Do you remember the Flavr Savr tomato? Well, 18 years ago, this was the name of America's first genetically modified (GM) food. The controvesy is still raging. American's are starting to call for the labeling of all GM foods, but, the Federal government has yet to respond. These GM foods have been banned in many countries, but they have been feeding Americans for close to two decades now. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have come to be the major players in agribusiness sectors as a few chemical/biotech companies not only control GM seeds but nearly our entire seed supply, here in the US.
The phrase "genetic modification" refers to the manipulation of DNA by human hands to change the essential makeup of plants and animals. It inserts genetic material from one organism into another to give it a new "and improved" quality, for example, it may put a natural insecticide that one strain of corn may have into another strain that does not have this insecticide in the original strain. These are DNA transfers that could never happen in the natural world.
Some GM crops have been engineered to contain genetic material from Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), a natural bacteria found in the soil. By introducing the Bt to the plant, the plant will now produce bacterial poisons, thus killing the insects that may damage it. The first GM crop to carry the Bt genes was a potato, it was approved in the United States in 1995. As of today there are Bt versions of corn, soybeans, and cotton also.
Roundup-Ready crops- soybeans, corn, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, cotton, and Kentucky Bluegrass- have all been manipulated to be resistant to glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in the broadleaf killer Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto (you will be seeing that company name a lot).
Both of these GM traits- insecticide production and herbicide resistance- have become pervasive in American agriculture. The 2010, USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, says that as much as 86 percent of corn, up to 90 percent of soybeans, and 93 percent of cotton grown that year were GM varities.
Basically you are eating, almost on a daily basis, GM foods, unless you grow all of your food or buy strictly organic (which isn't a 100% gurantee). Federal standards for organic foods, which were passed in 2000, prohibit GM ingredients. Other GM crops (not labeled) include sweet corn, peppers, squash and zucchini, rice, sugar cane, rapeseed (used to make canola oil), flax, chicory, peas, and papaya. Close to one-fourth of all milk in the US comes from cows that have been injected with a GM hormone, Your honey comes from bees working fields of GM crops. Even some vitamins contain GM ingredients. Because most processed foods, in the US, contain corn and/or soy products, estimates range to 60 percent of your daily intake contains GM ingredients. (Are you disgusted yet?)
Genetically modified foods are not labeled in the US. Want to know why? Seems the biotech industry (with all its money and backers) has been able to convince the FDA (who are supposed to be protecting us against dangerous foods and drugs) that GM crops are "not substantially different" from the conventional crops (who is getting their pockets lined at the FDA?). This is where the false reports come in that lets the FDA approve such garabge without getting their name tied up in this mess: The FDA does NO independent testing for human or animal safety. The FDA relies strictly on the research conducted by the manufacturers of the products. Guess who the main producer of GMO's happens to be? You got it, MONSANTO. Monsanto also makes it nearly impossible for any independent scientists to study the GM seeds. Many other countries around the world require GM labeling, such as The European Union and Australia, other countries have banned them all together, such as Japan, Ireland, and Egypt.
Genetic modification technology does have great potential. In a practice known as "pharming," animals are genetically modified to gove milk, meat, or blood from which medicines are made. Genetically modified mice are used by research laboratories to seek cures for diseases. But with minimal oversight on the crop and livestock side many people are worried about GM technology. Most of us just want to know WHAT is in our food and we feel we have the right to know this.
Monsanto has become the leader of this invaision of Bt crops, starting with corn, cotton, and potatoes. Sygenta, Bayer, DuPont, and other big money companies have started developing their own GM varities of corn. These seeds are marketed to growers as pest-resistant which cuts the cost of spraying pesticides on the crops (spraying is a huge cost on the commercial farms).
Some researchers are starting to have concerns about the effect of these Bt crops on human health. Professor Emeritus Joe Cummins of the University of Western Ontario, as one example, told the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that "there is evidence that [Bt] will impact directly on human health through damage to the ileum [the final portion of the small intestine, which connects directly to the large intestine]...which can produce chronic illnesses such as fecal incontinence and/or flu-like upsets of the digestive system." Bt may also harm honeybees and lady bugs.
One of Monsanto's powerful broadleaf herbicides is the popular Roundup. Since Roundup's patent expired in 2000, many other companies now use Roundup's secret ingredient, glyphosate. Glyphosate is not genetically modified, instead, crops that are labeled Roundup-Ready are modified to withstand being soaked with the product.
In a report from 2011 titled "Roundup and Birth Defects: Is The Public Being Kept In The Dark?, eight seperate international scientists cited numerous studies that have linked glyphosate to birth defects in birds and amphibians, as well as to cancer, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, and reproductive and developmental damage in mammals, even under a low dosage. The report also states that Monsanto and the rest of hebicide industry, have known since the 1980's that glyphosate has ben linked to malformations in animals, and that governments ignored these studies. The US government still asserts that Roundup is a safe product (bet you don't see any Roundup around their precious little children).
Environmental damage is another major concern. Wetlands are effected by runoff from fields that have been sprayed with Roundup. One study shows that the recommended application of Roundup sold to homeowners and gardeners killed up to 86 percent of frogs in one day, according to University of Pittsburg. Two Purdue scientists, Professor Emeritus Don Huber and G.S. Johal, in a paper published in 2009 that "the widespread use of glyphosate...can significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and disease, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients, rendering them unavailable for plant use." These two scientists warn that "ignoring potential non-target side effects...may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops nonproductive and plants less nutritious."
Huber says, "Glyphosate is the single most important agronomic factor predisposing some plants to both disease and toxins," in an interview with The Organic and Non-GMO Report. "These toxins can produce a serious impact on the health of animals and humans. The toxin levels in straw can be high enough to make cattle and pigs infertile."
As it stands now, the biotech companies perform their own studies and bring those reports to the agency that is overseeing them. Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the LA Times in a Feb., 2011, op-ed, "We don't have the whole picture. That's no accident. Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refuse to provideindependent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options."
Concern about lack of independent review even extends to the university-level research. The university-level studies are often partly funded and/or controlled by these agrochemical companies, this often gives these companies the exclusive rights to academic discoveries- even though universities are taxpayer-funded. It seems very unlikely that scientists whose research is designed and paid for by agrochemical companies would choose to conduct studies that may reduce or remove that funding, even if they could receive the seeds to do independent research. The agrochemical companies also refuse to release their own studies, citing that "proprietary information" could be disclosed.
In a 2009 editorial, Scientific American, asked all biotech companies to end restrictions on outside research. "Food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny," wrote the magazine's editors. "Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require (they aren't going to lose their slice of the pie)...that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market."
When scientists have obtained agrochemical companies' research data, usually through frredom-of-information requests, they have found completely different conclusions than the company did (imagine that, a different result, no way!). Three French scientists analyzed raw data from three 2009 Monsanto studies on rats and found that three GM corn varities caused liver and kidney toxicity along with other organ damage. The European Food Safety Authority, by request from the European Commission, reviewed the French report and said that it "does not raise any new safety concerns," although other scientists continue to insist the French report is correct. All three of these corn varities are now present in the human food chain in the United States.
A cows' pituitary gland produces bovine growth hormone (BGH). "Recombinant bovine somatotropin" (rBST), is the GM version of this hormone. By injecting rBST in a dairy cow, the milk production goes up 10 percent. The FDA approved the use of rBST in 1993, once again saying there was "no significant difference" in milk from injected and noninjected cows. This ruling meant that a dairy that does not use rBST can not label their milk as so, this would go against the FDA finding of "no significant difference." There IS a difference! Injections of rBST in cows raise the levels of the naturally occurring IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1), which is a protein that stimulates cell growth. The IGF-1 in injected cows is easily absorbed in the small intestine. For over twenty years, Dr Samuel Epstein, professor emeritus at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago, has been claiming that high levels of IGF-1 raise the risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. He says that rBST injected milk is "super-charged with IGF-1, upto 10 times the level in natural milk and over 10 times more potent."
Monsanto began producing and selling rBST back in 1994. In 2003, the FDA charged several dairies with "misbranding." This opened the door for Monsanto to sue Oakhurst Dairy in Maine for labeling its milk from cows NOT injected with GMO hormones.
As people began reacting to rBST, reaching for organic milk instead, American retailers began to pledge not to sell rBST milk. The synthetic hormone has been made illegal in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and the EU permanently banned it in 1999.
2008 saw the formation of a group called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT), with the help of Monsanto. These were dairy farmers who did use rBST. AFACT tried to ban no-rBST labeling claims in several states, but dropped the effort in most- except Ohio, where the effort turned into a lawsuit. An Ohio cicuit court, in 2010, found that there was a difference between the milk of a treated and an untreated cow, and that the FDA's position was "inherently misleading." The court found higher levels of a cancer-causing compound, lower-quality of milk because of higher fat and lower protein, and higher white cell counts, which causes milk to spoil faster.
The injecting of cows in the same spot over and over increases the chance of infection, also, rBST injected cows often suffer from chronic mastitis, an infection of the udders. Mastitis causes the udder to swell and makes milking painful, it also has to be treated with antibiotics which could reach the public.
Proponents of the GMO industry assert that their use in crops and livestock can help end hunger throughout the world. They also claim that GMO's can help stop climate change (I guess Al Gore must be on the board at Monsanto...lol), reduce the use of pesticides, and increase crop yields (want to bet on that Mr. Greedy businessman?).
The international report The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes outlined evidence from many different sources (you can find this free report at www.goo.gl/52wuq).
Genetically modified crops DO NOT produce more food or use fewer pesticides, according to the report. As more resistant weeds and bugs develop, farmers are forced to use more and more herbicides and insecticides. Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety states, "The biotech indusrty is taking us into a more pesticide-dependent agriculture, and we need to be going in the opposite direction." So, if GM crops don't produce more, don't reduce pesticide use, or show promise of ending hunger around the world, why do the governments and industry promote them? You guessed it! MONEY!!!!
If GMOs fail, the shareholders in Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and other biotech companies will see their investments plummet. Yahoo! Finance says that 80 percent of Monsanto's stock is held by institutional holders such as Vanguard and funds such as Davis, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price.
If GMOs don't benefit the farmers who pay more for the GM seed, and if they don't benefit the consumers who unknowingly are eating them, who gains from GMOs? Stockbrokers, and you, if you have investments that own stock in Monsanto and other biotech companies.
In March, 2010, the US Justice Department launched an "unprecedented series of public meetings" into Monsanto's business practices as part of an antitrust investigation because Monsanto now controls so much of the world's seed stock. The Wall Street Journal reported, "The price of a bag of soybean seed, for example, has roughly quadrupled since Monsanto began licensing genes." Monsanto is by far the largest company involved in GM pateneted seeds. The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes also includes an appendix detailing Monsanto's long corporate history of misleading research, cover-ups, bribes and convictions in lawsuits ranging from Agent Orange to toxic waste discharge to GM soybeans.
The FDA and GMO supporters claim that labeling GM foods would be cumbersome and costly, ultimately raisng the cost of food. Labeling proponents point to the EU, Russia, Brazil, Japan, China, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, all of which require labels for GM foods and report costs are far lower than the industry and the FDA claim. Survey after survey and poll after poll have shown that consumers overwhelmingly favor labeling (but what do we know? It's only our health and our children's health).
In October 2011, the Center for Food Safety filed a petition demanding the FDA require labeling on all GM foods. The center filed the petition on behalf of the JUST LABEL IT! campaign, a coalition of more than 350 organizations and individuals concerned about food safety and consumer rights. The FDA's governing rules will require it to open a public docket where WE THE PEOPLE can comment on the petition. FDA officials have openly criticized efforts to label GM crops and food. In 2002, when Oregon voters considered Measure 27, a mandatory GMO labeling law, the FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester Crawford said in a letter to the governor of Oregon that mandatory labeling could "impermissibly interfere" with the food industry's ability to sell its products and could violate interstate commerce laws (BULLY tactics, why? MONEY!!!!).
The Oregon initiative was defeated, and MONEY was the reason why. "Monsanto took the financial lead against Measure 27, with contributions totaling $1,480,000. Next was DuPont, with $634,000," says Cameron Woodworth in Biotech Family Secrets, a report for the Council for Responsible Genetics.
Fruits and vegetables labeled "organic" made up the highest growth in sales of all organics in 2010 accorrding to the Organic Trade Association, up 11.8 percent.
WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT GMOS
1. Sign on to the Just Label It! campaign. Send letters to the FDA and your Congressmen, urge them to require labels on GM foods and products. Visit http://www.justlabelit.org/
2. If you grow your own food, buy your seed from companies that have signed the GMO-free pledge. See the Safe Seed List at www.goo.gl/TOePN.
3. Buy organic whenever possible.
4. Support local farmers who refuse to use GM products.
No comments:
Post a Comment