GMO Debate Heats Up on Mainstream News
Christina Sarich
NationofChange / News Report
Published: Wednesday 20 August 2014
Why are scientists hell-bent on
maintaining the human gene theory and their ability to alter it? Watch
out because the rest of us are just starting to figure it out.
The debate on the dangers of GMO seem like they should already
be a foregone conclusion, but with industry cover-ups of scientific
data, and rigged research, biotechnology advocates are still pushing the
safety of genetically modified organisms unchecked.
In another attempt to discredit non-GMO supporters, C-Span recently
debuted a 2-hour debate at the Vail Symposium in Colorado,
between consumer advocate and Executive Director ofInstitute for
Responsible Technology, as well as maker of the documentary, Seeds of Deception, Jeffrey Smith, and doctor of biotechnology and entrepreneur Gregory Stock who has written a book called, “Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future.” I can’t help but add that this title alone smacks of the ideas of ‘the singularity’ – the notion that scientists can create a ‘super-human’ while discarding those of us who are merely just ‘human’.
As usual, the biotechnology side tried to discredit the messenger, and not the clear scientific message, by discounting Smith’s background, but during the long discussion, topics ranging fromthe ethics of GMOs, the role of the government in GMO production and licensing of GM seed, GMO labeling, and the potential for GMO to solve world hunger were contended. Audience member questions were also addressed.
As Smith explained, currently there are nine GMO crops planted
across our nation: soy, corn, canola, cotton, sugar beets, alfalfa,
zucchini, yellow squash and papaya. These genetically altered crops are
on our plates due to a sentence in the US Food and Drug Administration’s
policy from 1992, which basically states that the agency is not aware of any information which shows that GMOs are significantly different than non-GMO foods, and therefore no safety testing is necessary, and no labeling is necessary.
This logic can be traced to vintage propaganda campaigns when
our physicians told us that smoking cigarettes was good for us. Warning
labels did not appear on packages of RJ Reynolds products until the
1970s. While American Indians smoked natural herbs, cigarettes full of
toxic, cancer-causing chemicals were not labeled for over a hundred years after their introduction into mainstream consciousness. We can’t wait that long with GMOs.
As usual, the biotechnology side tried to discredit the messenger, and not the clear scientific message, by discounting Smith’s background, but during the long discussion, topics ranging fromthe ethics of GMOs, the role of the government in GMO production and licensing of GM seed, GMO labeling, and the potential for GMO to solve world hunger were contended. Audience member questions were also addressed.
The ‘science’ which biotech experts hold on to is unproven. It is
based on assumptions made about GMO without long-term trials and much of
truth about GMO dangers is dismissed or blatantly ignored.
Furthermore, Stock’s own bio states
that he believes in “aggressive biomedical funding and research, and
for cautious governmental oversight.” Our government, has in fact,
provided scant intervention for the good of public health and has done
little more than give Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, and the Grocery
Manufacturer’s Association carte blanche to wield genetically modified
crops on the world like more of a bio-terror weapon than a food source.
Many have called Monsanto the ‘poster child for corporate deceit and manipulation.’ The reach of this monstrosity of a company goes further than our own shores, too.
In Indonesia, Monsanto executives infiltrated and paid off more than 140 officials in order to get their modified cotton seeds approved. In 1998, six Canadian scientists testified that they were being pressured by their Monsanto-influenced superiors to approve rbGH, a genetically created growth hormone imagined by the biotech giant. They attest that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet and Monsanto offered them a $2 million bribe to pass the drug without further testing. In India, one officialtampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figuresto favor Monsanto. These tactics have been repeated in Brazil, Europe, and other countries worldwide.
Even more shocking is that Monsanto has been working with Blackwater (Academi), a private security firm, to target non-GMO activists and organizations. Why does a food-making company need a black-ops association if their food is so safe to eat? With facts like these becoming abundantly apparent, it makes listening to any GM-advocate leave a bad taste in your mouth. How can you trust them? Were they paid off? Are they a spy sent by Blackwater to spread disinformation? Why are there no long-term trials on GMO before they are given government approval, and how have our 1000-year old farming practices been so completely devastated after just 50 years of Big Ag intervention? Is this all just a sneaky campaign to get us to accept genetically modified humans?
GM scientists seem hell-bent on maintaining the human gene theory, and their ability to alter it. And GMO crops are possibly the predecessors.
Other applications of genetic engineering change the genes in eggs, sperm, or very early embryos. This affects not only any children you might have, but also all succeeding generations. It opens the door to the reconfiguration of the human species. The technical term for this application is "germline" genetic engineering (because eggs and sperm are the "germinal" or "germline" cells). Altering mosquitoes, bananas, cotton, or soy is just the beginning.
While Scott addresses the dangers of biotech’s creations, Stock ignores a longer-range ideology, which he seems to hold for himself. When will people ask the real questions associated with GMO? We’re just beginning to figure this all out.
You can see the entire two-hour video aired on C-span, here.
SOURCE: http://www.nationofchange.org/gmo-debate-heats-mainstream-news-1408596922
In Indonesia, Monsanto executives infiltrated and paid off more than 140 officials in order to get their modified cotton seeds approved. In 1998, six Canadian scientists testified that they were being pressured by their Monsanto-influenced superiors to approve rbGH, a genetically created growth hormone imagined by the biotech giant. They attest that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet and Monsanto offered them a $2 million bribe to pass the drug without further testing. In India, one officialtampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figuresto favor Monsanto. These tactics have been repeated in Brazil, Europe, and other countries worldwide.
Even more shocking is that Monsanto has been working with Blackwater (Academi), a private security firm, to target non-GMO activists and organizations. Why does a food-making company need a black-ops association if their food is so safe to eat? With facts like these becoming abundantly apparent, it makes listening to any GM-advocate leave a bad taste in your mouth. How can you trust them? Were they paid off? Are they a spy sent by Blackwater to spread disinformation? Why are there no long-term trials on GMO before they are given government approval, and how have our 1000-year old farming practices been so completely devastated after just 50 years of Big Ag intervention? Is this all just a sneaky campaign to get us to accept genetically modified humans?
GM scientists seem hell-bent on maintaining the human gene theory, and their ability to alter it. And GMO crops are possibly the predecessors.
Other applications of genetic engineering change the genes in eggs, sperm, or very early embryos. This affects not only any children you might have, but also all succeeding generations. It opens the door to the reconfiguration of the human species. The technical term for this application is "germline" genetic engineering (because eggs and sperm are the "germinal" or "germline" cells). Altering mosquitoes, bananas, cotton, or soy is just the beginning.
While Scott addresses the dangers of biotech’s creations, Stock ignores a longer-range ideology, which he seems to hold for himself. When will people ask the real questions associated with GMO? We’re just beginning to figure this all out.
You can see the entire two-hour video aired on C-span, here.
SOURCE: http://www.nationofchange.org/gmo-debate-heats-mainstream-news-1408596922
No comments:
Post a Comment