Two GMO articles — which is propaganda and which is Truth?

Date: January 22, 2014 1:20:57 AM PST (CA)
Subject: Two contrasting GMO articles  –  they can’t both be true.  Which is propaganda and which is Truth?
Two contrasting GMO articles – they can’t both be true.
Which is propaganda and which is Truth?
Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes
by Jon Rappoport
January 19, 2014
Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it?
He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors.  Some died.  The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology.  Pictures of the rats were published.
A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued.  Pressure built.  “Experts” said the study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go.  Monsanto didn’t like Seralini at all.
The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.
Why?  Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material, not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:
He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That’s it. Those were Seralini’s errors.
Well, guess what?  Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study and published it in the very same journal.  Monsanto’s study showed there were no tumor problems in the rats.  But here’s the explosive kicker.  Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10).  And nobody complained about it.
Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, explains in an interview with Steve Curwood at
“Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem.  So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems,  [then]  all of a sudden the number of rats is too small?  Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem?  They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity.  So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.”
I can just hear Monsanto felons gibbering: “Well, we the biotech industry people published our study.  We used 10 rats and we used the Sprague-Dawley strain.  And that was fine.  It was especially fine because our study showed GMOs were safe.
But then this guy Seralini comes along and does the same study with the same kind of rat and same number of rats, and he discovers tumors.  That’s not fine.  That’s very bad.  He…he…used the wrong rats…yeah…and he didn’t use enough rats.  He’s a faker.  Well, I mean, we used the same kind of rat and same number of rats, but when we did the experiment, we were Good, and Seralini was Bad.  Do you see?”
Yes, the mists are clearing and things are coming into focus.
Any comments, Monsanto?  I’d be happy to pass them along to Michael Hansen.
Jon Rappoport
[email protected]
Article in the Province on same day
Cdsapi’s Comment:   Rarely have I read an article in which every assertion is scientifically invalid and statistically unsubstantiable and contrdicted .  That is a polite way of saying “…it is either the product of profound ignorance or of propagandized falsehoods”.
My rebuttals are in color.
Why farmers like genetically engineered crops
By Robert Wager and Bob Bartley,    The Province     January 19, 2014
The public debate about food has become deafening.  “Local” and “organic” are mantras of the organic lobby, but organic food represents less than four per cent of Canadian production.
Some claim genetically engineered crops are not sustainable and damaging to the environment.  Yet few have asked the Canadian farmers, true stewards of the land, why they overwhelmingly grow genetically engineered crops.
(Farmers who embrace the monolithic, industrial, chemical intense farming methods are not “true stewards of the land”  –  they mine the land, with every decade witnessing a decrease in natural soil fertility.  Industrial farming methods are not long-term sustainable  –  and statistics prove, as every year millions of acres in the USA become agriculturally unproductive.)
Canadian farmers choose to plant genetically engineered options for approximately 95 per cent of the canola they plant, 90 per cent of the corn and 80 per cent of soybeans.  Clearly this technology is accepted by Canadian farmers.
(Farmers were, and still are, sold an appealing propaganda spiel that Monsnato knows to be “blatant falsehoods”.  They fell for it, and once committed to untenable contracts with Monsanto, they are literally unable to get out of the system.  Not only are they contractually bound, once they plant genetically engineered crops, it is impossible to return to crops that will n ot be GMO contaminated.  They remain locked in, with no choice.  After a decade of experiencing the negative aspects of GE crops, many want to return to conventional farming to get out of the treadmill of innumerable negative effects, but are unable to do so.  Additionally, since the GMO Corporations have bought up all the major seed companies, farmers no longer have easy access to non GMO seeds.)
The two most popular traits of genetically engineered crops grown in Canada are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR).  Glyphosate tolerant is the most widely planted HT crop and Bt (stands for a soil bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces insecticidal proteins) is the most widely planted IR crop.  Together these GE crops have allowed farmers to produce more food while reducing the environmental impact of production.
(GE crops have NOT statistically produced larger yield, and often fail to match previous yields.  Glyphosate is now being exposed as a very toxic substance that destroys the microbiological integrity and structure of the soil, binds minerals which leads to weakened and disease-prone plants.  Several regions in Argentina have already banned glyphosate (Round-up)  because of the exponential increase of leukemia among children living in areas that grow predominantly GMO crops.  Scientist Dr. Huber has also revealed that new, previously unknown, devastating fungal diseases are appearing in these areas.)
Bt bacteria has been used as a natural pesticide in organic production for decades.  The Bt proteins engineered into GE crops are highly selective and only target specific insect pests while having no effect on other beneficial insects.
(Bt toxins are not “highly selective” so that they affect only pest insects.  They affect all the insects that are exposed, and are now being exposed as part of the “assault paradigm” that is causing the bee-colony collapse syndrome..  Bt toxins attack the mucous membrane of the intestines, and autopsies of animals fed Bt GMO foods show that the intestinal tract of these animals are at various stages of inflammation and destruction.  One of the first symptoms of people eating GMOs is “inflammation in the mucous lining of intestinal tract, leading to leaky gut syndrome.  Animals fed GMOs have also been found to suffer major organ damage of various descriptions. The doctors of the AAEM report that “all patients improve when GMOs are removed from the diet”, showing that GMO foods are definitely biologically toxic.)
Bob Bartley’s farm started using the Bt gene (codes for a protein) in corn after suffering yield losses of 50-plus bushels per acre from European corn borer. Bt is pest-specific, which eliminated the risk of killing beneficial insects such as bees and at the same time eliminated an insecticide application.
(Bt crops do destroy beneficial insects.)
Globally, hundreds of millions of kilograms of broad-spectrum insecticides are no longer used because Bt crops protect themselves from the insect pests.
(After only a few years of Bt crops, it became obvious that pests were developing immunity to Bt  – and now farmers are being forced to resort to even more toxic insecticides, with environmentally devastating consequences.  Additionally, when Bt crops residies rot into compost, the Bt toxic proteins are still present in the soil, where it continues to do its damage to the organisms that feed on this material.  Bt engineered into crops makes every cell a “toxic pesticide factory”, and the toxins persist.)
Along with insect damage, weed pressures also cause significant loss of yield. Weeds compete for nutrients, water and light; crops that compete with weeds do not yield well.  Glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready or RR is one brand) crops allow for weed-free fields when glyphosate is applied.  Crop tolerance to glyphosate is exceptional so yield potential is maintained.
(Weeds have become resistant to Round-up  –  and now farmers have to contend with much bigger and stronger Round-up tolerant Superweeds.  The spreading menace of Superweeds is so threatening that the EPA is being asked to permit the re-registration of 2-4-D, that toxic component of Agent Orange, that was deregistered because it is both carcinogenic and mutagenic.  2-4-D is just one of several very toxic herbicides now being considered for release to tackle the spreading menace of Round-up tolerant Superweeds.  )
A southern Alberta sugar-beet farmer explains: “How do GE crops affect my farm? It totally changed my life.  Before RR sugar beets, we had to hit the weeds four to five times with a cocktail of five different herbicides.  Then we had to cultivate the weeds between the rows with a special row-crop cultivator, usually about three times.”
Herbicide-tolerant crops like RR crops have allowed farmers to reduce application rates, reduce the environmental impact (Roundup has significantly less environmental impact than the herbicides it replaced) and reduce tilling, which helps conserve valuable topsoil.
(With the advent of Round-up Ready GE crops, the amount of herbicide sold by Monsnato has steadily increased.  (Which is precisely what the business agenda of Monsanto intended.)   Glyphosate is now being scientifically-identified as an environmentally devastating chemical  –  a fact that Monsanto knew along, but had up to now been able to suppress through its propaganda and falsified pseudo-science reports.  With the continued expansion of GMO crops, the land will inevitably be saturated with ever more toxic chemicals in response to the GE-failure consequences. )
HT crops are good for the environment with fewer passes in the field reducing greenhouse gases. Also, with less tillage passes, farmers are able to maintain more crop residue on the surface, increasing organic matter, reducing erosion and conserving soil moisture.
(GE crop residues are in themselves toxic to the microbiology of the soil.  The destruction of the microbiology of the soil in itself leads to compacted soils.)
Critics of GE crops often claim organic production will feed the world; decades of research show a 30 per cent yield drag of organic food compared to conventional agriculture. The U.N. estimates the world will need to produce 70 per cent more food within 40 years.
(GE are not “conventional agriculture”.  They are a very recent introduction in the history of agriculture.  What is now referred to as  “conventional agriculture” also only dates back to post WWll – when the chemical industry turned agriculture into “agribusiness” and “factory farming”. As soils continue to deteriorate under the impact of “industrial, chemical-dependent  agricultural practices”, the yields from organic, and other NON-GMO crops, easily matches, or exceeds, that of GMO crops  – especially under severe climate challenges, such as drought. )
Farmers are being challenged with the huge responsibility of feeding a population of 9.3 billion people by the year 2050.  Canadian farmers are producing safe, healthy and reasonably priced food in an environmentally and sustainable manner.
(These GMO crops are not safe, are expensive when on calculates in the cost of the negative health  and  environmental consequences, and are not environmentally or ecologically sustainable!!!!!!  The objective of Monsanto never was “to feed the population” – it was, as an executive once explained, “to generate a patented monopoly over the food supply”, and to increase profits – conning and exploiting both farmers and consumers in the process.)
Even skeptical European science agrees on the role for GE crops. “There is no validated evidence that GE crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding,” the European Academies Science Advisory Council said last year. “There is compelling evidence that GE crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.”
(The EASAC is known to be an instrument of the “New World Order “Science-by-Declaration” propaganda machine.  Independent European scientists and European farmers are definitely against the adoption of GMO crops  –  and the European consumer wants no part of them.)
The global success of the first generation of GE crops is well documented, with 160 million hectares grown in 2012.  Now, newer GE crops are making their way through extensive regulatory systems.  These crops include traits like drought tolerance, frost tolerance, salt tolerance, viral resistance, fungal and bacterial disease resistance enhanced nitrogen efficiency and nutrient enhancement. Together with other types of agriculture, GE crops will help the world produce more food more sustainably.
(Random insertion of foreign genes into a synergized gene-complex destroys its genetic synergistic.  It produces organisms that have pure survivability and reproductively  – all the while eliminating crops that have successfully adapted to their environment over centuries and millennia.
A civilization that puts all of its “food-security” into the GMO basket is destined to be annihilated via disease and famine.  Guaranteed!   No amount of propaganda and blind assertions changes that inevitable consequence.
“Man is the only species that abandons the priority of survival, and engineers and finances its own destruction, doing so in the name of “economic necessity”.  i.h.)
Robert Wager is on faculty in the biology department of Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo. Bob Bartley farms 560 hectares of grain and oilseeds in Roland, Man.
© Copyright (c) The Province

By piotrbein