Doctors call for a moratorium on GM Foods

As reported over at Organic Consumers Association

"The American Academy of Environmental Medicine was founded in 1965, and is an international association of physicians and other professionals interested in the clinical aspects of humans and their environment. The Academy is interested in expanding the knowledge of interactions between human individuals and their environment, as these may be demonstrated to be reflected in their total health. The AAEM provides research and education in the recognition, treatment and prevention of illnesses induced by exposures to biological and chemical agents encountered in air, food and water. .... Wichita, KS - The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health." The AAEM calls for:

* A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.
* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods.
* Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients' disease processes.
* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM. "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions," said Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM. "The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil." The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html. AAEM is an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health. More information is available at www.aaemonline.org."

Stop Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Wheat

I recently learned that chicken producers in the UK are complaining that sourcing feed with a minimum of GM ingredients, less than .9% as required by supermarkets, is getting harder and harder as Monsanto and their corporate bully ilk are tightening their control on frankenfood corn and soy production (as reported on Farming Today on the BBC ). Meanwhile the corporate profiteers are gearing up to re-invigorate the fight to frankenstein our wheat supply. You can join in the fight to keep this most traditional and basic of food staples a safe edible product by reading this article at Organic Consumers Association and follow the links to send a message of dissapproval.

Here is an excerpt from the newsletter;

"Stop Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Wheat

Monsanto and the biotech bullies are once again moving to tighten their grip on the world's food supply. Genetically engineered (GE) varieties now account for 70-90% of all conventional (non-organic) corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola grown in the U.S. Joining the growing menu of unlabeled and untested gene-spliced Frankenfoods, genetically engineered sugar (derived from GE sugar beets) hit store shelves in 2008. Now it appears that the most controversial crop of them all, Monsanto's GE wheat, is not far behind, at least if industry gets its way. Given that wheat is such a major global crop and essential ingredient in bread, breakfast cereals, pasta and other everyday foods, the force-feeding of unlabeled GE wheat on the public would represent a major conquest for Monsanto and the biotech industry.

Although Monsanto withdrew their applications to the U.S. and Canadian governments for approval of genetically engineered wheat in 2004 because of tremendous pressure from the OCA and hundreds of our allied public interest groups and farmers (as well as pressure from large food companies such as General Mills), it looks like we're in for another round of battle.

Wheat industry groups in the United States, Canada and Australia announced on May 14, 2009, they would work toward the objective of "synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in the wheat crop." For the sake of the Earth and public health, we must stop them."

OCA Web Video of the Week: The Genetic Conspiracy - Are Genetically Engineered Foods Dangerous?

Check out the Organic Consumers Association 3 part web video

The Genetic Conspiracy - Are Genetically Engineered Foods Dangerous?

What's wrong with genetic engineering the food supply?

I found this interview over at Organic Consumers Association

Arpad Pusztai and the Risks of Genetic Engineering

• By Ken Roseboro, ed.
  The Organic and Non-GMO Report, June 2009
  Straight to the Source
  
  

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

Arpad Pusztai was one of the first scientists to raise concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods. In the late 1990s, Pusztai, a respected molecular biologist, conducted research on GM potatoes for the Rowett Institute in Scotland. The potatoes were genetically altered to produce lectins, natural insecticides, to protect them against aphids. Pusztai conducted feeding studies on rats and found that the potatoes damaged the animals' gut, other organs, and immune system. In 1998, Pusztai expressed his concerns about GM foods on a British television program and was promptly suspended and forced to retire from his position. Dr. Pusztai's research was later peer reviewed and published in The Lancet, a leading British medical journal.

You were initially supportive of genetically modified foods, is that correct?

Yes, I thought at the time on the basis of rather poor understanding of genetic modification that it was a good idea. As we progressed with our experimental work we found all the snags and I had to re-assess my ideas.

What negative impacts did you find with GM potatoes you were developing?

The first problem that we encountered was when we tried to correlate the protection of the potato plant leaves against aphid attack with the transgene expression level. We found there was very little or no correlation at all. That is a major flaw, sufficient to question the validity of the whole idea. The next was that the transgenically expressed insecticidal protein did not only damage the aphid pests but also their natural enemies, such as the ladybugs. What was particularly damaging for the validity of genetic modification was when we found that diets based on GM potatoes affected the growth, organ development, and immune reactivity of young rapidly growing rats. The final straw was when we showed that the damage originated not from the transgene and its expressed product but from the damage caused by the insertion of the transgene, probably due to insertional mutagenesis.

Why is genetic engineering a risky technology?

Gene insertion is a major problem. You cannot direct where the splicing of the genetic construct will happen. It is well known that when you insert a genetic construct into the DNA network of a plant, you create changes in that network. As a result, you will get changes in the functionality of the plant's own genes. They may become more active or silent. The effects will be unpredictable and uncontrollable. It can sometimes cause irreparable damage to the genome. This is insertional mutagenesis.

The biotechnology industry simply overrides this concern. They say we don't have to worry about it, and if you raise your voice, you are called a Luddite.

Fundamentally the science of genetic engineering is crap. One gene expressing one protein is the basis of genetic engineering, but the Human Genome Project discovered 23,000 genes, and there are 200,000 proteins in every cell. With this discovery, genetic engineering should have disappeared into the dustbin, but the biotechnology industry is so strong. Genetic engineering is a product driven technology. If you have enough money to throw at it, you can do many things. But the industry won't waste money on safety assessment.

What are some of the studies you are aware of showing negative health impacts of GM foods?

In addition to the organ ultrastructural studies showing up significant changes, the most important studies are ones that showed alterations in the immune system. The Australian study (showing that GM peas caused immune damage in mice), the recent Italian study (showing immune disturbances in mice fed GM corn), and the reproduction studies of Irina Ermakova and more recently the Austrian study (showing reduced fertility in mice fed GM corn).

Although the significance of these studies is questioned by the biotech industry and regulatory agencies, in scientific terms the writing is on the wall for the present genetic modification technique.

What type of safety testing do you think should be done on GM foods?

We could do more targeted safety testing using proper nutritional/toxicological, metabolic, cancer, immunological and reproductive studies to reassure ourselves that the major dangers have been eliminated. Most of the methodologies for these exist and have been used with new non-GM food protein sources in the past. Why are these not used?

GM food advocates try to discredit studies showing negative health or environmental impacts of GM foods and scientists who conduct the studies. You were forced to resign from the Rowett Institute. Why are GM food advocates so hostile to such research and what can be done to ensure that independent research on GM food safety is conducted?

The reason is simple: GM advocates' main reason for denying money and facilities for proper safety assessment is that they financially and socially benefit from the existence of GM products. We have to make society to understand that they and the state will have to pay for independent research.

Why are such limited funds available for research looking at health effects of GM foods?

It is not in the interest of the biotech companies, or most of the governments, to dig up data that could question the safety of GM products. For the industry GM is just another product and, if it is not acutely poisonous, their job is to sell as much as possible of it.

Do you believe that scientific research will conclusively show that GM foods pose significant health risks?

Yes.

Get Former Monsanto Lobbyist off of the Food safety working group

"Agri-Pulse reported that former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor, who has been serving on President Obama's Department of Agriculture Transition Team, was "the leading candidate to staff the White House [food safety] working group." Michael Taylor, who now promotes himself as a food safety expert, is a lawyer whose accomplishments include shepherding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) through Clinton's FDA as the Deputy Administrator for Policy." - OCA

Go to the Organic Consumers Association to send a message to Secretary Vilsack. Remove Michael Taylor from our nations' Food safety working group.

Can Genetically modified crops feed the World?

Here is the text of the daily audio from the Scientific American 60 Second Earth podcast by David Biello

"Humans have been genetically modifying crops for millenia the old-fashioned way—selective breeding. But new techniques that insert foreign genetic material, say bacterial genes to produce insecticide in a corn plant, have raised health and environmental concerns. And that has prompted European countries, most recently Germany, to ban genetically modified, or GM, crops.

Proponents argue that GM crops can help feed the world. And given ever increasing demands for food, animal feed, fiber and now even biofuels, the world needs all the help it can get.

Unfortunately, it looks like GM corn and soybeans won't help, after all.

A study from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that genetically engineered crops do not produce larger harvests. Crop yield increases in recent years have almost entirely been due to improved farming or traditional plant breeding, despite more than 3,000 field trials of GM crops.

Of course, farmers have typically planted, say, GM corn, because it can tolerate high doses of weed-killer. And the Biotechnology Industry Organization argues that GM crops can boost yields in developing countries where there are limited resources for pesticides.

But it appears that, to date, traditional plant breeding boosts crop yields better than genetic modification. Those old farmers were on to something."—David Biello

Non GMO when buying dairy

Here's a list of Dairy products, alternative dairy products and infant formula indicating it's GMO status.

"DAIRY PRODUCTS &
ALTERNATIVE DAIRY PRODUCTS
Some U.S. dairy farms inject the genetically engineered hor-
mone rbGH, also called rbST, into their cows to boost milk
production—so be sure to purchase products with a label that
indicates cows free of rbGH or rbST. Many alternative dairy prod-
ucts are made from soybeans and may contain GM materials.
Dairy Products: Non-GMO
Certified Organic
Alta Dena Organics
Butterworks Farm
Harmony Hills Dairy
Horizon Organic
Morningland Dairy
Natural by Nature
Organic Valley
Radiance Dairy
Safeway Organic Brand
Seven Stars Farm
Straus Family Creamery
Stonyfield Farm
Wisconsin Organics

Produced Without rbGH
National
Alta Dena
Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream
Brown Cow Farm
Crowley Cheese of Vermont
Franklin County Cheese
Grafton Village Cheese
Great Hill Dairy
Lifetime Dairy

West Coast
Alpenrose Dairy
Berkeley Farms
Clover Stornetta Farms
Joseph Farms Cheese
Sunshine Dairy Foods
Tillamook Cheese
Wilcox Family Farms
Midwest and Gulf States
Chippewa Valley Cheese
Erivan Dairy Yogurt
Promised Land Dairy
Westby Cooperative Creamery

East Coast
Blythedale Farm Cheese
Crescent Creamery
Derle Farms (milk with “no rbST” label only)
Erivan Dairy Yogurt
Farmland Dairies
Oakhurst Dairy
Wilcox Dairy (rbST-free dairy line only)


May contain GMO ingredients
Colombo (General Mills)
Dannon
Kemps (aside from
“Select” brand)
Land O’ Lakes
Parmalat
Sorrento
Yoplait (General Mills)

Alternative Dairy Products
Non-GMO
Belsoy
EdenSoy
Imagine Foods/Soy Dream
Nancy’s Cultured Soy
Pacific Soy
Silk
Soy Delicious
Sun Soy
Stonyfield Farm O’Soy
Tofutti
VitaSoy/Nasoya
WestSoy
WholeSoy
Yves The Good Slice
Zen Don

May contain GMO ingredients
8th Continent
BABY FOODS & INFANT FORMULA
Milk or soy protein is the basis of most infant formulas. The
secret ingredients in these products are often soy or milk from
cows injected with rbGH. Many brands also add GMO-derived
corn syrup, corn syrup solids, or soy lecithin.

Non-GMO
Baby’s Only
(certified organic products)
Earth’s Best
Gerber products
HAPPYBABY
Mom Made Meals
Organic Baby
Plum Organics

May contain GMO ingredients
Beech-Nut
Enfamil
Good Start
Nestlé
Similac/Isomil " - copied from the NON GMO Shopping Guide from The Center for Food Safety which you can download here at realfoodmedia.com

NPR allows Monsanto propaganda on it's programs

It's distressing to hear that NPR is allowing false and deceptive advertising on it's programs. Of all the corporations I consider to be doing serious harm I can't think of one that is lower on the ethical scale than Monsanto, they are even with Exxon for sleaze factor. Read more in this article by Meredith Niles over at Grist. Here is an excerpt;

"The real problem with the Monsanto ads is that they are not “honest or accurate,” but rather quite simply false. The premise of the ad is more or less that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. All while the corporation made more than 11 billion dollars in 2008 amidst a world food crisis. The catch phrase, “Produce more, conserve more” even has its own website, which conveniently links directly to Monsanto’s website section on “sustainable agriculture”. But the reality of Monsanto’s seeds and the company’s ethics and commitment to fighting world hunger have nothing to do with producing more or conserving more.

Let’s get a few facts on the table. Eighty-five percent of all GM seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance. Most of these crops are Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. What this tolerance means is that the plant can actually withstand significant amounts of pesticides being sprayed on it—in effect promoting pesticide use. In the past farmers were motivated to spray judiciously since their crops could be adversely affected. Farmers growing GM seeds don’t worry about this, and as a result there has been an increase in pesticide use in the United States since the introduction of GM seeds. The most comprehensive independent research done utilizing USDA data demonstrates that since the introduction of GM crops in the United States, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides were used. This seems to be a growing trend as well, as the active ingredient in Roundup Ready crops—glyphosate—s becoming less efficient and creating scores of resistant weeds, resulting in increased use.

In 2008 Monsanto’s total sales for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides was more than $4 billion—up 59 percent from 2007. Perhaps more importantly, its gross profit from such sales was nearly 2 billion dollars- up 131% from 2007. So, what is Monsanto conserving more of? Certainly not biodiversity, human health, wildlife, pollinators or the soil, which are all adversely affected by pesticide use.

The claims of “producing more” that Monsanto touts in the NPR ads are also completely unfounded. Not a single GM crop has been commercially introduced that is intended to increase yield. Agronomists and plant scientists made far greater advances in yields through conventional breeding methods in the 20th century than they ever have with GM crops. In fact, there have been several studies which show that there are actually yield losses associated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans. What biotech companies have been effective at doing is crafting media messages that persuade the average person to believe that their crops increase yield and that without GM crops we simply couldn’t feed the world.

In fact, GM crops account for less than 3% of total agricultural acreage globally. Five countries in North and South America account for more than 90% of total global acreage, with the United States, Argentina and Brazil making up 80% of total global GM crop acreage. In Africa, only two countries-South Africa and Burkina Faso-allow the commercial planting of GM crops, which are minimally grown. Less than 3% of the cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, and in India most of that is cotton- not food. This leads me to my next point- four cash crops- soy, maize, cotton and canola make up almost 100% of GM crops planted worldwide. Of these commodity crops, most are used to make biofuels, processed foods, animal feed, and vegetable oils-they are not fed directly to people in their whole form. The bottom line? GM crops are not feeding the world, and they are not enabling us to produce more."

Who Owns Nature?

Greed knows no bounds. In the rush to commodify life, fewer and fewer corporations have gained control over more and more of our common heritage as living organisms on this planet. The ETC Group has released a report which you can download cataloging the extent of the situation. Or you can read a summary over at Organic Consumers Association.


"ETC Group's report highlights similarities between the current financial and food crises. "Corporate-controlled food systems, suffering from decades of deregulation, have resulted in a cornucopia of calamities making us sicker, fatter and more vulnerable," says ETC's Research Director Hope Shand. Ongoing food contamination scandals, the global obesity burden and ocean "dead zones" caused by fertilizer pollution are among the food chain disasters cited in Who Owns Nature? "Unhealthy and hazardous food products are constant reminders of a corporate food chain broken to bits," adds Shand.

Governments are working hand-in-hand with corporations to deny the root causes of the crises and sidestep structural reforms. "Despite the implications for democracy and human rights, no international body exists to monitor global corporate activity and no UN body has the capacity to monitor and evaluate emerging technologies," says ETC Group's Kathy Jo Wetter. "The ongoing food emergency and imploding global economy testify to the need for monitoring and oversight of corporations, as well as social control of powerful new technologies."

What to do? Buy local and non corporate, buy organic, or even better don't buy at all, grow your own, avoid F1 hybridized seed, seed swap, grow heritage varieties, lobby your government representatives to limit corporate power and excess.

Thanks to Diary of a Bad Housewife for the graphic.

News Flash! Mice Smarter than Humans!

Lesson of the Week:
School Lab Rats Freak Out on GE Food
Schools in Wisconsin are showing kids the dangers of genetically engineered (GE) junk food with some unique science class experiments. Sister Luigi Frigo repeats the experiment every year in her second grade class in Cudahy. Students feed one group of mice unprocessed whole foods. A second group of mice are given the same junk foods served at most schools. Within a couple of days, the behavior of the second group of mice develop erratic sleeping schedules and become lazy, nervous and even violent. It takes the mice about three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. According to Frigo, the second graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the same mice, but the animals have already learned their lesson and refuse to eat the GE food.

Read all about it at Organic Consumers Association