Dr. Mercola Interviews Ronnie Cummins About Genetically Modified Food [GMO] Awareness

Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
March 22, 2017

In this video, Dr.Joseph Mercola, natural health expert and Mercola.com founder, is joined with Ronnie Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), in discussing the current state of the opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To read other health articles, visit Mercola.com.

Advertisements

Superweeds Emerge & Target GMOs

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 10, 2017

Remember the glorious promise of agribusiness in the 1950s? Or even more importantly, the glorious and breathtakingly exciting days of the Administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, when the doctrine of “substantial equivalence” signaled the glorious end to human hunger, vastly expanded crop yields, and other boons to human health? Remember all the confident and assured results of modern science? Remember how we were assured this was “the solution?”

Well, Mr. C.S., a regular reader here found an important article by F. William Engdahl, which points out yet another emerging trend in agriculture that we’re certain I.G. Farbensanto, and its new member-corporation, Bayer (of the real I.G. Farben-Carl Duisberg fame).

To set that emerging trend into context, let us recall that IG Farbensanto was quick to reassure the public that their corporate science was thorough and that there were no dangers to GMOs. Then the independent science began to come in, linking cancers in agricultural animal populations to GMO consumption. Then came the studies of human cancer-GMO correlations. Then came Russia’s ban on GMOS (the only sane country in the world, in my opinion, on this issue).

Oh but wait… even though those might be a risk in a certain segment of the population, we need GMOs nonetheless, because they dramatically increase crop field yields, and that will mean more food, and more poor people can be fed.

Of course, they weren’t telling us that Indian farmers were committing suicide because they could not afford to pay for the more expensive GMO seeds, and of course, more yield and more GMOs mean more money lining the pockets of IG Farbensanto and its shareholders.

But… woops!… then came studies about how, over time, yields in GMO fields actually decreased, while costs of maintaining production increased, relative to good ole mother nature and her natural seeds, which any one can plant without having to pay a royalty or license fee (mother nature’s seeds, you see, aren’t patented, and therefore IG Farbensanto can’t make money from them).

Well, you can add to the list the following:

Will Superweeds Choke GMO to a Timely Death in USA?

The problem is that Mother Nature can react faster than the Rockefailure interests can strategize its plots and cabals:

Now with ruthlessness against the crass violation of natural law that is inherent in the entire GMO eugenics experiment, nature is waging its own clever war on GMO crops in the USA. And make no mistake, the intent of the Rockefeller Foundation in funding the creation of GMO back in the 1970’s was and still is just that–eugenics.

It seems that the lies of Monsanto-Bayer, Dow-Dupont, ChemChina-Syngenta are coming back to haunt them. Far from their widely advertised claim that their patented GMO seeds need far less chemical weed-killers, USA farmers are finding out, over a period of years, that their crop acreages sprayed with ample doses of Roundup or other glyphosate-based weed-killers are fostering the growth of toxic Superweeds. Those superweeds are “glyphosate-resistant” meaning the Monsanto and other glyphosate weed-killers are useless. Farmers are forced to pour on other toxic weed-killer options to salvage their crops.

Three-quarters US prime Farmland

An alarming new study has just been published by the University of Illinois Plant Clinic highly relevant and highly ignored by mainstream irresponsible media. The study took some 593 field samples of approximately 2,000 waterhemp and palmer amaranth (pigweed) plants from ten farm states across the USA Midwest, the heartland of world agriculture, or at least until recently. They conducted careful testing and found the alarming results that across America’s farmbelt, 456 of the whole 593 field sites sampled showed Glyphosate Resistance – a total of 76.8%.

In other words, plant GMO seeds, and over time, your field will require more and more pesticides to deal with the super-resistant weeds. The bottom line: you have to love it, because in their greed and utter lack of respect for the principles of independent science, and for that matter, humanity itself, the GMO companies…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

India To Gates, Nigeria To I.G. Farbensanto: Get Out: Time For A…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 18, 2017

Things are definitely getting interesting, if you haven’t noticed. Two of the stories that have attracted my interest recently are, firstly, the studies of vaccines conducted in Italy, and (surprise surprise) the Italians found all sorts of …well… just plain old crud in them.  It’s been getting so bizarre than there are actually indications that animal vaccines are cleaner than the vaccines that Big Pharma wants to give you and your kids. Secondly, the other story that has captured my interest was, of course, the rumors that President Trump’s administration was considering appointing Reobert F. Kennedy Jr. to chair a panel to investigate the CDC and the alleged science behind the safety of the modern vaccine.  In fact, things are so interesting I don’t know whether to categorize this under “Babylon’s Banksters” or the “GMO Scrapbook” or “Call it Conspiracy,” and you’ll see why in a moment.

In any case, I say “alleged science” because it’s looking increasingly like there wasn’t much of it: corporately approved “science” continues to assure us that all vaccines are safe (and that mercury and aluminum in them isn’t harmful and doesn’t cause Alzheimers or autism), that all GMOs are safe, that there’s no human cost to their consumption, and that it will solve world hunger in spite of real studies of rising costs, falling yields, and increased risks.

Underlying all this, there’s a growing revolt against not only Mr. Globaloney, but against his mega-corporations and what appears to be, at best, a consistent policy of profits at any cost, and at worst, a deliberate policy inhumanity designed to depopulate, to strip the middle class of every last breath of their wealth and labor, and to make people perpetually sick and dependent upon them. But there’s growing backlash to them. Consider these two stories from that perspective:

Monsanto GMO Seeds in Nigeria, Breaking the Agricultural Cycle, Complicity of UN World Food Program

India Ends Ties With Gates Foundation on Vaccines Over Worries of Big Pharma Influence

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/health/india-ends-ties-gates-foundation-vaccines-worries-big-pharma-influence/embed/#?secret=bCAKyqGYFf

India has, of course, suffered tremendously under the assaults of “Amerimegacorp” (for want of a better expression). We recall the stories about vaccine experiments from a few years ago being sponsored by said foundation. But the timing of this story with the Italian story I blogged about last week is interesting.  Similarly, Indian farmers were committing suicide a few years ago under the onslaught of GMOs (guess what company was involved?): loans were made to buy GMO seeds, the cycle of Indian agriculture  was disrupted as natural seeds were abandoned. The more expensive seeds ruined many Indian farmers. The study cited by the Indian government captures my fundamental contention that one of the memes of the major cultural paradigm shift we’ve been entering for the past decade:  big mega-corporations and their ideologies are now under assault, and this, I suspect, is a generalized cultural phenomenon that will not go away. Here’s how that study put it:

According to the Global Policy Forum, who’s study was used in India’s decision to cut their ties with the Gates Foundation, BMGF is not always a force for good. In their report, Gated Development – is the Gates Foundation always a force for good? — Mark Curtis explains:

Gated Development demonstrates that the trend to involve business in addressing poverty and inequality is central to the priorities and funding of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We argue that this is far from a neutral charitable strategy but instead an ideological commitment to promote neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalisation. Big business is directly benefitting, in particular in the fields of agriculture and health, as a result of the foundation’s activities, despite evidence to show that business solutions are not the most effective.

Perhaps what is most striking about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is that despite its aggressive corporate strategy and extraordinary influence across governments, academics and the media, there is an absence of critical voices. Global Justice Now is concerned that the foundation’s influence is so pervasive that many actors in international development, which would otherwise critique the policy and practice of the foundation, are unable to speak out independently as a result of its funding and patronage.

The Nigeria article confirms yet another connection:

It reveals that, Bill Gates and Monsanto in collaboration with the WFP and World Bank are implicated in the carnage created by Boko Haram’. It is inevitable that the poor farmers must buy the new seeds from Monsanto or else they would be out of business. The devastation that awaits the farmers in the Northeast is even greater than the present. The cost of seeds from Monsanto could go as high as 30 times as was the experience in India with Bt Cotton , where 300,000 farmers committed suicide because they could not meet up with costs of seeds.

Despite the false promises and propaganda, the scientific facts show that GMO crops are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds. 

Monsanto which is owned in part by Bill Gates, the American billionaire who is actively engaged in Nigeria personally, and through several envoys including Melinda Gates, NGOs, and proxies in the World Bank and Africa Development Bank, has worked relentlessly to deceive Africa leaders and trick them into approving GMOs and Hybrid seeds. Bill Gates wants to control the seed market for all foods in Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria. (Italicized-bold emphasis added).

Now throw in one more context for this emerging trend: the clear involvement of billionaire busibodies like Gates and Soros in formulation of domestic and foreign policy via their privileged  tax exempt foundations. And increasingly, their policies and “science” are revealed not only to be inhuman, but anti-human, regardless of the rationalizations they may tell themselves.

So where am I going with all this? It’s time to have a discussion about “charitable foundations” – all of them – aBdfdfdfdfnd their relationship to governments and the big mega-corporations.  I think it’s high time for another Reece committee investigation of foundations. And my suggestion for chief counsel for said committee would Julian Assange. And my suggestion for that putative committee would be to start at the top: Rockefailure, the billionaire busybody Gates,  Darth Soros, the whole lot of them.

Let’s call this moment of history, the “Philippe le Bel” moment of history.

Philip was, of course, the King of France who – so the official narrative goes – had so indebted himself and France that he approached the Templar Order for a loan, and was refused. He then decided to shut down the order in a coordinated raid on all their houses and preceptories throughout France, all on one day, via secret and sealed orders. The reason, he wanted to get his hands on the fabled “Templar Treasure” and “ledgers and papers.” What he found was nothing. And ever since academics have listed the “fabled Templar Treasure” and “ledgers” as just another conspiracy theory for which there was no evidence. Templar fleets had set sail (so the story goes), perhaps taking their archives and treasure with them.  Academics, of course, miss the point, but it’s one that anyone of common sense will understand: the Templar order, the richest in Europe, was involved in banking, in policy making, in warfare. To find the treasure, to know for sure if they were up to sedition against the King, one had to have the key to all that: not the physical stocks of bullion, but the ledgers, the records.  And yet, when Philippe le Bel struck, there was…

nothing.

Let that sink in for a moment, and while you do, recall that the  chief council for the Reece committee, Rene Wormser, stated in his book about that committee, Foundations, Their Power and Influence, that the modern tax-exempt foundation was but a new form of the old mediaeval military crusading orders, like… the Templars.

So what would such a committee find by summoning and subpoenaing the records of those foundations? Probably nothing… sanitized records, missing records… but that, in itself, would speak volumes.  Especially if those foundations have been penetrated, and copies made…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

New 90-Day Rat Study Destroys Corporate GMO Propaganda

rat-study-natural-blaze

Source: ActivistPost.com
Brandon Turbeville
January 7, 2017

GM proponents who constantly drone on with untrue claims that the science has clearly demonstrated GMOs as safe were dealt yet another blow shortly before Thanksgiving this past year.

This is because yet another study has been published demonstrating the negative health effects of GMOs on the intestinal tract.

This study by Ibrahim and Okasha entitled “Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rat.,” and published in the journal Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology has demonstrated that rats fed GM Bt corn MON810 for only 90 days did indeed suffer rather serious damage to the surface mucous membranes of the jejunum – which is part of the small intestine.

The specific type of corn fed to the rats was MON810: Ajeeb YG. This is a GM version of Ajeeb, which is a local species of corn grown in Egypt. The GM version was created by Monsanto for the Egyptian market.

The rats who were fed the GM corn were given the MON810 corn as 30% of their diet. The control group was given the same amount of non-GMO corn.

In the group fed GM corn, the finger-like structures in the intestine known as villi that absorbs nutrients from food were clearly damaged. They were both distorted and flattened and some cells were even joined together.

The study includes images and shows photographs of the damage. There were also signs of inflammation around the areas of damage in the form of white blood cell infiltration. The mucosal glands were disturbed and blood vessels were congested. There was also an increased level of shedding of mucosal cells, higher rates of division of cells lining the mucosal glands and larger numbers of mucous secreting goblet cells.

The damage to the GM-fed rats was so obvious, that the researchers concluded, “consumption of GM-corn profoundly alters the jejunal histological [microscopic] structure”

They also added that,

Results from the current study could show that in spite of the assuring reports on GM products, GM corn has profoundly altered the histological structure of the jejunal mucosa at many levels and revealed several alarming signs, as the proliferative and eroded hemorrhagic lesions in addition to several ultrastructural alterations described here for the first time for jejunum under GM corn influence.

The researchers also called for more research to be done in order to determine exactly how this strain of GM corn inflicted this type of damage on the intestinal system. Their suppositions include direct damage as a result of the Bt toxin or indirect damage as a result of gut bacteria disruption.

The limitations of the study include the fact that the control group was not given the Ajeeb non-GM variety and there was no analysis in terms of the possibility of the presence of pesticide residues and other contaminants. Still, the findings of this new study are extremely significant in that they demonstrate that at best, GM MON810: Ajeeb YG causes damage to the intestinal system.

However, the results do seem to indicate that it is the process of genetic modification that is the cause of this damage. This is not the only study of its kind.

As GM Watch writes,

Two earlier rat feeding studies by Egyptian scientists on the same GM corn, MON810: Ajeeb YG, showed harm in the GM-fed animals. In these cases, the comparator was the appropriate non-GM parent variety Ajeeb, so the ill effects shown in the rats were due to the GM process.

In the first study, rats fed the MON810: Ajeeb YG for 45 and 91 days showed differences in organ and body weights and in blood biochemistry, compared with rats fed the non-GM Ajeeb parent variety grown side-by-side under the same conditions. The authors noted that the changes could indicate “potential adverse health/toxic effects”, which needed further investigation.[3]

In the second study, histopathological (microscopic) investigations by the same group of researchers found toxic effects in multiple organs in the rats fed the GM MON810: Ajeeb YG Bt corn for 91 days. Effects included abnormalities and fatty degeneration of liver cells, congestion of blood vessels in kidneys, and excessive growth and necrosis (death) of the intestinal villi. Examination of the testes revealed necrosis and desquamation (shedding) of the spermatogonial cells that are the foundation of sperm cells and thus of male fertility.[4]

It is significant that the findings of the second study, namely cell abnormalities, congestion of blood vessels, and damage to the intestinal villi were also found in the new study by Ibrahim and Okasha.

It should be noted, that in both of these studies the non-GM Ajeeb variety was used for the control group, thus demonstrating that the process of genetic modification is most likely the culprit for such damage. Likewise it should be noted that the rats showed now outward signs of illness (possibly due to the short duration of the study) but they were clearly sick.

Perhaps now we can begin putting to rest the disingenuous claims by GMO proponents that there are no studies showing the dangers of GMOs. As more and more studies are published demonstrating the danger of GMOs – corporations, governmental regulatory bodies and scientific call girls as well as the fake news media outlets that constantly tout the benefits of GMOs will continue to lose their credibility.

Read More At: ActivistPost.com
_____________________________________________________

This article (New 90-Day Rat Study Destroys Corporate Propaganda) can be republished under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Brandon Turbeville, source and Natural Blaze.com, keeping links and bio intact. Image: GM Watch

Get a nifty FREE eBookLike at Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 850articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Many studies on genetic modification biased because of authors’ links to companies

conflictofinterest

Source: TimesOfIndia.com
Subodh Varmal
December 17, 2016

NEW DELHI: Researchers have found that a large share of scientific studies on genetically modified (GM) crops were tainted by conflicts of interest, mostly because of having an employee of a GM producing company as one of the authors or having received funding from the company.

Out of the 579 published studies on GM crops that were analysed, about 40 per cent showed such conflict of interest, the researchers affiliated to France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) found. Their study is published in the journal PLOS ONE this week.

“We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40 per cent of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest,” said the study.

They also discovered that studies with conflict of interest had much more likelihood of presenting a favourable outcome for GM crops compared to those with no conflict of interest.

“In particular, we found that, compared to the absence of COI (conflict of interest), the presence of a COI was associated with a 50 per cent higher frequency of outcomes favorable to the interests of the GM crop company,” the study said.

Common crops like corn, soybean etc. can be made resistant to certain pests by introducing genes from a bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis, hence the name ‘Bt’. Considerable research has been devoted to charting efficacy and durability of Bt crops.

Thomas Guillemaud, director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), told AFP that the team originally looked at 672 studies before narrowing down to the pool to 579 that showed clearly whether there was or was not a financial conflict of interest.

“Of this total, 404 were American studies and 83 were Chinese,” he said.

“The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favorable conclusion for GMO crops,” Guillemaud said.

“When studies had a conflict of interest, this raised the likelihood 49 per cent that their conclusions would be favorable to GMO crops.”

Among the 350 articles without conflicts of interest, 36 per cent were favorable to GM crop companies. Among the 229 studies with a conflict of interest, 54 per cent were favorable to GM companies.

“We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many,” Guillemaud told AFP.

One limitation of the study was that it investigated only direct financial conflict of interest. As the authors point out in the study paper itself, “authors may have affiliations to GM crop companies of other types, such as being members of advisory boards, consultants, or co-holders of patents, and this could also have a significant impact on the outcomes of studies on GM crops.”

Read More at: TimesOfIndia.com

The GMO Scrapbook: 2016 Ends With Bad News For IG Farbensanto

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 4, 2017

If you’ve been following the GMO issue, or more precisely, what I’ve been calling “GMO geopolitics” over the last few years, then 2016 did not end on an “upbeat” note for Mon(ster)santo, or as I also like to call the GMO “agribusiness ‘community'”, IG Farbensanto. In fact, so many people sent me so many articles these past few days about GMO news that I decided to lump them all together in a kind of “GMO news grab bag” in this blog, because when one considers all these separate stories together, then a very interesting pattern emerges. Consider these stories: first, a recent study of GMO corn establishes that it is… well… garbage:

An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process

China and the Butterfly Effect (Revolt against GMOs grows locality by locality)

Even the New York Times finally gets it (it took them long enough! but hey, nice of you guys to finally get with it after so many years) and points out the conflict of interest culture pervading government agencies with corporate lackeys:

New York Times confirms GMO industry ties at National Academies of Sciences

And the revolt spreads to Argentina and Italy:

Argentinian Federal Prosecutor Requests Ban on GMO Crops over Glyphosate Fears

Italy: Ban on Cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms

And finally, Russia, which has banned GMOs, is proposing a labeling law for the entire Eurasian Economic Community:

Russia Proposes Clear GMO Labeling for Eurasian Economic Union

Normally, as regular readers here know, I tend to focus my commentary on one or at most two articles per blog, But there’s something very intriguing going on here, something that I cannot help but indulge in a little of our trademark high octane speculation. First, note the dates of these stories, in order, from the first to the last linked articles above, are as follows:

1) Dec. 19, 2016 (the scientific study)

2) Dec. 27, 2016 (the F. William Engdahl article on the Chinese provincial ban)

3) Dec. 28, 2016 (the New York Times article)

4) Dec. 28, 2016 (the article about the Argentine Federal Prosecutor)

5) Dec. 26, 2016 (the Italian-EU GMO ban)

6) Dec. 27, 2016 (the Russian proposal for GMO labeling in the EEU)

In other words, yet another damning story about the “assured science” of GMO safety appeared, followed quickly by stories of GMO bans in China, Italy, Argentina, and a story about the Russian proposal for an EEU-wide GMO standardized labeling law, and a New York Times article about the double-standard culture of conflicts of interest between big government agencies and corporate science.

Now I’m far from suggesting that there’s a direct causal relationship between all these stories. There isn’t. But I do suggest that there is a contextual causal relationship between then, for the science – some of which we’ve attempted to cover on this website – behind GMO “safety” is anything but settled, and increasingly looks to be very dubious at best. What all these stories suggest is that the issue is “getting out there”, no doubt in part because of the resolute opposition to GMOs by countries such as Russia, and the more quiet but questioning attitude of China and other countries. In the case of China, as Engdahl points out, the provincial ban is bucking the line being put out in Beijing, but there may be quiet economic considerations working behind the scenes, economic considerations that, in fact, dovetail perfectly with Beijing’s long term silk road strategies:

On December 16, 2016, the Provincial Heilongjiang Legislature passed a total ban on the growing of Genetically Modified or GMO crops. The ban goes into effect on May 1, 2017, in some five months. Farmers in China’s Heilongjiang province, one of China’s top grain producing regions, will be prohibited from growing GMO crops, according to the provincial regulation just passed. According to the new law, the ban will be on growing of GMO corn, rice and soybeans. Further, illegal production and sales of GMO crops and supply of their seeds will also be prohibited, as will be illegal production, processing, sale and imports of edible GMO farm produce or edible farm products that contain GMO ingredients. Any GMO food can only be sold in a special zone, clearly indicated in stores as GMO food products, a variation on labelling.

The legislature acted after a broad survey of the provincial population in October revealed that more than 91% of the population objected to the cultivation of GMO crops. The official ban follows discovery this past September that some 10% of Heilongjiang soybean farmers were illegally planting smuggled GMO soybean seeds despite the fact that the Beijing national government still bans planting of GMO commercial crops, allowing so far only controlled research to be done on GMO “biotechnology.” The farmers had been told, wrongly, that GMO seeds would increase their harvest yields. Farmers found guilty of growing illegal GMO crops face a fine of up to 200,000 yuan or $31,480. In China, owing to a US-promoted loophole in ban on GMO, GMO soybeans as animal feed are allowed in China. Some 60% of all soybeans consumed in China is, as a result of that unfortunate loophole, today GMO. Monsanto and other Western GMO purveyors promote their GMO seeds at agriculture fairs and farmers can buy the seeds online, even though planting is illegal.

In August the giant Chinese state chemicals group, ChemChina made a staggering $43 billion bid to acquire the Swiss GMO seeds and agrochemicals group, Syngenta. Recently Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Prime Minister have given very positive statements about the potential of GMO and biotechnology to contribute to the push to make China a high-tech economic actor. The latest decision of the people and legislature in Heilongjiang sends a clear signal opposing that Beijing strategy.

The butterfly effect of the Heilongjiang ban on GMO crops will definitely affect future agriculture relations between China and neighboring Russia. Heilongjiang Province has the longest common border with Russia of any province, the two countries’ boundary demarcated by the Amur River. Earlier this year, the Russian Federation’s Duma approved, and President Putin signed a law banning all commercial cultivation of GMO crops in the Russian Federation. The Heilongjiang ban potentially can open up Sino-Russian grain trade on a GMO-free basis, creating new synergies.

And that I suspect, is the real pattern and story here, as countries increasingly wake up to the fact that the science of GMOs, of their safety and even of their long term productivity over ordinary “heirloom” seeds, is dubious at best and debatable at a minimum. To put my high octane speculation as nakedly as possible: these articles attest to the emergence in 2017 of my long-predicted “GMO geopolitics,” which we may define as “a pattern of contrarian science, coupled with national or regional policy, to drive a revolt against American pro-GMO policy and the influence it has had on US foreign policy” (consider only the GMO story hovering in the background of the mess in The Ukraine). At a much deeper level, there is an epistemological and policy formation culture that we see emerging with this GMO geopolitics – a game Russia is playing with much greater facility than anyone else – and that is the formation of a global culture, based in science, informing provincial, national and regional policy. By this I mean that…

Continue Reading at: GizaDeathStar.com
______________________________________________________________
About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Survey Reveals Americans Don’t Trust Scientists on GMOs

GMO-apple-label-735-260
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
December 8, 2016

A new survey from the Pew Research Center of 1,480 people shows that many Americans don’t trust GMOs, or scientists, for that matter. Well, people don’t really see the purported benefits of GMOs, at least. [1]

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-01

Generally speaking, Republicans and Democrats have some vastly different attitudes about climate change, but that’s not the case with genetically modified organisms. According to the poll, it didn’t seem to matter what political party respondents aligned themselves with, either. [2]

The authors of the report write:

“Roughly equal shares of Republicans (39%) and Democrats (40%) feel that genetically engineered foods are worse for people’s health. And, half of Republicans (50%) and 60% of Democrats have positive views about the health benefits of organic foods.”

When you write about stuff like GMOs for a living, you get to read all sorts of totally obnoxious sarcastic, snarky comments about how ignorant and uneducated you must be to be wary of GMOs – as if its wrong to be cautious. (Yes, nothing is more ridiculous than questioning food that is created in a lab.) Yet, Pew found that about 39% of respondents with postgraduate degrees felt that foods with GM ingredients are worse for health, while 32% of those with a high school diploma or less said the same.

Statistically significant? Nah. But it tickled me a little.

When asked to self-report their “scientific knowledge” as “high,” “medium,” or “low,” those in the “medium” category were the most likely to think GM crops are worse for health (47%), while those in the “high” category weren’t quite as worried about the potential health ramifications of GMOs (37%). Those with “low” scientific knowledge were the least concerned about the effects of GMOs (29%).

No, political lines didn’t seem to divide respondents’ opinions on GMOs, but interestingly enough, respondents were almost as likely to believe that a scientist’s own political leanings would influence his or her research as much as his or her concern for the public interest.

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-03

What’s more, a large percentage of respondents also believed that a scientist’s professional aspirations were equally likely to dictate research findings as actual evidence.

Pew says that, overall, Americans’ attitudes about food and health are not determined by politics or demographics. The researchers write:

“The divides over food do not fall along familiar political fault lines. Nor do they strongly tie to other common divisions such as education, income, geography, or having minor children. Rather, they tie to individual concerns and philosophies about the relationship between food and well-being.

One indicator of such philosophies is the degree of concern people have about the issue of GM foods. The minority of U.S. adults who care deeply about the issue of GM foods (16%) are much more likely than those with less concern about this issue to consider GM foods worse for health (75% vs. 17% of those with no or not too much concern about GM foods); they are also much more likely to consider organic produce healthier: 81% compared with 35% of those with no or not too much concern about GM foods.”

Here are a few more findings from the survey:

  • 48% said GM foods were no different from non-GMO foods.
  • 64% agreed that scientists understand the health effects of GM foods “fairly well” or “very well,” but 35% said scientists either don’t know much about the health effects or know nothing at all.
  • 16% of adults said they cared “a great deal” about GM foods, while 37% said they cared “some” about the issue. About 31% said they didn’t care too much and 15% didn’t care at all.
  • Younger adults were more likely to consider GM foods a health risk, with 48% of those 18 to 29 saying that GMOs are worse for health than non-GMOs compared with 29% of those 65 and older.

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-05

Don’t let anyone tell you you’re a dolt for being worried about genetically modified food!

Read More at: NaturalSociety.com

Sources:

[1] Vocativ

[2] Food Navigator