GMO foes blast Scientific American editorial decrying labeling laws

 

DAVID KNOWLES
New York Daily News, September 6 2013

The editors of Scientific American wrote a strongly worded rebuke of GMO labeling laws in its most recent issue.

In the growing battle over GMO foods, science is being used as a weapon.

GMO labeling activists are decrying an editorial in Scientific American that takes aim at labeling laws for genetically engineered foods as “unscientific.”

In its Sept. 6 issue, the editors of Scientific American came out against the labeling laws that are currently being considered in 20 U.S. states, and have recently been passed by the legislatures of Connecticut and Maine, because they would give consumers the false impression that GMO’s are unsafe.

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic,” the editorial states. “They are not.”

Stacy Malkan, the former director for Yes on 37, the campaign to pass California’s failed ballot initiative to mandate foods containing GMO ingredients, scoffs at that claim.

“The editorial is sloppy and unscientific,” Malkan told the Daily News. “Saying the FDA has tested all the GMOs on the market is patently false. Each individual company is responsible for testing its own products, and they then decide if they want to voluntarily report it to FDA. But they aren't required to test or report.”

A second contested point in the editorial is the contention that requiring labeling of GMO ingredients will result in higher food prices because genetically engineered seeds can produce higher yields and require less pesticide.

“Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400,” the editorial states.

Malkan calls the study, which was conducted during the heated debate over Proposition 37, “useless,” and notes that it became an industry rallying cry despite being overturned by later studies conducted by the University of California at Davis.

“Let’s get the facts straight,” Malkan said. “Scientific American got seduced into using this bogus report.”

Stacie Orell, the campaign director for GMO Free N.Y., a group pushing to pass a bill in the New York Legislature to mandate labels for genetically engineered foods, felt a similar sense of disbelief when reading the editorial.

Specifically, she noted the inclusion of a passage about the benefits of golden rice, a GMO crop that targets vitamin A deficiency that often leads to blindness in the developing world.

“While I’m not against the idea of golden rice, its benefits in practice remain unkonwn,” Orell said. “These are theoretical ideas that the bio-tech industry often uses to green-wash the issue.”

Public health lawyer Michele Simon agrees that the Scientific American piece had a familiar ring to it.

“It reads like the biotech industry handed Scientific American its talking points,” Simon said in an email.

One of the main claims in the editorial does mirror ones made by GMO seed producer Monsanto—that requiring labels could potentially kill the market for genetically engineered foods in a country where 70% of processed foods already contain them, resulting in less variety and higher costs.

“Many people argue for GMO labels in the name of increased consumer choice,” the editorial states. “On the contrary, such labels have limited people's options. In 1997, a time of growing opposition to GMOs in Europe, the E.U. began to require them. By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand. Major food producers such as Nestlé followed suit. Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.”

To Simon’s ears, assuming the same result in the U.S. is just one more faulty conclusion.

“The European experience would not translate the same way here,” Simon said. “Americans don't reject GMOs, all this would change is labels.”

Originally published in the New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/gmo-foes-blast-scientific-american-editorial-article-1.1448232

Ten things the mainstream media didn't tell you about the Seralini GMO corn study

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News, September 5 2013

It has been almost a year now since French researcher and scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini published his groundbreaking study on the deleterious effects of eating Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) corn, and there are still millions of people out there who are confused about its controversial findings.

To help sort things out, here are ten facts about the study that you probably heard nothing about from the mainstream media:

1) Seralini's study was a chronic toxicity study, not a cancer study.

Not long after being published, Seralini's study was maliciously ripped apart by "skeptics", the media, and many industry-backed institutions that claimed it was a badly-designed cancer study. But the truth is that Seralini's study was actually a chronic toxicity study, and one that met or exceeded all accepted scientific standards.

2) No other long-term studies have ever been conducted on NK603 GM corn.

The chorus of whining that ensued about how Seralini's study allegedly contradicted all other similar studies is also invalid, as no other similar studies have ever been conducted -- Seralini's study is the only long-term study involving Monsanto's NK603 GM corn that has ever been conducted.

3) There was nothing wrong with the types of rats Seralini used.

Another popular criticism involves the Sprague-Dawley (SD) variety of rat used by Seralini in his study. This same variety has been used by Monsanto on many occasions in its 90-day "safety" studies on GMOs.

4) SD rats and humans are almost equally prone to developing cancer.

Contrary to what you may have heard, SD rats are not inherently more prone to cancer than humans, and in fact have almost an equal risk with humans. This makes them a perfect choice for a long-term safety study on GMOs, vindicating Seralini in his use of them.

5) Seralini's study far more in-depth than any "safety" study ever conducted by Monsanto.

It is hypocritical for the mainstream scientific community to criticize Seralini's study methodologies, especially considering the fact that they were far more rigorous than those used by Monsanto to gain GMO approval. Seralini's sample sizes, testing protocols and other methods all exceed those routinely used by the biotechnology industry.

6) Rejecting Seralini's study means rejecting all industry-backed safety studies.

Logically speaking, there is no way to reject Seralini's findings about the dangers of GM corn without also rejecting the findings of industry-backed studies that claim GM corn is safe. Using the same arguments of the vested scientists and media outlets that have attacked Seralini, the bulk of published data on GMOs is thus false, which means GMOs have no place on the consumer market.

7) Seralini's study proves industry studies to be fraudulent.

The only one of its kind conducted for longer than 90 days, Seralini's study also shows that the dangers of GMOs, which are often denied, are actually real. They just show up past the time threshold used in all industry-backed studies -- the first tumors appeared no earlier than four months into Seralini's study.

8) Toxicity observed in Monsanto studies confirmed by Seralini's study.

Though it often goes unreported, Monsanto's own GMO safety studies have observed toxicity from exposure and consumption. But this toxicity is routinely written off as being "not biologically meaningful." But Seralini's study confirms that, if Monsanto's studies were performed for longer than 90 days, these same markers of toxicity would develop into the diseases observed by Seralini.

9) Governments do not require the types of long-term studies conducted by Seralini.

The reason why Seralini's study was accused of being out in left field is that no other similar long term studies are ever conducted, due to the fact that governments around the world simply don't require them. If they did, the world would have a much different understanding about the alleged safety of GMOs.

10) Even short-term studies have observed toxicity from GMOs.

Despite a lack of proper long-term safety testing, a number of independent, short-term laboratory and farm studies have, indeed, observed toxicity due to GMO exposure. Any claim to the contrary is simply a lie, and Seralini's study helps affirm this other research.

To learn more, visit:
http://gmoseralini.org
Originally published at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/041930_GMO_rat_study_GM_corn_Seralini.html