Substantial Equivalence and GMO Safety Concerns

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

New Peer Reviewed Study Shatters Myth of

Substantial Equivalence and GMO Safety

Source: Food Democracy Now


According to the new research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Agricultural Sciences, the process of genetic engineering creates significant disruptions to basic cellular functions in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMO soybeans.

Background on this Study:

alarming_new_evidence_GMOs_Formaldehyde_2015An independent scientist with four degrees from MIT, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai released the results of groundbreaking new research that proves the FDA’s current legal construct of “substantial equivalence”, which allows new GMO crops to be approved without proper safety tests, is seriously outdated, unscientific and a fraud when it comes to assessing the safety of GMO foods.


The new GMO plant research findings:

  • The process of genetic engineering introduces oxidative stress or system shock in GMO soybean plants.
  • This stress creates a metabolic disturbance in the plant’s normal cellular functions, including the plant’s ability to rid itself of harmful toxins.
  • This results in an alarming rise in the accumulation of Formaldehyde, a known class 1 carcinogen
  • and a significant depletion of Glutathione, a master antioxidant responsible for cellular detoxification and necessary for maintaining a healthy immune system.

This new research is alarming and raises serious questions for everyone who eatsregarding the safety of our food supply and the current regulations that block GMO labeling and rubber stamp the approval of new GMO food crops.

Monsanto’s Lie of “Substantial Equivalence” and GMOs

For the past 20 plus years, the U.S. approval process for new GMO foods has relied on the deeply flawed and outdated regulatory concept of “substantial equivalence” that deems GMOs and non-GMOs to be essentially the same in terms of nutritional profile and other superficial characteristics. Incredibly, this legal approval process determining “substantial equivalence” by the FDA was originally developed for assessing the safety of medical devices, not complex organisms like plants or food for human consumption.

The regulatory concept of “substantial equivalence” was initially adopted in 1976 under President Gerald Ford so medical companies could fast-track the approval of simple medical devices if their component parts and functions were the same as previously approved products.

Why is “substantial equivalence”  allowed to apply to genetically modified food?

The regulatory concept of “substantial equivalence” was initially adopted in 1976 under President Gerald Ford so medical companies could fast-track the approval of simple medical devices if their component parts and functions were the same as previously approved products.

Fast forward to 1992, when former Monsanto attorney Michael Taylor was installed at the FDA, as the biotech industry was attempting to grease the wheels for approval of these new lab engineered foods. Monsanto’s Taylor succeeded in forcing the FDA to adopt the concept of “substantial equivalence” to govern the approval process of new genetically engineered foods, which had never before been consumed by humans.

This FDA 1992 regulatory framework, ushered in by a Monsanto attorney and relies upon voluntary industry testing, is outdated, unscientific and riddled with corruption. It’s time that we have real testing standards developed by scientists with modern 21st century methods and a moratorium on further crop approvals until such standards are developed and accepted by scientists not on the industry’s payroll.

What this new GMO plant research tells us about substantial equivalence

With the finding of these significant cellular disturbances found in GMO plants, Dr. Ayyadurai’s research proves that the practice of applying the 1970s concept of “substantial equivalence” developed for medical devices, which have 10 to 100 parts compared to living biological organisms, which have more than a 100,000, is a scientific fraud and hopelessly outdated.

But the one thing we know is that Monsanto will respond to true independent science with more propaganda and right now they’re trying to rig the rules against us in Congress by abolishing state’s rights to label and regulate GMOs.  And we can’t let them get away with it.

What we need now is a new call for transparency in science and democracy. Help us make that happen. Share this new science with your friends and family, we can’t let them get away with this. Not after fighting so hard to reveal the truth about Monsanto’s corruption and GMOs!

Coincidentally, on July 2nd, the White House issued a call for more transparency and updating the current regulations that govern new GMO crops. We couldn’t agree more — it’s time for transparency and a moratorium on new GMO crop approvals.

Remember, democracy is like a muscle, either you use it or you lose it! USE it!

Related Article: Stop the DARK Act

Sources:

1. “Do GMOs Accumulate Formaldehyde and Disrupt Molecular Systems Equilibria? Systems Biology May Provide Answers”, Agricultural Sciences, July, 2015.
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1512?t=13&akid=1605.94384.5p3ITd

2. “GMO Soy Accumulates Formaldehyde & Disrupts Plant Metabolism, Suggests Peer-Reviewed Study, Calling For 21st Century Safety Standards”, PR Newswire, July 14, 2015.
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1513?t=15&akid=1605.94384.5p3ITd

3. “Peer-Reviewed Study Suggests Genetically Engineered Soy (GMO) Produces Excess Formaldehyde and Disrupts Natural Plant Metabolism”, International Center for Integrative Systems, July 14, 2015
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1514?t=17&akid=1605.94384.5p3ITd

4. “20 Years of GMO Policy That Keeps Americans in the Dark About Their Food”, Huffington Post, July 30, 2012.
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1518?t=19&akid=1605.94384.5p3ITd

5. “Discovery of key molecular pathways of C1 metabolism and formaldehyde detoxification in maize through a systematic bioinformatics literature review,” Agricultural Sciences, Deonikar P et al,  May, 2015.
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1515?t=21&akid=1605.94384.5p3ITd

6. “In Silico Modeling of C1 Metabolism,” American Journal of Plant Sciences, Kothandaram et al, June, 2015.
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1516?t=23&akid=1605.94384.5p3ITd

7. “Integrative Modeling of Oxidative Stress and C1 Metabolism Reveals Upregulation of Formaldehyde and Downregulation of Glutathione”, American Journal of Plant Sciences, Mohan M et al., June, 2015.
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1517?t=25&akid=1605.94384.5p3ITd

Comments

Sinem says:

…creating larger poploatiuns to feed, guaranteeing even greater starvation in the coming years (and thus even greater dependence on Monsanto products, they hope).Monsanto is not in the business of feeding people; it is in the business of Making Money (i.e., extracting an exponentially larger share of world resources each year and arrogating it to themselves). The company does so whether through making toxic pesticides or defoliation agents, or through monopolizing the gene pool of food crops. They don’t really care how they git er done , as long as the money keeps rolling in and they are in the catbird seat, with bought politicians and bought Supreme Ct. justices.When the diminishing returns of their Round-Up resistent and pest-resistent strains become fully apparent, I wouldn’t put it past them to get into the Soylent Green business.

Write a comment

*