The world as we know it stands in line for the next big thing to be here. That application can be applied to mobile phones, cars, etc. But should we really be applying this to our food?
The Toxic Techno Truth
Today our food has taken a new bionic makeover. Unfortunately to create these new hybrids which are modified to last longer and grow bigger are coming at at an extreme cost. To understand fully we must take a look at the science behind the new GMO.
To get the real science and understanding about Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs , you would have to consult scientists who do not work in the biotech industry. The process itself is not what is in question at the moment but the difference to the real or non-GMO which has been the argument for the GMO industry to pass safety standard inspections. Several new studies have proven beyond a doubt that genetically modified foods are far different from their non-GMO counterparts. This is an important time for research like this to be presented to the public since thus far, biotech companies have been relying upon the ‘substantial equivalence rule’ to get approval for their toxic techno crops through government regulatory agencies.
Understanding Substantial Equivalence
Substantial equivalence related to GMOs means that governments look at genetically modified organisms in comparison to their non-genetically manipulated brethren to determine if they should be given authorization for release. Essentially it says that if a GMO seems about the same as a non-GMO food, then it is ‘safe’ for planting. It factors into account that some non GMO foods can contain toxic components just like GMO foods, and can still be consumed without harm to human health. For example, green-skinned potatoes contain solanine which will make the potato taste bitter, and, when consumed in large amounts, can be lethal.
The clause was first introduced in 1993 by the Organization for Economic Development, an international economic and trade organization and not a regulated health organization.
Substantial equivalence is not only used by our own U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but also the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Japan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization (WTO), and the OECD.
Latest Scientific Findings
The latest scientific findings; however, prove that GMOs are not equivalent at all to non-GMO, according to the Permaculture Research Institute. The Institute and others believe this is a faulty concept that allows biotech companies, like Dow and Monsanto, to ignore regulatory requirements that apply to many other food products – from processed chips and cookies to pharmaceuticals, food additives, and even pesticides. All of these things currently require a wide array of toxicological tests to determine if they are truly safe for human consumption although sometimes ignoring if they are good for the environment.
In an Institute post, Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji wrote:
“In practice, the principle allows the comparison of a GM line to any existing variety within the same species, and even to an abstract entity made up of ingredients from a collection of species. This means that a GM variety can have all the worst traits of many different varieties and still be deemed substantially equivalent.”
Another publication from Egyptian led by Professor El-Sayed Shaltout at Alexandria University reported the proof that one of Monsanto’s strains of genetically modified corn was substantially non-equivalent and toxic when compared to non-GMO corn varieties.
Other countries study results have also been added to strengthen the argument that the new variation of the food is neither the same nor safe.
The Naked Truth
The naked truth when we are speaking of of food, air, and water is that the pure and natural form is the best. Judge for yourself when your food does not attract flies nor decay.
Dr. Connor McCormick