Genetically Modified Oil Wars

We have been advising against specific oil for many years, now it seems others are catching on.

Just say NO to GMO, like soy and canola, as well as any oil sold in a clear or plastic bottle.  Your health will thank you.

BY Deniza Gertsberg

Consumer Beware: the next generation of biotech crops focus directly on you. Unlike most of GM crops currently on the market, which are genetically altered to be herbicide and pesticide resistant, the new generation of GM crops are designed to express alleged nutritional benefits. Focusing on soybean oil — the fastest way to reach the broadest number of consumers because of its ubiquitous presence in many foods — biotech companies are mutating seeds used to produce oil designed to express various types of “nutritional” benefits.
Since we do not yet know whether genetically modified crops and food products made from them are safe, and in fact studies have suggested otherwise, it is hard to swallow and digest (no pun intended) the news that GM oils are designed to express nutritional benefits. How nutritious can food be if it has, as is suggested by studies, adverse health impacts? It’s like smoking cigarettes which have been designed to address halitosis.
But that is not stopping biotech companies from R&D. And so the oil wars have officially begun.
DuPont – United States Department of Agriculture recently deregulated DuPont’s Plenish – the genetically modified soybean that is high in oleic acid, a mono-saturated fat, which is said to significantly increase the stability of the oil, provide greater flexibility in food applications, yield a product with 0g trans fat and is claimed to have 20 percent less saturated fat than commodity soybean oil.
DuPont’s appeal to the public with its GM soy is two-fold: first, its Plenish is said to address the concerns of consumers and many health officials about trans fats. Since cooking with Plenish allegedly yields a product with 0g trans fats, Plenish oil is believed to be appealing to companies and restaurants that make or cook food.
DuPont is also hoping distinguish its product from the rest of the biotech pack by promoting the method it uses to design its GM soy oil. Rather than insert genes from other plants or animals, Plenish is produced by silencing certain proteins in the soy. While the silencing of genes makes for a more appealing PR message, science, however, does not support it because it has not been demonstrated that the silencing of genes is any safer than the insertion of foreign genes into the host.
Monsanto - Not to be outdone, Monsanto currently has two varieties of biotech soybeans pending approval with USDA that also seek to modify the nutritional value of soybean oil, promising to eliminate trans fats and produce oil with omega-3 fatty acid for use in yogurt, granola bars and spreads. Monsanto obtained the approval of the Food and Drug Administration in November of last year.
As we discussed it in the past, Monsanto’s PR pitch is aimed at both promoting the alleged health benefits of its Omega-3 soy as well as the alleged benefit of saving the world’s fish stock. The claim is that since currently the only sources of Omega-3s (eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)) come from fatty fish, the world’s fish populations are overtaxed because of overfishing. Monsanto’s Omega3-s soy is said to ease that pressure by creating a soybean oil with Omega-3s, thus, supposedly, eliminating or decreasing the need to rely on fish as the source of Omega-3s.  Monsanto’s environmental claims, however, ring false to many ears because the decline of the fish population is a complex problem that is caused by multiple of factors that cannot be redressed with a single solution.
Less known is the fact that Monsanto achieves its omega-3 soy by inserting two genes into the soybean genome, one from a plant related to primrose and one from a fungus.
BASF - Trailing behind in the food oil wars, and using a different crop, is the German Chemical Company BASF. BASF is developing GM canola plants that also produce omega-3s by inserting five genes from algae that naturally make EPA and DHA into the canola genome. The company’s product, however, is still in development.
Whether it is DuPont, Monsanto or BASF that reaches the market first is irrelevant. The point is that consumers will lose because they will end up eating food products that, while are claimed to promote a “healthy” (and “sustainable”) lifestyle, in reality, are potentially dangerous. Right now there is a big question mark looming over the safety of genetically modified foods that the biotech companies and the government are telling us does not exist.
But the Emperor here has no clothes. And pointing the consuming public to the GRAS determination by the Food and Drug Administration does not alter the safety concerns that still surround GM foods. (Read our past report on the problems with FDA’s GRAS policy).
What’s more pernicious is that the biotech companies will go on to label and market their GM oils as panacea for health ailments and an ecological savior. With each new next generation GM product, however, whether its soybean or canola oil manipulated to produce Omega-3s, or rice manipulated to produce vitamin A, the concept of health and nutrition is further perverted as consumers are enticed to purchase food that has not been demonstrated to be safe.
What will you eat when the New Frontier reaches you?

SOURCE: http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2010/07/07/the-new-frontier-genetically-modified-oil-wars/

GMO Now in the "WILD"

GM plants 'established in the wild'

By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News

Researchers in the US have found new evidence that genetically modified crop plants can survive and thrive in the wild, possibly for decades.

A University of Arkansas team surveyed countryside in North Dakota for canola. Transgenes were present in 80% of the wild canola plants they found.
They suggest GM traits may help the plants survive weedkillers in the wild.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Pittsburgh.

Continue reading the main story

"Over time, the build-up of different types of herbicide resistance in feral canola and closely related weeds could make it more difficult to manage these plants”
Professor Alison Snow Ohio State University

More on the GMO Deception

"We just drew 11 lines that crossed the state [of North Dakota] - highways and other roads," related research team leader Cindy Sagers.
"We drove along them, we made 604 stops in a total distance of over 3,000 miles (5,000km). We found canola in 46% of the locations; and 80% of them contained at least one transgene."
In some places, the plants were packed as closely together as they are in farmers' fields.
"We found herbicide resistant canola in roadsides, waste places, ball parks, grocery stores, gas stations and cemeteries," they related in their Ecological Society presentation.
The majority of canola grown in North Dakota has been genetically modified to make it resistant to proprietary herbicides, with Monsanto's RoundUp Ready and Bayer's LibertyLink the favoured varieties. These accounted for most of the plants found in the wild.
Two of the plants analysed contained both transgenes, indicating that they had cross-pollinated.
This is thought to be the first time that communities of GM plants have been identified growing in the wild in the US.
Similar findings have been made in Canada, while in Japan, a study in 2008 found substantial amounts of transgenic rape - a close relative of canola - around port areas where GM varieties had been imported.
State-wide
What surprised the Arkansas team was how ubiquitous the GM varieties were in the wild.
"We found the highest densities of plants near agricultural fields and along major freeways," Professor Sagers told BBC News.
"But we were also finding plants in the middle of nowhere - and there's a lot of nowhere in North Dakota."

The GM seeds seem to be competitive, allowing a plant community to survive

Canola seeds are especially prone to dispersal, through blowing in the wind or through falling from trucks, as the seeds weigh just a few thousandths of a gram.
Professor Alison Snow, an authority on gene flow from Ohio State University who was not involved in the research, said that authorities had anticipated the existence of GM "volunteers" - plants growing in the wild outside fields - but did not consider it a problem.
"Regulatory agencies in the US have acknowledged that volunteer populations of GM, herbicide-resistant canola are expected to occur, as well as populations of inter-specific hybrids," she told BBC News.
"Over time, however, the build-up of different types of herbicide resistance in feral canola and closely related weeds, like field mustard, could make it more difficult to manage these plants using herbicides."
US policy is not to place a GM crop under any special regulatory regime unless there is a demonstrable difference between it and its conventional equivalent. The varieties in use here were deregulated in 1988 and 1989.
This is very different from the regime that has existed for a decade in the European Union.
But the European Commission recently recommended that nations should now be allowed to make their own decisions on whether to allow the crops or not, once they have passed health and environmental impact assessments at EU level.
Authorisations at EU level have been issued for GM potatoes, sugar beet, soya bean, oilseed rape, cotton and maize products.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

More coverage

Not Balanced

I was visiting a friend recently and happen to notice two tubs of that margarine on her counter claiming to reduce cholesterol.

I've spoken against the use of these plant sterol products in classes I teach, in articles I've written, and in posts here at Natural Health News.

I always advise the use of unsalted butter (organic or BST free when ever possible) blended with high quality olive oil not sold in plastic.

Additionally I suggest the use of coconut oil.

The plant sterol mania coupled with the mis-information about cholesterol leaves out mention of the negative nutrition associated with the two oils relied on as some sort of miracle cure.

This morning a blog visitor mentioned a site that has some information that supports my theory on the use of canola and soy oil.

I am particularly moved by the supporting data this site offers, and here is a quote -

From The Journal of Nutrition. "Being a scientific journal it is a little difficult to read, but in summary, the content states that feeding two generations of rats with Canola oil as opposed to Soybean oil actually reduced the lifespan of the second generation of rats by about 20%! It also reduced the lifespan of the first generation, but by a smaller amount.

Erucic acid is the toxic component of Canola Oil, and the Australian Governement's website has the following very interesting article about the negative effects of erucic acid: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Erucic acid monograph.pdf. In summary, the researchers found that just one dose of erucic acid was enough to cause the buildup of fatty deposits in the heart muscles of rats!

For access to more information

Here's hoping you do more investigation and learn what I've been trying to educate people about for a good decade or longer.

And move on past those tubs of chemicals and any thing else you find that contains "plant sterols". They just aren't for your best health.

The recipe I've used since I owned a first edition of "Laurel's Kitchen" is simply one half cup high quality extra virgin olive oil not sold in plastic and 1 stick of organic or BST free unsalted butter. Soften the butter and blend in the olive oil.

and VOILA - now you have your own "spread". And this one promotes health! Keep refrigerated but know that it is always spreadable.

Laurel's recipe has a few added ingredients but I dropped those years ago. If you like a little salt please use ONLY farmed Celtic salt or Tao salt. That trendy pink salt just has too much fluoride for health.

UPDATE: A reader objected to my comment on Pink Salt. I chose not to publish her comment because it contained a commercial site link.

You may find out more about the fluoride in Pink Himalayan salt here -
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2008/01/salt-may-be-health-scam.html
and I will remind readers that farmed salt is not a product that contains excessive amounts of this dangerous element. Fluoride IS cumulative and it damages the pineal gland, other organs, teeth, bone, and body function, no matter the source.

What's In Your Oil

Once again -

If you follow Natural Health News you know that I am against the use of canola oil in any way, shape or form. You know as well that I have written about the "plant sterol" fiasco that is sweeping the aisles of OTC products that include Centrum Cardio and Bayer's Heart Advantage.

You'll find canola oil in Promise and their "super shots" as well.

Canola is also generally GMO in the market place and it is toxic to your liver.

One expert on fats and oils classes canola oil as "too monounsaturated for health".

Here is a chart and some comments from another natural health advocate that might enlighten you.

7.4% Saturated - 61.6% Monounsaturated - 31.0% Polyunsaturated

Although Canola Oil contains a high percentage of relatively stable monounsaturated fatty acids, canola oil goes rancid quite easily, and relative to olive oil, forms high concentrations of trans fatty acids.

Canola oil consumption has also been linked to vitamin E deficiency and heart disease, especially when a person is not getting enough saturated fatty acids in his or her diet.

I recommend staying away from canola oil whenever possible.