I am not a fan of politics, I never have been. However, when a candidate so openly supports something that is so obviously wrong for human health and the environment, I find it hard not to become interested and, to tell you the truth, even outraged.
I don’t know about you, but I spend a good part of my brainpower and energy ensuring I make wise food choices for myself, my family and the environment. Living a healthy life and being as Earth-friendly as possible is not a job for the fainthearted.
Enter, GMOs… now we are talking about an all-out battle to protect our health and the health of our planet.
Too little evidence means too much risk
Too little research, too many risks, and far too much messing around with nature where we don’t belong. There is no clear evidence to date — and much to the contrary — that genetically modified organisms are the answer to some of the world’s problems, including yielding crops with higher nutrition and providing safe food to feed the hungry.
With the health of Americans already seriously at risk due to an alarming rise in lifestyle-related illnesses — perpetuated by a food industry swollen with greed — GMOs are only adding fuel to the fire.
Individuals and organizations are padding their pocketbooks from what has been called the greatest living human experiment of all time. However, educated consumers are now beginning to question their claims. But what about those supporting Hillary Clinton? Do they know the truth? Do you know the truth?
Hillary Clinton on GMOs
Hillary Clinton may have had the thumbs up from many Democrats, especially women, that is until she openly expressed her support for GMOs and her Monsanto connection became evident. In June of 2014 Clinton gave a keynote address at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) convention in San Diego. This is just a snippet of what she had to say, “I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record.”
She also added that biotech professionals should continue to make a case for GMOs to convince skeptics of their value. According to Clinton, there is a gap between facts and perceptions.
What are the facts, Hillary?
Here are just a few facts that we do know about genetically modified foods. Maybe Hillary Clinton is not aware of these yet:
GM foods have NOT been proven safe for human consumption
GMO-peddling companies like Monsanto would love for you to believe that the GMO debate is over, that the research has been done, and that the results are perfectly clear: GMOs are totally safe. This could not be further from the truth.
In response to propaganda spread by agri-tech companies like Monsanto claiming that the debate on GMOs is “over,” leading consumer, food safety and environmental groups have been trying to set the record straight. They cite a recent statement in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe — signed by 300 scientists, physicians and scholars — declaring there is absolutely NO scientific consensus that GMOs are safe.
Studies that have been done to date show that there is good reason to be concerned when it comes to the safety of GM foods. In fact, all of the published studies have cited health risks.
In one study, a GM soy variety was modified with a gene from Brazil nuts. This GM food reacted with antibodies present in blood serum taken from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts.
This indicates that people with a Brazil nut allergy could react adversely to this soy. Rats who were fed genetically modified tomatoes developed bleeding stomachs, and several even died.
The tomato was approved even though these safety issues remain unresolved. Twenty-five percent of sheep allowed to graze on Bt cotton plants (a genetically modified cotton variety) after harvest in India died within a week, and a post-mortem investigation showed a toxic reaction.
Farmers have reported that both pigs and cows have become sterile after consuming GM corn. Low conception rates have been reported along with cows giving birth to bags of water.
These findings clearly show reason to be concerned regarding the safety of GM foods; however, the concerns are disregarded and the research deemed irrelevant, while the march to produce more and more GM foods presses forward.
“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,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist and director of sustainable agriculture at the Center for Food Safety.
No epidemiological studies on GMO food have been undertaken. Without epidemiological research — which is the accepted method of studying human populations to determine whether something is harmful or beneficial over the long term — GMO safety cannot be scientifically established.
GM animal feed could hurt humans
So, if we are what we eat — and we are — how is it possible that the meat from a cow or a pig fed GM foods would not pose some risk to human health? The majority of GM crops are used to create animal feed.
The GM industry and the government state that eggs, dairy products and meat from GM-fed animals do not need to carry a GM label because the GM molecules are broken down in the digestive tract of the animal and do not influence the food product at all.
This assumption is false, and reports of GM particles found in food prove this. GM DNA common in animal feed has been found in milk sold in an Italian market, while modified DNA was also found in the organs of meat and fish. Bt toxin (Bacillus thuringiensis) has been found in the blood of pregnant women and also the blood supplied to their fetuses.
So, it is clear that when an animal is given GM feed, it does, in fact, transfer to the food we eat. Interestingly enough, when animals are given a choice between GM feed and non-GM feed, they choose the non-GM feed; they are not dummies.
Even pigs, who are notorious for eating anything, passed by the GM feed. The fact is, the body of evidence indicating how damaging GM crops can be to animals is rising, and it follows that consuming products derived from these affected animals could cause adverse health reactions in humans.
GM crops do NOT yield foods with higher nutrient value
Those in favor of genetic engineering have stood on the platform stating that GM crops will provide healthier and more nutritious foods for people. There is, however, no evidence to back up this claim to date.
In fact, the opposite has been proven true; GM crops are actually less nutritious than traditional crops. Genetically modified soy has been found to have a 14 percent lower level of isoflavones, which are responsible for fighting cancer, than non-GM soy.
Rapeseed oil (canola oil) that has been engineered to contain vitamin A has been found to have lower levels of vitamin E as well as altered oil-fat composition, compared to non-GM oil. GM rice crops grown directly beside non-GM crops had significant nutritional imbalances. Researchers involved in this particular study noted that the differences between GM rice and non-GM rice were alarming and deserved more attention.
But wait… Hillary says that drought-resistant seeds are the way to feed the hungry
Hillary Clinton has promoted drought-resistant seeds all over Africa.
“We talk about drought-resistant seeds, and I’ve promoted them all over Africa. By definition, they have been engineered to be drought-resistant, I mean that’s the beauty of them. Maybe somebody can get their harvest done and not starve, and maybe there’s some left over to sell. And yet I’ve been involved in a lot of the political debates in other countries about whether or not to accept certain kinds of seeds,” Clinton said.
In August of this year, it was reported that African experts in fact rejected Monsanto’s GM drought-resistant corn. The African Center for Biodiversity lodged an appeal to South African Agriculture, Water Affairs and the Forestry Minister against the general release approval of Monsanto’s GM maize (MON87460).
This corn has been altered so that it can withstand drought and has been deemed fit to plant by the Executive Council (EC) meaning that it can be sold to farmers in South Africa for cultivation.
However, African law states that before introduction, the GM crops must undergo independent testing to reveal any potential food safety issues, as well as adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts for Africa.
Oops… this was not the case with MON87460. It was given the green light after Monsanto provided its own scientific evidence to the EC that it was safe… this is all that was used to give Monsanto the nod of approval. No independent studies were conducted at all. Seems to me that the logical conclusion here is that there might have been just a wee bit of bias… I don’t know, what do you think?
African officials are very concerned by the lack of scientific data and evidence supporting Monstanto’s claims that the corn will grow in drought-prone areas in Africa. There is also deep concern around the fact that trials were conducted using corn that is already growing well in drought-prone areas in Africa. Introducing so-called transgenic drought-tolerant traits into these varieties would obviously yield an unfair and potentially dishonest advantage to the GM variety.
Contrary to what Clinton says, there are numerous socio-economic risks, especially for small farmers. What if the corn doesn’t work? This is a huge issue for those depending on the crop for their livelihood.
Clinton and Monsanto go way back
The Washington Times reported that Clinton’s ties to agribusiness giant Monsanto, and her open support of GMOs earned her the name “Bride of Frakenfood” in Iowa where a large number of early supporters dropped her like a hot potato. Many of these women have now switched their allegiances to Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
A quick look at donor records indicate that Bill Gates and Monsanto are both top donors to the Clinton Family Foundation. Other donors also include Pfizer, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Goldman Sachs.
Jerry Crawford, who has fought against farmers in court protecting Monsanto’s seeds and has also worked with Republican candidates (strange), is now leading the Clinton campaign. Perhaps this Mid-Westerner is Clinton’s answer to her Iowa woes… let’s hope not!
Heard enough yet? I have one last thing to share. In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton was a member of the Rose Law firm, of which Monsanto is a client. This puts Clinton’s relationship with Monsanto back fifteen years. This explains how Clinton — who tells us that since we have already been eating GMOs, it is safe to keep on doing so —has become a puppet for Monsanto whose only agenda is to make money, at any cost… even human life.
You decide
If Clinton becomes the next president, you should expect Monsanto’s agenda to be aggressively pushed as national policy: There will be a nationwide federal ban on GMO labeling; there will be immediate approval by the USDA on all experimental GM crops; there will be strong and politically motivated attacks against anti-GMO activists, scientists and yes… journalists; and there will be a push to overturn bans on glyphosate and GMOs by other nations.
These are scary times indeed, and if you were even considering backing Clinton for president, I strongly urge you to review her agenda, and review it again and again, until you have all of the facts. Then, ask yourself if this is the type of person we want leading our country, protecting our families and our planet?
—Susan Patterson
Susan is the Content Director at The Alternative Daily, a Certified Health Coach, Certified Metabolic Typing Advisor and Master Gardener. With an extensive knowledge of whole foods and wellness, Susan enjoys educating others on how to live healthy and sustainable lives. She presently lives in the mountains of Arizona with her three children and numerous animals.
Sources:
http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf
http://www.courant.com/opinion/letters/hc-ugc-article-gmo-label-needed-not-tobacco-science-2015-02-26-story.html
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3766/are-gmos-safe-no-consensus-in-the-science-scientists-say-in-peer-reviewed-statement#
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-myths
https://onlybuyvegan.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes