GMO stands for genetically modified organism. GMOs are made in laboratories and are found in corn, soy, sugar, canola, and all food containing corn. Health issues such as allergies and autoimmune diseases are on the rise due to GMOs.
We currently eat genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) foods and don’t realize it.
A genetically modified food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature, and is experimental. The scientific term is "transgenics," and is also often referred to as genetically modified.
For example: genetically modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO Corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an insecticide, but is sold unlabeled.
The health risks of genetically modified foods are unclear.
Unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the safety of genetically modified foods for human consumption is not adequately tested.
There have been no long-term studies conducted on the safety of genetically modified foods on humans.
The issue of GM food safety was first discussed at a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and biotech representatives in 1990. The "substantial equivalence" concept was proposed in early 1996. The adoption of the concept of substantial equivalence allowed permission to market and sell new foods without any safety or toxicology tests as long as they were not too different in chemical composition to foods already on the market, the FDA GRAS proposal. To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of variables such as toxins, nutrients or allergens that are known to be present in the unmodified food. If these tests show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then no further food safety testing is required.
There is a growing wave of concern from citizens, farmers, and scientists who question the way the research is currently being handled by large, profit-hungry corporations. In addition to the scientific debates on the merits of genetically modified food, there are important, debates on the socioeconomic ramifications of the way this science is marketed and used.
Critics believe:
• The problem of food shortages is a political and economic problem.
• Food shortages and hunger are -- and will be -- experienced by the poorer nations.
• GE or GM Food is an expensive technology that the farmers of the developing nations would not be able to afford easily.
• Patenting laws go against the poor around the world and allow biotech companies to benefit from patenting indigenous knowledge often without consent.
• This is a very young and untested technology and may not be the answer just yet.
• Crop uniformity, which the biotech firms are promoting, will reduce genetic diversity making them more vulnerable to disease and pests. This furthers the need for pesticides (often created by the same companies creating and promoting genetically modified crops.)
Thus this leads to questions of the motives of corporations and countries that are using the dilemma of the developing world as a marketing strategy to gain acceptance of GE or GM food as well as dependency upon it through intellectual property rights. These corporations are against any labeling or other precautionary steps and measures that states may wish to take and this is of utmost concern.
The majority of the world requires labeling of genetically modified foods.
There are at least 50 countries with over 40% of the world’s population who already label genetically modified foods. What do these countries know that we don't?
California is taking the lead on this important issue with Proposition 37 on the November ballot.
The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act states that the initiative would require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically modfied (GMO) ingredients.
New campaign finance reports reveal that Monsanto Co. just contributed $4.2 million to defeat Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically modified food. This is the largest contribution in the race. Total contributions to defeat Proposition 37 amount to $25 million and nearly $23 million during the last week.
Other major new contributions against Proposition 37 were given by E. I. DuPont de Nemours ($1,273,600), Dow Agrosciences ($1,184,800) and PepsiCo ($1,126,079).
“The giant pesticide and food companies are afraid of the mothers and grandmothers who want the right to know what’s in our food,” said Stacy Malkan, media director of California Right to Know. “These companies will try to buy the election, but it won’t work. California moms and dads will prevail over Monsanto and DuPont. “
So far, the “Big 6” pesticide companies (Monsanto, Dow, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont) have contributed $13.5 million to defeat Proposition 37.
Of the twenty largest contributors to the No on 37 campaign, Nestle USA is the only company based in California and Nestle is a subsidiary of the giant Swiss food conglomerate Nestlé S.A.
To learn more about Monsanto and genetically modified food, check out these youtube videos:
http://youtu.be/MbvYwg-Aqis
http://youtu.be/vEFC4rsQ4B8
How to get involved in your community
Visit any of these websites to volunteer, donate, or lead an event to support the Yes on 37 campaign.
http://www.carighttoknow.org/
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/
Sources:
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/188/genetically-engineered-food
We currently eat genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) foods and don’t realize it.
A genetically modified food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature, and is experimental. The scientific term is "transgenics," and is also often referred to as genetically modified.
For example: genetically modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO Corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an insecticide, but is sold unlabeled.
Unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the safety of genetically modified foods for human consumption is not adequately tested.
There have been no long-term studies conducted on the safety of genetically modified foods on humans.
The issue of GM food safety was first discussed at a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and biotech representatives in 1990. The "substantial equivalence" concept was proposed in early 1996. The adoption of the concept of substantial equivalence allowed permission to market and sell new foods without any safety or toxicology tests as long as they were not too different in chemical composition to foods already on the market, the FDA GRAS proposal. To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of variables such as toxins, nutrients or allergens that are known to be present in the unmodified food. If these tests show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then no further food safety testing is required.
There is a growing wave of concern from citizens, farmers, and scientists who question the way the research is currently being handled by large, profit-hungry corporations. In addition to the scientific debates on the merits of genetically modified food, there are important, debates on the socioeconomic ramifications of the way this science is marketed and used.
Critics believe:
• The problem of food shortages is a political and economic problem.
• Food shortages and hunger are -- and will be -- experienced by the poorer nations.
• GE or GM Food is an expensive technology that the farmers of the developing nations would not be able to afford easily.
• Patenting laws go against the poor around the world and allow biotech companies to benefit from patenting indigenous knowledge often without consent.
• This is a very young and untested technology and may not be the answer just yet.
• Crop uniformity, which the biotech firms are promoting, will reduce genetic diversity making them more vulnerable to disease and pests. This furthers the need for pesticides (often created by the same companies creating and promoting genetically modified crops.)
Thus this leads to questions of the motives of corporations and countries that are using the dilemma of the developing world as a marketing strategy to gain acceptance of GE or GM food as well as dependency upon it through intellectual property rights. These corporations are against any labeling or other precautionary steps and measures that states may wish to take and this is of utmost concern.
The majority of the world requires labeling of genetically modified foods.
There are at least 50 countries with over 40% of the world’s population who already label genetically modified foods. What do these countries know that we don't?
California is taking the lead on this important issue with Proposition 37 on the November ballot.
The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act states that the initiative would require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically modfied (GMO) ingredients.
New campaign finance reports reveal that Monsanto Co. just contributed $4.2 million to defeat Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically modified food. This is the largest contribution in the race. Total contributions to defeat Proposition 37 amount to $25 million and nearly $23 million during the last week.
Other major new contributions against Proposition 37 were given by E. I. DuPont de Nemours ($1,273,600), Dow Agrosciences ($1,184,800) and PepsiCo ($1,126,079).
“The giant pesticide and food companies are afraid of the mothers and grandmothers who want the right to know what’s in our food,” said Stacy Malkan, media director of California Right to Know. “These companies will try to buy the election, but it won’t work. California moms and dads will prevail over Monsanto and DuPont. “
So far, the “Big 6” pesticide companies (Monsanto, Dow, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont) have contributed $13.5 million to defeat Proposition 37.
Of the twenty largest contributors to the No on 37 campaign, Nestle USA is the only company based in California and Nestle is a subsidiary of the giant Swiss food conglomerate Nestlé S.A.
To learn more about Monsanto and genetically modified food, check out these youtube videos:
http://youtu.be/MbvYwg-Aqis
http://youtu.be/vEFC4rsQ4B8
How to get involved in your community
Visit any of these websites to volunteer, donate, or lead an event to support the Yes on 37 campaign.
http://www.carighttoknow.org/
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/
Sources:
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/188/genetically-engineered-food
