Category: GMO – Genetically Modified Organisms

All post about GMO’s

GMO is crossing Interspecies DNA – Doesn’t this Worry You?

Non-GMO foodAs the FDA IGNORES a public that wants GMO food labeled the New York Times has written an article that is in favor of labeling.

A lot of what I read is concerned with the pesticides used in GMOs which is creating health problems, but, not much is written about the mixing of interspecies DNA. The difference between creating a hybrid apple tree, let’s say, is that apple trees are used to create a new strain, not cows, pigs, cockroaches, lobsters or any other species DNA.

GMO’s can use any other animal, insect, even HUMAN DNA to create GMOs, without telling us that it has been done. They have been protected by the FDA. They do not have to tell us, they don’t have to do any lab testing. WE are the guinea pigs. And, they can’t be held liable for disease, illness or death caused by their freak food.

Read this article and when you go to the grocery store purchase food products that have joined the non-GMO labeling system for your health and your families health. New York Times article.

Your money is your most powerful weapon in creating safe, healty food sources.


After 20 YEARS! a Victory in Vermont for Labeling GMO’s


After 20 YEARS! a Victory in Vermont for Labeling GMO’s

Earth Day is this week and how fitting that finally the first law has been passed to make the agribusiness giants label foods that contain GMOs. People have a right to know what is in their food. Our strength grows as we are vocal by signing petitions and calling/writing our representatives to pass GMO labeling laws, purchasing organic food, growing our own organic food, shopping at farmers markets …. and other activities that raise our voices against global corporate giants that care nothing about our health, the environment or our families. But, here is, finally, a beginning. It is not the end, just the beginning and kudos to the Vermont representatives who have stood up to agribusiness global giants.

Read more

Sign the Petition to Tom Vilsack, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture

OCA-circle-logo-b90From Organic Consumers Association


Link to sign the petition

Well placed people in the government, neverending pockets of money, the ability to maneuver the news media and keep information from consumers about what is in their food. People have a RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN THEIR FOOD, and yet, the food sources that agri-business wants us to consumer are causing the cancers, diabetes, obesity. Our sick children tell us that something is wrong with the food supply. These things don’t just happen and being educated about food is one of the most important things we can do to save our lives and the planet. Sign this petition, share it, do what you can to buy non-GMO food (purchase organic when you can), let your representatives know how you feel (big business banks on people just complying and saying nothing). The change is in your hands and wallets. Read the petition below, click on the link above.


We write in response to your request for information on the topic of “enhancing agricultural coexistence.”

This inquiry is a shameless charade designed to mask the truth that as long as genetically engineered crops remain untested, unregulated and unlabeled, we face “the potential elimination of a farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food.”

You’ll recognize the quote from a case that bears your name, Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, where Judge Jeffrey S. White ruled that your approval of genetically engineered sugar beets was illegal.

Even before becoming USDA Secretary, you were familiar with the contamination problem inherent in genetically engineered crops. And you were hostile to any suggestion that the government take meaningful action to prevent it.

In 2002, a corn crop engineered by ProdiGene to produce a vaccine for pigs contaminated 500,000 bushels of soybeans, grown the following season in the same field. This after a previous incident in Iowa, where the USDA ordered ProdiGene to pay for the burning of 155 acres of conventional corn presumed contaminated by ProdiGene plants. ProdiGene eventually went out of business. But not before it received a $6 million investment from the Governors Biotechnology Partnership, which you chaired.

In reaction to suggestions that pharma crops should be kept away from food crops, you countered that “we should not overreact and hamstring this industry.”

One of the best ways for farmers to protect themselves from genetic contamination is to pass local laws that establish zones safeguarding the region’s economic interests. Many farmers, not just organic and non-GMO farmers, have an interest in protecting themselves from unwanted genetic contamination. Farmers that grow GMO crops for food don’t want to be contaminated with GMO crops grown for feed, fuel or pharma. Farmers growing approved GMO varieties don’t want to be contaminated with unapproved varieties. Farmers growing for the export market don’t want to be contaminated with GMOs that aren’t accepted by our trading partners.

Unfortunately, we already know that you oppose local action to prevent genetic contamination. In 2005, as governor you initiated and then signed into law House File 642, which took away local communities’ rights to act on this issue.

It clearly doesn’t bother you if farmers’ right to choose to grow non-genetically engineered crops is taken away.

You also aren’t interested in in protecting consumers’ right to choose to eat non-genetically engineered food. This is demonstrated by the fact that you have approved several new genetically engineered foods. And you have required labels on none.

We disagree with your disingenuous insistence that genetically engineered crops can coexist with the crops that they will contaminate and destroy.

Please take a fresh look at the only two options that can truly protect farmers’ and consumers’ right to choose: local control over genetically engineered crops and labels on genetically engineered foods.

Organic Consumers Association

5 New Reasons Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up


Five New Reasons Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up

  • By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
    Organic Consumers Association, February 27, 2014

For Related Articles and More Information, Please Visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering Page, and our Millions Against Monsanto Page.

To hear the pesticide and junk food marketers of the world tell it, anyone who questions the value, legitimacy or safety of GMO crops is naïve, anti-science and irrational to the point of hysteria.

But how long can Monsanto ignore the mounting actual scientific evidence that their technology is not only failing to live up to its promises, it’s putting public health at risk?

Jim Goodman, farmer, activist and member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board, recently wrote about Monsanto’s deceptive use of the expression “sound science.”

But, ‘sound science’ has no scientific definition. It does not mean peer reviewed, or well documented research. ‘Sound science’ is only a term, an ideological term, used to support a particular point of view, policy statement or a technology. ‘Sound science’ is little more than the opinions of so-called “experts” representing corporate interests.

Simply put, ‘sound science’ always supports the position of industry over people, corporate profit over food safety, the environment and public health.

Here are five new reports and studies, published in the last two months, that blow huge holes in Monsanto’s “sound science” story. Reports of everything from Monsanto’s Roundup causing fatal, chronic kidney disease to how, contrary to industry claims, Roundup persists for years, contaminating soil, air and water. And oh-by-the-way, no, GMO crops will not feed the world, nor have they reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides.

1.   Monsanto’s Roundup linked to fatal, chronic kidney disease. Article in Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, February 2014

What happens when you mix glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, with “hard” water? That is, water that contains metals, such as calcium, magnesium, strontium and iron, either found naturally in the soil, or resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers?

The glyphosate becomes “extremely toxic” to the kidneys.

That’s the theory put forth by researchers trying to uncover the mystery of thousands of deaths from chronic kidney disease among people in farming areas of Sri Lanka, El Salvador and Nicaragua.

2.   Monsanto’s Roundup persists in soil and water. U.S. Geological Survey report in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, February 2014

Monsanto has always insisted (despite evidence to the contrary) that its Roundup herbicide is benign, that its toxicity doesn’t persist.

But that’s only half the story, according to a study published this month in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Researchers now say that if you study only the key active ingredient, glyphosate, you might, as Monsanto claims, determine that Roundup is benign.

But there are other ingredients in Roundup, including one called Aminomethylphosphonic acid, or AMPA. The study, called “Pesticides in Mississippi air and rain: A comparison between 1995 and 2007,” found that glyphosate and its still-toxic byproduct, AMPA, were found in over 75 percent of the air and rain samples tested from Mississippi in 2007.

What does that mean for you? According to one analysis, “if you were breathing in the sampled air you would be inhaling approximately 2.5 nanograms of glyphosate per cubic meter of air. It has been estimated the average adult inhales approximately 388 cubic feet or 11 cubic meters of air per day, which would equal to 27.5 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of glyphosate a day.” Gasp.

3.   GMO crops have led to an increase in use of pesticides and herbicides. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report, February 2014.

The USDA, which gauging from its track record has never met a GMO crop it didn’t like, published a report substantiating what responsible, independent scientists have been saying along. Genetic engineering does not result in increased yields (as industry would have us believe)—but it has led to the increased (not decreased, as industry claims) use of pesticides and herbicides.

To be fair, the report gives overall favorable reviews to GMO crops. Not surprising, given the agency’s cozy relationship with Monsanto. But that makes it all the more telling that the once staunch-defender of GMO crops is now raising questions about industry’s long-term, decidedly unproven and unscientific, claims that biotechnology is the best thing since sliced (GMO wheat) bread.

Sustainable Pulse does a good job of sifting through the USDA’s report to reveal the agency’s criticisms of GMO crops.

4.   Pesticides are more dangerous than we thought.  Article in BioMed Research International, February 2014

More bad news on pesticides. A study published in BioMed Research International this month says that it’s not just the toxic chemicals we need to worry about in pesticides. It’s the inert ingredients, and how they interact with the active, toxic ingredients.

Typically, studies conducted to determine the safety of pesticides focus exclusively on the active ingredients. But scientists at the University of Caen tested eight commercial products, including Roundup, and found that nine of them were hundreds of times more toxic than their active ingredient alone.

Which product won the “Most Toxic” award? Monsanto’s Roundup, which was found to be “by far the most toxic of the herbicides and insecticides tested,” according to the study.

5. Small-Scale, organic farming needed to feed the world. U.N. Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Wake Up Before It Is Too Late, December 2013

In December 2013, the U.N. Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released the results of a lengthy, in-depth study that blows a huge hole in one of Monsanto’s favorite claims, that we need GMOs to feed the world. The study, entitled Wake Up Before it is Too Late, concluded with this warning: Small-scale organic farming is the only way to feed the world.

According to an analysis by one of the report’s contributors, the report contains in-depth sections on the shift toward more sustainable, resilient agriculture; livestock production and climate change; the importance of research and extension; the role of land use; and the role of reforming global trade rules.

More than 60 experts from around the world contributed to the report.

Clearly the evidence—real, scientific evidence—against GMO crops is mounting, when five new anti-GMO studies and reports surface in a matter of a couple of months.

How much more will it take before the USDA, U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stop supporting an industry under attack from the scientific community? And start putting public health before corporate profits?

In December, more than 200 scientists, physicians, and experts from relevant fields, signed a statement declaring that the biotech industry is deceiving the public when it claims that GMOs are safe. There is, the group said, no “scientific consensus” to support industry’s claims that GMOs are safe.

But as new studies surface every day, it’s become increasingly clear that among credible physicians and scientists, the consensus is that we’d better wake up, soon, to the risks and threats posed by a reckless technology that has been allowed to dominate our food and farming systems, unchecked, for far too long.

Katherine Paul is Associate Director of the Organic Consumers Association.

Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.