"Thank you for this great post"
Arise and Shine
GMO Food Contamination is Forever
GMO Food Contamination is Forever
A top executive at Aventis CropScience, maker of StarLink Corn, said that the food supply will never be rid of the new strain of corn that the company genetically engineered at Research Triangle Park. The executive, John Wichtrich, called for a change in federal regulations to allow some level of the engineered StarLink corn in human food. The product is now approved only for animal feed and industrial products such as ethanol.
But the environmental watchdog who first discovered the new corn in food objected sharply. "Aventis broke the promise of biotechnology," said Larry Bohlen of Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C. "They were supposed to improve the quality of our food, not cause so many problems and introduce so much risk."
Wichtrich, general manager of Aventis in RTP, said that 437 million additional bushels of StarLink have been found in storage, which is much more than previously thought. About 50 million bushels of StarLink corn were grown under license during 2000, and Starlink was inadvertently mixed into another 20 million bushels. Last fall, Bohlen discovered StarLink corn in Kraft taco shells at a Maryland grocery store. The discovery led to a recall of almost 300 food products. Now, Wichtrich said, "no matter how diligent our collective efforts are, we can never get to, or guarantee, 'zero.' "
Because the StarLink corn can never be cleaned out of the U.S. food supply, Wichtrich said, Aventis wants the Environmental Protection Agency to change its rules. The EPA now has a "zero-tolerance" policy, meaning it views any amount of the StarLink corn in the U.S. food supply as a violation.
One kernel of StarLink corn in a sample of 2,400 kernels would cause a load of corn to be rejected, Wichtrich said. EPA should give Aventis an exception or revise its policy to tolerate a certain level of StarLink in food, he said. But Bohlen said, "Aventis is asking the government to legalize genetic pollution." Until the Centers for Disease Control finishes its study, no one will know whether the StarLink corn causes allergic reactions, he said.
CDC is investigating the claims of 44 people who said they got sick after eating corn products, he said. Wichtrich said only dry-milled corn products -- those made from corn meal, grits and flour -- are in danger of being contaminated. Wet milling, which produces corn syrup and oil, kills the protein, he said. Aventis, which employs 550 people at its North America headquarters in RTP, has taken hundreds of angry phone calls from farmers, grain elevator managers and food processors.
Aventis has 87 people working on rerouting the corn, and another group of scientists looking into the allergy question, Wichtrich said.
While the StarLink corn debacle is not a serious issue for most people, it is an ominous example of how widely genetic engineering can penetrate our food supply. Once the genetic genie is out of the bottle, our current technology and resources won't be able to stuff it back inside. If Monsanto or some other corporate giant develops a crop that does unleash some unanticipated problems, we are in big trouble, and no three wishes can save us. These were my related statements from last year:
Investigators have found that rats fed genetically modified potatoes had an increased thickening in the lining of their stomach and intestine and a weakening of their immune system. And now these mad scientists want to put vaccines into the plants. Sheer lunacy.
What these geniuses have failed to fully appreciate is that once these plants are growing, it is physically impossible to prevent them from pollinating other plants and contaminating them with these new proteins -- we have no clue of these proteins long-term consequences.
The entire process is mind-boggling. The vaccines they are using don't even work, yet they are willing to sacrifice the food supply for it. If this insanity continues, our grandchildren may not have access to any non-genetically modified food, and the health of our society will continue to decline rapidly.
One of the keys to health is good food. Although most of us don't choose to do so, we can still purchase real, unaltered food in this country. The future does not appear to provide that option.
Genetically modified foods did not exist prior to 1995. Ninety percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods and seventy percent of processed foods have genetically modified foods in them. There are NO STUDIES with humans on what happens when one consumes genetically modified foods. The FDA has ASSUMED that they are equivalent to the original and never required any studies to have them approved. This is despite the fact that this technology has never existed in the history of the world before.
Absolutely brilliant! Especially in light of the US Federal track record on genetically engineered safety, which is terrible.
Last year Starlink corn was only approved for animal consumption -- NOT human consumption. This was due to a concern that it could cause allergies in humans. Well, Starlink corn wound up trapped in the human food supply, despite FDA precautions.
There are EIGHT different agencies in the US regulating biotechnology under TWELVE different sets of laws. NONE of the laws had biotechnology in mind when they were passed, as they are 40-50 years old.
This is one big disaster just waiting to happen.
GMO Crops Are An Accident Waiting to Happen
A group of Canadian scientists wrote a letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail which warned that genetic drift or pollution from plants gene-spliced to produce medical drugs or industrial chemicals is a disaster waiting to happen.
The letter--signed by retired Agriculture Canada scientist Bert Christie, former McMaster University science dean Dennis McCalla, McGill University animal-science professor Dick Beames, and Dr. Hugh Lehman, an expert in agricultural ethics at the University of Guelph--warns that there is a "high probability" that a StarLink-type contamination incident could occur because of open-air testing and cultivation of crop varieties spliced to produce pharmaceutical drugs or industrial chemicals.
In other words, a person could be eating corn or soybeans or some other common food and instead get a dose of a powerful medical vaccine or drug, or a toxic dose of an industrial chemical.
Toronto Globe and Mail Newspaper May 2, 2001
As I said last year:
There is no telling what the consequences of using these genetically modified foods will be. Already, investigators have found that rats fed genetically modified potatoes had an increased thickening in the lining of their stomach and intestine and a weakening of their immune system. Further, some scientists want to put vaccines into plants without any real knowledge of what effects this unnatural addition will have on human health, or the health of our planet.
This is SHEER LUNACY.
What these scientists have failed to fully appreciate is that once these genetically modified plants are growing it is physically impossible to prevent them from pollinating other plants, thereby contaminating them with these new proteins, of which we do not know the long-term consequences.
The absurdity of the entire process is mind-boggling. These scientists are willing to sacrifice the country’s food supply by adding vaccines, which do not even work, to plants.
If this continues, our grandchildren may not have access to any non-genetically modified food, and the health of our society may continue to rapidly decline.
One of the keys to health is good food. Although most of us don't choose to do so, we can still purchase real, unaltered food in this country. Sadly, the future does not appear to provide this option.
Genetically modified foods did not exist prior to 1995. Ninety percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods, and seventy percent of processed foods have genetically modified foods in them.
There have been NO STUDIES done with humans to show what happens when genetically modified foods are consumed. The FDA has ASSUMED that these modified foods are equivalent to the original foods and does not require any studies to have them approved, despite the fact that this technology has never before existed in the history of the world.
This is especially troubling in light of the United State’s federal track record on genetically engineered safety, which is terrible.
For example, last year genetically modified Starlink corn was approved for animal consumption, but NOT human consumption because of a concern that it could cause allergies in humans. However, Starlink corn would up directly in the human food supply, despite FDA precautions.
There are EIGHT different agencies in the United States regulating biotechnology under 12 different sets of laws. NONE of the laws had biotechnology in mind when they were passed, as they are 40 to 50 years old.
This lack of regulation and total irresponsibility in using genetically modified foods is a disaster waiting to happen.
GMO Soybeans Are NOT Providing the Benefits They Were Claimed To
Noted biotech expert Dr. Charles Benbrook, of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, released an explosive report on herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans May 2.
The report, based upon recent USDA and university research, not only reaffirms previous studies that RR soybeans produce less of a yield (5-10% less) than conventional soybeans, and that weeds are growing resistant to Roundup, but also that farmers growing the GE soybeans are using considerably more herbicide than farmers who are cultivating non-GE varieties.
As Benbrook points out, RR soybean growers are on the average using one-half pound more of herbicide (in this case Monsanto' s broad-spectrum Roundup) per acre-which amounts to 20 million more pounds of toxic herbicides being sprayed this year on American soybean fields. "You just can't say with a straight face that the Roundup Ready system reduces herbicide use if the measurement you're talking about is pounds per acre," Benbrook said.
Even more alarming for Monsanto are Benbrook's observations that RR soybean plants, due to damage to an important chemical plant pathway, are more susceptible to plant diseases such as sudden stress syndrome. The American Soybean Association (ASA) immediately attacked Benbrook's report, calling it "sowing seeds of distrust" in a national press release.
Interestingly enough, the ASA had nothing credible to say in terms of disputing Benbrook's central thesis (less yield, growing weed resistance, and more use of pesticides), but rather relied on the well-worn argument that RR soybeans must be great since so many farmers are planting them.
Of course the main reason hapless US soybean farmers (who generally receive less money per bushel for their beans from ADM and Cargill and other wholesale buyers than it costs to produce them) are planting RR beans, besides the massive "price support" subsidy the USDA provides to soybean growers, is to save them time.
It takes less time to spray several applications of Roundup than it does to spray several of the 15 or so different herbicides which non-GE soybean grower's use.
With 88% of the average farm family's income now derived from off-farm employment, soybean farmers are desperately searching for anything that will save them time-which in this case turns our to be genetically engineered soybeans.
But as Benbrook's report indicates even this "benefit" will likely be short-lived as weeds develop increasing resistance to Roundup and as the herbicide-resistant plants themselves degenerate in terms of hardiness and resistance to disease over time.
"There's a clock ticking now for Roundup," Benbrook stated. A press release from the University of Missouri in Columbia 2/5/01 reported that soybean seed germination rates were "down sharply" this year, a likely reflection of the lack of hardiness and susceptibility to disease of genetically engineered plants. Roundup and other glyphosate products made up $2.6 billion of Monsanto's $5.5 billion in sales last year.
St. Louis Post Dispatch May 3, 2001
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
This documents the lies that Monsanto has been promoting to promote the sale of its products. Even if the GMO crops worked as advertised I and most serious scientists would be opposed to their use. But the sad tragedy is that they don't, as this article documents, even provide the benefits they are claimed to.
Genetically Modified Foods Update
Genetically modified food is viewed as unsafe by most [Americans], and the public wants warning labels on food, a new ABCNEWS.com on June 20, 2001 poll finds:
52% believe such foods are unsafe, and an additional
13% are unsure about them
93% say the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified
57% also say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified
Attack of the Gene Giants
The global controversy over genetically engineered foods and crops has intensified. Sensing that they are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the public, even in the US and Canada, Agbiotech interests, large food corporations, and their allies in government have stepped up their propaganda and intimidation campaign.
Since the beginning of 2001 an unprecedented number of editorial, opinion, and news stories have appeared in the world press, extolling the virtues of agricultural biotechnology while denouncing opponents as know-nothing Luddites. Accompanying this industry media barrage, choreographed by leading public relations firms, are a number of other recent noteworthy aggressions:
In Canada, Loblaws, Sobey's, Safeway, A&P, and other large grocery chains have banned the use of "GMO-free" food labels. Natural food companies marketing organic and other foods certified as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been ordered by Loblaws and other chains to block out or remove "GMO-free" labels or else their products will be taken off supermarket shelves.
Despite polls that show 90% of Canadians support labeling GMOs, government regulators, pressured by the US and the biotech lobby, have thus far ruled out mandatory labeling. But a new GMO food labeling law has been introduced into Parliament, supported by 80 public interest groups.
The ABC News poll, as well as recent polls in Canada, shows that North Americans are slowly but surely catching up to their counterparts in Europe and Asia-where 70-80% of consumers remain firmly opposed to "Frankenfoods."
As ABC News put it, "Barely more than a third of the public believes that genetically modified foods are safe to eat."
In 1994 Monsanto and state agriculture officials in the United States launched a similar intimidation campaign against several thousand dairies and health food stores in the US attempting to label or advertise their dairy products as free of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).
To this date, Monsanto's "no labeling" intimidation campaign has been quite successful. Less than 10% of US dairy products today are labeled as "rBGH-free" even though the overwhelming majority (90%) US dairy cows are not being injected with the drug. Most of America's 1500 dairies, backed by food giants such as Kraft/Phillip Morris, have collaborated in denying consumers free choice by co-mingling rBGH-tainted milk with regular milk and then deliberately lying to consumers about the presence of the hormone ("we don't know") in their company's products.
rBGH is banned in every industrialized country except for the USA, primarily because of scientific concerns that it is a cancer hazard and likely to cause increased antibiotic residues in milk. Voting with their pocketbooks against rBGH, millions of US consumers have turned to organic milk and dairy products as well as rBGH-free labeled brands.
Reports of genetic pollution and genetic drift continue to proliferate.
According to a CBC (Canada) radio broadcast (6/2/01), genetically engineered canola plants are showing up in farmers' fields all across the Canadian prairie, even though many of them have never planted GE seeds. Martin Phillipson, a University of Saskatchewan law professor, said that Monsanto may be liable for damages if their gene-altered, herbicide resistant canola continues to spread. "The GM canola has, in fact, spread much more rapidly than we thought it would," said Martin Entz, a plant scientist at the University of Manitoba.
"It's absolutely impossible to control."
Similar genetic pollution has been reported in the US by farmers growing organic corn and certified "GMO-free" soybeans. US trade representatives, working hard to engender a growing sense of fatalism regarding the "impossibility" of growing "GE-free" soybeans, corn, and canola, have told EU bureaucrats that it is unreasonable and "unworkable" to expect anything less that 5% genetic contamination in non-GMO grain exports.
But well-known critics such as Jeremy Rifkin point out that the biotech industry's genetic pollution is creating a backlash. "They're hoping there's enough contamination so that it's a fait accompli. But the liability will kill them. We're going to see lawsuits across the Farm Belt as conventional farmers and organic farmers find that their product is contaminated"
Cropchoice.com reported that Monsanto has continued suing "hundreds" of US farmers for "patent infringement," for the "crime" of having genetically engineered plants growing on their property without paying royalty payments to Monsanto. Several farmers being sued by Monsanto are fighting back however, filing counter-lawsuits in North Dakota and Illinois, claiming that Monsanto is deliberately causing genetic pollution, and then turning around and suing innocent farmers who are victims of this genetic trespass.
Another poll (6/26/01) conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust, underlines the fundamental problem that the gene engineers face:
the more that Americans hear about genetically engineered foods, the more concerned they become.
More than half of Pew respondents (55%) reported they had heard a 'great deal' or 'some' about genetically modified foods sold in grocery stores, up from 44% just six months earlier, and many lack confidence in the government's ability to manage gene-altered foods, following last fall's recall of products contaminated with Starlink corn.
The poll also found that consumers are paying more attention to media coverage of the potential hazards of GE foods as opposed to their supposed benefits. In other words the more Americans hear about genetically engineered foods, the less they like them, despite a $50 million dollar a year propaganda campaign launched by the biotech industry two years ago.
Since biotech crops came on the market in 1996, US farm exports have fallen from $60 billion a year to $51 billion-a decline of 15%.
The US has lost $400 million a year in corn exports to the EU, while Canada has lost a similar amount in canola exports. Bernard Marantelli, a spokesperson for Monsanto UK, admitted April 18 that GE canola acreage in Canada this year "went down. a significant amount."
A similar pattern is emerging in soybeans, with US GE soya essentially being boycotted by major companies in Europe, Japan, Korea, and other nations. Over the past year, major EU food corporations and fast food chains have also begun to remove all GE corn and soya from their animal feed. Already 25% of all EU animal feed is now GE-free.
Meanwhile exports of GE-free grains from Brazil, Australia, India, and China are expanding. Sources in the EU feed industry say the present demand for certified non-GMO soybean meal has grown from nearly zero to 25% in only 12 months, with the expectation of further increases in the coming year. (AgJournal UK 5/30/01)
What's Next in the Frankenfoods Fight?
Despite industry efforts to create a false sense of fatalism, to convince people that Frankencrops are spreading everywhere and cross-pollinating everything, even organic crops, so therefore there's no possibility of resisting them, the global consumer and farmers movement against genetically engineered foods continues to grow and expand.
Although US and Canadian corporations such as Loblaws, Starbucks, and Trader Joe's are under tremendous pressure by their partners in the food and biotech industry to "hold the line," and not cave in to consumer and activist demands, the pressure coming from the grassroots against these and other food and beverage corporations will undoubtedly increase over the coming months.
Similarly, although the Bush administration, Monsanto, and the Gene Giants are trying harder than ever to pressure governments around to world to import and allow cultivation of GE crops inside their borders, very few are taking up their offer. Three nations continue to produce almost 99% of all GE crops-the US (74%), Argentina (15%), and Canada (10%)-and the export markets for these countries' crops are growing smaller, not larger, month-by-month.
On the regulatory front, the US and the Gene Giants appear increasingly isolated in their "no safety testing" and "no labeling" position. A growing number of scientists around the world now believe that the gene-splicing process itself is inherently unpredictable and haphazard, and that therefore proving that gene-altered foods are safe for human health and the environment will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
For a detailed scientific and legal critique of the US government's no labeling and safety testing policy see www.purefood.org/gefood/fdasued.cfm
Similarly on the labeling front, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Bush administration and the Agbiotech lobby to override the will of 90% of world's consumers who are demanding mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods -- mainly so that they can avoid buying them.
As Norman Braksick, the president of Asgrow Seed Co. (now owned by Monsanto) predicted in the Kansas City Star (3/7/94) seven years ago, "If you put a label on a genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods
Crops genetically modified to have reduced susceptibility to pests are promoted as a solution to low food yields in developing countries. The motive of these promoters is profit, not altruism.
Monsanto, one of the largest developers of genetically modified crops, has developed a grain that gives an improved crop and is sterile, so instead of keeping back some seeds for the next year's sowing, farmers must return to the supplier for more.
In view of this unbridled commercial approach to genetic modification, it is perhaps not surprising that companies have paid little evident attention to the potential hazards to health of genetically modified foods.
But it is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. They announced in January this year, "FDA has not found it necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants . . . consistent with its 1992 policy."
The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist.
For instance, antibiotic-resistance genes are used in some genetically modified plants as a marker of genetic transformation. Despite repeated assurances that the resistance genes cannot spread from the plant, many commentators believe this could happen.
Of greater concern is the effect of the genetic modification itself on the food. Potatoes have been engineered with a gene from the snowdrop to produce an agglutinin which may reduce susceptibility to insects.
In April last year, a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating genetically engineered potatoes.
He said he would not eat such modified foods himself and that it was "very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs."
A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or in Europe.
Last week (May 22, p1769 ) the Royal Society had reviewed what it could of Pusztai and colleagues' evidence and found it flawed, a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work.
The British Medical Association called for a moratorium on planting genetically modified crops. The UK Government, in accordance with national tradition, vacillated. Finally, on May 21, the Government came out with proposals for research into possible health risks of genetically modified foods.
Shoppers across Europe had already voted with their feet. By the end of the first week in May, seven European supermarket chains had announced they would not sell genetically modified foods.
Three large food multinationals, Unilever, Nestlé, and Cadburys-Schweppes followed suit. The Supreme Court in India has upheld a ban on testing genetically modified crops.
Activists in India have set fire to fields of crops suspected of being used for testing. The population of the USA, where up to 60% of processed foods have genetically modified ingredients, seem, as yet, unconcerned.
The issue of genetically modified foods has been badly mishandled by everyone involved. Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.
The companies should have paid greater attention to the possible risks to health and of the public's perception of this risk; they are now paying the price of this neglect.
And scientists involved in research into the risks of genetically modified foods should have published the results in the scientific press, not through the popular media; their colleagues, meanwhile, should also have avoided passing judgments on the issue without the full facts before them.
The Lancet Volume 353 29 May 1999
A top executive at Aventis CropScience, maker of StarLink Corn, said that the food supply will never be rid of the new strain of corn that the company genetically engineered at Research Triangle Park. The executive, John Wichtrich, called for a change in federal regulations to allow some level of the engineered StarLink corn in human food. The product is now approved only for animal feed and industrial products such as ethanol.
But the environmental watchdog who first discovered the new corn in food objected sharply. "Aventis broke the promise of biotechnology," said Larry Bohlen of Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C. "They were supposed to improve the quality of our food, not cause so many problems and introduce so much risk."
Wichtrich, general manager of Aventis in RTP, said that 437 million additional bushels of StarLink have been found in storage, which is much more than previously thought. About 50 million bushels of StarLink corn were grown under license during 2000, and Starlink was inadvertently mixed into another 20 million bushels. Last fall, Bohlen discovered StarLink corn in Kraft taco shells at a Maryland grocery store. The discovery led to a recall of almost 300 food products. Now, Wichtrich said, "no matter how diligent our collective efforts are, we can never get to, or guarantee, 'zero.' "
Because the StarLink corn can never be cleaned out of the U.S. food supply, Wichtrich said, Aventis wants the Environmental Protection Agency to change its rules. The EPA now has a "zero-tolerance" policy, meaning it views any amount of the StarLink corn in the U.S. food supply as a violation.
One kernel of StarLink corn in a sample of 2,400 kernels would cause a load of corn to be rejected, Wichtrich said. EPA should give Aventis an exception or revise its policy to tolerate a certain level of StarLink in food, he said. But Bohlen said, "Aventis is asking the government to legalize genetic pollution." Until the Centers for Disease Control finishes its study, no one will know whether the StarLink corn causes allergic reactions, he said.
CDC is investigating the claims of 44 people who said they got sick after eating corn products, he said. Wichtrich said only dry-milled corn products -- those made from corn meal, grits and flour -- are in danger of being contaminated. Wet milling, which produces corn syrup and oil, kills the protein, he said. Aventis, which employs 550 people at its North America headquarters in RTP, has taken hundreds of angry phone calls from farmers, grain elevator managers and food processors.
Aventis has 87 people working on rerouting the corn, and another group of scientists looking into the allergy question, Wichtrich said.
While the StarLink corn debacle is not a serious issue for most people, it is an ominous example of how widely genetic engineering can penetrate our food supply. Once the genetic genie is out of the bottle, our current technology and resources won't be able to stuff it back inside. If Monsanto or some other corporate giant develops a crop that does unleash some unanticipated problems, we are in big trouble, and no three wishes can save us. These were my related statements from last year:
Investigators have found that rats fed genetically modified potatoes had an increased thickening in the lining of their stomach and intestine and a weakening of their immune system. And now these mad scientists want to put vaccines into the plants. Sheer lunacy.
What these geniuses have failed to fully appreciate is that once these plants are growing, it is physically impossible to prevent them from pollinating other plants and contaminating them with these new proteins -- we have no clue of these proteins long-term consequences.
The entire process is mind-boggling. The vaccines they are using don't even work, yet they are willing to sacrifice the food supply for it. If this insanity continues, our grandchildren may not have access to any non-genetically modified food, and the health of our society will continue to decline rapidly.
One of the keys to health is good food. Although most of us don't choose to do so, we can still purchase real, unaltered food in this country. The future does not appear to provide that option.
Genetically modified foods did not exist prior to 1995. Ninety percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods and seventy percent of processed foods have genetically modified foods in them. There are NO STUDIES with humans on what happens when one consumes genetically modified foods. The FDA has ASSUMED that they are equivalent to the original and never required any studies to have them approved. This is despite the fact that this technology has never existed in the history of the world before.
Absolutely brilliant! Especially in light of the US Federal track record on genetically engineered safety, which is terrible.
Last year Starlink corn was only approved for animal consumption -- NOT human consumption. This was due to a concern that it could cause allergies in humans. Well, Starlink corn wound up trapped in the human food supply, despite FDA precautions.
There are EIGHT different agencies in the US regulating biotechnology under TWELVE different sets of laws. NONE of the laws had biotechnology in mind when they were passed, as they are 40-50 years old.
This is one big disaster just waiting to happen.
GMO Crops Are An Accident Waiting to Happen
A group of Canadian scientists wrote a letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail which warned that genetic drift or pollution from plants gene-spliced to produce medical drugs or industrial chemicals is a disaster waiting to happen.
The letter--signed by retired Agriculture Canada scientist Bert Christie, former McMaster University science dean Dennis McCalla, McGill University animal-science professor Dick Beames, and Dr. Hugh Lehman, an expert in agricultural ethics at the University of Guelph--warns that there is a "high probability" that a StarLink-type contamination incident could occur because of open-air testing and cultivation of crop varieties spliced to produce pharmaceutical drugs or industrial chemicals.
In other words, a person could be eating corn or soybeans or some other common food and instead get a dose of a powerful medical vaccine or drug, or a toxic dose of an industrial chemical.
Toronto Globe and Mail Newspaper May 2, 2001
As I said last year:
There is no telling what the consequences of using these genetically modified foods will be. Already, investigators have found that rats fed genetically modified potatoes had an increased thickening in the lining of their stomach and intestine and a weakening of their immune system. Further, some scientists want to put vaccines into plants without any real knowledge of what effects this unnatural addition will have on human health, or the health of our planet.
This is SHEER LUNACY.
What these scientists have failed to fully appreciate is that once these genetically modified plants are growing it is physically impossible to prevent them from pollinating other plants, thereby contaminating them with these new proteins, of which we do not know the long-term consequences.
The absurdity of the entire process is mind-boggling. These scientists are willing to sacrifice the country’s food supply by adding vaccines, which do not even work, to plants.
If this continues, our grandchildren may not have access to any non-genetically modified food, and the health of our society may continue to rapidly decline.
One of the keys to health is good food. Although most of us don't choose to do so, we can still purchase real, unaltered food in this country. Sadly, the future does not appear to provide this option.
Genetically modified foods did not exist prior to 1995. Ninety percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods, and seventy percent of processed foods have genetically modified foods in them.
There have been NO STUDIES done with humans to show what happens when genetically modified foods are consumed. The FDA has ASSUMED that these modified foods are equivalent to the original foods and does not require any studies to have them approved, despite the fact that this technology has never before existed in the history of the world.
This is especially troubling in light of the United State’s federal track record on genetically engineered safety, which is terrible.
For example, last year genetically modified Starlink corn was approved for animal consumption, but NOT human consumption because of a concern that it could cause allergies in humans. However, Starlink corn would up directly in the human food supply, despite FDA precautions.
There are EIGHT different agencies in the United States regulating biotechnology under 12 different sets of laws. NONE of the laws had biotechnology in mind when they were passed, as they are 40 to 50 years old.
This lack of regulation and total irresponsibility in using genetically modified foods is a disaster waiting to happen.
GMO Soybeans Are NOT Providing the Benefits They Were Claimed To
Noted biotech expert Dr. Charles Benbrook, of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, released an explosive report on herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans May 2.
The report, based upon recent USDA and university research, not only reaffirms previous studies that RR soybeans produce less of a yield (5-10% less) than conventional soybeans, and that weeds are growing resistant to Roundup, but also that farmers growing the GE soybeans are using considerably more herbicide than farmers who are cultivating non-GE varieties.
As Benbrook points out, RR soybean growers are on the average using one-half pound more of herbicide (in this case Monsanto' s broad-spectrum Roundup) per acre-which amounts to 20 million more pounds of toxic herbicides being sprayed this year on American soybean fields. "You just can't say with a straight face that the Roundup Ready system reduces herbicide use if the measurement you're talking about is pounds per acre," Benbrook said.
Even more alarming for Monsanto are Benbrook's observations that RR soybean plants, due to damage to an important chemical plant pathway, are more susceptible to plant diseases such as sudden stress syndrome. The American Soybean Association (ASA) immediately attacked Benbrook's report, calling it "sowing seeds of distrust" in a national press release.
Interestingly enough, the ASA had nothing credible to say in terms of disputing Benbrook's central thesis (less yield, growing weed resistance, and more use of pesticides), but rather relied on the well-worn argument that RR soybeans must be great since so many farmers are planting them.
Of course the main reason hapless US soybean farmers (who generally receive less money per bushel for their beans from ADM and Cargill and other wholesale buyers than it costs to produce them) are planting RR beans, besides the massive "price support" subsidy the USDA provides to soybean growers, is to save them time.
It takes less time to spray several applications of Roundup than it does to spray several of the 15 or so different herbicides which non-GE soybean grower's use.
With 88% of the average farm family's income now derived from off-farm employment, soybean farmers are desperately searching for anything that will save them time-which in this case turns our to be genetically engineered soybeans.
But as Benbrook's report indicates even this "benefit" will likely be short-lived as weeds develop increasing resistance to Roundup and as the herbicide-resistant plants themselves degenerate in terms of hardiness and resistance to disease over time.
"There's a clock ticking now for Roundup," Benbrook stated. A press release from the University of Missouri in Columbia 2/5/01 reported that soybean seed germination rates were "down sharply" this year, a likely reflection of the lack of hardiness and susceptibility to disease of genetically engineered plants. Roundup and other glyphosate products made up $2.6 billion of Monsanto's $5.5 billion in sales last year.
St. Louis Post Dispatch May 3, 2001
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
This documents the lies that Monsanto has been promoting to promote the sale of its products. Even if the GMO crops worked as advertised I and most serious scientists would be opposed to their use. But the sad tragedy is that they don't, as this article documents, even provide the benefits they are claimed to.
Genetically Modified Foods Update
Genetically modified food is viewed as unsafe by most [Americans], and the public wants warning labels on food, a new ABCNEWS.com on June 20, 2001 poll finds:
52% believe such foods are unsafe, and an additional
13% are unsure about them
93% say the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified
57% also say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified
Attack of the Gene Giants
The global controversy over genetically engineered foods and crops has intensified. Sensing that they are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the public, even in the US and Canada, Agbiotech interests, large food corporations, and their allies in government have stepped up their propaganda and intimidation campaign.
Since the beginning of 2001 an unprecedented number of editorial, opinion, and news stories have appeared in the world press, extolling the virtues of agricultural biotechnology while denouncing opponents as know-nothing Luddites. Accompanying this industry media barrage, choreographed by leading public relations firms, are a number of other recent noteworthy aggressions:
In Canada, Loblaws, Sobey's, Safeway, A&P, and other large grocery chains have banned the use of "GMO-free" food labels. Natural food companies marketing organic and other foods certified as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been ordered by Loblaws and other chains to block out or remove "GMO-free" labels or else their products will be taken off supermarket shelves.
Despite polls that show 90% of Canadians support labeling GMOs, government regulators, pressured by the US and the biotech lobby, have thus far ruled out mandatory labeling. But a new GMO food labeling law has been introduced into Parliament, supported by 80 public interest groups.
The ABC News poll, as well as recent polls in Canada, shows that North Americans are slowly but surely catching up to their counterparts in Europe and Asia-where 70-80% of consumers remain firmly opposed to "Frankenfoods."
As ABC News put it, "Barely more than a third of the public believes that genetically modified foods are safe to eat."
In 1994 Monsanto and state agriculture officials in the United States launched a similar intimidation campaign against several thousand dairies and health food stores in the US attempting to label or advertise their dairy products as free of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).
To this date, Monsanto's "no labeling" intimidation campaign has been quite successful. Less than 10% of US dairy products today are labeled as "rBGH-free" even though the overwhelming majority (90%) US dairy cows are not being injected with the drug. Most of America's 1500 dairies, backed by food giants such as Kraft/Phillip Morris, have collaborated in denying consumers free choice by co-mingling rBGH-tainted milk with regular milk and then deliberately lying to consumers about the presence of the hormone ("we don't know") in their company's products.
rBGH is banned in every industrialized country except for the USA, primarily because of scientific concerns that it is a cancer hazard and likely to cause increased antibiotic residues in milk. Voting with their pocketbooks against rBGH, millions of US consumers have turned to organic milk and dairy products as well as rBGH-free labeled brands.
Reports of genetic pollution and genetic drift continue to proliferate.
According to a CBC (Canada) radio broadcast (6/2/01), genetically engineered canola plants are showing up in farmers' fields all across the Canadian prairie, even though many of them have never planted GE seeds. Martin Phillipson, a University of Saskatchewan law professor, said that Monsanto may be liable for damages if their gene-altered, herbicide resistant canola continues to spread. "The GM canola has, in fact, spread much more rapidly than we thought it would," said Martin Entz, a plant scientist at the University of Manitoba.
"It's absolutely impossible to control."
Similar genetic pollution has been reported in the US by farmers growing organic corn and certified "GMO-free" soybeans. US trade representatives, working hard to engender a growing sense of fatalism regarding the "impossibility" of growing "GE-free" soybeans, corn, and canola, have told EU bureaucrats that it is unreasonable and "unworkable" to expect anything less that 5% genetic contamination in non-GMO grain exports.
But well-known critics such as Jeremy Rifkin point out that the biotech industry's genetic pollution is creating a backlash. "They're hoping there's enough contamination so that it's a fait accompli. But the liability will kill them. We're going to see lawsuits across the Farm Belt as conventional farmers and organic farmers find that their product is contaminated"
Cropchoice.com reported that Monsanto has continued suing "hundreds" of US farmers for "patent infringement," for the "crime" of having genetically engineered plants growing on their property without paying royalty payments to Monsanto. Several farmers being sued by Monsanto are fighting back however, filing counter-lawsuits in North Dakota and Illinois, claiming that Monsanto is deliberately causing genetic pollution, and then turning around and suing innocent farmers who are victims of this genetic trespass.
Another poll (6/26/01) conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust, underlines the fundamental problem that the gene engineers face:
the more that Americans hear about genetically engineered foods, the more concerned they become.
More than half of Pew respondents (55%) reported they had heard a 'great deal' or 'some' about genetically modified foods sold in grocery stores, up from 44% just six months earlier, and many lack confidence in the government's ability to manage gene-altered foods, following last fall's recall of products contaminated with Starlink corn.
The poll also found that consumers are paying more attention to media coverage of the potential hazards of GE foods as opposed to their supposed benefits. In other words the more Americans hear about genetically engineered foods, the less they like them, despite a $50 million dollar a year propaganda campaign launched by the biotech industry two years ago.
Since biotech crops came on the market in 1996, US farm exports have fallen from $60 billion a year to $51 billion-a decline of 15%.
The US has lost $400 million a year in corn exports to the EU, while Canada has lost a similar amount in canola exports. Bernard Marantelli, a spokesperson for Monsanto UK, admitted April 18 that GE canola acreage in Canada this year "went down. a significant amount."
A similar pattern is emerging in soybeans, with US GE soya essentially being boycotted by major companies in Europe, Japan, Korea, and other nations. Over the past year, major EU food corporations and fast food chains have also begun to remove all GE corn and soya from their animal feed. Already 25% of all EU animal feed is now GE-free.
Meanwhile exports of GE-free grains from Brazil, Australia, India, and China are expanding. Sources in the EU feed industry say the present demand for certified non-GMO soybean meal has grown from nearly zero to 25% in only 12 months, with the expectation of further increases in the coming year. (AgJournal UK 5/30/01)
What's Next in the Frankenfoods Fight?
Despite industry efforts to create a false sense of fatalism, to convince people that Frankencrops are spreading everywhere and cross-pollinating everything, even organic crops, so therefore there's no possibility of resisting them, the global consumer and farmers movement against genetically engineered foods continues to grow and expand.
Although US and Canadian corporations such as Loblaws, Starbucks, and Trader Joe's are under tremendous pressure by their partners in the food and biotech industry to "hold the line," and not cave in to consumer and activist demands, the pressure coming from the grassroots against these and other food and beverage corporations will undoubtedly increase over the coming months.
Similarly, although the Bush administration, Monsanto, and the Gene Giants are trying harder than ever to pressure governments around to world to import and allow cultivation of GE crops inside their borders, very few are taking up their offer. Three nations continue to produce almost 99% of all GE crops-the US (74%), Argentina (15%), and Canada (10%)-and the export markets for these countries' crops are growing smaller, not larger, month-by-month.
On the regulatory front, the US and the Gene Giants appear increasingly isolated in their "no safety testing" and "no labeling" position. A growing number of scientists around the world now believe that the gene-splicing process itself is inherently unpredictable and haphazard, and that therefore proving that gene-altered foods are safe for human health and the environment will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
For a detailed scientific and legal critique of the US government's no labeling and safety testing policy see www.purefood.org/gefood/fdasued.cfm
Similarly on the labeling front, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Bush administration and the Agbiotech lobby to override the will of 90% of world's consumers who are demanding mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods -- mainly so that they can avoid buying them.
As Norman Braksick, the president of Asgrow Seed Co. (now owned by Monsanto) predicted in the Kansas City Star (3/7/94) seven years ago, "If you put a label on a genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods
Crops genetically modified to have reduced susceptibility to pests are promoted as a solution to low food yields in developing countries. The motive of these promoters is profit, not altruism.
Monsanto, one of the largest developers of genetically modified crops, has developed a grain that gives an improved crop and is sterile, so instead of keeping back some seeds for the next year's sowing, farmers must return to the supplier for more.
In view of this unbridled commercial approach to genetic modification, it is perhaps not surprising that companies have paid little evident attention to the potential hazards to health of genetically modified foods.
But it is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. They announced in January this year, "FDA has not found it necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants . . . consistent with its 1992 policy."
The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist.
For instance, antibiotic-resistance genes are used in some genetically modified plants as a marker of genetic transformation. Despite repeated assurances that the resistance genes cannot spread from the plant, many commentators believe this could happen.
Of greater concern is the effect of the genetic modification itself on the food. Potatoes have been engineered with a gene from the snowdrop to produce an agglutinin which may reduce susceptibility to insects.
In April last year, a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating genetically engineered potatoes.
He said he would not eat such modified foods himself and that it was "very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs."
A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or in Europe.
Last week (May 22, p1769 ) the Royal Society had reviewed what it could of Pusztai and colleagues' evidence and found it flawed, a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work.
The British Medical Association called for a moratorium on planting genetically modified crops. The UK Government, in accordance with national tradition, vacillated. Finally, on May 21, the Government came out with proposals for research into possible health risks of genetically modified foods.
Shoppers across Europe had already voted with their feet. By the end of the first week in May, seven European supermarket chains had announced they would not sell genetically modified foods.
Three large food multinationals, Unilever, Nestlé, and Cadburys-Schweppes followed suit. The Supreme Court in India has upheld a ban on testing genetically modified crops.
Activists in India have set fire to fields of crops suspected of being used for testing. The population of the USA, where up to 60% of processed foods have genetically modified ingredients, seem, as yet, unconcerned.
The issue of genetically modified foods has been badly mishandled by everyone involved. Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.
The companies should have paid greater attention to the possible risks to health and of the public's perception of this risk; they are now paying the price of this neglect.
And scientists involved in research into the risks of genetically modified foods should have published the results in the scientific press, not through the popular media; their colleagues, meanwhile, should also have avoided passing judgments on the issue without the full facts before them.
The Lancet Volume 353 29 May 1999
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hadassah Terry on
-
It would seem these corporations have tainted with G-d's creation
It is Criminal to say the least, and they all including Monsanto should be jailed as a crime against humanity -
About
We are serious about your spiritual/physical health & well being~~~
Thank you for joining and adding value to the quest of the meaning of life/chayim
~Shalom/Welcome to SHEKINAH~LIFE'¬ Your hosts Jim and Terry Hamilton
B"H.
As The Zohar itself proclaims: "Woe unto those who see in the Law nothing but simple narratives and ordinary words .... Every word of the Law contains an elevated sense and a sublime mystery .... The narratives of the Law are but the raiment within which it is swathed."
Shalom to one and all/.....Your host:
Jim and Terry
http://ShekinahLife.ning.com/m (mobile)\
TZEDAKAH / donations
SHALOM ALEICHEM
join us here Shekinah~Life
Leaving Comments: The Comments section of ShekinahLife-is provided in the interests of free speech only.
It is mostly moderated, however comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying-and-or-spamming stand a chance of being edited or deleted
Enjoy your Journey~"Y&T"
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Rose sharon -shekinahlife
In the beginning of the "Zohar" the Article, the Rose,..it says: "Just as the rose among thorns is…
© 2024 Created by James and Terry Hamilton.
Powered by
