Originally published June 28 2012
AMA backs unlabeled GMO foods -- if they're 'verified'
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The American Medical Association (AMA) has officially sold its collective soul to the corporate agriculture machine by announcing recently that it opposes the mandatory labeling of genetically-modified (GM) foods. Though the group simultaneously called for "premarket safety assessments" of GM foods, it unilaterally denied the need for honest food labeling or any sort of differentiation between bioengineered foods and natural foods.
The announcement has confounded many, including even the mainstream media, as it contradictorily admits that GMOs need to be tested "as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public," and at the same time denies that GMOs are different from non-GMOs. If anything, the AMA's duplicitous position is a pathetic attempt to play both sides of the issue at the same time, which means it actually supports the continued betrayal and deceit by the biotechnology industry against Americans.
Adopted at the AMA's recent House of Delegates meeting, the group's non-labeling policy for GMOs implies that labeling is "without value" because "science-based" assessments have allegedly never called into question the safety of GMOs. Apparently the AMA has never taken even a cursory glance at Monsanto's own corporate website, which explains that human testing of GMOs has never actually been conducted, making its safety claims erroneous. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
The AMA has also apparently never taken a look at the dozens of independent, scientific studies on GMOs that have shown them to cause organ damage, intestinal upset, autoimmune disorders, allergies, cancer, skin problems, and other serious health problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/026426_GMO_food_GMOs.html). At no time have GMOs ever been proven, without a doubt, to be safe for human consumption, despite the arrogant statements now being made by AMA in defense of its corrupt position.
AMA believes GMOs should be tested, but not labeledDr. Patrice Harris from the AMA is quoted by The Atlantic as saying that the AMA opposes labeling because "there currently is no evidence that there are material differences or safety concerns in available bioengineered foods." Really? Why, then, would it be necessary to have the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct premarket assessments of GMOs, a proposal made by the AMA as a supposed solution to the debate?
As much as it would like to be all things to all people, the AMA cannot have it both ways. Either GMOs are different from non-GMOs both materially and metabolically, or they are the same. And if they are the same, as the AMA claims, then there is no need for premarket safety assessments. But since the AMA is now calling for such assessments, it must have some reason to believe that GMOs are a potential threat.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the AMA's real position in all this is that GMOs are no big deal, and secretly feeding them to Americans is scientifically validated. Oh, and GMOs should be tested, even though they never will -- the AMA is simply paying lip service to those legitimately concerned about the safety of GMOs, because it knows the FDA will never actually conduct these assessments.
In truth, the AMA is simply playing rhetorical gymnastics in an attempt to please everyone, and also negate any responsibility for the inevitable firestorm that is building in response to growing awareness about GMOs in the food supply. At least 90 percent of the country is in favor of GMO labeling (http://www.naturalnews.com/031569_GMO_GMOs_food.html), and eventually the People will prevail in spite of the spineless non-position adopted by the AMA.
Sources for this article include:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml