The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Seventy-five percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves—from soda to soup, crackers to condiments—contain genetically engineered ingredients. The long-term effects of these foods on human health and ecology are still unknown, and public concern has been steadily intensifying.
This new book from the Council for Responsible Genetics gathers the best, most thought-provoking essays by the leading scientists, science writers, and public health advocates. Collectively, they address such questions as:
Are GM foods safe and healthy for us?
Will GM food really solve world hunger?
Who really controls the power structure of food production?
Are GM foods ecologically safe and sustainable?
Why is it so difficult to get GM foods labeled in the US?
What kinds of regulations and policies should be instituted?
How is seed biodiversity, of lack thereof, affecting developing countries?
Should animals be genetically modified for food?
How are other countries handling GM crops?
Ultimately, this definitive book encourages us to think about the social, environmental, and moral ramifications of where this particular branch of biotechnology is taking us, and what we should do about it.
Soberón, J. & Snow, A.A. 2005. 7. Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 102(35): 12338–12343, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503356102. 8. Marvier, M., Carrière, Y., Ellstrand, N.C., Gepts, P., Kareiva, P., Rosi-Marshall, E., Tabashnik, B.E. & Wolfenbarger, L.L. 2008. Harvesting Data from Genetically Engineered Crops. Science 320(5875): 452-453. doi:10.1126/science.1154521.
Arabia, 348 Schlosser, Eric, 357 Schmeiser, Percy, 113, 145, 169–174 Schneiderman, Howard, 124 Science, xii, 222, 308 Science, “corporate,” xi, xvi Scientific American, xiii Scientific expertise, role in environmental release, 200–201 Scientists conflicts of interests by university, 272–274 corporate control over research and, 122–123 Scrapie-resistant sheep, 322–323 Seed Bill, 108 Seed companies, alfalfa, 31 Seed invasions, GMO, xiv–xv Seeds. See also Patented seeds concerns over
acceptance of GMO. (As Emmy Simmons, assistant administrator of the US Agency for International Development, said to me after the cameras stopped rolling on a vigorous debate we had on South Africa TV in 2002, “In four years, enough GE crops will have been planted in South Africa that the pollen will have contaminated the entire continent.”) There is no such concept in US law as “partial de-regulation.” Either the crop is regulated—according to an assessment in a full Environmental Impact
assessment, the devil is in the details. For instance, Séralini’s study used a protocol that was quite similar to the one that Monsanto used to demonstrate to regulators that NK603 was safe. The main difference between the studies was that Monsanto ended its rat feeding study after ninety days—a little less than three months—whereas Séralini extended the study to two years—the lifetime of a rat. What he found was that tumors and toxicity only began to show up after four months—conveniently too
the journal that published the article crumbled and retracted the article. This drew a huge amount of criticism from the scientific community.5 Predictably, the withdrawal of the article was used widely by GMO proponents to further dismiss Séralini’s research, but the reality is that the study is sound. It clearly and definitively demonstrates that NK603 and very low doses of Roundup can be harmful to organisms that consume them. The normal way that the scientific process works is that if a