Toxic Industrial Standards Are No Longer Invincible
March 03, 2015
|
150,175
views
By Dr. Mercola
A number of developments, including an increasing number of lawsuits,
suggest that toxic industrial standards are no longer being shrugged
off as a necessary cost of modern living. People really are starting to
wake up to the very literal mess that we're in.
For example, large factory farms, so-called confined animal feeding
operations (CAFOs), generate massive amounts of toxic runoff that
threaten water supplies and ecological health.
Genetically engineered (GE) crop fields onto which large amounts of
toxic pesticides are applied are also being increasingly challenged by
concerned scientists, both for the potential hazard that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) pose, and the more well-recognized hazards posed by the chemicals.
Attention Journalists—Start Reporting GMO Science Accurately!
In response to the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) deregulation of
the GE Arctic ® apple, the Consumers Union, Friends of the Earth,
Center for Food Safety, and Pesticide Action Network put out a joint
statement1,2 calling on media to start reporting the science of GMOs accurately.
At present, most if not all media coverage discussing GMOs is little
more than a regurgitation of biased and inaccurate "facts" churned out
by the industry PR machine. The March issue of National Geographic,3 which addresses "the war on science," is no exception to this rule.
If there's a war on science, it's being waged against the real science of GMOs, which tends to produce results that run contrary to the industry's glossy advertisements.
A major objection raised by sustainability advocates such as myself is
against false reporting of science that either does not exist or has
been convoluted by special interest groups.
In fact, we're all trying to get the media and the chemical technology industry to address the actual science already, which is pointing to the fact that there are serious risks involved.
You can look forward to my upcoming interview with Steven Druker later
this month. He is the attorney who sued the FDA for their decision that
made GMOs possible in 1992. An absolutely fascinating story that will
reveal details you're likely unaware of.
300 Scientists Proclaim: There Is NO Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety
On January 24, a statement signed by 300 scientists, researchers,
physicians, and scholars was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe,4 asserting that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.
Moreover, the paper, aptly titled "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety", states that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is in actuality "an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated."
The paper—which, again, bears the signatures of hundreds of scientists and academics—also notes that such
a claim "is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the
currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of
scientific opinions among scientists on this issue."
The idea of "scientific consensus" has been repeated so many times that
many people believe it must be true. It's time to sit up and take
notice, and to call journalists out on their lack of professional
integrity when making such claims.
According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, senior scientist and director of sustainable agriculture at the Center for Food Safety:5
"Preeminent science bodies like the National Research Council have
recognized that some engineered foods could pose considerable risk. It
is widely recognized by scientists that those risks depend on the
particular engineered gene and crop.
It is unfortunate that self-appointed advocates for the technology
have selectively cited the literature and organizations to suggest that
GE crops, generally, present no risks that warrant concern."
Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist at Consumers Union adds:
"Not one independent, public safety study has been carried out on
the Arctic apple, and yet some media stories have reported it is 'safe.'
We call on the press to accurately report on the science of GMOs,
particularly the health and environmental concerns raised by scientists
and the lack of required safety studies that leave questions about the
safety of genetically engineered foods."
Hundreds of scientists have now put it out in black and white: There is no consensus among scientists that GMOs are safe.
On the contrary, there are all sorts of concerns—virtually all of which
are being ignored by the media. Contrary to what you read or hear in
conventional news, the joint statement concludes 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...
Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be
based on misleading and misrepresentative claims by an internal circle
of likeminded stakeholders that a 'scientific consensus' exists on GMO
safety."
Points of Objection to 'Consensus of Safety' Claim
The authors and co-signers of No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety,6
raise the following six points of objection to the claim of "scientific
consensus" with regards to the safety of genetically engineered foods:
|
There is no consensus in the science | According to a comprehensive review7
of peer-reviewed animal feeding studies of GMOs published in 2011,
there are as many studies raising concerns about GE foods as there are
studies proclaiming them to be as safe and nutritious as conventional
foods.
Moreover, the review notes that most studies declaring GE
foods comparable to conventional foods were performed by biotechnology
companies or associated parties. |
| There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential health effects of GE food on human health |
As noted by Friends of the Earth, "with no epidemiological studies,
claims that 'trillions of GMO meals' have been eaten with no ill effects
have no scientific basis." There's also the inconvenient fact that one
GE supplement actually did kill. In the 1980s, the supplement
L-tryptophan, which was the result of genetic engineering, was the first
major GMO catastrophe, killing dozens of people who took it.
Thousands
were seriously sickened, and of those, hundreds contracted a rare and
disabling disorder named eosinophilia–myalgia syndrome (EMS).
The
idea that you can claim GMOs safe for human consumption over an entire
lifetime without presenting so much as a shred of scientific
evidence—THAT is "war" on science! |
| GMO studies are frequently mischaracterized as showing safety | One
example of this is the EU Research Project, which has been
internationally cited as providing evidence of GMO safety. Alas, this
research was not designed to test safety, and provides no reliable
evidence of such.
"Another example is the false claim that
'hundreds of studies' listed on the biotechnology website Biofortified
demonstrate GMO safety; in fact, many of the studies on that list do not
address safety concerns at all, and several of the studies raise
serious concerns," the featured press release states. |
| International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GMO foods and crops | Agreements
such as the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety and the UN Codex
Alimentarius agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional
breeding. Many pro-GMO reporters compare genetic engineering of plants
to that of conventional cross-breeding and hybridization—completely
ignoring the fact that nature does not cross-breed across kingdoms,
blending insect and plant DNA for example.
According to the World Health Organization8
(WHO), GMOs are "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been
altered in such a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or
natural recombination." International agreements also concur in their
recommendations that safety assessments are necessary prior to
introducing GMOs into the environment or the food supply. |
| Claims that government and scientific organizations endorse safety are exaggerated or inaccurate | The featured statement9 notes that:
"Reports by the Royal Society of Canada and British Medical Association
have noted that some GMOs could be of considerable harm.
The
positions of some prominent scientific organizations have been
misrepresented or opposed by members, further highlighting the lack of
consensus among scientists."
In the US, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine10 (AAEM) has called on all physicians to prescribe diets without genetically modified (GM) foods to all
patients. They've also called for a moratorium on genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), long-term independent studies, and labeling, stating:
"Several
animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,
including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin
regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system…
There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse
health effects. There is causation…" |
| There is no consensus on environmental impacts of GMOs | Scientists
have also raised a number of concerns about the impact of increased
pesticide and herbicide use to human and environmental health. For
example, the toxicity of Monsanto's Roundup appears to have been vastly underestimated according to some researchers, and others have discovered previously unknown mechanisms of harm by glyphosate. Serious safety concerns have also been raised about neonicotinoids and other commonly used pesticides. |
Federal Lawsuits Over CAFOs Are Increasing
Moving on to other related issues demonstrating that opposition against
the status quo of toxic food production is strengthening. This trend
includes a rising number of federal lawsuits being filed against
confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). As reported by Des Moines
Register:11
"From Washington state to North Carolina, federal lawsuits are
challenging the efficient, profitable livestock industry to change its
ways. The arguments found in the lawsuits are based on studies that
increasingly show the impact phosphorous, nitrate and bacteria from
fertilizer and accumulated manure have on lakes and rivers as well as
air pollution that may be harmful to respiratory health... Earlier this
year, a federal judge in eastern Washington ruled that an industrial
dairy farm's manure management practices posed an 'imminent and
substantial endangerment' to the environment and to thousands relying on
well water."
A sobering statistic from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
says that 68 percent of American lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, and more
than 50 percent of rivers and streams are now adversely impacted by
toxic agricultural runoff. Hog-producing states such as Iowa and North
Carolina are seeing an uprising of residents complaining about declining
water and air quality.
In both of those states, lawsuits have been filed to curb the growing
pollution produced by large-scale pork producers. Des Moines Water
Works, for example, recently filed a notice of intent to sue CAFOs in
three neighboring counties under the federal Clean Water Act for
polluting the city's water supply with nitrates, 12,13 which is costing them $7,000 day to filter out. According to Bill Stowe, CEO and general manager of the utility:
"In this state, obviously, industrial agriculture is king. We'll
continue to get a lot of blowback, but our ratepayers are first and
foremost in our minds and they're tired of paying for other people's
pollution."
New York Passes Bill to Protect Farmers Against Monsanto
In New York, lawmakers have stepped in to help protect farmers in the state against lawsuits from Monsanto
and other biotech companies, should they inadvertently end up with
genetically engineered plants in their fields. The bill was passed by
the state's Assembly on February 16. As reported by the Cornucopia
Institute:14
"Seed producers have sued farmers around the country for allegedly
growing their bioengineered crops without buying the seed. Farmers often
argue the seeds arrived by wind or other natural means. Assemblyman Tom
Abinanti said... that his legislation will make it easier for New York
farmers to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits. He says that in
the case of organic farmers, genetically modified seeds are seen as a
contaminant."
Toxins Showing Up Here, There, and Everywhere...
Meanwhile, researchers report finding flame retardants and pesticide
byproducts at potentially toxic levels in sharks, rays, and other marine
life in the Indian River Lagoon and the ocean off the coast of Brevard
County, Florida.15
Shark livers have been found to contain byproducts of DDT and other
pesticides banned decades ago, showing just how long these toxins remain
in the environment... Further north, in Maryland, lawmakers have
started working on proposed legislation that would limit the use of
neonicotinoid pesticides, which have been shown to decimate bee
populations. As reported by the Associated Press:16
"The Pollinator Protection Act would require any plants, seeds or
nursery stock treated with certain pesticides to include a warning
label. It also seeks to prevent people who are not experienced with
using the pesticides, which are known as 'neonics,' from using them...
'The critical issues are neonic pesticides are a major contributor to
honeybee decline, resulting in Maryland beekeepers losing nearly 50
percent of their hives in 2012,' said Sen. Shirley Nathan-Pulliam, who
is sponsoring the bill."
Under this bill, neonicotinoids would only be available for sale to
certified applicators, farmers, and veterinarians. Joe Miedusiewski, a
lobbyist representing landscapers, horticulturalists, and golf course
superintendents expressed opposition to the bill, saying it would have
"a devastating economic effect on our industry." What fascinates me is
the pathological shortsightedness of these industry representatives.
What good will it do to have money if you kill off all the pollinating
insects, without which we cannot produce food? Even the most ignorant
must still eat, but they act as thought they'll be able to somehow
survive without such basics...
EPA Study Finds No Financial or Agricultural Benefits of Bee-Killing Neonicotinoids
One recent EPA study17 concluded that treating soybean seeds with neonicotinoids
provides no significant financial or agricultural benefits for farmers.
Moreover, the researchers note there are several other foliar
insecticides available that can combat pests as effectively as
neonicotinoid seed treatments.
In response to these findings, researchers from the pesticide industry
met with EPA pesticide regulators in a closed meeting to discuss the
value of neonicotinoids. According to two researchers with Ag
Informatics, banning neonicotinoids "would impose $848 million a year in
initial transition costs on the agriculture industry and lead to huge
increases in the use of older, more dangerous and less effective
insecticides," Bloomberg18 reports.
They also claim that neonicotinoids are applied to 56 percent of all
corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, and sorghum crops planted in the US, and
that (based on a phone survey), 75-80 percent of farmers in the US and
Canada say they would continue to use neonicotinoid-treated seeds even
if non-treated seeds were available. While it's possible that many
conventional farmers would be clueless enough to take that route, I
think it's foolish to propose that a toxic substance should remain on
the market and/or avoid regulation simply because a phone poll suggests
farmers wouldn't switch to less toxic alternatives even if they had the
option!
Should We Continue Feeding Antibiotics to Livestock?
Pesticide producers and GE monocropping farmers are not the only ones
lacking long-term survival skills. The same shortsightedness can be
found among drug companies and livestock producers—not to mention our
regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An
infographic in National Geographic19 lays out the statistics on the use of antibiotics in livestock, and it's a sad state of affairs indeed.
Eighty percent of all antibiotics sold in the US are given to poultry
and livestock raised in CAFOs, which has led to a man-made plague of
antibiotic-resistant infections that is now killing 23,000 Americans
each year. Yet livestock producers insist on continuing the practice to
keep their meats "affordable." Well, over half of all the "affordable"
chicken sold in your local grocery store is tainted with drug-resistant
E.coli, and one could definitely argue that should you contract such an
infection, you're not getting out of it cheaply!
More Toxic News...
So what else is going on? How about toxic glyphosate being detected in honey, including organic honey... That's the verdict issued by Boston University researchers20
working in collaboration with Abraxis LLC. In all, 62 percent of
conventional honeys and 45 percent of organic varieties were tainted
with glyphosate.
Health experts in Argentina, which has long struggled with the health
effects of pesticides, is also reaching out with dire warnings again.
According to Dr. Medardo Ávila-Vázquez,21
a pediatrician and neonatologist at the Faculty of Medical Sciences at
the National University of Córdoba, glyphosate use in connection to GMO
seeds is having a notably deleterious effect on the health of the local
people, particularly children.
"We must recognize that the agrochemicals used are all poisonous:
herbicides like glyphosate, 2,4-D...or Atrazine, are designed to kill
plants, and endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, cypermethrin,
imidacloprid, etc. are designed to kill insects and are the most widely
used; they all have deleterious effects on human health and the
environment," he writes.
"The use of these pesticides has been increasing exponentially since
1990: back then, 30 million liters of poisons were used; during the
2012/2013 crop season more than 318 million liters were applied. On the
same hectare where 2 or 3 liters of glyphosate were used per year, today
8 or 12 liters are used with 1.5 liters of 2,4-D in addition. In
Santiago del Estero, Salta, and Chaco (north-western Argentina) up to 20
liters/ha/year of Round Up are used."
The Results of Global 'Live' Testing of Chemical-Based Agriculture Are In
Nearly two decades-worth of heavy pesticide use is now showing its
real-life effects in Argentinean disease and mortality statistics. There
has been a notable increase in respiratory problems, chronic
dermatitis, depression, immune and endocrine disorders, for example.
Miscarriages have skyrocketed, and 23 percent of women of childbearing
age report having had at least one miscarriage in the past five years.
Infertility among both men and women has significantly increased. Among
animals—those proverbial canaries in the coal mine—up to 100 percent of
spontaneous abortions and premature deaths have been due to
malformations linked to pesticide exposure.
Birth deformities are also rising—especially among mothers exposed to
pesticides during the first few months of pregnancy. In some towns,
birth deformities and defects such as Down's syndrome, spina bifida, and
neural tube defects occur at three times the normal rate. Data also
show that 30 percent of deaths in areas where pesticides are sprayed are
due to cancer, while the average cancer death rate is less than 20
percent.
"Significantly, the date coincides with the expansion in the use of
glyphosate and other agrochemicals massively applied in those areas. In
May 2014, the Ministry of Health of the Province of Córdoba published
data from its cancer registry, confirming that in the most intensive
agricultural areas, deaths due to cancer exceed by 100 percent those in
the city, and by 70 percent the provincial average," Dr. Medardo Ávila-Vázquez writes.22
"For 100 000 years our species was in contact with minimum amounts
of these toxins, but now, thanks to biotechnology, we are exposed to
massive amounts of these proteins... Today we know that 40 percent of
the genes of the human genome are shared with plants and regulate our
cellular activities as in the plants, we also know that 60 percent of
the genes of insects such as the fruit fly are in our genetic code.
In other words, we share with insects and plants many mechanisms of cellular metabolism.
When we attack these mechanisms with a heavy arsenal of chemicals, to
block or distort them, to kill plants or insects, we cannot ignore the
fact that these toxic products can reach people, either through
occupational exposure, residential exposure or by ingesting food or
water contaminated with residues, and may well have adverse effects on
them; we cannot presuppose that they are harmless."
What Are We Doing, and Where Are We Headed?
Last but not least, an article by Elizabeth Grossman23 titled "What Are We Doing to Our Children's Brains?"
raises the issue of toxic exposures via food, air, and water, and
neurological health. Clearly all these toxins are not making our
children smarter. I think that's a fairly reasonable assumption. The
question is when will our lawmakers and industry bigwigs recognize the
true cost of doing business as usual? How many people must be completely
dysfunctional before food is recognized as something that actually must be pure? Grossman writes:
"The numbers are startling. According to the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, about 1.8 million more children in the US were
diagnosed with developmental disabilities between 2006 and 2008 than a
decade earlier. During this time, the prevalence of autism climbed
nearly 300 percent... CDC figures also show that 10 to 15 percent of all
babies born in the US have some type of neurobehavorial development
disorder."
Statistics like these tell us that we are well past the point where one
can argue that "a little bit of toxin won't do any harm" because our
environment and food supply is filled with tens of thousands
of substances thought to be "harmless," in and of themselves, in the
amounts used. But it's not just one chemical; one toxin. Even those who
make an effort to avoid known toxins are undoubtedly ingesting and
breathing and absorbing a plethora of chemicals every day, most of which
have never even been studied for safety.
It's the combination of all these exposures that spell doom for
future generations—unless we act swiftly. Toxic industries have been
allowed to flourish and dictate how our food is grown, processed and
sold. But this is not the only system available. There are other non-toxic agricultural systems that can feed the world more efficiently, while simultaneously nourishing
and protecting soils and wildlife. We need to make a U-turn, and we
need to do it now. Regrettably, it may already be too late in some
respects, considering just how long some toxins linger in the
environment, but doing nothing will assure the end of our
species... The choice is ours. You vote for the world you want to live
in every time you open your pocketbook, so please take each of those
opportunities seriously. Together, we can steer the food industry in a new direction.
Help Support GMO Labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil Twin—is
pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about what’s in your
food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate agribusiness have
exercised near-dictatorial control over American agriculture.
Finally public opinion around the biotech industry's contamination of
our food supply and destruction of our environment has reached the
tipping point. We're fighting back.
The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage you to
boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including
natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support comes
from individual consumers like you, who understand that real change
comes from the grassroots.
Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) to fight back against these corporate giants. So
please, fight for your right to know what’s in your food and help
support the GMO labeling movement by making a donation today.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
Together, Let's Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve
Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found very few
organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a public
interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice and
sustainability. A central focus of the OCA is building a healthy,
equitable, and sustainable system of food production and consumption.
Please make a donation to help OCA fight for GMO labeling.
No comments:
Post a Comment