| http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
What they found were statistically-significant deleterious affects on multiple organs, most noticeably the kidney and liver but also evident in the 'heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.'
This was the same data (forcibly acquired through the courts by the French researchers) Montesanto had used to show the clear safety of these three GMO products.
But, what was perhaps more relevant, significant, and disturbing was the complete inadequacy of the original study which allowed Montesanto to release these products into the marketplace: - 'Firstly, the feeding trials in each case have been conducted only once, and with only one mammalian species. The experiments clearly need to be repeated preferably with more than one species of animal.'
- 'Secondly, the length of feeding was at most only three months, and thus only relatively acute and medium-term effects can be observed if any similar to what can be derived in a process such as carcinogenesis.'
- 'Thirdly, the statistical power of the tests conducted is low (30%) because the experimental design of Monsanto (see Materials and Methods). However, it is important to note that these short-term (3-month) rat feeding trials are the only tests conducted on the basis of which regulators determine whether these GM crop/food varieties are as safe to eat as conventional types.'
In fact, the French researchers went so far as to say that through study modifications and inconsistencies “increases noticeably the risks of false negative results.” Montsanto has criticized the French researchers because of legal support provided by Greenpeace and the Danish government and in their research assessment which relied on what they call “a variety of non-standard statistical approaches.” Montsanto also critcized them for dissecting their data in such a way as to drastically inflate the probability of producing statistically significant findings. The real shocking part of this whole study is the revelation that so little goes into approving a product that has so much potential to do harm. A mere 3 month study on less than 200 rats was all that was required to assess the 'long-term' health effects of these 3 products. Research not paid for by big agribusiness is almost non-existent in part because agribusiness is unwilling to grant the use of their 'intellectual property' to outside researchers. So in the end, we're not talking about the hot new tomato variety as in days of old - we're talking about products, 70+ % are incorporating insecticidal agents or herbicidal resistance to their genetic makeup. So much for "decreasing our dependence on insecticides" (or herbicides in this case. These are intellectual-property products that have the potential to make billions of dollars for big agribusiness, which is controlled by a very small number of companies worldwide. We have a lot of experience with 'intellectual-property' products in agriculture and its affect on farmers. Montsanto has aggressively pursued legal action against farmers and won in both US and Canadian courts for 'blow over' affects for genetic material from a Montsanto planted field into a neighboring farm as theft of genetic material. In addition to the contamination issue mentioned above, there are also significant questions about the creation of super-weeds and super-bugs. Think of what has happened with drug resistance in bacteria from the overuse of antibiotics. For example, one product, the New Leaf potato, was developed by Montsanto through genetic engineering to contain the naturally-occurring insecticidal proteins found in a bacteria called Bacillus thuringgiensis (Bt). These Bt products have been used from decades by organic producers to help fight insects in agriculture. Montsanto's approach was to splice it into the genome of a mono-culture of potato, so farmers could decrease their use of insecticides in the fight against the colorado potato beetle. However, it quickly became clear that when used in this way (instead of intermittent application as previously used), the potato beetle quickly began developing resistance to these insecticidal proteins, a phenomenom never described before in decades of responsible use of this valuable tool by organic farmers! So commercial agribusiness's insistance on using an unnatural and unsustainable practice (monoculture, reliance of insecticides to control pest problems) has potentially threatened to remove a highly effective tool for organic production in a matter of a few years. Eventually, the New Leaf potato was pulled because of consumer concerns expressed to McDonald's, the potatoes largest customer in America, who said they would no longer buy GM potatoes for their restaurants (and I use that term loosely in this case). http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27211335_ITM Different countries have have handled the regulation of GMO products very differently. The EU, Japan, China, Korea, Australia and New Zealand all have label laws, requiring the identification of GMO products. Others, like Ireland, have outlawed them altogether. The U.S., on the other hand, has no requirement for labeling of GM products and attempts to get labeling laws passed have failed despite the fact that some 87% of Americans are in favor of it. Order Bans Planting or Sale of Controversial Crop. Court Denies Monsanto Request to Allow Continued Planting. Recently, a federal district judge for the Northern District of California, rescinded the USDA’s approval of genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” sugar beets because no environmental impact study had been completed. What kind of environmental impact could we be worried about? Previous experience with similar Roundup Ready crops have led to increased use of herbicides, proliferation of herbicide resistant weeds, and contamination of conventional and organic crops with GMO genetics. (Remember the significance of intellectual property?) Well then, how common have GMOs become in the food that we eat? Here is a summary of crops, foods and food ingredients have been genetically modified as of May, 2010: (NB: the number in parentheses represents the estimated percentage that is genetically modified.) Soy(91%) Cotton(71%) Canola(88%) Corn(85%) Sugar Beets(90%) Hawaiian papaya(more than 50%) Alfalfa (at Supreme Court). Other easy to find sources of GMOs in your diet:
- Dairy products (from cows injected with the GM hormone rbGH) - there was a recent fight in Pa when the Pennsylvania Dep't of Agriculture ruled it was 'misleading' consumers to label rBGH-free milk as being hormone-free.
- Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame(NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses
- Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed - corn and soybeans.
- Vegetable oil, vegetable fat and margarines (made with soy, corn, cottonseed, and/or canola)
- Ingredients derived from soybeans including soy flour, soy protein, soy isolates, soy isoflavones, soy lecithin, vegetable proteins, textured vegetable protein (TVP), tofu, tamari, tempeh, and soy protein supplements.
- Ingredients derived from corn including corn flour, corn gluten, corn masa, corn starch, corn syrup, cornmeal, and High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).
If you extrapolate from the above list to processed products, the potential list gets even longer:
| Infant formula
Salad dressing
Bread
Cereal
Hamburgers and hotdogs
Margarine
Mayonnaise
Crackers
Cookies
Chocolate
Candy
Fried food
Chips
Veggie burgers
Meat substitutes
Ice cream
Frozen yogurt
Tofu
Tamari and Soy sauce
Tomato sauce
Protein powder
Baking powder
Any sugar not 100% Cane
Confectioner's glaze
Alcohol
Vanilla (may contain corn syrup)
Peanut butter
Enriched flour
Cosmetics
Soaps
Detergents
Shampoo
Bubble bath | | Ever heard of Codex Alimentarius Commission? Well, don't feel bad, most people have not!
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN)and WHO to "develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations."
So how does this affect me and where do GMO's come into this?
The FDA and USDA have written a draft for an upcoming international meeting in which they say that requiring labels indicating that a food has genetically modified ingredients would be "false, misleading or deceptive" as it is "likely to create the impression that the labeled food is in some way different." Right now, each country can set its own rules for GMO-food-labeling.
Because the U.S. government's policy is that GMO's are not significantly different from other new varieties of crops (i.e. the same as the prize tomato at county fair), they would like to see this same policy applied worldwide. This is conveniently the same opinions held by the world's major agribusiness companies which is no great surprise when you consider that so many of the USDA's top-brass move freely back and forth as employees, consultants, or lobbyists to these same agribusinesses throughout their careers.
According to the WHO website - question: Are GM foods assessed differently from traditional foods?
"Generally consumers consider that traditional foods (that have often been eaten for thousands of years) are safe. When new foods are developed by natural methods, some of the existing characteristics of foods can be altered, either in a positive or a negative way National food authorities may be called upon to examine traditional foods, but this is not always the case. Indeed, new plants developed through traditional breeding techniques may not be evaluated rigorously using risk assessment techniques." "With GM foods most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for traditional foods. Hence there is a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food." "Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions."
Okay, sort of non-committal politico speak, but generally touches on the concerns that many GMO-opponents voice.
In steps the United States representative who at a more recent meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling in Quebec City: "GM/GE [Genetically Modified/ Genetically Engineered] foods are [not] in any way different from other foods", suggesting that mandatory GMO labeling elsewhere in the world could confuse the consumer and should be prohibited.
| 
