Geneticist David Suzuki Says Humans Are Part Of A Massive ExperimentArjun Walia Another prominent public figure, geneticist David Suzuki, has been a long-time advocate against GMOs, and has been speaking out about how they can be hazardous to human health as well as the environment. Below, Ive provided a video example of Suzuki explaining why he feels the way he does about GMOs. Public figures with a wide audience can have a great impact on the consciousness of the masses, they are great tools for waking up more people to the reality that GMOs can be harmful to human health as well as the environment. Its time to pay attention, do your own research and to question what youve been told. We can no longer trust branches of the government that deal with food and health, we must not take their word for it; its better if you actually look into it yourself rather than blindly believing what your are told. It doesnt seem to be much of a debate anymore; its clear that GMOs can indeed be harmful to human health. There is a reason why a majority of countries around the world have permanently banned GMOs, so whats taking North America so long? One reason might be the fact that biotech corporations like Monsanto seem to be above the government and influence policy, but thankfully these things are changing. Big Island, Hawaii has recently banned all GMO products and bio-tech company products. Various bills calling for moratorium on GE food include Vermont, North Dakota, Boulder, Colorado, San Francisco and more. This large movement against GMOs is not based on belief multiple researchers and scientists all around the world have shown that GMOs can be harmful. Here is a study that shows how Bt toxins found in Monsanto crops can be damaging to red blood cells, and potentially cause leukemia. Hereis another one that shows how GMO animal feed caused severe stomach inflammation and enlarged uteri in pigs. There have been multiple studies linking GMOs to cancer, and a range of other diseases. Scientists all over the world have come together to show their support for the ban of GMOs. As you can see, alternative media outlets are not the only ones doing their research. Most who investigate this topic, and do the research for themselves will come to the same conclusions. This is what David Suzuki and many others have done as well. Below is an article written by David Suzuki and Faisal Moola. At the beginning concerns with the 2010 release of the super-genetically modified corn called SmartStax, are mentioned, which has now shown to be harmful to human health and banned all over the world. This article was written in 2009, but still has some good information. By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola In gearing up for the 2010 release of its super-genetically modified corn called SmartStax, agricultural-biotechnology giant Monsanto is using an advertising slogan that asks, Wouldnt it be better? But can we do better than nature, which has taken millennia to develop the plants we use for food? We dont really know. And that in itself is a problem. The corn, developed by Monsanto with Dow AgroSciences, stacks eight genetically engineered traits, six that allow it to ward off insects and two to make it resistant to weed-killing chemicals, many of which are also trademarked by Monsanto. Its the first time a genetically engineered (GE) product has been marketed with more than three traits. Canada approved the corn without assessing it for human health or environmental risk, claiming that the eight traits have already been cleared in other crop seeds even though international food-safety guidelines that Canada helped develop state that stacked traits should be subject to a full safety assessment as they can lead to unintended consequences. One problem is that we dont know the unintended consequences of genetically engineered or genetically modified (GM) foods. Scientists may share consensus about issues like human-caused global warming, but they dont have the same level of certainty about the effects of genetically modified organisms on environmental and human health! A review of the science conducted under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development in 2008 concluded that there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health and that this and other observations create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies for commercial GM plants. Some have argued that weve been eating GM foods for years with few observable negative consequences, but as weve seen with things like trans fats, if often takes a while for us to recognize the health impacts. With GM foods, concerns have been raised about possible effects on stomach bacteria and resistance to antibiotics, as well as their role in allergic reactions. We also need to understand more about their impact on other plants and animals. Of course, these arent the only issues with GM crops. Allowing agro-chemical companies to create GM seeds with few restrictions means these companies could soon have a monopoly over agricultural production. And by introducing SmartStax, we are giving agro-chemical companies the green light not just to sell and expand the use of their super crops but also to sell and expand the use of the pesticides these crops are designed to resist. A continued reliance on these crops could also reduce the variety of foods available, as well as the nutritive value of the foods themselves. Theres also a reason nature produces a variety of any kind of plant species. It ensures that if disease or insects attack a plant, other plant varieties will survive and evolve in its place. This is called biodiversity. Because we arent certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful. Thats not to say that research into altering the genes in plants that we use for food should be banned or that GM foods might not someday be part of the solution to our food needs. We live in an age when our technologies allow us to bypass the many steps taken by nature over millennia to create food crops to now produce super crops that are meant to keep up with an ever-changing human-centred environment. A rapidly growing human population and deteriorating health of our planet because of climate change and a rising number of natural catastrophes, among other threats, are driving the way we target our efforts and funding in plant, agricultural, and food sciences, often resulting in new GM foods. But we need more thorough scientific study on the impacts of such crops on our environment and our health, through proper peer-reviewing and unbiased processes. We must also demand that our governments become more transparent when it comes to monitoring new GM crops that will eventually find their ways in our bellies through the food chain. Sources: Arjun Walia writes for Collective Evolution, where this first appeared. 