By Rachel Alexander
Monday, September 23, 2013
The left is in a frenzy over the American agricultural
biotechnology corporation Monsanto and other agribusinesses that tinker with
crop genetics. Is there any truth to their scare stories asserting that we’re
being poisoned with “Frankenfood,” breeding new strains of superbugs and
superpests?
Genetically modified crops, known as GMOs (genetically
modified organisms), have been used by American farmers since the mid-1990s in
order to increase crop yields and reduce the use of pesticides. The FDA has
approved their use. Today, 70-80 percent of grocery products in the U.S.
include genetically engineered ingredients. In contrast, only 5 percent of the
food sold in Europe contains GMOs, due to governmental restrictions.
According to opponents of GMOs, “The concern is that
genetic modification alters the proteins in foods in ways that researchers do
not yet fully understand. Substances that have never existed before in nature
are entering our food supply untested.” In addition to ingesting modified food,
people are eating livestock that has been fed GMOs. Food sensitivities,
allergies and other health problems have been increasing in recent years, and
opponents claim it is due to GMOs. Where the science gets murky is whether this
correlation is true.
Efforts are being made by the left to pass laws requiring
the labeling of GMOs. In Washington state, Initiative 522 would require fruits,
vegetables and grain-based products to be labeled, but exempts meat and dairy
products from animals fed genetically engineered grains. Monsanto has
contributed $4.6 million to defeat I-522, and opponents are outspending
proponents by more than three to one. A similar initiative lost in California
last year, where opponents including agribusiness and major food manufacturers
outspent proponents almost five to one. Initiatives have passed in Connecticut
and Maine, and legislation is pending in 20 states.
I-522 opponents cite estimates by the state’s Office of
Financial Management computing that the average family’s food bill would rise
$490 a year if it passes. The liberal Seattle Times editorialized against the
initiative, pointing out that consumers already have the option of buying
organic foods, and many companies already choose to self-label. Dan Newhouse, a
former director of the Washington Department of Agriculture, says the bill is
poorly written, containing confusing and absurd requirements.
The website junkscience.com says labeling genetically
modified food would put a stigma on it. “The very act of labeling suggests to
consumers there’s something potentially risky about X – if you don’t believe it
try giving away bottles of water labeled ‘Contains DiHydrogen Monoxide’ and see
what reactions you get.”
There is some scientific approval of GMOs. The American
Medical Association has come out against labeling GMOs, declaring, “There is no
scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.” UCLA
professor Bob Goldberg, a molecular biologist and a member of the National
Academy of Science, asserts, “Bioengineered crops are the safest crops in the
world. We’ve been testing them for 40 years. They’re like the Model T Ford.
There is not one credible scientist working on this that would call it unsafe.”
One prominent environmentalist activist, Mark Lynas, recently switched his
position on GMOs, coming out in support of them.
The problem with GMOs is there hasn’t been scientific
testing done on human subjects - and both sides of the debate are using this to
their advantage. Rats given massive doses of GMOs had adverse reactions. Female
rats lost their babies at a high rate, gave birth to fewer and smaller babies,
and the testicles of male rats changed color. A study of buffaloes in India
that were fed GMOs produced similar results. The American Academy of Environmental
Medicine warned, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune
dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma,
allergy, and inflammation.”
The problem with studies like these is the dosages of
food given the animals is forced and unrealistic. There have been reports of
humans becoming sick who live in close proximity to GMO-producing farms. Yet
these stories are anecdotal evidence and not rigorous scientific studies.
The most controversial aspect of GMOs involves the
modification of crops beyond just hybrids. The latest modification added an
actual pesticide component to food. A built-in pesticide was added within the
cellular structure of corn, a gene copied from the insect-killing bacterium
Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. It eliminates the need to spray the corn with
pesticides. This prompted concerns about humans ingesting food containing a
built-in pesticide.
One study found that this pesticide-enhanced corn is
causing problems for some crops in Illinois. Michael Gray, a professor of crop
sciences at the University of Illinois, observed that rootworms are growing
more resistant to the genetically modified corn - despite the fact that the
corn was modified to resist the rootworms. Previously, farmers rotated corn crops
with soybean crops, since rootworms would not infest the soybeans. Since the
modified corn was introduced, rootworms are now being found in the soybean
fields too, destroying both kinds of crops. Some farmers are reluctant to
reject the modified corn, however, because generally it helps reduce pesticide
use.
There is a lawsuit in place currently against Monsanto by
the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), a group of 73 American
organic and conventional family farmers, public advocacy groups and seed
businesses. They are accusing Monsanto’s genetically-engineered seed of
contaminating neighboring non-GMO farms via wind-borne pollen and insects.
Monsanto spends millions lobbying Congress and the
Department of Agriculture. A Monsanto attorney, Michael Taylor, has spent the
last few decades revolving between Monsanto and government jobs with the FDA
and the USDA, where he directed much of those agencies’ policies on GMOs. To
the casual observer, this would appear to be a clear conflict of interest. This
is typical of the Obama administration, known for its revolving door between
the big banks and Obama’s cabinet.
Republicans better not be in the pockets of big
agricultural business. While onerous regulations are not the answer to murky
science, sweeping everything under the rug isn’t either. Many of those speaking
out in defense of GMOs come directly from the GMO industry, lowering their
credibility. Unfortunately, most Republicans have little interest in
investigating GMOs, since the hysterical left is leading the opposition to
them, straining credibility.
Americans are getting sicker than people in other
high-income countries. Until there are rigorous scientific studies performed on
human subjects, both sides should tread carefully in this area. Since “you are
what you eat,” consumers who believe that GMOs present a threat to their health
should put their money where their mouth is and buy food from businesses like
Whole Foods which label food or provide organic food. And don’t force everyone
else to.
No comments:
Post a Comment