Wednesday, February 19, 2014

GE GENES TRANSFER INTO HUMANS

Confirmed: DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Are Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism. (0) 
It’s interesting to ponder if the scientists at these biotech corporations have already identified this method? In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA.  
The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine.  It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspecting for years.
When it comes to genetically modified crops and foods, we really have no idea of what the long term effects will be on the public. The very first commercial sale of genetically modified foods was only twenty years ago in the year 1994.
There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with certainty that they are harmless. Geneticist David Suzuki recently expressed his concern, saying that human beings are part of a “massive genetic experiment” over many years, as thousands of people continue to consume GMO’s, and it makes sense.
Advances in genome science over the past few years have revealed that organisms can share their genes. Prior to this, it had been thought that genes were shared only between individual members of a species through reproduction. Geneticists usually followed the inheritance of genes in what they would call a ‘vertical’ fashion, such as breeding a male and female -you follow their offspring and continue down the road from there.
Today, scientists recognize that genes are shared not only among the individual members of a species, but also among members of different species.
Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.
It’s not like a human being mates with an apple, banana or a carrot plant and exchanges genes. What biotechnology and biotech corporations like Monsanto have done, is they have allowed for the transfer of genes from one to the other without any regard for the biological limitations, or constraints. The problem with this is that it is based on very bad science.
The conditions and biological ‘rules’ that apply to vertical gene transfer, at least those that we are aware of, do not necessarily apply to horizontal gene transfer. Biotech science today is based on the assumption that the principles governing the inheritance of genes are the same when we move genes horizontally as they are when they are moved vertically.
It just goes to show that GMO’s should be subjected to much more experimentation and rigorous research before we continue to consume them.
How can our governing health authorities approve these as safe? It’s almost as if they told us they were safe, and we just believed them without questioning it. We seem to be a very gullible race, but things are changing and more are starting to question the world around them.
One small mutation in a human being can determine so much, the point is when you move a gene, one gene, one tiny gene out of an organism into a different one you  completely change its context. There is no way to predict how it’s going to behave and what the outcome will be. We think that we design these life forms, but it’s like taking the Toronto orchestra prepared to play a Beethoven symphony and then you take some random drummers from “here” and flip them in with the Toronto symphony  and you say play music. What comes out is going to be something very very different. Publicists say that there is good intention behind GMOs, but the fact of the matter is it’s driven by money. – David Suzuki
I personally believe the intentions go beyond money, but that’s another story.
It’s also pretty clear that DNA from food can and does end up in animal tissues and the milk products that people eat. (4)(5)
There are studies that show when humans or animals digest genetically modified foods, the artificially created genes transfer into and alter the character of the beneficial bacteria in the intestine. Researchers report that microbes found in the small bowel of people with ilestomy are capable of acquiring and harboring DNA sequences from GM plants.(1)
Genetically modified crops have infiltrated animal feed since 1996, and it’s normal for them to have a complete GM diet. Studies have linked GMO animal feed to severe stomach inflammation and enlarged uteri in pigs.
It’s also important to note that gene transfer among genetically engineered agricultural crops and surrounding native species has given rise to a highly resistant species called super weeds. According to the world health organization, gene transfer and the movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species may have an effect on food safety and food security.
“This risk is real, as was shown when traces of maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products from human consumption in the United States.” (3)
The truth is, genetic engineers have never taken the reality of gene transfer into consideration when they produce these things and introduce them into the environment. As a result, we are now starting to see the consequences of genes that are engineered, particularly how they spread and alter other organisms in various environments. Watrud et al (2004) found that the herbicide-resistance transgene spread via pollen to an area up to 21 km beyond the control area perimeter and had pollinated wild creeping bentgrass.(2)
Prior to this year, governments concluded that transfer of DNA from GM crops/foods is unlikely to occur. Now we can see that they are wrong, or perhaps they had knowledge of this already?
Regardless of the fact that DNA from GM foods can be transferred to humans and animals, very little is still known today and what is known does not look good.
There are studies linking GMO’s and pesticides to various ailments. We’ve presented and written about them on our website numerous times, this is another article to add to the growing amount of evidence to suggest we need to halt the production of GMO’s until we conclusively know that they are safe for human consumption.
It’s not a mystery why most countries around the world have completely banned GMO’s.
SOURCES:
Lipton, H Bruce, The Biology of Belief. United States: Hay House INC. 2006

Read more at http://naturalrevolution.org/confirmed-dna-from-genetically-modified-crops-are-transferred-into-humans-who-eat-them/#3i4tRzUwFeXpCe57.99

GE FOOD LABELING - THE OCA FACT SHEET WITH CITATIONS

OCA's GMO Talking Points

·         Organic Consumers Association, February 7, 2014 
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto pageand our Genetic Engineering page.

In January, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) obtained the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s (GMA) “One-Pager” of talking points about GMOs and GMO labeling laws. The document is intended for use by food industry lobbyists whose job it is to convince state lawmakers to reject GMO labeling bills in their states.

The GMA’s talking points include the usual misinformation about GMO safety testing and the so-called benefits of GMOs. They also include claims that GMO labeling laws are unconstitutional—claims that, as we explain here, are baseless.

The OCA has its own list of GMO talking points. A list we don’t need to “leak.” We’re happy to make it public for everyone, not just lobbyists and the politicians they hope to influence. Because our talking points are backed up by facts, research and reliable sources.

I. Facts on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

Genetically engineered crops do not improve yield.

Source: Failure to Yield, Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-fo...

Less than 1% of genetically engineered crops are disease-resistant.
Source: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-r...

For Hawaiian papaya, the only major disease-resistant crop, yields are down, costs to farmers are up.
Sources: War of the Papayas http://bit.ly/LQT67d
Papaya Production Taking a Tumble http://bit.ly/LzDZRb

Insects quickly develop resistance to crops engineered to produce insecticides, requiring extensive and diverse insecticide use.
Source: Monsanto Shares Slip on Bug-Resistant Corn Woeshttp://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9PDS5KO0.htm

Weeds quickly adopt genetically engineered crops’ herbicide tolerant traits, requiring excessive and varied herbicide use. 
Sources: Resistant weeds by species and country
http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?1st.MO...
Killer Pig Weeds Threatens Crops in the South
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/pig-weed-threatens-agriculturein...
'Superweed' explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2009/10923-...

Monsanto pays farmers to use more herbicide on its genetically engineered crops. 
Sources: US Farmers Cope with RoundUp-resistant weeds
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environ...
Monsanto paying farmers to increase herbicide use http://bit.ly/az3fSo

Genetically engineered crops require 26% more pesticides than normal crops.
Source: http://www.organic-center.org/reportfile/13Years20091126_...

The only drought-resistant genetically engineered crop, a corn variety developed by Monsanto, is only useful for 15% of U.S. corn.
Source: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/monsantos-drough...

The cost of farming papaya has gone up. A Hawaiian genetically engineered papaya farmer says, “The price is going down and still the costs of farming goes up.” Quoted in “Papaya production taking a tumble.”
Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Mar/19/bz/...

The cost of genetically engineered seeds has gone up.
Source: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15093-...

Herbicide costs have gone up for farmers growing genetically engineered crops.
Source: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/superweeds...

Insecticide costs have gone up for farmers growing genetically engineered crops.
Source: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/india/2012/10/16/in-india...

Costs for farmers have increased due to genetically engineered crops’ decreased nitrogen fixation. 
Source: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-o...

II. Facts on Current Federal Policy on Genetically Engineered Food Labels

The Grocery Manufacturers Association quotes the FDA, as saying:


The agency is still not aware of any data or other information that would form a basis for concluding that the fact that a food or its ingredients was produced using bioengineering is a material fact that must be disclosed…FDA is therefore reaffirming its decision to not require special labeling of all bioengineered foods.
- Food and Drug Administration, 2001 http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocume...

The GMA is quoting a 2001 draft guidance on voluntary labels that was never finalized. This is what they want to become law, but it is not the law. The 2001 draft guidance suggests that genetically engineered food should not be labeled, absent a finding that genetically engineered food are harming human health. That is not the standard under current law for food labels.

The relevant FDA document is: 

FDA Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 1992
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocume...

The standard for requiring labels under current law is that information is needed to prevent consumer confusion or deception.

Consumers are unaware that some foods have been genetically engineered, and if they do know that genetic engineering is being used to produce food, they cannot identify those foods.

Consumers believe that foods like corn and soy are the same crops that have been cultivated by humans for thousands of years. In fact, these and other food crops have been engineered at the genetic level to produce unique, patentable traits, that have never before been part of the human diet. That information is material whether or not we know the health consequences of eating these foods.
Source: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-lab...

III. What Independent Scientific Organizations Actually Say

The World Health Organization:


"Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods."
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20ques...

The American Medical Association:

"(4) Our AMA supports mandatory pre-market systematic safety assessments of bioengineered foods and encourages: (a) development and validation of additional techniques for the detection and/or assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or toxicant levels in bioengineered foods as part of a substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d) that priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to support the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens. The FDA is urged to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods and update its regulatory policies accordingly."
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/PolicyFinder/policy...

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences:

The products of genetic engineering “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.”
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=1

IV. Is There a Constitutional Issue?

No.  


“Where a law compels disclosure of ‘purely factual and uncontroversial information,’ the law need only be ‘reasonably related to the [government’s] interest in preventing deception of consumers’ to pass muster under the First Amendment.”
Source: American Meat Institute v. USDA
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013...

The GMA points out that one labeling statute has been overturned for violating the First Amendment: “In 1996, the Second Federal Circuit in the case of IDFA v. Amestoy, applied the test found in Central Hudson Gas and blocked a Vermont law that required dairy producers to label milk from cows treated with a growth hormone. The court explained that Vermont’s stated interests in adopting the law – strong consumer interest and the public’s right to know – were not substantial enough to justify the functional equivalent of a warning about a production method that has no discernible impact on a final product.”

The reasoning of IDFA v. Amestoy was overturned in IDFA v. Boggs.http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0322p-06.pdf

If the GMA sues, the case will be dismissed.

The current situation, where the vast majority of consumers know virtually nothing about how genetic engineering is being used in food production, is a case of consumer confusion that demands action.

There are proponents of genetic engineering in agriculture that support labels. 
Sources: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe934 (Consumer Attitudes Toward Biotech Food)
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/10/why-we-need-to-label-gmos/

A label that says "produced with genetic engineering" makes a neutral statement of fact. It is not an advertisement and it is not a warning label. The label is not trying to induce the consumer to reach for or reject the product. It is just a simple fact.

The only basis the state needs to require labeling is that, absent a label, consumers will be confused or misled.

Most people figure that some food sold in stores today is genetically engineered. (Among people whose education is a high school degree or less, only 44.7% know this, while 81.4% who have a college degree or beyond know it.) But, very few people can identify those foods. Only one of four people say they completely understand genetically engineered food.
Source: http://www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/NPR...

V. What is the GMA?

The GMA says it is “the voice of more than 300 leading food, beverage and consumer product companies that sustain and enhance the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people in the United States, and around the globe. Based in Washington, D.C., GMA’s member organizations include internationally recognized brands as well as steadily growing localized brands.”

GMA members include Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft, Ely Lily, General Mills and Syngenta.
Source: http://www.gmaonline.org/forms/MemberDirectory/viewMember...

More on the GMA here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_29171.cfm

Research compiled by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Bt TOXINS - NEW CANADIAN NEW STUDY -BAD NEWS FOR HUMANS

Monsanto’s Bt-Toxins Found to Kill Human Embryo Cells

Christina Sarich
by 
January 24th, 2014
Updated 01/24/2014 at 1:15 am
genetically modified corn 263x175 Monsanto’s Bt Toxins Found to Kill Human Embryo CellsMany individuals have heard it a million times, but for the uninformed, or those just looking to fuel their 2014 fire to finally defeat Monsanto and their cronies, you’ll be interested to know that Monsanto’s Bt-toxin is far from ‘safe’ as the chemical company claimed it would be when filing their papers with the FDA. New research from Canada show that BT toxins are showing up in pregnant women, and low and behold – they are killing human embryo cells. 2014 is the year of the horse, but we’re not through beating this one to death.
It’s called reproductive toxicology, and just like their suicide seeds, these Bt toxins are starting to kill our own unborn children. This is no exaggeration. Hopefully reading further will compel you to take action. It is time to put Monsanto to rest, bankrupt them, and let the world know their ‘secrets’ near and far.
Bt toxins are prominent in genetically altered crops such as corn, soy, wheat, and others, called Cry1Ab – and they can be lethal. Not only do these cry-toxins target the kidney cells of developing human fetuses, but when Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac are combined with RoundUp, they can delay apoptosis of human cancer cells. What’s worse, glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, also causes necrosis – i.e. the death of human tissue, and this happens even when the substance is found in much smaller amounts than what is currently being used on our agricultural crops. The stuff is still carcinogenic in the parts per trillion range.
In its rush to remain the ‘agricultural leader’ of the world, the US government erected defunct regulatory bodies that have no means to truly examine the ramifications of biotechnology on our food. The National Institute of Health (NIH) is a joke and the FDA gave Monsanto an indefinite hall pass to cause mayhem on the food supply.
More people need to file lawsuits against this company until they are without one red cent to continue poisoning the planet and killing our unborn babies. The Organic Seed Grower’s Association sued Monsanto in 2011, and Idaho wheat growers are suing Monsanto for cross-contamination, but what about parental groups? Mother’s Against Drunk Driving was formed when a mom lost her baby to a drunk driver. Perhaps the mothers who face reproductive failure due to Monsanto’s hand can sue them collectively.
The FDA’s internal memos about their concerns surrounding GMO seed crops recently surfaced in one lawsuit, though the public was never meant to see them. GMO foods are not the foods we have always eaten. This is an outright lie.
Any lawyers out there willing to go against the monopoly? I’d sign a class action suit today. Would you? In the meantime, utilize these 5 tips for avoiding GMOs while you write your local senator, state representatives, congressman, and president.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-bt-toxins-found-kill-human-embryo-cells/#ixzz2tj3fabJn
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

PUBLIC HEARINGS: GE FOOD LABELING NEW YORK & MARYLAND

The Next GMO Battlegrounds: New York State & Maryland

Christina Sarich
by 
February 17th, 2014
Updated 02/17/2014 at 1:12 am

GMO labeling rally 263x165 The Next GMO Battlegrounds: New York State & MarylandPublic hearings are about to be held in two major cities of the US, just within earshot of mainstream media and the politicians on Biotech’s payroll. Albany, New York and Annapolis, Maryland are hosting these important debates in order to sway Congress into making a choice about labeling GMOs.
While the heavily and illegally funded Grocery Manufacturer’s Association carried out the chess move of relocating the GMO battle to Washington, D.C., enlisting more than 28 food and Big Ag organizations to help do its bidding in Congress, it did so because the last major state-battles were won at a heavy cost. If a federal mandate were passed, they cold stop funneling illegal millions into state-by-state campaigns.
A GMA-led coalition may have won battles in California and Washington, but many GMO labeling advocates are disdainful of their tactics.
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said the new coalition was organized to “steal away consumer choice in Congress.”
Of course, there are vocal detractors in the GMA – Leah Wilkinson, a director of ingredients, pet food, and state affairs for the American Feed Industry Association says that, “GMO labeling should be a federal solution.”Note the word ‘solution,’ – the carefully chosen method of propaganda evident in this very statement. A solution for who? The billion-dollar biotech and food manufacturing industries? It certainly wouldn’t be a solution for the many millions who want to know what is in their food before they buy it.
They aren’t that bright, though, if you look at the next statement coming from Wilkinson’s double-tipped tongue:
“If a labeling solution is not agreed upon and even a few of the pending state initiatives are successful, the feed industry’s costs of doing business goes up, on-farm production costs go up, and ultimately the consumer pays the price, with no important information in hand.”
Correction: the cost of doing business the corrupt way goes up. Companies like Costco and others that are selling non-GMO, organic products are actually doing quite well. Their stock is up. Within this simple admission is the evident fear of biotech. They are trying to project on us their own nervous projections of losing important Agri-business. In the meantime, GMO-labeling advocates aren’t just demanding to know what’s in their food, they are starting to come up with their own methods – like growing their own.
The pro-labeling side got there first with federal legislation sponsored by U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and U.S. Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) to mandate national labeling of GMO foods.
At this point, the GMA-led group does not have specific legislation, but there is a list of elements that members want to see in their “solution.” These include:

  • No “patchwork” of 50 state GMO safety and labeling laws, translates to this: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will continue as the nation’s authority, not individual states where people make their own choices about what goes in their food supply.
  • Labeling should advance food safety and require safety, health and nutritional reasons for any mandated GMO labeling. What exactly is nutritious about Bt toxins that kill human embryo cells?
  • Standards should exist for voluntary labeling to inform consumers whether GE processing was or was not used. Voluntary is the key word here. Meaning, biotech has the option of telling you if something is safe – we’ve seen just how effective that has been thus far.
  • FDA will define “natural” so that the term is used consistently. Do we really trust the FDA, purveyor of thousands of toxic drugs and genetically modified organisms deciding what ‘natural’ is?
As reported by FoodSafetyNews:
“Last year, a GMO bill died late in the session in Albany. GMO bills are back in both the Empire State Senate and the Assembly. Bipartisan sponsorship by Democrat Linda Rosenthal in the Assembly and Republican Ken LaValle in the Senate on a bill that requires all GMO food sold in the state to be labeled will get hearings in both chambers, probably in late March.
Furthermore, Maryland’s House Bill 1191, which is cross-filed as Senate Bill 0776, has been scheduled for a hearing before the Health and Government Operations Committee on March 11 at 1 p.m. The House/Senate measures require specified raw foods and packaged foods that are entirely or partially produced with GMO ingredients to be labeled.”
If you live in one of these states, or can get to them, please actively participate in the public hearings. Your voice counts. It can help protect state’s rights to choose before it is swallowed up into the federal-Monsanto-Dupont-Dow-biotech black hole forever.


Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/next-gmo-battlegrounds-new-york-state-maryland/#ixzz2tj0uOSon
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Sunday, February 16, 2014

GE FOOD AND LABELING FACTS - ELIZABETH KUCINICH

Main Entry Image
Elizabeth Kucinich Headshot

Warning: Industry Spin May Be Hazardous to Your Health; Learn the Truth About GE Foods

Posted: Updated: 
Print Articl
It seems like every day the food movement is gaining more power in the fight for the consumers' right to know what is in our food. Two weeks ago 200 businesses and organizations sent a letter to President Obama asking him to fulfill his 2007 campaign promise to label foods made with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Just last week, Hawaiians rallied together to defeat a legislative maneuver designed to strip local control over agriculture. And states like Vermont and Maryland are advancing state bills to mandate that big food manufacturers label products made with GE ingredients (sometimes called GMOs).
This is great news for consumers, but there is one group that doesn't like what they are reading: the big agrichemical and food manufacturing firms that make billions selling GE products. To push back against the growing power of the food movement, one such group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, formed a new coalition last week to bring together some of the biggest players in GE food production. TheCoalition for Safe Affordable Food will use their deep pockets to push back against the food movement's successes.
Comprising the biggest food, chemical, and biotechnology lobbying groups, the new coalition has three goals to underscore support for genetic engineering and the GMO crops and products containing them:
  • Prevent states from passing commonsense legislation mandating information about genetically engineered GMO food products.
  • Persuade the Food and Drug Administration to allow GMO ingredients to be marketed as "natural" (which they already do).
  • Confuse consumers by continuing to promote a failed "voluntary" GMO labeling program rather than a mandatory one.
It's not hard to see what they are doing if you are willing to look. Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of Center for Food Safety, summed it up:
These companies spent nearly $70 million in California and Washington State to defeat GE labeling initiatives. They know that the food movement's power is growing and that labeling is not a matter of if but when. These companies have failed to win over consumers who overwhelmingly support the mandatory labeling of GMOs and now they're trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress.
These companies use messaging techniques to reassure a skeptical public, but it's all just public relations (PR). Chipotle has launched a satirical series, Farmed and Dangerous, exposing the role of PR firms in the marketing war over "Big Food."
A PR firm doesn't care what it says as long as the public perception is moved in favor of their client. Smoke-and-mirrors tactics are enlisted to confuse and propagandize the public -- and that is just what this new coalition of Big Food lobbyists will do.
In order to clear away some of the smoke, I've taken a tiny sampling of the industry's talking points and looked a little deeper. The following claims come from the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food. The arguments they are propagating are beyond flawed and incomplete: They are downright wrong. Much of the research used below can be found at centerforfoodsafety.org.
The Claim: "Many of the most influential regulatory agencies and organizations that study the safety of the food supply ... have found genetically modified food ingredients (GMOs) are safe and there are no negative health effects associated with their use."
The Facts: In the early '90s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled, without scientific evidence, that genetically engineered foods present no risks that traditional foods don't. Scientists working for the agency were surprised by the declaration. "What happened to the scientific elements in [the] document?" one asked. These FDA scientists argued that "[t]here is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering. ... [T]his difference should be and is not addressed." They specifically warned that the genetic engineering of foods could result in "increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, and increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals)." They recommended that long-term toxicological tests be required prior to the marketing of GE foods.
And this risk is not hypothetical. A study by the New England Journal of Medicineshowed that when a gene from a Brazil nut was engineered into soybeans, people allergic to nuts had serious reactions to the engineered product. At least one food, a Pioneer Hi-Bred International soybean, was abandoned because of this problem.
The Claim: "GM technology adds desirable traits from nature, without introducing anything unnatural or using chemicals, so that food is more plentiful."
The Facts: When the biotech industry removes genetic material from one organism and inserts it into another, they create new organisms not produced by nature -- organisms that have certainly never been ingested by humans. These new creations include corn that produces insecticidal proteins from a soil bacterium, pigs containing human genes, salmon with anti-freeze DNA, and tomatoes with fish genes. These are novel products.
Genetically engineered crops do not necessarily require using chemicals, but farmers who grow GE crops use more herbicides. For example, Monsanto created Roundup-Ready (RR) crops like soy, corn, and cotton. These GE products are designed to withstand the application of Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup. The result of the genetic engineering is that herbicides can be used on the plant. One study of more than 8,000 university-based field trials "suggested that farmers who plant RR soy use two to five times more herbicide than non-GE farmers who use integrated weed-control methods."
And according to the Union of Concerned Scientists' landmark April 2009 report "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops," GE crops have failed to significantly increase crop yields.
The Claim: "Ingredients grown using GM technology require fewer pesticides, less water and keep production costs down. In fact, GM technology helps reduce the price of crops used for food, such as corn, soybeans and sugar beets by as much as 15-30%."
The Facts: Herbicide-resistant GM crops have led to a 527-million-pound increase in herbicide use in the U.S. between 1996 and 2011. Overall, since 1996, pesticide use has increased 7 percent (404 million pounds). USDA data shows that in 2008 alone, 26-percent more pesticides were used on GM crops than on non-GM, traditional crops.
GM crops have caused seed prices of major U.S. commodity crops to rise significantly,hurting America's family farms. Since 1995, soybean, corn, and cotton seeds haverisen in price by 325 percent, 259 percent, and 526 percent, respectively.
The Claim: "GE technology, can help us feed the hungry and malnourished in developing nations around the world."
The Facts: GM crops are not a silver bullet for global hunger. The UN general comment on the right to food agrees that "the roots of the problem of hunger and malnutrition are not lack of food but lack of access to available food."
Further, companies like Monsanto have license agreements that prevent farmers from saving seeds. That means they are forced to return to Monsanto to buy expensive seeds every year. If a farmer can't afford new seeds, he could lose everything. This increases food instability for 1.4 billion people.
Don't be taken in by propaganda machines. Look to reputable organizations to learn the real facts.
Follow Elizabeth Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EJKucinich