Genetically modified organisms -
fact vs. science fiction

There is alot of controversy and confusion surrounding transgenic or genetically modified organisms, (also referred to as GM crops or genetically engineered, or GE crops) - the main ones being corn, soybeans, and cotton. In order for consumers to make an educated decision about what they are eating, they need to be given facts. These facts can be hard to come by since genetically modified organisms are big business for biotechnology firms - particularly Monsanto Chemical. The major players would like us to believe that GM crops offer major benefits and pose no health risk. Let’s examine the arguments for creating genetically modified organisms in the first place:

1) They will produce disease-resistant strains, thus producing higher yields.More food is good, right? In order for GM crops to give high yields, pesticides and weed killers must be heavily applied – thus polluting air, water, and soil even more than we are now. Moreover, studies have shown that these crops are not producing higher yields because of their resistance to disease.

It’s hard to argue that GM crops will allow people of the world to eat better when more than 35 countries now have restrictions on the important of GM crops (The Futurist, Sept-Oct. 2005) and that the EU (European Union), only recently lifted a ban on the importation of GM crops. According to an article by Greenpeace, the World Trade Organization had been asked to "force" the EU to lift the ban on GMO's (7/28/05). The main reason for Europe's concerns appears to be safety.

2) Genetically modified organisms have been tested for safety. According to an article in the Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, the Union of Concerned Citizens, in 1993, assessed the value of USDA data from field releases of GM crops. They found it to be of questionable value, and they did not scientifically determine environmental risks.

Few people know that GM crops use genes that are resistant to antibiotics. This could ultimately produce resistance to antibiotics in humans who eat these crops. Other such plants have genes which are resistant to viral diseases. These viral genes may have the potential to create new disease strains.

3) The production of GM crops will encourage diversity. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Monocropping – planting acres and acres of the same crop – encourages the spread of plant diseases, as does the use of genetically uniform plants. This practice actually discourages biodiversity.

What does this mean for the U.S. farmer? More pesticides will need to be applied, biodiversity is non-existent, and export demand for these crops will decline, resulting in lower prices.

Adding insult to injury is a recent article by the Organic Consumer’s Association which states that when rats were fed a particular brand of genetically modified corn, they had “smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.” (You can read more about what’s going on with GM crops at the Organic Consumers Association website (www.organicconsumers.org). You can read more about Monsanto’s Chemical’s GM crops at Monsanto.com.

What does this mean for the U.S. consumer? It’s anybody’s guess. In the U.S., companies are not required to label products that contain genetically modified organisms. It would appear that we’re caught in the middle between government researchers, who theoretically work for the common good, and commercial entities, who want to turn a profit. The question remains whether or not we are being used as guinea pigs in a mass experiment using GM crops. Who is monitoring this research? Are results being made available to the public? More importantly, how do we know what these crops are being genetically modified to produce? And why are we, in essence, being forced to eat GM crops? You can find additional reports on genetically modified crops at www.indsp.org.

Latest rulings on GM crops

Last year, Mendocino County, California became the first county in the U.S. to ban genetically modified crops. Since then, two more California counties and two cities have followed Mendocino's example. Over 100 town meetings in New England have called for a moratorium or strict controls over GM crops. Globally, over 100 major agricultural regions have declared themselves GMO-Free. Forty nations, (one-third of the world's population), now require mandatory labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

In the U.S., biotechnology firms are gearing up to control what we choose to eat. In the past several months, 14 U.S. states, prodded by Monsanto and the Farm Bureau, have made it illegal for local communities to ban GM crops. A recent attempt by Monsanto and "Big Food" is seeking to limit the states' rights to regulate crop production, by adding a ruling to the Farm Bill. To read more about it, go to the Organic Consumers Assocation food regulation article.

For information on recent developments in California, check out GE-Free Sonoma County at http://www.gefreesonoma.org/. For additional consumer information, try the True Food Network's information website, or read about what the government is doing about ge foods, BSE, and food safety at the Consumer Federation of America website.

If you would like to join the campaign to get GM foods labeled, visit the Campain GMO labelling website.

Monsanto's GM corn MON863 shows kidney, liver toxicity in animal studies




Search box:

	Web www.organic-nature-news.com

ADD TO YOUR SOCIAL BOOKMARKS: Blink Del.icio.us Digg
Furl Google Simpy Spurl Technorati Y! MyWeb

Would you like more information about genetically modified organisms? Did you find this article helpful? Please feel free to forward it to someone you love. Or you may send us a confidential comment below. We appreciate your feedback.