Andrew Kimbrell participated in the
mini GMO summit.  He is an attorney, founder and director for The Center for Food Safety. He reviews some of  the claims made by the GMO industry and refutes them. Lets look at a couple of them today.

A consistent message given to us by makers of pesticides and genetically engineered crops is this: “There is nothing new here.”

I mentioned in my previous post that genetic engineering is new and complex. Genes are complex. Injecting pesticides into the gene pool of plants is new. What are the consequences and are we and other species the guinea pigs?

Fact: Andrew Kimbrell, attorney and director of The Center for Food Safety, states: the genetic modification of plants creates very different plants. It is not a precise insertion (check my previous post) as these companies would have us believe. We are mixing and matching the genetic makeup of living things which we have not done before. For example, they attach promoter viruses which happen to already be resistant to ampicillin, once a significant antibiotic used to fight infection in animals and humans.

He also states: the genetic makeup of plants is enormously complex. There are “zillions and I mean zillions of elements that are used by the organism to develop those traits, and to carry those traits on from generation to generation.”

When the materials injected invade a cell and drop off the DNA, there is no predictability on where it is going to go in the DNA of that plant.

Isn’t it ironic that these foods, described as nothing new have patents on them? Which by definition makes them unique.

The Merriam Webster dictionary states:

“secured by letters patent or by a patent to the exclusive control and possession of a particular individual or party”

Another site states:

“A patent is a temporary government-granted monopoly right on something made by an inventor. The historical purpose of the patent system was to encourage the development of new inventions, and in particular to encourage the disclosure of those new inventions.”

I think the discrepancy is obvious: We are told  genetic engineering and the process of placing pesticides in a gene is nothing new when in fact the very companies that make them run to the patent office to protect their new and unique creations and thereby secure exclusive control and possession of them.

2. Genetically modified seed with a pesticide will reduce the use of pesticides.

Fact: The use of Roundup alone has dramatically increased over the past several years. This practice creates resistant weeds which then requires more pesticide use.

I have even heard scientists explain that the soil almost becomes addicted. As weeds grow in spite of the pesticide use, creating  super weeds that become more and more resistant, then more pesticide is needed which each passing year. “115 million more pounds of Roundup was used because of genetically engineered crops.”

In fact a new concern is hitting the internet airwaves. These companies, specifically Dow, want  to use 2,4-D, an element in agent orange, a plant defoliant used in the Vietnam war, to fight these super weeds. this agent already has a body of research for toxicity to the environment as well as documented health issues in out veterans.

As Mr. Kimbrell so poignantly points out we are approaching the problem from the wrong perspective. Let’s stop the use of GMO’s, the pesticides involved and go back to organic practices. Why not? We have serious research that is pointing to the increasing incidence of many diseases with the advent and use of roundup and GMO’s as well as other agents such as 2,4-D.

Today I have included a petition from http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/take-action. I hope you will join the petition to express our concern to our government.

I encourage you to speak up and out against these practices.

Thank you. Judith

You Might Also Enjoy:

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This