http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3705099

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B846909A-A5E3-4A27-A8DA-631FD66F9DED

POLITICO
NRDC to launch attack on food ingredient approvals
By: Helena Bottemiller Evich
September 10, 2013 04:30 PM EDT

http://www.pewhealth.org/other-resource/pew-examines-gaps-in-toxicity-data-for-chemicals-allowed-in-food-85899493633

Aug 14, 2013
PEW EXAMINES GAPS IN TOXICITY DATA FOR CHEMICALS ALLOWED IN FOOD
Project: Food Additives Project

The peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology published a paper from The Pew Charitable Trusts' food additives project examining the data used to make safety recommendations for chemicals added to food sold in the United States. The analysis of three major sources of toxicology information found significant gaps in the data for chemicals that are added to food and food packaging.

<>

Only one in five chemicals has been evaluated using the simplest lab animal test recommended by FDA to evaluate safety.

Only one in eight chemicals that FDA recommended be evaluated for reproductive or development problems had evidence it was tested for these effects.

The lack of data means that often we don’t know whether these chemicals pose a health risk to the hundreds of millions of Americans who eat food with untested chemical additives.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303680404579141741399966328

The Irrational Fear of GM Food

By MARC VAN MONTAGU
Oct. 22, 2013 6:44 p.m. ET

Billions of people have eaten genetically modified food over the past two decades. Not one problem has been found.

...Biotechnology offers an unparalleled safety record and demonstrated commercial success. Remarkably, however, biotechnology might not reach its full potential. In part, that’s because outspoken opponents of GM crops in the U.S. have spearheaded a “labeling” movement that would distinguish modified food from other food on grocery store shelves. Never mind that 60%-70% of processed food on the market contains genetically modified ingredients.

...In fact, people have consumed billions of meals containing GM foods in the 17 years since they were first commercialized, and not one problem has been documented.

<>

http://www.100daysofrealfood.com/2013/02/11/food-companies-exploit-americans-with-ingredients-banned-in-other-countries/

How Food Companies Exploit Americans with Ingredients Banned in Other Countries
By Food Babe on February 11th, 2013

(679 comments)

<>

The health of Americans is downright grim according to a report just released by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. It declares “Americans are sicker and die younger than other people in wealthy nations.” The United States spends 2.5 times more on health care than any other nation, however, when compared with 16 other nations we come in dead last in terms of health and life expectancy for men and near the bottom for women.

Here is the breakdown for you:

- More than two thirds of United States citizens are overweight – 33% being obese.
- 32% of children are either obese or overweight.
- 43% of Americans are projected to be obese in 10 years.
- After smoking, obesity is America’s biggest cause of premature death and is linked to 70% of heart disease and 80% of diabetes cases.
- And 41% of Americans are projected to get cancer in their lifetime!

<>

"For numerous suspicious and disturbing reasons, the U.S. has allowed foods that are banned in many other developed countries into our food supply," says nutritionist Mira Calton who, together with her husband Jayson Calton, Ph.D., wrote the new book Rich Food, Poor Food due out this February.

During a six-year expedition that took them to 100 countries on seven continents, the Caltons studied more than 150 ingredients and put together a comprehensive list of the top 13 problematic products that are forbidden by governments, outside the U.S., due to their detrimental effects on human health.

"If you see any of the following ingredients listed on the nutrition label, don't buy the product," Calton warns. "Leaving these banned bad boys on the shelves will speak volumes to grocery stores and food manufactures about what informed consumers simply won't tolerate."

<>

Using banned ingredients that other countries have determined unsafe for human consumption has become a pandemic in this country. To prove this point, I found the best and easiest place to look for evidence was just across “the pond” in the United Kingdom, where they enjoy some of the same types of products we do – but with totally different ingredient lists.

It is appalling to witness the examples I am about to share with you. The U.S. food corporations are unnecessarily feeding us chemicals – while leaving out almost all questionable ingredients in our friends’ products overseas. The point is the food industry has already formulated safer, better products, but they are voluntarily only selling inferior versions of these products here in America. The evidence of this runs the gamut from fast food places to boxed cake mix to cereal to candy and even oatmeal – you can’t escape it.

[center][img][/img][/center]

Some of the key American brands that are participating in this deception are McDonald’s, Pringles (owned by Kellogg’s), Pizza Hut and Quaker (owned by Pepsi), Betty Crocker (owned by General Mills), Starburst (owned by M&M/Mars), and Ritz Crackers (owned by Kraft). In the examples below, red text indicates potentially harmful ingredients and/or ingredients likely to contain GMOs.

[center][img][/img] [img][/img] [img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img] [img][/img] [img][/img]
[img][/img] [img][/img] [img][/img]

[img][/img][/center]

In the U.K. food companies are required by law to list if a certain ingredient is derived from a genetically modified or genetically engineered material on the label. Out of all the products I researched, I couldn’t find one product with this label. (See example from GMO-Compass and BBC above of what it would look like if I did.)

This was very telling considering that not only have food companies taken out all sorts of hazardous chemical ingredients abroad – but they also have willingly reformulated their products without GMOs.

Food corporations in the U.S. claim reformulating their products to remove harmful ingredients or changing labels would be too expensive – but they’ve already done just that in Europe and in many other countries. Their governments listened to the outrage of their people and took the safety of their citizens’ health above everything else. Is it too much to ask the same for us in the United States of America? How much do our sickness, obesity, and mortality rates have to worsen before they respond to us?

http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15032-expert-who-predicted-global-economic-crash-thinks-risks-from-gmos-too-great

Expert who predicted global economic crash thinks risks from GMOs too great
September 4, 2013

[img][/img]

Last week the maverick biologist and billionaire entrepreneur Craig Venter tweeted: "Golden rice vitamin A could prevent blindness in 250000 children/year. Anti GMO people check your morals."

READ HERE: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/372779980230369280

The global risk expert and the Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at New York University, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, responded on Twitter:

"Pro GMO people, check your understanding of 1) Risk & probability and 2) invoking 'morals' as a tactic while endangering people."

"Point 2: There are other alternatives with controlled & known side effects."

He also told Venter, a synthetic biologist with massive vested interests in the acceptance of genetic engineering and no background in risk (nor toxicology for that matter!):

"@JCVenter In other words it is not rigorous to make something with fat-tailed risks look like the 'only' alternative to [blindness] when it is not."

"Fat-tailed risks" means that when things go bad, they can go catastrophically bad.

Taleb has outlined his strong concerns about GM before. Below is what he wrote a couple of months ago. There are graphs in the original text, which are available at the link.

EXTRACT: Now, for mathematical reasons (a mechanism called the "Lindy Effect&quot , linked to the relationship between time and fragility, mother nature is vastly "wiser" so to speak than humans, as time has a lot of value in detecting what is breakable and what is not. Time is also a bullshit detector. Nothing humans have introduced in modern times has made us unconditionally better without unpredictable side effects, and ones that are usually detected with considerable delays (transfats, steroids, tobacco, Thalidomide, etc.)

...GMOs... their risk is not local. Invoking the risk of "famine" is a poor strategy, no different from urging people to play Russian roulette in order to get out of poverty. And calling the GMO approach "scientific" betrays a very poor — indeed warped — understanding of probabilistic payoffs and risk management.

https://www.facebook.com/thefoodbabe/posts/702849626416418

Nothing like ending the year in a bang with fabulous coverage of our work in the NY Times. Thank you #FoodBabeArmy... but don't be fooled by Kraft's lame corporate response. We all know it didn't take Kraft 1.5 years to reformulate a product they have already sold in Europe for over 7 years. You made that change possible here in the U.S. and you should be so proud of your work. Just wait until 2014...we are gonna rock more despicable food industry practices down, aren't we? MUAH! Happy New Year!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/business/media/social-media-as-a-megaphone-to-push-food-makers-to-change.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Social Media as a Megaphone to Pressure the Food Industry

[img] [/img]
Renee Shutters with her son Trenton. She omitted all foods containing petroleum-based dyes from her son’s diet a few years ago.

By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: December 30, 2013

Renee Shutters has long worried that food dyes — used in candy like blue M&M’s — were hurting her son, Trenton.

She testified before the Food and Drug Administration, but nothing happened. It wasn’t until she went online, using a petition with the help of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, that her pleas to remove artificial dyes from food seemed to be heard.

Mars, the candy’s maker, is now hinting that it may soon replace at least one of the dyes with an alternative derived from seaweed.

“I’ve really thought about calling them,” Ms. Shutters said about Mars. “I’m not trying to be this horrible person. What I’m really thinking is that this is an opportunity for their company to lead what would be an awesome publicity coup by taking these dyes out of their products.”

While the F.D.A. continues to allow certain dyes to be used in foods, deeming them safe, parents and advocacy groups have been using websites and social media as powerful megaphones to force titans of the food industry to reconsider the ingredients in their foods and the labeling and processing of their products. In several instances in the last year or so, major food companies and fast-food chains have shifted to coloring derived from spices or other plant-based sources, or changed or omitted certain labels from packaging.

Matthew Egol, a partner at Booz & Company, the consulting firm, said that while food companies had benefited from social media to gain rapid insight into trends, data on what products to introduce and which words to use in marketing, they also had been the target of complaints that sometimes become magnified in an online environment.

<>

http://www.asrm.org/Environmental_Chemicals_Harm_Reproductive_Health/

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE

Highlights from Fertility and Sterility: Environmental Chemicals Harm Reproductive Health

September 24 , 2013
by: ASRM Office of Public Affairs
Published in ASRM Press Release

Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Changes to Protect Health

Washington, DC—Toxic chemicals in the environment harm our ability to reproduce, negatively affect pregnancies, and are associated with numerous other long-term health problems, according to The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). In a joint Committee Opinion, The College and ASRM urge ob-gyns to advocate for government policy changes to identify and reduce exposure to toxic environmental agents.

“Lawmakers should require the US Environmental Protection Agency and industry to define and estimate the dangers that aggregate exposure to harmful chemicals pose to pregnant women, infants, and children and act to protect these vulnerable populations,” said Jeanne A. Conry, MD, PhD, president of The College.

“Every pregnant woman in America is exposed to many different chemicals in the environment,” said Dr. Conry. “Prenatal exposure to certain chemicals is linked to miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects.” Many chemicals that pregnant women absorb or ingest from the environment can cross the placenta to the fetus. Exposure to mercury during pregnancy, for instance, is known to harm cognitive development in children.

The scientific evidence over the last 15 years shows that exposure to toxic environmental agents before conception and during pregnancy can have significant and long-lasting effects on reproductive health. “For example, pesticide exposure in men is associated with poor semen quality, sterility, and prostate cancer,” said Linda C. Giudice, MD, PhD, president of ASRM. “We also know that exposure to pesticides may interfere with puberty, menstruation and ovulation, fertility, and menopause in women.”

Other reproductive and health problems associated with exposure to toxic environmental agents:

* Miscarriage and stillbirth
* Impaired fetal growth and low birth weight
* Preterm birth
* Childhood cancers
* Birth defects
* Cognitive/intellectual impairment
* Thyroid problems

Approximately 700 new chemicals are introduced into the US market each year, and more than 84,000 chemical substances are being used in manufacturing and processing or are being imported.“The scary fact is that we don’t have safety data on most of these chemicals even though they are everywhere—in the air, water, soil, our food supply, and everyday products,” Dr. Conry said. “Bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor, is a common toxic chemical contained in our food, packaging, and many consumer products.”

“To successfully study the impact of these chemical exposures, we must shift the burden of proof from the individual health care provider and the consumer to the manufacturers before any chemicals are even released into the environment,” said Dr. Conry.

Certain groups of people and communities have higher exposures to harmful environmental chemicals than others. “For example, women exposed to toxic chemicals at work are at higher risk of reproductive health problems than other women,” Dr. Conry said. “Low-wage immigrants who work on farms have higher exposures to chemicals used on the crops that they harvest.”

“As reproductive health care physicians, we are in a unique position to help prevent prenatal exposure to toxic environmental agents by educating our patients about how to avoid them at home, in their community, and at work,” Dr. Giudice said.

What can physicians do?

* Learn about toxic environmental agents common in their community
* Educate patients on how to avoid toxic environmental agents
* Take environmental exposure histories during preconception and first prenatal visits
* Report identified environmental hazards to appropriate agencies
* Encourage pregnant and breastfeeding women and women in the preconception period to eat carefully washed fresh fruits and vegetables and avoid fish containing high levels of methyl-mercury (shark, swordfish, king mackerel, tilefish)
* Advance policies and practices that support a healthy food system
* Advocate for government policy changes to identify and reduce exposure to toxic environmental agents

“Exposure to Toxic Environmental Agents,” a committee opinion, is published in the October issue of Fertility and Sterility.

For examples of toxic environmental exposure patient history forms, go to http://prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/clinical_resources.html

For the Breast Cancer Fund’s recent report on prenatal BPA exposure and breast cancer risk, see http://www.breastcancerfund.org/

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, founded in 1944, is an organization of more than 7,000 physicians, researchers, nurses, technicians and other professionals dedicated to advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive biology. Affiliated societies include the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, the Society of Reproductive Surgeons and the Society of Reproductive Biologists and Technologists. www.asrm.org

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College), a 501(c)(3) organization, is the nation’s leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of approximately 57,000 members, The College strongly advocates for quality health care for women, maintains the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education of its members, promotes patient education, and increases awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women’s health care. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a 501(c)(6) organization, is its companion organization. www.acog.org

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/23/environmental-chemicals-pregnancy-risk/2857753/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/24/environmental-chemicals-pregnancy-risk-report-claims/

Report: Environmental chemicals pose pregnancy risk
Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press 6:38 p.m. EDT September 23, 2013

Certain chemicals are linked to infertility, miscarriages and birth defects.

From mercury to pesticides, Americans are exposed daily to environmental chemicals that could harm reproductive health, the nation's largest groups of obstetricians and fertility specialists said Monday.

The report urges doctors to push for stricter environmental policies to better identify and reduce exposure to chemicals that prove truly risky. But it's likely to scare pregnant women in the meantime.

That's because during the first prenatal visit, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wants doctors to ask mothers-to-be about their exposure to different chemicals. They're also supposed to teach women how to avoid some considered most worrisome during pregnancy.

<>

The industry's American Chemistry Council said current environmental regulations offer enough consumer protection, and that the new report will create "confusion and alarm among expectant mothers" and distract them from proven steps for a healthy pregnancy.

http://www.asrm.org/Environmental_Chemicals_Harm_Reproductive_Health/

September 24 , 2013

by: ASRM Office of Public Affairs
Published in ASRM Press Release

Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Changes to Protect Health

<>

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, founded in 1944, is an organization of more than 7,000 physicians, researchers, nurses, technicians and other professionals dedicated to advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive biology. Affiliated societies include the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, the Society of Reproductive Surgeons and the Society of Reproductive Biologists and Technologists. www.asrm.org

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College), a 501(c)(3) organization, is the nation’s leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of approximately 57,000 members, The College strongly advocates for quality health care for women, maintains the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education of its members, promotes patient education, and increases awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women’s health care. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a 501(c)(6) organization, is its companion organization. www.acog.org

http://michaelpollan.com/books/food-rules/

[img][/img]

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

10/21/13

Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety


As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),(1) we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety(2) (3) (4) and that the debate on this topic is “over”.(5)

We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

Science and society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same.

Some of our objections to the claim of scientific consensus are listed below.

1. There is no consensus on GM food safety

Regarding the safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health, a comprehensive review of animal feeding studies of GM crops found “An equilibrium in the number [of] research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns”. The review also found that most studies concluding that GM foods were as safe and nutritious as those obtained by conventional breeding were “performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants”.(6)

A separate review of animal feeding studies that is often cited as showing that GM foods are safe included studies that found significant differences in the GM-fed animals. While the review authors dismissed these findings as not biologically significant,(7) the interpretation of these differences is the subject of continuing scientific debate(8) (9) (10) (11) and no consensus exists on the topic.

Rigorous studies investigating the safety of GM crops and foods would normally involve animal feeding studies in which one group of animals is fed GM food and another group is fed an equivalent non-GM diet. Independent studies of this type are rare, but when such studies have been performed, some have revealed toxic effects or signs of toxicity in the GM-fed animals.(12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) The concerns raised by these studies have not been followed up by targeted research that could confirm or refute the initial findings.

The lack of scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods and crops is underlined by the recent research calls of the European Union and the French government to investigate the long-term health impacts of GM food consumption in the light of uncertainties raised by animal feeding studies.(18) (19) These official calls imply recognition of the inadequacy of the relevant existing scientific research protocols. They call into question the claim that existing research can be deemed conclusive and the scientific debate on biosafety closed.


2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health

It is often claimed that “trillions of GM meals” have been eaten in the US with no ill effects. However, no epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods are not labelled in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.


3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate

Claims that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that GM foods are safe, or that they are no more risky than non-GM foods,(20) (21) are false.

For instance, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report that was highly critical of the regulatory system for GM foods and crops in that country. The report declared that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe without rigorous scientific testing and that the “default prediction” for every GM food should be that the introduction of a new gene will cause “unanticipated changes” in the expression of other genes, the pattern of proteins produced, and/or metabolic activities. Possible outcomes of these changes identified in the report included the presence of new or unexpected allergens.(22)

A report by the British Medical Association concluded that with regard to the long-term effects of GM foods on human health and the environment, “many unanswered questions remain” and that “safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available”. The report called for more research, especially on potential impacts on human health and the environment.(23)

Moreover, the positions taken by other organizations have frequently been highly qualified, acknowledging data gaps and potential risks, as well as potential benefits, of GM technology. For example, a statement by the American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health acknowledged “a small potential for adverse events … due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity” and recommended that the current voluntary notification procedure practised in the US prior to market release of GM crops be made mandatory.(24) It should be noted that even a “small potential for adverse events” may turn out to be significant, given the widespread exposure of human and animal populations to GM crops.

A statement by the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) affirming the safety of GM crops and opposing labelling(25) cannot be assumed to represent the view of AAAS members as a whole and was challenged in an open letter by a group of 21 scientists, including many long-standing members of the AAAS.(26) This episode underlined the lack of consensus among scientists about GMO safety.


4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety

An EU research project(27) has been cited internationally as providing evidence for GM crop and food safety. However, the report based on this project, “A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research”, presents no data that could provide such evidence, from long-term feeding studies in animals.

Indeed, the project was not designed to test the safety of any single GM food, but to focus on “the development of safety assessment approaches”.(28) Only five published animal feeding studies are referenced in the SAFOTEST section of the report, which is dedicated to GM food safety.(29) None of these studies tested a commercialised GM food; none tested the GM food for long-term effects beyond the subchronic period of 90 days; all found differences in the GM-fed animals, which in some cases were statistically significant; and none concluded on the safety of the GM food tested, let alone on the safety of GM foods in general. Therefore the EU research project provides no evidence for sweeping claims about the safety of any single GM food or of GM crops in general.


5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety

A frequently cited claim published on an Internet website that several hundred studies “document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”(30) is misleading. Examination of the studies listed reveals that many do not provide evidence of GM food safety and, in fact, some provide evidence of a lack of safety. For example:

Many of the studies are not toxicological animal feeding studies of the type that can provide useful information about health effects of GM food consumption. The list includes animal production studies that examine parameters of interest to the food and agriculture industry, such as milk yield and weight gain; (31) (32) studies on environmental effects of GM crops; and analytical studies of the composition or genetic makeup of the crop.

Among the animal feeding studies and reviews of such studies in the list, a substantial number found toxic effects and signs of toxicity in GM-fed animals compared with controls.(33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) Concerns raised by these studies have not been satisfactorily addressed and the claim that the body of research shows a consensus over the safety of GM crops and foods is false and irresponsible.

Many of the studies were conducted over short periods compared with the animal’s total lifespan and cannot detect long-term health effects.(39) (40)

We conclude that these studies, taken as a whole, are misrepresented on the Internet website as they do not “document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”. Rather, some of the studies give serious cause for concern and should be followed up by more detailed investigations over an extended period of time.


6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops

Environmental risks posed by GM crops include the effects of Bt insecticidal crops on non-target organisms and effects of the herbicides used in tandem with herbicide-tolerant GM crops.

As with GM food safety, no scientific consensus exists regarding the environmental risks of GM crops. A review of environmental risk assessment approaches for GM crops identified shortcomings in the procedures used and found “no consensus” globally on the methodologies that should be applied, let alone on standardized testing procedures.(41)

Some reviews of the published data on Bt crops have found that they can have adverse effects on non-target and beneficial organisms(42) (43) (44) (45) – effects that are widely neglected in regulatory assessments and by some scientific commentators. Resistance to Bt toxins has emerged in target pests,(46) and problems with secondary (non-target) pests have been noted, for example, in Bt cotton in China.(47) (48)

Herbicide-tolerant GM crops have proved equally controversial. Some reviews and individual studies have associated them with increased herbicide use,(49) (50) the rapid spread of herbicide-resistant weeds,(51) and adverse health effects in human and animal populations exposed to Roundup, the herbicide used on the majority of GM crops.(52) (53) (54)

As with GM food safety, disagreement among scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops may be correlated with funding sources. A peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops found that funding and disciplinary training had a significant effect on attitudes. Scientists with industry funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to have a positive attitude to GM crops and to hold that they do not represent any unique risks, while publicly-funded scientists working independently of GM crop developer companies and/or those trained in ecology were more likely to hold a “moderately negative” attitude to GM crop safety and to emphasize the uncertainty and ignorance involved. The review authors concluded, “The strong effects of training and funding might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organize science and how we make public decisions when new technologies are to be evaluated.”(55)


7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated over many years and implemented in 2003. The Cartagena Protocol is an international agreement ratified by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology. It embodies the Precautionary Principle in that it allows signatory states to take precautionary measures to protect themselves against threats of damage from GM crops and foods, even in case of a lack of scientific certainty.(56)

Another international body, the UN's Codex Alimentarius, worked with scientific experts for seven years to develop international guidelines for the assessment of GM foods and crops, because of concerns about the risks they pose. These guidelines were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, of which over 160 nations are members, including major GM crop producers such as the United States.(57)

The Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.

These agreements would never have been negotiated, and the implementation processes elaborating how such safety assessments should be conducted would not currently be happening, without widespread international recognition of the risks posed by GM crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing scientific understanding.

Concerns about risks are well-founded, as has been demonstrated by studies on some GM crops and foods that have shown adverse effects on animal health and non-target organisms, indicated above. Many of these studies have, in fact, fed into the negotiation and/or implementation processes of the Cartagena Protocol and Codex. We support the application of the Precautionary Principle with regard to the release and transboundary movement of GM crops and foods.


Conclusion

In the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few examples to illustrate that the totality of scientific research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced, complex, often contradictory or inconclusive, confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources, and in general, has raised more questions than it has currently answered.

Whether to continue and expand the introduction of GM crops and foods into the human food and animal feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific debate and the currently unresolved biosafety research agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the broader society. They should, however, be supported by strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health and the environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently diversified to compensate for bias.

Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a “scientific consensus” exists on GMO safety.

REFERENCES (please see link)

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins

"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"

Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune

September 3, 2000

BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.

In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.

As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.

Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.

<>

More at link.

http://www.elle.com/news/culture/gmo-food-debate

Let's Discuss (Again): The GMO Food Debate
ELLE, August 9 2013

Because the issue of the safety of genetic modified food is such a deeply contentious one, when ELLE published Caitlin Shetterly’s story "Bad Seed," we expected that some might object that it unfairly maligned GMOs. And Jon Entine, the author of Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health, has done that in Slate.

In our piece, Shetterly recounts how she and her allergist came to believe that genetically altered corn was the probable cause of the debilitating, allergic illness that afflicted her, one marked by a profusion of a kind of white blood cells called eosinophils. Her point of view was clear, but at the same time she—and ELLE—were committed to airing both sides of the GMO debate.

Entine, however, ignored passages in the piece that didn’t fit his thesis that so-called “lifestyle magazines” like ELLE “credulously stoke conspiratorial fears” about GMOs. For example, Shetterly included the perspective of Amal Assa’ad, MD, a professor at the University of Cincinnati medical school, who dismisses Shetterly’s anxiety over GMO’s safety “as almost magical thinking.” The story continues: “What’s wrong with chemicals?” [Assa’ad] asked. “We’re so afraid of chemicals because they are man-made, right? A lot of chemicals have helped us—a lot of medications are chemicals.” If anything, GMO foods have been a boon to mankind, Assa’ad said. GMO seeds “produce better crops that have increased production, that are resistant to pesticides—crops that can feed the rest of the world.”

Entine also communicated with Shetterly’s sources, some of whom took issue with how their opinions were portrayed. After reviewing the work of Shetterly and ELLE’s fact-checker, who examined the transcripts of interviews with each source and/or confirmed their statements via email or by phone—we stand by our story.

<>

In the course of reporting the piece, Shetterly spoke with a number of researchers and medical professionals who told her they couldn’t go on the record about their doubts about GMOs because they feared being sued by a biotech or agriculture company, or losing grant money provided by the private sector. Von Tiehl, who also told Entine that ELLE’s article wrongly suggested that he thinks “there is something scary or obviously wrong or concerning about GMO foods”, was one of those who worried about his legal exposure.

<>

Here is an excerpt from the taped, transcribed interview between Shetterly and von Tiehl:

CS: Do you read labels and see all those hidden places where GMO corn is like xanthan gum, citric acid, ascorbic acid, natural flavorings? [GMO corn is used to make all those substances.] Would you not buy those things?

KVT: I can’t answer that question for legal reasons.

CS: Really?...

KVT: I can’t tell you how I have personally changed my diet.

CS: Because you’re afraid of being sued?

KVT: Because I’m afraid of being sued by big agribusiness.

More.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/14/elle-magazines-bungled-gmo-controversy-deepens/

Jon Entine: Elle Magazine's Bungled GMO Reporting Controversy Deepens

...As I documented in Slate, from a scientific perspective, the belief that she suffered crippling eosinophilic esophagitis as a result of ingesting GM food is complete nonsense. Since GMOs were introduced into the food supply, there has not been one documented case of any health problem in humans—not even so much as a sniffle—linked to approved GMO foods...

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1997/8.96-5.97/msg00243.html

USA Today Article, March 6, 1997 Page A-13, Genetically , Altered Food: BuyerBeware

...The risks are not hypothetical. Any unbiased scientist
familiar with the technology will admit that genetic
engineering can give rise to unanticipated allergens
and toxins. Already we have seen this scenario in action.
In 1989, a dietary supplement, L-tryptophan, caused
37 U.S. deaths and 1,511 nonfatal cases of a disease
called eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS). The Centers for
Disease Control linked these cases to tryptophan manufactured
using genetically engineered bacteria. A study published
in Science in 1990 confirmed that the tryptophan was
contaminated with a toxic "novel amino acid" not present in
tryptophan produced by other methods.

<>

Dr. John B. Fagan is a molecular biologist who has
conducted research using recombinant DNA techniques.

http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/

A series of embarrassing retractions have damaged the scientific credibility of the US media's GM-apologist of choice.

Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged?
Jonathan Latham
Independent Science News, 12 November 2013

Synopsis: When a quotable university expert is needed to speak on behalf of crop biotechnology, Pamela Ronald is the US media's professor of choice. Her credibility as a scientific pro-GMO expert derives from her long-term research into diseases of rice at the University of California, Davis. But Pamela Ronald's research career is coming to resemble a liability. In the past year the laboratory Ronald heads has publicly retracted two original scientific papers. These publications (including one from Science) formed the core of her plant disease research . At the same time, German researchers have publicly raised substantive questions about a third Ronald publication.

Presumably because her scientific reputation is highly valuable to the biotech industry, a coordinated media campaign is underway to rescue it. Pamela Ronald and the campaign blame now-departed lab members from Thailand and Korea for the lab's errors and Ronald is praised for initiating the retractions. The truth, however, is not so simple, and raises still further questions about the scientific validity of Pamela Ronald's research.

Full text:

Professor Pamela Ronald is probably the scientist most widely known for publicly defending genetically engineered (GE or GMO) crops. Her media persona, familiar to readers of the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, NPR, and many other global media outlets, is to take no prisoners.

After New York Times chief food writer Mark Bittman advocated GMO labelling, she called him “a scourge on science” who “couches his nutty views in reasonable-sounding verbiage”. His opinions were “almost fact and science-free” continued Ronald. In 2011 she claimed in an interview with the US Ambassador to New Zealand: “After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.”

<>

The first paper was retracted on January 29th 2013, from the journal PLoS One (Han et al 2011). News of the retraction was (belatedly) published on the 11th of September 2013 by the blog Retraction Watch under the headline: "Doing the right thing: Researchers retract quorum sensing paper after public process".[2]

The second retraction, from Science, was officially announced a month later, on October 11th 2013 (Lee et al 2009). This time, retraction was accompanied by a lengthy explanation (Anatomy of a Retraction, by Pamela Ronald) in the official blog of Scientific American. In this article, Ronald blamed the work of unnamed former lab members from Korea and Thailand. Retraction Watch reported the retraction, this time the same day, as: "Pamela Ronald does the right thing again'. Also on the same day, "The Scientist" magazine quoted Pamela Ronald saying it was “just a mix-up” and repeating her claim that “Former lab members who had begun new positions as professors in Korea and Thailand were devastated to learn that [we] could not repeat their work”.

<>

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/living-sick-and-dying-young-in-rich-america/282495/

Living Sick and Dying Young in Rich America
Chronic illness is the new first-world problem.

LEAH SOTTILE
DEC 19 2013, 9:01 AM ET

We were standing at Target in an aisle we’d never walked down before, looking at things we didn’t understand. Pill splitters, multivitamins, supplements, and the thing we were here to buy: a long blue pill box—the kind with seven little doors labeled “S M T W T F S “ for each day of the week, the kind that old people cram their pills into when they have too many to remember what they’ve already taken.

My husband, Joe Preston, shook his head. “Do I really need this?”

I grabbed it off the shelf and threw it in our basket. And when we got home, Joe—then a fit and fairly spry 30-year-old man with a boss-level beard—stood at the kitchen counter, dropping each of his prescriptions with a plink into the container.

I guess it’s true that life is full of surprises, but for the three years since Joe’s crippling pain was diagnosed as the result of an autoimmune disease called Ankylosing Spondylitis, our life has been full of surprises like this one. Pill boxes, trips to the emergency room, early returns from vacation. Terms like “flare-up” have dropped into our vocabulary. We’ve sat in waiting rooms where Joe was the only person without a walker or a cane. Most of our tears have been over the fact that these aren’t the kind of surprises either of us thought we’d be encountering at such a young age.

But here’s the thing: We recently realized we weren’t alone. Almost all of our friends are sick, too. When we met our friend Missy Narrance, Joe found solace in talking to her about his health. She’s 29 and has been battling lupus and fibromyalgia for the past 10 years. She’s been through chemotherapy twice, and her daily symptoms are so extreme that she was granted federal disability status when she was just 23 years old. In our close group of friends—who range from 25 to 35 years old—we know people with everything from tumors to chronic pain. Sometimes our conversations over beers on a Friday night turn to discussions of long-term care and miscommunication between doctors.

<>

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11801-pusztai-to-receive-stuttgart-peace-prize

Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal

The following is an email - of 10 August 2008 from Dr Pusztai to Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews of GMWatch, in which Dr Pusztai comments on the 10th anniversary of the television interview.

Dear Claire and Jonathan,

I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.

On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven't got one. Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.

All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still "many opinions but very few data"; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.

In normal times one would not pay much attention to such people desperately trying to be seen as the advocates of true science, but these are not normal times. The mostly engineered (GM engineered) food crisis gives the GM biotech industry and its warriors an opportunity to come to the fore with claims that GM is the only way to save a hungry world; a claim not much supported by responsible bodies, such as the IAASTD. The advocates of GM also now think that they have found a chink in the armory of people's resolve that they can exploit by telling us that we would not be able to feed our animals without GM feedstuffs. In this way, they hope to bring in GM by the backdoor. Please remember that whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back indirectly. Rather ominously, there has been no work whatever to show the safety of the meat of GM-fed animals.

We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people's good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.

Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!

Best wishes to all
Arpad Pusztai

http://najms.net/wp-content/uploads/v06i03.pdf#page=34

...The final commentary was written by Dr. Herbert, who presents her paper entitled “Everyday Epigenetics from Molecular Intervention to Public Health and Lifestyle Medicine.” She asserts that it may well take a grass roots epigenetic/lifestyle medicine revolution to avert the worsening health trends we are facing in the setting of a progressively more toxic and endangered planet. She posits that everyday epigenetics can inform science of what is possible so that society can respond on an appropriate scale to the magnitude of the crisis we are facing.