Monsanto

Walking the Wrack Line: Poisonous Potatoes

Published on
5097 views
poisonous potatoes

The wrack line is that “line” of organic material that ends up on beaches when tides go back out. It is a biologically important micro-ecosystem of seaweeds, crustaceans, shells, decaying birds and fish and mammals. When I need to think, I walk the wrack line. The idea for this environmental series comes from those walks; walks that for the past two years have conjured up all sorts of topics for me. Many are worthy of many books. It is a simple walk I conduct on a calm, mostly sandy, and driftwood-strewn beach in Central Oregon. The solitude allows some of my own decades studying environmental harms to both animals and plants to filter through my thoughts. For this short essay, the topic is conventionally grown potatoes, which are now grown largely as a monoculture product and have been found to contain 35 separate toxic chemicals.

The Potato Monoculture

I was just talking with an 80-year-old woman whose father’s side of the family, all 56 of them, were murdered in Germany’s death camps. She grew up in Chile, and alas, ended up Oregon. She is working on stopping the aerial spraying of 2-4-D and other weedicides onto the clear-cuts. She remarked at how insane the world is with so much lack of common sense and connecting of the dots when it comes to our factory/industrial food systems. She held up a potato:

“How did it ever become normal to use poisons on our food? Poisons that have a direct vector not just to your gut and mine, but to the developing guts and brains of fetuses?”

Oh, that potato! Originally from Peru, the potato has crossed oceans and ended up in every part of the globe.

Only two things in this world are too serious to be jested on, potatoes and matrimony.
—Irish saying.

Now, they are genetically engineered,  and part of the monoculture that triggered the Great Famine, also called the Irish Potato Famine. Then, the Irish used a single breed of potato called the Irish Lumper. It was vulnerable to a fungus to which the breed had no resistance. Other cultures, farming practices over come this vulnerability by growing many different variety of each crop. The Peruvians, for example, grow many hundreds of varieties. The diversity of breed/varieties is what keeps a single fungus or other pests from decimating a food stock.

potatoes

In the US, however, we grow only few varieties of potatoes, making them sensitive to all sorts of microbial threats and because we rely so heavily on chemical solutions for these threats, we have decimated the soils in which these crops grow. Many of the problems with conventional potatoes are tied to the fact the soil has been so eroded and robbed of nutrients, that there are no natural fungi or bacteria left. This means that ungodly amounts of chemical fertilizers have to be applied each season to contain the growth of super predator weeds and microorganisms. Each year, the amount of chemicals required increases.

But it’s the pesticides, man! Leave my spuds alone.

Just how many chemicals are there in a conventionally grown potato? According to the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program, conventionally grown potatoes carry 35 different pesticides. As is true of many of the plastic compounds, these pesticides have some lethal side effects:

One herbicide, chlorpropham, is used to stop the growth of weeds and to inhibit potatoes sprouting. Chlorpropham is found on up to 80 percent of all conventionally-grown potatoes. According to the Extension Toxicology Network, this poison is toxic to honey bees. In labs, tests bare out the effects of chronic exposure to the herbicide where the animals show “retarded growth, increased liver, kidney and spleen weights, congestion of the spleen, and death.”

Poison Potatoes

All those poisons, then, are integrated into the spud. As a root vegetable, potatoes absorb all of the pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides sprayed above the ground, which eventually spread into the soil. There are many insider testimonies from potato farmers — Jeff Moyer, CEO at the Rodale Institute and former chair of the National Organic Standards Board, says,

I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.

The potato is a great example of an industrial system gone crazy. Terms like Frankenfoods, fishy tomatoes and assassin seeds are not benign. Imagine, the now defunct DNA Plant Technology of Oakland, California, developed the gene therapy (sic) of inserting a fish gene into a tomato. It was the gene that helps a flounder survive in frigid waters. This “anti-freeze” fish gene was spliced into tomato cells to enhance the plant’s resistance to cold.

Monsanto, developers of the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, also developed the gene technology to create suicide seeds. Of all wonderfully bad things, they call this technology: Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), but it’s more commonly referred to as terminator technology or suicide seeds. This keeps farmers from saving seeds from a Monsanto crop, as the genetic alterations either activate or deactivate some genes only in response to certain stimuli. The second generation of seeds is infertile.

Roundup is what is sprayed all over our Oregon forests when clear cuts raze stands of trees – to keep opportunistic and invasive brush and other tree species, from overtaking the sawed over hills and valleys. (The Intercept)

The history and politics are not lost on people like my Chilean friend — Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the two largest producers of Agent Orange, a fifty-fifty mix of the n-butyl esters 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) known for a long list of neurological symptoms and physiological malformities found not only in those exposed but in their offspring; effects that were denied and ignored by both the manufacturer and the government, for decades.

Industrial Foods

The potato is just one food crop. Every conventionally grown crop contains multiple chemical pesticides and herbicides. There are many groups looking into industrial vegetables and fruits, but they all have their own version of the Dirty Dozen.  The dirty dozen are the twelve most chemically laden fruits and vegetables for that year. These foods should be purchased organic when possible. Here, another group’s dirty dozen with some specifics connected to each food.

  • Apples – at least 99 % have residue
  • Strawberries – contained 13 different pesticides each
  • Grapes- contained 15 different pesticides
  • Celery- 13 different pesticides per sample
  • Peaches
  • Spinach
  • Sweet Bell Peppers
  • Imported Nectarines – every sample tested positive for pesticides
  • Cucumbers
  • Cherry Tomatoes – contained 13 different pesticides each
  • Imported Snap Peas – contained 13 different pesticides each
  • Potatoes – had more pesticides by weight than any other food

Remember, there are literally dozens of active ingredients in one type of herbicide. There are hundreds and sometimes thousands of chemicals in a scoop or pint of poison used in industrial agriculture. There are no studies on how any of these chemical interact with each other as they bioaccumulate in the soils, plants, animals or in us. There are no studies on how two, three, or four different chemicals might interact in the lab or in life, let alone 10, 15, or 35 as in the case of the potato. Although industry boasts the safety of these chemicals, no one with a modicum of common sense believes them, unless they choose too. As I walk the wrack line, I cannot help but agreeing with my Chilean friend. The world is insane to believe that it is normal to poison our food.

When we look at what is truly sustainable, the only real model that has worked over long periods of time is the natural world. – Biomimicry Institute founder, Janine Benyus.

To Learn More:

The Future of Food

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Related posts:

wrack line plastic pollutionWalking the Wrack Line: Thoughts on Plastic Pollution What would Rachel Carson DoGardasil and the American Bald Eagle – What Would Rachel Carson Do? nutrigenomicsNutrigenomics, Diet and Human Health

You might be interested in

Aspartame: A History of Controversy, but is it Safe?

Published on
4152 views
Artificial Sweeteners aspartame

Pink, Yellow or Blue? Which Low-Calorie Sweetener are You?!

I’m sure somewhere in a women’s magazine there is a quiz that associates the reader’s personality, or the type of man she should date, or some other unassociated trait with random questions playing up on the fact that women have been trained like Pavlov’s dogs to diet. In recent years, beverage companies have started rolling out campaigns that appeal to the other 50% of the population. Most notably, Dr. Pepper Ten is advertised as the “manliest low-calorie soda in the history of mankind.” This soda is also advertised as “not for women.”

Yet, in spite of million dollar marketing campaigns, consumers are making better choices. According to Beverage Digest, the sales volume for Coke fell 1% last year, but Diet Coke sales dropped by 3%. Similarly, Pepsi fell by 3.4% and Diet Pepsi fell by 6.2%. Diet sports beverages also dropped in sales compared to their regular product.

Due to these declines, Coca-Cola is rolling out a set of advertisements about the safety of aspartame, a low-calorie sweetener with a controversial history. There is as much “evidence” that this artificial food additive is safe as there is evidence that it causes health problems including brain tumors, seizures, blindness, the auto-immune disease Lupus, and much more. I’ll let the history of this product speak for itself on the controversy of consumer safety, but first what is it?

Aspartame Ingredients

Aspartame is a man-made chemical that is approximately 50% phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acid, and 10% methanol. Today, it is made using genetically modified bacteria developed by none other than Monsanto, of course. The ingredients occur naturally, so they are safe, right?

Phenylalanine is a neurotoxin and can build up in the blood due to the high levels in aspartame. Phenylalanine causes serotonin levels to decrease leading to depression. It can also cause behavioral symptoms in kids including ADD and ADHD. Individuals who have the genetic disorder Phenylketonuric (PKU) cannot metabolize phenylalanine and the high levels in aspartame can cause death (overtime the chemicals in aspartame can build up in the body and cause death even if an individual does not have PKU).

Aspartic Acid is an excito-toxin, which means it over stimulates certain neurons in the body until they die. When aspartic acid is in its free form, or unbound to proteins (as it occurs naturally in food), it leads to a high level of neurotransmitters in certain areas of the brain which kills neurons and leads to numerous neurological disorders including, but not limited to: multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, hypoglycemia, memory loss, hormonal problems, epilepsy, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and more.

The argument that phenylalanine and aspartic acid are safe is based on the fact that they are amino acids, the building blocks of protein that both occur in regular foods. In nature, however, these amino acids are consumed in more natural quantities and different combinations (oh, and they aren’t made in a lab).

Methanol – this is wood alcohol and when ingested becomes formaldehyde or embalming fluid. While there is naturally occurring methanol in fruits, it binds with the pectin in fruit, which the body cannot digest, and is excreted through the body’s natural waste process without doing damage. We do not digest high levels of methanol when eating organic, whole foods. Methanol is a neurotoxin and known carcinogen. The EPA recommends limiting consumption of methanol to 7.8 milligrams per day. One liter of an aspartame-sweetened beverage contains over 50 mg of methanol.

A Long History of Controversy

The history of getting FDA approval of this product is rich in corruption and deceit.

  • 1965 – James Schlatter, a chemist at G. D. Searle was researching an ulcer drug and accidentally discovers a zero calorie sweetener that is 180 times sweeter than sugar.
  • 1967 – G. D. Searle starts conducting tests on the new potential product. These are tests required by the FDA. In the first test conducted on 7 monkeys, 1 died and 5 suffer from grand mal seizures.
  • 1971 – Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney conducts a study and discovers that aspartame causes brain tumors. Previously Dr. Olney conducted safety tests on MSG and successfully had the food additive removed from baby food. He concludes that aspartic acid, one of the key ingredients of aspartame, causes holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s scientists makes the same conclusion during his testing.
  • February 1973 – After spending tens of millions of dollars testing the safety of aspartame, G. D. Searle submits over 100 studies to the FDA requesting approval for consumer consumption.
  • March 1973 – One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that “the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame”. Notes in her report that further clinical tests are needed.
  • July 1974 – FDA approves use of aspartame in dry food products.
  • August 1974 – Attorney Jim Turner, consumer advocate who worked helped get the previous reigning artificial sweetener, Cyclamate, off the market for its links to cancer, and Dr. Olney file objections of the approval of aspartame in dry foods.
  • 1976 – An investigation reveals that the required studies conducted by the G. D. Searle company and reported to the FDA were not conducted or reported properly. The investigators report they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”
  • January 1977 – The FDA requests the US Attorney’s Office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against G. D. Searle for submitting false test results on the product. This is the first time the FDA requested a criminal investigation on a manufacturer.
  • March 1977 – G. D. Searle hires Donald Rumsfield as CEO. Donald Rumsfield hires numerous former politicians in order to save the company.
  • July 1977 – Samuel Skinner resigns from his position in the US Attorney’s Office to take a job with G. D. Searle’s representing law firm, Sidley & Austin. Skinner was the US Attorney in charge of the investigation. Due to Skinner’s resignation the grand jury investigation is postponed and it reaches its statute of limitations and the case is dropped.
  • August 1977 – The FDA releases the Bressler Report. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle’s studies weren’t autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. The report released many more inconsistencies. You can read the FDA’s findings here.
  • 1980 – The Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) voted unanimously to reject the use of aspartame until further studies could be conducted. They were concerned with the high rate of brain tumors in animals used in studies.
  • January 1981 – The day after his inauguration, Ronald Reagan appoints Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes as FDA commissioner. His advisor for this decision was Donald Rumsfield, CEO of G. D. Searle, at that time.
  • March 1981 – Hayes establishes a commissioner’s panel to review issues brought up by the PBOI. During this review, three of the six FDA scientists reviewing the data on brain tumors advise against the approval of aspartame due to the unreliability of G. D. Searle’s tests.
  • July 1981 – Hayes overrules the PBOI, ignoring the recommendation of his appointed FDA Commissioner’s panel.
  • 1982 – Searle files a petition that aspartame be approved in beverages.
  • July 1983 – The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling to permit the use of aspartame in beverages due to its questionable safety.
  • September 1983 – FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns and accepts a position as a senior scientific consultant at Burson-Marsteller, Searle’s public relation firm.
  • Fall 1983 – First beverages using aspartame as ingredient are sold.
  • 1985 – Monsanto buys G. D. Searle in spite of the controversy over aspartame.

For a more detailed timeline, click here for “How Aspartame Became Legal – the Timeline” on Rense.com.

Fast Forward Twenty Five Years to 2013

Today we are more aware and skeptical than ever about the politics and bribery involved in getting a product approved by the FDA, yet aspartame is in over 6,000 consumer products. Our diet obsessed culture has overlooked the corruption and dangers of this chemical food additive and let it poison our own bodies and our children. According to the Aspartame Information Center, “aspartame is consumed by over 200 million people around the world and is found in more than 6,000 products including carbonated soft drinks, powdered soft drinks, chewing gum, confections, gelatins, dessert mixes, puddings and fillings, frozen desserts, yogurt, tabletop sweeteners, and some pharmaceuticals such as vitamins and sugar-free cough drops.” Most consumers associate this food additive to diet drinks and products, but it is now added to most processed foods including those marketed for children. It is marketed as “safe” but as you can see in the history of the product, there have never been any properly conducted studies that conclude that this product is safe.

With the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes on the rise, especially in children, we are looking for easy ways to cut calories. It’s much easier to reach for something labeled and advertised as “calorie-free” instead of eating healthy, whole foods low in sugar and free of chemical enhancements. However, this well marketed shortcut is not the solution to our nation’s health problems and is actually causing a rise in numerous health issues. Aspartame leads to behavioral disorders, seizures, brain tumors, auto-immune diseases, various neurological disorders, and it also causes weight gain and sugar cravings (which lead to obesity and type 2 diabetes which is what promoters argue it helps fight).

So, pink, yellow or blue? Pick your poison. Or ditch the women’s magazines’ various yo-yo DIEts and create a healthy LIFEstyle for yourself and your family so you can figuratively have your cake and eat it too.

We Need Your Help

Hormones Matter needs funding now. Our research funding was cut recently and because of our commitment to independent health research and journalism unbiased by commercial interests we allow minimal advertising on the site. That means all funding must come from you, our readers. Don’t let Hormones Matter die.

Yes, I’d like to support Hormones Matter.

This article was published originally on Hormones Matter on August 20, 2013.

Related posts:

birth control trialsBirth Control’s Misremembered History

You might be interested in

The Dangers of Glyphosate Herbicides

Published on
5885 views

Do we know what we’re eating? That’s the question that I constantly ask myself, because I know that at this point in time, my own regulations are the only thing protecting my health. It seems that the moment I become lax with my rules, I am quickly reminded why I must enforce them.

Monsanto is a corporation that manufactures herbicide and genetically engineered plants. Today, I learned that Roundup and other herbicides from the Monsanto corporation are made with a chemical ingredient called glyphosate. Glyphosate has been linked to a number of health-related issues ranging from birth defects to endocrine disruption (the endocrine system regulates the hormones in our body). Unfortunately, Monsanto’s products are used around the world. Products like Roundup are not just used to kill weeds in homes and the agricultural industry, but also to deter plant growth on railroad tracks, sidewalks and roads. This means that farmers, government workers and consumers are constantly spraying glyphosate on the ground, which is why it should come as no surprise that scientists are finding increasing levels of glyphosate in our groundwater. Even if we choose organic food (which is still recommended, since glyphosate is absorbed by plants treated with Roundup), our water cycle, including our drinking water, is being contaminated. In fact, glyphosate was detected in 60% to 100% of rain samples in Mississippi and Iowa.

Monsato, Malformations, Miscarriages and More

Consumers, workers and bystanders alike are affected by the use of glyphosate. Uninformed consumers purchase glyphosate-sprayed products and are exposed to the toxin. Agricultural workers handle the chemical directly. And then there are those that do not use the herbicide or consume the treated products, but are exposed to glyphosate nonetheless. This is particularly the case for those that live in close proximity to agricultural businesses that use Monsanto’s herbicides, such as Roundup.

Residents and doctors of Argentina and Paraguay began reporting a host of serious health effects, including birth defects, miscarriages, infertility and cancer. Those affected lived in regions where glyphosate was regularly used, linking abnormal health conditions to the pervasive chemical.

Argentinian scientists took this cue and began to study glyphosate, finding that exposure to glyphosate did cause birth defects in the embyros of chickens and frogs. Glyphosate has even been tied to an increase in spontaneous abortion and infertility among the cattle that are fed Roundup treated alfalfa.

Scientists from the University of Caen, in France, conducted an experiment using glyphosate doses that were less than the maximum residue limit (legal limit) and discovered that the chemical caused endocrine disruption. More specifically, the scientists found estrogen receptors were inhibited (blocking estrogen hormones from activating cells) with just 2 ppm (2mg/kg). The legal limit in the US is 5 ppm.

Dr. Don M. Huber, a plant pathologist who is part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery system, stated that there are, “more than 40 diseases reported with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize [glyphosate’s] association [with disease].”

Clearly, we should be concerned.

What about Government Health Regulations?

While only 2.03 mg/kg of glyphosate is needed to cause birth defects in chicken and frog embryos, government regulations, referred to as the maximum residue limit, allow 5 mg/kg of glyphosate residue in the US and a whopping 20 mg/kg in the European Union. The question isn’t how does this protect, but rather, who does this protect?

Unfortunately, government regulations are often set in place to protect corporations from liabilities. When citizens attempt to sue, corporations can state that they have complied with the law and that toxins are within the legal limit. Concerned parties may seek retribution from the government, but at this point, our tax dollars are being used for litigation.

What’s a Girl to Do? Take Action!

We start by sharing information with others to make a change. Litigation may be costly, but changing government regulations is not. (Corporations take the financial hit). Tell your friends, tell your co-workers, tell your neighbors.

This isn’t just a female-specific matter (though miscarriages and infertility concern us), since glyphosate is associated with a myriad of health issues and wreaks havoc on our crops by promoting plant diseases. Contact your senators and house representatives and let them know that you want regulations that protect your crops, your water resources, and your well-being. CLICK HERE to sign the petition to ban glyphosate-based herbicides.

Of course, if you’re worried your voice won’t be heard, the best way to make a statement is with your consumption habits. Every time you make a purchase, you cast a vote. Pay extra special attention to labels, buy organic and avoid products sprayed with glyphosate-based herbicide. Remember that corn chips may be processed from corn that has been treated with glyphosate. Let your money show that you don’t support the use of glyphosate, because money speaks.

Glyphosate Petition Review

The current petition against glyphosates was created on SignOn.org. I have recently been informed that emails associated with SignOn.org may start to pile up in your inbox. If this is the case, feel free to unsubscribe at any time to eliminate the onslaught of emails. Any recommendations for sites that create petitions without the spam would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your support!

Related posts:

the problem with glyphosateThe Glyphosate Problem ethics of it allThe Ethics Of It All

You might be interested in

Who’s in Charge of GMO Regulation?

Published on
3417 views
Lisbeth Prifolgle

We’ve all seen, and probably shouted, the catchy slogans – Say No to GMO! Keep your genes out of our meats and greens! We’ve read countless articles on the dangers of the genetically modified organisms (GMO) as well as the chemicals and foods they are sprayed and fed. We sign petitions, hit the “share” button to the various social media outlets, and get into screaming matches with friends and family members who don’t see the harm in GMOs. But do any of us really know how GMOs are approved? Do we know the best way to fight them? I’m going to guess no since it’s the eighth day of an open public commenting period about the use of DOW’s 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), one of the main components of Agent Orange used in Vietnam, at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and there are only a whopping 340 comments at this time. It actually didn’t occur to me that I didn’t really understand the full approval process until stumbling across the “public commenting period.” What I found was rather shocking.

Genetically modified foods and the chemicals that are sprayed on them as a result of their herbicide and pesticide resistance properties fall under the regulatory span of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and EPA. What follows is a brief explanation how each agency works and what acts have been passed to monitor, or attempt to monitor, GMOs. Under the regulations of all three of these agencies, only the following categories of GM crops are monitored:

Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) – a plant that produced pesticidal proteins or other chemicals as a result of genetic material from a bacterium into the plant. In these plants, scientists add modify the genes of corn, for example, to express a pesticidal property so that when pests digest the crop it releases a bacterial protein that will kill the pest. Yes, if we digest this plant we are also digesting this poisonous bacterial protein.

Genetically Modified Microbial Pesticides – bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, or algae that has been modified to express a pesticidal properties like a PIP. In this case, the microbial pesticides are sprayed on the crop.

Herbicide-Tolerant Crops – this is the answer to the problem of weed-killer killing the crop it’s sprayed on. Like PIPs, the crop has been genetically modified to withstand the herbicides by adding the herbicide to the genetic make-up of the crop. The most commonly herbicide-tolerant crop is tolerant to glyphosate, a known carcinogen and hormone disrupter. Like most chemical substances, the weeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate in Monsanto’s Round Up. Thus Monsanto has teamed up with DOW Chemical to create crops resistant to 2, 4-D, as I mentioned before this is the main chemical ingredient for Agent Orange. Like PIPs, we are not only ingesting and breathing 2,4-D, being sprayed on our food, but it is actually part of our food.

Other GMOs that interchange DNA from one plant or animal species to another do not fall under the regulation of these agencies (and as far as I have researched, they do not seem to fall under any other regulating agency either).

usda

USDA

The USDA is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal government policy on farming, agriculture, forestry, and food. It aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in the United States and abroad. The USDA is not responsible for monitoring the safety of GMOs for human or animal consumption, but rather how it affects plant health. Within the USDA is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and diseases. Under APHIS is the Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) which is part of a science-based federal regulatory framework to protect America’s agricultural resources and the broader environment. The BRS has strict regulations for any new organism either imported, crossing state lines or being introduced, but only to ensure that it does not present a plant pest risk.

As long as GMOs either introduced to American farms or imported do not present a risk to plants, the USDA does not have regulate it. The responsibility of safety for human and animal consumption is passed to the FDA.

Fda-logo

FDA

The FDA is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments. The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), cosmetics and veterinary products. As far as GMOs go, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as long as the bioengineered food is substantially equivalent to non-GM crops or is generally recognized as safe, it does not require pre-market approval. There are no specific regulations for GMOs and they fall under the same regulation as conventional foods. In 1992, the FDA published a policy statement titled: Food for human consumption and animal drugs, feeds, and related products: Foods derived from new plant varieties; policy statement, 22984. This policy statement specifically addresses genetically modified foods, but disturbingly there is little regulation within this policy:

Under this policy, foods, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, and their byproducts, derived from plant varieties developed by the new methods of genetic modification are regulated within the existing framework of the act, FDA’s implementing regulations, and current practice, utilizing an approach identical in principle to that applied to foods developed by traditional plant breeding. The regulatory status of a food, irrespective of the method by which it is developed, is dependent upon objective characteristics of the food and the intended use of the food (or its components).The method by which food is produced or developed may in some cases help to understand the safety or nutritional characteristics of the finished food. However, the key factors in reviewing safety concerns should be the characteristics of the food product, rather than the fact that the new methods are used.

In other words, as long as a protein remains a protein and a carb remains a carb, it doesn’t matter how it’s produced. In 1997, the FDA started a voluntary consultation process for GM crop developers, but seeing as it is voluntary, I would hardly call that legitimate legislation. In 1998, Monsanto’s then director of corporate communications, Phil Angell, stated:

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

The FDA’s role should be to monitor the safety of these new genetically modified plants that are used both as human food and animal food, however, there are simply no regulations specifically for GMOs.

GMO Labeling

In regards to labeling, per the FFDCA, the only labeling required from the producer is the common or usual name, or in the absence thereof, an appropriate descriptive term. The only exception is if a safety or usage issue exists due to the genetic mutation and consumers must be alerted. For example, if peanut genes are added to a tomato, the tomato can no longer be called a tomato because potential allergic reactions. I’lettersizeLogom sure in cases like this, the marketing department is full of clever titles like tomatut or peanato. Currently, 25 states have introduced mandatory GMO labeling legislation.  Vermont and Connecticut have actually passed laws forcing GMO products to be labeled. The Non-GMO Verification Project is a nonprofit organization that provides third party volunteer testing and labeling for products. I always look for Non-GMO Project Verified label when I shop.

The USDA only cares about the plant, the FDA doesn’t care as long as a tomato remains a tomato. A majority of people don’t believe the various reports of cancer and infertility caused in lab mice fed GMOs and ignore the fact that there have not been any comprehensive studies on the affects of human consumption of GMOs, but even if we deny that GMOs could be dangerous, there is no denying that spraying dangerous chemicals such as glysophate and Agent Orange on fields and backyards is dangerous and should be regulated, right? That’s where the EPA comes into play.

0412epaEPA

The EPA is another regulatory agency. It has primary responsibility for enforcing many of the environmental statutes and regulations of the United States. Congress authorizes the EPA to write regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws and Presidential Executive Orders.

The EPA’s role in the environmental safety of GMOs falls under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). According to the EPA website:

FIFRA provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. FIFRA defines the term ”unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean: “(1) any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

FIFRA was first passed into law in 1947, but has been amended since then. In 1972, FIFRA was essentially rewritten and amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act. In 1996, it was again significantly amended as the Food Quality Protection Act.

While the EPA seems to hold the strictest regulations of the three agencies discussed in this article, it seems they are still coming up short. In order for a new pesticide to acquire a license from the EPA, the producer must provide more than a hundred scientific tests and studies. But, like the FDA, the producer of the pesticide provides the tests and the EPA does not actually conduct any tests on the new product. Furthermore, if it is being licensed for use on a crop less than 300,000 acres it is not considered sufficient economic incentive for registration.

EPA and GMO Regulation

Whether or not the EPA is actually regulating safe limits of pesticide aside, let’s look at their role in GMOs. Under FIFRA, the EPA provides legal requirements for registration and licensing of pesticides and therefore only monitors GMOs that are pesticidal in nature (PIP, Genetically Modified Microbial Pesticides, or Herbicide-Tolerant Crops).

The EPA also sets tolerances, and exemptions from tolerances, for the allowable residues of pesticides applied to food and animal feed under the FFDCA. However, given the pollution levels and a new study conducted by the California Department of Public Health showing a high number of California children being exposed to high level of pesticides at schools located near farms, I don’t have much faith in the EPA’s ability to safely regulate the use of pesticides.

Are GM Foods Safe?

In the end you have to ask – are GMOs safe for me and my family? Some people GMObelieve that the USDA, FDA, and EPA regulations are enough proof that they are safe, however, studies in rats fed GMO food over the course of a life time suffered premature deaths (up to 50% of males and 70% of females) and had severe organ damage (specifically liver and kidney). Also, the rats drank trace amounts of Roundup in their water (within legal limits set by these regulatory agencies) and had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors (for more information and photos, click here).

What can YOU do?

Learn more. Do your own research on whether or not GMOs and the chemicals used on our crops are safe for consumption and the environment.

Spread the news. My friends and family are sick of hearing me telling anyone who will listen about the dangers of GMO, but I believe one person can make a difference so I keep fighting the good fight.

Buy organic, non-GMO foods. There are plenty of websites, like the Environmental Working Group, dedicated to helping families buy organic on a tight budget. Buying from local farmers can reduce cost (depending on where you live) or even buying your online. Another budget friendly tip – don’t eat out. We vote for or against GMO every time we check out at the grocery store or favorite fast food chain – make your vote count!

Get involved. I don’t mean you should quit your job to travel across the country leading protests (although if you can, go for it!). Simply watching legislation and writing in to the EPA and FDA and telling them you DON’T want Agent Orange sprayed in your backyard, is something everyone can do. We have until May 30th to tell the EPA we do not approve. Click here to add your comments. There are numerous organizations that write and submit petitions against GMOs. The Center for Food Safety is running a campaign against the use of DOW Chemical’s 2,4-D.

What do you and your family do to stop the spread of GMOs? What are your favorite NON-GMO products?

Related posts:

poisonous potatoesWalking the Wrack Line: Poisonous Potatoes hypoxia, calcium and thiamineThe Hypoxic Heart, Thiamine, and Calcium Regulation nutrigenomicsNutrigenomics, Diet and Human Health wrack line plastic pollutionWalking the Wrack Line: Thoughts on Plastic Pollution

You might be interested in

ethics of it all

The Ethics Of It All

What if there is no future? We have always assumed that there would be a future, that somehow no matter

Answering Infertility with Genetic Modification: Evolution or Playing God?

Published on
3740 views

I am the middle of 5 children. We are all from the same parents who are still married. Since the time I was 5 years old, there has never been a time when there wasn’t a toddler in our house. I’m 30 years old now. I think I’m officially immune to baby fever. The gene to love shopping at malls and having babies somehow skipped me and I’m happy for that. However, the older I get I see it happen. First, one of my girlfriends gets infected and then, it quickly passes to each and every one. I don’t know if it’s through touch or some sort of mental telepathy, but it happens quick and there’s no stopping it. I call it the,  I want a baby and I want it now syndrome. The only known cure is reproduction.

More and more I watch couples around me struggle with infertility. I had one friend go to multiple fertility centers across the US trying to get pregnant with endometriosis. She was finally successful and jokes that her baby, “spent his inheritance getting here.” My sister, happy mother of 2, has had a horrible year with two miscarriages. After multiple tests, they discovered that she has a blood clotting disorder and hopefully she will be able to carry full term next time.
Keep Reading

Related posts:

treating infertility with specialized pelvic therapyTreating Infertility with Specialized Pelvic Therapy: A Natural Approach That Works birth control infertilityCan Birth Control Lead to Infertility?

You might be interested in

Milk it does a Body Good?

Published on
4202 views

Recently, I bought a lunch-box sized container of Horizon organic milk. I don’t use milk regularly, but do use other dairy products like cheese, sour cream, and butter often. I was a bit disturbed when I noticed something on the label that I had not seen on other dairy products: “Our farms produced this milk without the use of antibiotics, added hormones, pesticides or cloning.” I’d heard of the dangers of growth hormones in milk, but decided to do some research into what’s really in our milk, if they use cloned cows or if that’s just another advertising scam and if current regulations really protect the consumer.

Pesticides, Antibiotics and Hormones in Milk

If you are a woman and you have ever been prescribed an antibiotic or medication of any type, your doctor or pharmacist most likely asked you if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. Why? Because the medications come through the mother’s milk. Why would this be any different in animals? It’s not.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, commercial dairy farmers feed cattle corn silage, alfalfa or grass silage, alfalfa hay, ground or high-moisture shelled corn, soybean meal, fuzzy whole cottonseed, and perhaps commodity feeds (corn gluten, distillers grains, soybean hulls, citrus pulp, etc.), instead of grazing on grass in a sunny field. It might be cheaper up front, but the feed is likely genetically modified (GM) to withstand dangerous pesticides that the animals then digest and process into milk. The feed is a very unnatural food for the cows, wreaking havoc on their poor digestive systems. This makes them susceptible to various pathogens, such as E. coli, mastitis and other diseases contracted through their diet and poor living conditions. Farmers give cattle antibiotics throughout their life, when all they need to do is let them graze on grass to balance the pH level of their stomach and give them better living conditions in general. These antibiotics are found in milk we consume.

In order to increase the production of milk the cows are injected with the bovine growth hormone rGBH. While labels state, “No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rGBH-treated and non-rGBH-treated cows,” the truth is out there. Investigative journalists, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, tell their story on PR Watch about how Monsanto, former manufacturer of rGBH, lawyered-up and hid their revealing report on the dangers of rBGH in milk. According to the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research (2003), there are at least 16 different harmful medical conditions for dairy cattle treated with rGBH, including:

40 percent increase in infertility
55 percent increased risk for lameness
Shortened lifespan
Hoof disorders
Visibly abnormal milk

It also increases the levels of Insulin Growth Factor -1 (IGF-1) in the cows as well as their milk. In this important report on the link between breast cancer and milk from cows treated with rGBH, Dr. Mercola explains that “IGF-1 is a potent hormone that acts on your pituitary gland to induce powerful metabolic and endocrine effects, including cell growth and replication. Elevated IGF-1 levels are associated with breast and other cancers. When cows are injected with rBGH, their levels of IGF-1 increase up to 20-fold, and this IGF-1 is excreted in the milk.”

In addition to the added hormones, we have to deal with the natural hormones in milk. Cows are now milked 300 days of the year, including entire pregnancies. According to Ganmaa Davaasambuu, who holds a Ph.D. in environmental health and is a current fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, “Milk from a cow in the late stage of pregnancy contains up to 33 times as much of a signature estrogen compound (estrone sulfate) than milk from a non-pregnant cow.” What does this mean to the consumer? Studies are not revealing that the increase in sex hormones are linked to cancers including prostate, breast and endometrial. According to Dr. Davaasambuu’s research, “One study compared diet and cancer rates in 42 countries. It showed that milk and cheese consumption are strongly correlated to the incidence of testicular cancer among men ages 20 to 39. Rates were highest in places like Switzerland and Denmark, where cheese is a national food, and lowest in Algeria and other countries where dairy is not so widely consumed. Butter, meat, eggs, milk, and cheese are implicated in higher rates of hormone-dependent cancers in general. Breast cancer has been linked particularly to consumption of milk and cheese.”

Cloning

Companies use different claims to appear more desirable to the health-conscious consumer. I have seen products labeled as non-GMO when the ingredients have not been genetically modified in general, yet. So, are cows really cloned, or is this a marketing ploy as well? The truth is stranger than fiction, I’m afraid. In 2008, the FDA approved the use of cloned animals for both meat and milk. Similar to genetically modified food, there are no regulations that cloned animal products have to be labeled and are thought to be safe. Personally, I’d rather not be the guinea pig to find out the safety of these products.

Regulations

Does the USDA and FDA protect the consumer? Well, I’m not so sure I’d consider rGBH or cloned animals safe. The FDA seems to be going out of their way to limit the sales of raw milk lately. However, consumers have been fighting for their right to buy and consume raw, organic milk so much that states have been forced to change their laws and allow the sale of it (Click here to see if raw milk is legal in your state). Meanwhile, the FDA continues to send SWAT teams out to arrest Amish farmers and the USDA allows the largest “organic” dairy companies to sell questionably organic products. The Cornucopia Institute is filing a formal legal complaint in an attempt to immediately halt the USDA from allowing factory farms producing “organic” milk from bringing conventional dairy cattle onto their farms. Cornucopia claims the practice, which places family-scale farmers at a competitive disadvantage, is explicitly prohibited in the federal regulations governing the organic industry.

Related posts:

Milk as nutritionAncient Tribes to Modern Babies: Whole Milk Is a Common Denominator poisonous potatoesWalking the Wrack Line: Poisonous Potatoes

You might be interested in