Why Is The Deadstream Media Ignoring These GMO Studies?


Source: ActivistPost.com
Derrick Broze
January 26, 2017

Despite new research indicating health concerns and conflicts of interest related to Genetically Modified foods, the corporate media has, once again, remained silent. 

In late December, a series of studies and news stories went largely unreported and ignored by the corporate, deadstream media. These reports covered blatant conflicts of interest between the biotechnology corporations promoting genetically modified or engineered products and the researchers and politicians guiding legal policy. There was also the issue of a new study that shows negative health affects with rats who ingest genetically engineered food.

This study, Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rat, which was published in the journal Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, showed that rats fed GM Bt corn MON810 suffered serious damage to the surface mucous membranes of the jejunum, an important part of the small intestine. The signs of damage were apparent after only 90 days, according to the researchers.

The study used Monsanto’s MON810: Ajeeb YG, a genetically modified version of Ajeeb,  a local species of corn grown in Egypt. The GM version was created by Monsanto for the Egyptian market. The rats who were on the GM corn  consumed MON810 corn as 30% of their diet. The control group had the same amount of non-GMO corn. The GM group experienced damage on the finger-like structures within the intestine known as villi. These villi are responsible for absorbing nutrients from food. The researchers found them to be distorted and flattened. They also found signs of inflammation, disturbed mucosal glands, and congested blood vessels.

“Consumption of GM-corn profoundly alters the jejunal histological [microscopic] structure,” the researchers concluded.

Despite this astounding study, there has been little to no mention of its conclusions in the independent or corporate media. The study alone is not hard evidence that the same results will be found in humans, or even necessarily that the genetically modified corn is the sole reason for the damage, but it does absolutely warrant further investigation. Especially in light of growing concern around conflicts of interest.

In late December, researchers with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research announced stunning findings in their study of potential conflicts of interest within the biotechnology industry. Published in the journal PLOS One, the study found that nearly half of studies on genetically modified crops were found to have conflicts of interest. The study, Conflicts of Interest in GM Bt Crop Efficacy and Durability Studies, also concluded that GM studies with conflict of interest had an increased likelihood of drawing conclusions which favored genetically modified or engineered foods.

The researchers examined 579 published studies and found that around 40% showed at least one conflict of interest. In these cases the conflict was typically related to someone involved with the study also working as an employee of a GM company or had received funds directly from the company. Given that America is one of the world’s largest consumer of GM foods, it was not surprising to find that our of the 579 studies examined, 404 were American and 83 were Chinese.

“We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many,” Thomas Guillemaud, director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) told AFP.

The authors also admit that the study was limited in its scope.  “We used the addresses of authors to identify their affiliations, only one type of affiliation, that relating to employment, was considered,” the researcher wrote. “However, 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.”

Again, silence from the corporate media on these conflicts. It should also be noted that other than Activist Post reporting on this, the only other link came from the Times of India, an English language website for news in India. There was one story regarding conflicts of interest that made the deadstream.

In early December 2016, the New York Times released a report that was quickly forgotten or ignored by the masses. The article details how committees associated with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) were being questioned for their own conflicts of interest. The NAS provides policy guidance to the U.S. government. They distribute this guidance via written reports from scientific committees.

The NAS’s committee on biotechnology has recently been challenged regarding how its members are selected. According to the NY Times:

Critics say that several committee members have financial ties to biotech businesses that could color the panel’s report, expected to be published soon, potentially giving short shrift to health and environmental worries.

By the academies’ own account, two of the scientists already violate the group’s extensive conflict-of-interest policy. The National Academies play an outsize role in the debate because of their stature in the academic community and connections to the federal government.

The NAS is also the organization responsible for a May 2016 study which claimed to have completely debunked any environmental or health dangers related to genetically engineered foods. However, once again, conflict of interest was an issue. Following the NAS study, the environmental watchdog organization Food and Water Watch released their own report pointing to possible influence from the same organizations that stand to benefit from the growth of GM foods. The report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs, looks at “far-reaching ties” between the National Research Council, its parent organization the NAS, and biotechnology companies and agricultural corporations.

Food and Water Watch claims that the NRC and NAS:

  • takes millions of dollars in funding from biotechnology companies
  • invites sponsors like Monsanto to sit on high-level boards overseeing the NRC’s work
  • invites industry-aligned, pro-GMO scientists to author NRC reports
  • draws scientific conclusions based on industry science
  • operates at times as a private contractor for corporate research

Food and Water Watch also points to the fact that Monsanto, DuPont and other agribusinesses that produce or support GMOs have donated millions of dollars into the NRC’s parent organization, the National Academy of Sciences. The report also alleges that corporate representatives participate in “high-level decision-making processes at the NRC, including sitting on the board that oversees the NRC’s work on GMOs.”

How are Americans supposed to trust the corporate media, the scientists promoting genetic engineering, and the political bodies if they are completely corrupt and wrapped in conflicts of interest? We can’t. Grow your own food and vacate the unsustainable food systems that promote genetic engineering, factory farming, and pesticide use.

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Herbicide-resistant GMO corn could be harmful & escalate allergies – study

Source: RTAmerica
January 9, 2017

A new study has found that genetically modified corn actually isn’t “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO corn. Researchers found GMO corn contained large amounts of toxic substances and can escalate allergic reactions. RT America’s Ashlee Banks reports. Then, Anya Parampil is joined by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association.

Gross Scientific Misconduct: How GMO Scientists Lied About GM Corn To Engineer A Fake Consumer Choice Study

GMO corn
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jonathan Benson
June 6, 2016

A study published in 2004 received an award from the British Food Journal (BFJ) as the “most outstanding paper” of the year has been exposed as a total fraud. Authored by biotech hack Shane Morris, the study, entitled Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn, used deceptive and undisclosed methods to sway buyers toward genetically-modified (GM) sweet corn seeds, only to later claim that consumers voluntarily chose the “frankenseeds” over the natural ones.

Known today as the “wormy corn” scandal, the original publishing of the paper back in 2003 was met with outrage after it was determined that Morris, who at the time was employed by the government agency Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, intentionally manipulated the views of his participants to achieve a predetermined study outcome. According to the public investigations group Powerbase, Morris and his co-authors posted whiteboard signage above natural sweet corn seed bins at a farm store that swayed farmers toward the GMO seeds.

Fraudulent signs manipulated study participants to choose GMO seeds

The question “Would you eat wormy sweet corn?” was positioned directly above the non-GMO seed bin, followed by a detailed listing of all the pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers that would need to be applied to this non-GMO seed. These warnings, which were not disclosed in the study, unfairly pointed shoppers toward the “quality” GMO seed been where over 50 percent of participants ended up pulling their seed.

Based on this fraud, Morris and his team were able to make the claim that GMO corn seed is preferred by a majority of farmers, a spurious conclusion that has ever since been a self-fulfilling prophecy within the general farming community. It wasn’t until Toronto Star reporter Stuart Laidlaw uncovered the use of the signs that this failed study was finally exposed as industry propaganda.

“The case is a flagrant fraud,” stated Dr. Richard Jennings, a lecturer on scientific practice at Cambridge University. “It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed.”

40 respected scientists, politicians, and policy experts call for fraudulent study to be retracted

When news of the fraudulent study went public, many people demanded that it be immediately retracted. New Scientist ran a full expose in 2006 demanding that BFJ take responsibility for failing the scientific community by publishing the study. The Canadian government even tried to distance itself from Morris, claiming that he wasn’t their employee at the time the study was conducted.

When this failed to spark action at BFJ, 40 scientists, including leading experts in the fields of science policy and research ethics, as well as two members of Parliament, issued an open letter in 2008 to the editor and editorial board of the journal calling for the study’s retraction. These experts hailed from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Norway, France, Italy, Brazil, Indonesia, and Japan.

This letter, which openly called the paper a “disgraceful incident,” coincided with a fruitless attempt by Morris to sue his exposers for alleged libel. Morris attempted at the time to shut down both GMWatch and GM-Free Ireland for criticizing his immoral actions. He also tried to sue Tim Lambert, a computer scientist from the University of New South Wales, who was the first to prove the legitimacy of the deceptive signage.

“Shane Morris must be fairly desperate to create such melodramatic lies seven years after the fact,” stated Michael Khoo, a Greenpeace campaigner who Morris had irrationally accused of tampering with the whiteboard signs during the course of the study. “If any of these things had actually happened, wouldn’t he have been the first to call the police or tell the press?”

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

GMOs & Health – The Scientific Basis For Serious Concern & Immediate Action

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Nathan Daley, MD, MPH

You might ask, “why all the fuss about agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?” After all, regulatory agencies have approved these technologies for widespread application and consumption, so they must be safe, right?  Well, the truth is that there is no agency and no industry that  works to protect our health.  At best, the EPA, USDA, and FDA attempt to respond to our disease after the cause is widespread.  At that point only risk reduction, rather than risk avoidance, can be achieved.  This has been the case historically with radium paint, tobacco, particulate air pollution, water pollution, asbestos, lead, food-borne illnesses, and DDT.  A number of the various 80,000 chemicals in production will likely be added to this list in the future while the majority of them that actually do contribute to disease (often in combination and in complex ways) will never be scientifically associated with disease.  This is because science is far from perfect, scientific methodology is always biased and often manipulated, and scientific interpretation by stakeholders and decision makers is alarmingly inept (I’m not being political or condescending, these are well known and easily observed facts).

The situation with agricultural GMOs is unique compared to other technologies. While genetic engineering of food crops has been ongoing for 15 years, it is currently experiencing a major boom with the potential for widespread worldwide application.  Yet, few people understand how a GMO food could really be so much different than a non-GMO food in regard to health and disease effects.  GMO foods look like non-GMO foods and so we don’t experience the same hesitation and aversion to consuming them like we would, say, a clearly labeled bottle of virus and pesticide in tomato juice.  Therefore, the quality of public education, consumer awareness, and informed public discussion about this technology has the potential to alter the future of GMO agriculture for better or worse.

In this article, I’ll first briefly mention the relative paucity of risk assessment studies on GMOs and the unbelievable weaknesses of the industry studies that have been done.  Then, drawing from numerous independent studies, I will explore the routes by which agricultural GMOs may cause adverse health effects.

GMOs Have Never Been “Proven” Safe

Let me be clear; despite the following negative review of industry science, this article is not a hatchet job against the agricultural GMO industry but, rather, a vehicle for consolidated scientific information on the safety or risks of GMO foods intended to allow readers to make informed choices about this technology.  It is just that, well, the science coming from the industry tends to raise serious concerns and suggests that the agricultural GMO industry has little concern for protecting public and ecosystem health.  Before we dive into the independent non-industry studies which suggest potential harm from GMO crops and foods, we must first look at the studies which supposedly demonstrate the safety of GMO crops and foods.  A critique of these studies remained impossible for some time as the data was kept private, until French researchers obtained a court order for their release.  This team of researchers, lead by Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, then analyzed the raw data from studies on three varieties of GMO corn owned by Monsanto.  Yet, it immediately became apparent that this data was not extremely helpful as the study methodology was profoundly insufficient.  In a 2010 paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences[1], the researchers summarize several major flaws in the study.  I’ll list just a few of them here:

  1. For each of the three varieties of GMO corn tested, only a single study was done.  However, a central tenet of sound science is that the results are reproducible and replicated by other studies, preferably those done by different researchers.
  2. Only the rat was used as a toxicological model.  Rats are useful models for the human detoxification systems, but poor models for human reproductive and embryological systems.  Remember, rat studies “proved” that thalidomide was safe for pregnant women to use… but the rabbit studies done AFTER thousands of babies were harmed “proved” that it caused birth defects!  Scientific proof is only as good as the scientific studies, which are always limited and narrowly focused.
  3. The studies lasted only 3 months and were done on young adult rats.  Yet, captive rats live about 24 months.  No studies looking at late life outcomes from this brief exposure or studies which used lifelong exposure to GMOs were performed.  This is clearly a problem unless human consumers are only supposed to eat GMO foods for no longer than 9 years between the ages of 10 and 20.  Yet, GMO food technology has been released (without labeling) with the intention of lifelong consumption.
  4. No reproductive or developmental studies were done.  Yet GMO foods do not carry a label declaring that their safety during pregnancy has not been evaluated.  Instead, they are unlabeled and meant to be consumed by both genders, at all ages and developmental stages, including during pregnancy and infancy.
  5. Adverse outcomes were only considered if they occurred in both genders!  Clearly genders are different.  For instance, women are much more likely to get breast cancer than men, and one must have a prostate to get prostate cancer.  In the industry studies, increases in prostate cancer in male rats and increases in mammary tumors in female rats would apparently have been omitted since they differed between genders.  This explains exactly what happened to their findings that male rats eating GMO corn had an 11% increase in heart size while female rats eating GMO corn had a 40% increase in serum triglycerides[2].   It is not clear what to make of these findings, but they should not have been omitted and, instead, should have been used to encourage more numerous and longer duration (lifespan) studies before the worldwide release of GMO corn.
  6. Adverse outcomes which are consider “normal” in old rats were omitted in this young rat population.  For instance, the researchers did not consider “chronic progressive nephropathy”, a kidney disease common in older rats, to be a problem even though it was occurring in young, 5 month old, rats eating the GMO corn.

Now, I can attest that modern toxicology students training at respectable universities are taught to do much better work than this. We can only speculate about the reasons such limited study methodologies were chosen.  Nonetheless, these are the studies which the FDA determined to be sufficient for the approval of the three GMO corn varieties represented.  As if the major flaws in the study methodologies were not enough to warrant a different decision, the French team of researchers found a number of concerning associations upon re-analyzing the raw data[3].  They summarize:

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn.

This is not the only group of researchers to demonstrate an association between GMO consumption and adverse health outcomes.  Despite the industries resistance to providing GMO varieties to outside researchers for independent studies, there are still dozens of studies available to the public for review.  I’ll synthesize the findings of several of these studies below in considering the possible mechanisms by which agricultural GMOs may cause problems.  In general, the health effects of agricultural GMOs are mediated through at least three routes; 1. Directly though ingestion, 2. Indirectly through GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion, and 3. Indirectly through environmental and ecosystem effects.

Effects of GMO ingestion:

Ingesting GMOs can affect both the microbiome and human cells.  The microbiome is the microorganism population which lives on and in the human body.  Most of it exists in or on the mouth, nose, stomach, intestines, and skin.  The gut microbiome has received considerable attention due to its apparently profound effect on the immune system, not to mention its effect on food digestion.  The gut microbiome is involved in determining the risk of autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases, cardiovascular disease, and some infectious diseases like osteomyelitis.  The microbiome can get out of balance (called dysbiosis) and produce severe diseases such as Clostridium difficile overgrowth and more mild disorders like small bowel bacterial overgrowth and irritable bowel syndrome.  The bottom line is that a balanced microbiome is critical for health and we are just now beginning to appreciate how serious the consequences of dysbiosis may be.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

US FDA Deregulates 2 More GE Corn Strains, Unleashing More Toxic Crops On America

Source: NaturalSociety.com
By: Christina Sarich

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recently made it a little easier for Monsanto and Syngenta to push their poison. The agency has deregulated two more strains of genetically engineered corn.

Though the FDA stated in September that it planned to implement more strict protocols for permitting GE wheat strains due to non-GMO crops being contaminated through cross pollination, they have apparently decided the two more GMO corn varieties don’t pose the same exact threat!

The agency’s comparative laxity in deregulating the GE corn strains is in stark contrast to increasing worldwide concern over GE crops and the increased pesticide use they reportedly bring.

Here’s the big shocker – the infiltrated US FDA decided that Monsanto’s rootworm and glyphosate-resistant strain, MON 87411, merits a non-regulated status. The agency also sold us all out to the Swiss biotech company by deregulating Syngenta’s glyphosate-resistant strain, MZHGOJG.

And another ‘coincidence?’ APHIS’ corn deregulation notices were published the same day that the environmental groups Center for Food Safety (CFS), Earthjustice, and 5 others filed a brief challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of Dow AgroSciences’ glyphosate pesticide, Enlist Duo, which pairs glyphosate with 2,4D, a doubly toxic, carcinogenic herbicide that will make cancers likely double in the next decade. Though the registration of Enlist Duo was recently reversed.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com