............................................................................................................................................................
By Chris Black
Let’s begin today’s article with defining the term
GMO.
This artificial genetic modification creates something
completely new, a combo of animal, plant, bacterial and virus genes, a
completely new organism that did not occur in nature, or via traditional
methods, like crossbreeding.
Also, you must know that a lot of products you’re
consuming daily contain GMO. For example, over 90% of soy (or corn) is GMO, and
soy and corn byproducts can be found in almost every processed food.
Let Me Tell You a Fact You Probably Don’t Know
Just like with the so-called scientific consensus
about global warming, science is settled and all that nonsense, the scientific
consensus in regard to GMO is an artificial construct that has been falsely
perpetuated.
That’s an actual quote from a statement signed by many
physicians, scientists and scholars back in 2015.
Another inconvenient fact is that to date, there’s no
epidemiological study (long term that is) aimed at investigating the potential
harmful effects of GMO on human health.
The vast majority of the research which deemed GMO
foods to be kosher has been sponsored by biotech companies, which is the
definition of conflict of interest.
According to a peer reviewed study about GMO animal
feedings, to put it simply, when it comes to food safety and GMO, the science
is still out.
Also, as a side note, you should remember that science
is never settled. Anybody that’s telling you otherwise is lying and/or has an
occult agenda.
Another interesting read is this overview which sums
up almost all available (as in public domain) research on genetically modified
organisms.
What you must remember is that almost all animal
feeding studies were performed by biotech (read Monsanto, Bayer or whatever) or
their associates.
Let’s Take a Closer Look at GMO Plants.
Genetically modified plants are designed to resist the
direct application of herbicides (read Roundup), or to produce themselves an
insecticide.
Basically, all GMO crops have been genetically
manipulated to be tolerant or resistant to (patented) herbicide glyphosate
chemicals (like Roundup), produced by companies like Monsanto.
Also, GMO seeds (also patented) are designed to resist
specific insects.
The herbicide-tolerant seeds use an enzyme derived
from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a soil bacterium that is, which confers them
glyphosate resistance.
Insect resistance derives from toxin genes borrowed
from Bacillus thuringiensis, another soil bacterium.
Speaking of glyphosate, Roundup is the most used
herbicide in the world, and it’s a mandatory “part of the deal” of buying GMO
seeds from companies like Monsanto. Roundup has been patented since the
seventies.
GMO seeds are also patented, and farmers using GMO
seeds enter a legal contract with Monsanto, which forces them to only use
Roundup pesticide.
Basically, farmers using GMO seeds enter a “legal
trap” of sorts, being forced to both buy new (patented) seeds from Monsanto
each year with every new harvest, and also to buy Roundup, a very toxic
glyphosate.
Speaking of toxicity, biotech giant Monsanto was sued
back in 2018 and forced to pay $289 million to a person (a school groundskeeper)
who got terminal cancer due to using their popular weed killer Roundup.
It’s interesting to note that a few years ago (in
2012), Gilles-Eric Seralini, a molecular biologist, performed a study for
France’s University of Caen, which revealed that Roundup contains a proprietary
ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine respectively, that was more deadly to
human placental, embryonic and umbilical cord cells than glyphosate itself.
This specific inert ingredient in Monsanto’s weed
killer amplified the overall toxicity of Roundup, yet the company still refuses
to reveal the exact composition of Roundup, except from glyphosate, citing
copyright issues/proprietary technology and things of that nature.
According to the Seralini study, the so called inert
ingredients in Roundup were hugely toxic for the human body even at
concentrations 100,000 times more dilute compared to products available on
shelves.
However, Seralini’s study was surrounded by
controversy at the time, and the scientific publication that published the
results retracted the findings after being pressured by the biotech lobby.
The issue was claimed to be the fact that Seralini
used too few rats to produce statistically coherent data, or something along
these lines.
The problem with Seralini’s study was that his
research linked cancerous tumor growth in rats fed with GMO foods for a period
of 2 years.
Since GMOs are basically newly created life forms,
biotech companies were able to obtain patents, which permit them to fully
control the distribution of GMO seeds.
Thus, the respective companies are now suing farmers
whose crops have been contaminated with GMOs unintentionally, by pollen
drifting from nearby fields.
Yet, there’s no scientific evidence that GMOs
currently available on the market offer better draught tolerance, increased
yield, enhanced nutrition value or any other benefit for the consumer, despite
using the latest technologies from the biotech industries.
Moreover, lacking any serious evidence, and by
evidence we refer to an independent and credible long-term feeding study, GMO
food safety is basically unknown.
On 25 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted
Marc Fellous, former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission,
for “forgery” and “the use of forgery”, in a libel trial that he lost to Prof
Gilles-Eric Séralini.
The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has authorised
many GM crops for consumption.
The fact that GMO labeling is not enforced in the
United States (or Canada by that matter) doesn’t help much with biotech
companies’ credibility, despite the fact that the European Union, Japan and
Australia require by law for genetically modified foods to be labeled.
“If you put a label on genetically
engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” — Norman Braksick, President of Asgrow Seed Company, a
Monsanto subsidiary
And if you want to learn how the American public
started consuming GMO foods 25 years ago, you must learn about the notion of
“substantial equivalence”.
To make a long story short, the FDA, the agency
responsible for food safety in the US, certified GMO use in the US with zero
prior testing.
Sounds incredible, right? Well, here’s how it went:
President Bush signed an executive order in 1992, called the Doctrine of
Substantial Equivalence.
This happened after he held a private meeting with the
head of the Monsanto Corporation in St Louis Missouri.
Monsanto at that time was the leading chemicals maker
in the US (now it has been bought by Bayer, a German biotech corporation).
Monsanto is famous for creating something called Agent
Orange, a deadly toxin that was sprayed without restriction over the jungles of
Vietnam during the war in the sixties, and created grotesque deformities in
children that were born to mothers that had been exposed to Agent Orange, as
well as the American soldiers that handled the substance. Well, that was
Monsanto then.
Monsanto also brought the world dioxin, one of the
most deadly toxic chemicals known to man.
They lied about the effects of Agent Orange, they lied
(in courts) about the effects of dioxin, they lied about the effects of PCBs,
and they are lying today about the dangers of their GMO seeds, and the chemical
that they use selectively, Roundup respectively, one of the most dangerous
herbicides ever created.
In 1992, Monsanto and President Bush sat down in the
White House and Monsanto convinced the president to make an exec-order, on the
argument that this new field of bio technology (they used that nomenclature
instead of genetic manipulation, for PR reasons) was a wonderful growth
opportunity for the American economy.
See, we would become the world leader in this new area
of science application. But in order for that to take place, we must let
private industry have full freedom for its creative potential.
Now, if any of you have studied science or
mathematics, and you think about linguistics, the word substantial is not a
precise scientific term. It means “more or less”, or roughly equivalent.
Well, this is not very precise, especially when we’re
dealing with science or human life.
The doctrine of substantial equivalence that President
Bush signed into exec-order in 1992 mandated that no government agency, not the
FDA, nor the USDA, would conduct independent, neutral, scientific long term
research on the potential health dangers of exposure to GMO crops, because, by
exec-order, it has been decided in the White House that GMO corn, or GMO rice
or soy bean was substantially equivalent to ordinary rice or corn or soy beans.
So why bother?
Just let it out into the public. And that began in
1994. The American population, their own people, became mass guinea pigs in the
largest and most dangerous experiment in human history.
In closing, you must learn that at least 80% of all
processed foods contain GMO ingredients (soy, corn, canola and cottonseed
mostly), and the vast majority of Americans eat genetically modified foods on a
daily basis.
Chris Black is a born and bred survivalist. He used to work as a
contractor for an intelligence service but now he is retired and living off the
grid, as humanly possible. An internet addict and a gun enthusiast, a
libertarian with a soft spot for the bill of rights and the Constitution, a
free market idealist, he doesn't seem very well adjusted for the modern world.
You can send Chris a message at editor [at] survivopedia.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment