Why We Must Fight To Label GMOs

Why We Must Fight To Label GMOs




Posted on: Friday, May 10th 2013 at 5:00 am

Written By: Peggy Gannon



Since 1994 there's been an unnatural new player on our grocery store
shelves. GMO is short for "genetically modified organism." It describes
foods grown from seeds that have been altered through biotechnology
to express certain desirable traits, such as pest resistance.
Increasing concerns over genetically modified crops have prompted
legislation in more than thirty states, where advocates are calling for
clear labeling on all food that comes from genetically altered
seeds. Labeling foods containing genetically modified ingredients will
enable us to choose to avoid them. It is a policy long overdue.

When it comes to food crops, there are three kinds of seeds: ancient,
hybrid, and genetically modified (GM). The original seeds, called
"heirloom" or "heritage," are ancient seeds improved over time by
selective breeding. Seeds from these plants will be the same from one
generation to the next. Hybrid seeds are a cross between two or more
heirloom varieties, bred for qualities like increased vigor, greater
yield or shorter growing season. Hybrid seeds often bring unique
advantages, but saved seeds will not "come true"; they will revert to
the parent plants. In both cases, though, humans have been manipulating
seeds in these two ways for generations. We have been selectively
breeding for thousands of years. The ancestor of today's corn ("maize")
would not be recognizable as corn.


GM seeds take plant breeding to a whole new level; they are an
unnatural technological leap that can only be created in a laboratory.
Under microscopic conditions, DNA from another species is spliced into
the genetic makeup of the target plant in the hope of conferring some
advantage. Roundup-ready crops, for instance, are designed to withstand
repeated applications of the chemical weed-killer Roundup. Bt crops
carry an insecticide (Bacillus thuringiensis) in every cell to deter
insect damage. Many crops carry not just one, but multiple genetic
alterations, called "stacked" varieties, or "stax." These are plants
that have never existed in nature. In the natural world a firefly could
not breed with a tobacco plant, nor a flounder with a tomato, but in the
bizarre world of genetic engineering, all things are possible. (Both of
these have been done, though never marketed).

At present, 85-95% of five major crops are genetically modified:
corn, soy, sugar, canola and cotton. At least one of these crops is
found in all processed foods. Add 85% of Hawaiian papaya and 25,000
acres of zucchini and crookneck squash and you've covered most of the
American diet. Unless it is labeled "organic" or "non-GMO," all prepared
foods, from soups to salad dressings to snacks, contain GMOs. In other
words, virtually everything in the interior of the supermarket is
genetically modified — but there is no way for us to know that.

GM grains are fed to livestock in CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations). Carried to its logical conclusion, the supermarket beef,
pork and poultry you take home contain the same unnatural genes as does
your prepared food. Unless they are specifically raised organically,
they too are genetically modified.

Biotechnology is a two-part system of engineered plants and chemical
herbicides. It's important to understand each of these systems — the
biological and the chemical — their mutual dependence, and the damage
they do to our bodies and the earth.

We are told that the alien GM genes in food are destroyed in our
digestive system. This is false. Promoters like Agrobacterium
tumefasciens and Cauliflower Mosaic Virus spliced into genetic material
have been shown to continue to replicate and alter our own genes. We are
ingesting DNA fragments that our bodies cannot recognize. They populate
our gut, suppress our immune system, lower fertility, accelerate aging,
contribute to chronic diseases, and have been linked to infant
mortality, birth defects and cancer. Disruption of gut bacteria results
in the overgrowth of pathogens, specifically pathogenic strains of
drug-resistant Salmonella and Clostridium. A 2011
Canadian study found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses
tested had the GM protein pesticide in their blood. Because GMOs have
never been tested on human beings, adverse effects are difficult to
pinpoint, but they have been observed in mice, rats, hamsters, poultry,
pigs and cattle.

According to Monsanto, "There is no need to test the safety of GM
foods. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops
are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks."
First, those proteins are not safe, because the 40-year-old
paradigm of genetic engineering technology is flawed. It is based on the
naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene-One Protein
hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein.
The 2002 Human Genome project showed that this hypothesis is incorrect.
Every scientist now knows that any gene can give more than one protein
and that randomly inserting a gene in a plant eventually creates rogue
proteins — some of which will be allergenic or toxic. The manifestations
in mammalian health are slow to emerge but we are beginning to see them
now.

Second, they are not "substantially equivalent." For example,
conventional corn has 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium,
and 7 times more manganese than GM corn. Tests show organ damage to
animals at .1ppm of glyphosate in water; GM corn has 13 ppm.
Formaldehyde is toxic in ingestion to animals at .97 ppm; GM corn has
200X that. That is why given a choice, animals will not eat it at all.

So much for the vaunted safety of the biology of gene insertion. The
other partner in the GM relationship is the herbicide Roundup, the
active ingredient of which is glyphosate. The majority of GM field crops
have been engineered to be resistant to repeated applications of
Roundup, which in theory kills all weeds without harming the crop, thus
eliminating the need to cultivate. Instead of driving a tractor and
cultivator through the rows to eliminate weeds mechanically, a tractor
drags a sprayer that dispenses herbicide. Monsanto, which produces both
the GM seed and the herbicide to manage it, claims that Roundup
biodegrades rapidly and is practically safe enough to drink. Let's
examine those claims.

Glyphosate
does not biodegrade; it accumulates in the soil, changing its
microbiology and binding with essential minerals, making them
unavailable to plants and subsequently to us. It depletes the soil of
beneficial bacteria; over an extended period, repeated applications of
glyphosate render the soil permanently unfit for crops. It contaminates
the water table and poisons adjacent wells. It has been found in
waterways where it kills amphibians and other native species. It has
been shown to kill butterflies and may be implicated in Colony Collapse
Disorder, leading to the disappearance of bees — which we rely on to
pollinate our crops.

According to a research paper released in April of this year, authored by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff (Glyphosate's
Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by
the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases), residues of
glyphosate occur across the entire Western diet. Industry assertions
that it is nontoxic to humans are untrue. It enhances the damaging
effects of other food-borne chemicals and environmental toxins. The
impact is insidious and accumulates over time as inflammation harms
cellular systems, including the liver, kidneys and pancreas. It has been
implicated in obesity, autism, Alzheimer's disease, depression,
Parkinson's disease, liver diseases, and cancer, among others. Yet
Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont, Dow and the other industry members assure
the FDA that there is absolutely no reason to test, no substantive
difference between GM and conventional crops, no cause for alarm. Hence
we are the biotechnology industry's walking, talking guinea pigs.

Further, glyphosate's toxicity is spiked by the adjuvants intended to
enhance its effectiveness. These supposed "non-active" ingredients in
Roundup, like the surfactant polyoxyethyleneamine,
amplify the herbicide's absorption into exposed human tissues. Serious
adverse effects have been experienced by agricultural workers handling
the herbicide Roundup,
including infant mortality and grotesque birth defects. Worse, under
pressure from Monsanto, the EPA is proposing to hike the allowed residue
limits -- yet again -- of the herbicide glyphosate in various food and
feed crops. The allowed level in animal feed will be 100 parts per
million (ppm) and in oilseed crops, 40 ppm. Allowed levels in some
fruits and vegetables eaten by humans will also rise. Yet ample evidence
shows that GMOs and their chemical burden are harmful to humans and other life forms. What are they thinking?

The bright promises that seemed to justify this abhorrent tinkering
with the very stuff of life have not materialized. Drought-resistant
strains show only a 6% improvement, whereas conventional breeding for
drought-resistance over the last 30 years has increased tolerance by an
impressive 30%. The cost to buy patented seeds every year and to spray
herbicide for weed control have not resulted in savings; U.S. farmers
pay about $100 an acre more for GM seed, and crop failures, added to
increased pest resistance, are driving many to consider returning to
conventional crops. GM crops saw smaller yields globally in 2011 than
their conventional counterparts.

Worse, the promise of less pesticide use has backfired. Designing a
crop able to withstand the assault of chemicals only invites more
spraying. Predictably, the indiscriminate overuse of Roundup had led to a
dozen resistant weed species; Monsanto is now proposing crops designed
to be resistant to 2,4-D,
the active ingredient in Agent Orange. Soils sprayed with 2,4-D in the
sixties are still poisoning Vietnamese people today wherever the soil is
disturbed. Is this the direction we want U.S. agriculture to take?
Resistance to the Bt toxin is developing, too. Did we learn nothing from
the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

At the moment, 13 new GMO crops are awaiting approval at the
USDA, including Dow Chemical's 2,4-D Agent Orange corn and the
non-browning GMO apple. At the same time, the FDA is getting ready to
approve genetically engineered salmon. Approval of Aquabounty's GM salmon
would put the first GM animal on America's dinner plates — unlabeled.
Multiple petitions to the FDA have had no effect, despite the objections
of hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens.

The same criteria that we apply to pharmaceuticals — that they be
shown to be safe and effective — should be applied to genetically
modified crops. Are they proven safe? Since no human trials have ever
been done, the answer is no. Are they effective, i.e. beneficial? Not in
terms of the massive failure of both Roundup Ready and Bt crops, and certainly not in terms of the collateral damage they have done to the environment.

GM seeds now threaten human health, animal and insect life and the
very life of the planet, all in the name of corporate profit. Congress
continues to defer to the bidding of corporations, protecting their
interest at the expense of the public good. Unavoidable and uncontrolled
GM cross-pollination contaminates conventional and organic crops,
putting wild animals at risk and forcing organic growers out of
business. GM crops are destroying soil microbes. They are less productive than either conventional or organic ones; they have increased the use of herbicides. They are not the answer to world hunger. These are industry lies.

Thierry Vrain, former pro-GMO research scientist for Agriculture
Canada: "I have in the last 10 years changed my position. I started
paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe,
some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific
journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.

"I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their
engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide
applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course
that they are safe to eat."

Labeling of GM foods is required in the European Union, China,
Russia, Australia and Japan, in fact, in 64 countries around the world.
Labeling will give us the ability to choose what we consume. Please
contact your state legislators and urge them to support pending "Right to Know" legislation in your state. Do it for your children. Do it for the planet.


source:-
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-we-must-fight-label-gmos