The United States Food and Drug Administration originally decided that GMO crops are “safe” for consumption thanks to one controversial method — employing the doctrine of so-called “substantial equivalence.”
This doctrine said that lab-created GMOs and regular crops are basically equal, and it only came about because of the Bush Administration’s close ties with Monsanto, which was having trouble getting them approved for human consumption.
The government has long held this to be true, but new peer-reviewed research by Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai is once again casting serious doubt, showing at least two major, and quite frankly disturbing, differences between GMO soy and natural soy.
Ayyadurai, who called out the FDA following his recent study, added that the current safety standards for testing GMO food are “outdated” and insufficient.
“The results [of this study] demand immediate testing along with rigorous scientific standards to assure such testing is objective and replicable. It’s unbelievable such standards for testing do not already exist.
The safety of our food supply demands that science deliver such modern scientific standards for approval of GMOs,” stated Dr. Ayyadurai.
“Substantial equivalence” is the term used to describe GMO crops after a few basic tests for proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other components have been done, and those numbers are similar to the same product from non-GMO crops.
Substantial equivalence means the GMO food “demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food,” and it does not mean that there was deeper research done of the complete molecular composition of the crops.
According to the FDA, GMO is soy is “substantial equivalent” to non-GMO soy. According to Dr. Ayyadurai’s research, it is not the same at all.
The study “reveals genetic engineering of soy disrupts the plant’s natural ability to control stress, and invalidates the FDA’s current regulatory framework of ‘substantial equivalence,’” according to the press release.
GMO soy: more carcinogens, less antioxidants
Dr. Ayyadurai integrated 6,497 experiments across 23 countries, which showed that there are big molecular differences between GMO and non-GMO soy.
The GMO soy had a much higher accumulation of a carcinogen called formaldehyde, as well as “dramatic” glutathione depletion (see the shocking charts comparing the two by clicking here).
Non-GMO plants have a natural molecular process of formaldehyde detoxification, and it levels remain at zero, according to the study. An accumulated amount of this toxin in GMO soy, suggests that that genetically modifying the crop have stopped this natural process from working.
At the same time, the GMO plant’s glutathione levels are largely decreased. Glutathione is an important antioxidant, which helps the non-GMO plants against oxidative stress, and aids in keeping the formaldehyde levels at zero.
In other words, without healthy glutathione levels, you won’t have a healthy plant.
Avoiding GMO Soy is Next to Impossible
More than 90% of all soy used in the United States is genetically modified, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. Avoiding eating soy is not that easy. Even if you completely remove soy milk, tofu and edamame from your diet, many processed foods contain soy, and avoiding it while eating out is virtually impossible.
In packaged foods it is not always labeled simply as soy in the ingredient list and can be under the names: lecithin, tocopherol, emulsifier, and hydrogenated oils.
Jill Castle, a food allergies expert, listed these common food items that often contain soy: baked goods, candy and chocolate, cereal and energy bars, deli meats and meat products with fillers, peanut butter, smoothies, margarine, mayonnaise, and chicken broth among others.
Dr. Ayyadurai Calls for Legitimate Testing of GMO Foods
The study’s collusion is that “the U.S. government’s current standards for safety assessment of GMOs, based on the principle of ‘substantial equivalence,’ is outdated and unscientific for genetically engineered food since it was originally developed for assessing the safety of medical devices in the 1970s,” according to the press release.
“Are we following the scientific method to ensure the safety of our food supply?” asked Ayyadurai.
“Right now, the answer is ‘no,’”