Is Your Food Being 'Poisoned'?

Townhall.com ^ | June 11, 2013 | Chuck Norris

[Kaslin]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "poison" as "a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed."

The legal definition of the term is "any product or substance that can harm someone if it is used in the wrong way, by the wrong person, or in the wrong amount."

The medical condition of poisoning is even broader: It can be caused by substances that are not even legally required to carry the label "poison."

Therefore, can food become poisonous? Of course it can if it is infected, tampered with or altered in any way that causes it to become detrimental to its consumer. In fact, that's what we call "food poisoning."

But what about the genetic engineering, tampering or alteration of our food supply? If it causes bodily harm, even over the long haul, could that be considered poisoning?

I call again to the stand Dr. George Wald, a Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine and one of the first scientists to speak out about the dangers of genetically engineered foods. He explained: "Recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering) faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. ... Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors. ... For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."

Last week, I discussed the dangers of genetic engineering to crop seeds and other foods. As a response, one of the readers of "C-Force," my weekly health and fitness column, asked, "What do you think are the best ways to avoid GMOs when they aren't even labeled on food ingredients?"

Let me tell you how I responded.

First, contact your governmental officials, and ask them to endorse or support legislation that requires food companies to start listing whether their products use GMOs.

At least 14 states have introduced legislation on genetically modified ingredient labeling, but most face government gridlock. So take action, and keep foods safe (non-genetically engineered) by contacting your state and federal representatives -- as well as the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- and tell them to legislate that genetically modified ingredients be labeled on every package.

Ask your federal representatives to support the new federal labeling bill, the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, which would require the food industry to label all genetically engineered foods and ingredients. In addition, tell your representatives that corn and cotton must not be deregulated, because without strict controls, genetically engineered crops will encroach on non-genetically engineered crops, contaminating them and rendering the organic crops as nonorganic.

The biggest question is: How can we best avoid genetically modified ingredients in our food and elsewhere?

Here are the best ways that I've discovered from GMO and nutrition specialists and resources:

--Educate yourself and your loved ones about GMOs from credible articles, books or videos, such as those mentioned on the websites below or YouTube's "Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) -- Myths and Truths."

--Keep up-to-date about anti-GMO trends, legislation and action items by frequenting websites such as the one for the Center for Food Safety, another great GMO watchdog organization (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org).

--Download the "ShopNoGMO" smartphone app at http://NonGMOShoppingGuide.com or visit http://NonGMOproject.org to help you locate and avoid genetically engineered ingredients wherever you shop.

--Buy certified-organic and local foods. USDA organic and Non-GMO Project Verified products cannot intentionally include GMO ingredients.

The USDA explains: "The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer can't plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can't eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can't use any GMO ingredients. To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show they aren't using GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with prohibited substances, such as GMOs, from farm to table."

The "Non-GMO Project Verified" label is the only third-party non-GMO verification program in North America. Its website (http://NonGMOproject.org) explains, "Since its incorporation in 2007, the Project has grown into a collaboration of manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed companies and consumers."

--Avoid at-risk ingredients that are now largely (roughly 90 percent) produced using GMOs, including soybeans, canola, cottonseed, corn and sugar from sugar beets. Unless sugar is labeled as organic or pure cane, it likely contains sugar from genetically modified sugar beets.

The Chicago Tribune reported, "These crops (mentioned above) often are added to processed foods as oils, sweeteners and soy proteins but also can be part of amino acids, aspartame, ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate, vitamin C, citric acid, sodium citrate, ethanol, flavorings (natural and artificial), hydrolyzed vegetable protein, lactic acid, maltodextrins, microbial growth media, molasses, monosodium glutamate, sucrose, textured vegetable protein, xantham gum, vitamins and yeast products, according to the Non-GMO Project."

Regarding most fruits and vegetables, the Non-GMO Shopping Guide further explains: "Very few fresh fruits and vegetables for sale in the U.S. are genetically modified. Novel products such as seedless watermelons are NOT genetically modified. Small amounts of zucchini, yellow crookneck squash and sweet corn may be GM. The only commercialized GM fruit is papaya from Hawaii -- about half of Hawaii's papayas are GM. Even if the fruit or vegetable is non-GMO, if it is packaged, frozen or canned, there may be GM additives."

--Buy only dairy products labeled "certified organic," "No rBGH or rBST" or "artificial hormone-free," because some source cows are fed genetically modified feed or injected with genetically modified bovine growth hormone.

--Support and patronize grocers (and commend their management) that offer lines of organic products and eliminate GMO ingredients from their product shelves. For example, Target, H-E-B, Giant Eagle and Meijer recently joined more than 55 other food retailers -- including Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Aldi, Marsh and Hy-Vee -- in agreeing not to sell genetically engineered fish in their stores. Whole Foods and Trader Joe's claim that all their store-brand items originate from non-GMO ingredients.

[ransacked]

Thanks for the head-up! Yet one other thing we can thank the NWO for....

[freedumb2003]

Last time I looked, GMAs look just like their unaltered brethren under a microscope.

So they aren’t objecting to GMAs since there are no facts to back up the assertion they are “poison.” They just object to the IDEA of GMAs.

If it wasn’t for emotion-laden hysteria like this we could feed every person on the face of the Earth quite cheaply. How many millions have died at the hands of these busybodies? More than Hitler and Stalin killed combined!

[sneakers]

Thanks for the post. I started paying attention to this kind of thing within the last year and a half.

[AlexW]

I see no problem for me.
I bicycle to the town’s market every day.
I buy fresh pork or chicken, cut or ground to my wishes.
I buy fresh veges, grown on the near-by mountains.
I live in the vegetable capital of Cebu.
I do miss a good steak, as beef is very rare here.
The only beef option is to by frozen Aussie beef.
I tried it once...It was awful.

[Aevery_Freeman]

DDT! DDT! ALAR! ALAR! GMOs! GMOs!

If you really want to find a corporation dedicated to killing its own consumers, look at governments (IRS, DOJ, NSA, etc.).

Maybe we deserve what we are getting.

[sphinx]

GM crops are tested for safety before they are commercialized.

Anti-GMO advocates ignore the stringent testing regime and insistently wave the great "maybe." Despite all the testing, and despite many years of safe use, GMO's "might," or "could," in "unforeseen or unanticipated ways" cause some unspecified harm. The boogeyman is going to get you.

The same tactics, of course, can be and often are used against anything new. We see this game being played with vaccines, with new medicines, and even with powerlines, wind turbines, cellphones, etc. Something that has never been detected, something that has evaded all testing, something for which there is NO scientific evidence, "might" get you.

And therefore, yet another beneficial technology should be halted because the luddite lobby has reversed the burden of proof and has everyone out chasing the ghost. One can always demand more testing, but when testing has already been done, why? And how much is enough?

GM crop varieties are tested before being commercialized. They are, btw, also tested independently by importing countries as well. The burden of proof has been met. Unfortunately, activist groups do not incur any penalties for making false charges. That is the asymmetry that keeps these bogus issues alive; the professional critics flit from one hysterical charge to another, and the rebuttals, which rely on evidence, can never keep up with the smear artists.

[PraiseTheLord]

freedumb2003 :

how easy it is to spot a *TROLL*

[palmer]

Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.

Or it could have a homeopathic effect. Almost everything in the world is good and bad in various quantities and a GMO is probably not an exception.

[Smokin' Joe]

GM crops are tested for safety before they are commercialized.

Some Starlink corn made it into the mass markets and on the shelves in consumer products by accident. A relative spent three sessions in the ER with what appeared to be a pesticide reaction before we figured out that one of those products was the problem. Yes, the product was contaminated with Starlink.

[Codeflier]

Sometimes these anti-GMO threads on FR make me feel like I am at Democratic Underground. They are rabid anti-GMO panic mongers too.

[rellimpank]

-—and sorry to see Chuck Norris on the “nut” side of the fence-—

[phockthis]

sfl

[Pollster1]

The legal definition of the term is "any product or substance that can harm someone if it is used in the wrong way, by the wrong person, or in the wrong amount."

Soy sauce in the news recently - poison.

Drownings prove that water is a poison.

Any food with calories is a poison, including fats because they help dissolve real carcinogens to carry them to your bloodstream, sugars because of the diabetes risk, and proteins because of potential kidney damage. Are gravitons a substance? If so, the large number of deaths by falling are proof that gravity is a poison.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

All I’ve seen reported is that there are studies showing GMO is dangerous. There have been no studies showing are safe that I know of. I see reports of certain scientists defending GMOs, but I see no actual studies by these scientists. In fact, just the opposite in a web search for GMO studies showing they are safe ~

http://farmersforthefuture.ning.com/forum/topics/new-gmo-studies-give-further

http://www.naturalnews.com/031951_GMOs_safety_studies.html

And I suppose the naysayers believe Dr. Mercola to be a nutcase, too ~ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/27/19-studies-link-gmo-foods-to-organ-disruption.aspx

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers ~ with links to further negative health studies at the end.

Can anyone provide a link to an actual study showing GMOs are safe?

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“Can anyone provide a link to an actual study showing GMOs are safe?”

Here is a recent study and review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414177

People have been eating GM food since the 90’s and currently ~90% of corn and soybeans are GM. If there were any real problems they would have shown up by now.

[tbpiper]

...Last time I looked, ,GMAs look just like their unaltered brethren under a microscope.

That can't be a true statement because the GM cells contain foriegn DNA.

...since there are no facts to back up the assertion they are “poison.”...

There is a long term study on GMO's done in France. I suppose you won't like it because it's French, but it was a good, well conducted study.

Monsanto hates it because it exposes them and has attacked it with much vigor. Their own study was for a short, 90 day period. The longer French study (700+ days I think) started seeing tumors after about 120 days.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

I wonder if the American Chemical Society that put out your info has any connection to Monsanto?

[count-your-change]

When actors can’t find a job they find a cause.

[Carry_Okie]

First, contact your governmental officials, and ask them to endorse or support legislation that requires food companies to start listing whether their products use GMOs.

There are GMOS that contain major modifications or additions, and there are those that do not (such as varieties of fruit that mature earlier or later to spread out production over a longer season). "Labeling" as GMO does not address this. It is an issue too complex for government to manager and cries for third-party certification and labeling.

As it is, labeling products as "containing GMO" will end up just like Prop 65 labeling in California, with the labels on virtually everything saying that 'the product contains chemicals that cause cancer,' making the act of labeling for GMO meaningless.