Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Menu

GMOs

annies-kelloggs

GMO vs Non-GMO: A Tale of Two Stocks

, 0

If the market is any indication, a look at the share price and escalating growth of Annie’s versus the collapsing growth of Kellogg’s tells a story about our food supply that no marketing campaign can.

In the last year, due to soaring consumer demand for products free from artificial ingredients, Annie’s growth has exploded. Annie’s most recent quarter saw $57.9 million in net sales, representing a year over year increase of 24%. Earnings per share were up 19.1% and consumption up 22%. Annie’s, which produces real food with real ingredients, also just made a $6 million plant acquisition to expand capacity.

Contrast that with Kellogg, which just announced “Project K”, an initiative in which they will be laying off 7% of their employee base, along with an announced plant consolidation. In the United States, sales have been down for the last two quarters. Kellogg said sales in its U.S. Morning Foods segment fell by 2.2%. And while they recently purchased Pringles, to expand into the snack food category, Kellogg said sales in the U.S. snacks segment also fell by 2.5%.

A food awakening is happening around the country, largely driven by the escalating rates of conditions like allergies, diabetes, obesity and cancer. Consumers can no longer afford to remain illiterate in what they are putting into their bodies. The companies that recognize this are seeing explosive growth and skyrocketing share prices.

Chipotle is another recent example. Wall Street fell in love with their non GMO burrito, and their shares soared on the announcement that they would remove genetically engineered ingredients (and the portfolio of chemicals required to grow them) from their product line.

Companies like Kraft would give their right arm for that kind of revenue growth and upward trajectory in share price. What they have yet to realize is that they don’t have to, they simply have to give up the junk—like artificial dyes, artificial growth hormones and genetically engineered ingredients and meet the consumer where she stands—in the aisles of the store, holding onto a kid with allergies, asthma, diabetes, ADHD or any number of the conditions impacting our children today.

This demand for clean food is no more of a fad than the rates of cancer, autism and other conditions impacting our families. Farmers, food companies and families are paying attention, and first-movers are securing the market advantage.

The food awakening is on. As companies, along with the consumers, wake up to this, it begs the question: Which stock will be the next one to soar?

 

gmo labeled corn

What the Food Industry Really Fears about GMO Labeling

1

It’s Halloween, and as evidenced by the products hitting grocery store shelves, the food industry can change labels at any time to capture holiday sales.

What goes on a label is designed to make their products more marketable. It’s their job.

Which may explain why the food industry is pouring over $21 million dollars into an initiative to keep some things off of their food labels: which ingredients are genetically engineered.

The industry argues that labeling would drive up their costs, and they would have to pass these added expenses on to consumers. But it doesn’t ring true, especially as evidenced in October alone by the number of pink ribbons and Halloween goblins that appear.

So why not label genetically engineered ingredients? The food companies are already labeling these ingredients on their products in other countries.

They are already changing labels every holiday, sports season and cause-driven campaign to capture sales If label changes really cost them, can you imagine the impact on profitability of all of this? The fact is that the industry changes labels year round.

So why the fear of labeling genetically engineered ingredients? Especially when our own companies, Kraft, Coca Cola, Kellogg and other members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association already label genetically engineered ingredients on the products they sell overseas?

Because without labels on genetically engineered ingredients, the industry can claim “no evidence of harm.” Without labels, there is no evidence of traceability, accountability and liability. No way for a mother to directly link her child’s allergic reaction to the genetically engineered soy that has been hardwired to withstand increasing doses of a weedkiller she has been told not to store under her kitchen sink. A soy introduced into our food supply in the late 1990s without a label.

If you haven’t heard of these ingredients, you’re not alone, but a growing number of Americans are learning about them, and there is now legislation introduced in more than half of the states around the country to get them labeled here, too.

A Wall Street Journal poll asked: Do you think genetically engineered foods should be labeled? 87% said yes.

These are not wide-eyed, fringe, radicals, but rather, most likely a business-minded segment of the population, suggesting that knowing what is in our food just might be a sound way to conserve the health of our country and help manage the bottom lines of companies whose profits are being hit by the burdens of disease .

Sure, the chemical and pesticide industries producing these foods don’t want to hear this. Some of these genetically engineered products are now regulated by the EPA as pesticides. That’s a hard sell to a consumer. Can you imagine that marketing campaign? ”Made with pesticides.”

But as more of us are waking up to the fact that the United States remains one of the only developed countries in the world to have failed to label these ingredients in our food supply, the question now seems to be: Is now the time to label genetically engineered foods, foods whose genetic makeup has been hardwired to withstand increasing doses of toxic chemicals or to produce insecticides within the plant itself.

The chemical companies that are both making the foods and selling the chemicals required to grow them often claim that their products are needed to feed the world.

It’s an emotional argument. Powerful, too. But in light of the fact that 2 billion people are overweight or obese and 1 billion are hungry, while 30% of what is grown is thrown away, is a food shortage really the problem?

“The world is hungry because of politics and economics, not because we can’t grow food” a farmer from Australia recently said. And if you go wide, beyond the consumers and farmers, and dig into the politics of food, you realize how complicated and politically, economically and financially loaded the issue has become.

According to the USDA, 40 percent of the food we produce is never eaten.

So in light of this food waste, do we need this genetically engineered food to feed the world or do we need to design a distribution model?

In the late 1990s, pesticide manufacturers created this line of genetically engineered products, seeds that are hardwired to withstand increasing doses of their pesticides, as well as new pesticides. That’s good for their revenue lines and product sales, but mounting scientific evidence is questioning the safety of these products, engineered using a gene gun to manipulate the DNA. And in light of the fact that no long-term human studies have been done on what it might be doing to us, and recent headlines linking the chemicals used on it to brain, intestinal and heart defects in fetuses, at the very least, shouldn’t we pause and label these foods?

Sure, the companies engineering these crops to withstand their chemicals say it’s safe. It’s not the first time that ingredients with the potential to cause harm have been marketed this way. Doctors marketed cigarettes to our grandmothers. Like the tobacco industry, the pesticide and chemical industries fund research, protected under intellectual property law that is not subject to peer review, and then present it as evidence that their products are safe. That’s their job, to market their products so that they can drive shareholder return. But what about the rest of us, the world’s 7 billion stakeholders in the food supply – those of us, not known by the names given to our portfolios, but those of us simply called “eaters”?

Don’t we have a right to know that a researcher with the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research and director of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory said,”The noteworthy thing is that there are no studies of embryos on the world level and none where (the chemical routinely doused on these genetically engineered crops) glyphosate is injected into embryos.”

In other words, we have hardwired our crops so that they can be routinely sprayed and saturated with a chemical for which there are no studies of its impact on developing embryos on the world level.

And since the United States doesn’t label these foods, as over 40 countries around the world do, it means that American moms who are pregnant are the study. We are a walking experiment.

That’s hard to hear, especially for those of us that dismissed organic, that ate genetically engineered foods unknowingly while pregnant and for those of us who fed them to our families, completely unaware that they had been inserted into our food supply.

So when industry claims there is no evidence of harm, you almost want to believe them. But if you think about it, without labels, there simply is no evidence.

Labels are needed to prove a direct cause and effect. However, mounting hospitalization records, record drug sales and an increasingly allergic, diabetic, cancer-stricken and obese population in which 46 children are diagnosed with cancer every day might suggest that we should take a closer look and introduce labeling here in the United States as a conservative measure to protect the heath of our citizens, the way the health of citizens in every country in the European Union, Australia, Japan, Russia and China are protected (to name a few).

Now, the industry might claim that this is “alarmist” or that it’s going to drive up the cost of food. What is alarming is that an FTC inquiry has not been launched into the marketing practices or a Senate committee on finance investigation has not looked into the publication of industry studies in medical journals in light of the growing number of children with pediatric cancers, autism, allergies, ADHD and asthma. According to the Latin American Herald Tribune, which is reporting on the scientific study just released, “The doses of herbicide used in the study “were much lower than the levels used in the fumigations,” and so the situation “is much more serious” that the study suggests, embryology professor Andres Carrasco, one of the study’s authors, warned.

But the researchers are not the only ones that are worried. Australian farmers are warning New Zealanders to make sure their country remains free of genetically engineered and modified organisms, and those concerns were recently supported by a scientific study out of Norway who just released results from experimental feeding studies carried out over a 10-year period showing a link between genetically engineered crops and obesity, changes in the digestive systems and changes in the major organics, including the liver, kidneys, pancreas, genitals and more.

According to the article:

“The results show a positive link between GE corn and obesity. Animals fed a GE corn diet got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to animals fed a non-GE grain diet. The studies were performed on rats, mice, pigs and salmon, achieving the same results.

… Researchers found distinct changes to the intestines of animals fed GMOs compared to those fed non-GMOs. This confirms other studies done by US researchers. Significant changes occurred in the digestive systems of the test animals’ major organs including the liver, kidneys, pancreas, genitals and more.”

Professor Åshild Krogdahl, a researcher in the study, explains of her collaborative study: “It has often been claimed that the new genes in genetically modified foods can’t do any damage because all genes are broken down beyond recognition in the gut. Our results show the contrary that genes can be taken up across the intestinal wall, is transferred to the blood and is left in the blood, muscle and liver in large chunks so that they can be easily recognized.”

No one wants to hear this.

It is incredibly hard information to learn, especially for those of us that ate these genetically engineered crops and foods during our pregnancies, or for those who have watched a child die of cancer or for those of us who have a family member suffering under the health burdens of obesity. It is also hard on our farmers, who have lost loved ones to breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphomas and more or the wives suffering from infertility rates or miscarriages.

The president-elect of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists will be focusing on the environmental factors for the health of moms and babies, and not a moment too soon.

It was Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political thinker, who said, “It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth”, but perhaps the truth is best stated by the researcher with the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research and director of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory:

“The companies say that drinking a glass of glyphosate (the chemical often used on these genetically engineered crops) is healthier than drinking a glass of milk, but the fact is that they’ve used us as guinea pigs.”

It doesn’t have to be an “either-or” situation. The chemical industry is responsible for these products. The food industry can opt out. Consumers are rewarding companies that already are, and so is the stock market. When Chipotle announced that they were going to source non genetically engineered ingredients, their stock soared to a record high.

The bottom line? Opting out of these ingredients appears be good for business. Food industry shareholders and executives have an opportunity to capture those returns, without the risk of the liability, accountability and traceability that labeling the chemical industry’s products might contain.

To learn more about genetically engineered foods and the pesticides being routinely applied to them, please visit one of the following sites, known for their independent research:

liars

GMO Labeling: Are Biotech Companies Duping Their Own Shareholders?

, 0

Right now, a battle is brewing over the labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in our food. Chemical companies that make these products are fighting the labeling initiative like crazy, pouring record amounts of money into defeating any measure that would require their products to be labeled. It makes sense. Because without labels, there is no liability, traceability or accountability. In other words, they can declare there is “no evidence of harm” to their shareholders, and they’re right. Without labels, there is simply no evidence.

What is surprising is that members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, who either label these ingredients or flat out don’t use them in the products they sell overseas, are spending their own hard earned cash to shield the chemical companies from this liability and keep customers in the dark about the industry inserting these products into our food.

Why are they doing this here in the United States while either labeling these ingredients or not using them in their products overseas? And is that in the best interest of their shareholders?

While it is obviously the fiduciary duty of the chemical companies to continue to want their products inserted into the food supply without labels, as it shields their shareholders from any liability that labeling might bring, it may not be in the best interest of the food companies, given that a growing number of consumers and farmers are now looking to avoid these ingredients in the foods they are feeding their families.

And it’s not just farmers and families that are doing this.

Companies like Target and Safeway are introducing private label brands that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients, and companies like Chipotle are labeling these ingredients and looking to build out the supply chain without them. Farmers are seeing this shift in consumer sentiment, the impact that these genetically engineered ingredients and the chemicals required to grow them are having on their farms and soil and dumping these products and shifting away from this fifteen year experiment back to less toxic methods employed by their grandfathers.

And some insiders in the chemical companies are dumping shares.

So what’s a food company to do? Continue to pour cash into measures attempting to defeat labeling efforts? Or invest in building out a supply chain that increases the availability of non genetically engineered ingredients and convert farms in order to meet consumer demand? And would it be mindful to hedge?

The answer will depend on who you listen to, as there is a duplicity at play, one that the food companies, given their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, should be mindful of.

According to the chemical companies that manufacture the genetically engineered ingredients recently introduced into our foods, these foods and ingredients are “substantially equivalent” to their conventional counterparts in the documentation provided to the FDA which has not conducted the independent studies themselves.

However, according to these same chemical companies, they have also told the United States Patent and Trademark Office that the novelty of these foods and ingredients are so unique that they merit unique patents on each one in order to protect the intellectual property rights and their fiduciary duty to shareholders to drive financial return. In some cases, these ingredients are so different that they are now regulated by the EPA as a pesticide.

So which is it? Substantially equivalent per the FDA or substantially different per the US Patent and Trademark Office? And how can the food companies hedge their exposure?

The FDA states: “FDA recognizes that the scientific methods to assess allergenic potential are evolving. Recent reports on the assessment of potential food allergenicity, including the allergenicity annex, have reevaluated earlier approaches and recommended some new strategies based on recent scientific opinions on this issue.”

With the jury still out, perhaps the smartest thing to do would be to opt out. A growing number of farmers want to get away from this chemically intensive operating system that genetically engineered crops require, recognizing the burden that glyphosate and other chemicals are imposing on their land and soil. On top of that, a growing number of consumers, dealing with escalating rates of diseases and conditions in their families, are moving towards clean eating.

The market opportunities are growing for the food companies if they opt out, and the ability to reduce their liabilities are, too.

Perhaps the questions that they need to ask themselves are:

Are the chemical companies telling the truth to the FDA, in which case, these ingredients are substantially equivalent enough to not merit a label? Or are they telling the truth to the US Patent and Trademark Office in which case these ingredients are substantially different enough to merit a patent?

Shareholders in the chemical and biotech companies have invested in the novelty of these ingredients and the technology that produces them. They have bet on the substantial difference, so without labels, consumers are being misled.

But if these products are substantially equivalent, as the chemical industry also claims to the FDA, then have investors in food companies been misled?

These ingredients have been patented and inserted into our food by chemical companies without our knowledge. The bottom line is that we have a right to know that, just as we know which companies make our clothes, our cars and our computers.

If you think about it, just like Intel Inside, GMOs inside our food should be labeled. If your curious what that might look like, just take a look at the way Hershey’s, one of the members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, labels genetically engineered ingredients in the products that they sell in other countries. It’s pretty straighforward.

Photo by Alan Cleaver

Pig feeding study shows problems with GMOs in animal feed

GMOs: A Pig Feeding Trial Exposes Problems and “He Said, She Said” Science

, 0

A just-released study shows that animals found in the US food supply are harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified corn and soy.

It’s enough to make anyone paying attention to the genetically modified food debate sit up and take notice.

And it did, but it also brought another issue to light: the growing influence that funding ties are having over scientific studies and the journals they are published in.

The research results were striking, showing that the weight of the uterus in pigs fed genetically modified foods was on average 25% higher than in the control group of pigs. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the genetically modified food diet. These animals were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs. While 22% of male pigs and 42% of female pigs on the genetically modified food diet had this condition, when these pigs were compared to pigs on the control diet, it was found that male pigs were actually more strongly affected. While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely.

According to the researchers, these findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant. The research was conducted by collaborating investigators from two continents and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems.

Yes, the Journal of Organic Systems. A look at the journal’s sponsors shows that the Organic Federation of Australia sponsors the journal.

Why is this important? Journals and their editors have a lot of power in science – power that provides opportunities for abuse. The life science industry knows this, and has increasingly moved to influence and control science publishing. In 2009, the scientific publishing giant Elsevier was found to have invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck.

And in early 2013 the scientific journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. According to Independent Science News, Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, the company whose products were recently challenged in a scientific study published in this journal, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).

So with eyes wide open to how these journals are being used, what did the pig study in the Organic journal find? The feeding study lasted more than five months and was conducted in the US. 168 newly-weaned pigs in a commercial piggery were fed either a typical diet incorporating GM soy and corn (2), or else (in the control group) an equivalent non-GM diet. The pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. They were slaughtered over 5 months later, at their usual slaughter age, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan. They were then autopsied by qualified veterinarians who worked “blind” – they were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group. The research was undertaken because farmers have for some years been reporting reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn (3).

Farmers have seen a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows have been fed on a GM diet, and a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination. There is also evidence of a higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from its bowel and die. The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn. The study seemed significant for four reasons:

  1. Results were found in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory
  2. Pigs were used and pigs end up in our food supply.
  3. Pigs have a similar digestive system to people
  4. The animals were fed a mixture of crops that contained three genetically modified genes and genetically modified proteins, relatively new to the food supply.

No food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.

In other words, we are eating these foods in combination without an understanding of what their synergistic toxicity might be.

The study also aimed to address the concern of farmers who had found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding genetically modified food crops to their animals.

But if these foods were introduced into our food supply in the 1990s, why are we only just now conducting the studies? Shouldn’t they have been conducted before these products came to market? And what is the concern?

According to Michael Hansen, PhD, a senior scientist at the Consumers Union, in testimony on H1936, an Act relative to Genetically Engineered Food; H2037, an Act to establish guidelines for genetically engineered food; and H2093, an Act relative to the labeling of food before the Joint Committee on Public Health in Boston, MA, said, “There is global agreement that genetic engineering is different than conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be completed for all GE foods prior to marketing. The human safety problems that may arise include introduction of new allergens or increased levels of naturally occurring allergens, of plant toxins, and changes in nutrition. There may also be unintended effects.”

So how did the US, the FDA, allow these ingredients into our food supply while the rest of the world exercised such precaution? And while correlation is not causation, does it explain the 400% increase we have seen in the number of children with allergies?

Without labels on these foods, there is no way to know.

The United States, unlike all other developed countries, does not require safety testing for genetically modified plants now found in our food supply (although it does require an assessment for genetically modified animals). The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) original policy on genetically engineered (or GM, for genetically modified) plants, developed more than twenty years ago,[1] says that companies may go through a “voluntary safety consultation.” But, in the end, FDA says it is up to the companies to determine safety of any GE food. To date, there have been some 97 “voluntary safety consultations.”

But that was twenty years ago. So what has happened lately?

It turns out that just last June, the American Medical Association’s House on Delegates voted to change its policy on “bioengineered” foods to one that states: “Our AMA supports mandatory pre-market systematic safety assessments of bioengineered foods and encourages: (a) development and validation of additional techniques for the detection and/or assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or toxicant levels in bioengineered foods as part of a substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d) that priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to support the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens.”[2]

According to Hansen’s testimony, one big problem with safety assessments of genetically modified plants now found in our food supply is that there have been virtually no long-term animal feeding studies, with most feeding studies being of 90 days or shorter. A carefully designed meta-analysis of 19 published studies involving mammals fed this new, genetically modified corn or soy found damage in the kidney, liver and bone marrow, which could be potential indicators for the onset of chronic diseases.[3] However, no animal tests are obligatory for any of the genetically modified plants now found in our food supply cultivated on a large scale in the US.

Do other countries do it this way? Or are we the only ones who take the approach: Shoot first, ask questions later?

It looks like we are one of the only developed countries to do it this way, as over 60 countries around the world either banned or labeled these ingredients in the food supply so that consumers can make an informed choice.

Both the French Food Safety Agency (ANSES) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have concluded that such long-term safety assessment should be done on genetically modified foods.

So where are those studies? A long-term (two year) feeding study published in October, 2012 found that females rats fed the genetically modified corn died 2-3 times more quickly, and developed mammary tumors more often than controls who ate non-GE corn, while male rats fed the GE corn have liver and kidney problems at higher rate than controls, and more large tumors than rats fed non-GE corn.[4]

The study was terrible PR for the chemical and biotech industries whose shareholders rely on these products to drive profitability and was quickly criticized by the scientific community for the way in which the study was conducted. The design of the study had flaws, but perhaps it’s most significant contribution to this dialogue was that it raised the awareness of how few long-term independent studies have been conducted.

The result? It had countries around the world calling for more independent studies and science.

With the news of the US pig study, now we have another one.

The sample size was not small. This one involved US pigs fed a combination of genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy, fed to animals in our food supply and used in our processed foods, has found evidence of adverse health effects. This study involved a large sample size (168 pigs) of pigs raised in a commercial US piggery, and fed commercially available soy and corn for 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of commercial pig from weaning to slaughter) was designed “to compare the effects of eating either a mixed genetically modified soy and genetically modified corn diet, or an equivalent diet with non- genetically modified ingredients.”[5] The study found that the uteri of genetically modified food-fed pigs was significantly larger (weighed 25% more) than those non- genetically modified food-fed pigs. In addition, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was more than 2.5-fold higher, on average, for genetically modified food -fed pigs compared to non- genetically modified food -fed pigs (32% vs 12%, respectively).

It hit the males harder. For male pigs, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was four times higher for genetically modified food -fed males to non- genetically modified food fed males, and for females, the rate was more than 2-fold higher. As the authors conclude “The results indicate that it would be prudent for genetically modified crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked genetically modified crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.”[6]

You would think that this had already happened before such widespread introduction into the US food supply without so much as a label. But it hasn’t, so scientists here in the US, as well as farmers, join scientists around the world calling for more independent, long-term studies.

And we need them, because a further look into this study by Mark Lynas, a climate change author who recently became an advocate for these products suggests that “if you look at the data they present (and the data presentation is at least a step better than Seralini) there are obvious problems. Clearly all the animals were in very poor health – weaner mortality is reported as 13% and 14% in GM-fed and non-GM fed groups, which they claim is “within expected rates for US commercial piggeries”, a vague statement intended to justify what seem to have been inadequate husbandry standards.

This picture is even more stark in the data presented in Table 3. 15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so.

He highlights that close to 60% of both sets of pigs were suffering from pneumonia at the time of slaughter, calling the study “propaganda dressed up as science.”

The problem is that this is increasingly the case on both sides of the GMO aisle, with conflicts of interests on both sides of the issue.

There is virtually no independent safety testing of these crops in the US due to intellectual property right problems. When farmers buy genetically modified seed in the US (seeds that have been hardwired to withstand increasing doses of the chemicals sold by the company engineering them), they invariably must sign a product stewardship agreement which forbids them from giving such seeds to researchers.[7] Since researchers must get permission from the biotech companies before they can do research, the result is a scarcity of independent research. Scientists have even been threatened with legal action if they revealed information obtained via freedom-of-information.[8]

In early 2009 26 public sector scientists in the US took the unprecedented step of writing to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”[9] As a result, the editors of Scientific American published a perspective stating that “we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements.” We concur and believe that only truly independent safety tests will give us an answer about the safety of genetically modified foods. In the meantime, it’s crucial that genetically modified foods be labeled, so that if people experience negative effects, they and their doctors can identify them.

Correlation is not causation, but with the skyrocketing rates of food allergies now seen in the US population, studies showing an increased risk of developing allergies after moving to the United States and the fact that few independent, long-term studies have been conducted due to the intellectual property protections enjoyed by these companies, it’s not only consumers who have a basic right to know what they are eating but parents who also have a basic right to know what is in the foods they are feeding their children.

To learn how to get involved with the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States, please visit Just Label It.

[1] Pg. 22991 in FDA. Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104. At: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm
[3] Séralini, G-E, Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendômois, JS and D. Cellier. 2011. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe, 23: 10. At: http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-23-10.pdf
[4] Séralini et al. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50: 4221-4231. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
[5] Pg. 40 in Carman JA, Vlieger HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Clinch-Jones CA, Haynes JI and JW Edwards. 2013. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems 8(1): 38-54. At: http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
[6] Pg. 52 in IBID.
[7] Waltz, E. 2009. Under wraps. Nature Biotechnology, 27(10): 880-882. At: http://www.emilywaltz.com/Biotech_crop_research_restrictions_Oct_2009.pdf
[8] IBID
 

Photo by Muffet

gmo foods

GMO Foods: They Look the Same, But Are They?

0

The landscape of food has changed.

Not only is it available 24/7 and marketed to us using mobile apps and Internet games, but it is also full of lots of ingredients that just didn’t exist when we were kids. So while our food may look the same, it now contains artificial, engineered and genetically altered ingredients that are so new that patents have been filed on them in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Not something any busy eater wants to hear. Especially a busy parent who is doing his or her best to simply get the kids to eat.

But we are quickly learning that the ingredients in our foods – the good ones that include vitamins and minerals and the ones that have the potential to cause harm – have a lot to do with the health of our families.

And if you are just getting started on trying to eat a little cleaner or reduce your families exposure to artificial ingredients, you may be hearing about something called “genetically engineered foods.” If you haven’t heard about them, you’re not alone. While countries around the world labeled these ingredients when they were introduced in the 1990s, we didn’t here.

So a lot has changed in our food in the last decade, and given the juggling act that most of us perform on a daily basis, coupled with the fact that these new ingredients were never labeled, it’s no surprise that we are only just beginning to have this dialogue around the labeling of these ingredients here in the United States. States like California, North Carolina and other have taken a lead on it. But the dialogue is now being held at the national level, with millions of citizens calling on the FDA to do the same. So we put together a short Q&A, working with researchers who have not accepted funding from or developed patents for the corporations developing these new products, to pull together this information for you.

FACT SHEET: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

Questions and Health Concerns

What are genetically engineered (GE) foods?

These are foods created from the insertion of a gene, bacteria or virus from one species into a different species to produce a desired effect, usually resistance to herbicides or insects. The terms genetically modified (GM) and genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are typically used interchangeably with GE.

Are they the same as foods from traditional breeding?

No. Traditional breeding between the same or similar species, such as crossing two types of corn or apples, has been done for thousands of years. GE foods, only developed in the past few decades, are created in a lab and are between different species.

What kinds of food are genetically engineered?

There are currently six major foods sold in the U.S. that are typically genetically engineered. These are listed below with the percent that are genetically engineered according to the United States Department of Agriculture:

  • Corn 88%
  • Soybeans 94%
  • Cotton (Cottonseed oil) 90%
  • Canola 90%
  • Sugar beets 95%

Because most of these are used widely, about two-thirds of processed food contains a GE ingredient. Conversely, the vast majority of raw fruits and vegetables are not GE. Organic foods, by definition, can’t be GE.

Does genetic engineering improve the nutritional quality of foods?

No. There are no GE foods on the market in which nutritional quality is enhanced beyond a non-GE food counterpart.

Is the act of genetic engineering precise?

No. The entire foundation of GE is that the introduction of one foreign gene, bacteria or virus into a plant will activate one protein, producing one desired effect and nothing more. But this ignores basic science – the chances of harmful unintended consequences with GE are substantially increased:[i]

One gene often creates multiple proteins

  • The location of the gene often varies, which can affect whether it produces the desired protein or not
  • The insertion of the gene can disrupt the genetic blueprint of the plant
  • The new gene can either silence other genes that were normally active or activate other genes that were silent
  • A promoter (typically a virus) is usually added that helps the gene activate a desired protein. However, it may also activate other proteins that were silent, which could lead to harmful effects on humans.

What evidence of harmful effects are there?

The deadliest incident occurred in the food supplement l-tryptophan, which had been used safely by millions of people as a sleep aid for decades. However, when a Japanese company produced a GE version in the late 1980’s, thousands of people contracted an extremely painful, serious disease, EMS, that killed at least 37 and left thousands with disabilities, including paralysis.[ii] The FDA subsequently removed virtually all l-tryptophan off the market, although only the GE version was linked to EMS.

It’s more difficult to detect harmful conditions such as cancer, birth defects, toxins or allergies, since they have other causes and/or can take longer to develop than EMS. Moreover, the FDA doesn’t require GE foods to be labeled, so most people don’t know they’re consuming them. This makes it virtually impossible to isolate and track them.

However, numerous credible animal studies all over the world have shown disturbing results. For example:

  • In Scotland, GE potatoes fed to rats showed lowered nutritional content and suffered damaged immune systems, smaller brains, livers and testicles and enlarged intestines[iii]
  • In Australia, a harmless gene in a bean engineered into a pea produced immune reactions in mice, indicating allergic reactions and/or toxins[iv]
  • In Austria, a government study showed that mice fed GE corn had fewer litters and fewer total offspring[v]
  • In France, a study found that GE corn previously thought harmless revealed hormone-dependent diseases and early signs of toxicity in rats[vi]

Harm to animals doesn’t necessarily prove harm to humans. However, it is a definite indication that more studies should be done. This hasn’t happened.

How is safety testing done in the U.S.? Is it adequate?

The FDA is responsible for food safety. However, it doesn’t do any testing on GE food and doesn’t require any independent tests. The only studies done are by the same companies developing the foods and they’re not required to give all their data to the FDA. They only need to declare their studies are adequate and that the GE food is safe. By and large, GE food safety is self-regulated.

The bottom line

Plants can be genetically engineered to be resistant to pests or herbicides. But in the process, there is evidence they may be causing harm to human health as an unintended consequence.

To learn more, please visit Just Label It

[i] Commoner, Barry, Unraveling the DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering, Harper’s, Feb. 2002.

[ii] Crist, William, Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious Epidemic, 2005, available athttp://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/1Introduction/index.cfm.

[iii] Ewen, SW, Pusztai, A, Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine, Lancet, Oct. 16, 1999, 354(9187): 1353-4.

[iv] Prescott, V et al, Transgenic Expression of Bean α-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2005, 53:9023-9030.

[v] For the full study in English, seehttp://bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letzfassung.pdf

[vi] Seralini, G-E et al, How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMO’s, Pesticides or Chemicals; International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009, 5(5): 438-443.

This Fact Sheet is provided by: Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, www.oregonpsr.org.

a688199ebe30ae688a3e3482_640_amazed

GMOs: 73 Percent Want Them Banned (And You May Not Know You’re Eating Them)

0

As the United States wrestles over whether or not genetically engineered foods should be labeled (as they have been in other countries since their introduction in the 1990s), a new report shows that 73% of those polled think that the planting of these same ingredients should be banned altogether in the European Union.

So what gives?  Why would some countries want to ban food crops and the ingredients derived from them while eaters in the United States haven’t even been told these things were going into our food supply in the first place?  

Introduced into our food in the 1990s, genetically engineered ingredients were the product of a new technology used in our food and agricultural systems, a technology that allows crops to withstand increasing doses of toxic and controversial weedkillers or to actually enable crops like corn to synthesize (and make internally within the plant) their very own insecticides.

Technology can be pretty amazing, right?  So instead of spraying insecticides across corn fields, biotech scientists working for big chemical companies figured out how to engineer those insecticides straight into the plant itself, so that it can release them as it grows. Great business model if you’re a chemical company.  But what about the consumer?  And why didn’t we label these things here?

Well, if the countries in Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, about 40 countries around the world, are any indicator, the consumers, when they saw these things on the label, decided to opt out.  So much so that France doesn’t really even want them planted in their soil.  And now a poll shows 73% don’t want them planted in the European Union.

So how did we miss this dialogue here in the United States?  Why weren’t we given this same right when this new technology and these ingredients were introduced without labels.  There was no “Intel Inside” kind of label.  We simply weren’t given the right to know or the right to choose the way consumers in other developed countries were.

So why are the chemical companies urging farmers to grow crops that other countries don’t want?  You don’t have to look far to find the answer.  With shareholders to report to, the buck stops here.  In the United States, on our farms.  It’s where the bottom line hits.

But what’s fascinating is that in conversations with farmers (and if you’ve never sat down with one, you should, as most of them have families that have been feeding our families and country for generations), you will quickly learn that this new operating system introduced on the farm, which enable the use of these toxic weedkillers, doesn’t seem to be working out as planned.  Weeds have supersized themselves, building immunity to these chemicals, and now farmers are looking for other options.

If the recent poll is any indicator, it looks like that might be a smart business move as a growing number of countries around the world continue to opt out of these genetically engineered crops.  Sure, the chemical companies pushing these products don’t want that to happen, they’d sell discounted seeds to show a successful adoption rate just the way a tech start up gives away its product in the early stages, too.  But if this poll is any indicator, the ‘opt-out’ might be happening anyway.

Want to learn more, please visit Just Label It.

right to know

GMOs: What’s Not On the Label? Hidden Toxins and Allergens In Food

0

Infographic-march7aAccording to the National Academy of Sciences, genetically engineered foods, which were introduced into the U.S. food supply in the 1990s without labels, can introduce new allergens and toxins into the food that we are feeding our families and loved ones. For this reason and others, over 40 countries around the world have chosen to label these ingredients due to their potential risks.

Want to learn more? Take a peak at the graphic below and join me and almost one million Americans, as well as AllergyKids and 500 other organizations at Just Label It, and urge the FDA to label these ingredients and the toxins and allergens they may contain here in the United States, too.  Given the rates of diseases that we are seeing in our families, labels will help us rule out a potential systemic risk. And given that the United States already spends more on disease management and health care costs than any other country on the planet, this just might be one of the most patriotic things that you could do to help protect the health of our country.

gmo corn

GMO Food Looks the Same, But Is It?

0

The landscape of food has changed. Not only is it available 24/7 and marketed to us using mobile apps and Internet games, but it is also full of lots of ingredients that just didn’t exist when we were kids. So while our food may look the same, it now contains artificial, engineered and genetically altered ingredients that are so new that patents have been filed on them in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Not something any busy eater wants to hear. Especially a busy parent who is doing his or her best to simply get the kids to eat.

But we are quickly learning that the ingredients in our foods – the good ones that include vitamins and minerals and the ones that have the potential to cause harm – have a lot to do with the health of our families.

And if you are just getting started on trying to eat a little cleaner or reduce your families exposure to artificial ingredients, you may be hearing about something called “genetically engineered foods.” If you haven’t heard about them, you’re not alone. While countries around the world labeled these ingredients when they were introduced in the 1990s, we didn’t here.

So a lot has changed in our food in the last decade, and given the juggling act that most of us perform on a daily basis, coupled with the fact that these new ingredients were never labeled, it’s no surprise that we are only just beginning to have this dialogue around the labeling of these ingredients here in the United States. States like California, North Carolina and other have taken a lead on it. But the dialogue is now being held at the national level, with millions of citizens calling on the FDA to do the same. So we put together a short Q&A, working with researchers who have not accepted funding from or developed patents for the corporations developing these new products, to pull together this information for you.

FACT SHEET: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

Questions and Health Concerns

What are genetically engineered (GE) foods?

These are foods created from the insertion of a gene, bacteria or virus from one species into a different species to produce a desired effect, usually resistance to herbicides or insects. The terms genetically modified (GM) and genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are typically used interchangeably with GE.

Are they the same as foods from traditional breeding?

No. Traditional breeding between the same or similar species, such as crossing two types of corn or apples, has been done for thousands of years. GE foods, only developed in the past few decades, are created in a lab and are between different species.

What kinds of food are genetically engineered?

There are currently six major foods sold in the U.S. that are typically genetically engineered. These are listed below with the percent that are genetically engineered according to the United States Department of Agriculture:

  • Corn 88%
  • Soybeans 94%
  • Cotton (Cottonseed oil) 90%
  • Canola 90%
  • Sugar beets 95%

Because most of these are used widely, about two-thirds of processed food contains a GE ingredient. Conversely, the vast majority of raw fruits and vegetables are not GE. Organic foods, by definition, can’t be GE.

Does genetic engineering improve the nutritional quality of foods?

No. There are no GE foods on the market in which nutritional quality is enhanced beyond a non-GE food counterpart.

Is the act of genetic engineering precise?

No. The entire foundation of GE is that the introduction of one foreign gene, bacteria or virus into a plant will activate one protein, producing one desired effect and nothing more. But this ignores basic science – the chances of harmful unintended consequences with GE are substantially increased:[i]

One gene often creates multiple proteins

  • The location of the gene often varies, which can affect whether it produces the desired protein or not
  • The insertion of the gene can disrupt the genetic blueprint of the plant
  • The new gene can either silence other genes that were normally active or activate other genes that were silent
  • A promoter (typically a virus) is usually added that helps the gene activate a desired protein. However, it may also activate other proteins that were silent, which could lead to harmful effects on humans.

What evidence of harmful effects are there?

The deadliest incident occurred in the food supplement l-tryptophan, which had been used safely by millions of people as a sleep aid for decades. However, when a Japanese company produced a GE version in the late 1980’s, thousands of people contracted an extremely painful, serious disease, EMS, that killed at least 37 and left thousands with disabilities, including paralysis.[ii] The FDA subsequently removed virtually all l-tryptophan off the market, although only the GE version was linked to EMS.

It’s more difficult to detect harmful conditions such as cancer, birth defects, toxins or allergies, since they have other causes and/or can take longer to develop than EMS. Moreover, the FDA doesn’t require GE foods to be labeled, so most people don’t know they’re consuming them. This makes it virtually impossible to isolate and track them.

However, numerous credible animal studies all over the world have shown disturbing results. For example:

– In Scotland, GE potatoes fed to rats showed lowered nutritional content and suffered damaged immune systems, smaller brains, livers and testicles and enlarged intestines[iii]

– In Australia, a harmless gene in a bean engineered into a pea produced immune reactions in mice, indicating allergic reactions and/or toxins[iv]

– In Austria, a government study showed that mice fed GE corn had fewer litters and fewer total offspring[v]

– In France, a study found that GE corn previously thought harmless revealed hormone-dependent diseases and early signs of toxicity in rats[vi]

Harm to animals doesn’t necessarily prove harm to humans. However, it is a definite indication that more studies should be done. This hasn’t happened.

How is safety testing done in the U.S.? Is it adequate?

The FDA is responsible for food safety. However, it doesn’t do any testing on GE food and doesn’t require any independent tests. The only studies done are by the same companies developing the foods and they’re not required to give all their data to the FDA. They only need to declare their studies are adequate and that the GE food is safe. By and large, GE food safety is self-regulated.

The bottom line

Plants can be genetically engineered to be resistant to pests or herbicides. But in the process, there is evidence they may be causing harm to human health as an unintended consequence.

To learn more, please visit Just Label It

[i] Commoner, Barry, Unraveling the DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering, Harper’s, Feb. 2002. 

[ii] Crist, William, Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious Epidemic, 2005, available athttp://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/1Introduction/index.cfm.

[iii] Ewen, SW, Pusztai, A, Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine, Lancet, Oct. 16, 1999, 354(9187): 1353-4.

[iv] Prescott, V et al, Transgenic Expression of Bean α-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2005, 53:9023-9030.

[v] For the full study in English, seehttp://bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letzfassung.pdf

[vi] Seralini, G-E et al, How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMO’s, Pesticides or Chemicals; International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009, 5(5): 438-443.

This Fact Sheet is provided by: Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, www.oregonpsr.org.