GMOs are NOT okay

Biotechnology has enabled scientists to change the genetic makeup of seeds. The idea behind this process is that the seed's best features can be enhanced.

The presumption is that GM crops are superior. Issues like world hunger can be conquered. Crops that withstand drought and pests can produce higher yeilds. Nutritional values and shelf life are increased. So what's the big deal?

The more GM crops are grown, they more they become a part of our food chain. Harmful chemicals become part of a regular diet through the consumption of fruits and vegetables, or animals that have eaten GM crops.

Since labeling GMO food is voluntary, the only way to avoid them is consume only organic foods. If a product is certified organic, it cannot have GMO ingredients. Some people argue that organic food is more expensive, but the health risks from GMO food are becoming more well known. Would you rather spend your hard-earned money on sustenance that edifies your body, or medicine to fix it?

References:

Hever, J. (2011). Controversy Clarified. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Plant-Based Nutrition (pp. 95-96). New York, NY: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

GMO OMG!

Studies show that more than 90% of Americans support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods – and chances are, you’re one of them! Show your support for the mandatory labeling of GE foods by wearing a special edition “GMO OMG” T-shirt, made of 100% organic cotton.
Now more than ever, it is imperative that we stand up for our right to know.

Help the Just Label It Campaign to continue to raise awareness and build support for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

Click here to donate $25 to the Just Label It campaign and receive a newly released “GMO OMG” T-shirt.

All donations and proceeds from the T-shirts will go to support the missions of Just Label It and the GMO Film Project.

*All donations are non-tax deductible.
**Please allow 10 days for delivery.

Used and posted with permission from the Just Label It! organization.

References:

Figure 1. Newly Released! Special Edition "GMO OMG" T-shirts. From Just Label It!, 2012. Retrieved from http://justlabelit.org/newly-released-special-edition-gmo-omg-t-shirts/. Copyright 2012 by Just Label It!.

Understand and Act on Your Right to Know!

References:

justlabelit. (www.justlabelit.org). (2012, January 18). Just Label It: We Have a Right to Know [Video file]. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9Ep4uxbhsvI&noredirect=1

An Enlightening 30-Year Trial

     The Rodale Institute published “The Farming Systems Trial” study in 2011, which covered a thirty year time span and focused on sustainable agriculture as a crucial factor to current and future growth. Sustainable systems can regenerate themselves; and for a system to be considered sustainable, it must have the ability to feed the world’s population for one hundred years or more.

     One of the elements of the trial study, yields of organic production, produced results which argue the validity of many claims from proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops.  The Rodale Institute’s trial revealed:

·         For the time they were tested, organic corn, soybean and wheat yields were equal to conventional.

·         During times of drought, organic yields were 31% higher than conventional. Some genetically engineered, drought-resistant varieties saw increases from approximately 22% to 46% percent during these droughts.

·         Organic corn and soybean tolerance for weed opposition was higher than the conventional varieties. When considering the weeds’ herbicide-resistant qualities versus the organic soil’s increase in productivity and health, this information is especially meaningful.

     The other aspects of organic farming versus conventional farming studied in The Rodale Institute’s “The Farming Systems Trial” are economic viability, use of energy, and health of humans. On each topic, Rodale’s trial shows organic farming is superior to that of conventional.  

  

References:

The Farming Systems Trial: Celebrating 30 Years. (2011). Rodale Institute. Retrieved from http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf

Produce Lookup Codes - DEcoded

References:

Figure 1. Be A Stickler: Product Codes Demystified. From Just Eat Real Food, 2012, Retrieved from  https://www.facebook.com/#!/JustEatingRealFood. Copyright 2012 by Just Eat Real Food.

ARE THE HEALTH RISKS FROM GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS REAL?

     Genetically modified foods entered the market 18 years ago, when the Flavr Savr tomato was introduced to consumers. This tomato was enhanced by genetic engineering so it could be picked when it was ripe, it would have superior flavor, and would not bruise during distribution. It was approved by the USDA and FDA without any proof that it could be safely consumed. In 1997, Flavr Savr tomatoes were taken off the market because of the potential link to stomach lesions, the inferior flavor, and the propensity to bruise.

     Not many human studies have been conducted, one such resulted in shocking outcomes was done in 2011. In the study, researchers from the University of Sherbrooke Hospital in Quebec performed blood tests on women; 30 were pregnant, and 39 were not. Traces of an insecticide were found in 93% of blood of the pregnant women; they were also found in 80% of umbilical cord blood. Aziz Axis, PhD, lead author of the study, noted the most probable cause was genetically modified (GM) corn consumed in a regular diet in Canada. Americans consume corn in a normal diet, as well; and this study was done last year. Since so many GMO advocates maintain that normal digestion destroys GM proteins, this information was a shock. It has prompted researchers to perform more tests and conduct larger studies so the risks are identified.

References

A Failed Technology. (2012). Center for Food Safety. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/other-resources/a-failed-technology/

Black, J. (2012). As NATURE Made Them. Prevention, 64(4), 82-89.