Skip to content

In polls taken in the U.S. and Canada, over 80% of participants want food containing GMO ingredients labeled. Consumers have a right to know what they are eating, but it’s increasingly evident that we’re not getting any help in that regard from our regulators. So it’s up to us to know what to look for so we can make informed purchasing decisions. Avoiding GE ingredients isn’t easy and once you make the transition from purchasing food without transgenic ingredients, you’ll be surprised how much of it is on grocery shelves and in your kitchen. Estimates indicate that more than 75 percent of the food in supermarkets is genetically engineered or contains transgenic ingredients and that doesn’t include meat products.

The most reliable way to avoid transgenic ingredients in your food is to be on the lookout for the four most common transgenic ingredients:

Field corn and corn-derived ingredients:
The U.S. is the world’s largest corn producer. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, last year, American farmers planted more corn than any other crop, covering 95 million acres. (USDA 2013a). Almost 90 percent of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered (USDA 2013b). Most of the transgenic crop is cultivated for animal feed, but nearly 12 percent is processed into corn flour, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, masa, corn meal and corn oil. All of those transgenic products end up in foods consumed by humans (EPA 2013). Assume that when these ingredients are listed on the food labels of processed food, they are genetically engineered. Be on the lookout for GMO sweet corn or table grown in both Canada and the US. It’s making its way into grocery stores and farmers markets and it doesn’t have to be labelled.

Soybeans and soybean-derived ingredients:
Soybeans are the second most planted American crop, covering more than 76 million acres last year (USDA 2013a). Almost 93 percent of soybeans grown in that country has been genetically engineered (USDA 2013b). Soybean-based products and soybean-derived ingredients are common on supermarket shelves. Assume processed food products that contain soy proteins, soybean oil, soy milk, soy flour, soy sauce, tofu or soy lecithin are transgenic unless they are certified organic or GE-free.

Sugar:
Roughly 55 percent of the sugar produced in the U.S. comes from sugar beets, 95 percent of which have been genetically engineered (USDA 2013c). If a product label does not specify that it has been made with “pure cane” sugar, chances are very likely that the sugar is genetically engineered beet sugar.

Vegetable Oils:
Assume that vegetable oil, canola oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil and corn oil are genetically engineered. Nearly 90 percent of American oilseed production is soybeans, of which almost 100 percent is genetically engineered (USDA 2013b). The remaining 10 percent of oilseed crops are cottonseed, sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, and peanut. Canola and cottonseed oil are primarily from transgenic crops. More than 90 percent of corn oil is derived from genetically engineered corn.

Ractopamine is banned from food production in at least 160 countries around the world, including countries across Europe, Russia, mainland China and Republic of China (Taiwan), due to its suspected health effects. Yet, the majority of North Americans are unaware that the drug is used in meat production.

Since 1998, more than 1,700 people have reportedly been "poisoned" from eating pigs fed the drug. If imported meat is found to contain traces of the drug, it is turned away, while fines and imprisonment result for its use in banned countries. Fear that the ractopamine ban might be lifted brought thousands of demonstrators onto the streets in Taiwan last year, demanding that the ban remain in place.

Ractopamine is a beta agonist drug that increases protein synthesis, thereby making the animal more muscular. This reduces the fat content of the meat and increases the profit per animal. The drug, which is also used in asthma medication, was initially recruited for use in livestock when researchers discovered that it made mice more muscular. Other adverse reactions to beta-agonist drugs include increased heart rate, insomnia, headaches, and tremors.

Beta-agonist drugs, as a class, have been used in US cattle production since 2003. The drug is administered in the days leading up to slaughter, and as much as 20 percent of it can remain in the meat you buy. While other drugs require a clearance period of around two weeks to help ensure the compounds are flushed from the meat prior to slaughter (and therefore reduce residues leftover for human consumption), there is no clearance period for ractopamine.

'We now eat food grown by unnatural processes which make use of a host of chemical substances: hormones, antibiotics, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides - of which residues are to be found in nearly all the food commercially available today.' Edward Goldsmith, The Ecologist, Vol 30 No 7, October 2000

Although toxicologists are able to investigate single substances quite efficiently, they have no basic methods for analyzing complex mixtures of toxic substances and the 'cocktail' effect of the mixture of several hundred synthetic chemicals that each one of us carries in our body.

According to the EWG's Body Burden website, there are 80,000 chemicals in commerce. The site states, "No one is ever exposed to a single chemical, but to a chemical soup, the ingredients of which may interact to cause unpredictable health effects."

There are only a few studies that evaluate the combined effects of food additives. One 2006 study published in Toxicology Science concludes that the combination of several common additives appears to have a neurotoxic effect. "Although the use of single food additives at their regulated concentrations is believed to be relatively safe in terms of neuronal development, their combined effects remain unclear." Of the four additives examined, only one is banned in the US, while the rest remain in the foods on our grocery store shelves. A 2000 study, looked at the combination of four major food additives or a mixture of six typical artificial food colours and found indications of toxicity in both.

Perhaps the most alarming study comes from a 1976 Journal of Food Science. Young rats were fed a low-fiber diet along with sodium cyclamate, FD&C Red No. 2, and polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monostearate individually and in combination. While the study found that any one of the three food additives given individually had little negative effect, the combination of all three additives resulted in weight loss and the death of all test animals within 14 days. Sodium cyclamate is an artificial sweetener banned in the U.S., but FD&C Red No. 2, a food dye, and polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monostearate, an emulsifier, are still in regular use in the food supply, according to the FDA's website.

And it's not just food. A number of additional toxins also enter our systems from other industrial sources often in the form of phthalate plasticizers and parabens -- both of which are used in personal care products, some medications, and even foods and food preservation. The vast majority of us use some form of shampoo, soap, lotion, and antiperspirant every day, and these toxins are absorbed through the skin.

Chemicals used in all of these industrial products are big business and food corporations are once again some of the biggest offenders. Many own shares in some of the largest personal care companies in the world. For example, Nestlé owns 30 percent of the world's largest cosmetic and beauty company L'Oreal. They use cheap, industrial ingredients to maintain their enormous profit margins.

Our governments are not being proactive. Using the precautionary approach when purchasing food and personal care products is the only solution currently available. Read the label - your body will thank you.

The danger of transgenic food whether boxed or slaughtered is not that the consumer suffers an acute onset of disease. The danger is in the concentrations of bio-ag chemicals in the body over time, just like the deadly effects of cigarette smoking.

Within the last three decades, coinciding with the increased ingestion of transgenic ingredients, the rates of obesity, Diabetes II and autism have steadily increased worldwide. Our kids are developing dietary diseases that are characteristic of a much older generation and for the first time in human history, the likelihood exists that parents will outlive their children.

In May, 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on all ‘physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GE foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.’

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.

Spoiler alert -- this isn't going to be appetizing. Consumer Reports released a study testing 257 samples of ground turkey from supermarkets and found that virtually every one was contaminated with either – get ready for it --- fecal bacteria, staph or salmonella. What’s worse the fecal bacteria were resistant to one or more antibiotics important to human medicine. This just after the US government admitted a significant majority of supermarket meat is contaminated with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

If you missed the announcement its little wonder. It was buried in the FDA’s 2011 Retail Meat Report which reveals results from their periodic testing of common supermarket meat products for contamination and bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Thanks to the good works at Environmental Working Group, they crunched the numbers and came up with the results and they were disturbing enough to consider vegetarian options. Three of the superbugs listed can cause tens of thousands of illnesses and hundreds of deaths. While these reports are US centric, Canada doesn’t lag far behind. Last September we had the biggest beef recall in Canadian history.

Perhaps most disturbing fact is that the superbugs seem to be on the increase and the evidence points to the overuse of antibiotics in livestock operations.

In an attempt to give consumers some clarity around this issue, The Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) developed a useful guide for each category of meat purchased at the retail level. The study called Risky Meat ranks risky meats and poultry. Highest Rise is chicken and ground beef. High Rise goes to beef cuts, steak and turkey. Click for full report.

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.

The City of Berkeley, the Environmental Working Group and the Pesticide Action Network along with eight other activist groups, sued the California Department of Food and Agriculture over the agency’s approval of a statewide “pest management” plan that allows pesticide spraying on schools, organic farms and residential yards, including aerial spraying over homes in rural areas. Regulators approved the program despite receiving over 30,000 public comment letters calling for a less toxic approach that would protect the vitality and resilience of the state’s food system and the economic interests of organic farmers.

The plan, approved Dec. 24 as part of the Statewide Plant Pest Prevention and Management Environmental Impact Report, allows dangerous chemicals to be used anywhere in the state, any time into an indefinite future, without an option for affected communities to stop the spray. The state can also approve new pesticide treatments and treatment sites behind closed doors without public scrutiny or notice.

The program allows the state to use a range of 79 pesticides, many of which are carcinogenic or linked to birth defects, reproductive harm and are toxic to honey bees, butterflies, fish and birds. The list of pesticides include: chlorpyrifos, which is banned in Europe and has recently been linked to Autism. It presents hazards to workers and drinking water; the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, which is toxic to honeybees; the deadly, ozone-depleting fumigant methyl bromide, which is being phased out because of an international treaty; and chloropicrin, which causes genetic damage. The pesticide plan was passed despite the California Department of Pesticide Regulation announcement that strict new standards for chloropicrin were necessary because of the threat it poses to public health.

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda Superior Court, outlines numerous ways the spray plan violates state environmental laws, including failure to notify the public of future pesticide spraying and failure to analyze the impacts of the pesticides on human and environmental health, including harm to infants and contamination of drinking water.

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 http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Defa...

“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 http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Defa...

American Public Health Association (APHA):
“APHA declare its support that any food product containing genetically modified organisms be so labeled.” http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=250

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.” http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf

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.” http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf

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.” http://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/GMreportEN.pdf

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”
http://www.neha.org/position_papers/positionGMOs.htm

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.” http://www.cieh.org/uploadedFiles/Core/Policy/CIEH_consultation_response...

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.” http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en...

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)” http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/365248/interim-report-o...
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.”
http://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/6412156-genetically-modified-maize-doctors-chamber-warns-of-unpredictable-results-to-humans Website:http://www.aekwien.at

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” http://www.ipha.com/Public/ContentArticle.aspx?type=Policy_Resolution &http://justlabelit.org/partners/

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” http://www.nursingworld.org/MemberCenterCategories/ANAGovernance/HODArchives/2008HOD/ActionsAdopted/HealthyFoodinHealthCare.aspx & http://justlabelit.org/partners/

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”
http://www.ama-assn.org/assets/meeting/2011a/tab-ref-comm-e-addendum.pdf

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.” http://www.acponline.org/acp_news/misc/apr11/page%2053.pdf

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. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliam...

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”
http://cape.ca/capes-position-statement-on-gmos/

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”
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

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.”
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consen...

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.” http://www.carighttoknow.org/faith_leaders_for_the_win & http://www.dignityhealth.org/stellent/groups/public/@xinternet_con_sys/d...

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.” http://psrast.org/

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.
” http://www.psgr.org.nz/press-releases/32-general/85-press-release-doctors-and-scientists-call-for-a-rethink-of-regulation-on-genetically-engineered-food-87

“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.”
http://www.psgr.org.nz/archives/12-royal-commission-on-genetic-modificat...

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.” http://www.healthyfoodinhealthcare.org/issues.engineeredfoods.php
481 Hospitals signed the Healthy Food in Health Care Pledge http://www.healthyfoodinhealthcare.org/signers.php

Council For Responsible Genetics:
“Governments should require mandatory labeling of foods produced by or containing genetically engineered organisms (GMOs)"
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=118

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM):
“Tell Congress It’s Time to Label GMOs”
http://pcrm.org/health/action-alerts/health-and-nutrition-action-alerts

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.”
http://ideaireland.org/?s=gmo

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.”
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

The Independent Science Panel (ISP):
“GM foods have never passed any required tests that could have established they are safe.”
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isp/gmgroup.php

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.” http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genet...

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.”
http://arizonaadvancedmedicine.com/gmo-foods-are-they-safe-look-at-the-e...

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,”
http://rt.com/news/gmo-ban-russian-scientists-293/ Website:http://www.oagb.ru/about.php?txt_id=724

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. ” http://www.ins.gob.pe/repositorioaps/0/4/jer/revision_6/Nota%20Tecnica%2...

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” http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/wcc3_res_007_1_.pdf

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.” http://www.theday.com/article/20140112/OP05/301129995/1044

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.”
http://www.maine-health.com/action-alert-genetically-engineered-foods/

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.”
http://bch.cbd.int/cms/ui/collaboration/download/download.aspx?id=454

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 http://www.nsna.org/Portals/0/Skins/NSNA/pdf/Resolution2002.pdf

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.”
http://icimedicine.org/sites/default/files/docs/gm_health_risks.pdf

Association of Catholic Medical Practitioners of Nigeria: “a moratorium should be placed on distribution of all GMOs through all sources” http://thegambiaechos.com/index.php/permalink/4042.html

Consumers Union:
“Consumers Union Calls on U.S. to Support Genetically Modified Food Labeling Agreement” http://consumersunion.org/news/cu-calls-on-us-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.”
http://www.integrativenutrition.com/labelgmos

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.”
http://www.posthastepharmacy.net/shop/custom.aspx?recid=22

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.”
https://www.chf.org.au/pdfs/sub/sub-229-national-regulatory-system-for-g...

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.”
http://www.acatoday.org/level2_css.cfm?T1ID=10&T2ID=117

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.” http://aphg.jhsph.edu/?event=browse.subject&subjectID=12

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.”
http://www.macalester.edu/~montgomery/GMOs2.htm

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.
” http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart-eating-for-you/nutrition-a-z/gene...

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.”
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/ENVdata/Tmy/2012HB-05117-R000222-CONNECTICUT%20PUBLIC%20HEALTH%20ASSOCIATION—Kelly%20Rago,%20Intern%20-TMY.PDF

Groups that support mandatory GMO labeling:

Akasha Center for Integrative Medicine :
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments:
http://justlabelit.org/partners/

American Holistic Medical Association:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/healthcaresupport

American Medical Students Association:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/healthcaresupport

Bernhoft Center for Advanced Medicine:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Bowdoin Street Health Center:
http://www.iatp.org/files/GE_Food_Alert_Call_to_Action_Signers.pdf

Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions:
www.chac.ca/newsroom/archive/nov18_1999.pdf

Canadian Health Coalition:
www.chac.ca/newsroom/archive/nov18_1999.pdf

Center for Environmental Health:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Center for Ethics and Toxics:
http://environmentalcommons.org/cetos/articles/pacificdecl.html

Children’s Environmental Health Network:
http://www.iatp.org/files/GE_Food_Alert_Call_to_Action_Signers.pdf

Ghana Public Health Association(GPHA):
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/health/artikel.php?ID=308887

Harbor Medical Group:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Healthcare Professionals for a Safe & Healthy Sustainable Food Supply:
http://yeson522.com/endorsements/#organizations

HealthNOW Medical Center:
http://www.healthnowmedical.com/blog/2013/01/08/do-gmo-foods-cause-tumors/

Institute of Progressive Medicine:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Institute for Restorative Health:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

International and American Association of Clinical Nutritionists:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

International College of Integrative Medicine:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Jade Mountain Health Center:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Latino Care Medical Group:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

. Michigan State Medical Society:
https://www.msms.org/Portals/0/Documents/MSMS/About_MSMS/House_of_Delega...

M.D. Integrative Wellness:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

National Association of Nutrition Professionals:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Ontario Health Coalition:
www.chac.ca/newsroom/archive/nov18_1999.pdf

Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/129676698/OR-Measure-27-GMO-labeling-ltr-of-endorsement http://justlabelit.org/partners/

Pacific Center For Integral Health:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Palmetto Allergy and Asthma:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

PCOS Nutrition Center:
http://www.pcosnutrition.com/links/blogs/gmos-in-our-food-what-you-need-...
80. Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals: http://www.gmofreepa.org/our-partners/#.U3-JXfldXMI

Physicians for Social Responsibility:
http://justlabelit.org/partners/

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona:
http://justlabelit.org/partners/

. Physicians for Social Responsibility- Los Angeles:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Physicians for Social Responsibility- Sacramento:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Porter Ranch Medical Center:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

The Preventive Medicine Center :
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Preventive Medicine Research Institute:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Registered Nurses Association of Ontario:
www.chac.ca/newsroom/archive/nov18_1999.pdf

Redwood Wellness:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Santa Cruz Integrative Medicine:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

. Santa Cruz Occupational Medical Center:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility:
http://justlabelit.org/partners/

San Francisco Preventive Medical Group:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

Sedona Center for Complementary Medicine:
http://www.iatp.org/files/GE_Food_Alert_Call_to_Action_Signers.pdf

Texas Association of Naturopathic Doctors:
http://www.texpirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/GMOsignonletter_Randalls.pdf

Vermont Public Health Association:
http://www.vtrighttoknowgmos.org/200-businesses-sign-support-labeling/

Washington Association of Naturopathic Physicians:
http://yeson522.com/endorsements/#organizations

Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility:
http://yeson522.com/endorsements/#organizations

Washington State Nurses Association:
http://yeson522.com/endorsements/#organizations

Western Washington Physicians for a National Health Program:
http://yeson522.com/endorsements/#organizations