How much GMO food do Americans eat?

[JadeOrchidSong]

I am curious how much GMO food American people eat. I will google about it, but meanwhile maybe there are some experts in the hive that can give a good response. Thanks!

[marbel]

I'm bumping this because I'm curious what responses you will get.  I confess I don't really understand the question.  Do you mean what percentage of the food supply is GMO?  

[Word Nerd]

There are currently eight commercially available crops from GMO seeds in the US: Corn (field and sweet), Soybeans, Cotton, Canola, Alfalfa, Sugar Beets, Papaya, and Squash.

[Sandragood1]

That's going to be tough to find. The makers of Commercial products don't like to advertise that any of their ingredients are GMOs. Most soy produced in the U.S. is modified. I think Canola, too (rape seed). Some corn is but I think not the fresh eating type.

 

The anti-GMO websites may have more data.

 

Do you want to count animals that eat GMOs? I suspect most do. They are fed corn and soy based diets.

 

If you find good data, can you please link to it?

 

Thanks

[EmseB]

All of it? I doubt there are many foods left which haven't been genetically modified in some way to make them bigger, seedless, tastier, more visually appealing, ripen differently, etc.

[Word Nerd]

Anti-GMO sites have more data like anti-vax sites have more data.

[Word Nerd]

All of it? I doubt there are many foods left which haven't been genetically modified in some way to make them bigger, seedless, tastier, more visually appealing, ripen differently, etc.

There is a difference between GMOs and selective breeding. There are eight GMO foods.

[marbel]

There is a difference between GMOs and selective breeding. There are eight GMO foods.

 

I actually just got this clear in my mind today.  I was thinking of navel oranges and looked it up.  Nope, not GMO, just selectively bred.  

 

(I don't think or worry much about GMOs.)

 

[EmseB]

I actually just got this clear in my mind today. I was thinking of navel oranges and looked it up. Nope, not GMO, just selectively bred.

 

(I don't think or worry much about GMOs.)

 

There's a difference in how the genetic modification was done (and it's not just selective breeding that makes our produce look the way it does currently), but it's still genetically modified from whatever originally grew. I guess it depends on what the OP means in the question.

[Word Nerd]

She said GMO, no?

[momof4babes]

There are currently eight commercially available crops from GMO seeds in the US: Corn (field and sweet), Soybeans, Cotton, Canola, Alfalfa, Sugar Beets, Papaya, and Squash.

I also heard that russet potatoes are now. Not sure what percentage though. I saw a warning that they have hit supermarkets.

 

http://www.livestrong.com/article/218439-what-varieties-of-potatoes-are-gmo/#page=1

[Katy]

All of it? I doubt there are many foods left which haven't been genetically modified in some way to make them bigger, seedless, tastier, more visually appealing, ripen differently, etc.

 

 

I was under the impression that wheat is GMO too?

 

The answer is that in the USA everything made with any of those ingredients is likely to be GMO, at least in part.

 

Organic is supposed to block GMO, but it has routinely been found contaminated.

 

 

ETA:  nope, plans for GMO wheat were abandoned in 2004 when it was found to make them more susceptible to dangerous mycotoxins.

[regentrude]

There's a difference in how the genetic modification was done (and it's not just selective breeding that makes our produce look the way it does currently), but it's still genetically modified from whatever originally grew. I guess it depends on what the OP means in the question.

 

Pretty much EVERY single food that is not hunted or foraged has been modified by selective breeding from its wild origin. That's how agriculture started several thousand years ago.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Most corn and soy in this country is GMO.

Monsanto has successfully fought to keep that information from being allowed on food labels, so you can't even sort for it except by buying only organic food.

 

This doesn't sound so bad until you realize how much food has corn in it in one form or another.  For instance, corn is used to fatten most cows, so all non-organic beef is GMO.  I believe that corn is fed to dairy cattle as well, but am not certain of that.  I don't know whether it is also used for other feed animals.   It is used to make many sweeteners other than sugar, so it's found in many other foods, disguised--soda, packaged or bottled foods, frozen dinners, etc.  Since high fructose corn syrup has gotten a bad reputation, they call it other things now.  It's hard to even keep track.

 

Soy is also used very heavily throughout the food system.

 

I hate this about our food system.  We should be able to find out what is in our food.  Keeping it from us by law is insulting and disgusting and anti-capitalistic, if you view informed purchase as one of the fundamental bases of capitalism.

[Word Nerd]

GM potatoes (Innate) and apples (Arctic Apples) have been approved but are not available for sale yet.

[Word Nerd]

A cow is not genetically modified just because it eats GM corn. That's not how it works.

[EmseB]

Pretty much EVERY single food that is not hunted or foraged has been modified by selective breeding from its wild origin. That's how agriculture started several thousand years ago.

That's my point.

 

People have a narrow definition of genetically modified as some scientist in a lab with a microscope making something round up ready. But the genetic modification of food to make it grow faster, be weather resistant, be bug resistant, tastier, prettier, hybrids with other plants...all of that is genetic modification which, as you say, is the whole point of agriculture. Seedless grapes, pluots, big red juicy apples, bananas...all of them are genetically modified.

[Word Nerd]

That's my point.

 

People have a narrow definition of genetically modified as some scientist in a lab with a microscope making something round up ready. But the genetic modification of food to make it grow faster, be weather resistant, be bug resistant, tastier, prettier, hybrids with other plants...all of that is genetic modification which, as you say, is the whole point of agriculture. Seedless grapes, pluots, big red juicy apples, bananas...all of them are genetically modified.

You're misusing the term genetically modified. It has an actual scientific meaning.

[Carol in Cal.]

A cow is not genetically modified just because it eats GM corn. That's not how it works.

Oh, I know.  It's imprecise.

But the OP was about how much GM stuff is consumed, and to the extent that it's in the food chain below us, it's ingested by us to a great extent.

[EmseB]

You're misusing the term genetically modified. It has an actual scientific meaning.

 

I think it's an imprecise term.  There's genetic engineering and gene splicing, but as I've discussed here, genetically modifying foods has been going on for a long time.  In the case of the pluot, as one example, humans have literally created a new fruit by combining the dna of two separate fruits.  If that's not genetic modification then I don't know what is.  But GMO has become a loaded term to include only one form of genetic modification.  But actual genetic modification is a very broad science.

 

Anyway, I really wasn't sure what the OP was asking so I was putting in my two cents which apparently caused a derail because genetic modification can only possibly mean gene splicing or genetic engineering.

[Word Nerd]

This is one reason I am so persnickety about how the term is used.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/some-brands-are-labeling-products-gmo-free-even-if-they-dont-have-genes-180956421/

 

The majority of processed food contains GMOs because soy- and corn-based products are so widely used in their production. But a company calling a cotton candy grape, for example, "GMO-free" deliberately misleads consumers and cashes in on that confusion about what GM means, as the business knows darn good and well that there are no GM grapes on the shelf anyway, no matter who grows them.

[Guest]

I was reading John Robbins last night and apparently most GMO crops in the US are modified to make them resistant to a particular pesticide:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573244872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441473663&sr=8-1&keywords=john+robbins+Food+revolution

 

The advantage is not a higher yield, but the ability to use more of the herbicide for a longer period of the growth cycle without it affecting the GMO crop.

 

As has been mentioned upthread, soy and corn are the biggies for those who are trying to avoid GMOs and cannot afford organic everything.

 

Our local organic farmers do not, however, refer to their heirloom popcorn as "GMO free" because they can't be 100% sure what their neighbours are growing, how the winds blow, where the bees have been, etc.

[EmseB]

This is one reason I am so persnickety about how the term is used.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/some-brands-are-labeling-products-gmo-free-even-if-they-dont-have-genes-180956421/

 

The majority of processed food contains GMOs because soy- and corn-based products are so widely used in their production. But a company calling a cotton candy grape, for example, "GMO-free" deliberately misleads consumers and cashes in on that confusion about what GM means, as the business knows darn good and well that there are no GM grapes on the shelf anyway, no matter who grows them.

Well I have to admit that I'm not at all worried about ingesting gmo food in any form, so I feel somewhat the same in that the term is mostly used for a "political" or social distinction to either make people fear what they are eating or to give food makers an advertising edge.

[Carol in Cal.]

Well I have to admit that I'm not at all worried about ingesting gmo food in any form, so I feel somewhat the same in that the term is mostly used for a "political" or social distinction to either make people fear what they are eating or to give food makers an advertising edge.

Whether people worry about ingesting GMO food or not, hiding the information that GMO foods are present is anti-consumer.

[Butter]

She said GMO, no?

 

I know people who insist GMO includes selectively breeding for specific traits and hybridization is a form of GMO.  This of course means they think Mendel was making GMOs back in the 1800s (and I once gave up on a GMO debate completely when the person I was debating with made that statement because we were coming from such completely different definitions), so asking for clarification of *her* meaning of GMO is perfectly reasonable.

[JadeOrchidSong]

There are currently eight commercially available crops from GMO seeds in the US: Corn (field and sweet), Soybeans, Cotton, Canola, Alfalfa, Sugar Beets, Papaya, and Squash.

This!

I remember hearing that GMO strawberries have fish genes artificially crossed.

[regentrude]

This!

I remember hearing that GMO strawberries have fish genes. Is this true?

 

No idea, but since humans share 85% of their genes with mice, I don't see why that would be a big deal:

 

 

the protein-coding regions of the mouse and human genomes are 85 percent identical; some genes are 99 percent identical while others are only 60 percent identical.

https://www.genome.gov/10001345

 

[EmseB]

Whether people worry about ingesting GMO food or not, hiding the information that GMO foods are present is anti-consumer.

Which goes back to my original point, in that almost every single food we eat has been genetically modified at some point. It's not anti-consumer, it's that "genetically modified" is a distinction without meaning at this point.

 

As a consumer I wouldn't expect to be eating food that is NOT genetically modified. If someone thinks they will be because the government requires a certain label I think they are kidding themselves.

[JadeOrchidSong]

No idea, but since humans share 85% of their genes with mice, I don't see why that would be a big deal:

https://www.genome.gov/10001345

 

Naturally sharing the same genes is not the same as artificially crossing the genes in a lab.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I meant genetically modified, not selectively breeding, just to clarify. Thanks!

[EmseB]

I know people who insist GMO includes selectively breeding for specific traits and hybridization is a form of GMO.  This of course means they think Mendel was making GMOs back in the 1800s (and I once gave up on a GMO debate completely when the person I was debating with made that statement because we were coming from such completely different definitions), so asking for clarification of *her* meaning of GMO is perfectly reasonable.

 

This is interesting to me.  So you don't consider manipulating DNA via hybridization or selective breeding to be genetic modification of a plant?  If you're changing the DNA to make something seedless, or to ripen faster, or to make a hybrid fruit...how is that not genetic modification?

[Guest]

uhg Bringing hybridization and selective breeding into a GMO conversation is deliberately muddying the waters. And never to enlightening ends.

 

Let's all start using LCTO instead! Lab-Created Transgenic Organisms.

 

OP. Who knows? If you find a source for it I would love to read it so please do post..

[Bluegoat]

I think it's an imprecise term.  There's genetic engineering and gene splicing, but as I've discussed here, genetically modifying foods has been going on for a long time.  In the case of the pluot, as one example, humans have literally created a new fruit by combining the dna of two separate fruits.  If that's not genetic modification then I don't know what is.  But GMO has become a loaded term to include only one form of genetic modification.  But actual genetic modification is a very broad science.

 

Anyway, I really wasn't sure what the OP was asking so I was putting in my two cents which apparently caused a derail because genetic modification can only possibly mean gene splicing or genetic engineering.

 

But things are changing their genetic profiles because of natural pressures all the time.  So if we speak in this way, anything different from a one celled organism that has never evolved at all would be "genetically modified."  I guess that would be fine, but I don't really see the point.  GMOs has been defined as something quite specific for a number of reasons.

 

[Guest]

As a consumer I wouldn't expect to be eating food that is NOT genetically modified. If someone thinks they will be because the government requires a certain label I think they are kidding themselves.

 

No because (with a couple exceptions) GMO companies have launched enormously expensive campaigns to deter voters from voting in GMO-labeling laws. Absolutely no one thinks the government requires a label because absolutely everyone who's looked into for three minutes on the internet knows no label is required.

 

Until summer of 2016, hopefully, in Vermont. Hurray Vermont!

[Bluegoat]

I was reading John Robbins last night and apparently most GMO crops in the US are modified to make them resistant to a particular pesticide:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573244872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441473663&sr=8-1&keywords=john+robbins+Food+revolution

 

The advantage is not a higher yield, but the ability to use more of the herbicide for a longer period of the growth cycle without it affecting the GMO crop.

 

As has been mentioned upthread, soy and corn are the biggies for those who are trying to avoid GMOs and cannot afford organic everything.

 

Our local organic farmers do not, however, refer to their heirloom popcorn as "GMO free" because they can't be 100% sure what their neighbours are growing, how the winds blow, where the bees have been, etc.

 

Not much of an advantage to anyone but Monsanto though - more use of bad chemicals and the creation of resistant weeds and bugs.

[EmseB]

uhg Bringing hybridization and selective breeding into a GMO conversation is deliberately muddying the waters. And never to enlightening ends.

 

Let's all start using LCTO instead! Lab-Created Transgenic Organisms.

 

OP. Who knows? If you find a source for it I would love to read it so please do post..

 

I'm not being deliberately obtuse -- I don't understand why people don't considered those plants to be genetically modified.

 

I actually think it's extremely enlightening to consider that everything we eat has been modified --genetically -- from its original wild form.  It's pretty fascinating to me and actually takes some of the fear out of the lab type of GMO issues.  I think it's amazing that we can take what used to be done in hundreds of inexact iterations over years (decades!) and just simply do it all at one go in a lab and only modify the gene we need to make a plant with a certain characteristic that can feed a lot more people, or keep wastage from blight or bugs to a minimum.

[EmseB]

But things are changing their genetic profiles because of natural pressures all the time.  So if we speak in this way, anything different from a one celled organism that has never evolved at all would be "genetically modified."  I guess that would be fine, but I don't really see the point.  GMOs has been defined as something quite specific for a number of reasons.

 

 

Except we're talking about hybridization of a plant or selective breeding for certain traits.  We're talking about things that would not occur by simple natural mutation or evolution.  We're talking about humans splicing plants together or cross breeding varieties on purpose to create something different or better.  That's quite literally manipulating genes to get what you want from a certain plant.  Even very specifically speaking, it is genetic modification.

 

Doing it in a lab opens up more possibilities, of course, because you can be more exact and have more variations that you can get by hybridizing or selective breeding, but that seems like a net positive in terms of time spent and benefits available.

[Guest]

The UN has found that ONLY ecologically responsible agriculture will feed the growing population of the world.

 

The monocultures, which necessitate GMOs in the first place, and lead to rampant desertification, habitat destruction, resource (and food) waste and the loss of various species of plants (and animals) will not. NOT. feed the world.

 

GMOs are not necessary. They are profitable.

[EmseB]

Not much of an advantage to anyone but Monsanto though - more use of bad chemicals and the creation of resistant weeds and bugs.

 

Do you think claims about helping feed more people throughout Africa and such are overblown or inaccurate?  In other words, do you think there really is no benefit to a crop that can withstand more weather, more bugs, more pesticides other than just benefits to big ag?

[Guest]

Do you think claims about helping feed more people throughout Africa and such are overblown or inaccurate?  In other words, do you think there really is no benefit to a crop that can withstand more weather, more bugs, more pesticides other than just benefits to big ag?

 

They are. Yes.

[JadeOrchidSong]

uhg Bringing hybridization and selective breeding into a GMO conversation is deliberately muddying the waters. And never to enlightening ends.

 

Let's all start using LCTO instead! Lab-Created Transgenic Organisms.

 

OP. Who knows? If you find a source for it I would love to read it so please do post..

Yes, this!

My niece in China told me a rumor China has about the US exporting GMO seeds to China while American people do not eat GMO food. People there protest against it and "experts" tell them GMO food is safe. I shared my experience on the social media there as an American who eats GMO food every single day not by choice. But sure enough, US is the big exporter of GMO seeds. Now arctic apple is approved. Next is WHEAT though rejected in 2004 initially. The wheat produced in the US is largely contaminated by large Roundup amount applied in the last days before harvest to dry up and produce higher yield and the residue may cause allergy. That may be why Americans who are allergic to wheat suddenly find no ill effects when traveling and eating wheat products in another country.

[Guest]

Yeah 64 (+?) countries require GMO labeling. It's not some fringe opinion to think you should know if you're eating the fruits normally-grown agriculture.

 

I have experience with both monoculture systems and permaculture systems. I cast my lot with the latter all day, every day. ETA--experience with my hands, and eyeballs.

[Word Nerd]

Nm

[plansrme]

 The wheat produced in the US is largely contaminated by large Roundup amount applied in the last days before harvest to dry up and produce higher yield and the residue may cause allergy. That may be why Americans who are allergic to wheat suddenly find no ill effects when traveling and eating wheat products in another country.

 

Even Snopes says this is not true.

 

This is an interesting article from Slate on GMOs, pointing out the (lack of) science behind the scare tactics.

[Bluegoat]

Do you think claims about helping feed more people throughout Africa and such are overblown or inaccurate?  In other words, do you think there really is no benefit to a crop that can withstand more weather, more bugs, more pesticides other than just benefits to big ag?

 

Hypothetically or really?

 

Really, such claims are inaccurate and overblown.  GM crops to not produce more, they may possibly produce a little less.  They have already caused serious problems with creating resistant weeds, and using more pesticides and herbicides is a bad thing - those are not healthy things to take into your body, and they are not good for the land. 

 

 

Then there is always with GM foods the problem of ownership and control, and there are many questions around patenting genetic code.  These aren't theoretical, they go directly to food security and sustainability.

 

Another problem has been that GM products have consistently done things that their creators said would not happen, would not be a problem.  In some cases, as with herbicide resistance, it would be hard to believe that they didn't simply lie.  But in other cases, such as the spread of genetic material, it really seems like they just didn't know nearly as much as they thought - so, hubris.  The human record in interfering in the workings of nature artificially is pretty dismal.

 

Hypothetically - it's harder to say.  As mentioned above, industrial agriculture is really most suited to this kind of product, and it is itself a serious problem.  What has historically been important in food systems has been diversity, local control, flexibility.  Lots of different crops developed for vert local needs. 

 

I think when agriculture works well, it is because it is coming very close to creating an ecosystem, one that has natural timescales.  I don't know that we are actually capable of understanding all the variables in a system and responding to them in the way that a natural process does.  GM is in many ways a result of impatience, and I don't think farming is really an impatient activity - it requires deep knowledge over time, and also close attention to the here and now.  The focus of the GM project seems to me to undermine both of those things.

[IfIOnly]

I also heard that russet potatoes are now. Not sure what percentage though. I saw a warning that they have hit supermarkets.

 

http://www.livestrong.com/article/218439-what-varieties-of-potatoes-are-gmo/#page=1

 

That sucks. A large part of our diet is potatoes since we're gluten free, and we can't afford to buy organic most of the time. I already HAVE to buy mostly organic corn products due to GMO concerns. Bummer.

[JadeOrchidSong]

Even Snopes says this is not true.

 

This is an interesting article from Slate on GMOs, pointing out the (lack of) science behind the scare tactics.

Using Roundup for preharvesting time for wheat and other crops IS common practice in Canada. Some 5% American farmers do this on their wheat, too. So I stand corrected in my original statement, but this practice does happen and "untrue" is not accurate.

[Guest]

The whole point of round-up ready crops is to be able to spray as much round up on them as they need to, to destroy all competition. In doing so, almost ALL soil life is eradicated. From where do plants get the nutrients they possess, that we eat them to obtain for ourselves? Hint: the answer is not round up.

 

You can just walk out into a field that's had round up ready GMOs on it for a couple of years and pick up a handful of dirt. You don't have to take ANY internet article's word for it. If worms and lots of other things don't live in the soil, it's not healthy soil and the plants coming from it are not as nutritious as it should be.

 

Then go out in a field where there is diversified agriculture. Where crops are rotated, where the crops are not round up ready, so there IS room for competing plants to grow. Where rotational grazing is perhaps used. Cover crops and green manure (crops planted for the express purpose to add nutrients back to the soil). Pick up the soil. Note that birds actually live in the area (they won't where monoculture is practiced). Pick up the soil there. It's alive. It is "fertile soil" from whence one gets food with their full potential nutritional profile.

 

I keep talking about monocultures, because that is what the GMOs crops exist to assist. They are ugly, they are wasteful (of many things) and they leave rampant  desertification in their wake.

 

Unlike many things we go around about on WTM, this isn't a philosophical issue for which there are no clear answers. There only SEEM to be no clear answers because so few people  ever get their hands on both kinds of dirt and get to compare them.

[Pen]

I am curious how much GMO food American people eat. I will google about it, but meanwhile maybe there are some experts in the hive that can give a good response. Thanks!

 

 

Not sure this is what you are looking for, but

 

as of a 2013 article here:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/what-are-gmos-and-why-should-i-care

 

"In fact, GMOs are present in 60 to 70 percent of foods on US supermarket shelves, according to Bill Freese at the Center for Food Safety; the vast majority of processed foods contain GMOs. "

 

 

I have been aware of people growing supposedly organic foods but using things like conventional cotton seed meal as part of the fertilizer--which would be an issue for someone wanting to avoid both the GMO and pesticides likely to be in the cotton seed meal, even if it is technically allowed under particular certification rules.  And I have found it very hard to find what I would consider proper feed and fertilizers to keep things organic to my personal standards. At least some certifiers will make allowances if it is too hard to find things that are truly organic and allow what is findable, or allow using best efforts to keep things uncontaminated, so I suspect that it could be even higher than that.  Some crops that have not been deliberately made GMO, may become so by wind, insect pollinators, trucks carrying seed on their tires, or dropping it enroute...   And it is likely to be higher than that (it the figures were accurate) simply because of 2 years passing.

[Pen]

The whole point of round-up ready crops is to be able to spray as much round up on them as they need to, to destroy all competition. In doing so, almost ALL soil life is eradicated. From where do plants get the nutrients they possess, that we eat them to obtain for ourselves? Hint: the answer is not round up.

 

You can just walk out into a field that's had round up ready GMOs on it for a couple of years and pick up a handful of dirt. You don't have to take ANY internet article's word for it. If worms and lots of other things don't live in the soil, it's not healthy soil and the plants coming from it are not as nutritious as it should be.

 

Then go out in a field where there is diversified agriculture. Where crops are rotated, where the crops are not round up ready, so there IS room for competing plants to grow. Where rotational grazing is perhaps used. Cover crops and green manure (crops planted for the express purpose to add nutrients back to the soil). Pick up the soil. Note that birds actually live in the area (they won't where monoculture is practiced). Pick up the soil there. It's alive. It is "fertile soil" from whence one gets food with their full potential nutritional profile.

 

I keep talking about monocultures, because that is what the GMOs crops exist to assist. They are ugly, they are wasteful (of many things) and they leave rampant  desertification in their wake.

 

Unlike many things we go around about on WTM, this isn't a philosophical issue for which there are no clear answers. There only SEEM to be no clear answers because so few people  ever get their hands on both kinds of dirt and get to compare them.

 

 

 

Totally!!!!    

 

Where is that "I agree!!!" icon?