Genetic Engineers Report: GMO Food Is Dangerous

A Thai organic farmer pretends to be dead after eating
GM corn during a protest against the introduction of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to Thailand
outside the Government House in Bangkok in 2004.
(photo: Food Freedom)

By Open Earth Source

02 July 12

ren't critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn't the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report released today, "GMO Myths and Truths",[1] challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

One of the report's authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King's College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: "GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims - that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

"I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

"Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world's food needs."  READ MORE

How Monsanto Is Sabotaging Efforts to Label Genetically Modified Food

Lobbyists from the biotech industry are ardently opposing GMO labeling.

June 26, 2012

As the 2012 Farm Bill continues to take shape in the halls of the United States Congress, the immense influence of corporate interests is on display.

On June 21 the United States Senate voted overwhelmingly against the Sanders Amendment that would have allowed states to pass legislation that required food and beverage products to label whether or not they contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The amendment, proposed by Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is particularly relevant as many states prepare to vote on a ballot initiatives that would require such labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

Lobbyists from the biotech industry have ardently opposed GMO labelling. These opponents argue that because food labelling has historically been handled by the Food and Drug Association (FDA), it is a federal issue and, therefore, individual states do not have the right to implement such legislation. Indeed, in the case of Vermont, Sanders' home state, Monsanto successfully intimidated the state legislature from voting on a bill that would have required GMO labelling.

Patty Lovera, the assistant director of Food and Water Watch, explained that states planning to vote on GM labelling in November could face a legal fight to defend their right to enact such laws.

  READ MORE

12 DAYS to Stop DOW’s 2-4-D Corn

12 days to stop Dow's 2-4-D corn! PHOTO: Panna

17 Friday Feb 2012

Posted by Bev Hill in Food, Food Politics, Health, Food & Your Health, Chemicals/Pesticides in Your Food 

Dow and USDA hope to quietly approve a new genetically engineered seed line that basically swaps RoundUp (glyphosate) out for an even worse weedkiller (2,4-D).

As you may have heard, the pesticide treadmill is catching up with Monsanto, as glyphosate-resistent “superweeds” run rampant and their blockbuster RoundUp Ready product line nears the end of its life-cycle. Dow wants to drop in an even more toxic herbicide (2,4-D) to keep the treadmill running at high speed. We have 12 days to stop this.

Tell USDA we want off this ride» Urge the agency to reject Dow’s petition for approval of its 2,4-D resistant seed lines. Now, before the public comment period ends, is the time to speak up and say no.

Dow aims to get 2,4-D-resistant CORN to market this year, SOY next year and COTTON in 2015. These three crops dominate U.S. agriculture, covering over 100 million acres of mono-cropped countryside, driving the pesticide market. If they get their foot in the door with corn, there is little chance that soy and cotton will be a problem for approval.     READ MORE

 

The Trojan Horse of Genetically Modified Food

By Teresa Anderson

Why are US funded food aid agencies putting pressure on African governments to accept Genetically Modified food? Teresa Anderson investigates.

Up to 15 million people in six countries in Southern Africa are currently facing famine. Aid agencies desperately need assistance to source and deliver food. So why has the US donation of 500,000 tonnes of maize been rejected by Zambia, and only accepted with reluctance by the other nations?
The answer lies in the possible effects that the US Genetically Modified (GM) grain could unleash on African agriculture, economies and health. And the increasing suspicion that US food donations are being used as a tool to force GM on to the African market. African nations have so far refused commercialization of GM crops, but could be forced to accept the inevitable if local stocks become contaminated with modified genes.

When food shortages became imminent back in June, the World Food Programme (WFP) and US Agency for International Development (USAID) refused to respond to Southern African nations' requests for GM-free food aid.

The United Nations' own figures show that there are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM-free sources of food available around the world. But the WFP and USAID spent those valuable months trying to force recipient nations to accept the GM grain donated by the US, instead of looking to source elsewhere. Only now, nearly half a year later, are they starting to respond to Zambia's needs, while publicly blaming the Zambian government and green groups for the hunger that Zambians now face. 

Critics of the USAID/ WFP position suspect that there may be another agenda behind the offer of food aid, and this is essentially threefold:  READ MORE