Showing posts with label Genetically Modified Organisms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genetically Modified Organisms. Show all posts

Monday, September 23, 2013

A new plant-based egg replacement product funded by Bill Gates and Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel was being launched at some Whole Foods stores in California : Not on the label - "Made With GMO Canola Oil"




September 22, 2013

Bill Gates Funded Egg Replacement Product Made from GMO Plants Appears at Whole Foods

canola oil Bill Gates Funded Egg Replacement Product Made from GMO Plants Appears at Whole Foods
“Beyond Eggs” is made with Canola Oil. Canola oil is produced from genetically modified rapeseed, and over 90% of the Canola crop in the U.S. is GMO.
Health Impact News Editor
It was announced this past week in several media sources that a new plant-based egg replacement product funded by Bill Gates and  Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel was being launched at some Whole Foods stores in California:
A radical ‘artificial egg’ backed by Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel and Bill Gates goes on sale in US supermarkets for the first time today. Made from plants, it can replace eggs in everything from cakes to mayonnaise – without a chicken ever coming close to the production process. The team today started selling their ‘plant egg’, called Beyond Eggs, in Whole Foods in California – and say it could soon be available in supermarkets worldwide. Source here.
Apparently the product that shipped to Whole Foods in California was actually the “Just Mayo” made from these egg replacements.
I had to do quite a bit of searching to try and find out what the ingredients of this product were, and could not find it listed anywhere on the Internet, not even on the website of the company producing it.
I did find some images of the mayo product made from these “Beyond Eggs,” as the company had sent samples to several bloggers to try out earlier this year. But apparently those did not have ingredients listed. Here is one:
just mayo back Bill Gates Funded Egg Replacement Product Made from GMO Plants Appears at Whole Foods
 Photo courtesy of Choosing Raw.
As you can see, while it does not list the ingredients, it does claim to be Non-GMO.
So we emailed the manufacturer, and they were kind enough to email back with the ingredients and nutritional information:
Just Mayo ingredients Bill Gates Funded Egg Replacement Product Made from GMO Plants Appears at Whole Foods
As you can see, the main ingredient is expeller-pressed canola oil.

Canola Oil – Not a Healthy Oil

For those who are unaware of the facts concerning canola oil, canola oil is produced from a form of rapeseed that has been “genetically altered” to produce an edible oil that was low in erucic acid. Traditional rapeseed is high in erucic acid, which is linked to many health problems. So through genetic manipulation, a variation was produced that was low in erucic acid, and it was originally called “LEAR oil”, for Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed.
LEAR oil was slow to catch on, however, and was later renamed to canola oil, referring to “Canadian oil”, since most rapeseed was grown in Canada at that time.
Further genetic engineering was done on rapeseed so that the plant could withstand heavy use of pesticides without being killed, much in the same way other GM crops have been engineered by Monsanto today, such as GMO corn and soybean varieties.
Today, over 90% of the canola crops are GMO, similar to corn and soy.
So I am not sure how this product is labeled as non-GMO. It is possible they are sourcing only non-GMO canola, but even the original canola plant engineered from rapeseed was produced by genetic manipulation.
Canola oil is not a traditional oil, and it has only been in the food chain for a short time. It is also a highly processed oil. For more information on the history of canola, see Dr. Mary Enig’s excellent article: The Great Con-ola.

An Appeal for Healthy Fats and Oils – Educated Consumers Needed!

While I realize people have different motivations for replacing eggs, one of them should NOT be that eggs are inherently evil due to its fat and cholesterol content.  Solid research clearly shows that eggs have been a traditional and healthy food for a long time.
How eggs are produced today, is another issue altogether. Tens of thousands of factory chickens raised indoors in cages is anything but healthy. The best solution, however, is NOT to replace the egg, but the chickens. You can do this by supporting those who are raising chickens outdoors in a free range or pastured setting.
Unfortunately, however, canola oil is all too typically the dietary oil of choice for those who claim to be “health conscious.” For those of us who know better, we’re tired of seeing it everywhere! If you truly want to use healthy oils in your products or cooking, stick with the traditional fats and oils our ancestors used: animal fat such as beef tallow, lard, and butter, or plant-based saturated fats such as coconut oil and palm oil.
If Whole Foods is serious about eliminating GMO products, then I urge them to reconsider their wide-scale use of canola oil, and start using healthier oils. They are more expensive, since they do not come from U.S. government subsidized crops that are now mostly GMO.
And I am NOT one of the Whole Foods attackers that likes to criticize them for all the foods they sell. I enjoy shopping at Whole Foods stores, but I also realize that many of the foods they stock and sell do not meet the standards I have set for myself and my family for what we will eat. But I am thankful they exist as an alternative to the regular grocery stores carrying mass-produced commodity foods. But when shopping there, it is important to examine everything closely as you would in any other store, and not assume that just because it is in Whole Foods it must be healthy.
People who love to criticize Whole Foods need to understand one basic principle: they sell the products they sell because people buy them!!
YOU have to do your job as a conscious consumer in understanding just what constitutes the kind of healthy foods you need to be eating, and not expect Whole Foods or other grocers to do that job for you. If enough people were to stop buying their products containing canola oil, for example, then they would probably start carrying products and making foods with healthier oils.
Let’s face it, Whole Foods is a convenient store in the sense that it is designed to be a one-stop shop where you can purchase all the foods you need. By being able to purchase everything you desire and need in one place, you save time – it is convenient!
But you pay a price for that convenience, and it forces Whole Foods to go out and source foods people are typically used to buying in grocery stores to meet demands, even if healthy choices are not available, especially for national distribution in a chain their size.
But that’s not primarily their fault! If you want healthier food, start developing relationships with small-scale producers in or around your community. When you do shop at places like Whole Foods, don’t buy the cheap “health food” that is just cleverly packaged and marketed commodity junk food.
One of the trends I am happy to see in some markets around the country is the renaissance of the local butcher shop that sources their meats locally and processes their own products. If you can find one of these in your community, you might even find one that uses beef fat or lard from healthy grass-fed animals for things like frying french fries. That is rare indeed, but it used to be commonplace!
As a consumer, you have a responsibility to know and understand what products are healthy, and who the healthy food producers are outside the handful of mammoth corporations that produce about 95% of the nation’s food. And you need to be prepared to pay a fair price for it, because it is not subsidized commodity food.
I am quite sure that Whole Foods would love to stock their shelves with this kind of food. But if consumers don’t even recognize it if they see it, and if they are not prepared to pay a higher price than commodity food, it will never happen.
You, as a consumer, have much more control over our nation’s food supply than Whole Foods does. So let’s stop throwing stones at Whole Foods every time we find something on their shelves we don’t like. If you don’t like this egg replacer product produced by Bill Gates’ company from canola oil, don’t buy it! If it doesn’t sell, they won’t keep stocking it.

Why You Cannot Trust GMO Labeling

If this new egg replacer product demonstrates one thing, it demonstrates that you cannot trust products that are labeled “GMO free.”
Some of the most vocal criticizers against Whole Foods recently have come from groups demanding GMO labeling. I am all for GMO labeling, and support such efforts. But let’s clear up some misconceptions right now.
First, a retailer like Whole Foods can only rely upon the word of their suppliers as to whether or not a product containers GMO ingredients. Did you know, for example, that Whole Foods has had an anti-GMO policy for years now? But with no labeling laws and disclosure laws in place, they must rely on the word of their suppliers.
But the fact is, ANY food that contains an ingredient that has a genetically modified equivalent in the market could be contaminated, whether that product is labeled GMO-free or not. The only sure way to know that a product is GMO-free is to test each batch for the presence of GMO traits.
For example, we recently pulled three products from the shelves of Whole Foods that were labeled “GMO Free” by one of the national GMO labeling certification organizations, and tested them for the presence of GMOs. What did we find? Two out of the three products tested positive for the presence of GMOs!
Now who’s fault is that? Here Whole Foods was doing exactly what it has been attacked for not doing, which is stock its shelves with products labeled as GMO or not. The products were labeled as “certified GMO free” but in fact had GMOs in it. Whole Foods did not certify that this product was GMO free. The other organization who provides GMO-free certification certified it as GMO free, and Whole Foods trusted them. But we found that it was not true. We don’t blame Whole Foods for this, because they did everything they could to ensure that product was GMO free.
Sadly, foods labeled as “GMO free” cannot be trusted to be truly GMO free today. The GMO certifications that exist are certifications that companies can purchase. I am quite sure they do their best to certify that the products are GMO free, but the only way to be 100% sure is to test each batch of products that contain ingredients with GM equivalents, because cross contamination is widespread, and has infected even organic crops. Even foods that that have no GMO equivalent are being labeled as “GMO free,” which is rather pointless if GM equivalent varieties do not even exist. “GMO free” has become a popular marketing term that adds value to products, even if that product has no equivalent genetically modified variety. “GMO-free” bottled water may command a higher price, as a silly example, but there is no such thing as genetically modified water!
Corn is the biggest problem right now. I personally would not buy corn from anyone unless that particular crop was tested in a lab for the presence of GMOs. At Tropical Traditions and the Healthy Buyer’s Club, an open pollinated heirloom corn that was carefully shielded from GMO corn crops was a popular product, but in the testing of this year’s crop it was found that one of the three GMO strains tested positive, so the product was pulled from the market. Another source of open pollinated heirloom corn that is GMO free has been found, and the farmers that supply Tropical Traditions and the Healthy Buyer’s Club produced some for planting next year.  Certain cultivars of corn, such as popcorn, do not have GM equivalents and are less likely to be contaminated. These tested negative for GMO contamination and are still available.

Summary

If you want healthier food choices in the market, it is going to take a whole new generation of food producers to start producing it, AND more importantly, educated consumers who will buy it. So if Bill Gates and Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel’s new egg replacement product does not meet your standards, don’t buy it and let Whole Foods know what kind of products you do want! This is, after all, still a consumer-driven market, for now. But if consumers don’t wake up soon and understand what is happening to our food supply, soon we may not have many choices left.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Exclusive: The agricultural revolution - UK pushes Europe to embrace GM crops


Environment Secretary will urge EU to relax restrictions on crop licensing


Genetically modified maize in Shropshire
Britain is to push the European Union to relax restrictions on the licensing of genetically modified crops for human consumption amid growing scientific evidence that they are safe, and surveys showing they are supported by farmers. The Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is expected to use a speech next week to outline the start of a new government approach to GM to ensure Britain “is not left behind” in agricultural science.
The move comes as 61 per cent of UK farmers now say they would like to grow GM crops after a disastrous 12-month cycle of poor weather that is expected significantly to reduce harvest yields. Senior government officials said that ministers are increasingly concerned that the potential moral and ethical benefits of GM are being ignored by costly and bureaucratic licensing regulations.
With one-twelfth of global arable land under GM cultivation they have privately warned that Britain faces being left behind in an important technology that has the potential to improve crop yields, help the UK’s agricultural industry and provide benefits to human health through vitamin fortification.
Government sources added that GM also had applications beyond food including the potential to combat diseases such as ash dieback and in developing new medicines.
“The point about GM is not simply about food production,” they said. “There are wider potential environmental and economic benefits to the technology both in the UK and internationally.
“What we want to do is start a dialogue within Europe on GM based upon the science.”
Ministers are hopeful of building support in Brussels for a change of heart on GM, with Germany seen as a key swing voter. However, any attempts to relax the rules could face opposition from countries such as Poland which in April became the eighth EU member state to ban the cultivation of GM crops.
Mr Paterson is said to believe that Britain should take the lead in moving the debate on from the knee-jerk reaction against GM for much of the last decade.
Read Full Article Here

Related articles

Study: GMO Feed Harmful to Pigs

Pig stomachs gmo feed
Image source

****************************************************************************
Pigs eatingjpg Study: GMO Feed Harmful to Pigs


by GM Watch


A groundbreaking new study [1] shows that pigs were harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified (GM) crops.
GM-fed females had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, a possible indicator of disease that requires further investigation. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. The research results were striking and statistically significant.
Lead researcher Dr Judy Carman, adjunct associate professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia,[2] said: “Our findings are noteworthy for several reasons. First, we found these results in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory, but with the added benefit of strict scientific controls that are not normally present on farms.
“Second, we used pigs. Pigs with these health problems end up in our food supply. We eat them.
“Third, pigs have a similar digestive system to people, so we need to investigate if people are also getting digestive problems from eating GM crops.
“Fourth, we found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.
“Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”
The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn.[3]


Read Full Article Here

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action

OMG, GMOs!

You might ask, "why all the fuss about agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?" After all, regulatory agencies have approved these technologies for widespread application and consumption, so they must be safe, right?  Well, the truth is that there is no agency and no industry that  works to protect our health.  At best, the EPA, USDA, and FDA attempt to respond to our disease after the cause is widespread.  At that point only risk reduction, rather than risk avoidance, can be achieved.  This has been the case historically with radium paint, tobacco, particulate air pollution, water pollution, asbestos, lead, food-borne illnesses, and DDT.  A number of the various 80,000 chemicals in production will likely be added to this list in the future while the majority of them that actually do contribute to disease (often in combination and in complex ways) will never be scientifically associated with disease.  This is because science is far from perfect, scientific methodology is always biased and often manipulated, and scientific interpretation by stakeholders and decision makers is alarmingly inept (I'm not being political or condescending, these are well known and easily observed facts).
The situation with agricultural GMOs is unique compared to other technologies. While genetic engineering of food crops has been ongoing for 15 years, it is currently experiencing a major boom with the potential for widespread worldwide application.  Yet, few people understand how a GMO food could really be so much different than a non-GMO food in regard to health and disease effects.  GMO foods look like non-GMO foods and so we don't experience the same hesitation and aversion to consuming them like we would, say, a clearly labeled bottle of virus and pesticide in tomato juice.  Therefore, the quality of public education, consumer awareness, and informed public discussion about this technology has the potential to alter the future of GMO agriculture for better or worse.
In this article, I'll first briefly mention the relative paucity of risk assessment studies on GMOs and the unbelievable weaknesses of the industry studies that have been done.  Then, drawing from numerous independent studies, I will explore the routes by which agricultural GMOs may cause adverse health effects.

GMOs Have Never Been "Proven" Safe

Let me be clear; despite the following negative review of industry science, this article is not a hatchet job against the agricultural GMO industry but, rather, a vehicle for consolidated scientific information on the safety or risks of GMO foods intended to allow readers to make informed choices about this technology.  It is just that, well, the science coming from the industry tends to raise serious concerns and suggests that the agricultural GMO industry has little concern for protecting public and ecosystem health.  Before we dive into the independent non-industry studies which suggest potential harm from GMO crops and foods, we must first look at the studies which supposedly demonstrate the safety of GMO crops and foods.  A critique of these studies remained impossible for some time as the data was kept private, until French researchers obtained a court order for their release.  This team of researchers, lead by Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, then analyzed the raw data from studies on three varieties of GMO corn owned by Monsanto.  Yet, it immediately became apparent that this data was not extremely helpful as the study methodology was profoundly insufficient.  In a 2010 paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences[1], the researchers summarize several major flaws in the study.  I'll list just a few of them here:
1. For each of the three varieties of GMO corn tested, only a single study was done.  However, a central tenet of sound science is that the results are reproducible and replicated by other studies, preferably those done by different researchers.
2. Only the rat was used as a toxicological model.  Rats are useful models for the human detoxification systems, but poor models for human reproductive and embryological systems.  Remember, rat studies "proved" that thalidomide was safe for pregnant women to use... but the rabbit studies done AFTER thousands of babies were harmed "proved" that it caused birth defects!  Scientific proof is only as good as the scientific studies, which are always limited and narrowly focused.
3.  The studies lasted only 3 months and were done on young adult rats.  Yet, captive rats live about 24 months.  No studies looking at late life outcomes from this brief exposure or studies which used lifelong exposure to GMOs were performed.  This is clearly a problem unless human consumers are only supposed to eat GMO foods for no longer than 9 years between the ages of 10 and 20.  Yet, GMO food technology has been released (without labeling) with the intention of lifelong consumption.
4.  No reproductive or developmental studies were done.  Yet GMO foods do not carry a label declaring that their safety during pregnancy has not been evaluated.  Instead, they are unlabeled and meant to be consumed by both genders, at all ages and developmental stages, including during pregnancy and infancy.
5.  Adverse outcomes were only considered if they occurred in both genders!  Clearly genders are different.  For instance, women are much more likely to get breast cancer than men, and one must have a prostate to get prostate cancer.  In the industry studies, increases in prostate cancer in male rats and increases in mammary tumors in female rats would apparently have been omitted since they differed between genders.  This explains exactly what happened to their findings that male rats eating GMO corn had an 11% increase in heart size while female rats eating GMO corn had a 40% increase in serum triglycerides[2].   It is not clear what to make of these findings, but they should not have been omitted and, instead, should have been used to encourage more numerous and longer duration (lifespan) studies before the worldwide release of GMO corn.
6.  Adverse outcomes which are consider "normal" in old rats were omitted in this young rat population.  For instance, the researchers did not consider "chronic progressive nephropathy", a kidney disease common in older rats, to be a problem even though it was occurring in young, 5 month old, rats eating the GMO corn.
Now, I can attest that modern toxicology students training at respectable universities are taught to do much better work than this. We can only speculate about the reasons such limited study methodologies were chosen.  Nonetheless, these are the studies which the FDA determined to be sufficient for the approval of the three GMO corn varieties represented.  As if the major flaws in the study methodologies were not enough to warrant a different decision, the French team of researchers found a number of concerning associations upon re-analyzing the raw data[3].  They summarize:
"Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn."
This is not the only group of researchers to demonstrate an association between GMO consumption and adverse health outcomes.  Despite the industries resistance to providing GMO varieties to outside researchers for independent studies, there are still dozens of studies available to the public for review.  I'll synthesize the findings of several of these studies below in considering the possible mechanisms by which agricultural GMOs may cause problems.  In general, the health effects of agricultural GMOs are mediated through at least three routes; 1. Directly though ingestion, 2. Indirectly through GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion, and 3. Indirectly through environmental and ecosystem effects.

Effects of GMO ingestion:

Ingesting GMOs can affect both the microbiome and human cells.  The microbiome is the microorganism population which lives on and in the human body.  Most of it exists in or on the mouth, nose, stomach, intestines, and skin.  The gut microbiome has received considerable attention due to its apparently profound effect on the immune system, not to mention its effect on food digestion.  The gut microbiome is involved in determining the risk of autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases, cardiovascular disease, and some infectious diseases like osteomyelitis.  The microbiome can get out of balance (called dysbiosis) and produce severe diseases such as Clostridium difficile overgrowth and more mild disorders like small bowel bacterial overgrowth and irritable bowel syndrome.  The bottom line is that a balanced microbiome is critical for health and we are just now beginning to appreciate how serious the consequences of dysbiosis may be.
Several studies have shown that the organisms (mostly bacteria) of the microbiome can take up genes from GMO foods[4],[5].  "Conjugation", or gene transfer, is a common trick used by bacteria to evolve and adapt.  This is one mechanism by which antibiotic resistance perpetuates.   The consequences of GMO gene transfer to intestinal bacteria involve the expression of the gene and/or insertional mutagenesis.  The frequency with which these consequences will occur is not known, but they will occur to some degree at least.
Intestinal bacteria which begin to express the GMO gene will then be producing the same active proteins which define the GMO.  For example, intestinal bacteria could start producing the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) pesticidal toxin that has been inserted into potatoes, corn, and soybeans.  The exact effect of this toxin on humans, if any, is not well established but it has been found in a study of Canadian women, including pregnant women and their fetuses[6].
Insertional mutagenesis refers to the gene inserting itself into another coding gene and, thus, causing a gene mutation by disrupting the code.  This may produce more severe results as it is a well known mechanism by which viruses may cause cancer, cell death, or cellular dysfunction.
These same mechanisms, gene transfer and insertional mutagenesis, can affect human cells just the same.  While intestinal cells are likely to be the most affected, GMO genes which pass into the blood intact may affect just about any cell and tissue in the body.  It is quite possible that GMO foods are regularly resulting in the genetic modification of the humans consuming them!  There are many unknowns here and I suspect that there remains a lot to be discovered, but we should not let the absence of evidence be mistaken for the evidence of absent harm.  We should, instead, demand more information and more research!

Read Full Article Here