Let’s start with the bottom line, buy organic. True, it’s more expensive than the conventional and genetically modified alternatives, but it’s safer and cheaper than a pill.
Physical and mental malfunctions caused by pesticides, genetic transmutations, and growth hormones are surfacing. Think of organics as health insurance.
The safety of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not yet developed a satisfactory approach in evaluating risk for long term effects. Currently, GM sources are compared to conventional crops only for nutritional performance and growth in animals. This measurement is called “substantial equivalence,” and it’s not an effective risk assessment for many reasons. One is the complexity of variables concerning
DNA recombination and the molecular transmutations that are shown to occur in various plants and animals. Inflammation and immune compromising effects have also been reported causing more alarm in food supply safety. Evaluating GM foods under the substantial equivalence method is the only risk assessment the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) uses at this time. This is a recipe for disaster.
Several feeding trials have been reported that tested GM corn, potatoes, rice, soybeans, and tomatoes for different periods. Factors such as body weight, feed consumption, blood chemistry, organ weight, and histopathology have been measured, but methods used to test GM foods have been diverse if not unreliable. Government results claim there’s no effect at the macroscopic level; however, organelles and other subcellular structures are admittedly affected at ultramicroscopic levels. Private studies tell another story, they show GM crops cause cancer and infertility.
Rand, a public interest group, investigates the agricultural gene movement. They find advocates of biotechnology promise to increase the productivity of poor farmers in the developing world. This kind of agricultural research tends to narrow its focus on single goals such as reducing erosion or increasing crop yields rather than the management of agroecosystems as a component of regional ecosystems. The GM solution is much like offering these lands a quick-fix, but is it worth the potential hazards that follow, like killing the bees?
Examples of ecological benefits and risks of selected GM crops.
|
GM modification |
Benefits |
Risks |
| Herbicide resistance in maize, cotton, other crops. | Reduces herbicide use.Increases opportunities for reduced tillage systems. | Increases herbicide use.Reduction in-field biodiversity that may reduce the ecological services provided by agricultural ecosystems. |
| Maize with Bt toxin. | Reduces pesticide use.Kills fewer nontarget organisms than alternatives such as broad-spectrum pesticides. | Promotes development of Bt resistance, which will eliminate Bt as a relatively safe pesticide.Kills nontarget bees, caterpillars, and butterflies, such as monarchs. |
| Virus resistance in small grains due to coat proteins. | Reduces insecticide use to control insect dispersers of pathogens. | Facilitates the creation of new viruses.Moves genes into nonagricultural ecosystems where the subsequent increase in fitness of weedy species could eliminate endangered species. |
| Terminator or other sterilizing traits in crops and ornamentals. | Prevents the movement of traits to nontarget species.Prevents the movement of introduced species to other ecosystems (Walker and Lonsdale. | Prevents farmers from developing their own seed supplies adapted to local conditions. |
| Synthesis of vitamin A or other nutrients. | Improves nutrition of people who depend heavily on rice. | Disrupts local ecosystems if an ecologically limiting nutrient or protein is produced. |
| Nitrogen fixation by nonlegumes. | Reduces energy used in fertilizer production and application. | Adds to excess N leaching from agriculture, degrading human health and reducing biodiversity. |
Currently, manufacturers are not required to identify or label GMO ingredients in their food or body products. A conservative estimate concludes that 75+ % of American foods and body products contain genetically modified organisms. Regardless of dozens of scientific warnings, the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved widespread use of genetically modified organism (GMO) ingredients.
Fortunately, the following countries have banned or restricted the import, distribution, sale, utilization, field trials and commercial planting of GMO’s:
- Africa: Algeria, Egypt
- Asia: Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, Philippines
- Europe: The European Union, Norway, Austria, Germany United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Portugal
- Latin America: Brazil, Paraguay
- Middle East: Saudi Arabia
- North America: Maryland has banned GE (genetically engineered) fish and North Dakota and Montana have filed bans on GE wheat. The Municipalities of Burlington, Vermont (declared a moratorium on GE food), Boulder, Colorado (bans on GE crops) and the City and County of San Francisco (urged the federal government to ban GE food) are the only towns or states to take some sort of stand against plants, animals, foods, crops and body products that are, or contain Genetically Modified Organisms.
- Pacific: American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Australia, New Zealand
Percentage of GM crops in the US
- Soy (85%)
- Cotton (Cottonseed) (76%)
- Canola (75%)
- Corn (40%)
- Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%)
- Zucchini and Yellow Squash (small amount)
- Quest brand tobacco (100%)
How to Identify Genetically Modified Foods The stickers that contain the Price Lookup Code (PLU) identifies conventionally grown, genetically modified, or organically grown produce. PLU codes:
- Conventional produce has 4 numbers
- GM fruit starts with the number 8, then five numbers
- Organically grown produce starts with number 9, then five numbers
Organically grown food is not GM and does not contain pesticides. Look for the number 9.
Partial List of Food Products That Contain Genetically Modified Corn Oil and Corn Products, Soy, Canola Oil, Cottonseed Oil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Products to be Aware of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Ways GM Products are Ingested Though this article’s focus is on crops; these are other GM infiltrations.
Milk from or dairy products from cows fed GMO corn and injected with the genetically modified growth hormone (rbGH)- Meat from animals fed genetically modified grain diets (rather than grass-fed) and injected with rbGH
- Use of genetically modified food additives such as Aspartame, flavorings and enzymes
- Honey and Bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen
Since the FAO does not require labeling of all genetically modified foods, the following ingredients on food labels are most likely GM unless specified certified organic or NON-GMO:
- Vegetable Oils: soy, corn, cottonseed, canola
- Margarine
- Soy Flour, Soy Protein, Soy Lecithin
- Textured Vegetable Protein
- Cornmeal, Corn Syrup
- Dextrose
- Maltodextrin
- Fructose
- Citric Acid
- Lactic Acid
GM crops are classified in generations.
- The first generation of GM crops refers to seeds derived to increase production, but the crops themselves are not substantially different from their conventional counterparts. These seeds have specific resistance mechanisms to combat herbicides, pests, diseases, or viruses. Some examples of the first-generation GM crops are the herbicide-resistant (glyphosate) soybean, insect-resistant maize, and herbicide and the insect-resistant potato. These crops are currently planted on millions of acres of farmland.
- The second generation of GM plants consists of crops with enhanced traits such as levels of protein, modified fats, and carbohydrates. Improved flavor characteristics or increased levels of micronutrients may be spliced as well as other phytochemicals. Some examples of these GM plants are rice with beta-carotene or higher iron and zinc levels;tomatoes with higher levels of carotenoids, flavonoids, and phenolics. Corn with increased vitamin C levels; soybeans with improved amino acid composition, or potatoes with added calcium content.
- A third generation of GM plants is emerging from the research pipeline. Some of the genetic modifications in these plants are designed to resist abiotic stress such as drought, high temperatures, or saline soils. This third generation also includes pharmaplants, for manufacturing high-grade active pharmaceutical ingredients.
Transgenic products could have a place in solving some problems, but it’s necessary that they do not cause other problems. The next step in crop safety is to implement regulatory agencies that are reviewed by reliable advisory committees. This should also be followed by scientific publications. With the use of science to facilitate the advancement of crops, the technical priority is to contribute to the improvement of human and animal health or natural resource management without jeopardizing public safety
A Better Bet for the Future: Biodynamic Agriculture.
Biodynamics grows food with a strong connection to healthy, living soil. Rather than investing in GM crops, a sustainable alternative is investing in organic farming, integrated pest management, water management, or crop breeding.
Just as it takes the whole magnetic field of the earth to comprehend the compass, to understand plant life we must expand our view to include all that affects plant growth. Plants are formed by influences from the depths beneath the earth to heights outside the atmosphere. Therefore, agricultural practices must extend beyond the assumed general state of relevance.
Reading the Book of Nature Everything in nature reveals something of its essential character in its form and gesture. Careful observations of nature in shade and full sun, in wet and dry areas, on different soils, will yield a more fluid grasp of the elements. So eventually one learns to read the language of nature and adapt.
For the time being, spend the extra $ and go organic. Dont pad the pockets of industries that profit from unhealthy agricultural practices.
References
Magaña-Gómez, J.,Calderón de la Barca, A. (2008). Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops for Nutrition and Health. Volume 67, Issue 1, Pages 1-16.
Organic Consumers Association. (2010). Retrieved 2/11/2010. http://organicconsumers.org/forum/index.php?·
Peterson, G., S. Cunningham, L. Deutsch, J. Erickson, A. Quinlan, E. Raez-Luna, R. Tinch, M. Troell, P. Woodbury, and S. Zens. (2000). The risks and benefits of genetically modified crops: a multidisciplinary perspective. Conservation Ecology 4(1): 13. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art13/
PureZing. (2007). Retrieved 2/13/2010. http://www.purezing.com/living/toxins/living_toxins_id_gmo.
Ruttan, V. W. (1999). The transition to agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 96(11): 5960-5967
Thomas, M. B. (1999). Ecological approaches and the development of truly integrated pest management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 96(11): 5995-6000.
Wu, F., Butz, W. (2004). The Future of Genetically Modified Crops. Lessons from the Green Revolution. The Rand Corporation. ISBN/EAN: 0-8330-3646-7
