Skip to content

In the first study to measure the delayed effects of exposure to Roundup on sperm in mammals, the molecular biology department at the University of Caen, France, found that rats exposed to the glyphosate based pesticide Roundup altered testicular function after only 8 days of exposure at a concentration of only 0.5%. This concentration is similar to levels found in water after agricultural spraying.

Dr Séralini's team found that Roundup changed gene expression in sperm cells, which could alter the balance of the sex hormones androgen and estrogen. A negative impact on sperm quality was confirmed, raising questions about impaired sperm efficiency. The authors suggested that repeated exposures to Roundup at doses lower than those used in agriculture could damage mammalian reproduction over the long term.

The study’s findings should raise alarm in farm workers, as well as people who spray Roundup for municipal authorities and even home gardeners. People exposed to lower doses repeated over the long term, including consumers who eat food produced with Roundup and people who happen to be exposed to others’ spraying activities, should also be concerned.

An important and controversial piece of independent research that provides new insights into the risks of genetically modified organisms in food was republished in 2014. The events around the retraction pointed to how far agri-corporations will go to protect their very lucrative market.

In 2013, a research paper was summarily retracted without just cause by The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). The retraction basically removed the study's findings from the realm of accepted science. Independent scientists all over the world objected. Many believe the study was removed from the journal due to pressure by Monsanto, the owner of the plant and Roundup. Monsanto’s position was that the results of the Séralini study were inconclusive as was its own (90-day) research.

The two-year study, conducted by a team lead by French biotech critic Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, found that groups of lab rats fed a lifetime diet of either Monsanto's NK603 corn (NK603 is treated with Roundup herbicide) or exposed to varying levels of Roundup herbicide in drinking water died earlier and had higher rates of tumors and organ damage than controls. NK603 is a genetically modified organism, or GMO, that is bioengineered to tolerate Roundup.

The publication claimed Séralini did not experiment on enough rats to support his explosive cancer claims, and the Sprague Dawley lab rats used in the study are prone to developing tumors if allowed to live long enough. Independent scientists, however, say the Sprague Dawley breed is an industry standard for toxicity research, and while the Séralini study is not perfect, there is no legitimate reason to remove it from scientific debate.

After the research was yanked from FCT, the study underwent two additional peer reviews, both of which reinforced the validity and results. Consequently, the study has again been published, this time in Environmental Sciences Europe. The republished version contains extra material addressing criticisms of the original publication. The raw data underlying the study’s findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret.

Sometimes the truth does prevail.

Today, there is ample evidence to suggest that our commercial grade meat, poultry and fish should be labelled just as much as the chemical cuisine we get in a box, tin or jar. The how behind industrialized meat processing is not only off-putting, its methodology is downright dangerous to human wellbeing.

Aside from adding all that pink slime to hamburgers, eighty percent of all antibiotics purchased are used on factory farm animals like poultry, pigs, cattle and fish because it promotes fast growth and offsets some of the vile conditions these animals are forced to live in.

While that makes for big profits for both the food and pharmaceutical industries, the consequences for those who consume industrially processed meat is serious - particularly our children. Outbreaks of illnesses from antibiotic-resistant bacteria have grown in number and severity because antibiotics are losing their effectiveness including a critical class of antibiotics like Cefzil and Keflex, which are commonly used to treat pneumonia, strep throat and skin and urinary tract infections. Then there's the emergence of new pathogens like E. coli O157:H7, the bacteria responsible for killing four children back in 1993's during the Jack in the Box outbreak in the United States. Canada’s largest-ever beef recall, at a whopping 4,000 tonnes, spread across the country and the U.S. states, after the XL Foods plant in Brooks, Alberta produced beef tainted with E. coli bacteria. It came just four years after an outbreak of listeria bacteria killed 23 Canadians who ate tainted meat produced by Maple Leaf Foods.

The U.S. court system has taken steps to ban the use of antibiotics and the Canadian Medical Association and the Department of Pathobiology at University of Guelph has called on the federal government to stop the use of antibiotics in the agriculture sector except by prescription from a veterinarian, citing concerns that antibiotic misuse is “rampant” and fears the practice could give rise to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The meat industry claims banning the use of such drugs, would greatly reduce the efficiency, drive up the cost of meat, and some in the industry believe that the scientific evidence linking low-dose use of antibiotics to increased drug-resistant illness in people is too inconclusive to justify banning their use. Really?

In February 2012 an analysis by the Environmental Working Group determined that government tests of raw supermarket meat detected antibiotic-resistant bacteria in: 81% of ground turkey; 69% of pork chops; 55% of ground beef; and, 39% of chicken parts. A joint project of the federal Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Agriculture, found that supermarket meat samples collected in 2011 harboured significant amounts of the superbug versions of salmonella and Campylobacter, which together cause 3.6 million cases of food poisoning a year. Hardly inconclusive.

Unfortunately the ingredient list doesn’t stop there. Ractopamine is a growth enhancer. The growth additive, called a beta-agonist, has enjoyed stealth use in the US and Canadian food supply for a decade despite being widely banned overseas. Ractopamine has been linked to cardiovascular effects, behavioral changes, and nervousness in humans and pigs.

Ractopamine is a beta agonist drug that increases protein synthesis, making the animal more muscular. This reduces the fat content of the meat and increases the profit per animal.
Beta-agonist drugs, as a class, have been used in US cattle production since 2003. Ractopamine is administered in the days leading up to slaughter, and as much as 20 percent of it can remain in the meat you buy.
Animal research has linked ractopamine to reductions in reproductive function; birth defects; increase of mastitis in dairy herds; and increased disability and death. FDA records show ‘death’ is the most-often reported side effect.
The Center for Food Safety, together with the Animal Legal Defense Fund recently sued the FDA, maintaining it is illegally withholding records pertaining to ractopamine’s safety.
Then add the BT toxins.Transgenic BT crops were commercialized in 1996. Originally they were engineered to reduce the use of pesticides, but in the end, that reduction didn’t really happened. In fact, chemical usage actually increased. In the lab, the seed’s original DNA are altered to make the BT toxin systemic within the crop, so its deadly charms shows up in every cell, from root to fruit, whether the resulting biofood is soy, corn, cotton, potato, papaya, tomato, sugar beet or squash. This genetic manipulation is so toxic, crops like BT corn and BT soy are registered as pesticides, not food. In this systemic state, the toxin cannot diminish when exposed to sunlight nor can it be washed off. So feed animals and consequently humans swallow it lock, stock and barrel.

What’s at issue with BT toxins is horizontal gene transfer. Corporations like Monsanto claim the BT toxin protein in food could never pose a threat because horizontal gene transfer from plant to human was thought impossible. That assumption was based old science. Gene transfer can shape the evolution trajectory of life on the planet. Vertical gene transfer is typified by the genes that are passed from parent to child. But horizontal or lateral gene transfer doesn’t require sex to reproduce and that type of transfer can mess up our evolutionary picture pretty quickly. Horizontal gene transfer is one of the most serious hazards of transgenic technology. It can affect all types of bacteria, including those that live inside the human digestive system. The bacteria that play a vital role in keeping us healthy, could become contaminated by the transgenic BT toxins. BT toxins have now showed up in non-pregnant women and moms-to-be as well as in the babies they were carrying despite not living anywhere near farmers’ fields. The Canadian scientists who carried out the study believe the toxins were transferred from the meat they were eating.

Damning reports have surfaced worldwide linking systemic BT crops with respiratory issues, intestinal and skin problems, cancer, and the quickened growth of tumors. The medical community is witnessing a rapid rise in the deterioration of human digestive health not only in adults, but in kids. Food allergies and inflammatory bowel disease has skyrocketed by as much as 40% and intestinal permeability, more commonly referred to as leaky gut syndrome, is also on the rise. This serious digestive disorder compromises the stomach lining (epithelium) making it so porous that damaging bacteria and endotoxins can leak through -- much like the targeted insects that ingest BT toxins. As the incursion becomes chronic, our immune systems weaken ultimately triggering chronic inflammation leaving the door wide open for any one of the autoimmune diseases that are currently on the rise: irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, celiac disease, and Alzheimer’s. And now Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is being considered for that list.

Today, there is no hard evidence that links meat protein fed BT grains and digestive health. Long term feeding studies are too expensive and distressingly there is too much vested interest to explore the matter impartially. However, the average person eats 200 pounds of beef, pork, poultry and fish per capita per year. Two out of every three farm animals in the world are factory farmed meaning the vast majority of the 50 billion animals that are processed to meet this demand have one thing in common. Just before slaughter, they are ‘fattened up’ using a transgenic cuisine made from BT grains peppered with a healthy dose of glyphosate, antibiotics and an array of other questionable chemicals including a meat additive that’s been banned almost everywhere except USA and Canada.

Do these dangerous chemicals interfere with our digestive system? Do they affect the development of our babies-to-be? It’s anyone’s guess. But there is an interesting parallelism in Nature that just may be the canary in the coal mine. When researchers studied the effects of Colony Collapse Disorder, they discovered that the honeybees left in the hive were mineral deficient. Somehow two fundamental digestive components they have in common with humans have vanished: Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. Something the honeybees have eaten have left the majority of the adult and unborn honeybee population susceptible to a chronic disease that has now wiped out over half of the population of honeybees.

Genetically engineered food is chemically treated and heavily processed. Seven out of 10 foods on grocery shelves contain questionable transgenic ingredients, yet they require no label identification. Industrially processed cows, pigs and chickens are usually fed genetically modified crops but animal products like milk, eggs and meat do not require warning labels. Genetically engineered salmon is becoming a reality yet it will require no identifying label. Supporters of agrichemical biotechnology claim that the World Health Organization (WHO) position is that GMO foods are safe. But that's not accurate. The IAASTD Global Report, co-sponsored by the WHO and six other world organizations, says GMOs have NOT been proven safe. Over 100 science or health based world-wide organizations support mandatory labeling.

Industrial agriculture contributes to many pressing problems: toxic drift and runoff of pesticide residues and animal wastes; green house gases emitted by farms and food transport; and, the link to the decline of public health. We need a food system that values people over profit and we need people like you to help it happen. Change the future of food. Join the concerned citizens worldwide that are demanding that their countries take action. Sign up to let our legislators know that you want foods that contain transgenic ingredients labelled.

More than 60 nations, including France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Chile and South Africa require GE labeling on their processed shelf food. Unfortunately, meat proteins and dairy are still exempt from the practice. In Canada and the United States, no such luck. New transgenic crops like alfalfa, lawn grass, ethanol-ready corn, 2,4 D-resistant crops as well as genetically engineered trees and animals are being fast-tracked for approval by the US government, with absolutely no independent pre-market safety-testing required, no public discussion and no labelling requirements.

Pregnant moms exposed to a common insecticide used in farming could give birth to children who go on to develop brain damage years later, according to a new study published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The chemical in question is chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide that was banned for residential use in 2001, but still remains a go-to chemical in nonorganic farming. It kills bugs by disrupting brain function and could be doing the same in America's children.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

A recent California-based study has uncovered a strong link between pesticides and autism. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, MIND Institute examined associations between specific classes of pesticides, including organophosphates, pyrethroids and carbamates, applied during participants pregnancies. The data revealed pregnant women who live in close proximity to fields and farms where chemical pesticides are applied experience a 66 percent increased risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder or developmental delay.

“We mapped where our study participants lived during pregnancy and around the time of birth. In California, pesticide applicators must report what they’re applying, where they’re applying it, dates when the applications were made and how much was applied,” Hertz-Picciotto said. “What we saw were several classes of pesticides more commonly applied near residences of mothers whose children developed autism or had delayed cognitive or other skills.”

The study indicates that women who are pregnant should take special care to avoid contact with agricultural chemicals whenever possible. Different classes of pesticides had different effects. Organophosphates, particularly chlorpyrifos applications during the second trimester, were associated with an elevated risk of autism. Pyrethroids were moderately associated with autism, and carbamates were associated with developmental delay.

Approximately 200 million pounds of pesticides are applied in California each year. Chlorpyrifos, the pesticide most strongly linked to autism is applied to crops across the United States.

Researcher Irva Hertz-Picciotto cautions that we should find ways to reduce pesticide exposure, especially for pregnant women and young children. “We need to open up a dialogue about how this can be done, at both a societal and individual level,” she says.

Researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed sodium and sugar levels in 1,074 infant and toddler dinners, snacks, fruits, vegetables, dry cereals, juices and desserts. Not only was the processed food heavily salted and contained too much sugar, it didn’t matter whether the toddler’s meal was organic or otherwise.

About 72 per cent of toddler dinners were high in sodium, with more than 210 milligrams per single serving, The pasta meals were often the highest in sodium, because it’s added to both the grain and sauce. Sodium is directly related to blood pressure, which in adulthood becomes a risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Another 32 per cent of toddler dinners and most toddler cereal bars, infant or toddler snacks, desserts and juices had one or more added sugars, defined as more than 35 per cent of calories per portion coming from sugar. Having too much sugar in the blood for long periods of time can cause serious health problems.

"Reducing excessive sodium and added sugar from birth to 24 months can help set taste preferences and lead to better health for children now and as they grow," the study’s authors wrote.

What we feed our children is one of the most important decisions we make as parents. Taste preferences begin early and can last a lifetime. A better option is preparing the food yourself. It’s easy, you always know what’s in the food and it’s always fresh. The bonus is the money you save.

Great finger foods for the little ones:
cooked asparagus tips
cut up green beans (My kids are picky, but for some reason they really like the Libby’s That come in a little container and are seasoned with sea salt. They eat them like crackers and don’t even ask for them to be heated up.)
steamed broccoli (cut up)
steamed cauliflower (cut up)
steamed carrots (cut up)
Cucumbers (cubed)
Avocado (cut up)
Potato (baked & cubed)
Crispy Chews
Sweet Potato (Roasted and Cubed)
Squash (cut up and roasted or baked)
Zucchini (steamed and cut up)
Grape Tomato (cut in halves or fourths)
Earth’s Best Happy Snax
Cut up strawberries
Raspberries (cut as needed)
Sliced Bananas
Cut up Crepes with fruit, peanut butter and applesauce
Kiwi (cut up)
Mango (cubed or sliced)
Cut up Fruit Popsicles
Applesauce (for dipping things in)
Almond Butter (for spreading on cut up toast or veggies)
Organic Fruit Snacks (we also really like these ones)
Raisins (if they are soft)
Chicken and Noodles (If you’re having Chicken Noodle soup for dinner, cut it up for baby)
Cut up Cuties
Freeze Dried Fruit and Veggies
Sliced Apples & Peanut Butter
Cut up String cheese
Cottage Cheese
Yogurt Bites (freeze bite size yogurt dots)
Little Yums
Olives (diced)
Rinsed Black Beans
Rinsed Kidney Beans
Rinsed Pinto Beans (as well as other beans. Cut up as necessary).
graham crackers
Whole Grain Pancakes (cut up. We like to add unsweetened applesauce for dipping).
Muffins broken up
Corn Bread
Cooked pieces of fish
Hummus (on crackers or veggies)
Sandwich bites
Oyster Crackers
Cut up Pasta
Quesadilla (cut up. Did Cafe Rio instantly pop into anyone’s head??)
Teething Wafers
Whole grain crackers
Mac & Cheese
Goldfish (We like Annie’s Organic bunnies even more!)
Cubed Turkey
Cubed Chicken
Chicken Strips or Nuggets (cut up)
Cubed Ham
Scrambled eggs
German Pancakes
Boiled Egg (cut up)
Organic Puffs
Fish sticks
Cut up Fruit Leather
Baby Foods in a Pouch
Grapes (cut up)

Related Links:

Wholesome Baby Food- Make Your Own Baby Food

Here's an ingredient you won't find on the food label. GMO Free USA, recently announced that Frito Lay's SunChips tested positive for glyphosate, a popular weed-killing chemical and the active ingredient in Roundup. Testing also revealed the chips contained genetically engineered or transgenic ingredients.

The public advocacy group found that a quantitative test verified by DNA analysis discovered that 100 percent of the corn in the SunChips came from GMO sources, containing DNA sequences known to be present in insecticide-producing Bt and Roundup Ready corn.

Roundup, the chemical sprayed on GMO crops, has been linked to certain cancers, including lymphoma, and to DNA damage, premature births, birth defects, and ADHD, according to previous research.

Previously, Warren Porter, PhD, professor of environmental toxicity and zoology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, analyzed data on GMOs and public health and found major cause for concern. GMOs could alter endocrine-mediated pathways, leading to obesity, heart problems, circulation issues, and diabetes.

Pepsico, the owner of Frito-Lay, has not made a comment. The health consequences of GMOs are still unknown because no long term feeding studies have been carried out, but foods containing transgenic ingredients must be labelled throughout Europe .

According to supporters of agrichemical biotechnology, the World Health Organization (WHO) position is that GMO foods are safe. That's not true. The IAASTD Global Report, co-sponsored by the WHO and six other world organizations, states GMOs have NOT been proven safe.

On January 24, 2015 a statement signed by 300 scientists was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Sciences Europe asserting that there is no scientific consensus about the safety of GE foods

Over 100 global and local health and science organizations agree with IAASTD report and/or support mandatory GMO labeling. Go Organic Principle's Knowledge Exchange for related research.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) co-sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), The World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Educational and Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all regions of the world:

“The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure. Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety... “There is little consensus among the findings from the assessments of economic and environmental impacts of GMOs.” – Global Report

“In regions or countries that choose to produce GMOs, regulation should be based on the precautionary principle and the right of consumers to have an informed choice, for example through labeling” – Translation from Spanish: “En regiones o países, que elijan producir GMO, la regulación debería basarse en el principio de precaución y el derecho de los consumidores a tener una elección informada, por ejemplo a traves del etiquetado.” – LAC SDM (Latin America and Caribbean

American Public Health Association (APHA):
“APHA declare its support that any food product containing genetically modified organisms be so labeled.”

British Medical Association:
“Many unanswered questions remain, particularly with regard to the potential long-term impact of GM foods on human health and on the environment. There is a lack of evidence-based research with regard to medium and long-term effects on health and the environment…Labelling of GM-containing foods should be continued [in Britain] in order to facilitate further health research and allow the public to choose whether they consume GM food or not. Robust population health surveillance in relation to consumption of all foods, including GM foods, is essential and we endorse the suggestions in the FSA (Food Standards Agency) feasibility study regarding the importance of linking nutritional and health surveillance data. When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.”

Australia Public Health Association:
“GM foods should not be assessed as safe to eat unless they have undergone long-term animal safety assessments utilizing endpoints relevant to human health and conducted by independent researchers...The labelling system should be improved to the standards desired by consumers, so that consumers can easily identify foods containing ingredients originating from GM animals and plants, and from animals fed GM feed...There are no surveillance systems set-up to determine the effects of GM foods on health, and no-one is paid to look in existing surveillance systems for problems.,,,and “The precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM food as it is not certain whether there are serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing or consuming GM foods or their products.”

Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Environment Canada:
“The Panel recommends that approval of new transgenic organisms for environmental release, and for use as food or feed, should be based on rigorous scientific assessment of their potential for causing harm to the environment or to human health. Such testing should replace the current regulatory reliance on ‘substantial equivalence’ as a decision threshold. The Panel recommends the precautionary regulatory assumption that, in general, new technologies should not be presumed safe unless there is a reliable scientific basis for considering them safe. The Panel rejects the use of “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments on the basis of superficial similarities because such a regulatory procedure is not a precautionary assignment of the burden of proof.”

National Environmental Health Association (NEHA): “NEHA declare its support for the “understandable” labeling of any food product that contains GMOs, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any labeling program not exempt soy oil and soy derivatives such as lecithin”

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH):
“there are no robust techniques available to monitor the impact of genetic engineering in the food industry or on health or on the environment. Genetic engineering should not be used in the production of human food or animal feeding stuffs or released into the environment until such techniques are in place.”

California Medical Association (CMA):
“the CMA support accurate labeling requirements for foods, including genetically modified foods, by appropriate regulatory agencies.”
California Medical Association SUPPORTS THE LABELING OF GMOs

European Commission:
“labelling should include objective information to the effect that a food or feed consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs. Clear labelling, irrespective of the detectability of DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification in the final product, meets the demands expressed in numerous surveys by a large majority of consumers, facilitates informed choice and precludes potential misleading of consumers as regards methods of manufacture or production.”

Honourable Supreme Court of India Technical Expert Committee (TEC):
“TEC recommends a ten year moratorium on field trials of Bt transgenics in all food crops(those used directly for human consumption)”
Over 250 scientists support this committee.

“Accept majority TEC final report”: More than 250 scientists write to PM

Viennese Doctors’ Chamber (Ärztekammer für Wien):
“The release of transgenic species in nature must still be strictly opposed as the results can neither be estimated nor reversed.” Website:

Illinois Public Health Association:
“lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food” &

American Nurses Association:
“the American Nurses Association supports the public’s right to know through support of appropriate food labeling, including country-of-origin and genetic modification and of nutritional information for food served in institutions, restaurants and fast food chains” &

Indiana State Medical Association:
“Lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food”

American College of Physicians:
“the Board of Regents supports legislation and/or federal regulatory action which requires all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be clearly labeled.” “the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP-ASIM) strongly encourage the study of the long-term impact of genetic engineering on the food supply and human health.”

Australian Medical Association (AMA):
“Genetically modified foods have been developed and introduced without regard for full and independent safety evaluation, or full and adequate public consultation or rigorous assessment of health impacts.” – Australian Medical Association, Public Health Association, Australian Consumers’ Association, ‘Grave fears that gene food labels will be denied to consumers’, Media Release, 29 July 1999.

Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE): “CAPE has grave concerns about the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) crops and products; we call for the immediate suspension of all such releases”

American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM):
“because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle”

European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER):
“No epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods are not labelled in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.”

Dignity Health:
“Our desire is to have things labeled so that we can make the best decision on what foods to bring into our hospitals,” “The more information we have, the better decision we can make about what to buy.” &

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology:
“Commercial application of genetical engineering for production of foods cannot be scientifically justified and carries with it unpredictable and potentially serious consequences.”

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR):
“The application of genetic engineering biotechnology, in particular the release overseas into the environment of genetically engineered organisms, has proven at best uncertain and at worst seriously damaging. We maintain that it is imperative to keep genetic engineering biotechnology in strict containment in the laboratory.

“The precautionary principle should dictate that we declare an immediate moratorium on (i) the release of any genetically engineered organisms into the environment, and (ii) the incorporation of GEOs [genetically engineered organisms] – their parts, processes and products – into the food chain.”

Health Care Without Harm – Healthy Food in Health Care program:
“Health Care Without Harm joined as a partner to the Just Label It campaign, which has petitioned the FDA to legally require that genetically engineered (GE) foods be labeled. Americans have a basic right to know what they are eating and the right to make informed choices about what they eat.” “Healthy Food in Health Care program encourages health care providers to purchase foods free from genetically engineered (GE) ingredients as much as possible, to source from suppliers that demonstrate a strong commitment to non-GE foods, and to support local farmers that favor sustainable practices.”
481 Hospitals signed the Healthy Food in Health Care Pledge

Council For Responsible Genetics:
“Governments should require mandatory labeling of foods produced by or containing genetically engineered organisms (GMOs)"

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM):
“Tell Congress It’s Time to Label GMOs”

Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association:
“The health risks of introducing genetically modified animal feed and agricultural crops into the food chain need to be as thoroughly researched as the introduction of drugs produced by GM bacteria into medicine. This is patently not the case.”

California Nurses Association:
“Nurses see people suffering from serious diet-related diseases every day. The potential danger of genetically modified foods is why CNA supports Prop 37.”

CARightToKnow: Coupons, Cash Back & Online Deals

American College for Advancement in Medicine:
“Americans have a right to know if their foods contain GMO ingredients.”

The Independent Science Panel (ISP):
“GM foods have never passed any required tests that could have established they are safe.”

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS):
“Support food labeling laws that require foods containing GE crops to be clearly identified as such, so that consumers can make informed decisions about buying GE products.”

Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine:
“At the very least, we can be wary. We can insist on more long-term studies of the effects of our genetic modification of crops. We can insist that our foods be labeled, so that we can make the choice whether to consume genetically modified foods.”

Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS):
“It is necessary to ban GMO, to impose moratorium [on it] for 10 years. While GMO will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed,” Website:

Peru National Institute of Health/Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS): English translation: “The analysis of identified publications concluded that the scientific evidence is not sufficient to determine the consumption of GMO generates no adverse effects on human health. It is necessary to develop studies evaluating the safety of human and animal GMO according to international scientific standards. Similar findings have been made by other scholars (30, 31) scientific groups. ”

World Conservation Union (IUCN): “
CALLS for a moratorium on further environmental releases of GMOs until these can be demonstrated to be safe for biodiversity, and for human and animal health, beyond reasonable doubt”

Connecticut Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (CAND):
“Labeled GMOs would be an added component to an already terrific collection of information on a product’s Nutrition Facts Label. This information is critical for consumers looking to make wise and specific food purchases, many of which directly affect health.”

Maine Integrative Healthcare:
“While the scientific debate about the benefits and risks of genetically engineered crops is vigorous and unlikely to reach a consensus anytime soon, you have a right to know what you are eating now.”

Plurinational State of Bolivia (Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia):
“Based on the current knowledge, including the published literature and narratives, the Plurinational State of Bolivia recognizes that changes in biodiversity and ecosystems caused by LMOs [living modified organisms/genetically modified organisms] are linked to pressing socioeconomic (SE) concerns.”

National Student Nurses’ Association (NSNA): the NSNA encourage its constituent members to write to their state and national legislators in support of mandatory labeling of genetically modified, genetically engineered, or bioengineered food

National Institute of Integrative Medicine:
“Overall, the research debunks the notion that it is necessary or beneficial to integrate GM crops into our everyday nutrition. The health risks, both proven and potential, greatly outweigh the argument for improved nutrition through genetic modification.”

Association of Catholic Medical Practitioners of Nigeria: “a moratorium should be placed on distribution of all GMOs through all sources”

Consumers Union:
“Consumers Union Calls on U.S. to Support Genetically Modified Food Labeling Agreement”

Institute for Integrative Nutrition:
“Integrative Nutrition is joining the conversation about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because we believe everyone has the right to make educated decisions about what we eat.”

Irish Medical Organization:
“this AGM calls for full and proper labeling of foods, which either contain genetically engineered ingredients or have been produced using genetically engineered technology, irrespective of whether these foods are substantially equivalent to existing foods or not” –
General Motion #29 passed by the 1997 Irish Medical Association Annual General Meeting

Wellness Center at Post Haste:
“In animal studies, GMO’s have been linked to infertility, gastrointestinal and immune problems, faulty insulin regulation and major changes in internal organs.”

Consumers Health Forum of Australia (CHF):
“Concerns about safety are not simply a knee-jerk reaction to the technology or an automatic fear-based response. There is already evidence that some GMOs released have acted in a different manner than expected.” and “The fact that GMOs are living things with the capacity to breed and presumably possibly “interbreed” with existing non-GMO organisms means that, once released into the environment either deliberately following authorisation or accidentally, it may be very difficult to “fix” a mistake. Scientific understanding of the effect of introducing DNA into another organism on its other characteristics is incomplete.”

American Chiropractic Association:
“In consideration that genetically modified plant technology is at an early stage of development and since the scientific community acknowledges that the use of genetically modified plants is not without risk both to the environment and human health. The ACA supports the right of consumers not to be involuntarily subjected to possible risks by supporting the right of consumers to choose not to consume genetically modified foods through clear and informative labeling.”

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for a Livable Future:
“The risks, however, of introducing genetically engineered plants into the environment have not been fully characterized with regard to ecosystem and human health. Unpredicted risks, such as the potential for increased food allergies, have not been fully considered.”

Macalester College GMO Exploratory Committee:
“All GMO products should be labeled as such. The committee feels that the public has the right to be informed about the nature of the foods they consume. This is also essential for citizens with food allergies. Therefore, we recommend labeling with stickers for produce or directly labeling the packaging of other foods. Further information about each GMO product will be available online or in information packets in grocery stores and restaurants. Distributors of the food must provide this information to the marketing location.”

Dietitians Association of Australia:
“DAA supports compulsory labelling of genetically modified foods and ingredients.” and, “As genetically modified food is a relatively recent addition to the food supply, it is difficult to assess the long- term effect it may have on the environment and the health of those who eat it.

Connecticut Public Health Association:
“requiring the labeling of GM foods will assure transparency by the GM food industry and also create a system which allows for the traceability of GMOs, making it possible to monitor GM foods for human health effects. Genetically modified foods pose real potential health risks to humans, and when such hazards to human health are at stake, unbiased, rigorous research is necessary to protect the public’s health and inform decision making.”—Kelly%20Rago,%20Intern%20-TMY.PDF

Groups that support mandatory GMO labeling:

Akasha Center for Integrative Medicine :

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments:

American Holistic Medical Association:

American Medical Students Association:

Bernhoft Center for Advanced Medicine:

Bowdoin Street Health Center:

Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions:

Canadian Health Coalition:

Center for Environmental Health:

Center for Ethics and Toxics:

Children’s Environmental Health Network:

Ghana Public Health Association(GPHA):

Harbor Medical Group:

Healthcare Professionals for a Safe & Healthy Sustainable Food Supply:

HealthNOW Medical Center:

Institute of Progressive Medicine:

Institute for Restorative Health:

International and American Association of Clinical Nutritionists:

International College of Integrative Medicine:

Jade Mountain Health Center:

Latino Care Medical Group:

. Michigan State Medical Society:

M.D. Integrative Wellness:

National Association of Nutrition Professionals:

Ontario Health Coalition:

Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Pacific Center For Integral Health:

Palmetto Allergy and Asthma:

PCOS Nutrition Center:
80. Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals:

Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona:

. Physicians for Social Responsibility- Los Angeles:

Physicians for Social Responsibility- Sacramento:

Porter Ranch Medical Center:

The Preventive Medicine Center :

Preventive Medicine Research Institute:

Registered Nurses Association of Ontario:

Redwood Wellness:

Santa Cruz Integrative Medicine:

. Santa Cruz Occupational Medical Center:

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility:

San Francisco Preventive Medical Group:

Sedona Center for Complementary Medicine:

Texas Association of Naturopathic Doctors:

Vermont Public Health Association:

Washington Association of Naturopathic Physicians:

Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Washington State Nurses Association:

Western Washington Physicians for a National Health Program:

Remember the old saying 'An apple a day keeps the doctor away'? Well, you may have to rethink that. In 2015, the United States Department of Agriculture approved two new genetically engineered apple varieties and they will likely be coming to a supermarket near you soon. How can you recognize them? You can't. Just like GMO sweet corn, these apples require no label.

The technology was developed in Australia and licensed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits in Canada. The apple is a genetically modified 'non-browning' variety that does not brown when sliced for 15 days or more. It's intent is to support the sliced fruit market like those packages you find in grocery stores and airports. These apples have not yet been approved in Canada but based on other GMO products grown here, it could well be approved in 2015, despite over 69% of Canadians not wanting it approved. Associations representing fruit growers in Canada are also opposed. Consumer rejection and possible contamination from GM apples could threaten the future of Canadian apples just like the threat of GMO alfalfa.

But here's the rub. The US based synthetic biology company Intrexon purchased Okanagan Specialty Fruits in February 2015. Intrexon website says it is “committed to building ‘A Better World Through Better DNA’” and in that light also bought AquaBounty in 2012, thereby owning the rights to the GMO salmon developed by that company. By the way, it also owns two European patents (EP 1456346 and EP 1572862) on chimpanzees genetically engineered with DNA from insects, for pharmaceutical research purposes. So why apples?

The 'Arctic' apple isn't the only apple on the GMO agenda. They want to use the GM trait in Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, Gala and Fuji apples. What does the deep-pocketed Intrexon get out of it? Plenty. Apples are the second most consumed fruit following oranges. As of 2012, Canada purchased apples valued at nearly $193.1 million making us the second largest importers of apples and apple products from the United States. These lab-developed fruits are created in a way that could never genetically occur in nature. Should they be used in fruit juice, apple sauce or commercial baked goods, consumers would be totally unaware. Without mandatory labeling there is no way for consumers to distinguish between GMO and non-GMO apples in the produce aisle, or on the shelf, or in the freezer.

Although the U.S. and Canada approved the use of GMO crops nearly 20 years ago, over 300 scientists and over 100 health organizations world wide have officially stated that consumers should avoid eating foods laced with GMO ingredients. Eating raw whole foods like apples and sweet corn only aggravate matters. Doctors have already witnessed a sharp increase in food related allergies, digestive disease, Autism and even certain cancers that many believe are linked to GMOs.

Canadian consumers deserve the same rights as consumers in the 64 other countries around world that already require GMO labeling. Get Involved. Canadians have a federal election coming up. Contact your local politicians to find out their stand on GMO labelling.