Within the US, any studies that raises concerns on the dangerous implications of GMOs are heavily censored. It is only once we leave the US we realize that there is substantial publicly funded evidence from other countries showing the health concerns associated with GMOs. The information is censored by controlling what the public has access too within the US, and attacking the credibility of those presenting studies and viewpoints against GMOs.

Any independent organization who wants to conduct a study on GM crops must receive permission from the biotech company that developed the crop, because they own patents on the crop. Under US patent and trademark laws, it is extremely difficult for independent scientists to conduct any studies on GM products because the intellectual property is protected. The patent holders are under no obligation to grant any permission for these studies.

Recognizing this obvious conflict with regard to public safety, the government intervened, but did not address the problem. Now, the biotech companies can:

• 1. Work with specific universities of their own choice who perform the studies.
• 2. Have the studies conducted under secrecy agreements, whose terms are allowed to be kept confidential from the public.
• 3. Perform the studies themselves and develop their own study standards.

An independent scientist or food safety group still cannot simply request to do a food safety study. Approval is required from the biotech company who developed the crop. Common sense tells us that the biotech industry should not be allowed to develop their own standards, nor should they be exempt from allowing independent studies to be conducted.

All claims that GM foods are safe are either made by biotech scientists with biotech biases, or are made by companies funded by the biotechs.

All claims that GM foods are safe are either made by biotech scientists with biotech biases, or are made by companies funded by the biotechs.

• A study published in Food Policy conducted a "conflict of interest" study on biotechs and GMOs. In the study, a researcher read through 97 research studies to determine whether findings were favorable, neutral, or had adverse effects. A separate scientist then looked for financial conflicts (from those who paid for the studies) and professional conflicts (if a scientist worked for a biotech company). They concluded that for studies where a financial conflict exists, there was no significant difference. But for professional conflicts, they discovered there were 41 papers where there was a professional conflict and that all 41 were favorable towards GMOs. In the 51 remaining, 39 did not find problems with the GMOs but 12 did. These finding are statistically significant.

Any study where there is a professional conflict of interest affects the outcome of the study, and should be considered null and void.

A substantial body of scientific evidence from independent studies outside of the US reveals that there may be serious health hazards resulting from the consumption of GMOs. The scientists conducting these studies are beginning to sound the alarm bells. Publicly funded research is now showing gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, organ damage, birth defects, infertility, and cancer directly related to consuming GMOs.

Not surprisingly, none of these studies are funded by biotech companies, nor have they been conducted in the US. Scientists and weed experts are a large body of people producing evidence against GM crops, but in the US, media outlets and the government are refusing to publicize these findings because large institutions are becoming increasingly more reliant upon biotech funding. A study questioning the safety of GMOs, regardless of who publishes the study and how well it is done, is deemed either "highly controversial" or is immediately discredited.

When GMOs are questioned, the backlash is incredibly powerful, with the intent to destroy the study and the reputation of those creating it. Any study results that do make it to the public eye are claimed as an unfounded hysterical outcry.

Here are just a few examples of health studies on GM products:

When it comes to GMOs, here is a clear impact on human health. Industrial, chemical, and GM agriculture zones correlate with epidemics of chronic disease that include cancer. The pockets of cancer rates are high in these zones. In Argentina, round-up ready soy is the only soy grown there, and the glyphosate (the active ingredient in roundup) sprayed onto it is being blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects, cancer, sterility, and miscarriages.

GM products aside, the highly toxic pesticide Roundup poses its own health concerns. It is a broad spectrum pesticide and antibacterium that affects the cells throughout our body and causes endocrine disruption. This product is now used indiscriminately by both farmers and the general public.

The technology behind GM products was to develop crops that would be resistant to weeds and insects, requiring much less pesticides and herbicides to be used on the crops. The original pitch made to farmers was that this technology would make it very easy for them to manage pests on their farms. They would simply plant their GM seeds, and spray the popular herbicide Roundup, developed by Monsanto, on any errant weeds that may emerge.

Because pesticide use would be dramatically reduced, two huge benefits would result:

• 1. Less pesticide usage would save farmers money
• 2. Less pesticide usage would benefit the environment.

Unfortunately, not only has the opposite occurred, but it has occurred with disastrous consequences. When you try to suppress the systems of nature, they will respond simply because they cannot be controlled or contained in this manner. Organisms adapt to their environment, and the weeds and insects, of course, adapted! GE technology failed as natural resistance to their pesticides evolved.

"Scientists state there has been a 400 million pound increase in the use of pesticides since the introduction of GM plants, and in response to the growth of new "superweeds." In Argentina alone, over 21 new species of weeds have now emerged that are resistant to Roundup.

The problem has become so serious that farmers have had to request "emergency exemptions" from the EPA to use untested stronger and more dangerous herbicides on resistant crops.

As a result of this lack of foresight, we now have hundreds of species of "superweeds" that are resistant to herbicides, and insects that are resistant to pesticides. Within only 7-8 years, a new breed of superweeds appeared that are highly resistant to roundup. Farmers are now having to spray huge quantities of roundup, much more than they did previously, to try and control the new strains of aggressive bugs and weeds that have evolved. This dramatic increase in pesticide usage has reached epidemic levels, contaminating our air and our water supply, as well as our food chain.

Scientists state there has been a 400 million pound increase in the use of weed killers since the introduction of GM plants built to withstand the pesticides. In Argentina alone, millions and millions of gallons of roundup are now required, causing over 21 new species of weeds to appear that are Roundup resistant.

BT corn and cotton crops that have been developed with an insecticide built into them (effectively, they contain their own bug-killer), have now led to insect resistance. Larger populations of bugs are now appearing, breeding to produce insects that are resistant to the insecticide engineered in the BT crops. The seeds now have to be coated in additional insecticidal seed treatment to cope with pests that the toxin fails to kill - an additional (and hidden) insecticide use.

At this point, even the biotech companies recognize there is a major problem to now contend with as a result of their serious misjudgment. Unable to control the new strains of weeds and insects, their response is to now focus on developing increasingly toxic solutions to deal with these superweeds and superpests. These more toxic products will result in predictably higher future profit margins as farmers will need to purchase the more toxic pesticides (from the biotechs) to spray on their crops. The result is that very dangerous products such as Dicamba and 2,4-D will have far reaching consequences.

Dicamba and 2,4-D (known as Agent Orange, or 24D) are potent neurotoxic chemicals. Agent Orange was used in Vietnam and is an extremely dangerous and highly toxic product, but despite these dangers, a new 2,4-D resistant corn is being developed that many scientists are calling "agent orange corn." This crop is being engineered to withstand the extremely high usage of the highly toxic 2,4-D. If approved, the consequences are very disturbing to consider. We definitely do know it will appear in our air and drinking water, and that the exposure to the general public will be dramatically increased.

2,4-D has now become a very common ingredient in pesticides sold for home and harden use, and the public has absolutely no idea how dangerous it is, especially for children and pets. Using 4 or more applications of 2,4-D each year increases the risk of canine malignant lymphoma 2-fold (Journal of the National Cancer Institute).

• • The Vietnamese government estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed and another 1/2 million children born with birth defects as a result of the US military's use of agent orange.
• • The Red Cross states that there are over 1,000,000 disabled in Vietnam today because of agent orange.

People are being led to believe that GMOs have reduced pesticide use, instead of understanding that crops are not only now resistant to current pesticides, but that more of it is needed in much more toxic versions to kill the superweeds that have grown as a result of the GMOs. There is clearly no happy ending to this cycle if we continue down the current path of GE crops.

In a continual show of short-sightedness, biotech companies are now looking at "stacking" chemicals (using several highly toxic chemicals) in newer crops to develop more insect and weed resistance. The toxic pollution in our water and food, and the impact on the environment and human health, is devastating.

From a biotech standpoint, Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, has seen substantial profit from increased pesticide usage. In hindsight, it has successfully developed plants that require more and more of its own pesticides, predictably skyrocketing their own product sales. Sadly, farmers fall prey to this vicious cycle and become a victim of the process. Every few years, they must switch insecticides and herbicides because of the developing chemical resistance.

We can now look forward to superweeds that will become supertrees requiring chainsaws and machetes, not chemicals. When we understand the truth, it becomes very difficult to accept the disastrous impact of this chemical experiment on nature. Soaking our food chain in more and more toxic insecticides will take chronic disease to new and unprecedented levels.

The claim by Monsanto and other biotech companies that GM products will reduce pesticide usage has absolutely and conclusively been proven as false.

That the FDA has tested GM crops is a completely false statement that can be verified by simply contacting the FDA directly. In the US, GM crops are untested and require no safety assessments. Further, the FDA does not have a set of mandatory testing requirements or protocols for the biotech industry to follow when testing GM products. From a regulatory standpoint, the new proteins created by GM corn, for example, were never tested.

At a bare minimum, a rigorous safety and inspection system needs to exist where the government stipulates studies that need to be done, and protocols that need to be followed. If a biotech company is allowed to determine its own studies with its own rules and its own protocols, with no independent verification on the validity of these studies, or verification of no fraud involved, then the public has a right to be extremely concerned. This is the real reason that GMOs should be labeled to allow the public to decide whether or not they want to participate in the gene-altering food experiment.

Because of a lack of FDA mandated studies or approved protocols, the biotech companies themselves are free to make their own safety determination and present their own study findings to the FDA. Unfortunately, in an attempt to lull the public into a false sense of security, articles and publications make completely false statements claiming that the FDA has, in fact, tested such products. We are even being told there is a "scientific consensus" that GM crops are safe for human, animal, and environmental health based on a complete lack of any independent, long-term health studies.

Biotech corporations themselves maintain the stance that there is no need for safety testing or labeling of GM products because they are considered equivalent to their conventional counterpart (i.e. GM crops are no different from non-GM crops). At the same time, biotech corporations recognize the significant difference, claim patents on these differences, and receive substantial profits based on the unique nature of these products. It is the unique nature of the product that grants it a patent, and holds the potential for a tremendous source of profit. Biotechs can't have it both ways. Are GM seeds the same as conventional seeds? Or are they unique?

A genetically modified organism is biologically unique, and there should be no question or confusion on this fact. Companies have patented such processes as "completely new" because they are new. Because of this, independent safety assessments should be required before such foods can be released to the public. But these safety assessments simply do not exist.

The lobby for biotechnology is very powerful in North America. The biotech industry and chemical giants spends hundreds of millions of dollars influencing scientists, doctors, governments, lobbyists, and regulatory agencies that their products are safe. Large sums of money are donated to labs and universities to research GM products, but the researchers then fall victim to a conflict of interest. Their findings must support their funders, or the funding would obviously stop. The result is that studies are generated that show only positive results.

Many GM safety studies are heavily biased and are conducted by the companies who either sell GMOs, or who are funded by the biotech industry. As the studies are not standardized, the biotech companies can present only the data they want to present to regulators, and remove anything that is questionable or objectionable. If animals fed GM crops during a study die for unknown reasons, the animals can simply be replaced in the study with another animal, with no word or explanation as to what caused the death. Data can be selectively submitted, resulting in highly flawed studies. Such an approach is never acceptable in controlled studies, and yet it is common in GMO safety studies that are published.

Many studies conducted by public institutions on GM products are funded by biotech companies. Novartis and Monsanto gave a donation/grant of $50,000 to Berkeley University, specifying they themselves had the first right of refusal to examine research information for 3 months. Anything they felt was proprietary, the University would not be allowed to publish. The fact that the University is a public university publishing papers for the public good raises an important ethics question. A similar donation/grant in the amount of $500,000 million was made to British Petroleum (BP), who is working to creating biofuels.

We have to be very careful when we look at studies, because many studies are "opinion" pieces. When you drill down into the data being presented, there is often little data (and sometimes none!) to support those opinions. Blindly trusting peer reviewed publications and study conclusions can lead us down the wrong path. Often, the study conclusions presented to the public contradicts the data in the study itself. The assumption is made that the general public will not read the actual study (most people don't), and instead, read only the conclusion and believe it. This is a very easy way to lull the public into a false sense of security.

Biotech companies commonly claim that those who disagree with the benefits of GMOs are considered part of an "anti-science" movement and do not understand the benefits of GM crops, nor do they understand that GM products are completely safe. Biotech companies have even gone as far as to say the movement to label GMOs is "anti-science" on the grounds that labeling GM foods would give consumers the false impression that GMOs are unsafe.

Can these countries all be accused of anti-science? They include Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, where the government has mandated that GM products be clearly labeled to help the public make an informed decision on GM purchases. The irony is that some of the biggest food corporations in the world, including Nestle, Kraft, Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Kellogg, already label their products in the other countries that require it... but not in the United States. Every single member of the Grocery Manufacturer's Association labels its GM foods in over 60 countries. But not in the United States... We label gluten, fat content, sodium content, and yet there is an uproar about labeling GMOs.

The reason that the governments of these countries label GMOs is because they recognize that we have no idea of the long-term health impact of eating these crops. Other countries such as Ecuador have taken it one step further and completely banned them, not allowing them into their food supply.

The labeling will not change the cost of doing business, despite the false statements to the contrary. It didn't in other countries. The only thing that will change is that the consumer may choose against purchasing genetically modified products, reducing the multi-billion dollar profit margin of the biotech companies. And how dare we want such a thing!

Consumers in other countries have the protection from their government that US consumers do not, and this stark realization is seriously eroding the trust that consumers have in federal agencies to protect them and their food supply. Similar to the pharmaceutical industry, consumers and human rights organizations are beginning to distrust federal agencies who protect an industry at odds with the health and welfare of the general public. Why do consumers worldwide have access to GE product label warnings, yet food manufacturers in the US can legally refuse to label these foods? Why are companies that label their GMOs in other countries fighting so hard against labeling them in the US?

Many scientists oppose GM products and the impact they have on the environment.

• • When the World Food Prize was awarded to 3 chemical company executives (including a Monsanto executive), the backlash from the scientific community was substantial. In response, nearly 100 global luminaries in the food world signed a statement of protest, stating the award to these executive was an affront to the safe, ecological farming practices scientifically proven to promote nutrition and sustainability.
• • Over 2,000,000 people in 52 countries marched in opposition to genetically modified foods with the message "GMOs - A perfect example of the wrong way to go."
• • The UNEP (UN Environmental Program) published a document that stated the answer in Africa is not biotech foods, but rather sustainable ecological solutions.
• • The IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development) published findings based on a 4-year process supported by more than 500 scientists. Their findings reflected that the answer for agriculture is not technology, genetic engineering, or nano-technology, but rather agroecological approaches.

The reason that labeling on these products exists in other countries is in no way an attack on technology. It exists because there is a complete lack of health studies that prove GMOs are safe. The US is the only country that does not require safety assessments of GM products. Until independent, publicly funded testing clearly shows that there are no long-term health risks from GM crops, they need to be labeled to allow the public to choose whether or not they want to be part of the experiment. Even some of the biggest GM proponents also agree on this point.

If GMOs are not labeled, then people should question what it is the biotechs have to hide. Once GM products are labeled, there will be a tracking mechanism to help independent scientific bodies discover any correlation between the difference in how GMOs impact our health vs. non-GMOs. This tracking mechanism is something that the biotech companies are working very hard to prevent.

Labeling has nothing to do with not wanting genetic foods in the food chain. It is simply about choice, as opposed to force. It is about not letting the 5 big food companies that produce most of our food taking that choice away from us. It is a basic fundamental right we should have that when we pay for our food, we know what we are putting into our bodies. Labeling is the very least that should be done on the topic of genetically modified foods.

One of the biggest claims made by biotech companies is that GM crops will feed the world, and that they will help us to feed more hungry people. GM corporations claim that with conventional crops, you would have to increase crop land dramatically and expand into millions of acres of land to feed the earth’s growing population. This is false statement. The opposite is proving to be true. Conventional industrial agriculture itself cannot sustain and feed the world. It is contaminating our water sources, is a significant contributor to global warming, and uses chemicals which deplete our soils and produce a nutritionally inferior food. It is about nutrition per acre, not just yield per acre. The biggest chronic and autoimmune diseases of today are what we have to show for our mass production of chemically processed and genetically engineered food.

• • 85% of Corn (the majority is used in processed food, animal feed, pet food, and to fuel cars)
• • 91% of Soybeans (the majority is used in processed food, soy food, animal feed, pet food, and oil)
• • 88% of Cotton (feeds no-one)
• • Canola (one of the many industrial seed oils used in food)

Much of the soy produced is exported to China and Europe to feed cattle. To fulfill the claim that GM crops will feed the world, they would have to produce more than the conventional (non-GM) version of corn and soybeans. But they are not engineered for a higher yield. They are engineered to resist the application of herbicides, and to produce their own internal insecticide (which is why the EPA labels GM corn as an actual pesticide). Any yield increases are due to conventional breeding improvements, not improvements related to genetic engineering.

The yearly livestock production in the US consumes 7 times more grain than the entire US population

~ Pimentel & Pimentel ~

In the US alone, we have 1 million people hungry, and 40 million are food-insecure. Yet the American public throws away mass quantities of food each year. The food wastage in the US could feed a country the size of Africa. The problem is not that we do not have enough food. Hunger is more a political problem than a food production problem.

The yearly livestock production in the US alone consumes 7 times more grain than the entire US population. The acreage wasted on growing genetically modified corn and soy to feed farm animals alone (animals which should be pasture-raised as they are in every other country, and never fed this processed diet to begin with), could end world hunger.

The billions of dollars spent developing and marketing genetically modified food could be spent on much healthier and more environmentally responsible food production. It could also be spent educating consumers on the subject of nutrition, and the fact that the top three chronic diseases in the western world, namely heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, are entirely preventable by our diet choices.

Non-GM crops are more drought tolerant than their GM counterpart. The reason GM products are not more drought or flood tolerant than non-GM crops is because this cannot be achieved by moving around genes. Conventional breed techniques by farmers leads to such tolerance and resilience over time. GM products are not more beneficial from this standpoint.

The Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed government data and data from official peer reviewed publications. It compared GM and non-GM crops grown in the same conditions to compare the resulting yield. In carefully controlled trials, the GM yield was found to be no better than the non-GM yield. In some crops such as soy, the opposite occurred, and there was a yield drop in the GM version due to the unexpected effects of genetic modification.

Farmers also reported that yields were higher with non-GM seeds and that money was being lost on corn that was genetically engineered. Biotech companies then responded by mixing the GM seeds with the non-GM seeds. Rather than solve the problem, they effectively prevented any clear comparison of GM vs. non-GM crops, and no way of invalidating the farmer's original claim.

Farms who use agroecological methods preserve millions of crops, insects, and animals. It becomes very clear that GM crops are not a solution for feeding people that do not have enough food. It is a local food system that is the culturally appropriate answer, not an industrialized and highly chemicalized global food system that contributes to chronic disease and a shortened life span.

GMOs are absolutely not necessary for feeding the world. This claim is simply propaganda and public relations. We have very clear evidence that GM products that are totally dependent on chemicals are part of the problem, and do not play any part in the solution.

Genetically modified salmon is an experiment in which salmon can be brought to market weight in half the time of conventional salmon. The reality is that this comparison is only true when comparing GE salmon with wild salmon. Factory-farmed salmon reaches market weight much quicker than wild salmon, with some types growing just as fast as the GE salmon. This effectively cancels out the entire reason for developing the GE salmon to begin with.

In Argentina, 60,000 farmers alone went out of business over a 5-year period due to GM crops because of:

• 1. Royalties which had to be paid to Monsanto.
• 2. The mass quantity of herbicides required to farm the GM crops
• 3. Small farms under 500 hectares cannot afford the expensive machinery required to maintain GM crops

In India, 50% of the farmers committed suicide because of the stress induced from falling into economic debt resulting from using GM crops. In the US, hundreds of small farmers also go out of business each year for the same reason.

There is no evidence whatsoever that small farmer's benefit from GM crops. The opposite has proven to be true.

It is claimed that genetic engineering can produce more nutritious and healthier crops than their conventional counterpart. Currently, there are no such "nutritionally enhanced" genetically modified products, and in some cases, the opposite has proven to be true.

When GM crops are grown with herbicides, it tends to destroy the health of the growing soil and, which damages future crop growth. The minerals in the soil are also immobilized and important nutrients do not reach the plant that are needed for efficient growing and resistance to disease. The livestock and humans that eat these crops are now eating a less nutritious food. The shortage of minerals we now see in many genetically modified and non-organic fresh produce items is now resulting in various nutritional deficiencies. Monsanto's pesticide, Roundup, kills the beneficial bacteria in soil, contributing to the destruction of vitamin B12.

Trying to develop a product by injecting it with synthetic nutrients shows a complete lack of understanding that a natural, whole food is balanced because of how nature has packaged it, and because of the highly complex interaction between the nutrients and chemicals inherent within the food. Trying to isolate certain nutrients is a nonsensical approach to health and shows the arrogance of scientists who feel they can do a better job than the natural world.