G.M.O.s (2nd part)

Organisms that should / must be safe, until proven not to be. This is the undisputable reality. Not the theory, thereby in theory they are (supposedly) approved after being tested. Nevertheless in so many cases the contrary happens and previously approved G.M.O.s are no longer allowed to be sold. This is not working, wherefore we don’t know what we are eating. An example is the recently approved genetically modified salmon able to reach market sizes in half time, thanks to inserted genes. But the overwhelming majority of examples can be found in the vegetables / grains area.

How come they are first sold and then recalled from markets? Exactly because they’re all new products, genetically engineered. Therefore we don’t know their direct health toxicity. Potentially allergic reactions. Toxic properties, stability of the inserted genes. Are nutritional effects superior? What about unintended effects? All questions unanswered. Supposedly answered by producers, whereas on the market real, final effects contradict them “too” many times.

Moreover once sold there is no control (AGAIN: there is only in theory). This particular phenomena is called: outcrossing. Which is the migration of genes from G.M.O.s plants into conventional crops, as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with G.M.O.s crops. Plenty of cases have been reported. Search the web. There is just NO (practical) control whatsoever. Period. These products are utterly out of human management.

The law itself is not flawless: individual G.M.O.s and their safety are to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Meaning that is not possible to make general statements on their safety. Thank God the European Union is a step ahead on this side. At least on this.

You might say these are merely my concerns. Yes, they are, but if you consider above example of G.M. salmon, 300 (three hundreds) environmental, consumer, health, animal welfare organizations, and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) were all opposed to it. Not the FDA. Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union US declares: “the FDA is relying on woefully inadequate data. There is sloppy science, small sample sizes, and questionable practices”. I think he knows better than me. Plus so, so many others. There are even stores that have pledged not to sell this genetically engineered salmon: Costco, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Target, Kroger.

Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, declares: ”the risk of allergies, hormonal disruption, novel proteins and other serious issues, known or unknown, exist in these fast growing, gene-altered salmon”. Which reminds me of one fact: girls have been entering puberty at a much earlier age in the last twenty years. But of course injected hormones in meat or dairy products have nothing to do with it. Besides, in the specific case of G.M. salmon, hormones are not injected. They are “only” genetically-engineered delivered. Why worry then? We are all perfectly safe.

So let me ask you a question: would you consider safe an animal not allowed to be grown in your Country? The breeding of the G.M. salmon is forbidden on US territory. Why?! Is the FDA sure or not about it?! Isn’t it safe?! …..Maybe, just maybe, NOT.

And you will be eating it. Without being aware.

In fact, one thing I cannot understand nor condone: there is no proper labelling. Maybe the answer is in my previous post: “G.M.O.” of October. Don’t worry, my posts were much shorter before - XD.

….Always humble,

Angiolino   

Sugary beverages

We all know sugar is harmful. Theoretically it should be our choice to use it or not. Whereas there’s plenty of hidden sugar in so many beverages, we can’t avoid it. You might think you can /should avoid those beverages, so where is the problem? The problem is that we’ve been so tricked for so long that now sadly so many people consider it normal to drink a soda (with plenty of sugar in it). Let me clarify: people are aware of the presence of plenty of sugar, they just don’t care, considering it acceptable. Which is not, by all means.

Advertising agencies are really good at their job. But it’s not their fault: soda industries are behind them, lobbying politicians as usual (see my post “Electoral promises”). Paying absurd amount of money to make people desire their products, to block unfavourable legislation, influence policy, ultimately ruining our own health. Afterwards, it’s “just” called brilliant marketing.

And I am not comfortable with it. Even though its consumption is declining in richer areas where people are more and more worried about their health, it’s increasing in poorer countries like Latin America. The industry knows it (someone is already saying it’s winning the battle, but losing the war, because sooner or later everybody will realize the hidden danger) and consequently also perfectly knows where to place the right kind of advertisement. They know that educated, wealthier people don’t drink harmful sodas. Statistically: Hispanics and Africans drink more than whites and Asians. With everything else in between (more cans, less cans, etc.) They know everything. They know where to sell it, how to sell it.

Why are we buying it? Are we all stupid? Of course not. But we’re all emotional, we’re all human beings. And they take advantage of it. Meaning: soda companies have never advertised their products but a “somewhat” emotional “something” else, with attached the soda to it. At a more or less subliminal, so pervasive level, that you don’t notice it. We think we know, we think we consciously accept the product because we see the brand, but they know better how to subtly sneak in.

The smartest move had been giving it away for free to all soldiers during World War II. This is ONE example, but those were different times: less money around and less drinking. Nowadays there are diabetes and obesity. These companies perfectly knows, have all the data, and act to limit damages denying the evidence. Like tobacco companies or chemical ones (see my post “A contaminated world”).

We’re all adults, presumably smart, we can / should take duly notice. You know what’s pissing me off instead? Targeting children. To the point they’ve been forbidden to advertise on children’s television under the age of 12. As if “that” could work…please! Look at the toys around you. And when they’ll be teenagers, they’re going to be SO doomed: no more limits whatsoever. Gosh, they’re good at their job! They deflect attention from the product itself, but propose it in many other ways. Funding organizations, even (paradoxically) health organizations, recommending it for hydration after exercise (?!), buying silence from all of them. Nothing to be surprised of, if you think about it. Falsity, deception, lobbying, double standards, double behaving, bribery, betrayal of our health: THAT is their real job, not selling sugary beverages.

We have to buy food to eat, to live. We don’t really need sodas to drink. Awareness is the key. Spread it.

….Always humble,

Angiolino