European Farmers Voice ‘Deep Concern’ About GM Policies

It would be nice if farmers worldwide could decide their own fate, how they wanted to farm, what technologies they wanted to utilize to make operations more efficient, sustainable or environmentally friendly.  For an example of how frustrating that desire currently is to many farmers and farm groups in Europe, see the article below by Philip Case, reprinted from Farmers Weekly, London.

Among the farming groups listed in the piece, it appears there is a general feeling that their hands are tied, that farming in general is not able to forge ahead into the future and take advantage of crop improvements realized via biotechnology that many other parts of the world, the US being one of them, are able to do.  This is due to current EU policy regarding GMOs – in spite of the fact that like it or not, science has not found anything wrong with genetically engineered food.

Much of what is in this article supports recent posts at Sleuth4Health, including my dis on the activist group (ENSSER)[1].

Scientific consensus on GM crops safety ‘overwhelming’

Philip Case

Friday 25 October 2013 10:00

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC) has refuted claims from an anti-GM campaign group that there is “no scientific consensus” on the safety of genetically modified foods.

More than 90 scientists, academics and physicians added their names to a statement published this week which challenges claims from the UK government and biotech companies that GM foods are safe.

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) released the statement in the week after the World Food Prize was awarded to employees of GM seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta.

ABC chair Julian Little said the statement had been put together by an anti-GM group and he insisted that contrary to the claims, there was an “overwhelming weight of evidence” that points to the safety of GM crops.

Dr Little said: “Biotech crops are among the most extensively tested foods in the history of food safety.

“In 2010, the European Commission concluded on the basis of 130 research projects involving 500 independent groups over 25 years that ‘there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms’.

“This year, the representative body of the national science academies of the EU Member states agreed, saying that ‘there is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment’ than any other crops produced using plant breeding techniques.”

Dr Little added that an estimated three trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been eaten around the world over the past 13 years “without a single substantiated case of ill-health”.

“The World Health Organisation (WHO) has said that: ‘No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved’.”

Dr Little said the WHO’s statement was backed up by government regulators around the world, including the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK.

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC) of Australia said the ENSSER’s statement “flies in the face of a consenus of an overwhelming majority of scientists”.

“Every legitimate scientific organisation that has examined the evidence has arrived at the conclusion that GM crops and the foods they produce pose no risk to human health or the environment beyond those posed by their conventional counterparts,” added ABC Australia.

Meanwhile, EU farming groups, including the NFU, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland and the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), have added their name to a different letter, which voices “deep concern” about the effects of GM policies and regulations in the EU.

In an open letter sent to the European Commission on behalf of the French Association for Plant Biotechnology (AFBV), they called for better for access to the best crops, including GM varieties, so that agriculture in Europe can be more sustainable and less reliant on imported products.

The letter states that the lack of options for GM technology available to farmers in Europe can equate to significant loss of income and a missed opportunity.

Helen Ferrier, NFU chief science and regulatory affairs adviser, said: “The heads of EU institutions have a great deal of power to sort out this mess and ensure the EU doesn’t become uncompetitive in both agricultural production and scientific research.

“This letter demonstrates the strength of feeling in the agriculture sector across Europe. Swift action must be taken.”

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

[1] Is GM Food Safe:  Experts Around the Globe Answer, Pollan’s Fall From Grace

(This article was formerly titled:  European farmers are frustrated with the politics of genetic engineering)

Advertisements

Pollan’s Fall From Grace

Michael Pollan used to be my hero, my shining example of everything that was still good when it comes to food in America.  My first exposure to the industrial food mechanism was when I watched “Fast Food Nation” – shortly followed by “Food Inc” and thus began my tirade against all things concerning ‘Big Food’ [1].  A certain narrator of “Food Inc” –  Michael Pollan – exposed some of the more unsavory practices in the world of mass produced food.  I was equally horrified and spellbound.  I took full notice of what I presumed to be an upstanding, smart, mild mannered journalist doing what he could to expose the food industry.  I trusted him, believed in him.  I put “Cooked” and “The Botany of Desire” on my reading list.  I followed him, read his tweets, listened to his interviews. His opinions were my opinions.

Pollan had a monumental influence on me and I later went on to become a staunch supporter of the anti-GMO movement, a logical next step at the time.  I jumped in with both feet and posted the fear infused rhetoric on my blog day after day, week after week. Embarrassing as it is, the record is all still right here on Sleuth4Health.  Granted, my choice to be an anti-GMO activist was my own and I’m not trying to put that onus on Pollan.  I am only saying that up to that point, he had been the largest influence on me.

When it comes to GMOs, I freely admit that I didn’t know what I was talking about.  I got caught up in the hype of a movement that predicates itself on fringe characters and psuedo-science.  I got wise, jumped ship and have been breast-stroking the ocean of sanity and science ever since and though I still don’t know what I’m talking about all too often, at least I’m swimming in the right sea [2].

Now, I am saddened and disheartened by my former hero, Mr. Pollan.  This time he has gone too far.  I think he means well, but is increasingly going the way of the Smiths, Shivas and Seralinis of the world who use highly questionable science to make their point.  Michael, you are a professor of journalism.  Please be professional here.  Stick with the facts.  Or at the very least, admit that you are confused and conflicted around the issue of GMOs.  You don’t want to like them but there really isn’t a scientifically backed reason not to.  Fair enough.  But kindly refrain from touting activist drivel as if it were bona fide data.

OK, let me explain why I am being so hard on this guy.

Pollan has proclaimed in so many words and at different times that GMOs just might be acceptable in certain circumstances, are probably safe and though they are associated with factory farming which he loathes, they could be useful (see source article).  But in rapid succession, he has also tweeted a link to an article by an activist group calling itself the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) that proclaims the belief that there is not consensus surrounding the safety of GMOs.  This is a blatantly false statement [3] – and just more perpetuation of the same old crap that I once regurgitated then later rejected.  In other words, non-credible science is yet again being passed off by respectable journalist types as credible science when it comes to GMOs.  Pollan’s stamp of approval will likely win over a whole new crop of loyal eager beavers, scared and grossly misinformed, ready to take up the anti-GMO cause.

Here is an excerpt from an article via Genetic Literacy Project regarding Pollan’s latest and puzzling escapade.  You can find the full article here.

Being Michael Pollan

We caught a glimpse of the true Michael Pollan this week, and it wasn’t pretty. On Monday, an organization known as the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), issued a statement declaring, there is “No scientific consensus on GMO safety.” To those familiar with the science of GMOs and the safety testing record, the full statement reads like farce. It has 93 signators, not one considered a mainstream scientist—a ‘Who’s Who’ of anti-biotechnology campaigners.

A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.

So who is behind this bizarre declaration? ENSSER, for those not familiar with it, is an organization with a mission. Its members believe—this is faith and not science— that the debate over GMOs is over, that the technology is harmful and should be banned or restricted out of existence. Its members are among the most high profile anti-GMO activists in Europe. Remember the pictures of rats supposedly twisted into cancerous monsters after eating GMO corn that were blasted across cyberspace and onto ‘laugh-out-loud’ pop shows like Dr. Oz? The rats were props for humans, according to the notorious 2012 Gilles-Erich Séralini study that stands as one of the most discredited experiments in scientific history. Séralini is a signee of this statement, along with co-author Nicolas Defarge, who is ENSSER’s Deputy Chairman.

What did mainstream scientists—those without a precooked position on crop biotechnology, whose judgments are shaped by the evolving empirical evidence—have to say about the Séralini study? Six French national academies (Agriculture, Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, Technology and Veterinarians⁾ issued an extraordinary joint statement condemning the study and the journal that published it. The paper was reviewed and refuted by the most prominent independent international science organizations and every food standards agency of note, including French HCB and the National Agency for Food Safety, the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie, Technical University of Denmark, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Quoting the EFSA: “The study as reported by Séralini et al. was found to be inadequately designed, analysed and reported…. Taking into consideration Member States’ assessments and the authors’ answer to critics, EFSA finds that the study as reported by Séralini et al. is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessments.”

To mainstream scientists and science journalists, saying that GMOs pose any serious or unusual health threats is akin to climate change denialism or pretending that creationism should be discussed in the same breath as evolution. The only well known dissenters from this consensus are groups like ENSSER—and Michael Pollan, it appears.

Here is what Pollan, always prepared to diss crop biotechnology, tweeted on the release of the report:

Does Pollan really believe that the opinions of activist scientists with avowed opposition to GMOs match the scientific weight of 100+ independent organizations? Considering Pollan’s influence, tweets like this are the journalistic equivalent of a prominent science journalist disseminating a study by creationists that suggests there is no science consensus on evolution. It’s a disturbing example of how Pollan views empirical evidence.

Last year, without even reading the Séralini study (or just as likely and even more discouraging, being unable to critically interpret it) he jumped on the Séralini anti-GMO crusade bandwagon.

So there you have it:  respected journalist and highly influential public figure misleads public by implying credibility where it does not exist.  Shame.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

email:  sleuth4health@gmail.com

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

[1] These two films are related in content and have Eric Schlosser in common.

[2] See Science Is Laughing At Us

[3] See Is GM Food Safe? Experts Around the Globe Answer

Organics Vs. GMOs: Why The Debate?

Today I present a no-nonsense must-read from another one of my favorite “go to” websites:  Genetic Literacy Project

In the arena of public opinion, first-hand experience has taught us that fear can be very effective in winning the public over. There is a great deal of pseudo-science available on the Internet designed to generate fear of GMOs.

[…]

And while there has not been one death or even an illness linked to the consumption of foods made with genetically modified ingredients, thousands of people get sick and die every year because of contamination problems linked to slipshod organic farming practices at some farms.

[…]

There is still no such thing as organic testing, neither in the field nor after harvest nor in any certified-organic processing facilities—and, most disturbingly, not on incoming shipments of certified-organic product from countries like China, Mexico or Argentina. These foreign shipments account for the majority of the certified-organic food being sold in North American grocery stores. Organic certification on this continent is all based on paperwork with no recourse to science.

[…]

(There is) nothing in GM technology that should offend organic growers. It is, in fact, an entirely “organic” procedure, and a very precise one at that. Organic farmers seem content to use seeds that are produced with nuclear and chemical mutagenesis which are very imprecise and hardly organic. They also use many inorganic substances such as copper, phosphorous and potassium with no apparent contradiction. And which is better—the broadcast spraying by organic farmers of a Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) microbial pesticide over entire fields with attendant drift into non-target areas, or the selective targeting of only those pests that actually attack the crop through the use of Bt corn and Bt cotton?

~Popoff, Moore & Wager, authors of the article below.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Organics versus GMO: Why the debate?

By Mischa Popoff & Patrick Moore & Robert Wager | October 15, 2013 | Genetic Literacy Project

Credit: Lindsay Eyink, via Wikimedia Commons

Opponents of GM food understand that diminished understanding and lack of knowledge is the key to obstructing biotechnology.   —American Medical Association

“The GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe. … You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food.” So said Mark Lynas, the British environmentalist, who helped launch the anti-GMO movement in the 1990s.

Lynas went on to say that “people who want to stick with organic are entitled to—but they should not stand in the way of others who would use science to find more efficient ways to feed billions.”

We could not have put it more succinctly ourselves.

Organic activists are on the attack at the local level in a bid to influence global acceptance of genetic engineering. For years we’ve been asking why those leading the organic industry are so dead-set opposed to genetically modified organisms. GMOs are already cutting down drastically on pesticide use, fuel consumption and the amount of land devoted to agriculture. Aren’t these the stated goals of the organic movement? This 20-year-old technology will also soon lead to drastic reductions in agricultural water-use, and genetically engineered crops capable of pulling their own nitrogen from the earth’s atmosphere are already on the drawing board. Innovations like these will further reduce the amount of energy farmers use, along with the overall amount of energy humankind requires as it continues to produce more food on less land for more people.

And yet, a fierce either-or (and we must stress one-sided) debate ensues between a minority activists who want the entire world to “go organic”, and scientists and humanitarians who are using genetics and biotechnology to improve our food and medicine. If science makes the human race more efficient in the areas of transportation, communication and housing, then surely it can, and should, also help us in the vital arena of food production. Shouldn’t it? The world’s premier national and international academies of science have reached an unqualified consensus that GMO crops are good for the poor and hungry. Even the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences stated recently, “Genetically-modified food represents a step forward in evolution.”

Crop biotechnology 2.0

While most people think only of commercial crops like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola or Bt corn when they hear mention of GM food, the three of us (two academics and a former organic inspector) are left to wonder why an entire discipline is being rejected by “organic” anti-GMO activists when this discipline holds such promise beyond the commercial realm. Commercial crops, which farmers can freely choose to grow, are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to debating the two competing philosophies of food production before us.

GMO crops that fix their own nitrogen would drastically reduce energy consumption on conventional farms by eliminating the natural gas used in synthesizing ammonium nitrate and the fuel burned in trucks that deliver that fertilizer to farms. Such technology could eliminate the current organic practice of planting legume cover crops, which are subsequently plowed down to trap nitrogen in the soil. This could cut an organic farmer’s fuel bill by as much as 50 percent! If only the organic industry would consider accepting GMO crops on a case-by-case basis, there could be the possibility of a more rational approach to the new technology of genetic engineering.

Read full article here.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

This article hooked me instantly and I hope it does the same for others.  I like the “in your face” style of writing that does not mince words nor hold back.  It brings into full focus the far reaching consequences of the developing ‘war on GMOs’ waged by the organic industry.

There are firsthand stories of how fear-ridden public officials and their constituents, bolstered by anti-GMO psuedoscience,  flat out reject the good science that is presented to them only to go on with their business of policy making.  In some cases, decisions had been made long beforehand and what appeared to be an attempt to understand the science side was just an empty exercise and a waste of everyone’s time, not to mention travel expenses.

The other behemoth of a topic touched on in this article is how unregulated the organic industry actually is, on all levels, and how many documented cases of ill health and even death have resulted from eating certified organic food.  A whole separate article could and should be written about this alone.

There is also an underlying assertion woven into this article that the organic industry purposefully and willfully blurs the lines of its own regulation by shining a spotlight on GMOs and that if the industry succeeded in banning GMOs outright, that the spotlight could then turn on themselves and what would they do? Keeping the public grossly misinformed and undereducated helps the cause, it would appear.  I don’t know if the organic industry deliberately set this scenario into motion or if it is just the result of how events unfolded.  The possibility does exist that ‘Big Org’ could one day be hoist by its own petard.

In any case, I, Julee K, fear this same muddled confusion is repeating itself all over the world as we sort out this messy but oh-so-important debate.

I will close with this quote – also found in the piece.

If we waited for scientific proof of every impression before deciding to take any consequential action we might avoid a few mistakes, but we should also hardly ever decide to act at all. In practice, decisions about most things that really matter have to be taken on impressions, or on intuition, otherwise they would be far too late…. We have to live our lives in practice, and can very rarely wait for scientific verification of our hypotheses. If we did we should all soon be dead, for complete scientific verification is hardly ever possible. It is a regrettable fact that a demand for scientific proof is a weapon often used to delay the development of an idea.

~ Lord Walter Northbourne, one of the preeminent forefathers of the organic movement/1931

For a comprehensive list of scientific agencies worldwide that attest to the safety of GMOs, see Is GM Food Safe? Experts Around the Globe Answer

This article was updated on 10/16 at 9:56 PT

The European Union’s opposition to GM crops has nothing to do with safety

Below is a gem of an article published a few days ago at Biofortified.org – one of my “go to” websites.  So much attention is given to the fact that Europe bans the cultivation and importation of most genetically modified food.  The widely accepted perception in the US is that safety is at the heart of this policy.  What is really behind this ban?  The answer may surprise you.

By Alexander Huszagh on 3 October 2013

Two years ago, a woman in a classroom with me muttered “isn’t that a good thing?” about the ban on the cultivation and importation of most genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the European Union (EU), “it protects EU citizens, right?”

“Nope, the ban on GMOs merely allows the EU to act as an autonomous region through its politics of food security. The EU set up the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in part for food security, and the ban on GMOs is but an excuse to ban foreign imports and prevent dependency on foreign seed manufacturers in order to maintain the EU’s agricultural self-sufficiency,” my professor for my course on the development and politics of the EU responded.

In spite of my friend’s interjections that the restrictions of GMO imports and cultivation were meant as a form of consumer protection, this professor demonstrated  examples to the contrary, highlighting how the ban reflects economic protectionism rather than safety considerations and how the EU’s economic protectionism ensures food security and therefore self-autonomy. Like the misconceptions of my friend on the EU’s policy toward GMOs, anti-GMO advocates and the larger public frequently cite the EU’s policies towards GM crops as evidence; contradicting the conclusions of major scientific, health and  food safety organizations from over 600 studies showing the general safety of GM crops. In reality, social and political factors, not scientific concerns, form the basis of the EU’s opposition to cultivating GM crops.

Wheat grown in the United Kingdom, which benefits from the Common Agricultural Policy.

The roots of European agricultural protectionism stem from the formation of the European Union itself. After World War II, Robert Schuman and other European leaders decided that the only way to prevent the outbreak of another war was to link the European economies together, particularly the French and German economies. The shared economic interests would prevent the outbreak of subsequent wars, and therefore lead to increased international interaction within Europe.

Schuman and the other founders commenced on two fronts: by unifying Europe in coal and steel production through the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) and soon after in agricultural production through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Implemented in 1962, the CAP subsidized agricultural production in the EU to stabilize european food markets and ensure food security. Despite the high costs, utilizing over 70% of the EU’s overall budget in 1972 and currently costing european consumers over 100€ per year, the CAP remains a central part of EU food politics in an attempt to maintain stable food prices and food security in Europe. Despite the high costs, food security remains integral to European level politics and this manifests in agricultural protectionism.

Due to the extra-national nature of major biotechnology corporations, European attitudes towards GMOs reflect the European policies of food security and self-autonomy through economic protectionism. In order to maintain self-autonomy, the EU must maintain food security through self-sufficient production, since risks to food availability threaten the social and political stability of a region. This desire for self-autonomy therefore leads to a policy of domestic protectionism, which protects inefficient agricultural production at all levels of production in order to ensure food security. Although the EU’s actual food security and self-sufficiency are debatable, economic protectionism of food production also extends to the acquisition of necessary primary materials, such as seeds.

In order to ensure that Europe is immune to outside influences potentially implicating its food security, the EU must also ensure that Europe is not dependent on outside regions for seeds. Since the largest GMO providers, such as Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont, are extra-national corporations from the United States and Switzerland, the adoption of GMOs presents a perceived risk to European food security by relying on foreign multinational corporations for input materials.

The opposition of the science-based European Food Safety Administration (EFSA) to the EU’s restrictive GMO policy further reinforces the idea that social and political reasons outweigh scientific concerns in restricting GMO cultivation and imports in the EU. The EFSA has repeatedly stated its supported for GMOs previously approved in other countries, such as Bt cotton, Roundup-resistant cotton, and GM maize. Despite these recommendations, which state the low likelihood of any detrimental impact from commercial adoption of these crops, the EU’s food policy remains one of the most restrictive to GMOs in the world. Rather than restricting GMO cultivation on the basis of scientific considerations, the EU’s anti-GMO stance rather reflects their politics of food security and self-sufficiency and emanates from the european agricultural policies active since the beginnings of the EU.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Articles from Biology Fortified are allowed reprinting via a creative commons licensure.

China Is Engineering Genius Babies

 

Frought with controversy but I love it.

Source Article:  http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program

Lauren Mac1

I. http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program

II. Wondering why China has always been 10 steps ahead of the western civilizations for  centuries? Well here is a fun fact that may keep us wondering about the true integrity of China’s intellectuals. They have developed a state-endorsed genetic-engineering project, specifically designed to “naturally” select the specific from 2,000 of the worlds smartest people in attempt to identify the alleles that determine human intelligence.

At BGI Shenzhen, which actually is the largest genetic research centers in China, are apparently not far from finding those intelligence alleles, and when they do, embryo screening will allow parents to pick their brightest zygote and potentially bump up every generation’s intelligence by five to 15 IQ points. How wonderful is that to hear. Our rivals are so close to becoming more ingenious. Very soon, competing against this country will become harder than staying out of a single war. Another interesting fact: Geoffrey…

View original post 81 more words

Really Dr. Mercola? Really?

No wheat commercially sold in the US is genetically modified. Neither is rye nor barley.  Photo credit:  Lamoix’s Photostream/Flickr

Mercola is at it again.  Every time I read one of his emails and am suckered into clicking onto his website, which I haven’t opted out of yet because I’d miss the laughs, I am further shocked at the things he gets away with saying and how innocent people can be truly mislead by his convoluted “medical” advice.  And to think I used to regard his words as gospel.  I became completely mistrustful of western medicine because of this man and to this day, am still working on repairing that damage to my perception.

For example, I am due for a mammogram and according to Mercola, mammograms may do more harm than good so even though I know he’s a quack, I struggle with the knowledge that I am due for a mammogram and need to get my hiney into the clinic.  It would seem Mercola and others like him have provided me a good excuse to never go see a traditional doctor (which is partially my fault, for sure).  How many people like me are there out there who use Mercola’s advice as an excuse to avoid their doctor, avoid mammograms or other tests,  to their own detriment?

So what’s my latest beef with Mercola?  A recent article he posted about the evils of gluten when it comes to Alzeimer’s.  Mercola claims that you don’t have to have celiac disease to have sensitivity to gluten and basically, gluten is responsible for gut permeability and all manner of disease, including Alzeimer’s, blah blah blah.  That isn’t the part I take issue with in this post (although I suspect it is not true).

What trips my crapola trigger is his sudden, completely out-of-the-blue reference to ‘GE grains’ and their dangers.

Uh, Mr. Mercola, gluten does not come from genetically engineered, or GE grains.  Wheat, barley and rye, the three main gluten culprits, are not genetically engineered.  Even knowledgeable anti-GMOers (kind of an oxymoron I know, but go with me a moment on this) know this to be fact.  Below is a quote from the anti GMO crowd’s own GMO Compass.

Wheat, rye, and barley cereal production around the world is free of genetically modified plants. This means that all flour used to make bread is “GM-free”.

Ignoring this fact, Mercola manages yet again to implicate GMOs in the demise of our health.  Cleverly inserting input from a natural medicine neurologist, Dr. Perlmutter, Mercola cleverly manages to remove the onus of having implicated GMOs himself.  He writes.

This protein, found in wheat, barley and rye, makes your gut more permeable, which allows proteins to get into your bloodstream that would otherwise have been excluded. That then sensitizes your immune system and promotes inflammation and autoimmunity. This kind of gut permeability is also promoted by things like antibiotics and chlorinated water.

According to Dr. Perlmutter, much of our current disease burden stems from the fact that we are contaminating our immune systems with proteins to which the human immune system has never, in the history of humankind, been previously exposed to. While not discussed in this interview, a MAJOR factor is the development of genetically engineered (GE) grains, which are now pervasive in most processed foods sold in the US. These GE crops create proteins never before encountered in any natural grain or food, so GE grains deliver a double-whammy against your immune system. Food allergies clearly appear to be one of the most noticeable side effects of a GE-grain diet.

Really Dr. Mercola.  Really?  Just how do GMOs and gluten coexist to create allergens?   The paragraph doesn’t even make sense.  Grrrrr.  Something like this article would have scared me half out of my wits a year ago.

It is my desire with this post to expose just a fraction of the mother lode of misinformation that Mercola prolifically spreads on a daily basis.  There are, granted, a few things he has written about that I know to be true.  For example, the benefit of high intensity exercise is well-documented and touted by Mercola.  Okay, I’ll give him that.  But to sift through all the nonsense just for a small nugget of truth now and then is hardly worth my time.  I will continue to read his emails, however, for pure entertainment – my free version of the National Enquirer.

Oh yeah, they give me fodder for a good rant too.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

email:  sleuth4health@gmail.com