Sidestep This Healthy Fish - A New "Breeding Ground" for Disease
Watch out for the massive con that may soon corrupt this beneficial fish
into an unmitigated health disaster. If you eat this fish, you could
have two hazards to sidestep - or possibly succumb to its serious
effects. Could this become one of the most dangerous fish to eat?
Story at-a-glance
Genetically engineered (GE) fish could reach your dinner
plate within the next year or two, unless a sufficiently
strong opposition is mounted. The first GE food animal—a
salmon designed to grow abnormally fast and to an
unnaturally large size—may soon receive FDA approval
In recent years, mounting evidence shows that initial
suspicions that GE foods might have unforeseen consequences
were indeed correct—from destruction of soils, to
contamination of waterways, to serious health consequences
for animals and humans who consume GE products
The first-ever study to address GE crop-related pollution of
waterways discovered that Chinese rivers are contaminated
with antibiotic-resistant genes from genetic engineering
experiments, which may represent a source of antibiotic
resistance in humans
Some US farmers are considering returning to conventional
seed due to increased pest resistance and crop failures.
Recent GE crops saw smaller yields globally than their
non-GE counterparts
The US Supreme Court is now hearing the appeal of an Indiana
soybean farmer, whom Monsanto sued for patent infringement.
The central issue in this case is the extent that a patent
holder can control its use through multiple generations of
seed, and the court’s decision could have far-reaching
implications for the biotech industry and patenting of seeds
and other life forms
By Dr. Mercola
Fish — and salmon in particular — has always been an ideal source
for the animal-based omega-3 fats EPA and DHA, but as levels of
pollution have increased, fish in general have become less viable as
a primary source of healthful fats.
Soon, there will be even more to worry about as salmon is getting
a genetic makeover.
Not only will you need to beware of inferior and poorly labeled
farmed salmon, you’ll also have to contend with it possibly being
genetically engineered (GE), since the US still does not require GE
foods to be labeled as such.
On December 21, 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
took a giant step closer toward the final approval of the first
genetically engineered (GE) food animal — a salmon designed to grow
abnormally fast,1
and to an unnaturally large size.
It now appears the first GE fish could reach your dinner plate
within the next year or two, unless a sufficiently strong opposition
is mounted.
According to the FDA,2
the GE salmon is “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic
salmon,” but many have brought up significant
flaws and limitations of the environmental assessment (EA) on
which this conclusion is drawn.
In recent years, mounting evidence shows that initial suspicions
that GE foods might have unforeseen consequences were indeed correct
— from alteration of
soil composition, to contaminating waterways with antibiotic
resistant bacteria linked to GE crops,3
to serious
health consequences for animals and humans who consume GE
products.
Latest GE-Related Health Threat: Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria from
GE Experiments Found in Waterways...
The first-ever study4,
5 to address GE crop-related pollution of waterways
discovered that Chinese rivers are contaminated with
antibiotic-resistant genes from genetic engineering experiments,
which (again) may have unforeseen repercussions for human health.
According to the authors:6
“Antibiotic resistance poses a significant challenge to
human health and its rate continues to rise globally. While
antibiotic-selectable synthetic plasmid vectors have proved
invaluable tools of genetic engineering, this class of
artificial recombinant DNA sequences with high expression of
antibiotic resistance genes presents an unknown risk beyond the
laboratory setting.
Contamination of environmental microbes with synthetic
plasmid vector-sourced antibiotic resistance genes may represent
a yet unrecognized source of antibiotic resistance.
In this study, PCR and real-time quantitative PCR were
used to investigate the synthetic plasmid vector-originated
ampicillin resistance gene, β-lactam antibiotic (blá), in
microbes from six Chinese rivers with significant human
interactions.
Various levels of blá were detected in all six rivers... The
resistance spectrum of transformants from the Pearl and Haihe
rivers, in particular, had expanded to the third- and
fourth-generation of cephalosporin drugs, while that of other
transformants mainly involved first- and second-generation
cephalosporins.
This study not only reveals environmental contamination
of synthetic plasmid vector-sourced blá drug resistance genes in
Chinese rivers, but also suggests that synthetic plasmid
vectors may represent a source of antibiotic resistance in
humans.”
Monsanto 'To the Rescue' in the Face of Rapid Climate Change?
With “unforeseen side effects” sprouting like heads from a hydra,
it’s no wonder Monsanto realizes it’s in dire need of an
image makeover...7
Part of the PR tactic is to claim biotech companies, with
Monsanto in the lead, are essential for mankind’s survival in the
face of global climatic changes. In the following interview,
Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant vaguely discusses the company’s strategy of
“modifying maturity zones” in the U.S. “to encompass climatic
shifts.” Essentially, he claims that we need GE crops in
order to adapt fast enough to rapidly altering climate.
If you haven’t seen the man in charge of running what many people
believe to be the most evil company on the planet, you can get a
look at Hugh in the video above. Although he was not in charge when
the company first produced Agent Orange and dioxin, it still is the
same pernicious organization.
I’m sorry, Hugh. You don’t get a free pass to pollute the world
for generations and walk away with tens of billions of dollars. You
don’t get to force your “horizontal gene transfer” into living
organisms, allowing it to infect like a virus and thereby enslave
these life forms and seeds for your profit. Plants, animals, people
– where does it stop? Propagating, proliferating, mutating and
migrating… Climate changes indeed pose a serious problem, but
genetic engineering is not the answer — not when the technology
itself threatens all life on the planet!
Monsanto lies in the bed that’s been made, and their dirty deeds
are coming back to haunt them. Rest assured, people around the world
will relentlessly continue this fight. Grant’s statements are even
more ironic in light of the fact that genetically modified (GM)
crops are actually failing around the world. So much for
offering salvation. According to a recent article in Farmers
Weekly:8
“Some US farmers are considering returning to
conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop
failures meant GM crops saw smaller yields globally than their
non-GM counterparts. Farmers in the USA pay
about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are
questioning whether they will continue to see benefits from
using GMs.
'It's all about cost benefit analysis,' said economist
Dan Basse, president of American agricultural research company
AgResource. 'Farmers are paying extra for the technology but
have seen yields which are no better than 10 years ago. They're
starting to wonder why they're spending extra money on the
technology.' One of the biggest problems the USA has seen with
GM seed is resistance. While it was expected to be 40 years
before resistance began to develop ,pests such as corn rootworm
have formed a resistance to GM crops in as few as 14 years.”
GE Crops are NOT the 'Most Tested' Product in the World
What good will GE foods do if they end up sending us into an
early grave, riddled with disease, and/or result in widespread
infertility one or more generations down the line, like animal
studies have demonstrated? The fact is, GE foods have never
been proven safe for human consumption over a lifetime, let alone
over generations. Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the
most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he
doesn’t tell you is that:
Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of
the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific
reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When
industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be
positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to
replicate and thus verify results
The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90
days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In
the world’s first independently funded
lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in
during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and
cancer
Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow
independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing
the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence
independent research is extremely difficult or nearly impossible
to conduct. If these scientists get seeds from a farmer, they
sue them into oblivion as one of their favorite tactics is to
use the legal system to their advantage. Additionally, virtually
all academic agricultural research is controlled by Monsanto as
they are the primary supporters of these departments and none
will risk losing their funding from them
There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in
question has been approved, not a single country on earth is
actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health
effects
High-Priced PR should NOT be Confused with Science-Based Truth
All in all, if their genetically altered food products have
something wrong with them that potentially could cause consumer
illness, the biotech industry would rather NOT have you find out
about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple
little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment,
should you choose not to take them on their word.
Why don’t they want labeling? Because it would clearly decrease
their profits, just like it did in Europe once labeling was
implemented.
Doesn’t this remind you of the public health debate that went on
for decades over another multi-billion dollar industry --
cigarettes? For decades the companies producing this cancer-causing
product denied they caused any harm, denied nicotine was addictive,
and even ran advertisements featuring doctors claiming
cigarettes were good for your cough. They produced
study after study by their own scientists claiming
there was no health threat whatsoever from cigarettes.
Executives from every major cigarette company even lied to
Congress under oath, claiming they had no knowledge cigarettes were
addictive, when in fact they did know — they even manipulated the
nicotine content9
of cigarettes to keep you hooked! Bet you didn’t know that, did you?
Genetically engineered foods are just another wolf in the same old
sheep’s clothing. The propaganda and the fraud has worked so well
for so long, why bother changing something that works so well?
Don’t fall for the same old scheme! Instead, read what the few
independent researchers are really saying about the science behind
genetically engineered foods. You can find all previous articles on
this topic on my dedicated
GMO News page.
Monsanto Heads to Supreme Court
Monsanto has long been trying to establish control over the seeds
of the plants that produce food for the world. They have patented a
number of genetically altered food crops, which can only be grown
with proper license, and the seeds which must be purchased anew each
year. Alas, genetically engineered (GE) crops cannot be contained.
And rather than being found guilty of contaminating farmers'
property, Monsanto has successfully sued hundreds of unsuspecting
farmers for patent infringement when unlicensed GE crops were found
growing in their fields. Many farmers have subsequently, quite
literally, lost their farms.
Few have had the fortitude necessary to stand up to Monsanto’s
seemingly limitless power. According to a report10
by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Monsanto had, as of December
2012, filed 142 patent infringement lawsuits against 410 farmers and
56 small businesses in more than 27 states. All in all, Monsanto has
been awarded a staggering $23 million from their mafia tactics so
far11.
Seventy-five year old Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Bowman is one
of the few who is fighting back.12
On February 19, the US Supreme Court began hearing his appeal, in
which he disputes Monsanto's claim that his farm used the patented
seeds without authorization. According to a recent press release:13
“Farmer Bowman legally purchased seeds at a grain
elevator, which bought them from farmers who had, with
Monsanto's authorization, used the genetically modified Monsanto
seeds to grow their soybean crops. Monsanto claims that Mr.
Bowman infringed its patents on herbicide-resistant plants and
seeds by using the grain elevator seeds to grow his soybean
crops. Mr. Bowman asserts that Monsanto's sales of the original
seeds to authorized purchasers exhausted Monsanto's patent
rights and therefore Monsanto cannot enforce its patents against
second-generation and later seeds that resulted from planting
the original seeds.”
The central issue in this case is the extent that a patent holder
(in this case Monsanto) can control its use through multiple
generations of seed.14
Many hope the Supreme Court will deliver a decision that will curb
the current system of patenting seeds and other life forms
(especially food sources). According to Reuters:15
“The court battle has ballooned into a show-down that
merges contentious matters of patent law with an ongoing
national debate about the merits and pitfalls of genetically
altered crops and efforts to increase food production. More than
50 organizations - from environmental groups to intellectual
property experts - as well as the U.S. government, have filed
legal briefs hoping to sway the high court.
Companies developing patented cell lines and tools of
molecular biotechnology could lose their ability to capture the
ongoing value of these technologies if the Supreme Court sides
with Bowman, said Hans Sauer, deputy general counsel for the
Biotechnology Industry Organization.”
Why Won’t President Obama Answer the American People?
So far, there have been two petitions relating to genetically
engineered foods on President Barack Obama’s “We The People”
petition website that have surpassed the signature threshold
required for a response. But instead of addressing the sincere
concerns of the American people, as promised, there has been no
answer forthcoming. Only deafening silence. This despite the fact
that Obama vowed to label GE foods all the way back in 2007, were he
to be elected. He’s now into his second term, and has yet
to make a single move to uphold his initial campaign promise.
The FDA too has failed in its core purpose to protect American
citizens. FDA policies have instead lead to a lack of transparency,
revolving doors with industry, market bullying, seed privatization,
and widespread illness. This despite the many well documented risks
of GE foods...
Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very
narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The
field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the
people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically
Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be
labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated
on LabelitWA.org:
"Calorie and nutritional information were not always
required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and
most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin
labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of
foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these
labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know
with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or
frozen concentrate.
Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods
containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or
animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered
foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the
market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The
research we have is raising serious questions about the impact
to human health and the environment.
I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522
will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply
would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers
change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any
significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to
conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue
enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice,
but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or
consumers."
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like
YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply
because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns
created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food
companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and
mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in
California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any
way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
No matter where you live in the United States, please donate
money to these labeling efforts through the
Organic Consumers Fund.
For timely updates on issues relating to these and other
labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers
Association on
Facebook, or follow them on
Twitter.
Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to
actively support the Washington initiative.