GMO Use Will Advance Regardless Of Folks Like Mercola

Another example of the many misleading memes dreamed up by GMO haters

Doc Mercola is at it again – spreading fear and misinformation.  Claiming a scientific position when in fact, his extremist posts about GMOs are quite the opposite.  I subscribe to his emails – for entertainment mostly.  Though I delete the vast majority of the emails, every now and then I open one up, as I did today, and found this link to an article.  I am posting the blood syringes poking the tomato as well, the picture accompanying the article – a common anti-GMO meme that is so laughably NOT what GMOs are.  The hook in my inbox was quite misleading as well.  It said: Beware: These 10 Food Companies Are Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Admittedly, there are things Mercola posts that are true – the well-documented benefits of high intensity exercise (known as high intensity interval training, or HIIT) for example.  Consider this article published on the Science Daily website way back in 2010.  Granted, Mercola has published extensively about HIIT.  But to find truth on his website you really have to work at it.  I doubt most people are willing to put in that kind of time and research.

Generally, Mercola is extremely anti-medical establishment, and I go so far as to say believe anything he says at your own risk – and likely peril.  I actually considered stopping my mammograms back in the day when I believed in Mercola’s snake oil. He also claims that over half our diets should be made up of saturated fats.

Really?  I almost bought that one too – no supportive citations sought.  I believed anything in those days.   The new Julee K googles subjects and includes ‘science’ as a search term.  It’s amazing what different links show up with just one little added word – like this short Harvard School of Public Health article – clearly advising a moderate consumption of saturated fats based on scientific evidence.

Now I take the time to find peer-reviewed evidence to back up all the anecdotal claims made on the anything-goes new Wild West called the internet.

OK – back to GMOs. 

Crop breeding technology, which is the broader category that a ‘food GMO’ falls into, is exciting!  It is promising, full of possibilities and has the potential to solve many worldwide food-growing problems like pests and drought.  There are many choices, many ways to get it done.  We are entering a new age of the ability to manipulate DNA and as an open-minded non-scientist, I find myself intrigued by it – not scared.

Consider all the advancements in genetics when it comes to medicine.  Do the GMO haters realize that drugs as commonplace and inexpensive as insulin would be impossible without genetic engineering?  We are certainly reluctant to criticize or even be fearful of biological advancements when they cure cancer, right?  Read about British baby Layla Richards.  Given these life-saving, gene-altering miracles, why does gene-altering crop technology scare us so much?

The  bottom line for me is this:  good technology of any kind is not to be feared and even if it is feared, it shall not be stopped.  Knowledge can’t be unlearned.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Advertisements

Refreshing Voice Speaks In Favor of GMOs

Pro-science food writer Julie Kelly, from Twitter

Though I haven’t posted in awhile, I am still passionate about spreading the real truth about GMOs and letting my story be known.

My blog tells the story – post by post – about how a person can go from believing that GMOs are dangerous and should be banned to realizing that there is much value and potential in transgenic technology and genetic engineering in general and that it can and will change the world – not just in the realm of food, but medicine and more.

I recently discovered a cooking teacher and food writer who has written an impressive amount on the topic of GMOs – in a short time.   Julie Kelly is a bright, refreshing, relatively new voice for science – profoundly aware, never having planned to speak favorably about GMOs and yet couldn’t keep silent about the topic.   Best of all, I believe she understands to perfection the potential of genetic engineering.

She summarizes the 2015 happenings in the GMO public debate in her article:  Recapping the 2015 GMO debate: Science eclipses ‘Dark’ voices of anti-biotech hysteria.

Having just entered the world of GMOs a year ago, she has been prolific in reporting about it.  I am most impressed.

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Below is a list of some of her other articles on the topic:  I have not read all of these and they may not represent how I feel about a certain topic within the realm of the broader GMO topic, but I’m sure I agree with most of what she says.   I do admit that I am a frequent customer of Chipotle – for the sole reason that I love the taste of their food and I feel that it is a healthier fast food alternative than, say, a Big Mac.

More from this Author

Julie Kelly

• Anti-GMO movement ‘on shaky ground’
• Activists response to diseased African bananas: Don’t embrace GMO solution
• Podcast: Does anti-GMO wing of organic industry use scare tactics?
• Chipotle, Whole Foods struggle after GMO food demonization campaigns
• Fading organic movement ratchets up fear-based marketing campaign
• Unlikely alliance: How GMOs and Ecomodernism brought two ideologically opposite moms together
• Ecomodernism embraces GMOs, unites moms of different political stripes
• FOIA: Organic industry, Chuck Benbrook orchestrated anti-GMO “independent” research, marketing
• Organic industry spends big on unconventional lobbying
• Does the organic led anti-GMO campaign have race-related undertones?
• “Big Food” (Goliath) lobbies and “Good Food” (David) doesn’t? Don’t believe the propaganda
• Why Whole Foods and Chipotle’s anti-GMO campaigning has lost my business
• Hollywood celebrities embrace pseudoscience, promote anti-GMO movie “Consumed”
• Pro-GMO marchers shocked at unfocused anger of March Against Monsanto protesters
• Gary Hirshberg’s Stonyfield faces hypocrisy backlash over misleading labels
• Go Ahead, Take a Bite. New GMO apples are perfectly safe.

No Organisms Left In The Products – Let Alone GM Ones

Today I am reviewing a brief video that packs a punch – titled GMOs and Health Safety, presented May 9 of this year at the UCLA Women’s Health Conference. The speaker is Alan McHughen. an Oxford-educated molecular geneticist with a focus on crop improvement and sustainability.

There are four things I especially appreciate about this video.

1.   It is relatively short and accessible to any non-sciency lay person (which would be humanities-major me.)

2.  Dr. McHughen emphasizes that all the hullabaloo over GMOs in foods is really a moot point because by the time the much maligned ‘just-label-it’ foods hit store shelves, there isn’t anything close to an organism in them let alone a genetically modified one. So yes, all this hysteria that has large sections of the public in a snit is really much ado about nothing.  He says (emphasis mine):

Genetically engineered corn, soybean, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets – they’re the ones that you’re likely to encounter (in the marketplace).  But the food products that you get from those are things like corn oil, soybean oil, vegetable oil, cottonseed oil, canola oil or sugar from sugar beets – those aren’t genetically modified organisms.  In fact we don’t have GMOs in any of our foods because there are no organisms in any of our food – except maybe pro-biotic yogurts and things but the organisms stay behind.  In fact, even the genetically engineered plants stay behind when you process a corn plant for oil.  You’re removing the DNA and the proteins.  What you get at the end is corn oil which is identicle whether its squeezed out of a genetically engineered corn kernel or a non genetically engineered corn kernel.  When they say 80% of our food contains GMOs, number one:  NONE of our food contains GMOs or even organisms, except probiotics which are not genetically engineered as far as I know.  There are no remnants of the GE process in what is called genetically engineered corn oil.  It is identicle to traditional corn oil.

Folks, this is one of the big reasons the farm and food industry object to labeling, and who can blame them?  The term “GMOs” is misleading as it infers some kind of ingredient, where there is none.  Genetic engineering is a technology, just as is the extremely common mutation breeding, which is way worse in my opinion, but no one seems to care.  I’ll eat a genetically modified product any day.

3.  McHughen reminds us how many farmers worldwide willingly choose to grow the most common varieties of soy, corn and cotton crops using the Roundup Ready and Bt seeds.  Farmers are NOT unwitting victims of Monsanto, as is commonly believed across the web.  They are wise business people who want to make a good living like anyone else – while offering an excellent product to consumers.  They make decisions based on productivity.  And no one, absolutely no one is as concerned about their land as they are.  They’re not going to just blindly poison it.

4.  Somehow, and in a very short time, McHughen touches on many of the lesser known but wide spread benefits derived by GE technology while simultaneously dispelling myth after myth.  He mentions the genetic engineering process used to create insulin, chymosin (used in the making of cheese) and the cystic fibrosis drug dornase alfa.

In closing I’ll admit that McHughen doesn’t paint an entirely rosy picture when it comes to genetic engineering.  He does briefly introduce areas where actual danger could be lurking but more importantly, he underscores the absolutely crucial fact that the fear of our current food supply being somehow tainted or toxic because of GMOs is ERRONEOUS.

No disrespect is intended toward people who are fearful of GMOs, I just ask you to consult respected sources for your information.  Start with GMO Answers, a website where McHughen is a contributor.

A Supportive Letter In My Inbox

Because I speak favorably about GMOs and how promising I believe transgenic technology is, I get a lot of push back from vehement anti-GMO types – here at the blog and on my sleuth4health facebook and twitter pages.

I frequently make the point that the technology is not only acceptable or tolerable to me, it excites me – not just for crops and food but in the field of medicine and across all of the life sciences.  There are yet countless undiscovered ways to improve living organisms by changing DNA, with the precision of a surgeon.  I know this frightens some but I’m thinking – how cool is that?

I am also often criticized because I once joined the ranks of the anti-GMO front, believing I was doing the right thing.  I learned fairly quickly that I wasn’t.  I was flat out wrong.  Some say I caved or was won-over by greedy, corporate evildoers and what-have-you.

No, that’s not it.  I just got better information.

But every now and again I get a supportive, zinger of a letter in my inbox and it reminds me that this volunteer blog that I do, this time-eater that nets me no cash and often a lot of flack, is really a good thing.

I’d like to post such a letter that I recently received and it meant a lot to me because obviously by its length, some time and thought was put into it.  It’s from Stephen E. Cerier and he gave his consent for me to both post his letter and use his name.

He doesn’t mince words, and with the tone of a preacher calls out those who would ignore science.  He manages to encapsulate a big chunk of the whole anti-science movement, and many of its subheadings, into this one letter.  (I think the only groups he didn’t mention are the climate and evolution deniers and the chem-trail people – but then that is a bit far afield from GMOs.)

Thank you Mr. Cerier!

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

June 21, 2015

 Dear Julee K:

I recently listened to the first podcast of Talking Biotech with Kevin Folta in which you were the guest.  The podcast led me to your blog “Sleuth4Health.” I am very glad that you had the intellectual flexibility to admit you were wrong about GMOs and to recognize their potential to revolutionize the way we grow food. 

 

I first learned about GMO technology in the late nineties and at the time I thought it was just another example of man’s ingenuity and ability to apply science and technology to increase food production and reduce the use of pesticides.  I must admit though that I have been completely shocked and disturbed by the animosity that this technology has provoked.  To a certain extent the bio-tech and seed companies and the scientists involved in developing GMOs and bringing them to market are to blame because they did not adequately explain the science behind genetically engineering.  They should have been aware that anything involving modifying genes with regard to food would raise concerns and suspicions among the public.  As a result, science has had to play catch up with the fear-mongers.

 

In your podcast, you indicated that the anti-GMO advocates rely upon scare tactics to spread their message. This is a classic strategy whenever the facts are not are on your side.  It is much easier in this regard to frighten people then to reassure them and to claim the risks are much higher than they actually are.  Who after all wants to take a risk with their health and put their loved ones in possible danger?  But the reality is that the anti-GMO forces are misperceiving risk on a grand scale. We are about twenty years into the age of GMOs and there has not been one reported case of death or an allergic reaction caused by genetically modified food.  Yet there are many people who want to ban it.  The reality is that many of the opponents of GMOs engage in activities everyday that are much more dangerous than eating genetically modified food like performing yoga exercises, playing tennis and taking herbs, such as kava and comfrey that potentially have negative health effects.  In 2013, 32,719 people died in motor vehicle accidents, yet no one would seriously argue that cars should be banned.  The CDC has estimated that more than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking, yet the opponents of GMOs seem to believe it is more dangerous than cigarettes.

 

The adversaries of GMOs deliberately choose for ideological reasons to ignore the strong scientific consensus behind GMOs.  The most prestigious scientific institutions and academies in the world have endorsed the safety of GMOs.  Among them are the Continental International Society of African Scientists, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian Academy of Sciences, the French National Academy of Sciences, the German Academy of Sciences, the Italian National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society of London, the British Medical Association, the European Academies Science Advisory Council, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Society of Cell Biology, the Australian Academy of Sciences, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization.  In other words the collective wisdom of the scientific community has endorsed GMOs.  That alone would be enough for me to believe in their safety.

For the opponents of GMOs the endorsement of the world’s most prestige scientific organizations however is proof of a grand conspiracy that involves governments, the scientific community, the medical profession and agri-business.  It is a conspiracy that is so vast as to defy belief and of course it is all controlled by the master puppeteer Monsanto whose revenue is actually slightly smaller than Whole Foods. Of course this does not make sense but then again it does not have to make sense because facts do not matter to the opponents of GMOs.  Instead all that matters is maintaining their ideological purity and that ideological purity pertains not just to GMOs but to an agenda that is fervently anti-science.  It is not surprising in this regard that many of the people and the organizations that strongly oppose GMOs also are against vaccinations, are proponents of so-called alternative medicine, promote all sorts of fad diets, including demonizing gluten, which have no basis in science, believe that organic food is healthier than conventionally grown food, for which there is also no scientific evidence and endorse bizarre detoxification regimes such as chelation.   The Organic Consumer Organization for instance, which is notoriously anti-GMO, has posted articles on their website that are anti-vaccine, promote homeopathy and indicate there is a natural cure for Ebola.

 

One of the reasons that I am optimistic about GM technology is that there has never been an advance in science that has been stymied and bottled up.  At times such advances have been slowed and delayed but they have never been stopped in their tracks.  Imagine if the same objections that are being raised about GMOs had been raised about the polio or measles vaccine. Mankind would have been worse off if such luddites had won.  When GM technology proves of great value in saving the orange crop in Florida and the cassava and banana crops in Africa from the ravages of disease, as was the case with the papaya crop in Hawaii, and providing Vitamin A rice and bananas in the Philippines and Uganda, the opponents of GMO technology will look awfully foolish and irresponsible.

 

Sincerely,

Steven E. Cerier

‘GMO-Free’ Should Be a Specialty Food Label & Premier Episode of “Talking Biotech” Features Yours Truly

Yes, I changed my mind about GMOs

It is no secret that in spring of 2013, after focusing this blog solely on bashing biotech and calling for strict labeling laws, I stopped in my tracks, pivoted, and performed a complete one-eighty.  I was one of the folks, and there are a few of us out here, who changed my mind.

Why did I change my mind?  It was simple:  the vast, and I mean vast majority of data do not support an anti-GMO position, and in fact do support quite the opposite.

As for labeling – well my opinion has evolved to the the point where it makes more sense that if you wish to avoid GMOs, then buy ‘organic’ or foods marked ‘GMO Free’.  You are within your rights to do so.  (I would also like to remind people that GMOs are not ingredients like wheat flour or corn starch.  GMOs are a technology.  But that’s another post…)

I now feel strongly that the concern some people have with GMOs is more of a ‘specialty problem’ – and should be handled as such.  Like halal or kosher food, sugar-free, low-glycemic, allergen-free cosmetics and so on.  When it is a specialized need, it is up to the consumer to seek out the type of product he or she requires, not make unreasonable demands-born-of-misinformation on the industry.

Pro-Science Position

Nowadays, I take what is commonly referred to as a ‘pro-science’ position on GMOs and frankly, everything under the sun!  Being pro-science means that one operates from the framework of evidence, not belief.  So, practically speaking this means that if I hear or read something like, say, vaccines cause autism, I carefully go about finding neutral, non-sensationalized information – articles, studies, etc. – that will provide evidence.  The truth is usually not as exciting, not as entertaining as sensationalized headlines, and most importantly, relies solely on facts that have been well-vetted via proper, repeated scientific study.

Science constantly seeks the truth, the evidence, what is happening, what happened, and so on.  Constantly.  It does this via the scientific method which, to be done correctly, requires a universally accepted proper methodology.  And science is wrong – a lot – in which case it promptly admits it’s wrong and sets about becoming right again.  And so it goes.  There is no embarrassment or backpedaling.  You go with the best evidence you have at the time.  Many applications of science require a constant weighing of benefit versus risk, whether real or perceived.  GMOs are in this category so there is no shortage of studies!  (See Genera)

This experience has so changed me that I’ve become a ‘show me the evidence’ type – no longer prone to emotional hooks like fear, heart-string tugging, sensationalism, propaganda and the like.  I can’t tell you how freeing this transformation has been!  I have let go of many long held beliefs that limited my thinking.  (I still, however, have a very difficult time walking under a ladder, but I’m working on it).

I should also add that I am hated by anti-GMO types now.  They ask me how I can sleep at night, tell me I’ve been won over by corporate henchmen, accuse me of being on Monsanto’s payroll (I wish).  But truly, none of this bothers me much.  I know I am on the side of evidence and I am not ruled by fear and hype.

I am not trying to offend anyone but I must be true to myself.  Surely being true to oneself can be universally respected?

Q & A With Dr. Folta

I’d like to present a recent interview I did with Dr. Kevin Folta, chairman of the University of Florida’s Horticultural Sciences Department.  He is launching a podcast series titled Talking Biotech and I was his first guest.  He wanted to explore the topic of how and why someone changes their mind.  (I could not imbed the podcast so please click on the link 🙂

Talking Biotech Podcast

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Anti-GMO Activism In Europe Just As Frustrating To Scientists There As Here In US

American anti-GMO activists often use the notion that ‘Europeans have banned GMO production so it must be bad’ as a rallying cry as to why we should follow suit in the US.  The truth is that scientists are just as supportive of GM technology there as they are here but are even more bound by activism.

The fear of crop genetic modification is simply not originating from those who know the most about it in Europe or anywhere else.

Here is but one very recent example of what I”m talking about, a BBC Panorama episode, air date 6/8/15, that features scientists and other biotech luminaries in brief interviews and also introduces a few recent applications of the technology that are not so well known but extremely promising – the bt brinjal (eggplant, aubergine) in Bangladesh and a new and improved engineered potato.

The episode also touches on a lot of ideas, not the least of which is the fact that large populations all over the world don’t have the luxury of going to bed with a belly full of organic specialty items from a swanky neighborhood market.  Is it fair or even ethical for well-fed activists to pass on their non-scientific ideologies to these populations who just want to eat anything – at all – when the evidence tells us time and again that when it comes to these new genetic crop technologies, no real risk exists?

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Maybe GMOs Could Have Saved Greg

Greg Shepherd 1955 – 2011

Another (extremely) benevolent GMO

Greg was my big brother, and he left this world four years ago.  He died from a malignant brain tumor that looked like an octopus just inside his left ear, a tumor that declared war on his body.  Specifically, his tumor was a glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) which is a very late stage, nasty glioma, also known as astrocytoma grade IV.  He died scarcely 18 months after diagnosis.  He was 56 and otherwise healthy, in the prime of his life really.  During those precious final 18 months, he endured two craniotomies, multiple radiation blasts and a round or two of chemotherapy.

Last week I watched a segment on 60 Minutes that blew me away – so much so that I felt happy, excited and sad all at the same time.  It would appear that a few people were recently completely cured of their glioblastomas.

What?

How?

Oh my, it was their own immune system, but with a lot of help from recombinant DNA technology, or transgenesis (wiki), or genetic engineering – call it what you will.  It was those little buggers called GMOs.

Is natural always a good thing?

Everyone has heard of chemotherapy and radiation as common cancer treatments.  But there is a big, bad new kid on the block: immunotherapy.    A heretofore lesser utilized branch of cancer treatment, immunotherapy is now gaining momentum, fast, and biotechnology is stepping onto the stage as a major player in the therapy.  And not only is it cutting edge transgenesis at work here, but a much maligned virus – polio – turns out to be an ideal medium for the process.

Simply put, polio attaches to cancer cells thereby making them targets of the immune system.  The virus is safe to use because, via transgenic technology, the original polio is re-engineered using the common cold virus to replace the unwanted traits of polio. This ensures that the patient receiving the treatment does not contract actual polio.

This is so cutting edge it makes my head perform pirouettes.  It sounds so simple, doesn’t it?  It is so simple it has only taken over a hundred years of research to get here.  In other words, this is no overnight sensation.  This is the result of painstaking, tireless research of generations of experts.  This is the result of endless hypotheses and stabs in the dark.

With all the public hysteria flying around the use of genetic modification in crop production – the calls for labeling, cries that the technology is ‘against God’s way’, causing the proliferation of ‘frankenfoods’, ruining the planet, causing all manner of disease, not natural, and so on, with all of that I have to ask, would anyone deny a loved one the cure for cancer because it is not natural?  My guess is certainly not.

There is nothing natural about mixing one virus with another inside a lab then infecting cancer cells with it so that the immune system is triggered and thereby does what it does best – kill the bad stuff.  That process is simply not going to happen naturally, on its own.  The bio-engineer, the scientist, the expert must intervene to initiate this miracle of man.  As nature would have it,  our immune system does not attack malignant tumors in our body.

A few years ago, I was of the belief that everything needed to be natural to be good and right and in line with the proper way of things.  A scientist had the audacity to tell me that if left unchecked, nature’s intent was to kill me, that it is science that saves me time and again.  I was so offended at the time I wanted to punch the wall, but now, I understand what was meant by that statement.

I will wind down this post by adding that there are many other immunotherapy methods and drugs out there being utilized and researched that don’t involve GMOs, and by no means is polio the only agent being looked at in those that do.

As I see it, any and all of of this is exciting!  Immunotherapy is the emerging new darling in cancer research and is ushering in a new era of treatment.  But before we all fill our champagne glasses, we need to remember to remain cautious.  A recent article in Forbes puts the breaks on the fervor over this ‘miracle’ because of course there is a downside, but even so, I have no doubt that immunotherapy is the future of cancer treatment.

Countless, precious individuals like my brother will benefit as we get past the early stages and trials and these treatments become routine.  There are even those trying to speed things up, as it were.  See Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure.

If only Greg could have waited a decade or so.  If only…

(This article has been updated since its original posting.)

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

For further reading:  Duke Researchers Engineer Polio Virus For Cancer Treatment

Related video:  Treating Cancer With Polio Is Working

Forbes Article:  Here’s what ’60 Minutes’ didn’t tell you about the ‘miracle’ glioblastoma treatment.

Greg’s Gift (video taken by hospice workers during his last two weeks of life – inspiring)