cross-posted at annoyedomnivore.wordpress.com
For those people who trot out the argument that there have been no studies demonstrating a link between the consumption of GMOs and health risks, I would like to point out why. One of the factors involved in preventing GMO research by independent scientists is the trade group the American Council on Science and Health (ASCH). It’s been around since 1978 and describes itself as “a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health.” A fine sounding mission statement until you understand that within those words is couched a much more nefarious agenda. Another factor involved in the suppression of GMO research is that the biotechnology companies themselves tend to suppress information derived from scientific inquiry and then attempt to defame the author.
ACSH keeps in business by soliciting funds from corporations on specific issues, such as GMO labeling. They also have attacked anyone who has shown even concern over GMOs, pesticides, tobacco, DDT, asbestos, Agent Orange and fracking. The council insists they are devoted to outing “junk science.” Their clients include Monsanto, Chevron, Syngenta, the Koch brothers, McDonald’s and many more. And the ACSH is led by Dr. Gilbert Ross, a felon convicted of defrauding New York State’s Medicaid program of $8 million. It’s founder, Elizabeth Whelan, established the ACSH in order to combat such groups as the National Resources Defense Council, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Environmental Working Group. This particular lobbying arm has been connected to attacks on public figures who support GMO labeling, such as Dr. Mehmet Oz. Dr. Gilbert Ross was one of the signers of the letter demanding that Dr. Oz be removed from his position on Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. Another signer of the letter was Dr. Henry Miller, once a board member of ACSH. Dr. Miller gained some notoriety for his appearance in an ad for the “No on 37″ campaign, the California initiative to label GMOs. Dr. Oz recently responded to his critics and revealed the backgrounds of the signers. And the Senate panel that called Dr. Oz before them to testify was headed by Senator Claire McCaskill (D – MO). Ms. McCaskill had previously accepted over $146,000 in campaign contributions from a major pharmaceutical company and $37,000 from Monsanto.
Aside from the machinations of ACSH, some of their clients work on their own to suppress data, defame the scientists who produce evidence of harm and otherwise shut down independent study. One example is of the work Dr. Tyrone Hayes did for Syngenta on their weed-killer atrazine. When Dr. Hayes produced evidence that atrazine affected the organs of frogs, Syngenta not only pulled the plug on his research, but attacked his reputation as well. Another biotech company, Pioneer, reacted to a study that Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow conducted which revealed preliminary evidence that a genetically altered sunflower could make wild sunflowers proliferate. Pioneer then blocked any follow-up studies by refusing to supply the seeds. And Doug Gurian-Sherman, a plant pathologist and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a Los Angeles Times article, provided the simple reason why research isn’t done on genetically engineered crops.
Stated simply, it’s legal to prevent research. Gurian-Sherman tells us that “under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable inventions [and] companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how.” He goes on to say that “agriculture companies defend their stonewalling by saying that unrestricted research could make them vulnerable to lawsuits if an experiment somehow leads to harm…but it’s likely that the companies fear something else as well: an experiment could reveal that a genetically engineered product is hazardous.” This is the point, and one seconded by geneticist David Suzuki, head of the David Suzuki Foundation. He states that “because we aren’t certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.” This has not been done.
You can’t just say there’s no evidence that GMOs are injurious to our health; you have to look deeper to uncover why these studies aren’t being conducted. The bottom line is that we simply don’t have the science lined up to make blanket assertions that GMOs are safe – we just don’t know.
Recipe of the Week
This is a simple week night meal, taking at most an hour to prepare.
Pasta with a Creamy Balsamic Tomato Sauce
1/2 lb pasta of your choice
6 cloves garlic, minced
1 28 oz. can of whole, organic tomatoes, pureed
2 stalks celery, minced
1 small carrot, minced
1 small onion, minced
1 tbls. fresh rosemary, minced
1 half pint organic cream
1 to 2 tbls. balsamic vinegar
2 tbls. extra virgin olive oil
salt and pepper to taste
Put oil in a cast iron frying pan and heat to medium high. Add carrot, celery and onion and cook for about 15 minutes. Add the garlic, stir in for about 30 seconds. Add the rosemary and tomatoes, turn the heat to it’s lowest setting and cook for about 30 minutes. Turn off the heat, add the cream and balsamic vinegar. Taste for salt and pepper.
While the sauce is cooking, heat a pot of salted water to boiling, add the pasta and cook until al dente. Drain but do not rinse. Add to sauce. Freshly grated parmesan can be sprinkled over the top.