Tag: GMO

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The GMO debate – why is it so hard to figure out?

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) – are they good? and/or are they bad?  This debate is raging in the public realm right now as California voters narrowly defeated a measure to label them in California (Prop 37) last year and Washington State voters are about to decide if they will be the first of the states to adopt a formal labeling requirement.   Trying to understand what the ‘right’ thing to do is very difficult as propaganda and murky science seem to rule the day.  Both ‘sides’ of the debate use the murky science and propaganda to further their respective agendas as to whether or not GMO’s should be labeled, are or aren’t safe, and what information is credible and what is not.   What makes it even more difficult is when both sides try to use the available information fit their stance on the issue which further muddies the water.   For example, whether or not GMO’s are safe is an irrelevant argument when it comes to discussing Initiative 522 in Washington.  That legislation is strictly regarding labeling and how the consumer would be informed as to whether or not a food item contains genetically modified ingredients.  Both the Yes and No side have digressed from this basic issue to introduce ‘safety’ with the supporters declaring GMO’s unsafe and proponents declaring that ‘science’ has proven these foods ‘safe’.   This leads to further debate since truly independent research on GMO’s is very limited to non-existent and industry provided research and study into the safety of GMO’s has only been provided by the companies that produce these crops and their seeds AND they only allow research on their products that is approved by them under the protocols they want.  Regardless, in relation to I-522 those arguments should be left out of the debate because clearly neither side has enough real information to declare an absolute.

The next issue is ‘trust’.  What and who do we trust?  Whose agenda (hidden or not) should we pay attention to?  Why would the Grocery Manufacturers Association try and hide the names of the companies that contributed money to defeat I-522?   Do these companies fear some type of consumer revolt if found out that they supported the defeat of this measure?  It certainly seems plausible especially when coupled against the backdrop of our recent US history with a clear distrust of Wall Street, big business, and government, or do they really fear exceptional costs when having to reformulate foods using Non-GMO ingredients?  Perhaps both, however, if not for the predisposed lack of ethics demonstrated by these companies and the elected representatives we might actually have reason to believe them.  Unfortunately for them, cynicism is ruling the day, though companies like Monsanto have only themselves and their corporate actions to blame.  What’s the solution?  The obvious one is to see these companies put some of their profits back into research that is conducted independently over a significant amount of time and having both sides accept the results – good or bad.  If bad, better to know now…if good, then that piece of the GMO argument goes away.  Is it relevant to labeling in Washington; not really but one more ‘cloud’ in the effort to make things unclear by opponents of the measure.

What about the environment?  How much dialogue is taking place regarding the impact of GMO’s on the planet?  The companies that produce the modified seeds (Monsanto, Dow, Bayer) claim that the environmental impacts are all positive.  In this case independent research has found that the impacts are not benign.  Resistant weeds and pests are becoming the norm and mono-crop planting has created soil problems.  The original touted benefits of less water, less herbicide, less pesticide, no longer are factual.  Not reassuring to say the least, but again not part of the measure in Washington.

Confused yet??  Welcome to the world of GMO’s.  One thing we can do to ‘clear the air’ is support I-522 in Washington and get the labeling requirement passed.  If you know that a food contains GMO’s and you consume it, that’s your choice and that’s to be respected.  Those that do not want GMO’s in their food should also be respected and should have an easy way to know.

 

 

 

Posted on by — Leave a comment

How much time is adequate for human safety trials?

Recently Monsanto and other chemical companies created a website that is supposed to ‘clear the air’ about Genetically Modified Organisms.  This new ‘transparency’ is an attempt at making these products easy to understand and to minimize any possibility that these foods might actually be detrimental to the human body.  However, the PR firm hired to create this website so far has yet to be identified.  Transparency??   Perhaps this PR firm is actually afraid of being identified, perhaps not…yet it stands to reason that fear of being associated publicly with Monsanto might not be so good for business.

So what does the above have to do with the human safety trials in the title?  For me it’s quite simple.  Rather than get caught up in the rhetoric that leads to so many ‘anti-science’ labels being placed on those opposed to GMO’s I want to push for the science.  The longest any study on humans that has been accomplished by these companies is 90 days.  If 90 days is enough for ‘science’ to be validated as to the safety of these transgenic crops then show all of us the rigorous peer reviewed evidence that this is the case.   I’m sure the tobacco companies would want to use this evidence regarding their products.  Simply put, the human body is too complex to understand the impact of these substances ( some of which have never existed in nature before ) in 90 days.   Now, many of these science advocates will say to me ‘these crops have been in the food chain since 1996’ and no one has been harmed.  Really?  Where is the science that supports that statement?  You see there isn’t any yet these same folks dispute any science that indicates their might be issues with these crops.  Usually it’s bad protocols, quack scientists, etc….

Crazy isn’t it?  All Monsanto, Dow, etc. had to do was fund long term safety trials (5,10,15,20 years)…then in 2016 we’d have quantified, qualified, documented, and defensible information as to the impact in humans regarding these foods.  I would much rather have a company that was trying to do good, find out that something they did wasn’t so great and do something about it.  That would send a message that we’re trying and we’ll keep trying to help this planet.  Instead, these companies refuse to move in that direction which breeds mistrust and disgust at what simply appears to be shareholder and management driven greed.  That’s disappointing and why so many of us simply don’t trust them.  It’s not anti-science, it’s common sense, which is where science originated.   On a personal note, a condition that I was diagnosed with in the mid 2000’s (about 10 years after I switched to a diet much heavier in vegetables like corn and meat substitutes like soy) could not be detected microscopically in my body at my most recent test.  What changes had I made??  I stopped eating GMO corn, soy and switched to certified organic foods for most of my diet in 2009.   The science folk will say this is just coincidence…sample size too small, etc. yet this condition is supposed to be incurable and what I did to remedy the situation was make the diet changes ( and ONLY those changes ) which is a controlled (scientific) approach which produced this result in my body.  Did I mention this condition had to do with my stomach/gut?  and what does the BT protein do to insects?  Oh yeah, explodes the gut to kill the insect…any parallels??  I stop the foods with that protein and my condition changes for the better??  and that’s not science??  That’s just being stubborn and closed minded which is exactly what a scientist is not supposed to be.

If Monsanto and others want to be ‘transparent’ it’s time to ensure long term human trials are conducted now and continued for the next 20 years and support labeling of their foods in the near term so that humans like myself can make the choice to avoid foods we don’t want.  It’s no different than me choosing not to smoke cigarettes.  Product is still there and if I wish to smoke, I can buy them.  I choose not too so I don’t.  Regardless, that’s a choice we all deserve.

For all of you so called science advocates – remember that shareholder concerns ALWAYS come first and that shareholder driven science is biased by profit and therefore isn’t rigorous science since it will be driven by the potential impact on the bottom line and not in the interests of the customer or the consumer.   It’s time to do what’s right even if it means less profit and earnings.  When I see a CEO step up and do that at a publicly traded company, that’s a company I’ll invest in.

In the meantime, please support efforts to label GMO’s.  At least have an idea of how much GMO’s have entered the food supply.  Monitor your health and if you are suffering from any condition or disease, try changing your diet to organic and just see what it does over a the course of a couple years.  Paying 10-20% more for your food might seem like a lot but if you don’t need as much medical attention, I can assure you that you’ll have more money in your pocket.

 

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Trying to understand what’s important about Prop 37

I’m voting YES on Prop 37.  Am I biased working for a natural foods company?  Probably yes, but not in the manner you might think.  As anyone who knows me, I don’t just do something for the sake of doing something.   Discerning fact from fiction in the genetically modified foods arena is difficult since research is truly limited, especially as it relates to human impacts.  No, I’m biased because of my personal experiences with these foods and what has happened since I found ways to limit their intake in to my body.  What is particularly relevant to me is that the improvements in my health appear to be directly related to the food choices I was making.  The choice to change came at the recommendation of a friend, not because I had educated myself on these foods.   Now, having spent quite a bit of time researching  GM foods and finding evidence of that suggests that we should be concerned, it’s easier for me to ensure I eat right.  Even more poignant, the chronic disease/condition I had been diagnosed with was not in evidence at my last checkup.  No disease found!!  This is a condition that I had for almost 20 years and does not have a cure, per the doctor.  These positive results have not been for just me.  My doctor has encouraged his other patients to take this approach and though he cannot divulge too much per patient/doctor privacy laws he has told me that he has seen benefits to others.  It mirrors the same experience I’ve had with my own family.  Simply put, there is too much personal evidence for me to buy into the industry’s stipulation that GM foods are completely safe.  Your personal experience may or may not be the same.  Just because you aren’t showing signs now of issues associated with GM foods doesn’t mean the damage isn’t being done.  It also may be that these foods won’t harm a certain percentage of people too.  That being said –

What is important about Prop 37?  In a nutshell it’s information.  It took me quite a while to understand how to find foods that have not been modified or don’t contain modified ingredients.  It should be simple and the labeling provision of Prop 37 is the best solution at this time.  Is it perfect?  No, but it does the job of providing a means for the consumer to better understand their food choices.  I’m grateful that California had a process in place to get a piece of legislation on to the ballot that represents what a majority of people want.

On November 6, we get a chance to make our voice heard.   I hope you’ll join me in a resounding YES VOTE on 37.  Regardless, I also hope you’ll make the choice to eat better foods and help your body take care of itself.  That much I can stand behind, politics aside.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

GMO’s – mankind’s not so great idea

Five years ago, I had no idea about genetically modified organisms (GMO) and what it means in regards to the food we eat.  I do now and do whatever I can to avoid foods grown or produced using any GM seeds.  This is significantly more difficult than you think once you realize the scope of the use of GMO’s in food.  Just see this link, http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo

The efforts of Monsanto and other companies to muddy the waters is very similar to the efforts of Big Tobacco in releasing information only when it’s favorable to their position.  Monsanto, the largest of the GMO companies, actually is threatening to sue the State of Vermont over GMO labeling… http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-sue-gmo-vermont-478/

REALLY??  Just this information alone should be enough to simply enter the polls in California in November and VOTE YES to require GMO labeling.

Not quite convinced…try this on for size, http://www.naturalnews.com/036254_GM_corn_rootworm_crop_failures.html

There is plenty more evidence against GMO’s that we’ll be sharing.

Thanks for reading and we wish you great health!

SunRidge Farms

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Should you be concerned about GMO foods?

Up until a few years ago I had no idea what  Genetically Modified Organisms were and how the food we consume each day may or may not be genetically modified but that it was becoming more and more likely that at least some of what I was eating was, in fact, GMO.  With awareness comes concern.  There are studies that claim to substantiate how safe these foods are; there are an equal number that come to a different conclusion.  Clearly a majority of the ‘safe’ studies have been funded by the biotech companies themselves or groups with a vested interest in having a study that produces a ‘safe’ result.  That’s not all that reassuring.   Natural News has published some information that is helpful in learning more about GMO foods and their safety testing.  It’s well worth reading: http://www.naturalnews.com/031951_GMOs_safety_studies.html

On our end, SunRidge Farms is committed to sourcing non-GMO wherever possible.