Senior academic condemns ‘deluded’ supporters of GM food as being ‘anti-science’

[donnay]

Senior academic condemns ‘deluded’ supporters of GM food as being ‘anti-science’ and ignoring evidence of dangers

By Sean Poulter

Dame Jane Goodall, the renowned primate expert, has condemned ‘deluded’ politicians for pushing ‘Frankenstein Food’.

The highly respected academic has endorsed a new book, which argues the companies responsible for developing genetically modified farming and food have twisted the evidence to minimise the dangers.

Historically, critics of GM food have been lambasted by the GM companies, scientists who rely on their funding, and politicians, including the UK Government, as being ‘anti-science’.

However, Dame Jane argues that the advocates of GM food have ignored evidence of harm with the result it is they who are guilty of being ‘anti-science’.

The intervention is a powerful condemnation of the way biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer, have forced GM crops and food on to dinner plates in the US without proper safety tests.

And she is joining a growing campaign warning that Britain and Europe must not drop safeguards that have kept GM crops out.

Dame Jane’s concerns have been raised in the foreword to a new book, ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’, which is written by the American public interest lawyer, Steve Druker.

Its publication comes as the US is seeing a growing backlash against GM. Just last week it emerged that the country’s favourite chocolate manufacturer, Hershey, is to drop GM from its products.

Dame Jane said she has become appalled as what she calls a ‘shocking corruption of the life forms of the planet’.

She said the GM process, which involves adding foreign genes to plants to create toxins to fend off insects or give them immunity to being sprayed with chemical pesticides has fundamentally changed them.

However, she complains that supporters of the technology have committed a ‘fraud’ by trying to give the false impression that these new plants are essentially the same as those created by conventional plant breeding.

She said: ‘This very real difference between GM plants and their conventional counterparts is one of the basic truths that biotech proponents have endeavoured to obscure. As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science.


Continued...

[angelatc]

However, Dame Jane argues that the advocates of GM food have ignored evidence of harm with the result it is they who are guilty of being ‘anti-science’.

Yawn. And yet again, the anti-science crowd produces exactly zero evidence of this alleged harm.

[donnay]

American lawyer launches new book exposing systematic fraud by the GMO lobby

on 03 March 2015.

London, UK: “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” shows risks have been misrepresented by UK Royal Society and others

APPG [All-Party Parliamentary Group] on Agro-ecology Meeting March 4

Why Genetically Engineered Foods Are Scientifically Unacceptable and Uniquely Unsustainable – and How Their Extraordinary Risks Have Been Systematically Misrepresented

American lawyer Steven Druker will launch his new book, "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer our Food Has Subverted, Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public".

Date: March 4th
Time: 2pm - 4pm
Room: Committee Room 2
Chair: Countess of Mar

Meeting Aim

Steven Druker is an American public interest attorney who initiated a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration that forced it to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. This revealed that the agency had covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about the unusual risks, lied about the facts, and then ushered these products onto the market in violation of explicit mandates of federal food safety law.

His new book, "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer our Food Has Subverted, Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public", is being released during March with a foreword by Jane Goodall hailing it as “without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years.” It has also received high praise from several other scientists. For instance, the molecular biologist David Schubert, a Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, has called it “incisive, insightful, and truly outstanding”; and Joseph Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in Ontario, has termed it “a landmark” that should be required reading in every university biology course.

Mr. Druker will present some of the major points established by his book and explain why, from the standpoints of both biological science and computer science, genetically engineered foods are inherently and unacceptably risky. He will also reveal how their survival has been crucially dependent on the protracted misrepresentations of the United States government and of eminent institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK’s Royal Society – which renders them ethically unsustainable, because they cannot endure an honest airing of the facts.

Continued...

[angelatc]

American lawyer Steven Druker...

who has absolutely no scientific training at all? That Steven Druker?

Poor Jane Goodall. Her own book was quickly revealed to be nothing more than cut & paste anti-science activist points. She did amazing scientific work with primates, but her resume is quite thin on agro-science and applied genetics. The more brilliant the mind, the harder it is to watch unravel.

We have given you people over 30 years to prove that these foods are harmful. How long exactly, do you think you'll need?

[donnay]

Jane Goodall and Steven Druker Expose US Government Fraud over GMOs

In an acclaimed new book being launched Wednesday in London, American public interest attorney Steven Druker reveals how the US government and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs and the scientific research that casts doubt on their safety.



The book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, features a foreword by the renowned primatologist Dame Jane Goodall, hailing it as “without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years”.

The book’s revelations come at a crucial time when some European countries are considering the commercial planting of GM crops following the European Parliament’s decision to allow member states to opt out of the blockade that has barred them from the EU until now. Based on the evidence presented in the book, Druker and Goodall will assert that it would be foolhardy to push forward with a technology that is unacceptably risky and should never have been allowed on the market in the first place.

The book is the result of more than 15 years of intensive research and investigation by Druker, who came to prominence for initiating a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods. Those files revealed that GM foods first achieved commercialisation in 1992 only because the FDA:

• Covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their dangers.
• Lied about the facts.
• And then violated federal food safety law by permitting these foods to be marketed without having been proven safe through standard testing.

Continued...

[Natural Citizen]

Yawn. And yet again, the anti-science crowd produces exactly zero evidence of this alleged harm.

Why do you always throw the term anti-science around the way that you do? Do you have a degree in any scientific field of study? Many of us here actually do, you know. You can't seriously insinuate that a pro-information person or group is anti-science, can you? The very nature of science demands that we must always continue to ask questions. Which is why genetic food stuff can never really be proven safe. But if you'd disagree with that and think that it is safe then maybe point us to a study in which they have been proven safe. I'd certainly be interested in reading it.

We're starting to see independent research specific to the subject happen all over the world. Independent research. In fact, I think I've shared a few of them in the Monsanto In U.S. Foreign Policy thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5784638

[angelatc]

Why do you always throw the term anti-science around the way that you do? Do you have a degree in any scientific field of study? Many of us here actually do, you know.

Ah yes, the appeal to "authority" argument. You'd think that with all those degrees floating around, somebody would be able to produce a shred of evidence to support the contentions that GMOs are harmful.

It's been 30 years . How long do you think it might take?

[Natural Citizen]

Ah yes, the appeal to "authority" argument. You'd think that with all those degrees floating around, somebody would be able to produce a shred of evidence to support the contentions that GMOs are harmful.

It's been 30 years . How long do you think it might take?

You just completely ignored my question as well as the more relevant reason for my response to your spew. On top of that you asked another question which was directly relative to what I'd just mentioned....which you neglected to include with the quote. A couple of you do this weasel stuff.

What is it with some of you who cherry pick bits and pieces of a forum post and then completely ignore the bulk of it and then turn around and ask a question directly relevant to what you ignored the first time?

Here...I'll add it again. If you're going to quote me then do so completely, please...

Why do you always throw the term anti-science around the way that you do? Do you have a degree in any scientific field of study? Many of us here actually do, you know. You can't seriously insinuate that a pro-information person or group is anti-science, can you? The very nature of science demands that we must always continue to ask questions. Which is why genetic food stuff can never really be proven safe. But if you'd disagree with that and think that it is safe then maybe point us to a study in which they have been proven safe. I'd certainly be interested in reading it.

We're starting to see independent research specific to the subject happen all over the world. Independent research. In fact, I think I've shared a few of them in the Monsanto In U.S. Foreign Policy thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5784638

Since you seem to understand arguments from authority, though, I imagine that it's fair to stick to this model then? The old Boloney Detection Kit? Call me scwewy but I still carry it around in my wallet. Heh...

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of
all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

[donnay]

Bill Nye the Science Guy has finally changed his mind about GMOs

Business Insider
By Kelly Dickerson

Nye has never been aggressively anti-GMO, and when asked about their safety, his arguments carry more of a cautionary note than outright condemnation, but they aren't as pro-GMO as many would expect. While most scientists think that approved GMO foods are safe, Nye is definitely the outlier.

In his book, "Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation," published in November, 2014, he has a pretty straight forward opinion about GMOs.

"If you're asking me, we should stop introducing genes from one species into another," Nye writes, because "we just can’t know what will happen to other species in that modified species' ecosystem."

During a Reddit AMA last year, Nye reiterated the point that he makes in his book and questioned if GMOs are really necessary at all:

I stand by my assertions that although you can know what happens to any individual species that you modify, you cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem. Also, we have a strange situation where we have malnourished fat people. It’s not that we need more food. It’s that we need to manage our food system better. So when corporations seek government funding for genetic modification of food sources, I stroke my chin.

Nye has taken a lot of flak from the science community about this opinion, and now he's announced that he's changed his tune.

In February, Nye spoke with Real Time's Miles Leicher. "I went to Monsanto and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there and I have revised my outlook and I am very excited about telling the world," Nye said during the interview. "When you're in love you want to tell the world."

He also dropped the news that he is planning to revise the chapter on GMOs, to be republished in the Fall of 2015.

Continued...

[Weston White]

Yawn. And yet again, the anti-science crowd produces exactly zero evidence of this alleged harm.

You apparently missed the context of the article, which is that it is people such as you that become anti-science when you dismiss others that are not allegiant. Anytime counter evidence is posted you retort as a duck would be expected to. If it is evidence you seek, look no further than Ecoscience.

[Weston White]

Ah yes, the appeal to "authority" argument.

Derp, derp, herp! Ah yes:

It's been 30 years . How long do you think it might take?

I can personally attest to noticeable, positive, changes since going organic. So I do not need any further time. Now as for you, is there any hope? Well, that remains to be seen.

[donnay]

The Impacts of Genetic Engineering: Not Science, Just Lies and Propaganda: The Massive Fraud Behind GMOs Exposed
‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’, a new Book by US Public Interest Lawyer Steve Druker.

By Colin Todhunter
Global Research, March 05, 2015

This is not what the GMO industry wanted to see: banner headlines today in major newspapers and across the internet exposing the fraud behind GMOs. But this constitutes much more than a PR nightmare. The story behind the headlines shakes the very foundations upon which the industry is built.

‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’ is a new book by the US public interest lawyer Steve Druker. The book is the result of more than 15 years of intensive research and investigation by Druker, who initiated a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods. Those files revealed that GM foods first achieved commercialisation in 1992 but only because the FDA covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their dangers, lied about the facts and then violated federal food safety law by permitting these foods to be marketed without having been proven safe through standard testing.

If the FDA had heeded its own experts’ advice and publicly acknowledged their warnings that GM foods entailed higher risks than their conventional counterparts, Druker says that the GM food venture would have imploded and never gained traction anywhere.

He also argues that that many well-placed scientists have repeatedly issued misleading statements about GM foods, and so have leading scientific institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the UK’s Royal Society.

Druker states that contrary to the claims of biotech advocates, humans have indeed been harmed by consuming the output of genetic engineering. The technology’s first ingestible product (a food supplement of the essential amino acid, L-tryptophan) caused dozens of deaths and seriously sickened thousands of people (permanently disabling many of them). Moreover, the evidence points to the genetic alteration as the most likely cause of the unusual contamination that rendered the supplement toxic.

He explains that laboratory animals have also suffered from eating products of genetic engineering, and well-conducted tests with GM crops have yielded many troubling results, including intestinal abnormalities, liver disturbances, and impaired immune systems.

Druker says:

“Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science – and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.”

Continued...

[donnay]

Calls for ban on 'toxic' GM corn after tests reveal wind can carry it 2.7 MILES, not 65 feet as previously claimed

By Sean Poulter

Watchdogs have launched an investigation into GM corn following a study showing ‘toxic’ pollen from the plants can travel miles to contaminate the countryside.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is reviewing the approval process for the corn – known as Bt maize - following a research study by German academics, while one environmental group called for it to be banned altogether.

Currently, the EU approvals process assumes pollen from the crop, which has been manipulated to include a toxin that kills pests, can only travel 65 to 130 feet.


Watchdogs have launched an investigation into GM corn following a study showing ‘toxic’ pollen from the plants can travel miles to contaminate the countryside

However, the German research reveals that significant amounts of the pollen, which harms butterflies and moths, can actually be carried up to 4.45km – 2.7miles - on the wind.

Continued...

[Zippyjuan]

who has absolutely no scientific training at all? That Steven Druker?

Poor Jane Goodall. Her own book was quickly revealed to be nothing more than cut & paste anti-science activist points. She did amazing scientific work with primates, but her resume is quite thin on agro-science and applied genetics. The more brilliant the mind, the harder it is to watch unravel.

We have given you people over 30 years to prove that these foods are harmful. How long exactly, do you think you'll need?

https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/...ost-journalis/

Jane Goodall reportedly plagiarized much of her new book, “Seeds of Hope” and, worse still, included quotes from an interview that the interviewee said he doesn't remember.

The coverage of the scandal was mostly deferential. The Washington Post broke the news in a story by Steven Levingston, who wrote that problems with the book came to the paper’s attention through a botanist commissioned to review it. A few other stories followed, and then at the Daily Beast, Michael Moynihan took an unsparing look at the book and at his fellow journalists for failing to state clearly what was wrong with it. (I believe this must be the same Michael Moynihan who pointed out Jonah Lehrer’s fabricated Bob Dylan quote.)

In the Post story, Levingston noted some passages that were nearly word for word identical to those from books, websites and other sources. One substantial chunk of text was identical to one found on a website for organic tea, and another long passage on Philadelphia botanist John Bartram matched part of an entry in Wikipedia. He also noted that the book was co-authored by a writer named Gail Hudson. There’s much to be sorted out here, but it’s hard to see how either author, co-author or the publisher could escape blame.

The final example Levingston offers is particularly damning.

Goodall concludes the story with a comment she says botanist Matt Daws made to her: “If seeds can survive that long in such poor conditions, then that’s good news for the ones that are stored under ideal conditions in the Millennium Seed Bank,’ Matt Daws said to me.”

Virtually the same quote from Daws appears on the Gardens Web site in a 2009 article with the headline “Plant story — 200 year old seeds spring to life”: “If seed can survive that long in poor conditions, then that’s good news for those in the Millennium Seed Bank stored under ideal conditions.” Asked in an e-mail whether he ever had a conversation with Goodall, Daws replied: “To be perfectly honest I have no recollection of speaking to her.”
Claiming to do an interview that never happened and making up a quote is hard to chalk up to some kind of innocent mistake. Could it be that Goodall, 78, is suffering from a failing memory?

Still, Moynihan made a convincing case that Goodall didn’t investigate GMOs but merely cherry-picked material that backed her pre-conceived opinion that they are uniformly very bad. Much of her material, he wrote, came from several non-scientists associated with the Maharishi International University, founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. This does not fill one with confidence.

Now the publication date has reportedly been pushed back to give Goodall time to fix her alledgly unintentional errors. In a way the whole premise is problematic - a book by a non-journalist with no expertise in the subject matter. Some scientists have proven to be good journalists, but you’d think the publisher would keep a close eye on her writing, in case she wasn’t one of those.

[Zippyjuan]

Still, Moynihan made a convincing case that Goodall didn’t investigate GMOs but merely cherry-picked material that backed her pre-conceived opinion that they are uniformly very bad. Much of her material, he wrote, came from several non-scientists associated with the Maharishi International University, founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. This does not fill one with confidence.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...d-their-ranks/

Many of the claims in Seeds of Hope can also be found in Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, a book by “consumer advocate” Jeffrey Smith. Goodall generously blurbed the book (“If you care about your health and that of your children, buy this book, become aware of the potential problems, and take action”) and in Seeds of Hope cites a “study” on GMO conducted by Smith’s “think tank,” the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Like Goodall, Smith isn’t a genetic scientist. According to New Yorker writer Michael Specter, he “has no experience in genetics or agriculture, and has no scientific degree from any institution” but did study “business at the Maharishi International University, founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.” (In Seeds of Hope, Goodall also recommends a book on GM by Maharishi Institute executive vice president Steven M. Druker, who also has no scientific training). As Professor Bruce Chassy, an emeritus food scientist at the University of Illinois, told Specter, “His only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom-dance teacher, yogic flying instructor, and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural-law party.” Along with fellow food scientist Dr. David Tribe, Chassy runs an entire website devoted to debunking Smith’s pseudoscience.

Scientific evidence from experts?

[donnay]

Goodall responded to the paper with the following email:

“This was a long and well researched book,” she wrote, “and I am distressed to discover that some of the excellent and valuable sources were not properly cited, and I want to express my sincere apologies. I hope it is obvious that my only objective was to learn as much as I could so that I could provide straightforward factual information distilled from a wide range of reliable sources.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2916663.html

[donnay]

FDA Documents Show They Ignored
GMO Safety Warnings From Their Own Scientists

FROM:
Alliance for Bio-Integrity
P.O. Box 110, Iowa City, IA 52244-0110
Tel: 515-472-5554; Fax:515-472-6431
www.bio-integrity.org
Flashback:


Contact: Steven Druker, ph. 515-472-5554,
or Bob Roth, ph. 515-469-5081

For Immediate Release:
June 24, 1999


Lawsuit in U.S.A. Uncovers Disagreement
Within FDA Over Safety of Biotech Foods

Agency Contradicted Own Experts in Approving Genetically Engineered Foods
-- Misrepresented Facts in Order to Promote U.S. Biotech Industry


Statement by Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance
for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain
mandatory safety testing and labeling of gene-spliced foods, and an
attorney on the case (in collaboration with the Legal Department of the
Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C.).


In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and
religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all
genetically engineered foods (Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et. al. v.
Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists joined the coalition in order to
emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically
unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how
well-founded are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies
of these files--totalling over 44,000 pages--to the plaintiffs'
attorneys.


False Claims and a Policy at Odds with the Law


The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be
safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal
reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly
cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail
different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and
(2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who
crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the
same as natural ones.


Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based,
this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without
testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by
qualified experts.


FDA Scientists Protest Attempt to Equate Genetic Engineering with
Conventional Breeding


The FDA admits it is operating under a directive "to foster" the U.S.
biotech industry; and this directive advocates the premise that
bioengineered foods are essentially the same as others. However, the
agency's attempts to bend its policy to conform with this premise met
strong resistance from its own scientists, who repeatedly warned that
genetic engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a
unique set of risks. Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the
Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for
bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different
manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods.


According to Dr. Louis Priybl of the FDA Microbiology Group, "There is a
profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from
traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over
in this document." He added that several aspects of gene splicing "...may
be more hazardous."


Dr. Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, objected that the agency was
"...trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ... [by] trying to force
an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified
by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding
practices." She said: "The processes of genetic engineering and
traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical
experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."


Moreover, Dr. Jim Maryanski, the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator,
acknowledged there is no consensus about the safety of genetically
engineered foods in the scientific community at large, and FDA scientists
advised they should undergo special testing, including toxicological
tests.


Misrepresenting the Facts in Order to Approve the Foods


Nonetheless, so strong was the FDA's motivation to promote the biotech
industry that it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists
about the unique risks of gene-spliced foods, it dismissed them and took
a public position that was the opposite. Its official policy asserts:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by
these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform
way...." Thus, although agency experts advised that genetically
engineered foods should be subjected to special testing, the bureaucrats
in charge of the policy proclaimed these foods require no testing at all.


Continued...

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2916663.html

Seems most of them weren't very scientific sources anyways.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Seems most of them weren't very scientific sources anyways.

You're not a scientist either. What are you doing sitting in your office?

So Holmes, why don't you answer my questions instead of running off to the next thread? Looks like you made some suck up threads to ingratiate yourself to new members.

I asked if you have a subscription to The Economist and you did not answer. I'm guessing your office has a subscription. Is that right? Are you sitting in your office right now? Is part of your job posting on RPF to discourage new members. I'll bet I'm right. Am I right?

[DamianTV]

Just one question. Why the Mandatory Deception as it exists today over GM?

[donnay]

Just one question. Why the Mandatory Deception as it exists today over GM?

Kissinger: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

[donnay]

“Altered Genes, Twisted Truths”: Britain’s Pre-eminent Scientific Body Should Put the Record Straight on GMOs

By Colin Todhunter
Global Research, March 06, 2015

The Royal Society acts as a scientific advisor to the British government. The Society is Britain’s Academy of Sciences, which funds research fellowships and scientific start-up companies. A self-governing fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science, engineering, and medicine, its purpose is according to its website to “recognise, promote, and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity.”

The Society facilitates interaction and communication among scientists and disseminates scientific advances through its journals. It also engages beyond the research community, through independent policy work, the promotion of science information and communication with the public.

The Royal Society is a prestigious institution that feeds into policy formulation processes at national level.

US public interest attorney Steven Druker has written an open letter to The Royal Society calling on it to acknowledge and correct the misleading and exaggerated statements that is has used to actively promote GMOs and in effect convey false impressions. He cites specific instances where members of The Society have made false statements and where The Society’s actions were not objective or based on scientific reasoning but seemingly were little more than biased and stridently pro-GMO.

In his new book, ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truths’, Druker has exposed the fraudulent practices and deceptions that led to the commercialisation of GM food and crops in the US as well as claims made by bodies like The Royal Society that have misrepresented the case for GMOs and which have have effectively engaged in a campaign of disinformation (see here) . To coincide with the release of the book, he urges The Royal Society to confront the facts about GM foods and take time to take steps to set the record straight.

Druker states his book ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’ has been praised for its soundness by several well credentialed reviewers, including five biologists (four of whom are molecular biologists). He asserts that, at minimum, this makes a prima facie case that it is a book of which The Society must take account. He states therefore that The Society cannot justifiably dismiss the book unless it can demonstrate that it is to a substantial degree factually or logically unsound.

If The Royal Society has not addressed pertinent issues by 20 April 2015, Druker claims that the world will have a right to assume that the book is as sound as the experts who reviewed it have affirmed – and that GM foods are therefore unacceptably risky and must be banned.

Continued...

[donnay]

Are GMOs Really That Harmful to Eat?

US News By Anna Medaris Miller
April 29, 2015 4:16 PM

Jane Goodall started eating organic food long before organic food was in. It comes as no surprise that the 81-year-old British primatologist -- known best for her work with chimpanzees -- does so in large part to pay tribute to animals.

"People do beastly things to animals," Goodall said at an event at the National Press Club Tuesday, referencing animals such as mice, cows and pigs that have experienced adverse effects -- ranging from diarrhea to tumors -- from eating genetically modified feed. "At least if the animals have suffered in this way, let's listen to what they're telling us. Let's take heed," she said.

Goodall, who has written books that include chapters on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, was promoting Steven Druker's new book, "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public," for which she wrote the forward.

At the event, Druker, a public interest attorney, argued that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has misrepresented the safety of genetically modified foods and violated federal food safety law by allowing them onto the market. Until they're proven safe with testing, as the law requires, Americans should steer clear of eating them, he and Goodall said.

"The entire venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world's food supply has been chronically and crucially reliant on deception," says Druker, executive director of the nonprofit Alliance for Bio-Integrity, who filed a lawsuit against the FDA in 1998. Although the judge ultimately ruled in favor of the FDA, the case forced the administration to divulge files that revealed some of its own scientists were concerned about GMOs. For example, Edwin Mathews of the FDA's toxicology group wrote that genetically modified plants could "contain unexpected high concentrations or plant toxicants," while the director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine at the time, Gerald Guest, wrote that "animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns."

The safety of GM foods has not been "based on sound science, as its proponents would have us believe, but is actually based on the systematic subversion of science," Druker says. "If there were a full and honest airing of the facts, of the evidence, it would collapse."

Continued...

[Natural Citizen]

The safety of GM foods has not been "based on sound science, as its proponents would have us believe, but is actually based on the systematic subversion of science," Druker says. "If there were a full and honest airing of the facts, of the evidence, it would collapse."

This is exactly correct. What is unfortunate about this phenomenon is all of this mercantilist revolving door stuff between the industry and government nonsense and the social media drive that we often see in political forums like this that like to use terms like "it's science". What that does is ruin the health and validity of genuine science when industry and Internet minions are is to hijack the term/function that way. In the genuine scientific field, we reveal all of our research. That is to say that we label it. Heh...