This newsletter is going to be much shorter than usual for two reasons.
1) I know you are busy
2) I want you to read it.
By now those of you who live in California have probably been bombarded with the pros and cons as to whether GMOs should be labeled or not. My guess is that you may have heard a lot more information against
labeling GMOs. At the writing of this newsletter $41 million has been spent by big biotech and big Agra to fight the labeling and about $7 million donated mostly by individuals to promote labeling foods that contain GMOs.
On the California ballot will be a proposition as to whether food manufacturers should have to state on their labels whether the food you are eating contains G
rganisms or not.
I’ll not be discussing the cons of labeling here, because as far as I can tell, there simply aren’t any. I don’t consider making the rich, richer and the poor, sicker a good thing. It doesn’t help feed third world nations as claimed by the proponents of this flawed technology. Tell that to the 250,000 farmers in India who have commit suicide because their lives, economy and welfare were destroyed after switching to GMO farming.
But I have to ask. “If big companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Pepsi, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta, Kraft, Coca-Cola and Nestle (top 10 in donations opposing GMO labeling) are so proud of their work, why have they spent $26 million between them to prevent the labeling of it?” If GMOs are so wonderfully fantastic for us, be upfront about it and declare your GMO greatness on the label!
The problem is that it was deemed back in 1990s that GMOs are no different from traditionally bred foods, therefore no safety testing is necessary. Well if my corn contains inserted genes that explode the stomach of insects that partake of it, I want to know what it is doing to MY digestive tract.
This whole pseudo-science is nothing more that a shot in the dark corners of Pandora’s box. The entire foundation of GE (genetically engineered) foods is that the introduction of one foreign gene, bacterium or virus into a plant will activate one protein, producing one desired effect and nothing more. But this ignores basic science that the chances of harmful unintended consequences with GE are substantially increased. One gene often creates multiple proteins.
When genes are blasted into the plant cells, it cannot be controlled where the gene will insert itself. This inserted gene can then silence another active gene or activate a silent gene. A promoter (usually a virus) is typically added that helps the gene activate a desired protein. However, it may also activate other proteins that were silent, which could lead to harmful effects on humans. Frame this with the knowledge that 60 to 75% of processed foods contain GMOs.
I am not willing to offer up myself and subsequent generations as subjects in a mad man’s experiment. Are you?
VOTE YES ON PROP 37
Love and Light, Lori