Whether to require labeling on GMO foods should be the easiest and simplest of decisions. If health and safety is really a mandate of federal agencies, where is the beef in their policies? Come on people, banning such modifications is not even remotely being considered, so why will the government not lead the way and allow the public to be reasonably informed with full disclosure of exactly the makeup and alterations to the very essence of the food we eat.
Advocates stressing caution provide Top 10 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. Where are the warning labels that sheer common sense demands?
- The Convention on Biodiversity recognizes that genetic engineering is a threat to amount and variety of life on the planet.
- Scientists reviewing data from Monsanto’s own studies “have proven that genetically engineered foods are neither sufficiently healthy or proper to be commercialized.”
- Biotech’s scattershot technique of spraying plant cells with a buckshot of foreign genes that hit chromosomes in random spots would trigger the expression of new allergens and change the character of plant proteins.
- Milk and dairy products from cows injected with genetically engineered growth hormones ARE different from conventional and organic milk and dairy products.
- The third generation of hamsters fed genetically engineered soy suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate, and a bizarre birth defect: fur growing in their mouths. Many also lost the ability to have pups.
- Animals fed genetically engineered feed ARE different from animals fed conventional and organic feed.
- A single serving of genetically engineered soy can result in horizontal gene transfer, where the bacteria in the human gut adopts the soy’s DNA.
- Genetically engineered foods ARE different from conventional and organic foods.
- Genetically engineered foods have not been tested to determine whether they are safe for human consumption.
- Almost all non-organic processed food and animal products in the U.S. today contain ingredients that come from genetically engineered crops or from animals given genetically engineered feed, vaccines or growth hormones.
Health concerns are on the minds of responsible consumers, especially since Obamacare rationing lowers the quality of care. Proponents of limited government are cautious to expand regulations and bureaucratic regulation. However, how can a consumer accept the risk when meaningful labeling is absent?
If you think you are diligent in avoiding selecting such genetically engineered food with your shopping, think again because, What Are We Eating?
“We Currently Eat Genetically Engineered Food, But Don’t Know It.
A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature, and is experimental. The correct scientific term is “transgenics,” and is also often referred to as (GE) genetically engineered.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO Corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides ]”
So what is the nutrimental value of this laboratory designed foods? Should there be open transparency so that full disclosure can evaluate exactly what comprises this new source of sustenance? If you listen to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), think again. CSPI Refuses to Debate Consumers Union on Labeling of GMO Foods presents suspect reasoning.
“Gregory Jaffe, CSPI’s director of Biotechnology told a reporter last year — “we don’t feel it should be mandated on labels that foods are produced with GM crops.”
“You could argue for example that non-GMO label claims are misleading since they falsely imply that food made without GE ingredients is safer or superior in some other way,” Jaffe said.”
Attempts to equate natural foods with a genetically engineered menu are no surprise. That bistro of fine dining, Monsanto falls back on the select club of government authorities and medical experts of chemically toxic healers to justify the limits on warnings of known risks. In Labeling Food and Ingredients Developed from GM Seed, establishment science protects the corporate benefactors of the designer disease and drug treatment cycle.
“Within the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees food labeling. FDA guidance requires labeling of food products containing ingredients from GM seed if there is a meaningful difference between that food and its conventional counterpart. The American Medical Association (AMA) supports FDA’s approach and approved a formal statement asserting that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.”
Skyrocketing cancer associated with processed foods promises to be dwarfed by the hidden consequences of GMO experimentations. Yet, the government simply ignores their mission of promoting public health.
Overcoming this threat is no easy process. When Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods provides a list of pros and cons for mandatory labeling, their negative reasons fall short of reassuring that a GMO food system is safe. Their argument follows a familiar pattern, Caveat Emptor “Let the buyer beware”.
“Mandatory labeling would extend much further and would require, at a minimum, that all food products containing any GM ingredient (above a certain threshold for trace amounts) to indicate that fact. Stronger mandatory labeling requirements could include identification of each specific GM ingredient and its level of content in the product. Mandatory labeling requires further regulatory interventions including monitoring and enforcement. Under a mandatory labeling system, all consumers—both those that are concerned about the GM ingredients and those that are not—help bear the costs associated with being able to verify that foods do or do not use GM ingredients.”
Since our health is ultimately our own responsibility, having reliable labeling on all GMO foodstuffs should be a prudent requirement to enhance public knowledge. Taking actions like those listed in 10 Things You Can Do to Stop GMOs, should not necessitate a full scale crisis. Putting people before corporate profits needs to become the standard every consumer deserves.
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at http://batr.org.