This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Meta-Study On Genetically Modified Food: Virtually All Independent Scientists Are Concerned
Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com
Tufts University’s Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development and Environment Institute (Timothy Wise) points out:
There is no … consensus on the safety of GM food. A peer-reviewed study of the research, from peer-reviewed journals, found that about half of the animal-feeding studies conducted in recent years found cause for concern. The other half didn’t, and as the researchers noted, “most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.”
***
The only consensus that GM food is safe is among industry-funded researchers.
By way of background, genetically engineered foods have been linked to obesity, cancer, liver failure, infertility and all sorts of other diseases (brief, must-watch videos here and here).
And genetically-engineered meat isn’t even tested for human safety.
And a leading risk expert says that genetically modified foods could wipe out the global ecosystem.
But government agencies like the FDA go to great lengths to cover up the potential health damage from genetically modified foods, and to keep the consumer in the dark about what they’re really eating. (Indeed, the largest German newspaper – Süddeutsche Zeitung – alleges that the U.S. government helped Monsanto ATTACK THE COMPUTERS of activists opposed to genetically modified food.)
Indeed – as Tufts’ Timothy Wise notes – huge sums of money are being poured into shutting down all honest scientific debate about the risks from GMOs:
Biotechnology companies and their powerful advocates, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are succeeding in a well-planned campaign to get GM safety declared “settled science.”
***
An indicator was a quiet announcement in the press last summer that the Gates Foundation had awarded a US$5.6 million grant to Cornell University to “depolarize” the debate over GM foods. That’s their word. The grant founded a new institute, the Cornell Alliance for Science.
“Our goal is to depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture, but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major agricultural challenges,” said project leader Sarah Evanega, senior associate director of International Programs in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS).
Got it? The Gates Foundation is paying biotech scientists and advocates at Cornell to help them convince the ignorant and brainwashed public, who “may not be well informed,” that they are ignorant and brainwashed.
“Improving agricultural biotechnology communications is a challenge that must be met if innovations developed in public sector institutions like Cornell are ever to reach farmers in their fields,” added Kathryn J. Boor, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of CALS.
It’s kind of like depolarizing an armed conflict by giving one side more weapons.
Update:
Jane Goodall and Steven Druker Expose US Government Fraud Over GMOs
»
- advertisements -
Google GMO Myths and Truths. Plenty of citations there.
More than biotech's 'evidence'. Approval by the FDA (infested by Monsanto people) is based on 'evidence' provided by the very same biotech companies.
I always thought there were to date no long term toxicological testing of GMO. But in fact there are: they are testing them out on us.
propaganda. weasel words spurious allegations. proof of nothing. weak arguments slurs. scientific citations claims. accept their arguments on faith. political scientific. paid for Environmentalist communists.
I clarified all the name calling.
Now, I am NOT a fan of GMO food at all. I unknowningly eat it on a regular basis; however, that is because stupid Californians shot down the GMO labling initiative... BUT I would like to point out, that without GMO Foods, or if GMO foods were banned right now, we would face the starvation of about 2 to 3 BILLION people on this planet.
We may NOT want GMO. We have the right to KNOW what is a GMO product so we can avoid it if we can afford to; however, the world, as a whole, NEEDS GMO at this point in time.
And yes, I believe that GMO foods cause all types of problems for persons who eat it, but those problems usually do NOT include a guaranteed death in 30 days, which is what NO food will do.
This is the conundrum of this day and age. Technology has allowed the human population to expand beyond what tranditional farming methods can support. So it we removed that technology, we would face MASSIVE starvation.
And this is the part of the arguement that is avoided in most debates on GMO. Humanity has painted itself into a corner, and we need to pray and study to see if we can find or build a way back out of it again.
"BUT I would like to point out, that without GMO Foods, or if GMO foods were banned right now, we would face the starvation of about 2 to 3 BILLION people on this planet".
But that is a hyperbolic dubious claim. How would you prove such a thing?
He could go look at the studies that compare GMO yields vs non-GMO yields and found that there are a few GMO crops that do yield slightly more, but across the board, there is little difference in yields and even the ones that do yield slightly more don't have large enough gains to account for 2-3 billion people. Oh, wait...
It's the industrial inputs that matter the most for our yields in our current system, not GMO.
Yahoo Search results, first page, first article.
2002 study, GMO versus non-GMO Corn - GMO corn produced 17.59 MORE bushels per acre than the non-GMO Corn
2002 study, GMO Fungicide on Soybeans - GMO crop produced 7.46 MORE bushels per acre than the non GMO Fungicide treated Soybeans
With the first two studies, I am not sure what the total yields were per acre as that was NOT stated.
1998 study, GMO Corn produced 12 more Bushels per Acre than Non-GMO corn. Total bushels per acre was 160 for GMO and 148 for non-GMO or about an 8% increase in crop yield.
Even the University of Iowa study showed that GMO was better than non-GMO for the first two years.
Can we lose roughly 10% of the non-Wheat food plant crop for 2 years while we switch over to non-GMO? (There are NO GMO Wheat plants in production)
I dont know, but I would REALLY consider asking an adult in Africa or China or India before we go and do that... After all, they will be the ones dying, NOT Americans... And remember, a 10% drop in supply will NOT necessarily just mean a 10% increase in price. Depending on how inelastic the system is, it could mean doubling, or more, of the price of some basic food staples... And some parts of the world it may mean NO more of that particular product...
But remember, when asking that African, Chinese, or Asian Indian, the question that you phrase it correctly. The question should be, "Which would you rather have, a substandard food product, that will probably poison you over your life-time, resulting in cancers, tumors, and retardation of your children, or potentially NO food at all. And all of this done so that Americans dont have to worry about GMO lables on food products".
When you get the answer to that question, get back to us, will you?
The claim above was that those slight increases, 8% in one of your examples on one or two crops are going to be the difference between feeding 2-3 BILLION people and not feeding them. 8% equates to feeding 28%-42% of the population? If you are relying on an 8% increase to support that portion of the population, you are doomed to fail. There's your answer. Mind you, that is only soybeans and corn that you brought up, and those are only two out of many, many possible crops. Do you want to make a much, much larger impact on corn supplies for food? Quit using it for ethanol for fuel. That's what something like 40% of the US corn crop goes towards.
And that still doesn't deal with the fact that none of those gains are possible without large industrial inputs which people in poor countries often don't have access to.
how many in good health would starve except lazy asses?
there is idle land plenty
people been fed illusions...
most eat others real work and spend it in worthless pastimes, consumption instead of productive..
Volk, I saw a snippet on a show about poverty in America. One family had a house that they were probably going to lose, and the 13 year old kid mowed lawns to help his mom out. That's fine, that kid is going to have one helluva work ethic when he grows up. But they also talked about how they ate crap food because that was all they could afford. But you know what? The kid, being good at mowing lawns, made sure that their lawn was pristine, front and back. They weren't lazy asses; the idea of growing their own food never occurred to them!
There are a lot of people here who smell the bullshit in the air and are planting gardens because they're scared supply chains will break, or they don't want to eat GMO, or they want to have a better connection with their food or for whatever reason. Everybody else, for the most part, could be told that steaks grow on trees, and that you could get a ribeye tree or a t-bone tree, and they wouldn't know any better to contradict you. It would never occur to these people to grow their own food if it came down to a choice between paying the mortgage or buying food.
I'm assuming that you lived through the breakup of the USSR, and got to see real supply chain breakages firsthand. If that happens here in the US, there are some clueless motherfuckers who are going to be in for one hulluva shock.
The vast majority of GMO corn is not food for humans. Humanity would be much better served by getting rid of all that corn and planting crops we do actually eat.
The scienctific comunity has turned into a bunch of whores. Sorry but its true. In all fields lies are the norm. Anything remotely conected to any of the monopolies my default setting is bullshit. Ask for proof and watch them dance all around the truth. It would be funny if it was of no importance but it does fn matter.
We wonder why everyone around us is so stupid? Well there is a reason for it. All the so called experts are FOS. Integrity goes out the window for a paycheck. At one time I blamed the lies on the ones telling them and they do deserve some of the blame. But really how come we fall for so much of it? Basic logic should have filtered out much of the BS. Do we just trust too much. Blindly eating truck loads of BS non stop. Or were we trained to buy into the lies?
As far as GMO foods go. The proof is in the amount of force they use to hide what they do. Where as the truth can stand up to good questions all day long.
The truth is now genetically modified. GMO BS. Its like MSG. Once the people injest a little they can't get enough.
Ok,
it's a bit late for Black History Month but better late than never.
http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvk2qj1gk41r6m1z5o1_1280.jpg
Funny that GMO funder Bill Gates comes from a family background of population control as jis father was a former head of UN Family Planning. While population reduction and industry food profits are suspect, the handicapping of the public I believe is the primary motive.
A public with disabled health are far less likely to investigate and possibly remove a parasitic foreign banking cabal known as the Fed. The Fed is the foreign cabals greatest money maker.
Toxic injury from fluoridated water, vaccines, and GMOs produce a helpless, dependent, weak public that displays a blind loyalty to the Establishment.
GMOs create sheeple and our hidden Jesuit, Masonic and Zionist rulers know this. It's a program of handicapping and capturing the public through an emotional dependence and search for a safe haven to heal from toxic injury that drives this blind capture and loyalty.
Are you the guy who claimed Bill Gates's father was involved in creating Planned Parenthood? That's another canard I've seen elsewhere and which isn't true. Listen, this is not a nutty conspiracy about population control, the Masons or the Jews (the Gates are Christians), it's a conspiracy for corporations to make money while screwing us over. Corporations like Monsanto do not care if we live or die. The Fed is an American creation and they are not stealing us blind because of fluoridated water.... You have some serious mental health issures.
better search who were the Monsanto family....
Are you the guy who claimed Bill Gates's father was involved in creating Planned Parenthood? That's another canard I've seen elsewhere and which isn't true. Listen, this is not a nutty conspiracy about population control, the Masons or the Jews (the Gates are Christians), it's a conspiracy for corporations to make money while screwing us over. Corporations like Monsanto do not care if we live or die. The Fed is an American creation and they are not stealing us blind because of fluoridated water.... You have some serious mental health issures.
I have always heard rumors that raccoons will not eat GMO corn. So I decided to see if it is true or not. There are some semi-domesticated raccoons in my neighborhood that will eat anything that is not nailed down. I have never found anything they wouldn't eat. During a recent cold snap, which makes them particularly hungry, I put out some snack chips made from GMO corn for them to eat, They not only wouldn't eat the chips, they tried to bury them by shoving them under the door mat. It's not scientific I know, but I found it to be an interesting tell about GMOs.
I just don't buy corn. Fresh, frozen or canned in any store. All pet foods are corn/grain free. I read labels of everything, Hard to stay away from corn syrup/starches.
Takes a bit of reading but the highly GMO crops can be tracked. I pay attention to where veg/fruits are imported from,
Scary but a GMO apple was just approved for sale in USA. (called Arctic Apple). Made in Canada but not yet approved here. Beware.
http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE-Crops-and-Foods-Not-on-the-Market/Apple
I have apple trees. You can get young ones for $30-$40 or so, and they'll take a year or two before they start producing, but they can be had affordably.
Everyone here probably knows this, but in the case of Monsanto, their main objective is to sell their weedkiller. They genetically engineer their grains to be resistant to the weedkiller, then farmers can use as much as they like.
The grains are also engineered to be "single generation" - so there's no way to keep some back as seed for next year's crop. Supposedly, this "self-destruct" gene is to keep the environment safe.
Bullshit. This is about food serfdom. Keep the farmers dependent on the Monsanto product if they want to stay competitive with other farmers that are using it, and make sure they come back again every year for new seed.
Where are all these GMO crops that are supposed to be resistant to hostile climates, allowing farmers in poor countries to grow more crops and feed their population?
GMO was touted as being a solution to the world's food problems. It was (and is) touted as being to the benefit of mankind. Like hell.
They want total control of the world's food, just like they want total control of everything else.
Last I heard (a while ago,) they nixed the "terminator" gene. Regarding food surfdom, they just sue the shit out of farmers that save seed, give seed away, sell gmo seed, etc... And I don't think that food surfdom is a goal in itself, but rather a means to wealth. One major problem is the following: What happens when you get somebody in a position of power who wants to use food surfdom as a means to control the population? Nothing good. Fortunately, I see more and more people planting their own gardens and getting away from the system. Self sufficient? Nope. But they are building their knowledge and their soil. If somebody decides to use the food system to crack the whip, there are going to be enough of us who can take up the slack to say "fuck you!"
I now have enough seed to plant quite a few acres. I don't know how many specifically, but probably have well over 100,000 seeds of various plants. Chard, beets, corn, beans, squash, melons, tomatoes, okra, carrots, radishes, onions, leeks, chile, etc... I'm going to build up even more, and I do give the stuff away freely. Local cultivars and cultivars that I'm breeding myself to do well here, in my soil and climate. I think that I'm probably going to get some heat tolerant kohlrabi this year that I can start crossing back into store bought kohlrabi stock in order to ensure genetic diversity. They want us to be food serfs to line their pockets? Fuck them. After a few generations, I'll have plants that do better here with less industrial input than their shit.
You can see one of the reasons that I dog on GMOs in my post above. I start bringing it up and why it is a bad idea and don't ever touch on any health implications, and I invariably get the "but, but, how are we going to feed the world without them?" People don't like my answer. We're not going to feed the world with them.
The people of sub-saharan Africa probably don't appreciate having GMOs shoved down their throats by their corrupt governments that got kickbacks from Monsatan.
Eradicate poverty my ass. This is conrtol.
The West tells them (sub-saharan Africa), you can't have coal fired power plants because of global warming, er, uh, we mean climate change (even though we still have plenty of them). However, we can provide financing for green/renewable energy production. Nevermind that without permanent subsidies, energy production is about an order of magnitude higher.
These people have nothing and The West continues to totally ass fuck the people that live in these countries.
You want running water, relable cheap electricity, and non GMO food? Tough shit because we (The West) don't think you really need it. What's even sadder is that the average Westerner actually believes the propaganda that TPTB churns out about how they're helping them.
"Bullshit. This is about food serfdom."
Exactly. Even if some are found to be "safe", the point is monopoly control of food and seed.
I'm still hungry.
Sorry GW. This is BS. UC Davis has been doing the GM thing for years and stands by the product. UC Davis, known for being one of the most liberal Universities in the country, next to UC Berkeley.
Yeah, the same mofos that brought you the square tomato.
Not only that, but the GMO food served in the UC Davis cafeteria courtesy of Monsanto Inc. makes their students immune to pepper spray.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/203/420/UCDavis_peppers...
Actually, the company's name is Monsatan, not Monsanto.
I see no problem with introducing GMO food grains laden with phosphorescent tree frog genes to third world nations.
Most of these people are very dark skinned so it will be much easier to see them at night.
Higher food production and less roadside pedestrian accidents with cars.
GMO foods are a Win / Win for everyone.
Besides population control becomes so easy
Study Shows Dramatic Correlation Between GMOs And 22 Diseaseshttp://www.alternet.org/personal-health/study-shows-dramatic-correlation...
Best video on the dangers of GMO foods featuring Dr Stephanie Seneff of MIT:
Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide—Featuring the Darth Vader Chemicalhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_AHLDXF5aw
GMOs are going to go away. They're trying to beat nature on nature's home turf. Pests will become immune to the BT toxins and weeds area already becoming round-up resistant. If they develop yet another herbicide and another GMO that can withstand that herbicide, the same thing will happen again. Big biotech companies will eventually run out of capital to keep this going. It is a dead end.
On a planetary timescale, you're right.
But before these events happen, are the agribusinesses going to be able to eliminate the ability of any who would use products other than theirs to survive? As long as the Fed's experiment is allowed to run, and people accept printed currency for real goods, big Ag has a huge advantage over the small local guys trying to maintain honest agriculture.
This is a race, and I'm not confident that your statement, while correct, will have time to come true before our food supply is irreparably damaged.
Not even on a planetary timescale. There are already roundup resistant weeds causing problems for farmers. The first roundup resistant weed was observed in Australia in 1996. This is what happens when you take a rapidly reproducing organism, such as a weed, and drastically change its environment. You aren't creating a whole new organism here, just looking at one single trait being altered. That can and does happen rapidly.
Go get yourself a variety of open polinated cultivars, plant a garden and learn how to save your own seed. Big ag may get butthurt about it, but fuck'em. You can preserve some of the old stuff yourself. I do.
… ”settled science” … ”depolarize” the debate … Alliance for Science …
Propaganda 101.
A new world of feudalism and inquisitions by oligarchs, their political minions and thugs.
Whenever I read "settled science", I get suspicious. It usually is a term used to discredit people on the other side of any argument.
Settled science means: do not question.
Newtonian mechanics was settled, until Einstein said it wasn't.
The aether was settled, until Michelson-Morley said it wasn't.
The motion of the heavenly spheres was settled, until Galileo and Kepler said it wasn't.
The center of the earth was solid, then liquid, now liquid with a solid core.
String theory explained everything, until some questioned whether it explained anything.
On and on...
Obama tried the old "settled science " Jedi Mind Trick with global warming, er, uh I mean climate change.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/obama-we-dont-have...
Wow,
Feudalism,
Inquisition,
oligarchs,
minions,
thugs.
Almost all the ZH buzzwords in one sentence !
All ZH buzzwords in one town: Washington DC!
The world will run out of oligarchs long before it runs out of everyone else. But basically you need to start by getting names and addresses and publishing them continuously.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/altered-genes-twisted-truth-how-the-venture-to...
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public March 6, 2015[+]
This book uncovers the biggest scientific fraud of our age. It tells the fascinating and frequently astounding story of how the massive enterprise to restructure the genetic core of the world’s food supply came into being, how it advanced by consistently violating the protocols of science, and how for more than three decades, hundreds of eminent biologists and esteemed institutions have systematically contorted the truth in order to conceal the unique risks of its products–and get them onto our dinner plates.
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth provides a graphic account of how this elaborate fraud was crafted and how it not only deceived the general public, but Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Barack Obama and a host of other astute and influential individuals as well. The book also exposes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was induced to become a key accomplice–and how it has broken the law and repeatedly lied in order to usher genetically engineered foods onto the market without the safety testing that’s required by federal statute. As a result, for fifteen years America’s families have been regularly ingesting a group of novel products that the FDA’s own scientific staff had previously determined to be unduly hazardous to human health.
By the time this gripping story comes to a close, it will be clear that the degradation of science it documents has not only been unsavory but unprecedented–and that in no other instance have so many scientists so seriously subverted the standards they were trained to uphold, misled so many people, and imposed such magnitude of risk on both human health and the health of the environment.
There is something wrong with the wheat too. If you quit eating it you wll lose atleast a pound a day for at least a month, if you reintroduce it to your diet you will get ill, happens to everyone who does an elimination diet.
My understanding is that glyphosate is used to kill the wheat right before harvest, so the wheat plant puts it last energy into it's seeds before dying resulting a yield gain. A lot of people who think they are gluten intolerent are actually glyphosate intolerent. I think we can add a new line to Orwell's classic, poison is food.
glyphosate is suposed to be used after the wheat kernel is fully developed. It isn't used to maximize the yield but rather to speed the drying so harvest can occur earlier.
...so it's all good then.
Not necessarily. I take organic hard red winter wheat and grind it into flour in a home grain grinder just before cooking. Making blueberry pancakes with fresh ground wheat flour this morning. Really super healthy stuff.
Anything made with nasty commercial white flour is a whole different story.
Most questions of food and health can be reduced to the question "what did great-granny eat and cook with back on the farm 100 years ago?". Get rid of anything that has been radically changed since then. This includes feedlot meat, processed flour, modern vegetable oils and so on.
Buckwheat is much healthier.
i don't know where to begin... buckwheat (not wheat actually) is more than healthy. it's one of those few foods that prevents cancer besides many other health benefits. and because it's not very popular, they haven't genetically modified it, at least not yet.
I thought he died years ago.
Came back as US president.