7 Reasons Why the U.S. Government Must Label GMOs
By Zen Honeycutt
The Senate Ag Committee sent a bill to the Senate floor last week which, if passed, will eliminate mandatory GMO labeling, preempt state rights, go against what 90 percent of American citizens want and require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to spend taxpayer dollars to educate the public about the supposed "benefits" of GMOs.
Here are seven reason why the U.S. government can't afford to pass the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, otherwise known as, the Denying Americans the Right to Know Act or DARK Act:
1. GMOs are in our food. Food is the number one factor of the condition of our health.
Whether you believe GMOs are safe or not, everyone has a right to decide for themselves or their family how much or how often they eat something which may or may not be safe. Alcohol for instance, has a warning label because it is considered unsafe in large quantities and is not allowed under a certain age due to health risks. Aspartame and high fructose corn syrup have numerous studies showing harm, many report adverse effects and they are clearly labeled. At least consumers have a choice. The responsibility is on them to decide.
2. There are more than 1,000 studies and papers regarding harm from GMOs and related pesticides.
To ignore these studies and to continue to allow Americans, the sickest population in the developed world, with the most expensive health care, to eat this food unknowingly, is contrary to the government's role in building a successful nation. The cost of diabetes alone will bankrupt the U.S. health care budget in 11 years if swift action is not taken to turn around the health crisis we have in America today. A major factor of diabetes has been directly linked to the fact that glyphosate, sprayed on GMOs, destroys the body's ability to make serotonin, which regulates insulin. Diabetes in teens has quadrupled in the past 10 years, the same time period in which 70 percent of all the glyphosate which has ever been sold, has been used.
3. Eighty percent of GMOs are engineered to withstand toxic pesticides and herbicides.
Numerous new studies nullify the 40-year-old science which claims these chemicals are safe. These studies show that glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D and many more chemicals are neurotoxins, destroy the gut bacteria which is where 70 percent of the immune system lies, cause liver and kidney damage, cause organ damage, increase antibiotic resistance, cause placental cell death and breast cancer cell growth. They have also been shown to be endocrine disruptors, causing birth defects, miscarriages, sterility and infertility. We currently have the highest rate of infertility in recorded history.
We also have 50 percent more babies that die on the first day of life than all of the industrialized nations combined. With GMOs being in 85 percent of our processed foods and glyphosate, an acknowledged "reproductive effector" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allowed on 160 of U.S. foods, the Senate Ag Committee decision to continue to dis-allow citizens to at least self-regulate the amount of GMOs they eat, means the responsibility for the loss of these infants, if proven to be connected to these chemicals as indicated by the EPA, falls upon the government's shoulders.
4. The technology of GMO foreign proteins is recognized by world renowned scientists to be unpredictable, uncontrollable and have unforeseeable effects.
Numerous reports of prions causing diseased crops, increased loss of livestock to the tune of 40 million GMO fed chickens, primarily in Iowa last year and hundreds of millions of dollars lost in sales to exports due to concern about contamination, make GMO crops unsafe. If a crop contaminates other nearby crops, making them less valuable in the marketplace, that is a dangerous crop to the American economy. If something has genetic manipulations performed in a lab which have shown to have unpredictable effects within the organism and for future generations of that or nearby species, that organism is unsafe for the environment and consumers. The science that claims that GMOs are safe is unfoundedly based on short term studies produced by the companies who stand to benefit from them.
The fact that RNAi GMOs have promoters and "silencers" that silence the function of genes should be of grave concern to everyone. How do you know that those promoters are not "waking up" rare disease genes or silencers are not "silencing" the functioning of organs in your loved ones which could fight rare diseases? The problem is that we will never know, because we cannot retroactively prove that the bite of GMO corn led to the "waking up" of a rare disease gene in your child.
5. New research shows that GMO crops, with heavy herbicide use, destroy the microbiome of the soil, reduce the nutritional content of the food (organic food is more nutritous) and leave higher residues of chemicals on the food. This means that GMOs are substantially different and warrant labeling.
6. GMOs and related pesticides have been wrongly classified a process, not an additive, to intentionally get around the requirement that additives are safety tested and labeled on the package. When a herbicide classified as a probable carcinogen is sprayed on your food and it does not dry off, wash off for cook off, you might want to know that it is there and be given the choice to buy that food or not.
7. Religious sanctifications include that followers know if they are eating certain animals and avoid them.
With mandatory GMO labeling stricken down by Senators, in the future, Jewish people for example, would not know if fish, fruit or vegetables were genetically engineered with species which are not kosher. This is tantamount to a violation of their religious freedom.
The fact is that GMOs in our food need to be labeled because they are a factor of our health. GMO labeling has and always been and will always be, a health and safety issue first.
If citizens are not allowed to be responsible for their own health then the responsibility falls on the government. With 1 out of 2 males and 1 out of 3 females expected to get cancer in America today, 1 out 2 children with a chronic illness and 1 out of 2 children born 18 years from now expected to be diagnosed with autism, our elected officials have an obligation to make it a priority to protect the health of the American people, not chemical companies. The skyrocketing illnesses and rising healthcare costs in America make it evident that we simply cannot afford to not label GMOs.
We call on the Senate to give the American people the freedom to chose their food by voting no on the bill to stop mandatory GMO labeling and give us federal, mandatory, clear labeling on the package.
We citizens will vote for Senators at the next election which allow for personal freedom and health.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
By Karen L. Smith-Janssen
Colette Pichon Battle gave a December 2019 TEDWomen Talk on the stark realities of climate change displacement, and people took notice. The video racked up a million views in about two weeks. The attorney, founder, and executive director of the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy (GCCLP) advocates for climate justice in communities of color. Confronted with evidence showing how her own South Louisiana coastal home of Bayou Liberty will be lost to flooding in coming years, the 2019 Obama Fellow dedicates herself to helping others still reeling from the impacts of Katrina face the heavy toll that climate change has taken—and will take—on their lives and homelands. Her work focuses on strengthening multiracial coalitions, advocating for federal, state, and local disaster mitigation measures, and redirecting resources toward Black communities across the Gulf South.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Between 2000 and 2013, Earth lost an area of undisturbed ecosystems roughly the size of Mexico.
- Planting Projects, Backyard Habitats Can Re-Create Livable Natural ... ›
- Humans Are Destroying Wildlife at an Unprecedented Rate, New ... ›
- UN Biodiversity Chief: Humans Risk Living in an 'Empty World' With ... ›
- Scientists Warn Worse Pandemics Are on the Way if We Don't ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
By Stuart Braun
"These are not just wildfires, they are climate fires," Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State, said as he stood amid the charred remains of the town of Malden west of Seattle earlier this month. "This is not an act of God," he added. "This has happened because we have changed the climate of the state of Washington in dramatic ways."
'These Aren't Wildfires'<p>Sam Ricketts, who led climate policy and strategy for Governor Jay Inslee's 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted on September 11 that "These aren't wildfires. These are #climatefires, driven by fossil fuel pollution."</p><p>"The rate and the strength and the devastation wrought by these disasters are fueled by climate change," Ricketts told DW of fires that have burnt well over 5 million acres across California, Oregon, Washington State, and into neighboring Idaho. </p><p>In a two-day period in early September, Ricketts notes that more of Washington State burned than in almost any entire fire season until now, apart from 2015. </p><p>California, meanwhile, was a tinderbox after its hottest summer on record, with temperatures in Death Valley reaching nearly 130 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. National Weather Service. It has been reported as the hottest temperature ever measured on Earth.</p>
<div id="29ad9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8346fe7350e1371d400097cd48bf45a2"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306969603180879872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Drought-parched wetlands in South America have been burning for weeks. https://t.co/pjAKdFcKPg #Pantanal https://t.co/ImN2C5vwcp</div> — NASA Earth (@NASA Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/NASAEarth/statuses/1306969603180879872">1600440810.0</a></blockquote></div><p>As evidenced by Australia's apocalyptic Black Summer of 2019-2020, fires are burning bigger and for longer, with new records set year-on-year. Right now, Brazil's vast and highly biodiverse Pantanal wetlands are suffering from catastrophic fires.</p>
#climatefires Started in Australia<p>Governor Inslee this month invoked the phrase climate fires for arguably the first time in the U.S., according to Ricketts.</p><p>But the term was also used as fires burnt out of control in Australia in late 2019. In the face of a 2000km (more than 1,200 miles) fire front, and government officials and media who <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/trump-climate-change-denial-emissions-environment-germany-fake-heartland-seibt/a-52688933" target="_blank">played down the link to climate change</a>, Greens Party Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and a friend decided that reference to bushfires was inadequate. </p><p>"We both just said, we've got to start calling them climate fires, that's what they are," the Australian Senator told DW.</p><p>Hanson-Young says scientists have been warning for decades that these would be the effects of global heating. "We've been told these kinds of extreme weather events and destruction is what climate change would look like, and it's right here on our doorstep," she said from her home state of South Australia — where by early September fire warnings had already been issued.</p><p>"Calling them climate fires was making it absolutely crystal clear. It is essential that there's no ambiguity," she said </p><p>Having deliberately invoked the term, Hanson-Young soon started to push it on social media via a #climatefires hashtag. </p>
How to Talk About the Urgency of Global Heating<p>The need to use more explicit language when talking about extreme weather events linked to climate change is part of a broader push to express the urgency of global heating. In 2019, activist Greta Thunberg tweeted that the term "climate change" did not reflect the seriousness of the situation. </p><p>"Can we all now please stop saying 'climate change' and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?" she wrote. </p><p>"Climate change has for a long time been talked about as something that is a danger in the future," said Hansen-Young. "But the consequences are already here. When people hear the word crisis, they understand that something has to happen, that action has to be taken."</p><p><span></span>Some terms are now used in public policy, with state and national governments, and indeed the EU Parliament, declaring an official climate emergency in the last year. </p>
Words That Reflect the Science<p>But while the West Coast governors all fervently link the fires to an unfolding climate crisis, U.S. President Donald Trump continues to avoid any reference to climate. In a briefing about the fires, he responded to overtures by Wade Crowfoot, California's Natural Resources Secretary, to work with the states on the climate crisis by stating: "It'll start getting cooler. You just watch." Crowfoot replied by saying that scientists disagreed. Trump rejoined with "I don't think science knows, actually." </p><p>It was reminiscent of the anti-science approach to the coronavirus pandemic within the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-admits-playing-down-coronavirus-risks/a-54874350" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least publicly</a>. Fossil fuel companies are also benefiting from his disavowal of climate science, with the Trump administration having <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-trumps-paris-climate-accord-exit-isnt-really-a-problem/a-51124958" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pulled out of the Paris Agreement</a> and reopened fossil fuel infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline. </p><p>But the science community has responded, with Scientific American magazine endorsing Trump's Democratic presidential challenger Joe Biden, the first presidential endorsement in its 175-year history. </p><p>Hanson-Young says the use of explicit language like climate fires has also been important in Australia due to the climate denialism of politicians and the press, especially in publications owned by Rupert Murdoch. As fires burnt out much of Australia's southeast coast, they were commonly blamed on arson — a tactic also recently used in the U.S.</p>
Climate Rhetoric Could Help Decide Election<p>The language of climate has begun to influence the U.S. presidential election campaign, with Democratic nominee Joe Biden labelling President Trump a "climate arsonist."</p><p>Biden is touting a robust climate plan that includes a 2050 zero emissions target and a return to the Paris Agreement. Though lacking the ambition of The New Green Deal, it has been front and center of his policy platform in recent days, at a time when five hurricanes are battering the U.S. Gulf Coast while smoke blanketing the West Coast spreads all the way to the East. </p><p>People are experiencing the climate crisis in a visceral way and almost universally relate to the language of an emergency, says Ricketts. "They know something is wrong."</p>
- The Vicious Climate-Wildfire Cycle - EcoWatch ›
- How Climate Change Ignites Wildfires From California to South Africa ›
- 31 Dead, 250,000 Evacuated in California Fires as Governor ... ›
World's Richest One Percent Are Producing More Than Double the Carbon Emissions as the Bottom 50 Percent
A new report from Oxfam found that the wealthiest one percent of the world produced a carbon footprint that was more than double that of the bottom 50 percent of the world, The Guardian reported. The study examined 25 years of carbon dioxide emissions and wealth inequality from 1990 to 2015.
If you are taking medication for an underactive thyroid, check your prescription.