genetic engineering

How do you continue to push GM crops on a population that has overwhelmingly voted against them in poll after poll? You start a campaign similar to the one the tobacco industry began in the 1920’s with the help of Edward Bernays to discredit any naysayers and even put doctors in commercials smoking cigarettes. You also do whatever it takes to buy out ‘real’ scientists and call those into question who inquire about the true safety of GM foods. You label them anti-science and discredit their credentials.

Following news made just weeks ago about Monsanto slashing 2,600 jobs and ending $3 billion to buy back shares from investors, the biotech giant is now reporting that it will be closing 3 research and development centers in order to cut costs in the agricultural commodities market.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently reposted a tweet from a follower blaming his trailing numbers in a new Iowa poll on genetically modified corn that “creates issues in the brain.” The GMO issue looms large for the candidates currently in the running.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a biotechnology hearing for the first time in 10 years last week to discuss the future of food technology as the industry responds to increased demand, production challenges, and consumers’ calls for a safe and transparent food supply. But the meeting came up short on transparency and carried on more like a Monsanto share-holders meeting than an unbiased inquiry into the pros and cons of biotechnology where it concerns the food supply.

A glaring omission from almost all biotech discussions of genetically engineered crops is the fact that not one, but a host of chemicals is required to grow them. Perhaps the word ‘required’ is overwrought with cynicism, but “over 75 percent of GMO crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide.” This means that if one were to honestly and accurately portray the safety of GM crops, they would also have to prove that the herbicides and pesticid

Scientists in Bangladesh are preparing to conduct field tests of Golden Rice, the world’s first genetically engineered, vitamin A-enriched rice, before putting into production.

Could it be that premier scientific journals are finally conveying the truth about GMOs? In a relatively recent exploration of ‘ubiquitous’ GMOs that have taken over our food supply, the New England Journal of Medicine tackles 2 new concerns over genetically modified organisms and the pesticides used to grow them.

Stating a concern that the proposed law would lead to the reintroduction of border controls between GM and non-GMO-growing countries, the European Parliament news service reported that Members of the Environment Committee shot down a draft EU law that would allow member states to restrict or prohibit sales of genetically modified crops.

Dr. Judy Carman, an appointed expert on GMOs, has much to teach us about the dangers of biotech’s tinkering with our food supply. Not only does she point out some very obvious flaws in the regulatory process of approving genetically modified organisms in the US, Australia, and New Zealand, but she also details the holes in the argument of ‘substantial equivalency’ that companies like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and Syngenta try to use as reason to continue selling GM crops to the world.

Are you sick of unlabeled GMOs in our food? Let the FDA know. You can file a formal complaint. Let’s send them so many that their servers bust!
FDA scientists once said that genetically modified ingredients were possibly unsafe. The agency ignored their own experts, and have since been acting like a dog on a chain, bowing to the whims of the biotech industry without any concern for public health.