FDA Approves GMO Apples & Potatoes, Likely No Labeling
From the organization that brought you the approval of suicide-linked Prozac, a side effect which the drug manufacturing was fully aware of before selling to the public, comes a new declaration: the new GMO apples and potatoes are perfectly safe! Better yet, they’re just as nutritious as conventional crops. And chances are you won’t even know if you’re eating them.
Then again, you may be unaware of the announcement last November that the first genetically modified potato had been approved for planting — a move that we knew would lead to full scale approval by the alphabet agencies (FDA, USDA, EPA). The potato, along with the new GMO apple, is designed to be resistant to browning through alteration of its natural enzymes.
The latest announcement from the US Food and Drug Administration on their latest round of ‘safety’ analysis regarding GMO crops is highly predictable. And I bring the term ‘safety’ testing into question for good reason. Let us not forget that it was back in February of 2012 that Bloomberg revealed the special ‘speedy approval process’ behind GMO crops that the USDA was implementing.
In other words, special exemptions for biotech giants like Monsanto.
And the FDA is ‘still deciding’ whether to require some labeling on the GMOs, but chances are they won’t require any labeling indicating that they’ve been genetically modified. The manufacturers will also not be indicating that the products have been modified, though they may place a ‘snowflake logo’ on the apples somehow. As the Wall Street Journal reports:
“The FDA is still deciding whether to require labels on the apple or potato, alerting consumers to the traits that make them different from conventional varieties. The agency is unlikely to require a label that identifies the products as being modified.”
Following the planting approval for GMO potatoes back in November of 2014, food experts spoke out against the ‘worrisome’ results of the planting. Here’s what Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., director of sustainable agriculture and senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), had to say on the issue:
“We simply don’t know enough about RNA interference technology to determine whether GE crops developed with it are safe for people and the environment. If this is an attempt to give crop biotechnology a more benign face, all it has really done is expose the inadequacies of the U.S. regulation of GE crops. These approvals are riddled with holes and are extremely worrisome… We need answers to these questions before these potatoes are commercialized”
Now that these produce items have officially been signed off on by the FDA, we enter yet again a new age of genetically modified crops that top experts agree will cause ‘global consequences’ that we do not yet understand.
Every GMO product should be labeled as such some of us do not want to ingest poision
GM apple approved in Canada over consumer and farmer objections
The apple is genetically modified to not turn brown after being cut.
Polls show that almost 70% of Canadians did not want this GM apple
approved.
Just like the American government the Canadian gov’t doesn’t listen to the voice of the people.
There was public opposition to seat belts when they were introduced too. Public opinion doesn’t tell you anything about the nature of a product, all it tells you is how the public feels about that product. It doesn’t even tell you anything about how well the public understands a product.
No. GM potatoes have not reached the stage of commercial production yet.
Browning is the oxidation of particular metabolites in the apple, particular polyphenolics many of which are antioxidants. No, there is no reason to think that digestion of Arctic Apples will be any different from that of a regular apple. If anything, Arctic Apples may have higher levels of antioxidants as oxidation (browning) results in an effective loss of these compounds.
These who are pushing this kind of science are criminals, renegades against life for their profit and egos. It’s mad science.
People fear what they don’t understand. Genetic engineering is very complicated, but it’s not inherently dangerous. It’s just a tool.
It’s been a big news week for the GMO labeling movement
The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed that Roundup causes cancer.
The New York Times reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has known this all along, but failed to act.
And Congress just reintroduced a bill, written by Monsanto and Big
Food, intended to take away your right to know about GMOs. Permanently.
An anonymous donor in New England has stepped up with a matching
funds offer that expires March 31. Can you help us raise another
$110,000 to meet our goal of $200,000 by March 31 to fund GMO labeling
in Maine, and in other New England states, including Massachusetts? Details on how to donate online, by check or by phone here.
Never has it been more urgent to get labels on GMO foods.
And never has it been more obvious that the federal government has no
intention of protecting consumers from the risks associated with GMO
foods—including the fact that nearly all of them are grown with
glyphosate, a known carcinogen.
It’s up to us. We have to act before it’s too late.
Late last week, WHO released its findings that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, “probably” causes cancer.
Days later, a new report surfaced that linked to official EPA
documents showing that in 1985, the EPA classified glyphosate as a Class
C carcinogen. Six years later, just about the time former Monsanto
lawyer Michael Taylor got himself installed in a key position at the
U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), the EPA reversed that
decision.
Thanks to the FDA, in the early 1990s GMOs were (illegally, according
to some experts) classified as “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO
foods and “Generally Recognized as Safe”—a classification that exempts
them from any pre-market safety testing.
Since then, a long list of credible scientists have challenged the safety of GMO foods. But this much is irrefutable: Monsanto’s glyphosate is the cornerstone of GMO crops
(whether those crops go into human food products, animal feed or
biofuels). Glyphosate causes cancer. And the FDA, EPA and USDA have
failed to protect us from what they’ve known all along is a
cancer-causing toxin, widely used on our food, and prevalent in our
drinking water.
Monsanto and Big Food have spent millions to corrupt the political
process, manipulate the mass media and keep consumers in the dark. They
would like nothing more than for us to give up this fight.
Now is not the time to give up. Now is the time to ramp up the pressure, and take a stand for consumer and states’ rights.
Our lives depend on it. Because while you may not drop dead instantly
after eating glyphosate-drenched GMO foods, Monsanto’s chemicals linger
in your body, quietly waiting for an opportunity.
We’re grateful for the generosity of our anonymous New England donor. Please help us make the most of this generous offer by donating today to run strong GMO labeling campaigns in Maine, Massachusetts and other New England states.
Congress will have a much more difficult time ramming through their bill
to preempt states’ rights to label GMOs, if we can pass a few more
strong state laws asap.
This isn’t original research. This is a reprocessing other data produced by other researchers, who didn’t come to similar conclusions. I do not like the way Seralini often presents data in his papers. It’s often obtuse and overly processed. For example, presenting results as % changes can be very misleading as a small changes at low values produce large % changes that may not be biologically relevant. Furthermore, the results seem to lack dose dependent responses. In a number of cases, for rats consuming feed containing 11% GM corn a positive % change is seen whereas a negative % change is seen for rats consuming feed containing 33% GM corn.
In my view, Seralini is not an objective scientist. He has a very clear agenda and produces “research” to match that agenda.