Genetically Modified Foods - GMO - Safe or a threat to life
This is serious. Europe banned them. GMO food is a death sentence. Together we CAN get GMOs banned from the US. Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they did was educate the consumers, and that was enough pressure on the food industry to drop their ploys. To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.
See what they are doing to our salmon further down.
Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field.
But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.
In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years.
The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.
Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.
With permission from his director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his institute -- for two days.
Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO prime minister’s office to the institute’s director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.
Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans.
Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.
Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”
Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour.
In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55 percent.
It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.
Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops.
Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.
Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.
According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”
Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.
Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate outbreaks of disease for a state government in Australia. She knows that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track or take decades to discover. Moreover, the superficial, short-term animal feeding studies usually do not evaluate “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function” and are too short to test for cancer or reproductive or child health.
Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO approval process on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia and speaks openly about her concerns. As a result, she is repeatedly attacked. Pro-GM scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.
Carman was awarded a grant by the Western Australia government to conduct some of the few long-term animal feeding studies on GMOs. Apparently concerned about what she might find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the government demanding that the grant be withdrawn. One scientist tried to convince the Western Australia Agriculture minister that sufficient safety research had been conducted and he should therefore cancel the grant.
As his evidence, however, he presented a report summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies -- an infinitesimal amount of research to justify exposing the entire population to GM foods.
A closer investigation, however, revealed that most of the 60 were not safety studies at all. They were production studies, measuring, for example, the animals’ carcass weight. Only 9 contained data applicable to human health. And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects in animals that ate GM feed!
Furthermore, there were several other studies with adverse findings that were mysteriously missing from the compilation. Carman points out that the report “does not support claims that GM crops are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be harmful to health.”
When the Western Government refused to withdraw the grant, opponents successfully interfered with Carman’s relationship with the university where she was to do the research.
Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:
- Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;
- Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and
- Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.
The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? -- he presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.
Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”
When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes.
After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples.
Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American,
“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers ... Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”
A group of 24 corn insect scientists protested this restriction in a letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. They warned that the inability to access GM seeds from biotech companies means there can be no truly independent research on the critical questions. The scientists, of course, withheld their identities for fear of reprisals from the companies.
Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies.
Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk -- so she faxed it out.
In 2005, a scientist had gathered seed samples from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of contamination by GM varieties. According to the Turkish Daily News, just before her testing was complete, she was reassigned to another department and access to her lab was denied.
The unexpected transfer may have saved this Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had she discovered and reported contamination.
Ask Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist from UC Berkeley. In 2001, he discovered that the indigenous corn varieties in Mexico -- the source of the world’s genetic diversity for corn—had become contaminated through cross pollination with GM varieties.
The government had a ban against GM corn to prevent just this possibility, but apparently US corn imported for food had been planted nonetheless.
Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature, and as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed the Mexican government about the pending publication. He was called in to meet with a furious Director of the Commission of Biosafety and GMOs. Chapela’s confirmation of contamination would hinder introduction of GM corn. Therefore the government’s top biotech man demanded that he withdraw his article. According to Chapela, the official intimidated and threatened him, even implying, “We know where your children go to school.”
When a traumatized Chapela still did not back down, the Underminister for Agriculture later sent him a fax claiming that because of his scientific paper, Chapela would be held personally responsible for all damages caused to agriculture and to the economy in general.
The day Chapela’s paper was published, Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting messages to a biotechnology listserve called AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000 scientists. They falsely claimed that Chapela was biased, that his paper had not been peer-reviewed, that Chapela was “first and foremost an activist,” and his research was published in collusion with environmentalists. Soon, hundreds of other messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the accusations. The listserve launched a petition and besieged Nature with a worldwide campaign demanding retraction.
UC Berkeley also received letters from all over the world trying to convince them not to grant Chapela tenure. He had overwhelming support by his college and department, but the international biotech lobby was too much. Chapela’s tenure was denied. After he filed a lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision.
When investigators later analyzed the email characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, the two turned out not to be the average citizens they claimed. According to the Guardian, both were fabricated names used by a public relations firm that worked for Monsanto. Some of Smetacek’s emails also had the internet protocol address of gatekeeper2.monsanto.com -- the server owned by Monsanto.
The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de facto ban on scientists “asking certain questions and finding certain results.” He says, “It’s very hard for us to publish in this field. People are scared.” He told Nature that young people “are not going into this field precisely because they are discouraged by what they see.”
New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place ... and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly ... or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”
University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of the products that they are creating and I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”
To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.
To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.
About the Author
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced.
Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Together we CAN get GMOs banned from the US. Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they did was educate the consumers, and that was enough pressure on the food industry to drop their ploys.
If we band together as an effective army we will be able to do this. Please understand that the VAST majority of people in the US do not want GM foods, so this is an EASY battle to win. All we have to do is a bit of organizational work.
So let me tell you how we are going to achieve the removal of GMOs in the US.
October is Non-GMO Month, and you’ll receive a lot of important information about genetically engineered foods this week.
How many Americans do we need to convince to avoid eating genetically modified foods to achieve the same victory in the US?
We believe it’s only about FIVE PERCENT of US shoppers!
So, changing the shopping habits of about 5.6 million households may be sufficient to eliminate GMOs in the US.
That is our goal!
We already have these numbers on our side. About 28 million Americans buy organic on a regular basis. Eighty-seven million Americans think GMOs are seriously unsafe. A hundred and fifty nine million Americans, the majority, say they would avoid GMOs if labeled!
Unfortunately, no labeling is required, making your commitment to avoid GM foods all that more complicated. But that’s where we come in.
Most people want to avoid GMO foods but it is virtually impossible to do so, since the government prevents GMO labeling.
However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.
You can really help by making this message go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US, please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and Twitter…
You can also print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and give it to your friends and family.
If you feel more ambitious you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.
You can help nurture this consumer mindset by bringing information to your local natural food store owner, so that she can share it will all of her customers as well. IRT has created a complete Retailer Campaign Kit for this purpose.
You can also share information with your child’s school, your health care providers, and food manufacturers. The IRT has created information kits for all of them, available here:
Heath care provider kit Parents and Schools educational material Manufacturers information kit
Please remember to share this with your friends and family, but do so lovingly. You don’t want to make yourself a pest and risk your relationship with them. But believe me, this is a MUCH easier sell than getting them to stop smoking or eating less sugar since most do not want GMOs anyway, and it doesn’t involve giving anything up.
You may even want to share this information with your church or religious leaders. As Jeffrey says,
“There are certain religious groups that think the genetic engineering process itself violates God’s laws. So ‘GMO’ for them really means, ‘God Move Over’ and not ‘Genetically Modified Organism.’”
The IRT has created a film called Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals, which is a powerful way for parents to get an initiation into the health dangers. It’s only 28 minutes long, which is ideal for local access TV.
You can simply bring the film to your local access TV station, and sometimes they’ll play it 10, 20, or even 30 times because they’re always looking for material and are open to support from the community.
There’s also a video called Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, which exposes the dangers of GM bovine growth hormones. Any parent still feeding their child milk from cows injected with rBGH needs to see this film! They’ll never make the same mistake again…
Another powerful video you can share with your friends and family is Jeffrey’s Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods lecture.
I’ve already mentioned a number of different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO Month. To recap, and add a few more suggestions, here is a list of Action Item for you to pick and choose from:
- Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
- Download the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and give it to your family and friends.
- Urge food manufacturers to join the Non-GMO Project and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the only way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there’s no GM-labeling system.
- Urge your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project’s Supporting Retailer Program.
- If your budget allows support this urgent mission by generously donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology.
- Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child’s school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators. <
- Share Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, and Jeffrey’s lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.
- Join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
Please join us in this important campaign. Do as much or as little as you can. Maybe you can’t make a donation to IRT, but you can distribute 20 Non-GMO shopping guides to your closest family and friends.
Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.
Together, we can protect the health of future generations and help accelerate the progress toward more sustainable agriculture in the United States.
Let’s do it!
Scary new salmon on the menu
You've heard of Frankenfood... now get ready for Frankenfish as the feds move closer toward approving genetically modified salmon.
And while I'm no knee-jerk reactionary who opposes any attempt at genetically modified food, it's clear there's something fishy going on here -- because the feds are playing hide-and-seek with the data.
"We do have obligations under the regulations to protect company confidential information," FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey told the Washington Post.
That's the kind of stunning honesty we don't hear enough from the FDA, because that's as close as the agency has ever come to saying publicly that they want to protect the companies -- not you.
Here's what I can tell you: The studies we know of are small in scope, limited, and provided by the company that makes the fish.
Despite all that, the feds are treating this like a salmon run rather than a scientific deliberation. They're rushing this through, with advisory panels already breaking out the forks and knives: They've declared the fish both safe to eat and safe for the environment.
The fish, called AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon, supposedly look, act and taste like Atlantic salmon -- but they actually contain a growth hormone from the Chinook salmon and a gene from the fast-growing ocean pout.
I don't know if you've ever seen an ocean pout, but they look a bit like the Loch Ness Monster.
The end result: Fish that get fatter faster, and with less food. AquAdvantage salmon can be ready for dinner table in 16-18 months, instead of the usual 30.
But even with limited data, I've already heard that these fish may have higher levels of IGF-1, a known carcinogen. I have to say "may" because -- again -- we just can't be sure about anything since so much of the data is confidential.
Yet we're supposed to just shut up and chow down?
Heck, no! Until they provide us with real facts and real research, I declare these salmon to be a no-swim zone.
Just make sure you enjoy real, honest-to-goodness salmon and other fatty fish -- keep reading to find out why.
Get the full story at http://www.naturalnews.com/029957_genetically_modified_salmon.html
As the world awaits the FDA's decision on whether to approve genetically modified salmon as "safe enough" to allow into the food supply, it seems that not enough people in the existing fishing industries have really thought this through. As you'll see here, approval of GE salmon could destroy the existing salmon industry. Why? Here's the reason:
The FDA says that once it approves GE salmon (which now seems likely), it will not require GE salmon to be labeled as "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered." In fact, the FDA ridiculously claims it would be illegal to require these GE fish to be labeled as such because they are, in the minds of the FDA, no different from regular fish.
Now here's why this matters: If consumers are not told which salmon is GE, many will avoid buying ALL salmon.In fact, organizations like NaturalNews and many others like the Organic Consumers Association would likely take strong action, warning people to avoid all salmon because you never know which salmon is genetically modified.
As word about the non-labeling of GE salmon spreads, more and more consumers would avoid buying salmon altogether. This is precisely how the introduction of GE salmon into the food supply could destroy the existing salmon industry.
The FDA's inexcusable non-labeling of genetically modified salmon creates distrust in the entire category. And just as the natural health community has been successful in warning people to avoid MSG and HFCS, we will almost certainly be successful in warning people away from eating salmon, too (if GE salmon infects the food supply). And that's a shame because, by and large, the natural health industry supports wild-caught salmon as a healthy source of omega-3 oils. But virtually overnight, the FDA's approval of GE salmon could reverse our position on this issue and make us outspoken opponents of buying and consuming salmon.
I wonder if the salmon industry is aware that this situation could devastate existing salmon farms and fisheries?
Opening the floodgates to more GE factory farmed animals
That GE salmon could cause sharp losses across the existing salmon industry is only the beginning of the problems potentially unleashed by the FDA's disturbing shortsightedness. There has never been a genetically engineered animal approved for use in the U.S. food supply, but once the FDA approves GE salmon, it sets a precedent for other genetically engineered animals to follow.
Imagine a genetically modified cow with triple growth hormone genes, carrying muscles (meat) so large that it can't even stand on its own feet. It is grown in a "cow factory" where it suffers every day from the pain of its unnatural existence. It never sees the outdoors or experiences a single day of freedom in a pasture. Instead, it is fed antibiotics and GMO feed crops through a system of tubes, much like the imprisoned characters in The Matrix. The sole purpose of its life is to grow premium steaks and ground beef, sold by a company that genetically engineers animals to create greed-driven food profits without a single thought about the suffering of the animal itself.
This is exactly what could be unleashed by the FDA's decision on GE salmon. Only it wouldn't end with just cows: Imagine genetically modified pigs, chickens and lambs, all distorted into artificial meat-producing forms to satisfy corporate profits.
Vaccines from sheep flesh
And it won't end with just food, either. Scientists are already experimenting with genetically modified animals who "grow" pharmaceuticals. Imagine a factory farm of sheep whose bodies are tapped to produce vaccines or hormone drugs.
This is the sick, demented world to which the biotechnology industry is now looking for the next wave of profits. Fueled by arrogant greed and a deeply-rooted disrespect for the natural world (and the suffering of sentient beings, which include farm animals), they will pursue bottom-line profits by any means necessary... even if it means playing God with the genes of animals and giving rise to Franken-animals that experience tremendous pain and suffering while being grown for food. (Much like in The Matrix, once again.)
The pain and suffering committed by factory farms today is more than enough reason to consider giving up all conventionally-raised meat products, by the way. But it could get far worse if the industry is allowed to start genetically engineering mutant animals designed to produce more meat (or milk) more quickly and with higher profits. And it all starts with GE salmon.
How do we even know, by the way, whether the genetically modified salmon who grow twice as fast as regular salmon experience some sort of unnatural pain as a result of their gene distortions? These gene modifications can, from another point of view, be described as a kind of "birth defect," and some birth defects quite literally result in tremendous suffering for those being unfortunate enough to be affected by them.
Not surprisingly, the experience of the animal isn't even being taken into account by the FDA! This agency, which is blind to the experience of animals, only cares about the impact of GE salmon on people who eat its flesh, not about the experience of the fish.
If this same lack of empathy is applied to future decisions regarding GE animals, it will only lead us down a dark path of Frankenfood misery, where humanity becomes the monster that creates horrific mutant animals to be grown and harvested in dark places, behind the closed doors of the sickening meat industry.
Action you can take right now
What can you do to stop this crime against nature? For starters, you can contact the FDA right now and tell them two things:
1) You oppose allowing GE salmon to be introduced into the food supply.
2) If it is approved, you support honest labeling of the salmon to indicate that it is genetically engineered.
Find the FDA's contact information here: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Centers...
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Outreach and Information Center
5100 Paint Branch Parkway HFS-009
College Park, MD 20740-3835
Toll-Free Information Line:
Industry email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Consumers email: email@example.com
Get ready to boycott salmon
If the FDA approves GE salmon, get ready to join NaturalNews in a nationwide boycott of salmon products.
As long as GE salmon is not honestly labeled, we will boycott salmon products, and we will coordinate with other non-profits who share our belief that consumers have a right to know what they're buying and eating.
For the FDA to say that they refuse to require the honest labeling of GE salmon is an outrageous insult to consumer intelligence. It's beyond an insult, actually: It's more like a crime against the People because it consciously seeks to misinform the public about what they're eating.
This demonstrates yet again how dangerous the FDA has actually become. Far from protecting consumers, the FDA has become the single greatest threat to the health and safety of the American people. This agency actively seeks to keep people in the dark about what they're buying and eating. It is a purveyor of ignorance and disinformation, and it is engaged in a conspiracy to commit yet another crime against humanity (against the entire planet, actually) in order to protect biotech profits.
Why can't the FDA just tell the truth and, at minimum, require that GE salmon be labeled as such?
Because being honest apparently isn't in the agency's genes. Maybe we need to genetically modify the FDA and insert some "truth hormone" proteins so it attains the ability to tell the truth. That would be a radical modification from the current behavior of the agency, wouldn't it?
• Wild Pacific Salmon Explained
• GE salmon? Are you out of your minds?
• FDA refuses to require labeling of genetically modified salmon
• Frankenfish: Genetically Modified Salmon May Soon Plop Onto Your Plate
• FDA Moves Closer to Approval of Salmon Frankenfish
• The Risks of Eating Farmed Salmon
back to dog page