GE Sprays in Produce Aisles

And just to make produce APPEAR ripe for longer.

Home | All Posts | Notes | Cards

Introduction

Dr Hamish Campbell, Chair of Subcommittee B on the Gene Technology Bill asks a submitter about Supermarket Sprays? Let’s take a look at the subject.

Do you want your fruits and vegetables sprayed with gene technology sprays to make them appear ripe for longer? If this bill is adopted, that will more than likely happen and without our knowledge or consent.

What effect will the build-up of these substances have in our bodies? Will they be able to get into our DNA? Will the effect be increased gut problems, increased cancer rates, increased 'coincidences'?

Cancer takes a while to develop; for instance, lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking. At least with smoking we have a choice; NOT so with unlabelled gene technology products.

A. Patented Gene Technology Produce Spray: Prof. Jack Heinemann

Prof. Jack Heinemann is the director of the Centre for Integrated Research for Biosafety (INBI), Canterbury University, NZ. He is a professor of molecular genetics with interests in biosafety, risk assessment and education. Here’s Professor Heinemann’s profile on the University of Canterbury website.

In the following clip, Prof. Heinemann refers to a patent based on gene technology for a spray that will be used in the veggie aisle to delay ripening of fruit and veggies. He says you will be breathing in aerosols of these things in the grocery store. Your exposure will be uncontrolled.

You can listen to the entire interview here and read the associated article here.

From the article:

…if we proceed with the proposed changes to our existing regulations, for the first time in human history you will have an advanced mutagenic technique
of great efficiency and power, for which there are no regulations at all. This IS new.

GE Intended outcomes are specific but unintended outcomes (adverse effects) are not specific.

These gene tools are toxic because they facilitate the gene sequences getting into your cells.

Under the proposed new regulations, such sprays will NOT be labelled as gene technology products, but will be referred to as NATURAL. Even the supermarket bosses and staff will likely believe they are spraying genuinely NATURAL sprays on their produce. We will all be deceived.

‘Natural’ has lost its true meaning.

In this article, Calling the latest gene technologies ‘natural’ is a semantic distraction — they must still be regulated, Prof. Jack Heinemann et alia explain the risks that come with not regulating gene technologies that have similarities with what occurs naturally. From the article:

Unfortunately, the risks from technology don’t disappear by calling it natural. The risk of harm from gene technology accumulates over time and scale of production.

B. Phillipa Jamieson & Supermarket Sprays

Phillippa Jamieson, representing the Soil & Health Association, refers to produce sprays in her oral presentation before the Health Select Subcommittee on the Gene Technology Bill.

She says she would not want to be in the supermarket when that is happening.

You can listen to Phillipa's full presentation here. She presents at around the 20 minute mark. Phillipa is editor and submission coordinator of the Soil & Health Association.

You can read the Soil & Health Association's written submission here.

C. Supermarket Sprays: Phillipa Jamieson Interviews Prof. Jack Heinemann

In this short clip, listen to Phillipa Jamieson ask Prof Jack Heinemann about Gene Technology sprays patented for aisle produce. There are various gene technologies that can be used. This is frightening stuff.

You can listen to the full interview here.

And this article Why Regulate New GMOs is based on the interview.

From the article:

Some gene technology products can be used to spray produce in the supermarket. RNAi (a gene-disruption technology) can be used to modify the genes of other organisms, not just insects – it could be used on plants or mammals. You could spray a dsRNA molecule or CRISPR/Cas gene editing tool that could get inside organisms and change them in the same way we would do in the laboratory.

Already there are patents projecting the use of such products in a live setting, like a grocery store. For example, there are genes coding for enzymes that create ripening hormones. These genes could be silenced so that they do not produce that enzyme. So the fruit or vegetables will appear ripe for longer. These products will be aerosolised and people could be exposed...

D. Supermarket Sprays: Dr Hamish Campbell

Dr Hamish Campbell, Chair of Subcommittee B, did not ask Phillipa for her sources regarding supermarket sprays; instead, he asked William Laing, who supports the bill and supposedly keeps up with the technology. Laing says he cannot think of a reason for their use...except for maybe an insect infestation!

Listen to Hamish and William here. Someone needs to tell them, patents exist for such sprays. And if the proposed bill progresses, supermarket produce will be sprayed with gene technology products that have had NO prior safety testing. We will all be guinea pigs.

The video clip also captures William's disparaging remarks against those who voiced their concerns about the very real harms associated with these gene technologies.

William says those who are against GMOs have not progressed their arguments since the 1990s.

And I say harm is harm—whether it happens in the 80, 90s, 2000, 2010s, or 2020s. Besides, the GE lobby has made the same old empty promises over and over again since the 1970s.

You can listen to William Laing’s oral presentation here. He comes on after Phillipa Jamieson.

E. GE Lobby: Same old Genetic Utopian Promises since the 1970s

The GE lobby have been promising a genetic utopia since the 1970s. And have produced nothing in agriculture that have benefitted mankind. But they are responsible for poisoning the earth with herbicides and insecticides. They are responsible for the development of superweeds and superbugs. They are responsible for reducing diversity—GE agriculture is based on monocultures. And they have driven farmers to suicide, because they lost their farms due to the much higher input costs and the lower yields associated with GE agriculture.

Listen to Prof Jack Heinemann talk about the undelivered promises of the Gene Technology Industry directly below. These clips are from the same podcast mentioned near the beginning of this article. See section A above.

Undelivered Promises 1

Undelivered Promises 2

F. To Finish Off

As stated previously, supermarket produce aisles will more than likely be sprayed with Gene Technology concoctions without our knowledge or consent. It will be done to make produce APPEAR fresher for longer. And we would be naive to ignore other possibilities. For instance, GE produce sprays in the supermarket to make greens look greener and carrots more orange.

And if there is no regulation, there is no requirement to demonstrate that these products will not be harmful.

There is a long list of products once considered safe. For instance, smoking was once considered safe and beneficial and was even promoted by doctors as relaxing, and this was despite the fact that there was NO evidence to prove smoking was safe.

Thalidomide was considered safe, Covid 19 mRNA vaccines were considered safe and effective and so was Roundup, which is closely associated the GMOs, and the list goes on and on.

And there is plenty of evidence of GMO harm. See here and here. Lets not add GMOs to the list of harms here in NZ

You can view Prof. Jack Heinemann’s presentation before the Health Select Committee here. He presents at around the 1:41:00 mark. He is representing the Centre for Integrated Research and Biosafety (INBI).

You can read their written submission here.

The top point in INBI’s submission summary analysis says all that should need to be said to stop this bill progressing.

The scientific case is not made for the proposed reforms to gene technology law. The risk tiering framework is not risk proportionate. It would lower the regulatory burden but substantially increase risks to human health and the environment.

In other words, any MP who votes for this bill endangers our health and our environment.