GENETICALLY
MODIFIED ORGANISM/FOOD INFO - Updated
February 11, 2017
EVENTS
CALENDAR WEEKLY EVENTS
MONTHLY
EVENTS EVENTS & INFO LINKS
CONTACT ME CONTACT THE
GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY
EXCHANGE
VISUAL
& LITERARY ARTS DIRECTORY PERFORMING ARTS DIRECTORY
Credit Card Scams GMO food info Codex
Alimentarius: Guidelines for Vitamin & Mineral
Supplements
An Inconvenient Truth (film
about Global Warming)
"Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low
Prices": Overview
Info searching hint: Use
Control + F on PCs or Apple + F on Macs to pop up
a text search window. Then enter any text,
"Monsanto" for example, to find all text on this
page with the word "Monsanto" in it.
Regarding the use of the information on
this website. I don't mind the info to be used for
publicity purposes, but please contact event
organizer for their permission and latest updates
BEFORE including their event info in any printed
matter. Phone numbers
are 530 area code, unless otherwise noted. Thank
you!
Safe
Alternatives for our Forest Environment
(S.A.F.E.) was involved with the Board of
Supervisor's passage of a resolution banning
genetically engineered (GE) plants and animals in
Trinity County. This makes Trinity County the second
county in the nation to ban the growing of genetically
engineered (GE) plants and animals. This ban has
recently come under attack Congress. Take action to protect this ban.
Organic Consumers Association:
Campaigning for Food Safety, Organic Agriculture,
Fair Trade and Sustainability. They also have a
1-2x/month newsletter that you can sign up for
with a lot of useful information. They have a wealth
of information about Monsanto, and
have the most current information about what they
are up to.
April 2006: Monsanto in the news,
again:
National Animal identification System (NAIS):
Current participation in this program is
voluntary. Eventually it would involve mandatory
registration of two types. First, premises
registration requiring every person owning even
one horse, cow, pig, chicken or any other
livestock to register their home. Second, animal
identification, where owners will have to obtain a
15 digit ID number per animal that ever leaves the
premises of it's birth for purposes of breeding,
showing, slaughter, etc. Don't be fooled by the
claims that this is for disease control. This is
another attack on our freedom to grow our own
healthy food and be as self-sufficient as
possible. Program is spearheaded by Monsanto,
Cargill Meat, National Pork Producers, Digital
Angel Inc. EZ-ID/AVID ID Systems, and Micro Beef
Technologies. These represent the biggest
corporate meat producers and makers and marketers
of high-tech animal ID equipment, all who stand to
profit from this program, both in sales and
reduced competition. Ironically, larger meat
producers are allowed to register a whole herd, as
opposed to single animal registration required for
independent animal producers. Read about
illegalities of this program at Organic Consumers Organization.
For more info and how to take action: go to http://www.eggcartons.com/NoNaisArticle.htm;
Stop Animal ID; http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00146.htm;
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/3/10/122847/811;
http://grist.org/news/muck/2006/03/10/griscom-little/index.html
or search Google for info.
Since
worldwide, 80% of all GM crops were developed by
Monsanto, I am including some information about
this corporation and how they interact with the rest
of the world.
As per
Organic
Consumers Association: DEC 2004: A
well-respected and popular professor at the University
of California in Berkeley was fired after publishing a
scientific paper regarding the uncontrolled
contamination of irreplaceable native Mexican corn
varieties by genetically engineered corn. Dr. Ignacio
Chapela, whose corn contamination article was
published in the science journal "Nature," was denied
his tenure due to pressure from the biotech company,
Monsanto, on the University (the UC Berkeley
tenure review panel had actually voted almost
unanimously to approve his tenure). Professor Chapela
was told to have his office cleaned out by December
31, 2004. UPDATE: May 18, 2005: University of
California reversed itself & gave tenure to
leading Biotech critic Ignacio Chapela. Ignacio
Chapela Granted Tenure at UC Berkeley! Read
a message from Professor Ignacio Chapela.
Percy Schmeiser is a
farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola
fields were contaminated with Monsanto's
Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position is that it
doesn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his
canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready
gene and that he must pay their Technology Fees. He
later challenged Monsanto in court for contaminating
his yield with their GMO seed. Unbelievably, he lost
the case. Although the Canadian Supreme Court ruled
that Percy does not have to pay Monsanto their court
costs, technology fees, or damages, he still has huge
legal bills of his own, after years of struggle in the
courts. Now his wife has filed suit that Monsanto has
contaminated her organic garden. Read the full stories of his
David vs. Goliath struggle.
The
Nelsons are a family of farmers in North
Dakota, being sued by St. Louis based, Biotechnology
giant, Monsanto. Monsanto claims the Nelsons
have used their RoundUp Ready® product without
permission. Read the full story of their
struggle.
About
Monsanto:
Since 1901, Monsanto has given us many of the
worst carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and teratogenic
chemicals in the world, with which we have poisoned
our environment and made Monsanto rich. Its history as
foremost “corporate criminal,” according to European
research source
CorporateWatch, began 100 years ago with
artificial sweeteners, ammonium nitrate fertilizers,
styrene and polystyrene plastics (all carcinogens) and
went on to worse with dioxin, Agent Orange, glyphosate
(in world’s bestselling herbicide Roundup), the 2,4 D
family of pesticides, PCBs (PCBspoly-chlorinated
biphenyls), aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine growth
hormone, rbGH (bovine
somatropin - used in milk), MSG (monosodium
glutamate), and — since the 1990s — a devil’s kitchen
of genetically engineered food plants. Many more are
still inside their laboratories in St. Louis,
Missouri, such as their current “genetic improvements”
to pigs (Ontario Farmer, June 15) and plants that
deliver medicine and vaccines. According to R. Fraley,
Monsanto’s agricultural sectors co-president, “What
you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed
companies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire
food chain.”
Monsanto’s
chemicals were used for war and agriculture, with war
being at least an honest pursuit because its stated
intent is mass-murder, while agricultural use of the
same chemicals requires complex corporate strategies
to disguise the slow poisoning of life through
side-effects appearing much later. Not surprisingly,
Monsanto also makes drugs which are generally
also let loose on the market before real safety
is established, a legally sanctioned business
practice since applicable legislation is not
precautionary but damage control oriented. So, by the
time the dead can be counted, companies have been
laughing all the way to the bank.
In the early 1990s Monsanto spent US$10 billion
to buy up seed companies and introduced
genetically engineered products starting with bovine
growth hormone (see articles in Vitality Feb. 2000 and
July 2001). Worldwide, 80% of all GM crops were
developed by Monsanto. Whenever such a crop
dramatically fails or causes environmental problems,
Monsanto’s deep pockets and their powerful connections
with governments work to buy or enforce silence (see
**Tokar below). GE soya beans were the first to expose
what Dr. Charles Benbrook calls “Monsanto’s Big Lie”:
contrary to Monsanto’s claims, they require 2 to 5
times more Roundup herbicide than conventional seeds,
and instead of reducing water needed, consumption
increases. Ethical Investing lists Monsanto under
“Health and Planet Destroying Products” and provides
full information from medical science literature and
the documented ecological destruction.*
*Source:
How Monsanto became the “World’s Most Unethical and
Harmful” company: http://www.corporatewatch.org
and http://www.ethicalinvesting.com.
**See B. Tokar’s history of Monsanto in The Ecologist
vol. 28/5, Sept. 5, 1998.
Learn
how Monsanto operates:
See 1999 National Film Board documentary "The
Genetic Takeover"; 2002 documentary "Deconstructing
Supper" by Moving Images in BC; and
Council of Canadians 2000 video "Beyond
McWorld."
Recently,
Monsanto created a hormone, rVST that spurs
cows to give many times more milk than usual. It turns
out that it also causes children to go through puberty
at much younger ages - like 7-8 years old; and that
just last month Monsanto issued a memo to dairy
farmers that they will be cutting production to 50%,
and that the farmers should begin cutting back in
their usage because supply is going down. What they
didn't say is that their milk is creating premature
maturation in human children. Additional info about Monsanto products
and track record.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM/FOOD
INFORMATION:
From "Seeds of Deception" by
Jeffrey Smith (2003), Yes Books, Fairfield, IA.
1) Q: GMO stands for genetically modified organism.
But what does genetic modification entail?
A: Genetic modification is the practice of inserting
pieces of one organism's DNA into the DNA of another
organism. This is done in an effort to alter an
organism's characteristics, such as a tomato having
pieces of arctic flounder DNA in order to prevent
frost damage, or rice having pieces of daffodil DNA in
order to increase vitamin A levels. This means the DNA
of an organism is altered. The DNA chain is broken,
and a new element is introduced. The location of the
DNA break and the type and quantity of DNA insertion
is inexact at best.
2) Q: What is DNA?
A: DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, and is found
in the center of every plant and animal cell. Every
DNA molecule is very complex, is made up of billions
of atoms tightly folded in a double helix formation
(picture a ladder twisted into a spiral). If this
chain of atoms is unfolded, a single DNA molecule
would stretch about ten feet. It is [analogous to] a
super computer, a blueprint, or a central
switchboard.[p.49]
3) Q: So genetic modification is analogous to what
happens in nature; new organisms get created, and DNA
is altered in the course of evolution?
A: Genetic modification is NOT the same as
natural evolutionary changes. In nature, the DNA
of a species can only be altered if its proteins (ie,
DNA) are compatible with a new protein. This
compatibility, as far as we currently know, is species
specific (ie, fish to fish, human to human or tomato
to tomato, NOT fish to tomato or tomato to human).
George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and former
Higgins professor of Biology at Harvard University,
says, [genetic engineering presents] our society with
problems unprecedented not only in the history of
science, but of life on Earth. It places in human
hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the
product of some three billion years of evolution. Such
intervention must not be confused with previous
intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms,
[which] work within single or closely related species
[as opposed to tomatoes sharing genes with fish, rice
sharing genes with daffodils][p.50-51]. Likewise,
genetic modification is NOT the same traditional
mating or grafting practices which leave the genetic
structure of each organism intact. [p.51]
4) Q: What are the risks of genetically modified
(GM) crops?
A: Genetic modification can lead to:
Nutritional Changes:
There are instances where an area of soybean DNA was
unidentifiable after the insertion of a foreign gene;
the area was neither part of the inserted DNA, nor was
it part of the soybean DNA [p.71]. GM foods are
constantly being developed, re-developed, and then
released into the food chain, so there is no way to
track nutritional changes in GM foods or those foods
contaminated with GM DNA. One GM potato, for example,
contained 20 percent less protein than its own parent
line. Second, even the nutritional content of sibling
GM potatoes, offspring of the same parent grown in
identical conditions, was significantly different. [p.
12]
Allergens:
Dupont created a soybean with increased nutrients by
inserting one gene from the Brazil nut and inserting
it into soybean DNA. Dupont stated that this new
soybean was safe. Subsequent independent (i.e.
non-industry sponsored) experiments demonstrated that
the modified soy did in fact cause reactions in people
allergic to Brazil nuts. [p.162]. Plus, current GM
foods get their genes from bacteria, viruses, and
other organisms. No one knows if humans are allergic
to [these organisms] proteins; they were never before
part of the human food supply. [p.163] The length of
time GM substances stay in the human body is still
undetermined. However, what is known, is that the
longer a substance stays in the body, the more chance
the body has to develop a resistance or allergy to the
substance. [p.60]
Allergy rates have been increasing for currently
unknown reasons. There is a distinct possibility that
GM foods play a role in this increase. Consider, for
example, the results of the accidental introduction of
StarLink GM corn into the food supply in 2000.
Although StarLink corn was planted on less than 1% of
US cornfields and was intended for livestock feed, it
became mixed in with non-GM corn in grain silos across
the US, causing anaphylactic [serious &
potentially fatal allergic] reactions in hundreds of
citizens, contaminating 22% of the US corn supply.
Three-hundred corn products were recalled, farmers
went virtually bankrupt due to grain recalls and
falling corn prices, and over a dozen class action
suits were filed against Aventis, the creator of
StarLink corn. [p.169-170] Even under court order,
Aventis never submitted the original protein used to
create StarLink corn for objective research. [p.171]
Aventis also never honored their agreement to submit
data collected on their farm workers who regularly
inhaled StarLink pollen. [p.175]
Note: About a quarter of all Americans surveyed state
they and/or their children have food allergies.
[p.165] Infants under 2 years of age are at greatest
risk since they are more prone to allergies than
adults. Breast fed infants can be exposed to allergens
via their mothers' diet, fetuses could be exposed in
utero, and parents using cornstarch as a talc
substitute on their children's skin could also expose
their children to allergens via inhalation. [p.175]
Unpredicted/Unfamiliar Toxins and Neurological
Disease:
A toxin is a substance produced by one organism that
is poisonous to another organism. Potential for an
increase in plant toxins and toxicity to humans caused
by unintended muting or accelerating of natural toxin
activity, or the creation of a wholly new toxin,
cannot be predicted. Additionally, if a DNA molecule
is altered, it could possibly mutate and give rise to
infectious neurological disease, similar to what
occurs in mad cow disease and Cruetzfeld-Jacob disease
in humans. [p.56]
Danger of Developing Biological Resistance to
Antibiotics:
Some GM corn is engineered to be resistant to the
commonly prescribed antibiotic ampicillin. Elements of
the ampicillin DNA are absorbed throughout the body
for indefinite period of time. This increases the
chance for the body to develop a resistance to
ampicillin (ie, the longer a substance stays in the
body, the more chance it has to develop a resistance
or allergy to the substance) which could render
ampicillin useless in treating disease. [p.60]
Note: The FDA, if it chooses to conduct an
investigation, is able to detect toxins based only on
known properties of preexisting food. [p.123] In other
words, because GM foods are not preexisting foods, the
likelihood that contaminants and impurities could
easily pass through the FDA's regulations is very
high.
Inevitable and Uncontrollable Travel of GM Pollen:
In 1999, it was discovered that pollen from GM corn
had destroyed almost half of the Monarch butterfly
population [p.206]. After a year and a half of [both
objective & sponsored] research it still was not
clear to what extent the GM corn's pollen had affected
the Monarch population. This research cost about $2-$3
million, more than the [USDA] typically grants each
year for the study of environmental risk of GM crops.
The head of BIO [Biotechnology Industry Organization]
said the public should not look to the private sector
to foot the bills. [p.208]
Note: Virtually all traditional corn varieties in
Mexico are contaminated by either illegal planting of
GM corn intended for food purposes or pollen from GM
corn traveling across the country. Even in the remote
mountain region of Oaxaca, 6% of its plant life had
been contaminated by GM corn. [p.223] In corn crops in
Mexico, GM DNA was found in 95% of all tested corn
plots, with an average 10%-15% of corn plants having
GM kernels. Genetic pollution had occurred. This made
headlines across the Mexico and Europe yet was
virtually ignored by both the US and Canadian media.
[p.229]
Reproductive changes:
Cows injected with genetically modified growth
hormones (rBGH) had more birth defects, reproductive
disorders, difficulty getting pregnant, foot and leg
injuries, metabolic disorders, indigestion, bloat,
diarrhea, lesions, increased size of heart, liver,
kidneys, ovaries and adrenal glands, and shortened
lives. In the face of this data, Monsanto
dismissed this evidence in its own report to the FDA
as harmless physiological shifts. [p.88-89]
Misrepresentation of the Nutritional Benefits of GM
Foods:
For example, golden rice has been touted as the GM
food to send to developing countries to feed their
children and prevent blindness, due to its boosted
Vitamin A content. This is not the case. Golden rice
provides so little vitamin A, a two year old child
would need to eat seven pounds per day, likewise an
adult would need to eat nearly twenty pounds daily to
get [an effective dose of vitamin A]. [p.210] There is
no published study that confirms if vitamin A can be
absorbed in this form, if other nutrients such as fat
and protein are needed to absorb vitamin A, and
whether genes from the daffodil supplying this extra
vitamin A will produce new allergies. [p.211]
5) Q: Research must have been done regarding
GM crops. What has this research yielded?
A: Health and environmental impact studies of GM crops
have been rarely subjected to objective peer review,
like all other empirical research. As early as 2003,
there were only 8 other peer reviewed published
feeding studies, all of which were funded directly or
indirectly by biotech companies. [p.33] In 1998, for
example, the biotech company Novartis gave $25 million
to UC Berkeley Department of Plant and Microbial
Biology for research. In exchange, Novartis is allowed
to: 1) negotiate licenses for a third of discoveries
made by the department, 2) delay publication of
research up to 4 months to facilitate patent
applications and utilize the proprietary information,
and 3) has representation on 2 of the 5 seats of the
committee which determines how research money is
spent. These conditions are unprecedented between
universities and donors.
Note: The faculty of the department voiced their
outrage. More than half believed it would have a
negative or strongly negative effect on academic
freedom, about half believed it would block research
for the public good, and 60% stated it would hinder
the free exchange of ideas among scientists. [p.41]
Research result: Rats that were fed GM
potatoes suffered damaged immune systems. Their white
blood cells responded much more sluggishly than those
fed a non-GMO control diet. Other GMO-fed rats in this
experiment had smaller, less developed brains, livers
and testicles, and had enlarged tissues, including
pancreas and intestines. Some showed partial atrophy
of the liver. Furthermore, significant structural
changes and a proliferation of cells in the stomach
and intestines of GMO fed rats may have signaled an
increased potential for cancer. These rats developed
these effects after just ten days. Some of
the above changes lasted after 110 days, a time period
corresponding to about 10 years of human life. [p.12]
Research result: Lectin is a naturally
occurring pesticide in potatoes. One GMO experiment
increased lectin levels to increase pesticide content.
This additional lectin has not been shown to be
harmful. However, rats that did eat the
lectin-enhanced potatoes suffered damage due to the
PROCESS of genetic engineering that is currently used
to create the GM food everyone is already eating.
[p.17]
Research result: There were tomatoes on the
market in 1994 called FlavrSavr. These tomatoes were
genetically engineered to have a prolonged shelf life.
As this was the first GM crop to be approved in the
US, the manufacturer actually requested the FDA to
review their feeding study data - a gesture no
subsequent manufacturer has repeated. Documents
revealed that many of the rats that ate the
FlavrSavr/GM tomatoes developed lesions in their
stomachs. For unknown reasons, researchers did not
examine tissue elsewhere in the digestive tract. They
also did not provide an explanation as to why seven of
the forty rats that were fed the FlavrSavr tomatoes
died within two weeks. [p.37]. Three years later,
FlavrSavr tomatoes were off the market.
Research result: The EPA states that
potentially adverse GM ingredients are safe, since
these ingredients do not stay in the human body long
enough to trigger an allergic reaction. [p.178]. For
example, Monsanto stated their GM product -
Bt corn had a 90% reduction in its GM toxin (used as a
pesticide) in two minutes after being digested. An
objective study showed this to be FALSE- this toxin
stays intact in the bloodstream for two hours,
increasing allergic potential. [p.179] (i.e. the
longer a substance stays in the body, the more chance
it has to develop a resistance or allergy to the
substance). [p.60]
6) Q: If GM foods are so risky, why haven't I
heard more about them?
The GMO/biotechnology industry has very close ties
with the US government. Back in 1986, while President
Reagan was deregulating business, members of the
Monsanto board routinely met with Vice President
Bush in an effort to impose more regulations on GM
foods. With US regulations, Monsanto would be
protected from consumer and environmental groups.
Plus, Monsanto could engineer and patent a
whole new kind of food. Later, by [purchasing existing
seed companies worldwide], Monsanto could replace
natural seeds with their patented engineered seeds
and control [most of] the world food supply.
[p.127]
In the early 1990s, the New York Times reported that
Monsanto used its close ties at the White House
to quickly usher through an unusually generous policy
of self-policing. [p.129] This means that Monsanto,
as a GMO industry leader, [was now dictating policy
to] the Agricultural Department (USDA), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and ultimately the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). According to Henry Miller,
who was in charge of biotechnology issues at the FDA
from 1979 to 1994, the US government agencies have
done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to
do and told them to do, [p.129] including but not
limited to FDA scientists subjecting GM foods to a
lower safety standard than that normally applied to
food additives, and this preferential treatment
violates the FDA's own regulations, which state that
tests on new foods (such as those produced through
genetic engineering) require the same quantity and
quality of scientific evidence as is required to
obtain approval of the substance as a food additive.
[p.140]
The United States Food and Drug Administration
therefore made it clear that in their view,
genetically modified crops were assumed to be safe and
to offer similar nutritional value as their
[non-genetically modified] counterparts. This
assumption is the cornerstone of US policy, allowing
millions of acres of GM food to be planted, sold, and
eaten without prior safety testing. [p.11]
The FDA is protected from legal action regarding its
subjective criterion for approving GM foods, since the
court has ruled that [the FDA's] GM policy is not a
rule but rather a non-binding guideline. Therefore the
FDA does not have to be scientific; it can be
satisfied with research conducted by GMO companies,
knowing that GMO companies will protect them in the
instances when FDA decisions are called into question.
[p.205]
A leading medical journal, The Lancet, states, "It is
astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration
has not changed their stance on genetically modified
food adopted in 1992, [and that the FDA] does not
believe it is necessary to conduct comprehensive
scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered
plants."[p.30] The Lancet said "This stance is taken
despite good reason to believe that specific risks may
exist. 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 [people and environment]."[p.30]
7) Q: What is Monsanto's
track record?
Monsanto worked with the US government to
approve their biotech product Agent Orange.
Monsanto had assured the public that their Agent
Orange, the defoliant used during the Vietnam War, was
safe for humans. Thousands of veterans and tens of
thousands of Vietnamese suffered a wide range of
maladies, including cancer, neurological disorders,
and birth defects, blame Monsanto.[p.127]
Monsanto also placed PCBs on the market.
PCBspoly-chlorinated biphenyls were touted as a safe
form of electrical insulation. Later, PCBs were
outlawed in 1978, having been linked to cancer
and birth defects. PCBs are now ranked as a major
environmental hazard. According to the Washington
Post, Monsanto executives knew the toxic
nature of PCBs at the time, allowing routine dumping
of PCBs in the factory's local water supply. Fish in
local rivers died as if being dunked in acid, being
found to have 7,500 times the legal PCB level, as
established by government regulation. Monsanto
never alerted the local population, and its
justification at the time was, there is little object
in going to expensive extremes in limiting [PCB]
discharges, and one internal memo stated, "We can't
afford to lose one dollar of business."[p.128]
Monsanto makes a practice of muscling US
television, magazine and newspapers into being
pro-GMO, by threatening them with lawsuits. This
book has many examples; here is just one: Reporter
[and former CNN anchorwoman] Jane Akre of Fox
television and investigative reporter [and three-time
Emmy award winner] Steve Wilson generated a report on
rbGH [bovine somatropin], which is an antibiotic
routinely injected into milk cows. Akre discovered
that these hormone injections were causing illness in
cows, and higher feed and medical costs to farmers.
Monsanto denied these facts, threatening to sue
Fox television. Roger Ailes was the head of Fox News
in New York and former director for media relations of
President George W. Bush. Plus, Fox is owned by
Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Actmedia, a major
advertising agency used by Monsanto. Monsanto
threatened to pull its lucrative advertising account
with Actmedia. Fox pressured the journalists to change
their report, revise, soften, and neutralize the
information as Monsanto instructed. The reporters were
pressured into burying the story, and when they
refused, were suspended for insubordination. Akre and
Wilson sued based on whistle-blower laws and won. But
the court declared that they pay Fox's legal fees,
effectively placing them on the verge of bankruptcy,
and effectively rendering whistle-blower laws
impotent. [p.183-193]
To defend their own products and practices,
Monsanto created the Dairy Coalition, under the
auspices of public relations. Monsanto selected third
party experts to disseminate sound, scientific
information on food safety and nutrition, which were
actually university researchers whose work was funded
by Monsanto. These types of groups are the ones who
defended MSG (monosodium glutamate),
aspartame (Nutrasweet), food dyes and
olestra (famous for causing anal leakage in
many people who eat potato chips containing olestra).
[p.195]
An April 2002 study conducted by Food First/Institute
for Food and Development Policy discovered that
thirteen of the largest newspapers and magazines in
the US have all but shut out criticism of GM food and
crops from their opinion pages. Their report found an
overwhelming bias in favor of GM foods not only on
editorial pages but also on op-ed pages, a forum
usually reserved for a variety of opinions. In fact,
the report found that some newspapers did not publish
a single critical op-ed on GM foods and crops, while
publishing several in support. Anuradha Millat,
co-director of Food First/Institute for Food and
Development Policy states that all opinions
must be [adequately] represented in the media if the
public is to be able to exercise its democratic right
to make informed decisions about new technologies.
[p.197]
8) Q: If GM crops are so unsafe, why is the US
interested in them?
A: The overall goal of US government endorsement and
self-policing standards of GM foods was to strengthen
the economy and make American products more
competitive overseas. [p.197] However, after all of Monsanto's
(one of the worlds largest GMO/biotech companies)
efforts and influence on the US government,
international food retailers and manufacturers want
nothing to do with GM foods. In Europe, due
to public education and subsequent consumer pressure,
the entire food manufacturing and retail industry
has banned GM ingredients, and the majority
of the world's population are covered by
restrictions on the sale and use of GM crops.
[p.153]
Why? Because of the difficulty of distinguishing GM
crops from non-GM crops, many overseas buyers have
simply rejected all corn, soy canola, and cotton from
the US and Canada. Since these four GM crops and their
derivatives are found in most processed foods in
the US, American made packaged foods are
also off-limits in many [international] markets.[p.153]
Governments and consumer groups around the world even
reject free GM grain for relief to developing
nations, since there is no proof that the food is
safe. [p.155]
Note: Citizens have the right to make an informed
choice, but we currently are fed misinformation.
And the more the public learns about GM foods, the
more the public wants to avoid them. The UK, for
example, has become GMO-free due to routine education
and debate in the public arena. [p.24] Even the
British Medical Association urged policy makers to
place a ban on planting GM crops commercially, and
warned that such food and crops might have a
cumulative and irreversible effect on the environment
and the food chain. [p.30]
9) Q: How have US farmers coped with the lost
markets for US crops (GM and non-GM?)?
Corn prices dropped to 13%-20%. Government subsidies
increased to between $3-$5 billion annually due to the
economic damage of GM crops alone, [p.154] resulting
in a cost to the US economy of $12 billion net from
1999 to 2001. [p.155]
Once created, they cannot be recalled!
Researched and compiled by Belinda Pearl. For further
information, please contact GMO Free Alameda County at
510-527-9898 or email gmofreeac@earthlink.net.
Learn more about
Genetically Modified Organisms:
Barstow, C., The Eco-Foods Guide What’s Good for
the Earth is Good for You, New Society
Publishers, 2003
Nestle, M., Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology,
and Bioterrorism, University of California
Press, 2004
Rowell, A., Don’t Worry – It’s Safe to Eat, The
True Story of GM Foods, Earthscan 2004
Tokar, B. ed., Redesigning Life?,
McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001
Back to: *EVENTS
CALENDAR*
*TOP OF PAGE*
|