10 Scientific Reasons Why YES on Prop 37 is Non-Negotiable

by Sarah ActivismComments: 60

There’s a lot of California style mud slinging going on right now regarding the highly controversial Prop 37 and the desperate fight to require the labeling of GM Foods.  With only a week to go before what promises to be an historic and incredibly divisive election, the fate of Prop 37 will, for better or for worse, impact the health of ourselves and that of our children for generations to come – whether or not you happen to live in California.

Monsanto and other large corporations opposed to Prop 37 have pulled out all the stops to defeat the measure and have, not surprisingly, stooped to blows below the belt with downright false and fabricated statements from the FDA regarding GM Foods.

While opponents of Prop 37 argue that the measure doesn’t go far enough and will harm small farmers and businesses, these notions serve only as background noise to the larger and most important issue:  GM Foods are taking over the marketplace.

We simply do not have the luxury of waiting another 2 let alone 4 years for another ballot initiative to require the labeling of GM Foods.  Requiring labeling in California will by default benefit the rest of the United States as California’s large population precludes having a separate label for that state alone.  Getting a similar proposition passed in another state would not have the same nationwide impact.

The proliferation of frankenfoods is gaining momentum with each passing day and the accelerating speed with which GM Foods are being introduced to the marketplace must be halted NOW.

YES on Prop 37 represents our best hope to significantly stop and reverse this alarming and fast moving trend toward the adoption of GM Foods in every processed food product imaginable even those labeled as “natural”.

If you live in California and are still undecided about Prop 37, please consider the 10 science based reasons below as reason enough to vote YES on November 6, 2012.   This list is based on an email Sally Fallon Morell, President of the Weston A. Price Foundation, sent to her relatives in California who remain on the fence about Prop 37.

The truth is that there is only upside and absolutely no downside to the consumer for voting YES on Prop 37.  Any argument to the contrary is motivated solely by the profit and control of the marketplace that unlabeled GM Foods represent to corporations like Monsanto who are developing these frankenfoods in the lab and other Big Food companies like Kelloggs which utilize them as cheap ingredients in their processed foods to boost the bottom line.

10 Irrefutable Scientific Reasons Why GM Foods MUST be Labeled

1) Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported between 2005 and 2006 that female rats fed Roundup Ready-tolerant GM soy produced excessive numbers of severely stunted pups with more than half of the litter dying within three weeks, and the surviving pups completely sterile.  (Source)

2) In 2005, scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra, Australia reported that a harmless protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor 1) transferred to peas caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked sensitivities to other proteins in the diet (Ho MW. Transgenic pea that made mice ill. Science in Society 29, 28-29, 2006).

3) From 2002 to 2005, scientists at the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and Pavia in Italy published reports indicating that GM soy affected cells in the pancreas, liver and testes of young mice (Science in Society 29, 26-27, 2006).

4) In 2004, Monsanto’s secret research dossier showed that rats fed MON863 GM corn developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities (GMWatch, 23 April 2004.)

5) In 1998, Dr. Arpad Pusztai and colleagues formerly of the Rowett Institute in Scotland reported damage in every organ system of young rats fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin, including a stomach lining twice as thick as controls (Contaminants and Toxins, (J P F D’Mello ed.), Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, CAB International, 2003).

6) Also in 1998, scientists in Egypt found similar effects in the guts of mice fed Bt potato (Fares NH and El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatotes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998, 6, 219-33; also “Bt is toxic” by Joe Cummins and Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS News 7/8, February 2001, ISSN: 1474-1547 (print), ISSN: 1474-1814 (online) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php Agricultural Biotechnology 2006, www.ISAAA.org).

7) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s showing that rats fed GM tomatoes with antisense gene to delay ripening had developed small holes in their stomachs (Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Ewen SWB. Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects. In Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins, (J P F D’Mello ed.), Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, CAB International, 2003).

8) In 2002, Aventis company (later Bayer Cropscience) submitted data to UK regulators showing that chickens fed glufosinate-tolerant GM corn Chardon LL were twice as likely to die compared with controls (Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (CABI Publishing 2003 also Novotny E. Animals avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society 21, 9-11, 2004).

9) In 2012, researchers found that female rats fed Roundup Ready-tolerant GM corn developed large tumors and dysfunction of the pituitary gland; males also developed tumors and exhibited pathologies of the liver and kidney (Séralini, GE and others. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maiz. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012).

10) Testing by Monsanto itself has found that rats eating GM maize (MON863) develop smaller kidneys and show startling changes in blood chemistry.   One blood change included an increase in white blood cell count  which demonstrates that the GM food elicited an immune reaction by the body.

Stop this unprecedented  and grievous assault on the health of our children!   Vote YES on Prop 37 and if you have friends and relatives in California, please share the scientific data above with them.


Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

Picture Credit

Comments (60)

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *