Our Food, Our Health: Quality and Safety First!

genetically modified organism, gmo, not needed, not the answer

The food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink and consume are so important to our general health. Yet, clean and trusted sources which provide us with it are struggling to survive.

Our fresh air is being manipulated more than ever, as we’ve documented in our “Global Weather Manipulation for Profits and Power” article, and it’s not because of CO2 which is vital for life on Earth. Our water is being polluted on a major scale, like in India, the U.S., China and Europe where increasing levels of pharmaceutical ingredients are being detected in rivers and other waterways. Aside from this kind of water pollution there are also health risks when fluoride and other chemicals and toxins [suppliers are known to list (sodium) fluoride as an insecticide] are deliberately being added to our drinking water, claimed to be used during the purification of wastewater but high levels of fluoride, chemicals and toxins are found in the tapwater which is being consumed by the people.

Our food is also being tampered with in ways that most people don’t even realize. Many crops (corn, soy, cotton,…) and animals (cattle, poultry, livestock) are being genetically modified with the help of corporations like Syngenta, DuPont, Bayer and Monsanto, which is also the producer of the infertility-causing Roundup herbicide. More than 60 countries are being reported to either ban import/production of GMOs or to set requirements to label GMO products (1, 2, 3, 4) because studies are showing that food safety and therefore our health in general cannot be guaranteed during the consumption process of GMOs.

European Commission BEETLE studies clearly state that:

  • “Resistance development” in GM plants was “already anticipated from the risk assessments.” This means that researchers are already aware, for a long time, of the fact that genetically modified plants (crops) will develop into new herbicide-resistant species thus developing properties of which the effects on our health and the environment are not yet known or have not been published by researchers and scientists for various reasons.
  • “Insect resistance development”: the research shows that insects will adapt to the new GM plant features whereby the consequences are not known or scarcely published. In addition insect species will become resistant to the increasingly toxic pesticides. The results of research on the impact of this on our health and the environment do not provide facts which can guarantee our food safety, safeguard our health and the environment.
  • “Could have long-term effects on the environment (including biodiversity) and health”: Clearly, the research does point out that there most likely will be effects on our health and the environment. It’s fair to assume this because “including biodiversity” indicates that the researchers are aware of the fact that GMOs will reduce the amount of wild plants in relation to genetically modified plants. Less biodiversity means less wild (natural) species (plants, trees, insects,…). This is well documented in other research as we can see in documentaries like “A Silent Forest. The Growing Threat, Genetically Engineered Trees.”

At the “GMO Safety Research Round Table” the EU denies that GMOs would be harmful yet in this same Round Table report they admit that “long term studies monitoring animal welfare so far have not been carried out.” How can the EU conlcude that GMOs are safe when there hasn’t been any long term study, in this case on animals?

A 2011 study by the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre (Canada), Maternal and Fetal Exposure to Pesticides Associated to Genetically Modified Foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec,  reveals the presence of circulating pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in both pregnant and nonpregnant women. This study shows that pesticides remain in the human body and that genes and bacteria inserted into GM crops do survive the digestive tract, affecting not only the women but also their developing infants.

In 2010 Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov’s study concluded that genetically modified soy can be linked to sterility and infant mortality.

A 2008 Institute of Science in Society study found that GM maize reduces fertility and deregulates genes in mice.

The University of Minnesota reported in 2003 about possible harmful effects in regard to food allergy, increased toxicity, decreased nutritional value and antibiotic resistance linked to GMOs.

Chinese scientists announced in 2011 that they’ve successfully introduced human genes into dairy cows, in an attempt to let cows produce human breast milk. The impact on the animals’ and human health is not clear but it’s fair to assume that there will by consequences and that once again our health cannnot be guaranteed with this kind of practices.

Last year (2012) Natural News published an article in which they reported how British biochemist Arpad Pusztai and his team lost their job, in 1998, for exposing the truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer among many other conditions. In the same article an Egyptian study by Hussein Kaoud of Cairo University’s Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene was brought forward in which he came to the same conclusions as Arpad Pusztai did, through similar research. A few years later, in 2001, Pusztai questioned the safety of GMOs once again and remains to do so until this day.

In another EU report, “A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research” it’s being stated that “there will certainly be reward and recognition for the person who finds proof of harm”, this stands in stark contrast to what happened with Arpad Pusztai, his research and findings, and for so many others who are searching for the truth about GMOs.

On September 25, 2012, the European Commission was asked to respond to 3 important questions in regard to GMOs and their safety, after Professor Gilles Séralini’s criticised study came out in the press on September 19, 2012 (as published in the Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal):

  • “Why has the Commission never asked the [GMO] industry or the EFSA for long-term studies — beyond the current standard of three months — to check the hazardousness/harmlessness of GMOs? Given that the effects of GMOs will only be known in the long term, why has no study ever been carried out?”
  • “How does the Commission explain the fact that a non-governmental study was the first to carry out such an important analysis?”
  • “Finally, how do we explain to our fellow citizens that GM products have been allowed into the European Union without any efforts to fully study the impact of those products on health and the environment?”

In its skimpy response to these questions the European Commission stated on November 26, 2012, that:

  • “in 2008 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that 90-day studies with rodents are normally of sufficient duration for the identification of general toxicological effects of compounds.”

With answers like this the EU gives the impression that their own political views, opinions and findings are superior to real science and research. As if the EU is an oracle which can provide everyone with the right anwers at any given time. But all the results of the studies included in this Truth News International © article prove that the EU’s position is not a correct one to say the least and that long-term studies of more than 90 days, (90 days) which is a ridiculous short timeframe for examining compounds which are known to produce serious/alarming side effects after more than 90 days, are required and that a timeframe of minimum 2 years should be the new basis for GMO studies by any institution, scientist, researcher, corporation or lab. Even this 2-year timeframe is not long enough to evaluate the true effects of GMOs, in an adequate manner, in order to safeguard human health and the safety of the environment and the animals which are being fed GMOs.

Results from other studies have shown that:

  • Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions
  • GM insecticidal protein acts as a sensitizer, making mice [in this case] susceptible to developing immune reactions and allergies to normally non-allergenic foods
  • Mice fed GM soy showed disturbed liver, pancreas and testes function
  • Mice fed GM soy over their lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in the liver than the control group fed non-GM soy
  • Rabbits fed GM soy showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart
  • Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in uterus and ovaries
  • A review of 19 studies (including industry’s own studies submitted to regulators in support of
    applications to commercialise GM crops) on mammals fed with commercialised GM soy and
    maize that are already in our food and feed chain found consistent toxic effects on the liver and kidneys
  • A re-analysis of Monsanto’s own rat feeding trial data, submitted to obtain approval in Europe for three commercialised GM Bt maize varieties, MON863, MON810, and NK603, concluded that the maize varieties had toxic effects on liver and kidneys
  • Old and young mice fed GM Bt maize showed a disturbance in immune system cells and in biochemical activity
  • Female sheep fed Bt GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system, while their lambs showed cellular changes in liver and pancreas
  • GM Bt maize DNA was found to survive processing and was detected in the digestive tract of sheep
  • Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers
  • Rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre- cancerous condition and toxic reactions in multiple organ systems
  • Rats fed GM Bt rice developed significant differences as compared with rats fed the non-
    GM isogenic line of rice. These included differences in the populations of gut bacteria – the GM-fed group had 23% higher levels of coliform bacteria
  • A study on rats fed GM Bt rice found a Bt-specific immune response in the non-GM-fed control group as well as the GM-fed groups. The researchers concluded that the immune response in the control animals was due to their inhaling particles of the powdered Bt toxin-containing feed consumed by the GM-fed group …This indicates that animals can be sensitive to very small amounts of GM proteins, so even low levels of contamination of non-GM crops with GMOs could be harmful to health
  • In a study on human volunteers fed a single GM soybean meal, GM DNA survived processing and was detected in the digestive tract
  • In a study on humans, one of the experimental subjects showed an immune response to GM
    soy but not to non-GM soy. GM soy was found to contain a protein that was different from the
    protein in non-GM soy. This suggests that GM foods could cause new allergies
  • A GM soy variety modified with a gene from Brazil nuts was found to react with antibodies present in blood serum taken from people known to be allergic to Brazil nuts

In addition, it has been reported before that animals refuse to eat GMOs when they’re given the choice to eat non-GMO forage:

The results of GMO studies show that genetically modified/engineered organisms (food) are not safe for humans, animals, plants and trees and that the water supply is being contaminated with active ingredients like glyphosate (as used in Monsanto’s Roundup, Dow AgroSciences’ Accord XRT II and Rodeo, Syngenta’s Touchdown). Also the BT varieties do pose a threat to soil and water, as research shows [1, 2].

Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research

In August 2009 Scientific American wrote: “It is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as [well as] advertised [by agritech com­panies] … because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.”

Here the true reasons for the EU, the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) and the agritech com­panies to reject the results of the studies conducted by scientists become clear.

“Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering,” wrote Scientific American.

Linked to GMOs

Some of the biggest companies of today which either control the publication of GMO/pesticide/herbicide research, use GMOs in their products or support the non-labeling of GMO products include:

  • Notice: company statements such as “we don’t use GMO(s) (sources) in regions where such use is not approved by regulatory authority” simply mean that the company does use GMOs in regions (countries) where the use of GMOs is not prohibited or labeling is not required by law.

So who else earns a lot of money in the GMO industry? Here are just 5 of the many names:

GMOs Not Needed and Not the Answer

In March of this year (2013) the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned Uganda against the use of genetically modified organisms. FAO’s  José Graziano da Silva opposed the use of GMOs as means of increasing food production to fight hunger. According to Graziano “we don’t need them now, we don’t know what will happen to areas of production and the crops … it is risky for continents whose crops have GMOs; we want to ensure that proper security measures related to environment contamination are taken.” Graziano further noted that in case GMOs are used, products should be labeled so as to give the consumer the right to choose if they want or don’t want to consume GMOs.

In the UN report (2012 publication) “Avoiding Future Famines: Strengthening the Ecological Basis of Food Security through Sustainable Food Systems” 12 leading scientists and experts involved in world food systems wrote:

  • “High fertilizer loading causes unsustainable impacts on the environment outside of farms, including eutrophication of surface waters and contamination of groundwater”
  • “Traditional agriculture does not require the high artificial inputs”
  • “Deforestation and pesticide contamination of lands adjacent to farmland can degrade off-farm biodiversity, including the destruction of organisms responsible for pollination of crops or natural pest control”
  • “Enhance the nutritious value of diets so that fewer people suffer from diseases related to malnutrition or obesity”
  • “[allow] individuals [to] afford to purchase nutritious food supplies; good nutrition is considered an essential aspect of food security”
  • “Because of their low inputs, [traditional farming systems] tend to be more environmentally friendly than conventional agriculture … they usually belong to one of the lowest income categories in the country where they live. They are amongst the most vulnerable social groups, but at the same time they produce the bulk of the food in developing countries”

The UN’s International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) reported in 2008 that “genetically-modified crops are not the solution to spiralling food prices or Third World hunger”. The DailyMail wrote that the IAASTD also warned against the rush to grow crops to be turned into fuel – biofuels – saying this could exacerbate food shortages and price rises.

Earlier, in 2003, the UN has implemented the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty currently accepted by 166 countries/states which governs the (international) movements of LMOs (living modified organisms) or GMOs.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) concluded in their 2009 report, “Failure to Yield“, that “for years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields … Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.” Based on their studies the UCS also concludes that “genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.”

Even popular mainstream magazines like O, The Oprah Magazine write that “despite the potential health implications, more GM foods appear each year. In 2011 the USDA approved the planting of genetically enhanced sugar beets (sucrose) and alfalfa (hay for livestock). The FDA is expected to okay a fast-growing salmon in the near future. And possibly on the horizon: pigs designed to produce omega-3s.” The magazine encourages to buy organic, look for the ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ seal, check supplement/vitamin labels and when possible, steer clear of nonorganic products.

Now that also glow-in-the-dark cats, frankenswines, scorpion-venom pesticide, spider-web-protein-producing goats, virus-genes bananas and medicinal eggs have been made, who knows what else is being modified and engineered behind closed and secret lab doors. Isn’t it time to stop this madness, where will this all lead? We are crossing lines and we don’t know the outcome. Reconnect with nature, our Earth provides the solutions to a healthy life for everyone. Conduct your own research, there are numerous natural cures available for cancer, diseases, disorders and allergies which are not being promoted by big pharma and the media.