Toxic Industrial Standards Are No
Longer Invincible
March 03, 2015
Story at-a-glance
-
On January 24, a statement signed by 300 scientists,
researchers, physicians, and scholars asserts that there is
no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs
-
The paper states that the claim of scientific consensus on
GMO safety is “an artificial construct that has been falsely
perpetuated”
-
Increasing numbers of federal lawsuits against polluting
CAFOs demonstrates that opposition against the status quo of
toxic food production is strengthening
-
Recent tests found that 62 percent of conventional honeys
and 45 percent of organic varieties contained levels of
glyphosate above permissible limits
By Dr. Mercola
A number of developments, including an increasing number of
lawsuits, suggest that toxic industrial standards are no longer
being shrugged off as a necessary cost of modern living. People
really are starting to wake up to the very literal mess that we're
in.
For example, large factory farms, so-called confined animal
feeding operations (CAFOs), generate massive amounts of toxic runoff
that threaten water supplies and ecological health.
Genetically engineered (GE) crop fields onto which large amounts
of toxic pesticides are applied are also being increasingly
challenged by concerned scientists, both for the potential hazard
that genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) pose, and the more well-recognized hazards
posed by the chemicals.
Attention Journalists—Start Reporting GMO Science Accurately!
In response to the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
deregulation of the GE Arctic ® apple, the Consumers Union, Friends
of the Earth, Center for Food Safety, and Pesticide Action Network
put out a joint statement1,2
calling on media to start reporting the science of GMOs accurately.
At present, most if not all media coverage discussing GMOs is
little more than a regurgitation of biased and inaccurate "facts"
churned out by the industry PR machine. The March issue of National
Geographic,3
which addresses "the war on science," is no exception to this rule.
If there's a war on science, it's being waged against the
real science of GMOs, which tends to produce results that run
contrary to the industry's glossy advertisements.
A major objection raised by sustainability advocates such as
myself is against false reporting of science that either does not
exist or has been convoluted by special interest groups.
In fact, we're all trying to get the media and the chemical
technology industry to address the actual science already,
which is pointing to the fact that there are serious risks involved.
You can look forward to my upcoming interview with Steven Druker
later this month. He is the attorney who sued the FDA for their
decision that made GMOs possible in 1992. An absolutely fascinating
story that will reveal details you're likely unaware of.
300 Scientists Proclaim: There Is NO Scientific Consensus on GMO
Safety
On January 24, a statement signed by 300 scientists, researchers,
physicians, and scholars was published in the peer-reviewed journal
Environmental Sciences Europe,4
asserting that there is no scientific
consensus on the safety of GMOs.
Moreover, the paper, aptly titled "No Scientific Consensus on GMO
Safety", states that the claim of scientific consensus on
GMO safety is in actuality "an artificial construct that has been
falsely perpetuated."
The paper—which, again, bears the signatures of hundreds of
scientists and academics—also notes that such a claim "is
misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently
available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific
opinions among scientists on this issue."
The idea of "scientific consensus" has been repeated so many
times that many people believe it must be true. It's time to sit up
and take notice, and to call journalists out on their lack of
professional integrity when making such claims.
According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, senior scientist and
director of sustainable agriculture at the Center for Food Safety:5
"Preeminent science bodies like the National Research
Council have recognized that some engineered foods could pose
considerable risk. It is widely recognized by scientists that
those risks depend on the particular engineered gene and crop.
It is unfortunate that self-appointed advocates for the
technology have selectively cited the literature and
organizations to suggest that GE crops, generally, present no
risks that warrant concern."
Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist at Consumers Union adds:
"Not one independent, public safety study has been
carried out on the Arctic apple, and yet some media stories have
reported it is 'safe.'
We call on the press to accurately report on the science
of GMOs, particularly the health and environmental concerns
raised by scientists and the lack of required safety studies
that leave questions about the safety of genetically engineered
foods."
Hundreds of scientists have now put it out in black and white:
There is no consensus among scientists that GMOs are safe.
On the contrary, there are all sorts of concerns—virtually all of
which are being ignored by the media. Contrary to what you read or
hear in conventional news, the joint statement concludes that:
"…the totality of scientific research outcomes in the
field of GM crop safety is nuanced; complex; often contradictory
or inconclusive; confounded by researchers' choices,
assumptions, and funding sources; and, in general, has raised
more questions than it has currently answered...
Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture
should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims
by an internal circle of likeminded stakeholders that a
'scientific consensus' exists on GMO safety."
Points of Objection to 'Consensus of Safety' Claim
The authors and co-signers of No Scientific Consensus on GMO
Safety,6
raise the following six points of objection to the claim of
"scientific consensus" with regards to the safety of genetically
engineered foods:
There is no consensus in the science |
According to a comprehensive review7
of peer-reviewed animal feeding studies of GMOs published in
2011, there are as many studies raising concerns about GE
foods as there are studies proclaiming them to be as safe
and nutritious as conventional foods.
Moreover, the review notes that most studies declaring GE
foods comparable to conventional foods were performed by
biotechnology companies or associated parties. |
There are no epidemiological studies
investigating potential health effects of GE food on human
health |
As noted by Friends of the Earth, "with no
epidemiological studies, claims that 'trillions of GMO
meals' have been eaten with no ill effects have no
scientific basis." There's also the inconvenient fact that
one GE supplement actually did kill. In the 1980s,
the supplement L-tryptophan, which was the result of genetic
engineering, was the first major GMO catastrophe, killing
dozens of people who took it.
Thousands were seriously sickened, and of those, hundreds
contracted a rare and disabling disorder named
eosinophilia–myalgia syndrome (EMS).
The idea that you can claim GMOs safe for human consumption
over an entire lifetime without presenting so much as a
shred of scientific evidence—THAT is "war" on science! |
GMO studies are frequently mischaracterized as
showing safety |
One example of this is the EU Research Project, which
has been internationally cited as providing evidence of GMO
safety. Alas, this research was not designed to test safety,
and provides no reliable evidence of such.
"Another example is the false claim that 'hundreds of
studies' listed on the biotechnology website Biofortified
demonstrate GMO safety; in fact, many of the studies on that
list do not address safety concerns at all, and several of
the studies raise serious concerns," the featured press
release states. |
International agreements show widespread
recognition of risks posed by GMO foods and crops |
Agreements such as the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety
and the UN Codex Alimentarius agree that genetic engineering
differs from conventional breeding. Many pro-GMO reporters
compare genetic engineering of plants to that of
conventional cross-breeding and hybridization—completely
ignoring the fact that nature does not cross-breed across
kingdoms, blending insect and plant DNA for example.
According to the World Health Organization8
(WHO), GMOs are "organisms in which the genetic material
(DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur
naturally by mating and/or natural recombination."
International agreements also concur in their
recommendations that safety assessments are necessary prior
to introducing GMOs into the environment or the food supply. |
Claims that government and scientific
organizations endorse safety are exaggerated or inaccurate |
The featured statement9
notes that: "Reports by the Royal Society of Canada and
British Medical Association have noted that some GMOs could
be of considerable harm.
The positions of some prominent scientific organizations
have been misrepresented or opposed by members, further
highlighting the lack of consensus among scientists."
In the US, the American Academy of Environmental
Medicine10
(AAEM) has called on all physicians to prescribe diets
without genetically modified (GM) foods to all
patients. They've also called for a moratorium on
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), long-term independent
studies, and labeling, stating:
"Several animal studies indicate serious health risks
associated with GM food, including infertility, immune
problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes
in major organs and the gastrointestinal system… There is
more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse
health effects. There is causation…" |
There is no consensus on environmental impacts
of GMOs |
Scientists have also raised a number of concerns about
the impact of increased pesticide and herbicide use to human
and environmental health. For example, the
toxicity of Monsanto's Roundup appears to have been
vastly underestimated according to some researchers, and
others have discovered previously
unknown mechanisms of harm by glyphosate. Serious safety
concerns have also been raised about
neonicotinoids and other commonly used pesticides. |
Federal Lawsuits Over CAFOs Are Increasing
Moving on to other related issues demonstrating that opposition
against the status quo of toxic food production is strengthening.
This trend includes a rising number of federal lawsuits being filed
against confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). As reported by
Des Moines Register:11
"From Washington state to North Carolina, federal
lawsuits are challenging the efficient, profitable livestock
industry to change its ways. The arguments found in the lawsuits
are based on studies that increasingly show the impact
phosphorous, nitrate and bacteria from fertilizer and
accumulated manure have on lakes and rivers as well as air
pollution that may be harmful to respiratory health... Earlier
this year, a federal judge in eastern Washington ruled that an
industrial dairy farm's manure management practices posed an
'imminent and substantial endangerment' to the environment and
to thousands relying on well water."
A sobering statistic from the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) says that 68 percent of American lakes, reservoirs, and ponds,
and more than 50 percent of rivers and streams are now adversely
impacted by toxic agricultural runoff. Hog-producing states such as
Iowa and North Carolina are seeing an uprising of residents
complaining about declining water and air quality.
In both of those states, lawsuits have been filed to curb the
growing pollution produced by large-scale pork producers. Des Moines
Water Works, for example, recently filed a notice of intent to sue
CAFOs in three neighboring counties under the federal Clean Water
Act for polluting the city's water supply with nitrates,
12,13
which is costing them $7,000 day to filter out. According to Bill
Stowe, CEO and general manager of the utility:
"In this state, obviously, industrial agriculture is
king. We'll continue to get a lot of blowback, but our
ratepayers are first and foremost in our minds and they're tired
of paying for other people's pollution."
New York Passes Bill to Protect Farmers Against Monsanto
In New York, lawmakers have stepped in to help protect farmers in
the state against
lawsuits from Monsanto and other biotech companies, should they
inadvertently end up with genetically engineered plants in their
fields. The bill was passed by the state's Assembly on February 16.
As reported by the Cornucopia Institute:14
"Seed producers have sued farmers around the country for
allegedly growing their bioengineered crops without buying the
seed. Farmers often argue the seeds arrived by wind or other
natural means. Assemblyman Tom Abinanti said... that his
legislation will make it easier for New York farmers to defend
themselves against frivolous lawsuits. He says that in the case
of organic farmers, genetically modified seeds are seen as a
contaminant."
Toxins Showing Up Here, There, and Everywhere...
Meanwhile, researchers report finding flame retardants and
pesticide byproducts at potentially toxic levels in sharks, rays,
and other marine life in the Indian River Lagoon and the ocean off
the coast of Brevard County, Florida.15
Shark livers have been found to contain byproducts of DDT and other
pesticides banned decades ago, showing just how long these toxins
remain in the environment... Further north, in Maryland, lawmakers
have started working on proposed legislation that would limit the
use of neonicotinoid pesticides, which have been shown to decimate
bee populations. As reported by the Associated Press:16
"The Pollinator Protection Act would require any plants,
seeds or nursery stock treated with certain pesticides to
include a warning label. It also seeks to prevent people who are
not experienced with using the pesticides, which are known as
'neonics,' from using them... 'The critical issues are neonic
pesticides are a major contributor to honeybee decline,
resulting in Maryland beekeepers losing nearly 50 percent of
their hives in 2012,' said Sen. Shirley Nathan-Pulliam, who is
sponsoring the bill."
Under this bill, neonicotinoids would only be available for sale
to certified applicators, farmers, and veterinarians. Joe
Miedusiewski, a lobbyist representing landscapers,
horticulturalists, and golf course superintendents expressed
opposition to the bill, saying it would have "a devastating economic
effect on our industry." What fascinates me is the pathological
shortsightedness of these industry representatives. What good will
it do to have money if you kill off all the pollinating insects,
without which we cannot produce food? Even the most ignorant must
still eat, but they act as thought they'll be able to somehow
survive without such basics...
EPA Study Finds No Financial or Agricultural Benefits of Bee-Killing
Neonicotinoids
One recent EPA study17
concluded that treating soybean
seeds with neonicotinoids provides no significant financial or
agricultural benefits for farmers. Moreover, the researchers note
there are several other foliar insecticides available that can
combat pests as effectively as neonicotinoid seed treatments.
In response to these findings, researchers from the pesticide
industry met with EPA pesticide regulators in a closed meeting to
discuss the value of neonicotinoids. According to two researchers
with Ag Informatics, banning neonicotinoids "would impose $848
million a year in initial transition costs on the agriculture
industry and lead to huge increases in the use of older, more
dangerous and less effective insecticides," Bloomberg18
reports.
They also claim that neonicotinoids are applied to 56 percent of
all corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, and sorghum crops planted in the
US, and that (based on a phone survey), 75-80 percent of farmers in
the US and Canada say they would continue to use
neonicotinoid-treated seeds even if non-treated seeds were
available. While it's possible that many conventional farmers would
be clueless enough to take that route, I think it's foolish to
propose that a toxic substance should remain on the market and/or
avoid regulation simply because a phone poll suggests farmers
wouldn't switch to less toxic alternatives even if they had the
option!
Should We Continue Feeding Antibiotics to Livestock?
Pesticide producers and GE monocropping farmers are not the only
ones lacking long-term survival skills. The same shortsightedness
can be found among drug companies and livestock producers—not to
mention our regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). An infographic in National Geographic19
lays out the statistics on the use of antibiotics in livestock, and
it's a sad state of affairs indeed.
Eighty percent of all antibiotics sold in the US are given to
poultry and livestock raised in CAFOs, which has led to a man-made
plague of antibiotic-resistant infections that is now killing 23,000
Americans each year. Yet livestock producers insist on continuing
the practice to keep their meats "affordable." Well, over half of
all the "affordable" chicken sold in your local grocery store is
tainted with drug-resistant E.coli, and one could definitely argue
that should you contract such an infection, you're not getting out
of it cheaply!
More Toxic News...
So what else is going on? How about toxic
glyphosate being detected in honey, including organic honey...
That's the verdict issued by Boston University researchers20
working in collaboration with Abraxis LLC. In all, 62 percent of
conventional honeys and 45 percent of organic varieties were tainted
with glyphosate.
Health experts in Argentina, which has long struggled with the
health effects of pesticides, is also reaching out with dire
warnings again. According to Dr. Medardo Ávila-Vázquez,21
a pediatrician and neonatologist at the Faculty of Medical Sciences
at the National University of Córdoba, glyphosate use in connection
to GMO seeds is having a notably deleterious effect on the health of
the local people, particularly children.
"We must recognize that the agrochemicals used are all
poisonous: herbicides like glyphosate, 2,4-D...or Atrazine, are
designed to kill plants, and endosulfan, chlorpyrifos,
dimethoate, cypermethrin, imidacloprid, etc. are designed to
kill insects and are the most widely used; they all have
deleterious effects on human health and the environment,"
he writes.
"The use of these pesticides has been increasing
exponentially since 1990: back then, 30 million liters of
poisons were used; during the 2012/2013 crop season more than
318 million liters were applied. On the same hectare where 2 or
3 liters of glyphosate were used per year, today 8 or 12 liters
are used with 1.5 liters of 2,4-D in addition. In Santiago del
Estero, Salta, and Chaco (north-western Argentina) up to 20
liters/ha/year of Round Up are used."
The Results of Global 'Live' Testing of Chemical-Based Agriculture
Are In
Nearly two decades-worth of heavy pesticide use is now showing
its real-life effects in Argentinean disease and mortality
statistics. There has been a notable increase in respiratory
problems, chronic dermatitis, depression, immune and endocrine
disorders, for example. Miscarriages have skyrocketed, and 23
percent of women of childbearing age report having had at least one
miscarriage in the past five years. Infertility among both men and
women has significantly increased. Among animals—those
proverbial canaries in the coal mine—up to 100 percent of
spontaneous abortions and premature deaths have been due to
malformations linked to pesticide exposure.
Birth deformities are also rising—especially among mothers
exposed to pesticides during the first few months of pregnancy. In
some towns, birth deformities and defects such as Down's syndrome,
spina bifida, and neural tube defects occur at three times the
normal rate. Data also show that 30 percent of deaths in areas where
pesticides are sprayed are due to cancer, while the average cancer
death rate is less than 20 percent.
"Significantly, the date coincides with the expansion in
the use of glyphosate and other agrochemicals massively applied
in those areas. In May 2014, the Ministry of Health of the
Province of Córdoba published data from its cancer registry,
confirming that in the most intensive agricultural areas, deaths
due to cancer exceed by 100 percent those in the city, and by 70
percent the provincial average," Dr. Medardo Ávila-Vázquez
writes.22
"For 100 000 years our species was in contact with
minimum amounts of these toxins, but now, thanks to
biotechnology, we are exposed to massive amounts of these
proteins... Today we know that 40 percent of the genes of the
human genome are shared with plants and regulate our cellular
activities as in the plants, we also know that 60 percent of the
genes of insects such as the fruit fly are in our genetic code.
In other words, we share with insects and plants many
mechanisms of cellular metabolism. When we attack these
mechanisms with a heavy arsenal of chemicals, to block or
distort them, to kill plants or insects, we cannot ignore the
fact that these toxic products can reach people, either through
occupational exposure, residential exposure or by ingesting food
or water contaminated with residues, and may well have adverse
effects on them; we cannot presuppose that they are harmless."
What Are We Doing, and Where Are We Headed?
Last but not least, an article by Elizabeth Grossman23
titled "What Are We Doing to Our Children's Brains?" raises
the issue of toxic exposures via food, air, and water, and
neurological health. Clearly all these toxins are not making our
children smarter. I think that's a fairly reasonable assumption. The
question is when will our lawmakers and industry bigwigs recognize
the true cost of doing business as usual? How many people must be
completely dysfunctional before food is recognized as something that
actually must be pure? Grossman writes:
"The numbers are startling. According to the US Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.8 million more
children in the US were diagnosed with developmental
disabilities between 2006 and 2008 than a decade earlier. During
this time, the prevalence of autism climbed nearly 300
percent... CDC figures also show that 10 to 15 percent of all
babies born in the US have some type of neurobehavorial
development disorder."
Statistics like these tell us that we are well past the point
where one can argue that "a little bit of toxin won't do any harm"
because our environment and food supply is filled with
tens of thousands of substances thought to be "harmless," in
and of themselves, in the amounts used. But it's not just one
chemical; one toxin. Even those who make an effort to avoid known
toxins are undoubtedly ingesting and breathing and absorbing a
plethora of chemicals every day, most of which have never even been
studied for safety.
It's the combination of all these exposures that spell
doom for future generations—unless we act swiftly. Toxic industries
have been allowed to flourish and dictate how our food is grown,
processed and sold. But this is not the only system available. There
are other
non-toxic agricultural systems that can feed the world more
efficiently, while simultaneously nourishing and protecting
soils and wildlife. We need to make a U-turn, and we need to do it
now. Regrettably, it may already be too late in some respects,
considering just how long some toxins linger in the environment, but
doing nothing will assure the end of our species... The
choice is ours. You vote for the world you want to live in every
time you open your pocketbook, so please take each of those
opportunities seriously. Together, we can steer the food
industry in a new direction.
Help Support GMO Labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil
Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about
what’s in your food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate
agribusiness have exercised near-dictatorial control over American
agriculture.
Finally public opinion around the biotech industry's
contamination of our food supply and destruction of our environment
has reached the tipping point. We're fighting back.
The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage you to
boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including
natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support
comes from individual consumers like you, who understand that real
change comes from the grassroots.
Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) to fight back against these corporate giants. So
please, fight for your right to know what’s in your food and help
support the GMO labeling movement by making a donation today.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
Together, Let's Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve
Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found very few
organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a
public interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice
and sustainability. A central focus of the OCA is building a
healthy, equitable, and sustainable system of food production and
consumption.
Please make a donation to help OCA fight for GMO labeling.
Copyright 1997- 2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/03/toxic-industrial-standards-no-longer-visible.aspx
|