naturalnews... have a good laugh

www.naturalnews.com

So, I read through the site. Not only is what they have blatantly wrong, but funny too. read their articles on natural food, multivitamins, GMO's, homeschooling, etc. I don't even need to point out the bias. It is pretty obvious how little they know. It reads like the testimony of a nutjob.

Have a good laugh.

Whole Foods caught selling GMOs

http://www.naturalnews.com/037467_Whole_Foods_marketing_fraud_GMO.html
Whole foods selling unlabled GMOs causes outrage amoungst customers, who were unaware of this.

Why Label Genetically Engineered Food?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/opinion/why-label-genetically-engineered-food.html?_r=0

 

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods:

1. alfalfa (which becomes hay)

2. a type of corn grown to produce ethanol

3. sugar beets.

 

The approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing salmon — the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but probably not the last.

It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.D.A. and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don’t want to “suggest or imply” that these foods are “different.”

To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals — their potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.’s — have not come to pass."

Benefits of GMO

"The first large acreage plantings of GM crops--herbicide tolerant soybeans and canola--took place in 1996 after successfully passing U.S. regulatory review. Since then, additional GM crops with herbicide tolerance, insect tolerance and virus resistance have been given clearance for planting and consumption. These include varieties of corn, sugar beets, squash and papaya. All of these crops have been assessed for food and feed safety in producing countries, and many more countries have approved the import of food or food ingredients that contain GM products. Hundreds of millions of meals containing food from GM crops have been consumed. There has not been a single substantiated instance of illness or harm associated with GM crops. "

Though many discourage how different types of vegetables and fruits are being genetically modified, research has shown that there are benefits present in the consumption of the genetically modified food. Food that have obtained the trait of herbidicide tolerance, insect tolerance and virus resistance have lasted longer. There has been now association with illness or harm from the crops and thus, GMF have shown to have only positive results from the U.S. regulatory review. It seems as though many people are over reacting against GMO's and have denounced them publically to the world. However, GMO's allow for cheaper products and creating food that lasts longer and survives the harsh environment of the world.

GMO Food Debate in the National Spotlight

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2012/11/03/gmo-food-debate-in-the-national-spotlight/
 

 

• Under the California's Proposition 37, food companies were required to put warning labels on domestically produced foods that contain GM ingredients.
• "Unfortunately, not all Americans are confident that food companies will act with public health in mind without greater legal enforcement from the FDA. If the proposition passes in California, as it is projected to, the current 70% of food items in your average grocery store containing GMOs would have to be relabeled. And because California is historically a leader in American legislative action, it’s likely that national reform would soon follow."
• "In addition to the visual perfection that GMOs boast, proponents claim that they have more profound advantages as well:

-GM crops can be made resistant to viruses, fungi and bacterial growth.
-GM crops can be engineered to grow faster.
-GM crops can be engineered to be naturally pest-resistant, undermining the need for pesticide chemicals.
-GM crops can be engineered to tolerate extreme weather conditions, such as cold fronts or droughts, allowing for a geographically diverse range of growth sites.
-GM crops can be engineered with added vitamins and minerals, which is especially beneficial in third world countries dealing with malnutrition.
Sounds great! So what’s with all of the fuss about GMOs in America?"

GM doubters believe that the federal government placed too much trust in the hands of food companies as the FDA are currently shielding themselves from "interfering with GM foods as much as possible."

People fear it might pose health risks to humans since scientific research has not proven "significant ill effects" toward humans.

 

Anti-gmo websites are biased too

Read these articles and come back:

http://www.youcouldsavetheworld.com/fight_for_natural_food.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/037289_monsanto_corporations_ethics.html
http://www.infowars.com/brand-new-gmo-food-can-rewire-your-body-more-evil-coming/
http://nstarzone.com/MONSANTO.html

These were among the first few articles that came up then the search term "dangers of GMO's" was searched using google. Keep in mind that you may not get the same results if you do a Google search now, the internet changes rapidly. However, at the time this post was made if someone was to search it on google, these would be the first few sites that they would see and read. That is why these sites were selected for this post.


Ok, then. lets list the major points.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) says gmos are evil
GMOs cause cancer
everybody hates them
More pesticides and water and poisins
cause death
Patenting is evil
crops contaminated
GMOs should be banned
monsanto is keeping everything to itself with patents, should be shared
biodiversity is threatened

And more. The first source has a nice, scary sounding paragraph at the end that (exaggerates) the dangers of GMOs. Lets look at the major points.

First of all, let me make something clear. Personally, I am against GMOs, as evidenced from my previous post. However, there are some people that are simply saying the wrong things or biased things in an attempt to make GMOs worse than they seem. I think this is wrong, and will avoid putting any of my bias into this post, and will stick to the truth.

First, we have the AAEM. A quick google search reveals that they are not truly a reliable source of information, and they have been challenged over and over again about their authencity. Many of the docters in the program do not have a higher level degree and have proffesions such as allergists, etc., instead of researchers.

These sites always try to insists that the whole world hates GMOs, and that nobody wants them except for Americans. However, I believe that I can safely say there are at least a few farmers that have truly benifited from GMOs, the most notable being the hawaiian papaya farmers. After the ringspot infection wiped out over half the plantations, GMOs were able to prevent the disease and save the farmers livelihoods.

We also have the relationship between GMOs and cancer. the results of the recent rat study, where GMO's caused caused cancer in rats, has been misinterpreted by both sides of this issue. The rat study did nothing more than suggest that GMO's may increase the risk of cancer in cancer-prone animals. The rats used were of a breed created to get cancer for cancer research. However, the rates of cancer were increased in the rats. This should be interpreted as a need for further testing, and no conclusions should be drawn from this study except that more testing is needed. Both sides, however, have tried to interpret this in their own favor, the pro-gmo trying to entirely descredit it, which is wrong, and the anti-gmo trying to draw false conclusions, which is also wrong.


People also claim that there are more poisins used in the growth of GMOs. while this is actually the case, some, like Bt cotton, lower the need for chemicals. However, it does require more water. A more moderate view should be taken on this stance.

Now, we have the strange relationship betwween patenting and crop comtamination. Most of these sites claim that it is wrong to patent the crops or insert the terminator gene (prevents ability to reproduce) into the crops. However, they then claim that GMOs are evil because they can cause crop contamination and can spread their genes to other fields. However, it is the patenting that is keeping contamination from getting too out of control, and the terminator gene prevents the contamination of other crops. Really, some could say that the terminator gene could protect the small farmer from contamination.

So it is clear that the majority of these websites are not truly legitamate sites that provide unbiased, factrual information. The majority of these sites area filled with inaccuracies and misconceptions. IT is really something to keep in mind when searching this topic, read a lot of sites and come to your own conclusions. Remember, if anything seems biased, especially in this topic, it probably is.

Monsanto and pubery: the misinformation and bias

"Are GM crops associated with the early onset of puberty?

While there is evidence that girls are experiencing the onset of puberty at a younger age than they have in the past, there is no evidence to suggest that GM crops are involved. Most experts believe this is a result of improved nutrition.
Additional information at:

• http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/121/Supplement_3/S208
• http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002256.html
• http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080616151748.htm
• http://www.endo-society.org/media/ENDO-08/research/Age-at-puberty-linked.cfm

There are three basic bodies of evidence to support this statement:

• First, millions of tons of GM crops have been fed to farm animals for more than a decade. There is no evidence of early onset of puberty in farm animals.
• Second, studies with GM crops in laboratory animals also have failed to show any association between GM foods and early onset of puberty or other unexpected hormonal effects. (We have to say “unexpected, because all soybeans naturally contain phytoestrogens (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phytoestrogen), which have known hormonal effects).
• Finally, the advancing age of puberty is a phenomenon that predates the introduction of GM crops, and which has occurred in most developed nations, despite the fact that GM use varies widely.

It is important to note that earlier onset of normal puberty is very different from precocious onset of abnormal puberty. With earlier onset of puberty, puberty is reached at an age that is earlier than historical norms, but is physiologically normal. There is no evidence to suggest that physiologically abnormal precocious puberty is on the rise. "

Excerpt from http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx


Alright, lets look at this.

This is a direct quote from the Monsanto website, where they try to convince people about how safe GMO foods are. This is a paragraph involving early pubery, and Monsanto is attempting to debunk claims that pubery is hastened by GMOs. their method, though, is very biased.

First, lets look at the links that they give you. When you click on them, you expect detailed. scicentific articles about GMOs and pubery . However, you get, well obesity and pubery. No mention of GMOs anywhere. Why arent they giving us specific information about GMOs? We aren't talking about obesity here. However, their intent is obvious, by omitting information about GMOs, they are trying to show that early pubery is caused only by obesity. This is blatant bias by ommision.

Lets look at the next bullet. They talk about farm animals. For some reason, it seems that Monsanto has decided that farm animals are a very good check for early puberty. Never mind the fact that they are practically pumped with steroids since birth to speed up growth, etc., so any added hormones probrably wouldn't have much of an effect. This makes them rather convinent for this situation, no?

Second  bullet: back to the lab. What lab studies? They didn't provide any links. And what lab studies are these? Monsanto funded? The kind of lab studies that inisted that GMOs are entirely safe before independent researches found that they may cause an increase in cancer rates? Reliable studies? Biased studies? We are expected here to blindly accept that whatever the men in white coats say is the absolute truth. Also, are there any studies that show the opposite? Why aren't they mentioned? Are they, oh, I don't know, omitting something? Twisting the facts to suit themselves? I say yes.

Third bullet: where is the evidence? can you provide proof that it predates the introduction of GMOs? Omitting things again? Also, I do concur that the phenomena does predate GMOs, we can see that from the obesity articles, obesity is no stranger to developed nations, but has the rate increased? Why isn't that mentioned? ALso, if obesity may have started it in developed nations, but what about the undeveloped ones? Bias by ommittion again, mention a perhaps true fact about developed nations to take the spotlight away from undeveloped nations. What is happening there?

Finally, their last statement seems like an act of desperation. Why would they put this in? Why would they want to clarify the difference between types of early puberty without addmiting that perhaps, there is a correlation between pubery and GMOs? Also, is not early pubery in a population the forerunner of Precocious puberty? if everyone gets puberty earlier and earlier, won't that lead to precocious puberty? Again and again, Monsanto is trying to mislead the public about their products.