If you don’t know whether or not you’re eating genetically modified organisms, you’re not alone—at least in the U.S. Despite the many petitions and appeals for state or federal regulations on labeling foods that contain GMOs, none have passed. And that means companies still don’t have to disclose whether or not a product includes genetically modified organisms. What’s the big deal, you ask?
More than 60 countries require GMO labeling (or ban GMOs altogether) for a number of reasons. While there are many, these are some of the most common concerns:
1. Are they safe? Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow—they’ll all tell you their GMO products have met safety requirements, but the truth is, long term studies haven’t been done on their impact to the human body. USDA approval requires several processes that prove safety, but GMOs have only been in our diet since the mid-’90s, so it’s difficult to know what the long-term health impacts truly are.
2. Known health risks: What we do know is that when genetic modification happens, genes are forced to express certain traits (including pesticides). To do this, the scientists “turn on” all the gene’s components, which can mean releasing allergens that would normally not be expressed in a non-GMO variety. Experts like Jeffrey Smith suggest this is directly related to the rise in health issues.
3. Heavy use of toxic pesticides and herbicides: By design, genetically modified seeds require pesticides and herbicides. While some manufacturers have claimed the pesticide use would decrease over time, it’s only increased, according to a peer-reviewed 2012 study.
4. Pesticides and digestive health: The main function of herbicides and pesticides is to kill unwanted plants and insects. Glyphosate—the most common herbicide used on GMO crops—has been shown to negatively impact the gut bacteria of humans. Jeffrey Smith’s recent film Genetic Roulette highlights the parallel of GMOs in our diet and the rise in digestive health issues and food allergies.
5. Cancer: Both pesticides and GMOs have been connected with an increased risk of certain types of cancer. There are additonal health concerns too including reproductive issues, autism and even heart disease.
6. Environmental impact: GMO crops and their companion pesticides and herbicides wreak havoc on the environment including polluting air, water and soil. Glyphosate—marketed by Monsanto as the herbicide Roundup—is in effect, an antibiotic, which can destroy soil quality and thus impair the plant’s nutritional value as well. Cross-polination between GMO and non-GMO crops is common as well, and can destroy natural plant varieties in the wild.
7. Superbugs and superweeds: Despite the claims that pesticides and GMO crops can relieve farmers of crop-destroying insects and plants, the opposite is showing to be true. Farmers in the Midwest are now battling superbugs and superweeds resistant to pesticides. They’re damaging crops and farm equipment and costing the farmers more money in having to apply heavier doses of toxic pesticides.
8. Patent issues: At the core of the GMO industry is the corporate ownership of seed and seed patents. Companies like Monsanto are notorious for suing small farmers for saving seeds or if GMO crop drift pollinates on their land.
9. Corporate protection: Earlier this year, the U.S. government passed a bill nicknamed the “Monsanto Protection Act.” In essence, it grants biotech companies immunity from the courts, even if a judge determines it’s unlawful to plant GMO crops, the companies can do it anyway.
10. Prolific presence: Whether or not GMOs are safe has yet to be determined, yet every day, millions of Americans eat them unknowingly due to the lack of labeling requirements. Are you a lab rat? Don’t you at least have the right to know what you’re eating?
This article was originally published on www.NaturallySavvy.com
Alot of Links HERE
Showing posts with label DuPont. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DuPont. Show all posts
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Farmers fear Monsanto is collecting too much crop data
Big data has come to the farm. The world's two largest seed sellers, Monsanto and DuPont, are building "prescriptive planting" technology that will take in detailed data from farmers and spit out precise guidelines for planting. The upside is that farmers can use the algorithmic advice to easily identify things like the best soil for the best seeds, the amount of fertilizer needed, and optimal density for planting.
Some farmers and agricultural organizations are worried about the amount of control the industry is ceding to megacorporations, however. Farmers today rely heavily on algorithms and iPads to automate their planting, and that data is easily harvested. Deere even signed a contract to beam data directly from its tractors to DuPont and Dow Chemical, reports The Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, the new technology could price struggling small farmers out of business.
DEERE TRACTORS BEAMS DATA DIRECTLY TO DUPONT AND DOW CHEMICAL
There are also fears that the data services will be used to convince farmers to plant more and therefore buy more seeds. Farmers are also concerned that the data could be used on Wall Street to inform price projections, cutting into their profit on futures contracts. "I'm afraid, as farmers, we are not going to be the ones reaping the benefit," one farmer told WSJ.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/26/5450226/farmers-fear-monsanto-is-collecting-too-much-crop-data
Some farmers and agricultural organizations are worried about the amount of control the industry is ceding to megacorporations, however. Farmers today rely heavily on algorithms and iPads to automate their planting, and that data is easily harvested. Deere even signed a contract to beam data directly from its tractors to DuPont and Dow Chemical, reports The Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, the new technology could price struggling small farmers out of business.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/26/5450226/farmers-fear-monsanto-is-collecting-too-much-crop-data
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The GMO-Free Stream Is Turning Into a Flood
Like cracks in a dam that lead to the whole structure crumbling, the move toward removing genetically modified foods from the food supply, or at least informing the consuming public about how much of the food they eat has been altered in the lab, is spreading. It's only leaking through in droplets now, but soon it may become a torrent.
Aside from halfhearted attempts by the government to mandate GMO labeling, industry itself is beginning to see the benefit in identifying the products that have been modified, or more correctly, highlighting those that are GMO-free.
When it rains, it pours
The latest large food company to join the cascading list of those providing a product that isn't affected by genetic modification, Post Holdings , just unveiled that its Grape-Nuts Original will be Non-GMO Project-verified as of this month, and it also notes its Grape-Nuts Vintage is GMO-free as well. By avoiding the inclusion of soy, the most genetically modified food crop in existence, with some 94% of all seed being altered in the lab, Post is able to "clean up" the perception of a popular brand.
DuPont is the largest manufacturer of genetically modified soy seeds, ahead of even Monsanto, and it's estimated that about 60% of all processed foods on the market today contain soy. With at least 85% of all soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola grown from GMO seeds -- most of which are made by Monsanto -- it means if the label contains at least one of those ingredients, there's a good chance it's been modified on a genetic level, further suggesting some 60% to 70% of all food on the supermarket shelf is GMO.
Post's move, however, follows closely on the heels of General Mills , which recently announced its original Cheerios cereal is now GMO-free -- though unlike Grape-Nuts, it isn't verified by a third party. And Kellogg has said that by the end of this year all existing Kashi cereals and Chewy Granola Bars -- two of Kashi's biggest products -- will sport Non-GMO Project verification. In 2015, all of new foods Kellogg introduced under the Kashi brand will be Non-GMO Project Verified and will also be at least 70% organic.
Although many of the food makers like General Mills have contributed millions of dollars to defeat labeling initiatives -- even if it might be the right thing to do for the wrong reason -- they've recognized there's a profit to be made from consumers desiring clean and healthy foods, so that momentum is building to at least create a segregated food list.
Rain o'er me
With the push led by the likes of Whole Foods Market , which is undertaking an initiative of its own to inform customers by 2018 which foods it sells contain such ingredients, enough pressure can mount for manufacturers and suppliers to follow suit. It's not going to happen overnight or even anytime soon, but when there's enough of a backlash by consumers against products that don't carry a third-party verification seal -- call it guilt by disassociation -- we're going to see a stampede of companies culling GMO foodstuffs out of their product lines and demanding growers avoid them as well.
Already there are anecdotal media reports of an organic food shortage, and though "organic" usually means GMO-free (the USDA has a couple of small loopholes), it does signal consumers are giving more thought to what they're eating.
The main players in genetic modification remain Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical, along with Bayer and Syngenta. Over the past two decades, they've together purchased more than 200 seed companies and now completely dominate the seed market. Only when consumers push back against food product companies will the manufacturers force changes at their suppliers, who will cause the farmers to change their agricultural practices.
Cry me a river
When Kellogg announced the change at Kashi, it admitted the brand had gotten "too mainstream" and it wanted to restore its growth cycle. If a company is counting on being GMO-free as a means to exciting growth, it's understandable why proponents are worried and why the anti-GMO trickle is about to turn into a flood.
LINK
Aside from halfhearted attempts by the government to mandate GMO labeling, industry itself is beginning to see the benefit in identifying the products that have been modified, or more correctly, highlighting those that are GMO-free.
When it rains, it pours
The latest large food company to join the cascading list of those providing a product that isn't affected by genetic modification, Post Holdings , just unveiled that its Grape-Nuts Original will be Non-GMO Project-verified as of this month, and it also notes its Grape-Nuts Vintage is GMO-free as well. By avoiding the inclusion of soy, the most genetically modified food crop in existence, with some 94% of all seed being altered in the lab, Post is able to "clean up" the perception of a popular brand.
DuPont is the largest manufacturer of genetically modified soy seeds, ahead of even Monsanto, and it's estimated that about 60% of all processed foods on the market today contain soy. With at least 85% of all soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola grown from GMO seeds -- most of which are made by Monsanto -- it means if the label contains at least one of those ingredients, there's a good chance it's been modified on a genetic level, further suggesting some 60% to 70% of all food on the supermarket shelf is GMO.
Post's move, however, follows closely on the heels of General Mills , which recently announced its original Cheerios cereal is now GMO-free -- though unlike Grape-Nuts, it isn't verified by a third party. And Kellogg has said that by the end of this year all existing Kashi cereals and Chewy Granola Bars -- two of Kashi's biggest products -- will sport Non-GMO Project verification. In 2015, all of new foods Kellogg introduced under the Kashi brand will be Non-GMO Project Verified and will also be at least 70% organic.
Although many of the food makers like General Mills have contributed millions of dollars to defeat labeling initiatives -- even if it might be the right thing to do for the wrong reason -- they've recognized there's a profit to be made from consumers desiring clean and healthy foods, so that momentum is building to at least create a segregated food list.
Rain o'er me
With the push led by the likes of Whole Foods Market , which is undertaking an initiative of its own to inform customers by 2018 which foods it sells contain such ingredients, enough pressure can mount for manufacturers and suppliers to follow suit. It's not going to happen overnight or even anytime soon, but when there's enough of a backlash by consumers against products that don't carry a third-party verification seal -- call it guilt by disassociation -- we're going to see a stampede of companies culling GMO foodstuffs out of their product lines and demanding growers avoid them as well.
Already there are anecdotal media reports of an organic food shortage, and though "organic" usually means GMO-free (the USDA has a couple of small loopholes), it does signal consumers are giving more thought to what they're eating.
The main players in genetic modification remain Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical, along with Bayer and Syngenta. Over the past two decades, they've together purchased more than 200 seed companies and now completely dominate the seed market. Only when consumers push back against food product companies will the manufacturers force changes at their suppliers, who will cause the farmers to change their agricultural practices.
Cry me a river
When Kellogg announced the change at Kashi, it admitted the brand had gotten "too mainstream" and it wanted to restore its growth cycle. If a company is counting on being GMO-free as a means to exciting growth, it's understandable why proponents are worried and why the anti-GMO trickle is about to turn into a flood.
LINK
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Does Monsanto cause cancer?
First here’s some background to catch you up to speed:
Monsanto is a chemical company that has slowly, steadily begun taking over the American food supply. It would be safe to assume they harbor global aspirations, but outside North America, their products have been continually rejected as unsafe or unfit for the local population. Most widely known for the weed killer RoundUp, their chemical arsenal includes/included PCBs, Agent Orange, DDT, and rBGH. They have a stranglehold on genetically modified seeds, tinkering with the chemical makeup of harvest staples like corn, soy, wheat, and cotton. With a motto that once was, “Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible,” this is the company that is feeding your family.
If you read their innocuous website, one would presume they are the helping hand to Middle America’s farming agriculture. With annual revenues around $12 billion, though, this ain’t your typical Midwestern feed store. A quick Google search reveals that the corporation has health nuts, conspiracy theorists, and generally concerned citizens openly questioning the harm Monsanto is causing the food chain and, ultimately, the consumers of that food – you and I.
There is a ton of background and nuance to the GMO debate, but it boils down to is this: Monsanto can control the food supply – and the pile of money that goes with it – if and when they patent the seeds that grow the food the world consumes. They can only patent genetically modified seeds, nearly all of which are never tested for adverse effects on humans. How do they do this?
First, by creating a synergy between their biggest product (RoundUp) and the seeds they sell. Those GMO seeds are manufactured to withstand RoundUp while killing off surrounding weeds. Consequently, the crop produced is dosed with RoundUp, and the resulting harvest yields a double-whammy of genetically-modified food that has been drenched in pesticides.
Second, by bullying every small farmer they can find in the heartland. Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds are patented and licensed, so when the crops die off each season and the seeds replanted, Monsanto wants a cut of the money. Every year. Forever. If, by some chance a Monsanto seed gets cross-pollinated with a non-Monsanto seed, they still want their money, even if the farmers don’t want their engineered seeds in the first place. It’s not unlike Paulie from Goodfellas asking to be paid.
Third, just like other big industries, by greasing the wheels in Washington – this is where the real health concerns kick in (a real shocker). Monsanto employees get appointed to policy-making positions within government, most notably former Monsanto attorney/former deputy commissioner for the FDA Michael Taylor, who conveniently returned to Monsanto as the VP for Public Policy, before jumping back to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Foods. The FDA, and now the EPA, bends or changes laws to benefit Monsanto and other chemical firms, like doubling the allowable amount of the pesticide glyphosate on crops. Doing this despite studies showing that glyphosate, the main toxin in RoundUp, feeds cancer cells – particularly breast cancer – and causes chronic cellular inflammation, damaging cells throughout the body and inducing a variety of “Western diet” diseases. Agencies that should be independent and accountable to their constituents – the American people – have become the wolf guarding the hen house.
It’s not just Monsanto; Delaware-based DuPont doesn’t exactly have its hands clean in this GMO mess, and many seed and agriculture companies work alongside or in concert with the chemical giant, notably BASF, Bayer CropScience, and Dow Chemical. Heck, the leading ones even have their own GMO biotech website to tell their version of the GMO story, and contribute heavily to anti-GMO food labeling initiatives (here’s a cheat sheet of some of those companies). But Monsanto has become the massive figurehead – the rural Microsoft.
Much More HERE
Monsanto is a chemical company that has slowly, steadily begun taking over the American food supply. It would be safe to assume they harbor global aspirations, but outside North America, their products have been continually rejected as unsafe or unfit for the local population. Most widely known for the weed killer RoundUp, their chemical arsenal includes/included PCBs, Agent Orange, DDT, and rBGH. They have a stranglehold on genetically modified seeds, tinkering with the chemical makeup of harvest staples like corn, soy, wheat, and cotton. With a motto that once was, “Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible,” this is the company that is feeding your family.
If you read their innocuous website, one would presume they are the helping hand to Middle America’s farming agriculture. With annual revenues around $12 billion, though, this ain’t your typical Midwestern feed store. A quick Google search reveals that the corporation has health nuts, conspiracy theorists, and generally concerned citizens openly questioning the harm Monsanto is causing the food chain and, ultimately, the consumers of that food – you and I.
There is a ton of background and nuance to the GMO debate, but it boils down to is this: Monsanto can control the food supply – and the pile of money that goes with it – if and when they patent the seeds that grow the food the world consumes. They can only patent genetically modified seeds, nearly all of which are never tested for adverse effects on humans. How do they do this?
First, by creating a synergy between their biggest product (RoundUp) and the seeds they sell. Those GMO seeds are manufactured to withstand RoundUp while killing off surrounding weeds. Consequently, the crop produced is dosed with RoundUp, and the resulting harvest yields a double-whammy of genetically-modified food that has been drenched in pesticides.
Second, by bullying every small farmer they can find in the heartland. Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds are patented and licensed, so when the crops die off each season and the seeds replanted, Monsanto wants a cut of the money. Every year. Forever. If, by some chance a Monsanto seed gets cross-pollinated with a non-Monsanto seed, they still want their money, even if the farmers don’t want their engineered seeds in the first place. It’s not unlike Paulie from Goodfellas asking to be paid.
Third, just like other big industries, by greasing the wheels in Washington – this is where the real health concerns kick in (a real shocker). Monsanto employees get appointed to policy-making positions within government, most notably former Monsanto attorney/former deputy commissioner for the FDA Michael Taylor, who conveniently returned to Monsanto as the VP for Public Policy, before jumping back to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Foods. The FDA, and now the EPA, bends or changes laws to benefit Monsanto and other chemical firms, like doubling the allowable amount of the pesticide glyphosate on crops. Doing this despite studies showing that glyphosate, the main toxin in RoundUp, feeds cancer cells – particularly breast cancer – and causes chronic cellular inflammation, damaging cells throughout the body and inducing a variety of “Western diet” diseases. Agencies that should be independent and accountable to their constituents – the American people – have become the wolf guarding the hen house.
It’s not just Monsanto; Delaware-based DuPont doesn’t exactly have its hands clean in this GMO mess, and many seed and agriculture companies work alongside or in concert with the chemical giant, notably BASF, Bayer CropScience, and Dow Chemical. Heck, the leading ones even have their own GMO biotech website to tell their version of the GMO story, and contribute heavily to anti-GMO food labeling initiatives (here’s a cheat sheet of some of those companies). But Monsanto has become the massive figurehead – the rural Microsoft.
Much More HERE
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
