Category Archives: gmo foods

Eating and Drinking The Poisons in GMO foods

If we consider why that uneasy feeling is in our gut, then look at what we’ve been eating and you’ll likely find corn and wheat are in what was recently consumed.

mosanto-x-men-wolverine-gmo-corn-full
this image is from Lisa of Shades at bananapoop.com

monsanto-icon-hornedEven soda pop has corn in it!  You know… corn syrup, as a sweetener. Plus there might be some other chemical sweeteners, likely produced by the largest biotechnology company in the world – Monsanto.

Herbicides and Insecticides in Food

In 1996 the USDA approved Monsanto’s first genetically engineered seed for use. Biotechnology firms had figured out they can infuse the food we eat with genetic strings that kill insects and prevent invasive weeds. So the genetic substance of the food eaten has been modified, hence we have Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), sometimes known as Genetically Engineered (GE).

From Food Integrity Now:

If you haven’t been paying attention to your food lately, biotechnology giants such as Monsanto thank you for that. Because behind your back, they’ve succeeded in replacing 93% of US corn with their patented insecticide-producing “frankencorn”.

The industry name for this is “Bt corn” and the insecticide is actually produced inside the plant, so it is impossible to wash it off. This is accomplished by inserting genes from the bacteria Bacillus Thuringiensis into the corn.

Up until now, scientists and multinational corporations such as Monsanto and DuPont have spent billions in lobbying, campaign donations and “testing” in an attempt to convince world governments that GMOs are safe. In the case of Bt corn, they stated the insecticide produced within the corn posed no danger to human health because it was broken down in the digestive system.

The effect for the insects is their stomachs explode when they ingest the plants. The entire plant is an insecticide.

How Much Genetically Engineered is Planted?

Here are some charts from the USDA tracking GE crops since the introduction in 1996.

Adoption of all biotech corn accounted for 93 percent of corn acreage in 2014.

Source: USDA
Source: USDA

Its not just corn! As you can see from this chart other US crops are affected. If you can imagine this is what is happening around the world – the entire world’s food supply is affected.

USDA-biotechcrops-1996-2014
Source USDA

What is Michigan Producing?

These charts were created from the data available for Michigan on Corn and Soybean crops.

USDA-GE-Corn-MICHIGAN-2000-2014
GE corn produced in Michigan
USDA-GE-Soybean-MICHIGAN-2000-2014
GE Soybean produced in Michigan

Monsanto Chief Makes a Surprising Admission In New Interview

The backlash against genetically modified food, which was introduced without much fanfare and without the general public having much of a say, has reached a fever pitch in this new information age.

Sales of GMO-free and organic products are skyrocketing and more and more farms are being converted to organic as companies scramble to meet consumer demand.

Much of this change has happened as people have discovered how their food is really made; in the case of Americans that process often begins with genetically modified seeds in a laboratory.

Around 20 years ago Monsanto introduced genetically modified food, and how they responded to public concerns was the source of a question asked by the UK’s newspaper The Independent in a recent interview.

The company responded with “hubris” and “naivety” in those days, their CEO Hugh Grant said in the interview.

hugh collage

 

In other words, Monsanto used a “great or foolish amount of pride or confidence (the Webster’s definition of hubris)” when they introduced the seeds to the U.S. market, one whose food consumers essentially had no say in whether they wanted them or not due to a lack of labeling. 

Now it’s 2015 and consumers are still kept in the dark about GMOs, with no mandatory labels for the foods, a right afforded to citizens in over 60 countries.

And despite the growing suspicion of GMOs, the Biotech industry still relies on its own flawed science while ignoring independent studies showing their products cause harm.

Mr. Grant also reiterated another myth: that GMOs are needed to “feed the world,” which was debunked yet again by another new report released a few days ago.

While Grant’s honesty appears to be somewhat refreshing on the surface in admitting the “hubris” that led to the growth these foods that offer no benefits and plenty of risks to the consumer, it’s time we expand the conversation toward discussing the true “hubris” that’s still in play here: Monsanto’s continued insistence of forcing unlabeled GMOs on an unwilling populace.

That would be a true revelation.

Monsanto Chief Makes a Surprising Admission In New Interview

The backlash against genetically modified food, which was introduced without much fanfare and without the general public having much of a say, has reached a fever pitch in this new information age.

Sales of GMO-free and organic products are skyrocketing and more and more farms are being converted to organic as companies scramble to meet consumer demand.

Much of this change has happened as people have discovered how their food is really made; in the case of Americans that process often begins with genetically modified seeds in a laboratory.

Around 20 years ago Monsanto introduced genetically modified food, and how they responded to public concerns was the source of a question asked by the UK’s newspaper The Independent in a recent interview.

The company responded with “hubris” and “naivety” in those days, their CEO Hugh Grant said in the interview.

hugh collage

 

In other words, Monsanto used a “great or foolish amount of pride or confidence (the Webster’s definition of hubris)” when they introduced the seeds to the U.S. market, one whose food consumers essentially had no say in whether they wanted them or not due to a lack of labeling. 

Now it’s 2015 and consumers are still kept in the dark about GMOs, with no mandatory labels for the foods, a right afforded to citizens in over 60 countries.

And despite the growing suspicion of GMOs, the Biotech industry still relies on its own flawed science while ignoring independent studies showing their products cause harm.

Mr. Grant also reiterated another myth: that GMOs are needed to “feed the world,” which was debunked yet again by another new report released a few days ago.

While Grant’s honesty appears to be somewhat refreshing on the surface in admitting the “hubris” that led to the growth these foods that offer no benefits and plenty of risks to the consumer, it’s time we expand the conversation toward discussing the true “hubris” that’s still in play here: Monsanto’s continued insistence of forcing unlabeled GMOs on an unwilling populace.

That would be a true revelation.

Editorial: “We Aren’t Buying Monsanto’s Aggressive PR Spin, And Neither Should You”

One minute Bill Nye the Science Guy is all for proper independent testing and labeling of GMOs, the next minute he’s visiting Monsanto headquarters and changing his mind.

One minute Neil DeGrasse Tyson is keeping his eyes focused on the Cosmos, the next he’s speaking out why we shouldn’t even worry about unlabeled GMOs (and getting something very fundamentally wrong about the basic science at the same time).

What’s going on here, anyway?

As the world becomes more and more aware of the truth about GMOs and the damage cause by agrochemicals, more and more people are speaking out on social media and in protests like MAM.

This has caused Monsanto to respond by spending several millions in PR campaigns in deliberate attempts to mislead the public about the science behind their products, and much more.

monsanto pr

Monsanto has had a strong influence in the U.S. government and in the media due in large part to millions in PR spending.

Recently, Author Wenonah Hauter of Food Tank had the following editorial published in the Christian Science Monitor, which touches on Monsanto’s “aggressive PR campaign” and how it is working to obscure the myriad objections to the company’s products and GMOs.

An excerpt:

Corporations and their hired guns love confusing people about the science behind their questionable products to help shape favorable public opinion (in the case of GMOs, asserting there is scientific consensus where none actually exists). But we aren’t buying their spin, nor should you…”

To read the full editorial and find out why Hauter feels that way exactly, check out this link. Thanks for reading and we’ll see you at MAM on May 23!

Editorial: “We Aren’t Buying Monsanto’s Aggressive PR Spin, And Neither Should You”

One minute Bill Nye the Science Guy is all for proper independent testing and labeling of GMOs, the next minute he’s visiting Monsanto headquarters and changing his mind.

One minute Neil DeGrasse Tyson is keeping his eyes focused on the Cosmos, the next he’s speaking out why we shouldn’t even worry about unlabeled GMOs (and getting something very fundamentally wrong about the basic science at the same time).

What’s going on here, anyway?

As the world becomes more and more aware of the truth about GMOs and the damage cause by agrochemicals, more and more people are speaking out on social media and in protests like MAM.

This has caused Monsanto to respond by spending several millions in PR campaigns in deliberate attempts to mislead the public about the science behind their products, and much more.

monsanto pr

Monsanto has had a strong influence in the U.S. government and in the media due in large part to millions in PR spending.

Recently, Author Wenonah Hauter of Food Tank had the following editorial published in the Christian Science Monitor, which touches on Monsanto’s “aggressive PR campaign” and how it is working to obscure the myriad objections to the company’s products and GMOs.

An excerpt:

Corporations and their hired guns love confusing people about the science behind their questionable products to help shape favorable public opinion (in the case of GMOs, asserting there is scientific consensus where none actually exists). But we aren’t buying their spin, nor should you…”

To read the full editorial and find out why Hauter feels that way exactly, check out this link. Thanks for reading and we’ll see you at MAM on May 23!