# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dramatic Correlation Shown Between GMOs and 22 Diseases | Cittaslow International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions have marched against Monsanto urging labeling or the banning of GMO products. There is a national consensus in favor of labeling but the government has been unable to respond. Indeed, President Obama's food czar is a former Monsanto executive. The deep corruption of government is putting the health of the American people at serious risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs and Diseases Exclusive Interview with Jeffrey Smith Dr. Pompa on Genetically Modified Organisms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2002, two years after the first big harvests of GM soy in Argentina, residents and doctors in soy producing areas began reporting serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Mercola and Claire Robinson on GMO Truths and Myths

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We gathered questions from consumers about foods grown using genetically-modified organisms. From those questions, we developed a five-part video series to address the many angles of this topic, including general information, food safety, nutrition, labeling and environmental impacts.

This video focuses on the impacts GM crops have on the environment. A west-coast mom, Karri Hammerstrom, asks tough questions of environmental scientist Dr. Cecilia Chi-Ham from the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture at the University of California-Davis.

We're interested in understanding what additional questions you have for Dr. Cecilia. Feel free to submit questions below.

What did other experts have to say about environmental impacts of genetically modified crops?
Don't GMO crops use a lot of pesticides and other chemicals? Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin:
This is a good question. An economists' study analyzing GMO crops a couple years ago determined that pesticides' footprint is down by about 35% for corn and 25% for cotton. In addition, there is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 286 million kilograms. This is because herbicide-tolerant seeds (which create herbicide-tolerant plants) allow farmers to practice no-till agriculture - that is, they don't have to plow the land (which causes carbon dioxide to be released). This also means the soil integrity is retained so the organic matter is much healthier, there is less soil compaction because you're not driving over the land, and water usage is better because it is being retained in the soil. As well, because you're not driving over the land, fuel usage is lower. In fact, fuel usage is estimated to be about 20 gallons less per acre.
Dr. Wayne Parrott:
No farmer likes to buy and use pesticides just for the sake of it - every chemical bought reduces the farmer's profit. Because of insecticide-resistant corn and cotton, we're not using as many insecticides in the environment as we were before, nor are we losing as much pre-harvest yield as we were before. Lower insecticide use and less yield loss translate into additional profits. The reduction in the amount of herbicides used has not been as dramatic as the decrease in insecticide use, but the type of herbicides being used now are very different from those used in the past. They are much more environmentally friendly, so even if the amount has not changed much, the environmental impact has decreased significantly.
Dr. Peggy Lemaux:
In reality, having crops that can tolerate herbicides and pest attacks increases pest management options and can also reduce the number and strength of pesticide applications. Growth of GM herbicide-tolerant crops also allows topical application of herbicides to crops and weeds, which replaces mechanical removal of weeds, which can damage crops. Reducing mechanical tillage lowers fuel consumption and helps conserve soils prone to erosion and compaction.
How are GMOs regulated? Dr. Newell-McGloughlin:
In the U.S., GMOs are more highly regulated than any other methods to introduce traits into crops today. Three principal agencies that regulate are:

1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

2. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS)

3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The primary body that regulates the commercialization of GMOs is USDA-APHIS. This is a lengthy and expensive process. For most regulation, it takes several years to determine the status. This process has actually inhibited development of many crops that could replace older, less safe, less environmentally friendly techniques.
Dr. Lemaux:
The FDA is responsible for the safety and labeling of foods and animal feeds from all crops, including those that are genetically modified. The EPA evaluates food safety and environmental issues associated with new pesticides. The EPA also oversees GMO plants, for example, in cases where a small part of a pest is used to develop the GMO crop. And USDA-APHIS oversees environmental consequences and safety of planting and field-testing of GMO plants. Their role is to ensure that field tests of GMO crops are conducted under specified conditions and that any unusual occurrences are reported. Not every GMO crop will be overseen by all three agencies; however, all three agencies have the legal power to ask for immediate removal from the market of any product, if valid scientific data show a safety concern for consumers or the environment.
Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam:
The FDA is responsible for the regulatory oversight of genetically engineered animals. For all human and animal drug applications, the FDA requires that the company interested in selling a product provide them with the food and safety data to support their contention that the product is safe. They consult with the company as to the types of studies that will be required to show that it's safe. The company then carries out those studies, and the FDA independently reviews the data and comes to a conclusion as to whether or not the product is safe. Some people think the FDA should not use company data to prove safety, but requiring the FDA to produce that data would shift the cost of drug development from the private to the public sector.
Are GMOs considered sustainable? Dr. Van Eenennaam:
To me, sustainability is a three-legged stool that needs to balance economic, environmental and social goals. There are some GM applications that have the potential to satisfy all three of these sustainability goals concurrently. For example, GM animals that are disease-resistant are less expensive to raise, have improved animal welfare, and have decreased need for the use of therapeutic antibiotics. Improving production efficiency through improved animal health would also have the added environmental benefit of decreasing the carbon footprint per pound of product that is produced.
Dr. Parrott:
The 3 pillars of sustainability are people, profit and planet. From that perspective, they meet the profit criterion, or farmers would not be using them to the extent they are. They meet the planet criterion, as GMOs are lowering the agricultural footprint- there is less chemical damage, less erosion, less greenhouse gasses and less fossil fuel use. Finally, they improve the quality of life for people. My grandfather was a farmer, and he would much rather have spent his Sunday afternoons watching football with the grand kids; instead, he had to spend it on the tractor plowing and spraying. The fact that GMO agriculture requires a lot less labor has also contributed to its popularity among farmers.
Do GM crops create superweeds and pesticide resistant bugs? If so, does this mean farmers have to apply more toxic chemicals to the crops? Dr. Bruce Chassy:
I'll address this in two parts - first: superweeds. It is inaccurate to call emergence of a single herbicide resistance a "superweed." A superweed (by definition) would actually be resistant to all or at least many herbicides. Resistance has occurred with many herbicides used on non-GE crops. Fortunately, that has not yet occurred with GM crops; multiple herbicide-resistant weeds have emerged in conventional crops through poor stewardship of herbicides. Where we have seen resistance to herbicides used in GE crops, (less than 1 percent of land planted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops), alternative herbicides are still effective. The key requirement to minimize the emergence of resistance to the herbicides used on crops is careful management.

Second: toxic chemicals. Comprehensive data from all over the world demonstrates that planting GE crops has significantly reduced the amount of pesticides used on crops (Brookes and Barfoot, 2010). In addition, it has allowed a shift to far less toxic herbicides that are not persistent in the environment. The claim that more toxic chemicals are used because of GE crops is not supported by the evidence. One of the major reasons that farmers choose to pay more for GE seeds is that they end up paying less for chemicals, fuel, and labor. They also suffer less soil compaction in their fields, less soil erosion and water loss, and there are far less greenhouse gas emissions from their fields. If no-till methods that are facilitated by planting GE crops are used, it also improves soil organic carbon content.
Dr. Parrott:
There is evidence that rootworms are becoming resistant, but they are not there yet, and they may never get there. The other pests are not showing such signs. Also, 'superweeds' is a term coined to purposely exaggerate a problem, and it refers to a weed that has become resistant to an herbicide. By that definition, herbicides have been creating "superweeds" since they came into use after WWII. Any given herbicide has a lifespan of some 10 years before the weeds catch up. The worst case scenario is we go back to the chemicals we have used before. The claim that we will go to a more toxic agriculture than we had before is not valid.

Still have questions? Submit them below!
"The thunderstorm" by Tez Gooyer is licensed under CC BY ND.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VIDEO: Are GM Crops Harming Our Environment? | BestFoodFacts.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We gathered questions from consumers about foods grown using genetically-modified organisms. From those questions, we developed a five-part video series to address the many angles of this topic, including general information, food safety, nutrition, labeling and environmental impacts. This video focuses on the impacts GM crops have on the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It looks the same-the bread, pies, sodas, even corn on the cob. So much of what we eat every day looks just like it did 20 years ago. But something profoundly different has happened without our knowledge or consent. And according to leading doctors, what we don't know may already be hurting us big time.

Did You Read My Last Post?

Here it is again... If you missed my tough question on GMOs to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at the Community Food Security Coalition conference, be sure to find it on the Huffington Post. He pitched "GMO's-Feed-the-World" and the audience actually booed his answer:

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was getting lots of appreciative applause and head nods from the packed hall at the Community Food Security Coalition conference today, held in Des Moines, Iowa. He described the USDA's plans to improve school nutrition, support local food systems, and work with the Justice Department to review the impact of corporate agribusiness on small farmers. But then, with time for only one more question, I was handed the microphone.

"Mr. Secretary, may I ask a tough question on GMOs?"

He said yes. Read on...
from December 2009 Spilling the Beans newsletter

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce this article. Please contact column@responsibletechnology.org to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Big GMO Cover-Up - Institute for Responsible Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It looks the same-the bread, pies, sodas, even corn on the cob. So much of what we eat every day looks just like it did 20 years ago. But something profoundly different has happened without our knowledge or consent. And according to leading doctors, what we don't know may already be hurting us big time....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate around genetically modified organisms (GMO) is huge and heated on either side. One of the major considerations when arguing against the use of GMO products is the potential for environmental harm. What exactly are the environmental risks to consider in regards to GMOs?

First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Heath Organization (WHO) defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural way. GM plants are usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide tolerant. With these changes come some potentially problematic environmental challenges.

Firstly, toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used commonly with GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants. GMOs may be toxic to non-target organisms, bees and butterflies being the most talked-about examples currently. Bees are hugely important in the pollination of many food crops, but are unfortunately extremely endangered by modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops. Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and butterflies, birds are also at risk from pesticides, and work as biological control agents and pollinators, again, like bees.

Furthermore, the longterm effects of GMOs are not certain. Pests that are targeted by these agricultural methods can adapt to pesticides and herbicides, in addition to the DNA changes in GM plants to make them ¨resistant.¨ This means that they will not always be effective, but their toxic legacies will remain.

Cumulative effects of products such as GMOs are important to take into consideration. Evidence also suggests that small genetic changes in plants may produce even larger ecological shifts, meaning that there is potential for GMO´s to become persistent and weedy in agricultural conditions, since they are modified to be resistant to some modern agricultural techniques. This can also mean being invasive in natural settings, where GMOs, of course, do not occur naturally. It is not impossible for new, human modified, plants to become invasive species in delicate, natural ecosystems.

Finally, biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put at risk by GMOs. When GM crops are planted, generally in a monocrop fashion, many heritage seeds are no longer used. The nature of GMOs means fewer weed flowers and, therefore, less nectar for pollinators. Toxins released into the soil through the plants´ routes mean fewer soil bacteria, which are integral to healthy soil for plants to grow without the use of chemical fertilizers. Toxic residues are left in the soil of GM crops. Nutrients are not returned to the soil in mono crops and from GMO foods, meaning that soil is becoming dry and void of all nutrients, generally integral to the growing process. A cycle of dependence on GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is then created in order to grow a single crop. In addition to soil issues, the irrigation used to grow GM foods naturally carries all of these problems into water sources and into the air. This exposes different bacteria, insects, and animals to the same problems.

All of these impacts must be taken into consideration in the larger picture; GMO´s DNA may end up in soil, compost, animal feed and byproducts, and other living organisms from insects to larger pests. Bees can transport pesticides, herbicides, and DNA through the air into the environment. Once a plant is introduced in an agricultural environment, it is reasonable to assume it will become part of a larger ecosystem, meaning the problem of environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than simply potentially harming our health.

Aside from environmental issues, GMOs are the topic of social and ethical debates as well. It goes without saying that we live in an inter-connected world, where the way we interact with nature can cause a complex array of consequences. Being informed on the food we are consuming, and the way modern agricultural techniques are affecting the environment, is one effective way of consciously interacting with the natural world.

Image Source: James Jordan/Flickr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate around genetically modified organisms (GMO) is huge and heated on either side. One of the major considerations when arguing against the use of GMO products is the potential for environmental harm. What exactly are the environmental risks to consider in regards to GMOs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Dr. Mercola

Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, along with the exponentially increasing use of the herbicide Roundup. Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soy beans are genetically modified to survive otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company's herbicide Roundup.

It's a win-win for Monsanto. But it's a loss for just about everyone else.

One of the countries most affected by genetically engineered soy is Argentina, whose population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides across the country's Pampas (the country's "fertile plain").

Argentina's Pampas used to be dotted with dairy and vegetable farms, but now, large-scale soybean monoculture blankets most of their cultivated land, making them especially susceptible to the damaging effects of genetically engineered soy. The impact can be better appreciated by considering the following statistics:

Soy is the main income source for landowners and the state-soybeans are considered a "gold mine" by Argentinians; soy exports generate 16,000 million dollars a year

The area cultivated with soy has reached 19 million hectares, representing 56 percent of Argentina's cultivated land1

98 percent of Argentina's soybean production is genetically modified2

190 million liters of glyphosate (the active agent in Roundup) are sprayed in Argentina annually, which is leading to not only illness among the population but to widespread deforestation, as trees are among the victims these herbicides leave in their wake of destruction

Soya burgers are a staple of today's Argentinian diet. Argentinian children were consuming so much genetically engineered soy that they began developing breasts from the estrogenic effects, before authorities stepped in with warnings.

Studies also strongly suggest that the glyphosate that these crops are doused with can cause cancer and birth deformities; both of which are occurring at increasing rates in areas where spraying is done. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. Experts warn that in 10 to 15 years, rates of cancer, infertility, and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophic levels in Argentina. But few people are listening.

'It's Food for Today, Hunger and Cancer for Tomorrow'

The immediate symptoms are always the same for Argentinian bystanders in the spray zone: dizziness, allergic reactions and itching, mouth swelling, and general malaise that's similar to the feeling of coming down with the flu. People are warned to stay inside when spraying is underway, but they report getting sick in spite of this confinement.

When those affected visit their physicians, they're told it's "all in their heads." Authorities also turn a deaf ear-as does the government when it's presented with scientific evidence of the dangerous effects of Monsanto's products for their people and environment. Fortunately, increasing numbers of scientists are now starting to speak out. For example, the engineers' school in Santiago del Estero announced that chemicals are causing 100 babies to be born with deformities every year. One of the most influential studies was conducted by one of Argentina's leading scientists, Andres Carrasco, who works in Argentina's Ministry of Science.

Andrés Carrasco Attacked for Exposing the Truth

Embryonic specialist Andres Carrasco decided to investigate the health effects of glyphosate for himself after hearing so many reports by desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides. According to Dr. Carrasco, his studies show glyphosate exposure can cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of amphibian fetuses, and these results can be applied to humans. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on genetically engineered soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry "mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats." In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study.

"It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction," he said. "I hadn't even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached."

The conclusions to which Carrasco is referring are those from independent researchers who have found strong evidence glyphosate causes the following:

Endocrine disruption

DNA damage

Developmental toxicity

Neurotoxicity

Reproductive toxicity
Cancer

Carrasco's and others' work point to the fact that the public, in Argentina and elsewhere, is being subject to a massive biological experiment involving the effects of genetic manipulation of the food supply. Genetically engineered food products have NEVER been tested for safety-so the long-term effects are largely unknown. The warnings science has provided demand a thorough investigation into just how much glyphosate human beings and animals can safely ingest. At present, no such investigation has taken place, and most regulatory agencies choose instead to rely in industry studies claiming glyphosate is safe.

Roundup has been shown to be lethal to amphibians. Are we next? Where is the tipping point for the human race? How much more can we tolerate in the adulteration of our food supply?

Why We MUST Insist on Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

Labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of genetically engineered foods in the U.S., but simple petitions will likely fail. We strongly supported state initiatives, such as California's ballot initiative to require labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state.

Many don't fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large food companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive, not to mention a logistical nightmare. To avoid the dual labeling, many would likely opt to not use genetically engineered ingredients in their product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we were so committed to this initiative.

Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California's labeling requirements for carcinogens: 3

"Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California."

This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California labeling law can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:

"A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. 'While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning,' Garza-Giarlante said in an email."

Embed this infographic on your website:

Click on the code area and press CTRL + C (for Windows) / CMD + C (for Macintosh) to copy the code.

Learn More About Genetically Engineered Foods

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what genetically engineered foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about genetically engineered foods and helping your friends and family do the same.

To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit genetically engineered ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with altered ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

To learn more about genetically engineered foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GM Foods: The Shocking Cause of Birth Defects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Dr. Mercola Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, along with the exponentially increasing use of the herbicide Roundup. Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soy beans are genetically modified to survive otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company's herbicide Roundup.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feeding The World Without GMOs from Gringo Starr Productions on Vimeo.

One of the most often touted benefits of genetically engineered (GE) crops [more commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs)] is that they are essential to feed the world's growing population. There are currently over 7.5 billion people on this planet and expected to rise to 9.5 billion by 2050. If consumption trends continue, in order to feed that many people, we would need to grow one-third more food. First, let's look at this argument from an agricultural perspective.

The vast majority of GE crop production does not go towards direct food consumption; rather, it is used for the production of animal feed and ethanol. These are crops engineered to withstand, work in partnership with, and self-generate pesticides. They are not engineered to increase yield or face climate-related challenges to growth, such as drought tolerance. There is one variety of corn has been bred for drought resistance, but it is likely to only be effective in 15 percent of US corn fields and is not effective in severe or extreme drought, which we are expected to have more of in the coming years.

Industrial agriculture isn't the answer.

Increases in yield from GE crops are a result of a decrease in yield lost to pests from Bt crops, pesticides, and an increase in fertilizer use (made from petroleum, defeating the purpose of ethanol). Unfortunately, growing weed and pest resistance is already decreasing their effectiveness, requiring much more dangerous pesticides and making useless one of the most used organic pesticides, Bt. These minimal increases in yield have come with major externalities, including but not limited to water pollution, pollinator loss, and soil degradation, that put future food security at risk. After decades of attempts, Big Biotech has not been successful in breeding GE seeds that increase yield or reduce water use. Conventional breeding outperforms genetic engineering when it comes to nitrogen use efficiency (the ability for crops to pull nitrogen out of soil, developing a more efficient use of fertilizer, ultimately decreasing the demand for fertilizers) and water use efficiency (WUE).

Overall, conventional breeding is responsible for most of the successful advances in yield. It also happens on a much shorter timeline at a much lower cost. Industry studies show that it takes a minimum of ten years to develop a GE crop and nearly $150 million; whereas conventional crops take only $1 million to develop, improvements WUE and drought resistance naturally occur at an estimated 1 percent each year. While Big Biotech develop GE crops in a lab, farmers are improving traditional crops in the field. Due to this drag rate by the time GE crops are finally released they are actually behind their conventional counterparts.

Conventional crops could also be more effectively bred to work in partnership with the cultural food needs and geographical climate and soil challenges unique to specific regions. Forcing GE crops into developing countries with higher existing biodiversity puts that biodiversity and future food supplies at risk by threatening native species and practices. There are an abundance of types of crop varieties (both already in use and wild) accessible to breeders and growers. It is important that we tap into this vast resource to expand nutrient diversity and accessibility.

The Solution: Agroecology

Considering the changing climate and increasing pressures on and demand for our scarce resources, expanding the industrialized system of agricultural is not the answer. Agriculture is already one of the largest contributors to climate change. In order to sustainability produce the food we will need, we must support a transition to more regenerative, agroecological methods of farming. Agroecology as a "science is the 'application of ecological science to the study, design, and management of sustainable agroecosystems.' As a set of agricultural practices, agroecology seeks ways to enhance agricultural systems by mimicking natural processes, thus creating beneficial biological interactions and synergies among the components of the agroecosystem."

It is essential to look at the entire system and how plants work with one another and their surrounding climates. Regenerative agriculture works to rebuild soil health and biodiversity; sequestering carbon, preventing soil erosion, protecting water sources, and reducing harmful pesticide and fertilizer runoff in the process. Agroecology is also a much better system of management for small holders and provides a more balanced diet with more nutrient dense crops. Smallholders already produce 70 percent of the world's food on only 25 percent of the land. More diversified planting is better for soil health and biodiversity and will better handle the challenges presented by climate change and the damage we have already done to our resources.

Lack of Equity + Poverty = Hunger

Hunger is not an issue of agriculture or food quantity, but one of poverty and equity. There is currently enough food in the world to feed 10 billion people. That means that we actually have an excess of food.

Despite that, there is still a shocking number of people who are hungry, 791 million (the majority of which live in developing nations). More than anything, hunger is a result of poverty. The World Bank estimates that there are over 1 billion poor people in developing countries. Continued hunger leads to continued poverty as those suffering from chronic hunger are unable to perform manual labor (the most common source of income in developing countries) and increase their standard of living. Much of this poverty and hunger is caused by existing economic inequity as a result of current political systems that favor those with higher incomes. The current industrial food system emphasizes the need for countries (regardless of size) to export food crops despite the local demand for basic nutrients. If poverty and livelihoods are not improved it will not matter how much food is produced if the poorest, and in turn hungriest, do not have the financial ability to access it.

At the same time that there is great hunger there is also excessive food waste throughout the world. It is even worse in the western hemisphere; the US alone wastes 40 percent of its food. In western countries, grocery stores throw out a lot of food and will not purchase unattractive produce. Food is wasted simply because it is visually unappealing or goes uneaten. In developing nations food waste is a result of a lack of infrastructure, capital investment, and basic necessities. Lack of access to road ways, storage facilities, and basic refrigeration prevents food access and increases spoilage rates. With proper investment and support these problems could be remedied.

Despite the hunger epidemic we also have an obesity epidemic as a result of poor nutrition, high meat consumption, and increased processed food consumption. Worldwide, most of the expected demand for an increase in food is not based on a baseline need for nutrients, but rather the growing trend of developing countries to adopt the western diet of meat consumption. It takes substantially more calories to produce meat and ultimately results in a number of health challenges. Not only does this require a higher production of animal feed crops, the raising of animals for meat puts a number of stresses on the environment due to the current system of large concentrated and confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Hunger is an issue of politics and justice.

It is a choice that we make as a nation and as group of developed countries. In order to tackle these problems of access we need to drastically change our food system. We need an international system of agriculture that supports food sovereignty, regenerative agroecological farming practices, and food security on a regional and local level. GMOs are not the answer.

If GMOs are not feeding the world, then what do we do to decrease worldwide hunger? Find out here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Feeding The World Without GMOs from Gringo Starr Productions on Vimeo. One of the most often touted benefits of genetically engineered (GE) crops [more commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs)] is that they are essential to feed the world's growing population.