Skip to main content

GMOs DO NOT Offer Increased Yield - Only Increased Headaches

By Theodora Filis


Because genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields.



Today, developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In nearly 50 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs.

In the US the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.

Polls consistently show that a significant majority of North Americans would like to be able to tell if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs (a 2008 CBS News Poll found that 87% of consumers wanted GMOs labeled). And, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 53% of consumers said they would not buy food that has been genetically modified.

In the US, GMOs are in as much as 80% of the conventional processed food.

Many people don’t know what a GMO is, let alone which crops and processed ingredients are high-risk.  As such, labeling only products that contain high-risk ingredients could give an unfair competitive advantage to products that contain ingredients containing corn, soy, etc.




Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “superweeds” and “superbugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies.

The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

Turing the tables on Monsanto, Lauren McCauley, staff writer at Common Dreams writes, "75-year-old Indiana soybean farmer, Vernon Hugh Bowman, is taking agriculture giant Monsanto to the supreme court over one of the most “systemic crisis” in modern farming: who controls the rights to the seeds planted in the ground."

Last week, the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) and a group of British and Polish supporters rallied in front of the Polish Embassy in central London, against the sale of Polish farmland to foreign multinationals.

Supporters conveyed the messages 'No to GMO' ' Local Food not Global Food' and 'Stop Land Grabs.'

The ongoing saga of Bt cotton in India continues to be one of the most interesting and important. Bt cotton yields have recently dropped to a 5-year low in India, which Monsanto is blamed on the farmers.

Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

A growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage, and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

Unfortunately, even though polls consistently show that a significant majority of Americans want to know if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs, the powerful biotech lobby has succeeded in keeping this information from the public.

GMOs pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown --- including the US.





Popular posts from this blog

Plastic Pollutes Every Waterway, Sea and Ocean In The World

By Theodora Filis


When we damage our water systems, we're not only putting marine life at risk, we're also putting human life and resources in peril.

Our planet currently has six plastic islands made of trapped garbage. The damage to sea life by these plastic death traps can only be imagined, but scientists are now investigating the long-term impacts of toxic pollutants absorbed, transported, and consumed by fish and other marine life, including the potential effects on human health. 



Plastic that now pollutes our oceans and waterways is having
a severe impact on our environment and our economy. 
Seabirds, whales, sea turtles and other marine life are eating
marine plastic pollution and dying from choking, intestinal
blockage and starvation. 

Scientists previously thought that only actual plastic floating in the ocean could harm marine animals. But, new research proves there are additional unseen dangers being created by the plastic we discard daily. Initially it was thought that larg…

Shoot First, Ask Questions Later – House Judiciary Committee Decides The Fate Of Online Piracy

By Theodora Filis

The US House Judiciary Committee is now discussing an anti-online piracy bill that will allow independent parties to cut off websites accused of posting copyrighted material. Called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the bill is designed to get around the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Committee Chair Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Currently, under the DMCA, a copyright holder can request a website remove material he or she owns. If the website refuses, the matter can go to court.
Under SOPA, which will go before the House Judiciary Committee on November 16, 2011:
      o Search engines can be required to block accused websites from results.

      o Internet service providers can be required to block accused websites from their customers.

      o Payment companies don't need a request from a copyright holder to block a website. Instead, they can do so on their own if they suspect a website may be posting copyrighted work without permission.


SOPA allows the third pa…

Patty Ameno's “Mad, Junkyard Dog Mentality” Is Barking Up The Right Tree and Getting Results

By Theodora Filis
Patty Ameno has been a steadfast and solitary solider, for over 25 years, in the battle to set to rights the horrific, self fulfilling acts of the Nuclear Industry. Ameno is well known for her environmental activism and for spearheading a 14-year lawsuit with Attorney Fred Baron, for wrongful death, personal injury and property damage from the operations of two former nuclear fuel plants in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The owners of the plants, Babcock & Wilcox and the Atlantic Richfield Co. settled with over 300 plaintiffs for more than $80 million in 2009. Ameno has received honors and recognition from the State of Pennsylvania, US Senate, and The Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP).

Most recently, Patty was the focus of an article written by John Emshwiller, Wall Street Journal, titled: Waste Land: One Town's Atomic Legacy: A $500 Million Cleanup:


Patty Ameno's One-Woman Nuclear Crusade“She has been praised as a community protector and criticized …