No appetite for biotech foods
<<< Back to main page
Genetically Engineered (GE or biotech) food and America's food aid. This
exposes a basic misunderstanding of the key issue: are these foods safe and
nutritious? The general assumption is that they are; but as many governments
know, not only has not been proven, but published studies actually disprove
it!
An FDA policy statement declares biotech food to be the same as food from
normally bred crops, so they don't require safety testing. This was done
without any independent safety review nor any supporting published data.
There has never been any long-term published study proving the safety of
biotech foods!
The data indicates that biotech crops: are more expensive, less nutritious,
have smaller yields, allow greater chemical use on farmland, have pollen
that drifts onto neighboring fields- contaminating organically grown crops
and important seed crops of farm seed growers, contain plant viruses and
"unexplained gene fragments" with no safety records, cause
unpredicted/unstudied physical changes in the stomachs of insects and
humans, transfer their "qualities" to "super weeds", and create monopolistic
control over agriculture.
Biotech companies have bought out most of our major seed suppliers. They are
close to the Bush Administration, their people holding top positions in the
EPA, FDA and USDA; agencies both boosters and regulators of agriculture. Our
government is bullying other countries to sell biotech foods with no
identifying labels. A trade war with Europe and Japan is brewing over this
issue. Other countries resent being forced to join our "experiment".
Zambians received food aid from Europe after snubbing American biotech
grains for fear their farmers might plant some, lest biotech contamination
ruin their future export markets. The Zambian people were not allowed to "go
hungry", as Ms. Field's source claimed.
U.S. government impartiality is gone. Federal agencies even hold patent
rights for biotech research; including the USDA's dreaded "terminator gene"
that will produce only sterile crops, which could be the modern equivalent
of Pandora's Box if they escape into the environment. Most experts on FDA
committees have financial ties to regulated companies, creating conflicts of
interest. University research has been taken over by pharmaceutical money;
researchers consumed more with research grants and patents than with
unbiased truth. Medical journals gave up finding unbiased experts for peer
reviews. These biased experts tell us to believe in biotech, ignoring that
most published data is negative. Our farmland is devoted to biotech crops.
Researchers and government agencies in other countries have restricted and
banned biotech foods to protect the environment, public health and local
agriculture from the untested dangers of these crops. The American public
will only buy food labeled as genetically grown if they perceive a benefit
to their health or environment, and we don't want animal genes in plant
foods. Current biotech foods do not convey environmental or nutritional
benefits to the public. That's why the government decided to protect these
companies from mandatory labeling: so we have no choice. If "Pasteurized"
labels can be neutral, why not "Biotech"? Why not let us decide if the
benefits are worth the costs for each biotech food? Only public outrage will
expose these hidden dangers: responsible food companies have pledged to
avoid biotech ingredients after consumer complaints.
Neil E. Levin
Certified Clinical Nutritionist
Fruitful Yield Vitamin Stores
Bloomingdale, IL
Cell: (630) 235-3014
Back to top of Document
