The Audacity of Genetically Modified Foods

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/08-2

The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, promotes the idea that the arguments about genetically modified crops should focus on the science and the economics as Monsanto sees them. I maintain that the real discussion should be about the audacity and illegitimate way GM crops have been forced on a reluctant United States and world -- the money, corruption, politics and obfuscation that characterize its rise to dominance. The discussion should focus on how GM crops have taken over our food supply with little concern for safety or our right to choose.

Does it bother you that we consumers are largely unaware that 70 percent to 80 percent of the processed foods we buy contain GM ingredients? We are "largely unaware" because these foods are not labeled -- even though 90 percent of Americans want them labeled and think that we have the right to know what is in our food. The biotech industry fights labeling viciously because they know that, if GM foods were labeled, many would refuse to buy them as is the case in Europe. It`s not financial considerations that leave us with no choice; it`s our lack of awareness that allows them to take advantage of us. How many realize that Kraft Mac & Cheese is non-GM in Europe but does contain GM ingredients in the United States?

Our regulatory bodies and government are staffed with pro-GM people, a veritable revolving door. Michael Taylor, a Monsanto lawyer, moved from Monsanto to the Food and Drug Administration where he wrote the rules that were used to justify the release of Monsanto`s bovine growth hormone RBGH. He then returned to Monsanto as vice president. He currently is the FDA deputy commissioner for foods -- not the best place for a person with such apparent bias. And Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, previously general counsel for Monsanto, supported a ruling that GM alfalfa could be released. He does not recuse himself in cases like this involving conflict of interest.

There are minimal requirements for independent testing of GM crops and foods. Testing is left to the biotech companies who then choose which tests to submit to our regulatory bodies. This results from the gift of "substantial equivalence" that says we don`t need to do thorough testing because GM crops are substantially equivalent to regular crops. But how can we know they are substantially equivalent if we don`t thoroughly test them? Who do our regulatory bodies represent? Aren't they in place to protect our health? Shouldn't they be doing or overseeing the testing in our interest?

More at the link --

This site has a good following and good information --- there is a "Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program" that I did not know about ---

https://www.facebook.com/No.GMOs?sk=wall

Only drawback is that the creator of the site is a person many people abhor.

(I just take information where I can get it.)

https://www.facebook.com/millionsagainst?sk=wall

Millions Against Monsanto by the Organic Consumers Association.

I recall earlier generations saying the same things about hybrid corn (and 4-H was the tool to gain acceptance of said corn), so I'm a touch skeptical. But my mind isn't made up, thanks for the link.

and eat only food in its natural state, for the most part.
If it has more than 4 ingredients or chemical words on the label, I can't buy it.

that helps but not all GM foods are that easy to avoid, I know.( rice, soy, corn, all heavily GM)

New review on GM safety studies says debate still open on all levels

"A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified
plants"; José L. Domingo, Jordi Giné Bordonaba; Environment International
37 (2011) 734–742; http://bit.ly/iVkoEA


In the Final Remarks :

They noted ... "..the number of studies specifically focused on
safety assessment of GM plants is still limited."

"..it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that
GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional
breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates,
which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants."

The authors noted that four reviews had been published between Oct 2006
and Aug 2010, remarking

"...Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis
(2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would
indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic,
pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the
nematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.

These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH they're referring to rBGH/rBST] or its expression in animals should be
re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in
turn, may promote cancer.

This is indeed only an example on the controversial debate on GMOs,
which remains completely open at all levels."

...given that Congress passed a bill making it ILLEGAL for food products that do not contain GM foods, to say so on their labels. In other words, companies that avoid GM foods in their products are not allowed to make true statements on their labels, because it might "confuse" consumers.

My first job when I graduated from college was with a biotech company. My uncle co-founded a successful biotech company. I am no Luddite, but I never agreed to be a guinea pig for GM food products. There is NO excuse, none at all, for the widespread introduction of these foods into our food supply at the levels that happened. There is NO excuse for not letting consumers make informed decisions.

Is it because you think that GMO is a simple matter of adding an innocent, natural gene to a fruit/veg?

I used to think that too, before I educated myself on the topic.

Those who opposed building Nuclear Reactors in Earthquake Zones were also called "Luddites".

Pass a law requiring labeling of origin and type of food. People want it, it is the people's government, after all.

Then maybe get some ruling on disparagement of food industry laws on the books. People have at least the right to know if there is poison in their chow and then decide what to eat. Industry has proved again and again that it puts profits ahead of health concerns and cannot be trusted to act in the public interest when operating under cloaks of secrecy and situations of consumer ignorance.