"In December of 2011, Hillary Clinton delivered a policy statement at a UN Biological Weapons Convention, stating that biological warfare not only remains a significant threat in the world today, but that the danger from terrorists obtaining and abusing the technology is a growing threat that shouldn’t be ignored.
Clinton made it clear that the U.S. was aware of activities on the part of terrorist organizations to actively obtain and utilize biological warfare technologies against Western countries and citizens.
She reported intelligence that showed Al Qaeda leadership wanted, 'brothers with degrees in microbiology or chemistry…to develop a weapon of mass destruction.'
The irony of the statement was especially poignant when Clinton stated, '…the emerging gene synthesis industry is making genetic material more widely available. This obviously has benefits for research but could also potentially be used to assemble the components of a deadly organism.'
The irony comes from the fact that U.S. producers of genetically modified foods are already creating an environmental scenario where the interactions between GM plants and nature itself may produce such deadly organisms – without the need for terrorist instigators. --------------
While Clinton reported that the ease with which genetic modification is becoming possible, creating the potential for terrorists to obtain the technology more easily, an even greater danger comes from the use of the technology from major corporations.
A paper titled, 'Analysis of the Threat of Genetically Modified Organism for Biological Warfare' published by National Defense University researchers in May of 2011 reveals just how unpredictable the technology can be, even in a well-funded laboratory. -----------------
The authors conclude that due to the ease with which this biotechnology can negatively affect animals, plants and the entire ecosphere itself, the technology represents a serious threat.
'We conclude that, broadly state, peaceful scientific advances, global statistics and demographics of GMOs suggest that the potential for corruption of biotechnology to catastrophic malevolent use is considerable.'
A paper published by The Ecologist agrees with this assessment, and applied it to the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry, stating that there is a significant danger posed by the cross-use of the biotechnology.
In one case, a U.S. firm accidentally contaminated food intended for human consumption with a genetically engineered variety intended to create a vaccine. ----------------
One of the 'intended' effects of much of the genetic engineering of food crops is to make the plant resistant to disease, pests and viruses that typically cause crop losses.
While the intent seems innocent enough on the surface, the unintended ecological ramifications of tampering with nature could lead to disaster.
An article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled 'Risks of Genetic Engineering' covers these dangers in great detail, including how introducing a genetic tolerance to certain viruses could produce a more virulent strain of that virus.
One of the most common applications of genetic engineering is the production of virus-tolerant crops. Such crops are produced by engineering components of viruses into the plant genomes. For reasons not well understood, plants producing viral components on their own are resistant to subsequent infection by those viruses. Such plants, however, pose other risks of creating new or worse viruses through two mechanisms: recombination and transcapsidation.
The writers explain that either the recombination of plant produced viral genes with the genes of incoming viruses, or the encapsulation of genetic material of the virus by the plant’s viral proteins, can ultimately produce viruses that are far more dangerous than the parent virus was – hybrid viruses that never would have existed if there had been no genetically altered plant.
Some researchers actually question whether the “unintended” side-effects – stronger diseases or weeds that require ever-changing genetic modifications in the plants, or stronger herbicides to kill the hybrid weeds – might actually be an intended side-effect by profit-hungry GM industrial giants like Monsanto, the producer of both genetically modified plants as well as weed-killer products.
Likewise, if spraying of herbicides becomes more regular due to cultivars, surrounding weeds could develop a resistance to the herbicide tolerant by the crop. This would cause an increase in herbicide dose or change in herbicide, as well as an increase in the amount and types of herbicides on crop plants. Ironically, chemical companies that sell weed killers are a driving force behind this research. (Steinbrecher, 1996)
Effect on Human Health Still Unknown
Last but most importantly, science still has not proven conclusively whether or not genetically modified foods have negative side-effects on the human body.
As with many scientific unknowns, there is evidence on both sides to suggest in some cases that the foods are safe, while there is evidence on the other side that shows the foods are harmful. Both sides attack studies conducted by the other. -------------
In one case, a 2009 study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences reported that rats fed GM corn developed kidney and liver problems. Monsanto countered the study, claiming that there were methodological flaws with the study.
However, despite the fact that science has yet to conclude one way or the other on the safety of GM foods, those foods are being approved and stocked in U.S. supermarkets – again, without any labels revealing that they are GM foods.
'Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.'
–Dr. Martha R. Herbert, pediatric neurologist
No matter your position on the safety of genetically modified foods, there are two core principles that for some reason those in charge of protecting U.S. consumers from harm seem to ignore. The first is that the FDA appears to be siding with the GM food companies rather than using caution for the sake of consumer safety.
The second is that companies like Monsanto appear to have free reign to introduce dangerous lab-produced creations into nature with no consideration given to the impact that careless activity will have on future generations."
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/01/danger-biological-warfare-genetically-modified-foods/
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
No comments:
Post a Comment