Playing With Our Food
Almond Street Natural Foods
Your Healthy Resource Center
Your Healthy Resource Center
Health Foods Multivitamins Herbal Formulas Vitamins and Nutritional Supplements
 | |  | |  |
Writes Jeremy Rifkin, in the Biotech Century,
"Our way of life is likely to be more
fundamentally transformed in the next
several decades than in the previous one
thousand years…Tens of thousands of novel
transgenic bacteria, viruses, plants and
animals could be released into the Earth's
ecosystems…Some of those releases,
however, could wreak havoc with the planet's
biospheres."
In short these processes involve
unparalleled risks. Voices from many sides
echo this view. Contradicting safety claims,
no major insurance company has been
willing to limit risks, or insure bio-engineered
agricultural products. The reason given is the
high level of unpredictable consequences.
Over two hundred scientists have signed a
statement outlining the dangers of GM foods
and The Union of Concerned Scientists (a
1000 plus member organization with many
Nobel Laureates) has expressed similar
reservations. The prestigious medical
journal, Lancet, issued a warning that GM
foods should never have been allowed into
the food chain. Britain's Medical Association
(the equivalent of the AMA) with 100,000
physicians and Germany's with 325,000
issued similar statements. In a gathering of
political representatives from over 130
nations, approximately 95% insisted on new
precautionary approaches. The National
Academy of Science released a report that
GM products introduce new allergens, toxins,
disruptive chemicals, soil-polluting
ingredients, mutated species and unknown
protein combinations into our bodies and
into the whole environment. This may also
raise existing allergens to new heights as
well as reduce nutritional content. Even
within the FDA, prominent scientists have
repeatedly expressed profound fears and
reservations. Their voices were muted not for
cogent scientific reasons but due to political
pressures from the Bush administration to
buttress the nascent biotech industry.
To counterbalance this, industry-employed
scientists have signed a statement in favor of
genetically engineered foods. But are any of
these scientists impartial? Writes the New
York Times (about a similar crisis involving
genetic engineering and medical
applications),
"Academic scientists who lack industry ties
have become as rare as giant pandas in the
wild…lawmakers, bioethics experts and
federal regulators are troubled that so many
researchers have a financial stake [via stock
options or patent participation] … The fear is
that the lure of profit could color scientific
integrity, promoting researchers to withhold
information about potentially dangerous side-
effects."
"Our way of life is likely to be more
fundamentally transformed in the next
several decades than in the previous one
thousand years…Tens of thousands of novel
transgenic bacteria, viruses, plants and
animals could be released into the Earth's
ecosystems…Some of those releases,
however, could wreak havoc with the planet's
biospheres."
In short these processes involve
unparalleled risks. Voices from many sides
echo this view. Contradicting safety claims,
no major insurance company has been
willing to limit risks, or insure bio-engineered
agricultural products. The reason given is the
high level of unpredictable consequences.
Over two hundred scientists have signed a
statement outlining the dangers of GM foods
and The Union of Concerned Scientists (a
1000 plus member organization with many
Nobel Laureates) has expressed similar
reservations. The prestigious medical
journal, Lancet, issued a warning that GM
foods should never have been allowed into
the food chain. Britain's Medical Association
(the equivalent of the AMA) with 100,000
physicians and Germany's with 325,000
issued similar statements. In a gathering of
political representatives from over 130
nations, approximately 95% insisted on new
precautionary approaches. The National
Academy of Science released a report that
GM products introduce new allergens, toxins,
disruptive chemicals, soil-polluting
ingredients, mutated species and unknown
protein combinations into our bodies and
into the whole environment. This may also
raise existing allergens to new heights as
well as reduce nutritional content. Even
within the FDA, prominent scientists have
repeatedly expressed profound fears and
reservations. Their voices were muted not for
cogent scientific reasons but due to political
pressures from the Bush administration to
buttress the nascent biotech industry.
To counterbalance this, industry-employed
scientists have signed a statement in favor of
genetically engineered foods. But are any of
these scientists impartial? Writes the New
York Times (about a similar crisis involving
genetic engineering and medical
applications),
"Academic scientists who lack industry ties
have become as rare as giant pandas in the
wild…lawmakers, bioethics experts and
federal regulators are troubled that so many
researchers have a financial stake [via stock
options or patent participation] … The fear is
that the lure of profit could color scientific
integrity, promoting researchers to withhold
information about potentially dangerous side-
effects."