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.

Monsanto Will Not Test DNA Put Into Genetically Modified Foods

"There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods--the only exceptions being highly refined materials like oil or sugar from which all cell material has been removed. Thus, DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard."

Monsanto is saying that they do not have to test the DNA they put into their foods because the DNA itself is harmless. While this is true what really needs to be watched is how said DNA rebuilds the food, which is where errors can be made and a simple apple can be turned into a lump of poison.

Monsanto Food Safety Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.
     <http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx>.

"*French researchers studied privately for two years, 200 rats fed GM corn. Tumors, serious diseases ... a massacre. And a bomb [for the] GMO industry."

"All groups of rats, whether fed with GM maize treated or untreated with Roundup herbicide, Monsanto, or fed with water containing low doses of herbicide found in GM fields are hit by a multitude of serious diseases in the 13th month of the experiment. In females, this is manifested by explosions chain mammary tumors that reach up to 25% of their weight. Males, are purifiers organs, liver and kidneys, which are marked with abnormalities or severe. With a frequency of two to five times greater than for rodents fed non-GM corn."

Forbes GMO Article. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/
sites/emilywillingham/2012/12/07/
what-you-need-to-know-about-gm-foods-is-half-the-story/>.