Page 11 - the NOISE October 2012

Besides being able to cast their votes for who will be our president for the next four years, Californians will also have the opportu- nity this November to pass the first US man- date for the labeling of genetically engineered foods (GMOs). Proposition 37 — The Califor- nia Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act – would require all foods sold in the state be labeled to let consumers know wheth- er they contain GMOs as part of the ingredient and nutritional information.
Fifty other countries around the world al- ready require the labeling of GMO foods includ- ing all of Europe, India, Japan, and even China. But here in the US, there are no requirements for identifying GMO ingredients in any foods. Resistance to GMO labeling in the US has been fueled by the objections of large corporations that use GMO ingredients in their products and companies like Monsanto that produce the GMO foods themselves.
According to Natural News, “Monsanto has now officially shelled out a total of more than $7.1 million to prevent consumers from know- ing the truth about what is really contained in the foods they buy.” Monsanto has taken the lead in the “No on 37” campaign that includes a multitude of other businesses not based in California but are concerned about losing mar- ket share in the state if food labeling is required. The big agricultural and pesticide companies like Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, and BASF are joined in their efforts by junk food manufac- turers including PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Nestle, General Mills, and ConAgra Foods. In fact, ac- cording to the California Right To Know website,
“Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop 37.” All of the anti-37 campaign funds have come from big businesses.
GMOs are created when genes from the DNA of one species are injected into the DNA of an- other species. The transferred genes can come from plants, animals, bacteria, viruses, and even human beings. In some cases genes from animals are spliced with those from plants which are then grown as food. Collectively, these processes are known as biotechnology or Genetic Engineering. There is no precedent for this process of extracting genetic material from one species, manipulating it as a chemical, and then putting it back into a living organism. The GMO species that are created by these pro- cesses may be unstable and cannot be created by traditional crossbreeding practices.
Two new independent and peer-reviewed studies out of France and the United Kingdom have found strong evidence of the dangers of GMO foods. The UK study found that rats con- suming even a small amount of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide or “Roundup Ready” maize (corn that has been genetically modified to re- sist application of the Roundup herbicide) de- veloped mammary tumors and suffered kidney and liver damage. Female animals were par- ticularly affected. The French study also found animals given water containing small amounts of Roundup perished sooner than those not
exposed to the chemical. Both studies used amounts of the GMO ingredients that are con- sidered “safe” by Monsanto and permitted by the laws of the United States. These studies were also conducted over the lifetime of the rats — approximately two years — as opposed to other industry-sponsored studies that have never gone beyond 90 days.
Monsanto argues these studies are not valid as humans would have to consume large amounts of GMO foods to see the same results. However, without labeling, is it possible for us to know how much we are eating? Monsanto insists that’s not really important because its products are perfectly safe anyway.
Monsanto has stated that “there is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods — the only exceptions being highly refined materials like oil or sugar from which all cell material has been removed. Thus, DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard.” So, accord- ing to the agricultural giant, DNA is DNA — it doesn’t matter if it comes from plants, humans, animals, or viruses. Earlier studies have shown that DNA from GMOs does not properly break down in our intestines and can actually al- ter and damage the DNA of friendly bacteria found there.
In the US, genetically modified ingredients are found in a host of foods and food products. In fact over 85% of soybeans, 76% of cotton- seed, 93% of canola (also known as rapeseed), 40% of corn, and more than 50% of Hawaiian papaya are GMO. The only way to avoid these ingredients is to purchase organic varieties of these foods. And even then, problems have been surfacing because organic farmers are having difficulty keeping GMO seeds and pol- len from drifting into and contaminating their organic crops.
Prop 37 will not stop the production or sale of GMOs but labeling requirements will at least allow consumers to make a choice as to wheth- er or not they will purchase and support these products. While this measure will only require labeling in one state, it is expected that other states may follow suit if Prop 37 passes.
Ironically, in 1997 Monsanto led a campaign in Europe that supported labeling of their GMO products. At that time, it was confident consumers would choose foods that were ge- netically engineered over unmodified ones. Its about-face on the labeling issue seems to indi- cate a fear that an educated consumer will ac- tually avoid its products, not prefer them.
October 2012 has been declared National Non-GMO Month by the non-profit Non-GMO Project. Northern Arizona’s GMO-Free Prescott group will be sponsoring a myriad of events in celebration and to support California’s voters in passing Prop 37. More information can be found at gmofreeprescottaz.org.
| Cindy J. Cole knows what a real tomato tastes like. cindycole@live.com
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news magazine • OCTOBER 2012 • 11