Originally published March 23 2015
Top 10 reasons GMOs should be labeled
by Julie Wilson staff writer
(NaturalNews) We all know that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have not been proven safe based on the fact that there are no long-term studies on the health affects of GMOs or their associated pesticides. However, many skeptics insist that, because there are few studies showing harm from GMOs and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved them, they're safe to eat.
Unfortunately, product approval under the FDA is not the best gauge for what's healthy and what's not due to an agenda that's been infiltrated by corporate interests and their political allies.
That being said, the most logical way to protect those who wish to avoid GMOs is to enforce GMO labeling, a concept that's snowballed in awareness as well as political action in recent times.
For the food industry, labeling is not a difficult task, nor would it cost consumers an extra $500 a month in groceries, as was falsely and fraudulently claimed by Big Food when California tried to pass GMO labeling in 2012.
Food companies change labels all the time. In fact, they have NO problem adding the meaningless "all-natural" label to products in an attempt to trick health-conscious buyers wishing to avoid GMOs.
One Natural News reader named "Gearjam" nailed it spot on when they commented on an article saying: "Funny how [it's] too expensive for them to change their labels to GMO free to do good but not too expensive to change labels to organic to do evil."
Big Food's refusal to label GMOs has actually generated more awareness on the issue
Big Food is fully aware that a GMO label will likely hurt their sales; however, at this point in the game, so much awareness has been generated on this issue that refusing to label GMOs has brought even more negative attention to companies like Starbucks, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills and Kraft Foods.
A post originally published on the blog Firedoglake breaks down the top 10 reasons GMOs should be labeled:
1. The Convention on Biodiversity recognizes that genetic engineering is a threat to amount and variety of life on the planet.
2. Scientists reviewing data from Monsanto's own studies "have proven that genetically engineered foods are neither sufficiently healthy or proper to be commercialized."
3. Biotech's scattershot technique of spraying plant cells with a buckshot of foreign genes that hit chromosomes in random spots would trigger the expression of new allergens and change the character of plant proteins.
4. Milk and dairy products from cows injected with genetically engineered growth hormones ARE different from conventional and organic milk and dairy products.
5. The third generation of hamsters fed genetically engineered soy suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate, and a bizarre birth defect: fur growing in their mouths. Many also lost the ability to have pups.
6. Animals fed genetically engineered feed ARE different from animals fed conventional and organic feed.
7. A single serving of genetically engineered soy can result in horizontal gene transfer, where the bacteria in the human gut adopts the soy's DNA.
8. Genetically engineered foods ARE different from conventional and organic foods.
9. Genetically engineered foods have not been tested to determine whether they are safe for human consumption.
10. Almost all non-organic processed food and animal products in the U.S. today contain ingredients that come from genetically engineered crops or from animals given genetically engineered feed, vaccines or growth hormones.
To date, more than 70 GMO-labeling proposals have been introduced in over 30 states, with Rhode Island being the latest state to pitch such legislation.
According to the polls, more than 90 percent of Americans want GMOs labeled, giving the movement so much momentum that it's unlikely to be stopped.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml