GMO Labeling Bill Passes Senate – Did Whole Foods Sell Us Out?
On Thursday, July 7th, the senate voted 63-30 to approved a bipartisan compromise bill for a federal labeling of food made with genetically modified organisms. The bill is moving to the House of Representatives next.
Proponents of the bill say the law will be good for consumers, allowing shoppers to know what they’re getting, and the bill will provide a national standard for labeling.
There are three labeling options. Companies can label the food product as genetically modified or they can use a symbol that denotes GMOs, an on-pack symbol, the bar code, or the unreadable QR product code. When companies choose to label only through the QR code (and we guess that’s what most will do), the customer is expected to scan the barcode with their smartphones or call an 800 number.
Critics are quick to point out that this law will wipe out existing labeling laws like Vermont’s current legislation that does require clear and conscious GMO labeling. Also, this bill could exempt certain genetically modified foods from any kind of GMO labeling.
Proponents of labeling insisted that nothing short of text on packages would do. Some, including Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and erstwhile presidential candidate, also raised concerns over the definition in the bill for determining which foods would require labels, a sign that if the bill becomes law, legal challenges will almost certainly follow.” – New York Times
For example, if a biotech product is genetically engineered with items ‘found in nature,’ (such as bacteria), then it can be passed as a natural food product. Other GMOs, which cannot yet be detected by current technology, would also pass as whole foods under the new law. This would include foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques.” – Natural News
The USDA Secretary would also have the power to determine what concentration of GMO ingredients would fall under the labeling law, so it’s not unlikely consumers may ingest GMOs even after verifying that the QR bar Code says no GMO.
Even if the customer has a phone and a QR bar code app, and wants to take the time to scan the product, more often than not, cell phones don’t work at all or the internet is extremely slow inside a grocery store. Some grocery stores don’t even allow cell phones (This is true for Dekalb Farmer’s Market in Decatur Georgia. Be sure to check them out if you haven’t).
The law will not go into effect for two years if it does make it all the way to be signed into law. Consumers will have to wait, and no other states will be able to legislate labeling in the meantime.
Is Whole Foods in Cahoots With Monsanto?
Walter Robb, the CEO of Whole Foods backs the new bill, saying:
The alternative is that Vermont goes into effect and then there’s a number of other states behind that, it makes it difficult for manufacturers to be able to label and label to that different standard…
And I think the way she’s put the bill together, which is to give manufacturers choices, is I think the marketplace and the customers will take it from here… so obviously, I think she’s done a great piece of work… we are already are out there further with our commitment to full transparency by 2018. We’re not gonna… we’re looking at how these two live with each other, but we’re already past that, but I think in this day and age, to come together, to create some sort of a reasonable standard that manufacturers can… and gives the customer a lot more information is a pretty good thing.”
Whole Foods backed the bill. As Walter made clear, Whole Foods is looking out for their food manufacturers first and foremost. Whole Foods has helped champion the idea of food transparency, but the company would not get behind previous, more conscious legislation to label GMO foods. This bill’s ambiguous text leaves a lot to be interpreted, and it is clear this is a bill written by the food companies in an attempt to appease the public without actually affecting GMO sales.
Conclusion
If the bill passes into law, is it a step in the right direction? Maybe. It depends on how the legislation plays out. The bill, as it is now, leaves so much up for interpretation. The harder the public pushes for transparency, the more likely the bill will get better for consumers along the way, or get replaced by something better. Regardless, the best way to avoid GMOs is to avoid buying processed, manufactured food. Stick to the produce section in grocery stores (whole produce GMOs are very rare), visit your local farmer’s markets and get to know the farmers (not the guys who buy food from distributors and pretend to be farmers, get to know the actual farmers). And grow your own food! It’ll be interesting to see what happens with labeling whole produce if the bill passes and more foods do get genetically modified.
Europe has become a battleground between environmental groups and big biotech companies. A French farmer won a case against Monsanto after suffering neurological problems due to inhaling their weedkiller, Lasso. By now, everyone has seen the study from the World Health Organization’s cancer agency calling glyphosate, the darling of Monsanto’s herbicides, probably carcinogenic. Instances like these and many others have left some European Nations wary of these chemicals, as evidence of their toxicity to humans is on the rise.
The Votes Are…Not In
And now we come to a crossroads. The European license for glyphosate is scheduled to expire on June 30. Previous meetings of nations of the European Union to renew the license for a 15-year span have ended in stalemates, as countries have refused to support that renewal in the face of growing scientific unrest and public opposition. The latest meeting took place Monday, with the executive body of the European Union, the European Commission (which is not affiliated with any specific country), proposing a 12- to 18-month extension for more scientific study. Malta was the only voice speaking against the extension, but the lack of votes from Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Austria, Portugal and Luxembourg kept the extension from being adopted.
The Results Are…Likely To Go One of Two Ways
So what happens now, with the glyphosate license expiring in less than a month? Option one would be an executive decision by the European Commission ignoring the lack of agreement from EU Nations and reauthorizing glyphosate. While possible, this scenario flies in the face of the Commission’s support of the democratic process that led to last year’s law allowing countries to make their own decisions regarding genetically modified crops. The leader of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has publicly proclaimed his unwillingness to act against the interests of the majority view. The proposal of an extension did receive support from many countries, though, and Monsanto could see losses of potentially up to $5 billion dollars, which could result in some serious corporate pressure on the Commission.
What’s behind door number two? The simple option: leave it be. If a new agreement is not in place by the 30th of June, the license is expired and all glyphosate products need to be gone from European Union shelves in six months. Is this more likely to happen if there are only eight votes either blocking or missing in keeping glyphosate from the shiny new license it desires? It seems unlikely until you consider some of the countries that abstained: Germany, France, and Italy, aka, three of the most powerful countries in the EU. The more you look at it, the more prudent this option becomes, really. Glyphosate has been labeled as probably cancer-causing. A product with issues (dangerous malfunctions, allergens or food contamination) would be pulled the shelves immediately. Why is glyphosate any different?
The Whole World Should be Watching
Europe has been on the forefront of recent biotech regulations in agriculture, and the decision, in this case, will resonate throughout the world. Supporters of a renewed license have pointed to the fear and confusion this will cause with consumers, which consumers would be well within their rights to feel. A probable cancer-causing chemical that has previously been sprayed with wild abandon is pulled off of shelves until a scientific consensus can be reached. What exactly is there to fear again? The knowledge that safety takes a backseat to profits, perhaps.
The Detox Project is a research organization bringing awareness to the public by testing for man-made chemicals in our bodies and in our food. The project gives consumers an accurate report on the levels of glyphosate in their urine.
Through this unique public testing project carried out by a laboratory at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), glyphosate was discovered in 93% of urine samples during the early phase of the testing in 2015. The urine and water testing was organized by The Detox Project and commissioned by the Organic Consumers Association.
The project has provided more urine samples for testing than any other glyphosate bio-monitoring urine study ever in America. It was supported by members of the public, who themselves paid for their urine and water samples to be analyzed for glyphosate residues by the UCSF lab.
The data released in a presentation by the UCSF lab only covers the first 131 people tested. Further data from this public bio-monitoring study, which is now completed, will be released later in 2016.
Later this year, The Detox Project will be working alongside a new, larger lab to enable the public to once again test their urine for glyphosate residues. The Detox Project is also researching whether or not an organic diet has an effect on the level of man-made chemicals in our bodies. They’re not just testing for glyphosates either, they are also testing for 150+ man-made chemicals.
The Results
Glyphosate was found in 93% of the 131 urine samples tested at an average level of 3.096 parts per billion (PPB). Children had the highest levels with an average of 3.586 PPB.
The regions with the highest levels were the West and the Midwest with an average of 3.053 PPB and 3.050 PPB respectively.
Glyphosate residues were not observed in any tap water samples during the early phase of the project, most likely due to phosphorus removal during water treatment.
The Method
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine ) is directly analyzed using liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Water and urine samples are prepared for analysis by solid phase extraction using an ion exchange column. Extracted samples are injected to the LC-MS/MS and the analyte is separated using an Obelisc N column (SIELC Technologies, Prospect Heights, IL) through isocratic elution. Ionization of glyphosate is achieved using an electrospray ionization source operated in negative polarity. The analyte is detected by multiple reaction monitoring using a 13C-labelled glyphosate as the internal standard. Quantification of the analyte is done by isotope dilution method using an eight-point calibration curve.
The assay has a limit of quantification of 0.5 ng/mL. The intra- and inter-day precision observed are 6-15% in concentrations that range 0.5-80 ng/mL. Recoveries for glyphosate range 70-80% at concentrations within the assay’s linear dynamic range.
Glyphosate and Health Concerns
Glyphosate-containing herbicides are sold under trademarks including Monsanto’s “Roundup”. Glyphosate was labeled a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC in 2015. The European Union is currently putting restrictions on the use of glyphosate due to health concerns.
Glyphosate has never been studied at the level of exposure that we in the U.S. are currently being subjected to (under 3 mg/kg body weight/day). Industry-funded science many years ago suggested that lower exposure is likely safe, but that more exposure could prove to be dangerous. Modern independent science has discovered that many toxic chemicals can have major effects on our endocrine system, sometimes at very low doses. Interestingly enough, due to the nature of endocrine disrupters, there’s often a “sweet spot”, where less or more exposure would be more damaging to health. These chemicals are known as hormone disruptors, or endocrine disruptors.
A study from March 2015 stated that the health cost to the European Union of only a few of these endocrine disrupting chemicals is over EUR 150 Billion per year. The same report also said that lower IQs, adult obesity, and potentially 5% or more of autism cases may be linked to exposure to endocrine disruptors like glyphosate.
“With increasing evidence from laboratory studies showing that glyphosate-based herbicides can result in a wide range of chronic illnesses through multiple mechanisms, it has become imperative to ascertain the levels of glyphosate in food and in as large a section of the human population as possible. Thus, the information gathered by the glyphosate public testing service being offered by The Detox Project is most timely and will provide invaluable information for the consumer and scientists like myself evaluating the toxicity of real world levels of exposure to this most widely used pesticide.”
These results show that both the U.S. regulators have let down consumers in America. Independent science shows that glyphosate may be a hormone hacker at these real-life exposure levels found in the food products. The safe level of glyphosate ingestion is simply unknown despite what the EPA and Monsanto would have everyone believe.” – Henry Rowlands, Director, The Detox Project
If consumers had any doubt about the extent to which they are being poisoned by Monsanto’s Roundup, these tests results should put those doubts to rest,” – Ronnie Cummins, International Director of Organic Consumers Association
It’s interesting to note that the testing is on a volunteer bases, and some speculate that people getting tested are more likely than the general public to purchase organic foods and avoid GMOs.
How to Avoid and Detox Endocrine Disruptors
The most common endocrine disruptors we are likely to have in our bodies include Bisphenol–A, AKA BPAs, Phthalates (added to plastics to make them softer and last longer), Parabens, PBDE’s (found in flame retardants) PCB’s, Dioxin: (an unintentional by-product of many industrial processes), pesticides and herbicides, and heavy metals. It’s a scary list, and there’s obviously many more chemicals we haven’t heard about yet.
The good news is that studies have shown that fresh, raw, organic vegetables detox the body of all of these toxins. It’s becoming more and more imperative that we grow our own food and buy unpackaged, unprocessed food to prepare at home. Get gardening and get detoxing if you’re not already. See the recommended reading list below for more on this.
Conclusion
If you’re ready to send in a sample, unfortunately, the project was put on hold. Due to the enormous interest, they had to temporarily stop the urine and water testing program until they are working with a much larger lab, which is supposed to begin in “summer, 2016.” You can sign up if you’re interested at The Detox Project here.
When we look for medical information, whether or not we embrace alternative medicine, there are a few primary sources we tend to check out for the conventional treatment and the low down on any given illness. WebMD is at, or near, the top of that list, and it is clearly one of the most popular sites on the Internet.
We expect the information given on this WebMD to be clear, correct (within the limits of conventional medicine), and unbiased. Anyone with any knowledge about the way things really work will expect Big Pharma to have undue influence over the information presented because they have undue influence over doctors and every aspect of conventional medical treatment. We don’t expect to find Monsanto and the FDA also hiding behind the curtain.
But first, more about Big Pharma. In 2010, Dr. Mercola wrote about a self-test for depression that was presented on WebMD by Eli Lilly. The problem was, even if you marked no to every indicator, the test came up with the same result – “You may be at risk for major depression.” The test was completely bogus, unethical, and irresponsible. WebMD presents itself as the unbiased 3rd party, but it isn’t.
When an article is written by a sponsor, such as Monsanto, it is labeled as such. It says, “This content is from our sponsor. The sponsor has sole editorial control.” Does the typical reader realize they are reading an article that is clearly company propaganda and not content that WebMD necessarily supports? What site that was created to give its readers information publishes content they do not agree with? We don’t!
In addition, the site is used and abused by companies like Monsanto as shown by series of emails exchanged between Monsanto and Dr. Kevin Folta of the University of Florida. Monsanto approached Folta, asking him to publish their biotech propaganda as if it were his own on WebMD. Of course, he agreed – Monsanto gives his programs money.
The final surprise is the relationship between WebMD and the FDA. According to Dr. Mercola, the FDA’s first public-private partnership was with WebMD. The FDA states on their website:
FDA’s Public-Private Partnerships allow the FDA to partner with any number of a wide range of other organizations including, but not limited to, patient advocacy groups, professional societies, charitable foundations, industry members, trade organizations, academic institutions and other government and state entities.
FDA’s Public-Private Partnerships are science-driven, aim to improve the public health, and are structured to uphold the principles of transparency, fairness, inclusiveness, scientific rigor, and compliance with Federal laws and FDA policy.
The FDA does not, however, offer a list of their partners. But that’s a bit creepy, isn’t it? That a government agency created to provide oversight actually partners with private industry? Who’s watching who?
It’s always a good idea to follow the money connected to any source. WebMD makes lots and lots of money. Averaging 210 million unique users a month with 4.25 billion page views, WebMD reported a profit of $10 million from a revenue of $143.3 million for the first quarter of 2015. So if you choose to use the site in the future, keep these facts in mind, especially if you are seeking information on any controversial subject in which the pharmaceutical companies, the biotech companies, or the FDA may share an interest.
The information starts with a history of Monsanto company, which was started in 1901 by John Francis Queeny and gave the company his wife’s maiden name. The company was started to manufacture saccharin then moved to vanilla and caffeine. By 1915 the company had made its first million and it kept on growing. Most people associate Monsanto with disease and bug resistant crops and rBGH for increased milk production, but the company is also linked to the production of the U.S. atomic bomb, agent orange, and Roundup weed killer which could be resulting in the decline of honeybees. Infographic and written content courtesy of Top masters In Health.
Today Monsanto reports a revenue of nearly $16 billion. 93% of the U.S. soybeans and 80% of U. S. corn grown today are patented products of Monsanto. Also, there are a total of 282 million acres of farmland worldwide that are growing Monsanto crops and 404 facilities worldwide. In the United States, 40% of all crop acreage is using Monsanto products.
What price does someone pay to use Monsanto seed? There is a license agreement printed on every bag which some may find to be overstepping boundaries in the fact that it allows Monsanto to sue farmers for not following Monsanto procedures, or investigate the farmer’s fields anytime it chooses. Monsanto also has a hotline set up for neighbors to call if they suspect Monsanto seed is being used without a license.
Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
Biotechnology has long tried to paint the critics of genetic engineering as anti-science. A great effort has been made to convince the public that the majority of world’s scientists support genetic engineering. In reality, GMOs are heavily criticized in the scientific community. Here are the professional opinions of only a few of the thousands of scientists who are both critical and skeptical of GMOs.
There are three things that can’t be long hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth.” – Buddha
Vandana Shiva, Ph.D
Vandana Shiva was educated as physicist at the University of Punjab. Afterwards she went on to earn a Ph.D. from the University of Western Ontario Canada. Her field of study was known as “Hidden Variables and Non-locality in Quantum Theory”. Her work later evolved into inter-disciplinary research in science, technology, and environmental policy. Dr. Shiva is a courageous and tireless activist, author, scientific advisor, and mother. Forbes Magazine named Dr. Shiva as one of the Seven Most Powerful Women in the World.
Science is derived from the word scire — “to know”. Each of us should know what we are eating, how it was produced and what impact it will have on our health.
The knowledge we need for growing food is the knowledge of biodiversity and living seed, of living soil and the soil food web, of interaction between different species in the agro-ecosystem and of different seasons. Farmers have been the experts in these fields, as have ecological scientists who study the evolution of micro-organisms, plants and animals, the ecological web and the soil food web.
In industrial agriculture, the knowledge of living systems is totally missing, since industrial agriculture was externally driven by using war chemicals as inputs. Soil was defined as an empty container for holding synthetic fertilizers and plants were defined as machines running on external inputs. This meant substituting the ecological functions and services that nature and farmers can provide through renewal of soil fertility, pest and weed control, and seed improvement. But it also implied ignorance of the destruction of the functions by the toxic chemicals applied to agriculture.
This complex knowledge of interacting, self-organizing, self-maintaining, self-renewing and self-evolving systems that farmers have had is now being confirmed through the latest in ecology. At the agricultural systems level, agro-ecology, not the mechanistic and blind paradigm of industrial agriculture is the truly scientific approach to food production.
…Because living systems are not machines, they are a self-organized complexity, knowledge of a small, fragmented part in isolation of its relationships with the rest of the system translates into not knowing.
This epistemic violence is now being combined with the violence of corporate interests to viciously attack all scientific traditions, including those that have evolved from within Western science and transcended the mechanistic worldview.
It is actually becoming anti-science.
…The rhetoric for taking over food systems and seed supply is always based on “improved seed”. But what is not mentioned is that industrial seeds are only “improved” in the context of higher dependence on chemicals, and more control by corporations.
The latest in the anti-scientific discourse of industrial agriculture is about reducing everything to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
“Intelligence” is based on the Latin word inter legere which means “to choose”. From the slime mould and bacteria, to plants and animals, including humans, intelligence is the choice we make in order to respond to changing contexts. Life is a cognitive system with communication constantly taking place in a network on non-separable patterns of relationship. Living beings innovate all the time to deal with environmental challenges that face them.
…Humans as a species are falling behind slime mold and bacteria to make an intelligent response to the environmental threats we face. And our intelligence is being thwarted by the false construction of the living Earth as dead matter, to be exploited limitlessly for human control, domination and greed.
The US Centre for Disease Control data shows that on current trends one in two children in the US will be autistic in a few decades. It is not an intelligent species that destroys its own future because of a distorted and manipulated definition of science.
As Einstein had observed, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Thierry Vrain, Ph.D
Dr. Vrain was formerly the Head of Biotechnology at Agriculture Canada’s Summerland Research Station. It was his job to address concerns regarding the safety of GMOs. He did his job faithfully for many years, assuring the public and other scientists of the safety of GMOs. Now, years after his retirement, he has reversed his position.
In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.
I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.
…The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.
Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.
Richard Strohman, Ph.D.
Dr. Richard Campbell Strohman, was a professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an avid critic of the idea that genes determine destiny. Dr. Strohman died July 4, 2009.
When you insert a single gene into a plant or an animal, the technology will work. You will be able to move that gene from organism A to organism B. You will be able to know that the transfer was successful. You will be able to know that the gene is being expressed, and even that the function of the gene is being expressed. So you’ll get the desired characteristic. But you will also get other effects that you couldn’t have predicted from your original assumptions. You will have also produced changes in the cell or the organism as a whole that are unpredictable. And that’s what the science is having to deal with.
…Genes exist in networks, interactive networks, which have a logic of their own. The technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It simply addresses genes in isolation. But genes do not exist in isolation.
…We’re in a crisis position where we know the weakness of the genetic concept, but we don’t know how to incorporate it into a new, more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don’t want to look at it because it’s too complicated and it’s going to cost too much to figure out. The number of questions, the number of possibilities for what happens to a cell, to the whole organism when you insert a foreign gene, are almost incalculable. And the time it would take to assess the infinite possibilities that arise is beyond the capabilities of computers. But that’s what you get when you’re dealing with living systems.
Gilles-Eric Seralini, Ph.D.
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini is a biologist at the University of Caen. He was the first scientist to do a long- term, GMO, chronic toxicity study. His study was originally published in Food and Chemical Toxicology. After the study was retracted, it was later republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.
Agricultural GMOs are loaded with pesticides. Three-quarters of all GMOs contain large amounts of Roundup, the main pesticide in the world, designed to kill weeds. These plants have been genetically modified for this, such as Roundup-tolerant soybean and corn. The GM provides in this case the possibility to apply Roundup, whenever and as much as you want, because the plant will tolerate it. If one gives such a large dose of pesticides to a normal plant, it dies. GMOs facilitate intensive farming methods.
Agricultural GMOs do not exist independently of pesticides. We do not know enough. Three-quarters of them absorb pesticides, and the last quarter, like Bt corn, produce their own insecticide. There is already a toxicity due to pesticides within these GMOs, which is new in our diet. Before GMOs, we have never eaten such high levels of Roundup residues. Same for insecticides. Yes, GMOs are especially dangerous because they contain pesticides, but not only because of that. Our team also found toxic effects of GMOs without pesticides.
Our team is the most-published in the world on the impact of GMOs and pesticides on health. We have done studies on human cells and on rats, both short- and long-term (two years). Regarding studies in rats, we were the first ones to study so many parameters (tens of thousands for blood and urine) and for so long. These rats consumed regularly GMOs with pesticides, and at the same doses, GMOs without pesticides. The aim was to find out where any toxicity came from. We were the only ones in the world to do this, as companies and health agencies had never ordered tests lasting longer than three months. But the study was retracted with great violence by the journal which published it after a former employee of Monsanto was introduced onto the editorial board of the journal. He is the former head of GMO toxicology dossiers at Monsanto.
…GMOs contain pesticides that go into the food chain and accumulate. On the other hand, they make animals seriously ill, and to eat sick animals is very harmful for health. They may be more susceptible to infections and diseases. Eating them should be banned. Pesticides accumulate in the food chain and in the animal’s fat, at higher levels than in the treated plants [themselves]. Before, the debate focused on the possible dangers of GMO DNA getting into the food chain. This is not the problem. Nobody had shown that these animals [that eat GMOs] were sick. We showed that. Due to the nature of industrial production and the short lifespan [of livestock animals], we do not see it. And they are not differentiated from others.
Dr. Seneff is a senior research scientist, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT. Dr. Swanson is a business owner, consultant (Optics), and author. Dr. Chopra was formerly with Health Canada (Senior Scientific Advisor, Microbiology) and is also an author. Dr. Balatinecz is an emeritus professor (Forestry), at the University of Toronto. The following are quotes from the collective group and quoted material from an opinion paper they wrote.
We are experiencing an autism epidemic in the US and the mainstream media won’t touch it. There is much hand-wringing over the latest numbers, but any suggestion of environmental toxins is considered off-limits.
The following opinion piece, written by four scientists (myself included), was submitted to the Toronto Star on April 9, but they refused to publish it because it is “too controversial.” It was then submitted to the New York Times on April 11, but they have not responded at all. It seems there is a media blackout on this topic.
What sort of world are we living in where our children are at risk and we refuse to even look at all possible solutions because they are “too controversial”? How did the chemical and drug industries come to wield such totalitarian power that the press won’t dare to expose them? We are a nation in grave danger. The press and the government refuse to confront the issue for fear of antagonizing the corporations whose bottom line trumps all.
…the US Centers for Disease Control released a new report stating that the prevalence of autism is now one in 68, up 30% since the reported estimate of one in 88 two years ago. (Our current rate of autism in the U.S. is 1 in 50) The rate was one in 10,000 in 1970.
…The recent dramatic increase in the rates of autism cannot be explained on the basis of genetics alone, so there must also be significant environmental contributions.
One of us (Dr. Stephanie Seneff) has considerable direct research experience concerning autism and its probable environmental causes. About seven years ago she became very alarmed by the strong evidence of an increase in autism rates in the US and, in collaboration with Mr. Anthony Samsel and Dr. Nancy Swanson, she decided to systematically investigate possible links with environmental toxins. Dr. Swanson has shown extremely strong correlations between glyphosate usage on corn and soy crops in the US and the increasing incidence of autism, along with obesity, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, senile dementia and others. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but when statistically significant correlation coefficients of over 0.95 are calculated for a list of diseases that can be directly linked to glyphosate, via its known biological effects, it would be foolish not to consider causation as the most plausible explanation of the correlations.
It is noteworthy that the rapid increase in autism rates coincides with the introduction of industrial agricultural practices such as the widespread use of herbicides (like glyphosate-containing Roundup), and pesticides, as well as genetically modified (GMO) crops (initially corn, soy and canola). GMO crops are engineered to resist glyphosate so that the herbicide will only kill the weeds and not the crop species. As a consequence, GMO foods are laced with glyphosate residues, a contaminant for which they are not required to be tested as products in our food chain. Sadly, the general public does not know this. What makes this even worse is that GMO foods are not required to be labeled by law in our two countries. Furthermore, it has become common practice to spray grain, dried pea & bean and sugar cane crops with glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant. What makes glyphosate especially dangerous is that it is generally viewed as being nearly harmless to humans and is therefore handled carelessly. Its effects work cumulatively and insidiously over time to erode health.
…The original approval process of glyphosate as a “safe herbicide” was based on misdirected and inadequate science & safety testing by the FDA. Corporate political lobbying was also part of the mix. The voice of an independent and diligent media has been conspicuously absent. Now, 25 years later, we are all paying the price for those misdeeds. Likely victims are the millions of innocent autistic children.
Autism symptoms also include: disrupted gut bacteria and inflammatory bowel disorder; defective aromatase (CYP) enzyme; high serum nitrate and ammonia; impaired immune function; chronic low-grade inflammation in the brain and deficiencies in sulfate, methionine, seratonin, melatonin, zinc and iron. Compare these to some negative biological effects of glyphosate. Glyphosate kills beneficial gut bacteria, thereby depleting aromatic amino acids. This leads to reduced serotonin availability. Serotonin deficiency is linked not only to autism, but also to obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and violent behavior, all of which are increasing in frequency today in step with increased glyphosate usage. Glyphosate chelates (traps) zinc, manganese, iron, cobalt, and molybdenum, which leads directly to a deficiency in these essential nutrients and widespread health consequences. Glyphosate also disrupts important enzymes in the liver leading to an inability to detoxify other toxins as well as an inability to activate vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is now widespread in North America.
… we believe that the biggest environmental factors linked to autism are the following: glyphosate (by far #1), mercury (in vaccines and dental fillings) and aluminum (in vaccines, antacids, antiperspirants, drugs and sunscreen). Mercury and aluminum act synergistically with glyphosate; e.g., the number of adverse events reported for vaccines in the US CDC VAERS database has risen over the past decade in step with the increased use of glyphosate.
David Suzuki, Ph.D.
David Suzuki, is the co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, an environmentalist, scientist and broadcaster who is most well known for his radio and television programs that explain the complexities of the natural sciences in a compelling, easily understood way.
Dr. Suzuki is an award winning scientist – a geneticist and a recognized world leader in sustainable ecology. He is the recipient of UNESCO’s Kalinga Prize for Science, the United Nations Environment Program Medal, UNEPs Global 500, and the 2009 Right Livelihood Award. He is now a professor emeritus at UBC.
By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.
The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very, very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.
In a different interview he said:
I believe that until the science is mature—that is, until we can take a completely specified sequence of DNA, insert it at exactly a specified sequence in a recipient and predict completely its behavior—the science is not ready to be applied. When we can do that, we won’t be able to publish, because we publish papers when we get results that we didn’t expect. Last time I looked, the papers and journals in biotech were exploding. To me, it indicates we must not know a helluva lot. In any revolutionary area, most of our current ideas are wrong. That’s how science proceeds—by invalidating, altering and discarding our current ideas. What we believed in 1961 when I graduated with a Ph.D. in genetics seems ludicrous today, and so will today’s ideas in 20 years.
Jane Goodall, Ph.D.
Before Jane Goodall’s work, our definition of mankind was “man the toolmaker.” Dr. Goodall has made many important scientific discoveries. She proved that chimpanzees use tools, that they eat meat, and that they have a complex social system. She earned her Ph.D. in ethology from Oxford University.
I well remember how horrified I felt when I learned that scientists had succeeded in reconfiguring the genetics of plants and animals.
The first genetically engineered (GE) plants were created in the 1980s, but I did not hear about them until the 1990s when they were first commercialized.
It seemed a shocking corruption of the life forms of the planet, and it was not surprising that many people were as appalled as I was – and that these altered organisms became known as ‘Frankenfoods’.
In fact, there were good science-based reasons to mistrust the new foods; yet GE crops have spread throughout North America and several other parts of the world. How has this come about?
As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science.
Engineering ‘concensus’ – where none exists
They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe.
…the advocates of genetic engineering have steadfastly maintained that the crops created by this radical technology are essentially similar to those from which they have been derived, that the process is splendidly exact, and that GE foods, therefore, are if anything safer than their traditionally bred ‘parents’
In fact, there’s significant dissimilarity, the process is far from exact, and the risks are greater, especially the risk of creating unexpected toxins that are difficult to detect.
And what of the role of the media? How have the American public been so largely kept in the dark about the realities of GE foods – to the extent that until quite recently, a vast majority of the populace did not even know they were regularly consuming them?
But it seems to me that it is not those who point to the problems of the venture who are anti-science: it is quite the other way around.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D.
Mae-Wan Ho earned her degree in Biology in and her Ph.D. in Biochemistry in the 1960s from Hong Kong University. Early in her academic career she won a competitive fellowship of the U.S. National Genetics Foundation. Afterwards, she became a senior research fellow in Queen Elizabeth College in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho then became a lecturer in Genetics in 1976 and then a reader in Biology in 1985 in the London Open University. Dr. Ho retired in June 2000 and remains a Visiting Reader in Biology at the Open University and is a visiting biophysics professor in Catania University, Sicily. Today, Dr. Ho’s work includes close to 300 publications and 47 experimental works.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho is a highly-consulted scientist, one of the most influential figures in the scientific community. She has been ardently opposed to the use of genetically modified organisms. In 1999, she founded ISIS, which stands for the Institute of Science in Society in London.
If there is one thing that distinguishes the Third World from the industrialized countries, it is that they take science a lot more seriously than we do in the GM debate.
I was researcher and university lecturer of genetics throughout the mid-1970s to the early 1980s when new discoveries on the fluid genome made headlines every week. Researchers back then were building a new paradigm, dispelling once and for all the notion that a gene is constant and independent of context. The thought that a gene could be patented as an invention probably never crossed their mind. And if it did, they would have dismissed it as a joke.
…The paradigm change that should have occurred, did not. On the contrary, the scientific establishment remained strongly wedded to genetic determinism, which has misguided genetic engineering, making even the most unethical applications appear compelling, such as ‘therapeutic’ human cloning, for one [2]. Bioethics became a contradiction in terms as rampant commercialization of science took hold.
For the past seven years, I have had to follow developments in genetic engineering science much more carefully and extensively than many of the practitioners, only to find that all my fears concerning the problems and dangers of genetic engineering are being confirmed.
…The basic tools of genetic engineering are bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance. All that fall into the hands of genetic engineers are exploited. Genes from dangerous agents, including antibiotic resistance genes, are profusely mixed and matched, or recombined. As every geneticist should know, recombination of genetic material is one of the main routes to creating new strains of bacteria and viruses, some of which may be pathogens. (The other route is mutation.) Moreover, the predominant orientation of genetic engineering in the past two decades has been to design artificial GM constructs and vectors that cross species barriers and invade genomes, both of which will enhance horizontal gene transfer and further increase the chance for recombination.
Instead of tightening the guidelines, our regulators have relaxed them.
My colleague, Prof. Joe Cummins has summarized more up-to-date literature showing that all GM crops may be unstable.
…The US Department of Agriculture has approved field release of GM pink bollworms this summer, made with a mobile genetic element, piggyBac, already known to jump many species. The element was first discovered in cell cultures of the cabbage looper, where it caused high mutations of the baculovirus infecting the cells, by jumping into the viral genome. In experiments in silkworms, researchers already found evidence that the inserts were unstable, and had a tendency to move again from one generation to the next.
These artificial transposons are already aggressive genome invaders, and putting them into insects is to give them wings, as well as sharp mouthparts for efficient delivery to all plants and animals… The predictable result is rampant horizontal gene transfer and recombination across species barriers. The unpredictable unknown is what kinds of new deadly viruses might be generated, and how many new cases of insertion mutagenesis and carcinogenesis they may bring.
…We must abandon GM crops and all other attempts to genetic engineer plants, animals and human beings with a technology that is widely acknowledged to be unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable.
Even the corporations are coming around to the view that “Food biotech is dead”. One by one, Aventis, Monsanto and Syngenta have announced they will concentrate on genomics and marker assisted conventional breeding. Though meanwhile, they are still forcing the world, especially the Third World, to accept GM crops.
But the whole world is in revolt.
…Organic and sustainable agricultural practices and technologies are succeeding, documented in study after study, despite the appalling lack of research funding compared to the hundreds millions that have gone into biotech. At least 3% of the arable land, some 28.9m hectares in Africa, Asia and Latin America are already farmed sustainably, with impressive gains in crop yield as well as social, economic and health benefits. Organic farming is also working well in the United States and Europe, with yields matching and even surpassing agrochemical agriculture. Organic farms are good for wildlife, supporting many more species of plants, songbirds butterflies spiders, earthworms. We need organic farming for the world to feed itself and for the planet to regenerate and thrive.
Sustainable agriculture is also important for alleviating, if not reversing global warming. A new report shows that sustainable agriculture can contribute significantly, not only to reducing consumption of fossil fuel, but increasing sequestration of carbon in the soil.
The new genetics is radically ecological, organic and holistic. That is why genetic engineering, at least in its current form, can never succeed. It is based on misconceptions that organisms are machines, and on a denial of the complexity and flexibility of the organic whole.
The challenge for western scientists is to develop a holistic science to help revitalize all kinds of non-corporate sustainable agriculture and holistic medicine that can truly bring food security and health to the world.
David Schubert, Ph.D.
Dr. Schubert, a biochemist, is a professor and the head of the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute. Much of his research has been in studying hormones and other substances that affect the survival and function of brain cells.
Given the fact that genetically modified plants are going to make proteins in different amounts and perhaps totally new proteins than their parental species, what are the potential outcomes? A worst case scenario could be that an introduced bacterial toxin is modified to make it toxic to humans. Direct toxicity may be rapidly detected once the product enters the marketplace, but carcinogenic activity or toxicity caused by interaction with other foods would take decades to detect, if ever. The same outcomes would be predicted for the production of toxins or carcinogens via indirect changes in gene expression.
Finally, if the above problems are real, what can be done to address these concerns? The issue of secondary modification could be addressed by continual monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy. The problem is that some secondary modifications, like phosphorylation or sulfation can be lost during purification. However, the best, and to me the only reasonable solution, is to require all genetically engineered plant products for human consumption be tested for toxicity and carcinogenicity before they are marketed. These safety criteria are required for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food would be much greater than that of any single drug.
Patrick Brown, Ph.D.
Dr. Brown is a professor in The Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science at the University of California. Dr. Brown is an agronomist who earned his Ph.D. from Cornell University.
This issue requires immediate and thoughtful attention from plant scientists. We must recognize that our knowledge of the processes that regulate gene incorporation and expression are in their infancy and that our capacity to manipulate the plant genome is crude. Given this current lack of understanding it is certainly possible that the current regulatory safeguards are inadequate and may not be offering sufficient protection against inadvertent creation of health and ecological problems.
Since the public education and research system is based upon a foundation of public trust, it is essential that we recognize and admit the unknowns associated with molecular biology and act with caution and integrity.
GMO Science – Understanding How GMOs Are Created, and What Prominent Scientists Are Saying
According to the World Health Organization, GMOs are “Organisms in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.”
Genetically modified organisms are organisms built with genes from more than one species. The process involves laboratories and scientists followed by regulators, lawyers and lobbyists. There is nothing natural about it. So when biotech argues that the techniques for creating GMO crops are just like traditional crop breeding techniques, those statements are blatantly false.
The First Frankenfoods
One of the first GMO crops to be put on the market was Bt-corn. Bt-corn was made a few decades ago by combining the genes of a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, with the DNA of corn. This genetic modification was engineered to create corn that produces pesticide. Every cell now produces a new protein never before seen in corn, the Bt endotoxin or Bt protein. The toxin is produced in sufficient quantities to kill insects.
The Bt protein or Bt endotoxin must be ingested in order for it to kill. After ingestion, the Bt protein binds to the insect’s digestive tract. It can no longer feed, and in a matter of hours its gut breaks down, and bacteria from its digestive tract flood the insect’s body. It dies of septicemia, eaten from within.
The Bt toxin has been found in human blood and in pregnant women and their fetuses. This means that these toxins are not only making their way into our bodies, our bodies are not fully eliminating them.
Other examples of GMOs include adding a gene from a fish into tomatoes and strawberries to protect them from freezing. Goats have been injected with spider genes in order to produce milk that contains proteins more durable than Kevlar. Also rice has been injected with human genes to manufacture pharmaceuticals.
Methods to Create GMOs
Genetically modifying plants and animals are typically created using one of three methods: the gene gun, the plasmid method, and the vector method.
Gene Gun
The gene gun literally shoots genetic material into the targeted cells. Genetic modification using the gene gun begins with either a young plant, or with cells grown in a culture. The gene gun, using specially prepared bullets, bombards the cultured cells or the young plant. The bullets are coated with microscopic gold or tungsten particles that contain segments of DNA. Once the microscopic particles are inside the nucleus of cells, the DNA can merge into the genes of the young plant or the genes of the cells in a tissue culture.
It is interesting to note that the young plant (now called a chimera) will retain most of its physical characteristics, but the plant grown from a cell culture may grow to look very different from the original plant.
The Plasmid Method
The plasmid method, the most common method, uses bacteria to modify an organism. Plasmids are a type of DNA found in bacteria. The process involves bathing the plasmids in enzymes, encoding the bacteria for antibiotic resistance, and then fusing the plasmids into target bacteria. The culture is then treated with antibiotics that kill all of the unmodified bacteria.
The Vector Method
The vector method uses a modified virus to alter the genes of the target cells. The genes to be modified or removed are isolated. The virus is altered to be less destructive and to carry the genetic payload. The virus then infects the target cells with altered genes. The infection modifies the cells’ genetic structure. As the cells multiply, all copies of the cells will express the modified genes.
Artificial Selection Vs. GMOs
Biotech argues that genetically modifying food is no different than artificial selection. Irrefutably, both processes change the genes of plants and animals.
But artificial selection and natural selection carry genes within populations that are constrained by species. Genetically modified foods have no such constraints. Genes from different species are put together to make new organisms. Let’s take a closer look at artificial selection.
What is Artificial Selection
Artificial selection is a process by which natural evolutionary processes are altered by human intervention. Current estimates place the beginning of life at 3 ½ to 4 billion years ago. This long time span is what accounts for the rich diversity of life on Earth. More than 99.9% of all species that have existed on this planet are now extinct. Of those that remain, the plants and animals most useful to us have been domesticated. Instead of survival of the fittest, think survival of the friendliest and survival of the most nutritious and delicious. With our help, the evolution of these plants and animals was put on fast forward.
Through artificial selection (also called artificial breeding) we have bred plants and animals that are in almost all cases so different from their wild counterparts as to be unrecognizable.
Wild carrots, and wild lettuce are, by today’s standards, inedible. Wild carrots produce natural pesticides, which are good for carrots and bad for us, so we bred that trait out of carrots. Wild carrots also provide fewer calories, and less nutrition than their domesticated counterparts. Wild lettuce contains latex. As you might have guessed, latex tastes horrible, and it irritates our digestive tract.
The main limitation of selective breeding is that the organisms to be bred must be closely related, usually of the same species. If not of the same species, they must be very closely related and share a recent common ancestor, such as dogs and wolves, or wild boars and pigs. Attempts to breed more distant relations such as horses and donkeys or lions and tigers usually produce sterile offspring, or no offspring at all. (A mule is bred from a male donkey and a female horse. A hinny is bred from a female donkey and a male horse. Less commonly known, a liger is an animal bred from a male lion and a female tiger. The progeny of a female lion and a male tiger is called a tigon.)
This radical alteration of plants and animals has been going on for a long time. Selective breeding has a proven track record. It isn’t perfect, and agronomists still have a lot to learn to learn in order to improve upon it, but we have been doing it for thousands of years. Without the domestication of plants and animals we could not support our population, not nationally and definitely not globally.
The changes made to domesticated plants and animals over time do alter genes. Desired traits are selected and undesirable traits are selected against. To say this modifies genes is semantically correct, but so does natural selection, but it is not the same thing as genetic modification.
Despite this limitation, it is incredible what can be achieved via artificial selection. We can produce purple potatoes, black tomatoes, yellow watermelon, over 300 breeds of dogs, and more than 800 breeds of cows. Heirloom fruits and vegetables, commercial cultivars, and hybrids have all been realized through artificial selection.
The GMO Debate and Prominent Scientists
Neil Degrasse Tyson argues that all foods are genetically modified, and that people have an irrational fear of these new foods. Bill Nye echoes the same sentiments. Both have begun publicly supporting GMOs. Neither individuals are experts on genetics, nutrition, health, or biology. Dr. Tyson is an accomplished astrophysicist. Bill Nye earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. Both individuals studied under Carl Sagan, and the late Carl Sagan had something very different to say about genetic engineering.
“Fortunately, we do not know, or at least do not yet know…how to assemble alternative sequences of nucleotides…to make alternative kinds of human beings. In the future, we might well be able to put nucleotides together…in any desired sequence…to produce human characteristics we think desirable. A disquieting and awesome prospect.” – Carl Sagan
“Biology is more like history than it is like physics. You have to know the past to understand the present. There is no predictive theory of biology just as there is no predictive theory of history. The reason is the same both subjects are still too complicated for us.” – Carl Sagan
A Geneticist Weighs In – David Suzuki
David Suzuki agrees that biology and genetics (a subfield of biology), are unpredictable. He doesn’t think that GMOs have been adequately tested, and he says that biotech has put us all in great experiment by prematurely introducing GMOs to the food supply.
“The problem is this: geneticists follow the inheritance of genes in what we call a vertical fashion. You breed a male and a female. You follow their offspring. You breed them. You follow it on down, within a species. What biotechnology allows us to do is to take genes from this organism and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. …What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without the biological constraints.” -David Suzuki
“The problem is this you see, it’s very, very bad science. We assume that the principles governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There is absolutely no reason to make that conclusion. We have to do more experimentation.” – David Suzuki
Biotech claims that they are thousands of studies proving the safety of GMOs. Many short-term studies, up to 90 days, do show their products are safe. Many long-term studies, show a very different outcome.
Dr. Goodall’s Informed Opinion
Before Jane Goodall’s work our definition of mankind was “man the toolmaker.” Dr. Goodall has made many important scientific discoveries. She proved that chimpanzees use tools, that they eat meat, and that they have a complex social system. She is a highly respected scientist.
She is well informed on GMOs, so her opinion of them is not borne of ignorance. Dr. Goodall has publically accused GMO supporters of fraud, and says that they are the ones who are “anti science”. She has warned Britain and Europe not to lower GM safeguards, and she has condemned politicians for endorsing “Frankenstein food.”
“I pursued nature to her hiding-places. Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil, as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave, or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay?” Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
When the GMO Studies Are Not Funded By Industry…
A two-year study in France has shown that rats didn’t get cancer in the first 90 days of being fed GMO corn, they began to get cancer after four months. The journal, which published the study, retracted it.
The scientists stand by their results, and they believe that the editorial appointment of Richard Goodman, a former Monsanto employee, is the reason behind the retraction. The study has been criticized for what kind of rats was used, but these are the same kind of rats used in many Monsanto studies.
There have also been long-term studies that show disruption of reproduction due to GMOs with low fertility and high infant death rates in rats and mice.
And while articles will state that there is no evidence, even anecdotal evidence of disease or problems due to GMO livestock feed, this is another lie. Farmers have complained about their animals’ poor health and sterility due to GMO feed.
GMO Contamination
Biotech said they could contain GMOs, but this was another lie. GMOs contaminate other varieties by cross-pollination. This contamination typically comes from natural sources. Birds, insects, wind, and weather can carry pollen or seeds from GMO crops many miles to other farmer’s fields. When this happens, if the farmer isn’t growing the same GMO crop, he isn’t considered the victim, he is often sued for patent violation. The usual procedure is a settlement agreement that forces the farmer into silence.
GMO wheat was not approved by the FDA, but a field of GMO wheat was found in Montana, well after the GMO crop was ordered to be destroyed.
The South Korean government bans the cultivation of GMO crops, but GMOs have been found growing in their country; especially along shipping routes. South Korea imports animal feed, and they import GMO crops, but they do prohibit growing GMOs. Now they have no choice; GMOs are growing themselves.
Many countries have banned the cultivation of GMOs, and most countries require GMOs to be clearly labeled. Canada and the U.S. do not currently require GMO labeling, except in a few states. There is currently a bill called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which would eliminate state’s rights to label GMOs.
The Labeling Double-Standard
Biotech has opposed GMO labeling for consumers, but they are certainly pro-labeling when it comes to their seeds. When farmers buy their seed, they extensively label it, and they explain the many restrictions placed on their seeds. One of the restrictions is that farmers are prohibited from growing non-GMO crops alongside GMO crops, making it impossible to compare yields. Biotech claims GMOs increase yield, but this is another lie as proven by crop yields across the world.
One of the more common genetic modifications renders a plant immune to Round Up. This allows the farmer to spray Round Up in large amounts all over his or her field to kill weeds. Unfortunately, this process has resulted in Round Up resistant weeds, and it increases herbicide residues in the crops. Recently, the World Health Organization said the widespread use of Round Up is a main cause of the rising cancer rates worldwide.
How To Avoid GMOs
Avoiding GMOs won’t be easy for most people who eat prepackaged, processed foods. The NON-GMO project verified label is helpful. It means the ingredients are 99% GMO free. Organic also means 99% GMO free. More than 80% of processed foods contain GMO ingredients. If you buy processed foods, buy organic.
Trader Joe’s sells GMO foods, though their name brand items do not contain them.
Whole Foods talks a good game, but so far they have done nothing except provide some organic options. Exclusively organic restaurants are few and far between, and unfortunately, almost any other restaurant will be serving GMO food. The most common GMOs are canola oil, soy (including milk and oil), corn (including high fructose corn syrup), cottonseed oil, zucchini, yellow squash, papaya, aspartame (which is produced from genetically modified bacteria) and sugar (from sugar beets).
Conclusion
Despite what biotech would have you believe, it is not unscientific to reject GMOs. The rest of the world is not too keen on genetically modified foods, and the scientific community is divided on the issue. The majority of scientists appear to support GMO technology, but there is a lot of money involved in supporting it and nothing but hardship for those who dare oppose it. Many scientists are harshly criticized, censored, and have their funding disappear if they are critical of biotechnology.
Censorship has no place in science, and in order for science to thrive, scientific inquiry must be given free reign. If allowed, science is ultimately self-correcting, but not when scientists are coerced into supporting commercial interests before science. This is exactly what is happening.
The belief that GMOs are harmful to human health certainly has scientific validity. Despite what biotech companies would have us believe, we evolved to eat food, not chemicals. We evolved to eat organisms that came from the earth, not organisms that came from a laboratory.
What We Can Do About It
In a free society, it should be easier to opt out of this GMO experiment. We should have the right to choose what we put into our bodies and not have it chosen for us.
We can vote with our dollars, but not when we are kept in the dark.
Please contact your representative and senators (also check out How To Contact Congress)now and let them know you want to see all GMO foods labeled. Ask them to vote against the Food Safety and Labeling Act, which would deny states the right to require GMO labeling.
Vandana Shiva, Ph.D
Richard Strohman, Ph.D.
Gilles-Eric Seralini, Ph.D.
David Suzuki, Ph.D.
Jane Goodall, Ph.D.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D.
David Schubert, Ph.D.
Patrick Brown, Ph.D.