If the biotech industry is so proud of GMOs, why don't they tout GMOs on food

packaging labels?
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(Natural News) Genetically engineered foods will "feed the world," say Bill Gates and all the rest of the GMO pushers.
GM crops are the result of "high-tech agriculture" and "advanced technology" created by super-smart agricultural geniuses
who only enhance the properties of food crops. GMOs are better than God, better than Mother Nature and one of the great
gifts of science to humankind -- sort of like electricity, only more edible.
If this is all true, then why doesn't the GMO industry want credit for all this effort on food labels? Shouldn't the industry
leap at the opportunity to have foods labelled with things like:
Fortified with extra GMOs!
Genetically Modified to grow strong bones!
Now with GMO technology in every delicious bite!
If GMOs are so wonderful, in other words, then why wouldn't the industry tout all its amazing technology right on the
labels of the foods containing GMOs?
The reality? GMOs are poison
But no, instead of the industry begging for regulatory permission to place GMO bragging rights on food labels, the
industry has done exactly the opposite: It has demanded that consumers be kept in the dark about GMOs!
They don't want consumers to even know they're eating GMOs!
They believe consumer ignorance is preferable to consumer choice.
They want consumers kept in the dark, uninformed and unable to avoid GMOs.
The GMO industry, in fact, is already viciously fighting a proposed GMO labeling mandate in California -- a law that
would merely require foods to be truthfully labeled when they contain genetically modified ingredients. What could be
wrong with that? But in an age when consumers want to know more information about what they're buying, not less, the
GMO industry somehow believes consumer ignorance is victory!
So when GMO pushers like Bill Gates say they want to "feed the world," what they really mean is they want to secretly
force-feed the world mystery ingredients that are not listed on the labels so that consumers won't even be aware of what
they're eating. (Such as the deadly insecticide found in every kernel of GM corn...)

Commonsense food rule: Beware of anything the food companies don't want to put on the label
If the ag giants and food companies don't want to put something on a food label, that's a pretty strong sign that you
probably shouldn't eat it.

If it was good for you, they would obviously want to brag about it on the label. All natural! Fortified with minerals! Low
in sodium!
So how come the industry doesn't want to claim, "High in GMOs!" on every food box?

Want some flaked corn breakfast cereal? It's on sale for $1.99 a box, and it's high in GMOs!

How about some corn tortillas for your Mexican fiesta dinner? Those corn tortillas are fortified with extra GMOs, too!

Thirsty? Grab yourself a 12-pack of that famous brand sports drink -- it's sweetened with genetically modified corn syrup!
Plus, it's got electrolytes!

Or how about a super-sized box of Genetically Modified Corn Flakes for breakfast? You can even eat it with a bowl of
pasteurized, homogenized, Bovine Growth Hormone-contaminated, pus-filled factory-processed cow's milk! Yummy!

But you don't see any of this marketing material at the grocery store, do you? GMOs remain the dirty little secret of
the food industry -- even at places like Whole Foods, which sort of try to imply they're against GMOs, but then they turn
around and sell all sorts of GM foods anyway.

GMOs are worse than skeletons in the closet
GMOs are to the food industry what gay public toilet sex is to a pro-family Republican candidate. Or hidden
camera photos of the naked choir boys and the Catholic priest. GMOs are the bones buried under the basement slab of a
mass murderer who's also running for Governor. They're the prostitution ring records that reveal one very busy repeat
customer named "Eliot Spitzer."
GMOs are the leaked Stratfor emails that reveal the U.S. is already on the ground working to destroy Syria's
infrastructure. GMOs are the proof of election fraud in a so-called "free nation." GMOs are not just Big Ag's skeletons in
the closet; they are the skeletons in a closet full of beaten, gagged children who have been kidnapped by CPS officials and
sold into "white slavery" to the local community's business leaders who run the children's foundations.
GMOs are the dirty food secret that's so dirty, virtually no one would buy any food known to contain GMOs.
They are worse than the plague. They are anti-food. Labelling foods with GMOs is essentially the same as slapping a
large skull and crossbones on the package, and that's exactly why the death-worshipping, profit-sucking corporate whores
who work for the biotech industry are fighting so hard to prevent GMO labels from appearing on foods. We can't have
consumers knowing the TRUTH, can we?"
Isn't it fascinating that the GMO industry depends entirely on hiding its products in order to stay in business?
What other industry is so steeped in destructive, hateful products that it has to actively seek to HIDE THEM from
consumers? Biotech is an industry whose products are sold entirely through trickery and deceit, not honest labelling and
full disclosure.

Why we will win this fight for the right to know what we are eating
But make no mistake, my friends, for the People shall be victorious against this insidious brand of agricultural
imperialism. As I publicly shared just the other day, I had a vision (or was it a dream?) of a massive army of American
farmers and consumers who marched on Monsanto, arrested all its employees and burned its buildings to the ground.
I believe that day may very well come true in the near future, and I can only hope it will be followed by a series of
very public trials where the GMO scientists, corporate CEOs and top marketing executives are all charged with crimes
against humanity and tried by a jury of their peers. The genetic modification of seeds and the open planting of those seeds
in the natural world should, I believe, be a crime against nature met by a most severe punishment such as life in prison for
anyone found guilty of those crimes in a Constitutional court that abides by due process. Almost no punishment is too
great against these criminals, because those who sow genetically modified seeds upon our natural world risk the death of
billions of people in their careless arrogance. Some might even argue that the death sentence would be justifiable in such
cases.

"Mystery" food?
Just remember: the next time you go shopping at the grocery store, take a closer look at the label of a food product and ask
yourself, "What are they NOT telling me about what's in this product?"

Because much of the time, you're actually buying "mystery food" containing all sorts of toxins, poisons or horrifying
ingredients that are never listed on the label (by design, of course).

And that's the way Big Ag and Big Food like it -- keep consumers in the dark! The less they know about how processed
food is made, where it comes from and what it contains, the better! And the more ignorant consumers can be kept, the
more GMOs the biotech industry can shove down their gullible little throats.

Scientific studies conclude GMO feed causes organ disruption in animals
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 by: Jeffrey M. Smith

(NaturalNews) A new paper reviewing data from 19 animal studies shows that consuming genetically modified
(GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys "Other
organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells," stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed
genetically modified organisms had altered body weights, which is "a very good predictor of side effects in various
organs."
The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials "constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs" that
are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population,
the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the
superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world.
The researchers, lead by French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, found that nearly 1 out of every 10 measured parameters in
the studies, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses, were significantly disrupted
in the animals fed GMOs. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females
followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that "several
convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects." The authors point out
that livers and kidneys "are the major reactive organs" in cases of chronic food toxicity.

Feed'em longer!
One of the most glaring faults in the current regulatory regime is the short duration of animals feeding studies.
The industry limits trials to 90 days at most, with some less than a month. Only two studies reviewed in this new
publication were over 90 days -- both were non-industry research.
Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and
drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. IN the case
of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), "induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation."
The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to "provide evidence of carcinogenic,
developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs."

Pesticide Plants
Nearly all GM crops are described as "pesticide plants." They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as
Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin -- weed killer or bug killer -- is
found inside the corn or soybeans we consume.
When regulators evaluate the toxic effects of pesticides, they typically require studies using three types of animals,
with at least one feeding trial lasting 2 years or more. One third or more of the side effects produced by these toxins will
show up only in the longer study -- not the shorter ones. But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned
from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90
days. The authors affirm that "it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could
be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one. It is therefore necessary to prolong the
tests."
GMO approvals also ignore the new understanding that toxins don't always follow a linear dose-response.
Sometimes a smaller amount of toxins have greater impact than larger doses. Approvals also overlook the fact that
mixtures can be far more dangerous than single chemicals acting alone. Roundup residues, for example, have been
"shown to be toxic for human placental, embryonic, and umbilical cord cells," whereas Roundup's active ingredient
glyphosate does not on its own provoke the same degree of damage. One reason for this is that the chemicals in Roundup
"stabilize glyphosate and allow its penetration into cells."
Furthermore, toxins may generate new substances (metabolites) "either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with
it." Current assessments completely ignore the potential danger from these new components in our diets, such as the "new
metabolites" in GMOs engineered to withstand Roundup. The authors warn, "We consider this as a major oversight in the
present regulations."

"It's not the same stuff that farmers spray"
Regulators claim that the Bt-toxin produced inside GM corn is safe. They say that the Bt gene comes from soil
bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been safely applied as a spray-on insecticide by farmers in the past. But the
authors insist that "the argument about 'safe use history' of the wild Bt protein . . . Cannot, on a sound scientific basis, be
used for direct authorizations of . . . GM corns," without conducting proper long-term animal feeding studies.
In order to justify their claim that the wild Bt-toxin is safe, the authors state that it must first be separately tested
on animals and humans and then authorized individually for food or feed, which it has not. And even if the wild variety
had been confirmed as safe, the GM versions are so different, theymust require their own independent studies. The paper
states:
"The Bt toxins in GMOs are new and modified, truncated, or chimerical in order to change their
activities/solubility in comparison to wild Bt. For instance, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176
corn and its wild counterpart."
Even though the isolated Bt-toxin from GM corn has not been tested on animals, rodent studies on corn
containing the toxin do show problems. Male rats fed Monsanto's MON863 corn, for example, had smaller kidneys with
more focal inflammation and other "disrupted biochemical markers typical of kidney filtration or function problems."

Stop with the dumb excuses
If statistically significant problems show up in their studies, biotech company researchers often attempt to explain
away the adverse findings. But the authors of this review paper describe their excuses as unscientific, obsolete, or
unjustified.
When male and female animals have different results, for example, biotech advocates claim that this couldn't
possibly be related to the feed. Since both genders eat the same amount, they argue, both would have to show the same
reaction in all of their organs, etc. And if the group of animals fed with less of the GMO feed exhibit more severe
reactions than the group fed the larger amount, advocates claim that this discrepancy also means that the GMOs could not
be the cause, since there must always be a linear dose relationship.
The authors of this paper, however, point out that effects found in a GMO animal feeding study "cannot be
disregarded on the rationale that it is not linear to the dose (or dose-related) or not comparable in genders. This would not
be scientifically acceptable." In fact, most "pathological and endocrine effects in environmental health are not directly
proportional to the dose, and they have a differential threshold of sensitivity in both sexes. This is, for instance, the case
with carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption."

What's the culprit, pesticide or plant?
The shortcomings of the feeding studies make it impossible to determine whether a particular problem is due to
the added pesticide, such as Roundup residues or Bt-toxin, or due to the genetic changes in the modified plants' DNA.
Mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans, for example, showed numerous changes indicating increased metabolic rates
in the liver (i.e. irregular hepatocyte nuclei, more nuclear pores, numerous small fibrillar centers, and abundant dense
fibrillar components). Since studies on Roundup herbicide also show changes in the liver cells of mice and humans, the
Roundup residues within the soybeans may be a significant contributing factor to the metabolic changes.
Similarly, rats fed Roundup Ready corn showed indications that their kidneys leaked. Such an effect "is well
correlated with the effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) observed on embryonic kidney cells." Thus, the
rats' kidney problems may also be caused by the Roundup that is accumulated within Roundup Ready corn kernels.
In addition to the herbicide, the Bt-toxin insecticide produced inside GM corn might also cause disorders. The
authors state, "The insecticide produced by MON810 [corn] could also induce liver reactions, like many other pesticides."
Studies do confirm significant liver changes in rats fed Bt corn.
On the other hand, "unintended effects of the genetic modification itself cannot be excluded" as the possible cause
of these very same health problems. The process of gene insertion followed by cloning plant cells (tissue culture) can
cause massive collateral damage in the plant's DNA with potentially harmful side-effects. In MON810 corn, for example,
the insertion "caused a complex recombination event, leading to the synthesis of new RNA products encoding unknown
proteins." The authors warn that "genetic modifications can induce global changes" in the DNA, RNA, proteins, and the
numerous natural products (metabolites), but the faulty safety assessments are not designed to adequately identify these
changes or their health impacts.

Population at risk
In addition to the shortcomings mentioned above, the paper shows how GMO feeding trials are "based on ancient
paradigms" with "serious conceptual and methodological flaws," employ statistical methods that obscure the findings, add
irrelevant control groups that confuse and confound the analysis, and rely on numerous assumptions that either remain
untested or have already proved false.
Unlike drug approvals, biotech companies do not conduct human studies. They would therefore fail to identify
both general human health reactions, and the potentially more serious ones endured by sub-populations. "If some
consumers suffer from stomach problems or ulcers," for example, the paper states, "the new toxins will possibly act
differently; the digestion in children could be affected too." The paper recommends the implementation of post market
monitoring, which, among other things, "should be linked with the possibility of detecting allergenicity reactions to
GMOs in routine medicine."
But even if authorities wanted to conduct epidemiological studies on GMOs, the authors acknowledge that they
"are not feasible in America, since there is no organized traceability of GMOs anywhere on the continent." Not only is
labeling of GMOs urgently needed to allow such studies to proceed, the study says:
"The traceability of products from animals fed on GMOs is also crucial. The reason for this is because they can
develop chronic diseases which are not utterly known today. Labeling animals fed on GMOs is therefore necessary
because some pesticide residues linked to GMOs could pass into the food chain."
They also point out that "even if pesticides residues or DNA fragments are not toxic nor transmitted by
themselves" nevertheless, "nobody would want to eat disabled or physiologically modified animals after long-term GMOs
ingestion."
"New experiments," they concluded, "should be systematically performed to protect the health of billions of people that
could consume directly or indirectly these transformed products."

Why Do People Fear or Accept Genetically Modified Foods?
Whitney Tull
Manager of Public Affairs, American Society for Microbiology (ASM).

Although transgenic foods, crops and animals suffer from public scepticism, recent reports from the National
Academies of Science, as well as public research, show these products are safe. Additionally, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) assures the public that they are monitoring and regulating the products in our food system. More
than two-thirds of the food in U.S. markets contains at least some genetically modified food (GMF). However, many
reports note that American opinion is split on GMF. Although surveys and polls have examined this issue to estimate the
rates of confidence, the question of why some fear this development and others do not remains unanswered.
To get at the complex question of why people fear or accept GMF, I conducted interviews instead. Interviews are
a more in-depth method that is able to explore feelings and opinions more thoroughly and to probe the underlying
assumptions people hold. Forty people were interviewed initially, each having at least completed a bachelors degree. I
first asked the respondents to provide answers on a scale of 0 -10 evaluating their general thoughts about the safety and
health benefits of GMFs. The intention was to determine if they were very supportive or very opposed to GMFs in order
to get two groups representing the extreme poles of opinion. From these initial questions, the six most opposed people and
the six most supportive people were selected for open-ended interviews to determine why they feel this way. The
questions used for discussion in the open-ended interviews are shown below:
Interview Questions
1) Do you practice/have any dietary restrictions?
2) What did you study in college?
3) How do you get most of your scientific news?
4) How much do you believe you know about GM foods?
5) Where did you get your information?
6) What is your impression of GM food?
7) Why are you confident/not confident in the safety and health benefits
of GM food?
8) Did you know that GM foods have been on U.S. store shelves for
about a decade?
9) Were you aware that more than two-thirds of the food in U.S. markets
contains at least some amount of a GM crop?
10) Does this information change your opinion? Why?
The study does not reflect an accurate representation of the population,
and it was a small sample, so it can not be used to answer general questions of
that type. But it does provide an exploratory analysis of the general themes
behind why the public feels the way they do about GMFs.
Results
Results were obtained in the form of common themes that appeared in the interviews and the frequency that they appeared.
Below are the themes that best represent the range of opinion:
Themes of Those Most Opposed to GMF
1. Too Little Time 5 people (83 percent) Many of the respondents felt that GM foods have not been evaluated
over the length of time necessary to determine the environmental and health effects of the products.
2. Not Natural 2 people (33 percent) Some respondents were concerned that GMF is not what nature intended
and that these things should not be messed around with because the consequences are unknown.
3. No Trust in Government and Corporations 2 people (33 percent) some were concerned that the private
sector was preoccupied by increasing revenue and that government was highly influenced by private companies.
Additionally, they did not feel the federal regulating arms have adequate resources.
4. Cause of Higher Cancer Rates 2 people (33 percent) Respondents were concerned that GMFs were the
reason the U.S. had higher cancer rates than other countries. Using reasonable deductions, they thought the U.S. is much
the same as other nations except for the greater amount of GMF consumed by the public, therefore GMF might be the
cause.
Themes of Those Most Supportive of GMF
1. GM is Not New 2 people (33percent) Respondents felt that the current GM foods are just a new approach to
a process of cross breeding and pollinization that has existed for hundreds of years. They felt that current genetic
modification is no different, just more advanced.
2. Trust in Scientists and Government 5 people (83 percent) Most of the respondents felt that scientists were
interested in developing products that are safe and effective, and that the government is doing its job in monitoring
products that enter the market.
3. Sustainability 4 people (67 percent) Many of the respondents believed GMF helps sustainability of both the
environment and the population through increased yields, less pesticides, and the ability to grow in unusual conditions.
4. Would Know of Problems 2 people (33 percent) Some felt that if GMFs were harmful, consumer groups
would report any negative effects. They also thought there has been enough time to determine negative effects.
When asked if they knew the length of time and prevalence of GMF in the U.S. (Questions 7 and 8), the
supporters were better informed than opponents. Supporters were two times (67%) more aware than opponents (33%) that
GMFs have been on the market for a decade, and they were also twice as aware (33%) than opponents (17%) that
approximately two-thirds of foods in U.S. markets contain some sort of GM crop. This information did not have a
noticeable impact on the opposing group, although it did reinforce the views of the supportive group.
Conclusion
The profiles of those who support GMFs and those who oppose GMFsshow opposite beliefs on all issues.
Profile Comparison
When those who oppose GMFs were informed about the duration and amount of GMFs on the market, the correct
information did not change their opinion, while it reinforced the opinions of those who support GMFs. Generally, both
groups were not swayed by information very much, suggesting that their opinions are firmly held.
From the information gathered in this study, it is concluded that the beliefs people hold regarding GM foods are
based on values, not information. Science cannot alter values, it can only provide information; people make their
decisions based on intrinsic characteristics that transcend rationality.
Profile Comparison
Issue Supporters of GM Foods Opposes of GM Foods
Length of Time
Elapsed
We would know the negative effects by
now.
There hasn't been enough time for adequate testing.
GMF Relationship To
Nature
It is necessary for sustainability of both the
environment and the population.
This is not what nature intended.
Trust in Institutions
Trust science (public and private) and the
government.
Does not trust the government or private
enterprises.
Results Of GMF Genetic modification is not new.
GMF is the cause of higher
cancer rates.
When those who oppose GMFs were informed about the duration and amount of GMFs on the market, the correct
information did not change their opinion, while it reinforced the opinions of those who support GMFs. Generally, both
groups were not swayed by information very much, suggesting that their opinions are firmly held.
From the information gathered in this study, it is concluded that the beliefs people hold regarding GM foods are
based on values, not information. Science cannot alter values, it can only provide information; people make their
decisions based on intrinsic characteristics that transcend rationality.