Under President Clinton, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered the U.S. food supply with very little public input or independent testing. The precautionary principle crumbled under the weight of industry influence; Clinton staffed the FDA with biotech-industry insiders like Michael Taylor, who has spent his long career bouncing between the government payroll and Monsanto's.
The official attitude toward testing the health implications of GMO food has been: let the industry conduct the studies. Not so shockingly, industry-funded studies have found no health problems associated with GMO foods. Today, upwards of 90 percent of U.S. soy, and 60 percent of U.S. corn, come from GMO seeds. Those crops suffuse our food supply; by some estimates, as much as 80 percent of processed food available in the United States contains GMO ingredients.
Meanwhile, there has been precious little independent research on GMOs and health. As Nancy Scola showed in a Gristmill post early this year, public funding for agriculture research has largely dried up, and Monsanto and other big agribusiness firms have filled the void, funneling fat grants to willing researchers.
But independent study of GMOs hasn't ended completely. The government of Austria recently released the results of a long-term study showing that mice fed GM corn had lower birth rates and fewer offspring than their control-group peers.
From the Daily Mail:
The Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials with laboratory mice over a course of 20 weeks. One of the studies was a so-called reproductive assessment by continuous breeding (RACB) trial, in which the same parent generation gave birth to several litters of baby mice. The parents were fed either with a diet containing 33 percent of GM maize, a hybrid of Monsanto's MON 810 and another variety, and a normal feed mix. The team found changes that were 'statistically significant' in the third and fourth litters produced by the mice given a GM diet. There were fewer offspring, while the young mice were smaller. Prof Zentek said there was a direct link between the changes seen and the GM diet.
For years, the industry has fought back suspicion of GMO-linked health trouble by essentially saying: Hey, hundreds of million of Americans eat GMOs every day -- if there were a problem, don't you think we'd know it by now?
The GMO industry was essentially allowed to conduct an uncontrolled experiment on a population already consuming a highly processed diet low on key micronutrients and full of pesticide residues. Chronic diet-realted maladies were already on the rise.
I can see how adding yet one more toxic element to the diet could largely escape notice. The Austrian study should sound a warning call: It's time to fund serious independent research of GMOs.
Let's hope Obama keeps key federal agencies like FDA, EPA, and USDA free of GMO industry influence.
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Avelhingst Posted 3:31 pm
13 Nov 2008
I guess I'll stick with my tried and true motto: Local and wholesome makes you love longer.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:13 pm
13 Nov 2008
Of course the conspirators will only eat organic food. Corporate eugenics?
Mwhahaha.. hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
bailsout Posted 4:23 am
14 Nov 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:07 am
16 Nov 2008
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:54 am
17 Nov 2008
If GMOs lower birth rates, they probably don't achieve that effect in isolation. The human reproductive system links all manner of systems within our bodies; if GMOs harm the reproductive system, they're quite likely causing serious, undetected harm to the people who eat them. Moreover, since GMO plants -- currently covering tens of millions of acres in the midwest -- interact with ecoystems in numerous ways, the birth-rate evidence also presents a strong possibility that GMOs are harming ecosystems in as-yet detected ways. One can't help but think of bee-colony collapse.
So the birth-rate study should be seen as a proxy for how GMOs are affecting ecosytems -- in this case, the human one -- and not (and I don't think anyone here sees it that way) a clever way to reduce human population.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:00 am
17 Nov 2008
).
Victual Reality
Permalink
cmello Posted 2:52 am
18 Nov 2008
Every milk carton I buy says "does not contain rBST" but also "rBST is safe." Yet studies, not those done by the rBST company nor by the dairy industry, have proved rBST is not safe for either treated cows or people who drink milk from treated cows.
We have to stop the fox from guarding the chicken house.
cmello
Permalink