Ladies. Need your help (re GMO info/studies)

CharlottesWeb

I'm on my food co-op Producer Standards and Compliance Committee. We do not allow GMO's in the food sold through the co-op. We are now trying to educate our producers on the what, why etc.

I compiled a pretty concise, and (I thought) very readable little piece on what GMO's are and why we should avoid them. Two of the Directors loved it.

One of the ladies in the committee looked up GMO on Wikipedia and got concerned that "there is a lot of misinformation" and she doesn't think the co-op needs to be associated with it. Now, if you have a minute, so ahead a check out the Wiki definition of GMO's. This is a little maddening to me because it seems clear that this Wiki definition is the only real research she's done on the subject. I'm not expert, but I feel I am fairly well versed on this subject.

What I want to do is find some independent studies to back up my original document......I know there are some out there that have been done on animals and have shown alarming health issues and death. I thought I'd check in with you ladies first to see if you can point me in a specific direction before I start googling my brains out.

hollyfp

I have this saved...

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

 

Mrs.MauiBride24

hollyfp:

I have this saved...

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

I'm actually reviewing the above article for a Journal Club and wishing I didn't because it's so hard to read!  As I'm sure you know, there is a lot of controversy with this article.  The original research was done by Mansanto on their own products, there was a lawsuit, they lost and the research was made public.  Then these guys (Vendomois et al) came in and reanalyzed their data using different statistical analysis.  The Vendomois camp is sponsored by Greenpeace and a large French chain grocery store (everybody has an agenda!)  Monsanto has come back and said that the statistical analysis that they used is inaccurate and basically, they are using the stats that benefit them.  (which I'm sure Monsanto used the stats that benefited them!)  This is the second (or more) time that this group has been accused of using bad analysis. 

So... in conclusion, it's a cluster. 

Of course I'm on the Non-GMO camp, but at the same time, scientists who are sponosored by big companies and who are well known in the scientific community for using bad analysis isn't too compelling. 

(I hope this makes sense and someone please correct me if I'm misinformed!)

 

The Presiden'ts Cancer Panel just came out with a paper.  Here are 10 guidelines that Time Magazine summarized:

Time Magazine assembled a list of the 10 Cancer Panel Recommendations, gleaned from the full report:

1. Drink filtered tap water.
2. Store food in glass, stainless-steel, or BPA-free plastic.
3. Minimize children?s and pregnant women?s exposure to carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
4. Choose fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers.
5. Choose free-range meat that has not been exposed to antibiotics or growth hormones.
6. Minimize consumption of processed, charred or well-done meats.
7. Turn off lights and electrical devices when not in use.
8. Drive a fuel-efficient car.
9. Check home radon levels.
10. Reduce radiation exposure from cell phones and medical tests; avoid UV overexposure.

 

SuperGreen

Here's some more information on the IJBS article, including the problems with Monsanto's conclusions:

 http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/ 

Here's some doctor's warnings on GMOs, which has a ton of footnotes of where the data and assumptions in the article come from:

http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/blog/2009/07/01/doctors-warn-avoid-genetically-modified-food-2/

Here's a whole bunch of articles on GM food concerns from the Organic and Non-GMO Report

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/genetically_modified_food_news/gm_food_concerns.php