Scientific American discredits itself by insisting that consumers be kept in the dark about GMOs

Friday, September 20, 2013 by: Thomas Henry
Tags: Scientific American, GMO labeling, consumer information

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
BACK INTO THE CLOSET: Why U.S. reporters are not allowed to write about rainbow events in nations where being gay is still condemned
Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized
A family destroyed: Six-month-old dies after clinic injects baby with 13 vaccines at once without mother's informed consent
INVESTIGATION: Three days before Dr. Bradstreet was found dead in a river, U.S. govt. agents raided his research facility to seize a breakthrough cancer treatment called GcMAF
BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients
BOMBSHELL: China and America already at war: Tianjin explosion carried out by Pentagon space weapon in retaliation for Yuan currency devaluation... Military helicopters now patrolling Beijing
ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority
March Against Monsanto explodes globally... World citizens stage massive protests across 38 countries, 428 cities... mainstream media pretends it never happened
GMO crops totally banned in Russia... powerful nation blocks Monsanto's agricultural imperialism and mass poisoning of the population
SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere
Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years shares one surprising thing? and it's not guns
Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral
Holistic cancer treatment pioneer Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez dies suddenly; patients mourn the loss of a compassionate, innovative doctor who helped thousands heal from cancer
Pepsi drops aspartame from diet soda as consumers reject toxic sweetener
Bride of Frankenfood: Hillary Clinton pushes GMO agenda... hires Monsanto lobbyist... takes huge dollars from Monsanto
STATINS RED ALERT: Widely prescribed drugs act as cellular poisons that accelerate aging... deactivate DNA repair... promote diabetes, muscle fatigue and memory loss
Wild eyes and bowl cuts: Why do mass shooters always share the same hair styles and crazed zombie stares?
Mind control through emotional domination: How we're all being manipulated by the "crisis of the NOW"
(NaturalNews) What the public doesn't know won't hurt them.

At least, that's the thinking behind the Scientific American's recent editorial, "Labels for GMO Food Are a Bad Idea." It argues, "Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health."

For the Scientific American, this would only increase consumer costs, declaring that "such labels have limited people's options" in Europe, where it concedes that companies dropped GM ingredients after consumers avoided them, bemoaning that "today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets."

Public health lawyer Michele Simon, one of several critics who spoke out against the "unscientific" editorial, noted the "familiar ring" to positions used by GM seed corporations when opposing Prop 37, which would have mandated labeling in California.

"It reads like the biotech industry handed Scientific American its talking points," Simon told the NY Daily News.

Stacy Malkan, former director of the Yes on 37 campaign, zeroed in on the claim that labeling GMO ingredients would increase the costs for families by $400 per year, noting that it was based on a study favored by biotech and later debunked by a University of California at Davis study. Nevertheless, the Scientific American spreads worries that proper labeling requirements would force the more than 70% of foods produced with GM ingredients off the shelves, and as a result, "we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods."

Astoundingly, the Scientific American reassures the public by pronouncing that the FDA has tested 'all the GMO varieties on the market' and subsequently found them to be free of allergenic and toxic effects, a contention that Stacy Malkan called "sloppy and unscientific."

"Saying the FDA has tested all the GMOs on the market is patently false. Each individual company is responsible for testing its own products, and they then decide if they want to voluntarily report it to FDA. But they aren't required to test or report," Malkan said.

Ironically, Scientific American itself warned in 2009, "Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers."

The magazine's editors even noted at the time how the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred have even threatened litigation for using their GM seeds in unauthorized studies, essentially chilling independent researchers, making industry-sponsored research oftentimes the only available information on a product's efficacy and safety.

Independent studies that have been conducted on genetically modified foods - rather than by obviously self-interested biotech firms - have indicated numerous health risks, including sterility, low birth weight, undersized organs, unusual growth in intestinal cell walls and more. The Institute for Responsible Technology identified 65 key concerns over GM foods based upon the research. In just one illustrative example, Russian scientist Irina Ermakova found that more than half of the offspring from rats fed GM soy died within three weeks in a peer reviewed study. While the ultimate effects on humans remains unstudied, there is obviously a need for further research and clear labeling to indicate which foods contain genetically modified ingredients.

Scientific American concludes by arguing: "Such debates are about so much more than slapping ostensibly simple labels on our food to satisfy a segment of American consumers. Ultimately, we are deciding whether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology or shun it based on unfounded fears."

Yet many countries have instituted moratoriums on GM crops or ordered to allow time for long term studies to be conducted. It is only on account of the powerful biotech and pharmaceutical lobbies that this has not been considered - and likely will not be considered - in the United States.

Sources for this article include:

Follow real-time breaking news headlines on
Scientific American at
Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...


Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source:

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.