How much time is adequate for human safety trials?

Recently Monsanto and other chemical companies created a website that is supposed to ‘clear the air’ about Genetically Modified Organisms.  This new ‘transparency’ is an attempt at making these products easy to understand and to minimize any possibility that these foods might actually be detrimental to the human body.  However, the PR firm hired to create this website so far has yet to be identified.  Transparency??   Perhaps this PR firm is actually afraid of being identified, perhaps not…yet it stands to reason that fear of being associated publicly with Monsanto might not be so good for business.

So what does the above have to do with the human safety trials in the title?  For me it’s quite simple.  Rather than get caught up in the rhetoric that leads to so many ‘anti-science’ labels being placed on those opposed to GMO’s I want to push for the science.  The longest any study on humans that has been accomplished by these companies is 90 days.  If 90 days is enough for ‘science’ to be validated as to the safety of these transgenic crops then show all of us the rigorous peer reviewed evidence that this is the case.   I’m sure the tobacco companies would want to use this evidence regarding their products.  Simply put, the human body is too complex to understand the impact of these substances ( some of which have never existed in nature before ) in 90 days.   Now, many of these science advocates will say to me ‘these crops have been in the food chain since 1996’ and no one has been harmed.  Really?  Where is the science that supports that statement?  You see there isn’t any yet these same folks dispute any science that indicates their might be issues with these crops.  Usually it’s bad protocols, quack scientists, etc….

Crazy isn’t it?  All Monsanto, Dow, etc. had to do was fund long term safety trials (5,10,15,20 years)…then in 2016 we’d have quantified, qualified, documented, and defensible information as to the impact in humans regarding these foods.  I would much rather have a company that was trying to do good, find out that something they did wasn’t so great and do something about it.  That would send a message that we’re trying and we’ll keep trying to help this planet.  Instead, these companies refuse to move in that direction which breeds mistrust and disgust at what simply appears to be shareholder and management driven greed.  That’s disappointing and why so many of us simply don’t trust them.  It’s not anti-science, it’s common sense, which is where science originated.   On a personal note, a condition that I was diagnosed with in the mid 2000’s (about 10 years after I switched to a diet much heavier in vegetables like corn and meat substitutes like soy) could not be detected microscopically in my body at my most recent test.  What changes had I made??  I stopped eating GMO corn, soy and switched to certified organic foods for most of my diet in 2009.   The science folk will say this is just coincidence…sample size too small, etc. yet this condition is supposed to be incurable and what I did to remedy the situation was make the diet changes ( and ONLY those changes ) which is a controlled (scientific) approach which produced this result in my body.  Did I mention this condition had to do with my stomach/gut?  and what does the BT protein do to insects?  Oh yeah, explodes the gut to kill the insect…any parallels??  I stop the foods with that protein and my condition changes for the better??  and that’s not science??  That’s just being stubborn and closed minded which is exactly what a scientist is not supposed to be.

If Monsanto and others want to be ‘transparent’ it’s time to ensure long term human trials are conducted now and continued for the next 20 years and support labeling of their foods in the near term so that humans like myself can make the choice to avoid foods we don’t want.  It’s no different than me choosing not to smoke cigarettes.  Product is still there and if I wish to smoke, I can buy them.  I choose not too so I don’t.  Regardless, that’s a choice we all deserve.

For all of you so called science advocates – remember that shareholder concerns ALWAYS come first and that shareholder driven science is biased by profit and therefore isn’t rigorous science since it will be driven by the potential impact on the bottom line and not in the interests of the customer or the consumer.   It’s time to do what’s right even if it means less profit and earnings.  When I see a CEO step up and do that at a publicly traded company, that’s a company I’ll invest in.

In the meantime, please support efforts to label GMO’s.  At least have an idea of how much GMO’s have entered the food supply.  Monitor your health and if you are suffering from any condition or disease, try changing your diet to organic and just see what it does over a the course of a couple years.  Paying 10-20% more for your food might seem like a lot but if you don’t need as much medical attention, I can assure you that you’ll have more money in your pocket.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *