The GMO convo...

The topic of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) has been receiving some much needed attention thanks to California's narrowly defeated Prop 37 which would have done several things.  It would have:

• Required labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
• Prohibited labeling or advertising such food as "natural."
• Exempted from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

 

While the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act sadly did not pass, it did stimulate a dialogue on our rights as consumers to know what it is we are eating. Genetic engineering of food crops is not the precise science the biotech companies like Monsanto would like us to believe. It is based on the faulty premise that a single gene, virus, or bacteria inserted into an organism will have one specific effect on one specific protein and nothing more. Basic science tells us this is not how things really work. One gene often creates multiple proteins for a number of reasons:

• The location of the gene often varies, which can affect whether or not it produces the desired protein
• The insertion of the gene can disrupt the genetic blueprint of the organism
• 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.

At this point you may be saying to yourself, "Sure, that doesn't sound great or quite precise, but surely the FDA evaluates the safety of these foods, right?" WRONG! The FDA is responsible for food safety, BUT 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. Is this enough? Numerous credible animal studies all over the world have indicate it is not. For example:

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

Now, harm to animals doesn’t necessarily translate to harm to humans, but it is a definite indication that more studies should be done. Do we really want to make ourselves and our children the lab rats? Join the conversation. Ask questions about what it is we are feeding our families. We have the right to know! If there really is no harm in eating genetically engineered foods, why are the biotech companies so scared to have them labeled?