Edited time: May 25, 2015 16:13
Activists accuse the agricultural corporation of selling toxic chemicals, which are bad for people’s health, water supplies, vital crop pollinators and environment in general. The giant is also criticized for its attitude towards food safety regulations and a staunch opposition to GMO labeling. Meanwhile, small farmers blame Monsanto for monopolizing the seed market.
The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified (GM) foodcrops and other uses of genetically-modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The dispute is most intense in Japan and Europe, where public concern about GM food is higher than in other parts of the world such as the United States. In the United States GM crops are more widely grown and the introduction of these products has been less controversial.
The key areas of political controversy related to genetically engineered food are food safety, the effect on natural ecosystems, gene flow into non GE crops and corporate control of the food supply. While it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods, to date, no adverse health effects caused by products approved for sale have been documented, although two products failed initial safety testing and were discontinued, due to allergic reactions.
(NaturalNews) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are created through an inexact science of shooting genes spliced from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or humans with a .22 caliber pistol into the DNA of plants or animals laced with a metal such as tungsten. This unsafe science ostensibly supplants millions of years of evolution with little or no scientific justification. In fact, recent research on GMO crops have reported yields to be between 4 to 20 percent less than conventional crops [1-6].
In the 1970’s when genetic engineered was pioneered, scientists believed the genome was static and genes could be altered in a uniform manner with the organism only expressing the one intended modification. As research progressed in the 1980’s, scientists scrapped the idea of the static genome and moved towards a dynamic genomic belief model. This came about from the realization that by inserting a new gene into a plant, a cascade of unintended consequences arose. Scientists found that there was no possible way to introduce a new gene into an organism and only get one intended result. The genes quickly changed based on a myriad of unknown circumstances that sometimes could not be repeated in the lab even though the exact same procedures were used. The levels of instability from these newly created organisms were overwhelming, but many scientists were silenced.
Safety has always been the number one priority of consumers when it comes to GMOs; antithetically, the seed companies’ only priority has been to increase profits at any expense. Therefore, it is no surprise that objective and unbiased researchers have recently added to the growing knowledge of the realities of the increased instability and unintended consequences regarding the long-term safety of GMOs. These researchers recently found clear links among the consumption of GM-corn and decreased fertility, immunological alterations in the gut and the exacerbation and creation of allergies.