Are GMOs Really Safe for Consumption?: Scientists Overwhelmingly Says No!!!

Are GMOs Really Safe for Consumption?:  Scientists Overwhelmingly Says No!!!

Next28-Cheetos GMO ingredients

By:  Margaret Sedam 7/21/2014      Updated 8/17/2018

In considering this still a relevant issue on GMO labeling I looked into what regulations have changed since the 2014 article.  The USDA’s Agricultural Secretary, Sonny Perdue, announced that GMO labeling will not meet its July 29th deadline for publishing a rule for labeling foods containing GMOs.  The holdup, according to Purdue, is under review by the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB). Purdue is quoted as saying, “We turned in our papers on time; the teachers didn’t grade them on time.”  It should be noted that many companies already include GMO related labels.

According to an article posted on The New Food Economy the proposed rule is not: “a bill that informs consumers about whether or not GMO ingredients are healthy or safe. That’s the job of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Instead, this rule is all about the labeling, and thus the marketing, of food products—which falls under the purview of USDA. In short, the bill is an attempt to define what a “bio-engineered food” really is, and when it has to be disclosed.”  It should also be noted that the rule attaches a new anagram; what the public traditionally calls genetically modified organisms or GMOs are now referred to bioengineered food (BE), which could lead to confusion for consumers.  Could that be intentional??

2014 Article:  Still Relevant After Four Years

In 2014, what really peeked my interest in GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) was the heated debate on listing GMO content in the ingredients of prepared foods and fresh foods.  I, for one, like to know what I am putting into my body as I am sure that is the case for a majority of the population. Secondly, if genetically modified crops pose no threat to the health of the population then why not announce to all that GMOs are a part of the crop or prepared item.

I recently came upon a study, which was rejected and criticized during its first publication and was summarily pulled as questions mounted as to its accuracy.  The study has since been resubmitted for publication after undergoing a stringent peer review process. There are those in the scientific community who still doubt the study’s claims of the effects of GMO infused crops on an individual’s overall health.  However, Natural Society’s Christina Sarich wrote, “Over 1240 scientist signatories have demanded that a study previously published on the toxic effects of GMO maize and RoundUp that was retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) be reinstated. This is a massive backlash against an industry that has tried to silence well-qualified scientists from publishing the truth about GMOs.”  Another scientist was recorded as stating that “censoring science is playing with people’s lives.1

Conducted by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, a biologist at the University of Caen, the study showed that when fed a diet of GMO maise (corn), the effects on rats ranged from developing mammary tumors to suffering severe damage to the liver and kidneys.  Researcher and molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Antoniou revealed that scientists themselves were astonished at the aggressive rate of growth in tumors.2 

Nation of Change published an article concerning Thierry Vrain, an avid activist for organic farming.  Interestingly, as a Ph.D. and genetic engineer, Vrain was once a promoter of genetically modified organisms.  He once personally genetically engineered small fruit and potatoes for roundworm resistance. Today, Vrain speaks to groups about the importance of reducing or completely eliminating the use of GMO seed and instead teaches the importance of organic gardening and a non-GMO existence.  Vrain also points out that you run the risk of being ostracized or blacklisted if you speak out about the dangers of GMOs.  Clearly, this is an indication that big corporations own the media, what information the public is privy to and what scientists can publish without running the risk of being ostracized by those in control.  We must also consider the damage that GMOs can inflict on the environment as well as the human element….and that is another story.

We, the public, need to educate ourselves and question any organization that deems it proper to dictate what is good for us.  We must take back our ownership of the government, get big money out of politics and eliminate corporations as people. Perhaps then and only then will we take control of our collective destinies instead of letting others write that destiny for us.

1) Hotly Debated: 1240 Scientists Demand Seralini GMO Study be Republished, Will NOT Be Suppressed, April15th, 2014
2)  GMO Study: Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Develop Mass Tumors, Die Early, Anthony Gucciardi, September 19th, 2012



What Did Scott Pruitt Leave Behind at the EPA

What Did Scott Pruitt Leave Behind at the EPA

Margaret Sedam  7/25/2018

Yes, Scott Pruitt is no longer at the EPA; however, his legacy remains and it is toxic to the soil, air and water.  Now that he is gone his replacement, Andrew Wheeler, will pick up where Pruitt left off and continue the decimation of the regulations that were put into place to protect the Earth.   Wheeler was a lobbyist for the coal industry and he, like Pruitt, sees more rollbacks in his future at the EPA as acting director.

To date, the Trump administration has sought to reverse more than 70 environmental rules, according to a New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law School’s Environmental Regulation Rollback Tracker, Columbia Law School’s Climate Tracker and other sources.

Among these are regulations that protect us against pollutants that can greatly affect the health of both adults and children.  We should not forget that those pollutants will also affect the food we eat.  Here is just a taste.

The administration revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams.

Withdrew a proposed rule reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants.

Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways.

Proposed new rule rolling back groundwater protections for certain uranium mines.

There are also many regulations that are in the process of being overturned or rewritten for industry.  I point out that regulations protecting the environment were put into place as industries’ raison d etre or reason to be is based on the color green, not the green the earth produces but the green that drives industry… money.  There are regulations yet waiting to be diminished.

Opened up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In April 2018, the Interior Department announced it was taking steps to prepare for a lease sale in the refuge.

Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned.

Proposed changes to regulations for oil well control and blowout prevention systems implemented after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

Recommended shrinking or opening to commercial fishing three marine protected areas. Executive Order

Proposed the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration.

Reviewing a rule, developed after the 2013 Kulluk accident regulating offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic.

We were given this planet to protect and to be good stewards.  Is ruining the Earth in pursuit of profits good stewardship?  I think not.  It is also important to remember that regulations would not be necessary if we could count on corporations to do the right thing…they don’t and won’t.

We need air, water, and earth beneath our feet in order to continue to live.

Hazardous Waste in Arizona and Around the US

Hazardous Waste in Arizona and Around the US

by: Margaret Sedam

    2.8 million Arizonans live within vulnerable zones from toxic chemical leaks is the consensus from Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting.  There is an awesome interactive map on the page which identifies all toxic sites in Arizona.  The site itself can be accessed at the       following web address:  It is also to be noted that you can see what chemicals are stored where in Arizona, which indicates that chlorine, considered one of the most dangerous chemicals is found in abundance throughout the state, with the largest concentration in the Phoenix area.

In 2011, GoodGuide reported that Arizona has 33 businesses that put out a combined 322,015,549 tons of hazardous waste per year released onto the land, over 4 million tons of toxins into the air and over 2 thousand tons into the water.  The EPA’s Priority List of superfund sites has nine Arizona facilities on the list and only two of the nine garnered above 50% on-site inspections.  With this current knowledge public education becomes an even more important element for the people of Arizona.

I am embarrassed to say that I had not considered the effects of war on the environment and human health, however, consideration of war’s effect opened up new impacts to consider.  In order to understand the concept of war and the environment I would point to one of the principal environmental disasters this country has seen in my lifetime. That would be the destruction of the World Trade Center, which I saw happen in real time on a big screen outside the college library, where I was employed in 2001.  My instant reaction was the instant loss of life; it was sometime later when the health effects on those in the area of the collapse became apparent. Imagine this on a global scale as the world seems to be in a perpetual state of war. Following is a quote from an article by S.M. Enzler that gives a chilling account of the toxins in the air and later in the ground at the World Trade Center.

“As the planes hit the Twin Towers more than 90.000 litres of jet fuel burned at temperatures above 1000oC. An atmospheric plume formed, consisting of toxic materials such as metals, furans, asbestos, dioxins, PAH, PCB and hydrochloric acid. Most of the materials were fibres from the structure of the building. Asbestos levels ranged from 0.8-3.0% of the total mass. PAH comprised more than 0.1% of the total mass, and PCBs less than 0.001% of total mass. At the site now called Ground Zero, a large pile of smoking rubble burned intermittently for more than 3 months. Gaseous and particulate particles kept forming long after the towers had collapsed.”

A map of Superfund sites as of October 2013. Red indicates currently on final National Priority List, yellow is proposed, green is deleted (usually meaning having been cleaned up).

Think of this happening on a global scale.

Finally, although I am aware of many laws being written under the purview of big business, I was unaware that laws were being rewritten to make it easier to sell and/or develop brownfields (land) by offering purchasers liability protections as well as property owners.  The new laws only address responsibility for on-site remediation and no longer cover the hazardous waste that leaches onto another property. Laws being written at the state level are where the legal concept of “Rights of Nature” come into play; a right of nature to thrive and the right of citizens to create local laws to protect the local environment from overreach of big business.

Knowing the extent of hazardous waste sites existing in Arizona as well as the rest of the nation should result in making community commitment to the Earth stronger.  My personal commitment to sustainable energy and a sustainable Earth has been a long term relationship and I do not see that fading but growing stronger. It is our challenge to bring the people of Arizona together on this issue.  Green Times Magazine is also collaborating with others to promote agricultural hemp through an event venue taking place in our own Arizona desert in October in order to make learning about the environment interesting and engaging on a personal level.

I, for one will not change the direction that I have chosen but may have become a bit more resolute in the battle for the people, their land, their air, and their water in Arizona as well as the planet; it is a beginning.