RSS

Tag Archives: Genetically modified organism

To Eat Soy Or Not

 

Turn over many a nutrition bar or box of veggie burgers, and you’ll often find soy protein isolate (SPI) featured prominently on the ingredient list.

While there’s disagreement among nutritionists over whether soy is part of a healthy diet (some are concerned about its estrogenic properties but others like it as a protein source for those who don’t eat meat), most agree that SPI, its super-processed offspring, should be avoided.

“A big issue with soy is that we’re eating more of it than ever before and in very processed forms like SPI,” says Middleberg Nutrition founder Stephanie Middleberg, MS, RD. So SPI may have started out as a plant, but once it gets to you, it’s far from it.

Here are four reasons nutritionists say you should probably ditch soy protein from your diet:

1. A lot of its nutrients have left the building. “Soybeans are a great quality protein because their amino acid content is similar to that in meat, and they’re a good source of fiber, minerals, and complex carbs,” says Middleberg. But to create SPI, soybeans are chemically engineered to “isolate” their protein, and this process strips out all of the other nutrients the original bean contained.

2. It contains unhealthy additives. Foodtrainers founder Lauren Slatyon, MS, RD, says that the chemical process used to isolate soy protein often leaves behind substances you don’t necessarily want to be eating, like aluminum and hexane. “Think of bathing in toxic bath oil,” Slayton says. “Even once you dry yourself off, some residue remains. Want to eat that residue?” The spray drying method used for soy can also form nitrites, compounds that can form carcinogens in the body, she explains.

3. It’s probably genetically modified. According to the USDA, over 90 percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, so most SPI comes from altered beans. “This means soy protein isolate is chemically modified, processed, and filled with pesticides,” says Middleberg.

4. It may upset your stomach. Many people have allergies or intolerances that make it hard to digest soy. But even if you’re not one of them, soy protein isolate may make your stomach rumble, says Slayton. This is because SPI has a higher concentration of trypsin inhibitors, chemicals that reduce available trypsin—an enzyme that helps digest protein—in the body.

So what to do if you’re a soy-loving vegetarian? Skip products with SPI and opt for “natural, whole protein sources like beans, lentils, nuts, and seeds, and organic, non-GMO natural sources of soy like edamame, tofu, and tempeh,” Middleberg suggests.

Slayton also suggests sticking to fermented soy sources, like miso, tempeh, and natto. “Fermentation increases the digestibility of soy, adds good bacteria, and reduces the plant estrogen content in soy foods,” she explains.

And in the end, both nutritionists agree: Like most things, soy is best enjoyed in moderation—and sticking to whole (rather than processed) foods is always a good plan.

 

Source:   http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/how-healthy-soy-protein-isolate#ixzz29KNo4bpk

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Are GMOs Making Us Fat?

While health experts and non-experts alike continue to take stabs at the solution to our nation’s obesity crisis, the answer still seems rather illusive.

Some say we need more exercise. Others suggest we need less food. Still others contend we need incentives and rewards to get off our duffs and lose the weight. But perhaps the answer is as simple as what’s in our lunch.

New research from the Norwegian School of Veterinary science is pointing the fat finger at genetically modified organisms, a term we now affectionately know as GMOs.

Researchers are suggesting that while GM foods may not be directly making us sick, they might be causing weight gain which can in turn contribute to illnesses.

To conduct the 90-day study, researchers studied how rats and salmon responded to genetically modified food. One group of rats was fed GM corn and scientists watched as they slowly got fatter than the group that was being fed non-GM foods. Researchers also noticed that the GMO rats ate more and grew faster.

A corresponding study examined how salmon reacted to GM foods by feeding one group GM food and another non-GM food. The result? The salmon that consumed GM foods experienced a number of adverse effects including weight gain, higher food consumption, and the inability to properly digest protein. They also developed a different intestinal microstructure and even saw changes in their immune systems.

In other words, the results didn’t come back in favor of GMOs.

The Right to Know – a California-based organization pushing for the labeling of GM foods – has pointed out that independent studies have not only linked GMOs to increased allergies, but also asthma, autism and ADHD. And now that this research suggests they may also be making us fat, the pro-GMO argument just keeps getting dimmer.

While the fish and rats didn’t see any additional health problems as a result of the GM foods, Ashild Krogdahl – one of the lead authors of the study – explained to the ScienceNordic that the evidence is still troubling. ”If the same effect applies to humans, how would it impact people eating this type of corn over a number of years, or even eating meat from animals feeding on this corn? I don’t wish to sound alarmist,” she said, “but it is an interesting phenomenon and worth exploring further.”

Jeffrey Smith of the Institute from Responsible Technology feels strongly that GMOs could potentially be causing weight gain in humans. ”I have heard from people who stop eating GMOs that weight problems is one of the symptoms that improves or goes away,” he said. “One woman told me that with no other change in the diet, she lost 35 pounds, her husband lost 15, and her two kids 5 pounds each, just focusing on eliminating GMOs.”

Leah Segedie, founder of Bookieboo (an online health resource for moms) and leading figure in the fight against GMOs, tells of her own experiences with eliminating GMOs from her diet.

“I’ve lost close to 200 pounds over three pregnancies so far, but most of my life I spent overweight eating genetically modified foods. As someone who has come at it from both sides, I can testify that when I removed processed foods from my diet I lost quicker and was able to maintain my weight loss. About anywhere from 80-95 percent of processed foods have genetically modified ingredients inside of them,” she says. “Just look at the nutritional contents. If you seen corn, soy, cottonseed oil, canola oil, or sugar beets, chances are you are eating something genetically modified. And those ingredients are in about 80-95 percent of all packaged foods. Those ingredients will manipulate your metabolism, causing you to be hungrier and gain weight. As for me personally, I was only able to maintain my weight loss when I ate foods that were minimally processed or not processed at all. In fact, the minute I switched from shopping at Vons to Trader Joes (where the private label items are Non-GMO) I lost [weight] faster.”

If GM foods are in fact causing adverse effects in humans like these studies suggest, in our opinion, it’s just not worth the risk. Even if they aren’t banned entirely, people should at least have the right to know if the foods they’re consuming contain genetically modified elements. Hopefully California’s Proposition 37 vote, which takes place November 6 to determine whether or not GMO-containing foods will be labeled as such in California, will be just the push we need to make this hope a reality.

Source: http://www.dietsinreview.com

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 7, 2012 in Health and Science

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Hybrid Pineapple-Strawberry

This unique fruit was bred from a wild strain of strawberry in South America that faced extinction until 2003 when a group of Dutch farmers saved it. When ripe, it is almost completely white, but with red seeds. A pineberry is smaller than a common strawberry, measuring between 15 to 23 mm. Its genetic makeup is said to be identical to that of a strawberry, however it is a white berry with red seeds. By the time its deeply set seeds turn deep red, the white fruit is deemed ripe.

Because they are a brand new variety of fruit (they were just released earlier this spring), they are still very rare, but are currently being sold in the United Kingdom and Belize.

GMO: A GMO, or Genetically Modified Organism, has had its DNA altered via genetic engineering to make it more disease, pest, or chemical resistant, or to include desirable characteristics such as size, color, enhanced nutrition, or stability (shelf life). GMO produce might include tomatoes genetically-altered to stay firm, or corn, soybean, or sugar beet crops modified to resist pests, weed killers, or to be more drought tolerant. (Visit the Right to Know: Label GMO Foods website to find out more and how to get involved.) Close to 90% of the corn, soybean, cotton, and sugar beet crop grown in the U.S. has been genetically modified. Corn, soybean, and sugar beet byproducts are used in many processed foods. GMO foods are required to be labeled in the European Union. Here the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for regulating the production and safety of GMO foods. While the World Health Organization states “no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved,” there have not been any studies addressing concerns about allergies and long-term effects on human health. Some studies have shown potential harm to non-modified plants and animals, including unintended crossbreeding, pesticide resistance, and population changes.

 

Hybrid: A hybrid, such as an aprium (apricot crossed with a plum) or plumcot (plum crossed with a apricot), is a variety made by naturally crossbreeding two separate varieties to create a new one. Hybridization can occur spontaneously in nature (through cross pollination) or be practiced by farmers and gardeners. Pioneering botanist Luther Burbank developed more than 800 plant varieties using hybridization, grafting, and cross breeding, all natural trait selection processes.  Hybridization is a form of crossbreeding where two different varieties are combined resulting in an offspring that combines characteristics of the parent varieties. Over successive generations, the desirable traits can be tailored. Burbank brought us the first plumcot—a cross between a plum and an apricot—and the Russet Potato, among many other fruits, vegetables, and plants. In mammals, a hybrid example is the Labradoodle, produced by crossing a standard poodle and a Labrador retriever.

 

Sources:  http://www.omg-facts.com; http://www.wikipedia.com; http://www.fruitguys.com

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 6, 2012 in Health and Science

 

Tags: , ,

Why Genetically Engineered Food Is Dangerous

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD (Photo credit: The Rocketeer)

Monday, 18 June 2012, 4:17 pm
Press Release: Earth Open Source

Why Genetically Engineered Food Is Dangerous

New report by genetic engineers
Press release for immediate release
Earth Open Source
17 June 2012

LONDON, UK – Aren’t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn’t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report released today, “GMO Myths and Truths”,[1] challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

One of the report’s authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

Another author of the report, Dr John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money owing to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practised today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer.

“These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”

The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we – not biotechnology companies – keep control of our food system and crop seeds.

“We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities.”

Notes

1. The report, “GMO Myths and Truths, An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops”, by Michael Antoniou, PhD, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan, PhD is published by Earth Open Source (June 2012). The report is 123 pages long and contains over 600 citations, many of them from the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the rest from reports by scientists, physicians, government bodies, industry, and the media. The report is available here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58
A shorter summary version will be released in the coming weeks.

News points from the report

1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.

2. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feed supply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trials – notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.

3. GM proponents have dismissed these statistically significant findings as “not biologically relevant/significant,” based on scientifically indefensible arguments.

4. Certain EU-commissioned animal feeding trials with GM foods and crops are often claimed by GM proponents to show they are safe. In fact, examination of these studies shows significant differences between the GM-fed and control animals that give cause for concern.

5. GM foods have not been properly tested in humans, but the few studies that have been carried out in humans give cause for concern.

6. The US FDA does not require mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only “deregulates” them, based on assurances from biotech companies that they are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts. This is like claiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does not have BSE and is thus safe to eat! Claims of substantial equivalence cannot be justified on scientific grounds.

7. The regulatory regime for GM foods is weakest in the US, where GM foods do not even have to be assessed for safety or labelled in the marketplace, but in most regions of the world regulations are inadequate to protect people’s health from the potential adverse effects of GM foods.

8. In the EU, where the regulatory system is often claimed to be strict, minimal pre-market testing is required for a GMO and the tests are commissioned by the same companies that stand to profit from the GMO if it is approved – a clear conflict of interest.

9. No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing on humans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.

10. Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual property protection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops for research purposes. As a result, limited research has been conducted on GM foods and crops by scientists who are independent of the GM industry. Scientists whose work has raised concerns about the safety of GMOs have been attacked and discredited in orchestrated campaigns by GM crop promoters.

11. Most GM crops (over 75%) are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides. Where such GM crops have been adopted, they have led to massive increases in herbicide use.

12. Roundup, the herbicide that over 50% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate, is not safe or benign as has been claimed but has been found to cause malformations (birth defects), reproductive problems, DNA damage, and cancer in test animals. Human epidemiological studies have found an association between Roundup exposure and miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer.

13. A public health crisis has erupted in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals sprayed on the crop report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.

14. A large number of studies indicate that Roundup is associated with increased crop diseases, especially infection with Fusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease in soy and can have toxic effects on humans and livestock.

15. Bt insecticidal GM crops do not sustainably reduce pesticide use but change the way in which pesticides are used: from sprayed on, to built in.

16. Bt technology is proving unsustainable as pests evolve resistance to the toxin and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.

17. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM plants is safe because the natural form of Bt, long used as a spray by conventional and organic farmers, has a history of safe use. But the GM forms of Bt toxins are different from the natural forms and could have different toxic and allergenic effects.

18. GM Bt toxin is not limited in its toxicity to insect pests. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials.

19. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on non-target organisms in the environment.

20. Bt toxin is not fully broken down in digestion and has been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their fetuses.

21. The no-till method of farming promoted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops, which avoids ploughing and uses herbicides to control weeds, is not more climate-friendly than ploughing. No-till fields do not store more carbon in the soil than ploughed fields when deeper levels of soil are measured.

22. No-till increases the negative environmental impacts of soy cultivation, because of the herbicides used.

23. Golden Rice, a beta-carotene-enriched rice, is promoted as a GM crop that could help malnourished people overcome vitamin A deficiency. But Golden Rice has not been tested for toxicological safety, has been plagued by basic development problems, and, after more than 12 years and millions of dollars of research funding, is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, inexpensive and effective solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available but under-used due to lack of funding.

24. GM crops are often promoted as a “vital tool in the toolbox” to feed the world’s growing population, but many experts question the contribution they could make, as they do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought than non-GM crops. Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to contain a pesticide – traits that are irrelevant to feeding the hungry.

25. High adoption of GM crops among farmers is not a sign that the GM crop is superior to non-GM varieties, as once GM companies gain control of the seed market, they withdraw non-GM seed varieties from the market. The notion of “farmer choice” does not apply in this situation.

26. GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops has resulted in massive financial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls, lawsuits, and lost markets.

27. When many people read about high-yielding, pest- and disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops, they think of GM. In fact, these are all products of conventional breeding, which continues to outstrip GM in producing such crops. The report contains a long list of these conventional crop breeding successes.

28. Certain “supercrops” have been claimed to be GM successes when in fact they are products of conventional breeding, in some cases assisted by the non-GM biotechnology of marker assisted selection.

29. Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method than GM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs of food production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.

30. Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agroecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuring global food security.

About the authors

Michael Antoniou, PhD is reader in molecular genetics and head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK. He has 28 years’ experience in the use of genetic engineering technology investigating gene organisation and control, with over 40 peer reviewed publications of original work, and holds inventor status on a number of gene expression biotechnology patents. Dr Antoniou has a large network of collaborators in industry and academia who are making use of his discoveries in gene control mechanisms for the production of research, diagnostic and therapeutic products and human somatic gene therapies for inherited and acquired genetic disorders.

John Fagan, PhD is a leading authority on sustainability in the food system, biosafety, and GMO testing. He is founder and chief scientific officer of Global ID Group, a company with subsidiaries involved in GMO food testing and GMO-free certification. He is a director of Earth Open Source. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and in academia. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.

Dr Fagan became an early voice in the scientific debate on genetic engineering when in 1994 he took an ethical stand challenging the use of germ line gene therapy (which has subsequently been banned in most countries) and genetic engineering in agriculture. He underlined his concerns by returning a grant of around $614,000 to the US National Institutes of Health, awarded for cancer research that used genetic engineering as a research tool. He was concerned that knowledge generated in his research could potentially be misused to advance human germ-line genetic engineering (for example, to create “designer babies”), which he found unacceptable on grounds of both safety and ethics. For similar reasons, around the same time, he withdrew applications for two additional grants totalling $1.25 million from the NIH and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). In 1996 he started Global ID when he saw that GMO testing could be useful to assist industry in providing consumers with the transparency that they desired regarding the presence of GMOs in foods.

Claire Robinson, MPhil is research director at Earth Open Source. She has a background in investigative reporting and the communication of topics relating to public health, science and policy, and the environment. She is an editor at GMWatch (www.gmwatch.org), a public information service on issues relating to genetic modification, and was formerly managing editor at SpinProfiles (now Powerbase).

Earth Open Source

Earth Open Source (www.earthopensource.org) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system. It supports agroecological, farmer-based systems that conserve soil, water, and energy and that produce healthy and nutritious food free from unnecessary toxins. It challenges the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture on the grounds of the scientifically proven hazards that they pose to health and the environment and on the grounds of the negative social and economic impacts of these technologies. Earth Open Source holds that our crop seeds and food system are common goods that belong in the hands of farmers and citizens, not of the GMO and chemical industry. Earth Open Source has established four lines of action, each of which fulfils a specific aspect of its mission:

• Science and policy platform
• Scientific research
• Citizens’ learning and action
• Sustainable rural development.

Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1206/S00463/why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous.htm

 
6 Comments

Posted by on June 22, 2012 in Health and Science

 

Tags: , , ,

Food Free of Additive Hormones – GMO

Genetically Modified Foods Are Already Everywhere — But Are They Safe?
You may not know it, but genetically modified foods are everywhere. The odds are excellent that you’ve already eaten something made with at least one genetically modified ingredient today, and you probably had no idea! But it is important to know this because, despite what food manufacturers would have us believe, it’s not safe to assume that they are safe.
Genetically modified (GM) foods have become ubiquitous in our food supply since 1996, when GM soy, corn, canola and cottonseed oil were first introduced. Food manufacturers in many other industrialized nations have been banned from selling GM foods, but here in the US, it’s estimated that 70% to 75% of our foods contain genetically modified ingredients.
What’s for Dinner?
A Consumer Reports poll found that 95% of Americans wish GM foods were labeled, and a poll from The New York Times/CBS found that more than half of those surveyed said that they would avoid foods with such a label. But it doesn’t matter what people want: The US requires GM foods be labeled only if they are nutritionally different from non-GM versions of the same foods and so far, the FDA has deemed GM foods as “substantially equivalent,” so … no labels. According to food-safety advocate Jeffrey M. Smith, founder and executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and author of the books Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, this is a “win” for the US food manufacturers who prefer, of course, that we blithely continue buying and eating these foods without a clue.
The methodology for making GM foods sounds like science fiction, taking Mendel’s original genetic learning to a whole new level. Scientists working in labs take genes from one organism — a plant, animal, bacterium or virus — and splice them to the genes of another organism (a food crop or animal) to produce genetically altered offspring that will reproduce for agricultural purposes. As a result, we now have, for instance, corn that kills insects and “enviro-pigs,” whose manure is easier on the environment. While the biotech industry claims that these GM foods are safe, scant human research has been done — and the studies of animals fed these foods raise more concerns than they quell.
What are the Dangers?
According to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), “GM foods pose serious health risks in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.” Here are some reasons for concern…
GM foods have been linked with food allergies. Soon after GM soy was introduced in the UK, reports of allergic reactions to soy products skyrocketed by 50%. There are many known differences between GM and natural soy that could account for such a surge — for instance, cooked GM soy has as much as seven times more of a common soy allergen than natural cooked soy… there are higher herbicide residues on the GM soy… and research has shown that GM soy triggers changes in immune and/or digestive functioning that don’t occur with natural soy.
Antibiotic resistance can get worse. Antibiotic resistance is already a huge public health problem, and GM foods may well make it worse, since certain genes (such as ones that come from bacteria) used in the process can combine with disease-causing microbes in the environment or in the guts of animals or people who eat them.
GM foods have been linked with certain types of cancer. Cows in the US are routinely injected with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone so that they will produce more milk. Milk from these cows has higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone linked with breast, prostate, colon, lung and other cancers.
GM foods aren’t as nutritious and may even be toxic. Scientists have found lower concentrations of heart-protective phytoestrogens in GM soybeans than in natural soybeans and, in a 1999 study, GM potatoes wrought damage in the immune systems and vital organs of rats.
There may be serious collateral environmental damage. Neighboring crops can be contaminated by GM crops… beneficial insects can be harmed, which would impact the food chain and alter soil fertility… there’s potential to create “super-weeds” and “super-pests” able to resist conventional herbicides and pesticides… and it’s hard to predict what will happen when GM organisms “escape” into the environment.
How to Avoid Food with GMOs
The AAEM has called for long-term independent studies of health risks of GM foods… asked that there be a labeling requirement for GM foods… and requested a moratorium on the sale of GM foods until doctors have had a chance to educate their patients to avoid them. In the meantime, if you decide that you don’t want to include GM foods in your diet, Smith recommends that you take the following four steps…
  • Buy organic. Certified organic products cannot include GMO ingredients.
  • Read labels carefully. Some smart marketers already use a “non-GMO” label on their products and soon you’ll begin seeing a new “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal on thousands of products. This means that the product, even if not organic, has met a uniform non-GMO standard and undergone third-party verification. Also, for dairy products, either buy organic or look for those that are labeled “No rBGH or rbST” or “artificial hormone-free.”
  • Beware of red-flag ingredients. Some ingredients are all but certain to be genetically modified if they were grown here in the US. These include soy (an estimated 93% is genetically modified)… sugar beets (95% GM)… corn (86% GM)… and cotton (used for cottonseed oil, 93%).
  • Download a free non-GMO shopping guide. To help identify healthier alternatives to the hundreds of unlabeled GM foods, download a free non-GMO shopping guide at http://www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com. If you have an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch, visit the iTunes store for a free ShopNoGMO application. Use these to create a personalized non-GMO favorites list.
Foods That Might Contain GM Ingredients
Artificial Sweeteners Margarine
Baking Powder Mayonnaise
Bread Meat Substitutes
Candy Peanut Butter
Canola Oil Protein Powder
Cereal Rapeseed Oil
Chips Salad Dressing
Chocolate Soda
Cookies Soy Cheese
Cornmeal Soy Flour
Cornstarch Soy Protein
Cottonseed Oil Soy Sauce
Crackers Sugar that is not 100% Cane
Dairy Products from GM-Treated Cows Tamari
Enriched Flour (all kinds, not just white) Tempeh
Food Additives Tofu
Fried Foods Tomato Sauce
Frozen Yogurt Vegetable Oil
High-Fructose Corn Syrup Veggie Burgers
Hot Dogs
Ice Cream
Infant Formula
Jeffrey M. Smith, founder and executive director, Institute for Responsible Technology, Fairfield, Iowa, and author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette (Yes! Books). Smith is the producer of the documentaries, “Hidden Dangers in Kids’ Meals” and “Your Milk on Drugs — Just Say No!”
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: