National Research Council fails to design serious GMO study capable of answering biotech safety questions

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
CDC issues flu vaccine apology: this year's vaccine doesn't work!
The five biggest lies about Ebola being pushed by government and mass media
Ultraviolet light robot kills Ebola in two minutes; why doesn't every hospital have one of these?
Tetanus vaccines found spiked with sterilization chemical to carry out race-based genocide against Africans
Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
The best way to help your body protect itself against Ebola (or any virus or bacteria)
NJ cops bust teenagers shoveling snow without a permit
Russia throws down the gauntlet: energy supply to Europe cut off; petrodollar abandoned as currency war escalates
McDonald's in global profit free fall as people everywhere increasingly reject chemically-altered toxic fast food
W.H.O. contradicts CDC, admits Ebola can spread via coughing, sneezing and by touching contaminated surfaces
Top ten things you need to do NOW to protect yourself from an uncontrolled Ebola outbreak
Chemotherapy kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all
FDA targets Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps for sharing health benefits of coconut oil
U2's Bono partners with Monsanto to destroy African agriculture with GMOs
Why flu shots are the greatest medical fraud in history
Governments seize colloidal silver being used to treat Ebola patients, says advocate
Flu vaccine kills 13 in Italy; death toll rises

(NaturalNews) Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist at Pesticide Action Network, was recently notified by the National Academy of Sciences that the National Research Council (NRC) was assembling a provisional committee of experts tasked to complete a new, novel study on genetically modified (GM) crops. According to the NRC, the panel was selected to investigate the history of GM crops around the world while studying the experiences of farmers and the positive and negative effects associated with GM seeds.

Dr. Ishii-Eiteman promptly denounced the committee members as a whole after assessing their expertise and educational backgrounds. Most of the panelists were found to be biotechnology supporters.

Dr. Ishii-Eiteman pointed out that the group is incapable of carrying out a comprehensive investigation into the history and impact that GM crops and pesticides have on planetary and human health. She also criticized the study for starting and ending with a vague question asking how GM crops might contribute to agricultural innovation (which sounds biased).

Conflict of interest: NRC puts together research committee comprised of biotechnology experts

Sixty-seven other leading scientists and researchers backed Dr. Ishii-Eiteman, criticizing the NRC for failing to put together an unbiased slate of experts. Most of the panelists chosen by the NRC are just biophysical scientists. Their expertise follows along the wide path of biotechnology; they are versed in genetics, biochemistry, plant biotechnology, crop sciences and plant breeding but have no expertise in health standards.

Also on the panel are a couple of lawyers, a marketing specialist and an agricultural economist. While this group of panelists sounds diverse and knowledgeable, Dr. Ishii-Eiteman points out that the group falls short of understanding how GM crops impact community agriculture and health. The group lacks development sociologists, political economists, political ecologists, anthropologists and geographers.

On top of that, the group contains no real-world farmers -- the very people who work with the crops day to day.

Furthermore, there are no public health professionals on board, who could bring expertise evaluating occupational, environmental and community health. No one on the panel is trained in multidisciplinary research and complex systems science. No one on board understands agriculture as a "complex, continually evolving social/cultural/ecological system," as Dr. Ishii-Eiteman points out.

Monsanto-affiliated scientists infiltrate NRC panel

A chorus of scientists joined Dr. Ishii-Eiteman in pointing out that the NRC failed to diversify institutional interests. They pointed out that many of the panelists work for the USAID and USDA support programs which specialize in biosafety and biotechnology. Most of the panelists have built their careers around a GM crop development framework. Peculiarly, many of the panelists come from the Monsanto-affiliated Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, which is "devoted to the research, development, commercialization, export and/or trade in [genetically engineered] crops."

Dr. Ishii-Eiteman points out that the biotechnology-influenced members would be quick to base their research around their world view, which is heavily influenced by a disciplinary background steeped in biotechnology. This could easily sway the entire research project, projecting false positive information of GM crops. Even the scientific process behind the research project itself is aimed at proving that GM crops are the only way for innovating agriculture.

Dr. Ishii-Eiteman says an unbiased study would ask questions like, "What are the challenges facing agriculture today?" and "What do we need to know and understand in order to transform our agrifood system into one that is equitable, resilient and sustainable?"

Instead of going along with the NRC panel which is practically handpicked by the biotech industry from the start, Dr. Ishii-Eiteman and several other scientists ask for something very simple: transparency.

She asked, "What are the origins of this study? Who are its sponsors? Who at NRC decided on committee participant invitations? And as the study gets underway, how will minority perspectives and dissenting opinions be treated?"

As she states on her Huffington Post blog, "Unless things change radically and fast, this NRC study appears destined (or designed?) to produce just another myopic 'what could go wrong' endorsement of the biotech industry's products. That outcome would be a missed opportunity by the Council to provide the public and policymakers with a truly meaningful, nuanced and illuminating report. Surely our National Academy of Sciences can do better."

Sources for this article include:

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.