# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
STUDIES SHOWING DAMAGE

"Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food (AAEM 2009)," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM has asked physicians to advise all patients to avoid GM foods. [1]

Starting in 1996, Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods. Why isn't the FDA protecting us?

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods. Therefore they are safe to eat, and absolutely no safety studies were required. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit[2] reveal that their position was staged by political appointees who were under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. In addition, the FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, the former attorney for Monsanto, the largest biotech company, and later their vice president. In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

Today, the same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. Industry-funded GMO safety studies are too superficial to find most of the potential dangers, and their voluntary consultations with the FDA are widely criticized as a meaningless façade.[3]

GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.

Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers. It uses imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding, and is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.[4] Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a "gene gun" into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant.

Widespread, unpredictable changes

The genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant's DNA.[5] Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their behavior.[6] Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged,[7] and may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease.

Genetically modified foods on the market

Major commodity crops raised from GMO seed include: corn (92%*), soybeans (94%*), and cotton (94%*). Almost 98% of Canadian grown canola is genetically engineered for herbicide resistance. U.S. sugar beet production is estimated to be over 95% genetically modified for herbicide resistance. GMO sweet corn, papaya, zucchini, and yellow summer squash are also for sale in grocery stores, but in lesser amounts. Genetically modified alfalfa is grown for use as hay and forage for animals. For more information about avoiding GMOs in food, go to NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

*percentages are based on U.S. acreage as of 2015 (USDA)

Growing evidence of harm from GMOs

GM soy and allergic reactions

Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.[8]

A skin prick allergy test shows that some people react to GM soy, but not to wild natural soy.[9]

Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen.[10]

GM soy also contains a new unexpected allergen, not found in wild natural soy.[11]

Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies

The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type symptoms,[12] and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses[13] and damaged intestines.[14] Moreover, the Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated.

Farm workers throughout India are getting the same allergic reactions from handling Bt cotton[15] as those who reacted to Bt spray.[16] Mice[17] and rats[18] fed Bt corn also showed immune responses.

GMOs fail allergy tests

No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol,[19] the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail those tests-because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens.[20]

GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods

GM soy drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice.[21] If it also impairs your digestion, you may become sensitive and allergic to a variety of foods.

Mice fed Bt-toxin started having immune reactions to formerly harmless foods.[22]

Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other foods.[23] (The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally done before a GMO gets on the market. Only this advanced test, which is never used on the GMOs we eat, revealed that the peas could actually be deadly.)

GMOs and liver problems

Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.[24]

The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.[25]

GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.[26] The changes reversed after they switched to non-GM soy.[27]

GMOs, reproductive problems, and infant mortality

More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.[28]

Male rats[29] and mice[30] fed GM soy had changed testicles, including altered young sperm cells in the mice.

The DNA of mouse embryos functioned differently when their parents ate GM soy[31]

The longer mice were fed GM corn, the less babies they had, and the smaller their babies were.[32]

Babies of female rats fed GM soy were considerably smaller, and more than half died within three weeks (compared to 10% of the non-GM soy controls).[33]

Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in their ovaries and uterus.

By the third generation, most hamsters fed GM soy were unable to have babies.

Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death

Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and reproductive problems.[34]

Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[35]

About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.[36]

Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.[37]

The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.[38]

Functioning GM genes remain inside you

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[39] This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.

If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.
If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.
Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.[40]

GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic

In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production.[41] The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.

If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related illnesses and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations are gambling with the health of our nation for their profit.

The health information featured on this page is excerpted from Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risk of Genetically Engineered Foods, by Jeffrey M. Smith.
For more information, see:
65 Health risks
Articles about Health Risks by Jeffrey Smith
© Copyright 2015. Institute for Responsible Technology.

[1] See http://www.aaemonline.org/gmo.php
[2] See www.biointegrity.org
[3] See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
[4] See for example 233-236, chart of disproved assumptions, in Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
[5] J. R. Latham, et al., "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation," The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7; see also Allison Wilson, et. al., "Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications," Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews - Vol. 23, December 2006.
[6] Srivastava, et al, "Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis," Mol Med. 5, no. 11(Nov 1999):753-67.
[7] Latham et al, "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006:1-7, article ID 25376, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbb/; Draft risk analysis report application A378, Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 (GTSB77)," ANZFA, March 7, 2001; E. Levine et al., "Molecular Characterization of Insect Protected Corn Line MON 810." Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, EPA MRID No. 436655-01C (1995); Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, "Genome Scrambling-Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical Report-October 2004," www.econexus.info; C. Collonier, G. Berthier, F. Boyer, M. N. Duplan, S. Fernandez, N. Kebdani, A. Kobilinsky, M. Romanuk, Y. Bertheau, "Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity," Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also "Transgenic lines proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003, www.i-sis.org.uk
[8] Mark Townsend, "Why soya is a hidden destroyer," Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
[9] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, "Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison," Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May-June 2005): 210-216(7).
[10] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, "GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks," Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005.
[11] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, "Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison," Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May-June 2005): 210-216(7).
[12] M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848-852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
[13] Vazquez et al, "Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice," 1897-1912; Vazquez et al, "Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice," Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147-155; and Vazquez et al, "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant," Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578-584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[14] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, "Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes," Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233.
[15] See for example "Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead," Bhopal, Nov. 23, 2005
[16] http://news.webindia123.com Ashish Gupta et. al., "Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh)," Investigation Report, Oct-Dec 2005; and M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848-852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, "Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice," J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533-11539, November 14, 2008
[18] Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Séralini. 2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health . International Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 5(7):706-726; and Seralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J. 2007, New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52:596-602
[19] FAO-WHO, "Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology," Jan. 22-25, 2001; ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/allergygm.pdf[20] Gendel, "The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods," Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45-62; G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, "Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens," BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8-19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, "Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi," Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, "Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes," in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al., (Washington, DC, 1995): 134-47.
[21] M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, "Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean," Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388.
[22] Vazquez et al, "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant," Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578-584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[23] V. E. Prescott, et al, "Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity," Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53.
[24] Arpad Pusztai, "Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food," Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84
[25] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, "Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73," http://www.iher.org.au/
[26] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, "Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180.
[27] M. Malatesta, C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, M. Biggiogera, "Reversibility of Hepatocyte Nuclear Modifications in Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," Eur J Histochem, 49 (2005): 237-242.
[28] I.V. Ermakova, "Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats," 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; "Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists' studies," REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, "Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies," Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9.
[29] Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[30] L. Vecchio et al, "Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454.
[31] Oliveri et al., "Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10, 2006.
[32] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, "Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice," Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[33] I.V. Ermakova, "Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats," 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; "Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists' studies," REGNUM, October 12, 2005; ; Irina Ermakova, "Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies," Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9.
[34] "Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields-Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh" Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/6416-mortality-in-sheep-flocks-after-grazing-on-bt-cotton-fields-warangal-district-andhra-pradesh-2942006
[35] Mae-Wan Ho, "GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines," ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; and Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher, "Cows Ate GM Maize & Died," ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004, http://www.isis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php
[36] Personal communication with Jerry Rosman and other farmers, 2006; also reported widely in the farm press.
[37] See for example Mae-Wan Ho, "GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines," ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; "Study Result Not Final, Proof Bt Corn Harmful to Farmers," BusinessWorld, 02 Mar 2004; and "Genetically Modified Crops and Illness Linked," Manila Bulletin, 04 Mar 2004.
[38] Arpad Pusztai, "Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food," Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84; Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine," Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4; and Arpad Pusztai, "Facts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment," Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005)
[39] Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[40] Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Jonathan R. Latham, "Horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to unrelated organisms," GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow: Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment," January 27, 2003; Traavik and Heinemann, Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research; citing Schubbert, et al, "Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice," Mol Gen Genet. 242, no. 5 (1994): 495-504; Schubbert et al, "Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA," Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, no. 3 (1997): 961-6; Schubbert et al, "On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus," Mol Gen Genet. 259, no. 6 (1998): 569-76; Hohlweg and Doerfler, "On the fate of plants or other foreign genes upon the uptake in food or after intramuscular injection in mice," Mol Genet Genomics 265 (2001): 225-233; Palka-Santani, et al., "The gastrointestinal tract as the portal of entry for foreign macromolecules: fate of DNA and proteins," Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 201-215; Einspanier, et al, "The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals; a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material," Eur Food Res Technol 212 (2001): 129-134; Klotz, et al, "Degradation and possible carry over of feed DNA monitored in pigs and poultry," Eur Food Res Technol 214 (2002): 271-275; Forsman, et al, "Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA from the human alimentary tract," Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 362-368; Chen, et al, "Transfection of mEpo gene to intestinal epithelium in vivo mediated by oral delivery of chitosan-DNA nanoparticles," World Journal of Gastroenterology 10, no 1(2004): 112-116; Phipps, et al, "Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows," J Dairy Sci. 86, no. 12(2003): 4070-8.
[41] William E. Crist, Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious Epidemic; and Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2003, chapter 4, Deadly Epidemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health Risks - Institute for Responsible Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food (AAEM 2009)," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM has asked physicians to advise all patients to avoid GM foods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Change creates both apprehension and controversy in us, and there is no better example of this than the changing of our food supply to include genetically modified, or GMO, foods. While some people may be fine with genetically altering the makeup of our food, others point to the potential for health problems stemming from unnatural, lab-generated modifications.

But, just what are GMOs? And what is it that is so bad about them?

The fact of the matter is, we don't fully know what all of the risks may be, although we do have a good understanding of what they could be and already are. In fact, we have already seen the ill-effects of hybridization-a "natural" approach to improving a plant or animal species-so it would only make sense to be even more apprehensive of genetic modifications.

In this post, we will go over some of the questions surrounding GMOs, what they are, and their negative effects on your health.

What are GMOs?

To start, GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, which means that the genetic makeup of the plant or animal in question has been scientifically altered. This is commonly done for such reasons as to enhance crop size, reduce a plant or animal's resistance to pathogens, fungus, or disease, or to help crops become more drought-resistant as our climate becomes warmer and dryer.

The process of creating a GMO entails scientists locating a gene in one organism which has characteristics that are desired in another. The gene is then extracted, copied, and inserted into the genome of the new organism, so that the desired traits are then present in the new host.

While some may say that this is merely an improved method of hybridization, it is not. In fact, there are two problems here, one being the idea that creating GMOs is as harmless and safe as natural breeding, and the other being that there are already human health problems associated with hybridization- "natural," or not.

Take wheat, for example. While wheat itself has been consumed by humans for thousands of years, it wasn't until the mid-20 th century that it was hybridized to a dwarf variety which produced a higher-yielding, less expensive crop to grow. Unfortunately, the protein composition of the wheat was also changed in the hybridizing process, and while modern wheat contains a variety of proteins, only one is recognized by some people, and the other proteins are allergens to them. ( 1)

True, most hybridization may be just fine and have benefits outweighing any negative aspects. However, the fact that the process of hybridization can create something unhealthy for the human body tells us that altering something genetically is likely even more risky.

What does Genetic Modification do to Food, and how does it Change its Structure?

When an organism is genetically modified, genes are transferred past biological barriers which would normally disallow such an association. This allows unnatural things to happen to foods, such as apples which resist going brown, tomatoes which stay ripe for long periods after harvest, and, perhaps most concerning of all, crops which can withstand heavy pesticide and herbicide application.

The Problems with Herbicide and Pesticide Resistance

Since herbicide resistant crops allow farmers to control weeds with herbicides such as glyphosate without concern for it killing the crop, the tendency is for farmers to use even more of it. Unfortunately, this is not only harmful to our health and the health of the environment, but is likely creating herbicide-resistant weeds as well.

Organisms can also be genetically modified for pest resistance, which, while seemingly a good thing which can help alleviate the overuse of pesticides, creates other concerning problems as well.

For instance, Starlink corn is a strain of corn genetically engineered to use the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene to make the plant resistant to the European corn-borer. Unfortunately, and despite Starlink corn's intended use only as animal feed and never for human consumption, some found its way into human food production-likely due to a lax approach to restrictions on the part of seed sellers. This led to millions of dollars of processed food having to be destroyed, rather than allowing the dangerous toxins to be consumed by the public.

Another problem with plants using the Bt toxin is the pollen from such plants settling on leaves of the milkweed plant, which is a main food source for Monarch butterfly larvae. Since the pollen from the genetically altered plant contains high levels of Bt toxin, the leaves then become toxic to the larvae as it settles on them. This is particularly disturbing when we consider the iconic species has declined in population by over 68% in the past 24 years.

Pollen from GMO crops can also transfer to wild plants, where the traits engineered into them can cause further environmental damage, such as changes to the ecosystem when a plant can no longer be used by species as a food source. ( 2, 3)

GMO Food Dangers

In addition to the danger of accidental human ingestion of plants modified to include the Bt gene in their genome, there are some other concerns surrounding GMOs, as well. For instance, there are concerns that genetic modification of a plant can cause the development of diseases which are resistant to antibiotics. This is due to the possibility of viral resistance leading to new viruses and diseases.

This is in addition to the potential for newly synthesized proteins posing the risk of allergies-similar to what has happened with wheat hybridization. For instance, when bean plants were altered to increase content of the amino acids cysteine and methionine, the expressed protein of the transgene proved to be a strong allergen, causing the project to be scrapped. However, this doesn't mean that every allergy-causing protein or potential for human toxicity will be "caught" prior to approval of a genetically altered food for the public, since the long-term potential for dangers is nearly impossible to detect-particularly since nearly all testing is performed on animals, and rarely on humans. ( 4)

Even more disturbing perhaps is the increase in the following health conditions starting after the introduction of GMOs in 1996:

Chronic illness

Food allergies

Reproductive disorders

Autism

Digestive problems

This includes the increase in Americans with 3-or more chronic illnesses, which leapt by 6% in just 9-years following the introduction of GMOs. While there is not sufficient evidence to support the connection between the release of GMOs and these health risks, we must also consider the distinct possibility of this being more than mere coincidence-particularly when some of GMO's strongest advocates also hold very strong political sway, including ex Monsanto lawyer Michael Taylor, who is now the US Food Safety Czar. ( 5)

Examples of GMO Foods, and What to Look for on Labels to Avoid GMOs

Unfortunately, it can be nearly impossible to avoid GMOs in foods such as corn, of which around 92% of all grown in the US based on acreage has been genetically modified. Even more concerning is the rapid worldwide increase in acreage of genetically modified crops, which has grown from 67.7 million hectares (10,000 square meters or 2.471 acres) in 2003, to 185.1 million in 2016 for more than a 117% increase. ( 6)

However, there are foods to look for and ones to avoid, as well as things to look for on food labels to help reduce you GMO foods health risks.

Common GMO crops to watch out for include:

However, by avoiding highly processed foods and conventionally grown foods in favor of 100% organically grown whole foods, you can better avoid GMOs. You can also look for labels which tell you the product is GMO-free, although this is a voluntary rating for companies, which may bring up issues concerning adherence. For this reason, it is best to look for a third-party certification, such as the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal, which ensures certain compliance standards are met prior to certification. ( 8)

Non-GMO Foods to Look For

In addition to buying 100% organic and Non-GMO Project certified foods, you can also shop locally from small producers, such as at farmer's markets or your local health food store, many of whom are committed to selling only non-GMO products. Growing your own food is also a good way of keeping GMOs away, although not all of us have the time and growing area for this.

However, most leafy green produce is safe, as are most other produce items, although this is subject to change. Unfortunately, the lack of regulation requiring GMO labeling also makes it a guessing game when it comes to identifying GMO foods, which makes sticking with 100% organic your best option when shopping.
References:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods (GMO Foods)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may have seen the labels at the grocery store that say "non-GMO," but is it really important to avoid GMO foods? GMO foods have been genetically altered and this can cause many health problems. Discover the dangers of genetically modified foods (GMO foods).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminate―forever.
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president. He's now the US Food Safety Czar.

6. The biotech industry uses "tobacco science" to claim product safety.
Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a "large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge." Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

8. GMOs harm the environment.
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America's dairies.

NOTE: As an additional motivation to avoid GMOs, you may wish to take a lesson from the animals. Eyewitness reports from around the world describe several situations where animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically modified food. These include cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, raccoons, mice, rats, squirrels, chicken, and buffalo. We're pretty sure the animals didn't read the above 10 reasons.

The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMOs much easier.
Please choose healthier non-GMO brands, tell others about GMOs so they can do the same, and join the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network. Together we can quickly reclaim a non-GMO food supply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs - Institute for Responsible Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. GMOs are unhealthy. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are GMOs causing an increase in allergies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The potential for allergies from foods with genetically modified ingredients is no higher than that in any food, including organics. New conventional foods introduced into the marketplace go untested while GMOs are rigorously tested for allergenicity before being approved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
". . . new chemicals come from our laboratories in an endless stream; almost 500 annually find their way into actual use in the United States alone...500 new chemicals to which the bodies of men and animals are required somehow to adapt each year, chemicals totally outside the limits of biologic experience." - Rachel Carson, "Silent Spring" (1962)

Two years after Rachel Carson sounded the above warning, she died of breast cancer. Now 50 years later, the pesticide and chemical assault on our health that Carson exposed in her book, "Silent Spring," has intensified. Newer toxic chemicals like Monsanto's Roundup and Syngenta's atrazine have taken over where DDT and arsenic left off. Despite massive scientific evidence that these chemicals are poisoning us, U.S. regulatory agencies have avoided or delayed taking action on thousands of deadly chemicals, including Monsanto's Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) and Syngenta's atrazine, the two most heavily sprayed poisons on GMO corn and soybeans, America's top crops.

The European Union, utilizing the "precautionary principle," has banned several dozen agricultural pesticides and practices that still pollute U.S. food, food packaging, water, bodycare, cosmetic, and cleaning products. Still, and despite the fact that the President's Cancer Panel, in 2010, warned that up to 80 percent of U.S. cancer cases-currently striking 48 percent of men, 38 percent of women, and increasing numbers of children-are directly caused by poisons in our environment and food, by Big Food, pharmaceutical, chemical and genetic engineering corporations, aided and abetted by federal government bureaucrats, are still telling us "don't worry."

Don't worry about the more than 85,000 untested and unlabeled industrial chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, plasticizers, flame retardants, artificial hormones, growth promotors, antibiotics, animal drugs, artificial colors, preservatives, flavors, and genetically modified organisms, in our food and environment.

The "experts" tell us that the thousands of toxic chemicals and animal drugs used in GMO and chemical-intensive agriculture and consumer products are " generally regarded as safe " (GRAS), based on biased industry "safety" studies, scientific fraud, and outdated protocols. Legitimizing industry propaganda, U.S. bureaucrats love to brag that the U.S. not only has the "cheapest," food you can buy, but also the "safest."

Don't worry about the skyrocketing epidemic of obesity, cancer, heart disease, asthma, autism, birth defects, mental illness, immune disorders, antibiotic resistant pathogens, food poisoning, vaccine injuries, reproductive disorders, and behavioral and learning disabilities in the body politic and our children. Shut up and eat your Frankenfoods. Chemical and factory-farmed food is cheaper than organic food. Take your meds. "Trust us, we're experts."

"Daily allowable" limits of chemical poisons in our air, water, food, medical drugs, and other consumer products, under the "profit versus risk" assessments of our revolving door bureaucrats (industry to government, government to industry) in Washington D.C. sound a bit worrisome. But when you get sick, Obamacare's Big Pharma tycoons have a powerful drug or chemo regime just for you, never mind the side effects.
Atrazine: Banned in the EU, but 'safe' in the U.S.?
Case in point, Syngenta's commonly used, gender-bender corn weed killer atrazine, now under, multi-year-likely never ending-review by the EPA. Atrazine has been linked to breast cancer, severe hormone disruption, and birth defects in doses as low as parts per trillion (one of the class of poisons where there is literally no safe dose). Atrazine was banned in the EU in 2004. But under our "profits trump risks" regulatory system atrazine is still routinely sprayed on corn, sugar cane, and other crops as well as golf courses and lawns (along with Monsanto's poison herbicide Roundup). And it ends up with other poisons such as chemical fertilizer nitrites in the tap water of much of the U.S.

Besides tap water, residues of atrazine (along with Roundup or glyphosate) end up in non-organic sweet corn, and high fructose corn syrup in processed foods and soda, as well as nearly all of our factory farmed meat, dairy and poultry.

But women needn't worry, according to the Feds. If you get breast cancer from Syngenta's estrogen supercharger atrazine, you can always go to your cancer specialist and get a prescription for a breast cancer drug, first developed by Novartis (former parent company of Syngenta) that inhibits the estrogen production caused by atrazine. And of course the increased risks of your child being born with a birth defect need to be balanced off against the "risks" of reducing the profits of Big Ag, Syngenta and Monsanto. Don't you agree?

The USA's safety and regulatory system for GMOs, pesticides, factory farms and industrial chemicals-a regime that dominates food safety, chemical use, and environmental policy in much of the world-is broken and corrupted. Given the deteriorating state of public health and the environment, the only precautionary strategy for consumers is to avoid or boycott GMO, pesticide- and chemical-tainted products and to purchase and consume organic and truly natural products instead.

Of the 80,000+ industrial chemicals approved for use in food and consumer products, no more than several hundred have been independently safety-tested by the government. And almost none have been tested in the actual formulations or combinations of chemicals in which humans consume them in our food and water. One case in point, Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, whose active ingredient glyphosate has been "tested" in over a thousand industry-funded studies, but never tested using the herbicide's full formulation, a chemical cocktail far more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Frankenfoods and factory farmaggedon

Since 1962, only a handful of pesticides and industrial chemicals in use have been pulled from the U.S. market.

Over this same period, besides routinely feeding farm animals pesticide- and GMO-tainted feed (residues of which end up in the food we eat), enormous quantities of antibiotics and growth hormones have been injected, implanted or fed to factory-farm animals, giving rise to a growing epidemic of antibiotic resistance, food poisoning, cancer, heart disease, obesity, hormone, behavioral, and reproductive disorders.

In 1992, the U.S. government, at the behest of Monsanto and corporate agribusiness, using the excuse of "sound science" and streamlining government restrictions on industry, declared that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and their accompanying pesticides, such as Roundup, would be allowed into the U.S. food supply, with no labeling nor special pre-market safety-testing required. The so-called scientific justification for this proclamation was the doctrine of "substantial equivalence," the industry-promoted but scientifically indefensible theory that patented genetically engineered foods and crops are the same as non-genetically engineered crops, and therefore are inherently safe.

In 1994, the FDA approved the first GMO in our food supply, Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), despite consumer opposition, warnings by the Government Accountability Office, and independent scientific studies. Research indicated clearly that injecting rBGH into dairy cows (to force them to give more milk) severely damaged animal health and produced pus- and hormone-laden milk and dairy products that increased human risks for breast, prostate, and colon cancer, specifically by elevating the levels of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-! (Insulin-like Growth Factor number 1) in the blood. Because of these hazards, rBGH has been banned in most of the industrialized countries of the world, including Canada and the EU. Unfortunately, due to the influence of Monsanto, and now the animal drug giant Elanco (a division of Eli Lilly), Bovine Growth Hormone is still being injected into approximately 10 percent of U.S. dairy cows.

No wonder millions of American have turned away from pesticide- and chemically-tainted foods and beverages, to organic foods-which ban the use of toxic pesticides, rBGH, animal drugs, and GMOs-making the combined organic ($43.3 billion) and natural foods industry a $70-billion powerhouse, the fastest growing component (along with grass-fed beef) in the U.S. food system.
No basis for trust
Since the government (and the mass media) keep telling us that GMOs and pesticides and animal drugs are perfectly safe ("proven safe by thousands of studies"), and since regulatory agencies are about to renew the registrations for a number of deadly herbicides, including Monsanto's Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate), and Syngenta's atrazine, even as they continue approving new poisons like 2,4D and dicamba-resistant crops, and a full array of new Frankenfoods and animals, perhaps we need to review a few of the fundamental reasons why you shouldn't believe a word of what they say.]

(1) Government corruption and the "revolving door" between industry and government. In any regulatory system worthy of its name, scientific and toxicological testing of agricultural and industrial chemicals and foods needs to be publicly funded (as opposed to industry funded), independent, transparent and objective. In the U.S. today, none of these criteria are being met. The overwhelming majority of "risk assessments" or so-called "safety studies" of chemicals and pesticides are paid for by industry, carried out behind closed doors by industry-designated scientists and labs. The data and results are invariably biased, and in many cases kept secret using the excuse of business "proprietary information." This is why deadly chemicals such as PCBs, Agent Orange, DDT, benzene, asbestos, tobacco, formaldehyde, Roundup, atrazine, and dioxin (as well as dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and antibiotics in animal feed) have stayed on the market for decades after literally killing thousands of people. The majority of government officials who "review" these paid-for-by-industry studies either previously worked for the companies or the industry they are supposed to be regulating, or else are looking forward to lucrative jobs once they leave government and go to insidious work in industry. A perfect example of this revolving door is the long-standing relationship between Monsanto and the U.S. government.

(2) Industry- and profit-driven science. In the U.S, as opposed to the EU, "risk assessment" (basing regulations on the relative cost to industry to decide whether to restrict or ban toxic chemicals) trumps the "precautionary principle" (the principle that a chemical or a product ingredient or formulation must first be proven safe before being allowed to be put into a product or released into the environment). Risk assessment underlies the notion that a "little bit" of poison in our food or water or environment won't hurt us, even though modern science tells us that there are endocrine or hormone disruptors in food and the environment that can give us cancer, make us obese, or cause birth defects at tiny levels (parts per billion or trillion). In fact, common hormone disruptors like Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, or Syngenta's Atrazine are apparently more toxic and deadly at lower doses than at higher doses.

(3) Over-simplified and outdated scientific procedures. The supposed gold standard for testing pesticides is to isolate the "active" ingredient, (glyphosate, in the case of Monsanto's top-selling herbicide Roundup), even though numerous independent studies show that the secret, so-called "inert ingredients" or additives in these pesticides often make the pesticides much more poisonous. In addition, most non-organic foods (as well as tap water) contain residues from several different pesticides, GMO, and or chemicals (nitrites from chemical fertilizers in combination with pesticides for example), which again often create a "toxic synergy" that is much more hazardous than the single pesticide or chemical by itself. Testing the toxicity of tap water in the corn belt for example, which invariably contains both Atrazine and nitrites, by testing only one of these poisons in isolation, gives results that are several hundred times lower than testing what humans are actually consuming. If we properly tested tap water we'd have to ban both Atrazine and nitrogen fertilizers.

(4) Fake Science. Typical industry-funded safety studies of pesticides and other chemicals are short-term "acute toxicity" studies that involve injecting rats with increasingly larger doses of an "active ingredient" until they keel over and die, and then using a mathematical formula to deduce an allowable dose on food for humans (whereby much more sensitive infants and children are regarded as no more susceptible than fully-grown adults.) These scientifically fraudulent experiments, in order to save money and obtain the desired results for industry, are typically carried out on a small number of rats, designed to prove that small amounts of the active ingredient in the pesticide (the "allowed daily intake") are safe for humans to consume. These industry-sponsored studies invariably conclude that these pesticides are "safe." But in order to meet the criteria of the precautionary principle, or sound science, these studies (using, not an acute dose, but rather the average dosage that humans actually consume each day) would have to be carried out on a sufficient number of rats, over a sufficient period of time to find the impact of the full formulation as well as of the active ingredient on rat fetuses in the womb, baby rats, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Rats live approximately 3 years, roughly corresponding to 75 years for a human. A 30-, 60- or 90-day study of an isolated "active ingredient" will tell you very little about the cumulative impact of ingesting a pesticide like Monsanto's Roundup over a human lifetime. For example, most malignant cancers in humans proliferate at age 65 or older. Dissecting the vital organs of a rat under the age of three years is not going to tell you whether this pesticide is like to give you cancer or not.

(5) Ignoring the precautionary principle. Independent scientists (unfortunately a dwindling breed) are quite capable of determining whether or not a pesticide or a synthetic chemical is dangerous, given sufficient resources and the freedom to pursue sound scientific studies. However, industry does not want to spend the money required to prove whether their products and formulations are truly safe or not-in part because they know, either consciously or unconsciously, that many or most of their most profitable products (unless they are organic or truly natural) and formulations are hazardous. So we and our children, and the living environment, end up being the real lab rats. No wonder public health and the environment are deteriorating and degenerating. No wonder health care costs are spiraling out of control. No wonder we have a cancer epidemic, an obesity epidemic, an epidemic of heart disease, asthma, as well as reproductive, hormonal, immune system and behavioral disorders.

It's time to take back control of our food system, our health, our government and regulatory agencies. If the government won't allow proper labeling and safety-testing of foods, then we, the global grassroots, need to investigate, expose and boycott toxic products and chemicals. If industry and the government won't fund "sound science," then we will need to crowdsource and fund independent, sound science ourselves.

In the meantime, we need to defend ourselves and our families, especially the children and most vulnerable, by buying organic and truly natural foods and products, today and every day. Grow your own. Build up local food hubs and community capacity. Support economic justice campaigns so that poor and minority communities can afford and gain access to organic foods. Reach out to others and get organized. Don't just mourn or complain, Resist and Regenerate.
TAKE ACTION: Tell EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy: No More Foot Dragging. Ban Glyphosate NOW! Ronnie Cummins is international director of the Organic Consumers Association and a member of the Regeneration International steering committee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't Trust the Feds on GMOs, Pesticides and Chemicals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
". . . new chemicals come from our laboratories in an endless stream; almost 500 annually find their way into actual use in the United States alone...500 new chemicals to which the bodies of men and animals are required somehow to adapt each year, chemicals totally outside the limits of biologic experience."