Science Does Not Support GMO Safety
The industry-funded campaigns to block GMO labelling laws brilliantly labelled anyone who simply wanted to know what they are eating as "anti-science", but what does science actually have to say about GMOs?
The vast majority of GMO products are modified to either be resistant to pesticide (Round-Up Ready) or they contain an insecticide. Here's the FDA's list: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon
Follow links from there, and here's the FDA's letter accepting corn able to survive increased soakings of glyphosate Round-up herbicide:"Based on the information Monsanto has presented to FDA, we have no further questions concerning food and feed derived from MON 87427 corn at this time. However, as you are aware, it is Monsanto’s continuing responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe..."http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm304083.htm
So the FDA bases approval solely on the assurance of Monsanto?
Let's look it up another way, through the data on glyphosate, the herbicide known by the brand Round-Up(TM):http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0057.htm_II.A. Evidence for Human Carcinogenicity__II.A.1. Weight-of-Evidence Characterization
Classification — D; not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
Basis — Inadequate evidence for oncogenicity in animals. Glyphosate was originally classified as C, possible human carcinogen, on the basis of increased incidence of renal tumors in mice. Following independent review of the slides the classification was changed to D on the basis of a lack of statistical significance and uncertainty as to a treatment-related effect.__II.A.2. Human Carcinogenicity Data
None.__II.A.3. Animal Carcinogenicity Data
Inadequate. Charles River CD-1 mice (50/sex/dose level) were fed diets containing glyphosate at dose levels of 0, 1000, 5000, or 30,000 ppm for 24 months. The incidence of renal tubule adenomas observed in the male mice exceeded that of the controls (0/49 controls; 0/49 low-dose; 1/50 mid-dose; 3/50 high-dose). A re-evaluation of the renal tumor slides prepared from the male mice indicated the presence of an additional adenoma in the control group and malignant tumors in the two higher dose groups. Therefore, the incidences of the reevaluated data are 1/49 control adenoma; 0/49 low; 1/50 mid, carcinoma; 3/50 high, 1 adenoma, 2 carcinomas. It was the judgment of two reviewing pathologists that the renal tumors were not treatment-related. In addition, the inclusion of a tumor in the control group eliminated statistical significance for the high-dose group.
In a 26-month study Sprague-Dawley (CD) rats, 50/sex/dose were fed 0, 30, 100, or 300 ppm glyphosate in the diet. The study is being repeated to include the MTD. There were some thyroid tumors, which were considered of normal incidence. Power to detect an effect was reduced since a MTD was not demonstrated, and the highest dose tested was less than 1/100 of the high dose in the mice (Monsanto, 1981). OPP has requested that the study be repeated on the basis of the degree of species difference in the highest dose tested and the possibility that higher doses (MTD) might produce additional tumors.
So the carcinogenicity data is "inadequate", and the request that the 1981 study be repeated does not have any follow-up. There are no human trials, except the one you see in the mirror.
Here's some recent science:Pesticides In Tap Water Responsible For Food Allergy Increasehttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253513.php
Let's see what a scientist who led the EPA's biosafety program has to say:Scientists find multiple problems with GMOsAgroeconomists have shown repeatedly that the best-yielding, most-affordable crop varieties, to "feed the world", are those derived from conventional non-GMO hybrids (U.N Commission on Trade and Development).As a lifelong scientist, I am deeply troubled to report that promises of patent enforcement by American agrichemical seed companies have prevented U.S. scientists from researching what some exclaim are "problems" associated with GMO crops. We will not know the facts as long as the seeds and plants that we, our children, pets and livestock consume are not made available for conducting long-term, controlled experiments.Norwegian scientists recently detected Roundup in 10 of 10 farms using genetically engineered soybeans. We had to also learn from these Norwegian (not American) scientists that the nutritional composition of soybeans grown on 31 Ohio farms differed depending upon the type of farm management system employed. Soybeans harvested from organic farms had higher concentrations of protein and essential amino acids, and higher concentrations of two minerals, and no Roundup residues (Food Chem. 2014).Now we know from the scientific literature that the same concentrations of Roundup residues in soybeans is sufficient in laboratory assays to: induce hormone disruptions during frog development (mixed-sex frogs); kill young trout and tadpoles; stop the growth of earthworms in soil; inhibit activities of beneficial soil and human gut bacteria; and stimulate the growth of human breast-cancer cells assayed under laboratory conditions.http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140413/OPINION/404130320/0/SEARCHRamon J. Seidler, Ph.D., of Ashland, is a professor of microbiology and a retired senior scientist and team leader for the Environmental Protection Agency's biosafety program.
A former scientist for Agriculture Canada, Thierry Vrain, has turned whistleblower as well:Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foodhttp://foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/ #science #GMO #environment