Genetically modified products are indiscriminately filling the shelves of our supermarkets. Not only do they pose a serious threat to the environment, but a steady string of studies are emerging showing that GMOs may pose a serious risk to our health.

Preservatives can be natural or synthetic. Most preservatives used in refined foods are synthetic. Healthier foods will often contain natural preservatives such as:

Genetically modified foods are a highly controversial topic with both aggressive opponents and proponents. Millions of dollars are being spent to sway the public this way and that, with myths and facts contradicted on both sides. It is no wonder the public is completely confused on the issue. Some a very concerned about the health impact, and others feel that it is "no big deal" and "everyone is overreacting."

In reality, the facts are not what are confusing. It is the availability of the facts and the misinformation that causes confusion. Let's take a minute (well, several minutes) and educate ourselves on what GMOs are, whether they hold up to the promises made by their creators, and whether they pose risks to our health and/or the environment.

There are 6 major biotech companies that genetically engineer our food, and they genetically modified to be resistant to weeds and pests. But just how do GM crops become resistant to weeds and pests? By genetically engineering the herbicides and pesticides into these crops, they are built to become resistant to both weeds and insects. Some of these crops are deliberately created to withstand increasing pesticide doses. Some are also engineered to produce their own insecticidal toxins internally. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labels GMO corn as a pesticide because it can produce its own internal pesticide.

Let's take a look at how genetically modified organisms are created:

FIRST: DNA (protein) is attached to bacteria, which is then inserted into new cells. When a protein is inserted, it is important to note that there is no predictability or guarantee on what will happen. It is entirely trial and error that it will land in a place with the intended result that is expected. The imprecise nature of the insertion involves a lot of trial and error.

THEN: A promoter from a virus is attached which functions as an “on-switch” to permanently turn on the gene that has been inserted. This promoter in the GMO may also turn on other genes in our body and cause them to be permanently “on” when they shouldn't be. We have no control as to if this will occur, but what we do know is that when an inserted gene accidentally switches on other genes, dangerous results can occur. This was discovered when a gene was accidentally switched on to produce a toxin that caused leukemia in subjects. The effects of the viral promoters are unknown as there are no long-term, publicly funded health studies available. We only become aware of the harm they cause when the damage has already been done.

Sometimes, antibiotic markers are added to GMOs, which, along with the abuse of antibiotics in factory-farmed meat (99% of the non-organic meat in the US), contributes to an increase in antibiotic resistance.

When a gene is transferred, proteins become mutated and malformed. Studies are showing that not only are these proteins often dramatically smaller than they should be, but they can also have a potential toxicity. The activity of the transferred protein can be different from the original protein and it may not be able to function as originally intended. There are many experiments where mice and rats suffered organ damage and other health problems as a result of the malformed proteins in genetically modified foods. These malformed proteins may also produce reactions that are toxic. The process of genetic engineering can produce a new toxin that has not been evaluated because it is an unrealized side-effect of the technology.

When genetic engineering first began, a very important assumption was made. Scientists originally thought that each gene was responsible for creating one protein. The public was told that this science was based on precise engineering, and that specific traits can be inserted with predictable effects. Scientific experts also assumed that the genetic engineering of food was just an extension of natural breeding, and posed no risks because of its predictability.

We have since discovered the opposite to be the case, and that genetic engineering is far more complex and much less understood than genetic scientists originally assumed. Genes function as part of a highly sensitive ecosystem that we still know very little about. But what we do now understand is that when we insert a gene, we cannot expect one protein. Many proteins are inserted as part of the gene, and when you inject multiple proteins, you can expect disturbances.

Looking back, it was very short-sighted on the part of genetic scientists to assume that a gene contains a single protein that can be controlled, and that it can be extracted and expected to function as it did originally when inserted elsewhere. Life is an extremely complex process that exists in a symbiosis, an orchestrated symphony where all the parts function as a whole. When we extract genes here, and insert them there, we introduce chaos into this delicately balanced symphony.

This assumption also reflects a poor understanding of genomes. It is based on an assumption that genes alone are responsible for traits and characteristics. What creates traits is not simple DNA, but rather thousands of elements synergistically interacting with one another. This is why biotech companies have achieved very limited success with very few food items. Genes do not act as isolated units.

It is simply impossible to understand, measure, or predict the activity of a genetically modified organism that has been altered in such a manner, nor can we predict how it reacts and responds to its environment. Our understanding of genetic engineering and its impact on human biologics is still in its infancy.

GMOs are just one of the 12 Dirty Dozen to avoid

An antibiotic-resistant gene is placed in the GM plant, along with an herbicide-resistant gene. This means that the cells in genetically modified crops are bred to be antibiotic-resistant. Unfortunately, these antibiotic-resistant genes can then be picked up by bacteria in the soil and find their way into our water supply and our bodies. We are colonizing our healthy gut bacteria with antibiotic resistant bacterial genes.

The biotech industry originally claimed that the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes could not happen, and that genes in food could not be transferred to either our intestines, or to the environment. This has been conclusively proved as untrue, yet no responsibility is accepted on the part of the biotech industry for this misjudgment.

There is a serious ramification to this problem. We are becoming more antibiotic resistant, which means that if we have an infection and are prescribed antibiotics, or are in a life-or-death situation requiring antibiotics to save our lives, they may no longer work. During severe illnesses, treatment options become much more limited. Antibiotic resistance is now a recognized problem in the medical field.

Each year in the US, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria resistant to antibiotics, and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result.(8) Many more people die from other conditions that are complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection.

Many children have food allergies now that did not exist a decade ago. Indisputably, food allergies are skyrocketing, leading parents to wonder what could be causing such a dramatic change. Our parents and grandparents had little to no memories of kids with debilitating intolerances and serious allergies to foods such as peanuts. Today, kids all over America are now developing allergies so serious that they are rushed to emergency rooms.

Allergies are a reaction to proteins found within a food, and when we alter the protein structure within natural foods, we can trigger reactions to that altered protein structure.

After reading the 7 Myths of GMOs, it is very clear that we are just beginning to uncover and understand the failure of GE crops:

• #1 - They do not taste better
• #2 - They do not cost less
• #3 - They are less nutritious
• #4 - They require substantially more pesticide usage
• #5 - They use more water in crop irrigation
• #6 - They do not benefit farmers at all
• #7 - They are dependent on chemicals to survive
• #8 - They may pose a significant health risk
• #9 - They contribute to antibiotic resistance

Nobody rushes out in excitement to buy a genetically modified food. If two foods were available at the same price, one a GM version and one a non-GM version, knowing that there are no benefits and that many studies emerging point to a possible and significant health risk, why would we choose the GM version?

The only benefit of GM products is the high profit margin gained by the biotech companies. Unless you are a biotech employee and engage in profit sharing, this does not really qualify as a benefit to you.

Trying to control and patent life forms is not a healthy approach to life. We need to work with nature, not manipulate it and work against it. We are just beginning to understand the capacity of the soil and biodiverse systems to maintain a natural balance between pests and predators, to control pests without pesticides, and to manage weeds without herbicides. GMOs take us in the opposite direction.

Each and every one of us makes decisions every day on the type of food we buy, and where we buy it from. The natural food movement is growing rapidly, and we have a decision to make.