I read in the Chicago Tribune that there was a study on the existence of GMO's in the human body. It was about an article written in "Reproductive Toxicology" by Canadian researchers. The researches simply looked at blood from pregnant woman and then blood from the umbilical cord. What they were looking for was if there were any GMO's in the blood.
The Tribune article went on to say, "genetically modified crops differ in that the plants grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has been used to place genes from another source into a plant. In this way, the crop can be made to withstand a weed-killing pesticide "Think Atrizine- my words" for example, or incorporate a bacterial toxin that can repel pests. Canadian researchers this year reported that the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their umbilical cord blood samples contained a pesticide implanted in GMO corn by the biotech company Monsanto, though digestion is supposed to remove it from the body".
It is the "removed from the body," that is unsettling. Here we go again with those annoying trace amounts. This is what the Industrial Food Complex (IFC) and their equally huge lobbyists want everyone to believe. The article points out that trace amounts are okay as defined by the FDA, EPA and USDA. I use Diacetyl, again, as one of those chemicals that left trace amounts, but were supposed to be, processed out of the body. Instead, it caused lung cancer when a man consistently ate microwave popcorn. OHSA required workers that made microwave popcorn to wear masks that filtered the Diacetyl while they breathed. Why? Diacetyl, a known carcinogen, caused lung cancer when breathed consistently. Research said it was safe in trace amounts but not in the concentrated amounts that workers faced.
If you have the money, you can buy scientific studies. DDT, Asbestos, Agent Orange, Atrizine, Nicotine throw a dart. The cigarette industry proved for decades that their products were not addictive. Only until consumer advocacy groups and the ethics of a scientist, proved otherwise, but at that same time millions of us suffered through the loss of a loved ones linked to one carcinogen or another from the 316 plus chemicals in cigarettes. The tobacco industry and lobbyist had thousands of studies to document the safety or their product. Have corporations turned a leaf and have they become more ethical both environmentally and with what they sell us to keep our bodies healthy. Not when the bottom line is the goal, they are not.
Not only is research purchased the statistics can be manipulated based on a few factors, like standard deviation or the amount of data collected. It is like the banking industry and the housing market. The banks created categories of loans, bundled each one separately then sold the bundles. Then they bet against the bundle holding its worth. The bankers get rich, homeowner, takes the loss.
I realize that I am using a scientific study to justify the ills of GMO's. I am not missing the paradox. However, when you learn what DNA splicing is and how it is accomplished, you do not have to be a scientist to know there will be problems. I would rather error on the side of caution, especially when you find out that in order to get the corn DNA to accept the foreign DNA gene, and anti-biotic strain needs to be spliced in to the new DNA helix. There are stories of super bugs that have bacteria resistant strains. This does makes me wonder if there is a correlation.
The article failed to mention how we, as consumers, discovered GMO's in our food supply in the first place. I think it was in 2004 that a woman ate a taco shell made with GMO corn and had a bad reaction to the food. It was eventually determined GMO corn made up the taco shell. In European countries, regulations make the food industry prove that the changed chemical or genetic make up of the additive or preservative is safe for human consumption and cause no ill affect. In the
I would bet that it is already in our food supply, we just have not found out about it yet. It is not as if the IFC was fourth coming with the whole GMO thing. That is another strong argument for buying organic as the article points out. It is against organic regulations to use any GMO anything. However, if GMO corn that was planted in Colorado shows up in a Mexican corn field you really wonder what chance does any organic farm have against cross pollination. Could it drift into organic production fields?
You bet your sweet @$$, it can. In the
We need better labeling on our food. That is the only way we as consumers can make the industrial food complex clean up their act. When they are hit in the pocket, they will take notice and they will take action. Right now, their action is to fight against new labeling requirements.
If you want to buy GMO food, have at it. If you do not want to buy foods made with GMO products, the only way you can do that is to buy organic or have the label indicate that GMO is in the food. The industrial food complex is fighting hard to stop regulators from requiring new labeling that identifies GMO in their products. I wonder why? It would not have anything to do with the profit motive, do you suppose? Get active write your federal officials in favor of labeling GMO products as such.
Buy Local: Keep the momentum up, tell a friend to tell a friend