The science is out about just how harmful genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are, especially in light of the scientific paper that has shown GMOs cause a host of diseases, despite “food” companies trying to deceive consumers into believing they are safe when in fact, there is unquestionable proof from a scientific basis they are not safe at all.
The genetic modification of the Arctic apples are done in the same manner as all genetic modifying technologies that exist currently, and their expression within the gene of the Arctic apple shows no difference to other genetically modified foods on the market.
But when we gather this kind of information to be brought to the forefront so the public may be able to see the facts, food industry, and chemical giant corporations get involved to step in to thwart any suggestion that their lab creations are deemed unsafe to consume.
For instance, the following showcases contributors to Wikipedia, about the genetically modified (GM) Arctic apple, using an overt bias in favor of this lab-created food item and sticking to the script that they are safe when science shows just how false this is. Click here for more scientific research and their findings showing the toxicity of GMOs and the chemicals that are used grow them are.
Excerpts from Wikipedia Arctic apple page (now deleted “Safety concerns” content section by a contributor of Wiki):
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently deemed the Arctic apple, owned by synthetic biology company Intrexon, safe for consumption, relying on its own company data used through a voluntary safety review.”
From the Arctic apple website that Wikipedia cites:
“Arctic apples are one of the most studied foods of all time. They have been rigorously reviewed by reputable regulatory teams at the USDA, FDA, CFIA and Health Canada, based on more than ten years of data and studies, and these experts all agree that Arctic apples are as safe and healthy as other apples.” — Wikipedia Arctic Apples
None of this, however, is factually accurate as we outline in this article. Note that they state that the apples have been “reviewed”, but not tested for safety. And what the USDA, FDA, CFIA and Health Canada relies on are the findings that the company who created the apples.
Here is more biased misinformation from the Genetic Literacy Project (a front group of industry proponents in favor of all things GM) state:
After over a decade of research, regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada like the FDA and USDA recently approved Arctic apples for human consumption. Accumulated evidence shows that Arctic apple trees and fruit are no different from their traditional counterparts in terms of agricultural and nutritional characteristics.
Note that the “Accumulated evidence” isn’t from a third party testing research facility, but rather, the same researchers that work for the folks who created Arctic apples – they create it, they test it, and low and behold, the tests performed on the Arctic apple show absolutely no issues.
If you take into consideration the FDA and USDA do not perform any testing on a “novel” genetically modified food items, any and all tests are undertaken by the company itself applying for FDA approval of their product as is with the Arctic apple. People may presume that these two agencies are looking out for our best interests and keeping anything questionable off the grocery shelves, but that simply is not the case with GMOs.
Concerns mount over safety testing
The Arctic apple website claims their apples have been tested, however, omits citations to such data on their website. They claim that their “science” is the end all to the apple’s safety concerns. They also don’t take into account the pesticides and herbicides that are used to grow genetically modified foods like this particular apple, and more largely, corn, soybeans, and their derivatives.
The now infamous long-term Séralini study, retracted (by way of Monsanto) and then republished in peer-reviewed journals has scientifically proven that GMOs are linked to serious health problems in animals.
Three things you need to know about the Séralini study
1. Most criticisms of Séralini’s study wrongly assume it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study – and a well-designed and well-conducted one.
2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with.
3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval.
Rats used in the Seralini long-term study.
If health problems occurred in animals in the Séralini study from genetically modified food, what do you think it’s doing to human? The answer is, we don’t know. The reason for this is because corporations that own the patents to these “novel” GM foods prohibit the release for research purposes on humans – and for good reason – because the large food and chemical giants like Monsanto who pushed GMOs onto the unsuspected millions of people in the U.S., would be liable for damages should anything adverse be found to cause harm in the human population.
Séralini’s study showed that tests commonly were done on GM foods for a longer period than 90 days, and like the study that was done on these rats pictured above, cancer, organ damage, and premature death occurred. The first tumors only appeared 4-7 months into the study.
Compared with industry tests on GM foods, Séralini’s study analyzed the same number of rats but over a longer period (two years instead of 90 days), measured more effects more often, and was uniquely able to distinguish the effects of the GM food from the pesticide it is grown with.
If we argue, as many proponents of GM foods have done that Séralini’s study does not prove that the GM food tested is dangerous, then we must also accept that industry studies on GM foods cannot prove they are safe. Which in fact, they cannot.
The U.S. controlled corporatocracy has dire consequences
Corporations like Bayer, Monsanto and ConAgra are three example of businesses putting profit over people’s health and will do anything unscrupulously to hide the facts of their GMO experiment that is still going on to this day.
Secret documents were recently uncovered exposing Monsanto as being connected in retracting Séralini’s study which shows just how far they will go to keep this information from the public.
Another reason why food and chemical giants strongly oppose labeling of all genetically modified food would have their product linked back to them and invite a world of financial ruin on these morally corrupt corporations and put them out of business. That is why it’s so important to continue fighting for the right to know what’s in our food by having a simple label on the products.
The power is in your hands as a consumer
Anyone who is considering eating these lab-created apples may want to consider using the Precautionary Principle than to take their chances on an unnatural mutation of mother nature from corporations whose sole purpose is to make money over the health of their product. They have a de facto fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to make as much money as possible.
At the very least these genetic lab created food items should be required to be labeled yet they are not in the US. Lastly, pesticides may not play a role in GMOs, but herbicides, specifically glyphosate (Roundup), has shown to be toxic and carcinogenic amongst animal and human populations.
All this to make an apple not turn brown; I’ll take my chances and eat the brown-skinned apple. It beats potentially getting cancer, tumors and other diseases from consuming an Arctic apple!
There currently is no law in the US requiring genetically modified (GM) foods such as the Arctic apple to be labeled.
What do you think about the Arctic apple? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. We welcome your input!
The post Science Reveals GMO Arctic Apples Not Safe to Eat appeared first on Natural Revolution.
