Harris Wants To Stop Corporate Food Price Gouging

From former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:

Food prices remain high because there’s little to no competition across the entire food supply chain, which has allowed big corporations to engage in a price gouging free-for-all.

Four companies control most food industries, allowing them to coordinate prices instead of compete on the basis of lower prices. I offered this graph to illustrate the problem (see above).

I urged that Harris announce that as president she’ll bust up food monopolies.

 

Well, I have it on good authority that on Friday she’ll announce a plan to prevent corporations in the food and grocery industries from unfairly jacking up prices on consumers. 

She’ll call for the first-ever federal ban on corporate price-gouging in these industries.

Is Netanyahu Intentionally Trying To Starve Gaza Residents?

The people of Gaza are starving, and they have been for weeks. The World Central Kitchen (and other aid organizations) are trying to get food into Gaza, and President Biden even flew an airlift of food (dropping food from the air). But it is not enough.

Why? Because the Israeli government (headed by Netanyahu) is not allowing enough aid to enter. They drug their feet for weeks before allowing any food aid to enter, and still don't allow enough to enter. Now Israeli forces have attacked a food convoy from the World Central Kitchen, killing seven aid workers.

Netanyahu said the attack was "unintended". That's hard to believe. The convoy was clearly marked on the roofs of the vehicles. In addition, Chef Andres (World Central Kitchen founder) said his aid workers never moved anywhere without first notifying Israeli forces and getting clearance.

The deadly attack has aid organizations suspending their efforts to feed the starving Gaza's because it is too dangerous. Was that what Netanyahu wanted?

There are two possible reasons for the attack. Either the Israeli Defense Forces are extremely incompetent (which is not likely since they have always shown high competence in the past), or Netanyahu is trying to starve Gaza into submission.

The latter is not only a WAR CRIME, but would be a failure in subduing Hamas (since they are going to grab for themselves any food allowed to enter). The real victims are the innocent people of Gaza. It is bad enough that many have died from bombs and the lack of medical supplies, but starvation is an unnecessary crime. 

If the attack was truly unintended, then Israel must immediately allow massive food aid to enter Gaza and insure those delivering that aid are protected.

The world is watching and doesn't like what it is seeing. It is starting to look like intentional genocide! 

Food Is A Universal Human Right!

The people of Gaza are starving. The World Central Kitchen and other aid organizations have been trying to meet that need against giant odds. That was made much more difficult when Israel bombed a clearly marked World Central Kitchen vehicle, killing 7 aid workers.

Here is part of what Jose Andres (the founder of World Central Kitchen) had to say in an article for The New York Times:

In the worst conditions you can imagine — after hurricanes, earthquakes, bombs and gunfire — the best of humanity shows up. Not once or twice but always.

The seven people killed on a World Central Kitchen mission in Gaza on Monday were the best of humanity. They are not faceless or nameless. They are not generic aid workers or collateral damage in war.

Saifeddin Issam Ayad Abutaha, John Chapman, Jacob Flickinger, Zomi Frankcom, James Henderson, James Kirby and Damian Sobol risked everything for the most fundamentally human activity: to share our food with others.

These are people I served alongside in Ukraine, Turkey, Morocco, the Bahamas, Indonesia, Mexico, Gaza and Israel. They were far more than heroes.

Their work was based on the simple belief that food is a universal human right. It is not conditional on being good or bad, rich or poor, left or right. We do not ask what religion you belong to. We just ask how many meals you need.

From Day 1, we have fed Israelis as well as Palestinians. Across Israel, we have served more than 1.75 million hot meals. We have fed families displaced by Hezbollah rockets in the north. We have fed grieving families from the south. We delivered meals to the hospitals where hostages were reunited with their families. We have called consistently, repeatedly and passionately for the release of all the hostages.

All the while, we have communicated extensively with Israeli military and civilian officials. At the same time, we have worked closely with community leaders in Gaza, as well as Arab nations in the region. There is no way to bring a ship full of food to Gaza without doing so.

That’s how we served more than 43 million meals in Gaza, preparing hot food in 68 community kitchens where Palestinians are feeding Palestinians.

We know Israelis. Israelis, in their heart of hearts, know that food is not a weapon of war.

Israel is better than the way this war is being waged. It is better than blocking food and medicine to civilians. It is better than killing aid workers who had coordinated their movements with the Israel Defense Forces.

The Israeli government needs to open more land routes for food and medicine today. It needs to stop killing civilians and aid workers today. It needs to start the long journey to peace today.

In the worst conditions, after the worst terrorist attack in its history, it’s time for the best of Israel to show up. You cannot save the hostages by bombing every building in Gaza. You cannot win this war by starving an entire population.

We welcome the government’s promise of an investigation into how and why members of our World Central Kitchen family were killed. That investigation needs to start at the top, not just the bottom.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said of the Israeli killings of our team, “It happens in war.” It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by the Israel Defense Forces.

It was also the direct result of a policy that squeezed humanitarian aid to desperate levels. . . .

It is not a sign of weakness to feed strangers; it is a sign of strength. The people of Israel need to remember, at this darkest hour, what strength truly looks like.

Trump's Policy Would Make Inflation Worse - Not Better

 One of the biggest campaign promises for Trump and the Republicans is to lower inflation. They blame President Biden for inflation - even though the inflation rate has steadily dropped during his administration.

They claim the inflation is caused by the large national debt. They didn't believe that when they raised the national debt more than any other presidential administration by giving the rich (and corporations) a massive tax break and they were right in the past - the national debt has nothing to do with inflation. Inflation rises and falls in spite of how large the debt happens to be.

Inflation has two basic causes. The first is the cost of production. The second is corporate greed. 

The crazy thing is that while Republicans claim they will magically reduce inflation, their favorite presidential candidate (Donald Trump) has already announced he will pursue a policy that would actually raise inflation.

He has said if elected, he will impose a 10% tariff on China. He imposed one on China during his first term, and then extended it to many other countries. He will likely do the same in a second term.

The problem with a tariff is that it is not paid by the exporting country. It is paid by the importer - and then passed on to consumers by raising prices. In other words, it is a tax on American consumers - and 10% is a rather large rise in prices.

Most of the inflation consumers are unhappiest about is the price of groceries. But what many of them don't realize is that much of the food in grocery stores is imported. About 15% of the U.S. food supply is imported - including 40% of fresh vegetables and 60% of fresh fruits.

A 10% tariff on imports would definitely cause inflation in the price of groceries.

The Republicans like to whine about inflation and blame others. Don't believe them. They have no cure for it. And their favorite presidential candidate would pursue a policy to make it worse.

The Most Popular American Dishes In The United States

 From the YouGov Poll.

Food Security Is A Problem For Too Many In The U.S.

 

The chart above reflects the results of the Morning Consult Poll -- done in May of 2,200 adults, with a 2 point margin of error.

It's Not Inflation That's Causing Grocery Prices To Rise

Republicans would like to blame rising food prices on President Biden, claiming it is due to inflation. But that is wrong. Inflation is not the cause. It's just the cover used by conglomerates to justify the raises that are giving them massive profits. Stacy Mitchell explains this in her New York Times post. Here is a part of that post:

Food Fresh is the only grocery store in a rural stretch of southeastern Georgia. It has many five-star Google reviews touting its freshly butchered meats, tomato bar and friendly service. Yet it faces a threat to its survival that no amount of management skill can overcome. Big retailers like Walmart and Kroger “have a handle on suppliers that I can’t touch,” said Food Fresh’s owner, Michael Gay. The chains wrest deep discounts from suppliers, making it impossible for the store to come close to matching their prices.

To understand why grocery prices are way up, we need to look past the headlines about inflation and reconsider long-held ideas about the benefits of corporate bigness.

Like other independent grocers, Food Fresh buys through large national wholesalers that purchase goods by the truckload, achieving the same volume efficiencies the big chains do. What accounts for the difference in price is not efficiency but raw market power. Major grocery suppliers, including Kraft Heinz, General Mills and Clorox, rely on Walmart for more than 20 percent of their sales. So when Walmart demands special deals, suppliers can’t say no. And as suppliers cut special deals for Walmart and other large chains, they make up for the lost revenue by charging smaller retailers even more, something economists refer to as the water bed effect.

This isn’t competition. It’s big retailers exploiting their financial control over suppliers to hobble smaller competitors. Our failure to put a stop to it has warped our entire food system. It has driven independent grocers out of business and created food deserts. It has spurred consolidation among food processors, which has slashed the share of food dollars going to farmers and created dangerous bottlenecks in the production of meat and other essentials. And in a perverse twist, it has raised food prices for everyone, no matter where you shop.

A level playing field was long a tenet of U.S. antitrust policy. In the 19th century, Congress barred railroads from favoring some shippers over others. It applied this principle to retailing in 1936 with the Robinson-Patman Act, which mandates that suppliers offer the same terms to all retailers. The act allows large retailers to claim discounts based on actual volume efficiencies but blocks them from extracting deals that aren’t also made available to their competitors. For roughly four decades, the Federal Trade Commission vigorously enforced the act. From 1954 to 1965, the agency issued 81 cease-and-desist orders to stop suppliers of milk, tea, oatmeal, candy and other foods from giving preferential prices to the largest grocery chains.

As a result, the grocery retailing sector was enviable by today’s standards. Independent grocery stores flourished, accounting for more than half of food sales in 1958. Supermarket chains like Safeway and Kroger also thrived. This dynamism fed a broad prosperity. Even the smallest towns and poorest neighborhoods could generally count on having a grocery store. And the industry’s diffuse structure ensured that its fruits were widely distributed. Of the nearly nine million people working in retailing overall in the mid-1950s, nearly two million owned or co-owned the store where they worked. There were more Black-owned grocery stores in 1969 than there are today.

Then, amid the economic chaos and inflation of the late 1970s, the law fell into disfavor with regulators, who had come to believe that allowing large retailers to flex more muscle over suppliers would lower consumer prices. For the most part, the law hasn’t been enforced since. As a top Reagan administration official explained in 1981, antitrust was no longer “concerned with fairness to smaller competitors.”

This was a serious miscalculation. Walmart, which seized the opening and soon became notorious for strong-arming suppliersand undercutting local businesses, now captures one in four dollars Americans spend on groceries. Its rise spurred a cascade of supermarket mergers, as other chains sought to match its leverage over suppliers. If the latest of these mergers — Kroger’s bid to buy Albertsons — goes through, just five retailers will control about 55 percent of grocery sales. Food processors in turn sought to counterbalance the retailers by merging. Supermarket aisles may seem to brim with variety, but most of the brands you see are made by just a few conglomerates.

These food giants are now the dominant buyers of crops and livestock. The lack of competition has contributed to the decline in farmers’ share of the consumer grocery dollar, which has fallen by more than half since the 1980s. In the absence of rivals, food conglomerates have over time increasingly been able to raise prices and as a result have reported soaring profits over the past two years. Inflation gives them a cover story, but it’s the lack of competition that allows them to get away with it. Meat prices surged last year among the four companies that control most pork, beef and poultry processing. Companies like PepsiCo and General Mills have also jacked up prices without seeing any loss of sales — a sure sign of uncontested market power.

This has resulted in an ever-worsening cycle: As a system dominated by a few retailers lifts prices across the board — even at Walmart — consumers head to those retailers because of their ability to wrest relatively lower prices or simply because they’re the only options left. Walmart’s share of grocery sales swelled last year as more people flocked to its stores.

Meanwhile, the decline of independent grocers, which disproportionately serve rural small towns and Black and Latinoneighborhoods, has left debilitating gaps in our food system. If Food Fresh were to close, residents of Evans County, where the store is, would have to subsist on the limited range of packaged foods sold at a local dollar store or drive about 25 minutes to reach a Walmart. (Nearly a quarter of Evans County residents live in poverty.) Living without a grocery store nearby imposes a daily hardship on people and could lead to an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and other diet-related illnesses. . . .

We need to stop big retailers from using their enormous financial leverage over suppliers to tilt the playing field. By resurrecting the Robinson-Patman Act, we could begin to put an end to decades of misguided antitrust policy in which regulators abandoned fair competition in favor of ever-greater corporate scale.

Poll On Thanksgiving Foods In The United States

 The charts above are from the YouGov Poll.

Over 20% Of U.S. Children Live In A Food Insecure Home

This chart was made using information from the June 2017 UNICEF report on food insecurity among children. While they gave information on every country (and you can access that here), I just listed in the chart the 30 most developed nations. It shows the percentage of children under the age of 15 that lives in a food insecure household (a household in which there is not always enough food or money to buy food).

Being the richest nation in the world, and claiming to be a moral and equal nation, one would think that the United States would have less food insecurity for its children than other nations. Unfortunately, that is not true. There are 24 nations on this list that have a smaller percentage of food insecure children than the United States (and only 5 nations with a higher percentage).

How can this be justified? I don't think it can be justified. The United States has the money to do a lot better than it does. It just doesn't have the moral and political will to do so. It is just a sad fact that our political leaders think it is more important to give tax cuts to rich people and corporations (the people that don't need help) than to feed poor children.

Trump Budget Would Stop Funding For "Meals On Wheels"

 Donald Trump's budget shows just how little he cares for Americans that aren't rich. The elderly supported Trump in larger numbers than any other group in the election, so one might think he would want to reward them.

That could not be farther from the truth. His budget throws them under the bus. It cuts money for heating assistance, and eliminates government funding completely for "Meals On Wheels" -- the program that provides a healthy meal each day for elderly shut-ins (for many the only real meal they get for the day).

Here is part of an article by Benjamin Locke at Occupy Democrats on this mean-spirited cut by Trump:

Throughout his campaign for president and since his election, Donald Trump has promised to reduce the size of government, cut taxes, eliminate regulations and slash numerous social programs, even as he boosts defense spending by billions.

His recently released budget proposal makes it clear he’s going to follow through on those threats.

One popular program facing elimination is “Meals On Wheels,” which uses federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to mobilize volunteers, businesses and donors to provide nutrition to thousands of senior citizens on a daily basis. It supports over 5,000 community-based organizations across America, reaching people in both urban and rural areas.

The money for Meals On Wheels is part of the Older American Act, first passed in 1965 as part of LBJ’s Great Society, and endorsed by every president until Trump. The total cost, which includes other programs, is about $2 billion a year, which is less than the government hands out in fossil fuel subsidies every year.

Meals On Wheels alone costs about $3 million a year, which is the cost ofjust one trip to Trump’s “winter White House.” . . .

Elderly people voted overwhelmingly for President Trump – and this is how he’s choosing to repay them. In 2014, 10.2 million American seniors faced the risk of hunger – a staggering 15% of all elder Americans. Trump needs to be pouring money into “Meals On Wheels,” not taking an axe to it.

It is absolutely appalling that in the richest nation in the world, our seniors cannot live their golden years without worrying where their next meal is coming from. Trump’s budget priorities tell you all you need to know about how he really feels about the struggles of the American people.

President Trump has made it clear once and for all that he cares nothing for the American people who are unlikely to ever dine with him at Mar-A-Lago and is willing to send millions of the most vulnerable into food insecurity and poverty just so that he can funnel the public’s money into the pockets of defense contractors and the ultrawealthy.

An Open Letter From Nobel Laureates Supporting GMO's

(This photo of Golden Rice is from naturalproductsinsider.com.)

Many of my progressive sisters and brothers will probably be angry at this post, but I have never been sold on the idea that genetically-modified food (GMO) is dangerous. The truth is that man has been genetically modifying crops as long as faring has been in existence -- and almost all of the food we eat today (including that grown on "organic" farms) has been genetically-modified. In short, I believe it is more important to feed the world than to give in to myths and unfounded fears.

Here is the letter signed by 110 Nobel Prize laureates in support of GMO's (particularly Golden Rice):

To the Leaders of Greenpeace, the United Nations and Governments around the world

The United Nations Food & Agriculture Program has noted that global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population. Organizations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects.

We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against "GMOs" in general and Golden Rice in particular.

Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity. 

Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.

The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight. 

WE CALL UPON GREENPEACE to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general;

WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.

How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?

Sincerely,

LIST OF SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER

Millions Don't Always Have Money To Feed Their Families

This is a chart that all Americans should be ashamed of. It shows the percentage of Americans that at some time in the last year did not have the money to provide food for themselves or their families. The percentage for all people is about 15% -- roughly equal to the percentage of the population living below the poverty level. That 15% translates into more than 48 million people.

How can the richest nation in the world have over 48 million people who cannot always afford to buy food? It's because the Republicans who control Congress don't care. They think it's more important to give tax breaks to the rich and unneeded subsidies to corporations than to feed hungry people in this country (or to mandate a wage that would bring them out of poverty).

The Republicans would like to write those living in poverty off as being "lazy". But that's just not true. Most of them work hard at a full-time job. They just aren't paid enough to live above the poverty level. This could be fixed by raising the minimum wage to between $12 and $15 an hour. In addition, food assistance could be raised for those unable to work. But the Republicans will do neither. They want to cut food assistance further, and leave the minimum wage at $7.25 an hour (or eliminate it altogether).

Seniors (those 65 and over) are doing a little better than other age groups. They have 7.9% who sometimes can afford to buy food -- the only age group with below a double-digit percentage. But the Republicans are trying to fix that. They want to raise the retirement age and cut Social Security benefits -- both of which are guaranteed to raise the percentage of seniors without food security.

Just on the level of common decency, it is imperative that the Republicans be voted out of power this November.

The chart above reflects the results of a new Gallup Poll -- done between January 2nd and December 30th of 2015 of a random national sample of 177,281 adults, with a margin of error of only 0.1 points.

A Thanksgiving Survey

In honor of the Thanksgiving holiday, Public Policy Polling gives us a fun survey. The survey was done on November 16th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,360 registered voters, with a margin of error of 2.7 points.

They asked those respondents who the presidential candidate would be that they would most or least like to have at Thanksgiving dinner. Hillary Clinton turned out to be the candidate most wanted for Thanksgiving dinner at 24%, while Donald Trump was the candidate least wanted at 46%.

Of course, you can't do a poll without asking some serious questions, and PPP did. They asked whether the side dish at Thanksgiving was appropriately called "stuffing" or "dressing". I've always called it dressing, but it seems I'm in the minority. About 51% say it's stuffing, and only 34% believe it's dressing -- and that holds true across all political lines.

They also asked what was the best pie to serve with Thanksgiving dinner. No surprise, pumpkin pie was the winner at 27%, with pecan and apple tied for second at 17%.

Now we know -- a Thanksgiving turkey should be served with stuffing and pumpkin pie.

Failing As Humans

No one is born being as mean-spirited and hard-hearted as the current batch of congressional Republicans -- and the people that taught them that greed is more important than their fellow human beings are some pretty sick puppies. They are all badly in need of a sense of shame.

20% In The U.S. Struggle To Afford Food

The chart above is from a recent Gallup Poll, and was made with surveying large monthly samples of nationwide adults -- the latest survey being done in the month of August with 15,729 respondents, with a very low margin of error of only 0.8 points. Monthly surveys in 2012 and earlier were even larger (between 28,000 and 30,000 respondents), and had a margin of error of only 0.6.

The poll showed that about 20% of all Americans (or one out of five) have experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months (by not having enough money to buy needed food). That figure is the highest it's been since 2008, in the Bush recession. And it's a shameful percentage for a nation generally regarded as the richest nation in the world.

Obviously, this is a situation that needs to be addressed by our government. But the Republicans in Congress have a different view. They don't think the $4 billion cut in the food stamp program approved by the Senate is nearly enough, and the House Republicans are planning to cut around 5 times that amount. And they are planning to vote on this within a few days, while the attention of the American public is on Syria (and a possible attack by the U.S.).

Calling this Republican effort hard-hearted is an understatement. It is downright immoral, because the reason for it is to keep the rich (who are making record amounts of income) from having to pay a little more in taxes (even though they are paying a smaller amount in taxes than at anytime before the Bush administration, and since World War II). These Republicans know that a majority of the public is in favor of raising taxes a little on the richest Americans (who have gobbled up 95% of income growth between 2009 and 2012), and that's why they are going to try and sneak it by while the public is thinking of other things.

What makes this even crazier is that these same Republicans claim to be the only political representatives of christianity -- a religion whose leading figure (Jesus) preached that his followers had a moral responsibility to help the poor and sick, and that it would be almost impossible for the rich to enter heaven (harder than a camel going through the eye of a needle). Why then, do the policies of congressional Republicans deny aid to the poor while making the rich even richer? Do they not understand (or care about) the teachings of the religion they claim to represent?

Even us atheists know better than that. We understand that, whether a person is religious or not, common decency and humanity dictate that we are our brother's keeper -- and it is the responsibility of all people to help those less fortunate (and that the easiest and most effective way to do this is through government). Why can't the congressional Republicans (the self-appointed "protectors" of christianity) understand that? Or do they understand and just not care -- as long as they can get richer and re-elected?

Are Genetically-Modified Foods Bad ?

(The cartoon image above is by Peter Schrank, and appeared in The Economist on 2/25/2010.)

I'm probably going to make some of my liberal friends mad with this post. But my purpose in writing this blog is not to placate anyone, but to tell the truth as I see it.

There is a debate raging in this country (and the world) right now over genetically-modified foods (commonly called GMO's). Corporate entities like Monsanto say the GMO's are safe and want to rush them to the market, while many on the left say they are inherently unsafe and should be banned. I have always suspected that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Humans have been genetically-modifying foods since the invention of farming many centuries ago. Almost all of the foods we eat today have been modified. For instance, the original wheat plant had a very tiny head of grain and the original tomato was about the size of a thumbnail. Both were modified through genetic cross-breeding of the plants to produce the vegetables we enjoy today.

The difference is that in the past this genetic-modification took a long time through the process of cross-breeding to achieve the desirable result, while today it is done much faster through gene-splicing in a laboratory. Does that mean the new way is unsafe? Not necessarily.

One of the best things I have read on this issue comes from the writer of a blog called Saul of Hearts. The writer identifies himself this way:

I'm a crazy hippie.  I go to Burning Man every year.  I teach yoga.  I live in a co-op.  For the past two years I've been delivering organic vegetables for a local delivery service.  I've been eating vegetarian for years, and vegan for the past four months.

I'm also fascinated by genetics.  I read every book that comes my way on evolutionary theory, population genetics, and mapping the genome.  I took several classes on the subject at the University of Pennsylvania.  All told, I have a pretty solid understanding of how genes work.

The writer has written an excellent post on this subject, and I urge you to go over and read the entire post. I am reprinting here only a part of that post that I consider especially important -- a discussion of 3 common myths being circulated about GMO's. Here is what was written about these myths:

1. GMOs create more "unnatural" mutations than traditional breeding methods.

    Genetic manipulation is nothing new.  Humans have been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years.  Many of our staple crops (wheat, corn, soy), would not exist without human intervention.  The same goes for domesticated farm species.

    Whether we're using genetic modification or selective breeding, we're playing God either way.  But some people seem to think that selective breeding is "safer" -- that it allows less opportunity for damaging mutations than genetic engineering does.  This couldn't be more wrong.

    The entire process of evolution is dependent upon mutation.  UV radiation changes the structure of the DNA code in each individual organism.  Most of these mutations aren't beneficial.  Some leave out necessary proteins.  Others add useless information.  And yet, a percentage of these "errors" are helpful enough that they're passed along to future generations and become the new normal.

    If there's any danger with genetic engineering, it's that we can be too precise in our manipulation.  We can ensure that each new generation of seeds contains the exact same DNA sequence, double-checked for errors and mutations eliminated.  The "unnatural" process actually produces less mutations, not more.

2. GMOs contain animal DNA that has been "spliced" into plants.

    One of the most enduring myths about genetic engineering concerns a GM tomato which, as legend would have it, contained flounder genes spliced into tomato DNA.  While it's true that Calgene experimented with a freeze-resistant tomato, they used a "synthesized ... antifreeze gene based on the winter flounder gene" -- not a cut-and-pasted copy of the gene itself.

    Those freeze-resistant tomatoes never made it to market, but a different version called the Flavr Savr did.  Tomatoes contain a protein called polygalacturonase (PG), which breaks down the pectin in the cell walls, causing the tomato to soften as it ripens.  To create a tomato that would ripen more slowly, Calgene took the gene that encodes for the PG protein and reversed it.  This backwards strand of DNA, known as an "antisense" gene, binds to the forward-running strand and cancels it out.  Without PG, the pectin (and therefore the tomato) breaks down more slowly.  The simplicity of the process is remarkable.  No toxic chemicals, no mysterious bits of DNA.  Just a simple tweak of the tomato's own genetic code.

    But hold on a minute.  What if they had used a gene from a fish in creating this tomato?  Would the tomato taste fishy?  Would you have to watch out for fish bones in your pasta sauce?  Not unless you've added anchovies.

    Genes are basically bits of computer code that are interchangeable from species to species.  When you isolate a tiny bit of gene, it doesn't retain the essence of whichever species it came from.  You might have a bit of DNA that says simply, "Grow appendage X on the abdomen," but doesn't specify what kind of appendage.  If you put that code into a fly, it activates the part of DNA that grows a wing.  Put that same code into a mouse and it grows a foreleg.  It doesn't make the mouse any more like a fly.

3. GMO's are radioactive, cause cancer, and are bad for the environment.

    This is a trickier question to answer, and I'll be the first to admit that we need more research into the health effects of GM products.  But I'm going to bet that the answer turns out to be something like this: some GMOs are safe, and others are not.  Lumping all GMOs into the same category is like lumping all fertilizers or all pesticides into the same category.  Genetic changes are only as dangerous as the proteins they encode for -- just as in any plant.  Consider how many "natural" plants have genes that produce poisons and toxins. 

    In the case of the Flavr Savr tomato, I wouldn't be too worried.  It simply blocks a protein that the tomato itself produces.  In the case of herbicide-resistant soybeans, I'd want to know more.  What kind of herbicide is being sprayed on the plants?  Are traces of the herbicide still found in the food when it reaches our plate?

    While I voted for the labeling act that was on the California ballot last year, a simple "contains GMOs" label would be of little use to me.  I want to know what specifically about the organism was modified so I can reach my own conclusions.

I agree with the author of this post. GMO's are not inherently bad -- especially in a world where the population is growing fast. Modifications that make foods more nutritious and more productive are needed. My only concern is that some of these foods may be rushed to the market too fast -- before they have been proven to be safe. We need to find some middle ground -- that will allow modifications that increase yield and nutrition, while insuring safety. 

The government should take a leading role in this effort, but this cannot be done until we get control of the government back. Corporations currently have too much control over our government, and because of that they will automatically come down on the side of corporations. This is just one more area where corporate control of government is not in the best interest of the citizens. The issue of GMO's is not unsolvable, but it cannot be solved until we wrest back control of our government from the corporations.