Editorial: New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Need for a Moratorium on GMOs

By On January 5, 2017

The genetically engineered food experiment came without much fanfare, and in stark contrast to the “democracy” we currently live in, it also came without much by way of debate or choice.

Genetically engineered corn, soy, canola oil and other foods were introduced without labeling into the U.S. food supply because of a distinction called “substantial equivalence” granted by the FDA asserting that the lab-created crops (also known as GMOs) are for all intents and purposes the same as regular crops.

This distinction allows them to evade long-term independent safety testing to this day.

Unfortunately for Biotech industry, there are plenty of independent studies proving this assertion is false, activists and watchdog organizations say. And now, a new peer-reviewed analysis has shown why the U.S. needs a GMO moratorium, according to one prominent activist in a recent editorial published in The Huffington Post.

Toxicological Effects Such as Nausea, Headaches and More”

Zen Honeycutt, founder of the organization Moms Across America, is an outspoken advocate of mandatory GMO labeling, a right afforded to citizens of 60+ countries around the world, as well as a moratorium on the controversial crops.

Recently, she took on the subject of the aforementioned study in her new editorial titled ‘New Paper Justifies Moratorium of GMOs.’ The study showed that a type of Monsanto GMO corn, NK603, has surprising differences from traditional corn (read all about the study in our previous blog post here).

Honeycutt writes:

The variety showed to have metabolism disturbances caused by the GMO process and the presence of cadaverine and putrescine, chemicals which can be toxic. The presence of these differences show that concern for harm, when GMOs are consumed by humans, is warranted. The impact of these disturbances and chemicals are unknown.”

Monsanto and other Biotech and GMO companies often counter questions of safety by stating that there have not been documented cases of harm from GMOs. One opinion piece on titled ‘The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study’ says that animals have consumed GM feed for so long that farmers would have noticed more ill effects from their diets.

Other farmers disagree and say they have in fact seen serious changes in animals fed GMOs.

Ultimately this may be the key question: What effect has GE food had on the human population since it has been incorporated into huge percentages of our supply? It may look something like recent statistics on human health in the U.S. (where GMOs are eaten and grown far more than any other country), Honeycutt notes:

The rise of health conditions in the USA is a known however, since the introduction of GMOs, food allergies have increased 400%. Currently 1 out 2 American children have a chronic illness such as autoimmune disease, asthma, allergies, autism, diabetes or obesity.”

The study, led by Dr. Michael Antoniou at King’s College London (learn more by clicking here) exposed a few key differences between GMOs and conventional crops at the microscopic level using cutting edge molecular profiling technology, as Honeycutt notes in the editorial:

As described in the paper, metabolism disturbances, cadaverine, and putrescine found in NK603, prove that this GMO corn is significantly different from non GMO corn and therefore the basis for the FDA’s approval of GMOs, “GRAS” – Generally Recognized As Safe- is unfounded. The basis for the GRAS approval was on the claim that GMOs are not substantially different from non GMO food and therefore should not require any additional safety testing.

These substances found in GM crops can lead to health problems if too much is consumed, the editorial continues, quoting the study:

Putrescine and cadaverine have been reported as potentiators of the effects of histamine, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines with nitrite in meat products.

They are also capable of causing toxicological effects such as nausea, headaches, rashes and changes in blood pressure are provoked by the consumption of foods with high concentrations of polyamines (cadaverine and putrescine) 56.”

These concerns mirror those of the FDA’s own scientists, which issued warnings about such issues prior to the approval of GE crops. For example E.J. Matthews, Ph.D., of the FDA’s Toxicology group, warned in an October 1991 memo that “genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”

For more information on why Honeycutt believes a moratorium is justified, check out the full editorial by clicking here.