Genmodifisert mat og genmodifiserte organismer er i vinden om dagen, i forbindelse med vurdering av godkjennelse av to typer GMO-mais. "Trygt" sier Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning. "Ikke i samsvar med norsk lov," mener Bioteknologinemda. Er spørsmålet vanskelig? Ja. Men svaret er enkelt: Forbrukerne vil ikke ha GMO-mat. Hvorfor ikke? Fordi det er hevet over tvil at det ikke bare er farlig, men en risiko for hele økosystemet. Blir vi skikkelig, og hederlig, informert om GMO gjennom myndighetene og pressen? Svaret er nei. Vil du oppdatere din kunnskap, så les denne prisbelønte boken, "Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food", av Beth H. Harrison - som en start.

Denne boken er kort, konsis og lastet med referanser. Den er absolutt egnet for dem som allerede lider av ”overlast av informasjon”, og behøver en kort sammenstilling. Fritt Helsevalg har lest boken og snakket med forfatteren. Vi håper å kunne skrive en utfyllende omtale av boken på norsk etter hvert, men i første omgang velger vi å ta inn omtalen fra Beth Harrisons egen nettside.

Introduksjonen til boken er også tilgjengelig og kan fåes i pdf-format ved henvendelse til Fritt Helsevalg.

Er det ikke interessant at helse- og helsefrihetsbevisste forbrukere må bruke av sin fritid og sine lommepenger for å sloss mot sine demokratiske representanter og myndigheter; mens motparten - myndighetene – jobber på full tid, fullfinansiert av disse samme forbrukernes skattepenger?

Les også artikkelen Genmodifisert mais til Norge ?

http://www.fritthelsevalg.org/htmlsite/aktuelt.asp?parent=1&flag=1&ban=1&id=618  

GMO-spørsmålet, blir vi fortalt, er kontroversielt. Myndighetene og industrien sier det er trygt og nyttig. Og forbrukeren er skeptiske. Erfaring viser at GMO ikke bidrar til økt avkastning. Det øker bruken av sprøytemidler. Og det sprer seg utenfor designerte dyrkningsområder.

Og plantearter modifiseres nå til å produsere legemidler og kjemikalier. Hva skjer når disse plantene sprer seg i miljøet – og til maten vår?

Det er sterke krefter også i Norge, for å slippe genmodifisert mat til på markedet.

"To av tre vil ikke kjøpe GMO-mat", skrev Nationen 4 juli i år. Klart budskap?

Men i artikkelen sier Hilde-Gunn Opsahl Sorteberg, professor i molekylærgenetikk ved Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap at hun tror at mye av motstanden i befolkningen bunner i mangel på kunnskap om hva GMO-mat faktisk er.

Det stemmer nok. Til dels.

Den informasjon som tilflyter forbrukerne gjennom normale kanaler, er ufullstendig og industrivridd. Det er ikke lett for helsebevisste forbrukere å finne sannheten. Den er godt skjult og systematisk undertrykt.

Konsekvensene av GMO er ikke kjent. Det er ikke bevist at det er trygt. De langsiktige effekter på miljø og helse aner vi ingenting om. men vi vet at teknologien "tukler med naturen", og at det nødvendigvis – i det minste – må medføre endringer i naturens balanse.

Hver enkelt forbruker må selv skaffe seg informasjon, og ta et standpunkt. I dag kan vi ikke stole på ekspertene, industrien og myndighetene. Ta en kikk på  de fortløpende og voksende skandaler i helsevesenet og legemiddelindustrien; ta en kikk på den systematiske undertrykkelsen av ernæringsmedisin og naturmedisin; ta en kikk på den ikke-eksisterende debatten om global oppvarming; ta en kikk på myndighetenes og medias dekning av "historiens største landeveisrøveri" – finanskrisen, og det synes klart at forbrukerne står nokså alene.

Beth Harrisons bok er et bra sted å begynne. Jeffrey Smiths to bøker (linker nedenfor) er også bra. Det finnes mange. Ingen av dem representerer den hele og fulle sannhet om GMO, men er i hvert fall en begynnelse og en god motvekt mot "industriens propaganda".

Spør din Stortingsrepresentant om han/hun har lest dem!

Hvis det blant Fritt Helsevalgs medlemmer – og lesere – finnes noen som er godt informert om GMO og er sterkt engasjert,  trenger vi en person til å ta hånd om denne porteføljen. Vi hører gjerne fra deg.

Webradio

Du kan også høre et intervju med Beth på webradio. Intervjuet ble gjort med KRXA, i programmet "Tomorrow Matters" med Deborah Lindsay den 16. oktober 16, 2008.

Gå på nettsiden hennes (http://thetruthaboutgmos.com/ ). Intervjuet ligger rett under "prisene" på toppen av siden.

Her er, med forfatterens tillatelse, bokens introduksjonskapitel:

Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food

What You Don’t Know About the Food You’re Eating and What You Can Do to Protect Yourself

Beth H. Harrison, Ph.D.

Introduction

Americans Kept in the Dark

Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest

is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.¹

Philip Angell, while director of corporate communications at Monsanto, quoted in

the New York Times, October 25, 1998

Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.²

FDA Statement of Food Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, May

29, 1992 Federal Register

Food today is big business—a business of money and politics. It has simply become a commodity to be patented, owned, and sold on the global market. No independent, peer-reviewed scientific proof exists of the safety of humans consuming genetically engineered (GE) food.

Because there is no labeling of GE food in America, you have been part of a large-scale genetic experiment without your knowledge or consent. While the U.S. government protects multinational biotechnology corporations’ interests, who is watching out for you?

Some people might say, “Why should I care if I eat GE food? If it weren’t safe, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would not allow it in the food supply.” However, after reading this book, you might rethink that assumption, and here are a few reasons why:

• no GE food has ever been safety-tested for human consumption;
• manufacturers can introduce a GE food without informing the government or consumers;
• largely due to biotech lobbying, GE food is not required to be labeled in the U.S. as they are in other countries, even though polls have overwhelmingly shown that the majority of American consumers want GE labeling;
• scientists have warned about potential health risks of consuming GE food, including cancers and other illnesses;
• children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GE food because their bodies develop at a fast pace and are more likely to be influenced and show the adverse effects from it; and
• insurance companies will not insure the biotechnology industry because it is too risky.

You might assume the U.S. government would do everything to ensure that GE food is safe for consumers and the environment. As one of the U.S. regulatory agencies, the FDA’s mission is to protect public health. So where does the FDA stand on the safety of GE food? The agency asserted in the 1992 Statement of Food Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties that the food producer is responsible for safety: “FDA has not found it necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants … Ultimately,

it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”^{3, 4}

According to biotech-giant Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications, “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”⁵

So, if neither the U.S. government nor the U.S. food producers are responsible for the safety of GE food, who is?

The biotech industry often claims that the safety of GE products has been certified through a rigorous approval process carried out by the FDA. In reality, GE crops are only subject to voluntary consultations with companies that choose to consult with the agency about their products. Because the consultations are voluntary, the FDA does not require specific safety studies or test methods to be conducted. The agency accepts summaries of whatever testing the company has chosen to do; however, summaries are not required, either.

Few valid safety animal studies have been conducted on GE food, and no adequate tests have been performed on biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function. Animal-feeding studies have also been too short to test for many illnesses and effects in the next generation.⁶

Scientific studies have revealed that some animals fed GE food developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth; smaller brains, livers, and testicles; damaged immune systems; partial atrophy of the liver; lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys; inflammation of the kidneys; and problems with their blood cells. These concerns have not been followed-up on or accounted for.⁷

It is naïve to expect companies that stand to gain financially to offer information voluntarily when it

could jeopardize lucrative products.  As far as U.S. regulatory agencies are concerned, if a biotech company says its products are safe, that is enough for approval.

Dr. Ignacio Chapela, assistant professor of microbial ecology, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at the University of California at Berkeley, pointed out, “We have started seeing pieces of DNA interacting with each other in ways that are entirely unpredictable. I think this is probably the largest biological experiment humanity has ever entered into.”⁸

So why has the majority of the American public never heard about GE food and the potential health risks?

The FDA’s decision not to require labeling has played an important role in keeping most Americans in the dark regarding the GE food they are eating. At the same time, people in the rest of the world seem to be more informed, and their governments have taken action to ban or label it. As of 2005, more than forty countries, including the European Union (EU), Russia, the Czech Republic, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and Ecuador, have laws requiring the labeling of GE food.⁹ Such labeling is going on worldwide, giving citizens in those countries information about GE food and the freedom to choose not to eat it.

Since 1994, GE food has been force-fed to millions of American infants, children, and adults every day. Because the United States and Canada are the only industrialized countries in the world without a GE labeling law, most citizens do not even know they have been consuming GE food. According to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology poll released in December 2006, 60% of Americans believed they had never eaten GE food and 14% said they did not know if

they had ever consumed it.¹⁰

In reality, GE food is sold daily in the United States without identifying labels. These include soy, cotton, corn, canola oil, dairy products, summer squash, potatoes, tomatoes, radicchio, and papayas, as well as other fruits and vegetables. This altered food is also used in up to 75% of processed food products, such as frozen and microwave foods, sodas, fast foods, baking mixes and baked goods, breakfast cereals, snack foods, sauces, margarine, salad dressings, and even baby food and infant formula.

It has to make you wonder. If the majority of processed food in America is genetically altered, yet consumers do not benefit from eating it, why are they eating it?

According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s (BIO) Web site (the industry’s largest trade organization), the biotech industry is a multi-billion dollar industry whose goal is simply “to build revenue and a profit-generating business.”

The first decade of planting the billionth acre of GE crops occurred in 2005 with a global market worth about $6.15 billion in 2006. While there has been growth around the world, the global agricultural biotechnology market remains dominated by Missouri-based Monsanto.¹¹

It is no coincidence that the largest biotechnology companies are the world’s largest herbicide and pesticide companies. While some GE crops have been created to produce pesticides in each one of their cells, the majority of GE crops were created to tolerate large doses of a particular company’s weed killers or pesticides. These so-called “life science” companies alter and patent their seeds, requiring farmers to repurchase them yearly, and ensure that crops cannot be grown

without their patented chemicals.

Government support for biotech crops seems to stem from two important facts: they are U.S.-developed, and biotech companies have made significant financial contributions to politicians and political parties. For instance, Monsanto paid more than $22.5 million in lobbying money from 1999 to 2004.¹²  With billions of dollars at stake, the U.S. government and the biotechnology industry have kept the American public uninformed about GE food and its risks. 

Food labeling is essential for a consumer’s right to know. The FDA currently labels irradiated food, organic produce, processed food methods such as “grown without pesticides or preservatives,” and allows kosher symbols on certain foods.  These labels provide consumers with information, yet biotech proponents contend that labeling GE food would “confuse” people, even though polls have overwhelmingly concluded that the majority of the population wants GE labeling.

The article Why Biotech Labeling Can Confuse Consumers, written by the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), states that because the FDA considers biotech food “substantially equivalent” to conventional food, labeling biotech food “could sow confusion among consumers.” However, CBI’s real concern was revealed when the article declared, “Ninety-two percent of food industry leaders, for example, believe that mandatory biotech food labeling…will instead be perceived as a ‘warning’ by at least some consumers.”¹³ CBI is an industry organization dedicated to promoting biotechnology in agriculture.

How have the biotech industry and the U.S. government tried to sell the public on the necessity of genetically altered food?

The biotech industry and the U.S. government have methodically promised a variety of benefits: more nutrition, better flavor, higher crop yields, fewer pesticides, longer shelf life, and more. Actually, GE crops have failed to deliver benefits, while consumers continue to assume all of the health risks. 

Proponents have even claimed GE food is necessary to increase food production to “feed the world.” But claiming that GE crops are necessary to feed the world is only plausible if it is mistakenly assumed that people go hungry because there is a shortage of food. On the contrary, food overproduction is a problem today, yet people in third-world countries are so poor that they cannot afford to buy what is already grown.

The future of the world’s food supply should be based upon sound science, not on propaganda of corporations with high-priced public relations and marketing budgets. History has shown that many of the same biotechnology companies that tell the public to trust them with the world’s food supply have repeatedly done business at the expense of public health.

The empty promises made by the U.S. government and the biotechnology industry cannot obscure the fact that there has never been evidence of the safety of consuming GE food. Americans are risking their health for the corporate bottom line. Until they have been independently tested and found safe, any foods that contain GE ingredients should be clearly labeled. Citizens in other countries have a choice not to eat GE food thanks to labeling. Why should Americans be denied the freedom to make an equally informed choice?