After emailing Missouri Senator Roy Blunt of her concerns surrounding GMOs running rampant in Missouri’s food supply, a friend of mine forwarded me the following canned response she received as a reply from Senator Blunt:
Thank you for contacting me regarding genetically engineered foods.
In overwhelming numbers, public and private-sector scientists alike support the use of biotechnology because of the remarkable consumer benefits, safety, and the ability to produce food in a sustainable manner. Through sound scientific developments subject to rigorous regulatory framework, consumers both in the United States and abroad will continue to benefit from biotechnological advances as scientists find ways to overcome vitamin deficiencies, supply vaccines, and increase production while protecting fragile natural resources.
To date, foods derived from genetically engineered products have not caused a single adverse health effect, according to the World Health Organization and Food and Drug Administration. The labeling of such a product could falsely indicate a potential health risk to consumers.
As you know, Senator Sanders introduced an amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill regarding labeling of GM crops. The amendment was not agreed to, and 71 Senators voted against it. Moving forward, I will continue to promote a science-based debate on how to maintain the necessary safeguards and focus our efforts to maximize safety and usefulness of this technology. At the same time, I will also continue my support of organics and other methods of production.
Apparently, Senator Blunt is completely out of touch with his constituents and this comment displays a remarkable level of ignorance surrounding the lack of evidence for GMOs being safe for long-term human consumption.
As I recently reported here, Americans overwhelmingly favor GMO labeling for foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.
But Senator Blunt Says GMOs Are Awesome!
Mr. Blunt cites some pretty remarkable consumer benefits, including enhanced safety and sustainable food production, as his primary reasons for embracing the genetic engineering of our food supply. I am unconvinced, as are Americans at large. Perhaps Mr. Blunt could actually provide reputable evidence of these supposed benefits – if they actually existed.
Since I am not one to blindly accept corporate or political propaganda, I have decided to take this opportunity to expose Senator Blunt’s illogical, fallacious response for the fraud that it is.
If by “consumer benefits” he’s referring to GMOs being more affordable, he’s obviously failed to consider the exorbitant personal and federal costs associated with the myriad conditions GMO-containing foods are responsible for.
Conveniently, this serves as a perfect segue into critiquing Senator Blunts ignorant claim that GMOs offer the benefit of safety to Missouri’s consumers. A 5-minute Google search will tell you:
There is More Than Enough Mammalian-Based Evidence to Warrant Questioning the Safety of GMOs for Humans
“There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.
The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported.
Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented.
A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn.
These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system.”
Thank you, Senator Blunt, for taking such a grand interest in my safety, and the safety of my family (sarcasm included). Given this information, along with the fact that ZERO long-term studies have been performed to verify the safety of GMOs, I don’t think you ought to worry about GMO labeling giving a false impression of potential health risks associated with consuming them.
Assuming something is necessarily safe because it has yet to be proven dangerous is simply illogical (cigarettes in the ’50’s anyone?).
Sadly, this has always been the argument of the mass poisoners of our world. Regardless of the poison being discussed – BPA, cigarette smoke, mercury fillings, pesticide chemicals, DDT, toxic heavy metals, triclosan, MSG and more – its corporate backers have consistently and predictably hired swaths of prostitute-scientists to declare the substance to be “safe until proven otherwise.”
Common sense would dictate that GMO labeling is completely justified until long-term studies are conducted by an unbiased independent party that would overwhelmingly conclude otherwise. Unfortunately, common sense among politicians in America appears to be anything but common.
And what about Senator Blunt’s claim that GMOs afford consumers the reliability of a sustainable food supply? Um…Yeah…That’s not exactly accurate either.
Definitive Study Calls Enhanced GMO Crop Yield Claim Into Question
“Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were “highly variable” and in some cases, ‘yields declined’. The report noted, ‘Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable’.
They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.”
Not only do GMO crops not provide additional food supply sustainability, but they also carry the inherent risk of systemic ecocide, which could lead to a catastrophic food supply shortage that would cause a starvation epidemic of global proportion.
Senator Blunt is gambling with the health of Missouri’s families, employing fallacious logic to justify his support for GMOs, and appears to be more concerned with helping to protect the profits of GMO-producing corporations rather than the health of his constituents.
While our votes should rightly consider the full spectrum of a candidate’s platform and past performance, those of us who value the pursuit of natural health would do well to evaluate where our representatives stand on the issue of GMOs, and give it the consideration it deserves when deciding where to cast our ballots.
Go to senate.gov to email your state’s Senators and see where they stand on this matter, one that is absolutely quintessential to our collective health.
1. Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8.
2. Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.
3. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.
4. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.
5. Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.
6. Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.
7. Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.
8. Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.
9. Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists.
10. Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.
11. Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10
- Photo Credits: