My Letter to Times Online UK: GM Soya Beans NOT Healthy

A lot of people ask whether GM foods (like all conventional, non-organic soy and corn nowadays) are really that much of a health risk. Read my previous blog on the subject to learn more about the negatives.

But something that is even more aggravating to me, politically speaking, is Monsanto's stance on labeling foods GM (so we can monitor whether, for instance, the rise in corn and soy allergies is due to these franken-foods), and on public advertising and marketing campaigns focused on proving GM's application to health and wellness. This has gone much too far.

Read my response to the UK branch of Times Online regarding this very subject:

Letter to Times Online Article - GMO Soybean Scam

online.editor@timesonline.co.uk
Times Online, UK

To Whom It May Concern:

In a recent article titled, “GM Bean Could Help Prevent Heart Attacks” by your Science Editor Mark Henderson, I was disheartened to see that in the extensive covering of this new component of our food culture none of the highly controversial and globally debated topics were discussed regarding Monsanto, and their Genetically Modified Foods.

Monsanto’s Vice-President for Consumer Traits, David Stark, was quoted in your article as saying that this new Soya bean is “another reason for consumers to pause and consider whether GM has a role to play.” He thinks that GM Soya does have a role to play, should we allow it, “not only for how we deliver food for this planet, but also for how we protect our health. So, let us pause and consider some of the alternate findings, that have very much to do with our health, outside of the small studies being instituted to fast-track this soya bean into our collective mouths.

Genetically modified foods have been studied extensively in their reactions on both animals and humans. Mice fed GM potatoes had intestinal damage, farmers have reported that pigs and cows have become sterile from GM corn, and a recent study funded by the Austrian government concluded that GM crops threaten human fertility and health safety. This is just a sampling of 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from Jeffrey Smith’s research and documentation on the subject (Smith 2007, 21-63). Even more interesting is the fact that in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced, soy allergies skyrocketed.

Monsanto expects this new bean to be ‘cleared’ by the FDA by 2011, but should we trust such an association? A study conducted by eight international researchers revealed a doubt in the reliability and accuracy of European Food Safety (EFSA) and the United States FDA tests to assess the health risks of GMOs and pesticides (Organic Consumers Association, 2009). They were quoted as saying that these committees “systematically overlook the side effects of GMOs and pesticides.” They demanded the publication of the results of tests regarding GMO safety, which are only revealed one-by-one as legal action is instituted.

It is clear to me that one study, with just 33 people, is not sufficient to warrant such health claims and blind enthusiasm for an unknown product and food-like-substance. Nor does it make sense to stop at just 250 volunteers in a research study lead by the same Professor William Harris. We should be asking questions like, what independent, non-biased study has proven the long term effectiveness and safety of this supposed heart-healthy bean? And when there is such strong, diverse, and vast argument opposing this industry and technology, should we not take notice, not only as consumers, but as journalists?

Natalie Anastasio Pescetti, CN, NE
Mount Shasta, CA