answer. :(

[Michael Benis]

And as I said before, a block on GM may do the organisation (and hence all vegans) more harm than good. What if the VeganStore went under because its products were not deemed to be vegan?

<snip>

These are the sort of issues we must consider before raising the Vegan bar too high.



Stevie,

you still seem to be ignoring the animal-testing side that both Jon and I have repeatedly referred to. No one is proposing raising the bar higher. It is already there. It's just the position on GMOs that is ambivalent.

In addition, I am not at all certain that many if any products would be excluded from the vegan mark. Most vegans are against GMOs as are most consumers in Europe. It is simply bad marketing to include GMOs in products intended for vegans. Most are clearly labelled as GMO-free including those of US origin, where GMOs are more widely accepted.

Also, to be perverse, even more money could be raised if the VS backtracked on animal testing of cosmetics, eyecare products etc. etc. not to mention honey and so on...

The question remains: can any company supplying foods containing GMOs guarantee that they are vegan, that is to say that do not involve any cruelty to animals used either in their ingredients or in their testing?

You haven't answered that one.

Cheers

Mike

[eve]

Scientists study bee GM risk, 20/09/2005

With canola flowering across much of Australia's grain belt, researchers are watching the activity of honeybees. They are trying to determine whether bees could carry herbicide-resistant pollen, or GM material to other canola crops.

Dr Janine Baker from the Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management says the research project stems from the global move towards GM crops. She says results so far show it is a problem than can be managed, because bees do not move large distances and tend to work single varieties of canola. "So if there are concerns about what's happening with bees, we can look at what sort of buffer zones we have to have in place and those sort of issues".

There must be an incredible variety of issues that haven't even been thought of yet.

[Jon Cousins]

I have been trying to come up with a suitable question around the Vegan society's GM policy, that could be the basis for a poll about the issues on the Vegan Forum.

The biggest problem is keeping the GM policy the centre of the question, whilst allowing a range of useful answer options.

I guess my initial idea of a simple "do you think..." / 'yes' or 'no' poll isn't sophisticated enough.

Any suggestions?