Friday, February 3, 2017


The Time For 

Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Is Over

 Ramon Seidler holding a jar of GM Maize
Published: 03 February 2017

With the question of the endocrine-disrupting potential of Roundup at real-world doses still unsolved and glyphosate classified as a probable carcinogen, it's time to restrict or ban glyphosate herbicides, writes Dr Ramon Seidler, PhD (pictured above)
In February last year a group of international scientists published a consensus statement drawing attention to the risks posed by rising levels of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), especially in the light of glyphosate’s classification by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC as a probable carcinogen. The scientists noted endocrine (hormone) disrupting effects of glyphosate herbicides in test-tube experiments and called for more studies to clarify whether levels present in foods and the environment can cause such effects in living humans.

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) have harmful effects on experimental mammals that are widely used as human surrogates at concentrations as low as parts per billion (ppb) and below.

Later in the year, the New York Times reported that GM glyphosate-tolerant crops have significantly increased the use of glyphosate-based herbicides in the US. This news was closely followed by the publication of a report by Food Democracy Now and the Detox Project showing high levels of glyphosate residues in popular foods and drinks.
Regulatory inaction
Given the increasing risk to people posed by EDs, you’d expect regulators to be eager to take action. But sadly the opposite is true. The European Commission has been so tardy in regulating them that the European Court of Justice has declared that it has “unlawfully refrained from laying down rules”. 

This issue of GBH exposures has gained urgency from a new study in rats, which showed that Roundup caused fatty liver disease at the minute concentration of 0.1 ppb given in drinking water over a long-term period. The glyphosate daily intake level from this dose was 4 nanograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day, which is 75,000 times below EU and 437,500 times below US permitted levels. The concentration of glyphosate in the drinking water (50 parts per trillion) was 14,000 times less than the concentration allowed in US drinking water (700 ppb).

Tests have shown that most Americans have glyphosate in their urine at ppb levels, suggesting a daily intake of around 1000-fold above the level that caused fatty liver disease in the rats. However, further research needs to be done to establish the glyphosate levels present in various body tissues, especially within endocrine organs like the pancreas.

It’s not certain that the fatty liver disease reported in the Roundup-fed rats was caused by the mechanism of endocrine disruption. But given the extremely low dose of Roundup that caused the effect and the known association between EDCs in general and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, endocrine disruption is one plausible mechanism. These observations call for urgent further research to be conducted to confirm Roundup/glyphosate-induced organ toxicity at real world levels of ingestion, and to provide insight into the mechanisms of toxicity, including ED effects.
Glyphosate herbicides and endocrine disruption
In 2009, the International Endocrine Society issued its first warning about the dangers associated with chemicals that interact with, take the place of, or inhibit or stimulate the action of natural human hormones (EDs). Today, based upon highly credible research published in peer-reviewed journals by scientists around the world, there is little doubt that GBHs are endocrine disruptors at the relatively high doses tested thus far. Their endocrine activity at low, realistic doses is still uncertain and requires further research.
According to the International Endocrine Society, there is strong mechanistic and epidemiological evidence that endocrine disruption plays a role in a wide range of maladies, including obesity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease associated with diabetes, female and male reproduction abnormalities (abnormal sperm and reduced fertility), hormone-sensitive cancers in females, prostate cancer, thyroid diseases, and neurodevelopment diseases (IQ loss and hyperactive behaviour).

Scientists have calculated that in the US alone, pesticide EDs cause some 7,500 annual serious disability cases and generate annual medical and lost work costs of about $45 (covering some endocrine disruptive chemical (EDC)-associated diseases within the European Union puts annual costs to health services within this region at €150 billion per annum and some $340 billion in the US.

Major international and national health and science institutions have recently documented their concerns about EDs, which include a need for improved testing, education, and research, as well as updated detection protocols and reduced exposures. These concerns have been expressed by the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, the American Chemical Society, the International Endocrine Society, and the World Health Organization, among others.
Use of endocrine disruptors should be suspended
Accordingly, I am of the firm belief that use of EDs – potentially including GBHs – should be suspended until thorough, transparent, and mathematically robust human epidemiological toxicology analyses are carried out by an international panel of respected scientific experts. The panel members should be chosen by other academic scientists and not involve industry or government participants. An analysis by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has already linked glyphosate exposure with cancer in humans. Yet apparently this is not sufficient evidence to end the use of GBHs.

I am not aware of any robust epidemiology studies investigating the possible effects of GBH exposures on endocrine-related diseases such as cancer, IQ loss, thyroid hormone perturbations, and organ changes. As stated in the international scientists’ consensus statement on glyphosate and its formulations, there are large gaps in our knowledge about such effects and more studies need to be carried out. Of course the absence of such published research is not a sign that GBHs do not cause endocrine effects. We have the technology and the scientists to do such work – but the latter apparently lack financial support and/or are worried about industry criticism and intimidation if the results show that GBHs should be banned.
Pesticide treadmill
Such additional studies of course will take time. In the meantime American farmers are fighting the failures of glyphosate technology to control weeds, with a concomitant loss of crop yields and farm profits. Industry's answer is to invoke the pesticide treadmill concept and tell farmers to use more pesticides, including GBHs, plus one or two other pesticides at the same time. These pesticides include probable carcinogens and/or endocrine disruptors, such as 2,4-D, isoxaflutoleneonicotinoids, and fungicides like triflumizole.

While selling more pesticides makes good business sense for the industry, for farmers and consumers it means increasing exposures and potentially serious environmental and health impacts. Little or no toxicological data are publicly available on the combined effects of GBHs when mixed with these other known toxic pesticides. This situation should worry everyone.
Short of a universal ban on GBHs in order to protect consumers who are exposed to and consume glyphosate in their food and drink, glyphosate applications should be highly restricted to approved licensed applicators only, under conditions of extreme agricultural need.

What good is it anyway to make multiple applications of GBHs when weed resistance is already a major problem? The only one to benefit is the industry that wants to sell the product. In this context regulators worldwide have steadily increased the allowable levels of glyphosate residues in crops and foods, apparently to accommodate increased levels of glyphosate being found in GM glyphosate-tolerant soybeans.

Such decisions do not enjoy public support, especially from those of us who believe that glyphosate herbicides do harm, may be endocrine disruptors, and are biologically active at levels commonly found in human urine.
Cigarette smoke, PCBs – and glyphosate herbicides
Industry claims that glyphosate is "safe" are reminiscent of similar claims made in the past over cigarette smoke, DDT, PCBs, thalidomide, diethylstilbestrol (DES), Agent Orange, atrazine, flame retardants, phthalates, bisphenol A, and artificial fragrances – all of which are endocrine disruptors.

Consumers are confused, and some are angry and frustrated with regulatory decisions dealing with the biosafety assessment of many commercial products. At the very least many of us feel that the influence of industry has been too strong in regulatory decisions.
Non-industry scientists should test chemicals for regulatory purposes
In the US, a series of poor regulatory decisions – such as allowing the continued use of atrazine, a toxic herbicide banned in Europe many years ago – have set up the EPA for continuing criticism, political and budgetary punishment, and, heaven forbid, talk of abolishing the agency. 

It is long past time for the US Congress to change the rules that now require industry to study and report risk evaluations to regulators prior to sale of new chemicals. Realities dictate that the opposite should be the case; i.e., regulators and government or academic scientists should conduct and study chemical safety parameters and report the independent results to industry. Funding for such determinations could come from an industry registration tax for each chemical being registered.
Consumers need and deserve better action from regulatory agencies to protect the health of our children and grandchildren and the environment they will inherit.

Today we need to know why the US EPA and other regulators around the world continue to make what many scientists and members of the public feel are decisions that lack common sense. In the US, I believe that we need publicly visible, politically courageous investigations within regulatory agencies, perhaps conducted by the Office of Inspector General, to attempt resolution of these crucial matters that affect the everyday lives of people around the world. Such legal investigations may be the only remaining hope to create strong, stable environmental agencies staffed with brave and courageous scientists and regulatory personnel who earn the support of their constituents through transparency, independence from industry, and common-sense regulatory decisions.

Dr Ramon Seidler, PhD, is a retired senior research scientist and Team Leader of the Genetically Engineered Organism biosafety program within the US EPA and former Professor of Microbiology at Oregon State University.

Image: Dr Ramon Seidler holds a jar of GM maize. In 2016 89% of the US corn acreage was herbicide-tolerant and most of this will be tolerant to glyphosate herbicides.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

RONNIE CUMMINS LAYS OUT PLANS FOR #ConsumerRevolution #PoliticalRevolution

Ronnie’s Inauguration Day Message  

Today, Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States.
Today, I'm announcing our #ConsumerRevolution and #PoliticalRevolution 2017-2020 platforms.
If Hillary Clinton placed her hand on a Bible today, promising to protect the U.S. Constitution, we would be organizing a massive movement to change her positions on many issues, including war, Big Ag and GMOs.
If Bernie Sanders took the oath of office today, we would be celebrating his authenticity, and his solid track record (not just lip-service) of support for at least 90 percent of the issues we care about. Then we’d get to work on the other 10 percent—with hope and enthusiasm.
But today, we witnessed the swearing in of a president who has signaled loud and clear his intent to maximize the profits of giant corporations—like Exxon Mobil, BP, and Monsanto and Bayer (whose merger he's set to approve)—on a scale never before seen in our lifetimes. Public and environmental health be damned.
Trump has appointed a slate of millionaire and billionaire corporate cronies to key, powerful positions, with orders to immediately set to work rolling back any regulations or policies that even hint at cutting into corporate profits. We will have an EPA Administrator, an Energy Secretary and a head of the CIA who largely reject the international scientific consensus that human behavior is a contributing factor to global warming.
We will have billionaire bankers running the U.S. Treasury Department and the American economy.
And yesterday we learned, not surprisingly, that the new USDA Secretary of Agriculture will be former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. Another millionaire climate-denier, Perdue is a cheerleader for the worst of the worst agribusiness corporations. Based on his history, Perdue will have no interest in protecting the interests of rural farmers, farm workers or consumers from the routine poisoning of our food, water and air by factory farms, pesticides and GMOs.
We have our work cut out for us in the coming months and years. As Frances Fox Piven, a professor of political science and sociology, recently wrote, we’ll need to keep signing petitions, but that won't be enough. We’ll need to, as she said, “throw sand in the gears of everything” just to protect the most basic of human rights.
With that in mind, we have developed two platforms that will guide our work, beginning immediately.
#Consumer Revolution 2017-2020

Overarching goal: Force corporations that sell consumer products, including food, clothing, drugs and personal care products, to respond to consumer demand for truthfully labeled products that have a positive impact on human health and are produced using regenerative processes and practices that not only prevent harm to human health and the environment but also measurably improve soils and combat global warming.
(1)    Move toward making organic, 100% grass-fed, and regenerative food and farming the norm, not just the 5-percent alternative in the marketplace, by doubling sales of organic to $80 billion by 2020, and by increasing sales of U.S. grass-fed meat and dairy, and organic and pastured poultry and pork by at least 400 percent by 2020.
(2)    Achieve a 50-percent reduction in sales of GMO food and animal feed by 2020, with the aim of driving GMO animal feed off the market.
(3)    Force major food brands and companies that fraudulently label their products as “natural,” “organic” or “GMO-free” to remove misleading labels and/or transition their products and production methods to organic and/or regenerative practices.
(4)    Increase market share for clothing made from organic cotton, wool and other natural fibers through a high-profile “Care What You Wear” campaign that encourages consumers to boycott GMO cotton and synthetic fibers.
#PoliticalRevolution 2017-2020
Overarching goal: Reform the current political process to create a democracy that works for all people, not just wealthy corporations and the 1%, by uniting the food, climate, economic and social justice, natural health and peace movements in a coordinated effort to support candidates, elected public officials and policies, at the local, state and federal levels, that support our common goals.
(1)    Support the candidates and elected officials endorsed by the post-Bernie Sanders movements, including “Brand New Congress” and “Our Revolution.”
(2)    Lobby candidates and elected public officials to support OCA’s #ConsumerRevolution platform
(3)    Lobby candidates and elected public officials to support the “Our Revolution” platform, with the addition of:
•    on climate: a focus on regenerative agriculture and soil carbon sequestration as a global warming solution, in addition to fossil fuel emissions reduction and renewable energy

•    on healthcare: a focus on "Medicare for all" that includes coverage for preventive, natural and alternative healthcare solutions
•    on food: a focus on food policy that supports consumer health and consumer right to know, and acknowledges the role food production plays in environmental and climate policy

•    on living wage: a focus on raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour so that lower-income Americans can afford organic food
(4)    Organize local grassroots meet-ups and coalitions to run candidates, for local and state offices, who support our issues.
(5)    Oppose any candidates or policies that promote racism, sexism, homophobia, militarism and all forms of discrimination, whenever and wherever they arise.
(6)    Oppose any laws or illegal attempts to disenfranchise voters.
(7)    Support the decriminalization of drug use, including the legalization of marijuana, and oppose the war on drugs.
(8)    Combat climate change by promoting candidates and policies that advance regenerative food, farming and land use, in addition to fossil fuel emissions reduction and renewable energy, as solutions for achieving zero emissions, for reversing global warming by sequestering excess CO2 and greenhouse gases in soil and forests, and for addressing our public health, water and environmental crises.
Why do we need a revolution?
Our democracy is broken. Under the Trump Administration, we could witness the final collapse.
The handful of corporations that control our food, farming, energy and pharmaceutical industries have corrupted the marketplace to the point that it generates enormous profits for CEOs and shareholders at the expense of workers, consumer choice, human health and the environment.
Our political process no longer works for a majority of people in this country, much less for the future of the common good. The failure of this process can be traced to the disproportionate influence of corporations and the uber-wealthy (1%) on policymaking, either through direct lobbying or by using generous campaign contributions to buy the loyalty of incumbent and/or future politicians.
These systemic failures originated and are perpetuated from the top down. They will be corrected only by a bottom-up grassroots rejection of the status quo, by a critical mass of citizens who hold a new, more hopeful vision for a healthier, safer, more equitable future.
What can you do?
Today, I call on you personally to get involved in our consumer and political revolutions. OCA and our allies will be organizing as never before at the local and state levels, pulling together the energy and talents of people young and old, from environmental, social justice, peace—every movement that shares our vision.
We’ll need people who live in and understand the needs of rural communities. We’ll need city dwellers. We’ll need lawyers and accountants. Farmers and factory workers. Moms and Dads.
We will have to work together, for each other. Because it's clear that our elected officials will not be working for us.
It’s time to get out from behind our laptops and cell phones, to break out of our silos, to break the pattern of single-issue organizing.
Please follow our communications as we roll out critical new consumer and political campaigns. Please share our messages far and wide. Please attend the community meetings and house parties we will soon be organizing.
And if you can, please support our critical work with a donation today—or better yet, become a monthly donor. Thank you!
In Solidarity,
Ronnie Cummins
International Director

P.S. We are raising money for the Organic Consumers Fund (OCF), our 501(c)(4) lobbying arm. Contributions to OCF are not tax deductible. But OCF funding is critically needed for our political work. You can donate online, by mail or by phonedetails hereThank you!

Friday, January 27, 2017


California clears hurdle for cancer warning label on Roundup
January 27, 2017 by Scott Smith
California fights Monsanto on labels for popular weed killer
Containers of Roundup, left, a weed killer is seen on a shelf with other products for sale at a hardware store in Los Angeles on Thursday, Jan. 26, 2017. 

A battle over the main ingredient in Roundup, the popular weed killer sprayed by …more
California can require Monsanto to label its popular weed-killer Roundup as a possible cancer threat despite an insistence from the chemical giant that it poses no risk to people, a judge tentatively ruled Friday.

California would be the first state to order such labeling if it carries out the proposal.
Monsanto had sued the nation's leading agricultural state, saying California officials illegally based their decision for carrying the warnings on an international health organization based in France.

Monsanto attorney Trenton Norris argued in court Friday that the labels would have immediate financial consequences for the company. He said many consumers would see the labels and stop buying Roundup.

"It will absolutely be used in ways that will harm Monsanto," he said.
After the hearing, the firm said in a statement that it will challenge the tentative ruling.
Critics take issue with Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell. Monsanto introduced it in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.

It's sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 250 types of crops.
The chemical is not restricted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which says it has "low toxicity" and recommends people avoid entering a field for 12 hours after it has been applied.
But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a Lyon, France-based branch of the U.N. World Health Organization, classified the chemical as a "probable human carcinogen."

Shortly afterward, the most populated U.S. state took its first step in 2015 to require the warning labels.

St. Louis-based Monsanto contends that California is delegating its authority to an unelected foreign body with no accountability to U.S. or state officials in violation of the California Constitution.

Attorneys for California consider the International Agency for Research on Cancer the "gold standard" for identifying carcinogens, and they rely on its findings along with several states, the federal government and other countries, court papers say.
Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan still must issue a formal decision, which she said would come soon.

California regulators are waiting for the formal ruling before moving forward with the warnings, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Once a chemical is added to a list of probable carcinogens, the manufacturer has a year before it must attach the label, he said.

Teri McCall believes a warning would have saved her husband, Jack, who toted a backpack of Roundup for more than 30 years to spray weeds on their 20-acre avocado and apple farm. He died of cancer in late 2015.

"I just don't think my husband would have taken that risk if he had known," said Teri McCall, one of dozens nationwide who are suing Monsanto, claiming the chemical gave them or a loved one cancer.

But farmer Paul Betancourt, who has been using Roundup for more than three decades on his almond and cotton crops, says he does not know anyone who has gotten sick from it.

"You've got to treat it with a level of respect, like anything else," he said. "Gasoline will cause cancer if you bathe in the stuff."

Thursday, January 26, 2017


Organic Checkoff Program Advances

Can industry funds help the organic industry strengthen and clarify its brand for confused consumers?

BY SARAH SHEMKUS  |  AgroecologyFood Policy
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today released a proposal intended to get more organic food onto shopping lists and dinner plates across the country by pooling money from organic farmers, handlers, and processors to promote the sector, educate consumers, and conduct research on organic production methods. Once up and running, the program could invest more than $30 million annually, according to estimates by the Organic Trade Association (OTA).
“We’re really pleased the USDA is moving forward this well vetted proposal,” said Laura Batcha, CEO and executive director of the OTA. “It is an industry self-investment that makes a lot of sense now and will make a lot of sense in the new administration as well.”
The proposal appeared on the Federal Register today, and it’s a big step in a process that has already taken over two years of collaboration by multiple stakeholders. It also arrives at a critical moment for the organic industry. Though organic food is increasingly popular—sales were up 11 percent to $43.5 billion in 2015—U.S.-grown supply isn’t keeping up with demand. Despite the growing market, the complicated and costly process of becoming a certified organic grower keeps many farmers from attempting the transition. At the same time, labels like “natural” and “non-GMO” are sowing confusion with consumers about the true meaning and value of the organic designation.
The proposed program is designed to address these challenges.
Similar plans—called “checkoff” programs—have long existed for commodities such as milk, beef, and eggs. Producers are required to pay into a central fund, and the money goes to education, research, and promotions—think “Got Milk?” or “Pork: The Other White Meat.”
In 2014, a new Farm Bill was signed into law. The legislation allowed organic producers to opt out of conventional commodity checkoffs and called for the creation of an organic program if there was sufficient interest. For the first time, a checkoff program could be defined by how a food is produced rather than by what it is. OTA then submitted an application in May 2015 to the USDA to get the process started.
Here’s how it would work, according to the current proposal: The program, called GRO Organic (Generic Research and Promotion Order for Organic), would be run by a 17-member board of directors, independent of the OTA. Any larger business with an organic certification—from the farmer who grows the organic cucumbers to the processor who turns them into organic pickles—would contribute, unless it already belongs to another checkoff program and chooses to stay with that group. Small businesses—those with less than $250,000 in revenue—are not required to join but can opt in. The board will be made up of a split between farmers and handlers.
“The entire value chain is inextricably linked,” Batcha said. “Acknowledging that, the program is built so that everybody participates.”
Supporters of the proposal include leaders of Organic Valley’s dairy cooperative, Stonyfield Farm, Pete and Gerry’s Organic Eggs, and Late July Snacks.
The board would run educational initiatives and promotional campaigns intended to boost demand by helping consumers understand the benefits of organic foods. Growing demand, in turn, should help lure more farmers into making the leap from conventional agriculture.
According to the checkoff’s supporters, farmers and processors wouldn’t be the only ones to benefit, however. Together, greater supply and more efficient farming should make organic a more affordable option, said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.
“Over time, real prices should fall,” said Cook. “That’s a positive thing for consumers.”
At the same time, the program would conduct research into areas such as farming technology and more effective pest control techniques, making production more efficient. At least 25 percent of the GRO Organic funds would go to local and regional research. These funds would also support technical assistance, helping organic farmers improve their growing practices.
Support for the proposal, however, is far from universal.
“The concern we have is checkoffs have not done what they are designed to do,” said John Bobbe, executive director of the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing, which opposes the proposed program.
Checkoff organizations have a long history of mismanagement and abuse, he said, pointing for example to recent allegations that the American Egg Board illegally used funds to conspire against the vegan mayonnaise company Hampton Creek. Furthermore, he worries that the needs of processors and handlers could override the interests of farmers—who have traditionally received a small portion of the profit from the $40 billion-and-growing organic market.
Batcha stresses that the proposal is designed to avoid the pitfalls that have plagued some conventional commodity checkoffs. Board members are limited to two three-year terms to prevent any one person from accumulating too much influence. In addition, members of the program would have to vote on whether to continue the checkoff every seven years, to hold the organization accountable to those it represents, Batcha said.
“Stakeholders paying in have the comfort that they get to evaluate every seven years whether it’s working,” she said.
Still, some are skeptical of any program overseen by the government. Checkoffs overseen by the USDA are not allowed to disparage other products; some wonder whether it makes sense to promote organic foods without claiming that they are healthier or safer than their less-pricey conventional alternatives.
“You can be more flexible with your messaging and even more efficient with the dollars if you’re not tied to the government,” said Harriet Behar, senior organic specialist with the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES).
And there are alternatives to going through the USDA, she noted. Pistachio growers, for example, have formed a voluntary, independent checkoff that is not subject to the same governmental restrictions.
The proposal released today will be open for public comment for 60 days. Supporters are hoping the incoming administration won’t do anything to interfere with the program.
“This is an industry that came to Washington and said, ‘We want regulation so we can grow,’” Cook said. “That kind of entrepreneurial zeal should not be discouraged.”
Once the proposal has been finalized, organic farmers and processors will get to vote on whether to make the program a reality.

“A yes vote in this referendum would begin this grand seven-year experiment, to see whether industry coordination can make a difference,” Batcha said.


New Paper Justifies Moratorium of GMOs

On Dec 19, 2016 a team of scientists published a new paper* revealing that GMO corn, NK603 a Roundup-tolerant variety, showed alarming differences from non GMO corn. The variety showed to have metabolism disturbances caused by the GMO process and the presence of cadaverine and putrescine, chemicals which can be toxic. The presence of these differences show that concern for harm, when GMOs are consumed by humans, is warranted. The impact of these disturbances and chemicals are unknown. The rise of health conditions in the USA is a known however, since the introduction of GMOs, food allergies have increased 400%. Currently 1 out 2 American children have a chronic illness such as autoimmune disease, asthma, allergies, autism, diabetes or obesity.
As described in the paper, metabolism disturbances, cadaverine, and putrescine found in NK603, prove that this GMO corn is significantly different from non GMO corn and therefore the basis for the FDA’s approval of GMOs, “GRAS” - Generally Recognized As Safe- is unfounded. The basis for the GRAS approval was on the claim that GMOs are not substantially different from non GMO food and therefore should not require any additional safety testing. This claim is also how companies like Monsanto persuaded the FDA to classify GMOs as a “process” and not an “additive”. “Additives” in food require long term safety testing and labeling, “processes” do not. Clearly however, a genetically engineered food undergoes both the process of genetic manipulation and the addition of genetic material or changes to the DNA or RNAi, which are additional. Further testing will detect GMO proteins and changes to the food.
The paper points out some disturbing changes and impacts from the genetic engineering: Regarding the presence of cadaverine and putrescine: “toxicological effects such as nausea, headaches, rashes and changes in blood pressure are provoked by the consumption of foods with high concentrations of polyamines (cadaverine and putrescine) 56.
This section reminded me of when my family went out to eat and my son ate a corn tortilla and onion rings, likely cooked in GMO corn or canola oil, and within minutes he had nausea, headache, rash, and felt like he would faint. The area around his mouth went white and he began shaking.  After getting up and walking around, he improved, but he is now determined to only eat organic, and his health has benefited tremendously.
The paper continues:
“Putrescine and cadaverine have been reported as potentiators of the effects of histamine, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines with nitrite in meat products"
Histamine is connected to food allergy reactions, which kill hundreds of children a year in the USA, a phenomena which was unheard of 30 years ago.
It would be speculative to say that my son’s reaction is connected this particular type of corn, as I have no idea what kind of corn it was, but the fact that GMO corn has been proven to create polyamines raises great concern for the hundreds of GMOs which make up 85-100% of major food crops on the market. Who knows what toxins were in the GMO canola, soy, corn and sugar he likely ate that night? I assert that they must all be tested and until proven safe, a moratorium on GMOs must be enacted.
Cancer rates are also skyrocketing: 1 out of 2 males and 1 out of 3 females are expected to get cancer in the USA. Should we really be consuming GMO food and chemicals which have been linked to cancer?
And finally:
“Glutathione metabolism was significantly altered in the NK603 when Roundup was sprayed during cultivation. Glutathione is known to be an important antioxidant in most living organisms, preventing damage to important cellular components caused by several environmental pollutants, including agrochemicals
This reminded me of my best friend’s daughter who developed a cerebral palsy type condition after her 3 month vaccines. Her mother was told that her daughter had a severe deficiency in the ability to produce glutathione. We have since tested vaccines and found glyphosate (Roundup) to be present in all 5 childhood vaccines. Could these circumstances be linked? Could the fact that glyphosate is also present in so many American foods be linked to the overall spike in childhood illnesses?
The significance of these findings of substantial non-equivalence, which was long expected, and proven in other ways in other studies, provides more evidence that the FDA is not doing their job to protect the American people and livestock. This evidence shows that the FDA should immediately put a moratorium on all GMOs until proven safe.
It is astonishing that the FDA has been bullied and/or bribed into overlooking the studies showing harm and have allowed GMO products in our food supply. Yet, they have: GMO products have expanded into corn, soy, sugar from sugar beets, cotton seed, canola, Hawaiian Papaya, some zucchini and yellow squash, potatoes, apples, pineapples, salmon,  and soon, bananas. Hundreds of varieties of GMO wait in the pipeline.
Poisoning our population simply must stop.
While many consumers call for a moratorium on GMOs, waiting for the FDA to protect us, however, is not sensible, we must protect our families now. Mothers and women make 90% of the household purchasing decision. We buy most of the food. If we simply say that we will not buy GMO food, then they cannot sell it. If we put a moratorium on GMO in our households, eventually farmers will not grow them, and we can, on our own, eliminate GMOs in the market place.
It makes a difference when we put down the corn chip Doritos and pick up the organic chips or an organic apple instead. It makes a difference when we buy organic milk, eggs and bread. With every organic purchase we make we send the message that we do not want GMO and chemical farming. We do not want toxins in our food. We put the safety of our children and the future of our country FIRST.
Zen Honeycutt
Moms Across America Executive Director