The 1 Horrifying Thing Monsanto and Bayer Don’t Want You to Know About GMO Fruit

GMO: You’ve heard the term in the news, in passing with friends and family, and as you’re browsing for food in the grocery store; but what does it mean?

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “an organism whose genome has been altered in order to favor the expression of desired physiological traits or the output of desired biological products.” By the genetically engineered process, the organism is modified to “enhance” it for desired qualities such as insect, herbicide, fungal, and viral resistance, as well as improved taste and storage. To create such a plant, the organism’s genetic makeup is altered by adding a different gene—sometimes several—into a plant’s original genome; however, genes can also be removed or inactivated to achieve the desired result.

The first commercially sold GMO plant that met approval by the FDA appeared in the form of Calgene’s GE Flavr Savr tomatoes in 1992, followed by an eruption of the new technology throughout the next two decades, which continues today at a rapid pace.

Once the desired seed is produced, these companies go through a process of field-testing the seeds and garnering approval to be mass produced and marketed to the general public. Currently, a handful of corporations own the majority of seeds worldwide.

Although some may view the genetic-engineering (GE) process to be a giant leap for agricultural technology, studies performed by independent groups have shown the potential for devastating consequences not only to our bodies, but also in our ability to sustain natural, fertile land—and our local economies.

From Nature to Corporation

One of the largest controversies surrounding GE crops is whether or not private agrochemical companies should be able to patent and own a living thing—i.e., a seed. The argument by these companies—such as Monsanto, Bayer,

etc.—is that they can claim the rights to the generations of seeds that have already naturally reproduced from their genetically modified strains. This poses a problem for those farmers who choose to forgo GMO foods because the vast amount of GMO crops rapidly growing—not only in our country, but also around the world—pose a constant threat of cross-contamination. Countless lawsuits have been presented by these corporations to small farmers claiming ownership to unsuspecting seeds and crops. This gives the independent farmer no choice but to either start buying GMO seeds, or lose everything they have to the seed giants through endless litigation.

Mark Kastel founded the Cornucopia Institute to protect farmers against just that—agrochemical seed giants who threaten the integrity of ethical farming.

“Essentially, we’re a farm policy research group, and one of our major missions is acting as an organic industry watchdog,” he explains. “We’re a corporate and governmental watchdog protecting the interest of farmers who are ethically approaching organic production and protecting consumers’ access to authentic food.”

The Cornucopia Institute exists to help perform research, which isn’t funded by major corporations, to calculate just how much GMO crops—and the pesticides and herbicides that go along with them—are affecting the chance for a sustainable farm to thrive in that type of environment.

 

“In the environment that we live in, which is often dominated by corporate money, we end up with dueling science,” says Kastel. “We have science that’s basically financed by, in regards to our food, major agrochemical, agribusiness interests, and biotechnology corporations—then we have independent science; there’s very little balance.”

Therein lies the first problem with the “evidence” of a sustainable way to farm: The only science being presented to the public in regards to the safety and ability to sustain is done through writing checks—most often without regard for the safety of consumers and their environment. And even if small farms want to help perform research on their GMO seeds, they’re forced to sign an agreement before planting that prohibits them from collaborating on such research. This gives the corporation control over which findings are presented to the public, leaving the consumer essentially in the dark.

Kastel says this causes reality to differ tremendously from rhetoric. The giant seed industry insists that because they feel the GMO seeds are very close to being identical to the naturally bred seeds in fundamental ways, there is essentially no need to even run tests and perform research. What’s troubling about this are the results from tests that have been performed.

“There is virtually no human health testing on any GMOs, and what little testing has been done on laboratory animals shows some disturbing findings,” says Kastel.

A French study from 2012 shows that mice who ate GMO corn sprayed with herbicides were likely to form tumors and suffer from organ damage. The research team gave the mice either a diet of corn sprayed with Roundup—the world’s most popular herbicide, made by Monsanto—or water with comparable levels of Roundup to those found in US tap water. In the end, the mice who were ingesting Roundup tended to die at a much earlier age than the mice in the study who were fed a normal diet.

Not so Sustainable Products

Many of these corporations tout their ability to sustain ethical farming practices, but the reality of the situation is that millions of acres of farmland are being permanently tainted by unnatural chemicals, which makes it impossible to reuse the land if you do not follow the same pesticide practices you used in previous years—and you can be sure that these organisms don’t respect property and fence lines. Essentially, Kastel says we’re on the road to not having any non-GMO crops.

“We’ve seen exponential increases in the rates of certain farm chemicals like glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup—so much so that it’s now found all over our rural environments, including in rain and dust,” says Kastel. In 2012, faced with rising levels of glyphosate residues that approached the legal safety threshold, Monsanto petitioned the EPA to drastically increase the amount of glyphosate that would be allowed in various crops. Approval came in May of 2013, as published in the Federal Register dated May 1. “We’re finding increasing residues in our food supply and the answer that our federal regulators have used to address these increasing levels is to raise the threshold for action. When they exceed the threshold, the answer has been to change the threshold.”

Sustainability is also measured by the amount of food a single plot of farmland, or crop, is able to yield. An argument presented on the corporations’ side insists that because these GMO crops are bred to withstand several types of predators, they are able to produce a considerably larger amount of food than their natural counterparts. Independent studies have shown that organic crops are able to sustain just as well as, if not better than, GMO crops, especially during times of drought, flooding, and other natural occurrences. For GMO crops to be successful, the growing conditions need to be very close to perfect.

“The system isn’t being designed in any way to actually solve the problem,” says Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Sustainable Food Trade Association (SFTA). “Organic practices, as well as other limited input practices and approaches to farming, all have the potential to provide as much food as the current system and any GMO.”

She explains that a lot of the reason for disease and pest outbreaks with organic crops is because of the system of agriculture that’s already in place. Although we reach for new technologies to produce higher plant yields, we’re causing a multitude of additional problems that we have to constantly try to fix—instead of changing the way we’re trying to farm.

“Most cases, if looked at carefully, show that the promises have never really been fulfilled and have created additional problems that all of us are dealing with, like poor soil health, poor air quality, poor water quality, loss of biodiversity, loss of family farms—loss of farms in general—bad economic situations for farmers; not only here in the US, but around the world,” says DiMatteo.

Buying Organic

The best way to avoid eating GMO food—and the agrochemical companies that grow them—is to buy organic. GMOs are banned in all aspects of organic growing, and there are protocols that take place in order to prevent cross-contamination.

But Kastel says we shouldn’t stop there: “It isn’t an answer onto itself even if we eat organic food—we need to be concerned about the organisms so they don’t contaminate our food and environment. Some of these genes are finding their way into wild crops and weeds; they’re finding their way into soil bacterium. We’re changing the earth through this process and it’s all about profit for a handful of giant corporations.”

In terms of sustainability, organic farming is safer for the environment because it uses less water and the crops aren’t contaminating the soil with pesticides and other chemicals. The food is also more nutritious and this method of farming retains 40 percent more top soil than traditional industrial farming. Monoculture farming, on the other hand, means a single crop is grown on the same plot of land for many consecutive years, which leaves the plants more prone to being affected by pests and diseases. This calls for a heavier use of pesticides and herbicides, thus increasing the chemical runoff and making it impossible to use crop rotation in the future.

Another important component comes as a guarantee by companies and farmers to be more transparent; this way, consumers know exactly what they’re getting from the end product. Robert Craven, CEO of Megafood, says transparency is crucial when trying to build a gap between the good and bad players in the supplement industry—giant agrochemical companies are notorious for the unwillingness to share details about their agricultural endeavors.

Not only does Megafood buy directly from farmers, make their own ingredients on site, and support movements such as the Non-GMO Verified Project and the Organic Trade Association, but they also have high-definition cameras running 24/7 at their production facilities and have recently launched a six-week live show television series on their website in which you can get an even more in-depth, behind-the-scenes look at how the company operates.

“Our customer wants to know the story behind our product all the way back to the farm, and we’re proud of that,” says Craven. “We pour a lot of time and effort into transparency to tell the story even deeper. We believe this shows we’re high integrity.”

Just Label It

If GMOs concern you, get involved and support the Non-GMO Verified Project and the Just Label It campaign. Just Label It provides a platform for consumers to express their concerns over GMO foods, and it gives them the choice to opt out of buying foods that contain GMO ingredients.

The United States currently has no laws requiring the labeling of GE foods, unlike several other developed countries such as Japan, China, Russia, Australia, Brazil, and 15 countries and counting in the European Union—some ban the cultivation of GE foods altogether. This is true in the United States even though several studies show that an overwhelming majority of Americans—more than 90 percent in some studies—support the right to know what’s in the food they’re feeding themselves and their families.

Labeling GMO foods could very well be the first step in taming the monopoly that is the genetically modified food industry. By letting our legislators, growers, fellow consumers, and agrochemical corporations know our stance on GMO foods, we could be setting up a more nutritious, more sustainable, and overall better world for generations to come.

 

Source:https://naturalsolutionsmag.com/