Natura

Our environment and fragile eco-system: the silent victim of GMO

Since their implementation nearly two decades ago, genetically modified crops have expanded into all areas of the globe. Although they have been deemed generally safe by federal regulatory agencies, the scientific consensus asserts that there is not enough long-term data to confidently draw these conclusions and that in fact we are beginning to see more adverse effects due to GM crops now that sufficient time has elapsed to give clearer focus to the issues.

With relation to environmental impact, it has been determined that genetically modified crops pose several kinds of potential risks. First, crops engineered to produce pesticide toxins targeted for specific species, are becoming much less effective through time; pests are becoming resilient to normal application amounts, requiring heavier and heavier chemical treatment to achieve the same results. In order to help combat the growing problem, biotech companies, like Monsanto, have petitioned the EPA to quickly approve the use of more toxic chemicals such as 2,4-D and Dicamba; escalating the vicious cycle. Due to the greater amount of toxic chemicals released into the environment, native ecosystems are being impacted negatively to the point of becoming unrecoverable.

Other environmental risks concern mutations of existing genetically engineered species. Genes that are synthetically designed to express particular traits, e.g. insecticide poisons may mutate to assume forms that are uncontrollable. There is also the very real risk of cross-contamination of these mutated genes that could cause catastrophic collapse of existing species or affect animal systems that are dependent on the native plants; loss of honeybee populations en-mass as well as other vital species have been attributed to this.

Once contamination has occurred, there is no recall or reset to an original state; this would threaten centers of natural crop diversity. Because GM crops are designed to express dominant alleles, contamination of other plants would result in a forced uniformity to the GM variety; the GM plant genes essentially “high-jack” native plant varieties. For example, it is feared that genetically modified trees, once approved, will have an amplified effect on the contamination scenario. Tree pollen can travel for hundreds of miles on the wind. This would make GM contamination extremely difficult to manage. Also, trees depend on the bees, birds, bats, and other animals to transport vital pollen during their

natural fertilization process. GM pollen would work to disrupt these existing ecosystems and possibly exacerbate the Colony Collapse Disorder phenomenon.

The U.S. government provides minimal oversight or regulation of biotech crops and their impact on the environment. It is a known fact that biotech companies are given carte- blanche when it comes to testing their own products. The USDA does no testing on GM crops. In fact, the current "don't look, don't find" approach to monitoring is likely to detect only the most dramatic, highly visible effects.

The scientific evidence available to date does not support the conclusion that genetically modified crops are intrinsically safe for human health or the environment. The next generation of products – crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals – open the frightening potential for even more environmental and health hazards, some of which are impossible to foresee at this time. The fragile environment stands by as biotech science blindly marches forth in hubris; but there may be a time in the not so distant future when Mother Nature’s voice will finally be heard and we will all be held accountable for what profit driven science has designed.

Where would we be without the bee?

In 2006, our honeybee populations began to mysteriously vanish and in significant numbers, inexplicably abandoning their hives. But in the last year there has been a sudden spike in these losses, wiping out as much as 50 percent of the hives needed to pollinate many of the nation’s fruits and vegetables. Although bee populations have fluctuated throughout history, the recent declines have created much more concern, mainly due to the lack of evidence as to why it is happening.

Scientists have been baffled since this began. Researchers are now becoming more confident that a powerful new class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, is playing a large part in the declining populations.

Biotech corporations have been programming insecticides into the DNA of plant cells for years. With this genetic engineering technique, the insecticide becomes an intrinsic part of the plant and is lethal to insects and bug pests. More recently, due to the insecticides becoming less effective against pests, stronger doses are being used to achieve the same results. Unfortunately these elevated poison levels, intended for target insects, may also be contaminating the pollen and affecting the bees.

Bees play an integral and critical role in sustaining our food supply by carrying pollen from one source to another. Without bees to fertilize plants, crops will surely suffer. There is a direct correlation. A decline in bee population will lead to a decline in crop fertilization. The Agriculture Department says a quarter of the American diet, from apples to cherries to watermelons to onions, depends on pollination by honeybees; this will lead to smaller harvests and higher food prices.

A USDA report last year indicated a decline in 4,000 different species of bees native to North America.

Each species of bee has its own unique characteristics and behaviors. As such, they will each require a unique treatment. This suggests a variety of solutions may be needed to stop the decline.

GM Salmon:
Will it sink or swim?

Genetically modified salmon are a product of the GM biotech industry. They have now been engineered to contain a growth hormone-regulating gene that enables the fish to grow year round instead of only during the spring and summer. The reason for these modifications is to increase the speed at which the fish will reach market size; in 16 to 18 months rather than three years. In a competitive environment, GM salmon would likely out-perform the wild variety for several reasons, mostly relating to its size. This has raised concerns that if farmed GM salmon were to accidentally be released into the wild, they would likely displace native salmon through time.

The FDA has had an ongoing review of the GM salmon over the past decade and is poised to give its approval. If approved it will be the first genetically modified animal allowed into the food supply of the United States.

It is speculated that the GM salmon will indeed receive approval based on unofficial comments from the FDA advisory panel stating: the fish is "highly unlikely to cause any significant effects on the environment" and that it is "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon." However, there are many in the scientific community who assert that the FDA has not conducted any safety testing, and merely assumes that the genetically engineered salmon is safe to eat.

There is also doubt the FDA has considered the potential ecological and economic impacts that would result if the GM salmon were accidentally released into the wild, a very real possibility considering the salmon farms are located on coastlines.

Subscribe today to Living Eden Magazine and save 20% discount savings - or purchase our current issue!

Monsanto Protection Act

Just recently, on March 24th 2013, the United States Congress passed what is a temporary appropriations bill, but with a small “rider” provision in Section 735, now known as the Monsanto Protection Act. The rider was inserted unbeknownst to many of those voting on it.

A “rider” is a term used to describe an unpopular provision that is strategically and many times, deceptively attached to a large bill before it is passed. Lobbyists and special interest groups use their connections and financial clout to pressure and influence votes in congress as a means to push questionable provisions through that would never be approved on their own. This was the case with the Monsanto Protection Act. In this instance, Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri actually admitted his responsibility in adding the provision, claiming he co-wrote the language in a joint effort with Monsanto. Blunt is a member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee and hails from the same state as St. Louis based Monsanto.

The language in the Monsanto Protection Act essentially mandates the secretary of the USDA to issue permits allowing agribusinesses to go forward with planting and producing GM crops despite environmental impacts existing or later discovered, even if disputed in court. Although the USDA already had the legal authority to make this call, the provision effectively fast tracks the regulatory process to prevent holdups in the seed market pipeline. Even if a court review determines that a genetically modified crop is harmful to humans, the Act allows the seeds to be planted anyway.

The Monsanto Protection Act has already set a precedent. It was not long before the new law got its first opportunity for action last week in Oregon’s Jackson County, where organic and conventional growers have been looking to ban genetically modified seed through a voter initiative approved for next year.

The ban would protect all natural crops in the Rogue Valley – located in Jackson County – from contamination with GM pollen. But some Oregon legislators are against the public making that decision; in fact, Oregon State Senators used the Monsanto Act to justify a state bill that would require a standard throughout the state on seed planting before the public vote can take effect. And just like the Monsanto Protection Act, Oregon’s Seed Preemption Bill (SB 633) would ensure a uniform planting policy throughout the state, preventing in this case, Jackson County voters from issuing any GMO ban specific to their area. Oregon’s Monsanto Protection Act is a prime example of big corporations influencing the laws to silence farmers who are against the use of genetically engineered crops and are looking for alternative solutions to protect their organic and non-GMO seed supply from genetic contamination.

Given the great amount of unrest and consternation on the subject, and given the controversy surrounding it, the Monsanto Protection Act has a relatively short duration. Unless it is renewed by Congress this year, it is slated to expire after six months, when the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, 2013. However there are many who believe that momentum has been created and a precedent set that may very well carry through to next year and beyond, despite the public outcry.

Allergies and You

A food allergy is the negative physiological immune response to a food-protein that is flagged or recognized by the body as a threat. True food allergies are an immunological response and occur in about 2% of the adult population and 5-8% of young children. A common trigger for an allergic response begins when a food is ingested, but its protein is not completely broken down during the functional

digestion process. The protein fragment is then tagged as a foreign body and the immune system sends white blood cells to attack, hence the allergic reaction.

Different people have different allergic responses to food proteins which can range from mild to severe. This is relevant to GM food in that, by its very nature, genes from different sources are inserted into native DNA; which has the overall effect of changing gene expressions in the food and coding for new proteins. The creation of new proteins, or alterations to the original, create a potential for allergic reactions that might otherwise not have occurred; for example a person who is not affected when they eat organic bananas, but has an allergic reaction to the genetically modified version.

Since GM foods are comprised of DNA from completely different species that are fused together, allergies can spring up unexpectedly with the source of the reaction, being difficult to identify. Someone who normally has an allergic reaction to nuts will avoid eating them, but they might not be aware that certain nut genes have been spliced into soybeans. Soy is added to roughly 20,000 to 30,000 food products – so a person could have an allergic reaction by eating their favorite soup or pasta sauce and not make the connection. To be fair though, it should be said that not all soybean is laced with nut genes and it is true that scientists are able to evaluate a protein to determine if it resembles any known allergens – which is part of the testing process to have GM foods approved for commercialization. However, genetic engineering is an inexact science. In theory, the intent is to make a single change or two to an existing food trait, but this cannot be completely controlled. There are myriad combinations of genes that by changing only one could lead to unexpected and unanticipated drastic effects that would not necessarily be realized until after an elapsed period of time. Biotech scientists are working to prevent this, but it is still an impossibility to fully predict all the outcomes.

Talk to your doctor about GMO

During the last few years, more and more doctors have begun advising their patients to avoid GMO containing food products as trends appear to coincide their consumption with a host of human health problems. It has been found that eating a GM diet can create havoc in our bodies with links to autism, allergies, and sterility, as well as many other afflictions.

Reports show that this trend began after GMOs were introduced in America in the mid 90's, and continues to increase in countries where GM foods are consumed regularly to this day. The problem is two-fold; people are ingesting not only genetically engineered food products designed to produce pesticides or other gene expression effects, but the same food products are also dowsed in chemicals when the food crops are being grown. When consumers eat food derived from these GM crops, they are essentially ingesting insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides produced from the same companies who falsely claimed Agent Orange and DDT were safe for use around humans. As a consequence, consumers are especially at risk for developing gastrointestinal (GI) problems or internal toxin buildup due to this exposure. When there is a buildup of poisons in our system, it usually results in inflammation of the connective tissue which could lead to leaky-gut syndrome – a condition where waste not normally absorbed into the bloodstream leaks in through gaps in the GI track lining. Since the digestive system is a complex web of connective tissue designed to absorb foods and excrete wastes, if it is compromised, the body begins to suffer with aches and pains, discomfort, low energy, and cognitive or emotional troubles. These symptoms could be a sign of much more serious conditions so it is important to visit your doctor if you are experiencing even mild symptoms.