Genetically Engineered Foods
Even if you aren't sure about whether genetically engineered foods pose a safety risk or not - an overwhelming majority of Americans want to know if they are eating genetically engineered foods. My stand is that if this food is safe - let the studies be done to prove it is safe - label the food so supporters can buy it, and so those who don't want to buy it have a choice. Isn't it supposed to be a free market system???
This information is from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
A brief word about terminology
Analysts use many different phrases to describe genetically engineered foods. The biotech industry rarely uses the phrase "genetically engineered foods," sticking with the more bland (and less controversial) phrase "biotech foods."
In Europe, genetically engineered foods are more commonly referred to as genetically modified foods, genetically altered foods or GMOs (short for genetically modified organisms). But scientists generally agree that "genetically engineered" more accurately represents the process than "genetically modified."
Supporters of biotech foods often try to argue that we have been genetically modifying our foods for centuries, through a process known as hybridization, or interbreeding. But that process is far different than the recombinant DNA splicing used in modern agricultural biotechnology.
It is interesting to note that the eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary added the word "Frankenfood" as another term to describe genetically engineered food.
So....
Question: Why don't the food manufacturers and the biotech companies want you to know if your foods have been genetically engineered?
Answer: Because if they are labeled, you will start asking questions such as "Have these genetically engineered foods been safety tested on humans?" The answer to that question is NO!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Doesn't the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require genetically engineered foods to be safety tested like they do for new drugs and food additives before they are sold to the public for consumption?
Answer: NO! With limited exceptions, under current FDA regulations, companies are not even required to notify the agency they are bringing new genetically engineered products to the market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: How much of the food I buy in the grocery stores contain genetically engineered ingredients?
Answer: Since genetically engineered soy and corn are used in many processed foods, it is estimated that over 70 percent of the foods in grocery stores in the U.S. and Canada contain genetically engineered ingredients.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Are people all over the world eating genetically engineered foods?
Answer: No, all of the European Union nations, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries require the mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients. As a result, food manufacturers in all those countries choose to use non-genetically engineered ingredients.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Are you telling me that people in the United States and Canada are eating a lot more genetically engineered foods than in many other countries in the world?
Answer: Yes, citizens in the United States and Canada are engaged in the largest feeding experiment in human history and most people are not even aware of the fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: What countries are growing genetically engineered crops?
Answer: There were only five countries that grew about 98 percent of the $44 billion of commercial genetically engineered crops in 2003-2004. Those five countries were: the United States ($27.5 billion), Argentina ($8.9 billion), China ($3.9 billion), Canada ($2.0 billion) and Brazil ($1.6 billion).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: What can I do to help properly regulate genetically engineered foods so that I can rest assure that these experimental crops will not harm human health or the environment?
Answer: The single most important step you can take is to mail three letters using the U.S. Postal Service. One letter goes to your Congressional Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives and the other two to your state's two Senators serving in the U.S. Senate. The letters request that they support legislation to label genetically engineered foods. We have form letters on this web site for this purpose. Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Um...
Greenpeace :calls for GE corn ban & labelling
New health evidence sparks call for ban on GE corn and better food labelling
November 12, 2009 (Full article below)
Sydney, Australia — A type of genetically engineered (GE) corn approved for human consumption in Australia has now been linked to increased risk of developing chronic kidney and heart disease. High Lysine corn LY038 was also withdrawn from commercial development in Europe because of safety concerns.
Greenpeace calls on our food regulator - Food Standards Australia and New Zealand to immediately review its approval of Monsanto's LY038 GE corn for human consumption, in light of this new evidence of health risks, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
"The Food Labelling Review being chaired by Dr Neal Blewitt must take note of this case as an example of why we need to improve the labelling of genetically engineered ingredients," said Greenpeace GE campaigner Laura Kelly. "It's also time for an end to the rubber stamp approach FSANZ takes with applications for genetically engineered food products. For a start FSANZ should immediately review it's approval of LY038 and properly consider the health risks."
"This case indicates a serious regulatory failure by the Federal Government," continued Ms Kelly. "Parliamentary Secretary for Health Mark Butler must be held accountable for any health impacts Australians suffer from eating genetically engineered food. This latest research shows these health impacts could be serious."
Lysine and its breakdown products can react with sugars to form what are called "advanced glycoxidation end products" (AGEs). The research published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism reaffirms that "advanced glycation endproducts", or AGEs, "are pathogenic...suggesting that dietary AGEs are directly linked to increased [oxidative stress] and the risk of developing CKD [chronic kidney disease] and CVD [cardiovascular disease]." (1)
Dr Jack Heinemann of New Zealand's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) had warned FSANZ of the health risks associated with this type of high lycine corn, and says there is no excuse for its continued approval for human consumption.
"FSANZ knows that there are strong links between dietary AGEs and certain human diseases but it hasn't even asked for a list of novel compounds that may appear in this corn much less attempted to evaluate their safety through scientific tests," said Dr Heinemann.
When the European Food Safety Authority asked the developer, Monsanto/Renessen, to supply additional scientific information that this corn will be safe for humans to eat. Monsanto pulled the development of GE high lysine corn.
(1) Helen Vlassara, et al. Protection against Loss of Innate Defenses in Adulthood by Low Advanced Glycation End Products (AGE) Intake: Role of the Antiinflammatory AGE Receptor-1 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Nov 2009; 94: 4483 - 4491
Lysine
DL,
You reminded me that it was price fixing of Lysine that the Archer Daniels Midland Scandal was about in the 90s.
USDA Violated Federal Law by allowing GE Sugar Beets on the Mkt
"Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff noted, “Although touted by Monsanto as offering all sorts of benefits, GE crops offer consumers nothing, and are designed primarily to sell herbicides. The end result of their use is more toxics in our environment and our food, disappointed farmers, and revenue for Monsanto.”
A 2008 scientific study revealed that Roundup formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations. Other recent studies suggest that ingredients in Roundup are endocrine disrupters, and that exposure to Roundup is lethal to some species of amphibians.
In addition, Judge Jeffrey S. White – in his ruling – has scheduled a meeting in his courtroom on October 30, 2009 to discuss the remedies phase of the case, including potential injunctive relief.
There is increasing speculation that the Department of Justice’s antitrust division is scrutinizing Monsanto’s allegedly anticompetitive practices in the markets for GE seeds and traits.
The case is Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C 08-00484 JSW (N.D. Cal. 2009).
The decision follows on the heels of a June 2009 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the illegality of the APHIS’ approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered alfalfa."
Study shows GM crops do not actually increase crop yield
The Union of Concerned Scientists posted the following report on genetically modified foods. Though the initial results do not shine a positive light on GM foods, the UCS does not discount genetic modification as a viable science and thinks that there may be better ways to utilize this technology.
I like this source, as it presents both sides of the argument and evaluates the claims in a non biased way, from what I've seen. (Read an excerpt below.)
In April, UCS released a groundbreaking report, Failure to Yield, that dispels years of biotech industry propaganda by showing that genetically engineered (GE) crops do not allow farmers to grow significantly more crops per acre of land.
In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, Failure to Yield considers the technology’s potential role in increasing food production over the next few decades. The report does not discount the possibility of genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop yields. It does, however, suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan
Genetically Altered Farm Animals
The FDA is proposing introducing genetically altered animals into our diet, regulated as "new animal drugs":
"under the new animal drug provisions, each new kind of animal produced through genetic engineering would have to get FDA approval before being commercialized, the way new drugs are approved....The bad news is that the drug approval process in this country is extremely secretive. Under its provisions it would be illegal for the FDA (without a company's permission) to reveal that it had even received an application for a new gene-altered food animal until after the agency had approved it for marketing. Once approved, there would be virtually no recourse available to consumers."
RE: Genetically Engineered Farm Animals
To cover the other end of the spectrum - here is an organization petitioning for labelling laws if these products are allowed to be sold. They're a little dramatic, but... take that for what it is.
Frankenmeat
Goats that produce spider silk in their milk. Pigs with mouse DNA. These animals were stitched together through genetic engineering--and if you don't want to buy meat from such animals, you should be able to put that meat back after reading the label. But there won't be a label. Petition USDA for labeling!
Re: Geneticaly Altered Farm Animals
Food & Water Watch has a petition if you are opposed to this last minute legislation being pushed through.
Their concerns noted:
This approval process would require the agency to review the effectiveness of the genetically engineered trait and any health impact on the animal, but not test the food that comes from these animals.
And this process does nothing to weigh any environmental damage caused by things like GE fish escaping from fish farms and breeding with wild fish, or the ethical considerations of altering the genes of animals in the first place. And to make matters worse, the FDA is not requiring that food from GE animals be labeled, so consumers won't know if the food they buy for their families was produced with this controversial technology.
USDA regulatory proposal gives deference to biotech companies
Intended to be one of the most sweeping regulation changes for the biotech industry since 1987 - proposed amendments have been submitted for comment on 7 CFR 340. Major time and money savings is the major focus of regulatory cuts that would allow more biotech crops to be released to the environment with less red tape.
Union of Concerned Scientists reports:
USDA regulations would allow pharma crops to threaten food supply
A sweeping proposal from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would place the food supply at risk from contamination by drugs and industrial chemicals produced in genetically engineered food crops. The USDA's proposed regulations would allow "pharma" food crops to be grown outdoors, where they could contaminate crops intended for human consumption. The USDA ignored recommendations for a ban on the outdoor production of pharma food crops from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, major food companies, UCS, and more than 100 environmental, agricultural, health, and consumer organizations. The agency is soliciting comments from the public on its proposal until November 24. Read more from the USDA, and demand stronger government oversight of pharma food crops!
The proposed rule is available on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov. Notice of this proposed rule is scheduled for publication in the Oct. 9 Federal Register. Consideration will be given to comments received on or before Nov. 24. Send two copies of postal or commercial delivery comments to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Comments can be submitted on the Federal eRulemaking portal.
Click on “Add Comments,” to view public comments and related materials available electronically.
GE alfalfa court case news
Engineered alfalfa ban upheld on appeal
San Francisco Chronicle reports:
A federal appeals court upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa Tuesday until the government completes a study on whether the altered seeds would contaminate other farmers' alfalfa crops.
UCS comments
In an opinion issued September 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the reversal of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) approval of Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerant, genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. In a landmark decision, the Appeals Court agreed with the lower court that the USDA had not adequately considered either the economic impact on organic and conventional alfalfa farmers from inevitable contamination of their crops by GE alfalfa or the environmental harm from herbicide-resistant weeds. The case was brought by the Center for Food Safety.
Round and Roundup we go
Organic Bytes Newsletter... interesting read
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION 6771 South Silver Hill Drive Finland, Minnesota 55603 Phone: (218)- 226-4164 Fax: (218) 353-7652 |
PETA’s Latest Tactic
Engineered slightly differently...
I haven't got some moral axe to grind here but wanted to share this article to those who might be interested in the read... $1 million for fake meat.
Genetic Engineering and Organic Farming
Oh please, no...
This is just a rehash of what happened when the Organic Standards were being attacked by Monsanto et all just prior to the 2002 standard finalization.
Right now it's not possible to have something "genetically modified" be organic:
Excluded methods. A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.
Plus - though Bt is approved for organic use - the difference is that with the GM food - you are forced to eat the pesticides. You can't wash it off if the Bt is inside the plant. No studies have shown a causal link between issues, but I'm sensitive to this personally because of the allergy issues in my own house. This study has more:
Journal of Pesticide Reform v.14, n.3 Fall94
In a purified form, some of the proteins produced by Bt are acutely toxic to mammals. However, in their natural form, acute toxicity of commonly-used Bt varieties is limited to caterpillars, mosquito larvae, and beetle larvae. Bt is closely related to B. cereus, a bacteria that causes food poisoning and to B. anthracis, the agent of the disease anthrax. Few studies have been conducted on the chronic health effects, carcinogenicity, or mutagenicity of Bt. People exposed to Bt have complained of respiratory, eye, and skin irritation, and one corneal ulcer has occurred after direct contact with a Bt formulation. People also suffer from allergies to the "inert" (secret) ingredients. People with compromised immune systems may be particularly susceptible to Bt.
Viable Bt spores are known to exist for up to one year following application. Insect resistance to Bt has been well documented. Genetic engineering may greatly expand use of Bt, speeding up the development of more resistance.
Bt is less toxic to mammals and shows fewer environmental effects than many synthetic insecticides. However, this is no reason to use it indiscriminately. Its environmental and health effects as well as those of all other alternatives must be thoroughly considered before use. Bt should be used only when necessary, and in the smallest quantities possible. It should always be used as part of a sustainable management program.
As hazards of conventional, broad acting pesticides are documented, researchers look for pesticides that are are toxic only to the target pest, have less impact on other species, and have fewer environmental hazards. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticides result from this research. However, there is evidence suggesting that Bt is not as benign as the manufacturers would like us to believe, and that care is warranted in its use.
AND - last but not least, the reduction in pesticide use is not as great as they claim:
So far, more than 40 genetically modified crops are currently allowed in commerce in the United States.7 Two traits—herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (Bt) engineered into four commodity crops (corn, cotton, soybeans, and canola)—dominate the products that have succeeded on the marketplace.
The HT and Bt crops, however, have proved to be very popular with U.S. farmers and have been widely adopted. Soybean growers appear to have been won over by the convenience of using glyphosate instead of older herbicides.10 Insect-resistant cotton is a favorite because it has led to substantial reductions in pesticide use for certain insects.11 Bt corn is popular because its use boosts yields in those fields with damaging levels of European corn borers.12
The impact of engineered crops on pesticide use is not a clear win for the environment. USDA data show, for example, that the adoption of glyphosate-resistant soybeans has led to a reduction in the number of herbicide acre-treatments13 but an increase in the overall amount of herbicides applied to soybeans (because glyphosate is a higher-dose herbicide compared with the pesticides it replaced).14
Bt corn has had little impact on overall corn insecticide use because growers typically have not used insecticides to control corn borers.15 Between 1991 and 2001, farmers consistently applied insecticides to approximately 33% of US corn acres.16
Bt cotton has dramatically reduced insecticide use in some states, most notably Arizona.17 However, the overall use of insecticides in cotton, as measured by acre-treatments shows little change, reflecting shifts in insect pests and adoption of more targeted pesticides.18
Other than the benefits to the technology companies (primarily Monsanto) and to farmers, there are few other benefits associated with Bt crops.
...
Like many other pest-control products developed in the last 50 years, HT and Bt crops are likely to have a short life span. Already there are signs that the most popular HT crops—those resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup®)—will lose effectiveness as weeds become resistant to the herbicide. Scientists expect that Bt crops, too, will succumb to pests that evolve resistance to the Bt toxins.
...
No major human health problems have emerged in connection with genetically modified food crops, which have been consumed by significant numbers of U.S. consumers. As with environmental effects, only dramatic effects easily connected to engineered foods would likely have been detected. Because genetically modified foods are not labeled, people suffering ill effects would have difficulty relating them to consumption of engineered products.
It is important to remember that only in the last three or four years have herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans and corn been planted on millions of U.S. acres and subsequently used in food processing.52
Over the past decade, food-safety experts have identified several potential problems that might arise as a result of engineering food crops, including the possibilities of introducing new toxins or allergens into previously safe foods, increasing toxins to dangerous levels in foods that typically produce harmless amounts, or diminishing a food’s nutritional value.53 Problems like these would have to occur at very high levels within the U.S. population to attract the attention of regulators.
Thanks DL
GMO News Update 12-10-07
Here are links to some interesting articles on GM Foods. A lot going on - I don't really have time to comment about, but thought anyone could pick articles of interest.
************
Genetically modified food products must be labeled (India)
************
Qatar to label GMO products
************
The Genetically Modified Beet Goes On
************
Biofuels killing forests, adding to world hunger (Mayaysia)
************
Western Australian won't relax GM ban
************
Head of GM panel in conflict claims (Australia)
************
Oceania at Risk from Biotechnology Exploitation and Genetically-Modified Food
************
South African wine industry savours ban on GM yeast
************
Western Australian farmers 'benefit' from non-GM trade
************
Vic Govt's GM adviser denies conflict of interest (Australia)
************
Germany ends ban on Monsanto GMO maize type
************
Milk, dairy labeling grows contentious
************
Clinton's Mother, Daughter Hit Trail (includes comment on GE food labeling)
Monsanto winning the Ground War
Here are links to the new articles on GMO foods:
Science and policy collide in EU over genetically modified crops
************
Poland faces fines on national GM food law
************
French activist Bove to go on anti-GMO hunger strike
************
Monsanto: Winning The Ground War
************
GM Soy in Brazil Will Kill the Amazon and Boost Global Warming by 50%
************
BASF Hopes EU Will OK New Biotech Potato
************
You get a say in nano revolution (Australia)
************
Germany proposes GM approval overhaul
************
Supreme Court dismisses appeal by organic farmers against Monsanto (Canada)
************
Supreme Court of Canada ruling means end of the road for farmers trying to sue Monsanto
Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd in favor of Labeling GE Foods
Fairfield, IA -- October 13, 2007 - Senator John Edwards, Governor Bill Richardson, and Senator Chris Dodd have all gone on record in favor of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods this week in Iowa. In response to questions during their campaign visits to Fairfield this week, each candidate stated he would support legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods if elected to be President of the United States.
The three democratic candidates join many leaders in Iowa and the country who are calling for mandatory labeling legislation for genetically engineered foods. Presidential candidate Representative Dennis Kucinich also supports labeling of genetically engineered foods and has lead this effort in Congress for several years.
A report funded by the USDA and conducted by Rutgers University found that 89% of the American public feels the Federal Government should require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Only 10% felt that labeling should not be required.
All the known effects of genetically engineered foods have been documented in the book: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, by Jeffrey Smith. With input from more than 30 scientists over two years, it presents 65 health risks of GE foods and why current safety assessments are not competent to protect us from most of them. The book documents lab animals with damage to virtually every system and organ studied; thousands of sick, sterile, or dead livestock; and people around the world who have traced toxic or allergic reactions to eating GE products, breathing GE pollen, or touching GE crops at harvest. It also exposes many incorrect assumptions that were used to support GE approvals. Organizations worldwide are presenting the book to policy makers as evidence that GE foods are unsafe and need to be removed immediately.
Moreover, health watchdogs feel the FDA has been concealing important information about the hazards of GE foods. According to public interest attorney Steven M. Druker, Executive Director of The Alliance for Bio-Integrity, who initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its internal files on these novel products: "The FDA's own documents reveal that its scientific experts warned the administrators that GE foods pose abnormal health risks and must be carefully tested for unintended side effects. However, the administrators, who admit they have been following an ongoing White House policy to promote the biotech industry, covered up these warnings and claimed that they were unaware of any meaningful differences between GE foods and those produced naturally. It is only through this fraud that GE foods have entered the market, and they have yet to be confirmed safe through the kinds of testing that the FDA experts said is necessary." (Key FDA documents are posted at www.biointegrity.org)
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods www.thecampaign.org is a 501(c)4 non-profit advocacy organization started in March 1999. The Campaign is leading a national grassroots consumer campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States. Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in all the European Union countries, plus Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and many other leading industrial nations.
Book helps you engineer your own GMO-free diet.
Fruits and vegetables. Almost all are not GE. The exceptions are a few papayas from Hawaii and a tiny amount of fresh corn, zucchini and yellow squash.
Meat and fish. No GE meat or fish are approved for human consumption. But most GE corn and soy is fed to meat animals and farmed fish. So look for wild fish, grass-fed beef and organic meats.
Dairy. Dairy cows aren't genetically engineered but can eat GE grains unless they're organic. Look for labels that say no hormones were used.
Baby foods. Most formula contains GE ingredients. Some also contain corn syrup. Cereals can contain GE soy lecithin.
Canned and frozen foods. Vegetables and fruits packed or frozen without flavorings, additives or corn, soy or canola oil are GE-free.
Grains and beans. Corn is the only GE grain on the market. Soybeans are the only GE dried beans. So wheat, rice, oats, quinoa and foods made from them are OK. Check ingredient labels for additives like soy lecithin, which can be GE.
Snacks. Nuts, seeds, dried fruits and popcorn are good options. Organic snacks are GE-free, but "natural" ones aren't necessarily.
Beverages. Look for drinks that are 100 percent juice, or sweetened with sugar or honey instead of corn syrup. Beer contains no GE ingredients.
Baked goods. Non-organic breads, baked goods and even chocolate chips often contain high fructose corn syrup, soy, or corn, canola or cottonseed oil, all of which can be GE. Look for products made from wheat, oats and rice, with sugar or maple syrup as sweeteners.
Is it safe to buy a used liver from a pig?
New book seeks to explore issue of genetic engineering in a smart way
Some excerpts:
Caruso’s question is simple: how we can continue to advance technology without needlessly subjecting society to more thalidomide babies or Chernobyl melt-downs? The query is made more urgent by the fact that, given the new powers of biotechnology, the next miscalculation may prove to be damaging in ways we can’t presently imagine.
Readers are probably most familiar with the long-running controversy over the safety of genetically modified foods, such as soybeans or corn. (Caruso points out that a more accurate adjective is “transgenic”; food crops have already been genetically modified via traditional breeding techniques for centuries.) It’s a debate that has been troubling and unsatisfying, in large part because neither side seems entirely on-point.
Passionate anti-GM food activists often tend to be careless with basic science. And many scientists are quite intractable in their belief that GM foods must be safe, in a manner that seems more dogmatic than evidentiary. For onlookers who value scientific thought yet still harbor lingering concerns about this powerful new technology, there seems no reasonable middle ground.
Transgenic crops, of course, are only the first wave of the genetically novel organisms we will see in the next few years: fish are being engineered to grow more quickly; cows are being modified to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk; even insects are being reprogrammed in the hope they might no longer carry infectious disease. And all of this is happening with what many scientists agree is still a rather sketchy understanding of how genetic mechanisms work and interact with the environment.
Stop Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SUGAR TO HIT STORES IN 2008 (click here to take action) Background Information: American Crystal, a large Wyoming-based sugar company, who ironically have launched an "organic" line of their sugar,and several other leading U.S. sugar providers have announced they will be sourcing their sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets beginning this year and arriving in stores in 2008. Like GE corn and GE soy, products containing GE sugar will not be labeled as such.
Since half of the granulated sugar in the U.S. comes from sugar beets, a move towards biotech beets marks a dramatic alteration of the U.S. food supply. These sugars, along with GE corn and soy, are found in many conventional food products, so consumers will be exposed to genetically engineered ingredients in just about every non-organic multiple-ingredient product they purchase.
The GE sugar beet is designed to withstand strong doses of Monsanto's controversial broad spectrum Roundup herbicide. Studies indicate farmers planting "Roundup Ready" corn and soy spray large amounts of the herbicide, contaminating both soil and water. Farmers planting GE sugar beets are told they may be able to apply the herbicide up to five times per year. Sugar beets are grown on 1.4 million acres by 12,000 farmers in the U.S. from Oregon to Minnesota.
Meanwhile candy companies like Hershey's are urging farmers not to plant GE sugar beets, noting that consumer surveys suggest resistance to the product. In addition the European Union has not approved GE sugar beets for human consumption.
Research done on GE soy
Not much research is being done, but there is some - and the results are disturbing. Whether it is the GE component or the additional pesticides, there is definitely something wrong.
Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters
"After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.
And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths--a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy."