Originally published April 1 2015
Only biotech-funded studies claim GMOs are safe: Independent scientists warn otherwise
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The general consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is that there really is no consensus at all, at least not among independent scientists looking honestly and unbiasedly at the issue. A peer-reviewed evaluation of the cohort of published literature on GMOs reveals that nearly every study declaring GMOs to be safe is backed by biotech interests.
The rest, according to researchers from the Rovira i Virgili University in Catalonia, Spain, publishing their work in the journal Environment International, present serious problems associated with GMOs including, but certainly not limited to, obesity, liver failure, infertility and cancer. This, despite a dearth of published long-term animal or human toxicology studies, which would surely reveal even more dangers associated with GMOs.
The review, which evaluated published studies on GMOs in both 2000 and 2006, found that most of the studies claiming that GM soybeans and maize (corn) are just as safe and nutritious as their non-GM counterparts were "conducted by biotechnology companies responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants." Meanwhile, those studies still raising serious concerns about GMOs were found to be conducted independently of the biotech industry.
Like with vaccines, media spin machines scream "science!" to shut down honest discussion about GMOs This fact is never talked about in the mainstream media, which militantly denies that any legitimate science exists to contradict the "GMOs are safe!" narrative. But then again, most major media organizations controlling the news today are backed by the same pro-GMO industries funding these biased, pro-GMO studies, as evidenced by their commercial sponsors.
"There is no... consensus on the safety of GM food," said Timothy Wise, Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Tufts University Global Development and Environment Institute.
"A peer-reviewed study of the research, from peer-reviewed journals, found that about half of the animal-feeding studies conducted in recent years found cause for concern. The other half didn't, and as the researchers noted, 'most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants.'"
Yelling "science!" to defend GMOs doesn't work when actual scientists question GMO safety Just like vaccines, the war on terror and man-made global warming, GMOs are untouchable when it comes to any contradiction of the official story. The public is told to accept only what the media and government authorities say about each of the issues and to ignore anything else as a wild "conspiracy theory."
In the case of both vaccines and GMOs, the official story is that the science is already settled: Vaccines are safe and effective, and GMOs are safe and effective. Period. There's no room for questions or independent inquiry, even if you're a toxicologist, doctor, scientist or other professional who works in these fields and has extensive knowledge or insight into the science behind them.
There are plenty of credible voices out there questioning the safety of GMOs, which is why the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation recently awarded a $5.6 million grant to Cornell University to "depolarize" the debate over GMO foods. As explained by Wise in his piece "The War on Genetically-Modified-Food Critics," the goal is to silence and destroy all opposition to GMOs, especially when it comes from informed and highly educated scientists who know what they're talking about.
"What we're seeing is a concerted campaign to... paint GMO critics as anti-science while offering no serious discussion of the scientific controversy that still rages," wrote Wise. "The consensus on the safety of GM food is perfectly clear: there is no consensus."
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