Taking a stand against genetically modified organisms

Food for Thought
By: Evan Folds - August 10th, 2010

Ever heard of genetically modified organisms (GMO)? I dare say that the majority of the population eats them in abundance on a daily basis. Why? Well, for one the USDA does not require the labeling of “food” products that contain GMOs. Some history of how we got here may help.

In 1978 a company called “Genentech” inserted a human insulin gene into an E. Coli bacterium in order to create functional insulin, marking the first use of the technology called “recombinant DNA,” where genes from different organisms combine to form a hybrid molecule.

In 1981 Amanda Mohan Chakrabarty successfully inserted foreign genes into a Pseudomonas bacterium and created an organism capable of eating oil spills (hmmm, BP, take note!). This marked the first time a living organism had been altered genetically. The ethics of this procedure were actually upheld by the Supreme Court in what has become the wartershed moment in GMO history. From 1981 onward companies would be incentivized to change life in order to patent and make money of off living organisms.

And we’ve never looked back.

This is the legacy we deal with today. We are so entrenched in this world view that we cannot bring ourselves to recignize what we’re eating.

Think about that.

There is no transparency in the US food system. Plants and animals that have had their genetics fundamentally altered are not being disclosed to consumers, and this is not a hard thing to accomplish. The reasons vary.

One: If GMO foodstuff were labeled, people would not eat it, and other countries would not buy our “food” exports. This has been proven in Europe where most countries disclose GMO products by law.
Two: Companies such as Monsanto and Cargill lobby heavily to prevent disclosure of what is in our food in order to reap huge monetary rewards. They do this by direct sale of the GMO seed and plants, and also by creating products that complement their GMO offerings. For instance, RoundUp is an herbicide containing glycophosphates invented by Monsanto in 1973. Glycophosphates have been marketed as “biodegradable” and “non-toxic,” but they subsist in the environment for up to three years, according to a Swedish study. Better yet, they are linked to Alzeihmers, reproductive issues, and many other horrific health problems.

Monsanto is also responsible for inventing RoundUp-ready soybeans. “RoundUp-ready” means that the soybeans, with the special genes inserted, are capable of withstanding treatment with RoundUp. So, they invent living organisms that can survive the stress of being doused with the toxic soups they create. That’s a brilliant business model, but it’s killing people and it’s simply evil. The only thing that RoundUp-ready crops ensure is more RoundUp!

The perspective that allows this blatant abuse of humanity and Earth’s ecosystems is hard to understand for the average individual, but it is alive and well. COO of Hugh Grant explains Monsanto’s development from a chemical company (RoundUp) to a biotech company (GMO) over the years:

“The answer that we developed was that we believe that the world needs about 35 to 40 percent more food produced on every acre. Chemicals weren’t the answer to that next increment of production. It was in genetics. It was in better seed. So, really, that’s been driving us for more than 10 years now.”

An entire article could be written on the faults of this logic, but the idea that we need more space to grow food is folly. For example, the largest irrigated crop in the U.S. is grass, with 40 million acres. That’s more than three times corn, which has 13 million acres under irrigation. If everyone simply turned their lawns into a garden, we’d be fine. (Suggested reading: “Food, Not Lawns.”)

Besides this, there is no doubt that GMO foods disrupt living systems. For example, Indian activist Dr. Vandana Shiva’s organization Navdanya conducted a study that verified a 14.2 percent decrease in bacteria and a 17 percent decrease in actinomycete populations in soil, from the use of GMO Bt Cotton over a three-year period. The repercussions of this have resulted in over 25,000 suicides by Indian farmers since 1995. Even more terrifying, there has yet to be one study that tests the effects of these frankenfoods on the human organism—yikes!

How can Monsanto and company possibly justify the idea that we do not need to label GMO “foods”? Let’s quote COO Hugh Grant of Monsanto again:

“Let me tell you the Monsanto view on labeling today. We believe very strongly—very strongly—that these products are safe. And in their safety, there is no need to label, and that’s the position that has been held by the FDA. The FDA labeling requirements are really triggered by if a product is essentially the same, then there is no labeling requirement.” (seriously!?--jef)

Should we trust the FDA? Should it really be up to a tool like Hugh Grant to determine whether or not what we eat is safe? Can you say, “Conflict of interest”? Is he really suggesting that fundamentally altering the genetics of a plant is “essentially the same” as a natural plant? All due respect to Monsanto’s “beliefs,” the real question is: Should we believe them?

No.

So, how can we avoid GMO crops? The “big four” consist of corn, soy, canola, and cotton. All processed foods also contain GMOs, in addition to corn flours, oils, sweeteners and meals created by the “big four” commodity crops. Think salad dressings, cookies and anything with high-fructose corn syrup (isn’t that everything?). To be clear, unless buying from local farms or “organic” whole foods—and this includes restaurants too—it most likely contains GMO products.

www.NonGMOProject.org.