Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

by Jordan Muhsin

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) have become ubiquitous within our domestic food supply. In fact, the majority of consumers who purchase food products that have been genetically altered are largely unaware. Those who know, don’t care, instead “trusting the science,” choosing to accept these genetic manifestations as a healthy food of the modern age. After all, why should one waste precious time caring how their food was grown, if the end result appears, and tastes, nearly exactly the same? It remains believed by the scientific community that consuming Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) is completely harmless to our physical structure. The truth is, scientists are unable to predict the long-term unintended consequences which can occur as a result of eating synthetically altered foods. Instead, the lack of regulation associated with genetically modified products has allowed companies to begin to introduce these products into society. The vulnerability occurs resulting from the lack of clarity, and the coordinated ambiguity of interpretation presented to the public. The goal it appears, is to force the public to consume these creations before they can oppose the origin and risks behind what they’ve been eating.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assures us that genetically modified organisms (GMO) are safe. The FDA states that^[1] “GMO foods are carefully studied before they are sold to the public to ensure they are as safe as the foods we currently eat. These studies show that GMOs do not affect you differently than non-GMO foods.” As the FDA is the federal regulatory agency largely responsible for the security and safety of our U.S. food supply, it is difficult to dispute their public statements on GMOs, instead the agency’s views are nationally recognized and societally accepted as fact. The “Feed Your Mind” pamphlet produced by the FDA states that GMO foods are so healthy, that they may in fact be healthier than actual natural food. “Some GMO plants have actually been modified to improve their nutritional value,” boasts the agency. Lastly, the FDA debunks the myth that GMO crops cause cancer, stating “GMO crops are not changed in ways that would increase the risk of cancer for the humans or animals that eat them.” What other data exists, and what could it mean for the future of GM consumers? With forward-thinking, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knows best, and genetically engineered (GE) foods are perfectly safe. However, the reality is vastly different, as a compilation of data sourced from federal regulatory agencies reveal that there are more factors to consider before permanently changing the food supply in ways which might provoke damage upon the population and future generations.

Cry9C: Genetic Pesticide

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the term^[2] “’StarLink™’ refers to a variety of yellow corn genetically engineered to express the protein Cry9C, which is toxic to various insect pests of corn and acts as a pesticide (a plant-incorporated protectant).” Despite the lack of data^[3], in May 1998 “the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a limited license for the production of StarLink™ corn,” allowing ‘StarLink Cry9C Corn’ to be grown only for “animal feed, industrial nonfood uses, and seed increase,”(CDC). This did not stop StarLink GM corn from innocuously infecting its product into the U.S. food supply chain. This was against the Environmental Protection Agency’s advisement who refused to license genetically mutated corn for use in “food intended for human consumption” because of the unknown risks associated with the Cry9C protein. In addition, the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) warns that Cry9C shares “several molecular properties with proteins that are known food allergens.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals that the regulations held no merit, as “[d]espite the EPA ruling, Cry9c-DNA was detected in taco shells in September 2000,” evidence that the mutation had found its way into the American food supply.

On May 5^th, 2017, Congress passed H.R. 244, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act,” giving $75 million to fund the Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative^[4],^[5]. This funding did not allow for the genetic modification of animals, such as salmon, however appropriated funding for expanding “education and outreach to the public on agricultural biotechnology and food and animal feed ingredients derived from biotechnology” To assist with this initiative the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that they had ensured input was “obtained…from a broad group of stakeholders on this issue” before taking public action.

The result is a mass psychological operation known as “Feed Your Mind,” used to transform the opinions of the American population, inflicting the fallacious narrative throughout the world. One tactic used by this propaganda is the influence of “reduced pesticide use.” As if there were no other alternatives, Americans are now faced with a perplexing choice: eating toxic chemicals or pesticide-free genetically altered [synthetic] foods.

How Are GMOs Federally Regulated?

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are regulated through a dark triad of control. According to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), there are three Federal Agencies responsible for the oversight of Genetically Modified (GM) products^[6]. These three entities are the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Together, this nefarious trio is tasked to “monitor the impact of GMOs [Genetically Modified Organisms] on the environment,” taking action if [and when] problems arise. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration claims that the “FDA regulates most human and animal food, including GMO foods. In doing so, FDA makes sure that foods that are GMOs or have GMO ingredients meet the same strict safety standards as all other foods.” This statement alone reveals the threshold of neglect we are to expect from under regulated GMOs and other GM products. As an indication of the current lack of regulation associated with the U.S. Food Supply, the FDA’s Recalls, Market Withdrawals, and Safety Alerts page has its own database of the atrocities of regulatory abandonment produced by various manufacturers, under these same “strict regulations^[7].” How long will it take before there is a GM Safety Recall database, beyond the Cry9C spillover into the U.S. Food Supply?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does little in the regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and Genetically Modified (GM) products. The EPA’s primary job is the regulation of pesticides that are “used on crops, including on GMO and non-GMO crops.” This language itself reveals that GMOs are not considered by the EPA as pesticides, yet in the case of Cry9C, the purpose of the GMOs is to express a protein, acting as a pesticide. It is apparent that the EPA has a biased approach toward the use of gene-altering technology, as it would result in the use of less toxic pesticides, requiring less funding to be appropriated to the federal agency. A third department, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is in charge of setting “regulations to make sure GMO plants are not harmful to other plants.” Unlike the FDA, these agencies do not consider the effects from the regular consumption of GM foods in humans.

This means the only entity in the regulatory process which considers the direct impacts of consuming Genetically Modified (GM) products on human beings and their health, is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemonium is any indication of the lack of value that modern alphabet agencies and the medical bureaucracy has appraised for the American people, much exists to be discussed of the complete implementation of Genetically Modified (GM) foods into everyday lives. Often GM companies side with the interests of the major pharmaceutical oligopoly in order to achieve further funding and agency benefits. Like the military-grade psyop deployed to promote experimental coronavirus concoctions, through the synchronization of propaganda, these federal entities can further dupe the public into believing that consuming genetically altered food poses zero risks to their health.

How Can We Tell Which Foods Contain GMOs?

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) w must look for“text on the package that says ‘bioengineered food,’ the bioengineered food symbol, or directions for using your phone to find the disclosure.” This means companies will likely opt for “directions” forcing consumers to scan cans with their phones in order to determine the origin of the contents. This dramatic process will appeal to few.

The key to normalizing genetically engineered food is obscurity. To further abstract the topic and diffuse public attention to the Genetically Modified (GM) rollout, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) adopted new names for GM foods^[8]. “Herbicide-tolerant Crops” (HT) and “Insect-Resistant Crops” (Bt) can now be used in substitution of the term Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). This alleviates the majority of the problem major corporations have with the forced labeling of their genetic creations. The alternative definitions and classifications are an example of the many opportunities major corporations and federal agencies use to exploit experimental [less-than-safe] creations under regulation, passing these concoctions as “safe” to the American public.

The USDA report cites other genetically engineered (GE) “traits” proclaiming that other “GE traits have been developed (such as virus and fungus resistance, drought resistance, and enhanced protein, oil, or vitamin content.”Aside from the creativity of the name, the bottom line is that all of these “traits” were developed using genetic modification (GM). Soybeans have seen a rapid increase in genetically modified (GM) crops. In 1997, a total of 17% of domestic soybean acres contained genetically modified crops. However, in just under 25 years, 95% of America’s soybeans have now conformed to genetic modification (GM). The report indicates that “[c]urrently, over 90 percent of U.S. corn, upland cotton, and soybeans are produced using GE varieties.”

What Are The Risks of Eating GM, HT, Bt, and GE Foods?

The risks of consuming genetically engineered (GE) and genetically modified organisms (GMO) also include “secondary and pleiotropic effects” including altering our “biochemical pathways.” This fear is further expounded by the NIH, stating that “the presence of a new enzyme could cause depletion in the enzymatic substrate and subsequent build up of the enzymatic product.” The overall inference drawn by the National Institutes of Health warns us that “[t]here is a great deal of unknowns when it comes to the risks of GM foods.” A 2009 study produced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) warns that consuming Genetically Modified (GM) foods^[9] “increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.” Additionally, the NIH report reveals that “[a]nimal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems…The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.”

IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor 1). Genetically Modified foods can increase IGF-1 in humans^[10]. According to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Library of Medicine (NLM), “IGF-1 is a hormone that manages the effects of growth hormone (GH) in your body.” In children, an increased level of growth hormone (GH) leads to excessive growth (compared with children of the same age), including an overly large head and larger than normal hands and feet. Excess GH also includes mild to moderate obesity in children. For adults, an increased level of growth hormone (GH) can lead to a deep, husky voice, larger than normal facial features such as lips, nose, and tongue, excessive sweating, excessive body odor, thickening of bones, coarse skin, oily skin, irregular menstrual cycles in women, and erectile dysfunction in men.

In 2003, a study was produced showing IGF-1 signaling may contribute to “malignant transformation, tumor growth, local invasion and distant metastases, and resistance to treatment.” The article revealed “IGF-I binds to the IGF-I receptor, a tyrosine kinase receptor that transduces signals to the nucleus and mitochondrion primarily via the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and PI3K/Akt pathways.”

A 2016 study reported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) indicates that^[11], “IGF‐1 is known to promote cancer development by inhibiting apoptosis and stimulating cell proliferation. Epidemiological studies have reported a positive association between circulating IGF‐1 levels and various primary cancers, such as breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer.”

As the 2003 study revealed, IGF-1 binds to the IGF-1 receptor. This receptor is also responsible for transducing signals using the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and PI3K/Akt pathways.

MAPK. According to a 2019 study released by the NIH, “The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is an important bridge in the switch from extracellular signals to intracellular responses. Alterations of [MAPK] signaling cascades are found in various diseases, including cancer, as a result of genetic and epigenetic changes^[12].” This means that GMOs have the ability to increased IGF-1 levels, which could inherently alter the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, leading to injurious results to the consumer.

PI3K/Akt. In 2021, a further study was conducted on the PI3K/Akt pathway. Its findings indicated that^[13] “[t]he PI3K/AKT pathway is one of the most frequently over-activated intracellular pathways in several human cancers. This pathway, acting on different downstream target proteins, contributes to the carcinogenesis, proliferation, invasion, and metastasis of tumour [sic] cells.”

With genetically engineered (GE) foods, many “traits” can be added, combining unique attributes to foods otherwise lacking nutrition. However, with every “trait” comes a genetically altered component producing an increase in IGF-1 leading to over-activated receptor binding, disrupting MAPK and P13K/Akt pathways. While few regulations exist for combining multiple “traits,” these enhanced attributes become more difficult to discern. It appears that combining genetic modifications is an opportunity to add new marketing traits to everyday foods while passing these new synthetically-altered creations under U.S. regulation. This tactic is exploited to ensure that genetic engineering (GE) manufacturers and stakeholders yield maximum profits from the GE mutations before federal restrictions can be set. Once this happens, limits are placed on the amount of genetic modification which can be conducted while still being considered “safe” for human consumption.

Fortunately for Genetically Modified (GM) food manufacturers, their stakeholders, and federal regulatory agencies,“IGF-1 testing isn’t common for adults, as other disorders are much more likely to cause these symptoms,” (NIH, NLM). This means that the nefarious GM-enterprise can continue to progress as consumers rely on the conflict-of-interest-(COI)-backed research accepted as fact by the FDA in tandem with chemical pesticide companies, regulatory agencies, and stakeholders. The result is an unregulated national market, eventually becoming global, that is until problems arise which can be traced back to consuming the altered genome.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) considers Genetically Modified (GM) mutations to be “transgenic,” stating^[14], “there are many opinions about scarce data on the potential health risks of GM food crops, even though these should have been tested for and eliminated before their introduction.” The term “scarce data” alone is enough to make you think twice about consuming the next genetic invention touted as a healthy alternative to actual natural food. The National institutes of Health (NIH) concurs that this experimental technology should have been tested, and potential health risks should have ben eliminated before their irreversible introduction into the public. Now we must face a new task, the aftermath of forcing the global population to transition to genome-altered vegetation, meats, and other everyday food products.

One consequence of transgenics is the microevolution of pests and weeds. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) cites this potential ramification, warning of “superbugs” and “super weeds.” The NIH believes that “[t]he evolution of [GM expressed protein] resistant pests and weeds termed superbugs and super weeds is another problem.”The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reveals that Genetically Modified (GM) research holds massive conflicts of interest (COI). This COI matters because the results of this research hold the authority for legislative influence on its classification, regulation, and the determination of its public safety. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) states that, “[i]ronically, chemical companies that sell weed killers are a driving force behind this research.” This means we have been duped into believing this technology is safe, a decision likely made public to ensure pesticide regulations will not change, nor will the funding which these federal regulatory agencies receive through Congressional appropriations.

While aimed to reduce pesticide ingestion, the National Institutes of Health continues to acknowledge that the risks of consuming Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are unknown, warning us that “[n]ew proteins [that] can be synthesized that can produce unpredictable allergenic effects.” These allergenic effects are referred to by the NIH as potential “genetic hazards.”

What is America’s Policy on GMOs?

According to our National Institutes of Health (NIH) the most important aspect of GM policy is doing nothing, until “any potential risk, immunological, allergenic, toxic or genetically hazardous, could be recognized and evaluated[,] if health concerns arise.”

7 U.S.C. § 136

Title 7 U.S.C. § 136, indicates the specifications for pesticide use and ecotoxicity in America. It also states that^[15],^[16] “(2) A pesticide is misbranded if—(D) the pesticide contains any substance or substances in quantities highly toxic to man, unless the label shall bear, in addition to any other matter required by this subchapter—”

(i) “the skull and crossbones;”
(ii) “the word ‘poison’ prominently in red on a background of distinctly contrasting color; and”
(iii) “a statement of a practical treatment (first aid or otherwise) in case of poisoning by the pesticide.”

Under Title 7 U.S.C. § 136, Genetically Modified (GM) foods are misbranded, as genetically altered foods have the potential to induce biological changes in our bodies. While no short-term effects have been noted, the research was conducted with a preconceived outcome in a controlled environment and funded by the chemical [pesticide] companies themselves.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was first administered in 1947 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to protect farmers^[17]. This was defined as “requiring [the] accurate labeling of pesticide contents.” This legislative measure would allow the farmers to make informed decisions about which products were used on crops. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “[s]ince 1981, FIFRA has required most residential-use pesticides with a signal word of “danger” or “warning” to be in child-resistant packaging (CRP).” In the case of Cry9C, Genetically Modified (GM) proteins were [artificially] expressed through altering the natural genome. The purpose of adjusting the plant’s genetics to express this Cry9C protein was to act in the same way as a pesticide. If this is the case, why are foods which contain these genetic modifications (GM) not classified as pesticides, receiving similar labeling?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

On June 11^th, 2001 the CDC released a report which was developed through conducting experiments using children as human test subjects. In this report participants were exposed to Cry9C, a genetic mutation found ingenetically modified corn, and the resulting biological effects were documented. To obtain children as test subjects, the researchers coerced parents to feed their children genetically engineered (GE) food. The CDC’s pitch, written in the paragraph before the line indicated “Child’s Signature,” proclaims,

“You may have heard that the government has recalled some foods that contain corn. That is because there is a concern about whether or not those foods are safe to eat. They contain a new type of corn that isgenetically engineered so that insects can’t eat it.”

“We are doing an investigation to find out information about people who have eaten some of those foods. We would like you to be in this investigation. You don’t have to unless you want to. It is up to you.”

Below the lines are text indicating space for, “Child’s signature,” “Child’s printed name,” “Parent or guardian signature,” and, “Parent or guardian name.”

The fact that the public hasn’t heard any horrific findings from these studies is largely due to the disclosure agreement which the human test subject (in this case children) agreed to. The CDC agreement vowed “We will keep your test results and what you tell us confidential to the extent allowed by law…We will not tell anyone else what your test result is.” What is interesting, is that medical institutions only demand health privacy for their Clinical Trials and human experimentation, however when new mRNA coronavirus concoctions were rolled-out, health privacy no longer was applicable to our basic human rights.

The World Health Organization (WHO)

The World Health Organization (WHO) has plans for the future of Genetically Modified (GM) products, predicting that^[18], “[i]n the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential or improving the efficiency of food production systems.” This means at some point, institutions will source easy-to-find substances, like insects, and infuse them with artificial nutrients, while elites continue to enjoy the natural luxuries provided by God.

Two risks that are raised to attention by the World Health Organization (WHO) are Gene Transfer and Outcrossing^[19]. The WHO describes Gene Transfer as the “[g]ene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health.” The World Health Organization believes this could be dangerous “if antibiotic resistance genes…were to be transferred.” Outcrossing is the “migration” of synthetic species, into the wild. The WHO warns of this modern occurrence citing that “cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption.”

The WHO also indicates that in many countries GM foods remain unregulated. Even with regulation, warns the global health authority, the way these regulations address the risks of genetic modification varies.

The World Economic Forum (WEF)

The World Economic Forum (WEF) advocates for genetically engineered foods, among other transhumanist innovations^[20]. The WEF believes that “GM [Genetically Modified] corn…is better for people and animals because it has lower levels of highly toxic contaminating fungal toxins than do either conventional or organic corn.” The institution dispels all concerns surrounding genetic modification, calling them “myths.”

The WEF mourns that^[21] “[t]he tragedy is that the widespread public hostility to GM crops, effectively fuelled [sic] by advocacy organizations, has promoted the development of more complex regulations and, in many countries, completely blocked GM crop introduction. Today we have almost no GM crops other than cotton, corn, canola and soybeans.” To further the GM indoctrination of the public, the World Economic Forum calls Genetically Modified (GM) foods the solution to climate change. Genetic engineering will “help organisms adapt to rapidly changing climates.” The WEF additionally believes it is equally necessary to genetically alter microbes within the soil, in order to “sequester carbon.” While the rally behind the reduction of our carbon footprint continues, the changes we make to reconfigure the composition of our planet may ultimately lead to life-threatening irreversible damage. In reality, by advocating genetic engineering as a vital means of sustainability, the WEF can sway legislation in various nations. This will result in the deregulation of genetic manipulation, furthering the illusory utopic visions of the global regime.

Genetically Modified Animals (GMA)

With the rise of under-regulated GMOs comes the arrival of Genetically Modified Animals (GMA). What began as a solution to prevent world hunger, is quickly becoming permission to unnecessarily spread this technology into all sectors of society. From AquAdvantage Salmon, to Galsafe Pigs, to SLICK cattle, genetically modified animals (GMA) have already begun to work their way into our domestic food supply^[22],^[23],^[24] (FDA). As the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe, the technology of genetic engineering will continue to infiltrate the normalcy to the origin of natural food, until there is no alternative but genetically engineered (GE) products. Regarding genetically modified animals (GMA), the FDA has already placed official public designation on them to be “low-risk,” granting official clearance for the marketing of the genetically altered products^[25].

Ultra-Violet (UV) Lights

One solution to GMOs and Pesticides are the use of Ultraviolet (UV) Lights. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates “some UV lights are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as pesticide devices.” The 2020 EPA Compliance Advisory goes on to debunk the legitimacy of these devices, in defense of the continuation of funding for their own purpose regarding Genetically Modified (GM) foods. While even notorious entities like the WEF advocate that the use of UV light can reduce the need for pesticides by 50%, in actuality the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not acknowledge these devices, as they do not directly relate to environmental hazards^[26].

In September 1999 the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) produced a Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, describing the technology used to disinfect wastewater using Ultraviolet (UV) technology^[27]. “An Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system transfers electromagnetic energy from a mercury arc lamp to an organism’s genetic material (DNA and RNA). When the UV radiation penetrates the cell wall of an organism, it destroys the cells ability to reproduce.”

UV disinfection is cited by the EPA as effective at “inactivating most viruses, spores, and cists.” In terms of safety, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assures the public that “there is no residual effect the can be harmful to humans or aquatic life.”

Despite these stark advocations in favor of Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, when it comes to the big business of the [Genetically-Modified] “GM-enterprise,” there is no substitute. If it is less than highly profitable for the major corporations and federal agencies, mass suppression discrediting alternative positions will ensue, discouraging public interest. In order for UV to be considered a “pesticide product,” the device must “[incorporate] a substance or mixture of substances to perform its intended pesticidal purpose.” This means it must contain toxic chemicals or other known pesticidal substances to classify as a pesticide, and UV light itself cannot be registered nor used as a legitimate substitute.

God’s Genetically Unmodified Organisms

We are reminded in Deuteronomy 22:9 (NIV) “Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.” God’s words heed warning to keep genetically modified organisms separate from their natural origins. As shown in the Bible, the unintentional result may be irreversible defilement to our domestic food supply. During Creation, God said in Genesis 1:11,12 (NLT) “‘Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.’ And that is what happened. The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.” While Genesis reveals how the Earth was formed, it also shows the mindful intentions placed into each species by God, each for a specific purpose. When we begin to manipulate that purpose, no matter how small it may seem, we supersede God’s intention for our own. God warns us again in Leviticus 19:19 (CSB) “You are to keep my statutes. Do not crossbreed two different kinds of your livestock, sow your fields with two kinds of seed, or put on a garment made of two kinds of material.” These words have been written by the Holy Spirit Himself to ensure we do not deter nature from God’s kingdom, and to prevent us from believing the fallacy that our depraved concoctions are superior to the Creator of all we see before us.

Conclusion

The fact is, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have the ability to become a solution to world hunger, and prevent us from falling subject to the United Nations (UN), and World Economic Forum’s (WEF) global agenda to switch to bugs as a sustainable protein source. However, we cannot know for certain the effects of consuming transgenic substances based upon the lack of knowledge associated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), and the sway from chemical companies to ensure the current regulations for toxic substances sprayed on U.S. crops will not change. Unfortunately, there exist far more products and devices that are deliberately neglected in order to maintain funding toward federal regulatory agencies and their flawed investments like GMOs. Rather than use Genetically Modified (GM) foods as marketing tactics, companies have begun using the terms “GMO-free” to describe what we once considered unchangeable. If we do not begin to reflect on the potential risks of genetic manipulation to the U.S. Food supply, and their effects on generations of human health, we may soon find ourselves living in a modern Babylon, while scientists continue to build their genetic tower under the guise of security, apart from God. Will Genetically Modified (GM) foods replace the very vegetation, meats, and food supply that we have come to rely on?

– February 23th, 2023

^[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/135280/download

^[2] https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pip/starlink_corn.htm

^[3] https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/cry9creport/background.htm

^[4] https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ31/PLAW-115publ31.pdf

^[5] https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/agricultural-biotechnology-education-and-outreach-initiative

^[6] https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/how-gmos-are-regulated-united-states

^[7] https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts

^[8] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-u-s/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/

^[9] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18989835/

^[10] https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/igf-1-insulin-like-growth-factor-1-test/

^[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5119990/