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.

Monsanto Strong-Armed Science Journal To Retract Seralini Study Showing Liver, Kidney Toxicity In Rats Fed Genetically Modified Foods & Glyphosate

Seralini
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
July 27, 2016

Corporate collusion and secret backroom dealings between at least two editors from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) and biotechnology giant Monsanto are what ultimately led to the unwarranted retraction of a major study showing that Monsanto’s NK603 “corn” and corresponding herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) cause cancer in mammals, new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests reveal.

The groundbreaking paper by French biologist Gilles-Eric Seralini, which was published and then unpublished by FCT, contained no errors and wasn’t fraudulent or plagiarized, and yet FCT’s chief editor, A. Wallace Hayes, made the unprecedented decision to pull it, after a second and mysterious peer review, using the excuse that the paper’s findings were “inconclusive.”

Never before has a paper been pulled for this reason, so naturally many have speculated as to the possible outside influences that may have swayed this unconventional decision. Now, thanks to the probing efforts of Stephane Foucart from the French paper Le Monde, it’s become apparent that Hayes, along with fellow “associate editor” Richard E. Goodman, rigged the second peer-review process that led to the paper’s withdrawal, all for the purpose of placating Monsanto.

Goodman, Hayes conspire with Monsanto to take down Seralini paper

Goodman, a former Monsanto employee, was mysteriously hired on at FCT not long after Seralini’s paper was first published, and roughly a decade after he supposedly parted ways with Monsanto. But FOIA documents show that Goodman never really left Monsanto, according to a now-uncovered email showing that about half of his salary was still coming from biotechnology companies for private consulting work years after his departure.

Even in the years leading up to the Seralini study’s publishing, Goodman had maintained close ties with Monsanto, working as one of its henchmen to keep tabs on articles and studies that questioned its products, which included the Seralini paper. Goodman’s now-released private emails show that he had asked Monsanto for talking points on refuting the paper just days before he was hired on at FCT under the appointment of Hayes.

Hayes had apparently helped keep this appointment a secret until February 2013, and we now know that during that time he worked alongside Monsanto to set up a new, non-transparent peer-review group to rip apart the Seralini paper so that it could be pulled from the journal. GM Watch explains how Hayes essentially played a “double role” in ensuring the paper’s retraction.

“My request, as editor, and from Professor Goodman, is that those of you who are highly critical of the recent paper by Seralini and his co-authors volunteer as potential reviewers,” Hayes wrote in an email to Monsanto.

We don’t know for sure whether or not Hayes extended this request to toxicologists outside the Monsanto fold, but one thing is clear: Hayes and Goodman worked in tandem to serve the interests of Monsanto in taking down the Seralini paper, and all under the guise of “science.”

FCT ‘editors’ reject other GMO-critical studies following Seralini conspiracy

So, after a legitimate and honest peer review by independent academics and scientists overwhelmingly approved Seralini’s study, getting it published the proper way, Hayes and Goodman conspired to set up a second, Monsanto-stacked “peer review” to have it unpublished. It’s corruption at it’s finest, and it hasn’t stopped at FCT.

According to GM Watch, Hayes has continued to block scientific research that even remotely questions the safety of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and crop chemicals, including a later study on Monsanto’s MON810 corn, which was shown to harm the Daphnia magna waterflea, a small, freshwater crustacean. The waterflea is often used as a model organism by ecotoxicologists.

The paper that demonstrated MON810’s toxicity in the species was simply too “controversial,” which is why it was never published in FCT. And who do you think was behind its rejection? None other than Goodman himself, under the direction of Hayes.

Though the paper was later published in another journal in 2015, the conspiratorial nature of FCT’s new Monsanto-directed “peer review” process remains the same. Goodman has since resigned from FCT, but his superior, Hayes, a Monsanto-affiliated hack himself, continues to censor sound science from the journal he oversees.

Hayes currently serves as senior science advisor at Spherix Consulting, a global team of advisors that furnishes pharmaceutical and other industries with “scientific solutions that result in regulatory success.” In other words, Hayes makes sure that clients like Monsanto are happy, and that their products are always presented in the most positive light.

“Hayes’s interests and Goodman’s current Monsanto connections should have precluded them from having any authority over the fate of the Seralini study and other studies submitted to FCT,” Claire Robinson writes for GM Watch.

“Instead we have a situation in which a lack of transparency at the journal FCT allowed industry interests to take precedence over scientific considerations. In the process, the reputation of honest scientists has been unjustly maligned and public trust in science has been damaged, perhaps irretrievably.”

To learn more about how to grow your own GMO-free food at home, check out the Mini-Farm Grow Box system.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

GMWatch.org

Monsanto’s GMO Corn Has No Improvement On Yields Or Reduced Crop Damage, Report Claims

GMOs

Source: NaturalNews.com
By: Jennifer Lea Reynolds

No surprise here, but a recent report has found that MON810, a Monsanto-made GM corn, doesn’t have the ability to thwart crop infection. What a shocker. The Franken-food company designed the corn in an effort to “help” crops by making them resistant to corn-boring pests, maintaining that the Bt insecticide in MON810 maize would be beneficial.(1)

Nope. Not even close.

In a report published by the Government of the Aragon region of Spain – a country that happens to be the EU leader in GM maize cultivation – it was found that “there are no significant differences” between GM corn varieties an non-GM, conventional varieties. The amount was minuscule and barely worth mentioning: the difference in per hectare yields of crops between the two varieties harvested was between 0.2 and 0.3 kilos. Not only was there hardly any difference in harvest production, but the report also found that MON810 didn’t make a dent in warding off any pests.(1)

Still, the folks at Monsanto think it’s time break out the MON810 party hats and do a victory dance. According to their website’s “Did You Know?” section, “MON810 corn hybrids contain a protein from a naturally occurring bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This protein provides protection against damaging corn borer pests that can significantly impact both the yield and quality of a farmer’s corn crop.”(2)

Oops, better read the Aragon report Monsanto, because it sure determined otherwise concerning that whole pest control and yield thing you latch on to.

But wait, says Monsanto; GM seed products really DO work

Furthermore, the Monsanto website also does what it’s been doing for ages: It tries to convey that tampering with the foods people ingest is good. “We confidently stand behind the safety and healthfulness of each of our GM seed products,” their site states. Of course, they take issue with any country that has the common sense to ban such foods, suggesting that places that “have taken decisions to illegally ban the planting MON810 corn hybrids despite a robust safety assessment and a long history of safe cultivation and consumption” are in the wrong. Then they go on to remind readers of the studies that have been done, and suggest that governments that don’t align with their strategies are ill-informed, stubborn people engaging in “illegal” bans. Wah, wah.(2)

We bet they’re going to have a field day with the most recent ruling in the Philippines, in which the Supreme Court there ordered a permanent ban on field trials of GM eggplant. Additionally, the judges have temporarily stopped the import of all GM crops and products. At the same time, they’re refusing to accept applications for new GM items until new administrative orders go into effect. Without a doubt, as native farmers and residents rejoice, Monsanto and it’s twisted view of human ethics will find fault with the ruling.(3)

Listen up, Monsanto: There’s a reason so many people shun GM corn. From liver damage to actually inserting genes into human tissue that end up basically throwing the human genome way out of whack, GM corn is bad news. A bit of cellular damage and DNA disruption to go with your dinner? We think not.(4)

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Report: Monsanto’s Latest GM Maize Doesn’t Reduce Pests or Increase Yields


Source: NaturalSociety.com
By: Christina Sarich
December 10, 2015

Monsanto promised that its latest and greatest GM crop, MON810, a genetically modified (GM) insecticidal maize banned by most of Europe, would increase yields and stop crop loss due to pests. A new report from the government of Aragon in Spain says those promises are empty. [1]

There is an inserted gene in the DNA of MON810 which allows the plant to make a protein that harms insects that try to eat it. The inserted gene is from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces the Bt toxin that is poisonous to insects in the Lepidoptera order, including the European Corn Borer. [2] Three quarters of the corn grown in Aragon, Spain is currently genetically modified, but conventional varieties were tested against GM Maize varieties in 2014.

“Helen,” “Zoom,” and “Kayras” – the non-GM isogenic (parent) lines (plant varieties) – were compared with the GM varieties derived from each line. The genetic insert was the MON810 construct from the US company, Monsanto.

The report found that:

“Per hectare, from 12.6 to 14.3 kg of maize were harvested. The GM varieties and the non-GM conventional comparator had very similar yields – the difference was between 0.2 and 0.3 kilos.”

This means the GM maize did not produce more than conventional strains of maize.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com