Tweet
United Nations Doctor Outlines 5 Key GMO Dangers in Recent Talk
by Christina Sarich
Posted on October 13, 2015
Dr. Judy Carman, an appointed expert on GMOs, has much to teach us about the dangers of biotech’s tinkering with our food supply. Not only does she point out some very obvious flaws in the regulatory process of approving genetically modified organisms in the US, Australia, and New Zealand, but she also details the holes in the argument of ‘substantial equivalency’ that companies like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and Syngenta try to use as reason to continue selling GM crops to the world.
Dr. Carman points 5 significant points about GMOs and the lack of sufficient scientific testing in a recent talk.
https://youtu.be/2SCXaIwEkgw
https://youtu.be/70vn5VtAl4M
1. GMOs are Not ‘Substantially Equivalent’ to Non-GMO Foods
Proving GMOs substantially-equivalent to their non-GM counterparts is a laughable task. As Dr. Carman points out, there is no definition by regulatory agents of what is needed in an organism to pass and what is recognizable in one that would fail. She says “it’s like trying to fail at a speed test when there is no speed.”
2. GMO Safety Testing is Fragile
In government ‘safety testing’ of GMOs, both here and abroad, more than one gene can be inserted into a plant without any safety testing. That means the FDA, EPA, USDA, and regulatory bodies in Australia, as elsewhere, can say that a food is safe without any safety testing.
Dr. Carman points out the obvious fallacy in this ideology. She uses the analogy of taking one drug, and then ignoring the possible interactions if other drugs are added to the mix. This is the same concern which is being ignored in plants that have multiple genetic alterations. One is worrisome enough.
Scientists really have no idea what happens when you add several genetic mutations. More than a third of corn grown in the US is ‘stacked’ with both herbicide-tolerant and Bt genes.
3. GMO Crops Likely Spark Gut Ailments
Bt gene-alteration causes a protein to be released in a ‘grub’ that eats genetically modified BT corn, for example, and causes pores in the gut which rupture. If it does that to an insect, is there any doubt about why there is so much incidence of leaky gut syndrome and other bowel health issues today with all of the GMOs consumed?
4. ‘Feeding Studies’ are Not ‘Required’ by Biotech
The ‘industry,” meaning Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, etc., can do feeding studies if they ‘want to,’ but are not required to do these studies at all. Of course, when they report back to agencies, it is always the insider scientists hired by the company that reports on the company’s product. Conflict of interest anyone?
As Dr. Carman points out, these ‘studies’ usually amount to obtaining a protein (usually genetically modified also, but not necessarily the same exact protein that GM crops would contain, i.e., not the actual GM crop itself) and feeding it to rats to see if they die in 7 to 14 days. Not much of a study when they only wait two weeks to look for adverse effects on health, and often don’t even feed the rats the actual GM foods.
5. Biotech Funds its own Studies
It is clear that most studies promoting GM crops ‘come from the industry’ itself. Enough said.
by Christina Sarich
Posted on October 13, 2015
Dr. Judy Carman, an appointed expert on GMOs, has much to teach us about the dangers of biotech’s tinkering with our food supply. Not only does she point out some very obvious flaws in the regulatory process of approving genetically modified organisms in the US, Australia, and New Zealand, but she also details the holes in the argument of ‘substantial equivalency’ that companies like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and Syngenta try to use as reason to continue selling GM crops to the world.
Dr. Carman points 5 significant points about GMOs and the lack of sufficient scientific testing in a recent talk.
https://youtu.be/2SCXaIwEkgw
https://youtu.be/70vn5VtAl4M
1. GMOs are Not ‘Substantially Equivalent’ to Non-GMO Foods
Proving GMOs substantially-equivalent to their non-GM counterparts is a laughable task. As Dr. Carman points out, there is no definition by regulatory agents of what is needed in an organism to pass and what is recognizable in one that would fail. She says “it’s like trying to fail at a speed test when there is no speed.”
2. GMO Safety Testing is Fragile
In government ‘safety testing’ of GMOs, both here and abroad, more than one gene can be inserted into a plant without any safety testing. That means the FDA, EPA, USDA, and regulatory bodies in Australia, as elsewhere, can say that a food is safe without any safety testing.
Dr. Carman points out the obvious fallacy in this ideology. She uses the analogy of taking one drug, and then ignoring the possible interactions if other drugs are added to the mix. This is the same concern which is being ignored in plants that have multiple genetic alterations. One is worrisome enough.
Scientists really have no idea what happens when you add several genetic mutations. More than a third of corn grown in the US is ‘stacked’ with both herbicide-tolerant and Bt genes.
3. GMO Crops Likely Spark Gut Ailments
Bt gene-alteration causes a protein to be released in a ‘grub’ that eats genetically modified BT corn, for example, and causes pores in the gut which rupture. If it does that to an insect, is there any doubt about why there is so much incidence of leaky gut syndrome and other bowel health issues today with all of the GMOs consumed?
4. ‘Feeding Studies’ are Not ‘Required’ by Biotech
The ‘industry,” meaning Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, etc., can do feeding studies if they ‘want to,’ but are not required to do these studies at all. Of course, when they report back to agencies, it is always the insider scientists hired by the company that reports on the company’s product. Conflict of interest anyone?
As Dr. Carman points out, these ‘studies’ usually amount to obtaining a protein (usually genetically modified also, but not necessarily the same exact protein that GM crops would contain, i.e., not the actual GM crop itself) and feeding it to rats to see if they die in 7 to 14 days. Not much of a study when they only wait two weeks to look for adverse effects on health, and often don’t even feed the rats the actual GM foods.
5. Biotech Funds its own Studies
It is clear that most studies promoting GM crops ‘come from the industry’ itself. Enough said.