Argument Against Genetically Modified Foods

Sharing Lunch With Your Car BiotechNOlogy


In The Food Revolution by John Robbins he asks:

 “Can answers to world hunger, human health and environmental problems be found in the genetic engineering of our food supply?” 

A plausible question, one that has fundamentally started the process of biotechnology within the food industry. However, a good idea doesn’t necessarily warrant a superior decision, and consequently the genetic modification of our crops and livestock has proven to be more of a risk than originally expected.


The first genetically altered crop recorded in history was the “FlavrSavr” tomato in 1995. Scientists altered the enzyme expression within the crop which caused it to ripen; creating a longer shelf life for the fruit because ripening would cease once it was picked. They introduced the produce as genetically engineered, hoping the scientific notion would persuade people to consume. Hopes fell short however, when the general public rejected the idea all together. The tomato ended up being undesirable, with a high vulnerability to bruise and an unappealing lack of firmness, and the public rejected the idea of their food being poked with the scientific needle. Since then, putting “genetically engineered” labels on food has not been promoted and the labeling of these products all together has been fought. Essentially, if you buy an apple and bite into its juicy outer core, there is no way to tell if that apple has been injected with toxic chemicals.


Most nutritionally beneficial genetic engineering experiments have been done by independent scientists and farmers, staying out of the mainstream Biotech industry. But the companies with all of the control are also the ones with all of the money. Monsanto, along with DuPont, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis and Sanofi-aventis all rule the world of biotechnology and in joint effort own 23 percent of the global seed market, as well as 60 percent of the global pesticide market. Each of them are multi-billion dollar conglomerates who feed on scientific advances as a way to seek profit. Yet in 2003, independent Professor Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich engineered a crop solely for the benefit of human nutrition called “Golden Rice”. The idea behind the crop, which produced beta-carotene (converting to vitamin A in the body), was to reduce the death and illness rate linked to vitamin A deficiency around the world, especially where rice is a staple food product in the environment. The science of it all was groundbreaking, a step taken towards ending world hunger. However, there was no assurance that the crop would grow or last in the areas of the world where it was needed most without spending large sums of money to make it happen. It also wasn’t taken into consideration that there were less expensive ways to grow regular crops that were rich in vitamin A. As it turns out, golden rice required around 54 bowls to reach daily intake requirements for an eleven year old child. Experimentation with golden rice has continued, but no revolutionary methods have been discovered.


Biotechnology originally had a large motive to reduce pesticide use and in doing so created pesticide-tolerant crops. These crops were genetically altered with an herbicide to withstand a specific pesticide based on the company’s manufacturer. So pesticides could be sprayed and the plants wouldn’t die because they were altered to resist the chemical. However, the genes they were altering were so compact with pesticide toxins that eventually a potato that was produced and marketed by Monsanto called the “New Leaf Potato” was considered a registered poison with the Environmental Protection Agency. However, it was still marketed as a food product and was only pulled from the shelves when fast food companies such as McDonalds and Burger King pledged to serve only GE free foods. Examples such as these have become a pattern with many crops circulating in the food market today because the agrichemical community is so easy to grab a hold of once plants undergo certain genetic mutation.

Corporations have been pushing for the approval to genetically alter the genome of fish and other seafood since 2005. In 2007, a list of at least 35 varieties of “super fish” was created by researchers of these companies. At the top of this list is the idea to implant an “anti-freeze” gene in fish as a way to ensure longer freshness after death. Dabbling into the lives of sea creatures, however, has been the hardest venture for the biotech industries thanks to environmental agencies and consumer groups. Controlled experiments have shown that regular fish prefer to mate with “super fish”, and that the spread of all biotech experimentation within the fish population would occur at an uncontrollably fast rate. Essentially, the entire original population of fish would be whipped out within an estimated 40 generations.


Crops spread the same way in a process known as trans-gene mutation. Once a seed is planted which has been genetically altered to survive under conditions where others normally wouldn’t, that seed will fertilize another which has survived (chemically or organically). A plant with the similar genetic mutations and strength will grow. Eventually, an entire field of once naturally grown produce will become a field of a new genetically mutated species. Thus, if a crop is altered to resist antibiotics, and the population consumes this produce, then there is a surplus of mutated food being fed to people who have no idea that what they are eating could be toxic. Not only do GM products not have to be labeled, but they also have not been tested thoroughly. Some doctors agree that eating antibiotic resistant food can result in internal gene mutations, making the consumer resistant to antibiotics as well. Could these genetic materials have side effects? The health impacts of genetically engineered foods are not tracked. There is virtually no collective data which suggests that the rise of certain illness could be directly correlated with the influx of GMO products, just as there is no data collected which proves the products have been beneficial either. The industry is turning the human population into a school of fish, swimming and eating in the dark. 90% of Americans claim to want labeling on GM products, while across Europe it is mandatory.

Doctors and scientists have even been quoted saying biotechnology is one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in American history.


In 1999 the CEO of Monsanto, Bob Shapiro, released a statement about their work with genetic engineering;

“I want to emphasize that we will remain fully committed to the promise of biotechnology, because we believe that it can be a safe and sustainable and a useful tool in agriculture and nutrition, in human health, and in meeting in particular the world’s needs for food and fiber.”

None the less, Monsanto and other agrichemical conglomerates continue to make millions at the expense of human health. There is no doubt that there are advances and potential benefits that can come from the practice of genetic engineering, even in the food supply, but the process must be monitored. Biotech conglomerates say they are trying to make food more nutritious while most genetically engineered crops are programmed to have longer life spans and to resist pesticides, adding no nutritional value what so ever. And though ending world hunger is a justifiable goal, human beings should not be the blind test subjects of scientific experimentation. We are not lambs to the slaughter controlled by monopolistic corporations. Information about genetically modified foods should be made easily accessible to the entire public, and a choice should be given as to whether or not pollution is welcomed into the body when there is the ability to control such substances. Essentially, whether we know it or not, there is a price to pay for feeding the planet the same thing that we feed our cars.

_________________________________________

Sources:

• Your Right To Know, by Andrew Kimbrell
• The Food Revolution, by John Robbins

Essay on the Dangers of Aspartame

Aspartame, the Bitter Truth of a Sweet Tooth

As of 1981 Aspartame, the artificial sweetener, has been a regular component of the food supply. People choose the additive over sugar due to the lack of calorie intake it offers, and most industries push the consumption of the chemical because it has taken over diet beverages and sugar free sweets all over the nation. In fact, most informational websites on the product make claims such as “the drug has been rigorously tested” in addition to who it has been tested on, when in reality throughout the history of aspartame a lot of information has been closeted and withheld from the general public. A lot of speculation has circulated about the effects of aspartame on the human body. Only by digging through standard files held by the FDA and conducting some of my own research was I able draw conclusions about the product that I found were enough to cause the removal of it from my diet completely.


In 1965 G.D. Searle and Company, a corporation based on life sciences, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and animal health accidentally manufactured a chemical called Aspartame. It was discovered by chemist and Searle employee, James M. Schlatter while doing work on producing an anti-ulcer drug. During testing, he got some on his finger and realized it was sweet, and thus began the idea of the toxic sugar substitute.
           

The chemical was not brought to the attention of the Food and Drug Administration until 1977, where it was denied and labeled unfit for human consumption for a variety of reasons, one of the most important being inconclusive experimental data. These results were drawn after the FDA did their own investigation on Searle’s experiments with aspartame titled theBressler Report. In their summary of findings, a note was taken which was one of over 50 examples which debased the credibility of Searle and their scientists.

A record dated 4-27-73 for housing group M does not have the date entered. The observations were made for this animal on sheets covering weeks 92, 96, 100 and 104, indicating that the animal was dead. The record for week 108, however, shows that the animal is alive, with motor activity, appetite, and thirst. The record for week 112 again shows that the animal is dead. (Bressler)

Other inconclusive data during the experiments stemmed from the lack of a control group, inaccurate and careless observations, and essentially the inability to tell whether the developed brain tumors and death of the rats were derived from the drug or other unknown causes. No real conclusion about the harms of aspartame could then be drawn.

Questionable experiments on lab rats were not the only tests Searle had run on the drug. In fact in 1996, a report was released by Editor of The Milk Weed, Pete Hardin, titled FDA Pivotal Safety Study: Aspartame Caused Brain Seizures in which showed the details of an experiment done by Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin.


Searle had hired Dr. Waisman to examine the effects of the drug on infant Rhesus monkeys for 52 weeks in 1972. The study was titled SC- 18862. Early on when Schlatter discovered aspartame, it was concluded that the drug was composed of 3 chemicals; 50% phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acid and 10% methanol. Not only is methanol, or wood alcohol, a registered poison but it quickly converts to formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde causes severe damage to the immune and neurological system.


Waismans study paralleled Schlatters in many ways, the biggest of which being the absence of a control group within the experiment. Another flaw was found when one monkey died after 42 weeks of experimentation with an undetermined cause of death. Reasons for death were questionable because all data on the monkey had been misplaced. However, what Waisman was certain about was that during the experiments all of the monkeys exhibited increased levels of phenylalanine in their blood as well as experienced grand mal seizures after 28 weeks. The drug was distributed through a milk solution.

           

Interestingly enough when Pete Hardin published his article in The Milkweed, an information database for U.S. dairy companies, research was shown that expressed different dangers of aspartame that had not previously been considered. Apparently, even more risks occur when the drug is mixed with dairy products, which was shown in an interview from Robert Cohen, a professional in the field of brain chemistry. Cohens theory on why the monkeys suffered seizures is as stated:

The milk-based formula in which the monkeys were served their Aspartame in this study is a key link why the brain seizures were suffered. Ingesting dairy products elevates the pH of the stomach. Drinking a 12 oz. glass of milk buffers the pH of the human stomach from 2 to 6. At a pH of 6, simple proteins such as aspartame pass through undigested. Thus, they move to the blood stream intact. (Hardin)

Essentially, the key reason aspartame was not filtered out during digestion was because of the high pH of the stomach from the milk carrier used in Waisman’s study. In times like this, aspartame breaks down but will remain in the body until it is absorbed into the blood stream. This information plus those drawn from experiment SC- 18862 shows high levels of phenylalanine in the blood comes from the ingestion of aspartame. However, at this point the dangers of the drug were still unknown.

Aspartame was denied by the FDA continuously after its introduction in 1977. Out of 112 experiments done on the drug, 15 were considered pivotal or inconclusive. Despite these facts, in 1981 the drug finally made it to market when President Reagan appointed Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld, who prior to being a member of the Presidents transition team was CEO of G.D. Searle and company since 1977, appointed Arthur Hull Hayes, M.D and former member of the Army's Chemical Weapons division, as a new FDA commissioner. As commissioner, Hayes pushed to overrule the denial of aspartame almost immediately. In doing so he caused the drug to be approved as an artificial sweetener labeled NutraSweet based on the grounds that it is 180 times sweeter than sugar with no calories. (Hevesi)

Fig. 1Video About Donald Rumsfeld and his involvement with Aspartame

However, in 1995 the Freedom of Information act forced the FDA to release a list of symptoms caused by aspartame as reported by thousands of victims.

Fig. 2 A chart that shows symptoms exhibited by aspartame consumption in 1995.

Thus in 1996 the drug was up for question once again by the FDA. Dr. John Oleny, founder of the field of excitotoxicity, and Attorney James Turner teamed up with FDA toxicologist Dr. Adrian Gross who experimented with the drug on lab rats once more and drew his own conclusions. Gross reported to congress by saying “Without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and violates the Delaney Amendment which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause Cancer.”

Over the years extensive research done by doctors and toxicologists has shown the dangers of the drug. Dr. Betty Martini, creator of Mission Possible World Health International, comments on the dangers of aspartame by saying that the drug adversely interacts with vaccines, antidepressants, cardiac medication, hormones, insulin, and other drugs which are heavily prescribed. Mission Possible is a worldwide organization centered around banning aspartame due to the health risks it has shown to exhibit. Specific research done by Dr. Martini and renowned M.D. F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P. Dr. H. J. Roberts has also proven that there are health risks attached to phenylalanine consumption.




According to the University of Maryland Medical Center Database “Phenylalanine is an essential amino acid (a building block for proteins in the body), meaning the body needs it for health but cannot make it; you have to get it from food.”

Our bodies naturally change phenylalanine into tyrosine, another amino acid. Tyrosine is essential in the production of brain chemicals such as L-dopa, epinephrine and norepinephrine as well as thyroid hormones. These hormones all effect the onset and stages of depression in the brain. On the other hand, a rare metabolic disorder called phenylketonuria (PKU) occurs in people who are missing an enzyme that the body needs to use phenylalanine. This causes high levels of phenylalanine to build up. If it is not treated before 3 weeks of age, PKU can cause severe, irreversible mental retardation. In the United States, newborns are tested for PKU during the first 48 - 72 hours of life. People with PKU must eat a diet that avoids phenylalanine and take tyrosine supplements to have optimum brain development and growth.

According to Martini, phenylalanine in aspartame causes a depletion of serotonin in the brain which has been linked to irregular fetal development, behavioral problems in children and the onset of depression. Other researchers have added to the study, stating that aspartame is known to cause headaches, memory loss, vision loss and cancer. It is even proven to induce seizures and comas and mimic the symptoms of fibromyalgia, MS, Lupus, ADD, Alzheimer’s and chronic fatigue (Martini, 5).


In 2003, Martini created a petition on behalf of Mission Possible World Health International proposed in efforts to re-label aspartame, changing it from a sugar substitute to a drug, and then to ban it all together. 100 participants signed the document stated below:

Aspartame is a neurotoxin and a carcinogen, and in light of the Congressional Record, we feel it has been shown that aspartame is a teratogen (causes birth defects). We feel that it should be reclassified from “safe food additive” to “drug” (we know the drug application was withdrawn). We feel aspartame and all products containing aspartame for human consumption should be recalled… then aspartame should be banned. We believe aspartame has remained on the market possibly only through political and business ties. We strongly believe the Bressler Report and the Barcelona Study from Spain both prove that we have the right to demand the recall and ban of aspartame. (Martini)

Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, medical text written by Dr. H. J. Roberts in 2001, suggests that aspartame has a huge hand in the current obesity epidemic as well. Apparently, the drug itself makes you crave carbohydrates, and the formaldehyde within the drug accumulates in the fat cells of your body. Formaldehyde blocks your fat cells from being attacked by the t-cells, a natural reaction which occurs during cardio activity. Thus, instead of your body breaking down the complex sugars gained from carbohydrates and using them as energy, the sugar stays stored in your fat cells and becomes hard inert material.

Combined research between Dr. Martini and Dr. Roberts has stated that since the approval of aspartame 75% of complaints towards the FDA come from the artificial sweetener. Most are side effects of the drug and in those side effects death is included. The dangers of its presence in the food supply as an additive is mind-boggling because aspartame is a drug used to make things sweeter; Roberts continues in Martinis petition to claim it is a crime to approve a drug as a food additive based on the strength of the synergistic and additive properties it has with other drugs and chemicals. Aspartame is no exception. It literally interacts with virtually every drug that is used to treat symptoms cause by aspartame.

In this case aspartame is a neurotoxic drug. Dr. Roberts mentions under interference with drug action (page 488 of Aspartame Disease) that aspartame can alter the action of important drugs. They include coumarin (Coumadin), phenytoin (Dilantin), antidepressants, other psychotropic agents, propranolol (Inderal), methyldopa (Aidomet), throxine (Synthroid) and insulin. This means that aspartame victims don’t have a chance because physicians have been lied to, and having no knowledge that aspartame is a drug, can prescribe the very drug that will interact, since it reacts with just about every drug used to treat the problems it causes. If someone had a seizure from aspartame which is so common its epidemic, they would prescribe Dilantin or like drugs and they interact. It is pushed on diabetics and aspartame not only can precipitate diabetes but interacts with insulin. Aspartame damages the cardiac conduction system and interacts with cardiac medication. The phenylalanine in aspartame not only lowers the seizure threshold but depletes serotonin which triggers all kinds of behavioral and psychiatric problems, and aspartame interacts with antidepressants. It can precipitate Parkinson’s and interacts with L- dopa. The FDA approved the neurotoxin Redux and FenPhen and if they took this with an aspartame laced drink, it’s a double whammy as mentioned by psychiatrist Dr. Ralph Walton. This could be the reason so many died. (Martini, 4-5)

            

The sugar substitute most commonly goes by the name NutraSweet, but is found as aspartame in most diet drinks including diet Snapple, diet Coke, diet Pepsi, and many more. It is an ingredient of approximately 6,000 consumer foods and beverages sold worldwide such as gum and other sugar substitutes like Sweet'N Low and Equal. Previously mentioned research done by Robert Cohen is significant because the artificial sweetener is frequently used in beverages such as coffee and tea which are regularly drank with milk, thus increasing the health risk of phenylalanine absorption into the blood stream. With that being said, the FDA still denies that any part of aspartame is absorbed into the blood.


It is no secret that the dangers of aspartame in the human body are numerous. However, is it also no secret that corporate America and the appeal of wealth is the driving force to many decisions. When Monsanto, a multi-trillion dollar conglomerate that specializes in biotechnology through the production and wholesale of seeds and chemicals, bought Searle and the rights to aspartame for $2.7 billion in 1985, Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus as CEO of G.D. Searle and Company. Researchers have been quoted speaking out against the verdict.

While the "research" performed by the aspartame industry after approval is abysmal, the preapproval "research" was much worse. Despite this fact, FDA officials essentially "sold out" to the manufacturer and approved the junk. (Gold)

Essentially, the decision to approve the drug warranted nothing for the advancement of science and research, just a yearning for profit. The pharmaceutical and food industries are making millions off of the product and turn a blind eye to the true cost of the drugs progression. The human race almost doesn’t stand a chance and consequently adverse reactions no different than what was seen in lab animals throughout the timeline of aspartames existence mirror those which are now being seen in humanity today.




“The world is, indeed, plagued by a global epidemic of symptoms associated with aspartame use.”
–Dr. H.J. Roberts.

Detailed Symptoms of Aspartame