GMO Dangers & ResearchPosted 9 years ago under Uncategorized
A fictional “World Scientific Consensus” about GMO has been perpetuated over recent years in mainstream media outlets and is proclaimed as “science” and “science-based” and “evidence-based” by the very manufactures, distributors and sellers of genetically modified organisms in agriculture in the United States of America. There is no world scientific consensus on GMO. It is a completely fabricated version, since scientific safety research – and that which is NOT done by the industries in question, is not readily made available to the public. Most Americans are “in the dark” concerning the real scientific community discussion–regarding this thirty-year-old experiment called “transgenics.” The current “think tanks” between rogue industry scientists, hack journalists and pro-GMO “reporters” are nothing more than propaganda mixed with delusions of grandeur.
http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16722-jon-entine-the-chemical-industry-s-master-messenger
In an ideal consensus, all variables and elements of a process or science are considered, but in this case, chemical-agriculture giants/monopolies and their proponents–paid journalists and insider scientists–make false claims, assertions, cite false statistics and even source studies that DO NOT exist, then call it consensus. Of the studies that do exist, few of which are actually peer-reviewed, how many are funded by Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Dupont Chemical, Bayer Crop Science, Syngenta, Cargill or any other massive corporate entity that lobbies in Washington DC with millions, sometimes billions of dollars? And how many GMO safety studies are done because the heads of US regulatory agencies are former presidents, vice-presidents, CEOs or lobbyists for the companies that need to falsify these studies to get their GM products growing and selling, and unlabeled at that? The truth is revealed as the lie is deconstructed, one article at a time.
Deconstructing the massively distorted, fabricated “World Scientific Consensus” on “GMO Safety”
The consensus on GMO is that there is no consensus. There are no valid GMO safety science studies or research because the ones made visible, whether on websites or a few cherry-picked peer-review articles, are funded by Monsanto. The US Right-to-Know group dredged up thousands of documents exposing via email that biotechnology or “agrichemical” industry heads at Monsanto recruited and “enlisted,” via their PR firm Ketchum, a couple dozen hacks, shills, charlatans and hucksters to reiterate and regurgitate industry-written propaganda. These documents verify the behind-the-scenes collusion of the biotech industry with paid-for hack science to sell Americans dangerous, experimental food, knowingly. They push GMO safety and quote sources, documents, books and “peer-reviewed” articles that don’t exist, and they claim everything they say is backed by scientific research. Jon Entine, former writer for Forbes.com, is the leader of the hack pack that writes the most convincing jargon (1) to influence the public, scientists, promoters, council members and even Congress. Along with Dr. Kevin Folta of University of Florida, the proof of fraud and negligence of safety concerns is more than evident. (2)
Hundreds of GMO “safety research” papers turn out to be bogus–only bug-killing statistics from chemical tests
October, 2013: Here’s Jon Entine’s largest PLATFORM AND LIE he purports across media outlets like “Genetic Literacy Project” … (3)
“A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.”
He goes on later in the article to say:
“A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue. Those claims are simply not true. Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the magnitude of the research has never been evaluated or documented.”
Here is Entine’s propaganda article for reference: (http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/22/michael-pollan-brags-about-twisting-facts-to-support-anti-gmo-activism-and-duping-credulous-new-york-times/).
So then, if you are a researcher or investigative reporter or just a health enthusiast that wants to know the truth about GMO and GMO safety and GMO research, you click on the link to this PDF in Entine’s article of the “recent paper” by “independent” Italian scientists, you get many studies about HOW MANY insects, weeds and fungus that chemical pesticides kill. Those are NOT safety studies. Of course, the first few handfuls of studies talk about the environment risks of GMO, but this doesn’t constitute the whole lot as credible or even relating to what Entine implies. Many of the papers simply talk about safety protocol that is or is not in place, or should be. These are also NOT scientific or science-based safety studies or research. Plus, to consider that many of the studies are done by Swiss scientists and not Italian ones is another questionable point of light.
There is NO world scientific consensus, there are not 1783 studies–there are not even 50 studies on the safety of GMOs, and there most certainly are not a hundred independent science bodies around the world that say GMO is safe. Most of the rest of the world, besides USA, labels GMO or rejects them all together, banning them from their countries, like Russia and Japan. So, why are science “papers” that simply tell us there is a “need” for a study or a “need” for an assessment all being referred to as safety studies that prove GMO is safe and beneficial? Because Jon Entine is lying.
For example, this paper, entitled: “Need for an Integrated Safety Assessment” of GMOs, Linking Food Safety and Environmental Considerations,” is not a paper that helps Entine’s case, in fact, it challenges GMO to adhere to guidelines because GMOs are suspected of contaminating the environment, including other plants and animals. This is not a safety test or research that has been run, but rather protocol that should be followed to ensure the safety of organisms that might get CONTAMINATED or CORRUPTED by GMO. (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0511650)
Entine and other top GMO-propaganda shills are saying there are over 1,000 safety studies done, yet many of these studies just tell you how many bugs or weeds the chemicals killed, or warn of needed safety testing and protocols, but this is all distorted by propaganda, because for corporations and their platform pushers, it’s all about profit – not human health.
This one published in “Nature” (an International weekly science journal) is entitled: “Industry scientists look for benefits, not risks”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6903/full/419111b.html
How is that a safety study? Plus, Wiley online library uses hokey (and hackable) social media “altmetrics” for ranking their “professional” articles, as explained below:
http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/03/19/wiley-introduces-altmetrics-to-its-open-access-journals/
“The results of the pilot were positive. Across the 6 journals included in the initial 6 month trial, 2,183 articles received an Altmetric score, indicating that a high proportion of articles were receiving attention and making an immediate impact. To date, around 40% of articles from the trial journals have achieved a score of 10 or above – remember, the Altmetric score is based on the number of individuals mentioning a paper, where the mentions occurred (e.g. a newspaper, a tweet) and how often the author of each mention talks about the article. So, the score reflects both the quantity of attention received, and the quality of that attention: a news story counts for more than a Facebook post; attention from a researcher counts more than attention from an automated Twitter bot.”
In other words, Wiley online library, is posting what Western culture considers “scientific proof” that GMOs are safe, yet Wiley online library relies on social media posting and commenting to determine if these papers are ranked high or not in the search engines (SEO). That means that social media is helping dictate whether most food on planet earth that is genetically modified is scientifically proven dangerous or safe for mankind to consume. That is a sad fact about the “GMO world safety consensus.” If a thousand people on Twitter say GMO is healthy, you know it’s concrete science-based proof! Peer reviewed!
Here are more bogus studies claimed to be safety studies by Jon Entine, Monsanto’s #1 front-man for pushing biotechnology propaganda:
Study #216 on Excel spreadsheet:
“Effect of Bt Corn for Corn Rootworm Control on Nontarget Soil Microarthropods and Nematodes”
http://ee.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/4/859
This study actually incriminates the Bt Corn toxin gene as posing a “hazard to non-target organisms:”
“One of the environmental concerns about genetic modification technology in plants is the possible effect on nontarget organisms (National Academy of Sciences 2000). Saxena et al. (1999) reported that a Cry1Ab Bt toxin was released from corn plants into the rhizosphere soil in root exudates from Bt corn for European corn borer. They also mentioned that the Bt toxin released in soil from roots during growth of a Bt corn crop would add to the amount of toxin introduced into soil from pollen during taselling as a result of the incorporation of plant residues after harvesting the crop. Tapp and Stotzky (1998) observed that the bound state of the Bt toxin persisted for up to 234 d. Active Bt toxins could persist and remain insecticidal in soil as a result of binding to humic acids (Crecchio and Stotzky 1998) and clays (Saxena et al. 2002). This persistence could pose a hazard to nontarget organisms and enhance the selection of toxin-resistant target species.”
So, Mr. Entine, you were saying?
The study went on to explain more inherent dangers of the toxic Bt corn expressing Cry1 protein insecticide being released into the soil and persisting there:
“Most of the published research on the effect of Bt corn on soil fauna is on corn hybrids expressing the Cry1 proteins, which target lepidopteran insects. Studies with Bt corn expressing the Cry1Ab protein for European corn borer control have suggested that roots release Bt toxins into the soil (Saxena et al. 1999) and that they persist there (Tapp and Stotzky 1998).”
Study #228:
“Long-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis cotton”
In this study, the scientists admit to long-term dangers of GMO, which completely counters Jon Entine’s claims that long term studies have been done and that GMO benefits are clear and present, when they most certainly are not.
“Despite the potentially profound impact of genetically modified crops on agriculture and the environment, we know little about their long-term effects. Transgenic crops that produce toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to control insects are grown widely, but rapid evolution of resistance by pests could nullify their benefits.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/4/1519
Study #1111:
“Safety assessment of nonbrowning potatoes: opening the discussion about the relevance of substantial equivalence on next generation biotech crops”
In this research summary published by Wiley online library, the researchers admit the crops have NOT been proven safe yet, and even go so far as to describe the new experimental GMO as adding a “new level of complexity” to the mechanisms underlying output traits.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2010.00534.x/abstract
“It is expected that the next generation of biotech crops displaying enhanced quality traits with benefits to both farmers and consumers will have a better acceptance than first generation biotech crops and will improve public perception of genetic engineering. This will only be true if they are proven to be as safe as traditionally bred crops. In contrast with the first generation of biotech crops where only a single trait is modified, the next generation of biotech crops will add a new level of complexity inherent to the mechanisms underlying their output traits. In this study, a comprehensive evaluation of the comparative safety approach on a quality-improved biotech crop with metabolic modifications is presented.”
Study #1179:
This one was published in 2002 in the British Journal of Nutrition and is entitled,
“Degradation of Transgenic DNA from Genetically Modified Soyabean and Maize in Human Intestinal Simulations”
This article talks about animal feed needing specific safety assessment and legislative regulation, further questioning the safety of recombinant DNA (genetic modification and transgenics) technology and reiterates concerns about “gene flow.” Near the end of the first page of journal entry, at the end of the second-to-last paragraph, the research explains that this area of “transgenic plants” and recombinant DNA technology delves into a realm of study that has “surprisingly little peer-reviewed publications.” The objection documented in this paper is that in addition to the gene encoding toxin (the crystal toxin gene) the plants carry a copy of a gene encoding that is RESISTANT to B-lactam antibiotics, including ampicillin. This prompted the Ministries of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to initiate research to study the potential for a gene flow from transgenic plants.
Finally, here’s an article title on GM tobacco, which most Americans have no idea even exists: “Transgenic tobacco plants carrying a baculovirus enhancin gene slow the development and increase the mortality of Trichoplusia ni larvae”. This must mean smokers are smoking chemical pesticides in the form of transgenic tobacco along with the ammonia and bleach.
Gilles-Eric Seralini – World Famous Molecular Biologist and Professor
There IS scientific evidence of short and long-term health damage to animals that consume GMO. This is what the GMO-pushers hope you will not find:
“In a study published in “Food and Chemical Toxicology” researchers led by Gilles-Eric Seralini from CRIIGEN have found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize or given water containing Roundup, at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the US, developed cancers faster and died earlier than rats fed on a standard diet. They suffered breast cancer and severe liver and kidney damage.” (5)
Molecular biologist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, France, lead the team of researchers who went by the book on everything. It was even supervised by independent research organization CRIIGEN. Both GE (genetically engineered) maize and the key ingredient Glyphosate in herbicide Roundup have similar disruptive impacts on the endocrine systems of animals. Researchers found that these NEGATIVE HEALTH OUTCOMES interfere with key bodily functions and cell production. Roundup, even its residue, can cause liver and kidney failure over time. This is the first research that shows even LOW LEVELS, like those found in US tap water, are harmful when consumed over an extended period of time. (6)
Enter the “Free Thought Project” – featuring whistleblower revealing Monsanto’s misleading studies
Dr. Jonathan Latham, a former GMO scientist, has “blown the whistle” or shot the Paul Revere “warning shots” and consumers everywhere should heed the message. He revealed how “risk assessment” of GM crops is a corrupt process – a total sham, with all the lingo to support that they are no threat to health or the environment (Biotech firms actually pull the language from organic food sites that are legitimate). They use outdated procedures and the results are purposely flawed and its all self-assessment that the government regulators at the FDA and USDA allow. Then, believe it or not, they PATENT the products and studies so that nobody else can legally even study the GMO product. That is the definition of a monopoly and is illegal in the United States. (7)
These documents are NOT true risk assessment, but rather are dragged out trivial questions to look like a complex scientific review. Throughout these documents there are missing scientific controls and procedures. This is critical to understand. The experiments described are sloppily executed. Some of their results cannot be interpreted. There are so many instances of all of this that it can’t be accidental. Far too much ambiguity. Also, by using dated equipment they can use the “double-edged sword” excuse where if they get the results they want, they say nothing. If they get the unwanted results, they blame the dated equipment and keep moving forward. Either way, they win by profiting off false marketing and the consumer LOSES by consuming toxins that would have otherwise never made it into the US food supply. That is ROUTINE for US agri-chemical corporations and biotech companies when it comes to today’s “formal GMO risk assessment.”
By the way, Dr. Latham doesn’t just inform us about a corrupt industry that pushes propaganda as “science-based” fact, but Dr. Latham began his career as a biologist creating GM plants, actually inserting DNA from VIRUSES and BACTERIA into the plants while earning his Ph.D. He had no clue then, according to him, that GMOs would be a commercial commodity dominating 90% of the food supply for corn, soy, canola oil, cottonseed oil and the like. When he saw colleagues putting commercial interests ahead of scientific knowledge and experience, it was over for him. Now he’s blown the whistle and health enthusiasts across the world are hearing it.
Covering Up Risk with Bogus Research – Monsanto’s Specialty according to Dr. Latham
The short and long term results of consuming chemicals daily is cancer. All humans and other animals have some forms of cancer inside them, all the time. These are usually not the kinds of cancer that metastasize or kill you, but if you feed them chemicals, that time “interval” can work exponentially against you as your cells mutate and multiply uncontrollably. By relying on bogus tests or even realistic tests with manipulated and falsified results, consumers are running on blind faith that these lucrative corporations aren’t using “too much” poison that every third person in America gets cancer, and only half survive. That’s the case now. Bad research, no labeling of GMO, and industry hacks handing off their propaganda to public scientists who declare it’s real and science-based.
Dr. Latham explains how entire ecological communities can be “permanently infected” with the bacterial toxins that are sold as “insect-specific and safe.” These herbicide-resistant crops developed twenty years ago have resulted in INCREASED use of herbicides, not decreased use–counter to what they might claim. Monsanto said time and time again how safe their glyphosate (RoundUp) was and all the “regulators” moved forward as planned. Now, even the WHO (World Health Organization) has come out and warned the masses that glyphosate is “PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC“- and for them to say that means it’s absolutely horrible for your health. Plus, it doesn’t degrade when applied to these frankencrops; ie” Bayer’s herbicide called glufosinate.
Organic Farmers suffer $6 Million in Lost Revenue from GMO Contamination – Where is the Damage Compensation?
Traditional and organic farming has been affected by not only the genetically modified crops spreading to other fields via water flow, heavy winds, erosion, storms – but the monopolistic biotechnology companies have used their flawed safety studies like weapons, to eliminate their competition, which is any farming being done on US land that is NOT GMO. (8)
The following report shows the mass costs incurred from GMO crop contamination:
“Results from the newest USDA survey indicate that of the farmers who chose to answer the question, 92 had experienced monetary loss between 2011 and 2014 averaging approximately $66,395 per farmer during that timeframe. Overall, GMO presence cost organic farmers at least $6.1 million over four years. This figure is 77 times that reported during the 2006 to 2011 timeframe—a staggering increase.”
Even the USDA conducted a survey in 2013 and found that one of every three farmers had dealt with some kind of GMO contamination. This in turn causes buyer rejections which turned out to be an average of $4,500 each. It doesn’t take long to ride off the financial cliff at this rate. The truest safety study is that which reveals the true damage to the farms – as displayed here.
A farmer wrote:
… ‘in the last 16 years I have had three instances where spray drift has affected my fields. All three times it was Roundup. It has totaled $65,000 and I have had to start the three-year transition process [for organic certification] all over., Not only has spray drift negatively affected relationships between neighbors, it has resulted in organic farmers being forced to take some areas of their farm out of organic production completely.”
Salk Institute’s David Schubert, medical research scientist, says Monsanto safety research is falsified
“I can state confidently that it is false to say such foods are extensively tested and have been proven safe.” This statement comes from a peer-reviewed critique. Dr. Schubert said that there have been NO long-term or short-term (safety) studies in humans at all.
To boot, Steven Druker’s new book “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth,” featuring a foreword by Jane Goodall, reveals to us this magnitude of the atrocities of this thirty-year biotech -GMO faked research and faked science: (4)
“Moreover, this twisting of the truth has reached massive proportions. My book documents case after case in which eminent scientists and scientific institutions have stooped to deception in order to enable the GE food venture to advance. And it demonstrates that if the truth had been told and the facts openly and honestly aired, these novel products would never have come to market, and we would not be having this discussion this afternoon.”
The FDA does NOT require inspection of GE foods for safety
Druker goes on to explain the “sheer magnitude” of deception. Natural selection is NOTHING LIKE gene transfer that’s going on in biotech labs today. The science is far from being “precise” and “safe.” Unintended consequences run amuck and the chem-ag business is running a gigantic sham. Moreover, the FDA does NOT require the inspection of GE foods for their safety.
If most (or all) of today’s scientific research was validated by independent scientists, ethical representatives and responsible regulatory agencies, much more of the food and medicine Americans rely upon would reward them with ideal health. GMO is in its infancy, only thirty years young, and this technology should be checked and “balanced” three or four times over for safety regarding soil health, plant health, animal health, human health, environmental health and “sustainability” health. The power right now is leveraged by huge corporations and companies that lobby in Washington DC and control the regulatory agencies–these are the very people publishing “GMO Safety” studies that are done by industry scientists with “skin in the game” and edited by shills and hacks posing as journalists or public scientists, and sometimes these complete fabrications are labeled as peer-reviewed and referred to as the global scientific consensus. This is GMO “safety.” Beware. How many genetically modified or “mutated” pesticide genes are growing and reproducing in plants through field testing that’s not even legal on United States soil right now, and where is the research regarding that? Is the USDA looking into it? Highly doubtful. (9)
Many health enthusiasts and health advocates and organic food advocates refer to GMO technology as chemical violence in food. What if this is true–that GMO is chemical violence in agriculture, should the corporations just get away with “murder?” Would judges let criminals decide if their own crimes were crimes or not? If so, nobody would ever end up serving time for their wrongdoings. It’s time to put “GMO safety” under the microscope, instead of relying on the “food criminals” to tell the world their food is safe for everyone to consume. The term “GMO safety” and the “tests” and “research” that is prominent in mainstream media right now, mostly online, needs to be scrutinized, cross-checked, verified and re-verified, and NOT relied upon until this is done and done well. Science is not a bad word if we’re really talking about science, and not industry-funded falsified statistics and rhetoric that serves some profit-only destructive end.
Ready to research real science? Go to Science.NaturalNews.com and plug in whatever topic you wish to research: http://science.naturalnews.com/ (10)
Sources for this research:
(2) http://www.truthwiki.org/jon_entine/
(3) http://www.truthwiki.org/genetic-literacy-project/
(4) http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16449-jane-goodall-and-steven-druker-critique-the-gmo-venture
(5) http://www.gmoevidence.com/danish-pigs-gm-soy/
(9) http://www.truthwiki.org/science-based-medicine-also-evidence-based-medicine/
(10) http://science.naturalnews.com/