Comment: GMOs

(See in situ)


GMOs

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Feed_toxic_new_metaanalysis_confi... :
"A meta-analysis on 19 studies confirms kidney and liver toxicity in rats and mice fed on GM soybean and maize, representing more than 80 percent of all commercially available GM food; it also exposes gross inadequacies of current risk assessment"

Once a GMO crop is released, it spreads across the globe like a virus (perhaps a little slower) infecting all of the non-GMO crops (destroying private property), so that all we are eventually left with is a GMO-contaminated version of the crop. Organic farms are being contaminated, so there will not be any options soon. (See: http://www.progressive.org/0901/lil0901.html , for example).

Currently soy, corn, canola, papaya and cotton are almost all GMO versions. As can be seen from a previous post, sugar beets and alfalfa will be the next contaminated crops. The GMO industry has been pushing hard to get approval for release of GMO wheat. GMO Salmon may be approved by the FDA. In addition to infecting these crops, GMO DNA can jump to other species and infect other crops: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNA_Does_Jump_Species.php

In my experience, the FDA, USDA and EFSA (Europe) are nearly 100% completely captured agencies. Lobbying them is useless -- it is the exact same as lobbying Monsanto (except the agencies may pretend to show an interest to waste your time). Obama worked for Monsanto's law firm and threatened a country for not allowing GMO foods, so I wouldn't bother with him. The courts will back the GMO industry because the Federal Government backs the industry and their "science."

I think the only solution in the U.S. to help prevent what I consider slow poisoning and irreversible contamination of much of the food supply is to act locally and on a state level. Spread independent scientific information. Ban GMO crops (for pollution of private property, for example), require that existing labels designate GMO and non-GMO ingredients, start private certification organizations, etc.

Monsanto's Playbook: I've been researching various toxic products since the early 1990's. Coincidentally, some of these products were sold by Monsanto. Here are some of the tricks to expect from them:

1. Science: For every independent study finding toxic effect, they can fund 2-3 studies that have major flaws that magically show no toxic effects. Sometimes these studies will be funded by trade groups that they belong to (e.g., IFIC). Subsequently, numerous reviews are written by scientists using industry research which confirms that their toxic products are "safe." Each study and review is often followed by a press release.

While the flaws in the research are major, they are designed to not be noticed by most scientists and physicians. For example, I spoke to one scientist years ago about research on a product sold by Monsanto and others that demonstrated that it caused gradual neurological damage in animals (at levels humans were exposed to). Subsequent research by a government scientist confirmed these findings. However, the industry conducted studies with numerous flaws. One such flaw was that the humidity in the chamber with the toxic product was so high that most of the toxic chemical stayed in the water and did not flow in the air to the chamber with the animals. I have seen studies where human subjects and animals were given drugs that prevent side effects as well as various statistical acrobats to claim "no significant effects."

2. Government Agencies: The FDA stopped paying attention to any research showing toxic effects from Monsanto products such as GMOs. That is why one barely hears a peep from them when their is independent research demonstrating organ damage, cancer and other nasty effects from GMOs. It's better for Monsanto if they keep quiet. The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) is forced to comment because every time independent research comes out showing how faulty their last review is, they have to agree to conduct another review. Numerous times I (and friends) have sent them copies of independent, peer-reviewed, published research and numerous times they simply ignore it and avoid including it in their review. The old version of the EFSA (EU Scientific Committee on Food) used to have committees and at least some of their reviews were drafted by a single person. No one could ever figure out who that person was.

3. There was a time on the Internet, when USENET discussion groups were still popular, that the head of Monsanto scientific affairs would actually engage in debate about some of their toxic products. Since that time, they have engaged PR Groups to shape the message. One of their PR companies had a conference many years ago on combating the bad publicity they were getting on the Internet. I don't know exactly what they've been up to since then, but I suspect that they have people on quite a number of discussion groups, slant Wikipedia articles pay off various scientific groups, etc.