Good article. Thank you for posting it.
We can feed the world or we can go “all natural” whatever the means. Wheat rust is natural, rye ergot is natural, locusts, flies, worms and other vermin are natural. I have absolutely no concerns or worries about GMO’s. in one sense or another every food is genetically modified either in a lab or by selective breeding.
“Eat local and organic, period. And fight GMOs invading U.S. food industries and American homes.”
Local? That would really limit your diet if you live in the desert. I knew a guy who worked for an international meat company. They “harvested” 12 million chickens a day, except for holidays and weekends. That’s why chicken is dirt cheap and universally available. Their chickens come from farms that have one million chickens each in cages containing 100k chickens. So are we supposed to eat only free range chicken? How long does it take to come to market on organic feed? How much does it cost?
The same is true for everything. If we go to all local all “natural” (what is that? EVERYTHING we eat is the product of hundreds of years of selection) how much food will we grow?
The result these activists are looking for is eliminating a large swath of the population through starvation.
People who want to eat organic are perfectly free to do so, and pay the premium. I just wish the organic fetishists would leave the rest of us alone.
The current argument, at least in the U.S., is largely about labelling. We label mostly for risk. The organic lobby wants GM products labelled to suggest to low-information consumers that there is a risk — or they wouldn’t be labelled, right? But GM crops are tested before they are commercialized, so the imputation of risk is just part of a big scare campaign by organic producers who have difficulty competing on price.
In a rational world, it would make much more sense to label organically for consumer fraud.
Why is the title at odds with the content?
Folks protest GMOs are the typical population control crowd.
“People bad, Dirt good”
Just months after a study was published showing that two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and Roundup herbicide, damaged the health of rats, the journal that published the study appointed a former Monsanto scientist to decide which papers on GM foods and crops should be published, a new article reveals.[1]Monsanto and GM foods suffered a storm of bad publicity after a study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012 reported that a GM corn and Roundup caused organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death in rats.[2]
But in early 2013 Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto researcher with close ties to the biotech industry, joined the senior editorial staff of FCT. Goodman was given the specially created position of associate editor for biotechnology.
People with full stomachs have a lot of time to complain...................
Thanks, I read Natural News by Mike Adams. I’m glad this is gaining ground.
Just sayin' ...
… … Ben & Jerry's announcement comeslessthan a year after California residents voted down Proposition 37,a California ballot initiative that would haverequired genetically-modified food to be labeled as such. Ben & Jerry's parent company,Unilever donated almost half a million dollarsto defeat the measure,accordingto Underground Health.
In total,companies like Monsanto and The Hershey Co. gave a combined $44 million to defeat the ballot initiative.
Excellent article.
I’m shocked at the FReepers on here who are a-ok with laboratory created foods & seem to be in denial about the endemic medical problems that have arisen since our diets changed to one that’s more highly-processed & less natural.
And for those who want to claim that GMOs exist in nature through hundreds of years of selective & cross-breeding, they really ought to get a clue. Something happening like that naturally in nature is far different from some mad scientist in a lab splicing viral DNA into a crop.
The article raises fears about GMOs but doesn’t provide a single documented example of an injury from GMOs.
Lots of baseless “probably” and “could”. Several examples of prior Monsanto products that were not food related (Agent Orange and PCBs) and others that are criticized because of highly flawed studies (DDT and sacharine).
Fearmongering now passes for information.
You people are nuttier than a fruiitcake!
The problem is that “GMO” varies considerably in relative risk. Some modifications are totally benign, a transfer of genes from within the genus for reasons of productivity. What is the problem with a fruit tree designed to bear at a particular time of year?
Opinion of that noted agronomist, agricultural biologist and plant geneticist Chuck Norris.
So, that'll feed about 600milliion people ... how do you proposed to feed the other 6.4 billion?
When GMOs are allowed to exist, there is no free choice to eat natural food because GMOs contaminate the food supply.