2 Recent Developments Bring Fresh Concerns Over GM Crops
Says New England Journal of Medicine
Could it be that premier scientific journals are finally conveying the truth about GMOs? In a relatively recent exploration of ‘ubiquitous’ GMOs that have taken over our food supply, the New England Journal of Medicine tackles 2 new concerns over genetically modified organisms and the pesticides used to grow them.
As the journal points out, the omnipresence of GMOs are taken for granted by most physicians. They aren’t high on their list of health concerns, and barely receive a mention when patients come for a visit. This might start to change though, due to 2 fresh developments concerning GM crops.
1. The EPA Approved Enlist Due – A Toxic Herbicide Concoction
The first is the fact that there have been “sharp increases in the amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops,” and the numbers are expected to increase.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently approved Enlist Duo, a new combination herbicide comprising glyphosate and 2,4-D, both chemicals have been proven to be extremely dangerous to human health, and equally detrimental to the environment.
Enlist Duo was formulated to combat herbicide-resistance, a seeming paradox of poison meets poison, or a serpent eating its own tale to the most high degree. An infinite loop of disregard for nature only brought about more disregard with an ouroboros-like action.
If only biotech could actually sustain life with its destruction of it. Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, etc. certainly have no plans to plant organic seeds in the burnt carnage they’ve left behind in our fields. In fact, Enlist Duo will be marketed with new GM seeds engineered and approved to withstand the spraying of more glyphosate and 2,4-D than ever before. Even the EPA admitted that it expects a 7-fold increase in the use of these pesticides due to their own approval of the chemical concoction.
How did the EPA manage to give Enlist Duo a green light? They used toxicology studies commissioned by herbicide manufacturers in the 1980’s and 1990’s that were never published – not an uncommon practice in U.S. pesticide regulation. These studies are of toxicology alone, and do not take into consideration the more recent studies showing what these pesticides and herbicides do to our endocrine system.
They also discount all epi-genetic effects, as well as ignoring health risks to infants and small children. Finally, these commissioned studies fail to look at environmental effects, either, as we’ve recently watched our pollinators suffer profoundly. As if this isn’t enough, the studies also fail to look at the ‘inactive’ ingredients in glyphosate or 2,4-D, known to be just as toxic as the active ingredients themselves.
2. The WHO Declares Widely-Used Herbicide “Probably Carcinogenic”
The second new development which is a cause for concern is the declaration by the IARC that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” and 2,4-D is a “possible human carcinogen.”
These classifications were based on comprehensive assessments of the toxicologic and epidemiologic literature that linked both herbicides to dose-related increases in malignant tumors at multiple anatomical sites in animals and linked glyphosate to an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in humans.
These issues were important enough that The National Academy of Sciences convened a new committee to reassess the social, economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM crops. This development is welcome, but the committee’s report is not expected until at least 2016.
Unless we tell the EPA with vehemence that they need to reverse their decision on Enlist Duo, we’re just beginning to see the damage that GMOs can do. Their decision was based on bad science, and likely influenced by the motivations of those within the regulatory body that have deep ties with the biotech industry. The revolving door (see below) is killing our pollinators, us, and our future generations.
The New England Journal of Medicine summarizes the issue:
“We believe the time has come to revisit the United States’ reluctance to label GM foods. Labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops. It would respect the wishes of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right to know what foods they are buying and how they were produced.
And the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer. We hope, in light of this new information, that the FDA will reconsider labeling of GM foods and couple it with adequately funded, long-term postmarketing surveillance.”
The Revolving Door, Biotech, and the Government
Revolving Door Between GMO Companies, And US Government Agencies:
“David W. Beier . . .former head of Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc. . . . chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore when he was Vice President.
- Linda J. Fisher . . .former Assistant Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances…now Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation.
- Michael A. Friedman, M.D. . . former acting commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Department of Health and Human Services . . .now senior vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation.
- Val Giddings . . . former biotechnology regulator and (biosafety) negotiator at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS) . . .now Vice President for Food & Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).
- Marcia Hale . . . former assistant to the President of the United States and director for intergovernmental affairs . . .now Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto Corporation.
- Michael (Mickey) Kantor. . . former Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce and former Trade Representative of the United States . . . now member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation.
- Josh King . . . former director of production for White House events. . . now director of global communication in the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.
- Terry Medley . . . former administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, former chair and vice-chair of the United States Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Council, former member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food advisory committee…and now Director of Regulatory and External Affairs of Dupont Corporation’s Agricultural Enterprise.
- Margaret Miller . . . former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, . . .now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).*
- Michael Phillips . . . recently with the National Academy of Science Board on Agriculture . . . now head of regulatory affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
- William D. Ruckelshaus . . . former chief administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). . .now (and for the past 12 years) a member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation.
- Michael Taylor . . . former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA… still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company… still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration, . . . and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding… now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.*
- Lidia Watrud . . . former microbial biotechnology researcher at Monsanto Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, . . .now with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division.
- Jack Watson. . .former chief of staff to the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, . . .now a staff lawyer with Monsanto Corporation in Washington, D.C.
- Clayton K. Yeutter . . . former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, former U.S. Trade Representative (who led the U.S. team in negotiating the U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement and helped launch the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations), now a member of the board of directors of Mycogen Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.
- Larry Zeph . . . former biologist in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, . . . now Regulatory Science Manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred International.
*Margaret Miller, Michael Taylor, and Suzanne Sechen (an FDA “primary reviewer for all rbST and other dairy drug production applications” ) were the subjects of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in 1994 for their role in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Posilac, Monsanto Corporation’s formulation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbST or rBGH). The GAO Office found “no conflicting financial interests with respect to the drug’s approval” and only “one minor deviation from now superseded FDA regulations”. (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO report).”
 | Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
Thanks for keeping us up to date on this!
Add Tom Vilsack (USDA head) to the list of industry shills as well. He was Monsanto’s gov of the year back when, and tootled around in a Monsanto jet. Vilsack has also endorsed corporatist Hillary Clinton, btw. Beware.
Bernie Sanders, in contrast is in favor of labeling GMOs. His stance isn’t as strong as I’d like, but he’s the only candidate (so far as I know) to have labeling listed on his campaign website. He says that all people have the right to know what’s in their food. YES!
Hey just wanted to drop a temporary note to let you know an email was sent to you. Hope to hear back!
Thank you Christina Sarich for another well researched article. I save them. I share them in my groups. With family and friends. Keep them coming. Xo
If you think this qualifies as a “well researched” article, you really need to expand your reading beyond internet blogs.
A internet search on scientific blogs brings in over 12 million results.
What is your point?
So what? A Google search for “unicorns” turns up 31 million results, but that doesn’t mean unicorns are real.
Try Google Scholar if you want scientifically credibly search results.
Everybody knows google search engines are manipulated.
You keep telling folks to quit getting information from blogs, I just made a point of the 12 million scientists blogs.
Now back to unicorns…
Right. Anyone can blog. That is why I use Google Scholar. Do you know what Google Scholar is?
Yes, it is part of google.
They are working and perfecting their search engine to only reveal search requests that fit what they determine to be their version (agenda) of truth.
Google’s search results are now determined by each page’s so-called
“factiness” — a new algorithm that punishes all content which disagrees
with official sources.
Basically it is designed to fit the MSM and the agenda of presented information, kind of the CNN of search engines.
Though this is just the information being reported through media sources, but that is enough for me to question anything presented within google sources.
No longer reliable, IMHO.
Do you know how Google Scholar results differ from basic Google search results?
Google Scholar returns results for scientific papers. You can use similar search engines, like NCBI’s PubMed or search engines hosted by university libraries. I refer people to Google Scholar as it is the most user friendly for people unfamiliar with searching academic literature.
If you have to resort to arguing that it’s “all a conspiracy”, then you’ve basically admitted that you don’t have a coherent argument.
So there aren’t any revolving door industry shills? ROFLMAO.
Yet again, a scientifically illiterate blogger fails to distinguish the difference between a plant breeding technique and a chemical applied to a plant.
What are the odds people like this could understand a label then?
Fear based labelling is the goal of bloggers like this. No intelligence required.
The New England Journal of Medicine was first published in 1812, not a blog.
National Academy of Sciences, not a blog.
International weekly journal of science isn’t a blog.
Yet again an “activist” that requires a journalist to have a degree for everything they report on. Better call the nightly news and tell them also, I’m sure they will hire 500 reporters with degrees on every subject covered in the hour to do the evening news for you.
And again you are calling everybody stupid.
Indeed. What is your point edh? Please expand or drink the cup of roundup and shut up.
My point is that concern about herbicides don’t equal concerns about genetic engineering. Would you like me to expand on the difference between chemical sprays and plants?
Concerns about biocides ARE concerns about GE because most GMO ‘crops’ are modified to SYSTEMICALLY ABSORB the biocides sprayed on them – meaning that whoever eats the GMO ‘crop’ also eats the poison.
Moreover, it doesn’t matter a rat’s orifice if you relate biocides to GMOs or to ice cream or to Kim Kardashian. THEY ARE DANGEROUS and cause SICKNESS.
Can you please tell me exactly what genetic modification has been introduced to commercial GE crops and how this modification operates on a molecular level?
If you can’t do this, then you can’t say “GE because most GMO ‘crops’ are modified to SYSTEMICALLY ABSORB the biocides sprayed on them”. At least you can’t say that honestly and with confidence.
Are you telling me that you can cite peer-reviewed studies from these sources that directly support your beliefs? If so, please be my guest…..
Again you are distracting from the point.
Argument can be found in anything.
As with most activists, your ignoring my points and demanding yours are of more importance.
Which means I’ll ignore your attempts at baiting for further argument.
Please reply to my comments first.
How am I distracting from the point?? YOU cited sources and I asked for those sources. Stop being evasive. You’re claims seem to disappear the moment a tiny bit of scrutiny is applied.
You said blog, I referenced the sources linked in the article and stated they weren’t blogs. Then you went on to demand peer review studies?
I also made a point of your observation that only scientists can be journalists.
I also made mention of your intellectual prowess and the reference to the peasant class inability to not understand the article due to lack of educated understanding.
Maybe the communication breakdown was somewhere within the first 3 comments.
I guess you will need to enlighten the readers as to your communicative intention and assumptions.
The sources cited this thus blog refer herbicides, not GM crops. A person writing about a scientific topic doesn’t have to be a scientist, but he or she should be scientifically literate. This author is decidedly not.
Thank you for your thoughts, I can respect that.
You have me doing some research on the GE process and the promoters was very interesting.
I also researched the junk DNA and the recent discovery’s. This was really interesting.
I might give you kind of a hard time but you are learning me, lol.
Thank you for inspiring me.
Wow. Talk about a surprise 🙂
I must admit I didn’t expect you to say anything like that. Encouraging people to learn more about genetic engineering is the only reason to comment here. Please, if you haven’t questions don’t hesitate to ask.
My own views are evolving. I understand that people are uncomfortable with this technology. I’m trying to better understand the reasons for that discomfort. I found a book recently that you might find interesting. It’s call Tomorrow’s Table. It’s written by a husband and wife, he’s an organic farmer and she is a professor who does plant genetic engineering. I haven’t read it yet, but if you are interested in learning more about this issue it might be a good read.
One last thing, you’ve said few times that I think people are stupid. I honestly think nothing of the sort. I never meant to give that impression. I don’t consider myself any smarter than the average person. I just happen to have asset of knowledge the average person does not. If I thought people were stupid, I wouldn’t be here trying to share my knowledge with them.
All the best.
I did some research and ended up at the Bayes theorem. There was a math problem involved. A lot of people thought they were very smart, but all got it wrong.
Care to elaborate?
Sure, no problem.
100% of the people got it wrong.
What is your answer?
Got what wrong? Give some details. What time period are you even talking about? Bayes theorem dates back to the 17th century. Surely, you understand what a strawman fallacy is, don’t you? You seem dangerously close to committing one.
I’m not sure I understand your motivation.
There was a mathematical equation referring to a cancer statistic. I don’t know math that well, but my guesstimate was 8%, I think the real answer was 7.8 %.
What are you accusing me of?
Bayes theorem dates back to the late 1700’s, so I can’t understand why you think this is relevant. Regardless, the point you’re attempting to make sounds like a strawman fallacy, which is when someone presents a point unrelated to the topic (i.e. you’re bringing up mathematical theorems when the subject at hand is genetic engineering) and then attempts to refute that point as a basis from which to argue the original topic. From what I gather, you’re attempting to argue that because people were wrong about this statistical problem we therefore shouldn’t trust the science behind genetic engineering because people might be wrong. That’s absolutely fallacious as there is no connection between the two topics. You might not even be aware of the logical fallacy committed. It’s a common mistake people make during informal debates.
From your first comment,
Yet again, a scientifically illiterate blogger fails to distinguish the
difference between a plant breeding technique and a chemical applied to a
plant.
At that point this topic was pretty much done!!
Since I’m not affiliated with any, I might have went off on a tangent, but I’m sharing information, whether Bayes rules are from the 1700’s or not is it still information and yes still trained in today’s modern world. I’m just applying to the critical thinkers here and giving them an analytical problem which leads to discovery.
Why are you attacking EVERYTHING?
Isn’t this about sharing information?
Perhaps I misunderstood your point regarding Bayes theorem. In which case, I’m still confused as to what this has to do with GMOs.
I’m afraid I’m not even clear on what we’re talking about anymore. Unless we can reach a point of clarity, I suggest we drop this thread.
Answer, 85% or the people got it wrong.
As I understand the therom, it is used to manipulate statistical analysis to achieve a desired outcome.
Yep. You’ve covered it. Trolls never learn, however.
Do your homework.
No one here will do it for you.
No one here obeys industry shills.
I have a PhD in this field. I “do my homework” on a daily basis as part of my job. Until you can say the same, you’re in no position to tell me to “do my homework”.
You said that a LOT more politely than I would have! Thanks!
Thanks tsyganka, though I have gotten a little emotional a few times.
I’m trying to fix myself and just post informational.
My mind set is more along the lines of self reliance, preparedness and survival.
INFORMED CONSENT labeling is the goal. Every citizen has the right to know what he/she is buying in order to choose healthful products. Otherwise (as the industry admits to no long-term studies on humans), we’re being used in a grotesque medical experiment WITHOUT our informed consent.
“Contains GMOs.” “Made with GMOs.”
“GMO-free.” “Contains no GMOs.”
Nothing hard about it at all!
: D
If a company wishes to be gmo free or contains no gmos then that’s fine. However, to force a company is wrong, when there is no scientific reason for it.
INFORMED CONSENT is vital to a free country.
GMOs and their associated biocides are linked to disease. Reputable independent studies have shown so. Monsanto, however, buys toadies to produce specific results. Monsanto has been caught at it.
Informed consent is vital. Without it, you are FORCING citizens to take part in a grotesque medical experiment on GMOs.
They are linked to no disease. This has been proven time and again. However, if a person chooses not to, then they should be able to opt out. That is why we have organic and non gmo labels. If they want to eat special foods then they should have special labels, not forcing them on people that don’t want them.
They ARE linked to disease. This has been proved time and again and also upheld by courts.
Why should healthful (organic, non-GMO) producers be the only ones to label? A non-labeled product is misleading because most folks think that it’s safe or else the FDA (snort, ROFL) would Say something. Most would assume that it’s non-GMO, since the FDA hasn’t said anything to the contrary and, moreover, has had a voluntary labeling program in place for ca. 14 years. Most folks do not know this, and NOT ONE corporation has labeled its GMOs.
No label on a GMO product is misleading and dangerous – just like a “sweetener” label instead of an “aspartame” label or a “HFCS” label is.
Show us the court cases where the gmos have been proven dangerous. Secondly, organic and non gmo should be labeled if desired, because they are the ones that mistaken believe their products are “different”.
As soon as the medical sciences are allowed to do studies and catch up in their research, their will be proof.
Also labeling GMO’s will assist and aid in this process.
So you have none, thank you.
There are many, but the GMO advocates just rant and rave throwing COI statistical analysis studies at the Anti GMO folks.
I could post many, but history would repeat itself.
Worst part, you already know all of this.
I would be happy with just one. Any one. I really don’t think that is an unreasonable request.
Look up Dr Judy Carman.
I find no court cases with her name.
whoops, court cases, I apologize for that.
That’s ok it happens.
I don’t take orders from GMO shills. I did my research. You do yours.
GMOs should be labeled. Absence of a label makes consumers think that GMOs are ‘safe.’ It’s like absence of a label on cigarette packs. Proposed legislation doesn’t even mandate (though it should) saying that GMOs are pathogenic – just “made with GMOs” or “contains GMOs.”
First of all they are safe, secondly thank you for proving that there are no court cases backing up your claims, and lastly even the proposed laws do not cover gmo fed meat and dairy. Your precious gmo free Ben and Jerry’s even use milk from cows fed gmos, because milk is considered exempt.
The scientific community is being extremely condescending in all regards. That’s behavioral science, so there is a scientific reason.
Just that within itself means there is a reason for GMO labels.
Are you a paid troll or just doing this because you … care? Either way, you’re following the troll playbook. This is a lot more than your ancient ancestor’s “plant breeding.” You might want to do more independent homework before trying to flame things up.
What’s the difference between splicing plants and engineering pesticides and vaccines into them?
Nope, I’m not being paid by anyone to comment. I do this because I care about people understanding science and because I don’t tolerate those who deliberately mislead the public.
Thanks, I’ve done my “independent homework “. I have a graduate degree in this field and do research that involves the use of genetic engineering.
“Splicing plants”? Do you mean mixing genes between plant species? That already happens naturally, through hybridization and horizontal gene transfer. Moving genes between species doesn’t pose any inherent risk.
Lots of plants naturally produce pesticides, some of which are quite toxic. Perhaps you’ve heard of nicotine. Engineering pesticides, like Bt cry proteins,into plants does pose potential risks. Each new modification must be evaluated for safety.
As for vaccines, there aren’t any commercial GM plants containing vaccines so why are you bringing this up?
BULL. Breeding plants with plants is normal. Genetically manipulating plants by forcing DNA of UNRELATED SPECIES into them is totally different and abnormal. Also, the industries themselves have said that they’re genetically manipulating (mutilating) plants to contain DRUGS, VACCINES, etc.
Please tell me what specifically is inherently dangerous about transferring DNA, say the gene encoding glucose-6-phosphatase, from the genome of an carrot into a potato?
The fact is, there is nothing inherently dangerous about this process. You don’t understand what you’re talking about and are operating on the basis of emotion and ignorance, as opposed to an educated understanding of the subject matter.
Most GMO ‘plants’ are manipulated to SYSTEMICALLY ABSORB without ‘damage’ (without dying) the pesticides sprayed on them. Thus, whoever eats the plant also eats the POISON.
Moreover, there is a RADICAL difference between normal plant breeding and artificial genetic modification (manipulation, mutilation) that introduces foreign DNA of a different species into a plant.