Universal Translator

Showing posts with label GMO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMO. Show all posts

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

"Ethan" (Updated)

            It had all started with the Chinese.  The scientific community in China had become the “Wild West” of the science world.  Chinese scientists didn’t have the same limits that many other nations imposed upon research, such as the outlawing genetic engineering of human DNA or the banning of the use of human embryos in scientific research.  Chinese scientists had begun to experiment with the genetic engineering of human embryos – something that had been outlawed in most other industrialized nations decades earlier as the fear that people would begin to design their own babies’ intelligence and looks.  The Chinese reported that they had tried to manipulate the genes that were responsible for various genetic diseases in the human body.  They insisted that the embryos would have never survived and that the data gathered was never planned on being used to create “designer” babies.  The Chinese government, after discussions with the United Nations and other nations, closed down the facilities engaged in the research and the world thought that that was the end of it.  As time passed, genetic engineering of plants, animals, bacteria, and viruses became a common technology that eventually settled into academia and failed to get the attention of the news media.  Laws became more relaxed and often quietly discarded.  Some nations began to actively seek out those Chinese scientists that had experimented with genetically modifying human DNA.  Biotechnology companies sought out the brightest of those scientists.  For years, despite rumors and protest campaigns, companies remained quiet concerning any research involving the modification of human DNA, until that day Ethan was presented to the world.
The world at large didn’t know about Ethan until he was six years old.  When he was presented at the international news conference, people immediately fell in love with the adorable child.  He amazed everyone with his intellectual abilities and physical skills.  Of course, many thought that he was just an ordinary child – until it was proven that he really was the first genetically modified human.  A DNA test was done live at the press conference under the skeptic eyes of several noted scientists from various international universities.  The scientists who presented him to the world talked about the various genetic changes and genetic protein coding.  They merely glanced over the topic of  “insertion of other taxonomic genetic material”, but the world was more enchanted with the sweetness of the child they saw online singing “Jesus Loves Me”.  Some questioned the phrase “insertion of other taxonomic genetic material”, but the scientists would state that it was merely inconsequential biological material and unimportant to the discussion. The procedure, according to the scientists employed by the American Bio-Tech Consortium (ABTC) was completely safe - Ethan was as human as anyone else. The procedure, they explained, took DNA from a human egg and a human sperm and merely modified them to bring out the best qualities possible. It was no different, they assured, than buying a car and then adding the best options available to it.  Ethan was a child with the best options that could be found in DNA.
            ABTC said that there had been extraordinary testing of the procedures involved in producing Ethan.  They admitted that there had been four other children before Ethan who had not survived but that finally all the problems of viability had been solved.  The ABTC scientists gave lectures at every major university on the development and future of genetically engineered children.  They asserted that Ethan would have a normal, if not extended, lifespan and that he was as healthy, if not healthier, as any child his age.  Doctors across the globe backed up the claims of the ABTC, signing letters supporting the work, which were published in newspapers around the world. Governments quickly approved the procedures and gave ABTC a wide leeway.  Many thought it would be a new golden age for Mankind.
       The year after Ethan turned eleven, couples from across the world had embraced the new technology to create their own baby.  It was estimated that well over 1,000 couples had initially signed up when the technology was first offered.  Many people wondered if it could solve their infertility.  Some just wanted the best child money could buy.  Some just wanted a bright healthy child like Ethan.  ABTC reported that by the first anniversary of the procedure, fifty thousand couples had CNM children.
       Genetic engineering wasn’t a foreign thing to people at the time.  It had become an accepted part of life.  Genetic engineering was to this time, as chemistry was to the 20th Century – the way to a better life.  There were still non-GMO fundamentalists that would complain or protest, but no one took them seriously.  It had been many years since genetically modified organisms had lost their patents and they were now everywhere.  You couldn’t avoid them since practically all life now contained bits of altered DNA –“genetic pollution”, as some radicals called it.  “Organic” came to mean merely anything grown stationary in soil since the locomotive vegetable barrier had been broken.  Cross-taxonomic organisms, locomotive or not, had become a fact of life. Before Ethan the greatest genetic engineering feat had been the creation of the avocado steak, the first non-locomotive meat, from a “tree”.
        By the time Ethan had turned 20, he had been joined by over 4,020,730 other “Children of the New Mother”, or CNM. They had been given that name by a journalist who coined the term to differentiate them from unmodified children, or “Children of the Old Mother” – “Old Mother” referring to the mythological Mother Earth.  The “New Mother” was science.  The ABTC preferred to call them “non-CNM” children –it made them to be seen as lacking something important.
        Most of the major hospitals of the world had CNM franchises.  The franchises were so popular because of the huge profits that could be made by selling CNM products and services.  After the biological mother had been implanted with the CNM egg, she could be sold a multitude of prenatal packages; after the birth, there were the various other products based on the age of the child.  Of course no one wanted their CNM child to be the one lacking the best.  The financial floodgates really opened when the CNM franchises began to offer products and services to parents of non-CNM children. The best-selling product for non-CNM children was CNM cellular injections. Hospitals were also urged to consider CNM services for certain illnesses and conditions in adults.
       Anyone visiting a CNM franchise couldn’t get away from Ethan’s image.  Cardboard cutouts of Ethan would direct you to various areas.  Posters of the cute little boy staring out at you asking, “How important is your child? If they aren’t Children of the New Mother, then try CNM CogniTherapy today!”  Videos played in every hospital waiting room and lobby showing Ethan solving intricate math problems and laughing. The ubiquitous t-shirts with his drawings or watercolours were usually sold-out.  The Adventures of Ethan comic books were on every shelf.
       People had not seen much of Ethan himself since his 16th birthday; anyway, the world was busy with its new prodigies.  The ABTC stated that Ethan was living a regular life and that they did not want him to be under the scrutiny of the press every day.  Of course, you would hear a rumor or see a photo, but there really wasn’t too much press about Ethan.  The tabloids would report that he was supposedly dating some young film star or a royal, but not much else.
        The children born after Ethan, however, were constantly in the news.  Many were the focus of human-interest stories.  The stories focusing on their rights and conditions always made the top news stories. The American Bio-tech Consortium had made the claim that genetically modified children had to attend the ABTC School of Science and the Arts (available at most franchises), and many parents complained; the court ruled that the parents had signed a waiver upon implantation of the modified embryo and had to comply or give their child up to the guardianship of the ABTC. In the ruling the court stated that the children were too mentally advanced for regular public or private school and only the ABTC could effectively and completely educate them.  One couple had been imprisoned for endangering a minor and child abuse when they went to live in the mountains with their CNM child.  There was a big media blitz when one couple won a lawsuit against a church that had refused to allow their young boy to enter the cathedral during a vacation, the priest saying, “that the child was an abomination unto the Lord”.
        The biggest scandal on record occurred after a journalist attempted to interview Ethan on his 25th birthday. The ABTC had issued an official birthday packet, covering what Ethan had been doing since his 16th birthday.  According to the packet, he had attended a major university and had started a job at ABTC as a genetic engineer/advisor.  The journalist, Laura Hopkins, had wanted more information as well as a personal interview with Ethan but ABTC refused again and again.  She finally went undercover as an ABTC franchise employee, ultimately making it to ABTC central headquarters.  She published a story on the eve of Ethan’s 33rd birthday that totally blew Ethan’s life open to the world.  The world was shocked.  Many refused to believe it, however, Miss Hopkins had documented everything perfectly.
       According to the Hopkins Report, there was a reason Ethan disappeared from the public when he was 16 and it didn’t follow the story released to the public.  When Ethan started to experience puberty, some hidden genes had begun to exert themselves; Ethan began to develop physical changes beyond those of a normal puberty, including but not limited to extremely excessive hair growth, bony growth projections on his jaw, and rough hard epithelial cells on his skin. Besides the physical changes, Ethan had begun to experience intense moments of rage so bad he had to be restrained and sedated.  Hopkins also reported that Ethan could now only consume raw meat, becoming very ill and violent if he did not.  Ethan had also begun to fail many mental skill tests, although he had maintained his excellence in physical skills.  ABTC commented to say only that the report was a lie and they were talking to their lawyers.  ABTC did admit that certain treatments had been given free to CNM children after Ethan to correct certain irregularities.  However, they refused to admit that Ethan wasn’t the accomplished young man that he was portrayed as being.  A judge asked to meet with Ethan face-to-face, and ultimately the ABTC had to admit that that was impossible, due to Ethan’s violent nature.  For the next two years, there was a torrent of legal battles, suits and counter suits. 
Parents of CNM children began to give up their children to ABTC guardianship or to the appropriate authorities, although some parents refused to even consider it.  One couple came out and publicly said that they were well aware that they had made a mistake genetically engineering their child, but that they were ready to accept the responsibility of their actions.  The couple was killed by their CNM son who himself was shot by the police who answered the emergency call.  When pictures of the boy were leaked online, many considered it a joke.  The pictures of the dead boy were considered by many to be photographs of an animal that had been altered.  When it was proven it was indeed the boy, people became outraged and frightened.
            ABTC franchise hospitals began to report that the parents of CNM children were overwhelming them.  Many of the children had started to become ill and many of the hospitals were unprepared for the onslaught.  Governments didn’t get involved until one of the children went on a rampage and killed four nurses. The death of the nurses started people openly talking about what would actually happen when the children grew up.   Riots around the world damaged and sometimes destroyed ABTC facilities.  Doctors, scientists and others connected with ABTC were attacked. 
  At the last count there were 220,267,000 CNM children worldwide. An estimated third of all non-CNM children worldwide had received at least one CNM cellular treatment, designed to enhance their DNA.  People began asking the question –who was really truly human?

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

"Mama's Cooking Blog 2055: Avocado Steak"

 Before Ethan, the greatest genetic engineering feat of all times had been the creation of the avocado steak -- 
a guilt-free meat analog.

Avocados, rich in health-benefiting mono-unsaturated fatty acids, seemed like the logical choice when scientists began to look for a real meat substitute.  It had a creamy fatty texture that could easily be translated into something meatier. The fear-mongering urban myth says that the avocado was modified using maggot DNA but everyone knows that it was actually Tenebrio molitor and bovine DNA. The end result being a moist succulent flavorsome meat analog. When they first hit the market you had people (usually dressed as Rosie de Avocado) demonstrating how to prepare the avocado steak.  Silly, but fun! No one will ever forget the red and green holograms!

How to prepare an avocado steak
1.                    Rub off any remaining brown husk. Be sure to fully wash the outer layer, removing any hairs or other stray bits. If not already removed, remove vestigial legs by pinch them as close to skin as possible.
2.                    Place the avocado steak fruit lengthwise on a secure surface.(Hint: Place a rubber mat on your counter or cutting board to prevent slipping.)
3.                    Hold the avocado securely with one hand, the softer belly of the avocado steak facing upward. Twist neckbulb until it can easily be pulled from the belly (You can get your dealer to do this)..
4.                    Slice slowly down the belly lengthwise around the tubercle, or ‘seed’, starting at the narrower neckbulb end.
5.                    Holding the avocado steak in the palm of one hand, use your other hand to twist and rotate the two halves apart.  Do this easily as the steak might slip away from the outer skin easily if it is very ripe.
6.                      Remove any excess fat from the belly, as this is excellent when used to saute the steak.
7.                    Remove the tubercle, or ‘seed’ (or leave it in if you plan to store one half) by slipping a spoon between the seed and steak. Gently work the tubercle, or ‘seed’, out - taking away as much of the lining as possible (the lining becomes nothing more than tough gristle when cooked).
8.                    For ripe avocado steaks, the outer skin or peel is easy to remove. Simply slice the avocado steak in half or cut into wedges.. Then grasp the outer dark layer or skin and pull it away from the inner red flesh of the steak. If some of the darker almost black portions of the skin remain on the red flesh of the steak, simply cut them away. The yellow to red portions of the avocado steak are what you want. Most people prefer a dark orange-red flesh. Do not consume the outer skin.
9.                    Cook your avocado steak through and until the internal temperature reaches 170°F.  Well-cooked avocado steaks are a medium gray (Hint: a proprietary browning liquid can be purchased from most avocado steak dealers.)
10.                When preparing avocado steaks, be careful to prevent cross-contamination by keeping your preparation area clean and separate from other foods such as meat, poultry, seafood, fruits, vegetables or nuts. Be mindful of other foods and surfaces they may come in contact with.  Genetic contamination can also create rogue genetic material on your kitchen surfaces. (Note: All genetic material derived from avocado steaks, present and future, is solely owned by American Biotech Consortium.)           

Avocado steak is excellent when prepared with Fun-tatoesâ, which give you that authentic meat-and-potato experience.  Adding Air-Carrotsâ creates a delightful “potted roast” dish.

Personal note:  My kids still sing the “Rosie de Avocado” song from the HOLO-NET, while dancing the “BBQ Shuffle”.

Rosie de Avocado Song
I’z Rosie de Avocado,
And kidz, here’s my motto,
 A day without a steak,
Izza pure heartache,
So hold out yer plate
And have an avocado steak
(everybody then rubs their belly and shouts "GMO-IS-O-SO-GOOD!")
ãAmerican Biotech Consortium, 2031

NEXT WEEK'S BLOG: Chicken Fingers and Scorpion Cabbage: Not just for Halloween anymore

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Are GMOs Really Safe?

            We all have our self-interests, and nobody wants to do harm themselves.  If you ask a cattleman to name the best, most nutritious food, he’ll probably tell you ‘beef’; ask the same thing to a shepherd, you probably hear the word ‘lamb’.   The nutritional facts don’t come into play, they ultimately want to sell you something.  A pig farmer would never hand out scientific studies saying bacon is bad for you; you’re more likely to him croon about how his lovely grandmother made his grandfather a bacon-and-eggs breakfast everyday for 75 years and ‘gramps’ lived to be 95.  Of course, they will have their own studies, stories, and opinions; but it’s still about the bottom line.  So why would we expect no less from the big bio-tech companies, like Monsanto, when they to convince us that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe for humans.
       An article in 2011 in the journal Food Policy said, “In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated [with] study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favourable light.”1  Approval of GMOs has been based solely on numerous studies provided exclusively by the companies that would benefit from their sale and manufacture.  Corporate safety studies should not be considered the most reliable sources, as seen with tobacco industry studies which cast doubt and which stirred controversy on the negative health effects of smoking, not to mention delaying governmental regulation.
       Why won’t the companies that create GMOs push for more independent studies, since they consider them to be safe? Several independent studies to be published were blocked by GMO seed companies when the results were considered “unflattering,” according to Scientific American, even though they had been approved prior by the said companies.2  Independent studies cite the problems of getting plant samples to test due to restrictive end-user agreements imposed to protect GMO companies' intellectual property rights. Cornell University's Elson Shields submitted a statement to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that stated, "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology".3
       The fact is that genetic engineering as a scientific discipline is still relatively new, only about 40 years old. Until the Human Genome Project in 2002, scientists believed that one gene carried the directions for making one protein (based on an antiquated one gene/one protein hypothesis from 1941).  Now scientists understand that one gene codes more than one protein and that abnormal proteins can be created.  Institut Européen de Chimie et Biologie (European Institute of Chemistry and Biology) says that scientists estimate that 70% of our genes code for at least 4 proteins each.  The damage caused in the creation of genetically modified organisms could be the mutation and differentiation of 2-4% of the DNA of the organism.  These mutations could be proteins that are allergenic, carcinogenic, or toxic. However, companies creating GMOs assert that when they do it one gene will only produce the one intended protein, behaving in the “precise and controlled way” they expect. It would be more correct to say in the “precise and controlled way” their investors expect.
       But do GMOs really behave according to Monsanto's, or other biotech's, corporate rules?
Researchers at the York Laboratory in the UK in 1999 were concerned that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year.  John Graham, spokesman for the lab, said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods." The soy used in the study was mainly GM; GM soy had recently entered the UK through US imports.4 A GMO food additive caused 37 deaths and a multitude of injuries by causing an Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS) epidemic in the United States.  Mice fed genetically modified corn have showed changes in testicular cells.  Rats fed genetically modified soy have showed major changes in their blood, liver, and kidneys.5  The World Health Organization states very clearly that “all genetically modified foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market.”6
       GMOs are a failed technology that only benefits the corporations that manufacture and sale them.  These corporations have tried to repeatedly to assure us to the safety of GMOs with one hand while demanding cash with the other.  I am not so easily deceived.

1.Food Policy. 2011; 36: 197–203
2.Scientific American 301(2) 22, August 2009
3.Bruce Stutz (1 July 2010). "Wanted: GM Seeds for Study". Seed Magazine.
6 http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes

Tuesday, 2 July 2013

the GMO Letters

One June 26th, I found this letter in the Pickens County Herald (pcherald.com) and decided to write a response.  Below is the letter I saw and then my response.

"Dear Editor,
As a mother and grandmother, entrusted with feeding and nourishing my family, I can understand the fear of GMO foods. But as a farmer who uses GMO seeds to grow soybeans, corn and other crops, I don’t believe there’s any reason to be afraid of this technology.I believe the fear stems from the fact that most people are multiple generations removed from the farm and do not understand the function of GMOs in agriculture.For thousands of years, our ancestors have been genetically modifying plants and seeds through plant breeding. Today, through biotechnology, scientists can make those natural processes happen much faster.GMO stands for genetically modified organism. To create one, a scientist alters a seed’s DNA to achieve a desired outcome, such as making it more tolerant to drought or decreasing the need for pesticides. These changes help farmers become more productive and produce a better crop.On our family farm, for instance, we use varieties of biotech-enhanced corn that are resistant to a common Alabama pest called the southwestern corn borer. Similar varieties help farmers manage pests, diseases and environmental stresses in soybeans, corn and many other crops. These varieties help us increase our yields and provide an abundant supply of food, feed, fuel and fiber to the world.The use of GMO crops has also reduced the number of chemical applications needed to produce the crop. This is beneficial for the environment because we’re conserving fuel, reducing emissions from our tractors as well as reducing the amount of actual chemicals being applied. Overall, our carbon footprint is being reduced because of GMOs.There are numerous reasons for using GMOs, but the final one I’ll mention is because I know the seeds went through a rigorous safety-approval process. Not one, not two, but three government entities — the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency — work together to inspect and approve each and every genetically altered seed variety and plant brought to the market. This process is thorough and time-intensive, lasting between 10-15 years. What is really reassuring is that in the 12-plus years modern biotech crops have been commercially grown, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or person made ill.As Americans, we are lucky to have so many food choices. You have the choice to consume foods that use GMO ingredients or not, but my hope is for you to understand the benefits of each choice. With that said, I will leave you with this final thought: If you have questions about how food is grown or raised, I encourage you to ask the people who have the answers: farmers.
Annie Dee
Aliceville, AL

Dear Editor:
My family has been farmers since time immemorial, and I am completely against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), so I felt rather patronized by Mrs. Dee’s letter to the Editor last week. I understand that she is a farmer of some note and merit who has chosen to champion the standard of big-business agriculture and who believes the public relations machine of Monsanto and companies like it. That’s her prerogative. She seems to think that the technology of agribusiness GMOs will provide the world with an overwhelming abundance of food, feed, fuel, and fiber –I think it’s the job of the indomitable family farm. I can’t let America’s farms become minions of profiting international agri-business corporations.
Essentially, there are four things I would like to point out about GMOs: 1) There is a big difference between hybridization and genetic engineering, 2) Genetic engineering has already caused damaging ecological effects, and could cause irreversible damage, 3) GMOs have not been absolutely proven safe for humans, and 4) When it comes to choice of consumption we don’t have that choice --it’s forced upon us.
There is a difference between hybridization, which farmers have been doing for thousands of years, and genetic engineering, which is a relatively new technology. They are two totally different farming technologies. Hybridization has been used since the beginning of agriculture - it has given us specific breeds with specific traits within a species. Farmers would breed one type of cattle with another type of cattle to create a hybrid that had the best characteristics of both types.  Farmers would also improve grain harvests through hybridizing one variety of corn with another type of corn.
The problem with modern genetic engineering is that lab-created GMOs combine genes between barriers that cannot occur naturally. Deliberately combining genetic material of one genus with genetic material from a different taxonomic genus is a far cry from the combining of genes within a species by hybridization. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria DNA is inserted into corn DNA to create genetically modified BT corn. This corn was created to produce the bacterial Bt toxin that is poisonous to certain insect pests, such as the southwestern corn borer. So far, bacillus thuringiensis DNA has been added to corn, potatoes, sugar beets, soy, canola, and cotton. Besides adding DNA from different creatures, scientists also change natural gene sequences; thus creating organisms with characteristics that could never occur in nature or even through hybridization. There is also the problem of irreversible genetic pollution in the environment caused by GMOs.
Theoretically, if a genetically modified salmon bred with wild salmon, unnatural genes would be introduced into the wild population that will remain forever. The same problem of genetic pollution could be seen in corn, wheat, rice or any other crop that has been modified. A hybrid tomato cross-pollinating with a non-hybrid tomato isn't going to radically change the tomato, while a GMO tomato could introduce genetic material from fish or another organism into other tomatoes and totally change what a tomato is. Cross-pollination could totally wipe out open-pollinated heirloom varieties of corn and other crops and make organically grown crops obsolete. A 2004 study showed that GMO creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) transmitted its genes by wind pollination to different Agrostis species almost nine miles away.
Do GMOs really help the environment by reducing pesticide use consequently conserving fuel and reducing carbon emissions? Not really. Washington State University agronomist Charles Benbrook notes that “genetically engineered (GE) crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the US over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996–2008). This dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides applied swamps the decrease in insecticide use attributable to GE corn and cotton, making the overall chemical footprint of today’s GE crops decidedly negative… The primary cause of the increase [is] the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds.”
Resistance occurs naturally when a pest is subjected to intense repeated use of a single pesticide or herbicide. This has already occurred with Bollworm resistance to BT cotton in the Australia, China, Spain and the United States. Armyworms have already become resistant to genetically modified corn created by Dupont-Dow and grown in Florida and Puerto Rico. (And here I’d like to make a side note that Field Crops Research (2005) wrote that field tests of Bt corn showed that they took longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than their non-GMO counterparts. The International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability (2013) just published a study that reports conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops and that GMO crops can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.)
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the claim that GMOs have never made a person ill.  However, a 2011 Canadian study looked at the presence of the BT toxin in non-pregnant women, pregnant women and fetal blood. All groups had detectable levels of the BT toxin in their blood, including 93% of pregnant women and 80% of fetuses.  The truth is that we don’t really know what effect GMOs could have on the human body or what the effect of transference of genetic material to might be. One German study showed that when bees released into a field of BT canola fed the canola pollen to younger bees, the bacteria in the gut of the young bees took on the traits of the canola’s modified genes, proving that genetically modified DNA in pollen can be transferred to bees though their digestive system.  In 1999, Andrew Chesson of the University of Aberdeen warned that testing of GMOs might be flawed and might allow harmful substances into the human food supply.  You have to remember that the FDA approved commercial production of GMOs is based on studies conducted by the companies who created them and profit from their sale; there seems to be a lack of hard independent scientific data on the safety of consuming GMOs. There are thirty countries around the world that restrict or ban GMOs because they haven’t actually been proven to be safe for human consumption.
Do you have a choice of whether to consume genetically modified organisms or not?  Not in the United States of America you don’t.  Even if you could directly remove it from your diet, it is still fed to meat animals here in the United States.  According to the USDA, 93% of soy, 93% of cotton, and 86% of corn grown in the U.S. are GMO. It is estimated that over 90% of canola grown is GMO. There are also commercially produced GMO varieties of sugar beets, squash and Hawaiian Papaya.  Currently, there were no genetically modified animals approved for use as food, but a genetically modified salmon is close to being approved. It is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 80% of packaged products in the average U.S. grocery store.  In Europe any products containing more than .09% (point zero nine percent) genetically modified ingredients are labeled; however the United States has no such labeling requirement.  You really have no freedom of choice in what you consume.  Top Chef judge Tom Colicchio says it best: “Its’ not about taste. For me, it’s not even about the science. It's about freedom. We call ourselves the land of the free and the home of the brave, we export freedom around the globe, we try to anyway, we fight wars in the name of freedom, and yet I don't have the freedom to know what’s in my food.”
Respectfully yours,
Tom Clardy

Reform, AL 35481