GMOs, Allergies and impacts to Health, Environment and Economy...

With summer at its peak, the allergy season in the US has weaned down and it is very evident by the reduction in ads of the seasonal allergy medications on TV. I have always wondered why there are substantially more allergies in the US when compared to the rest of the countries. Infact, as you can see later in this post, the current allergy rate in the US itself is substantially higher than what it was 15-20 years ago, while other countries did not see this rise. The difference is more alarming in the case of food allergies. This might seem surprising since one would assume that US is similar to any other western nation, like France, UK, Germany, etc. on most terms, including food. So I wanted to dig a little deeper to understand why there is a difference. From far that view might seem true, but go closer and you can find that it is far from the truth.

Consider these facts. The kids in US never had a substantially higher food allergy rate than kids from other countries (especially western countries as it is a good comparison) till the mid 1990s. the biggest change in food during this period between the US and these countries was one factor - GMOs. It was in the 1990s that GMOs were approved in the US and massive farming of GMO crops started. Hospitalization due to food allergies sky rocketed to over 250% between 1998-2006, while GMO agriculture increased by the same percentage too (around 280%). Even if the numbers vary a little based on the source, one cannot ignore the high correlation. Countries in Europe did not see the rise because they did not approve GMOs, especially given the fact that it had potential for negative impacts, which turned out to be true.

I had talked to a lot of friends and neighbors who have been living in the US all their lives and they had mentioned that they have not seen food allergies during their time, and till the early 90s schools were never peanut free, infact most kids used to take bread and peanut butter for lunch. Looking at the various factors, you can narrow down to the fact that the big change that happened in the US during this time frame, and which did not happen in other countries, was the big increase in GMO foods in the US. GMO foods are so prevalent in the US now that it is hard to avoid them. According to the Non-GMO Project, eighty percent of the food supply in North America contains GMOs. It is very difficult for one to select non-GMO items at the shop, unless they are organic or specifically labeled as GMO-free.  Even at a grocery store like Whole Foods they cannot guarantee that a produce is GMO free unless it is specified as organic. While shopping at Whole Foods last month, I had asked them if the Water Melon was non-GMO and they said that they cannot guarantee that unless it is marked organic. There are currently no labeling requirement for GMO identification, unless it is organic or non-GMO verified. More than 60 nations in the world require GMO labeling (including all of Europe), and yet in the most rich and powerful country that stands for freedom, there is no freedom to know what is in the food you buy.

So what are GMOs, and why are they bad in the food we eat? I am not a genetic engineering expert, but I will try to simplify it based on what I have read. To put GMO in layman terms, what is done here is that genes from a different species is mixed together with that of a particular plant, and in most cases with GM crops, altering the original protein coding. Proteins perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, including catalyzing metabolic reactions, replicating DNA, responding to stimuli, and transporting molecules from one location to another. Altering it could lead to unpredictable results with changes to the DNA and proteins of the resulting GM crop, which can lead to unintended side effects like toxic or allergenic side effects. When the protein is altered in the crop, the human body might not understand it and this causes allergic reactions. Besides, in the case of Bt based plants, the Bt toxin is induced into the plants, so in other words, you don’t need to spray the pesticide as it is in the plant itself. These plants act as insecticides, which means that they can kill other living organisms with their toxins, and yet we are told that it is safe for human consumption, including kids.

 

Did you know that all baby formula (yes, the Enfamils and Similacs) is loaded with GMO content? Hint, hint…, do you also see why kids in the US start with allergies right when they are very young. Again, this happens only in the US, the same formula in Europe and many other countries is GMO free. I have noticed that if the kids are born outside the US (even if they have lived mostly in the US after that) have a significantly less chance of getting an allergy, could be because their parents were not much on GMO/processed foods, and they were not fed too much baby formula, that too with GMO. In a world where we care so much for babies, including what kind of dress and toys we give them, we don’t care for what type of food goes into them.

If you are inclined to know a little more about GMOs, here are some scientific basics. The World Health Organization defines GMOs as "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally." And this from the American Association of Environmental Medicine - "Randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus Thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly." Long term effects are not studied in detail, but a recent study titled “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” published in the reputed ‘Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal’ found that rats whose diets consisted of GM corn has much higher rates of tumor and early death when compared to rats with a regular diet. If you are interested in knowing more details, especially from experts (and it is good to know this), please refer to the links I have provided at the end of this post in the PS scetion, along with the youtube video as well. Again, there are applications of GMOs that make sense, but not in food.

GMO issues are not restricted to allergies alone, just that allergies happen to be seen easily. I believe (and so do many others), that GMOs have an impact on many other health, environmental and economical issues. Besides the health issues and impact on finances, especially on small farmers, as it has happened in the US. I was very surprised on seeing that GMO agriculture is on the rise in a big way in many developing countries like India, Brazil and China. India is soon becoming the next big GMO hub. Clearly the government does not seem to care for its people, or they are ignorant about the effects of GMOs on the entire food chain. They will wreak havoc on the farmers financially and wreak havoc on the health of the people in a huge way, and it will be irreversible.  There have been NO long term studies done on the effects of GMO, without which it cannot be declared safe. On the contrary, there is long term data to show that the effects of GMO has had a big impact on health across in the US, the one country where it has been used the most. If the Indian government is serious about the people of the country, they should not bow to money/lobbying power by Monsanto. You cannot cry ignorance in this age when all facts are there in the open. One of the main arguments for GMOs are that they will reduce the use of insecticides (though it is a different matter that the toxin is directly in your food now). If that is true, why does data suggest that the use of pesticides, and herbicides (read as Roundup) in particular, have increased year over year, when GMO agriculture has seen a big rise in the past decade. Clearly there is something amiss here, though one thing for sure is that the Monsanto execs are laughing their way to the bank with the sale of GMOs and Roundup, unfortunately at the expense of the common man, so unaware of things around him. GMOs are NOT the answer to solving world hunger, it is only an answer for the money hungry corporations like Monsanto. Sustainable organic farming is the right answer for people and the environment. Something has to be done about this or it will be like a great train wreak waiting to happen...

There is a ray of hope though as I am seeing a lot of anti-GMO activity across the US as people are slowly becoming aware of the food around them. It is also good to see some progress at the state level in the past couple of months on GMO labeling, with Connecticut taking the lead. I also see some of what is happening in the US being reflected across other countries as well, including India. Also, stores like Whole Foods have finally agreed on a plan (albeit delayed) to bring in GMO labeling across the store. Chipotle became the first fast food restaurant to have GMO labeling, though you’d be surprised to see that if you want GMO free food, the only option you have is plain barbcoa, carnitas or beans without the rice or tortillas J. Finally, real change can happen only if consumers demand good wholesome food, that will also help in bringing down the cost. We live in a world where all the information is just a click away, but most of us choose to be selective in what we want to know. So it us up to each of us to become aware of what is happening around us, and start demanding for the right things. Right for the farmer, the consumer, and for the earth/environment in general.

-Ramanuja Iyer

 

PS: If you are interested in knowing more about GMOs, checkout these articles:

·         Here is an informative article on GMO written in a very balanced way by a doctor, and a mother of four. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-j-cederquist-md/prop-37-california_b_1971259.html. Read for yourself and make your own judgement.

·         http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/

·         http://www.exposingthetruth.co/truth-about-gmos/

·         http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

·         A very detailed report at http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.31.pdf

 

I’d ask all of you to watch this documentary on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEVcLpMr4iU&list=PLrCHn_qRg3qPjeUsoxmB71F8Q-LRAsNYk) and understand how GMOs have already affected you and your kids.

Egypt's Tryst with Democracy

Egypt has come a full circle in a year. The country is back in turmoil with the democratically elected government ousted in a coup, and they are now ruled for all practical purposes by the military. No matter what people call it and try to sugar coat it as a needed ouster, it is still a coup. President Morsi was elected democratically with a little over 51% of the vote, which is quite similar to the 51%+ won by President Obama in the 2012 elections. So is it right for the opposition in the US to demand President Obama to resign if they dislike his policies? A good example would be when the healthcare act was passed in the US with over 40 percent of the country opposing it, could the republicans and the tea-party folks demand for his resignation? They can show their opposition and file law suits, and finally take it up in the next elections. If the majority has disapproved of Obama, then they would have seen him being booted out of office, and as it happened that was not the case. This is what happened in the US since there is a working democracy (in-spite of all the dysfunction in Washington) and the power is not concentrated by just one executive branch.

 

Compare this to what happened in Egypt, people did not like Morsi’s policies and also felt that he is trying to be too powerful. Besides, Egypt’s economy was not doing well and so people were frustrated. The right path for the protestors would have been to show their opposition, rally up the entire opposition to be united and then let Morsi face the music in the next general elections, or take it to the court. People would have had the power to vote a bad leader out if his policies are not good. Atleast, democracy would have survived and people had the freedom to make their choice, and it would have given Morsi an opportunity to test out if his policies would have worked. What happened instead was that it gave an opening for the anti-government leaders and the leaders from the old regime, as well as the military to strike back at the government. Unlike in the US, the ultimate power in Egypt rests with the military and hence they could easily bring down a democratically elected government. There is no other executive power involved. So clearly what happened in Egypt was a step back in its progress and also in the democratic aspirations of its citizens.

 

I have seen reports from many in the international media stating that it was probably a good step as Morsi tried to grab more power than he had to, but the fact is that whatever was done by Morsi (even if he tried to grab more power) was done in a democratic manner. He won a democratic referendum to amend the constitution, with over 60% support (though some might argue that it was boycotted by a section of the voters). Morsi’s removal cannot be justified and has put Egypt on a very slippery slope, whoever is in power will not have the legitimacy, and will always have around 45% of the population against them. It is a very tricky situation for the international community (and specifically the US) too as any interference in Egypt could be interpreted in the wrong way by half the population. Infact, as of now both sides are blaming the US for what has happened, though for completely opposite reasons. The anti-Morsi supporters are claiming that Obama is a Morsi supporter for not opposing the way he ruled, while the Muslim Brotherhood are claiming that Obama is supporting the army for not opposing the coup. It is best for the US not to interfere and pick sides now, they should leave it up to the Egyptian people to find a way out. After all the revolution was started by them, and they own responsibility for the outcome as well. If the US is seen to be very supportive to the current regime and the army, it will create further alienation of the US in the middle east and in the Muslim world, for going against a democratically elected Muslim government.

 

What the Egyptians should realize is that democracy is not a perfect solution and is not a solution for all their problems. Every democracy has had their share of problems, as we have seen in the US in the recent past where at times the democratic process has been very dysfunctional. Even in the largest democracy in the world, India, voter discontent is very high and a majority of the population feel that the government is very corrupt, inefficient and does not put people first. Even then, there is something that works and democracy is still alive and the people elect the government. There is freedom and there is opposition from some segment of the population for all policy decisions. The same is the case with many mature democracies around the globe. Of course, there are democracies which do not function well at all with repressive regimes even under a democratic veil, one hopes that Egypt does not fall into that category. The revolution started with the Egyptians wanting freedom from a dictator who ruled for decades, and its citizens yearned for democracy. Once that was achieved, they wanted a perfect solution or a solution that works to their advantage. They need to reset their expectation and understand that democracy is a long process with many ups and downs. They need to be patient on this big change to democracy and need to understand that it is the people who wield the final power, and if a government is not functional, they can boot them out of power in the next election. Till then, they need to wait with patience, and give the nascent democratic process a chance. So does the international community. Egypticians should be in charge of their own destiny without international interference. The people of Egypt started the revolution and they themselves must own the responsibility to take it to the next step.


-Ramanuja Iyer...

The strange case of Edward Snowden:

The strange case of Edward Snowden:

Edward Snowden was back in the news today for again asking Russia for asylum. I have been perplexed by his motive ever since the first news of his leaks came out, and it has got more intriguing as to what his objective was. If it was quick fame, then he has achieved it, but at what cost? Time will tell, and this could be in very quick time too. As per the Guardian, he said that “I can’t allow the US government to destroy privacy and basic liberties”. If it is for a higher good as he claims ‘to inform the public’ of what the US and UK Governments have done, then it is a wash. It is no secret that countries and governments spy, all countries do and the US is obviously no exception. They spy internally on their own people for national security purposes (mostly), and externally as well. It is not even a secret all over the world that US has an organization called the CIA and spying is their core competency. Internal spying (or eavesdropping) has been on going since the time of the cold war (or even before), just that it was not on the electronic format during those days. Every nation does this for their national security, though the level of spying varies from country to country, the US will occupy one of the top 3 spots with Russia and China. In the current post Sept 11 era, this is the new normal, and that is why it was a non-issue even in the partisan US political scene with the republicans hardly shaking a leg on this topic too at a time when they are looking for every opportunity to pounce on Obama.

The amusing part of the Snowden story is that he wanted to seek asylum in a country with ‘shared values’. And what were the first countries he looked at for asylum, China (Hong Kong) and Russia, apart from Iceland. Hmm, I am trying to think of what the ‘shared values’ he has with Russia and China, a very open government?, or a government that does not spy at all?, or a government that has high human rights values? KGB must be a ballet company to Snowden and the Communist dictators of China must have been Buddhist monks. So when that asylum attempt failed, he then turned to any country that could offer him an asylum. He was offered the same at Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, and he is willing to take it if he can get to any of these places. It needs no introduction on what kind of governments are in control in these countries, for sure they are a far cry from the ‘basic liberties’ that he seems to be fighting a lone battle for. Snowden explained his actions saying: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things [surveillance on its citizens]... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. You might be welcome to any of these countries Edward, but every single move of yours will be recorded and tracked, including to the loo, so much for privacy and basic liberties. If you are still trying to break your head on why China and Russia are reluctant to take you in, it is because they are shit scared of you that you will find out that they are much worse, so much worse by miles, that you’d go puking around on all fours with lack of freedom, liberty, human rights and privacy, and that you will end up taking them to the headlines at Guardian for the wrong reasons.

 Oh, and by the way, why are you so against the US government, what about private companies like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, et al. Have you ever looked at gmail? For being someone who is very computer and privacy savy, I’d have assumed that you’d raise a stink about a company like Google, for showing relevant ads based on the content of your email. Try visiting an online shopping site, like The Children’s Place looking for dress for kids. Then you’d find out when browsing later on other sites, including at Guardian, that ads from Children’s Place are popping up everywhere you go. Looks like he missed such things in the midst of his path breaking big privacy discovery, else it could have been shutters for Google. Or maybe not, he was probably aware of this and knew that speaking out against Google would not have gotten him any attention, but going abroad and speaking out against the US government will garner a lot of attention for press that is looking for topics that can spike the eye ball count. Btw, I am not telling that Google and other private firms have a privacy issue, maybe there is an issue, but I don’t feel it is of concern to me as it does help users to get what is to his liking, even if it is ads. I don’t believe that these companies can have any individual scan through emails, which would have been a privacy issue. This is what the goverment does as well, unless they find a security related suspicion in which case they need to dig further. I am fine with that and so are most others, which is why this became a non-issue. Finally, I am not sure of what Guardian is trying to achieve as well, unlike the case of the ‘News Of the World’ phone hacking scandal which was also first reported in Guardian.

 In the strange case of Edward Snowden, there are no big winners, if at all there is some winner it is Guardian, and certainly not Snowden. There are many losers, the biggest of them being the US Government, and the country as such. His employeerBooz also took some hit in the process. So much for Snowden who also claimed to be a patriot. This news took the leverage the US had against China for its cyber spying on US based computers (government and private) and stealing information, as the news coincided with President Xi’s meeting with President Obama. Maybe one day Snowden will provide his real motive for the leaks, it could be as a memoir to make some quick money, but till then I can only think that this was done just for some quick fame and was misguided.

 

-Ramanuja Iyer