Email us: WoodstockEarthBlog@gmail.com

Monday, June 24, 2019

BEYOND GMOs
Gene Editing: The Next Big Threat
to Our Food Supply, plus UPDATE:
Where Are We on GMOs, Old and New?

Picture Courtesy of Google Images

Part 1:  Beyond GMO’s – Core Article

The world is always looking for that “silver bullet”, a cure for all the problems of the world, and when big corporations, or nations, come up with one they think they can sell, you can bet they can also come up with great hype to do just that. The public is so gullible, especially when being told something new is going to solve all sorts of problems, with no inconvenience or expense to themselves, and most of us usually fall for it.

Just as GMO’s were “spun” and sold to the public over the last 30 years, and are still being sold, as the innovation that will “feed the world” with “no weeds”, “less pesticides”, offering “greater yields”, and “equal nutrition”, all of which have been proven as not true, Gene Editing is being sold as the panacea, that will eliminate hereditary and infectious diseases, that will cure Cancer, stop the spread of Malaria and other insect-vector diseases, cure the HIV virus, end World Hunger, stop Aging, etc., etc. They plan to accomplish this magic by manipulating genes in DNA, and since DNA can be found in the nucleus of every cell, in every Genome, of every Living Organism, their prospects are unlimited.

For centuries, man has been assisting the natural evolution of crops and domestic animals through breeding, not just through natural evolution, but with some human intervention. It makes sense that the breeding of two prize racehorses might possibly produce champion offspring. Heirloom crops that have been found to resist Drought, by the Seed Saver, for an example, when chosen to plant, might well yield crops equally resistant to Drought.

But now in this age of Genetic Engineering, more extreme methods have been devised, (within the past 50 years), to go beyond natural or assisted natural evolution, to actually change the expression of genes within the DNA, or to actually change, or mutate, the DNA itself, using various methods, from radiation to the introduction of foreign plant or animal DNA (the production of GMO’s). These are the older ways of changing the DNA in plants and animals, but just like with traditional pharmaceutical research, such research has always been ‘trial and error’, ‘hit or miss’, and took years, and lots of money to accomplish, and that is, if the research scientists were lucky enough to come up with something that worked, to produce something that could be marketed.

But since 2012, a new method of changing the DNA in Plants and Animals was invented, called the 'CRISPR Cas9' Gene Editing System, that has made the process more “precise”, has “lowered the costs” (we read, more than 99%), and has made it “faster” and “easier”. Wouldn’t that be wonderful, to be able to identify genes, that cause medical problems, and silence them, or replace them with better genes? And not just in animal species, livestock, and crops, but besides Agriculture, there are also hundreds of projects for Industry, and even projects that purport to be Environmental. And wouldn’t it be wonderful to wipe out whole species of mosquitoes that spread Malaria, Dengue, Zika, and other viruses, for an example, and thereby, save millions of lives?

The people that are promoting this new method of targeting, snipping, and replacing DNA, have no end to their prospects, so out comes the many that see themselves as the pioneers, the entrepreneurs, the scientists, and out comes the billions in investments. This is already the case on Wall Street where billions are now riding on Gene Editing’s possible success. And all this CRISPR Cas9 science and technology is “democratized” and is “open source,”, downloadable for free, and is so cheap, and the enzymes and supplies necessary for experimentation can be mail ordered by anyone that wants to place an order (for $70 - $250), so there is hardly any barrier to anyone with a rudimentary lab (a few thousand dollars in lab equipment) to enter the fray’. Who knows? Not just Monsanto, DuPont, etc. Anybody might just be able to change the DNA in something, and walk away with the Jackpot. Anyone, even you, could be the lucky one to make your billions on Gene Editing.

There’s no regulation  internationally, or in the US. There are no cops on the beat. There’s nobody to stop you. Besides, Trump has taught many, and they’ve adopted his stance, that all “regs” are evil and unnecessary, so who needs them anyway?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all this hype were true? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this system really worked, if instead of the up until now ’trial and error’ system of microbiological research, this system could precisely identify the specific genes within the DNA of the cells that are problems, and snip them out, cheap, fast, and easy, and replace them with better genes, as easily and precisely as making an edit in a Word Document? Gene Editing is being advertised as “an effective suite of applications and molecular tools (molecular scissors) to precisely and efficiently alter the genome in a user-defined manner”.

Hate to burst the bubble of the bio-hackers and investors banking on this “get-rich-quick” scheme, but there is more and more evidence that this method of identifying and splicing genes into DNA is far from perfect. In fact, researchers on CRISPR Cas9 Gene Editing in experimental mice “found that many of the cells had large genetic rearrangements, such as DNA deletions, and insertions. These changes could lead to important genes being switched on or off, or other unexpected changes.” These same risks could be projected to apply to gene editing in human DNA, or with the DNA of any other species, when gene editing is performed.

A recent study, by the Wellcome Sanger Institute, found that CRISPR Cas9 Gene Editing frequently causes genetic mutations, and often not near the target site, where the desired mutation was aimed. The problem is that the standard test, used for checking this kind of DNA change, misses finding this genetic damage, so additional caution, and specific new technology testing, must be developed, and is warranted. Even at the target site, the natural DNA repair system kicks in, to rejoin the double helix strand of DNA, and this natural end-joining system is not always perfect, providing additional risk of mutations and genetic damage.

The Medical researchers seem to be more honest, about the risks and findings of genetic damage from Gene Editing, than the Crop researchers, where comparatively little has been reported, but “the off target effects in food plants could have possible knock on effects on food safety, including unexpected toxicity and allergenicity”. And with the relatively small amount of sequencing, having been performed on these Plant and Livestock genomes, compared to the extensive, billions of dollars and decades, of research on the Human Genome, this means that the gene editing bio-hackers of Crops and Livestock are starting out with far less knowledge of what they’re doing, when they’re Messing around with the DNA and genes of these plant and animal genomes. How can they engage in altering the DNA of a genome, before they fully understand what they are altering? Might this lack of knowledge, of unintended consequences of mutations, deletions, and genetic rearrangements from the editing of genes, jeopardize species. and ecosystems?

But all the new evidence of potential problems with this brand-new technology of gene editing isn’t putting any damper on it. Very soon, (if not already), throwing caution to the wind, gene edited crops will be on the store shelves in food markets across the US. In Canada, and now also in the US, they’re already marketing and using gene edited soybean oil, (which is purported to have less transfat), with no labeling, identification, or consumer notification, that your dinner was cooked in gene-edited oil. And the first gene edited Salmon, raised by a Canadian company, with a new facility in Indiana, has already been approved for sale in the US, by the USDA, (Salmon that grow twice as large in half the time with half the amount of feed).

Sonny Perdue, Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture has recently announced that the USDA (and we assume the FDA and EPA, as well), has no intention of labeling gene edited foods as such, on the basis that the USDA and the FDA and EPA have used for years for older GMO’s of “substantial equivalence”. He has also used the excuse, that it is even safer, or, at least, as safe, as “transgenic” GMO food. It's remarkable that he denigrated GMO's as "transgenic", in making the comparison, that gene edited foods, not being "transgenic", are preferable, so that explains why they needn't be labeled, according to Sonny Perdue.

Where we stand on GMO’s, and on labeling of GMO's, will also be covered in this article. 

And you can bet, with all the billions invested in gene editing, and all the investors clamoring for success in the dream of huge profits, the medical, agricultural, and industrial gene editing research and development is still barreling on, and they’re surely trying to keep a lid on the facts of risks of unintended genetic mutations, using the CRISPR Cas9  Gene Editing System.

Part 2:  DNA, Genes, Chromosomes, and the Genome of Every Living Organism

In this day and age, all of us are familiar with DNA, in terms of ‘DNA Evidence’, that can convict or exculpate a person of a crime, or of being at the scene of a crime, because every cell, in every one of the 37.2 trillion cells, average, in each person’s body, has the identical DNA, which is different from that of every other person. In other words, whether you get the cell from saliva on a cigarette butt or from a beer can, or from a hair, or from skin, or from blood, the DNA inside each differentiated cell in each human organism is identical, and every individual’s DNA includes the entire “Genome”, or Instruction Manual, of each individual, as a subset of the “Human Genome.”

When you think of DNA as a tool for law enforcement, most people don’t realize that DNA is universal, that practically every living organism on Earth, plant or animal, has DNA molecules, along with associated proteins, within the membrane containing the nucleus of every cell within that individual, plant or animal. So, every plant or animal has a Species Genome, or Instruction Manual, as determined by his or her DNA. When I say, “his or her”, even plants have a sex.

In an earlier article, Messing with Mother Nature, about GMO’s and Agriculture, we described the miracle of each individual open-pollinated Seed, as if it were the embryo of the plant, containing all the software (in its DNA) to replicate the hardware of a new plant. But to understand this more fully, you have to understand more about what DNA is, and how it works.

DNA stands for’ Deoxyribonucleic Acid, which derives from the ‘Deoxyribose’ sugar molecules, that form the two spines of the double helix DNA, and resides only in the nucleus of the cell. The DNA in every single one of your 37.2 trillion cells (average) is packed into the nucleus, along with associated proteins, but if you were to be able to elongate the DNA within each cell, it would stretch 1.8 meters. That’s one incredibly complex Instruction Manual!

All DNA is built in the structure of the “double helix”, like a ‘twisted ladder’, or ‘spiral staircase’. The two backbones in the double helix are formed by a chain of deoxyribose sugar molecules, alternating with phosphate molecules, and each pair of one sugar and one phosphate, along with one of four nucleotide bases, ACTG’s, the only four letters of the genetic code.

(A), Adenine is always hydrogen bonded to (T), Thymine, on the opposite backbone of the DNA, and (G), Guanine is always hydrogen bonded to (C) Cytosine on the opposite backbone. Remarkably, this works for every living organism, plant or animal, and these four letters form the ‘Genetic Code’ or ‘Genetic Alphabet’ within the DNA of every species,



The nucleotide bases, bonded together, are like the rungs of this twisted ladder. Before cells divide, through an involved process of Mitosis and Meiosis, the DNA actually has to unravel, (picture the twisted ladder un-twisting, so that when the hydrogen bonds, holding the two backbones of the double helix, break apart, they can, in turn, attach to the new set of two new matching backbones, that have been produced, all within the nucleus, forming two identical double helix strands of DNA in the cell’s nucleus, for a moment, until the cell actually divides into two identical cells, each with its own identical double helix strand of DNA within its nucleus. In order to get a better understanding of that, please check out this illustration.



What we’re talking about here is incredibly complex, and we are not getting deeply into it here, but since DNA can only reside in the nucleus of the cell, the only way the DNA and the genes within the DNA can express themselves is through long and shorts single strands of RNA, similar to DNA, but in the form of single strands, and not in a double helix. The genetic code within the DNA is 'transcribed' onto every RNA strand, long and short, which (the RNA) are able to freely migrate within the nucleus, and are able to penetrate the membrane surrounding the nucleus, unlike DNA, which cannot escape the nucleus. In this way, the RNA is used to communicate the genetic code written in the DNA, outside of the nucleus of the cell, into the cytoplasm, and among the cells and organs of the body, through the production of amino acids, based on the genetic code, that, in turn, create proteins, that govern the functions of the cells, organs, and processes within the organism. RNA is used in order to express the transcribed genetic code, within the DNA, to the rest of the organism.

“The Gene is the basic physical and functional unit of Heredity.” Our genes shape who we are as individuals and as a species, just like the genes do in all animal and plant life on Earth. Human genes are arranged on 46 chromosomes within the double-stranded DNA, made up of 22 pairs of chromosomes plus a pair of sex chromosomes (2 X’s for females, and an X and a Y sex chromosome for males). Half of the DNA of any individual of a species, along with his or her genes, arranged on chromosomes, are from the Female Egg, or Mother, and half the DNA comes from the Male Sperm, or Father. For this reason, the DNA of brothers, sisters, and close relatives, may have more similarity, than to the general population, but even with close relations, the DNA, among individuals, is never identical. This applies to all plants and animals, not just to humans.: Sec.:


Karyotope of the 23 Chromosomes of a typical Human Male Genome

The Human Genome Project was sponsored mainly by the US, the UK, Japan, France, and Germany, in order to map the nucleotides and genes within the DNA of the human genome. This project, lasting from 1990 to 2003, was performed chiefly in 20 universities in the sponsor countries, and a catalog of the results, published in 2004, “sequenced” about 3 billion DNA base pairs (nucleotides-ACTG’s), and mapped over 20,000 to 25,000 genes.

In the years since, several competing gene catalogs have been developed, but with thousands of differences between them, and as of September 2018, with a broader definition of the “gene”, that includes many genes with no genetic alphabet coding, the latest count is 46,831 different genes, within the human genome. Even these latest studies acknowledged areas of the human genome, that are still a mystery with current microbiological technology. So, after $2.7 billion were spent on the Human Genome Project by 2003, and, certainly, after many additional millions have been spent in the decades since, any honest scientist or researcher must acknowledge. that we still have much more to learn about the human genome.

And the genomes of crops and livestock and mosquitoes, etc., that are at this moment being experimented upon with gene editing, and going, or about to go, to market, (with virtually no testing), are infinitely less researched, than the human genome has been, so that the scientists, working on DNA alteration in plants and animals, know infinitely less about the sequencing in the genomes of these organisms, and so have even less of an understanding of the possible unintended consequences from their tinkering with their DNA.

Part 3:   What is CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing? How Does It Work?
              And Why It Might Not Be All It’s Cracked Up to Be.

Though the following paragraphs are from a pro-gene editing article published in 2015 in WIRED magazine and used by a company called Synthego, a supplier to the CRISPR industry, to promote Gene Editing and investment in it, we’ll start with this as an introduction, along with the hype. I have also included some brief notes, seen in [brackets].

“In the early days of gene editing, biologists had a molecular tool kit that was somewhat akin to a printing press. Which is to say, altering DNA was a messy, labor-intensive process of loading genes onto viruses bound for target cells [GMO Crops].  It involved more than a fair amount of finger-crossing. Today, scientists have the genetic equivalent of Microsoft Word, and they are beginning to edit DNA almost as easily as software engineers modify code. The precipitating event? Call it, the "Great CRISPR Quake of 2012".

“If you’re asking, “What’s CRISPR?”, the short answer is that it’s a revolutionary new class of molecular tools [molecular scissors], that scientists can use to precisely target and cut any kind of genetic material. CRISPR systems are the fastest, easiest, and cheapest methods, scientists have ever had, to manipulate the code of life in any organism on Earth, humans included. It is, simply, the first technology truly capable of changing the fundamental chemistry of who we are.
“The long answer is that CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Palindromic Repeats [in the ACTGs, the Genetic Code]. CRISPR systems consist of a protein with sequence-snipping capabilities and a genetic GPS guide [Guide RNA]. Such systems naturally evolved across the bacterial kingdom [in Yogurt and Cheese production], as a way to remember and defend against invading viruses. But researchers recently discovered they could repurpose that primordial immune system [in bacteria] to precisely alter genomes, setting off a billion-dollar boom in DNA hacking.

“Every industry is throwing mad money at CRISPR - Pharma, Agriculture, Energy, Materials Manufacturing, you name it. Even the Weed [Marijuana] guys want in. Companies are using it to make cancer-curing medicinesclimate-change-fighting cropsbiofuel-oozing algae, and self-terminating mosquitoes. Academic researchers have almost universally adopted CRISPR to more deeply understand the biology of their model organisms. Supporting this bio-hacking bonanza is an increasingly crowded CRISPR back-end supply chain; businesses [that are]building gene-editor design tools and shipping synthetic guide RNAs or pre-CRISPR’d cell lines to these companies’ doors. So far, though, very few CRISPR-enhanced products have made it into the hands of actual consumers. In their place, hyperbolic headlines have bugled society’s greatest hopes and fears for the technology, from saving near-extinct species to igniting a superbaby arms race.”

In further explanation, let me offer the words of Jennifer Doudna, one of the two coinventors of the CRISPR Cas9 system of Gene Editing, as I transcribed them, from a short video she presented, entitled, ‘How does CRISPR Work?’

Before she gives us her brief explanation, she tells us the story of her nightmarish dream of meeting Adolf Hitler, and having to explain CRISPR to him, showing her consciousness of the gravity of her invention. You can view this entire short video for yourself in the first video section, Part 12, of this report. Again, we will insert some notes of further explanation [in brackets].

“The CRISPR technology is based on a bacterial immune system [in yogurt and cheese production] that allows bacteria to fight viral infection.” [”Once scientists learned how the CRISPR system worked in bacteria, they figured out how to reprogram it, to allow efficient editing of the DNA of any species.”]

“How did they do this [CRISPR Gene Editing]? They actually use a programmable enzyme called Cas9, which they can program with the little bits of RNA, these are little copies of DNA sequences [the ‘alphabet’ genetic code],and the [CRISPR] Cas9 protein to find a piece of DNA inside of the cell and cut it, and when that cleavage occurs [in the DNA], the cells take over, repair the break, and in the process, introduce a change in the DNA precisely at that place”, [deletions or insertions of new DNA material with new genes and new chromosomes, so that the gene expression of that cell will also change.]

In my limited understanding, the CRISPR protein molecule, attached to the Cas9 enzyme, along with a guide RNA strand included, penetrates the membrane of the nucleus of the cell, and, then, it runs up and down the double helix strand of DNA, within the nucleus of that cell, to find the exact place, matching the genetic alphabetic code in the guide RNA, so it knows where to clamp down onto the DNA, and make two cuts on one of the strands of the double helix, where they want to insert genetic changes, at a beginning point and an endpoint, as determined by the match of the guide RNA.

Now the natural cell mechanisms, that do the reattachment of the cut strand of DNA, take over, so that there will be still be one complete, repaired, double helix strand of DNA within the nucleus of that cell. Despite quality control mechanisms within the cells of every living thing, this natural process of reattachment of cut DNA in cells, called NHEJ, Non-Homologous End Joining, is one of the weaknesses in the purported perfection of the CRISPR system. The cell has a mechanism to reattach the cut strand of DNA, but this presents just one more opportunity for imperfections, and hence mutations.

In much of the research, in various studies, evidence has been found of the imperfection of the CRISPR Cas9 Gene Editing system. Besides the desired effects of the intended genetic changes, CRISPR Cas9 gene editing frequently caused genetic mutations, deletions, insertions and genetic code rearrangements, in areas of the DNA, that had not been targeted. Rather than list the studies, and give the details of these findings, of unintended mutations and changes in gene expression, from CRISPR Cas9 gene editing, you’d be better served by reading the enclosed articles and documents towards the end of this post in Part 11. This will give you a much deeper understanding of the risks of CRISPR Cas9 gene editing, and why we, just as does Jennifer Doudna, the co-inventor of CRISPR, urge some regulation in the current “free for all”.

But Doudna, still a big supporter of gene editing, also said in this same video, “Gene Editing can also be used in the ‘germline’, that means, in eggs or sperm or embryos, [or seeds], and when changes are made to DNA in these cells, the trait can be passed on to all of their future descendants.”

In the meantime, throwing caution to the wind, gene edited crops and gene edited fish and meat will soon be in the restaurants and on grocery shelves in the US and Canada. We have already heard of gene edited soybean oil being sold for use in restaurants in Canada and the US, with no consumer notification or warning. And, of course we have heard of Gene Edited Salmon from a Canadian firm, now being raised for the US market in Indiana. Regardless of the risks, the research and the business of CRISPR Cas9 Gene Editing is going full speed ahead.

Part 4:  What are Gene Drives, and Why are They So Dangerous?

This is a quick explanation of Gene Drives, prepared by the UN’s Convention for Biological Diversity. We will again add some notes in [brackets], in addition to their parentheses, and we will highlight some of their words, to call them to your attention:

“Gene Drives (also known as genetic forcing technologies) are artificial genetic systems inserted into sexually reproducing organisms, which are designed to always (or almost always) pass on a specific, engineered trait to offspring - and all subsequent generations of offspring. The effect of a functioning 'gene drive' inserted into an organism is that the genetically engineered trait will quickly spread, by design, throughout a population in order to alter the population or cause it to crash. Over time — and in an accelerated way — GDOs [Gene Drive Organisms] could theoretically modify or eradicate entire species. Envisioned applications range from livestock breeding (in order to increase ‘genetic gain’), to industrial agriculture (to increase herbicide sensitivity or to eliminate weeds), [or eliminate invasive species] or insect ‘pests’, to bio-warfare agent production, [It is known that the US Department of Defense’s DARPA, ‘Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’, is actively researching and experimenting with Gene drives, and calling it the ‘Safe Gene Project’.], and even to targeted disease-vector eradication (e.g., mosquitoes that carry malaria). Gene drive technologies are highly speculative; their efficacy is unproven; and evolutionary resistance is expected to develop, especially when the insertion of the gene drive reduces the genetic fitness of the organism.”  


The above illustration shows that with normal sexual reproduction, and with normal inheritance, a CRISPR Cas9 Gene Edited gene (or, also, a naturally mutated gene), will, over the course of many generations, become less common, because in each of these generations, there is only a 50% chance of it being passed on to the offspring. On the other hand, a CRISPR Cas9 Edited 'Gene Drive', where one copy of the altered gene becomes two copies of that gene, on both strands of the double helix DNA, so that, there is 100% chance, of the trait, or gene, being passed on to the offspring, after mating in the general population.

The problem with Gene Drives is that once they are released into an ecosystem, they can’t be turned off, (despite lots of research into how to limit Gene Drives, in duration or geography, no such solution has been found.). Once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back. I suppose the only way to stop a Gene Drive is to allow it to terminate the species, and hopefully (?), with some degree of scientific assurance (?), it will not migrate to any other species. If it is not a trait that will cause the collapse of the species, eventually every member of that species will acquire that Gene Drive, and trait, and pass it on, ad infinitum.

So, with no international regulation, the only thing protecting us from the release of experimental laboratory Gene Drives into the environment is reliance on Containment. There is a better chance the military DARPA program, experimenting with Gene drives, has developed sophisticated multilayer containment regimes, than perhaps thousands of medical, agricultural, and industrial researchers, currently experimenting on gene drives in the US alone, not to mention what’s going on with Gene Drive research programs for other nations’ militaries and corporations.

And even if we could trust the integrity of the researchers, and could assume there will be no carelessness, and even if we believe extreme caution is actually being taken, an accidental release of a GDO (Gene Drive Organism) could be disastrous for an ecosystem, requiring possible quarantines, and emergency measures. There is no antidote. Gene Drives are designed to self-perpetuate. There is no stopping it.

(A new type of gene drive has been developed within recent months that addresses the possibility of organisms developing a resistance to a gene drive, further assuring that it will not, with this new 'Allelic Gene Drive', developed to defend against natural resistance adaptation, so even developed natural resistance can’t stop it, once released.)

Part 5:  Where are we on Regulation of Gene Editing and Gene Drives?

In view of the potential risks presented by Gene Drives, dozens of NGOs, Non-Governmental (Environmental) Organizations, attended the Second International Summit on
Human Gene Editing during the UN’s CBD, Convention for Biological Diversity COP 14 (14th Biennial Conference of Parties) in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. They came to this conference determined to convince the nations of the world to adopt a moratorium, a ban, on all field testing (releasing into the environment) of Gene Drive Organisms (GDO’s), until further research and technology could be developed, that could lessen the risks to species, ecosystems and the environment. But just as they had encountered in 2016, at the First International Summit, most nations were steadfast against any limits to their research and development of Gene Editing and Gene Drives, bolstered by scientists, and organizations, like Target Malaria, funded by Bill Gates and the Gates foundation, (a big proponent of Gene Editing, Gene Drives, GMO’s, and of Biotechnology).

For any solution to be adopted by the CBD, this UN organization, the member nations would have to reach consensus, and in the meeting of 2018, although no ban or moratorium on the release of Gene Drives was reached, they were able to reach consensus on language, that included requiring an environmental assessment, and prior consent of the indigenous populations, before Gene Drives were to be released.

So even though the environmentalists and the nations seeking it, didn’t get their moratorium, which they felt so strongly was so necessary, at least they got some language that might preclude the release and field testing of some gene drives.

But, the end result of the November 2018 meeting was that there were still no international regulation, or international protocols, or any regulations, on the release of gene drives, or on gene editing in general.

It is very doubtful that consensus, for a moratorium, or even for some limits, or for any regulation, could be reached at the upcoming COP 15, in November 2020, unless some disaster, such as a disastrous accidental release, for an example, happens, to help the nations reach such consensus. Otherwise, the US, with its DARPA  Bio-weapon gene drive program, and any other nations’ military programs, secret or not, and with all the medical, agricultural, and industrial programs experimenting with Gene drives, will never agree to impose any limits or regulations on themselves, for fear that other nations might get a ‘leg up’.

And even if we are lucky enough to have the nations of the world agree to some regulation at the upcoming meeting, unless they can come up with some means of enforcement, such regulation will be moot. The ‘free-for-all’ will go on. Until the world agrees to some regulation, with some kind of enforcement, the only thing that separates us from disaster is the caution and ethics of the scientists, researchers, and corporate businessmen, and I’m not sure we should bet on that.

Part 6:  Will Gene Edited Foods Be Labeled,
             and Where Are We on GMO Labeling?

The answer to that first question, whether Gene Edited Foods, Crops, Fish, or Meat, will be labeled as such, is a flat “No”. Sonny Perdue, Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture, made that clear on March 28, 2018, when he ruled that the Department of Agriculture does not consider Gene Edited Foods, Crops, or Livestock, to be GMO's. The argument he makes is, that as long as a food is not ‘transgenic’, formed by inserting the DNA of foreign species, such food is no more different than any mutation through natural breeding, and so, since such food is “substantially equivalent”, an argument the United States has made for years for the older GMO’s, there is no need for it to be labeled, or for US customers to be notified in any way, that they are eating gene edited foods.

Coordinated through the White House Office of Science and Technology, and their Coordinated Framework on Biotechnology, the FDA and the EPA, along with a USDA, have all come to this same conclusion. The US government has no intention of labeling gene edited foods

On the “other side of the pond”, on July 25, 2018, the highest EU Court, the European Court of Justice, ruled that products of CRISPR Cas9 Gene Editing, of RNAi, and of Gene Drives are, unequivocally, GMO’s. This aligns with the Non-GMO Project’s and most food activist organizations’ definitions. And, since GMO labeling (labeled ‘OGM’ - in France, and in many other nations) is already, for years, the law in the EU, the people of the EU will not have to wait years for the development of a labeling program and its execution for their Right To Know what’s GMO. Their citizens will have the benefit of having all gene edited food labeled ‘GMO’ (or ‘OGM’) with no delay.

Back in the USA, this is far from the case. Despite decades of activism for GMO labeling, Big Chem (Monsanto, as we call it for short), Big Ag and Big Food (GMA, etc.), and conservative politicians, beholden to them for taking big donations from these big corporations, fought back against Americans’ Right to Know, spending millions in their lobbying efforts to fight any legislation to label GMO’s, employing every dirty trick in the book, and to this moment, (and, might I add, for several years to come) they have been very successful. There is still no mandatory labeling of GMO’s on American store shelves, despite politicians’ promises of transparency

Meanwhile, the anti-GMO movement has been largely successful in changing public opinion against GMO’s. Thanks to so many fine organizations involved with this effort, the word is getting out that GMO’s are not good for our health. We see TV commercials advertising more and more food products as ‘GMO-free’, and even ads selling dog food or cat food with no GMO’s, which must be very important to some pet owners, but many of these same pet owners seem happy to feed their own children GMO’s, (based on the many voters against bills to label GMO’s). But, overall, even the word, ‘GMO’, has been become very unpopular, and as info gets out on the dangers of herbicides and pesticides, involved with growing GMO and conventionally grown foods, its popularity is waning further.

By contrast, the words “Organic” and “Natural” have very much gained popularity, whether or not the product, labeled as such, is actually organic, or natural. The FDA has very few limits on what claims can be printed on a package (like 'NO TRANSFAT', while Hydrogenated Fats are clearly listed in the ingredients).

The market in the United States for Non-GMO Project verified organic products keeps growing exponentially, by the billions, and that food really is non-GMO, and Organic, which means that the product was grown without pesticides or herbicides, and without synthetic fertilizers, and is not GMO, or gene edited, and none of its ingredients are derived from GMO’s, whether or not it was 'highly processed', and whether or not the DNA is still intact. That should be the real definition of which foods should be labeled as 'GMO' or 'Organic'. The markets for non-GMO produce and products are booming, despite the fact, in America, that we still are being denied the clearly labeled Right To Know whether our food has been genetically altered.

And we all see rich people, like, most famously, the Obama’s, who prefer organic vegetables in their gardens, and won’t feed their kids GMO’s, but many of the same rich politicians, stars, and millionaires, while avoiding and not feeding their own children GMO’s, have no problem promoting the GMO construct.

On July 29, 2016, public opinion for labeling GMO’s was so high, at around 90%, when Obama signed the bipartisan, Republican and Democrat, Bill that would finally enact GMO Labeling. This law was called the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law, but all of us who opposed this law, which was supported and developed for the Congress by Big Chem, Big Ag, and Big Food, whose lobbyists influenced this law as a delay and disinformation tactic. From its inception, we called it the DARK Act, for Denying Americans the Right to Know. After years of desperate protest for GMO labeling, we begged our Congresspeople and our Senators to vote against its passage, and when it passed both chambers, we begged President Obama to veto it. Besides throwing out Vermont’s, and three or four other States’ new labeling laws, that had already been enacted, this federal law made it illegal for any State to enhance the Right to Know, for their State’s own citizens.

The Dark Act gave the Department of Agriculture two years, when it was signed into law, on July 29, 2016, to come up with a labeling plan, and they ran the clock out, as best they could, and submitted a plan for a comment period on May 4, 2018. During this period, many advocated for GMO’s to be labeled GMO’s, but the Department of Agriculture, lobbied heavily by the big corporations, refused to use the terminology, “GMO”, or “genetically modified”, or “genetically engineered”, because they expressed concern that such labeling would harm sales, realizing just how unpopular GMO’s had become. (It was even discussed that food manufacturers could just print a QR code on the package, as was provided for in the 2016 law, that would only be legible on a smart phone, though many don’t own one, and most consumers, who do own one, probably wouldn’t use one to read it.)

The USDA finally insisted upon using the term “Biologically Engineered” in the labeling, because, to them, that sounded a lot less scary than “Genetically Engineered” or “GMO”, worse yet. So, at first, they decided on just labeling the products with a small b and a small e, and a smiley face.


During the comment period, there were so many complaints that the public would not understand that “be”, standing for ‘biologically engineered’, meant GMO, so they changed it to this new symbol below, with a green plant in a field of blue skies and yellow sun, (with black ink or single color printing optional), making it look more like it might be an organic label, despite the word, “bioengineered”.


During the same comment period, before the final rule went into effect on December 21, 2018, they decided to not require any labeling on products with only “highly processed” bio-engineering derived ingredients, like Beet Sugar from 100% GMO Beets, which they claim is so highly processed, that there is no genetic material, or DNA, remaining, or detectable. So, they’ve decided not to label at least half the products on the grocery shelf that should be labeled. They kindly offered this “Bioengineering Derived” label below, for those companies that voluntarily want to use it. Again, the use of this label is not mandatory. Highly processed products derived from GMO’s are not required to be labeled, at all.


The final rule and labeling standards were decided by the USDA on December 21, 2018, giving food companies time until January 1, 2020 to begin this labeling transition, which was to be completed, and applied to all items on the store shelf, by January 1, 2022. This gave them 5 and a half years from the date the law, making GMO labeling mandatory, was signed by Obama, to satisfy the 90% positive public opinion of Republican and Democrat constituents, at that time, for GMO labeling. The DARK Act, as we call it now, and have been calling it since the day it was introduced, accomplished their goal of Denying Americans the Right to Know, our citizens, with this delay of 5 and a half years, and even when it will come into effect, the labeling will not include mandatory labeling of foods with “highly processed” GMO ingredients, roughly half or more of the products in the stores that should be labeled.

But the cruelest insult, of all, to the American people, is that when the “Bioengineered” labels actually start appearing on the shelves of American stores, somewhere between January, 2020, and January, 2022, the current rage in “bioengineering”, CRISPR Cas9 Gene Edited foods derived from Gene Edited Crops and Gene Edited Livestock, the US government has decided, will not bear the new “BIOENGINEERED” label. In fact, they won’t be labeled at all, using the excuse, in the warped way they’ve decided to understand the definition of GMO’s, as stated in the law Obama signed, that GMO’s are “any food: a) that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant DNA techniques, and b) for which the modification would not otherwise be observed through conventional breeding, or not found in nature.”

Their warped understanding of this definition, written into this law by industry hacks, is that since Gene Edited food is not “transgenic”, since there is no foreign species DNA inserted, and so, unless there is, it’s not GMO, according to them, and since DNA mutations sometimes happen naturally, that this BIOENGINEERED labeling does not apply, at all, to Gene Edited Organisms, and has nothing to do with them.

But, even the worst, most brazen bureaucrat or politician, on the take, or , may I say, on the corporate lobby bandwagon, must admit the irony of finally labeling GMO’s with a BIOENGINEERED label, under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law, while, perhaps the most advanced bioengineered Gene Edited products, as were covered in this article, are not to be labeled at all. Again, this shows the world the US to be a joke.

And the US’s aberrant definition of what is GMO, in our proclivity for supporting the GMO industry, may harm the United States and the Farm Segment of the US Economy, including the much too few Small Farmers remaining, and keep them from billions of dollars in potential food exports, because many countries, due to our nation's definitions and practices on GMO’s, might find our food exports unacceptable.

Unless we change the US position on GMO’s, and change our reluctance to join the world labeling protocols and definitions, we will continue to harm the United States, in potential export trade, and harm our farmers in limiting their markets, with more and more food importing nations’ distrust of our food products.

Part 7:  Where Are We Now on GMO’s?

GMO’s are looking, more and more, like a failed experiment. We covered (briefly)  the History of Agriculture, and the birth and development of Modern Agriculture and of GMO’s, in our 2013 article, Messing with Mother Nature, (and we will not be repeating this essential,for your understanding, background information in this new report), where we warned the world, based on the title of a UN publication, that the experiment with GMO’s and conventionally grown mono crops would fail, and that the world had better “Wake Up Before It Is Too Late”, to feed an ever-growing population in a world of Climate Change. We encourage you to read Messing with Mother Nature.

Since we wrote that report, there have been many developments that show the experiment with GMO’s to be ever closer to disaster. First of all, Roundup, the whole foundation of the GMO scam, just as we predicted in that 2013 article, doesn’t work anymore. Super-weeds have developed with a resistance to Roundup (Glyphosate), and so Monsanto (now merged with Bayer, and their like, Dow/DuPont and ChemChina/Syngenta, in an ever more consolidated Big Chem/Big Seed world, which we call, for the purpose of abbreviation, Monsanto) has had to develop second and third generation GMO seeds, that are resistant to not only Roundup (Glyphosate), but also to other, even more toxic and carcinogenic herbicides, like Dicamba (that drifts, and has killed hundreds of thousands of acres of other crops unintentionally,) and 2,4-D, a toxic agent that is related to Agent Orange defoliant. And recently the USDA approved GMO soy seeds by Dow/DuPont that are resistant to a chemical called, Isoxaflutone (IFT), which is listed by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen, possibly more dangerous than Glyphosate. So the variety and tonnage of herbicides, being poured and accumulating on our fields, and running down our rivers and streams, (due to the massive deluges and erosion of Climate Change) keeps growing year after year. (Mind you, herbicides, like Roundup, are also used on non-GMO crops, like wheat and oats, in order to dry them shortly before harvest, for quicker and more economical harvesting.)

Also, just as predicted, Super-bugs have developed with a resistance to the pesticides being used, so that more volume and more varieties of toxic pesticides are being applied each year, harming the safety of our food supply, and of our water supply, the health of humans, pets, and wildlife, and of the of the environment, because every one of these chemicals is toxic to all of the above. All vertebrates, including birds and fish and reptiles, have endocrine systems, much like ours, which the homeostasis, the balance of hormones, is thrown off by these pesticides and herbicides, with all kinds of bad health effects, up to and including cancer.

The Climate and the Health of our Environment is also being harmed by conventional farming techniques, with applications of huge tonnage of synthetic fertilizers on wide expanses of GMO and other conventional mono crops, causing 80% of the world’s N2O (Nitrous Oxide, a greenhouse gas 400 times worse in warming potential, ton for ton, than CO2) and causing huge amounts of CO2 emissions, from the application of Lime, and just from the Tillage of the Soil, and depositing nitrates in our water (blue-baby-syndrome) and causing Toxic Algae Blooms and Dead Zones in lakes, and on our ocean shores.

Another fact is that 40% of agricultural production in the US is discarded, and much of it rots in garbage dumps, emitting huge quantities of Methane, a greenhouse gas 100 times worse in warming potential, ton for ton, than CO2.

One of the greatest reasons that growing GMO’s is not ever going to be Sustainable is the rapid decline of Bees, Bats, and Butterflies, harmed by Glyphosate, and other Herbicides and Neonicotinoids and other Pesticides. Without Pollinators, most items in the produce aisle will eventually disappear.

There is more evidence that GMO’s are unhealthy for humans, pets, and livestock to consume,, and they offer less nutrition, that they harm the lining of the stomach, causing perforated bowel syndrome, etc., and causing increased allergy sensitivity.

But even if you want to believe the disinformation, that the GMO and Big Chem and Big Food industries spout, that GMO foods are “substantially equivalent”, and are equally nutritious, tasty, and healthy as Organic foods, all should be wary of the ever greater concentrations and varieties of dangerous agrochemicals, herbicides and pesticides, that they are consuming every day, and feeding to their children and loved ones, along with the food. (Many of us, we are told, have more than 20 different herbicides and pesticides, not to mention other EDC’s, in our bodies, in our tissues, in our organs, in our blood.) And even if these herbicides and pesticides were tested individually (which most have not adequately been), and were deemed safe (at whichever levels), no testing has ever been done on the effects of the vast combinations of pesticides and herbicides in our bodies, and what these combinations might do to our health.

Also, be aware, these chemicals migrate into the water supply, your and your children’s water supply. We are drinking Roundup, (among others), that is so ubiquitous, it can even be detected in the rain.

But, of all the reasons enumerated here so far, showing the fact that the GMO business is a failed experiment, perhaps the biggest threat to the continued well-being of the GMO industry is now playing out in the civil courts, where Bayer/Monsanto is facing close to 15,000 lawsuits, from people who have been afflicted with a deadly cancer, called Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Bayer/Monsanto is losing these court battles big time. The first few cases, tried before a jury, yielded billions of dollars in ‘compensatory’ and ‘punitive’ damages that were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Thanks to the efforts of Carrie Gillam, author of ‘Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer,Cancer, and the Corruption of Science’, and a contributor to the Guardian and to the Huffington Post, and Stacy Malkan, director of US Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative group, focused on the food industry, and who was a co-founder of the campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and an author or of an award winning book on that subject, we were brought into the courtroom each day, and we were able to view all the evidence, and how it played out before the jury, in a blow-by-blow description, day after day during these trials, all the twists and turns. It was fascinating to watch how the attorneys of Baum Hedlund Law firm did a masterful job of representing these plaintiffs, and proved in these trials, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their dying cancer patient plaintiffs were harmed by Roundup. And the ‘punitive’ damages, that were awarded, arose from the fact that Monsanto executives have long had ample evidence that their prized product was harmful, and they continued to mislead the public and the farmers to believe that it was safe.

Though Bayer/Monsanto is in the process of filing appeals for these awards, we also understand that there are discussions, that have begun, on a possible global settlement with the 15,000 cases still pending, possibly as large as $40 billion, so large that it could spell the end for Bayer, a company that before its merger with Monsanto, had been a very profitable German company.

Might I add, the liability attorneys at the Big Chem/Big Seed companies, (other than Bayer/Monsanto, and that is Dow/DuPont, ChemChina/Syngenta, and BASF), that all sell GMO seeds and the corresponding equally toxic and carcinogenic agrochemicals, also have reason for concern.

Meanwhile, it’s absurd how on the same television program, here in the States, we see advertisements for liability attorneys looking for clients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma type cancers from exposure to Roundup, and then moments later, we see an ad for Bayer/Monsanto promoting the use of Roundup, “trusted for 40 years”, “safe” and “effective”. One has to laugh, to keep from crying.

The fact is that Big Chem/Big Seed has been colluding with Big Ag and Big Food and with our Government regulatory agencies to perpetuate the fraud of GMO’s and Industrial Agriculture, which is poisoning America. Extractive Industrial Agriculture with high inputs of synthetic fertilizers and of toxic, carcinogenic chemicals, that accumulate, and degrade our Soil, and poison our Food, and run into our rivers and streams, and our lakes and reservoirs, and eventually our oceans, is not, and never will be, 'sustainable'. If we really want to feed the world, and not cause mass starvation, and not destroy our precious Soil and Environment and Climate, we had better wake up right away, and quickly make fundamental changes in Agriculture.

The bottom-line solution to GMO’s and the problems presented by conventional agriculture, a failed paradigm, is that growing food Organically (Miracle Gro’s Performance Organics, though it does include Compost, is anything but Organic.), and enabling more Small Farmers to feed the world, would solve a myriad of problems, turning a currently huge source of greenhouse gases into becoming a carbon sink, reducing greenhouse gases, (that are causing the warming of the Climate), and reducing all sorts of harm to our Soil, and to our Environment, while not polluting and overusing (as does Big Ag) Water, and, best of all, providing us with Healthy Food. The answer is Regenerative Organic Agriculture.

Part 8:  Beyond GMO’s – Final Thoughts

Based on the obvious conclusions we reached, and which you may have perceived throughout this report, that a precautionary approach to Gene Editing should be exercised, I’m sure this report will be accused of being “anti-progress“, and, even, of being “anti-science”.

We don’t agree with either of these assessments. We believe the science clearly indicates the possibility of unintended consequences from Gene Editing and of the dangers of Gene Drives, and that a precautionary approach is warranted, and that if anyone wants to avoid eating Gene Edited food products, or any GMO, they should be informed, so they have the right and ability to do so.

A massive multi-million-dollar Public Relations campaign, with virtually no pushback, has sold the public on the potential positive contributions of Gene Editing. A particularly well produced television advertisement by ‘America’s Biopharmaceutical Companies’, touting the promises of Gene Editing, is playing widely, and is included in the first video section of this report, Part 12. How could anyone be against “curing cancer with one’s own T cells”, or “making the blind see"?

So, they’ve got the world in a position that anyone who advises caution will be accused of being anti-progress and anti-science.

But we see the science clearly indicating that the off-target effects of Gene Editing on Crops and Livestock, for examples, might produce unexpected toxicity and allergenicity, and the possible benefits are not worth the risk.  We can be sure, due to the time frame of these experiments in Gene Editing, (and that’s what they are, experiments) that there will have been no long term, and barely any short-term, testing of these foods, before these products go to market, and before the population is exposed, so that we, the people, will become the test guinea pigs, to discover whether any ill effects might develop.

Considering the failed experiment of GMO’s, and of chemical and fertilizer intensive Big Ag, that we just enumerated in part 7, and considering the risks of Gene Editing, perhaps mankind would be better off not trying to dominate, to master, Nature, going to the extremes of manipulating genes within DNA, but, instead, work in harmony with Nature and Natural Genetics and Inheritance. Maybe we should leave DNA the way the Creator (here, I’m asking my atheist friends’ indulgence) designed it, with its ability to evolve naturally.

We believe in Seed Freedom, the ability to enable the common man or woman to grow food and provide sustenance for his or her family and community, without paying for proprietary seeds and for royalties or licencing fees,, and we believe in the strength of Biodiversity. And, certainly, Seed Freedom and Biodiversity are not consistent with Chemical Agriculture, or with Gene Editing, or with any other form of GMO.

For decades, American taxpayers have been subsidizing Agriculture and Farmers through the Farm Bill, (recently reauthorized in 2018 by a bipartisan Congress and Senate), that provides billions of dollars in Crop Subsidies and Crop Insurance to Farmers (also Food Stamps for the Poor). It has been verified that much of these taxpayer paid subsidies (crop insurance, etc.), these billions of dollars, are being distributed to millionaire and billionaire farmers, who are perpetuating the failed experiment of agriculture, enumerated in part 7, of mono crops and GMO’s, and industrial sized climate emissions, and poisoning our Water with nitrates, phosphates and with toxic Chemicals, and causing Algae Blooms and Dead Zones, and poisoning (and depleting – erosion, salinization, and degradation) our Soil, and poisoning and degrading our Food.

We have seen a report, that 245 millionaires, who live in cities, or in mansions on the beach, have received Farm Bill payments for 32 years straight. We have also found in our research that the top 1% of farmers, by size and farm income, received 27% of the subsidies, averaging $1.7 million per farm. Meanwhile, the Small Farmer is ignored, and left on their own to fend for themselves. This is wrong. (We have even heard of several Congresspeople and Senators, who own farms, and who are recipients of Farm Bill subsidies. Note: This is anecdotal – not fully researched yet).

(The bow-tied Democratic US Congressman Earl Blumenauer, of Oregon, introduced legislation in November 2017, called the Food and Farm Act, to rectify the inequities in the distributions of funds from the Farm Bill, and to promote organic food production, and many of the improvements encouraged here, and in our earlier reports. Unfortunately, this Act was all but ignored, and the current Farm Bill, with all its failings, was adopted by a bipartisan, Republican and Democrat, Congress and Senate, and was signed into law by Trump in 2018, much to Congressman Blumenauer’s and our chagrin. But the good news is, that the legislation to rectify the situation has already been written. All we’ve got to do is adopt it.)

If, instead of subsidizing these millionaire and billionaire farmers, and thereby subsidizing their environmentally damaging methods of farming, we were to take these billions in funds to support thousands of small farmers, and to encourage and assist new, young farmers. In doing so, we could transform Agriculture in this country to ‘Organic’, and help fill the burgeoning demand for healthy, poison-free food in this country, and internationally, for Export. That change could immeasurably improve our Economy.

A transformation to Organic, (and to “No Till’ and the use of “Cover Crops”) could make Agriculture a net reducer (or ‘Carbon Sink’) of CO2, instead of one of the larger sources, and by replacing Compost for Synthetic Nitrogen Fertilizers, this could reduce 80% of the N2O (Nitrous Oxide) gas, a powerful greenhouse gas, 400 times worse for warming, or Climate, ton for ton, than CO2. And, by composting Food Waste, instead of burying it, this could reduce the CH4 (Methane) emitted from rotting crops or food, (40% of food grown in America is wasted, along with its inputs, including billions of gallons of water), and Methane (which is 95% of what's in natural gas), is 100 times worse in warming potential, ton for ton, than CO2. And by supporting Small Farmers and Regenerative Organic Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture could assist the production of abundant and poison free food, and that’s what it’s all about.

Supporting and producing GMO, or Gene Edited, mono crops is anathema to Biodiversity and to Sustainability. And we, taxpayers, should not have to be subsidizing millionaire farmers, in a system that denies us our Right to Know, what’s GMO, and when I say, 'GMO', that includes 'Gene Edited Foods', for sure, just as the EU’s highest court has determined, and their regulatory regime, Codex Alimentarius, already embraces. (It should be noted that we, taxpayers, in the US, and in every G20 Nation, should, also, not have to keep subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, to the tune of billions of dollars per year, and the large banks must stop funding the expansion of fossil fuels.)

We need a Green New Deal, which would fundamentally change our approach to just about everything, to address the Climate Crisis, and there can be no Green New Deal, without addressing the way we grow our Food, for reasons of Health, of Climate, of Environment, of Biodiversity, and for Justice and Equity.

And, if we must allow Gene Edited foods to be produced and sold in this country, if we can’t stop it, we, at very least, have to get these foods labeled as such, and allow our citizens, who have as much a right to know and decide, as the citizens of the EU, whether to buy or eat any GMO food, including of course, Gene Edited foods.

Part 9:  Message to our Readers

There’s something else I’ve got to say, not going deeply into the Ethics of Gene Editing, which I’ve hardly touched at all in this report, but a moral, right or wrong, view on these subjects, I’ve got to, at least, bring up.

When Man is so arrogant that he tries to play God, and to master Mother Nature, and actually, in this case, tinker with DNA, the very essence of Mother Nature, don’t be surprised if, like Frankenstein, he produces a monster. And, predictably, Mother Nature will always fight back, but Man, nevertheless, tries to dominate.

If you study DNA, and the genetic code (our introduction was in part 2 of this report), and you realize how exquisitely complex and miraculous DNA is, and how it works, and that it is the foundation of life on Earth, not just in Humans, but in Dogs, Cats, Horses, Birds, Fish, Snakes, Worms, Insects, Crops, Plants, Trees, and in practically every living thing, exactly as that DNA was created by God (or, if you prefer, by Natural Evolution, which many of us billions of people, that claim a religion, don’t find inconsistent with Science), one can’t help but marvel at the elegance of the Science of DNA and Inheritance.

Instead of tinkering and messing with Her, humans would be better off by harmonizing with Mother Nature, and by taking advantage of Her wealth, the veritable cornucopia of Biodiversity, plant and animal,  as it was bestowed to us, and to work to maintain and nurture Biodiversity, as opposed to the current strategy of Industrialization, causing us the loss of that precious Biodiversity.

In the words of Dr. Vandana Shiva, the mother of the Seed Freedom and the Regenerative Organic Agriculture movement, in a recent article regarding the ‘Impossible Burger’ and ‘Fake Food’:

“Food is not a commodity, it is not “stuff” put together mechanically and artificially in labs and factories. Food is life. Food holds the contributions of all beings that make the food web, and it holds the potential of maintaining, and Food regenerating, the web of life. Food also holds the potential for health and disease, depending on how it was grown and processed. Food is therefore the living currency of the web of life.
“As an ancient Upanishad reminds us, “Everything is food, everything is something else’s food. “
“Good Food and Real Food are the basis of health .
“Bad food, industrial food, fake food is the basis of disease.
“Hippocrates said “Let food be thy medicine”. In Ayurveda, India’s ancient science of life, food is called “Sarvausadha”, the medicine that cures all disease.
“Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health has been nearly destroyed.”

“Biodiversity-intensive and poison-free agriculture, on the other hand, produces more nutrition per acre while rejuvenating the planet. It shows the path to “Zero Hunger” in times of climate change.”

Now, back to this report. We will not discuss and make comments in this section about the Documents and Videos included, as we’ve done in previous reports. Instead, we may add some comments under the listings, but will keep them in [brackets] to clearly distinguish them from the names and information. Also, this time, we will have two Documents sections and two Video sections, for ‘Pro Gene Editing’ Documents and Videos, and for ‘Primary’ Documents and Videos.

Even if you agree with our point of view, and would recommend that caution be exercised on gene editing, it is important for you to, at least, check out the Pro Gene Editing hype, the Documents and the Videos, so you can see how they portray Gene Editing and Gene Drives as the way to go. You’ll run into many, even friends, family members, and associates, that will be so convinced, that they will argue that any hesitation about Gene Editing is “anti-progress” and “anti-science”. So it’s important for you to see how they’ve reached that point of view, in order for you to respond to their ignorance.

The Impossible Burger, now being sold by many big name Fast Food (Junk Food) chains nationwide, and being promoted as being plant-based, and as such, so much more environmentally friendly and healthy, is a perfect example of this misguided understanding. People are so gullible. It’s up to us to educate, or, at least, counter their arguments on this subject, and to advocate the real urgency for taking real Climate Action, and a big part of that must be Agroecology, and the need for Real, not Fake, Food.

A few more notes. First, a note on Genetic Testing. Please be aware, though we don’t recommend against it,  the cheap $59, on sale, genetic testing we see advertised, we’re sure, has its limits as far as accuracy. We’ve already heard anecdotally about a woman who had a false positive on a cheap home test for the dreaded BRCA breast cancer gene, and had a preventative mastectomy. Regardless of whether the story is true, we’re encouraging you to take such test results lightly, and to have them confirmed professionally, before you start worrying. Also, that cheap home test might actually detect only certain forms of the BRCA gene, so even if you have a different form of that same gene, it may give you a false negative, while you may still be living with the heightened risk of cancer.  Our suggestion is to not rely heavily on these cheap DNA tests, and if you find something that concerns you, to have it confirmed professionally.

Second, a note on Exxon’s TV advertisements showing huge vats of Gene Edited Green Algae for Biofuel. These TV ads bother me, because the testing they show in these ads is not in a laboratory with containment protocols.  It’s open-air testing, so that this gene edited, possibly invasive, algae might easily escape into the surrounding ecosystem, and might prove harmful. Plus, we don’t need that fuel, (nor do we have the need for Ethanol in our gasoline, fueling the GMO business, and harming our planet). Hopefully, someday, we’ve got to get beyond combustion engines and stop burning fuel in our vehicles altogether.

Finally, we’ve included an Infographic from the FDA on the new version, indicating the changes from the old version, of the Nutrition Facts Label, at the end, after the two documents and two video sections. We believe the new Nutrition Facts Label to be as lacking as the old, insofar as we wrote in an earlier article, about the inexcusable fraud of being able to say that something that clogs human veins and arteries like Transfat, to this day, present in food, which, even food listed in the ingredients to contain Hydrogenated Oil, which is the same as Transfat, and then, depending on the portion size, the Nutrition Facts Label under trans fats says 0 grams legally according to the regulations, in order to make the food look ‘healthy’ and to deceive the public. And the food manufacturer is allowed to emblazon across the package, "ZERO TRANSFATS", while the serving might contain .4 grams of Transfat and there could be 8 servings in the package, and so a whole package feeds the consumer 3.2 grams of deadly Transfat, while the package labeling indicates there are none. The FDA, as well as the EPA and the USDA, populated by industry hacks, especially under Trump, has always colluded with Industry (also through Clinton, Bush, Obama and in earlier years)..

Nothing has changed since we wrote that article, when it comes to that homicidal fraud perpetrated by allowing less than .5 grams in a serving to be listed as 0 grams, making unhealthy processed food look healthier, for an example, than something with saturated fat, which the body needs for the walls of every one of your 37.2 trillion cells. Otherwise, if we eat that Transfat they’re hiding in our food, and the body uses it to make cell walls, it’s still as bad for the health of each cell, brain cells, bone cells, blood cells, etc., as it was described in that article, despite the occasional news blurbs making us think that Transfat has already been banned. Let me assure you, it has not been.

We thank all of our US and international readers (from over 150 nations). We really do appreciate you taking the time to read our articles. And we extra-appreciate when you refer them to friendsThat’s where our readers can really make a difference. If we can make people aware , we’ll have more of a chance to get that Green New Deal, to address the Climate Crisis, and that must also include Regenerative Organic Agriculture in the way we grow our Food, which must be pursued as aggressively as the need to stop burning Fossil Fuels, in order to feed the world ‘Real’, not ‘Fake Food’ in this time of Climate Emergency and Toxic Emergency, in which we find ourselves.

We love getting feedback. Our email address is: woodstockearthblog@gmail.com, or if you prefer Twitter, you can use: @Mikethemikeman1. For the sake of our people, our families, and Mother Earth, we encourage all of you, as charter members of Woodstock Earth, to spread the word and help get these stories out.

Part 10:  Pro Gene Editing Documents



Part 11:  Primary Documents


Part 12:  Pro Gene Editing Videos

America’s Biopharmaceutical Cos
Protecting Lifesaving Breakthroughs

CRISPR-Cas9 Explained:
The Biggest Revolution in Gene Editing
With Jennifer Doudna, Co-inventor

How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA
A TED Event with Co-inventor, Jennifer Doudna


Part 13:  Primary Videos

Gene Editing:
 Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Playing God: Should Anyone Be Allowed
To Edit Their DNA Using CRISPR Technology?


Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science – with author, Carey Gillam

Nutrition Facts Infographic:



No comments:

Post a Comment